analysis of the market for the phase ib senior at the … › businesspartners ›...

ANALYSIS OF THE MARKET FOR THE PHASE IB AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL SITE CHURCH HILL NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD 1611 North 31st Street Richmond, Virginia 23223

Prepared for The Community Builders, Inc. (TCB)

Effective Date: September 18, 2015

REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. 63 Chestnut Road, Suite 6

Paoli, PA 19301 610‐240‐0820

www.resadvisors.com

NCHMA MEMBER CERTIFICATION

This market study has been prepared by REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC., a member in good standing of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA). This study has been prepared in conformance with the standards adopted by NCHMA for the market analysts’ industry. These standards include the Standard Definitions of Key Terms Used in Market Studies, and Model Content Standards for the Content of Market Studies. These Standards are designed to enhance the quality of market studies and to make them easier to prepare, understand, and use by market analysts and by the end users. These Standards are voluntary only, and no legal responsibility regarding their use is assumed by the National Council of Housing Market Analysts. REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. is duly qualified and experienced in providing market analysis for Affordable Housing. The company’s principals participate in the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) educational and information sharing programs to maintain the highest professional standards and state-of-the-art knowledge. REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. is an independent market analyst. No principal or employee of REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. has any financial interest whatsoever in the development for which this analysis has been undertaken. (NOTE: Information on the National Council of Housing Market Analysts may be obtained by calling 202-939-1750, or by visiting www.housingonline.com)

NCHMA Market Study Index

Introduction: Members of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts provide the following

checklist referencing various components necessary to conduct a comprehensive market study for rental

housing. By completing the following checklist, the NCHMA Analyst certifies that he or she has

performed all necessary work to support the conclusions included within the comprehensive market

study. By completion of this checklist, the analyst asserts that he/she has completed all required items

per section.

Page Number(s)

Executive Summary

1 Executive Summary i ‐ iv

Scope of Work

2 Scope of Work i

Project Description

3 Unit mix including bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, rents, and income targeting 3

4 Utilities (and utility sources) included in rent 3

5 Target market/population description 2

6 Project description including unit features and community amenities 1 ‐ 4

7 Date of construction/preliminary completion 3 ‐ 4

8 If rehabilitation, scope of work, existing rents, and existing vacancies N/A

Location

9 Concise description of the site and adjacent parcels 6 ‐ 8

10 Site photos/maps 7 ‐ 8

11 Map of community services 11

12 Site evaluation/neighborhood including visibility, accessibility, and crime 6 ‐ 15

Market Area

13 PMA description 5 ‐ 6

14 PMA Map 5

Employment and Economy

15 At‐Place employment trends 16 ‐22

16 Employment by sector 16 ‐ 17

17 Unemployment rates 17 ‐ 18

18 Area major employers/employment centers and proximity to site 18 ‐ 19

19 Recent or planned employment expansions/reductions 19 ‐ 20

Demographic Characteristics

20 Population and household estimates and projections 23

21 Area building permits 29

22 Population and household characteristics including income, tenure, and size 24 ‐ 29

23 For senior or special needs projects, provide data specific to target market 26, 28 ‐ 29

Competitive Environment

24 Comparable property profiles and photos 32 ‐ 46

25 Map of comparable properties 35, 40, 44

26 Existing rental housing evaluation including vacancy and rents 31 ‐ 48

27 Comparison of subject property to comparable properties 45 ‐ 46

28 Discussion of availability and cost of other affordable housing options including homeownership, if applicable

38 ‐ 45, 48

29 Rental communities under construction, approved, or proposed 31 ‐ 32

30 For senior or special needs populations, provide data specific to target market 38 ‐ 41

Affordability, Demand, and Penetration Rate Analysis

31 Estimate of demand 49 ‐ 52

32 Affordability analysis with capture rate 49 ‐ 53

33 Penetration rate analysis with capture rate 52

Analysis/Conclusions

34 Absorption rate and estimated stabilized occupancy for subject 50 ‐ 52

35 Evaluation of proposed rent levels including estimate of market/achievable rents. 53

36 Precise statement of key conclusions ii ‐ iv

37 Market strengths and weaknesses impacting project ii ‐ iv

38 Product recommendations and/or suggested modifications to subject iii

39 Discussion of subject property's impact on existing housing 48

40 Discussion of risks or other mitigating circumstances impacting subject 53 ‐ 54

41 Interviews with area housing stakeholders 55

Other Requirements

42 Certifications 59

43 Statement of qualifications 56 ‐ 58

44 Sources of data not otherwise identified N/A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i

A. Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 1

Proposed Number of Units ..................................................................................................................... 2

Utility Configuration ............................................................................................................................... 3

Unit and Common Area Amenities ......................................................................................................... 3

Developer’s Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 3

B. Location and Market Area Definition ................................................................................................... 5

Primary Market Area Definition ............................................................................................................. 5

Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................. 6

Neighborhood Description ..................................................................................................................... 9

C. Employment and Economy .................................................................................................................. 16

Employment by Industry Sector ........................................................................................................... 16

Historical Unemployment .................................................................................................................... 17

Major Employers .................................................................................................................................. 18

Employment Growth ............................................................................................................................ 19

Typical Wages by Occupation ............................................................................................................... 20

Commuting Patterns for Workers ........................................................................................................ 21

D. Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 23

Population and Households ................................................................................................................ 23

Characteristics of the Population ......................................................................................................... 24

Households by Household Size – All Households ................................................................................. 25

Households by Household Size – Senior Households ........................................................................... 26

PMA Households by Tenure ................................................................................................................. 26

PMA Households by Income ................................................................................................................ 27

PMA Senior Households 62+ by Income and Tenure ........................................................................... 28

Residential Building Permits ................................................................................................................. 29

Demographic Trends ............................................................................................................................ 30

E. Competitive Environment ................................................................................................................... 31

Housing Stock in the Region and PMA ................................................................................................. 31

Comparable Market‐Rate Properties ................................................................................................... 32

Affordable Housing .............................................................................................................................. 38

Evaluation of the Subject Property; Most Comparable Properties ...................................................... 45

Rental Market Size ................................................................................................................................ 47

Summary of Vacancy Rates in the Market by Population Served ........................................................ 47

Impact on Existing Rental Housing Stock ............................................................................................. 48

Availability and Cost of Other Affordable Housing Options ................................................................. 48

F. Analysis/Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 49 Analysis of Income Levels of Potential Tenants ................................................................................... 49

Market Penetration .............................................................................................................................. 52

Market Rent and Achievable Rent ........................................................................................................ 53

Risks ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

G. Local Perspective of Rental Housing Market and Housing Alternatives ............................................ 55 Interviews with Local Officials .............................................................................................................. 55

Interviews with Local Housing Authority Officials ................................................................................ 55

H. Other Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 56 Limitations of the Engagement ............................................................................................................ 56

Qualifications of RES ............................................................................................................................. 56

Certifications ........................................................................................................................................ 59

Appendix follows page 59

Maps 1 Location of the Old Armstrong High School Property in the City of Richmond ..............................1 2 Site Plan for the Overall Redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High School Property .................1 3 PMA, Census Tract Boundaries, and Subject Property Location ....................................................5 4 Aerial Showing the Location of the Subject Property at the Old Armstrong High School Site And in the Church Hill North Neighborhood ................................................................................7 5 Location of Subject Property at the Old Armstrong High School Site ............................................7 6 Services and Shopping Near the Subject Property ...................................................................... 11 7 Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs), City of Richmond, 2013 ................................................... 21 8 Location of Comparable Market‐Rate Properties in the PMA ..................................................... 35 9 Location of PMA Affordable Senior Rental Properties ................................................................ 40 10 Location of PMA Affordable General Occupancy Rental Properties ........................................... 44 Tables 1 Proposed Unit Distribution, Unit Size, Tenant Net Rents, Utility Allowances, and Gross Rents ....3 2 Transportation, Shopping, and Services near the Subject Property ............................................ 12 3 Violent Property Crimes per 1,000 Population ............................................................................ 15 4 PMA Employment by Industrial Section, 2015 ............................................................................ 17 5 Unemployment Rate by Year, 2004‐2014 .................................................................................... 18 6 Top Private Employers in Greater Richmond............................................................................... 19 7 Employment in the City of Richmond and the Richmond MSA, 2004 ‐ 2014 .............................. 19 8 Occupational Wage Estimates, Richmond Metropolitan Area, 2014 .......................................... 21 9 City of Richmond Job Counts, 2013 ............................................................................................. 22 10 Population and Households ......................................................................................................... 23 11 Selected Population Characteristics ............................................................................................ 24 12 Households by Number of Persons, 2015 Estimates ................................................................... 25 13 PMA Renter Households, 55+ and 62+ by Number of Persons, 2015 Estimates ......................... 26 14 Occupancy and Ownership Characteristics in the PMA and Richmond, 2015 ............................ 26 15 2015 Households by Household Income ..................................................................................... 27 16 PMA Households 62+ by Income and Tenure .............................................................................. 28 17 Permits for New Privately‐Owned Residential Units in the City of Richmond ............................ 29

18 Survey of Selected Comparable Market‐Rate Rental Apartment Buildings ................................ 33 19 Summary of Amenities and Apartment Features in Selected Market‐Rate Rental Properties ... 34 20 Survey of PMA Affordable Senior Rental Properties ................................................................... 39 21 Survey of PMA Affordable General Occupancy Rental Properties ............................................. 42 22 Net Demand ................................................................................................................................. 50

REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Community Builders, Inc. (TCB) retained Real Estate Strategies, Inc. (RES) to provide market analysis

services in connection with a second phase of the redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High School site

located in the City of Richmond’s East End. This development, which is Phase 1B of the larger

redevelopment, is a proposed 45‐unit senior building for households 62 years old and older and with

incomes below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). TCB intends to submit an application for

four percent Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) to the Virginia Housing Development Authority

(VHDA). The proposed new senior housing units will be in a single new building to be constructed on a

30,036 square foot (0.69‐acre) portion of the site.

This market study by RES for Phase 1B has been prepared in accordance with the 2015 Market Study

Guidelines of VHDA and the Model Content Standards for Rental Housing Market Studies of the National

Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA), the model for market studies submitted to VHDA.

Description of the Site and Surrounding Area

Phase IB (the Subject Property) will be located near the center of the Old Armstrong High School site on

the northeastern side of a proposed new boulevard entering the site from a location near the

intersection of North 31st Street and V Street. The Subject Property is one component in the

redevelopment plan for the entire site, which includes construction of approximately 250 multifamily

mixed‐income rental units and 50 for‐sale units; a new neighborhood center; commercial and

recreational development on nearby Nine Mile Road; new infrastructure; and recreational, park, and

open space uses. A mix of housing types is proposed including the Subject Property and a second three‐

story multifamily building, single‐family homes, duplexes, and townhouses.

Overall, the site is somewhat triangular in shape and the topography is generally flat. It is bounded by

Oakwood Cemetery, North 31st Street, and Kuhn Street to the south. The southwestern portion of the

site near Kuhn Street, which is scheduled for development in later phases, has mature trees and the site

slopes down to a creek at the southern edge.

Current improvements include the buildings formerly used as a high school, together with a roadway,

parking areas, playing fields, asphalt multipurpose courts, and a playground. Local officials have advised

that the high school buildings will be demolished during January 2016 so that Phase I of the

redevelopment, which will be on the northeastern portion of the property near the intersection of

North 31st Street and Nine Mile Road, can commence. RES previously prepared a market study effective

during February 2015 for Phase I, a new 60‐unit mixed‐income rental development for general

occupancy that has received an allocation of nine percent LIHTCs.

REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | II

With the exception of commercial, business, and institutional uses along Nine Mile Road, the

surrounding neighborhood is primarily residential in character. Most of the nearby homes are older

bungalows that are generally maintained well. A new townhouse development by Habitat for

Humanities, Pillars at Oakwood, is located below the southern edge of the school site. Areas near the

Subject Property have been targeted by the City and the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing

Authority (RRHA) for redevelopment, and new and substantially rehabilitated for‐sale housing has been

developed about four to five blocks from the Subject Property. The area’s major institution is Bon

Secours Richmond Community Hospital, which is proposing to develop new medical and commercial

space along Nine Mile Road near the existing hospital. The Subject Property enjoys excellent access to

Interstate 64 (I‐64); public bus service is available along Nine Mile Road and North 30th Street.

Summary of the Project and Population Served

Phase IB of the redevelopment will be a new three‐story elevator building containing a total of 45

residential units together with community and management space. The Subject Property will serve

elderly households 62 years old and older with incomes at and below 60 percent of the Area Median

Income (AMI). All 45 units at the Subject Property will be replacement housing units for families living at

the Creighton Court public housing project, and all will have Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)

subsidies from RRHA. Therefore, all households will pay 30 percent of income for gross rent (tenant paid

rent and utility allowance). The unit mix will include 43 one‐bedroom, one bath units and two, two‐

bedroom, two bath units. All of the units will have Universal Design (UD) features, and a total of 12 one‐

bedroom units and the two, two‐bedroom units will comply with both the Uniform Federal Accessibility

Standards (UFAS) and UD standards.

Common areas will include a lobby, lounge with warming kitchen, community room, management

office, and shared porches on the first floor of the building. The second and third floors will have

lounges with balconies at a location convenient to the laundry room. There will be on‐site parking for 18

vehicles; on‐street spaces will provide additional parking for residents and guests. Residents also will

have access to community amenities in the Old Armstrong High School Phase I development, including

the programs and services at the larger community center and the open space areas, pathways, and

outdoor amenities. The developer’s schedule calls for a closing in April 2016 and completion of

construction during April 2017.

Statement of Key Conclusions

Analysts’ Conclusion on Market Feasibility

Based on the procedures described herein, RES has determined that development of the Subject

Property is feasible in the Richmond market and the delineated East End Primary Market Area (PMA). It

is important to emphasize that all units at the Subject Property will have 15‐year RAD subsidies and all

units are a relocation resource for senior households currently living at Creighton Court.

Although capture and penetration rates were estimated to be high, 45.9 and 63.8 percent, respectively,

these rates reflect only the number of households within a narrow income band from $21,240 to

REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | III

$35,640 with sufficient income to pay the rents the Subject Property without consideration of additional

subsidies. The capture and penetration rates do not include households with incomes below $21,240

who will be able to live at the Subject Property due to RAD assistance.

Demand for the proposed units at the Subject Property is far higher than indicated by the above

capture and penetration rates. When the effects of the RAD subsidies are considered in estimating Net

Demand, the capture rate is 15.6 percent of PMA households 65 and older and the penetration rate is

15.6 percent. The absorption and penetration rate calculations that consider the RAD subsidies are

consistent with the performance of the supply of affordable senior housing in the market and the fact

that RES identified only one vacant senior unit during September 2015.

RES estimates a brief absorption pace of three months. Lease‐up is projected to commence during June

2017 and all units are expected to be leased by the beginning of September 2017.

Recommendations and Suggested Modifications (if any)

RES has been working with TCB and has prepared market studies for the redevelopment of the Old

Armstrong School Site for 1.5 years. Market‐related comments during the process have been addressed

as concerns have been raised. RES has discussed with TCB the following recommendations that may

enhance absorption and the relative attractiveness of the Subject Property in the Richmond market:

Design and implement an aggressive marketing program for this new residential community.

The initial phases of in developing a new large‐scale residential community will set the tone for

the entire development and perceptions about it in the market. Therefore, RES has

recommended an aggressive marketing program early‐on, as soon as arrangements can be

made for space to showcase the development. A construction trailer, completion of the planned

neighborhood center early in the process, or renting space for a marketing and leasing office on

Nine Mile Road are alternatives for consideration.

Make gateway improvements to Nine Mile Road. Funding should be identified early in the

process to make the planned improvements to Nine Mile Road. The gateway concept

recommended by Torti Gallas would call attention to the new development and should be

created early in the process to help address the negative features now evident along Nine Mile

Road.

Add a new bus stop near the Subject Property so seniors living at the Subject Property do not

have to walk to Creighton and Nine Mile Road to catch a bus. If it is not possible to add a stop,

perhaps the existing bus stop can be relocated.

Summary of Positive and Negative Attributes and Issues

Positive Attributes:

Attractive site with a long history in the community.

REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | IV

The Old Armstrong School site is large enough to be able to establish a positive identity as a new

community.

Proximity to I‐64 offers access to the airport and locations throughout the metropolitan area.

An institutional anchor, Bon Secours Hospital is located nearby

Negative Attributes:

Crime rates are decreasing, but additional attention is needed.

Many nearby properties on Nine Mile Road are blighted and present a very poor image of the

immediate area. This issue should be addressed.

REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 1

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject of this market study is an

affordable senior residential development

to be constructed on a portion of the Old

Armstrong High School site. The address of

this larger site is 1611 North 31st,

Richmond, VA 23223. Called Church Hill

North Phase IB, the development will

include 45 residential units and common

areas on a 30,036 square foot (0.69‐acre)

portion of the site. The Subject Property

will be located on the northeastern side of

a new boulevard coming into the larger site

from the intersection of North 31st Street

and V Street. Map 1 shows the location of

the Old Armstrong High School site within

the City of Richmond and the East End

Planning District. Map 1 also shows location

of the Bon Secours Community Hospital and

the State Capitol in Richmond’s downtown.

The Subject Property is part of the larger

redevelopment of the 21.6‐acre Old

Armstrong School site, which is located

along North 31st Street from just south of

Nine Mile Road and extending to Kuhn

Street to the southwest. Map 2 shows the

site plan by Torti Gallas and Partners for the

entire site. The major road located to the

north is Nine Mile Road.

Plans for the redevelopment call for the

existing school structures to be demolished

and a new mixed‐income community with a

total of approximately 300 new units to be

constructed. Overall, the development

program includes about 250 multifamily

mixed‐income rental units and 50 for‐sale

units; a new neighborhood center;

commercial and recreational development

MAP 1: LOCATION OF THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND

MAP 2: SITE PLAN FOR THE OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY

Subject Property


on nearby Nine Mile Road; new infrastructure; and recreational, park, and open space uses. A mix of

housing types is proposed including the Subject Property and a second multifamily building, single‐

family homes, duplexes, and townhouses.

The Phase IB development will be a single three‐story “L” shaped elevator building with a total of 18

parking spaces for residents, or 0.4 spaces per unit. All of the units will be a relocation resource for

households 62 years old and older who presently live in the nearby RRHA Creighton Court public housing

project. Creighton Court is located on the northeastern side of Nine Mile Road about four to six blocks

from the Subject Property. The property is scheduled to be demolished because it is physically and

functionally obsolete.

Proposed Number of Units

TCB’s proposed 45‐unit building will have 43 one‐bedroom, one bath units and two, two‐bedroom, two

bath units. All of the units will have Universal Design (UD) features, and a total of 12 one‐bedroom units

and the two, two‐bedroom units will comply with both the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards

(UFAS) and UD standards. RES has reviewed preliminary unit plans and elevations by Torti Gallas and

Partners, Architects, dated September 8, 2015 and preliminary specifications dated September 18, 2015.

The units are generous in size and have attractive layouts. Two of the building elevations by Torti Gallas

from the September 8, 2015 plans are provided below. All of the units will be targeted for occupancy by

households with incomes at, and below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) in the City of

Richmond. Table 1 provides a breakdown by number of bedrooms and baths, net square feet, tenant

rents, utility allowances, and gross rents.


