Florence North Apartments
Florence (Florence County), South Carolina
Prepared for
South Carolina State Housing Finance &
Development Authority
Market Study
Presented By
Eugene F. Nolan
Tremont Consultants
4004 Penhurst Drive
Suite 100
Marietta, Georgia 30062
(770) 578-4552
Florence North Apartments
Florence (Florence County), South Carolina
Market Study
Table of Contents
PART I. ANALYST CERTIFICATION
PART II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PART III. SITE DESCRIPTION/MARKET AREA/ECONOMY
A. Inspection Dates (page 1)
B. Site Evaluation (pages 1-7)
C. Primary Market Area (pages 7-8)
D. Market Area Economy (pages 7-12)
PART IV. COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
A. Population Trends (pages 1-3)
B. Household Trends (pages 3-8)
C. Housing Demographics (pages 8-12)
PMA Household Trend Report (Claritas, Inc.)
PART V. DEMAND/SUPPLY ANALYSIS
A. Demand Analysis
(i) Demand from New Renter Households (pages 1-15)
(ii) Demand from Existing Households (pages 15-22)
B. Supply Analysis (Comparable Rental Developments)
(i) Overall PMA Multi-Family Market (pages 22-24)
(ii) Comparable Properties in the PMA Multi-Family
Market (pages 24 -38)
PART VI. EXHIBITS
A. Summary of Interviews
B. Market Analyst Recommendations
C. Exhibit S-2 SCSHFDA Primary
Market Area Analysis Summary
D. Pre-Market Analysis Memorandums/
SCSHFDA PMA Approval
Part I. Analyst Certification
Part I. Analyst Certification
Eugene F. Nolan
Tremont Consultants
4004 Penhurst Drive
Suite 100
Marietta, Georgia 30062
(770) 578-4552
April 8, 2006
Ms. Laura Nicholson
LIHTC Program Manager
South Carolina State Housing Finance &
Development Authority (SCSHFDA)
300-C Outlet Pointe Blvd.
Columbia, SC 29210
RE: Market Study - Florence North Apartments
Florence, (Florence County), South Carolina
Dear Ms. Nicholson:
Please find enclosed two (2) original copies of this Market Study.
This study has been completed in accordance with the requirements and guidelines contained in
SCSHFDA’s “Exhibit S-Market Study Requirements” and “Exhibit S-2 SCSHFDA Primary
Market Area Analyses Summary.” The data and analysis contained in this Market Study is
current, accurate, and presents a true assessment of the Primary Market Area’s (PMA) low-
income, “general population”, rental housing market. SCSHFDA can rely upon the accuracy,
objectiveness, and completeness of this study.
Furthermore, I affirm that I have made a physical inspection of the market and surrounding area
and that the information obtained in the field has been used to determine the need and demand
for LIHTC units. I understand that any misrepresentation of this statement may result in the
denial of further participation in the South Carolina State Housing Finance & Development
Authority’s programs. I also affirm that I have no financial interest in the project or current
business relationship with the ownership entity and my compensation is not contingent on this
project being funded. This report was written according to the SCSHFDA’s market study
requirements. The information included is accurate and can be relied upon by SCSHFDA to
present a true assessment of the low-income housing rental market.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to prepare this study.
Sincerely,
Eugene F. Nolan
1
2 Part I. Analyst Certification
Market Analyst Author
2
1 Part II. Project Description
Part II. Project Description
A. Project Description
Florence North Apartments is a proposed, new construction development consisting of seventy-
two (72) garden style multi-family rental units. The site for Florence North Apartments is
located on the south side of Wilson Road, approximately 0.1 mile west of the intersection of
Wilson Road and North Oakland Avenue/E. McIver Road, Florence, SC.
The targeted renter market are “family” households (HH’s) earning #50% and #60% of the Area
Median Income (AMI). There will be no “market” or project-based rental assistance units in this
development. The total site acreage is 6.7 acres. There will be nine (9) two-story residential
buildings (no elevators). Property will have a separate one-story community building (1,658
SF). The site plan submitted by applicant states that the property will have one hundred forty-
four (144) parking spaces. Page 6 of this LIHTC Application also states that 144 parking spaces
are planned. The proposed unit mix (by bedrooms/bathrooms) gross square footage (SF),
contract rent, utility cost and estimated gross rent is as follows:
Unit Type Number Square Feet Estimated Estimated Estimated AMI
of Units Contract Utility Cost Gross Rent Income %
Rent Target
2 BR/2 BA 26 954 $395 $110 $505 #50%
(Garden)
2 BR/2 BA 26 954 $425 $110 $535 #60%
(Garden)
3 BR/2 BA 10 1,107 $440 $136 $576 #50%
(Garden)
3 BR/2 BA 10 1,107 $480 $136 $616 #60%
(Garden)
The units will be all-electric with electricity, water and sewer being paid by tenant. Owner will
pay for trash collection services.
Property amenities will include community building (1,658 SF) with community room, lobby,
kitchen, porches, library/TV room, laundry facility, computer center, two (2) management and
leasing offices and restroom. Exterior property amenities will include playground area, gazebo,
picnic area and sidewalk access to parking spaces. Individual unit interior amenities will include
frost free refrigerator, range with exhaust vent, washer/dryer hookups, dishwasher, disposal,
extinguishing system over range, microwave oven, ceiling fan in living room with wall control
switch, as well as ceiling fans in all bedrooms, decks or patios, storage alcove, window
coverings, wall-to-wall carpet & vinyl flooring, pre-wired for cable TV and high-speed internet,
double sink, overhead light fixture in each bedroom and central HVAC with a 13 SEER unit.
2 Part II. Project Description
Exterior building construction will be slab on grade, wood frame with brick veneer and hardi-
plank siding. The buildings will have trussed pitched roofs with architectural style roof shingles
(30 year warranty). Attic insulation material will be rated R-38. In summary, Applicant’s 2006
LIHTC Application, Tab 4, page one (1) states:
The buildings will be constructed of hardi-plank and 40% brick veneer and all elements will comply with
the mandatory design criteria as set forth in the 2006 tax credit manual.
1 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
A. Inspection Dates
The site for Florence North Apartments and its surrounding neighborhood (residential and
commercial) was visited three (3) times during the period March 7th - 9th, 2006. All three (3) site
visits/inspections were made by Eugene F. Nolan, the market study author.
B. Site Evaluation
Subject property is 6.7 acres in size. It is located on the south side of Wilson Road
approximately 0.1 mile west of the intersection of Wilson Road and N. Oakland Avenue/E.
McIver Road in the city of Florence, SC.
From the submitted site plan and this analyst’s review of county records/GIS aerial photographs,
the parcel is irregular in shape with an approximate street frontage of 312 feet on Wilson Road.
The property also has approximately 381 feet of frontage on the northwest side of N. Oakland
Avenue. Ingress/egress to the site is from Wilson Road. Subject property currently is densely
wooded, vacant and undeveloped. It has a flat topography.
Immediate land uses adjacent to the site are as follows:
East/Northeast - Vacant land immediately west of Pat’s Superette store and large tracts of
vacant land on the east and northeast side of N. Oakland Avenue and E.
McIver Road;
North - Single family homes on the north side of Wilson Road and a large tract of
vacant land located north of these homes;
South - CP&L power line (120' R/W) and large tracts of vacant land south of the
power line, on both sides of N. Oakland Avenue;
West - Single family homes from subject property westward to N. Irby Street. This
single family residential area is known as “Wilson Heights.”
(See aerial photographs and property photograph sheets in this section.)
Subject property’s immediate neighborhood is defined as an area which encompasses the
following locations: (1) East Old Marion Highway and Malloy Street to the east; (2) N. Irby
Street to the west, (3) the intersection of N. Oakland Avenue and Sopkin Avenue to the south;
and (4) the intersection E. Sam Harrell Road and N. Ward Circle to the north. This immediate
neighborhood is predominantly developed with single family homes as well as having large
tracts of vacant land to the north and east.
Excluding the presence of the CP & L power line located immediately south of the site, the
2 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
property’s surrounding neighborhood appears to be void of any visible, negative environmental
concerns or factors which might affect the marketability of subject property as proposed.
The following table provides a listing of the community services that impact the proposed site:
Facility/Service Name/Description Driving Distance From Direction
Site
Grocery/Supermarket/ Oakland Grocery 0.6 miles S
Shopping Centers Pat’s Superette 0.1 mile E
Food Lion 3.5 miles SW
Florence Mall 4.2 miles SW
Magnolia Mall 4.5 miles SW
& Florence Commons
Pharmacy Eckerd Drugs 2.5 miles SW
Pharmacy Express 2.0 miles S
CVS 3.1 miles SW
Major Highways U.S. Hwy 76 2.4 miles S
(E. & W. Palmetto Street)
U.S. Hwy 301/52 1.7 - 1.9 miles SW
(Irby & West Lucas Streets)
I-20 & I-95 3.8 - 4.6 miles W & NW
(2 exits)
North Irby Street 0.6 miles W
Police City of Florence PD 1.9 miles SW
Fire City of Florence Fire Dept. 1.5 miles SW
Recreational Facilities Northwest Community Park 2.7 miles SW
Iola Jones Park 0.8 miles S
Timrod Park 3.0 miles SW
Freedom Florence
Recreation Complex 4.9 miles S
Florence Civic Center 5.8 miles SW
Employment Centers/Major Macleod Health 1.8 miles S
Employers City of Florence 1.8 miles SW
Florence County 1.8 miles SW
Palmetto Government
Benefits Admin./TRACER 5.8 miles SW
Carolina Health/Hospital
System 4.9 miles S
Cashua Drive/Lucas Street
Commercial Area 3.0 to 4.5 miles SW
3 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Facility/Service Name/Description Driving Distance Direction
From Site
Hospital/Medical Facilities Macleod Health 1.8 miles S
(Regional Medical Center)
Carolinas Health/Hospital 4.9 miles S
System
Florence County Health 1.8 miles S
Dept.
Schools* North Vista Elementary 1.5 miles SW
*Per Florence Public Williams Middle School 1.4 miles SW
School District One’s Zone Wilson High School 1.2 miles E
Assignment for Subject Site
Banks 1st Citizen Bank 1.8 miles SW
Wachovia 2.0 miles SW
Post Office Main Branch-1901 West 3.9 miles SW
Evans Street, Florence
Library City of Florence Public 2.1 miles SW
Library
There are several churches within a 0.6 to 3.0 mile driving distance from subject property -
Seventh Day Adventist Church, Monumental Missionary Baptist Church, House of God Church,
Bethel Apostic Church, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Greater Zion Tabernacle Church, First Baptist
Church, First Presbyterian Church and St. John’s Episcopal Church.
Discussions with city and county public works officials and state highway construction officials
all indicated that there are no planned, approved or funded street/highway/infrastructure projects
that would negatively impact the construction or marketability of a multifamily property located
on Wilson Road, E. McIver Road, Old Marion Highway and N. Oakland Avenue and/or its
immediate neighborhood.
Neighborhood Crime Statistics
Subject property is located within the city limits of Florence, SC. Public safety/police services
are provided by the City of Florence Police Department. Subject site is located in the
“Fox”District. The following is a summary of all “Part One Crimes” (nine categories) for the
entire City of Florence for the period 2002 - 2005:
4 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
City of Florence
Part One Crimes By Year
2002 2003 2004 2005 % change-04
Homicide 3 6 7 4 -43%
Burglary 542 597 675 599 -11%
Robbery 115 155 164 202 23%
Assaults, Aggravated 256 272 274 282 3%
Larceny 2,535 2,851 2,159 1,930 -11%
Motor Vehicle Theft 186 230 229 222 -3%
Theft From Motor Vehicle 566 687 768 712 -7%
Weapon Law Violations 65 59 73 60 -18%
Rape, Forcible 19 21 19 20 5%
Total 4,287 4,878 4,368 4,031 -8%
Source: Florence Police Department, 03/2006.
This table shows that six (6) of the nine (9) categories’ occurrences declined in 2005 when
comparted to 2004 data. Three (3) categories’ occurrences increased in 2005 as compared to
2004 data - Robbery (23%), Aggravated Assaults (3%) and Rape (5%). Overall crime (all nine
categories) citywide declined by 8% in 2005 when compared to 2004 data.
There are six (6) police districts within the city - “Adam,” “Baker,” “Charlie,” “Delta,” “Echo”
and “Fox.” Subject site is located in the “Fox” district.
The following table compares the number of occurrences of major crime categories in the “Fox”
district with the number of occurrences of the same crime categories for all of the city’s nine (9)
districts, inclusive of the “Fox” district. This data covers the period 01/01/05 - 12/31/05.
5 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Incident Type Count
City of Florence
(01/01/05 - 12/31/05)
Incident Fox District All Nine (9) Fox District’s Count
Type/Category (Subject Site) Districts as a % of Nine District
Total
Homicide 1 4 25%
Rape 9 20 45.0%
Robbery 65 202 32.2%
Aggravated Assault 109 282 38.7%
Burglary 132 599 22.0%
Motor Vehicle Theft 48 222 21.6%
Theft From Motor 101 712 14.2%
Vehicle
Larceny 295 1,930 15.3%
Weapon Law 15 60 25.0%
Violations
Total - All Incident 775 4,031 19.2%
Types
Source: City of Florence Police Dept., 03/2006
The above table shows that “Fox” District’s count for “All Incident Types” represented 19.2% of
the city’s total for “All Incident Types” for the year 2005. Within “Fox” District’s total incident
types, the following types/categories accounted for “Fox” District’s highest number of incident
counts:
As A %
Incident Type Number Of Total
Larceny 295 38.1%
Burglary 132 17.0%
Aggravated Assault 109 14.1%
Theft from Motor Vehicle 101 13.0%
Robbery 65 8.4%
Total 702 90.6%
According to a discussion with the police department’s North Region Commander, subject
property’s Wilson Road location and its surrounding area is not considered as an area in which
there occurs a high incidence of crime. Subject property is located within the department’s
“North Region” geographic area.
From the submitted site plan, access and ingress/egress to the site will be from Wilson Road.
6 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
The property also has approximately 320 feet of frontage on the northwest side of N. Oakland
Avenue but there will be no access from N. Oakland Avenue. With approximately 315 feet of
frontage on the south side of Wilson Road and being 0.1 mile west of the intersection of Wilson
Road and N. Oakland Avenue, subject property should have “very good” visibility from Wilson
Road and this intersection. In addition, as shown on the site plan, residential buildings (5) and
(6) should be visible from N. Oakland Avenue.
