DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET #18
A. SUBMARKET DESCRIPTION
1. LOCATION The Highway 288 South Submarket is located in Harris County and Brazoria County and exists to the south of metropolitan Houston. The submarket is bounded by Interstate 610, South MacGregor Way and Griggs Road to the north, County Highway 143 and the AT and SF Railroad to the east, Juliff Manvel Road and County Road 57 to the south, and Almeda Road to the west. The Highway 288/South Submarket was determined through interviews with area leasing and real estate agents, government officials, economic development representatives, and the personal observations of our analysts. The personal observations of our analysts include physical and/or socioeconomic differences in the market and a demographic analysis of the area households and population. 2. COUNTY SEAT Houston (Harris County) Angleton (Brazoria County)
III-679
3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Most of the Highway 288 South Submarket is located within the Houston jurisdiction. The city of Houston has a Mayor-Council form of government and is responsible for providing all governmental and public safety services in the submarket area. Houston ISD schools serve the submarket. The remainder of the submarket is located in unincorporated Brazoria County. 4. AREA Area: 137 square miles 2005 Population: 154,387 2005 Households: 52,924 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE A map illustrating the location of community services is on the following page.
III-680
Ambrose St Roc
Connecting Rd
Waterloo Dr
Patton St
eb xi ehurst St nb e w w M rn S oc k Law ccormic Blo ood Bar urne llo S 45 Holm t SL so k St d S bee S t an S t Ar get t StBar n St t St b t rem ean Nap Y W o r S St I 4J lava Eskr ore St Cou ich t Blo Robinhood St 5S St idge gar ita dge La Azalea St t Plum St tt St Ruth Pl Whe S an St wn b St St eler ders Ca R S da La t St lum outh osedale We St Rice Blvd le wnd Rd iver nt w M ax mo St I4 side et Har Wheele op St orth well re Lo vest Golf Course Dr Dr S t r St 5 St St Blv So PLACE Ha Ln N d ut N Mac G lb St Ma hm P regor Dr n n St e cG ll L G u lto t Barbara Ln or alm St Sw we S lf F 35 St rro Us tle re W x e Binz yr Ilex St Ca ift go ilk Bl Ma Hwy tra wy Pittsburgh St M d vd rL ins Blv 90 A tto Bl v Ros Prod lt oo S Mac Gregor Way d ene St egie St od Bu n S uce pD ath St wo Park Ro w fo t Dr r en aes St rd son woo r d C ha dD S B Holcombe Blvd St Lin rles r St Bellaire Blvd r B ro c ton Kelle k St St Holc r Gramercy St Win Kilg Rustic St Ln nD omb Ca ra o re kler Du Lock Ventu eB Gale Bellefontaine St ld St Po Dr e tt S lvd d Win Cort Penfie we Dixie nt St Glen Haven Blvd t ld L free elyo ood Blv ll n Braesw Dr uL net Blvd Port Dr lt A n d wy 90 Sho er St lv Gri Us H rt S dB Hasbro ggs Swanson St t Keys woo ok vd Rd to Cosb Bl Alic raes Dreyfus St Yello 610 South Lo y St Perry ne St e NB wsto Daphn op E Lon Culm De St Dup e St Balkin ne B Fair gD ree ore wb 288 lvd w ay Hu r St St Dr Wy er Dr Yell ll St ry ows Alice oming S St tone Fair Kels St t St War o St hop F au Blvd in Lo d St Gammage St Cord e St Gre lkne ng nn Clover Ridge St er S El Paseo St Fa And n St Amo r St Dr Eppes St t t St Idah r s St M r cres Mcnee Rd o StRadia ea St Mo cg Holly Hall St uthC Kinney St Bran unt l St So re Connecting Rd Cavalier St ch S w P le Main Goo d rest Osborn St Holly Hall St t asa Murworth Dr St 0 d Midvale St t B an R e m Edna St nt I 61 o S acon S hope S r St d Bata on St t sR t 610 und Moline St Naomi St tS me Westridge St Naomi St Ext Dieppe St El M t H ol Dixie Dr South Loop E Joyner St S Bartell Dr Pers South Loop W 610 Dr St hing 0 Timmen Dixie St e r gh St I 61 r Lindb tridge Donoho St 18th St Exit 00 Cres yD So u Magnet St Edfie Southseas St thw waC ld S M Longm ind gs ha t ayflo eado St f fi Kin wer n w St Van Fleet St Brollier St St St Redbud St He W Bellfort St Dr Kenil Doulton Dr m St Whit s Rd rydaleRd Rosemont e woo Ridg Glenhurst Dr in Cher ood e Ro olm H Shelby Cir S ta ck S Lyndhu eway d Dr hw ve gw E Alm A Ric Willow G sse Dr t rst D ay Bellfort St eda nS len Dr ort r Rd Dr t ellf E Bellfort St Aledo St t St B ellfor Driveway B Bellfort Ave Galesburg St Belcrest St d rt Belmark St Westov es R lda er St Brinkley St Holm Be sh Dr Larkspur St Beldart St Vasser St St hru T Flamingo Dr Clover St urn Mallow St hb Rd 288 Pre Heron Dr As Reed dale St nti Reed Rd Reed Rd Feldman St ss Over t Carmen St Hirondel St ale S Tangerine St Wilmingt Schevers St imsd S on St St S t Rockingham St ace ton Br y Pederson St Ca St lon Barberry Dr Dil s St Sunbeam St Rue St Ricky St t d n va na S rt Blv E u o Corksie St Groveton St Chimira Ln Scarlet Dr Fa Airp Jipsie Ln Grosbeak Dr Blvd rt Paradise Ln Airpo Osprey Dr Blvd Holloway Dr o Airport Clo Emsc Akard St S Acres Dr ve South Acres Dr d rL Dacca Dr t W Airport Blv n sS Canterway Dr lm Dumore Dr Greylog Dr Ne Denoron Dr Brisbane St St rookston St Selinsky Rd Howcher St ane Poe Rd Mowery Rd Brisb ight s Botany Ln Tavenor Ln Trl Dr Madden Ln Hickok Ln Bungalow Ln Fairgreen Ln Carson Rd Park Village Dr EO W Orem Dr Rest Area rem Clotell Cir Dr Marchant Rd Willardville Rd Kilkenny Dr
Highway 288/South (Northern Portion): Community Services
Schlu Gulf Ce nt mbe rger Lral Dr Coll ier S Te om t lle ba ps r en S
Park ing L ot Hermann Loop Dr Ma in St
M ac g
Ada ir
re go rW
\
X
ay ra nz aS t
Wroxton Rd
Ashby St t Kent St rd St on S a lt Haz Wi
\
Bissonnet St Pro sp B ec He inz t St S rm an t nD Dr r rt Conce R
ndell St Driveway t
Sta Alme Do te Hw d y2 wl ing St
elvin Dr irby Dr ans St
St
X X v X
go S Macgre
y
Es pe
N
Stock SM T ton ainrav is S t St
d Blv d
e St
yB lvd S Wa yside Dr Inez St
A rd mor
Culle Cullen n Blv d Blvd Calh oun Rd
Gran
Cad Culbers il Tier lac St on St wes ter S t
B ro a d St Peca n St
Sta ffor dsh ir Cam e St b Cambridge St ridge St
Woodridge Dr Gu lfga Ever te M gree n Dr all
Alleg hen y St tt S t
Pin ew a
923
C ar o l Ln
Rd
y
v
La Salette St Scott St
St
Ma in
Alme da R d Ram sey St C ay uga St
Bee km an
t
She rw Con ood D r le Sidn y St ey S Fost t er S t
Dum
v
vX X
Ramp
ble S
Burk e
Nunn St
Holt St
elmont St
t
Shepherd Dr School Bellgreen Dr Greenbriar St Greenbriar Dr Chaucer Dr Morningside Dr
St S 75th
X
v
HARRIS
290
SHELDON
State
\
v
lf Gu
Village Pky
y Fw
5 Hwy 3
X
w v \ w\
Bertner St
X
v
v
SPRING VALLEY TX HEDWIG VILLAGE TX HUNTERS CREEK VILLAG TX BUNKER HILL VILLAGE TX PINEY POINT VILLAGE TX
610
HOUSTON TX
HOUSTON
45 59
CHANN JACINTO CITY TX GALENA PARK TX
n ho lep Te
Garland Dr
WEST UNIVERSITY PLAC TX BELLAIRE TX
610
d au R Nass
\
v
X
DEER
r Way
e
Rd
Dr n Rupley Cir r L re be nmo Dr yside um le S Wa Sl G
SOUTH HOUSTON TX PASADENA TX WS PLACE TX STAFFORD TX
X X
v
X
TX BROOKSIDE VILLAGE TX
iu N Stad
MISSOURI CITY TX
X
PEARLAND TX FRESNO TX
6
ht R Knig
r yD Kirbin r Ma n D ai sm ae Br
w
Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
WEBS FRIENDSWOOD TX
m Dr
d
X
d
ARCOLA TX SIENNA PLANTATION TX LEAG MANVEL TX
R ne ho lep Te
Dan Elbe ube St Verrta St a Lo u St Mcle Co m an S aS t t
Fw y
Ram p
So ut h
288
Sta te Hw y
521
X
Redfe rn
X
Dr
Fm
X
X
X
Cullen Bl vd
Sa nt aF
v
X
vC
v
eD r
Rubin St Hunkler Dr
ring s Tr l Man dala Dra yW gon ay wic kD r
ky S p
S Coast Dr
Donegal Way
n tia ma
Littleford
Fm 5
Driveway
Canterville Rd Vernage Rd Canterview Dr Almeda Genoa Rd
Kier Rd
288
Land Rd
21
d oo kw Lin
Cedar Crest St
y
Juniper St
Waltrip St
Dr
0
6 Miles
12
18
X
X
X v
Edgar St Theresa Ferdinand St Southview St Gladstone St Brandon St Comal St Livingston St Woodward St Parnell St Fountain St Cannon St Canyon St h St Maria Bassett St
y
le Ln Pebb Way e ridg Sun Dr ok Harbro
Interchange Dr
Knight Rd
o
Holt St
ay dw ee Buffalo Speedway Sp
St dale North
Luce
w
X
Rd Connecting
v
Xy
Map layers
Submarket
Fannin St
y
Kirby Dr
St
v
X
X
E Point Dr Center Point Dr S Point Dr
bin Ro
v
X
vX
y Fire Department C Police \ w T v
0 Airport/Airfield College/Univ Hospital Oilfield Park Y Religious Site X School .6 1.2 Miles 1:56,448
Myka
od wo ay SH r D s m Si t hS nc St llfi Bu ow l al Sw
wa R
Southbank Clearway Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Vine Arbor Vinearbor St Merle St
Chain St
d
X
v
Duane St
X
Kappa Dr Buffum St
Jutland Rd
Noel St
d wa R Blue Heron Ln Myka Gallinule Ln
Scott St
Dobie
Vil
D la
X
v
1.8
Dulcimer St
r
X
Segrest Dr Long Gate Dr
Koala Dr
Fm 518 Rd
Martindale Rd
X
y
Rockford Dr
v
X
Ses
X
Dr
Brenford Dr
d Bl v ina Edw r aD eli Am d Blv
Panay Dr Murr Way Mosscrest Dr
t eS am
v
Webercrest Rd
Leitrim Way
Swingle Rd
Sugar Bush Dr
Lincolnshire Rd Rd Glengarry Rd -GenoaAllison Rd a Almed
Beela Rd
Almeda Genoa Rd
Telean St Bluejay St Wheeden Rd
Forbes Rd
Mcdoyle Foxton Rd
Furman
Van Cle
Murdock St
D
Stonham St Trescon Dr
Highway 288/South (Southern Portion): Community Services
