New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study Analysis of NM Construction Cost Trends, Comparison of NM Construction Costs with Surrounding States, and Analysis of NM Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Distribution August 1, 2014 Prepared by Novogradac & Company LLP
181
Embed
New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Studyhousingnm.org/.../8-1...NM_Affordable_Housing_Cost_Study_by_Novo… · New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study . ... The decrease in development
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study
Analysis of NM Construction Cost Trends, Comparison of NM Construction Costs with Surrounding States, and Analysis of NM Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Distribution
August 1, 2014
Prepared by Novogradac & Company LLP
Disclaimer: This report is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regards to the
matters described herein at the time of its writing. Readers of this report are hereby advised that the authors are not engaged in providing any legal, accounting, or other professional services with regards
to this report. Any of the information included in this report is subject to change, from time to time and without notice. Readers of this report are therefore advised to refer to the original source documents
cited herein in order to ensure access to the most up-to-date information.
This report is for the sole use of the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency.
The New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency is responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management functions with regards to this report. Novogradac & Company LLP is
providing assistance on a consulting basis to the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency and is not responsible for management decisions.
Certain state agencies that provided information for the cost study did so on the condition that project-
specific information remains confidential. This report does not identify projects by name or development team members, lenders, investors, or any other project participants by name; or give
specific location size or project cost data that might permit a reader to identify a project.
The report does not constitute any form of attestation engagement, such as an audit, compilation or review.
Table of Contents
I. Acknowledgements II. Introduction III. Executive Summary IV. Methodology V. New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends VI. State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) VII. New Mexico LIHTC Distribution VIII. MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion IX. Bibliography X. Appendices with Maps and Charts
• Appendix A – New Mexico Charts 1-33 • Appendix B – New Mexico LIHTC Project Data • Appendix C – State Tables 1A – 6G • Appendix D – Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) • Appendix E – New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts 1A – 7I • Appendix F – New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Maps
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Novogradac & Company LLP for the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency. Jim Kroger, CPA and Grace Li, CPA with Novogradac & Company LLP were the primary authors and collected the data necessary to produce the report. We are grateful for assistance from Dan Foster, Housing Tax Credit Program Manager at the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency, who assisted with data collection and analysis of our observations of New Mexico construction cost trends. We are also grateful to the state agencies listed below that provided construction cost data:
• Arizona Department of Housing • Colorado Housing and Finance Authority • Nevada Housing Division • Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs • Utah Housing Corporation
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 4
Acknowledgements
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 5
Introduction
Novogradac & Company LLP (“Novogradac”) was engaged by the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency (“MFA”) in August of 2013 to analyze construction cost trends for 100% low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) new construction 9% projects in New Mexico, as well as compare construction costs with surrounding states. Novogradac was also engaged to analyze the distribution of 9% LIHTCs in New Mexico between congressional districts, rural and urban areas, housing types, and various project sizes; and review MFA policies and procedures for cost containment and cost standards. The results of this analysis are shown in the attached report (the “Report”) in narrative format, and also presented in numerous graphs and charts, as well as an Appendix with supporting schedules. With the consent of MFA, individual project information for New Mexico was included in our Appendix, however, individual project information for other states is not included, except in the aggregate, at the request of other state agencies. Scope of services New Mexico Construction Cost Trends We analyzed construction cost trends of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in New Mexico from 2006 – 2013 with analysis of various cost components such as land, site work, structures, architect fee, engineering fee, contractor fees, and developer fee, as well as comparing costs in various categories such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit). State Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT) We compared construction costs of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in New Mexico and surrounding states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and Utah) from 2006 – 2013, which included analysis of various cost components such as land, site work, structures, architect fees, engineering fees, contractor fees, and developer fee, as well as comparing costs in various categories such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), and unit type (non-detached vs. detached). We did not compare construction costs by developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit) between the various states. New Mexico LIHTC Distribution We analyzed the distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 between congressional districts, location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit), construction type (new construction, acq/rehab, and combined new construction and acq/rehab), and participation by tribal entities or housing authorities. MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion We read the MFA Qualified Allocation Plan to determine how policies and procedures might influence construction costs and the allocation of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico. We had numerous discussions with Dan Foster at MFA to obtain an understanding of MFA’s objectives and priorities; and how to achieve those with cost containment in mind.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 6
Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 7
Executive Summary
We have highlighted some of the key findings below. Readers are strongly advised to also read our Methodology Section as well as more specific methodology under “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” and “State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)”. New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends Development Costs – Site Work & Structures costs generally decreased from 2007 to 2010, and then generally increased from 2010 to 2013. The decrease in development costs from 2007 to 2010 was possibly due in part to increased cost competition as a result of scoring criteria introduced in 2009 and 2010 that gave points for lower costs per square foot. The decrease from 2007 to 2010 and increase from 2010 to 2013 could also be due to high cost projects built on tribal lands in 2007 and 2013, which generally have higher construction costs and may have caused the peaks in costs in those years. Project Location - The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for urban projects from 2006 – 2013 were generally about 25% less than rural projects, possibly due to higher cost in rural areas to obtain construction materials, hire construction crews, and other infrastructure challenges. Housing Type - Family projects and Senior projects appear to have about the same weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit, but Special Needs projects have about 30% less weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit than both of these housing types. Likely contributing factors to the lower cost for Special Needs projects include the following characteristics of the sample: 1) about 25% more of Special Needs projects were in urban areas, 2) Special Needs projects were generally much larger projects, and 3) Special Needs projects were mostly non-detached projects. Developer Type - Nonprofit developers (including housing authorities and tribal entities) had similar construction costs per unit as for-profit developers. There were some years that show nonprofit developers with higher costs and some years showing for-profit developers with higher costs, but they were similar in the aggregate for Site Work & Structures costs per unit on a weighted average basis. Project Size - Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with 60 or more units were about 30% less than costs per unit for projects with 30-59 units and about 20% less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units. However, there could be other factors contributing to the lower cost for projects with 60 or more units, such as larger projects being located in urban areas. Another big factor could be that projects with 60 or more units are all non-detached type projects, which appears to have significant cost savings as detailed in the Report. Furthermore, projects with 60 or more units have smaller bedroom sizes, therefore the smaller bedroom factor may be a primary contributor to the lower cost. Unit Type - The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for non-detached projects is about 40% less than detached projects. Two factors that likely contribute to non-detached projects having lower costs, aside from the obvious construction cost savings in shared walls and other shared costs for non-detached projects, include the following characteristics of the sample: 1) there are significantly more non-detached units in urban areas, where costs are generally less than rural areas, and 2) non-detached projects are generally larger projects with 60 or more units, where costs are significantly lower than for projects with less than 60 units.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 8
Executive Summary
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) Development Costs New Mexico’s weighted average Site Work & Structure costs per unit, Adjusted Total Development Costs per unit, and Total Development Costs per unit for 2006 - 2013, after adjusting for bedroom size and project size, was lower than most states in our sample.
• Site Work & Structures costs per unit includes direct construction costs, costs of accessory/community buildings and amenity structures, construction contingency, landscaping and fencing, and demolition (if categorized separately from land costs).
• Adjusted Total Development Costs per unit includes Site Work & Structures listed above, as well as off-sites, contractor fees/profit/overhead, furniture and fixtures, architect fees, engineering fees, impact fees, and developer fee.
• Total Development Costs per unit includes Adjusted Total Development Costs listed above, as well as land, insurance, loan interest, loan fees and origination costs, legal & accounting, appraisal, inspection and title report fees, taxes, environmental studies, market study, marketing, state agency fees, syndication, and reserves.
Cost Components New Mexico’s weighted average Cost Components per unit for 2006 – 2013, after adjusting for bedroom size and project size, was lower than the total weighted average for the six states for several components (land, architect fees, and engineering fees).
Average Site Work & Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDC
Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 95,039 137,602 172,835 Colorado 113,782 159,678 199,185 Nevada 101,687 143,783 164,781 New Mexico 87,897 129,284 143,615 Texas 72,038 103,943 123,652 Utah 90,483 115,967 141,473 Weighted Average 82,139 116,565 140,083
STATE
Average Land Acquisition
Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 10,532 4,318 1,648 10,715 19,381 Colorado 12,991 6,979 1,191 14,342 17,979 Nevada 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 4,269 4,367 1,136 11,153 16,818 Texas 7,014 N/A N/A 9,432 14,108 Utah 12,179 2,504 576 9,710 9,695 Weighted Avg 8,313 4,500 1,194 10,191 14,731
STATE
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 9
Executive Summary
Cost Components as an average percent of Total Development Costs from 2006 – 2013 do not vary significantly between New Mexico and the total weighted average for the six states, especially with regards to contractor fees, architect fees, engineering fees, and developer fees, and aside from land acquisition.
New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 between congressional districts, location (rural and urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit), construction type (new construction, acq/rehab, and combined new construction and acq/rehab), and projects with or without participation by tribal entities or housing authorities, can be volatile over the years due to the small amount of credits that are allocated annually in the state, resulting in generally about five to nine projects that are allocated credits each year. LIHTC distribution is likely influenced by factors such as LIHTC demand and construction costs, which are further affected by other variables such as geographic area and available financing. LIHTC distribution between the three congressional districts in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 was as follows:
1st Congressional District 2nd Congressional District 3rd Congressional District Total Units Produced 1,222 2,332 1,872
Total LIHTC $15,133,254 $21,803,105 $22,971,170 Average
LIHTC/Unit $13,048 $9,099 $12,150
MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion MFA and the state agencies analyzed in the Report require or encourage high quality and low cost housing through minimum and maximum requirements or scoring selection criteria detailed in each state’s QAP. In order to lower construction costs while increasing construction quality, QAPs have both downward and upward pressures on construction costs. For example, construction cost caps, such as maximum developer fee and contractor fee limits, create downward pressure on construction costs, while minimum construction standards, such as energy efficiency and amenity requirements, create upward pressure on costs. Additionally, many measures do not have a single effect and can provide both downward and upward pressures.
