Social Housing Task Force

SOCIAL HOUSING TASK MEMBERS City Councilor Kate Sykes, Co-Chair FORCE City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz Paul Styslinger Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 6:00 PM Bill Stauffer Jason Spector City Hall Basement Room 24, Kippy Cat Buxton Richardson Room Wendy Cherubini Cullen Ryan Matthew Peters Kristin Leffler Jon Fetherston, Co-Chair Jonathan Culley Tim Wells The Social Housing Task Force will conduct this meeting in-person. If you are not able to attend in person, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION: To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email socialhousingtaskforce@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the Social Housing Task Force meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below). AGENDA: 1. Review and Approve Minutes from the April 8, 2026 Meeting i. SHTF Draft Minutes of Meeting 4.8.2026 2. Administrative Updates, Announcements, etc., as needed 3. Group Discussion with Staff from the Portland Housing Authority i. PHA Responses to Social Housing Task Force Questions ii. PHDC Memo to Social Housing Task Force 1 Page 1 Social Housing Task Force Minutes of Business Meeting held April 8, 2026 at 6:00 pm In attendance: City Councilor Kate Sykes – Co-Chair Jon Fetherston – Co-Chair Bill Stauffer Wendy Cherubini Matt Peters Jonathan Culley Jason Spector City Councilor Sarah Michniewicz Paul Styslinger Cullen Ryan Mary Davis, Division Director, City’s Housing and Community Development Division Christian Roadman, GPCOG, Senior Planner The meeting started at approximately 6:06 PM. It opened with approval of the minutes from February 11, 2026 (moved by Chair Fetherston, seconded by Councilor Michniewicz, with unanimous approval). Councilor Sykes noted that the breakout groups to occur as part of the meeting should take notes to contribute to the meeting minutes. Christian Roadman provided administrative updates, noting that: he continues to accept W9s from anyone interested in receiving a stipend for their participation; the next meeting task force meeting is 22nd with the Portland Housing Authority (PHA); Kristin Leffler asked him to report out that she is meeting with the Tenant's Union tomorrow regarding the task force’s work, has spoken with the PPS Teacher's Union, and plans on reaching out to a contact of the Nurse's union. Paul Styslinger noted that he reached out to members who could not attend the last meeting to learn which breakout group they’d like to participate in. Cullen Ryan wishes to participate in the PHA partnership group, and Tim Wells would like to participate in both the project selection and reporting groups; he is not sure where Catherine Buxton will choose. Paul, who led the breakout group selection exercise, said he would join the reporting group. Since Matt Peters was the only one present working on bonding, he would join the project selection group for this evening. The group agreed to spend time in breakout groups until approximately 6:45 pm, unless the work finished sooner. The task force then broke into groups for discussion and focused work. *** Paul Styslinger and Chair Sykes participated in the reporting group. Chair Sykes said that she identified a structure for the report document and began writing some of the sections. She noted that she will be presenting it to the Housing and Economic Development Committee in May, so she is writing it with that target in mind (as an interim report to that committee and mayor). Paul Styslinger and Chair Sykes spent most of the breakout group time reviewing Chair Syke’s outline and discussing potential approaches and framings. Discussion largely involved summarizing where the overall task force seems to have cohered, including: LIHTC programs are not something to interfere with; specific reporting on dynamics and positions on items like Inclusionary Zoning are likely not in the task force’s best interest; the importance of retaining some City equity in potential projects; the cost of construction as a driving barrier to housing development, above other impediments like expensive land; an emerging position that the task force’s biggest potential contribution to housing issues in the City is equity via debt / opportunities for bonding. Page 2 The two decided that Councilor Sykes would upload her existing document to Google Docs, where Paul Styslinger would have access to work on it. However, sharing with the whole group (or even three task force members at a time) is not allowable because of public meeting law issues. *** Councilor Michniewicz, Chair Fetherston, Jonathan Culley, and Matt Peters participated in the project selection group. Jonathan Culley presented research into and potential development concepts for three City-owned sites (drawn from a larger group the task force discussed previously), including: 0 Cornell St, near Bruno’s restaurant. The site has access via Allen Avenue and potentially Washington Avenue. It backs up against railroad tracks and industrial buildings. Two zoning concepts were explored: four 10-unit buildings as well as a greater number of two-unit buildings. Both scenarios involved use of available density bonuses and existing zoning. Issues include potential brownfield elements, likelihood of needing an extension of the street and public water to the site, and potential wetlands given its location along the Milliken Brook watercourse. 