Blue Folder
Tennessee Housing Development Agency Board of Directors Meeting January 26, 2016 BLUE FOLDER ITEMS
1. Lending Committee (Tab 6) (9:45 a.m.) a.
Revised Single Family Calendar Year End Report
2. Grants Committee (Tab 7) (10:00 a.m.) e.
Grant Reallocations-2014 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program
3. Tax Credit Committee (Tab 8) (10:15 a.m.) b.
Innovation Round Proposal
Tab # 6 Agenda Items: b.
Single Family Calendar Year End Report (revised)
January 2016
THDA SINGLE FAMILY LOAN PROGRAM REPORT Calendar Year 2015
Hulya Arik, Ph.D. Economist
DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND PLANNING Tennessee Housing Development Agency Andrew Jackson Building 502 Deaderick St., Third Floor Nashville, TN 37243
Table 8. Selected Characteristics by County – 2015 Borrower Characteristics
COUNTY ANDERSON BEDFORD BENTON BLEDSOE BLOUNT BRADLEY CAMPBELL CANNON CARROLL CARTER CHEATHAM CHESTER CLAIBORNE CLAY COCKE COFFEE CROCKETT CUMBERLAND DAVIDSON DECATUR DEKALB DICKSON DYER FAYETTE FENTRESS FRANKLIN GIBSON GILES GRAINGER GREENE GRUNDY HAMBLEN HAMILTON HANCOCK HARDEMAN HARDIN HAWKINS HAYWOOD HENDERSON HENRY
# Loans 27 12 0 2 36 63 2 2 2 2 15 2 1 0 4 5 3 13 472 0 3 10 7 5 1 5 10 2 7 11 1 24 131 0 1 0 6 6 0 0
Property Characteristics
HH Year PITI: % Age* Size Income* Price Sq. Ft Built Income* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – AVERAGE VALUES – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –– – 29 2 $41,905 $99,304 1,342 1965 19.0% 27 2 48122 115642 1393 1999 17.4% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA 1268 1999 0 37 3 $43,995 $111,714 1,415 1986 17.4% 33 2 $44,561 $107,730 1,291 1979 18.1% NA 1 NA NA 1,629 1964 21.0% NA 1 NA NA 1,141 1977 23.4% NA 2 NA NA 1349 1966 15.5% NA 2 NA NA 816 1986 14.7% 37 2 $62,438 $145,780 1,533 1986 18.2% NA 2 NA NA 1,102 1981 13.4% NA 4 NA NA 1,386 1950 11.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 NA NA 1,527 1963 10.9% NA 3 NA NA 1,669 1988 18.9% NA 3 NA NA 1440 2004 14.8% 34 3 $42,519 $91,350 1,468 1981 15.3% 35 2 $54,325 $143,886 1,408 1987 19.9% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA 1,085 1982 19.0% 33 3 $53,081 $109,037 1,309 1996 16.3% 33 3 $52,319 $96,800 1,682 1975 14.7% NA 1 NA NA 1,685 2002 19.5% NA 1 NA NA 1242 1976 10.9% NA 3 NA NA 1,504 1997 17.7% 33 3 $51,620 $102,950 1,558 1988 15.8% NA 2 NA NA 1614 1984 21.1% 34 2 $46,112 $86,931 1,439 1981 14.6% 36 3 $42,570 $73,153 1,344 1989 12.9% NA 6 NA NA 1636 1970 12.8% 33 3 $43,111 $95,724 1,343 1983 15.9% 36 2 $46,129 $117,123 1,413 1968 19.3% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA 1,628 1997 10.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 32 2 $53,840 $76,483 1,509 1993 10.3% 48 3 $42,066 $70,067 1,227 1970 15.3% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2
Table 8. Selected Characteristics by County – 2015, Continued Borrower Characteristics
COUNTY HICKMAN HOUSTON HUMPHREYS JACKSON JEFFERSON JOHNSON KNOX LAKE LAUDERDALE LAWRENCE LEWIS LINCOLN LOUDON MACON MADISON MARION MARSHALL MAURY MCMINN MCNAIRY MEIGS MONROE MONTGOMERY MOORE MORGAN OBION OVERTON PERRY PICKETT POLK PUTNAM RHEA ROANE ROBERTSON RUTHERFORD SCOTT SEQUATCHIE SEVIER SHELBY SMITH
