Preliminary Market Assessment
Southeast Central Durham Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative
Durham, Durham County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
The Communities Group
Project #13-3878
October 2013
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... II
TABLES, FIGURES AND MAPS...........................................................................................................V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................VII
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Overview of Subject..............................................................................................................................................1
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................1
Format of Report ..................................................................................................................................................1
Client, Intended User, and Intended Use ...............................................................................................................1
Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................................................2
Report Limitations ................................................................................................................................................2
2.
SUBJECT SITES AND NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW.................................................................... 3
A.
B.
Site Analysis and Neighborhood Overview ............................................................................................................3
1. CNI Study Area Boundaries ...........................................................................................................................3
2. Currently Targeted Redevelopment Sites ......................................................................................................3
3. General Description of Neighborhood Land Uses...........................................................................................7
4. Evidence of Public and Private Investment ....................................................................................................9
5. Public Safety............................................................................................................................................... 11
Residential Support Network .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.
ECONOMIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 16
A.
B.
C.
D.
Introduction and Economic History ..................................................................................................................... 16
Trends in Labor Force - Unemployment............................................................................................................... 17
Trends in At-Place Employment .......................................................................................................................... 18
1. Trends in Total At-Place Employment.......................................................................................................... 18
2. At-Place Employment by Industry Sector..................................................................................................... 19
3. Major Employers ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Economic Conclusions......................................................................................................................................... 23
4.
DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT....................................................................................................... 24
A.
B.
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
Delineation of Market Areas ............................................................................................................................... 24
1. Boundaries of Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area Submarket .......................................................... 24
2. Boundaries of Primary Market Area ............................................................................................................ 24
Demographic Methodology................................................................................................................................. 25
Trends in Population and Households ................................................................................................................. 26
1. Recent Past Trends ..................................................................................................................................... 26
2. Projected Trends ........................................................................................................................................ 26
3. Senior Household Trends ............................................................................................................................ 28
Demographic Characteristics............................................................................................................................... 28
1. Age Distribution and Household Type ......................................................................................................... 28
2. Renter Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 30
3. Income Characteristics................................................................................................................................ 32
4. Cost Burdened Renter Households.............................................................................................................. 33
C.
D.
E.
5.
EXISTING RENTAL MARKET..................................................................................................... 34
A.
B.
Summary of Rental Housing Stock....................................................................................................................... 34
Survey of General Occupancy Rental Communities.............................................................................................. 35
1. Introduction to the General Occupancy Rental Housing Survey ................................................................... 35
2. Location...................................................................................................................................................... 35
3. Age of Communities ................................................................................................................................... 35
4. Structure Type............................................................................................................................................ 36
P ag e i i
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Table of Contents
G.
5. Size............................................................................................................................................................. 37
6. Vacancy Rates............................................................................................................................................. 37
7. Rent Concessions........................................................................................................................................ 37
8. Absorption History...................................................................................................................................... 37
Analysis of General Occupancy Rental Product and Pricing .................................................................................. 38
1. Payment of Utility Costs.............................................................................................................................. 38
2. Unit Features and Finishes .......................................................................................................................... 38
3. Parking ....................................................................................................................................................... 38
4. Community Amenities ................................................................................................................................ 39
5. Distribution of Units by Bedroom Type........................................................................................................ 39
6. Unit Size ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
7. Unit Pricing/Effective Rents ........................................................................................................................ 40
Survey of Age-Restricted Rental Communities..................................................................................................... 41
1. Introduction to the Age-Restricted Rental Housing Survey........................................................................... 41
2. Location...................................................................................................................................................... 41
3. Structure Type............................................................................................................................................ 41
4. Age of Communities ................................................................................................................................... 42
5. Size............................................................................................................................................................. 42
6. Vacancy Rates............................................................................................................................................. 42
7. Rent Concessions........................................................................................................................................ 42
8. Absorption History...................................................................................................................................... 42
Analysis of Senior Rental Product and Pricing ...................................................................................................... 43
1. Payment of Utility Costs.............................................................................................................................. 43
2. Unit Features and Finishes .......................................................................................................................... 43
3. Parking ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
4. Community Amenities ................................................................................................................................ 43
5. Distribution of Units by Bedroom Type........................................................................................................ 44
6. Unit Size ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
7. Unit Pricing/Effective Rents ........................................................................................................................ 44
Rent-Subsidized Rental Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 44
1. Multifamily Communities............................................................................................................................ 44
2. Housing Choice Voucher Program ............................................................................................................... 46
Proposed and Under Construction Rental Communities ...................................................................................... 47
6.
FOR-SALE MARKET CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 49
A.
B.
C.
E.
F.
Summary of Owner-Occupied Housing Stock....................................................................................................... 49
Foreclosure Trends ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Recent Primary Market Area Housing Sales ......................................................................................................... 51
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 51
2. Sales Volume and Pricing ............................................................................................................................ 51
3. Square Footage and Days on the Market..................................................................................................... 53
Actively Listed and Pending Housing Units .......................................................................................................... 54
1. Available Inventory..................................................................................................................................... 54
2. New Construction For-Sale Units................................................................................................................. 55
Existing Homeownership Incentive Programs ...................................................................................................... 55
Proposed For-Sale Housing Communities ............................................................................................................ 57
7.
RENTAL AFFORDABILITY AND DEMAND ................................................................................. 59
A.
B.
C.
Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 59
Renter Households by Income Level.................................................................................................................... 60
Net Demand Analysis, Primary Market Area........................................................................................................ 63
1. Methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 63
2. Demand Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 65
3. Conclusions on Demand.............................................................................................................................. 67
Overall Conclusion on Rental Demand and Affordability...................................................................................... 67
C.
D.
E.
F.
D.
D.
P ag e i ii
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Table of Contents
8.
9.
FOR SALE AFFORDABILITY ...................................................................................................... 69
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 71
A.
Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 71
1. Site and Area Analysis................................................................................................................................. 71
2. Economic Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 71
3. Demographic Analysis................................................................................................................................. 72
4. Competitive General Occupancy and Senior Rental Environment ................................................................ 72
5. Rent-Subsidized Rental Environment .......................................................................................................... 73
6. For-Sale Housing Analysis............................................................................................................................ 73
7. Residential Pipeline .................................................................................................................................... 74
Product Recommendations................................................................................................................................. 74
1. General Occupancy Subsidized Community:................................................................................................ 75
2. General Occupancy Affordable/ Market Rate Rental Community:................................................................ 76
3. General Occupancy Affordable/ Section 8 Rental Community:..................................................................... 83
4. Age-Restricted Senior Rental Community.................................................................................................... 83
5. For-Sale Community ................................................................................................................................... 84
Overall Conclusions............................................................................................................................................. 86
B.
C.
10.
11.
12.
13.
APPENDIX 1 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS............................ 87
APPENDIX 2 RESUMES ........................................................................................................ 89
APPENDIX 3 GENERAL RENTAL COMMUNITY PROFILES..................................................... 90
APPENDIX 4 SENIOR RENTAL COMMUNITY PROFILES........................................................ 91
P ag e i v
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Tables, Figures and Maps
TABLES, FIGURES AND MAPS
Table 1 Existing Units Mix – McDougald Terrace ...........................................................................................................6
Table 2 Key Community Facilities and Services............................................................................................................ 14
Table 3 Trends in Resident Labor Force and Unemployment ....................................................................................... 18
Table 4 Major Employers August 2012, Durham County.............................................................................................. 22
Table 5 Population and Household Trends .................................................................................................................. 27
Table 6 Senior Household Trends................................................................................................................................ 28
Table 7 2013 Age Distribution and 2010 Household Type............................................................................................ 29
Table 8 Renter Household Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 30
Table 9 Change in Renter Rates................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 10 2013 Household Income ............................................................................................................................... 32
Table 11 Cost Burden and Substandardness................................................................................................................ 33
Table 12 Rental Housing Stock Characteristics............................................................................................................. 34
Table 13 Summary, Primary Market Area General Occupancy Rental Communities ..................................................... 37
Table 14 Utility Arrangement and Unit Features, General Occupancy Rental Communities.......................................... 38
Table 15 Common Area Amenities, General Occupancy Rental Communities .............................................................. 39
Table 16 Unit Distribution, Size and Pricing, General Occupancy Rental Communities ................................................. 40
Table 17 Summary - Primary Market Area Senior Rental Communities ........................................................................ 41
Table 18 Utility Arrangement and Unit Features, Senior Rental Communities.............................................................. 43
Table 19 Common Area Amenities, Senior Rental Communities .................................................................................. 43
Table 20 Unit Distribution, Size and Pricing, Senior Rental Communities...................................................................... 44
Table 21 Summary, Primary Market Area Rent-Subsidized Rental Communities .......................................................... 45
Table 22 For-Sale Housing Stock Characteristics.......................................................................................................... 49
Table 23 Sales Prices for Closed Residential Transactions Jan 2012 to Sept 2013 ......................................................... 52
Table 24 Days on the Market of Sold Units – Primary Market Area and CNI Study Area ............................................... 53
Table 25 Homes Sold in PMA by Bedroom and Square Footage ................................................................................... 54
Table 26 Asking Prices of Active or Pending Listings .................................................................................................... 54
Table 27 2013 Income Limits and Maximum Rents, Durham-Chapel Hill, NC HUD Metro FMR Area .............................. 60
Table 28 2015 Income Qualified Households, No Minimum Income ............................................................................. 61
Table 29 2015 Income Qualified Households, With Minimum Income .......................................................................... 62
Table 30 Components of Inventory Change.................................................................................................................. 64
Table 31 Derivation of Demand................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 32 2015 For-Sale Affordability Analysis, Primary Market Area ............................................................................ 69
Table 33 Proposed Redevelopment of McDougald, Lincoln & Fayette Place Sites ........................................................ 75
Table 34 Proposed Public Housing Apartments ........................................................................................................... 76
Table 35 Proposed Mixed-Income LIHTC/ Market Rate Apartments............................................................................. 77
Table 36 2015 Total and Renter Income Distribution, Primary Market Area................................................................. 80
Table 37 Affordability Analysis General Occupancy Rental ........................................................................................... 82
Table 38 Proposed Subsidized/ Affordable General Occupancy Apartments ................................................................. 83
Table 39 Proposed Senior Residence in CNI Study Area without subsidy....................................................................... 84
Table 40 Proposed Senior Residence in CNI Study Area with subsidy............................................................................ 84
Table 41 Proposed For Sale Prototype Community....................................................................................................... 85
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Views of McDougald Terrace ...........................................................................................................................5
Uses in Vicinity of McDougald Terrace.............................................................................................................8
At-Place Employment, Durham County.......................................................................................................... 19
Total Employment and Employment Change by Sector, 2001- 2012 ............................................................... 21
Total Employment and Employment Change by Sector, 2007 to 2102 ............................................................ 22
Foreclosure Activity in Durham and Region.................................................................................................... 50
Discount of Foreclosed Sales Price vs. Market Sales Price............................................................................... 50
DHA’s Hope VI Mortgage Assistance Program Oct 2011 to Sept 2013 – Durham County................................. 56
P ag e v
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Tables, Figures and Maps
Figure 9 Price Positioning – Mixed Income Community CNI Study Area ....................................................................... 78
Map 1 Boundaries of Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area...................................................................................4
Map 2 Rolling Hills/ Southside Revitalization Area.........................................................................................................9
Map 3 2013 Crime Risk Index – McDougald Terrace environs, Durham, NC .................................................................. 12
Map 4 Amenities in and near Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area..................................................................... 15
Map 5 Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and Primary Market Area ............................................................... 25
Map 6 Competitive General Occupancy Rental Communities ...................................................................................... 36
Map 7 Competitive Senior Rental Communities .......................................................................................................... 42
Map 8 Rent-Subsidized Rental Communities ............................................................................................................... 46
Map 9 Pipeline Rental Communities ........................................................................................................................... 48
Map 10 Sold MLS Listings by Price 1/12 to 9/13 –PMA ................................................................................................ 52
Map 11 Sold MLS Listings Jan 12 to Sept 13 – CNI Study Area ..................................................................................... 53
Map 12 Location of Homes Sold Under DHA’s HOPE VI Mortgage Assistance Program................................................. 57
P ag e vi
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Site and Area Analysis
McDougald Terrace, the primary Durham site currently targeted through the Choice Neighborhoods
Initiative (CNI), is a suitable location for redevelopment with new residential products. The site is
close to many key institutional anchors, most notably North Carolina Central University, that provide
stability, employment, and potential new residents.
Site Analysis