284 Palmer Ave, near Riverside Industrial Parkway. The site includes a detention pond and backs right up to the railroad. One of the concerns with the site is that it is largely within a single-family context, which may make it more controversial – the group noted the surprising number of backyard swimming pools visible from an aerial view. Potential development concepts that were roughly mocked up included four ten-unit buildings as well as multiple four-family buildings. 21 Randall Street, in East Deering. The site has the best neighborhood context in terms of fit – it is right next to an existing PHA development, and it is walkable to the neighborhood’s Veranda Street Corridor. However, there is a significant easement running through the site, and the zoning doesn’t allow for very many units – approximately eight, which wouldn’t be a very big swing. The group identified 0 Cornell Street, and particularly the four ten-unit buildings scenario, as the most promising options preliminarily. The group determined that, with a selected site and ideas for massing and scale, Jonathan Culley and Matt Peters would develop a more specific pro forma regarding it. They also noted that additional City support regarding civil engineering expertise in the Department of Public Works will be important to raise any major issues not yet identified. *** Bill Stauffer, Wendy Cherubini, Jason Spector, and Cullen Ryan participated in the PHA partnership group. Wendy Cherubini shared questions developed with Bill Stauffer regarding a potential partnership, as well as an AI document from Jason Spector regarding questions and methodologies for a City-PHA partnership. She also noted the likely need for a consultant to help draft any partnership agreement, and raised the question of whether general obligation (GO) bonds can be used in combination with low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) money. The group discussed the possibility of an initial pilot project versus a complete memorandum of understanding agreement; a pilot project could identify what works well and what doesn’t, as well as how partnerships with other developers (aside from PHA) might work. The group discussed how social housing might complement the development work that PHA and the Portland Housing Development Corporation is already doing, wondering if those entities would be open to a development financing process that does not include LIHTC - or a project where LIHTC and local funding support mixed-income development. Page 3 Mary Davis informed the group that she will be meeting with PHA leadership on April 14 (the meeting will also be attended by Cullen Ryan and Christian Roadman), and will share the group’s questions with them so that they can be better prepared for the April 22 meeting with the full task force. The group discussed potential shared goals in a partnership, and items that could benefit the PHA such as tax breaks and lower permit fees. Mary Davis noted that the City has limited control over influencing property taxes, in terms of rebates, forgiveness or abatements. *** The groups returned together as the larger task force, and reported back on each of their sessions for questions and discussion. Mary Davis noted that the City has staff who could assist with engineering analysis. Chair Sykes noted complaints regarding train noise around Palmer Avenue as a potential challenge regarding 0 Cornell Street. The group also discussed a concept arising from Oregon of inclusionary zoning as an unfunded mandate, which municipalities should instead directly fund. They also discussed the potential “acceptance as a communication” or adoption by the City Council and how that might affect potential social housing project momentum. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:21 pm with unanimous approval. Page 4 PHA RESPONSES TO SOCIAL HOUSING TASK FORCE QUESTIONS …AND SOME PHA QUESTIONS BACK TO THE TASK FORCE. April 21, 2026 [These are initial thoughts and discussion points that could change as we have further dialogue and need approval from the PHA board and City Council] I. Partnership Structure & Roles Q: How does PHA envision its role? PHA can serve in multiple roles depending on the project: • Developer or Co-Developer for projects aligned with our strategic priorities • Owner or Co-Owner depending on the equity stake and risk • Long-term Property Manager, particularly for mixed-income or deeply affordable housing • Advisor/Technical Partner to support project feasibility and structuring We see partnership as flexible and tiered, not one-size-fits-all. Q: Are there different tiers of partnership? Yes. A tiered model is the most realistic and consistent with national practice : 1. Advisory / Technical Support 2. Property Management 3. Co-Development/Co-Owner 4. Lead Developer (selectively) Q: Under what conditions would PHA: Serve as lead developer? • Project aligns with strategic plan • Financing is viable and not overly experimental • Staff capacity exists Page 5 Serve as property manager? • Strong fit operationally • Clear ownership/financial structure • Long-term sustainability Participate in joint ventures? • Structure protects long-term affordability • Governance and decision-making are clear • Financial risk is appropriately allocated II. Development Capacity & Constraints Q: What is PHA’s capacity (3–5 years)? PHA is currently engaged in significant redevelopment and repositioning across its portfolio. We have three full time Development Officers (Project Managers) and a Director of Real Estate Development. Projects have