A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF: COLUMBIA COUNTY,...

A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF: COLUMBIA COUNTY, NY

A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

OF: COLUMBIA COUNTY, NEW YORK Report Date: August 8, 2017 Prepared for: Mr. Bill Teator Capital Advocates, LLC 3 Aurora Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Assignment Code: CAP613V.001 Prepared by: Novogradac & Company LLP 11044 Research Blvd, Building C, Suite 400 Austin, Texas 78759 512-340-0420

August 8, 2017

Mr. Bill Teator Capital Advocates, LLC 3 Aurora Avenue Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Re: Housing Needs Assessment for the Columbia County, New York Dear Mr. Teator: At your request, Novogradac & Company LLP has performed a study of the housing market in Columbia County, New York. The purpose of this analysis, broadly, is to analyze the current and proposed housing supply and future housing needs in the city of Hudson and surrounding Columbia County. The report will be utilized to focus the County’s housing and development strategy and to utilize as supporting documentation for future grant requests. The following report provides support for the findings of the study and outlines the sources of information and the methodologies used to arrive at these conclusions. The scope of this report includes the following. 1) Housing Needs Analysis

a) Demographics and Economics: Quantify, analyze, and project pertinent demographic characteristics of households and economic attributes of the community. i) Population, socioeconomic, employment, age, educational attainment, etc. ii) Data on rent levels and unit sizes/types based on sample data collected from market. iii) Housing cost burden by housing tenure and household income (moderate cost burden: 31-50%

of gross income; severe cost burden: exceeds 50% of gross income) based on census data. b) Existing Housing Inventory/Quantify the Existing Housing Stock.

i) By tenure: rental (market rate, student-by-unit, student-by-bed, affordable/voucher-based, special needs), owner-occupied, on-campus student housing.

ii) By type: single-family, multi-family (identified by number of units, number of beds, manufactured, townhome, condominium, cluster, mobile) based on available data.

iii) By value: property valuation ranges in geographic concentrations, rental income generated via census data.

iv) By age, condition and amenities based on sample data from the market. v) Pending housing developments (subdivisions, multi-unit projects). vi) Collect data for inventory of subsidized rental housing.

c) Collect and Analyze Substandard Housing Conditions Data d) Public Housing Needs

i) Analyze the number of households in need of subsidized housing. ii) Assess condition of public housing available; to the extent possible. iii) Detail physical condition of subsidized projects; to the extent possible.

e) Homeless Needs. Determine the need for supportive housing and service to address homelessness in the County by demographic data available.

Mr. Bill Teator Capital Advocates, LLC August 2017 Page 2

f) Special Needs Housing. i) Estimate the number of types of special needs housing units required. Includes but is not limited

to: seniors, students, disabled, homeless. g) Housing Demand and Construction Need.

i) Determine the number and types of families in need of assistance. ii) Provide estimated construction need for low and moderate housing. iii) Identify existing housing costs for the area. iv) Priority Housing Needs – measure the relative priority based upon the numeric and proportional

need of each category. 2) Meeting Housing Needs.

a) Assess Current Affordable Housing Delivery System. i) Examine available federal, state and local housing programs and regulations.

b) Identify Barriers to Affordable Housing. c) Assessment and Recommendations.

i) Identify and summarize gaps, trends, and what is anticipated. ii) Provide public policy and action item recommendations related to the topics identified in items

above. Capital Advocates, LLC is the client in this engagement. We understand that they will use this document for various decision-making purposes, as outlined above; additional intended users include Columbia County. As our client, Capital Advocates, LLC owns this report and permission must be granted from them before another third party can use this document. We assume that by reading this report another third party has accepted the terms of the original engagement letter including scope of work and limitations of liability. We are prepared to modify this document to meet any specific needs of the potential users under a separate agreement. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any questions regarding the report or if Novogradac & Company LLP can be of further assistance. It has been our pleasure to assist you with this project. Respectfully submitted, Novogradac & Company LLP

Brad Weinberg, MAI, CVA, CRE Partner [email protected]

Lindsey Sutton Manager [email protected]

Meg Southern Junior Analyst [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Market Area Description .................................................................................................................................. 4 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................... 8

II. Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 11 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12

III. Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 15 IV. Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 33

Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 34 Sub-Market Maps ........................................................................................................................................... 35 Population Trends .......................................................................................................................................... 36 Household Trends .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Income Trends ................................................................................................................................................ 45

V. Housing Supply Characteristics.......................................................................................................................... 58 Housing Supply Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 59 Housing Market Overview .............................................................................................................................. 59 Single-Family Market Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 66 Rental Market ................................................................................................................................................. 77 Multifamily Market Rate Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 77 Affordable Rental Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 85 Special Needs Housing .................................................................................................................................. 95

VI. Future Housing Needs ......................................................................................................................................... 98 Future Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................... 99 Interviews with Local Stakeholders............................................................................................................... 99

VII. Housing Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 129 Housing Resources ......................................................................................................................................130 Housing Development Programs.................................................................................................................132

VIII. Recomendations ............................................................................................................................................... 137 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................138

Addendum A: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Addendum B: Qualifications of Consultants

I. INTRODUCTION

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT–COLUMBIA COUNTY

1

INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment The purpose of this analysis, broadly, is to analyze the current and proposed housing supply and future housing needs in the city of Hudson and surrounding Columbia County. The report will be utilized to focus the County’s housing and development strategy and as supporting documentation for future grant requests. The following report provides support for the findings of the study and outlines the sources of information and the methodologies used to arrive at these conclusions. Typical of many rural communities, Columbia County and smaller cities have struggled with providing adequate affordable housing options to meet the continual increase of demand for these housing options. Local officials and area residents have a common goal: to revitalize the local housing market by providing quality, affordable options for both prospective home owners and renter households by increasing the quality of life for all of the county’s residents while stimulating the local economy. Methodology The initial stages of research for the affordable housing needs assessment consisted of telephone interviews with various stakeholders including local non-profits, City departments, local developers, real estate agents, lenders, as well as property managers of apartment complexes in Columbia County. Market participants have been interviewed for information on occupancy, turnover, rent growth, concessions and asking rents at multifamily rental properties. Stakeholders were interviewed for information on the challenge of housing problems in Columbia County. We also used demographic and economic data to analyze trends in population, household growth, employment and unemployment, tenure patterns, and commuting patterns in the local area. Data sources included ESRI Business Information Solutions, the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the US Department of Labor, the US Census Bureau’s OnTheMap data mapping application, and US Census Bureau Building Permits. We also relied on the US Housing Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s 2016 Continuum of Care published reports for data on the homeless population in Columbia County. Our analysis of the age, condition, availability, and pricing of the local housing supply relied on data provided by ESRI Business Information Solutions, Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. (MRIS), the HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), RealtyTrac, and multiple listing services for local real estate, including but not limited to Zillow, Apartments.com, and Columbia-Greene Board of Realtors, Inc. These sources provided insight on the age of the existing housing stock in the city and the county, the percentage of housing in the area lacking complete plumbing facilities, the availability of classified rental housing, and trends in home values, asking rent growth and vacancy. Components of the Housing Needs Assessment The components of the housing needs assessment will consist of the following: economic analysis, demographic characteristics, housing supply characteristics, future housing needs, housing resources, and strategies and recommendations. After an introduction summarizing the market areas that will be examined, the first major section of this report, the Economic Analysis, will include employment trends, industries of employment, major employers, notable expansions/contractions, and commuting/migration patterns of the area’s employment base. This analysis will examine these characteristics and their effect on housing needs in the county. The second major section of the assessment, Demographic Characteristics, will analyze demographic characteristics (population, household, and income data) of Columbia County and the City of Hudson area. All market areas will be defined in the section following.


2

The third and fourth sections of the Housing Needs Assessment, the Housing Supply Characteristics and Future Housing Needs, will primarily focus on two categories of information: the county’s existing housing need as well as the county’s projected housing need. Information encompassed in this section of the report will include characteristics of current renter and owner-occupied housing stock such as type, condition, pricing patterns, foreclosure information, pricing, and functional utility among other items. An overall projection of the county’s housing needs will be presented. The remaining sections of the report, the Housing Resources and Strategies and Recommendations, will offer suggestions and action steps, including financing options, for development/redevelopment of the area’s housing stock.


3

Data Sources 2000 U.S. Census 2000 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ESRI Business Information Solutions 2004 Estimates and Projections, 9/2006 Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. (MRIS) Novogradac & Company, Rent and Income Limit Calculator Other agencies and individual contacted for this study include but are not limited to the following: Columbia Opportunities, Inc. Columbia Economic Development Corporation Columbia County Housing Authority Hudson Development Corporation& Planning Agency Hudson Housing Authority Red Apple Realty Hillsdale Housing Committee Columbia County Planning Department Galvan Housing Resources New York State Homes and Community Renewal Valley Mortgage St. Catherine’s Center for Children Columbia County Chamber of Commerce The Columbia County Industrial Development Agency Capital Resource Corporation Columbia County Public Schools Columbia County Department of Social Services Columbia-Greene Board of Realtors, Inc. Mental Health Association of Columbia-Greene Counties, Inc.

State of New York Section 8 Rental Assistance Program


4

MARKET AREA DESCRIPTION Columbia County, New York is located in east central New York approximately 131 miles north of New York City and borders Massachusetts and Connecticut to the east. The city of Hudson, which has a population of approximately 6,823 per the 2010 U.S. Census, is the county seat of Columbia County and is one of the most populated towns within the county. Two towns, Greenport and Athens, border the city of Hudson to the north and east, respectively. Greenport is located in Columbia County and has a population of approximately 2,053. Athens is located to the west across the Hudson River in Greene County and has a population of approximately 4,089. The area’s economy is largely reliant on the healthcare/social assistance, retail trade, and educational services sectors. According to the United States’ Census Bureau, Columbia County has an estimated 2017 population of approximately 65,349 people and measures approximately 648 square miles. The county is accessible via four major thoroughfares in the region: Interstate 87, Interstate 90, Highway 9, and Highway 987G/21C, otherwise known as Taconic State Parkway. There are several other smaller state highways throughout the county. Interstate 87 runs north/south west of Columbia County in Greene County. Interstate 87 terminates at the US-Canada border to the north of Champlain, New York, and in New York City to the south. Interstate 90 meets Interstate 87 outside of Selkirk, New York north of Columbia County and runs east through the northeast corner of Columbia County to Massachusetts. Interstate 90 continues east through Massachusetts and terminates in Boston. Highway 9 runs north/south through Columbia County passing the city of Hudson to the east. Highway 9 provides access to Poughkeepsie to the south and to Schodack Center in Rensselaer County to the north. Taconic State Parkway runs north/south through Columbia County, terminating in Elmsford, New York to the south and at the intersection with Interstate 90 north of East Chatham in Columbia County to the north. There are several other communities located in Columbia County, including Germantown, Clermont, Ancram, Copake, Hillsdale, Craryville, Philmont, Stockport, Ghent, Chatham, East Chatham, Valatie, Kinderhook, and New Lebanon. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, these towns typically range in population from approximately 1,310 to 8,498 people, with Kinderhook having the largest population at approximately 8,498. Following is a map of the region as well as of Columbia County and its various identified submarkets. A summary of the county’s existing infrastructure is also provided following.


5

Regional Map

Source: Google Earth, April 2017.

100 mi

Columbia County


6

Columbia County Map The following map illustrates Columbia County.



7

PMA MAP The following map illustrates Columbia County as well as the boundaries of the City of Hudson (shaded in blue).

Source: Google Earth, April 2017. Columbia County Summary Columbia County is located in southeast central New York along the Hudson River, southeast of Albany, and immediately west of the Massachusetts border. It is surrounded by Greene County to the west, Dutchess County to the south, Rensselaer County to the north, and the Massachusetts and Connecticut state boundaries to the east. Columbia County contains an area of approximately 648 square miles. The county is accessible from points north and south via the Taconic State Parkway, which is a limited-access highway that is not accessible to trucks or commercial traffic. Access to Columbia County from points east and west is via Interstate 90, which connects the county to Albany, New York to the west and Boston, Massachusetts to the east. Columbia County forms the Hudson, NY micropolitan statistical area and is part of the Albany-Schenectady, NY combined statistical area (CSA).


8

According to ESRI demographics, Columbia County has a 2017 population of approximately 65,349 people. The county’s median household income is $58,428. According to ESRI demographics, 71.3 percent of residential structures (2,336 units) in Columbia County were built before 1980, 34.8 percent of the housing stock in Columbia County was built before 1939. Since 2005, 124 residential structures have been built in Columbia County. City of Hudson Summary Hudson is the county seat of Columbia County, New York. It is the second-largest population center in the county after the town of Kinderhook. Hudson is located along the western border of Columbia County on the Hudson River. According to ESRI demographics, 63.3 percent of residential structures (2,243 units) in the city of Hudson were built before 1939. Comparatively, 34.8 percent of the housing stock in Columbia County was built before 1939. Additionally, only 3.5 percent of Hudson’s residential structures have been constructed since 2005. The housing stock within the city exhibits poor to average condition, with the majority of improvements exhibiting poor to fair condition due to various reasons, which include, but are not limited to the following: low median household income ($36,262 in 2017 in the city of Hudson, compared to $58,428 in Columbia County and $54,149 nationally), which contributes to lack of proper upkeep, absentee landlords, and functional obsolescence attributable to the age of the area’s housing stock. Additionally, according to American Fact Finder, a division of the United States Census Bureau, the city of Hudson (zip code 12534) has an overall housing vacancy rate of 16.2 percent as of 2015, which suggests a level of disinvestment. Hudson’s riverfront location and historic architecture have contributed to its recent success as a tourism destination. Tourism has bolstered the city’s arts and entertainment, retail trade, and accommodation/food service industries. The historic areas of the city contributing to tourism’s success are recognized and protected in municipal code. The City of Hudson has designated six historic districts within city limits that include much of the downtown area between Front Street and Prospect Avenue. These areas possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically by past events or united aesthetically by plan or development. Work to buildings and sites within these areas must be approved by the City of Hudson’s Historic Preservation Commission. INFRASTRUCTURE Transportation Columbia County Public Transit operates three fixed-route bus services in the area. The Hudson/Greenport Shopping Shuttle provides bus service to shops and restaurants within the city of Hudson Monday through Saturday. The bus route includes stops at the multifamily properties Crosswinds of Hudson and Providence Hall, on Front Street, the Amtrak Station on Warren Street, the offices of Columbia County Department of Social Services, Hudson High School, Shop Rite grocery store, Dollar General, the Salvation Army, and several other retail locations in the city of Hudson. Bus fare for the Hudson/Greenport Shopping Shuttle is $2.00 per ride. Columbia County Public Transit also provides bus service to other areas of the county Monday through Thursday. Monday bus service provides transportation between Philmont Terrace apartments, Richardson Hall, Claverack Town Hall, Mellenville Post Office, Claverack Post Office and Shop Rite in Hudson. The Monday route operates between 8:30 am and 12:40 pm. The Tuesday route operates between Germantown, Hudson, Stottville, and Stuyvesant, offering stops at the Amtrak rail station in Hudson and various retail stores in the Greenport area. The Tuesday route operates between 8:20 am and 2:00 pm. Wednesday bus service provides transportation between Ancramdale, retail areas in Greenport, the rail station in Hudson, and the town of Copake. This route operates between 7:30 am and 3:00 pm. Thursday bus service operates between trailer parks near Whittier, Greenport Manor, Greenport area retail, and the


9

rail station and retail areas of Hudson. The Thursday route operates between 8:20 am and 2:00 pm. Bus fare for these routes is $2.00 per ride. Columbia County Public Transit also operates a commuter shuttle between Hudson, Greenport, Stottville, Columbiaville, Kinderhook, Valatie, Shodack, Broadway, and the State Office Campus and Empire State Plaza in Albany. These routes operate daily between 6:15 am and 6:15 pm and stop in each location between once and four times a day. Bus fare for the commuter shuttle ranges from $2.00 to $5.50 per ride. Columbia County Public Transit will deviate from its bus route up to three-quarters of a mile off of the regular route to pick up individuals who cannot get to a scheduled pick-up location. Passengers can contact the central office to make arrangements to be picked up in locations off of the regular route. Columbia County Airport is located northeast of Hudson’s central business district and is an untowered general aviation airport. Columbia County Airport is publicly owned and operated by Richmor Aviation. The County of Columbia’s Department of Public Works is responsible for its operation. The nearest commercial airport is Albany International Airport located in Albany, New York approximately 46.9 miles north of Hudson. This airport is the major air center for New York’s capital region, northeastern New York, and western New England. Albany International is serviced by major commercial airlines, including American Airlines, Cape Air, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines. The airport has approximately 55 daily commercial airline arrivals. Columbia County is also serviced by Amtrak’s Northeastern Regional line, which provides daily service to Hudson from Penn Station, New York City, Boston, Massachusetts, and Albany, New York. The Amtrak station is located on South Front Street in the city of Hudson. Government Towns and wards within Columbia County elect members to a County Board of Supervisors, which is the official governing body of Columbia County. Supervisors on the County Board receive weighted votes respective to the population of the town or ward they represent. The city of Hudson is the county seat of Columbia County. Hudson is the second largest city in Columbia County. Of particular relevance to this study, the city of Hudson has adopted guidelines in its City Code designed to protect the existing building stock within city limits. The City of Hudson has designated six historic districts within city limits that include much of the downtown area between Front Street and Prospect Avenue. Work to buildings and sites within these areas must be approved by the City of Hudson’s Historic Preservation Commission. Building permits for areas within these historic districts are only issued once a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Historic Preservation Commission. The City’s Building Code Enforcement Officer periodically inspects any work to assure compliance with the Historic Preservation Commission’s guidelines. The City code does not prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature which does not involve a change in design, material, color, or outward appearance. Thus, no owner or person with an interest in real property within a historic district is permitted to allow the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the historic district or the life and character of the property itself. Failure to comply with any of the provisions in the City code for historic preservation is subject to a fine of $250 for each day the violation continues, and property owners will be required to restore the property and site to its appearance prior to the violation. Violation of City code pertaining to historic preservation is actionable by the City Attorney. Much of city’s existing housing stock is located within a designated historic district, and is thus subject to these guidelines.


10

Education Columbia County offers public primary and secondary education in six school districts throughout the county. These six school districts include Chatham Central, Germantown Central, Hudson City Schools, Ichabod Crane Central, New Lebanon Central, and Taconic Hills Central. The Hudson City Schools district includes John L. Edwards Primary School, Montgomery C. Smith Intermediate School, Hudson Junior High School, and Hudson High School. As of March 24, 2017, Columbia County is undertaking Phase I of its recently-approved Hudson City School District Capital Project. Phase I includes plans for a new track/athletic facility and renovations at M.C. Smith Intermediate School in advance of the move of Grade 2 from John L Edwards Primary School in September. Columbia-Greene Community College in Greenport is the area’s sole institution of higher education. Columbia-Greene Community College is a public, two-year community college governed by the State University of New York (SUNY). The College offers 33 associate degree programs and five undergraduate certificate programs, and is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Its annual enrollment is approximately 2,800 students. Bard College, though not located within Columbia County, has a presence in the City of Hudson through initiatives of Greater Hudson Promise Neighborhood and the Bridge School (ATP). Greater Hudson Promise Neighborhood is a nonprofit organization that works to create sustainable school-community solutions for children and families within the Hudson City School District through strategic partnerships with other local organizations. Organizations affiliated with the Greater Hudson Promise Neighborhood work to improve academic achievement, strengthen parental engagement, promote physical, emotional, and social well-being to develop leaders for 21st century careers and establish safe, healthy environments. The Greater Hudson Promise Neighborhood operates initiatives that include a mobile library, after school programs, and mentoring programs. Medical Columbia County’s major healthcare facilities are located in Hudson and include Columbia Memorial Hospital, HRHCare Health Center, and Columbia County Mental Health Center. Columbia Memorial Hospital is located in Hudson and offers 192 beds, as well as 40 care centers including 17 primary care and 23 specialty care centers. HRHCare Health Center is a network of health center throughout the Hudson Valley and Long Island offering family medicine, pediatrics, geriatric medicine, internal medicine, nutrition counseling, health education, dentistry, psychiatry, drug and alcohol recovery services, obstetrics and midwifery, gynecology, as well as a host of specialty services and programs. Columbia County Mental Health Center is located in Hudson and provides residents of Columbia County with clinical services including family and couples counseling, group therapy, psychiatric evaluations, medication management, anger management, and children’s case management and adult care coordination. The Mental Health Center also has satellite locations in Valatie and in the Hudson City School District, Taconic Hills Central School District, and Germantown Central School District. Retail/Commercial Centers Given the rural nature of Columbia County, retail and commercial centers are sparse. Commercial centers within the county are concentrated in and around Hudson. Warren Street and Columbia Street are the city of Hudson’s major commercial and retail corridors, and include myriad local restaurants, bed and breakfast establishments, a US Post Office, specialty grocery stores, and banks. Fairview Plaza is the major shopping center in the area and is located in Greenport and offers retail such as Peebles, a UPS Store, Sears, Payless ShoeSource, a Hallmark Gallery, and Shop Rite. A Walmart Supercenter, Kohl’s, PetSmart, and Lowe’s Home Improvement are located further north on Route 9. Gas stations and locally-owned grocery stores are located throughout Columbia County.

II. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS


12

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Economic Analysis Employment within Columbia County is concentrated in the healthcare/social assistance, retail trade, and educational services sectors. Columbia County lost approximately 2,000 jobs, during the recent national recession between 2007 and 2009, which exceeded the nation in terms of a percentage of total employment. The city and county’s largest employment sectors, healthcare/social assistance, retail trade, and educational services, grew modestly in the past 10 years. Of note, the tourism sector has made marked employment gains over the past five years. Employment growth in these sectors affirms our interviews with local stakeholders who spoke of the area’s flourishing arts and tourism industries. The overall outlook for the economy of the city of Hudson and Columbia County is positive. While the area has not yet recovered its total job losses from the most recent national recession, the area is experiencing lower unemployment rates than the nation, which has been attributed to people dropping out of the workforce and the high percentage of self-employment. However, the continued growth of the area’s top three employment sectors and burgeoning employment growth in industries related to tourism and technology suggest that the economy of the city of Hudson and Columbia County is in a period of growth and recovery. Demographic Characteristics The demographic data demonstrates that both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are projected areas of growth in terms of population and households through 2021. One- and two-person households make up the majority of households in the city of Hudson and Columbia County. One-person households represent the single largest group of households in the city of Hudson while two-person households represent the largest group of households in Columbia County. Average household size is expected to grow marginally through 2021 in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County, and will continue to lag the nation in both areas. The median household income in the city of Hudson is below median household income in both Columbia County and the nation. Household income in the city of Hudson is concentrated in the cohorts earning between $10,000 and $39,999, while household income in Columbia County is concentrated in the cohorts earning between $60,000 and $124,999. Renter households in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are concentrated in the income cohorts earning between $10,000 and $39,999. Renter household income is expected to remain concentrated in these cohorts through 2021. Median household income in Columbia County is expected to continue outpacing the city of Hudson and the nation through 2021, while median income in the city of Hudson will continue to lag both the nation and Columbia County over the same period. Housing Supply and Characteristics We believe there are three types of housing that are in short supply in the area: good quality moderate-income owner-occupied single-family homes, good quality mixed-income family rental housing throughout Columbia County, and supportive housing for the disabled and homeless. The existing supply of moderate-income single-family homes is very limited, and the existing mixed-income family housing stock is in fair to average condition. Subsidized rental housing is available throughout the county, but many subsidized properties are limited to senior and disabled tenants. There are a significant number of households in Columbia County and the city of Hudson that are income-qualified for each identified type of housing. Building permits for Hudson and Columbia County have decreased significantly, though multifamily housing units are becoming more prevalent. This does not necessarily indicate new construction of good quality multifamily housing stock, however, as the number of multifamily permits issued includes redevelopment of


13

existing buildings for multifamily non-traditional housing. Additional details are located in the Housing Supply and Future Housing Needs section of this report. Future Housing Development Needs There are a significant number of households in Columbia County and the city of Hudson that are income-qualified for each of the three identified types of housing currently in short supply in the area. Additional details are located in the Future Housing Needs section of this report. The table following summarizes the anticipated need of housing units for Columbia County’s future housing stock either new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of existing housing stock across both the general and senior population through 2021. Note that this calculation is for multifamily rental housing with units set at 60 percent of AMI and all lower subsidies.

Barriers/Challenges to Housing Based upon our analysis of the market and interviews with key stakeholders, there are several barriers and challenges that should be considered because they negatively affect the housing market in Columbia County and the city of Hudson. There is no single factor that can prevent or reduce barriers, but any initiative taken to promote the preservation of the existing housing stock in addition to promoting new construction should be taken. Barriers include:

- Lack of newer, high-quality multifamily rental housing. - Credit worthiness of potential buyers for homeownership (or renters).

Unit Type

60% AMI Without Subsidy

– Multifamily Rental

Market Rate Units – Multifamily

Rental

Owner Occupied Single-Family

Homes

Special Needs Units –

Multifamily Rental

1BR 122 89 - -

2BR 95 69 - -

3BR 28 21 - -

4BR 18 13

5BR 11 8

Single-Family Homes - - 50 -

Unspecified - - - 100

Total 275 200 50 100

Unit Type




Rental


Homes


Multifamily Rental

1BR 36 50 - -

2BR 14 19 - -

Total 50 70 - -

PROJECTED ANNUAL HOUSING NEEDS SUMMARYColumbia County - General Population

Columbia County - Senior Population (65+)


14

- Cost to individuals including cost burdens such as paying over 30 percent of monthly income for rent/mortgage payment and utilities.

- Limited supply of moderate income homes in the area. - Inferior housing stock keeps low-income families in substandard housing. - Influx of affluent second homeowners raising home values throughout the county. - Decreasing availability of affordable rental housing in the city of Hudson proper.

Recommendations In order to address the area’s future housing needs, in light of the aforementioned barriers and challenges, we have established the following recommendations. Specific action steps and potential funding sources are detailed later in this report. #1: Preserve the city of Hudson and Columbia County’s existing single-family housing stock. #2: Enhance housing and amenities in downtown Hudson and the other villages and towns throughout Columbia County. #3: Improve building code enforcement within the city of Hudson and other areas of Columbia County. #4: Create additional, good quality mixed-income housing in the Hudson area.

III. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS


16

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The following section discusses the economic characteristics of Hudson. Hudson is the county seat of Columbia County, New York. It is located approximately 67 miles northwest of Hartford, Connecticut, 49 miles south of Albany, New York, 108 miles north of New York City, and 39 miles north of Poughkeepsie, New York. As of 2010 census, the town population was 6,713. The local economy is reliant on the healthcare/social assistance, retail trade, and educational services sectors.

Source: Google Earth, April 2017 Economic Characteristics The city of Hudson is home to a variety of large industries. Some of the best represented industries in the city of Hudson include the healthcare/social assistance, retail trade, and educational services industries. According to ESRI Demographics, these three industries total 49.8 percent of total employment in the city of Hudson. Warren Street is the center of Hudson’s business district and is home to antique stores, home furnishing shops, art galleries, restaurants, and performance spaces. Historically, Hudson’s economy was based in whaling, fishing, and shipbuilding, which were supported by the city’s proximity to the Hudson River. The city’s deep water port along the Hudson River allowed these industries to prosper, and Hudson was one of New York’s primary shipping and manufacturing centers into the 20th century. Currently, the city’s economy is concentrated in the healthcare/social assistance, retail


17

trade, and educational services industries. Columbia County was significantly impacted by the most recent national recession. Following national trends, total employment in Columbia County declined every year between 2007 and 2011, with the exception of 2009 to 2010. Total employment in Columbia County reached its lowest point in 2009, having fallen 6.5 percent from its peak in 2006. Manufacturing has experienced the greatest change in the city of Hudson, as 478 manufacturing jobs were lost between 2000 and 2017. Other industries experiencing employment contractions in the past 17 years include real estate/rental/leasing, construction, and wholesale trade. Conversely, industries experiencing the greatest growth in Hudson include the retail trade, accommodation/food services, and administration/support/waste management sectors. Our interviews with local stakeholders indicate that Hudson’s tourism industry is flourishing, affirming the growth of those industries which support tourism in the area. Unemployment in Columbia County reached its peak of 7.3 percent in 2009. Unemployment in the county has decreased each year since then, reaching its pre-recession low of 3.7 percent in 2016. Between February 2016 and February 2017 unemployment in the county grew by approximately 0.3 percent. The 2017 year-to-date average suggests unemployment in Columbia County is approximately 4.5 percent, which is 0.5 percent lower than unemployment in the nation. Our interviews with local stakeholders suggest that unemployment data potentially belies the reality of unemployment in the county, as many county residents have ceased to seek regular employment and are instead employed by second homeowners from outside the county to do odd jobs. According to a report provided by the Columbia Economic Development Corporation in July 2017, the four industries currently targeted for growth are agribusiness, creative economy (arts and entertainment), technology, and tourism. Recent growth in tourism and second homeownership in Hudson and Columbia County has supported the growth of the arts and entertainment, retail trade, and accommodation/food service industries as well. As Columbia County’s economy continues to expand in these industries, there is ongoing need for a local workforce able to fill midlevel manufacturing, service sector, and healthcare jobs offering salaries between $35,000 and $65,000. Additional information on employment expansion and contraction is discussed within this section of the report. In an effort to stimulate further growth in the region, Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) offers numerous incentives for business owners in several industries. Among these incentives are favorable financing programs, small business microloans, revolving loans, a small business incubator and support programs, as well as workforce training. In addition to employment opportunities in the immediate area, potential renters in Columbia County have access to good regional employment opportunities. As discussed on page 25, the average travel time for employed individuals in Columbia County is 18 minutes. However, approximately ten percent of commuters travel more than 45 minutes to work, suggesting that some individuals in Columbia County commute to larger cities in the region such as Albany or Hartford. The overall outlook for the city of Hudson and Columbia County is positive. While the area has not yet recovered its total job losses from the recent recession, total employment is growing and unemployment is contracting. The area appears to be in a period of growth and recovery. Employment by Industry The following table identifies employment by industry sector within the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation. The three largest industries of employment in each market area are highlighted in yellow.