# Loans 5 1 2 0 24 0 181 0 9 2 0 2 19 3 58 1 2 50 7 3 1 9 91 0 4 4 7 0 0 3 12 5 13 31 321 2 0 20 247 3
Property Characteristics
PITI: % Age* HH Size Income* Price* Sq. Ft Year Built Income* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – AVERAGE VALUES – – – – – – – – – – – –– – NA 2 NA NA 1,315 1972 17.0% NA 4 NA NA 1761 2000 17.8% NA 1 NA NA 1,256 1978 14.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33 3 $41,386 $101,288 1,485 1995 18.2% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33 2 $45,812 $115,418 1,318 1978 19.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 36 4 $51,490 $89,500 2,125 1973 14.9% NA 4 NA NA 1,597 1983 14.4% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA 1526 2001 22.6% 37 2 $48,582 $95,828 1,557 1978 14.4% NA 4 NA NA 1,740 1991 19.3% 35 2 $46,074 $99,450 1,566 1991 17.5% NA 1 NA NA 870 1986 13.3% NA 5 NA NA 1,290 1983 22.0% 37 2 $46,403 $125,782 1,457 1980 20.4% 33 2 $40,363 $89,357 1,496 1997 16.4% NA 2 NA NA 1423 1995 18.5% NA 1 NA NA 1,308 1976 23.1% 29 2 $34,619 $92,501 1,502 1991 22.9% 34 3 $46,821 $112,705 1,282 1991 18.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 NA NA 1,461 2005 12.2% NA 3 NA NA 1,406 1986 13.1% 32 3 $40,818 $88,129 1,404 1987 17.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 NA NA 1,741 1991 14.2% 34 3 $44,788 $114,350 1,556 1987 19.2% NA 2 NA NA 1,661 1984 14.4% 35 2 $46,172 $108,390 1,486 1978 18.5% 32 3 $55,113 $138,300 1,395 1987 19.0% 33 2 $55,106 $141,408 1,459 1998 19.0% NA 2 NA NA 1,690 2013 13.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 36 3 $50,548 $126,370 1,528 1988 17.9% 37 2 $48,590 $118,023 1,706 1982 20.1% NA 3 NA NA 1,844 1967 17.2%
3
Table 8. Selected Characteristics by County – 2015, Continued Borrower Characteristics
COUNTY STEWART SULLIVAN SUMNER TIPTON TROUSDALE UNICOI UNION VAN BUREN WARREN WASHINGTON WAYNE WEAKLEY WHITE WILLIAMSON WILSON TENNESSEE
# Loans 2 33 94 7 3 0 1 0 8 23 0 1 6 32 30 2,275
Property Characteristics
PITI % Age* HH Size Income* Price* Sq. Ft Year Built Income* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – AVERAGE VALUES – – – – – – – – – – – – NA 2 NA NA 1,109 1958 10.9% 40 2 $44,218 $114,479 1,354 1977 17.1% 34 2 $58,353 $144,079 1,510 1984 18.5% 34 3 $41,984 $109,700 1,460 1995 20.3% NA 2 NA NA 1,840 2011 19.9% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA 1,188 1960 11.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28 4 $38,281 $76,313 1,415 1992 16.3% 34 2 $45,050 $114,939 1,324 1982 18.6% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA 1749 1996 10.2% 31 3 $46,520 $114,333 1,604 1964 17.6% 34 2 $58,669 $196,118 1,630 2002 23.1% 32 3 $62,839 $167,214 1,643 1997 19.0% 35 2 $50,276 $125,662 1,458 1986 18.9%
*In the counties with 5 or less loans, the information about the borrower’s age, the income of the borrower and the acquisition cost are suppressed to protect the anonymity of the borrowers.
