GREEN STREET HOUSING

December 17,2010

Mr. Anas Ben Addi Director

Delaware State Housing Authority 18 The Green

Dover, DE 19901

Dear Anas:

Following are my comments to the proposed 2011 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program in Delaware.

Preservation/Rehab Pool

On page 18, DSHA establishes a 4 point category for projects whose hard costs exceed $50,000. How do you measure that? OSHA excludes a number of costs including site work, laundry facilities, maintenance garages and community buildings. How is this substantiated? The CNA requirements would have to be revamped (which it doesn't appear that they have).

What if points are awarded and then at time of bid the costs are lower? What if points aren't awarded and time of construction costs are higher?

Site costs are excluded? In many cases, a large contributing factor to existing degradation are poor site conditions. Failed storm water management systems and negative grading can be big problems. If certain exclusions are to occur, site costs should not be one of them.

Separate laundry areas are excluded. Does that mean that laundry rooms inside of the apartment building but outside ofthe apartment unit are excluded? It also says that storage areas are excluded. Does that mean "separate" storage areas in ancillary buildings or any storage areas?

What does "exterior work not an integral part of the building or units" mean? Does that mean that any work on the exterior that isn't physically connected to the building? Or, does "integral" mean "necessary" or "required"? If a building is being dressed up with facade improvements, are those improvements considered "integral"?

I recommend that a point category be provided for spending $x on construction, period. Don't go through the complicated process of coming up with exclusions. Most every project, if it's being developed within the standards and expectations of DSHA will have a relatively consistent amount of these "extras" thereby keeping the playing field level. This is going to be a nightmare to manage.

Q 12 Vv' .. Main St., Ste SOIA, Salisbury, MD 21801 (4lO) S34-3671 (410) 354-3672 (FAX)

Communities of Opportunities

On page 38, a new section entitled "Communities of Opportunity" has been added. This section is in direct response to the recent lawsuits of state housing finance agencies where the state was accused of concentrating socially disadvantaged persons in certain communities.

This new threshold criteria requires that any new construction project "promote greater choice of housing opportunities and avoid undue concentration of assisted persons in areas containing a high proportion of low-income residents or in areas containing a high proportion of affordable rental units (no other low-income housing in immediate area - within 3 block area)."

This threshold criteria would render MOST prospective new construction sites ineligible.

In most towns in Delaware, multifamily zoning occurs in only a few areas, Furthermore, in most rural communities, the only multifamily housing is low income housing. There is no market rate housing. Once that small rural community gets one tax credit property, unless they have land zoned multifamily somewhere across town, they stand no hope of getting another.

In addition, phased developments are now prohibited under this rule. It's fine to build 120 units on a site at once, but three 40 units developments can't be built over a 5 year period. That, of course, doesn't make sense.

The use of "3 block area" is odd. It's ambiguous. It's urban. In some areas a block could be a mile long and others a few hundred feet.

This section must be completely revamped.

Access to Services

On page 46, a new category "Access to Services" has been added. Projects which have certain services located within half a mile (in New Castle County) and one mile in (Kent and Sussex Counties) of the site are awarded 1 to 7 points based on the number of services.

I support this, however, elsewhere in the QAP s.cattered sites are allowed in one application. In fact, scattered Rural Development deals are allowed that may be geographically separated by the entire state. In that case, how are the points in this section going to be allocated. If 3 RD deals are packaged together and only one of them is in close proximity to services, how does the score get allocated?

location

On page 46, a new category, "location", has been added. The category awards points to sites based on the percentage of the site's perimeter that is bordering on existing development. Higher points are awarded to infill sites (75% of perimeter bordering developed parcels) than to projects that are simply "contiguous" (25% of perimeter bordering developed parcels),

I again find this an odd way to measure a scoring criteria. How is this going to be measured? Will a surveyor be required to certify as to the lineal feet of contiguity?

In addition, it doesn't automatically grant preservation projects the maximum points for this category. Since a preservation site is already developed, it should be automatic that the application receives points in this category, This should be spelled out.

This category needs to be revamped.