18

Employment within the City of Hudson at large is concentrated in the healthcare, retail trade, and educational services sectors, similar to employment concentration in the nation. These three industries comprise 49.8 percent of employment county-wide. The healthcare/social assistance, retail trade, and public administration sectors are overrepresented in the city of Hudson compared to employment in the nation. Conversely, the manufacturing, educational services, professional/scientific/technology, finance/insurance, construction, and administration/support/waste management services sectors are underrepresented in the city of Hudson when compared to employment in the nation. Growth by Industry The following tables illustrate the change in total employment by sector in the City of Hudson and in Columbia County from 2000 to 2017, respectively. The following table illustrates the change in total employment by sector in the City of Hudson from 2000 to 2017.

City of Hudson Columbia County USAAgric/Forestry/Fishing/Hunting 1.9% 4.3% 1.5%

Mining 0.0% 0.1% 0.5%Construction 1.8% 7.2% 6.2%

Manufacturing 4.1% 5.4% 10.2%Wholesale Trade 2.3% 1.8% 2.7%

Retail Trade 15.7% 11.9% 11.3%Transportation/Warehousing 3.8% 2.8% 4.0%

Utilities 0.4% 0.9% 0.9%Information 1.8% 1.4% 1.9%

Finance/Insurance 3.3% 3.4% 4.6%Real Estate/Rental/Leasing 0.6% 1.2% 1.9%Prof/Scientific/Tech Services 4.0% 6.2% 6.8%

Mgmt of Companies/Enterprises 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt Srvcs 3.0% 2.8% 4.3%

Educational Services 8.4% 10.1% 9.5%Healthcare/Social Assistance 25.7% 19.0% 14.1%

Arts/Entertainment/Recreation 2.8% 3.1% 2.3%Accommodation/Food Services 7.7% 5.3% 7.6%Other Services (excl Publ Adm) 4.5% 4.9% 4.9%

Public Administration 8.0% 8.2% 4.7%Total Employment 3,005 32,675 151,387,682

Source: Esri Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017

2017 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY


19

IndustryNumber

Employed Percent

EmployedNumber

EmployedPercent

EmployedGrowth

Annualized Percent

Healthcare/Social Assistance 585 20.8% 772 25.7% 187 1.9%Retail Trade 250 8.9% 473 15.7% 223 5.2%

Educational Services 189 6.7% 252 8.4% 63 2.0%Public Administration 186 6.6% 241 8.0% 55 1.7%

Accommodation/Food Services 144 5.1% 231 7.7% 87 3.6%Other Services (excl Publ Adm) 99 3.5% 136 4.5% 37 2.2%

Manufacturing 601 21.3% 123 4.1% -478 -4.7%Prof/Scientific/Tech Services 75 2.7% 121 4.0% 46 3.6%Transportation/Warehousing 113 4.0% 115 3.8% 2 0.1%

Finance/Insurance 67 2.4% 100 3.3% 33 2.9%Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt Srvcs 63 2.2% 91 3.0% 28 2.6%

Arts/Entertainment/Recreation 50 1.8% 83 2.8% 33 3.9%Wholesale Trade 75 2.7% 70 2.3% -5 -0.4%

Agric/Forestry/Fishing/Hunting 51 1.8% 57 1.9% 6 0.7%Construction 110 3.9% 55 1.8% -55 -2.9%

Real Estate/Rental/Leasing 48 1.7% 19 0.6% -29 -3.6%Utilities 0 0.0% 11 0.4% 11 0.0%Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total Employment 2,816 100.0% 3,005 100.0% 189 0.4%Source: Esri Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017*Industry data current as of 2010. Other projections current as of 2017.* Change in percentage is calculated as a rate of change by industry.

2000-2017 CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT - CITY OF HUDSON2000 2017 2000-2017

IndustryNumber

Employed Percent

EmployedNumber

EmployedPercent

Employed

Annualized Change in

Employment

Annual Change in

PercentageAgric/Forestry/Fishing/Hunting 888 3.0% 1,411 4.3% 31 3.5%

Mining 35 0.1% 48 0.1% 1 2.2%Construction 2,588 8.7% 2,342 7.2% -14 -0.6%

Manufacturing 3,083 10.4% 1,780 5.4% -77 -2.5%Wholesale Trade 802 2.7% 578 1.8% -13 -1.6%

Retail Trade 3,173 10.7% 3,897 11.9% 43 1.3%Transportation/Warehousing 1,184 4.0% 903 2.8% -17 -1.4%

Utilities 168 0.6% 286 0.9% 7 4.1%Information 883 3.0% 472 1.4% -24 -2.7%

Finance/Insurance 1,159 3.9% 1,103 3.4% -3 -0.3%Real Estate/Rental/Leasing 318 1.1% 405 1.2% 5 1.6%

Prof/Scientific/Tech Services 1,740 5.9% 2,010 6.2% 16 0.9%Mgmt of Companies/Enterprises 0 0.0% 13 0.0% 1 0.0%

Admin/Support/Waste Mgmt Srvcs 630 2.1% 923 2.8% 17 2.7%Educational Services 2,840 9.6% 3,294 10.1% 27 0.9%

Healthcare/Social Assistance 4,414 14.9% 6,192 19.0% 105 2.4%Arts/Entertainment/Recreation 628 2.1% 1,012 3.1% 23 3.6%Accommodation/Food Services 1,329 4.5% 1,730 5.3% 24 1.8%Other Services (excl Publ Adm) 1,419 4.8% 1,600 4.9% 11 0.8%

Public Administration 2,306 7.8% 2,676 8.2% 22 0.9%Total Employment 29,587 100.0% 32,675 100.0% 182 0.6%

Source: Esri Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, August 2017*Industry data current as of 2010. Other projections current as of 2017.* Change in percentage is calculated as a rate of change by industry.

2000 2017 2000-20172000-2017 CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT - COLUMBIA COUNTY


20

The industries that have experienced the most employment growth over the past several years are retail trade, arts/entertainment/recreation, and accommodation/food services. In contrast, the manufacturing, construction, and real estate/rental/leasing have seen the largest employment losses in the city of Hudson, which is consistent with slowed economic growth during the most recent national recession. Major Employers The following table details the largest employers in Columbia County.

Three of the county’s top five largest employers are located in the city of Hudson, including Columbia Memorial Hospital, Columbia County, and Hudson City School District. Major employers are also concentrated in Greenport, which boasts six of the top 22 major employers in the county. The county’s major employers represent the healthcare/social assistance, government, educational services, and agriculture industries. According to information provided by the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC), much of Columbia County’s population is employed outside of the county. The following table details the largest employers in the Capital Region of New York, which includes Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, and Washington counties, New York.

# Company City Number of Employees1 Columbia Memorial Hospital Hudson 1,1002 Columbia County Hudson 1,0003 Taconic Farms Inc Germantown 6504 Berkshire Farm Center Canaan 4865 Hudson City School District Hudson 3976 Chatham Central School Chatham 3887 Ichabod Crane Central School Kinderhook 3608 Barnwell Nursing Rehabilitation Center Valatie 3309 Flanders Greenport 284

10 Ginsberg Foods Greenport/Claverack 23011 New Lebanon Central School District New Lebanon 20012 WalMart Greenport 20013 Sonoco Plastics Chatham 20014 Whittier Rehabilitation Ghent 18015 Herringtons Hillsdale 15016 Columbia Greene Community College Greenport 14517 Livingston Hills Nursing Livingston 9918 Greenport Rescue Squad Inc Greenport 8019 Richmor Aviation Inc Ghent 7220 Peterson Geller Spurge, Inc. Greenport 6521 In Flight Inc Germantown 6322 American Bio Medical Corp Stuyvesant 57

Source: Columbia Economic Development Corporation, July 2017

MAJOR EMPLOYERS - COLUMBIA COUNTY


21

The largest employers in the Capital Region represent the construction, finance, retail trade, food services, and healthcare/social services industries. These final three industries are among the largest in the city of Hudson and Columbia County. Employment Expansions/Contractions We spoke with Ms. Sheena Salvino, Executive Director of the Hudson Development Corporation & Planning Agency, and Mr. Michael Tucker, President and CEO of the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC), about economic development within Columbia County. Mr. Tucker reported that the area’s major employers include Columbia Memorial Hospital, Hudson Correctional Facility, and the Columbia County and City of Hudson governments. To date, there are 7,000 businesses in Columbia County, including 160 private employers with 500 employees. Most of these businesses are retail. The majority of the area’s employers have between 20 and 25 employees, indicating that most businesses in the area are very small. Outside of the city of Hudson, Columbia County’s other employment center is Chatham, which includes approximately 1,700 people or 600 households in the village proper. Mr. Tucker further reported an unnamed new business recently relocating to Columbia County from the Chicago area which is attempting to hire 60 people in Columbia County. This new business reports ease in filling positions in the uppermost and lowermost pay bands, but difficulty in filling middling positions offering salaries of $40,000 to $60,000 per year. This suggests a gap in workforce readiness symptomatic of a disparity in educational attainment in the county. Additionally challenges for new businesses starting in or relocating to Columbia County include the area’s widespread lack of broadband internet availability. Mr. Tucker further reports that unemployment data for Columbia County is artificially low because many people in the county have stopped actively searching for work. Instead, many county residents are working odd jobs for second homeowners from outside the county. The percentage of people on social security is higher in Columbia County than in any other area of the state of New York. Mr. Tucker additionally reported that the creative (arts and entertainment), technology, and tourism industries have recently become the county’s economic segments exhibiting the greatest growth. Agribusiness is one of the industries in Columbia County with the greatest potential for employment growth. Mr. Tucker further added that the workforce supporting agribusiness represents a large segment of the county population that will require additional affordable housing. Additional internet research into Columbia County’s economic development revealed the following information.

Company Industry Number of Employees*Home Depot Construction 385,000+

JPMorgan Chase Bank Finance 63,500+Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. Retail Trade 140,000

McDonald's Food Services 1,500,000+Mount Sinai Health System Healthcare/Social Services 38,000+

New York-Presbyterian University Hospital Healthcare/Social Services 20,000+Northwell Health, Inc. Healthcare/Social Services 61,000+

Stop & Shop Supermarkets Food Services 82,000+Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Retail Trade 1,900,000+

Wegmans Food Markets Food Services 47,000+Source: New York State Department of Labor, 2016.*Number of employees is an estimate and is not specific to the Capital Region.

MAJOR EMPLOYERS - CAPITAL REGION


22

In March of this year, the state of New York announced that five telecommunications companies serving Columbia and Greene Counties were awarded $38 million in grant funds to bring high-speed internet to everyone in the state of New York. Columbia County and the city of Hudson are served by Fairpoint Communications and Mid-Hudson Data Corporation, two of the five telecommunications companies awarded grant funds. These grant funds were awarded in the second phase of New York’s three-phase program. Grant funds are joint public-private investments. Of note, the city of Hudson itself is not considered underserved and is not included in areas intended to be served by grant funds. According to the New York State Department of Labor’s publication of Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notifications (WARN), there have been no WARN notices filed for Columbia County in the past three years. Manufacturing While the manufacturing sector is one of the three largest in the nation, it does not form one of Hudson or Columbia County’s top industries. Only 4.1 percent of the population in the city of Hudson is employed in manufacturing, while only 5.4 percent of the population of Columbia County is employed in manufacturing. This is in stark contrast to manufacturing employment in the nation, which is approximately 10.2 percent. RTF Manufacturing, Phoenix Hudson Manufacturing, and Flanders Corporation are the area’s top three manufacturing companies. RTF Manufacturing produces refrigerators for medical and military uses and is headquartered in Greenport. Phoenix Hudson Manufacturing is a plastics producer and opened its Hudson operations in October 2012, employing between 20 and 25 people by the end of the year. Flanders Corporation is a North Carolina-based air filter manufacturer and opened its Columbia County plant in Greenport in 2011. Flanders’ Greenport plant represented an investment of seven million dollars and employs about 180 people. Employment and Unemployment Trends The following table details employment and unemployment trends for the Columbia County from 2002 through February 2017, the most recent data available.

Total Employment

% ChangeDifferential from peak

Total Employment

% ChangeDifferential from peak

2002 29,967 - -3.8% 136,485,000 - -9.9%2003 29,975 0.0% -3.7% 137,736,000 0.9% -9.0%2004 30,529 1.8% -1.9% 139,252,000 1.1% -8.0%2005 30,771 0.8% -1.2% 141,730,000 1.8% -6.4%2006 31,135 1.2% 0.0% 144,427,000 1.9% -4.6%2007 30,530 -1.9% -1.9% 146,047,000 1.1% -3.6%2008 30,342 -0.6% -2.5% 145,363,000 -0.5% -4.0%2009 29,121 -4.0% -6.5% 139,878,000 -3.8% -7.6%2010 29,789 2.3% -4.3% 139,064,000 -0.6% -8.2%2011 29,216 -1.9% -6.2% 139,869,000 0.6% -7.6%2012 29,451 0.8% -5.4% 142,469,000 1.9% -5.9%2013 29,854 1.4% -4.1% 143,929,000 1.0% -5.0%2014 30,012 0.5% -3.6% 146,305,000 1.7% -3.4%2015 30,243 0.8% -2.9% 148,833,000 1.7% -1.7%2016 30,382 0.5% -2.4% 151,436,000 1.7% 0.0%

2017 YTD Average* 29,564 -2.7% - 151,060,500 -0.2% -Feb-2016 30,208 - - 150,060,000 - -Feb-2017 29,622 -1.9% - 151,594,000 1.0% -

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics April 2017

Columbia County USA

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED)


23

Total employment in Columbia County grew each year between 2002 and 2006. Following national trends, Columbia County experienced a significant decrease in total employment from 2007 through 2009. During this period Columbia County lost approximately 2,000 jobs. The decrease in employment suggests that the national recession negatively impacted the local area. With the exception of 2011, total employment in Columbia County has seen growth every year since 2010, albeit at a slower rate than the national recovery. Columbia County has yet to surpass its pre-recession employment peak. Employment totals in the 12-month period prior to February 2017 saw a decrease in employment of approximately 1.9 percent. The 2017 year-to-date average suggests total employment in Columbia County is currently the lowest it has been since 2013. Historically the unemployment rate has been lower in Columbia County than in the nation. Between 2007 and 2009, the unemployment rate in Columbia County increased substantially. Unemployment reached its highest rate in 2009 and remained relatively stable until 2011, when it began to decrease. Unemployment rates in Columbia County have decreased each year since 2011 and remain below unemployment rates in the nation. However, unemployment rates in Columbia County have shown a slight increase in the past year; unemployment increased by about 0.3 percentage points in the 12-month period between February 2016 and 2017. Further, as noted by Mr. Tucker, a number of residents are dropping out of the local labor force. This skews unemployment data in Columbia County, which appears to remain below national levels and below the county’s peak rate. Overall, the economy in Columbia County was negatively impacted by the most recent national recession but has had generally increasing total employment and decreasing unemployment rates and continues recover from the impact of the recession.

Unemployment Rate

ChangeDifferential from peak

Unemployment Rate

ChangeDifferential from peak

2002 4.3% - 0.6% 5.8% - 1.2%2003 4.4% 0.1% 0.7% 6.0% 0.2% 1.4%2004 4.4% 0.0% 0.7% 5.5% -0.5% 0.9%2005 3.9% -0.5% 0.2% 5.1% -0.5% 0.5%2006 3.7% -0.2% 0.0% 4.6% -0.5% 0.0%2007 3.9% 0.2% 0.2% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0%2008 4.8% 0.9% 1.1% 5.8% 1.2% 1.2%2009 7.3% 2.5% 3.7% 9.3% 3.5% 4.7%2010 7.3% 0.0% 3.6% 9.6% 0.3% 5.0%2011 7.1% -0.2% 3.4% 9.0% -0.7% 4.3%2012 7.1% -0.1% 3.4% 8.1% -0.9% 3.5%2013 6.0% -1.1% 2.3% 7.4% -0.7% 2.8%2014 4.7% -1.3% 1.0% 6.2% -1.2% 1.6%2015 4.0% -0.7% 0.3% 5.3% -0.9% 0.7%2016 3.7% -0.3% 0.0% 4.9% -0.4% 0.3%

2017 YTD Average* 4.5% 0.8% - 5.0% 0.1% -Feb-2016 4.3% - - 5.2% - -Feb-2017 4.6% 0.3% - 4.9% -0.3% -

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics April 2017

UNEMPLOYMENT TRENDS (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED)Columbia County USA


24

Work Force Migration Illustrated in the graph below are inflow/outflow patterns of those who live and/or work in the city of Hudson and in Columbia County, respectively.

0.03%

1.85%0.79%

1.18% -1.94%

-0.62%-4.02%

2.30% -1.92%0.81%

1.37% 0.53%0.77% 0.46% -2.69%

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

30,000

31,000

32,000

33,000

34,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTDAverage*

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t

ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT CHANGEColumbia County

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YTD

Average*

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE TRENDS

USA Columbia County

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

Feb-2016 Feb-2017

MONTHLY COMPARISON


25

City of Hudson

Source: US Census Bureau, July 2017

As of 2014 4,260 employed people in the city of Hudson, 3,656 people are employed in the city of Hudson but live outside of the city. Conversely, 1,964 people live in the city of Hudson but are employed outside of the city. Only 604 people in Hudson are both resident and employed in the city. The data above indicates that most people employed in the city of Hudson live outside of the city. The following map and tables illustrate workforce inflow/outflow patterns in Columbia County.

Columbia County

Source: US Census Bureau, July 2017


26

As of 2014, of the nearly 25,696 employed individuals living in Columbia County, there is an outflow of approximately 60 percent of employed individuals who live in Columbia County but commute to work outside the county. Conversely, approximately 9,935 individuals who live outside Columbia County are employed within the target area. As of 2014, the larger outflow of commuters in Columbia County demonstrated that total employment in the county was supply-constrained: employment opportunities in Columbia County did not meet employment demand. The moderate business expansions discussed previously suggest this workforce migration pattern is likely to remain relatively similar in the immediate future. Commuting Patterns The chart below shows the travel time to work for the city of Hudson according to US Census data.

As shown above, the average travel time for individuals in the city of Hudson is just over 18 minutes. Approximately 68.7 percent of the persons in the city of Hudson have a commute time of 19 minutes or less, indicating many of the households in the PMA work locally in the surrounding areas. The following map illustrates the job counts and commuting patterns for residents living in Columbia County.

2000 Commuting Time to Work Number of Commuters PercentageTravel Time < 5 min 186 7.1%Travel Time 5-9 min 717 27.2%

Travel Time 10-14 min 531 20.1%Travel Time 15-19 min 378 14.3%Travel Time 20-24 min 249 9.4%Travel Time 25-29 min 100 3.8%Travel Time 30-34 min 147 5.6%Travel Time 35-39 min 37 1.4%Travel Time 40-44 min 39 1.5%Travel Time 45-59 min 97 3.7%Travel Time 60-89 min 95 3.6%Travel Time 90+ min 61 2.3%Average Travel Time 18.3 minutes -

Source: US Census 2000, Novogradac & Company, LLP, April 2017

COMMUTING PATTERNS


27

Source: US Census Bureau, 7/2017

Source: US Census Bureau, 7/2017 As indicated above, more than 10,000 current employed persons in Columbia County (or approximately 41.3 percent) commute more than 25 miles to work each day. Additionally, below indicates the concentration of employment centers where current residents of Columbia County are employed (as of 2014, the most recent data available).


28

Source: US Census Bureau, 7/2017


29

The following charts also illustrate the job patterns and direction of commuting patterns for residents of Hudson, New York. As indicated below, over 694 employed residents in Hudson commute over 50 miles for work, with the largest percent of those commuting over 50 miles traveling south.

Source: US Census Bureau, 7/2017 Wages by Occupation The table below illustrates the wages by occupation in the East Central NY MSA. Data specific to Columbia County was not available.

OccupationNumber of Employees

Mean Hourly Wage

Mean Annual Wage

Total all occupations 34,320 $21.24 $44,180Legal Occupations 200 $54.00 $112,330Management Occupations 1,430 $45.71 $95,070Computer and Mathematical Occupations 240 $34.15 $71,030Business and Financial Operations Occupations 890 $32.97 $68,570Architecture and Engineering Occupations 200 $32.73 $68,080Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 100 $30.69 $63,840Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 1,820 $29.53 $61,420Protective Service Occupations 1,950 $27.76 $57,740Education, Training, and Library Occupations 2,880 $24.96 $51,910Community and Social Services Occupations 980 $24.39 $50,740Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 300 $22.34 $46,480Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 1,330 $22.21 $46,190Construction and Extraction Occupations 1,860 $21.16 $44,020Production Occupations 1,540 $18.48 $38,440Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 2,260 $18.38 $38,230Sales and Related Occupations 3,540 $17.94 $37,310Office and Administrative Support Occupations 5,490 $17.22 $35,810Healthcare Support Occupations 1,150 $14.56 $30,280Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 1,370 $14.05 $29,230Personal Care and Service Occupations 1,490 $13.99 $29,090Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 70 $13.90 $28,910Food Preparation and Serving-Related Occupations 3,220 $12.69 $26,390

EAST CENTRAL NEW YORK NONMETROPOLITAN AREA - 2ND QTR 2015 AREA WAGE ESTIMATES

Source: Department Of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics, 5/2016, retrieved 4/2017


30

The data presented in the previous table depicts the wages in the East Central NY MSA. The chart shows average hourly and annual wages by employment classification. The mean hourly wage across all occupations is $21.64, which translates to an annual wage of $44,180. The classification with the lowest average hourly wage is food preparation at $12.69 per hour. The highest average hourly wage of $54.00 is in legal occupations. Provided below is the estimated workers age and earnings for residents of Columbia County.

Source: US Census Bureau, July 2017 Cost of Living Index The city of Hudson and Columbia County are similar to the national average cost of living. For comparison purposes, we have presented the cost of living in five similarly sized cities and counties throughout New York. The table following illustrates the average cost of living for each index including food, housing utilities, transportation and the overall cost of living in each city and county and compares them to the national average, which is 100.

Index Hudson, NYGreat Neck Plaza,

NYEast Rochester,

NYHamilton, NY Gouverneur, NY

Food 102 122 99 100 102Housing 86 184 53 86 36Utilities 102 125 103 102 104

Transportation 106 109 108 106 106Health 97 111 103 96 98

Overall Cost of Living 97 137 88 97 81Overall Population 6,823 6,925 6,666 6,563 6,996

Source: www.bestplaces.net, April 2017

COST OF LIVING INDEX - CITY OF HUDSON


31

The city of Hudson has an overall cost of living index of 97 percent of the national average, the second highest cost of living index among the surveyed New York cities. Columbia County has the highest cost of living index among the surveyed New York counties. Crime Statistics The following table illustrates crime statistics in the city of Hudson and in Columbia County.

The total crime indices in the city of Hudson are generally above that of Columbia County and that of the nation, while total crime indices in Columbia County are generally below that of the city of Hudson and the nation. Assault is the most common crime in the city of Hudson, while larceny is the most common crime in Columbia County. The map below illustrates crime index indices by census tract in the city of Hudson and Columbia County, respectively.

IndexColumbia County,

NYWashington County, NY

Otsego County, NYHerkimer County,

NYGenesee County,

NYFood 102 101 101 100 100

Housing 126 68 63 54 59Utilities 102 103 103 111 103

Transportation 106 107 106 103 104Health 97 96 97 104 97

Overall Cost of Living 110 92 90 87 88Overall Population 61,509 62,230 60,636 63,100 58,937

Source: www.bestplaces.net, April 2017

COST OF LIVING INDEX - COLUMBIA COUNTY

City of Hudson Columbia CountyTotal Crime* 145 43

Personal Crime* 171 37Murder 57 23Rape 109 29

Robbery 72 16Assault 229 49

Property Crime* 142 44Burglary 98 41Larceny 171 49

Motor Vehicle Theft 20 13Source: Esri Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017*Unweighted aggregations

2017 CRIME INDICES


32

Crime Risk Index: City of Hudson

Crime Risk Index: Columbia County

Conclusion Columbia County lost approximately 2,000 jobs, or 6.5 percent of total employment, during the national recession in 2007 and 2009, which exceeded both the nation in terms of a percentage of total employment. A significant number of these job losses came in the information and manufacturing sectors, which are not among the area’s largest employment industries. The city and county’s largest employment sectors, healthcare/social assistance, retail trade, and educational services, grew modestly in the past 17 years. Of note, the arts/entertainment/recreation sector also made marked employment gains during this period, increasing by 3.9 percent in the city of Hudson and by 3.6 percent in Columbia County. The accommodation/food services industry showed marked growth as well, increasing by 3.6 percent in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County. Employment growth in these sectors affirms our interviews with local stakeholders who spoke of the area’s flourishing arts and tourism industries. Commuting patterns in the city of Hudson and Columbia County indicate two trends: most city of Hudson residents are employed within the city, while approximately 41.3 percent of county residents are employed outside of the county. Residents of Columbia County commuting outside of the county are traveling to employment centers including New York City and Catskill. These commuting and employment patterns suggest that employment opportunities in Columbia County are lagging employment demand.

IV. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS


34

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS The following section will provide an analysis of the demographic characteristics within the Columbia County. Data such as population, households and growth patterns will be studied to determine characteristics of Columbia County and, when available, the city of Hudson. The discussion will also describe typical household size and will provide a picture of the health of the community and the economy. Demographic data has been obtained from ESRI Business Information Solutions, a national proprietary data provider. ESRI’s methodology is outlined in the addenda. Area of Analysis The defined area of analysis is Columbia County. As previously mentioned, there are several towns within Columbia County, including the city of Hudson. We have compared data in the city of Hudson to that of Columbia County for comparison purposes. Maps of the city of Hudson and Columbia County are provided following. Columbia County Map The following map illustrates Columbia County.

Source: Google Earth, April 2017


35

SUB-MARKET MAPS City of Hudson The following map illustrates the boundaries of the city of Hudson, shaded in blue.



36

POPULATION TRENDS Total Population The table below illustrates total population in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation in 2000, 2010, 2017, and 2021.

Population within the city of Hudson decreased slightly between 2000 and 2010, while the population of Columbia County remained stable and population in the nation grew by one percent. Population grew in each area from 2010 to 2017 and is expected increase slightly through 2021. Population growth in both the city and the county is expected to lag population growth in the nation through 2021. Population by Age: City of Hudson

Source: ESRI Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017 As illustrated in the graph above, the workforce and overall population in the City of Hudson is concentrated in the age cohorts between 25 and 64 years old. The age cohorts 25 to 34, 65 to 74, and 75 to 84 are expected to grow through 2021. Conversely, the age cohorts five to nine, 15 to 19, 20 to 24, 45 to 54, and 85+ are expected to decrease slightly. Population growth is expected to be greatest in the prime work age demographics 25 to 34 and prime retirement ages 65 to 84. Notably, the number of school-age children is expected to remain relatively stable over the same period. This suggests future need for workforce and senior housing in the City of Hudson.

YearNumber Annual Number Annual Number Annual

2000 7,524 - 63,093 - 281,421,906 -2010 6,713 -1.1% 63,096 0.0% 308,745,538 1.0%2017 6,823 0.2% 65,349 0.5% 323,580,626 0.7%2021 6,909 0.3% 66,851 0.5% 337,326,118 0.8%


City of Hudson Columbia County USAPOPULATION


37

Senior Population The table below illustrates total senior population in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation in 2000, 2010, 2017, and 2021.

The senior population in the city of Hudson decreased by 2.5 percent per annum between 2000 and 2010, while the senior population increased in Columbia County and in the nation over the same period. The senior population in the city of Hudson increased between 2010 and 2017; however, it lagged senior population growth in the county and the nation during the same time period. The senior population of the city of Hudson is expected to continue at a rate of 2.6 percent between 2017 and 2021, though it will continue to lag senior population growth in Columbia County and the nation. Educational Attainment The following table illustrates Educational Attainment in the city of Hudson and Columbia County, based on the American Community Survey.


2000 1,201 - 10,353 - 34,991,753 -2010 906 -2.5% 11,463 1.1% 40,267,984 1.5%2017 1,034 1.9% 13,762 2.8% 48,626,793 2.9%2021 1,168 2.6% 16,221 3.6% 57,497,878 3.6%


SENIOR POPULATION, 65+City of Hudson Columbia County USA

City of Hudson Columbia County

Population 18 to 24 years 692 4,816

Less than high school graduate 17.3% 16.9%

High school graduate (includes equivalency) 23.8% 30.3%

Some college or associate's degree 36.3% 41.2%

Bachelor's degree or higher 22.5% 11.6%

Population 25 years and over 4,476 45,591

Less than 9th grade 6.2% 3.2%

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 13.1% 8.3%

High school graduate (includes equivalency) 30.7% 30.7%

Some college, no degree 16.4% 17.4%

Associate's degree 10.7% 11.0%

Bachelor's degree 12.4% 14.4%

Graduate or professional degree 10.5% 14.8%

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT


38

Source: US Census Bureau American FactFinder, April 2017

According to the census data, more than 88 percent of the Columbia County population has at least a high school diploma, while approximately 57 percent has at least some college education. Approximately 81 percent of the City of Hudson’s population has at least a high school diploma, while approximately 50 percent has at least some college education. Nationally, approximately 87 percent of the population has at least a high school diploma, while 59 percent has at least some college education. Conversely, the City of Hudson population has a much higher percentage of people with no high school diploma. Approximately 19.3 percent of the population within the City of Hudson has less than a high school diploma, compared with only 11.5 percent in Columbia County. Nationally, approximately 12.1 percent of the population does not hold a high school diploma. This indicates a higher concentration of people without a high school diploma in the City of Hudson than in Columbia County and in the nation.

