Board book for the December 17, 2010 meeting - TDHCA

Loading...
BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2010 C. Kent Conine, Chair

Gloria Ray, Vice-Chair Leslie Bingham Escareño, Member Tom Gann, Member Lowell Keig, Member Juan Muñoz, Member

MISSION TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO HELP TEXANS ACHIEVE AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER COMMUNITIES

12/9/2010 5:03 PM

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS BOARD MEETING

AGENDA 10:30 am December 17, 2010 Capitol Extension, Room E1.016 Austin, TX

CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL CERTIFICATION OF QUORUM

Kent Conine, Chairman

PUBLIC COMMENT The Board will solicit Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting and will also provide for Public Comment on each agenda item after the presentation made by the department staff and motions made by the Board. Updated Ethics Training for Board CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda may be removed at the request of any Board member and considered at another appropriate time on this agenda. Placement on the Consent Agenda does not limit the possibility of any presentation, discussion or approval at this meeting. Under no circumstances does the Consent Agenda alter any requirements under Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Texas Open Meetings Act. Item 1: Approval of the following items presented in the Board materials: Executive a)

Presentation, Discussion, and Approval of November 10, 2010, Board Minutes

Texas Homeownership b)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action to submit an application to NeighborWorks America for the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) Program – Round 5

Multifamily Division Items - Housing Tax Credit Program c)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding of Housing Tax Credit Amendments 10198 07096 07192 060202

d)

Pinnacle at North Chase Moore Grocery Lofts Historic Lofts of Waco High Beaumont Downtown Lofts

Eric Pike Dir. Texas Homeownership Robbye Meyer Dir. Multifamily

Tyler Tyler Waco Beaumont

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Approval of Housing Tax Credit and Exchange Program Extensions 060074 07149 07621 09000 09001 09165 09314 09913 10003 10178 10143

Amarillo Gardens Apartments Residences at Eastland Residences at Onion Creek Courtwood Apartments Hillwood Apartments Cherrywood Apartments Taylor Farms Villas on Raiford Champion Homes at Marina Landing Cypress Creek at Fayridge Oak Creek Townhomes

Amarillo Ft. Worth Austin Eagle Lake Weimer West Dallas Carrolton Galveston Houston Marble Falls

Multifamily Division Items – Private Activity Bond Program: e)

Brooke Boston Board Secretary

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action for the Inducement Resolution Declaring Intent to Issue Multifamily Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds for Developments Throughout the State of Texas and

Robbye Meyer Dir. Multifamily

1

12/9/2010 5:03 PM

Authorizing the Filing of Related Applications for the Allocation of Private Activity Bonds with the Texas Bond Review Board for Program Year 2011, Resolution No. 11-014 11600 f)

Chatham Green

Arlington

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on the Release and Termination Agreement for Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds Sphinx at Delafield Series 2004, Resolution No. 11-016

HOME g)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to Ratify HOME Program Reservation System Participants approved by the Executive Director

h)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on HOME Program Multifamily Development Award Recommendations 10040 10262

i)

Ashton Senior Village Las Brisas Manor

Schertz Del Rio

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action to Approve for publication in the Texas Register final order adopting amendments to the HOME Program Rule, 10 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 53, Subchapters B, C, D, and H

Office of Colonia Initiatives j)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on the appointment of new Colonia Residents Advisory Committee (C-RAC) members for Val Verde County

Program Services k)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Department policy on "HUD Section 3" (to comply with 24 CFR 135)

Housing Resource Center l)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Approval to publish for public comment the draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report

Community Affairs m) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to rescind Resolution No. 11-006 and adopt new Resolution No. 11-015 to reflect changes to the 2011 Section 8 Payment Standards for Housing Choice Vouchers in Denton and Ellis Counties

ACTION ITEMS Item 2: ARRA Accountability and Oversight: a)

Jeannie Arellano Dir. HOME

Status Report on the Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)

Homero Cabello Dir. HTF/OCI

Tom Gouris DED Housing Programs Brooke Boston DED Community Based

Michael DeYoung Dir. CA

Brooke Boston DED Community Based Programs

Item 3: Appeals: a)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Multifamily Program Appeals: 08184 10290

Robbye Meyer Dir. Multifamily

Washington Lofts Magnolia Place Apartments

Appeals Timely Filed b)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Tax Credit Assistance Program Appeals:

Tom Gouris DED Housing Programs

Appeals Filed Timely c)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on HOME Program Appeals:

Tom Gouris DED Housing Programs

Appeals Filed Timely d)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Underwriting Appeals:

Brent Stewart Director, REA

Appeals Filed Timely

2

12/9/2010 5:03 PM

Item 4: Multifamily Division Items - Housing Tax Credit Program a)

Presentation, Discussion and Ratification of the Issuance of Awards from the 2010 Competitive Housing Tax Credit Waiting List of Applications 10009 10018 10023 10024 10027 10033 10039 10040 10044 10045 10050 10059 10062 10075 10076 10080 10089 10090 10092 10093 10096 10101 10108 10113 10114 10117 10118 10120 10121 10128 10132 10134 10135 10137 10151 10152 10158 10160 10162 10183 10184 10186 10200 10202 10221 10223 10225 10228 10229 10232 10233 10235 10241 10250 10257 10274 10290

b)

Creekside Village Granbury Seniors Burkburnett Pioneer Crossing for Seniors Canutillo Palms The Huntington at Greenville Sulphur Springs Pioneer Crossing for Seniors Paris Retirement Village II Ashton Senior Village Wynnewood Seniors Housing North Court Villas West Park Senior Housing Westway Place Willow Bay Apts Vermillion Park Darson Marie Terrace Rolling Meadows Silver Spring at Chapel Hill Silver Spring at Forney Silver Spring Grand Heritage Greenhaus at East Side Apts The Orchard at Westchase Lafayette Park Apts Griffith Road Apts Promenade at Mercer Crossing The Terrace at Haven for Hope Terrell Homes I San Juan Square III Montabella Senior Mesquite Place Ventana Pointe Seaside Manor Champion Homes at Copperridge Champion Homes at Canyon Creek Evergreen at Wylie Sunflower Estates Shady Oaks Sedona Ranch Creekside Place Promontory Pointe Cypress Creek at Four Seasons Farm Cypress Creek at Veterans Memorial Mariposa at Calder Drive Hillside West Seniors Brae Estates Residences at Rowlett Creek Sunset Terrace Senior Village North MacGregor Arms Wintersprings Apts Hannover Park Evergreen Residences-3800 Willow Kleberg Commons Villas of Giddings Timberland Trails Apts Willow Meadow Place Apts The Colony at Lake Granbury Grand Manor Apts Magnolia Place Apts

Rowlett Granbury Burkburnett El Paso Allen Sulphur Springs Paris Schertz Dallas Frisco Corsicana Corsicana Fort Worth Mesquite San Antonio Kemah Fort Worth Forney Lavon Dallas Houston Houston Abilene Farmers Branch San Antonio Fort Worth San Antonio San Antonio Pearsall Houston Ingleside Dallas Brownsville Wylie La Feria Austin Fort Worth New Braunfels Austin Kyle Houston League City Dallas Fort Worth Garland Pharr Houston Humble Spring Dallas Dallas Giddings Lufkin Houston Granbury Tyler Houston

Robbye Meyer Dir. Multifamily Finance

FWD FWD FWD FWD FWD

FWD

FWD FWD

FWD FWD FWD FWD

FWD

FWD

Presentation and Discussion of the Status of Applications Awarded Housing Tax Credit Exchange Funds and Ratification for the following Exchange Awards

3

12/9/2010 5:03 PM

09370 09366

Riverplace Apartments Guadalupe Crossing

Hooks Comfort

Item 5: Bond Finance:

Tim Nelson Dir. Bond Finance

a)

Report of TDHCA Financial Advisor

b)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution No. 11-013 authorizing application to the Texas Bond Review Board for reservation of the 2010 single family private activity bond authority carryforward from the Unencumbered State Ceiling

c)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution 11-009 authorizing the issuance of Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series 2011A and conversion of first tranche of 2009C (Program 77)

d)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution No. 11-010 authorizing the sale of mortgage certificates and redemption of bonds from Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Series 1998AB and 1999A and sale of mortgage certificates from Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Series 2000BCD

e)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution No. 11-011 authorizing the sale of mortgage certificates and redemption of bonds from Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Series 2001ABC and sale of mortgage certificates from Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds Series 2000BCD

f)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution No. 11-012 authorizing the extension of the Department’s warehouse agreement

Item 6: Community Affairs a)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on the Program Year 2011 Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) annual allocation recommendations

b)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on the Program Year 2011 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) annual allocation recommendations

c)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on the Program Year 2011 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Discretionary Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)

d)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to Ratify the award made by the Executive Director to Community Action Corporation of South Texas of the CSBG, ARRA WAP, DOE WAP, LIHEAP WAP and CEAP programs for Duval County, the service area formerly served by Institute of Rural Development

Item 7: Disaster Recovery a)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Request for Amendments to CDBG Disaster Recovery housing contracts administered by TDHCA for CDBG Hurricane Ike/Dolly Round I Funding 70090001 70090003

City of Houston Harris County

Sara Newsom DED, Emergency Housing & Disaster Recovery

Houston Houston

b)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Disaster Recovery Housing Program Guidelines

c)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Application Awards for Round II Phase I 10-001 10-003 10-004 10-006 10-007 10-008 10-009

Michael DeYoung Dir. CA

Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council (LRGVDC) Harris County Montgomery County Deep East Texas Council of Governments (DETCOG) City of Houston Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) City of Galveston

4

12/9/2010 5:03 PM

d)

Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action to increase interest rate for Marina Landing

Item 8: Compliance and Asset Oversight a)

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Approval of an agreed order for the debarment of David Starr

REPORT ITEMS 1.

TDHCA Outreach Activities, November 2010

2.

Disaster Recovery Division's Status Report on CDBG and FEMA AHPP Contracts Administered by TDHCA, including update on Ike/Dolly Round II

3.

Report on the Natural Disaster Housing Reconstruction Plan of the Natural Disaster Housing Reconstruction Advisory Committee

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The Board may go into Executive Session (close its meeting to the public): 1.

The Board may go into Executive Session Pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.074 for the purposes of discussing personnel matters including to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee;

2.

Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code, §551.071(1) to seek the advice of its attorney about pending or contemplated litigation or a settlement offer, including: a)

The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al filed in federal district court, Northern District of Texas

b)

Caroline Miller, et al. vs. State of Texas, et al, filed in District Court for Travis County

c)

Claim of Gladys House filed with the EEOC;

3.

Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code, §551.071(2) for the purpose of seeking the advice of its attorney about a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this Tex. Gov’t. Code, Chapter 551; or

4.

Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code, §551.072 to deliberate the possible purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real estate because it would have a material detrimental effect on the Department’s ability to negotiate with a third person.

OPEN SESSION

If there is an Executive Session, the Board will reconvene in Open Session. Except as specifically authorized by applicable law, the Board may not take any actions in Executive Session

Patricia Murphy Chief, Compliance and Asset Oversight Kent Conine, Chairman

Sara Newsom DED, Emergency Housing & Disaster Recovery

Kent Conine, Chairman

Kent Conine, Chairman

ADJOURN To access this agenda & details on each agenda item in the board book, please visit our website at www.tdhca.state.tx.us or contact Nidia Hiroms, 512-475-3934; TDHCA, 221 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701, and request the information. Individuals who require auxiliary aids, services or sign language interpreters for this meeting should contact Gina Esteves, ADA Responsible Employee, at 512475-3943 or Relay Texas at 1-800-735-2989 at least two days before the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Non-English speaking individuals who require interpreters for this meeting should contact Nidia Hiroms, 512-475-3934 at least three days before the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Personas que hablan español y requieren un intérprete, favor de llamar a Jorge Reyes al siguiente número (512) 475-4577 por lo menos tres días antes de la junta para hacer los preparativos apropiados.

5

BOARD SECRETARY BOARD ACTION REQUEST NOVEMBER 10, 2010

Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Board Minute Summary for November 10, 2010

Recommended Action Approve Board Meeting Minute Summary for November 10, 2010. RESOLVED, that the Board Meeting Minute Summary for November 10, 2010, as having been specifically approved, is hereby approved as presented.

1 of 1

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS BOARD MEETING November 10, 2010; 9:00 a.m. Capitol Extension, Room E1.028 Austin, TX SUMMARY OF MINUTES CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, CERTIFICATION OF QUORUM The Board Meeting of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs of September 9, 2010 was called to order by Chair, Kent Conine, at 9:10 a.m. It was held at the Capitol Extension, Room E1.028, Austin, Texas. Roll call certified a quorum was present. Members Present: Kent Conine, Chair Gloria Ray, Vice Chair Leslie Bingham-Escareño, Member Tom H. Gann, Member Lowell Keig, Member Juan Muñoz, Member PUBLIC COMMENT The Board will solicit Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting and will also provide for Public Comment on each agenda item after the presentation made by the department staff and motions made by the Board. Krista Gebbia, Executive Director of Preservation Texas, provided testimony in support of Adaptive Reuse of downtown historic buildings and to adopt changes to the 2011 qualified allocation plan that encourages the rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings. Brian Dennison, provided testimony on behalf of Ft. Worth Housing Authority to request consideration for the change in the 2011 QAP that would allow development in central business districts to have a bedroom mix that will reflect the current market in housing. Hollis Fitch, provided testimony in support of the Washington Hotel Lofts in Greenville, TX and requested consideration for waiving the penalty points for this project at the next board meeting. Shannon Wasielewski, the historic preservation officer for the city of San Antonio, provided testimony in support of the changes to the 2011 QAP requested by Mr. Fairbanks and Ms. Rickenbacker that would encourage historic preservation and facilitate the adaptive reuse of older and historic buildings in our urban core and turn them into vibrant affordable and mixed income residential options. Michael Willard, president and CEO of Austin Habitat for Humanity, presented a plaque to the Board for recognition of the partnership with Austin Habitat and the Department. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda may be removed at the request of any Board member and considered at another appropriate time on this agenda. Placement on the Consent Agenda does not limit the possibility of any presentation, discussion or approval at this meeting. Under no circumstances does the Consent Agenda alter any requirements under Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, Texas Open Meetings Act. AGENDA ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRESENTED IN THE BOARD MATERIALS: Executive a) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Board Minute Summary for September 9, 2010 and ratification of Items 6(b) (Harris County Contracts) and 6(d) (Program Guidelines) which were not reflected in the September 9, 2010, transcript as having been specifically approved Audit b) Report of the Audit Committee Meeting TDHCA Board Meeting November 10, 2010 Page 1 of 6

c) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on the proposed 2011 Internal Audit Plan Legal d) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on the Agreed Final Order with respect to Arbor Oaks Apartments Pulled from Consent Agenda for further discussion. Motion by Mr. Keig to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Mr. Gann; passed unanimously. Financial Administration e) Presentation and Discussion of the 4th Quarter Investment Report Bond Finance f) Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution 11-007 approving the First Amendment to the Thirtieth Supplemental Residential Mortgage Revenue Bond Trust Indenture which includes modifications to the New Issue Bond Program Multifamily Division Items - Housing Tax Credit Program g) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Housing Tax Credit and Exchange Program Extensions 04408 Hickory Manor Apartments DeSoto 04488 Mission del Rio San Antonio 04463 Lakeside Manor Apartments Little Elm 04612 Willow Bend Apartments San Antonio 05610 Prairie Ranch Apartments Grand Prairie 060206 Mesquite Terrace Mabank 07166/08929 Jermemiah Seniors Hurst h) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding of Housing Tax Credit Amendments 09721 Four Seasons Fort Worth 10061 Magnolia Trails Magnolia i) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Approval for a Memorandum of Understanding between TDHCA and the Texas Bond Review Board HOME j) Presentation and Discussion of current HOME Program Fund Balance Report and Possible Action for the Programming of Available Funds for Pilot Programs for Direct Administration Pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Dr. Muñoz; passed unanimously. k) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to Ratify HOME Program Reservation System Participants approved by the Executive Director l) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on HOME Program Multifamily Development Award Recommendations 2010-10033 Sulphur Springs Pioneer Crossing for Seniors Sulphur 2010-10151 Sunflower Estates La Feria Office of Colonia Initiatives m) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action of the Use of Available Additional Texas Bootstrap Loan Program Funds from Housing Trust Fund Housing Resource Center n) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding the 2011 Regional Allocation Formula Methodology o) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding the 2011 Affordable Housing Needs Score Methodology p) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding the 2011 State of Texas Consolidated Plan: One-Year Action Plan Community Affairs q) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on the FY 2011 Emergency Solutions Grants Program (ESGP) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) r) Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on the release of a Request for Applications for provision of Services for the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) in Mitchell, Shackleford, Stephens, and Taylor Counties s) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to Allow for Contract Amendments for awarded Pilot Program for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) t) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action of the 2011 Section 8 Payments Standards for Housing Choice Vouchers, Resolution No. 11-006 u) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to Ratify the award made by the Executive Director to Rolling Plains Management Corporation of the ARRA WAP, DOE WAP, LIHEAP WAP and CEAP programs for the service area TDHCA Board Meeting November 10, 2010 Page 2 of 6

formerly served by CAP Inc. v) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on the release of a Request for Applications for provision of Services for the Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) in Tom Green County w) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on the authority for the Executive Director to release a NOFA for CSBG State Discretionary Funds, to fund Innovative Programs created by Community Action Agencies under CSBG ARRA Motion by Ms. Ray to approve Consent Agenda with the exception of Agenda Items (d) and (j); seconded by Ms. Bingham-Escareño; passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS AGENDA ITEM 2: ARRA ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT: a) Status Report on the Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) Brooke Boston provided report. No action taken. AGENDA ITEM 3: APPEALS: a) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Multifamily Program Appeals: 10115 Tuscany Place Kingwood

Robert Voelker, provided testimony in support of the appeal request. Barry Palmer, with Coats, Rose, provided testimony in support of the appeal request. Robert Lopez, representing TDA201, the co-developer of the Tuscany Place, provided testimony in support of the appeal request. Jim Noteware, Director of the City of Houston's Housing Community Development, provided testimony in opposition to the appeal request.

EXECUTIVE SESSION At 10:17 p.m. Mr. Conine convened the Executive Session. OPEN SESSION At 10:43 a.m. Mr. Conine reconvened the Open Session and announced that no action had been taken during the Executive Session. Motion by Ms. Bingham-Escareño to deny Tuscany Place appeal, Agenda Item 3a); seconded by Mr. Gann; passed unanimously. b) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Tax Credit Assistance Program Appeals: 09750 Residences at Weatherford Weatherford

Cynthia Bast, Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell, provided testimony in support of the appeal request. Chad Daffer, fund manager at America First Tax Exempt Investors, provided testimony in support of the appeal request. Jim Funderburt, CJB Construction, provided testimony in support of the appeal request. Granger MacDonald provided testimony against the appeal request.

Motion by Ms. Ray to approve appeal; seconded by Dr. Muñoz, and Ms. Bingham-Escareño; with Mr. Keig, Mr. Conine, and Mr. Gann voting no, the motion failed. After further discussion, upon the motion of Mr. Gann to deny the appeal, seconded by Mr. Keig, the Board denied appeal by a vote of four to two (Ms. BinghamEscareño and Mr. Conine voted to deny; Ms. Ray and Dr. Muñoz voted to approve). c) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Exchange Program Appeals: 09904 Lulac Hacienda Apartments Corpus Christi David Marquez, provided testimony in appreciation of staff working through the issues with him. Raul Vasquez, Jr., Corpus Christi, provided testimony in appreciation of the board consideration of approval of this appeal.

Motion by Dr. Muñoz to approve appeal; seconded by Mr. Keig; passed unanimously. 09957 Woodland Park at Decatur Decatur Withdrawn from consideration. d) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on HOME Program Appeals: None filed. e) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Underwriting Appeals: 77090000252 Renaissance Village Apartments San Antonio Withdrawn from consideration. TDHCA Board Meeting November 10, 2010 Page 3 of 6

f) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Housing Trust Fund Program Appeals: None filed. AGENDA ITEM 4: RULES: a) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register of final orders adopting amendments to 10 TAC Chapter 5, Subchapter H, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, §5.801, Project Access Initiative concerning the Project Access Initiative Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation, seconded by Dr. Muñoz, passed unanimously. b) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to publish proposed amendments to the rule for the HOME Program, 10 TAC Chapter 53, Subchapters B, C, D, and H for public comment and publication in the Texas Register Motion by Ms. Bingham-Escareño, seconded by Ms. Ray, passed unanimously. c) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register final orders repealing 10 TAC Chapter 49, concerning 2009 Housing Tax Credit Program Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, and adopting new 10 TAC Chapter 49, concerning 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules Teresa Morales and Tom Gouris provided an explanation of the changes to the QAP based upon public comment received. Jim Noteware, city of Houston, provided testimony regarding the prospective change in the new QAP for cities' rights within the ETJ surrounding the cities. John Henneberger, Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, provided testimony location of tax credit developments, the quantifiable community participation letters, and, development location scoring issues. Granger MacDonald provided testimony in favor of a five-year look back in an involuntary take-over of property. Donna Rickenbacker, Marquis Real Estate Consultants, provided testimony in support of the changes recommended concerning flexibility in the percentage of bedroom sizes and the additional cost of the development per square foot when considering an adaptive reuse conversion, historic building preservation, and development of mixed income and workforce housing in urban poor areas of our state. Debra Guerrero, NRP Group provided testimony concerning ineligible applications, or ineligible developments, the listing that's included under this section had previously been under negative points, and so they could still at least have an application. There is no opportunity, if it falls within any of these sections, to actually put in an application. Pres Kabacoff, CEO of HRI Properties, provided testimony the apartment bedroom size. Joy Horak-Brown provided testimony concerning a train study in Houston. Sandra Williams provided testimony on the discussion of trains and the amendment in the QAP.

EXECUTIVE SESSION At 12:46 p.m. Mr. Conine convened the Executive Session. 1. 2.

3. 4.

The Board may go into Executive Session Pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.074 for the purposes of discussing personnel matters including to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer or employee Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code, §551.071(1) to seek the advice of its attorney about pending or contemplated litigation or a settlement offer, including: a) The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al filed in federal district court, Northern District of Texas b) Caroline Miller, et al. vs. State of Texas, et al, filed in District Court for Travis County c) Claim of Gladys House filed with the EEOC Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code, §551.071(2) for the purpose of seeking the advice of its attorney about a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this Tex. Gov’t. Code, Chapter 551 Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code, §551.072 to deliberate the possible purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real estate because it would have a material detrimental effect on the Department’s ability to negotiate with a third person

OPEN SESSION At 2:24 p.m. Mr. Conine reconvened the Open Session and announced that no action had been taken during the Executive Session and certified that the posted agenda had been followed.

TDHCA Board Meeting November 10, 2010 Page 4 of 6

Motion by Ms. Bingham-Escareño to approve the final order adopting the new QAP with one amendment to move the ETJs back to the 2010 QAP language; seconded by Dr. Muñoz; motion passed; Mr. Keig absent. d) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register final orders repealing 10 TAC Chapter 35, concerning 2009 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Rules, and adopting new 10 TAC Chapter 35, concerning 2011 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Rules Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Ms. Bingham-Escareño; passed unanimously. e) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register of proposed repeal of 10 TAC Chapter 60, Subchapter A, §§60.101 – 60.126 and proposed new 10 TAC Chapter 60, Subchapter A, §§60.101 – 60.129 Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Mr. Gann; passed unanimously. f) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register a final order adopting new 10 TAC Chapter 1 §1.1 concerning Definitions for Housing Program Activities Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Ms. Bingham-Escareño, passed unanimously. g) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register, proposed amendments to 10 TAC Chapter 5, Subchapter A. §5.3, §5.20; Subchapter B. §5.203; §5.207; §5.210; §5.216; Subchapter C §5.303; §5.304; §5.310 Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Ms. Bingham-Escareño; Motion by Mr. Keig to amend by including a public comment period on the formula; Amendment accepted by Ms. Ray; passed unanimously. h) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register a final order adopting Amendments to 10 TAC Chapter 5 Subchapters A, E and I Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Mr. Gann; passed unanimously. i) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding approval for publication in the Texas Register final orders repealing 10 TAC Chapter 1, Sections 1.31 – 1.37, 2010 Real Estate Analysis Rules and Guidelines and adopting new 10 TAC Chapter 1, §§1.31 – 1.37, 2011 Real Estate Analysis Rules and Guidelines Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Dr. Muñoz; passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM 5: MULTIFAMILY DIVISION ITEMS – HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM: a) Presentation and Discussion of the Status of Applications Awarded Housing Tax Credit Exchange Funds Report item; no action taken. b) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to Award Remaining Exchange Funds and/or return of Funds to the US Treasury Department Brigitt Hartin, State Representative Darby's office, read letter from the Honorable Representative Darby for the record in support of the Blackshear Homes project located in San Angelo. Bob Salas, provided testimony in support of Blackshear Homes. Craig Meyers, WTOS in San Angelo, provided testimony in support of Blackshear Homes. Jerry Sea, provided testimony in support of Blackshear Homes. John Gambini, Pioneer Crossing Family, provided testimony in support of Lufkin PC application #10283. Noor Jooma provided testimony in support of Lufkin PC application #10283. Bill Fisher, Odyssey Residential, provided testimony in support of Champion Homes at Marina Landing. Granger MacDonald provided testimony in support of board approval for staff’s recommendation. Dan Allgeier, New Rock Companies provided testimony in support of Heritage Park Vista.

Motion by Mr. Keig to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Dr. Muñoz; Ms. Ray absent; motion passed. AGENDA ITEM 6: DISASTER RECOVERY a) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Action Plan amendment for Rita Round II, transferring disaster unobligated or unutilized funds to the Homeowner’s Assistance Program b) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Action Plan Amendment for Rita Round I, transferring disaster unobligated or unutilized funds to a State Administered Housing Assistance Program TDHCA Board Meeting November 10, 2010 Page 5 of 6

Motion by Mr. Keig to approve staff recommendation for Agenda Items 6a) and b); seconded by Mr Gann; Ms. Ray absent; motion passed. c) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Request for Amendments to CDBG Disaster Recovery housing contracts administered by TDHCA for CDBG Hurricane Ike/Dolly Round I Funding 70090001 City of Houston Houston 70090005 Montgomery County Conroe 70090014 Galveston County Galveston John Henneberger, Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, provided testimony opposing the extension of funding to the city of Houston for the disaster recovery funds. Linda Crosson, Manager of Disaster Relief, Multifamily, city of Houston, provided testimony in support of the request. Jim Noteware, city of Houston, provided testimony in support of the request. Veronica Chapa-Jones, city of Houston, Deputy Director for Grants Management and Compliance, provided testimony in support of the request.

Motion by Ms. Bingham-Escareño to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Dr. Muñoz; passed unanimously. d) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Disaster Recovery Housing Program Guidelines No action taken. e) Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding the Materially Complete Draft of the Phase 1 Analysis of Impediments Motion by Ms. Ray to approve staff recommendation; seconded by Mr. Keig; passed unanimously. REPORT ITEMS 1. TDHCA Outreach Activities, September/October 2010 2. Disaster Recovery Division's Status Report on CDBG and FEMA AHPP Contracts Administered by TDHCA, including update on Ike/Dolly Round II ADJOURN Since there was no other business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. on November 10, 2010. _____________________________ Brooke Boston, Board Secretary

For a full transcript of this meeting, please visit the TDHCA website at www.tdhca.state.tx.us.

TDHCA Board Meeting November 10, 2010 Page 6 of 6

TEXAS HOMEOWNERSHIP DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action regarding an application to NeighborWorks America for the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) Program, Round 5, using a portion of the previously-committed Housing Trust Fund monies as matching funds for the NFMC Round 5 application.

WHEREAS, NeighborWorks America has released a funding announcement for NFMC Round 5, WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) may partner with HUD-Approved Housing Counseling Agencies to prepare an application for these funds, and RESOLVED, the Executive Director or his designee is hereby authorized on behalf of TDHCA to submit an application for funding to NeighborWorks America, FURTHER RESOLVED, Housing Trust Fund monies, as approved by the Board on September 2008, remain available as match for any NFMC funds awarded.

Background At the September 4, 2008, TDHCA Board meeting, staff received approval to use up to $250,000 in deobligated Housing Trust Fund (HTF) monies for match to secure foreclosure mitigation assistance through the NFMC Program. The assistance was successfully secured and the NFMC Program, administered through NeighborWorks America, has been providing funding to HUD-Approved Housing Counseling Agencies for foreclosure counseling. Working with borrowers and their lenders/servicers, counseling agencies funded through this program have used a wide range of situation-appropriate strategies to help reach resolutions to prevent foreclosure and set counseled borrowers back on a path to long-term affordability of their mortgages. Although this ongoing program will expire on December 31, 2010, the heightened need for these services caused by national economic problems that have affected Texas, despite its stronger economic posture than other states, has not abated. This service is a key component to maintaining affordable home ownership to low-income Texans. TDHCA’s NFMC program has had a total of 11 Sub-grantees across Texas and provided counseling to 2,582 households. Homeowners served have been predominantly (two-thirds) low income, many (more than half) are ethnic minorities (self-identified as Hispanic) and/or (roughly a third) racial minorities (selfidentified as a race other than “white”). The foreclosure rate of households that received counseling is approximately 2 percent (52 households); this percentage is approximately the same as the statewide average foreclosure rate, even though all of these borrowers were already in financial distress and at risk of imminent foreclosure when they sought help from the NFMC program. The most successful tool used by counseling agencies is initiating a forbearance agreement or initiating a repayment plan, which was successful for 354 households. Other Page 1 of 3

tools commonly used include negotiation of mortgage modifications (291 households) and bringing the mortgage current (256 households). Due to the nature of the counseling process, counseling may continue for many months while the counselors and homeowners negotiate with the servicer. The outcomes of the counseling sessions are illustrated in the table below.

Counseling Outcome‐NFMC Combined, Rounds 2 and 3  Bankruptcy  Brought mortgage current (with or without rescue funds)  Counseled and referred to another organization for assistance (e.g. legal,  social service, emergency)  Currently in negotiation with servicer; outcome unknown  Currently Receiving Foreclosure Prevention/Budget Counseling  Homeowner started counseling process but did not continue  Homeowner(s) sold property (not short sale)  Initiated forbearance agreement/repayment plan  Mortgage Foreclosed  Mortgage Modified  Mortgage put on hold/moratorium  Mortgage refinanced  Other (e.g. obtained partial claim loan, executed a deed‐in‐lieu, lost home  to tax sale or condemnation)  Pre‐foreclosure sale/short sale  Total 

Households  96  256  51  969  158  236  22  354  52  291  8  12  41  36  2,582 

Applicants for NFMC funding must provide a 20 percent match for the first $500,000 in funding they receive. After $500,000, the required match drops to 10 percent. The Department has received $999,743 in NFMC funds over three funding rounds. The Department has cumulatively used $149,123.30 of Housing Trust Fund monies as match for the NFMC Program. The matching funds were used to reimburse for additional counseling sessions, provide additional program-related support and defray administrative costs. NeighborWorks is offering a Round 5 application cycle, opening the application on December 3, 2010, and accepting applications until January 6, 2011. Based on the success of the current grant award, TDHCA is qualified to apply to submit a streamlined application for Round 5. Successful applicants will be awarded funds for reimbursement of counseling sessions completed between October 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. Subject to Board approval and anticipating a very rapid application process and timeline, TDHCA has provided information to HUD-Approved Housing Counseling Agencies within the State to have interested agencies at the ready to participate in TDHCA’s grant application. The number of counseling sessions proposed to be completed within the grant period will determine the exact application amount and resulting match requirement. Since $100,876.70 in matching funds remains of the $250,000 previously approved by the Board, staff is proposing to use a portion of these funds for the Round 5 match commitment as well as in-kind services. The timeframe for which match may be provided is April 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of an ongoing partnership, the Texas State Affordable Housing

Page 2 of 3

Corporation has committed to provide funds for the grant match requirement along with TDHCA and to continue its administrative role.

Page 3 of 3

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE PRODUCTION DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Housing Tax Credit Amendments. WHEREAS, the tax credit award relating to HTC 10198, Pinnacle at North Chase, was awarded by the Board based on certain premises, including development of six residential buildings on 11.568 acres, and high-speed internet for tenants, and WHEREAS, Pinnacle at North Chase is proposing to replace high speed internet with covered entries and patios, construct and additional residential building, and reduce the site acreage to 10.584, therefore be it RESOLVED, that staff’s recommendations regarding the approval of amendments relating to Application #10198, Pinnacle at North Chase be and hereby are approved as presented to this meeting. Background §2306.6712, Texas Government Code, indicates that the Board should determine the disposition of a requested amendment if the amendment is a “material alteration,” would materially alter the development in a negative manner or would have adversely affected the selection of the application in the application round. The statute identifies certain changes as material alterations and the requests presented below include material alterations.

Summary of Request: The owner is requesting approval to replace high speed internet with covered entries and covered patios/balconies. The owner is also requesting approval to reduce the development site from 11.568 acres to 10.584 acres, an 8.5 percent decrease. Finally, the owner is requesting approval to increase the number of residential buildings from six to seven. This is a new development that received an award of tax credits this year. The owner stated the development site is part of a master planned community and recent platting of the community has led to a reduction of the development site in order to accommodate for roadways in the master plan. This reduction will result in an increase to the site density by the same 8.5 percentage. The owner has confirmed the footprint of the development site has not changed. Program rules require Board approval for any modification of site density beyond five percent.

The amendment request states long-term cost of providing high speed internet to residents was mistakenly left off the application’s Annual Operating Expenses exhibit. The owner indicated continued costs of providing high speed internet would threaten financial feasibility. Therefore, the owner is requesting approval to provide covered entries and covered patios/balconies in lieu of high speed internet. Neither of the replacement amenities was proposed for points at application and their substitution would not affect the application score. The owner has also requested approval to increase the number of residential buildings by one, and reconfigure the unit and building plans. Program staff has reviewed the proposed changes and confirmed a net gain of 7,412 square feet with only four units losing a total of sixteen square feet. This last change is one that does not need board approval but is presented here as part of the whole proposal for changes. Original Application  # of  Units 

# of  # of  Bed‐ Bath‐ rooms   rooms 

20 



12 



64 



20 







120 

  

Unit  Size  

          1  764             1  775         2  1,023         2  1,231         3  1,483         5,276  

Proposed Amendment  NRA        15,280           9,300         65,472         24,620           5,932      120,604  

# of  Units 

# of  # of  Bed‐ Bath‐ rooms  rooms

20

1

1

12

1

1

64

2

2

20

3

2

4

4

3

120

  

  

Unit  Size            812            812        1,114        1,241        1,479        5,458  

   NRA       16,240          9,744        71,296        24,820          5,916     128,016  

NRA  Change              960               444             5,824               200               (16)            7,412  

Pursuant to §50.17(d) of the Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules “If a proposed modification would materially alter a Development approved for an allocation of a Housing Tax Credit, or if the Applicant has altered any selection criteria item for which it received points, the Department shall require the Applicant to file a formal, written request for an amendment to the Application… The Board must vote on whether to approve an amendment. The Board by vote may reject an amendment and, if appropriate, rescind a Commitment Notice or terminate the allocation of Housing Tax Credits and reallocate the credits to other Applicants on the Waiting List if the Board determines that the modification proposed in the amendment…would materially alter the Development in a negative manner…Material alteration of a Development includes, but is not limited to...A modification of residential density of the Development of at least 5%…” Therefore, an amendment to the application is necessary. Owner: Pinnacle at North Chase LLC General Partner: PHG – North Chase, LLC Developer: PHG Lone Star, LLC Developer Principals/Interested Parties: Lisa Stephens Syndicator: Wells Fargo

Construction Lender: Permanent Lender: Other Funding: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Region: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2010 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Prior Board Actions: REA Findings:

Wells Fargo Wells Fargo City of Tyler Tyler, Smith County N/A Urban 4 New Construction General 120 $1,473,851 $12,282 6/10 – Approved award of tax credits The Underwriter’s analysis indicates that the requested changes do not significantly alter the underwriting of the transaction. The previously awarded credit allocation of $1,473,851 continues to be recommended.

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE PRODUCTION DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Housing Tax Credit Amendments. WHEREAS, the tax credit award relating to HTC 07096, Moore Grocery Lofts, was awarded by the Board based on certain premises, including rehabilitation of four buildings with self-cleaning ovens, a covered pavilion with barbeque grills, and 16,380 square feet of common area, and WHEREAS, the common area of Moore Grocery Lofts is proposed to be reduced to 13,048 square feet, and the self-cleaning ovens, and pavilion and barbeque grills are being replaced with comparable amenities, therefore be it RESOLVED, that staff’s recommendations regarding the approval of amendments relating to Application #07096, Moore Grocery Lofts; #07192 be and hereby are approved as presented to this meeting.

Background §2306.6712, Texas Government Code, indicates that the Board should determine the disposition of a requested amendment if the amendment is a “material alteration,” would materially alter the development in a negative manner or would have adversely affected the selection of the application in the application round. The statute identifies certain changes as material alterations and the requests presented below include material alterations.

Summary of Request: The owner is seeking approval to amend several project features. Specifically, the owner is requesting approval to replace self cleaning ovens (1 point) and the covered pavilion (2 points) approved at application. The owner will instead provide washer/dryer connections in each unit to replace the self cleaning ovens (2 points) and a community library (1 point) in place of the barbeque grills. The application did not receive points for either of the proposed replacement amenities, and the overall application score would not be affected. The owner has also requested Board approval to reduce the common area square footage from 16,380 approved at application to 13,048 as built, which is a 20% reduction. The owner indicates that the square-footage projections in the application were “best-estimates at the front end of the work” and as is typical of adaptive reuse developments changes have occurred as a result of more accurate on the site work. The owner has also added an additional bathroom to all 26 two

bedroom, one bathroom units, which translates into a net gain of 3,235 square feet of NRA. Staff acknowledges the increase in NRA with additional bathrooms will enhance the development; though staff rejects the rationale that the additional NRA alone is an acceptable replacement for the loss in common area that would not require additional Board approval. Pursuant to §50.17(d) of the Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules “If a proposed modification would materially alter a Development approved for an allocation of a Housing Tax Credit, or if the Applicant has altered any selection criteria item for which it received points, the Department shall require the Applicant to file a formal, written request for an amendment to the Application… The Board must vote on whether to approve an amendment. The Board by vote may reject an amendment and, if appropriate, rescind a Commitment Notice or terminate the allocation of Housing Tax Credits and reallocate the credits to other Applicants on the Waiting List if the Board determines that the modification proposed in the amendment…would materially alter the Development in a negative manner…Material alteration of a Development includes, but is not limited to...A reduction of 3% or more in the square footage of the units or common areas …” Therefore, an amendment to the application is necessary. Owner: Moore Grocery Lofts, Ltd. General Partner: Moore Grocery Lofts, GP LLC Developer: Archtypes, LLC & Fitch Development Group Principals/Interested Parties: Bill Scantland Syndicator: Wachovia Securities Construction Lender: Stearns Bank Permanent Lender: CBRE Melody Capital Markets (Freddie Mac) Other Funding: City of Tyler (CDBG) City/County: Tyler, Smith County Set-Aside: N/A Type of Area: Urban Region: 4 Type of Development: Acquisition/Rehab Population Served: General Units: 88 2007 Allocation: $771,721 Allocation per HTC Unit: $8,770 Prior Board Actions: 09/06 – Approved award of tax credits REA Findings: This is an adaptive reuse rehabilitation and new construction development, but the Underwriter’s current cost-estimating methodology is only for new construction improvements. For that reason, the Owner’s costs, as certified by the Owner’s CPA, are used in the Underwriter’s analysis. Furthermore, the Underwriter’s current cost-estimating methodology does not provide specific estimates for all of the substituted amenities. The Underwriter’s analysis indicates that the requested changes do not significantly alter the underwriting of the transaction. No change to the credit

recommendation is recommended prior to the finalization of the cost certification review process.

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE PRODUCTION DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Housing Tax Credit Amendments. WHEREAS, the tax credit award relating to HTC 07192, Historic Lofts of Waco High, was awarded by the Board based on certain premises, including rehabilitation of two buildings with a gazebo with sitting area, barbeque grills, picnic tables, 34,235 square feet of common area, 98,533 square feet of net rentable area, and 192 parking spaces, and WHEREAS, the Historic Lofts of Waco High proposes to increase the common area to 38,060 and decrease net rentable area to 95,116, provide an additional residential building, and combine the gazebo and barbeque grills into one amenity feature, therefore be it RESOLVED, that staff’s recommendations regarding the approval of amendments relating to Application #07192, Historic Lofts of Waco High be and hereby are approved as presented to this meeting.

Background §2306.6712, Texas Government Code, indicates that the Board should determine the disposition of a requested amendment if the amendment is a “material alteration,” would materially alter the development in a negative manner or would have adversely affected the selection of the application in the application round. The statute identifies certain changes as material alterations and the requests presented below include material alterations.

Summary of Request: The owner is seeking approval to amend several project features. Specifically, the owner is requesting approval to replace the gazebo with a sitting area and barbecue grills with picnic tables, which are both one point items. The owner has instead provided a covered pavilion that includes picnic tables and grills, which is a two point amenity. Staff agreed the development would not lose any of the features originally proposed at application, and the application score would remain unchanged as well. The owner is requesting approval to reduce the number of uncovered parking spaces from 192 to 145, consequently reducing the ratio of spaces to units from 1.85 to 1.4. The parking ratio is in compliance with local building and planning ordinances.

The owner is also requesting approval to amend the site plan of the development to include an additional residential building. The development is an adaptive reuse project. In the course of development, the National Park Service (NPS) determined the third residential building set for demolition was a contributing structure and could not be demolished. Therefore, the Development owner incorporated the third building into the development which is now 100% complete. Finally, the development owner is requesting approval to increase the common area from 34,235 at application to 38,060 as recently documented by the development architect. Additionally, the net rentable area (NRA) has decreased from 98,535 square feet proposed at application to 95,116 square feet as built. The 3.5% reduction of NRA is more than the 3% approvable by staff and therefore, must receive Board approval. The owner has reiterated that the development is an adaptive reuse project and that original size projections are estimates that often change as development progresses. The owner would like the Board members to consider the decision of NPS to include the third residential building and the nature of adaptive reuse were the contributing factors for changing common and rentable area. Pursuant to §50.17(d) of the Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules “If a proposed modification would materially alter a Development approved for an allocation of a Housing Tax Credit, or if the Applicant has altered any selection criteria item for which it received points, the Department shall require the Applicant to file a formal, written request for an amendment to the Application… The Board must vote on whether to approve an amendment. The Board by vote may reject an amendment and, if appropriate, rescind a Commitment Notice or terminate the allocation of Housing Tax Credits and reallocate the credits to other Applicants on the Waiting List if the Board determines that the modification proposed in the amendment…would materially alter the Development in a negative manner…Material alteration of a Development includes, but is not limited to...A reduction of 3% or more in the square footage of the units or common areas …” Therefore, an amendment to the application is necessary. Owner: Historic Lofts of Waco High, Ltd. General Partner: Historic Lofts of Waco High GP, LLC Developer: Archtypes, LLC Principals/Interested Parties: Bill Scantland, Jim Sari, Hollis M. Fitch Syndicator: Column Capital, LLC Construction Lender: Stearns Bank Permanent Lender: Stearns Bank Other Funding: City of Waco City/County: Waco, McLennan County Set-Aside: N/A Type of Area: Urban Region: 8 Type of Development: Acquisition Rehab Population Served: General Units: 104 2007 Allocation: $1,050,888 Allocation per HTC Unit: $10,105

Prior Board Actions: REA Findings:

7/07 – Approved award of tax credits The Underwriter’s analysis indicates that the requested changes do not significantly alter the underwriting of the transaction. No change to the credit recommendation is recommended prior to the finalization of the cost certification review process.

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE PRODUCTION DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action regarding Housing Tax Credit Amendments. WHEREAS, the tax credit award relating to HTC 060202, Beaumont Downtown Lofts, was awarded by the Board based on certain premises, including the rehabilitation of two buildings with 15,500 square feet of common area, and WHEREAS, the common area of Beaumont Downtown Lofts is proposed to be reduced to 8,619 square feet, therefore be it RESOLVED, that staff’s recommendations regarding the approval of amendments relating to Application #060202, Beaumont Downtown Lofts be and hereby are approved as presented to this meeting.

Background §2306.6712, Texas Government Code, indicates that the Board should determine the disposition of a requested amendment if the amendment is a “material alteration,” would materially alter the development in a negative manner or would have adversely affected the selection of the application in the application round. The statute identifies certain changes as material alterations and the requests presented below include material alterations. Summary of Request: The owner is requesting approval to reduce the common area of the development from 15,500 square feet reported at application to 8,619 square feet as recently reported by the project architect. The 41% reduction is more than the 3% allowable by program rules without Board approval. The owner stated all development plans remain unchanged, but the variance in common area is attributable to the nature of the development and the measurements provided at application were best estimates very early in the development process. It is not uncommon for adaptive reuse developments, such as this development to miscalculate square footage and the owner has made efforts to maintain the unit square footage at the expense of square footage available for the common area. Pursuant to §50.17(d) of the Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules “If a proposed modification would materially alter a Development approved for an allocation of a Housing Tax Credit, or if the Applicant has altered any selection criteria item for which it received points, the Department shall require the Applicant to file a formal, written request for an amendment to the

Application… The Board must vote on whether to approve an amendment. The Board by vote may reject an amendment and, if appropriate, rescind a Commitment Notice or terminate the allocation of Housing Tax Credits and reallocate the credits to other Applicants on the Waiting List if the Board determines that the modification proposed in the amendment…would materially alter the Development in a negative manner…Material alteration of a Development includes, but is not limited to...A reduction of 3% or more in the square footage of the units or common areas …” Therefore, an amendment to the application is necessary. Owner: Beaumont Downtown Lofts, Ltd. General Partner: Beaumont downtown Lofts, GP, LLC Developer: Sari & Company/Fitch Development Co. /Archtypes, LLC Principals/Interested Parties: Bill Scantland Syndicator: Alliant Capital, Ltd. Construction Lender: Stearns Bank Permanent Lender: CBRE Melody & Company Other Funding: N/A City/County: Beaumont, Jefferson County Set-Aside: N/A Type of Area: Urban Region: 5 Type of Development: Acquisition Rehab Population Served: General Units: 36 2006 Allocation: $402,869 Allocation per HTC Unit: $11,190 Prior Board Actions: 4/06 – Approved award of tax credits REA Findings: The Underwriter’s analysis indicates that the requested change does not significantly alter the underwriting of the transaction. No change to the credit recommendation is recommended prior to the finalization of the cost certification review process.

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010

Approve the requests for extensions related to one (1) 2006, two (2) 2007, five (5) 2009, and three (3) 2010 Tax Credit Exchange and Housing Tax Credit allocations. RECOMMENDED ACTION WHEREAS, the Board requires compliance with the deadlines it sets through its Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) and authorizes the Executive Director to approve reasonable extensions of such deadlines when requested with good cause prior to the deadline, and WHEREAS, the Board may consider and approve with good cause or deny extensions of deadlines requested after the deadline, and WHEREAS, eight applicants who have missed deadlines requested extensions after their respective deadline had passed but provided good cause for granting the extensions and paid the required $2,500 extension request fees as applicable and have been recommended. It is hereby: RESOLVED, that the extensions presented in this meeting relating to Application No. 060074 (Amarillo Gardens Apartments), Application No. 07149 (Residence at Eastland), Application No. 07621/09726 (Residences at Onion Creek), Application No. 09000/09974, (Courtwood Apartments), Application No. 09001/09777, (Hillwood Apartments), 09165/10507/09999, (Cherrywood Apartments), Application No. 09314/09760, (Taylor Farms), Application No. 09913/08026, (Villas on Raiford), Application No. 10003/09813 (Champion Homes at Marina Landing), Application No. 10178 (Cypress Creek at Fayridge), and Application No. 10143 (Oak Creek Townhomes)are hereby approved as presented to this meeting. Background Pertinent facts about these requests for extension are following:

1

HTC No. 060074, Amarillo Gardens Apartments (Cost Certification Extension) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §50.15(b)(2) of the 2006 Qualified Allocation Plan, “…Required Cost Certification documentation must be received by the Department no later than January 15 following the year the Credit Period begins…”. The owner of this development elected to initiate the credit period in 2009 but missed the January l5, 2010 deadline to submit cost certification documentation. The owner in this case submitted the full cost certification documentation approximately seven (7) months after the deadline on July 27, 2010. The reason given for the delayed submission was that the property was foreclosed by the lender, which required the approval of an ownership transfer by the Department before the Cost Certification documentation could be submitted by the new owner. The ownership transfer was approved on May 26, 2010. The Cost Certification documentation is currently under review by staff and nearly complete. Should there be any credit that ultimately is unused but is not released by the applicant or cannot be identified as returned by the Department within 180 days of the end of the first year of the credit period, a penalty fee equal to the one year credit amount of the lost credits (10% of the total unused tax credit amount) will be required to be paid by the Owner prior to the issuance of form 8609’s. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2006 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline New Deadline Requested: New Deadline Recommended: Previous Extensions:

The Gardens of Amarillo, Ltd. The Gardens of Amarillo Management, LLC Dasadi Holdings, Ltd and GS Holdings, Inc. Jeff Richards and The Family Housing Foundation Amarillo/Potter At-Risk/Preservation/Nonprofit Urban Acq/Rehab Family 100 HTC units $451,788 $4,518 $2,500 January 15, 2010 July 24, 2010 July 24, 2010 N/A

2

HTC No. 07149 Residences at Eastland (Cost Certification Extension) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §49.15(b)(2) of the 2007 Qualified Allocation Plan, “…Required Cost Certification documentation must be received by the Department no later than January 15 following the year the Credit Period begins…”.The owner of this development elected to initiate the credit period in 2009 but missed the January l5, 2010 deadline to submit cost certification documentation. The owner in this case submitted the full cost certification documentation approximately eight (8) months after the deadline on September 17, 2010. The documentation is currently under review by staff. The reason given for the delayed submission was that there were some outstanding lien and financing issues that had to be resolved before the cost certification documentation could be submitted to the Department. Should there be any credit that ultimately is unused but is not released by the applicant or cannot be identified as returned by the Department within 180 days of the end of the first year of the credit period, a penalty fee equal to the one year credit amount of the lost credits (10% of the total unused tax credit amount) will be required to be paid by the Owner prior to the issuance of form 8609’s. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2007 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: New Deadline Recommended: Previous Extensions:

FW-Eastland Housing Partners, Ltd. NDG-Eastland, LLC. Rumsey Development, LLC Robert G. Hoskins and Sandra K. Hoskins Fort Worth/Tarrant N/A Urban New Construction Family 140 HTC units $1,200,000 $8,571 $2,500 January 15, 2010 September 17, 2010 September 17, 2010 N/A

3

From: To: cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Brad Bell Kent Bedell; Rosalio Banuelos; Dan Allgeier; Robert Hoskins; RE: Cost Cert Extension Request Follow-up for TDHCA #07149 Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:40:54 PM CC07149 Residences at Eastland CC Recd Ltr.pdf

Kent, First, a minor correction – since the deadline was Jan. 15, it was only 8 months late.

Explanation: The project was closed out at the very end of 2009. There were some outstanding lien & financing issues/questions which made it clear that the cost cert would not be submitted on time, and we should have asked for an extension at that time (and saved $2500!). The cost certification was submitted on 5/20/10 (see attached receipt). Shortly thereafter, we identified that some corrections were needed. TDHCA had not yet started working on it, and we felt that it would be less confusing to simply have TDHCA return the document so that we could make the corrections. The document was returned by TDHCA on 6/11/10. The document was then resubmitted on 9/17/10.

Please let me know of questions/comments.

Regards,

Brad Bell NuRock Development 580 Decker Drive, Suite 208 Irving, TX 75063

972-573-3412 (office) / 404-379-1466 (cell)

From: Kent Bedell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 11:15 AM To: Brad Bell Cc: Rosalio Banuelos Subject: Cost Cert Extension Request Follow-up for TDHCA #07149

Mr. Bell:

Please provide me with a short explanation of why the Cost Cert Documentation was submitted approximately 9 months after the due date.

Regards,

Kent Bedell Multifamily Housing Specialist Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs (512) 475-3882 (P) (512) 475-1895 (F) [email protected]

HTC No. 07621/09726 Residences at Onion Creek (Cost Certification Extension) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §49.15(b)(2) of the 2007 Qualified Allocation Plan, “…Required Cost Certification documentation must be received by the Department no later than January 15 following the year the Credit Period begins…”.The owner of this development elected to initiate the credit period in 2009 but missed the January l5, 2010 deadline to submit cost certification documentation. The owner in this case submitted the full cost certification documentation approximately five (5) months after the deadline on June 10, 2010. The documentation is currently under review by staff. The reason given for the delayed submission was that development’s swimming pool was not completed until May 2010 due to City of Austin water restrictions. This ultimately delayed the “as built” survey, which is a required cost certification document. The owner has requested a waiver of the $2500 mandatory extension fee due to the delays caused by City of Austin watering restrictions, which were beyond their control. As this is a tax exempt bond transaction, no penalty for unused credits will occur. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2007 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: New Deadline Recommended: Previous Extensions:

Onion Creek Housing Partners, Ltd. NDG-Onion Creek, LLC. NuRock Development Group, Inc. Robert G. Hoskins and Sandra K. Hoskins Austin/Travis N/A Urban New Construction Family 224 HTC units $786,789 $3,512 $2,500 January 15, 2010 June 1, 2010 June 1, 2010 N/A

Staff Recommendation:

Approve the extension and deny the request for a waiver of the $2,500 mandatory extension fee.

4

From: To: cc: Subject: Date:

Dan Allgeier Kent Bedell; Rosalio Banuelos; RE: Onion Creek cost certification extension Monday, December 06, 2010 9:19:59 AM

Due to the drought in 2009, the City of Austin wouldn’t allow us to fill a new swimming pool with water. As a pool left empty would crack and leak in the soil conditions that exist on the site of the Residences at Onion Creek, we delayed constructing the pool until the City’s watering restrictions were lifted. This construction delay meant we couldn’t fully comply with the requirements of our TDHCA final inspection because the pool amenity was not available. In addition we didn’t know the exact cost of the pool until it was completed because the delay required that we rebid this part of the work and resubmit plans to the City for a building permit. The final costs of this part of construction were also necessary to complete the cost certification audit.

We were not able to complete the pool until May, 2010. Then we had to obtain the final “as built” survey, a cost certification requirement and complete the cost certification audit. As soon as all these items were completed on June 10, 2010 the cost certification was submitted.

As the drought was beyond our control, we request refund of our $2,500 fee required for the extension of the deadline to submit this cost certification documentation.

Dan Allgeier

From: Kent Bedell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:32 AM

To: Dan Allgeier; Kent Bedell Cc: Rosalio Banuelos Subject: RE: Onion Creek cost certification extension

Dan,

Please provide me a short reason of why the cost certification package was submitted past the deadline.

Thanks,

Kent Bedell Multifamily Housing Specialist Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs 221 E. 11th Street | Austin, TX 78701 Office: 512.475.3882 Fax: 512.475.1895

HTC No. 09000/09974, Courtwood Apartments (10% Test Documentation) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §49.14(b) of the 2009 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “No later than eleven months from the date the Carryover Allocation Document is executed by the Department and the Development Owner, more than 10% of the Development Owner’s reasonable expected basis must have been incurred pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. The evidence to support the satisfaction of this requirement must be submitted to the Department no later than December 1 of the year following the execution of the Carryover Allocation Document in a format prescribed by the Department”. The owner is requesting to extend the deadline to submit documentation fulfilling the 10% requirement from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. The owner in this case did not submit 10% Test documentation or request an extension by the required December 1, 2010 deadline; therefore, TDHCA Board approval is required. The reason given for the request is that there was a misunderstanding about the scope of work being performed by their accounting firm. Additionally, it should be noted, that the Department may grant an extension to the deadline for submitting the documentation required for the 10% Test; however, the owner is still responsible to meet the 10% expenditure deadline of December 31, 2010 pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2009 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: Previous Extensions:

PK Courtwood Apartments, L.P. Megan & Associated V, LLC Megan & Associates V, LLC Ronald Potterpin Eagle Lake/Colorado USDA Rural Acq/Rehab Elderly 50 HTC units $294,508 $5,890 $2,500 December 1, 2010 December 31, 2010 N/A

5

HTC No. 09001/09777, HillwoodApartments (10% Test Documentation) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §49.14(b) of the 2009 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “No later than eleven months from the date the Carryover Allocation Document is executed by the Department and the Development Owner, more than 10% of the Development Owner’s reasonable expected basis must have been incurred pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. The evidence to support the satisfaction of this requirement must be submitted to the Department no later than December 1 of the year following the execution of the Carryover Allocation Document in a format prescribed by the Department”. The owner is requesting to extend the deadline to submit documentation fulfilling the 10% requirement from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. The owner in this case did not submit 10% Test documentation or request an extension by the required December 1, 2010 deadline; therefore, TDHCA Board approval is required. The reason given for the request is that there was a misunderstanding about the scope of work being performed by their accounting firm. Additionally, it should be noted, that the Department may grant an extension to the deadline for submitting the documentation required for the 10% Test; however, the owner is still responsible to meet the 10% expenditure deadline of December 31, 2010 pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2009 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: Previous Extensions:

PK Hillwood Apartments, L.P. Megan & Associated V, LLC Megan & Associates V, LLC Ronald Potterpin Weimar/Colorado USDA Rural Acq/Rehab Elderly 24 HTC units $149,029 $6210 $2,500 December 1, 2010 December 31, 2010 N/A

6

HTC No. 09165/10507/09999, Cherrywood Apartments (10% Test Documentation) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §49.14(b) of the 2009 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “No later than eleven months from the date the Carryover Allocation Document is executed by the Department and the Development Owner, more than 10% of the Development Owner’s reasonable expected basis must have been incurred pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. The evidence to support the satisfaction of this requirement must be submitted to the Department no later than December 1 of the year following the execution of the Carryover Allocation Document in a format prescribed by the Department”. The owner is requesting to extend the deadline to submit documentation fulfilling the 10% requirement from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. The owner in this case did not submit 10% Test documentation or request an extension by the required December 1, 2010 deadline; therefore, TDHCA Board approval is required. The reason given for the request is that there was a misunderstanding about the scope of work being performed by their accounting firm. Additionally, it should be noted, that the Department may grant an extension to the deadline for submitting the documentation required for the 10% Test; however, the owner is still responsible to meet the 10% expenditure deadline of December 31, 2010 pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2009 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: Previous Extensions:

PK Cherrywood Apartments, L.P. Megan & Associated V, LLC Megan & Associates V, LLC Ronald Potterpin West/McLennan N/A Rural Acq/Rehab Elderly 44 HTC units $290,139 $6,594 $2,500 December 1, 2010 December 31, 2010 N/A

7

HTC No. 09314/09760, Taylor Farms (10% Test/Commencement of Substantial Construction Documentation) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §49.14(b) of the 2009 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “No later than eleven months from the date the Carryover Allocation Document is executed by the Department and the Development Owner, more than 10% of the Development Owner’s reasonable expected basis must have been incurred pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. The evidence to support the satisfaction of this requirement must be submitted to the Department no later than December 1 of the year following the execution of the Carryover Allocation Document in a format prescribed by the Department”. The owner is requesting to extend the deadline to submit documentation fulfilling the 10% and Commencement of Substantial Construction (COC) requirements from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 and June 1, 2011. The reason given for the 10% Test extension request was a Development team oversight regarding the deadline to submit the documentation fulfilling the 10% Test requirement. The owner has confirmed that the 10% expenditure requirement has been met; however, they need additional time to submit the documentation fulfilling the 10% requirement. The reason given for the COC extension was that the development financing did not close until November 10, 2010, which has left insufficient time to fulfill the COC 10% construction contract expenditure requirement for new construction developments by the current deadline. The owner indicated that building permits have been pulled, utilities are available at the site, grading will be completed by February 2011, and the clubhouse foundation, all right of way access, and 10% of the construction contract amount will be expended by March 2011. The owner has also confirmed that the development is still on target to meet its placed in service requirement. The owner has requested a waiver of the five (5) point penalty associated with the late 10% Test submission. Staff recommends the enforcement of the five (5) point penalty on any applications submitted by the principals of the Applicant under the 2011 application cycle pursuant to §49.9(a)(28)(A). Additionally, it should be noted, that the Department may grant an extension to the deadline for submitting the documentation required for the 10% Test; however, the owner is still responsible to meet the 10% expenditure deadline of December 31, 2010 pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development:

TF Development, LP TF Development GP, LLC GFD Opportunity I, LLC Alan McDonald, Brandon Bolin, and Jason Hutton Dallas/Dallas N/A Urban New Construction 8

Population Served: Units: 2009 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New 10% Test Deadline: New COC Deadline: Previous Extensions:

Family 144 HTC units $1,879,930 $13,055 $2,500 December 1, 2010 December 31, 2010 June 1, 2011 N/A

9

December 7, 2010 Mr. Kent Bedell Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs P.O. Box 13941 Austin, TX 78711-3941 Re:

TDHCA Application #09314, Taylor Farms 10% Test and Commencement of Substantial Construction Deadline Extension Request

Dear. Mr. Bedell, Please accept this letter as a formal request on behalf of TF Development, LP to extend the 10% Test deadline for TDHCA Application #09314 from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. The property met the 10% expenditure requirements at closing on November 10, 2010, which will be evidenced in the 10% Test documentation prepared and certified by Novogradac, LLP. Additionally, TF Development, LP respectfully requests a six month extension for the provision of Evidence of Substantial Construction Commencement due to the delay in receipt of the FHA 221d4 Loan Commitment, which delayed closing. As a result construction began November 11, 2010. However, Substantial Construction activities are not anticipated to commence until March 31, 2011. Construction completion is scheduled for October 31, 2011, and will be completed prior to the December 31, 2011 Placed in Service Deadline. The Developer does not foresee any obstacles preventing delivery of all 160 units by December 31, 2011 to receive 8609’s for all Housing Tax Credits awarded. The Commencement of Substantial Construction Activities schedule is as follows:  March 2011 – Completion of the Foundation of the Clubhouse  February 2011 – All grading will be complete  March 2011 – All right of way access to the property will be complete  All infrastructure permits have been received  Utilities are currently available at the site  March 2011 - 10% of Construction Completion will be achieved Due to the oversight in providing the 2009 10% Test documentation, and the inability to provide Evidence of Substantial Construction Commencement prior to the December 1, 2010 deadline as required, the Developer, Principals, Affiliates and Related Parties of TF

Anderson Capital, LLC 347 Walnut Grove Lane Coppell, TX 75019 Phone: (972) 567-4630 Fax: (972) 462-8715

Page 2 of 2 Development, LP respectfully request a waiver of any and all applicable penalties that may be assessed in accordance with Section 49.9(a)(28) of the 2011 Qualified Allocation Plan on future applications submitted to the Department. Please contact me at (972) 5674630 should you have additional questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, Terri L. Anderson President, Anderson Capital, LLC

HTC No. 09913/08026, Villas on Raiford (10% Test Documentation) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §49.14(b) of the 2009 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “No later than eleven months from the date the Carryover Allocation Document is executed by the Department and the Development Owner, more than 10% of the Development Owner’s reasonable expected basis must have been incurred pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. The evidence to support the satisfaction of this requirement must be submitted to the Department no later than December 1 of the year following the execution of the Carryover Allocation Document in a format prescribed by the Department”. The owner is requesting to extend the deadline to submit documentation fulfilling the 10% and Commencement of Substantial Construction (COC) requirements from December 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 and June 1, 2011. The reason given for the 10% Test extension request was a Development team oversight regarding the deadline to submit the documentation fulfilling the 10% Test requirement. The owner has confirmed that the 10% expenditure requirement has been met; however, they need additional time to submit the documentation fulfilling the 10% requirement. The reason given for the COC extension was that the development financing did not close until September 1, 2010, which has left insufficient time to fulfill the COC 10% construction contract expenditure requirement for new construction developments by the current deadline. The owner has indicated that the clubhouse foundation is complete, building permits have been pulled, utilities are available at the site, all right of way access will be completed by the end of December, grading will be completed by January 2011, and 10% of the construction contract has been expended. The owner has also confirmed that the development is still on target to meet its placed in service requirement. The owner has requested a waiver of the five (5) point penalty associated with the late 10% Test submission. Staff recommends the enforcement of the five (5) point penalty on any applications submitted by the principals of the Applicant under the 2011 application cycle pursuant to §49.9(a)(28)(A). Additionally, it should be noted, that the Department may grant an extension to the deadline for submitting the documentation required for the 10% Test; however, the owner is still responsible to meet the 10% expenditure deadline of December 31, 2010 pursuant to §42(h)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) of the Internal Revenue Code. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area:

Carrolton Senior Housing, LP Villas on Raiford, LLC Megan & Associates V, LLC Chan II Pak, Huelon A Harrison, Jang Wook Lee, and Hyo Nam Han Carrolton/Dallas N/A Urban 10

Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2009 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New 10% Test Deadline: New COC Deadline: Previous Extensions:

New Construction Elderly 172 HTC units $1,369,095 $7,960 $2,500 December 1, 2010 December 31, 2010 June 1, 2011 N/A

11

December 7, 2010 Mr. Kent Bedell Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs P.O. Box 13941 Austin, TX 78711-3941 Re:

TDHCA Application #09913, Villas on Raiford 10% Test and Commencement of Substantial Construction Deadline Extension Request

Dear. Mr. Bedell, Please accept this letter as a formal request on behalf of Villas on Raiford Carrollton Senior Housing, LLC to extend the 10% Test deadline for TDHCA Application #09913 from December 1, 2010 to December 15, 2010. The property has met the expenditure requirements, as evidenced by prior submission of the 10% Test for the 2007 and 2008 Housing Tax Credit award. In addition, 30% of Total Development Costs have been accrued exceeding the Tax Credit Exchange 30% Test. Novogradac, LLP has been engaged to provide independent certification of the 10% and 30% Tests prior to December 15, 2010 in compliance with the 30% Test deadline. Additionally, Villas on Raiford Carrollton Senior Housing, LLC requests herein a six month extension to provide Evidence of Commencement of Substantial Construction Activities due to the delay in receipt of the HUD Commitment for the FHA 221d4 loan, which closed on September 1, 2010. Construction began September 2, 2010 immediately after closing. As of November 27, 2010, construction was 9.94% complete. However, commencement of all substantial construction activities is not anticipated until January 2011 due to extensive site work allowing no more than a 2% PVR as required by FHA. The Developer does not foresee any obstacles. Construction is ahead of schedule and completion is anticipated in November 2011, exceeding the December 31, 2011 Placed in Service Deadline for all 180 units. The status of all Substantial Construction Activities is as follows:  The Foundation of the Clubhouse is complete.  By January 2011, all grading will be complete.  By December 2011, all right of way access to the property will be complete.  All infrastructure permits have been received.  Utilities are currently available at the site.  10% Construction Completion has been achieved. Anderson Capital, LLC 347 Walnut Grove Lane Coppell, TX 75019 Phone: (972) 567-4630 Fax: (972) 462-8715

Page 2 of 2 Due to the oversight in providing the 2009 10% Test, and the inability to provide all Evidence of Substantial Construction Commencement prior to the December 1, 2010 deadline as required, the Developer, Principals, Affiliates and Related Parties for Villas on Raiford Carrollton Senior Housing, LLC respectfully request a waiver of any and all penalties associated with Section 49.9(a)(28) of the 2011 Qualified Allocation Plan for any future application submissions. Please contact me at (972) 567-4630 should you have additional questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, Terri L. Anderson President, Anderson Capital, LLC

HTC No. 10003/09813, Champion Homes at Marina Landing (Carryover Documentation for 2009 Fwd Commitment) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §50.14(a) of the 2010 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “All Developments which received a Commitment Notice, and will not be placed in service and receive IRS Form 8609 in the year the Commitment Notice was issued, must submit the Carryover documentation to the Department no later than November 2 of the year in which the Commitment Notice is issued pursuant to §42(h)(I)(c) IRC”. The owner in this case submitted the carryover documentation on November 3, 2010 deadline. The reason given for the late submission was that the development owner officer’s were out of the office and unable to sign the carryover agreement by the November 2, 2010 deadline. However, had the owner requested this extension on November 2, 2010, it would not have required Board approval. It was not until staff notified the owner that the carryover was not received that the extension was requested. Additionally, due to the late carryover submission and pursuant to §49.9(a)(29)(A), the principals of the Applicant will be assessed a five (5) point penalty on any applications submitted by the Applicant under the 2011 application cycle. This rule was also in the 2010 QAP at §50.9(i)(30)(A). Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2010 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: Previous Extensions:

Chicory Court I, L.P. Chicory GP I, LLC Odyssey Residential Holdings, LP Saleem Jafar and James R Fisher Galveston/Galveston N/A Urban Acq/Rehab Family 256 HTC units $1,643,824 $6,421 $2,500 November 2, 2010 November 3, 2010 N/A

12

HTC No. 10178, Cypress Creek at Fayridge (Carryover Documentation) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §50.14(a) of the 2010 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “All Developments which received a Commitment Notice, and will not be placed in service and receive IRS Form 8609 in the year the Commitment Notice was issued, must submit the Carryover documentation to the Department no later than November 2 of the year in which the Commitment Notice is issued pursuant to §42(h)(I)(c) IRC”. The owner in this case submitted the carryover documentation on November 3, 2010 due to a development team oversight. The owner has requested that the five (5) point penalty on future year applications as a result of the late carryover submission be reduced to one (1) point based on the fact that the documentation was submitted one (1) day late of the original deadline. Staff recommends the enforcement of the five (5) point penalty on any applications submitted by the Applicant under the 2011 application cycle pursuant to §49.9(a)(28)(A). This rule was also in the 2010 QAP at §50.9(i)(30)(A). No partial waiver of the rule was contemplated in either QAP. Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2010 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: Previous Extensions:

Cypress Creek Fayridge, L.P. SSFP CCFD XVII, LLC SSFP CCFD XVII, LLC Stuart Shaw, Stuart Shaw Family Partnership, LTD, and Stuart Shaw Family Management, LLC Houston/Harris N/A Urban New Construction Family 256 HTC units $2,000,000 $6,421 $2,500 November 2, 2010 November 3, 2010 N/A

13

HTC No. 10143, Oak Creek Townhomes (Carryover Documentation) Summary of Request: Pursuant to §50.14(a) of the 2010 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules, “All Developments which received a Commitment Notice, and will not be placed in service and receive IRS Form 8609 in the year the Commitment Notice was issued, must submit the Carryover documentation to the Department no later than November 2 of the year in which the Commitment Notice is issued pursuant to §42(h)(I)(c) IRC”. The owner in this case submitted the carryover documentation approximately twenty (20) minutes after the 5:00 PM November 2, 2010 deadline. The reason given for the late submission was that the owner was submitting a total of five (5) carryovers and was waiting on some last minute items to complete their carryover documentation for this development. They indicated that they received the remaining items shortly before the 5:00 PM deadline and attempted to submit the carryover documentation five minutes prior to the deadline on the Department’s FTP site. However, due to the timing of their submission, they incurred some transmission difficulties, which led to the approximately twenty (20) minute late submission. The owner has requested a waiver of the five (5) point penalty associated with the late carryover submission. Staff recommends a waiver of the five (5) point penalty on any subsequent applications submitted by the Applicant under the 2011 application cycle because the Applicant provided evidence that they had attempted to submit the documentation prior to the deadline on the Department’s FTP site and was able to complete the submission shortly after the deadline. This is in accordance with §50.9(i)(30)(A) of the 2010 Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules Owner: General Partner: Developer: Principals/Interested Parties: City/County: Set-Aside: Type of Area: Type of Development: Population Served: Units: 2010 Allocation: Allocation per HTC Unit: Extension Request Fee Paid: Current Deadline: New Deadline Requested: Previous Extensions:

THF Marble Falls Redevelopment Ventures, L.P. THF Housing Development Corporation THF Development Company, LLC and Hamilton Valley Management, Inc. Mark Mayfield and Dennis Hoover Marble Falls/Burnet N/A Rural Reconstruction Family 80 HTC units $996,930 $12,462 $2,500 November 2, 2010 November 3, 2010 N/A 14

REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION Multifamily Finance Division Private Activity Bond Program – Waiting List 1 Priority 3 Application for 2011 Waiting List

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

TAB 1

TDHCA Board Presentation – December 17, 2010

TAB 2

Summary of Applications

TAB 3

Inducement Resolution

TAB 4

Map of Development Site

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010

Requested Action Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action of an Inducement Resolution for Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds and Authorization for Filing Applications for Private Activity Bond Authority – 2011 Waiting List. WHEREAS, the Board approval of the inducement resolution is the first step for the Board in the application process and, WHEREAS, the inducement allows staff to submit the application to the Bond Review Board (BRB) to await a Certificate of Reservation. It is hereby: RESOLVED, that the Inducement Resolution to proceed with application submission to the Texas Bond Review Board for possible receipt of State Volume Cap issuance authority from the 2011 Private Activity Bond Program for Chatham Green Apartments is hereby approved as presented at meeting. Background The Texas Bond Review Board (BRB) administers the state’s annual bond authority for the State of Texas. The Department is an issuer of Private Activity Bonds and each issuer’s Board is required to induce an application for bonds prior to the submission to the BRB. Approval of the inducement resolution does not constitute approval of the Development, but merely allows the Applicant the opportunity to move into the full application phase of the process. Once the application receives a reservation of allocation, the Applicant has 150 days to close on the private activity bond transaction. During the 150 day process, the Department will review the Applicant’s complete application for threshold and compliance with the Department’s Rules and is underwritten to determine financial feasibility. The Department will schedule and conduct a public hearing in the community of the proposed location of the development. The complete application including a transcript from the hearing will then be presented before the Board for a decision on the actual issuance of the bonds as well as the determination of housing tax credits. Each year, the State of Texas is notified of the cap on the amount of private activity tax-exempt revenue bonds that may be issued within the state. Approximately $440 million is set aside for multifamily until August 15th for the 2011 bond program year which includes the TDHCA set aside of approximately $98 million available for new 2011 applications. If the Board approves the Waiting List application listed below, it will be the first application for the 2011 program year submitted to the BRB. Inducement Resolution 11-014 includes one (1) application that was received on or before November 10, 2010. The application will reserve approximately $10 million in 2011 state volume cap. Upon Board approval to proceed, the application will be submitted to the Texas Bond Review Board for placement on the 2011 Waiting List. Board approval of the inducement resolution allows the Department to submit the applications to the Bond Review Board to await a reservation of allocation. Page 1 of 2

Chatham Green, App. #11600– The proposed acquisition and rehabilitation will consist of 234 units and will target the general population. It is located at 3532 Chatham Green Lane, Arlington, Tarrant County. Demographics for the census tract (1115.25) include AMFI of $56,202; the total population is 6,079; the percent of the population that is minority is 51.69%; the number of owner occupied units is 1,181; number of renter occupied units is 797; and the number of vacant units is 57 (Census Information from FFIEC Geocoding for 2010). Public Comment: The Department received a letter of support from Mayor Robert Cluck of Arlington and the Department has not received any letters of opposition.

