Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bridges - Fall 2012

Bridges - Fall 2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
Bridges is a quarterly review of regional community development issues, projects and regulatory changes for lenders and community groups.
Bridges is a quarterly review of regional community development issues, projects and regulatory changes for lenders and community groups.

More info:

Published by: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on Jan 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT OFTHE FEDERAL RESERVEBANK OF ST. LOUIS
LINKING LENDERS AND COMMUNITIESFALL 2012
BRIDGES
 www.stlouisfed.org
35
Taking FinancialEducation to theNext LevelWhy Did Young House-holds Lose so MuchWealth During the Crash?
7
Coming Together To Preserve Affordable Housing
program designed to meet thisneed, providing a dollar-or-dol-lar credit against tax liability toencourage the private develop-ment o aordable housing. Theprogram has helped nancemore than 52,000 aordableunits in Missouri since it began,and has brought considerableeconomic activity and jobopportunities to the state andthe region. Today, however,many o these aordable unitsace uncertain utures.The LIHTC program requiresan original compliance periodo 15 years, ater which inves-tors in properties are reeto exit partnerships. Thoseproperty owners who wishto continue oering rents ataordable rates ace toughchallenges as propertiesapproach Year 15, including:
•
restructuring ownershipwhen limited partners exit,
•
nding capital or repairsand rehabilitation,
•
renancing andrestructuring debt,
continued on Page 2
1,0908265451,0241,3261,1641,3081,4191,7751,3131,751
2,0001,5001,0005002012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
 Year Units Arrive at Year 15
   N  u  m   b  e  r  o   f   L  o  w  -   I  n  c  o  m  e   U  n   i   t  s
 TOTAL:
13,541 units
FIGURE 1
Number o Low-Income Units Approaching Year 15 in the St. Louis MSA 
SOURCE: LIHTC Database, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved from http://lihtc.huduser.org/.
By Ross Clarke
 A
ccording to data rom the2010 American Com-munity Survey, morethan hal o all rental unitsin the St. Louis region areoccupied by people who paymore than 30 percent o theirincome toward rent. Manyare working amilies whosewages don’t stretch ar enoughbeyond rent payments toallow or savings, or to pur-chase health insurance ortransportation. A signicantnumber o these householdsare considered to be extremelylow-income, paying more than50 percent o their earningstoward housing costs. Recenttrends also indicate heighteneddemand in the rental marketand, in some areas, increasesin rent prices. There is a clearneed or aordable rental hous-ing in the region today.The Low Income Hous-ing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is a
 
Local and RegionalEconomic Developmentin Rural West Tennessee
     I     N     D     E     X
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS: CENTRAL TO AMERICA’S ECONOMY
 
Affordable Housing
continued rom Page 1
ater Year 15, especially inweaker housing markets, suchas many parts o the Midwest.Nevertheless, the Year 15 pro-cess is lengthy and challenging,and requires a great deal o preparation.Between 2012 and 2022,more than 13,000 properties inthe St. Louis region will arriveat Year 15. (See Figure 1 onpage 1.) Recognizing the chal-lenges at hand, the CommunityDevelopment department o the Federal Reserve Bank o St. Louis convened a meeting o representatives o state and cityagencies, and local organiza-tions with extensive experiencein the LIHTC eld. The goalswere to clariy the issues relatedto Year 15 in the region; allowthose involved to share success-ul strategies to negotiate thisprocess; generate ideas or new,creative strategies; and plannext steps, both short- and long-term. Some o the most press-ing issues were ound to be:
•
the reluctance o banks torenance debt on properties;
•
the capacity and stabilityo some nonprot propertyowners;
•
county-by-county vari-ability regarding propertyassessment and the result-ing property taxes imposedi properties are valued atmarket rate;
•
declining external neighbor-hood conditions;
•
a need or a city-wide planor the spatial developmento LIHTC properties; and
•
a need or improved com-munication at state, city andindividual property levels.Several attendees remarkedthat this was the rst time allparties had gathered to addressthese issues, and the willingnessto engage in constructive discus-sion about the challenges andpossible moves toward actionwas evident. Perhaps mostencouraging was the desire o many o the participants to orma LIHTC working group to beginto address these challenges col-laboratively; the group held itsrst meeting in September.Similar working groups havehad considerable success inother cities. In Portland, Ore., agroup was ormed comprised o sta rom state and city housingdepartments, local and nationalnonprots, and other LIHTCproperty stakeholders. Thegroup was tasked with assess-ing the risk o loss o aordableunits approaching Year 15 anddeveloping recommendations toavoid this loss. The results o the group’s meetings impactedthe city o Portland’s Preserva-tion Agenda and the state’sQualied Allocation Plan. Another successul LIHTCworking group is led byNovogradac & Company, aSan Francisco-based account-ing and consulting rm with awealth o LIHTC experience.They hold monthly coner-ence calls and meet annu-ally to discuss best practicesor the LIHTC industry and
•
ongoing issues with physicaland asset managemento properties,
•
high expenses and lowlevels o revenue and cashfow, especially or smallerproperties, and
•
a general lack o prepared-ness or Year 15. Another signicant chal-lenge or LIHTC partnerships iscompetition rom newer aord-able housing developmentsthat open in close proximity toexisting properties. Tenantswith mobile Section 8 vouch-ers may leave older units andmove to these newer accom-modations, which can impactthe nancial viability o olderLIHTC developments.I these issues cannot beresolved, property owners maybe let with little option butto look or a way out. ThoughLIHTC requires properties tocontinue operating at aord-able rates or a urther 15 years,owners can request that thestate housing nance agencysearch or a new buyer throughtheir qualied contract processat any time ater the 14thyear o the original compli-ance period. I one cannotbe ound, owners are releasedrom all restrictions and areree to sell properties to anywilling buyers, who are onlybound to keep rents aordableor a urther three years. Mostproperties do remain aordable
continued on Page 4
LIHTC BASICS
•
Introduced as part o the Tax Reorm Act o 1986, LIHTC has helped fnance more than2 million privately developed aordablehousing units.
•
Developers o LIHTC properties are awardedederal credits, distributed by states in accor-dance with the rules laid out in their QualifedAllocation Plan. Developers then sell creditsto investors to receive capital up ront or development costs.
•
 There are two types o LIHTC credit: A com-petitive 9 percent credit that awards creditsequal to 70 percent o qualifed constructioncosts; and a noncompetitive 4 percent credit or projects fnanced with tax-exempt bondsand various other gap subsidies that providescredits equal to 30 percent o qualifed costs.
•
A minimum o 20 percent o all units must berented by tenants with incomes at or below50 percent o the area median income (AMI).Alternatively, owners can opt to rent at least 40 percent o units to tenants with incomesat or below 60 percent o the AMI. In manycases, 100 percent o available rental unitsare aordable, especially in properties oper-ated by nonproft organizations.
YEAR 15
•
LIHTC requires properties to complywith restrictions or 15 years.
•
Legislation passed in 1989 introduced aurther 15-year required extended-use period.
•
Limited partners (investors) are not bound by extended-use restrictionsand are ree to exit in Year 15.
•
In some cases, general partners (owners)exit; but to do so, they must allow thestate housing fnance agency to attempt to fnd a qualifed buyer through their qualifed contract process.
•
I a qualifed buyer cannot be ound,general partners are then ree to sellto any willing buyer.
•
Certain nonprofts are given the right o frst reusal to purchase properties.
LINKING LENDERS AND COMMUNITIES
 #
 
