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

2. Rural Activities
 HOUSING – Both MF & SF
 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
 MIGRANT HEADSTART
 SMALL BUSINESS LENDING
 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
 IMMIGRATION

6. NSP II NATIONAL COALITION
LOCATIONS
CHISPA - $3.52M Norris Square – $9.2M
TRP - $13.9M
CRHDC - $12.5M Mi Casa – $7.5M
Del Norte - $10.3M
NEW - $24.7M
YES - $2.3M
CPLC
($32.9M)
TDS - $5.9M
El Paso CUSO - $2.7M
AHSTI - $2.9M
CDCB - $4.5M

7. How Are We Doing?
 50% Expenditure Goal Met on 10/11/2011!!
 4 Months Ahead of 2-year requirement
 Expenditures as of 10/17/2012
 100% Goooooal MET and Surpassed!
 $137,107,134.04
 101.30%
 One Month ahead of “stretch goal”
 How are our consortium members doing
individually...

8. How are we Doing within our Consortium?
Grantee % Expended Grantee $ Expended
Del Norte 138% CPLC AZ $ 39,616,381.51
CRHDC 136% NEW $ 25,593,929.00
YES 126% CRHDC $ 17,050,130.86
CPLC AZ 121% Del Norte $ 14,123,642.94
CHISPA 113% TRP $ 8,498,555.44
TDS 104% TDS $ 6,148,280.39
NEW 104% MI CASA $ 5,813,501.89
AHSTI 96% CHISPA $ 3,993,736.42
CDCB 86% CDCB $ 3,816,637.54
MI CASA 78% NSCA $ 3,434,523.68
EPAHCUSO 69% YES $ 2,884,291.19
TRP 64% AHSTI $ 2,792,118.57
NSCA 37% EPCUSO $ 1,837,857.50

9. Total $$ Expended:
(633 grantees as of 10/22/2012): This demonstrates
capacity and
capability!!
Appropria Drawn From
State Grantee tion Grant Amount PI Received PI Drawn Grant Total Drawn
CA State of California NSP1 $145,071,506 $35,090,684 $29,170,053 $124,195,346 $153,365,399
MI State of Michigan NSP2 $223,875,399 $4,573,754 $2,074,927 $149,758,600 $151,833,527
AZ Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. NSP2 $137,107,133 $40,384,572 $40,384,572 $99,650,660 $140,035,232
GA Habitat f or Humanity International Inc NSP2 $137,620,088 $0 $0 $109,080,365 $109,080,365
OH State of Ohio NSP1 $116,859,223 $0 $0 $107,537,381 $107,537,381
FL State of Florida NSP1 $91,141,478 $15,048,820 $12,090,195 $82,651,405 $94,741,600
CA Los Angeles, CA NSP2 $100,000,000 $5,527,102 $4,810,887 $79,521,303 $84,332,190
GA State of Georgia NSP1 $77,085,125 $18,160,970 $17,875,018 $63,569,075 $81,444,093
MI State of Michigan NSP1 $98,653,915 $4,568,160 $4,074,048 $77,210,599 $81,284,647
IL Chicago, IL NSP2 $98,008,384 $0 $0 $79,239,665 $79,239,665
IN State of Indiana - IHCDA NSP1 $83,757,048 $3,444,289 $2,452,696 $76,782,846 $79,235,542
MA The Community Builders, Inc. NSP2 $78,617,631 $14,025,963 $2,389,080 $70,257,238 $72,646,317
Neighborhood Housing Services of
FL South Florida, Inc. NSP2 $89,375,000 $970,377 $954,587 $67,925,817 $68,880,404
CA Riverside County, CA NSP1 $48,567,786 $31,184,515 $30,415,372 $37,995,058 $68,410,430
TX State of Texas - TDHCA NSP1 $91,323,273 $1,651,490 $1,651,490 $59,943,079 $61,594,569
PA State of Pennsylvania NSP1 $59,631,318 $7,223,450 $5,576,823 $49,202,580 $54,779,402
Neighborhood Lending Partners of
FL West Florida, Inc. NSP2 $50,000,000 $10,899,463 $10,117,734 $39,335,525 $49,453,259
NC State of North Carolina NSP1 $52,303,004 $3,849,815 $1,905,460 $46,761,701 $48,667,161
VA State of Virginia NSP1 $38,749,931 $19,566,524 $19,094,011 $27,834,164 $46,928,175
FL Dade County, FL NSP1 $62,207,200 $2,221,501 $2,221,266 $44,243,256 $46,464,522
TN State of Tennessee NSP1 $49,360,421 $530,311 $530,311 $45,115,515 $45,645,825
MN State of Minnesota NSP1 $38,849,929 $10,722,488 $8,950,614 $34,564,183 $43,514,798
SC South Carolina State Program NSP1 $44,673,692 $3,646,750 $1,686,254 $40,975,545 $42,661,799
NJ State of New Jersey NSP1 $51,470,620 $0 $0 $42,624,694 $42,624,694
AZ Phoenix, AZ NSP2 $60,000,000 $4,535,790 $4,535,790 $37,530,070 $42,065,860 CPLC
NY State of New York NSP1 $54,556,464 $401,908 $401,908 $41,483,878 $41,885,786
MO State of Missouri NSP1 $42,664,187 $7,129,289 $4,907,116 $35,132,755 $40,039,871
IL State of Illinois NSP1 $53,113,044 $1,828,048 $1,785,689 $36,370,006 $38,155,696
AZ Arizona State Program NSP1 $38,370,206 $28,749 $28,749 $38,036,139 $38,064,888
MA State of Massachusetts NSP1 $43,466,030 $2,541,247 $255,615 $37,778,511 $38,034,125
IL Chicago, IL NSP1 $55,238,017 $3,027,887 $1,678,739 $36,048,906 $37,727,645