cyclical periods of more work and less work. We believe we have capacity to add one or two pilot projects at this time. We have the ability to: • Continue developing housing • Participate in partnership projects However, capacity is not unlimited. Q: What constraints affect scaling? Staffing • Development and compliance capacity are finite Financing • LIHTC allocations are competitive and limited • Eliminating LIHTC must have a viable source of “soft” debt. • Layering financing increases complexity Page 6 Regulatory • PHA will confirm if its bylaws, or PHDC’s, limit certain higher income levels in projects that might be needed for social housing; • Federal requirements (HUD, LIHTC, BABA. Davis Bacon, etc.); • City requirements (Fees and taxes affect operating costs and reduce debt capacity; up-front fees dilute subsidy) • Ownership structures tied to funding Q: Limitations on housing types or populations? • PHA serves a broad range of incomes already • PHA serves families and seniors / disabled • Deep affordability is achievable, but requires subsidy layering (i.e. vouchers, etc.) • Fully unrestricted “social housing” models with zero subsidy do not appear to be feasible at scale III. Property Management Q: Can PHA serve as property manager? • Yes — depending on the project • We act as PM for our own projects and for third parties • Need a viable management fee to cover costs Q: Constraints? • Financial viability of the property • Clear ownership structure • Alignment with operational standards Page 7 Q: Approach to mixed-income & deeply affordable housing? PHA has extensive experience with: • Mixed-income communities • Deeply affordable units integrated into developments • Design that makes no distinction between affordable and market rate units; amenities that anyone would want in their community. We strongly support mixed-income models as sustainable and community-oriented. Q: AMI limits? • No fixed limitation except under our bylaws as a non-profit • Driven by financing and subsidy structure IV. Land & Site Strategy Q: Does PHA have land? Yes - PHA has sites that may be viable for development. Some properties have already been redeveloped to the highest potential under current zoning. Other properties have hundreds of additional potential units allowed under current zoning. Q: Under what conditions would PHA contribute land? • Project aligns with long-term portfolio strategy • Financially viable • Supports mission and community goals • Maximizes zoning for allowable units and emphasizes net new units created Q: How are sites prioritized? Based on: • Feasibility (zoning, infrastructure, Smart Growth) Page 8  • Financial viability • Community impact and meeting Comp. Plan goals • Alignment with redevelopment strategy V. Financing & Project Structuring Q: What tools does PHA rely on? • Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) • Tax-exempt and taxable bonds • Project-Based Vouchers • Soft funding (state, local, federal) Q: How does PHA view: LIHTC • Primary and most reliable production tool currently Bonds • Useful but constrained by ownership and structure • City bonds may offer lower cost of capital Project-Based Vouchers • Critical for deep affordability Q: Constraints when combining financing? • Regulatory complexity • Timing and approvals (especially MaineHousing) • Structural incompatibilities (e.g., LIHTC + certain bond structures) • Our current deals have between 3-10 funding sources. Simpler is better and less costly, but we often need larger single sources of subsidy or lower cost debt. Page 9 Q: How can City funding help? Most effective as: • Below market rate amortizing loans • Gap financing / soft debt • Land contribution • Infrastructure investment VI. Ownership & Governance Q: What ownership structures has PHA used? • Limited partnerships (LIHTC) • Affiliate ownership structures • Ground lease models Q: What models would PHA consider? • PHA/PHDC ownership • Joint ventures • City ownership with PHA management All are possible depending on the project. Q: How does ownership affect outcomes? Financing • Determines eligibility for LIHTC and bonds Affordability • Long-term restrictions tied to ownership Control Page 10  • Governance structure dictates decision-making authority PHA prioritizes long-term stewardship and public control. VII. Shared Goals & Strategic Alignment Q: Shared goals over 5 years? • Increase total housing production • Expand deeply affordable housing • Maintain long-term affordability • Strengthen financial sustainability Q: How can partnership increase production? • Combine City resources (land, funding) with PHA expertise • Reduce barriers to development • Enable projects that neither could do alone Q: How does PHA define success? • Units delivered • Depth of affordability • Financial sustainability • Long-term asset quality • Positive resident outcomes • Best/highest use of available resources to support our community VIII. Process, Timeline & Coordination Q: What does an effective partnership look like? • Regular coordination (monthly/quarterly) Page 11  • Shared pipeline planning • Clear roles and measurable goals per project • Defined decision-making structure • Financial sustainability / good return on investment Q: Expected timelines? Development • 2–5 years typical (depending on complexity) Financing • 6–18 months Construction • 12–24 months (longer for major renovations) Additional Strategic Context In reviewing your SHTF documents it looks like: • Exploring bonding as a major