Page 2 of 2

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs 2011 Multifamily Private Activity Bond Program - Waiting List Application # 11600

Development Information

Chatham Green Apartments 3532 Chatham Green Lane Priority 3 City: Arlington County: Tarrant Rehabilitation Totals for Recommended Applications

Printed 12/10/2010

Units 234 General

234

Bond Amount $

Developer Information

10,000,000 Chatham Renovation, LLC DeAnn Totta Score = 83.5 P.O. Box 34729 Kansas City, MO 64116 (816) 303-4500 $ 10,000,000

Multifamily Finance Division

Comments Recommend

Page 1 of 1

RESOLUTION NO. 11-014 RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO ISSUE MULTIFAMILY REVENUE BONDS WITH RESPECT TO RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DEVELOPMENT; AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF APPLICATION FOR ALLOCATION OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS WITH THE TEXAS BOND REVIEW BOARD; AND AUTHORIZING OTHER ACTION RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Department”) has been duly created and organized pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2306, Texas Government Code, as amended, (the “Act”) for the purpose, among others, of providing a means of financing the costs of residential ownership, development and rehabilitation that will provide decent, safe, and affordable living environments for persons and families of low, very low and extremely low income and families of moderate income (all as defined in the Act); and WHEREAS, the Act authorizes the Department: (a) to make mortgage loans to housing sponsors to provide financing for multifamily residential rental housing in the State of Texas (the “State”) intended to be occupied by persons and families of low, very low and extremely low income and families of moderate income, as determined by the Department; (b) to issue its revenue bonds, for the purpose, among others, of obtaining funds to make such loans and provide financing, to establish necessary reserve funds and to pay administrative and other costs incurred in connection with the issuance of such bonds; and (c) to pledge all or any part of the revenues, receipts or resources of the Department, including the revenues and receipts to be received by the Department from such multifamily residential rental development loans, and to mortgage, pledge or grant security interests in such loans or other property of the Department in order to secure the payment of the principal or redemption price of and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Department issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of providing financing for the multifamily residential rental development (the “Development”) more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The ownership of the Development as more fully described in Exhibit A will consist of the ownership entity and its principals or a related person (the “Owner”) within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and WHEREAS, the Owner has made not more than 60 days prior to the date hereof, payments with respect the Development and expects to make additional payments in the future and desires that it be reimbursed for such payments and other costs associated with the Development from the proceeds of taxexempt and taxable obligations to be issued by the Department subsequent to the date hereof; and WHEREAS, the Owner has indicated its willingness to enter into contractual arrangements with the Department providing assurance satisfactory to the Department that 100 percent of the units of the Development will be occupied at all times by eligible tenants, as determined by the Board pursuant to the Act (“Eligible Tenants”), that the other requirements of the Act and the Department will be satisfied and that the Development will satisfy State law, Section 142(d) and other applicable Sections of the Code and Treasury Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Department desires to reimburse the Owner for the costs associated with the Development listed on Exhibit A attached hereto, but solely from and to the extent, if any, of the proceeds of tax-exempt and taxable obligations to be issued in one or more series to be issued subsequent to the date hereof; and

December 17, 2010 Inducement Resolution

US 648590v.1

WHEREAS, at the request of the Owner, the Department reasonably expects to incur debt in the form of tax-exempt and taxable obligations for purposes of paying the costs of the Development described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed issuance of the Bonds (defined below), the Department, as issuer of the Bonds, is required to submit for the Development an Application for Allocation of Private Activity Bonds (the “Application”) with the Texas Bond Review Board (the “Bond Review Board”) with respect to the tax-exempt Bonds to qualify for the Bond Review Board’s Allocation Program in connection with the Bond Review Board’s authority to administer the allocation of the authority of the state to issue private activity bonds; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined to declare its intent to issue its multifamily revenue bonds for the purpose of providing funds to the Owner to finance the Development on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD THAT: Section 1--Certain Findings. The Board finds that: (a) the Development is necessary to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing at rentals that individuals or families of low and very low income and families of moderate income can afford; (b) the Owner will supply, in its Development, well-planned and well-designed housing for individuals or families of low and very low income and families of moderate income; (c)

the financing of the Development is a public purpose and will provide a public benefit;

(d)

the Owner is financially responsible; and

(e) the Development will be undertaken within the authority granted by the Act to the Department and the Owner. Section 2--Authorization of Issue. The Department declares its intent to issue its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) in amounts estimated to be sufficient to (a) fund a loan or loans to the Owner to provide financing for its Development in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed those amounts, corresponding to the Development, set forth in Exhibit A; (b) fund a reserve fund with respect to the Bonds if needed; and (c) pay certain costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. Such Bonds will be issued as qualified residential rental development bonds. Final approval of the Department to issue the Bonds shall be subject to: (i) the review by the Department’s credit underwriters for financial feasibility; (ii) review by the Department’s staff and legal counsel of compliance with federal income tax regulations and state law requirements regarding tenancy in each Development; (iii) approval by the Bond Review Board, if required; (iv) approval by the Attorney General of the State of Texas (the “Attorney General”); (v) satisfaction of the Board that each Development meets the Department’s public policy criteria; and (vi) the ability of the Department to issue such Bonds in compliance with all federal and state laws applicable to the issuance of such Bonds. Section 3--Terms of Bonds. The proposed Bonds shall be issuable only as fully registered bonds in authorized denominations to be determined by the Department; shall bear interest at a rate or rates to be determined by the Department; shall mature at a time to be determined by the Department but in no event later than 40 years after the date of issuance; and shall be subject to prior redemption upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Department. -2December 17, 2010 Inducement Resolution

US 648590v.1

Section 4--Reimbursement. The Department reasonably expects to reimburse the Owner for all costs that have been or will be paid subsequent to the date that is 60 days prior to the date hereof in connection with the acquisition of real property and construction of its Development and listed on Exhibit A attached hereto (“Costs of the Development”) from the proceeds of the Bonds, in an amount which is reasonably estimated to be sufficient: (a) to fund a loan to provide financing for the acquisition and construction or rehabilitation of its Development, including reimbursing the Owner for all costs that have been or will be paid subsequent to the date that is 60 days prior to the date hereof in connection with the acquisition and construction or rehabilitation of the Development; (b) to fund any reserves that may be required for the benefit of the holders of the Bonds; and (c) to pay certain costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. Section 5--Principal Amount. Based on representations of the Owner, the Department reasonably expects that the maximum principal amount of debt issued to reimburse the Owner for the costs of the Development will not exceed the amount set forth in Exhibit A which corresponds to the Development. Section 6--Limited Obligations. The Owner may commence with the acquisition and construction or rehabilitation of the Development, which Development will be in furtherance of the public purposes of the Department as aforesaid. On or prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the Owner will enter into a loan agreement on an installment payment basis with the Department under which the Department will make a loan to the Owner for the purpose of reimbursing the Owner for the costs of the Development and the Owner will make installment payments sufficient to pay the principal of and any premium and interest on the applicable Bonds. The proposed Bonds shall be special, limited obligations of the Department payable solely by the Department from or in connection with its loan or loans to the Owner to provide financing for the Development, and from such other revenues, receipts and resources of the Department as may be expressly pledged by the Department to secure the payment of the Bonds. Section 7--The Development. Substantially all of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be used to finance the Development, which is to be occupied entirely by Eligible Tenants, as determined by the Department, and which is to be occupied partially by persons and families of low income such that the requirements of Section 142(d) of the Code are met for the period required by the Code. Section 8--Payment of Bonds. The payment of the principal of and any premium and interest on the Bonds shall be made solely from moneys realized from the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse the Owner for costs of its Development. Section 9--Costs of Development. The Costs of the Development may include any cost of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, improving, installing and expanding the Development. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Costs of the Development shall specifically include the cost of the acquisition of all land, rights-of-way, property rights, easements and interests, the cost of all machinery and equipment, financing charges, inventory, raw materials and other supplies, research and development costs, interest prior to and during construction and for one year after completion of construction whether or not capitalized, necessary reserve funds, the cost of estimates and of engineering and legal services, plans, specifications, surveys, estimates of cost and of revenue, other expenses necessary or incident to determining the feasibility and practicability of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, improving and expanding the Development, administrative expenses and such other expenses as may be necessary or incident to the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement and expansion of the Development, the placing of the Development in operation and that satisfy the Code and the Act. The Owner shall be responsible for and pay any costs of its Development incurred by it prior to issuance of the Bonds and will pay all costs of its Development which are not or cannot be paid or reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds. -3December 17, 2010 Inducement Resolution

US 648590v.1

Section 10--No Commitment to Issue Bonds. Neither the Owner nor any other party is entitled to rely on this Resolution as a commitment to issue the Bonds and to loan funds, and the Department reserves the right not to issue the Bonds either with or without cause and with or without notice, and in such event the Department shall not be subject to any liability or damages of any nature. Neither the Owner nor any one claiming by, through or under the Owner shall have any claim against the Department whatsoever as a result of any decision by the Department not to issue the Bonds. Section 11--No Indebtedness of Certain Entities. The Board hereby finds, determines, recites and declares that the Bonds shall not constitute an indebtedness, liability, general, special or moral obligation or pledge or loan of the faith or credit or taxing power of the State, the Department or any other political subdivision or municipal or political corporation or governmental unit, nor shall the Bonds ever be deemed to be an obligation or agreement of any officer, director, agent or employee of the Department in his or her individual capacity, and none of such persons shall be subject to any personal liability by reason of the issuance of the Bonds. Section 12--Conditions Precedent. The issuance of the Bonds following final approval by the Board shall be further subject to, among other things: (a) the execution by the Owner and the Department of contractual arrangements providing assurance satisfactory to the Department that 100 percent of the units for each Development will be occupied at all times by Eligible Tenants, that all other requirements of the Act will be satisfied and that each Development will satisfy the requirements of Section 142(d) of the Code (except for portions to be financed with taxable bonds); (b) the receipt of an opinion from Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. or other nationally recognized bond counsel acceptable to the Department, substantially to the effect that the interest on the tax-exempt Bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes under existing law; and (c) receipt of the approval of the Bond Review Board, if required, and the Attorney General. Section 13--Certain Findings. The Board hereby finds, determines, recites and declares that the issuance of the Bonds to provide financing for the Development will promote the public purposes set forth in the Act, including, without limitation, assisting persons and families of low and very low income and families of moderate income to obtain decent, safe and sanitary housing at rentals they can afford. Section 14--Authorization to Proceed. The Board hereby authorizes staff, Bond Counsel and other consultants to proceed with preparation of the Development’s necessary review and legal documentation for the filing of an Application for the 2011 program year and the issuance of the Bonds, subject to satisfaction of the conditions specified in Section 2(i) and (ii) hereof. The Board further authorizes staff, Bond Counsel and other consultants to re-submit an Application that was withdrawn by an Owner so long as the Application is re-submitted within the current or following program year. Section 15--Related Persons. The Department acknowledges that financing of all or any part of the Development may be undertaken by any company or partnership that is a “related person” to the respective Owner within the meaning of the Code and applicable regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, including any entity controlled by or affiliated with the Owner. Section 16--Declaration of Official Intent. This Resolution constitutes the Department’s official intent for expenditures on Costs of the Development which will be reimbursed out of the issuance of the Bonds within the meaning of Sections 1.142-4(b) and 1.150-2, Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, as amended, and applicable rulings of the Internal Revenue Service thereunder, to the end that the Bonds issued to reimburse Costs of the Development may qualify for the exemption provisions of Section 142 of the Code, and that the interest on the Bonds (except for any taxable Bonds) will therefore be excludable from the gross incomes of the holders thereof under the provisions of Section 103(a)(1) of the Code. -4December 17, 2010 Inducement Resolution

US 648590v.1

Section 17--Authorization of Certain Actions. The Department hereby authorizes the filing of and directs the filing of the Application in such form presented to the Board with the Bond Review Board and each director of the Board are hereby severally authorized and directed to execute the Application on behalf of the Department and to cause the same to be filed with the Bond Review Board. Section 18--Books and Records. The Board hereby directs this Resolution to be made a part of the Department’s books and records that are available for inspection by the general public. Section 19--Notice of Meeting. Written notice of the date, hour and place of the meeting of the Board at which this Resolution was considered and of the subject of this Resolution was furnished to the Secretary of State and posted on the Internet for at least seven (7) days preceding the convening of such meeting; that during regular office hours a computer terminal located in a place convenient to the public in the office of the Secretary of State was provided such that the general public could view such posting; that such meeting was open to the public as required by law at all times during which this Resolution and the subject matter hereof was discussed, considered and formally acted upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended; and that written notice of the date, hour and place of the meeting of the Board and of the subject of this Resolution was published in the Texas Register at least seven (7) days preceding the convening of such meeting, as required by the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, Chapters 2001 and 2002, Texas Government Code, as amended. Additionally, all of the materials made available to the Board relevant to the subject of this Resolution were posted on the Department’s website not later than the third day before the date of the meeting of the Board at which this Resolution was considered, and any documents made available to the Board by the Department on the day of the meeting were also made available in hard-copy format to the members of the public in attendance at the meeting, as required by Section 2306.032, Texas Government Code, as amended. Section 20—Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and upon its adoption. [Execution page follows]

-5December 17, 2010 Inducement Resolution

US 648590v.1

PASSED AND APPROVED this 17th day of December, 2010.

[SEAL] By: Chairman, Governing Board Attest: Secretary to the Governing Board

-6December 17, 2010 Inducement Resolution

US 648590v.1

EXHIBIT “A” Description of the Owner and the Development Project Name Chatham Green Apartments

Owner

Principals

Amount Not to Exceed

Chatham Renovation, L.L.C., a Missouri limited liability company, or other entity

The managing member is SLCas, L.L.C., a Missouri limited liability company, or other entity. McDowell Investments, L.P., or other entity, will own approximately a 99% membership interest in Chatham Renovation, L.L.C.

$10,000,000

Costs: Acquisition and rehabilitation of a multifamily housing development known as Chatham Green Apartments, located at approximately 3532 Chatham Green Lane, Arlington, Tarrant County, Texas.

December 17, 2010 Inducement Resolution

US 648590v.1

XMap® 7

Data use subject to license.

Scale 1 : 37,500

TN 0

© DeLorme. XMap® 7. www.delorme.com

MN (4.2°E)

0

¼ ¼

½ ½

1" = 3,125.0 ft

¾

¾ 1

1

mi km

Data Zoom 12-4

December 8, 2010 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Multifamily Finance Division P.O. Box 13941 Austin, Texas 78711-3941 Attention: Raquel Morales, HTC Program Administrator Re:

Chatham Renovation, L.L.C. Private Activity Bonds and Low Income Housing Tax Credit application 3532 Chatham Green Lane, Arlington, TX 76014

Dear Ms. Morales: This is in reference to the application submitted to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs by Chatham Renovation, L.L.C. for Private Activity Bonds and Low Income Housing Tax Credits to rehabilitate the 234 unit multi-family apartment development known as Chatham Green Apartments located in Arlington, Texas. A representative of the developer, Ms. DeAnn M. Totta notified the City of Arlington about their intentions to apply for low income housing tax credits and we have met and discussed their plans to renovate the Chatham Green Apartments. Please be advised that I support the applicant’s plan to invest over $3.4 million in the rehabilitation of the Chatham Green Apartments and the developer’s application to your agency for private activity bonds and low income housing tax credits to secure the necessary funding to accomplish their plan. The City of Arlington supports the developer’s plan to improve the physical condition and livability of the Chatham Green Apartments to benefit their existing and future residents and the surrounding neighborhoods. If you have questions or require additional information please contact Mr. David Zappasodi, Assistant Director of Community Services at (817) 276-6790. Sincerely,

Dr. Robert Cluck Mayor City of Arlington

CC:

DeAnn M. Totta, Manager SLCas, L.L.C., 104 Armour Road, North Kansas City, Missouri 64116

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Requested Action Approve the Release and Termination Agreement for Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds Sphinx at Delafield Series 2004. WHEREAS, the Department issued $11,915,000 in tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds in 2004 to the Sphinx at Delafield development in Dallas, Texas to construct 204 units of affordable multifamily rental housing, and WHEREAS, the bonds were collateralized with Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) securities, and WHEREAS, Fannie Mae would like to terminate the bond issue and take ownership of the underlying GNMA securities due to the devaluation of the tax-exemption relating to the bonds and the current market for the GNMA securities.

It is hereby: RESOLVED, that the Release and Termination Agreement and Resolution 11-016 for Sphinx at Delafield is hereby approved as presented to this meeting. Summary of the Transaction Sphinx at Delafield, a 204 unit Development located in Dallas was issued $11,915,000 in tax exempt bonds through the Department in 2004 and is a Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) Collateralized Mortgage Loan. Due to the devaluation of the tax-exemption relating to the bonds and the current market for the GNMA security Fannie Mae would like to terminate the bond issue and take ownership of the underlying GNMA security. In exchange for the Borrower’s consent to the Termination, Fannie Mae has negotiated a fee of 0.75% of the total bonds outstanding, currently at $10,915,000 and has also agreed to cover bond counsel and issuer expenses in conjunction with the bond termination which is currently estimated at $52,500. In exchange for the Issuer’s consent to the Termination, Fannie Mae indicated they would pay present value of the Issuer’s Administration Fee up to the first optional redemption date of 2014. Assuming a 1% discount rate this would result in a payment of approximately $41,000. Even though the GNMA is callable in four years, the Department, acting through its Financial Advisor, presented Fannie Mae with a counterproposal calculating the Issuer Fee to the end of the initial compliance period of 2020 since this would be the first opportunity the partnership would have to re-structure given the timely exit of the limited partner. The counterproposal proposed using a present value rate equal to the 5-year Treasury rate. In today’s market, the 5-year is in the 1.25% range which would generate approximately $95,881 in upfront Issuer Fee. Fannie Mae’s response was to split the difference whereby the Department would give up three years of Issuer fee and Fannie Mae would take on 3 years of risk on the optional redemption date, up to 2017, resulting in a present value of approximately $70,000. In evaluating this proposal as well as the anticipated fee negotiated to the Borrower in exchange for their consent, the Department was not comfortable with receiving a lesser fee for its consent in comparison to that of the Borrower. Further negotiations with the Borrower resulted in an equal fee to the Department and the Borrower in the amount of $80,685. Page 1 of 2

Additionally, as part of the counterproposal, the Department is requesting compensation for any Rebate Obligation and/or cost of Rebate Analysis to be paid at the time of the settlement. While we expect the Rebate Obligation to be $0, a Rebate Analyst would still need to be engaged for confirmation; therefore the estimated fee for the Rebate Analyst is included in the estimate above. These computations are required per the Indenture and necessary prior to terminating the Indenture. It should be noted that even though the bond issue will be terminated, per the Regulatory Agreement the Development is still within the Qualified Project Period. As a result, the annual bond compliance fee of $25/unit will still be payable to the Department. Such fee is noted in the Release and Termination Agreement. The anticipated Termination Date is on or before December 31, 2010; however a deadline to execute has not been established.

Page 2 of 2

RESOLUTION NO. 11-016 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A RELEASE AND TERMINATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (GNMA COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE LOAN—SPHINX AT DELAFIELD) SERIES 2004 WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Issuer”) has been duly created and organized pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 2306, Texas Government Code, as amended (the “Act”), for the purpose, among others, of providing a means of financing the costs of residential ownership, development and rehabilitation that will provide decent, safe, and affordable living environments for individuals and families of low, very low and extremely low income (as defined in the Act) and families of moderate income (as defined in the Act and determined by the Governing Board of the Issuer (the “Board”) from time to time); and WHEREAS, the Issuer previously issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan—Sphinx at Delafield) Series 2004 (the “Bonds”) pursuant to the terms and provisions of that certain Trust Indenture dated as of July 1, 2004 (the “Indenture”), between the Issuer and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”); and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds were loaned by the Issuer to St. Augustine Villas Housing, L.P. (the “Borrower”) for the purpose of financing a multifamily housing development located in Dallas, Texas, pursuant to that certain Loan Agreement dated as of July 1, 2004 among the Issuer, the Borrower, the Trustee and Malone Mortgage Company, America, Ltd., as lender (the “Lender”); and WHEREAS, the Issuer, Fannie Mae, as owner of 100% in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, the Borrower and the Trustee now desire to enter into a Release and Termination Agreement in order to provide for the release and discharge of the Indenture and the disposition of the Trust Estate thereunder (the “Termination Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Issuer now desires to take certain actions with respect to the Termination Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS THAT: Section 1. The Termination Agreement, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and approved by counsel to the Issuer, is hereby approved and adopted by the Issuer, and the Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized and empowered to execute and deliver the Termination Agreement on behalf of the Issuer, with such changes as may be approved by the Issuer’s counsel and the officer executing the same, such approval to be evidenced by such officer’s execution thereof. Section 2. The actions and obligations of the Issuer authorized in Section 1 of this resolution shall be conditioned upon the delivery to the Issuer of evidence satisfactory to it of written consent to the Termination Agreement by Fannie Mae, the Trustee, the Borrower, and KeyCorp Real Estate Capital Markets, as assignee of the Lender (and to the extent of any variance in the terms of the Termination Agreement presented to the Board, evidence of the approval of such variance those parties by their execution of such Termination Agreement).

US 608861V.1

Section 3. The officers of the Board and the employees and agents of the Issuer, and each of them, shall be and each is expressly authorized, empowered and directed from time to time and at any time to do and perform all acts and things and to execute, acknowledge and deliver in the name and under the corporate seal and on behalf of the Issuer all certificates, financing statements, instruments and other documents, whether or not herein mentioned, as they may determine to be necessary or desirable in order to carry out the terms and provisions of this resolution, as well as the terms and provisions of the Termination Agreement, such determination to be conclusively evidenced by the performance of such acts and things and the execution of any such certificate, financing statement, instrument or other document. Section 4. Written notice of the date, hour and place of the meeting of the Board at which this Resolution was considered and of the subject of this Resolution was furnished to the Secretary of State and posted on the Internet for at least seven (7) days preceding the convening of such meeting; that during regular office hours a computer terminal located in a place convenient to the public in the office of the Secretary of State was provided such that the general public could view such posting; that such meeting was open to the public as required by law at all times during which this Resolution and the subject matter hereof was discussed, considered and formally acted upon, all as required by the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended; and that written notice of the date, hour and place of the meeting of the Board and of the subject of this Resolution was published in the Texas Register at least seven (7) days preceding the convening of such meeting, as required by the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, Chapters 2001 and 2002, Texas Government Code, as amended. Additionally, all of the materials made available to the Board relevant to the subject of this Resolution were posted on the Department’s website not later than the third day before the date of the meeting of the Board at which this Resolution was considered, and any documents made available to the Board by the Department on the day of the meeting were also made available in hard-copy format to the members of the public in attendance at the meeting, as required by Section 2306.032, Texas Government Code, as amended. Section 5.

This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and upon its adoption.

(Execution page follows)

-2US 608861v.1

PASSED AND APPROVED this 17th day of December, 2010.

Chairman, Governing Board ATTEST:

Secretary to the Governing Board

(SEAL)

-3US 608861v.1

RELEASE AND TERMINATION AGREEMENT

among

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, FANNIE MAE, ST. AUGUSTINE VILLAS HOUSING, L.P. and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee

Relating to Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan—Sphinx at Delafield) Series 2004 _____________________________________________

Dated as of December __, 2010

US 601231v.3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Parties...............................................................................................................................................1 Recitals.............................................................................................................................................1 ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION Section 1.01 Section 1.02 Section 1.03 Section 1.04 Section 1.05

Definitions..........................................................................................................1 Effect of Headings and Table of Contents. ........................................................2 Severability. .......................................................................................................2 Benefits of Termination Agreement; Assignment. ............................................2 Governing Law. .................................................................................................2 ARTICLE II RELEASE AND TERMINATION

Section 2.01 Section 2.02 Section 2.03 Section 2.04 Section 2.05

Release and Discharge of Indenture. .................................................................2 Termination of Loan Agreement. ......................................................................3 No Termination of Regulatory Agreement. .......................................................3 Transfer of Project Loan Certificate and Other Amounts. .................................3 Further Assurances.............................................................................................3

Signatures.........................................................................................................................................4

US 601231v.3

(i)

THIS RELEASE AND TERMINATION AGREEMENT (this “Termination Agreement”) dated as of December __, 2010, is among TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (the “Issuer”), FANNIE MAE, as owner of 100% in aggregate principal amount of the Bonds (defined below), ST. AUGUSTINE VILLAS HOUSING, L.P. (the “Borrower”) and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee (the “Trustee”) under the Indenture (defined below). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Issuer previously issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (GNMA Collateralized Mortgage Loan—Sphinx at Delafield) Series 2004 (the “Bonds”) pursuant to the terms and provisions of that certain Trust Indenture dated as of July 1, 2004 (the “Indenture”), between the Issuer and the Trustee; and WHEREAS, Fannie Mae has surrendered the Bonds to the Trustee for cancellation in order to provide for the satisfaction and discharge of the Indenture and the transfer of the Project Loan Certificate (as defined in the Indenture) to Fannie Mae, all on the terms and conditions set forth herein; and WHEREAS, there is on deposit with the Trustee funds sufficient to pay the amounts set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto have each duly authorized the execution and delivery of this Termination Agreement in order to provide for the release and discharge of the Indenture and the disposition of the Trust Estate thereunder, and all things have been done which are necessary to constitute this Termination Agreement a valid release and discharge of the Indenture; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, and subject to the conditions herein set forth, the parties hereto covenant, agree, and bind themselves as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION Section 1.01 Definitions. For all purposes of this Termination Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires: (a) The terms defined in the recitals hereto have the meanings assigned to them in such recitals and all such terms include the plural as well as the singular. (b) All references in this instrument to designated “Articles,” “Sections” and other provisions are to the designated Articles, Sections, and other provisions of this instrument as originally executed.

US 601231v.3

(c) The words “herein,” “hereof” and “hereunder” and other words of similar import refer to this Termination Agreement as a whole and not to any particular Article, Section, or other subdivision. (d) Terms used herein with initial letters capitalized and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Indentures. Section 1.02 Effect of Headings and Table of Contents. The Article and Section headings herein and in the Table of Contents are for convenience only and shall not affect the construction hereof. Section 1.03 Severability. In case any provision of this Termination Agreement or any application hereof shall be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions and applications shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 1.04 Benefits of Termination Agreement; Assignment. Nothing in this Termination Agreement, expressed or implied, shall give any benefit or any legal or equitable right, remedy, or claim under this Termination Agreement to any person or entity, other than the parties hereto and their successors hereunder. No party hereto may assign its rights or obligations hereunder to any other person or entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto, except as otherwise provided in the Indenture. Section 1.05 Governing Law. THE VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION, ENFORCEMENT, AND INTERPRETATION OF THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT AND ANY CLAIM, CONTROVERSY, OR DISPUTE ARISING UNDER OR RELATED TO THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT OR THE RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES HERETO, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES THEREOF REGARDING CONFLICT OF LAWS. ARTICLE II RELEASE AND TERMINATION Section 2.01 Release and Discharge of Indenture. The Trustee hereby acknowledges that all sums payable under the Indenture have been paid, and hereby releases and discharges the Indenture, and all liens, security agreements, assignments, mortgages, agreements, and covenants created or incurred by the Issuer thereunder have ceased, determined and become null and void.

US 601231v.3

-2-

Section 2.02 Termination of Loan Agreement. Pursuant to Section 7.6 of the Loan Agreement, the parties hereto acknowledge the termination of the Loan Agreement, provided that the covenants and provisions relating to the Unassigned Issuer Rights, the obligation of the Borrower to pay the Issuer Compliance Fee, and the covenants relating to the preservation of exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for purposes of federal income taxation set forth under Section 2.4 and any other such covenants set forth in the Loan Agreement shall survive such termination. Except for the reservation of rights under the covenants and provisions referred to in the preceding sentence, neither the Trustee, the Issuer nor Fannie Mae shall have any rights under the Loan Agreement except such rights as may have vested or arisen from the Borrower’s obligations under Sections 4.1, 5.10 and 5.11 of the Loan Agreement. During the State Restrictive Period, the Borrower agrees to pay the Issuer Compliance Fee in the amount of $25 per unit in the Project per year payable annually in advance on each July 20. The Issuer Compliance Fee shall be paid to Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Attention: Financial Services Division, P.O. Box 13941, Austin, TX 78701. Section 2.03 No Termination of Regulatory Agreement. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding the release and discharge of the Indenture and the termination of the Loan Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until it is terminated pursuant to its terms. Section 2.04 Transfer of Project Loan Certificate and Other Amounts. (a) The Trustee is hereby directed (i) to transfer ownership of the Project Loan Certificate, and pay to Fannie Mae any amounts it has received with respect thereto since July 20, 2010, or any such amounts it receives hereafter, to Fannie Mae, (ii) to pay the amounts to the Persons indicated in Exhibit A, and (iii) after payment of the amounts described in the preceding clause, to transfer any amounts remaining in the Trust Estate to the Borrower. (b) The Trustee confirms that the amounts set forth on Exhibit B are all the payments it has received in respect of the Project Loan Certificate since July 20, 2010. Section 2.05 Further Assurances. The parties hereto shall, from time to time, execute and deliver such other releases, termination statements and other instruments as reasonably may be requested to evidence the release and discharge of the Indenture, the termination of the Loan Agreement and the release and termination of all liens, security interests, assignments, mortgages, agreements or covenants created under or by the Indenture. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

US 601231v.3

-3-

This Termination Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. This written Termination Agreement represents the final agreement between the parties and may not be contradicted by evidence of prior, contemporaneous, or subsequent oral agreements of the parties. There are no unwritten oral agreements between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Termination Agreement to be duly executed all as of the date first written above. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

By: Authorized Officer FANNIE MAE

By: Authorized Officer ST. AUGUSTINE VILLAS HOUSING, L.P. By: St. Augustine Villas Development, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company, its general partner By: Jay O. Oji, Manager WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee By: Authorized Officer KeyCorp Real Estate Capital Markets, Inc., as assignee of Malone Mortgage Company America, Ltd., hereby acknowledges this Termination Agreement and consents to the termination of the Loan Agreement effected hereby. KEYCORP REAL ESTATE CAPITAL MARKETS, INC. By: _______________________________ Authorized Officer Signature Page to Release and Termination Agreement US 601231v.3

EXHIBIT A

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. St. Augustine Villas Housing, L.P. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Raymond James & Associates, Inc. Bond Logistix

US 601231v.3

$80,685 $22,500 $80,685 $5,000 $20,000 $3,000

EXHIBIT B

Project Loan Certificate Payment Date

Principal Amount Received

8/15/2010 9/15/2010 10/15/2010 11/15/2010 12/15/2010 Total:

$9,149.05 9,192.38 9,235.82 9,279.38 9,323.26 $46,179.89

US 601231v.3

Interest Amount Received $49,434.21 49,392.88 49,351.36 49,309.65 49,267.74 $246,755.84

Total Payment Amount Received $58,583.26 58,585.26 58,587.18 58,589.03 58,591.00 $292,935.73

HOME PROGRAM DIVISON BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010

Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action to Ratify HOME Program Reservation System Participants approved by the Executive Director. RESOLVED, that thirteen HOME Program Reservation System Participants, City of Gladewater, City of Corsicana, City of Belton, City of McKinney, City of Jacksonville, City of Midland, City of Wortham, City of Huntsville, San Benito Housing Authority, Buckner Children and Family Services, Inc. dba Buckner Family Place, City of Taylor, City of Waxahachie, and Paris Living Community Development Corporation are hereby ratified and approved as presented to this meeting. Background On September 9, 2010 the Board approved the HOME Program Rule at 10 TAC Chapter 53 and it was published in the Texas Register on September 24, 2010. The adopted rule includes a provision for a new allocation method for eligible Applicants to access HOME funds through a Reservation System. In accordance with the applicable provisions, forty Contract Administrators that currently have an active HOME contract submitted requests to become Reservation System Participants (RSPs). The Board ratified twenty one RSPs at the November 10, 2010 Board Meeting. As listed in the chart below, thirteen requests have completed the review process and Reservation System Participant Agreements have been approved by the Department’s Executive Director.

RSP Agreement Number

Contract Administrator Name

HOME Program Activity

2010-0022

City of Gladewater

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance

2010-0023

City of Corsicana

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance

2010-0024

City of Belton

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance

2010-0025

City of McKinney

Homeowner Rehabilitation Homebuyer Assistance

2010-0026

City of Jacksonville

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance

2010-0027

City of Midland

Homeowner Rehabilitation

1 of 2

Homebuyer Assistance 2010-0028

City of Wortham

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance

2010-0029

City of Huntsville

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance

2010-0030

San Benito Housing Authority

Homeowner Rehabilitation Homebuyer Assistance

2010-0031

Buckner Children and Family Services, Inc., dba Buckner Family Place

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

2010-0032

City of Taylor

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance

2010-0033

City of Waxahachie

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Homebuyer Assistance

2010-0034

Paris Living Community Development Corporation

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Homebuyer Assistance

The RSP approvals being presented for ratification are currently being reviewed by the Compliance and Asset Oversight Division for issues of material non-compliance, unresolved audit findings, or questioned or disallowed costs. After clearance is received, the RSP Agreements will be sent to the RSP for execution.

2 of 2

HOME PROGRAM DIVISON BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010

Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on HOME Program Multifamily Development Award Recommendations. WHEREAS, the Board approved forward commitments of tax credits to transactions also requesting HOME funds which are now eligible for such HOME funds, be it hereby: RESOLVED, that the award of contracts for development of Ashton Senior Village and Las Brisas Manor, totaling $3,293,888 in project funds and $50,000 in CHDO operating expense funds, subject to the conditions of the underwriting report, is hereby approved as presented to this meeting. Background On September 9, 2010, the Board approved a revised HOME MFD NOFA, making $18,218,765 available for the development of affordable multifamily rental housing. The Board concurrently awarded $1,000,000 from this NOFA to two applications under the Persons with Disabilities SetAside which had previously received 9% tax credit allocations. The applications recommended for award today were transferred from the previous RHD NOFA. Las Brisas Manor is requesting funding under the General Set-Aside, while Ashton Senior Village is requesting funding under the CHDO Set-Aside. Las Brisas Manor received a 9% tax credit allocation in the 2010 round, and Ashton Senior Village received a forward commitment for a 9% tax credit allocation at the September Board meeting. HOME funds are being requested to fill gaps in financing. 2010 funding made available under the General and CHDO Set-Asides in this NOFA was subject to the Regional Allocation Formula (RAF) until November 30, 2010. The Department received no applications for HOME MFD funds during this time period, and funds are now available statewide. Staff recommends these applications are awarded using funds available under the General SetAside and the CHDO Set-Aside. The award recommendations have been reviewed by the Compliance and Asset Oversight Division, and no issues of material non-compliance, unresolved audit findings or questioned or disallowed costs have been identified. In addition, the Real Estate Analysis Division has completed underwriting for both projects, and Ashton Senior Village has completed the Department’s CHDO certification process.

1 of 2

If the recommended applications are awarded, $6,414,104 will remain available under the General Set-Aside, with $4,539,074 available under the CHDO Set-Aside and $179,691 available under PWD Set-Aside. The application acceptance period ends on April 29, 2011. Attached are the Application and Award Recommendations Logs and the underwriting reports.

2 of 2

Thursday, December 02, 2010

2010 HOME Multifamily Development Program - Application Log Application Acceptance Period: 9/10/2010 to 4/29/2011 Total Funding Amount: $18,218,765

Total Set-Aside Funding Level*: $10,500,000 Available Balance: $7,707,992

General Set-Aside File #

Reg.

Received By Date

Development Name

City

10039

4

2/23/2010

Paris Retirement Village II

Paris

NC

19

80

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$1,850,000

N

$0

Under Review

10223

11

2/25/2010

Sunset Terrace Senior Village

Pharr

NC

22

80

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$2,000,000

N

$0

Under Review

10033

4

2/26/2010

Sulphur Springs Pioneer Crossing for Seniors

Sulphur Springs

NC

20

80

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

N

$0

$0

Awarded 11/10/2010

10262

11

3/1/2010

Las Brisas Manor

Del Rio

NC

15

48

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$1,293,888

$1,293,888

N

$0

$0

Pending Award 12/17/2010

10257

3

3/1/2010

The Colony at Lake Granbury

Granbury

NC

16

80

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$990,000

N

$0

10151

11

3/2/2010

Sunflower Estates

La Feria

NC

16

80

General

Yes

No

No

$792,008

N

$0

10121

9

3/16/2010

Mesquite Place

Pearsall

NC

16

80

General

Yes

No

No

$1,300,000

N

$0

Under Review

10132

10

3/22/2010

Seaside Manor

Ingleside

NC

20

100

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$550,000

N

$0

Under Review

10023

2

3/26/2010

NC

20

80

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$2,000,000

N

$0

Under Review

10235

7

4/1/2010

NC

22

36

General

Yes

No

No

$2,000,000

N

$0

Under Review

186

744

Total HOME Applications

Burkburnett Pioneer Burkburnett Crossing for Seniors Villas of Giddings

10

Giddings

Housing Reqstd Total Target(2) Actvty(1) HOME Units Population Units

Unit Totals:

Layering (3) Requested Awarded / CHDO Requested Awarded / 9% 4% HTF Project Funds Recommended CHDO Funds Recommended Project Funds CHDO Funds

$14,775,896

Fund Totals:

$792,008

$4,085,896

$0

Under Review

$0

File #

Reg.

Received By Date

Development Name

City

10137

3

1/29/2010

Evergreen at Wylie

Wylie

Housing Reqstd Total Target(2) Actvty(1) HOME Units Population Units

NC

32

160

Elderly

Layering (3) Requested Awarded / CHDO Requested Awarded / 9% 4% HTF Project Funds Recommended CHDO Funds Recommended Project Funds CHDO Funds

Yes

No

No

$2,000,000

Y

$50,000

Awarded 11/10/2010

$0

Total Set-Aside Funding Level: Available Balance:

CHDO Set-Aside

Status

$6,539,074 $6,539,074 Status

Under Review

Sorted by Date and Time Received 1 = Housing Activity: New Construction=NC, Rehabilitation = R 2 = Target Population Abbreviation: Intergenerational=Intg 3 = Layering of Other Department Active Applications: 9%=9% Competitive Tax Credits, 4%=4% Tax Credit Program, HTF = Housing Trust Fund

Page 1 of 2 3:59 PM

File #

Reg.

Received By Date

Development Name

City

10040

9

2/22/2010

Ashton Senior Village

Schertz

NC

10059

3

3/1/2010

Westway Place

Corsicana

NC

10050

3

3/1/2010

West Park Senior Housing

Corsicana

NC

10241

5

3/10/2010

Timberland Trails Apts

Lufkin

R

Total HOME Applications

5

Housing Reqstd Total Target(2) Actvty(1) HOME Units Population Units

Unit Totals:

36

Layering (3) Requested Awarded / CHDO Requested Awarded / 9% 4% HTF Project Funds Recommended CHDO Funds Recommended Project Funds CHDO Funds

176

Elderly

Yes

No

No

$2,000,000

40

General

Yes

No

No

25

48

Elderly

Yes

No

31

80

General

Yes

No

124

504

Y

$50,000

$1,200,000

Y

$0

Under Review

No

$1,025,000

Y

$50,000

Under Review

No

$2,000,000

Y

$0

Under Review

$8,225,000

Fund Totals:

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$150,000

Pending Award 12/17/2010

$50,000

Total Set-Aside Funding Level: $1,179,691 Available Balance: $179,691

PWD Set-Aside File #

Reg.

Received By Date

Development Name

City

10093

3

3/1/2010

Greenhaus at East Side Apts

Dallas

NC

13

24

General

Yes

No

No

$500,000

10126

5

3/11/2010

Auburn Square

Vidor

NC

8

80

General

Yes

No

No

$500,000

10153

3

3/31/2010

Britain Way

Irving

R

17

168

General

Yes

No

No

38

272

Total HOME Applications

$50,000

Status

3

Housing Reqstd Total Target(2) Actvty(1) HOME Units Population Units

Unit Totals:

Layering (3) Requested Awarded / CHDO Requested Awarded / 9% 4% HTF Project Funds Recommended CHDO Funds Recommended Project Funds CHDO Funds

Fund Totals:

Status

N

$0

Under Review

$500,000

N

$0

$0

Awarded 9/9/2010

$500,000

$500,000

N

$0

$0

Awarded 9/9/2010

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$0

$0

Sorted by Date and Time Received 1 = Housing Activity: New Construction=NC, Rehabilitation = R 2 = Target Population Abbreviation: Intergenerational=Intg 3 = Layering of Other Department Active Applications: 9%=9% Competitive Tax Credits, 4%=4% Tax Credit Program, HTF = Housing Trust Fund

Page 2 of 2 3:59 PM

Friday, December 03, 2010

2010 HOME Multifamily Development Program - Award Recommendations Application Acceptance Period: 9/10/2010 to 4/29/2011 Total NOFA Amount: $18,218,765

Total Set-Aside Funding Level: Available Balance:

General Set-Aside File #

Reg.

Received By Date

Development Name

City

10262

11

3/1/2010

Las Brisas Manor

Del Rio

Total HOME Applications

1

Housing Reqstd Total Target(2) Actvty(1) HOME Units Population Units

NC

Unit Totals:

15

48

15

48

Elderly

Layering (3) Requested Awarded / CHDO Requested Awarded / 9% 4% HTF Project Funds Recommended CHDO Funds Recommended Project Funds CHDO Funds

Yes

No

No

Fund Totals:

$1,293,888

$1,293,888

$1,293,888

$1,293,888

N

$0

$0

$0

Status

Pending Award 12/17/2010

Total Set-Aside Funding Level: Available Balance:

CHDO Set-Aside File #

Reg.

Received By Date

Development Name

City

10040

9

2/22/2010

Ashton Senior Village

Schertz

Total HOME Applications

$0

1

Housing Reqstd Total Target(2) Actvty(1) HOME Units Population Units

NC

Unit Totals:

36

176

36

176

Elderly

Layering (3) Requested Awarded / CHDO Requested Awarded / 9% 4% HTF Project Funds Recommended CHDO Funds Recommended Project Funds CHDO Funds

Yes

No

Fund Totals:

No

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

Y

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$10,500,000 $7,707,992

$6,539,074 $6,539,074 Status

Pending Award 12/17/2010

Sorted by Date and Time Received 1 = Housing Activity: New Construction=NC, Rehabilitation = R 2 = Target Population Abbreviation: Intergenerational=Intg 3 = Layering of Other Department Active Applications: 9%=9% Competitive Tax Credits, 4%=4% Tax Credit Program, HTF = Housing Trust Fund

Page 1 of 1 9:28 AM

Real Estate Analysis Division Underwriting Report

REPORT DATE:

06/14/10

PROGRAM:

HTC 9%/HOME

FILE NUMBER:

10040

DEVELOPMENT

Ashton Senior Village Location:

SE corner of Borgfeld Rd & FM 3009 (Roy Richard Dr.)

City: Schertz Key Attributes:

County: Guadalupe

9

Region: Zip:

78154

QCT

DDA

Elderly, New Construction, Urban, CHDO

ALLOCATION REQUEST TDHCA Program

Amount $2,000,000

HOME Activity Funds HOME CHDO Operating Expenses Housing Tax Credit (Annual)

RECOMMENDATION

Interest Amort/Term 0.00%

35/18

Amount

Interest

Amort/Term

Lien Position

$2,000,000

0.00%

35/18

2nd

$50,000

$50,000

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

CONDITIONS 1 Receipt Receipt, review review, and acceptance by commitment of evidence of the appropriate zoning change or a variance for the proposed development from the City. 2 Receipt, review, and acceptance, before the 10% Test, of documentation that a comprehensive noise assessment has been completed to determine the requirements for the proposed development to satisfy HUD guidelines, and that any subsequent recommendations have been incorporated into the development plans. 3 Receipt, review and acceptance by commitment that the use of the HUD Utility model for the Subject has been approved by the Department, with allowances between $77 and $102 for 1BR units and between $94 and $131 for 2BR units, or alternatively confirmation that the Schertz Housing Authority utility allowances will be used. 4 Receipt, review, and acceptance, by Cost Certification, of documentation that all noise assessment recommendations were implemented. 5 Should the terms and rates of the proposed debt or syndication change, the transaction should be re-evaluated and an adjustment to the credit allocation amount may be warranted.

SALIENT ISSUES TDHCA SET-ASIDES for LURA

Income Limit 30% of AMI 50% of AMI 60% of AMI

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Rent Limit 30% of AMI 50% of AMI 60% of AMI

Page 1 of 16

Number of Units 27 62 87

printed: 6/14/2010

STRENGTHS/MITIGATING FACTORS ▫ The three nearest senior HTC properties report occupancies of 100%, 95%, and 90%.

WEAKNESSES/RISKS ▫ The overall occupancy in the PMA is 89%.

▫ The principals of the Applicant have experience developing and owning 776 Housing Tax Credit units.

▫ 64% of the units are 2BR. Of the 15 vacant units at the three nearest senior HTC properties, 12 (or 80%) are 2BR units.

▫ Proposed rents are on average 37% lower than market rents. ▫ Unit capture rates for all unit types are 17% or lower.

PREVIOUS UNDERWRITING REPORTS No previous reports.

DEVELOPMENT TEAM OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 2 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

CONTACT Contact:

Colby Denison

Phone:

Email:

[email protected]

(512) 732-1226

Fax:

(512) 732-1276

IDENTITIES of INTEREST ▫ The Applicant and Developer are related entities. This is a common relationship for HTC-funded developments. PROPOSED SITE SITE PLAN

BUILDING CONFIGURATION Building Type

A

B

C

D

E

Floors/Stories

3

3

3

3

1

Total Buildings

Number

2

2

2

2

4

12

BR/BA

SF

Units

1

1

727

6

1

1

733

6

6

1

1

747

3

3

1

1

750

2

1

917

6

6

2

2

968

6

6

2

2

975

Units per Building

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

12

6

3

3

30

18

12

Total SF

12

8,724

24

17,592

12

8,964

4

16

12,000

48

44,016

4

52

50,336

12

11,700

176

153,332

6 6

Total Units

8

Page 3 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

SITE ISSUES Total Size:

10.629

Flood Zone: Zoning:

acres

Scattered site?

Yes

No

Zone X

Within 100-yr floodplain? Needs to be re-zoned?

Yes

No

Neighborhood Services

Yes

No

N/A

Comments: The subject property is currently zoned Neighborhood Services. The Applicant has made application to the city for a zoning change to R-4 Multifamily, which allows for the proposed property. Receipt, review, and acceptance by commitment of evidence of the appropriate zoning change or a variance for the proposed development from the City is a condition of this report.

TDHCA SITE INSPECTION Inspector:

Manufactured Housing Staff

Date:

5/27/2010

Overall Assessment: Excellent

Questionable

Acceptable

Poor

Unacceptable

Surrounding Uses: North:

Borgfeld Rd, commercial & residential

East:

Borgfeld Rd & commercial & vacant land

South:

Vacant/undeveloped land

West:

Roy Richard Dr, commercial & residential

HIGHLIGHTS of ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS Provider:

ECS, LLP

Date:

1/29/2010

Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) and Other Concerns: ▫ "ECS considers Bradzoil Ten-Minute Oil Change to be a potential contamination source and a recognized environmental conditions (REC) of the site." (p. 1) ▫ "Quix was identified at ... approximately 200 feet northwest and topographically cross-gradient of the site. According di to t the th EDR On O Demand d report, t the th property t contains t i three th 10,000-gallon 0 000 ll gasoline li USTs S and d one 10,000-gallon diesel UST ... and are currently active. There are no reported releases associated with the property. However, based on the surface topography, potential exists for an undocumented release to impact the site. ECS considers the property to be a potential contamination source and a REC of the site." (p. 2) ▫ "With respect to the off-site RECs, additional assessment could determine if the site has been adversely impacted. Additional assessment is recommended if groundwater is anticipated to be encountered during or used for redevelopment of the site ... Based on the standard policy towards contaminated aquifers from an offsite source and the fact that city water and sewer services are available for the site and surrounding areas, additional assessment is not recommended." (p. 2) ▫ "The subject site is located within 15 miles of a military airfield, Randolph Air Force Base, and within 3,000 feet of a railroad. Based on the site location, a noise study is recommended for this property if the proposed development is deemed to be noise sensitive." (addendum letter 2/19/10) Any funding recommendation will be subject to the following conditions: ▫ Receipt, review, and acceptance, before the 10% Test, of documentation that a comprehensive noise assessment has been completed to determine the requirements for the proposed development to satisfy HUD guidelines, and that any subsequent recommendations have been incorporated into the development plans. ▫ Receipt, review, and acceptance, by Cost Certification, of documentation that all noise assessment recommendations were implemented.

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 4 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

MARKET ANALYSIS Provider:

O'Connor & Associates

Contact:

Robert Coe 1

Number of Revisions:

Date:

2/12/2010

Phone:

(713) 375-4279 3/26/2010

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

450 sq. miles 12 mile equivalent radius The Primary Market Area is defined by fourteen census tracts northeast of San Antonio, straddling Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe Counties.

Primary Market Area (PMA):

31 sq. miles 3 mile equivalent radius The market study defines a Secondary Market Area just to the southeast of the PMA, but offers no analysis of

Secondary Market Area (SMA):

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME Guadalupe County Income Limits HH

30% of AMI

size

min

40% of AMI

50% of AMI

60% of AMI

max

min

max

min

max

min

max

$12,000

---

---

$12,864

$20,000

$15,432

$24,000

1

$7,704

2

$7,704

$13,700

---

---

$12,864

$22,900

$15,432

$27,480

3

$9,264

$15,450

---

---

$15,432

$25,750

$18,528

$30,900

4

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

5

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

6

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY in PRIMARY MARKET AREA File #

Development

Type

Target Comp Population Units

Total Units

Proposed, Under Construction, and Unstabilized Comparable Developments none

Oth Aff Other Affordable d bl D Developments l t iin PMA since i 2006 none

Stabilized Affordable Developments in PMA ( pre-2006 ) Total Properties ( pre-2006 )

1

Total Units

24

COMPARABLE SUPPLY in EXTENDED MARKET AREA 10160

Creekside Place

new

senior

n/a

176

10120

Montabella Senior

new

senior

n/a

90

060007

Landa Place

new

senior

n/a

100

Other Affordable Developments in Extended Market since 2006 none 09198

Montabella Pointe

new

family

n/a

144

08150

Oak Manor/Oak Village

rehab

family

n/a

229

08190

Sutton Homes

recon

family

n/a

194

060416

The Landing

rehab

family

n/a

216

060417

Artisan at Salado Heights

new

family

n/a

252

060426

Costa Almadena

new

family

n/a

176

Stabilized Affordable Developments in Extended Market ( pre-2006 ) Total Properties ( pre-2006 )

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 5 of 16

13

Total Units 2,454

printed: 6/14/2010

Proposed, Under Construction, and Unstabilized Comparable Supply: There are no proposed, under construction, or unstabilized comparable properties inside the Primary Market Area. It is noted that there are two additional 2010 applications for senior developments in an extended area around the PMA. Creekside Place (#10160) is located 15 miles northeast of the subject. Three census tracts are common between the subject PMA and the PMA defined for Creekside, accounting for 19% of the senior population in the subject PMA. The underwriting analysis considers the demand for the subject with an without this common population. Montabella Senior (#10120) is located nine miles southwest of the subject. The PMA defined for Montabella Senior does not intersect the subject PMA. Also Landa Place (#060007) is a 2006 senior development located 12 miles northeast of the subject. Landa Place has achieved stabilized operation and is not considered in the demand calculations.

OVERALL DEMAND ANALYSIS Market Analyst

Underwriter

PMA

PMA

Reduced Market

Total Households in the Primary Market Area

38,118

38,118

31,866

Target Households in the Primary Market Area

11,805

14,481

11,806

Potential Demand from the Primary Market Area

2,721

2,916

2,373

0

0

0

2,721

2,916

2,373

176

176

176

0

0

0

176

176

176

6.5%

6.0%

7.4%

Potential Demand from Other Sources GROSS DEMAND Subject Affordable Units Unstabilized Comparable Units RELEVANT SUPPLY Relevant Supply / Gross Demand = GROSS CAPTURE RATE

Demand Analysis: The 2010 Real Estate Analysis Rules state that "the Market Analyst should use demographic data specific to the elderly population for an elderly Development, if available, and should avoid making adjustments from more general demographic data". The market study disregards this guideline. The senior household population is estimated indirectly as the proportion of seniors to adults, and the senior household growth rate is determined based on a general national trend by doubling the overall household growth rate for the PMA. The underwriting analysis has relied on available demographic data specific to the senior households in the PMA. The Market Analyst identifies Gross Demand for 2,721 senior units in the PMA, indicating a Gross Capture Rate of 6.5% for the subject's 176 proposed units. The Underwriter identifies Gross Demand for 2,916 units based on seniorspecific demographics data for the PMA, indicating a Gross Capture Rate of 6.0% for the subject's 176 units. As stated above, Creekside Place is a proposed senior development located northeast of the subject. Three census tracts, containing 19% of the senior population in the subject PMA, are shared by the PMA for Creekside Place. In order to eliminate the conflicting demand for this population, the Underwriter has calculated demand from a reduced market area, excluding the common census tracts. This analysis identifies Gross Demand for 2,373 units, and a Gross Capture Rate of 7.4%. The maximum Gross Capture Rate for urban developments targeting senior households is 10%; this indicates sufficient demand to support the proposed development.

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 6 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

UNDERWRITING ANALYSIS of PMA DEMAND by UNIT TYPE Market Analyst

Underwriter

Subject Units

Comp Units

Unit Capture Rate

363

10

0

187

16

0

1 BR/60%

791

38

0

2%

2 BR/30%

331

17

0

2%

2 BR/50%

171

39

0

25%

2 BR/60%

983

56

0

6%

Unit Type

Demand

1 BR/30% 1 BR/50%

Unit Capture Rate

Demand

Subject Units

Comp Units

1%

351

10

0

3%

8%

673

23

0

3%

294

31

0

11%

183

17

0

9%

373

39

0

10%

331

56

0

17%

footnote: The Market Analyst's data reflects an incorrect mix of 50% and 60% one-bedroom units.

Primary Market Occupancy Rates: The Market Analyst reports quarterly averages for overall occupancy in the PMA that ranged between 88% and 91% during 2009, up from a range of 83% to 89% during 2008. The Market Analyst states the average is reduced by what is reported to be the nearest HTC project in the PMA, Stratton Oaks, which has recently been in transition due to management issues. Stratton Oaks is one of the nearest HTC developments, but it is actually located outside the PMA in Seguin. There is one HTC project inside the PMA: Cibolo Plaza, a 1992 project with 24 units, all one- and two-bedrooms, is located less than two miles from the subject. Department data indicates that it is 100% occupied. The Underwriter identified a senior development in Seguin, Eden Place (#01088) with 60 units, which currently reports 90% occupancy. Two additional senior developments were noted west and southwest of the subject toward San Antonio. Legacy on O'Connor Road, with 150 units, is 8 miles west of the subject and reports 100% occupancy. Midcrown Senior Pavilion (#05453), with 196 units, is 9 miles southwest of the subject and reports 95% occupancy. Absorption Projections: The most recent Seniors HTC projects which have come on on-line line in the San Antonio MSA were Landa Place, "The which ... attained stabilized occupancy in May 2008, (with) an average absorption of approximately 49 units per month from completion. Midcrown Senior Pavilion is a 196-unit Seniors HTC ... completed in May 2007, and attained stabilized occupancy in December 2008, (with) an average absorption of approximately 10 units per month. Primrose at Mission Hills ... reported attaining stabilized occupancy in January 2009, (with) an average absorption of approximately 19 units per month. We estimate absorption at 10 to 20 units a month and the property should stabilize within 9 to 18 months of opening." (p. 12) Market Impact: "The HTC properties we were able to contact all reported a waiting list. As previously indicated, there is one existing Family HTC project within the subject's primary market area, and no existing Seniors HTC complexes. With average rental rates in all projects at $0.910 PSF, and occupancy rates averaging 89.88% overall, it is reasonable to project that a new affordable housing project with competitive amenities and an average rent of $0.618 per square foot per month, such as the subject property, would perform favorably in this market." (p. 41)

Comments: The market analysis, based on the market study and additional information gathered by the Underwriter, indicates sufficient demand to support a funding recommendation for the subject.

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 7 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

OPERATING PROFORMA ANALYSIS Income:

Number of Revisions:

2

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

6/2/2010

The Underwriter’s projected rents collected per unit were calculated by subtracting tenant-paid utility allowances based on the HUD Utility Model (which has not yet been approved by the Department), from the 2009 program gross rent limits. It should be noted, subsequent to a request from the Underwriter, the Applicant chose to update the program gross rents to incorporate the newly published 2010 rent limits. While rents for each unit type increased slightly ($4 to $9), for consistency with the analyses published earlier this year, the Underwriter has continued to utilize the 2009 program, in accordance with §1.32(d)(1)(iii) of the 2010 REA rules. Tenants will be required to pay electric utility costs only. Because the utility allowances used in the analysis have not been approved by the Department, the Underwriter evaluated the range of utility allowances which would not cause a change in the recommendation or the feasibility conclusion of the analysis. This range is between $77 and $102 for 1BR units and between $94 and $131 for 2BR units. Of note, the Schertz Housing Authority's utility allowances fall within these ranges. This report is conditioned on receipt, review and acceptance by commitment that the use of the HUD Utility model for the Subject has been approved by the Department, with allowances between $77 and $102 for 1BR units and between $94 and $131 for 2BR units, or alternatively confirmation that the Schertz Housing Authority utility allowances will be used. The Applicant’s vacancy and collection loss assumptions are in line with current TDHCA underwriting guidelines; however, secondary income assumptions are not, as the Applicant included an additional $7.91 per unit over the $20 guideline. The Applicant indicated that $15.91 of the total $27.91 per unit per month in secondary income being claimed would be from garage and carport income but provided limited support that these additional amounts are achievable in this market. Moreover, the market study provided no support for such additional income. The Underwriter's secondary income estimate is equal to the maximum $20 per unit per month guideline. Despite the use of the lower 2009 gross program rents, effective gross income is within 5% of the Underwriter's estimate. Expense:

Number of Revisions:

1

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

6/2/2010

The Applicant’s total annual operating expense projection at $3,751 per unit is within 5% of the Underwriter’s estimate of $3,634, derived from the TDHCA database, and third-party data sources. Of note, the Underwriter adjusted management fees from the typical 5% to 3.5% of EGI, as evidenced in the Management Agreement contract provided by the Applicant. Also of note, the Applicant's estimate of property tax is 25% lower than the Underwriter's estimate. The Underwriter's estimate of $21K/unit is based on a 10% cap rate and the Underwriter's NOI; however, the Subject qualifies as a CHDO, and as such, the Applicant's lower property tax estimate is reasonable. The Applicant's estimate of water, sewer, and trash expense is 27% higher than the Underwriter's estimate; however, the Applicant's estimate is in line with the TDHCA database and as such is considered reasonable. Also of note, the lender requirement for reserve for replacement is $200/unit/year; however, the Underwriter and Applicant have utilized the standard $250/unit/year per REA rules. All other expense line items vary slightly; however, the Applicant's estimates are in line with the TDHCA database and as such are considered reasonable. Conclusion: The Applicant’s effective gross income, operating expenses, and net operating income are within 5% of the Underwriter’s estimates; therefore, the Applicant's year one pro forma will be used to determine the development's debt capacity. The proposed permanent financing structure results in an initial year’s debt coverage ratio (DCR) of 1.31, which is within the Department’s DCR guideline of 1.15 to 1.35.

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 8 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

Feasibility: The underwriting 30-year pro forma utilizes a 2% annual growth factor for income and a 3% annual growth factor for expenses in accordance with current TDHCA guidelines. As noted above, the Applicant's base year effective gross income, expense and net operating income were utilized resulting in a debt coverage ratio that remains above 1.15 and continued positive cashflow. Therefore, the development can be characterized as feasible for the long-term.

ACQUISITION INFORMATION ASSESSED VALUE Land Only:

10.623

acres

$555,285

2010

Tax Year: Valuation by:

Guadalupe CAD 2.2437

Tax Rate:

EVIDENCE of PROPERTY CONTROL Type:

Unimproved Commercial Property Contract

Contract Expiration:

10/31/2010

Acquisition Cost: Seller:

$1,388,214

Oryx Development, LLC

Acreage:

Valid Through Board Date?

10.629

Yes

No

Yes

No

Other: Related to Development Team?

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE EVALUATION COST SCHEDULE

Number of Revisions:

None

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

N/A

Acquisition Value: The site cost of $130,606 per acre or $7,888 per unit is assumed to be reasonable since the acquisition is an arm’slength transaction. Of note, the seller is providing an interim loan in the amount of $450K. This is discussed further in the Proposed Financing Structure section below. Sitework Cost: The Applicant claimed sitework costs over the Departments maximum guideline of $9,000 per unit largely due to on-site paving & utility extension across the site. The Applicant provided sufficient third party certification through a detailed certified cost estimate by an Engineer to justify these costs. In addition, these costs have been reviewed by the Applicant’s CPA, Thomas Stephen & Company, LLC, to preliminarily opine that all of the total $2,058,303 will be considered eligible. The CPA has indicated that this opinion of eligibility has taken into account the effect of the recent IRS Technical Advisory Memorandums on the eligibility of sitework costs. Direct Construction Cost: The Applicant’s direct construction cost estimate is $145K or 2% higher than the Underwriter’s Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook-derived estimate. Of note, garages and carports are being provided for a fee, and as a result the both the Applicant and Underwriter have excluded the cost of these amenities from eligible basis. Ineligible Costs: The Applicant included $70K in bridge loan interest and fees as an eligible cost. These costs are generally regarded to be ineligible since the submitted commitment letters do not explicitly document the loan. Therefore, the Underwriter reduced the Applicant’s eligible basis by an equivalent amount. Also of note, the Underwriter's ineligible cost is adjusted for carport and garages. Specifically, the Underwriter determined carports & garages to be $148,756 based on Marshall & Swift; however, the Applicant has included $432K for these costs. Interim Interest Expense: The Underwriter reduced the Applicant’s eligible interim financing fees by $132,250 to bring the eligible interest expense down to one year of fully drawn interest expense. This results in an equivalent reduction to the Applicant’s eligible basis estimate.

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 9 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

Contingency & Fees: The Applicant’s contractor’s fees for general requirements, general and administrative expenses, and profit are all within the maximums allowed by TDHCA guidelines. However, the Applicant’s developer fee exceeds 15% of the Applicant’s adjusted eligible basis by $30,338 and therefore the eligible portion of the Applicant’s developer fee must be reduced by the same amount. 30% Increase to Eligible Basis The development qualifies for a 30% increase in eligible basis because it is located in an eligible QCT with less than 40% HTC units per households in the tract. Conclusion: The Applicant’s total development cost is within 5% of the Underwriter’s estimate; therefore, the Applicant’s cost schedule will be used to determine the development’s need for permanent funds and to calculate eligible basis. An eligible basis of $17,858,615 supports annual tax credits of $2,089,458. This figure will be compared to the Applicant’s request and the tax credits calculated based on the gap in need for permanent funds to determine the recommended allocation.

PROPOSED FINANCING STRUCTURE SOURCES & USES Source:

Number of Revisions:

None

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

Oryx Development, LLC

Principal:

$450,000

Type:

Interest Rate:

Prime + 1%

N/A

Interim Financing Fixed

Term:

6

months

Comments: Oryx Development, the seller of the Subject site, will provide a loan in the amount of $450K to cover predevelopment costs. The loan will be fixed at 1% over Prime and carry a 6 month term. Source:

TDHCA - HOME

Principal:

$2,000,000

Type: Interest Rate:

0.0%

Interim to Permanent Financing Fixed

Amort:

420

months

Comments: The Applicant has requested this interim-to-permanent HOME loan that will be in a second lien position. The permanent component is requested to have an 18 year term and 35 year amortization, consistent with the first lien. Source:

CitiBank

Type:

Interim to Permanent Financing

Interim:

$11,500,000

Interest Rate:

4.85%

Fixed

Term:

30

months

Permanent:

$3,200,000

Interest Rate:

8.50%

Fixed

Amort:

420

months

Comments: The Interim Rate Index is LIBOR + 450 bps; underwritten at 6%. The Permanent Rate Index will be fixed at 8.5%. The term on the permanent loan will be 18 years from the date of conversion. Source: Proceeds: Amount:

NEF

Type: $14,797,040

Syndication Rate:

$620,737

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

74% Type:

Page 10 of 16

Syndication Anticipated HTC:

$

2,000,000

Deferred Developer Fees

printed: 6/14/2010

CONCLUSIONS Recommended Financing Structure: The Applicant’s total development cost estimate less the permanent loan of $3.2M and requested $2M in TDHCA HOME funds indicates the need for $15,417,776 in gap funds. Based on the submitted syndication terms, a tax credit allocation of $2,083,900 annually would be required to fill this gap in financing. The three possible tax credit allocations are: Allocation determined by eligible basis:

$2,089,458

Allocation determined by gap in financing:

$2,083,900

Allocation requested by the Applicant:

$2,000,000

The allocation amount determined by the Applicant's request is recommended. A tax credit allocation of $2M per year for 10 years results in total equity proceeds of $14,797,040 at a syndication rate of $0.74 per tax credit dollar. The Underwriter recommends a HOME loan not to exceed $2M structured as a fully repayable mortgage with an interest rate of 0% and with an amortization and term to mirror the Citibank mortgage or replacement source of financing (currently with 18 year term and 35 year amortization). If the HOME award is ultimately not received the substantial resulting gap in financing would render this transaction infeasible. CHDO Operating Funds in the amount of $50K is also recommended. The Underwriter’s recommended financing structure indicates the need for $620,736 in additional permanent funds. Deferred developer and contractor fees in this amount appear to be repayable from development cashflow within 10 years of stabilized operation. The HOME award amount is below the 221(d)(3) limit for this project. In addition, the HOME award is below the prorata share of development cost based on the number HOME units to total units.

Underwriter:

Date:

June 14, 2010

Date:

June 14, 2010

Date:

June 14, 2010

Diamond Unique Thompson Manager of Real Estate Analysis: Audrey Martin Director of Real Estate Analysis: Brent Stewart

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 11 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

UNIT MIX/RENT SCHEDULE Ashton Senior Village, Schertz, HTC 9%/HOME #10040 LOCATION DATA CITY: COUNTY:

Other Unit Desgination

UNIT DISTRIBUTION Schertz

# Beds

Guadalupe

Eff 1

SUB-MARKET:

# Units

64 112

PROGRAMS:

% Total

36.4%

Rent Limit

Eff

1

2

3

4

LH

$500

$536

$643

$743

$830

11

HH

$577

$642

$792

$934

$1,021

25

Total Units

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY:

New

REVENUE GROWTH:

2.00%

EXPENSE GROWTH:

3.00%

PROGRAM REGION:

9

2

RURAL RENT USED:

No

3

APPLICABLE FRACTION:

IREM REGION:

NA

4

APP % - ACQUISITION:

TOTAL

176

63.6%

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS

HOME

100.0%

HIGH COST ADJUSTMENT:

APP % - CONSTRUCTION:

130% 100.00% N/A 9.00%

UNIT MIX / MONTHLY RENT SCHEDULE

UNIT DESCRIPTION

Type

Other Designation

# Units

PROGRAM RENT LIMITS

# # Beds Baths

NRA

Gross Rent

Tenant Paid Utilities (Verified)

Max Net Program Rent

APPLICANT RENTS

OTHER UNIT DESIGNATIO N

TDHCA RENTS

Delta to Max Rent per Net Rent Total Monthly Total Monthly Program NRA per Unit Rent Rent

Rent per Unit

Delta to Rent per Max NRA Program

HOME

MARKET RENTS

Market Rent

TDHCA Savings to Market

TC 30% LH / 30% AMI

4

1

1

727

$321

$80

$241

$4

$0.34

$245

$980

$964

$241

$0.33

$0

$321

$775

TC 30% HH / 60% AMI

6

1

1

727

$321

$80

$241

$4

$0.34

$245

$1,470

$1,446

$241

$0.33

$0

$642

$775

$534

TC 50%

2

1

1

727

$536

$80

$456

$6

$0.64

$462

$924

$912

$456

$0.63

$0

$775

$319

TC 50%

$775

$319

18

1

1

733

$536

$80

$456

$6

$0.63

$462

$8,316

$8,208

$456

$0.62

$0

TC 50% HH / 60% AMI

3

1

1

733

$536

$80

$456

$6

$0 63 $0.63

$462

$1 386 $1,386

$1 368 $1,368

$456

$0 62 $0.62

$0

TC 60%

3

1

1

733

$643

$80

$563

$8

$0.78

$571

$1,713

$1,689

$563

$0.77

$0

$642

$534

$775

$319

$775

$212

TC 60%

12

1

1

747

$643

$80

$563

$8

$0.76

$571

$6,852

$6,756

$563

$0.75

$0

$750

$187

TC 60%

16

1

1

750

$643

$80

$563

$8

$0.76

$571

$9,136

$9,008

$563

$0.75

$0

$750

$187

TC 30% LH / 30% AMI

3

2

1

917

$386

$102

$284

$4

$0.31

$288

$864

$852

$284

$0.31

$0

$386

$855

$571

TC 30% HH / 60% AMI

4

2

1

917

$386

$102

$284

$4

$0.31

$288

$1,152

$1,136

$284

$0.31

$0

$792

$855

$571

14

2

1

917

$643

$102

$541

$8

$0.60

$549

$7,686

$7,574

$541

$0.59

$0

3

2

1

917

$643

$102

$541

$8

$0.60

$549

$1,647

$1,623

$541

$0.59

$0

TC 50% TC 50% HH / 60% AMI TC 60%

$792

$855

$314

$855

$314

24

2

1

917

$772

$102

$670

$9

$0.74

$679

$16,296

$16,080

$670

$0.73

$0

$855

$185

TC 30% LH / 30% AMI

4

2

2

968

$386

$102

$284

$4

$0.30

$288

$1,152

$1,136

$284

$0.29

$0

$386

$905

$621

TC 30% HH / 60% AMI

6

2

2

968

$386

$102

$284

$4

$0.30

$288

$1,728

$1,704

$284

$0.29

$0

$792

$905

$621

19

2

2

968

$643

$102

$541

$8

$0.57

$549

$10,431

$10,279

$541

$0.56

$0

3

2

2

968

$643

$102

$541

$8

$0.57

$549

$1,647

$1,623

$541

$0.56

$0

TC 50% TC 50% HH / 60% AMI

$792

$905

$364

$905

$364

TC 60%

20

2

2

968

$772

$102

$670

$9

$0.70

$679

$13,580

$13,400

$670

$0.69

$0

$905

$235

TC 60%

12

2

2

975

$772

$102

$670

$9

$0.70

$679

$8,148

$8,040

$670

$0.69

$0

$905

$235

TOTAL:

176

$95,108

$93,798

$7

$0.62

$540

$0.61

$0

$840

($307)

$1,141,296

$1,125,576

AVG:

153,332 871

ANNUAL:

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

$533

$127

printed: 6/14/2010

Page 12 of 16

PROFORMA ANALYSIS & DEVELOPMENT COSTS Ashton Senior Village, Schertz, HTC 9%/HOME #10040 INCOME Total Net Rentable Sq Ft: POTENTIAL GROSS RENT Secondary Income

TDHCA

Per Unit Per Month:

$20.00

APPLICANT

$1,125,576 42,240

Other Support Income: Carports (40) & Garages (40)

POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME Vacancy & Collection Loss

% of Potential Gross Income:

-7.50%

Employee or Other Non-Rental Units or Concessions

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME EXPENSES

% OF EGI

PER UNIT

PER SQ FT

General & Administrative

5.73%

$351

0.40

Management

3.50%

$215

Payroll & Payroll Tax

15.23%

Repairs & Maintenance Utilities

$1,167,816 (87,586) 0 $1,080,230

$1,141,296 25,344 33,600 $1,200,240 (90,024)

$12.00

Per Unit Per Month

$15.91

Per Unit Per Month

-7.50%

of Potential Gross Income

$1,110,216 PER SQ FT

PER UNIT

% OF EGI

$53,000 44,408

$0.35

$301

4.77%

0.25

$61,859 37,808

0.29

252

4.00%

$934

1.07

164,469

179,800

1.17

1,022

16.20%

7.66%

$470

0.54

8.11%

0.31

90,000 50,000

511

$267

82,760 47,025

0.59

4.35%

0.33

284

4.50%

Water, Sewer, & Trash

6.12%

$376

0.43

477

7.57%

3.38%

$208

0.24

84,000 36,960

0.55

Property Insurance

66,092 36,557

0.24

210

3.33%

7.68%

$471

0.54

352

5.58%

4.07%

$250

0.29

62,000 44,000

0.40

Reserve for Replacements

82,927 44,000

0.29

250

3.96%

TDHCA Compliance Fees

0.65%

$40

0.05

7,040

7,040

0.05

40

0.63%

Other: Supportive Services, Security

0.84%

$51

0.06

51

0.81%

59.21%

$3,634

$4.17

9,040 $660,248

0.06

TOTAL EXPENSES

9,040 $639,577

$4.31

$3,751

59.47%

NET OPERATING INC

40.79%

$2,504

$2.87

$440,653

$449,968

$2.93

$2,557

40.53%

$286,794

$286,794

$57,143

$57,143

PER SQ FT

PER UNIT

% of TOTAL

Property Tax

2.2437

DEBT SERVICE CitiBank TDHCA - HOME

$0

Additional Financing

TOTAL DEBT SERVICE NET CASH FLOW

343,937 $96,715

AGGREGATE DEBT COVERAGE RATIO

1.28

343,937 $106,031 1.31

RECOMMENDED DEBT COVERAGE RATIO

1.31

CONSTRUCTION COST Description

Factor

TDHCA

APPLICANT

% of TOTAL

PER UNIT

PER SQ FT

Acquisition Cost (site or bldg)

7.02%

$8,030

$9.22

$1,413,214

$1,413,214

$9.22

$8,030

6.85%

Off-Sites

0.00%

$0

$0.00

0

0

0.00

0

0.00%

Sitework Direct Construction

10.22%

$11,695

$13.42

9.98%

$58.67

2,058,303 9,140,000

11,695

$51,109

2,058,303 8,995,233

13.42

44.67%

59.61

51,932

44.33% 2.72%

Contingency

5.07%

2.78%

$3,181

$3.65

559,915

559,915

3.65

3,181

Contractor's Fees

14.00%

7.79%

$8,908

$10.22

1,567,762

1,567,762

10.22

8,908

7.60%

6.77%

$7,747

$8.89

1,363,500

1,363,500

8.89

7,747

6.61%

Indirect Construction Ineligible Costs

3.14%

$3,593

$4.12

632,366

915,610

5.97

5,202

4.44%

11.46%

$13,112

$15.05

2,307,669

2,359,722

15.39

13,408

11.45%

Interim Financing

4.17%

$4,771

$5.48

839,750

839,750

5.48

4,771

4.07%

Reserves TOTAL COST

1.99%

$2,273

$2.61

2,273

1.94%

$114,418.82

$131.33

400,000 $20,617,776

2.61

100.00%

400,000 $20,137,712

$134.46

$117,146

100.00%

65.46%

$74,893

$85.97

$13,181,213

$13,325,980

$86.91

$75,716

64.63%

CitiBank

15.89%

$18,182

$20.87

9.93%

$11,364

$13.04

$3,200,000 2,000,000

$3,200,000 2,000,000

Developer Fee Available

TDHCA - HOME

$3,200,000 2,000,000

NEF

73.48%

$84,074

$96.50

14,797,040

14,797,040

14,797,040

% of Dev. Fee Deferred

Deferred Developer Fees

3.08%

$3,527

$4.05

620,737

620,737

620,736

Additional (Excess) Funds Req'd

-2.38%

($2,728)

($3.13)

Developer's Fees

15.00%

Construction Cost Recap

SOURCES OF FUNDS

TOTAL SOURCES

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

RECOMMENDED

(480,065) $20,137,712

Page 13 of 16

(1) $20,617,776

0 $20,617,776

$2,329,385 27% 15-Yr Cumulative Cash Flow

$1,818,541

printed: 6/14/2010

MULTIFAMILY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (continued) Ashton Senior Village, Schertz, HTC 9%/HOME #10040 DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROPOSED PAYMENT COMPUTATION

Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook Average Quality Multiple Residence Basis CATEGORY

FACTOR

UNITS/SQ FT

Base Cost

PER SF

CitiBank

AMOUNT

$56.24

$8,623,150

Int Rate

$3,200,000

Amort

420

8.50%

DCR

1.54

Adjustments Exterior Wall Finish

0.80%

Elderly

3.00%

$0.45 1.69

$68,985 258,694

9-Ft. Ceilings

3.10%

1.74

267,318

Subfloor

0.00 1.10

0 168,227

Floor Cover

2.41

369,530

Roofing

Breezeways

$26.77

Balconies

$26.77

14,580

0.00 2.55

0 390,327

$871

192

1.09

167,290

Plumbing Fixtures

$424

176

Built-In Appliances

$1,954

176

0.49 2.24

74,601 343,982

Exterior Stairs

$1,900

28

0.35

53,200

7.35 2.65

1,126,371 405,875

Rough-ins

Enclosed Corridors

$46.32

24,318

Elevators:

$81,175

5

Carports

$9.70

8,000

0.51 1.85

77,600 283,664 145,280

Heating/Cooling Garages

$18.16

8,000

0.95

Comm &/or Aux Bldgs

$65.64

8,527

3.65

559,693

Other: fire sprinkler

$2.25

153,332

2.25

344,997

89.54 (0.90)

SUBTOTAL Current Cost Multiplier

0.99

Local Multiplier

0.83

(15.22)

Additional Financing

Plans, specs, survy, bld prmt

3.90%

($2.86)

($439,047)

Interim Construction Interest

3.38%

(2.48)

(379,944)

Contractor's OH & Profit

11.50%

(8.44)

(1,294,624)

$2,000,000

Amort

420

0.00%

Subtotal DCR

1.28

Amort

$0

Int Rate

Aggregate DCR

Additional Financing

Subtotal DCR

Additional Financing

1.28

Amort

$0

Int Rate

1.28

Amort

$0

Int Rate

Aggregate DCR

1.28

RECOMMENDED FINANCING STRUCTURE APPLICANT'S NOI: CitiBank $286,794 TDHCA - HOME 57,143 Additional Financing 0 Additional Financing 0 Additional Financing 0 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $343,937

(2,333,894)

$73.42

$59.64

Int Rate

13,728,785 (137,288)

TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS

NET DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS

TDHCA - HOME

$11,257,604 CitiBank Int Rate

$9,143,989

TDHCA - HOME Int Rate

Additional Financing Int Rate

Additional Financing Int Rate

Additional Financing Int Rate

$3,200,000

Amort

420

8.50%

DCR

1.57

$2,000,000

Amort

420

0.00%

Subtotal DCR

1.31

$0

Amort

0

0.00%

Aggregate DCR

1.31

$0

Amort

0

0.00%

Subtotal DCR

1.31

$0

Amort

0

0.00%

Aggregate DCR

1.31

OPERATING INCOME & EXPENSE PROFORMA: RECOMMENDED FINANCING STRUCTURE (APPLICANT'S NOI) YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 20

YEAR 30

$1,141,296

$1,164,122

$1,187,404

$1,211,152

$1,235,375

$1,363,954

$1,505,916

$1,662,653

$2,026,764

Secondary Income

25,344

25,851

26,368

26,895

27,433

30,288

33,441

36,921

45,007

Other Support Income: Carports

33,600

34,272

34,957

35,657

36,370

40,155

44,334

48,949

59,668

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,200,240

1,224,245

1,248,730

1,273,704

1,299,178

1,434,398

1,583,691

1,748,523

2,131,440

INCOME

at

2.00%

POTENTIAL GROSS RENT

Other Support Income: POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME Vacancy & Collection Loss Employee or Other Non-Rental U EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME EXPENSES at

(90,024)

YEAR 3

(91,818)

YEAR 4

(93,655)

YEAR 5

(95,528)

YEAR 10

(97,438)

YEAR 15

(107,580)

(118,777)

(131,139)

(159,858)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$1,110,216

$1,132,426

$1,155,075

$1,178,176

$1,201,740

$1,326,818

$1,464,914

$1,617,384

$1,971,582

$54,590

$56,228

$57,915

$59,652

$69,153

$80,167

$92,936

$124,898

46,202

47,126

48,069

53,072

58,596

64,694

78,862

3.00%

General & Administrative Management

$53,000 44,408

45296.4048

179,800

185,194

190,750

196,472

202,366

234,598

271,964

315,280

423,710

Repairs & Maintenance

90,000

92,700

95,481

98,345

101,296

117,430

136,133

157,816

212,091

Utilities

50,000

51,500

53,045

54,636

56,275

65,239

75,629

87,675

117,828

Water, Sewer & Trash

84,000

86,520

89,116

91,789

94,543

109,601

127,058

147,295

197,952

Insurance

36,960

38,069

39,211

40,387

41,599

48,224

55,905

64,810

87,099

Property Tax

62,000

63,860

65,776

67,749

69,782

80,896

93,781

108,717

146,107

Reserve for Replacements

Payroll & Payroll Tax

44,000

45,320

46,680

48,080

49,522

57,410

66,554

77,154

103,689

TDHCA Compliance Fee

7,040

7,251

7,469

7,693

7,924

9,186

10,649

12,345

16,590

Other

9,040

9,311

9,591

9,878

10,175

11,795

13,674

15,852

21,303

TOTAL EXPENSES

$660,248

$679,612

$699,547

$720,071

$741,202

$856,603

$990,109

$1,144,574

$1,530,129

NET OPERATING INCOME

$449,968

$452,815

$455,528

$458,105

$460,538

$470,215

$474,805

$472,810

$441,452

$286,794

$286,794

$286,794

$286,794

$286,794

$286,794

$286,794

$286,794

$286,794

57,143

57,143

57,143

57,143

57,143

57,143

57,143

57,143

57,143

Other Financing

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Financing

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Financing

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$106,031

$108,878

$111,591

$114,168

$116,600

$126,277

$130,868

$128,873

$97,515

1.31

1.32

1.32

1.33

1.34

1.37

1.38

1.37

1.28

DEBT SERVICE First Lien Financing Second Lien

NET CASH FLOW DEBT COVERAGE RATIO

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

Page 14 of 16

printed: 6/14/2010

HTC ALLOCATION ANALYSIS -Ashton Senior Village, Schertz, HTC 9%/HOME #10040 APPLICANT'S

TDHCA

APPLICANT'S

TDHCA

TOTAL

TOTAL

REHAB/NEW

REHAB/NEW

AMOUNTS

AMOUNTS

ELIGIBLE BASIS

ELIGIBLE BASIS

CATEGORY

Acquisition Cost

Purchase of land Purchase of buildings

$1,413,214

$1,413,214

$2,058,303 $9,140,000 $1,567,762 $559,915 $1,363,500 $839,750 $915,610

$2,058,303 $8,995,233 $1,567,762 $559,915 $1,363,500 $839,750 $632,366

$2,359,722 $400,000

$2,307,669 $400,000

$20,617,776

$20,137,712

Off-Site Improvements Sitework Construction Hard Costs Contractor Fees Contingencies Eligible Indirect Fees Eligible Financing Fees All Ineligible Costs

$2,058,303 $9,140,000 $1,567,762 $559,915 $1,363,500 $839,750

$2,058,303 $8,995,233 $1,567,762 $559,915 $1,363,500 $839,750

$2,329,385

Developer Fees

Developer Fees Development Reserves TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS

$2,307,669 $17,858,615

$17,692,132

$17,858,615

$17,692,132

Deduct from Basis: All grant proceeds used to finance costs in eligible basis B.M.R. loans used to finance cost in eligible basis Non-qualified non-recourse financing Non-qualified portion of higher quality units [42(d)(3)] Historic Credits (on residential portion only) TOTAL ELIGIBLE BASIS

130%

High Cost Area Adjustment

$23,216,199

TOTAL ADJUSTED BASIS

$22,999,772

100%

Applicable Fraction

$23,216,199

TOTAL QUALIFIED BASIS

100% $22,999,772

9.00% $2,089,458

9.00% $2,069,979

0.7399

$15,458,896

$15,314,785

Total Tax Credits (Eligible Basis Method) Syndication Proceeds

$2,089,458 $15,458,896

$2,069,979 $15,314,785

Requested Tax Credits

$2,000,000

Syndication Proceeds

$14,797,040

Gap of Syndication Proceeds Needed

$15,417,776

Total Tax Credits (Gap Method)

$2,083,900

Applicable Percentage

TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAX CREDITS Syndication Proceeds

Recommended Tax Credits Syndication Proceeds

10040 Ashton Senior Village.xlsx

130%

Page 15 of 16

2,000,000 $14,797,040

printed: 6/14/2010

XMap® 7

10044 Ashton Senior Village Data use subject to license.

Scale 1 : 325,000

TN 0

© DeLorme. XMap® 7. www.delorme.com

MN (4.9°E)

Page 16 of 16

0

1

2

3

3

1" = 5.13 mi

4 6

5 9

12

Data Zoom 9-3

15

mi km

Real Estate Analysis Division Underwriting Report

REPORT DATE:

11/30/10

PROGRAM:

HTC 9%

FILE NUMBER:

10262

DEVELOPMENT

Las Brisas Manor Location:

1970 US Highway 277 South

City: Del Rio Key Attributes:

Region:

County: Val Verde

Zip:

78840

11

QCT

DDA

Seniors; New Construction; Rural

ALLOCATION REQUEST* Amount

TDHCA Program

$1,293,888

HOME Activity Funds Housing Tax Credit (Annual)

RECOMMENDATION

Interest Amort/Term 2.10%

30/30

$656,403

Amount

Interest

Amort/Term

$1,293,888

2.10%

30/30

$646,120

*The Applicant's original HOME loan request was $1,907,548 and the original HTC request was $698,724. Through the underwriting process in response to various information requests, the Applicant revised the request downward to the amounts indicated above.