Not only is the subject several blocks from NCCU and Durham Technical Community College,
McDougald Terrace is within two miles of the re-emerging downtown area of Durham, four
miles from the Duke University Campuses and the Duke Medical complex, and ten miles
from the heart of the Research Triangle Park.

The site is easily accessed via major thoroughfares and is mostly surrounded by longestablished modest, yet generally well maintained, single-family detached homes.

Anchored by NCCU in the heart of the CNI Study Area, the two massive redevelopment
projects - the Southside/ Rolling Hills program on the northwestern side (and the
redevelopment of the adjacent Fayette Place site) and the proposed redevelopment of the
McDougald Terrace site (along with the adjacent Lincoln Apartments parcel) on the eastern
side should provide the necessary scale to regenerate the Study Area.
Economic Analysis
Durham County has successfully transitioned from a low wage manufacturing economy to a welldiversified growing modern economy, buoyed by the twin economic engines of the Duke University/
Medical campuses and the Research Triangle Park. The solid economic footing has helped the area
weather the recent recession in better shape than most areas.

Major employers in Durham are Duke University and Duke Medical Center (34,000
employees, 14,000 students) about two miles west of the original downtown area and
companies in the Research Triangle Park (49,000 employees), located ten miles to the south.
Two large educational institutions are located within and adjacent to the CNI Study Area –
North Carolina Central University with 1,434 employees and Durham Technical Community
College with 791 employees.

The continuing revitalization of downtown Durham, centered on the adaptive reuse of
millions of square feet of former tobacco warehouses, has created a third leg for economic
growth. The emerging new downtown has attracted scores of loft residential communities,
offices, studios, restaurants, and entertainment venues.

Since 2000, the local unemployment rate in Durham County consistently remained below
state and national rates even though the state of North Carolina’s rate generally tracked
higher than the national rate. As of Q2 2013, the county’s unemployment rate stood at 7.2
percent, falling from a peak of 8.4 percent in 2010, two points below the state rate of 9.2
percent and 0.5 point below the national rate of 7.7 percent.

Since 2010, the level of at-place employment has rebounded growing to 184,500 jobs in
2012, about 1,000 greater than the previous peak year of 2008. Over a period of 13 years,
Durham County’s job base has grown by 17,600 jobs, a gain of 10.6 percent.
Demographic Analysis
RPRG projects ongoing moderate upward trends in population and households for both the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and the Primary Market Area over the next five years
P ag e vii
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
recovering from losses between 2000 and 2010. Senior households for both areas will grow at faster
rates than the general population. The population in both areas is characterized by younger
(particular for the Study Area), lower-income households.

The boundaries of the two census tract area used to approximate the Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area encompass a larger area than the actual CNI neighborhood. The
population of our analysis area, based on the 2010 US Census, stood at 13,777 persons
compared to the actual CNI neighborhood 2010 population of 7,200 persons, or 52.3
percent of the total of RPRG’s CNI market area.

The 12 census-tract Primary Market Area, drawn to define a residential market area that
would include competitive multi-family communities, incorporates the five tracts of the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and additional tracts to the north, south, east,
and west, encompassing the central part of Durham including downtown.

RPRG projects moderate increases of 145 households per year (1.2 percent) in the Southeast
Central Durham CNI Study Area through 2018 and increases of 399 households per year (1.1
percent) in the Primary Market Area.

Age 62+ senior households are expected to increase in both jurisdictions at paces
significantly greater than that experienced by the general population over the coming fiveyear period, which is due in part to aging-in-place as opposed to in-migration of senior
households.

The median age among residents of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is 25
years, compared to 31 years for the Primary Market Area. Between 27 and 32 percent of
the renter households in both geographies are established households between ages of 3561. These households are more likely to be permanent renters.

The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area constitutes a low-income market - RPRG
estimates the 2013 median household income at $19,201. Incomes in the Primary Market
Area trend more moderate, with a median household income of $25,785.
Forty-eight
percent of the renter households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area have
annual incomes below $15,000.

Both family and senior renter households in the Primary Market Area tend to pay a very
high percentage of their monthly income toward housing costs. Households with rent
burdens higher than 35 percent are considered ‘cost-burdened’. Forty-seven percent of
family households and 39 percent of 65+ renter households have rent burdens of 35 percent
or higher.
Competitive General Occupancy and Senior Rental Environment
The rental market is healthy with low vacancy rates. Almost all of the affordable communities (eight
of nine) are tax credit properties – the two most recent market rate communities are higher end
adaptive reuse loft projects in downtown commanding much higher rents than the remainder of the
surveyed rental stock.

The rental housing stock in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is old - the median
rental unit was built in 1965, and thus was about 48 years old. The median age of rental
units in the Primary Market Area is comparable. About one out of every six renter-occupied
units in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area was built after 1980.

The general occupancy rental market vacancy rate is a low 3.7 percent with no leasing
specials.

Average effective rents of the nine affordable communities at all income targets are:
o
o
One-bedroom units at $681 for 766 square feet or $0.89 per square foot.
Two-bedroom units at $666 for 875 square feet or $0.76 per square foot.
P ag e vii i
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
o
Three-bedroom units at $853 for 1,241 square feet or $0.69 per square foot.

The two downtown Tobacco District communities are in a separate rental environment
commanding rents double to triple the Middle/ Lower Tier rents.

Three senior independent living rental communities with an inventory of 222 non-subsidized
units operate in the Primary Market Area. As of RPRG’s October 2013 surveys, the overall
vacancy rate was a nominal 2.3 percent - five units out of 222 units were vacant. Each
community reported only one to two vacancies
Rent-Subsidized Rental Environment
Virtually full occupancy at rent-subsidized rental and public housing communities plus waiting lists
for these communities and the Housing Choice Voucher program suggest high demand for
affordable rental housing among the Primary Market Area’s lowest-income households.

Eight of the 17 rent-subsidized communities are restricted to seniors and contain 671 units.
The vacancy rate for the senior communities is a low 1.0 percent. The nine rent-subsidized
general occupancy communities contain a total of 947 units and the vacancy rate is 2.6
percent. All properties report waiting lists.

DHA administers the 2,744 voucher Housing Choice Voucher program for the Durham
County and City. As of October 13, 2013, all vouchers were are being used and the waiting
list is now closed with 900 names on the waiting list. There were 2,665 applicants on the
waiting list for public housing in the city and county.
For-Sale Housing Analysis
Home prices in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area are among the lowest in a Primary
Market Area with a moderately-valued homeownership stock. There are no new privately financed
home communities; the only active community is a small high- end infill condominium project in the
downtown area.

The median sales price of existing properties in the primary market area is $50,000, 43
percent greater than the median sales price of $35,000 in the CNI Study Area. The sales
prices in the Primary Market Area are primarily clustered in the low range ($25,000 to
$39,999) that contain 22.5 percent of sales, the very low range (less than $25,000) that
contain 17.9 percent of sales with a spike in the $200,000 and above price range which
account for 18.3 percent of sales.

The sales prices of existing units in the study area are clustered in the low range ($25,000 to
$39,999) that contain 36.5 percent of sales, the very low range (less than $25,000) that
contain 23.5 percent of sales and a moderate range ($50,000 to $59,999) that contains 12.9
percent of sales.

During the last 21 months, a home in the in the Primary Market area took approximately 60
days to sell, longer than it took to sell in the CNI Study Area (51 days).

The owner-occupied housing stock in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is older
with a median year built of 1959 compared to the age of the owner-occupied stocks of the
Primary Market Area (1963) and Durham County (1986).