funding source (we do not have expertise in this, and you should hire a consultant) • Interested in pilot projects first • Trying to define whether PHA is primary partner vs one of many • Concerned about speed, affordability, and control simultaneously PHA Position PHA is open to a strong and flexible partnership with the City. We bring development, operational, and long-term stewardship expertise. The most successful approach will be a tiered partnership model that aligns financing, capacity, and project goals. We recommend starting with a small number of pilot projects, building a shared framework, and scaling over time. Page 12 PHA Questions for the Social Housing Task Force and City Leadership • How flexible is the City in its definition of social housing? Area Median Income too high can potentially run counter to our bylaws. • Can the City increase its ability to provide soft debt (subsidy) for projects that need it compared to current LIHTC projects that request funding? • Similar to Providence, can Portland bond to fund the Jill Duson HTF? • Does the Portland Renewal Authority still exist, and can it play a role or bond? • Would the City want some ongoing return on their investment in the form of cash flow from a rental project? In which case that would likely correspond with their percentage of ownership in a project. Page 13  970 Baxter Boulevard, Portland, ME 04103 P: 207-773-4753 | F: 207-761-5886 | porthouse.org/PHDC Memorandum To: Social Housing Taskforce From: Jay Waterman Date: 4-22-2026 Subject: Potential PHA/City of Portland Collaboration Toward Social Housing Goals PHA Understanding of the Social Housing goals: • Social Housing Taskforce (“Taskforce”) wants to create permanently affordable housing for those above 60% Area Median Income; • While deeper targeting is a goal, higher incomes with a mix of incomes housing is preferred; • Avoid LIHTC or MaineHousing funding in SH projects and not use City funding to support LIHTC projects (trying not to duplicate efforts) • City of Portland ownership or partial ownership • City of Portland resources ideally are “revolving” by a return on equity through cash flow. What PHA offers • A mission that has flexibility to meet broad housing goals and income levels, within certain non-profit bylaws and IRS limits • Depth in housing development experience • Focus on the City of Portland geographic area • Ability to leverage many funding sources • A Housing Authority network here in Maine and around the northeast (Cambridge) that can offer models and consulting services. • Our development entity, Portland Housing Development Corp., can act as owner and developer. PHA can act as property manager. Potential Pilot Project Scenarios On Peninsula Congress Street Site • Downtown in-fill project that could provide 54 one-bedroom units • PHA optioned parcel, market acquisition price around $1MM • Currently planned as a 9% LIHTC submission to MaineHousing in September • Going to the planning board in June, 2026 Template Last Updated: 03/16/2026 Page 14  • Assumptions as a social housing test fit o Set all units to 80% AMI (with UAs) to maximize rental income while still being considered affordable o Removed all City- and MaineHousing-based soft costs (permits, land use fees, LIHTC fees, etc.) o Removed all City-based operating expenses (real estate taxes, rental registrations, stormwater fees) o Lowered Replacement Reserve (no MaineHousing requirement) o Removed Deferred Developer Fee (helps with owner cash flow) o Removed LIHTC equity o Removed gap sources (AHP, Efficiency Maine, HTF, etc. that have lower targeting) o Set debt as I/O loan at 4% rate • Result: o 54 one-bedroom 80% AMI units at about $1,800 rent per month (utilities not incl.) o Annual cash flow ~$100k in YR1 o $15.7 million I/O loan o $5.8 million gap funding gap (see draft pro forma attached) 21 Randall Street • East Deering lot near PHA’s Front Street rental and condo community • City owned; Formerly under contract with Greater Portland Land Trust • Potential for 8-12 unit townhouse-style homeownership or rental • Pro forma based on our Front Street Phase 3 8-unit homeownership (w/ 10% cost increase) • Funding from MaineHousing’s Affordable Homeownership Program is pending • Assumption as a social housing test fit o Clean soils/no brownfields funding o $0 acquisition cost o Removed Congressional earmarks (next year possible) o City 75% TIF o 2BR unit at $298,000 ; 3BR units (MKT) at $552,000 ; 4BR units at $358,000; o Approx. $1.3MM funding gap (see draft pro forma attached) Other Pilot Project Opportunities • Midtown property (City owned) • PHA redevelopment of Kennedy Park, Bayside East public housing in East Bayside • PHA redevelopment of 115 Anderson Street maintenance facility • PHA development of 165 Anderson Street lot Page 2 of 2 Page 15 Project Information & Assumptions - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 PROJECT & SITE INFORMATION Info DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS Yr 1-5 Yr 6-15 Yr 16-30 Project Name Mixed-Use Development Rent Inflation 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Project Address Congress Street Operating Expense Inflation 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% City, State, Zip Portland, ME 04102 Other Income Inflation 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Project Type New Construction Reserve Deposit Inflation 3.0% Population Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.15 Area Median Income (100%) 129,800 