6.2%

13.1%

30.7%

16.4%

10.7%

12.4%

10.5%

2015 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT - CITY OF HUDSON, 25 AND OVER

Less than 9th grade

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

High school graduate (includesequivalency)

Some college, no degree

Associate's degree

Bachelor's degree

Graduate or professional degree

3.2%

8.3%

30.8%

17.4%

11.0%

14.4%

14.8%

2015 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT - COLUMBIA COUNTY, 25 AND OVER

Less than 9th grade

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

High school graduate (includesequivalency)

Some college, no degree

Associate's degree

Bachelor's degree

Graduate or professional degree


39

Population by Race The graphs below illustrate population by race in Columbia County and the city of Hudson.

Source: US Census Bureau American FactFinder, Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017

59.9%

20.6%

7.3%1.2%

10.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2015 POPULATION BY RACE - CITY OF HUDSON

White

Black

American Indian

Asian

Pacific

Other

Two+

89.9%

4.4%0.1% 1.7% 0.9% 3.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015 POPULATION BY RACE - COLUMBIA COUNTY

White

Black

American Indian

Asian

Pacific

Other

Two+


40

Population Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity The following tables illustrate the population by race within the city of Hudson and Columbia County as a whole, according to 2010 census data.

As illustrated, both the city of Hudson and Columbia County have a higher white population relative to the other races. The city of Hudson has a greater proportion of all minority races than Columbia County. Of note, the city of Hudson has sizable segments of the population that identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian, or two or more races, whereas Columbia County does not. Homeless Population Per the HUD Point in Time Report, which counts the homeless population in New York by statistical area, a total of 86,352 homeless persons were located in New York as of January 24, 2016 (the most recent data available). According to this report, the majority of the state’s homeless individuals are located in New York City. Only 116 of the state’s total homeless population is located in Columbia and Greene Counties. Columbia County provides many resources for homeless persons. Columbia County Department of Social Services, located in the city of Hudson, provides emergency shelter for homeless persons in the county. The Mental Health Association of Columbia and Greene Counties and the Columbia Greene Domestic Violence Program – Community Action of Greene County provide transitional housing in the area. Homeless prevention and rehousing assistance is provided by Columbia Opportunities, Inc. and Columbia County of Department of Social Services, both located in Hudson. St. Catherine’s Center for Children offers support and intervention services for individuals and families that are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. Homeless veterans in Columbia County are served by Serving Columbia & Greene County Veterans, a Veterans Administration arm that provides health care in Albany. Soldier On provides supportive services for veteran families, emergency, transitional, and permanent housing for veterans in the company. Additional supportive services for homeless persons are provided by Columbia Opportunities, Inc., which provides free income tax preparation assistance and emergency food resources. Columbia County Medical Health Center and Mental Health Association of Columbia & Greene Counties provide mental health services to all in the county at no cost. Children who are homeless in Columbia County have priority enrollment in the Head Start program at Columbia Opportunities, Inc. Ms. Tina Sharpe indicated in our interview that a general paucity of permanent housing for homeless persons leaves many unsheltered in the county.


41

The extent of homelessness in an area is difficult to quantify. The Census cannot track this population. The annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count is conducted by members of the Continuum of Care Network in the Columbia and Greene County area as part of its application to HUD for Continuum of Care grant funds. The PIT count has been conducted each January since 2004. It includes homeless individuals and families who are served by the emergency shelters, transitional housing providers, clients of the drop-in center and the domestic violence shelter in the Columbia and Greene Counties. Unsheltered homeless include those who are turned away from facilities due to lack of space as well as the homeless who and may not be seeking assistance. People who are not represented in the PIT count and are at risk of homelessness or do not fit HUD’s definition of homelessness include the following groups: People living in hotels because they do not have permanent housing; People living with friends or family at the time of the count; People living in their cars or campsites who have not contacted an emergency shelter or transitional

housing provider; and Unsheltered homeless who have jobs and thus are at work at the time of the count. According to the PIT count for 2016 in Columbia and Greene Counties, there were 116 homeless people in both counties. This is a decrease of approximately 81 homeless persons since 2010, when the number of homeless persons was approximately 197. However, the homeless are a transient population and can often move from place to place so it is difficult to estimate than number of homeless in the city, or even the TMA, at any point in time. Disabled Population The number of disabled persons in Columbia County was available via disability data from the 2012 American Community Survey. According to this source, there are approximately 9,470 disabled persons in Columbia County, or 15.2 percent of the population. This figure includes 51 persons age five and younger, 1,463 persons between the ages of 65 and 74 years old, and 2,470 persons aged 75 and older. HOUSEHOLD TRENDS Total Number of Households The table following illustrates total households in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation in 2000, 2010, 2017, and 2021.

Total households within the city of Hudson decreased by 0.6 percent between 2000 and 2010, but increased between 2010 and 2017. Household growth has been consistent in Columbia County since 2000, and has lagged household growth in the nation. The number of households is expected to continue its positive growth in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation through 2021. Household growth in the city of Hudson and Columbia County will continue to lag national household growth over the same period.


2000 2,951 - 24,796 - 105,480,101 -2010 2,766 -0.6% 25,906 0.4% 116,716,292 1.1%2017 2,786 0.1% 26,573 0.4% 121,786,233 0.6%2021 2,808 0.2% 27,055 0.4% 126,694,268 0.8%


HOUSEHOLDSCity of Hudson Columbia County USA


42

Total Number of Senior Households The table following illustrates total senior households in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation in 2010, 2017, and 2021.

The number of senior households in the city of Hudson decreased between 2010 and 2017, while the number of senior households in Columbia County increased during the same time period. The number of senior households is expected to grow in in all areas through 2021. The number of senior households is expected to grow most dramatically in the nation, while senior household growth in the city of Hudson will slightly lag that of Columbia County. Average Household Size The table below illustrates average household size in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation.

As illustrated in the previous table, average household size within the city of Hudson and Columbia County decreased slightly between 2000 and 2010, similar to the nation. Household sizes grew by 0.1 percent in each area between 2010 and 2017 and is expected to slightly increase through 2021. The city of Hudson has a smaller average household size than Columbia County and the nation. The following map illustrates average household size around Columbia County.


2010 716 - 6,422 - 24,532,661 -2017 703 -0.2% 8,663 4.8% 30,885,675 3.6%2021 777 2.1% 9,658 2.3% 35,821,103 3.2%


USAHOUSEHOLDS WITH SENIOR HOUSEHOLDER, 65+

City of Hudson Columbia County

YearNumber Annual Number Annual Number Annual Change

2000 2.26 - 2.43 - 2.59 -2010 2.24 -0.1% 2.35 -0.3% 2.58 -0.1%2017 2.26 0.1% 2.38 0.1% 2.59 0.1%2021 2.28 0.1% 2.39 0.1% 2.60 0.1%


City of HudsonAVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE

Columbia County USA


43

Median Age The following table illustrates the median age in the City of Hudson, Columbia County, the state of New York, and the nation from 2000 through 2021.


44

Of the four areas of analysis, the median age is lowest in the nation and highest in Columbia County. This is indicative of a younger population in the city of Hudson when compared to Columbia County and the state of New York. Although all four areas of analysis are expected to experience an increase in the respective median age through 2021, the city of Hudson is projected to experience the smallest increase therein, further widening the gap between the median age in the city of Hudson with that in the county and the state of New York. Hudson is expected to have a lower median age in 2021 than Columbia County, the state of New York, and the nation. By contrast, the Columbia County is expected to have the highest median age in 2021 in comparison to the City of Hudson, the state of New York, and the nation. Households by Number of Persons in the Household The following tables illustrate household sizes for all households in the city of Hudson and Columbia County.

One and two-person households represent the largest groups of households in the city of Hudson, which is also the same for the Columbia County. One-person households are the most prevalent in the city of Hudson, accounting for 42.2 percent of all households in 2017. By contrast, two-person households are most prevalent in Columbia County, accounting for 36.7 percent of households in 2017. Of note, three and four-person households are more common in Columbia County than in the city of Hudson.

Year

NumberAnnual Change

NumberAnnual Change

NumberAnnual Change

NumberAnnual Change

2000 36.5 - 40.4 - 35.9 - 35.3 -2010 37.6 3.0% 45.3 12.1% 37.9 5.6% 37.0 4.8%2017 38.3 1.9% 46.9 3.5% 38.7 2.1% 38.0 2.7%2021 38.8 1.3% 48.3 3.0% 39.5 2.1% 39.0 2.6%

Source: ESRI Business Analyst 9.1, Novogradac & Company LLP April 2017.

New YorkCity of Hudson Columbia County USAMEDIAN AGE

Household Size Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent1 persons 1,141 38.7% 1,176 42.2% 1,202 42.8%2 persons 841 28.5% 768 27.6% 767 27.3%3 persons 448 15.2% 366 13.1% 366 13.0%4 persons 288 9.8% 245 8.8% 242 8.6%

5+ persons 233 7.9% 231 8.3% 230 8.2%Total 2,951 100.0% 2,786 100.0% 2,808 100.0%


CITY OF HUDSON HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION2000 2017 2021

Household Size Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent1 persons 6,627 26.7% 8,039 30.3% 8,366 30.9%2 persons 8,927 36.0% 9,757 36.7% 9,848 36.4%3 persons 3,934 15.9% 3,980 15.0% 4,043 14.9%4 persons 3,273 13.2% 2,980 11.2% 2,978 11.0%

5+ persons 2,035 8.2% 1,817 6.8% 1,819 6.7%Total 24,796 100.0% 26,573 100.0% 27,055 100.0%


2000 2017 2021COLUMBIA COUNTY HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION


45

Renter Households by Number of Persons in the Household The following tables show household size by renter tenure in the City of Hudson and Columbia County, respectively.

The largest groups of renters in the city of Hudson and Columbia County are one and two-person households. These account for approximately 72 and 71 percent of renters in the city and county, respectively. INCOME TRENDS Median Household Income Levels The table below illustrates the median household income in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation from 2000 to 2017 and projections through 2021.

Median incomes in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation have increased each year from 2000 to 2017 and are projected to continue to increase through 2021. The median income in the city of Hudson is lower than that of Columbia County and the nation. Median income in Columbia County is currently higher than that of the nation. Median household income in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation are expected to increase through 2021. Median household income in the city of Hudson is projected to remain below both that of the county and the nation, while median household income in

Household Size Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent1 persons 828 42.3% 913 49.9% 938 50.5%2 persons 511 26.1% 406 22.2% 402 21.7%3 persons 257 13.1% 213 11.6% 216 11.6%4 persons 210 10.7% 149 8.1% 151 8.1%

5+ persons 152 7.8% 149 8.1% 149 8.0%Total 1,958 100.0% 1,830 100.0% 1,856 100.0%


CITY OF HUDSON RENTER HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION2000 2017 2021

Household Size Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent1 persons 2,844 39.0% 3,593 46.1% 3,791 47.2%2 persons 1,980 27.1% 1,941 24.9% 1,926 24.0%3 persons 1,081 14.8% 965 12.4% 972 12.1%4 persons 830 11.4% 757 9.7% 781 9.7%

5+ persons 557 7.6% 537 6.9% 554 6.9%Total 7,292 100.0% 7,792 100.0% 8,024 100.0%


COLUMBIA COUNTY RENTER HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION2000 2017 2021

YearAmount Annual Amount Annual Amount Annual Change

2000 $24,267 - $41,915 - $42,164 -2017 $36,262 2.9% $58,428 2.3% $54,149 1.6%2021 $41,100 2.7% $68,047 3.3% $59,476 2.0%


MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMECity of Hudson Columbia County USA


46

Columbia County is expected to remain above the median household income of both the city of Hudson and the nation. The graph below illustrates the 2017 median household income for the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation.

Median household income in Columbia County recently surpassed median household income in the nation, and is expected to remain above the national level through 2021. Though median household income in the city of Hudson grew between 2000 and 2017, it remains much lower than the median household income of both the county and the nation. Though median household income in the city of Hudson is expected to grow through 2021, it is also projected to remain below median household income in the county and the nation. Median Household Income Map The following map illustrates projected median household income growth in the state of New York between 2016 and 2021.

2000

2017

2021

Median HH Income

USA

COLUMBIA COUNTY

CITY OF HUDSON


47

The map below illustrates the median household income distribution within the city of Hudson as of 2016.

COLUMBIA COUNTY


48

Median household income is relatively equal throughout the city of Hudson. Median household income within the city of limits of Hudson is $36,262. Given the low median household income in Hudson when compared to Columbia County as a whole, we have chosen to illustrate median household income for Columbia County to determine how the city compares.


49

As illustrated in the map above, the median household income in the city of Hudson is lower than the median incomes earned by all of the surrounding areas of Columbia County. The surrounding towns of Stockport, Stottville, Claverack, Philmont, Hollowville, Churchtown, and Linlithgo have median household incomes that are slightly higher than the median household income in Hudson. The areas further north and east, including Valatie, Old Chatham, Spencertown, Canaan, and Red Rock, appear to be among the wealthiest areas in the county. The areas around New Forge, Craryville, and Copake also have higher median household incomes than the city of Hudson. According to our research, the areas with younger populations also tend to be the areas with lower household incomes.


50

Provided below is a summary of median household income by tenure for the city of Hudson and Columbia County based on the 2010 American Community Survey, which is the most current data available.

This data indicates that the median household income of owner-occupied units in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County in 2010 was significantly greater than the median household income of renter-occupied units, and suggests strong demand for affordable multifamily rental housing in both areas. Poverty Heat Map The following map illustrates the percentage of households in poverty within Columbia County. The city of Hudson is outlined in yellow.

Owner-Occupied $58,918Renter-Occupied $29,884

Source: American Community Survey, accessed July 2017

Median Household Income - City of Hudson

Owner-Occupied $70,839Renter-Occupied $32,500


Median Household Income - Columbia County


51

Source: ESRI Demographics, Novogradac & Company LLP, June 2017 As illustrated in the previous table, there is a heavy concentration of poverty within Columbia County. The areas immediately surrounding the city of Hudson are experiencing some of the highest rates of poverty. There are approximately 801 to 1,000 households at or below the poverty level in the city of Hudson itself.


52

Household Income Distribution The following tables illustrate the household income distribution of the general population in the city of Hudson and in Columbia County as of 2017 and its projected change through 2021. The three largest income cohorts in each area are shaded in yellow.

The three largest income cohorts in the city of Hudson are the $10,000 to $19,999, $20,000 to $29,999, and $30,000 to $39,999. These cohorts represent approximately 43.5 percent of the population. This percentage is expected to decrease slightly in the next four years. Household income will continue to be concentrated in these cohorts through 2021. The three largest cohorts in Columbia County are the cohorts between $60,000 and $74,999, $75,000 to $99,999, and $100,000 to $124,999. These cohorts represent approximately 34.3 percent of the population. This percentage is expected to decrease slightly in the next four years. These three cohorts will continue to represent the largest percentage of household income through 2021.

Income Cohort 2017 2021 Annual Change 2017 to 2021Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

$0-9,999 291 10.4% 282 10.1% -2 -0.6%$10,000-19,999 373 13.4% 372 13.3% 0 -0.1%$20,000-29,999 487 17.5% 455 16.2% -6 -1.3%$30,000-39,999 351 12.6% 370 13.2% 4 1.1%$40,000-49,999 236 8.5% 241 8.6% 1 0.4%$50,000-59,999 189 6.8% 193 6.9% 1 0.4%$60,000-74,999 302 10.8% 294 10.5% -2 -0.6%$75,000-99,999 191 6.9% 209 7.4% 4 1.9%

$100,000-124,999 146 5.2% 145 5.2% 0 -0.2%$125,000-149,999 91 3.3% 101 3.6% 2 2.3%$150,000-199,999 81 2.9% 87 3.1% 1 1.7%

$200,000+ 47 1.7% 58 2.0% 2 4.4%Total 2,786 100.0% 2,808 100.0%

Source: HISTA Data / Ribbon Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017

HOUSEHOLD INCOME - CITY OF HUDSON


$0-9,999 1,235 4.6% 1,204 4.4% -6 -0.5%$10,000-19,999 2,235 8.4% 2,103 7.8% -26 -1.2%$20,000-29,999 2,486 9.4% 2,377 8.8% -22 -0.9%$30,000-39,999 2,653 10.0% 2,590 9.6% -13 -0.5%$40,000-49,999 2,196 8.3% 2,217 8.2% 4 0.2%$50,000-59,999 1,953 7.3% 1,932 7.1% -4 -0.2%$60,000-74,999 2,731 10.3% 2,682 9.9% -10 -0.4%$75,000-99,999 3,609 13.6% 3,631 13.4% 4 0.1%

$100,000-124,999 2,768 10.4% 2,837 10.5% 14 0.5%$125,000-149,999 1,761 6.6% 1,953 7.2% 38 2.2%$150,000-199,999 1,500 5.6% 1,756 6.5% 51 3.4%

$200,000+ 1,445 5.4% 1,772 6.5% 65 4.5%Total 26,573 100.0% 27,055 100.0%

Source: HISTA Data / Ribbon Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017

HOUSEHOLD INCOME - COLUMBIA COUNTY


53

Household income in the city of Hudson is concentrated in the lowest income cohorts, while household income in Columbia County is concentrated in the mid- to highest income cohorts. This trend will continue through 2021. Both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are expected to experience the greatest percentage of growth in the number of households in the $200,000+ cohort between 2017 and 2021. Senior Household Income Distribution The following tables illustrate the household income distribution of the senior population in Columbia County and the city of Hudson as of 2017 and its projected change through 2021. The largest income cohorts are shaded in yellow.

The largest senior income cohorts in the city of Hudson are those below $30,000. These three cohorts represent 53.8 percent of the senior population in the city of Hudson. There are a limited number of seniors that earn over $50,000 in the city of Hudson, accounting for just 25.5 percent of the senior population in Hudson. In Columbia County the largest senior income cohorts are between $10,000 and $29,999. These cohorts account for approximately 38 percent of the senior population in Columbia County. Senior households earning more than $50,000 comprise approximately 48 percent of the population. Of note,


$0-9,999 102 14.6% 106 13.7% 1 0.7%$10,000-19,999 175 24.8% 188 24.2% 3 1.5%$20,000-29,999 120 17.0% 124 15.9% 1 0.7%$30,000-39,999 52 7.5% 63 8.2% 2 4.2%$40,000-49,999 89 12.7% 98 12.6% 2 1.9%$50,000-59,999 17 2.4% 20 2.6% 1 4.4%$60,000-74,999 55 7.8% 60 7.7% 1 1.9%$75,000-99,999 41 5.8% 50 6.5% 2 4.5%

$100,000-124,999 27 3.8% 32 4.1% 1 3.8%$125,000-149,999 20 2.8% 26 3.3% 1 5.8%$150,000-199,999 5 0.7% 8 1.1% 1 12.6%

$200,000+ 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0%Total 703 100.0% 777 100.0%

Source: HISTA Data / Ribbon Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, May 2017

SENIOR HOUSEHOLD INCOME (65+) - CITY OF HUDSON


$0-9,999 346 4.0% 376 3.9% 6 1.8%$10,000-19,999 1,270 14.7% 1,272 13.2% 0 0.0%$20,000-29,999 1,122 13.0% 1,160 12.0% 8 0.7%$30,000-39,999 1,164 13.4% 1,238 12.8% 15 1.3%$40,000-49,999 884 10.2% 976 10.1% 18 2.1%$50,000-59,999 597 6.9% 661 6.8% 13 2.2%$60,000-74,999 723 8.3% 796 8.2% 15 2.0%$75,000-99,999 924 10.7% 1,053 10.9% 26 2.8%

$100,000-124,999 645 7.4% 766 7.9% 24 3.8%$125,000-149,999 296 3.4% 387 4.0% 18 6.1%$150,000-199,999 286 3.3% 396 4.1% 22 7.7%

$200,000+ 407 4.7% 579 6.0% 34 8.4%Total 8,663 100.0% 9,658 100.0%


SENIOR HOUSEHOLD INCOME (65+) - COLUMBIA COUNTY


54

approximately 10.9 percent of senior households in Columbia County earn between $75,000 and $99,999. Both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are anticipated to experience the most growth in senior households earning $75,000 and more between 2017 and 2021. Renter Household Income Distribution The following tables illustrate the household income distribution for renter households in the city of Hudson and Columbia County.

The largest income cohorts for renter households in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are $10,000 to $19,999 and $30,000 to $39,999. Of note, significant segments of the population in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are earning incomes between $75,000 and $99,999. Both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are expected to experience the greatest percentage of growth in income cohorts $125,000 and above between 2017 and 2021. Of note, the three largest income cohorts for renter households in the city of Hudson are expected to decrease in the next five years.


$0-9,999 260 14.2% 256 13.8% -1 -0.3%$10,000-19,999 333 18.2% 335 18.1% 0 0.1%$20,000-29,999 263 14.4% 243 13.1% -4 -1.5%$30,000-39,999 266 14.6% 274 14.8% 2 0.6%$40,000-49,999 177 9.7% 183 9.9% 1 0.7%$50,000-59,999 150 8.2% 156 8.4% 1 0.7%$60,000-74,999 214 11.7% 213 11.5% 0 -0.1%$75,000-99,999 67 3.7% 80 4.3% 3 3.8%

$100,000-124,999 36 2.0% 34 1.8% 0 -1.2%$125,000-149,999 31 1.7% 38 2.1% 1 4.8%$150,000-199,999 12 0.6% 15 0.8% 1 6.2%

$200,000+ 20 1.1% 28 1.5% 2 8.2%Total 1,830 100.0% 1,856 100.0%

Source: HISTA Data / Ribbon Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, August 2017

RENTER HOUSEHOLD INCOMECITY OF HUDSON


$0-9,999 760 9.8% 763 9.5% 1 0.1%$10,000-19,999 1,121 14.4% 1,065 13.3% -11 -1.0%$20,000-29,999 974 12.5% 932 11.6% -8 -0.9%$30,000-39,999 1,018 13.1% 992 12.4% -5 -0.5%$40,000-49,999 775 9.9% 813 10.1% 8 1.0%$50,000-59,999 650 8.3% 666 8.3% 3 0.5%$60,000-74,999 773 9.9% 794 9.9% 4 0.5%$75,000-99,999 780 10.0% 846 10.5% 13 1.7%

$100,000-124,999 391 5.0% 393 4.9% 1 0.2%$125,000-149,999 211 2.7% 263 3.3% 10 5.0%$150,000-199,999 209 2.7% 278 3.5% 14 6.6%

$200,000+ 131 1.7% 219 2.7% 18 13.4%Total 7,792 92.9% 8,024 90.5%


RENTER HOUSEHOLD INCOMECOLUMBIA COUNTY


55

Senior Renter Household Income Distribution The following table illustrates the household income distribution for senior renter households in the city of Hudson and Columbia County. The largest income cohorts are shaded in yellow.

Senior renter households in the city of Hudson are primarily comprised of the lowest two income cohorts, with 53.2 percent of all seniors earning less than $20,000 per year. Senior renter households in Columbia County are concentrated in the lowest three income cohorts, with 47.9 percent of senior renter households earning less than $30,000. Of note, the three largest income cohorts for senior households are expected to decrease in the next five years, suggesting additional need for affordable senior housing in the next five years.


$0-9,999 88 20.0% 93 18.7% 1 1.1%$10,000-19,999 157 35.4% 172 34.5% 3 2.0%$20,000-29,999 28 6.3% 28 5.7% 0 0.6%$30,000-39,999 24 5.5% 27 5.5% 1 2.4%$40,000-49,999 68 15.4% 75 14.9% 1 1.9%$50,000-59,999 10 2.2% 14 2.9% 1 9.7%$60,000-74,999 30 6.7% 34 6.8% 1 2.8%$75,000-99,999 18 4.1% 26 5.3% 2 9.0%

$100,000-124,999 1 0.2% 2 0.4% 0 21.1%$125,000-149,999 15 3.4% 20 4.0% 1 6.4%$150,000-199,999 3 0.7% 5 1.1% 0 14.3%

$200,000+ 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0%Total 442 100.0% 499 100.0%


CITY OF HUDSONRENTER HOUSEHOLD INCOME 65+


$0-9,999 195 10.1% 229 10.2% 7 3.5%$10,000-19,999 527 27.2% 547 24.4% 4 0.8%$20,000-29,999 263 13.6% 299 13.3% 7 2.8%$30,000-39,999 206 10.6% 224 10.0% 4 1.8%$40,000-49,999 169 8.7% 204 9.1% 7 4.2%$50,000-59,999 67 3.5% 83 3.7% 3 4.7%$60,000-74,999 147 7.6% 159 7.1% 2 1.6%$75,000-99,999 141 7.3% 182 8.1% 8 5.8%

$100,000-124,999 81 4.2% 95 4.2% 3 3.5%$125,000-149,999 63 3.2% 87 3.9% 5 7.9%$150,000-199,999 42 2.2% 70 3.1% 5 12.9%

$200,000+ 37 1.9% 66 2.9% 6 16.0%Total 1,936 100.0% 2,245 100.0%


COLUMBIA COUNTYRENTER HOUSEHOLD INCOME 65+


56

Housing Cost by Area Median Income (AMI) The table below illustrates the 2016 HOME income limits and maximum rents for Columbia County.

Source: HUD, May 2017 We have utilized the data in the table above to extrapolate the housing costs for renter and owner-occupied households at various AMI levels in Columbia County. These housing costs are illustrated in the tables following.

# in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 830% $15,700 $17,950 $20,200 $22,400 $24,200 $26,000 $27,800 $29,600

Very Low 50% $26,150 $29,850 $33,600 $37,300 $40,300 $43,300 $46,300 $49,25060% $31,380 $35,820 $40,320 $44,760 $48,360 $51,960 $55,560 $59,100

Low 80% $41,800 $47,800 $53,750 $59,700 $64,500 $69,300 $74,050 $78,850

Bedrooms 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Low HOME $656 $703 $843 $973 $1,086 $1,198 $1,310 -High HOME $695 $711 $923 $1,165 $1,359 $1,563 $17,565 -

Fair Market $695 $711 $923 $1,165 $1,359 $1,563 $1,767 -50% $656 $703 $843 $973 $1,086 $1,198 $1,310 -65% $916 $983 $1,182 $1,356 $1,494 $1,629 $1,765 -

2016 HOME INCOME LIMITS AND MAXIMUM RENTS

Maximum Gross Rents by Bedroom Size

INFO ONLY

AMI Level4-Person AMI In Columbia

CountyAffordable Rent - 30%

Rent to IncomeAnnual Affordable Rent

Expenses

30% $17,910 $448 $5,37350% $29,850 $746 $8,95560% $35,820 $896 $10,74680% $47,760 $1,194 $14,328

30% $20,160 $504 $6,04850% $33,600 $840 $10,08060% $40,320 $1,008 $12,09680% $53,760 $1,344 $16,128

30% $22,380 $560 $6,71450% $37,300 $933 $11,19060% $44,760 $1,119 $13,42880% $59,680 $1,492 $17,904

30% $24,180 $605 $7,25450% $40,300 $1,008 $12,09060% $48,360 $1,209 $14,50880% $64,480 $1,612 $19,344

COLUMBIA COUNTY RENTAL HOUSING COST BY AMI LEVEL AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE

Two-Person Household

Three-Person Household

Four-Person Household

Five-Person Household


57

As illustrated in the previous table, there is a price gap among owner-occupied two, three, four, and five-person households at the 30, 50, and 60 percent AMI levels. Conclusion The demographic data demonstrates that both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are projected areas of growth in terms of population and households through 2021. One and two-person households make up the majority of households in the city of Hudson and Columbia County. One-person households represent the single largest group of households in the city of Hudson while two-person households represent the largest group of households in Columbia County. Average household size is expected to grow marginally through 2021 in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County, and will continue to lag the nation in both areas. The median household income in the city of Hudson is below median household income in both Columbia County and the nation. Renter households in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are concentrated in the lowest income cohorts, those earning between $10,000 and $39,999. Renter household income is expected to remain concentrated in these cohorts through 2021, suggesting additional need for affordable rental housing in both the city and the county. Median household income in Columbia County is expected to continue outpacing the city of Hudson and the nation through 2021, while median income in the city of Hudson will continue to lag both the nation and Columbia County over the same period. Continued income disparity in both the city and the county further underscores the need for additional affordable rental housing in the area.

AMI Level4-Person AMI In

Columbia CountyMaximum Annual

Housing Costs

Maximum Monthly Housing

Costs1

Equivalent Mortgage

(Present Value)2

Price Gap Using Median Home

Value of $222,1003

30% $17,910 $5,373 $448 $79,737 ($142,363)50% $29,850 $8,955 $746 $132,896 ($89,204)60% $35,820 $10,746 $896 $159,475 ($62,625)80% $47,760 $14,328 $1,194 $212,633 ($9,467)

30% $20,160 $6,048 $504 $89,755 ($146,345)50% $33,600 $10,080 $840 $149,591 ($72,509)60% $40,320 $12,096 $1,008 $179,509 ($42,591)80% $53,760 $16,128 $1,344 $239,346 N/A

30% $22,380 $6,714 $560 $99,638 ($138,003)50% $37,300 $11,190 $933 $166,064 ($56,036)60% $44,760 $13,428 $1,119 $199,277 ($22,823)80% $59,680 $17,904 $1,492 $265,702 N/A

30% $24,180 $7,254 $605 $107,652 ($114,448)50% $40,300 $12,090 $1,008 $179,420 ($42,680)60% $48,360 $14,508 $1,209 $215,304 ($6,796)80% $64,480 $19,344 $1,612 $287,072 N/A

(3) Source: American Community Survey, May 2017.