Community Compatibility

On page 49, a new section, "Community Compatibility", has been added. This section includes "Community Design" and "Connectivity to Surrounding Communities". Up to seven points are awarded based on the extent to which the proposed development "reflect compatibility with surrounding community and enhancement of the visual character of surrounding area" as well as the project "is designed to relate to and encourage connectivity with the surrounding community and not create an isolated enclave."

This scoring item is relatively clea r, however, it ONLY APPLIES TO NEW CO NSTRUCTION. THERE IS NO CO RRESPON DING CATEGORY FOR PRESERVATION. If a new construction application and a preservation application compete against each other in the non-profit pool, the new construction applicati.on has 7 more points available to it. This is not equitable. There must be a corresponding way for a preservation application to receive 7 points if there is direct competition.

Business Centers

On page 49, under "Development and Units Amenities", language has been added that seems to recommend that a computer/business center be provided in community buildings.

This language was added because in the past I have included business centers in my developments to receive points under this category. In my two 2010 applications, after including a business center in 2 prior applications and after consulting with OSHA staff as to the applicability of the points for these amenities, we included business centers.

In 2010, OSHA decided, quite curiously to me, that since a business center was not explicitly listed in the QAP, it was not an amenity and therefore not eligible for points. In my opinion, a business center is more of an amenity that a community garden. I can't believe that a ceiling fan that cost less than a $100 is an amenity eligible for points but additional, designated and conditioned space equipped with computers, printers and free Internet access is not.

So, it looks as though OSHA is now requiring business centers to be mandatory. It seems odd that all of a sudden you would make something mandatory that before wasn't even considered an amenity. Why is that?

Regardless, the OAP says "the community center should include a computer/business center". "Should" could be interpreted as a recommendation rather than a requirement. If OSHA truly intends for all community buildings to contain a business/computer center, the QAP would read "the community center SHALL include a computer/business center."

In my opinion, business centers should be an optional amenity eligible for amenity points. What if an existing community building is being renovated without adding any space. How is a business/computer center going to be added?

QCT /OOA Automatic Boost

On page 8 and again on page 24, the QAP reads "No applications will be accepted with a basis boost included in the tax credit calculation." This implies that "No" applications will be accepted if they contain a basis boost, including applications that are in a QCT or ODA. Section 42 of the IRe gives those properties an automatic boost that the State can't take away. Therefore, any application for a project in an identified QCT or DDA should be accepted with the basis boost built into the initial financial proforma. Please revise the language to clarify this.

Social Services Regularity

On page 28, "Social Services" have been redefined to exclude any service that is not offered at least 4 times a year. For a few years now, we have partnered with First State Community Action in Georgetown, Delaware to provide tax

preparation services to our residents. It is a very popular service. It gets more participation in one period (tax prep over a few weeks in the spring) than other services that are offered more often.

Tax preparation, by its nature, is a seasonal thing. Most people file their taxes only once a year. This policy is eliminating this and other potentially valuable services just because they aren't offered 4 times a year?

So if we offer residents a 4 time a year class on how to balance a checkbook that is more valuable than coming in March and/or April to prepare their taxes, saving the client $100's. This makes no sense.

The value of a social service does not rely upon how regular it is. You're making a big mistake limiting the services that count for point here.

Environmental Audit and Assessment

An Environmental Site Assessment and Environmental Audit (rehab only) are being required. These reports add cost to submitting an application and are absolutely unnecessary at the application stage. This is bureaucratic overkill. The two reports combined add several thousand dollars in upfront costs and have almost no bearing on whether the tax credit application should be ranked or scored.

There's plenty of time once a n application has been selected to get environmental reports. I'd like to know how many applications were render ineligible because of a bad environmental report at the application stage.

Delete this requirement.

Financial Feasibility

The proposed language removes the requirement that ALL funding sources must have been at least APPLIED for.

This change is a direct result ofthe ranking recall that occurred during the 2010 LlHTC round.

The purpose of the section is to allow applications to be submitted without the need to apply for any outside financing sources first. It also allows applicants to get away with simply having a letter of interest from the potential lender/grantor. Any lender/grantor, public or private, will readily provide such a letter in a matter of days (laden with conditions and out clauses of course) long before an official funding application is submitted. Of course that letter really means nothing, so why ask for it in the first place?