The DHA has sponsored a successful homeownership program through the targeted use of
HOPE VI Mortgage Assistance Grants and the Homeownership Institute (a program that
educates potential homeowners about purchasing and maintaining homes). Since October
2010, 67 homes scattered throughout Durham County (a mixture of resales and new homes)
have been sold under this program.
P ag e i x
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
Residential Pipeline
The residential development pipeline in the Primary Market Area is concentrated in the Southside/
Rolling Hills redevelopment area. Two affordable rental projects have been identified with others
programmed for later stages. The first project, a 132 unit general occupancy community being
developed by McCormack Baron Salazar, was awarded tax credits by NCHFA in 2011 and is currently
under construction with completion by end of 2014. The second project is the proposed adaptive
use of the Whitted School campus into 89 senior apartments and a pre-K learning center. The
project was not approved in the current tax credit round but is being resubmitted in the 2014 round.
The Master Plan for Southside/ Rolling Hills proposes a total of 398 rental units when totally built
out. Assuming the first two projects are built, another 177 rental units are planned. The Master
Plan for Southside/ Rolling Hills also proposes 152 for sale units. The first phase, totaling 48 units, is
scheduled to begin development in 2014.
Rental Affordability
Affordability calculations that considered households with incomes of up to 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, and
100 percent of AMI in the Primary Market Area as of 2014 highlight deep demand for rentsubsidized units and significantly more constricted demand for LIHTC units without rent subsidies
and market-rate units, as indicated in the following tables.
P ag e x
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
Assuming Minimum Income Based on Net Rent at 90% of Max (LIHTC Units without Rent Subsidies)
Total Renter Households
30% AMI
40% AMI
50% AMI
Min
$23,966
# HH
60% AMI
Max
$30,500
% Total
Min
$28,697
# HH
80% AMI
Max
$36,600
% Total
Min
$38,091
# HH
100% AMI
Submarket
AMI Level
Income Limits
Total Renters
Min
$14,571
# HH
Max
$18,300
% Total
Min
$19,269
# HH
Max
$24,400
% Total
Max
$48,800
% Total
Min
$47,520
# HH
Max
$61,000
% Total
CNI Market
2,670
243
9.1%
320
12.0%
188
7.0%
173
6.5%
211
7.9%
111
4.2%
Primary Market
8,836
657
7.4%
876
9.9%
773
8.7%
814
9.2%
870
9.8%
606
6.9%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min. Income based on 3 Person HH in Two Bedroom unit. Assumes 35 percent rent burden standard.
Submarket
AMI Level
Income Limits
Total Renters
30% AMI
Min
Max
$10,590 $15,240
# HH
% Total
40% AMI
Min
Max
$14,040
$20,320
# HH
% Total
Senior (62+) Renter Households
50% AMI
60% AMI
Min
Max
Min
Max
$17,460 $25,400
$20,880
$30,480
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
80% AMI
Min
Max
$27,750
$40,640
# HH
% Total
100% AMI
Min
Max
$36,900
$50,800
# HH
% Total
CNI Market
590
89
15.1%
107
18.1%
127
21.5%
93
15.8%
53
9.0%
48
8.1%
Primary Market
1,749
205
11.7%
260
14.9%
317
18.1%
278
15.9%
228
13.0%
199
11.4%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min Income Based on 1 Person HH in One Bedroom unit. Assumes 40 percent rent burden standard.
Rental Affordabiilty assuming no Minimum Income (Rent-subsidized)
Total Renter Households
Submarket
AMI Level
Max.
Income
Total
Renters
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
CNI Market
2,670
1,519
56.9%
1,900
71.2%
2,060
77.2%
2,193
82.1%
2,433
91.1%
2,519
94.3%
Primary Market
8,836
3,841
43.5%
4,882
55.3%
5,582
63.2%
6,200
70.2%
7,191
81.4%
7,693
87.1%
30% AMI
$18,300
40% AMI
$24,400
50% AMI
$30,500
60% AMI
$36,600
80% AMI
$48,800
100% AMI
$61,000
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min. Income based on 3 Person HH in Two Bedroom unit.
Senior (62+) Renter Households
Submarket
AMI Level
Max.
Income
Total
Renters
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
\
CNI Market
590
294
49.8%
378
64.1%
457
77.5%
480
81.4%
521
88.3%
556
94.2%
Primary Market
1,749
674
38.5%
882
50.4%
1,082
61.9%
1,183
67.6%
1,357
77.6%
1,500
85.8%
30% AMI
$15,240
40% AMI
$20,320
50% AMI
$25,400
60% AMI
$30,480
80% AMI
$40,600
100% AMI
$50,800
% Total
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min. Income Based on 1 Person HH in One Bedroom unit.

The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area constitutes a very low-income submarket
where rent-subsidized units would be expected to thrive. Three out of five renter
households have incomes at or below 40 percent of AMI, and about 80 percent of these
earn less than 30 percent of AMI. Nearly 52 percent of senior renters in the Southeast
Central Durham CNI Study Area have incomes of no more than 30 percent of AMI.

Renter household incomes in the Primary Market Area trend somewhat higher than renter
household incomes in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area but more than 70
percent of renter households would still qualify for a rent-subsidized rental unit with an
income restriction of 60 percent of AMI.

Over 81 percent of age 62+ senior renter households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI
Study Area and 67.6 percent of age 62+ senior renter households in the Primary Market
Area have incomes at or below 60 percent of AMI. Very low-income households with
incomes at 30 percent or less of AMI represent 49.8 percent of senior renters in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and 38.5 percent of senior renters in the Primary
Market Area.

Seventy-one percent of renter households and 64 percent of senior renter households in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area have incomes below 40 percent of AMI.
P ag e xi
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary

Only 5.7 percent of all renter households and 5.8 percent of senior renter households in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area have incomes in excess of the area median. In
the Primary Market Area, the percentages of renters and senior renters with incomes above
100 percent of AMI – 12.9 percent and 14.2 percent – are higher but still rather modest.
Rental Demand
With moderate household growth, there exists a robust pent up demand over the next three years
for rental housing. As growth continues through 2019, there will be more than sufficient demand to
absorb additional rental projects planned in the Southside/ Rolling Hills area and further expand
pent up demand to 808 units. In addition, this analysis does not reflect the extensive and increasing
need for affordable housing in this market. Within a tight rental market, an increasing percentage of
households are rent burdened, pointing to the pressure for an expansion of the affordable housing
stock.
For-Sale Demand and Affordability
While the affordability analysis indicates deep pools of income-qualified households that could
afford homes priced between $100,000 and $200,000 and more limited numbers above $200,000,
the demand for new homeownership units cannot be tied directly to the calculated numbers of
income-qualified households. The near collapse of the for-sale housing market nationally and the
subsequent tightening of lending restrictions significantly lowered demand for for-sale housing units
in most markets. The national trend over the past several years has been away from
homeownership and toward rental housing. This trend is buoyed by ‘renters by choice’, those
households that could afford a for-sale housing unit but opt for a rental unit instead. Despite low
home values, many households in the Primary Market Area likely elect to rent due to concerns
about employment stability, concerns about resale value, the costs of maintaining older units, and
other reasons. The DHA has operated a successful limited homeownership program (67 homes have
been sold) that utilized equity grants and homeownership training programs to encourage purchase
of homes – homes were scattered throughout the city of Durham and Durham County.
Product Recommendations
The Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant awarded to the DHA specifically identifies several sites as
targets for redevelopment including the primary target – the 360 unit McDougald Terrace campus
(25 acre site); the vacant Lincoln Apartments (10 acre site); and the former Fayette Place
Apartments (20 acre site).
The proximate location of the McDougald and Lincoln sites will create a unified 45 acre
redevelopment parcel that should provide sufficient scale to significantly impact and upgrade the
immediate residential community. In a similar fashion, the proximity of the Fayette Place site to the
much larger Southside/ Rolling Hills redevelopment campus will also create a scale large enough to
transform the entire area. The central location of the NCCU campus in between these two targeted
areas provides key linkages and a stabilizing influence.
Based on data and market conditions, a healthy pent-up demand for 808 units of rental housing
through January 1, 2019 has been calculated that corresponds with the client’s target goal of
replacing the 360 unit McDougald Terrace with a 700 to 900 unit mixed-use and mixed income
residential community spread over various sites. One potential development program is
summarized below with specific product recommendations following for each proposed uses.
P ag e xi i
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
Type
LIHTC - 30%, 50%, 60%.
Section 8 (40%)
Public Housing
Sect 8/ LIHTC
LIHTC 60%, Market
Public Housing
LIHTC - 30%, 50%, 60%
For Sale
Totals - Site
Target Market
Age -Restricted
General Occupancy
Target
Market
General
Occupancy
General
Occupancy
Senior - 62+
General
Occupancy
General
Occupancy
Senior - 62+
General
Occupancy
Total
Units
%
1 BR
2 BR
3 BR
120
15%
44
68
8
300
37%
105
95
70
100
12%
84
16
120
15%
36
72
12
60
7%
25
20
10
65
8%
55
10
50
6%
36
4BR
30
5
14
815
100%
349
281
136
49
No.
%
Rental Program
No.
165
20%
Affordable/ Subsidized
508
650
80%
Affordable/ Market Rate
307
Completed by 1/1/2017
465
Completed by 1/1/2019
Location
Timing
McDougald
1/1/2017
McDougald, Lincoln, Fayette
Place
1/1/2017
Lincoln
1/1/2017
Fayette Place
1/1/2019
McDougald, Lincoln
1/1/2019
McDougald
Scattered Site or Targeted
Redevelopment Area
1/1/2019
1/1/2019
%
62%
38%
350
Overall we have proposed 815 new residential units to be phased in over a five year period. This
schedule is a general outline of possible outcomes that can be fine-tuned over the planning process
with additions, subtractions, and/ or revisions as more specific programmatic elements are
proposed. Forty-four percent of the proposed units are replacement units for McDougald Terrace
and would be located within the CNI Study Area, spread over the three sites. We also suggest two
mid-rise independent senior facilities (one affordable and one subsidized) located on the
McDougald/ Lincoln parcels sited close enough to utilize shared amenities. We also recommend
locating an affordable/ market rate general occupancy project in the Fayette Place parcel close to a
similar community currently under construction in Southside and the higher end downtown rental
communities. Another general occupancy mixed income community (affordable/ Section 8) could
be located on the McDougald site. The final phase is a small for-sale component that will either be
scattered throughout the neighborhood or targeted on a specific redevelopment area with the CNI
Study Area. Homeownership programs are typically the last portion of a redevelopment program to
take root since potential homebuyers are protective about preserving their home equity.
As outlined, 80 percent of units (660) are targeted to general occupancy tenancies and 20 percent
(165) are targeted to seniors. Subsidized, income-based tenancies comprise 62 percent of units
(178) and the remaining 38 percent of units (317) are non-subsidized affordable and market rate
tenancies.
General Occupancy Subsidized Community:
Based on our affordability analysis, occupancy levels at existing rent-subsidized general occupancy
properties and the status of the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list, rent-subsidized rental units are
most in demand in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area. Thus, care should be taken to
preserve the existing number of occupied general occupancy public housing units (360) at
McDougald Terrace. The replacement units would be located within the boundaries of the CNI
Study Area scattered among the three identified sites.
We suggest providing a mix of unit types such as garden, duplex, and townhouse units to create
different densities and an appealing design that incorporates more open spaces, play areas, and
passive recreation than currently offered at McDougald Terrace. Weighing demand derived from
waiting lists versus current floor plans, we suggest a greater focus on smaller units with 130 one
bedrooms (16 percent), following by 115 two bedroom units (32 percent), 80 three bedroom units
(22 percent), and 35 four bedroom units (18 percent). RPRG recommends one-bedroom unit sizes of
P ag e xi ii
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
700 square feet, two-bedroom unit sizes of 900 square feet, three-bedroom unit sizes of 1,150
square feet, and four-bedroom sizes of 1,300 square feet.
Target populations would be similar to existing residents – single person households, single parent
households with children, coupled households, and families. In unit features for subsidized/ public
housing apartments should feature refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, and washer-dryer hook-ups.
Common area amenities should include a community room, computer room, exercise area, laundry
rooms, playgrounds, basketball courts, and outdoor sitting/ grilling areas.
General Occupancy Affordable/ Market Rate Rental Community:
Existing market rate general occupancy communities are performing well with vacancies below 5
percent - the two downtown high-end communities are 3.4 percent vacant and the two older more
affordable communities are 4.5 vacant. There is a small band of households (19 percent of PMA
renter households) who could afford market rate rents targeted to units at 80% to 120% of AMI that
is large enough to support some additional market rate products.
There are currently a limited number of market rate communities in the PMA besides the two highend downtown tobacco loft developments. Edgemont Elms, built in 1989, is the newest community
that targets market rate tenants. In this case, the tax credit window expired and rents were
increased to 80% AMI. However, the current LIHTC community under construction in Southside
contains 39 market rate units.
We have recommended
a mixed income community project on the Fayette Place parcel, close to
a similar community currently under construction in Southside and proximate to the higher end
rental communities in downtown. Given that we believe this location can support relatively high
rents, we suggest this project be financed using tax exempt bond financing with four percent Low
Income Housing Tax Credits
We have suggested a 120 unit mixed income project comprised of 93 LIHTC units targeting 60% AMI
(78 percent) and 27 market rate units (23 percent). One bedroom units comprise 30 percent of
units (36 units); two bedroom units comprise 60 percent of units (72 units); and three bedroom
units comprise 10 percent of units (12 units). Recommended sizes are 725 square feet for one
bedroom units, 950 square feet for two bedrooms and 1,200 square feet for three bedrooms units.
Pricing for the 60% AMI unit are 95 percent of the allowed maximum rents per the 2013 Income
Limits and Maximum Rents guideline issued by HUD for the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC HUD Metro FMR
Area (Table 27) and are comparable to most existing 60% AMI rents in the PMA. Proposed market
rate rents are priced at 95 percent of the 80% AMI allowed maximum rents - $865 for one
bedroom units, $1,036 for two bedroom units and $1,187 for three bedroom units.
o
One bedroom units are slightly larger than the one bedroom units at Calvert Place built in
2005 and the new units being built at Southside and are smaller than the Main Street
townhouses and the oversized downtown loft models. The 60% AMI rent is positioned
below the one 50% AMI rent and above the older Eagle Point market rate unit. The market
rate rent is positioned higher than the Calvert Place 60% AMI units and well below the
downtown comps.
o
Two bedroom units are sized in the mid-range of surveyed units. The 60% AMI rent is also
located in the mid-range of other surveyed 60% AMI comps. The market rate rent is higher
than the 60% AMI rents at Franklin Village and Calvert Place and below the two downtown
properties.
o
Three bedroom units are sized in the middle range of the surveyed comps except for the
oversized loft models at American Tobacco. The 60% AMI rent is positioned in the lower
P ag e xi v
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
range of the other 50% and 60% AMI units. The market rent is above the tax credit rents
but significantly below the two downtown loft properties.
Target populations would be young professionals (single, coupled, and in roommate situations),
married and coupled households with or without small children, and empty nesters. Large potential
tenant pools are located at the North Carolina Central University campus, the Durham Technical
Community College, downtown Durham commercial and business establishments, and the Duke
educational and medical campuses.
We suggest in unit features such as refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, microwaves, and in-unit
washer-dryers. Common area amenities should include a resident lounge, business center, fitness
facility, pool and playground. Parking should be provided at no extra charge on surface parking lots.
The renter capture rate of 4.7 percent suggests sufficient income-qualified renter households in the
market area in 2015 to absorb all 120 of the subject’s proposed units, even with an artificial rent
ceiling of 80 percent AMI for market rate units. RPRG judges that this capture rate is reasonable
and achievable.
General Occupancy Affordable/ Section 8 Rental Community:
This proposed community is more similar to the existing tax credit communities that offer a
combination of affordable and Section 8 subsidized units. The unit mix is similar to the mixedincome general occupancy example with the distinction that there are forty-eight 30% AMI units
carrying deep subsidies. The remaining units are divided among 50% and 60% units - there are no
market rate units. Unit features and communities would also be similar to the example described
above.
Age-Restricted Senior Rental Community
A limited number of senior households would qualify for non-rent subsidized affordable units - only
18 to 21 percent of seniors in both the study area and PMA fall within the 30 to 60 percent AMI
range. However, the three affordable non-subsidized independent senior communities in the PMA
enjoy very low vacancy rates and carry waiting lists. In addition, given the virtual 100 percent
occupancy at the eight communities containing 671 rent-subsidized units and the large pool of lower
income senior renters, there appears to be a need for additional subsidized senior rental housing in
the Primary Market Area. We thus suggest a two tiered approach - a smaller tax credit community
with no subsidies sized at 65 units and a larger 100 unit subsidized senior facility. If one property is
located on the southern portion of the McDougald parcel and the other property is located on the
northern portion of the Lincoln parcel, the two senior residences would create a mini-senior campus
that could utilize shared amenities.
Since most senior households consist of one member, we propose primarily one bedroom
apartments (85 percent) with 15 percent of the units designed as two bedroom apartments for both
communities. Recommended units sizes are 650 square feet for one bedroom units and 850 square
feet for two bedroom units that are comparable in size to other tax credit communities. The
facilities would offer interior hallways and elevator service.
Senior residences should feature refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, emergency pull chords, and
grab bars. Centralized laundry rooms are suitable in a multifamily building with enclosed corridors.
A common area community room and wellness room should also be provided with such outdoor
features as benches and/or gazebo.
For-Sale Community
No traditional single family for-sale market-rate housing subdivisions are currently active or planned
in the Primary Market Area. We do not recommend launching a sizable traditional for-sale
P ag e xv
Southeast Central Durham CNI| Executive Summary
subdivision or scattered site program as part of the Choice Neighborhoods effort, as the isolation
from new activity would likely impede sales. We have identified a 150 community with for-sale
bungalow, duplex, and townhouse style homes planned in the Southside/ Rolling Hills (SRH)
subdivision that should appear over the next five years. This community will be publicly subsidized
by city/ county contributions of land and infrastructure, deferred equity grants/ loans, and low
interest loan. A possible strategy would be to leverage this investment and develop a small for sale
community in the Fayette Place campus that will build upon the future track record of new
homeowners in the SRH. It would be prudent to begin this program on the tail end of the
McDougald redevelopment period so that market forces could possibly start playing a larger role.
Another strategy would be to leverage the successful homeownership program operated under the
auspices of the Resident Services Department of the Durham Housing Authority onto the new plans
for the CNI Study Area. The program utilized residential funds left over the city HOPE VI accounts
that enabled 67 Durham County residents to purchase a home with the assistance of Hope VI equity
grants and the DHA’s Homeowner Institute. However, the potential homeowners were not
restricted to any particular area. If additional funds can be identified to provide a pool for equity
grants, it could be possible to establish a similar program for the CNI Study Area. However, the
legality of restricting homeownership choices under a grant program is beyond the expertise of this
consultant. It might be easier to designate a specific block area for development (as mentioned
above) and funnel the grant funds to this project.
Given the dominance of single-family detached housing in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study
Area, any future for-sale housing units pursued by DHA should be detached in nature comparable to
the bungalow models being proposed in parts of the SRH. We are proposing up to 50 single family
homes, built in phases, offering three and four bedroom two –story models that could be a
combination of new construction and renovation of existing structures. Floor plans could range in
size from 1,500 to 1,750 square feet with base prices starting from $150,000 to $195,000, similar to
the program currently proposed in SRH. Unit features could include hardwood flooring in living
area, stainless steel appliances, upgraded wood cabinets and countertops, ceramic tile in baths, and
a front porch and rear deck.
Equity and financing would be underwritten by a combination of state/ federal programs and public
grants. If the SRH program becomes established, it might be possible to limit public involvement
and/or raise base prices.
Overall Conclusion
Viable options for development of a mix of residential options exist at the McDougald, Lincoln, and
Fayette Place sites. In addition, the substantial redevelopment of the Southside/ Rolling Hills area
will revitalize the northwestern portion of the Study Area and enhance the likelihood of success for
the entire community. The Study Area is further strengthened by the North Carolina Central
University anchor and proximity to the Duke University/ Medical campuses and RTP that provide
stability, economic opportunities, and a captive resident pool. To accomplish the transformation of
the Southeast Central Durham CNI Neighborhood Study Area requires vision and careful planning on
the part of the City of Durham leadership team.
Projects with the greatest likelihood for success over the coming five years include a rent-subsidized
senior community, an affordable senior community, replacement general occupancy public housing,
and both a mixed income and an affordable/ subsidized general occupancy community. There is
also an opportunity to develop a small scale for-sale program in the latter stages of the Study Area
development period either situated close to the home ownership community being planned in the
Southside/ Rolling Hills community or scattered throughout the CNI Study Area.
P ag e xvi
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview of Subject
In October 2012, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded a
$300,000 Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant to the Durham Housing Authority (DHA). In
partnership with The Communities Group (TCG), DHA is using the planning grant to support a
comprehensive planning effort that targets a 964 acre segment of central Durham known as
Southeast Central Durham. One goal of the comprehensive planning effort is to design and
implement redevelopment of DHA’s McDougald Terrace site. McDougald Terrace, an existing 360
unit general occupancy public housing development, is situated on a 25.05 acre parcel in the eastern
portion of the designated CNI study area. Two other parcels in the Study Area (the former sites of
the Lincoln and Fayette Place Apartments) have been identified as additional redevelopment sites.
B. Purpose
DHA and TCG are currently coordinating data collection efforts to inform ongoing redevelopment
planning for the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area. Real Property Research Group, Inc.
(RPRG) has been retained by TCG to help determine the depth of demand for various types of
housing, including affordable general occupancy rental, affordable senior rental, market-rate
general occupancy rental, and for-sale housing products. At the current stage of planning, DHA and
TCG expect that the McDougald Terrace site and other sites will be incorporated in the upcoming
redevelopment, though no specific project proposals have as yet been put forward. The purpose of
this report is thus to provide an overview of housing market conditions and demand to assist in
narrowing the vision for future housing development. We will also suggest the appropriate rental
and/ or for-sale product(s) for the area including target market (market rate/affordable/mixed
income), general occupancy or age restricted, project size and unit mix, rents, features and
amenities.
C. Format of Report
This report is formatted as an Opportunity Assessment, and incorporates a range of topics intended
to allow us to make conclusions related to available demand and the appropriate housing product
types for Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area. This report is not intended to be a
comprehensive market study for a specific residential product that would meet the full market study
requirements for programs such as HUD’s FHA Multifamily Accelerated Processing program or the
North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA’s) Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. The
report is likewise not intended to cover all of the items contained within the Model Content
Standards of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA). If we were to prepare a
comprehensive feasibility study for a specific product on a specific site, there would be changes,
additions and deletions to the material presented here. Moreover, the findings, conclusions and/or
recommendations yielded as a result of a project-specific analysis may differ from those presented
in this Opportunity Assessment.
D. Client, Intended User, and Intended Use
The Client is The Communities Group. Representatives of The Communities Group and the Durham
Housing Authority are Intended Users for this report, and we expect that the information contained
herein will be shared with other local stakeholders as part of planning meetings. RPRG expects that
this report will be submitted to HUD to support the implementation of housing redevelopment goals
that stem from the planning process. Should DHA and TCG move forward with applications for
funding specific projects through DHA or other sources, this report could serve as the basis for
comprehensive market studies that would be suitable for submission to these entities.
P ag e 1
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Introduction
E. Scope of Work
This Opportunity Assessment includes a site analysis of the CNI area, a review of local economic
conditions, a demographic analysis, an examination of current conditions in the rental and for-sale
housing markets, demand and affordability analyses for rental and for-sale housing, and
recommendations related to future projects for the CNI area including an outline of proposed
residential uses at the identified sites. Given the nature of the assessment, we have not evaluated a
specific proposed development plan

RPRG Senior Analyst Jerry Levin conducted a visit to the subject site, competitive rental and
for-sale properties, and the overall Primary Market Area on September 19, 2013.

