Part I - Development Authority of the North Country

Transcription

PRELIMINARY MARKET STUDY & ANALYSIS;
POTENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
LEWIS COUNTY, NEW YORK
DATE OF ANALYSIS: May/June 2012
PREPARED FOR:
Mr. Matthew Taylor
Housing Development Specialist
Development Authority of the North Country (DANC)
317 Washington Street, Suite 414
Watertown, New York 13601
ANALYST:
GAR Associates, Inc.
2399 Sweet Home Road
Amherst, New York 14228-1193
M. Scott Allen
Vice President / Analyst
Kiersten M. Minnick
Market Analyst / Research Associate
GAR FILE NO.:
Date Issued: 7-23-2012
2012181
GAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
March 2, 2012
Mr. Matthew Taylor
Housing Development Specialist
Development Authority of the North Country (DANC)
317 Washington Street, Suite 414
Watertown, Jefferson County, New York 13601
Re:
Preliminary Analysis – Lewis County Markets
Potential Multiple Family Housing Development
Lewis County, New York
GAR File No. 2012181
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Based on our conversation, it is understood that the Development Authority of the North Country is looking to
obtain some information pertaining to various market conditions influencing housing, and more specifically
rental housing in Lewis County. The goals of our initial study are to provide the consolidation of information to
your organization to advance the decision-making process pertaining to your housing needs. There are many
critical factors to consider when evaluating the data outlined and included within this report. Some of the critical
aspects include:

All information within our analysis should be considered preliminary in nature. We say this as the
information; data and opinions apply regionally as opposed to any specific project. As any development
concepts advance, the reporting and analysis would have to be updated, expanded and consolidated to
apply specifically to the project in question.

We have analyzed information on a countywide basis, and also subsequently applied opinions,
documentation and analysis that apply to different regions and/or different portions of the county.
Goals of the Report
The purpose of the initial analysis is to provide a consolidation of information to your organization to advance
the decision-making process pertaining to various housing needs throughout Lewis County. We have explored
and evaluated general demographic information, supply data, and various economic characteristics influencing
development potential and opportunities throughout the county. Some of the key questions to be answered
within this portion of the analysis include:

What type of development will be supported; senior specific or non-age restricted (family)?

What portion of the County is best acclimated to support additional housing development of a multifamily nature?
i
2399 SWEET HOME ROAD
915 BROADWAY
CORPORATE OFFICE:
AMHERST, NEW YORK 14228 TEL.716-691-7100 FAX.716-691-7770
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207
ALBANY OFFICE:
TEL.518.694.3770 FAX.518.694.3773
TOLL FREE: 1.800.836.0382
TOLL FREE: 1.800.836.038
Mr. Matthew Taylor
March 2, 2012
Page 2

Would the County support market orientated housing? This is a question related to rent structure,
demand and support, but also feasibility.

From an affordable perspective what total number of units could be supported and what would be an
appropriate unit mix/rent range/structure to consider? One of the key aspects of the affordable analysis
relates to determining an appropriate mix of tax credit specific versus deep subsidy units (Project
Based/Rural Development, or other form of deep subsidy).

Without a specific location or a specific product type, this analysis has to be very general in nature. The
results reflect the consolidation of an iterative process that involved the accumulation of work effort
prior to establishing opinions. The results that we present reflect what we feel are reasonable and
logical potential options for development opportunities throughout the County, but certainly we have
evaluated other prospective options within our analysis. The results reflect the optimum potential
development opportunities based on typical supply and demand factors and variables that apply to
multi-family housing of this nature. As always, there are other options and alternatives that can be
explored, which we can do subsequent to your initial evaluation and/or as a specific development or as
the project progresses.
The report is limited in scope and is presented for informational purposes only. It should not be
used for direct submission to any state allocating agency or for financing, rather we are
presenting the initial documentation for your review and consideration so that we may work with
your development group to advance this study to a comprehensive report to be used for such
purposes. While the analysis is considered preliminary, we have completed the basics of a
comprehensive report including:

Identification of various market draw areas and demographic segments that are supported
based on geography and commuter patterns. We analyze the County as a whole, but also
isolated three separate submarkets and components that will be discussed within the
report.

Analysis of a wide variety of supply data. This included market orientated projects, and
affordable developments. We will also evaluate both family and senior projects. Because of
the lack of market rate data within Lewis County specifically, our analysis did touch on,
evaluate and interpret information from the outlying areas of Jefferson County that would
be deemed most similar.

We obtained appropriate demographic information for the various areas analyzed.

Ran through various Demand Models in order to obtain an optimum mix based on
supportable rent structures and the demographics that apply to the different areas
analyzed.
ii
Mr. Matthew Taylor
March 2, 2012
Page 2
It is important to recognize that this study represents a compilation of data gathered from various sources,
including competitive properties surveyed, local municipal records, interviews with market participants, town
officials and review of secondary demographic data. Although the sources used are felt to be reliable, it is
impossible to thoroughly verify and authenticate all data utilized. The analysis does not guarantee the data and
assumes no liability for errors of a factual nature, analysis, or judgment provided. Among the sources utilized
and cited throughout this study are the U.S. Census of Population and Housing, demographic information
complied (2000 and 2010 census and forecasts for the market). We have also utilized HISTA Data, which is a
Claritas project reflecting 2000 and 2010 Census information with appropriate forecasts to 2011 and 2016.
Further, it must be recognized that the recommendations and conclusions provided in this market analysis are
objective opinions based on the data gathered and interpretation of current and prospective supply and demand
variables. Real estate markets are very dynamic in nature and continually effected by demographic, economic
and developmental changes. The research and analysis undertaken was completed in May - June 2012.
Utilization of this report and the recommendations/conclusions undertaken are reflective of trends at this time.
The report has been prepared for the specific use of the client for the proposed project as identified herein.
The recommendations and conclusions do not apply to any other party or proposed development.
Respectfully,
GAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
M. Scott Allen
Vice President/Analyst
Kiersten M. Minnick
Market Analyst/Research Associate
MSA:kmm
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
COVER LETTER
Recommendations / Conclusions
The Project
Aerial Photographs
Location/Support Services
Analysis of the Area
Market Area Maps
Market Area & Demographics
Supply
Competitor Map
Apartment Rental Comparables
Market Analysis/Competitive Supply
Demand / Capture Analysis
ADDENDUM
American Fact Finder
Demand Glossary
County Bus Schedule
Lewis County Economic Development Plan
Fort Drum Economic Impact Statement
Additional HISTA Data
Qualifications of the Analysts
i – iii
1 – 12
13 – 18
19 - 22
23
24 - 43
44 - 47
48 - 58
59
60
61 - 87
88 - 97
98 - 115
RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS
This is a preliminary analysis, which has been based on a number of assumptions made by GAR
Associates. We based the assumptions on the following:




Our general knowledge of the local market and mobility patterns for family and senior households.
HCR and other agency requirements and regulations. While specific funding has yet to be solidified, one
of the primary assumptions related to any non-market rate development is that it may use sources such
as LIHTC; so application of some of the demand analysis that typifies HCR guidelines make sense.
Knowledge of existing tax credit and other subsidized projects that would compete with the
development. We have also reviewed a significant array of supply related to non-restricted/nonaffordable developments.
Knowledge of the physical product anticipated based on other work completed for the developer and
documentation provided pertaining to the proposed project.
Major Assumptions:
Prior to presenting the context of the conclusions it is important to understand some major assumptions
made in the analysis. The following have been accounted for:

There is no specific development concept at this point, therefore our analysis is preliminary in
nature, with prospects for expanding the report and/or tightening the analysis to apply to a specific
development and/or a specific funding option or requirement subsequent to completion of the
preliminary analysis.

We understand that there is a perceived need for affordable housing within the county, including
housing for both families and seniors. We have examined the support for the potential of both market
rate and affordable housing, including multiple components involving smaller units targeting seniors,
smaller family units and additionally larger family household units.

After our analysis we feel that support for market rate development of any significance is not feasible.
Rents would be too low and demand too limited to support a development of any magnitude. We
acknowledge that there is strong demand for market rate in Jefferson County as of now, due to the
presence of Fort Drum. However, much of this type of demand in Lewis County is being generated by
and in homes and single family/duplex rental options. These types of housing are desired by families
and many of the military that opt for a Lewis County location. The other variable influencing the
decision from a rental perspective relates to the number of available garden style apartment complexes
and units closer to Fort Drum, and also closer to schools and commercial conveniences that are often
more desirable housing options for the typical Jefferson County/Fort Drum tenant. Also, there are firm
plans in place to develop almost 1,000 units of new multi-family housing in Jefferson County in very
desirable locations over the next few years, which would impact the ability of Lewis County to generate
significant interest regarding rental units. We do feel that some of the families in and around Jefferson
County and those associated with Fort Drum opt for and chose the more rural and tranquil lifestyle that
can be available in nearby Lewis County, but traditionally and typically they are looking more so for a
single-family orientated type environment. Lastly, regarding multi-family development, the cost of
construction and site development would far exceed the ability of Lewis County to support a
development of any magnitude.

Our analysis has been based on the prospects of a maximum number of supported units. Our
analysis shows support for a total of around 180 family affordable units and around 60 affordable
senior units. The family development concept could be phased and developed in separate areas of the
county. Considering the small number of supported senior specific units, we are recommending one
central site.
GAR Associates, Inc. 1

As far as rent threshold requirements, we will consider tax credit specific levels but we will also

We will apply theory and methodology that is typical of HCR analysis for family projects of this nature.
This will include income qualification based on a low end affordability at 48% of gross rent, and a
maximum allowable based on the 30% of the gross rent – not the tax credit maximum standards.
These variables differ when we are preparing studies for the investors, or without HCR
analysis/approval in question. However, when we are preparing studies where HCR approval is likely
required in order to ascertain project feasibility, we utilize their underwriting guidelines as reference.

A Demand Model that reflects allocation of individual capture rates for each rent tier and unit type.
Also, we have completed a net Demand Model where we have eliminated all existing affordable
housing units prior to establishing demand/capture. Also it should be noted that we will run a broad
based Demand Model based on countywide assumptions, but then also apply the individual demands to
market areas that have been established for review and reference.
evaluate market orientated thresholds and levels, and the potential impact of securing some units with
project based assistance.
Recommendations:
Based on our analysis, the following conclusions have been drawn:
Unit Mix / Rent Structure:

Market rate units would not be feasible; rents would be too low and demand too limited. Therefore, we
will be recommending that the development concept throughout Lewis County concentrate on
affordable housing as opposed to market orientated housing. We will demonstrate support for up to 240
units of affordable housing.

Mostly non age-restricted family units, with a limited number of senior-specific units, up to 180 family
oriented and 60 senior oriented. This data and the total support applies countywide; within the analysis
we will present an allocation to different submarkets based on population and other factors.

For the family units, a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom, with a majority of the units being one
or two-bedroom. For the senior units, mostly one bedroom with a handful of two-bedroom units.

The rents for the affordable units will reflect a mix of 50%/60% tax credit units, and some project
based units. At this point, we are using the tax credit maximum thresholds, although this will require
further evaluation as any specific development concept advances, as use of the max for the tax credit
levels could be perceived as an aggressive assumption. In some ways the lack of existing competition,
however, coupled with the presence of income qualified households allows for consideration of higher
tax credit rent thresholds but as will be demonstrated, the mix will require an allocation of project
based or deep subsidy units.
Development Concept:
Review of the Demand Models and demographics of the market indicate support for more family than
senior units. Based on the demographics of the PMA, the economics of this type of development, and the need
to spread income qualification threshold amongst different rent tiers and levels, we have completed an analysis
indicating that the development concept should consider the following:

Consideration of two different senior projects. In both cases development concepts would include tax
credit units set at or below the 50% and 60% AMI guidelines, and in one scenario would include both
tax credits and project based assistance. The first alternative with only tax credits would account for
around 40 units (30 one bedroom and 8 two bedroom). The second alternative with tax credits and
project based assistance would increase the potential tenant pool, and provide for 60 units (48 one
bedroom and 12 two bedroom).

Consideration of two different family projects. In both cases, development concepts would include tax
credit units set at or below the 50% and 60% AMI guidelines, and in one scenario would include both
tax credits and project based assistance. The first alternative with only tax credits would account for
about 84 units offering a mix of unit types. The second alternative with tax credits and PBA would
account for 180 units, with a mix of unit types. The reason that we give some alternatives related to tax
credit specific versus inclusion of Project Based Assistance relates to questions associated with being
able to secure specific project based funding. Again, all of our assumptions are preliminary in nature
and subject to change and review as any development concept progresses.