The Financial Feasibility section also requires that commitment letters or contracts be provided at the time of application in order for that financing to be considered leveraged financing in the points calculation. This means that you are permitted to submit an LlHTC application which requires Rural Development approval of a mortgage transfer without actually applying to RD to transfer the mortgage. However, the amount of that RD mortgage you plan to assume may not be used to calculate leveraging points unless a commitment letter has been received from RD. Well, that not only requires a transfer application to be submitted to RD but will require RD to fully process and approve the transfer which they cannot do without knowing that the project was awarded LlHTC's. That means that no RD transfer deals (you mention RD properties as a priority) will get funded because 5 to 10 points of their scores are attributed to leveraging.

Other subsidy programs function in much the same way. This means that though you can submit applications with public subsidies, they will never score very we".

I suggest the requirement for a "commitment letter or contract" be removed entirely. If DSHA is willing to roll the dice on whether a project is going to get other financing, they should be willing to allocate the leveraging points that correspond to that financing.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

On page 54, DSHA has added an extra paragraph to their FOIA policy. This paragraph reads:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is the policy of DSHA to not release to any third party any proprietary or commercially sensitive application materials or information until after the ranking of projects has been announced. DSHA expressly reserves its authority to withhold an such information from third party requests pending the completion of the ranking process, to the extent permitted by FOIA.

This language makes no sense, Under the Delaware FOIA law, AT NO TIME may any commercially sensitive or proprietary ever be releases. However, this language explicitly says that DSHA will release "proprietary" or

"commercially sensitive application materials or information after the ranking of projects has been announced." If

the material is are commercially sensitive or proprietary, why would DSHA ever be OK with releasing it?

I do, however, understand the intent of this language. The actual intent is to prevent anyone from requesting, under FOIA, any application materials prior to the finalization of rankings.

This is a direct attack against openness. This entities DSHA to withhold any information from the public as long as they determine it to be "proprietary" or "commercially sensitive".

In addition, the preliminary ranking automatically turns permanent three weeks after publication if DSHA doesn't revise it. Applicants only have appeal rights for 15 business days after the preliminary rankings are released. The Agency's published FOIA policy gives DSHA 30 days to provide access to documents. That means that if DSHA choose, it could withhold FOIA request documents until after the rankings become final. This renders the process dysfunctional and provides no recourse to program participants.

I regard this language as DSHA trying to keep the public, developers included, out of the back room while decisions on how to allocate public funding are being made in the back room.

Now, I think that just increases the likelihood that a recall or litigation could follow, because the applicant isn't given adequate rights or time to review these back room decisions.

The Delaware Freedom of Information Act begins:

It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that our citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy; and further, it is vital that citizens have easy access to public records in order that the society remain free and democratic. Toward these ends, and to further the accountability of government to the citizens of this State, this chapter is adopted, and shall be construed.

Furthermore, the FOIA Act defines "Public Record" as:

... information of any kind, owned, made, used, retained, received, produced, composed, drafted or otherwise compiled or collected, by any public body, relating in any way to public business ...

There are only two exceptions listed in the FOIA Act that may apply to any single piece of information in a tax credit application. Those are material "which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy" or "commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is of a privileged or confidential nature".

The only material contained in any tax credit application that could fall under that category are personal and business financial statements.

The FOIA Act does not grant the State or its agents the right to withhold any qualifying public record pending any event or action, such as the "completion of the ranking process".

The new paragraph is entirely unnecessary because the Delaware FOIA statute already prohibits release of proprietary and commercially sensitive information. Why would DSHA go to such lengths to "clarify" the State ForA statute when the first paragra ph refers to the statute? DSHA certainly doesn't have the "a uthority" to add any new lim itations or restrictions on what documents are provided to the public above what the statute limits.

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is a Federal program. It is also covered by the Federal FOIA Act, though that is not mentioned in the QAP.

On President Obama's first day in office, he issued a Memorandum to All Department Heads entitled "Transparency and Open Government". This Memorandum establishes the President's, and therefore the entire Executive Branch of the Government, "commitment" to "creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government". In the opening paragraph the President goes on to say "Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

The second paragraph of the Memorandum goes on to say:

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and polley, to disclose information rapidly In forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

By restricting the free flow of information and resisting transparency, DSHA is creating an environment of suspicion and mystery.