Between September 18 and October 23, 2013, RPRG gathered primary information through
field and phone interviews with rental community leasing agents and property managers,
residential brokers and for-sale communities, and commercial brokers and property owners.
We consulted with Shannon McLean and Alisha Curry of the Durham Housing Authority
regarding DHA’s current housing programs, plans, and priorities. We interviewed Larry
Jarvis with the City of Durham’s Community Development division to gauge planned
developments in and near the CNI area. We also interviewed Carol Diggs of the Durham
Center for Senior Life, and staff from the Durham City/ County Planning Department and the
Durham/ Chapel Hill/ Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization.

RPRG obtained data on recent housing sales, active for-sale housing listings, and housing
units with pending sales from Tracey Goetz of Prudential York Simpson Underwood Realty.

All pertinent information obtained was incorporated in the appropriate section or sections
of this report.
F. Report Limitations
The conclusions reached in an Opportunity Assessment are inherently subjective and should not be
relied upon as a determinative predictor of results that will actually occur in the marketplace. There
can be no assurance that the estimates made or assumptions employed in preparing this report will
in fact be realized or that other methods or assumptions might not be appropriate. The conclusions
expressed in this report are as of the date of this report, and an analysis conducted as of another
date may require different conclusions. The actual results achieved will depend on a variety of
factors, including the performance of management, the impact of changes in general and local
economic conditions, and the absence of material changes in the regulatory or competitive
environment. Reference is made to the statement of Underlying Assumptions and Limiting
Conditions contained in Appendix I of this report.
P ag e 2
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
2. SUBJECT SITES AND NEIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW
A. Site Analysis and Neighborhood Overview
1. CNI Study Area Boundaries
The geographic area covered by the Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant – to be referred to as the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area – is fully contained within the City of Durham and is
centered around North Carolina Central University (the intersection of Route 55-Alston Drive and
Lawson Street), the nation's first publicly supported Liberal Arts College for African-Americans.
Radiating from NCCU, the CNI Study Area stretches north to the Durham Freeway (just south of
downtown Durham); east to Durham Technical Community College (including the subject site –
McDougald Terrace); south to Fayetteville Street Elementary School and Elmira Avenue Park; and
west to the American Tobacco Trail and Roxboro Street (Map 1). From east to west, the Southeast
Central Durham CNI Study Area is approximately 1.9 miles wide. The distances between the
northern boundary and various southern boundaries of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study
Area range from 0.9 mile to 1.7 miles. The programmatic boundaries of the Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area are as follows:
North:
Durham Freeway (Route 147)
East:
Bacon Street, Fork Rock Creek to the southern tip of Elmira Avenue Park
South:
Fork Rock Creek, southern boundary of Elmira Avenue Park, Fayetteville Street
Elementary School
West:
Roxboro Street, American Tobacco Trail
2. Currently Targeted Redevelopment Sites
The Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant awarded to the DHA specifically identifies several sites as
targets for redevelopment including the primary target – the 360 unit Southeast Central Durham
Public Housing campus; the former site of the Lincoln Apartments; and the former site of the
Fayette Place Apartments.

McDougald Terrace, an existing 360 unit general occupancy public housing development, is
situated on a 25.05 acre parcel between North Carolina Central University and Durham
Technical Community College, about one mile southeast of downtown Durham. The public
housing community is owned and operated by the Durham Housing Authority (DHA). Built in
1954 (renovated in 1984), McDougald Terrace encompasses roughly an eight-block
irregularly shaped area bordered on the northwest by Sima Avenue, the east by Plum
Street, the south by Lawson and Truman Street, and the west by Wabash Street. The sixty
two-story brick façade row home structures are laid out barrack style (Figure 1).
P ag e 3
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
Map 1 Boundaries of Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
P ag e 4
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
Figure 1 Views of McDougald Terrace
Leasing Office
View along Sims Avenue
Interior Parking
View along Wabash Drive
View from Truman Street
P ag e 5
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
Table 1 presents the current unit configuration of McDougald Terrace consisting of 16
percent one bedroom units, 38 percent two bedroom units, 28 percent three bedroom
units, 17 percent four bedroom units and one percent five bedroom units. Unit sizes range
from 575 square feet for one bedroom units to 1,568 square feet for five bedroom units.
Two units are designated as handicapped units. All units contain a refrigerator, stove, and
washer hook-up. A community room is provided next to the management office. Several
playgrounds are scattered throughout the community.
Table 1 Existing Units Mix – McDougald Terrace
Type
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Two Bedroom HC
Three Bedroom
Four Bedroom
Four Bedroom HC
Five Bedroom
Total
Baths
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
Number
59
135
1
100
59
1
5
360
%
16.4%
37.5%
0.3%
27.8%
16.4%
0.3%
1.4%
Area (SF)
575
826
1,148
1,087
1,216
1,538
1,568
Source: Durham Housing Authority
The project is presently 96 percent occupied with thirteen vacancies. Fourteen units are offline due to maintenance issues. However, there are waiting lists generic to all public housing
units in Durham - 2,665 applicants are on the waiting list for public housing in the city of
Durham as of August 30, 2013. For those households for which information was available,
the breakdown of households on the waiting list in terms of the number of bedrooms for
which they would qualify is as follows: 1,249 (65%) applicants for one-bedrooms, 460 (24%)
applicants for two-bedrooms, 213 (11%) applicants for three-bedrooms, and 27 (1%)
applicants for four- and five-bedrooms.
A branch of the Durham County public library was located on the subject site but was closed
in October 2013. The McDougald Terrace campus is bordered by the open green space of
Burton Park to the northwest, modest older single family homes to the east and west, and
wooded open space to the south. Burton Elementary School lies about two blocks north of
the site; Durham Technical Community College lies two blocks to the east; the campus of
NCCU lies west of Alston Drive, two blocks to the west; and Mt Calvary United Church, along
with single family neighborhoods lies about two blocks to the south (Figure 2).

The 150 unit Lincoln Apartments, located directly southeast of McDougald Terrace, is now
standing vacant awaiting redevelopment. Located along Lakeland and Truman Streets, the
10-acre property was acquired by the Durham Housing Authority in December 2012. The
last tenants vacated in early 2013.

Another site earmarked for potential scattered site redevelopment is the 20 acre former site
of the Fayette Place Apartments located east of the Rolling Hills redevelopment area and
south of the Durham Freeway along East Umstead and Merrick Streets. Formerly operated
as public housing apartments by the DHA, the property was sold in 2007 to Philadelphiabased Campus Apartments for the purpose of developing low-income housing apartments
reserved for students at North Carolina Central University. However, this plan was never
P ag e 6
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
realized and most recently the site has been mentioned as the new location for the Durham
County Police Departments. Other plans include a mixed income residential community
along with commercial development.
3. General Description of Neighborhood Land Uses
The dominant land use within the defined Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is single-family
residential- mostly well-maintained modest residences. McDougald Terrace is the largest occupied
multi-family community in the study area; several other small apartment complexes are scattered
through the area. Two large vacated multi-family sites – Lincoln Apartments and Fayette Place – are
awaiting redevelopment plans.
By far the dominant institutional use is the 135 acre North Carolina Central University campus
located in the heart of the study area bounded by Lawson Street, Fayetteville Street, Cecil Street,
and Alston Avenue. The western portion of the Durham Technical Community College forms the
eastern boundary of the study area. Numerous k-12 schools are also located within the study area.
Shopping and commercial uses are limited; Food World and several smaller marts are the only
supermarkets in the area. Several parks and recreational spaces are located within the study area
including Burton Park, Hillside Park and swimming pool, Grant Park, and Elmira Avenue Park. Onehalf dozen churches are also located in proximate to the site.
P ag e 7
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
Figure 2 Uses in Vicinity of McDougald Terrace
North Carolina Central University
Durham Technical Community College
Homes along Linwood
Homes near NCCU
Vacant Lincoln Apartments southwest of McDougald
Burton Elementary School
P ag e 8
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
4. Evidence of Public and Private Investment
Rolling Hills/ Southside Redevelopment
The Rolling Hills/ Southside (RHS) redevelopment area is a 120 acre site located between East
Lakewood Avenue to the north and West Umstead Avenue/ Hillside Park to the south; and between
the American Tobacco Trail to the west and Fayetteville Street to the east (Map 2). The City of
Durham has decided as a matter of public policy to focus the lion’s share of its redevelopment
efforts and funds on this area over the next several years.
Map 2 Rolling Hills/ Southside Revitalization Area
The two parts of the redevelopment area consist of Rolling Hills, a 20 acre site along E. Lakewood
Drive and S. Roxboro Street and the 100 acre Southside neighborhood located to the west and south
of Rolling Hills. Downtown Durham lies immediately to the north, north of the Durham Freeway, and
North Carolina Central University is to the south. Roughly 40 percent of the Rolling Hills/ Southside
area (east of Roxboro Street) lies within the defined Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area, but
all of the RHS area is within the bounds of the Primary Market Area as defined by RPRG. Rolling
Hills/Southside is situated within the Hayti district in Durham, a once thriving and historically black
neighborhood. This area has suffered substantial abandonment and deterioration spurred by the
demolition of Hayti’s business district and oldest residential neighborhoods during construction of
the Durham Freeway in the 1960s.
P ag e 9
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
In the past decade and a half, the City of Durham has spent approximately $5 million buying 50
houses in Rolling Hills, relocating previous residents of the area, and bulldozing decaying homes.
Between 2006 and 2011, Self- Help (a non-profit housing corporation) purchased 94 properties in
Southside. The revitalization of the Rolling Hills/Southside area will create affordable housing and
upgrade the area. A large portion of the project’s funding comes from grants from the federal
government to the city for housing and urban renewal including:

The State of North Carolina awarded a $950,000 Neighborhood Stabilization grant for
development of low-cost housing in Southside.