4
Tab # 7 Agenda Items: e.
Grant Reallocations-2014 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program
Tennessee Housing Development Agency Andrew Jackson Building Third Floor 502 Deaderick St., Nashville, TN 37243
Bill Haslam
Ralph M. Perrey
Governor
Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Grants Committee
FROM:
Don Watt, Director, Community Programs
DATE:
January 20,2016
RE:
Grant Reallocations-2014 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program
livisionþ4J
THDA expects to be notified over the next 30 days that approximately $47,650 in20l4 ESG resources will remain unused: a
o
Monroe Harding, Inc. (Middle Tennessee): $14,125.03 - This grant expired on December 31, 2015, and will not use further resources. Oasis Center (Middle Tennessee): Estimated return of $8,525 - This grant expired on December 31 2015, and the grantee anticipates returning the noted amount following their final draw. Benton County Ministerial Alliance (V/est Tennessee): Estimated return of $25,000 - This nonprofit was a new grantee, receiving $20,000 in 2015 funds for Prevention activities and $30,000 in20l4 funds for rapid-re-housing activities. As of today, the grantee has not expended any resources. Following conversation with the grantee, we are estimating the return of $25,000 in2014 resources.
The20I4 ESG funds must be expended by June 30,2016, or those resources must be returned to HUD. As result, I am requesting your authority to award these 2014 resources as follows: a
Tennessee Homeless Solutions, serving V/est Tennessee,
will receive any resources
a
made available from
any unused funds currently allocated to Benton County Ministerial Alliance.
Buffalo Valley Homeless No More, serving Middle Tennessee, will receive any resources made available from the expired grants to Monroe Harding, Inc. and to Oasis Center. Both organizations recommended for funding are experienced ESG grantees with a strong track record of using grant resources according to terms of their contracts. Additionally, both entities are progressing sufficiently in the expenditure ofresources under their current grants and have expressed a need for these additional resources to address homelessness in their service area.
www.THDA.org - (615) 815-2200 - TollFree: 800-228-THDA
Tab # 8 Agenda Items: b.
Innovation Round Proposal
Proposa
I
Overview: lnnovation Round - Pilot a new initiative in which THDA will reserue IO% of its annual tax credits as a discretionary set-aside to promote innovative housing concepts. Created to encourage developers to submit proposals for unique developments that would be at a competitive disadvantage in our regular scoring round. This round will not be based on scoring evaluation per the QAP, but rather allowed a subjective, non-scoring evaluation of the quality of the innovation. The Process: ln September 20L6 THDA would release a request for Blind Letters of lntent inviting our development partners to submit proposals identifying an innovative affordable housing concept that would be a first of its kind in Tennessee that could be replicable. Submissions would be due in November 15, 2016 to allow partners sufficient tlme to develop their innovative concepts. Proposed concepts will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
based on current QAP scoring factors;
Using these evaluation criteria a team of THDA staff, which includes 5 participants, one from each of the following divisions
Will rank all submissions into three tiers. Tier l for those five developments that were most unique and innovative. Tier 2 for developments that offered a unique and innovative components, but did not make the top five. Tier 3 for developments that did not present a strong innovative component or failed to make a case as to why the project could not be competitive in the regular scoring round. On December 15, 2016 the five tier one proposalfinalists will be selected and sent invitations to submit full applications by Competitive round deadline, February 20L7. These full applications will be reviewed by Multifamily Development staff for underwriting and compliance with
threshold requirements.
Proposa
I
Afterthreshold level review each developer will be allowed a 1-2 hour presentation to present the development concept and answer questions. These presentations will be scheduled for the first of week of May 2OI7 and attended by a second committee. At THDA's sole discretion, THDA may permit site visits upon request as deemed necessary. The second committee, which is formed to allow for non-biased subjectivity in making the final
funding recommendations, will be comprised of
Following the presentations each committee member will rank the five projects. Then a consensus will be reached based on availability of credits; with the top development(s) being awarded at same time as the competitive round.