Other positive attributes about the site which relate to marketability would be (1) it has a flat
topography which is conducive to the economical construction of multifamily units; and (2) a
convenient location in terms of proximity to hospital/medical facilities, schools, major PMA
employers and a number of the PMA’s primary arterial roadways.
C. Primary Market Area (PMA)
The PMA for this proposed development is defined by the following census tracts:
Location Census Tracts
Florence County, SC 1; 2.01; 2.02; 3 through 14;
15.01; 15.02; and 16.01
(the property is located in CT 8.0)
Darlington County, SC 109; 113; 114; and 115
These census tracts are included in the Census Bureau’s geographical areas defined as follows:
(i) “Florence, SC Urbanized Area”
(ii) “Florence CCD, Florence County, SC”
(iii) “Danwood CCD, Florence County, SC”
As part of this analyst’s work, various local contacts were interviewed whom I considered as
knowledgeable sources of information regarding employment concentrations, commuting
patterns of employed persons, multifamily rental market conditions, current renter households’
(HH’s) location preferences and the geographic “drawing power” of municipal, medical,
retail/commercial service facilities located within the greater Florence city area for renter HH’s.
Their comments were as follows:
$ On-site managers of LIHTC and “market rate” properties stated that approximately 75%
to 90% of existing residents and “wait-lists” households (HH”s) come from the greater
Florence area which includes those areas of unincorporated of Florence and Darlington
counties that are contiguous to the Florence city limits. These areas correspond to the
three (3) Census Bureau geographic areas identified as comprising the PMA.
The concentration of medical/municipal/retail/commercial/industrial employers in the
greater Florence city area draws renter households (i.e., current employees) from these
7 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
same geographic areas, many of whom have HH incomes that match the income
limitations at LIHTC properties. Proximity to an employer is a major factor in this
market as to where a renter HH decides to live.
The comparable/competitive properties identified in this analyst’s Pre-Market Analysis
memorandum (dated 03/17/06) have current occupancy rates between 92% - 100% and
the on-site managers are these five (5) properties defined their realistic market area as the
same area identified by this analyst as the PMA for Florence North Apartments.
$ City/county planning staff expressed the following points:
(i) The primary, arterial road system in the greater Florence city area is comprised of
I-20, I-95, US Highways 76, 301 and 52; State Roads 26, 51, 179 and 327. These
primary roads traverse the PMA in all four directions. All twenty-two (22) census
tracts that comprise the PMA benefit from this arterial system and residents in
these tracts enjoy good highway and surface street access to the PMA’s
concentrations of employment, medical, municipal, retail and commercial service
facilities.
As such, existing and potential renter HH’s do not perceive the PMA as being
traffic-congested and would be amenable to living in another PMA neighborhood
that had a new construction, affordable multifamily rental development.
(ii) Major employers located within the city - McLeod Health, the city of Florence,
Florence County, Carolinas Health System, Florence School District 1, and
Palmetto Government Benefits Administrators/TRICARE - have a significant
number of employees who commute to their jobs from areas of the PMA located
outside of the city limits. Many of these HH’s have incomes @ #60% of the Area
Median Family Income and currently reside in older rental units - single family
homes or mobile homes. The current gross rent expenses for these type units
often exceeds 30% to 35% plus of their monthly HH income. Development of
new construction, affordable rental units located approximately two (2) miles
from both the CBD and the concentration of employers located close to the
intersection of E. Ashby Road and N. Irby Street would be considered attractive to
a number of these HH’s, both in terms of better proximity to jobs and monthly,
gross rental occupancy costs.
D. Market Area Economy
This section will outline historic and current employment levels and trends for Florence County.
The following tables will show annual employment/unemployment statistics, changes in total
employment, employment by sector, capital investment/jobs creation data, contractions in the
workforce, major employers, PMA commuting patterns, and average annual wages. There also
is a map in the back of this section showing the sites/locations of major employment
concentrations.
8 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Civilian Labor Force/Employment Trends
Florence County: 1998 - 2004
Category 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Civilian Labor Force 62,398 63,072 63,215 62,442 63,370 64,651 64,470
Employment 59,725 59,926 60,487 58,821 59,095 59,134 58,790
Unemployment 2,673 3,146 2,728 3,621 4,275 5517 5,680
Unemployment Rate 4.3% 5.0% 4.3% 5.8% 6.7% 8.5% 8.8%
Source: South Carolina Employment Security Commission (SCESC)
In 2004, the most recent year for which annualized data is available, the Florence County labor
force was comprised of an estimated 64,470 persons, of which 58,790 were employed and 5,680
or 8.8%,
were unemployed.
Recent comparisons of Florence County unemployment statistics are as follows:
Florence County - December - 2005
LABOR FORCE UNEMPLOYMENT % OF LABOR FORCE
Month 12/2005 11/2005 12/2004 12/2005 11/2005 12/2004 12/2005 11/2005 12/2004
FLORENCE 64,440 64,670 63,870 5,610 5,610 5,600 8.7 8.7 8.8
Source: SCESC, 01/24/2006.
On 03/30/2006, SCESC released February 2006 unemployment rates for the state and counties.
For Florence County, this data was:
Total Labor Force - 63,130
Unemployed Workers - 5,690
% of Labor Force - 9.0%
Based upon Florence County’s labor force and number of unemployed workers from December
2004 to December 2005 (see above table), the labor force grew by 570 workers while the number
of unemployed workers grew by 10 workers, yielding an increase of 560 employed workers.
Likewise, for year 2004, Florence County experienced job growth of approximately 500 new
jobs. Other recent employment data for Florence County is as follows:
$ The average labor force from 2003 through 2005 was 64,047 workers;
$ Average monthly employment was 58,531 for the period 2003-2004;
9 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
$ Average unemployed workers from 2003 through 2005 - 5,467 workers;
10 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Florence County Capital Investment/Job Creation Data 2000-2004
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
# New Firms 1 0 0 2 0 2
# Expanding Firms 42 32 14 2 1 0
Total Firms 43 32 14 4 1 2
$$ New Investment $35,000,000 $0 $0 $15,700,000 $0 $89,700,000
$$ Exp. Investment $85,561,711 $77,107,836 $36,915,531 $12,450,000 $30,500,000 $0
Total Investment $120,561,711 $77,107,836 $36,915,531 $28,150,000 $25,000,000 $89,700,000
# New Jobs 200 0 0 610 0 418
# Exp. Jobs 767 404 325 115 85 0
Total # Jobs 967 404 325 725 85 418
Source: South Carolina Department of Commerce (SCDC)
The above table shows that a total of $293,250,000 in capital investment has been made in
Florence County over the five (5) year period 2000-2004 which, in turn, has created a total of
2,506 jobs - either by expansion of existing firms or “new jobs” from investment by new firms.
In addition, for 2005, SCDC reports that two (2) firms (East Coast Erosion Blankets and QVC
Corporation) announced capital investments totaling $89,700,00 which will create an additional
418 jobs in the county . Consequently, approximately 3,000 “new” or expansion jobs will have
been created in the county since year 2000. The QVC Corp. facility will be 2.0 miles north of
subject site.
Similar to numerous other SC counties, Florence County has experienced “layoffs” and “plant
closures” in its industrial/manufacturing sector over the past 24 to 36 months.
Jobs Lost
(1) Delta Mills (Pamplico) 260
(2) Coleman Industries (Lake City) 200
(3) Dupont (Florence) 100
(4) Maytag (Florence) 250
Total 810
As shown in the prior “Capital Investment/Job Creation Data” table, the 1,228 new/expansion
jobs announced between 2003-2004 significantly offsets the above 810 lost jobs in the
industrial/manufacturing section.
11 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Florence County
Employment By Industry & Wages - 2004
Number % Average Annual Wage
Total Employment 62,616 100.0 $29,338 (private industry)
Natural Resources & Mining 284 .5 $25,356
Construction 2,756 4.4 $30,237
Manufacturing 8,786 14.0 $37,815
Wholesale Trade 2,198 3.5 $36,319
Retail Trade 8,271 13.2 $20,761
Transportation/Utilities 2,409 3.8 $25,091
Information 1,013 1.6 $30,583
Financial Activities 6,149 9.8 $36,437
Professional/Business Services 3,927 6.3 $30,289
Education/Health Services 15,784 25.2 $35,605
Leisure & Hospitality 5,988 9.6 $14,680
Other Services 1,610 2.6 $19,946
Public Administration 3,253 5.2 $32,087
Unclassified 189 .3 $28,202
Source: SCESC
The above table shows that the county’s five (5) largest sector employees - Education/Health
Services, Manufacturing Retail Trade, Leisure & Hospitality and Financial Activities - account
for 71.8% of the county’s employment base. As such, Florence County’s economy exhibits a
diversity that is not dependent upon a one or two industry sectors. Major employers in Florence
County are:
Major Employers - (Florence County)
Employer Industry Description Approximate Number of
Employees
Mcleod Regional Medical Ctr. Healthcare 4,200
Florence Sch. District 1 Education 2,200
Carolinas Hospital System Healthcare 1,800
Honda of S.C. Transpt. Vehicles 1,800
Washington Mutual Mortgage Services 1,400
12 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Employer Industry Description Approximate Number of
Employees
Palmetto Govt. Benefits Insurance Services 1,000
Admis./TRICARE
Nan Yan Plastics Manufacturing 980
Wellman Inc. Manufacturing 800
Florence County Government 680
ESAB Welding Products Manufacturing 550
GE Medical Systems Healthcare 500
Roche Carolina Manufacturing 290
ADP Business Service 480
Francis Marion Univ. Education 425
W. Lee Flowers & Co. Grocery Distribution 250
Source: SCESC; Morning News
The following table summarizes worker commuting patterns in Florence County (Census 2000):
Commute to Work Patterns
Florence County, South Carolina 2000
County/Area # Employees Out-Commuting # Employees In-Commuting Net to
to Florence County from Florence County Florence County
Chesterfield 253 133 120
Clarendon* 684 273 411
Darlington* 7,853 3,214 4,639
Dillon* 1,108 380 728
Georgetown 270 213 57
Horry 386 785 (399)
Lee* 500 240 260
Marion* 1,611 474 1,137
Marlboro* 259 156 103
Sumter* 731 396 335
Williamsburg* 1,653 1,349 304
Other S.C. Counties 951 798 (207)
N.C. Counties 310 580 (270)
County/Area # Employees Out-Commuting # Employees In-Commuting Net to
to Florence County from Florence County Florence County
13 Part III. Site Description/Market Area/Economy
Totals 16,209 8,991 7,218
*Totals-Contiguous 14,399 6,482 7,917
Counties
Source: U.S. Census 2000, SCESC
Located in the northern quadrant of Florence County, the PMA has closest proximity to the
contiguous counties of Darlington, Dillon, Marion and Lee. These four (4) counties account for
85.4% (6,764 “net” employees commuting into Florence County) of the above 7,917 “net”
employees from all contiguous counties.
The PMA’s economy and employed labor force should continue to experience moderate, positive
growth. A point of concern is the county’s unemployment rate averaging 8.65% for the period
2003-2004 and now averaging 8.7% - 8.9% over the past six (6) months. Local economic
development officials state that (1) the residential housing market continues to exhibit solid
growth at a 5% - 7% annual rate; (2) the retail and lodging/hospitality sectors are expanding
rapidly; and (3) the PMA’s location at the juncture of I-20 and I-95 establish the greater Florence
city area as the economic hub for all of the counties which comprise the northeastern quadrant of
the state. Employees in the county’s expanding retail and lodging/hospitality sectors earn annual
wages averaging from $14,000 to the low $20,000's. HH’s earning incomes within this range
should provide a base of future demand for new “affordable” rental units.
1
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
Part IV. Community Demographic
Data
As described in Part III, Site Description/Market Area/Economy, the Primary Market Area
(PMA) for this proposed development consists of the following census tracts:
Location Census Tracts
Florence County, SC 1; 2.01; 2.02; 3 through 14;
15.01; 15.02; and 16.01
(the property is located in CT 8.0)
Darlington County, SC 109; 113; 114; and 115
These census tracts are included in the Census Bureau’s geographical areas defined as follows:
(i) “Florence, SC Urbanized Area”
(ii) “Florence CCD, Florence County, SC”
(iii) “Danwood CCD, Florence County, SC”
Demographic data/tables in this section will focus upon the PMA’s general population, age,
households (HH’s), income and housing demographics . Sources providing data and projections
in this section are: (1) U.S. Bureau of the Census; (2) South Carolina Budget & Control Board,
Office of Research and Statistics (State Data Center); (3) South Carolina Employment Security
Commission; (4) Greater Florence Chamber of Commerce; (5) Pee Dee Regional Council of
Governments; (6) Florence County Economic Development Partnership; and (7) Claritas, Inc.
A. Population Trends
As of the 1990 Census, the PMA had 89,552 persons. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the
PMA’s April 2000 population was 101,810 persons, a gain of 12,259 persons or a 13.7%
increase from the 1990 PMA population. As of the 2000 Census, the PMA’s population had the
following, basic characteristics.
PMA - 2000
PMA As A %
Total Population: 101,810 100%
SEX
Male 47,650 46.8
Female 54,160 53.2
2
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
AGE
Under 5 years 6,705 6.6
PMA As A %
5 to 19 years 22,524 22.1
20 to 24 years 6,925 6.8
25 to 44 years 29,834 29.3
45 to 54 years 14,813 14.5
55 to 59 years 5,148 5.1
60 to 64 years 4,127 4.1
65 to 74 years 6,232 6.1
75 to 84 years 4,033 4.0
85 years and over 1,469 1.4
Median Age 35.0 (x)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
For the PMA, 2000 Census data showed the following age groups:
PMA Population
by Age Groups: 2000
Age Group Persons % of Population
19 and under 29,229 28.7%
20 to 24 6,925 6.8%
25 to 34 14,181 13.7%
35 to 54 30,466 29.9%
55 to 64 9,275 9.2%
65 and over 11,734 11.5%
Source: U.S. Bureau of The Census
According to the South Carolina Budget & Control Board, Office of Research and Statistics
(SCORS), Florence County has the following demographic patterns/trends:
3
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
Florence County
Components of Population Change 1990-2000
Components of Change 1990-2000
1990 2000 1990-2000
County
Population Population Change
Natural Net
Births Deaths
Increase Migration
Florence 114,344 125,761 11,417 18,139 11,991 6,148 5,269
Source: SCORS, 11/2005
For the period 2000-2004, SCORS estimates Florence County’s components of population
change as follows:
Florence County
Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Population Change (2000-2004)
Natural Increase Net Migration
Total
County Population
Change Net
Net Internal
Total Births Deaths Total International
Migration
Migration
Florence 3,918 2,480 8,129 5,649 1,505 372 1,133
Source: SCORS, 11/2005
These SCORS’ estimates show that Florence County’s population grew by 3.1% over the period
2000-2004 with 38.4% of that growth (1,505 persons) attributable to “net migration’ into the
county.
