The For-Profitization of Affordable Housing Development and the de Blasio Plan

Transcription

1 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble An ANHD White Pper, October 2017 Led Resercher & Writer, Stephnie Sos nh d

2 An ANHD White Pper, October 2017 Led Resercher & Writer, Stephnie Sos Design, Melnie Breult Cover Photo/Credit: (Lower Left Corner) RiseBoro Community Prtnership. Knickerbocker Commons Building. (Upper Right Corner) Fordhm Bedford Corportion, Tiebout Green Building.

3 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Non-profit ffordble housing developers hve plyed key role in York City housing plns since the beginning of the modern, city-bcked ffordble housing model. Myor Koch s seminl Ten-Yer Pln relied hevily on non-profit developers, in prt becuse it ws understood tht non-profit developers re ble to deliver n especilly high level of public benefit since they mke development decisions independent of n individul bottom-line economic interest. 1 Historiclly, for-profits prticipted in ffordble housing development through joint ventures with non-profits to provide dditionl resources to projects. As the development lndscpe chnged, subsequent myors creted policies tht llowed for-profit developers to tke centrl role s primry developers nd long-term owners of projects. The role of for-profit developers hs grown over the yers, leving community development prctitioners to question whether ffordble housing development hs become overly relint on for-profit developers nd whether the level of public benefit creted by these projects hs diminished, which the Assocition for Neighborhood nd (ANHD) hs termed the for-profitiztion of ffordble housing development. The role of for-profit developers hs grown over the yers, leving community development prctitioners to question whether ffordble housing development hs become overly relint on forprofit developers nd whether the level of public benefit creted by these projects hs diminished, which ANHD hs termed the for-profitiztion of ffordble housing development. Mny observers expected tht Myor de Blsio s housing pln would reevlute this for-profitiztion trend. However, it hs been difficult to nlyze the issue s ccurte nd detiled public dt bout city-finnced housing development hs not existed. Now, for the first time, informtion is vilble through the recent implementtion of York City Locl Lw 44, which requires developers to report certin project detils. In this white pper, ANHD evlutes the for-profitiztion of ffordble housing nd uses Locl Lw 44 dt to compre some spects of the reltive role nd the public benefit of non-profit nd for-profit developers in Myor de Blsio s York Pln. 2 1 This understnding is clerly expressed in the legisltive text of the two stte nd city tx btements tht underlie most housing development tht is mjority ffordble. The York Stte Rel Property Tx Lw Section 420-c btement ws encted, with the requirement tht controlling interest in the development held by non-profit chritble orgniztions formed to crry-out n ffordble housing mission. Eligibility of for-profit entities ws expnded through text nd rules chnges in subsequent yers. The Privte Finnce Lw Article XI rel estte tx exemption similrly requires tht the eligible development entity be qulified chritble orgniztion or wholly controlled by qulified non-profit chritble orgniztion. 3 2 There re different spects of the de Blsio pln tht rely on for-profit developers. This white pper in not focused on policy tools such s the zoning-bsed Mndtory Inclusionry or the property tx- bsed Section 421 exemp- nh d

4 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble nh d RECENT HISTORY OF CITY-BACKED HOUSING PLANS When Myor Koch introduced the historic Ten-Yer Pln in 1986, he creted the modern er of city-bcked development with the lrgest ffordble housing pln to-dte tht relied primrily on municiplly-estblished progrms nd policies. The originl Ten-Yer Pln lsted for fifteen yers, growing beyond Koch s originl 100,000 unit gol, nd continued through the terms of Myor Dinkins nd Myor Giulini. Through its life, the pln encompssed wide rnge of progrms tht took dvntge of different opportunities to produce nd preserve ffordble housing. While the essentil pproch ws set by Koch, it ws djusted by the two myors tht followed him. Non-profit entities were the primry developers under Myor Koch, nd Myor Dinkins lrgely continued the Koch-er model of development during his tenure. In 1994, Myor Giulini mde significnt chnge to this model by dding new development progrm clled the Neighborhood Entrepreneurs Progrm. This progrm mrked turning point in city housing development policy becuse it ws the first progrm to encourge for-profit developers to enter the ffordble housing mrket, not s supporting prtners with mission-driven developers, but insted s the primry developers nd owners of the rel estte. When Myor Bloomberg cme into office, his mbitious Mrketplce Pln continued the trend of for-profitiztion estblished by Giulini, nd further tilted the ffordble housing development lndscpe towrds for-profit developers. The continution of this shift under Myor Bloomberg ws both result of specific policy chnges tht fvored for-profit developers within the lnd-lloction nd funding-ppliction process, nd lso the chnging lndscpe of ffordble rel estte development s city-owned lnd becme less vilble. Myor de Blsio took office in 2014, elected on public pltform tht emphsized shifting Myor Bloomberg s housing development policies to better mximize the public benefit, nd quickly relesed his York Pln to crete nd preserve 200,000 units of ffordble housing. The pln included the development of 80,000 newly constructed ffordble units nd the preservtionfinncing of 120,000 existing ffordble units. The pln ws not only unprecedented in the number of units, but lso becuse the pln promised to mke the tools of ffordble housing development more effective t creting the gretest public benefit in York City neighborhoods. With this bckground, mny community development prctitioners expected tht the de Blsio pln would reblnce the legcy of for-profitiztion left by the Giulini nd Bloomberg dministrtions. tion. These progrms re designed to function primrily s n incentive tht cretes vlue to developers of privte, mrket-rte housing in order to encourge them to include modest percentge of ffordble units in their mrket-rte buildings. This white pper is focused on core elements of the de Blsio housing pln tht re driven directly by citybcked finncing resources, which mke up the bulk of the unit gols in the ffordble housing pln. This direct citybcked finncing includes Low Tx Credits, city cpitl, Reso A, HOME funds, nd HPD 421. While there is some cross-over between the city-funded nd city-incentivized progrms, s generl rule developers who use direct city-bcked funding re prt of n ffordble housing development industry tht is subject to the terms tht the city lys out, while developers who use only the incentives re mrket-rte developers responding to the conditions nd opportunities of the privte mrket. 4