The City of Durham included $1 million over five years in its 2012 budget for rapid
"rehousing", which will subsidize permanent rentals for homeless people.

In August 2011, the City of Durham was also granted $1.3 million in tax credits from the N.C.
Housing Finance Agency, which it will use in the redevelopment of Rolling Hills/Southside.

The N.C. Housing Finance Agency also granted the overall developer of the revitalization
effort, McCormack Baron Salazar $11 million in tax credits for the first phase of the
redevelopment (132 affordable/ market rate/ work-force housing.
As described by Mayor Bill Bell, the goal of redeveloping Rolling Hills/Southside is to create a “highquality, market-rate mixed-income” housing development in Durham that will attract outside
private investment and provide residents with an affordable and hospitable community to live in”. 1
Furthermore, many units are intended to be owner-occupied in an attempt to promote
homeownership in the area. In an effort to encourage homeownership, the city will dedicate one
third of all HOME grant dollars during the first 6 years of the Rolling Hills project to provide equity
for potential lower income homeowners. Duke University has created an initiative that provides
loans and incentives that cover up to $50,000 to eligible Duke University and Health System
employees to purchase one of the 10 houses that will be built in the initial development of the
Southside neighborhood.
The Final Draft of the Master Plan for the Rolling Hills, Southside Revitalization, published in
January 22, 2010, proposed improving the street grid system by increasing connectivity among
neighborhoods and connections to downtown Durham; creating outdoor amenities such as tot lots,
picnic shelters, and a terraced neighborhood park; promoting range of mixed-income, mixed tenure
residential building types including single family, duplex, gardens, and mixed use apartments; , and
develop commercial and employment centers.2 When fully built out, the Rolling Hills/ Southside
redevelopment area is programmed to contain approximately 550 units of which 398 units will be
rental and 152 units will be for sale.
Other Private and Public Investment Initiatives
North Carolina Central University (NCCU) is in the midst of an $84.5 million campus expansion to be
completed in 2015. Durham Public Schools has invested in operating and capital improvements at
Burton Magnet Elementary, W.G. Pearson Magnet Middle School, and the JD Clement Early Collage
High School (on the NCCU Campus), which serve some of the children at the target site.
1
Bell, William. 5 May 2012. “Wilson misses point on Rolling Hills project”. The Durham News.
2
Rolling Hills/ Southside Revitalization Master Plan, Final Draft, January 22, 2010, The City of Durham, McCormack, Baron,
Salazar
P ag e 10
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
The Northeast Central Durham Livability Initiative focuses on the northern boundary of Southeast
Central Durham, and includes neighborhood improvements, workforce and economic development,
a safe and healthy living environment, multi-functional green spaces, public transport and life-long
learning.
The 2009 Central Durham Gateway Plan encompasses the northern boundary of Southeast Central;
improvements include planting, streetscapes, walkways and bike paths.
The 2001 Durham Trails and Greenways Plan encompasses the southern boundaries of Southeast
Central that are contiguous with the Rocky Creek and American Tobacco Trails.
5. Public Safety
The subject McDougald Terrace lies within the jurisdiction of the City of
Durham Police Department. The CNI Study Area is located in Police District 4 and the District 4
Police substation is located at 2945 S. Miami Boulevard, 5.6 miles southeast of the subject. The
closest fire station is located at 1818 Riddle Boulevard, 1.7 miles to the south.
The analysis tool for crime is Crime Risk data provided by Applied Geographic Solutions (AGS).
Crime Risk is a block-group level index that measures the relative risk of crime compared to a
national average. AGS analyzes known socio-economic indicators for local jurisdictions that report
crime statistics to the FBI under the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) program. Based on detailed
modeling of these relationships, Crime Risk provides a detailed view of the risk of total crime as well
as specific crime types at the block group level. In accordance with the reporting procedures used in
the UCR reports, aggregate indexes have been prepared for personal and property crimes separately
as well as a total index. However it must be recognized that these are not weighted indexes, in that
a murder is weighted no more heavily than purse snatching in this computation. The analysis
provides a useful measure of the relative overall crime risk in an area but should be used in
conjunction with other measures.
Map 3 displays the 2013 Crime Risk Index for the block groups in the general vicinity of the subject.
The relative risk of crime is displayed in gradations from yellow (least risk) to deep red (most risk).
The neighborhood containing the site is shaded in the orange zone (the middle gradation) indicating
that the subject’s immediate vicinity is an area of moderate crime risk. Areas immediately to the
north and west are shaded in yellow and yellow-orange, indicative of low to moderate risk. Areas
northwest, east and south of the site are shaded in orange, similar to the subject.
P ag e 11
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
Map 3 2013 Crime Risk Index – McDougald Terrace environs, Durham, NC
B. Residential Support Network
The appeal of any given residential community is based in part on its proximity to those facilities and
services required on a day-to-day basis. Key facilities and services in and near Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area are listed in Table 2 and the locations of those facilities are plotted on Map
4. In addition, TCG has prepared a substantial inventory of neighborhood assets plotted on a
collection of study area maps including retail, health, services, recreational, and educational assets.
The immediate Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area offers a limited of range of services to
potential tenants at the redeveloped McDougald Terrace site. The number of services and shopping
opportunities greatly expand moving outward from a one mile radius from the site. One of the
closest convenience stores is located 1.2 miles to the north and Kerr Drugs and Food World are
located within 1.4 miles of the site.
The attractions in downtown Durham are from 1.9 to 2.6 miles walking distance (northwest from
the site) and include such recreational amenities at the Durham Bulls Ball Park, the Durham
Performing Arts Center and the YMCA Wellness Center. The Brightleaf Tobacco District and the
American Tobacco District form the heart of the revitalized downtown district and feature a wide
P ag e 12
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
array of shops, boutiques, eating establishments, galleries, banks, services, and offices in renovated
tobacco warehouses.
The subject is within four miles of Duke University Medical Center, a world renowned medical
center ranked nationally in 13 adult and 10 pediatric specialties. The Center is an 813-bed general
medical and surgical facility and is also a teaching hospital that is a major employment center in the
region. Closer to the site, the Lincoln Community Health Center provides accessible, affordable,
high quality outpatient health care services to the medically underserved.
A wide variety of options for comparison shopping (clothing, electronics, appliances, etc) are located
within a short drive of the site including Wal-Mart (4 miles to the southwest); Northgate Regional
Mall (five miles to the northwest) anchored by Macy’s, Sears, and a movie complex; and The Streets
at Southpoint (eleven miles to the southwest) anchored by Nordstrom’s, Crate and Barrel, Urban
Outfitters, and a movie complex.
Schools currently serving residents of McDougald Terrace include Bethesda Elementary School (4
miles from the site) , Lowes Grove Math and Science Middle School (5 miles from the site), and
Hillside New Tech High School (2.5 miles from the site). Burton International Baccalaureate
Elementary School is a walkable magnet school just 0.6 mile from the site.
Two major institutions of higher learning are an integral part of the CNI Study Area:

North Carolina Central University, the anchor of the Study Area, was founded by James E.
Sheppard in the Hayti District in 1909. In 1925, reflecting the expansion of its programs to
a four-year curriculum with a variety of majors, it was renamed the North Carolina College
for Negroes. It was the nation's first state-supported liberal arts college for black students.
Graduate courses in the School of Arts and Sciences were added in 1939, in the School of
Law in 1940, and in the School of Library Science in 1941. In 1947, the North Carolina
General Assembly changed the name of the institution to North Carolina College at Durham.
The General Assembly designated the institution as one of the State's regional universities in
1969 and the name was changed to North Carolina Central University. NCCU had a total of
8,587 students, (full and part-time) including 5,396 full-time undergraduate and 1233 fulltime graduate students