Preliminary, future population projections compiled by SCORS for Florence County are:
Florence County
4
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
Estimated Annual Population - 2000 Through 2030
4/00 7/05 7/10 7/15 7/20 7/25 7/30
125,761 130,080 134,450 138,810 143,170 147,530 151,880
Source: SCORS, 11/2005
SCORS projects that the county’s population for year 2010 will be 134,450 persons and, for year
2015, the population is estimated to be 138,810 persons. Year 2015's estimated population of
138,810 persons represents an increase of 10.4% (13,049 persons) over the county’s Census
2000 population of 125,761 persons.
B. Household Trends
In 2000, the PMA’s HH demographics were as follows:
Total HH’s - 38,552 HH’s
Average HH Size - 2.55 persons/HH
PMA Group Quarters Population
Persons As A % of
PMA Population
In Group Quarters 3,370 3.3%
Institutionalized Population 1,780 1.7%
Noninstitutionalized Population 1,590 1.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
On 03/16/2006, Tremont Consultants ordered a Claritas, Inc. Household Trend Report for the
PMA which includes the following data (Census 2000, 2005 Estimate and 2010 Projection):
! Universe Totals (population, HH’s, families, housing units and group quarters
population)
! Average HH Size
! Income Totals (aggregate HH income, per capita)
! Total HH Income
! Average HH Income
5
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
! Median HH Income
! Total Family HH Income
! HH’s By HH Type and Size
These tables are as follows:
6
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
PMA
Description 2000 2005 % Change 2010 % Change
Census Estimate 2000-2005 Projection 2005-2010
Universe Totals
Population 101,810 106,011 4.13% 110,345 4.09%
Households 38,552 41,018 6.40% 43,303 5.57%
Families 27,148 28,740 5.86% 30,164 4.95%
Housing Units 42,459 45,155 6.35% 47,663 5.55%
Group Quarters Population 3,370 3,402 0.95% 3,431 0.85%
Average Household Size 2.55 2.50 -1.96% 2.47 -1.20%
Income Totals
Aggregate ($MM)
Household Income 1,884 2,287 21.39% 2,742 19.90%
Per Capita 18,872 21,905 16.07% 25,176 14.93%
Source: Claritas, Inc. (03/16/2006)
The above PMA table shows the following estimates/projections for the period 2005-2010:
! PMA population is projected to increase by approximately 4,350 persons, averaging
870 persons per annum;
! PMA HH population is projected to increase by approximately 2,285 HH”s,
averaging 460 HH”s per annum;
! The PMA’s “Housing Units” will increase by approximately 2,510 units, averaging
500 units per annum;
! The PMA group quarters population essentially will remain unchanged;
! PMA average HH size will decline slightly over this period;
7
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
PMA
(HH’s)
Description 2000 Census Percent 2005 Percent 2010 Percent
Estimate Projection
Total Household Income 38,583 41,018 43,303
Income Less than $15,000 7,233 18.75% 6,724 16.39% 6,321 14.60%
Income $15,000-$24,999 6,179 16.01% 5,717 13.94% 5,193 11.99%
Income $25,000-$34,999 5,322 13.79% 5,099 12.43% 5,001 11.55%
Income $35,000-$49,999 6,794 17.61% 7,016 17.10% 6,953 16.06%
Income $50,000-$74,999 6,708 17.39% 7,497 18.28% 8,081 18.66%
Income $75,000-$99,999 3,229 8.37% 3,944 9.62% 4,626 10.68%
Income $100,000-$149,999 1,904 4.93% 3,304 8.06% 4,604 10.63%
Income $150,000-$249,999 853 2.21% 1,119 2.73% 1,668 3.85%
Income $250,000-$499,999 249 0.65% 417 1.02% 574 1.33%
Income $500,000 or more 112 0.29% 181 0.44% 282 0.65%
Average Household Income $48,826 $55,753 $63,331
Median Household Income $36,232 $41,348 $46,081
Total Family Household 27,542 28,740 30,164
Income
Income Less than $15,000 3,371 12.24% 3,432 11.94% 3,147 10.43%
Income $15,000-$24,999 3,704 13.45% 3,269 11.37% 2,905 9.63%
Income $25,000-$34,999 3,571 12.97% 3,358 11.68% 3,165 10.49%
Income $35,000-$49,999 5,120 18.59% 4,739 16.49% 4,497 14.91%
Income $50,000-$74,999 5,963 21.65% 6,183 21.51% 6,292 20.86%
Income $75,000-$99,999 3,005 10.91% 3,497 12.17% 3,994 13.24%
Income $100,000-$149,999 1,692 6.14% 2,822 9.82% 4,018 13.32%
Income $150,000-$249,999 781 2.84% 944 3.28% 1,434 4.75%
Income $250,000-$499,999 223 0.81% 333 1.16% 471 1.56%
Income $500,000 or more 112 0.41% 163 0.57% 241 0.80%
Source: Claritas, Inc. (03/16/2006)
The above PMA table shows the following estimates/projections for the period 2005-2010.
! HH’s earning $15,000 - $24,999 are projected to decline by approximately 524 HH’s
(9.2%) averaging 105 HH”s per annum;
8
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
! HH’s earning $25,000 - $34,999 also are projected to decline, from 5,099 HH’s in
2005 to 5,001 HH’s in 2010, representing a 1.9% decline (98 HH’s) over these five
(5) years;
! HH’s earning $35,000 - $49,999 also are projected to decline, from 7,016 HH’s in
2005 to 6,953 HH’s in 2010, representing a 0.9% decline (63) HH’s over these five
(5) years;
! The number of PMA “HH’s” and “Family HH’s” earning >$50,000 are projected to
increase over this five (5) year period.
PMA
(HH’s)
Description 2000 Percent 2005 Percent 2010 Percent
Census Estimate Projection
Households by Household Type
and Size
Nonfamily Households 11,404 12,278 13,139
1-person household 9,754 85.53% 10,804 87.99% 11,686 88.94%
2-person household 1,402 12.29% 1,240 10.10% 1,209 9.20%
3-person household 172 1.51% 165 1.34% 177 1.35%
4-person household 54 0.47% 46 0.37% 44 0.33%
5-person household 15 0.13% 16 0.13% 16 0.12%
6-person household 4 0.04% 4 0.03% 4 0.03%
7 or more person household 3 0.03% 3 0.02% 3 0.02%
Family Households 27,148 28,740 30,164
2-person household 10,900 40.15% 11,905 41.42% 12,734 42.22%
3-person household 7,147 26.33% 7,708 26.82% 8,155 27.04%
4-person household 5,666 20.87% 5,795 20.16% 5,948 19.72%
5-person household 2,246 8.27% 2,210 7.69% 2,236 7.41%
6-person household 766 2.82% 764 2.66% 778 2.58%
7 or more person household 423 1.56% 358 1.25% 313 1.04%
Source: Claritas, Inc. (03/16/2006)
For “Family HH’s”, the above PMA table shows for the period 2005 - 2010 that:
! There will be an increase of 1,424 HH’s from 2005 to 2010;
! Two (2) to four (4) person HH’s will show the largest increases whereas the number
of five (5) to six (6) person HH”s essentially will remain constant;
9
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
(A copy of this Claritas, Inc. Household Trend Report can be found in the back of this section.)
C. Housing Demographics
PMA - 2000 Households by Tenure
PMA
Total Occupied Units 38,552
Owner Occupied 27,771
% Owner Occupied 72.0%
Renter Occupied 10,781
% Renter Occupied 28.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
PMA 2000 Tenure by Age of Householder
PMA As A Percentage
Owner occupied: 27,771 units 100.0
15 to 24 years 604 2.2
25 to 34 years 3,905 14.1
35 to 44 years 6,060 21.8
45 to 54 years 6,670 24.0
55 to 64 years 4,741 17.1
65 to 74 years 3,415 12.3
75 years and over 2,376 8.6
Renter Occupied: 10,781 units 100.0
15 to 24 years 1,421 13.2
25 to 34 years 2,853 26.5
35 to 44 years 2,357 21.9
45 to 54 years 1,831 17.0
55 to 64 years 921 8.5
65 to 74 years 588 5.5
75 years and over 810 7.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Renter HH’s age 25 to 54 (7,041 HH’s) represented 65.3% of all renter HH’s in the PMA in
2000.
Renter HH’s age 25 to 44 years totaled 5,210 HH’s and represented 48.3% of the PMA’s renter
HH’s. Renter HH’s age 55 plus (2,319 HH’s) represented 21.5% of all renter HH’s in the PMA
in year 2000.
Year 2000 Average HH Size Per Occupied Housing
10
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
Unit By Tenure - PMA
Tenure Persons Per Unit
Owner Occupied 2.71
Renter Occupied 2.48
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
PMA Year 2000 Tenure by HH Size
PMA As A Percentage
Owner Occupied: 27,771 units 100.0
1 Person HH 5,765 20.8
2 Person HH 9,492 34.2
3 Person HH 5,493 19.8
4 Person HH 4,456 16.0
5 Person HH 1,683 6.1
6 Person HH 575 2.1
7+ Person HH 307 1.1
Renter Occupied: 10,781 units 100.0
1 Person HH 3,989 37.0
2 Person HH 2,810 26.1
3 Person HH 1,826 16.9
4 Person HH 1,264 11.7
5 Person HH 578 5.4
6 Person HH 195 1.8
7+ Person HH 119 1.1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Renter HH’s with two to three persons (4,636 HH’s) represented 43.0% of all PMA renter HH’s.
Renter HH’s with 3 to 5 persons (3,668 HH’s) represented - 34.0% of all PMA renter HH’s.
11
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
Gross Rent As a Percentage
of HH Income in 1999
Renter Occupied Units 10,770 100.0
Less than 10 percent 893 8.3
10 to 14 percent 1,332 12.4
15 to 19 percent 1,601 14.9
20 to 24 percent 1,150 10.7
25 to 29 percent 879 8.2
30 to 34 percent 783 7.3
35 to 39 percent 605 5.6
40 to 49 percent 652 6.1
50 percent or more 1,902 17.7
Not computed 1,186 11.0
Median Percentage 25.9% (X)
Source: U.S. Census (SF3)
In 1999, the above table shows that 3,159 renter HH’s, representing 29.3% of all PMA renter
HH’s, were paying in excess of 35% of HH income for gross rent expenses.
In year 2000, PMA renter HH’s paid an average median contract (or “net”) rent of $308 per
month. Similarly, PMA renter HH’s paid an average median gross rent of $427 per month. Part
V., Demand/Supply Analysis will contain a detailed analysis of this rent data and how it relates to
the study’s rent affordability analyses.
12
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
PMA Tenure by HH Income in 1999
Number Percent
Owner-occupied housing units 27,751 100.0
Less than $5,000 793 2.9
$5,000 to $9,999 1,371 4.9
$10,000 to $14,999 1,428 5.1
$15,000 to $19,999 1,972 7.1
$20,000 to $24,999 1,850 6.7
$25,000 to $34,999 3,723 13.4
$35,000 to $49,999 5,066 18.3
$50,000 to $74,999 5,690 20.5
$75,000 to $99,999 2,982 10.7
$100,000 to $149,999 1,762 6.3
$150,000 or more 1,112 4.0
Median (dollars) $38,693 (X)
Renter-occupied housing units 10,826 100.0
Less than $5,000 1,160 10.7
$5,000 to $9,999 1,451 13.4
$10,000 to $14,999 1,105 10.2
$15,000 to $19,999 1,353 12.5
$20,000 to $24,999 1,041 9.6
$25,000 to $34,999 1,653 15.3
$35,000 to $49,999 1,664 15.4
$50,000 to $74,999 929 8.6
$75,000 to $99,999 285 2.6
$100,000 to $149,999 133 1.2
$150,000 or more 52 .5
Median (dollars) $19,815 (X)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (SF3)
13
Part IV. Community Demographic Data
Note that there is a median HH income difference of $11,882 between renter HH’s having a
median income of $18,255 and owner-occupied HH’s having a median income of $31,326. In
addition, in Year 2000, HUD’s Area Median Income (AMI) for Florence County was $43,100 (4
person household). A median renter household income of $19,815 in 1999 represented 46.0%
($19,815/$43,100 = .460) of this 4 person AMI. In Year 2000, a 4 person household earning
#$21,550 was categorized by HUD as being a “very low income” household.
New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits
Florence County, North Carolina
Year Total Units Single Family Multi-Family Multi-Family
Units Buildings Units
2000 607 512 16 95
2001 57 51 3 6
2002 501 467 8 34
2003 47 47 0 0
2004 181 179 1 2
2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
1 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
A. Demand Analysis
Florence North Apartments is a proposed, new construction development consisting of seventy-
two (72) garden style multi-family rental units. The targeted renter market are “family”
households (HH’s), earning #50% and #60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The proposed
unit mix (by bedrooms/bathrooms) gross square footage (SF), contract rent, utility cost and
estimated gross rent is as follows:
Unit Type Number Square Feet Estimated Estimated Estimated AMI
of Units Contract Utility Cost Gross Rent Income %
Rent Target
2 BR/2 BA 26 954 $395 $110 $505 #50%
(Garden)
2 BR/2 BA 26 954 $425 $110 $535 #60%
(Garden)
3 BR/2 BA 10 1,107 $440 $136 $576 #50%
(Garden)
3 BR/2 BA 10 1,107 $480 $136 $616 #60%
(Garden)
The units will be all-electric with electricity, water and sewer being paid by tenant. Owner will
pay for trash collection services.
Part III, Site Description/Market Area /Economy defines the Primary Market Area (PMA) for
Florence North Apartments. As of the 1990 Census, the PMA had 89,552 persons. The PMA’s
April 2000 population was 101,810 persons, a gain of 12,259 persons (13.7% ) from the 1990
PMA population.