5 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble WHAT IS LOCAL LAW 44? The York City Council pssed Locl Lw 44 in 2012, requiring the York City Deprtment of nd (HPD) to collect nd mke informtion bout housing development projects receiving city finncil ssistnce publiclly vilble. The Locl Lw 44 dtset used for this nlysis is comprehensive of the first two nd hlf yers of Myor de Blsio s term, including 30,498 units of permnent rentl ffordble housing from 193 closings creted between Jnury 1, 2014 nd June 30, Becuse the nlyzed dt only cptures permnent rentl ffordble housing, it excludes homeownership nd supportive housing projects. The Locl Lw 44 dtset, lthough limited in some respects, llows us to better understnd the following questions: Wht types of dels hs HPD prioritized? Wht types of developers hs HPD prioritized? Where hs subsidy been llocted? Where, nd t wht level, hs ffordbility been developed? To nswer these questions, ANHD first ssigned sttus of non-profit developer or for-profit developer to ech of the individul dels in the dtset. This sttus ws bsed on their self-reported listing in the dt. In the cse of joint-venture developments with for-profit nd non-for-profit prtnership, ANHD stff reviewed the publiclly vilble ownership nd mortgge documents for the individul building to determine whether the beneficil owner nd beneficil borrower ws non-profit or for-profit, nd then ssigned the project developer sttus ccordingly. WHAT DOES THE DATA SAY ABOUT THE ROLE OF FOR-PROFIT AND NON-PROFIT DEVELOPERS? The dt shows tht for-profit developers were hevily fvored for new-construction development. There were 110 for-profit entities nd 83 non-profit entities tht ccounted for the totl 193 individul projects, nd 30,498 units nlyzed by ANHD. For-profit developers ccounted for 7 of new-construction dels, while non-profit developers ccounted for just 26% of new-construction dels. The discrepncy is even greter for the number of units creted. For-profit developers ccounted for 80% of the new-construction units, while non-profit developers ccounted for 20% of the new-construction units. (Refer to Chrt 1A: Locl Lw 44 For-Profit/ Non-Profit Dels Closed in Jnury 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016) On the preservtion side of the pln, the dt shows tht non-profit developers ccounted for 5 of preservtion dels, nd for-profit developers ccounted for 46% of preservtion dels. Although, mission-driven developers closed more preservtion dels thn their for-profit counterprts, the dt shows n imblnce between the number of dels closed nd the number of units preserved, with for-profits ccounting for 57% of the preservtion units while non-profit developers ccounted for only 43% of preservtion units. (Refer to Chrt 5 1B: Locl Lw 44 For-Profit/ Non-Profit Dels Closed in Jnury 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016) This mens nh d

6 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble nh d 6

7 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble for-profit developers re closing fewer projects, but working on lrger-scle projects tht yield more units. This discrepncy in the projects scle is significnt, s discussed below. TABLE 1: TOTAL PROJECTS CLOSED FROM JANUARY 1, 2014 TO JUNE 30, 2016 Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter) The Locl Lw 44 dt suggests tht city policies tht re leding to the discrepncy in new-construction dels wrded to for-profit nd non-profit developers is hving significnt impct on the cpcity of the non-profit sector. For community development prctitioners who believe city policies tht mrginlize non-profit developers lso undermine the cpcity of the non-profit sector, the question of which developers receive city-bcking for new-construction dels is especilly importnt. -construction dels llow for significntly higher developer fees thn preservtion dels nd re therefore fundmentl to creting developer cpcity. Developer fees cn ccount for 10-15% of the totl development cost of new-construction del, but re much lower for preservtion dels which hve set cp perunit. -construction projects nd their lrger developer fees re key resource for ny developer to deepen stff cpcity, ttrct equity prtners, build strong blnce sheet, nd crete the scle to develop self-sufficient nd diverse housing portfolio. And, s the totl development cost of newconstruction del increses, the increse in the developer fee cn further build developer cpcity. The Locl Lw 44 dt suggests tht city policies tht re leding to the discrepncy in newconstruction dels wrded to for-profit nd non-profit developers is hving significnt impct on the cpcity of the non-profit sector. For development on city-owned lnd, the developer is chosen through city-mnged Proposls (RFP) process. City-owned lnd developments ccounted for one-third of the totl ffordble housing development ctivity in York City. The other two-thirds of development ctivity consisted of preservtion finncing of existing ffordble units nd new-construction opportunities 7 brought to the city by developers. The discrepncy between the percentge of projects on city-owned nh d

8 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble lnd wrded to non-profit nd for-profit developers is strk: between Jnury 2014 nd June 2016, 90% of RFP-selected new-construction projects went to for-profit developers nd 10% went to nonprofit developers. While the universe of RFP-projects is modest there were ten totl RFPs tht would crete ffordble rentl housing in the time period nlyzed here the difference is notble. (Refer to Chrt 2: NYC Proposl Awrds Jnury 2014 to June 2016) nh d projects wrded on city-owned lnd re the clerest indictor of the intent of city policy becuse tht is where the city hs direct control over ll phses of the process. Through the RFP process, the city not only chooses the developer, it lys out the generl guidelines for both the public benefit tht the housing must provide, s well s the generl cost prmeters. Over the pst severl decdes, s public lnd vilble for housing development hs become scrcer, the remining sites hve tken on n even higher importnce for the public benefit of York City. Over the pst severl decdes, s public lnd vilble for housing development hs become scrcer, the remining sites hve tken on n even higher importnce for the public benefit of York City. 8

9 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble TABLE 2: NYC REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AWARDS JANUARY 2014 TO JUNE 2016 Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter). *BAM North Site ws provided other city ssistnce in the form of cquisition price. WHAT DOES THE DATA SAY ABOUT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT CREATED BY EACH DEVELOPER TYPE? Depth of y: The Locl Lw 44 dt shows the difference in the level of ffordbility creted by for-profit nd non-profit developers. HPD collects the unit dt by listing out units under ech income ctegory including: 3 Low (ELI): 0-30% of Are Medin (AMI) Very Low- (VLI): 31-50% of AMI Low- (LI): 51-80% of AMI Moderte- (Mod): % of AMI Middle- (Mid): % of AMI Although ll developers re required to report this dt on ll of their units, AMI reporting in the Locl Lw 44 dtset ws not enforced. Therefore, the Locl Lw 44 AMI dt from Jnury 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016 ws limited. ANHD nlyzed projects tht reported 100% of their project ffordbility, which ccounts for 40% of the totl dtset. While this lck of full dt is frustrting, 9 3 Refer to Appendix B: The AMI Chet Sheet [2017] nh d

10 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble the existing dt is considered sufficient to be sttisticlly significnt. The problem of lck of reporting hs become worse in more recent Locl Lw 44 dt releses, including the July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 dt, which hs such low levels of unit-ffordbility reporting tht ANHD ws not ble to include the dt in this nlysis. The Jnury 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016 dt shows tht non-profit developers built 25% of the totl number of new-construction ELI units, compred to 12% built by for-profits. In contrst, for-profits built 16% of the new-construction moderte- nd middle-income units, compred to only 5% built by mission-driven developers. (Refers to Chrt 3.1A: Locl Lw 44 For-Profit/ Non-Profit Units Creted by AMI in Jnury 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016 & Chrt 3.2A: Locl Lw 44 For-Profit/ Non-Profit Units Creted by AMI in Jnury 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016) Tble 3A: Percentge of Units Developed by AMI Brekdown Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter). Subset of Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter) dtset 79 projects of 193 projects reporting AMI Brekdown for 100% of units in ech project nh d 10