Weighted Average per
Project% of TDC
233,480 3.0%4,807,112 61.2%
609,988 7.8%238,841 3.0%
62,107 0.8%919,764 11.7%983,105 12.5%
7,854,397 100%
of NM Projects2006 - 2013
Weighted Average Values per Project
Cost Component
Land AcquisitionSite Work & Structures
Contractor FeesArchitect Fees
Engineering FeesDeveloper Fees
OtherTotal Development Costs
Weighted Average per
Project% of TDC
643,089 6.1%6,116,846 58.5%
756,863 7.2%225,146 2.2%
60,431 0.6%1,090,834 10.4%1,565,765 15.0%
10,458,974 100%
of AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT Projects2006 - 2013
Other
Land Acquisition
Developer FeesEngineering Fees
Cost Component
Site Work & StructuresContractor FeesArchitect Fees
Weighted Average Values per Project
Total Development Costs
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 10
Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 11
Methodology This section discusses our general methodology. Please see further explanation of specific methodology as applicable in our sections “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” and “State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)”. Isolating Construction Cost Factors There are many factors affecting construction costs that are often intertwined, may have compounding effects, and are often difficult to isolate for their individual effects. Also, given the small sample size and limitations of available data within New Mexico and with surrounding states, it is often difficult to say whether there is causation between two variables. For example, although the data might suggest that project size is a big factor because costs per unit decrease as units per project increase, we cannot definitively conclude that project size is the reason why costs per unit decrease. In order to further analyze our observations, we considered other factors, such as bedroom size, location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit) that might affect these results; and we reviewed the data to determine if there was a disproportionate allocation of projects with these factors between certain categories we analyzed. For example, we observed in New Mexico that costs per unit for projects with 60 or more units are much less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units. However, there could be other factors contributing to the lower cost for projects with 60 or more units, such as larger projects being located in urban areas. We observed that costs per unit for urban projects are much less than rural projects, and that urban projects tend to be larger, so it may be the urban factor that is contributing to lower costs for projects with 60 or more units. It is difficult to isolate whether the lower cost per unit for urban projects is due to the urban factor, or due to the fact that urban projects are generally larger than rural projects in our sample. Furthermore, projects with 60 or more units have smaller bedrooms, so maybe the smaller bedroom factor is the primary contributor to the lower cost. Our observations considered these effects, and we commented if there was a “disproportionate” allocation of factors, but our observations are still subject to interpretation, such as what is considered “disproportionate”. In our New Mexico construction cost analysis (not in our comparable state analysis) we included a chart that measured the percentage of total units distributed between the various factors and weighted average bedroom size. The various factors include location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit). Our observations of the cause and effect of factors contributing to construction costs cannot be relied upon as being definitive because there are many other factors that might contribute to cost differences that we were not able to consider due to data limitations. Some of these factors include the following:
- size and experience of developer - vertically integrated contractor and
developer - construction standards - energy efficiency standards - square footage - community space and site amenities - environmental mitigation
- parking - project construction duration - weather conditions - community opposition - local design review requirements - historic artifacts or structures needing
preservation - minimum wage
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 12
Methodology
Cost Per Unit Measurement We used a cost per unit measurement, rather than cost per square foot or cost per bedroom, because the LIHTC industry generally uses a cost per unit standard. Although using cost per unit has limitations because units averaging more bedrooms would typically have higher costs per unit, we adjusted for this effect between the six states in our state construction cost comparison (see discussion under Methodology for State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons). We did not adjust for this effect when analyzing costs only within New Mexico. Although the cost per unit measurement has limitations, so does cost per square foot and cost per bedroom. Using cost per bedroom has limitations because some projects in our study have, on average, more bedrooms per unit, and therefore, would typically have lower costs per bedroom. Using cost per square foot has limitations because square footage information was not available or was unreliable in certain cases. Resident manager units are counted as part of total units. Costs for common areas are counted in total costs, and therefore, will be part of per unit costs. Development Cost Categories We used three categories of development costs as follows:
1. Site work & structures (includes direct construction costs, costs of accessory/community buildings and amenity structures, construction contingency, landscaping and fencing, and demolition if categorized separately from land costs)
2. Adjusted total development costs (“Adjusted TDC”) (includes Site Work & Structures listed above, as well as off-sites, contractor fees/profit/overhead, furniture and fixtures, architect fees, engineering fees, impact fees, and developer fee)
3. Total development costs (“TDC”) (includes Adjusted Total Development Costs listed above, as well as land, insurance, loan interest, loan fees and origination costs, legal & accounting, appraisal, inspection and title report fees, taxes, environmental studies, market study, marketing, state agency fees, syndication, and reserves)
Development costs were further analyzed using the following cost categories:
• Land acquisition costs (includes costs to acquire land, existing structures, if any, demolition, and closing costs)
• Architect fees • Engineering fees • Contractor fees (includes general requirements, builder overhead, and builder profit) • Developer fees
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 13
Methodology
Outliers In order to normalize the data under the central limit theorem (bell curve distribution theory), and to remove possible anomalies and outliers, we removed projects for each state that are three standard deviations outside the mean for our three categories of development costs (site work & structures, adjusted total development costs, and total development costs). Data that falls within three standard deviations (light, medium, and dark blue shown below) of the mean (average) of our data sets generally accounts for 99.8 percent of the data. Roughly one to three projects for each state were deemed outliers, as defined above, and were removed from our data sample.
Assumptions and Data Limitations
1. Data was collected and transcribed by hand into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets from other types of media such as PDF files, in order to analyze the data. As a result, the data is subject to human error, however, removing outliers (as described above) mitigates this effect.
2. Data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel pivot tables and graphs, which were used to filter and compare data based on specific criteria for the various factors such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit).
3. There are likely variations in the categorization of costs due to differences in the level of detail of the data provided, and varying definitions of costs for the individuals preparing the final cost certifications and LIHTC applications.
4. The years of tax allocation for each project were either provided by the state agencies, determined by reviewing credit allocation awards lists published on state agency websites, or by reviewing LIHTC applications.
5. Cost data has not been adjusted for inflation (labor or material). Summary The individual effects of any one variable are difficult to isolate and can often be affected by any number of other factors that are also present. Readers are advised to consider these other factors and refer to the methodology sections in the “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” and “State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)” sections for explanation of applicable additional methodology.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 14
Methodology
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 15
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends Novogradac analyzed the costs of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in New Mexico from 2006 – 2013 to identify trends and differences in various cost components (such as land, site work, structures, architect fee, engineering fee, contractor fees, and developer fee) and across various categories (such as location, housing types, developer type, project size, and unit type). Approach and Methodology To achieve an “apples to apples” comparison as much as possible, the projects analyzed in the Report were limited to 100% LIHTC (no market-rate units) new construction projects that applied for and generally received 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2006 – 2013, and does not include any 4% tax-exempt bond or mixed-income projects, or projects that are acq/rehab, rehab only, or new construction combined with rehab. The analysis herein was based on construction cost data collected from final cost certifications and LIHTC applications for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects that applied for and/or received 9% credit allocations from 2006 to 2013. The Report contains cost and project data for 26 such projects, representing 1,117 LIHTC units. The data includes projects that received 9% credit allocations as well as projects that did not receive 9% credit allocations in the time period analyzed. Data was collected from final cost certifications of the projects that received credit allocations, and from LIHTC applications of the projects that applied but did not receive credit allocations. MFA indicated that construction costs from LIHTC applications were generally representative of final costs in most cases; therefore, data from LIHTC applications have been included in our analysis to increase sample size. The sample includes the following New Mexico projects from each year in the time period analyzed:
Year Number of Projects Number of Units 2006 3 78 2007 2 85
TOTAL 26 1,117 * Project data was unavailable for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in 2008.
• Of the 26 projects, 15 are located in rural areas and 11 are located in urban areas. • Nine of the projects are family housing type, two are senior housing type, and 15 are special
needs housing type. • The sample included 11 projects that were built by nonprofit developers and 13 projects that
were built by for-profit developers. Nonprofit developer status was unknown for two of the projects; therefore, those projects were excluded from the nonprofit participation comparison. Every project in the sample includes a nonprofit general partner, therefore, our nonprofit participation comparison focused on the nonprofit status of the developer rather than the general partner.
• Eight projects have less than 30 units each, nine projects have 30-59 units each, and nine projects have 60 or more units each.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 16
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
• Nine projects are detached unit type structures and 15 projects are non-detached unit type structures. Unit type status was unknown for two of the projects; therefore, those projects were excluded from the unit type structure comparison.
Cost Analysis The variables analyzed within New Mexico are:
• Location – rural vs. urban Rural is generally defined as any area outside of the four Metropolitan Statistical Areas in New Mexico (Albuquerque, Farmington, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe).
• Housing types – family, senior, and special needs; defined as follows: 1. Family - Projects with at least 25 percent of units set-aside for households with children.
Projects with both Family and Special Needs elements will be considered Family for the cost portion of our Report.
2. Senior – Projects specifically designated for exclusive use by Senior Households. 3. Special Needs - Projects with at least 25% (in 2006 – 2011), or 20% (in 2012 – 2013), of
units set-aside for Special Needs. • Nonprofit participation – for-profit developers vs. nonprofit developers (including housing
authorities and tribal entities) • Project size – projects with less than 30 units, 30 to 59 units, and 60 or more units • Unit type structure – detached vs. non-detached
The following charts might not include data for certain years (as noted at the bottom of certain charts) due to lack of project data meeting the criteria under analysis. The following charts are not adjusted for inflation (labor or material). Observations Our observations will note a few of the more significant New Mexico LIHTC construction cost trends. Users are advised to analyze the charts for other trends not listed in our observations. Some trends are not included in our discussion because they were determined to be an aberration. Our observations considered the effects of various project characteristics, and we commented if there was a “disproportionate” allocation of these variables. We defined “disproportionate” as a difference of greater than 20% between the variables as a percentage of total units. Our observations are subject to interpretation, such as what is considered “disproportionate” and other considerations that we have not taken into account.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 17
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Development Costs (See NM Chart 1 in Appendix A) Site Work & Structures costs per unit generally decreased from 2007 to 2010 by about 30%, and then generally increased from 2010 to 2013 by about 30%. The decrease was possibly due in part to increased cost competition as a result of scoring criteria introduced in 2009 and 2010 that gave points for lower costs per square foot. The decrease from 2007 to 2010 and increase from 2010 to 2013 could also be due to a few high cost projects in 2007 and 2013, which included projects on tribal lands that generally have higher construction costs and may have caused the peaks in costs in those years. Note that land costs on tribal projects are less than most projects, thus a reverse trend for land is seen with costs increasing from 2007 to 2010, and then decreasing from 2010 to 2013 (land cost is discussed later in our cost component analysis and on NM Chart 21 in Appendix A). The graph and chart below is a summary of the weighted averages for each year and in total for the time period 2006 – 2013 (see NM Charts 19-33 in Appendix A for further cost breakdown).
Project data was unavailable for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in 2008.
190,406 203,571
179,831 159,922 164,636 166,222
219,580
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 - 2013 (Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per Unit Adjusted TDC per Unit TDC per Unit
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 18
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Site Work & Structures was the main contributing factor of costs decreasing from 2007 – 2010, and then increasing from 2010 – 2013; therefore, Adjusted TDC and TDC follow a similar trend. We also looked at the change in Adjusted TDC (excluding Site Work & Structures) from year to year, and found that the trend was the same: in the aggregate, contractor fees, furniture and fixtures, architect fees, engineering fees, impact fees, and developer fee, also decreased from 2007 to 2010 and then increased from 2010 to 2013. This makes sense because many of these fees would be directly or indirectly affected by changes in Site Work & Structures. Project costs per unit for the time period from 2006 – 2013 ranged between various projects, with the approximate ranges and the weighted averages below:
• Site work and structures $70,000 to $190,000 cost per unit $111,893 weighted average cost per unit
• Adjusted TDC $105,000 to $256,000 cost per unit $164,581 weighted average cost per unit
• TDC $118,000 to $280,000 cost per unit $182,824 weighted average cost per unit
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 19
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 20
Project Location (See NM Charts 2-4 in Appendix A) The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for urban projects from 2006 – 2013 were generally about 25% less than rural projects, possibly due to higher cost in rural areas to obtain construction materials, hire construction crews, and other infrastructure challenges. Project size could be another factor contributing to the lower cost for urban projects. We observed that costs per unit for projects with 60 or more units are much less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units (see NM Chart 15 in Appendix A); and that urban projects tend to be larger, so it may be the project size factor contributing to lower costs for urban projects. Another factor contributing to the lower cost for urban projects is that they have significantly more non-detached type units than rural projects (30% more), and our data indicates that non-detached units generally cost about 30% less than detached units. Furthermore, urban projects have smaller bedrooms (2.22 urban vs. 2.42 rural) which might also contribute to the lower cost, but it is only a 0.2 difference in bedroom size which is about a 4% cost differential (see detailed discussion about bedroom size cost differences under Methodology for State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons).
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 21
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of rural and urban projects analyzed in this Report:
RURAL URBAN Additional Factors to ConsiderFamily 41% 21% more family in ruralSeniors 10% 5% more senior in ruralSpecial Needs 49% 74% more special needs in urban
Nonprofit 15% 76% more nonprofit in urbanFor-Profit 85% 24% more for-profit in rural
< 30 24% 9% more < 30 in rural30-59 33% 36% diff < 20%60+ 43% 55% diff < 20%
Detached 42% 12% more detached in ruralNondetached 58% 88% more nondetached in urban
Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.42 2.22 rural has 0.2 more avg bdr
Project Size
Unit Types
Project Characteristics
Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Rural and Urban Projects
as a Percentage of Total Units
Housing Types
Nonprofit
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 22
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Housing Type (See NM Charts 5-8 in Appendix A) Family projects and Senior projects appear to have about the same weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit, but Special Needs projects cost about 30% less per unit than both of these housing types. The lower cost for Special Needs projects could be due to the fact that the sample of Special Needs projects consists of about 25% more projects in urban areas and consists mostly of larger and non-detached projects. Please note that the sample of Senior projects was very small, and that 100% of the sample of Senior projects was detached projects, which generally increases costs; however, this was likely offset in part by the fact that Senior projects had about one less bedroom per unit, which generally decreases costs (see detailed discussion about bedroom size cost differences under Methodology for State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons).