CONDITIONS p review, and acceptance, p by y the 10% Test, of a legal g opinion p or evidence from the local taxing g 1 Receipt, jurisdiction confirming that a 50% property tax exemption will be available to the development. 2 Receipt, review, and acceptance by the 10% test of an attorney opinion letter stating that the property as proposed will not violate fair housing laws. The letter must specifically address the fact there is no direct access to these proposed buildings; access is through an existing family development. 3 Receipt, review and acceptance by commitment of documentation from a certified public accountant itemizing which site-work costs are includable in eligible basis. 4 Receipt, review and acceptance by the 10% test of documentation from FHLB of Dallas stipulating final terms and conditions of the $500K grant funds. 5 Receipt, review and acceptance, by 10% Test, of evidence that title is appropriately vested in the name of the Applicant and that the conveyance was from Chastain Development Corp. 6 Should the terms and rates of the proposed debt or syndication change, the transaction should be re-evaluated and an adjustment to the credit allocation amount may be warranted.

SALIENT ISSUES TDHCA SET-ASIDES for LURA

Income Limit 30% of AMI 50% of AMI 60% of AMI

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Rent Limit 30% of AMI 50% of AMI 60% of AMI

Page 1 of 14

Number of Units 3 22 23

printed: 11/30/2010

STRENGTHS/MITIGATING FACTORS ▫ Applicant is experienced with 15 LIHTC properties in Georgia and South Carolina.

WEAKNESSES/RISKS ▫ Applicant has only one other LIHTC deal in Texas.

▫ No affordable senior properties in sub-market.

▫ Site has no visibility. Access is shared with an adjacent multifamily property fronting the roadway.

▫ Overall 2.2% Gross Capture Rate and only the 60% two-bedroom units show capture rates above 4%.

▫ 69% of the units are two-bedroom units which have historically proven more difficult to lease on senior properties.

▫ Proposed rents are on average 47% lower than market rents.

▫ Subject is dependent on adjacent family property (operations and physical attributes). Should the family deal default under its financing or be foreclosed upon, a potential detrimental impact on the subject's operations could occur.

PREVIOUS UNDERWRITING REPORTS No previous reports.

DEVELOPMENT TEAM OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE

CONTACT Contact:

Mark du Mas

Email:

[email protected]

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Phone:

Page 2 of 14

(770) 431-9696

Fax:

(770) 431-9699

printed: 11/30/2010

IDENTITIES of INTEREST ▫ The Applicant and Developer is a related entity. These is a common relationship for HTC-funded developments. ▫ The seller is also regarded as a related party to the General Partner. The acquisition price will be based upon the lesser of the declared price, the appraised value, and the original acquisition and holding cost. This is discussed at greater length in the construction cost section of this report.

PROPOSED SITE SITE PLAN

BUILDING CONFIGURATION Building Type

A

Floors/Stories

3

Total Buildings

Number

1

1 Total Units

Total SF

1

1

709

15

15

10,635

2

2

1,073

33

33

35,409

Units per Building

48

48

46,044

BR/BA

Units

SF

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 3 of 14

printed: 11/30/2010

SITE ISSUES Total Size:

4.01

Scattered site?

Yes

No

Flood Zone:

Zone X

Within 100-yr floodplain?

R-M

Needs to be re-zoned?

Yes

No

Zoning:

Yes

No

acres

N/A

TDHCA SITE INSPECTION Inspector:

TDHCA Staff

Date:

4/12/2010

Overall Assessment: Excellent

Questionable

Acceptable

Poor

Unacceptable

Surrounding Uses: North:

residential & vacant land

East:

vacant land & residential

South:

residential

West:

US 277 & residential

HIGHLIGHTS of ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS Provider:

Enviro-Tech Services, Inc.

Date:

1/30/2010

Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) and Other Concerns: ▫ "This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site." (p. 4)

MARKET ANALYSIS Provider:

Apartment MarketData

Date:

2/19/2010

Contact:

Darrell Jack

Phone:

(201) 530-0040

Number of Revisions:

none

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

N/A

216 sq. miles 8 mile equivalent radius The Primary Market Area is defined by eight census tracts that include the city of Del Rio and the surrounding area.

Primary Market Area (PMA):

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME Val Verde County Income Limits HH

30% of AMI

size

min

40% of AMI

50% of AMI

60% of AMI

max

min

max

min

max

min

max

$9,600

---

---

$10,248

$15,950

$12,312

$19,140

$6,144

$10,950

---

---

$10,248

$18,250

$12,312

$21,900

$7,392

$12,350

---

---

$12,288

$20,500

$14,760

$24,600

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

1

$6,144

2 3 4 5

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

6

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY in PRIMARY MARKET AREA File #

Development

Type

Target Population

Comp Units

Total Units

Total Units

152

Proposed, Under Construction, and Unstabilized Comparable Developments none

Other Affordable Developments in PMA since 2006 none

Stabilized Affordable Developments in PMA ( pre-2006 ) Total Properties ( pre-2006 )

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 4 of 14

2

printed: 11/30/2010

Proposed, Under Construction, and Unstabilized Comparable Supply: There are no unstabilized comparable units located within the PMA. OVERALL DEMAND ANALYSIS Market Analyst

Underwriter

Total Households in the Primary Market Area

15,229

15,229

Target Households in the Primary Market Area

5,839

6,759

Potential Demand from the Primary Market Area

2,165

2,146

Potential Demand from Other Sources GROSS DEMAND Subject Affordable Units Unstabilized Comparable Units RELEVANT SUPPLY Relevant Supply ÷ Gross Demand = GROSS CAPTURE RATE

0

0

2,165

2,146

48

48

0

0

48

48

2.2%

2.2%

Demand Analysis: The Market Analyst included all senior renter households, but only included senior homeowner households with 13 persons. And the Market Analyst determined income eligibility using the 2009 HTC program rent and income limits for rural counties. Based on this, the Market Analyst identified Gross Demand for 2,165 units, and an Gross Capture Rate of 2.2%. The underwriting analysis includes all senior households, and uses the 2009 HTC program rent and income limits for Del Rio. The Underwriter determined Gross Demand for 2,146 units, and a Gross Capture Rate of 2.2%. The maximum Gross Capture Rate for developments targeting senior households is 10%; the analysis indicates sufficient demand to support the proposed development. UNDERWRITING ANALYSIS of PMA DEMAND by UNIT TYPE Market Analyst

Underwriter

Unit Type

Demand

Subject Units

Comp Units

Unit Capture Rate

Demand

Subject Units

Comp Units

Unit Capture Rate

1 BR/30%

191

1

0

1%

319

1

0

0%

1 BR/50%

271

7

0

3%

370

7

0

2%

1 BR/60%

244

7

0

3%

185

7

0

4%

2 BR/30%

192

2

0

1%

189

2

0

1%

2 BR/50%

139

15

0

11%

389

15

0

4%

2 BR/60%

138

16

0

12%

174

16

0

9%

Primary Market Occupancy Rates: The Market study reports overall occupancy of 98% based on 1,012 units at surveyed properties in the PMA. (p. 46) Absorption Projections: "There are no affordable senior projects in the PMA. However, market rate projects and family tax credit projects have been easily absorbed." (p. 50) "We estimate that the project would achieve a lease rate of approximately 7% to 10% of its units per month as they come on line for occupancy from construction." (p. 48)

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 5 of 14

printed: 11/30/2010

Market Impact: "The proposed project is not likely to have a dramatically detrimental effect on the balance of supply and demand in this market. Affordable family units have been easily absorbed. Today, affordable projects are 100% occupied." (p. 54) Comments: The market study provides sufficient information on which to base a funding recommendation.

OPERATING PROFORMA ANALYSIS Income:

Number of Revisions:

2

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

9/24/2010

The Applicant’s projected rents collected per unit were calculated by subtracting tenant-paid utility allowances as of April 6, 2009, maintained by the Del Rio Housing Authority, from the 2009 program gross rent limits. Of note, although 2010 rent limits have been released, for consistency with the analyses published earlier this year, the Underwriter has continued to utilize the 2009 program, in accordance with §1.32(d)(1)(iii) of the 2010 REA rules. The use of 2010 rent limits by both the Underwriter and Applicant would increase DCR above a 1.35, which could result in a material change to the analysis and could require an adjustment to the recommended tax credits. Tenants will be required to pay electric costs only. The Applicant’s vacancy and collection loss assumptions are in line with current TDHCA underwriting guidelines; however, secondary income assumptions are not, as the Applicant included an additional $10 per unit over the $20 guideline. The Underwriter's assumptions are consistent with the actual of the adjacent family property, provided by the Applicant. Despite the differences in secondary income, effective gross income is within 5% of the Underwriter's estimate.

Expense:

Number of Revisions:

3

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

11/2/2010

The Applicant's EGI exceeds the Underwriter's by $6K due to higher other income assumptions. Total operating expenses vary by $3K. Combined with the EGI variance, NOI estimates are 13.62% apart. The Applicant's and REA'ss line-item expense assumptions vary little from database figures except for Payroll ($12K variance). REA variance) According to the Applicant, employees will be shared with the adjacent family property (76 units) creating payroll efficiency for each property. The historical annual payroll costs on the adjacent property is $1,005 per unit or $76.4K total (exceeding the database number for 76 units by $237 per unit or $18K annually). This suggests that excess staff capacity could be utilized on the subject. The Applicant provided a staffing plan for the subject at $30K ($621 per unit) showing shared manager and maintenance staff. To determine an appropriate payroll assumption, the Underwriter compared the database payroll number on a 124-unit property ($95K total) to the Applicant's combined operating projections for the subject and adjacent property ($106K). This comparison concludes that the Applicant's combined payroll number is actually higher than the database estimate. As a result, the Applicant's proforma for payroll is considered reasonable and is the estimate used in the underwriting analysis. Finally, the sole owner of the GP, The Paces Foundation, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and as such qualifies for a property tax exemption. Accordingly, the Underwriter has applied a 50% tax exemption to the standard property tax assumption bases on a 10% cap rate & NOI. The adjusted tax estimate is 15% higher than the Applicant's estimate; however, The Underwriter's base estimate of $15K/unit (before the 50% exemption) is based on a 10% cap rate and the Underwriter's NOI. This report is conditioned on receipt, review, and acceptance, by the 10% Test, of evidence from the local taxing jurisdiction confirming that a 50% property tax exemption will be available to the development. Conclusion: The Applicant’s effective gross income, operating expenses, and net operating income are within 5% of the Underwriter’s estimates; therefore, the Applicant's year one proforma will be used to determine the development's debt capacity. The proposed permanent financing structure results in an initial year’s debt coverage ratio (DCR) of 1.33, which is within the Department’s DCR guideline of 1.15 to 1.35.

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 6 of 14

printed: 11/30/2010

Of note, the Applicant should be aware that operating the property as proposed could be a fair housing issue. Families with children are protected under the fair housing act. A member of a protected category may not be assigned to a particular section of a community, neighborhood or development, or to a particular floor of a building because of being a member of a particular category. Staff is concerned that a prospective applicant could view the site as one property in which case, the entire development should be housing for older persons or the entire development should be available for families with children. TDHCA takes no responsibility for the owner's compliance with fair housing laws. However, given the potential violation, prior to the 10% test, Applicant is to provide an attorney opinion letter stating that the property as proposed will not violate fair housing laws. The letter must specifically address the fact there is no direct access to these proposed buildings; access is through an existing family development. Feasibility: The underwriting 30-year proforma utilizes a 2% annual growth factor for income and a 3% annual growth factor for expenses in accordance with current TDHCA guidelines. As noted above, the Applicant's base year effective gross income, expense and net operating income were utilized resulting in a debt coverage ratio that remains above 1.15 and continued positive cashflow. Therefore, the development can be characterized as feasible for the long-term.

ACQUISITION INFORMATION APPRAISED VALUE Provider:

The Powers Group

Land Only:

Date:

None

Number of Revisions:

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

4.01 acres

$152,000

As of:

2/24/2010

N/A 2/17/2010

ASSESSED VALUE Land Only:

12.1 acres

$180,900

Existing Buildings:

$1,924,300

I acre:

Valuation by:

$15 000 $15,000

Total Prorata:

4.01 acres

2010

Tax Year: Tax Rate:

Val Verde CAD 2 331065 2.331065

$1,984,450

Comments: The 2010 tax assessment (as of 11/5/2010) reflects Georgia Las Brisas, LP as current owner of the entire 12.06-acre tract. In response to this discrepancy, the Applicant indicated that the parcel of land (~8 acres) located next to the Subject 4.01 acres was originally purchased by Chastain Development Corp, then donated to Las Brisas, LP. with Chastain maintaining title to the subject parcel. However, the appraisal district erroneously reflected the entire 12.06 acres having been sold. Receipt, review and acceptance, by 10% Test, of evidence that title is appropriately vested in the name of the Applicant and that the conveyance was from Chastain Development Corp.

EVIDENCE of PROPERTY CONTROL Type:

Purchase and Sale Agreement

Contract Expiration: Acquisition Cost: Seller:

12/1/2010 $152,000

Chastain Development Corporation

Acreage: Valid Through Board Date?

4.01

Yes

No

Yes

No

Other: Related to Development Team?

Comments: The Purchase and Sale Agreement provided in the Application reflects a contract between Chastain Development Corp. and the Applicant effective on January 6, 2010. As mentioned previously, the 2010 tax assessment (as of 11/5/2010) reflects Georgia Las Brisas, LP as the current owners of the entire 12.06-acre tract, which includes the Subject 4.01 acre tract.

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 7 of 14

printed: 11/30/2010

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE EVALUATION COST SCHEDULE

Number of Revisions:

2

Date of Last Applicant Revision:

11/12/2010

Acquisition Value: The Applicant provided a contract for the purchase of the subject site for $152K, which equates to $38K per acre or $3K per unit. The property is a 4.01 acre portion of a larger 12.06 acre tract. Members of the owner of the General Partner are also members of the assumed current owner of the property, Chastain Development Corp. Chastain Development Corp. purchased the property from Mirador, Inc. in September 2001 at a price of $68,500 as evidenced by the settlement statement. The parcel is currently tax exempt and the Applicant has confirmed that there have not been any associated holding costs. As such, the adjusted purchase price calculated by the Underwriter (between Chastain and Applicant) in the Department's analysis is $55,168 which is the amount of the original purchase price by Chastain Development Corporation, plus a 10% return on equity. If the Applicant's costs are used in the final analysis, the sources and uses of funds will be adjusted by the difference in acquisition costs to ensure that tax credit proceeds are not used to fund a potential excess of profit on the identity of interest transfer to the partnership. As noted above, there have been some discrepancies in the site control documentation which have been verbally clarified by the Applicant. However, formal documentation is being requested to confirm those clarifications. Sitework Cost: The Applicant claimed sitework costs over the Department's benchmark of $9K per unit, largely due to extensive rough grading & landscaping. The Applicant did not provide all of the third party certification required to substantiate sitework costs exceeding $9K/unit. Therefore, receipt, review and acceptance by commitment of documentation from a certified public accountant stating which costs are includable in eligible basis, is a condition of this report. Direct Construction Cost: The Applicant’s direct construction cost estimate is $117K or 4% lower than the Underwriter’s Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook-derived estimate. Of note, the uniqueness of the Subject's development plans coupled with the remote rural location of the site, facilitate the need to import labor & materials, essentially resulting in additional the Underwriter has lti i additional dditi l costs t to t the th project. j t In order d to t accountt for f these th dditi l costs, t th d it h made several adjustments to the standard M&S cost estimate. These adjustments account for a 4/12 roof pitch as confirmed by the Architect, a 5% adjustor for "Senior Citizens'" buildings (M&S allows for up to 9%; however, REA typically uses 3% in standard underwriting practices), and the current statewide local multiplier of 0.87 (San Antonio's current local multiplier is .85). These adjustments are consistent with methods used in previous underwriting analyses published during the 2010 cycle. Reserves: The Applicant provided documentation to support $24,695 in lease-up reserves in addition to the standard operating reserves allowed pursuant to REA rules. Therefore, the Underwriter has included this amount in addition to standard operating reserves. Contingency & Fees: The Applicant’s contractor’s and developer fees for general requirements, general and administrative expenses, and profit are all within the maximums allowed by TDHCA guidelines. 30% Increase to Eligible Basis The development qualifies for a 30% increase in eligible basis because it is located in a rural area. Conclusion: The Applicant’s total development cost is within 5% of the Underwriter’s estimate; therefore, the Applicant’s cost schedule will be used to determine the development’s need for permanent funds and to calculate eligible basis. An eligible basis of $5,655,280 supports annual tax credits of $661,668. This figure will be compared to the Applicant’s request and the tax credits calculated based on the gap in need for permanent funds to determine the recommended allocation.

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 8 of 14

printed: 11/30/2010

PROPOSED FINANCING STRUCTURE SOURCES & USES Number of Revisions: Source:

2

Wells Fargo $1,850,000

Principal:

Type: 6.0%

Interest Rate:

10/12/2010

Date of Last Applicant Revision: Interim Financing Fixed

Term:

24

months

Comments: Wells Fargo will provide an interim loan in the amount of $1,850,000 . The loan will be based on LIBOR + 500 bps, with a 6% floor, and carry a 24 month term. TDHCA - HOME

Source:

$1,293,888

Principal:

Type: 2.10%

Interest Rate:

Interim to Permanent Financing Fixed

Amort:

360

months

Comments: The Applicant has requested this interim-to-permanent HOME loan that will have a 2nd lien during construction and first lien during the permanent period. Source:

FHLB

Principal:

$500,000

Type:

Grant

Conditions:

Comments: The Applicant anticipates the FHLB of Dallas will provide a performance-based loan in the amount of $500K. However, information presented in the application indicate that these funds will be granted. The exact terms of the funds are not yet known, however, the Applicant does not anticipate any debt service payments as long as the project is in compliance. These funds are not federally sourced. Receipt, review and acceptance by 10% test of documentation from FHLB of Dallas, clearly outlining the terms of the funds is a condition of this report. Wells Fargo

Source:

$4,541,252

Proceeds:

Type: Syndication Rate:

65%

$0

Amount:

Type:

Syndication Anticipated HTC:

$

698,724

Deferred Developer Fees

CONCLUSIONS Recommended Financing Structure: The Underwriter’s/Applicant’s total development cost estimate less the permanent HOME loan of $1,293,888 and $500K FHLB loan indicates the need for $3,970,402 in gap funds. Based on the submitted syndication terms, a tax credit allocation of $610,892 annually would be required to fill this gap in financing. The three possible tax credit allocations are: Allocation determined by eligible basis:

$661,668

Allocation determined by gap in financing:

$646,120

Allocation requested by the Applicant:

$656,403

The allocation amount determined by the gap calculation of the credits is recommended. A tax credit allocation of $646,120 per year for 10 years results in total equity proceeds of $4,199,360 at a syndication rate of $0.65 per tax credit dollar. The Underwriter’s recommended financing structure indicates no need for deferred developer fees. The Underwriter recommends approval of the HOME loan on the terms requested. The HOME award amount is below the 221(d)(3) limit for this project. In addition, the HOME award is below the prorata share of development cost based on the number HOME units to total units. Underwriter:

Date:

November 30, 2010

Date:

November 30, 2010

Date:

November 30, 2010

Diamond Unique Thompson Manager of Real Estate Analysis: Audrey Martin Director of Real Estate Analysis: Brent Stewart

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 9 of 14

printed: 11/30/2010

UNIT MIX/RENT SCHEDULE Las Brisas Manor, Del Rio, HTC 9% #10262 LOCATION DATA CITY: COUNTY:

Other Unit Desgination

UNIT DISTRIBUTION Del Rio

# Beds

Val Verde

Eff 1

SUB-MARKET:

# Units

15

PROGRAMS:

% Total

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY:

HOME

Rent Limit

Eff

1

2

3

4

31.3%

LH

$398

$427

$512

$592

$661

3

68.8%

HH

$410

$490

$579

$720

$803

12

Total Units

REVENUE GROWTH:

2.00%

EXPENSE GROWTH:

3.00%

HIGH COST ADJUSTMENT:

PROGRAM REGION:

11

2

RURAL RENT USED:

No

3

APPLICABLE FRACTION:

IREM REGION:

NA

4

APP % - ACQUISITION:

33

TOTAL

48

100.0%

100.00%

APP % - CONSTRUCTION:

UNIT MIX / MONTHLY RENT SCHEDULE

UNIT DESCRIPTION

Type

Other Designation

# Units

# Beds

PROGRAM RENT LIMITS

# Baths

NRA

Gross Rent

Tenant Paid Utilities (Verified)

APPLICANT RENTS

OTHER UNIT DESIGNATI ON

TDHCA RENTS

Max Net Delta to Total Total Program Max Rent per Net Rent Monthly Monthly Rent Program NRA per Unit Rent Rent

Rent per Unit

Delta to Rent per Max NRA Program

HOME

MARKET RENTS

Market Rent

TDHCA Savings to Market

TC 30%

LH

1

1

1

709

$256

$111

$145

$0

$0.20

$145

$145

$145

$145

$0.20

$0

$427

$570

TC 50%

HH

7

1

1

709

$427

$111

$316

$0

$0.45

$316

$2,212

$2,212

$316

$0.45

$0

$490

$570

$254

7

1

1

709

$513

$111

$402

$0

$0.57

$402

$2,814

$2,814

$402

$0.57

$0

$570

$168 $629

TC 60%

$425

TC 30%

LH

2

2

2

1,073

$308

$147

$161

($1)

$0.15

$160

$320

$322

$161

$0.15

$0

$512

$790

TC 50%

HH

5

2

2

1,073

$512

$147

$365

$0

$0.34

$365

$1,825

$1,825

$365

$0.34

$0

$579

$790

$425

TC 50%

10

2

2

1,073

$512

$147

$365

$0

$0.34

$365

$3,650

$3,650

$365

$0.34

$0

$790

$425

TC 60%

7

2

2

1,073

$615

$147

$468

$0

$0.44

$468

$3,276

$3,276

$468

$0.44

$0

$790

$322

TC 60%

9

2

2

1,073

$615

$147

$468

$0

$0.44

$468

$4,212

$4,212

$468

$0.44

$0

$790

$322

TOTAL:

48

$18,454

$18,456 $0.40

$0

$721

($337)

$221,448

$221,472

AVG:

46,044 959

($0)

ANNUAL:

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

$0.40

$384

$385

$162

printed: 11/30/2010

Page 10 of 14

PROFORMA ANALYSIS & DEVELOPMENT COSTS Las Brisas Manor, Del Rio, HTC 9% #10262 INCOME POTENTIAL GROSS RENT

TDHCA

Secondary Income

Per Unit Per Month:

APPLICANT

$221,472 11,520

$20.00

$221,448 17,796

Other Support Income:

POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME Vacancy & Collection Loss

% of Potential Gross Income:

-7.50%

Employee or Other Non-Rental Units or Concessions

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME EXPENSES

$30.90

Per Unit Per Month

$0.00

Per Unit Per Month

-7.50%

of Potential Gross Income

$232,992 (17,474) 0 $215,518

$239,244 (17,940)

PER SQ FT

PER UNIT

$11,255 11,658

$0.24

$234

5.09%

0.25

243

5.27%

$221,304

% OF EGI

PER UNIT

PER SQ FT

General & Administrative

7.11%

$319

0.33

Management

5.00%

$224

0.23

$15,328 10,776

Payroll & Payroll Tax

13.84%

$621

0.65

29,828

29,828

0.65

621

13.48%

Repairs & Maintenance

9.37%

$421

0.44

562

12.19%

4.90%

$220

0.23

26,970 8,400

0.59

Utilities

20,202 10,560

0.18

175

3.80%

Water, Sewer, & Trash

8.80%

$395

0.41

450

9.76%

5.35%

$240

0.25

21,600 11,520

0.47

Property Insurance

18,976 11,520

0.25

240

5.21%

3.89%

$175

0.18

154

3.34%

5.57%

$250

0.26

7,387 12,000

0.16

Reserve for Replacements

8,392 12,000

0.26

250

5.42%

TDHCA Compliance Fees

0.89%

$40

0.04

1,920

1,920

0.04

40

0.87%

Other:

0.00%

$0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00%

TOTAL EXPENSES

64.73%

$2,906

$3.03

$139,502

$142,538

$3.10

$2,970

64.41%

NET OPERATING INC

35.27%

$1,584

$1.65

$76,016

$78,767

$1.71

$1,641

35.59%

$58,169

$58,341

PER SQ FT

PER UNIT

% of TOTAL

$167,000

$3.63

$3,479

2.74%

0

0.00

0

0.00%

545,575 2,899,906

11.85

11,366

8.94%

62.98

60,415

47.50%

Property Tax

2.331065

% OF EGI

DEBT SERVICE TDHCA - HOME FHLB

$0

Additional Financing

$0

Additional Financing

0 0 58,169 $17,846

Additional Financing

TOTAL DEBT SERVICE NET CASH FLOW AGGREGATE DEBT COVERAGE RATIO

1.31

58,341 $20,426 1.35

RECOMMENDED DEBT COVERAGE RATIO

1.35

CONSTRUCTION COST Description

Factor

TDHCA

APPLICANT

% of TOTAL

PER UNIT

PER SQ FT

Acquisition Cost (site or bldg)

0.95%

$1,149

$1.20

Off-Sites

0.00%

$0

$0.00

Sitework Direct Construction

9.38%

$11,366

$11.85

47.83%

$57,982

$60.45

545,575 2,783,155

$55,168

Contingency

6.53%

3.73%

$4,525

$4.72

217,214

217,214

4.72

4,525

3.56%

Contractor's Fees

13.60%

8.29%

$10,048

$10.47

482,305

482,305

10.47

10,048

7.90%

Indirect Construction

7.86%

$9,531

$9.94

457,500

457,500

9.94

9,531

7.49%

Ineligible Costs

2.20%

$2,663

$2.78

127,800

127,800

2.78

2,663

2.09%

15.82%

$19,181

$20.00

920,690

935,080

20.31

19,481

15.32%

Interim Financing

2.02%

$2,452

$2.56

117,700

117,700

2.56

2,452

1.93%

Reserves TOTAL COST

1.91%

$2,316

$2.41

3,229

2.54%

$121,214.36

$126.36

155,000 $6,105,080

3.37

100.00%

111,183 $5,818,290

$132.59

$127,189

100.00%

69.23%

$83,922

$87.49

$4,028,249

$4,145,000

$90.02

$86,354

67.89%

Developer's Fees

20.00%

Construction Cost Recap

SOURCES OF FUNDS

RECOMMENDED

TDHCA - HOME

22.24%

$26,956

$28.10

8.59%

$10,417

$10.86

$1,293,888 500,000

$1,293,888 500,000

$1,293,888 500,000

Developer Fee Available

FHLB Wells Fargo

78.05%

$94,609

$98.63

4,541,252

4,266,192

4,199,360

% of Dev. Fee Deferred

45,000 $6,105,080

0 $5,993,248

Deferred Developer Fees

0.00%

$0

$0.00

Additional (Excess) Funds Req'd

-8.88%

($10,768)

($11.23)

TOTAL SOURCES

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

0 (516,850) $5,818,290

Page 11 of 14

0

$935,080 0% 15-Yr Cumulative Cash Flow

$318,692

printed: 11/30/2010

MULTIFAMILY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS (continued) Las Brisas Manor, Del Rio, HTC 9% #10262 DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PROPOSED PAYMENT COMPUTATION

Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook Average Quality Multiple Residence Basis CATEGORY

FACTOR

UNITS/SQ FT

Base Cost

TDHCA - HOME

$1,293,888

Amort

360

$54.26

$2,498,257

Int Rate

2.10%

DCR

1.31

FHLB

$500,000

Int Rate

PER SF

AMOUNT

Adjustments Exterior Wall Finish

6.40%

Elderly

5.00%

$3.47 2.71

$159,888 124,913

9-Ft. Ceilings

3.80%

2.06

94,934

Subfloor

0.00 1.33

0 61,392

Floor Cover

2.41

110,966

Roofing

Breezeways

$23.05

Balconies

$23.05

3,597

0.00 1.80

0 82,899

$845

99

1.82

83,655

Plumbing Fixtures

$420

96

Built-In Appliances

$2,250

48

0.88 2.35

40,320 108,000

Exterior Stairs

$1,900

0

0.00

0

4.75 1.76

218,541 81,175 0 85,181

Rough-ins

Enclosed Corridors

$47.48

4,603

Elevator

$81,175

1

Carports

$9.70

0

0.00 1.85

Heating/Cooling Garages

$30.00

0

0.00

0

Comm &/or Aux Bldgs

$81.69

1,432

2.54

116,974

Other: fire sprinkler

$2.25

52,079

SUBTOTAL Current Cost Multiplier

0.99

Local Multiplier

0.87

2.54

117,178

86.53 (0.87)

3,984,274 (39,843)

(11.25) $74.42

Plans, specs, survy, bld prmt

3.90%

Interim Construction Interest

3.38%

($2.90) (2.51)

($133,633) (115,644)

Contractor's OH & Profit

11.50%

(8.56)

(394,045)

$60.45

NET DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Additional Financing

1.31

Amort

$0

Int Rate

Aggregate DCR

Additional Financing

Subtotal DCR

Additional Financing

1.31

Amort

$0

Int Rate

1.31

Amort

$0

Int Rate

Aggregate DCR

1.31

RECOMMENDED FINANCING STRUCTURE APPLICANT'S NOI: TDHCA - HOME $58,169 FHLB 0 Additional Financing 0 Additional Financing 0 Additional Financing 0 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $58,169

(517,956)

TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Amort Subtotal DCR

$3,426,475

$2,783,155

TDHCA - HOME

$1,293,888

Amort

360

Int Rate

2.10%

DCR

1.35

FHLB

$500,000

Amort

0

Int Rate

0.00%

Subtotal DCR

1.35

Additional Financing

$0

Amort

0

Int Rate

0.00%

Aggregate DCR

1.35

OPERATING INCOME & EXPENSE PROFORMA: RECOMMENDED FINANCING STRUCTURE (APPLICANT'S NOI) INCOME

at

2.00%

YEAR 1

YEAR 2

YEAR 3

YEAR 4

YEAR 5

YEAR 10

YEAR 15

YEAR 20

YEAR 30

$221,448

$225,877

$230,394

$235,002

$239,702

$264,651

$292,196

$322,608

$393,257

17,796

18,152

18,515

18,885

19,263

21,268

23,481

25,925

31,603

Other Support Income:

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Support Income:

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

239,244

244,029

248,909

253,888

258,965

285,919

315,677

348,533

424,860

(17,940)

(18,302)

(18,668)

(19,042)

(19,422)

(21,444)

(23,676)

(26,140)

(31,865)

POTENTIAL GROSS RENT Secondary Income

POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME Vacancy & Collection Loss Employee or Other Non-Rental U EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME EXPENSES at

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$221,304

$225,727

$230,241

$234,846

$239,543

$264,475

$292,002

$322,393

$392,996

$11,593

$11,940

$12,299

$12,668

$14,685

$17,024

$19,736

$26,523

12,129

12,371

12,619

13,932

15,382

16,983

20,702

3.00%

General & Administrative

$11,255

Management

11,658

Payroll & Payroll Tax

29,828

30,723

31,645

32,594

33,572

38,919

45,118

52,304

70,292

Repairs & Maintenance

26,970

27,779

28,612

29,471

30,355

35,190

40,795

47,292

63,557

8,400

8,652

8,912

9,179

9,454

10,960

12,706

14,729

19,795

Water, Sewer & Trash

21,600

22,248

22,915

23,603

24,311

28,183

32,672

37,876

50,902

Insurance

11,520

11,866

12,222

12,588

12,966

15,031

17,425

20,200

27,148

7,387

7,608

7,836

8,071

8,314

9,638

11,173

12,952

17,407

12,000

12,360

12,731

13,113

13,506

15,657

18,151

21,042

28,279

1,920

1,978

2,037

2,098

2,161

2,505

2,904

3,367

4,525

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$142,538

$146,697

$150,979

$155,387

$159,925

$184,700

$213,349

$246,481

$329,129

$78,767

$79,030

$79,262

$79,459

$79,618

$79,775

$78,652

$75,912

$63,867

Utilities

Property Tax Reserve for Replacements TDHCA Compliance Fee Other TOTAL EXPENSES NET OPERATING INCOME

11890.98268

DEBT SERVICE

$58,169

$58,169

$58,169

$58,169

$58,169

$58,169

$58,169

$58,169

$58,169

Second Lien

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Financing

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$20,597

$20,861

$21,093

$21,290

$21,449

$21,605

$20,483

$17,743

$5,698

1.35

1.36

1.36

1.37

1.37

1.37

1.35

1.31

1.10

First Lien Financing

NET CASH FLOW DEBT COVERAGE RATIO

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

Page 12 of 14

printed: 11/30/2010

HTC ALLOCATION ANALYSIS -Las Brisas Manor, Del Rio, HTC 9% #10262

CATEGORY

APPLICANT'S

TDHCA

APPLICANT'S

TDHCA

TOTAL

TOTAL

REHAB/NEW

REHAB/NEW

AMOUNTS

AMOUNTS

ELIGIBLE BASIS

ELIGIBLE BASIS

Acquisition Cost

Purchase of land Purchase of buildings

$167,000

$55,168

$545,575 $2,899,906 $482,305 $217,214 $457,500 $117,700 $127,800

$545,575 $2,783,155 $466,022 $217,214 $457,500 $117,700 $127,800

$545,575 $2,899,906 $482,305 $217,214 $457,500 $117,700

$935,080 $155,000

$920,690 $111,183

$935,080

$6,105,080

$5,802,007

$5,655,280

$5,504,599

$5,655,280

$5,504,599

Off-Site Improvements Sitework Construction Hard Costs Contractor Fees Contingencies Eligible Indirect Fees Eligible Financing Fees All Ineligible Costs

$545,575 $2,783,155 $466,022 $217,214 $457,500 $117,700 $917,433

Developer Fees

Developer Fees Development Reserves TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS Deduct from Basis:

All grant proceeds used to finance costs in eligible basis B.M.R. loans used to finance cost in eligible basis Non-qualified non-recourse financing Non-qualified portion of higher quality units [42(d)(3)] Historic Credits (on residential portion only) TOTAL ELIGIBLE BASIS

130%

High Cost Area Adjustment

$7,351,864

TOTAL ADJUSTED BASIS

100%

Applicable Fraction

$7,351,864

TOTAL QUALIFIED BASIS

9.00% $661,668

Applicable Percentage

TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAX CREDITS Syndication Proceeds

$7,155,979 100% $7,155,979 9.00% $644,038

0.6499

$4,300,411

$4,185,829

Total Tax Credits (Eligible Basis Method) Syndication Proceeds

$661,668 $4,300,411

$644,038 $4,185,829

Requested Tax Credits

$656,403

Syndication Proceeds

$4,266,193

Gap of Syndication Proceeds Needed

$4,199,360

Total Tax Credits (Gap Method)

$646,120

Recommended Tax Credits Syndication Proceeds

10262 Las Brisas Manor.xlsx

130%

Page 13 of 14

646,120 $4,199,360

printed: 11/30/2010

XMap® 7

10262 Las Brisas Manor Data use subject to license.

Scale 1 : 162,500

TN 0

© DeLorme. XMap® 7. www.delorme.com

MN (6.3°E)

Page 14 of 14

0

1 1

2 2

1" = 2.56 mi

3

3 4

4 5

mi km

Data Zoom 10-3

HOME PROGRAM DIVISON BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010

Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action to Approve for publication in the Texas Register final order adopting amendments to the HOME Program Rule, 10 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 53, Subchapters B, C, D, and H. RESOLVED, that the amendments to 10 TAC Chapter 53, Subchapters B, C, D, and H, together with preamble, in the form presented to this meeting is hereby ordered adopted, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director and his designees be and each them hereby are authorized, empowered, and directed, for and on behalf of the Department, to cause the amendments to the HOME Program Rule, in the form presented to this meeting, to be published in the Texas Register for final adoption, and in connection therewith, make such non-substantive technical corrections as they may deem necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Background The proposed amendments to the rule were published in the November 26, 2010 issue of the Texas Register to allow for public comment. Public comments were accepted through December 9, 2010 with comments received from (1) Delia Chavez, Executive Director, El Paso Collaborative and (2) Joann Guillen, El Paso Collaborative. Since the comments were supportive of staff recommendations, no additional changes are proposed. The amendments were proposed to address several parts of the rule. HUD released the list of Federal fiscal year match reductions and the Department was included with a 100% match reduction. Staff proposed an amendment to temporarily suspend match requirements for HOME subrecipients, which is expected to facilitate the award of funds to previously unserved areas or subrecipients that previously experienced difficulty meeting the match requirements. Additionally, the amendments include an update to QAP rule references to now reference the newly adopted QAP, which will provide for more consistency in requirements across the Department’s multifamily programs. Lastly, the amendments include a technical correction to the Multifamily Development section of the rule which will allow for consistency in the treatment of HOME units for all HOME funded developments and simplify compliance monitoring. Attachment is the order preamble and the amendments to 10 TAC Chapter 53.

1 of 9

Attachment A: Preamble and Chapter 53 The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Department”) adopts amendments to 10 TAC Chapter 53, Subchapter B, §53.26(d), Subchapter C, §53.30(1), Subchapter D, §53.40(1), Subchapter H, §53.80(2) and §53.81(i). These amendments are adopted without change and will not be republished. These amendments were adopted in order to temporarily suspend match requirements for the Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance and Homebuyer Assistance Program Activities, update references to the Qualified Action Plan, and clarify “fixed” versus “floating” units requirement for Multifamily Developments. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs accepted comments to the proposed amendments in writing and by email. Public comments were accepted through December 9, 2010 and with comments received from (1) Delia Chavez, Executive Director, El Paso Collaborative and (2) Joann Guillen, El Paso Collaborative. The Board approved the final order adopting the new sections on December 17, 2010. The amendments are adopted pursuant to the authority Chapter 2306 of the Texas Government Code, which provides the Department with the authority to adopt rules governing the administration of the Department and its programs. REASONED RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF 10 TAC CHAPTER 53, SUBCHAPTER B, C, and D. §53.26(d), §53.30(1), and §53.40(1) Public Comment: The two commenters supported the temporary match suspension. Staff Response: No change is necessary.

§53.26. Reservation System Participant (RSP) Agreements. (a) Terms of agreement. RSP agreements will have a twenty-four (24) month term for all Program Activities. Execution of an RSP agreement does not guarantee the availability of funds under a reservation system. (b) Limits on Number of Reservations. The number of Homeowner Rehabilitation, Homebuyer Assistance or Single Family Development reservations for an RSP is limited to five (5) per county within the RSP's Service Area at any given time. The number of Tenant-Based Rental Assistance reservations for an RSP is limited to thirty (30) at any given time.

2 of 9

(c) Extremely Low-Income Households. Except for Households served with HBA or SFD funds, each RSP will be required to serve at least one (1) Household at or below 30% of AMFI out of every four (4) Households submitted and approved for assistance. (d) Match. The requirements of this subsection are waived until August 31, 2011. An RSP must meet the tiered Match requirements per Program Activity for at least every fourth Household submitted and approved for assistance. For example, if Match is not provided for the first three (3) Households assisted by an RSP, the Match provided to the fourth Household must meet the Match requirement for all four (4) Households. (e) Completion of Construction. For Activities involving construction, an RSP must complete construction and submit all requests for disbursement within nine (9) months from the Commitment of Funds for the Activity. (f) Extensions. The Division Director may approve one three (3) month time extension to the Commitment of Funds to allow for the completion of construction and submission of requests for disbursement. (g) An RSP must remain in good standing with the Department, the State of Texas, and HUD. If an RSP is not in good standing, participation in the reservation system will be suspended and may result in termination of the RSP agreement.

§53.30. Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance (HRA) Program Threshold and Selection Criteria. All Applicants and Applications must submit or comply with the following: (1) The requirements of this subsection are waived until August 31, 2011. An itemized schedule of the proposed Match and evidence to support the Applicant's ability to provide the required Match. For Applications submitted to become an RSP, the Department may withhold disbursements if after every four reservations sufficient Match documentation has not been provided. The Department shall use population figures from the most recently available U.S. Census to determine the applicable tier for an Application. The Department may incentivize or provide preference to Applicants committing to provide additional Match above the requirement of this subsection. Such incentives may be established in the form of a threshold or selection criteria and may be different for each Program Activity. Except for Applications for disaster relief, Match shall be required based on the following tiers: (A) zero percent of Project funds if serving a city of less than 3,000 Persons or an unincorporated area of a county with less than 20,000 Persons; (B) ten percent of Project funds if serving a city of between 3,001 and 5,000 Persons or an unincorporated area of a county of between than 20,001 and 75,000 Persons; and

3 of 9

(C) twelve and one-half percent of Project funds for all other applications. (2) Documentation of a commitment of at least $80,000 or for a Contract award 80% of the award amount, whichever is less, in cash reserves to facilitate administration of the program and to ensure the capacity to cover costs prior to reimbursement or costs determined to be ineligible for reimbursement. Evidence of this commitment and the amount of the commitment must be included in the Applicant's resolution. To meet this requirement, Applicants must submit: (A) Financial statements indicating adequate local unrestricted cash or cash equivalents to utilize as cash reserves and a letter from the Applicant's bank(s) or financial institution(s) indicating that current account balances are sufficient; or (B) Evidence of an available line of credit or equivalent in an amount equal to or exceeding the above requirement; or (C) The CPA opinion letter from the most recent audit and a statement from the CPA that indicates, based on past experience with grant programs and past audits, the applicant has in place the best practices and financial capacity necessary in order to effectively administer a HOME Program award. (3) Housing construction plans must be certified by a licensed architect. The Department may procure and make architect certified plans available. (A) The Department will reimburse only for the first time a set of architectural plans are used unless any subsequent site specific fees are paid to a Third Party architect, or a licensed engineer; and (B) A NOFA may include incentives or otherwise require architectural plans to incorporate "green building" elements. §53.40. Homebuyer Assistance (HBA) Threshold and Selection Criteria. All Applicants and Applications must submit or comply with the following: (1) The requirements of this subsection are waived until August 31, 2011. An itemized schedule of the proposed Match and evidence to support the Applicant's ability to provide the required Match. The Department may not require such support at the time an Application is submitted when the funds are made available under a reservation system. Except for Applications for disaster relief and Persons with Disabilities set-asides, the amount of Match required must be at least 5% of Project funds requested. The Department may incentivize or provide preference to Applicants committing to provide additional Match above the requirement of this subsection. Such incentives may be established in the form of a threshold or selection criteria and may be different for each Program Activity. (2) Documentation of a commitment of at least $80,000 or for a Contract award 100% of the award amount, whichever is less, in cash reserves to facilitate administration of the 4 of 9

program and to ensure the capacity to cover costs prior to reimbursement or costs determined to be ineligible for reimbursement. Evidence of this commitment and the amount of the commitment must be included in the Applicant's resolution. To meet this requirement, Applicants must submit: (A) Financial statements indicating adequate local unrestricted cash or cash equivalents to utilize as cash reserves and a letter from the Applicant's bank(s) or financial institution(s) indicating that current account balances are sufficient; or (B) Evidence of an available line of credit or equivalent in an amount equal to or exceeding the above requirement; or (C) The CPA opinion letter from the most recent audit and a statement from the CPA that indicates, based on past experience with grant programs and past audits, the applicant has in place the best practices and financial capacity necessary in order to effectively administer a HOME Program award.

§53.80. Multifamily (Rental Housing) Development (MFD) Threshold and Selection Criteria. All Applicants and Applications must submit or comply with the following: (1) If the total of Department loans equals more than 50% of the total development cost, except for developments also financed with USDA funds, the Applicant must provide: (A) Evidence of a line of credit or equivalent financing equal to at least 10% of the total development cost from a financial institution that is available for use during the proposed development activities; or (B) A letter from a third party CPA verifying the capacity of the owner or developer to provide at least 10% of the total development cost as a short term loan for development; and (C) A letter from the developer's or owner's bank(s) confirming funds amounting to 10% of the total development cost are available. (2) Applications must comply with all of the current Qualified Allocation Plan in effect at the time of Application's submission at§49.8 or §50.8 of this title except as follows for Applications not also seeking an allocation of housing tax credits or tax-exempt bonds: (A) The “Application Acceptance Period,” “Resolutions Delivery Date,” and “Third Party Reports Delivery Date” shall be replaced with the date that the Application for HOME funds is submitted to the Department; (B) The date of “Commitment” and shall mean the date the HOME “Contract” is executed;

5 of 9

(C) The date of “10% Test Certification” and “Cost Certification” shall mean prior to release of retainage; (D) The threshold requirement for Site Control in (8)(A) must be valid for 120 days from the date that the Application is submitted with an option to extend at least ninety (90) days. (3) Except for applications awarded under the Persons with Disabilities set-aside or USDA §515 applications, Match equal to 2% of the HOME award must be provided. Documentation of the Applicant's ability to meet this requirement shall be required in the Application in the form of a commitment from the organization providing the Match. The Department may incentivize or provide preference to Applicants committing to provide additional Match above the requirement of this subsection. Such incentive may be established in the form of a Threshold or Selection scoring criterion. Match in the form of a property tax abatement will only be accepted if a letter from the applicable appraisal district is provided and such letter documents a cash value and duration for such exemption sufficient to meet the HUD requirements for documentation of Match. (4) The maximum HOME award may not exceed 90% of the total development costs ("TDC") unless a resolution of support for the development is made by the local unit of government in which the proposed development resides and/or the proposed development is located in an area where the HUD Fair Market Rents are equal to the respective HOME Rent Limit for a one-bedroom unit but will be limited as reflected in Figure: 10 TAC §53.80(4). The remaining percentage of total development cost must be in the form of permanent loans with a maturity of at least twenty (20) years, in-kind contributions or grants from third-party private or public entities. Developments with USDA or other government-sponsored loans that will remain as permanent financing may be used to satisfy this requirement from a public or private entity. Loans or grants from the Department will not satisfy this requirement. Figure: 10 TAC §53.80(4) Rent

Resolution from Maximum Award % of TDC Local Government as % of TDC from other sources

FMR greater Home

than

High No

90%

10%

FMR greater Home

than

High Yes

92%

8%

FMR equal to High Home

No

93%

7%

FMR equal to High Home

Yes

95%

5%

FMR equal to Low Home

No

96%

4%

FMR equal to Low Home

Yes

98%

2%

6 of 9

(5) For Applications proposing New Construction, documentation sufficient to meet the Site and Neighborhood Standards required in 24 CFR §92.202 §53.81. Multifamily (Rental Housing) Development (MFD) Program Requirements. (a) Eligible activities include the acquisition or refinancing and New Construction or Rehabilitation of multifamily housing Developments. Housing assisted with HOME funds must meet all applicable codes and standards. Additionally, the Development must meet or exceed the requirements of the Texas Property Code relating to security devices and other applicable requirements for residential tenancies, and will adhere to local building codes or if no local building codes are in place then to the most recent version of the International Building Code. (b) Developments involving New Construction will be limited to no more than 252 total units. This maximum unit limitation also applies to those Developments which involve a combination of Rehabilitation and New Construction. Developments that consist solely of acquisition and Rehabilitation or Reconstruction only may exceed the maximum unit restrictions. The minimum number of units shall be 8 units. (c) This Program Activity is a CHDO-eligible activity. (d) A Development receiving funds under this section shall have a LURA filed and recorded at the time of Loan closing and prior to any disbursement of HOME funds. The Department may require that a second LURA be filed and recorded if the restrictions to be placed on the Development exceed those of the federal requirements. Such second LURA shall include all of the requirements that exceed the federally required restrictions. (e) In addition to the federal restrictions, Developments receiving funds under this section must meet the following rent and income restrictions: (1) At least 20% of the total number of units in the Development must be restricted as HOME units; (2) At least 5% of the total number of units in the Development must be set-aside for households at or below 30% of AMFI and must have rent restrictions at 30% of AMFI; and (3) Developments receiving funds under the Persons with Disabilities set-aside are not required to meet the requirements under paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection but must restrict all HOME units at 50% of AMFI or below and at least 5% of the HOME units at 30% of AMFI or below. (f) Project funds awarded to Developments under this section shall be structured in the form of a loan or loans as follows:

7 of 9

(1) The interest rate may be as low as 2% provided all requirements of this chapter and §1.32 of this title are met. To the extent that Match in an amount of 5% or more of the HOME funds is provided, an interest rate as low as 0% may be requested; (2) Unless structured only as an interim construction or bridge loan, the loan term shall be no less than fifteen (15) years and no greater than forty (40) years and the amortization schedule shall be no less than twenty (20) years and no greater than forty (40) years; (3) The loan shall be structured with a regular monthly payment beginning at the end of the construction period and continuing for the loan term. If the first lien mortgage is a federally insured HUD or FHA mortgage, the Department may approve a loan structure with annual payments payable from surplus cashflow provided that the debt coverage ratio, inclusive of the loan, continues to meet the requirements in §1.32 of this title. The Board may also approve, on a case-by-case basis, a cashflow loan structure provided it determines that the financial risk is outweighed by the need for the proposed housing; and (4) The loan shall have a deed of trust with a lien position consistent with the principal amount of the loan in relation to the principal amounts of the other sources of financing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the loan shall have a lien position that is superior to any other sources of financing that have soft repayment structures, non-amortizing balloon notes, are deferred forgivable loans or in which the lender has an Identity of Interest with any member of the development team. The Board may also approve, on a case-by-case basis, an alternative lien priority provided it determines that the financial risk is outweighed by the need for the proposed housing. (g) Closing on the Loan shall be conditioned upon the occurrence of closing with any superior lien holders or any other sources of funds determined to be necessary for the long-term financial feasibility of the Development and all due diligence determined by the Department to be prudent and necessary to meet the Department's rules, the HOME Final Rule, and to secure the interests of the Department. (h) When Department funds have a first lien position, assurance of completion of the development in the form of payment and performance bonds in the full amount of the construction contract will be required or equivalent guarantee in the sole determination of the Department. Such assurance of completion will run to the Department as obligee. Development Owners also utilizing the USDA §515 program are exempt from this requirement but must meet the alternative requirements set forth by USDA. (i) All HOME units required under this section shall be restricted as "floating" HOME units in accordance with the meaning ascribed by HUD. Development Owner must use its best efforts to distribute units reserved for Low Income Families, Very Low Income Families and Extremely Low Income Families among unit sizes in proportion to the distribution of unit sizes in the Property and to avoid concentration of Low Income Families, Very Low Income Families and Extremely Low Income Families in any area or areas of the Property.

8 of 9

OFFICE OF COLONIA INITIATIVES BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on the appointment of new Colonia Resident Advisory Committee (C-RAC) members for Val Verde County. RESOLVED, that Juan Lopez is hereby appointed as the primary representative of Val Verde County on the Colonia Resident Advisory Committee and Lupita Galindo is hereby appointed as the secondary representative on that committee for Val Verde County. Background The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the “Department”) is required to establish Colonia Self-Help Centers under Chapter 2306, Subchapter Z of the Texas Government Code to provide on-site technical assistance to improve the quality of life for colonia residents located in five counties (El Paso, Webb, Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron/Willacy). Additionally, the Department is authorized to establish other Colonia Self-Help Centers if it determines it is necessary and appropriate. Since the creation of the program in 1995, two additional Colonia SelfHelp Centers have been established in Maverick and Val Verde Counties. Five colonias within each county are selected to receive concentrated technical assistance in the areas of housing rehabilitation, new construction, surveying and platting, construction skills training, tool library access for self-help, housing, finance, credit and debt counseling, grant preparation, infrastructure constructions, contract-for-deed conversions, and capital access for mortgages and other improvements. To date, the Department oversees seven Colonia Self-Help Centers along the Texas-Mexico border region located in El Paso, Webb, Hidalgo, Starr, Cameron/Willacy, Maverick and Val Verde Counties. The Legislature also mandated that 2.5% of the Texas Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) annual allocation be set aside for this program. The Department’s Governing Board is required under Section 2306.584 of the Texas Government Code to appoint at least five persons who are residents of colonias to serve on a Colonia Resident Advisory Committee. These members must reside in a colonia in the county the member represents, and may not be a board member, contractor, or employee of, or have any ownership interest in an entity that is awarded a contract under the Colonia Self-Help Center Program. The individuals recommended were provided by the county with input from local nonprofit organizations. The Colonia Resident Advisory Committee is required to advise the Department’s Governing Board and evaluate the needs of colonia residents, review programs that are proposed or operated through the Colonia Self-Help Centers and activities that may be undertaken through the Colonia Self-Help

Centers to better serve the needs of colonia residents. The Colonia Resident Advisory Committee is required to meet 30 days before the Colonia Self Help Center contract is scheduled to be award by the Department’s Governing Board and may meet at other times. The Colonia Resident Advisory Committee will be composed of two persons from each county designated to have a Colonia SelfHelp Center. The term of service on the Colonia Resident Advisory Committee shall be for four (4) years. Current C-RAC members and their term limits: Primary

Secondary Cameron County – Terms end 4/23/2013

Jose Luis Almazan 9301 Alaska Brownsville, Texas 78521 (956) 639-1958

Rosa Bodden P.O. Box 644 Port Isabel, Texas 78578 (956) 943-8594 Willacy County – Terms end 4/23/2013

Manuel Carlos Valles Raul Ramirez 1589 N. Monterrey Street 1604 N. Monterrey Street Raymondville, Texas 78580 Raymondville, Texas 78580 (843) 398-7428 (956) 398-7050 Hidalgo County – Terms end 4/23/2013 Yolanda Hernandez P.O. Box 8112 Alamo, Texas 78516 (956) 782-4929

Juan Pena 4521 Jerry St. Mission, Texas 78573 (956) 907-0861 Webb County – Terms end 4/23/2013

Amelia R. Juarez Amelia M. Rodríguez Rt 3 Box 27H San Enrique HWY 359 Rt 3 Box 27H San Enrique 359 Laredo, Texas 78043 Laredo, Texas 78043 (956) 220-1661 (956) 220-1194 Starr County – Terms end 4/23/2013 DeWitt Jones Rosabel Alvarez 6163 FM 1430 51 Ladrillera Rd Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 No Number (956) 487-5925 El Paso County – Terms end 5/12/2014 Margarita Jáuregui 108 Kila El Paso, Texas 79928 (915) 852-5003

Maria Vargas 645 Agua Clara El Paso, Texas 79928 (915) 852-8031

2 of 3

Maverick County – Terms end 4/23/2013 Jerry Chacon 1721 Coyunda Street Eagle Pass, Texas 78852 (830) 752-1874

Dora Lucia Contreras 2030 Boulder Ridge St. Eagle Pass, Texas 78852 (830) 757-3652 Val Verde County

Approval of the following recommendations will allow the Department to carry out the requirements of the Colonia Self Help Center Program and Colonia Resident Advisory Committee. Val Verde County Primary Juan Lopez 110 Bauer Avenue Del Rio, Texas 78840 (30) 774-1313

Secondary Lupita Galindo 233 Dennis Drive Del Rio, Texas 78840 (830) 719-2551

3 of 3

PROGRAM SERVICES DIVISION BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010 Recommended Action Approve HUD Section 3 policy for Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs to comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule 24 CFR Part 135. WHEREAS, The Department receives funds from HUD; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u) “is to ensure that employment and other economic opportunities generated by certain HUD financial assistance shall, to the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with existing Federal, State and local laws and regulations, be directed to low‐ and very low‐income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for housing, and to business concerns which provide economic opportunities to low‐ and very low‐income persons”; WHEREAS, HUD has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring compliance with Section 3 of the Housing & Urban Development Act of 1968; WHEREAS, The Department intends to comply with all applicable legal requirements, including Section 3; THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that the Department’s Section 3 Policy, in the form presented to this meeting, is hereby adopted. Background The “Section 3” requirement has been in statute since 1968 and HUD’s rules on Section 3, 24 CFR 135, were first adopted in 1994; however, HUD’s approach to requiring compliance has varied over the years. With the creation of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and subsequent stimulus era programs, the current administration has expressed a renewed commitment to ensuring Section 3 compliance. A recent HUD monitoring visit requested that the Department document its policy for ensuring that subrecipient contracting fulfills Section 3 obligations. The Department’s Section 3 Policy has not previously been formalized, reviewed, and approved by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Governing Board. HUD has also recently revised its Section 3 web pages which can be found at http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/section3/section3.cfm.

Page 1 of 3   

TDHCA Section 3 Policy The Department will direct employment and other economic opportunities associated with certain HUD financial assistance to low‐ and very low‐income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for housing, and to business concerns which provide economic opportunities to low‐ and very low‐income persons, in a manner consistent with existing Federal, State and local laws and regulations. To achieve this objective, the Department will employ several strategies described below. The Department will post all external job listings with the Texas Work Force Commission and the Work-in-Texas website. The Department will also continue to utilize Goodwill Industries (or other similar targeted agency) for the procurement of temporary contract workers. The Department will maintain a web page, “Employment Opportunities For Low-Income People: HUD Section 3” (http://www-stage/program-services/hud-section-3/), to communicate Department policies and procedures to the public in general and potential awardees of Section 3covered funds in particular. The TDHCA HUD Section 3 web page will link potential and actual HUD-funded subrecipients and contractors to state and federal policy guidance intended to provide guidance and facilitate compliance with Section 3 requirements. The publication of the Department’s Section 3 policy and internet pages fulfill important HUD recipient responsibilities described in 24 CFR §135.32. The Department will require all subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors accessing HUD Section 3-covered funds to submit Section 3 reports and satisfy all other recipient responsibilities, irrespective of the federal minimum $100,000 contractor threshold. These responsibilities include: public notification of economic opportunities associated with the contract, facilitating training and employment of Section 3 residents, documenting actions taken to comply with HUD Section 3 rule, and documenting the results of those actions. Awardees and contractors will perform these actions pursuant to meeting Department’s Section 3 obligations, enumerated in 24 CFR §135.32 and elsewhere in 24 CFR 135. The requirement that all subrecipients report is in consideration that programs that use a reservation system to distribute assistance awards may make multiple awards to the same entity in a given year causing them to exceed the minimum federal threshold for receiving funds in a program year. All contractors and subcontractors using Section 3 covered funds will submit reports to the entity issuing their contract to enable subrecipients to compile and convey hiring and contracting data to TDHCA. In turn, the Department will complete the appropriate HUD reporting for all Section 3 covered funds it administers and transmit that required report to HUD. The Department will monitor subrecipients of Section 3-covered funds for compliance with 24 CFR 135 to ensure the Department meets its requirements.

Page 2 of 3   

Department solicitations for bids or proposals to use Section 3 covered funds will refer to the Department’s Section 3 web pages as a means of meeting federal requirements for informing potential subrecipients and contractors about Section 3 requirements and obligations (24 CFR §135.32 Responsibilities of the recipient and §135.38 Section 3 clause). In the event that a TDHCA program using Section 3-covered funds does not customarily award assistance in contracts that exceed $100,000, that program itself must assume responsibility to meet Section 3 obligations in its process of selecting subrecipients or awardees. In such case, the Department program area will incorporate evaluation of Subrecipient Section 3 plans into its proposal or bid selection criteria, in order to meet its Section 3 obligations to HUD (24 CFR §135.32 (f)).

Page 3 of 3   

Housing Resource Center BOARD ACTION REQUEST December 17, 2010

Recommended Action Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on the 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report (Draft for Public Comment). RESOLVED, that staff is hereby directed to cause the Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report, in the form presented to this meeting, to be published online for public comment, a notice of which will be published in the Texas Register, and in connection therewith, to make such non-substantive grammatical and technical changes as they deem necessary or advisable. Background The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs is required to submit the State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report (SLIHP) annually to the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the house, and legislative oversight committee members not later than 30 days after the TDHCA Board receives the final SLIHP. The document offers a comprehensive reference on statewide housing needs, housing resources, and strategies for funding allocations. It reviews TDHCA's housing programs, current and future policies, resource allocation plans to meet state housing needs, and reports on 2010 performance during the preceding fiscal year (September 1st, 2009 through August 31st, 2010). The SLIHP will be made available for public comment on January 10th through February 8th, 2011. The SLIHP will be presented to the Board for final approval on March 3rd, 2011. The following attachments are provided: ƒ ƒ

Attachment A - Summary of Substantive Changes from the 2010 SLIHP Attachment B - 2011 SLIHP (Draft for Public Comment)

Attachment A Summary of Substantial Changes from the 2010 SLIHP •

Housing Analysis chapter: added special need population estimates and more detail in the housing assessment on the state and regional level.



Annual Report chapter: updated numbers to reflect FY 2010 program performance by households/individuals and income group for the state and each region. Updated performance measure information for goals and strategies reflecting FY 2010 performance, including updated targets for FY 2011. Added the Homeless Housing and Services Program to the reporting data.



Action Plan: updated program descriptions to reflect programmatic changes. Some programs funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 were completed or are in the process of completion and were removed from the Action Plan, such as Community Service Block Grant ARRA and 90-Day Down Payment Assistance Program and Mortgage Advantage Program.



Stimulus Programs chapter: changed the name from Recovery Act chapter to Stimulus Programs chapter to include all programs created to address housing issues arising from the current economy, such as the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Added report data for stimulus programs based on their multiyear cycles instead of state fiscal year cycles.



Disaster Recovery chapter: added new chapter for the Disaster Recovery division which focuses on its Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery fund allocation, activities and reporting on a multiyear cycle.



Updated Regional Allocation Formula reflecting updated data and updated Colonia Action Plan.

2 of 3

Attachment B 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report (Draft for Public Comment)

3 of 3

Cover – (left to right): (1) A family participating in the Bootstrap Loan Program through the Lower Valley Housing Corporation at an early stage of building their home, (2) Habitat for Humanity of San Antonio volunteers setting up a house frame, (3) The completed home of John Casto and family, (4) The Casto family in their new home.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 1

Contents  SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________ 4  INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE ________________________________________________________  4  AGENCY MISSION AND CHARGE _____________________________________________________  4  HOUSING SUPPORT CONTINUUM ACTIVITIES CHART  ____________________________________  5  ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE  _____________________________________________________ 10  2011 STATE OF TEXAS LOW INCOME HOUSING PLAN AND ANNUAL REPORT  ________________ 10  SECTION 2: HOUSING ANALYSIS  _______________________________________ 12  DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS __________________________________________________ 12  STATE OF TEXAS _________________________________________________________________ 15  SPECIAL NEEDS __________________________________________________________________ 18  POVERTY AND INCOME ___________________________________________________________ 28  AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED ______________________________________________________ 31  HOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY _________________________________________ 38  LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF NEED ______________________________________________________ 44   

SECTION 3: ANNUAL LOW‐INCOME HOUSING REPORT ____________________ 124  OPERATING AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  __________________________________________ 124  STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES _______________________________________________________ 125  RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING ASSISTANCE _____________ 131  STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES BY UNIFORM STATE SERVICE REGION ________________________ 158  HOUSING SPONSOR REPORT ANALYSIS  _____________________________________________ 185  GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING TAX CREDITS  _______________________________ 186 

SECTION 4: ACTION PLAN  ___________________________________________ 188  TDHCA PROGRAMS  _____________________________________________________________ 188  HOUSING SUPPORT CONTINUUM __________________________________________________ 207  TDHCA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ___________________________________________________ 216  AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES  _____________________________________ 216  SECTION 5: STIMULUS PROGRAMS ____________________________________ 247  COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT ______________________________________________ 249  HOMEBUYER TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS ______________________________________________ 254  90‐DAY DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  ____________________________________ 254  MORTGAGE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM _______________________________________________ 254  HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE‐HOUSING  PROGRAM ___________________________ 257  Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 2

HOUSING TAX CREDIT RECOVERY ACT PROGRAMS ____________________________________ 264  HOUSING TAX CREDIT EXCHANGE PROGRAM  ________________________________________ 264  TAX CREDIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ________________________________________________ 269  NEIGHBORHOOD STABLIZATION PROGRAM (NSP)  ____________________________________ 274  NATIONAL FORECLOSURE MITIGATION COUNSELING PROGRAM (NFMC) __________________ 277  WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM __________________________________________ 286  SECTION 6: DISASTER RECOVERY ______________________________________ 296 

SECTION 7: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION  ___________________________________ 308  PARTICIPATION IN TDHCA PROGRAMS  _____________________________________________ 308  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM PLANNING  ____________________________________ 308  PREPARATION OF THE PLAN ______________________________________________________ 309  PUBLIC HEARING  _______________________________________________________________ 309  PUBLIC COMMENT ______________________________________________________________ 309  SECTION 8: 2011‐2012 COLONIA ACTION PLAN __________________________ 310  POLICY GOALS  _________________________________________________________________ 310  OVERVIEW  ____________________________________________________________________ 310  PROGRAM PLAN ________________________________________________________________ 312 

SECTION 9: TEXAS STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION ANNUAL ACTION  PLAN ____________________________________________________________ 318    Appendix A_______________________________________________________318

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 3

Introduction State of Texas

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA, Department) is the State of Texas’ lead agency responsible for affordable housing. TDHCA offers a Housing Support Continuum for lowto moderate-income Texans with services ranging from poverty and homelessness prevention to homeownership to disaster recovery.

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE In 1991, the 72nd Texas Legislature created the Department. The Department’s enabling legislation, Texas Government Code Chapter 2306, combined programs from the Texas Housing Agency, the Texas Department of Community Affairs and the Community Development Block Grant Program from the Texas Department of Commerce. On September 1, 1992, two programs were transferred to TDHCA from the Texas Department of Human Services: the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Emergency Nutrition and Temporary Emergency Relief Program (ENTERP). Effective September 1, 1995, in accordance with House Bill 785, regulation of manufactured housing was transferred to the Department. In accordance with House Bill 7, effective September 1, 2002, The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Local Government Services programs were transferred to the newly-created Office of Rural Community Affairs, now called the Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA). However, TDHCA, through an interagency contract with TDRA, administers 2.5 percent of the CDBG funds used for Self-Help Centers along the Texas-Mexico border and collaborates with TDRA on disaster recovery and Neighborhood Stabilization program administration. Effective September 1, 2002, in accordance with Senate Bill 322, the Manufactured Housing Division became an independent entity administratively attached to TDHCA.

AGENCY MISSION AND CHARGE TDHCA’s mission is “to help Texans achieve an improved quality of life through the development of better communities.” TDHCA accomplishes this mission by administering a variety of housing and community affairs programs primarily for households whose incomes are low to moderate as determined by the Area Median Income (AMI) or the poverty level. A primary function of TDHCA is to act as a conduit for federal grant funds for housing and community services. Additionally, because several major housing programs require the participation of private investors and private lenders, TDHCA also operates as a housing finance agency. More specific policy guidelines are provided in §2306.002 of TDHCA’s enabling legislation: (a) The legislature finds that: (1) every resident of this state should have a decent, safe and affordable living environment; (2) government at all levels should be involved in assisting individuals and families of low income in obtaining a decent, safe and affordable living environment; and (3) the development and diversification of the economy, the elimination of unemployment or underemployment and the development or expansion of commerce in this state should be encouraged. Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 4

Introduction State of Texas

(b) The highest priority of the department is to provide assistance to individuals and families of low and very low income who are not assisted by private enterprise or other governmental programs so that they may obtain affordable housing or other services and programs offered by the department. Funding sources to meet the legislative goals include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Treasury Department, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Energy and State of Texas general revenue funds. With this funding, TDHCA strives to promote sound housing policies; promote leveraging of state and local resources; prevent discrimination; and ensure the stability and continuity of services through a fair, nondiscriminatory and open process. Because of the great amount of need in proportion to the federal and state funding available, the Department strives to provide the most benefit by managing these limited resources to have the greatest impact. TDHCA is one organization in a network of housing and community services providers located throughout the state. This document focuses on programs within TDHCA’s jurisdiction, which are intended to either work in cooperation with or as complements to the services provided by other organizations.

HOUSING SUPPORT CONTINUUM ACTIVITIES CHART TDHCA’s Housing Support Continuum can be divided into six categories. It should be noted that, with the exception of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, TDHCA administers its programs and services through a network of organizations across Texas and does not fund individuals directly. The TDHCA Housing Support Continuum includes (1) Poverty and Homelessness Prevention, (2) Rental Assistance and Multifamily Development, (3) Homebuyer Assistance and Single-Family Development, (4) Rehabilitations and Weatherization, (5) Foreclosure Relief and (6) Disaster Recovery and Relief. The following table outlines TDHCA’s programs. When a program has “Stimulus Program” after its name, it has been created as a result of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, or some other federal act or regulation establishing a temporary program meant to address current economic issues. For more detailed program information, please see “TDHCA Programs” in Section 4: Action Plan and Section 5: Stimulus Programs.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 5

Introduction State of Texas

(A) Poverty Prevention (B)Homelessness Prevention (B) Multifamily Development

(2) Rental Assistance and Multifamily Development

(A) Rental Assistance

(1) Poverty and Homelessness Prevention

Continuum

Program/Activities

Community Services Block Grant

Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program

Description Funds local community action agencies to provide essential services and poverty programs Funds local agencies to offer energy education, financial assistance and Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) replacement

Eligible Households <125% poverty <200% poverty

Emergency Solutions Grant Program

Fund entities to provide shelter and related services to the homeless

<30% AMFI (Homeless)

Homeless Housing and Services Program

Funds the eight largest Texas cities to provide services or facilities to homeless individuals and families

<50% AMFI (Homeless)

Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (Stimulus Program)

Funds qualifying entities to provide homelessness prevention assistance and rapidly re-house person who are homeless

<50% AMFI (Homeless)

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers

Acts as a public housing authority to offer tenant-based rental assistance vouchers in certain rural areas

<50% AMFI

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (HOME Program)

Grants for entities to provide tenant-based rental assistance for up to two years

<80% AMFI

TX Veterans Housing Support Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Provides rental subsidies for Veterans for a maximum of two years

<80% AMFI

Affordable Housing Match Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Provides funding to Nonprofit Organization to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs

<80% AMFI

Housing Tax Credit Program

Tax credits to developers for the creation or preservation of affordable rental housing

<60% AMFI

Multifamily Bond Program

Loans to develop or preserve affordable rental housing

<60% AMFI

Multifamily Rental Housing Development (HOME Program)

Loans or grants to develop or preserve affordable rental housing and are available to Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)

<80 % AMFI

Rural Housing Expansion Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Awards eligible applicants for enhancing capacity and preserving rural affordable housing

<80% AMFI

Texas Tax Credit Exchange Program (Stimulus Program)

Allows developments affected by the housing tax credit devaluation to return their credits and potentially receive a cash grant in its place

<60% AMFI

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 6

Introduction State of Texas

(B) Homebuyer Assistance

Program/Activities

Colonia Self-Help Center Program

Description Homebuyer education offered through Colonia Self-Help Centers and Office of Colonia Initiatives (OCI) field offices

Texas Statewide Homebuyer Education

Training for nonprofits to provide homebuyer education

Affordable Housing Match Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Provides funding to Nonprofit Organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or governments programs

Contract For Deed Conversion Program (HOME Program)

Stabilizes colonia resident ownership by converting contract for deeds into traditional mortgages

First Time Homebuyer Program – Non-targeted funds First Time Homebuyer Program – Targeted funds Homebuyer Assistance Program (HOME Program) Homeownership Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Mortgage Credit Certificate Program

(C) Single--family Development

(3) Homebuyer Education, Assistance and Single-Family Development

(A) Homebuyer

Continuum

Low-interest loans and/or down payment and closing costs for the first time homebuyers Low-interest loans and/or down payment and closing costs for the first time homebuyers in areas of chronic economic distress

Eligible Households <115% AMFI (All) <115% AMFI (All)

<80% AMFI

<60% AMFI

<115% AMFI

<140% AMFI

Loans and grants for entities to offer down payment and closing cost assistance

<80% AMFI

Loans and grants for entities to offer down payment and closing cost assistance

<80% AMFI

Annual tax credit for qualified homebuyers based on the interest paid on the homebuyer’s mortgage loan

<115% AMFI

Rural Housing Expansion Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Awards eligible applicants for enhancing capacity and preserving rural affordable housing

<80% AMFI

Rural Housing Expansion Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Awards eligible applicants to enhance capacity and preserving rural affordable housing

<80% AMFI

Single Family Development (HOME Program)

Community Housing Development Organization (CHDOs) can apply for loans to acquire, rehabilitate, or reconstruct single family housing. CHDOs can also apply for homebuyer assistance if their organization is the owner or developer of the single family housing project

<60% AMFI

Texas Bootstrap Loan Program

Funds entities to offer owner-builder loans programs

<60% AMFI

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 7

Introduction State of Texas

Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program (HOME Program)

Loans and grants for entities to provide home repair assistance

<80% AMFI

Weatherization Assistance Program and Weatherization Assistance Program ARRA (Stimulus Program)

Funds local agencies to provide minor home repairs to increase energy efficiency

<200% poverty

National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (Stimulus Program)

Fund Foreclosure Counselors to assist households avoid foreclosure

No AMFI limits

Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (Stimulus Program)

Purchase foreclosed properties to demolish or create affordable housing and stabilize existing neighborhoods

<120% AMFI

Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (Stimulus Program)

Not yet awarded-application to second round of funding. Purchase foreclosed properties to demolish or create affordable housing and stabilize existing neighborhoods

<120% AMFI

(A) Rehabilitation

<80% AMFI

(B) Weatherization

Eligible Households

Grants for entities to provide home modifications needed for accessibility for person with disabilities

Community Development Block Grant Program – Hurricane Rita Round One (6) Disaster Recovery and Relief

Description

(A) Foreclosure Prevention

Program/Activities Amy Young Barrier Removal Program (Housing Trust Fund)

(B) Post-Foreclosure Mitigation

(5) Foreclosure Relief

(4) Rehabilitation and Weatherization

Continuum

Community Development Block Grant Program – Hurricane Rita Round Two Community Development Block Grant Program – Hurricanes Dolly and Ike Round One

Community Development Block Grant Program – Hurricanes Dolly and Ike Round Two

Targeted disaster recovery funding to provide home repair assistance and preserve affordable rental housing Targeted disaster recovery funding to provide home repair assistance and preserve affordable rental housing, provide infrastructure repairs and provide community services for areas with evacuees Targeted disaster recovery funding to provide home repair assistance and preserve affordable rental housing Targeted disaster recovery funding to provide homeowner repair, rehabilitation and replacement; rental repair, rehabilitation and replacement; down payment assistance; relocation activities; activities to address blighted areas; and activities to address environmental hazards

<80% AMFI

<80-150% AMFI 50% of the funds used for <80% AMFI

55% of the funds used for <80% AMFI

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 8

Introduction State of Texas

Continuum

Program/Activities Disaster Recovery Gap Assistance Program (Housing Trust Fund)

Disaster Relief (HOME Program)

Texas First Time Homebuyer – Targeted Funds

Description Assists households who are lacking only a small portion of funds to fulfill their full cost of construction Deobligated HOME funds may be used in nonParticipant Jurisdiction to assist with home repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction, homebuyer assistance and tenant-based rental assistance of homes affected by a disaster Assist those affected by natural disasters by improving existing residential housing through self-help construction

Eligible Households <80% AMFI

<80% AMFI

<60% AMFI

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 9

Introduction State of Texas

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE Agency programs are grouped into the following divisions: Community Affairs, Disaster Recovery, HOME, Housing Trust Fund, Multifamily Finance, Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Office of Colonia Initiatives and Texas Homeownership. The Manufactured Housing Division is administratively attached to TDHCA, though it is an independent entity with its own governing board. Additionally, there are several Divisions within TDHCA which are involved in the administration of the agency as a whole but do not administer specific programs. The Program Services Division is responsible for adherence, processing and completion of cross-cutting federal and departmental requirements for housing programs administered by the Department, including the processing and issuance of environmental clearances, labor standards requirements, loan closings and the commitment and disbursement of federal funds. The Office of Recovery Act Accountability and Oversight is responsible for identifying and mitigating risk in program development and operation and for issues that cut across all Recovery Act programs, such as reporting and federal guidance. The Department of Policy and Public Affairs disseminates information and is a liaison between TDHCA and industry stakeholders, advocacy groups and the executive and legislative branches of state and Federal government. The Housing Resource Center acts as a central clearinghouse for information and research regarding TDHCA programs and general housing-related issues. The Real Estate Analysis Division provides TDHCA with analytical reports necessary to make well-informed financial decisions about funding affordable housing developments. The Compliance and Asset Oversight Division ensures housing program and financial compliance with federal and state regulations by using various oversight measures including onsite monitoring visits and desk reviews. Other divisions that are involved in TDHCA’s internal management include Administrative Support, Bond Finance, Financial Administration, Information Systems, Internal Audit and Legal Services.