11 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble The unit-level dt for city-wrded RFP s lso shows difference between for-profit nd non-profit unit ffordbility levels. In the RFPs wrded to non-profit, totl of 398 units were developed, nd 100% of those units were developed for ELI, VLI, nd LI households. For-profits developed totl of 2,652 units nd 85% of the units were for ELI, VLI, nd LI households. Tble 3B: AMI Brekdown for Units Developed Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter) Subset of Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter) dtset 79 projects of 193 projects reporting AMI Brekdown for 100% of units in ech project 11 nh d

12 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble In the 10 RFP dels in the locl lw 44 dtset, non-profits developed low-income units t rte of 15 percentge points higher thn for-profits. The discrepncy in the level of ffordbility creted by mission-driven developers nd for-profit developers in new-construction dels is importnt becuse it suggests tht there is difference in the intent of the developer; lthough for-profits nd non-profits re looking t the sme RFP requirements nd hve ccess to the sme subsidy progrms, non-profits re mking decisions within the development process to build t deeper levels of ffordbility. As result, in the 10 RFP dels in the locl lw 44 dtset, non-profits developed low-income units t rte of 15 percentge points higher thn for-profits. This illustrtes the generl fct tht non-profits rent to the floor of the AMI bnd requirements, while for-profits rent to the ceiling of the AMI requirement in ffordble housing projects. Levels of y Creted on Public Lnd nh d Non-profits re creting 100% of their units t Low or below (80% AMI or below) For-profits re creting 85% of their units t Low or below (80% AMI or below) 12

13 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Permnent y: Locl Lw 44 does not provide specific dt bout the length of the ffordbility benefit in ech project, but the issue is key public policy question nd one fctor in understnding whether there is difference in the public benefit creted by for-profit nd non-profit developers. In generl, city-bcked ffordble housing is only ffordble for the term of the finncing. 4 Up until recently, this term ws most commonly 30 yers. 5 Wht hs become known s the expiring use crisis, first becme pprent in federlly-bcked Section 8 housing developments nd stte-bcked Mitchell-Lm housing developments. Over the pst decde, s these projects reched the time when the developer could opt-out of continuing the ffordbility requirements, locl neighborhoods hve lost tens of thousnds of ffordble units tht hve trnsitioned to mrket-rte fter the initil ffordbility term expired. There is similr crisis lredy occurring in city-bcked ffordble housing, s the housing built under Myor Koch begins to rech the end of the 30-yer ffordbility requirement. While the existing dt is limited, it is generlly the cse tht for-profit developers hve bottom-line incentive to opt-out of the ffordbility if nd when they cn, nd if nd when the mrket-rte rents in the neighborhood where the housing is locted is greter thn the rents tht would be llowed by n ffordble housing regultory restriction. In contrst, non-profit developers generlly chose to renew the ffordbility terms, preserving the vlue of the development for the community nd the txpyer. The below chrt shows the number of city-bcked ffordble housing units tht will hve their ffordbility restrictions expire beginning in 2017, illustrting the scle of the coming expiring-use crisis tht will most likely occur in for-profit developed buildings. The Locl Lw 44 dt demonstrtes tht this trend hs continued under Myor de Blsio. 4 The city mde n importnt chnge in the August 2017 round of RFP releses tht could crete significntly longer-term ffordbility of projects built on city-owned lnd by creting reminder right for the city in the lnd disposition greement. This reminder right gives the city the bility to exercise its discretion to require the renewl of the ffordbility terms The length-of-ffordbility incentives hve been djusted in the Qulified Alloction Plns tht set the bseline for LIHTC eligibility in order to encourge longer-term ffordbility, up to 60-yers. nh d

14 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble NEW YORK CITY S NEXT AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPIRING USE CRISIS TIMELINE The Expirtion Timeline Source: The Assocition for Neighborhood & (ANHD). Permnent Problem Requires Permnent Solution: York City s Next Affordble Expiring-Use Crisis nd the Need for Permnent y P. 28. nh d WHAT DOES THE DATA SAY ABOUT WHO GETS CITY SUBSIDY? HPD hs given totl of $1.2 billion in city subsidy to permnent rentl ffordble housing projects from Jnury 2014 to June There is n imblnce of the totl mount of city subsidy llocted to ech ctegory of developer, with for-profit developers receiving 65% of the totl subsidy llocted between Jnury 2014 nd June Of totl subsidy mount, $692 million went to new-construction dels with 80% llocted to forprofits nd 20% llocted to non-profit developers. projects received totl of $523 million in subsidy with non-profit developers receiving 57% of the totl preservtion subsidy nd for-profit developers receiving 43% of the preservtion subsidy. 6 City Subsidy is defined s subsidy tht is given to developers from vrious York City sources including low interest lons, Reso-A, Low Tx Credits (LIHTC), nd grnts. 14

15 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble TABLE 4A: TOTAL CITY SUBSIDY PER PROJECT & UNIT IN JANUARY 1, 2014 TO JUNE 30, 2016 Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter). TABLE 4B: AVERAGE SUBSIDY PER UNIT JANUARY 1, 2014 TO JUNE 30, 2016 Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter). The Locl Lw 44 dt provides n importnt opportunity to review nd compre the ctul per-unit costs, nd to evlute the fctors tht my influence this cost. Community development prctitioners hve believed tht, for vriety of resons, non-profit developers often hve higher per-unit development cost, nd this fct hs been used to rgue tht non-profit developers re less efficient users of public subsidy. Locl Lw 44 gives the dt to evlute this question for the first time. The dt shows tht there is difference in subsidy per-unit between for-profit nd mission-driven developers, lthough less thn community development prctitioners nticipted. For-profits verge $61,196 per-unit for new-construction nd $20,607 per-unit for preservtion, while mission-driven developers verge $61,260 per unit for new-construction nd $36,017 per unit for rehbilittion. Locl Lw 44 dt bout the depth of ffordbility, the project scle, nd the complexity of tennt 15 reltions in preservtion dels gives fuller context for understnding the discrepncy in subsidy perunit: nh d