COLUMBIA COUNTY OWNER HOUSING COST BY AMI LEVEL AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE





(2) Assumes a 30-year mortgage with a 4.5 percent interest rate(1) Includes all principal, interest, taxes, and insurance (including private mortgage insurance)

V. HOUSING SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS


59

HOUSING SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS HOUSING MARKET OVERVIEW Novogradac & Company LLP has studied the available housing stock in the city of Hudson and Columbia County, including both for sale and rental products. The following section will provide general housing data as provided by the Census. Additionally, we have surveyed rental properties located in the city of Hudson and Columbia County and will discuss various housing characteristics such as pricing, occupancy, turnover, concessions and rent growth. Data on rental properties has been collected from interviews with local property managers and owners. We have also collected data on for sale housing. This data has been collected from interviews with new home builders and Multiple Listing Service data. This data includes information on the pricing, sales pace and demand for particular unit types. This section of the report provides a broad view of current housing trends within the various market areas (the City of Hudson and Columbia County) for single-family, multifamily, and special needs housing. Age of Housing Stock The following table details the age of the area housing stock based upon 2000 Census data.

As indicated in the above table, the time period with the greatest amount of development in the City of Hudson was before 1939. The majority of the housing stock in Columbia County was built in later years, mostly prior to 1969. This table illustrates that existing residential improvements in the City of Hudson and Columbia County are older vintage and may be more likely to exhibit poor condition and functional obsolescence. Vacant Units The following table outlines the number of vacant units in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation and the nation for comparison purposes.

NumberPercent of

Housing StockNumber

Percent of Housing Stock

Built 2005 or later 130 3.5% 124 0.4%Built 2000 to 2004 153 4.2% 2,638 8.1%Built 1990 to 1999 78 2.1% 2,913 8.9%Built 1980 to 1989 104 2.8% 3,697 11.3%Built 1970 to 1979 405 11.0% 4,634 14.2%Built 1960 to 1969 142 3.9% 3,030 9.3%Built 1950 to 1959 214 5.8% 2,773 8.5%Built 1940 to 1949 203 5.5% 1,509 4.6%Built 1939 or earlier 2,243 61.1% 11,390 34.8%Total Housing Units 3,672 100.0% 32,708 100.0%

Source: US Census American Community Estimates

AGE OF HOUSING STOCKCity of Hudson Columbia County


60

As illustrated in the previous table, the city of Hudson and Columbia County have a higher percentage of vacant housing units than the nation. Both the city of Hudson and Columbia County have a majority of housing units built prior to 1969. The city of Hudson has a higher percentage of renter-occupied housing than the county and the nation. The city of Hudson has a lower median income than Columbia County and the nation, suggesting that vacancy in the city of Hudson is due to insufficient income for general maintenance, resulting in a higher percentage of neglected housing stock. The table below illustrates the median home value in the city of Hudson, Columbia County, and the nation.

The median home value of owner-occupied homes in the city of Hudson as of 2015 is $178,900, according to census estimates. This is well below the median home value for Columbia County, which is $222,100. Median home values of owner-occupied homes in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County are in line or slightly above the median home value in the nation. Substandard Units The following tables summarize statistics regarding units lacking either complete plumbing or kitchen facilities within the city of Hudson and Columbia County, respectively.

Substandard housing does exist in Columbia County as approximately 0.2 percent of the occupied housing units in Columbia county lack completed plumbing facilities and 0.7 percent lack complete kitchen facilities. The city of Hudson has lower percentages of incomplete plumbing facilities and kitchen facilities. Housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities are not present in the city of Hudson, while approximately 0.2 percent of housing units in the city of Hudson lack complete kitchen facilities. Incomplete kitchen and plumbing facilities is not a prevalent issue in either the city of Hudson or Columbia County.

For Rent 186 33.9% 692 10.1% 4,137,567 27.6%Rented and Not Occupied 8 1.5% 38 0.6% 206,825 1.4%

For Sale 46 8.4% 451 6.6% 1,896,796 12.7%Sold and Not Occupied 11 2.0% 102 1.5% 421,032 2.8%

Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 113 20.6% 4,537 66.1% 4,649,298 31.0%Migrant Workers 0 0.0% 20 0.3% 24,161 0.2%

Other Vacant 185 33.7% 1,029 15.0% 3,652,759 24.4%Total Vacant Housing Units 549 100.0% 6,869 100.0% 14,988,438 100.0%

Total Housing Units and Vacant Housing Units as a Percentage of Total Housing

3,399 16.2% 34,040 20.2% 137,928,754 10.9%


VACANT HOUSING UNITS CITY OF HUDSON COLUMBIA COUNTY USA

City of Hudson Columbia County USA$178,900 $222,100 $178,600


MEDIAN HOME VALUE

Number of Units Percentage Number of Units PercentageTotal Number of Occupied Housing Units 2787 - 25,235 -

Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 0 0.0% 50 0.2%Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 6 0.2% 177 0.7%

Source: US Census Bureau, April 2017.

COLUMBIA COUNTYCITY OF HUDSONCONDITION OF HOUSING - SUBSTANDARD KITCHEN AND/OR PLUMBING


61

Tenure by Plumbing Facilities by Occupants per Room The following table demonstrates the number of occupants per room by complete plumbing facilities in the city of Hudson and Columbia County. As defined by the US Census Bureau, housing units with “complete plumbing facilities” are those that include hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower.

As shown above, 28.1 percent of the renter-occupied housing units in Columbia County have complete plumbing facilities, and of those, 27.3 percent are occupied by one or fewer persons per room. Additionally, 66.0 percent of the renter-occupied housing units in the City of Hudson have complete plumbing facilities and of those, 63.9 percent are occupied by one or fewer persons per room. This suggests that rental housing in both the city of Hudson and Columbia County is predominantly occupied by smaller households of up to 1.5 persons per room. Housing Units by Structure Type The following tables detail the distribution of housing by structure type within the city of Hudson and Columbia County.

Number Percent Number PercentTotal: 25,235 100.0% 2,787 100.0%

Owner occupied: 18,141 71.9% 947 34.0% Complete plumbing facilities: 18,123 71.8% 947 34.0%

1.00 or less occupants per room 17,988 71.3% 947 34.0% 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 82 0.3% 0 0.0% 1.51 or more occupants per room 53 0.2% 0 0.0%

Lacking complete plumbing facilities: 18 0.1% 0 0.0% 1.00 or less occupants per room 18 0.1% 0 0.0% 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.51 or more occupants per room 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Renter occupied: 7,094 28.1% 1,840 66.0% Complete plumbing facilities: 7,066 28.0% 1,840 66.0%

1.00 or less occupants per room 6,896 27.3% 1,781 63.9% 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 131 0.5% 59 2.1% 1.51 or more occupants per room 39 0.2% 0 0.0%

Lacking complete plumbing facilities: 28 0.1% 0 0.0% 1.00 or less occupants per room 28 0.1% 0 0.0% 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1.51 or more occupants per room 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TENURE BY PLUMBING FACILITIES BY OCCUPANTS PER ROOM

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), Novogradac & Company LLP, April 2017.

COLUMBIA COUNTY CITY OF HUDSON


62

Type of Structure Number Percentage Number Percentage1 - Detached 986 22.4% 23,892 73.0%1 - Attached 222 5.0% 771 2.4%

Duplex 962 21.8% 2,079 6.4%Tri-Plex, Four-Plex 712 16.1% 1,717 5.2%

5 to 9 Units 335 7.6% 907 2.8%10 to 19 Units 986 22.4% 208 0.6%20 to 49 Units 44 1.0% 318 1.0%

50+ Units 152 3.4% 292 0.9%Mobile Homes 11 0.2% 2,510 7.7%

Other 0 0.0% 14 0.0%Total 4,410 100.0% 32,708 100.0%

Source: US Census Bureau American FactFinder, April 2017.

HOUSING UNITS BY STRUCTURECITY OF HUDSON COLUMBIA COUNTY

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

HOUSING UNITS BY STRUCTURE - CITY OF HUDSON, 2017

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%

HOUSING UNITS BY STRUCTURE - COLUMBIA COUNTY, 2017


63

As illustrated, the majority of housing units in the city of Hudson is single-family housing or contains 10 to 19 units. Columbia County has a more dramatic difference between the majority of its housing units by structure and all other housing units: single-family homes form the overwhelming majority of housing units in Columbia County. Of note, the city of Hudson also has a high proportion of duplexes and tri-plexes and four-plexes, while these types of structures account for less than 10 percent of the housing units in Columbia County. Building Permit History The following table details building permit history for Columbia County from 2001 to December 2016, the most recent month available. Note that building permit data for the city of Hudson was unavailable.

New construction permits in Columbia County have historically been concentrated in the development of single-family and duplex housing units. New construction permits for multifamily housing were greatest in 2015, when permits for multifamily housing development surpassed the number of building permits for single-family and duplex units for the first time. No building permits were issued for multifamily units in 2016 or year-to-date 2017. Issuance of building permits slowed beginning in 2008 and has yet to return to pre-2008 levels. This is consistent with interviews among local stakeholders and our observations of the market area. Of the limited number of issued permits since 2008, single-family construction has been most prevalent, accounting for approximately 74 percent of all building permits in Columbia County. Tenure Patterns

The tables below illustrate the breakdown by household tenure within the city of Hudson and Columbia County for 2000, 2017, and 2021.

YearSingle-family and Duplex

Three and Four-Family

Five or More Family

Total Units

2001 241 0 0 2412002 303 0 64 3672003 318 4 0 3222004 360 0 0 3602005 335 0 0 3352006 230 20 96 3462007 237 0 0 2372008 128 0 0 1282009 102 4 0 1062010 67 0 0 672011 61 3 0 642012 75 0 32 1072013 74 32 48 1542014 93 7 0 1002015 86 4 119 2092016 15 0 0 15

2017* 0 0 0 0Total 2,725 74 359 3,158

Average** 170 5 22 197*Only includes through December 2016** Does not include 2017 permitsSource: US Census Bureau Building Permits, April 2017

BUILDING PERMITS: COLUMBIA COUNTY - 2001 to 2017*


64

As illustrated in the previous tables, approximately 34.3 percent of total households in the city of Hudson are owner-occupied, while 65.7 percent are renter-occupied. Conversely, in Columbia County 70.3 percent of housing units are owner-occupied and 29.3 percent of housing units are renter-occupied. Nationally, renter-occupied housing accounts for approximately one third of available housing units. Therefore, renter-occupied housing is more common in the city of Hudson than in the nation, while renter-occupied housing in Columbia County is less common than in the nation.

Year Owner-Occupied UnitsPercentage Owner-

OccupiedRenter-Occupied

UnitsPercentage Renter-

Occupied2000 993 33.6% 1,958 66.4%2017 956 34.3% 1,830 65.7%2021 952 33.9% 1,856 66.1%


TENURE PATTERNS - CITY OF HUDSON

Year Owner-Occupied UnitsPercentage Owner-

OccupiedRenter-Occupied

UnitsPercentage Renter-

Occupied2000 17,504 70.6% 7,292 29.4%2017 18,781 70.7% 7,792 29.3%2021 19,031 70.3% 8,024 29.7%


TENURE PATTERNS - COLUMBIA COUNTY


65

The largest concentrations of rental housing units are concentrated in the western half of Columbia County, primarily around the city of Hudson. Public Assistance Summary The table below summarizes the number of households in the city of Hudson and Columbia County receiving some kind of public assistance.

Households with SSI, SNAP, and/or Cash Public Assistance Income

Number Percentage Number PercentageTotal Households 735 52.4% 2,320 20.0%

Source: US Census Bureau, April 2017.

SSI, SNAP, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SUMMARY

CITY OF HUDSON COLUMBIA COUNTY


66

As illustrated, the percentage of households in the city of Hudson is markedly higher than the percentage of households receiving assistance income in Columbia County. Approximately half of the households in the city of Hudson are receiving some form of public assistance. SINGLE-FAMILY MARKET CHARACTERISTICS The housing market in Columbia County, particularly in the city of Hudson, is largely characterized by housing stock in fair to average condition. Short supply of available housing stock has driven home prices up even though the majority of the local housing stock was constructed prior to 1969. The average sales price has increased as the number of sales has decreased on a monthly basis, and area inventory is at a five-year low, indicating that real estate is in high demand in Columbia County. These indicators have moved concurrently with the area’s economic growth, which will continue to serve as a catalyst for recovery as new companies come to the area. Although recent indicators are positive, significant rehabilitation of the area’s housing stock is still needed. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units The following table illustrates the value of owner-occupied housing units within the city of Hudson and Columbia County.

As shown above, the majority of the housing units in the city of Hudson are valued at $199,999 or less. The largest cohorts are between $100,000 and $199,999. Home values in Columbia County are higher; the majority of the housing units in the county are valued between $100,000 and $299,999. The largest cohorts are between $150,000 and $299,999. The following map illustrates the median home values in the city of Hudson and Columbia County, respectively.

Value Number Percentage Number PercentageLess than $50,000 10 1.1% 1,052 5.8%

$50,000 to $99,000 115 12.1% 1,034 5.7%$100,000 to $149,000 191 20.2% 1,905 10.5%$150,000 to $199,999 244 25.8% 3,646 20.1%$200,000 to $299,999 173 18.3% 5,279 29.1%$300,000 to $499,999 122 12.9% 3,265 18.0%$500,000 to $999,999 90 9.5% 1,506 8.3%

$1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 454 2.5%Total 947 100% 18,141 100%

CITY OF HUDSON COLUMBIA COUNTYVALUE FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS


67


68

In the city of Hudson, the highest home values are in the western portion of the city, with the very highest home values concentrated in the area bounded by South 3rd Street, Power Avenue, East Court Street, Warren Street, North 2nd Street, and Allen Street. The western concentration of higher home values is likely attributed to the Hudson River. The lowest home values in the City of Hudson are on the north and east side of the city, predominantly north and east of Warren Street and North 2nd Street. The highest home values in Columbia County outside of Hudson are concentrated in the areas around Old Chatham, Rock City, Spencertown, Harrenville, and Silvernails. The lowest home values in Columbia County outside of the City of Hudson are concentrated in the areas on the north side of the city near Stottville, Stockport, and Rossman. Further from the City of Hudson, the lowest home values are concentrated in the


69

area between Chatham Center and Chatham, between Philmont and Martindale, and between Copake and Copake Falls. Sales We were able to obtain information about home sales in the Columbia County area from Columbia Greene Board of Realtors, Inc. All data provided by the Columbia Greene Board of Realtors, Inc. is effective as of June 2016, which is the most recent data we were able to obtain. Median Sales Price – Columbia, Greene, and Dutchess Counties

Source: Columbia Greene Board of Realtors, Inc., May 2017 As illustrated, the median sales price of a home in Columbia, Greene, and Dutchess Counties was $205,985 as of June 2016, which was higher than the previous two years. According to trulia.com, there was a three percent increase in the median sales price of a single-family home in Hudson week-over week from April 2016 to April 2017. Our interviews with local realtors affirms this data, suggesting home prices are generally rising in the Hudson area and throughout Columbia County. However, as the median sales price is increasing, the number of sales per month has decreased in the past five years, which are shown in the following graphs.


70

Inventory of Homes for Sale – Columbia, Greene, and Dutchess Counties

Source: Columbia Greene Board of Realtors, Inc., May 2017.

As shown in the previous table and graph, the number of sales per month in 2016 has generally been below the number of home sales over the last five years.


71

Months Supply of Inventory – Columbia, Greene, and Dutchess Counties

Source: Columbia Greene Board of Realtors, Inc., May 2017. The monthly inventory of homes in Columbia, Greene, and Dutchess Counties has decreased each year for the past five years. This is related to the number of home sales per month presented above, which indicates a decreasing number of home sales per month over the past five years. The lower inventory has resulted in a faster absorption rate (number of days to sell a property). Absorption rate data is illustrated in the following graphs.


72

Days on Market Until Sale – Columbia, Greene, and Dutchess Counties

Source: Columbia Greene Board of Realtors, Inc., May 2017.

The chart above illustrates the number of days homes in the Columbia-Greene-Dutchess county area remained on the market prior to their sale. As illustrated, single-family homes remained on the market for approximately 142 days in 2016, which represents a decrease of about 20 days from 2015. Overall, the number of days single-family homes have remained on the market has generally decreased since January 2009. Current Listings The following table illustrates the current listings of housing for sale within the city of Hudson. This data was gathered from various realtor websites.


73

Address Bedrooms Type List Price7 Glenwood Boulevard 2 SFH $168,000

43 Glenwood Boulevard 2 SFH $149,777960 Columbia Street 2 SFH $299,000

5 Paddock Place 2 SFH $169,900705-707 Cherry Street 2 Townhouse $894,000

Allen Street 2 Townhouse $638,000508 Warren Street 2 Townhouse $749,0006 Van Winkle Road 2 Townhouse $345,000

Average 2BR $426,585528 Clinton Street 3 SFH $298,000619 Union Street 3 SFH $550,000424 State Street 3 SFH $445,000

258 Clinton Street 3 SFH $289,00029 Parkwood Boulevard 3 SFH $112,00046 Glenwood Boulevard 3 SFH $162,500

520 Prospect Street 3 SFH $315,000912 Columbia Street 3 SFH $395,000

88 Union Turnpike 3 SFH $139,900120 Van Winkle Road East 3 SFH $287,000

4 Tanners Lane 3 SFH $259,00016 Jolsen Place 3 SFH $235,000

66 North 3rd Street 3 SFH $525,000124 Van Winkle Road East 3 Townhouse $267,000

22 Academy Hill 3 Townhouse $309,00018 Van Winkle Road 3 Townhouse $219,90086 South 5th Street 3 Townhouse $699,00020 Van Winkle Road 3 Townhouse $287,000

12 Park Place 3 Townhouse $724,00012 Van Winkle Road 3 Townhouse $259,000

112 Union Street 3 Townhouse $479,000Average 3BR $345,538

221 Warren Street 4 Townhouse $495,000458 Union Street 4 SFH $430,000

41 West Court Street 4 SFH $995,000555 State Street 4 SFH $479,000

35 South Fifth Street 4 SFH $625,0001 Rossman Avenue 4 SFH $395,000

442444 Prospect Street 4 SFH $295,000435437 East Allen Street 4 SFH $395,000

1719 Union Street 4 SFH $695,00080 Paddock Place 4 SFH $199,000225 State Street 4 SFH $650,000

Average 4BR $513,909516 Warren Street 5 SFH $1,250,000

251 Allen Street 5 SFH $698,000153 Green Street 5 SFH $467,000240 Union Street 5 Townhouse $625,000

7 Rossman Avenue 8 SFH $850,000Average 5+BR $778,000

CLASSIFIED LISTINGS - CITY OF HUDSON


74

As illustrated, the majority of the housing currently listed for sale within the city of Hudson are single-family homes or townhome properties at less than $895,000. Additionally, the majority of the homes for sale offer three-bedroom units. Accepted and Denied Mortgage Information According to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Institution and Location Registry, no specific data for Columbia County is available. However, aggregate 2015 data, which is the most recent available, for the state of New York was available segregated by select metropolitan statistical areas, which is illustrated in the table below.

Columbia County is part of the Albany-Schenectady combined statistical area (CSA), which also contains the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY MSA. However, this area is much more affluent and urbanized than Columbia County, with its principal cities being Albany, Schenectady, and Troy. The most similar MSA listed is the Dutchess County-Putnam MSA, which is located south of Columbia County and encompasses an area similarly rural to Columbia County. Home Affordability We have calculated the affordability by income level for single-family home ownership in Columbia County, which is shown in the following table. The table also illustrates the subsidy calculation by income level for a four-person family in Columbia County if they were to purchase a single-family home.

As illustrated, the median home value of a single-family home in Columbia County is $222,100, which is well below the estimated building cost (shown in the following table). Given the median home value, the majority of families at AMI levels at 80 percent or higher would not need assistance when purchasing a home.

MSAPurchase Applications

ReceivedPurchase Applications

DeniedOrigination Rate

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 8,850 487 94.5%Dutchess County-Putnam County, NY 3,025 527 82.6%

Syracuse, NY 6,120 798 87.0%Utica-Rome, NY 2,036 362 82.2%

Total 20,031 2,174 89.1%

ACCEPTED/DENIED MORTGAGE INFORMATION

Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Institution and Location Registry, July 2017

AMI LevelNumber of Households in Columbia County at each

AMI level***

4-Person AMI In Columbia County

Maximum Annual Housing Costs


Costs*

Equivalent Mortgage**

120% 468 $89,520 $26,856 $2,238 $336,390100% 198 $74,600 $22,380 $1,865 $280,32580% 531 $59,680 $17,904 $1,492 $224,26060% 187 $44,760 $13,428 $1,119 $168,19550% 187 $37,300 $11,190 $933 $140,16240% 457 $29,840 $8,952 $746 $112,13030% 402 $22,380 $6,714 $560 $84,097

$222,100

***Estimated by Census data

*Includes all principle, interest, taxes, and insurance (including private mortgage insurance)**Assumes a 30-year mortgage with a 4.75 percent interest rate, per MFA.

SUBSIDY CALCULATION - SINGLE-FAMILY

Median Home Value - Columbia County


75

However, the development of new construction single-family homes for sale is financially prohibitive even for households that could afford the cost of new construction, as the resale for the majority of homes would not be greater than the cost of construction. As such, if adequate gap subsidies such as favorable financing and tax credit equity are obtained by a potential developer, the development of single-family homes for a rent-to-own program, or a development targeted to renter-occupied households would be viable options if new construction is desired. Construction Costs We have utilized the following calculations to determine whether the total cost to construct a single-family home in Columbia County is economically feasible. The table following illustrates the cost to develop a typical two-story, 1,875 square foot single-family home in Columbia County.

*Estimated square footage of a typical new construction single-family home in Columbia County – Michaels Group Homes **Assumes a cost of $1.50 per square foot at 0.5 acres, based on a range of residential land listings on Loopnet.com, July 2017 The median value of a single-family home is $222,100 in Columbia County, which is well below the development cost for a new single-family home via Marshall & Swift and RS Means, as illustrated in the previous table. This indicates need for the preservation of Columbia County’s existing housing stock, rather than new development. The higher construction cost is consistent with the low numbers of new building permits issued for single-family development. As previously discussed, even for those households that could afford the cost of new construction, the housing market does not currently support prices upon resale that exceed the cost per square foot of new construction (median sales price per square foot for a single-family home by Michaels Group Homes is approximately $155, according to their website for quick sale inventory). PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION As previously discussed, we spoke with multiple entities regarding residential development in Hudson and Columbia County that is currently in the planning stages, recently completed, or under construction. The most recently completed new construction multifamily development in Columbia County is The Falls, a market-rate apartment property located at 158 Union Turnpike in Hudson and offering one, two, and three-bedroom units to families. This property began leasing in December 2016 and will offer 116 units upon its completion. As of April 2017, the property had leased 19 of its 24 available units. This property is considered a luxury apartment complex, as its rents would require tenants to earn a minimum income of $56,640 in order to pay 35 percent of their income or less towards rent. The newest affordable property in Columbia County is Greenport Gardens, which is currently under construction in Greenport just outside of Hudson. This property is a mixed-income supportive housing development that will offer 66 units in total, 38 of which are reserved for tenants with mental illness. The remaining 28 units are two-bedroom units for families earning 50 or 60 percent of AMI or less. Supportive services and transportation services offered at this property will be available to all tenants. This project is projected to be completed in April 2018. Ms. Susan Cody of Columbia County’s Mental Health Association

Marshall & Swift RS MeansNational Cost PSF $89.97 $128.15Location Adjustment Albany, NY 1.09 0.98Subject Cost PSF $98.07 $125.59Total Construction Cost 1,850 $181,425 $232,336Cost to Transport Materials* 5.0% $190,496 $243,953

Developer Profit 15.0% $28,574 $36,593Total Land Cost $1.50 per SF at 0.5 acres $32,670 $32,670

Total Cost $251,740 $313,216

DEVELOPMENT COST - SINGLE FAMILY


76

(MHA) reported that accessibility has been an ongoing issue for the project, as the property is not located in a walkable area. We also spoke with Ms. Patrice Perry, senior planner with Columbia County Planning Department, and Ms. Sheena Salvino, Executive Director of the Hudson Development Corporation and Planning Agency, about residential development in Columbia County and the city of Hudson. Ms. Perry was unaware of any additional multifamily residential developments currently proposed, planned, or under construction within Columbia County. Ms. Salvino reported no additional large single-family or multifamily developments currently under construction in the city of Hudson or its environs, but was aware of a smaller townhouse development located on Hudson Avenue in the city. This property will include four market-rate units for families. Ms. Salvino also reported that the Galvan Foundation (the organization that directs Galvan Housing Resources) is currently undertaking development of 20 affordable housing units throughout the city of Hudson. These are scattered site developments with no singular address. Galvan Foundation Director Jason O’Toole was unavailable for comment about these new affordable units at the time of this report, but recent local newspaper articles indicate that all units will be one and two-bedroom apartments. Beyond this forthcoming project, Ms. Salvino was unaware of any additional plans for affordable multifamily development in the area. She was unable to provide a list of government-owned or privately-owned parcels in Hudson for potential infill development, and stated that the city of Hudson’s current zoning regulating setbacks make residential development in the city of Hudson difficult. Additional details from our interviews with Ms. Perry and Ms. Salvino are available in the interviews section of this study. We also checked the tax credit allocation lists of New York State Homes and Community Renewal (NYSHCR) for multifamily developments that have been allocated tax credits over the last seven years. No multifamily developments have been allocated LIHTCs since 2010. Conclusion The housing market in Columbia County is primarily characterized as older vintage single-family homes. The city of Hudson includes a concentration of the area’s oldest housing stock, which is also comprised primarily of single-family homes in fair to average condition, though many have recently or are currently undergoing rehabilitation. New construction permits, particularly multifamily permits, have decreased significantly since the most recent national recession. Multifamily development has lagged single-family and duplex development since 2001, with the exception of the years 2013 and 2015. Development of multifamily housing containing five or more units has been infrequent over the past 16 years. As of 2017, the current owner-occupied percentage is estimated to be 70.7 percent in Columbia County. Home values, which are still below their pre-recession highs, and the lack of move-in ready homes have acted as disincentives for buyers outside the market as well as local first-time homebuyers and current homeowners looking to buy a starter home or move-up home. Despite these factors, the average sales price has increased year-over-year in the Columbia County area and area inventory is at a five-year low, indicating that the real estate market might be turning a corner. These indicators have moved concurrently with the area’s economic growth, which will continue to serve as a catalyst for recovery as tourism continues to bolster the local economy in and around Hudson. Additionally, the 2017 data shows a decrease in sales of foreclosure properties in Columbia County. There is still a significant amount of REO properties on the market; however, it appears that the real estate market is beginning to level off. Although there are many recent positive indicators, significant rehabilitation of the area’s housing stock is still needed. Notably, median rent in Columbia County is substantially less than the national median rent, consistent with the area’s generally lower cost of living. Additionally, the cash necessary for homeownership, including down payment and closing costs, is still a barrier to many families.


77

RENTAL MARKET Columbia County has a renter tenure of approximately 30 percent, slightly below the national average. The city of Hudson has a much higher renter tenure at approximately 66 percent. Rental properties are examined on the basis of physical characteristics, i.e. building type, age of the property, quality/condition of property, level of common amenities, absorption, as well as similarity in rent. Property managers were interviewed for information on unit mix, sizes, and absorption rates, unit features and project amenities, tenant profiles, and market trends in general. We surveyed all types of rental housing Columbia County including: market rate, non-traditional rental housing, affordable housing, subsidized, and senior housing. We also surveyed disabled and special-needs housing facilities. Detailed matrices describing the individual properties are provided in the addenda. We have utilized 228 units of market-rate, 80 units of LIHTC, 198 units of Public Housing, and 433 units of supportive housing in our analysis. Together, these 939 units comprise approximately 12 percent of the total existing rental housing stock in Columbia County. MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE CHARACTERISTICS Following are relevant market characteristics for the market rate family properties surveyed. This includes an analysis of multifamily rental developments with no maximum or rent restrictions. In order to assess the multifamily rental market in Columbia County, six market rate family properties with a total of 228 units were interviewed. We believe this is a representative sampling that will provide an overview on the state of market rate multifamily housing market in Columbia County. Detailed individual property profile reports for surveyed market rate properties in this analysis are included in the addenda. Overview We have examined properties within Hudson and the surrounding areas of Columbia County. It should be noted that market rate and affordable comparables without subsidy in outlying Columbia County outside of the city of Hudson were very limited. As such, we concentrated on the Hudson area and have supplemented our analysis where applicable. The 228 market-rate rental units included in our survey represents three percent of renter-occupied units within Columbia County. Columbia County The map following illustrates market rate comparables in Columbia County.


78



79


# Property Name City1 5-6 Mountain View Drive Valatie2 Essex Manor Apartments Greenport3 Greenport Apartments Greenport4 Healy Meadows Greenport5 Hudson Garden Apartments Hudson6 The Falls Greenport

COMPARABLE PROPERTIES


80

Size Max Wait(SF) Rent? List?