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Type of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 23
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of Family, Senior, and Special Needs projects analyzed in this Report:
FAMILY SENIOR SPECIAL NEEDS Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 66% 66% 41% more family and senior in rural
Project Size < 30 19% 34% 13% diff < 20%30-59 46% 66% 25% all seniors in < 30 or 30-5960+ 35% 0% 62% more 60+ in special needs
Unit Types Detached 47% 100% 11% all seniors in detached; less family in detachedNondetached 53% 0% 89% more nondetached in special needs
family has 1.16 more avg bdr than seniorfamily has 0.52 more avg bdr than special needs special needs has 0.64 more avg bdr than senior
2.21 1.57 2.73 Bedrooms/UnitWeighted Avg
Project Characteristics
Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Housing Types
as a Percentage of Total Units
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 24
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Developer Type (See NM Charts 9-11 in Appendix A) Nonprofit developers (including tribal entities and housing authorities) had similar construction costs per unit as for-profit developers. There were some years that show nonprofit developers with higher costs and other years that show for-profit developers with higher costs, but they were similar in the aggregate for Site Work & Structures costs per unit on a weighted average basis. Nonprofit developers have about 60% more projects in urban areas than for-profit developers, and more Special Needs projects, as well as slightly smaller bedrooms, all of which should bring costs down compared to for-profit developers. For-profit developers, in comparison, have about 20% more projects with over 60 units, which should bring costs down compared to nonprofit developers.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM with Nonprofit General Partners
2006 - 2013 Nonprofit vs. For-Profit Developers
(Average Costs per Unit)
Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer Nonprofit General Partner, For-Profit Developer
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 25
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of projects analyzed in this Report that have nonprofit vs. for-profit developers:
NONPROFIT FOR-PROFIT Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 18% 79% more for-profit in rural
Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.21 2.40 for-profit has 0.19 more avg bdr than nonprofit
Project Characteristics
Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Developer Typeas a Percentage of Total Units
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 26
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Project Size (See NM Charts 12-15 in Appendix A) Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with 60 or more units were consistently less than projects of 30 to 59 units, but when comparing costs per unit between projects with less than 30 units and projects with 30 to 59 units, the results were inconsistent, with projects less than 30 units sometimes costing more and sometimes costing less than projects with 30 to 59 units, depending on the year. Looking at the aggregate weighted average cost for Site Work & Structures for 2006 – 2013, the costs per unit for projects with 60 or more units are about 30% less than costs per unit for projects with 30-59 units and about 20% less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units. However, there could be other factors contributing to the lower cost for projects with 60 or more units, such as larger projects being located primarily in urban areas. We observed that costs per unit for urban projects are much less than rural projects, and that urban projects tend to be larger, so it may be the urban factor that is contributing to lower costs for projects with 60 or more units. Another big factor is that projects with 60 or more units are all non-detached type projects, which has significant cost savings as shown in the next section. Furthermore, projects with 60 or more units have smaller bedrooms, so it could be the smaller bedroom factor that is the primary contributor to the lower cost.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 27
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of projects analyzed in this Report that have less than 30 units, 30-59 units, and 60 or more units:
< 30 30-59 60+ Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 72% 49% 44% more < 30 in rural
Urban 28% 51% 56% less < 30 in urban
Housing Types Family 36% 34% 22% diff < 20%Seniors 15% 14% 0% all senior projects are under 60+Special Needs 49% 52% 78% more 60+ projects are special needs
Nonprofit Nonprofit 43% 61% 34% more nonprofit in 30-59For-Profit 57% 39% 66% more for-profit in 60+
Unit Types Detached 57% 57% 0% all detached projects are < 60+Nondetached 43% 43% 100% all 60+ projects are nondetached
< 30 has 0.04 more avg bdr than 30-59<30 has 0.19 more avg bdr than 60+
30-59 has 0.15 more avg bdr than 60+
Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Project Sizes
as a Percentage of Total UnitsProject Characteristics
Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.43 2.39 2.24
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 28
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Unit Type (See NM Charts 16-18 in Appendix A) The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for non-detached projects is about 40% less than detached projects. Two factors that likely contribute to non-detached projects having lower costs include the fact that significantly more non-detached units in the sample are located in urban areas, where costs are generally less than rural, and about 70% more non-detached projects have 60 or more units (there are zero detached projects of 60 or more units).
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Unit Type Structure of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 29
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of detached and non-detached projects analyzed in this Report:
DETACHED NONDETACHED Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 80% 42% more detached units in rural
Urban 20% 58% more nondetached units in urban
Housing Types Family 45% 19% more of detached units are family unitsSeniors 29% 0% all seniors units are detachedSpecial Needs 26% 81% more nondetached units are special needs
Project Size < 30 34% 10% all detached are < 60+30-59 66% 19% all detached are < 60+60+ 0% 72% all 60+ projects are nondetached
Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.28 2.33 nondetached has 0.05 more avg bdr than detached
Project Characteristics
Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Unit Type
as a Percentage of Total Units
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 30
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Cost Components (See NM Charts 19-33 in Appendix A) We compared cost components per unit from 2006 – 2013. As seen with Site Work & Structures costs per unit, cost components per unit also generally decreased from 2007 to 2010, and then generally increased from 2010 to 2013. Land acquisition costs per unit, however, did not appear to follow that general trend. Land acquisition costs followed an opposite trend, and generally increased from 2007 to 2010, then generally decreased from 2010 to 2013. This is possibly due to projects on tribal lands in 2007 and 2013 which had leased land, and therefore, no land cost, thus leading to dips in land acquisition costs in those years.
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM 2006 - 2013
(Average Costs per Unit)
Land Acquisition per Unit Architect Fee per Unit Engineering Fee per Unit
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 31
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
We also compared cost components as an average percent of TDC for the time period of 2006 – 2013 with 2010 – 2013 to see whether there were differences between the two time periods.
Most cost components as an average percent of TDC changed about 2% or less when comparing these two time periods. Costs did not appear to differ significantly between the two time periods.
Land AcquisitionSite Work & StructuresContractor FeesArchitect FeesEngineering Fees
3.0%
61.2% 7.8%
3.0% 0.8%
11.7%
12.5%
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 - 2013 (Average per Project)
Land Acquisition
Site Work & Structures
Contractor Fees
Architect Fees
Engineering Fees
Developer Fees
Other
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 32
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
Summary Generally, development costs and cost components trended downwards from 2007 – 2010 and trended upwards from 2010 – 2013, with the exception of land, which followed opposite trends. The downward and upward trends are possibly due to lower costs when scoring criteria was introduced in 2009 and 2010 that gave points for lower costs per square foot, and high costs projects in 2007 and 2013 in the sample, which included projects on tribal lands that generally have higher construction costs. Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects in urban areas were generally less than in rural areas, which may be due to costs unique to rural areas for obtaining construction materials, hiring construction crews, and other infrastructure challenges. Site Work & Structures costs per unit appear to be similar for Family and Senior projects, but were generally less for Special Needs projects, possibly due to our sample of Special Needs projects being mainly larger, non-detached projects in urban areas. Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with nonprofit developers vs. for-profit developers were generally similar. Site Work & Structures costs per unit appear to be least for projects with 60 or more units, however, this may be due to various factors such as larger projects being normally non-detached and located in urban areas. Site Work & Structures costs per unit for non-detached projects were generally less than detached projects, which is possibly a result of our sample containing more non-detached projects in urban areas and no detached projects of 60 or more units, among other variables.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 33
New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) Novogradac compared construction costs of 100% LIHTC new construction only 9% projects in New Mexico with surrounding states – Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and Utah. Various cost components (such as land, site work, structures, architect fee, engineering fee, contractor fees, and developer fee) were analyzed across various categories (such as location, housing types, project size, and unit type structure).
Approach and Methodology To achieve an “apples to apples” comparison as much as possible, the projects analyzed in the Report were limited to 100% LIHTC (no market-rate units) new construction projects that applied for and generally received 9% LIHTC in each state from 2006 – 2013, and does not include any 4% tax-exempt bond or mixed-income projects, or projects that are acq/rehab, rehab only, or new construction combined with rehab. In order to increase sample size, data includes some projects that might not have received allocations. Some data sets may not have projects from certain years once we have filtered the data to meet certain criteria and removed statistical outliers. Our analysis used a time period of 2006 – 2013 for averaging costs, and we also compared that time period with the more recent time period from 2010 – 2013 for some charts. The analysis herein was based on construction cost data collected from final cost certifications and LIHTC applications. MFA indicated that construction costs from LIHTC applications were generally representative of final costs in most cases. The Report contains cost and project data for 259 projects, representing 18,345 LIHTC units.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 34
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
In general, the years listed correspond to the year projects applied for and/or received allocations. Most of our data was pulled from Final Cost Certifications. For more recent years, such as 2012 and 2013, we often used data from the 9% LIHTC application because those projects weren’t in service yet.
• Arizona data includes projects from 2006 - 2012 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was collected from Form 3 of the AZ LIHTC applications and final cost certifications.
• Colorado data includes projects from 2006 - 2011 that received allocations. Information was provided by Colorado Housing Finance Authority. No final cost certifications were reviewed.
• Nevada data includes projects from 2010 - 2013 that received allocations. Information was collected from LIHTC applications and final cost certifications.
• New Mexico data includes projects from 2006 - 2013 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was collected from LIHTC applications and final cost certifications.
• Texas data includes projects from 2010 - 2013 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was obtained from underwriting reports provided on the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs website.
• Utah data includes projects from 2006 - 2012 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was provided by Utah Housing Corporation. No actual final cost certifications were reviewed.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 35
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
The number of projects in our sample in the following comparison categories is detailed below: Comparison Categories
Qualified Allocation Plans Construction costs for LIHTC properties will likely vary between states due to different state housing agency qualified allocation plans (“QAP”). QAPs will differ between states with regards to minimum construction standards, energy efficiency requirements, square footage guidelines, site amenity incentives, design requirements, and other variables that affect construction costs. Some states might have a higher standard for certain building features, such as energy efficiency, and provide competitive preference to projects providing more units and amenities, such as laundry rooms, community rooms, daycare centers, parking structures, pools, etc. Although we reviewed other state QAPs for these items, it was very difficult to closely compare these items between states. For example, energy efficiency standards were often required but it was difficult to quantify the effects and determine how to normalize the data for the difference between states, if any, for this variable. However, we found that most state agency QAPs have some minimum construction standards and minimum energy efficiency standards, such that LIHTC projects analyzed in the Report are mostly comparable in terms of construction quality. Therefore, we have not adjusted for construction standard differences, if any, between various states. However, we did adjust for variables mentioned above, such as location, housing types, and project size. Cost per Unit Measurement Adjustments Adjustments for average number of bedrooms per unit (“Bedroom Size”) and average number of units per project (“Project Size”) were made on a statewide basis for all projects in the sample. Project data was not further adjusted for additional variations in weighted average Bedroom Size and weighted average Project Size as the sample sizes got smaller when analyzing various factors such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), and unit type (non-detached vs. detached). In other words, we assumed that the Bedroom Size and Project Size was proportionate for the aforementioned factors. Bedroom Size Adjustment We adjusted per unit costs to account for differences in weighted average Bedroom Size between states. We used HUD 221(d)(3) mortgage limits as our standard for determining bedroom cost differences because those limits are nationally recognized by many state agencies as a reasonable benchmark. In addition, HUD 221(d)(3) limits were used because of challenges inherent with using the data we had within each state to isolate the cost differences due to varying Bedroom Sizes within each state (for example, no data on number of bathrooms and square footage information). The 2010 HUD
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 36
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
221(d)(3) limits were used because 2010 is generally the median point in our 2006 - 2013 time period. For purposes of calculating average Bedroom Size per project, studio and SRO units were given a value of zero bedrooms.
