Upload
lizbeth-phelps
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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