The applicant intends to develop a property targeting residents earning #50% and #60% of the
PMA’s AMI. The first step, therefore, is to quantify the number of existing renter households
(HH’s) in the PMA with incomes at #50% and #60% of the Florence County, Area Median
Family Income (FC AMI). For year 2005, per SCSHFDA, the FC AMI is $49,000 (4 person
HH). HH’s earning 50% of the FC AMI will have a median income of $24,500 and HH’s earning
60% of the FC AMI will have a median income of $29,400.
HUD and the South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority (SCSHFDA)
consider rental unit HH’s to have 1.5 persons per bedroom. Consequently,
Efficiency = 1 person 1 BR = 1.5 persons 2 BR = 3 persons
3 BR = 4.5 persons 4 BR = 5 persons
2 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
The calculations utilized to determine income and gross rent limits are as follows:
As previously stated, the 2005 Median Family Income for Florence County is $49,000 (4 person
HH). This development is targeting “family” or “general population” residents earning #50% and
#60% of the FC AMI. There will be 2 BR and 3 BR units @ #50% AMI @ #60% AMI. It is
necessary to compute the income limits for the 3 BR (4.5 persons) units. As an example, the
income limit for a 3 BR unit @ 50% AMI is the mathematical average between a four person HH
($24,500) and a five person HH ($26,450) or $25,475 for a 4.5 person (3 BR) HH. The
computation for 2 BR (3 persons) unit does not require this additional averaging step. In short:
Maximum Income Limits
(as of February 2005)
HH Size 50% of FC AMI 60% of FC AMI
3 Persons (2 BR) $22,050 $26,460
4 Persons $24,500 $29,400
4.5 Persons (3 BR) $25,475 $30,570
5 Persons $26,450 $31,740
Note: FC AMI = Florence County Area Median Income
SCSHFDA’s maximum gross monthly rents by unit size are as follows:
Florence County’s Gross Rent Limit Calculation
Unit Size 50% of FC AMI 60% of FC AMI
1 Bedroom $459 $551
2 Bedrooms $551 $661
3 Bedrooms $636 $764
4 Bedrooms $710 $852
Note: FC AMI = Florence County Area Median Income
Hence, the residents of subject property will have the following income limits:
Unit Size AMI Limit Maximum Income
2 BR #50% $22,050
2 BR #60% $26,460
3 BR #50% $25,475
3 BR #60% $30,570
The next step is to estimate the number of existing “general population” renter HH’s in the PMA
which realistically are income-qualified to reside in this proposed development.
(i) Demand From New Renter Households
Realistic demand is derived from an analysis which quantifies the number of PMA “family” or
“general population” HH’s that can afford to rent the proposed 2 BR and 3 BR units at subject
3 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
property. The next step is to estimate the number of PMA renter HH’s earning #50% and #60%
FC AMI. The 2 BR and 3 BR units are targeted to both AMI levels - #50% and #60%. At the
#50% level, subject property’s 2 BR units are projected to have a gross rent of $505/month.
Assuming that potential resident HH’s are able to pay no more than 35% of gross income
towards “total housing expenses’ then targeted HH’s (#50% AMI) occupying the 2 BR units at
subject property need to earn the following minimum income to avoid being classified as “rent-
overburdened”:
2 BR: $505 monthly rent x 12 months = $6,060 ) .35 = $17,314
For the 2 BR units @ #60% AMI, the calculation is:
2 BR: $535 monthly rent x 12 months = $6,420) .35 = $18,343
Likewise, subject property’s 3 BR units will target both #50% and #60% AMI HH’s. These AMI
HH’s will need to earn the following minimum income to avoid being classified as “rent-
overburdened”:
At #50% AMI:
3 BR: $576 monthly rent x 12 months = $6,192 ) .35 = $19,749
At #60% AMI:
3 BR: $616 monthly rent x 12 months = $7,392 ) .35 = $21,120
The following table summarizes the minimum/maximum incomes for subject property’s
proposed units:
Unit Type AMI Level Gross Rent Minimum Maximum Min./Max.
Income Income Income Range
2 BR #50% $505 $17,314 $22,050 $4,736
#60% $535 $18,343 $26,460 $8,117
3 BR #50% $576 $19,749 $25,475 $5,726
#60% $616 $21,120 $30,570 $9,450
Consequently, by combining the PMA’s #50% AMI and #60% AMI minimum/maximum income
limits, subject property’s targeted market will be HH’s earning between $17,314 and $30,570 per
annum. From Census 2000, PMA’s HH income cohorts were as follows:
4 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
PMA HH Income in 1999
Number
Total 38,583 100.0
Less than $10,000 4,673 12.1
$10,000 to $14,999 2,560 6.6
$15,000 to $19,999 3,338 8.7
$20,000 to $24,999 2,841 7.4
$25,000 to $29,999 2,683 7.0
$30,000 to $34,999 2,639 6.8
$35,000 to $39,999 2,622 6.8
$40,000 to $44,999 2,211 5.7
$45,000 to $49,999 1,961 5.1
$50,000 to $59,999 3,299 8.6
$60,000 to $74,999 3,409 8.8
$75,000 to $99,999 3,229 8.4
$100,000 to $124,999 1,354 3.5
$125,000 to $149,999 550 1.4
$150,000 to $199,999 511 1.3
$200,000 or more 703 1.8
Median HH Income
$36,232 N/A
(dollars)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The above table shows that 11,501 PMA HH’s earned between $15,000 to $34,999 per annum.
These 11,501 HH’s represent 29.8% of all PMA Year 2000 HH’s and are divided into four (4)
income cohorts - “$15,000 to $19,999,” “$20,000 to $24,999,” “$25,000 to $29,999" and
“$30,000 to $34,999.” Using a straight line, prorata assumption, these income cohorts can be
adjusted to reflect the number of HH’s earning ∃$17,314 to ∃$30,570. Specifically, for the
“$15,000 - $19,999" cohort, $2,685 ($19,999 minus $17,314 = $2,685) divided by this $5,000
income cohort yields a 53.7% “inclusion factor.” Applying this 53.7% factor times the 3,338
HH’s in the “$15,000 to $19,999" income cohort yields 1,793 HH’s (.537 x 3,338 = 1,793 HH’s)
that are assumed to be earning between $17,314 and $19,999 in year 2000. Likewise, the same
prorata assumption is applied to the ∃$30,000 to #$34,999 income cohort for those HH’s earning
between $30,000 to $30,570 (the 3 BR #60% AMI maximum income). That “inclusion factor” is
11.4% ($30,570 minus $30,000 = $570 ) $5,000 = .114) times the 2,639 HH’s in this income
cohort yields 301 HH’s earning ∃$30,000 to #$30,570. As of Year 2000, the estimated number
of income-qualifying HH’s is:
5 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Income Cohort PMA HH’s
$17,314 - $19,999 1,793
$20,000 - $24,999 2,841
$25,000 - $29,999 2,683
$30,000 - $30,570 301
7,618 HH’s
From page 8 of Part IV, the PMA’s Year 2000 HH’s by Tenure are as follows:
PMA - 2000 Households by Tenure
PMA
Total Occupied Units 38,552
Owner Occupied 27,771
% Owner Occupied 72.0%
Renter Occupied 10,781
% Renter Occupied 28.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The above 7,618 HH’s (earning between $17,314 and $30,570) multiplied by the Year 2000
PMA renter percentage of 28.0% yields 2,133 “renter HH’s”.
Also from page 8 of Part IV is the table showing “Tenure By Age”:
PMA 2000 Tenure by Age of Householder
PMA As A Percentage
Owner occupied: 27,771 units 100.0
15 to 24 years 604 2.2
25 to 34 years 3,905 14.1
35 to 44 years 6,060 21.8
45 to 54 years 6,670 24.0
55 to 64 years 4,741 17.1
65 to 74 years 3,415 12.3
75 years and over 2,376 8.6
Renter Occupied: 10,781 units 100.0
15 to 24 years 1,421 13.2
25 to 34 years 2,853 26.5
35 to 44 years 2,357 21.9
45 to 54 years 1,831 17.0
55 to 64 years 921 8.5
PMA As A Percentage
6 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
65 to 74 years 588 5.5
75 years and over 810 7.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Renter HH’s age 25 to 54 (7,041 HH’s) represented 65.3% of all renter HH’s in the PMA in
2000.
Renter HH’s age 25 to 44 years totaled 5,210 HH’s and represented 48.3% of the PMA’s renter
HH’s. Renter HH’s generally are younger HH’s when compared to homeowner HH’s. In
addition, renter HH annual incomes generally are lower than homeowner HH incomes. From the
lower half of the “PMA Tenure By HH Income in 1999" table (page 11, Part IV):
Number Percent
Renter-occupied housing units 10,826 100.0
Less than $5,000 1,160 10.7
$5,000 to $9,999 1,451 13.4
$10,000 to $14,999 1,105 10.2
$15,000 to $19,999 1,353 12.5
$20,000 to $24,999 1,041 9.6
$25,000 to $34,999 1,653 15.3
$35,000 to $49,999 1,664 15.4
$50,000 to $74,999 929 8.6
$75,000 to $99,999 285 2.6
$100,000 to $149,999 133 1.2
$150,000 or more 52 .5
Median (dollars) $19,815 (X)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (SF3)
This table shows that there are 4,047 renter HH’s earning between $15,000 to $34,999. Utilizing
the same “inclusion factor” computation described earlier in this section for the “$17,314 to
$19,999" and the above “$25,000 to $34,999" income cohorts, this 4,047 PMA renter HH group
is further refined to show PMA renter HH’s earning between $17,314 (minimum income for
subject property’s 2 BR units) and $30,570 (maximum income for subject property’s 3 BR units).
This refined estimate of Year 2000 income-qualified, PMA renter HH’s is as follows:
7 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
PMA
Income Cohort Inclusion Factor Renter HH’s
$17,314 - $19,999 53.7% 727
$20,000 - $24,999 100% 1,041
$25,000 - $34,999 55.7% 921
Total 2,689 HH’s
Page 4 of this section shows that there are an estimated 7,618 total HH’s in the PMA earning
between $17,314 to $30,570. The above 2,689 estimated PMA renter HH’s represent 35.3% of
these 7,618 PMA “income-qualified” HH’s. Page 5 of this section shows that 28.0% of the
PMA’s occupied housing units are “renter occupied” units. However, the above analysis shows
that 35.3% of subject property’s income-qualifying HH’s are “renter” HH’s. In short, at lower
HH income levels, the percentage of renters that are income-qualifying for subject property’s
units exceeds the overall Census 2000 percentage of renter HH’s in the entire PMA (35.3%
versus 28.0%).
SCSHFDA’s 2006 Exhibit S - Market Requirements - Appendix A, section F(4)(a) “Demand
from New Renter Households” requires that the base year for new renter HH’s is year 2005 and
projected to year 2008.
The next step, therefore, of this demand analysis is to quantify the number of “new” PMA renter
HH’s from the base year 2005 and projecting to year 2008. Part IV, pages 4-8 contain
demographics tables from a Claritas, Inc. Household Trend Report for the PMA. These tables
include:
(A) Census 2000 data;
(B) 2005 Estimates;
(C) 2010 Projection
The following table is an abridged version of the Claritas, Inc. table found on page 6 of Part IV
regarding projected HH’s and HH income:
PMA County
(HH’s)
Description 2000 Census Percent 2005 Percent 2010 Percent
Estimate Projection
Total Household Income 38,583 41,018 43,303
Income Less than $15,000 7,233 18.75% 6,724 16.39% 6,321 14.60%
Income $15,000-$24,999 6,179 16.01% 5,717 13.94% 5,193 11.99%
Income $25,000-$34,999 5,322 13.79% 5,099 12.43% 5,001 11.55%
8 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Income $35,000-$49,999 6,794 17.61% 7,016 17.10% 6,953 16.06%
Description 2000 Census Percent 2005 Percent 2010 Percent
Estimate Projection
Average Household Income $48,826 $55,753 $63,331
Median Household Income $36,232 $41,348 $46,081
Source: Claritas, Inc. (03/10/2006)
The Claritas’ HH Income Tables contain income cohorts of “less than $15,000", “$15,000 -
$24,999" and “$25,000 - $34,999" as compared to the Census 2000 cohorts of “less than
$10,000", “$10,000 to $14,999", “$15,000 to $19,999", “$20,000 to $24,999" “$25,000 to
$29,999" and “$30,000 to $34,999.”
This analysis will adjust and correlate the Claritas’ 2005 Estimate and 2010 Projection data to
reflect a “inclusion factor” computations similar to the “inclusion” percentages shown on page 4
of this section.
The above table shows that 6,179 HH’s earned between $15,000 - $24,999 in 2000. Per Census
2000, 3,338 of these HH’s (54.0%) earned between $15,000 to $19,999 and 2,841 HH’s (46.0%)
earned between $20,000 - $24,999. For 2005, Claritas estimates that there were 5,717 HH’s
earning between $15,000 to $24,999, or a decline of 462 HH’s within this income cohort over a
five (5) year period. Retaining the same percentages from the 2000 Census for the two (2)
income cohorts - 54.0% (“$15,000 to $19,999") and 46.0% (“$20,000 to $24,999") yields 3,087
HH’s @ $15,000 to $19,999 (.540 x 5,717 = 3,087) and 2,630 HH’s @ $20,000 to $24,999 (.460
x 5,717 = 2,630) in Year 2005. For the $15,000 to $19,999 cohort, there were 3,338 HH’s in
2000 and, by 2005, there are 3,087 HH’s, or a decline of 251 HH’s over the five year period
2000 through 2005. The average annual decline, therefore, is 50 HH’s per year.
The Claritas table shows that the PMA is estimated to have 5,717 HH’s earning between $15,000
to $24,999 in 2005 and declining further to 5,193 HH’s by 2010. Applying the same
percentages as above - 54.0% and 46.0% - to this income cohort’s projected 2010 HH
population, then 2,804 HH’s are projected to earn between “$15,000 to $19,999" (.540 x 5,193 =
2,804) and 2,389 HH’s are projected to earn between “$20,000 to $24,999" (.460 x 5,193 =
2,389). Consequently, the “$15,000 to $19,999" cohort declines by 283 HH’s [3,087 (in 2005)
minus 2,804 (in 2010) = 283] or at a rate of approximately 57 HH’s per year. Since 2008 is the
assumed year for subject property’s market entry, then 3/5's (2006, 2007 and 2008) or 60% of
this 283 HH decline will have occurred by the end of 2008. In short, the cohort $15,000 to
$19,999 will have declined by 170 HH’s (.60 x 283 = 170) during the 2005 - 2008 period.