5-6 Mountain View Drive Garden 1BR / 1BA 10 50.0% Market $702 400 n/a No 0 0.0%5-6 Mountain View Drive (2 stories) 2BR / 1BA 10 50.0% Market $903 700 n/a No 0 0.0%Valatie, NY 12184 1970Columbia County

20 100.0% 0 0.0%Essex Manor Apartments Garden 1BR / 1BA 15 18.5% Market $675 539 n/a No 0 0.0%27 Apple Meadow Road (2 stories) 2BR / 1BA 33 40.7% Market $725 888 n/a No 0 0.0%Greenport, NY 12534 1989 2BR / 1BA 33 40.7% Market $725 936 n/a No 0 0.0%Columbia County

81 100.0% 0 0.0%Greenport Apartments Garden 20 100.0% 1 5.0%71 Ten Broeck 1969Greenport, NY 12534Columbia County 20 100.0% 1 5.0%Healy Meadows Garden 24 100.0% 1 4.2%310 Route 66 1970'sGreenport, NY 12534Columbia County 24 100.0% 1 4.2%Hudson Garden Apartments Garden 59 100.0% 0 0.0%194 Harry Howard Avenue (3 stories)Hudson, NY 12534 1979Columbia County 59 100.0% 0 0.0%The Falls Garden 1BR / 1BA 10 41.7% Market $1,652 927 n/a No 1 10.0%158 Union Turnpike (4 stories) 2BR / 2BA 10 41.7% Market $1,420 1,420 n/a No 1 10.0%Greenport, NY 12534 2016 3BR / 2BA 4 16.7% Market $1,594 1,594 n/a No 3 75.0%Columbia County

24 100.0% 5 20.8%

n/a No

6 Market

n/a No

4 Market 2BR / 1.5BA Market $1,030 1,100 n/a No

5 Market

2 Market

3 Market

Vacancy Rate

1 Market

# % RestrictionRent (Adj.)

Units Vacant

2BR / 1BA Market $1,150

#

2BR / 1BA Market $1,000

750

800

Property Name

SUMMARY MATRIXType/Built/ Renovated

Market / Subsidy

Units


81

5-6 Mountain View Drive

Essex Manor Apartments

Greenport Apartments

Healy MeadowsHudson Garden

ApartmentsThe Falls

Property Type Garden (2 stories) Garden (2 stories) Garden Garden Garden (3 stories) Garden (4 stories)Year Built / Renovated 1970 1989 1969 1970's 1979 2016Market (Conv.)/Subsidy Type Market Market Market Market Market Market

Cooking no no no no no noWater Heat no no no no no noHeat no no no no no noOther Electric no no no no no noWater no yes no yes no noSewer no yes no yes no noTrash Collection no yes no yes no no

Balcony/Patio yes yes yes no no yesBlinds yes yes yes yes yes yesCable/Satellite/Internet no yes no no no noCarpet/Hardwood no no no no no yesCarpeting yes yes yes yes yes noCoat Closet no no no no no yesDishwasher no yes no yes no yesExterior Storage no no no no no yesCeiling Fan yes no yes no yes yesMicrowave no no no no no yesOven yes yes yes yes yes yesRefrigerator yes yes yes yes yes yesWalk-In Closet no no no no no yesWall A/C no yes no yes yes noWasher/Dryer no no no no no yesWasher/Dryer hookup yes no yes no yes yes

Basketball Court no no no no no yesClubhouse/Meeting no no no no no yesCourtyard no no no yes no noElevators no no no no no yesExercise Facility no no no no no yesGarage no no no yes no noCentral Laundry no yes no yes no noOff-Street Parking yes yes yes yes yes yesOn-Site Management yes yes no no yes yesPicnic Area no no no no no yesPlayground no no no no no yesRecreation Areas no no no no no yesSport Court no no no no no yesSwimming Pool no no no no no yesTennis Court no no no no no yes

Intercom (Phone) no no no no no yes

Other n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Walking/biking trails, movie theatre

Security

Other Amenities

UNIT MATRIX REPORT

Utility Adjusments

In-Unit Amenities

Property Amenities


82

Unit Mix The table below illustrates the unit mix breakdown of the surveyed market rate comparables.

As indicated by the known unit mix, the multifamily market in Columbia County is predominantly two-bedroom units. Out of the total number of units, one and two-bedroom units comprise 98 percent of the housing stock. Out of the six market rate properties surveyed, all offer two-bedroom units and approximately 50 percent offer one-bedroom units. Three-bedroom units are the least common in the market. None of the properties surveyed offer studio or four-bedroom units. Unit Size The following table illustrates the unit sizes for market rate properties in Columbia County.

The previous table illustrates the unit sizes among the surveyed comparables for the overall market. Unit sizes vary widely. Comparisons between unit sizes in the city of Hudson and wider Columbia County are misleading as only one comparable is located outside of the city of Hudson. Vacancy The table following illustrates current vacancy rates among the surveyed comparables in Columbia County.

The vacancy rates among the market rate comparables range from zero to 20.8 percent. The property with the highest vacancy rate, The Falls, is still under construction and in its initial lease up phase. Excluding this property, vacancy at the comparables ranges from zero to 5.0 percent, with an average of 1.8 percent. Overall, the market at large is stabilized.

Unit Type Number of Units Percent of TotalNumber of

Properties that Offer Unit Type

Percent of Properties that Offer Unit Type

1 BR 35 15% 3 50%2 BR 189 83% 6 100%3 BR 4 2% 1 17%Total 228 100% 6 -

UNIT MIX

Unit Type Surveyed Min Surveyed Max Surveyed Average1 BR 539 927 6942 BR 750 1,420 9113 BR 1,594 1,594 1,594

UNIT SIZE COMPARISON

Property name Rent Structure Total Units Vacant Units Vacancy Rate5-6 Mountain View Drive Market 20 0 0.0%Essex Manor Apartments Market 81 0 0.0%

Greenport Apartments Market 20 1 5.0%Healy Meadows Market 24 1 4.2%

Hudson Garden Apartments Market 59 0 0.0%The Falls Market 24 5 20.8%

Total 208 7 5.0%

OVERALL VACANCY


83

Turnover Turnover information was obtained from all five developments with market rate units. The turnover percentage ranges from 10 to 25 percent, with an average of 18 percent. The contacts of each respective property noted that the amount of turnover reported is consistent with the historical turnover rates experienced at their respective properties. Concessions None of the properties surveyed are offering a concession at the current time. Waiting Lists None of the surveyed properties with market rate units reported a waiting list at this time. Market Rent Analysis In order to create appropriate comparisons between the properties, we have established a standard utility basis. We have adjusted rents based on a utility structure where tenants pay air conditioning, electric heating, water heating, and cooking and general electric expenses. We have found that this utility structure is the most common one utilized in Columbia County. As a result, properties with differing utility structure have been adjusted based on the most commonly utilized utility structure among the surveyed comparables. Properties in Columbia County command a wide variety of rents based upon location, size, condition and amenities. The below table shows the current rental rates in Columbia County adjusted for utilities.

The previous table demonstrates that the city of Hudson does not have a higher average rent than other areas of Columbia County; the single market rate comparable located outside of the city of Hudson, 5-6 Mountain View Drive, is achieving rents within the range of the comparables located within Hudson. The market-rate comparable with the lowest rents, Essex Manor Apartments, is located within the city of Hudson limits. Five of the six comparables were constructed between 1969 and 1989, while the final comparable was constructed in 2016. The most recently constructed comparable, The Falls, is achieving rents well above the rents at the other comparables, suggesting high variance between comparables based on age. High rents at The Falls also skew the average rents by bedroom type. Excluding this comparable, the average market rate rents are $689, $962, and $1,594 for one, two, and three-bedroom units, respectively.

Property Name City Year Built 1BR 2BR 3BR5-6 Mountain View Drive Valatie 1970 $702 $903 -Essex Manor Apartments Hudson 1989 $675 $725 -

Greenport Apartments Hudson 1969 - $1,150 -Healy Meadows Hudson 1970 - $1,030 -

Hudson Garden Apartments Hudson 1979 - $1,000 -The Falls Hudson 2016 $1,652 $1,420 $1,594

Overall Average $1,010 $1,038 $1,594Average excluding The Falls $689 $962 $1,594

MARKET RENT COMPARISON


84

Rental Rates for Properties Advertised in Classifieds We have researched local classified listings in the city of Hudson. These are listed in the following table.

The table above illustrates rents found in the classified listings. Many of the classified listings are historic buildings that have been converted for use as apartments. There are only two studio units available, with an average rent of $923. The one-bedroom rental units in the market primarily have a townhouse design, with an average rent of $1,109. The two -bedroom units are primarily converted historic buildings, and have an average rent of $1,506. The three-bedroom units have an average rent of $2,083.

Address Bedrooms Type Price412 Warren Street 0 Conversion $923202 Warren Street 0 Conversion $923

Average 0BR $923324 Warren Street, Unit 5 1 Townhouse $1,050

838 Columbia Street, Unit 2 1 Townhouse $85028 Union Street 1 Townhouse $1,295542 State Street 1 Townhouse $1,500

328 Columbia Street 1 Conversion $850Average 1BR $1,109

11 N 7th Street, Unit 2 2 Townhouse $1,15036 Spring Street 2 Conversion $875

409 Warren Street 2 Conversion $1,000428 State Street 2 Conversion $3,000

Average 2BR $1,506328 Columbia Street 3 Conversion $1,250

508 Union Street 3 Townhouse $2,60072 N 6th Street 3 Townhouse $2,400Average 3BR $2,083

CLASSIFIED RENTAL LISTINGS


85

AFFORDABLE RENTAL CHARACTERISTICS Affordable rental properties are examined on the basis of physical characteristics, i.e. building type, age/quality, level of common amenities, absorption, as well as similarity in rent. We attempted to survey all existing affordable developments within the market area in order to provide a picture of the health and available affordable supply in the market.

Description of Property Types Surveyed We performed a field survey of affordable housing properties within Columbia County and Hudson. For purposes of our analysis, “affordable housing” is defined as properties encumbered by one or more of the following programs: LIHTC, Section 8, and/or public housing. We identified approximately 20 combined affordable developments including LIHTC (nine) and Section 8 and USDA Rural Development (nine combined, including supportive housing), and Public Housing (two) in Columbia County and the city of Hudson. We have provided a separate discussion regarding current public housing stock and subsidized supportive housing following this section of the report. We were able to survey four unsubsidized affordable developments in Columbia County, all of which have been included in our rental survey. These properties include 80 units, approximately one percent of the existing rental housing stock within Columbia County. The following pages include various summary reports that compare various data points as reported by the comparables. The following map illustrates the location of affordable properties utilized in this analysis. LIHTC Rentals The map below illustrates the location of the LIHTC rental properties in Columbia County.


86

Source: Google Earth, July 2017

# Property Name Tenancy Location1 Crosswinds At Hudson Family Hudson2 Highpointe at Chatham Senior Apts Senior Chatham3 Hudson Homesteads Family Hudson4 Richardson Hall Senior Philmont

LIHTC PROPERTIES IN COLUMBIA COUNTY


87

Size Max Wait(SF) Rent? List?

Crosswinds At Hudson Townhouse 1BR / 1BA 18 25.7% @60% $660 760 no Yes 0 0.0%100 Harry Howard Avenue (2 stories) 2BR / 1.5BA 34 48.6% @60% $745 1,293 no Yes 0 0.0%Hudson, NY 12534 2008 3BR / 1.5BA 18 25.7% @60% $850 1,418 no Yes 0 0.0%Columbia County

70 100.0% 0 0.0%Highpointe At Chatham Senior Apartments Lowrise (age-restricted) 1BR / 1BA 13 36.1% @40% $334 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%45 Dardess Drive (2 stories) 1BR / 1BA 13 36.1% @50% $445 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%Chatam, NY 12037 2003 2BR / 1BA 10 27.8% @50% $498 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%Columbia County

36 100.0% 0 0.0%Hudson Homesteads Various 1BR / 1BA (Conversion) 1 5.0% @60% $689 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%229 Columbia Street 2BR / 1BA (Conversion) 3 15.0% @30% $434 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%Hudson, NY 12534 2BR / 1BA (Conversion) 3 15.0% @50% $616 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%Columbia County 2BR / 1BA (Conversion) 6 30.0% @60% $709 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%

3BR / 1BA (Conversion) 1 5.0% @50% $744 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%3BR / 1BA (Conversion) 6 30.0% @60% $866 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%

20 100.0% 0 0.0%Richardson Hall Conversion (age-restricted) 1BR / 1BA 5 20.8% @30% $393 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%114 Main Street (3 stories) 1BR / 1BA 14 58.3% @50% $666 N/A no Yes 0 0.0%Philmont, NY 12534 1920/ 2001 2BR / 1BA 5 20.8% @50% $707 N/A no Yes 1 20.0%Columbia County

24 100.0% 1 4.2%

3 @30%, @50%, @60%

4 @30%, @50%

1 @60%

2 @40%, @50%

Comp # Project Type / Built / Renovated Market / Subsidy

Units Vacant

Vacancy Rate

SUMMARY MATRIX

Units # % Restriction Rent (Adj.)


88

Crosswinds At Hudson Highpointe At Chatham Hudson Homesteads Richardson HallProperty Type Townhouse (2 stories) Lowrise (age-restricted) (2

stories)Various Conversion (age-restricted)

(3 stories)Year Built / Renovated 2008 2003 1920/2001Market (Conv.)/Subsidy Type

@60% @40%, @50% @30%, @50%, @60% @30%, @50%

Cook ing no yes no noWater Heat no yes no noHeat no yes no noOther Electric no no no noWater no yes yes yesSewer no yes yes yesTrash Collection no yes yes yes

Blinds yes yes yes yesCarpet/Hardwood no no yes yesCarpeting yes yes no noCentral A/C no yes no noCoat C loset no yes no noDishwasher yes no no noExterior Storage no yes no yesOven yes yes yes yesRefrigerator yes yes yes yesWindow A/C no no no yesWasher/Dryer hookup yes no no no

Elevators no yes no yesExercise Facil ity no yes no noCentral Laundry yes yes no yesOff-Street Park ing yes yes no yesOn-Site Management yes yes no no

Limited Access no yes no yesVideo Surveillance no yes no no

Other n/a n/a n/a n/a

Security

Other Amenities

UNIT MATRIX REPORT

Utility Adjusments

In-Unit Amenities

Property Amenities


89

LIHTC Rental Market Property Characteristics We have provided a brief overview of the low income housing tax credit program in the State of New York provided by New York State Homes and Community Renewal (NYSHCR). The Low-Income Housing Credit Program (LIHC) was established under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to promote private sector involvement in the retention and production of rental housing that is reserved for low-income households. The LIHC program provides a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal income tax liability for project owners who develop rental housing that serves low-income households with incomes up to 60% of area median income. The amount of LIHC available to project owners is directly related to the number of low-income housing units that they provide. Most projects receiving an allocation of LIHC also utilize another governmental subsidy as part of their project financing. Federal subsidies such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME and USDA RHS 515 have been used in conjunction with the LIHC. On the State level, the LIHC has been allocated to projects employing Housing Trust Fund and New York State HOME Program subsidies. Local government capital subsidies have been employed extensively in projects located in New York City. Project owners use the LIHC allocation as a gap filler in their development budgets. The LIHC is turned into equity to fill the project gaps through the sale of the project and the credit to investors. DHCR is the lead Housing Credit Agency for New York State. Other Housing Credit Agencies are the New York State Housing Finance Agency, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the Development Authority of the North Country. Unit Mix The following table illustrates the unit mix of LIHTC rental properties in Columbia County.

The only unit types in Columbia County are one, two, and three-bedroom units. The majority of LIHTC units are one and two-bedroom units. Unit Size Only one LIHTC property was able to provide unit sizes. Therefore, comparison is not meaningful. Vacancy The table following illustrates the vacancy rates of LIHTC rental developments in Columbia County.

As illustrated, three of the four LIHTC properties reported 100 percent occupancy. The final LIHTC development, Richardson Hall, reported one vacant unit. This property also maintains a waiting list of 25

Unit Type # of Units Percent of Total# of Properties that Offer

Unit TypePercent of Properties that Offer Unit Type

1BR 64 42.7% 4 100.0%2BR 61 40.7% 4 100.0%3BR 25 16.7% 2 50.0%Total 150 100.0% 4

LIHTC UNIT MIX

Property name Rent Structure Total Units Vacant Units Vacancy Crosswinds at Hudson @60% 70 0 0.0%

Highpointe At Chatham Senior @40%, @50% 36 0 0.0%Hudson Homesteads @30%, @50%, 20 0 0.0%

Richardson Hall @30%, @50% 24 1 4.2%Total 80 1 1.3%

OVERALL VACANCY


90

households. Overall, the LIHTC developments display a vacancy rate of 1.3 percent, which is considered low and indicates a supply constrained market. Turnover The following table represents turnover at LIHTC properties in Columbia County.

Turnover at the LIHTC properties in Columbia County ranges from four to 60 percent, with an average of 47 percent overall. Concessions There are no concessions offered at the rentals in Columbia County at this time. Waiting Lists The following table details waiting lists at the LIHTC rental properties in Columbia County.

All of the LIHTC properties maintain waiting lists, some of up to 30 households. Hudson Homesteads maintains a waiting list of unknown length. The presence of waiting lists at all of the LIHTC properties suggests ongoing, unmet demand for affordable housing in Columbia County. Affordable Rent Analysis In order to create appropriate comparisons between the properties, we have established a standard utility basis. We have adjusted rents based on a utility structure where tenants pay air conditioning, electric heating, water heating, and cooking and general electric expenses. We have found that this utility structure is the most common one utilized in Columbia County. As a result, properties with differing utility structure have been adjusted based on the most commonly utilized utility structure among the surveyed comparables. 30% AMI Levels

Property name Rent Structure TurnoverCrosswinds at Hudson @60% 4%

Highpointe At Chatham Senior @40%, @50% 33%Hudson Homesteads @30%, @50%, @60% 60%

Richardson Hall @30%, @50% 50%Average Turnover 47%

TURNOVER

Property Name Rent Structure Tenancy Waiting ListCrosswinds at Hudson @60% Family 20 to 30 households

Highpointe At Chatham Senior @40%, @50% Senior 30 householdsHudson Homesteads @30%, @50%, @60% Family Not available

Richardson Hall @30%, @50% Senior 25 households

WAITING LISTS

Property Name 2BRHudson Homesteads $434

LIHTC Maximum (Net) $504

LIHTC RENT COMPARISON - @30%


91

40% AMI Levels

50% AMI Levels

60% AMI Levels

As demonstrated in the tables above, none of the LIHTC properties in Columbia County are achieving rents at the maximum allowable levels. Only one comparable offers units at 30 percent AMI, and only one comparable offers units at 40 percent AMI. Average LIHTC rents are well below the maximum allowable levels at each level of AMI.

Property Name 1BRHighpointe at Chatham Senior Apartments $477

LIHTC Maximum (Net) $597

LIHTC RENT COMPARISON - 40%

Property Name 2BR 3BRHudson Homesteads $616 $744

Highpointe At Chatham Senior Apartments $498 -Richardson Hall $707 -

Average (excluding Subject) $603 $744LIHTC Maximum (Net) $840 $932


Property Name 1BR 2BR 3BRHudson Homesteads $689 $709 $866

Crosswinds At Hudson $660 $745 $850Average (excluding Subject) $675 $727 $858

LIHTC Maximum (Net) $895 $1,008 $1,119



92

SECTION 8/USDA PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Subsidized Property Maps We have identified a combination of 10 Section 8 and USDA developments in the entire county, illustrated below.


93

Tenants pay 30 percent of their monthly adjusted income towards housing costs at these properties. The total housing stock contains 579 units of subsidized housing. Family housing units range from studio to four-bedroom units while the senior housing stock is one and two-bedroom units. There are 344 family units and 235 senior/disabled units. The table following shows the vacancy rate of each subsidized development from which we were able to obtain data.

As illustrated, there are only four total vacant units of the properties that participated in our survey.

# Property Name Rent Structure City1 Philmont Terrace LIHTC/Rural Development Philmont2 Valatie Woods LIHTC/Rural Development Valatie3 Chatham Manor LIHTC/Rural Development Chatham4 Schuyler Court Apartments Rural Development Hudson5 Dawnwood Apartments Rural Development Greenport6 John Funk Village Rural Development Greenport7 Paul Raihofer Senior Village LIHTC/Rural Development Valatie8 Palatine Manor Section 8 Germantown9 Greenport Manor Section 8 Greenport

10 Hudson Terrace Apartments Section 8 Hudson11 Providence Hall Section 8 Hudson

OVERALL VACANCY - SUBSIDIZED PROPERTIES

# Property Name Rent Structure City Tenancy # UnitsVacant Units

Vacancy Rate

1 Philmont Terrace LIHTC/Rural Development Philmont Senior 32 0 0%2 Valatie Woods LIHTC/Rural Development Valatie Family 32 0 0%3 Chatham Manor LIHTC/Rural Development Chatham Senior 32 0 0%4 Schuyler Court Apartments Rural Development Hudson Family 51 0 0%5 Dawnwood Apartments Rural Development Greenport Family 24 0 0%6 John Funk Village Rural Development Greenport Family 28 0 0%7 Paul Raihofer Senior Village LIHTC/Rural Development Valatie Senior 32 0 0%8 Palatine Manor Section 8 Germantown Senior 38 0 0%9 Greenport Manor Section 8 Greenport Family 41 0 0%

10 Hudson Terrace Apartments Section 8 Hudson Family 168 2 1%11 Providence Hall Section 8 Hudson Senior 101 2 2%

OVERALL VACANCY - SUBSIDIZED PROPERTIES


94

PUBLIC HOUSING PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS The Hudson Housing Authority (HHA) owns and manages two public housing communities in the city of Hudson. There are no public housing developments in Columbia County outside of the city of Hudson. The map below illustrates the area’s supply of public housing developments.



95

Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments are Columbia County’s two public housing developments. The former offers units to seniors and the latter targets families. At these properties, tenants pay 30 percent of their monthly adjusted income towards housing. All housing applications are made through the HHA Public Housing Waiting List. The Columbia County area public housing stock contains 200 units of public housing, which comprise approximately three percent of the existing rental housing stock in Columbia County. Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments offer 132 units and 66 units, respectively. The former property offers one and two-bedroom units, while the latter offers one, two, three, four, and five-bedroom units. We spoke with Ms. Tricia Mayo, rental manager with the Hudson Housing Authority, who reported that Both Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments are currently fully-occupied. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING Mentally Ill We are aware of two facilities in Columbia County for persons with mental health problems, both of which are located in Hudson. Columbia Street Apartments and Hudson Community Apartments, both subsidized properties, offer units to mentally ill persons and the developmentally disables. Columbia-Greene Mental Health Association (MHA) oversees placement in these properties. Both Columbia Street Apartments and Hudson Community Apartments are group living homes with 24-hour supervision provided to support tenants’ personal recovery. Beyond these two properties, MHA works to place mentally ill persons and those with development disabilities in affordable rental housing throughout the county. We spoke with Ms. Tammy Hall, Apartment Program Director and Residential Coordinator for Columbia-Greene Mental Health Association, who reported that the organization works with local property owners to place mentally ill persons in market-rate properties throughout Hudson and Columbia County. Ms. Hall reported that these are typically scattered site units offered at rents that are considered affordable. MHA works with landlords to arrange acceptable payment, and frequently subsidizes tenants’ rents. Physical Disabilities, Special Needs The nine affordable apartment complexes in Columbia County that target tenants with physical disabilities also target senior tenants. These properties have been included in our analysis of LIHTC, subsidized, and public housing units above. These properties include Providence Hall (Section 8), Greenport Manor (Rural Development), Richardson Hall (LIHTC), Highpoint at Chatham (LIHTC), Palatine Manor (Rural Development), Dawnwood Apartments (Rural Development), Valatie Woods (Rural Development), Chatham Manor (Rural Development), Philmont Terrace (Rural Development), John Funk Village Apartments, and Paul Raihofer Senior Village (Rural Development). The map and table following illustrates the location of each development, unit count, and current occupancy.

# Property Name Tenancy Location1 Bliss Towers Senior Hudson2 Columbia Apartments Family Hudson

PUBLIC HOUSING PROPERTIES


96


# Property Name Location Total Units Current Occupancy1 Providence Hall Hudson 101 98%2 Greenport Manor Hudson 41 100%3 Richardson Hall Philmont 24 100%4 Highpointe at Chatham Senior Apartments Chatham 36 94%5 Palatine Manor Germantown 38 100%6 Dawnwood Apartments Hudson 24 100%7 Valatie Woods Valatie 32 100%8 Chatham Manor Valatie 32 100%9 Philmont Terrace Philmont 32 100%

10 John Funk Village Apartments Hudson 28 100%11 Paul Raihofer Senior Village Valatie 32 100%12 Columbia Street Apartments Hudson 4 100%13 Hudson Community Apartments Hudson 9 100%

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROPERTIES


97

Homeless Columbia County Department of Social Services (DSS) provides emergency shelter for homeless persons throughout Columbia County, though there are The Mental Health Association of Columbia and Greene Counties (MHA) works with St. Catherine’s Center for Children, Columbia Opportunities, Inc., and Community Action of Greene County to arrange permanent supportive housing and transitional housing for homeless persons in Columbia County. According to The Continuum of Care (CoC), a HUD program designed to promote communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, the homeless population is homeless for a variety of reasons, the most common of which are job loss, mental health issues, substance abuse, and foreclosure. Problems at home, including domestic violence and divorce, also play in a role in homelessness. The Continuum of Care’s 2016 Point in Time data for Columbia and Greene Counties, the most recent data available for this area, reveals that approximately 103 homeless persons were served by emergency shelters in Columbia and Greene Counties in 2016. This number included 19 families with at least one child. An additional 11 homeless persons were sheltered in the counties’ transitional housing, including three homeless households with at least one child. An additional two homeless persons remained unsheltered in any kind of housing.

Given the relative lack of permanent facilities available for the homeless population in Columbia County, it appears there is a need for additional supportive housing. Please see the Future Housing Needs section of this report for additional details on Columbia County’s projected housing needs

VI. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS


99

FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS In order to gain a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the local housing market, we interviewed several area stakeholders. INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS

Columbia County Housing Authority (JEM, Inc.) We spoke with Ms. Dale-Ann Brown, Director of the Columbia County Housing Authority regarding the county’s affordable housing. The Columbia County Housing Authority recently assumed management of Housing Choice Vouchers in the program from Columbia Opportunities, Inc., who formerly administered the program in the county. Ms. Brown stated that the county issues 280 total Housing Choice Vouchers, and that all are tenant-based vouchers. As of the date of this report, all of the county’s 280 vouchers are in use. The waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers is currently closed and is purged every two weeks. Ms. Brown stated a definitive need for affordable housing in Columbia County, reporting that the county’s payment standards are low in relation to current market rents. This makes use of tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers very difficult for voucher holders. Hudson Housing Authority We spoke with Mr. Anthony Laulette, Director of the Hudson Housing Authority in Hudson. Mr. Laulette reported that the Hudson Housing Authority issues up to 129 Housing Choice Vouchers, all of which are tenant-based. As of the date of this report, only 60 of the 129 vouchers are in use. There is a waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers which is currently open and includes 237 households. Mr. Laulette reported that most households using Housing Choice Vouchers in Hudson are families from the local area. One- and two-bedroom units are in higher demand than other bedroom types. Demand is concentrated among households in the extremely low (earning 30 percent or less than the area median income). The Hudson Housing Authority manages a Section 8 property known as Bliss Towers/Columbia Apartments located at 41 North 2nd Street in Hudson. Columbia Opportunities, Inc. We spoke with Ms. Tina Sharpe of Columbia Opportunities, Inc., an affordable housing resource and advocacy group in Columbia County. Ms. Sharpe reported that many towns in Columbia County do not have any affordable housing or any legal support for low income housing. Ms. Sharpe underscored the difficulty that Housing Choice Voucher holders have using their vouchers in the county, as payment standards are typically well below market rates. Ms. Sharpe also stated a great need for affordable housing in Columbia County, especially in areas of the county where the area median income (AMI) is rising. Ms. Sharpe described recent AMI growth as a result of senior householders moving to the area from outside. These new Columbia County residents are retirees and second homeowners. In places like Hillsdale, where the senior population has increased 35 percent since 2010, housing costs are rising. This makes affordable housing scarcer and scarcer for lower income county residents. Ms. Sharpe was also able to report on the preliminary results of an ongoing housing survey undertaken by the Hillsdale Housing Committee in Columbia County. Preliminary results indicate that there are 427 seniors age 65 and older living in Hillsdale, which equates to approximately 300 households. The survey results also show a decrease in the number of seasonal homes from figures collected in years past; there are more second home owners making Hillsdale their primary residence now than in years past. Results indicated that fewer workers in Hillsdale walk or bike to work than those who drive, and over 25 percent of households in Hillsdale are considered rent-overburdened. Median household income for Hillsdale has increased significantly since the last housing needs study was undertaken there. Median income for Hillsdale is now $73,250. The survey also revealed that there are very low vacancy rates throughout Hillsdale, and available


100

rental and housing ownership housing are in short supply. The Hillsdale community will continue to discuss the findings of this survey in focus groups hosted throughout the May 2017. The survey will culminate in a community meeting in early June 2017. Preliminary results indicate need for additional housing, both market-rate and affordable, in Columbia County. Columbia County Planning Department We spoke with Ms. Patrice Perry, Senior Planner in Columbia County’s Planning Department, regarding residential and commercial development in Columbia County. Ms. Perry reported no single family residential developments proposed, planned, or under construction at the present time. She also reported no new multifamily residential development in the unincorporated areas of Columbia County. Ms Perry reported that the newest multifamily residential development aside from The Falls in Hudson was low-income housing in Valatie and the LIHTC property Crosswinds in Hudson, which was constructed approximately 10 years ago. Ms. Perry also reported that her office will not review residential development unless it is referred to County Planning because of proximity to a county or state highway, for purposes of special use or permit, or proximity to county or state-owned property. Even in cases of review, the Columbia County Planning Department only makes recommendations to the municipalities, who ultimately make decisions about development within their boundaries. Ms. Perry reported that most commercial development in the county has been related to tourism, such as hotels, and is not residential. Ms. Perry was not aware of any potential sites for residential development in Columbia County. Hudson Development Corporation and Hudson Community Planning Agency We spoke with Ms. Sheena Salvino, Executive Director of the Hudson Development Corporation & Planning Agency, regarding residential and commercial development in the city of Hudson and its immediate environs. The Hudson Development Corporation and the Planning Agency are two separate entities- Hudson Development Corporation is a 501(3)C organization while the Planning Agency is an arm of the City of Hudson government. Ms. Salvino serves both organizations. She reported that there are no large single-family or multifamily developments currently under construction or proposed in the Hudson area. However, there are smaller developments ongoing. A smaller single-family development of approximately four units is under construction on Hudson Avenue opposite the baseball field. This development will bring additional market-rate single-family homes to the city of Hudson. Ms. Salvino also reported that Galvan Housing Initiatives is currently undertaking a 20-unit affordable development within the city of Hudson. This is a scattered site development that will create affordable units throughout the city. Ms. Salvino was not certain of the units’ locations. Ms. Salvino also reported that her office is currently working on a grant proposal with the Galvan Foundation (affiliated with Galvan Housing Resources) for additional affordable housing funding in Hudson. The lengthy waiting list maintained by the Hudson Housing Authority evinces the need for additional affordable housing in the area. According to Ms. Salvino, infill development is difficult in the Hudson, as the city’s zoning code includes strict setback requirements that are challenging for residential development to occur inside the city of Hudson. She stressed future sites for potential infill would need to be part of a larger, comprehensive community planning initiative. Ms. Salvino was also able to comment on the changing economy of the Hudson area, which she characterized as increasingly focused on arts and entertainment, particularly as related to tourism. She cited recent increases in the number of AirBnB listings and Amtrak’s on/off passenger statistics as evidence of Hudson’s growing popularity as a tourism destination. Hudson recently entered the nation’s list of top 10 cities for on/off passengers, meaning train passengers are increasingly choosing Hudson as a destination. Ms. Salvino identified Warren Street as the city’s major commercial center, as retail and service industry businesses are concentrated in this part of Hudson.