2011 STATE OF TEXAS LOW INCOME HOUSING PLAN AND ANNUAL REPORT  The 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report (SLIHP, Plan) is prepared annually in accordance with §2306.072-2306.0724 of the Texas Government Code, which requires that TDHCA provide a comprehensive statement of activities in the preceding year, an overview of statewide housing needs and a resource allocation plan to meet the state’s housing needs. It offers policy makers, affordable housing providers and local communities a comprehensive reference on statewide housing need, housing resources and performance-based funding allocations. The format is intended to help these entities measure housing needs, understand general housing issues, formulate policies and identify available resources. As such, the Plan is a working document and its annual changes reflect changes in programs or funding amounts, policy changes, statutory guidance and input received throughout the year. The Plan is organized into nine sections: • Section 1: Introduction - An overview of TDHCA and the Plan • Section 2: Housing Analysis - An analysis of statewide and regional demographic information, housing characteristics and housing needs • Section 3: Annual Report - A comprehensive statement of activities for 2010, including performance measures, actual numbers served and a discussion of TDHCA’s Strategic Plan goals • Section 4: Action Plan - A description of TDHCA’s program descriptions, initiatives, resource allocation plans and goals Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 10

Introduction State of Texas



• • •

• •

Section 5: Stimulus Programs - A program description, implementation and allocation and additional resources for the programs offered through TDHCA created as s a result of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and other temporary programs created to address current economic issues. Section 6: Disaster Recovery - A program description and reporting of the multiyear Disaster Recovery efforts for Hurricanes Rita and Hurricanes Ike. Section 7: Public Participation - Information on the Plan preparation and a summary of public comment Section 8: Colonia Action Plan - A revised biennial plan for 2010-2011, which discusses housing and community development needs in the colonia, describes TDHCA’s policy goals, summarizes the strategies and programs designed to meet these goals and describes projected outcomes to support the improvement of living conditions of colonia residents Section 9: Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation (TSAHC) Plan - This section outlines TSAHC’s plans and programs for 2010 and is included in accordance with legislation Appendix: Includes TDHCA’s enabling legislation

Because the Plan’s legislative requirements are rather extensive, TDHCA has prepared a collection of publications in order to fulfill these requirements. TDHCA produces the following publication in compliance with §2306.072-2306.0724 of the Texas Government Code: • State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report (this document) • Basic Financial Statements and Operating Budget: Produced by TDHCA’s Financial Administration Division, which fulfills §2306.072(c)(1) • TDHCA Program Guide: A description of TDHCA’s housing programs and other state and federal housing and housing-related programs, which fulfills §2306.0721(c)(4) and §2306.0721(c)(10) • TDHCA Housing Sponsor Report: A report that provides property and occupant profiles of developments that have received assistance from TDHCA, which fulfills §2306.072(c)(6), §2306.072(c)(8),and §2306.0724.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 11

Housing Analysis State of Texas

SECTION 2: HOUSING ANALYSIS This section of the Plan contains an overview of the affordable housing needs in the state and an estimate and analysis of the housing need in each region.

DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS The information provided in this section should be considered within the context of its limitations. The Department recognizes that the truest assessment of housing need can best be found only at the local level based on the direct experience of local households. Alternative methods, such as detailed on-location assessments by professionals skilled at reviewing such matters and local surveys might be utilized, but the Department lacks the resources to obtain such data through third parties or, confronted with a state covering over 268,000 square miles, to compile it directly. The following issues should be considered when reviewing the information contained in this report: •

Many nuances of housing need are lost when data is aggregated into regional, county and statewide totals. For example, housing needs in rural communities are often distorted when reported at the county level because housing needs are often very different in rural and urban areas. The large population of urban metropolitan areas can skew the data and mask the needs of the rural areas. Whenever possible, rural data is considered separately than urban data.



Reliable data available on the condition of the housing stock, the homeless population and the housing needs of special needs populations is very limited.

Major data sources include the 2000 Census, 2000 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-07 CHAS, American Community Survey data and the State of Texas Demographer. Other sources and studies were used to fill gaps in data availability. Data presented for 2010 was calculated by applying the percentage population change from HISTA data to the 2000 CHAS data. HISTA data is a four-way cross tabulation of household data build by a demographic data provider and made available for purchase from Ribbon Demographics. The Department purchased 2010 population projections from Ribbon Demographics during the summer of 2010. The 2005-07 CHAS data was released in 2009 and is based on 2005-07 American Community Survey estimates. However, the 2005-07 CHAS data was released with only a statewide total and urban counties. Therefore, regional, rural and urban analysis of the 2005-07 CHAS data was not possible. The content and format of the Census-based tables, graphs and maps provided in this section were derived, in part, from a methodology for housing needs assessment in the National Analysis of Housing Affordability, Adequacy and Availability: A Framework for Local Housing Strategies. The Urban Institute prepared this document for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It provides a methodology with which to describe and analyze local housing markets in order to develop strategies for addressing housing problems and needs. The document served as a guide for the preparation of CHAS reports. As such, it provides a systematic framework for housing market analysis. HUD collaborated with the U.S. Census Bureau to develop special tabulations of the 2000 Census data. The CHAS database classifies households into five relative income categories based on reported household income, the number of people in the household and geographic location. These income categories are used to reflect income limits that define eligibility for HUD’s major assistance Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 12

Housing Analysis State of Texas

programs, as well as for other housing programs such as the Housing Tax Credit Program. Households are classified into income groups by comparing reported household income to HUDAdjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI). For the 2000 CHAS data, the income limits are calculated by household size for each metropolitan and non-metropolitan county in the United States and its territories. The 2005-07 CHAS was released only with the statewide total and metropolitan areas in the state. The 2005-07 non-metropolitan areas are estimated to be available in December of 2010 and were unavailable for this analysis. The CHAS income limits are based on HUD estimates of median family income with several adjustments as required by statute. The income classifications are 0-30 percent of HAMFI (extremely low income), 31-50 percent of HAMFI (very low income), 51-80 percent (low income), 81-95 percent of HAMFI (moderate income) and about 95 percent of HAMFI. The income limits for metropolitan areas may not be less than limits based on the state non-metropolitan median family income level and must be adjusted accordingly. Income limits must also be adjusted for family size and may be adjusted for areas with unusually high or low family income or housing-cost-to-income relationships. Unit affordability compares housing cost to local area HAMFI. Affordable units are defined as units for which a household would pay not more than 30 percent of its income for rent and no more than two and one-half times its annual income to purchase. Since HUD’s adjusted median family incomes are estimated for a family of four, affordability levels are also adjusted to control for various-sized units based on the number of people that could occupy a unit without overcrowding. This adjustment is made by multiplying the threshold described about by 75 percent for a zero-to-one-bedroom unit, 90 percent for a two-bedroom unit and 104 percent for a three-or-more-bedroom unit. Homeless figures were purchased from Ribbon Demographics and are projections of the 2000 Census group quarters population and type tables, contained in Census 2000 Summary File 1. Group quarters type designations include institutional quarters, such as correctional facilities, hospitals and juvenile institutions, as well as non-institutional quarters, such as military quarters, group homes, dormitories and other situations. Based on the Definitions of Subject Characteristics contained in the Technical Documentation for Summary file 1: 2000 Census of Population and Housing published by the U.S. Census Bureau, this report uses “other non-institutional group quarters” and “other nonhousehold living situations” census figures to represent the homeless population in each region. “Other non-institutional group quarters” counts individuals in shelters for abused women, soup kitchen mobile food vans and other targeted non-shelter outdoor locations where there is evidence of human occupation. “Other non-household living situations” counts individuals with no usual home residing in hostels and YMCAs who were not counted in other tabulations. It must be emphasized that the regional estimates of the homeless populations are not comprehensive. The various definitions of homelessness and methods in counting the homeless make definitive tabulations difficult. A “rural area” is defined in 2306.003 as “an area that is located: (A) outside the boundaries of a primary metropolitan statistical area or a metropolitan statistical area; (B) within the boundaries of a primary metropolitan statistical area or a metropolitan statistical area, if the statistical area has a population of 25,000 or less and does not share a boundary with an urban area; or (C) in an area that is eligible for funding by the Texas Rural Development Office of the United States Department of Agriculture, other than an area that is located in a municipality with a population of more than 50,000.”

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 13

Housing Analysis State of Texas

However, for the purposes of this report, a rural area will be defined as not located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area. This definition allows analysis to occur at the county level. County-level analysis is necessary for several of the special needs population estimates, which do not include place-level estimates. In addition, county-level analysis allows the needs factors in the Housing Analysis chapter to be compared accurately to the Annual Report chapter analysis. The Annual Report chapter is based on county-level data because of the reporting requirements of the programs. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines which counties are within each MSA. For this document, the OMB MSAs from 2009 are used. Between the 2000 and 2009 MSA designations, 22 counties changed from not being in an MSA to being in an MSA and 3 counties (Harrison, Henderson and Hood) were changed from being in an MSA to not being in an MSA. The needs assessment data is augmented with additional information from the perspective of local Texans, when available.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 14

Housing Analysis State of Texas

STATE OF TEXAS The state-level housing analysis includes information on demographics, special-needs populations and affordable-housing need indicators. In order for the information to be more applicable on a local level, analysis is also conducted by region. The regions adopted by TDHCA mirror State Comptroller’s regions, as depicted on the right.

1

3

2

8

12

The Department’s plans reflect this statewide information as well as the consideration of affordable housing assistance from various sources.

4

13

5

7 6

9 11

10

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Texas has grown in population faster than the State Service Regions national average. Between 2002 and 2009, Texas’ population increased approximately 16.8 percent, compared to 9.4 percent nationwide. Approximately 3,566,808 people were added to Texas during this time. More than one of every seven persons added to the population of the United States from 2002 to 2009 was added in Texas. This growth estimate is according to the American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate for 2002 1 (the first year nation-wide data was available) and 2009 (the most recent year for the survey). Total population estimate for 2009 according to American Community Survey is 24,782,302. 2

PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING NEED* •

Demand for affordable and subsidized housing will increase in the coming years: Long-term demographic projections show growth in total population and minority and older populations, indicating an increase in total need.



The state’s total population will grow: State population is projected to increase to 35.7 million by 2040.



The Anglo percentage of the total population will decrease: The Anglo population makes up approximately 47.4 percent of the total population in 2010 and is projected to make up 32.2 percent of the total population in 2040.



The Anglo population will not increase as fast as other races or ethnicities: Anglo population is projected to decrease by 0.08 percent between 2010 and 2040, while Blacks are expected to increase by 23.5 percent and Hispanics will more than double (107.1 percent).



The population is becoming older: the percentage of the population that was 65 or older was 10.6 percent in 2010 but will increase to 18.0 percent by 2040. In contrast, the percentage

1

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 American Community Survey. (n.d.) Subject tables. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey. (n.d.) Subject tables. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 15

Housing Analysis State of Texas

of the population that was 18 or younger was 27.0 percent in 2010 but will decrease to 22.0 percent by 2040. 3 *These projections assume the One-Half 1990-2000 Migration (0.5) Scenario. According to the State Demographer: This scenario has been prepared as an approximate average of the zero (0.0) and 1990-2000 (1.0) scenarios. It assumes rates of net migration one-half of those of the 1990s. The reason for including this scenario is that many counties in the State are unlikely to continue to experience the overall levels of relative extensive growth of the 1990s. A scenario which projects rates of population growth that are approximately an average of the zero and the 1990-2000 scenarios is one that suggest slower than 1990-2000 but steady growth. 4 Expected housing demand is directly linked to projected changes in population characteristics. The current racial and ethnic shift is significant because of the substantial differences between the race and ethnicities in terms of income level. According to American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the difference in median household income between Anglos and Blacks was $17,621 during 2006 and 2008; and the Anglo-Hispanic difference was $16,521 during 2006 and 2008. Generally Anglos made more than both these populations during this time period. Similarly, the poverty rates of 24.7 percent for Blacks and 21.2 percent for Hispanics was still more than two times as high as the 10.5 percent of persons in poverty among Anglos from 2006 to 2008. Because of these disparities, households in Texas will become poorer over the coming decades unless the relationship between ethnicity and income changes. 5 The population on the table below shows that the rural population has been decreasing while the urban population has been increasing over the last ten years. In 2000, the rural population was approximately 15% of the total Texas population. In 2009, the census estimates that approximately 12% of the total Texas population is rural.

3

Texas State Data Center and Office of the State Demographer. (2009, November4). Texas Population Projections Program. Retrieved from http://txsdc.utsa.edu/tpepp/2008projections/ 4 Ibid. 5 Murdock, S.H. Et al., (2002, December), Texas challenge in the twenty-first century: Implications of population change for the future of Texas. Retried from http://tsdc.utsa.edu/download/pdf/TxChall2002.pdf.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 16

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Urban and Rural Population by Region  Region

Largest City within Region for Geographic Reference

2000 Rural

2000 Urban

196 Non-MSA Counties

58 MSA counties

2000 Total

2009 Rural

2009 Urban

177 Non-MSA Counties

77 MSA counties

2009 Total

1

Lubbock

320,247

460,486

780,733

290,078

523,133

813,211

2

Abilene

282,194

267,073

549,267

227,318

307,491

534,809

3

Dallas/Fort Worth

228,358

5,259,119

5,487,477

244,333

6,562,235

6,806,568

4

Tyler

469,579

546,069

1,015,648

581,223

510,913

1,092,136

5

Beaumont

355,862

385,090

740,952

344,769

403,379

748,148

6

Houston

184,883

4,669,571

4,854,454

162,747

5,842,587

6,005,334

7

Austin/Round Rock

97,070

1,249,763

1,346,833

111,743

1,705,075

1,816,818

8

Waco

284,255

678,884

963,139

244,626

824,877

1,069,503

9

San Antonio

215,485

1,592,383

1,807,868

103,746

2,072,128

2,175,874

10

Corpus Christi

268,046

464,871

732,917

215,108

531,491

746,599

11

Brownsville/Harlingen

245,523

1,097,807

1,343,330

265,507

1,378,961

1,644,468

12

San Angelo

183,742

341,142

524,884

175,854

377,060

552,914

13

El Paso

24,696

679,622

704,318

24,624

751,296

775,920

State Total

3,159,940

17,691,880 20,851,820

2,991,676

21,790,626 24,782,302

Source: US Census 2000, US Census population estimates. Metropolitan Statistical areas defined by Office of Management and Budget.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 17

Housing Analysis State of Texas

SPECIAL NEEDS Section 2306.0721 requires the Department to include the housing needs of individuals with special needs. The Department identifies special needs as homeless persons, persons with disabilities, elderly persons, persons with alcohol and drug abuse, public housing residents, colonia residents and migrant farmworkers. Additional discussion of how the Department meets these needs is located in the Action Plan chapter of this document. Throughout the Housing Analysis chapter, each special need population in each region is broken down by the proportion of the population residing in urban areas, defined in this document as metropolitan statistical area (MSA) counties, and the population residing in rural areas, defined as non-MSA counties.

HOMELESS PERSONS The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that for Texas in 2007, there were approximately 39,761 homeless people using a point-in-time estimate in January. The number of homeless in 2007 decreased from 2005 by 8.87 percent. 6 However, estimates of homeless populations vary widely; the migratory nature of the homeless population, the stigma associated with homelessness and the fact that many homeless individuals lack basic documentation all contribute to the difficulty of making an accurate count. Most homeless counts are “point in time” estimates, which do not capture the revolving-door phenomenon of persons moving in and out of shelters over time. The Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless estimates that approximately 200,000 people in Texas, or about 1 percent of the population, are homeless, which is higher than the National Alliances to End Homelessness’ Point in Time estimate. 7 Furthermore, the homeless population can be classified into three categories: literally homeless, which describes those who have no permanent residence and stay in shelters or public places; marginally homeless, which includes those who live temporarily with other people and have no prospects for housing; and people at risk of homelessness. People at risk of homelessness generally have incomes below the poverty level, rely on utility and rental assistance and may be unable to absorb unexpected events such as the loss of a job or serious illness. The homeless population is not homogenous: there are homeless families with children, homeless youth, homeless minorities, homeless in rural areas, homeless victims of domestic violence, homeless persons with mental illness and disabilities, elderly persons, homeless veterans and chronically homeless people. Though these subpopulations may have different characteristics, the two main trends significant in the rise of homelessness can be connected to poverty (characterized by the decline in employment opportunities and public assistance programs) and a shortage of affordable housing. 8 Given the great public costs associated with homelessness, a shift has occurred nationally to emphasize the re-housing of homeless individuals instead of experiencing waiting periods in temporary shelters. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Homeless Research Institute. (2009, January). Homeless counts: Changes in homelessness from 2005 to 2007. Retrieved from http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/2158. 7 Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless. (2000). Key facts. Retrieved from http://www.tich.state.tx.us/facts.htm 8 National Coalition for the Homeless. (2008, June). Why are people homeless? NCH Fact Sheet #1. Retrieved from http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html 6

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 18

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program which focuses on re-housing those in danger of homelessness. The Emergency Shelter Grant Program was renamed to Emergency Solutions Grant Program redesigned with an emphasis on re-housing persons that are homeless and preventing homelessness, while still providing a limited amount of funding for the support of homeless shelter operations. According to the chart below, Regions 3 and 6, which represent Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston respectively, have the highest number of persons in group quarters, including shelters. Homeless, group quarters population by region – Texas, 2010 Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State Total

Large City within Region for Geographic Reference Lubbock Abilene Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Beaumont Houston Austin/Round Rock Waco San Antonio Corpus Christi Brownsville/Harlingen San Angelo El Paso

Rural 480 375 930 877 534 933 197 506 324 345 309 226 15 6,051

Urban 2,016 1,837 12,763 2,075 993 17,383 8,015 1,704 6,924 2,714 2,083 1,084 2,056 61,647

Total 2,496 2,212 13,693 2,952 1,527 18,316 8,212 2,210 7,248 3,059 2,392 1,310 2,071 67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES In the past, public-program spending for long-term services and supports for persons with disabilities in Texas was allocated in large part to institutional facilities such as nursing homes. However, over the last two decades, with the advent of Medicaid waivers, home- and community-based service alternatives have become an increasingly significant option and choice, as witnessed through recent federal and state legislation. With these services and supports provided in a residential setting, Texas has witnessed a large drop in its institutionalized population, from over 12,000 in 1977 to 4,789 in 2008. 9 A significant number of persons with disabilities face extreme housing needs. Research conducted by the national Housing Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities found that as many as 2.4 million households with disabilities have “worst-case housing needs,” defined by HUD as unassisted renters with income below 50% of their area’s median income who pay more than half of 9

Research and Training Center on Community Living, (2009) Residential Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends Through 2008: Profiles of Trends in State Residential Services by State, Retrieved from http://rtc.umn.edu/docs/risp2008.pdf

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 19

Housing Analysis State of Texas

their income for housing or live in severely substandard housing, or both. 10 This is in line with the finding that the incidence of poverty is much higher for persons ages 25 to 64 with a severe disability (27%) or non-severe disability (12%) as compared to no disability (9%). 11 In fact, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research reported that almost two-thirds of unassisted very low-income renter households with disabilities have worst-case housing needs. 12 According to the US Census 2009 population estimates, Texas has a slightly lower proportion of persons with disabilities (14.5 percent) compared to the national average of 16.2 percent of the total population. According to the chart below, of those Texans with disabilities, approximately 83.7 percent live in urban areas. Persons with disabilities are more likely to be living in urban areas due to the ability to access transportation and the close proximity to health related and other services and supports. 13 Persons with disabilities – Texas, 2000 Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State Total

Large City within Region for Geographic Reference Lubbock Abilene Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Beaumont Houston Austin/Round Rock Waco San Antonio Corpus Christi Brownsville/Harlingen San Angelo El Paso

Rural

Urban

55,332 50,225 43,659 120,014 70,681 26,390 19,633 47,346 19,857 44,148 51,933 34,035 5,455 588,708

83,188 55,100 844,558 93,739 79,848 775,046 170,593 113,397 317,684 97,444 205,905 57,765 122,545 3,016,812

Total 138,520 105,325 888,217 213,753 150,529 801,436 190,226 160,743 337,541 141,592 257,838 91,800 128,000 3,605,520

Source: Census 2000.

ELDERLY PERSONS A correlation also exists among age, income and home modifications. A 2008 survey of older Texans for Aging Texas Well, an advisory committee headed by the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, found that 56 percent of older Texas respondents spend more than 30 percent of their

10

Technical Assistance Collaborative Inc., Housing Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, (2008) The Hidden Housing Crisis: Worst Case Housing Needs Among Adults With Disabilities, http://www.tacinc.org/downloads/HiddenHousCrisis.pdf 11 National Council on Disability, (January 2010) The State of Housing in America in the 21st Century: A Disability Perspective 12 US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, (May 2010) Worst Case Housing Needs 2007: A Report to Congress 13 Housing & Health Services Coordination Council, Testimony of Theresa Cruz, Director of the State Office of Rural Health, Texas Department of Rural Affairs: HHSCC Public Forums, 8 February 2010.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 20

Housing Analysis State of Texas

income on housing. 14 Furthermore, disability rates are often related to age, necessitating home modifications. The 2005 to 2007 American Community Survey finds that 45.3 percent of the population 65 years and older had a disability during this time period. This is compared with 6.6 percent of the population aged 5 to 15 years and 11.8 percent of the population aged 16 to 64 years during the same time period. 15 The survey for Aging Texas Well survey found that 14 percent of older Texans reported that their home’s doorways, hallways, kitchen, bathroom and closets needed substantial accessibility modifications. In addition, 15 percent of older Texans reported that their home’s structure, heating and cooling systems, or electricity or plumbing needed substantial repair. 16 These needed accessibility modifications or repairs may prevent elderly households from aging in place, necessitating an earlier move to costly nursing homes or other supportive housing. According to the chart below, of elderly Texans, approximately 77.1 percent live in urban areas. Persons who are elderly are more likely to be living in urban areas due to the close proximity to health related and other services and supports. 17 Elderly Persons – Texas, 2000 Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State Total

Large City within Region for Geographic Reference Lubbock Abilene Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Beaumont Houston Austin/Round Rock Waco San Antonio Corpus Christi Brownsville/Harlingen San Angelo El Paso

Rural 44,084 44,437 34,043 108,447 51,874 17,140 19,808 40,388 20,105 35,688 30,301 25,403 3,338 475,056

Urban 55,001 40,531 477,876 65,076 54,455 363,803 90,644 46,119 184,941 60,490 107,305 40,949 10,286 1,597,476

Total 99,085 84,968 511,919 173,523 106,329 380,943 110,452 86,507 205,046 96,178 137,606 66,352 13,624 2,072,532

Source: Census 2000.

PERSONS WITH ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS Persons with alcohol and substance abuse issues face additional obstacles in securing housing. Currently, persons with substance abuse disorders are ineligible for many housing subsidies and

14

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services. (2009, April). Aging Texas well: Indicators survey overview report 2009. Retrieved from http://www/dads/state/tx/us/news_info/publications/studies/ATWindicators2009.pdf. 15 U.S. Census bureau, 2005-2007 American Community Survey. (n.d.). Subject table. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov. 16 Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services. (2009, April). Aging Texas well: Indicators survey overview report 2009. Retrieved from http://www/dads/state/tx/us/news_info/publications/studies/ATWindicators2009.pdf. 17 Housing & Health Services Coordination Council, Testimony of Theresa Cruz, Director of the State Office of Rural Health, Texas Department of Rural Affairs: HHSCC Public Forums, 8 February 2010.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 21

Housing Analysis State of Texas

supportive housing options. HUD’s tenant criterion allows for the prohibition of individuals who have engaged in drug-related criminal behavior or individuals whose abuse pattern or abuse of alcohol “interferes with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.” 18 These prohibitions combined with restrictions from property owners make it difficult for persons with a criminal background, and thus some individuals with substance abuse disorders, to find public or private housing. Estimates from the 2007-08 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show slightly lower rates of illicit drug use and abuse in Texas than the nation as a whole with 2.71 percent of Texans as compared with 2.78 percent nationwide. This report estimates that in Texas from 2007-2008 514,000, approximately people were dependent or abusive of illicit drugs and 1,357,000 people were dependent or abusive on alcohol. 19

PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS Beginning in the 1930s, local public housing authorities (PHA) built and managed properties for lowincome residents primarily through funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Affairs (HUD). Most of the public housing developments were completed in the 1970s. By 1993, HUD created HOPE VI to replace deteriorating public housing stock with mixed-income developments. Nationwide as assessed in the mid-1990s, 61 percent of public housing was located in the central city, 19 percent in the suburbs, and 20 percent in non-metropolitan areas. From 19992005, the median length of stay in public housing was 4.7 years and families with children stayed a median of 3.2 years. 20 A study entitled Federal Programs for Addressing Low-Income Housing Needs: A Policy Primer (2002) found that a majority of public housing residents were employed or searching for employment. However, most residents worked part-time, low-paying jobs offering no fringe benefits. 21 Public housing residents may have educational barriers or transportation barriers that further challenge them from transitioning to market-rate housing. 22 According to HUD, there are 63,416 public housing units in Texas as of 2010. As the chart below describes, 53% of public housing units are found in rural areas of the state, with Regions 9 and 13 holding the highest number of rural public housing units.

18

HUD Occupancy Handbook (4350.3 REV-1), Chapter 4. Maxwell, Jane C. Substance Abuse Trends in Texas. (2010, June). Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/gcattc/documents/Texas2010TrendsReport.pdf 20 Turner, M. A. & Kingsley, G. T. (2008, December). Federal programs for addressing low-income housing needs: A policy primer. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/411798_lowincome_housing.pdf. 21 Martinez, J. M. (2002, September). The employment experiences of public housing residents: Findings from the jobs-plus baseline survey. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/25/overview.html. 22 Turner, M. A. & Kingsley, G. T. (2008, December). Federal programs for addressing low-income housing needs: A policy primer. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/411798_lowincome_housing.pdf. 19

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 22

Housing Analysis State of Texas

PHA Units – Texas, 2010 Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State Total

Large City within Region for Geographic Reference Lubbock Abilene Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Beaumont Houston Austin/Round Rock Waco San Antonio Corpus Christi Brownsville/Harlingen San Angelo El Paso

Rural 304 1,551 4,716 1,061 705 1,465 1,158 3,264 7,953 1,389 3,548 580 5,985 33,679

Urban 1,270 2,369 5,595 2,324 2,546 4,297 2,366 924 268 3,188 3,867 673 50 29,737

Total PHA Units 1,574 3,920 10,311 3,385 3,251 5,762 3,524 4,188 8,221 4,577 7,415 1,253 6,035 63,416

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

PERSONS LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, HIV/AIDS cases are not evenly distributed across Texas. In 2008, Persons Living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) were concentrated in metropolitan areas, with over half residing in the Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas. In contrast, South and West Texas had the lowest rates of PLWHA in 2008. The highest rates of living cases were in the 4554 age groups. 23 As seen in the chart below, Regions 3 and 6 have the highest number of PLWHA in the state. Over 95 percent of PLWHA live in urban areas. The reason behind such a large urban concentration, as found in the SCSN, is a lack of available health care choices in non-urban service areas and the effect on access to care, especially for specialty services and the availability of affordable housing. 24 See chart below for more details on persons living with HIV/AIDS in Texas.

23

Texas Department of State Health Services, (April 2010) 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/hivstd/reports/HIVandAIDSinTexas.pdf 24 Texas Department of State Health Services, (June 2008), 2008 – 2010 Texas Statewide Coordinated Statement of Need, http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/hivstd/planning/docs/SCSN_2008-2010.pdf

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 23

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Persons with HIV/AIDS – Texas, 2008 Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State Total

Large City within Region for Geographic Reference Rural Urban Total Lubbock 435 643 1,078 Abilene 143 286 429 Dallas/Fort Worth 167 19,319 19,486 Tyler 564 823 1,387 Beaumont 438 896 1,334 Houston 186 20,732 20,918 Austin/Round Rock 68 4,296 4,361 Waco 209 962 1,171 San Antonio 45 4,451 4,496 Corpus Christi 112 665 777 Brownsville/Harlingen 164 1,685 1,849 San Angelo 111 351 462 El Paso 7 1,562 1,569 2,649 56,668 59,317

Source: Texas Department of State Health Services, 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning Note: Figures do not include those unaware of their HIV infection of those who tested HIV positive solely through an anonymous HIV test. Cases diagnosed at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice System are not attributed to a geographic area.

In looking at how client services funds were allocated by service category, the 2008-2010 Texas Statewide Coordinate Statement of Need (SCSN) found that housing was the second largest allocation category, with $14,765,131 in Ryan White, HOPWA, and State Services and Medication funding provided to PLWHA in 2007. 25 However, SCSN also reported affordable housing as one of the two most frequent gaps in services identified by clients in six of the seven HIV Service Delivery Areas (HSDAs) assessed in Texas. For certain PLWHA, specifically for single women and single men without children, the availability of Ryan White & Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funded housing is a particular problem. Also, many HIV positive women with children who have had access to stable housing through Ryan White funds will lose this benefit once their children turn 18 and leave the home. Finally, through informant interviews, the SCSN found that reimbursement rates for housing are below fair market rates, which place clients into housing in high crime/low income areas which may lead to substance abuse issues, crime and other factors that are known to affect access and maintenance in care.

COLONIA RESIDENTS According to Section 2306.581 of the Texas Government Code: “Colonia” means a geographic area located in a country some part of which is within 150 miles of the international border of this state, consists of 11 or more dwellings that are located in close proximity to each other in an area that may be described as a community or neighborhood and 25

Texas Department of State Health Services (June 2008), 2008 – 2010 Texas Statewide Coordinated Statement of Need, http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/hivstd/planning/docs/SCSN_2008-2010.pdf

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 24

Housing Analysis State of Texas

• •

has a majority population composed of individuals and families of low income and very low income, based on the federal Office of Management and Budget poverty index and meets the qualifications of an economically distressed area under Section 17.921, Water Code; or has the physical and economic characteristics of a colonia, as determined by the department.

Major issues affecting colonias include high rates of unemployment, extremely low-incomes, lack of sufficient infrastructure for water and sewer service, higher rates of certain diseases, lack of educational resources, substandard housing and extensive use of contracts for deed. The latter two issues are directly related to housing. Housing in colonias is often constructed by residents using only available materials; professional builders are not often used. 26 According to 2000 Census data, colonias have a 75 percent homeownership rate. Despite this rate, colonia homes are inadequate: 4.9 percent of colonia dwellings lack kitchen facilities and 5.3 percent lack plumbing facilities. It is estimated that 50 percent of colonia residents lack basic water and sewage systems: 51 percent use septic tanks, 36 percent use cesspools, 7 percent use outhouses and 6 percent use other wastewater systems. 27 Furthermore, properties in colonias are often purchased with contracts for deed, which are sellerfinanced transactions that do not transfer the title and ownership of the property to the buyer until the purchase price is paid in full. Contracts for deeds are often used in colonias because many residents do not have a credit history or qualification for a loan from a financial institution. Because of a lack of other options, contracts for deed often have high interest rates and are subject to abusive financial practices. 28 Colonia residents have several needs that include increased affordable housing opportunities, such as down payment assistance and low-interest-rate loans, homeowner education, construction education and assistance, owner-occupied home repair, access to adequate infrastructure and the conversion of remaining contracts for deed to conventional mortgages. According to the Office of Attorney General’s colonia estimates accessed in 2010, the number of colonia residents for Texas is 418,406. As seen in the charts below, colonias are only found in five of the state’s 13 service regions, with Region 11 holding the largest portion of colonia residents (72.8%). Additionally, over 70% of colonia residents reside in urban areas.  Colonia Residents – Texas, estimated in 2010 29 Region County 9 Frio Region 9 Total

Rural 2,212 2,212

Urban -

Total 2,212 2,212

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. (n.d.). Texas colonias. Retrieved from http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/pubs/colonias.html. 27 Moncada, N. (2001). A Colonias Primer. A briefing presented to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/nmn/plus93.htm. 28 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. (n.d.). Texas colonias. Retrieved from http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/pubs/colonias.html. 29 In each region, counties without colonia residents were not included in this chart. 26

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 25

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Region County 10 Brooks 10 Duval 10 Jim Wells 10 San Patricio Region 10 Total

Rural 1,610 2,621 6,403 15,058

Urban 13,808 13,808

Total 1,610 2,621 6,403 13,808 28,866

Region County 11 Cameron 11 Dimmit 11 Hidalgo 11 Jim Hogg 11 Kinney 11 La Salle 11 Maverick 11 Starr 11 Uvalde 11 Val Verde 11 Webb 11 Willacy 11 Zapata 11 Zavala Region 11 Total

Rural 3720 4,782 1,942 832 22,320 34,458 3,964 7,603 3,465 13,814 4,071 100,971

Urban 46,869 138,458 19,916 205,243

Total 46,869 3,720 138,458 4,782 1,942 832 22,320 34,458 3,964 7,603 19,916 3,465 13,814 4,071 306,214

Region County 12 Pecos 12 Reeves 12 Terrell Region 12 Total

Rural 3,495 500 1,135 5,130

Urban -

Total 3,495 500 1,135 5,130

Region County Rural Urban Total 13 Brewster 891 891 13 El Paso 77,169 77,169 13 Hudspeth 1,752 1,752 13 Jeff Davis 187 187 13 Presidio 409 409 Region 13 Total 3,239 77,169 80,408 State Total 124,398 296,220 420,618 Source: Texas Office of the Attorney General, Border Colonia Geographic Database. Note: The database includes only border counties.

MIGRANT SEASONAL FARMWORKERS Texas leads the nation in the quantity and size of farms and ranches with 247,500 properties covering 130.4 million acres. The economic impact of the food and fiber sector totals more than $100 billion; cash receipts from the agriculture and ranching industries total $19.8 billion. 30 One of 30

Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Ag Stats, Retrieved from: http://www.agr.state.tx.us/agr/main_render/0,1968,1848_37142_0_0,00.html?channelId=37142

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 26

Housing Analysis State of Texas

every seven working Texans (14%) is in an agriculture-related job and many employed in this sector are migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Migrant farmworkers have a particularly difficult time finding available, affordable housing because of extremely low and sporadic incomes and the fact that they will reside in a given location only a short time. Many of the small, rural communities in which migrant workers may seek employment do not have the rental units available for the seasonal influx. While TDHCA-licensed facilities are inspected annually and are required to meet health and safety standards, they do not provide enough units to address the need. Substandard conditions and overcrowding are believed to be widespread in other migrant labor housing situations. In addition, migrant workers may not be able to afford security deposits, pass credit checks, or commit to long-term leases. 31 As seen in the chart below, Regions 1 and 11 have the highest number of migrant farmworkers, together accounting for over 56% of the state’s total migrant farmworker population. Additionally, approximately 54.7% of migrant farmworkers reside in rural areas of the state.

Migrant Seasonal Farmworker Population Estimates – Texas, 2000 Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State Total

Large City within Region for Geographic Reference Lubbock Abilene Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Beaumont Houston Austin/Round Rock Waco San Antonio Corpus Christi Brownsville/Harlingen San Angelo El Paso

Rural

Urban

Total

65,767 18,089 2,988 8,011 2,738 3,239 928 3,817 7,395 10,435 35,022 32,958 6,201 197,588

14,695 2,938 11,690 2,419 321 6,357 3,418 2,241 11,562 11,474 87,925 4,041 4,745 163,826

80,462 21,027 14,678 10,430 3,059 9,596 4,346 6,058 18,957 21,909 122,947 36,999 10,946 361,414

Source: MSFW Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

31

Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs, (September 2006), Migrant Labor Housing Facilities in Texas: A Report on the Quantity, Availability, Need, and Quality of Migrant Labor Housing in the State

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 27

Housing Analysis State of Texas

POVERTY AND INCOME According to Ribbon Demographics update on Census, approximately 789,021 families in Texas lived below the poverty line in 2010, with approximately 85 percent residing in urban areas. 32 Poverty conditions along the Texas-Mexico border warrant special attention. Parts of the region, like McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, suffered from unemployment rates higher than the State’s (12.3 percent vs. 8.2 percent in July 2010 33) and its residents made approximately 62 percent of the State’s median income. 34 Conditions are particularly acute in the colonias, unincorporated areas along the Families below Poverty – Texas, 2010

Rural Urban Texas

Total Families

Families below poverty

% Families below poverty

805,519 5,466,222 6,271,741

118,921 670,100 789,021

14.8% 12.3% 12.6%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The total number of families in poverty, elderly and non-elderly, is one of the need indicators for some of the Department’s community service activities. According to Ribbon Demographics’ update on Census data, 789,021 families are living below the poverty line and 646,038 of those families include children. Regions 3 and 6 have the highest numbers of families in poverty. Families below Poverty – Texas, 2010 Region

Families at or above poverty

Families at or above poverty with children

Families below poverty

Families below poverty with children

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total

187,643 127,667 1,657,013 300,289 172,224 1,326,999 398,072 185,311 491,102 177,372 288,934 127,632 42,462 5,482,720

93,176 57,533 898,475 138,969 76,510 714,149 209,963 91,430 246,759 86,813 160,439 63,974 22,555 2,860,745

26,464 16,772 208,654 41,815 30,061 164,065 36,386 26,405 66,868 33,012 116,756 16,959 4,804 789,021

21,455 13,195 174,972 33,478 23,736 136,420 29,496 21,387 54,513 26,104 93,612 13,572 4,098 646,038

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010. 32

Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics (2010) Custom PopFacts Report – Selected Data Variables. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010, September 27). Economy at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx.htm. 34 U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey. (n.d.). Subject tables. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov. 33

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 28

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Many families who rely on low-wage occupations for a living find it difficult to cover all essential expenses. According to a study by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, “a significant proportion of families throughout the state struggle paycheck-to-paycheck to make ends meet.” The study examined a typical family’s fundamental expenses, such as housing, food, child care, medical costs, transportation, taxes, etc. and compared the total bill to typical wages earned in the 27 Texas Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The study asserts that a family of four in Texas requires a household hourly income of $18 to $22 per hour (depending on the metro area in which the family lives) to simply meet its most basic needs. In a majority of Texas metro areas, however, half of the total employment is in occupations with a median wage under $10 per hour. 35 In addition, expected economic growth will not necessarily positively impact the lowest-income groups. The Texas Comptroller’s Biennial Revenue Estimate predicts that the fastest growing sector of the state economy for 2010-2011 will be the professional and business services. This industry’s employment growth is expected to remain solid, averaging 3.1 percent per year in 2010 and 2011, with most of the job gains in fiscal 2011. 36 While this growth may buoy the state economy, it may not raise many low-income families, who may not have the necessary education or training, from their current positions. To provide a more detailed breakdown of the population by income level, this report will use the five income groups designated by HUD. Households are classified into these groups by comparing reported households incomes to HUD-Adjusted Median Family Incomes (HAMFI). The income level definitions are as follows: •

Extremely Low Income: At or below 30 percent of HAMFI



Very Low Income: Between 31 percent and 50 percent of HAMFI



Low Income: between 51 percent and 80 percent of HAMFI



Moderate Income: Between 81 percent and 95 percent of HAMFI



Above 95 percent of HAMFI

Households by Income Group – Texas, 2005-2007 0-30% 1,018,085, 12.6% 30.1-50% 989,160, 12.2%

95.1% and above 4,101,130, 50.7% 50.1-80% 1,366,675, 16.9%

80.1-95% 619,960, 7.7%

Income Group 0-30% 30.1-50% 50.1-80% 80.1-95% 95.1% & above

Households

Percent

1,018,085 989,160 1,366,675 619,960

12.6% 12.2% 16.9% 7.7%

4,101,130

50.7%

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

35

Center for Public Policy Priorities. (2002, September1). Making it: what it really takes to live in Texas. Retrieved from http://cppp.org/research.php?aid=120. 36 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. (2009, January). Biennial revenue estimate: 2010-2011. Retrieved from http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxbud/bre2010/outlook.html.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 29

Housing Analysis State of Texas

The pie chart above indicates the projected distribution of households by income group across Texas by number and percentage. A total of 41.7 percent of all households are in the low-income range (0 to 80 percent of HAMFI). Meeting the needs of this large portion of the State’s households is TDHCA’s primary focus. The table below provides information on the income breakdowns of households in each region. Regions 3 and 6 had the highest number of people with incomes over 80% AMFI. Regions 12 and 13 had the lowest number of people with incomes over 80% AMFI. Households and Income – Texas, 2000 Service Region

Total Households

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State

288,273 206,459 1,988,135 380,765 274,543 1,691,811 509,798 343,856 635,280 255,493 377,276 188,921 216,861 7,357,471

Extremely Low Income (0% to 30% AMFI) 36,433 23,690 216,675 47,359 38,575 209,127 60,766 46,423 73,161 33,862 73,326 22,798 29,207 911,402

Very Low Income (31% to 50% AMFI) 34,684 26,096 207,946 45,345 32,704 186,994 54,465 39,537 69,347 30,725 62,736 23,084 28,546 842,209

Low Income (51% to 80% AMFI) 53,087 37,041 361,581 64,823 45,851 284,820 92,250 59,780 109,133 42,309 71,481 33,409 38,430 1,293,995

Moderate Income (81% to 95% AMFI)

Higher Income (over 95% AMFI)

20,604 143,475 15,491 104,169 165,946 1,043,156 28,943 194,299 19,222 138,364 131,907 881,944 44,650 257,667 26,911 171,721 49,283 334,532 16,854 131,811 199 169,566 13,680 95,995 7,373 114,009 541,063 3,780,708 Source: 2000 CHAS Database

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 30

Housing Analysis State of Texas

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED When analyzing local housing markets and developing strategies for meeting housing problems, HUD suggests the consideration of several factors. These factors include how much a household spends on housing costs (also called Housing Cost Burden), the physical condition of the housing and whether or not the unit is overcrowded. The following table reveals the number and percentage of households with at least one housing need by income category and household type. Households with One or More Housing Problems – Texas, 2005-2007

0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-95% AMI More than 95% AMI Total

At least one problem

Renter Total Households

Percent with at least once problem

At least one problem

Owner Total Households

510,775 419,550 282,865 48,395 64,650 1,326,235

645,370 515,885 603,425 230,325 821,110 2,816,115

79.1% 81.3% 46. 9% 21.0% 7.9% 47.1%

291,625 289,945 355,265 138,800 373,475 1,449,110

372,720 473,275 763,245 389,640 3,280,040 5,278,920

Percent with at least once problem

Total Households

78.2% 1,018,090 61.3% 989,160 46.5% 1,366,670 35.6% 619,965 11.4% 4,101,150 27.5% 8,095,035 Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

Of renter households, those at 31-50% AMI are the most likely to have at least one housing problem. Of owner households, those at 030% AMI are the most likely to have at least one housing problem.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 31

Housing Analysis State of Texas

PHYSICAL INADEQUACY (LACK OF KITCHEN AND PLUMBING FACILITIES) The measure of physical inadequacy available from the CHAS database tabulation is the number of units lacking complete kitchen and/or plumbing facilities. While this is not a complete measure of physical inadequacy, the lack of plumbing and/or kitchen facilities can serve as a strong indication of one type of housing inadequacy. The following table demonstrates that among the physically inadequate housing units, 29.3 percent are occupied by extremely low-income households. Number of Units Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing by Affordability Category – Texas, 2005-2007 Income Group 0% to 30% 31% to 50% 51% to 80% 80% to 95% Over 95% Total

Units 20,635 11,335 13,195 4,535 20,610 70,310

Percent 29.3 16.1 18.8 6.5 29.3

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

The state defines “standard condition” of housing as properties that meet the federal Housing Quality Standards, or the state Colonia Housing Standards, as applicable. “Substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation” refers to properties that do not meet the above standards but are not sufficiently deteriorated to justify demolition or replacement. These definitions refer to the condition of properties prior to the receipt of assistance. The following bar chart shows the distribution of substandard housing by income group. Households in the lowest income group earning 30 percent AMFI or less have the highest percentage of physically inadequate rental housing. The chart shows the percentage of households with housing problems in each income category compared to households in the corresponding income category. Renter Households with Substandard Housing by Income Category – Texas, 2005-2007 2.5 2.1%

Percent

2.0 1.4%

1.5

1.1% 1.0

0.9%

0.9%

0.5 0.0 30% AMI or  less

30.1%‐50%  50.1%‐80%  80.1%‐95%  95.1% AMI  AMI AMI AMI and above Income Category Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 32

Housing Analysis State of Texas

The same trend holds true for owner households. The chart shows the percentage of households with housing problems in each income category compared to households in the corresponding income category.

Percent

Owner Households with Substandard Housing by Income Category – Texas, 2005-2007 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

1.8%

0.9%

0.9% 0.6% 0.4%

30% AMI or  less

30.1%‐50%  AMI

50.1%‐80%  AMI

80.1%‐95%  AMI

95.1% AMI  and above

Income Category

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

As seen in the chart below, Regions 3, 6 and 11 have the highest number of units lacking facilities for households earning 0 to 80 percent AMFI. Regions 3 and 6 also have the highest number of units lacking facilities for households earning 80 percent AMFI and above. These are also the two regions with the highest numbers of households in poverty in the state. In contrast, Regions 1, 2, and 12 have the lowest number of units lacking facilities for households earning 0 to 80 percent AMFI. Number of Units Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing by Affordability Category – Texas, 2009 Service Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State

All Incomes 3,211 2,161 18,571 5,578 3,836 18,712 5,598 4,173 7,521 3,763 14,614 2,577 4,076 94,391

HOUSING COST BURDEN

0% to 31% to 51% to 80% and 30% 50% 80% Above 898 558 604 199 670 367 459 151 4,988 3,378 3,940 1,336 1,724 994 1,002 370 1,270 633 733 191 5,594 3,306 3,787 1,037 1,938 981 1,125 339 1,240 805 789 235 2,128 1,319 1,581 607 1,266 737 771 147 6,312 3,577 2,527 0 713 547 538 101 950 1,093 938 124 29,690 18,293 18,792 4,838 Source: 2000 CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data

A cost burden is identified when a household pays more than 30 percent of its gross income for housing costs. When so much is spent on housing, other basic household needs may suffer. As the Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 33

Housing Analysis State of Texas

following graph shows, a majority of renter households in the lowest two income categories, totaling more than 551,000 households, is burdened by paying an excess portion of income toward housing. This is much greater than in the highest income category, above 95 percent AMFI, where only 0.4 percent of households, or 3,480 households, experience the problem. The chart shows the percentage of households with cost burden in each income category compared to households in the corresponding income category. Renter Households with Housing Cost Burden by Income Category – Texas, 2005-2007 70.0

64.1%

60.0

Percent

50.0 40.0 26.6%

30.0 20.0 10.0

4.5%

1.0%

0.4%

0.0 30% AMI or  30.1‐50% AMI 50.1‐80% AMI 80.1‐95% AMI 95.1% AMI  less and above Income Category

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

As shown in the following graph, housing cost burden affects 217,070, or 58.2 percent of owner households in the lowest income category. This figure, representing a majority, is much higher than the 1.1 percent of households affected in the highest income category. The graph illustrates the direct correlation between an owner household’s income category and an owner household’s likelihood of experiencing this problem. The chart shows the percentage of households with cost burden in each income category compared to households in the corresponding income category. Owner Households with Housing Cost Burden by Income Category – Texas 2005-2007 70.0 60.0

58.2%

Percent

50.0 40.0 30.0

29.6%

20.0 11.7% 10.0

5.3% 1.1%

0.0 30% AMI or less 30.1‐50% AMI

50.1‐80% AMI 80.1‐95% AMI Income Category

95.1% AMI and  above

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

Finally, the pie chart below shows the total number and percentage of all households with housing cost burden by income group.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 34

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Total Housing Cost Burden by Income Group – Texas, 2005-2007 95.1% AMI and above 80.1 to 95% AMI 38,200, 3.5% 23,060, 2.1% 50.1 to 80% AMI 116,760, 10.7%

30.1 to 50% AMI 277,290, 25.5%

30% AMI or less 630,980, 58.1%

Income Group 0-30% 30.1-50% 50.1-80% 80.1-95% 95.1% & above

Households

Percent

630,980 277,290 116,760 23,060

58.1% 25.5% 10.7% 2.1%

38,200

3.5%

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

The chart below shows the number of households with cost burden greater than 30 percent by income group. Regions 3 and 6 have the highest number of households experiencing extreme cost burden for all the income groups. In addition, Regions 7 and 9 have the third and fourth highest numbers of households experiencing extreme cost burden for all income groups. These regions represent the four largest Major Metropolitan Areas in Texas: Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, HoustonSugar Land-Baytown, San Antonio and Austin-Round Rock. Number of Households with Cost Burden by Income Group – Texas, 2009 Service Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State

All Incomes 67,156 44,820 483,443 87,846 62,016 392,181 143,360 90,612 153,507 59,191 78,562 40,053 55,856 1,758,605

0% to 31% to 51% to 81% to 95% and Above 30% 50% 80% 95% 25,939 18,689 13,818 2,730 5,982 16,401 13,389 8,732 2,075 4,223 148,173 124,704 118,320 29,094 63,152 31,977 23,560 18,322 4,865 9,123 25,949 16,662 11,413 2,581 5,412 133,623 104,552 83,584 20,976 49,445 44,925 36,217 36,747 8,972 16,499 34,211 23,462 19,895 4,810 8,233 47,556 38,733 36,371 9,494 21,352 20,620 15,872 12,697 2,988 7,014 33,079 20,702 14,090 72 10,619 14,994 11,375 7,894 1,849 3,942 17,463 14,981 13,699 1,587 8,126 594,909 462,899 395,582 92,093 213,123 Source: 2000 CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data

OVERCROWDING Overcrowded housing conditions occur when a residence accommodates more than one person per each room in the dwelling. Overcrowding may indicate a general lack of affordable housing in a community where households have been forced to share space, either because other housing units are not available or because the units available are too expensive.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 35

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Lower income renter households experience overcrowded conditions more frequently than higher income households. Over 10.2 percent of renter households in the extremely low income category and 11.5 percent of renter households in the very low income category are afflicted by overcrowding. The chart shows the percentage of households experiencing overcrowding in each income category compared to households in the corresponding income category. Renter Households with Incidence of Overcrowding by Income Group – Texas, 2005-2007 14.0 12.0

11.5% 10.2%

Percent

10.0 7.9%

8.0

6.2%

6.0 3.4%

4.0 2.0 0.0

30% AMI or  30.1‐50% AMI 50.1‐80% AMI 80.1‐95% AMI 95.1% AMI  less and above Income Category

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

Lower income owner households also experience overcrowded conditions more frequently than higher income owner households. More than 6.5 percent of owner households earning less than 50 percent HAMFI live in overcrowded conditions compared to 4.6 percent of owner households over 80 percent HAMFI. The chart shows the percentage of households experiencing overcrowding in each income category compared to households in the corresponding income category. Owner Households with Incidence of Overcrowding by Income Group – Texas, 2005-2007 7.0 6.0

Percent

5.0

6.0%

6.5%

6.2% 4.6%

4.0 3.0 2.0

1.7%

1.0 0.0 30% AMI or  30.1‐50% AMI 50.1‐80% AMI 80.1‐95% AMI 95.1% AMI  less and above Income Category Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

The table below shows the number of overcrowded owner households by income group. Regions 3, 6, 11 and 9, in that order, have the highest number of overcrowded households for income levels 0 to Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 36

Housing Analysis State of Texas

80 percent AMFI. With two exceptions, the most populous regions in the state have the highest number of overcrowded households. Those exceptions are Region 10, which is the seventh most populated region, has the eighth highest number of overcrowded households and Region 8, which is the eighth most populated regions, has the seventh highest number of overcrowded households. Number of Overcrowded Owner Household by Income Group – Texas, 2009 Service Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State

All Incomes 21,299 9,466 197,622 21,963 17,638 211,054 40,130 24,473 62,420 24,509 91,741 14,556 33,316 770,185

0% to 31% to 51% to 81% to 95% and 30% 50% 80% 95% Above 3,735 5,747 1,834 6,609 3,374 1,470 1,440 2,691 835 3,030 36,717 39,975 53,458 18,337 49,135 3,657 3,640 5,408 2,289 6,969 3,350 2,548 3,968 1,701 6,071 42,404 43,848 55,539 18,379 50,883 7,442 8,194 10,520 3,857 10,118 4,191 3,775 6,648 2,324 7,535 11,431 11,807 15,974 5,975 17,233 4,937 4,226 5,396 1,885 8,065 22,709 19,440 21,140 12 28,441 2,466 2,483 4,119 1,347 4,141 6,337 6,630 7,773 1,356 11,221 150,483 151,741 198,381 60,130 209,450 Source: 2000 CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data

The pie chart below shows the total incidence of all overcrowded households by income group. Overcrowded Household by Income Group – Texas, 2005-2007

95.1% AMI and  above 83,400 21.5%

30% AMI or less 88,060 22.7%

80.1 to 95% AMI 31,965 8.2% 30.1 to 50% AMI 89,795 23.1%

Income Group 0-30% 30.1-50% 50.1-80% 80.1-95% 95.1% & above

Households

Percent

88,060 89,795 94,935 31,965

22.7% 23.1% 24.5% 8.2%

83,400

21.5%

50.1 to 80% AMI 94,935 24.5%

Source: CHAS 2005-07 statewide figures.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 37

Housing Analysis State of Texas

HOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY HOUSING SUPPLY Ribbon Demographics reported that approximately 68.4 percent of units in Texas were single-family occupied. Approximately 23.9 percent of housing units were within multifamily structures: 2.1 percent were in developments up to 2 units; 3.2 percent were in developments with 3 or 4 units; 11.7 percent were within 5 to 19 units; and 6.7 percent were in developments of over 20 units. The remaining 7.7 percent of units were manufactured homes and other units such as boats. Additionally, over 86% of all occupied housing units in Texas are located in urban areas.

Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Units – Texas, 2010

1, detached 1, attached 2 apartments 3 or 4 apartments 5 to 19 apartments 20 to 49 apartments 50 apartments or more Mobile home Other type of housing Totals

Rural Total Occupied Units 987,335 16,509 30,511 32,538 40,089 8,857 8,750 227,991 3,032 1,335,612

Urban Total Occupied Units 5,457,046 235,695 176,904 282,068 1,109,346 294,955 351,865 516,187 12,803 8,436,869

Total Occupied Units 6,444,381 252,204 207,415 314,606 1,149,435 303,812 360,615 744,178 15,835 9,792,481

Percent of Total 65.8% 2.6% 2.1% 3.2% 11.7% 3.1% 3.7% 7.6% 0.2% 100.0%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

Of the state’s housing stock, those Regions with the highest proportion of one-unit homes are Regions 1 and 2 (75.2 percent and 78.2 percent respectively), while those Regions with the highest proportion of multifamily housing are Regions 3, 6 and 7 (32 percent, 33.3 percent and 34.9 percent). Additionally, those Regions with the highest proportion of manufactured homes are Regions 4 and 5 have (16.7% and 17.4% of housing units, respectively). Housing Stock by Region, 2010 Service Region 1

Housing Units 364,013

2

250,322

3

2,641,833

4

449,126

5

340,876

6

2,316,536

7

732,684

8

439,300

One Unit 273,806 75.2% 195,662 78.2% 1,777,240 67.3% 323,100 71.9% 240,884 70.7% 1,523,626 65.8% 472,984 64.6% 296,111

2 to 19 Units 45,264 12.4% 25,307 10.1% 515,417 19.5% 39,838 8.9% 31,560 9.3% 456,449 19.7% 135,078 18.4% 85,708

Over 20 Units 15,626 4.3% 6,185 2.5% 221,824 8.4% 7,849 1.7% 8,325 2.4% 207,666 9.0% 78,011 10.6% 13,030

Mobile Homes 28,873 7.9% 22,652 9.0% 125,027 4.7% 77,315 17.2% 59,385 17.4% 126,595 5.5% 45,620 6.2% 43,923

Housing Units, Other* 444 0.1% 516 0.2% 2,325 0.1% 1,024 0.2% 722 0.2% 2,200 0.1% 991 0.1% 528

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 38

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Service Region

Housing Units

9

840,315

10

320,071

11

588,820

12

235,268

13

273,317

State

9,792,481

One Unit 67.4% 592,898 70.6% 229,566 71.7% 404,386 68.7% 172,578 73.4% 193,744 70.9% 6,696,585

2 to 19 Units 19.5% 141,026 16.8% 48,629 15.2% 80,984 13.8% 28,657 12.2% 37,539 13.7% 1,671,456

Over 20 Units 3.0% 42,924 5.1% 11,356 3.5% 18,894 3.2% 9,066 3.9% 23,671 8.7% 644,427

Mobile Homes 10.0% 62,437 7.4% 29,416 9.2% 80,257 13.6% 24,569 10.4% 18,109 6.6% 744,178

Housing Units, Other* 0.1% 1,030 0.1% 1,104 0.3% 4,299 0.7% 398 0.2% 254 0.1% 15,835

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010. *The “Housing Units, Other” category is for any living quarters occupied as a housing unit that do not fit in the other categories. Examples that fit in the “other” category are houseboats, railroad cars, campers and vans.

The chart below shows occupied and vacant housing by region. In all regions rural areas experienced higher levels of vacancy than urban areas. Regions 2, 5 and 11 experienced the highest overall vacancy rates, with total vacancy rates above 16 percent. Nationwide the vacancy rate was approximately 14.4% in the second quarter of 2010. 37 The regions with the largest MSAs have the lowest vacancy rates, possibly because of the large population and increased need for housing in the area.

U.S. Census Bureau news. (2010, July 27). Residential vacancies and homeownership in the second quarter 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr210/files/q210press.pdf.

37

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 39

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Housing Occupancy by Region

Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State Total

Occupied Housing Units 105,096 90,674 94,365 222,403 131,454 56,263 45,845 91,797 40,152 75,748 82,242 62,698 9,790

Rural Vacant Housing Units 22,281 27,256 13,037 37,466 34,740 13,015 13,107 20,596 5,466 18,092 16,597 19,406 3,366

% of housing units Vacant 17.5% 23.1% 12.1% 14.4% 20.9% 18.8% 22.2% 18.3% 12.0% 19.3% 16.8% 23.6% 25.6%

Occupied Housing Units 198,888 116,938 2,364,328 191,945 152,653 2,031,277 629,606 294,617 733,645 194,209 400,384 138,601 240,413

Urban Vacant Housing Units 21,579 15,454 170,103 17,122 22,029 215,981 44,126 34,950 61,052 32,022 83,296 14,563 19,748

% of housing units Vacant 9.8% 11.7% 6.7% 8.2% 12.6% 9.6% 6.5% 10.6% 7.7% 14.2% 17.2% 9.5% 7.6%

Urban and Rural % of housing units vacant 12.6% 17.1% 6.9% 11.6% 16.7% 9.9% 7.8% 12.6% 7.9% 15.7% 17.1% 14.4% 8.5%

1,108,527

244,425

18.1%

7,687,504

752,025

8.9%

10.2%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 40

Housing Analysis State of Texas

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of multifamily units in the state financed through state and federal sources, including TDHCA, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), public housing authorities (PHAs), Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The table also includes local housing finance corporations (HFCs), a category which encompasses the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation (TSAHC). Please note that because some developments layer funding from multiple sources, there may be double counting. Because this is a count of subsidized units, the unit total only includes those units that have income restrictions and does not include market-rate units that may have affordable rents available in some developments. TDHCA units represent the active multifamily units as taken from TDHCA’s internal Central Database. Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and PHA data was obtained from HUD’s Housing Authority website: http://pic.hud.gov/pic/haprofiles/haprofilelist.asp. HUD unit data was obtained from HUD’s Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 Contracts database available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/exp/mfhdiscl.cfm. The USDA subsidized units was taken from its online database at http://rdmfhrentals.sc.egov.usda.gov/RDMFHRentals/select_state.jsp. HFC data, including TSAHC data, was obtained from the Housing Finance Corporation Annual Report that HFCs are required to submit to TDHCA annually. The figure below describes the total units financed by the HFCs through June 2010 and does not specify assisted units, so these unit totals will also include market-rate units in the area. Because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA, these units are not included in the final state total.

Subsidized Multifamily Units, Texas 2010 THDCA Units HUD Units PHA Units Section 8 Vouchers USDA Units HFC Units* Total

State Total 200,489 39,685 63,416 155,770 14,981 97,722 474,341

Percent of State Inventory 42.3% 8.4% 13.4% 32.8% 3.2% 100.0%

*Because HFC developments report total units and do not specify assisted units and that the majority of HFCfinanced developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA, these units are not included in the final total.

The following table shows the number of multifamily units in the state financed through state and federal sources according to region. Regions 3 and 6 have the largest number of subsidized multifamily units in the state, accounting for 47.4% of all assisted units.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 41

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Subsidized Multifamily Units by Region Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 State

TDHCA Units 5,058 3,457 56,478 6,321 6,804 56,674 18,134 6,461 16,423 5,634 10,379 2,896 5,770 200,489

HUD Units 1,234 773 8,476 2,292 1,940 9,780 2,123 1,816 3,839 2,222 2,701 974 1,515 39,685

PHA Units 1,574 3,920 10,323 3,385 3,251 5,762 3,524 4,188 8,221 4,577 7,415 1,241 6,035 63,416

Section 8 Vouchers 5,523 3,224 47,120 7,036 8,430 26,254 7,016 7,934 15,738 3,989 14,260 3,121 6,125 155,770

USDA Units 1,095 1,161 2,359 1,841 927 1,477 643 1,636 462 778 1,966 432 204 14,981

HFC Units* 1,607 280 20,907 1,170 1,278 39,495 8,281 305 22,392 971 322 24 690 97,722

Total Assisted Units 14,484 12,535 124,756 20,875 21,352 99,947 31,440 22,035 44,683 17,200 36,721 8,664 19,649 474,341

*Because HFC developments report total units and do not specify assisted units and that the majority of HFCfinanced developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA, these units are not included in the final total.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY The following figures compare demand and supply of affordable housing by looking at the number of households and housing units in different affordability categories. Because higher income households often reside in units that could be affordable to the lowest income households, there are fewer units available at a cost that is affordable to lower income households. For example, 1.27 million households that have income greater than 80 percent AMFI occupy units that would be affordable to households at 0-50 percent AMFI (see table below). Households in this category can afford units in any of the defined affordability categories. Therefore, households that are not lowincome often limit the supply of affordable housing units available to low-income households. The table below describes the housing market interaction of various income groups and housing costs. The table shows the income classifications of the occupants of housing units. The table also illustrates the housing market mismatch between housing units and income groups. For example, very low-income owner households (0-50 percent of AMFI) account for only about 5.8 percent of all the owner occupants of housing that is affordable to them. The table also illustrates an implicit excessive cost burden for those households that are residing in units beyond their affordability category. For example, over one-third of low-income renter households (0-80 percent AMFI) are residing in homes affordable to renter households that have income greater than 80 percent AMFI.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 42

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Occupied Affordable Housing Units by Income Group of Occupant, 2005-07, by percentage of HAMFI Renter Households

Total

50% or less

50.1-80%

Above 80%

Affordable 0-50% AMFI

980,915

573,060

198,215

209,640

Affordable to 51-80% AMFI

1,417,280

493,375

344,155

579,750

Affordable to > 80% AMFI

380,890

73,805

54,595

252,490

Total

2,779,085

1,140,240

596,965

1,041,880

Percent of Renter Households

Total

50% or less

50.1-80%

Above 80%

Affordable 0-50% AMFI

100.0%

58.4%

20.2%

21.4%

Affordable to 51-80% AMFI

100.0%

34.8%

24.3%

40.9%

Affordable to > 80% AMFI

100.0%

19.4%

14.3% 66.3% Source: CHAS 2005-07, Table 15C.

Owner Households

Total

50% or less

50.1-80%

Above 80%

Affordable to 0-50% AMFI

2,090,080

567,775

459,015

1,063,290

Affordable to 51-80% AMFI

1,731,355

179,145

211,000

1,341,210

Affordable to > 80% AMFI

1,424,185

88,115

86,490

1,249,580

Total

5,245,620

835,035

756,505

3,654,080

Percent of Owner Households

Total

50% or less

50.1-80%

Above 80%

Affordable to 0-50% AMFI

100.0%

5.8%

5.5%

88.7%

Affordable to 51-80% AMFI

100.0%

7.0%

7.2%

85.8%

Affordable to > 80% AMFI

100.0%

6.2%

6.1%

87.7%

Number of Total Units

Total

50% or less

50.1-80%

Above 80%

Affordable to 0-50% AMFI

3,070,995

1,140,835

657,230

1,272,930

Affordable to 51-80% AMFI

3,148,635

672,520

555,155

1,920,960

Affordable to > 80% AMFI

1,805,075

161,920

141,085

1,502,070

Percent of Total Units

Total

50% or less

50.1-80%

Above 80%

Affordable to 0-50% AMFI

100.0%

37.1%

21.4%

41.5%

Affordable to 51-80% AMFI

100.0%

21.4%

17.6%

61.0%

Affordable to > 80% AMFI

100.0%

9.0% Total units:

7.8% 83.2% 8,024,705 Source: CHAS 2005-07, Table 15 A, 15 B.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 43

Housing Analysis State of Texas

LOCAL ASSESSMENT OF NEED TDHCA acknowledges that the greatest understanding of housing needs is found at the local level. TDHCA continuously strives to improve the methods used to identify regional affordable housing needs.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REQUEST INVENTORY TDHCA compiled an annual Public Assistance Request Inventory, which consists of communication from public and private sector organizations and members of the general public using the following contact methods: • calls made to TDHCA’s Automated Call Distribution line (800-525-0657); • website searches on TDHCA’s Help for Texans (http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/texans.htm); • emails sent to TDHCA’s general mailbox ([email protected]); and • and letters mailed to the agency’s mailing address (PO Box 13941, Austin, TX 78711). If a geographic location was not specified by the individual seeking assistance, it could not be included in the Inventory. In state fiscal year (SFY) 2010, TDHCA received a total of 210,458 public assistance requests. As seen in the table below, Regions 3 and 6 were areas that most often requested assistance. These regions include the two of the State’s most populated metropolitan areas: Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston. Additionally, regions with higher urban concentrations were more likely to yield requests for emergency and utility assistance.

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Homebuyer Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Rental Assistance

346 1,349 1,206 699 2,743 839 1,234 523 11,459 22,852 9,758 9,616 1,373 3,163 2,711 1,210 826 2,168 1,779 1,130 10,000 13,625 7,161 11,329 1,288 6,083 2,096 3,771 1,779 2,675 1,892 1,087 1,304 3,118 2,495 2,189 5,984 1,106 1,410 622 13,192 1,453 2,152 1,131 1,986 728 830 457 207 552 460 555 52,487 59,711 35,184 34,319

Foreclosure

661 814 10,381 1,525 956 6,333 2,602 1,465 1,693 605 888 431 227 28,581

Legal Assistance

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Region 11 Region 12 Region 13 Total

Utility Assistance

Emergency Assistance

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE REQUEST INVENTORY TABLE, SFY 2010

3 4 17 12 2 19 14 11 3 6 3 4 1 99

8 1 6 3 3 6 1 1 29

16 9 1 1 27

2 1 1 1 2 6 4 1 2 1 21

4,266 6,158 64,092 9,995 6,880 48,488 15,861 8,912 10,809 9,736 18,821 4,437 2,003 210,458

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 44

Housing Analysis State of Texas

Legal Assistance requests include questions about landlord/tenant issues, contract for deeds issuances and other legal matters. Other Housing-Related Assistance includes questions that reference realtors, sewers connections, homeowners associations and other general questions about housing.

RURAL HOUSING SURVEY The Department requested data from TSAHC’s Rural Housing Survey, conducted over the summer of 2010. The survey was sent to 1,400 city and county government officials. The response rate was approximately 9.5% with 133 respondents. The vast majority of respondents (77%) worked for cities with populations under 5,000 persons. Single-family housing was the dominant existing housing type in the rural communities that responded; 91.5% of owner respondents lived in single-family homes and 74.6% of renter respondents lived in single-family homes. Furthermore, most respondents stated that the type of affordable housing most needed in their community is single-family homes. However, very few of the rural communities represented have a local housing finance corporation (7.7%), city or county housing department (6.9% and 3.8% respectively), or non-profit housing developers (6.2%). Additionally, almost one-third of respondents stated that no organizations in their community address or create affordable housing. Of the state and federal affordable housing funding sources available in rural communities, respondents were most familiar with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the USDA Rural Development Programs. However, the obstacles which respondents felt their communities encountered the most when attempting to create affordable housing were a lack of funding available to rural Texas for this purpose (62.6%) and limited knowledge about available housing programs (50.7%). Because the Rural Housing Survey’s response rate was low in Regions 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, the sample would not accurately represent the region. Therefore regional analysis of the survey was not possible.

TSAHC’S RURAL HOUSING SURVEY RESPONSES BY REGION, 2010 Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total

Large City within Region for Geographic Reference Lubbock Abilene Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Beaumont Houston Waco San Antonio Corpus Christi Brownsville/Harlingen San Angelo El Paso

Survey Responses 24 24 8 21 3 5 13 9 6 2 12 2 129

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 45

Housing Analysis State of Texas

COMMUNITY OUTLOOK SURVEY The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas launched a Community Outlook Survey in July 2010, to assess community and economic development in Texas, northern Louisiana and southern New Mexico. 38 Service providers reported that the availability of affordable housing from the first to second quarters of 2010 remained low, but had a positive outlook for the third quarter of 2010. Respondents found that the factors most affecting availability of affordable housing were lack of capital (25% of respondents), costs (20%) and competition for funding (18%). When providers were asked about the financial well-being and access to credit for low- and moderate-income households, most said these households’ situations remained the same or worsened from the first to second quarter of 2010. Factors most affecting access to credit included the tightening of underwriting standards/credit ratings (34% of respondents) and a clients’ lack of cash flow (31%).

38

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, “Community Outlook Survey (COS),” July 2010. http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/cos/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 46

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 1

Region 1

This 41-county region in the northwest corner of Texas encompasses over 39,500 square miles of the Panhandle. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 1 is 813,211, which represents approximately 3.3 percent of the state’s total population. Region 1 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

320,247

-10.4%

2009 Population Estimate 290,078

Urban

460,486

12.0%

523,133

Region 1 Total

780,733

4.0%

813,211

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 64.3 percent of the Region 1 families live in the urban areas, including Amarillo and Lubbock, and the rest live in rural areas of the region. In the map of Region 1 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 1. Of the 26,521 families living below poverty, approximately 57 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 43 percent in rural areas. However, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is higher than the percentage of total urban families. This may be due to the region’s rural counties lagging behind the Amarillo and Lubbock MSAs in recent and expected job creation. 39 Region 1 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 1 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 67,144 85.5% 118,205 88.6% 185,349 87.5%

Below poverty Families Percent 11,347 14.5% 15,174 11.4% 26,521 12.5%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the households in the region. Approximately 43 percent of households are low income. The most recent Census poverty estimate data for 2009 shows that there are 141,440 individuals living in poverty in the region which makes up 16.0 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, the majority of occupations with high job growth in Region 1 are low paying (regional average annual wage of $32,740) and do not require a post-secondary education. 40

39

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: High Plains,” April 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/highplains/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 40 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: High Plains,” April 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/highplains/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 47

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 1 Household Incomes

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 13%

Very Low Income (31%-50%), 12%

Higher Income (over 95%), 50%

Low Income (51%-80%), Moderate 18% Income (81%-95%) , 7%

Percent 13% 12% 18% 7% 50%

REGION 1 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9 to 13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 3.7% of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Potter, and a sample rural county, Armstrong, there is an estimated 632 people and 0 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 1 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless Persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

480

7.9%

6,051

Urban

2,016

3.3%

61,647

Total

2,496

3.7%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the most recent US Census, of the total population in Region 1, persons with disabilities account for approximately 18 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 60 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 40 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 48

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 1 Persons With and Without Disabilities, 2000

Rural

Persons with disabilities 55,332

Persons without disabilities 249,179

304,511

Urban

83,188

393,034

476,222

Total

138,520

642,213

780,733

Total

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 1 make up 4.8% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 1 Elderly Persons -- Texas 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

44,084

9.3%

475,056

Urban

55,001

3.4%

1,597,476

Total

99,085

4.8%

2,072,532 Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 1,078 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 1. Approximately 60 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 40 percent in rural areas. Region 1 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the Panhandle accounting for just 1.3 percent of the total, and a rate of 96 persons per 100,000. Region 1 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

435

289,125

Urban

643

515,264

Total

1,078

804,389

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 1 was found to have a high proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for over one-fifth of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. The high farmworker population correlates with a dominant agriculture industry in Region 1, as the state’s leading cattle

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 49

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

region and major producer of the nation’s cotton, corn for grain and wheat. Furthermore, the crop and animal production sectors provided 28,000 jobs to Region 1 in 2006. 41 Region 1 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 42 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural

65,767

33.3%

197,588

Urban

14,695

9.0%

163,827

Total

80,462

22.3%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 4,266 public assistance requests from Region 1, which accounted for 2.0 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 1, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Rental Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Homebuyer Assistance.

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Total

Utility Assistance

Region 1

Emergency Assistance

Region 1 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

661

346

1,349

1,206

699

3

-

-

2

4,266

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

REGION 1 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to 2010 projections, 87.6 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, approximately 75.2 percent are one unit; 3.2 percent are two units; 13.5 percent are three or more units; 7.9 percent are manufactured homes; and the rest are boats and RVs.

41

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: High Plains,” April 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/highplains/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 42 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – Texas, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 50

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 1 Housing Supply – 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

127,377

220,467

347,844

Vacant housing units

22,281

21,579

43,860

Housing units, 1 unit

104,262

157,253

261,515

Housing units, 2 units

2,915

8,380

11,295

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

3051

6,864

9,915

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

3,981

18,040

22,021

Total housing units

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

500

6,912

7,412

Housing units, 50+ units

576

7,044

7,620

11,995

15,639

27,637

97

335

432

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section.

Region 1 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 5,058 34.9% 2.5% HUD Units 1,234 8.5% 3.1% PHA Units 1,574 10.9% 2.5% Section 8 Vouchers 5,523 38.1% 3.5% USDA Units 1,095 7.6% 7.3% HFC Units* 1,607 Total 14,484 3.1% 3.1% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home prices for Amarillo and Lubbock are $130,300 and $111,700, respectively. 43 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Amarillo MSA is $671, requiring an annual income of approximately $26,840, and in Lubbock MSA is $722, which requires an annual income of approximately $28,880. In a sample rural county, Armstrong, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $671, which requires an annual income of approximately $26,840. 44 43

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “MLS Residential Housing Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs120b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 44 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 51

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 91,669 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009.

Region 1 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

67,159

25,939

18,689

13,818

8,712

3,211

898

558

604

1,151

21,299 91,669

3,374 30,211

3,735 22,982

5,747 20,169

8,443 18,306

Source: 2000 CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 52

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 2       

 

 

 

 

 

Region 2  

 

Region 2 surrounds the metropolitan areas of Wichita Falls and Abilene. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 2 is 534,809, which represents approximately 2.2 percent of the state’s total population.