2005 2008 2010
Income Cohort Estimate Estimate Projection Total
$15,000 to $19,999 3,087 2,917 2,804 (283)
(Years 2006, 2007
2008 = .6 x 283 = 170)
9 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Utilizing the same “inclusion factor” computations (see page 4 of this section) and the same
35.3% PMA renter HH percentage for lower income HH’s for years 2005 and 2008 (see pages 5-
7 of this section), the estimate of year 2005 and year 2008 income-qualified, PMA renter HH’s is
as follows:
PMA Income-Qualifying Renter HH’s
(2005 and 2008)
Income Cohort Year 2000 Year 2000 Year 2005 Year 2008 Gain (Loss)
Inclusion Renter HH’s Renter HH’s Renter HH’s 2005-2008
Factor
$15,000-$19,999 53.7% 727 585 553 (32)
$20,000-$24,999 100% 1,041 928 877 (51)
$25,000-$34,999 55.7% 921 1,003 991 (12)
Total N/A 2,689 2,516 2,421 (95)
Source: Claritas, Inc.; Tremont Consultants
The next step of this demand analysis is to quantify the number of Year 2008 PMA renter HH’s
which “income qualify” for each of subject property’s proposed unit types.
(1) 2 BR Units @ #50% FC AMI:
Income Qualifying Range - ∃$17,314 to #$22,050 (see page 3 of this section)
Total Year 2008 Renter HH’s in $17,314 - $19,999 Cohort - 553
Total Year 2008 Renter HH’s in $20,000 - $24,999 Cohort - 877
(A) Total Year 2008 Renter HH’s in $17,314 - $19,999 cohort - 553 (see above table)
(B) Total Year 2008 Renter HH’s in $20,000 - $22,050 cohort: $20,000 Minus
$22,050 = 2,050/5,000 = .41 x 877 = 360
Total of (A) and (B) = 553 + 360 = 913 HH’s
2) 2 BR Units @ #60% FC AMI:
Income Qualifying Range - ∃$18,343 to #$26,460 (see page 3 of this section)
Total Year 2008 Renter HH’s in $18,343 - $19,999 Cohort - 183
($19,999 minus $18,343 = $1,656/$5,000 = 33.1%, .331 x 553 HH’s = 183 HH’s)
Total Year 2008 Renter HH’s in $20,000 - $24,999 Cohort - 877
10 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Total Year 2008 Renter HH’s in $25,000 - $34,999 Cohort - 991
(A) $18,343 to $19,999 = 183 HH’s (see above table)
(B) $20,000 to $24,999 = 877 HH’s (see above table)
(C) $25,000 to $26,460 = 1,460/10,000 = 14.6% x 991 = 145 HH’s
Total of (A), (B), and (C) = 183 + 991 + 145 = 1,319 HH’s
Similar calculations (as described above) for the 3 BR units @ #50% and 60% FC AMI have
been made. To summarize these four (4) PMA income-qualifying renter households’estimates/
calculations for Year 2008:
Unit Type in Proposed Renter HH’s @ 50% AMI Renter HH’s @ 60%
Development AMI
2 BR/2 BA 913 1,319
3 BR/2 BA 998 1,232
Summary of Claritas’ Household Trend Report for the PMA and the analyses of this data show
the following:
(4) The number of income-qualifying renter HH’s decreases for the period 2000 through
2008 - 2,689 HH’s in Year 2000 versus 2,421 HH’s by Year 2008, or a loss of 268 HH’s
(10.0%). (See table on page 9 of this section).
(5) Claritas projects a decrease in the number of HH’s earning less than $35,000 between
2000 and 2010. By 2010, Claritas projects that HH’s earning #$35,000 will have
declined by 2,219 HH’s - 18,734 HH’s in 2000 versus 16,515 HH’s in 2010. (See
abridged table on page 7 of this section).
This abridged table and the complete Claritas Inc. table (Part IV, page 6) show the following
PMA estimates/projections for the period 2005 - 2010:
Χ HH’s earning $15,000 - $24,999 are projected to decline by approximately 524
HH’s (9.2%) averaging 105 HH”s per annum;
Χ HH’s earning $25,000 - $34,999 also are projected to decline, from 5,099 HH’s in
2005 to 5,001 HH’s in 2010, representing a 1.9% decline (98 HH’s) over these
five (5) years;
Χ HH’s earning $35,000 - $49,999 also are projected to decline, from 7,016 HH’s in
2005 to 6,953 HH’s in 2010, representing a 0.9% decline (63) HH’s over these
five (5) years;
Χ The number of PMA “HH’s” and “Family HH’s” earning >$50,000 are projected
11 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
to increase over this five (5) year period.
(3) Claritas projects that the PMA had 41,018 HH’s in 2005 and will have 43,303 HH’s in
2010, or a gain of 2,285 HH’s over this five (5) year period.
Given the conclusion (from Claritas data) that the PMA’s pool of income-qualified renter HH’s
actually will decline by 11.27% (257 HH’s) from the number of Year 2000 income qualified
HH’s, this analysis now will address other demographic data and projections from the South
Carolina Budget & Control Board, Office of Research & Statistics (SCORS - State Data Center)
as shown in Part IV. The purpose is to compare the Claritas data with SCORS data in an attempt
to project income-qualified HH demand from new renter HH formations within the PMA from
2005 through 2008.
As shown in Part IV, page 3, SCORS estimates Florence County’s population as follows:
April 2000 (Census) - 125,761
July 2005 130,080
July 2010 134,450
In April 2000, the PMA’s eighteen (18) Florence County census tracts had a population of
81,051 persons representing 64.4% of the above 125,761 person county population. The four (4)
Darlington County census tracts within the PMA had a population of 20,759 persons. The
PMA’s total population was 101,810 persons.
SCORS estimates that Florence County’s population will increase by 6.9% (8,689 persons) from
2000 through July 2010. Claritas Inc. estimates that the PMA’s population will increase by 8.4%
(8,535 persons) over the same period. SCORS estimates that Florence County’s population will
increase by 3.4% (4,370 persons) from July 2005 through July 2010. Claritas Inc. projects the
PMA’s population will increase by 4.09% (4,334 persons) over the same period. An analysis of
these projections (both absolute numbers and percentage rates for population growth) from these
two (2) demographic data sources show:
(3) Population growth rate for 2000 to 2010 - SCORS @ 6.9%, Claritas @ 8.4%;
(4) Total population increase for 2000 to 2010 - SCORS @ 8,689 persons (entire county),
Claritas @ 8,535 persons (PMA);
(5) Total population increase for 2005 to 2010 - SCORS @ 4,370 persons (entire county),
Claritas @ 4,334 persons (PMA).
In short, the State Data Center (SCORS) population projections are more conservative than
Claritas’ population projections. As a result, any anlayses using SDC/SCORS data to calculate
2005-2008 “Demand From New Renter HH’s’ will yield a similar, declining pool of income-
qualified “new” renter HH’s during the 2005 to 2008 time frame. In short, the SDC/SCORS
population projections for 2005 and 2010 show that Claritas’ PMA population estimates (2005)
and projections (2010) are not understated or overly conservative.
12 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
In summary, the table on page 9 of this section entitled “PMA Income-Qualifying Renter HH’s
(2005 and 2008)” shows that the PMA will have no “Demand From New Renter HH’s” for the
period 2005 to 2008. There are, however, other PMA demographic factors that need to be
considered in determining if there will be new, income-qualified renter HH’s entering the market
between 2005 through 2008:
(i) Both Claritas, Inc. and SCORS do project positive population and HH growth for
the period 2005 - 2010. Claritas estimates that the PMA will grow by 2,285 HH’s
from 2005 to 2010, averaging 457 HH’s per year . SCORS estimates that the
county’s population will grow by 4,370 persons over the same period. If the
Claritas 2005 average HH size of 2.50 persons/HH’s applied to these 4,370
persons, then approximately 1,750 new HH’s will enter Florence County’s HH
population over this period, averaging 350 HH’s per annum. The average of these
two (2) sources’ HH estimates for 2005 - 2008 is 1,210 HH’s:
Claritas @ 457 HH’s/year x 3 years = 1,371 HH’s
SCORS @ 350 HH’s/year x 3 years = 1,050 HH’s
2,421 HH’s ) 2 = 1,210 HH’s
(ii) Relevant HH income data is as follows:
(i) Per Census 2000, the median HH income for PMA renter HH’s was
$19,815. For Year 2000, four (4) person PMA HH’s @ 50% (“very low
income”) AMI had a median income of $21,550.00. In short, PMA renter
HH’s had a median income below HUD’s 50% AMI income threshold in
2000. (Part IV, page 12).
(ii) For Year 2004, Florence County’s insured employment and wage data
shows that the “average wage per employee” for “All Industries’ is
$29,338 ($564/week) which is 59.9% of the 2005 FC AMI of $49,000.
(Part III, page 9).
(iii) The National Low Income Housing Coalition’s (NLIHC) publication
entitled “Out of Reach 2005 - South Carolina” contains the following table
for Florence County:
Florence County
Renter HH Income (2005)
Estimated Income Needed to Estimated Percent
Renter Median Monthly Rent Afford Two- of Renters Unable
Household Affordable at Bedroom FMR as to Afford Two-
Income Renter Median Percent of Renter Bedroom FMR
Median
$24,759 $619 78% 39%
13 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Source: NLIHC, 2005
It should be noted that subject property’s estimated gross rents ($505 & $535 for a 2 BR unit and
$576 & $616 for a 3 BR unit) are below (with the exception of the 3 BR @ $616) the above
$619/month “affordable monthly rent” for renter HH’s with incomes at the renter medial income
of $24,759.00. In addition, NLIHC’s Year 2005 estimated Florence County renter median HH
income of $24,759 represents 50.5% of SCSHFDA’s Year 2005 FC AMI $49,000.00.
It is this analyst’s opinion that the above-described population/HH estimates and income data
need to be included in any analysis which attempts to quantify PMA “new renter HH’s” for the
period 2005 to 2008. From (1) above, approximately 1,210 HH’s will enter the market from
2005 - 2008. From (2) above, the majority (75%) of these HH’s will be earning a median income
between $20,000 to $30,000 per annum. Using the 35.3% renter HH percentage for “income-
qualified” HH’s (see pages 6-7 of this section), then approximately 315 income-qualified, renter
HH’s will enter the market between 2005 to 2008. Specifically,
2005 to 2008 “New” HH’s - 1,210 HH’s
Percentage Earning ∃$20,000 to #$30,000 - x. 75
Estimated “New” HH’s Earning
∃$22,000 to #$30,000 - 908 HH’s
Percent Considered to be Renter HH’s .353
Estimated “New” Income-Qualified
Renter HH’s - 320 HH’s
@ #50% AMI - 240 HH’s (75%)
@ #60% AMI - 320 HH’s (100%)
Of subject property’s proposed 72 units, twenty (20) will be 3 BR units representing 28% of all
units. From Part IV, page 9:
PMA Year 2000 Tenure by HH Size
PMA As A Percentage
Owner Occupied: 27,771 units 100.0
1 Person HH 5,765 20.8
2 Person HH 9,492 34.2
3 Person HH 5,493 19.8
4 Person HH 4,456 16.0
5 Person HH 1,683 6.1
6 Person HH 575 2.1
7+ Person HH 307 1.1
Renter Occupied: 10,781 units 100.0
1 Person HH 3,989 37.0
2 Person HH 2,810 26.1
14 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
3 Person HH 1,826 16.9
15 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
PMA As A Percentage
4 Person HH 1,264 11.7
5 Person HH 578 5.4
6 Person HH 195 1.8
7+ Person HH 119 1.1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Renter HH’s with four to six persons (2,037 HH’s) represented 18.7% of all PMA renter HH’s.
Year 2000 PMA “Tenure By Bedrooms” is as follows:
Year 2000 Tenure By Bedrooms
Number Percent
Owner Occupied 27,751 Units 100.0
No Bedrooms 137 .5
1 Bedroom 517 1.9
2 Bedrooms 4,487 16.2
3 Bedrooms 17,093 61.6
4 Bedroom 4,746 17.1
5 or more Bedrooms 771 2.8
Renter Occupied: 10,826 Units 100.0
16 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
No Bedrooms 383 3.5
1 Bedroom 1,855 17.1
2 Bedrooms 5,065 46.8
3 Bedrooms 3,031 28.0
4 Bedrooms 376 3.5
5 or more Bedrooms 116 1.1
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
From the above “Tenure By Bedrooms” table, 46.8% are 2 BR units, 28.0% are 3 BR units, and
4.6% are 4 or more bedrooms for renter occupied units. The above 28.0% (3 BR) and 4.6%+ (4
BR+) are relatively “normal” or ‘acceptable” percentages for these size units in a PMA rental
housing inventory of approximately 10,900 total rental units.
From interviews with on-site leasing managers/property managers, demand in the PMA’s
multifamily market for conventional or “market rate” units is considered to be in “positive”
equilibrium with current unit inventories essentially meeting current market demand. Demand
for 3 BR units at “market rate” properties has been consistently strong for the past several years.
Demand for 3 BR units comes from two (2) sources - family HH and, surprisingly, single or
roommate residents wanting to utilize the third bedroom as an office, study or sitting room.
Demand for 3 BR units at “assisted” multifamily properties also is in positive equilibrium. This
study’s LIHTC comparables Cambridge Court and Lakota Crossing currently have waiting lists
with six (6) to eight (8) applicants requesting 3 BR units. Another 3 BR demand factor comes
from those family HH’s currently renting single family/duplex properties or mobile homes
located in areas of the PMA that would be considered more rural than urban. Many of these
units are older with less amenities than a new construction, affordable rental unit located closer
to Florence’s Central Business District.