Durham Technical Community College, located immediately east of the Study Area, is a
public two-year accredited institution of higher education and technical training school.
Durham Tech serves over 26,000 students at several locations (including the campus two
blocks from McDougald) with credit, non-credit, adult, and continuing education offerings.
Durham Tech offers career programs leading to over 100 degrees, certificates, and diplomas
and university transfer programs. As of 2008, the school boasted 606 faculty members and
5,474 students. A large portion of DTCC's students are part-time.
The Research Triangle Park is within ten miles of the site (more fully described in the economic
section). Raleigh-Durham International Airport is 12 miles to the southeast; Chapel Hill is 18 miles to
the west; and Raleigh is 23 miles to the southwest.
The Durham Public Library and U. S. Post Office are within one mile of the site.
P ag e 13
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
Table 2 Key Community Facilities and Services
Use
Burton Park
North Carolina Central University
Durham Technical Community College
Adam Mini Mart
Burton International Baccul (walkable magnet school)
American Tobacco District
Lincoln Community Health Center
Stamford L. Warren Branch Library
In and Out Food Mart
Kerr Drug
Hillside Park
Food World
Durham City Police Station
Durham Fire Dept
Durham Bulls Ball Park
Durham Performing Arts Center
YMCA Wellness Center
American Tobacco District
Durham Housing Authority
Durham County Social Services Dept
Hillside New Tech High School
Durham Center for Senior Life
Brightleaf Tobacco District
Duke University East Campus
Duke University Medical
WalMart
Bethesda Elementary School
Northgate Mall (Macy's, Sear's CompUSA, Movie Theatre)
Duke University West Campus
Lowes Groves Science, Tech, Ebng, and Math Middle School
Type
Recreation
Higher Education
Higher Education
Convenience Store
K-12 Education
Post Office
Medical
Library
Convenience Store
Drugstore
Recreation
Supermarket
Safety
Safety
Recreation
Culture
Recreation
Shopping , Dining
Government
Government
K-12 Education
Recreation
Shopping , Dining
Higher Education
Medical
Shopping
K-12 Education
Regional Mall
Higher Education
K-12 Education
Address
892 Lakeland St
Ashton Dr/ Lawson St
1598 E. Lawson
614 Lakeland Street
1500 Mathison St
1801 Fayetteville St
1301 Fayetteville St
1201 Fayetteville St
911 Fayette Street
710 Fayetteville
119 Lodge St
401 E. Lakewood Ave
3022 Fayatteville St
1818 Riddle Rd
409 Blackwell St
123 Vivian St
215 W. Morgan St
605 Willard St
330 E. Main Street
200 E. Main Street
3727 Fayetteville Street
406 Rigsbee Ave
Gregson St/ Main St
West St at Campus Drive
Fulton St./ Erwin St
1010 MLK Jr Pkwy
2009 S. Miami Blvd
1058 W. Club Ave
2138 Campus Drive
4418 S. Alston Ave
Research Triangle Park
Urban Outfitters, Cheesecake Factory, Movie Theaters)
Source: RPRG Field Survey October 2013
Employment Center Interstate 40/ Rt 147
Regional Mall
6910 Fayetteville Rd
Dist (mi)
0.3 N
0.3 W
0.4 E
0.4 N
0.6 N
0.8 W
1.0 NW
1.1 NW
1.2 NW
1.3 NW
1.4 NW
1.4 NW
1.6 SW
1.7 S
1.9 NW
2.0 NW
2.2 NW
2.2 NW
2.3 NW
2.3 NW
2.5 S
2.6 NE
2.6 NW
4.0 NW
4.0 NW
4.3 SW
4.4 SE
4.9 NW
5.0 NW
5.3 S
6.0 SE
10.9 SW
P ag e 14
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Subject Sites and Neighborhood Overview
Map 4 Amenities in and near Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
P ag e 15
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
3. ECONOMIC CONTEXT
A. Introduction and Economic History
This section of the report focuses on economic trends and conditions in Durham County, North
Carolina, the county in which the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is located. For the
purposes of comparison, we also discuss economic trends in the State of North Carolina and the
overall United States.
Tobacco
Durham’s growth during the 1800’s was predicated on the establishment of a thriving tobacco
industry. By 1900, two companies, the Bull Durham Tobacco Company and Washington Duke's W.
Duke & Sons Tobacco Company, had established a virtual monopoly of the smoking and chewing
tobacco business in the United States. As result, the tobacco side of the larger Duke Tobacco
Company was forcibly broken-up under Federal antitrust laws in the early 1910’s. The Dukes
retained what became known as American Tobacco. Prevented from further investment in the
tobacco industry, the Dukes formed Duke Power (now Duke Energy), the dominant energy
company in North Carolina. In addition to the growing tobacco industry, textile mills migrated to
the Durham area attracted by plentiful electricity (courtesy of Duke Power) and surplus labor
leaving rural areas.
Hayti
Durham also developed a vibrant and prosperous Black community during the 1800’s, the center
of which was an area known as Hayti that encompassed downtown Durham and the areas north
of NCCU. It was in Hayti where some of the most prominent and successful black-owned
businesses in the country were established during the early 20th century including North Carolina
Mutual Insurance Company and Mechanics & Farmers' Bank. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance
(the oldest and largest African American life insurance company in the United States) bought
vacant land behind both sides of Historic Fayetteville Street and built hundreds of single-family
affordable rental housing units for the growing workforce.
Anchor Institutions for the Southeast Central Durham community include North Carolina Central
University (NCCU), a Historic Black University, and Lincoln Community Health Center (LCHC). In
1909, Dr. James E. Sheppard founded North Carolina Central University, the nation's first publicly
supported liberal arts college for African-Americans. NCCU has more than 8,600 undergraduate,
graduate and Law students. In addition to higher educational opportunities, NCCU sponsors
cultural events, and is one of the major employers in Durham. Lincoln Hospital was originally
founded in 1901. LCHC is a primary healthcare facility operating in Southeast Central Durham
since 1971. The mission of LCHC is to provide comprehensive primary and preventive affordable
health care in a courteous, professional and personalized manner.
A 1960s urban renewal project constructed the Durham Freeway, dividing the community, and
razed many of the affordable houses in Hayti. As a result of the 10 years of construction,
population in the Hayti community declined by 50 percent and Pettigrew Street, the primary
economic corridor of the community, was destroyed. The vitality of the community was sapped
by the destruction of its economic heart, the declining fortunes of the textile and tobacco
industries, and growth in property abandonment, blight, and crime. Over the past, the city has
made strides to reverse the area’s decline with the revitalization of downtown Durham, the
Rolling Hills/ Southside redevelopment initiative, and the Southeast Central Durham CNI grant
program (the subject of this study).
P ag e 16
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
Duke University and the Research Triangle Park
The fortunes of the textile industry, another anchor of the region’s economy, began to wane in
the 1930’s and the tobacco industry retrenched in the face of increasing competition and
introduction of non-smoking legislation in the 1960’s. However, in the late 1950s, Duke
University, along with the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and North Carolina State
University in Raleigh, persuaded the North Carolina Legislature to purchase large tracts of vacant
land in southern Durham County and create the nation's first "science park" for industry.
Inexpensive land and a pool of trained technical, scientific, and research workers from the local
universities made the Research Triangle Park (RTP) one of the most successful endeavors of its
kind in the nation. The success of the RTP, along with the expansion of Duke Medical Center and
Duke University, more than compensated for the decline of Durham's tobacco and textile
industries. Major employers in Durham are Duke University and Duke Medical Center (34,000
employees, 14,000 students), about two miles west of the original downtown area, and
companies in the Research Triangle Park (49,000 employees), located ten miles to the southeast.
Downtown Durham
The renovations of former tobacco buildings starting in the 1990’s sparked revitalization efforts in
downtown Durham that now house loft-style apartments, bars, entertainment venues, art studios,
and high-tech offices. A new downtown baseball stadium was constructed for the Durham Bulls in
1994. The Durham Performing Arts Center, built in 2008, is the largest performing arts center in
the Carolinas and ranks as one the top ten ticket-selling venues in the country. 1
B. Trends in Labor Force - Unemployment
Over the fourteen year period spanning 2000 through Q2 2013, the Durham County labor force
trended upward, growing by 25,300 workers (20.7 percent) from 122,130 to 147,443. Since the
end of the most recent recession in 2010, the county has gained over 7,000 workers (Table 3).
Since 2000, the Durham County unemployment rate consistently remained below state and
national rates even though the state of North Carolina’s rate generally tracked higher than the
national rate. The local unemployment rate in Durham County remained below 6 percent from
2000 to 2008, ranging from a low of 3.0 percent in 2000 to a high of 5.9 percent in 2002. Starting
at a level of 4.9 percent in 2008, the county unemployment rate jumped to a peak of 8.4 percent
in 2010 at the height of the recession. Since that time, the rate has fallen to 7.2 percent as of Q2
2013, two points below the state rate of 9.2 percent and 0.5 point below the national rate of 7.7
percent.
1
Website - Durham Convention & Visitors Bureau: Durham History at a Glance
P ag e 17
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
Table 3 Trends in Resident Labor Force and Unemployment
Annual Unemployment Rates - Not Seasonally Adjusted
Annual
Unemployment
2009
2010
2011
2012 2013 Q2
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Labor Force
122,130 125,945 128,146 126,908 128,264 131,002 135,351 136,091 141,524 144,065 140,291 143,394 146,808 147,443
Employment
118,511 120,381 120,629 119,811 122,489 125,299 130,059 130,863 134,617 133,082 128,440 131,697 135,643 136,856
Unemployment
3,619
5,564
7,517
7,097
5,775
5,703
5,292
5,228
6,907
10,983 11,851 11,697 11,165 10,587
Unemployment Rate
Durham County 3.0%
4.4%
5.9%
5.6%
4.5%
4.4%
3.9%
3.8%
4.9%
7.6%
8.4%
8.2%
7.6%
7.2%
North Carolina 3.7%
5.6%
6.6%
6.5%
5.5%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
6.3%
10.4%
10.8%
10.2%
9.5%
9.2%
United States 4.0%
4.7%
5.8%
6.0%
5.5%
5.1%
4.6%
4.6%
5.8%
9.3%
9.6%
8.8%
8.3%
7.7%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
12.0%
11.0%
10.0%
Durham County
North Carolina
United States
9.0%
Unemployment Rate
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 2013 Q2
C. Trends in At-Place Employment
1. Trends in Total At-Place Employment
During the period 2000 to 2005, aggregate at-place employment in Durham County – the total
number of jobs located within the county’s boundaries – remain fairly stable at the 160,000 to
170,000 range (Figure 3). Employment spiked to over 183,000 jobs in 2008 and then lost only
6,000 jobs through 2010 during the recession. Since 2010, the level of at-place employment has
rebounded, growing to 184,500 jobs in 2012, about 1,000 greater than the previous peak year of
2008. Thus, Durham County’s job base has grown by 17,600 jobs over 13 years, a gain of 10.6
percent.
P ag e 18
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
Figure 3 At-Place Employment, Durham County
Total At Place Employment
2009
2010
2011
184,537
2008
179,393
2007
177,634
183,553
2005
183,200
2004
176,629
2003
169,351
2002
120,000
166,856
2001
161,396
2000
164,466
At Place Employment
140,000
169,611
160,000
166,902
180,000
179,339
200,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2006
2012
Change in At Place Employment
7,278
8,000
10.0%
6,571
8.0%
5,460
6,000
5,144
4,000
4.0%
2,709
2,495
1,759
2,000
2.0%
353
0.0%
0
-2.0%
-2,000
-4.0%
Annual Change in Durham County At Place Employment
-1,705
United States Annual Employment Growth Rate
-6.0%
Durham County Annual Employment Growth Rate
-4,000
% Annual Growth
Annual Change in At Place
6.0%
-3,070
-8.0%
-4,214
-5,145
-6,000
2001
2002
-10.0%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
2. At-Place Employment by Industry Sector
Not unexpected, Education-Health is the dominant industry sector in Durham County’s
employment for 2012, comprising one-quarter all employment, ten points greater than the
national share (14.7 percent). Professional-Business and Manufacturing follow with 17.0 percent
and 15.4 percent shares, respectively. Trade-Transportation-Utilities (12.6 percent) and
Government (10.4 percent) are the two other key sectors. Leisure-Hospitality, Financial Activities,
Construction, and Information command much smaller employment shares ranging from 7.9 to
1.5 percent (Figure 4).
The lower panel of Figure 4 details annualized employment change by economic sector within
Durham County and the United States between 2001 and 2012.
Eight of eleven sectors
P ag e 19
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
experienced positive annual growth. Three sectors displayed significant growth – Financial
Activities at 5.5 percent; Education-Health at 3.2 percent; and Leisure-Hospitality at 2.5 percent