TABLE 1: PROPOSED UNIT DISTRIBUTION, UNIT SIZES, TENANT NET RENTS, UTILITY ALLOWANCES, AND GROSS RENTS

Income Targeting and Unit Mix

Number of Units

Average Unit Sizes (Net Square Feet)

Tenant Rent

Utility Allowance Gross Rent

LIHTC 60% AMI

1 Bedroom 43 652 $640 $68 $708

2 Bedroom 2 1,034 $715 $91 $806

Total 45

Source: The Community Builders, Inc.; Torti Gallas & Partners

All of the residential units will have HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) subsidies from RRHA;

therefore, senior households actually will pay gross rents based on 30 percent of their adjusted income

for rent and utilities.

Utility Configuration

The utility allowances in Table 1, which were provided by RRHA, are the Allowances for Tenant‐

Furnished Utilities for the Richmond Area during 2014. Dated January 1, 2015, the allowance is for

apartment units in buildings with five or more units. Electric heating will be with heat pumps; hot water

and cooking will be electric. Tenants will pay their electric bills, including electric for lighting and central

air conditioning. Rents will include water, sewer, and trash service.

The Subject Property is being designed to comply with all mandatory provisions of the EarthCraft

Virginia Multifamily Criteria and to be certified at the Certified Level.

Unit and Common Area Amenities

Residential units at the Subject Property will have wood floors in living areas, carpet in bedrooms, and

ceramic tile in bathrooms. Windows will have Venetian blinds. Bathrooms will have vanities; accessible

units will have roll‐in showers. Kitchens will be equipped with ranges with a ducted hood, refrigerators,

dishwashers, and garbage disposals. There will be a laundry room on each floor of the building.

The three‐story structure will have two elevators. Common areas will include a lobby, lounge with

warming kitchen, community room, management office, and shared porches on the first floor of the

building. The second and third floor each will have a lounge with balcony at a location convenient to the

laundry room. In addition to on‐site parking for 18 vehicles, on‐street spaces will provide additional

parking for residents and guests. Residents also will have access to community amenities in the Old

Armstrong High School Phase 1 development, including the programs and services at the larger

community center and the open space areas, pathways, and outdoor amenities.

Developer’s Schedule

TCB’s current schedule calls for a closing in April 2016 and completion of construction during April 2017.

Lease‐up is projected to commence during June 2017; all units are expected to be leased by the


beginning of September 2017. Stabilization is projected for September 2017. The accelerated lease‐up

anticipates the relocation of households from Creighton Court and the ability to pre‐screen and select

residents before construction has been completed


B. LOCATION AND MARKET AREA DEFINITION

Primary Market Area Definition

The Primary Market Area (PMA) defined by RES is the East Planning District of the City of Richmond. The

PMA is based on 2010 census tract boundaries and includes a total of 12 tracts in Richmond, which are

tracts 201 through 212. To the east, south, and part of the north the boundaries of the City of Richmond

also are the boundaries of the PMA. The balance of the northern border is I‐64 and census tract

boundaries. To the west and southwest, the PMA boundary is Interstate 95 and the James River. Map 3

shows the delineation of the PMA and the location of the Subject Property.

The delineation of the PMA is based on information provided during interviews with property managers,

local officials, Realtors and developers. It is contiguous with the City’s East Planning District, and includes

only tracts in the City of Richmond. RES asked managers of senior housing properties about the location

of the prior residence of senior living at their complex. Managers of properties located within the PMA

reported that residents either had been living in the East End, or they had family ties to the area. In

contrast, management of the Carter Woods senior property located in Henrico County just north of Nine

Mile Road and about three‐fourths mile from the City’s limit, reported that only a few seniors from the

East End inquire about the availability of Carter Woods apartments, and they often have family living in

nearby areas of Henrico County. Based on this information, RES included only City of Richmond East

Planning tracts in the PMA.

MAP 3: PMA DEFINITION, CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARIES, AND SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION

Subject Property


Another factor influencing delineation of the PMA is the role of the Subject Property as a relocation

resource for households 62 years old and older and presently living at Creighton Court. RRHA

representatives interviewed during September 2015 in connection with this market study provided

information about seniors now living in Creighton Court. At that time, there were a total of 123

households 55 to 83 years old living in the Creighton public housing units, including 67 households

needing one‐bedroom units and 13 households with handicaps. Because of these demographics, RRHA

anticipates that all of the units at the Subject Property will be occupied by households relocated from

Creighton Court, meaning that 100 percent of the units at the Subject Property will be occupied by

households now living in the PMA.

The PMA includes neighborhoods that have undergone varying degrees of revitalization. To the west,

Shockoe Bottom and Shockoe Valley have rental units in new buildings and structures converted from

industrial and warehouse uses that attract young professionals working in nearby Downtown Richmond.

Church Hill, home of St. John’s Church known for the speech given there by Patrick Henry, has very

upscale historic homes and has become a hub for restaurants, bakeries, and other food‐related

establishments. The Union Hill and Chimborazo neighborhoods also have historic homes and have been

undergoing revitalization and redevelopment. For Church Hill, Union Hill, and Chimborazo the prevailing

lifestyles in the neighborhoods are ones with high percentages of singles and couples.

Revitalization and infill development are pushing east from these more established neighborhoods.

Further east, home sales prices are lower, as are rents, and there are concentrations of older public

housing projects primarily north of North 25th Street and Nine Mile Road. Included is the Creighton

Court public housing referenced above, which has a total of 504 units for general occupancy and is

slated for demolition and redevelopment. While often presented as many different neighborhoods,

Church Hill North has become the identity of much of the area on the eastern side of the PMA, including

areas near the Subject Property. New infill development, as well as substantial rehabilitation of sales

housing, is occurring in areas around Bon Secours Richmond Community Hospital, one of the PMA’s

prominent institutions. Activity initially involved rehabilitation and infill construction of single‐family

attached and detached housing by non‐profit organizations including Better Housing Coalition, Project

Homes, and Habitat for Humanity. Bon Secours Hospital has assisted by providing “gap” funding for

residential development near the hospital’s complex. More recently, however, private developers have

become active in Church Hill North and are constructing and rehabilitating additional housing units.

Similarly, owners have been rehabilitating housing units in the area, according to local officials, who

reported increased activity in recent months.

Site Characteristics

Description of the Site and Photographs

As indicated in Map 3 above, the Subject Property is located near the northeastern edge of the PMA and

very close to the City’s border with Henrico County. Seniors living at the Subject Property would need to

walk about one‐fourth mile along the new boulevard to be constructed and North 31st Street to reach

the intersection of Nine Mile Road (Route 33), and North 31st Street, the location of convenience stores


and restaurants. Map 4 provides an aerial perspective showing the location of the Subject Property and

surrounding areas.

MAP 4: AERIAL SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL

SITE AND IN THE CHURCH HILL NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD

Map 5 provides a closer view of the Old Armstrong High School property, which is outlined in green, and

the approximate location of the Subject Property. Also shown is the location of Creighton Court public

housing for which the Subject Property is a relocation resource.

MAP 5: LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL SITE

Approximate Location of the Subject

Property (Phase 1B) at the Old

Armstrong High School site


Site from N. 31st Street near the intersection with V Street,

looking east. The Subject Property from a location near N. 31st

and V Streets, looking east. The Subject Property is near the

center of the photo.

Site from North 31st Street near the intersection of V Street.

The Subject Property is beyond the end of the walkway.

The Subject Property is near the center of the photo

The most recent site inspection by RES was on

September 18, 2015; the photographs in this

section were taken at that time. Current

improvements at the Old Armstrong High School

site include buildings formerly used as a high

school, together with a roadway, parking areas,

playing fields, asphalt multipurpose courts, and a

playground. Local officials have advised that the

high school buildings will be demolished during

January 2016 so that redevelopment can

commence. The high school has been closed and

vacant since 2004, when this existing Armstrong

High School was merged with nearby John F.

Kennedy High School. While the merger

combined the two high schools at the Kennedy

location, the merged high school has the

Armstrong High School name. Armstrong is

named for former Union General, Samuel

Chapman Armstrong who, among other

achievements founded the Hampton Institute,

now Hampton University, a Historically Black

College.

Overall, the high school site is somewhat

triangular in shape and the topography is

generally flat. It is bounded by Oakwood

Cemetery, North 31st Street, and Kuhn Street to

the south. The southwestern portion of the larger

site, which is scheduled for development in later

phases, has mature trees and the site slopes

down to a creek at the southern edge. The

Subject Property will be located near the center

of the site on a new boulevard entering the site

at the intersection of North 31st and V Streets.

In sum, the Subject Property is Phase IB of a

much larger redevelopment intended to create an attractive, modern new mixed‐income residential

neighborhood on a property that has been vacant for more than 10 years.

Access and Visibility

As with the Old Armstrong High School site overall, the Subject Property should benefit from visibility

along Nine Mile Road and the traffic along the road. Data for 2014 available through the Virginia


Creighton Court from Nine Mile Rd.

Convenience Store at Intersection of N. 31st and Nine Mile Rd.

Eastlawn with Food Circus grocery

Stores on south side of Nine Mile Rd. Bon

Secours Hospital is visible behind them

Department of Transportation indicate average daily traffic of

8,300 vehicles on Nine Mile Road near the intersection with

North 25th Street and to the east. Average daily traffic on Nine

Mile Road within 1.49 miles of the intersection with Interstate

64 is 23,000 vehicles. With the interchange of I‐64 and Nine

Mile Road just over one‐third mile away, there is easy access

to the Richmond International Airport and the Norfolk area.

Neighborhood Description

Nine Mile Road

The frontage along Nine Mile Road near the Subject Property

includes a mix of vacant sites and structures, together with

commercial, residential, and institutional uses and Oakwood

Cemetery. RRHA’s Creighton Court public housing project is

located on the north side of Nine Mile Road. Oakwood

Cemetery is on the south side of Nine Mile Road opposite

Creighton Court. The Cemetery, which has about 176 acres of

land, is an active City of Richmond burial ground dating from

the 1850’s.

The one‐mile stretch of Nine Mile Road from the I‐64

interchange to the intersection with North 25th Street to the

west presently presents a very poor image of the immediate

area. Many properties are blighted and in need of

redevelopment. The advantage is that there are convenience

stores, food carry‐out establishments, and restaurants that

will serve seniors who will live at the Subject Property.

Redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High School site is part

of a much larger revitalization program, the City’s East End

Transformation initiative. While planned improvements on

Nine Mile Road are needed to further stabilize and enhance

this portion of the East End, new residential and planned

commercial development projects already are underway in

nearby blocks. In addition, streetscape improvements are

planned along Nine Mile Road to create a gateway into the

East End and the City of Richmond. Other new development

projects are proposed along Nine Mile Road near the

intersection with Creighton Road as part of the Old Armstrong

High School redevelopment overall; other initiatives by Bon

Secours will further enhance this stretch of the road.


Bon Secours is located near the intersection of Nine Mile Road

and North 28th Street, about three blocks west of the

intersection of North 31st and V Streets. Proposed new medical

and retail development sponsored by the Hospital and located

near its existing facilities will help to improve the portion of

Nine Mile Road near the Hospital. The development is

expected to include a women’s center and a mixed‐use

building, a center for healthy communities and adjacent

wellness park, and a second medical office building. Plans for

the new development are moving forward, according to local

officials. In addition, Bon Secours and local officials have

recruited a full‐service grocery to build a store on a publicly

owned site at North 25th and Nine Mile Road, and the City has

committed $500,000 for this development. The improvements

are important in helping to bring change and enhance

conditions along one of the most heavily travelled routes

traversing the East End Neighborhood.

Neighborhood Residential Characteristics

North 31st Street, which is primarily residential near the Old

Armstrong High School site, is a relatively well traveled route.

Traffic counts available from Esri indicate average daily traffic

of 2,000 vehicles on North 31st Street between North T and

North U Streets. Residential structures along north 31st Street

near the intersection with V Street include a mix of older,

largely single‐family bungalows, as shown in the photos, built

in the 1940’s. Sale prices range from about $45,000 to $50,000.

Almost all of the homes appear well maintained. Data from the

2010 Census about housing tenure in the census tract indicate

that about 61 percent of housing units in the area were owner‐

occupied.

Further south along North 31st Street near the intersection of R

Street, Southside Community Development has rehabilitated

single‐family duplex homes with 1,350 to 1,450 square feet

that were sold during 2014 for $100,000. Located along North

33rd Street between Kuhn and T Streets is Pillars at Oakmont, a

community of 15 attached single‐family homes developed by

Habitat for Humanity. Completed during June 2013, the homes

sold at prices ranging from $100,000 to $108,000. During

September 2015 the asking price for one resale, a townhouse

Homes along the western side of N. 31st St

Attached homes ‐ 1129 and 1131 North

31st Street

Pillars at Oakmont


with three bedrooms, two baths, and 1,152 square feet, was $129,500. The Old Armstrong High School

site and the Subject Property also are located within a few blocks of the Church Hill North target area for

new and substantially rehabilitated homes for first‐time buyers. The area is located in the 1300 block of

North 26th, and North 27th Streets and the 2600 block of Q Street. Sales prices for the homes range from

$150,000 to $174,000. There are a total of 38 for‐sale homes in the development program.

Transportation, Shopping, and Services

Map 6 shows the location of transportation linkages, shopping, schools, medical services, places of

worship, and other services. The narrative following the map provides additional explanation about the

mapped items and also discusses other shopping and services not shown on the map. Table 2 on the

following page provides the key to the map.

MAP 6: SERVICES AND SHOPPING NEAR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY


TABLE 2: TRANSPORTATION, SHOPPING, AND SERVICES NEAR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

Amenity/Establishment Address Distance from

Subject Property

Transportation

1 Bus Stop – GRTC Routes 7 and 45 9 Mile and Creighton Roads 0.2 mi North

Shopping and Services

2 Food Circus Grocery 1814 Creighton Road 0.1 mi North

3 Proposed Supermarket Site 9 Mile Road and North 25th Street 0.7 mi West

4 Family Dollar 1220 North 25th Street 0.7 mi West

5 Community Supermarket 1915 Mechanicsville Turnpike 1.5 mi Northwest

6 Farm Fresh Grocery 2320 East Main Street 1.7 mi South

7 CVS Pharmacy 2400 East Main Street 1.7 mi South

8 SunTrust Bank 2500 East Broad Street 1.5 mi South

Medical Services

9 Bon Secours Richmond Community Hospital 1500 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West

10 Bon Secours Medical Offices 1500 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West

11 Bon Secours East End Community Pharmacy 1510 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West

12 Vernon J Harris Medical Center 719 North 25th Street 1.1 mi Southwest

Schools

13 George Mason Elementary School 813 North 28th Street 0.9 mi Southwest

14 Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School 1000 Mosby Street 1.3 mi West

15 Armstrong High School 2300 Cool Lane 1.1 mi North

Community Services and Recreation

16 Richmond Police Precinct 1 2501 Q Street 0.8 mi Southwest

17 Richmond Public Library 2414 R Street 0.8 mi West

18 Good Shepherd Senior Center 1127 North 28th Street 0.7 mi Southwest

19 Robinson Theater Community Arts Center 2903 Q Street 0.7 mi Southwest

20 Ethel Bailey Furman Park North 28th Street 0.9 mi Southwest

21 Patrick Henry Park North 25th and East Broad Streets 0.9 mi Southwest

22 Chimborazo Park 2900 East Grace Street 1.3 mi South

Religious Institutions

23 Mt. Olivet Baptist Church 1223 North 25th Street 0.7 mi West

24 St. John's United Holy Church 1507 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West

25 Historic St. John's Church 2401 East Broad Street 1.5 mi Southwest

Sources: RES, Google Maps

Access to Transportation

As indicated by the proximity of the Subject Property to two major thoroughfares, which are Nine Mile

Road and I‐64, the Subject Property has excellent access for households with vehicles. In addition, there

is good access to public transportation, an important consideration because more than one‐fourth of

East End PMA households do not own a vehicle.

The East End PMA is served by the Greater Richmond Transportation Company (GRTC), and two routes

have bus stops near the Subject Property. The closest stop for both busses presently is located at the

intersection of Nine Mile and Creighton Roads. GRTC’s Route 7, Seven Pines, travels along Nine Mile


Road, providing service to Seventh and Broad Streets in downtown Richmond and also to employment

and shopping at White Oak Village. The Route 7 bus does not operate on Saturday or Sunday, however.

The Route 45, Jefferson bus travels along Nine Mile Road east to North 28th Street, and along North 28th

and North 30th Streets, depending on direction, serving Bon Secours Hospital and Richmond’s downtown

via Broad Street. Route 45 has service on weekends.

Shopping and Services

Shopping options in areas near the Subject Property are limited to small retail establishments, including

convenience stores, restaurants and carry‐outs, and service establishments. There is a small pharmacy

located at Bon Secours Hospital, but the nearest chain pharmacy in the PMA is in Shockoe Bottom. Food

stores are small, and there is no full‐line supermarket nearby. As indicated previously, local officials and

representatives of Bon Secours are working to attract a new grocery to a location near the intersection

of North 25th Street and Nine Mile Road (Map Number 4).

Apparel stores are almost nonexistent in the East End PMA. The major exception is the Family Dollar

Store (Map Number 5). The East End has a number of service providers, including social, educational,

legal, and medical services, and offices of government organizations. There are numerous churches in

the area; virtually all denominations are represented. The locations of a few of the churches, including

Church Hill’s historic St. John’s Church, are shown on Map 6.

The nearest major concentration of retail establishments and restaurants is at White Oak Village, which

is located in Henrico County near the intersection of I‐64 and South Laburnum Avenue less than three

miles from the Subject Property. Major retailers include Target, JC Penney, Lowe’s, Sam’s Club,

Michael’s, PetSmart, and Martin’s Food Market and Pharmacy. There are numerous smaller retail stores

offering apparel. White Oak Village includes a number of restaurants; other smaller shopping centers

with additional retailers and restaurants are located nearby along South Laburnum Avenue. There is bus

service to White Oak Village from a bus stop near the Subject Property.

During July 2014, Walmart announced the development of a new supercenter in Henrico County on Nine

Mile Road just east of the intersection with Laburnum Avenue. The new Walmart Center will replace an

outdated shopping center located about two miles from the Subject Property, or four bus stops away

according to a local official. Current plans are for an opening during 2016.

Medical Services

Residents who will live at the Subject Property will be within a few blocks of Bon Secours Hospital, which

is located at the intersection of Nine Mile Road and North 28th Street (Map Number 3). The Hospital,

which has been recognized for the quality of its emergency services, has 104 beds and is licensed for 110

beds. Current services at the hospital include emergency services, general surgery, obstetrics and

gynecology services (but babies are not delivered at the hospital), infusion and cancer services, and

behavioral health. There is an adjacent medical office building with medical services and the above‐

referenced pharmacy. As indicated previously in connection with revitalization activity along Nine Mile

Road, a proposed expansion by Bon Secours will add additional services in new buildings to be


constructed on Nine Mile Road. In addition to medical office space, the addition will include community

space with a walk‐in clinic and a Center for Healthy Communities.

In addition to the services available at Bon Secours, medical and dental services also are available at

clinics located on North 25th Street west of R Street and about 0.7 to one mile from the Subject Property.

Included are two medical clinics and also a dialysis center.

Schools

Based on school zones for the 2014/2015 school year, children living in residential units constructed at

the Old Armstrong High School site would attend George Mason Elementary School (Map Number 15),

Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School (Map Number 22), and Armstrong High School (Map Number 23).

Since residents of the Subject Property will be 62 years old and older and the residential units primarily

have only one bedroom, issues related to school quality, which is below average, are not likely to be a

major consideration for prospective residents.