The PMA’s renter HH demographics and historic/current inventories of available, “for rent”
larger-sized units would appear to indicate an adequate-sized demand pool for subject property’s
proposed twenty (20) 3 BR units. Moreover, a review of the Claritas, Inc. table entitled
“Households by Household Type and Size” (see Part IV, page 7) shows that PMA 4 to 6 person
“Family HH’s” are projected to increase for the 2000-2010 period as follows:
17 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
2000 2005 2010 Gain/
Family HH Census Estimate Projection (Loss)
4 Person - 5,666 5,795 5,948 282
5 Person - 2,246 2,210 2,237 (10)
6 Person - 766 764 778 12
Totals 8,678 8,769 8,962 284
LIHTC with Project-Based Rental Assistance
According to page five (5) of applicant’s 2006 LIHTC Application, dated 02/28/2006, subject
property will not be receiving project-based federal rental assistance.
(ii) Demand From Existing Households
The following table shows the PMA’s 1999 renter HH gross rent paid as a percentage of HH
income:
Gross Rent As a Percentage
of HH Income in 1999
Renter Occupied Units 10,770 100.0
Less than 10 percent 893 8.3
10 to 14 percent 1,332 12.4
15 to 19 percent 1,601 14.9
20 to 24 percent 1,150 10.7
25 to 29 percent 879 8.2
30 to 34 percent 783 7.3
35 to 39 percent 605 5.6
Renter Occupied Units
40 to 49 percent 652 6.1
50 percent or more 1,902 17.7
Not computed 1,186 11.0
Median Percentage 25.4% (X)
Source: U.S. Census (SF3)
In 1999, the above table shows that 3,159 renter HH’s, representing 29.4% (3,159/10,770) of all
PMA renter HH’s, were paying in excess of 35% of HH income for gross rent expenses. If the
1,186 “not computed” HH’s are subtracted from the 10,770 total renter HH’s, then the 3,159
HH’s @ ∃35% of HH income represented 33.0% of all renter HH’s (3,159/9,584). This 33.0% is
a percentage which indicates that the PMA has an “above average” number of renter HH’s
paying in excess of 35% of HH income for gross rent expenses. If the 783 HH’s paying ∃30% to
18 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
#34% are added to these 3,159 HH’s (and the 1,186 “not computed” HH’s are subtracted from
the 10,770 total renter HH’s), then the 3,942 HH’s (783 + 3,159) @ ∃30% of HH income
represented 41.1% of the “adjusted” PMA renter HH’s. Moreover, even by retaining the 10,770
PMA renter base number as the denominator and the 3,942 HH’s as the numerator, the
percentage of renter HH’s paying ∃30% of HH income is 36.6%. Both the 36.6% (10,770 PMA
HH renter base number) and 41.9% (9,584 PMA HH renter base number) are percentages which
indicate that the PMA has a “significantly high” number of renter HH’s classified as being “rent-
overburdened” in 1999.
Other data contained in NLIHC’s publication entitled “Out of Reach 2005 - South Carolina” is as
follows:
Family Income (2005)
Area Median Income (AMI)1 Maximum Affordable2 Monthly Housing Cost by % of
Location Family AMI
Annual Monthly 30% of AMI3 30% 50% 80%
Florence County $47,450 $3,954 $14,235 $356 $593 $949
1
HUD, 2005
2
"Affordable” rents represent the generally accepted standard of spending not more than 30% of income on housing costs.
3
Annual income of 30% of AMI or less is the federal standard for Extremely Low Income households. Does not include HUD-specific
adjustments.
Fair Market Rents (FMR)4 by Number of Bedrooms
Location Zero One Two Three Four
Florence County $372 $418 $484 $581 $729
4
HUD ,2005; final as of October 1
Income Needed to Afford
Annual Income Percent of Family AMI
Zero- One- Two- Three- Four- Zero- One- Two- Three- Four-
Location Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom
FMR FMR FMR FMR FMR FMR FMR FMR FMR FMR
Florence $14,880 $16,720 $19,360 $23,240 $29,160 31% 35% 41% 49% 61%
County
In terms of correlating this NLIHC data with the PMA’s “rent overburdened” analysis, there are
several statistics in the above tables that need to be highlighted:
(iii) A renter family earning 50% of HUD’s 2005 FC AMI of $47,450 can afford a
maximum monthly housing cost of $593/month, assuming that family is not
19 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
spending more than 30% of income on housing costs;
(iv) Utilizing HUD’s 2005 FMR’s for Florence County, a Florence County renter HH
earning #60% of HUD’s 2005 AMI would need to spend the following
percentages of this HH annual income for various unit sizes as follows:
Unit Size Percent of Family AMI
“0" BR 31%
1 BR 35%
2 BR 41%
3 BR 49%
PMA HH’s occupying 2 BR and 3 BR units and paying the FMR for these unit types would be
considered as “rent-overburdened” according to NLIHC’s “affordable” (#30% of income) rental
criteria.
Renter HH’s earning #$14,999 per annum are considered to be eliminated from the potential
demand pool for subject property’s units. The table on page 6 of this section shows that 1,353
renter HH’s earned between $15,000 to $19,999. The prorata, “inclusion” computation (see page
4) for this income cohort assumes that 53.7% of the PMA HH’s earned the ∃ $17,314 minimum
income for subject property’s 2 BR unit @ #50% AMI. Conversely, 46.3% of the HH’s in this
cohort are assumed to be earning ∃$15,000 to #$17,314. Applying this 46.3% factor times the
1,353 total renter HH’s yields 626 renters assumed to be earning ∃$15,000 to #$17,314. These
626 renter HH’s represent 5.8% of all PMA renter HH’s. Consequently, this analysis will
assume that 5.8% of subject property’s “income-qualified” HH’s are “rent-overburdened.”
In regard to potential PMA renter HH’s currently residing in substandard housing, a conservative
approach will be adopted. From Year 2000 Census data:
20 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
PMA - Tenure By Plumbing Facilities
PMA
Total: 38,577
Owner occupied: 27,751
Complete plumbing facilities 27,675
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 76
Renter occupied: 10,826
Complete plumbing facilities 10,706
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 120
Source: US Census Bureau
This table shows that there were 38,577 occupied housing units in the PMA of which 27,751
units were owner occupied with 76 units (.3%) lacking plumbing facilities. There were 10,826
occupied renter housing units with 120 units (1.1%) lacking plumbing facilities. In regard to
PMA units having or lacking complete kitchen facilities:
PMA - Tenure By Kitchen Facilities
PMA
Total: 38,577
Owner occupied: 27,751
21 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Complete kitchen facilities 27,710
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 41
Renter occupied: 10,826
Complete kitchen facilities 10,649
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 177
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000
The above table shows that 177 renter occupied units lacked complete kitchen facilities, or 1.6%
of all renter units. The average of the 120 units lacking complete plumbing and the 177 units
lacking complete kitchens is 149 renter units It is assumed that 20% (30 HH”s) of these 149
substandard “plumbing/kitchen” HH”s would be potential residents for subject property’s units.
From page 7 of this section, Claritas, Inc. estimates that the PMA’s HH population will grow by
4,751 HH’s during the period 2000 to 2010. As described on page 11 of this section, SCORS
estimates that the county’s population will increase by 8,689 persons from April 2000 through
July 2010. Utilizing the PMA‘s Census 2000 average HH size of 2.55 persons/HH, then
approximately 3,400 HH’s will have been added to the county’s HH population by 2010.
Claritas, Inc.’s 2005 “Estimate” and 2010 “Projection” show that the PMA will increase by 4,751
HH’s from 2000-2010. The average of Claritas’ 4,751 HH’s year 2010 projection and SCORS’
3,400 HH’s is 4,080 HH’s which, in turn, would equate to 400-410 new HH’s per annum. For
the eight (8) year period 2000-2008, new HH growth would approximate 3,240 HH’s (405 HH”s
x 8 years). These 3,240 new PMA HH’s when added to the PMA Year 2000 HH population of
38,552 HH’s generates an estimated July 2008 PMA HH population of 41,792.
The following table estimates Demand from Cost Burdened Renters for the income-qualifying
HH’s earning ∃$15,000 to #$30,570:
Table 1 - Demand from Cost Burdened Renters
Demand for Tax Credit Units from Income-Qualifying Cost Burdened Renters in Primary Market Area:
2008 Households times % of Renters Per Census equals 2008 Renter
Households
41,792 28.0% 11,702
2008 Renter times % Earning $15,000 Renters Earning
and $15,000 &
<$30,570
441 31% 137
Overall demand, therefore, from (1) new HH’s and (2) existing HH’s is summarized as follows:
@#50% @#60%
FC AMI FC AMI
(1) 2005-2008 PMA New Renter HH’s: 240 320
(From page 13)
(2) PMA “Rent Overburdened HH’s: 96 41
(.70 x 137) (.30 x 137)
(3) Demand From Substandard Units: 30 -0-
Total Income-Qualified HH Demand: 366 361
Estimated, Income-Qualifying Renter
HH’s “Annually in the Market”: 366 361
@ #50% @#60%
FC AMI FC AMI
Less: (1) 2005 PMA, LIHTC units
(UC, placed in Service
or Funded in 2005): -0- -0-
Total Estimated Net Demand: New &
Existing Income Qualified Renter HH’s - 366 361
Capture Rate 9.8% 10.0%
(36 Units/366 HH’s) (36 units/361 HH’s)
Net Demand and Capture Rates By Bedroom Type
It is assumed that 65% of the above income qualified HH”s will occupy the property’s 2 BR
units and 35% of the HH’s will occupy the property’s 3 BR units. Hence,
23 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Total Demand By Bedroom Type #50% AMI:
2 BR - 238 (65%)
3 BR - 138 (35%)
Total 366
(i) @ #50% AMI:
Unit Units Capture
Type Total Demand Supply1 Net Demand Proposed Rate
2 BR 238 -0- 238 26 10.9%
3 BR 128 -0- 128 10 7.8%
1
2005 directly comparable LIHTC units - none.
Total Demand By Bedroom Type #60% AMI:
2 BR - 235 (65%)
3 BR - 126 (35%)
Total 361
24 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
(ii) @#60% AMI
Unit Units Capture
1
Type Total Demand Supply Net Demand Proposed Rate
2 BR 235 -0- 235 26 11.1%
3 BR 126 -0- 126 10 7.9%
1
2005 directly comparable LIHTC units - none.
The capture rates of 9.8% (for #50% AMI HH”s), and 10.0% (for #60% AMI) are considered
“positive” capture rates in terms of attracting income qualified renter HH’s “actively in the
market” during Year 2008's initial lease-up time period. These overall capture rates indicate that
adequate demand exists in the PMA to support the development of this seventy-two (72) unit
property as proposed by the applicant. Subject property’s four (4) capture rates by unit type and
AMI level also are considered to be “positive” capture rates that indicate sufficient demand
exists for the property’s proposed number of 2 BR and 3 BR units targeting #50% and #60%
AMI HH’s.
Absorption
A review of SCSHFDA’s LIHTC Florence County properties shows the following “family”
properties located within the greater Florence city area and are considered to be within subject
property’s PMA:
(1) Lakota Crossing (2002 Reservation) - new construction, 72 units, completed June
2004.
(2) Cambridge Court Apartments (2001 Reservation) - new construction, 64 units,
completed 2003.
(3) Wyndham Place Apartments (1998 Reservation) - rehabilitation property,
renovations completed 2000.
(4) Florence City Apartments (1993 Reservation) - rehabilitation property - 29 units
scattered in three (3) locations. Date of renovation completion not known. This
analyst’s physical inspection of two (2) locations - 108 to 114 Liberty Street and
417 South Church Street - showed that nearly all of these units are vacated and
exhibit significant signs of deferred maintenance.
Lakota Crossing (72 units) is located approximately 3.4 miles southwest of subject property. It
is 100% LIHTC assisted targeting HH’s earning #50% and #60% AMI. The property achieved
100% occupancy as of 12/01/2004, averaging a lease-up rate of 10-12 units per month over an
approximate 6-7 month period . Approximately 80%-85% of the residents came from this study’s
defined PMA.
Cambridge Court Apartments (64 units) is located approximately 2.0 miles west of subject
25 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
property. It is 100% LIHTC assisted targeting HH’s earning #50% and #60% AMI. The
property achieved 95% plus occupancy over an approximate 8 month period with a lease-up rate
averaging 8 units per month. Again, approximately 80%-85% of the residents came from this
study’s defined PMA.
Subject property, like Lakota Crossing and Cambridge Court Apartments, will be new
construction development with property and unit amenities similar to these existing LIHTC
developments. Consequently, subject property’s seventy-two (72) units should experience a
conservative lease-up rate of 8 to 10 units per month. Ninety-three (93%) percent stabilized
occupancy, therefore, should be attainable within seven (7) to nine (9) months.
B. Supply Analysis
(i) Overall PMA Multi-Family Market
According to the 2000 Census, the PMA has 10,781 occupied rental housing units representing
28.0% of all PMA occupied housing units. Owner occupied housing units totaled 27,771 units
(72.0%). As of April 2000, the PMA’s vacant housing units were categorized as follows:
PMA - 2000
Vacancy Status
PMA Percent
Total: 3,881 100.0
For rent 1,175 30.3
For sale only 700 18.0
Rented or sold, not occupied 521 13.4
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 564 14.5
For migrant workers 45 1.2
26 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Other vacant 876 22.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The vacancy of 564 “seasonal, recreational, or occasional use” reflects the time period when the
census data was gathered - Fall 1999 and first quarter 2000 (January - March 2000). The PMA’s
housing stock is characterized as follows:
27 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
PMA - Tenure By Units in Structure
(Census 2000)
Number Percent
Total Occupied Housing Units 38,616 100.0
Owner-occupied housing units 27,790 100.0
1, detached 20,528 73.9
1, attached 255 0.9
2 14 0.1
3 or 4 123 0.4
5 or more 312 1.1
Mobile home 6,519 23.5
Number Percent
Boat, RV, van, etc 0 0.0
Renter-occupied housing units 10,826 100.0
1, detached 3,648 33.7
1, attached 303 2.8
2 917 8.5
3 or 4 1,188 11.0
5 to 9 1,357 12.5
10 to 19 472 4.4
20 to 49 337 3.1
50 or more 613 5.7
Mobile home 1,972 18.2
Boat, RV, van, etc 19 0.2
Source: US Census Bureau
As shown above, the second largest occupied unit type (both in terms of absolute number and
percent of all PMA units) are mobile home units. The PMA total is 8,491 mobile home units
(6,519 owner units and 1,972 renter units). Renter-occupied mobile homes represent 18.2% of
the PMA’s renter-occupied housing units.