10. Program Income – Simplified
Illustration…
…this is a key reason as to why we
were results-driven…and now how we
intend to maximize NSP2 Program
Value…

11. Rehab = $40,000
(used NSP2 $)
Sales Price = $80,000
(made it affordable)
Acquisition = $60,000
(used NSP2 $)
Total Development
Cost = $100,000
Recycle $$
More Admin NSP2 Subsidy =
More Jobs $20,000
More (OK, proceed)
Homeowners!
PROGRAM INCOME = $80,000

12. Program Income Expended This Means Jobs!!
$50M Feb Goal
(633 grantees as of 10/22/2012):
Drawn From
State Grantee Appropriation Grant Amount PI Received PI Drawn Grant Total Drawn
Chicanos Por La Caus a,
AZ Inc. NSP2 $137,107,133 $40,384,572 $40,384,572 $99,650,660 $140,035,232
CA Riverside County, CA NSP1 $48,567,786 $31,184,515 $30,415,372 $37,995,058 $68,410,430
CA State of California NSP1 $145,071,506 $35,090,684 $29,170,053 $124,195,346 $153,365,399
VA State of Virginia NSP1 $38,749,931 $19,566,524 $19,094,011 $27,834,164 $46,928,175
GA State of Georgia NSP1 $77,085,125 $18,160,970 $17,875,018 $63,569,075 $81,444,093
ID State of Idaho NSP1 $19,600,000 $19,023,021 $17,070,928 $17,116,661 $34,187,589
FL State of Florida NSP1 $91,141,478 $15,048,820 $12,090,195 $82,651,405 $94,741,600
Neighborhood Lending
FL Partners of West Florida, Inc. NSP2 $50,000,000 $10,899,463 $10,117,734 $39,335,525 $49,453,259
MN State of Minnesota NSP1 $38,849,929 $10,722,488 $8,950,614 $34,564,183 $43,514,798
FL Pasco County, FL NSP1 $19,495,805 $9,463,899 $8,933,143 $17,956,699 $26,889,842
CA San Joaquin County, CA NSP1 $9,030,385 $8,789,848 $8,666,835 $7,683,546 $16,350,381
Hsg Trust of Santa Clara
CA County NSP2 $25,000,000 $9,002,748 $8,043,822 $14,831,087 $22,874,910
MD Healthy Neighborhoods Inc. NSP2 $26,092,880 $8,110,230 $8,028,934 $17,499,994 $25,528,929
Los Angeles Neighborhood
CA Housing Services Inc. NSP2 $60,000,000 $12,000,599 $7,764,725 $26,085,695 $33,850,420
NM New Mexico State Program NSP1 $19,600,000 $7,822,362 $7,612,964 $17,224,715 $24,837,680
CA Fresno County. CA NSP1 $7,037,465 $8,031,980 $7,476,256 $7,037,465 $14,513,721
NV Clark County, NV NSP1 $29,666,798 $10,026,230 $7,197,363 $22,567,194 $29,764,557
GA Gwinnett County, GA NSP1 $10,507,827 $10,137,914 $7,141,924 $9,893,695 $17,035,619
TX Harris County, TX NSP1 $14,898,027 $7,289,307 $7,123,119 $13,797,225 $20,920,344
GA Clayton County, GA NSP1 $9,732,126 $9,186,092 $6,951,481 $8,187,510 $15,138,992
PA Philadelphia, PA NSP1 $16,832,873 $6,863,123 $6,863,123 $13,812,376 $20,675,500
FL Lee County, FL NSP1 $18,243,867 $6,639,830 $6,639,830 $16,228,820 $22,868,650
KS State of Kansas NSP1 $20,970,242 $6,386,990 $6,386,990 $17,954,844 $24,341,834
FL Orange County, FL NSP1 $27,901,773 $6,591,828 $6,361,996 $26,068,403 $32,430,399
AZ Phoenix, AZ NSP1 $39,478,096 $6,156,925 $5,951,907 $27,346,130 $33,298,037
PA State of Pennsylvania NSP1 $59,631,318 $7,223,450 $5,576,823 $49,202,580 $54,779,402
GA Cobb County, GA NSP1 $6,889,134 $5,195,441 $5,378,873 $4,974,248 $10,353,120
NV Las Vegas, NV NSP1 $14,775,270 $6,266,398 $5,348,175 $13,595,137 $18,943,312
CA Riverside County, CA NSP3 $14,272,400 $6,120,943 $5,142,622 $9,214,536 $14,357,157
PA Philadelphia, PA NSP2 $43,942,532 $5,110,066 $5,110,066 $32,120,843 $37,230,909
IL Will County, IL NSP1 $5,160,424 $5,724,182 $5,048,516 $5,160,424 $10,208,940