101

Red Apple Realty We spoke with Barb Robinson, realtor and owner of Red Apple Realty, about Columbia County’s existing housing stock and challenges facing potential home buyers in the area. Ms. Robinson reported that the county has not experienced much residential development in the past five to seven years, reflecting trends in the wider, local real estate market. Ms. Robinson stated that year-to-date sales are down approximately 17 percent, which is a result of decreased inventory. Ms. Robinson clarified that the demand for housing in Columbia County has been high lately, which has in turn driven the available supply down. She reported that, as a result, home prices are currently up by approximately 20 percent over 2016 home prices. She reiterated that Columbia County is experiencing a record low level of single-family home inventory as of late. The greatest need for housing inventory is in the $150,000 to $300,000 range, which is currently the most active sector of the home buying market. Ms. Robinson pointed to Mount Rae Estates as examples of residential development success stories in recent years. Mount Rae Estates is a townhouse development located at Academy Hill Drive and Van Winkle Drive that began construction in the 1980s. This development has experienced a recent resurgence in interest and success as a large segment of the population is migrating to Hudson for permanent residence from New York City and its environs. The convenience of train travel to and from New York City via Amtrak has made Hudson and Columbia County more broadly a viable residential option for those working in the City – commuting is becoming increasingly common in the area. Ms. Robinson pointed out that many new residents of Columbia County are elderly and that townhouses are an appealing housing option for this segment of the population. New townhouse developments in the area typically range in value from $257,000 to $300,000, while resale townhouses in the area typically range from $215,000 to $220,000. Ms. Robinson opined that, while real estate in and around the city of Hudson has been doing well lately, demand for housing exists throughout Columbia County. She cited the county’s landscape and natural beauty as a draw for many new home buyers in the area, as well as the area’s blossoming arts and entertainment and tourism industries. Ms. Robinson suggested that the greatest challenge to would-be home buyers in the county is a limited inventory, and particularly limited inventory in the $150,000 to $300,000 range. House Hudson Valley Realty We spoke with Mr. James Male, real estate agent with House Hudson Valley Realty, about demand for rental housing in the Hudson area. Mr. Male reported that demand is highest for rental housing below $1,000 per month, and that most of his clients are looking for rental housing priced below $1,500 per month. Mr. Male finds that households able to afford rents above $1,500 per month are more likely to buy a home than to rent. He reports that there is not demand for rental housing targeting households in the higher income brackets for this reason. Mr. Male reported that the greatest challenge to affordable housing in the area is the lack of availability, as most existing potential rental housing is held vacant by an existing landlord who owns many properties that were once affordable housing units. Mr. Male reported that rental housing units that are rents for $1,000 per month or less are typically rented quickly and are very rarely available. Valley Mortgage We spoke with Mr. Seth Rapport, mortgage broker with Valley Mortgage, about recent residential development and challenges facing local lenders and buyers in the area. Mr. Rapport reported that new construction and rehabilitation have been equally common in residential development in the Columbia County area in recent years. Mr. Rapport was not aware of any unsuccessful residential developments in the area. He cited an ongoing, persistent need for affordable housing in the area, although he believed that efforts to develop affordable housing was primarily to replace existing affordable housing that has exceeded its useful life rather than development of new affordable housing alongside existing stock. Mr. Rapport indicated a shortage of housing in all price ranges throughout the county. The greatest challenge facing


102

lenders in the area is a lack of qualified borrowers, he reported. Would-be home buyers are often not income-qualified to borrow the funds necessary to purchase available housing in Columbia County. Mr. Rapport believes that all parts of Columbia County are potential locations for residential development, and that no particular area of the county is undesirable for residential development. Columbia County Schools We spoke with staff members and administrators in Columbia County school districts about challenges facing students, their families, and the school system at large in Columbia County. School staff and administrators reported that the homeless student population of Columbia County has increased by seven times in the past year. The County reports 28 new special education students entering the school system since August 2016, most of whom have been evicted from their former housing arrangements and are now considered homeless. County school staff noted that Yorkshire is a particular problem area for the county, as sex offenders are often housed in a motel in Yorkshire and their presence prohibits families with school-aged children from living in the area. Students who attend school in Yorkshire often live outside of Yorkshire in other areas of the county. School district staff indicated that the current poor condition of existing rental housing stock is the county’s greatest affordable housing challenge. This issue reportedly arises from the control of the majority of affordable housing by a single landlord who does not maintain the properties. As a result, many school-aged children in the county are living in two-bedroom quarters with four or five other people. Resources are strained in these living situations and county school staff often send students home with supplies and food over weekends. School staff and administrators report home visits to truant students that reveal inadequate plumbing, electricity, and basic safety features are widespread throughout the county. Tenants living in these conditions are reportedly discouraged from submitting complaints to landlords for fear of eviction, which often leaves families homeless in the county. County school staff also identified high turnover of existing housing stock as an issue in the county and in Hudson in particular. Families are frequently evicted and the landlord subsequently renovates the property and raises the rent, at which the point the property is no longer affordable for many families in the community. Families who once rented homes and apartments near the urban centers of the county are thus forced to move further out into the country, where they face transportation issues back to major centers of employment and to schools. This migration out of Hudson is driving the numbers of homeless persons up in other areas of the county. Poverty is widespread in the county and is visible in every school district. Taconic Hills school district reports 60 percent of its student body is currently enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program. Chatham school district reports that 33 percent of its study body is currently enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program, which represents an increase of approximately 19 percent in the past three years. The entirety of the Hudson school district is on the free and reduced lunch program because 75 percent of the student body qualifies for the program. School staff and administrators noted the difficulty in determining the exact number of homeless students in the county, as many students are identified as homeless or potentially homeless by multiple staff, which can result in double-counting. Furthermore, school-aged children who are not attending school because of transportation issues or other challenges at home are not included in estimates of the number of homeless children in Columbia County. County school staff and administrators report that poverty and the scarcity of affordable housing in the county have created additional pressures on existing school resources. The great need for the county schools’ Backpack Program, which provides food and other supplies for students to take home from school in pre-packaged backpacks, has required the involvement in a large number of volunteers throughout the county. Trauma to students facing homelessness and other housing issues has required the diverted attention of many school teachers, coaches, and administrators, and has created the need for additional


103

school counselors in several districts throughout the county. Widespread housing issues for students have directly resulted in the diversion of school staff time and attention. Mental Health Association of Columbia-Greene Counties, Inc. We spoke with members of Mental Health Association of Columbia-Greene Counties, Inc. (MHA) about housing challenges facing homeless, mentally ill, and low-income individuals in the county. Our contacts reported a strong connection between poverty and homelessness and educational attainment in the county. Of note, school attendance is a major challenge for homeless students, whose high mobility makes it difficult to finish evaluations and projects offered through the school system and MHA. Many students in Columbia County are exhibiting signs of PTSD, symptoms of which can be disruptive to the classroom environment and require the diversion of school resources. MHA has placed employees throughout Hudson to provide additional clinical and counseling support services to students and their families beyond those provided by the local schools. MHA also contracts with Columbia County Department of Social Services to provide food resources to students above and beyond food resources provided through the schools’ permanent programs. Our contacts also reported that frequent evictions of low-income families throughout the county have become a common source of stress and trauma for students in recent years. MHA provides several residential services to support mentally challenged and low-income families in Columbia County. Currently MHA rents between 60 and 65 units at scattered sites throughout Columbia and Greene Counties. Of the 60 to 65 units total, between eight and nine are affordable housing units. Our contacts noted that this service is challenged by its reliance on the goodwill of area landlords. MHA sometimes purchases buildings containing affordable unit so as not to lose its existing affordable apartments therein. MHA works with Continuum of Care to provide 18 slots for permanent supportive housing in the county, which is funded through HUD. The scarcity of available housing in the county often means that individuals in these 18 slots cannot be housed. MHA is currently working on a mixed supportive housing project in Greenport known as Greenport Gardens that will provide 66 units of rental housing. Of the 66 total units, 38 will be reserved for individuals in need of mental health support. The remaining 28 units will be restricted to families earning 50 and 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) or less. Transportation and supportive services will be available to all tenants. The project is currently under construction and is anticipated to open in April 2018. Columbia County Department of Social Services We spoke with members of Columbia County Department of Social Services (DSS) about housing challenges in the area. Mr. Bob Gibson reported a recent increase in migration out of Hudson to more rural areas of the county. Unfortunately, as the supply section of this report will show, rents outside of Hudson are not significantly lower than those within the city, and the condition of housing in these more rural areas is often very poor. Safety is a widespread issue in rental housing in the rural parts of the county. Many rental properties do not have adequate lighting, windows, and doors. St. Catherine’s Center for Children We spoke with members of St. Catherine’s Center for Children, a non-profit organization in the Hudson area, about challenges in affordable housing. St. Catherine’s contracts with Columbia County Department of Social Services to find quality affordable housing for low-income families and individuals. St. Catherine’s currently serves six families and three single individuals in apartments throughout Columbia County. Homeless persons seeking aide at DSS are referred to St. Catherine’s for assistance in finding permanent housing. Persons with a documented disability can be eligible for HUD-funded housing in the county, which St. Catherine’s facilitates.


104

St. Catherine’s also administers outreach programs to help individuals and families be good tenants, offering support for mental health issues, school transportation, and student support. St. Catherine’s staff conduct a considerable amount of outreach work in local hotels, which often serve as the first point of contact for engagement with homeless persons. Staff of St. Catherine’s describe housing as the primary challenge for homeless individuals and families in the county. St. Catherine’s endeavors to hold landlords accountable for the condition of their rental properties on behalf of tenants. However, staff report that this presents a challenge as too much pressure on landlords prohibits them from renting with St. Catherine’s. Currently St. Catherine’s provides nine units of permanent supportive housing, but is only funded for 14 hours of case management per week. This is often too little time and funding to meet the needs of more than one family or individual. Ongoing case management is St. Catherine’s primary supportive role to the local school system. Conclusion There is general consensus among the local stakeholders that the Columbia County market has seen significant economic development efforts over the last several years, which has led to a burgeoning of the area’s tourism, arts and entertainment industries. The participants highlighted a general demand for housing throughout Columbia County, though the area in and around the city of Hudson remains the most highly coveted. The general consensus is that the population of Columbia County is changing as former New York City residents begin to adopt permanent homeownership in Columbia County. Many of those relocating are seniors, for whom townhouse units are particularly attractive housing options. Many of these seniors are purchasing second homes. Younger home buyers migrating to Columbia County are creating increased demand for single-family homes in the $150,000 to $300,000 range, but Columbia County currently has a limited supply of housing in this range. Single-family and multifamily residential development has been very limited in recent years, contributing to the current lack of available inventory. The area’s natural beauty and proximity to New York City are attractive to new residents and have encouraged relocation to the area in recent years. The area’s accessibility via train is key to the continued success of its tourism industry and to the continued growth of the county’s commuter population. Like market-rate housing, affordable housing inventory is very limited in Columbia County and in Hudson. Low vacancy and lengthy waiting lists evince unmet demand for affordable housing in the area. Ongoing efforts by Galvan Housing Resources and the Hudson Planning Agency to improve affordable housing in the area are focused on developing scattered sites throughout the city of Hudson. Housing Choice Voucher holders in Columbia County have historically been challenged by disparity between payment standards and fair market rents, which present a cost burden to voucher holders whose vouchers do not meet the total rent due at properties in the area.


105

Potential Sites for Development Based upon the interviews with local stakeholders, we have identified several parcels that would potentially be suitable for infill development of multifamily or single-family housing as identified by the purple markers in the maps below. Addresses, parcel numbers, and acreage were obtained via the Columbia County Assessor’s Office. The parcels identified below are vacant and privately-owned.

Potential Development Site Map

Map # Address Parcel ID Acreage Potential Development Type1 18 N Second Street 109.43-2-19.100 0.1 Multifamily and/or Single-family2 35-37 Allen Street 109.43-1-53 0.1 Multifamily and/or Single-family3 494 Clinton Street 110.37-1-36 0.6 Duplex and/or Single-family4 21-23 Union Street 109.43-1-1 0.1 Multifamily and/or Single-family5 20 S First Street 109.43-2-69.2 0.1 Multifamily and/or Single-family6 24 S First Street 109.43-2-69.12 0.1 Multifamily and/or Single-family7 216 Partition Street 109.43-3-39 0.0 Multifamily and/or Single-family8 Deer Alley 109.43-3-79 0.6 Multifamily and/or Single-family

POTENTIAL INFILL SITES


106

Future Housing Development Needs For the purposes of this report, we have provided a projected needs analysis for Columbia County and the ciyt of Hudson. We have examined the demand for single-family homes as well as multifamily developments, both affordable and market rate. To assess the likely number of tenants in Columbia County and the city of Hudson eligible to live in a single-family home or multifamily development (affordable, both with and without subsidy, and market rate), we used Census information as provided by ESRI Demographics and Ribbon Demographics. It should be noted that we have further broken down the analysis by age restriction. Based upon our assessment of the current housing market in Columbia County and the city of Hudson, we believe there are three types of housing that are in short supply in the area: good quality moderate-income owner-occupied single-family homes, affordable housing for families, and special needs housing, which will be discussed after determining the number of households in Columbia County and the city of Hudson that are income-eligible to reside at the three identified types of housing. Income Eligible Calculations First, we estimate the minimum and maximum income levels. Since the income bands by household data presented relates to total households, we have assumed that any current household existing in the market would consider new housing, if they meet the income requirements. Secondly, we illustrate the household population segregated by income band in order to determine those who are income-qualified to reside in the proposed property. Third, we combine the income range with the income distribution analysis in order to determine the number of potential income-qualified households. This provides an estimate of the total number of households that are income-eligible. It should be noted that, with subsidy, tenants are only required to pay 30 percent of their income towards rent, effectively lowering the minimum income limit to zero. As such, a minimum income limit of zero has been utilized in the scenarios with subsidy. Without subsidy, we have calculated minimum incomes of the general population and seniors utilizing a 35 and 40 percent affordability factor, respectively, in addition to the non-subsidized maximum allowable low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) one, two, and three-bedroom rents in Columbia County, for minimum income calculations. The minimum incomes are calculated as follows: General population: $840/0.35*12 = $28,800, $1,008/0.35*12 = $34,560, etc. Senior population: $840/0.40*12 = $25,200, $1,008/0.40*12 = $30,240, etc. For minimum incomes in market rate units, the typical requirement among market rate properties is for a tenant to make at least four times the monthly rent in income. As such, we have utilized four times the fair market one, two, and three-bedroom rent in Columbia County as defined by HUD ($737, $950, and 1,224, respectively) to determine minimum income in the market rate units. There is no maximum income limit for market rate units. The maximum and minimum eligible household incomes for any proposed multifamily units within Columbia County and the city of Hudson are as follows:


107

Unit TypeMinimum Allowable

Income

Maximum Allowable

Income

Minimum Allowable

Income

Maximum Allowable

Income60% AMI Market Rate

1BR $0 $33,600 $35,376 $200,000+2BR $0 $40,320 $45,600 $200,000+3BR $0 $46,560 $58,752 $200,000+

GENERAL POPULATION INCOME LIMITS - WITH SUBSIDY


Income

Maximum Allowable

Income

Minimum Allowable

Income

Maximum Allowable


1BR $28,800 $33,600 $35,376 $200,000+2BR $34,560 $40,320 $45,600 $200,000+3BR $39,909 $46,560 $58,752 $200,000+

GENERAL POPULATION INCOME LIMITS - ABSENT SUBSIDY


Income

Maximum Allowable

Income

Minimum Allowable

Income

Maximum Allowable


1BR $0 $33,600 $35,376 $200,000+2BR $0 $40,320 $45,600 $200,000+3BR $0 $46,560 $58,752 $200,000+

SENIOR 65+ INCOME LIMITS - WITH SUBSIDY


Income

Maximum Allowable

Income

Minimum Allowable

Income

Maximum Allowable


1BR $25,200 $33,600 $35,376 $200,000+2BR $30,240 $40,320 $45,600 $200,000+3BR $34,920 $46,560 $58,752 $200,000+

SENIOR 65+ INCOME LIMITS - ABSENT SUBSIDY


108

New Income-Qualified Demand, Stated Annually The following tables illustrate the income distribution of income-qualified renter households in Columbia County and the city of Hudson.

Income CohortTotal Renter Households

cohort overlap

% in cohort # in cohortcohort overlap


% in cohort # in cohort

$0-9,999 260 9,999 100.00% 260 9,999 100.00% 260$10,000-19,999 333 9,999 100.00% 333 9,999 100.00% 333$20,000-29,999 263 9,999 100.00% 263 9,999 100.00% 263$30,000-39,999 266 9,999 100.00% 266 4,623 46.23% 123 9,999 100.00% 266$40,000-49,999 177 6,560 65.61% 116 9,999 100.00% 177 9,999 100.00% 177$50,000-59,999 150 9,999 100.00% 150 9,999 100.00% 150$60,000-74,999 214 14,999 100.00% 214 14,999 100.00% 214$75,000-99,999 67 24,999 100.00% 67 24,999 100.00% 67

$100,000-124,999 36 24,999 100.00% 36 24,999 100.00% 36$125,000-149,999 31 24,999 100.00% 31 24,999 100.00% 31$150,000-199,999 12 49,999 100.00% 12 49,999 100.00% 12

$200,000+ 20 200,000 100.00% 20 200,000 100.00% 20Total 1,830 67.69% 1,239 45.38% 830 100.00% 1,830

FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION 2017 - WITH SUBSIDY

60% AMI Market Rate All Units

CITY OF HUDSON


cohort overlap




$0-9,999 760 9,999 100.00% 760 9,999 100.00% 760$10,000-19,999 1,121 9,999 100.00% 1,121 9,999 100.00% 1,121$20,000-29,999 974 9,999 100.00% 974 9,999 100.00% 974$30,000-39,999 1,018 9,999 100.00% 1,018 4,623 46.23% 471 9,999 100.00% 1,018$40,000-49,999 775 6,560 65.61% 508 9,999 100.00% 775 9,999 100.00% 775$50,000-59,999 650 9,999 100.00% 650 9,999 100.00% 650$60,000-74,999 773 14,999 100.00% 773 14,999 100.00% 773$75,000-99,999 780 24,999 100.00% 780 24,999 100.00% 780

$100,000-124,999 391 24,999 100.00% 391 24,999 100.00% 391$125,000-149,999 211 24,999 100.00% 211 24,999 100.00% 211$150,000-199,999 209 49,999 100.00% 209 49,999 100.00% 209

$200,000+ 131 200,000 100.00% 131 200,000 100.00% 131Total 7,792 56.22% 4,381 56.34% 4,390 100.00% 7,792

COLUMBIA COUNTY



109


cohort overlap




$0-9,999 260$10,000-19,999 333$20,000-29,999 263 1,199 11.99% 32 1,199 11.99% 32$30,000-39,999 266 9,999 100.00% 266 4,623 46.23% 123 9,999 100.00% 266$40,000-49,999 177 6,560 65.61% 116 9,999 100.00% 177 9,999 100.00% 177$50,000-59,999 150 9,999 100.00% 150 9,999 100.00% 150$60,000-74,999 214 14,999 100.00% 214 14,999 100.00% 214$75,000-99,999 67 24,999 100.00% 67 24,999 100.00% 67

$100,000-124,999 36 24,999 100.00% 36 24,999 100.00% 36$125,000-149,999 31 24,999 100.00% 31 24,999 100.00% 31$150,000-199,999 12 49,999 100.00% 12 49,999 100.00% 12

$200,000+ 20 200,000 100.00% 20 200,000 100.00% 20Total 1,830 22.61% 414 45.38% 830 54.93% 1,005

FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION 2017 - ABSENT SUBSIDY


CITY OF HUDSON


cohort overlap




$0-9,999 760$10,000-19,999 1,121$20,000-29,999 974 1,199 11.99% 117 1,199 11.99% 117$30,000-39,999 1,018 9,999 100.00% 1,018 4,623 46.23% 471 9,999 100.00% 1,018$40,000-49,999 775 6,560 65.61% 508 9,999 100.00% 775 9,999 100.00% 775$50,000-59,999 650 9,999 100.00% 650 9,999 100.00% 650$60,000-74,999 773 14,999 100.00% 773 14,999 100.00% 773$75,000-99,999 780 24,999 100.00% 780 24,999 100.00% 780

$100,000-124,999 391 24,999 100.00% 391 24,999 100.00% 391$125,000-149,999 211 24,999 100.00% 211 24,999 100.00% 211$150,000-199,999 209 49,999 100.00% 209 49,999 100.00% 209

$200,000+ 131 200,000 100.00% 131 200,000 100.00% 131Total 7,792 21.08% 1,643 56.34% 4,390 64.86% 5,054

COLUMBIA COUNTY



110


cohort overlap




$0-9,999 88$10,000-19,999 157$20,000-29,999 28 4,799 47.99% 13 4,799 47.99% 13$30,000-39,999 24 9,999 100.00% 24 4,623 46.23% 11 9,999 100.00% 24$40,000-49,999 68 6,560 65.61% 45 9,999 100.00% 68 9,999 100.00% 68$50,000-59,999 10 9,999 100.00% 10 9,999 100.00% 10$60,000-74,999 30 14,999 100.00% 30 14,999 100.00% 30$75,000-99,999 18 24,999 100.00% 18 24,999 100.00% 18

$100,000-124,999 1 24,999 100.00% 1 24,999 100.00% 1$125,000-149,999 15 24,999 100.00% 15 24,999 100.00% 15$150,000-199,999 3 49,999 100.00% 3 49,999 100.00% 3

$200,000+ 0 200,000 100.00% 0 200,000 100.00% 0Total 442 18.67% 83 35.33% 156 41.32% 183

SENIOR INCOME DISTRIBUTION 2017 - ABSENT SUBSIDY


CITY OF HUDSON


cohort overlap




$0-9,999 195$10,000-19,999 527$20,000-29,999 263 4,799 47.99% 126 4,799 47.99% 126$30,000-39,999 206 9,999 100.00% 206 4,623 46.23% 95 9,999 100.00% 206$40,000-49,999 169 6,560 65.61% 111 9,999 100.00% 169 9,999 100.00% 169$50,000-59,999 67 9,999 100.00% 67 9,999 100.00% 67$60,000-74,999 147 14,999 100.00% 147 14,999 100.00% 147$75,000-99,999 141 24,999 100.00% 141 24,999 100.00% 141

$100,000-124,999 81 24,999 100.00% 81 24,999 100.00% 81$125,000-149,999 63 24,999 100.00% 63 24,999 100.00% 63$150,000-199,999 42 49,999 100.00% 42 49,999 100.00% 42

$200,000+ 37 200,000 100.00% 37 200,000 100.00% 37Total 1,936 22.85% 442 43.46% 841 55.68% 1,078

COLUMBIA COUNTY



111

Existing Demand - Losses to Inventory via Conversion or Demolition (includes factor for frictional vacancy): Demand from Columbia County will stem from several sources in addition to new growth. These sources include demand from households that are forced from existing housing due to demolition or conversion of the housing units. Further, demand will stem from existing households that live in the area but move to a new home because people are searching for better housing or housing in a desired location (frictional vacancy). The calculation begins by determining the year 2017 base level eligible demand. This figure is then adjusted for losses of inventory via conversion or demolition (which also accounts for frictional vacancy in the market). To determine an appropriate percentage within the market we utilized/analyzed various housing characteristics. The following table illustrates age of housing stock within the city of Hudson and Columbia County.


cohort overlap




$0-9,999 88 9,999 100.00% 88 9,999 100.00% 88$10,000-19,999 157 9,999 100.00% 157 9,999 100.00% 157$20,000-29,999 28 9,999 100.00% 28 9,999 100.00% 28$30,000-39,999 24 9,999 100.00% 24 4,623 46.23% 11 9,999 100.00% 24$40,000-49,999 68 6,560 65.61% 45 9,999 100.00% 68 9,999 100.00% 68$50,000-59,999 10 9,999 100.00% 10 9,999 100.00% 10$60,000-74,999 30 14,999 100.00% 30 14,999 100.00% 30$75,000-99,999 18 24,999 100.00% 18 24,999 100.00% 18

$100,000-124,999 1 24,999 100.00% 1 24,999 100.00% 1$125,000-149,999 15 24,999 100.00% 15 24,999 100.00% 15$150,000-199,999 3 49,999 100.00% 3 49,999 100.00% 3

$200,000+ 0 200,000 100.00% 0 200,000 100.00% 0Total 442 77.35% 342 35.33% 156 100.00% 442

SENIOR INCOME DISTRIBUTION 2017 - WITH SUBSIDY


CITY OF HUDSON

Income Cohort Total Renter cohort % in cohort # in cohort cohort % in cohort # in cohort cohort % in cohort # in cohort

$0-9,999 195 9,999 100.00% 195 9,999 100.00% 195$10,000-19,999 527 9,999 100.00% 527 9,999 100.00% 527$20,000-29,999 263 9,999 100.00% 263 9,999 100.00% 263$30,000-39,999 206 9,999 100.00% 206 4,623 46.23% 95 9,999 100.00% 206$40,000-49,999 169 6,560 65.61% 111 9,999 100.00% 169 9,999 100.00% 169$50,000-59,999 67 9,999 100.00% 67 9,999 100.00% 67$60,000-74,999 147 14,999 100.00% 147 14,999 100.00% 147$75,000-99,999 141 24,999 100.00% 141 24,999 100.00% 141

$100,000-124,999 81 24,999 100.00% 81 24,999 100.00% 81$125,000-149,999 63 24,999 100.00% 63 24,999 100.00% 63$150,000-199,999 42 49,999 100.00% 42 49,999 100.00% 42

$200,000+ 37 200,000 100.00% 37 200,000 100.00% 37Total 1,936 67.17% 1,301 43.46% 841 100.00% 1,936

COLUMBIA COUNTY60% AMI Market Rate All Units


112

As indicated in the tables above, 34.8 percent of Columbia County’s housing stock was built prior to 1939, while 61.1 percent of the city of Hudson’s housing stock was built prior to 1939. In addition, 26.3 percent of the housing stock in the city of Hudson and 36.5 percent of the housing stock in Columbia County was built between 1940 and 1979. Construction from 1990 to present represents 9.8 percent of the housing stock in the city of Hudson and 17.4 percent of the housing stock in Columbia County, demonstrating that most of the existing residential improvements in Hudson and Columbia County are older vintage and may be more likely to exhibit fair to poor condition and functional obsolescence. This also contributes to the difficulty of accepting Housing Choice Vouchers for local landlords as homes must pass an inspection for quality and safety in order to be part of the Section 8 program. It is reasonable to assume that a portion of the existing housing units constructed prior to 1939 will leave the market based upon the loss of functional or physical inadequacies of the units; therefore, we will assume approximately 5.0 percent of these units will leave the market, or 1.7 percent of the total housing supply in Columbia County and 3.2 percent of the total housing supply in the city of Hudson. It is also important to recognize demand for new housing will come from the market from households in inadequate living situations. According to the most recent census, approximately 0.9 percent of households in Columbia County and 0.2 percent of households in the city of Hudson lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities in their housing units. We have estimated that approximately 1.0 percent or less of the housing units (mostly single-family) are demolished or converted every year within Columbia County and the city of Hudson. Further, the demand needs to be adjusted for frictional vacancy within the market. According to The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal 5th Edition published in 2010 by the Appraisal Institute, frictional vacancy is the amount of vacant space in the market needed for orderly operation. It allows for relocations as households relocate, and is considered a typical vacancy rate in a given market operating in equilibrium. We believe a frictional vacancy rate of approximately 5.0 percent is appropriate for this market. The following table illustrates our conclusion:

NumberPercent of

Housing StockNumber

Percent of Housing Stock

Built 2005 or later 130 3.5% 124 0.4%Built 2000 to 2004 153 4.2% 2,638 8.1%Built 1990 to 1999 78 2.1% 2,913 8.9%Built 1980 to 1989 104 2.8% 3,697 11.3%Built 1970 to 1979 405 11.0% 4,634 14.2%Built 1960 to 1969 142 3.9% 3,030 9.3%Built 1950 to 1959 214 5.8% 2,773 8.5%Built 1940 to 1949 203 5.5% 1,509 4.6%Built 1939 or earlier 2,243 61.1% 11,390 34.8%Total Housing Units 3,672 100.0% 32,708 100.0%

Source: US Census American Community Estimates

AGE OF HOUSING STOCKCity of Hudson Columbia County

CITY OF HUDSON COLUMBIA COUNTY

Housing Stock older than 1939 to leave market due to functional or physical inadequacies 5.0% 5.0%Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities 0.2% 0.9%

Demolition or Conversion 1.0% 1.0%Frictional Vacancy 5.0% 5.0%Total Percentage 11.2% 11.9%

LOSSES TO INVENTORY VIA CONVERSION OR DEMOLITION


113

In order to account for demand created by the previously described factors, we believe that adjusting the demand by 11.2 and 11.9 percent for losses of inventory via conversion or demolition, as well as frictional vacancy is conservative and reasonable for all scenarios. New Household Growth Household population change as a result of new households moving in or out of the area: This was previously calculated, with the household population estimated to slightly increase from 2017 to 2021. Leakage Further, it should be noted that it is likely that new households will be entering the market due to the lack of existing rental housing in good condition within Columbia County. We have adjusted for this using a leakage factor of 15 percent in the demand. Demand estimates will be adjusted to reflect this potential for “leakage,” as there are many workers that commute to Columbia County for employment from surrounding areas. Appropriate Sized Households In order to determine the number of appropriate sized households at each bedroom type, first we analyzed the number of persons in each household by tenure, as detailed in the following table.