S ce Airport Blvd Sunbeam St Barberry Dr Bra on St St Corksie Grovet Nita St d Edgebrook Dr Dr Airport Blvd Airport Blv R t South Acres Dr S Acres 3 Broockril s S St Groton Dr l Dr M oks lm o ton Ne bane Dr St nticel Selinsky Rd s Rd Altus Mowery Bri Botany Ln Tide lo D 45 Madden Ln wat r Hickok Ln er D Beran Dr Carson Rd r Park Village Dr Orem Dr E O W Orem Dr rem Dr Cork Dr Kilkenny Dr Thermon St Brenford Dr d Swingle Rd Almeda Genoa Rd R 288 Elmhurst St Red Robin Ln ville a Rd er a-Geno Cant Mango St Almed Greenswarth Ln W Fuqua St W Fuqua St Almeda Genoa Rd Fuqua St Dalstrom St Fuqua St Tw Thistle Rosebud Dr Thistle St Garden Parks Dr ig Schurmier Rd Dr E Anderson Rd Lett Anderson Rd Anderson Rd Jamie Ln ie S t Carter Hall Hall Rd W Foxshire Ln Rd Caribe Ln S Beltway 8 E d Shelton Rd Blv S Sam Houston Pky E Beltway 8 I ff White Rd Becky Rd Br risw erid blu g Ch ook ood Riley Rd uth Cou e Dr Clear Creek St ick M Sa So rt R wo ea ge d kin Be od D g am r Emory Oak Ln idge Dr Dr Ln er Mchard Rd Rice St 6a d Fm 2234 Rd 10 en S Rd ad Fo Ro oB Cir Halik St S Peach Hollow S ty fal rk f W un Southdown Dr Bu C Co Shank Rd in Chatwood Dr Ct d D Olin Dr Hallmark Ln Crystal Lake Dr n W Orange St r Iro E Plum St e Ln Crystal Lake Cir S r Silver Dr ne M W Jasmine St ksho Ni oo Broo Jacquelyn Dr Sunperch Ct Goodrich St re Sunlake Dr E Walnut St 518 W Broadway St Fm PEARLAND Cessna 344 Ju Fm 3 County Hwy 92 288 1st St dy Live Oak St Palm Ct Av Sa t C e Eve bl ewbury N Lauren Ln Faydur Ct rgre e Ros E Broadway St en Dr Magnolia Oaks Dr John Lizer Rd e bu Pi Pi St Oa dC ne ne Vista M Linden St NF Stonebridge St Independence Park k t el 59 St Cr Rei rie Fo o Hwy re Sorens S Ga rk e s nty am ndsw d on D r Cir st er C r p Cou County Road 834a Liv ood er D rite Cou tecr Dr t Oil Trammel-Fresno Rd Dr e Morgan Rd County Road 107c ee Ln n ty k Oa nue C Y Ro Dr k County Road 101 Norwalk L ad W Palm St Rd 35 Se n Warren 12 County Road 894 do Sycamore St 7 ycamore St r Teakwood ham Ln We County Road 117 r nd Maple Ave Bahler Ave sD yL l Glen Ct Hudspeth Dr ne i n Ellis Dr ll P Ta County Road 58 Ha Angelina Dr ck Ind FRIE County Road 174 County Road 414 ne ia y n County Road 869 Rd Sp g Rd County Road 128 Del Bello Ln 39 Valente 7b 8th Ave County Road 129 Grand Blvd N Pine St Sta Sm N te H ith M wy St S Pine St is 6 Sa sion Co n County Road 305b un Howell St M ty Cha County Road 956 rro ig Ro Fron St ad County Road 549 tage Co Rd Rd un 39 y ty Lew te r 7 El Dorado County Road 573 is Ln me Ro Geo Ce ad County Road 418 Lundy rgia Alle 54 St luia 6 1 Co Trl Lan Barrell Rd dm un Pro ark wse ty Ro County Road 936b Re ad Biss ge Jan Cactus Ln nc 14 e S ell Rd Sta y t 5 He Cou te Hw ig Jordan Rd y6 nty ht Roa sD d 19 0 r
Cullen Blvd
woo d St
De no ron Ct
mer Dr lt 0A y9 Hw Us r kley D Poinsetta
ak R d
Zenith St Alrover St Buffalo Speedway Landmark St Bathurst Dr White Heather Dr Southfield Dr Quention Dr Rd Hiram Clarke Rd Clarke Player St Buxley Stancliff St St Rosecrest Dr Nitida Lockway Dr
Kopman
X
X X
v
v
Sh av er St Shaver St
cott St
ee St Cullen Blvd
X
Linnet Ln
Leitrim Way
Tewantin Dr r aD Vill
ALDINE TX JERSEY VILLAGE TX
290
59
CROSBY TX BARRETT TX MONT BEL HIGHLANDS TX
State Hwy 3
SP ost O
X v X
Clea r
Xy
y
X
45 HARRIS
y
v
S
v
X
v
a eli Am
X
X X y
TX
NCO RANCH TX
CHANNELVIEW TX SPRING VALLEY TX HOUSTON HOUSTON TX JACINTO CITY TX PINEY POINT VILLAGE TX GALENA PARK TX WEST UNIVERSITY PLAC TX BELLAIRE TX
610
Freedale Dr S on 5 yd I 4 Ro 5 N I4 N Broadway
BAYTOWN TX
Dr
S Wayside Dr
Furman Rd
Foxton Rd
Land Rd
521
Kier Rd
Fm
tR d Cl ov er Dr
Polo St
Be ltw
w
ay
Ki
T
ng sp oi n
Britt Rd
gh e
sR
d
S
May St
Kilna r
Hu
Ki rk v
v
Dr
ille
State Hwy 288
vd
Bl
rm
R
y
932
es tm i Pe nist er ar la nd St Et Pk on y Dr P Ja ebble C P mi C reek Dr Yo atr son ou st icia R ntr Bl L d y C v lu Ha d n b m Dr m Rd Cr an Sc e ar Dr sd
al e
Livingston Dr
Gri Wo ggs C odb t He u ry ath St erb en dD r P Ab resto be nS yF t ield Dr
C
681
Di xi e
Fa
W
Harkey Rd
Ravensway Ct
Clo ve r Co Cou Cir Co un nt ty y R un ty Ro oa Ro ad d 25 130 ad 30 2 3 FmFer n 23 dal 51 e C t
County Road 104
521 F ar m -toMar ket Roa d 52 Mark 1 Ter Public Vine
rm
Rd
Di xi e
Fa
17 6
oa
X
Fu rn ac Fm e Ln 11 28
d
Webb Sawyer Rd Saint Clou FM Ja P 52 almer Dr B d Dr ne 8R elm tL d Fm ont n 528 R Dr d Su nC t
Co u
et Road 1128
T
L ir a
nt yR
Rd
Hastings Oilfield Rd
Fm
Ro ad
41
7
d
Farm-to-Mark
Mc co yR
Co
un t
y
88
County Road 836
ty R oad 7
Cr os
Co un t
sf i e M ld R ar d kh am
eH
T
Rd y R Co oad u 6 Co nty 33 Ro un ty a Ro d 2 47 ad 99
Dogw o
wy 2
od S t
St at
5
Fm Rd W 1128 E SSherri her Cir ri C ir
C Co oun u n ty ty Ro Co Ro ad un ad 5 8 ty 14 3 Ro 6 ad un 93 ty 7 Ro ad Ga Co 1 8 t es u n 6 Ro t y ad R o 14 ad 8 14 Co 7 un Co ty un Ro Co ty ad un Ro ty Hei ad 235 Ro gh 14 ad ts 9 78 Loo p 9 one St Fm 52 8 Fri en ds wo od
Rd
Cou n
Nia Pl
Thelma Ann Ln
y
y
X
Hendricksen Cottingham St
MISSION BEND TX
FOUR CORNERS TX MEADOWS PLACE TX PECAN GROVE TX CHMOND TX MISSOURI CITY TX GREATWOOD TX ERG TX FRESNO TX FORT BEND TX STAFFORD TX BROOKSIDE VILLAGE TX
DEER PARK TX MORGAN'S POINT TX BEACH CITY PASADENA TX SHOREACRES TX SEABROOK TX
d wa R Myka Mcdoyle Rd
Moers Rd Monroe Rd
Radio Rd
SUGAR LAND TX
Almeda School Rd
PEARLAND TX NASSAU BAY TX WEBSTER TX KEMAH TX FRIENDSWOOD TX BACLIFF TX SAN LEON TX LEAGUE CITY TX DICKINSON TX TEXAS CITY TX ALVIN TX GALVESTON HILLCREST TX SANTA FE TX LA MARQUE TX BAYOU VISTA TX
Blackhawk Blvd
Rd Dr bo Sa ay w Rd rk Ki Beamer Ct st mi ge
t eS t anor S ston Park M ge Rid Amy Ridge Rd S Post Oak Rd Ingomar Way
W Davis
South Fwy
ARCOLA TX SIENNA PLANTATION TX MANVEL TX IOWA COLONY TX
Max Rd
Forbes Rd E Wood Mykawa Rd March St
Sa
Border Fm 518 Rd Almond Lake Ct Presidents Dr W
y
IRCHILDS TX
Fellows Rd
Glastonbury Dr Old Alvin Rd Dr Isla St on ns bi Ro State Hwy 35
Eiker Rd
Oday Rd Midlane Dr Ellis Dr County Road 109
Hooper Rd Papa St Labrador Rd County Hwy 48
k aw kh ac Bl
Rd Almeda
County Road 105
BONNEY TX DAMON TX
LIVERPOOL TX
County Road 561
HITCHCOCK TX
County Road 108
GALVESTO DANBURY TX HOLIDAY LAKES TX
BRAZORIA
v ge Sa
Bl
w
Lee Rd
vd
Hatfield Rd
JAMAICA BEACH TX
ale
ANGLETON TX BAILEY'S PRAIRIE TX
Ln
t Le
rim
v
0
10 Miles
20
30
St
Rd Reid
Dr d oo Ln ew le rtl t el ni My S ts Da St illi W h rc Bi
Linda Dr Trinity St
County Road 389 Foxden Dr
v
Map layers
Submarket
Colorado St Pig Tail
County Road 844f Manvel Rd
Morris St
Mckinley Ave
y Fire Department C Police \ w T v
0 Airport/Airfield College/Univ Hospital Oilfield Park Y Religious Site X School 1 2 3 Miles 1:112,896
County Road 94
lls We
County Road 879b
County Hwy 564
Ann Ln
Allen Rd
County Road 103
Dr
County Road 89
Croix Pky
County Road 831
County Road 829
et ns Su
N Masters Rd County
Herridge Rd
County Hwy 56
Ladonia St Garland Ave Houston St
Dr
Sylvia Ln Spears Rd
Curry Rd
ra Mo
County Road 907
y Wa
County Hwy 143
ad 715f County Ro
Sanders Rd
Iowa Ln
98 Hwy
144 Ramirez RdCounty Road
Pollard Dr
State Hwy 35
T
County Road 291
Croix Rd
Shulte Ln
X
County Road 97
County Road County Road 80 County Road 57 Colony Loop W County Road 524c
County Road 383
Cardinal Acres
Still Rd Mollar Hall Rd Beers St County Road 947 Clifford St
County Road County Hwy 48
County Road 56
R ty un Co
d oa
67
Ga t
es
Co un ty
Rd
ze Uz
Guber State Hwy Texas
g Kin
Steele Rd
Cou nt y R
N 2nd S
d ll R N Cir
Ro ad
Y
w
Farm-to-Market
Road 5
6. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS a. POPULATION TRENDS The Highway 288 South Submarket population base has increased by 22,639 between 1990 and 2000. This represents a 20.7% increase from the 1990 total population, or an annual rate of 2.1%. The submarket population bases for 1990, 2000, 2005 (estimated), and 2010 (projected) are summarized as follows:
YEAR 1990 (CENSUS) 109,480 2000 (CENSUS) 132,119 22,639 20.7% 2005 2010 (ESTIMATED) (PROJECTED) 154,387 176,468 22,268 22,081 16.9% 14.3%
POPULATION POPULATION CHANGE PERCENT CHANGE
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC
It is projected that the total population will increase by 22,081 people, or 14.3%, between 2005 and 2010. b. HOUSEHOLD TRENDS Within the Highway 288 South Submarket, the total number of households has increased by 9,197 (25.6%) between 1990 and 2000. Household trends within the Highway 288/South Submarket are summarized as follows:
YEAR 1990 (CENSUS) 35,865 3.1 2000 (CENSUS) 45,062 9,197 25.6% 2.9 2005 2010 (ESTIMATED) (PROJECTED) 52,924 60,715 7,862 7,791 17.4% 14.7% 2.9 2.9
HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD CHANGE PERCENT CHANGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC
Total household growth has been positive between 1990 and 2000, and is projected to continue to increase, when there will be a total of 60,715 households in 2010. This is an increase of approximately 1,565 households annually. This increase is not unusual for urban markets.
