IHCDA Real Estate Department Listening Session

September 21, 2011

IHCDA Real Estate DepartmentIntroduction

Management Team Title

Larry Grubbs Underwriting Manager

Jeff Isaacs Deputy Director of Production

Brian Philps Special Projects & Business Development Manager

Matt Rayburn Compliance & Asset Manager

Adrienne Schmetzer Design & Construction Review Manager

J. Jacob Sipe Chief Real Estate Development Officer & Director of Production

IHCDA Real Estate Department

Community Development

Multifa

mily

Real Estate

Department

Production

Underwriting

Design & Construction

Review

Compliance & Asset

Management

Business Development

& Special Projects

Real Estate Department

J. Jacob SipeCREDO

Brian PhilpsBusiness Dev. & Special Projects

Adrienne SchmetzerDesign & Const.

ReviewJeff IsaacsDeputy Director of

Production

Larry GrubbsUnderwriting

Matt RayburnCompliance &

Asset Mgt.

LaTrina AkinsCoordinator

Ryan SplichalSystem

Specialist

Real Estate Department

Programs Administered by RED:• Qualified Allocation Plan

• Section 42 – Rental Housing Tax Credits• HOME & Development Fund

• Tax Exempt Bond Financing

• Strategic Investment Process• HOME Investment Partnership Fund• Community Development Block Grant & Disaster• Indiana Development Fund

• Neighborhood Assistance Program (NAP)

• Home Again• Money Follows The Person

Production DivisionJeff Isaacs, Deputy Director of Real Estate Production

Qualified Allocation Plan

Strategic Investment Process

Matt Hutchinson, Real Estate

Production Analyst, Northwest

Talisha Bradley, Real Estate

Production Analyst, North Central

Megan Coler, Real Estate

Production Analyst, Northeast

Alan Rakowski, Real Estate

Production Analyst, Southwest

Carmen Lethig, Real Estate

Production Analyst, Southeast

Greg Majewski, Homeless Prevention

and Housing Specialist

Production Division

• Strategic Investment Process

• Qualified Allocation Plan

• Home Again

• Production Trainings

Underwriting Division

Underwriting

Jennifer MillikenRegion IReal Estate Investment Underwriter

Susan ShepherdRegion II Real Estate Investment Underwriter

Closing

Jack PowellClosing Agent

Larry GrubbsManager

Adrienne SchmetzerManager

Design and Environmental

ReviewPhysical Inspection

Doug NewportDavid Pugh

Architectural Design & Construction Review Division

Compliance & Asset Management Division

Closeout Audits

Mike Recker Sr. Compliance

Auditor

Devyn Smith Compliance

Auditor

Ongoing Complianc

e

Jeff Ivory Sr. Compliance

Auditor

Anika Davis Compliance

Auditor

George McMannis

Compliance Auditor

Matt Rayburn, Compliance & Asset Manager

Compliance & Asset Management Division

• 2012 Rental Housing Tax Credit Compliance

Manual

• HOME & CDBG Rental Compliance Manual

• Financial reviews of existing properties

• Trainings- live and on-demand options

Why hold a “Listening Session”?1) Inform RED on the current market conditions, challenges, &

customer service

2) Alert our partners in attendance to different views and perspectives

3) Help monitor existing policy & procedures and determine whether changes are needed

4) Actively Participate With Our Partners

Survey Results Customer Service Survey – April 2011

Multifamily Community Development

2012 QAP Forum Survey – September 2011

THE MULTI-FAMILY STAFF IS PROMPT AND RESPONSIVE TO OUR PARTNER NEEDS.

Comments:• I usually hear back from them within 24 hours.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

33

9

1

THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF IS PROMPT AND RESPONSIVE TO OUR PARTNER NEEDS.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

14

20

6

2

Comments:• Staff seem overworked and sometimes take several weeks to answer questions .• The liaisons are, but under the new application process the review and responses have been very slow. • Becky Richardson is especially efficient with her response time. • It depends on the issue. For the most part I agree.• Most do, one does not.

THE MULTI-FAMILY STAFF IS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE SECTION 42 PROGRAM.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

31

11

1

Comments:• None

THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF IS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

16

20

42

Comments:• Staff lack understanding of more complex programs and how to combine say tax credits or NSP with HOME or CDBG. • If they are not sure on the answer, they find out and get back to me.• There is room for improvement on the implementation side .• Most are, some are not.

THE MULTI-FAMILY DEPARTMENT KEEPS ITS PARTNERS INFORMED WHEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES CHANGE.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1917

5

2

Comments:• It would be wonderful if the MFD notices were sent separately the day they came out. • It would help if there was a better notification system for new MFD notices.

THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KEEPS ITS PARTNERS INFORMED WHEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES CHANGE.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

7

20

7 6

1

Comments:• Changes happen so quickly. It would be nice to have more time to adjust to changes. • Things get updated and no one is ever told. Meaning manual, etc. • Just posted on web site and no notice given.