16 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Scle: Efficiency of scle hs n impct on overhed nd operting costs, s they re shred mong projects with greter number of units. The size of the project hs n impct on wht subsidies cn be unlocked to finnce project. A project with more units will typiclly cost less per-unit becuse units llow for more cross subsidizing mong units. Also, more money cn be rised through the use of Low Tx Credits (LIHTC), city subsidized bond dels nd HPD subsidy. A project with fewer units will hve more limited opportunities to cross subsidize units long with more limited pool of city subsidy. The smller scle of the verge non-profit del is therefore fctor in the cost per-unit. Depth of ffordbility: The depth of ffordbility hd n impct on efficiency becuse deeper levels of ffordbility in project re more expensive upfront. These low-income units produce lower rent roll, mking it more complex to cover upfront nd operting costs throughout the term of the project. High-income nd mrket-rte units tend to generte enough income to cover operting costs through the term of the project. The deeper-level of ffordbility creted by the non-profit developers is therefore fctor in the cost per-unit. Complexity of Tennt Reltions in Dels: dels in generl, nd smller dels nd cluster-site dels in prticulr, require high-level of hnds-on, stff-intensive enggement to support tennts who re in-plce or relocted during the construction phse of the project. Reloction nd tennt-in-plce dels often become more costly, s the orgniztion is required to help subsidize the rents nd/or ny reloction costs of the tennts. The fct tht mission- driven developers re doing lrger shre of the preservtion dels, nd lrger shre of the smller scle nd cluster-site preservtion dels with smll unit counts, is therefore fctor in the cost per-unit. nh d DATA SUMMARY The newly vilble Locl Lw 44 dt provides n essentil window to understnding the forprofitiztion of ffordble housing development. In summry: 7 of new-construction dels were by for-profit developers, while non-profit developers ccounted for just 26% of new-construction dels. For-profit developers produced 80% of the new-construction units, while non-profit developers produced 20% of the new-construction units. Non-profit developers ccounted for 5 of preservtion dels, nd for-profit developers ccounted for 46% of preservtion dels. Despite closing more dels, mission-driven developers produced 43% of the preservtion dels, creting discrepncy between the scle of projects between for-profit nd non-profit developers. Between Jnury 2014 nd June 2016, 9 out of 10 RFP-selected new-construction projects went to for-profit developers. Of those dels, non-profits developed low-income units t rte of 15 percentge points higher thn for-profits, with non-profits developing 100% of their units for low-income households. 16

17 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble From Jnury 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016, non-profits built 9 of the totl number of newconstruction ELI, VLI, LI units, compred to 8 built by for-profits. For-profits built 16% of the new-construction moderte- nd middle-income units, compred to 5% built by non-profit developers. 80% of the new construction subsidy ws llocted to for-profits nd 20% llocted to nonprofit developers. 57% of the totl preservtion subsidy went to non-profits nd for-profit developers receiving 43% of the preservtion subsidy. 17 nh d

18 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble APPENDIX A LOCAL LAW 44 NON-PROFIT / FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPER COMPARISON DATA PROJECTS DEVELOPED BY SIZE Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter). nh d Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter). 18

19 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble PROJECTS DEVELOPED BY PROGRAM 19 Source: NYC &. Locl Lw June (2013 nd lter). nh d

20 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble APPENDIX B ANHD S AMI CHEAT SHEET [2017] The AMI Chet Sheet [2017] AMI Level (3-Person Household) 10% AMI Mx Monthly Rent % of NYC Popultion $8,590 $ % Wht is AMI? AMI stnds for Are Medin. It is clculted nd relesed every yer by the U.S. Deprtment of nd (HUD). Low (ELI) 20% AMI $17,180 $ % 27.2% AMI is the combined verge household income for the full York City metropolitn re. This includes the incomes of residents in the ll five boroughs, long with surrounding counties like Westchester, Putnm, Firfield, nd Rocklnd. 30% AMI $25,770 $ % AMI sets the rent of subsidized residentil unit nd wht households cn qulify for tht rent level. To clculte AMI you need both your totl household income nd household size. Very Low (VLI) 40% AMI 50% AMI $34,360 $42,950 $801 $1, % 6.93% 14.2% Low (LI) 60% AMI 70% AMI 80% AMI $51,540 $60,130 $68,720 $1,230 $1,445 $1, % 5.76% 4.40% 16.3% nh d Moderte (MOD) Middle (MID) High * (Mrket Rte) 90% AMI 100% AMI 110% AMI 120% AMI 130% AMI 140% AMI 150% AMI 160% AMI 170% AMI 180% AMI 190% AMI 200+% AMI $77,310 $85,900 $94,490 $103,080 $111,670 $120,260 $128,850 $137,440 $146,030 $154,620 $163,210 $171,800+ $1,874 $2,089 $2,304 $2,519 $2,733 $2,948 $3,163 $3,378 $3,592 $3,807 $4,022 $4, % 4.00% 3.25% % 2.41% 1.78% 2.10% 1.56% 1.75% 1.43% 1.02% % 17.1% This chrt shows the shre of the York City popultion of ech income brcket. ANHD s AMI Chet Sheet is generl guide. It does not report exct rents, household income, or shre of York City popultion for ny York City region AMI level. Actul numbers my vry nd should be looked up using York City s Deprtment of nd (HPD) resource tool. *High is not n ctul ffordble housing ctegory nd is used here simply for lbeling purposes. Household incomes re clculted from the U.S. Deprtment of nd Urbn (HUD) clcultion of the 2017 Are Medin (AMI) of the York City region using 3-person household size nd 50% AMI s the bse. Rents re clculted s wht is ffordble to the corresponding income s 30% of monthly income. Shre of York City Popultion is clculted using the 2015 Americn Community Survey (most up to dte dt vilble Tble B19001 nd prorted to correspond to the pproximte AMI income bnd. 50 Brod Street, Suite 1402 York, NY comms@nhd.org 20