Crime and Safety

The Subject Property is located within the Richmond Police Department’s First Precinct, which is

headquartered at the intersection of North 25th and Q Streets in Church Hill North (Map Number 10).

Police Department Crime Incident reports show an issue with crime in the precinct; data compiled from

FBI records by Neighborhood Scout show similar results.

Reports for crime in the First Precinct that are compiled by Department’s Crime Incident Center indicate

there were declines during 2014, continuing an ongoing pattern of decline since 2011. The trend in the

number of homicides, robberies, and assaults has been downward during this time period, and the drop

during the 2014 was more pronounced. Year‐to‐date data for 2015 show an ongoing downward trend in

crime incidents for virtually all crime types. The notable exception is homicides, which have increased in

the First Precinct from seven during all of 2014 to 12 during the first ten months of 2015.

Neighborhood Scout data for neighborhoods near the Subject Property, include rankings on a crime

index and the number of violent and property crimes per 1,000 population, based on FBI data for 2013.

The data are presented in Table 3; final FBI data for 2014 are expected to be released during November

2015.


TABLE 3: VIOLENT PROPERTY CRIMES PER 1,000 POPULATION

Neighborhood Crime Index* Violent Property

E. Richmond Road/Oakwood Avenue 24 9.82 37.65

N. 23rd Street/T Street 5 17.33 76.23

Fairfield Ave/Creighton Road 4 32.35 64.70

Church Hill** 29 9.89 32.15

City of Richmond 6.3 43.88

Commonwealth of Virginia 1.96 20.66

*The Crime Index is on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is the safest. **Church Hill boundaries are different from the City's delineation and include the area from N. 31st St. to S St., and Carrington, N. 22nd, Cedar, and N Streets. Note: Information was obtained during October 2015. Final FBI data for 2014 are expected to be available during November 2015. Source: Neighborhoodscout.com

The First Precinct’s trend in crime reduction is a positive factor. However, the Neighborhood Scout crime

reports for the neighborhood surrounding the Subject Property, which is called East Richmond

Road/Oakwood Avenue and other nearby neighborhoods indicate additional attention to crime and

safety is important. While there may be some lag in the data between the two sources, the

neighborhoods in Table 3 receive low scores on the crime index, which measures neighborhoods in the

East End PMA on a scale of 100. Further, all have higher rates of violent crime than the City of Richmond

overall.


C. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY

The most recent Federal Reserve Beige Book, which is dated September 2, 2015, reported that the

economy in the Fifth District had “grown moderately” since the July 15, 2015 report. The Fifth District,

which is headquartered in Richmond, covers multiple states: Virginia, Maryland, North and South

Carolina, the District of Columbia, and part of West Virginia. The report noted that residential mortgage

demand had increased slightly in the region, and commercial lending was higher in Virginia. Credit

standards remained generally unchanged. Housing market activity in the Fifth District grew at a modest

pace; home prices were stable to slightly higher. Multifamily leasing and construction remained strong.

For the City of Richmond, total employment during the first quarter 2015, as reported in the October 21,

2015 Labor Market Information (LMI) Report was 147,138. The unemployment rate in the City for all of

calendar year 2014 was 6.1 percent, which was higher than the 5.2 percent rate during the same year in

the Commonwealth of Virginia. For August 2015, the unemployment rate was 5.4 percent. The average

weekly wage in the City for all industries during the first quarter 2015 was $1,205. Variation by industry

is significant, however, ranging from a low of $344 per week for the Accommodations and Food Services

industry to $3,194 for Managers of Companies and Enterprises.

Employment by Industry Sector

Data on employment by industry sector in the delineated PMA are available through Esri, which

provides 2014 Dun & Bradstreet data for the delineated East End PMA and also for the City of

Richmond.

It should be noted that total employment by industry (147,138) in the LMI Report on October 21, 2015

for the first quarter of 2015 is lower than reported by Dun & Bradstreet. Moreover, employment by

industry generally is lower, as well. The Dun & Bradstreet data indicate total employment in the City of

180,938, or higher than reported in the LMI report. The difference may be because the LMI data are

based on the number of employees covered by Unemployment Insurance as reported by establishments

to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This difference, along with differences in timing, exclusions, and

possibly different definitions probably account for the lower employment by industry reported by LMI.

For the PMA during 2015, Dun & Bradstreet reported 7,775 jobs. Sectors representing the highest

employment include Accommodation and Food Services (1,104 employees), Public Administration

(1,085 employees), Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (1,007 employees), Retail Trade (997

employees), Other Services, except Public Administration (642 employees), Educational Services (606

employees), and Health Care and Social Assistance (610 employees). Employment in the PMA was lower

than expected in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector, given the presence of Bon Secours and

other health care providers Table 4 (following page) presents employment data for all sectors in the

PMA and the City of Richmond.


TABLE 4: PMA EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR, 2015

Industry (NAICS Codes)

PMA City of Richmond

Number Percent Number Percent

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0 0.0% 37 0.0%

Mining 0 0.0% 77 0.0%

Utilities 29 0.4% 6,892 3.8%

Construction 240 3.1% 10,122 5.6%

Manufacturing 143 1.8% 13,472 7.4%

Wholesale Trade 83 1.1% 4,947 2.7%

Retail Trade 997 12.8% 12,438 6.9%

Transportation & Warehousing 191 2.5% 5,795 3.2%

Information 60 0.8% 3,949 2.2%

Finance & Insurance 121 1.6% 7,403 4.1%

Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 404 5.2% 4,205 2.3%

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 1,007 13.0% 13,517 7.5%

Management of Companies & Enterprises 11 0.1% 173 0.1%

Administrative & Support & Waste Management 242 3.1% 3,752 2.1%

Educational Services 606 7.8% 11,517 6.4%

Health Care & Social Assistance 610 7.8% 38,417 21.2%

Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 160 2.1% 3,167 1.8%

Accommodation & Food Services 1,104 14.2% 11,799 6.5%

Other Services (except Public Administration) 642 8.3% 8,808 4.9%

Public Administration 1,085 14.0% 19,147 10.6%

Unclassified Establishments 40 0.5% 1,304 0.7%

Totals 7,775 100.0% 180,938 100.0%

Sources: Esri, Infogroup, Inc., 2015; RES

Historical Unemployment

Annual data on unemployment in the City of Richmond show a steady downward trend from a high of

9.6 percent during the 2008 Great Recession. Table 5 presents unemployment data for the City from

2003 through 2014, in comparison with data for the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States.

Reports by economists, most recently the Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in a January

2015 speech, have noted that Virginia fared better than most of the country during the Great Recession.

However, the data show that unemployment in Richmond during all years has been much higher than in

the Commonwealth overall.

As shown in Table 5, monthly unemployment in the City during the time frame from September 2014

through August 2015 varied from a high of 6.0 percent during September 2014 and also in June 2015, to

5.3 percent during December 2014. For September 2015 the Virginia Employment Commission reported

that a disproportionate share of the insured unemployed, 69.3 percent, were African‐American.


TABLE 5: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY YEAR, 2004‐2014

Year City of Richmond Virginia United States

2004 5.8% 3.8% 5.5%

2005 5.4% 3.6% 5.1%

2006 4.7% 3.1% 4.6%

2007 4.4% 3.0% 4.6%

2008 5.8% 3.9% 5.8%

2009 9.6% 6.7% 9.3%

2010 9.5% 7.1% 9.6%

2011 8.5% 6.6% 8.9%

2012 7.5% 6.0% 8.1%

2013 6.8% 5.7% 7.4%

2014 6.1% 5.2% 6.2%

Sources: Virginia Employment Commission, LMI Report updated on October 21, 2015; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)

Major Employers

The Virginia Employment Commission’s LMI report for the City of Richmond listed the top employers in

the City of Richmond during the first quarter 2015, but without information on the number of

employees in the City. The top five employers listed were Virginia Commonwealth University, MCV

Hospital, Richmond City Public Schools, City of Richmond, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Data for the Richmond Region (the City of Richmond and Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and

Henrico) on private sector employment show a broad mix of company types among the top private

employers. The Greater Richmond Partnership lists the top 50 private employers in Greater Richmond

as compiled by the Richmond Times‐Dispatch during May 2015. Table 6 on the following page presents

the top 20 employers in the Richmond Region and the number of employees in the Richmond region.

In addition to the listing of private employers, the number of public employees in the City of Richmond

is significant, as would be expected based on the listing of the City’s largest employers and for the city

that is home to the State’s Capital. Data for 2013 compiled by the Virginia Economic Development

Partnership reported that the City of Richmond had a total of 39,642 public sector employees including

5,124 federal government, 23,767 Commonwealth of Virginia, and 10,751 local and public school

employees.


TABLE 6: TOP PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN GREATER RICHMOND*

Rank Company Type Number of Employees

1 Capital One Financial Corp. Credit Cards 11,491

2 VCU Health System Health Care 9,054

3 HCA Inc. Health Care 7,325

4 Bon Secours Richmond Health Care 6,852

5 Walmart Retail 5,526

6 Dominion Resources Inc. Energy 5,317

7 Sun Trust Banks Inc. Banking 4,010

8 Food Lion Grocery Stores 3,966

9 Altria Group, Inc. Cigarettes, Wine 3,900

10 Amazon.com Online retail 3,300

11 Wells Fargo Banking 2,912

12 DuPont Chemicals/Fibers 2,834

13 Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Health Insurance 2,777

14 Bank of America Banking 2,500

15 UPS Package Distribution 2,426

16 The Kroger Co. Grocery Stores 2,172

17 Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Reserve Bank 1,875

18 Verizon Communications Telecommunications 1,735

19 University of Richmond Private University 1,658

20 Markel Corporation Insurance 1,481

*Includes the City of Richmond and Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico.

Sources: Greater Richmond Partnership; Richmond Times‐Dispatch, May 2015.

Employment Growth

The Virginia Employment Commission provides data on employment in the City of Richmond and the

Richmond MSA updated to mid‐year 2014. Table 7 provides data.

TABLE 7: EMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY AND THE RICHMOND MSA, 2004‐2014

City of Richmond Richmond MSA

Year Total Jobs Change Total Jobs Change

2004 158,370 577,325 2005 160,483 2,113 589,349 12,024 2006 161,667 1,184 598,520 9,171 2007 158,597 ‐3,070 607,042 8,522 2008 159,063 466 605,891 ‐1,151 2009 150,777 ‐8,286 580,666 ‐25,225 2010 148,083 ‐2,694 575,471 ‐5,195 2011 149,540 1,457 582,975 7,504 2012 148,410 ‐1,130 593,314 10,339 2013 147,607 ‐803 590,406 ‐2,908 2014 148,477 870 597,267 6,861

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW); RES


During 2004 and 2005, there was good job growth in both the City of Richmond and the broader

Richmond MSA. Commencing in 2006 in the City and 2009 in the MSA, there were job losses as the

Great Recession took hold and advanced in severity. For both areas, job losses were the most severe

during 2009 and were also sizeable during 2010. Job gains in both areas commenced during 2011 and

there was growth overall from 2011 through 2014, albeit not at pre‐Recession levels especially in the

City.

The Virginia Employment Commission has developed employment projections for 2022 for the City of

Richmond. The projections are positive, with a forecast of 73,038 additional jobs (13.36 percent) in all

industries during the time frame from 2012 to 2022. Selected sectors with employment growth include:

Health Care and Social Assistance (+21,046); Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (+9,386);

Construction (+7,240); Educational Services (+6,896); Accommodation and Food Services (+5,242); Retail

Trade (+4,686); and Other Services (except Public Administration (+3,002). Short term projections for

the period from 2014 to 2016 indicate near term growth in these sectors, as well. Short term growth is

also projected in the Manufacturing sector.

The growth projections show further strengthening of the City’s “Eds and Meds” sectors; the presence

of Bon Secours Hospital and other medical service providers in the PMA may enhance the

competitiveness of the area for additional growth in the Health Care and Social Assistance sectors. Also

relevant is the employment growth in the Retail Trade sector, which may indicate the potential to

attract additional retailers to locations in the PMA. Since retail follows residential development, the

population growth projected in the PMA during the next five years, which is described in the following

section of this report, could result in additional patrons for retail establishments in the East End.

There is one dismal note in the information compiled by the Virginia Employment Commission. The

report’s Education Profile reports educational attainment data from the 2009‐13 American Community

Survey (ACS). The data for the population 18 years and older in the City of Richmond show 28,925

people (20.3 percent) have educational attainment below the high school graduate level, including

10,908 people with less than an eighth grade education. A detailed breakdown indicates that 11.7

percent of the population age 18 to 24 does not have a high school diploma. By race/ethnicity, 25.6

percent of African‐Americans and 55.8 percent of Hispanics have not completed high school. While job

growth is a positive factor, it will be critical to address the issue of educational attainment so that all of

the City’s residents can share in the growth.

Typical Wages by Occupation

The web site PayScale.com reports that the average salary in the City of Richmond during October 2015

was $57,597, based on a survey of 7,872 salaries. While less comprehensive, this average exceeds the

annual median wage reported by the Bureau of labor Statistics (BLS) during May 2014 for the Richmond

MSA. The BLS report provides detailed wages for occupational groups in Richmond, including median

and average hourly wages and annual mean wage. Table 8 presents 2014 data for major occupational

groups, including the location quotient as an indication of the relative concentration of the occupation

in the metropolitan area. In addition, the median hourly wage and the mean annual wage are provided.


TABLE 8: OCCUPATIONAL WAGE ESTIMATES, RICHMOND METROPOLITAN AREA, 2014

Location Quotient

Median Hourly Wage

Annual Mean Wage

All Occupations 1.00 $17.61 $47,060

Management Occupations 0.87 $49.64 $117,990

Business & Financial Occupations 1.40 $32.09 $71,790

Computer & Mathematical Occupations 1.19 $38.34 $81,160

Architecture & Engineering Occupations 0.81 $35.33 $77,260

Life, Physical, & Social Science Occupations 0.99 $26.62 $63,110

Community & Social Service Occupations 1.16 $20.43 $44,290

Legal Occupations 1.30 $37.32 $99,050

Education, Training & Library Occupations 0.92 $22.11 $46,660

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media Occs. 0.94 $21.72 $52,750

Healthcare Practitioners & Technical Occupations 1.09 $28.17 $70,470

Healthcare Support Occupations 0.82 $12.36 $27,830

Protective Service Occupations 1.19 $18.08 $40,380

Food Preparation & Serving Related Occupations 0.89 $9.28 $21,520

Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance Occs. 1.00 $10.61 $24,040

Personal Care & Service Occupations 1.15 $9.23 $23,890

Sales & Related Occupations 1.02 $12.86 $41,180

Office & Administrative Support Occupations 1.05 $15.82 $35,250

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 0.35 $13.99 $31,840

Construction & Extraction Occupations 1.04 $18.08 $40,570

Installation, Maintenance & Repair Occupations 1.04 $21.14 $46,620

Production Occupations 0.70 $15.66 $37,450

Transportation & Material Moving Occupations 0.92 $14.07 $32,560

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2014 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Richmond, VA.

Commuting Patterns for Workers

Inflow/outflow data available in the LEHD

database show commuting patterns for

workers employed in the City of Richmond,

those living and working in the City, and

Richmond workers commuting to locations

outside of the City. Map 7 shows 2013 data

on employment inflow/outflow in the City of

Richmond for all employees, the most

recent year for which the data are available.

As the map shows, the outflow for all

workers living in Richmond but working

outside of the City was 54,442 during 2013,

while a total of 12,625 workers living

outside of the City were commuting to jobs

located within the City. On a net basis, the

MAP 7: INFLOW/OUTFLOW JOB COUNTS (ALL JOBS)CITY OF RICHMOND, 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD On the Map Data System; RES


number of in‐commuters exceeded the number of out‐commuters by 68,183, or more of a differential

than existed during 2011. Reversing the trend and attracting more commuters to live in the City would

be a key way to increase housing demand. During 2013, only 34,963 workers both had jobs and lived in

the City of Richmond.

During 2013, the number of workers with jobs in City of Richmond but living in Henrico County exceeded

the number who were living and working in the City. As shown in Table 9, 22.5 percent of City of

Richmond workers were living in Henrico County while 22.2 percent were living in Richmond. Other

counties having large numbers of workers commuting to the City were Chesterfield County (33,809) and

Hanover County (9,201). Differentials likely to influence the willingness of workers living in Henrico

County to move to Richmond are likely to be the City’s school system and the City’s higher tax rate for

real estate.

TABLE 9: CITY OF RICHMOND JOB COUNTS, 2013

Count Share

All Counties 157,588 100.0%

Henrico County, VA 35,448 22.5%

Richmond City, VA 34,963 22.2%

Chesterfield County, VA 33,809 21.5%

Hanover County, VA 9,201 5.8%

Fairfax County, VA 2,165 1.4%

Powhatan County, VA 1,963 1.2%

Virginia Beach city, VA 1,865 1.2%

Goochland County, VA 1,596 1.0%

Prince William County, VA 1,491 0.9%

New Kent County, VA 1,351 0.9%

All Other Locations 33,736 21.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD On the Map Data System; RES


D. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Population and Households

Table 10 presents population and household data for the East End PMA from the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, together with estimates for 2015 and projections for 2020. The data were compiled by Nielsen

(formerly Claritas), an on‐line supplier of demographic data. Data for the City of Richmond are also

provided for comparison purposes.

TABLE 10: POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS

Primary

Market Area City of

Richmond

Population 2000 Census 27,731 197,635 2010 Census 27,378 204,214 2015 Estimate 29,559 216,671 2020 Projection 31,601 229,274

Percent Change 2000‐2010 ‐1.3% 3.3% Percent Change 2010‐2015 8.0% 6.1% Percent Change 2015‐2020 6.9% 5.8%

Avg. Annual Percent Change 2000‐2010 ‐0.1% 0.3% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2010‐2015 1.5% 1.2% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2015‐2020 1.3% 1.1%

Households 2000 Census 10,486 84,553 2010 Census 11,250 87,151 2015 Estimate 12,447 92,814 2020 Projection 13,495 98,481

Percent Change 2000‐2010 7.3% 3.1% Percent Change 2010‐2015 10.6% 6.5% Percent Change 2015‐2020 8.4% 6.1%

Avg. Annual Percent Change 2000‐2010 0.7% 0.3% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2010‐2015 2.0% 1.3% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2015‐2020 1.6% 1.2%

Average Household Size 2000 Census 2.46 2.21 2010 Census N/A N/A 2015 Estimate 2.24 2.19 2020 Projection 2.21 2.19 Sources: US Census Bureau, Nielsen, RES

Although the population of the PMA decreased marginally from 2000 to 2010, 2015 estimates by

Nielsen indicate the population has since surpassed its 2000 count. In contrast, the population of the

City has increased steadily since 2000, as have the number of households in both the PMA and the City.


Continued population and household growth is projected through 2020 in both the PMA and the City.

Population and household growth from 2010 to 2020 is projected to occur at a faster rate in the PMA

than in the City. From 2010 to 2015, Nielsen estimates that the PMA population increased by 8.0

percent, and the number of households increased 10.6 percent. In both the PMA and in the City,

household growth has generally outpaced population growth, which is a result of declines in the average

household size indicated in Table 10.

Characteristics of the Population

Table 11 provides summary data addressing the age, racial, and educational attainment characteristics

of the population in the PMA and the City of Richmond.