III-683
The submarket household bases by age are summarized as follows:
HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE UNDER 25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 & HIGHER TOTAL 2005 (ESTIMATED) NUMBER PERCENT 2,058 3.9% 8,143 15.4% 11,153 21.1% 10,980 20.7% 9,018 17.0% 6,965 13.2% 3,790 7.2% 817 1.5% 52,924 100.0% 2010 (PROJECTED) NUMBER PERCENT 2,546 4.2% 8,190 13.5% 12,276 20.2% 12,888 21.2% 11,046 18.2% 8,101 13.3% 4,524 7.5% 1,145 1.9% 60,716 100.0% CHANGE 2005-2010 NUMBER PERCENT 488 23.7% 47 0.6% 1,123 10.1% 1,908 17.4% 2,028 22.5% 1,136 16.3% 734 19.4% 328 40.1% 7,792 14.7%
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC
Between 2005 and 2010, the greatest growth among household age groups is expected to be among households aged 85 and older. Household growth is also occurring at a fairly rapid rate among households between the ages 55 and 64. Households by tenure are distributed as follows:
TENURE OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED TOTAL 2000 (CENSUS) HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT 32,337 71.8% 12,725 28.2% 45,062 100.0% 2005 (ESTIMATED) HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT 38,890 73.5% 14,034 26.5% 52,924 100.0%
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC
The market is dominated by owner-occupied households, as evidenced by the fact that over two-thirds of all occupied housing units are owneroccupied. The household size within the submarket, based on the 2000 Census, is distributed as follows:
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1 PERSON 2 PERSONS 3 PERSONS 4 PERSONS 5 PERSONS 6+ PERSONS TOTAL 2000 (CENSUS) HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT 9,354 20.8% 12,887 28.6% 8,671 19.2% 6,971 15.5% 3,838 8.5% 3,341 7.4% 45,062 100.0% 2005 (ESTIMATED) HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT 10,775 20.4% 15,334 29.0% 10,293 19.4% 8,337 15.8% 4,441 8.4% 3,743 7.1% 52,923 100.0% CHANGE 2000-2005 HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT 1,421 15.2% 2,447 19.0% 1,622 18.7% 1,366 19.6% 603 15.7% 402 12.0% 7,861 17.4%
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC
III-684
Based on the 2000 Census, the following is a distribution of housing units in the submarket by year of construction.
YEAR 1999 TO MARCH 2000 1995 TO 1998 1990 TO 1994 1980 TO 1989 1970 TO 1979 1960 TO 1969 1940 TO 1959 1939 OR EARLIER TOTAL OWNER 1,731 3,908 2,410 3,775 4,267 5,708 9,709 829 32,337 HOUSING UNITS PERCENT RENTER 5.4% 335 12.1% 579 7.5% 257 11.7% 1,257 13.2% 3,214 17.7% 3,263 30.0% 3,205 2.6% 615 100.0% 12,725 PERCENT 2.6% 4.6% 2.0% 9.9% 25.3% 25.6% 25.2% 4.8% 100.0%
Approximately 25.0% of the owner-occupied homes in the submarket were built since 1990. From 1995 through March 2000, the market absorbed 5,639 new owner-occupied homes, translating into nearly 90 homes per month over this period.
HOUSING UNIT BUILDING PERMITS FOR HARRIS COUNTY 1999 2000 2001 UNITS IN SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURES 16,055 18,244 20,122 UNITS IN 2-UNIT MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES 82 22 18 UNITS IN 3- AND 4-UNIT MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES 644 96 394 UNITS IN 5+ UNIT MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES 9,081 6,203 5,885 UNITS IN ALL MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES 9,807 6,321 6,297 TOTAL UNITS 25,862 24,565 26,419
Source: SOCDS
2002 23,052 144 811 10,332 11,287 34,339
2003 26,450 92 71 14,370 14,533 40,983
2004 28,020 212 63 8,100 8,375 36,395
TENURE OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED TOTAL
Source: 2000 Census
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 7,755 2,746 10,501
SUBSTANDARD UNITS 2000 CENSUS LACKING COMPLETE COMPLETE PLUMBING PLUMBING PERCENT FACILITIES FACILITIES 73.9% 7,559 196 26.1% 2,648 98 100.0% 10,207 294
PERCENT SUBSTANDARD 2.5% 3.6% 2.8%
III-685
POVERTY STATUS 2000 CENSUS POPULATION NOT LIVING IN POVERTY 22,315 POPULATION LIVING IN POVERTY 4,687 TOTAL* 27,002
82.6% 17.4% 100.0%
Source: Summary File 3, Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 *Population for whom poverty status is determined
TURNOVER RATE HOUSTON MSA
64.4%
Source: 2003 IREM Income/Expense Analysis for Conventional Apartments
PERCENTAGE OF RENT-OVERBURDENED HIGHWAY 288/SOUTH SUBMARKET 39.0%
Source: 2000 Census, Claritas
7. INCOME TRENDS The distribution of households by income within the Highway 288 South Submarket is summarized as follows:
HOUSEHOLD INCOME LESS THAN $10,000 $10,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $59,999 $60,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 & HIGHER TOTAL MEDIAN INCOME 2000 (CENSUS) 2005 (ESTIMATED) 2010 (PROJECTED) NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT 7,486 16.6% 7,242 13.7% 7,116 11.7% 6,684 14.8% 6,497 12.3% 6,386 10.5% 5,518 12.2% 5,667 10.7% 5,736 9.4% 5,500 12.2% 5,712 10.8% 5,583 9.2% 4,165 9.2% 4,848 9.2% 5,389 8.9% 3,281 7.3% 3,890 7.4% 4,446 7.3% 3,745 8.3% 4,572 8.6% 5,318 8.8% 4,125 9.2% 5,487 10.4% 6,540 10.8% 4,558 10.1% 9,009 17.0% 14,201 23.4% 45,062 100.0% 52,924 100.0% 60,715 100.0% $34,852 $42,681 $50,331
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC
In 2000, the median household income was $34,852. This increased 22.5% to $42,681 in 2005. By 2010, it is estimated the median household income will be $50,331, an increase of 17.9% over 2005. Between 2000 and 2005, most of the household growth was among households with incomes of $75,000 and higher.
III-686
The following tables illustrate renter household income by household size for 2000, 2005 (estimated), 2006 (projected), 2007 (projected), 2008 (projected), and 2009 (projected) for the submarket:
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL 1-PERSON 1,529 611 407 275 154 58 72 3,106 2-PERSON 672 566 463 327 205 174 217 2,624 2000 CENSUS 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 692 521 536 439 444 360 236 278 231 166 212 71 182 258 2,532 2,092 5+-PERSON 518 546 254 357 272 149 273 2,370 TOTAL 3,931 2,698 1,928 1,473 1,028 665 1,002 12,725
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,732 677 502 344 185 83 121 3,644
2-PERSON 662 558 488 347 256 198 342 2,850
2005 ESTIMATED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 691 527 514 415 454 366 265 290 285 206 280 75 286 365 2,773 2,243
5+-PERSON 497 542 261 364 315 172 372 2,523
TOTAL 4,109 2,705 2,070 1,609 1,247 808 1,486 14,034
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,767 698 519 347 200 88 135 3,753
2-PERSON 654 558 491 344 271 205 377 2,899
2006 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 682 523 512 410 457 368 265 290 296 210 286 77 315 398 2,814 2,276
5+-PERSON 488 542 260 361 327 179 403 2,560
TOTAL 4,113 2,720 2,095 1,607 1,304 836 1,628 14,303
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,802 719 536 350 214 94 148 3,863
2-PERSON 646 558 494 341 287 211 412 2,949
2007 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 673 518 510 405 460 370 266 289 308 214 293 80 345 433 2,854 2,309
5+-PERSON 478 541 260 358 340 186 434 2,596
TOTAL 4,117 2,733 2,119 1,604 1,362 864 1,772 14,572
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
III-687
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,837 740 553 353 229 99 163 3,974
2-PERSON 637 559 497 338 303 217 448 2,998
2008 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 664 514 507 401 463 371 266 289 320 217 300 83 375 467 2,895 2,342
5+-PERSON 467 540 259 355 352 193 466 2,632
TOTAL 4,119 2,746 2,144 1,600 1,421 892 1,919 14,840
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,872 762 570 356 244 105 177 4,086
2-PERSON 628 559 500 334 318 224 484 3,047
2009 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 654 509 504 395 466 373 267 288 332 221 307 86 406 502 2,935 2,374
5+-PERSON 457 539 259 351 365 200 498 2,668
TOTAL 4,120 2,759 2,168 1,596 1,480 920 2,067 15,109
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
The following tables illustrate renter household income by household size (55+) for 2000, 2005 (estimated), 2006 (projected), 2007 (projected), 2008 (projected), and 2009 (projected) for the submarket:
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL 1-PERSON 891 184 121 46 50 16 33 1,341 2-PERSON 188 145 129 85 71 38 35 691 2000 CENSUS 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 84 83 61 38 71 30 40 21 35 20 27 25 51 71 369 288 5+-PERSON 19 74 3 20 35 14 44 209 TOTAL 1,264 501 355 212 212 119 234 2,898
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 980 204 149 60 62 21 48 1,524
2-PERSON 185 149 137 102 96 46 56 770
2005 ESTIMATED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 84 98 57 41 77 29 48 22 44 30 29 24 77 91 416 335
5+-PERSON 20 85 5 24 38 17 63 253
TOTAL 1,366 537 397 256 271 136 335 3,298
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
III-688
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 997 213 152 62 67 22 51 1,564
2-PERSON 184 152 138 102 106 47 62 792
2006 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 83 99 58 40 78 31 47 22 48 30 30 25 82 98 426 345
5+-PERSON 20 87 6 24 39 18 69 263
TOTAL 1,382 550 405 257 290 141 363 3,389
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,014 222 155 64 72 23 55 1,604
2-PERSON 183 155 140 101 117 49 68 813
2007 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 83 99 58 39 79 33 46 23 52 29 30 26 88 105 436 354
5+-PERSON 19 90 6 24 40 18 75 273
TOTAL 1,399 563 413 258 309 146 391 3,480
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,031 231 158 66 77 24 58 1,644
2-PERSON 183 157 142 101 127 50 74 835
2008 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 82 100 58 39 80 35 46 23 56 28 31 27 94 112 446 364
5+-PERSON 18 92 7 24 41 19 82 282
TOTAL 1,415 577 422 259 328 150 420 3,571
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ $0 - $10,000 $10,000 - $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $60,000 $60,000+ TOTAL
1-PERSON 1,049 239 161 68 82 25 61 1,684
2-PERSON 182 160 144 101 138 51 80 856
2009 PROJECTED 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 82 101 58 38 81 37 45 24 60 27 31 28 99 120 456 374
5+-PERSON 18 95 7 23 42 20 88 292
TOTAL 1,431 590 430 261 348 155 448 3,662
Source: Ribbon Demographics, Claritas
Data from the preceding tables is used in our demand estimates.