Our weighted average Bedroom Size is 1.9 bedrooms per unit for all states (see table below), so when using the 2010 HUD 221(d)(3) mortgage limits as the standard for bedroom cost differences we will use 2 bedrooms as our baseline for normalizing cost differences. The range of weighted average bedrooms per unit for the states is 1.4 to 2.3, so we analyzed differences between 1, 2, and 3 bedroom HUD 221(d)(3) mortgage limits.
We made adjustments to each state's costs based on each state's Bedroom Size difference from the 1.9 bedroom baseline using 0.1 Bedroom Size increments. Each 0.1 bedroom increment was assigned a percentage change, shown below, based on the 2010 HUD 221(d)(3) differences between 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms with 2 bedrooms as the baseline. This adjustment will make the data more comparable between the states by attempting to eliminate cost differences due to Bedroom Size differences between states.
These adjustments were derived from the 2010 HUD Multifamily Loan Program Mortgage Limits shown below. The change in limit from 1 bedroom to 2 bedrooms is a 20.60% increase, and from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms is a 21.88% decrease.
Therefore, to account for differences in weighted average Bedroom Size between states, we will adjust the weighted average unit cost as follows:
1. Increase costs by 2.060% for every 0.10 weighted average bedrooms per unit below the 1.9 weighted average bedrooms per unit base; or
2. Decrease costs by 2.188% for every 0.10 weighted average bedrooms per unit above the 1.9 weighted average bedrooms per unit base.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 37
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
For example, New Mexico has 2.3 bedrooms as its weighted average Bedroom Size, which is 0.4 increments above the 1.9 bedroom per unit baseline. Because New Mexico has more bedrooms per unit, the costs per unit need to be reduced to compare to the lower baseline. The adjustment equals an 8.751% decrease (4 increments x 2.188%). Project Size Adjustment We adjusted per unit costs to account for differences in weighted average Project Size between states. We used the data we had within each state to isolate the cost differences due to Project Size within each state, by comparing these categories: under 30 units, 30-59 units, and 60 plus units. The following table summarizes the unadjusted weighted average site work & structures cost per unit of each state in each of the categories:
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 38
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Because the baseline for Project Size (71 units) is in the 60 plus units category, we adjusted all states to that category. Costs in each state were adjusted based on the percentage of units in that state in the smaller categories (under 30 units and 30-59 units). For each state, the Project Size adjustment factor was determined by multiplying the percentage of units in each of the smaller categories by the respective change in unadjusted cost per unit from the smaller category to the 60 plus units category. To account for differences in weighted average Project Size between states, we will adjust the weighted average unit cost as follows:
1. Arizona: Decrease costs by 5.65%; 2. Colorado: Decrease costs by 4.00%; 3. Nevada: Decrease costs by 5.14%; 4. New Mexico: Decrease costs by 12.70%; 5. Texas: Decrease costs by 0.85%; and 6. Utah: Decrease costs by 3.63%.
For example, New Mexico’s downward adjustment of 12.70% to get to the baseline of 60 plus units is comprised of:
3.02% adj for % of units in NM with less than 30 units (17.94% decrease x 16.83% of units) + 9.68% adj for % of units in NM with 30-59 units (28.07% decrease x 34.47% of units) 12.70% total adjustment
Net Adjustment for Bedroom and Project Sizes Per unit costs in each state are adjusted by the net adjustments due to the Bedroom Size and Project Size adjustments discussed above. The net adjustments for each state to account for differences in both weighted average Bedroom Size and weighted average Project Size between states are shown below:
For example, New Mexico’s downward adjustment of 21.45% is comprised of adjustment for the fact that New Mexico generally has larger bedrooms than most states, 2.3 bedrooms per unit, and smaller projects, 43 units per project:
8.75% decrease for Bedroom Size adjustment + 12.70% decrease for Project Size adjustment 21.45% total decrease adjustment
Cost Analysis The variables analyzed in the Report are:
• Location – rural vs. urban • Housing types – family and senior (special needs was not analyzed due to insufficient data) • Project size – projects with less than 30 units, 30 to 59 units, and 60 or more units • Unit type structure – detached, non-detached, and 3 or less stories
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 39
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
The following charts may not include data for certain years and/or certain states (as noted on each set of charts) due to lack of project data meeting the criteria under analysis. The following charts are not adjusted for inflation (labor or material). Observations Our observations will note a few of the more significant comparisons between states. Users are advised to analyze the charts for other comparisons and relationships not listed in our observations. Some comparisons are not included in our discussion because they were determined to be insignificant or an aberration. Although we have normalized the data for Project Size differences and Bedroom Size differences as mentioned earlier in this section, there are obviously many variables that will affect differences in costs between states and that would be very difficult to quantify such as differences in state demographics (weather conditions, community opposition, local design review requirements, environmental mitigation, minimum wage requirements) and/or QAP requirements (energy efficiency, minimum construction cost standards, minimum square footage requirements, site amenities, parking requirements, etc.).
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 40
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Average Site Work & Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDC
Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 106,143 153,679 193,029 Colorado 123,151 172,827 215,588 Nevada 128,374 181,518 208,027 New Mexico 123,574 181,761 201,909 Utah 97,456 124,904 152,376 Weighted Avg 112,303 156,710 189,860
TEXAS DATA REMOVED FROM SAMPLE
STATE
172,835 199,185
164,781 143,615
123,652 141,473
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects 2006 - 2013
(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
Development Costs (See State Tables 1A-2C in Appendix C) New Mexico Site Work & Structures weighted average costs per unit for 2006 - 2013, after adjusting for Bedroom Size and Project Size, was lower than most states in our sample. New Mexico’s Adjusted TDC and TDC were also lower than most states in our sample.
We noted that Texas data accounted for more than half of the sample (more projects and more units) and has low costs per unit compared to all the states in our sample. In fact, all states aside from Texas, had costs higher than the aggregate weighted average of all states (except Adjusted TDC for Utah).
We removed Texas from the data to analyze the effects on the resulting weighted average costs per unit. We found that the weighted averages were not so dominant towards one state, meaning that the states were more evenly split above and below the aggregate weighted average, as opposed to Texas being the only state below the aggregate weighted average. Removing Texas data increased the weighted average of all states for all cost categories. Removing Texas also decreased the baseline Bedroom Size from 1.9 to 1.8 and the baseline Project Size from 60 plus units to 30-59 units, which changed the relationships between states primarily due to the baseline shift in the Project Size adjustment to 30-59 units.
Average Site Work & Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDC
Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 95,039 137,602 172,835 Colorado 113,782 159,678 199,185 Nevada 101,687 143,783 164,781 New Mexico 87,897 129,284 143,615 Texas 72,038 103,943 123,652 Utah 90,483 115,967 141,473 Weighted Average 82,139 116,565 140,083
STATE
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 41
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Cost Components (See State Tables 1A-2C in Appendix C) New Mexico Cost Components weighted average costs per unit for 2006 – 2013, after adjusting for bedroom size and project size, were less than some states for some components and less than the aggregate weighted average for several components (land, architect fee, and engineering fee).
Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects; therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts above.
Average Land Acquisition
Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 10,532 4,318 1,648 10,715 19,381 Colorado 12,991 6,979 1,191 14,342 17,979 Nevada 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 4,269 4,367 1,136 11,153 16,818 Texas 7,014 N/A N/A 9,432 14,108 Utah 12,179 2,504 576 9,710 9,695 Weighted Avg 8,313 4,500 1,194 10,191 14,731
STATE
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects 2006 - 2013
(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fee Contractor Fees Developer Fee
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 42
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Cost components as an average percent of TDC from 2006 – 2013 do not vary significantly, aside from land, between New Mexico and the other states combined, especially with regards to contractor fees, architect fees, engineering fees, and developer fees, as seen in the two pie charts below.
We also looked at cost components as an average percent of TDC from 2010 – 2013 (see State Tables 2C in Appendix C) between New Mexico and the other states combined, and we noted that cost components as an average percent of TDC between the two time periods of 2006 – 2013 and 2010 – 2013 was very close, with percentages often within 0.10% of each other.
6.1%
58.5% 7.2%
2.2% 0.6%
10.4%
15.0%
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT
2006 - 2013 (Average per Project)
Land Acquisition
Site Work & Structures
Contractor Fees
Architect Fees
Engineering Fees
Developer Fees
Other
3.0%
61.2% 7.8% 3.0% 0.8%
11.7%
12.5%
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 - 2013 (Average per Project)
Land Acquisition
Site Work & Structures
Contractor Fees
Architect Fees
Engineering Fees
Developer Fees
Other
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 43
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Project Location (See State Tables 3A-3E in Appendix C) Our observation in the previous section regarding New Mexico costs indicated the weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for urban projects from 2006 – 2013 in New Mexico were generally about 25% less than rural projects. When comparing to other states we noticed a similar pattern of lower costs per unit for urban projects compared to rural projects (with the exception of Nevada, because the Nevada sample did not include rural projects). New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for rural projects is more than all six states’ aggregate weighted average, but New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for urban projects is less than all six states’ aggregate weighted average.
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000
100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost of Site Work & Structures of Rural vs. Urban 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 44
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Housing Type (See State Tables 4A-4E in Appendix C) Our observation in the previous section regarding New Mexico costs indicated that Family projects and Senior projects have about the same weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit. When comparing to other states we noticed that Family and Senior projects had similar costs but that Family project costs per unit were consistently slightly more than Senior project costs (with the exception of Nevada, because the sample did not include Family projects). New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for both Family and Senior projects is more than all six states’ aggregate weighted average. Special Needs projects were not included in this analysis because we did not have sufficient data from the other states on Special Needs housing type projects.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Type 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 - 2013 (Average Costs per Unit)
Family Senior
States Family SeniorArizona 97,483 92,342 Colorado 125,341 106,956 Nevada N/A 143,783 New Mexico 101,763 100,773 Texas 77,756 69,985 Utah N/A N/AWeighted Avg 89,956 81,452
Average Site Work & Structures per Unit
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 45
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Project Size (See State Tables 5A-5G in Appendix C) Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with 60 or more units were consistently less than projects of 30 to 59 units for all states and less than projects with less than 30 units for all states except Texas. However, when comparing costs per unit between projects with less than 30 units and projects with 30 to 59 units, the results were inconsistent, with projects less than 30 units sometimes costing more (NM, TX, UT) and sometimes costing less (AZ, CO) than projects with 30 to 59 units. Please note that the Nevada sample did not have any projects less than 30 units, and the Arizona and Texas samples each had only one project with less than 30 units. New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for less than 30 unit projects and for 60 or more unit projects are less than all six states’ aggregate weighted average, while New Mexico weighted average costs per unit for 30-59 unit projects are greater than all six states’ aggregate weighted average.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 - 2013 (Average Costs per Unit)
Less than 30 Units 30 to 59 Units 60 or More Units
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 46
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Project Structure (See State Tables 6A-6G in Appendix C) New Mexico is the only state that had a clear difference in Site Work & Structures costs per unit between project structure types within the state. In Arizona and Texas, Site Work & Structures costs per unit appeared to be generally similar within each state. Colorado and Utah did not provide information identifying which projects were detached or nondetached, or number of stories of each project, therefore, there was no data analyzed for these states. The Nevada sample did include any projects that were detached.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Structure 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 47
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Summary New Mexico’s weighted average Development Costs per unit for 2006 – 2013, after adjusting for Bedroom Size and Project Size, were lower than most states in our sample. Certain weighted average cost components per unit for 2006 – 2013 in New Mexico, such as land, architect fee, and engineering fee, after adjusting for Bedroom Size and Project Size, were lower than the aggregated weighted average of all states in the sample, and other cost components, such as contractor fees and developer fee, were higher. Cost components as an average percent of Total Development Costs from 2006 – 2013 did not vary significantly between New Mexico and the other states combined.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 48
State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 49
New Mexico LIHTC Distribution
Novogradac analyzed the distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 between categories, such as congressional districts, location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit), construction type (new construction, acq/rehab, and combined new construction and acq/rehab), and participation by tribal entities or housing authorities. Projects that received 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 are plotted in red below on the map of New Mexico’s three congressional districts.