TABLE 11: SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

Primary

Market Area City of

Richmond

2015 Population by Age ‐ Percent Under 5 years 7.4% 6.4%5 to 9 years 7.2% 5.9%10 to 14 years 6.0% 4.9%15 to 17 years 3.1% 2.9%18 to 20 years 3.4% 6.0%21 to 24 Years 6.1% 7.8%25 to 34 Years 21.7% 18.7%35 to 44 Years 12.4% 12.0%45 to 54 Years 11.8% 11.6%55 to 64 Years 11.3% 11.6%65 to 74 Years 5.6% 6.9%75 to 84 Years 2.8% 3.4%85+ Years 1.1% 1.9%Median Age in 2015 (in Years) 32.8 33.6

2015 Population by Race/Ethnicity ‐ PercentWhite Alone 24.2% 42.0%African American Alone 71.1% 48.9%Asian and Pacific Islander Alone 1.5% 2.4%Some Other Race 0.8% 4.1%Two or More Races 2.4% 2.6%Hispanic* 2.1% 6.6%

2015 Population by Educational Attainment ‐ Percent**Less than 9th Grade 7.8% 7.6%Some High School, No Diploma 14.9% 10.9%High School Graduate 24.6% 22.8%Some College, No Degree 18.7% 18.6%Associate's Degree 6.2% 5.7%Bachelor's Degree 18.5% 21.1%Master's Degree 5.4% 9.0%Professional Degree 3.3% 3.1%Doctorate Degree 0.6% 1.3% *Hispanics are included in the above population by race percentages. **Statistics are for population 25+ years. Sources: US Census Bureau, Nielsen, RES


The age distribution of the PMA’s population differs somewhat from that of the City as a whole. In 2015,

an estimated 9.5 percent of the PMA population is 65 years old and older; for the City, the percentage is

12.2 percent. However, for the age cohort 55 to 64, the percentages are similar, 11.3 percent in the

PMA and 11.6 percent in Richmond. The PMA has a higher percentage of population age 25 to 34 than

the City, 21.7 percent and 18.7 percent, respectively, which is consistent with reports from Realtors that

young professionals are purchasing homes in the PMA. The larger percentages of younger people in the

PMA are reflected in the 2015 median age, which is 32.8 years old.

The PMA has a higher concentration of African‐Americans than the City. Over 71 percent of the 2015

PMA population is estimated to be African‐American. Overall, the PMA is relatively less racially and

ethnically diverse than the City.

The PMA also has a higher percentage of adults 25 years and older who did not complete high school

(22.7 percent in the PMA versus 18.4 percent in the City). Of the PMA’s adults, 49.5 percent have a high

school diploma or have attended some college and/or obtained an Associate’s Degree; for the City, a

similar percentage of adults, 47.1 have this level of educational attainment. In the PMA 27.8 percent of

adults has a Bachelor, Graduate, or Professional Degree; the percentage for the City is much higher, 34.4

percent.

Households by Household Size – All Households

Information about household sizes in the East End PMA is an important indicator of the sizes of housing

units that are needed. Table 12 presents the information for the PMA and also for the City of Richmond.

The data indicate strong demand for housing units having one and two bedrooms to accommodate

households with one and two persons, as well as some three person households. In the PMA 68.1

percent of all households either are one person or two person households; in the City of Richmond

overall, the percentage is even higher, 69.8 percent. It is worth noting that demand also is evident for an

increment of three‐bedroom units for which the average household size is 4.5 persons. In the PMA, 13.0

percent of households have four or five persons.

TABLE 12: HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS, 2015 ESTIMATES



1 Person 4,893 39.3% 35,379 38.1%

2 Person 3,580 28.8% 29,431 31.7%

3 Person 1,904 15.3% 13,642 14.7%

4 Person 1,076 8.6% 8,044 8.7%

5 Person 548 4.4% 3,675 4.0%

6 Person 241 1.9% 1,564 1.7%

7+ Person 205 1.6% 1,079 1.2%

Total Households 12,447 100.0% 92,814 100.0%

Sources: Nielsen, Inc.; RES


Households by Household Size – Senior Households

As would be expected, senior renter households include large percentages of one and two person

households. The percentages are higher for households 62 and older than for households with a

householder 55 and older. RES purchased special tabulations of PMA households by income, size,

tenure, and age from Ribbon Demographics. The tabulations, which are based on data compiled by

Nielsen, Inc., include estimates for 2015 of the number of renter households by the number of persons

in the household. These so‐called “HISTA tabulations” (Households by Income, Size, Tenure, and Age)

provide household sizes for various age cohorts. Table 13 presents 2015 estimates for renter households

with householders 55 and older and 62 and older by number of persons. The vast majority of renter

households with householders 55 and older (83.4 percent) include only one or two persons. The

percentage is even higher, 84.8 percent, for households 62 and older. Clearly, the bedroom mix

proposed for the Subject Property is appropriate for a senior rental property.

TABLE 13: PMA RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ AND 62+ BY NUMBER OF PERSONS,

2015 ESTIMATES

Households 55+ Households 62+


1 Person 1,352 66.8% 837 71.7%

2 Person 336 16.6% 153 13.1%

3 Person 152 7.5% 95 8.1%

4 Person 88 4.3% 52 4.5%

5+ Person 96 4.7% 30 2.6%

Total Households 2,024 100.0% 1,167 100.0%

Sources: Nielsen, Inc.; RES

PMA Households by Tenure

As shown in Table 14, the estimated 2015 percentage of vacant housing units in the PMA is high, 15.1

percent, and far higher than in the City of Richmond.

TABLE 14: OCCUPANCY AND OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PMA AND RICHMOND, 2015



2015 Housing Unit

Occupied Units 12,447 84.7% 92,814 89.1%

Owner Occupied 3,885 26.5% 39,613 38.0%

Renter Occupied 8,562 58.3% 53,201 51.1%

Vacant Units 2,241 15.3% 11,327 10.9%

Total Housing Units 14,688 104,141

Median Age, Owner Households 56.8 55.9

Median Age, Renter Households 37.8 38.2

Sources: Nielsen; RES


The PMA’s housing stock is largely renter‐occupied. During 2015, Nielsen estimates that 58.3 percent of

the occupied housing units were renter‐occupied. The PMA’s renter householders are younger than

owner householders; the median age is estimated to be 37.8. In contrast, owner householders in the

PMA have a median age estimated to be 56.8 years in 2015, or older than the median of 55.9 in the City.

This older median age is an indication that many households living in owner‐occupied units have aged in

place.

Estimates by Nielsen of the year owner‐occupied households moved into their homes are a further

indication that owners have been aging in place. For 2015, Nielsen has estimated that 40.4 percent of

PMA households living in owner‐occupied housing units moved to their homes before 1990, or at least

25 years ago.

PMA Households by Income

Table 15 presents estimates by Nielsen of household income during 2015 in the PMA and the City of

Richmond. The table also includes 2020 projections of median and average household income compared

with data in the 2000 Census (the 2010 Census did not include data on household income).

TABLE 15: 2015 HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME

PMA City of Richmond Income Band Number Percent Number Percent

Under $15,000 3,789 30.4% 20,171 21.7% $15,000 ‐ $24,999 1,495 12.0% 11,637 12.5% $25,000 ‐ $34,999 1,297 10.4% 11,092 12.0% $35,000 ‐ $49,999 1,757 14.1% 13,893 15.0% $50,000 ‐ $74,999 1,949 15.7% 15,061 16.2% $75,000 ‐ $99,999 987 7.9% 8,328 9.0% $100,000 ‐ $124,999 434 3.5% 4,453 4.8% $125,000 ‐ $149,999 314 2.5% 2,395 2.6% $150,000 ‐ $199,999 210 1.7% 2,696 2.9% $200,000 ‐ $249,999 85 0.7% 968 1.0% $250,000 ‐ $499,999 105 0.8% 1,501 1.6% $500,000 and over 25 0.2% 619 0.7%

Median Household Income2000 Census $21,104 $31,7142015 Estimate $32,244 $38,7862020 Projection $33,166 $39,502

Average Household Income2000 Census $29,236 $46,2362015 Estimate $45,807 $56,9292020 Projection $47,011 $58,140

Note: Percentages may not add due to rounding. Sources: US Census Bureau; Nielsen; RES


The 2015 estimates indicate that 30.4 percent of PMA households had incomes less than $15,000, as

opposed to 21.7 percent of all Richmond households. The result is significantly lower median and

average household incomes in the PMA during 1015.

However, the household income data also show that the PMA has households with a mix of incomes,

albeit at lower percentages than in the City of Richmond. Over half of PMA households (57.5 percent)

are estimated to have annual household incomes above $25,000; 33.0 percent of households are

estimated to have a household income greater than $50,000 per year. Percentages of higher income

households in the City are higher, again reflecting the higher median incomes. In Richmond, 65.7

percent of households have incomes estimated to be greater than $25,000 annually, but the same

percentage, 33.0 percent, have annual incomes of $50,000 and higher. In general, the distribution of

households by income is more even in the City overall than in the PMA, largely because the City has a

lower percentage of households estimated to have incomes below $15,000.

PMA Senior Households 62+ by Income and Tenure

RES used the HISTA special tabulations of households by income, size, tenure, and age from Ribbon

Demographics to examine the number of elderly households with householder 62 and older by income

and tenure. Table 16 presents estimates for 2015 and projections for 2020.

TABLE 16: PMA HOUSEHOLDS 62+ BY INCOME BAND AND TENURE

Renter Households Owner Households Total Households

Income Band 2015 2020 Change 2015 2020 Change 2015 2020 Change

$0 ‐ $10,000 374 459 85 153 183 30 527 642 115

$10,000 ‐ $20,000 361 443 82 379 421 42 740 864 124

$20,000 ‐ $30,000 119 155 36 197 235 38 316 390 74

$30,000 ‐ $40,000 113 148 35 274 334 60 387 482 95

$40,000 ‐ $50,000 50 54 4 122 158 36 172 212 40

$50,000 ‐ $60,000 42 50 8 128 161 33 170 211 41

$60,000 ‐ $75,000 31 44 13 70 93 23 101 137 36

$75,000 ‐ $100,000 36 52 16 86 104 18 122 156 34

$100,000 ‐ $125,000 12 19 7 35 54 19 47 73 26

$125,000 ‐ $150,000 15 16 1 21 33 12 36 49 13

$150,000 ‐ $200,000 5 9 4 7 6 ‐1 12 15 3

$200,000 and over 9 14 5 9 10 1 18 24 6

Totals 1,167 1,463 296 1,481 1,792 311 2,648 3,255 607

Sources: Nielsen, Inc.; Ribbon Demographics; RES

Consistent with the 2015 income estimates presented in Table 15 for PMA households in all age cohorts,

the tabulations of PMA renter households 62+ show high percentages have extremely low incomes.

During 2015, 32.0 percent of PMA renter households had annual incomes estimated to be below

$10,000, and an additional 30.9 percent of households were estimated to have incomes between

$10,000 and $20,000. The percentages of renter households 62+ in these two lowest income bands are

expected to change only marginally from 2015 to 2020. However, the number of households is

projected to increase by 167, which represents 56.4 percent of the projected household growth during


the five‐year period. Therefore, demand for elderly housing for extremely low‐income renter

households is projected to increase. Some of the change may be the result of inflation. The change does

not appear to be related to changing tenure patterns, however. The number of owner households in the

PMA also is projected to increase by 2020, albeit at a slower pace for extremely low‐income owner

households.

The VHDA definition of elderly is 65 and older while Ribbon Demographics uses the HUD age cohorts of

55+ and 62+ for the special HISTA tabulations; therefore, adjustments to the 65+ definition have been

made where needed by assuming even distributions of households within age cohorts and income

bands.

Residential Building Permits

Table 17 provides annual residential building permit data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and

available through HUD for the City of Richmond as a whole from 2000 through 2014. From 2005 through

2008, the total number of permitted units declined steadily and remained low during 2009. Since 2009,

the total number of permits has fluctuated, but there was a 13‐year peak in 2013 resulting from the

large number of permits issued for units in five or more family (multifamily) structures. Commencing

after 2005 and continuing until 2011, the number of single‐family permits declined from a level of 525 in

2005 to only 92 permits in 2011. During the time frame since 2011, single‐family permits generally have

moved upward, to a 2014 level of 182 permits. Despite the gains, the number of single‐family permits

has remained far below the 2005 peak. Further, permits for residential buildings in the City overall

during 2014 were far lower than during 2013 because of the decline in the number of units permitted in

multifamily structures. Preliminary data for 2015 through August indicate a similar number of single‐

family permits during 2015, but a further decline in permits for multifamily units.

TABLE 17: PERMITS FOR NEW PRIVATELY‐OWNED RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND

Year Single‐Family Two‐Family Three‐ and Four‐Family

Five or More Family Total

2000 170 24 76 0 2702001 179 2 3 99 2832002 161 8 35 312 5162003 279 6 68 142 4952004 319 8 0 71 3982005 525 0 3 226 7542006 483 14 18 214 7292007 356 6 0 202 5642008 253 4 0 101 3582009 139 2 0 220 3612010 126 24 0 457 6072011 92 6 3 242 3432012 119 102 0 619 8402013 106 28 4 711 8492014 182 38 0 331 551

Note: Counts are by number of units, not buildings. Sources: US Census Bureau; RES


Demographic Trends

Analysis of demographic data for the East End PMA show several trends that are relevant

considerations.

The population and number of households in the PMA are growing. There has been population

and household growth since 2010. Additional projected growth will add to demand for the new

rental units proposed at the Old Armstrong High School site, including demand for units at the

Subject Property for households 62 and older. Between 2015 and 2020, Nielsen is projecting a

total gain of 1,048 households in the PMA, including 607 renter and owner households 62 years

old and older. The age and income tabulations are included in Appendix A for reference.

The PMA has a high percentage of very poor households. The income data presented in Tables

15 and 16 show that the PMA is home to large numbers of very poor households, including

households 62 and older. As shown in Table 15, the PMA percentage of households in all age

cohorts with incomes under $15,000 is far higher than for the City of Richmond. The disparity in

projections of 2020 median income in both areas indicates the PMA will continue to lag the City

because of the high percentage of households in this lowest income band.

Special tabulations of households by income and tenure confirm the high percentage of very

poor renter households 62 and older and living in the PMA. While the units at the Subject

Property are to be a relocation resource for households 62+ who are now living at Creighton

Court, there is ample additional demand for the 45 proposed units. The addition of these units

will address a small increment of the PMA demand for elderly renters; the availability of the RAD

income‐based subsidies for these units is very important because a high percentage of these

households are too poor to qualify for LIHTC‐only units.

The PMA has a high percentage of households 62 years old and older who are living in owner‐

occupied housing units. For 2015 the HISTA estimates for the PMA show that a high percentage

of households 62 and older, 2,086 households, are one and two person households. Of these

households, 52.5 percent are estimated to be living in owner‐occupied units while 47.5 of

households are renters. Growth is projected by 2020 for both owners and renters in households

with one or two persons. However, the percentage of households living in owner‐occupied

housing units is projected to decline while the percentage of renter households is projected to

increase. One reason may be that some owners will sell their homes and move to rental

housing.

PMA (and Richmond) Households are small in size. Consistent with the above, the analyses of

households by number of persons shows, clearly, that the majority of all PMA households are

small, having one or two persons. An estimated 84.8 percent of the PMA’s renter households

62+ were one or two person households. This trend is not expected to change during the next

five years.


E. COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT

RES has compiled information about the rental housing stock in the region, City of Richmond, and the

delineated PMA to reach conclusions about the competitive environment, the performance of rental

housing, and housing market conditions that will influence the performance of the Subject Property. We

have surveyed a sample of market‐rate properties in the PMA, focusing on newer mid‐rise elevator

structures. While it was possible to identify this type of property in the PMA, virtually all are located in

the western portion in and near Shockoe Bottom, Shockoe Valley, Tobacco Row, and Richmond’s Central

Business District. Two exceptions in the PMA are rental properties that do not have elevators: The Villas

of Oakwood, a renovated complex offering one, two, and three bedroom units; and The Lofts at

Beckstoffers Mill, all of which are one‐bedroom units. Because of its proximity and its one‐bedroom

units, RES has included this property within the sample.

Consistent with VHDA guidelines, all LIHTC properties in the PMA are included in this analysis in a

separate section. However, family properties are not considered to be competitive with the senior

housing units at the Subject Property

Housing Stock in the Region and PMA

Data available from REIS, a firm that compiles information about the performance of apartments in U.S.

markets, indicates a vacancy rate of 4.3 percent at the end of the third quarter 2015. The REIS data,

which are for market‐rate apartments in the Richmond metropolitan area, show a decline from the

same quarter during 2014. The current quarter rent of $880 reported for market‐rate properties

represents a two percent increase from the third quarter of 2014. A year‐end 2014 report by REIS for

the Airport Submarket, which includes the PMA for the Subject Property, provided a vacancy rate of 5.6

percent for the quarter ending December 31, 2014 and a 5.6 percent annualized vacancy rate for 2014.

The REIS third quarter 2015 report for the submarket is not yet available. Data compiled by another

firm, Real Data, during August 2015 placed the vacancy rate in the region at a higher level, 6.8 percent,

which was attributed to the large number of units added to the region’s supply during the preceding 18

months.

Additions to the PMA Housing Stock

Several firms have developed estimates of additions to the multifamily housing market in the Richmond

area and the City. Real Data reported during August 2015 that an additional 4,811 units were proposed

in the Richmond metropolitan area. Of these, about 40 percent, or 1,925 new units, are reported to be

planned in the Central Submarket, which is the area of the City located north of the James River. This

submarket, which is larger than the PMA for the Subject Property, includes downtown Richmond and

areas northwest of Interstate 195.

The most recent REIS construction report, which is for the end of the second quarter 2015, presents

more conservative estimates of multifamily properties under construction, planned, and proposed that


are located within the PMA for the Subject Property. Only one project with 76 units is listed as under

construction on North 19th Street in Shockoe Bottom. One additional rental project in Shockoe Bottom

with 140 units is planned; another development with 71 units also is planned, but is listed as a

condominium. Proposed developments listed by REIS include the Old Armstrong High School

development with a total of 300 units and a 160‐unit apartment development near East Grace and

North 20th Streets.

Recent press articles report on a proposed 285‐unit apartment development at the Cary Street Bus

Terminal for which community meetings recently have been held. Excluding Old Armstrong High School,

these additional multifamily properties would add a total of 732 additional residential units to the PMA

inventory, including the proposed condominium development. In relation to the existing inventory in

the PMA, which is estimated to total of 14,688 housing units, the identified additional multifamily units

represents five percent of the current stock.

There are legitimate concerns about the likelihood of overbuilding in Richmond urban and suburban

markets, which would bring longer absorption periods, more limited rent increases, and possible rent

concessions. However, the majority of the additional proposed multifamily will be luxury developments

and not affordable for elderly households with very low incomes who will comprise demand for the 45

units at the Subject Property. Therefore, the market‐rate residential developments that are under

construction, planned, and proposed in the PMA are not expected to compete with the Subject

Property.

Housing Units and Vacancy in the PMA

As presented previously in Table 14, Nielsen has estimated a total of 14,688 housing units in the PMA

during 2015, of which 84.7 percent are occupied and 15.3 percent are vacant, which is a higher vacancy

rate than the estimate of 10.9 percent for the City of Richmond during 2015. The Nielsen 2015 estimate

of total PMA housing units represents an increase of 1,202 units from the total of 13,486 units reported

in the 2010 Census. The higher number of residential units is consistent with the above reports of

additions to the multifamily inventory in the PMA.