III-689
8. LOCAL ECONOMIC PROFILE AND ANALYSIS a. LABOR FORCE PROFILE Services and Retail Trade comprise a little more than 60% of the submarket labor force. Employment within the Highway 288 South Submarket as of 2005 is distributed as follows:
SIC GROUP ESTABLISHMENTS PERCENT AGRICULTURE & NATURAL RESOURCES 45 1.2% MINING 24 0.6% CONSTRUCTION 323 8.7% MANUFACTURING 254 6.8% TRANSPORTATION & UTILITIES 131 3.5% WHOLESALE TRADE 261 7.0% RETAIL TRADE 877 23.6% F.I.R.E. 240 6.5% SERVICES 1,495 40.2% GOVERNMENT 32 0.9% NON-CLASSIFIABLE 34 0.9% TOTAL 3,716 100.0% EMPLOYEES 197 724 3,551 7,008 1,802 3,285 6,723 1,466 12,122 929 191 37,998 PERCENT 0.5% 1.9% 9.3% 18.4% 4.7% 8.6% 17.7% 3.9% 31.9% 2.4% 0.5% 100.0%
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC Note: Due to the fact that this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the submarket. However, these employees are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the submarket.
According to the Greater Houston Partnership, the 10 largest private employers within the Houston area comprise a total of 124,118 employees. These employers are summarized as follows:
INDUSTRY MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH CARE CONTINENTAL AIRLINES UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS – MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER HALLIBURTON UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH AT GALVESTON KROGER ARAMARK RELIANT ENERGY HCA HEWLETT PACKARD BUSINESS TYPE HEALTHCARE TRANSPORTATION HEALTHCARE OIL REFINING HEALTHCARE GROCERY FOOD SERVICES ELECTRIC SUPPLIER HEALTHCARE COMPUTER/ELECTRONICS TOTAL TOTAL EMPLOYED 16,300 16,000 16,000 14,000 12,318 12,000 10,000 9,500 9,000 9,000 124,118
III-690
b. EMPLOYMENT TRENDS The employment base has increased by 5.3% over the past five years in Harris County, more than the Texas state average of 6.4%. Unemployment rates for Harris County and Texas are illustrated as follows:
YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS 5.6% 5.8% 5.2% 5.4% 4.4% 4.9% 4.8% 4.7% 4.4% 4.4% 4.8% 5.0% 6.2% 6.3% 6.9% 6.7% 6.4% 6.1% 5.8% 5.6%
The unemployment rate in Harris County has remained between 4.4% and 6.9%, slightly below the state average since 1996.
III-691
RENTAL HOUSING ANALYSIS (SUPPLY) – HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET #18
A. OVERVIEW OF RENTAL HOUSING Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC identified and personally surveyed a total of six Tax Credit developments, 12 market-rate developments and six marketrate/Tax Credit developments in the Highway 288/ South submarket. The surveyed Tax Credit developments have a combined occupancy rate of 100.0%; the surveyed market-rate developments have a combined occupancy rate of 95.0%; and the surveyed market-rate/Tax Credit properties have a combined occupancy rate of 99.4%. According to the on-line property inventory list of Tax Credit allocations provided by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA), there are two additional Tax Credit properties in the Highway 288/ South Submarket. Despite repeated attempts, information was not available for Alta Cullen, a 246-unit property allocated in 2004 that is under construction. There is one Tax Credit property allocated and not yet built in this submarket (Landsbourough Apartments), a 176-unit mixed-income property allocated in 2004. Both projects have been included in our demand estimates. This survey was conducted to establish the overall strength of the rental submarket, establish and confirm vacancy and rent levels, and gather information on the current rental housing situation resulting from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Following is the list of Tax Credit properties surveyed, both in person and by telephone:
MAP I.D. 2 3 5 12 20 23 1 4 6 21 22 TAX CREDIT PROJECT TYPE MRT MRT MRT MRT MRT MRT TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX YEAR BUILT/ RENOVATED 2002 2005 2000 2005 2004 1995 2005 1996 2002 2002 1972/2004 TOTAL UNITS 14/81* U/C** 165 278 72 114 260 210 248 240 180 TARGET MARKET FAMILY SENIOR FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY SENIOR
PROJECT NAME SCOTT STREET TWNHMS. SOUTH UNION PLACE REED PARQUE TWNHMS. TRANQUILITY BAY NORMA’S PLAZA (SUNRISE VILLAGE) SIMMONS GARDENS PARKSIDE POINT PARK YELLOWSTONE TWNHMS. BELLFORT PINES APTS. CULLEN PARK KINGS ROW APTS.
*Project has an additional 81 unit under construction **Under construction MRT-Market-rate & Tax Credit TAX- Tax Credit
III-692
Following is the list of market-rate properties surveyed, both in person and by telephone:
MAP I.D. 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 3 5 12 20 23 MARKET-RATE YEAR BUILT/ PROJECT NAME RENOVATED STONEBRIGE AT CITY PARK 2004 RANCH AT CITY PARK 2005 WATERFORD PL. AT SHADOW CR. RD. 2005 THE CLUB AT TRANQUILITY LAKE 2002 THE RESERVE AT TRANQUILITY LAKE 2004 WESTLAKE RESIDENTIAL 1999 ST. ANDREWS 2001 SOUTHWIND 2003 SUMMER WIND 2005 COBBLESTONE PARK 2005 TIERWESTER VILLAGE 1961 AMLI AT THE MEDICAL CENTER 2000 SCOTT STREET TWNHMS. 2002 SOUTH UNION PLACE 2005 REED PARQUE TWNHMS. 2000 TRANQUILITY BAY 2005 NORMA’S PLAZA (SUNRISE VILLAGE) 2004 SIMMONS GARDENS 1995 TOTAL UNITS 240 270 24 212 314 256 472 312 204 75 130 334 2/15* U/C** 27 52 8 4 TARGET MARKET FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY SENIOR FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
* Project has an additional 15 unit under construction ** Under construction
The following table summarizes the family Tax Credit (non-subsidized) rental market:
BEDROOMS UNITS ONE-BEDROOM 332 TWO-BEDROOM 756 THREE-BEDROOM 605 FOUR-BEDROOM 56 TOTAL 1,749 DISTRIBUTION 19.0% 43.2% 34.6% 3.2% 100.0% VACANT 0 0 3 0 3 PERCENT 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% GROSS RENT RANGE $446-$732 $557-$878 $789-$1,016 $899-$1,135
The following table summarizes the overall market-rate rental market:
BEDROOMS UNITS ONE-BEDROOM 1,225 TWO-BEDROOM 1,237 THREE-BEDROOM 450 TOTAL 2,912 DISTRIBUTION 42.1% 42.5% 15.5% 100.0% VACANT 49 64 28 141 PERCENT 4.0% 5.2% 6.2% 4.8% GROSS RENT RANGE $632-$1,085 $539-$1,646 $959-$1,875
Note the above chart includes market-rate units at market-rate properties and market-rate units at mixed-income properties (Tax Credit/market-rate).
III-693
We rated each market-rate property surveyed on a scale of A through E. All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e., aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping, and grounds appearance). Following is a distribution of market-rate units surveyed in person by quality rating, units, and vacancies.
QUALITY RATING A AB+ D+ TOTAL UNITS 1,163 35 1,580 130 PERCENT 40.0% 1.2% 54.3% 4.5%
Following is a distribution of Tax Credit units surveyed in person by quality rating, units, and vacancies.
QUALITY RATING A AB+ TOTAL UNITS 246 485 724 PERCENT 16.9% 33.3% 49.8%
The following tables summarize the range and median size of the surveyed units by property type and bedroom type:
TAX CREDIT – NET SQUARE FEET UNIT TYPE MINIMUM MAXIMUM ONE-BEDROOM 550 864 TWO-BEDROOM 735 1,180 THREE-BEDROOM 875 1,446 FOUR+-BEDROOM 1,025 1,240 MEDIAN 812 968 1,113 1,240
MARKET-RATE – NET SQUARE FEET UNIT TYPE MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEDIAN ONE-BEDROOM 654 971 758 TWO-BEDROOM 700 1,391 1,086 THREE-BEDROOM 1,059 1,691 1,332
III-694
The following tables summarize the distribution of appliances and unit amenities among all non-subsidized surveyed properties:
APPLIANCE RANGE REFRIGERATOR ICEMAKER DISHWASHER DISPOSAL MICROWAVE APPLIANCES PROJECTS 23 23 15 20 21 15 PERCENT 100.0% 100.0% 65.2% 87.0% 91.3% 65.2% UNITS 4,661 4,661 3,525 4,233 4,413 3,247
UNIT AMENITIES AMENITY PROJECTS PERCENT AC – CENTRAL 22 95.7% AC – WINDOW 1 4.3% FLOOR COVERING 23 100.0% WASHER/DRYER 10 43.5% WASHER/DRYER HOOK-UP 19 82.6% PATIO/BALCONY 17 73.9% CEILING FAN 20 87.0% FIREPLACE 2 8.7% SECURITY SYSTEM 5 21.7% WINDOW TREATMENTS 22 95.7%
UNITS 4,531 130 4,661 2,239 4,233 3,725 4,413 646 731 4,401
PROJECT AMENITIES AMENITY PROJECTS PERCENT POOL 19 82.6% ON-SITE MANAGEMENT 22 95.7% LAUNDRY 13 56.5% CLUBHOUSE 17 73.9% MEETING ROOM 10 43.5% FITNESS CENTER 14 60.9% JACUZZI/SAUNA 4 17.4% PLAYGROUND 12 52.2% TENNIS COURT 1 4.3% SPORTS COURT 4 17.4% LAKE 5 21.7% ELEVATOR 1 4.3% SECURITY GATE 18 78.3% BUSINESS CENTER 15 65.2% CAR WASH AREA 3 13.0% PICNIC AREA 6 26.1% CONCIERGE SERVER 1 4.3% SOCIAL SERVICE PACKAGE 2 8.7%
UNITS 4,217 4,481 2,756 3,995 1,911 3,147 883 2,011 75 735 1,131 0 3,399 3,255 413 1,007 75 16
III-695
B. PLANNED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT Based on the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs allocation list of affordable housing projects and interviews with local building and planning representatives, it was determined that there are two multifamily housing projects planned for the area. • Landsbourough Apartments – A 176-unit mixed-income property allocated in 2004. This project has been included in our demand estimates. Villa at Bethel – This project is a 151-unit development that has requested HOME funds from the city of Houston. The project would target seniors with independent-living units. No additional information was available; therefore. this project was not included in our demand analysis.