Region 2 Population Figures 2009 Population Estimate 227,318

2000 Population

% Change

282,194

-24.1%

Urban

267,073

13.1%

307,491

Region 2 Total

549,267

-2.7%

534,809

Rural

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 57.5 percent of Region 2 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 2 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 2. Of the 16,772 families living below poverty, approximately 52.5 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 47.5 percent in rural areas. Additionally, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly higher than the percentage of total urban families. Region 2 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 2 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 55,472 87.4% 72,195 89.1% 127,667 88.4%

Below poverty Families Percent 7,961 12.6% 8,811 10.9% 16,772 11.6%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the 206,459 households in the region. Approximately 42 percent of households are low income. There are 89,294 individuals living in poverty in the region which makes up 14.4 percent of the regional population.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 53

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 2 Household Incomes Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 11% Very Low Income (31%50%), 13% Low Income (51%-80%), 18%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Higher Income (over 95%), 50% Moderate Income (81%95%) , 8%

Percent 11% 13% 18% 8% 50%

REGION 2 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 3.3% of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group homes, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Taylor, and a sample rural county, Comanche, there is an estimated 1,387 people and 8 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 2 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

375

6.2%

6,051

Urban

1,837

3.0%

61,647

Total

2,212

3.3%

67,698 Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 2, persons with disabilities account for approximately 19.2 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 52.3 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 47.7 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 54

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 2 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

50,225

187,273

237,498

Urban

55,100

256,669

311,769

Total

105,325

443,942

549,267

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 2 make up 4.1% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 2 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

44,437

9.4%

475,056

Urban

40,531

2.5%

1,579,476

Total

84,968

4.1%

2,072,532

Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 429 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 2. Approximately 66.7 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 33.3 percent in rural areas. Region 2 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with North & Central Texas accounting for just 3.1 percent of the total, and a rate of 91 persons per 100,000. Region 2 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Rural

Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

143

227,436

Urban

286

306,666

Total

429

534,102

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 2 was found to have a low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 5.8 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 45

45

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 55

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 2 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

18,089

9.2%

197,588

Rural Urban

2,938

1.8%

163,826

Total

21,027

5.8%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 6,158 public assistance requests from Region 2, which accounted for 2.9 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 2, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Utility Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Rental Assistance.

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Total

Utility Assistance

Region 2

Emergency Assistance

Region 2 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

814

2,743

839

1,234

523

4

-

-

1

6,158

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

REGION 2 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 82.9 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, approximately 78.2 percent are one unit; 2.7 percent are two units; 9.9 percent are three or more units; 9.0 percent are manufactured homes; and the rest are boats and RVs. Region 2 Housing Supply, 2010 Total housing units Vacant housing units Housing units, 1 unit Housing units, 2 units Housing units, 3 to 4 units Housing units, 5 to 19 units Housing units, 20 to 49 units Housing units, 50+ units Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

Rural 117,930 27,256 94,177 3,254 2,395 2,464 860 707 13,868 205

Urban 132,392 15,454 101,485 3,428 4,496 9,270 1,881 2,737 8,784 311

Total 250,322 42,710 195,662 6,682 6,891 11,734 2,741 3,444 22,652 516

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 56

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section.

Region 2 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 3,457 27.6% 1.7% HUD Units 773 6.2% 1.9% PHA Units 3,920 31.3% 6.2% Section 8 Vouchers 3,224 25.7% 2.1% USDA Units 1,161 9.3% 7.7% HFC Units* 280 Total 12,535 100.0% 2.6% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing service records for August 2010, the median home prices for Wichita Falls and Abilene are $96,000 and $123,200, respectively. 46 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Wichita Falls is $667, requiring an annual income of approximately $26,680, and in Abilene MSA is $645, which requires an annual income of approximately $25,800. In a sample rural county, Comanche, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $607, which requires an annual income of approximately $24,280. 47

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 56,447 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009.

Region 2 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

44,820

16,401

13,389

8,732

6,298

2,161 9,466 56,447

607 1,470 18,541

367 1,440 15,196

459 2,691 11,882

665 3,865 10,828

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data. 46

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs110b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 47 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

2010.

Retrieved

from

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 57

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 3

Region 3

Region 3, which encompasses the metropolitan areas of Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Sherman and Denison, is the state’s most populous region. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 3 is 6,806,568, which represents 27.5 percent of the state’s total population. Region 3 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

228,358

6.5%

2009 Population Estimate 244,333

Urban

5,259,119

19.9%

6,562,235

Region 3 Total

5,487,477

19.4%

6,806,568

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 96 percent of Region 3 families reside in urban areas. In the map of Region 3 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 3. Of the 168,039 families living below poverty, approximately 95 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 5 percent in rural areas. However, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly higher than the percentage of total urban families. Region 3 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 3 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 59,763 88.4% 1,488,761 90.3% 1,548,524 90.2%

Below poverty Families Percent 7,843 11.6% 160,196 9.7% 168,039 9.8%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the 1,988,135 households in the region. Approximately 39 percent of the households are low income. There are 676,991 individuals living in poverty in the region which makes up 18.9 percent of the regional population.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 58

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 3 Household Incomes, 2000

`

Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 11%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Very Low Income (31%-50%), 10% Higher Income (over 95%), 53%

Low Income (51%80%), 18%

Percent 11% 10% 18% 8% 53%

Moderate Income (81%-95%),8%

REGION 3 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 20.2% of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Collin, and a sample rural county, Wise, there is an estimated 1,384 people and 55 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 3 persons in group quarters, 2010

Rural

Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

930

15.4%

6,051

Urban

12,763

20.7%

61,647

Total

13,693

20.2%

67,698 Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 3, persons with disabilities account for approximately 16.2 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 95 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 5 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 59

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 3 persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

43,659

177,006

220,665

Urban

844,558

4,422,254

5,266,812

Total

888,217

4,599,260

,487,477

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 3 make up 24.7% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 3 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

34,043

7.2%

475,056

Urban

477,876

29.9%

1,597,476

Total

511,919

24.7%

2,072,532

Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 19,486 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 3. Approximately 99 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 1 percent in rural areas. Region 3 has a very high rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the Dallas and Fort Worth metropolitan areas accounting for 30.6 percent of the total. The Dallas metropolitan area has a rate of 358 persons per 100,000 and the Fort Worth metropolitan area has a rate of 192 persons per 100,000. Region 3 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

167

242,437

Urban

19,319

6,414,416

Total

19,486

6,656,853

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 60

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 3 was found to have a low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 4.1 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 48 Region 3 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

2,988

1.5%

197,588

Rural Urban

11,690

7.1%

163,826

Total

14,678

4.1%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Request Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 64,092 public assistance requests from Region 3, which accounted for 30.5 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 3, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Rental Assistance, Utility Assistance and Emergency Assistance.

17

8

-

1

64,092

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

Total

9,616

35,184

Other HousingRelated Assistance

9,758

59,711

Disaster Assistance

22,852

52,487

Foreclosure

11,459

28,581

Legal Assistance

Rental Assistance

10,381

Total

Homebuyer Assistance

Utility Assistance

Region 3

Repair & Weatherization

Emergency Assistance

Region 3 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

REGION 3 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 93.1 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied; this is the highest occupancy rate among all of the regions. Of the total housing stock, 67.3 percent are one unit; 1.5 percent are two units; 26.4 percent are three or more units; 4.7 are manufactured homes; and the rest are boats and RVs.

48

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 61

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 3 Housing Supply, 2010

Total housing units

Rural

Urban

Total

107,402

2,534,431

2,641,833

Vacant housing units

13,037

170,103

183,140

Housing units, 1 unit

76,511

1,700,729

1,777,240

Housing units, 2 units

2,152

37,507

39,659

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

2,035

82,184

84,219

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

3,107

388,432

391,539

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

1,309

112,402

113,711

Housing units, 50+ units

1,196

106,917

108,113

Housing units, mobile home

20,812

104,215

125,027

2,045

2,325

Housing units, other

280

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section.

Region 3 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 56,478 45.3% 28.2% HUD Units 8,476 6.8% 21.4% PHA Units 10,323 8.3% 16.3% Section 8 Vouchers 47,120 37.8% 30.2% USDA Units 2,359 1.9% 15.7% HFC Units** 20,907 Total 124,756 100.0% 26.3% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the highest median home price is in Collin County at $222,100, while the lowest is in Sherman-Denison at $73,600. 49 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Collin County is $894, requiring an annual income of approximately $35,760, and in Sherman-Denison MSA is $738, which requires an annual income of approximately $29,520. In a sample rural county, Wise fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $660, which requires an annual income of approximately $26,400. 50

49

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs480b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 50 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

2010.

Retrieved

from

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 62

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 699,636 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009.

Region 3 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

483,443

148,173

124,704

118,320

92,246

18,571

4,988

3,378

3,940

6,266

197,622 699,636

36,717 189,878

39,975 168,057

53,458 175,718

67,472 165,984

Source: 2000 CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 63

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 4

Region 4

Region 4, located in the northeast corner of the state, surrounds the urban areas of Texarkana, Longview-Marshall and Tyler. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 4 is 1,092,136, which represents 4.4 percent of the state’s total population. Region 4 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

469,579

19.2%

2009 Population Estimate 581,223

Urban

546,069

-6.9%

510,913

Region 4 Total

,015,648

7.0%

1,092,136

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 46.8 percent of Region 4 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 4 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 4. Of the 35,634 families living below poverty, approximately 43 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 57 percent in rural areas. Additionally, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly higher than the percentage of total urban families. This may be due to the region’s rural counties lagging behind the Longview and Tyler MSAs in recent and expected job creation. 51 Region 4 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 4 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 141,154 87.4% 121,629 88.8% 262,783 88.1%

Below poverty Families Percent 20,316 12.6% 15,318 11.2% 35,634 11.9%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart to the left depicts the income breakdown of the 380,765 households in the region. Approximately 41 percent of households are low income. There are 174,841 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 15.3 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, Region 4 exceeds the state’s per capita income level of $37,187, with 171 occupations paying more than this amount. 52

51

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Upper East Texas,” October 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/uppereast/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 52 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Upper East Texas,” October 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/uppereast/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 64

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 4 Household Incomes Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 12% Very Low Income (31%50%), 12%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Higher Income (over 95%), 51%

Low Income (51%-80%), 17% Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 8%

Percent 12% 12% 17% 8% 51%

REGION 4 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 4.4 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Gregg, and a sample rural county, Hopkins, there is an estimated 296 people and 33 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 4 also experienced damage from Hurricane Rita, which hit the southeast Texas area in September 2005, and Hurricane Ike in September 2008. According to FEMA, $1.04 billion worth of damage was reported after Hurricane Rita and $29.4 billion after the 2008 hurricane season. Region 4 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

877

14.5%

6,051

Urban

2,075

3.4%

61,647

Total

2,952

4.4%

67,698 Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 4, persons with disabilities account for approximately 21 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 43.9 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 56.1 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 65

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 4 Persons With and Without Disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

120,014

432,253

552,267

Urban

93,739

369,642

463,381

Total

213,753

801,895

1,015,648

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 4 make up 8.4% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 4 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

108,447

22.8%

475,056

Urban

65,076

4.1%

1,597,476

Total

173,523

8.4%

2,072,532

Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 1,253 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 4. Approximately 59 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 41 percent in rural areas. Region 4 has a low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the East Texas area accounting for only 6 percent of the total. The East Texas area has a rate of 147 persons per 100,000. Region 4 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

562

578,487

Urban

823

503,766

Total

1,387

1,082,253

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 4 was found to have a very low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 2.9 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 53

53

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 66

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 4 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural Urban

8,011 2,419

4.1% 1.5%

197,588 163,826

Total

10,430

2.9%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 9,995 public assistance requests from Region 4, which accounted for 4.7 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 4, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Rental Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Emergency Assistance.

Emergency Assistance

Utility Assistance

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Region 4 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

Region 4

1,525

1,373

3,163

2,711

1,210

12

-

-

1

9,995

Total

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

REGION 4 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 88.4 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 72.3 percent are one unit; 2.2 percent are two units; 11 percent are three or more units; 16.7 are manufactured homes; and the rest are boats and RVs. Region 4 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

259,869

209,067

468,936

Vacant housing units

37,466

17,122

54,588

Housing units, 1 unit

188,224

150,792

339,016

Total housing units

Housing units, 2 units

4,571

5,627

10,198

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

5,607

6,269

11,876

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 67

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Rural

Urban

Total

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

6,439

13,518

19,957

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

1,509

2,175

3,684

998

3,778

4,776

51,857

26,539

78,396

664

369

1,033

Housing units, 50+ units Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 4 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 6,321 30.3% 3.2% HUD Units 2,292 11.0% 5.8% PHA Units 3,385 16.2% 5.3% Section 8 Vouchers 7,036 33.7% 4.5% USDA Units 1,841 8.8% 12.3% HFC Units* 1,170 Total 20,875 100.0% 4.4% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home prices for Tyler and Longview-Marshall are $143,100 and $128,400, respectively. 54 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Tyler MSA is $716, requiring an annual income of approximately $28,640, and in Longview-Marshall MSA is $738, which requires an annual income of approximately $29,520. In a sample rural county, Hopkins fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $621, which requires an annual income of approximately $24,840. 55

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 115,387 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009.

54

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs320b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 55 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 68

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 4 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

87,846

31,977

23,560

18,322

13,988

5,578

1,724

994

1,002

1,858

21,963 115,387

3,657 37,357

3,640 28,194

5,408 24,732

9,258 25,104

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 69

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 5

Region 5

Region 5 encompasses a 15-county area in east Texas including the urban areas of Beaumont and Port Arthur. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 5 is 748,148, which represents 3.0 percent of the state’s total population. Region 5 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

355,862

-3.2%

2009 Population Estimate 344,769

Urban

385,090

4.5%

403,379

Region 5 Total

740,952

1.0%

748,148

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 53.9 percent of Region 5 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 5 (above), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 5. Of the 30,061 families living below poverty, approximately 48.1 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 51.9 percent in rural areas. Additionally, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly higher than the percentage of total urban families. Region 5 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 5 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 77,665 83.3% 94,559 86.7% 172,224 85.1%

Below poverty Families Percent 15,614 16.7% 14,447 13.3% 30,061 14.9%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the 274,543 households in the region. Approximately 43 percent of the households are low income. There are 138,673 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 15.2 percent of the regional population.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 70

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 5 Household Incomes Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 14% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 12%

Higher Income (over 95%), 50%

Low Income (51%-80%), 17%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 14% 12% 17% 7% 50%

Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 7%

REGION 5 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 2.3 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Jefferson, and a sample rural county, San Augustine, there is an estimated 845 people and 1 person, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 5 also experienced significant damage from Hurricane Rita, which hit the southeast Texas area in September 2005 and Hurricane Ike in September 2008. According to FEMA, $190 million worth of damage was reported after Hurricane Rita and $29.4 billion after the 2008 hurricane season. Region 5 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

534

8.8%

6,051

Urban

993

1.6%

61,647

Total

1,527

2.3%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 5, persons with disabilities account for approximately 20.3 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 53 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 47 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 71

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 5 Persons With and Without Disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

70,681

262,935

333,616

Urban

79,848

327,488

407,336

Total

150,529

590,423

740,952

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 5 make up 5.1% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 5 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

51,874

10.9%

475,056

Urban

54,455

3.4%

1,597,476

Total

106,329

5.1%

2,072,532 Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 1,334 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 5. Approximately 67.2 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 32.8 percent in rural areas. Region 5 has a low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the East Texas area accounting for only 6 percent of the total. The East Texas area has a rate of 147 persons per 100,000. Region 5 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Rural

Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008 438

Population 2008 342,998

Urban

896

402,313

Total

1,334

745,311

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 72

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 5 was found to have a very low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 0.8 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 56 Region 5 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

2,738

1.4%

197,588

Rural Urban

321

0.2%

163,826

Total

3,059

0.8%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 6,880 public assistance requests from Region 5, which accounted for 3.3 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 5, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Rental Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Homebuyer Assistance.

Utility Assistance

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Region 5 Total

Emergency Assistance

Region 5 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

956 28,581

826 52,487

2,168 59,711

1,779 35,184

1,130 34,319

2 99

1 29

16 27

2 21

6,880 210,458

REGION 5 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to 2010 projections, 83.3 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 70.7 percent are one unit; 2.0 percent are two units; 11 percent are three or more units; and 17.4 percent are manufactured homes. Boats and RVs make up the rest of the housing stock.

56

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 73

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 5 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

166,194

174,682

340,876

Vacant housing units

34,740

22,029

56,769

Housing units, 1 unit

111,625

129,259

240,884

Housing units, 2 units

3,870

2,802

6,672

Total housing units

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

3,098

3,927

7,025

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

5,072

12,791

17,863

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

880

2,313

3,193

Housing units, 50+ units

1,790

3,342

5,132

Housing units, mobile home

39,521

19,864

59,385

338

384

722

Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 5 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 6,804 31.9% 3.4% HUD Units 1,940 9.1% 4.9% PHA Units 3,251 15.2% 5.1% Section 8 Vouchers 8,430 39.5% 5.4% USDA Units 927 4.3% 6.2% HFC Units* 1,278 Total 21,352 100.0% 4.5% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home prices for Beaumont and Port Arthur are $124,300 and $110,000, respectively. 57 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA is $692, requiring an annual income of approximately $27,680. 58 In a sample rural county, San Augustine, fair market rent on a twobedroom apartment is $588, which requires an annual income of approximately $23,520.

57

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs440b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 58 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 74

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 83,490 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 5 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

62,016

25,949

16,662

11,413

7,993

3,836

1,270

633

733

1,202

17,638 83,490

3,350 30,569

2,548 19,843

3,968 16,114

7,772 16,967

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 75

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 6

Region 6

Region 6 includes the urban area of Houston, Brazoria and Galveston. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 6 is 6,005,334, which represents 24.2 percent of the state’s total population. Region 6 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

184,883

-13.6%

2009 Population Estimate 162,747

Urban

4,669,571

20.1%

5,842,587

Region 6 Total

4,854,454

19.2%

6,005,334

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 97.3 percent of Region 6 families live in the urban areas. In the map of Region 6 (above), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 6. Of the 165,313 families living below poverty, approximately 96.7 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 3.3 percent in rural areas. However, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly higher than the percentage of total urban families. This may be due to the region’s rural counties lagging behind the Houston MSA in recent and expected job creation. 59 Region 6 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 6 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 33,071 85.8% 1,299,512 89.0% 1,332,583 89.0%

Below poverty Families Percent 5,478 14.2% 159,835 11.0% 165,313 11.0%

ource: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the 1,691,811 households in the region. Approximately 40 percent of households are low income. There are 754,675 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 13.6 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, many Region 6 jobs exceed the state’s 2008 per capita income level of $37,774, with 376 occupations paying more than this amount. 60

59

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Gulf Coast Region,” October 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/gulf/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 60 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Gulf Coast Region,” October 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/gulf/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 76

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 6 Household Income

Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 12% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 11% Low Income (51%-80%), 17%

Higher Income (over 95%), 52%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 12% 11% 17% 8% 52%

Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 8%

REGION 6 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 27.1 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Harris, and a sample rural county, Colorado, there is an estimated 14,378 people and 66 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 6 also experienced damage from Hurricane Rita, which hit the southeast Texas area in September 2005 and Hurricane Ike in September 2008. According to FEMA, $28.3 million worth of damage was reported after Hurricane Rita and $29.4 billion after the 2008 hurricane season. Region 6 persons in other group quarters, 2010

Rural

Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

933

15.4%

6,051

Urban

17,383

28.2%

61,647

Total

18,316

27.1%

67,698 Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 6, persons with disabilities account for approximately 16.5 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 96.7 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 3.3 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 77

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 6 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

26,390

134,903

161,293

Urban

775,046

3,918,115

4,693,161

Total

801,436

4,053,018

4,854,454

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 6 make up 18.4% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 6 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

17,140

3.6%

475,056

Urban

363,803

22.8%

1,597,476

Total

380,943

18.4%

2,072,532 Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 20,918 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 6. Approximately 99 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 1 percent in rural areas. Region 6 has a high rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the Houston metropolitan area accounting for 31.4 percent of the total. Additionally, the Houston metropolitan area has a rate of 392 persons per 100,000, which is the highest in the state. Region 6 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

186

162,127

Urban

20,732

5,701,869

Total

20,918

5,863,996

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 78

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 6 was found to have a very low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 2.7 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 61 Region 6 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Estimate

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural

3,239

1.6%

197,588

Urban

6,357

3.9%

163,826

Total

9,596

2.7%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 48,488 public assistance requests from Region 6, which accounted for 23.0 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 6, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Rental Assistance; Homebuyer Assistance and Utility Assistance.

Emergency Assistance

Utility Assistance

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Region 6 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

Region 6

6,333

10,000

13,625

7,161

11,329

19

6

9

6

48,488

Total

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

REGION 6 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 90.1 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 65.8 percent are one unit; 1.3 percent are two units; 18 percent are three or more units; 5.5 percent are manufactured homes; and the rest are RVs and boats.

61

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 79

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 6 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

Total housing units

69,278

2,247,258

2,316,536

Vacant housing units

13,015

215,981

228,996

Housing units, 1 unit

45,353

1,478,273

1,523,626

Housing units, 2 units

1,495

28,137

29,632

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

2,713

59,782

62,495

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

6,092

358,230

364,322

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

795

87,793

88,588

Housing units, 50+ units

1,460

117,618

119,078

Housing units, mobile home

11,276

115,319

126,595

94

2,106

2,200

Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 6 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 56,674 56.7% 28.3% HUD Units 9,780 9.8% 24.6% PHA Units 5,762 5.8% 9.1% Section 8 Vouchers 26,254 26.3% 16.9% USDA Units 1,477 1.5% 9.9% HFC Units* 39,495 Total 99,947 100.0% 21.1% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home prices for Houston and Galveston are $157,500 and $180,000 respectively. 62 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Houston/Baytown/Sugar Land HMFA and Galveston County is $892, requiring an annual income of approximately $35,680. 63 In a sample rural county, Colorado, fair

62

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs250b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 63 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 80

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $588, which requires an annual income of approximately $23,520.

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database update with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 621,947 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 6 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

392,181

133,623

104,552

83,584

70,421

18,712

5,594

3,306

3,787

6,025

211,054 621,947

42,404 43,848 55,539 69,262 181,621 151,706 142,910 145,708 Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 81

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 7

Region 7

The urban area of Austin-San Marcos is at the center of Region 7. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 7 is 1,816,818, which represent 7.3 percent of the state’s total population. Region 7 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

97,070

13.1%

2009 Population Estimate 111,743

Urban

1,249,763

26.7%

1,705,075

Region 7 Total

1,346,833

25.9%

1,816,818

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 93.8 percent of Region 7 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 7 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 7. Of the 36,386 families living below poverty, approximately 92.8 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 7.2 percent in rural areas. Additionally, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly lower than the percentage of total urban families. Region 7 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 7 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 30,153 92.0% 367,919 91.6% 398,072 91.6%

Below poverty Families Percent 2,608 8.0% 33,778 8.4% 36,386 8.4%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the 509,798 households in the region. Approximately 41 percent of households are low income. There are 166,819 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 10.9 percent of the regional population.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 82

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 7 Household Income

Extremely Low Income (030%), 12% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 11%

Low Income (51%80%), 18%

Higher Income (over 95%), 50%

Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 9%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 12% 11% 18% 9% 50%

REGION 7 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 12.1 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Travis, and a sample rural county, Fayette, there is an estimated people 5,075 and 55 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 7 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

197

3.1%

6,051

Urban

8,015

13.0%

61,647

Total

8,212

12.1%

67,698 Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 7, persons with disabilities account for approximately 14 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 89.7 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 10.3 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 83

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 7 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

19,633

77,437

97,070

Urban

170,593

1,079,170

1,249,763

Total

190,226

1,156,607

1,346,833

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 7 make up 5.3% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 7 Elderly persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

19,808

4.2%

475,056

Urban

90,644

5.7%

1,597,476

Total

110,452

5.3%

2,072,532

Source: 2000 Census and CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 4,361 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 7. Approximately 98.4 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 1.6 percent in rural areas. Region 7 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the Austin metropolitan area accounting for 6.8 percent of the total. Additionally, the Austin metropolitan area has a rate of 266 persons per 100,000. Region 7 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

68

110,991

Urban

4,293

1,654,100

Total

4,361

1,765,091

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 84

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 7 was found to have a very low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 1.2 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 64 Region 7 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural

928

0.5%

197,588

Urban

3,418

2.1%

163,837

Total

4,346

1.2%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 15,861 public assistance requests from Region 7, which accounted for 7.5 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 7, the three most requested categories were, in order: Rental Assistance, Homebuyer Assistance and Emergency Assistance.

Emergency Assistance

Utility Assistance

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Region 7 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

Region 7

2,602

1,288

6,083

2,096

3,771

14

3

-

4

15,861

Total

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

REGION 7 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 92.2 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 64.6 percent are one unit; 3.3 percent are two units; 25.8 percent are three or more units; 6.2 are manufactured homes; and the rest are boats and RVs.

64

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 85

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 7 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

Total housing units

58,952

673,732

732,684

Vacant housing units

13,107

44,126

57,233

Housing units, 1 unit

44,364

428,620

472,984

Housing units, 2 units

1,085

23,310

24,395

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

1,044

22,465

23,509

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

1,281

85,893

87,174

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

291

39,038

39,329

Housing units, 50+ units

129

38,553

38,682

10,679

34,941

45,620

912

991

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

79

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 7 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 18,134 57.7% 9.0% HUD Units 2,123 6.8% 5.3% PHA Units 3,524 11.2% 5.6% Section 8 Vouchers 7,016 22.3% 4.5% USDA Units 643 2.0% 4.3% HFC Units* 8,281 Total 31,440 100.0% 6.6% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home price for Austin is $196,500. 65 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Austin/Round Rock MSA is $954, requiring an annual income of approximately $38,160. 66 In a sample rural county, Fayette, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $670, which requires an annual income of approximately $26,800.

65

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs140b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 66 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 86

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 189,088 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 7 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

143,360

44,925

36,217

36,747

25,471

5,598

1,938

981

1,125

1,555

40,130 189,088

7,442 8,194 10,520 13,975 54,305 45,392 48,392 41,001 Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 87

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 8

Region 8

Region 8, located in the center of the state, surrounds the urban areas of Waco, Bryan, College Station, Killeen and Temple. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 8 is 1,069,503 and represents 4.3 percent of the state’s total population. Region 8 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

284,255

-16.2%

2009 Population Estimate 244,626

Urban

678,884

17.7%

824,877

Region 8 Total

963,139

9.9%

1,069,503

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 77.1 percent of Region 8 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 8 (above), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 8. Of the 32,631 families living below poverty, approximately 76.7 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 23.3 percent in rural areas. Additionally, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly lower than the percentage of total urban families. However, the region’s rural counties lag behind the Bryan-College Station and Killeen MSAs in recent and expected job creation, which may result in more families below poverty in the future. 67 Region 8 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 8 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 57,685 88.3% 174,042 87.4% 231,727 87.7%

Below poverty Families Percent 7,619 11.7% 25,012 12.6% 32,631 12.3%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the 343,856 households in the region. Approximately 41 percent of the households are low income. There are 171,902 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 15.8 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, many Region 8 jobs exceed the state’s 2007 per capita income level of $37,187, with 265 occupations paying more than this amount. 68

67

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Central Texas,” May 2009. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/central/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 68 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Central Texas,” May 2009. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/central/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 88

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 8 Household Income Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 13% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 11%

Higher Income (over 95%), 51%

Low Income (51%-80%), 17% Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 8%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 13% 11% 17% 8% 51%

REGION 8 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 3.3 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Brazos, and a sample rural county, Hill, there is an estimated people 286 and 107 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 8 persons in other group quarters, 2010

Rural

Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

506

8.4%

6,051

Urban

1,704

2.8%

61,647

Total

2,210

3.3%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 8, persons with disabilities account for approximately 16.7 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 63.5 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 36.5 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 89

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 8 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

47,346

186,677

234,023

Urban

113,397

615,719

729,116

Total

160,743

802,396

963,139

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 8 make up 4.2% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 8 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

40,388

8.5%

475,056

Urban

46,119

2.9%

1,597,476

Total

86,507

4.2%

2,072,532

Source: 2000 Census and CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 1,171 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 8. Approximately 81 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 19 percent in rural areas. Region 8 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the North & Central Texas area accounting for just 3.1 percent of the total, and a rate of 91 persons per 100,000. Region 8 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Texas Population 2008

Rural

209

243,615

Urban

951

817,558

Total

1,171

1,061,173

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 8 was found to have a very low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 1.7 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 69 69

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 90

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 8 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural

3,817

1.9%

197,588

Urban

2,241

1.4%

163,815

Total

6,058

1.7%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Request Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 8,912 public assistance requests from Region 8, which accounted for 4.2 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 8, the most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Rental Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Utility Assistance.

1,087

11

3

-

-

8,912

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

Total

1,892

59,711

Other HousingRelated Assistance

2,675

52,487

Disaster Assistance

1,779

28,581

Foreclosure

Legal Assistance

1,465

Total

Repair & Weatherization

Region 8

Emergency Assistance

Homebuyer Assistance

Rental Assistance

Utility Assistance

Region 8 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

REGION 8 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 87.4 percent of the total housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 67.3 percent are one unit; 5.4 are two units; 17.0 percent are three or more units; 10.2 percent are manufactured homes; and the rest are boats and RVs. Region 8 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

112,393

329,567

441,960

Vacant housing units

20,596

34,950

55,546

Housing units, 1 unit

85,506

211,713

297,219

Housing units, 2 units

2,555

21,202

23,757

Total housing units

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

2,050

19,629

21,679

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

2,557

37,862

40,419

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 91

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

338

6,199

6,537

Housing units, 50+ units

194

6,317

6,511

18,895

26,396

45,291

249

547

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

298

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 8 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 6,461 29.3% 3.2% HUD Units 1,816 8.2% 4.6% PHA Units 4,188 19.0% 6.6% Section 8 Vouchers 7,934 36.0% 5.1% USDA Units 1,636 7.4% 10.9% HFC Units* 305 Total 22,035 100.0% 4.6% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home price for Bryan-College Station is $148,500. 70 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Bryan/College Station MSA is $836, requiring an annual income of approximately $33,440. 71 In a sample rural county, Hill, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $588, which requires an annual income of approximately $23,520.

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 119,258 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009.

70

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs180b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 71 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

2010.

Retrieved

from

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 92

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 8 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

90,612

34,211

23,462

19,895

13,043

4,173 24,473 119,258

1,240 4,191 39,641

805 3,775 28,042

789 6,648 27,332

1,340 9,859 24,242

Source: 2000 CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 93

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 9

Region 9

San Antonio is the main metropolitan are in Region 9. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 9 is 2,175,874, which represents 8.8 percent of the state’s total population. Region 9 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

215,485

107.7%

2009 Population Estimate 103,746

Urban

1,592,383

23.2%

2,072,128

Region 9 Total

1,807,868

16.9%

2,175,874

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 95 percent of Region 9 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 9 (above), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 9. Of the 66,868 families living below poverty, approximately 94.6 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 5.4 percent in rural areas. Additionally, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly lower than the percentage of total urban families. This may be due to findings revealing that the region’s rural counties are projected to outpace job growth of the state and the region as a whole from 2003 to 2013. 72 Region 9 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 9 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 24,896 87.4% 466,206 88.1% 491,102 88.0%

Below poverty Families Percent 3,598 12.6% 63,270 11.9% 66,868 12.0%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart to the left depicts the income breakdown of the 635,280 households in the region. Approximately 40 percent of households are low income. There are 307,186 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 15.0 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, many Region 9 jobs exceed the State’s 2008 per capita income level of $38,575, with 228 occupations paying more than this amount. 73

72

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Alamo Region,” October 2009. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/alamo/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 73 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Alamo Region,” October 2009. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/alamo/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 94

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 9 Household Income Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 12% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 11%

Higher Income (over 95%), 52%

Low Income (51%-80%), 17%

Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 8%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 12% 11% 17% 8% 52%

REGION 9 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 10.7 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Bexar, and a sample rural county, Gillespie, there is an estimated people 5,923 and 58 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 9 persons in other group quarters, 2010

Rural

Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

324

5.4%

6,051

Urban

6,924

11.2%

61,647

Total

7,248

10.7%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 9, persons with disabilities account for approximately 18.7 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 87.5 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 12.5 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 95

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 9 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000

Rural

Persons with disabilities 19,857

Persons without disabilities 76,308

96,165

Urban

317,684

1,394,019

1,711,703

Total

337,541

1,470,327

1,807,868

Total

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 8 make up 9.9% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 9 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

20,105

4.2%

475,056

Urban

184,941

11.6%

1,597,476

205,046

9.9%

2,072,532

Total

Source: 2000 Census and CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 4,496 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 9. Approximately 99 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 1 percent in rural areas. Region 9 has a fairly average rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the San Antonio metropolitan area accounting for about 7.0 percent of the total, and a rate of 235 persons per 100,000. Region 9 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

45

103,014

Urban

4,451

2,030,691

Total

4,496

2,133,705

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 96

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

COLONIA RESIDENTS The Office of the Attorney General maintains an extensive Colonia Geographic Database, accounting for over 1,800 colonia areas in 29 counties. Region 9 contains a very small portion of the state’s colonia population, accounting for just 0.5 percent of the 418,406 residents. 74 Region 9 Colonia Population Estimate, estimated 2010

Rural Urban Total Statewide total

Colonia Population Estimate 2,212 2,212 418,406

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 9 was found to have a low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 5.2 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 75 Region 9 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural

7,395

3.7%

197,588

Urban

11,562

7.1%

163,826

Total

18,957

5.2%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Assistance Request Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 10,809 public assistance requests from Region 9, which accounted for 5.1 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 9, the most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Rental Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Homebuyer Assistance.

Emergency Assistance

Utility Assistance

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Region 9 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

Region 9

1,693

1,304

3,118

2,495

2,189

3

6

-

1

10,809

Total

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

74 75

Texas Office of the Attorney General, Border Colonia Geographic Database Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 97

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 9 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 92.1 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 70.6 percent are one unit; 1.8 percent are two units; 20.1 are three or more units; 7.4 percent are manufactured homes and the rest are boats and RVs. Region 9 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

45,618

794,697

840,315

Vacant housing units

5,466

61,052

66,518

Housing units, 1 unit

33,494

559,404

592,898

Housing units, 2 units

781

14,630

15,411

Total housing units

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

1,922

28,919

30,841

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

1,373

93,401

94,774

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

429

17,749

18,178

Housing units, 50+ units

160

24,586

24,746

7,205

55,232

62,437

254

776

1,030

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 9 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 16,423 36.8% 8.2% HUD Units 3,839 8.6% 9.7% PHA Units 8,221 18.4% 13.0% Section 8 Vouchers 15,738 35.2% 10.1% USDA Units 462 1.0% 3.1% HFC Units* 22,392 Total 44,683 100.0% 9.4% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 98

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home price for San Antonio is $157,800. 76 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in San Antonio HMFA is $796, requiring an annual income of approximately $31,840. 77 In a sample rural county, Gillespie, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $766, which requires an annual income of approximately $30,640.

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 223,448 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 9 Households with Housing Problems, 2010 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

153,507

47,556

38,733

36,371

30,846

7,521

2,128

1,319

1,581

2,493

62,420 223,448

11,431 61,115

11,807 51,859

15,974 53,926

23,208 56,547

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

76

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs460b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 77 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 99

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 10

Region 10

Region 10, including the urban areas of Corpus Christi and Victoria, is located in the south eastern part of the state on the Gulf of Mexico. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 10 is 746,599, which represents 3.0 percent of the state’s total population. Region 10 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

268,046

-24.6%

2009 Population Estimate 215,108

Urban

464,871

12.5%

531,491

Region 10 Total

732,917

1.8%

746,599

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

In Region 10, 71.2 percent of families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 10 (above), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 10. Of the 29,450 families living below poverty, approximately 67.8 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 32.2 percent in rural areas. However, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly higher than the percentage of total urban families. Findings revealing that the region’s rural counties are projected to outpace job growth of the state from 2002 to 2012, while the Corpus Christi MSA growing slower than the state and region as a whole. 78 Region 10 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 10 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 45,934 82.9% 122,288 86.0% 168,222 85.1%

Below poverty Families Percent 9,471 17.1% 19,979 14.0% 29,450 14.9%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart to the left depicts the income breakdown of the 255,493 households in the region. Approximately 42 percent of household are low income. There are 152,046 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 21.4 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, the top five occupations with high projected job growth in Region 10 are low paying (average annual wage of $16,103) and do not require a postsecondary education. 79

78

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: South Texas,” August 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/southtexas/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 79 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: South Texas,” April 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/southtexas/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 100

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 10 Household Income

Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 13% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 12% Higher Income (over 95%), 51%

Low Income (51%-80%), 17%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 13% 12% 17% 7% 51%

Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 7%

REGION 10 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 4.5 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Nueces, and a sample rural county, Calhoun, there is an estimated 2,292 people and 34 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 10 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

345

5.7%

6,051

Urban

2,714

4.4%

61,647

Total

3,059

4.5%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 10, persons with disabilities account for approximately 19.3 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 61.8 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 38.2 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 101

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 10 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000

Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

44,148

173,826

217,974

Urban

97,444

417,499

514,943

Total

141,592

591,325

732,917

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 10 make up 4.6% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 10 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

35,688

7.5%

475,056

Rural Urban

60,490

3.8%

1,597,476

Total

96,178

4.6%

2,072,532

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 777 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 10. Approximately 85.6 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 14.4 percent in rural areas. Region 10 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the South & West Texas area accounting for just 2.1 percent of the total, and a rate of 89 persons per 100,000. Region 10 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

112

214,954

Urban

665

527,462

Total

777

742,416

COLONIA RESIDENTS The Office of the Attorney General maintains an extensive Colonia Geographic Database, accounting for over 1,800 colonia areas in 29 counties. Region 10 contains a small portion of the state’s colonia population, accounting for just 5.8 percent of the 418,406 residents, with the majority residing in San Patricio County. 80 80

Texas Office of the Attorney General, Border Colonia Geographic Database

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 102

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 10 Colonia Population, estimated 2010 Colonia Population Estimate 10,634 13,808 24,442 418,406

Rural Urban Total Statewide total

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 10 was found to have a low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 6.1 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 81

Region 10 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

Rural

10,435

5.3%

197,588

Urban

11,474

7.0%

163,826

Total

21,909

6.1%

361,414

MSFW Statewide Estimate

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 9,736 public assistance requests from Region 10, which accounted for 4.6 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 10, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Utility Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Rental Assistance.

81

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Total

Utility Assistance

Region 10

Emergency Assistance

Region 10 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

605

5,984

1,106

1,410

622

6

-

1

2

9,736

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 103

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 10 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 84.3 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 84.3 percent are one unit; 2.7 percent are two units; 16.1 percent are three or more units; 9.2 percent are manufactured homes; and the rest are boats and RVs. Region 10 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

Total housing units

93,840

226,231

320,071

Vacant housing units

18,092

32,022

50,114

Housing units, 1 unit

70,086

159,480

229,566

Housing units, 2 units

2,702

5,869

8,571

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

3,121

10,994

14,115

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

3,358

22,585

25,943

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

723

3,747

4,470

Housing units, 50+ units

550

6,336

6,886

12,960

16,456

29,416

340

764

1,104

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 10 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 5,634 32.8% 2.8% HUD Units 2,222 12.9% 5.6% PHA Units 4,577 26.6% 7.2% Section 8 Vouchers 3,989 23.2% 2.6% USDA Units 778 4.5% 5.2% HFC Units* 971 Total 17,200 100.0% 3.6% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 104

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home price for Corpus Christi is $148,500. 82 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Corpus Christi HMFA is $816, requiring an annual income of approximately $32,640. In a sample rural county, Calhoun, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $637, which requires an annual income of approximately $35,480. 83

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 87,463 owner and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 10 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

59,191

20,620

15,872

12,697

10,002

3,763

1,266

737

771

989

24,509 87,463

4,937 26,823

4,226 20,835

5,396 18,864

9,950 20,941

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

82

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs190b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 83 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 105

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 11

Region 11

Region 11 is a 16-county area along the border of Mexico. The main urban areas in the region are Brownsville-Harlingen, McAllen-Edinburg, Del Rio and Laredo. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 11 is 1,644,468 which represents 6.6 percent of the state’s total population. Region 11 Population Figures

Rural

2000 Population

% Change

245,523

7.5%

2009 Population Estimate 265,507

Urban

1,097,807

20.4%

1,378,961

Region 11 Total

1,343,330

18.3%

1,644,468

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

About 83.9 percent of Region 11 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 11 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 11. Of the 118,810 families living below poverty, approximately 84.6 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 15.4 percent in rural areas. Findings revealing that the McAllen and Laredo MSAs are projected to outpace job growth of the state from 2002 to 2012, while the Brownsville-Harlingen MSA is growing slower than the state and region as a whole. 84 Region 11 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 11 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 49,279 72.9% 236,523 70.2% 285,802 70.6%

Below poverty Families Percent 18,354 27.1% 100,456 29.8% 118,810 29.4%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart to the left depicts the income breakdown of the 377,276 households in the region. Approximately 55 percent of households are low income. The 2000 CHAS figures for moderate and higher income household in Region 11 indicate that there are only 199 persons with income between 80-95 percent of the AMFI. TDHCA has been unable to get more accurate information for this segment of the population. However, the planning impact for the SLIHP is relatively low because the majority of TDHCA programs serve persons below 80 percent AMFI.

84

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: South Texas,” August 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/southtexas/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 106

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 11 Household Income

Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 19%

Very Low Income (31%-50%), 17% Low Income (51%-80%), 19%

Higher Income (over 95%), 45%

Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 0%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 19% 17% 19% 0% 45%

There are 523,671 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 33.3 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, the top five occupations with high projected job growth in Region 11 are low paying (average annual wage of $16,103) and do not require a post-secondary education. 85 Additionally, floodplains in the colonias in Webb and Hidalgo counties have discouraged investors and developers from investing in the region’s rural areas. 86

REGION 11 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 3.5 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Cameron, and a sample rural county, Zavala, there is an estimated 639 people and 27 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 11 also experienced damage from Hurricane Dolly, which hit the Lower Rio Grande area in July 2008.

85

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: South Texas,” August 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/southtexas/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 86 US Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees, Rural Homelessness: Better Collaboration by HHS and HUD Could Improve Delivery of Services in Rural Areas,” July 2010. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10724.pdf

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 107

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 11 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

309

5.1%

6,051

Urban

2,083

3.4%

61,647

Total

2,392

3.5%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 11, persons with disabilities account for approximately 19.2 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 79.9 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 20.1 percent in rural areas. Region 11 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

51,933

193,590

245,523

Urban

205,905

891,902

1,097,807

Total

257,838

1,085,492

1,343,330

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 11 make up 6.6% of the statewide total elderly population. Region 11 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

30,301

6.4%

475,056

Urban

107,305

6.7%

1,597,476

Total

137,606

6.6%

2,072,532 Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 1,849 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 11. Approximately 91.1 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 8.9 percent in rural areas. Region 11 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the US –Mexico Border area accounting for just 5.5 percent of the total, and a rate of 137 persons per 100,000. Note that Texas DSHS defines the Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 108

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

border area as those 32 counties within 100 kilometers of the US-Mexico border, a standard definition in health and human services reports. Region 11 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008 164 1,685 1,849

Rural Urban Total

Population 2008 262,270 1,346,376 1,608,646

COLONIA RESIDENTS The Office of the Attorney General maintains an extensive Colonia Geographic Database, accounting for over 1,800 colonia areas in 29 counties. The table to the left depicts the estimated colonia population in Region 11. The region contains a very large portion of the state’s colonia population, accounting for over 73.2 percent of the 418,406 residents, with a large portion residing in Hidalgo County. 87 Region 11 Colonia Population, estimated 2010 Rural Urban Total Statewide total

Colonia Population Estimate 100,971 205,243 306,214 418,406

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 11 was found to have a very high proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for 34.0 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 88 The high farmworker population correlates with a dominant agriculture industry in Region 11, an area which produces large amounts of the nation’s sugarcane, sorghum for grain, cotton, citrus and onions. The crop and animal production sectors provided 20,000 jobs to Region 11 in 2007. 89 Region 11 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 90 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural

35,022

17.7%

197,588

Urban

87,925

53.7%

163,826

Total

122,947

34.0%

361,414

87

Texas Office of the Attorney General, Border Colonia Geographic Database Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000. 89 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: South Texas,” August 2008. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/southtexas/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 90 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000. 88

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 109

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 18,821 public assistance requests from Region 11, which accounted for 8.9 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 11, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Utility Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Rental Assistance.

3

1

1

-

18,821

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

Homebuyer Assistance

Total

1,131

35,184

Other HousingRelated Assistance

2,152

59,711

Disaster Assistance

1,453

52,487

Foreclosure

13,192

Legal Assistance

888 28,581

Repair & Weatherization

Utility Assistance

Total

Emergency Assistance Region 11

Rental Assistance

Region 11 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

REGION 11 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 82.9 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 68.6 percent are one unit, 3.3 percent are two units, 13.7 percent are three or more units, 13.6 percent are manufactured homes and the rest are boats and RVs. REGION 11 HOUSING SUPPLY, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

Total housing units

98,839

483,680

582,519

Vacant housing units

16,597

83,296

99,893

Housing units, 1 unit

75,255

324,398

399,653

Housing units, 2 units

3,031

16,464

19,495

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

3,541

23,370

26,911

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

2,295

31,976

34,271

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

579

7,059

7,638

Housing units, 50+ units

184

11,037

11,221

13,794

65,253

79,047

160

4,123

4,283

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 110

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section. Region 11 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 10,379 28.3% 5.2% HUD Units 2,701 7.4% 6.8% PHA Units 7,415 20.2% 11.7% Section 8 Vouchers 14,260 38.8% 9.2% USDA Units 1,966 5.4% 13.1% HFC Units* 322 Total 36,721 100.0% 7.7% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home price for Brownsville is $113,800 and McAllen is $116,400. 91 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Brownsville/Harlingen MSA is $600, requiring an annual income of approximately $24,000, and in McAllen/Edinburg/Mission MSA is $655, which requires an annual income of approximately $26,200. In a sample rural county, Zavala, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $588, which requires an annual income of approximately $23,520. 92

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 184,917 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 11 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

78,562

33,079

20,702

14,090

10,691

14,614

6,312

3,577

2,527

2,199

91,741 184,917

22,709 62,100

19,440 43,719

21,140 37,757

28,453 41,343

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

91

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs350b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 92 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

2010.

Retrieved

from

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 111

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 12

Region 12

Region 12 in west Texas surrounds the urban areas of Odessa-Midland and San Angelo. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 12 is 552,914, which represents 2.2 percent of the state’s total population. Region 12 Population Figures 2000 Population

% Change

Rural

183,742

-4.5%

2009 Population Estimate 175,854

Urban

341,142

9.5%

377,060

Region 12 Total

524,884

5.1%

552,914

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 68.2 percent of Region 12 families live in urban areas. In the map of Region 12 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 12. Of the 17,117 families living below poverty, approximately 57.4 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 42.6 percent in rural areas. However, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly higher than the percentage of total urban families. Region 12 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 12 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 39,095 84.3% 88,619 90.0% 127,714 88.2%

Below poverty Families Percent 7,295 15.7% 9,822 10.0% 17,117 11.8%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart below depicts the income breakdown of the 188,921 household in the region. Approximately 42 percent of households are low income. There are 97,823 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 16.4 percent of the regional population.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 112

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 12 Household Income

Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 12% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 12%

Higher Income (over 95%), 51%

Low Income (51%-80%), 18% Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 7%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 12% 12% 18% 7% 51%

REGION 12 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis. Finally, colonia residents are only included in Regions 9-13 because colonia residents only live in those areas.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 1.9 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, Ector, and a sample rural county, Andrews, there is an estimated 169 people and 0 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 12 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

226

3.7%

6,051

Urban

1,084

1.8%

61,647

Total

1,310

1.9%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 12, persons with disabilities account for approximately 17.5 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 62.5 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 37.5 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 113

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 12 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

34,035

147,936

181,971

Urban

57,765

285,148

342,913

Total

91,800

433,084

524,884

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 12 make up 3.2% of the statewide total elderly population.

Region 12 Elderly Persons -- Texas 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

25,403

5.3%

475,056

Urban

40,949

2.6%

1,597,476

Total

66,352

3.2%

2,072,532

Source: 2000 Census.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 596 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 12. Approximately 76 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 24 percent in rural areas. Region 12 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, with the South & West Texas area accounting for just 2.1 percent of the total, and a rate of 89 persons per 100,000. Region 12 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

111

173,833

Urban

351

369,491

Total

462

543,324

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 114

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

COLONIA RESIDENTS The Office of the Attorney General maintains an extensive Colonia Geographic Database, accounting for over 1,800 colonia areas in 29 counties. The table to the right depicts the estimated colonia population in Region 12. The region contains a very small portion of the state’s colonia population, accounting for over 1.2 percent of the 418,406 residents, with a large portion residing in Pecos County. 93 Region 12 Colonia Population, estimated 2010 Rural Urban Total Statewide total

Colonia Population Estimate 5,130 5,130 418,406

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 12 was found to have a higher proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for 10.2 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 94

Region 12 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000

Rural

MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

32,958

16.7%

197,577

Urban

4,041

2.5%

163,826

Total

36,999

10.2%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 4,437 public assistance requests from Region 12, which accounted for 2.1 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 12, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Utility Assistance, Repair and Weatherization and Rental Assistance.

93 94

Texas Office of the Attorney General, Border Colonia Geographic Database Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 115

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Total

Utility Assistance

Region 12

Emergency Assistance

Region 12 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

431

1,986

728

830

457

4

-

-

1

4,437

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

REGION 12 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 85.6 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 73.4 percent are one unit, 1.8 percent are two units, 14.3 percent are three or more units, 10.4 percent are manufactured homes and the rest are boats and RVs. Region 12 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

Total housing units

82,104

153,164

235,268

Vacant housing units

19,406

14,563

33,969

Housing units, 1 unit

64,899

107,679

172,578

Housing units, 2 units

1,654

2,496

4,150

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

1,608

3,702

5,310

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

1,696

17,501

19,197

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

512

2,461

2,973

Housing units, 50+ units

648

5,445

6,093

10,927

13,642

24,569

160

238

398

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 116

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 12 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 2,896 33.4% 1.4% HUD Units 974 11.2% 2.5% PHA Units 1,241 14.3% 2.0% Section 8 Vouchers 3,121 36.0% 2.0% USDA Units 432 5.0% 2.9% HFC Units* 24 Total 8,664 100.0% 1.8% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for September 2009, the median home prices for Odessa and Midland are $131,800 and $164,800 respectively. 95 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in Odessa MSA is $736, requiring an annual income of approximately $29,400, and in Midland MSA is $831, which requires an annual income of approximately $33,240. In a sample rural county, Andrews, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $588, which requires an annual income of approximately $23,520. 96

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 57,186 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 12 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

40,053

14,994

11,375

7,894

5,791

2,577

713

547

538

778

14,556 57,186

2,466 18,173

2,483 14,405

4,119 12,551

5,488 12,057

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

95

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/trends4.html (accessed November 6, 2009). 96 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

2010.

Retrieved

from

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 117

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

REGION 13

Region 13

El Paso is the main urban area in Region 13. The region spreads along the Texas-Mexico border in the southwestern tip of the state. HISTA data projects that in 2009 the total population in Region 13 is 775,920, which represents 3.1 percent of the state’s total population. Region 13 Population Figures

Rural

2000 Population

% Change

24,696

-0.3%

2009 Population Estimate 24,624

Urban

679,622

9.5%

751,296

Region 13 Total

704,318

9.2%

775,920

Source: 2000 Census, Census population estimates July 1, 2009.

Approximately 96.8 percent of Region 13 families live in the urban area of El Paso. In the map of Region 13 (right), the shaded counties are MSAs as defined by the U.S. Census. The table below depicts the number of families living below the poverty line in Region 13. Of the 45,419 families living below poverty, approximately 97 percent are living in urban areas, with the remaining 3 percent in rural areas. Additionally, the percentage of total rural families that are below poverty is slightly lower than the percentage of total urban families. Findings revealing that the region’s rural counties are projected to outpace job growth of the El Paso MSA, the region and the state from 2009 to 2013. 97 Region 13 Poverty Figures, 2010

Rural Urban Region 13 Total

At or above poverty Families Percent 5,287 78.9% 145,664 76.8% 150,951 76.9%

Below poverty Families Percent 1,417 21.1% 44,002 23.2% 45,419 23.1%

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

The pie chart to the left depicts the income breakdown of the 216,861 households in the region. Approximately 44 percent of households are low income. There are 189,890 individuals living in poverty in the region, which makes up 23.7 percent of the regional population. According to the Texas Comptroller’s Texas In Focus report, the top ten occupations with high projected job growth in Region 13 are low paying (median annual wage of $16,769) and eight of the ten do not require a post-secondary education. 98

97

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Upper Rio Grande,” June 2009. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/urgrande/ (accessed October 6, 2010). 98 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas in Focus: Upper Rio Grande,” June 2009. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/urgrande/ (accessed October 6, 2010).

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 118

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 13 Household Income Extremely Low Income (0-30%), 13% Very Low Income (31%-50%), 13% Higher Income (over 95%), 53%

Low Income (51%-80%), 18%

Moderate Income (81%-95%) , 3%

Income Group 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-95% 95% & above

Percent 13% 13% 18% 3% 53%

REGION 13 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Some data for persons with special needs is only available at the state level. For example, numbers of persons with alcohol and substance abuse is not available at the county level, so analysis could only be done at the state level. In addition, the regional number of public housing units, in which public housing residents live, is not included in the Special Needs Population section of each regional analysis because it is included in the Assisted Housing Inventory at the end of each regional analysis.

HOMELESS PERSONS According to 2010 population projections by Ribbon Demographics, this region has approximately 3.1 percent of the statewide total of people in non-institutional group quarters, including shelters. For a sample urban county, El Paso, and a sample rural county, Presidio, there is an estimated 2,056 people and 8 people, respectively, in non-institutional group quarters. Region 13 persons in other group quarters, 2010 Homeless persons

% of State Total

Statewide Homeless Population

Rural

15

0.2%

6,051

Urban

2,056

3.3%

61,647

Total

2,071

3.1%

67,698

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES According to the US Census, of the total population in Region 13, persons with disabilities account for approximately 18.2 percent of the population. Of this total, approximately 95.7 percent are residing in urban areas, with the remaining 4.3 percent in rural areas.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 119

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 13 Persons with, without disabilities, 2000 Persons with disabilities

Persons without disabilities

Total

Rural

5,455

19,241

24,696

Urban

122,545

557,077

679,622

Total

128,000

576,318

704,318

Source: Census 2000, Urban defined by presence of an MSA.

ELDERLY PERSONS According to the most recent US Census, elderly persons in Region 13 make up .7% of the statewide total elderly population.

Region 13 Elderly Persons, 2000 Elderly Persons

Percent of State Total

Statewide Elderly Persons

Rural

3,338

0.7%

475,056

Urban

10,286

0.6%

1,597,476

13,624

0.7%

2,072,532

Total

Source: 2000 Census and CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS According to the Texas Department of State Health Services’ 2010 Texas Integrated Epidemiologic Profile for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Services Planning, there are 1,569 persons living with HIV/AIDS in Region 13. Approximately 99.6 percent of this population is living in urban areas, with the remaining 0.4 percent in rural areas. Region 13 has a fairly low rate of persons living with HIV/AIDS compared to the state as a whole, the US –Mexico Border area accounting for just 5.5 percent of the total, and a rate of 137 persons per 100,000. Note that Texas DSHS defines the border area as those 32 counties within 100 kilometers of the US-Mexico border, a standard definition in health and human services reports. Region 13 Persons living with HIV/AIDS, 2008 Persons with HIV/AIDS, 2008

Population 2008

Rural

7

24,575

Urban

1,562

738,416

Total

1,569

762,991

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 120

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

COLONIA RESIDENTS The Office of the Attorney General maintains an extensive Colonia Geographic Database, accounting for over 1,800 colonia areas in 29 counties. The table to the right depicts the estimated colonia population in Region 13. The region contains a large portion of the state’s colonia population, accounting for over 19.2 percent of the 418,406 residents, with the vast majority residing in El Paso County. 99 Region 13 Colonia Population, estimated 2010 Rural Urban Total Statewide total

Colonia Population Estimate 3,239 77,169 80,408 418,406

MIGRANT FARMWORKERS In a study prepared for the US Health Resources and Services Administration, Region 13 was found to have a low proportion of the state’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) population, accounting for just 3.0 percent of the 361,414 MSFWs in the state of Texas. 100 Region 13 Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Population, 2000 MSFW Estimate

Percent of statewide MSFW population

MSFW Statewide Estimate

Rural

6,201

3.1%

197,588

Urban

4,745

2.9%

163,826

Total

10,946

3.0%

361,414

LOCAL INPUT ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE According to the TDHCA Public Request Assistance Inventory for SFY2010, the agency received 2,003 public assistance requests from Region 13, which accounted for 1.0 percent of total annual requests. Of requests from Region 13, the three most requested categories of assistance were, in order: Homebuyer Assistance, Rental Assistance and Repair and Weatherization.

99

Texas Office of the Attorney General, Border Colonia Geographic Database Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study – TX, Larson, Alice, 2000.

100

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 121

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Rental Assistance

Repair & Weatherization

Homebuyer Assistance

Legal Assistance

Foreclosure

Disaster Assistance

Other HousingRelated Assistance

Total

Total

Utility Assistance

Region 13

Emergency Assistance

Region 13 Public Assistance Request Inventory, SFY 2010

227

207

552

460

555

1

1

-

-

2,003

28,581

52,487

59,711

35,184

34,319

99

29

27

21

210,458

REGION 13 HOUSING ASSESSMENT A housing assessment includes the current housing supply, a sample of market-rate housing costs, the housing needs and the availability of subsidized housing.

HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 2010 projections, 91.5 percent of the housing units in the region are occupied. Of the total housing stock, 70.9 percent are one unit, 2.7 percent are two units, 19.7 percent are three or more units, 6.6 percent are manufactured homes and the rest are boats and RVs. Region 13 Housing Supply, 2010 Rural

Urban

Total

Total housing units

13,156

260,161

273,317

Vacant housing units

3,366

19,748

23,114

Housing units, 1 unit

8,980

184,764

193,744

Housing units, 2 units

487

7,011

7,498

Housing units, 3 to 4 units

315

9,505

9,820

Housing units, 5 to 19 units

224

19,997

20,221

Housing units, 20 to 49 units

126

5,232

5,358

Housing units, 50+ units

146

18,167

18,313

2,834

15,275

18,109

210

254

Housing units, mobile home Housing units, other

44

Source: Nielsen Claritas, Ribbon Demographics, 2010.

ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources, such as TDHCA, HUD, PHAs, Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, USDA and local The following table shows the number of total multifamily units in the region financed through state and federal sources. For information on the data sources, see “Assisted Housing Inventory” under “State of Texas” in this section.

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 122

Housing Analysis Uniform State Service Regions

Region 13 Assisted Multifamily Units Region Total Percent in Region Percent of State Total TDHCA Units 5,770 29.4% 2.9% HUD Units 1,515 7.7% 3.8% PHA Units 6,035 30.7% 9.5% Section 8 Vouchers 6,125 31.2% 3.9% USDA Units 204 1.0% 1.4% HFC Units* 690 Total 19,649 100.0% 4.1% *HFC units are not included in the final total, because HFC developments report total units rather than specifying assisted units and because the majority of HFC-financed developments also receive housing tax credits from TDHCA.

SAMPLE OF MARKET HOUSING COSTS According to the Multiple Listing Service records for August 2010, the median home price for El Paso is $137,300. 101 In addition, the fair market rent for a two bedroom unit in El Paso MSA is $598, requiring an annual income of approximately $23,920. In a sample rural county, Presidio, fair market rent on a two-bedroom apartment is $588, which requires an annual income of approximately $23,520. 102

HOUSING NEED The housing need indicators analyzed in this section include housing cost burden, substandard housing conditions and housing overcrowding for renter and owner households. The following information comes from the 2000 CHAS database updated with HISTA population projections. There were approximately 93,248 owners and renters with housing problems in 2009. Region 13 Households with Housing Problems, 2009 Households Extreme Cost Burden Lacking Kitchen and/or Plumbing Overcrowding Total

Region Total

Extremely Low Income (0-30%)

Very Low Income (31-50%)

Low Income (51-80%)

Higher Incomes (81% and up)

55,856

17,463

14,981

13,699

9,713

4,076

950

1,093

938

1,095

33,316 93,248

6,337 24,750

6,630 22,704

7,773 22,410

12,577 23,385

Source: CHAS Database with projections based on HISTA data.

101

Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, “Texas Residential MLS Activity,” http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/hs/hs220b.htm (accessed September 24, 2010). 102 National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2010). Out of reach 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2010/

Draft 2011 State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 123

Annual Housing Report

SECTION 3: ANNUAL LOW-INCOME HOUSING REPORT The Annual Report required by §2306.072 of the Texas Government Code includes the following sections: • TDHCA’s Operating and Financial Statements • Statement of Activities: Describes TDHCA activities during the preceding year that worked to address housing and community service needs • Statement of Activities by Region: Describes TDHCA activities by region • Housing Sponsor Report: Describes fair housing opportunities offered by TDHCA’s multifamily development inventory • Analysis of the Distribution of Tax Credits: Provides an analysis of the sources, uses and geographic distribution of housing tax credits • Average Rents Reported by County: Provides a summary of the average rent reported by the TDHCA multifamily inventory

OPERATING AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TDHCA’s Operating Budgets and Basic Financial Statements are prepared and maintained by the Financial Administration Division. For copies of these reports, visit http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/finan.htm.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 124

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES The Department has many programs that provide an array of services. This section of the Plan highlights TDHCA’s activities and achievements during the preceding fiscal year through a detailed analysis of the following: 1 • TDHCA’s performance in addressing the housing needs of low-, very low- and 3 extremely low-income households 2 4 • TDHCA’s progress in meeting its housing and community service goals 8 12 This analysis is provided at the State level and within each of the 13 service regions TDHCA uses for planning purposes (see Figure 2.1). For general information about each region, including housing needs and housing supply, please see the Housing Analysis chapter of this document.  

FUNDING  COMMITMENTS  AND  HOUSEHOLDS  SERVED BY ACTIVITY AND PROGRAM 

5

13

7 6

9 11

10

Figure 2.1 State Service Regions

For the state and each region, a description of funding allocations, amounts committed, target numbers and actual number of persons or households served for each program is provided. Along with the summary performance information, data on the following activity subcategories is provided. •

Renter o New Construction activities support multifamily development, such as the funding of developments and predevelopment funding. o Rehabilitation Construction activities support the acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation of multifamily units. o Tenant-Based Assistance supports low-income Texans through direct rental payment assistance.



Owner o Single-family development includes funding for housing developers, nonprofits, or other housing organizations to support the development of single-family housing. o Single-family financing and homebuyer assistance helps households purchase a home through such activities as mortgage financing and down payment assistance. o Single-family owner-occupied assistance helps existing homeowners who need home rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance. o Community services include supportive services, energy assistance and homeless assistance activities.

In FY 2010, TDHCA committed $637,821,129 in total funds. Almost all of this funding, approximately 96 percent of the total came from federal sources. TDHCA committed funding for activities that predominantly benefited extremely low-, very low- and low-income individuals. The chart below displays the distribution of this funding by program activity.

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Total Funding By Program FY 2010 Total Funds Committed: $637,821,129

Program Single Family Bond Multifamily Bond Housing Tax Credits Comprehensive Energy Asst. HOME Community Services Block Grant Weatherization Asst. Section 8 Emergency Shelter Grants Program Homeless Housing and Services Program Housing Trust Fund Total

Amount

Percent

$219,067,585 $2,581,768 $67,423,836 $188,803,041 $54,508,512 $31,720,532 $37,333,799 $5,105,138 $5,043,037

34% 0% 11% 30% 9% 5% 6% 1% 1%

$19,541,001

3%

$6,692,880 $637,821,129

1% 100%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 126

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Funding and Households/Persons Served by Activity, FY 2010, All Activities

Household Type

Renter

Owner

Total

Committed Funds

Number of Households/ Individuals Served

% of Total Committed Funds

% of Total Households/ Individuals Served

Rental Assistance

$7,650,420

1,097

1.2%

0.2%

New Construction

$66,383,763

4,749

10.4%

0.8%

Rehab Construction

$32,439,265

2,478

5.1%

0.4%

$228,713,871

2,139

35.9%

0.3%

$20,192,400

387

3.2%

0.1%

Homeless Services

$24,584,038

83,727

3.9%

13.3%

Energy Related

$226,136,840

202,607

35.5%

32.2%

Supportive Services

$31,720,532

332,247

5.0%

52.8%

$637,821,129

629,431

100.0%

100.0%

Activity

Financing & Down Payment Rehabilitation Assistance

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 127

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Funding and Households/Persons Served by Housing Program, FY 2010 SF Bond Rental Assistance Rental New Construction Rental Rehabilitation Owner Financing & Down Pmt. Owner Rehab. Asst Total

HOME

HTF

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

-

$2,545,282

199

$0

-

$0

-

$0

-

$5,105,138

898

$0

-

$16,446,856

211

$500,000

36

$47,152,052

4,061

$2,284,855

441

$0

-

$0

-

$11,870,568

358

$0

-

$20,271,784

1,990

$296,913

130

$0

-

$219,067,585

1,739

$5,603,406

225

$4,042,880

175

$0

-

$0

-

$0

-

$0

-

$18,042,400

225

$2,150,000

162

$0

-

$0

-

$0

-

$219,067,585

1,739

$54,508,512

1,218

$6,692,880

373

$67,423,836

6,051

$2,581,768

571

$5,105,138

898

Funding and Households/Persons Served by Community Affairs Programs, FY 2010 ESGP^ Funds

CSBG^* Ind

Funds

HHSP^ Ind

Funds

CEAP Ind

Homeless $5,043,037 69,564 $0 0 $19,541,001 14,163 Services Energy Related $0 0 $0 0 0 0 Supportive $0 0 $31,720,532 332,247 0 0 Services Total $5,043,037 69,564 $31,720,532 332,247 $19,541,001 14,163 *For these programs, funds and households served reflect different 12 month periods. ^ESGP, CSBG and HHSP programs represent individuals served, not households.

WAP*

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$0

0

$188,803,041

193,636

$37,333,799

8,971

$0

0

$0

0

$188,803,041

193,636

$37,333,799

8,971

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 128

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

FUNDING COMMITMENTS AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVE BY INCOME GROUP  The SLIHP uses the following subcategories to refer to the needs of households or persons within specific income groups. • Extremely Low Income (ELI): 0% to 30% Area median Family Income (AMFI) •

Very Low Income (VLI): 31% to 50% (AMFI)



Low Income (LI): 51% to 80% (AMFI)



Moderate Income and Up (MI): >80% (AMFI)

The vast majority of households and individuals served through CEAP, WAP, HHSP and ESGP earn less than 30 percent of the AMFI. However, federal tracking of assistance from these programs is based on poverty guidelines, which do not translate easily to an AMFI equivalent. For conservative reporting purposes, assistance in these programs is reported in the VLI category. Total Funding by Income Level, FY 2010

Type

Percent

Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI)

3% 54% 21% 22%

Total Households and Individuals Served by Income Level, FY 2010

Type Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI)

Percent 0.34% 98.8% 0.77% 0.10%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 129

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Funding and households/Persons Service by Income Category, FY 2010 All Activities Committed Funds

Number of Households/ Individuals Served

% of Total Committed Funds

% of Total Households/ Individuals Served

Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI)

$110,830,585

2,143

17%

0.34%

Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI)

$340,835,581

622,030

53%

98.82%

Low Income (50-80 AMFI)

$105,166,400

4,599

16%

0.73%

Activity

Moderate Income (>80 AMFI)

$80,988,565

659

13%

0.10%

Total

$637,821,131

629,431

100%

100.00%

Housing Activities SF Bond Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME

HTF

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$293,245

2

$10,621,658

277

$1,884,778

115

4,127,175

385

$188,777

32

$3,753,680

642

$9,469,186

91

$14,242,221

258

$4,242,234

208

30,544,184

2,643

$388,858

86

$1,002,769

189

$65,748,529

571

$29,644,633

683

$565,869

50

32,752,477

3,023

$2,004,133

453

$324,257

61

$143,556,626

1,075

$0

-

$0

-

-

0

$0

-

$24,432

6

$219,067,586

1,739

$54,508,512

1,218

$6,692,881

373

$67,423,836

6,051

$2,581,768

571

$5,105,138

898

Community Affairs Activities ESGP*

CSBG*

HHSP*

Funds

Ind

Funds

Ind

$0

-

$0

-

$5,043,037

69,564

$31,720,532

332,247

Low Income (50-80 AMFI)

$0

-

$0

Moderate Income (>80 AMFI)

$0

-

$5,043,037

69,564

Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI)

Total

Funds

CEAP

WAP

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

-

$0

-

$188,803,041

193,636

$37,333,799

8,971

-

$0

-

$0

-

$0

-

$0

-

$0

-

$31,720,532

332,247

$188,803,041

193,636

$37,333,799

8,971

$19,541,001

$19,541,001

Ind

14,163

14,163

*These programs report by individuals served rather than households served.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 130

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING ASSISTANCE  As required by legislation, TDHCA reports on the racial and ethnic composition of individuals and families receiving assistance. These demographic categories are delineated according to the standards set by the U.S. Census. Accordingly, “race” is broken down into three sub-classifications: White, Black and Other. “Other” includes races other than White and Black as well as individuals with two or more races. As ethnic origin in considered to be a separate concept from racial identity, the Hispanic populating is represented in a separate chart. Persons of Hispanic origin may fall under any of the racial classification. Households assisted through each of TDHCA program or activity have been delineated according to these categories. Regional analyses of this racial data are included in the Statement of Activities by Uniform State Service Region section that follows. Note that the state population racial composition charts examine individuals, while the many program racial composition charts examine households. Racial Composition of the State of Texas

Race Other Black White

Percent 6% 12% 82%

Ethnic Composition of the State of Texas

Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Percent 37% 63%

24,782,302 INDIVIDUALS IN TEXAS IN 2009 1

  HOUSING PROGRAMS 

Racial and ethnic data on housing programs is presented below using two general categories: Renter Programs and Homeowner Programs.

  RENTER PROGRAMS 

The following charts depict the racial and ethnic composition of households receiving assistance from all TDHCA renter programs. Included in this category are households participating in TDHCA’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, as well as households residing in TDHCA-funded multifamily properties. Multifamily properties receive funding through one or more of the following TDHCA programs: the Housing Tax Credit Program, Housing Trust Fund, HOME Investment Partnership Program and Multifamily Bond Program. Data for these programs is collected from the Housing Sponsor Report, which is gathered each year from TDHCA-funded housing developments. The report includes 1

Census 2009 population estimates.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 131

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

information about each property, including the racial composition of the tenant population as of December 31 of the given year. Accordingly, the 2010 report is a snapshot of property characteristics on December 31, 2009. It should be noted that the Housing Sponsor Report does not report on or represent all units financed by TDHCA. Some submitted reports describe properties under construction, which do not yet have occupied units. Some properties did not submit a report and still others did not fill out the report accurately. Therefore, TDHCA is left with usable data for only a portion of existing multifamily units. As a result, the following charts present a picture of race and ethnicity based on samples and may not represent actual percentages. Racial Composition of TDHCA- Assisted Renter Households

     

 

 

Race

Households

Percent

Other Black White

12,042 46.422 96,384

8% 30% 62%

     

Assisted Renter Households Ethnic Composition of TDHCA-

Ethnicity Hispanic NonHispanic

Households

Percent

56,388

36%

98,539

64%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 132

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

HOMEOWNER PROGRAMS  The following charts depict the racial and ethnic composition of households receiving assistance from all TDHCA homeowner programs. TDHCA homeowner assistance comes in the form of three programs: the Single Family Bond Program, HOME Homeowner Rehabilitation Program and HOME Homebuyer Assistance Program. Office of Colonia Initiatives programs are reported in the Homeowner Programs category under the following funding sources: HOME Program for Contract for Deed Loans, Single Family Bond for some Contract for Deed loans and some Texas Bootstrap Program loans and the Housing Trust Fund for some Texas Bootstrap loans. Due to the data reporting techniques of the Single Family Bond Program, race and ethnicity are combined into one category. Racial Composition of HOME Program Owner Households

Race Other Black White

Households 14 62 248

Percent 4% 19% 77%

Households 128

Percent 40%

196

60%

Households 178 149 732 173 685

Percent 9% 8% 38% 9% 36%

Ethnic Composition of HOME Program Owner Households

Ethnicity Hispanic NonHispanic

Racial & Ethnic Composition of SF Bond Program Owner Households Ethnicity Hispanic

Race Black White Other Unknown

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 133

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

The available data demonstrates that TDHCA serves higher percentages of minority populations compared to the general racial and ethnic composition of the State of Texas. This is accurate even though the State of Texas population racial composition charts report by individuals and TDHCA’s programs report by household. TDHCA programs that serve renters and HOME homeowner programs for instance, serve higher percentages of Black and Hispanic households than the percentage of those populations in the State of Texas.

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS PROGRAMS 

The Community Affairs programs allocate funding to subrecipient entities with service areas that span across two or more uniform state service regions, so racial data for these programs is reported by entity rather than region. Due to the data reporting techniques of the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) and Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) Program race and ethnicity are combined into one category. The Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESGP) reports race and ethnicity as two separate categories.

  WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funds a network of subrecipient organizations, some of which have a service area that spans across two or more regions. Because of this, WAP racial composition data for FY 2010 is listed according to subcontractor. A map is provided in order to locate subrecipient service areas. Racial and ethnic composition for the state is available, but because this data does not fit into regional boundaries, regional data is not available. Racial and Ethnic Composition of WAP Assisted Households, Statewide, 2010 Racial and Ethnic Composition

Ethnicity Hispanic

Race Other White Black

Percent 39% 3% 30% 29%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 134

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

WAP Subrecipient Service Areas, 2010

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 135

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Households Receiving WAP Assistance by Subrecipient, Statewide, PY 2010 # on Map

Contractor

WAP Counties Served

PY 2010 Allocations

Households Served

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

1

Alamo Area Council of Governments

Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Medina, Wilson

$ 2,979,340

1,282

438

141

675

28

2

Bee Community Action Agency

Bee, Live Oak, McMullen, Refugio

$ 213,443

23

2

2

19

-

3

Big Bend Community Action Committee, Inc.

$ 469,667

73

3

-

67

3

4

Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc.

$ 1,220,970

291

109

137

43

2

$ 1,064,181

225

-

-

224

1

$ 504,324

97

8

32

57

-

$ 693,910

139

44

55

39

1

5 6

Cameron and Willacy Counties Community Projects, Inc. City of Lubbock

Brewster, Crane, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Terrell Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Leon, Madison, Montgomery, Robertson, Walker, Waller, Washington Cameron, Willacy Lubbock Austin, Bastrop, Blanco, Caldwell, Colorado, Fayette, Fort Bend, Hays, Lee

7

Combined Community Action, Inc.

8

Community Action Committee of Victoria

Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, De Witt, Goliad, Gonzales, Jackson, Lavaca, Matagorda, Victoria, Wharton

$ 963,596

425

155

114

146

10

9

Community Action Corp. of South Texas

Brooks, Hidalgo, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, San Patricio

$ 2,234,040

505

28

1

475

1

10

Community Action Program, Inc.

Brown, Callahan, Comanche, Eastland, Haskell, Jones, Kent, Knox, Shackelford, Stephens, Stonewall, Taylor, Throckmorton

$ 828,442

92

56

13

21

2

11

Community Council of Reeves County

Loving, Reeves, Ward, Winkler

$ 143,828

19

5

-

14

-

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 136

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map

Contractor

WAP Counties Served

PY 2010 Allocations

Households Served

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Community Services Agency of South Texas, Inc.

Dimmit, Edwards, Kinney, La Salle, Maverick, Real, Uvalde, Val Verde, Zavala

$ 740,105

75

2

-

73

-

13

Community Services, Inc.

Anderson, Collin, Denton, Ellis, Henderson, Hood, Hunt, Kaufman, Johnson, Navarro, Palo Pinto, Parker, Rockwall, Smith, Van Zandt

$ 1,999,440

408

243

124

30

11

14

Concho Valley Community Action Agency

Coke, Coleman, Concho, Crocket, Irion, Kimble, McCulloch, Menard, Reagan, Runnels, Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, Tom Green

$ 726,634

87

40

6

41

-

Dallas

$ 2,763,632

682

105

191

348

38

$ 763,959

100

47

44

8

1

El Paso

$ 1,481,392

320

12

1

307

-

Tarrant

$ 1,554,321

181

41

95

43

2

$ 1,187,182

327

195

115

10

7

$ 894,724

361

247

31

78

5

Duval

$ 71,710

28

-

-

28

-

Nueces

$ 633,404

58

3

13

42

-

12

15

16

17 18

Dallas County Department of Health and Human Services Economic Opportunities Advancement Corporation of PR XI El Paso Community Action Program, Project Bravo, Inc. Fort Worth, City of, Department of Housing

19

Greater East Texas Community Action Program (GETCAP)

20

Hill Country Community Action Association, Inc.

21 22

Institute of Rural Development, Inc. Nueces County Community Action Agency

Bosque, Falls, Freestone, Hill, Limestone, McLennan

Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Houston, Nacogdoches, Polk, Rusk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Wood Bell, Burnet, Coryell, Erath, Hamilton, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Milam, Mills, San Saba, Somervell, Williamson

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 137

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map

Contractor

WAP Counties Served Armstrong, Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Collingsworth, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Donley, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler Chambers, Galveston, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Orange

23

Panhandle Community Services

24

Programs for Human Services, Inc.

25

Rolling Plains Management Corporation

26

Sheltering Arms, Inc.

27

South Plains Community Action Association

28

South Texas Development Council

Jim Hogg, Starr, Zapata

29

Texoma Council of Governments

Bowie, Camp, Cass, Cooke, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Grayson, Hopkins, Lamar, Marion, Morris, Rains, Red River, Titus

30

Travis County

31

Tri-County Community Action, Inc.

32

Webb County Community Action Agency

Webb

33

West Texas Opportunities, Inc.

Andrews, Borden, Dawson, Ector, Fisher, Gaines, Glasscock, Howard, Martin, Midland, Mitchell, Nolan, Scurry, Upton

TOTAL

Archer, Baylor, Cottle, Clay, Foard, Hardeman, Jack, Montague, Wichita, Wilbarger, Wise, Young Harris Bailey, Cochran, Crosby, Dickens, Floyd, Garza, Hale, Hockley, King, Lamb, Lynn, Motley, Terry, Yoakum

Travis Harrison, Jasper, Newton, Panola, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Tyler, Upshur

PY 2010 Allocations

Households Served

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

$ 1,256,966

205

107

30

63

5

$ 1,300,686

482

125

309

14

34

$ 664,755

185

118

29

33

5

$ 4,598,062

1,147

108

909

65

65

$ 689,150

262

72

10

180

-

$ 356,200

81

-

-

81

-

$ 1,210,911

386

278

99

4

5

$ 933,816

138

35

46

56

1

$ 699,595

21

9

12

-

-

$ 479,812

92

-

-

92

-

$ 1,011,602

200

47

20

131

2

$37,333,799

8,997

2,682

2,579

3,507

229

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 138

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  The Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) funds a network of subrecipient organizations, some of which have a service area that spans across two or more regions. Because of this, CEAP racial composition data for FY 2010 is listed according to subcontractor. A map is provided in order to locate subcontractor service area. Racial composition for the state is available, but because this data does not fit into regional boundaries, regional data is not available. Racial and Ethnic Composition of CEAP Assisted Households, Statewide, PY 2010 Racial and Ethnic Composition Ethnicity Hispanic

Race Other White Black

Percent 45% 2% 23% 30%

CEAP Subrecipient Service Areas, FY 2010

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 139

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Households Receiving CEAP Assistance By Subrecipient, Statewide, FY 2010 # on Map 1 2 3 4

Subrecipient

Counties Served

Allocation

Beneficiaries

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Aspermont Small Business Development Center, Inc. Bee Community Action Agency Bexar County Dept. of Community Investment Big Bend Community Action Committee, Inc.