The 2010 Census reported a PMA vacancy rate of 16.6 percent and included a breakdown indicating

issues with the condition of vacant units. Of the vacant units, 730 were classified as “other vacant” and

were not being offered for‐sale or for‐rent. This classification usually means that the units are not likely

to be habitable housing units. During 2010, units in this classification represented 5.4 percent of the

PMA’s housing units.

Comparable Market‐Rate Properties

Table 18 provides information from the RES survey of comparable market‐rate properties. Table 19 then

presents details about amenities and apartment features in the properties, and Map 8 shows the

locations of the properties in the PMA. Photographs of the properties also are provided.


TABLE 18: SURVEY OF SELECTED COMPARABLE MARKET‐RATE RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDINGSYear # of Included

Project Name / Address Occupancy Built Units Configuration Costs

Lava Lofts 100.0% 2013 53 1‐BR, 1‐BA 580 ‐ 782 $925 ‐ $1,025 $1.59 ‐ $1.77 Basic Cable

310 N. 33rd St. 4 Stories 2‐BR, 1‐BA Internet

Richmond, VA 23223 Trash

855‐969‐3331

Contact: Kimberly Pitts

Old Stone Row 93.8% 2011 96 1‐BR, 1‐BA 562 ‐ 594 $1,033 ‐ $1,103 $1.84 ‐ $1.86 All Util ities

2005 E. Franklin Street 6 2BR avail 4 Stories 2‐BR, 2‐BA 831 ‐ 954 $1,399 ‐ $1,599 Basic Cable

Richmond, VA 23223 Has 21 Internet

Office: 2010 E. Main Street VHDA

804.495‐2181 Units

Contact: Lucia Zahringer, Legend

Terrace 202 96.6% 2014 58 1‐BR, 1‐BA

202 N. 20th Street Vacant: 4 Stories 2‐BR, 2BA All Util ities,

Richmond, VA 23223 1 1BR 3‐BR, 2BA Basic Cable,

804.495‐2181 1 2BR Internet


Trolley Commons 2.7% 2011 74 1‐BR, 1‐BA All Util ities,

2020 E. Main Street Vacant: 4 Stories 2‐BR, 2BA Baic Internet,

Richmond, VA 23223 1 1BR Direct TV

804‐440‐7368 1 2BR


Cedar Broad Apartments 96.1% 2011 204 1‐BR, 1‐BA 538 ‐ 574 $809 ‐ $1,077 $1.50 ‐ $1.88 Basic Cable,

1820 E. Broad St. Vacant: 2‐BR, 2 & 2.5‐BA 756 ‐ 835 $1,133 ‐ $1,388 $1.50 ‐ $1.66 Internet, Sewer &

Richmond, VA 23223 4 1BR 3‐BR, 2.5‐BA 1,064 ‐ 1,073 $1,509 ‐ $1,599 $1.42 ‐ $1.49 Trash,

877‐873‐6707 2 2BR iPod Dock Sta.

Contact: Jordan 2 3BR

Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal Walk 98.1% 3 Phases: 310 Studio, 1‐BA 388 ‐ 700 $866 ‐ $1,721 $2.23 ‐ $2.46 All Util ities,

10 S. 20th Street 2003 1‐BR, 1‐BA Loft 560 ‐ 850 $1,070 ‐ $1,780 $1.91 $2.09 High Speed

Richmond, VA 23223 2005 !‐BR, 1‐BA 535 ‐ 750 $988 ‐ $2,406 $1.85 $3.21 Internet, Cable

804‐643‐5638 2008 2‐BR. 2BA 970 ‐ 1,041 $1,666 ‐ $2,639 $1.72 $2.54 with HBO

Contact: Jazmyn Beachan 2‐BR. 2BA

Cameron Kinney (at River Lofts 88.2% All Buildings 196 1‐BR, 1‐BA 700 ‐ 1,261 $837 ‐ $1,682 $1.20 ‐ $1.33 Cold Water

at Tobacco Row) 1991 2‐BR, 2‐BA 884 ‐ 1,080 $947 ‐ $2,077 $1.07 ‐ $1.92 Sewer & Trash

2400 E. Cary St. to 720 in 3‐BR, 2‐BA 1396 ‐ 1620

Richmond, VA 23223 2010 all Bldgs

804‐495‐4096

Contact: Alexis

2001 East 97.3% 2011 75 Studia, 1‐BA 520 ‐ 580 $775 ‐ $1,080 $1.49 ‐ $1.86 High Speed

2001 East Broad St. Has 1‐BR, 1‐BA 650 ‐ 768 $865 ‐ $1,150 $1.33 ‐ $1.50 Internet,

Richmond, VA 23223 VHDA 2‐BR, 2‐BA 800 ‐ 1,050 $960 ‐ $1,675 $1.20 $1.60 Sewer & Trash

804‐313‐6635 Units

Contact: Lisa

American Tobacco Center 94.8% 2006 153 1‐BR, 1‐BA 400 ‐ 844 $878 ‐ $1,268 $2.20 ‐ $1.50 Basic Cable

2001 E. Grace St. to 2‐BR, 2‐BA 800 ‐ 1,238 $1,206 ‐ $2,031 $1.51 ‐ $1.64 Internet

Richmond, VA 23223 2008 3‐BR, 2‐BA 1,100 ‐ 1,317 $1,571 ‐ $2,031 $1.43 ‐ $1.54 Trash

804‐377‐9900

Contact: Ben Ferry

Shockoe Valley View Apts. Lease Up 2014 151 1‐BR, 1‐BA 544 ‐ 586 $859 ‐ $1,029 $1.58 ‐ $1.76 Basic Cable

1904 Cedar St. 10 units 2‐BR, 2‐BA 849 ‐ 892 $1,179 ‐ $1,359 $1.39 ‐ $1.52 Internet

Richmond, VA 23223 remained Trash

804‐977‐0797 9/2015 Leasing pace ‐

Contact: New person in Leasing 93.4% About 9 units/mo

Nearby East End Propery ‐ Not an Elevator Building

The Lofts at Beckstoffers Mill 100.0% 2011 22 1‐BR, 1‐BA 746 ‐ 900 $850 ‐ $950 $1.14 ‐ $0.94 Sewer & Trash

1207 N. 28th St. Has High Speed

Richmond, VA 23223 11 Internet

804‐354‐9455 Work‐

Contact: Greta Harris force

Information only provided for two vacant units

557 $1,125 $2.02

1,009 $1,499 $1.49

N/A ‐ None N/A

Source: Interviews conducted by RES during February, September, and October 2015.

Available

Asking

Square Feet Rent Rent / Sq. Ft.

860 $1,350 $1.57

Market‐Rate Rents

1,300 N/A

1,045

$1.68

652

903

$1,209

$1,529

$1.85

$1.69

Information only provided for two vacant units

N/A


TABLE 19: SUMMARY OF AMENITIES AND APARTMENT FEATURES IN SELECTED MARKET‐RATE RENTAL PROPERTIES TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF AMENITIES AND APARTMENT FEATURES IN SELECTED MARKET RATE RENTAL PROPERTIES

Property Amenities /

Apartment Features Lava Lofts Old Stone Row Terrace 202 Trolley Commons Cedar Broad

Lofts and Upper Lofts at

Canal Walk

Cameron‐Kinney

(River Lofts at Tobacco

Row) 2001 East

American Tobacco

Center

Shockoe Valley

View Apts.

The Lofts at

Beckstoffers Mill

Management RVA ApartmentsLegend Property

Group

Legend Property

Group

Legend Property

GroupMatrix Main Street Realty Forest City Bonaventure Pegasus Residential Genesis Properties

Better Housing

Coalition

Property Amenities

Property Type 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rises, 7 Story 4 StoryMid‐Rise Mid‐Rise Mid‐Rise Mid‐Rise Lofts /former Factory

Parking Surface, Reserved Wait l ist for Garage Garage parking Garage parking Surface or Garage Free surface, Garage Surface or Covered Garage Surface or Garage Gated Surface Surface or Garage

Monthly Parking Costs $85/Mo for Reserved Additional Fee $75/Mo. $50/Mo $85 or $100 $100 for garage $35‐$120 $70 or $100 $45 Included

Concierge / Doorman x

Fitness Center X X X X X Cardio, strength X

Swimming Pool Heated Outdoor Outdoor Rooftop w/Sundeck Outdoor

Resident Lounge X X /Whirlpool X X X X

Business Center X X x X X

Extra Storage $50/Month X x X

Play Area

Outdoor Open Space Rooftop Deck X X X Roof Deck BBQ/Picnic BBQ/Picnic, Courtyard X X X X

On‐Site Management X X X x X X X X X X

On‐Site Maintenance X X X x X X X X X X

Special Amenities Restaurant, Dog Wash Terrace w/Firepit Breakfast/Coffee Breakfast/Coffee Exposed brick, beams, Theater, Boardroom Cyber Café, Cyber Café, Bike Storage, Community Garden,

& Grill Concierge Concierge Pet Run Roof Deck Coffee Bar Dog Park Green Development

Roof Tan Fac, Social Events

Concessions Offered None None None None Waiving None 1 mo. free on 1 yr lease None Reduced Application One month free on NoneSecurity Deposit No app or amenity fee Fee free but ended.

Apartment Features

Heat Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric NAV

Stove Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric

Hot Water Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric NAV

Dishwasher X X X X X X X X X X X

Garbage Disposal X X X x X X X X X X X

Automatic Ice Maker X X X X X Newer Units Only X X X NAV

Washer Dryer X X X X X X X X X X

Microwave X X X x X X x X X X X

Air Conditioning Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central

Hi Speed Internet X X X X X X X x X X X

Private Balconies Some Units X X Some Units Some Units X Some Units X Some Units Some Patios

Mini Blinds X X Blinds X X X X X NAV

Flooring Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood HW & Carpet Hardwood HW or Carpet HW & Carpet Concrete or HW Finished Concrete

Kitchen Counters Granite Granite Granite Granite Granite Granite Granite in Newer Units Granite Granite Granite Granite

Kitchen Floor Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Ceramic or Vinyl Hardwood Ceramic Concrete or HW Concrete

Bathroom Floor Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic or Vinyl Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic NAV

Bathtub Surround One‐Piece Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic One‐Piece Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic One‐Piece One‐Piece NAV

Pets Dogs & Cats Dogs & Cats Dogs & Cats Dogs & Cats Cats Only; 2 Limit Dogs & Cats, 2 Limit Dogs & Cats Cats & Small Dogs Cats & Small Dogs Dogs & Cats

Pet Fee $300 Fee $200, Max of 2 $200, Max of 2 $200, Max of 2 $300; $200 more if 2nd $350 $250 Fee per pet $350 $250 Fee No Fee

Pet Rent $25/Month None None None $10/Month $25/Month per pet $25/Month per pet $10/Month $20/Month

Source: Interviews conducted by RES during February, September, and October 2015.

Shared Fitness Center ‐ Shockoe Valley Heights Bldgs.

Shared Outdoor‐Shockoe Valley Heights Bldgs.


MAP 8: LOCATION OF COMPARABLE MARKET‐RATE PROPERTIES IN THE PMA

Lava Lofts Old Stone Row Terrace 202

Trolley Commons Cedar Broad Apartments 2001 East


The variation in rental housing within the PMA is

apparent from the listed properties. To the extent

possible, RES has surveyed smaller properties that

are comparable and that have elevators and fewer

than five stories because the Subject Property is a

smaller three‐story elevator building. Similarly,

properties with one‐bedroom and two‐bedroom

units were a focus. As noted previously, most of the

properties are concentrated in the western part of

the PMA because the majority of new development

projects – both new construction and conversions –

have been occurring in this portion of the PMA.

Development in Shockoe Bottom, Tobacco Row, and

Church Hill has continued because these

neighborhoods are attractive places to live.

Redevelopment is, however, pushing from these

neighborhoods into Union Hill, Chimborazo, and to a

lesser extent, Church Hill North.

Where information about occupancy was provided

by management or available through third party

sources, most of the properties had occupancy rates

above 94 percent. Two properties, Lava Lofts and

Beckstoffer’s Mill, reported no vacant units; Terrace 202 and Trolley Commons each had two units

available. No information was available for Cameron‐Kinney, which is one of the properties at River Lofts

at Tobacco Row. However, River Lofts at Tobacco Row had numerous units available in the property

overall, which has a total of 720 units. The higher vacancies at this complex probably are the reason for

incentives being offered complex‐wide during October 2015. There is one month’s free rent and the

application and amenities fee are being waived. While the buildings are very attractive and the units are

Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal Walk

Cameron Kinney (River Lofts at Tobacco Row)

Shockoe Valley View Apartments

American Tobacco Center

Beckstoffe’rs Mill


large, this is an older complex and it does not have some of the features of newer rentals. For example,

washers/dryers are not provided in units at Cameron‐Kinney, and it is the only property surveyed that

does not offer these appliances. In addition, none of the other surveyed properties had an activities fee.

Rents for one‐bedroom units ranged from a low of $0.96 per square foot at The Lofts at Beckstoffer’s

Mill to a high of $3.21 per square foot at the top of the rent range at Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal

Walk. Rents at the latter property include all utilities, cable, and Internet. The most representative rent

range for the properties surveyed is from about $1.50 to $1.86 per square foot for a one‐bedroom, one‐

bath unit and about $1.50 to $1.66 per square foot for a two‐bedroom, two‐bath unit. With the

exception of Cameron‐Kinney and other properties at River Lofts at Tobacco Row, all of the properties

surveyed were either developed or renovated more recently than 2010.

Only a handful of properties were offering concessions, despite analysts’ concerns about overbuilding in

the broader Richmond market. Concessions at two properties were small. Cedar Broad is offering

reduced a security deposit with approved credit and American Tobacco Center is offering a reduced

application fee. Shockoe Valley View continues to offer one month free; River Lofts at Tobacco Road is

offering the aforementioned concessions that seem likely to continue beyond October 2015.

A somewhat surprising utility‐related finding was the number of rental complexes that were including

high speed Internet in the rent. In addition, eight properties also included at least basic cable service in

the rent. One property added HBO; another had Direct TV.

Rents at four properties – those managed by Legend Properties (Old Stone Row, Terrace 202, and

Trolley Commons) and Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal Walk managed by Main Street Realty – include

cable, Internet, and all other utilities in the rent. Both companies market this as a major convenience

for the resident and have higher per square foot rents because the utilities are included. Since

occupancy is very high at virtually all of the complexes, this strategy seems to be successful. In addition

to the four properties that include all utilities in the rent, one additional property surveyed (Cameron‐

Kinney) includes cold water in the rent. Beckstoffer’s Mill assesses a water charge of $25 per month per

unit. All of the surveyed properties include sewer and trash collection in the base rent.

Amenities vary depending on the property, although only one lacks a fitness facility. The collection of

buildings managed by Legend Properties, collectively called Shockoe Valley Heights, shares a 24‐hour

fitness facility that has cardio and a strength training center. Tobacco Row offers the most amenities of

the properties surveyed: however, this property is the only one with a one‐time $250 amenity fee. Some

properties offer package acceptance, but none has a doorman or concierge service.

Interior features and finishes at the surveyed properties are standard for today’s multifamily rental

properties. The older, renovated properties have exposed brick walls, beams, and high ceilings adding to

their curb appeal. Most of the properties have hardwood floors, stainless appliances, and granite

countertops, although only the newer properties offer automatic ice makers. Most had community

spaces – a community room, resident lounge, and outdoor space. Most had outdoor pools with Wi‐Fi


and a deck. One complex has a heated pool with whirlpool. Several properties offer coffee bars and/or

cyber cafes. Other community amenities are pet‐oriented, including a dog wash, pet run, and pet area.

While most properties accept cats and dogs, most limit residents to two pets. Some properties limit the

maximum pet weight; others restrict some breeds.

Affordable Housing

RES surveyed all affordable housing properties in the East End PMA, consistent with VHDA guidelines. A

total of four LIHTC properties in the PMA for seniors 55+ and elderly 62+ were surveyed. One additional

property located just outside of the PMA also was surveyed to ascertain whether the PMA should be

expanded to include it. RES also gathered information on ten affordable LIHTC general occupancy

properties, all of which are located in the PMA. Eight of the properties are in service; two have not yet

started construction. Table 20 provides information about the properties and Map 9 shows their

locations. Photographs also are provided.

RES is of the opinion that development of the 45 rental units at the Subject Property for households 62

and older will have no impact on existing, competitive, LIHTC properties in the PMA, based on analyses

that have been completed. All of the operating affordable housing properties surveyed have very high

occupancy and many properties have extensive waiting lists, especially those with rents based on 30

percent of income. In addition to high occupancy at affordable properties that are privately owned,

officials of RRHA reported having opened their waiting list for two days and receiving 25,000

applications. RRHA now has a waiting list of 10,000 and will maintain the list at that level. Based on this

information, ample demand for additional affordable housing in the PMA, and additional new affordable

units will have no impact on existing LIHTC properties.

Affordable Senior Properties in the PMA

RES surveyed the five affordable senior LIHTC properties located in the PMA and one property, Carter

Woods, located outside of the PMA. Two of the properties, Bacon Retirement Community and Bowler

Retirement Community, are former schools that have been converted to senior housing. Both properties

have units at 50 and 60 percent AMI. They have no additional project‐based subsidies. Bacon had at

least one vacant unit during September 2015; Bowler was reported to be fully leased.

Church Hill House and Fairmount House have separate addresses, but both are managed by the same

company from offices at Fairmount House. Both were built in 1985 and rehabilitated in 2005. The unit

mix includes studio and one‐bedroom units, all with Section 8 Project‐Based subsidies. Because of these

subsidies, households pay monthly rents that are based on 30 percent of income. Fairmount House has

a mix of studio and one‐bedroom units, along with one two‐bedroom market‐rate unit. Residents pay

their own electric bills. Church Hill House has a mix of studios and one‐bedroom units. Rents include all

utilities. Both properties are fully occupied; management maintains an 18‐month waiting list.


TABLE 20: SURVEY OF PMA AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL PROPERTIES

Waiting Year # of Included Subsidy /

Project Name Occupancy List Built Units Configuration Costs Program Amenities

Bacon Retirement Community 98.3% Yes‐ N/A 58 Total Units All Util ities LIHTC (55+) Elevator building

815 N 35th Street Not long Converted 57 1‐Br, 1BA Included 30 units @ laundry

Richmond, VA 23223 School 1 2‐BR, 1BA 50%

804‐644‐5607 28@ 60%

Contact: Cheryl Chamberlayne

Bowler Retirement Community 100.0% Yes‐ N/A 63 1‐BR 433 & 691 All Util ities LIHTC Elevator building

608 N 26th Street No details Converted Included 13 units @ laundryRichmond, VA 23223 School 50%

804‐644‐5607 50 @ 60%

Contact: Cheryl Chamberlayne

Church Hill House 100.0% 18 Mos. 1985 154 Total Units All Util ities LIHTC (62+)

2400 Burton Street Renovated 35 0‐BR, 1BA Included Section 8

Richmond, VA 23223 2005 119 1‐BR, 1‐BA Project‐Based

804‐344‐3260 50% AMI

Contact: Beth Miller, Manager

Fairmount House 100.0% 18 Mos. 1985 143 Total Units Tenants pay LIHTC (62+)

1501 N 21st Street Renovated 40 0‐BR, 1‐BA Electric Section 8

Richmond, VA 23223 2005 102 1‐BR, 1‐BA Project‐Based

804‐344‐3260 1 2‐BR, 1BA 50% AMI

Contact: Robin Miller, Manager

Somanath Senior Apartments 100.0% Yes 2013 39 Total Units All Util ities LIHTC (55+)

1208 N 28th Street 1‐BR, 1‐BA Included 50% AMI

Richmond, VA 23223 2‐BR, 2‐BA Maximum

804‐643‐1956

Contact:

Carter Woods (Phase I & II)* 100.0% Yes 2003 & 152 Total Units Cold Water LIHTC (62+)

301 Dabbs House Road 2005 102 1‐BR, 1‐BA Sewer & Trash 60% AMI

Richmond, VA 23223 6 1‐BR, Den

804‐222‐4395 44 2‐BR, 2‐BA

Contact: Bobbie Fields, Sr. Mgr.