Our observations will note a few trends and comparisons of 9% LIHTC distribution in New Mexico. Users are advised to analyze the charts in Appendix E for other relationships not listed in our observations. As discussed earlier in the Report, there are many variables that will affect differences in costs, which can also affect LIHTC distribution, and these variables need to be considered when comparing credits allocated between Congressional Districts and the other categories in our charts. LIHTC distribution differences could be from construction costs differences as a result of varying state demographics (topography, weather conditions, community opposition, local design and building code requirements, environmental mitigation, impact fees, etc.), location (rural/urban), construction type (new/acq/rehab, detached, etc.) and project size, which all affect construction costs and hence credits per unit. LIHTC distribution could also be driven by LIHTC demand which is affected by factors such as number of feasible projects in a certain category. As the number of feasible projects decreases in a certain category then LIHTC demand decreases, and possibly less LIHTC is distributed in that category. Even if all projects are feasible in a certain category, LIHTC is also affected by the degree to which individual
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 50
New Mexico LIHTC Distribution
projects are feasible. For example, certain geographic areas or developer types or housing types might have different financing available or different credit prices, etc., all of which can affect the degree to which projects need credits. Available financing could be affected by the income/rent level of the targeted population or income/rent level of the geographic location which might result in lower rents, and therefore, possibly less net operating income, which results in less debt, which then requires more equity (credits per unit) to fill the financing gap, thereby increasing demand for credits. Note that the projects in our sample used for the “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” from 2006 – 2013 do not match the projects that were actually allocated credits for that same period in our “New Mexico LIHTC Distribution”. The sample for the Cost Trends section did not include all projects that were allocated credits, because we excluded acq/rehab and mixed income projects from Cost Trends, and included projects in Cost Trends, that were not allocated credits, in order to increase our Cost Trends sample size. Additionally, note that the projects in our sample have been grouped to their respective congressional districts based on current rather than historical district boundaries. Congressional Districts (See NM Distribution Charts 2A – 2I in Appendix E) Over the 14 year time period from 2001 to 2014, New Mexico’s Congressional Districts received the following amount of credits based on data provided by MFA.
First Congressional District……….$15,133,254 ($151,332,540 over total 10-year credit period) Second Congressional District….$21,803,105 ($218,031,050 over total 10-year credit period) Third Congressional District……..$22,971,170 ($229,711,700 over total 10-year credit period)
Grand Total 15,133,254 21,803,105 22,971,170 59,907,529
Annual 9% Credits Allocated in Each NM Congressional District from 2001 - 2014
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 51
New Mexico LIHTC Distribution
Distribution between the Congressional Districts can be volatile over the years because of the relatively small amount of credits allocated in New Mexico that results in only a handful of projects allocated credits each year.
Although the population in each District is roughly the same, there was a disproportionate amount of credits allocated over the years, which might reflect differences in construction costs or less financing available between Districts, or other demographics mentioned earlier.
Total Units 1,006 2,370 2,050 5,426 Total LIHTC $15,133,254 $21,803,105 $22,971,170 $59,907,529
Average LIHTC/Unit $15,043 $9,200 $11,205 $11,041
Total Units Produced per NM Congressional District from 2001 - 2014
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 52
New Mexico LIHTC Distribution
As discussed earlier, there are many variables that can influence LIHTC distribution and units constructed, such as construction costs, LIHTC demand, and available financing, all of which are affected by varying demographics (topography, weather conditions, community opposition, local design and building code requirements, environmental mitigation, impact fees, etc.) between Congressional Districts. First Congressional District received the lowest number of total credits from 2001 – 2014, and had the highest average amount of credits per LIHTC unit. First Congressional District had the highest percentage of new construction units (see following table), which might have contributed to the highest average amount of credits per LIHTC unit. Second Congressional District received slightly less than the Third Congressional District in aggregate annual credits 2001 from 2014, but produced the most LIHTC units of the congressional districts and has the lowest average credit awarded per LIHTC unit. Second Congressional District had the highest percentage of acq/rehab units (see following table), which might have contributed to the lowest average amount of credits per LIHTC unit. Third Congressional District received the highest number of total credits from 2001 – 2014, but did not produce the most LIHTC units. This could be due to several factors such as the Third Congressional District having the lowest average units per project, varying construction costs, or less financing available than the other Districts. The table below lists a few of the factors to consider that might contribute to construction costs differences which could affect credits per unit and resulting number of units built:
1st District 2nd District 3rd District Total Credits 15,133,254 21,803,105 22,971,170
Total LIHTC Units 1,006 2,370 2,050 Average Credits per Unit 15,043 9,200 11,205 Average Units per Project 59 53 50
Rural 0% 48% 56% Urban 100% 52% 44%
New Construction 74% 68% 66% Acq/Rehab 14% 23% 26%
Combined New Const/Acq/Rehab 12% 9% 8% Family 27% 45% 46% Senior 11% 18% 15%
Special Needs 62% 37% 39% Summary Distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 was volatile between Congressional Districts due to the small amount of credits that are allocated annually in the state, resulting in only a few projects that are allocated credits each year. LIHTC distribution is likely influenced by factors such as LIHTC demand and construction costs, which are further affected by other variables such as geographic area and available financing.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 53
New Mexico LIHTC Distribution
Please refer to the charts in Appendix E for other 9% LIHTC distribution trends in New Mexico: • Location (rural and urban) – NM Distribution Charts 3A – 3I in Appendix E • Developer Type (nonprofit vs. for-profit) – NM Distribution Charts 4A – 4I in Appendix E • Construction Type (new construction, acq/rehab, combined new construction and acq/rehab) –
NM Distribution Charts 5A – 5I in Appendix E • Housing Types (family, senior, and special needs – NM Distribution Charts 6A – 6I in Appendix E • Tribal Entity or Housing Authority Participation – NM Distribution Charts 7A – 7I in Appendix E
Please see the maps in Appendix F of the location of projects awarded 9% LIHTC throughout the state.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 54
New Mexico LIHTC Distribution
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 55
MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion
MFA, like most state agencies, wants to build as many low-income units as possible that are both high quality and low cost. We observed many similarities between MFA and the state agencies we analyzed in the Report when reading each state’s QAP, and observed that QAPs either require or encourage both high quality and low cost housing through minimum and maximum requirements or scoring selection criteria. Many states have adopted measures in their QAP that follow NCSHA Recommended Practices such as developer fee and contractor limits, minimum rehabilitation thresholds, and green building and sustainable development features. Each state strives to strike the right balance with regards to lowering construction costs (downward pressure on costs) and with regards to increasing construction quality (upward pressure on costs). We analyzed various measures detailed in each state’s QAP that address construction costs and construction standards, and summarized these similarities and differences in the QAP Matrix. We discuss the effects of these measures below. Maximum and Minimum Requirements Maximum Allocation per Project Setting a maximum on the amount of credits that can be requested per project primarily provides downward pressure on construction costs because it discourages excess costs beyond the amount necessary to claim the maximum amount of credits. All states in the matrix have a maximum limit on credits requested. There may be also some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur enough costs to reach the maximum amount of credits. Developer Fee Limits Setting developer fee limits primarily creates downward pressure on construction costs because 1) if it is a cost limit, not eligible basis limit, there will not be any additional developer fee project costs above the maximum developer fee, and 2) it discourages costs beyond the amount at which developers can receive the maximum allowed fee. All of the states in the chart have set limits on the allowable developer fee as a percent of costs. For some states (NM, AZ, CO, and TX), the maximum decreases as the project size (number of units) increases. In Nevada, the maximum does not decrease as project size increases, but encourages lower developer fees by awarding extra points to a project if the developer fee is below the maximum. In Utah, the developer fee cannot exceed a certain percentage of costs, or a certain dollar amount per unit, whichever is less. There may be some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur enough costs to maximize the developer fee. Contractor Fee Limits (Profit / Overhead/ General Requirements) Setting contractor fee limits primarily creates downward pressure on construction costs because 1) if it a cost limit, not eligible basis limit, there will not be any additional contractor fee project costs above the maximum contractor fee, and 2) it discourages costs beyond the amount at which contractors can receive the maximum allowed fee. All of the states in the chart have set limits on the allowable contractor fees as a percent of costs. In New Mexico, the contractor fees are limited at a set percentage of costs. For some states (AZ and CO), the maximum decreases as the project size (number of units) increases, and in Texas, the maximum decreases as total development costs increase. In Nevada, the maximum does not decrease as project size increases, but encourages lower contractor fees by awarding extra points to a project if the fees are below the maximum. In Utah, the contractor fees cannot exceed a certain percentage of costs, or a certain dollar amount per unit, whichever is less. There may be some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur enough costs to maximize the contractor fees.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 56
MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion
Eligible Basis Limits Setting a limit on eligible basis primarily provides downward pressure on construction costs because it discourages excess costs beyond the amount necessary to claim the maximum amount of credits. New Mexico’s limit for a project in each allocation round is based on total development costs per unit, up to 130% of the weighted average total development costs per unit of projects in the same allocation round. In Arizona, each project’s limit is based on a maximum amount of construction costs allowed per square foot, which varies for different project types. Colorado’s eligible basis limits are based on HUD 221(d)(4) mortgage limits. In Texas, the limits are determined by program limits, an underwriter’s estimate using Marshall and Swift indices, or the amount of basis by which credits were requested on the initial LIHTC application. No eligible basis limits were established in Nevada or Utah. There may be some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur more costs to maximize eligible basis. Minimum Rehab Costs per Unit Requiring minimum rehab costs per unit potentially ensures increased quality of rehabilitated units; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it requires greater expenditures in order to meet the minimum for credits to be claimed. Each of the states in the chart requires minimum rehab expenditures per unit. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to this requirement. Unit Size Limitations Requiring minimum unit sizes creates upward pressure on construction costs because it requires greater expenditures in order to meet the minimum size requirements. With the exception of Colorado and Utah, each of the states in the chart requires certain minimum square footages per unit for varying bedroom sizes. Texas has a minimum project size of 16 units and maximum project size of 80 units for rural projects. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to size limitations. Energy Efficiency Requiring minimum energy efficiency measures ensures increased quality and durability of projects; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater expenditures in order to put these measures in place. All states either require or encourage energy efficiency to some extent. In order to receive LIHTC in Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, projects are required to comply with Enterprise Green Communities, meet certain minimum energy efficiency requirements, or become Energy Star certified. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to this requirement; however, operating expenses are expected to be less in the long run as a result of the energy efficient features. Project Amenities Requiring project amenities increases quality of projects; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater costs to construct the amenities. All states either require or encourage amenities to some extent. In Texas, some development amenities are mandatory, such as dishwashers. In Nevada, safety and security measures are mandatory, and specific project amenities are required depending on the project’s housing type. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to these requirements.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 57
MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion
Scoring Selection Criteria Experience Encouraging projects with participation by experienced development teams primarily provides downward pressure on construction costs because experienced development teams may be more knowledgeable about the LIHTC construction process, which can reduce time and costs spent. Projects are awarded points for developer experience in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. It is unclear whether there is any upward pressure on costs due to this factor. Local Support/ Contributions Encouraging projects with demonstrated local government support through monetary contributions generally creates downward pressure on construction costs, but may also create upward pressure on construction costs. Downward pressure results from an incentive to decrease costs to score more points because as total development costs decrease, the percentage of local funding increases (assuming the local funding is an absolute fixed dollar amount). Upward pressure results from additional financing that may encourage additional costs. Many states in the QAP Matrix, including New Mexico, award points to projects based on the percentage of local government funding as a percentage of total development costs. Sustainable Design / Energy Efficiency Encouraging sustainable design, energy efficiency, and energy conservation ensures increased quality and durability of projects; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater expenditures in order to put these measures in place. All states require or encourage sustainability and efficiency through scoring selection criteria. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to this scoring criteria; however, operating expenses are expected to be less in the long run as a result of sustainable and efficient features. Mixed Income Encouraging mixed income projects encourages development of units at the market rate standard; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because the design and quality may be higher than for affordable housing. New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah award points to such projects. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs. Project Size Encouraging certain project sizes may meet certain housing needs or demands, but can create upward pressure on construction costs per unit (ignoring the effects of bedroom size) if project sizes are too small (see earlier discussions regarding effect of project size on construction costs). New Mexico and Colorado award points to projects that do not exceed a certain maximum amount of units, and Texas and Utah award points to projects with larger units. Conversely, larger project sizes generally create downward pressure on costs per unit. Tenant Ownership Encouraging production of properties for eventual tenant ownership primarily creates upward pressure on construction costs because the structures of such projects generally need to be suited for that purposes, which means the structures are typically single family, detached units or townhomes, and these types of structures are generally more costly (see earlier discussions regarding effect of detached units on construction costs). New Mexico and Colorado award points to projects intended for eventual tenant ownership; however, there are also other scoring selection criteria, such as for cost and credit
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 58
MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion
efficiency, that offer offsetting incentives against properties for eventual tenant ownership. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs. Additional Amenities Encouraging construction of amenities beyond the required minimum amenities may increase quality of housing; however, it primarily creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater costs. Nevada, Texas, and Utah award points to projects for specific additional amenities, up to a maximum amount. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs. Cost Efficiency / Credit Efficiency Encouraging cost and credit efficiency creates downward pressure on construction costs because it promotes lower construction costs and maximizes the use of tax credits. Most of the states in the chart, with the exception of Arizona and Colorado, award points to projects that demonstrate cost efficiency and/or credit efficiency by each state’s own measure of determining efficiency. It is unclear whether there is any upward pressure on costs. Tie Breakers The use of tie breakers is another opportunity to provide downward pressure on construction costs because projects are encouraged to be as cost and credit efficient as possible to ensure selection for allocation of credits in favor of other projects. All of the states in the chart, with the exception of Colorado, promote efficiency by using measures of cost and/or credit efficiency to select projects. It is unclear whether there is any upward pressure on costs from tie breakers that reward cost and credit efficiency. Summary In order to lower construction costs while increasing construction quality, QAPs have both downward and upward pressures on construction costs. For example, construction cost caps, such as maximum developer fee and contractor fee limits, create downward pressure on construction costs, while minimum construction standards, such as energy efficiency and amenity requirements, create upward pressure on costs. Many measures do not have a single effect and can provide both downward and upward pressures.