Second, we made assumptions based on the average household size in the market; to estimate the distribution of households by unit type. Following are these assumptions.

Household Size Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent1 persons 6,627 26.7% 8,039 30.3% 8,366 30.9%2 persons 8,927 36.0% 9,757 36.7% 9,848 36.4%3 persons 3,934 15.9% 3,980 15.0% 4,043 14.9%4 persons 3,273 13.2% 2,980 11.2% 2,978 11.0%

5+ persons 2,035 8.2% 1,817 6.8% 1,819 6.7%Total 24,796 100.0% 26,573 100.0% 27,055 100.0%


2000 2017 2021COLUMBIA COUNTY HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Household Size Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent1 persons 1,141 38.7% 1,176 42.2% 1,202 42.8%2 persons 841 28.5% 768 27.6% 767 27.3%3 persons 448 15.2% 366 13.1% 366 13.0%4 persons 288 9.8% 245 8.8% 242 8.6%

5+ persons 233 7.9% 231 8.3% 230 8.2%Total 2,951 100.0% 2,786 100.0% 2,808 100.0%

Source: Esri Demographics 2017, Novogradac & Company LLP, August 2017

CITY OF HUDSON HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION2000 2017 2021


114

Third, we multiplied the percentage of renter households at each household size by the distribution of those households within each bedroom type. The sum of these percentages is the appropriate percentage of renter households for each bedroom type for both the general population and senior population. These tables are shown following. Capture Rate Analysis – Projected Need The following tables illustrate the projected housing needs of the city of Hudson and Columbia County, respectively.

BedroomsHOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION MATRIX - GENERAL POPULATION

Household Size 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR1 person 80% 20% - - - 2 persons 20% 80% - - - 3 persons - 60% 40% - - 4 persons - - 70% 30% -

5+ persons - - - 50% 50%

Household Size 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR1 person 80% 20% - - -2 persons 20% 80% - - -

HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION MATRIX - SENIORS (65+)Bedrooms


115

City of Hudson: 60% Annual Demand – General Population

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded affordable rental units per year in the city of Hudson that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 234 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to the city of Hudson’s housing stock.

ANNUAL DEMAND - Without SubsidyCalculation CITY OF HUDSON

Number of Renter Households in 2017 1,830 Increase in Number of Renter Households 26 Number of Renter Households in 2021 1,856

Existing DemandPercentage of Total Households that are Renter 65.7%Percentage of Income-Qualified Renter Households 22.6%Number of Income-Qualified Renter Households 414 Percentage of Rent-Overburdened 45.2%Existing Income-Qualified Renter Household Turnover 187 Percentage of Total Units that are Owner-Occupied 956Percentage Housing Units built 1939 or Prior 63.3%Number of Owner-Occupied Units built Prior to 1939 605Percentage of Income-Qualified Owner Households 15.7%Number of Income-Qualified Owner Households 95Loss of Inventory via Conversion or Demolition 11.2%Total additional Income-Qualified Owner Households due to Conversion/Demolition 11Existing Income-Qualified Renter/Owner Households 198

New Income-Qualified Demand, Stated AnnuallyIncrease in Renter Households per Annum 5 Percentage of Income-Qualified Renter Households 22.6%New Rental Income Qualified Households 1

Total Demand (Turnover and Growth) from within City of Hudson 199 Portion Originating within City of Hudson 85%Total Demand (Turnover and Growth) from within City of Hudson 234

Less: Existing LIHTC Projects in Absorption Process (Number of Units) 0

One-Bedrooom Units 234 * 44% = 104Two-Bedroom Units 234 * 35% = 81Three-Bedroom Units 234 * 10% = 24Four-Bedroom Units 234 * 7% = 15Five-Bedroom Units 234 * 4% = 10

Total Demand after Competition (Turnover and Growth) 234*A proposed development scheme is not applicable to this report.

Appropriate Sized Households

Total Demand (Turnover and Growth) from within Hudson


116

City of Hudson: Annual Market Rate Demand – General Population

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded market rate rental units per year in the city of Hudson that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 495 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to the city of Hudson’s housing stock. The tables following illustrate senior demand (65+) in the city of Hudson.












117

City of Hudson: 60% Annual Demand – Seniors (65+)

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded senior affordable rental units per year in the city of Hudson that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 59 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to the city of Hudson’s housing stock.

ANNUAL DEMAND - Without Subsidy Calculation CITY OF HUDSON

Number of Senior Renter Households in 2017 442 Increase in Number of Senior Renter Households 56 Number of Senior Renter Households in 2021 499

Existing Demand Percentage of Total Households that are Renter 65.7%Percentage of Income-Qualified Renter Households 18.7%Number of Income-Qualified Renter Households 83 Percentage of Rent-Overburdened 45.2%Existing Income-Qualified Renter Household Turnover 38 Percentage of Total Units that are Owner-Occupied 956Percentage Housing Units built 1939 or Prior 63.3%Number of Owner-Occupied Units built Prior to 1939 605Percentage of Income-Qualified Owner Households 15.7%Number of Income-Qualified Owner Households 95Loss of Inventory via Conversion or Demolition 11.2%Total additional Income-Qualified Owner Households due to Conversion/Demolition 11Existing Income-Qualified Renter/Owner Households 48




One-Bedrooom Units 59 * 67% = 40Two-Bedroom Units 59 * 26% = 15





118

City of Hudson: Annual Market Rate Demand – Seniors (65+)

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded age-restricted market rate rental units per year in the city of Hudson that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 139 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to the city of Hudson’s housing stock.


Number of Senior Renter Households in 2017 442 Increase in Number of Senior Renter Households 56 Number of Senior Renter Households in 2021 499










119

Columbia County: 60% Annual Demand – General Population

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded affordable rental units per year in Columbia County that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 895 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to Columbia County’s housing stock.

ANNUAL DEMAND - Without Subsidy Calculation Columbia County


Existing Demand Percentage of Total Households that are Renter 29.3%Percentage of Income-Qualified Renter Households 21.1%Number of Income-Qualified Renter Households 1,643 Percentage of Rent-Overburdened 45.2%Existing Income-Qualified Renter Household Turnover 742 Percentage of Total Units that are Owner-Occupied 956Percentage Housing Units built 1939 or Prior 34.8%Number of Owner-Occupied Units built Prior to 1939 333Percentage of Income-Qualified Owner Households 14.6%Number of Income-Qualified Owner Households 49Loss of Inventory via Conversion or Demolition 11.9%Total additional Income-Qualified Owner Households due to Conversion/Demolition 6Existing Income-Qualified Renter/Owner Households 748









120

Columbia County: Annual Market Rate Demand – General Population

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded market rate rental units per year in Columbia County that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 2,391 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to Columbia County’s housing stock. The tables following illustrate senior demand (65+) in Columbia County.

ANNUAL DEMAND - Without SubsidyCalculation Columbia County


Existing DemandPercentage of Total Households that are Renter 29.3%Percentage of Income-Qualified Renter Households 56.3%Number of Income-Qualified Renter Households 4,390 Percentage of Rent-Overburdened 45.2%Existing Income-Qualified Renter Household Turnover 1,984 Percentage of Total Units that are Owner-Occupied 956Percentage Housing Units built 1939 or Prior 34.8%Number of Owner-Occupied Units built Prior to 1939 333Percentage of Income-Qualified Owner Households 78.8%Number of Income-Qualified Owner Households 262Loss of Inventory via Conversion or Demolition 11.9%Total additional Income-Qualified Owner Households due to Conversion/Demolition 31Existing Income-Qualified Renter/Owner Households 2,015


Total Demand (Turnover and Growth) from within City of Hudson 2,041 Portion Originating within City of Hudson 85%Total Demand (Turnover and Growth) from within City of Hudson 2,401


One-Bedrooom Units 2,401 * 44% = 1066Two-Bedroom Units 2,401 * 35% = 832Three-Bedroom Units 2,401 * 10% = 249Four-Bedroom Units 2,401 * 7% = 156Five-Bedroom Units 2,401 * 4% = 98

Total Demand after Competition (Turnover and Growth) 2,401*A proposed development scheme is not applicable to this report.




121

Columbia County: 60% Annual Demand – Seniors (65+)

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded senior affordable rental units per year in Columbia County that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 261 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to the Columbia County housing stock.

ANNUAL DEMAND - Without Subsidy Calculation Columbia County

Number of Senior Renter Households in 2017 1,936 Increase in Number of Senior Renter Households 309 Number of Senior Renter Households in 2021 2,245

Existing Demand Percentage of Total Households that are Renter 29.3%Percentage of Income-Qualified Renter Households 22.8%Number of Income-Qualified Renter Households 442 Percentage of Rent-Overburdened 45.2%Existing Income-Qualified Renter Household Turnover 200 Percentage of Total Units that are Owner-Occupied 956Percentage Housing Units built 1939 or Prior 34.8%Number of Owner-Occupied Units built Prior to 1939 333Percentage of Income-Qualified Owner Households 14.6%Number of Income-Qualified Owner Households 49Loss of Inventory via Conversion or Demolition 11.9%Total additional Income-Qualified Owner Households due to Conversion/Demolition 6Existing Income-Qualified Renter/Owner Households 206









122

Columbia County: Annual Market Rate Demand – Seniors (65+)

The previous table illustrates an estimated number of demanded senior market rate rental units per year in Columbia County that would result in fairly low capture rates and subsequent, fairly rapid absorption. In this case, there is a total demand of 499 units. Any unaccommodated units of demand will be forced to leave the market or remain rent overburdened without the addition or rehabilitation of units to the Columbia County housing stock.

ANNUAL DEMAND - Without SubsidyCalculation Columbia County

Number of Senior Renter Households in 2017 1,936 Increase in Number of Senior Renter Households 309 Number of Senior Renter Households in 2021 2,245










123

Single-Family Income Eligibility – Columbia County We have also calculated demand for single-family owner-occupied homes in Columbia County, as explained below.

According to the models used by most mortgage lenders, a monthly mortgage payment should represent no more than 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income. Using this standard we have estimated the income levels necessary to purchase a typical single-family home in Columbia County. The necessary income level to purchase a single-family home in Columbia County is approximately $79,735. There is no maximum limit. We have utilized a prevailing interest rate of 4.5 percent. A home value of $222,100 was utilized in Columbia County, which is based on the median home value of a single-family home in Columbia County according to the American Community Survey. The calculations for both focus areas can be found following. Columbia County: Single-Family Home Income Calculation – Purchase price of $222,100

AMI Level4-Person AMI In

Columbia CountyMaximum Annual

Housing Costs


Costs1

Equivalent Mortgage

(Present Value)2

Price Gap Using Median Home

Value of $222,1003

30% $17,910 $5,373 $448 $79,737 ($142,363)50% $29,850 $8,955 $746 $132,896 ($89,204)60% $35,820 $10,746 $896 $159,475 ($62,625)80% $47,760 $14,328 $1,194 $212,633 ($9,467)

30% $20,160 $6,048 $504 $89,755 ($146,345)50% $33,600 $10,080 $840 $149,591 ($72,509)60% $40,320 $12,096 $1,008 $179,509 ($42,591)80% $53,760 $16,128 $1,344 $239,346 N/A

30% $22,380 $6,714 $560 $99,638 ($138,003)50% $37,300 $11,190 $933 $166,064 ($56,036)60% $44,760 $13,428 $1,119 $199,277 ($22,823)80% $59,680 $17,904 $1,492 $265,702 N/A

30% $24,180 $7,254 $605 $107,652 ($114,448)50% $40,300 $12,090 $1,008 $179,420 ($42,680)60% $48,360 $14,508 $1,209 $215,304 ($6,796)80% $64,480 $19,344 $1,612 $287,072 N/A

(3) Source: American Community Survey, May 2017.

COLUMBIA COUNTY OWNER HOUSING COST BY AMI LEVEL AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE





(2) Assumes a 30-year mortgage with a 4.5 percent interest rate(1) Includes all principal, interest, taxes, and insurance (including private mortgage insurance)


124

Utilizing the annual income required, the total number of income-eligible owner and renter households were calculated for Columbia County. This calculation is shown in the table following.

Inputs Ownership

Average Price $222,100

Down payment 10% $22,210

Total of 1st Mortgage $199,890

Closing Costs 3% $5,997

Principal $199,890

Interest Rate 4.50%

Amortization period 30

Monthly Payment $1,013

Annual Payment $12,154

Real Estate Taxes 2.00% $4,442

Private Mortgage Insurance 0.50% $1,111

Homeowner's Insurance 1.50% $3,332

Utilities $150 per/month $1,800

Maintenance and Repairs 2.00% $4,442

Tax Benefit

Marginal Tax Bracket 25%

Annual Interest $8,995

Annual Tax Savings ($3,359)

Total Annual Cost $23,920

Total Monthly Cost $1,993

Monthly Income Required $6,645

Annual Income Required $79,735

COLUMBIA COUNTY SINGLE FAMILY HOME INCOME CALCULATION


125

The table illustrates that there are currently 8,827 and 1,573 owner and renter-occupied households, respectively, in Columbia County that are income-qualified to move into a single-family home with a purchase price of at least $221,100. Single-Family Annual Demand – Columbia County The following table illustrates the calculation of the anticipated demanded single-family units in Columbia County per year through 2019. Based on the data we obtained through local realtors, an estimated one-third of buyers are expected to be first-time homeowners. As such, we believe that five percent is a reasonable estimation of annual renter-to-owner conversion. Additionally, we have previously estimated that approximately 11.9 percent of existing households will relocate due to either conversion/demolition of existing or typical frictional vacancy within the market.

Income CohortTotal Owner Households

Total Renter Households

cohort overlap



$0-9,999 475 760$10,000-19,999 1,114 1,121$20,000-29,999 1,512 974$30,000-39,999 1,635 1,018$40,000-49,999 1,422 775$50,000-59,999 1,303 650$60,000-74,999 1,957 773$75,000-99,999 2,829 20,264 81.06% 2,293 780 20,264 81.06% 632

$100,000-124,999 2,378 24,999 100.00% 2,378 391 24,999 100.00% 391$125,000-149,999 1,550 24,999 100.00% 1,550 211 24,999 100.00% 211$150,000-199,999 1,291 49,999 100.00% 1,291 209 49,999 100.00% 209

$200,000+ 1,314 200,000 100.00% 1,314 131 200,000 100.00% 131Total 18,781 47.00% 8,827 7,792 8.38% 1,573Total

$60,000-74,999$75,000-99,999

$100,000-124,999$125,000-149,999$150,000-199,999

$200,000+

$0-9,999$10,000-19,999$20,000-29,999$30,000-39,999$40,000-49,999$50,000-59,999

INCOME DISTRIBUTION 2017COLUMBIA COUNTY

Columbia County Columbia CountyIncome Cohort

Minimum Income $79,735Maximum Income $200,000+Number of Income Qualified Renters 1,573% of Renters Becoming Homeowners 5.00%Estimated Income Qualified First Time Homeowners 79Number of Income Qualified Owners 8,827% of Owners Moving to a New Home 11.90%Estimated Income Qualified Owners Transferring 1,050Portion Originating from COLUMBIA COUNTY 85%Total Income Qualified Households 1,236Number of Homes to be Absorbed 0Estimated Need 250Overall Capture Rate 20.23%

SINGLE-FAMILY DEMAND SUMMARYColumbia County


126

Special Needs Housing The following analysis accounts for the number of income-qualified households within Columbia County and the city of Hudson for persons with mental handicaps.

Specific Housing Development Needs As currently stated, we believe there are three types of housing that are in short supply in the area: good quality moderate-income owner-occupied single-family homes, market rate rental housing, and mixed-income or affordable housing. There are a significant number of households in Columbia County and the city of Hudson that are income-qualified for each identified type of housing. Moderate Income Owner-Occupied Single-Family Homes Approximately 34.8 and 63.3 percent of the housing stock in the Columbia County and the city of Hudson, respectively, was built prior to 1939, indicating that the housing stock is very old. The typical life of a single-family home is approximately 40 years before significant renovations and improvements are needed. As noted by local stakeholders, the area’s housing stock is a potential concern to future employers, as there is a lack of new construction and readily available turnkey home for employees relocating to the area. There are also several challenges in the market for current borrowers. Given that home values have not rebounded to pre-recession highs, many current homeowners that would be classified as “move-up buyers,” have not purchased a nicer, newer home in many years because they are still attempting to recoup their lost equity.

Total Population in City of Hudson 6,823Total # of people who suffer from a disability in City of Hudson* 1,073

Percentage of renter households in City of Hudson 65.7%Total number of renter households who suffer from a disability in City of Hudson 705

Percentage of renters in City of Hudson income-qualified to reside at an affordable development** 22.6%Number of disabled-income qualified persons in City of Hudson 159

Number of existing units targeting persons with disabilities 0Adjusted number of disabled income-qualified persons 159

Source: ACS, July 2017*Cognitive Disabilities only, ages 18+**Without Subsidy

Special Needs Analysis (Disabled) - City of Hudson

Total Population in Columbia County 65,349Total # of people who suffer from a disability in Columbia County* 9,470

Percentage of renter households in Columbia County 29.3%Total number of renter households who suffer from a disability in Columbia County 2,777

Percentage of renters in Columbia County income-qualified to reside at an affordable development** 21.1%Number of disabled-income qualified persons in Columbia County 585

Number of existing units targeting persons with disabilities 0Adjusted number of disabled income-qualified persons 585

Source: ACS, July 2017*Cognitive Disabilities only, ages 18+**Without Subsidy

Special Needs Analysis (Disabled) - Columbia County


127

Approximately 15 percent of owner-occupied households within Columbia County earn between $75,000 and $99,999. However, there is a limited supply of moderate-income homes that are move-in ready. Many interviewees noted that it has been challenging for potential residents in the moderate income bracket to find a suitable home in Columbia County. There are roughly 2,829 households in Columbia County and approximately 780 households in the city of Hudson in these income brackets, currently, indicating ample demand. The rehabilitation of 40 to 50 homes of the existing housing supply per year for the next five years would help alleviate the lack of moderate-income homes. These moderate-income homes would likely need to contain three to four-bedrooms, contain 1,500 to 3,000 square feet depending on the number of bedrooms, and be priced between $200,000 and $250,000. Mixed-Income Rental Housing There is a lack of good quality housing throughout Columbia County where the majority of housing stock likely exhibits poor to fair condition (both renter and owner-occupied). As illustrated by the previous income-eligibility tables, there is ample demand for additional affordable housing throughout all market areas, both with and without subsidy. However, there has been a lack of new construction since the recent recession. We believe that a 50 to 75-unit mixed-income multifamily development would be absorbed in the market. We recommend utilizing a potential development site close to downtown Hudson to attract tenants that would income-qualify for the unrestricted market rate units as well as affordable units. Further, based on the demand calculations provided previously, we believe an additional 200 units could be developed, county-wide. Further, based on high demand, up to 100 additional units with subsidies, and up to 200 market rate units, would be supported county-wide. Special Needs Housing The number of disabled persons in Columbia County and the city of Hudson were previously quantified by disability data from the American Community Survey. According to the American Community Survey, there are approximately 9,470 disabled persons in Columbia County, of which 1,073 are located within the city of Hudson. To determine the need for housing that targets the disabled, we applied the percentage of renter households as well as the percenter of income-qualified renter households within both market areas (absent subsidy) to the respective number of disabled persons. Our calculations indicate that there are approximately 585 and 159 disabled persons income-qualified to reside within this type of housing in Columbia County and the city of Hudson, respectively, netting a total of 477 and 269 income-qualified renter households with disabilities.

According to The Continuum of Care (CoC), a program designed to promote communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness, the homeless population is homeless for a variety of reasons, the most common of which are job loss, mental health issues, substance abuse, and foreclosure. Problems at home, including domestic violence and divorce, also play in a role in homelessness.

Given the high number of foreclosures in the Columbia County market and a lack of facilities available for the homeless in the area, it appears there is a need for additional supportive housing. Conclusion The Demand Analysis illustrates the housing needs of Columbia County based on capture rates of income-eligible households. We have provided an analysis for Columbia County by examining the demand for owner-occupied single-family homes as well as multifamily rental developments, both affordable (with and without subsidy) and market rate. We further broke down the demand analysis by age restriction. The table following summarizes the anticipated need of housing units for Columbia County’s future housing stock either new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of existing housing stock across both the general and senior population through 2021.


128

The provided estimates are based on one year of typical demand, but not all years will be typical. We have provided an estimate of the number of units demanded in a typical year, resulting in optimal capture rates. However, this does not necessarily mean that more units, in a well-conceived project(s), would not be feasible. Given the scope of work, many assumptions had to be made regarding the market and proposed development(s). These projections should be considered preliminary and a “first glance” estimate of demand only.

Unit Type




Rental


Homes


Multifamily Rental

1BR 122 89 - -

2BR 95 69 - -

3BR 28 21 - -

4BR 18 13

5BR 11 8

Single-Family Homes - - 50 -

Unspecified - - - 100

Total 275 200 50 100

Unit Type




Rental


Homes


Multifamily Rental

1BR 36 50 - -

2BR 14 19 - -

Total 50 70 - -

PROJECTED ANNUAL HOUSING NEEDS SUMMARYColumbia County - General Population

Columbia County - Senior Population (65+)

VII. HOUSING RESOURCES


130

HOUSING RESOURCES

There are many resources in the Columbia County area that can be utilized to find and finance market rate and affordable housing. These resources are a combination of financial resources, public, private and nonprofit organizations and federal, state, and local government. The list below highlights some of these organizations. Finance Program to Assist in the Planning Process The following programs are available to communities and developers in the planning stages of affordable housing development. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): CDBG funds are granted to projects which benefit low to moderate income beneficiaries and improve areas of slum & blight. CDBG includes planning as an eligible activity. The Plan must benefit specific groups including, persons who have been abused, who are elderly, disabled, homeless or persons living with disease. CDBG funding requires citizen participation and matching funds. There is an annual application process. Homeownership Programs The programs below provide financial assistance to existing homeowners and/or communities for the creation and preservation of low to moderate income housing. Bank of America Foundation Funds programs focused on creating and preserving affordable housing and homeownership opportunities, foreclosure counseling and mitigation, real-estate owned (REO) disposition and programs that help individuals and families create better money habits and become more financially capable. http://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/global-impact/charitable-foundationfunding.html Housing Application Packaging Grants, USDA Housing Application Packaging Grants provide government funds to tax-exempt public agencies and private nonprofit organizations to package applications for submission to Housing and Community Facilities Programs. Housing Counseling Pre-purchase housing counseling for prospective buyers funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants. Individual Water and Waste Grants, USDA Individual Water and Waste Water Grants provide Government funds to households residing in an area recognized as a Colonia before October 1, 1989. Public Housing, Homeownership Program, HUD The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) permits public housing authorities to make public housing dwelling units available for purchase by low-income families as their principal residence through the following eligible activities:

- Sell all or a portion of a public housing development to eligible public or non-public housing residents;

- Provide Capital Fund assistance to public housing families to purchase homes; or, - Provide Capital Fund assistance to acquire homes that will be sold to low-income families.

http://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/global-impact/charitable-foundationfunding.html


131

Rural Housing Guaranteed Loan, USDA Applicants for loans may have an income of up to 115 percent of the AMI. Families must be without adequate housing, but be able to afford the mortgage payments, including taxes and insurance. In addition, applicants must have reasonable credit histories. Rural Housing Site Loans, USDA Rural Housing Site Loans are made to provide financing for the purchase and development of housing sites for low and moderate-income families. Rural Repair and Rehabilitation Loan and Grant, USDA The Very Low-Income Housing Repair program provides loans and grants to very low-income homeowners to repair, improve, or modernize their dwellings or to remove health and safety hazards. Rural Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Grants are funded directly by the government. A grant is available to dwelling owner/occupant who is 62 years of age or older. Funds may only be used for repairs or improvements to remove health and safety hazards, or to complete repairs to make the dwelling accessible for household members with disabilities. Section 502 Rural Housing Direct Loan, USDA Section 502 loans are primarily used to help low-income individuals or households purchase homes in rural areas. Funds can be used to acquire, build (including funds to purchase and prepare sites and to provide water and sewage facilities), repair, renovate, or relocate a home. Section 502 Mutual Self-Help Loans, USDA The Section 502 Mutual Self-Help Housing Loan program is used primarily to help very low and low-income households construct their own homes. Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants, USDA Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants to provide financial assistance to qualified nonprofit organizations and public bodies that will aid needy very low and low-income individuals and their families to build homes in rural areas by the self-help method. Any state, political subdivision, private or public nonprofit corporation is eligible to apply. Streamline 203(K), FHA A 30-year, fixed-rate FHA first mortgage that includes up to $35,000 for home improvements or energy efficiency upgrades. Down payment assistance programs may be used in conjunction with this loan. Technical and Supervisory Assistance Grants, USDA To assist low-income rural families in obtaining adequate housing to meet their family's needs and/or to provide the necessary guidance to promote their continued occupancy of already adequate housing. These objectives will be accomplished through the establishment or support of housing delivery and counseling projects run by eligible applicants. Fannie Mae Foundation The Fannie Mae Foundation creates affordable homeownership and housing opportunities through partnerships and initiatives that build healthy, vibrant communities across the country. Fannie Mae provides refinancing and mortgage modification to qualifying home owners. Notable programs include the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) and Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). HARP provides eligible homeowners to refinance at a lower interest rate and more stable mortgage product despite underwater home values. HAMP is designed to help at risk homeowners (those currently in default or at imminent risk of default) by providing the borrower with affordable and sustainable monthly payments.