1. Lending Committee (Tab 6) (9:45 a.m.) a.
Revised Single Family Calendar Year End Report
2. Grants Committee (Tab 7) (10:00 a.m.) e.
Grant Reallocations-2014 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program
3. Tax Credit Committee (Tab 8) (10:15 a.m.) b.
Innovation Round Proposal
Tab # 6 Agenda Items: b.
Single Family Calendar Year End Report (revised)
January 2016
THDA SINGLE FAMILY LOAN PROGRAM REPORT Calendar Year 2015
Hulya Arik, Ph.D. Economist
DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND PLANNING Tennessee Housing Development Agency Andrew Jackson Building 502 Deaderick St., Third Floor Nashville, TN 37243
Table 8. Selected Characteristics by County – 2015 Borrower Characteristics
COUNTY ANDERSON BEDFORD BENTON BLEDSOE BLOUNT BRADLEY CAMPBELL CANNON CARROLL CARTER CHEATHAM CHESTER CLAIBORNE CLAY COCKE COFFEE CROCKETT CUMBERLAND DAVIDSON DECATUR DEKALB DICKSON DYER FAYETTE FENTRESS FRANKLIN GIBSON GILES GRAINGER GREENE GRUNDY HAMBLEN HAMILTON HANCOCK HARDEMAN HARDIN HAWKINS HAYWOOD HENDERSON HENRY
# Loans 27 12 0 2 36 63 2 2 2 2 15 2 1 0 4 5 3 13 472 0 3 10 7 5 1 5 10 2 7 11 1 24 131 0 1 0 6 6 0 0
Property Characteristics
HH Year PITI: % Age* Size Income* Price Sq. Ft Built Income* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – AVERAGE VALUES – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –– – 29 2 $41,905 $99,304 1,342 1965 19.0% 27 2 48122 115642 1393 1999 17.4% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA 1268 1999 0 37 3 $43,995 $111,714 1,415 1986 17.4% 33 2 $44,561 $107,730 1,291 1979 18.1% NA 1 NA NA 1,629 1964 21.0% NA 1 NA NA 1,141 1977 23.4% NA 2 NA NA 1349 1966 15.5% NA 2 NA NA 816 1986 14.7% 37 2 $62,438 $145,780 1,533 1986 18.2% NA 2 NA NA 1,102 1981 13.4% NA 4 NA NA 1,386 1950 11.0% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 NA NA 1,527 1963 10.9% NA 3 NA NA 1,669 1988 18.9% NA 3 NA NA 1440 2004 14.8% 34 3 $42,519 $91,350 1,468 1981 15.3% 35 2 $54,325 $143,886 1,408 1987 19.9% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA 1,085 1982 19.0% 33 3 $53,081 $109,037 1,309 1996 16.3% 33 3 $52,319 $96,800 1,682 1975 14.7% NA 1 NA NA 1,685 2002 19.5% NA 1 NA NA 1242 1976 10.9% NA 3 NA NA 1,504 1997 17.7% 33 3 $51,620 $102,950 1,558 1988 15.8% NA 2 NA NA 1614 1984 21.1% 34 2 $46,112 $86,931 1,439 1981 14.6% 36 3 $42,570 $73,153 1,344 1989 12.9% NA 6 NA NA 1636 1970 12.8% 33 3 $43,111 $95,724 1,343 1983 15.9% 36 2 $46,129 $117,123 1,413 1968 19.3% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA 1,628 1997 10.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 32 2 $53,840 $76,483 1,509 1993 10.3% 48 3 $42,066 $70,067 1,227 1970 15.3% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2
Table 8. Selected Characteristics by County – 2015, Continued Borrower Characteristics
COUNTY HICKMAN HOUSTON HUMPHREYS JACKSON JEFFERSON JOHNSON KNOX LAKE LAUDERDALE LAWRENCE LEWIS LINCOLN LOUDON MACON MADISON MARION MARSHALL MAURY MCMINN MCNAIRY MEIGS MONROE MONTGOMERY MOORE MORGAN OBION OVERTON PERRY PICKETT POLK PUTNAM RHEA ROANE ROBERTSON RUTHERFORD SCOTT SEQUATCHIE SEVIER SHELBY SMITH