21 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble APPENDIX C ANHD S ANALYSIS OF THE COMPLETE LOCAL LAW 44 DATA SET JANUARY 1,2014 TO JUNE 30, 2016 Project Nme Type of Subsidy Progrm Totl Project Units Owner Sttus Borrower Legl Entity Nme Developer Selection RFP Nme LIHTC LIHTC Amount City Cpitl Reso A HOME 421- Purchse Money Mortgge City Cpitl s / HDC Grnt Totl Subsidy Subsidy Per Unit Low Very Low Low Moderte Middle Livoni Inititive Phse I Livoni Low Livoni Commons Rentl 278 For Profit Commons, L.P. Proposls Proposls LIHTC $314,969 $2,300,000 $1,900,000 $9,700,000 $13,900,000 $50, HUD Multi- Belmont Fmily 2476 BCH Venezi Progrm 180 For Profit Owners $4,137,334 $4,137,334 $22, Crossrods Crossrods II Plz- Rentl Low, Negotited Low Rentl 136 For Profit Sle LIHTC $2,004,912 $768,544 $227,000 $2,471,456 $4,110,274 $7,577,274 $55, My Micro NY fk Adpt dapt NYC NYC/Micro Rentl - Units Mixed 55 For Profit 1 MCP Proposls Proposls $1,167,488 $1,062,512 $2,230,000 $40, Vest Steinwy Hrlem Cluster- Artimus HARP 84 For Profit Preservtio Steinwy, $429,700 $975,000 $1,404,700 $16, , 133 Equities Inc. Progrm 100 For Profit Qulifictions $8,406,046 $1,666,224 $10,072,270 $100, TBK902 - S-Five Shind TPT 95 For Profit Properties Qulifictions $7,365,024 $7,365,024 $77, NEP Round 1 Mott Hven Mott Hven For Profit 140 $1,439,152 $1,439,152 $12, Rentl River 810 River Mixed 134 For Profit Prtners LIHTC $1,299,949 $8,800,000 $2,000,000 $1,250,000 $12,050,000 $89, TBX910 - Plover Lemle & Aprtments Wolff TPT 138 For Profit Morris Qulifictions LIHTC $772,301 $14,688,465 $14,688,465 $106, Morris Low Second Rentl 176 For Profit Compny, Inc. Second LIHTC $2,040,370 $11,260,000 $11,260,000 $63, Atlntic Atlntic Terminl Terminl Corportion Edgecombe Lon 305 For Profit Corportion $100,000 $600,000 $700,000 $2, Edgecombe Reyndiction (Phse) For Profit LIHTC $904,114 $5,969,000 $5,969,000 $23, Gtewy Low Elton Owner III Negotited Elton III 2015 Rentl 287 For Profit Sle LIHTC $3,967,803 $14,350,000 $14,350,000 $50, Monterey HUD Multi- k PRC Fmily 2015 Monterey Monterey Progrm 330 For Profit LIHTC $1,787,295 $0 $ E 173 Lon 27 For Profit 800 E 173 $945,000 $945,000 $35, Southern 829 Southern Boulevrd Blvd. HDFC Lon 49 For Profit HDFC $907,347 $907,347 $18, Hull 3279 Hull Ave. HDFC Lon 51 For Profit HDFC $141,000 $141,000 $2, Greenpoint - Willimsbur g Request Willimsburg Low 188 Prtners for Aprtments Rentl 53 For Profit Proposls Proposls LIHTC $912,359 $1,445,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $4,945,000 $93, Home for Hrlem Hrlem Low Dowling Negotited Dowling Rentl 60 For Profit Alembic Sle LIHTC $1,065,981 $3,600,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000 $76, Rentl - High Hwk Direct High Hwk Mixed 73 For Profit Owner, Negotition $5,475,000 $5,475,000 $75, Prospect Plz Selected by Redevelopm Low Another ent Rentl 110 For Profit Ocenhill, Agency LIHTC $1,780,502 $6,600,000 $6,600,000 $60, Mple Court - Mple Court 1901 Dev Mdison Ave Lon 135 For Profit Corp $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $8, University Overleverg WFHA King ed 139 For Profit Boulevrd LP LIHTC $1,265,909 $9,206,914 $7,473,086 $16,680,000 $120, PS 186 AKA FS 140th Street BGCH (Boys nd Girls Club of Rentl - Hrlem) Mixed 79 For Profit Corportion LIHTC $2,040,369 $3,920,000 $3,000,000 $6,920,000 $87, L&M HCCI 260 W 153rd Low West 153 Negotited Street Rentl 51 For Profit Owner Sle LIHTC $1,175,188 $1,090,000 $1,090,000 $21, Frederick Rentl - Douglss 21 nh d Summit Ridge 9306 Shore Front Prkwy Low Rentl 58 For Profit Rentl - Mixed 64 For Profit 950 Summit Cstle HIll LIHTC $661,287 $3,581,326 $750,000 $4,331,326 $74, Equities $4,160,000 $4,160,000 $65, Strivers Plz Mixed 54 For Profit Relty $2,970,000 $2,970,000 $55,

22 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Bronx HUD Multi- Morrisni Fmily Portfolio Progrm 676 For Profit Corportion LIHTC $4,820,712 $0 $0 19 TBX909- Erickson TPT 100 For Profit 1770 TPT, Qulifictions LIHTC $465,566 $6,754,624 $6,754,624 $67, Crossrods Rentl - Crossrods I Negotited Plz I Mod/Mid 163 For Profit Owner Sle $12,428,750 $12,428,750 $76, Archer Merrick Archer Low Limited Rentl 89 For Profit Prtnership LIHTC $1,129,783 $5,781,535 $800,000 $6,581,535 $73, Greenpoint Rentl - Lnding E3 SKA Mrin. Mixed 98 For Profit E3 Owner LIHTC $743,516 $6,370,000 $6,370,000 $65, First Drper Hll Ave. Drper Senior Aprtments Hll 203 For Profit LIHTC $3,447,185 $2,000,000 $22,423,094 $24,423,094 $120, Selected by Prospect Low Another Plz - Site 2 Rentl 149 For Profit Ocenhill II Agency LIHTC $2,699,100 $8,940,000 $1,845,207 $10,785,207 $72, Nvy Yrd HDFC Inc. Nvy Yrd (8A) Lon 159 For Profit HDFC Inc. $3,154,223 $250,000 $3,404,223 $21, Prk (Low Low Trinity Prk Ave ) 3160 Prk Rentl 152 For Profit Affordble LIHTC $1,465,132 $6,175,000 $6,175,000 $40, Trinity Prk Ave (Mixed Rentl - Mixed Use MT ) Mixed 152 For Profit $3,250,000 $500,000 $3,750,000 $24, Selected by Stnley Low Stnley Another Commons Rentl 240 For Profit Commons Agency LIHTC $3,011,763 $11,329,360 $5,014,000 $2,500,000 $18,843,360 $78, G&M Prticiptio G ∓ M Properties PROPERTIES II Phse II Progrm 181 For Profit LP LIHTC $1,925,000 $7,240,000 $4,932,913 $12,172,913 $67, BAM Culturl District North Rentl - ROSE BCD A BAM North Site Tower II Mixed 314 For Profit Proposls Site II $0 $ Bensonhurst HUD Multi- For Fmily BENSONHURST The Elderly Progrm 71 For Profit HOUSING LP LIHTC $549,278 $0 $ Relty REALTY Ltd. on Progrm 46 For Profit LTD $1,610,000 $1,610,000 $35, WEST TMN601B - MDG TPT 26 For Profit PRC HUD Multi- 174TH STREET Qulifictions $1,081,607 $1,081,607 $41, Andrews Fmily PRC ANDREWS Progrm 248 For Profit AVENUE LIHTC $1,369,794 $0 $ TBX602- ANDREWS Bronx Pro TPT 60 For Profit AVENUE Qulifictions $7,497,955 $7,497,955 $124, Riverbend RIVERBEND Compny, HOUSING CO Inc. on Progrm 625 For Profit INC $750,675 $1,500,000 $2,250,675 $3, The Pvilion t Locust PALM TRITON Mnor y 85 For Profit LIHTC $789,594 $5,040,000 $5,040,000 $59, CROTONA TERRACE BUILDING B y 108 For Profit Senior Affordble ROCKAWAY Rentl SEAGIRT Aprtments 154 For Profit LIMITED WEST FARMS APARTMENTS y 181 For Profit GENESIS Y For Profit OWNERS Preservtio Grnd & Rogers Progrm 87 For Profit Group L.P. Qulifictions 2030 CRESTON y 114 For Profit AVE Croton Terrce II Arker Bech Chnnel Drive West Frms/Longf ellow Ave Genesis Yer 15 Resyndictio n Grnd & Rogers Cluster - JGV Creston- Burnside LIHTC $1,278,507 $7,992,000 $7,992,000 $74, LIHTC $2,611,243 $11,550,000 $11,550,000 $75, LIHTC $2,112,313 $1,900,000 $800,000 $11,675,000 $14,375,000 $79, LIHTC $2,184,511 $10,404,049 $10,404,049 $29, LIHTC $975,939 $7,238,141 $7,238,141 $83, LIHTC $976,473 $8,550,000 $500,000 $9,050,000 $79, nh d Aquins Decon Jun Sntos HDFC Compss Residences 2A HUD Multi- Aquins Fmily Decon Jun Progrm 136 For Profit Sntos $2,744,508 $2,744,508 $20, Multi-fmily Rentl- Mix COMPASS TWO Direct nd Mtch 256 For Profit A Negotition LIHTC $891,475 $10,240,000 $10,240,000 $40,