Vacancy Rate LIHTC Units: 5.0% PBV Units: 5.0% Market Units: 5.0% Other Inc.: 5.0% CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE # Mo. # Days OWNERSHIP ASSUMPTIONS LP SLP GP Construction Duration 15 mo. 456 days Share of Ownership 99.99% 0.0% 0.01% Duration per Quarter 114 days Cash Flow Split 10.0% 0.0% 90.0% TIMING ASSUMPTIONS # Mo. Date ENTITIES Name Acq/CLC/Construction Start 11/1/27 Owner Owner 25% Construction Completion 3/1/28 Developer PHDC 50% Construction Completion 7/1/28 Seller 879 Congress, LLC 75% Construction Completion 10/1/28 Limited Partner LP 100% Construction Completion 2/1/29 Other Partner Other Qualified Occupancy 2 mo. after 100% 4/1/29 PLC 5 mo. after 100% 7/1/29 MAINEHOUSING INDEX CAP $/Unit 8609/Stabilization 8 mo. after 100% 10/1/29 New Construction 388,500 PIS - First Building 2/1/29 Rehabilitation 340,000 PIS - Last Building 2/1/29 N/C & Rehab Blend 0 Info Page 16 Rent Schedule & Income - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 UNIT INFORMATION RENTAL INCOME OPERATING SUBSIDY INCOME Monthly Annual Total Annual # of # of LIHTC PBV Unit Income Limit Max Gross Less Utility Max Contract Proposed Annual Rental PBV Unit Type PBV Diff. PBV Diff. Rent. + PBV BR Units Unit (% AMI) LIHTC Rent Allowance LIHTC Rent Contract Rent Income Rent PBV PUPM Total Income 1BR @ 80% AMI 1 54 Y N 80% 1,947 148 1,799 1,799 1,165,752 - - - 1,165,752 TOTAL 54 54 54 0 1,165,752 0 1,165,752 OTHER INCOME UNIT INFO EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME SQUARE FOOTAGE AND APPLICABLE FRACTION Description Yr 1 BR Size U.A. Mrkt. Study PBV Rent Description Yr 1 Description Units Sq. Ft. Laundry 1,500 0 BR 0 0 1,615 Rental Income: LIHTC Units 1,165,752 LIHTC Units 54 33,750 1 BR 148 0 1,823 Vac. Loss - LIHTC (5.0%) (58,288) Non-LIHTC Units 0 0 2 BR 0 0 2,343 Rental Income: PBV Units 0 TOTAL UNITS 54 33,750 TOTAL OTHER INCOME 1,500 3 BR 0 0 2,850 Vac. Loss - PBV (5.0%) 0 4 BR 0 0 3,102 Rental Income: Market Units 0 Applicable Fraction By Units By Sq.Ft. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING 5 BR 0 0 3,567 Vac. Loss - Market-Rate (5.0%) 0 by Calculation Method: 100% 100% 0% TIF 0 6 BR 0 0 4,032 Other Income 1,500 APPLICABLE FRACTION 100% Vac. Loss - Other Inc. (5.0%) (75) COMMERCIAL INCOME UTILITIES Tax Increment Financing 0 Residential Units Sq. Ft. 33,750 Description Yr 1 Utility Payee Type Commercial Income 0 Residential Common Areas Sq. Ft. 9,984 Commercial Spaces Electricity Owner EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME 1,108,889 Commercial Rental Sq. Ft. 1,500 Heat Owner Other Sq. Ft. 5,830 TOTAL COMMERCIAL INCOME 0 Hot Water Owner TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE 51,064 Cooking Owner Water/Sewer Owner Trash Owner Rent Page 17 Operating Expenses - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 Line Item Total Per Unit Line Item Total Per Unit ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES GENERAL EXPENSES Management Fees 60,000 1,111 Property Taxes 0 Office Salaries 30,000 Property and Liability Insurance 60,000 1,111 Supplies & Postage 500 Other Financial Expenses 0 Bookeeping Fees/Accounting 1,000 Resident Services 0 Training 500 Other General Rental Registration 0 Site Internet & Telephone 5,000 Other General Management Charges 37,000 685 Other General Marketing 500 9 Other General 0 Legal 1,000 19 Subtotal General Expenses 60,000 1,111 Auditing 7,500 139 Other Admin. Background Checks 250 5 Other Admin. IT Software & Computers 750 14 HOUSING OPEX 365,500 6,769 Other Admin. Interpreting 500 9 Other Admin. 10,500 194 Subtotal Administrative Expenses 144,500 2,676 COMMERCIAL EXPENSES Admin Expenses 0 UTILITY EXPENSES Operating Expenses 0 Natural Gas 4,000 74 Maintenance Expenses 0 Electricity 20,000 370 General Expenses 0 Water/Sewer 35,000 648 Other Comm. 0 Other Utility Subtotal Commercial Expenses 0 0 Other Utility 0 Subtotal Utility Expenses 59,000 1,093 TOTAL OPEX 365,500 6,769 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES Janitorial Payroll 8,000 148 Janitorial Supplies and Equipment 0 RESERVE CONTRIBUTIONS Janitorial Contractual Services 4,000 74 Replacement Reserve 21,600 400 Garbage and Trash Removal 12,000 222 Other Reserve 0 Vehicle and Equipment 0 Grounds Maintenance Payroll 0 Grounds Tools and Supplies 0 TOTAL OPEX + RESERVES 387,100 7,169 Grounds Contractual Services 8,000 148 Miscellaneous Ground Maintenance 0 Building Maintenance Payroll 30,000 556 Building Tools and Supplies 0 Opex Page 18 Development Budget - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 LIHTC Basis T-E Bonds HTC Basis Line Item Total Per Unit NC/R Basis Acq Basis Non-Deprec. 50% Test QRE Non-QRE Allocable CONSTRUCTION COSTS Off-Site Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction: Residential 15,500,000 287,037 15,500,000 0 0 15,500,000 11,625,000 3,875,000 0 Construction: Commercial 375,000 6,944 0 0 375,000 375,000 375,000 0 0 Demolition 50,000 926 49,074 0 926 50,000 0 50,000 0 General Conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P&P Bond Premium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Builder Overhead & Profit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Contingency 796,250 14,745 597,188 0 199,063 796,250 796,250 0 0 Subtotal Construction Costs 16,721,250 309,653 16,146,262 0 574,988 16,721,250 12,796,250 3,925,000 0 SOFT COSTS Building Permits & Fees 45,250 838 45,250 0 0 45,250 45,250 0 0 Survey & Engineering 76,500 1,417 76,500 0 0 76,500 76,500 0 0 Architectural & Design 