Haskell, Jones, Kent, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton Bee, Live Oak, McMullen, Refugio

$ 1,421,113

851

441

105

292

13

$ 1,063,810

984

130

57

795

2

Bexar

$ 11,362,514

12,395

1,032

1,636

9,365

362

Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Presidio

$ 1,556,076

1,695

192

6

1,478

19

5

Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc.

Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Leon, Madison, Robertson, Walker, Waller, Washington

$ 4,586,042

4,757

1,327

3,049

265

116

6

Cameron and Willacy Counties Community Projects, Inc.

Cameron, Willacy

$ 5,380,016

8,451

126

16

8,309

-

7

Central Texas Opportunities, Inc.

$ 2,144,220

1,893

1,385

97

397

14

$ 2,539,591

2,161

594

612

943

12

$ 1,506,183

1,338

451

705

182

-

Aransas, Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Gonzales, Jackson, Lavaca, Victoria

$ 2,624,721

3,036

774

740

1,514

8

Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio

$ 1,613,105

1,645

112

20

1,509

4

Blanco, Caldwell, Hays

$ 1,037,386

1,241

436

197

582

26

Shackelford, Stephens, Taylor

$ 1,419,339

704

334

123

241

6

Loving, Reeves, Ward, Winkler

$ 710,619

1,048

165

67

812

4

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

City of Lubbock Combined Community Action, Inc. Community Action Committee of Victoria Community Action Corp. of South Texas Community Action Inc., of Hays, Caldwell and Blanco Counties Community Action Program, Inc. Community Council of Reeves County

Brown, Callahan, Coleman, Comanche, Eastland, McCulloch, Runnels Lubbock Austin, Bastrop, Colorado, Fayette, Lee

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 140

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map 15

16 17 18

Subrecipient Community Council of South Central Texas Community Council of Southwest Texas Community Services Agency of South Texas, Inc. Community Services of Northeast Texas, Inc.

Counties Served

Allocation

Beneficiaries

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

$ 3,735,254

5,600

1,748

261

3,560

31

$ 2,177,421

1,606

92

11

1,481

22

Dimmit, LaSalle, Maverick

$ 1,559,602

1,257

4

5

1,245

3

Camp, Cass, Marion, Morris

$ 1,242,984

1,237

475

711

40

11

Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Medina, Wilson Edwards, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, Val Verde, Zavala

19

Community Services, Inc.

Anderson, Collin, Denton, Ellis, Henderson, Hunt, Kaufman, Navarro, Rockwall, Van Zandt

$ 6,714,964

5,080

2,467

1,775

659

179

20

Concho Valley Community Action Agency

Coke, Concho, Crockett, Irion, Kimble, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton

$ 1,828,298

855

282

23

540

10

Dallas

$ 14,002,172

5,431

583

4,238

541

69

$ 478,650

605

166

287

147

5

Bosque, Falls, Freestone, Hill, Limestone, McLennan

$ 3,856,846

4,645

1,405

2,429

771

40

El Paso

$ 7,496,732

13,332

441

287

12,462

142

Tarrant

$ 7,866,742

9,350

2,360

5,099

1,766

125

Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Wharton

$ 4,647,784

4,626

781

2,692

1,103

50

21

22

23

24 25 26

Dallas County Department of Health and Human Services Economic Action Committee of the Gulf Coast Economic Opportunities Advancement Corporation of PR XI El Paso Community Action Program, Project Bravo, Inc. Fort Worth, City of, Department of Housing Galveston County Community Action Council, Inc.

Matagorda

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 141

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map

Subrecipient

Counties Served

Allocation

Beneficiaries

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

27

Greater East Texas Community Action Program (GETCAP)

Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Houston, Nacogdoches, Polk, Rusk, San Jacinto, Smith, Trinity, Wood

$ 7,554,385

7,326

2,743

4,069

491

23

28

Hidalgo County Community Services Agency

Hidalgo

$ 8,147,605

7,624

82

6

7,525

11

29

Hill Country Community Action Association, Inc.

Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Milam, Mills, San Saba

$ 3,260,378

4,508

2,552

992

897

67

$ 344,723

334

3

3

327

1

Kenedy, Kleberg

$ 1,556,982

1,160

57

72

1,024

7

Montgomery

$ 1,590,652

3,196

2,144

768

176

108

Delta, Franklin, Hopkins, Lamar, Rains, Red River, Titus

$ 2,135,480

1,235

648

464

118

5

Nueces

$ 3,194,474

2,415

158

386

1,864

7

Armstrong, Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Collingsworth, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Donley, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler

$ 6,358,107

11,070

4,559

1,326

5,178

7

$ 808,883

1,061

97

8

945

11

Chambers, Hardin, Jefferson, Liberty, Orange

$ 4,659,971

3,275

1,012

2,085

69

109

Archer, Baylor, Clay, Cottle, Foard, Hardeman, Jack, Montague, Wichita, Wilbarger, Young

$ 3,053,026

2,601

1,523

562

412

104

30 31 32 33 34

35

36 37

38

Institute of Rural Development, Inc. Kleberg County Human Services Montgomery County Emergency Assistance Northeast Texas Opportunities, Inc. Nueces County Community Action Agency

Panhandle Community Services

Pecos County Community Action Agency Programs for Human Services, Inc. Rolling Plains Management Corporation

Duval

Crane, Pecos, Terrell

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 142

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46

Subrecipient San Angelo-Tom Green County Health Department Senior Citizens Services of Texarkana, Inc. Sheltering Arms, Inc. South Plains Community Action Association South Texas Development Council Texas Neighborhood Services Texoma Council of Governments Travis County

Counties Served

Allocation

Beneficiaries

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Tom Green

$ 1,042,112

707

250

55

387

15

Bowie

$ 1,003,518

941

219

710

7

5

Harris

$ 23,309,123

22,431

1,938

15,748

3,191

1,554

Bailey, Cochran, Crosby, Dickens, Garza, Floyd, Hale, Hockley, King, Lamb, Lynn, Motley, Terry, Yoakum

$ 3,477,303

4,884

878

507

3,469

30

Jim Hogg, Starr, Zapata

$ 1,788,087

1,403

8

73

1,321

1

Erath, Hood, Johnson, Palo Pinto, Parker, Somervell, Wise

$ 2,592,441

2,429

2,071

99

222

37

Cooke, Fannin, Grayson

$ 1,746,060

1,676

1,106

349

200

21

Travis Harrison, Jasper, Newton, Panola, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Tyler, Upshur

$ 4,718,617

5,558

1,000

2,165

2,270

123

$ 3,530,298

3,768

1,507

2,210

47

4

47

Tri-County Community Action, Inc.

48

Webb County Community Action Agency

Webb

$ 2,415,226

2,053

-

-

2,053

-

West Texas Opportunities, Inc.

Andrews, Borden, Dawson, Ector, Fisher, Gaines, Glasscock, Howard, Martin, Midland, Mitchell, Nolan, Scurry, Upton

$ 5,113,265

5,277

1,444

774

3,030

29

$ 830,141

881

471

186

222

2

$188,803,041

193,636

44,773

58,865

86,444

3,554

49

50

Williamson-Burnet County Opportunities, Inc. TOTAL

Burnet, Williamson

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 143

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM  The Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG) funds a network of subcontractor organizations, some of which have a service area that spans across two or more regions. In addition, some CSBG subcontractors have been awarded funding for special projects that overlap existing service areas. Because of this, CSBG racial composition data for FY 2010 is listed according to subcontractor. Racial composition for the state is available, but because this data does not fit into regional boundaries, regional data is not available. Racial and Ethnic Composition of Individuals Receiving CSBG Assistance, Statewide, FY 2010 Racial Composition

Race Other White Black

Percent 2% 69% 29%

Ethnic Composition

Ethnicity Hispanic NonHispanic

Percent 57% 43%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 144

Annual Housing Report CSBG Subrecipient Service Areas, FY 2010

Statement of Activities

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 145

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Racial Composition of Individuals Receiving CSBG Assistance by Subcontractor, Statewide, FY 2010 # on Map 1 2

Big Bend Community Action Committee

5

Brazos Valley Community Action Agency

6

Cameron & Willacy Counties Community Projects, Inc.

7

Central Texas Opportunities, Inc.

13

14

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

$ 150,000

2,169

241

1,361

567

930

1,239

$ 892,679

8,423

2,799

4,149

1,475

4,720

3,703

$ 288,045

4,949

234

3,776

939

3,733

1,216

$ 156,344

3,668

14

2,842

812

3,308

360

$ 957,988

28,097

14,415

11,008

2,674

7,776

20,321

$ 996,300

14,908

29

11,915

2,964

13,327

1,581

$ 222,642

4,703

227

3,945

531

1,400

3,303

$ 1,371,360 $ 401,833 $ 1,926,262

30,862 4,498 63,123

10,068 1,273 7,416

5,420 3,015 35,556

15,374 210 20,151

16,676 2,068 50,655

14,186 2,430 12,468

$ 202,968

2,595

1,134

1,360

101

577

2,018

$ 297,131

8,454

1,743

5,520

1,191

5,015

3,439

Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio

$ 253,188

4,263

50

3,301

912

3,915

348

Blanco, Caldwell, Hays

$ 202,903

3,143

387

2,112

644

1,927

1,216

Haskell, Jones, Kent, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton Travis Aransas, Bee, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, McMullen, Refugio Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Presidio Brazos, Burleson, Chambers, Grimes, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Montgomery, Robertson, Walker, Waller, Washington

4

12

Black

Aspermont Small Business Development Center Austin, City of Bee Community Action Agency

11

Individuals Served

Counties Served

3

8 9 10

FY 2010 CSBG Allocation

Contractor

Fort Worth, City of Lubbock, City of San Antonio, City of Combined Community Action Agency Community Action Committee of Victoria Community Action Corporation of South Texas Community Action Inc. of Hays, Caldwell and Blanco Counties

Cameron, Willacy Brown, Callaghan, Coleman, Comanche, Eastland, McCullough, Runnels Tarrant Lubbock Bexar Austin, Bastrop, Colorado, Fayette, Lee Calhoun, De Witt, Goliad, Gonzales, Jackson, Lavaca, Victoria

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 146

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map 15 16 17

18

19 20 21

Contractor

Counties Served

FY 2010 CSBG Allocation

Community Action Program, Inc. *Community Action Social Services And Education (CASSE) Community Council of Reeves County

Mitchell, Shackleford, Stephens, Taylor

$ 242,422

1,814

334

1,203

277

739

1,075

Maverick

$ 295,388

1,460

0

1,089

371

1,458

2

$ 215,972

2,237

109

1,735

393

1,790

447

$ 648,003

16,636

641

12,367

3,628

11,408

5,228

$ 271,754

1,030

4

60

966

944

86

$ 150,000

2,581

11

2,149

421

2,545

36

$ 279,664

2,809

1,375

1,231

203

201

2,608

$ 1,048,427

14,313

4,859

7,970

1,484

2,564

11,749

$ 278,710

1,492

30

1,175

287

1,053

439

Matagorda

$ 150,000

1,405

557

642

206

556

849

Bosque, Falls, Freestone, Hill, Limestone, McLennan

$ 509,926

13,249

6,571

5,528

1,150

2,849

10,400

$ 1,417,351

36,875

639

27,421

8,815

35,026

1,849

$ 824,300

10,524

5,602

3,378

1,544

3,261

*Community Council of South Central Texas Community Council of Southwest Texas Community Services Agency of South Texas Community Services of Northeast Texas

22

Community Services, Inc.

23

Concho Valley Community Action Agency

24

25 26 27

Economic Action Committee of the Gulf Coast Economic Opportunities Advancement Corporation of Planning Region XI El Paso Community Action Program Galveston County Community Action Council

Loving, Reeves, Ward, Winkler Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Medina, Wilson Edwards, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, Val Verde, Zavala Dimmit, La Salle Bowie, Camp, Cass, Marion, Morris Anderson, Collin, Denton, Ellis, Henderson, Hunt, Kaufman, Navarro, Rockwall, Van Zandt Coke, Concho, Crockett, Irion, Kimble, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, Tom Green

El Paso Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Wharton

Individuals Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

7,263

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 147

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map

28

29 30

Contractor

Counties Served

FY 2010 CSBG Allocation

Greater East Texas Community Action Program (GETCAP)

Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Houston, Nacogdoches, Polk, Rusk, San Jacinto, Smith, Trinity, Wood

$ 940,236

21,701

10,837

9,709

1,155

2,470

19,231

Harris

$ 4,419,357

15,481

7,711

4,568

3,202

6,806

8,675

Hidalgo

$ 1,782,521

24,488

21

14,013

10,454

24,265

223

Gulf Coast Community Services Association *Hidalgo County Community Services Agency

Individuals Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

31

Hill Country Community Action Association

Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Milam, Mills, San Saba

$ 472,747

6,779

1,596

4,477

706

1,586

5,193

32

Institute of Rural Development

Duval

$ 150,000

778

3

521

254

773

5

33

Northeast Texas Opportunities, Inc.

Delta, Franklin, Hopkins, Lamar, Rains, Red River, Titus

$ 260,770

4,584

1,842

2,250

492

433

4,151

34

Nueces County Community Action Agency

Nueces

$ 528,243

4,362

566

2,843

953

3,446

916

35

Panhandle Community Services

Armstrong, Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Collingsworth, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Donley, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler

$ 612,957

21,752

2,610

16,226

2,916

10,868

10,884

36

Pecos County Community Action Agency

Crane, Pecos, Terrell

$ 150,000

1,944

15

1,650

279

1,733

211

37

Rolling Plains Management Corp.

Archer, Baylor, Clay, Cottle, Foard, Hardeman, Jack, Montague, Wichita, Wilbarger, Young

$ 324,563

4,749

778

3,043

928

1,195

3,554

38

Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission

Hardin, Jefferson, Orange

$ 540,970

3,676

1,815

1,627

234

349

3,327

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 148

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Contractor

Counties Served

FY 2010 CSBG Allocation

39

*South Plains Community Action Association

Bailey, Cochran, Garza, Hockley, Lamb, Lynn, Terry, Yoakum, Crosby, Dickens, Floyd, Hale, King, Motley

$ 455,446

12,168

994

8,175

2,999

9,325

2,843

40

South Texas Development Council

Jim Hogg, Starr, Zapata

$ 303,716

2,514

6

2,339

169

2,469

45

41

Texas Neighborhood Services

Erath, Hood, Johnson, Palo Pinto, Parker, Somervell, Wise

$ 379,259

6,903

274

5,965

664

1,221

5,682

42

Texoma Council of Governments

Cooke, Fanin, Grayson

$ 235,730

3,638

1,021

2,510

107

180

3,458

43

Tri-County Community Action, Inc.

Harrison, Jasper, Newton, Panola, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Tyler, Upsher

$ 391,974

9,195

4,868

4,093

234

290

8,905

Dallas

$ 2,635,072

16,663

11,067

4,268

1,328

3,554

13,109

Webb

$ 550,379

10,999

8

7,668

3,323

10,967

32

Andrews, Borden, Dawson, Ector, Gaines, Glasscock, Howard, Martin, Midland, Fisher, Nolan, Scurry, Upton

$ 609,462

15,276

2,102

10,207

2,967

9,549

5,727

Burnet, Williamson

$ 191,499

4,586

826

3,232

528

1,604

2,982

Polk, Tyler

$ 100,000

188

0

3

185

0

188

Jefferson

$ 110,406

0

0

0

0

0

0

$ 125,000

315

5

14

296

39

276

4

# on Map

44 45

46

47 48 49

Urban League of Greater Dallas Webb County Community Action Agency West Texas Opportunities, Inc. Williamson-Burnet County Opportunities, Inc. *Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas *Beaumont Housing Authority

Individuals Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

50

*Dallas Inter-Tribal Center

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, Wise

51

*DePelchin Children's Center

Harris

$ 123,410

5

3

1

1

1

52

*Project Arriba

El Paso

$ 125,000

119

2

106

11

113

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 149

6

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

# on Map

Contractor

53

*Project Quest, Inc.

54

*Seton Home *Sin Fronteras Organizing Project *Texas Council on Family Violence *Travis County Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, DBA SafePlace

55 56 57

TOTAL

FY 2010 CSBG Allocation

Individuals Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

$ 125,000

70

18

42

10

49

21

$ 125,000

67

10

32

25

55

12

Hudspeth, El Paso

$ 125,000

322

0

322

0

322

0

Bexar, El Paso, Travis

$ 125,000

92

0

91

1

66

26

Travis

$ 50,255

263

55

45

163

129

134

274,278

209,679

Counties Served Bexar, Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Medina, Wilson Bexar

$31,720,532 483,957 109,815 271,268 102,874 * These contractors receive some additional funding to fund specialized activities for a few counties that fall outside their service area.

NOTE: South Plains Community Action Association, Inc. received an additional $50,000 of State Discretionary funds for a total allocation amount of $380,446.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 150

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM  The Emergency Solutions Grants Program (ESGP) funds a network of subrecipient organizations, some of which have a service area that spans across two or more regions or multiple sub-recipients serve the same area. Because of this, ESGP racial composition data for FY 2010 is listed according to subrecipient. Racial composition for the state is available, but unavailable at the regional level. Racial Composition of Individuals Receiving ESGP Assistance, Statewide, FY 2010

Race Other White Black

Percent 4% 72% 24%

Ethnic Composition of Individuals Receiving ESGP Assistance, Statewide, FY 2010

Ethnicity Hispanic NonHispanic

Percent 41% 59%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 151

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Individuals Receiving ESGP Assistance By Subrecipient, Statewide, FY 2010

$ 75,000

Total Individuals 140

$ 75,000

1,185

917

268

-

643

542

Bastrop, Fayette, Lee

$ 60,000

479

325

66

88

148

331

Harris

$ 56,250

341

245

88

8

155

186

El Paso

$ 51,026

502

448

33

21

403

99

Potter Denton Dallas

$ 165,205 $ 162,710 $ 78,000

3,111 659 51

2,232 410 42

632 158 5

247 91 4

572 198 20

2,539 461 31

Comal

$ 39,750

1,158

1,062

30

66

507

651

McLennan

$ 30,000

144

100

17

27

50

94

Contractor

County Service Area

Abilene Hope Haven Inc.

Taylor Bastrop, Southeastern Travis (Manor area)

Advocacy Outreach Bastrop County Women's Shelter Bridge Over Troubled Waters, Inc. Child Crisis Center of El Paso City of Amarillo City of Denton City of Irving Comal county Family Violence Shelter, Inc. Compassion Ministries of Waco, inc.

Connections Individual & Family Services

Corpus Christi Hope House, Inc. Covenant House Texas Crisis Center of the Plains Daniel's Den, Inc. El Paso Villa Maria Ellis Community Resources, Inc. Faith Mission and Help Center, Inc.

Award

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

126

14

-

6

NonHispanic 134

Comal and San Patricio and surrounding cities of Aransas, Atascosa, Bastrop, Bee Caldwell, Frio Goliad, Gonzales, Guadalupe, Karnes, Lee, Live Oak, McMullen, Refugio, Wilson, Zavala

$

75,000

369

331

36

2

219

150

Nueces

$

61,994

804

755

49

-

436

368

Harris Briscoe, Castro, Floyd, Hale, Hall, Motley, Swisher, Lamb Ellis El Paso

$

75,000

1,284

415

815

54

165

1,119

$

75,000

622

477

36

109

226

396

$

30,000 $ 30,750

74 80

46 70

24 6

4 4

6 58

68 22

Comal

$ 41,250

136

130

6

-

75

61

Washington

$ 74,984

373

161

212

-

42

331

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 152

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

$ 51,836

Total Individuals 954

$ 44,728

330

222

92

16

47

283

Cameron and Willacy Counties

$ 200,000

3,833

3,741

70

22

3,281

552

Dallas

$ 53,250

577

246

241

90

172

405

Bexar

$ 75,000

1,591

1,305

222

64

1,008

583

Archer, Baylor, Childress, Clay, Cottle, Hardeman, Foard, Jack, Montague, Young, Wilbarger, Wichita

$ 30,000

761

565

139

57

129

632

Grayson

$ 75,000

1,071

876

96

99

66

1,005

Cameron

$ 200,000

1,645

1,635

5

5

1,633

12

Grayson, Fannin, Cooke

$ 66,545

61

45

13

3

7

54

Grayson

$ 71,292

546

425

94

27

35

511

Houston Harris

$ 75,000 $ 78,000

104 195

42 25

61 165

1 5

9 21

95 174

Hays and Caldwell

$ 78,780

515

442

40

33

316

199

Harris

$ 74,913

4,992

3,816

971

205

3,122

Tom Green

$ 30,000

642

531

59

52

355

287

El Paso

$ 40,934

330

284

42

4

244

86

Johnson

$ 75,000

365

313

32

20

73

292

Jefferson

$ 73,880

22

16

6

-

-

22

El Paso

$ 51,649

734

716

10

8

699

Contractor

County Service Area

Families in Crisis, Inc. Family Abuse Center, Inc. Family Crisis Center, Inc. Family Place, The Family Violence Prevention Services, Inc.

Bell, Coryell and Hamilton McLennan, Falls, Bosque, Freestone, Limestone, Hill

First Step Of Wichita Falls, Inc. Four Rivers Outreach, Inc. Friendship of Women, Inc. Grayson County Juvenile Alternatives, Inc. Grayson County Shelter, Inc. Harmony House, Inc. Harris County Hays County Women's Center Houston Area Women's Center Institute of Cognitive Development International AIDS Empowerment Johnson County Family Crisis Center Just Out - Fresh Start, Inc. La Posada Home, Inc.

Award

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

415

430

109

155

NonHispanic 799

1,870

35

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 153

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Contractor Love I.N.C. of Nacogdoches Memorial Assistance Ministries Mid-Coast Family Services, Inc. Midland Fair Havens, Inc. Mission Granbury, Inc. Missions of Yahweh, Inc., The New Beginning Center Opportunity Center for the Homeless Panhandle Crisis Center, Inc. Pecan Valley Regional Domestic Violence Shelter Promise House, Inc. Providence Ministry Corporation Randy Sams' Outreach Shelter, Inc. Sabine Valley Regional MHMR Center Safe Haven of Tarrant County Salvation Army Dentor Corps Salvation Army for Family Life Center Salvation Army of Corpus Christi Salvation Army of Galveston

Award

Total Individuals

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Nacogdoches

$ 48,566

232

69

149

14

24

208

Harris

$ 58,631

498

386

112

-

352

146

Calhoun, Dewitt, Goliad, Gonzales, Jackson, Lavaca and Victoria

$ 44,319

415

316

58

41

191

224

Midland

$ 68,250

1,309

931

372

6

533

776

Hood

$ 61,058

402

367

10

25

59

343

Harris

$ 75,000

366

95

252

19

28

338

Dallas

$ 75,000

836

584

219

33

383

453

El Paso

$ 75,000

2,064

1,792

216

56

1,200

864

Ochiltree, Hansford, Lipscomb

$ 35,729

525

512

3

10

309

216

Brown, Coleman, Comanche

$ 30,000

346

287

34

25

87

259

Dallas

$ 75,000

175

78

95

2

46

129

Cameron, Willacy

$ 71,614

196

168

23

5

163

33

Bowie

$ 72,573

905

616

263

26

25

880

Bowie, Cass, Gregg, Harrison, Marion, Panola, Red River, Rusk, Upshur

$ 40,971

27

17

10

-

-

27

Tarrant

$ 75,000

6,139

4,045

1442

652

2,332

3,807

Denton

$ 50,000

1,002

859

121

22

79

923

Tarrant

$ 75,000

163

72

77

14

38

125

Nueces

$ 75,000

1,341

1,134

201

6

428

913

Galveston

$ 73,530

2,279

1,611

623

45

427

1,852

County Service Area

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 154

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Contractor Salvation Army of Kerrville Salvation Army of Lufkin Salvation Army of Odessa Salvation Army of San Antonio Salvation Army of Tyler Salvation Army of Waco Santa Maria Hostel, Inc. Search Seton Home Shelter Agencies Families in East Texas Star of Hope Mission The Women's Home Wesley Community Center Westside Homeless Partnership Wintergarden Women's Shelter, Inc. Women Together Foundation, Inc. Women's Shelter of East Texas, Inc. Women's Shelter of South Texas TOTALS

Award

Total Individuals

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Kerr

$ 74,420

532

490

38

4

74

458

Angelina

$ 37,500

225

178

44

3

8

217

Ector

$ 37,110

342

294

48

-

114

228

Bexar

$ 75,000

614

453

121

40

370

244

Smith McLennan Harris Harris Bexar Titus, Camp, Delta, Franklin, Morris, Hopkins, Lamar, Red River, Wood Harris Harris and surrounding counties

$ 75,000 $ 44,250 $ 74,609 $122,139 $ 69,650

3,440 773 222 4,483 144

2,271 410 84 1,592 105

1151 362 118 2807 39

18 1 20 84 -

1,001 150 371 88

2,439 623 222 4,112 56

$ 30,638

1,174

842

239

93

13

1,161

$ 75,000

2,221

633

1579

9

308

1,913

$ 69,125

87

68

16

3

6

81

Harris

$ 48,750

280

81

199

-

64

216

Harris

$ 48,750

272

223

49

-

212

60

Dimmit, Maverick, Zavala and La Salle

$ 68,770

715

675

1

39

635

80

Hidalgo

$ 100,000

557

551

1

5

534

23

$ 34,414

456

294

137

25

94

362

$ 74,945

3,027

2,784

106

137

2,340

687

$ 5,043,037

69,564

49,919

16,618

3,027

28,387

41,177

County Service Area

Angelina, Nacogdoches, Polk, Houston, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Sabine, Trinity Aransas, Bee, Brooks, Duval, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, McMullen, Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 155

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

HOMELESS HOUSING AND SERVICES PROGRAM 

The Homeless Housing and Services Program (HHSP) assists large metropolitan areas to provide services to homeless individuals and families, including services such as case management, housing placement and retention, as well as construction. Beginning in 2010, funding for this program was awarded by TDHCA through a competitive matching grant process. The agency distributed these funds to the eight largest cities with populations larger than 285,500 persons, per the latest U.S. Census figures. Cities may either use these funds themselves or may elect to subcontract some or all of the funds to one or more organizations serving their community whose mission includes serving homeless individuals and families with appropriate services targeted towards eliminating or preventing the condition of homelessness. HHSP racial and ethnic composition data for FY 2010 is listed according to subrecipient. Racial and ethnic composition of those assisted by the program areas are provided below. Racial Composition of Individuals Receiving HHSP Assistance, Statewide, FY 2010 Race Other White Black

Percent 10% 43% 46%

Ethnic Composition of Individuals Receiving HHSP Assistance, Statewide, FY 2010

Ethnicity Hispanic NonHispanic

Percent 29% 71%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 156

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Individuals Receiving HHSP Assistance By Subrecipient, Statewide, FY 2010 Contractor City of Arlington City of Austin, Health and Human Services Dept. City of Dallas City of El Paso City of Houston Haven for Hope of Bexar County Mother Teresa Shelter, Inc. United Way of Tarrant County TOTAL

County Service Area Tarrant

Award

Ind Served

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

$976,295

159

86

42

31

124

35

Travis

$1,922,498

732

449

221

62

124

608

Dallas El Paso Harris

$3,361,364 $1,667,459 $5,756,053

2,598 3,800 5,187

853 3,212 747

1,661 226 3,628

84 362 812

118 3,800 0

2,480 0 5,187

Bexar

$3,410,574

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nueces

$779,446

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tarrant

$1,667,312

1,675

791

764

120

0

1,675

19,541,001

14,151

6,138

6,542

1,471

4,166

9,985

  PROGRESS IN MEETING TDHCA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICE GOALS  The goals established in the Department’s Legislative Appropriations Request, the Riders from the Legislative Appropriations Act and Texas state statute collectively guide TDHCA’s annual activities, either through the establishment of objective performance measures or reporting requirements. The following five goals are established by the Department’s performance measures: 1. Increase and preserve the availability of safe, decent and affordable housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income persons and families. 2. Promote improved housing conditions for extremely low-, very low- and low-income households by providing information and technical assistance. 3. Improve living conditions for the poor and homeless and reduce the cost of home energy for very low-income Texans. 4. Ensure compliance with the TDHCA’s federal and state program mandates. 5. Protect the public by regulating the manufactured housing industry in accordance with state and federal laws. The following four goals are established by the Department’s Riders and statutory obligations: Rider 5: Target TDHCA’s housing finance programs resources for assistance to extremely lowincome households. Rider 5: Target TDHCA’s housing finance resources for assistance to very low-income households. Rider 6: Provide contract for deed conversions for families who reside in a colonia and earn 60 percent or less of the applicable Area Median Family Income.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 157

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities

HOME Statute: Work to address the housing needs and increase the availability of affordable and accessible housing for persons with special needs through funding opportunities. Progress made towards meeting the goals listed above, the upcoming year’s goals, and information on TDHCA’s actual performance in satisfying FY 2010 goals and strategies is provided in Section 4: Action Plan on page 216. Beyond these established reporting goals, the Department has set policy priorities, also described in the Action Plan on page 228.

  STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES BY UNIFORM STATE SERVICE REGION  This section describes TDHCA’s FY 2010 activities by Uniform State Service region. The regional tables do not include information for WAP, CEAP, ESGP, CSBG and HHSP because figures are not available for these programs at the regional level. Additionally, for purposes of reporting, Office of Colonia Initiatives figures do not appear as an independent category, but rather the figures are grouped under their respective funding sources. For example, most Contracts for Deed Conversion are reported under HOME’s Homebuyer Assistance Program. As required by law, TDHCA reports on the racial composition of individuals and families receiving assistance. The racial and ethnic composition reflects actual households served in FY 2010. Single Family Bond and Section 8 program awards are the same as the actual households served in the same fiscal year. HOME, Housing Tax Credit, Housing Trust Fund and Multifamily Bond program awards represent a commitment made in FY 2010 to serve households. Racial and ethnic data for the latter programs represent households served in FY 2010 with previous years’ awards. Therefore, the racial and ethnic pie charts will not correlate with the tables on subsequent pages for the HOME, Housing Tax Credit, Housing Trust Fund and Multifamily Bond programs. Regional information has been organized into two generalized categories of housing activity type: Renter Programs and Homeowner Programs. For more information on the housing activity types and racial reporting categories, please see “Racial Composition of Households Receiving Assistance” under the Statement of Activities section on page 131.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 158

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 



RENTER PROGRAMS

 

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart. SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM

Race

Households

Percent

Other White Black

327 4,728 925

5% 79% 16%

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

2,575

42%

3,532

58%

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Race

Households

Percent

White

1

100%

White Black

27 1

96% 4%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

27

96%

1

4%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 159

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 1 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $107,057 1 $0 0 $107,057 1

HOME Funds $2,967,120 $0 $2,967,120

HH 35 0 35

HTF Funds $0 $0 $0

HTC Funds HH $0 0 $2,000,000 178 $2,000,000 178

HH 0 0 0

MF Bond Funds HH $0 0 $0 0 $0 0

Section 8 Funds HH $0 0 $0 0 $0 0

All Activities Funds HH $3,074,177 36 $2,000,000 178 $5,074,177 214

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 1 SF Bond

HOME

HTF

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI)

$0

0

$468,000

6

$0

0

$112,930

10

$0

0

$0

0

$580,930

16

Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI)

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$898,680

80

$0

0

$0

0

$898,680

80

Low Income (50-80 AMFI)

$0

0

$2,499,120

29

$0

0

$988,389

88

$0

0

$0

0

$3,487,509

117

Moderate Income (>80 AMFI)

$107,057

1

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$107,057

1

Total

$107,057

1

$2,967,120

35

$0

0

$2,000,000

178

$0

0

$0

0

$5,074,177

214

TDHCA allocated $5,074,177 in Region 1 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the low-income households group (50-80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 160

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 2 

RENTER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combine chart.

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Other White Black

216 3,825 666

5% 81% 14%

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

645

14%

4,104

88%

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

These pie charts represent households served in FY2010, based on previous years’ awards. Region 2 did not serve households with HOME ownership program funding in FY 2010.

Race

Households

Percent

White

2

100%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 161

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 2 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $133,928 2 $0 0 $133,928 2

HOME Funds $1,834,560 $1,100,000 $2,934,560

HH 25 52 77

HTF Funds $0 $0 $0

HTC HH 0 0 0

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $1,388,447 $1,388,447

0 116 116

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $126,375 $126,375

0 23 23

$1,968,488 $2,614,822 $4,583,310

27 191 218

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 2 SF Bond Funds HH

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI)

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$119,358

10

$0

0

$82,728

14

$202,086

24

Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI)

$0

0

$627,660

15

$0

0

$207,044

17

$0

0

$25,659

6

$860,363

38

Low Income (50-80 AMFI)

$54,887

1

$2,306,900

62

$0

0

$1,062,044

89

$0

0

$17,988

3

$3,441,819

155

Moderate Income (>80 AMFI)

$79,041

1

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$79,041

1

Total

$133,928

2

$2,934,560

77

$0

0

$1,388,447

116

$0

0

$126,375

23

$4,583,310

218

 

TDHCA allocated $4,583,310 in Region 2 during FY 2010. Renter programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the lowincome households group (50-80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 162

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 3 

  The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart.

RENTER PROGRAMS

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Households

Other White Black

3,368 18,442 13,457

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

10% 52% 38%

Hispanic NonHispanic

7,665

21%

28,046

79%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic

94 38 40 86 22

33% 14% 14% 31% 8%

White Black Other Unknown

Percent

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

White Black Other

32 6 1

82% 15% 3%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

16

41%

23

59%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 163

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 3 SF Bond Funds HH

Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$31,508,297

258

$2,137,760

52

$1,248,139

71

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$34,894,196

381

$0

0

$4,036,000

179

$0

0

$11,977,669

1,076

$1,224,504

206

$1,680,596

305

$18,918,769

1,766

$31,508,297

258

$6,173,760

231

$1,248,139

0

$11,977,669

1076

$1,224,504

206

$1,680,596

305

$53,812,965

2,147

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 3 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$146,013

1

$1,237,647

23

$184,671

6

$840,706

80

$184,270

31

$1,269,824

221

$3,863,131

362

$1,792,649

19

$2,442,353

69

$768,468

40

$5,574,065

496

$0

0

$348,010

69

$10,925,545

693

$9,716,396

89

$2,493,760

139

$295,000

25

$5,562,898

500

$1,040,234

175

$62,762

14

$19,171,050

942

$19,853,239

149

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

1

$19,853,239

150

$31,508,297

258

$6,173,760

231

$1,248,139

71

$11,977,669

1,076

$1,224,504

206

$1,680,596

305

$53,812,965

2,147

 

TDHCA allocated $53,812,965 in Region 3 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the moderate income households group (> 80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 164

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 4 

RENTER PROGRAMS

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is present in one combined chart.

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

161 5,715 3,201

2% 63% 35%

Hispanic NonHispanic

292

3%

8,815

97%

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race Unknown

Households

Percent

1

100%

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Households

Percent

White Black

64 33

66% 34%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

1

1%

96

99%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 165

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 4 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $81,987 1 $0 0 $81,987 1

HOME Funds $3,629,680 $1,539,272 $5,168,952

HH 57 15 72

HTF Funds HH $872,740 70 $0 0 $872,740 70

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $4,131,720 $4,131,720

$0 $315 315

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $7,092 $7,092

0 1 1

$4,584,407 $5,678,084 $10,262,491

128 331 459

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 4 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$1,532,334

17

$530,572

41

$234,028

18

$0

0

$0

0

$2,296,934

76

$0

0

$975,709

10

$312,655

27

$1,856,562

141

$0

0

$7,092

1

$3,152,018

179

$0

0

$2,660,909

45

$29,513

2

$2,041,129

156

$0

0

$0

0

$4,731,551

203

$81,987

1

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$81,987

1

$81,987

1

$5,168,952

72

$872,740

70

$4,131,720

315

$0

0

$7,092

1

$10,262,491

459

  TDHCA allocated $10,262,491 in Region 4 during FY 2010. Renter programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the lowincome households group (50-80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 166

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

 

 

RENTER PROGRAMS

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

REGION 5 

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

The pie charts Represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is present in one combined chart.

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

180 2,939 3,968

3% 41% 56%

Hispanic NonHispanic

274

4%

6,880

96%

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY Other 1 HH, 3%

Unknown 4 HH, 13%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Black 7 HH, 23%

White 19 HH, 61%

Race

Ethnicity

White Black Other Unknown Hispanic

Households

Percent

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

19 7 1 4

61% 23% 3% 13% 8

White Black

19 2

90% 10%

Hispanic NonHispanic

Households

Percent

21

100%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 167

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 5 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $3,156,835 31 $0 0 $3,156,835 31

HOME Funds $520,000 $6,598,337 $7,118,337

HH 6 130 136

HTF Funds HH $275,200 36 $0 0 $275,200 36

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $5,468,736 $5,468,736

0 470 470

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$3,952,035 $12,067,073 $16,019,108

73 600 673

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 5 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$1,482,801

72

$128,788

18

$448,064

40

$0

0

$0

0

$2,059,653

130

$61,669

1

$589,683

9

$25,200

1

$2,286,304

195

$0

0

$0

0

$2,962,856

206

$412,847

6

$5,045,853

55

$121,212

17

$2,734,368

235

$0

0

$0

0

$8,314,280

313

$2,682,319

24

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$2,682,319

24

$3,156,835

31

$7,118,337

136

$275,200

36

$5,468,736

470

$0

0

$0

0

$16,019,108

673

TDHCA allocated $16,019,108 in Region 5 during FY 2010. Renter programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the lowincome households group (50-80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 168

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 6 

RENTER PROGRAMS

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic compositions of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart. SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

1,968 13,106 15,716

6% 43% 51%

Hispanic NonHispanic

7,698

25%

23,522

75%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

26% 7% 10% 44% 13

White Black

20 10

67% 33%

Hispanic NonHispanic

6

20%

24

80%

Hispanic

168 47 67 288 86

White Black Other Unknown

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 169

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 6 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $72,822,162 570 $0 0 $72,822,162 570

HOME Funds $987,600 $430,000 $1,417,600

HH 18 34 52

HTF Funds $86,899 $0 $86,899

HTC HH 3 0 3

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $19,375,502 $19,375,502

0 1,844 1844

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $2,344,141 $2,344,141

0 392 392

$73,896,661 $22,149,643 $96,046,304

591 2,270 2,861

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 6

  SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$785,733

38

$26,900

1

$1,066,056

107

$0

0

$1,799,127

296

$3,677,816

442

$1,695,183

18

$168,427

3

$59,999

2

$8,534,610

758

$0

0

$405,554

69

$10,863,772

850

$19,146,052

172

$463,440

11

$0

0

$9,774,836

979

$0

0

$135,476

25

$29,519,804

1,187

$51,980,927

380

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$3,984

2

$51,984,911

382

$72,822,162

570

$1,417,600

52

$86,899

3

$19,375,502

1,844

$0

0

$2,344,141

392

$96,046,304

2,861

 

TDHCA allocated $96,046,304 in Region 6 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the moderate income households group (> 80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 170

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 7 

RENTER PROGRAMS

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart.

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Households

Percent

Other White Black

1,273 9,066 2,858

9% 69% 22%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

5,011

37%

8,371

63%

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic

179 26 26 253 55

33% 5% 5% 47% 10

White Black Other Unknown

Race

Households

Percent

White Black

6 2

75% 25%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

2

25%

6

75%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 171

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 7 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $67,805,984 484 $0 0 $67,805,984 484

HOME Funds $657,040 $7,866,529 $8,523,569

HH 16 116 132

HTF Funds HH $896,749 52 $500,000 36 $1,396,749 88

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $2,987,677 $2,987,677

0 251 251

$0 $296,913 $296,913

0 130 130

$0 $386,980 $386,980

0 73 73

$69,359,773 $12,038,099 $81,397,872

552 606 1,158

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 7 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$147,232

1

$2,197,131

35

$329,861

22

$352,533

30

$0

0

$280,578

51

$3,307,335

139

$5,046,375

42

$3,292,746

49

$1,015,846

62

$1,147,126

96

$0

0

$71,410

15

$10,573,503

264

$25,371,634

192

$3,033,692

48

$51,042

4

$1,488,018

125

$296,913

130

$34,992

7

$30,276,290

506

$37,240,743

249

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$37,240,743

249

$67,805,984

484

$8,523,569

132

$1,396,749

88

$2,987,677

251

$296,913

130

$386,980

73

$81,397,872

1,158

 

TDHCA allocated $81,397,872 in Region 7 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the moderate income households group (> 80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

 

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 172

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 8 

RENTER PROGRAMS

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is present in one combined chart.

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE `

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

338 4006 3,377

4% 52% 44%

Hispanic NonHispanic

883

11%

6,885

89%

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race

Ethnicity

White Black Other Unknown Hispanic

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Households

Percent

14 5 6 12

38% 14% 16% 32%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

White Black Other

13 6 1

65% 30% 5%

Hispanic NonHispanic

4

20%

16

80%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 173

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 8 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $3,736,049 37 $0 0 $3,736,049 37

HOME Funds $1,812,320 $2,557,447 $4,369,767

HH 56 119 175

HTF Funds HH $562,519 22 $0 0 $562,519 22

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $2,635,793 $2,635,793

0 260 260

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 0

$0 $372,018 $372,018

0 67 67

$6,110,888 $5,565,258 $11,676,146

115 446 561

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 8 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$413,463

9

$148,250

4

$181,021

18

$0

$0

$194,647

36

$937,381

67

$0

0

$1,175,345

43

$390,029

17

$852,601

84

$0

$0

$115,512

21

$2,533,487

165

$1,078,894

12

$2,780,959

123

$24,240

1

$1,602,171

158

$0

$0

$41,411

7

$5,527,675

301

$2,657,155

25

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

$0

$20,448

3

$2,677,603

28

$3,736,049

37

$4,369,767

175

$562,519

22

$2,635,793

260

$0

0

$372,018

67

$11,676,146

561

TDHCA allocated $11,676,146 in Region 8 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the low-income households group (50-80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 174

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 9 

RENTER PROGRAMS

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the In one combined chart. SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

1,142 9,213 1,616

12% 75% 13%

Hispanic NonHispanic

7,782

63%

4,561

37%

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic

117 22 24 32 11

57% 11% 12% 15% 5%

White Black Other Unknown

Race

Households

Percent

White

1

100%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

1

100%

0

0%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 175

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 9 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $23,425,358 195 $0 0 $23,425,358 195

HOME Funds HH $249,600 3 $672,000 54 $921,600 57

HTF Funds HH $970,189 34 $0 0 $970,189 34

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $7,315,340 $7,315,340

0 764 764

$0 $1,060,351 $1,060,351

0 235 235

$0 $150,052 $150,052

0 32 32

$24,645,147 $9,197,743 $33,842,890

232 1,085 1,317

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 9 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$672,000

54

$213,620

7

$334,149

36

$4,507

1

$92,780

20

$1,317,056

118

$574,395

7

$0

0

$731,369

26

$3,694,210

376

$388,858

86

$25,644

7

$5,414,476

502

$6,516,414

59

$249,600

3

$25,200

1

$3,286,982

352

$666,986

148

$31,628

5

$10,776,810

568

$16,334,549

129

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$16,334,549

129

$23,425,358

195

$921,600

57

$970,189

34

$7,315,340

764

$1,060,351

235

$150,052

32

$33,842,890

1,317

 

TDHCA allocated $33,842,890 in Region 9 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the moderate-income households group (>80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 176

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 10 The pie charts respresent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart. SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

RENTER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

244 5,398 461

4% 88% 8%

Hispanic NonHispanic

4,246

69%

1,887

31%

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race White Other Unknown

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

3 1 1

60% 20% 20%

Race

Households

Percent

White

5

100%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

4

80%

1

20%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 177

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 10 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $515,690 5 $0 0 $515,690 5

HOME Funds $2,080,000 $4,063,121 $6,143,121

HH 25 52 77

HTF Funds HH $343,750 18 $0 0 $343,750 18

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $2,254,684 $2,254,684

0 192 192

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$2,939,440 $6,317,805 $9,257,245

48 244 292

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 10 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$858,334

12

$208,333

12

$117,016

10

$0

0

$0

0

$1,183,683

34

$0

0

$2,908,407

36

$135,417

6

$1,024,216

87

$0

0

$0

0

$4,068,040

129

$0

0

$2,376,380

29

$0

0

$1,113,452

95

$0

0

$0

0

$3,489,832

124

$515,690

5

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$515,690

5

$515,690

5

$6,143,121

77

$343,750

18

$2,254,684

192

$0

0

$0

0

$9,257,245

292

 

TDHCA allocated $9,257,245 in Region 10 during FY 2010. Renter programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the very low-income households group (30-50% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 178

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 11 

RENTER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart. SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

802 10,869 60

7% 93% 0%

Hispanic NonHispanic

11,351

96%

453

4%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic

36 4 2 1

84% 8% 4% 2%

White Other Unknown

Race

Households

White Other

48 12

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

80% 20%

Hispanic NonHispanic

59

98%

1

2%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 179

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 11 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $3,770,220 42 $0 0 $3,770,220 42

HOME Funds $4,439,560 $2,000,000 $6,439,560

HH 119 17 136

HTF Funds HH $739,146 24 $0 0 $739,146 24

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $4,813,587 $4,813,587

0 350 350

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $3,888 $3,888

0 1 1

$8,948,926 $6,817,475 $15,766,401

185 368 553

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 11 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$684,135

7

$107,000

3

$190,028

15

$0

0

$0

0

$981,163

25

$179,215

3

$1,978,692

23

$632,146

21

$2,751,035

190

$0

0

$3,888

1

$5,544,976

238

$1,501,943

18

$3,776,733

106

$0

0

$1,872,525

145

$0

0

$0

0

$7,151,201

269

$2,089,062

21

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$2,089,062

21

$3,770,220

42

$6,439,560

136

$739,146

24

$4,813,587

350

$0

0

$3,888

1

$15,766,401

553

 

TDHCA allocated $15,766,401 in Region 11 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the low-income households group (50-80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 180

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 12 

RENTER PROGRAMS

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart.

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Households

Percent

Other White Black

84 2,525 393

3% 84% 13%

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

1,521

51%

1,487

49%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic

2 1

67% 33%

White

Ethnicity

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

White Black

10 2

83% 17%

Hispanic NonHispanic

7

58%

5

42%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 181

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 12 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $169,866 2 $0 0 $169,866 2

HOME Funds $1,346,091 $0 $1,346,091

HH 24 0 24

HTF Funds $29,500 $0 $29,500

HTC HH 1 0 1

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $1,076,550 $1,076,550

0 95 95

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $33,996 $33,996

0 4 4

$1,545,457 $1,110,546 $2,656,003

27 99 126

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 12 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$56,684

5

$0

0

$33,996

4

$90,680

9

$0

0

$0

0

$29,500

1

$487,484

43

$0

0

$0

0

$516,984

44

$85,424

1

$1,346,091

24

$0

0

$532,382

47

$0

0

$0

0

$1,963,897

72

$84,442

1

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$84,442

1

$169,866

2

$1,346,091

24

$29,500

1

$1,076,550

95

$0

0

$33,996

4

$2,656,003

126

 

TDHCA allocated $2,656,003 in Region 12 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the low-income households group (50-80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 182

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

REGION 13 

RENTER PROGRAMS

The pie charts represent the racial and ethnic composition of households served in FY 2010.

Note: Because loan servicers do not record race and ethnicity data separately, data for the Single Family Bond program is presented in one combined chart.

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Households

Percent

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Other White Black

156 6,872 254

2% 94% 4%

Hispanic NonHispanic

6,572

90%

728

10%

SINGLE FAMILY BOND PROGRAM PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Race

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic

97 4 4 6 2

86% 3% 4% 5% 2%

White Black Other Unknown

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

HOME PROGRAM OWNER PROGRAMS PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY RACE

Race

Households

Percent

White

12

100%

PERCENT OF COMMITTED FUNDS BY ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

Households

Percent

Hispanic NonHispanic

11

92%

1

8%

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 183

Annual Housing Report Statement of Activities by Region

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY ACTIVITY AND HOUSING PROGRAM TYPE, REGION 13 Activity Homeowner Programs Renter Programs Total

SF Bond Funds HH $11,834,153 111 $0 0 $11,834,153 111

HOME Funds HH $984,475 14 $0 0 $984,475 14

HTF Funds HH $168,050 6 $0 0 $168,050 6

HTC

MF Bond

Section 8

All Activities

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

Funds

HH

$0 $1,997,681 $1,997,681

0 140 140

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$0 $0 $0

0 0 0

$12,986,678 $1,997,681 $14,984,359

131 140 271

FUNDING AND HOUSEHOLDS SERVED/TO BE SERVED, BY INCOME CATEGORY AND HOUSING PROGRAM, REGION 13 SF Bond Funds HH Extremely Low Income (0-30 AMFI) Very Low Income (30-50 AMFI) Low Income (50-80 AMFI) Moderate Income (>80 AMFI) Total

HOME Funds HH

HTF Funds HH

Funds

HTC HH

Funds

MF Bond HH

Funds

Section 8 HH

All Activities Funds

HH

$0

0

$290,079

4

$25,750

1

$74,602

6

$0

0

$0

0

$390,431

11

$119,700

1

$83,200

1

$142,300

5

$1,230,246

80

$0

0

$0

0

$1,575,446

87

$1,864,038

21

$611,196

9

$0

0

$692,833

54

$0

0

$0

0

$3,168,067

84

$9,850,415

89

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$9,850,415

89

$11,834,153

111

$984,475

14

$168,050

6

$1,997,681

140

$0

0

$0

0

$14,984,359

271

 

TDHCA allocated in Region 13 during FY 2010. Homeowner programs accounted for the largest segment of this total and the moderate income households group (>80% AMFI) was the most served income group.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 184

Annual Housing Report Housing Sponsor Report

HOUSING SPONSOR REPORT ANALYSIS  TDHCA requires that housing developments of 20 units or more which receive financial assistance from TDHCA submit an annual housing sponsor report. This report includes the contact information for each property, the total number of units, the number of accessible units, the rents for units by type, the racial composition information for the property, the number of units occupied by individuals receiving supported housing assistance, the number of units occupied delineated by income group and a statement as to whether there have been fair housing violations at the property. This information depicts the property data as of December 31 of each year. Because of the extensive nature of the information, TDHCA has elected to provide this report under a separate publication: the TDHCA Housing Sponsor Report (HSR). The HSR includes an analysis of the collected information, as well as the information submitted by each property. In addition, in fulfillment of §2306.072(c)(8), the HSR contains a list of average rents sorted by Texas county based on housing sponsor report responses from TDHCA-funded properties. For more information and a copy of this report, please contact the TDHCA Housing Resource Center at (512) 936-7803 or visit http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-center/pubs.htm.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 185

Annual Housing Report Distribution of Housing Tax Credits

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING TAX CREDITS  Section 2306.111(d) of the Government Code requires that TDHCA use a Regional Allocation Formula (RAF) to allocate its 9% Housing Tax Credits (HTCs) to the Uniform State Service Regions it uses for planning purposes. Because of the level of funding and the impact of this program in financing the multifamily development of affordable housing, this section of the Plan discusses the geographical distribution of HTCs. The Department allocated $70,005,604 in HTCs through the Competitive Housing Tax Credit application process from the 2010 ceiling and Hurricane Ike credits. Information on these awards, as well as the entire HTC inventory, can be found on the HTC Program’s web page at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/htc/. The map on the following page displays the geographic distribution of the FY 2010 9% and 4% awards.

  REGIONAL ALLOCATION FORMULA  The table below shows the funding distribution of FY 2010 awards by region and includes the variations between the actual distribution and the 9% HTC RAF targets. The Department plans the credit distributions to match the HTC RAF targets as closely as possible; the RAF targets apply to the 9% HTC program. To that end, as many whole awards as possible are made in each Uniform State Service Region’s urban and rural sub-regions based on the RAF target for each. The total remainder in each region is then collapsed into 13 regional pools. The sub-region with the highest original target percentage is determined within each region and, if possible, additional awards are made in these sub-regions out of the region’s pool. If a region does not have enough qualified applications to meet its regional credit distribution target, then those credits will be apportioned to the other regions from a statewide pool of remaining credits.

$ 2,000,000

% of all HTCs 2.9%

9% HTCs

% of all 9% HTCs

-

% of all 4% HTCs 0.0%

3.0%

Targeted 9% dist. under RAF 4.4%

Diff. between actual & targeted -1.5%

$

$ 2,000,000

2

$ 1,388,447

2.0%

$

-

0.0%

$ 1,388,447

2.1%

2.7%

-0.7%

3

$ 13,202,173

18.9%

$ 1,224,504

47.4%

$ 11,977,669

17.8%

21.8%

-4.1%

4

$ 4,131,720

5.9%

$

-

0.0%

$ 4,131,720

6.1%

4.5%

1.6%

5

$ 5,468,736

7.8%

$

-

0.0%

$ 5,468,736

8.1%

3.4%

4.7%

6

$ 19,375,502

27.7%

0.0%

$ 19,375,502

28.7%

24.0%

4.8%

7

$ 3,284,590

4.7%

$ 296,913

11.5%

$ 2,987,677

4.4%

5.6%

-1.1%

8

$ 2,635,793

3.8%

$

-

0.0%

$ 2,635,793

3.9%

5.6%

-1.7%

9

$ 8,375,691

12.0%

$ 1,060,351

41.1%

$ 7,315,340

10.8%

7.8%

3.0%

10

$ 2,254,684

3.2%

$

-

0.0%

$ 2,254,684

3.3%

4.2%

-0.9%

11

$ 4,813,587

6.9%

$

-

0.0%

$ 4,813,587

7.1%

8.9%

-1.7%

12

$ 1,077,000

1.5%

$

-

0.0%

$ 1,077,000

1.6%

2.8%

-1.2%

13

$ 1,997,681

2.9%

$

-

0.0%

$ 1,997,681

3.0%

4.2%

-1.3%

Total

$ 70,005,604

100.0%

100.0%

$ 67,423,836

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Region

All HTCs

1

4% HTCs

$ 2,581,768

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 186

Annual Housing Report Distribution of Housing Tax Credits

9% and 4% HTC Distribution by Place, Awarded in FY 2010* *Numbers after the name of awarded place indicate the number of HTC awards in that place.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 187

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

SECTION 4: ACTION PLAN In response to the needs identified in the previous section, this plan outlines TDHCA’s course of action designed to meet those underserved needs. This section discusses the following: • TDHCA Programs o Description of TDHCA program, including funding source, administrator, purpose, targeted population, budge and contact information •

Housing Support Continuum o Activities undertaken by each TDHCA program that address the different phases in a low-income household’s life



Goals and Objectives o Program performance based upon measures developed with the State’s Legislative Budget Board and the Governor’s Office of Budge and Planning



Regional Allocation Plans o Distribution of TDHCA’s resources across the 13 State Service Regions

• •

Policy Priorities Overarching Department-wide policies and policy-driven actions

TDHCA PROGRAMS TDHCA’s programs govern the use of available resources in meeting the housing needs of lowincome Texans. Program descriptions include information on the funding source, recipients, targeted beneficiaries, set-asides and special initiatives. Details of each program’s activities are located in the Housing Support Continuum in the following segment. Additional funding for some programs was provided by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and other federal funds provided to stimulate the economy. When a program was funded or created as a result of these sources, the words “Stimulus Program” will appear in the title. Additional detail on programs provided by federal economic stimulus funds will be provided in Section 5: Stimulus Programs. Similar to the Stimulus Programs, Disaster Recovery programs are temporary programs targeted to certain areas to address specific issues arising from events in time. Because of the large amount of funds the Disaster Recovery division administers and because Disaster Recovery is based on a multiyear schedule and not a state fiscal year schedule, the Disaster Recovery Division has its own chapter. A list of TDHCA programs, organized by their Division, follows: • Community Affairs Division o Community Service Block Grant Program o Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program o Emergency Solutions Grants Program o Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (Stimulus Program ) o Homeless Housing and Services Program o Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program o Weatherization Assistance Program o Weatherization Assistance Program ARRA (Stimulus Program) 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 188

Action Plan TDHCA Programs







• •

• • •

Disaster Recovery Division (see Disaster Recovery Chapter) o Community Development Block Grant Program– Hurricane Rita Round One o Community Development Block Grant Program– Hurricane Rita Round Two o Community Development Block Grant Program–Hurricanes Dolly and Ike Round One o Community Development Block Grant Program– Hurricanes Dolly and Ike Round Two HOME Investment Partnership Program Division o Contract for Deed Conversion Program o Homebuyer Assistance Program o Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Program o Multifamily Rental Housing Development o Single Family Development o Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Housing Trust Fund Division o Affordable Housing Match Program o Amy Young Barrier Removal and Rehabilitation Program o Disaster Recovery Gap Assistance o Homeownership Program o Rural Housing Expansion Program o Texas Veterans Housing Support Program Manufactured Housing Division Multifamily Finance Division o Housing Tax Credit Program o Housing Tax Credit Exchange (Stimulus Program) o Multifamily Bond Program Office of Colonia Initiatives o Colonia Self-Help Center Program o Texas Bootstrap Loan Program Neighborhood Stabilization Program Division o Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (Stimulus Program) o Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (Stimulus Program) Texas Homeownership Division o First Time Homebuyer Program o Mortgage Credit Certificate Program o National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (Stimulus Program) o Texas Statewide Homebuyer Education Program

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 189

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION  The Community Affairs Division offers the Community Services Block Grant Program, Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing (Stimulus Program), Homeless Housing and Services Program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Weatherization Assistance Program and Weatherization Assistance Program ARRA (Stimulus Program).

  COMMUNITY  SERVICES  BLOCK  GRANT  PROGRAM 

Beds at Mobile Loaves and Fishes homeless shelter in Harlingen, funded through TDHCA’s Emergency Shelter Grant Program.

The Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG), received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USHHS), funds CSBG-eligible entities and activities that support the intent of the CSBG Act. TDHCA provides administrative support funds to Community Action Agencies (CAAs) and other human service delivery organizations that offer emergency and poverty-related programs to lower-income persons. Ninety-percent of the funds must be provided to eligible entities defined under Section 673 of the CSBG Act to provide services to low-income individuals. These agencies must be private nonprofit entities or units of local government and are designated by the Governor as an eligible entity. Persons with incomes at or below 125 percent of the current federal income poverty guidelines issued by USHHS are eligible for the program. CSBG provides administrative support to 47 CSBG-eligible entities. Five percent of the State’s CSBG allocation is used to fund innovative projects that address the causes of poverty, promote client selfsufficiency or promote community revitalization; provide emergency disaster relief assistance to persons impacted by a natural or man-made disaster; provide funding to organizations serving Native Americans and migrant or seasonal farm workers and provide funding for other eligible discretionary activities as authorized by the Department’s Board. No more than five percent of the CSBG allocation may be used for administrative purposes by the state. Allocations to the CSBG-eligible entities are based on two factors: (1) the number of persons living in poverty within the designated service delivery area for each organization and (2) a calculation of population density. Poverty population is given 98 percent weight and the ration of inverse population density is given 2 percent weight. Community Services Block Grant funding for FY 2011: $33,551,992. Additional documentation, including the CSBG Plan, may be accessed at the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/pubs.htm#cs. For more information, contact the Community Services Section at (512) 475-3905.

    2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 190

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  The Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) is funded by the USHHS’ Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The purpose of CEAP is to provide energy assistance to eligible households. TDHCA administers the program through a network of 47 CEAP Subrecipients. The Subrecipients consist of CAAs, nonprofit entities and units of local government. The targeted beneficiaries of CEAP in Texas are households with an income at or below 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines, with priority given to the elderly; persons with disabilities; families with young children; households with the highest energy costs or needs in relation to income (highest home energy burden); and households with high energy consumption. The allocation formula for CEAP uses the following five factors and corresponding weights to distribute its funds by county; non-elderly poverty household factor (40 percent); elderly poverty household factor (40 percent); inverse poverty household density factor (5 percent); median income variance factor (5 percent); and weather factor (10 percent). Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program funding for FY 2011: $188,803,041. The Energy Assistance Plans and Rules may be accessed online at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/ea on the TDHCA website. For more information, contact the Energy Assistance Section at (512) 4753951. To apply for CEAP, call toll free 1-877-399-8939, using a land line phone.

  EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM  The Emergency Solutions Grants Program (ESGP) receives funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and awards grants to units of local government and private nonprofit entities that provide shelter and related services to homeless persons and/or intervention services to persons at risk of homelessness. ESGP funds may also be used for renovation and rehabilitation of existing shelters. ESGP funds are reserved according to the percentage of poverty population identified in each of the 13 Uniform State Service Regions and funds are dispersed according to a Regional Allocation Formula. The top scoring applications in each region are recommended for funding, based on the amount of funds available for that region. Demonstrating the need for homeless shelter and services, for the 2008 ESGP application cycle, the Department received 120 applications and was able to fund only 76 entities. Emergency Solutions Grants Program funding for the State of Texas for FY 2011: $5,236,361. See the State of Texas Consolidated Plan: One Year Action Plan at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-center/pubs.htm#consolidated for further details on ESGP. For more information, contact the Community Service Section at (512) 475-3905.  

HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE‐HOUSING PROGRAM (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  Through ARRA, TDHCA is administering over $41,472,772 in Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP) funds made available through HUD. These funds are awarded to local units of government and qualifying nonprofit organizations to provide homelessness prevention assistance and assistance to rapidly re-house persons who are homeless. HPRP is not intended to provide long-term support for program participants, nor will it be able to address all of the 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 191

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

households’ financial and supportive service needs that affect housing stability. HPRP funds awarded under this plan are distributed on a regional basis according to the Regional Allocation Formula (RAF). See the Stimulus Programs chapter in this document for more details on HPRP.

  HOMELESS HOUSING AND SERVICES PROGRAM  During the 81st Legislative Session, the Legislature appropriated $20 million in general revenue funds over the biennium for the Homeless Housing and Services Program (HHSP) for the purposes of assisting regional urban areas in providing services to homeless individuals and families. Homeless Housing and Service Program funding for FY 2011: $10,000,000. More Homeless Housing and Services Program information may be accessed online at www.tdhca.state.tx.us. For more information, contact the Community Services Section at (512) 4753905.

  SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM  TDHCA received funding for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program from HUD for counties included in TDHCA’s Public Housing Authority’s allocation. The Section 8 Program provides rental assistance payments on behalf of low-income individuals and families, including the elderly and persons with disabilities. The Section 8 Program currently contracts with units of local governments, community action agencies and public housing authorities to assist with the administration of approximately 1,000 housing choice vouchers. The Department administers vouchers in 29 counties. Eligible households have a gross income that does not exceed 50% of HUD’s median income guidelines. HUD requires 75% of all new households admitted to the program be at or below 30% of the area median income. Eligibility is based on several factors, including the household’s income, size and composition, citizenship status, assets and medical and childcare expenses. Projected Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program funding for FY 2011: $5,833,128. Projected funding may vary depending on action taken by HUD. Additional documentation, including the Section 8 Plan, may be accessed at the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/pubs.htm#sec8. For more information, contact the Section 8 Program at (512) 475-3892.

  WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Health and Human Services (USHHS) Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The Weatherization Assistance Program allocates funding regionally to help households in each region control energy costs through the installation on weatherization measures and energy conservation education. The Department administers WAP through a network of 31 WAP Subrecipients. The Subrecipients consist of CAA’s, nonprofit entities and units of local government. The targeted beneficiaries of WAP in Texas are households with an income at or below 200 percent of federal poverty with priority given to the elderly; persons with disabilities; families with young 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 192

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

children; households with the highest energy costs or needs in relation to income (highest home energy burden); and households with high energy consumption. Partnerships between the Department and El Paso Electric provide additional weatherization measure to low-income utility customers in some regulated electric market areas. This partnership increases the total number of low-income households that receive weatherization services and allow the Department to leverage the federal weatherization funds with the energy company funds. The allocation formula for WAP uses the following five factors and corresponding weights to distribute its funds by county; non-elderly poverty household factor (40 percent); elderly poverty household factor (40 percent); inverse poverty household density factor (5 percent)’ median income variance factor (5 percent); and weather factor (10 percent). Projected Weatherization Assistance Program funding for FY 2011: will be updated in final version of this document. The Energy Assistance Plans and Rules may be accessed from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/ea/index.htm. For more information, contact the Energy Assistance Section at (512) 475-3951. To apply for weatherization, call toll free1-888-606-8889, using a land line phone.

  WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ARRA (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  Through ARRA, TDHCA received over $326,975,732 in additional funding for WAP. See the Stimulus Programs chapter in this document for more details on Weatherization Assistance Program funded through the ARRA. NOTE: The Community Service Block Grants (CSBG) funding through ARRA was administered by the Community Affairs Division; this program expended 99.6% of the funds and will conclude before the date of the publication of this document. Therefore, information about CSBG ARRA is only included in the Stimulus Programs chapter and not in the Action Plan’s Community Affairs’ section.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 193

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM DIVISION  The HOME Investment Partnership Program Division offers Contract for Deed Conversion, Homebuyer Assistance, Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance, Multifamily Rental Housing Development, Single Family Development, TenantBased Rental Assistance and other specialty programs within these activities, including Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside funds. The HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program is authorized under the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 USC Section 12701 et. seq.) and receives funding from HUD. The purposed of the HOME Program is to expand the supply of decent, safe and affordable housing for extremely low-, very lowand low-income households and to alleviate the problems of excessive rent burdens, homelessness and deteriorating housing stock. HOME strives to meet both the short-term goal of increasing the supply and the availability of affordable housing and the long-term goal of building partnerships between state Many Texans have benefited from the and local governments and private and nonprofit organizations HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance in order to strengthen their capacity to meet the housing needs voucher program, such as Clarence of lower income Texans. To achieve this purpose, the HOME Hoodye from Corpus Christi, TX. Program provides loans and grants to units of general local government, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), nonprofit organizations and for-profit entities. HOME funds awarded under this plan are distributed on a regional basis according to the Regional Allocation Formula (RAF). The HOME RAF can be found in the TDHCA Allocation Plan section in this Action Plan. TDHCA provides technical assistance to all recipients of the HOME Program to ensure that all participants meet and follow state implementation guidelines and federal regulations. According to §2306.111, Texas Government Code, in administering federal housing funds provided to the state under the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (Act), the Department shall expend 95 percent of these funds for the benefit of non-participating jurisdictions that do not qualify to receive funds under the Act directly from HUD. This directs HOME funds into rural Texas. As established in Section 2306.111(c) of the Texas Government Code and subject to the submission of qualified applications, 5 percent of the annual HOME Program allocation shall be allocated for applications serving persons with disabilities living in any part of the state. Federal regulations require a minimum of 15 percent of the annual HOME allocation is reserved for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). CHDO set-aside projects are owned, developed, or sponsored by the CHDO, and result in the development of rental units or single-family homeownership.

  CONTRACT FOR DEED CONVERSION PROGRAM  Contract for Deed Conversions Program provides funds to convert an eligible contract for deed to a warranty deed. These funds are awarded as specified in the published Notices of Funding Availability.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 194

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  Homebuyer Assistance Program includes down payment and closing cost assistance and is provided to homebuyers for the acquisition of affordable single-family housing, including new manufactured housing. Funds may also be made available to perform accessibility modifications. This program can also be used to address housing issues arising from state- or federally-declared disasters. These funds are awarded as specified in the published Notice of Funding Availability.

  HOMEOWNER REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  HOME’s Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance offers rehabilitation or reconstruction cost assistance to homeowners for the repair or reconstruction of their existing home, which must be the principal residence of the homeowner. Funds may also be made available to refinance existing mortgage debt to increase affordability if the refinance takes place in conjunction with substantial rehabilitation. This program can also be used to address housing issues arising from state- or federally-declared disasters. These funds are awarded as specified in the published Notices of Funding Availability.

  MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT  HOME Multifamily Development funds are awarded to eligible applicants for the development of affordable rental housing. Owners are required to make the units available to extremely low-, very low- and low-income families and must meet long-term rent restrictions as defined by HUD. These funds are awarded as specified in the published Notices of Funding Availability and are available to CHDOs.

  SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT   Single Family Development is a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) set-aside activity. CHDOs may acquire, rehabilitate, or reconstruct single family housing which must be sold to households at or below 60% AMFI. CHDOs can also apply for homebuyer assistance if their organization is the owner or developer of the single family housing project. These funds are awarded as specified in the published Notice of Funding Availability.

  TENANT‐BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE  Tenant-Based Rental Assistance provides rental subsidy, security and utility deposit assistance. TBRA allows the assisted tenant to move and to live in any dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance, in accordance with written tenant selection policies, for a period not to exceed 24 months, except for special circumstances for which 36 months may be allowed. The tenant must also participate in a self-sufficiency program. This program can also be used to address housing issues arising from state- or federally-declared disasters. These funds are awarded as specified in the published Notices of Funding Availability.

  SUMMARY OF HOME PROGRAM FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011  HOME Program funding for FY 2011 estimated at: $40,000,000. See the State of Texas Consolidated Plan: One Year Action Plan at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/housing-center/pubs.htm for further details on the HOME Program. The 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 195

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

HOME Program Rule may be access from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/homedivision/. For more information regarding the HOME Program, contact the HOME Division directly at (512) 463-8921. NOTE: The Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) is administered by the HOME Division; this program stop receiving applications by the publication of this document. Therefore, information about TCAP is only included in the Stimulus Programs chapter and not in the HOME Division section of the Action Plan.  

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 196

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

HOUSING TRUST FUND DIVISION  For the 2010-2011 biennium, the Housing Trust Fund offers the Affordable Housing Match Program, the Amy Young Barrier Removal Program, Disaster Recovery Gap Assistance, the Housing Trust Fund Homeownership Program, Rural Housing Expansion Program and the Texas Veterans Housing Support Program. The Housing Trust Fund Program receives several sources of funding from the State of At their May 2010 meeting, the TDHCA Governing Board honored the late disability advocate Amy Young by renaming Texas including general appropriations, a housing program in her memory. The Amy Young Barrier multifamily bond issuance fees, loan Removal Program funds home modifications to improves repayments and other funds that are received housing accessibility for low income persons with disabilities. and appropriated by the Department or Legislature. The Housing Trust Fund is the only State-authorized affordable-housing program. Funding is awarded as loans or grants to nonprofits, units of local government, public housing agencies and for-profit entities. The targeted beneficiaries of the program are low-, very low- and extremely low-income households. Housing Trust Fund monies awarded under this plan are released on a regional basis according to the Regional Allocation Formula (RAF) in accordance with the Texas Government Code. The Housing Trust Fund RAF can be found in the TDHCA Allocation Plan section in the Action Plan.

  AFFORDABLE HOUSING MATCH PROGRAM  The Affordable Housing Match Program provided to Nonprofit Organizations for the purpose of leveraging these funds as match for the production and/or provision of affordable housing and promotes greater access to federal and private funds for low-income housing.

  AMY YOUNG BARRIER REMOVAL PROGRAM  The Amy Young Barrier Removal Program provided funding to eligible entities for accessibility improvements to homes of low-income Persons with Disabilities. These grant funds allow for reasonable accommodation or modification for rental tenants, homeowners or household members with disabilities who need assistance to fully access their home.

DISASTER RECOVERY GAP ASSISTANCE  The Disaster Recovery Gap Assistance provides gap financing for home repair to homeowners affected by disasters who have been awarded disaster recover funds from other programs in the Department. The previous awards may have been Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through the Disaster Recovery Division or Homeownership Rehabilitation funds through the HOME Investment Partnership Program Division. In order to be eligible for gap financing, the previous awards must have been limited by federal restrictions so that full housing recovery was not possible. The program is administered through Disaster Recovery or HOME Sub-recipients.

      2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 197

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM  The Homeownership Program provides funding for down payment and closing cost assistance to first-time homebuyers, or Texas veterans. Funds are provided in the form of no-interest, deferred, forgivable loans and may only serve households at or below 80% of AMFI.

  RURAL HOUSING EXPANSION PROGRAM  The Rural Housing Expansion Program provides funding to develop affordable housing in rural Texas while building capacity. The program includes two components for each recipient: (1) a capacity building component to provide an intensive capacity assessment as well as funds for necessary training and capacity building needs and (2) funds for direct housing delivery provided as no-interest loans or grants. This model, generated from significant public input and discussion, provides rural communities the capacity they need, while also ensuring funds to create affordable housing in their communities. Additionally, as a separate activity, a portion of these funds are set aside to be awarded as grants to rural municipalities, counties and Nonprofit Organizations packaging and submitting Section 502 Rural Housing Direct Loan Applications through USDA. This set aside is intended to provide the means to secure Section 502 funding for Texas that, without these funds, may otherwise not be accessed. Finally, capacity building funds are made available to fund the training and technical assistance needs of applicants of this activity.

TEXAS VETERANS HOUSING SUPPORT PROGRAM  The Texas Veterans Housing Support Program provides rental and utility subsidies to low-income veterans through the Veterans Rental Assistance (VRA) Program. Rental assistance may be provided for a maximum of two years, allowing veterans to live in any rental unit in the service area. Funds may only serve households at or below 80% of AMFI and are provided in the form of grants.

  SUMMARY OF HOUSING TRUST FUND PROGRAM FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEARS 2010‐2011  The Housing Trust Fund program funding of $19,977,750 for FYs 2010-2011 was programmed with a Biennial Plan and NOFAs were released in accordance with the Plan. The Housing Trust Fund Rule and Funding Plan may be accessed from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/htf. For more information about the Housing Trust Fund Program, contact the Housing Trust Fund Division at [email protected]

 

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 198

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

  MANUFACTURED HOUSING DIVISION  The Manufactured Housing Division regulates the manufactured housing industry in Texas by ensuring that manufactured homes are well constructed, safe and correctly installed; by providing consumers with fair and effective remedies; and by providing economic stability to manufacturers, retailers, installers and brokers. The Manufactured Housing Division licenses manufactured housing professionals and maintains records of the ownership, location, real The Manufactured Housing Division licenses or personal property states and lien state (on manufactured housing developers, maintains personal property homes) on manufactured homes. ownership records, and inspects manufactured It also records tax liens on manufactured homes. properties throughout the state, such as this one. Because of its regulatory nature, the Manufactured Housing Division has its own governing board and executive director. Relying on a team of trained inspectors operating from eight locations around the state, the Division inspects manufactured homes throughout Texas. Additionally, the Manufactured Housing Division works collectively with TDHCA by inspecting properties for the Portfolio Management and Compliant Division and by inspecting and licensing Migrant Labor Facilities. The Manufacture Housing Division also handles approximately 800 consumer complaints a year, many of those requiring investigation and enforcement action. For more information, contact the Manufactured Housing Division at 1-800-500-7074.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 199

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

MULTIFAMILY FINANCE DIVISION  The Multifamily Finance Division offers the Housing Tax Credit Program, the Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program (Recovery Act) and the Multifamily Bond Program.

  HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM  The Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program receives authority from the U.S. Treasury Department to provide tax credits to nonprofits organizations or for-profit developers. The program supports the development of rental housing that includes Country Lane Senior Community, funded through the Housing reduced rents for low-income Texans. The Tax Credit Program, is an affordable rental property for seniors in Waxahachie, TX. targeted beneficiaries of the program are very low-income and extremely low-income families at or below 60 percent of Area Median Family Income. The HTC Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and is governed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code), as amended, 26 USC Section 42. The Code authorizes tax credits in the amount of $2.10 per capita of the state population, excluding additional temporary HTC authority received under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and funds allocated under Public Law 110-343 for disaster recovery. Tax credits are also awarded to developments with taxexempt bond financing and are made independent of the state annual tax credit allocation. TDHCA is the only entity in the state with the authority to allocate HTCs under this program. The State’s distribution of the credits is administered by TDHCA’s 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program Qualified Allocation Plan and Rules (QAP), as required by the Code. Pursuant to Section 2306.6724(c), the Governor shall approve, reject, or modify and approve the Board-approved QAP not later than December 1 of each year. HTC funds awarded under this plan are distributed on a regional basis according to the Regional Allocation Formula (RAF). The HTC RAF can be found in the TDHCA Allocation Plan section in this Action Plan. To qualify for tax credits, the proposed development must involve new construction or undergo substantial rehabilitation of residential units, which is generally defined as at least $15,000 per rental unit of construction hard costs. The credit amount for which a development may be eligible depends on the total amount of depreciable capital improvements, the percentage of units set aside for qualified tenants and the funding sources available to finance the total development cost. Typically, 60 to 100 percent of a development’s units will be set aside for qualified tenants in order to maximize the amount of tax credits the development may claim. Credits from the state annual tax credit allocation are awarded regionally through a competitive application process. Each application must satisfy a set of threshold criteria and is scored based on selection criteria. The selection criteria referenced in the QAP is approved by the TDHCA Board each year. The Board considers the recommendations of TDHCA staff and determines a final award list. Tax credits to developments with tax-exempt bond financing are awarded through a similar application review process, but because these credits are not awarded from a limited credit pool, the process is noncompetitive and the selection criteria are not part of the application. 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 200

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

Projected Housing Tax Credit Program Funding for FY 2011 is $52,000,000 which represents the estimated HTC ceiling amount. The 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program QAP may be accessed from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/htc/index.htm. For more information, contact the Multifamily Finance Division at (512) 475-3340.

  HOUSING TAX CREDIT EXCHANGE (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  The Texas Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program, a program created by ARRA, allows developments who have been allocated Housing Tax Credits in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 to return their credits and potentially receive a cash grant in exchange for the credits. The proposed Job Creation and Tax Cuts Act of 2010, contains one-year extensions of several expiring tax provisions, including the Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program. Consideration of this Act will occur in November 2010. See the Stimulus Programs chapter in this document for more details on the Housing Tax Credit Exchange.