Since 1990, the number of mobile homes in South Carolina has increased by 50.7 percent. In
Florence County, the number of mobile homes has increased by 41.2 percent since 1990:
28 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Florence County
Mobile Homes 1990-2000
1990 2000 Percent
Change
1990-2000
Number % of All Number % of All Housing
Housing Units Units
Florence County 8,386 19.4 11,843 22.8 41.2
Source: SCORS
At present, the PMA rental housing market is “positive” with nearly all subsidized and “market
rate” properties surveyed reporting physical occupancies of 93% - 100%. Average net rents in
the PMA have increased at an annual rate of 2.0% - 2.5% per annum since the 2000-2001. Net
rent ranges and average SF sizes at Class “C+” to “B+” conventional properties are as follows:
Unit Type Net Rent Range Average Net Rent SF Size Range Average Size
1 BR $350 - $600 $480 650 - 900 700
2 BR $450 - $710 $535 720 - 1,025 960
3 BR $590 - $825 $675 1,080 - 1,350 1,190
The above “net” monthly rental rates for apartment units generally include having landlord pay
for water/sewer/garbage collection.
(ii) Comparable Properties in The PMA Multi-Family Market
In completing this market study, five (5) multi-family properties were identified as “true
comparables” in this PMA market. The five (5) comparable were chosen for the following
reasons:
(1) All are “general population” or “family” properties located within the greater Florence
city area which is the central point or “core” of the PMA.
(2) Three (3) properties either are either 100% or partially assisted through HUD and LIHTC
programs. The two (2) “market rate” properties are considered comparable in terms of
rent schedule, unit type, renter HH income levels and property/unit amenities’ packages .
“Market Rate” Comparable No. 4 (Bentree Apartments) was a 100% HUD assisted
29 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
property until 2000 when it became “market rate.” A property/unit renovation program
has been in progress since 2004.
(3) The comparables’ driving distances from subject property range from 0.4 miles to 6.2
miles. Potential renters for subject property would consider these five (5) comparables’
locations as within the geographic market subject property would serve.
(4) Comparables’ number of rental units:
No. 1 - 72 units (100% LIHTC)
No. 2 - 64 units (100% LIHTC)
No. 3 - 144 units (80% HUD Assisted/20% Market Rate)
No. 4 - 132 units “market rate”
No. 5 - 280 units “market rate”
Total 692 units
The three (3) LIHTC assisted comparables’ average number of units is 138 units. Subject
property is a proposed seventy-two (72) unit development and is considered to be a large
development.
The following comparative charts summarize subject property’s exterior and unit amenities, unit
sizes, number of bathrooms, and net rents with the five (5) comparables.
Unit Amenities Subject Lakota Cambridge Magnolia Bentree Sedgefield
Property Crossing Court Trace Apts. Apts.
Refrigerator X X X X X X
Range/Vent Hood X X X X X X
Garbage Disposal X X X X
W/D Hookups X X X (3 BR) (2 BR & 3
BR)
30 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
W/W Carpet X X X X X X
Washer/Dryer Provided
Central HVAC X X X X X X
Dishwasher X X X X X X
Walk-In Closets X X X Some
Balcony/Patio X X X X X
Window Coverings* B B B B B B
Cable TV Hookups X X X X X X
Storage Closet X X
Ceiling Fan(s) X X X
*B = Mini-blinds
D = Drapes
Subject property’s unit amenities are nearly identical to Lakota Crossing’s and Cambridge
Court’s unit amenities, with the exception that Lakota Crossing does not have garbage disposals
or interior storage closets. The next most comparable property providing unit amenities similar
to subject is Sedgefield Apartments. Unit amenities at Magnolia Trace and Bentree are
considered inferior to subject property’s unit amenities.
31 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Subject Lakota Cambridge Magnolia Bentree Sedgefield
Property Amenities Property Crossing Court Trace Apts. Apts.
Community Room X X X X
Building/Clubhouse
Swimming Pool X X
Laundry Facility X X X X X
On-site Management X X X X X X
Playground(s)/Ballfield X X X X X X
Gazebo X X
Walking/Picnic Areas X X
Tennis Court X X
Fitness Center/Room X
Subject property’s exterior/property amenities will be identical to Lakota Crossing’s property
amenities with the exception that Lakota Crossing has a fitness room. Subject property’s
amenities are considered superior to Magnolia Trace which does not have a community building.
The “market rate” Bentree and Sedgefield Apartments offer tennis court(s) and swimming
pool(s) in addition to the amenities found at subject property and Lakota Crossing.
A comparison of current occupancy rates is as follows:
2 BR Comparison: Total Vacant Occupancy Number of Unit Size Net Rent
Property Units Units Rate Baths
Subject Property 52 N/A N/A Two 954 $395 (50% AMI)
$425 (/60% AMI)
Lakota Crossing 40 0 100% One N/A $430(50% AMI)
$430 (60% AMI)
Cambridge Court 32 1 96.9% Two N/A $452 (50% AMI)
$551 (60% AMI)
32 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Magnolia Trace 68 6 91.2% One 1,120 $425 (market)*
Bentree 72 8 88.9% 1.5 850 $510/$530/$550
33 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
2 BR Comparison: Total Vacant Occupancy Number of Unit Size Net Rent
Property Units Units Rate Baths
Sedgefield 152 5 96.7% 1-2 900 - $535-$565
1,125
*HUD “market rate” rental. Residents in assisted units pay up to 30% of their HH income/
3 BR Comparison: Total Vacant Occupancy Number of Unit Size Net Rent
Property Units Units Rate Baths
Subject Property 20 N/A N/A Two 1,170 $440 (50% AMI)
$480 (60% AMI)
Lakota Crossing 28 0 100% Two Not $530(50% & 60%
Known AMI)
Cambridge Court 32 0 100% Two Not $521 (50% AMI)
Known $632 (60% AMI)
Magnolia Trace 52 3 94.2% One 1,120 $495 (Market)*
Bentree 24 0 100% Two 1,100 $615/$640
Sedgefield 56 0 100% Two 1,086 - $630 - $665
1,350
* HUD market rate rental. Residents in assisted units pay up to 30% of their HH income.
The average occupancy rate for the five (5) comparables’ 2 BR units is 94.7%. The average
occupancy rate for the comparables’ 3 BR units is 98.8%. The overall average occupancy rate
for the five comparables (all units) is 96.5%.
The average vacancy rate for the five (5) comparables’ 2 BR units is 5.8%. The average vacancy
rate for the five (5) comparables’ 3 BR units is 1.2%. As discussed on page 21 of this section,
the LIHTC property “Florence City Apartments” is in a distressed condition. It is estimated that
its vacancy rate is 90% plus. The three LIHTC comparables and Florence City Apartments
represent all of the LIHTC projects in the PMA.
A rental rate comparison of subject property with these comparable properties detailed above is
as follows:
Base - Contract Rent - 2 BR Units
2 BR Subject’s Subject’s
34 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Property Rental 2 BR Rental Difference
Lakota Crossing $430 (50%) $395 (50%) ($35)
(100% LIHTC) $430 (60%) $425 (60%) ($5)
2 BR Subject’s Subject’s
Property Rental 2 BR Rental Difference
Cambridge Court $452 (50%) $395 (50%) ($57)
(100% LIHTC) $551 (60%) $425 (60%) ($126)
Magnolia Trace $445 $395 (50%) ($50)
(Assisted and $445 $425 (60%) ($20)
“Market Rate”)
Bentree $510 $395 (50%)/$425 (60%) ($115)/($85)
(“Market Rate”) $530 $395 (50%)/$425 (60%) ($135)/($105)
$550 $395 (50%)/$425 (60%) ($155)/$125)
Sedgefield $630 $395 (50%)/$425 (60%) ($235)/($205)
(“Market Rate”) $665 $395 (50%)/$425 (60%) ($270)/($240)
Subject property’s proposed 2 BR net rents of $395 (50% AMI) and $425 (60% AMI) are less
than all of the 2 BR contract rents at all five (5) comparables.
The 2 BR programmatic rents are:
(1) Two “market rate” comparables - $525
2 BR maximum LIHTC rent (50%) - $551
2 BR maximum LIHTC rent (60%) - $661
Subject property (50%) - $395
Subject property (60%) - $425
(2) LIHTC/HUD Assisted comparables - $446
2 BR maximum LIHTC rent (50%) - $551
2 BR maximum LIHTC rent (60%) - $661
Subject property (50%) - $395
Subject property (60%) - $425
Market Advantage Comparison - 2 BR Units:
Subject property @ $395 ) “market rate” @ $525 = 75.2%
Subject property @ $425 ) “market rate” @ $525 = 81.0%
Subject property’s 2 BR rent of $395 (@50% AMI) is 24.8% less than the “market rate”
35 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
comparables’ rent of $525/month. Subject property’s 2 BR rent of $425 @ 60% AMI is 25.2%
less than the “market rate” comparables’ rent of $525/month.
36 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Base-Contract Rent - 3 BR Units
3 BR Subject’s Subject’s
Property Rental 3 BR Rental Difference
Lakota Crossing $530 (50%) $440 (50%) ($90)
(100% LIHTC) $530 (60%) $480 (60%) ($50)
Cambridge Court $521 (50%) $440 (50%) ($81)
(100% LIHTC) $632 (60%) $480 (60%) ($15)
Magnolia Trace $495 (Market) $440 (50%) ($55)
(Assisted and $495 (Market) $480 (60%) ($15)
“Market Rate”)
Bentree $615 $440 (50%) ($175)
(“Market Rate”) $640 $480 (60%) ($160)
Sedgefield $630 $440 (50%) ($190)
(“Market Rate”) $665 $480 (60%) ($185)
Subject property’s proposed 3 BR net rents of $440 (50%) and $480 (60%) are less than all of
the five comparables’ 3 BR contract rents.
The 3 BR programmatic rents are:
(1) Two “market rate” comparables - $625
3 BR maximum LIHTC rent (50%) - $636
3 BR maximum LIHTC rent (60%) - $764
Subject property (50%) - $440
Subject property (60%) - $480
(2) LIHTC/HUD Assisted comparables - $545
3 BR maximum LIHTC rent (50%) - $636
3 BR maximum LIHTC rent (60%) - $764
Subject property (50%) - $440
Subject property (70%) - $480
Market Advantage Comparison - 3 BR Units:
Subject property @ $440 ) “market rate” @ $625 = 70.4%
Subject property @ $480 ) ‘”market rate” @ $625 = 76.8%
Subject property’s 3 BR rent of $440 (@ 50%AMI) is 29.6% less than the “market rate”
comparables’ rent of $625/month. Subject property’s 3 BR rent of $480 (60% AMI) is 22.2%
less than the “market rate” comparables’ rent of $625/month.
37 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Comparison of Unit Sizes
2 BR:
2 BR Subject SF
Property Size (SF) Property (SF) Difference
Lakota Crossing Not Known 954 N/A
Cambridge Court Not Known 954 N/A
Magnolia Trace 1,120 954 (166)
Bentree 850 954 104
Sedgefield 900/975/1,025/1,125 954 54/(21)/(71/(171)
3 BR:
3 BR Subject SF
Property Size (SF) Property (SF) Difference
Lakota Crossing Not Known 1,170 N/A
Cambridge Court Not Known 1,170 N/A
Magnolia Trcace 1,255 1,170 (85)
Bentree 1,100 1,170 70
Sedgefield 1,086/1,125/1,250/1,350 1,185 84/45/(80)/(180)
Subject property’s 2 BR and 3 BR unit size are competitive with Bentree. Floor plans at
Magnolia Trace and Sedgefield generally are larger than subject’s proposed unit sizes.
Utilities included in contract rent:
Unit Responsibility: Water Sewer Trash Coll. Electric Heat
Property
Subject Property No No Yes No No
Lakota Crossing Yes Yes Yes No No
Cambridge Court No No Yes No No
Magnolia Trace Yes Yes Yes No No
Bentree No No Yes No No
Sedgefield No No Yes No No
*”Yes” indicates that utility is included in the rent, “No” indicates the utility is not.
Subject property, LIHTC Cambridge Court, “market rate” Bentree and Sedgefield only include
trash collection with the contract rent. LIHTC’s Lakota Crossing and Magnolia Trace provide
water/sewer/trash collection within the contract rent.
The Housing Authority of Florence (HAF) administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
38 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
program in the PMA. HAF’s Schedule of Allowances for Tenant-Furnished Utilities - Unit
Type: Apartments (dated 02/01/2006) shows the following utility allowances which pertain to
subject property’s appliances/heating/air conditioning/lighting, etc.:
2 BR 3 BR
HVAC $18.62 $22.57
Cooking Electric $6.47 $7.77
Other Electric/Lighting $22.79 $27.10
Water Heating - Electric $24.43 $35.34
Water $14.95 $18.23
Sewer $22.53 $26.60
Trash Collection N/A N/A
Total $109.79 $137.61
A copy of this HAF sheet is found in the back of this section. Applicant shows a $110 monthly
utility allowance for the 2 BR units and $136 monthly allowance for the 3 BR units.
Discussions with on-site leasing agents/property managers for the five (5) comparables as well as
interviews with other property owners/developers in the PMA reached one conclusion - that
affordability of the total housing expense is the most important factor for HH’s looking to rent in
this market. As shown on page 12 of this section, NLIHC estimates Florence County’s (2005)
renter median income to be $24,759. This $24,759 renter median income supports a “monthly
rent at renter median” of $619/month. Subject property’s estimated gross rents ($505/$535 for
the 2 BR unit and $576/$616 for the 3 BR unit) are below this $619/month “target” rent.
Moreover, subject property’s estimated gross rents include conservative and realistic estimated
tenant-paid utility costs. In short, subject property’s gross rents are targeting a large segment of
PMA HH’s that can afford rental housing costs under $620/month.
For PMA renter HH’s earning the above 2005 median HH income of $24,759, there is very
limited availability of affordable housing options, to include the purchase of single family
homes. NLIHC’s affordability tables (page 16 of this section) estimate that a Florence County
renter HH earning #60% AMI would need to spend 41% of HH income for a 2 BR unit and 49%
of HH income for a 3 BR unit when utilizing HUD’s 2005 Fair Market Rents for Florence
County.