23 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Compss Residences COMPASS TWO Direct 2B y 328 For Profit B Negotition LIHTC $2,208,871 $11,222,000 $600,000 $1,078,000 $12,900,000 $39, Est 138 EAST 138TH Street y 96 For Profit STREET LIHTC $1,224,243 $6,853,600 $1,250,000 $8,103,600 $84, THIRD AVENUE 3475 Third OWNER y 102 For Profit REALTY NME II LIHTC $1,250,000 $7,650,000 $7,650,000 $75, HOUSING HCCI 2 Phse DEVELOPMENT II For Profit FUND $3,918,285 $3,918,285 $18, Essex Multi-fmily Crossing - Rentl- Mix SITE 2 DSA Sewrd Site 2 nd Mtch 585 For Profit OWNER Proposls Prk LIHTC $1,197,848 $0 $ Essex Multi-fmily Crossing - Rentl- Mix SITE 5 DSA Sewrd Site 5 nd Mtch 633 For Profit Affordble OWNER Proposls Prk LIHTC $1,006,686 $0 $ Neighborho od 508 West 508 West Coopertive 134th Street 134 Street Progrm 15 For Profit Qulifictions $1,956,737 $1,956,737 $130, Sumpter Sumpter Mrcus LP II on Progrm 49 For Profit Mrcus LP II $102,300 $102,300 $2,088 6 SEDGWICK 2629 Prticiptio AVENUE Sedgwick DIGNITY Progrm 30 For Profit DEVELOPERS $660,000 $660,000 $22, Tritros Tritros Corp. on Progrm 40 For Profit Corportion $450,000 $450,000 $11, SKIPP TO MY BEC Phse For Profit LILLY $3,371,264 $3,371,264 $15, Longfellow LONGFELLOW For Profit OWNERS $2,289,042 $2,289,042 $15, EXCEL NELSON Direct Excelsior II y 60 For Profit LP Negotition LIHTC $1,237,540 $3,299,553 $444,000 $3,743,553 $62, University UNIVERSITY on Progrm 30 For Profit REALTY $1,490,021 $1,490,021 $49, Briggs 2609 BRIGGS Relty on Progrm 55 For Profit REALTY $1,170,046 $1,170,046 $21, Essex Crossing - SITE 6 DSA Sewrd Site 6 y 100 For Profit OWNER MORRIS Proposls Prk LIHTC $1,939,980 $0 $ Prticiptio HEIGHTS Andrews PRESERVATIO Lower Est Progrm 56 For Profit N L P LIHTC $737,126 $2,240,000 $2,263,274 $4,503,274 $80, Side - Prticiptio Inclusionry B&N HOUSING Zoning 2264 Morris Webster Commons Building D Tremont Renissnce 2605 Grnd Concourse Concourse Villge, Inc. II 530 Exterior Street (k E 149 St A) TMN903 - Lemle & Progrm 26 For Profit $1,787,586 $1,787,586 $68, Morris y 94 For Profit Prtners LIHTC $1,587,452 $7,050,000 $7,050,000 $75, WEBSTER Multi-fmily BUILDING D Rentl M2 246 For Profit $11,178,855 $11,178,855 $45, Multi-fmily Tremont Rentl- Mix Renissnce nd Mtch 256 For Profit LIHTC $1,951,450 $17,920,000 $2,000,000 $19,920,000 $77, Multi-fmily 2605 GC Rentl M2 94 For Profit OWNER $8,789,000 $8,789,000 $93, CONCOURSE on Progrm 1872 For Profit VILLAGE INC $941,085 $941,085 $ Rm Exterior y 157 For Profit LIHTC $2,234,129 $11,775,000 $2,250,000 $14,025,000 $89, FOUR CORNICE PROPERTIES 23 nh d Home Street Homes For Profit Corportion $2,267,410 $2,267,410 $20, Wolff TPT 92 For Profit Jidyn Relty Qulifictions $16,369,975 $600,000 $16,969,975 $184,

24 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Clyton Clyton Aprtments, Aprtments, Inc. 8-A Lon on Progrm 161 For Profit Inc. $125,333 $1,000,000 $1,125,333 $6, CB CSH 2015 CSH For Profit $2,179,821 $2,179,821 $6, Prospect OCEANHILL III Prospect Plz - Site 3 y 135 For Profit Proposls Plz LIHTC $2,349,343 $0 $17, Non-LAMP Elbee Grdens Elbee Preservtio Limited Grdens n 178 For Profit Prtnership LIHTC $1,168,769 $0 $6,566 Kings By Co. KINGSBAY SEC Inc. II on Progrm 540 For Profit 1 CO-OP $2,642,000 $2,642,000 $4, Five KINGSBAY SEC Corp. on Progrm 79 For Profit 1 CO-OP $75,000 $75,000 $ STORY Multi-fmily AVENUE EAST Story Rentl- Mix RESIDENTIAL Est nd Mtch 212 For Profit LIHTC $1,646,582 $15,490,000 $15,490,000 $80, Multi-fmily 491 Gerrd Rentl- Mix RAM HOUSING nd Mtch 153 For Profit Green LINCOLN LIHTC $1,113,599 $12,200,000 $250,000 $12,450,000 $88, PLACE Preservtio ASSOCIATES Lincoln Plce n Progrm 54 For Profit INC $1,839,747 $1,839,747 $34, th Multi-fmily 94TH AVENUE Street Rentl M2 380 For Profit JAMAICA LIHTC $1,317,228 $60,800,000 $60,800,000 $163, LPC Wrehouse/ LPC Willimsburg DEVELOPMENT LPC Bridgeview y 55 For Profit GROUP Proposls Wrehouse LIHTC $914,959 $3,575,000 $3,575,000 $81, TLK APARTMENTS TLK Mnor y 83 For Profit Qulifictions LIHTC $1,233,230 $6,225,000 $6,225,000 $89, Mdison EDJ MADISON EDJ For Profit $2,197,628 $2,197,628 $21, Rndolph Prticiptio TRINITY WEST Houses HARLEM Phse II Progrm 115 For Profit PHASE TWO LIHTC $1,976,158 $0 $17, Vn Sinderen VAN SINDEREN Negotited Plz Douglston.1 y 130 For Profit PLAZA Sle LIHTC $1,953,384 $0 $15, Senior SEAVIEW C Friendship Affordble HOUSING Lne. Rentl DEVELOPMENT Direct Seview C Aprtments 161 For Profit FUND Negotition LIHTC $3,394,183 $0 $21, Neighborho od 346 Bergen Constructio WHRF Bergen Negotited Street n Progrm 24 For Profit Street Sle $0 $- Neighborho od 3365 Third Constructio BP THIRD AVE n Progrm 30 For Profit LP LIHTC $1,165,516 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $138, Jefferson 3531 nh d TBX901-RSE TPT 30 For Profit Qulifictions $899,475 $899,475 $29, EAST 162ND STREET Est RESIDENTIAL 162nd Street y 126 For Profit LIHTC $1,669,554 $13,510,000 $13,510,000 $120, LINDVILLE Lindville HOUSING CO on Progrm 143 For Profit INC $536,643 $1,650,000 $2,186,643 $15, Livoni Livoni Phse II Sites 6-8 y 242 For Profit BRP L2 Proposls Phse II LIHTC $3,729,494 $17,541,867 $17,541,867 $87, ST. BARNABAS WELLNESS CARE & AFFORDABLE STB OWNERS HOUSING y 314 For Profit LIHTC $5,453,139 $0 $17, HUD Multi- Fox Hill Fmily FOX HILL Aprtments Progrm 364 For Profit HOUSING LIHTC $2,828,927 $5,230,000 $5,230,000 $22, MARINE Mrine HUD Multi- TERRACE Terrce Fmily PRESERVATIO Aprtments Progrm 444 For Profit N L P LIHTC $5,638,144 $0 $12,699 TAHL-PROPP HUD Multi- AFFORDABLE Thl-Propp - Fmily PRESERVATIO AIMCO Progrm 549 For Profit N LIHTC $3,425,256 $0 $6,239 24