# Loans 5 1 2 0 24 0 181 0 9 2 0 2 19 3 58 1 2 50 7 3 1 9 91 0 4 4 7 0 0 3 12 5 13 31 321 2 0 20 247 3
Property Characteristics
PITI: % Age* HH Size Income* Price* Sq. Ft Year Built Income* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – AVERAGE VALUES – – – – – – – – – – – –– – NA 2 NA NA 1,315 1972 17.0% NA 4 NA NA 1761 2000 17.8% NA 1 NA NA 1,256 1978 14.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33 3 $41,386 $101,288 1,485 1995 18.2% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33 2 $45,812 $115,418 1,318 1978 19.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 36 4 $51,490 $89,500 2,125 1973 14.9% NA 4 NA NA 1,597 1983 14.4% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA 1526 2001 22.6% 37 2 $48,582 $95,828 1,557 1978 14.4% NA 4 NA NA 1,740 1991 19.3% 35 2 $46,074 $99,450 1,566 1991 17.5% NA 1 NA NA 870 1986 13.3% NA 5 NA NA 1,290 1983 22.0% 37 2 $46,403 $125,782 1,457 1980 20.4% 33 2 $40,363 $89,357 1,496 1997 16.4% NA 2 NA NA 1423 1995 18.5% NA 1 NA NA 1,308 1976 23.1% 29 2 $34,619 $92,501 1,502 1991 22.9% 34 3 $46,821 $112,705 1,282 1991 18.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 NA NA 1,461 2005 12.2% NA 3 NA NA 1,406 1986 13.1% 32 3 $40,818 $88,129 1,404 1987 17.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 NA NA 1,741 1991 14.2% 34 3 $44,788 $114,350 1,556 1987 19.2% NA 2 NA NA 1,661 1984 14.4% 35 2 $46,172 $108,390 1,486 1978 18.5% 32 3 $55,113 $138,300 1,395 1987 19.0% 33 2 $55,106 $141,408 1,459 1998 19.0% NA 2 NA NA 1,690 2013 13.1% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 36 3 $50,548 $126,370 1,528 1988 17.9% 37 2 $48,590 $118,023 1,706 1982 20.1% NA 3 NA NA 1,844 1967 17.2%
3
Table 8. Selected Characteristics by County – 2015, Continued Borrower Characteristics
COUNTY STEWART SULLIVAN SUMNER TIPTON TROUSDALE UNICOI UNION VAN BUREN WARREN WASHINGTON WAYNE WEAKLEY WHITE WILLIAMSON WILSON TENNESSEE
# Loans 2 33 94 7 3 0 1 0 8 23 0 1 6 32 30 2,275
Property Characteristics
PITI % Age* HH Size Income* Price* Sq. Ft Year Built Income* – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – AVERAGE VALUES – – – – – – – – – – – – NA 2 NA NA 1,109 1958 10.9% 40 2 $44,218 $114,479 1,354 1977 17.1% 34 2 $58,353 $144,079 1,510 1984 18.5% 34 3 $41,984 $109,700 1,460 1995 20.3% NA 2 NA NA 1,840 2011 19.9% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA 1,188 1960 11.5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 28 4 $38,281 $76,313 1,415 1992 16.3% 34 2 $45,050 $114,939 1,324 1982 18.6% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA 1749 1996 10.2% 31 3 $46,520 $114,333 1,604 1964 17.6% 34 2 $58,669 $196,118 1,630 2002 23.1% 32 3 $62,839 $167,214 1,643 1997 19.0% 35 2 $50,276 $125,662 1,458 1986 18.9%
*In the counties with 5 or less loans, the information about the borrower’s age, the income of the borrower and the acquisition cost are suppressed to protect the anonymity of the borrowers.