Multiple unit types, for both aspects of the development. For the senior specific units we are

Mixed income and mixed rent tiers. Our concluding recommendation will result in units with rents
structured at the 50% AMI maximum and 60% AMI maximum. We also recommend the addition of
units with project based assistance, as this will increase the tenant pool and allow for more units to be
developed. This applies most specifically to the family modeling, but is also considered for the senior
units.

Reasoning for the unit mix and rent structure will be supported throughout the text, but basically it
accounts for the mix of household sizes (ratios of smaller and also larger households), and the way that
demand modeling and project support/income qualification thresholds apply to a project of this nature.
It also accounts for the very low income nature of the one person senior renter households.
recommending a mix of one and two bedroom apartments with a heavier ratio of one bedroom units
(only because of HCR occupancy requirements), and for the family apartments we would recommend a
mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom apartments. While two bedroom senior units do generate market support,
agency guidelines and criteria, coupled with demand modeling indicates that predominately one person
senior households should be included in the one bedroom apartment analysis while only two person
households should be considered for the two bedroom units. This is consistent with some of the
underwriting criteria set by New York State HCR, and will impact the ratio of unit types. For the family
modeling, the mix is desirable since it opens the project to different household sizes, and different
income qualification levels and expands the pool of qualified renters for a project of this nature.

Depending on development options pursued, we may recommend product phasing. If it is determined
that the family development should be split up and developed at several different sites, it may be an
option to develop in phases. To begin with, each of the individual development concepts could be
staggered and within the family component we would recommend consideration of phasing; perhaps 40
units as part of a Phase 1 development. The phasing is helpful in that it allows for a market review as
the initial product is absorbed, and it also limits the amount of equity required in order to create
feasibility for the development. Given the competitive nature of funding and the limited resources
available on all levels of government, a phased approach would allow for a more efficient request to the
State allocating agency. Since we are recommending a more limited senior project it is not felt that
phasing is needed or feasible (all units should be built at once and in one location).

In terms of location, we feel the senior development should be located near support services, in an
area such as the Village of Lowville. As far as the family development is concerned, we also
recommend placing it within an area near support services. Conversations with the Lewis County
Department of Economic Development and Planning indicate that new development can most likely only
occur close to the Villages of Lowville, Copenhagen, Croghan and the Hamlet of Beaver Falls. The
allocation that we will end up recommending will be a heavier concentration of family units within what
we have defined as area/location to; the Lowville/Copenhagen corridor. We will also recommend some
units to be built in Area 1, but do not feel that Area 3 (at the south end of the County) will support any
specific development objectives.
Critical Demographic Statistics and Assumptions
When reviewing this report there are many critical variables to recognize, and all data forms an
accumulation of findings that correlate and point towards reasoning for our conclusions. However, there are
some critical demographic factors to recognize, and some key assumptions that must be understood as the
reader progresses through the report. One point of notes is that we have analyzed three separate and distinct
submarkets in addition to the County as a whole. The submarket analysis will be presented within the context of
the report. Some of the critical variables related to the countywide data include:
 A fairly low ratio of senior renters at less than 20%. This is somewhat common for smaller,
rural counties that we reviewed, but it is generally lower than what we see in more urban
areas like would be experienced in Jefferson County. The individual submarkets that we will
analyze show a higher ratio within the Lowville sector at almost 25% compared to Area 1,
which is Croghan at 14.64% and Area 3 (Lyonsdale) at 18.0%.
 A fairly large proportion of senior renters earning $30,000 a year or less; over 76% in the
County. The various submarkets show statistics that are generally similar and consistent.
 Moderate growth in the total number of seniors countywide over the next five years. Each of
the individual submarkets also shows moderate growth.
 In regards to the non-senior specific marketplace, the ratio of renters is just under 25%, which
is fairly typical for rural counties like Lewis. Once again, the Lowville submarket shows the
highest ratio of renters within the three different subsectors we have analyzed.
 Just under 56% of the renters who are non-senior earn $30,000 a year or less. Again this is
somewhat typical of what we see in smaller more rural counties, and the ratio of renters
earning under $30,000 a year or less is similar for each of the different submarkets.
 Household declination anticipated over the next five years at 4.61%.
 The total number of income qualified families versus income qualified seniors has been one of
the basis of our assumptions. However, existing supply has also been considered in
determining that there is more demand for additional family as opposed to senior specific
housing. Both the demographics that identify demand and the existing supply that identifies
current housing options have been instrumental in regards to formulating some of our
decisions and recommendations within this analysis.
 In order to provide adequate capture based on different income qualification thresholds,
multiple income bands must be obtainable. This means that different unit types, in different
rent thresholds are necessary in order to maximize capture potential and improve demand for
a large project of this nature. This applies to both the family and senior specific analyses.
 From a supply standpoint critical aspects to recognize include:
 No new multi-family development in the area.
 Significant ratio of homeowners within the specific subject area.
 No new construction evident within the county; tax credit/affordable or market
orientated in nature.
Capture Rate/Demand Conclusions
We have run seven separate and distinct demand models and provide several different scenarios
throughout this report. The results indicate favorable support for some additional housing, but it is critical to
note that in order to achieve development success, the assumptions that we are outlining need to be
accommodated in some fashion or form. A summary of the capture rates concluding from the different
scenarios are:
Scenarios/Capture Rates
Scenario *
Type/Units
1.
Family with PBA – 180 units
2.
Family with no PBA – 84 units
3.
Senior with PBA – 60 units
4.
Senior with no PBA – 38 units
1a. Croghan Area submarket
2a. Lowville Area submarket
3a. Lyonsdale Area submarket Family with PBA – 40 units
Capture Rate
8.40%
9.02%
9.47%
12.54%
9.08%
8.55%
12.79%
* Scenarios 1 – 4 account for a countywide analysis/evaluation, while the individual submarket scenarios account for an allocation
based on the different areas that we are evaluating.
Some of the conclusions drawn from this data are:

The market will support up to 180 family units, but Project Based Assistance must be secured. If not,
then tax credit specific support would be available only for 84 apartments.

A small senior project to be built with up to 60 units if Project Based Assistance is secured. If not, then
the marketplace would support less than 40 units.

The countywide analysis is reflected by Scenarios 1 – 4. Our recommendation for the submarkets
applies only to families, and we would not recommend developing in the Lyonsdale area submarket
based on the fairly high capture rate for the development even with only 40 apartment units. Rather,
we would recommend that these 40 units be more heavily concentrated within Area 2 – the Lowville
submarket, as this area provides greater service amenities, schools and proximity to places of work.

Lastly in regards to the senior project, we are recommending one central location for this small
development, rather than isolated pockets of smaller projects. Area 2; the Lowville and Copenhagen
submarket would be the logical choice with the Lowville area being the primary location for additional
senior units.
Rents:
In regards to rents there are some critical aspects to recognize including:

We are presenting recommendations and a general analysis only. The specific rents that apply to an
affordable development will be contingent upon various factors including location, product design, and
the ability to secure Project Based Assistance or not.

Our assumptions apply to the project achieving 50%/60% tax credit maximum thresholds which appear
to be higher than achievable market. This could be acceptable based on condition and quality of the
units if Project Based Assistance is secured for a significant proportion of units. If not, and the tenants
must income qualify, then we might have to consider multiple rent tiers.

Even though the tax credit maximums are above the market in Lewis County at the current time, the
demand indicates that there are a number of households that would support a project at these rent
levels. This is an indication of lack of supply in the area, and the potential support for a good quality
project even though it would be considered affordable in nature; basically, the tax credit maximum
levels reflect the maximum rents achievable in the County. We refer the reader to unit mix and rent
summaries that follow for additional details on the specific rent estimates that we are projecting.
Overview/Current Market Condition:
Currently, the apartment market is considered to be reflective of stable economic characteristics. This is
evident by the following:


Average occupancy at affordable projects of 100%
Considerable wait lists at affordable projects
Some Market aspects to consider:
Stable Affordable Projects:
Review of the affordable housing developments in the area indicates that are all well occupied on a
consistent basis with waiting lists. Critical notes related to affordable developments include:

Limited number of affordable options.

Limited number of good quality recently built or rehabilitated affordable housing units; whether
analyzing family or senior.

No significant plans or proposals for any other affordable housing units except for an eight unit
supportive housing development in Lowville.
Market Rate Housing:
Market rate housing is extremely limited in Lewis County. Clearly, this is related in large part to
demand, and the rents and is perhaps the best indicator of the limited viability of developing additional market
orientated housing.
Unit Mix/Rent Structure:
We are recommending two different product types and product concepts; one that would specifically
target an age qualified population and another that would be non-age restricted. Only one of the 2 family
scenarios should be advanced, and only one of the 2 senior scenarios should be advanced. Note that each of
the scenarios below account for the total number of units that we would project as being supported countywide.
We will apply individual analyses to the various submarkets later within the report and namely within the
Demand section of the analysis. Options are on the following two pages:
Family Non-Age Restricted with PBA:
Family Non-Age Restricted:
Senior/Age Restricted with PBA:
Senior/Age Restricted:
General notes include:

In regards to utilities, we would assume that the tenant would be responsible for payment of
electricity and potentially heat. The specific development concept was not formally established at the
time of the completion of this initial analysis, thus our chart does not break out a utility adjustment. It
would have no effect on the gross rents, which we have used for comparison and support, rather it
would impact the net rents charged specifically to the tenants.

The rents and unit mix reflect breakdowns that are supportable via the demand modeling, and
threshold levels that will vary as the project advances. These are general recommendations based on
the knowledge that up to 240 total units of a combination of family and senior affordable housing can
be developed within the County.

Our analysis accounts for some secured project based Section 8 units. These would not be voucher
holders; rather they would be dedicated to the development on an ongoing basis. If they are not
securable, then this would not be an appropriate development option to consider as voucher holders
cannot be evaluated when determining support for a tax credit project. Clearly, additional units are
supported if Project Based Assistance can be secured. We did want to provide a
demonstration, however, as to the number of units that would be viable under a tax credit
specific scenario.
The Physical Product & Location
We touched on these aspects briefly within our summarization, and will refer the reader to the
individual sections of this preliminary/limited scope report for additional details and documentation. We have
not received specifics related to the actual physical components of the project, thus, we have made some
assumptions based on knowledge of the typical prototype for this type of development.
In regards to establishing various unit mix and rent structures and the project recommendations, we did
have to run different iterations and scenarios. Keep in mind that the basis for these strategies utilizes
the whole county as a market draw area. We will go into detail within the report about our findings as far
as splitting the county up into individual submarket areas is concerned. We started the process and worked
towards the conclusions presented based on the following:

After multiple iterations the four conceptual development strategies that were reviewed included:
1.) A family specific non-age restricted model that would include tax credit units and some
units dedicated with project based assistance. The market would support a development of
up to 180 units based on the mix presented.
2.) A similar senior specific, age-restricted model with 60 units, with some targeting tax credit
and some units with project based assistance.
3.) A family project that would offer a mix of tax credit units at 50% and 60% AMI. This would
support a development of up to 84 units.
4.) A similar senior specific mix of tax credit units at 50% and 60% AMI. This would support a
development of up to 40 units.
Critical to note is that we are not indicating support for both concepts above; in other
words, if a family development is built only Options 1 or 3 would make sense and if a senior
project is built, only Options 2 or 4 would make sense. The variation above accounts for whether
or not Project Based Assistance would be available or not be available. Also, the above options all
apply countywide not to the individual submarkets.
Capture Rate Analysis/Demand Modeling
The Demand Model will be presented within the context of the report. The methodology employed
reflects typical analysis and underwriting standards that are accepted by HCR for both 4% “as of right” credits,
as well as competitive 9% tax credit allocations.
While capture is only one indication of prospective market support, it is an important variable and
barometer to determine the likelihood of lease-up and project acceptance. The lower the capture rates the
better and typically, any capture rates that are below 20% are indicative of likely project support with capture
rates below 10% indicative of very strong market support.
The results of our analysis indicate favorable support for the development strategies above as follows;
all apply countywide:
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
average
average
average
average
capture
capture
capture
capture
for
for
for
for
the
the
the
the
family project with PBA:
family project with no PBA:
senior project with PBA:
senior project with no PBA:
8.40%
9.02%
9.47%
12.54%
In all cases, there is general support for the rent and the unit counts presented, with strong support for
all except the senior project without PBA. Again, keep in mind these models use the entire county as a market
draw area. We elaborate further within the report about additional submarket areas that we analyzed. We fully
recognize that within the analysis there is some overlap regarding demand thresholds and within the details of
our demand section we will discuss the impact of overlap for income qualification thresholds. When analyzing
the range of income qualified households, there remains supportable demand for all unit types based on the
assumptions applied above.
In addition to capture, there are many other variables that require detailed review and consideration
such as rent advantage, tax credit rent support, and number of age and income qualified households. In all
cases, we feel that the project support is evident and the Capture Rate/Demand Model supports the intended
development based on the unit mix and rent structures presented.
Market Draw Area:
For our analysis, we have established four versions of the market draw area that we identify as the
PMA or Primary Market Area. Due to the lack of affordable options, any potential projects would attract interest
from a wide region, including the county as a whole. Therefore, our first market draw area encompasses the
entire county. In addition to utilizing the whole county as a market draw area, we have also split the county into
three separate market areas, to analyze need/demand with more of a local focus.
Nonetheless, in establishing demand, it is always best to use common principles and practices when
establishing a PMA, and we have done so by relying on and utilizing NCAHMA model content, standards and
white papers which provides background on establishing the PMA and potential red flags. We have also applied
our knowledge of the majority of tenant contribution for developments of this nature. Our PMA is the area that
would generate interest of up to around 70% of the total tenant base, with the remainder being generated by
secondary or tertiary markets. If the project can be supported based on use of this PMA, then it provides an
additional comfort level that through expanded marketing and contribution from a secondary PMA, that sound
development occupancy and success will occur.
The census tracts that we have used to establish the various PMAs are the seven census tracts that
make up Lewis County. The first PMA will comprise an area that is the entire county, and the three other PMAs
split the county into separate areas based on population and other variables.
THE PROJECT
As of the date of our preliminary analysis we were not provided any specific data applicable to any
proposed project. The scope of this report is to analyze the local rental market, including both affordable and
market rate rental options for singles, families, and seniors, and make recommendations as to what type of
development to pursue.
As discussed in the introduction section and as will be exemplified throughout our demand modeling,
we feel that affordable housing for singles and families is the most likely supported product type within the
county, with support for some senior affordable development, as well. We do not feel that a market rate
product type reflects the most likely supported option within Lewis County, as explained in the introduction.
For the affordable housing options, we would be recommending different product strategies and a mix
that would reflect less senior units and more non-age restricted apartments. Two of the strategies target the
senior specific market and two target the non-age restricted (family) market. The two types are not mutually
exclusive; meaning pursuing a senior strategy would not preclude developing a family strategy as well.
We have made some general assumptions pertaining to unit mix and product strategy which will
obviously change and modify as the development plans progress. The description of the project is simply a
general overview of what we typically see for an affordable project and is subject to re-review as the specifics
unfold.
The different unit mix and rent summary that we are forecasting for the four different options are
outlined as follows. As indicated previously, the main variation when analyzing the family or senior projects
relates to the additional number of units that would be market supported based on the inclusion of Project
Based Assistance versus no Project Based Assistance.
THE PROJECT
THE PROJECT
General notes include:

In regards to utilities, we would assume that the tenant would be responsible for payment of
electricity and potentially heat. A specific development concept was not formally established at the time
of the completion of this initial analysis, thus our chart does not break out a utility adjustment. It would
have no effect on the gross rents, which we have used for comparison and support, rather it would
impact the net rents charged specifically to the tenants.

The rents and unit mix reflect breakdowns that are supportable via the demand modeling, and
threshold levels that will vary as the project advances. These are general recommendations based on
the knowledge that under the various scenarios up to 60 senior affordable units and 180 affordable
family units can be developed within the county.

Our analysis does not account for the influence of voucher holders. We are fully anticipating that a
project of this nature would attract fairly significant interest from voucher holders in the area, but it is
appropriate to support market based on income qualified households within the PMA (the primary
market area). The exception to this of course is the analysis that accounts for some secured project
based assistance (PBA) Section 8 units. These would not be voucher holders; rather they would be
dedicated to the development on an ongoing basis. If they are not securable, then this would not be an
appropriate development option to consider as voucher holders cannot be evaluated when determining
support for a tax credit project.
THE PROJECT
We have used our knowledge of typical developments of tax credit specific projects to develop some
basic recommendations for any potential physical product. Some notes prior to reviewing the physical product
overview include:

Two different product concepts are being presented (senior and family), and we are anticipating
different unit layouts, physical unit sizes, and design for the senior versus the family units.

The family projects have the potential to be completed in phases, should development be pursued in
each of the submarkets instead of one large project within one market. The senior units would be
completed all at once, and in one distinct location.

The remainder of this first part of the analysis will apply to the family orientated project, and then we
will discuss the senior specific units.
Family Orientated – Product Strategy
There is no specific development concept at this point. Therefore, we will be making general product
recommendations that can be reviewed and changed should development progress. As far as finishes and the
specifics related to the individual units, this can be further discussed as the development advances.

Potential unit types that may be developed include those that could have private and separate
entryways or common entryways. It can be one large garden style structure, housing up to 180 units,
or split up into a couple smaller garden complexes or two-story townhome units. They may also be
semi-detached structures.

Ample parking should be provided, and take into consideration the climate of the area. Snow removal
should be provided for the tenants. The potential for inclusion of garages, which would be an
advantageous feature, can be considered. If not, then we might recommend developing some portions
of the site with garages available at an additional charge.

For the sector where the most significant number of units will be built (Area 2), we would recommend
development of a community building with common area laundry. For the other smaller phases of the
development, we do recommend that common area laundry be built or offered somewhere on site in
lieu of washer and dryer hookups.
Senior Specific Units
The design for the senior apartments would include:

One structure, accommodating up to 60 +/- units.

There should be community and common area space most predominantly on the ground floor. This
would include a lounge and sitting area with kitchen, gender restrooms, offices, and activity room,
and common area laundry facilities.

If the product concept involves two or three stories, then an elevator must be provided.

The apartments would offer typical layouts for a tax credit senior specific project and they would be
smaller than the family orientated units.

As far as the baths only one full bath would be needed for both the units. Additional considerations
within the bath should include a roll-in tub/shower or a stall shower with sitting area as opposed to
a tub.
THE PROJECT
Other Physical Factors
In both cases the following should also be considered:

Snow removal should be included as part of the rent.

On-site surface parking will be needed for all building types although for the senior units the
number of spaces is less significant. Garages are not a requirement but they could be developed
either attached to the family units or separately for utilization by both family and senior specific
tenants. Garages could generate additional revenue.

Separate and distinct common area and community services should be built. In other words the
common area for the family unit should be specific to that phase for the development and the
senior units offer its own common area and community space.

Finishes would be good quality but not top of the line. This would include vinyl floor coverings in
the kitchens and baths, and carpeting in the bedrooms, dining areas and living areas.

Some outdoor common area space should be provided for a senior specific structure; a patio with a
seating area, gardens, and potentially a walkway surrounding the periphery of the building.

The senior complex should be secure. It does not have to be gated, but the entry to the building
needs to be done by way of swipe card access with a security system.
Income & Rent Restrictions:
Given that the apartment units will be restricted by Low Income Housing/Affordable Tax Credit
guidelines, it is important to have an understanding of the current AMI breakdown that applies to Lewis County.
A summarization of the current statistics that apply to the projects in Lewis County is outlined below.
Maximum Incomes
Household Size
60% AMI 50% AMI
One Person
$23,940
$19,950
Two Person
$27,360
$22,800
Three Person
$30,780
$25,650
Four Person
$34,140
$28,450
Five Person
$36,900
$30,750
Six Person
$39,660
$33,050
Maximum Rents
Unit Size
One-bedroom
Two-bedroom
Three-bedroom
Four-bedroom
Note:
60% AMI
$641
$769
$888
$991
50% AMI
$534
$641
$740
$826
The current AMI threshold for Lewis County is $51,200 (2012).
The above are reflective of gross rents and should be applied to the subject’s gross rents including the
utilities. The 2012 AMI levels for Lewis County indicate that the standard used to set the rents and income limits
are $51,200. This figure represents the median income for a 4 person household within the county. In
comparison, the average 2012 AMI level for all non-metropolitan areas in New York State is $56,900. The lower
AMI for Lewis County reflects the large amount of low-income households found within the county.
THE PROJECT
Potential Subject Sites
We are aware that a subject site or sites has not been selected and that further analysis to select a site
may be required. Our conversations with the Lewis County Planning Department indicate that if a project were
to occur, it would be in or close to one of these locations that can accommodate the development: the Village of
Lowville, Village of Copenhagen, Town of Croghan and Hamlet of Beaver Falls. For comparison, on the following
pages are aerial photographs of these towns and villages.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Town and Village of Lowville
Aerial Photograph
Courtesy of: www.bing.com
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Hamlet of Beaver Falls
Aerial Photograph
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Village of Copenhagen
Aerial Photograph
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Town of Croghan
Aerial Photograph
LOCATIONS/SUPPORT SERVICES
Outlined below is a summarization of community services as they apply to the County as a whole. We
are not specifically identifying any distance, but rather we show the location of the community services being
referenced and overviewed.
ANALYSIS OF THE AREA & THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD
The Area
Outlined on the following pages is a brief analysis of the county. We are not examining any specific site,
however in addition to providing statistics on Lewis County, we will also reference the Town and Village of
Lowville, as it is the economic center and seat of Lewis County. Lewis County is located in the northeastern
region of New York State commonly referred to as the North County. The area is an older, established region of
New York, with an agricultural/forestry past. Lewis County shares a border with Jefferson County, and there are
some economic effects from the close proximity to Fort Drum. We refer the reader to the addendum for
information and documentation pertaining to the region including an economic overview of surrounding
counties, and the Fort Drum/military market.
Regional Overview
Lewis County, at 1,270 square miles, is the fourth least populous county in the state, with a population
of 27,087 in 2010. The regional boundaries of the county include Herkimer County to the east, Jefferson County
to the west, Oneida County to the south and Oswego County to the southwest. Natural features of the area
include the Tug Hill Plateau to the west, the Adirondack foothills to the east, and the Black River Valley which
runs north/south through the middle of the county. The majority of the county’s population is located along the
Black River.
The majority of land within the sparsely populated county is forested/wild area, at 54.7% of the total
land area. Agricultural makes up 19.5% and residential is 14.4% of the total land area. About 25% of the
county is located within the Adirondack Park.
The county contains a total of 17 towns and 9 villages. The Town of Lowville, which is centrally located
within the county, is the county seat. Lewis County is located 120 miles northwest of Albany and 55 miles from
Utica-Rome. Highways in the area are NYS Routes 12, 26, 177 and 812. Interstates 81 and the NYS Thruway
are nearby, reached from Routes 12 and 26. The Lewis County Loop bus service is also provided to the County
by Birnie Bus Service, Inc. It has seven lines of service that extend Monday - Friday from Lowville out to several
towns and villages. Additionally, a bus services just the Village of Lowville on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Population Trends
Population trends for Lewis County and several of the towns and villages are summarized below. Only
towns and villages with a population of 2,500 or above were used for this comparison. The sparse population
reflects the very rural nature of the county. Jefferson County, the City of Watertown and the Village of Carthage
are summarized as well.
Population Patterns
Lewis County
Village of Lowville
Town of Denmark
Town of Lowville
Town of New Bremen
Jefferson County
Village of Carthage
City of Watertown
1990
2000
2010
26,796
3,632
2,718
4,849
2,526
110,943
4,344
29,476
26,944
3,476
2,747
4,548
2,722
111,738
3,721
26,705
27,087
3,470
2,860
4,982
2,706
116,229
3,747
27,023
% Change 20002010
+0.53%
-0.17%
+4.11%
+9.54%
-0.59%
+4.02%
+0.70%
+1.19%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, American FactFinder
Notes from the previous chart include:
Minor to moderate increases in most regions. The Town of Lowville has experienced the largest
increase, after a large decrease between 1990 and 2000.
Lewis County has been experiencing a very slight increase in population, whereas Jefferson County has
had a larger increase. Population increases in both locales are most likely due to the presence of Fort Drum,
though the military installation has a proportionally larger impact on Jefferson County.
General Census Statistics/Comparison
Outlined below is a summarization of some of the census data from a sample of regions within the
county, which we have found from the 2006-2009 American Community Survey. The purpose of this
information, which represents estimates, is for review and comparison. Subsequent to this presentation, we will
offer some data that is from the 2010 Decennial U.S. Census for Lewis County.
*Census data based on American Factfinder information. Some based on 2010 statistics but others based on 2000 data.
Important notes to consider when viewing the previous chart:

All figures are estimates, representing 2010 data.

Unemployment figures are conservative estimates. By way of comparison, the actual average
annual unemployment rate for Lewis County according to the NYS Department of Labor was 9.2%
in 2010. It should also be noted that unemployment rates vary throughout the year, due to the
seasonal nature of some occupations.

There is a high ratio of vacant housing units – this is because of the large seasonal vacation
housing market and should be examined in comparison to the ratio of vacant rental units. These
vacation units are not considered part of the local rental market and are not an option for area
renters.

Roughly similar income characteristics across the chart, with the exception of New Bremen Town,
which only has 7.9% of its’ population below the poverty level and also has the highest median
income of the localities selected, at $49,156 a household.