I urge you to pay close attention to what the President is saying. Take a minute and read the Memorandum. Take a moment and go back and read the Delaware and Federal FOIA statutes. These aren't just some dusty laws that no one pays attention to. These are what separates America from North Korea.

To that end, I propose the following steps toward openness:

1. Each tax credit application, after having proprietary (financial statements) removed, should be scanned and provided to the public online.

2. Allow all applicants the opportunity to review all other applications and publicly comment on substantial inconsistencies contained in those applications.

3. Automatically provide each applicant the DSHA staff score sheet for their application, through formal communication, instead of making the applicant ask for it.

4. On the preliminary and final rankings, provide the amount of L1HTC and all other State financing such as HDF, HOME and Preservation funds the applicant requested.

How could these steps toward openness and transparency hurt? Everyone wins when our government administers public money at the front desk and out of the back room.

10% Test and Next Year lIHTC Application.s

On page 57, under "Placed-In Service Date", the first paragraph ends with bold type that reads:

... owners and/or any related entities, as determined by OSHA, that received a reservation and/or a Carryover Allocation of 2010 Credits and have not met the 10% test, as required by DSHA, by the 2011 Tax Credit application submission deadline are ineligible to make application for 2011 Tax Credits.

This policy is burdensome on the development community because DSHA is very slow to process applications and work them through the process to closing.

I push every deal as hard as I can through the process and 100% of the time, we experience delays caused by bottlenecks caused by OSHA. There are so many items in DSHA's critical path toward closing, that it is very difficult to close a deal before the Spring following the year ofthe allocation.

The largest and most troubling of these delays is OSHA's review of the plans, specifications and bidding documents.

Though OSHA approval is not required under the current 2010 QAP, out of respect, we have furnished our plans and specifications to DSHA for review and withheld bidding of the project until receiving comments. Thirty four days after submitting architectural documents our architect received VERBAL comments from DSHA's only staff that conducts such reviews. The first set of WRITIEN (which, by the way, is the only way these type of comments should be delivered) came 54 days after the drawings were submitted to OSHA. That's longer than it took the architect to design them.

With the requirement of bidding and a 2 month OSHA review process and OSHA refusing to schedule a closing until bids are tabulated and a contractor onboard, it's very difficult to get through the process by the deadline of the next application round.

Delete this requirement.

Unnecessary Exhibits in Application

For years, we have packaged Delaware L1HTC applications and always wondered under what circumstance some of the exhibits contained in the QAp would ever have content. We've concluded that there is no application that would ever have these exhibits in them because the exhibits are all closing documents.

It's time to clean this up. The following exhibits should be deleted from the QAP:

Exhibit 41 - Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Exhibit 42 - National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant. Exhibit 43 - Erosion and Sedimentation Contra! Plan.

Exhibit 44 - OELDOT Entrance Permit, if applicable.

Exhibit 4S - Model Energy Code - Building compliance.

Exhibit 46 - Fire Marsha! Conditional Approval.

Exhibit 47 - Architectural Accessibility Board Approval. Exhibit 48 - Site Plan with Easements Notated (ALTA). Exhibit 49 - Building Permit.

Exhibit 50 - Plans and Specifications Exhibit 51 - Realty Transfer Tax Exhibit 62 - Cost Certification

Debarment of a General Contractor

On page 29 of the Attachments to the QAP under "General Contractor Requirements" it reads:

If the General Contractor does not successfully complete warranty items from ongoing or previous projects within 45 days of inspection, Contractor will become ineligible to bid on future projects unless such corrective actions is completed.

My problem actually is rooted in a recent enforcement attempt by DSHA staff. Our affiliated general contractor received a letter, which I was copied on, notifying them that:

Per the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for the Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA), "If the General Contractor does not successfully complete warranty items from on-going or previous projects within 45 days of inspection, contractor will become ineligible to bid on future projects unless such corrective actions are completed."

The letter goes on to detail a small issue regarding bubbling of a vinyl product that has been slowly being resolved on ongoing basis but had not yet been resolved. The DSHA enforcement letter goes on to say:

the 45 days for completion has expired, thus making your company ineligible to bid this year's projects.