Square

Feet Rent

Gas heat & hot water,

electric stove, CAC,

disposal860

636

N/A

760

$693

839 $832

$710

All tenants

pay 30% of

income for

Tenants pay

30% of

income for

Gas heat & hot water,

electric stove, CAC,

disposal

636

N/A $670

552

$800N/A

506

CAC, on‐site laundry

facility, dishwasher,

microwave

CAC, disposal, dishwasher,

l ibrary, business center,

exercise room, garden

patio, veranda, laundry

rooms and lounges on each

N/A

860

1,823 Market‐Rate

*Carter Woods i s outs ide of the PMA in Henrico County.Source: RES interviews with property managers conducted during September 2015, supplemented with information on VA Hous ing Search.


MAP 9: LOCATION OF PMA AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL PROPERTIES

Bowler Retirement Community

Church Hill House Fairmount House

Bacon Retirement Community Carter Woods


A fifth senior LIHTC property in the PMA is Somanath

Senior Apartments, which provides units for seniors

55 and older and with incomes below 50 percent

AMI. As is discussed below, this property is

considered to be the most comparable to the Subject

Property.

Located outside of the PMA, the sixth property,

Carter Woods I and II, is about three‐fourths mile

east of the city limits and located just off of Nine

Mile Road. As described below, this property is

considered to be the second most comparable senior

property to the Subject Property, albeit not located within the PMA. Because of its proximity to the

Subject Property and its attractiveness, RES inquired during interviews, including an interview with the

property manager, about whether residents of the East End were applying for units at Carter Woods.

The respondents noted that seniors living in the East End generally would not move to Carter Woods.

The notable exception has been “a few” East End seniors with family living in nearby areas of Henrico

County that are convenient to Carter Woods. Otherwise, seniors living in the PMA do not apply at Carter

Woods and, therefore, the delineation of the PMA for the Subject Property was limited to the City’s East

End. However, RES is of the opinion that Carter Woods is a very comparable property to the Subject

Property. It is a newer property, having been constructed during 2003 and 2005, and it is a three‐story

elevator structure. Occupancy is by elderly households 62 years old and older as proposed at the Subject

Property. Amenities are extensive, including a lobby and a community room, an outdoor patio and deck,

and a resident lounges and laundry rooms on each floor of the building.

Affordable Non‐Elderly Properties in the PMA

Table 21 on the following page presents information for the ten affordable properties for general

occupancy that are located in the PMA. Map 10 shows their locations, and photographs are provided.

RES surveyed the eight operating properties with LIHTCs and we included one additional property in the

survey, George Mason Square, which is a Section 8 property with the same management as Ashley Oaks

Apartments.

Two of the general occupancy properties, Jackson Ward and Tobacco Landing, have the same address.

Management reported 100 percent occupancy, but the total number of affordable units was reported to

be 62, a lower number than indicated on the list for both properties. The two properties have been

combined in Table 21.

Somanath Senior Apartments


TABLE 21: SURVEY OF PMA AFFORDABLE GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PROPERTIES



Ashe Gardens N/A N/A Not 40 Total Units N/A LIHTC LIHTC allocstion approved

2618 Whitcomb Street Built 28 2‐BR, 1.5‐BA 7 units @ 2014. Proposed amenities:

Richmond, VA 23223 12 3‐BR, 2.0‐BA 40% AMI range, refrigerator, disposal,

540‐382‐2002 Ext. 3312 33 @ 50% dishwasher,W/D hook‐ups,

Contact: Chris Newman CAC

Ashley Oaks Apartments 97.0% RAP wait 1976 250 2‐BR, 1‐BA $533 ‐ $800 Cold Water LIHTC

1402 Jennie Scher Road list closed 3‐BR, 1‐BA $578 ‐ $719 Sewer Section 236

Richmond, VA 23231 Wait l ist not 3‐BR, 1.5‐BA $597 ‐ $728 & Trash RAP

804‐222‐8776 required for 4‐BR, 1.5‐BA $661 ‐ $844

Contact: Property Manager Section 236

George Mason Square 95.0% No 1976 26 Total Units Cold Water Section 236

1402 Jennie Scher Road See Above 12 2‐BR, 1‐BA $469 ‐ $593 Sewer RAP

Richmond, VA 23231 14 3‐BR, 1.5‐BA $499 ‐ $634 & Trash

804‐222‐8776

Contact: Property Manager

Church Hil l North, Phase 1 N/A N/A Planned 60 Total Units Sewer Mixed‐Income CAC, range, dishwasher,

1611 North 31st Street 2016 8 1‐BR, 1BA 645 ‐ 670 & Trash 50 LIHTC ‐ 40%, disposal, in‐unit washer/dryer,

Richmond, VA 23223 Constr. 33 2‐BR, 1&1.5 BA 895 ‐ 950 $895 ‐ $915 50% & 60%; carpet/wood floor, blinds

202‐552‐2511 Start 19 3BR, 2&2.5 BA 1,260 ‐ 1,365 10 Market‐Rate Earthcraft Platinum

Contact: Colleen Bonnicklewis

Jefferson Mews 100.0% 4 Renovated 56 Total Units Cold Water LIHTC

600 Jefferson Avenue families 2014 1‐BR, 1‐BA Sewer HOME

Richmond, VA 23223 2‐BR, 1‐ 2.5‐BA & Trash

804‐643‐1956 3‐BR, 1.5‐BA

Contact: Lymbrina

Jefferson Townhouses 100.0% 6‐7 Renovated 218 1‐BR, 1‐BA Basic Cable, LIHTC

1951 Venable Street families 2008 2‐BR, 1‐BA $700 ‐ $710 Internet 60% AMI

Richmond, VA 23223 3‐BR, 1‐BA Sewer

877‐316‐7019 4‐BR, 2BA Trash

Contact: Carmelo

Market Slip 100.0% None NAV 30 Total Units Electric, LIHTC

2 S. 17th Street 23 1‐BR, 1‐BA $709 ‐ $850 Hot & Cold 60% AMI

Richmond, VA 23219 7 2‐BR, 2‐BA $950 ‐ ###### Water,

804‐649‐9900 Sewer, Trash

Contact: Property Manager Internet

CAC, controlled access,

garage parking, elevator,

package receiving,

dishwasher, disposal,

washer/dryer in unit

638

848

Varies $900

620 $610 CAC, gated community,

washer/dryer in unit,

microwave, dishwasher,

disposal, hardwood flooring,

patio, alarm system

770

920 $820

1,175 $940

LIHTC Rents

$509

$696

Security system, carpet,

washer/dryer hook‐ups,

porches/yard

Varies $673

Varies $812

NAV CAC, playground, laundry on‐

site, dishwasher, disposal,

mini‐blinds

NAV

NAV

NAV

CAC, dishwasher

944

1,074

N/A

880

1,072

Square Feet Rent


TABLE 21: SURVEY OF PMA AFFORDABLE GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PROPERTIES CONTINUED



Mallard Greens Townhouses 96.0% None Renovated 192 2‐BR, 1‐BA Cold Water LIHTC

2852 Fairfield Avenue 2009 Sewer 60% AMI

Richmond, VA 23223 & Trash

804‐225‐1828

Contact: Alexis

Oliver Crossing 99.0% 2‐3 years 1967 222 Total Units Gas, Water LIHTC

1329 Coalter Street 32 1‐BR, 1‐BA Section 8

Richmond, VA 23219 134 2‐BR, 1‐BA 741 ‐ 927

804‐643‐3959 56 3‐BR, 1‐BA

Contact: Property Manager

Tobacco Landing/Jackson Wa 96.8% Yes 1996 62 Total Units Electric, LIHTC

2701 E. Main Street 2 2BR 53 1‐BR, 1‐BA Hot & Cold 60% AMI

Richmond, VA 23223 Vac in Nov. 9 2‐BR, 2‐BA $950 ‐ $995 Water,

804‐649‐9900 Sewer, Trash

Contact: Lafonda Internet

825

Source: RES interviews with property managers conducted during September 2015, supplemented with information on VA Hous ing Search.

All tenants

pay 30% of

income for

Window A/C, community

room, playground, one‐site

laundry, surface parking

567

937

Window A/C, on‐site

laundry, elevator,

dishwasher, disposal, garage

parking

662 $850

1,000 $669 CAC, hardwood flooring,

dishwasher, extra storage, on‐

site laundry, playground,

community/fitness center,

business center

Square Feet Rent


MAP 10: LOCATION OF PMA AFFORDABLE GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PROPERTIES

Number of Affordable Units and Vacant Units

For the affordable senior properties surveyed, reports by property managers and information supplied

by VHDA indicate a total of 609 units. Only one unit was vacant, or an extremely low vacancy rate, below

one‐tenth of one percent. The number of units at affordable properties in the PMA for general

occupancy totals 1,056 units excluding the two LIHTC properties not yet built (Ashe Gardens and Church

Ashley Oaks ApartmentsMallard Greens Jefferson Mews


Hill North Phase 1) and RRHA’s public housing units. Of the

total, property managers reported 21 vacant units, or a

vacancy rate of 1.9 percent for general occupancy

affordable housing in the PMA, also a very low vacancy

percentage.

Waiting Lists for Affordable Units

Information about wait lists for affordable properties for

seniors and general occupancy varied. With the exception

of Fairfield House and Church Hill House that have project‐

based Section 8 subsidies and a waiting list of 18 months,

managers of senior properties reported that they have

waiting lists but provided no details. One property

reported just starting a waiting list. Three of the general

occupancy properties that are 100 percent occupied

reported that they do not have waiting lists. Two

properties would not provide information. One general

occupancy property, Oliver Crossing has Section 8 Project

Based subsidies and LIHTCs and reported a wait of two to

three years for a unit.

Additions to the PMA’s Affordable Housing Supply

As indicated previously, two additional LIHTC properties have been approved, both of which are for

general occupancy. Ashe Gardens, which received an LIHTC allocation during 2014, is a 40‐unit project in

four buildings to be constructed on a 1.8‐acre site at Whitcomb and Anniston Streets. No construction

start date has been announced. The second approved project is Phase 1 of the Church Hill North

redevelopment at the Old Armstrong High School site. There will be a total of 60 mixed‐income rental

units including 10 market‐rate units. Construction is scheduled to commence during the first quarter of

2016.

Evaluation of the Subject Property; Most Comparable Properties

The Subject Property is a relatively small elderly rental development to be constructed near the City’s

eastern border with Henrico County. While the location is somewhat distant from areas of the PMA now

seeing major revitalization and new development, the size and scale of the Old Armstrong High School

site and plans for the development of a large new residential neighborhood are advantages. The Subject

Property is expected to be one component of this proposed large‐scale development. Proximity to Bon

Secours Hospital is a positive; if it moves forward, the proposed new supermarket will add a long‐

missing asset to the East End.

Properties that are the most comparable to the Subject Property include two affordable senior

properties and one market‐rate property. The two affordable senior properties are Somanath Senior

Jefferson Townhouses

Oliver Crossing


Apartments and Carter Hall; the market‐rate apartment complex is the new Shockoe Valley View

Apartments.

Somanath Senior Apartments is the most comparable to the Subject Property based on its size,

location, building type, and income targeting. Its age targeting differs; seniors 55 and older are

accepted. Completed in 2013, there are a total of 39 units, including 32 in a three‐story mid‐rise

elevator structure. As proposed for the Subject Property, the building is very energy efficient

and has Energy Star appliances. Amenities include a community room with kitchenette, a

rooftop veranda, laundry, and off‐street parking. Somanath does not have additional project‐

based subsidies. It is 100 percent occupied; residents either are from the East End PMA or they

have ties to the area.

Carter Woods Phases I and II are located in Henrico County about three‐fourths mile east of the

PMA. As such, the property is within one mile of the Subject Property. It is larger than the

Subject Property; combined, Carter Woods has a total of 152 one‐ and two‐bedroom units

including six one‐bedroom units with dens. It is a newer property, having been constructed

during 2003 and 2005. Like the Subject Property, it is a three‐story elevator structure with

occupancy by elderly households 62 years old and older. Unlike the Subject Property, Carter

Woods does not have additional unit‐based subsidies. The building has energy features and

extensive on‐site amenities and resident services. The manager noted that 46 of the units are

occupied by the original tenants. Residents generally are not from the East End PMA, unless

they have family living in nearby areas of Henrico County and have relocated to be nearby.

Shockoe Valley View Apartments is a community of 151 new market‐rate apartments in Union

Hill, which is undergoing revitalization. Completed during 2014, the property’s absorption pace

was reported to be about nine units per month from the time leasing commenced during May

2014 to September 2015. During September, only 10 units were vacant, or an occupancy of 93.4

percent. The property was constructed on a site that formerly was part of the Jefferson

Townhouses affordable project. Like the neighborhood near the Subject Property, housing near

Shockoe Valley View is a mix of affordable and market‐rate units and older units in need of

renovation or replacement. Also similar to the Subject Property, Shockoe Valley View only has

one‐ and two‐bedroom units. However, this is an upscale four‐story elevator property with

extensive features and amenities. While it is within walking distance of Shockoe Valley, it is

separated by topography and is not very close to other concentrations of multifamily properties

and commercial establishments catering to young professionals. As such, it is a more

appropriate comparable, albeit still far more upscale than the Subject Property and having

market‐rate rents far higher than a new development at Old Armstrong School can command in

today’s market. Rents for one‐bedroom units ($859 to $1,029) and also for two‐bedroom, two

bath units ($1,179 to $1,359) are in line with those in Shockoe Valley on a per square foot basis

when adjustments are made for utilities included in the rent. The property is offering a month’s

free rent as an incentive.


Rental Market Size

RES identified a total of 3,044 units in potentially comparable market‐rate properties in the PMA. All of

the properties in the inventory are Class A properties that are newer, recently renovated, or managed

and maintained well on an ongoing basis. Many of these properties are included in Table 15 above.

There also are smaller multifamily properties in the PMA, primarily older, Class C properties that are not

comparables for the Subject Property. Estimates in the 2009 to 2013 ACS for PMA units by structure

type indicate there were 2,129 units in multifamily structures with five to 19 units. Based on fieldwork

by RES, most of these are units in small rental properties; interviews indicate that a sizeable percentage

of the units are occupied by households with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) from RRHA.

RES identified a total of 1,755 affordable rental units in 15 PMA properties for seniors and general

occupancy, including 90 LIHTC units in two properties to be built. All of the properties have more than

20 units and are in addition to the units in small multifamily structures.

A very significant portion of the PMA rental inventory is in four very large RRHA public housing

properties. The four are Creighton Court (503 units), Whitcomb Court (491 units), Fairfield Court (445

units), and Mosby Court (455 units). Combined, these properties have 1,894 housing units, all of which

had average annual household incomes below $9,500 at mid‐year 2014. RRHA’s properties stay

occupied and the agency is now maintaining a waiting list with 10,000 families. RRHA also has a total of

3,363 Housing Choice Vouchers that are in use; an earlier estimate by RES was that 288 of these HCBs

were being used to rent housing units in the PMA.

Based on the above counts, RES estimates that about 33.4 percent of the PMA housing stock for elderly

and non‐elderly renter households is in modern, well‐maintained market‐rate rental complexes, 23.4

percent is in small multifamily rental structures, and 22.4 percent is in affordable housing with LIHTCs,

Project‐Based Section 8, HCVs, and other project‐related assistance. Units in the PMA’s four public

housing projects are estimated to be 20.8 percent of the rental housing stock.

Summary of Vacancy Rates in the Market by Population Served

As shown in Table 15, most of the PMA market‐rate properties surveyed by RES had vacancy rates below

six percent. The affordable properties, including all completed PMA LIHTC properties, including

properties for seniors and general occupancy, had a vacancy rate of 2.0 percent based on interviews

indicating a total of 21 vacant units. Based on the limited information available for the PMA’s small

multifamily properties, RES cannot estimate a vacancy rate. A review of listings of properties for‐rent

indicates that there are units available for‐rent, but not an overwhelming number. The final component

is public housing, which serves extremely low‐income households. Based on the very long waiting list

used to fill units that become vacant, it is reasonable to assume that these units are fully occupied. The

conclusion, therefore, is that affordable housing vacancies are extremely low overall, and they are even

lower for properties with rents based on 30 percent of income. Even for market‐rate properties in the

PMA, vacancy rates still are relatively low when measured against benchmarks such as a five percent

vacancy to account for turn‐over and a seven percent vacancy rate typically assumed by lenders.


Impact on the Existing Rental Housing Stock

Based on the above extremely low vacancy rates in affordable housing and information supplied during

numerous interviews conducted by RES in Richmond, development of the Subject Property will have no

impact on the existing rental housing stock, including LIHTC properties in the PMA. The Subject Property

is intended to be a relocation resource for elderly households currently living in Creighton Court, which

is to be demolished. As such, the 45 units that are proposed will not be an addition to the total housing

stock in the PMA, nor to the PMA’s affordable housing stock.

RES asked an official of the City of Richmond about the potential impact of the units at the Subject

Property on the existing rental housing stock. The response was that no impact is anticipated. An official

of RRHA provided a similar response regarding public housing.

Availability and Cost of Other Affordable Housing Options

Much of the housing stock in portions of the PMA located north and east of M Street is very affordable,

including both rental and for‐sale housing. However, revitalization increasingly is moving from the

western portion of the PMA into this area, and rents and sales prices are escalating as a result. As

additional revitalization occurs, prices will continue to increase. Available homes at the low end of the

price range typically are older residential units that have not been maintained well and have not been

renovated. An example is a home on North 30th Street in Church Hill North that sold for $20,000 during

2014. Homes located along North 31st Street near the Subject Property have sold recently at prices

ranging from $45,000 to $50,000 and even lower for bank foreclosures. However, Trulia reports that the

median sales price in Church Hill North during the time frame from July to October 2015 was $158,475,

which is beyond the reach of low‐income households, especially with today’s more stringent lending

requirements.

RES is of the opinion, therefore, that the availability and cost of other affordable housing options are

limited by high occupancy rates, housing cost and housing condition. Housing costs are very likely to

escalate further as revitalization and redevelopment continue.


F. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of Income Levels of Potential Tenants

The Subject Property will serve elderly households 62 years old and older with incomes at, and below 60

percent AMI. The 45 units at the Subject Property will be replacement housing units for families living at

Creighton Court. All will have RAD subsidies from RRHA; therefore, all households will pay 30 percent of

income for rent and utilities.

Income Range Calculation

Consistent with VHDA guidance, the calculation of the minimum rent for elderly households is based on

a payment of 40 percent of gross income for housing costs. Project‐based subsidies such as RAD and

Section 8 cannot be considered in the calculation. The maximum rent is based on the income targeting

of units at the proposed development. At the Subject Property, the income limit will be 60 percent AMI

for all units. The determination of the maximum income is based on the largest unit size, which is a two‐

bedroom unit at the Subject Property. Consistent with the NCHMA Model Standards, the maximum

household size for a senior property is two persons. The following presents the calculation of the income

range.

