Google Ads help pay the expense of maintaining this site
Click Here for the Neighborhood Transformation Website
Fair Use Disclaimer
Neighborhood Transformation is a nonprofit,
noncommercial website that, at times, may contain copyrighted material
that have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. It makes such material available in its efforts to advance the
understanding of poverty and low income distressed neighborhoods in
hopes of helping to find solutions for those problems. It believes that
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Persons wishing to
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of their own that
go beyond 'fair use' must first obtain permission from the copyright
Affordable Housing Magazine - February 2003
The next preservation challenge: expiring LIHTC properties
by Winton Pitcoff
With the compliance periods for initial low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) properties
now ending, the question of how to recapitalize and rehab those projects is commanding
As first enacted in 1986, properties developed under LIHTC had to enforce affordability
standards for 15 years. In 1989, Congress extended the use restrictions to 30 years.
In addition, some states (which are responsible for allocating the credits) required
extended affordability periods. The most notable of these are California and Nevada,
which require 50 years of compliance, and Utah, which requires 99.
Many LIHTC properties also benefit from additional funding from programs like HOME
and Farmers Home Administration, which require longer-term affordability commitments.
Many of the 170,000 units developed with LIHTCs between 1986 and 1989 will soon
be eligible for conversion to market rate. Most will need recapitalization that
may well force them out of affordability. Properties in markets where market rents
have significantly outpaced the measured hikes allowed with LIHTCs are particularly
threatened, as owners eye potential income gains.
While many projects have provisions granting nonprofit organizations or public agencies
the right of first refusal to purchase the buildings at expiration, these organizations
will often be hard-pressed to find the funds to purchase and maintain the buildings.
Tenants of LIHTC properties are not protected the way tenants of units with direct
federal subsidies are. Although residents of former project-based Sec. 8 units receive
Sec. 8 enhanced vouchers, displaced LIHTC residents will not be offered such benefits.
The loss is thus twofold ? with each apartment converted, a unit of affordable housing
is lost, and a low-income household is in need of an affordable home.
The main challenge is recapitalizing projects that no longer generate tax credits,
said Jenny Netzer, managing director of housing and community investing for Lend
Lease Real Estate Investments.
?A high number of the early tax credit deals had other long-term restrictions, and
many states imposed longer-term affordability requirements,? she said. ?The real
issue isn?t maintaining affordability, it?s recapitalizing the properties.?
Because the original investors in the projects were committed to 15 years, the funds
raised at the time were enough to modernize or rehab the properties to last that
length of time. As a result, most of these properties are ?tired,? said Netzer,
and in need of additional rehab. At the same time, the original investors are focused
on getting out of the projects, she said. In many cases, the developer at the lower
tier is buying out the other interests, while some are being bought by third parties,
and a few are being re-syndicated with new tax credits.
?The vast majority of the property managers and owners at the local level, even
those that aren?t nonprofits, are responsible owners,? said Netzer, and as such
are committed to ensuring that the properties remain viable community assets and,
in most cases, affordable. ?One of the great attractions of this program is that
nobody is looking to make a killing on the exit.?
Public policy vacuum
What is particularly challenging about the expiring tax credits is that there is
no public policy in place to handle the situation on a wholesale basis, said Steve
Rodger, also of Lend Lease. As a result, each owner has to come up with a property-specific
plan for recapitalizing projects, and each one takes ?an enormous amount of time
Rodger described the dichotomy he faces in Chicago. One property in his portfolio
is worth a significant amount of money and could command high rents or sale prices
if brought to market, but it also has access to ongoing tax exemptions, low-interest
rehab loans, bonds and other subsidies that would provide solid benefits to the
partners if the property remains affordable.
At the same time, those resources aren?t available for a property in another Chicago
neighborhood where affordability is most needed.
Katie Alitz of Boston Capital estimates that about 20% of expiring tax credit properties
will lose their affordability restrictions. ?There are lots of resources and people
in the business who want to try to recycle these properties and keep them affordable,?
she said, ?but that will depend upon the availability of new tax credit money.?
A few states are taking note of the situation and responding by setting aside new
tax credit money to support properties with expiring subsidies. In Michigan, for
example, $2.5 million, or 14% of last year?s tax credit allocation for the state,
was set aside for the preservation program. This year it?s $3.5 million, or 20%.
On Jan. 2, the first day of the program this year, 16 applications were received,
that totaled $400,000 more than the allocation.
The California Housing Partnership Corp.?s report, ?The Tax Credit Turns Fifteen:
Conversion Risk in California?s Early Tax Credit Portfolio,? claims that more than
4,500 units are at ?high risk? of conversion to market rate.
A recent report by the Chicago Rehab Network cites expiring affordability agreements,
but says that more pressing is the lack of operating and replacement reserves for
the majority of the city?s LIHTC properties. It projects ?a future of deferred maintenance,
rising vacancies and ever-deepening budget shortfalls,? all factors likely to contribute
to conversion to market rate as soon as restrictions expire.
Other states are also beginning to look into the issue. The Wisconsin Housing and
Economic Development Authority has established an ?Affordable Housing Tax Credits
Year 15 Task Force.? The Washington State Housing Finance Commission is working
with the Federal Home Loan Bank to establish an information clearinghouse about
properties for sale in the state, in an effort to preserve long-term affordability.
At the same time, national intermediaries, most notably the National Equity Fund
and the Enterprise Social Investment Corp., are working with nonprofit sponsors
who are committed to permanent affordability in order to acquire the properties
at the end of the 15-year investment period at a nominal price. The MacArthur Foundation
has dedicated $40 million to assist nonprofits in preservation and to fund purchases
of at-risk properties by ?qualified preservation purchasers.?