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 59
MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion
New Mexico Arizona Colorado Nevada Texas Utah
Maximum Allocation per Project
$1,150,000 $1,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,000,000
lesser of 150% of credit amount
available (estimates released by TDHCA),
or $1,500,000
$1,000,000
Developer Fee Limits
15% (if <30 units), % decreases as #
units increase {MFA considering hard cap at $1M per
project}
17% (if 1‐30 units), % decreases as # units increase
15% (if <50 units), % decreases as # units increase; extra 5% if homeless project
for <30% AMI tenants
max 15%; but extra scoring points given if less than 15%
20% (if <50 units), 15% (if >50)
developer fee and contractor fee
combined max at 18%, or $17,200 per unit, whichever is less
Contractor Fee Limits
(Profit/Overhead/ General Reqs)
14%15%, and %
decreases as # units increase
10% (w/ IOI) or 12% (w/o IOI); and %
decreases as # units increase
max 14%; but extra scoring points given if less than 14%
18%, and % decreases as TDC increases
developer fee and contractor fee
combined max at 18%, or $17,200 per unit, whichever is less
Eligible Basis Limits
TDC per unit (excluding land costs) not to
exceed 130% of weighted average TDC per unit of projects in the same round
limits based on const costs/sq ft; allowed amounts vary for different project types
based on HUD 221(d)(4) limits
none
1. program limit method, 2. Gap/DCR
method (underwriter's estimate using
marshall and swift), 3. requested amount
none
Minimum rehab costs per unit
greater of $6,000 or 20% of building
qual basis$6,200
greater of $7,600 or 20% of building qualified basis
$30,000 $25,000 greater of $6,000 or 20% of building qualified basis
Size Limitationsminimum sqft requirements
minimum sqft requirements
none
maximum sqft for new senior units; no minimum sqft requirements
minimum sqft requirements; min
project size = 16 units; rural max project size = 80 units; otherwise no max project size
none
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 60
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 61
New Mexico Arizona Colorado Nevada Texas Utah
Energy Efficiency (Mandatory)
some required in MFA mandatory design standards
some required in ADOH mandatory design guidelines
must comply with Enterprise Green Communities to be eligible for LIHTC
minimum energy efficiency req's are a condition of
receiving allocation
not mandatory (but encouraged through scoring selection
criteria)
project needs to be Energy Star certified
Project Amenities (Mandatory)
some required in MFA mandatory design standards (ie. common area
and laundry facilities)
some required in ADOH mandatory
design guidelines (ie. common area and laundry facilities)
some required in QAP (ie. covered
parking)
certain project amenities required (differs for housing types); mandatory security measures
some mandatory development amenities (ie.
dishwashers, central heating and air conditioning)
not mandatory (but encouraged through scoring selection
criteria)
New Mexico Arizona Colorado Nevada Texas Utah
Experience nonedeveloper experience
noneprevious successful developments in
NVnone developer experience
Local Support/ Contributions
local govt contribution as %
of TDC
local govt contribution as % of
TDCnone
local govt contribution as %
of TDC
local support & contribution (includes
non‐monetary support)
none
Sustainable Design/ Energy Efficiency/ Conservation
green building features
sustainable development (materials, air quality, water
efficiency, energy efficiency)
none (required)
"smart design" ‐ combination of
location efficiency and energy
efficiency, water efficiency
green building features
green building features
Mixed Incomemixed income
projects (at least 15% market rate)
nonemixed income
projects (no more than 80% LIHTC)
none nonemixed income
projects
SCORING SELECTION CRITERIA
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 62
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 63
New Mexico Arizona Colorado Nevada Texas Utah
Project Size60 or fewer units {MFA considering eliminating this}
none 50 or fewer units nonemeet minimum sq ft
per unitlarger units (more 3&4 bedroom units)
Tenant Ownershipeventual tenant
ownershipnone
eventual tenant ownership
none none none
Additional Amenitiesnone (earned as part of housing type points)
none nonespecific additional
amenitiesspecific additional
amenitiesspecific additional
amenities
Cost Efficiency/ Credit Efficiency
credits requested per unit and per sq ft are less than a certain amount (credit efficiency)
none none
credit efficiency measured by multiplying 1.5
persons/bdr times # of bedrooms,
then divided by TC requested; or by
combining TDC/unit plus
TC/unit
low costs/sq ft (cost efficiency); and
credits requested < certain % of TDC (credit efficiency)
cost efficiency measured by low hard costs and TDC per unit and by low hard costs
and TDC per net residential sq ft
Tie Breakersproject with lower
TDC/unit
credit efficiency (measured by
credits/total project sqft); then by order in which application was received by
ADOH
none
greatest level of non‐TC funding
(credits/TDC), then by lottery
Opportunity Index; then by greatest linear distance from nearest
LIHTC project
credit efficiency (credits/net
residential sqft); then by % of SPN units
SCORING SELECTION CRITERIA (continued)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 64
This page intentionally left blank
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 65
Bibliography
“Arizona Department of Housing 2014 Qualified Allocation Plan for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.” Approved by Governor Janice K. Brewer December 20, 2013. (http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/RENTAL%20APPLICATIONS/LIHTC/14%20QAP/2014%20Final%20QAP.pdf)
Bay Area Economics ARCH.Research. “Comparison of Market-Rate and Affordable Rental Projects.” Prepared for The California Affordable Housing Cost Task Force. January 1993. (http://www.hcd.ca.gov/2012_affordable_housing/1993_Study_Comp_of_Market_and_AH.pdf)
“Colorado Housing and Finance Authority low income housing tax credit allocation plan 2014.” Approved by Governor of Colorado January 7, 2014. (http://www.chfainfo.com/documents/CHFA_LIHTC_Allocation_2014.pdf)
DeLisle, Ph.D, Jim., Angela Kanevski, Lea Mitchell, Leslie Wolff. “Washington Affordable Housing Cost Study (2009).” September 2009. (http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/HTF-Cost-Study-Report-Final.pdf)
Jakabovics, Andrew, Lynn M. Ross, Molly Simpson, and Michael Spotts. “Bending the Cost Curve – Solutions to Expand the Supply of Affordable Rents.” Urban Land Institute: Washington, DC. 2014. (http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/BendingCostCurve-Solutions_2014_web.pdf)
Kadduri, Jill and David Rodda. “Making the Best Use of Your LIHTC Dollars: A Planning Paper for State Policy Makers.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Abt Associates, Inc. July 2004. (http://www.prrac.org/pdf/Khadduri.pdf)
Montee, Susan. “Analysis of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.” Missouri State Auditor. Report No. 2008-23. April 2008. (http://www.auditor.mo.gov/press/2008-23.pdf)
“Report of the National Council of State Housing Agencies’ Housing Credit Task Force on Recommended Practices in Housing Credit Allocation and Underwriting.” National Council of State Housing Agencies. December 6, 2010.
“State of Nevada Housing Division Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program Qualified Allocation Plan 2014.” Adopted December 6, 2013. (http://housing.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/housingnvgov/content/programs/LIH/2014QAPDEC19FINAL.pdf)
“State of New Mexico Housing Tax Credit Program Qualified Allocation Plan.” Approved by Governor Susana Martinez October 29, 2013. (http://www.housingnm.org/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc-allocations)
“State of Utah 2014 Federal Housing Credit Program Allocation Plan.” Approved by Governor Gary R. Herbert August 20, 2013. (http://www.utahhousingcorp.org/PDF/2014FinalQAP.pdf)
“Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs Qualified Allocation Plan 2014.” (http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/docs/14-GovApprvdQAP.pdf)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 66
Note: Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008 and 2012. Project data for urban 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.
RURAL URBAN
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures of Rural v. Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Rural Urban
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 71
Note: Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008, 2010, and 2012. Project data for senior housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2006,
2008‐2010, and 2012‐2013. Project data for special needs housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.
FAMILY SENIOR SPECIAL NEEDS
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Typeof 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Family Senior Special Needs
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 75
Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & nonprofit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2012.
279,028 248,176
162,917 174,238 163,422
228,850
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer
(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per Unit Adjusted TDC per Unit TDC per Unit
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 76
Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & nonprofit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2012. Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with
nonprofit general partners & for‐profit developers was unavailable for 2008.
Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer
Nonprofit General Partner, For‐Profit Developer
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures of 100% LIHTC New Construction9% Projects in NM with Nonprofit General Partners
2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit vs. For‐Profit Developers
(Average Costs per Unit)
Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer Nonprofit General Partner, For‐Profit Developer
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 78
Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with less than 30 units was unavailable for 2007‐2008 and 2012. Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with 30 to 59 units was unavailable for 2008 and 2012. Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction
9% projects in NM with 60 or more units was unavailable for 2006‐2008.
Less than 30 Units 30 ‐ 59 Units 60 or More Units
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Less than 30 Units 30 ‐ 59 Units 60 or More Units
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 82
Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & nonprofit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2012‐2013.
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer
(Average Costs per Unit)
Land Acquisition per Unit Architect Fee per Unit Engineering Fee per Unit
Contractor Fees per Unit Developer Fee per Unit
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 94
Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & for‐profit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2011.
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit General Partner, For‐Profit Developer
(Average Costs per Unit)
Land Acquisition per Unit Architect Fee per Unit Engineering Fee per Unit
Contractor Fees per Unit Developer Fee per Unit
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 95
Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with non‐detached unit type structures was
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013Non‐Detached Unit Type Structure
(Average Costs per Unit)
Land Acquisition per Unit Architect Fee per Unit Engineering Fee per Unit
Contractor Fees per Unit Developer Fee per Unit
APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 100
New Mexico Applications and Cost Certifications Summary ChartData compiled from 8609 applications and final cost certifications submitted between 2009‐2013, and LIHTC applications received by MFA between 2009‐2013.