The ratio of renter occupied households varies. Lowville has the largest percentage, with 35% of
the population in renter-occupied housing units.

The ratio of seniors is fairly similar across the chart, with the exception of Lowville, which is higher.
Updated American Survey Data
Outlined on the following pages is summarization of some economic and demographic statistics that are
available from the American Community Survey as it applies to Lewis County.
LEWIS COUNTY AREA DATA
ANALYSIS OF THE AREA – LEWIS COUNTY
Economics & Employment
The median household income in Lewis County for 2010 was $41,947. This income level is below the
state median of $55,603, and adjusted for inflation, has decreased slightly over the past decade, from $34,361
in 2000. Poverty among persons in the county is similar to the state average, at 14.6%.
In regards to employment sectors, data provided by the New York State Department of Labor is
outlined on the following page. The area is heavily concentrated in both the public and private service providing
sectors. Government is also a large employer within the area. Major employers are listed in the chart below.
Major Employers – Lewis County
Employer
Climax Corp.
ARC
Kraft Foods
Lewis County General Hospital
Lowville Academy
Lewis County
South Lewis County Schools
Wal-Mart
Fibermark
Number Employed
275 – 300
200 – 225
300 – 325
375 – 400
250 – 275
350 – 375
225 – 250
175 – 200
175 – 200
Source: LCIDA,
www.lcida.org , 2012
Like other parts of Upstate New York, Lewis County has been influenced by the recessionary economic
conditions facing the state. The statistics we see indicate that the unemployment rate has increased in the
county within the last five years, with one of the highest average levels of unemployment within the state,
currently at over 10%. This is most likely due to the stagnant population growth of the region and a large
majority of the workforce being employed by government and education and health services.
It should be noted that as of April 2012, Lewis County ranked 57 out of the 62 New York Counties in
terms of unemployment rank, with 10.2% of the county’s workforce unemployed. It should also be noted that
employment in the county is seasonal, and shifts throughout the year.
A summarization of employment and unemployment rates are outlined on the charts that follow. This is
followed by some statistics over viewing unemployment rates and levels of employment throughout the state,
which can be used to compare Lewis County to other portions of New York.
The employment level within Lewis County has fallen over the last couple of years, mostly due to the
slowdown in the economy; the number employed peaked in 2006 and has generally been decreasing since
then.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Housing Patterns/Trends
The eastern part of the county, which is adjacent to Fort Drum, is the most heavily developed. This
triangle shaped region contains Lowville, New Bremen, Copenhagen and Denmark. A depiction of population
density is displayed on the following page.
POPULATION DENSITY MAP
Source: Lewis County Department of Economic Development and Planning
Based on review of building permits in chart below, it is clear that there has been limited new
development activity within Lewis County, and no new multi-family activity. There has been continued and
active construction, but it is not significant, nor is the recent building permit activity significant. Building permit
data shows a continued slowdown in general economic activity within both Lewis County and the Town/Village
of Lowville. A summarization of building permits is outlined below:
Residential Pricing Patterns
In regards to residential pricing patterns, statistics are outlined in the charts below. Notes on the
information show:

A wide range of housing prices recorded throughout the year, and housing prices appear overall to
have been impacted little by the 2007 recession.

Number of housing transactions varies throughout the year.

Overall, a wide variety of housing prices, and average/median sales prices, that do not seem to
indicate trends of any kind occurring within the county.

Days on the market seem to be increasing for all locations listed, with the exception of the Town of
Denmark.
Source: MLS
One critical note regarding homeownership patterns is that we have accounted for seniors as part of our
analysis. Given that the large majority of seniors own homes, the residential markets will be a critical influence
in regards to attracting seniors to a complex like the subject. Many of them will have to sell their homes and in
calculating demand the correlation to a greater homeowner contribution can be made based on residential
pricing. The recent improvement in pricing is a positive sign, but concerns relate to the following:

The number of transactions is down slightly, which indicates continued slow down in the buyer
market.
These variables have been and will be accounted for within our analysis of the demand modeling
especially as it relates to the senior units.
MARKET AREA & DEMOGRAPHICS
Market draw areas will be established both countywide and for individual submarkets. We will be
running demand analysis based on the entire County and then also the individual submarkets. The first map
does show the individual submarkets, and the later maps identify the individual areas that we are analyzing.
MARKET AREA – COUNTY
MARKET AREA MAP – PMA 1
Market Draw Area
In order to analyze demographics that will impact the project in question, it is critical that an
appropriate market draw area be established. This is one of the more complicated and difficult tasks associated
with market studies of this nature. We have established four different market area scenarios for our analysis,
which are detailed below.
Due to the rural nature of the county, and the lack of a specific site for development, we have chosen
to create four different market draw areas for comparison and analysis. The reasoning behind the four market
draw areas are as follows:

A generalized market draw area from the whole county acknowledges the limited affordable options
throughout the county, and suggests that tenant contribution will come from many areas county wide.

Three separate sub-market areas, to analyze need on a more local focus.

Jefferson County and Carthage, were not included in any market draw areas, as there are already
several affordable options in the Carthage/Fort Drum area.
In addition, market draw areas were based on the following factors:

Review of physical barriers of entry to the marketplace.

Review of commuter patterns, areas of employment, and access to highway linkages.

Review of population density throughout the county.
Market Draw Area:
We have established a market draw area (the PMA or Primary Market Area), based on the intention that
it will contribute about 70% of the tenant base/pool. Identifying an area that would contribute a greater ratio of
households in an urban area like New York is not realistic, as the reality related to lease-up is that some of the
tenants and occupants will come from the entire New York region, and others will reflect relocation into the
New York area from other states.
One important note here:

A review of all the submarket draw areas indicated similar influences whether we were evaluating for a
family or a senior project. This is not always the case, but based on the extreme need for affordable
housing throughout the entire county, and statistical similarities between county census tracts, it is
generally felt that no region displays more or less of a need than another.

If family units are to be advanced, then there may be merit in looking in each of the submarkets
identified. However, if only senior units are looked at then we feel the Lowville area would be the
location, as there is not enough demand based on the assumptions that typify HCR analysis. This is due
to the rural nature of the county.
We will provide the census tracts included as part of the PMAs on the following page. All are within the
county, but they include different sections in relation to the submarkets and are based on population and other
variables.
Other critical factors that have caused us to create the market areas that have delineated include:

Generally, we feel that the area should be considered a countywide analysis. We do recognize that the
submarkets are critical to review and consider in regards to determining a specific allocation for a
project.

The submarkets are not necessarily the areas that would be chosen as a location of residency, rather
they have been isolated based on geographic factors, roadway arterials, and the availability of services.
We did not want to isolate the Copenhagen versus the Lowville market because of these variables and
understand that the two areas can be considered submarkets within the Submarket No. 2.
CENSUS TRACTS
PMA 1 ‐ County Census Tract County Municipality 36049950100 Lewis County New Bremen town 36049950200 Lewis County Croghan town 36049950300 Lewis County Lowville town 36049950400 Lewis County Watson town 36049950500 Lewis County Martinsburg town 36049950600 Lewis County Lyonsdale town 36049950700 Lewis County Leyden town Submarket 1 – Croghan Area 36049950100 Lewis County New Bremen town 36049950200 Lewis County Croghan town Submarket 2 – Lowville/Copenhagen Area 36049950300 Lewis County Lowville town 36049950400 Lewis County Watson town 36049950500 Lewis County Martinsburg town Submarket 3 – Lyonsdale Market Area 36049950600 Lewis County Lyonsdale town 36049950700 Lewis County Leyden town GAR Associates, Inc. 49
HISTA Data / Demographics
As indicated previously, GAR Associates utilizes a database known as HISTA, which stands for
Households by Income, Size, Tenure and Age. This database is useful for market analysts as it advances the
census data a few steps above typical documentation. The availability of this data is particularly useful for
affordable projects, as it breaks out income by household size, and we can isolate households based on size
contribution and the different unit types available at the subject.
In addition to the household data presented by HISTA, we also have obtained some documentation
applicable to population statistics, which will be presented and discussed.
A summary of the 2011 projections for the HISTA Data are outlined on the followings pages. Outlined
below is a general summarization of these projections. In this case we present four sets of two different
demographic summaries; the four sets correspond to the four market areas we have selected. These four sets
are then broken into two different subsets. The first applies specifically to households age 62 and above while
the second applies to family orientated demand modeling and includes only households under age 62. Both are
necessary since we will be presenting demand models and theory applicable to both potential development
options. The data below applies countywide, with subsequent analysis applicable to the individual submarkets.
Demographic Summary County PMA – HISTA Data *: Family Data
2000
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
Total Renter Households:
1,819
1,743
-4.18%
1,680
-3.61%
Owner Occupied Households:
5,395
5,236
-2.95%
4,977
-4.95%
Total Households:
7,214
6,979
-3.26%
6,657
-4.61%
25.21%
24.97%
% of Renters
25.24%
2011 Data:
Renters Earning $30,000 or Less:
55.88%
37.01%
Ratio or Renters with 3 or more persons
42.11%
2011 Estimated Median Income Market Draw Area:
$41,288
*All data applies to under aged 62 only
Demographic Summary County PMA – HISTA Data *: Senior Data
2000
Total Households:
% of Renters
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
730
895
3,106
3,639
22.60%
995
11.17%
17.16%
3,946
8.44%
3,836
4,534
18.20%
19.03%
19.74%
4,941
8.98%
20.14%
2011 Data:
76.31%
60.00%
9.27%
$41,288
*All data applies to age 55 and over only
Demographic Summary Submarket 1 (Croghan Area) – HISTA Data *:
Family Data
2000
Total Households:
% of Renters
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
399
362
-9.27%
337
-6.91%
1,515
1,405
-7.26%
1,313
-6.55%
1,914
1,767
-7.68%
1,650
-6.62%
20.85%
20.49%
20.42%
2011 Data:
51.66%
33.15%
44.48%
$40,816
Demographic Summary Submarket 1 (Croghan Area) – HISTA Data *:
Senior Data
2000
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
130
171
31.54%
188
9.94%
842
997
18.41%
1,086
8.93%
Total Households:
972
1,168
20.16%
1,274
9.08%
13.37%
14.64%
% of Renters
14.76%
2011 Data:
81.29%
61.99%
8.19%
$40,816
Demographic Summary Submarket 2 (Lowville Area) – HISTA Data *:
Family Data
2000
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
1,007
984
-2.28%
967
-1.73%
2,356
2,310
-1.95%
2,195
-4.98%
Total Households:
3,363
3,294
-2.05%
3,162
-4.01%
29.94%
29.87%
% of Renters
30.58%
2011 Data:
55.89%
38.11%
41.57%
$41,478
Demographic Summary Submarket 2 (Lowville Area) – HISTA Data *:
Senior Data
2000
Total Households:
% of Renters
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
441
518
17.46%
567
9.46%
1,381
1,579
14.34%
1,700
7.66%
1,822
2,097
15.09%
2,267
8.11%
24.20%
24.70%
25.01%
2011 Data:
73.94%
60.04%
8.49%
$41,478
Demographic Summary Submarket 3 (Lyonsdale Area) – HISTA Data
*:Family Data
Total Households:
% of Renters
2000
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
286
265
-7.34%
257
-3.02%
861
835
-3.02%
792
-5.15%
1,147
1,100
-4.10%
1,049
-4.64%
24.93%
24.09%
24.50%
2011 Data:
55.47%
26.79%
41.89%
$41,475
Demographic Summary Submarket 3 (Lyonsdale Area) – HISTA Data *:
Senior Data
2000
2011
%
Change
2016
%
Change
109
132
21.10%
144
9.09%
509
598
17.49%
651
8.86%
Total Households:
618
730
18.12%
795
8.90%
17.64%
18.08%
% of Renters
18.11%
2011 Data:
71.21%
60.61%
9.09%
$41,475
Notes evident by review of the different data sets include:

Population and household growth has occurred in the senior demographic age 55 and above. Between
2000 and 2011, households 55 and above increased by over 18% percent while the general market
under age 62 declined 3.2%. These trends are anticipated to continue where age 55 and above is
expected to increase by almost 9% in the next five years, while the general household pool will
continue to decline.

The ratio of renters is higher for those under ager 62 at over 24%, but seniors reflect a very low ratio
of renter of less than 20%.

The ratio of senior households earning $30,000 a year or less is significantly higher. Over 75% of the
senior households earn $30,000 or less while 55% of the households under age 62 fall into these lower
income categories.

Fairly significant ratio of 1-person household renters under 55; almost 29%. This ratio is higher than
what we see in other markets. This is an indication of the potential need for smaller, 1-2
bedroom rental units.

Median income statistics for the area which are typical for the North Country.