616,500 11,417 616,500 0 0 616,500 616,500 0 0 Legal 50,000 926 45,000 0 5,000 50,000 45,000 5,000 0 Title & Recording 32,000 593 32,000 0 0 32,000 0 32,000 0 Accounting 10,000 185 10,000 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 0 Construction Period Tax 5,000 93 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 Insurance 160,000 2,963 160,000 0 0 160,000 157,500 2,500 0 Soft Cost Contingency 60,000 1,111 60,000 0 0 60,000 60,000 0 0 Subtotal Soft Costs 1,055,250 19,542 1,045,250 5,000 5,000 1,055,250 1,010,750 44,500 0 FINANCING COSTS CL Interest 750,000 13,889 562,500 0 187,500 750,000 562,500 187,500 0 CL Origination Fee 15,000 278 15,000 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 Lender Inspections 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bond Issuance Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Perf. Guarantee LOC Fee 5,000 93 5,000 0 0 5,000 5,000 0 0 Other Construction Loan Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MSHA Perm Loan Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Lender Application Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perm Lender Origination Fees 274,594 5,085 274,594 0 0 274,594 0 274,594 0 Other Perm Loan Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Financing Costs 1,044,594 19,344 857,094 0 187,500 1,044,594 582,500 462,094 0 Uses Page 19 Development Budget - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 LIHTC Basis T-E Bonds HTC Basis Line Item Total Per Unit NC/R Basis Acq Basis Non-Deprec. 50% Test QRE Non-QRE Allocable MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Market Study 3,000 56 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 Appraisal 5,000 93 5,000 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 Environmental 12,500 231 12,500 0 0 12,500 12,500 0 0 LIHTC Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Syndication Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Relocation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FF&E 100,000 1,852 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 Other Misc Costs 8,000 148 0 0 8,000 8,000 0 8,000 0 Subtotal Miscellaneous Costs 128,500 2,380 120,500 0 8,000 120,500 17,500 111,000 0 ACQUISITION COSTS Building 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land 1,000,000 18,519 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0 Repay Existing Mortgage Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Acquisition Costs 1,000,000 18,519 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 1,000,000 0 RESERVES Operating Deficit Escrow (ODE) 507,371 9,396 0 0 507,371 0 0 507,371 0 Replacement Reserve (RR) 159,250 2,949 0 0 159,250 0 0 159,250 0 Tax & Insurance Reserve (T&I) 70,000 1,296 0 0 70,000 0 0 70,000 0 Rent Up & Marketing / Working Capital 50,000 926 0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Reserves 786,621 14,567 0 0 786,621 0 0 786,621 0 DEVELOPMENT FEES Subtotal Development Overhead & Fees 750,000 13,889 750,000 0 0 750,000 750,000 0 0 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 21,486,215 397,893 18,919,105 5,000 2,562,110 0 0 0 0 MAINEHOUSING TDC INDEX 381,553 Uses Page 20 Tax Credit Equity - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 Program Credit Annual Total Equity Total Equity Source Used? Rate Allocation Credits Price Equity LIHTC New Construction/Rehab Credits Y 9.00% 1,200,000 12,000,000 0.00 0 LIHTC Acquisition Credits N 4.00% 0 0.00 0 Subtotal LIHTC Equity 1,200,000 12,000,000 0.00 0 Federal Historic Tax Credits N 20.00% 0 0.00 0 State Historic Tax Credits N 25.00% 0 0.00 0 State Low Income Tax Credits Y 0 1.00 0 Solar Investment Tax Credits Y 50.00% 0 1.00 0 TOTAL LIMITED PARTNER EQUITY 12,000,000 0.00 0 MAX LIHTC NEW CONSTRUCTION/REHAB CREDITS FEDERAL HISTORIC TAX CREDITS Eligible Basis 18,919,105 Qualified Rehab Expenditures 0 Adjustment (i.e. HTC) 0 HTC Rate 20.0% Adjusted Elible Basis 18,919,105 TOTAL FEDERAL HTC 0 Basis Boost 100% Applicable Fraction 100% Qualified Basis 18,919,105 STATE HISTORIC TAX CREDITS Applicable Rate 9.00% Qualified Rehab Expenditures 0 1) NC/REHAB CREDIT CALC - or - 1,702,719 HTC Rate 25.0% 2) MAX ALLOWABLE 9% ALLOCATION - or - 1,200,000 1) STATE HTC CALC - or - 0 3) AWARDED 9% ALLOCATION 0 2) MAX ALLOWABLE STATE HTC 5,000,000 ANNUAL NC/REHAB ALLOCATION 1,200,000 TOTAL STATE HTC 0 x 10 Years 10 TOTAL POSSIBLE NC/REHAB CREDITS 12,000,000 Approx. Excess Basis 5,027,195 SOLAR INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT Solar Investment 0 MAX LIHTC ACQUISITION CREDITS Credit Rate 50% Eligible Basis 0 TOTAL STATE HTC 0 Applicable Fraction 100% Qualified Basis 0 Applicable Rate 4.00% ANNUAL ACQ ALLOCATION 0 Equity Page 21 Sources - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 FINANCING Repayment Annual Source Amount Rate Term Amort. Lien Loan Type Type Payment MH Subsidy 0.00% 30 0 No Interest CF Contingent 0 MH Interest-Only Loan 15,691,074 4.00% 30 30 Interest-Only Must-Pay 627,643 Multifamily Loan 4.00% 10 30 Amortizing Must-Pay 0 Commercial Loan 6.50% 10 25 Amortizing Must-Pay 0 City HTF 0.00% 30 0 No Interest CF Contingent 0 AHP Subsidized Advance 6.00% 20 30 Amortizing Must-Pay 0 AHP Direct Subsidy 0.00% 30 0 No Interest CF Contingent 0 Efficiency Maine 0 Deferred Developer Fee 0.00% 10 10 Amortizing CF Contingent 0 0 0 0 Total Financing 15,691,074 627,643 EQUITY Source Amount Yield LIHTC Equity 0 0.00 Fed HTC Equity 0 0.00 State HTC Equity 0 0.00 State LIHTC Equity 0 0.00 Solar Investment Tax Credits 0 0.00 PHDC Equity Other Equity 5,795,141 Total Equity 5,795,141 SOURCES & USES Total Per Unit Total Sources 21,486,215 397,893 Total Uses 21,486,215 397,893 CAPITALIZATION (GAP) / SURPLUS (0) (0) Sources Page 22 Cash Flow - Mixed-Use Development 6 Mo. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 % Infl. 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 INCOME Rental Income: LIHTC Units 2.0% 582,876 1,189,067 1,212,848 1,237,105 1,261,847 1,287,084 1,312,826 1,339,083 1,365,864 1,393,182 1,421,045 1,449,466 1,478,455 1,508,025 1,538,185 1,568,949 Vacancy Loss - LIHTC Units 5.0% (29,144) (59,453) (60,642) (61,855) (63,092) (64,354) (65,641) (66,954) (68,293) (69,659) (71,052) (72,473) (73,923) (75,401) (76,909) (78,447) Rental Income: PBV Units 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy Loss - PBV Units 5.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rental Income: Market Units 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy Loss - Market Units 5.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Income 2.0% 750 1,530 1,561 1,592 1,624 1,656 1,689 1,723 1,757 1,793 1,828 1,865 1,902 1,940 1,979 2,019 Vacancy Loss - Other Income 5.0% (38) (77) (78) (80) (81) (83) (84) (86) (88) (90) (91) (93) (95) (97) (99) (101) Tax Increment Financing 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial Income 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME 554,445 1,131,067 1,153,689 1,176,762 1,200,298 1,224,303 1,248,790 1,273,765 1,299,241 1,325,225 1,351,730 1,378,765 1,406,340 1,434,467 1,463,156 1,492,419 OPERATING EXPENSES Administrative Expenses 3.0% 72,250 148,835 153,300 157,899 162,636 167,515 172,541 177,717 183,048 188,540 194,196 200,022 206,022 212,203 218,569 225,126 Utility Expenses 3.0% 29,500 60,770 62,593 64,471 66,405 68,397 70,449 72,563 74,739 76,982 79,291 81,670 84,120 86,643 89,243 91,920 Maintenance Expenses 3.0% 51,000 105,060 108,212 111,458 114,802 118,246 121,793 125,447 129,211 133,087 137,079 141,192 145,428 149,790 154,284 158,913 General Expenses 3.0% 30,000 61,800 63,654 65,564 67,531 69,556 71,643 73,792 76,006 78,286 80,635 83,054 85,546 88,112 90,755 93,478 Commercial Expenses 3.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OPEX 3.0% 182,750 376,465 387,759 399,392 411,373 423,715 436,426 449,519 463,004 476,895 491,201 505,937 521,116 536,749 552,852 569,437 NET OPERATING INCOME 371,695 754,602 765,930 777,371 788,924 800,589 812,363 824,246 836,236 848,331 860,529 872,827 885,224 897,718 910,304 922,982 RESERVE DEPOSITS Deposit to Replacement Reserve 3.0% 10,800 22,248 22,915 23,603 24,311 25,040 25,792 26,565 27,362 28,183 29,029 29,899 30,796 31,720 32,672 33,652 Deposit to Other Reserve 3.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OPEX + RESERVES 193,550 398,713 410,674 422,995 435,684 448,755 462,218 476,084 490,367 505,078 520,230 535,837 551,912 568,469 585,523 603,089 NOI AFTER RESERVES 360,895 732,354 743,014 753,768 764,613 775,549 786,572 797,681 808,874 820,148 831,500 842,928 854,428 865,997 877,633 889,330 DEBT SERVICE MH Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MH Interest-Only Loan 313,821 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 Multifamily Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City HTF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AHP Subsidized Advance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AHP Direct Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Efficiency Maine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deferred Developer Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 313,821 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 DSCR 1.15 1.17 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.42 NET CASH FLOW 47,073 104,711 115,371 126,125 136,970 147,906 158,929 170,038 181,231 192,505 203,857 215,285 226,785 238,354 249,990 261,687 CASH FLOW PER UNIT 872 1,939 2,137 2,336 2,536 2,739 2,943 3,149 3,356 3,565 3,775 3,987 4,200 4,414 4,629 4,846 Rent & Income Inflation -5,795,141.00 104,711.23 115,371.19 126,124.72 136,970.13 147,905.55 158,928.97 170,038.23 181,231.01 192,504.83 203,857.00 215,284.70 226,784.89 238,354.32 249,989.57 261,686.99 Yr 1-5: 2.0% Yr 6-15: 2.0% 2% Yr 16-30: 2.0% CF Page 23 Cash Flow - Mixed-Use Development 4/21/2026 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 % Infl. 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 INCOME Rental Income: LIHTC Units 2.0% 1,600,328 1,632,334 1,664,981 1,698,281 1,732,246 1,766,891 1,802,229 1,838,273 1,875,039 1,912,540 1,950,791 1,989,806 2,029,602 2,070,194 2,111,598 Vacancy Loss - LIHTC Units 5.0% (80,016) (81,617) (83,249) (84,914) (86,612) (88,345) (90,111) (91,914) (93,752) (95,627) (97,540) (99,490) (101,480) (103,510) (105,580) Rental Income: PBV Units 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy Loss - PBV Units 5.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rental Income: Market Units 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacancy Loss - Market Units 5.