2
 
Why Did Young Households Lose soMuch Wealth During the Crash?
The Role of Homeownership
 As detailed in our recentarticle,
2
the Survey o Con-sumer Finances reported thatthe wealth o the median U.S.household in 2010 was 39percent lower than the medianhousehold’s wealth in 2007,adjusted or infation. The am-ily headed by someone under40 (henceorth, young house-holds) in the middle o the 2010wealth distribution likewisehad much less wealth than thecorresponding median youngamily in 2007. (See Figure 1.)The decline in the wealth o a young household measured atthe median o the distributionin 2007 and 2010, respectively,was 38 percent. The declinewas 20 percent among young
By William Emmonsand Bryan Noeth
ecently released surveydata related to house-hold nancial conditionsreveal large wealth losses invirtually every segment o theU.S. population between 2007and 2010, the most recent yearsin which the Federal Reserveconducted its triennial Survey o Consumer Finances.
1
Since thedeepest economic recession inmany decades occurred betweenDecember 2007 and June 2009,the 2007 and 2010 surveyseectively represent “beore andater” snapshots o U.S. house-holds’ balance sheets or a cross-section o American amilies.households that were memberso a historically disadvantagedminority, which we dene tobe Arican-Americans andHispanics, who may be o anyrace. The median wealth o young households that werenot members o a historicallydisadvantaged minority (includ-ing non-Hispanic whites, Asiansand other non-historically dis-advantaged minorities) was 42percent lower in 2010 than themedian wealth in 2007.The very large loss o wealthamong many young house-holds is notable or at least tworeasons. First, many younghouseholds are nanciallyragile. A serious nancialsetback early in lie can havelasting eects on amily mem-bers, including young children. According to the surveys, thehomeownership rate (denedto include primary residences,vacation homes and time-shares) among young amiliesdeclined about our percent-age points between 2007 and2010 (rom 50 to 46 percent).This almost certainly was due,in large part, to oreclosuresand other distressed exitsrom homeownership. Thehomeownership rate declinedby only two percentage pointsamong amilies headed bysomeone at least 40 years oldbut less than 62 (rom 77 to
continued on Page 4
1989 1992 1995 2001 2004 2007 2010$50,000$40,000$30,000$20,000$10,000
FIGURE 1
Median Net Worth o Families Headed by Someone Under 40
1989 1992 1995 2001 2004 2007 201060%50%40%30%20%
FIGURE 2
Homeownership Rate o Families Headedby Someone Under 40
1989 1992 1995 2001 2004 2007 2010100%90%80%70%60%
FIGURE 3
Share o Homeowners with Mortgages Among Families Headed by Someone Under 40
Families headed by someone who is under 40 but is NOT a member o a historically disadvantagedminority group (Arican-American or Hispanic origin)
      K      E      Y
All amilies headed by someone under 40Families headed by someone who is under 40 andis ALSO a member o a historically disadvantagedminority group (Arican-American or Hispanic origin)
SOURCE: Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance
ON THE INTERNET AT WWW.STLOUISFED.ORG
 #
 
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->