•
C. HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS Although this submarket spans two counties, most of the submarket’s residents live in Harris County. According to the Harris County Housing Authority, there are approximately 1,840 Housing Choice Vouchers issued throughout the county, with an additional 500 Vouchers issued to hurricane evacuees. Housing Authority representatives stated that there are approximately 598 people currently on the waiting list for additional Vouchers, which is closed. The payment standards for Harris County are equal to the current Fair Market Rents (FMR).
PAYMENT STANDARDS STUDIO UNIT $551 ONE-BEDROOM UNIT $612 TWO-BEDROOM UNIT $743 THREE-BEDROOM UNIT $990 FOUR-BEDROOM UNIT $1,245
D. HURRICANE IMPACT ON THE RENTAL HOUSING MARKET According to property managers, there are at least 191 evacuees (10.5%) at the surveyed affordable properties. A majority of these households are using FEMA vouchers. Over half of the evacuees are located at one marketrate/Tax Credit property (Tranquility Bay). This property opened in April 2005 and was 50% leased by August 2005. Management reports that the current waiting list is made up almost exclusively of hurricane evacuees. The impact to the market-rate rental market has been minimal, with at least 58 evacuee households (2.0% of surveyed market-rate units). Many of the evacuees at market-rate properties are from corporate relocations. Most of the market-rate properties in this submarket do not accept FEMA Vouchers,
III-696
which has likely minimized the impact of evacuees on the rental market. Based on our survey, hurricane evacuees occupy approximately 5.3% of the surveyed rental units in the Highway 288 South Submarket. According to data provided by HISTA, there were approximately 14,034 renter households in this submarket in 2005. Applying 5.3% to the 14,034 renter households results in as many as 744 households living in the Highway 288 South Submarket potentially displaced by the hurricanes. A map indicating the location of apartments surveyed is on the following on page.
III-697
Highway 228/South: Apartment Locations
E Cu llen C
Stoc Lan kton ier D
Clearwood St
Furman Rd
S Whe S Mac Gregor Way eler SM Cason St St Charleston St Blvd Holcombe W Holcombe Blvd Holc Kilg lt omb ore S Bellefontaine St Galen Dr d Blvd y 90 A e Blv t Us Hw Gri vd Braeswoo Dap d ggs d d Bl lv hne Rd e Dr St dB o Welford Dr Verone St Aberdeen Way 4 610 nnad oo eswo ! Effie St Colo sw ra Long Pine St Idah Dr lvd Brae B o St Holly St S St S dB 1 Le Yello Lo ! h Maple St in oo wsto ng all Deal sw Beechnut St nn ne B St Alice Dr 3 ae lvd ! Fa Br St Mar Main Drey N d Blvd er S tin fus S Murworth Dr Holly Hall St o t ! 2 t ason St aeswo Lu Westridge St r th 18 ! NB er I 610 610 I 610 Ki ng 288 South Loop W 610 Jr Redbud St Teton St Bl vd Whit W Bellfort St Rd t S 20 s ! S ta e R o fort lme Ho Bell sse ck S W 6 ! Bellfo nS t t rt St ycro Bellfort Ave ss S Willowbend Blvd t Brinkley St s Rd e d Holm fisher Dr sR 5 Reed Rd ! Bolt St Reed Rd lme Feldman St Benning Dr Ho N Rockingham St Alt Grassmere St 0 !! 21 y9 22 ! Hw Us Corksie St 23 ! Nita St Airport Blvd Blvd Clo Airport ve S Acres Dr South Acres Dr rL n Brookston St Mowery Rd Knotty Botany Ln Oaks T Ebbtide D rl n r llomine Way on L Carls 7 ! W Orem Dr
Cambridge St Alme da R d Gran d Blv d State Hwy 288
hou n
ays i
S She cott St rwo od D r
St Case St el la St Li et n nn Bellaire Blvd k R d BELLAIRE Jane St Oleander St Fern St
ay
m St
610
WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE
dw ee Sp
Broa dS Myrt tle S t
ay rW go gre 19 ! ac
Southmore Blvd
I 45 N I4 5
Evergreen Dr
nbriar St
5 Hwy 3 g Jr Blv Ki n her
Lut
way BlvdBroadway St
de D
r
lo
Rd
Bu f fa
SW
Cal
n Rd
Main St
Bee kma
ruck St
610
Win kler Dr
Garland Dr
225
Go
vd Bl
r rD ea 22 dy o
ALDINE TX JERSEY VILLAGE TX
45 HARRIS
290
59
CROSBY TX
BARRETT TX
Goodyear St
Dr yside S Wa
d
45
HIGHLANDS TX SPRING VALLEY TX HEDWIG VILLAGE TX PINEY POINT VILLAGE TX NCH TX
610
HOUSTON TX
Fannin St
rk Pa Blvd Place Park Dixie Dr
e ac Pl
HOUSTON
CHANNELVIEW TX JACINTO CITY TX GALENA PARK TX
225
Telep
n Mai
BAYTO
Rd hone
Stella Link Rd Mickler St Bassoon Dr Greenwillow St
rd wa Ho
Dr
Ho wa
MISSION BEND TX
WEST UNIVERSITY PLAC TX BELLAIRE TX
o tm es Cr
FOUR CORNERS TX MEADOWS PLACE TX GROVE TX STAFFORD TX BROOKSIDE VILLAGE TX
PASADENA TX
DEER PARK TX MORGAN'S POIN LA PORTE TX
El Rio St
Theresa
Holt St
Knight Rd
St nt
Elbe rta S t
ea ra
Om
y Dr
Knight Rd
Kirb
Cullen Blvd
Cullen Blvd
521
Fm
Pro ctor
Ln Swingle Rd Almeda Genoa Rd Holiday 288 Red Robin Ln Wheeden Wayfarer Ln d noa RAllison Rd Rd Grapevine St eda-Ge Alm Brookfield St Canterview Dr Greenswarth Ln Arrowhead Ln Rd W Fuqua St eda Genoa Alderfer St Catalina Ln W Fuqua St Alm Fuqua Fuqua St Fuqua St Carrie St Smooth Oak Ln Thistle St Misty Vale Dr Garden Parks Dr Brownstone Ln Gumas StArai Van Meter St Schurmier Rd Rd Anderson Rd Gulf Tree Ln derson Rd Anderson E Anderson Edway Lettie St Carter rkwood Ln Hall W Foxshire Ln Rd Hall Rd Ingomar Way S Beltway 8 E ayw ood Dr Lake St S Sam Houston Pky W Beltway 8 Shelton Rd r S Sam Houston Pky E S Beltway 8 E e C re nimo s on D Gero Becky Rd ek Dr Robin Fellows Rd Ella St Clear Creek St Manry Ave Knapp Rd Helena St Ri Grand Bro Kiln dg Katy St ar County Road 106 Brookside Rd Sag et ebr on ook Greenhill Rd Arb Fruge Rd Dr or Martin Ln Fm 2234 Rd Rice St Mchard Rd Dr Longleaf Dr
Kier Rd
Journey Rd
ay D
r
Br ad for
dW
n
ric L
Det
County Road 650
Fm 5
rgreen St Linden St
21
Lexington Blvd
et C t Blueridge Dr
Garn
yl Ra
Abb ey F ield Loch Dr man Ct
Live Oak St
Wood St
County Hwy 92
288
15 ! 16 !
14 !
10 !
eD ein
r
venwood Ct
E Dallas St Main St ammel-Fresno Rd W Jasmine St
W Dallas St
County Hwy 59
County Hw
Pe m
17 !
Palm St
ie
Fa rm
Norwalk
Rd
r rk D be S Fo r to Meade Rd n Dr
E
Co un R t Ci ega ry C rc l lub le O Dr Dr aks Dr
Harley
y hw ut So
Sunlake Dr
Covingto
Fm 3344
Le e
Ci
r
r ur y D Millb e S Rice Av
S Post Oak Rd Palmcrest St
SHOREACRES TX
Ave Bellfort
h Telep
SUGAR LAND TX EW TERRITORY TX
W r kle in
Dr
MISSOURI CITY TX GREATWOOD TX
D
SEABROOK TX PEARLAND TX NASSAU BAY TX KEMAH TX WEBSTER TX FRIENDSWOOD TX MANVEL TX LEAGUE CITY TX DICKINSON TX BACLIFF
Broadway St
Center Point Dr S Point Dr
Scott St Livingston St Grandview St Cannon St
d one R
FRESNO TX ARCOLA TX SIENNA PLANTATION TX
Myka
Dr
Ferdinand St
d wa R
Monroe Rd
Cliffwood Dr
IOWA COLONY TX S TX
Ai
rp or tL oo
45
ALVIN TX HILLCREST TX
TEXAS C SANTA FE TX
GALVE
p
g lle Co
e
Av
BONNEY TX LIVERPOOL TX
LA MARQUE
w Myka
Hiram Clarke Rd Hiram Clarke Rd Player Player St
HITCHCOCK TX
5S I4
Dr kler Hun Sorsby Way S Coast Dr Southview St Southbridge Rd
a Rd
0
10 Miles
20
30
Nitida St
3
Rack St Buffum St
r aD eli lvd Am in B b Ro
State Hwy 35
Bathurst Dr Regg Dr
Blackhawk Blvd
Canterdale St
8 !
! ! !
0
Interstate Hwys US Hwys State Hwys Market Rate Market Rate/Tax Credit Tax Credit .9 1.8 2.7 Miles 1:111,586
S Post Oak Rd
State Hwy 3
Buffalo Speedway
Thelma Ann Ln
Waterloo Dr
Stancliff St
Catina Ln
Wenlock Dr S Wayside Dr Suburban Gdn
Mcdoyle Rd
Cottingham St Mary Kay Ln
Anagnost Rd
Forbes Rd
w kha Blac
Almeda School Rd
k
Brookhaven Ct Glastonbury Dr
Manor Dr Hatfield Rd Wellborne Rd Pearland Hts
Bobby St
E
E Wood
Park Almeda Dr
State Hwy 288
e dg Ri
Woods Rd
Fm 518 Rd
Feld Dr
West Dr Dr
Park Manor St
Cr
Pecos St
k ee
Adamo Ln
County Road 106a
9 !