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Income 2.0% 2,059 2,100 2,142 2,185 2,229 2,273 2,319 2,365 2,413 2,461 2,510 2,560 2,612 2,664 2,717 Vacancy Loss - Other Income 5.0% (103) (105) (107) (109) (111) (114) (116) (118) (121) (123) (126) (128) (131) (133) (136) Tax Increment Financing 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial Income 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME 1,522,268 1,552,713 1,583,767 1,615,442 1,647,751 1,680,706 1,714,320 1,748,607 1,783,579 1,819,251 1,855,636 1,892,748 1,930,603 1,969,215 2,008,600 OPERATING EXPENSES Administrative Expenses 3.0% 231,880 238,836 246,002 253,382 260,983 268,813 276,877 285,183 293,739 302,551 311,627 320,976 330,606 340,524 350,739 Utility Expenses 3.0% 94,678 97,518 100,444 103,457 106,561 109,757 113,050 116,442 119,935 123,533 127,239 131,056 134,988 139,037 143,208 Maintenance Expenses 3.0% 163,680 168,590 173,648 178,858 184,223 189,750 195,443 201,306 207,345 213,565 219,972 226,571 233,369 240,370 247,581 General Expenses 3.0% 96,282 99,171 102,146 105,210 108,367 111,618 114,966 118,415 121,968 125,627 129,395 133,277 137,276 141,394 145,636 Commercial Expenses 3.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OPEX 3.0% 586,520 604,116 622,239 640,906 660,134 679,938 700,336 721,346 742,986 765,276 788,234 811,881 836,238 861,325 887,164 NET OPERATING INCOME 935,747 948,597 961,528 974,536 987,618 1,000,769 1,013,985 1,027,261 1,040,593 1,053,975 1,067,402 1,080,867 1,094,366 1,107,891 1,121,435 RESERVE DEPOSITS Deposit to Replacement Reserve 3.0% 34,662 35,702 36,773 37,876 39,012 40,182 41,388 42,629 43,908 45,226 46,582 47,980 49,419 50,902 52,429 Deposit to Other Reserve 3.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL OPEX + RESERVES 621,182 639,817 659,012 678,782 699,146 720,120 741,724 763,975 786,895 810,501 834,816 859,861 885,657 912,227 939,593 NOI AFTER RESERVES 901,086 912,896 924,755 936,660 948,606 960,586 972,597 984,632 996,684 1,008,749 1,020,819 1,032,887 1,044,946 1,056,989 1,069,006 DEBT SERVICE MH Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MH Interest-Only Loan 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 Multifamily Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City HTF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AHP Subsidized Advance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AHP Direct Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Efficiency Maine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deferred Developer Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 627,643 DSCR 1.44 1.45 1.47 1.49 1.51 1.53 1.55 1.57 1.59 1.61 1.63 1.65 1.66 1.68 1.70 NET CASH FLOW 273,443 285,253 297,112 309,017 320,963 332,943 344,954 356,989 369,041 381,106 393,176 405,244 417,304 429,346 441,363 CASH FLOW PER UNIT 5,064 5,282 5,502 5,723 5,944 6,166 6,388 6,611 6,834 7,058 7,281 7,505 7,728 7,951 8,173 Rent & Income Inflation 273,442.70 285,252.59 297,112.33 309,017.32 320,962.70 332,943.36 344,953.88 356,988.58 369,041.46 381,106.20 393,176.17 405,244.39 417,303.53 429,345.89 441,363.40 Yr 1-5: 2.0% Yr 6-15: 2.0% Yr 16-30: 2.0% CF Page 24 21 Randall Homeownership (Template Pro Forma) USES TOTAL PER UNIT Site Improvements $ 582,836.09 $ 72,854.51 Construction $ 2,911,911.13 $ 363,988.89 Construction Contingency (10%) $ 445,580.27 $ 55,697.53 Acquisition Costs $ - $ - Building Permits & Fees $ 110,700.00 $ 13,837.50 Survey & Engineering $ 113,000.00 $ 14,125.00 Architectural & Design $ 75,000.00 $ 9,375.00 Legal $ 150,000.00 $ 18,750.00 Title, Recording, Transfer $ 30,000.00 $ 3,750.00 Construction Period Tax & Insurance $ 47,500.00 $ 5,937.50 Financing Fees (AHTIF, Origination, Appraisal) $ 15,000.00 $ 1,875.00 Construction Loan Interest $ 96,268.00 $ 12,033.50 AHTIF Reserve $ 75,000.00 $ 9,375.00 Warranty Reserve $ 50,000.00 $ 6,250.00 Consultants & Miscellaneous $ 13,600.00 $ 1,700.00 Soft Cost Contingency $ 60,352.21 $ 7,544.03 Developer Fee $ 250,000.00 $ 31,250.00 Total Hard Costs $ 3,940,327.49 $ 492,540.94 Total Soft Costs $ 1,207,044.21 $ 150,880.53 Total Development Costs $ 5,147,371.70 $ 643,421.46 SOURCES TOTAL PER UNIT Affordable Unit Sales (2 bed units) $ 1,194,000.00 $ 298,500.00 Affordable Unit Sales (4 bed units) $ 716,000.00 $ 358,000.00 Market Rate Unit Sales (3 bed units) $ 1,105,600.00 $ 552,800.00 MaineHousing Homeownership Program $ 468,747.00 $ 78,124.50 AHTIF Loan $370,000.00 $ 46,250.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Sources $ 3,854,347.00 $ 481,793.38 SURPLUS/(GAP) $ (1,293,024.70) $ (161,628.09) Page 25 Flow of Funds at Completion/Sale Closings Construction Sources Construction Loan 2,495,600 83% AHTIF Loan 370,000 MH AHOP Grant 468,747 CDS 0 EPA Brownfields Grant 0 Sponsor Equity - Seller Note 270,000 Sponsor Equity - DDF 250,000 Sponsor Equity - Other 1,293,025 Total 5,147,372 Gross Sale Proceeds 3,015,600 Less Broker Fees & Closing Costs 0 Net Proceeds 3,015,600 Use of Sale Proceeds Repay Construction Loan -2,495,600 Pay Seller Loan -270,000 Pay DDF -250,000 Repay Sponsor Capital -1,293,025 Net Proceeds Available to Sponsor -1,293,025 AHTIF Loan Sizing Total Sales Value $ 3,015,600 Projected Assessed Value $ 2,714,040 Current Assessed Value $ 69,300 Incremental Value "Captured Value" $ 2,644,740 Applicable Tax Rate $ 15.01 Projected Tax Rate at Reassessment $ 15.92 Year 1 Incremental Tax Revenue $ 42,115 AHTIF Share 75.00% Projected AHTIF Loan Cash Flow $ 30,000 AHTIF Loan Rate 6.50% Amortization Period 27 Supportable Loan Amount $377,249.93 Rounddown $370,000.00 Page 26 Assumptions Clean soil & no brownfields funding $0 acquisition costs Same unit mix as FS3 (8 units) 10% increase in hard costs 2.5% inflation contingency 10% construction contingency 5% soft cost contingency removed Brownfields funding removed Congressional funding Assumed AHTIF remained the same as FS3 Assumed MSHA AHOP remained the same as FS3 Assumed home sale prices remained steady Approx $160K / Unit funding gap Page 27