Fairly similar statistics across the separate submarket areas in terms of income, household size, and
age, with some minor variations. The submarket areas are also very similar statistically, to the county
as a whole.
Statistics related to median income and population will be presented on the specific HISTA Data pages,
with additional documentation for 2000 (from that census) and for 2016 in the addendum.
Note that for informational purposes, we present the HISTA Data in detail for the county on the
following pages, not the individual submarkets. Additional HISTA Data and documentation for the individual
submarkets will be pulled into the addendum.
www.ribbondata.com
HOUSEHOLD DATA
© 2011 All rights reserved
Geography ID
36049950100
36049950200
36049950300
36049950400
36049950500
36049950600
36049950700
Average:
Nielsen Claritas
Median Household Income
2011
Census 2000
Estimate
$35,113
$40,705
$34,442
$40,927
$35,131
$40,948
$34,950
$41,493
$33,766
$41,994
$33,211
$42,655
$33,571
$40,295
$34,312
$41,288
2016 Projection
$41,494
$41,818
$41,881
$42,277
$42,882
$43,873
$41,381
$42,229
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
A summarization of competitive supply is outlined on the following pages. Comparable projects will be
presented in detail, followed by a map of Lewis County competitive supply and then an analysis of the local
market conditions. Some aspects of the supply that are important to recognize include:

Because of the consideration for both senior and non-senior specific units, our analysis of affordable
housing will present both.

In regards to affordable housing product we have reviewed tax credit specific developments but since
they are limited, we also reviewed HUD specific deep subsidy developments and housing authority
projects. Most of the developments that we referenced are within the PMA but we have referenced and
analyzed some that fall outside of the boundaries of our market draw area since they do offer similar
development options for one of the product concepts, and are within fairly close proximity.

Because of the limited amount of larger market rate apartment complexes in Lewis County, we have
examined larger market rate projects in Carthage and included them in our analysis. Although they
represent different areas, the complexes in Carthage still represent a rental option for existing Lewis
County residents. An important note to consider is that because of the general lack of market
rate properties within the county, we did also rely fairly heavily on the classifieds.