Bedroom Configuration of 60 percent AMI units: 1BR and 2BR

Applicable 2015 income limits are based on 60 percent AMI in Richmond City:

One Person: $31,200

Two Person: $35,640

Maximum gross rents at the Subject Property based on RAD:

One Bedroom: $708

Two Bedroom: $806

Minimum income calculation: 40 percent of income based on an assumed tenant gross rent of

$708, the maximum RAD gross rent during 2015 for a one‐bedroom unit. The minimum income

would be $21,240.

Maximum income calculation: Income limit for a two person household with income at 60

percent AMI, occupying a 2BR unit = $35,640

Applicable Income Range: $21,240 to $29,700

Calculation of Net Demand and Capture Rates

Consistent with VHDA instructions, Table 22 on the following page presents the net demand and capture

rate calculations for the Subject Property.


TABLE 22: NET DEMAND

Income Restrictions Up to 50%

(min. income to max. income)

New Rental Households 34

(+)

Existing Households ‐ Overburdened 41

(+)

Existing Households ‐ Substandard Housing 13

(+)

Elderly Households ‐ Likely to Convert to Rental Housing

11

(+)

Existing Qualifying Tenants ‐ to Remain After Renovation

0

TOTAL DEMAND 99(‐)

Supply (includes directly comparable vacant units completed or in pipeline in PMA)

1

NET DEMAND 98

PROPOSED UNITS 45

CAPTURE RATE 45.9%

ABSORPTION PERIOD 3 months

Sources: ACS 2009‐2013; 2010 Census; Ribbon Demographics; Nielsen; information compiled by RES during property surveys.

The following describes the sources of information used in Table 22 and the assumptions made.

New Renter Households ‐ For the calculation of the increase in the number of age‐ and income‐

eligible households in the PMA, RES used the HISTA household income tabulations for renters

during 2015 and 2020, which are presented in Table 14. Since the special tabulations are for

households 62+ and the VHDA definition of elderly is 65+, we used Nielsen household age by

income tabulations to adjust for the age difference, assuming an even distribution of elderly

renters within applicable income bands. We then adjusted the income band to account for the

applicable income range at the Subject Property, $21,240 to $35,640, again assuming an even

distribution of renter households within the $30,000 to $40,000 income band. Based on these

procedures, the projected growth of elderly households 65+ from 2015 to 2020 is estimated to

be 34 additional renter households.

Existing Households Overburdened ‐ For the PMA the 2009‐13 ACS estimated a total of 7,352

households renting housing units and paying rent. Of these households, 3,064 (41.7 percent)


were estimated to be paying gross rent of 35 percent or more of household income. The 2010

Census reported a total of 721 households with householder 65+ living in owned housing units

in the PMA, or 6.5 percent of all households. An estimate of all overburdened households 65+

can be developed by assuming an even age distribution of overburdened households in the PMA

and applying the 6.5 percent 65+, which results in an estimate of 199 existing households 65+

who are overburdened. A next adjustment is needed to estimate income‐eligible households

65+ by applying the percentage of total households 65+ (20.6 percent) who are income‐eligible.

The result is an estimate of approximately 41 existing PMA households 65+ who are estimated

to be overburdened.

Existing Households – Substandard Housing ‐ Estimates of PMA housing units lacking complete

plumbing and/or complete kitchens – or both – also are provided in the 2009‐13 ACS. Also

addressed is the extent of overcrowded housing, for which the definition is more than 1.5

persons per room in a housing unit. The problems with substandard housing are estimated to be

most severe for households in the lowest income bands and will affect both owners and renters.

The PMA percentages of units with these problems are estimated to be very low. An estimated

161 PMA housing units lack complete plumbing facilities, and 183 housing units lack complete

kitchens. Combined, these problems affect 344 units in the PMA, or only 2.99 percent of the

housing units. In addition, the ACS estimates that 57 PMA housing units were overcrowded. The

sum of housing units with these problems is 401 substandard and overcrowded units in the

PMA. The 2010 Census reported that 16.1 percent of PMA housing units were occupied by

householders 65+. We have assumed an even distribution of substandard housing, which results

in an estimate of 65 units occupied by all households 65+ and either substandard or

overcrowded. The above percentage of income‐eligible households 65+ (20.6 percent) can be

applied to the total for all households, which results in an estimate of 13 households 65+ living

in substandard housing.

Elderly Households Likely to Convert to Rental Housing – A 2013 report by the Joint Center for

Housing Studies of Harvard University entitled America’s Rental Housing, Evolving Markets and

Needs, addresses the movement of households 65 and older from owner‐occupied to rental

units, and the significance of the trend in the United States. While acknowledging the difficulty

of estimating the demand that is generated by tenure shifts of older Americans, the report

notes (page 14):

“The changing age structure of the population and the growing racial/ethnic diversity of Americans will alter the face of rental demand over the next decade. With the aging of the baby boomers, the number of renters over age 65 will increase by 2.2 million nationwide and account for roughly half of renter household growth.”

Since there are many different factors associated with a decision to sell a home and become a

renter, it is difficult to estimate the effect within the delineated PMA. The 2010 Census

reported a total of 1,091 PMA householders 65 and older. Of these, 511 were 65 to 74, 405

were 75 to 84, and 175 were 85 and older. Interviews with managers of senior properties

indicated that elderly owners are moving to affordable rental housing in the PMA; a City of


Richmond official who lives in the area confirmed that demand for units at the Subject Property

likely would include owners selling their homes. One limitation cited was the shortage of

affordable rental housing for the elderly in the East End PMA.

A related consideration is household size. The HISTA tabulations for 2015 estimate that 39.8

percent of households 62+ have one person, an indication that a large percentage of seniors can

be expected to have challenges with owning and maintaining a home. Based on the ten‐year

trend described by the Joint Center and the PMA data analyzed by RES, a conservative estimate

is that about five percent of households 65+ in all income bands are likely to be interested

transitioning to rental housing, or 55 households. The number of income‐eligible households

(20.6 percent) is estimated to be 11 households.

It is important to emphasize that all of the units at the Subject Property will have 15 year RAD subsidies

allocated to RRHA by HUD; therefore, households will pay gross rents that are based on 30 percent of

income. VHDA’s Net Demand Methodology does not consider the effect of RAD in expanding the

number of income‐eligible households in the PMA even though RAD has a longer term than other

Section 8 subsidies. The RAD subsidy will enable households with extremely low incomes – far lower

than for LIHTC‐only units – to live at the Subject Property. When these additional households are

counted, there is a large increase in the estimate of Net Demand, from the estimate of 98 households

indicated in Table 22, to an estimated 289 households. The capture rate for the 45 units based on this

higher Net Demand estimate is 15.6 percent of PMA households 65 and older.

Moreover, all of the units at the Subject Property will be a relocation resource for senior households

currently living at Creighton Court. The relatively brief absorption pace reflects this special circumstance,

as well as the effect of having a larger pool of potential residents as a result of the RAD subsidies. RES

anticipates a larger pool of applicants, including households too poor to afford LIHTC‐only affordable

units and a process whereby households moving from Creighton Court will be selected and screened

before residential units become available. Housing authorities in other cities that have relocated public

housing residents from an older property to a new one have completed all moves within a time frame of

less than one month, which could occur in Richmond. Therefore, the three‐month absorption period is

conservative when these factors are considered.

Market Penetration

To calculate overall market penetration for the LIHTC units at the Subject Property, RES first estimated

the existing senior housing inventory in the PMA for households with incomes up to 60 percent AMI. RES

did not include Carter Woods in the calculation; management indicated very low interest by residents of

the East End PMA in applying for Carter Woods units. Properties with Project‐Based Section 8 units were

not included in the calculation. Further adjustments were made for two properties for seniors 55 and

older and to account for VHDA’s definition of elderly as 65+. With these adjustments, the PMA inventory

is estimated to be 111 units for household 65+ and incomes up to 60 percent AMI. RES then estimated

the total number of income‐eligible elderly households 65+, based on the 2015 income limits and a

minimum rent for elderly households based on 40 percent of income. As reported above, the applicable


income range is $21,240 to $35,640. An estimated 174 income‐eligible renter households have incomes

within this range. The result is a penetration rate 63.8 percent of PMA households 65+ and with incomes

from $21,240 to $35,640.

It is again important to note that the number of income‐eligible households reflects only households

within the narrow LIHTC band and does not include households with lower incomes who will be able to

live at the Subject Property because of the RAD assistance that has been allocated. Using Nielsen 2015

estimates of households 65+ by age and income, and making adjustments for renter households with

only one or two persons, the estimate of income‐eligible PMA households 65+ is 711 households. When

the RAD subsidies are considered, the penetration rate is 15.6 percent.

The absorption and penetration rate calculations for the Subject Property that include the RAD subsidies

are consistent with the performance of the supply of affordable senior housing in the market and the

fact that RES identified only one vacant senior unit during September 2015.

Market Rent and Achievable Rent

RES has analyzed rents in the market for comparable properties. Based on the analysis, the following

market rents are indicated and are compared with achievable rents at the Subject Property:

Indicated Market Rent

Achievable Rent (less Utility Allowance)

Subject Property Rent/Income Targeting(less Utility Allowance)

One Bedroom ‐ $860 One Bedroom ‐ $700 One Bedroom ‐ $640 RAD Rents Two Bedroom ‐ $1,100 Two Bedroom ‐ $760 Two Bedroom ‐ $715 RAD Rents

The indicated market rent is based on the rents for market‐rate properties presented in Table 18 with

adjustments by the market analysts for differences in utility configuration and to account for variations

in location, features and amenities, unit size, and age of the property. Achievable rents assume that the

RAD restriction is not applicable and that the restriction is only LIHTC rent limits at 60 percent AMI. The

achievable rents shown are higher than the RAD rents, but lower than the maximum LIHTC rents at 60

percent AMI, which are $767.50 for a one‐bedroom unit and $911 for a two‐bedroom unit excluding

allowances for tenant‐paid utilities. The above achievable rents of $700 and $760, less Utility Allowances

are based on affordable rents being achieved at comparable senior properties with adjustments for

utility configuration and to account for variations in location, features, and amenities. RES is of the

opinion that rents higher than the maximums reflected in the RAD allocation can be achieved at the

Subject Property if there are issues with the availability of the RAD subsidies. Moreover, if

redevelopment at the Old Armstrong High School site proceeds as planned, achievable rents could be

even higher.

Risks

Two risks could adversely affect the market potential of the Subject Property, as follows:


1. A reversal of the economic and employment growth that is a factor driving household growth

and housing demand would have an adverse effect on plans for the redevelopment of the Old

Armstrong High School site overall, leaving the Subject Property as one component in a to‐be‐

completed redevelopment effort.

2. While crime remains an issue in the East End PMA, the recent downward trend has helped to

enhance the image of the area. A reversal of this trend would affect the long‐term viability of

redevelopment plans.


G. LOCAL PERSPECTIVE OF RENTAL HOUSING MARKET AND HOUSING ALTERNATIVES

Interviews with Local Officials

During the course of our work in Richmond’s East End PMA, RES has met with local officials and has

conducted telephone interviews to discuss various issues including the current status of development

projects, the availability of City funding for specific projects and activities, and permit data and

information. During September 2015 RES interviewed the Interim Director, Economic/Community

Development, to inquire, formally, about support for the Phase 1B development at the Old Armstrong

High School property. The response was strong support for the proposed senior development.

Interviews with Local Housing Authority Officials

RES interviewed the Interim Executive Director, TK Somanath and Marcia Davis at RRHA during

September 2015. RRHA confirmed their involvement with the redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High

School and the Subject Property and their ongoing support. The Interim Executive Director also arranged

a tour of two senior properties for members of the development team, Somanath and Carter Woods,

because they are very good examples of best practices in the development of housing for seniors. RRHA

also confirmed the availability of the RAD subsidies for the Subject Property and provided the utility

allowances to be used for the market analysis. Finally, RRHA provided information about the public

housing waiting list, which offers strong evidence of the demand for affordable housing in Richmond.


H. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Limitations of the Engagement

The following paragraphs describe the terms and conditions under which Real Estate Strategies, Inc. has

completed this market study. If there are any questions, please call us.

This market study has not ascertained the legal and regulatory requirements applicable to the proposed

project. The information contained herein is based on estimates, assumptions and other information

developed from research of the market, our knowledge of the industry and other factors, including

certain information provided by representatives of The Community Builders, Inc. and the development

team, as well as local officials. The sources of information and bases of the estimates and assumptions

are stated in this market study. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated

events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results will vary from those described, and the

variations may be material.

Further, we have neither evaluated management’s effectiveness, nor are we responsible for future

marketing efforts and other management actions upon which actual results will depend. This market

study is intended for the information of The Community Builders, Inc. and for submission to VHDA,

investors, and lenders in support of financing for the proposed development. Otherwise, neither our

market study nor any references to Real Estate Strategies, Inc., may be included or quoted in any

offering circular or registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, or other agreement or document

without our prior written permission. We will not be responsible for updating this market study to

account for events and circumstances occurring after the effect date of this report.

Qualifications of RES

Real Estate Strategies, Inc./RES Advisors (RES) is a women‐owned business that established offices

during March 1995 to provide advisory services in real estate and economic development. Building on

the expertise of its professionals and their significant experience in the real estate industry, the Firm

specializes in engagements involving market and financial issues affecting proposed and existing real

estate projects. Other specialties include engagements in economic development and reuse planning,

fiscal impact analysis, and public/private deal structuring. In our residential market analysis specialty,

principals of RES have completed engagements for the following clients:

McCormack Baron Salazar – Market analysis for the Pittsburgh Larimer Choice Implementation

Grant received during July 2014; market analyses for three phases of the HOPE VI‐funded Bedford

Hill redevelopment in Pittsburgh; market analyses for the Liberty Park family redevelopment and

the Lou Mason senior housing development also in Pittsburgh, PA.

Beacon/Corcoran Jennison Partners – Market analyses in connection with the phased

redevelopment of an 80‐acre former public housing site located adjacent to the University of

Pittsburgh campus in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


The Community Builders, Inc. – Market analyses for the conversion of the Lord Stirling School in

New Brunswick, NJ to mixed‐income senior housing; market analyses for residential developments

in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, McKees Rocks, and Moon Township, PA.

City of Wilmington, DE – Residential market analysis for the City and all neighborhoods in the City;

assistance with an Empowerment Zone application.

Federation Housing – Market analysis in connection with a tax credit application for a senior

housing development in Philadelphia.

The DePaul Group – Market analysis for a proposed luxury townhouse development in near

Roosevelt Park in South Philadelphia.

The Finch Group – Market analysis for the redevelopment of Longwood Gardens to create Arbor

Park Village in Cleveland, Ohio; market analysis a luxury residential reuse of the historic Park Lane

Villa building, also in Cleveland.

Fannie Mae – Analysis of the market for a proposed mixed‐use development with an upscale rental

housing component in the Stamford, Connecticut Central Business District; analysis of a proposed

housing joint venture with the University of Pennsylvania.

The following are brief resumes of principals of Real Estate Strategies, Inc.:

Margaret Sowell, CRE, President of RES has many years of direct experience in market research and

financial analysis of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate. Ms. Sowell established the Firm after

gaining more than 25 years of experience in real estate and economic development as a government

official, private developer, and advisor to public agencies and private companies. She worked with the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development for fifteen years and was involved in the development and

administration of numerous housing and community development programs. Ms. Sowell's experience as a

private developer was as Vice President for Development with a Wilmington, Delaware full‐service real

estate company.

A real estate consultant since 1986, Ms. Sowell served as Director of Real Estate Advisory Services in

Philadelphia office of Coopers & Lybrand (now PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.) from 1991 through 1994.

While at Coopers & Lybrand, Ms. Sowell worked on analyses of residential developments, including market‐

rate and affordable housing projects and mixed‐use developments. Ms. Sowell is a member of The Urban

Land Institute, and she served on the ULI Board of Trustees from 1995 to 1998. She has been a technical

reviewer of three ULI publications, and she co‐authored the 1997 ULI publication, Developing Infill Housing

in Inner City Neighborhoods. She served as market analyst on three ULI Neighborhood Advisory Panels, and

she has chaired two additional panels. She holds the designation Counselor of Real Estate. Ms. Sowell is a

graduate of the University of Florida.

Elizabeth M. Beckett, CRE, Senior Vice President of Real Estate Strategies, Inc., has more than 25 years of

real estate market and financial analysis experience, including five years of association with the real estate

advisory services practices of major national accounting and consulting firms. Ms. Beckett has also served


on the professional staff of the County Executive of New Castle County, Delaware performing housing and

community development assignments and community outreach.

Ms. Beckett has prepared housing market analyses for residential developments in Philadelphia, Allegheny

County, Chester County, and Montgomery County, PA; Wilmington, Delaware; and New Brunswick, South

Amboy and Harrison New Jersey. She previously was a Senior Associate in the Coopers & Lybrand Real

Estate Advisory Services practice, where her assignments included serving as an Asset Manager on a RTC

portfolio with 204 properties in 22 states. Ms. Beckett holds an undergraduate degree from Haverford

College and a Masters of Governmental Administration from the University of Pennsylvania. She is a

member of the Philadelphia Chapter of Commercial Real Estate Women (CREW) and a founding member

and current Chair of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) of the National Housing and

Rehabilitation Association.

Stephen L. Kazanjian, Project Manager, has more than 30 years of experience in the real estate industry.

He has been CEO of a Philadelphia community development corporation, a consultant in the real estate

practices of two national accounting firms, and a commercial real estate lender at two major banking

institutions. As the CEO of Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation, he successfully

developed a portfolio of residential and commercial properties. As a Vice President at Mellon Bank

Corporation, Mr. Kazanjian established and managed the Philadelphia Division of the Retail Bank Real

Estate Group, a division that originates, underwrites documents, approves, and monitors real estate

loans between $250,000 and $4.0 million. Mr. Kazanjian also began his career as a lender, serving as a

credit analyst and account representative for Fidelity Bank, where he was responsible for a $175.0

million real estate portfolio. He was a real estate consultant at Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. (now

PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.) and at Laventhol & Horwath, where he conducted real market and

financial analyses for public and private sector clients. Mr. Kazanjian holds a Bachelor of Arts in

Economics from the University of Pennsylvania.

Deborah L. Brett, AICP, Project Manager, has extensive experience with residential real estate, including

assignments conducted as an independent consultant since September 1991, as well as engagements

she directed during her prior 18‐year association with Real Estate Research Corporation. Ms. Brett has

completed numerous engagements involving affordable housing market analysis and evaluation for

public and private sector clients. For private developers, she analyzed age/income‐qualified demand for

proposed 150+ unit project on Chicago’s Northwest side and prepared market analyses for proposed tax

credit projects in Camden, Lindenwold, and Lawrence, New Jersey.

A full member of The Urban Land Institute (ULI), Ms. Brett co‐authored a textbook, Real Estate Market

Analysis, A Case Study Approach. She has written a number of articles on housing affordability, infill

development, retail market analysis, and demographic analysis and trends for professional and trade

journals.


Certifications

I affirm the following:

1. I have made a physical inspection of the site and market area. The last date of inspection by RES

was September 18, 2015, which is the date shown on the cover of this market study.

2. The appropriate information has been used in the comprehensive evaluation of the need and

demand for the proposed rental units.