THE IHCDA WEBSITE AND MFD NOTICES ARE USEFUL.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

5

10

15

20

25

23

13

6

1

Comments:• The website could be much better. It's somewhat difficult to find information. • Not always easy to find what you are looking for. • Not the most transparent but once used to it OK • MFD - Yes, Website - No • Website is VERY useful, I wish there was a notification sent when new MFD notices come out.

THE IHCDA WEBSITE AND FSP MEMOS ARE USEFUL.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

12

17

9

3

Comments:• What is an FSP memo• Love it much better than it used to be. Much easier to use and find things. • Website information not updated and FSP memo are useful, but not when they are retroactive or late. • The website could be much better. It is somewhat difficult to find what your looking for. • FSP Memos are but don’t have time to check web site every day.

THE QAP AND COMPLIANCE MANUAL POLICIES AND EXPECTATIONS ARE CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

16 16

9

2

Comments:• I think sometimes they can be manipulated to fit a particular project. • Sometimes the roundabout wording is difficult to follow. • For the most part the QAP and Compliance Manuals are very good. However, several areas in the QAP are vague and in need of clarification. This is typical of a new QAP. • Too complex to have a complete explanation. Too many nuances to cover them all.

THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PROCESS AND AWARD MANUAL POLICIES AND EXPECTATIONS ARE CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE.

Strongly Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

4

11

17

4 4

Comments:• The process seems subjective at times. • Some practices have been quoted by staff but don't seem to be in the manual. • I like the fact it a rolling process, however, I find it concerning that we cannot request the types of funds we want to apply for, instead we are told for which ones we are eligible. I believe, if you don't know what monies to be ask for, perhaps you shouldn't be asking. • The new Process seems hard to follow and does not provide for a clear picture of a proposed project. I believe that the process could be revised somewhat and made more clear as to what IHCDA wants to see. • The written process is understandable, but actual implementation is not. • We had some trouble in the beginning but that was on our end not IHCDA's. • Don’t like the process at all.• Very helpful.

HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEPARTMENT?

Very Good Good Neutral Poor Very Poor0

5

10

15

20

25

30

27

11

4

Comments:• I feel I have a terrific relationship with the staff. • Very positive working relationship .• IHCDA and particularly the Multi-Family department are customer focused and committed. Well done. • VERY good relationship. Thanks for your cooperation and flexibility.

HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT?

Very Good Good Neutral Poor Very Poor0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

19

15

5

1 2

Comments:• Great! Always willing to help! • The staff has been extremely helpful and this is our first experience with IHCDA.• Our office has a great relationship with the department. We feel that we can discuss any issues that arise. • Very poor job of informing communities of what the IHCDA does - therefore, very little relationship.• Favorable.• Disconnected. • Very good. We appreciate them. • I rate the relationship as strong. • I have had excellent communication over the phone.

The IHCDA website and MFD notices are useful.

2008 2011

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

2

17

4

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

23

13

61

The Multi-Family Department keeps its partners informed when policies or procedures change.

2008 2011

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

3

15

41

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1917

52

The Multi-Family staff is knowledgeable about the Section 42 program.

2008 2011

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2

19

2

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

31

11

1

I receive sufficient training from the Multi-Family Department trainings.

2008 2011

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2

117

3

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1418

53

The IHCDA Multi-Family staff has created a positive environment to develop affordable housing properties in Indiana.

2008 2011

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

30

5 71 1

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

30

26

14

2 1

I feel comfortable asking questions to the Multi-Family Department, regarding my development(s)?

2008 2011

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 3 1

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

30

29

11

1 1

How would you rate your relationship with the Multi-Family Department?

2008

10-best9 8 7 6 5 4 3 21-worst0

2

4

6

8

10

12

7

1

10

4

2011

Stro

ngly

Agree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly

Disagr

ee0

5

10

15

20

25

30

27

114

2012 QAP Forum Sessions

Panel Mean

Legislative Update 4.63

Dialogue With The Equity Experts

4.44

Real Estate Department Overview

4.34

2012-2013 QAP Changes 4.16

What Makes A Good Market Study

4.08

Debt Financing for Credit Developments

4.04

Rating Weight

Excellent 5

Good 4

Average 3

Poor 2

Very Poor 1

Overall, how would you rate the quality of the 2010 QAP Forum?

Rating Response

Excellent 54.9%

Good 45.1%

Poor 0.0%

Very Poor 0.0%

How would you rate the networking element of the Forum?

Rating Response

Excellent 45.1%

Good 51.0%

Poor 3.9%

Very Poor 0.0%

Do you believe the Forum provided 'value for money?

Rating Response

Yes 95.9%

No 4.1%

Time To Listen Communication

IHCDA website RED Notices www.ihcdaonline.com

RED Organizational Structure IHCDA Priorities Compliance Trainings Strategic Investment Process Qualified Allocation Plan NAP Transparency Customer Service Recommendations For Improvement