13. Section 3 –> Jobs -> Defined!
What does the term “Section 3 resident” mean?
 A “section 3 resident” is:
 a public housing resident; or
 a low- or very low-income person residing in the
metropolitan area where monies are expended
 What does the term Section 3 Business
Concern mean?
 51 percent or more owned by Section 3 residents; or
 At least 30 percent of its full time employees include
persons that are currently Section 3 residents
 Subcontract in excess of 25 percent of the dollar award to
Section 3

14. NSP2 National Program -Economic Impact
 850 Employment Opportunities
 $30 Million in Construction-Related Contracts
 120 Local Contractors/Subs employed
 Every 100 NSP2 Homes => $1.1M in Commissions
 45% of 850 EO are Section 3 Qualified
 20% of Construction-Related Contracts = Section 3
 Small Business Impact
 Final Projection = 2330 Employment Opportunities!
 Previous Projection was 1500 (based on $95K grant
expenditure = 1job)

15. Data Tracking/Collection/Evaluation
 NALCAB leads data tracking
 Data we track
 REO suppliers (who do we buy from)
 Lenders (who provides mortgage financing)
 Sales Prices / development subsidies
 Jobs Created
 LH25 – affordable market sales
 Demographics (who is buying from us)
 DATA dissemination critical to leveraging
program‟s success

16. NSP2 Consortium: Seller Market Share
(393 Properties – Activity B SFR Only, 4/17/2012)
1.53%
1.27%
2.29% 2.29%
2.29% Fannie Mae
2.80% B of A
5.60% Wells fargo
33.59% Chase
5.60% HUD
Freddie Mac
Other
US Bank
Deutsche
7.63% Ocwen
USDA
Private Party
8.40% Citi Bank
9.41%
8.65%

17. What’s Next
 Grant Expiration
 100% Goal Met
 No RISK of Grant funds being „swept‟
 NSP2 LOC will not close on 2/2013
 Grant Close-out Period
 Focus on Meeting “National Objectives”
 MUST Meet LH25 Objective
 Final Close-out Guidance not yet issued
 5 year window likely for our non-profit coalition
 After 5 years, any Program Income becomes unrestricted

18. Close-out Program Strategies
 Leverage, Leverage, Leverage
 100% Goal Met
 No longer “disadvantaged” by leveraging
 Take advantage of “NSP2” relationships
 „First Look‟ to acquire discounted properties (min 1%)
 Ie. leverage $2M of PI ->purchase $10M of discounted prop
 Great buy and hold for appreciation benefit (after Year 5)
 Leverage land investments as equity in redevelopment projects
 Strategy for consortium members to clear land „on their books‟
 In AZ (as in some other states):
Carve out some PI to leverage existing fed funding:
 NSP2, NSP3 City funds
 HHF, AG Funds
 HOME / CDBG (add census tracts now before grant expiration)

19. What’s Next – Leverage Success
 CPLC through our NSP2 engagement has/is demonstrating a
successful implementation for placing foreclosed, vacant and/or
abandoned homes back into “productive” use.
 Leverage Success Stories we can tell re: homeownership and the
provision of affordable rentals to:
 Establish creative relationships with Major Lenders (with inventory and
need to capture loans)
 Large scale asset management and development opportunities (HUD
M&M, FNM REO Rental, HUD Notes) ->CGI, Donation Initiative, etc.
 Special Needs Projects with HUD, Municipalities or Major Lenders (for
CRA credit)
 NSP being used by HUD as success story for Project Rebuild, part
of President Obama‟s American Jobs Act
 $15 Billion proposed as formula / $5 Billion competitive
 INCREDIBLE Opportunity!

20. Thank You!
GR 10/24/2012

21. Gracias!
12/14/2012 GR 10/24/2012 21

22. $10 Million Commitment

24. Thank You!