N Hampton Dr
Crystal Lake Dr Crystal Lake Cir S
Bui Dr Halik St Robin Sound St Oday Cir Shank Rd County Road 883 Olin Dr Lo Ken County Road 883c nd sin on g Sawyer Dr Ct ton EB 782 Goodrich St County Road Pa roa rk Walnut St dway E W Broadway St St Fm 13 ! Court St 11 ! 51 8 3rd St 12 ! St ac y Dr County Road 388 Oa Pe Stonebridge St k ar L a W Colonial Dr la nd ke E Ga oo Pk dg tec d County Road 834a e y Dr r e e County Road 834 Lockhart Dr County Road 101 Industrial Dr
Old Alvin Rd Isla St
35
County Road 561
County Road 94
Newhaven Trl
Houston Ave Texas St Pearland Ave Mykawa Rd Julie Ann Dr Mclean Rd Southern Ln
Rose Rd
Autumn Forest Dr Quail Run Keithwood Cir W County Road 8 County Road 801 Manvel Rd Fm 1128 Rest Hom Westchester Cir Allen Linden Pl County Road Ann Ln
County Road 896
Harkey Rd Aspen Ln Autumn Ct
Livingston Dr
Kent Ln
County Road 555
ck
n Way
Arover
y Pk
County Hwy 564 Walter Laurel Ave
t Sta
County Hwy Cedarwood Dr
o ers Am
Ridgepoint Ct
wy eH
Vermont Marzia A
aC Matild r nD
35
Wells D
DEMAND ANALYSIS – HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET #18
A. DEMAND FOR TAX CREDIT HOUSING There are no clear or concise methodologies to forecast the need for Tax Credit housing. This is because housing markets are static with households often entering and exiting by tenure and economic profile. This position statement will discuss the potential pitfalls and limitations of various methodologies and present a recommended solution. There appear to be only two sources of demand for new Tax Credit housing. This is represented by a positive increase in income-qualified households and replacement of functionally obsolete product. The first source of demand is generally easily quantifiable but presents challenges to accurately forecast. This is especially true as we get further from the 2000 Census and development expands into previously undeveloped areas. The problem is further compounded by the fact that housing market analysts often fail to analyze income-appropriate household growth by household size. Projections based only on income often include estimates of smaller households even though they are over income-qualified due to their household size limitation (i.e. income analysis based on a five-person limit set at $46,000 will include two-person households with incomes above their maximum but below $46,000, thus overstating the number who are qualified). Therefore, caution should be exercised when considering income household growth alone. 1. Overstatement of demand A much larger challenge, and one that creates greater demand for Tax Credit housing, is replacement of functionally obsolete product. Unfortunately, measurement of this is very subjective and imprecise. However, in most inner-city locations or non-growth areas, this is the only need for Tax Credit units. The approval of Tax Credit units in these areas has created, in some instances, an overbuilt market that is characterized by high vacancy rates and low rents. However, this overbuilding only occurs when there is no corresponding decline in the existing housing stock. This decline could occur through demolition or replacement of functionally obsolete product.
III-699
It is easy to illustrate how a market can be impacted if rental household growth is minimal. Hypothetically, consider a market that has 1,000 income-appropriate rental housing units (under Tax Credit guidelines) with a current vacancy rate of 4% (or 40 vacant units). Assume a 150unit Tax Credit property of new construction is approved and built. This market then goes from a 1,000-unit market to a 1,150-unit market. Without any corresponding increase in income-qualified households or reduction in the existing supply by demolitions, condominium conversions, or some other use, the area vacancy rate goes from 4% to 16.5% (40+150/1,150). This is a very simplistic example but does illustrate the ease at which a market can get out of balance if it does not experience positive household growth. In the current environment, this has been compounded by the fact that some income-qualified households have left the rental housing market in favor of home ownership, a decline in younger, first-time renters due to profound demographic shifts, and, in some markets, a “doubling-up” of households to save on housing costs. This is particularly true in some inner-city markets where there has been a decline in the Housing Choice Voucher supply. This illustration also assumes an isolated market. Households, particularly rental households, are constantly on the move in response to jobs, educational opportunities, crime, quality of life, families, church, and a whole host of other factors. Thus, in the previous market illustration, this new 150-unit project would likely attract new households from outside the market as well as households improving their current housing. This creates vacancies in units with the lowest quality or in units with the lowest perception of value (i.e. properties priced well above the market). If, however, this hypothetical market approved 150-units to either replace or renovate an existing project (or projects), the market would remain in balance. The problem for analysts is establishing the appropriate number of units that should be replaced or renovated. Projecting too many units yields high penetration rates (the aggregate number of Tax Credit units compared to the number of income-qualified households) and precludes reasonable absorption and occupancy levels. If too few affordable units are developed, the market remains stagnant and tenants remain underserved.
III-700
2. Methodologies used to date A variety of methodologies have attempted to tackle this issue. Substandard units reported in the Census are one source. This is typically a very small number and does not accurately reflect functional obsolescence. The number of households who are rent overburdened is a second factor often considered. However, the Census makes no distinction for those households who have elected to be rent overburdened or those who are already housed in Tax Credit properties. Frankly, a sizeable share of tenants in Tax Credit properties are rent overburdened since the program does not specify the share of income used for rent. We have also reviewed methodologies that use turnover as a measure of demand. This methodology does nothing to address the issue of a balanced market. (Turnover is a good tool to forecast absorption of a project since it considers the number of renters in the market at one time considering a move). 3. Methodology based on replacement and growth It is our opinion that the only accurate macro approach to forecasting Tax Credit demand is to consider both new household growth of income-qualified households and replacement of functionally obsolete product. As discussed, household growth is generally easier to forecast than the number of functionally obsolete units. We propose to forecast functionally obsolete product by taking a share of the existing rental product over 35 years old (built in 1970 or older) and in need of replacement on an annual basis. Considering that the useful life of most residential product is 40 years, rental product built prior to 1970 can be considered as being functionally obsolete. The share of the product functionally obsolete is the issue. It is our opinion that approximately 2.5% (1/40) of the existing rental product that meets this criteria could be designated as functionally obsolete. This would essentially upgrade or replace 25% of this older housing stock over a decade, a reasonable time period. There are, like all methodologies, some obvious shortcomings. Without a complete field survey, it is impossible to establish whom this obsolete product is serving. Given its age, it is most likely serving tenants paying rents at the lowest third of the rent spectrum. This is likely at rent levels just below Tax Credit program rents. We argue that for practical reasons, all of these units would be appropriate to upgrade. Naturally, it is critical to preserve many of these older units with Rental Assistance.
III-701
Another shortcoming is that this methodology generally precludes older areas from experiencing new product since household growth is minimal or nonexistent. We recommend that if a developer builds new product, there must be a demonstration that a similar number of rental units have been taken out of the rental base through demolition or conversion to another use. It is our opinion that there is no benefit to only allow rehabilitations in older, inner-city areas without a corresponding decrease in the rental stock. Current new designs are more energy efficient, are innovative, often incorporate more appropriate allocations of space, and the use of more desirable unit and project amenities. 4. Conclusions There have been a wide variety of methodologies employed to address the component of replacement support for slow or no-growth markets. Most of these methodologies have used Census data to approximate demand. Unfortunately, while the methodologies have generated support numbers that appear reasonable, in practice they have contributed to overbuilding. The methodology proposed here only uses two components of demand: new income-appropriate household growth and replacement or renovation of existing product. We believe this will provide a more accurate guideline for establishing demand. It is important to note that any estimate of demand must be verified with a market study. Further, a development that proposes replacement support, must demonstrate through the market study or other verification that there has been a corresponding decline in the existing rental base. There may be problems reconciling applications responding to new household growth and those that respond to replacement. Subsequent “tie-breaker” criteria could be considered to address this issue. B. DETERMINATION OF INCOME ELIGIBILITY To determine demand from income-eligible households, we must first establish the income range required to qualify for residency in Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units for the Highway 288 South submarket. 1. Maximum Income Limits Under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, household eligibility is based on household income not exceeding the targeted percentage of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), depending upon household size.
III-702
The Highway 288 South submarket has a median household income of $61,000 for 2005 (Harris County). We have analyzed affordable housing demand for the following income cohorts: 0% to 30% AMHI, 31% to 40% AMHI, 41% to 50% AMHI, 51% to 60% AMHI, 61% to 80% AMHI, and 81% to 100% AMHI. The following table summarizes the maximum allowable income by household size for the Highway 288 South submarket at 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of AMHI.
HOUSEHOLD SIZE TARGETED AMHI 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCOME $12,810 $17,080 $21,350 $25,620 $34,150 $42,700 $14,640 $19,520 $24,400 $29,280 $39,050 $48,800 $16,470 $21,960 $27,450 $32,940 $43,900 $54,900 $18,300 $24,400 $30,500 $36,600 $48,800 $61,000 $19,770 $26,360 $32,950 $39,540 $52,700 $65,900
ONE-PERSON
TWO-PERSON
THREE-PERSON
FOUR-PERSON
FIVE-PERSON
The calculations presented in the report are based on a five-person household for the general population (family) and a two-person household for seniors age 55 and older.
III-703
2. Income-Appropriate Range Leasing industry standards typically require households to have rent to income ratios of 27% to 40%. Generally, market-rate properties require a lower rent to income ratio, while an acceptable rent to income ratio for low-income units is typically around 35%. However, to avoid overstating demand at any of the income levels, the minimum income is calculated as the maximum income of the previous band, with the exception of the 0% to 30% income band, which has a minimum income of $0. C. DEMAND CALCULATIONS The following tables summarize projected demand for affordable housing for all renter households from 2006 through 2009. Note the 2005 Baseline Total Renter Households includes all renter households, while the demand analysis only considers households earning up to 100% AMHI ($65,900). Therefore, the total Baseline Targeted Income-Qualified Renter Households for each income band will not total all renter households. For example, there were a total of 14,034 renter households in the Highway 288 South submarket in 2005; out of this total, 12,009 were income-qualified renter households. This results in 2,025 renter households earning above $65,900.