  MULTIFAMILY BOND PROGRAM  The Multifamily Bond Program issues tax-exempt and taxable housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MRBs) under the Private Activity Bond Program (PAB) to fund loans to nonprofit and for-profit developers who assist very low- to moderate-income Texans. Owners elect to set aside units in each development according to §1372, Texas Government Code. Rental developments must comply with Section 504 unit standards. TDHCA issues tax-exempt, multifamily MRBs through two different authorities defined by the Internal Revenue Code. Under one authority, tax-exempt bonds used to create housing developments are subject to the State’s private activity volume cap. Under MRBs issued for private activities, funding priorities are as follows: •

• •

Priority 1: o (a) Set aside 50% of units rent capped at 30% of 50% of AMFI and the remaining 50% of units rents capped at 30% of 60% of AMFI; or o (b) Set aside 15% of units rent capped at 30% of 30% of AMFI and the remaining 85% of units rent capped at 30% of 60% of AMFI; or o (c) Set aside 100% of units rent capped at 30% of 60% of AMFI for developments located in a census tract with median income that is higher than the median income of the county, MSA or PMSA in which the census tract is located. Priority 2: o Set aside 100% of units rent capped at 30% of 60% of AMFI o Up to 20% of the units can be market rate Priority 3: o (a) Any qualified residential rental development

The state will set aside 22 percent of the annual private activity volume cap for multifamily developments. Approximately $491 million in issuance authority will be made available to various issuers to finance multifamily developments, of which 20 percent, or approximately $98 million, will be made available exclusively to TDHCA. On August 15 of each year, any allocations in the subcategories of the bond program than have not been reserved pool into one allocation fund. This is 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 201

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

an opportunity for TDHCA to apply for additional allocation and which allows TDHCA to issue more bonds than the set-aside of $98 million. PAB Issuance authority per individual development is allocated and administered by the Texas Bond Review Board (BRB). Initially, applications submitted to the BRB are allocated by a lottery. TDHCA, local issuers, local housing authorities and other eligible bond issuers submit applications for specific developments on behalf of development owners. Applications submitted to TDHCA for the private activity bond program will be scored and ranked by priority and highest score. TDHCA will be accepting applications throughout the 2011 program year. Developments that receive 50 percent or more of their funding from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds under the private activity volume cap are also eligible to apply for HTCs. Under the second authority, TDHCA may issue tax-exempt MRBs to finance propertied that are owned entirely by nonprofit organizations. Bonds issued under this authority are exempt from the private activity volume cap. This is a noncompetitive application process and applications may be received at any time throughout the year. In addition to the set-asides above, 75 percent of the development units financed under the 501(c)(3) authority must be occupied by households earning 80 percent or less of the AMFI. Anticipated available Multifamily Bond Program Funding for FY 2011, including additional disaster recovery and economic stimulus authority: $98,000,000. The Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Rules may be accessed from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/bond/index.htm. For more information, contact the Multifamily Finance Production Division at (512) 475-3340.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 202

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM DIVISION  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program Division administers the Texas Neighborhood Stabilization Program. TDHCA received NSP 1 funding and is eligible to receive funds under NSP 3. Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Round 1 and Round 3 The purpose of the program is to redevelop abandoned, foreclosed and vacant properties into affordable housing and remove blight in areas that are documented to have the greatest potential for declining property values as a The Neighborhood Stabilization Program redevelops into result of foreclosures. Units of local affordable housing or acquires and holds abandoned and foreclosed properties in areas that have the greatest potential for governments and nonprofit entities with the declining property values as a result of excessive foreclosures. consent of the local governments were eligible to apply for these funds. Homes will be sold or rented to eligible low-to-moderate income households. For more information on NSP Round 1 and Round 3, see the Stimulus Programs chapter.

 

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 203

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

OFFICE OF COLONIA INITIATIVES  The Office of Colonia Initiatives Division offers two programs: the Colonia Self-Help Center Program and the Texas Bootstrap Loan Program.

COLONIA SELF‐HELP CENTER PROGRAM  In 1995, the 74th Legislature passed Senate Bill 1509, a legislative directive to establish Colonia Self-Help Centers (SHCs) in Cameron/Willacy, Hidalgo, Starr, Webb and El Paso counties. Funded through the Community Development Block Grant Program, this program also allows the Margarita Juregui borrows some tools at the tool library of the El Department to establish a Colonia SHC in Paso-Agua Dulce Self Help Center, funded by the Community any other county if the county is Development Block Grant Program. designated as an economically distressed are. Operation of the Colonia SHCs is managed by local nonprofit organizations, CAAs or local housing authorities that have demonstrated the capacity to operate a Colonia SHC. These Colonia SHCs provide concentrated on-site technical assistance to low- and very low-income individuals and families in a variety of ways including housing, community development activities, infrastructure improvements, outreach and education. Colonia Self-Help Center Program funding for FY 2011: $1,800,000. Colonia Self-Help Center Program funding for FY 2012: $1,800,000. More detail can be found in Section 6: Colonia Action Plan. Additional information may be access at the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/oci/centers. For more information, contact Will Gudeman at (512) 475-4828 or [email protected]

  TEXAS BOOTSTRAP LOAN PROGRAM (OWNER‐BUILDER)  The Texas Bootstrap Loan Program provides loans through certified nonprofit organizations for selfhelp housing initiatives. Identified as the Owner-Builder Loan Program in Texas Government Code 2306.751, the Texas Bootstrap Loan Program promotes and enhances homeownership for very lowincome Texans by providing funds to purchase or refinance real property on which to build new residential housing, construct new residential housing or improve existing residential housing throughout Texas. This program is funded through the Housing Trust Fund. Texas Bootstrap Loan Program funding for FY 2011: $5,500,000. Texas Bootstrap Loan Program funding for FY 2012: $3,000,000. More detail can be found in Section 6: Colonia Action Plan. Additional information may be accessed at the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/oci/bootstrap.jsp. For more information, contact Raul Gonzales at (512) 475-1473 or [email protected]

  2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 204

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

TEXAS HOMEOWNERSHIP DIVISION  The Homeownership Division offers the First Time Homebuyer Program, Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program and the Texas Statewide Homebuyer Education Program.

  FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM  The program is offered through a network of participating lenders. The program provides homeownership opportunities by offering competitive interest rate mortgage loans and/or down payment assistance for qualified individuals and families whose gross annual household income does not exceed 115 percent of AMFI limitations, based on IRS adjusted income limits, or 140 percent of AMFI limitations if in a targeted area. The purchase price of the home must not exceed stipulated maximum First Time Homebuyer Andrea Palladino took purchase price limits. A minimum of 30 percent of advantage of TDHCA’s Mortgage Credit Certificate program funds are made available to assist Texans Program to purchase her first home in Leander. earning 80 percent of less of program income limits. Income limits for the program are set by the IRS Tax Code (1980) based on income figures determined by HUD. The first-time homebuyer restriction is established by federal Internal Revenue Service regulations, which also require that program recipients may be subject to a recapture tax on any capital gains realized from a sale of the home during the first nine years of ownership. Certain exceptions to the first-time homebuyer restriction, income ceiling and maximum purchase price limitation apply in targeted areas. Such targeted areas are qualified census tracts in which 70 percent or more of the families have an income of 80 percent or less of the statewide median income and/or are areas of chronic economic distress as designated by the state and approved by the Secretaries of Treasure and HUD, respectively. Projected Texas First Time Homebuyer Program funding for FY 2011: $500,000,000. The Texas First Time Homebuyer Program Rules may be accessed from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/homeownership/index.htm. For more information, contact Eric Pike, Texas Homeownership Division, at (512) 475-3356 or [email protected] To request a First Time Homebuyer information packet, please call 1-800-792-1119.

  MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM  TDHCA has the ability to issue Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs) through its bond authority. The program is offered through a network of approved lenders. An MCC provides a tax credit up to $2,000 annually that reduces the borrower’s federal income tax liability. The credit cannot be greater than the annual federal income tax liability, after all other credits and deductions have been taken into account. MCC tax credits in excess of a borrower’s current year tax liability may, however, be carried forward for use during the subsequent three years. The MCC Program provides homeownership opportunities for qualified individuals and families whose gross annual household income does not exceed 115 percent of AMFI limitations, based on IRS adjusted income limits, or 140 percent of AMFI limitations if in a targeted area. In order to 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 205

Action Plan TDHCA Programs

participate in the MCC Program, homebuyers must meet certain eligibility requirements and obtain a mortgage loan through a participating lender. The mortgage loan must be financed from sources other than tax-exempt revenue bonds. The mortgage may be a conventional, FHA, VA, or RHS loan at prevailing market rates. Projected Mortgage Credit Certificate funding for FY 2011: $180,000,000. The Texas First Time Homebuyer Program Rules may be accessed from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/homeownership/index.htm. For more information, contact Eric Pike, Texas Homeownership Division, at (512) 475-3356 or [email protected]

  NATIONAL FORECLOSURE MITIGATION COUNSELING PROGRAM (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  NFMC funds are federal funds available through NeighborWorks America for foreclosure intervention counseling, training and administration. The purpose of the program is to expand and supplement foreclosure counseling. TDHCA applied for and received NFMC Round 2, Round 3 and Round 4. TDHCA is in the process of applying for NFMC Round 5. For more information on NFMC, see the Stimulus Programs chapter.

TEXAS STATEWIDE HOMEBUYER EDUCATION PROGRAM  TDHCA funds the Texas Statewide Homebuyer Education Program (TSHEP) and contracts with training professionals to offer provider-certification training to nonprofit organizations including Texas Agriculture Extension Agents, units of local government, faith-based organizations, CHDOs, community development corporations, community-based organizations and other organizations with a proven interest in community building. The classes are conducted by NeighborWorks America. In addition, a referral service for individuals interested in taking a homebuyer education class is available through TDHCA. Projected Texas Statewide Homebuyer Education Program funding for FY 2011: $90,000. For more information, contact Dina Gonzalez, Texas Homeownership Division at (512) 475-3993 or [email protected]   NOTE: The Homebuyer Tax Credit Programs (90-Day Down Payment Assistance and Mortgage Assistance Program) were administered by the Texas Homeownership Division; these programs ended before the publication of this document. Therefore, information about the Homebuyer Tax Credit Programs is only included in the Stimulus Programs chapter and not in the Texas Homeownership Division section of the Action Plan.

  

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 206

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

HOUSING SUPPORT CONTINUUM  The Housing Support Continuum consists of a series of phases that low-income households may experience at different times of their lives and the assistance provided through the network of TDHCA-funded service providers in regard to each phase. The Housing Support Continuum has six phases: (1) Poverty and Homelessness Prevention, (2) Rental Assistance and Multifamily Development, (3) Homebuyer Assistance and Single-Family Development, (4) Rehabilitation and Weatherization, (5) Foreclosure Relief and (6) Disaster Recovery and Relief.

  (1) POVERTY AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION  For Texans who struggle with poverty or are currently homeless, TDHCA offers several programs that provide essential services to assist with basic necessities.

  A. POVERTY PREVENTION    COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM   Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) activities can be instrumental in preventing homelessness in the lowest-income populations. Activities for CSBG program including access to child care; health and human services; nutrition; transportation; job training and employment services; education services; activities designed to make better use of available income; housing services; emergency assistance; activities to achieve greater participation in the affairs of the community; youth development programs; information and referral services; activities to promote self-sufficiency; and other related services. COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  For those low-income Texans who have housing, subsidizing or reducing the energy costs may help keep that housing affordable and prevent homelessness. An applicant seeking energy assistance applies to the local Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) Subrecipient for assistance. The Subrecipient determines income eligibility, prioritized status (this includes a review of billing history to determine energy burden and consumption) and determines which CEAP component is most appropriate for the eligible applicant. If the CEAP applicant is eligible and meets program priorities, the CEAP Subrecipient makes an energy payment to an energy company through a vendor agreement with energy providers. Additionally, some households qualify for repair, replacement or retrofit of inefficient heating and cooling appliances. There are four CEAP components: •

The Elderly and/or Disabled Component is designed to assist households with at least one member who is elderly and/or disable. Households can receive up to four energy payments in a program year. Assistance is based on energy consumption in the previous 12 months, energy burden (percentage of income used for energy) and the income category for which the household qualifies.



The Co-Payment Component is designed to assist households by providing client education, budget counseling and assisting households with energy payments for six to twelve months.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 207

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum



The Heating and Cooling Component is designed to address inefficient heating and cooling appliances through repair, replacement, or retrofit for households that have high energy consumption.



The Energy Crisis Component is designed to provide one-time energy assistance to households during a period of extreme temperatures or an energy supply shortage. In some instances, Energy Crisis funds can be used to address natural disasters.

B. HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION    EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAM  Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESGP) is the primary program used specifically to provide shelter to homeless Texans or those faced with homelessness. Activities eligible for ESGP funding include the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings for use as emergency shelters for the homes; the provision of essential services to the homeless; costs related to the development and implementation of homeless prevention activities; medical and psychological counseling; assistance with obtaining permanent housing; and costs related to maintenance, operation administration, rent, repairs, security, fuel, equipment, insurance, utilities, food and furnishings.   HOMELESS HOUSING AND SERVICES PROGRAM  Homeless Housing and Services Program (HHSP) will be used for the purposes of assisting regional urban area in providing services to homeless individuals and families, including the construction of facilities, direct services, case management, homeless prevention, housing retention and rental assistance.   HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE‐HOUSING (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (HPRP) can provide the following types of assistance: (1) financial assistance including short-term (up to 3 months) and medium-term (up to 18 months) rental assistance, security deposits, utility deposits and payments, moving cost assistance and motel and hotel vouchers; (2) housing relocation and stabilization services including case management (e.g. arrangement, coordination, monitoring and delivery of services related to meeting housing needs), outreach and engagement, housing search and placement, legal services (e.g. legal advice and representation in administrative or court proceedings related to tenant/landlord matters or housing issues, excluding mortgage legal services) and credit repair.

(2) RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT  For low-income Texans who have difficulty affording rent, TDHCA offers two main types of support; rental subsidies for low-income Texans and rental development subsidies for developers who, in turn, produce housing with reduced rents for low-income Texans.

A. RENTAL ASSISTANCE    SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM  The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental subsidies for decent, safe and sanitary housing to eligible households. TDHCA pays approved rent amounts directly to property 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 208

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

owners. Qualified households may select the best available housing through direct negotiations with landlords to ensure accommodations that meet their needs.   TENANT‐BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  The HOME program’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) provides rental subsidy, security and utility deposit assistance. TBRA allows the assisted tenant to move and to live in any dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance, in accordance with written tenant selection policies, for a period not to exceed 24 months, except for certain circumstances which allow for 36 months of assistance. The tenant must also participate in a self-sufficiency program.   TEXAS VETERANS HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM   The Housing Trust Funds’ Texas Veterans Housing Assistance Program provides rental subsidies for a maximum of two years, allowing assisted households to live in any rental unit in the service area.

  B. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT    AFFORDABLE HOUSING MATCH PROGRAM    The Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to Nonprofit Organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans for rental development.   HOUSING TAX CREDIT EXCHANGE (STIMULUS PROGRAM)    Through ARRA, the Texas Tax Credit Exchange (HTC Exchange) Program allows developments who have been allocated tax credits in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 to return their credits and potentially receive a cash grant in exchange for the credits. This program will allow developers to build additional housing for low-income Texans.   HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM    The purpose of the Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program is to encourage the development and preservation of affordable rental housing for low-income families, provide for the participation of forprofit and nonprofit organizations in the program, maximize the number of units added to the state’s housing supply and prevent losses in the state’s supply of affordable housing.   MULTIFAMILY BOND PROGRAM  The proceeds of the bonds issued by TDHCA are used to finance the construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of multifamily properties with the targeted beneficiaries being very low-, low- and moderate-income households. Property owners are also required to offer a variety of services to benefit the residents of the development. Specific tenant programs must be designed to meet the needs of the current tenant profile and must be approved annually by TDHCA.       2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 209

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT  HOME Multifamily Development funds are awarded to eligible applicants for the development of affordable rental housing. Owners are required to make the units available to extremely low-, very low- and low-income families and must meet long-term rent restrictions as defined by HUD.   RURAL HOUSING EXPANSION PROGRAM  The Housing Trust Funds’ Rural Housing Expansion Program will be awarded to eligible applicants for the production or provision of affordable rental housing and capacity building to the eligible applicant, increasing the capability of rural organizations.

 

(3) HOMEBUYER EDUCATION, ASSISTANCE AND SINGLE‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENT  After a low-income household has become self-sufficient, the household may be ready for homeownership. Homeownership may help a low-income household to build equity, raise the household out of the low-income financial category and promote self-sufficiency. An assetdevelopment approach to addressing poverty emphasizes the use of public assistance to facilitate long-term investments rather than incremental increases in income. TDHCA works to ensure that potential homeowners understand the responsibilities of homeownership by offering homeownership education coursed as well as providing financial tools to make homeownership more attainable.

  A. HOMEBUYER EDUCATION    COLONIA SELF‐HELP CENTER PROGRAM  The Colonia Self-help Center (SHC) Program provides outreach, education and technical assistance to colonia residents. Colonia SHCs provide technical assistance in credit and debt counseling, housing finance, contract for deed conversions, capital access for mortgages, as well as in grant writing, housing rehabilitation, new construction, surveying and platting, construction skills training, solid waste removal, tool library access for self-help construction and infrastructure construction and access.

  TEXAS STATEWIDE HOMEBUYER EDUCATION PROGRAM  To ensure uniform quality of the homebuyer education provided throughout the state, TDHCA contracts with training professionals to teach local nonprofit organizations the principles and applications of comprehensive pre- and post-purchase homebuyer education. The training professionals and TDHCA also certify the participants as homebuyer education providers.

  B. HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE    AFFORDABLE HOUSING MATCH PROGRAM  The Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to nonprofit organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 210

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans for homebuyer assistance programs.

  FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM – NON‐TARGETED FUNDS  The Texas Homeownership Division’s First Time Homebuyer Program non-targeted funds may offer eligible homebuyers below-market interest rate loans and/or down payment assistance through a network of participating lenders. The program is available on a first-come, first-served basis to individuals or families up to 115% of the AMFI who meet income and home purchase requirements and have not owned a home as their primary residence in the past three (3) years.

  FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM – TARGETED FUNDS  The Texas Homeownership Division’s First Time Homebuyer Program targeted funds may offer eligible homebuyers below-market interest rate loans and/or down payment assistance through a network of participating lenders in areas of chronic economic distress. The program is available on a first-come, first-served basis to individuals or families up to 140% of the AMFI who meet income and home purchase requirements. The first time homebuyer requirement is waived for borrower’s purchasing properties located in targeted areas.

  HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  HOME’s Homebuyer Assistance includes down payment and closing cost assistance and is provided to homebuyers for the acquisition for affordable single-family housing, including manufactured housing. Homebuyer Assistance with Rehabilitation offers down payment and closing cost assistance and also includes construction costs associated with architectural barrier removal for homebuyers with disabilities.

  CONTRACT FOR DEED CONVERSION PROGRAM  Contract for Deed Conversion Program provides fund to convert an eligible contract for deed into a traditional mortgage. This is achieved by offering assistance to eligible homebuyers for the acquisition or the acquisition and rehabilitation, new construction or reconstruction of properties. All conversions must be used for families that reside in a colonia and earn sixty percent (60%) or less of the Area Median Family Income.

  HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM  The Housing Trust Funds’ Homeownership Program provides zero percent interest or down payment and closing cost assistance for first-time homebuyers and Texas Veterans.

  MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM  The Texas Homeownership Division’s Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) provides a tax credit that effectively reduces the borrower’s federal income tax liability. The amount of the annual tax credit may equal 30 percent of the annual interest paid on a mortgage loan; however, the maximum amount of the credit cannot exceed $2,000 per year. This tax savings may also provide a family with more available income to qualify for a loan and meet mortgage payment requirements. 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 211

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 1 (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  Financing mechanisms will allow homebuyers who earn 50% or less of Area Median Family Income (AMFI) to qualify for 100% financing through the Department at 0% interest for 30 years and will also allow homebuyers who earn 120% or less of AMFI to qualify for up to $30,000 in homebuyer assistance in the form of a deferred, forgivable loan.

C. SINGLE‐FAMILY DEVELOPMENT    AFFORDABLE HOUSING MATCH PROGRAM  The Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to nonprofit organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans for single-family development.

  RURAL HOUSING EXPANSION PROGRAM  The Housing Trust Funds’ Rural Housing Expansion Program provided Direct Housing Delivery awards to eligible applicants for the development of affordable rental housing. This program will also provide capacity building to the awarded organization, increasing the capability of rural organizations.

TEXAS BOOTSTRAP LOAN PROGRAM   

The Office of Colonia Initiative’s Texas Bootstrap Loan Program provides funds to purchase or refinance real property on which to build new residential housing, construct new residential housing or improve existing residential housing. For more detailed information, see Section 6: Colonia Action Plan.

(4) REHABILITATION AND WEATHERIZATION  In the course of homeownership, there may come a time when substantial rehabilitation or reconstruction needs to take place. In addition, by providing minor repairs and weatherization to owned or rental housing, the energy costs associated with housing will be reduced. TDHCA offers both these services.

A. REHABILITATION  AMY YOUNG BARRIER REMOVAL PROGRAM  The Housing Trust Fund’s Amy Young Barrier Removal Program is designed to provide a one-time grant up to $15,000 for home modifications specifically needed for accessibility and up to an additional $5,000 in other rehabilitation costs correlated with the barrier removal project. Home modifications may include installing handrails; ramps, bussing or flashing devices; accessible door and faucet handles; shower grab bars and shower wands; and accessible showers, toilets and sinks. Home modifications may also include door widening and counter adjustments.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 212

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

HOMEOWNER REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  HOME’s Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance program provides rehabilitation or reconstruction cost assistance to homeowners for the repair or reconstruction of their existing home, which must be their principal residence. At the completion of the assistance, all properties must meet, as applicable, the Texas Minimum Construction Standards, the International Residential Code (IRC) and local building codes. If a home is reconstructed, the applicant must also ensure compliance with the universal design features in new construction, established by §2306.512, Texas Government Code.

B. WEATHERIZATION  WEATHERIZATION  ASSISTANCE  PROGRAM  AND  WEATHERIZATION  ASSISTANCE  PROGRAM  ARRA (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  The purpose of Community Affairs’ Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is to provide costeffective weatherization measures to improve the energy efficiency of eligible client households. In order to provide weatherization measures for a dwelling, the household must meet income-eligibility criteria and the measures must meet specific energy-savings goals. Typical weatherization measures include attic and wall insulation, weather-stripping and air sealing measures, heating and cooling unit repair and/or replacement, energy efficient appliances such as refrigerator replacement, caulking and replacement of inefficient heating and cooling units and minor roof repair. WAP also provides energy conservation education. Community Affairs’ Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) offered through the Recovery Act provides similar assistance as WAP not offered through the Recovery Act. The main differences are in eligibility requirements for households and an increase in the amount of fund allowed for weatherization on each housing unit.

(5) FORECLOSURE RELIEF  In a proactive response to the national foreclosure crisis, TDHCA has undertaken several programs to mitigate foreclosures.

A. FORECLOSURE PREVENTION  NATIONAL FORECLOSURE MITIGATION COUNSELING (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  The purpose of the Texas Homeownership Division’s National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) Program is to reimburse HUD-Approved foreclosure counseling agencies for foreclosure mitigation counseling. Foreclosure mitigation counseling includes, but is not limited to, financial analysis of the client’s situation, research to determine the current value of the home and a review of options available to the client, such as financial restructuring. While the most desirable outcome is to the help homeowners obtain a mortgage they can afford, the purpose of the programs is to prevent foreclosure and, in some instances, they only way to successfully cure a default may be to sell the home.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 213

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

B. POST‐FORECLOSURE MITIGATION    NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 1 (STIMULUS PROGRAM)  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) 1 will provide funds to local units of government and nonprofit entities to provide clearance, financing mechanisms, acquisition of real property, rehabilitation, creation of land banks and redevelopment of foreclosed properties. Clearance will allow a grantee to remove dangerous structures that pose a threat to human health, safety and public welfare and allow for the future private redevelopment of the property. Financing mechanisms will allow homebuyers who earn 50% or less of Area Median Family Income (AMFI) to qualify for 100% financing through the Department at 0% interest for 30 years and will also allow homebuyers who earn 120% or less of AMFI to qualify for up to $30,000 in homebuyer assistance. The acquisition of real property will allow Subrecipients to acquire foreclosed and/or abandoned homes if the acquisition reflects a minimum discount from the appraised fair market value at the time of contract. The home will be considered to be abandoned if tax or mortgage payments are90 days delinquent; a code enforcement action has determine the property is uninhabitable and no corrective action is taken within 90 days; or the property is subject to court-ordered nuisance abatement. Properties will be considered foreclosed if mortgage payments are 60 days delinquent and the owner has been notified of this delinquency; the property owner is 90 days or more delinquent on tax payments; foreclosure proceedings have been initiated or completed; or, foreclosure proceedings have been completed and title has been transferred. Acquisition of real property allows a grantee to purchase the abandoned or foreclosed properties to rehabilitate and sell to households earning 120% AMFI or below. Rehabilitation will allow rehabilitation and/or improvement of existing structures to a condition that brings the structure into in compliance with Texas Minimum Construction Standards. Redevelopment will address areas of greatest need throughout the state through construction of new affordable housing wherever demolished or vacant properties are contributing to declining land values. Land banking activities will allow foreclosed properties to be temporarily removed from the real estate market in order to allow stabilize values in areas that are experiencing downward pressure on neighborhoods experiencing declining property values.

(6) DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF  When natural and man-made disasters strike, low-income households are often the most dramatically affected. In an effort to reduce the recovery time, almost every department in TDHCA offers some sort of disaster assistance. TDHCA is committed to quickly, efficiently and responsibly locating funds and developing programs and initiatives to assist the affected households and communities.

CDBG DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAMS – HURRICANE RITA ROUND ONE  See Disaster Recovery chapter.

  CDBG DISASTER RECOVERY PROGRAMS – HURRICANE RITA ROUND TWO  See Disaster Recovery chapter.

  CDBG DISASTER RECOVER PROGRAMS – HURRICANES DOLLY AND IKE ROUND ONE  See Disaster Recovery chapter.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 214

Annual Housing Report Housing Support Continuum

DISASTER RECOVERY GAP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  Although federal assistance is often available after a natural disaster, some homeowners will still need gap financing. Housing Trust Fund monies have been committed through Disaster Recovery Gap Assistance Program to assist qualified households, who are lacking only a small portion of funds, fulfill their full cost of construction.

HOME PROGRAM – DISASTER RELIEF   

In accordance with the Texas Administrative Code, Title 10, part 1 Chapter 1, subchapter A §1.19 and TAC Section 2306.111, the HOME Program utilizes deobligated funds for disaster relief through Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance, Homebuyer Assistance and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance programs in communities that are not designated as a Participating Jurisdiction. HOME disaster funds are designed specifically to assist eligible homeowners who are affected by the natural disaster, with emphasis on assisting those who have no other means or assistance, or as gap financing after any federal assistance. Assisted homeowners must have an income that is below 80% AMFI, as defined by HUD.

TEXAS FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PROGRAM AND MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM –  TARGETED FUNDS    Texas First Time Homebuyer Program and Mortgage Credit Certificate Program offer Targeted Funds for areas of severe economic distress. In May 2010, TDHCA released approximately $100million through the Texas First Time Homebuyer Program for home loans made available to qualified homebuyers wishing to purchase a home in a targeted area, including the 22 East Texas counties designated under the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005. In February 2010, TDHCA released approximately $6 million through the 2010 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program for use within targeted areas including the 22-county area known as the Rita Go Zone. The program income and purchase price limits may be higher for eligible homebuyers purchasing in a targeted area or a disaster declared area. The first time homebuyer requirement is waived for borrower’s purchasing properties located in targeted areas.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 215

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

TDHCA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES  The Strategic Plan goals reflect program performance based upon measures developed with the State’s Legislative Budget Board and Governor’s Office of Budget and Planning. The goals are also based upon Riders attached to the Department’s Appropriations. The Department believes that the goals and objectives for the various TDHCA programs should be consistent with its mandated performance requirements. The State’s Strategic Planning and Performance Budgeting System (SPPB) is a goal-driven, resultsoriented system. The system has three major components including strategic planning, performance budgeting and performance monitoring. As an essential part of the system, performance measures are part of TDHCA’s strategic plan, are used by decision makers in allocating resources, are intended to focus the Department’s efforts on achieving goals and objectives and are used as monitoring tools providing information on accountability. Performance measures are reported quarterly to the Legislative Budget Board. The State’s Strategic Planning and Performance Budgeting System is based on a two-year cycle: goals and targets are revisited each biennium. The targets reflected in this document are based on the Department’s requests for 2009-2010. Because all applicants for funding are encouraged to apply for and leverage funds from multiple agency programs, HUD funds are frequently leveraged along with funds from other federal and State sources. TDHCA HOME Program funds may be used in conjunction with other TDHCA programs, however, each program area reports its performance separately.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES  The following goals address performance measures established by the 81st Legislature. Refer to program-specific statements outlined in the Action Plan portion of this document for strategies that will be used to accomplish the goals and objectives listed below. Included for each strategy are the target numbers of the 2010 goal, the 2010 actual performance and the goal for 2011. Targets for 2011 were updated through the FY2012-2013 Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR) unless otherwise noted. Goals one through five are established through interactions between TDHCA, the Legislative Budget Board and the Legislature. They are referenced in the General Appropriations Act enacted during the most recent legislative session. GOAL 1: TDHCA will increase and preserve the availability of safe, decent and affordable housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income persons and families. Strategy 1.1 Provide mortgage financing and homebuyer assistance Revenue Bond Program 2010 Strategy Measure Target Number of single-family households assisted through the First Time 2,000 Homebuyer Program

through the Single-Family Mortgage 2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

1,739

86.95%

1,583

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 216

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

Explanation of Variance: None needed. Strategy 1.2 Provide funding through the HOME Program for affordable single family housing Strategy Measure

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

Number of single-family households 952 654 68.70% 580 assisted with HOME Funds Explanation of Variance: Due to under subscription in funding requests for the single family activities Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), the Department has not met its annual target for this strategy. Funds have been reprogrammed to housing activities experiencing greater demand. Additionally, programmatic changes were made in order to stimulate interest in and more flexible access to funding for single family activities. Strategy 1.3 Strategy Measure Number of single-family households assisted through the Housing Trust Fund Explanation of Variance: None needed.

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

344

386

112.21%

458

Strategy 1.4 Provide tenant-based rental assistance through Section 8 certificates Strategy Measure Number of households assisted through Statewide Housing Assistance Payments Program Explanation of Variance: None needed.

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

1,100

868

78.91%

1,050

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

Strategy 1.5 Provide federal tax credits to develop rental housing Strategy Measure

2010 Target

Number of multifamily households 10,928 7,875 72.06% 5,436 assisted with Housing Tax Credits Explanation of Variance: The Housing Tax Credit program activity for this measure is a combination of 4% (multifamily bond related) and 9% (competitive application cycle) rental development funding awards. The overall economy and financial market has limited private investment in the tax credit industry. The decrease in equity pricing has increased the amount of credit needed per unit, therefore reducing the number of units produced through the tax credit program. Strategy 1.6 Provide funding through the HOME Program for affordable multifamily housing Strategy Measure Number of multifamily households assisted with HOME funds

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target*

262

509

194.27%

262

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 217

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

* - This strategy has been removed from the performance measures requested by the Legislative Budget Board for 2012 and 2013 and not included in the FY2012-2013 LAR. Therefore, the 2011 target for Strategy 1.6 was taken from the FY2010-2011 LAR. Explanation of Variance: Increased households served reflects heightened demand for the program. The Department was able to reprogram additional HOME funds, consisting primarily of funds deobligated from non-performing contracts, to meet this demand and exceed its 2010 target. Strategy 1.7 Provide funding through Housing Trust Fund for affordable multifamily housing Strategy Measure

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011* Target

Number of multifamily households assisted through the Housing Trust 38 16 42.10% 23 Fund * This strategy has been removed from the performance measures requested by the Legislative Budget Board for 2012 and 2013 and not included in the FY2012-2013 LAR. Therefore, the 2011 target for Strategy 1.6 was taken from the FY2010-2011 LAR. Explanation of Variance: The Housing Trust Fund’s only multifamily program, the Rental Housing Development Fund for Unique Needs, was defunded due to the 5% General Revenue reduction that was requested for 2010-2011. The Rural Housing Expansion Program, which could serve both single and multifamily projects, provided three awards. Of the three awards, one was awarded for the purpose of constructing 16 multifamily units. Strategy 1.8 Provide funding through the Mortgage Revenue Bond Program for affordable multifamily housing 2011 Strategy Measure 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Number of households assisted through the Mortgage Revenue Bond 1,627 0 0.00% 500 Program Explanation of Variance: This measure is tied to the bond market which is experiencing a dramatic slowdown. Economic conditions in the equity markets have made it very difficult for developers to present financially feasible applications for private activity bonds for 2011. GOAL 2: TDHCA will promote improved housing conditions for extremely low-, very low- and lowincome households by providing information and technical assistance. Strategy 2.1 Provide information and technical assistance to the public through the Public Affairs Division and the Housing Resource Center 2011 Strategy Measure 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Number of information and technical 5,000 5,607 112.14% 5,000 assistance requests completed Explanation of Variance: None needed.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 218

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

Strategy 2.2 To provide technical assistance to colonias through field offices Strategy Measure (A) Number of on-site technical assistance visits conducted annually from the field offices Explanation of Variance: None needed. Strategy Measure (B) Number of colonia residents receiving assistance Explanation of Variance: None needed. Strategy Measure (C) Number of entities and/or individuals receiving informational resources Explanation of Variance: None needed.

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

900

1,071

119.00%

900

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

12,000

14,039

116.99%

15,000

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

1,000

1,204

120.40%

1,000

GOAL 3: TDHCA will improve living conditions for the poor and homeless and reduce the cost of home energy for very low-income Texans. Strategy 3.1 Administer homeless and poverty-related funds through a network of community action agencies and other local organizations so that poverty-related services are available to very low-income persons throughout the state. 2011 Strategy Measure (A) 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Number of persons assisted through 531,498 908,992 171.02% 584,921 homeless and poverty related funds Explanation of Variance: This measure is impacted by the number of person assisted through the CSBG and ESGP. However, two new programs were funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the CSBG ARRA program and the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP). Additionally, CSBG-funded organizations also received other ARRA funding which enabled them to serve many more persons and those numbers are reflected in the number of persons served through CSBG. Strategy Measure (B)

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

Number of persons assisted that 2,800 2,058 73.50% 1,200 achieve incomes above poverty level. Explanation of Variance: During 2010 it was more difficult to transition persons out of poverty due to the economic downturn and high levels of unemployment. Those additional persons served through all ARRA programs administered by CSBG subrecipients are reflected in the number of persons served through CSBG.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 219

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

Strategy Measure (C) Number of shelters assisted through the Emergency Solutions Grant Program Explanation of Variance: None needed.

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

76

75

98.68%

77

Strategy 3.2 Administer the state energy assistance programs by providing grants to local organizations for energy related improvements to dwellings occupied by very low-income persons and for assistance to very low-income households for heating and cooling expenses and energy related emergencies. 2011 Strategy Measure (A) 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Number of Households Receiving 66,050 200,956 304.25% 48,152 Energy Assistance Explanation of Variance: Federal LIHEAP funding increased, allowing assistance to more households than expected. As the program year progressed, more households received cooling assistance in the warmer months. Strategy Measure (B)

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

Number of dwelling units weatherized through Weatherization Assistance 3,809 21,856 573.80% 19,127 Program Explanation of Variance: Figures reflect the impact of $327 million in DOE Weatherization Assistance funds made available through the Recovery Act (ARRA). Also allowed under ARRA, the eligible income for both CEAP and WAP were temporarily increased from 125% to 200% of poverty for 2010-2012. These changes allowed assistance to more households than expected. GOAL 4: TDHCA will ensure compliance with the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs’ federal and state program mandates. Strategy 4.1 The Compliance and Asset Oversight Division will monitor and inspect for Federal and State housing program requirements. 2011 Strategy Measure (A) 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Total number of onsite reviews 864 908 105.09% 858 conducted. Explanation of Variance: None needed. Strategy 4.2 The Compliance and Asset Oversight Division will administer and monitor federal and state subrecipient contracts for programmatic and fiscal requirements. 2011 Strategy Measure (A) 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Total number of contract monitoring 258 176 68.22% 208 reviews conducted.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 220

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

Explanation of Variance: Existing contracts and new program contracts progressed slower than anticipated. Monitoring reviews will be conducted on existing contracts as they become active and expend funds. Strategy Measure (B) Number of single audit reviews conducted. Explanation of Variance: None needed.

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

224

218

97.32%

194

GOAL 5: To protect the public by regulating the manufactured housing industry in accordance with state and federal laws. Strategy 5.1 Provide titling and licensing services in a timely and efficient manner. Strategy Measure (A)

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

Number of manufactured housing statements of ownership and location 80,000 57,240 71.55% 65,000 issued Explanation of Variance: This measure is under the targeted amount due to the excessive number of applications which were submitted incomplete. Approximately 37% of the applications received were rejected, but will ultimately be resubmitted for issuance. A large number of these applications were rejected based on a law change that went into effect in January 2008, which required a tax statement from the tax assessor-collector stating that there are no personal property taxes due on the manufactured home that may have accrued on each January 1, that falls within 18 months before the date of sale. Strategy Measure (B)

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

Total number of licenses issued Explanation of Variance: None needed.

3,100

2,703

87.19%

2011 Target 2,100

Strategy 5.2 Conduct inspection of manufactured homes in a timely manner. Strategy Measure (A) Number of routine installation inspections conducted Explanation of Variance: None needed. Strategy Measure (B) Number of non-routine installation inspections conducted Explanation of Variance: None needed.

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

5,000

5,703

114.06%

4,600

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

2,300

2,230

96.96%

2,300

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 221

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

Strategy 5.3 To process consumer complaints, conduct investigations and take administrative actions to protect the general public and consumers. 2011 Strategy Measure 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Number of complaints resolved 850 587 69.06% 550 Explanation of Variance: The Department has received fewer complaints than expected, resulting in fewer complaints needing resolution. Riders 5 & 6 are established in legislation, as found in the General Appropriations Act. Rider 5 (a): TDHCA will target its housing finance programs resources for assistance to extremely low-income households.* The housing finance divisions shall adopt an annual goal to apply $30,000,000 of the divisions’ total housing funds toward housing assistance for individuals and families earning less than 30 percent of median family income. Rider 5 (a) 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal 2011 Target Amount of housing finance division funds applied towards housing 166.86% $30,000,000 assistance for individuals and $30,000,000 $50,058,301 families earning less than 30 percent of median family income Explanation of Variance: The performance is higher than expected because the Rider 5 report now captures actual incomes of households served by TDHCA and not projected income groups. Note: For more information, see Rider 5 of TDHCA’s Appropriations as found in HB 1 (General Appropriations Act), 81st Legislature, Regular Session. Rider 5 (b): TDHCA will target its housing finance resources for assistance to very low-income households. The housing finance divisions shall adopt an annual goal to apply no less than 20% of the division’s total housing funds toward housing assistance for individuals and families earning between 31% and 60% of median family income. Rider 5 (b)

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

Percent of housing finance division funds applied towards housing assistance for individuals and 20% 51.87% 259.35% 20% families earning less than 31% and 60% of median family income Explanation of Variance: The majority of TDHCA housing programs serve households under 60% of median family income. The Rider 5 Report includes Section 8, HOME Single Family, HOME Multifamily, Housing Trust Fund Single Family, Housing Trust Fund Multifamily and Housing Tax Credit Programs. Note: For more information, see Rider 5 of TDHCA’s Appropriations as found in HB 1 (General Appropriations Act), 81st Legislature, Regular Session. 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 222

Action Plan TDHCA Goals and Objectives

Rider 6: TDHCA will provide contract for deed conversions for families who reside in a colonia and earn 60 percent or less of the applicable area median family income. Help colonia residents become property owners by converting their contracts for deed into traditional mortgages. 2011 Strategy Measure 2010 Target 2010 Actual % of Goal Target Amount of TDHCA funds applied toward contract for deed conversions 100 0 0% 100 for colonia families earning less than 60% of median family income. Explanation of Variance: Rider 6 of the Department’s appropriations act requires that the Department direct $2,000,000 a year towards completing 100 contract for deed conversions. The decline in the number of contract for deed requests has inhibited the ability of the Department to attain the target. Note: For more information, see Rider 6 of TDHCA’s Appropriations as found in HB 1 (General Appropriations Act), 81st Legislature, Regular Session. The following TDHCA-designated goal addresses the housing needs of person with special needs. HOME PROGRAM STATUTE REQUIREMENT: TDHCA will work to address the housing needs and increase the availability of affordable and accessible housing for persons with special needs. Dedicate five percent (5%) of the HOME project allocation for benefits of persons with disabilities who live in any area of this state.* Strategy Measure

2010 Target

2010 Actual

% of Goal

2011 Target

Amount of HOME project allocation 112% $2,000,000 awarded to applicants that target $2,179,691 $2,445,796 persons with disabilities. Explanation of Variance: These include funds from the Persons with Disabilities Set-Aside and HOME general funds that were used to assist households with person with disabilities. It is important to note that while funds from the set-aside may be used anywhere in the state, HOME general funds may only be utilized in non-participating jurisdictions, those communities that do not receive funds directly from HUD.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 223

Action Plan TDHCA Allocation Plans

TDHCA ALLOCATION PLANS The Department has developed allocation formulas for many TDHCA programs in order to target available housing resources to the neediest households in each uniform state service region. These formulas are based on objective measures of need in order to ensure an equitable distribution of funding.

2011 REGIONAL ALLOCATION FORMULA  Sections 2306.111(d) and 2306.1115 of the Government Code require that TDHCA use a Regional Allocation Formula (RAF) to allocate its HOME, HTC and housing Trust Fund funding. This RAF objectively measures the affordable housing need and available resources in 13 State Service Regions used for planning purposes. Within each region, the RAF further targets funding to rural and urban areas. As a dynamic measure of need, the RAF is revised annually to reflect updated demographic and resource data; respond to public comment; and better assess regional housing needs an available resources. The RAF is submitted annually for public comment. Slightly modified versions of the RAF are used for HOME, HTC and Housing Trust Fund because the programs have different eligible activities, households and geographical service areas. For example, because 95 percent of HOME funding must be set aside for non-Participating jurisdictions, the HOME RAF only uses need and available resources data for non-Participating jurisdictions. The RAF used the following 2000 U.S. Census date to calculate this regional need distribution: •

Poverty: Number of persons in the region who live in poverty.



Cost Burden: Number of households with a monthly gross rent or mortgage payment to monthly household income ratio that exceeds 30 percent.



Overcrowded Units: Number of occupied units with more than one person per room.



Units with Incomplete Kitchen or Plumbing: Number of occupied units that do not have all of the following: sink with piped water; range or cook top and oven; refrigerator, not and cold piped water, flush toilet and bathtub or shower.

There are a number of other funding sources that can be used to address affordable housing needs. To mitigate any inherent inequities in the regional allocation of these funds, the RAF compares each region’s level of need to its level of resources. Resources from the following sources were used in the RAF: HTC, Housing Trust Fund, HUD (HOME, HOPWA, PHA capital funding and Section 8 funding), Bond Financing and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) housing programs.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 224

Action Plan TDHCA Allocation Plans

HOME PROGRAM REGIONAL ALLOCATION FORMULA  According to §2306.111, Texas Government Code, in administering federal housing funds provided to the state under the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (Act), the Department shall expend 95 percent of these funds for the benefit of non-participating areas that do not qualify to receive funds under the Act directly from HUD. The remaining 5 percent of HOME funds may be expended in any area of the state, but only if the funding services persons with disabilities. Additionally, HOME funds awarded under this plan are subject to Texas Government Code §2306.111 and as such will be distributed according to the established Regional Allocation Formula (RAF). The 2011 RAF distributes funding for all HOME-funded activities with some exceptions for federal and state mandated set-asides including Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) Operating Expenses, Housing Programs for Persons with Disabilities and the Contract for Deed Conversion Program. The following table demonstrates the combined regional funding distribution for all of the HOME activities distributed under the RAF. HOME Program 2011 RAF Region

Large MSA within Regional Regional Rural Rural Urban Urban Region for Funding Funding Funding Funding Funding Funding Geographical Amount % Amount % Amount % Reference 1 Lubbock $3,530,060 100.0% $281 0.0% $3,530,341 8.1% 2 Abilene $2,696,904 97.8% $59,943 2.2% $2,756,847 6.3% 3 Dallas/Fort Worth $1,828,176 38.1% $2,968,059 61.9% $4,796,235 11.0% 4 Tyler $5,492,308 12.6% $4,815,513 87.7% $676,795 12.3% 5 Beaumont $1,612,736 84.4% $298,395 15.6% $1,911,131 4.4% 6 Houston $4,021,293 9.2% $1,228,971 30.6% $2,792,321 69.4% 7 Austin/Round Rock $445,822 32.1% $942,292 67.9% $1,388,114 3.2% 8 Waco $2,247,257 5.2% $1,233,147 54.9% $1,014,110 45.1% 9 San Antonio $1,713,952 73.3% $624,403 26.7% $2,338,354 5.4% 10 Corpus Christi $2,581,266 64.9% $1,393,805 35.1% $3,975,070 9.1% 11 Brownsville/Harlingen $6,992,865 16.0% $2,897,267 41.4% $4,095,599 58.6% 12 San Angelo $2,363,012 75.5% $767,441 24.5% $3,130,453 7.2% 13 El Paso $657,508 64.9% $356,048 35.1% $1,013,556 2.3% Total $43,593,825 100.0% $27,604,333 63.3% $15,989,492 36.7% For more information on the RAF and further description of the formula, please contact the Housing Resource Center at (512) 475-3976.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 225

Action Plan TDHCA Allocation Plans

HOUSING TRUST FUND PROGRAM REGIONAL ALLOCATION FORMULA Pursuant to §2306.111(d-1) of the Texas Government Code, housing Trust Fund programs will be regionally allocated unless the funding allocation for that program is mandated by state statute and the program’s allocation represents less than 10 percent of the annual allocation for Housing Trust Fund; or service people with disabilities; or do not exceed $3 million.

Region

Housing Trust Fund Program 2011 RAF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Large MSA within Region for Geographical Reference Lubbock Abilene Dallas/Fort Worth Tyler Beaumont Houston Austin/Round Rock Waco San Antonio Corpus Christi Brownsville/Harlingen San Angelo El Paso Total

Regional Funding Amount*

Regional Funding %

Rural Funding Amount

Rural Funding %

Urban Funding Amount

Urban Funding %

$115,293 $72,096 $404,122 $115,735 $61,677 $384,237 $83,085 $129,383 $129,124 $105,436 $228,283 $80,141 $91,389 $2,000,000

5.8% 3.6% 20.2% 5.8% 3.1% 19.2% 4.2% 6.5% 6.5% 5.3% 11.4% 4.0% 4.6% 100.0%

$49,166 $32,875 $30,727 $81,477 $28,986 $23,794 $6,921 $20,793 $20,401 $35,118 $76,876 $34,579 $12,967 $454,681

42.6% 45.6% 7.6% 70.4% 47.0% 6.2% 8.3% 16.1% 15.8% 33.3% 33.7% 43.1% 14.2% 22.7%

$66,127 $39,221 $373,395 $34,258 $32,691 $360,442 $76,163 $108,590 $108,723 $70,317 $151,407 $45,562 $78,421 $1,545,319

57.4% 54.4% 92.4% 29.6% 53.0% 93.8% 91.7% 83.9% 84.2% 66.7% 66.3% 56.9% 85.8% 77.3%

*This table is a depiction of the amounts available in each region if the required RAF amount was $2,000,000; it is not an accurate depiction of the allocation for the total Housing Trust Fund funding available in each region. Every Housing Trust Fund program listed in a separate Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) will be subject to its own RAF. In FY 2011, each NOFA for the Housing Trust Fund programs will make available approximately $2,000,000, which will be run through its own RAF.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 226

Action Plan TDHCA Allocation Plans

HOUSING TAX CREDIT REGIONAL ALLOCATION FORMULA In accordance with Senate Bill 264, TDHCA allocates HTC Program funds to each region using a need-based formula developed by the Department. Using the Regional Allocation Formula, each region will receive the following amount of funding for use with activities subject to the formula. Funding figures will be included in the final document. HTC Program 2011 RAF Region

Large MSA within Regional Regional Rural Rural Urban Urban Region for Funding Funding Funding Funding Funding Funding Geographical Amount* % Amount % Amount % Reference 1 Lubbock 4.4% $809,558 42.1% $1,114,146 57.9% $1,923,703 2 Abilene 2.7% $529,117 44.5% $659,081 55.5% $1,188,198 3 Dallas/Fort Worth $9,474,539 21.8% $1,095,748 11.6% $8,378,791 88.4% 4 Tyler 4.5% $1,205,946 61.8% $744,883 38.2% $1,950,829 5 Beaumont 3.4% $780,304 52.3% $710,331 47.7% $1,490,636 6 Houston 24.0% $908,649 8.7% $9,501,657 91.3% $10,410,306 7 Austin/Round Rock $2,410,963 5.6% $557,625 23.1% $1,853,339 76.9% 8 Waco 5.6% $557,910 23.0% $1,865,004 77.0% $2,422,914 9 San Antonio 7.8% $614,367 18.1% $2,778,310 81.9% $3,392,677 10 Corpus Christi $1,844,502 4.2% $717,931 38.9% $1,126,571 61.1% 11 Brownsville/Harlingen $3,853,440 8.9% $1,367,015 35.5% $2,486,425 64.5% 12 San Angelo 2.8% $529,177 43.3% $691,545 56.7% $1,220,721 13 El Paso $1,840,221 4.2% $543,983 29.6% $1,296,237 70.4% Total 100.0% $10,217,329 23.5% $33,206,319 76.5% $43,423,648 As required by state statute, 15% of that ceiling is deducted for the At-Risk Set-Aside, which is not awarded regionally. The balance of the estimated ceiling is regionally allocated using this formula. Allocation and distribution for Stimulus Programs can be found in the Stimulus Programs chapter.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 227

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

POLICY PRIORITIES TDHCA's mission is to help Texans achieve an improved quality of life through the development of better communities. In addition to the goals established by the Legislative Appropriations Request, the Riders in the Legislative Appropriations Act and Texas state statute, TDHCA continues to search for new ways to meet its mission. The following are policy priorities of TDHCA. The TDHCA statute, 2306.0721, requires the Action Plan to analyze the following: • Rural Needs o Meeting the housing needs of the less-populous areas of the state • Energy Efficiency o Encouraging energy efficiency in housing and appliances • Underused Federal Resources o Monitor and analyze federal resources of other state agencies Policy Priorities of TDHCA include: • Fair Housing o Providing assistance without regard to race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin and affirmatively furthering fair housing • Extremely Low-Income Households and Households Living in Poverty o Addressing the underserved needs of extremely low-income households • Housing needs and resources available to persons with special needs o Addressing and tracking the housing needs and resources available to special needs populations • Housing with services for special needs populations o Coordination of housing resources and service providers that serve the needs of the populations with special needs • Desegregation of person with special needs o Addressing the reintegration of people with special needs who live in institutions HUD identified five special needs populations and TDHCA works to support these HUD-designated populations. To tailor its programs to meet Texas’ particular needs, TDHCA has also included colonia residents and migrant farm workers as special needs populations. A list of TDHCA special needs populations follows: • Homeless Populations • Persons with Disabilities • Elderly Populations • Persons with Alcohol and Substance Abuse Issues • Persons with HIV/AIDS • Public Housing Residents • Colonia Residents • Migrant Farm workers A short description of each priority set by 2306 is below. Following the descriptions are policydriven actions undertaken by TDHCA.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 228

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

RURAL NEEDS  As the migration of populations and industries continues to urban and suburban areas, the lesspopulous areas of the state are left with a deteriorating housing stock and households with lower incomes than their urban or suburban counterparts. According to HUD, for 2010 the median income for Texas metropolitan statistical areas is $61,000 compared to $46,500 for non-metro area households. 2 Policy-Driven Action: Combined with a strategy of interagency collaboration, TDHCA’s HOME, Housing Trust Fund, Housing Tax Credits and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher programs all have specific measures to address rural populations. In addition, TDHCA created the Rural Housing Workgroup in 2010 to address issues specific to rural areas. The Department works closely with several rural-based affordable housing organizations, private lenders, nonprofits and units of local government in order to give funding priority to rural areas. Affordable housing development in rural areas requires more effort because there are significantly fewer organizations available to assist with these activities. With this in mind, the Department has developed specific strategies to address the needs of the rural populations of the state, which include rural allocations for housing program funds, prioritizations of activities that are more needed in rural areas, willingness to expand capacity and increasing awareness of TDHCA programs in rural areas. Section 2306.111(d) of the Texas Government Code requires that the TDHCA Regional Allocation Formula (RAF) consider rural and urban areas in its distribution of program funding. Because of this, allocations for the HOME, Housing Trust Fund and Housing Tax Credit programs are allocated by rural and urban areas within each region. Specifically for Housing Tax Credits, the Housing Tax Credit RAF provides for a minimum of $500,000 rural allocation in each uniform state service region and reserves a minimum of 20 percent of the state’s tax credit amount for rural areas. Furthermore, TDHCA and the Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA) administer the Housing Tax Credit Program’s rural regional allocation. TDRA assists in developing criteria for rural regional allocation. TDRA also participates in the evaluation and site inspection of rural developments proposed under the rural allocation. As established in Section 2306.111(c) of the Texas Government Code, 95 percent of the Department’s HOME funds are required to serve households in non-participating jurisdictions, which are primarily rural areas of the state. Non-participating jurisdictions are those areas of the State that do not receive HOME funds directly from HUD. The remaining five percent of the annual HOME Program allocation is set aside for applicants servicing persons with disabilities regardless of their location in the state. The Housing Trust Fund has programmed $2,000,000 for a Rural Housing Expansion Program, which will build capacity in tandem with actual production of affordable housing in rural Texas. In addition, the Housing Trust Fund’s Affordable Housing Match Program provides funds to nonprofit organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans for affordable housing in rural Texas. 2HUD.

(2010, May 14) Estimated median family incomes for fiscal year 2010. Retrieved from http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il10/Medians2010.pdf.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 229

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

The TDHCA Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program specifically serves households in small cities and rural communities that are not served by similar local or regional housing voucher programs.

Rural Housing Workgroup  The Rural Housing Workgroup provides a forum for feedback to TDHCA management and staff as they develop policies, programs and rules for the federal and state programs administered by TDHCA. TDHCA programs serve urban and rural areas of the state. However, providing services and housing in rural areas presents unique challenges and opportunities. In order to address those challenges and make sure that rural input and concerns are adequately considered across all aspects of TDHCA’s program development, design and implementation, TDHCA established the Rural Housing Workgroup in 2010. The Rural Housing Workgroup includes representatives from a spectrum of rural housing interests. The group includes for- and non-profit rural housing providers, rural policy advocates, farmworker housing policy advocates, legislative staff and affordable housing membership organizations.

  ENERGY EFFICIENCY  Energy and water costs are often the largest single housing expense after food and shelter for lower-income families. Utility expenses can absorb approximately 25 percent of the income for a household that receives Social Security Insurance and no other forms of income, whereas utility costs comprise only 4 percent of the income for households that make the median income in the United States. 3 Proper use of existing technologies and management practices can reduce these utility costs significantly at a relatively low initial cost, thereby greatly increasing housing affordability for low- and moderate-income families. Policy-Driven Action: TDHCA offers training, workshops and conferences to encourage energy efficiency as well as requiring specific measures in its Comprehensive Energy Assistance program, Weatherization Assistance Program, HOME Programs, Housing Tax Credit Program, Multifamily Bond Program and Neighborhood Stabilization Program that address energy efficiency. The Department encourages energy efficiency in the construction of affordable housing by offering training, workshops, conferences and other opportunities to learn about energy efficiency construction and by encouraging applicants for Department programs to consider energy efficiency in their developments. Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program allocate funding to help households control energy costs through utility payment assistance, the installation of weatherization measures and energy conservation education. Weatherization services include the installation of storm windows, repair and/or replacement of heating and cooling appliances, attic and wall insulation and weather-stripping and sealing. The HOME, Housing Tax Credit, Multifamily Bond and Neighborhood Stabilization programs require applicants for multifamily developments to adhere to the statewide energy code and provide Energy Star Rated appliances. The Housing Tax Credit Program also gives additional application points for the use of energy-efficient alternative construction materials including R-15 wall and RHUD. (2009, June 15). Utility bills burden the poor and can cause homelessness. Retrieved from http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/library/energy/homelessness.cfm.

3

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 230

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

30 ceiling insulation, structurally insulated panels, 14 SEER (seasonal energy efficiency ratio) cooling units and numerous green building initiatives.

UNDERUSED FEDERAL RESOURCES   TDHCA regularly analyzes the unused or underused federal resources of other state agencies for housing-related services and services for homeless individuals and ensures that all available federal resources are used for affordable housing across Texas. TDHCA does this by participation in numerous committees, workgroups and councils that, among other things, allow the Department to stay apprised of other state agency resources for affordable housing. Relationships with other departments are vital to ensure that Texas agencies coordinate housing and services to most efficiently and effectively serve Texans. In addition to this collaboration, TDHCA closely monitors and proactively pursues available federal funding opportunities to ensure that Texas can access additional affordable housing funds. TDHCA has staff committed to several external state advisory workgroups and statutory commissions. Many of these commissions have members from the public and private sectors. These external groups include, but are not limited to: Workgroup/Commission Aging Texas Well Advisory Committee (ATWAC) Community Reinvestment Workgroup Community Resource Coordination Groups (CRCG) Faith and Community Based Initiative Governor’s Commission for Women Mental Health Planning Advisory Commission (MHPAC) Money Follows the Person Demonstration Project (MFTP) Promoting Independence Advisory Committee (PIAC) Reentry Task Force Interagency Coordinating Commission for Building Healthy Families (ICC) Transformation Workgroup (TWG)

Lead agency Department of Aging and Disability Services Texas Comptroller Health and Human Services Commission One Star Foundation Governor’s Office Department of State Health Services Department of Aging and Disability Services Department of Aging and Disability Services Department of Criminal Justice Department of Family Protective Services Department of State Health Services

In addition to the external workgroups and commissions, TDHCA is the lead agency for two groups that also provide opportunities for state agency coordination, the Texas Interagency Council on the Homeless (TICH) which is discussed under Homeless Populations (Special Needs) below and the Housing and Health Services Coordination Council (HHSCC), which is discussed under Housing with Services for Special Needs Populations below.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 231

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

A short description of other priorities set by TDHCA is below. Following the descriptions are policydriven actions undertaken by TDHCA.

  FAIR HOUSING  Through program requirements and compliance monitoring, TDHCA works to ensure that housing programs benefit individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin. Complaints involving all forms of housing discrimination are also referred to the Texas Workforce Commission Human Rights Division, which oversees the Texas Fair Housing Act. The Texas Fair Housing Act of 1989 enables the State to remedy discriminatory public policies affecting housing affordability and access. The Act prohibits discrimination against individuals in their pursuit of homeownership or rental housing opportunities based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial state and physical or mental handicaps. Policy-Driven Action: The Department is in the process of updating its 2003 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI). The AI is being completed in two parts: (1) the counties affected by Hurricanes Rita and Ike and (2) the balance of the State. Internal preparations have begun. State activities and current ongoing objectives relating to fair housing are discussed below: • • •

Comply with the Texas Fair Housing Act in TDHCA-administered programs. Coordinate fair housing efforts with the Human Rights Division of the Texas Workforce Commission which was created under the Texas Fair housing Act to directly address public grievances related to fair housing. Additionally, consistent with federal law and guidance from HUD and the Department of Justice, it is the policy of TDHCA to not require its nonprofit recipients of funds to verify, as a condition of receiving federal funds, the citizenship or immigration status of applicants for funds, with the exceptions of the Section 8 voucher programs administered by the state. The overall policy of legal residency verification is subject to revision and will be made to conform to the HUD rule currently under review when it is adopted in a final form, or state statutory changes if enacted.

The Section 8 Admittance Policy has been adopted by the TDHCA Board and is as follows: • • •

Managers and owners of Housing Tax Credit (HTC) properties are prohibited from having policies, practices, procedures and/or screening criteria that have the effect of excluding applicants because they have a Section 8 voucher or certificate. The verification of such an exclusionary practice on the part of the owner or the manager by TDHCA will be considered a violation and will result in the issuance of a Notice of Violation and, if appropriate, issuance of a Form 8823 to the Internal Revenue Service. Any violation of program requirements relative to this policy will also impact the Owner’s ability to participate in future TDHCA programs.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 232

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

EXTREMELY LOW‐INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLDS LIVING IN POVERTY  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines the 2010 poverty guideline as $22,050 in income for a family of four, 4 and many poor families make substantially less than this. Poverty can be self-perpetuating, creating barriers to education, health care and the financial stability provided by homeownership. The data presented in the Housing Analysis chapter of this report shows that households with lower incomes have higher incidences of housing problems. There is a minimal difference between the incidences of housing problems between the two lowest income groups (0-30 percent and 31-50 percent of median income). While incidences of housing problems for these two groups are significantly higher than those of the other low-income group, households with incomes at 51-80 percent of median income have significant needs as well. Policy-Driven Action: The Department has an important role in addressing poverty in Texas; the Department seeks to reduce the number of Texans living in poverty, thereby providing a better future for all Texans. This means (1) trying to provide long-term solutions to the problems facing people in poverty and (2) targeting resources to those with the greatest need. Households at or under 80 percent AMFI have been given higher priority than households above 80 percent AMFI. This prioritization allows TDHCA to target resources to those households most in need, regardless of household type. In the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Round 1, a minimum of $25,499,212 will be dedicated to serve households at 50% AMFI or below through the acquisition and rehabilitation or redevelopment of residential properties that will result in permanent housing. While one of the Department’s charges is to serve the State’s populations from extremely low income to moderate income, funding priority is given to those populations that are most in need of services; low-, very low- and extremely low-income individuals and households. Additionally, the Texas Legislature, through Rider 5 in the 2010-2011 Appropriations Act, specifically calls upon TDHCA to prioritize funding toward individuals and families that earn less than 60 percent AMFI. This rider directs TDHCA to apply $30,000,000 annually towards assisting extremely low-income households and no less than 20 percent of the Department’s total housing funds towards assisting very low-income households. TDHCA works to meet these goals by providing incentives for applicants to set aside units for very low-and extremely low-income households. The Department provides low-income persons with energy, emergency and housing assistance to meet the basic necessities, as described in the Housing Support Continuum above. Almost all programs and divisions, with the exception of the Manufactured Housing Division, have income guidelines that target low-to moderate-income Texans and households in need.

HOUSING NEEDS AND RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS  Serving persons with special needs is a priority for TDHCA. To accomplish this priority, TDHCA first has to identify the housing needs of and resources available to people with special needs. To 4U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, (2010, August 3). Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/10poverty.shtml.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 233

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

identify the needs of persons with special needs, the Department uses research and public input. To identify the resources available to people with special needs, the Department collaborates with other State, Federal and local entities to create a statewide database of resources, which is then made available to the public. Research of the needs of people with special needs is accomplished in the Housing Analysis chapter above. The Housing Analysis chapter analyzes the housing need of each special needs category and provides estimates for the populations within each region for many different data sources and studies. The Department gathers and responds to public input on the needs of people with special needs from several work groups for which TDHCA leads or participates, such as the Disability Advisory Workgroup (discussed under Persons with Disabilities (Special Needs) below), the Housing and Health Services Coordination Council (discussed under Housing with Services for Special Needs Populations below) and the Promoting Independence Advisory Committee (Discussed under Desegregation of Persons with Special Needs below). The Department identifies resources available to people with special needs by working with State, Federal and local providers to compile a statewide database of available affordable and accessible housing. From online sources listed in the Housing Analysis chapter, TDHCA compiles the number of affordable housing units from HUD, USDA, and PHAs, as well as the number of Section 8 vouchers. In addition, the Housing Resource Center within TDHCA annually updates the Program Guide, which provides a list of affordable housing providers with contact information. Furthermore, TDHCA has set up a referral service to provide this information at no cost to the consumer. The referral service is within the Housing Resource Center and can be accessed by phone (800-5250657), email ([email protected]) or physical mail (PO Box 13941, Austin, TX 78711). TDHCA promotes awareness of the statewide database to providers and potential clients throughout the State through public hearings, the TDHCA website and local informational workshops.

HOUSING WITH SERVICES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS  TDHCA works to promote the coordination of housing resources available among State and Federal agencies and consumer groups that serve the needs of the populations with special needs. TDHCA also continues to work with agencies, advocates and other interested parties in the development of programs that will address the needs of persons with special needs. Finally, TDHCA strives to increase the awareness of potential funding sources for organizations to access and to serve populations with special needs through the use of TDHCA planning documents, website and the Housing and Health Services Coordination Council, as described below.

Housing and Health Services Coordination Council  The 81st Legislature created the Housing and Health Services Coordination Council (Council) through SB 1878. The Council’s purpose is to increase the amount of service-enriched housing for seniors and people with disabilities; improve interagency understanding of housing and services and increase the number of staff in state housing and state health services agencies that are conversant in both housing and health care policies; offer a continuum of home and communitybased services that is affordable to the state and the target population. The Council includes 16 members including the Executive Director of TDHCA, eight members appointed by the Governor and seven members appointed by State Agencies. The Council and its two committees (the Policy

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 234

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

& Barriers Committee and the Cross-Agency Education & Training Committee) meets quarterly and TDHCA staff provide clerical and advisory support. On September 1, 2010 the Council submitted the 2010-2011 Biennial Plan to the Governor and Legislative Budget Board. The Plan provides policy and programmatic recommendations for meeting statutory directives and increasing service-enriched housing. The Plan can be found on the Council’s webpage at: http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/hhscc/index.htm. In the Plan, the Council offered eleven housing policy and ten service policy recommendations for increasing and promoting production of service-enriched housing. On the housing side, the Council first sought to promote the use of multifamily rental housing funding sources for the set-aside of housing units for very low-income persons with disabilities and persons who are elderly and establishing a targeting plan for connecting these individuals with off-site services and supports. In regards to health and human services policy recommendations, the Council sought to support the expansion and increased funding of those programs and services that have proven successful at assisting persons with disabilities and persons who are elderly to remain living independently in community-based settings. These include Medicaid 1915(c) waiver programs, nursing facility diversion programs, Aging and Disability Resource Centers and nursing home relocation activities.

DESEGREGATION OF PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS   In the past, public program spending for long-term services and supports for persons who are elderly and persons with disabilities in Texas was allocated in large part to institutional facilities, such as nursing homes. However, over the last two decades, the advent of Medicaid waivers, home and community-based service alternatives have become an increasingly significant option and choice, as witnessed through recent federal and state legislation. TDHCA works to increase the awareness of the availability of conventional housing programs for persons with special needs. TDHCA also supports the development of housing options and programs, which enable persons with special needs to reside in noninstitutional settings. The Department works to accomplish these priorities through the Housing and Health Services Coordination Council, described above, and the Promoting Independence Advisory Committee, described below. Furthermore, TDHCA contributes to promoting independence through the Project Access program.

Promoting Independence Advisory Committee  With the advent of the Olmstead decision, the Health and Humans Services Commission (HHSC) initiated the Promoting Independence Initiative and appointed the Promoting Independence Advisory Board, as directed by then-Governor George Bush’s Executive Order GWB 99-2. Governor Rick Perry’s Executive Order RP 13 complements GWB 99-1. Now known as the Promoting Independence Advisory Committee (PIAC), the PIAC assists the Health and Human Services Commission in creating the State’s response to the Olmstead decision through the biannual Promoting Independence Plan. This plan highlights the State’s efforts to assist those individuals desirous of community placement, appropriate for community placement as determined by the state’s treatment professionals and who do not constitute a fundamental alteration in the state’s services, to live in the community. TDHCA participates in PIAC meetings. TDHCA’s Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program administers the Project Access program to assist low-income persons with disabilities in transitioning from institutions into the community by providing access to affordable housing. TDHCA’s Project Access partners with the Department of 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 235

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

Aging and Disability Services (DADS) to coordinate with the Money Follows the Person Program, which provides community-based alternatives to individuals living in institutions.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 236

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

A short description of each special needs population is below. Following the descriptions are policydriven actions undertaken by TDHCA.

  HOMELESS POPULATION (SPECIAL NEEDS)  On May 20, 2009 President Obama signed into law a bill to reauthorized HUD’s McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance programs. The bill was included as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act. The new Act, called the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act), updated the McKinney Vento definition of homelessness. The new definition of homelessness is as follows: 1) An individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; 2) An individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground; 3) An individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangement (including hotels and motels paid for by Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations, congregate shelters, and transitional housing); 4) An individual who resided in a shelter or place not meant for human habitation and who is exiting an institution where he or she temporarily resided; 5) An individual or family who— a. Will imminently lose their housing, including housing they own, rent, or live in without paying rent, are sharing with others, and rooms in hotels or motels not paid for by Federal, State, or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations… b. Has no subsequent residence identified; and c. Lacks the resource or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing; and 6) Unaccompanied youth and homeless families with children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal Statutes who— a. Have experience a long term period without living independently in permanent housing, b. Have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves over such period, and c. can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time because of chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health conditions, substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or childhood abuse, the presence of a child or youth with a disability, or multiple barriers to employment. Estimates of homeless populations vary widely. The migratory nature of the homeless population, the stigma associated with homelessness and the fact that many homeless individuals lack basic documentation all contribute to the difficulty of making an accurate count. Most homeless surveys are “point-in-time” estimates, which do not capture the revolving-door phenomenon of persons moving in and out of shelters over time. Furthermore, the homeless population can be classified into three categories: (1) literally homeless, which describes people who have no permanent residence and stay in shelters or public places; (2) marginally homeless, which describes people who live temporarily with other people and have no prospects for housing; and (3) people-at-risk-ofhomelessness, which describes people who have incomes below the poverty level, rely on utility

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 237

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

and rental assistance and may be unable to absorb unexpected events such as the loss of a job or serious illness. Policy-Driven Action: The first phase of the Housing Support Continuum is “(1) Poverty and Homelessness Prevention” and includes the Community Service Block Grant, Comprehensive Energy Assistance, Emergency Solutions Grant, Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing, and Homeless Housing and Services programs. In addition, other programs not specifically created for homelessness prevention nevertheless include several activities to address this population’s special needs. For instance, the Housing Tax Credit and the Housing Trust Fund programs both can be used for homeless populations. In addition, TDHCA coordinates with the Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless. While the Housing Tax Credit Program is well-known and primarily used for the construction, acquisition and/or rehabilitation of new, existing, at-risk and rural housing, the Housing Tax Credit Program can also be used to develop transitional housing and permanent supportive housing for homeless populations. Furthermore, according to the 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program Rule, the Housing Tax Credit Program offers additional points during the award process for developments that propose to set aside 5 percent of the units for persons with special needs, including homeless populations, persons with alcohol and/or drug addictions, Colonia residents, person with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS, and migrant farmworkers. The Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to nonprofit organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans for homeless populations.

Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless  The Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless (TICH) was created in 1989 to coordinate the State’s homeless resources and services. TICH consists of representatives from all state agencies that serve persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The council receives no funding and has no full-time staff, but receives facilitation and advisory support from TDHCA. The council holds public hearings in various parts of the state to gather information useful to its members in administering programs. The Council’s major mandates include: • evaluating and helping coordinate the delivery of services for the homeless in Texas; • increasing the flow of information among service providers and appropriate authorities; • providing technical assistance to TDHCA in assessing the need for housing for people with special needs; • developing, in coordination with TDHCA and the Health and Human Services Commission, a strategic plan to address the needs of the homeless; and • maintaining a central resource and information center for the homeless. TICH is currently developing a Strategic Plan to End Homelessness (Plan) that will address collaboration among federal, state and local organizations to better address the needs of homeless persons and to prevent homelessness. Four committees met in 2010 to expand on sections of the Plan. Also, a Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) member for the TICH began his placement with TDHCA in November of 2010. With this full-time position, the TICH hopes to function at fuller capacity and complete the development of the Plan by October 2011. The creation and implementation of the Plan will inventory existing State agency services, compare Texas’ efforts to recommendations for states made by the United States Interagency Council for the Homeless (USICH) and set a course for preventing and ending homelessness in Texas. 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 238

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (SPECIAL NEEDS)  Federal laws define a person with a disability as "Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment." According to the 2005 and 2007 American Community Survey, approximately 6.6 percent, or 1,383,728 Texans over the age of 5 had one disability, and 7.8 percent, or 1,635,313 of Texans over the age of 5 had two or more disabilities. Of the people with disabilities aged 16 to 64, approximately 3.1 percent had a sensory disability (severe vision or hearing impairment), 7.1% had a physical disability (condition that substantially limits a physical activity such as walking or carrying), 4.4% had a mental disability (learning or remembering impairment), 2.1 percent had a self-care disability (dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home), 3.1 percent had a go-outside-home disability, and 6.2 percent had an employment disability. 5 Housing opportunities for people with disabilities may be complicated by low incomes. The 2005 to 2007 American Community Survey estimates that 38.6 percent of persons with any disability were employed during that time period. In addition, 23.4 percent were below the poverty level. 6 Many people with disabilities may be unable to work, and receive social security income (SSI) or social security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits as their principal source of income. In nationwide study Priced Out In 2008: The Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities, a person receiving SSI as their sole source of income would need to pay 112.1 percent of their income to rent a one-bedroom unit or 99.3 percent of their income to rent a studio/efficiency. 7 The Olmstead Supreme Court decision maintained that unnecessary segregation and institutionalization of people with disabilities is unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Furthermore, the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, ADA and Section 2306.514 of the Texas Government Code all provide mandates for accessible residential housing for persons with disabilities. Housing developers may also choose to provide “adaptive design” or “universal access” housing, which promotes basic, uniform standards in the design, construction and alteration of structures that include accessibility or simple modification for individuals with a disability. While an “adaptable” unit may not be fully accessible at time of occupancy, it can easily and inexpensively be modified to meet the needs of any resident. Another option is to equip homes with special features designed for persons with disabilities, including ramps, extra-wide doors and hallways, hand rails and grab bars, raised toilets and special door levers. Advocates for the elderly and persons with disabilities continue to stress that the primary goal of these populations is to live independently and remain in their own homes and communities. Advocates considered access to rehabilitation funds for single-family housing a priority. The rehabilitation funds would perform minor physical modifications such as extra handrails, grab bars, wheelchair-accessible bathrooms and ramps, thus making existing units livable and providing a cost-effective and consumer-driven alternative to institutionalization. Likewise, the availability of

5U.S.

Census Bureau, 2005-2007 American Community Survey. (n.d.). Subject tables. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/. 6 Ibid. 7Cooper, E. Koman, H., O’Hara, A., & Zovistoski, A. (2009, April). Priced out in 2008. The housing crisis for people with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.endlongtermhomlessness.org/downloads/news/Priced%20Out%202008.pdf.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 239

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

rental vouchers that provide options beyond institutional settings is a high priority. Another recognized need for people with disabilities is deeply affordable rents. Policy-Driven Action: The Comprehensive Energy Assistance, Weatherization Assistance, HOME, Housing Trust Fund, housing Tax Credit, Multifamily Bond, Section 8, Neighborhood Stabilization, and Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery programs all have specific measures to address the needs of people with disabilities. Furthermore, the Integrated housing Rule, as implemented by TDHCA, works to meet the needs of people with disabilities. In addition, TDHCA plays an active role in the Housing and Health Services Coordination Council (described in Housing with Services for Special Needs Population above), Promoting Independence Advisory Committee (described in “Desegregation of Persons with Special Needs above), and the Disability Advisory Workgroup which all collaborate with groups representing people with disabilities. Priority for energy assistance through Comprehensive Energy Assistance and Weatherization Assistance Programs are given to the person with disabilities as well as other special needs and prioritized groups. Local providers must implement special outreach efforts for these special needs populations. As established in Section 2306.111(c) of the Texas Government Code and subject to the submission of qualified applications, five percent of the annual HOME Program allocation shall be allocated for applications serving person with disabilities living in any part of the state. Furthermore, the HOME Homeownership with Rehabilitation activity provides down payment and closing cost assistance as well as construction costs associated with architectural barrier removal to assist homebuyers with disabilities. HOME, Housing Trust Fund, Housing Tax Credit, Multifamily Bond and Neighborhood Stabilization Program’s developments that are new construction must conform to Section 504 standards, which require that at least five percent of the development’s units be accessible for person with physical disabilities and at least two percent of the units be accessible for person with hearing and visual impairments. According to the 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program QAP, the Housing Tax Credit Program offers additional application points during the award process for developments that propose to set aside 5 percent of the units for persons with special needs, including persons with disabilities, persons with alcohol and /or drug addictions, Colonia residents, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS, homeless populations and migrant farm workers. The Housing Trust Fund’s Amy Young Barrier Removal Program is designed to provide a one-time grant up to $15,000 for home modifications specifically needed for accessibility, and up to an additional $5,000 in other rehabilitation costs correlated with the barrier removal project. Home modifications may include installing handrails; ramps, bussing or flashing devices; accessible door and faucet handles; shower grab bars and shower wands; and accessible showers, toilets and sinks. Home modifications may also include door widening and counter adjustments. In addition, the Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to nonprofit organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans for Persons with Disabilities. TDHCA’s Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Program administers the Project Access program to assist low-income persons with disabilities in transitioning from institutions into the community by providing access to affordable housing. Eligible households are those that meet the Section 8 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 240

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

criteria, have a disability and are either an At-Risk Applicant and a previous resident, or a current resident of nursing facility, intermediate care facility, or board and care facility at the time of voucher issuance. The 2011 Annual Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan increases the number of Project Access vouchers from 60 to 100 vouchers. In tandem with the increase in vouchers from 60 to 100, the Department instituted a change that 20 percent of Project Access vouchers will be reserved for persons at or over the age of 62, due to the great need for affordable housing among this aging population transitioning out of institutions. Previously, Project Access voucher recipients had to be under the age of 62 to qualify for the program. The Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program Round Two’s Sabine Pass Restoration Program allows homeowners with a disability or elderly households the opportunity to apply for an additional $15,000 in assistance for accessibility-related costs associated with elevating the dwelling.