In addition to the primary comparables, we will also be referencing classifieds in the subject area that
are important to recognize and consider. A total of 90% of the apartment units within the county are
located within smaller properties of 20 units or less (as reviewed by the census data in the addendum),
and of those rental properties with 20 units or less, 20% are mobile homes. This is the reason for the
importance of the classified consideration.
Outlined on the following pages is a summarization of a competitor map. The map separately
demonstrates affordable versus market rate by the color coding; affordable are in green and market rate
are in blue.
Note that when reviewing the supply that there are a few projects where the owners have
historically refused to cooperate with data. We continue to attempt calls and in some cases are
trying to get the data from other sources. Some are important to note, so we did include the data
even though it is dated.
COMPETITOR MAP – MARKET RATE & AFFORDABLE
APARTMENT RENTAL No. 1
Property Name:
Snow Belt Housing
Street Address:
Scattered Sites
City, State:
Lowville, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Family Tax Credit
No. of Units:
9
Year Built:
Various
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Snow Belt Master List = 29 people
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
1 Bedroom
1
60%
1
442
$400
$0.90
2 Bedroom
1
60%
4
1100
$475 - $480
$0.43 - $0.44
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
2
2
60%
60%
1
1
1200
1328
$525
$740
$0.44
$0.56
4 Bedroom
2
50%
2
1462
$500 - $550
$0.34 - $0.38
Amenities:
Utilities:
Rent/Sq. Ft.
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators) and off-street parking. Some units have washer/dryer hook-ups.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Family tax credit properties. Project consists of four sites containing renovated houses; Easton Terrace, Domingo House, Elm Tree and
the Snow Belt Headquarters Building. Currently, this project is fully occupied with a wait list. Tenants pay for electric. Square footages
reflect higher ends in 2-bedroom and 4-bedroom units. Actual square footages range between 735 to 1,100 s.f. in 2-bedroom units
and 1,328 to 1,462 s.f. in 4-bedroom units. Easton Terrace was renovated in 2008. Domingo Project was renovated inside and out
recently. The Headquarters building received new kitchens and bathrooms in 2011.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Gas
Separate Entrance(s)
Heat Included
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Electricity Included
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included Gas
Cold Water Included
Storage
Coin Laundry Facility
Washer/Dryer Hookups
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Cable Included in Rent
Internet Service Included
Elevator
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Pool
Tennis
- Type:
Community Room
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Equipment
AC
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Microwave
Covered:
Verification:
Cheryl Shenkle O'Neill - Snow Belt Housin
Web Site:
http://www.snowbelt.org/rental-properties.html
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
61
Property Name:
Bateman Apartments
Street Address:
7574 South State Street
City, State:
Lowville, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
HUD Sec. 8
No. of Units:
24
Year Built:
1992 (Renovated)
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
1 BD = 2 people, 2 BD = 2 people
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent*
Studio
1
3
550
$406
$0.74
1 Bedroom
1
18
650
$525
$0.81
2 Bedroom
1
3
750
$574
$0.77
AMI
Rent/Sq. Ft.
* Refer to comments section for rent information
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators) vertical blinds and carpeting. On-site laundry, intercom access,
community area. Building has elevator service.
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Project consists of a converted hotel. Currently 100% occupied with a wait list. Property managercurrently states that occupancy has
been at 100% for the last 2 years. Recently, 19 of the units received new carpet, vinyl, vertical blinds and paint scheme. Basic cable
package is available to tenants for $31/month. Municipal parking lot behind building, with ample spaces.
Utility allowance = $24 for all unit types
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Gas
Heat Included
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Drapes/Blinds
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Elevator
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Tennis
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Intercom Access
Equipment
AC
Pool
- Type:
Community Room
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Microwave
Covered:
Verification:
Conifer Realty - Ruth Heckman
Contact Phone:
Web Site:
http://www.coniferliving.com/PropertyPrint.aspx?Id=64
(315) 376-8399
Verified On:
06/05/2012
62
Property Name:
Valley View Court
Street Address:
5590 River Street
City, State:
Lowville, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
80
Year Built:
1979/1985
Occupancy Rate:
94%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Yes, see comments.
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
50
N/A
$520
N/A
1 Bedroom
1
30
N/A
$500
N/A
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators), carpeting, shades, and intercom entrances. On-site laundry and
community room. Building has elevator service. Air-conditioning sleeves are provided, but tenants supply their own units.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Project consists of two-story, garden style buildings that were built in two phases. Phase one is 50 units that receive a HUD subsidy,
and Phase two is 30 units that have state subsidy. Hot water is included in the Phase two units; cold water is included in rent for all
unit types. Tenants consist of a mix of disabled non-elderly, but mostly seniors. Currently, there are 5 vacant units within this project
and there is a small waiitng list. Monthly utility allowance is $60 for the units with hot water and $102 for units without.Currently,
management is in the process of changing over to Snow Belt Properties.
All tenants pay 30% of income for rent. The rent indicated is HUD Fair Market Rent.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Enough for:
Extra Cost:
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Snow Belt Housing - Cheryl Shenkle-O'Nei
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Intercom Entrances
Equipment
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Tennis
Security Features:
Sewer
AC
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/21/2012
Web Site:
63
Property Name:
Lewis Apartments / Lowville Heights
Street Address:
7486 Railroad Street
City, State:
Lowville, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
40
Year Built:
1987
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
6 months
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom, Lewis Apts.
1
8
N/A
$450
N/A
2 Bedroom, Lewis Apts.
1
10
N/A
$470
N/A
1 Bedroom, Lowville Heights
1
1
4
8
N/A
N/A
$393
$373
N/A
N/A
1
10
N/A
$403
N/A
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators), carpeting, patios/balconies, and extra storage.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Lewis Apartments consists of a mix of garden style apartments and townhomes. Lowville Heights consists of a garden style complex.
Tenants at both projects consist of a mix of senior, single-parent households, and some traditional families. As of 2/2008 there are no
vacant units. The wait list is 6 months long. Rents listed are basic rents, tenants pay 30% of their adjusted income. Unable to update
rental info, rents are from 2008.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Leasing Agent
Tennis
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Equipment
AC
Parking Features
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-8416
Verified On:
06/12/2012
Web Site:
64
Property Name:
Mill Creek Apts
Street Address:
5475 & 5497 Water Street
City, State:
Lowville, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Family Tax Credit
No. of Units:
10
Year Built:
2010
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
2 Bedroom
1
50%
5
790
$215 - $350
$0.27 - $0.44
3 Bedroom
1½
50%
5
1123
$400
$0.36
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have stove, refrigerator, carpeting, central a/c and washer/dryer hook-ups.
Off-street parking is available
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Family Tax Credit project. Rehab completed in 2010, and included a complete interior and exterior renovationl. Rents listed are net
tax credit rents. Currently, this project is 100% occupied with a wait list.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Gas
Heat Included
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Type:
central
Stove
Amt:
Elevator
Pool
Tennis
- Type:
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Refrigerator
Disposal
Garage:
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Web Site:
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
65
Property Name:
High Falls Apartments
Street Address:
4061 Cherry Street
City, State:
Lyons Falls, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
12
Year Built:
1988
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Yes, see comments.
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
1 Bedroom
1
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
12
N/A
$476
N/A
Units have stove, refrigerator and carpeting. On-site laundry, lounge, community room, yard and off-street parking.
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: 62 and up Senior specific Rural Development project. Owned by the Lyons Falls Housing Development Fund Company. Currently, they
are 100% occupied with a 12 person wait list (wait list shared with Whitton Place). Rents listed are basic rents, tenants pay based on
30% of their adjusted income. Recent renovations include a new roof, windows, doors and siding. Utility Allownce = $48 for electric.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Gas
Balcony/Patio
Heat Included
Cook Included
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Storage
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Pool
- Type:
Fireplace
Tennis
Community Room
Alarm System
Security Features:
Parking Features
Yes
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Elevator
Rec. Area
Gated entrance:
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Snow Belt Housing - Cheryl Shenkle O-Ne
Web Site:
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
66
Property Name:
Harris Court
Street Address:
14168 Church Street
City, State:
Harrisville, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
20
Year Built:
1980
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Yes, see comments
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
1 Bedroom
1
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
20
600
$627
$1.05
Units have stove, refrigerator and carpeting. Off-street parking, on-site laundry and community room. Lift chairs are available in the
buildings.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Senior Specific Rural Development project for 62 and up. Currently they are 100% occupied,with a wait list of 2 people. Utility
allowances are $69 for the lower apartments and $89 for the upper. Tenants pay based rent based on 30% of their adjusted income.
Picture is from RD website.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Tennis
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Equipment
AC
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Disposal
Dishwasher
Two Plus Four Mgt - Denise
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Garage:
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 543-1040
Verified On:
06/14/2012
Web Site:
67
Property Name:
Whitton Place Apts
Street Address:
7320 East Main Street
City, State:
Port Leyden, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
12
Year Built:
1988
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Yes, see comments.
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
1 Bedroom
1
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
12
N/A
$458
N/A
Units have stove, refrigerator and carpeting. On-site laundry, lounge, community room, yard and off-street parking.
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: 62 and up Senior specific Rural Development project. Owned by the South Lewis Housing Development Fund Company. Currently,
they are 100% with a 12 person wait list (wait list shared with High Falls). Rents listed are basic rents, tenants pay based on 30% of
their adjusted income. Oil heating. Utility Allownce = $49 for electric.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Balcony/Patio
Heat Included
Cook Included
Elevator
Rec. Area
Carpets
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Storage
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Tennis
Community Room
Alarm System
Security Features:
Parking Features
Yes
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Pool
- Type:
Gated entrance:
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Web Site:
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
68
Property Name:
Steeple View Courts
Street Address:
6926 George Street
City, State:
Croghan, NY
Date of Survey:
7/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
20
Year Built:
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Small wait list.
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
1 Bedroom
1
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
20
N/A
$688
N/A
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stove & fridge), storage, carpets, a coin laundry facility, security alarm and a community
room for tenants. Electric heat.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Rural Development project that caters to seniors. Rents reflect basic values; tenants pay rent based on 30% of their gross-adjusted
income.
Utility allowance: $80
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Garage:
Dishwasher
Covered:
Snow Belt Housing - Cheryl Shenkle O'Nei
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Refrigerator
Disposal
Microwave
Verification:
Tennis
Parking Features
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 346-1097
Verified On:
07/20/2012
Web Site:
69
Property Name:
McNeil Park
Street Address:
2449 Stoddard Street
City, State:
Copenhagen, NY
Date of Survey:
2/2008
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
15
Year Built:
Occupancy Rate:
N/A
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
1 Bedroom
1
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
15
N/A
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
N/A
Amenities:
Utilities:
Heat:
Electric:
Comments: Rural Development project that caters to seniors.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Verification:
Property Manager
Pool
Tennis
- Type:
Community Room
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Equipment
AC
Parking Features
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Microwave
Covered:
Contact Phone:
(315) 788-4394
Verified On:
02/14/2008
Web Site:
70
Property Name:
Karcher Country Estates
Street Address:
4892 State Route 410
City, State:
Castorland, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
24
Year Built:
1988
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
No.
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent*
1 Bedroom
1
22
625
$768
$1.23
2 Bedroom
1
2
750
$773
$1.03
1 Bedroom, market
2 Bedroom, market
1
1
N/A
N/A
625
750
$00
$00
$0.00
$0.00
AMI
Rent/Sq. Ft.
* Refer to comments section for rent information
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators) and carpeting. Project offers a lift, secured entry, emergency pull
cords, on-site laundry and a community room.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Rural Development project that caters to seniors 62 and up and disabled of any age. There are no market rate units. Currently, there
are 2 vacancies and no wait list. Monthly utility allowances are $71 for 1-bedroom units and $83 for 2-bedroom units. Currently, there
are 20 seniors 62+ and 2 disabled residents under 62.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Parking Features
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Property Manager - Kathy Manning
Web Site:
http://www.lcida.org/karchers.html
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Emergency Pull Cords, Secured Entry
Equipment
Verification:
Tennis
Security Features:
Sewer
AC
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-6895
Verified On:
05/14/2012
71
Property Name:
600 Brady Acres
Street Address:
South Washington Street
City, State:
Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Public Housing
No. of Units:
100
Year Built:
1963
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Around 40 people
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
24
N/A
$455
N/A
2 Bedroom
1
30
N/A
$535
N/A
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
1
1½
30
14
N/A
N/A
$670
$750
N/A
N/A
5 Bedroom
1½
2
N/A
$750
N/A
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators). Units do not have balconies or patios. On-site playground.
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Landlord Pays
Comments: Walk-up apartment project that is operated by the Wilna Housing Authority. Currently, about 25 units are senior occupied and 15 units
are occupied by military personnel. Rents are based on 30% of the tenant's gross adjusted income. All utilities are included in rent.
Currently, there are around 40 people on the wait list.
As of 4/2008, six units are off-line due to fire damage. After the fire, the building underwent a complete ground-up renovation inside
and out and is operating again.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Balcony/Patio
Heat Included
Cook Included
Elevator
Rec. Area
Carpets
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Alarm System
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Equipment
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Wilna Housing Authority- Kelly
Tennis
Playground
Parking Features
Surface:
AC
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-1480
Verified On:
05/08/2012
Web Site:
72
Property Name:
Carthage Apartments II
Street Address:
333 South Washington Street
City, State:
Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
16
Year Built:
1986
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
2bed = 25 people, 1bed = 13 people
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
6
600
$510
$0.85
2 Bedroom
1
10
800
$645
$0.81
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators) and carpeting. Project offers on-site laundry, off-street parking, and a
playground.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Rural Development family project with income guidelines that is comprised of walk-up apartment buildings. Currently this project is
fully occupied. Waiting list is shared with Washington Court Apartments. At this time, there is one tenant who is a senior. Rents listed
are basic rents; tenants pay rent based on 30% of their gross-adjusted income. Monthly utility allowances are $97 for 1-bedroom
units and $115 for 2-bedroom units. Rent includes cold water.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Equipment
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Dishwasher
Microwave
Web Site:
http://www.2plus4mgt.com
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Garage:
Disposal
Property Manager - Karen
Tennis
Parking Features
Surface:
AC
Verification:
Pool
- Type:
Playground
Community Room
Covered:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-0977
Verified On:
05/03/2012
73
Property Name:
Washington Court Apartments
Street Address:
333 South Washington Street
City, State:
Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Rural Development
No. of Units:
24
Year Built:
1985
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
1bed = 13 people 2bed = 25 people
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
2
600
$524
$0.87
2 Bedroom
1
22
800
$630
$0.79
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators), balconies/patios, carpeting, and window fixtures. Project offers onsite laundry and off-street parking.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Rural Development family project with income guidelines that consists of two-story, walk-up apartment buildings. Rents listed are
base rents; tenants pay rent based on 30% of their gross-adjusted income. Monthly utility allowances are $95 for 1-bedroom units
and $124 for 2-bedroom units. Currently this project is fully occupied. Waiting list is shared with Carthage Apartments II. Currently, 5
tenants are seniors. Landlord pays for cold water.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
Amt:
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Dishwasher
Microwave
Web Site:
http://www.2plus4mgt.com
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Garage:
Disposal
Site Manager - Karen
Tennis
Parking Features
Surface:
AC
Verification:
Pool
- Type:
Community Room
Covered:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-0977
Verified On:
05/03/2012
74
Property Name:
256-260 State Street
Street Address:
256-260 State Street
City, State:
Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Family Tax Credit
No. of Units:
20
Year Built:
Mid-1800's/Rehab 2004
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Very small wait list.
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
10
713
$494
$0.69
2 Bedroom
1
10
809
$599
$0.74
Amenities:
AMI
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators). Some units have additional storage space. Coin-operated laundry
facilities are available on each floor of the buildings. Buildings have elevator service. Landlord pays heat, hot and cold water/sewer.
Tenant pays electric. No utility allowances.
Newly paved parking lot across the street is provided at no additional cost (2005).
Utilities:
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Project consists of a two-story building and a three-story building. These properties were rehabilitated in 2004 to accommodate 20
income-producing apartment units on the second and third floor levels. The ground floor consists of commercial space that can
accommodate 5 to 10 commercial users. Square footages reflect averages; actual are ranges from 680-740 s.f. (1-BR units) and 740900 s.f. (2-BR units). Currently, this project is fully occupied. None of the tenants consist of military personnel. One tenant is a senior.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Tennis
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Equipment
AC
Parking Features
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Pool
- Type:
Leasing Agent - Mike Astafan
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-1790
Verified On:
05/03/2012
Web Site:
75
Property Name:
Village Green Apartments
Street Address:
7697 West State Street
City, State:
Lowville, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Market Rate
No. of Units:
18
Year Built:
1975/Rehab 2008
Occupancy Rate:
94%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
2
600
$750
$1.25
2 Bedroom, Lower Level
1
8
750
$895
$1.19
2 Bedroom, Upper Level
1
8
900
$895
$0.99
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators), dishwashers, patios/balconies, unit A/C, and carpeting. Project offers
on-site laundry and off-street parking.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Project consists of a three-story garden style complex. The project sold in August of 2007 and is under new management. The
property manager indicated that, upon acquisition, new ownership raised rents. Units were gut rehabbed upon turnover. Exterior
rehab began in October of 2007 (new roof/siding/expanding of parking lot) and interior rehab began in January of 2008 (new
kitchens/bathrooms/flooring). Currently, there is one vacant units (currently being rehabbed). Rent includes cold water. Rents reflect
increased values post-rehab. Property manager indicated that seniors who were there before rehab have had their rents
grandfathered in, and so pay less ($695 for 1bed and $725 for 2bed). Currently there are 4 senior tenants. They do accept Section 8.
Currently, no tenants are voucher holders.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
Amt:
Verification:
Property Manager - Allen
Web Site:
http://
AC
Type:
Stove
unit
Refrigerator
Pool
Tennis
- Type:
Community Room
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Parking Features
Surface:
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Microwave
Covered:
Contact Phone:
(315) 376-7142
Verified On:
05/08/2012
76
Property Name:
Willow Landing (Thorn Hill)
Street Address:
Hemlock Drive
City, State:
Lowville, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Market Rate
No. of Units:
56
Year Built:
1986
Occupancy Rate:
98%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
2 Bedroom, Garden-Style
1
24
1040
$935
$0.90
2
8
1365
$1050
$0.77
3 Bedroom, Townhouse
2½
3
12
12
1375
1635
$1110
$1240
$0.81
$0.76
Amenities:
Utilities:
Rent/Sq. Ft.
Units have stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, disposal, patio, carpeting, blinds, washer/dryer hook-ups and separate entrances. Gas
heat with individual hot water tanks. Complex has community, playground, basketball courts and attached one-car garages.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Former 801 project. This project received renovations to the tune of $15,000 per unit and included updated baths, new siding &
roofs. Currently this project is 98% occupied with a vacant 3-bed townhouse. Currently management is not offering any rent
concessions or discounts at this time. Tenant mix is 85% military and 15% civilian. About 6 units are occupied by seniors. They do not
accept Section 8.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
Amt:
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
http://www.willow-landing.com/
Gated entrance:
Yes
Enough for:
Extra Cost:
Covered:
Microwave
Web Site:
Alarm System
Security Features:
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
DC Properties - Joleen
Tennis
Playground &
Basketball
Community Room
Parking Features
Surface:
AC
Verification:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-4026
Verified On:
05/08/2012
77
Property Name:
Forest Hills (Warwick Place)
Street Address:
Emjay Way
City, State:
Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Market Rate
No. of Units:
126
Year Built:
1986
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1
52
1040
$1020
$0.98
2
48
1365
$1115
$0.82
2½
3
13
13
1445
1635
$1225
$1350
$0.85
$0.83
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, disposal, patio, carpeting, blinds, washer/dryer hook-ups and separate entrances. Gas
heat with individual hot water tanks. Complex has community, playground, basketball courts and attached one-car garages.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: This was a Section 801 Housing Project for the military formerly known as Warwick Place. This project received renovations to the
tune of $15,000 per unit and included updated baths, new siding & roofs. Currently there are no vacant units. Tenant ratio is 85%
military and 15% civilian. Currently, there are not many seniors. Currently, about 2 units are senior occupied. They do not accept
Section 8 vouchers.
Located approximately 8 miles from Fort Drum and within the Carthage Central School District.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Security Features:
Refrigerator
Disposal
Garage:
Dishwasher
Covered:
Verification:
DC Properties - Joleen
http://www.forest-hills-apts.com/
Yes
Enough for:
Extra Cost:
Microwave
Web Site:
Tennis
Playground &
Basketball
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Parking Features
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-4026
Verified On:
05/08/2012
78
Property Name:
1887 Apartments
Street Address:
301 State Street
City, State:
Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Market Rate
No. of Units:
13
Year Built:
1887/Rehab 2010
Occupancy Rate:
85%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
1 Bedroom
1
Amenities:
Utilities:
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
13
650
$775
$1.19
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refridgerators), carpets, elevator, intercom access, laundry room and off-street
parking. Tenant pays utilities. Some units have window blinds.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Four story luxury apartment complex consisting of recently renovated units in a historic building. Renovated in 2010, first move in was
before completion. Currently 85% occupied with 2 vacancies. About 80% of tenants are military personnel. They do not accept
Section 8.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Tennis
Intercom Access
Equipment
AC
Pool
- Type:
Enough for:
Extra Cost:
Refrigerator
Disposal
Garage:
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Tom Bennett
Contact Phone:
Web Site:
http://www.watertown4rent.com/1887appartments.html
(315) 681-8658
Verified On:
06/12/2012
79
Property Name:
Deer River Estates
Street Address:
700 Phalen Drive
City, State:
Copenhagen, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Market Rate
No. of Units:
75
Year Built:
Occupancy Rate:
97%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
2 Bedroom
1
38
1002
$867
$0.87
1½
37
1034
$969
$0.94
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stove, fridge), dishwasher, garbage disposal, balconies/patios, garages, carpeting, washer
and dryer hookups, storage, tennis and basketball courts, tot lot, on-site management and a community center.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Complex consists of garden and townhouse style 2 bedroom apartments. Garages are available for each unit, Townhouses have
attached garages. Currently this property is 97% occupied, with 1 vacancy in the Garden units and 1 vacancy in the Townhomes.
Management is not offering rent concessions at this time. They do not accept Section 8.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Pool
Tennis
- Type:
See Amenities
Community Room
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Equipment
Amt:
AC
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Enough for: Some
Extra Cost: No
Garage:
Yes
Enough for: All
Disposal
Extra Cost: No
Dishwasher
Microwave
Covered:
Verification:
Leasing Agent - April
Contact Phone:
Web Site:
http://www.lukproperties.com/deer_apartmentfeatures.asptp://
(315) 688-4245
Verified On:
06/14/2012
80
Property Name:
Long Falls Apartments
Street Address:
222 State Street
City, State:
Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Public Housing - Senior
No. of Units:
100
Year Built:
1960
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
6 month wait
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
1 Bedroom
1
Amenities:
Utilities:
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
100
N/A
$426
N/A
Senior public housing project. Midrise 11 story building with community room, laundry room, elevator service, intercom entry. Units
have standard kitchen appliances (stoves and refrigerators), emergency pull cords, carpets and blinds. A shuttle is available for
tenants.
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Landlord Pays
Comments: Currently this property is 100% occupied with a 6 month wait list.
Rents listed are contract rents, tenant pays 30% of their adjusted gross income.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Garage:
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Wilna Housing Authority - Kelly
Web Site:
http://
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Refrigerator
Disposal
Verification:
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Tennis
Intercom Entry, Emergency Pull cords
Equipment
AC
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-3030
Verified On:
06/04/2012
81
Property Name:
Whispering Woods Apartments
Street Address:
21246 Oxford Street
City, State:
Wilna, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Market Rate
No. of Units:
44
Year Built:
1968
Occupancy Rate:
98%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
2 Bedroom
1
Amenities:
Utilities:
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
44
700
$725
$1.04
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stoves & refrigerators), disposals, dishwashers and carpets. Upper floor units have balconies.
Project offers on-site laundry and off-street parking.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Currently this project is 98% occupied with one vacant unit and 5 people on the wait list. Approximately 75-80% of tenants consist of
military personnel, and 10% are seniors. This project consists of four, three-story garden style apartment buildings. The balanced
monthly electric bill per unit ranges between $50 and $80 per month (summer months). Tenants pay for heat (electric), electric, and
cooking. Landlord pays for hot/cold water.
They do accept Section 8, agent did not know number of vouchers but said it was only a few.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Balcony/Patio
Heat Included
Cook Included
Elevator
Rec. Area
Carpets
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Leasing Agent - Nancy
Gated entrance:
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Tennis
Community Room
Alarm System
Security Features:
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-3351
Verified On:
06/04/2012
Web Site:
82
Property Name:
Sedgewick Pines Apartments
Street Address:
Tamarack Drive
City, State:
West Carthage, NY
Date of Survey:
5/2012
Type of Project:
Market Rate
No. of Units:
122
Year Built:
1987
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1
68
1040
$1020
$0.98
2
36
1365
$1115
$0.82
2½
3
N/A
18
1445
1635
$1225
$1350
$0.85
$0.83
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, disposal, patio, carpeting, blinds, washer/dryer hook-ups and separate entrances.
Complex has community, playgroound, basketball courts and garages.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: This was a Section 801 Housing Project for the military. This project received renovations to the tune of $15,000 per unit and
included updated baths, new siding & roofs. Currently the property has no openings. Approximately 80% of tenants are still military
personnel, 3% are senior. They do not accept Section 8.
Located approximately 5 miles from Fort Drum and within the Carthage Central School District. Square footages are approximate.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
http://sedgewickpines.com/
Enough for: All
Covered:
Microwave
Web Site:
Gated entrance:
Garage:
Yes
Enough for:
Extra Cost: No
Dishwasher
DC Properties - Danielle
Alarm System
Security Features:
Extra Cost: No
Refrigerator
Disposal
Verification:
Tennis
Playground &
Basketball
Community Room
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Pool
- Type:
Contact Phone:
(315) 493-4026
Verified On:
05/31/2012
83
Property Name:
Sunburst
Street Address:
Main Street
City, State:
Copenhagen, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Family Tax Credit
No. of Units:
2
Year Built:
1987
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
3 Bedroom
1
60%
2
1352
$525
$0.39
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stove & refridgerator), carpeting, storage, yard and off-street parking.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Snow Belt Housing. Oil heating. This is a Snowbelt Property that does not receive any project-based subsidy. Rent qualifications are
set at 50% AMI by Snowbelt. Currently, this property is 100% occupied with a wait list.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Equipment
Pool
Tennis
- Type:
Community Room
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
AC
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Microwave
Covered:
Verification:
Cheryl Shenkle-O'Neill - Snow Belt
Contact Phone:
Web Site:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
84
Property Name:
Beaver Lodge
Street Address:
Cut-Off Road
City, State:
Beaver Falls, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Family Tax Credit
No. of Units:
2
Year Built:
2008
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
3 Bedroom
1
60%
2
1100
$500 - $525
$0.45 - $0.48
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have standard kitchen applianes (stove and refridgerator), storage, yard and off-street parking.
Heat:
Tenant Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Snow Belt Housing 2008 Rehab. Rents listed are tax credit rents.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Carpets
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Storage
Washer/Dryer Units
Amt:
Pool
Tennis
- Type:
Community Room
Alarm System
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Sewer
Equipment
AC
Parking Features
Surface:
Yes
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Type:
Stove
Refrigerator
Garage:
Disposal
Dishwasher
Microwave
Covered:
Verification:
Contact Phone:
Web Site:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
85
Property Name:
Pinecrest Manor
Street Address:
Cataract Street
City, State:
Copenhagen, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Family Tax Credit
No. of Units:
4
Year Built:
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
50%
2
959
$450 - $530
$0.47 - $0.55
2 Bedroom
1
50%
2
959
$350 - $611
$0.36 - $0.64
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units have standard kitchen appliances (stove and fridge), carpeting, yard and off-street parking. Rent includes heat.
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Snow Belt Housing. Tenants pay between 30-50% of their adjusted income, rents based on Housing Trust Fund requirements, and
cannot exceed 80% AMI.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Balcony/Patio
Heat Included
Cook Included
Elevator
Rec. Area
Carpets
Fireplace
Drapes/Blinds
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Tennis
Community Room
Alarm System
Security Features:
Parking Features
Yes
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Pool
- Type:
Gated entrance:
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Refrigerator
Disposal
Garage:
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Contact Phone:
Web Site:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
86
Property Name:
Center Street
Street Address:
Center Street
City, State:
Lyons Falls, NY
Date of Survey:
6/2012
Type of Project:
Family Tax Credit
No. of Units:
5
Year Built:
Occupancy Rate:
100%
Rent Concessions:
No
Cond. Rating:
Waiting List:
Rental Data
Unit Type
Baths
AMI
No. of Units
Sq. Ft.
Current Rent
Rent/Sq. Ft.
1 Bedroom
1
60%
2
482
$412
$0.85
1 Bedroom
1
50%
2
966
$450
$0.47
2 Bedroom
2
60%
1
1100
$425
$0.39
Amenities:
Utilities:
Units include standard kitchen appliances (stove and fridge), storage and off-street parking.
Heat:
Landlord Pays
Electric:
Tenant Pays
Comments: Snow Belt Housing. Oil heat. Currently, this property is 100% occupied, with a wait list. Market rate complex that receives no projectbased subsidy, with income qualifications set at 50% AMI by Snowbelt.
Apartment Features
Utilities
Other Features
Heat Included
Elevator
Balcony/Patio
Cook Included
Rec. Area
Carpets
Drapes/Blinds
Fireplace
Alarm System
Storage
Hot Water Included
Cold Water Included
Sewer
Washer/Dryer Units
Equipment
AC
Tennis
Community Room
Gated entrance:
Security Features:
Parking Features
Yes
Surface:
Type:
Stove
Amt:
Pool
- Type:
Enough for: All
Extra Cost: No
Garage:
Refrigerator
Disposal
Dishwasher
Covered:
Microwave
Verification:
Contact Phone:
Web Site:
(315) 376-2639
Verified On:
06/06/2012
87
MARKET ANALYSIS/COMPETITIVE SUPPLY
Reviewed below is a summarization of the various unit types reflecting market rents that would apply
for the project based on review of area facilities. The market rents are followed by rent limits based on the area
median income. The averages account for only the unit types impacting the pending development of the
subject.
Rent Analysis*
Unit Type
1 BRM – Market Averages (Incld. Carthage)
1 BRM – Classifieds
1 BRM –Tax Credit (50%/60%)
1 BRM – Lewis County Market
2 BRM –Tax Credit (50%/60%)
3 BRM - Market Averages (Incld. Carthage)
3 BRM – Tax Credit (50%/60%)
4 BRM – Tax Credit (50%/60%)
Avg. Rent
$872
$576
Avg. Sq.Ft.
625
N/A
$641/$751
$633
700
700
$1045
$828
938
N/A
$771/$899
$895
850
850
$1,290
$1,375
1,393
N/A
$890/$1,038
$1,362
1,000
1,000
$1,483
$1,295
1,635
N/A
$996/$1,161
$1,333
1,200
1,200
Rent/Sq.Ft.
$1.40
N/A
$0.92/$1.07
$0.90
$1.11
N/A
$0.91/$1.06
$1.05
$0.93
N/A
$0.89/$1.04
$1.36
$0.91
N/A
$0.83/$0.97
$1.11
*We have referenced gross rent thresholds for comparative purposes, for all averages listed in the above chart. The actual utility
structure of any proposed development has yet to be determined.
Additional comments pertaining to the previous chart include:

Because of the lack of large market rate apartment complexes in Lewis County, the market averages
listed on the top lines include averages from the Jefferson County Villages of Carthage, West Carthage
and Town of Wilna, as these may still represent options for Lewis County residents and provide an
understanding and overview of the market for large apartment complexes, though incomplete.

Classified averages are from Lewis County area apartments only.

To determine Lewis County Market Averages listed on the bottom of the chart, only those large
apartment complexes located within Lewis County were used, along with the Lewis County classifieds,
to determine a better picture of market averages within just Lewis County itself.

The maximum tax credit rents are equal to or higher than the county market averages for 1
and 2 bedrooms and lower than the county averages for the 3 and 4 bedrooms.

3 and 4 bedroom units appear to have similar market values in Lewis County.

With the exception of 3 bedroom units, the Lewis County market orientated rents are below market
averages post adjustment, most likely because of the influence of higher priced rents factored into
market averages.

In regards to the subject rents, we are anticipating that the tenants may end up being responsible for
payment of heat and/or electric, but we are analyzing all rents on a gross basis, since we were not
provided specific utility allocations. Even if we were, for consistency we would still analyze all rents on a
gross analysis.
Planned and Proposed
In regards to planned or proposed development, there is a planned Supportive Housing Facility to be
developed in Lowville, scheduled to be completed by Fall 2013. This project will rehabilitate the old county jail
on 7514 South State Street, and create 8 units of supportive housing. There has also been some privately
developed new market rate single family/duplex housing within the county. There are no planned or proposed
affordable housing projects within the county, and the most recent affordable development has been Snow Belt
Housing’s units on Water Street.
Rent Summary:
Outlined on the following page is a summary of the rental data for the market rate projects previously
presented. The summary depicts averages based on adjustments for utilities only, not quality or condition of
buildings and units.
We have used utility adjustments reflecting total for heat and electric based on information available
from the region. Our averages total:
One-bedroom Units:
Two-bedroom Units:
Three-bedroom Units:
Four-bedroom Units:
$110
$130
$150
$170
for
for
for
for
heat
heat
heat
heat
and
and
and
and
electric
electric
electric
electric
These utility adjustments reflect levels that might be slightly higher than the projections for any
intended development. We need to compare and contrast varying styles of apartments, ages of development,
and efficiencies and these averages are fairly reflective of what might be expected for comparison of either
older or newer developments.
Vacancy/Occupancy:

Our survey indicates that the average occupancy and conversely vacancy at market rate developments
and affordable/subsidized developments reflects a relatively stable market, though it is apparent that
the market for affordable is much stronger. The following was evident (stable/complete projects):
Average Market Rate Occupancy:
Average Occupancy Affordable Units:
Market Occupancy Average:
97%
100%
98%

In addition to the sound occupancy, review of the affordable subsidized developments indicates that
there are significant waiting lists at each of the projects in the area.

Age and condition do not seem to have a significant impact on occupancy rates for any of the
developments referenced. This is not indicative of a lack of preference from tenants; rather it is
because of the limited supply of rental options available.

Also, concessions are not being offered at any of the developments that we have referenced.
Classifieds
Given that 90% of renters in Lewis County reside in small complexes with less than 20
units, including single family detached rental units and rented mobile homes, we did feel that it was
critically important to reference area classifieds in order to obtain an understanding of the majority of units that
compete and should ultimately be considered as part of the supply. The data outlined in the chart on the
following page was obtained from various websites and public informational sources that are available and also
via direct contract and calls to area operators.
Achievable Market Rents:
Based on the market rate rent summary and rent analysis chart presented early, below is a
summarization of the achievable market rent as it compares to an affordable project. In the Supply section, we
will provide some additional details and support. We have compared and contrasted market averages and also
primary comparables within the area.
A summary of some of the conclusions are outlined below and again we refer the reader to Supply
section for additional details.
Some notes include:

Generally we use the same comparables for application of the subject’s senior units as we did for
application to the subject family units, even though there were no senior-specific market rate units.

The achievable rent conclusions should be compared with the unrestricted market rate units and the
rents being charged for those apartments. In other words, none of the data here specifically applies to
the affordable nature of a portion of the subject project, the goal of the achievable rent analysis is to
demonstrate support for the units based on achievable market rents, and compare/contrast these to the
intended subject rents.

In regards to identifying the most similar of comparable projects, we again present a mix of the
more typical product type within Lewis County and eastern Jefferson County area.