III-704
2005 BASELINE DEMAND – HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET BY GENERAL OCCUPANCY APPROPRIATE INCOME RANGE BY TARGETED AMHI 1-PERSON 2-PERSON 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 5+-PERSON BASELINE TOTAL RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (HISTA DATA) TARGETED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 1-PERSON 2-PERSON 3-PERSON 4-PERSON 5+-PERSON = BASELINE TARGETED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 0%-30%
($0-$12,810) ($0-$14,640) ($0-$16,470) ($0-$18,300) ($0-$19,770)
31% - 40%
($12,810-$17,080) ($14,640-$19,520) ($16,470-$21,960) ($18,300-$24,400) ($19,770-$26,360)
TARGETED AMHI 41% - 50% 51% - 60%
($17,080-$21,350) ($19,520-$24,400) ($21,960-$27,450) ($24,400-$30,500) ($26,360-$32,950) ($21,350-$25,620) ($24,400-$29,280) ($27,450-$32,940) ($30,500-$36,600) ($32,950-$39,540)
61% - 80%
($25,620-$34,150) ($29,280-$39,050) ($32,940-$43,900) ($36,600-$48,800) ($39,540-$52,700)
81% - 100%
($34,150-$42,700) ($39,050-$48,800) ($43,900-$54,900) ($48,000-$60,100) ($52,700-$65,900)
14,034 1,922 921 1,024 871 1,026 5,764
14,034 289 272 270 232 178 1,241
14,034 265 241 249 219 202 1,176
14,034 214 238 194 177 240 1,063
14,034 363 349 298 280 378 1,668
14,034 251 258 311 116 161 1,097
Based on the American Housing Survey, the estimated share of demand by bedroom type and household size in the Houston MSA is distributed as follows:
DEMAND BY BEDROOM AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE STUDIO / 1-BR. 2-BR. 3-BR. 67% 25% 8% 35% 46% 15% 16% 55% 22% 11% 45% 36% 10% 42% 31% 4-BR. 4% 7% 8% 17%
1-PERSON HH 2-PERSON HH 3-PERSON HH 4-PERSON HH 5+-PERSON HH
Source: American Housing Survey (Houston MSA, 1998) HH-Household
III-705
These percentages, applied to the number of income-qualified renter households in this submarket, are as follows:
DEMAND BY BEDROOM TYPE AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE STUDIO / 1-BR. 2-BR. 3-BR. 4-BR. 0%-30% 1,288 481 154 0 31%-40% 194 72 23 0 1-PERSON 41%-50% 178 66 21 0 HOUSEHOLD 51%-60% 143 54 17 0 61%-80% 243 91 29 0 81%-100% 168 63 20 0 0%-30% 322 424 138 37 31%-40% 95 125 41 11 41%-50% 84 111 36 10 2-PERSON HOUSEHOLD 51%-60% 83 109 36 10 61%-80% 122 161 52 14 81%-100% 90 119 39 10 0%-30% 164 563 225 72 31%-40% 43 149 59 19 41%-50% 40 137 55 17 3-PERSON HOUSEHOLD 51%-60% 31 107 43 14 61%-80% 48 164 66 21 81%-100% 50 171 68 22 0%-30% 96 392 314 70 31%-40% 26 104 84 19 41%-50% 24 99 79 18 4-PERSON HOUSEHOLD 51%-60% 19 80 64 14 61%-80% 31 126 101 22 81%-100% 13 52 42 9 0%-30% 103 431 318 174 31%-40% 18 75 55 30 41%-50% 20 85 63 34 5+-PERSON HOUSEHOLD 51%-60% 24 101 74 41 61%-80% 38 159 117 64 81%-100% 16 68 50 27 0%-30% 1,973 (34%) 2,291 (40%) 1,149 (20%) 353 (6%) 31%-40% 376 (30%) 525 (42%) 262 (21%) 79 (6%) 41%-50% 346 (29%) 498 (42%) 254 (22%) 79 (7%) TOTAL (%) 51%-60% 300 (28%) 451 (42%) 234 (22%) 79 (7%) 61%-80% 482 (29%) 701 (42%) 365 (22%) 121 (7%) 81%-100% 337 (31%) 473 (43%) 219 (20%) 68 (6%) 3,814 4,939 2,483 779 OVERALL TOTALS
TOTAL 1,923 289 265 214 363 251 921 272 241 238 349 258 1,024 270 249 195 299 311 872 233 220 177 280 116 1,026 178 202 240 378 161 5,766 1,242 1,177 1,064 1,669 1,097
III-706
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2006 DEMAND
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2006 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1YEAR) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2006 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2006 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR)**** 3-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR)**** 4-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR)**** 0%-30% ($0-$20,100) 31% - 40% ($13,000-$26,700) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($17,300-$33,400) ($21,700-$40,100) ($26,000-$53,500) ($34,700-$66,900)
5,764 5,827 63 63 5,764 63 5,827 6,133 5,827 0 (0%) 38 5,865 6,133 5,865 110 379 129 151 76
1,241 1,264 23 23 1,241 23 1,264 1,331 1,264 0 (0%) 21 1,285 1,331 1,285 24 69 21 29 15
1,176 1,199 23 23 1,176 23 1,199 1,262 1,199 0 (0%) 69 1,268 1,262 1,268 23 17 5 7 4
1,063 1,074 11 11 1,063 11 1,074 1,131 1,074 3 (0.3%) 388 1,465 1,131 1,465 20 -314 -89 -133 -69
1,668 1,691 23 23 1,668 23 1,691 1,780 1,691 85 (5.0%) 0 1,776 1,780 1,776 0 4 1 2 1
1,097 1,123 26 26 1,097 26 1,123 1,182 1,123 56 (5.0%) 0 1,179 1,182 1,179 0 3 1 1 1
23 4 1 -23 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-707
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2007 DEMAND
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2007 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2007 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2007 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS)**** 3-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS)**** 4-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS)**** 0%-30% ($0-$20,400) 31% - 40% ($13,200-$27,100) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% ($17,600-$33,900) ($22,000-$40,700) 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($26,400-$54,300) ($35,200-$67,900)
5,764 5,890 63 126 5,764 126 5,890 6,199 5,890 0 (0%) 38 5,928 6,199 5,928 221 493 169 196 98
1,241 1,287 23 46 1,241 46 1,287 1,355 1,287 0 (0%) 21 1,308 1,355 1,308 48 94 29 40 20
1,176 1,222 23 46 1,176 46 1,222 1,286 1,222 0 (0%) 69 1,291 1,286 1,291 45 40 11 17 9
1,063 1,086 11 23 1,063 23 1,086 1,143 1,086 3 (0.3%) 388 1,477 1,143 1,477 41 -293 -82 -124 -65
1,668 1,715 23 47 1,668 47 1,715 1,805 1,715 86 (5.0%) 0 1,800 1,805 1,800 0 5 2 2 1
1,097 1,149 26 52 1,097 52 1,149 1,209 1,149 57 (5.0%) 0 1,206 1,209 1,206 0 3 1 1 1
30 6 3 -22 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-708
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2008 DEMAND
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2008 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2008 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2008 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS)**** 3-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS)**** 4-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS)**** 0%-30% ($0-$20,700) 31% - 40% ($13,400-$27,500) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($17,800-$34,400) ($22,300-$41,300) ($26,800-$55,100) ($35,700-$68,900)
5,764 5,952 63 188 5,764 188 5,952 6,266 5,952 0 (0%) 38 5,990 6,266 5,990 331 606 207 241 121
1,241 1,310 23 69 1,241 69 1,310 1,379 1,310 0 (0%) 21 1,331 1,379 1,331 71 119 36 50 25
1,176 1,245 23 69 1,176 69 1,245 1,311 1,245 0 (0%) 69 1,314 1,311 1,314 68 64 19 27 14
1,063 1,097 11 34 1,063 34 1,097 1,154 1,097 3 (0.3%) 388 1,488 1,154 1,488 61 -273 -77 -116 -60
1,668 1,738 23 70 1,668 70 1,738 1,829 1,738 87 (5.0%) 0 1,825 1,829 1,825 0 5 2 2 1
1,097 1,174 26 77 1,097 77 1,174 1,236 1,174 59 (5.0%) 0 1,233 1,236 1,233 0 3 1 1 1
37 8 4 -20 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-709
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2009 DEMAND
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2009 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2009 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2009 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS)**** 3-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS)**** 4-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS)**** 0%-30% ($0-$21,000) 31% - 40% ($13,600-$27,900) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($18,100-$34,900) ($22,600-$41,900) ($27,200-$55,900) ($36,200-$69,900)
5,764 6,015 63 251 5,764 251 6,015 6,332 6,015 0 (0%) 38 6,053 6,332 6,053 441 720 247 286 143
1,241 1,333 23 92 1,241 92 1,333 1,403 1,333 0 (0%) 21 1,354 1,403 1,354 95 144 44 61 30
1,176 1,268 23 92 1,176 92 1,268 1,335 1,268 0 (0%) 69 1,337 1,335 1,337 90 88 26 37 19
1,063 1,108 11 45 1,063 45 1,108 1,166 1,108 3 (0.3%) 388 1,499 1,166 1,499 81 -252 -71 -107 -55
1,668 1,761 23 93 1,668 93 1,761 1,854 1,761 88 (5.0%) 0 1,849 1,854 1,849 0 5 2 2 1
1,097 1,200 26 103 1,097 103 1,200 1,263 1,200 60 (5.0%) 0 1,260 1,263 1,260 0 3 1 1 1
44 9 6 -19 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-710
The following tables summarize projected demand for affordable housing for senior households (55+) from 2006 through 2009.