Older single family homes are being marketed at prices of $110,000 - $150,000 (3 BR, 1.5 - 2
BA, 1,500 - 1,700 SF). Assuming an average price of $125,000, with a 95% LTV ($118,750
loan), with a 6.5% interest rate, the average monthly payment would approximate $750 per
month, plus utilities, taxes and insurance. In addition, many of these older single family homes
will require additional maintenance/repair expenditures shortly after the new purchaser moves
into the residence.
The City of Florence’s Community Services Department has begun construction of an affordable
39 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
development to be known as “Northpoint.” It is located on North Irby Street, close to Williams
Middle School. It will contain twenty-seven (27) detached, single family homeownership units
to be priced between $90,000 - $105,000. These units will be 1,200 SF with 3 BR/2 BA.
Financing will include a $10,000 “soft” second mortgage that will be forgivable after five (5)
years. There also is the possibility that an additional $5,000 in financing or grant funds may be
available through the CDBG program. Northpoint is the city’s first large scale affordable
homeownership development to be located on one tract of land. With the exception of this new
city-sponsored affordable housing development, PMA renter HH’s earning #50% or #60% of the
FC AMI have few affordable housing options/choices.
The current status of HAF’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is as follows:
Total Vouchers: 615
Project-Based Certificates: None administered by HAF
Wait List Status: Closed with the exception of elderly and disabled
applicants. Last opened in September 2004.
HH’s on Waiting List: 55 (4 are elderly and 23 are disabled)
Types of Units Requested by Wait-List HH’s:
Unit Type Wait-List HH’s
1 BR 18
2 BR 17
3 BR 17
4 BR 3
Total 55
HAF’s Housing Choice Voucher Payment Standards (effective 04/01/2005)
1 BR - $406
2 BR - $465
3 BR - $560
4 BR - $772
It is this analyst’s opinion that the development of Florence North Apartments will not have an
adverse impact on the occupancies of other assisted housing projects in the PMA. This “Supply”
analysis identifies three (3) PMA comparable, LIHTC properties that have current occupancy
rates of 95.8% and 100%. The LIHTC property “Florence City Apartments” (1993
Rehabilitation Reservation - 29 units) is not a true comparable and it presently is in a distressed
condition with nearly all of its units being vacant.
Discussions with staff members at the city and county planning departments revealed that there
40 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
are no approved (or pending approval) new construction, “affordable” family rental
developments in the PMA.
The remainder of this section includes individual property sheets for these five (5) PMA
comparables. Each of these properties is detailed by number of units, bedroom type count,
monthly rent, rent per SF, age, amenities, vacancy rate, photographs, contact name and phone
number, date of contact, type of contact made, property unit amenities, and driving distance
from subject site.
Rental Map No. 1
Comparable: Lakota Crossing Year Built: Completed June 2004
Address: 1741 Lakota Drive Contact: Cara S. Heather, Mgr.
Florence, SC 29504 843-664-9030
Date: 03/08/2006 (in person)
41 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Unit Type # of Units SF Monthly Rent Rent/SF
1BR/1BA 4 Not known $325 Not Known
2BR/1BA 40 Not Known $430 Not Known
3BR/2BA 28 Not Known $530 Not Known
TOTAL 72
Amenities: Appliances Unit Features Included in Rent
x Laundry Room x Refrigerator x W/W Carpet x Water
x Fitness Room x Range/Oven x Patio/Balcony x Sewer
x Clubhouse x Dishwasher Fireplace (some) x Garbage
x Learning Center Garbage Disposal Furnished x Cable (pre-wired)
x Gazebo Trash Compactor x Air Conditioning Electricity
x Playground Washer/Dryer x Drapes/Blinds Gas (heat)
On Fus Route x W/D Connection x Ceiling Fan (LR)
Storage Closet
Remarks:
This is a 100% LIHTC “family”property (@ #50% and #60% AMI) located approximately 4.3 miles southwest of
subject property. Property reached 100% occupancy by 12/01/2004 - approximate 6 month lease-up period. Sixty-
seven (67) units are @ 50% AMI and five (5) units are @ 60% AMI (3-2 BR units, 2-3 BR units). Vacancy rates -
2.9% (06/30/05), 2.9% (12/31/05). Property currently is 100% occupied - wait list 36 HH’s - 21-1 BR; 9-2 BR; 6-3
BR. Eighteen (18) residents use Section 8 vouchers. No concessions offered, 12 month leases, one month security
deposit. Overall condition is “very good.”
42 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Rental Map No. 2
Comparable: Cambridge Court Apts. Year Built: 2003
Address: 550 W. Darlington Street Contact: Elaine Bell, Mgr.
Florence, SC 29501 843/413-0563
Date: 03/08/2006 (in person)
43 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Unit Type # of Units SF Monthly Rent Rent/SF
2BR/2BA 32 Not Known $452/$551 Not Known
3BR/2BA 32 Not Known $521/$632 Not Known
TOTAL 64
Amenities: Appliances Unit Features Included in Rent
Laundry Room x Refrigerator x W/W Carpet Water
Tennis Court x Range/Oven x Patio/Balcony Sewer
Swimming Pool x Dishwasher Fireplace x Garbage
Clubhouse x Garbage Disposal Furnished x Cable (pre-wired)
Recreation Area Trash Compactor Air Conditioning Electricity
Community Room Washer/Dryer x Drapes/Blinds Gas (heat)
x Playground x W/D Connection x Ceiling Fan
On Bus Route Storage Closet
Remarks:
This is a 100% LIHTC “family”property located 2.2 miles southwest of subject property. 32 units are @ 50% AMI
and 32 units are @ 60% AMI. Vacancy rates - 1.6% (06/30/05, 1.6% (12/31/05) and 1.6% March 2006 (1-2 BR @
50% AMI). Wait list - 9 HH’s requesting 3 BR units. Twenty (20) residents use Section 8 vouchers . No
concessions offered, 12 month lease, one month security deposit. Overall condition is “good.”
Rental Map No. 3
Comparable: Magnolia Trace Apt. Homes Year Built: 1975
Address: 318 ½ E. Royal Street Contact: Antoinette Mouzon, Mgr.
Florence, SC 29506 843/669-5980
Date: 03/08/2006 (in person)
44 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Unit Type # of Units SF Monthly Rent Rent/SF
1BR/1BA 16 725 $385 $.53
2BR/1BA TH 68 900 $445 $.49
3BR/1BA TH 52 1,120 $495 $.44
4BR/2BA TH 8 1,255 $525 $.42
TOTAL 144
Amenities: Appliances Unit Features Included in Rent
x Laundry Room x Refrigerator x W/W Carpet x Water
Tennis Court x Range/Oven Patio/Balcony x Sewer
Swimming Pool x Dishwasher Fireplace x Garbage
Clubhouse x Garbage Disposal Furnished Cable (pre-wired)
Recreation Trash Compactor x Air Conditioning Electricity
Community Room Washer/Dryer x Drapes/Blinds Gas (heat)
x Playground (3) W/D Connection Ceiling Fan
On Bus Route Outside Storage
Remarks:
Magnolia Trace is an 20% “market rate” and 80% HUD Section 8, project-based subsidized property. This property
is located 0.4 miles south of subject property. Residents occupying the subsidized units pay up to 30% of their HH
income for gross rent expenses. Vacancy rates (all units) - 4.5% (6/30/05), 4.5% (12/30/05) and 4.0% March 2006
is (3-2 BR “market rate” and 3 - 3 BR “market rate” units). There are no concessions or promotions being offered.
Security deposit is one month’s rent, leases are for 12 months, pets not allowed. Approximately twenty (20)
residents occupying “market rate” units utilize Section 8 vouchers. There is a waiting list for 2 BR subsidized units.
Overall property condition is “fair.”
45 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Rental Map No. 4
Comparable: Bentree Apartments Year Built: 1981
Address: 200 Bentree Lane Contact: Shannon Kale, Mgr.
Florence, SC 29501 843/669-5399
Date: 03/10/06 (in person)
46 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Unit Type # of Units SF Monthly Rent Rent/SF
1BR/1BA 36 650 $470/$480/$500 $.75 (Avg.)
2BR/1.5BA 72 850 $510/$530/$550 $.61 (Avg.)
3BR/2BA 24 1,100 $615/$640 $.57 (Avg.)
TOTAL 132
Amenities: Appliances Unit Features Included in Rent
x Laundry Room x Refrigerator x W/W Carpet Water
x Tennis Court x Range/Oven x Patio/Balcony Sewer
x Swimming Pool x Dishwasher Fireplace x Garbage
x Clubhouse Garbage Disposal Furnished x Cable (pre-wired)
Recreation Area Trash Compactor x Air Conditioning Electricity
x Jacuzzi Washer/Dryer x Drapes/Blinds Gas (heat)
Playground x W/D Connection x Ceiling Fan
On Bus Route (Only 3 BR) Outside Storage
Remarks:
This is a 100% “market rate”property located 5.0 miles southwest of subject property. The above rent schedule
was effective 03/01/2006 with an average increase $15/unit. Property was 100% HUD project-based (221-D4)
assisted until June 2000. Renovation program commenced early 2004. Above rates per unit reflect various stages of
renovation progress - none, partial or total. Vacancy rates - 1.5% (06/30/05), 4.5% (12/31/05); 7% March 2006 (1-1
BR “none”, 4-2 BR “none’ and 4-2 BR “partial”). Current promotion is one month free on a 12 month lease.
Section 8 not accepted. Security deposit is $200, $40 application fee (per adult), $100 admin. fee. Overall property
condition is “good.”
Rental Map No. 5
Comparable: Sedgefield Apartments Year Built: 1972
Address: 1300 Valparaiso Drive Contact: Tami Baker, Asst. Mgr.
Florence, SC 29501 843/667-6063
Date: 03/09/06
47 Part V. Demand/Supply Analysis
Unit Type # of Units SF Monthly Rent Rent/SF
1BR/1BA 72 650-900 $480-$505 $.62 (Avg.)
2BR/1-2BA 152 900-1,125 $535-$565 $.54 (Avg.)
3BR/2BA 56 1,086-1,350 $630-$665 $.53 (Avg.)
TOTAL 280
Amenities: Appliances Unit Features Included in Rent
x Laundry Room (2) x Refrigerator x W/W Carpet Water
x Tennis Court x Range/Oven x Patio/Balcony Sewer
x Swimming Pool (2) x Dishwasher Fireplace x Garbage
x Clubhouse x Garbage Disposal Furnished x Cable (pre-wired)
Recreation Trash Compactor x Air Conditioning Electricity
Exterior Storage Washer/Dryer x Drapes/Blinds Gas (heat)
x Playground (2) x W/D Connection Ceiling Fan
On Bus Route (2 BR & 3 BR) Outside Storage
Remarks:
This is a 100% “market rate”, property located 6.2 miles (driving distance) southwest of subject property. Property
has 3-1 BR , 4-2 BR and 3-3 BR floor plans - all garden units. Vacancy rates - 2.5% (06/30/05), 4.5% (12/31/05)
and 4.5% in March 2006 (7-1 BR w/650 SF; 5-2 BR “side by side” floor plan - 1,125 SF). There are no current
promotions. S/D is $100, admin. fee is $100 and $20/month premium for 6 to 11 month leases. Section 8 is not
accepted. Overall property condition is “good.”
Part VI(b). Market Analyst Recommendations
It is this analyst’s recommendation that Florence North Apartments, as proposed, be awarded
an LIHTC reservation. The factors that led to this conclusion are as follows:
$ Excluding the presence of the CP& L power line located immediately south of the site,
the property’s surrounding neighborhood appears to be void of any visible, environmental
concerns or factors which might affect the marketability of subject property as proposed.
$ According to a discussion with the city police department’s North Region Commander,
subject property’s Wilson Road location and its surrounding areas are not considered as
an area in which there occurs a high incidence of crime.
$ There are no planned, approved or funded street/highway/infrastructure projects that
would negatively impact the construction or marketability of a multi-family property
located on Wilson Road, E. McIver Road, Old Marion Highway and N. Oakland Avenue
and/or its immediate neighborhood.
$ Other positive attributes about the site which relate to marketability would be (1) it has a
flat topography which is conducive to the economical construction of multifamily units;
and (2) a convenient location in terms of proximity to hospital/medical facilities,
schools, major PMA employers and a number of the PMA’s primary arterial roadways.
$ Subject property will have “very good” ingress/egress from Wilson Road as well as “very
good” visibility from Wilson Road, the intersection of Wilson Road and N. Oakland
Avenue (0.1 mile east) and from property’s frontage on Oakland Avenue.
$ The capture rates of 9.8% (for #50% AMI HH”s), and 10.0% (for #60% AMI) are
considered “positive” capture rates in terms of attracting income qualified renter HH’s
“actively in the market” during Year 2008's initial lease-up time period. These overall
capture rates indicate that adequate demand exists in the PMA to support the
development of this seventy-two (72) unit property as proposed by the applicant. Subject
property’s four (4) capture rates by unit type and AMI level also are considered to be
“positive” capture rates that indicate sufficient demand exists for the property’s proposed
number of 2 BR and 3 BR units targeting #50% and #60% AMI HH’s.
$ Current PMA rental market conditions are positive. The overall average occupancy rate
for this study’s five (5) comparable properties is 96.5%.
$ Subject property, like LIHTC comparables Lakota Crossing and Cambridge Court
Apartments, will be new construction development with property and unit amenities
similar to these existing LIHTC developments. Consequently, subject property’s
seventy-two (72) units should experience a conservative lease-up rate of 8 to 10 units per
2 Part VI (b). Market Analyst Recommendations
month. Ninety-three (93%) percent stabilized occupancy, therefore, should be attainable
within seven (7) to nine (9) months.
$ Discussions with on-site leasing agents/property managers for the five (5) comparables as
well as interviews with other property owners/developers in the PMA reached one
conclusion - that affordability of the total housing expense is the most important factor
for HH’s looking to rent in this market. As shown in detail in Part V, the National Low
Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimates Florence County’s (2005) renter median
income to be $24,759. This $24,759 renter median income supports a “monthly rent at
renter median” of $619/month. Subject property’s estimated gross rents ($480/$540 for
the 2 BR unit and $580/$610 for the 3 BR unit) are below this $619/month “target” rent.
In short, subject property’s gross rents are targeting a large segment of PMA HH’s that
can afford rental housing costs under $620/month.
$ With the exception of the recent commencement of construction of the city’s first “one-
site” affordable homeownership development (Northpoint - 27 single family units), PMA
renter HH’s earning #50% or #60% of the FC AMI have few affordable housing
options/choices.