4
Tab # 7 Agenda Items: e.
Grant Reallocations-2014 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program
Tennessee Housing Development Agency Andrew Jackson Building Third Floor 502 Deaderick St., Nashville, TN 37243
Bill Haslam
Ralph M. Perrey
Governor
Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Grants Committee
FROM:
Don Watt, Director, Community Programs
DATE:
January 20,2016
RE:
Grant Reallocations-2014 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program
livisionþ4J
THDA expects to be notified over the next 30 days that approximately $47,650 in20l4 ESG resources will remain unused: a
o
Monroe Harding, Inc. (Middle Tennessee): $14,125.03 - This grant expired on December 31, 2015, and will not use further resources. Oasis Center (Middle Tennessee): Estimated return of $8,525 - This grant expired on December 31 2015, and the grantee anticipates returning the noted amount following their final draw. Benton County Ministerial Alliance (V/est Tennessee): Estimated return of $25,000 - This nonprofit was a new grantee, receiving $20,000 in 2015 funds for Prevention activities and $30,000 in20l4 funds for rapid-re-housing activities. As of today, the grantee has not expended any resources. Following conversation with the grantee, we are estimating the return of $25,000 in2014 resources.
The20I4 ESG funds must be expended by June 30,2016, or those resources must be returned to HUD. As result, I am requesting your authority to award these 2014 resources as follows: a
Tennessee Homeless Solutions, serving V/est Tennessee,
will receive any resources
a
made available from
any unused funds currently allocated to Benton County Ministerial Alliance.
Buffalo Valley Homeless No More, serving Middle Tennessee, will receive any resources made available from the expired grants to Monroe Harding, Inc. and to Oasis Center. Both organizations recommended for funding are experienced ESG grantees with a strong track record of using grant resources according to terms of their contracts. Additionally, both entities are progressing sufficiently in the expenditure ofresources under their current grants and have expressed a need for these additional resources to address homelessness in their service area.
www.THDA.org - (615) 815-2200 - TollFree: 800-228-THDA
Tab # 8 Agenda Items: b.
Innovation Round Proposal
Proposa
I
Overview: lnnovation Round - Pilot a new initiative in which THDA will reserue IO% of its annual tax credits as a discretionary set-aside to promote innovative housing concepts. Created to encourage developers to submit proposals for unique developments that would be at a competitive disadvantage in our regular scoring round. This round will not be based on scoring evaluation per the QAP, but rather allowed a subjective, non-scoring evaluation of the quality of the innovation. The Process: ln September 20L6 THDA would release a request for Blind Letters of lntent inviting our development partners to submit proposals identifying an innovative affordable housing concept that would be a first of its kind in Tennessee that could be replicable. Submissions would be due in November 15, 2016 to allow partners sufficient tlme to develop their innovative concepts. Proposed concepts will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
based on current QAP scoring factors;
Using these evaluation criteria a team of THDA staff, which includes 5 participants, one from each of the following divisions
Will rank all submissions into three tiers. Tier l for those five developments that were most unique and innovative. Tier 2 for developments that offered a unique and innovative components, but did not make the top five. Tier 3 for developments that did not present a strong innovative component or failed to make a case as to why the project could not be competitive in the regular scoring round. On December 15, 2016 the five tier one proposalfinalists will be selected and sent invitations to submit full applications by Competitive round deadline, February 20L7. These full applications will be reviewed by Multifamily Development staff for underwriting and compliance with
threshold requirements.
Proposa
I
Afterthreshold level review each developer will be allowed a 1-2 hour presentation to present the development concept and answer questions. These presentations will be scheduled for the first of week of May 2OI7 and attended by a second committee. At THDA's sole discretion, THDA may permit site visits upon request as deemed necessary. The second committee, which is formed to allow for non-biased subjectivity in making the final
funding recommendations, will be comprised of
Following the presentations each committee member will rank the five projects. Then a consensus will be reached based on availability of credits; with the top development(s) being awarded at same time as the competitive round.