2005 BASELINE DEMAND – HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET BY SENIOR (55+) OCCUPANCY APPROPRIATE INCOME RANGE BY TARGETED AMHI 1-PERSON 2-PERSON BASELINE TOTAL RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (HISTA DATA) TARGETED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 1-PERSON 2-PERSON = BASELINE TARGETED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 0%-30%
($0-$12,810) ($0-$14,640)
31% - 40%
TARGETED AMHI 41% - 50% 51% - 60%
61% - 80%
81% - 100%
($12,810-$17,080) ($17,080-$21,350) ($21,350-$25,620) ($25,620-$34,150) ($34,150-$42,700) ($14,640-$19,520) ($19,520-$24,400) ($24,400-$29,280 ($29,280-$39,050) ($39,050-$48,800
3,298 1,037 254 1,291
3,298 87 73 160
3,298 80 67 147
3,298 64 67 131
3,298 90 102 192
3,298 52 94 146
Based on the American Housing Survey, the estimated share of demand by bedroom type and household size in the Houston MSA is distributed as follows:
DEMAND BY BEDROOM AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE STUDIO / 1-BR. 2-BR. 1-PERSON HH 67% 25% 2-PERSON HH 35% 46%
Source: American Housing Survey (Houston MSA, 1998) HH-Households
III-711
These percentages, as applied to the number of income-qualified renter households age 55+ in this submarket, are as follows:
DEMAND BY BEDROOM TYPE AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE STUDIO / 1-BR. 2-BR. TOTAL 0%-30% 695 259 954 31%-40% 58 22 80 41%-50% 54 20 74 1-PERSON HH 51%-60% 43 16 59 61%-80% 60 23 83 81%-100% 35 13 48 0%-30% 89 117 206 31%-40% 26 34 60 41%-50% 23 31 54 2-PERSON HH 51%-60% 23 31 54 61%-80% 36 47 83 81%-100% 33 43 76 0%-30% 784 (68%) 376 (32%) 1,160 31%-40% 84 (60%) 56 (40%) 140 41%-50% 77 (60%) 51 (40%) 128 TOTAL (%) 51%-60% 66 (58%) 47 (42%) 113 61%-80% 96 (58%) 70 (42%) 166 81%-100% 68 (55%) 56 (45%) 124 1,175 656 OVERALL TOTALS
III-712
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2006 DEMAND (55+)
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2006 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1YEAR) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2006 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2006 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (1 YEAR)**** 0%-30% ($0-$14,900) 31% - 40% ($13,000-$19,800) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($17,300-$24,800) ($21,700-$29,700) ($26,000-$39,600) ($34,700-$49,500)
1,291 1,320 29 29 1,291 29 1,320 1,389 1,320 0 (0%) 12 1,332 1,389 1,332 30 88 60
160 168 8 8 160 8 168 176 168 0 (0%) 3 171 176 171 16 22 13
147 151 4 4 147 4 151 159 151 0 (0%) 25 176 159 176 15 -2 -1
131 134 3 3 131 3 134 141 134 0 (0.3%) 300 434 141 434 13 -280 -164
192 193 1 1 192 1 193 203 193 10 (5.0%) 0 203 203 203 0 1 1
146 159 13 13 146 13 159 167 159 8 (5.0%) 0 166 167 166 0 0 0
28 9 -1 -116 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. Further estimated by percentage of renters 55+. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-713
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2007 DEMAND (55+)
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2007 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2007 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2007 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (2 YEARS)**** 0%-30% ($0-$15,100) 31% - 40% ($13,200-$20,100) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($17,600-$25,100) ($22,000-$30,100) ($26,400-$40,200) ($35,200-$50,200)
1,291 1,348 29 57 1,291 57 1,348 1,419 1,348 0 (0%) 12 1,360 1,419 1,360 60 119 80
160 175 8 15 160 15 175 184 175 0 (0%) 3 178 184 178 33 39 23
147 155 4 8 147 8 155 163 155 0 (0%) 25 180 163 180 30 13 8
131 137 3 6 131 6 137 144 137 0 (0.3%) 300 437 144 437 27 -266 -155
192 195 1 3 192 3 195 205 195 10 (5.0%) 0 204 205 204 0 1 1
146 171 13 25 146 25 171 180 171 9 (5.0%) 0 180 180 180 0 0 0
39 16 5 -111 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. Further estimated by percentage of renters 55+. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-714
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2008 DEMAND (55+)
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2008 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2008 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2008 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (3 YEARS)**** 0%-30% ($0-$15,300) 31% - 40% ($13,400-$20,400) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($17,800-$25,500) ($22,300-$30,600) ($26,800-$40,800) ($35,700-$51,000)
1,291 1,377 29 86 1,291 86 1,377 1,449 1,377 0 (0%) 12 1,389 1,449 1,389 90 151 102
160 183 8 23 160 23 183 192 183 0 (0%) 3 186 192 186 49 56 34
147 158 4 11 147 11 158 167 158 0 (0%) 25 183 167 183 45 28 17
131 140 3 9 131 9 140 147 140 0 (0.3%) 300 440 147 440 40 -253 -148
192 196 1 4 192 4 196 206 196 10 (5.0%) 0 206 206 206 0 1 1
146 184 13 38 146 38 184 193 184 9 (5.0%) 0 193 193 193 0 0 0
49 22 11 -105 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. Further estimated by percentage of renters 55+. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-715
HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2009 DEMAND (55+)
I. GROWTH DEMAND HOUSEHOLD-BASED: 2005 TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 2009 TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS) II. TOTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95.0% OCCUPIED) MARKET 2005 INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (OCCUPIED UNITS) (+) NEW INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLD GROWTH OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN 2009 TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% OCCUPIED) MARKET III. EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT TOTAL OCCUPIED TARGETED RENTAL UNITS 2009 (+) ESTIMATED # OF VACANT UNITS (VACANCY %)* (+) PLANNED AND PROPOSED TARGETED UNITS DURING PROJECTION PERIOD** (=) NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT 0%-30% ($0-$15,500) 31% - 40% ($13,600-$20,700) 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100% ($18,100-$25,900) ($22,600-$31,000) ($27,200-$41,400) ($36,200-$51,700)
1,291 1,405 29 114 1,291 114 1,405 1,479 1,405 0 (0%) 12 1,417
160 190 8 30 160 30 190 200 190 0 (0%) 3 193
147 162 4 15 147 15 162 171 162 0 (0%) 25 187
131 143 3 12 131 12 143 151 143 0 (0.3%) 300 443
192 197 1 5 192 5 197 207 197 10 (5.0%) 0 207
146 196 13 50 146 50 196 206 196 10 (5.0%) 0 206
IV. TOTAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND TOTAL TARGETED RENTAL UNITS NEEDED FOR BALANCED (95% 1,479 200 171 151 207 206 OCCUPIED) MARKET 1,417 193 187 443 207 206 (-) TOTAL NET EXISTING TARGETED RENTAL PRODUCT 121 66 60 54 0 0 (+) 2.5% OF EXISTING RENTAL PRODUCT BUILT PRIOR TO 1970*** (=) TOTAL TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD 182 73 44 -239 1 1 (4 YEARS) STUDIO/1-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD 123 44 26 -140 1 1 (4 YEARS)**** 2-BR. TARGETED UNITS NEEDED OVER PROJECTION PERIOD (4 YEARS)**** 59 29 17 -100 0 0 Note: 2005 income-qualified households based on 2005 income limits. 2006-2009 income limits projected based on historical increase (2000-2005). * Units at 0% to 30% and 31% to 40% are assumed to be 100% occupied. The appropriate Tax Credit vacancy rate is applied to units at 41% to 50% and 51% to 60%. The submarket market-rate vacancy rate is applied to units at 61% to 100%. **Based on information obtained from TDHCA and local planning officials. Some unit mixes may be estimated. Units under construction at the date of this report were included in the above table. ***Estimated based on share of income-qualified renter households up to 60% AMHI. Further estimated by percentage of renters 55+. ****Based on share of demand by bedroom type calculated.
III-716
D. TAX CREDIT DEMAND SUMMARY The table below summarizes the preceding demand analysis. Note the net demand for senior units is included in the total net demand for all Tax Credit units. For example, out of a total demand of 448 units in 2006 at up to 40% AMHI, there is a demand for 110 units age-restricted to households 55 and older.
TAX CREDIT (0%-60%) DEMAND SUMMARY HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET 2006-2009 2006 TOTAL NET DEMAND FOR TAX CREDIT UNITS 0%-40% AMHI 448 TOTAL NET DEMAND FOR TAX CREDIT UNITS 41%-60% AMHI -298 TOTAL NET DEMAND FOR TAX CREDIT UNITS AGE-RESTRICTED TO 55 AND OLDER (0%-40% AMHI) TOTAL NET DEMAND FOR TAX CREDIT UNITS AGE-RESTRICTED TO 55 AND OLDER (41%-60% AMHI) 110 -282
2007 587 -253 158 -253
2008 726 -208 207 -224
2009 864 -164 255 -196
The table above indicates that TDHCA allocations since 2000 have largely met demand for Tax Credit units at 41% to 60% AMHI in the Highway 288 South submarket. It should be noted that most of the allocated units target households at 50% and 60% AMHI. In addition, many of the Tax Credit units currently under construction target elderly households. The greatest need in this submarket is for units targeting households at or below 40% AMHI. E. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS Persons with special needs, as defined by HUD, include persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS, elderly persons, frail elderly persons, persons with alcohol and/or drug addictions, victims of domestic violence, and public housing residents. Demand from elderly households was described in the previous section. Information on persons with HIV/AIDS, alcohol and/or drug addictions, and victims of domestic violence is typically difficult to obtain. Census data is available to estimate the number of persons with other types of disabilities. Based on 2000 Census data, it is estimated those persons age 16+ with a sensory or physical disability within the Highway 288 South submarket are as follows:
III-717
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES HIGHWAY 288 SOUTH SUBMARKET TOTAL CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS 16 YEARS OR OLDER SENSORY DISABILITY (BLINDNESS, DEAFNESS, VISION OR HEARING) PHYSICAL DISABILITY TOTAL PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Source: 2000 Census; Claritas; Vogt Williams & Bowen, LLC
NUMBER 96,072 4,462 12,086 16,548
PERCENTAGE 100% 5% 13% 18%
Note there may be some overlap in the above categories of disability, causing the total number to appear higher. We have not included mentally disabled residents since this group does not require a specific housing product. According to the 2000 Census, there are 16,548 persons aged 16 and older with either a sensory or physical disability. It is reasonable to assume caregivers and/or family members are providing services to these people and are therefore not in one-person households. According to Claritas, approximately 26.5% of all occupied housing units are renter-occupied. Applying this renter percentage to the number of persons with disabilities results in approximately 4,385 persons with disabilities living in renteroccupied households. Based on the above demand analysis, in 2005, approximately 85.6% of all renter households (12,009 income-qualified renter households / 14,034 total renter households) are income-qualified renter households. Applying 85.6% to the number of persons with disabilities living in renter households results in 3,754 income-qualified persons with a disability living in a renter-occupied household. This analysis is summarized below:
TOTAL PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (X) RENTER PERCENTAGE (=) RENTER HOUSEHOLDS WITH DISABLED RESIDENT (X) BASELINE TARGETED INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS (%) (=) TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES APPROPRIATE INCOME RANGE BY TARGETED AMHI % BASELINE TARGETED INCOMEQUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS X TOTAL INCOME-QUALIFIED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS WITH DISABLED RESIDENT 16,548 26.5% 4,385 85.6% 3,754
0%-30% 31% - 40% 41% - 50% 48.0% 3,754 1,802 10.3% 3,754 387 9.8% 3,754 368
51% - 60% 8.9% 3,754 334
61% - 80% 13.9% 3,754 522
81% - 100% 9.1% 3,754 341
III-718
The preceding analysis assumes persons with disabilities have incomes reflective of the general population. In reality, it is more likely persons with disabilities will have lower incomes than the general population; therefore, the preceding analysis understates the housing required to serve this component at lower incomes. If units were developed to 100% of the above level, a large number of vacancies would occur in the market since so many people are cared for in conventional units. We recommend a development target no more than 2% of total demand for special needs households. Due to the limitations of accurate information available pertaining to special needs households, we strongly recommend any planned project conduct extensive interviews with appropriate local service providers, caregivers, medical facilities, etc., to help determine the demand of special needs households within that market and the type or characteristics of the housing required. At this time, the existing Tax Credit properties in the Highway 288 South submarket contain a total of 133 for the disabled units. It is of note that 2% of 3,754 income-qualified persons with a disability living in a renteroccupied household is equal to 75 units. F. HURRICANE IMPACT ON SUBMARKET HOUSING DEMAND One major factor impacting the Houston MSA rental housing market at this time is the evacuees from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Based on interviews with local property managers and city officials, it appears that evacuees have significantly impacted Tax Credit properties in this submarket. According to property managers, there are at least 191 evacuees (10.5%) at the surveyed affordable properties. A majority of these households are using FEMA Vouchers. Therefore, occupancy rates at Tax Credit properties in the Highway 288/South Submarket may be negatively impacted after FEMA discontinues Voucher funding on March 1, 2006, unless tenants using Vouchers are also able to qualify under Tax Credit guidelines. The impact to the market-rate rental market has been minimal, with at least 58 evacuee households (2.0% of surveyed market-rate units). Many of the evacuees at market-rate properties are from corporate relocations. Most of the market-rate properties in this submarket do not accept FEMA Vouchers, which has likely minimized the impact of evacuees on the rental market.
III-719