25 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Mercy Home Mercy th Ave. Negotited Mercy Home OPWDD 8 Non-Profit Orgniztion Sle $255,000 $120,000 $375,000 $46, , 1265, Est 169th 1269 College Overleverg Street Ave Rehb ed 63 Non-Profit Assocites $5,072,440 $5,072,440 $80, BK Simpson Dwson TBX902 - Limited Bnn Kelly TPT 42 Non-Profit Prtnership Qulifictions LIHTC $523,080 $436,790 $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,436,790 $129, Mpes 2120 Mpes HDFC Mrgrit Lon 29 Non-Profit HDFC $648,254 $648,254 $22, Mrgrit Sntos Sntos Aprtments Aprtments HDFC Lon 31 Non-Profit HDFC $682,396 $682,396 $22, HUD Multi- Plz Plz Fmily Borinquen 88 Borinquen Progrm 84 Non-Profit Owner II L.P. LIHTC $733,182 $1,920,000 $1,920,000 $22,857 2 Nelson Nelson Luquer Luquer Non-Profit HDFC $233,568 $233,568 $5,308 8 Webster Ryer Webster Ryer (k Mid- Webster Renewl) Non-Profit Corportion $485,404 $485,404 $7,138 8 MHANY 2002 MHANY Non-Profit HDFC $1,265,204 $1,265,204 $16,431 3 MHANY 2011 MHANY Est Prticiptio NY Prtnership Progrm 59 Non-Profit Corportion $2,512,725 $886,248 $3,398,973 $57, Two Wltons Wlton Non-Profit Corportion $193,872 $193,872 $2, Burnside Burnside Assocites 180 Sint Non-Profit Corportion $520,019 $520,019 $4, Nichols 180 St Nichols HDFC Lon 21 Non-Profit HDFC $735,000 $735,000 $35, St. Brnbs Extended St Brnbs For y The Elderly Promes Incentives 91 Non-Profit Compny, Inc. $0 $0 90 Corportion 226 West Lon 139 Non-Profit Promes HDFC $2,110,152 $2,110,152 $15, West 113th Street 113th Street HDFC Lon 18 Non-Profit HDFC $561,928 $561,928 $31, Bushwick 1095 Bushwick Ave HDFC 1091 Lon 15 Non-Profit HDFC $525,000 $525,000 $35, Bushwick 1091 Bushwick HDFC Lon 16 Non-Profit Ave HDFC $559,994 $559,994 $35, E 209th Street Selfhelp Brodwy. Lon 43 Non-Profit $139,800 $139,800 $3, Selected by Senior 6469 Brodwy Another 86 Non-Profit Selfhelp, Agency LIHTC $910,593 $500,000 $500,000 $5, Prticiptio Mount Shron Progrm 106 Non-Profit LIHTC $733,195 $4,760,000 $1,600,000 $6,360,000 $60, E.H.C.C.I / L Lon 10 Non-Profit Fortlez $126,019 $126,019 $12, Prk Thorpe Non-Profit Corportion $234,631 $234,631 $11, HUD Multi- Fmily 1490 Croton Progrm 39 Non-Profit Prk Est LP LIHTC $642,739 $455,000 $455,000 $11, Muhlenberg Community Non-Profit Corportion In $1,000,291 $1,000,291 $4, Clvry Senior Grndprent 53 Non-Profit Residence, LIHTC $1,151,147 $500,000 $500,000 $9, Vn Courtlndt Green Mount Shron HDFC E. H. C. C. I. / L Fortlez HDFC Prk Thorpe 1490 Croton Prk Est Hlle Assocites Clvry Guy Brewer Boulevrd Highbridge 25 nh d CDC Plimpton Ave. Artsbridge Mrshll Court HDFC Senior 62 Non-Profit Lon 48 Non-Profit Artsbridge HDFC Mrshll Court LIHTC $11,098,873 $3,000,000 $1,267,131 $4,267,131 $68, HDFC $92,700 $92,700 $1,