Since this was an enforcement letter, enforcing a proposed policy, it is a rare opportunity to see how DSHA interprets that proposed policy.

The letter said "thus making your company ineligible to bid this year's projects." It didn't say, "your company is ineligible to bid on DSHA projects until the wa rranty issue is resolved". It provided no path to reconcile the problem even though that sa m e pro posed re gu Ia t ion end s wit h "u n less sue h co r rective act io ns is com p leted" .

I have no problem debarring a bad general contractor but this policy gives enormous power to DSHA to debar a contractor on the smallest of issues.

This policy needs to be removed until OSHA can develop language that is reasonable and provides a means to rectify any issues.

Bidding Protocol

On page 29 of the Attachments to the QAP, it establishes a "Bidding Protocol". Among other criteria, the QAP requires the developer/owner to invite and receive 3 bids from 3 contractors. The section goes on to require that any bidder invited must be "pre-qualified" by OSHA. The section references the required General Contractor Certification and Questionnaire. This document is basically the general contractor job application to receive the DSHA endorsement.

I believe this policy puts OSHA in the position of ENDORSING contractors. When DSHA says to a developer, "you may ONLY use one these 8 general contractors" that is an endorsement.

The State of Delaware and it's agencies and employee's may not endorse a private company or product.

In addition, by "pre-qualifying" general contractors and by virtue of the GC Questionnaire, DSHA is saying to the development community that they have underwritten the general contractors they have approved.

A spot check of a couple of the general contractors on the OSHA approved list in the Maryland Judicial Search database turns up liens and other civil matters for several. That's to be expected jf a contractor is out there working. There's lots of people that like to sue. However, on some contractors' GC Questionnaires, when questioned about any pending or past litigation, arbitration, etc, they answer "No".

Doesn't OSHA do any further due diligence on their pre-qualified contractors? It only takes a minute to do the judicial search I mentioned.

On that point, the QAP requires the general contractor to be Energy Star certified, but only one contractor on the "Approved Contractor l.lst" is Energy Star. How are we to get 3 bids if only one of the "Approved" contractor meets the base requirements of the QAP?

If OSHA forces me to use a specific general contractor (which they are when giving me only 8 options), I will reserve my right to sue OSHA and the State of Delaware in the case that the general contractor financially hinders the project or the owner/developer.

The indemnification clauses in the OSHA loan docs will need to be modified because I will not indemnify OSHA and the State of Delaware if one of their chosen contractors causes undue financial or other damage to me or my business interests.

In addition, the funds OSHA are administering are state and Federal loan funds and Federal tax credit allocations.

The loans are all being made to private enterprises with many strings attached including significant personal guarantees during the construction period.

The tax credits are simply that. IRS allocated tax credits on the recipients' tax returns. The only way to monetize these tax incentives is to "sell" equity in the owner of the tax credit real estate. I'm not sure it's even legal to mandate bidding for this type of PRIVATE financing. Perhaps OSHA should run this past counsel.

I checked the Delaware State Procurement Code and it only applies to "state contracts". That means projects that the State of Delaware owns. I have also tried to find examples of the State of Delaware requiring a private party doing business with the State to bid out the work.

I haven't found anything. So I ask, does OSHA even have the authority to force a bid?

If the general contractor costs for profit, overhead a nd general requirements falls within the modest lim its of Section 42, why should they even care?

OSHA says they are saving the State money. I would argue that they are saving the State a very small amount of money while forcing developers to take undue and undercompensated risk.

The lowest bidder is often the highest risk bidder. OSHA's bidding protocol forces us to use the lowest bidder thus forcing us into more potential risk.

I n add itio n, havi ng a con tractor 0 n ea rly in th e p race ss 0 rape rma ne nt pa rt 0 f the tea m (affi I iate d co nt racto r) is a nasset to the project. Contractors can be as valuable to the design of a project as architects but we are made to keep them out of the deal until it's too late to make design changes and then all those changes get made in the field.