3. To the best of my knowledge the market can support the demand shown in this study. I

understand that any misrepresentation in this statement may result in the denial of

participation in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program in Virginia as administered by

VHDA.

4. Neither I nor anyone at my firm has any interest in the proposed development or a relationship

with the ownership entity.

5. Neither I nor anyone at my firm nor anyone acting on behalf of my firm in connection with the

preparation of this report has communicated to others that my firm is representing VHDA or in

any way acting for, at the request of, or on behalf of VHDA.

6. Compensation for my services is not contingent upon this development receiving a LIHTC

reservation or allocation.

October 29, 2015 Market Analyst Date

APPENDIX HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER TABULATIONS HISTA TABULATIONS

ABI

Pop-Facts: Household Income by Age of Householder 2015

RICHMOND EAST END, Tract (see appendix for geographies), Total

Age 25 - 34Age 15 - 24 Age 35 - 44 Age 75 - 84 Age 85+Age 45 - 54 Age 55 - 64 Age 65 - 742000 Census Age/Income

2.63%7.92%11.64%12.25%16.21%20.64%20.71%8.00%

2751,219 8291,2831,6982,1622,169838

% of Total Households

Household Totals

64.73%54.76%44.22%34.84%29.39%27.52%37.85%67.06%4.35%11.09%13.16%10.92%12.19%14.53%20.05%13.72%

562 821 595 499 447 539 454 178Income Less than $15,000 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range

17.09%19.54%16.41%13.09%16.43%23.08%17.43%16.35%2.51%8.66%10.70%8.98%14.92%26.68%20.21%7.33%

137 378 499 279 168 200 162 47Income $15,000 - $24,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range

8.73%12.18%10.34%17.07%12.19%17.67%19.36%5.97%1.57%6.61%8.24%14.32%13.54%24.98%27.47%3.27%


6.18%7.72%14.93%14.50%13.43%14.25%9.82%9.55%1.33%5.01%14.24%14.55%17.84%24.10%16.67%6.26%


1.45%2.17%9.84%10.99%17.73%13.78%8.90%1.07%0.37%1.66%11.07%13.01%27.77%27.49%17.80%0.83%


1.45%3.02%0.90%4.91%5.89%1.30%3.96%0.00%1.26%7.89%3.47%19.87%31.55%8.83%27.13%0.00%


0.00%0.00%1.07%2.34%1.83%1.06%2.07%0.00%0.00%0.00%9.15%21.13%21.83%16.20%31.69%0.00%


0.36%0.60%1.15%0.31%1.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%2.44%12.20%34.15%9.76%41.46%0.00%0.00%0.00%


0.00%0.00%0.00%1.40%1.18%0.37%0.41%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%32.73%36.36%14.55%16.36%0.00%


0.00%0.00%1.15%0.55%0.94%0.97%0.18%0.00%0.00%0.00%22.58%11.29%25.81%33.87%6.45%0.00%

0 4 21 16 7 14 0 0Income $200,000 or more % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range

Median Household Income $14,999$14,999$18,525$26,210$28,430$24,739$21,971$14,999

Nielsen Solution Center 1 800 866 6511

© 2014 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved.

Project Code: TCB

Prepared For: Community Builders

1 5OfPage Prepared By: M.SowellMon Dec 15, 2014Prepared On:

www.claritas.com

www.sitereports.com

ABI



Age 25 - 34Age 15 - 24 Age 35 - 44 Age 75 - 84 Age 85+Age 45 - 54 Age 55 - 64 Age 65 - 742015 Estimate Age/Income

2.15%5.22%9.29%16.46%15.09%15.72%28.41%7.66%

2671,156 6502,0491,8781,9573,536954


Household Totals

60.67%46.00%34.95%27.92%23.80%22.99%24.75%60.80%4.28%7.89%10.66%15.10%11.80%11.88%23.09%15.31%


17.98%19.08%14.53%12.15%10.33%10.22%11.06%12.68%3.21%8.29%11.24%16.66%12.98%13.38%26.15%8.09%


8.61%15.69%15.05%11.86%11.77%9.20%9.45%2.10%1.77%7.86%13.42%18.74%17.04%13.88%25.75%1.54%


6.74%10.62%13.58%13.08%12.51%16.30%17.22%8.60%1.02%3.93%8.94%15.25%13.38%18.16%34.66%4.67%


3.75%5.38%11.85%15.86%17.52%17.99%19.12%8.91%0.51%1.80%7.03%16.68%16.88%18.06%34.68%4.36%


1.12%1.38%4.76%10.00%11.87%8.99%8.09%3.14%0.30%0.91%5.57%20.77%22.59%17.83%28.98%3.04%


0.00%1.08%2.60%2.68%3.35%5.57%4.41%1.47%0.00%1.61%6.91%12.67%14.52%25.12%35.94%3.23%


0.37%0.46%2.08%1.81%2.34%3.99%3.59%0.00%0.32%0.96%7.64%11.78%14.01%24.84%40.45%0.00%


0.37%0.15%0.00%2.44%3.46%1.79%1.02%2.31%0.48%0.48%0.00%23.81%30.95%16.67%17.14%10.48%


0.37%0.15%0.61%2.20%3.04%2.96%1.30%0.00%0.47%0.47%3.26%20.93%26.51%26.98%21.40%0.00%





Project Code: TCB



www.claritas.com

www.sitereports.com

ABI



Age 25 - 34Age 15 - 24 Age 35 - 44 Age 75 - 84 Age 85+Age 45 - 54 Age 55 - 64 Age 65 - 742020 Projection Age/Income

1.85%5.61%12.23%15.62%13.38%17.93%28.07%5.32%

2491,651 7572,1081,8052,4193,788718


Household Totals

59.44%44.78%34.46%27.37%23.10%22.94%24.84%64.90%3.69%8.45%14.18%14.38%10.39%13.83%23.45%11.62%


17.27%19.29%14.54%12.19%10.03%9.88%10.96%10.72%2.69%9.14%15.02%16.08%11.33%14.96%25.97%4.82%


8.43%15.98%14.29%11.53%11.30%8.64%9.11%1.95%1.51%8.69%16.94%17.44%14.64%15.00%24.77%1.01%


7.63%9.78%14.11%13.05%11.80%16.83%17.87%6.96%0.98%3.80%11.96%14.12%10.93%20.89%34.75%2.57%


3.61%6.47%11.87%15.89%17.67%17.65%18.56%7.24%0.43%2.34%9.38%16.03%15.26%20.43%33.64%2.49%


1.61%1.72%4.97%10.15%12.24%9.22%7.81%3.34%0.37%1.21%7.61%19.87%20.52%20.71%27.48%2.23%


0.00%1.19%3.15%2.85%3.71%6.37%5.04%1.53%0.00%1.65%9.56%11.03%12.32%28.31%35.11%2.02%


1.20%0.40%2.00%2.04%2.94%3.68%3.41%0.14%0.85%0.85%9.32%12.15%14.97%25.14%36.44%0.28%


0.40%0.00%0.06%2.61%3.77%1.74%1.08%3.06%0.43%0.00%0.43%23.91%29.57%18.26%17.83%9.57%


0.40%0.40%0.55%2.32%3.43%3.06%1.32%0.14%0.40%1.20%3.61%19.68%24.90%29.72%20.08%0.40%





Project Code: TCB



www.claritas.com

www.sitereports.com

ABI


Due to the calculation method some median values are assigned pre-determined amounts rather than calculated amounts. Median HH Inc values less than $15,000 are displayed as

$14,999; Median HH Inc values more than $200,000 are displayed as $200,001.



Project Code: TCB



www.claritas.com

www.sitereports.com

ABI


Appendix: Area Listing

Area Name: RICHMOND EAST END

Type: List - Tract Reporting Detail: Aggregate Reporting Level: Tract

Geography NameGeography CodeGeography NameGeography Code

51760020100 51760-020100 51760020200 51760-020200

51760020300 51760-020300 51760020400 51760-020400

51760020500 51760-020500 51760020600 51760-020600

51760020700 51760-020700 51760020800 51760-020800

51760020900 51760-020900 51760021000 51760-021000

51760021100 51760-021100 51760021200 51760-021200

Project Information:

1

974519205Order Number:

Site:



Project Code: TCB



www.claritas.com

www.sitereports.com

HISTA 2.2 Summary Data© 2015 All rights reserved Nielsen Claritas

1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person

Household Household Household Household Household Total

$0-10,000 543 380 349 166 200 1,638$10,000-20,000 324 344 251 168 111 1,198$20,000-30,000 220 113 156 52 106 647$30,000-40,000 236 102 76 134 35 583$40,000-50,000 393 99 45 34 83 654$50,000-60,000 344 177 50 8 22 601$60,000-75,000 18 193 60 25 25 321

$75,000-100,000 97 264 71 36 10 478$100,000-125,000 92 18 32 10 14 166$125,000-150,000 6 100 4 3 2 115$150,000-200,000 0 41 1 3 3 48

$200,000+ 70 4 9 4 2 89

Total 2,343 1,835 1,104 643 613 6,538



$0-10,000 447 70 11 19 24 571$10,000-20,000 382 80 54 5 10 531$20,000-30,000 187 42 18 30 10 287$30,000-40,000 89 34 18 9 10 160$40,000-50,000 58 18 17 8 5 106$50,000-60,000 51 15 11 1 5 83$60,000-75,000 44 47 7 6 2 106

$75,000-100,000 40 19 10 6 19 94$100,000-125,000 15 6 1 0 2 24$125,000-150,000 21 4 0 2 4 31$150,000-200,000 9 0 2 0 3 14

$200,000+ 9 1 3 2 2 17

Total 1,352 336 152 88 96 2,024



$0-10,000 319 46 5 2 2 374$10,000-20,000 263 43 47 3 5 361$20,000-30,000 67 24 8 20 0 119$30,000-40,000 76 13 10 7 7 113$40,000-50,000 29 6 6 7 2 50$50,000-60,000 27 4 8 1 2 42$60,000-75,000 12 11 2 4 2 31

$75,000-100,000 18 2 5 5 6 36$100,000-125,000 7 3 1 0 1 12$125,000-150,000 11 1 0 2 1 15$150,000-200,000 3 0 1 0 1 5

$200,000+ 5 0 2 1 1 9

Total 837 153 95 52 30 1,167



$0-10,000 990 450 360 185 224 2,209$10,000-20,000 706 424 305 173 121 1,729$20,000-30,000 407 155 174 82 116 934$30,000-40,000 325 136 94 143 45 743$40,000-50,000 451 117 62 42 88 760$50,000-60,000 395 192 61 9 27 684$60,000-75,000 62 240 67 31 27 427

$75,000-100,000 137 283 81 42 29 572$100,000-125,000 107 24 33 10 16 190$125,000-150,000 27 104 4 5 6 146$150,000-200,000 9 41 3 3 6 62

$200,000+ 79 5 12 6 4 106

Total 3,695 2,171 1,256 731 709 8,562

All Age Groups

Year 2015 Estimates

Aged 55+ Years

Year 2015 Estimates

Renter Households

Aged 62+ Years

Year 2015 Estimates

Renter Households

Renter Households

www.ribbondata.com

Richmond, VA PMA

Renter Households

Age 15 to 54 Years

Year 2015 Estimates




$0-10,000 44 18 6 8 1 77$10,000-20,000 4 19 5 7 1 36$20,000-30,000 39 10 5 13 4 71$30,000-40,000 71 17 15 5 4 112$40,000-50,000 66 130 30 8 8 242$50,000-60,000 62 79 34 8 31 214$60,000-75,000 40 93 95 27 51 306

$75,000-100,000 40 104 49 33 11 237$100,000-125,000 29 66 22 43 16 176$125,000-150,000 33 29 68 4 0 134$150,000-200,000 4 70 15 20 1 110

$200,000+ 11 30 10 14 7 72

Total 443 665 354 190 135 1,787



$0-10,000 112 56 23 8 17 216$10,000-20,000 259 103 41 18 9 430$20,000-30,000 94 81 34 11 21 241$30,000-40,000 108 136 63 26 24 357$40,000-50,000 51 79 14 20 17 181$50,000-60,000 41 77 38 11 10 177$60,000-75,000 27 39 33 14 28 141

$75,000-100,000 34 73 22 32 17 178$100,000-125,000 12 32 14 9 1 68$125,000-150,000 6 18 7 1 2 34$150,000-200,000 3 29 3 1 2 38

$200,000+ 8 21 2 4 2 37

Total 755 744 294 155 150 2,098



$0-10,000 87 39 14 7 6 153$10,000-20,000 222 93 40 17 7 379$20,000-30,000 73 61 32 10 21 197$30,000-40,000 84 100 45 25 20 274$40,000-50,000 33 56 14 9 10 122$50,000-60,000 35 59 23 6 5 128$60,000-75,000 20 26 18 4 2 70

$75,000-100,000 21 39 14 9 3 86$100,000-125,000 4 19 9 2 1 35$125,000-150,000 6 9 4 0 2 21$150,000-200,000 1 2 2 0 2 7

$200,000+ 3 4 0 1 1 9

Total 589 507 215 90 80 1,481



$0-10,000 156 74 29 16 18 293$10,000-20,000 263 122 46 25 10 466$20,000-30,000 133 91 39 24 25 312$30,000-40,000 179 153 78 31 28 469$40,000-50,000 117 209 44 28 25 423$50,000-60,000 103 156 72 19 41 391$60,000-75,000 67 132 128 41 79 447

$75,000-100,000 74 177 71 65 28 415$100,000-125,000 41 98 36 52 17 244$125,000-150,000 39 47 75 5 2 168$150,000-200,000 7 99 18 21 3 148

$200,000+ 19 51 12 18 9 109

Total 1,198 1,409 648 345 285 3,885

All Age Groups

Year 2015 Estimates

Aged 55+ Years

Year 2015 Estimates

Owner Households

Aged 62+ Years

Year 2015 Estimates

Owner Households

Owner Households

www.ribbondata.com

Richmond, VA PMA

Owner Households

Age 15 to 54 Years

Year 2015 Estimates




$0-10,000 556 402 350 163 205 1,676$10,000-20,000 331 351 235 172 117 1,206$20,000-30,000 244 113 172 36 111 676$30,000-40,000 246 110 78 156 44 634$40,000-50,000 439 131 49 41 83 743$50,000-60,000 353 187 47 9 18 614$60,000-75,000 17 220 59 26 17 339

$75,000-100,000 106 322 81 40 14 563$100,000-125,000 102 19 79 4 6 210$125,000-150,000 14 97 5 6 9 131$150,000-200,000 0 51 2 1 3 57

$200,000+ 78 13 21 3 1 116

Total 2,486 2,016 1,178 657 628 6,965



$0-10,000 540 71 6 21 34 672$10,000-20,000 445 85 72 7 6 615$20,000-30,000 216 55 12 37 10 330$30,000-40,000 117 36 20 15 5 193$40,000-50,000 71 12 12 7 7 109$50,000-60,000 55 23 11 2 5 96$60,000-75,000 49 49 10 10 4 122

$75,000-100,000 49 25 11 4 20 109$100,000-125,000 20 4 0 5 4 33$125,000-150,000 23 3 0 2 3 31$150,000-200,000 11 4 3 0 3 21

$200,000+ 15 1 3 1 1 21

Total 1,611 368 160 111 102 2,352



$0-10,000 405 46 1 3 4 459$10,000-20,000 319 53 66 4 1 443$20,000-30,000 86 35 4 27 3 155$30,000-40,000 102 17 15 13 1 148$40,000-50,000 38 4 3 6 3 54$50,000-60,000 30 8 8 2 2 50$60,000-75,000 13 15 4 9 3 44

$75,000-100,000 28 8 6 4 6 52$100,000-125,000 13 0 0 5 1 19$125,000-150,000 14 0 0 1 1 16$150,000-200,000 4 2 3 0 0 9

$200,000+ 10 0 3 1 0 14

Total 1,062 188 113 75 25 1,463



$0-10,000 1,096 473 356 184 239 2,348$10,000-20,000 776 436 307 179 123 1,821$20,000-30,000 460 168 184 73 121 1,006$30,000-40,000 363 146 98 171 49 827$40,000-50,000 510 143 61 48 90 852$50,000-60,000 408 210 58 11 23 710$60,000-75,000 66 269 69 36 21 461

$75,000-100,000 155 347 92 44 34 672$100,000-125,000 122 23 79 9 10 243$125,000-150,000 37 100 5 8 12 162$150,000-200,000 11 55 5 1 6 78

$200,000+ 93 14 24 4 2 137

Total 4,097 2,384 1,338 768 730 9,317

All Age Groups

Year 2020 Projections

Aged 55+ Years


Renter Households

Aged 62+ Years


Renter Households

Renter Households

www.ribbondata.com

Richmond, VA PMA

Renter Households

Age 15 to 54 Years





$0-10,000 42 13 5 8 1 69$10,000-20,000 6 16 7 7 1 37$20,000-30,000 33 4 4 10 2 53$30,000-40,000 57 7 5 3 0 72$40,000-50,000 66 144 21 11 2 244$50,000-60,000 78 68 33 4 31 214$60,000-75,000 32 105 89 29 79 334

$75,000-100,000 34 81 49 31 6 201$100,000-125,000 38 73 21 51 30 213$125,000-150,000 33 28 79 1 0 141$150,000-200,000 1 73 13 25 4 116

$200,000+ 8 32 11 12 8 71

Total 428 644 337 192 164 1,765



$0-10,000 131 52 23 11 16 233$10,000-20,000 283 119 49 13 7 471$20,000-30,000 104 84 52 19 17 276$30,000-40,000 126 171 72 24 25 418$40,000-50,000 58 101 19 34 12 224$50,000-60,000 55 88 33 13 10 199$60,000-75,000 45 42 42 13 30 172

$75,000-100,000 40 81 30 33 20 204$100,000-125,000 19 35 22 11 1 88$125,000-150,000 10 24 12 5 0 51$150,000-200,000 3 30 1 1 1 36

$200,000+ 7 23 5 4 2 41

Total 881 850 360 181 141 2,413



$0-10,000 107 40 21 9 6 183$10,000-20,000 251 106 46 12 6 421$20,000-30,000 86 64 51 18 16 235$30,000-40,000 105 128 56 23 22 334$40,000-50,000 41 77 17 17 6 158$50,000-60,000 49 77 22 6 7 161$60,000-75,000 33 24 29 2 5 93

$75,000-100,000 25 50 20 6 3 104$100,000-125,000 11 25 17 1 0 54$125,000-150,000 9 13 9 2 0 33$150,000-200,000 1 4 0 0 1 6

$200,000+ 2 4 2 0 2 10

Total 720 612 290 96 74 1,792



$0-10,000 173 65 28 19 17 302$10,000-20,000 289 135 56 20 8 508$20,000-30,000 137 88 56 29 19 329$30,000-40,000 183 178 77 27 25 490$40,000-50,000 124 245 40 45 14 468$50,000-60,000 133 156 66 17 41 413$60,000-75,000 77 147 131 42 109 506

$75,000-100,000 74 162 79 64 26 405$100,000-125,000 57 108 43 62 31 301$125,000-150,000 43 52 91 6 0 192$150,000-200,000 4 103 14 26 5 152

$200,000+ 15 55 16 16 10 112

Total 1,309 1,494 697 373 305 4,178

Owner Households

www.ribbondata.com

Richmond, VA PMA

Owner Households

Age 15 to 54 Years


All Age Groups


Aged 55+ Years


Owner Households

Aged 62+ Years


Owner Households

analysis of the market for the phase ib senior at the … › businesspartners ›...

Documents