26 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble MRC-754 Est 161 St.reet MRC-754 E. 161 St. HDFC Fulton Plz Lon 81 Non-Profit Corportion $290,350 $290,350 $3, Fulton Plz HDFC Lon 40 Non-Profit Corportion $64,750 $64,750 $1, Friends Rosehill House (8A) Lon 50 Non-Profit Friends, L.P. $100,000 $100,000 $2, Mutul Redevelopm ent Houses, Mutul Inc. II (Penn Redevelopmen South) Lon 2820 Non-Profit t Houses, Inc. $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $ Croton Terrce I k Croton 1825 Boston Rentl - Terrce Rod Mixed 80 Non-Profit Building A $5,200,000 $790,000 $5,990,000 $74, Greter Hrlem Strivers Plz II Quincy Lon 117 Non-Profit Corportion $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $17, Senior Residences, Quincy Senior L.P. Lon 94 Non-Profit Residences, L.P. $445,563 $500,000 $945,563 $10, Webster Low Prk House Rentl 248 Non-Profit Affordble LIHTC $3,332,137 $17,360,000 $17,360,000 $70, Mnhttn 153 Mnhttn HDFC on Progrm 64 Non-Profit Corportion $1,175,993 $1,175,993 $18, Dvidson 1711 Dvidson HDFC on Progrm 86 Non-Profit Ave HDFC $150,000 $150,000 $1, Preservtio Kings Vills - St. Nicks Progrm 39 Non-Profit Kings Vills Qulifictions LIHTC $1,174,650 $3,728,000 $3,728,000 $95, Prticiptio Prk Monroe Prk Monroe II II Progrm 214 Non-Profit LIHTC $1,650,000 $6,255,854 $500,000 $14,322,061 $21,077,915 $98, Los Sures Prticiptio Los Sures Hewes Hewes Street Street HDFC Progrm 22 Non-Profit HDFC $1,227,736 $752,264 $1,980,000 $90, Los Sures Driggs Driggs Non-Profit HDFC $594,341 $594,341 $28, CLINTON WEST Clinton URA Rentl - 53RD Negotited Site 7/CHDC Mixed 103 Non-Profit HOUSING WHGA Dorie Sle $1,111,635 $1,111,635 $10, Dorie Miller Preservtio Miller Aprtments - Aprtments WHGA Progrm 54 Non-Profit Qulifictions LIHTC $716,000 $1,927,141 $1,927,141 $35, Belle Belle Aprtments Aprtments HDFC on Progrm 21 Non-Profit HDFC $532,431 $532,431 $25, Rose Ellen HUD Multi- Smith MBD Fmily ROSE ELLEN HDFC Progrm 47 Non-Profit SMITH MBD LP LIHTC $463,353 $1,645,000 $2,240,478 $3,885,478 $82, Edwrd Dozier HDFC Urbn Strtegies Apts 207 W. 147 St. HDFC 270 Convent Ave HDFC 1561 Wlton Centrl Hrlem HDFC&270 Rochester EDWARD DOZIER SR on Progrm 58 Non-Profit HOUSING $631,630 $631,630 $10, US MCLEOD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Non-Profit FUND $2,245,313 $2,245,313 $17, W 147TH on Progrm 30 Non-Profit ST H F D C $670,773 $670,773 $22, Convent on Progrm 60 Non-Profit HDFC $1,138,967 $1,138,967 $18, ASSOCIATES Direct y 60 Non-Profit Negotition LIHTC $1,109,250 $3,400,702 $3,400,702 $56, Centrl Hrlem Mutul Prticiptio Assocition nh d AveHDFC Affordble & Supportive Fmily t Vn Dyke Progrm 93 Non-Profit HDFC $5,941,630 $5,941,630 $63, CHV 603 MOTHER Selected by GASTON BLVD Another LIHTC y 101 Non-Profit LP Agency $2,067,143 $7,575,000 $7,575,000 $75,

27 The For-Profitiztion of Affordble Multi-fmily Bech Green Rentl- Mix BEACH GREEN Arverne North nd Mtch 202 Non-Profit NORTH Proposls Est RFP LIHTC $631,684 $7,698,220 $7,698,220 $38, Elton Crossing (k ELTON Melrose CROSSING Melrose Commons ASSOCIATES Commons North Site C) y 398 Non-Profit LP Proposls North LIHTC $1,986,655 $600,000 $12,679,250 $13,279,250 $33, LOUIS T Neighborho WRIGHT Louis T. od Homes HOUSING Wright TBX907B- Progrm 9 Non-Profit DEVELOPMENT $900,000 $900,000 $100,000 3 Belmont Arthur Clinton, Arthur 2 TPT 193 Non-Profit Affordble L.P. Qulifictions LIHTC $1,572,500 $18,336,195 $18,336,195 $95, Neighborho od FOX STREET 847 Fox Coopertive DEVELOPMENT Street Progrm 8 Non-Profit Affordble HOUSING Qulifictions $1,203,552 $1,203,552 $150,444 8 Neighborho od BECK STREET 748 Beck Coopertive DEVELOPMENT Negotited Street Progrm 10 Non-Profit HOUSING Sle $1,356,473 $1,356,473 $135, ST AUGUSTINE St. Augustine APARTMENTS Aprtments y 112 Non-Profit LIHTC $1,860,725 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $65, Our Ldy of Lourdes Our Ldy of Aprtments Lourdes y 77 Non-Profit Mutul LIHTC $2,419,824 $3,589,503 $2,000,000 $5,589,503 $72, Prticiptio Assocition of MHANY 75 Progrm 257 Non-Profit York LIHTC $2,165,124 $13,897,588 $550,000 $4,169,652 $18,617,240 $72, Cypress Hills Senior Cypress. 137 Jmic Senior Negotited 54 Non-Profit Corportion Sle LIHTC $827,708 $2,332,013 $600,000 $2,932,013 $54, CYPRESS Pitkin PITKIN Berrimn y 60 Non-Profit BERRIMAN LP LIHTC $1,362,600 $4,500,000 $2,000,000 $6,500,000 $108, Bristow Street 1347 Bristow St on Progrm 46 Non-Profit Corportion $245,233 $245,233 $5, Selected by 695 Grnd 695 GRAND Another Street Ford y 51 Non-Profit STREET Agency LIHTC $1,069,239 $3,306,889 $3,306,889 $64, Bedford Senior Binbridge Affordble Ave.Servim Rentl SERVIAM Heights Aprtments 197 Non-Profit HEIGHTS LIHTC $3,415,131 $14,622,000 $500,000 $153,000 $5,400,000 $20,675,000 $104, YOUNG YWCA Of WOMENS Brooklyn CHRISTIAN (lon II) on Progrm 215 Non-Profit ASSOCIATION $1,625,000 $1,625,000 $7, BSDC KINGS TBK905 - COVENANT Bridge Street TPT 74 Non-Profit HOUSING Qulifictions $9,213,536 $9,213,536 $124, Bronx CPE EQUITIES Shepherds Non-Profit $0 $- Monsignor HUD Multi- MONSIGNOR Alexius Jrk Fmily ALEXIS JARKA Hll Progrm 63 Non-Profit HALL HOUSING LIHTC $7,130,381 $0 $113, ACACIA GARDENS Acci DEVELOPMENT Negotited Grdens y 179 Non-Profit Sle LIHTC $2,447,653 $0 $13, Senior WSFSSH. 275 Affordble Est138th St. Rentl TRES PUENTES Tres Puentes Aprtments 175 Non-Profit LP LIHTC $1,345,434 $0 $7,688 Affordble Neighborho od HCCI Est Coopertive Est 129 Street Negotited 129 Street Progrm 10 Non-Profit HDFC Sle $667,000 $1,550,000 $2,217,000 $221, Affordble Neighborho od 211 WEST 211 West Coopertive 147TH STREET Negotited 27 nh FAC Renissnce HDFC Non-Profit FAC RENAISSANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT $1,806,138 $1,600,000 $3,406,138 $41, d 147 Street Progrm 12 Non-Profit II HOUSING Sle $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $187,500 12