Also, having an affiliated contractor, the most important player in a project (from construction closing forward), means having a partner with real skin in the game. Quality standards and timing are of utmost importance because they are of utmost importance to the developer as well. This makes for a smoother and more timely project.

Remove the bidding protocol altogether. No other state has a bidding protocol for the LlHTC program.

Allow negotiated bids. Section 42 already limits how much the general contractor gets paid. It only makes sense.

Endorsement of Proprietary Material

The QAP actually contains a cut sheet (page 36 of the QAP Attachments) for carpet manufactured by Mohawk Industries, Inc. The cut sheet is complete with Mohawk's logo.

The State of Delaware cannot make private product endorsements.

DSHA must start specifying general parameters and let the product marketplace determine what supplier actually gets the business. It's not DSHA's place to endorse one product over another. Remove all references to product manufacturers in the Design Standards.

Two Additional Certifications

On page 51 and 52, OSHA has added two certifications under the Design Standards. They are "Base Level Green Standards" and "Base Level Energy Standards". These certifications are actually taken word for word from certifications contained in Maryland's Multifamily Rental Financing Program Guide.

These certifications seem to be required. On page 15 of the Attachments to the QAP, these certifications are required as part of Exhibit 21.

Maryland uses these forms for allocating points in green and energy efficiency categories. But, it appears that these are mandatory for all applications.

One inconsistency I see is that in the possible amenities for points, a recycling center is an option. But, in the Base Level Green Standards, a recycling center is required.

What is the real purpose of these certifications? Please take the time to make sure they fit with the Delaware QAP and Delaware priorities before just copying and pasting from Maryland's program.

OSHA Discretion

Throughout the QAP, DSHA awards itself discretion over various matters. When DSHA declares that is has sale discretion, that means that rules laid out there only apply to the program participant, not to DSHA.

In the QAP and its attachments, the phrases "discretion" and "reserve the right" appears 44 times. In many places of the QAP, DSHA has reserved itself the right to do what it wants without regard to the document.

DSHA should not be awarded absolute discretion. There must be some quantifiable, predefined and published rule of measure to determine an application eligible or ineligible. This sort of discretionary language in a QAP in effect, negates any kind of rules the document sets out in the first place.

Following are a few examples of how OSHA proposes to exert its discretion in the 2011 QAP:

1. On page 37 under the Financial Feasibility section, the following paragraph appears:

OSHA reserves the right, based on documentation submitted and OSHA's underwriting criteria as well as the submitted market analysis, to determine that a development is not viable and/or feasible. If such determination is made, applications will be deemed ineligible.

This basically means that OSHA may disqualify any application for any reason. The QAP effectively affords the applicant no rights and no recourse as this is written as an absolute power.

2. On page 37 under the Financial Feasibility section, the following paragraph appears:

All developments must adhere to minimum construction standards regardless of financing source(s)(incJuding tax-exempt bond financing). In order to meet the minimum threshold requirements, the Rehabilitation Standards Checklist (see QAP Attachments) must be tully completed for rehabilitation projects. These standards have been outline in the Qualified Allocation Plan Attachments. Based on these minimum standards, OSHA reserves the right to determine a development is ineligible to compete.

The Rehabilitation Standards section of the QAP is 23 pages long. Within this document, extreme micromanagement of the design of a project takes place. Requirements like "NO FLAT PAINT WILL BE ALLOWED", "NO BRIGHT BRASS FINISHES" and "Slider windows will not be allowed" appear throughout the 23 pages. If an application violates just one of these "Standards" it can be, at OSHA's discretion, determined ineligible.

3. On page 8 and 24, it says:

OSHA reserves the right to award a boost in eligible basis of up to thirty percent (30%), as determined by DSHA, for the highest ranked property(ies} to make them financially feasible.

This in effect allows OSHA, during the ranking process, to decide they prefer one or more of the higher ranked properties, boost the eligible basis of those properties and absorb tax credits that would have otherwise been used by a lower ranked application. This is inappropriate. If an application is not "financially feasible" why would DSHA try to make it feasible when there is a financial feasibility threshold. It's either feasible when it comes in or it doesn't get credits.

Thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2011 Delaware LlHTC Qualified Allocation Plan.

If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call or send me an email.

David F. Layfield Jr. Managing Director