Project Name Source County Rural/Urban Housing Type LIHTC Units # of Bedrooms Unit Type Nonprofit
Participation (GP)Nonprofit is Developer
Chuska Apartments FCC McKinley Rural Special Needs 30 75 Non‐Detached Y YI‐Sah‐din‐dii FCC Otero Rural Family 30 90 Detached Y YLolomas FCC Curry Rural Senior 55 91 Detached Y NLa Pradera FCC Lea Rural Family 60 132 Non‐Detached Y NFranklin Vista VI FCC Dona Ana Rural Family 24 56 Non‐Detached Y NFranklin Vista VII FCC Dona Ana Rural Special Needs 24 80 Non‐Detached Y NCampo Apartments FCC Santa Fe Urban Senior 28 39 Detached Y YParkside Apartments LIHTC app Luna Rural Special Needs 24 64 Detached Y NSierra Vista LIHTC app Luna Rural Family 24 60 Detached Y NSilver Vistas LIHTC app Grant Rural Special Needs 60 180 Non‐Detached Y NCottonwood Apartments LIHTC app Eddy Rural Special Needs 60 117 Non‐Detached Y NThe Elms Apartments LIHTC app Lea Rural Special Needs 60 107 Non‐Detached Y NI‐Sah‐din‐dii Phase II LIHTC app Otero Rural Family 34 90 Detached Y NWhite Sands Village Phase III LIHTC app Santa Fe Rural Special Needs 20 52 Detached Y YEl Camino Real Apartments LIHTC app Dona Ana Rural Family 40 116 Detached Y NMesa del Sol Apartments LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Family 61 225 Non‐Detached Y YThe Artisan at Sawmill Village LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 62 100 Non‐Detached Y YMontana Pointe LIHTC app Dona Ana Urban Special Needs 60 153 Non‐Detached Y NCasas de Vida Nueva LIHTC app Valencia Urban Special Needs 30 48 Detached Y YArtisan East LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 54 144 Non‐Detached Y YTNT LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 24 46 Non‐Detached Y YAlameda 575 LIHTC app Dona Ana Urban Special Needs 61 44 Non‐Detached Y YMadera Crossing LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 56 144 Non‐Detached Y YPeachtree Canyon LIHTC app Dona Ana Urban Special Needs 60 160 Non‐Detached Y NDeer Tail Vista Underwriting Report Santa Fe Rural Family 20 60 N/A Y N/ALa Rambla Underwriting Report Dona Ana Urban Family 56 124 N/A Y N/ATotal Projects = 26
APPENDIX B - New Mexico LIHTC Project Data
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 101
New Mexico Applications and Cost Certifications Summary ChartData compiled from 8609 applications and final cost certifications submitted between 2009‐2013, and LIHTC applications received by MFA between 2009‐2013.
Project Name Site Work & Structures Adjusted TDC TDC Land Acquisition Costs Architect Fees Engineering Fees Contractors Fees Developer Fee
Chuska Apartments 5,629,367 7,670,599 8,370,835 274,856 492,686 109,908 567,499 841,623 I‐Sah‐din‐dii 5,104,074 7,173,415 7,445,265 ‐ 373,154 21,403 659,403 964,788 Lolomas 6,785,799 9,042,475 9,858,267 305,000 135,561 65,695 810,000 1,190,402 La Pradera 7,629,387 9,991,056 11,100,234 403,283 71,942 38,572 695,000 1,210,916 Franklin Vista VI 1,678,291 2,530,404 2,829,197 67,764 110,326 13,405 249,656 351,288 Franklin Vista VII 2,238,216 3,306,808 3,651,645 71,451 110,325 15,996 324,358 456,018 Campo Apartments 3,861,922 6,087,148 6,580,677 ‐ 219,721 41,942 507,722 752,204 Parkside Apartments 2,390,227 3,680,144 4,178,852 80,000 110,025 32,500 322,721 524,866 Sierra Vista 2,807,983 4,452,747 4,899,653 80,000 142,603 37,500 422,557 619,174 Silver Vistas 5,879,092 8,568,827 9,134,827 2,000 185,300 10,300 815,000 1,108,000 Cottonwood Apartments 5,892,726 10,016,246 11,574,699 85,000 450,000 272,500 813,386 1,399,321 The Elms Apartments 5,879,550 9,854,305 11,342,549 295,000 396,000 215,000 813,680 1,362,288 I‐Sah‐din‐dii Phase II 6,093,320 8,331,022 8,669,769 ‐ 328,348 65,000 812,441 990,189 White Sands Village Phase III 3,190,862 4,423,239 4,576,990 ‐ 137,000 56,525 394,377 602,500 El Camino Real Apartments 6,644,204 9,869,076 10,826,013 258,742 380,268 38,380 869,335 1,308,151 Mesa del Sol Apartments 5,347,118 8,356,472 8,982,488 5,100 210,000 115,798 748,596 1,017,234 The Artisan at Sawmill Village 6,555,711 9,563,786 11,056,358 900,001 300,000 115,000 852,241 1,159,297 Montana Pointe 4,671,881 6,993,453 8,052,000 325,000 227,892 40,367 614,194 961,909 Casas de Vida Nueva 2,657,032 4,076,788 4,619,814 400,000 149,201 ‐ 387,846 590,000 Artisan East 6,003,870 8,650,832 10,016,187 700,000 219,000 66,000 780,503 1,038,514 TNT 1,875,747 2,851,084 3,554,022 275,400 100,000 22,000 263,690 359,000 Alameda 575 4,311,964 6,740,933 7,285,654 ‐ 294,023 55,000 549,682 874,768 Madera Crossing 6,149,843 8,808,853 10,197,970 700,000 205,370 47,500 799,480 1,050,658 Peachtree Canyon 5,799,619 8,861,664 9,973,306 391,885 440,264 48,000 773,325 1,205,267 Deer Tail Vista 3,842,784 4,999,867 5,240,056 ‐ 160,848 8,500 209,659 733,150 La Rambla 6,064,318 8,935,246 10,197,000 450,000 260,000 62,000 803,332 1,242,343 Total 124,984,907 183,836,489 204,214,327 6,070,482 6,209,857 1,614,791 15,859,683 23,913,868
APPENDIX B - New Mexico LIHTC Project Data
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 102
Comparable States: GENERAL SUMMARYNote (1): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013. 1A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013. 1B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
Average Site Work & Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage Land
Acquisition CostsAverage Architect
FeesAverage Engineering
FeesAverage
Contractor FeesAverage
Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 95,039 137,602 172,835 10,532 4,318 1,648 10,715 19,381 Colorado 113,782 159,678 199,185 12,991 6,979 1,191 14,342 17,979 Nevada 101,687 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 87,897 129,284 143,615 4,269 4,367 1,136 11,153 16,818 Texas 72,038 103,943 123,652 7,014 N/A N/A 9,432 14,108 Utah 90,483 115,967 141,473 12,179 2,504 576 9,710 9,695 Weighted Avg 82,139 116,565 140,083 8,313 4,500 1,194 10,191 14,731
STATE
172,835 199,185
164,781 143,615
123,652 141,473
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects2006 ‐ 2013
(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects2006 ‐ 2013
(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 103
STATE TABLE Cost components as an average percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.1C. NOTE: Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. These costs are included in "Other" for TX in the tables and pie chart below
Site Work & StructuresContractor FeesArchitect Fees
Engineering FeesDeveloper Fees
Land Acquisition
Other
Weighted Average Values per Project of AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT Projects
Total Development Costs
Weighted Average Values per Project of NM Projects
Cost Component
Land AcquisitionSite Work & Structures
Contractor FeesArchitect Fees
Engineering FeesDeveloper Fees
OtherTotal Development Costs
Engineering FeesDeveloper Fees
OtherTotal Development Costs
Utah
Cost Component
Site Work & StructuresLand Acquisition
Contractor FeesArchitect Fees
6.1%
58.5%
7.2%
2.2%0.6%
10.4%
15.0%
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT
2006 ‐ 2013 (Average per Project)
Land Acquisition
Site Work & Structures
Contractor Fees
Architect Fees
Engineering Fees
Developer Fees
Other
3.0%
61.2%7.8%
3.0%0.8%
11.7%
12.5%
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2006 ‐ 2013 (Average per Project)
Land Acquisition
Site Work & Structures
Contractor Fees
Architect Fees
Engineering Fees
Developer Fees
Other
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 104
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.2A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.2B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Average Site Work & Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 94,715 135,567 171,772 10,112 4,404 1,303 11,615 18,501 Colorado 103,040 145,170 185,831 11,248 6,854 1,258 12,812 17,239 Nevada 101,687 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 83,764 126,891 141,830 4,061 4,504 1,185 11,235 16,668 Texas 72,038 103,943 123,652 7,014 N/A N/A 9,432 14,108 Utah 93,904 118,927 143,142 10,117 2,468 613 10,563 9,829 Weighted Avg 77,353 110,680 132,358 7,360 4,389 1,263 9,852 14,470
STATE
171,772 185,831
164,781
141,830
123,652
143,142
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects2010 ‐ 2013
(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2010 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 105
STATE TABLE Cost components as an average percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.2C. NOTE: Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. These costs are included in "Other" for TX in the tables and pie chart below
Site Work & StructuresContractor FeesArchitect Fees
Engineering Fees
Engineering FeesDeveloper Fees
OtherTotal Development Costs
Cost Component
Weighted Average Values per Project of AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT Projects
Developer FeesOther
Total Development Costs
Land Acquisition
Weighted Average Values per Project of NM Projects
Cost Component
Land AcquisitionSite Work & Structures
Contractor FeesArchitect Fees
Engineering FeesDeveloper Fees
OtherTotal Development Costs
5.7%
58.4%
7.4%
2.0%0.6%
10.9%
14.9%
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT
2010 ‐ 2013(Average per Project)
Land Acquisition
Site Work & Structures
Contractor Fees
Architect Fees
Engineering Fees
Developer Fees
Other
2.9%
59.1%7.9%
3.2%0.8%
11.8%
14.4%
Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM
2010 ‐ 2013(Average per Project)
Land Acquisition
Site Work & Structures
Contractor Fees
Architect Fees
Engineering Fees
Developer Fees
Other
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 106
Comparable States: RURAL v. URBANNote (1): Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailableNote (2): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: RURAL 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of RURAL 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
Development Costs of Rural100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of Rural100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 107
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: URBAN 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of URBAN 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
Development Costs of Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 108
STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit of RURAL VS. URBAN 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3E. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
Cost of Site Work & Structures of Rural vs. Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Rural Urban
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 109
Comparable States: HOUSING TYPENote (1): Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailable.Note (2): Data on housing types for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in UT was unavailable.Note (3): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below.
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: FAMILY housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of FAMILY housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor
Fees
Average Developer
Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Family
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Family
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 110
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: SENIOR housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of SENIOR housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor
Fees
Average Developer
Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Senior
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Senior
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 111
STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit by HOUSING TYPE of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4E. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
States Family SeniorArizona 97,483 92,342 Colorado 125,341 106,956 Nevada N/A 143,783 New Mexico 101,763 100,773 Texas 77,756 69,985 Utah N/A N/AWeighted Avg 89,956 81,452
Average Site Work & Structures per Unit
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Type100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Family Senior
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 112
Comparable States: PROJECT SIZENote (1): Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with less than 30 units was unavailable.Note (2): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below.