132

Federal Housing Administration The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provides eligible buyers with loan products for purchase or refinance of single-family homes. Purchase loans may offer down payment terms as low as 3.5 percent of the purchase price with the majority of closing costs rolled into the loan, helping ease the burden of the cash required upfront by first time homebuyers. FHA loans offer credit qualifications lower than that of typical conventional loan products; however, homeowners that utilize FHA loan products must pay a mortgage insurance premium for the life of the loan, increasing their monthly payment amount. Additionally, there is an upfront fee of 1.5 percent of the purchase price rolled into the loan, leaving buyers with very little upfront equity. Loan products through the FHA such as the 203(k), allow for up to $35,000 of rehabilitation costs to be rolled into the purchase amount, but the property must be owner-occupied. FHA also offers loan products for non-owner occupied properties with up to four units. All loans originated by lenders through the FHA program protect the lender from loss in the event of borrower default. HUD 255 Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program (HECM) Reverse mortgages are increasing in popularity with seniors (homeowners 62 or holder) who have equity in their homes and want to supplement their income. The only reverse mortgage insured by the U.S. Federal Government is called a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage or HECM, and is only available through an FHA approved lender. The HECM enables seniors to withdraw some of the equity in their home as a fixed monthly amount or a line of credit or a combination of both. The HECM can be used to purchase a primary residence if the owner is able to use cash on hand to pay the difference between the HECM proceeds and the sales price plus closing costs for the property being purchased. The property owner must own the property outright or have paid down a considerable amount, occupy the property as a principal residence, not be delinquent on any federal debt and participate in a consumer information session given by a HUD-approved counselor. Single family homes, 2-4 unit homes with one unit occupied by the borrower, and manufactured homes that meet FHA requirements are eligible property types. United States Department of Veterans Affairs The VA provides patient care and benefits. The VA helps veterans and active duty personnel purchase and retain homes in recognition of their service to the nation. VA home loans include: no down payment; loan maximums up to 100.0 percent of the VA-established market value, not to exceed $240,000; 30-year loans with a choice of repayment plans; an appraisal; limitations on closing costs; and no mortgage insurance premium. These loans are made by a local lender and the VA protects the lender against loss if the payments are not made. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS The following programs assist developers in the procurement of affordable housing development. Calvert Social Investment Foundation Lends to established community organizations including, CDFIs, loan funds, microfinance institutions, affordable housing developers, and social enterprises. Funds may be used towards loan capital and pre-development costs. http://www.calvertfoundation.org/ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CDBG funds are granted to projects that benefit low to moderate income beneficiaries and improve areas of slum and blight. Permanent housing structures are an eligible activity that must benefit specific groups including persons who have been abused, the elderly, disabled, homeless, or persons living with disease. CDBG funding requires citizen participation and matching funds. There is an annual application process.

http://www.calvertfoundation.org/


133

Community Preservation Corporation (CPC) CPC financing is available for the rehabilitation of rental housing. CPC works with private landlords and non-profit real estate developers to revitalize low-income neighborhoods. CPC’s “Landlord Next Door” program encourages neighborhood residents to take on the purchase and rehabilitation of a nearby rental building, allowing the local community to maintain ownership and interest in rental properties in the area. Previous projects in Albany have helped secure federal CDFI funds to create a down payment grant assistance program for owner-occupied home purchases in targeted neighborhoods. Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants, USDA The Farm Labor Housing Loan and Grant program provides capital financing for the development of housing for domestic farm laborers. Federal Home Loan Bank of NY, AHP AHP funding can be used to supplement renovation or rehabilitation of lower income, owner-occupied homes that are receiving HOME, CDBG, or AHC assistance. FHA 203k Loan Financing FHA 203k Loan Financing is a loan guarantee mortgage product offered by HUD through various lenders that allows homebuyers to purchase a home in need of renovation and make the necessary repairs in one combined mortgage. Frost Foundation Funds organizations and programs that can generate change beyond traditional boundaries, to encourage creativity that recognizes emerging needs and to assist with innovation that addresses current urgent problems. Frost Foundation also considers requests for operating funds. There is a bi-annual application process. http://www.frostfound.org/index.html Guaranteed Rental Housing, USDA The Rural Housing Programs guarantees loans under the Rural Rental Housing Guaranteed loan program for development of multifamily housing facilities in rural areas of the United States. Loan guarantees are provided for the construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of rural multi-family housing. HOME Program Rental rehabilitation grants and/or loans can be used to improve rental units occupied by lower income tenants. The landlord must agree to continue renting to lower income tenants, and the rent charges are limited by a regulatory agreement. Home Depot Foundation, Community Impact Grants Program Awards up to $5,000 to registered nonprofit organizations to help fund community projects. Home Depot Foundation, Framing Hope Provides a donation of materials to nonprofit organizations that focus on affordable housing. http://www.homedepotfoundation.org/ HOPE VI Main Street Funds, HUD Governments of counties, cities, and townships with populations under 50,000 are eligible for grants to replace unused commercial space with affordable housing in historic or traditional central business districts. Housing Preservation Grants, USDA The Housing Preservation Grant (HPG) program provides grants to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of low and very low-income multifamily housing.

http://www.frostfound.org/index.html


134

Local Fees attached to Services Local municipalities and counties may include fees on applications and/or permits that may be used to fund a local general fund for affordable housing if a Home Rule municipality. Local Funding, Bonds or General Fund Local municipalities and counties may allocate general funds or issue bonds towards affordable housing that may include financing of acquisition, construction, and/or rehabilitation. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), NYSHFA A federally tax-based program that encourages private investment for the construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. Each year, the New York State Housing Finance Agency (NYSHFA) awards funds on a competitive basis, as outlined in the Qualified Allocation Plan. Mixed-Finance Public Housing, HUD HUD allows a mix of public, private, and nonprofit funds to develop and operate housing developments. New developments may be made up of a variety of housing types: rental, homeownership, private, subsidized, and public housing. These new communities are built for residents with a wide range of incomes and are designed to fit into the surrounding community. Multifamily Housing Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) Loans and Grants, USDA The goal of the MPR program is to restructure Rural Rental Housing loans and Off-Farm Labor Housing loans and provide grants to revitalize multifamily housing projects in order to extend the affordable use of these projects without displacing tenants due to increased rents. New York State Affordable Housing Corporation New York State Affordable Housing Corporation (AHC) provides funds which can be used to provide grants to cover the cost of repair of substandard homes occupied by lower income owners. AHC funds can be combined with HOME and/or CDBG funds. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) NYSERDA provides a variety of grant and loan initiative to improve energy performance of existing buildings – residential and non-residential. Public Housing, Asset Management, Operating Fund, HUD HUD provides funding for public housing authorities to operate and maintain public housing. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph Public Housing, Capital Fund, HUD HUD provides funding for public housing authorities for development, financing and modernization of public housing development and management improvements. Risk Sharing Loans HUD 542(c) and USDA 538 Construction and permanent loan programs aimed at the production and preservation of affordable, low-income rental housing units. Both programs require set-asides for a specific number of units to be rented to lower income tenants. These loans are often combined with Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and/or HOME Rental loans. Risk Sharing loans can also provide credit enhancements for tax exempt bond financing. Rural Housing Site Loans, USDA Rural Housing Site Loans are made to provide financing for the purchase and development of housing sites for low and moderate-income families.


135

Rural Rental Housing, USDA This program is adaptable for participation by a wide variety of owners. Loans can be made to individuals, trusts, associations, partnerships, limited partnerships, State or local public agencies, consumer cooperatives, and profit or nonprofit corporations. US Bank Provides grants to nonprofit organizations. One of the funding priorities is affordable housing. Eligible activities include:

- Organizations that support the preservation, rehabilitation and construction of quality affordable housing that assists low and moderate-income populations.

- Programs that provide home buyer counseling and related financial education to low and moderate-income individuals and families.

https://www.usbank.com/community/charitable-giving.html Wells Fargo Foundation Awards grants to nonprofit organizations, including qualified governmental entities. One of the grant priority areas is Community Development which includes building and sustaining affordable housing. https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/charitable/nm_guidelines Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA offers disaster assistance in several forms but most often in the form of low-interest loans to cover expenses not covered by state or local programs, or private insurance. People who do not qualify for loans may be able to apply for a cash grant. Housing assistance includes lodging expenses reimbursement, rental assistance, home repair/replacement cash grant, and, in rare circumstances, permanent housing construction. Homeless & Rental Assistance Programs The programs listed below are designed to assist the homeless and disadvantaged. Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Providers Program, Veterans Administration Makes all VA foreclosed properties available for sale to homeless provider organizations at a 20 to 50 percent discount to shelter homeless Veterans. Continuum of Care (COC) This program funds agencies that provide assistance for people experiencing homelessness. Services include prevention, street outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. Daniels Fund Awards grants to nonprofit organizations. One of the grant focus areas includes homeless and disadvantaged families and individuals. Grant funding may be used towards emergency shelter or transitional housing with supportive services. http://www.danielsfund.org/Grants/index.asp Domanica Foundation This foundation awards up to $5,000 to nonprofit organizations to help fund project oriented, educational, and social programs, including homelessness programs. http://www.domanicafoundation.org/

https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/charitable/nm_guidelines

http://www.domanicafoundation.org/


136

Frost Foundation Funds organizations and programs which can generate change beyond traditional boundaries, to encourage creativity which recognizes emerging needs and to assist with innovation which addresses current urgent problems. Frost Foundation also considers requests for operating funds. Bi-annual application process. http://www.frostfound.org/index.html Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, Veterans Administration Provides grants and per diem payments (as funding is available) to help public and nonprofit organizations establish and operate supportive housing and service centers for homeless Veterans. Housing Choice Vouchers, HUD HUD provides Housing Choice Vouchers to public housing authorities to provide rental assistance to low income households. Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Provides supportive housing and case management services to individuals who have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS to prevent homelessness. Public Housing, Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program, HUD The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program enables families assisted through the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, Public Housing (PH) residents, and residents of Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act to increase their earned income and reduce their dependency on welfare assistance and rental subsidies. Under the FSS program, low-income families are provided opportunities for education, job training, counseling and other forms of social service assistance, while living in assisted housing, so they can obtain skills necessary to achieve self-sufficiency. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/fss Rural Rental Assistance Program, USDA The Rural Rental Assistance (RA) program provides an additional source of support for households with incomes too low to pay the HCFP subsidized (basic) rent from their own resources. Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program, VA Provides grants and technical assistance to community-based, nonprofit organizations to help veterans and their families stay in their homes. VA Supportive Housing (VASH) Program is a joint effort between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and VA. HUD "Housing Choice" Section 8 vouchers allow veterans and their families to live in market rate rental units while VA provides case management services. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord on behalf of the participating Veteran. The Veteran then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.

http://www.frostfound.org/index.html

VIII. RECOMENDATIONS


138

RECOMMENDATIONS Barriers/Challenges to Housing Based upon our analysis of the market and interviews with key stakeholders, there are several barriers and challenges that should be considered because they negatively affect the housing market in Columbia County and the city of Hudson. There is no single factor that can prevent or reduce barriers, but any initiative taken to promote the preservation of the existing housing stock in addition to promoting new construction should be taken. Barriers include:

- Lack of newer, high-quality multifamily rental housing. - Credit worthiness of potential buyers for homeownership (or renters). - Cost to individuals including cost burdens such as paying over 30 percent of monthly income for

rent/mortgage payment and utilities. - Limited supply of moderate income homes in the area. - Inferior housing stock keeps low-income families in substandard housing. - Influx of affluent second homeowners raising home values throughout the county. - Decreasing availability of affordable rental housing in the city of Hudson proper.

RECOMMENDATIONS In order to address the area’s future housing needs, in light of the aforementioned barriers and challenges, we have established the following recommendations. Objective #1: Preserve the city of Hudson and Columbia County’s existing single-family housing stock. Analysis: Approximately 63.3 and 34.8 percent of the housing stock in the city of Hudson and Columbia County, respectively, was built prior to 1939, indicating that the housing stock is very old. The typical life of a single-family home is approximately 40 years before significant renovations and improvements are needed. Many homes in Columbia County have fallen in disrepair due to neglect and lack of finances. These homes are in need of serious maintenance. Keeping up this maintenance is difficult for cost-burdened homeowners. However, poorly maintained and condemned homes are a concern for the community and bring down the value of homes in the area. As illustrated in the table following, among all buyers, the greatest factor influencing a homebuyer’s choice of where to live is the quality of the neighborhood. It is clear that preservation of the city of Hudson’s housing stock must be a top priority.


139

Source: National Association of Realtors, “Home Buyer and Seller Generational Trends Report 2016,” March 2016 Action:

- Create a mixed-income scattered-site LIHTC/market rate development of single-family homes. Galvan Housing Resources is currently undertaking development of a scattered-site LIHTC development consisting of 20 units in multifamily homes throughout Hudson. Future efforts to develop affordable housing in Columbia County should be informed by this ongoing project, which will be overseen by the largest entity currently offering LIHTC housing in the county.

- Revitalize dilapidated homes across the city; rehabilitate low and very-low income homes to keep them from failing housing code inspections and prevent condemnation.

- Provide home buyer education, credit and budget counseling, and continue local efforts. - Encourage the creation of local funding incentives to lower income individuals to prevent homes

from declining further. - Prevent neighborhood deterioration by demolishing homes that have been condemned or are vacant

in existing neighborhoods. - Conduct asbestos, lead paint, and other contaminant abatement. - Encourage infill development by waiving demolition fees, reducing building permit fees, or providing

other city-based incentives. - Create a purchase incentive program for first time homebuyers. For example, first time homebuyers

that purchase a home in the city of Hudson receive a $10,000 credit to help rehabilitate the home. - Create a purchase incentive program to relocate those who work in the city of Hudson but live

elsewhere. Incentives can include down payment assistance, rehabilitation assistance, or loans with lower interest rates.

- Sell property in escheat at a discounted rate to homebuyers who intend to utilize the property as their primary residence. Utilize a portion of the funds to demolish vacant structures, a kickback to the buyer to rehabilitate the property, or favorable financing in the form of a point buy-down, etc.

Funding/Incentives:

- Community Development Block Grant.


140

Objective #2: Enhance housing and amenities in downtown Hudson and other towns and villages throughout Columbia County. Analysis: Interviews with local stakeholders indicate that transportation poses a significant challenge to tenants of subsidized and low-income properties. Future subsidized and low-income housing should be located along existing public transportation routes and within proximity of existing amenities such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and schools. Affordable housing should be strategically located for ease of tenant commutes to work, school, and local amenities. Action:

- Emphasize the pedestrian-friendly nature of the county’s towns and villages and the conveniences of living in these more urban areas. In the CBD, residents of all demographics will be able to live closer to work, shops, restaurants, and nightlife.

- Continue to convert underutilized improvements to affordable multifamily rental housing. - Maximize infill developments in blocks or areas that are vacant or rundown. - Enforce historic preservation district regulations to encourage the responsible historic reuse of

properties rather than demolition and new construction. - Involve out-of-town developers in the financing and construction of properties in downtown Hudson

and the county’s other towns and villages to boost development capabilities. Funding/Incentives:

- Section 42 Low Income Housing Tax Credit, Historic Tax Credits and HOME funding – To be used by developers in conjunction with the donated land to increase the area’s affordable housing supply.

- Allocate a portion of delinquent property tax interest and penalties for the land bank to be used for funding to purchase land and homes.

Objective #3: Improve building code enforcement within the city of Hudson and other areas of Columbia County. Analysis: Hudson’s riverfront location and historic architecture have contributed to its recent success as a tourism destination. Tourism has bolstered the city’s arts and entertainment, retail trade, and accommodation/food service industries. The historic areas of the city contributing to tourism’s success are recognized and protected in municipal code. The City of Hudson has designated six historic districts within city limits that include much of the downtown area between Front Street and Prospect Avenue. These areas possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically by past events or united aesthetically by plan or development. Many of the historic buildings in this area of the City of Hudson have been redeveloped as multifamily properties, and must comply with the Historic Preservation Commission’s guidelines for historic districts. While work to buildings and sites within these areas must be approved by the City of Hudson’s Historic Preservation Commission, the City code does not prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any exterior architectural feature which does not involve a change in design, material, color, or outward appearance. Regular maintenance and repair of rental properties within the city’s six historic districts would ensure both the health and safety of rental property tenants and the preservation of the city’s historic buildings as required by City code. Strengthened building code enforcement in this regard would encourage landlords to keep rental properties in this area in good condition, to the benefit of rental property tenants and other local area residents. Action:

- Increase city outreach efforts to educate developers and property owners on responsible and legal construction and preservation in historic districts.

- Encourage the continued maintenance of historic buildings to existing standards.


141

- Provide guidance to developers, architects, and property owners about sensitive treatments to historic buildings that also enhance energy efficiency.

Funding/Incentives:

- Community Development Block Grant. - Provide developer incentives including grants, infrastructure, and tax abatement.

Objective #4: Create additional, good quality mixed-income housing in the Hudson area. Analysis: There are several vacant lots throughout Hudson that could be developed with new, good quality multifamily housing. We have analyzed the creation of a land bank for the city of Hudson. According to the Center for Community Progress, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to reducing blight and advising communities on land bank creation: “Vacant, abandoned and neglected properties threaten the safety and stability of neighborhoods, drive down property values and – increasingly, with the recent epidemic of foreclosures – threaten the balance sheets of city and county governments. Too often, communities and governments feel helpless in the face of the magnitude of the problem, with few apparent tools to address the loss of revenue and the attendant problems that neglect and abandonment yield. Land banking as a strategic response – through the creation of land banks or other public authorities – have proven to be a powerful solution, allowing public control of abandoned property; assemblage of parcels for residential, recreational, commercial and industrial redevelopment; and empowerment of communities to reverse the social and economic consequences of neglected and abandoned property.” Recently, several cities/municipalities in the region including Albany County, NY have created land banks where vacant properties are acquired mostly through tax foreclosures and set aside of rehabilitation or resale so that they can be reintroduced to the city and county’s tax rolls as well as providing maintenance and landscaping to lots. There are many vacant properties within the city of Hudson which provides ample opportunity to begin the creation of a land bank. A land bank would provide short-term fiscal benefits as well as long-term development control. The land bank’s purpose in Hudson would be two-fold: it would help to both remove blight by improving or getting rid of some of the worst housing stock in the area, and then increase property values for the surrounding homes. Vacant properties are often in such a state of disrepair that they remain unsold even at auctions. Some of the most feasible options for homes placed in the land bank are:

- Rehabilitate and sell - Demolish and sell land to developers - Turn into park or garden space

Land banks across the country operate uniquely. The legislative power among land banks varies as some land banks, such as that in Atlanta, can abate delinquent taxes, whereas others cannot but can set all terms when disposing of a property and/or transferring it to a community development corporation. This is very important as often when delinquent taxes exceed the property’s value, it is difficult to find a buyer for the property. The following chart illustrates the general functions of a land bank, with specific powers varying by location.


142

Source: Office of Housing and Urban Development, July 2014 There are numerous benefits to establishing a land bank, as illustrated in the following diagram:


143

Local schools benefit from land banks because they receive more funding when there is an increase in property owners in their school districts, and when homes are no longer vacant there is discouraged criminal activity that decreases the cost burden on the local police and fire departments. Another benefit that these communities have experienced from the creation of a land bank is the assemblage of parcels of land that can be targeted for redevelopment. The ability of the city to amass a larger parcel of land to sell to a developer down the road would be extremely beneficial since the city is so land constrained - with the exception of slight infill development, land for affordable multifamily and/or a single-family home development is extremely limited. Lastly, as an area becomes more populated the needs for services and amenities will grow, boosting the economy. However, land banks are not without their challenges. Some of the biggest challenges the creation of land banks faces is obtaining sufficient funding, constant communication among community development departments, obtaining legislative approvals, and the time consuming administrative procedures involved in the process. The process of acquiring foreclosures can be lengthy and vary from state to state and often require involvement on the part of several jurisdictions to obtain clear title. A clear title is necessary to effectively redevelop foreclosures - it guarantees that a property is clear of all liens and certifies that a previous title holder cannot claim the property at a later date. Often determining a clear title for an abandoned property is difficult. Cities often lack experience in coordinating key stakeholders to achieve successful outcomes. In many cases, municipalities have the capacity to administer a land bank, but there is no organization to set it up and monitor it. The City of Hudson would need to create a separate entity to oversee the land bank. Lastly, purchasing, renovating, and disposing of these properties can be costly. Diligent planning and proper funding mechanisms are needed to ensure that foreclosures are put to the appropriate use. Overall, the establishment of a land bank would allow for the public control of abandoned property, assemblage of parcels for residential, recreational, commercial and industrial redevelopment, and generally improve the quality of the housing stock. Action:

- Allow the city and county to sell properties to be rehabilitated, thus increasing the property values of the area as a whole.

- Provide short-term fiscal benefits to the city by getting rid of some of the worst properties in the area, then being able to bring them back onto the tax roll.

- Donate excess land to nonprofit agencies to be used to construct affordable housing for families and seniors.

- Acquire land for future development of low to moderate income housing. - Turn unusable land into park or green space. - Gain entitlement to a specific time period’s years of property tax payments on resold properties to

boost tax revenue. - Abate delinquent taxes for properties to encourage their purchase and redevelopment.

ADDENDUM A Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. In the event that the client provided a legal description, building plans, title policy and/or survey, etc.,

the market analyst has relied extensively upon such data in the formulation of all analyses. 2. The legal description as supplied by the client is assumed to be correct and the author assumes no

responsibility for legal matters, and renders no opinion of property title, which is assumed to be good and merchantable.

3. All encumbrances, including mortgages, liens, leases, and servitudes, were disregarded in this

valuation unless specified in the report. It was recognized, however, that the typical purchaser would likely take advantage of the best available financing, and the effects of such financing on property value were considered.

4. All information contained in the report, which others furnished, was assumed to be true, correct, and

reliable. A reasonable effort was made to verify such information, but the author assumes no responsibility for its accuracy.

5. The report was made assuming responsible ownership and capable management of the property. 6. The sketches, photographs, and other exhibits in this report are solely for the purpose of assisting the

reader in visualizing the property. The author made no property survey, and assumes no liability in connection with such matters. It was also assumed there is no property encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report.

7. The author of this report assumes no responsibility for hidden or unapparent conditions of the

property, subsoil or structures, or the correction of any defects now existing or that may develop in the future. Equipment components were assumed in good working condition unless otherwise stated in this report.

8. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions for the property, subsoil, or structures,

which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for engineering, which may be required to discover such factors.

9. The investigation made it reasonable to assume, for report purposes, that no insulation or other

product banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been introduced into the Subject premises. Visual inspection by the market analyst did not indicate the presence of any hazardous waste. It is suggested the client obtain a professional environmental hazard survey to further define the condition of the Subject soil if they deem necessary.

10. Any distribution of total property value between land and improvements applies only under the existing

or specified program of property utilization. Separate valuations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other study or market study and are invalid if so used.

11. Possession of the report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be

reproduced in whole or in part, in any manner, by any person, without the prior written consent of the author particularly as to value conclusions, the identity of the author or the firm with which he or she is connected. Neither all nor any part of the report, or copy thereof shall be disseminated to the general public by the use of advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media for public communication without the prior written consent and approval of the market analyst. Nor shall the market analyst,

firm, or professional organizations of which the market analyst is a member be identified without written consent of the market analyst.

12. Disclosure of the contents of this report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the professional

organization with which the market analyst is affiliated. 13. The author of this report is not required to give testimony or attendance in legal or other proceedings

relative to this report or to the Subject property unless satisfactory additional arrangements are made prior to the need for such services.

14. The opinions contained in this report are those of the author and no responsibility is accepted by the

author for the results of actions taken by others based on information contained herein. 15. Opinions of value contained herein are estimates. There is no guarantee, written or implied, that the

Subject property will sell or lease for the indicated amounts. 16. All applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions are assumed to have been complied with,

unless nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the market study report. 17. It is assumed that all required licenses, permits, covenants or other legislative or administrative

authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate contained in this report is based.

18. On all studies, Subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations, the report and conclusions

are contingent upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner and in a reasonable period of time.

19. All general codes, ordinances, regulations or statutes affecting the property have been and will be

enforced and the property is not Subject to flood plain or utility restrictions or moratoriums, except as reported to the market analyst and contained in this report.

20. The party for whom this report is prepared has reported to the market analyst there are no original

existing condition or development plans that would Subject this property to the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission or similar agencies on the state or local level.

21. Unless stated otherwise, no percolation tests have been performed on this property. In making the

market study, it has been assumed the property is capable of passing such tests so as to be developable to its highest and best use.

22. No in-depth inspection was made of existing plumbing (including well and septic), electrical, or heating

systems. The market analyst does not warrant the condition or adequacy of such systems. 23. No in-depth inspection of existing insulation was made. It is specifically assumed no Urea

Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI), or any other product banned or discouraged by the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been introduced into the property. The market analyst reserves the right to review and/or modify this market study if said insulation exists on the Subject property.

24. Estimates presented in this report are assignable to parties to the development’s financial structure.

ADDENDUM B Qualifications of Consultants

CURRICULUM VITAE BRAD E. WEINBERG, MAI, CVA, CRE

I. Education

University of Maryland, Masters of Science in Accounting & Financial Management University of Maryland, Bachelors of Arts in Community Planning

II. Licensing and Professional Affiliations

MAI Member, Appraisal Institute, No. 10790 Certified Valuation Analyst (CVA), National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts (NACVA) Member, The Counselors of Real Estate (CRE) Certified Investment Member (CCIM), Commercial Investment Real Estate Institute Member, Urban Land Institute Member, National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) State of Alabama – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, No. G00628 State of California – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, No. 27638 Washington, D.C. – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. GA10340 State of Florida – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. RZ3249 State of Georgia – Certified General Real Property Appraiser; No. 221179 State of Maine – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, No. CG3435 State of Maryland – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. 6048 Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. 103769 State of Michigan – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, No. 1201074327 State of Nebraska – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, No. CG2015008R State of New Jersey – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. 42RG00224900 State of Ohio – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. 2006007302 State of Pennsylvania – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. GA004111 State of South Carolina – Certified General Real Estate Appraiser; No. 4566

III. Professional Experience

Partner, Novogradac & Company LLP President, Capital Realty Advisors, Inc. Vice President, The Community Partners Realty Advisory Services Group, LLC President, Weinberg Group, Real Estate Valuation & Consulting Manager, Ernst & Young LLP, Real Estate Valuation Services Senior Appraiser, Joseph J. Blake and Associates Senior Analyst, Chevy Chase F.S.B.

Brad E. Weinberg Qualifications Page 2

Fee Appraiser, Campanella & Company

IV. Professional Training Appraisal Institute Coursework and Seminars Completed for MAI Designation and Continuing Education Requirements Commercial Investment Real Estate Institute (CIREI) Coursework and Seminars Completed for CCIM Designation and Continuing Education Requirements

V. Speaking Engagements and Authorship

Numerous speaking engagements at Affordable Housing Conferences throughout the Country Participated in several industry forums regarding the Military Housing Privatization Initiative Authored “New Legislation Emphasizes Importance of Market Studies in Allocation Process,” Affordable Housing Finance, March 2001

VI. Real Estate Assignments

A representative sample of Due Diligence, Consulting or Valuation Engagements

includes:

• On a national basis, conduct market studies and appraisals for proposed Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties. Analysis includes preliminary property screenings, market analysis, comparable rent surveys, demand analysis based on the number of income qualified renters in each market, supply analysis and operating expense analysis to determine appropriate cost estimates.

• On a national basis, conduct market studies and appraisals of proposed new construction and existing properties under the HUD Multifamily Accelerated Processing program. This includes projects under the 221(d)3, 221(d)4, 223(f), and 232 programs.

• Completed numerous FannieMae and FreddieMac appraisals of affordable and market rate multifamily properties for DUS Lenders.

• Managed and completed numerous Section 8 Rent Comparability Studies in accordance with HUD’s Section 9 Renewal Policy and Chapter 9 for various property owners and local housing authorities.

• Developed a Flat Rent Model for the Trenton Housing Authority. Along with teaming

partner, Quadel Consulting Corporation, completed a public housing rent comparability study to determine whether the flat rent structure for public housing

Brad E. Weinberg Qualifications Page 3

units is reasonable in comparison to similar, market-rate units. THA also requested a flat rent schedule and system for updating its flat rents. According to 24 CFR 960.253, public housing authorities (PHAs) are required to establish flat rents, in order to provide residents a choice between paying a “flat” rent, or an “income-based” rent. The flat rent is based on the “market rent”, defined as the rent charged for a comparable unit in the private, unassisted market at which a PHA could lease the public housing unit after preparation for occupancy. Based upon the data collected, the consultant will develop an appropriate flat rent schedule, complete with supporting documentation outlining the methodology for determining and applying the rents. We developed a system that THA can implement to update the flat rent schedule on an annual basis.

• As part of an Air Force Privatization Support Contractor team (PSC) to assist the Air

Force in its privatization efforts. Participation has included developing and analyzing housing privatization concepts, preparing the Request for Proposal (RFP), soliciting industry interest and responses to housing privatization RFP, Evaluating RFP responses, and recommending the private sector entity to the Air Force whose proposal brings best value to the Air Force. Mr. Weinberg has participated on numerous initiatives and was the project manager for Shaw AFB and Lackland AFB Phase II.

• Conducted housing market analyses for the U.S. Army in preparation for the

privatization of military housing. This is a teaming effort with Parsons Corporation. These analyses were done for the purpose of determining whether housing deficits or surpluses exist at specific installations. Assignment included local market analysis, consultation with installation housing personnel and local government agencies, rent surveys, housing data collection, and analysis, and the preparation of final reports.

• Developed a model for the Highland Company and the Department of the Navy to test feasibility of developing bachelor quarters using public-private partnerships. The model was developed to test various levels of government and private sector participation and contribution. The model was used in conjunction with the market analysis of two test sites to determine the versatility of the proposed development model. The analysis included an analysis of development costs associated with both MILCON and private sector standards as well as the potential market appeal of the MILSPECS to potential private sector occupants.

STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS LINDSEY SUTTON

EDUCATION Texas State University, Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance LICENSING AND CERTIFICATIONS Certified General Real Estate Appraiser – State of Texas (TX 1380684-G) EXPERIENCE Novogradac & Company LLP, Manager, December 2012- Present Novogradac & Company LLP, Real Estate Analyst, September 2011- December 2012 Novogradac & Company LLP, Real Estate Researcher February 2010 – September 2011 REAL ESTATE ASSIGNMENTS A representative sample of work on various types of projects:

Performed market studies for proposed new construction and existing Low Income Housing Tax Credit, USDA Rural Development, Section 8 and market rate multifamily and age-restricted developments. This included property screenings, market and demographic analysis, comparable rent surveys, supply and demand analysis, determination of market rents, expense comparability analysis, and other general market analysis. Property types include proposed multifamily, acquisition with rehabilitation, historic rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and single-family development.

Conduct physical inspections of subject properties and comparables to determine condition and evaluate independent physical condition assessments.

Assist on appraisals using the cost approach, income capitalization approach, and sales comparison approach for Low Income Housing Tax Credit, USDA Rural Development, and Section 8 properties. Additional assignments also include partnership valuations and commercial land valuation.

Prepared HUD Market-to-Market rent comparability studies for Section 8 multifamily developments.

Perform valuations of General and/or Limited Partnership Interest in a real estate transaction, as well as LIHTC Year 15 valuation analysis.

Prepare Fair Market Value analyses for solar panel installations in connection with financing and structuring analyses performed for various clients. The reports are used by clients to evaluate with their advisors certain tax consequences applicable to ownership. Additionally, these reports can be used in connection with application for the Federal grant identified as Section 1603 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the ITC funding process.

Analyze historic audited financial statements to determine property expense projections. Perform market studies and assist on appraisals for proposed and existing multifamily

properties under the HUD MAP program. These reports meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 7 of the HUD MAP Guide for the 221(d)4, 223(f), and the LIHTC Pilot Program.

Consult with lenders and developers and complete valuation assignments for developments converting under the RAD program.

Completed assignments in the following states:

California Florida Illinois Mississippi Texas Washington Utah Iowa New Jersey Louisiana Arizona Tennessee Georgia North Carolina Oregon Indiana Oklahoma Missouri Michigan Nebraska Virgin Islands Minnesota New York Wisconsin Maryland Delaware Arkansas West Virginia Tennessee South Carolina Connecticut Ohio

STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Meg Southern

I. Education

University of South Carolina – Columbia, SC Master of Arts, Public History College of William and Mary – Williamsburg, VA Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology and History

II. Professional Experience

Junior Analyst, Novogradac & Company LLP, September 2016 – Present Researcher, Historic Columbia, May 2014 - September 2016

III. Research Assignments

A representative sample of work on various types of projects:

• Assist in performing and writing market studies and appraisals of proposed and existing Low-

Income Housing Tax credit (LIHTC) properties.

• Research web-based rent reasonableness systems and contact local housing authorities for utility allowance schedules, payment standards, and housing choice voucher information.

• Assisted numerous market and feasibility studies for family and senior affordable housing. Local

housing authorities, developers, syndicators and lenders have used these studies to assist in the financial underwriting and design of market-rate and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties. Analysis typically includes: unit mix determination, demand projections, rental rate analysis, competitive property surveying and overall market analysis.

Date post:	03-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF: COLUMBIA COUNTY,...

Documents