In terms of the 1 and 2 bedroom units, any new affordable units will compete well with the
existing area market rate developments. Despite similarities in County market rents to 50% / 60% AMI
rents, the need for affordable housing is great, and the quality and physical characteristics of a new
development will attract tenants whose only other option may be an older, poor quality, market rate
unit in need of weatherization.

In terms of the 3 and 4 bedroom units, clear advantages for the 50% / 60% AMI units associated
with the subject development.
Conclusions
Based on the need for affordable housing by the existence of wait lists, and the poor condition of many
of the market rate units available, it is clear that any new affordable development will be an option to area
renters, and that tax credit rents will be at or below market support and at or below achievable market rent.
We will adopt and apply tax credit maximum thresholds for application to this preliminary analysis.
Critical notes include:

We recognize that the tax credit maximums in many cases are above classifieds and local comparables.
However, from a demand perspective, we wanted to try to demonstrate whether or not the maximums
are supported. If so, then it could be argued that the condition rating of the existing units in and
around the subject area may offset any issues with attempting to achieve tax credit maximum
thresholds.

From a demand perspective, the ability to generate rents towards the tax credit maximum thresholds
depends on how the units are broken out. In other words, if Project Based Assistance is secured, then it
expands the ability to achieve higher tax credit rents for a smaller number of units; less influence on
demand and less need to absorb units in the market.

The lack of supply is critical to consider; the condition rating of existing multi-family housing, coupled
with the lack of market rate developments indicates that there could be a threshold for a certain
number of units that approach tax credit levels as or towards the maximum thresholds.
Affordable Projects:
In regards to affordable units, we have referenced a variety of projects including:

Senior specific Rural Developments.

Family tax credit developments.

Family specific Rural Development

Deep subsidy HUD project based units.

Public Housing.
One important note related to affordable housing here is associated with how we have labeled and
identified the developments. Some for our purposes have been identified within the Supply section as tax credit
developments. We fully recognize that the funding sources used may not specifically include Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, but rather other funding like Housing Trust Fund or HOME Dollars that requires AMI
thresholds at levels consistent with tax credit projects. This is why we have identified them as tax credit. We
fully recognize that tax credits may not have been issued, but rather our analysis and labeling of these projects
is more acclimated to the income qualification thresholds, rather than the program that was used to create
feasibility.
Also in conjunction with the above, when we reference deep subsidy or Rural Development, we are
generally identifying projects where the rents paid by the tenants will be based on 30% of their adjusted gross
income. This type of scenario applies to senior or family developments that are either HUD project based, Rural
Development, Public Housing, or other forms of deep subsidy.
basis.
In all cases, the projects had been supported by the local market, and are well occupied on a consistent
A summary of the developments is outlined below followed then by a brief analysis and additional
information that is important to consider.
Notes related to this data include:
Occupancy:
With the exception of senior specific Valley View Court, all the affordable projects that we referenced
stated that they were fully occupied (100%).
Waiting Lists:
Waiting lists are significant at most of the developments referenced, including Valley View Court.
Concessions:
Not Applicable.
Tax Credit Rents:
For the projects that have income qualifications similar to tax credit rents (50% and 60% of AMI,) most
did not achieve the maximum levels for the county.
Tax Credit Analysis – Most Applicable Tax Credit Rents:
The previous chart demonstrates that the TC max levels are not supported, but may still be achievable
from a tax credit analysis. The data here does not go through a detailed adjustment analysis; rather, the goal is
to demonstrate what level of tax credit rents are supported at other projects in Lewis County.
General Conclusions – Affordable Housing:
Regarding affordable housing within Lewis County, the critical variables to recognize include:

We have used achievable rents reflective of tax credit maximum thresholds. This will require further
evaluation as the project progresses to a firm development strategy, but for now our goal was to
attempt to identify demand based on the maximum allowable thresholds. It will also depend on whether
or not Project Based Assistance can be secured, how many development units are constructed, and
where they are built.

Well maintained and kept affordable housing developments achieve high occupancy thresholds on a
consistent basis with waiting lists.

Limited new construction evident with the exception of the Mill Creek Apartments built in 2010.

No known planned or proposed units that will significantly influence any of the analysis.
Absorption:
The summarization of lease-up and absorption for the proposed various development options are
outlined below. Generally it is felt that the patterns for absorption would be more expeditious for a family
project than they will be for the senior development. This results because of the following:

Unit mix that applies to a family project.

The need for seniors to sell homes prior to relocating to an affordable project of this nature.
There are some assumptions that are similar to both analyses including:

Pre-marketing where about 20% to 30% of the units will be committed to prior to completion of the
project.

In order to achieve the above, the clubhouse should be developed initially, and marketing must begin
prior to Certificate of Occupancy being obtained for all buildings.

As a multi-building development, lease-up can begin well before completion of all units, which should
assist in the marketing efforts.
The chart below demonstrates absorption thresholds that we have reviewed within nearby Jefferson
County. We would expect absorption for the development in question to range from about four to six units
per month depending on the rents, location and a wide variety of other variables.
DEMAND / CAPTURE ANALYSIS
Capture Analysis / Demand Model
Outlined on the following pages are some of the assumptions that are typical of a HCR Demand
Model/Capture Analysis for an affordable project of this nature. We have based our assumptions on preliminary
data, which we understand could change dramatically. We did apply typical variables, many of which were
outlined and summarized below. Obviously, as the project advances, we would have to evaluate and reevaluate the variables that we apply.
Throughout our description of the Demand Model, we will concentrate on the demand
analysis and the actual recommended unit mix and rent structure that we are presenting.
Subsequent to presentation of this scenario, which we do deem to be favorable and supportive, we
will discuss the limitations of developing within the specific submarkets we have portrayed within
the county.
There are four different and distinct demand models that we have analyzed in this case based on the
scenarios presented. These scenarios are applicable to the market area comprised of the entire county. These
scenarios are:
Scenario 1:
Family project of 180 units assuming a mix of tax credit and PBA
(Project Based) Apartments.
Scenario 2:
Family project of 84 units assuming a mix of tax credit only (no PBA).
Scenario 3:
Senior project of 60 units assuming a mix of tax credit and PBA
Apartments.
Scenario 4:
Senior project of 38 units assuming a mix of tax credit only (no PBA).
In addition, we have taken the family demand scenarios one step further by dividing them up between
the three submarkets to determine if any submarket stands alone in terms of support. These scenarios are
found within in the addendum and are as follows:
Scenario 1a:
Apartments in submarket area 1 (Croghan Area).
Scenario 2a:
Family project of 100 units assuming a mix of tax credit and
PBA Apartments in submarket area 2 (Lowville/Copenhagen
Area).
Scenario 3a:
Apartments in submarket area 3 (Lyonsdale Area).
Some of the analysis and variables will be consistent but others require separate consideration. Outlined
below are some of the key notes applicable to the demand models:
Age Qualification:
Senior: Tax credit regulations allow for an inclusion of age 55 and
above.
Family: We eliminated all households aged 62 and above, since they do
not typically choose family projects of this nature. They are not
precluded from occupancy, but they are not the most typical or
predominate occupant, thus for analysis, review and establishing
project support, it is not appropriate to consider age qualified
households.
Income Qualification:
We applied typical HCR/other agency underwriting criteria for
application to the analysis. The low end affordability thresholds are
based on 48% of the gross rent, while the maximum allowable is based
on 30% of the gross rent to be charged, not the tax credit maximum
standards. This applies to all scenarios presented.
Income qualification is the primary reason why we are recommending
the different scenarios. The income qualification is severely limited
when analyzing one large encompassing project either as a family or a
senior specific development, and providing multiple scenarios allows us
to increase the potential tenant pool and provide a larger support for
demand. Also it is important to recognize that one rent tier would not
suffice from a tax credit perspective regardless of the scenario we are
analyzing; demand/support for either senior or family project as a tax
credit stand alone would not be a viable development approach; rather
multiple rent tiers for multiple unit types are requirements.
For the project based units, there is no low end affordability as the
units will be subsidized up to the appropriate rent threshold with
tenants paying rents based on 30% of their adjusted gross income.
The maximum allowable income will be set based on household size
contribution under the Federal standards at the 50% AMI level. These
apply only to the affordable analysis.
Income Qualification
Analysis:
Household Size:
For the affordable units, we have undertaken two steps in the income
qualification process. The first accounts for all households earning from
zero up to the maximum allowable. This step is necessary in order to
properly account for all subsidized or affordable units in the
marketplace including deep subsidy HUD developments. Subsequent to
eliminating the existing competition, we will apply the income bands
set by the rent levels anticipated in order to equate to an income
qualified ratio of the households that fall within the specific band
achievable.
The household sizes are based on the unit types in question, and the
allowances under tax credit regulations. We have applied the following
household size contributions:
Family Units:
1 BRM Units: Only/two one person households
2 BRM Units: Two/three person households
3 BRM Units: Three/four person households
Tax credit regulations actually allow for up to four persons within a
two-bedroom unit, and up to six persons in the three-bedroom units.
Four person households are not typical in two-bedroom units and, the
majority of three-bedroom apartments are not occupied by larger
families with more than four households.
Senior Units:
1 BRM Units: One person households only.
2 BRM Units:
Two person households only.
These thresholds apply based on HCR underwriting criteria and
guidelines.
Project Elimination:
One of the key aspects of the demand modeling for HCR underwriting
purposes is elimination of existing and planned competition. This is
important, since a net demand model is necessary in order to show the
lack of impact on existing affordable projects by development of a new
tax credit specific facility. We have applied the project elimination by
unit type, and stripped out all affordable housing that falls specifically
within the boundaries of the market area; tax credit as well as deep
subsidy projects such as HUD, Rural Development and other types of
multi-family development. Only non age restricted developments that
fall within the specific PMA have been eliminated.
We have eliminated units separately for the senior apartments versus
the family apartments and applied only directly comparable projects;
meaning that only senior units were eliminated for the senior analysis,
etc. No elimination is necessary for the market orientated units.
The Demand Model
The different demand models are presented on the following pages with income qualification threshold
data retained in file.
Scenarios/Capture Rates
Scenario
Type/Units
1.
2.
Family with no PBA – 84 units
3.
Senior with PBA – 60 units
4.
Senior with no PBA – 38 units
1a. Croghan Area submarket Family with PBA – 40 units
2a. Lowville Area submarket
3a. Lyonsdale Area submarket Family with PBA – 40 units
Capture Rate
8.40%
9.02%
9.47%
12.54%
9.08%
8.55%
12.79%
Notes on the previous chart include:

Of the two different Family options (Scenarios 1. & 2.), tax credit alone or tax credit with PBA units,
only one option could be developed.

Of the two different Senior options (Scenarios 3. & 4.), tax credit alone or tax credit with PBA units,
only one option could be developed.

The developments in the submarket areas are not in addition to what is presented in
Scenarios 1. & 2.; rather it splits up what is presented in Scenario 1.

If dividing the county into submarket areas, there is not enough support in the Lyonsdale

There is not enough support to split up the senior development, and therefore any senior
development must occur on one site, using the whole county as a market draw area.
market area (Scenario 3a.) for a project of any family type according to standard HCR guidelines.
There is also a general lack of support services within this area, and lack of an adequate development
site. Therefore, it is recommended that the 40 units from this area be added to the Lowville
submarket area, increasing the number of units within the Lowville area from 100 to 140. We have
found 140 units are supportable when considering both submarket areas 2 and 3 together, and the
capture rate is lower (6.48%) than for the Lyonsdale submarket area alone. However, the 140 units
should be built within the Lowville submarket, as that region is ideal for development and has access
to adequate support services.
DEMAND / CAPTURE ANALYSIS- SCENARIO ONE: COUNTY FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND / CAPTURE ANALYSIS- SCENARIO ONE: COUNTY FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO TWO: COUNTY FAMILY NO PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO TWO: COUNTY FAMILY NO PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO THREE: SENIOR WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO FOUR: SENIOR NO PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 1a: AREA ONE FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 1a: AREA ONE FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 2a: AREA TWO FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 2a: AREA TWO FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 3a: AREA THREE FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS – SCENARIO 3a: AREA THREE FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS –AREAS TWO & THREE FAMILY WITH PBA
DEMAND/CAPTURE ANALYSIS –AREAS TWO & THREE FAMILY WITH PBA

Part I - Development Authority of the North Country

Transcription

Similar documents

DABCO Property Management

15 - The Seneca County Area Shopper

2 bedroom house to rent in Port Alfred

15 - The Seneca County Area Shopper

Studio, Boezemstraat in Rotterdam (Crooswijk)

15,000 property listings for sale or rent all under one virtual roof

By Eric Overmyer - Princeton University

June 2014 - Troup County Board of Realtors

Coachlite September Newsletter - Stevens Homes and Communities

Moving Checklist - Choose your Merchandiser edition