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with LESS THAN 30 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with LESS THAN 30 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 113,420 189,363 275,123 35,788 8,024 5,132 17,636 32,567 Colorado 138,575 196,398 234,468 11,149 13,624 1,458 15,439 20,709 Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 91,448 135,094 148,379 2,401 4,558 954 11,260 18,377 Texas 53,098 86,087 108,463 ‐ N/A N/A 7,085 14,852 Utah 93,571 117,846 145,682 16,642 2,692 482 9,416 10,807 Weighted Avg 103,081 144,125 172,387 11,153 6,288 1,101 11,721 16,684
STATE
275,123
234,468
148,379
108,463
145,682
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas Utah
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with Less than 30 Units
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with Less than 30 Units
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 113
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 30 to 59 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 30 to 59 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 101,425 147,776 184,109 10,476 4,830 1,755 10,843 20,544 Colorado 118,237 174,869 218,678 12,624 8,312 1,347 17,245 21,482 Nevada 176,815 176,815 205,085 6,262 3,585 2,737 11,354 23,928 New Mexico 104,327 148,045 163,639 6,302 5,190 971 13,242 18,805 Texas 82,353 124,326 144,598 5,529 N/A N/A 11,102 20,338 Utah 95,558 120,463 146,276 11,262 2,646 791 11,735 8,969 Weighted Avg 101,031 142,185 171,075 9,195 5,074 1,311 12,532 18,189
STATE
184,109
218,678 205,085
163,639 144,598 146,276
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 30 to 59 Units
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 30 to 59 Units
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 114
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 60 or MORE UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5E. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 60 or MORE UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5F. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 89,267 127,698 160,444 9,781 3,785 1,451 10,392 18,020 Colorado 108,715 148,177 185,857 13,385 5,556 1,086 12,860 16,019 Nevada 134,700 134,700 153,698 4,619 3,791 2,568 8,452 15,172 New Mexico 75,041 113,999 127,797 3,476 3,719 1,315 9,639 14,872 Texas 71,318 102,476 122,137 7,140 N/A N/A 9,314 13,646 Utah 87,028 113,073 137,954 11,829 2,387 474 8,627 9,888 Weighted Avg 78,314 109,812 131,957 8,001 3,910 1,139 9,615 13,893
STATE
160,444
185,857
153,698
127,797 122,137 137,954
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 60 or More Units
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 60 or More Units
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 115
STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit by PROJECT SIZE of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5G. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Less than 30 Units 30 to 59 Units 60 or More Units
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 116
Comparable States: PROJECT STRUCTURENote (1): Data on detached vs. non‐detached units for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in CO and UT was unavailable.Note (2): Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with detached units was unavailable.Note (3): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below.
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 100,104 132,831 152,727 6,162 3,866 1,579 10,745 16,502 Colorado N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 108,970 157,483 169,939 3,097 5,446 989 14,295 20,789 Texas 98,823 139,104 157,906 4,655 N/A N/A 12,882 19,416 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWeighted Avg 102,855 144,987 161,581 4,317 4,964 1,169 13,061 19,452
STATE
152,727 169,939
157,906
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Arizona New Mexico Texas
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsDetached Unit Type Structure
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona New Mexico Texas
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsDetached Unit Type Structure
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 117
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: NON‐DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of NON‐DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 94,621 137,996 174,497 10,893 4,355 1,654 10,712 19,619 Colorado N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada 143,783 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 78,494 117,171 132,089 4,672 3,962 1,232 10,038 14,959 Texas 73,603 106,459 126,269 7,605 N/A N/A 9,548 14,325 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWeighted Avg 81,177 114,850 137,262 7,804 4,152 1,679 9,777 15,460
STATE
174,497 164,781
132,089 126,269
‐
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Arizona Nevada New Mexico Texas
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsNon‐Detached Unit Type Structure
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Nevada New Mexico Texas
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsNon‐Detached Unit Type Structure
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 118
STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 3 OR LESS STORIES in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6E. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average
STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 3 OR LESS STORIES in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6F. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &
Structures
Average Adjusted TDC
Average TDCAverage
Land/Building Acquisition Costs
Average Architect Fees
Average Engineering Fees
Average Contractor Fees
Average Developer Fee
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 94,381 136,592 173,040 11,759 4,039 1,705 10,789 19,288 Colorado 116,496 169,464 205,833 7,652 9,085 1,588 14,720 20,385 Nevada 143,783 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 86,838 128,208 142,451 4,241 4,368 1,165 11,203 16,555 Texas 73,929 106,649 126,767 7,638 N/A N/A 9,741 14,547 Utah 94,388 118,823 143,559 11,679 2,478 683 11,005 9,164 Weighted Avg 88,416 122,381 146,399 8,415 4,380 1,342 10,657 15,173
STATE
173,040
205,833
164,781 142,451
126,767 143,559
‐
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 3 or Less Stories
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah
Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 3 or Less Stories
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 119
STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit by PROJECT STRUCTURE of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6G. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.
Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Structure100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects
2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)
Detached Non‐Detached 3 or Less Stories
APPENDIX C - State Tables
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 120
EXHIBIT A: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 2006 ‐ 2013100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013)(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
(Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 121
EXHIBIT B: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 2010 ‐ 2013100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2010 ‐ 2013) (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2010 ‐ 2013)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2010 ‐ 2013)
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 122
EXHIBIT C: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ RURALRURAL100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailable.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ RURAL (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ RURAL
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ RURAL
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 123
EXHIBIT D: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ URBANURBAN100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ URBAN (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ URBAN
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ URBAN
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 124
EXHIBIT E: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPEFAMILY HOUSING TYPE 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on housing types for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in UT was unavailable.*** Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailable.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPE(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
(Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPE
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPE
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 125
EXHIBIT F: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPESENIOR HOUSING TYPE 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on housing types for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in UT was unavailable.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPE (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPE
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPE
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 126
EXHIBIT G: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ LESS THAN 30 UNITSPROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with less than 30 units was unavailable.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 127
EXHIBIT H: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 30 ‐ 59 UNITSPROJECTS WITH 30 ‐ 59 UNITS100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 30‐59 UNITS
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 30‐59 UNITS(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 30‐59 UNITS (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 128
EXHIBIT I: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 60 OR MORE UNITSPROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 129
EXHIBIT J: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ DETACHED UNITSDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on unit type structure for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in CO and UT was unavailable.*** Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with detached units was unavailable.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ DETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ DETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ DETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 130
EXHIBIT K: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNITSNONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on unit type structure for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in CO and UT was unavailable.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 131
EXHIBIT L: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 3 OR LESS STORIESPROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.
STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)
100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)
APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 132
GENERALNM Distribution Chart 1A. 9% credits awarded each year in New Mexico from 2001 to 2014.
Average 9% Credits Awarded per LIHTC Unit in Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014
District 1 District 2 District 3 Average
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 140
NM Distribution Chart 2F. Total 9% credits awarded to each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.
Congressional District
Sum of 9% Credits Awarded
1 15,133,254 2 21,803,105 3 22,971,170
Grand Total 59,907,529
NM Distribution Chart 2G. Total projects awarded 9% credits in each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.
Congressional District
Projects Awarded
1 17 2 45 3 41
Grand Total 103
15,133,254
21,803,105 22,971,170
‐
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
1 2 3Congressional District
Total 9% Credits Allocated to Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014
17
45 41
‐
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3Congressional District
Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in Each NM Congressional District
2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 141
NM Distribution Chart 2H. Total LIHTC units funded in each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.
Congressional District
Total LIHTC Units
1 1,006 2 2,370 3 2,050
Grand Total 5,426
District 2 and 3 received similar amounts of 9% credits from 2001 to 2014 (see NM Distribution Chart 1B).However, amount of total LIHTC units produced from 2001 to 2014 in District 2 is over 25% more than in District 3.
NM Distribution Chart 2I. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit in each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.
Congressional District
Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit
1 15,043 2 9,200 3 11,205
Average 11,041
Least average amount of credits per LIHTC unit but most LIHTC units funded in District 2.
15,043
9,200 11,205
‐
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
1 2 3Congressional District
Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit in Each NM Congressional District
2001 ‐ 2014
1,006
2,370 2,050
‐
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
1 2 3Congressional District
Total LIHTC Units Funded in Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 142
RURAL v. URBANNM Distribution Chart 3A. Allocation of 9% credits to projects in rural vs. urban areas for the years 2001 to 2014.
Total 9% Credits Allocated to Rural and Urban Projects in NM
2001 ‐ 2014
45
58
‐
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Rural Urban
Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM
2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 148
NM Distribution Chart 3H. Total LIHTC units funded in rural and urban projects from 2001 to 2014.
Rural/Urban Total LIHTC UnitsRural 2,171 Urban 3,255
Grand Total 5,426
NM Distribution Chart 3I. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit for rural and urban projects from 2001 to 2014.
Rural/UrbanAverage 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit
Rural 11,518 Urban 10,722 Average 11,041
Less rural projects and LIHTC units were produced, however, the average 9% credit per unit is higher than for urban projects.
2,171
3,255
‐
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Rural Urban
Total LIHTC Units Funded in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM
2001 ‐ 2014
11,518
10,722
10,200
10,400
10,600
10,800
11,000
11,200
11,400
11,600
Rural Urban
Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM
2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 149
NONPROFIT PARTICIPATIONNM Distribution Chart 4A. Distribution of 9% credits allocated to projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.
Acq/Rehab New Construction Combined New Construction& Acq/Rehab
Total 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMby Construction Type
2001 ‐ 2014
22
73
8
‐
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Acq/Rehab New Construction Combined New Construction &Acq/Rehab
Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMby Construction Type
2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 162
NM Distribution Chart 5H. Total LIHTC units funded by construction type from 2001 to 2014.
Construction Type
Sum of LIHTC Units
Acq/Rehab 1,181 New Construction 3,748 Combined New Con 497 Grand Total 5,426
NM Distribution Chart 5I. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit by construction type from 2001 to 2014.
Construction Type
Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC
Unit Acq/Rehab 9,988 New Construction 11,081 Combined New Con 13,237 Average 11,041
Average 9% credit per LIHTC unit highest for combined new const/acq/rehab, likely due to small sample of only 8 such projects which included a few high cost projects in high cost areas.
1,181
3,748
497
‐ 500
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Acq/Rehab New Construction Combined New Construction &Acq/Rehab
Total LIHTC Units Funded in NMby Construction Type
2001 ‐ 2014
9,988 11,081
13,237
‐ 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
10,000 12,000 14,000
Acq/Rehab New Construction Combined New Construction &Acq/Rehab
Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit in NMby Construction Type
2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 163
HOUSING TYPENM Distribution Chart 6A. Distribution of 9% credits allocated to projects by housing type from 2001 to 2014.
Grand Total 6,171,648 4,985,205 48,750,676 59,907,529
NM Distribution Chart 7A. Distribution of 9% credits allocated to projects by participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
Annual 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMwith Participation fronm Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither
2001 ‐ 2014
Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 171
NM Distribution Chart 7B. Number of projects awarded 9% credits with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither
2001 ‐ 2014
Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 172
NM Distribution Chart 7C. Number of LIHTC units funded in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
NM Distribution Chart 7E. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither
2001 ‐ 2014
Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 175
NM Distribution Chart 7F. Total 9% credits awarded to projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
Participation Sum of 9% Credits
Awarded Housing Authority 6,171,648 Tribal Entity 4,985,205 Neither 48,750,676 Grand Total 59,907,529
NM Distribution Chart 7G. Total projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
Participation Projects Awarded
Housing Authority 11 Tribal Entity 12 Neither 80 Grand Total 103
6,171,648 4,985,205
48,750,676
‐
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither
Total 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities,
or Neither2001 ‐ 2014
11 12
80
‐
20
40
60
80
100
Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither
Total LIHTC Projects in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities,
or Neither2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 176
NM Distribution Chart 7H. Total LIHTC units funded in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
Participation Sum of LIHTC Units
Housing Authority 627 Tribal Entity 391 Neither 4,408 Grand Total 5,426
Participation Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC
Unit Housing Authority 9,843 Tribal Entity 12,750 Neither 11,060 Average 11,041
NM Distribution Chart 7I. Average 9% credit awarded per LIHTC unit in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.
627 391
4,408
‐
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither
Total LIHTC Projects in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities,
or Neither2001 ‐ 2014
9,843
12,750 11,060
‐
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither
Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NM
with Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither
2001 ‐ 2014
APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts
Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 177