Integrated Housing Rule  An issue of particular concern for advocates for persons with disabilities involved the Department’s policies related to integrated housing. Integrated housing, as defined by SB 367 and passed by the 77th Texas Legislature, is “housing in which a person with a disability resides or may reside that is found in the community but that is not exclusively occupied by persons with disabilities and their care providers.” The Department, with the assistance of the TDHCA Disability Advisory Workgroup, developed an integrated housing rule to address this concern. The Integrated Housing Rule, for use by all Department housing programs, is found at 10 TAC 1.15 and is summarized as follows: A housing development may not restrict occupancy solely to people with disabilities or people with disabilities in combination with other special needs populations. • Large housing developments (50 units or more) shall provide no more than 18 percent of the units of the development set aside exclusively for people with disabilities. The units must be dispersed throughout the development. • Small housing developments (less than 50 unites) shall provide no more than 36 percent of the units of the development set aside exclusively for people with disabilities. These units must be dispersed throughout the development. • Set-aside percentages outlined about refer only to the units that are to be solely restricted for persons with disabilities. This section does not prohibit a property from having a higher percentage of occupants that are disabled. • Property owners may not market a housing development entirely, nor limit occupancy to, persons with disabilities. Exceptions to the above rule include (1) scattered site development and tenant-based rental assistance; (2) transitional housing that is time limited with a clear and convincing plan for permanent integrated housing upon exit from the transitional situation; (3) housing developments designed exclusively for the elderly; (4) housing developments designed for other special needs populations; and (5) TDHCA Board waivers of this rule to further the purposes or policies of Chapter 2306, Texas Government Code, or for other good cause.

Disability Advisory Workgroup  TDHCA has found that directly involving program beneficiary representatives, community advocates and potential applicants for funding in the process of crafting its policies, programs and rules is extremely helpful. This process is often done through a working group format. The working groups 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 241

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

provide an opportunity for staff to interact with various program stakeholders in a more informal environment than that provided by the formal public comment process. TDHCA has actively maintained a Disability Advisory Workgroup which provides ongoing guidance to the Executive Director on how TDHCA’s programs can most effectively serve persons with disabilities.

ELDERLY POPULATIONS (SPECIAL NEEDS)  According to the 2006 to 2008 American Community Survey, there were approximately 2,396,684 Texans aged 65 and over during that time period. This made up approximately 10 percent of the Texas population. The State of Texas Senior Housing Assessment found that 91 percent of survey respondents expressed a desire to stay in their own homes as long as possible and two-thirds believed that they would always live in their homes. 8 Of all elderly households nationwide, 68 percent owned their own homes free and clear. However, elderly homeowners generally live in older homes than the majority of the population; the median year of construction for homes owned by elderly households was 1969 and 4.4 percent of the homes had physical problems. 9 Due to their age, homes owned by the elderly are often in need of weatherization and repair. Policy-Driven Action: The Community Service Block Grant, CDBG Disaster Recovery, Comprehensive Energy Assistance, Weatherization Assistance, HOME, Housing Trust Fund, Housing Tax Credit and Multifamily Bond programs have specific activities that service elderly Texans. In addition, TDHCA plays an active role in the Housing and health Service Coordination Council, which works to increase the amount of service-enriched housing for seniors and people with disabilities. A description of this Council is included under the Persons with Disabilities special needs category above. Community Service Block Grant eligible entities operate programs targeting the elderly. Such programs include Meals-on-Wheels, congregate meal programs, senior activity centers and home care services. The CDBG Disaster Recovery Program Round Two’s Sabine Pass Restoration Program allows homeowners with a disability or elderly households the opportunity to apply for an additional $15,000 in assistance for accessibility-related costs associated with elevating the dwelling. The Department’s Comprehensive Energy Assistance and Weatherization Assistance Programs give preference to the elderly as well as other special needs and priority populations. Subrecipients must conduct outreach activities for these special needs populations. Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance, offered through the HOME Program provides funds for the repair and rehabilitation of homes owned by very low-income households and many of the assisted households are elderly. The Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to Nonprofit Organization to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans for elderly populations.

8Texas

Department of Aging and Disability Services (2005). The State of Our State on Aging. 27. Retrieved from http://www.dads.state.tx.us/news_info/publications/studies/2005_sos_exec_summary.pdf. 9U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). A Profile on Older Americans: 2009. Retrieved from http://www.aoa.gov/AoAroot/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2009/docs/2009profile_508.pdf

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 242

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

A Qualified Elderly Development is a development type that is eligible for funding through the Housing Tax Credit and Multifamily Bond programs. A Qualified Elderly Development is a development in which elderly residents occupy 80 to 100 percent of the units.

PERSONS WITH ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES (SPECIAL NEEDS)  The national Surveys on Drug Use and Health found that from 2006 to 2007 approximately 6.4 percent of Texans aged 12 or older had used an illicit drug in the past month. The Texas rate is lower than the national average of 8 percent. Also, 2.7 percent of Texans aged 12 or older were dependent on or abused an illicit drug in the past year, compared to 2.8 percent nationwide. 10 In 2006, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) admitted 14,488 adult clients with alcohol problems and 40,667 adult clients with other drug addictions to state-funded treatment programs. The average age of adult clients was 34 and approximately 21 percent of adult clients were employed. The same year DSHS admitted 566 youth clients with alcohol problems and 7,013 youth clients with other drug problems to State-funded treatment programs. 11 The population of persons with alcohol or other drug addiction is diverse and often overlaps with the mentally disabled or homeless populations. Supportive housing programs needed for persons with alcohol and/or other substance abuse issues range from short-term, in-patient services to long-term, drug-free residential housing environments for recovering addicts. Better recovery results may be obtained by placing individuals in stable living environments. Policy-Drive Action: The Housing Tax Credit and Housing Trust Fund programs address the needs of people with alcohol and substance abuse issues. According to the 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program QAP, the Housing Tax Credit Program offers additional points during the award process for developments that propose to set aside 5 percent of the units for persons with special needs, including persons with alcohol and/or drug addictions, Colonia residents, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS, homeless populations and migrant farmworkers. The Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to nonprofit organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans to address the needs of people with alcohol and substance abuse issues.

PERSONS WITH HIV/AIDS (SPECIAL NEEDS)  Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the virus that causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). HIV infects cells and attacks the immune system, which weakens the body and makes it especially susceptible to other infections and diseases. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), as of December 2007, there were 62,714 reported

10Maxwell,

J.C. (2009, June). Substance abuse trends in Texas: June 2009. Retrieved from http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswe/gcattc/documents/Texas2009_002.pdf. 11Texas Department of State Health Services. (2007, December 12). Substance abuse statistics: Texas statewide totals. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/sa/researcyh/statewide-totals/

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 243

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

persons living with HIV/AIDS in Texas. 12 Because of increased medical costs or the loss of the ability to work, people with HIV/AIDS may be at risk of losing their housing arrangements. DSHS addresses the housing needs of AIDS patients through the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPWA), which is a federal program funded by HUD. In Texas, HOPWA funds provide emergency housing assistance, which funds short-term rent, mortgage and utility payments to prevent homelessness; and tenant-based rental assistance, which enables low-income individuals to pay rent and utilities until there is no long a need or until they are able to secure other housing. In addition to the DSHS statewide program, the cities of Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and El Paso receive HOPWA funds directly from HUD. Policy-Driven Action: The Housing Tax Credit and Housing Trust Fund programs address the needs of people with HIV/AIDS. According to the 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program QAP, the HTC program offers additional points during the award process for developments that propose to set aside 5 percent of the units for persons with special needs, including persons with HIV/AIDS, persons with alcohol/or drug addictions, Colonia residents, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, homeless populations and migrant farm workers. The Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to nonprofit organizations to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans to address the needs of persons with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the virus that causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS (SPECIAL NEEDS)  According to HUD data, there are 63,416 units of public housing and 155,770 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers in Texas. 13 TDHCA believes that the future success of Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) will center on ingenuity in program design, emphasis on resident participation towards economic self-sufficiency and partnerships with other organizations to address the needs of this population. While TDHCA does not have any direct or indirect jurisdiction over the management or operations of public housing authorities, it is important to maintain a relationship with these service providers. Policy-Driven Action: TDHCA has developed a strong relationship with the Texas Housing Association and the Texas chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, which represent the public housing authorities of Texas. TDHCA has worked to promote programs that will repair substandard housing and develop additional affordable housing units. In addition, the Housing Tax Credit Program may also be used for the redevelopment of public housing authority property.

12Texas Department of Health, HIV/STD Epidemiology Division, Surveillance Branch, Texas HIV/STD surveillance report: 2007 Annual Report, Austin, TX: 1. Retrieved from Texas HIV/STD Annual Report 2007; http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/hivstd/info/annual/2007.pdf 13 HUD. (2010, November 11). Housing authority profiles. Retrieved from http://pic.hud.gov/pic/haprofiles/haprofilelist.asp.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 244

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

COLONIA RESIDENTS (SPECIAL NEEDS)  Major issues affecting colonias include high rates of unemployment, extremely low incomes, lack of sufficient infrastructure for water and sewer service, higher rates of certain diseases, lack of educational resources, substandard housing and use of contract for deed. The latter two issues are directly related to housing. Housing in colonias is often constructed by residents using only available materials; professional builders are not often used. 14 According to 2000 Census data, colonias have a 75 percent homeownership rate. Despite this rate, colonia homes are inadequate: 4.9 percent of colonia dwellings lack kitchen facilities and 5.3 percent lack plumbing facilities. It is estimated that 50 percents of colonia residents lack basic water and sewage systems: 51 percent use septic tanks, 36 percent use cesspools, 7 percent use outhouses and 6 percent use other wastewater systems. 15 Policy-Driven Action: The Office of Colonia Initiatives (OCI), HOME and Housing Tax Credit programs all address the special needs of colonia residents. In 1996, in an effort to place more emphasis on addressing the needs of colonias, the Office of Colonia Initiatives (OCI) at TDCHA was created and charged with the responsibility of coordinating all Departments and legislative initiatives involving border and colonia issues and managing a portion of the Department’s existing programs targeted at colonias. The fundamental goal of the OCI is to improve the living conditions and lives of border and colonia residents and to educate the public regarding the services that the Department has to offer. As part of its plan to improve the living conditions in colonias, OCI offers OCI Border Field Offices. The three OCI border field offices provide technical assistance to the counties and Colonia Self-Help Centers. The HOME Program also administers the Contract for Deed Conversion Program to assist households in the colonias. Contract for Deed Conversion facilitates homeownership by converting contracts for deed into traditional mortgages. According to the 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program QAP, the HTC program offers additional points during the award process for developments that propose to set aside 5 percent of the units for persons with special needs, including Colonia residents, persons with alcohol and/or drug addictions, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS, homeless populations and migrant farm workers.

MIGRANT FARM WORKERS (SPECIAL NEEDS)  According to the U.S. Department of health and Human Service Migrant and Seasonal Farm worker Enumeration Profiles Study in 2000, a seasonal farm worker describes an individual whose principal employment (at least 51 percent of time) is in agriculture on a seasonal basis and who has been so employed within the preceding twenty-four months; a migrant farm worker meets the same definition, but establishes temporary housing for purposes of employment. As of 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that there are 361,414 migrant and 14Federal

Reserve Bank of Dallas. (n.d.). Texas colonias. Retrieved from http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/pubs/colonias.html 15Moncada, N. (2001). A Colonias Primer. A briefing presented to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/nmn/plus93.htm.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 245

Action Plan TDHCA Policy Priorities

seasonal farm workers and families residing in Texas. Of this population, 26 percent reside in Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties. 16 Farm workers have a particularly difficult time finding available, affordable housing because of extremely low and sporadic incomes and mobility. Many of the small, rural communities where migrant workers may seek employment do not have the rental units available for the seasonal influx. Overcrowding and substandard housing are significant housing problems for farm workers. 17 In addition, migrant workers may not be able to afford security deposits, pass credit checks, or commit to long-term leases. Policy-Driven Action: TDHCA addresses farm worker issues by licensing and inspecting migrant farm worker housing and conducting periodic studies on farm worker needs. In addition, the Community Service Block Grant and Housing Tax Credit programs serve seasonal farm workers. In HB1099, the 79th Texas Legislative Session transferred the license and inspection migrant farm worker housing facilities from the Texas health and Human Service Commission to TDHCA. Additionally, the bill directed TDHCA to complete a study on quantity, availability, need and quality of migrant farm labor housing facilities in Texas. See http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/ppa/housingcenter/pubs.htm#reports for a copy of the report. During the 2010 Community Service Block Grant State Discretionary Funds Notice of Fund Availability cycle, TDHCA awarded $214,594 of Community Service Block Grant State discretionary funds to fund two organizations serving migrant seasonal farm workers: the County of Hidalgo Community Services Agency and to Community Council of South Central Texas. The Department also awarded $225,000 to two Native American tribes, Urban Inter-Tribal Center of Texas and Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. The Department’s Community Service Block Grant State Plan approved by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services includes Native Americans and migrant farm worker populations as special populations category eligible for Community Service Block Grant State discretionary funds. According to the 2011 Housing Tax Credit Program QAP, the Housing Tax Credit Program offers additional points during the award process for developments that propose to set aside 5 percent of the units for persons with special needs, including migrant farm workers, person with alcohol and/or drug addictions, Colonia residents, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS and homeless populations. The Housing Trust Fund has programmed $2,000,000 in funds to Rural Housing Expansion Program, which may be used to develop or rehabilitate housing for persons with special needs including, but not limited to, migrant farm workers. Additionally, the Housing Trust Funds’ Affordable Housing Match Program provides funding to Nonprofit Organization to attract or meet requirements for affordable housing grants or government programs. An example of an eligible use includes direct match for state, federal or private grants or loans to help meet the housing needs of migrant farm workers.

16Larson,

A. (2000, September). Migrant and seasonal farm worker enumeration profiles study: Texas. US Department of Health and Human Services, health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Primary Health Care. Retrieved from http://www.ncfh.org/enumeration/PDF10 Texas.pdf. 17Holden, C. (2001, October). Monograph no. 8: housing. Buda, TX: national center for farm worker health inc. Migrant Health Issues: 40. Retrieved from http://www.ncfh.org/docs/08%20-%20housing.pdf

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 246

Stimulus Programs

SECTION 5: STIMULUS PROGRAMS According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the United States experienced a severe recession from December 2007 to June of 2010, 18 dubbed the Great Recession. While the Great Recession has officially ended, the effects of the decrease in income and job losses are still being felt throughout Texas. As a reaction to the recession, the federal government created programs to alleviate the stress of the economic downturn. Beginning with the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, the federal government began to address the high rates of foreclosures. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 followed and the federal government set a goal of creating new jobs as well as saving existing ones; spurring economic activity and investing in long-term economic growth; and fostering unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. Additionally, some temporary programs were not created through either of the recovery acts, but were created to address the recession. Programs created to stem the economic downturn, regardless of funding source, are included in this chapter. TDHCA administers several programs created by the funds meant to stimulate the economy. These programs are grouped and discussed in their own chapter rather than the Annual Report and Action Plan because of their temporary nature; most of them will conclude in two to three years. In addition, these programs are based on a multiyear model, not a fiscal year model. The reporting for these programs is from the beginning of each program to the fall of 2010. However, temporary programs are mentioned in the Action Plan’s Housing Support Continuum for clarity because of their administration through the Department and their creation to serve the needs of low- to moderate-income Texans. The following table provides summary information about each of the Department’s programs funded through the stimulus.

The National Bureau of Economic Research. 2010, September 30. The national bureau of economic research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/.

18

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 247

Stimulus Programs Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Stimulus Programs Program Community Services Block Grant Program ARRA Homebuyer Tax Credit Programs: • 90-Day Down Payment Assistance Program (DPAP) • Mortgage Advantage Program (MAP) Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Housing Tax Credit Recovery Act Programs : • Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program (HTC Exchange) • Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling Program (NFMC): • NFMC Round 2 • NFMC Round 3 • NFMC Round 4 • NFMC Round 5 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP): • NSP 1 • NSP 3 Weatherization Assistance Program ARRA Total

Funding $48,148,071 DPAP: $4,043,738 MAP: $531,445 $41,472,772 HTC Exchange: $594,091,928 TCAP: $148,354,769

NFMC Round 2: $491,490 NFMC Round 3: $449,960 NFMC Round 4: $58,293 NFMC Round 5: Application due 1/6/2010 NSP 1: $101,996,848 NSP 3: $7,284,978 $326,975,732 $1,273,900,024

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 248

Stimulus Programs

COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT  PROGRAM DESCRIPTION  ARRA expanded the funds available for the Department’s existing Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program. The CSBG funds are distributed through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USHHS). TDHCA received $48,148,071 in CSBG ARRA funds. CSBG is administered through the Community Affairs Division. The CSBG Program funds eligible entities and activities that support the intent of the CSBG Act. CSBG ARRA subrecipients were highly encouraged to utilize funds to implement employment and education projects which would have a long term impact on assisting low-income individuals. The funds could also be utilized to provide administrative support for other anti-poverty programs, such as head Start and Meals on Wheels and to provide direct services such as short-term rental assistance and transportation. For non-ARRA CSBG, individuals who received assistance needed to have income at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines; CSBG ARRA assistance raised the income limit to 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. This income limit increase resulted in the eligibility of more households in Texas. Ninety-nine percent of the new funding available through ARRA was made available to the CSBGeligible entities. One percent of funding was used to promote the enrollment of low-income persons in federal, state and local benefits programs. This one percent is being utilized to support the purchase of a uniform database management software for the Texas 211 Information and Referral Service which informs Texans of services and benefits available.

IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION  The Department submitted the CSBG ARRA plan to USHHS on May 28, 2009 and received notice of approval on July 24, 2009. The Department applied the Existing CSBG allocation formula to the ARRA funds available for the CSBG-eligible entities. Allocations were based on two factors: (1) the number of persons living in poverty within the designated service-delivery area for each organization and (2) a calculation of population density. Poverty population was given 98 percent weight and the ratio of inverse population density was given two percent weight. The formula also included a base award for each organization before the factors were applied, as well as a minimum award, also known as a floor. Sub-recipient contracts began August 1, 2009 and ended on September 30, 2010.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 249

Stimulus Programs

STATUS OF FUNDS This program has been successfully completed within the timeframe allowed. ARRA required that all CSBG ARRA funds be fully obligated by September 30, 2010 and fully expended by December 29, 2010. Based on projections provided by CSBG ARRA subrecipients, the Department anticipates an expenditure rate of 99.6% by the conclusion of the close-out period on December 29, 2010. Of the total award of $48,148,071, one percent ($481,480) was used for benefits coordination, as referenced in Program Description above. There were no administrative funds for CSBG ARRA. Therefore, $47,666,590 was allocated to subrecipients, as shown in the chart below. The table below shows the status of the CSBG ARRA program as of September 2010.

County Served

Allocation

Persons Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Haskell, Jones, Kent, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton Aransas, Bee, Kenedy, Kleberg, Live Oak, McMullen, Refugio Brewster, Culberson, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Presidio Brazos, Burleson, Chambers, Grimes, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Montgomery, Robertson, Walker, Waller, Washington

$173,304

111 



65 

46 

44

67

$1,430,692

2,445 

1,112 

763 

570 

1,082

1,363

$ 440,027

1,228 

84 

534 

610 

625

603

$224,240

216 



43 

171 

169

47

$1,537,698

911 

390 

385 

136 

87

824

Agency Aspermont Small Business Development Center, Inc. Bee Community Action Agency Big Bend Community Action Committee, Inc. Brazos Valley Community Action Agency, Inc. Cameron And Willacy Counties Community Projects, Inc.

Cameron, Willacy

Central Texas Opportunities, Inc.

Brown, Callaghan, Coleman, Comanche, Eastland, McCullough, Runnels

$265,575

636 

43 

100 

493 

489

147

Travis

$332,866

506 

35 

297 

174 

182

324

Tarrant

$300,631

44 

13 

23 



7

37

Lubbock

$382,915

117 



13 

104 

102

15

Bexar

$454,914

2,336 

786 

338 

1,212 

1,172

1,164

City Of Austin, Health And Human Services Dept City Of Fort Worth Parks & Community Services Department City Of Lubbock City Of San Antonio, Department Of Community Initatives

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 250

Stimulus Programs

Allocation

Persons Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Austin, Bastrop, Colorado, Fayette, Lee Calhoun, De Witt, Goliad, Gonzales, Jackson, Lavaca, Victoria Brooks, Jim Wells, San Patricio

$300,525

729 

37 

640 

52 

587

142

$365,276

764 

130 

267 

367 

357

407

$288,213

873 





873 

872

1

Blanco, Caldwell, Hays

$321,938

643 

24 

40 

579 

579

64

Mitchell, Shackelford, Stephens, Taylor

$824,995

1,276 

61 

365 

850 

838

438

Maverick

$413,334

101 





93 

93

8

Loving, Reeves, Ward, Winkler

$150,000

81 





81 

79

2

Community Council Of South Central Texas

Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Medina, Wilson

$426,295

279 

142 

122 

15 

17

262

Community Council Of Southwest Texas Community Services Agency Of South Texas, Inc. Community Services Of Northeast Texas, Inc.

Edwards, Kinney, Real, Uvalde, Val Verde, Zavala

$1,685,879

1,544 

614 

582 

348 

268

1,276

$424,732

1,255 

162 

342 

751 

631

624

Bowie, Camp, Cass, Marion, Morris Anderson, Collin, Denton, Ellis, Henderson, Hunt, Kaufman, Navarro, Rockwall, Van Zandt Coke, Concho, Crockett, Irion, Kimble, Menard, Reagan, Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, Tom Green

$4,285,529

5,962 

4,413 

542 

1,007 

921

5,041

$150,000

192 

88 

17 

87 

87

105

$803,569

1,059 

523 

328 

208 

229

830

Matagorda

$2,290,345

6,723 

106 

86 

6,531 

6,467

256

Agency Combined Community Action, Inc. Community Action Committee Of Victoria Community Action Corp. Of South Texas Community Action Inc., Of Hays, Caldwell And Blanco Counties Community Action Program, Inc. Community Action Social Services & Education, Inc. Community Council Of Reeves County

Community Services, Inc.

Concho Valley Community Action Agency Economic Action Committee Of The Gulf Coast

County Served

Dimmit, La Salle

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 251

Stimulus Programs

County Served

Allocation

Persons Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Bosque, Falls, Freestone, Hill, Limestone, McLennan

$2,214,992

562 

295 

65 

202 

109

453

El Paso

$1,318,657

1,797 

999 

228 

570 

538

1,259

Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Wharton Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Houston, Nacogdoches, Polk, Rusk, San Jacinto, Smith, Trinity, Wood

$1,508,614

1,136 

601 

412 

123 

102

1,034

$7,209,002

15,073 

8,210 

1,037 

5,826 

4,865

10,208

Harris

$2,757,585

2,539 



148 

2,389 

2,490

49

Hidalgo

$742,653

579 

147 

248 

184 

144

435

Hill Country Community Action Association, Inc.

Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Milam, Mills, San Saba

$150,000

625 



11 

612 

611

14

Institute Of Rural Development, Inc.

Duval

$626,462

807 

191 

174 

442 

433

374

Northeast Texas Opportunities, Inc

Delta, Franklin, Hopkins, Lamar, Rains, Red River, Titus

$395,338

1,334 

492 

705 

137 

102

1,232

Nueces County Community Action Agency

Nueces

$833,581

843 

27 

129 

687 

659

184

Panhandle Community Services

Armstrong, Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Collingsworth, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Donley, Gray, Hall, Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson, Lipscomb, Moore, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler

$972,381

4,202 

579 

1,354 

2,269 

2,168

2,034

Pecos County Community Action Agency

Crane, Pecos, Terrell

$152,828

221 



15 

206 

196

25

Agency Economic Opportunities Advancement Corporation Of Pr Xi El Paso Community Action Program, Project Bravo, Inc. Galveston County Community Action Council, Inc. Greater East Texas Community Action Program (Getcap) Gulf Coast Community Services Association Hidalgo County Community Services Agency

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 252

Stimulus Programs

County Served

Allocation

Persons Served

Black

White

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Rolling Plains Management Corporation

Archer, Baylor, Clay, Cottle, Foard, Hardeman, Jack, Montague, Wichita, Wilbarger, Young

$499,859

595 

125 

276 

194 

178

417

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission

Hardin, Jefferson, Orange

$3,124,174

5,698 

878 

584 

4,236 

4,297

1,401

South Plains Community Action Association

Bailey, Cochran, Garza, Hockley, Lamb, Lynn, Terry, Yoakum, Crosby, Dickens, Floyd, Hale, King, Motley

$1,894,395

2,557 

27 

2,165 

365 

2,424

133

South Texas Development Council

Jim Hogg, Starr, Zapata

$465,702

540 





540 

540

-

Texas Neighborhood Services

Erath, Hood, Johnson, Palo Pinto, Parker, Somervell, Wise

$854,434

1,492 

488 

860 

144 

133

1,359

Texoma Council Of Governments

Cooke, Fanin, Grayson

$589,476

1,639 

97 

444 

1,098 

922

717

Agency

Harrison, Jasper, Newton, Panola, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Tyler, Upsher Dallas

$354,311

673 

249 

403 

21 

17

656

$ 610,310

1,245 

725 

435 

85 

31

1,214

Webb

$869,850

871 





865 

858

13

West Texas Opportunities, Inc.

Andrews, Borden, Dawson, Ector, Gaines, Glasscock, Howard, Martin, Midland, Fisher, Nolan, Scurry, Upton

$966,654

1,405 

239 

311 

855 

846

559

Williamson-Burnet County Opportunities, Inc.

Burnet, Williamson

$281,840

667 

153 

166 

348 

331

336

$47,666,590

77,131 

23,291 

16,076 

37,764

38,978 

38,153 

Tri-County Community Action, Inc. Urban League Of Greater Dallas Webb County Community Action Agency

Total 

 

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 253

Stimulus Programs

HOMEBUYER TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS  ARRA created a tax credit program for qualifying taxpayers who bought a home before December 1, 2009. The Department created two programs in late Spring 2009 to help Texas families take advantage of the ARRA tax credit program for first-time homebuyers. The 90-day Down Payment Assistance Program (DPAP) and Mortgage Advantage Program (MAP) both provided short-term loans at 0 percent interest to eligible families in exchange for them filing for and receiving the federal first-time homebuyer tax credit. Upon receipt, borrowers were required to either repay the 2nd lien in full or make monthly payments for the duration of the term of the loan. Due to the overwhelming popularity of the program and limited availability of funds, applications were only accepted through September 23, 2009. The ARRA homebuyer tax credit program allowed homebuyers to claim a tax credit on either their 2008 or 2009 tax return. Homebuyers do not have to repay the credit to the IRS if the home remains their main residence for 36 months after the purchase date. Homebuyers can claim 10 percent of the purchase price up to $8,000 for individuals or married couples, or $4,000 for married couples filing separately. Taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is less than $75,000 for individual filers or $150,000 for joint filers were eligible to claim the credit. A first-time homebuyer is an individual or a married couple who has not owned a principal residence during the three-year period ending on the date of the purchase. Homebuyers applying for the Department’s DPAP or MAP needed to complete a homebuyer education course, be eligible to claim the federal tax credit and file the appropriate IRS forms to receive the credit.

90‐DAY DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Department’s Board gave staff the authority to utilize up to $5 million in Supplemental Bond Contingency Reserve Funds for down payment and closing cost assistance. The 90-day DPAP allowed a maximum of $7,000 for this purpose. DPAP offered 90 days interest-free for the homebuyer to access the tax credit and repay the loan. If the homeowner did not repay the loan within the specified period, the homeowners were responsible for repayment of a second lien note with a two year term and an interest rate of 10 percent.

MORTGAGE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM  PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Department’s Board gave staff the authority to utilize up to $2.5 million from funds within the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program and Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) Program 70. Like DPAP, MAP provided short-term loans at 0 percent interest to eligible families in exchange for them filing for and receiving the federal first-time homebuyer program tax credit. MAP funds were only available in conjunction with the Department’s First Time Homebuyer Program or the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. MAP allowed a maximum of $6,000 for down payment and/or closing cost assistance interest-free for 120 days for the homebuyer to access their tax credit and repay the loan. If the homeowner did not repay the loan within the specified period, the homeowners were responsible for repayment of a second lien note with a five year term and an interest rate of 7 percent.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 254

Stimulus Programs IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION FOR DPAP AND MAP The TDHCA Board approved the use of funds for the Mortgage Advantage Program on April 23, 2009. On May 21, 2009 the TDHCA Board approved the use of Supplemental Bond Contingency Funds for the 90-day Down Payment Assistance Program. First-time homebuyers accessed this program through a participating lender. The second lien for qualified borrowers was processed by TDHCA’s Texas Homeownership Division. Although applications were accepted through September 23, 2009, loans were allowed to close up to December 1, 2009.

STATUS OF FUNDS 

DPAP and MAP have been successfully completed within the timeframe allowed. A total of 756 households received DPAP and 98 households received MAP. A total of $4,043,738 was loaned as a result of DPAP and a total of $531,445 was loaned as a result of MAP. As of the end of state fiscal year 2010 (August 31, 2010), $3,318,853 in principal and interest were repaid to the Department. 90-Day Down Payment Assistance Funds County ATASCOSA BASTROP BELL BEXAR BRAZORIA CAMERON COLLIN COMAL CORYELL DALLAS DEAF SMITH DENTON ECTOR EL PASO ELLIS FORT BEND GAINES GALVESTON GRAYSON GUADALUPE HARDIN HARRIS HAYS HENDERSON HIDALGO HOOD HUNT JEFFERSON JOHNSON

Region

Allocation

Households Served

9 7 8 9 6 11 3 9 8 3 1 3 12 13 3 6 12 6 3 9 5 6 7 4 11 3 3 5 3

$ 3,373 $ 4,000 $ 47,124 $ 458,753 $ 51,886 $ 17,153 $ 170,964 $ 6,900 $ 8,749 $ 314,871 $ 6,100 $ 148,327 $ 20,329 $ 87,342 $ 40,495 $ 145,869 $ 7,000 $ 64,771 $ 3,233 $ 25,251 $ 4,551 $ 905,127 $ 12,879 $ 7,470 $ 3,815 $ 10,682 $ 7,312 $ 21,670 $ 39,350

1 1 9 89 8 4 28 1 2 61 2 24 4 18 8 24 1 12 1 5 1 164 2 2 1 2 2 5 8

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 255

Stimulus Programs

County

Region

Allocation

Households Served

KAUFMAN KERR LIBERTY LUBBOCK MATAGORDA MCLENNAN MEDINA MIDLAND MONTGOMERY NUECES PARKER POTTER RAINS RANDALL ROCKWALL RUSK SAN PATRICIO SMITH TARRANT TOM GREEN TRAVIS UPSHUR VAN ZANDT WALLER WEBB WILLIAMSON Total

3 9 6 1 6 8 9 12 6 10 3 1 4 1 3 4 5 4 3 12 7 4 4 6 11 7

$ 25,895 $ 6,382 $ 3,741 $ 25,292 $ 4,516 $ 8,131 $ 7,000 $ 10,623 $ 72,022 $ 77,928 $ 23,095 $ 19,819 $ 4,000 $ 69,613 $ 18,732 $ 11,154 $ 5,935 $ 23,657 $ 527,418 $ 32,580 $ 185,710 $ 4,173 $ 4,418 $ 7,000 $ 41,502 $ 178,056 $ 4,043,738

5 1 1 5 1 2 1 2 14 17 5 5 1 13 3 2 1 5 102 7 30 1 1 1 8 32 756

Mortgage Assistance Program Funds County BASTROP BELL BEXAR BRAZORIA DALLAS DENTON FORT BEND GALVESTON GUADALUPE HARRIS JOHNSON MONTGOMERY TARRANT TRAVIS WILLIAMSON Total

Region 7 8 9 6 3 3 6 6 9 6 3 6 3 7 7

Allocation $ 3,150 $ 5,619 $ 87,032 $ 19,000 $ 37,442 $ 17,000 $ 12,000 $ 4,000 $ 6,000 $ 225,489 $ 5,640 $ 4,909 $ 28,551 $ 49,458 $ 26,155 $ 531,445

Households Served 1 1 16 3 7 3 2 1 1 42 1 1 5 9 5 98

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 256

Stimulus Programs

HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE­HOUSING PROGRAM  PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ARRA created the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) to enable person who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to maintain housing. The HPRP funds are administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Department received $41,472,772 in HPRP funds. HPRP is administered through the Community Affairs Division. The intent of HPRP is to transition program participants to stability, either through their own means or with public assistance, as appropriate. HPRP is not intended to provide long-term support for program participants (assistance in limited to 18 months). This program was created in response to the financial stress on individuals and households due to the impact of the current economic downturn. HPRP funds homeless prevention assistance to individuals and households who would otherwise become homes and assists in re-housing persons rapidly who are homeless, as defined by Section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11303). To be eligible, households must have income at or below 50 percent of the area median income. Two target populations facing housing instability are eligible to receive funding under HPRP. The first target population eligible for homeless prevention assistance includes individuals and families who are currently housed but are at risk of becoming homeless; they may need temporary rent or utility assistance to prevent them from becoming homeless or assistance to move to another unit. The second target population eligible for rapid re-housing assistance includes individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness (e.g. residing in emergency or transitional shelters or places not intended for habitation) and need temporary assistance in order to obtain and retain housing. Homelessness Prevention services to at-risk populations include: • • • •

Assistance to locate, secure, and/or maintain housing, including mediation or outreach to property owner to help avoid eviction; Assistance for certain financial needs, such as utility payment, utility security deposit assistance, housing search and moving costs; Counseling and other activities to help repair credit ratings; and Case management to ensure that appropriate programs are accessed to help achieve and maintain self-sufficiency.

The Department set aside $2,073,639 of HPRP funds for a Pilot Program targeted to applicants interested in providing homelessness prevention services and case management to one or more targeted subpopulations. Five agencies were awarded funds under the Pilot Program. The targeted subpopulations are: • persons with a history of past institutionalization (including prisons, mental health institutions and hospitals); • persons with mental health and substance abuse issues; • persons with physical disabilities and other chronic health issues, including HIV/AIDS; • and youth aging out of the foster care system. The individuals must be at risk of homelessness and meet the HPRP Eligible Program Participant guidelines. 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 257

Stimulus Programs IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION The Department submitted a substantial amendment to its Consolidated Plan 2008 Action Plan that also served as the Department’s application for HPRP funds to HUD in May 2009 and HUD approved the Department’s substantial amendment on June 26, 2009. TDHCA released a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the HPRP funds, authorized by its Governing Board based on public input for both competitive portions of the HPRP funds. Applications were due May 29, 2009. Eligible applicants included units of general local government and private nonprofit organizations with an exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code exemption and whose professional activities included the promotion of social welfare and the prevention or elimination of homelessness. To allocate funds regionally across the State, the Department used a regional allocation based on the 13 Uniform State Service Regions. Calculation of regional allocations utilized U.S. Census data for individuals in poverty as well as unemployment figures for December 2008, January and February 2009 provided by the Texas Workforce Commission.

STATUS OF FUNDS 

The Department awarded HPRP funds to 58 eligible applicants. The contracts start date was September 1, 2009 and will end August 31, 2011. As required by ARRA, 60 percent of the HPRP funds must be expended within two years and 100 percent within three years or no later than July 16, 2012. The Department is on target to meet this deadline. The following table shows the amount of funds awarded to HPRP subrecipients and the expended amounts from the beginning of the HPRP program to the end of the 2010 state fiscal year (August 31, 2010). Expenditures by subrecipients are $19,757,245. Of the total award of $41,472,772, 2.5% ($1,036,819) was for administration for TDHCA. The total amount allocated to subrecipients was $40,435,953.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 258

Stimulus Programs

No. 1

2

Agency

County Served

Award Amount

2009/2010 EXPENDITURES as of 9/2010

Persons Served

HH Served

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Abilene Regional MHMR Center

Taylor, Jones, Callahan, Shackelford, Stephens

$84,297

$50,466

188

79

136

44

8

32

156

Travis

$341,507

$135,942

287

67

248

35

4

237

50

3

*Any Baby Can Of Austin, Inc. *Caritas Of Austin

Travis

$600,000

$249,893

222

218

101

119

2

39

183

4

Caritas Of Austin

Travis

$1,000,000

$611,140

669

371

423

225

21

147

522

Catholic Charities Diocese Of Fort Worth, Inc.

Cooke, Wise, Denton, Palo Pinto, Parker, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Somervell

$500,000

$176,998

265

104

242

10

13

45

220

Catholic Charities Diocese Of Fort Worth, Inc.

Cooke, Wise, Denton, Palo Pinto, Parker, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Somervell

$1,000,000

$435,111

289

139

255

32

2

27

262

Catholic Charities Of Central Texas

Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee, Llano, Travis, Williamson

$651,717

$334,575

410

130

225

112

73

127

283

Catholic Charities Of Dallas, Inc.

Dallas, Collin, Grayson, Fannin, Rockwall, Hunt, Kaufman, Ellis, Navarro

$1,000,000

$585,357

536

200

279

246

11

110

426

460

174

261

183

16

109

351

5

6

7

8

9

Denton

$1,000,000

$529,070

10

Christian Community Action City Of Brownsville

Cameron

$1,000,000

$199,535

299

118

297

2

0

299

0

11

City Of Dallas

Dallas

$790,316

$583,935

1,677

759

391

1,279

7

242

1,435

12

City Of Denton

Denton

$826,697

$267,587

715

210

474

150

91

116

599

13

City Of Irving

Dallas

$1,000,000

$283,384

214

100

145

66

3

87

127

14

City Of San Antonio, Department Of Community Initiatives

Bexar

$1,000,000

$493,459

502

149

352

60

90

333

169

15

Community Storehouse

Denton, Tarrant, Wise

$999,955

$484,828

481

136

330

91

60

95

386

16

Corpus Christi Metro Ministries, Inc.

Nueces

$624,500

$397,832

1,002

366

909

79

14

757

245

Crisis Center Of The Plains

Bailey, Briscoe, Castro, Crosby, Floyd, Hale, Hall, Lamb, Motley, Parmer, Swisher

$308,500

$189,894

1,163

285

1,060

100

3

645

518

17

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 259

Stimulus Programs

No. 18

Agency

County Served

Award Amount

2009/2010 EXPENDITURES as of 9/2010

Persons Served

HH Served

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

*Dallas County Mental Health Mental Retardation Center

Dallas

$320,905

$133,592

266

154

105

136

25

41

225

East Texas Crisis Center, Inc.

Smith, Henderson, Van Zandt, Wood, Rains

$201,679

$80,123

509

206

408

96

5

107

402

20

El Paso Center For Children

El Paso

$438,818

$209,564

71

47

65

1

5

69

2

21

*El Paso Coalition For The Homeless

El Paso

$414,489

$134,674

90

65

83

7

0

78

12

19

22

El Paso County

El Paso

$955,351

$276,188

155

105

139

16

0

123

32

23

Families In Crisis, Inc.

Bell, Coryell

$400,437

$349,632

353

139

162

180

11

49

304

24

Family Place, The

Dallas

$998,843

$606,636

969

341

349

469

151

294

675

25

Family Violence Prevention Services, Inc.

Bexar

$167,827

$86,088

66

26

57

1

8

30

36

Grayson County Juvenile Alternatives Inc

Grayson, Fannin, Cooke

$669,133

$317,410

417

171

282

122

13

36

381

27

Houston Area Urban League

Fort Bend, Harris

$644,727

$312,218

186

112

39

147

0

30

156

28

Houston Area Women's Center

Harris

$599,749

$312,264

114

45

47

61

6

38

76

Loaves And Fishes Of The Rio Grande Valley, Inc.

Cameron, Willacy

$937,120

197

57

196

1

0

184

13

Love I.N.C. Of Nacogdoches

Nacogdoches, Angelina, San Augustine, Shelby, Sabine

$998,401

$368,676

715

254

348

359

8

67

648

Memorial Assistance Ministries

Harris

$1,000,000

$548,905

481

143

275

189

17

280

201

Mid-Coast Family Services, Inc.

Calhoun, Dewitt, Goliad, Gonzales, Jackson, Lavaca, Victoria

$495,513

$290,794

833

301

684

126

23

527

306

Montgomery County Women's Center

Montgomery

$1,000,000

$448,958

399

132

245

128

26

61

338

New Hope Counseling Center, Inc.

Harris, Fort Bend

$522,522

$286,011

354

144

82

259

13

82

272

New Life Housing Foundation-Erath County

Erath

$468,999

$159,464

136

47

134

0

2

18

118

26

29

30

31 32

33 34 35

$171,584

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 260

Stimulus Programs

Award Amount

2009/2010 EXPENDITURES as of 9/2010

Persons Served

HH Served

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Medina

$453,765

$187,079

181

63

178

1

2

173

8

Walker

$750,878

$782,807

420

172

110

307

3

39

381

Northwest Assistance Ministries

Harris

$1,000,000

$653,818

463

169

88

372

3

37

426

Randy Sams' Outreach Shelter, Inc.

Bowie

$511,892

$186,913

723

383

289

420

14

15

708

Rockwell Fund, Inc.

Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Montgomery

$998,000

$432,930

503

151

243

246

14

125

378

Salvation Army For The DFW Metroplex Command

Dallas, Collin, Denton, Ellis, Tarrant

$880,103

$261,561

225

94

18

206

1

17

208

42

Salvation Army Of Abilene

Taylor, Jones, Callahan, Runnells, Nolan

$400,000

$181,269

272

109

184

86

2

112

160

43

Salvation Army Of Corpus Christi

Nueces

$447,912

$200,288

462

149

410

38

14

363

99

Galveston

$387,500

$127,450

187

93

98

89

0

39

148

Harris

$999,118

$699,216

705

271

111

466

128

198

507

Kerr, Bandera, Edwards, Gillespie, Kendall, Kimble, Real

$999,849

$594,099

1,079

402

874

56

149

369

710

Hidalgo

$250,330

$7,501

3

3

3

0

0

3

0

Midland

$402,338

$399,109

974

354

762

212

0

491

483

Smith

$810,255

$313,380

1,033

525

387

635

11

146

887

Salvation Army Of Waco

McLennan, Falls, Bosque, Hill, Limestone, Freestone

$999,980

$429,207

1,241

475

600

630

11

279

962

San Antonio Metropolitan Ministry, Inc.

Bexar

$1,000,000

$769,247

2,003

734

1,486

462

55

1214

789

52

SEARCH

Harris

$1,000,000

$388,737

115

82

18

97

0

6

109

53

*SEARCH

Harris

$396,738

$188,173

60

50

19

41

0

13

47

No. 36

37

38 39

Agency New Life Housing Foundation-Medina County New Life Housing Foundation-Walker County

40 41

44 45 46

47 48 49

Salvation Army Of Galveston Salvation Army Of Houston Salvation Army Of Kerrville Salvation Army Of McAllen Salvation Army Of Midland Salvation Army Of Tyler

50

51

County Served

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 261

Stimulus Programs

County Served

Award Amount

2009/2010 EXPENDITURES as of 9/2010

Persons Served

HH Served

White

Black

Other

Hispanic

NonHispanic

Shelter Agencies Families In East Texas

Titus, Camp, Morris, Franklin, Hopkins, Lamar, Red River, Delta

$538,350

$261,705

322

125

175

146

1

59

263

Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc.

El Paso

$251,023

$132,515

399

120

372

26

1

352

47

Urban League Of Greater Dallas

Dallas

$1,000,000

$496,853

489

225

112

377

0

43

446

57

Wesley Community Center

Harris

$995,920

$313,731

288

120

62

194

32

53

235

58

Youth And Family Alliance DBA Lifeworks

Travis

$1,000,000

$647,874

448

160

321

110

17

268

180

$40,435,953

$19,757,245

28,285

11,123

16,748

10,348

1,189

9,975

18,310

No.

Agency

54

55 56

Total

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 262

Stimulus Programs * These subrecipients were awarded funds for pilot projects. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES See the substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan 2008 Action plan for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) as approved by HUD posted on the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/recovery/detail-homelessness.htm.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 263

Stimulus Programs

HOUSING TAX CREDIT RECOVERY ACT PROGRAMS  Two ARRA programs are administered by the Department to assist with the existing Low Income Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program, the Tax Credit Assistance Program and the Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program. The HTC Program is an existing Department program and is the primary program used to develop affordable rental housing for working families. Through the HTC Program, the federal government encourages private investment in affordable rental housing by providing investors a dollar-for-dollar reduction on their federal tax liability for every dollar of eligible construction expenses. The current economic crisis has decreased demand for tax credits by investors. As a result, the pricing of tax credits has plummeted and many approved developments now lack the total funding needed for completion. This devaluation undermines the ability to develop housing with recently awarded tax credits.

HOUSING TAX CREDIT EXCHANGE PROGRAM  PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Through ARRA, the Housing Tax Credit Exchange Program (HTC Exchange) administered through the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) allows developments allocated HTCs in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 to return their tax credits by December 31, 2010. The Department can exchange the returned credits with the Treasury for case at a rate of $0.85 for each dollar in credit returned. The total amount of national funding is estimated at $3 billion and the Department received $594,091,929. Administration of the program is led by the HTC Exchange Administrator and shared by several Department divisions, including the HOME and Multifamily Finance Production divisions with support from the Real Estate Analysis and Program Services divisions. The HTC program can only be used for the new construction or rehabilitation/reconstruction of rental properties affordable to households earning up to 60 percent of the Area Median Family Income (AMFI), as determined by HUD. IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION The Department submitted two applications for HTC Exchange funds to Treasury in 2009. The first application was submitted on November 24, 2009 for $333,226,792 and was subsequently granted on December 10, 2009. The second application was submitted on December 30, 2010 for $260,865,137 and was subsequently granted on January 13, 2010. The total HTC Exchange grant funds provided by the Treasury is $594,091,928. As of this writing, 85 applicants have closed/executed the Exchange Subaward agreements. The 85 developments represent $577,750,427. Of the remaining $16,341,501, $15,646,100 has been conditionally awarded to 5 additional applicants that are expected to close on or before December 1, 2010. The remaining HTC Exchange funds of approximately $695,000 may be disbursed to an applicant. The amount of remaining HTC Exchange funds is subject to change since the 5 remaining transactions may close with slightly different final Exchange award amounts, depending on final underwriting and review process. If it is not allocated, the funds will be returned to Treasury on January 1, 2011. Eligible applicants include HTC applicants that: • •

received an allocation of HTC for award years 2007, 2008, 2009, and/or 2010; have paid all required tax credit commitment fees; and 2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 264

Stimulus Programs •

intend to return 100 percent of their HTC allocation.

The 2007 and 2008 HTC developments with a legally binding tax credit carryover will have priority for the allocation of HTC Exchange funds. Requests for HTC Exchange funds will be distributed based on each applicant’s original selection score and the application of a modified Regional Allocation Formula. Changes to the Regional Allocation Formula emphasize at-risk and rural developments. At-risk funding targets will increase to 20 percent from 15 percent and the funding targets for rural developments will increase to 40 percent from 20 percent.

STATUS OF FUNDS   

HTC Exchange Funding as of November 8, 2010, Tax Credit Exchange Program

FUNDING Exchange funds committed to date (Executed Subawards) Exchange funds remaining (Per final REA/Subawards) Total Exchange dollars allocated to TDHCA from the Treasury Department

Amount $ 577,750,427 $16,341,501

Percent 97.25% 2.75%

$594,091,928

 

There have been 7,795 units closed to date. The following table shows the allocated amounts and the awarded amounts from the beginning of HTC EX program to November 8, 2010. HTC Exchange Subaward Recipients as of November 8, 2010

City

Closing Date

LowIncome Units

Total Units

Subaward Amount

377 Villas

Brownwood

12/31/2009

73

76

$5,955,888

Abilene Seniors Apartments

Abilene

8/25/2010

92

92

$8,668,329

Anson Park Seniors

Abilene

2/22/2010

80

80

$7,518,709

Arbor Pines

Orange

7/20/2010

76

76

$6,725,114

Arrowsmith

Corpus Christi

6/29/2010

70

70

$3,755,601

Aurrora Meadows

Eagle Pass

6/29/2010

76

76

$9,642,000

Autumn Villas

Lorena

9/29/2010

16

16

$903,082

Brazos Bend Villas

Fort Bend

7/7/2010

120

120

$11,555,478

Buena Vida Apartments

Corpus Christi

7/13/2010

100

100

$7,532,749

Cambridge Crossing

Corsicana

2/12/2010

58

60

$5,010,115

Canyons Retirement Community

Amarillo

10/27/2010

106

111

$7,899,892

Carpenter's Point

Dallas

3/15/2010

150

150

$11,321,332

Deal Name

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 265

Stimulus Programs

Deal Name

City

Closing Date

LowIncome Units

Total Units

Subaward Amount

Casa Brazoria

Clute

5/27/2010

36

36

$7,448,709

Cedar Street Apartments

Browfield

5/7/2010

48

48

$3,883,800

Galveston

9/28/2010

192

192

$10,987,246

Houston

5/19/2010

150

150

$15,066,382

Cherrywood Apartments

West

9/30/2010

44

44

$2,458,658

Constitution Court

Copperas Cove

5/27/2010

108

108

$8,838,615

Courtwood Apts

Eagle Lake

9/30/2010

50

50

$2,052,965

Creekside Villas Senior Village

Buda

2/3/2010

144

144

$12,055,533

Crestmoor Apartments

Burleson

6/24/2010

68

68

$3,041,202

Crowley Fountainhead St. Charles

Crowley

6/29/2010

52

52

$2,096,644

Floral Gardens

Houston

7/28/2010

100

100

$11,786,975

Gardens at Clearwater

Kerrville

1/29/2010

80

80

$6,989,490

Gholson Hotel

Ranger

6/29/2010

50

50

$3,028,922

Greenhouse

Houston

6/30/2010

140

140

$12,426,601

Hacienda Del Sol

Dallas

6/22/2010

55

55

$8,643,534

Hampton Villages

Pampa

3/4/2010

76

76

$10,001,457

Harris Manor

Pasadena

6/21/2010

193

201

$6,414,471

Heights at Coral

Kingsville

7/2/2010

80

80

$5,755,096

Heritage Park Vista

Ft. Worth

3/26/2010

135

140

$10,707,151

Heritage Square

Texas City

5/20/2010

50

50

$3,058,062

Highland Manor

LaMarque

2/23/2010

134

141

$11,138,884

Holland House

Holland

6/21/2010

68

68

$3,622,969

Champion Homes at Bay Walk Chelsea Senior Community

HVM Alta Vista Apartments HVM Mid-Town Apartments Hyatt Manor I and II Apartments

Marble Falls

7/14/2010

64

64

$2,936,283

Tomball

7/14/2010

54

54

$2,549,514

Gonzales

9/28/10 Escrow

65

65

$2,551,331

Jackson Village

Lake Jackson

4/26/2010

92

96

$8,009,337

Lakeview Apartments

Tyler

7/21/2010

134

140

$12,169,238

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 266

Stimulus Programs

City

Closing Date

LowIncome Units

Total Units

Subaward Amount

Las Palmas Gardens Apartments

San Antonio

9/30/2010

100

100

$6,223,846

Legacy Villas

Eagle Pass

7/23/2010

64

64

$8,100,000

Leona Apartments

Uvalde

5/20/2010

40

40

$1,148,900

Lexington Apartments

Angelton

7/9/2010

80

80

$2,997,690

Lincoln Terrace

Fort Worth

6/15/2010

72

72

$7,894,851

Lufkin Apartments

Lufkin

7/22/2010

80

80

$6,094,394

Malibu Apartments

Austin

6/10/2010

428

476

$15,400,000

Meaghan Point

Elsa

5/26/2010

80

80

$10,164,292

Melbourn Apartments

Alvin

4/29/2010

110

110

$12,250,999

Millie Street Apartments

Longview

5/3/2010

59

60

$4,800,000

Mineral Wells Pioneer Crossing

Mineral Wells

2/15/2010

80

80

$5,300,934

Montgomery Meadows

Huntsville

3/19/2010

48

48

$4,519,862

Northgate Apts and Rhomberg Apts

Burnet

9/28/10 Escrow

60

60

$2,712,282

Oak Manor/Oak Village

San Antonio

4/7/2010

229

229

$12,171,481

Oak Tree Village

Dickinson

3/19/2010

36

36

$3,197,117

Oakwood Apartments

Brownwood

9/29/2010

47

48

$2,123,128

Park Place Apartments

Cleveland

5/20/2010

60

60

$4,301,518

Park Ridge

Llano

6/28/2010

62

64

$5,645,838

Park View Terrace

Pharr

6/11/2010

100

100

$9,498,011

Peachtree Seniors

Balch Springs

9/22/2010

144

144

$14,834,619

Prairie Village Apartments

Rogers

9/30/10 Escrow

24

24

$1,279,003

Premier on Woodfair

Houston

7/9/2010

390

408

$10,781,101

Residences at Stalcup

Fort Worth

5/4/2010

92

92

$7,279,740

San Gabriel

Liberty Hill

6/2/2010

71

76

$6,028,000

Santa Fe

7/9/2010

68

72

$6,051,451

Huntsville

5/21/2010

36

36

$4,023,653

Deal Name

Sante Fe Seth Heritage Crossing Senior Villages at Huntsville

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 267

Stimulus Programs

Deal Name

City

Closing Date

LowIncome Units

Total Units

Subaward Amount

6/30/2010

85

90

$9,104,580

2/4/2010

47

48

$3,807,300

Sierra Meadows

Houston

Southern View Apartments

Ft. Stockton

Stone Hearst Seniors

Beaumont

6/10/2010

36

36

$4,176,653

Stoneleaf at Dalhart

Dalhart

3/26/2010

76

76

$6,150,599

Suncrest

El Paso

6/15/2010

100

100

$3,362,746

Tierra Point

Karnes City

6/11/2010

76

80

$8,597,850

Trebah Vilalges

Katy

3/5/2010

121

129

$9,392,459

Tremont Apartments

Killeen

7/22/2010

112

112

$10,224,660

Trinity Gardens

Liberty

7/7/2010

76

76

$6,943,395

Turner Street

Palestine

6/16/2010

59

60

$4,840,000

Village Place Apartments

Lorena

9/30/2010

32

32

$ 1,747,030

Villages at Snyder

Snyder

3/12/2010

80

80

$9,277,302

Villas at Beaumont

McAllen

5/7/2010

36

36

$3,367,917

Villas on Raiford

Carrollton

8/19/2010

172

180

$10,542,031

Vista Bonita Apartments

Houston

5/19/2010

118

118

$10,822,758

Wentworth Apartments

Atascocita

4/28/2010

90

90

$9,757,269

Weslaco Apartments

Weslaco

7/13/2010

120

120

$10,021,149

West End Baptist Manor Apartments

San Antonio

9/30/2010

50

50

$3,198,456

Whispering Oaks

Goldthwaite

8/27/2010

24

24

$1,386,205

7,649

7,795

$577,750,427

TOTAL AWARDED REMAINING TO BE AWARDED

$16,341,501

TOTAL

$ 594,091,928

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES For more information, see the Department’s website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/recovery/detail-htc-exchange.htm.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 268

Stimulus Programs

TAX CREDIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM  PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) provides funding through HUD to compensate for the current state of the investor market for Housing Tax Credits (HTCs). TDHCA received $148,354,769 in TCAP funding. TCAP is administered through TDHCA’s HOME division. TCAP is modeled after the HOME Program which is also funded through HUD. ARRA seeks to address the loss in value of HTCs by allowing the Department to award TCAP funds to HTC developments adversely affected by current HTC market conditions. Eligible recipients for this funding are 2007, 2008 and 2009 HTC awardees. The HTC Program can only be used for the new construction or rehabilitation/reconstruction of housing units or adaptive reuse of commercial properties to provide housing units affordable to households earning up to 60 percent of the Area Median Family Income (AMFI), as determined by HUD. IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION The TCAP Plan was submitted to HUD by June 3, 2009 after a five-day public comment period. The Department revised the TCAP Plan on July 16, 2009 and HUD approved the Plan on July 23, 2009. The Department released TCAP funds through a competitive process open to eligible entities. TDHCA held four application rounds with applications for the fourth round accepted until December 31, 2010. TCAP funds were allocated according to the HTC Regional Allocation Formula distributing funds to 13 state regions, and within those regions, to urban and rural areas. The HTC Regional Allocation Formula is based on regional need for affordable housing and includes an at-risk setaside of 15 percent and rural set-aside of 20 percent. TCAP funds must be expended by February 16, 2012.

STATUS OF FUNDS 

TCAP is currently over-subscribed based on the funding requests at application and the number of active applications. All (100%) of the funds have been conditionally awarded. The conditions to final award are: 1) Application Review; 2) Underwriting Review; and 3) Previous Participation Review. A conditional award becomes an award when a TCAP Written Agreement has been fully executed. The award amount is shown in the first table below. The conditional award amount is shown in the second table below.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 269

Stimulus Programs Funding as of November 18, 2010, Tax Credit Assistance Program FUNDING 

Amount 

Percent 

TCAP Funds Awarded 

$134,167,200.00 

90% 

TCAP Funds Conditionally Awarded 

$20,592,168.00 

14% 

Amount Over‐Subscribed 

($6,404,599.00) 

Total TDHCA TCAP Funds 

$148,354,769.00 

   

Contractor Allocation and Awards as of November 18, 2010, Tax Credit Assistance Program

Applicant Name Akard Walk Residential, LLC Beaumont Grace Lake Townhomes, L.P. Beaumont Leased Housing Associates I, LP Beaumont Leased Housing Associates II, LP

Project City

Total TCAP Award*

TCAP Loan Closed

Total Amount Drawn

LowIncome Units

Total Units

200

200

112

128

Dallas

$4,028,185.00

Beaumont

$2,200,000.00

9/30/2010

Beaumont

$3,409,016.00

7/19/2010

$2,556,762

150

150

Beaumont

$2,261,410.00

7/19/2010

$1,696,058

90

90

Houston

$1,684,640.00

7/2/2010

$421,160

144

144

Boerne

$514,854.00

3/4/2010

$514,854

150

150

Brownsville

$2,827,801.00

6/29/2010

86

86

Brownstone Pearland Senior Village, Ltd.

Pearland

$1,800,000.00

4/20/2010

$900,000

126

126

Buda Huntington Partners, Ltd.

Buda

$1,593,040.00

2/11/2010

$1,194,780

116

120

Cevallos Lofts, Ltd.

San Antonio

$7,000,000.00

4/6/2010

63

252

Chicory Court VI, LP

Brownsville

$2,950,000.00

11/1/2010

132

132

Corban Townhomes, L.P.

Corpus Christi

$1,600,000.00

11/15/2010

128

128

Beechnut Oaks LP Boerne Terraces at Cibolo Apartments, LP Bowie Garden Apartments, LP

$2,950,000

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 270

Stimulus Programs

Costa Esmeralda, Ltd.

Waco

$5,200,000.00

Costa Ibiza , Ltd.

Houston

$1,500,000.00

Costa Mariposa, Ltd.

Texas City

$2,500,000.00

Costa Rialto, Ltd.

Houston

$1,500,000.00

Costa Vizcaya II, Ltd.

Houston

$1,025,000.00

Costa Vizcaya, Ltd.

Houston

$1,500,000.00

Crestshire Village, Ltd.

Dallas

$3,350,000.00

DDC Belmont, Ltd.

Leander

Desert Villas, Ltd.

112

112

216

216

252

252

216

216

116

116

252

252

8/3/2010

74

74

$3,900,000.00

8/17/2010

168

192

El Paso

$3,100,000.00

5/12/2010

$1,550,000

94

94

Encino Pointe, Ltd.

San Marcos

$2,500,000.00

9/8/2010

$1,875,000

252

252

Fairway Townhomes Housing, L.P.

Dallas

$1,352,350.00

4/14/2010

$1,352,350

297

302

Four Seasons at Clear Creek, Ltd.

Fort Worth

$5,365,000.00

7/21/2010

92

96

Glenwood Trails LP

Deer Park

$1,200,000.00

114

114

Horizon Meadows Apartments, Ltd.

La Marque

$2,490,000.00

5/26/2010

$562,901

96

96

Amarillo

$2,200,000.00

3/31/2010

$1,650,000

252

252

Kerrville

$2,440,146.00

12/31/2009

$2,440,146

73

76

Kilgore

$1,296,300.00

2/12/2010

$972,225

76

76

Mariposa Ella Blvd. LP

Houston

$3,556,213.00

9/14/2010

180

180

Mesquite Terrace, Ltd.

Pharr

$2,736,597.00

9/23/2010

106

106

Montabella Pointe, Ltd.

San Antonio

$1,755,000.00

10/20/2010

144

144

Onion Creek Housing Partners, Ltd.

Fort Worth

$1,500,000.00

5/5/2010

$1,500,000

224

224

Palmas Apartments, Ltd.

El Paso

$7,533,861.00

5/4/2010

$5,650,396

172

172

Jason Avenue Residential LP Kerrville Clearwater Paseo Apartments, LP Lexington Court Phase II, LTD

5/17/2010

8/9/2010

$1,300,000

$1,875,000

10/29/2010

$2,736,597

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 271

Stimulus Programs

PK Hillwood Apartments, LP

Weimar

$994,497.00

10/4/2010

San Angelo River Place Apartments, LP

Tom Green

$980,345.00

5/12/2010

San Elizario Palms, Ltd.

San Elizario

$680,000.00

SDC Fiji Senior, LP

Dallas

$5,550,000.00

Senior Living at Emory, LP

Lubbock

$2,746,454.00

Silsbee Oakleaf Estates, LP

Silsbee

$529,396.00

9/20/2010

South Acres Ranch II, Ltd.

Houston

$690,000.00

7/12/2010

South Acres Ranch, Ltd.

Houston

$750,000.00

TF Development, LP

Dallas

$1,412,476.00

11/9/2010

The Grand ReserveWaxahachie, Ltd.

Waxahachie

$3,420,000.00

1/13/2010

The Mirabella, Ltd.

San Antonio

$6,175,000.00

Timber Village Apartments II, Ltd.

Marshall

Trinity Quality Housing, LP

24

24

120

120

80

80

130

130

102

102

80

80

48

49

77

80

144

160

80

80

4/14/2010

172

172

$1,259,000.00

9/29/2010

72

72

Fort Worth

$4,950,523.00

5/14/2010

168

168

UHF Magnolia Trace LP

Dallas

$2,488,000.00

10/13/2010

112

112

UHF Tuscany Villas Housing, LP

Plano

$1,855,000.00

9/16/2010

90

90

Vista Ridge Senior Community, L.P.

Lewisville

$3,408,272.00

2/3/2010

$2,556,204

120

120

Woodmont Apartments, Ltd.

Fort Worth

$2,500,000.00

8/17/2010

$1,875,000

252

252

WOV Apartments, LP

Houston

$2,408,824.00

6/25/2010

$1,806,618

232

232

$134,167,200

n/a

$93,331,480

7,178

7,443

TOTAL

5/19/2010

$735,259

$4,162,500

$529,396

$2,565,000

$3,712,893

* Based on date TCAP Written Agreement fully executed by all parties

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 272

Stimulus Programs Conditional Awards as of November 18, 2010, Tax Credit Assistance Program LowIncome Units

Total Units

Total TCAP requested

252

252

$2,000,000.00

186

194

$750,000.00

Beaumont

150

150

$618,990.00

Beaumont

90

90

$328,565.00

Bowie

42

48

$2,000,000.00

Boerne

150

150

$3,000,000.00

Boerne

150

150

$5,000,000.00

Baytown

184

184

$1,489,613.00

80

80

$450,000.00

120

120

$2,005,000.00

Project City

Applicant Name ARDC San Marcos, Ltd. ARDC Sutton, Ltd. Beaumont Leased Housing Associates I, LP Beaumont Leased Housing Associates II, LP BETCO-Bowie Housing, L.P. Boerne Terraces at Cibolo Apartments, LP Boerne Terraces at Cibolo Apartments, LP HFI Wyndham Park Apartments, L.P. Presidio Palms, Ltd. San Angelo River Place Apartments, LP

San Antonio San Antonio

San Elizario Tom Green

Senior Living at Emory, LP

Lubbock

102

102

$450,000.00

The Colony Senior Community, L.P.

The Colony

145

145

$1,500,000.00

The Gibralter Senior, Ltd.

Clute

48

48

$1,000,000.00

TOTAL 

  

1,699 

1,713 

$20,592,168 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES For more information regarding TCAP funds, see the Department’s TCAP website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/recovery/detail-tcap.htm.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 273

Stimulus Programs

NEIGHBORHOOD STABLIZATION PROGRAM (NSP)  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) is a HUD-funded program. TDHCA received NSP 1 funding and is eligible to receive funds under NSP 3.

NSP 1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The purpose of the program is to redevelop into affordable housing or acquire and hold abandoned and foreclosed properties in areas that are documented to have the greatest potential for declining property values as a result of excessive foreclosures. Units of local governments and nonprofit affordable housing providers are eligible to apply for these funds. NSP 1 was authorized by HERA as a supplemental allocation to the Community Development Block Grant Program through an amendment to the existing 2008 State of Texas Consolidated Plan OneYear Action Plan. According to the NSP 1 Action Plan Substantial Amendment, each subrecipient will be required to setaside at least 35% of their non-administrative allocation to benefit households with incomes less than or equal to 50% of area median family income (AMFI). The balance of the subrecipient award will be used by the subrecipient to purchase the abandoned or foreclosed properties to rehabilitate and sell to households earning 120% AMFI or below. IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION TDHCA and the Texas Department of Rural Affairs TDRA have worked work together to administer the $102 million in funds received from HUD. TDHCA is taking the lead role in this partnership. • Direct Awards $61 million (more urban areas) • Select Pool $19 million (more rural/smaller communities) • Land Bank $11 million • Administration $10 million STATUS OF FUNDS Because NSP is a multi-year program, most funds have not yet reached households; information on households served will be included in the 2012 State Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report. The following tables show the allocated amounts per region and the awarded amounts from the beginning of the NSP program to the obligation date of October 2010. NSP 1 Obligations as of October 2010 Subrecipient Abilene Neighborhoods in Progress Affordable Homes of South Texas, Inc. Austin Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Brownsville Housing Authority Bryan-College Station Habitat for Humanity Builders of Hope CDC Central Dallas Community Development Corporation

Total Subrecipient Obligations $5,000.00 $3,638,760.10 $1,209,600.00 $2,934,248.95 $94,500.00 $2,123,898.00 $1,159,375.00

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 274

Stimulus Programs

Subrecipient City of Austin City of Beaumont City of Bryan City of El Paso City of Galveston City of Garland City of Harlingen City of Houston City of Huntsville City of Irving City of Laredo City of Lubbock City of Odessa City of Port Arthur City of San Angelo City of San Marcos City of Seguin City of Terrell City of Waelder Community Development Corporation of Brownsville Covenant Community Capital Corporation Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. FC Austin One Housing Corporation Fort Worth Affordability, Inc. Fort Worth Affordability, Inc. Frazier Revitalization, Inc. Housing Authority of the City of San Benito Housing Authority of the County of Hidalgo Inclusive Communities Project Midland County Housing Authority Neighborhood Housing Services of Waco, Inc. Plano Housing Corporation San Antonio Alternative Housing Corporation Tarrant County Housing Partnership Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation Texoma Housing Finance Corporation Travis County Housing Finance Corporation

Total Subrecipient Obligations $1,796,876.75 $1,121,413.00 $220,731.00 $354,375.00 $1,053,258.90 $1,505,659.02 $762,816.56 $3,353,519.00 $1,533,609.00 $2,940,540.00 $1,807,441.51 $716,874.70 $1,493,126.34 $1,418,352.53 $525,000.00 $365,701.29 $1,193,690.76 $49,554.35 $800,886.80 $3,868,571.00 $5,796,000.00 $6,009,618.42 $4,682,918.74 $4,724,901.00 $6,863,850.00 $960,787.24 $525,000.00 $1,228,634.36 $1,868,139.11 $1,061,949.00 $1,036,186.20 $5,828.94 $3,307,928.00 $5,630,397.05 $6,068,750.00 $8,651,259.38 $427,479.00

 

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 275

Stimulus Programs NSP 1 Activity Funding as of October 2010 Activities

Total Funds

Homebuyer Financing

$1,019,320.00

Homebuyer Financing Setaside (benefits households at 50% AMFI)

$1,166,193.52

Purchase and Rehabilitation

$9,196,317.60

Purchase and Rehabilitation Setaside (benefits households at 50% AMFI) Land Bank

$37,370,884.75 $11,284,087.64

Clearance and Demolition

$2,610,250.21

Redevelopment

$4,688,799.40

Redevelopment Setaside (benefits households at 50% AMFI) Administration

$24,723,872.97 $4,837,279.91

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES The NSP 1 Substantial Amendment and the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) may be accessed from the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/nsp/index.htm. For more information, contact Marni Holloway, NSP Manager, at (512) 475-3726.

 

NSP 3 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The purpose and eligible uses of funds under NSP3 duplicate those of NSP1, with an additional requirement to focus on rental housing. IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION A Roundtable will be held on December 3, 2010 to gather public input on the plan for use of NSP3 funds and the draft Substantial Amendment required by HUD will be presented to the TDHCA Governing Board at their January meeting. After a public comment period, the Amendment must be submitted to HUD by March 1, 2011. Funds will be available in the second quarter of 2011. STATUS OF FUNDS NSP3 was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act on July 21, 2010. The allocation formula provides $18,038,242 of Neighborhood Stabilization funds to the State of Texas. An amount of $10,753,264 will be granted directly to communities impacted by the foreclosure crisis and TDHCA will receive $7,284,978 to be distributed statewide. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES The NSP 3 information may be accessed on the TDHCA website at http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/nsp/index.htm. For more information, contact Marni Holloway, NSP Manager, at (512) 475-3726.

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 276

Stimulus Programs

NATIONAL FORECLOSURE MITIGATION COUNSELING PROGRAM (NFMC)  The Department applied for and received NFMC Round 2, NFMC Round 3 and NFMC Round 4. The Department is in the process of applying for NFMC Round 5.

 

NFMC ROUND 2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION HERA gave authority to NeighborWorks America to continue the National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling (NFMC) Program, originally authorized by the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. NFMC funds are federal funds available for foreclosure intervention counseling, training and administration expenses. The purpose of the program is to expand and supplement foreclosure counseling. All funds are targeted to “areas of greatest need” which are defined as areas experiencing a high rate of subprime lending, delinquent loans and foreclosure starts. The three NFMC funding categories are Counseling Funds, Program-Related Support and Operational Oversight. Counseling funds are used to provide financial counseling to homeowners in danger of foreclosure. As described by NeighborWorks America, “Many clients in the early stages of delinquency may benefit from brief counseling sessions that result in an Action Plan they can follow to get back on track and prevent foreclosure. More complex workouts, sometimes involving negotiations with mortgage lenders or servicers, require staff with additional expertise and will take longer to resolve.” 19 Program-Related Support are funds used to support the direct costs associated with increasing effectiveness and efficiency of the foreclosure programs, such as funding outreach to delinquent clients, collecting data and uploading quarterly reports. Operational Oversight is only available for intermediaries and state housing finance agencies and is for the administration of the program. The HUD-approved housing counseling agencies have written plans for providing counseling to homeowners in danger of foreclosure. Eligible recipients of foreclosure intervention counseling must be owner-occupants of single-family (one-to-four unit) properties with mortgages in default or danger of default. Many of the partner organizations work with toll-free foreclosure prevention hotlines. IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION In October 2008, TDHCA partnered with six HUD-approved foreclosure mitigation counseling organizations that met the NeighborWorks’ experience threshold in order to create an application for funding for NFMC Round 2. In December 2008, TDHCA was awarded $491,490 for NFMC Round 2. At the September 4, 2008 TDHCA Board meeting, staff received approval to use up to $250,000 in deobligated Housing Trust Fund funds for match to secure foreclosure mitigation assistance. To receive NFMC funds, the grantee must provide a 20 percent match for the first $500,000 in funding it receives. Of the $250,000 in Housing Trust Fund matching funds approved by TDHCA’s Board, $98,298 was provided as match by TDHCA. Of the NFMC amount, $27,090 was allocated by NeighborWorks America for Operational Oversight of the grant. TDHCA jointly administered the program with the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation (TSAHC).

NeighborWorks America. (2010, January 19) National foreclosure mitigation counseling program funding announcement for round 4 funds. Retrieved from http://www.nw.org/network/nfmcp/documents/Round4FundingAnnouncementRedlinedFINAL.pdf.

19

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 277

Stimulus Programs Funding was awarded to the partner nonprofit organization and local units of government included in the application submitted to NeighborWorks America. NFMC Round 2 reimbursed for counseling performed between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009. For NFMC Round 2, 30 percent of the funds were targeted to low-income or minority homeowners and low-income and minority neighborhoods. Matching funding categories were designed similarly to NFMC funds. Counseling Match reimbursed Sub-grantees for counseling sessions if the Sub-grantee had exceeded Round 2 production goals or if the Sub-grantee had re-counseling a household that had received sub-standard counseling from a non-TDHCA-funded agency. Because Counseling Match was provided with funds from the Housing Trust Fund, the households served with Counseling Match had to be in the 0-80 percent area median family income category. Capacity-Building Match was modeled after NFMC’s ProgramRelated Support. Capacity-Building Match was awarded based on a percentage of the counseling funds allocated by NeighborWorks America. Operational Oversight Match was allocated to TSAHC for program set up, sub-grantee technical assistance and auditing. STATUS OF FUNDS The final counseling sessions were uploaded in June 2010. NFMC Round 2 is in program review by NeighborWorks America. After review, NeighborWorks America will release the final draw. Households served by MSA, NFMC Round 2

MSA/Location Austin/Round Rock Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington El Paso Houston/Sugar Land/Baytown San Antonio Rural - Texas Total

Households (HH) Served

Counseling Ending in Foreclosure

HHs <50% AMFI

HHs HHs HHs 5080>100% White Black 79% 100% AMFI AMFI AMFI

393

1

147

138

66

42

328

265

12

102

87

63

13

65

0

61

4

0

281

2

112

44

125 7 1,136

0 1 16

16 3 441

29 2 304

Other

Hispanic

51

14

201

109

134

22

63

0

3

3

59

58

42

83

113

162

6

80

27 2 200

53 0 191

113 6 672

12 1 363

0 0 101

98 0 500

The foreclosure rate for households that received counseling was 1.4 percent compared to the Texas foreclosure rate of about 2 percent at the end of 2009. 20 Sixty-five percent of households served had incomes under 80 percent AMFI. Forty-one percent of households served were racial minorities and 44 percent were ethnic minorities. The most successful tool used by counseling agencies in NFMC Round 2 was bringing the mortgage current, which was successful for 167 households. Other tools commonly used included initiating a forbearance agreement or initiating a repayment plan (137 households) and negotiation of mortgage modifications (127 households). Due to the nature of the counseling process, counseling may continue for many months while the counselors and homeowners negotiate with the servicer. The outcomes of the counseling sessions are illustrated in the table below. Houston Business Journal. (2010, February 19). Texas foreclosure rate hits 2%. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2010/02/15/daily45.html.

20

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 278

Stimulus Programs

Counseling Outcomes by Households Served, NFMC Round 2 Counseling Outcomes

Households 12 167

Bankruptcy Brought mortgage current (with or without rescue funds) Counseled and referred to another organization for assistance (e.g. legal, social service, emergency) Counseled on debt management or referred to debt management agency Currently in negotiation with servicer; outcome unknown Currently Receiving Foreclosure Prevention/Budget Counseling Foreclosure put on hold or in moratorium; final outcome unknown Homeowner(s) sold property (not short sale) Initiated Forbearance Agreement/Repayment Plan Mortgage foreclosed Mortgage modified Mortgage refinanced Obtained partial claim loan from FHA lender Other Pre-foreclosure sale/short sale Withdrew from counseling Total

8 2 382 158 7 10 137 16 127 5 5 19 8 74 1,137

Funding by Organization, NFMC Round 2 NFMC Funds Allocated

NFMC Funding Drawn

$65,880.00

$64,507.50

% NFMC Funds Drawn 97.9%*

$11,160.00

11,160.00

100%

$16,740.00

$16,740.00

100%

$128,700.00

$128,700.00

100%

$104,040.00

$101,872.50

97.9%*

$137,880.00

$135,007.50

97.9%*

N/A - Grantee

$5,000.00

$4,322.75

86.5%*

$0.00

100%

N/A – Administrator

$22,090.00

$18,827.50

85.2%*

$25,644.00**

100%

$491,490.00

$481,137.75

97.8%

$98,298.00

100%

Metropolitan Statistical Areas Served

Counseling Agency City of San Antonio

San Antonio Beaumont/Port Arthur, Houston/Sugar Land/Baytown

Credit Coalition El Paso Community Action Agency, Project Bravo Frameworks Community Development Corporation Gulf Coast Community Services Association North Texas Housing Coalition Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation Total

El Paso Austin/Round Rock Houston/Sugar Land/Baytown Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington

Matching Funds Allocated/ Expended $9,783.00 $2,397.00

$3,595.50 $18,532.50 $16,263.00 $22,083.00

2011 Draft State of Texas Low Income Housing Plan and Annual Report 279

% Match Funds Drawn 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100%

Stimulus Programs *Does not include final draw; NeighborWorks America will release final draw after it approves the final review. **TSAHC was allocated matching funds to establish the program oversight and fiscal process.

NFMC ROUND 3 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public law 111-8) continued the NFMC Program, Round 3. The purpose of NFMC Round 3 is the same as prior NFMC Rounds. IMPLEMENTATION AND ALLOCATION In August 2009, TDHCA partnered with nine HUD-approved foreclosure mitigation counseling organizations to submit an application for NFMC Round 3 to NeighborWorks America. In October 2009, TDHCA was awarded $449,960 for NFMC Round 3. To receive NFMC funds, the grantee must provide a 20 percent match for the first $500,000 in funding it receives. For matching funds, $89,992 was made available by combined funds from TDHCA and TSAHC. Of the NFMC amount, $24,800 was allocated by NeighborWorks America for administration of the grant. TDHCA jointly administered the program with the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation (TSAHC). Funding was awarded to the partner nonprofit organization and local units of government included in the application submitted to NeighborWorks America. NFMC Round 3 reimburses for counseling performed between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Due to an adjustment to the allocation of counseling sessions between Metropolitan Statistical Areas, a