(excluding the insignificant Natural Resources- Mining Sector). Other sectors experiencing annual
growth in excess of one percent include Government (1.4 percent), Trade-Transportation-Utilities
(1.9 percent), and Other (1.1 percent). All six highlighted sectors exceeded national rates of
growth. Three sectors lost ground with annualized declines in the 2 to 5 percent range –
Information, Manufacturing, and Construction.
To focus on the impacts of the national recession and ongoing economic recovery on Durham
County’s job base, we next examined employment change by sector for the period between 2007
and 2012 (Figure 5). Seven economic sectors (including four of the five largest sectors) in Durham
County recorded job growth between 2007 and 2012 compared to five sectors nationally. LeisureHospitality had the greatest gains at 11.7 percent followed by Education-Health (7.6 percent),
Government (6.0 percent), Financial Activities (5.7 percent), Professional Business (4.6 percent),
and Trade-Transportation-Utilities (4.6 percent). In four out of five cases (except for EducationHealth), county rate increases exceeded national rates. The greatest losses (percentage-wise)
were experienced by Construction at 30.4 percent, Manufacturing at 14.6 percent, and
Information at 10.7 percent.
3. Major Employers
As mentioned in the introduction to this section, the largest employer in Durham County is the
Duke University and Health System that employs nearly 34,000 workers. Two other large
educational institutions are located within and adjacent to the CNI Study Area – North Carolina
Central University with 1,434 employees and Durham Technical Community College with 791
employees (Table 4)
The nearby Research Triangle Park is home to more than 170 global companies that focus on
scientific, medical, and technical research and development building upon the unique synergy
created by RTP’s proximity to three major universities: Duke University in Durham, North Carolina
State University in Raleigh, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. More than 39,000
full-time equivalent employees work in RTP with an estimated 10,000 contract workers. Many of
these firms represent some of the larger employers in Durham County including IBM (10,000
employees), GlaxoSmithKline (4,500 employees), RTI International (2,200 employees), and Cree
Research (2,000 employees). The Government sector also has a large imprint on the county
economy with several key Federal agencies located in the county – the Environmental Protection
Agency (1,400 employees), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (1,400
employees), and the Veterans Administration (2,162 employees). Durham County, Durham County
Public Schools, and the City of Durham are also substantial employers at the county and local
levels. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina with 2,500 employees and Fidelity
Investments with 1,435 employees are key Financial Sector organizations in the county.
P ag e 20
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
Figure 4 Total Employment and Employment Change by Sector, 2001- 2012
Employment by Sector 2012
United States
3.5%
2.5%
Other
Leisure-Hospitality
Durham County
10.4%
7.9%
14.7%
Education Health
13.6%
Professional-Business
17.0%
5.7%
5.4%
Financial Activities
2.0%
1.5%
Information
Trade-Trans-Utilities
19.2%
12.6%
9.0%
Manufacturing
Construction
Nat Resources-Mining
24.9%
2.2%
0.2%
1.5%
Government
0.0%
15.4%
4.2%
16.0%
10.4%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Annualized Employment Change by Sector, 2001-2012
Other
0.7%
1.1%
Leisure-Hospitality
1.3%
0.9%
0.3%
Professional-Business
-0.2%
Financial Activities
Information
-4.6%
5.5%
-2.6%
-0.1%
Trade-Trans-Utilities
Manufacturing
-2.8%
-2.7%
Construction
-2.7%
1.9%
United States
Durham County
-1.5%
1.4%
Nat Resources-Mining
0.3%
Government
-10.0%
2.5%
2.5%
3.2%
Education Health
-5.0%
14.0%
1.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
P ag e 21
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
Figure 5 Total Employment and Employment Change by Sector, 2007 to 2102
Employment Change by Sector, 2007-2012
Other
0.1%
3.1%
Leisure-Hospitality
11.7%
United States
Education Health
7.6%
Durham County
0.1%
Professional-Business
11.3%
4.6%
-7.9%
Financial Activities
5.7%
-11.7%
-10.7%
Information
-4.2%
Trade-Trans-Utilities
4.6%
-13.9%
-14.6%
Manufacturing
Construction
2.4%
-30.4%
-26.1%
Nat Resources-Mining
-1.4%
Government
-35.0%
8.8%
-5.7%
-30.0%
-25.0%
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
6.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Table 4 Major Employers August 2012, Durham County
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Name
Duke University & Health System
International Business Machines (IBM)
Durham Public Schools
Glaxosmithkline
Blue Cross & Blue Shield Of Nc
City Of Durham
RTI International
Veterans Administration
Cree Research Inc
Fidelity Investments
Durham County
Quintiles Transnational Corp.
North Carolina Central University
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Environmental Protection Agency
AW North Carolina, Inc
bioMerieux, Inc.
Measurement Inc.
Frontier Communications
Durham Technical Community College
Industry
Employment
Education-Health
33,750
Manufacturing
10,000
Government
5,440
Manufacturing
4,500
Financial Activities
2,437
Government
2,336
Professional Business
2,200
Government
2,162
Manufacturing
2,000
Financial Activities
1,800
Government
1,700
Professional Business
1,500
Education-Health
1,435
Government
1,400
Government
1,400
Manufacturing
1,100
Manufacturing
900
Professional Business
880
Trade-Transportation-Utilities
850
Education-Health
791
Source: Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce
P ag e 22
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Economic Context
D. Economic Conclusions
Durham County has successfully transitioned from a low wage manufacturing economy to a welldiversified growing modern economy, buoyed by the twin economic engines of the Duke
University/ Medical campuses and the Research Triangle Park. The solid economic footing has
helped the area weather the recent recession in better shape than most areas. In fact, Durham
County has consistently demonstrated lower unemployment rates relative to the state of North
Carolina and United States. The continuing revitalization of downtown Durham, centered on the
adaptive reuse of millions of square feet of former tobacco warehouses, has created a third leg for
economic growth. The emerging new downtown has attracted scores of loft residential
communities, offices, studios, restaurants, and entertainment venues. The CNI Study Area is
strategically located central to all three economic drivers – four miles east of the Duke campuses,
one mile south of downtown, and ten miles northeast of RTP.
P ag e 23
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
4. DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
A. Introduction
The initial study area for this analysis is comprised of the census tracts that most closely match the
programmatic boundaries of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area. Demand for any new
housing units constructed in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area would originate from a
larger geographic area, and the new housing units would compete with new and existing housing
opportunities within the larger geographic area. The larger area from which most of the future
residents are expected to originate and in which the most competitive communities are located is
referred to throughout this study as the Primary Market Area. Durham County in its entirety is
included as a third geographic area for the purposes of comparison.
B. Delineation of Market Areas
1. Boundaries of Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area Submarket
The CNI Study Area has been delineated by the Durham Housing Authority (DHA) as a distinct
geographic entity. This area is generally conterminous with the five census tracts that we use for
evaluation purposes. RPRG’s study area exceeds the actual CNI Study Area in the north beyond
Route 147, encompassing the blocks around the Durham Bulls Stadium; it extends further west to
Route 501 encompassing all of the Rolling Hills/ Southside redevelopment area; and it extends
further east encompassing a small wedge shaped area just north of Durham Technical Community
College (Map 5). The population of our analysis area, based on the 2010 US Census, stood at
13,777 persons. According to data provided by the client, the population of the actual CNI
neighborhood in 2010 stood at 7,200 persons, or 52.3 percent of the total of RPRG’s CNI market
area.
These boundaries are as follows:
North: Pettigrew Street just north of the Durham Freeway – Route 147
East:
Starting at the intersection of Route 147 and Indiana Avenue, heading west along E.
Lawson Street, south along Bacon Street, west towards Cecil Street, southwest along
Rock Creek to Fayetteville Street.
South: West Cornelius Street
West: South Roxboro Street to Fargo Street to Blackwell Street ending at Pettigrew Street.
2. Boundaries of Primary Market Area
The 12-tract Primary Market Area incorporates the five tracts of the Southeast Central Durham
CNI Study Area and additional surrounding tracts encompassing the central part of Durham
including downtown. The approximate boundaries of the Primary Market Area are as follows:
North: Geer Street
East:
Route 70 Bypass to Hoover Drive to Briggs Avenue.
South: Riddle Road to Crook Road to Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
West: Oak Ridge Boulevard to Cornwallis Road to University Drive to Kent Street to Gattis
Street.
P ag e 24
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
Map 5 Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and Primary Market Area
C. Demographic Methodology
RPRG analyzed recent trends in population and households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI
Study Area, the Primary Market Area, and Durham County using several sources. For small area
estimates, we examined estimates and projections of population and households prepared by a
national data vendor - The Esri Company. We compared and evaluated the Esri data in the
context of decennial U.S. Census data from 2000 and 2010 and data from the 2007 to 2011
American Community Survey (ACS). Residential building permit data were also considered.
The Durham City/ County Planning Department prepares population projections on a citywide and
countywide basis that are slightly below Esri projections, but do not disaggregate data to the
specific neighborhood areas relevant to this study.
The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (the organization that handles transportation planning for the
region) provides population projections through 2040 built on transportation analysis zones
(TAZ’s). However, the 2020 projections were based on proportional allocations derived from the
2040 data and thus cannot be viewed as reliable for short-term projections.
P ag e 25
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
More specifically, the city and county experienced healthy growth rates from 2000 to 2010 and
are expected to continue growing spurred by the steady expansion of the Duke campuses and the
Research Triangle Park. However the CNI Study Area and Primary Market Area both sustained
population and household losses during the 2000’s. Esri estimates and projections indicate an
aggressive turnaround that is not supported by on the ground observations and discussions with
local planners. Between 2010 and 2013, there have been no new significant rental or for-sale
developments anywhere in the PMA that could support new household growth. As a result, we
have estimated zero population and household growth during the last three years in both areas.
This flat line trend represents an improvement compared to the previous ten years.
Larry Jarvis, Assistant Director for Housing Production – City of Durham Community Development
Department, projects that 500 to 550 new housing units should emerge by 2018 in the Southside/
Rolling Hills redevelopment area. Based on these predictions and potential new developments
spurred by the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area redevelopment effort, we are
comfortable using the aggressive Esri projections through 2018 at a 75 percent level. Table 5
presents a series of panels that summarize actual 2000 and 2010 data, 2013 estimates, and 2018
projections of population and households. Esri estimates and projections for Durham County were
left unchanged.
D. Trends in Population and Households
1. Recent Past Trends
Between 2000 and 2010, the population of Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area experienced
significant loss, declining by 18 percent or 2,476 persons (an annual decline of 248 people or 2.0
percent). Over the ten year period, the population decreased from 13,777 to 11,301 persons. In a
similar fashion, Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area also experienced a loss in households,
from 4,481 to 3,583. The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area lost on average 90 net
households per year, an annual decrease of 2.2 percent.
The Primary Market Area recorded more moderate population and household declines between
2000 and 2010. The population of the Primary Market Area decreased by 1.2 percent per year,
from 39,576 to 35,095 persons overall. The household base of the Primary Market Area fell by 0.8
percent per year, from 13,785 to 12,778 households overall or 101 households a year.
In contrast to the trends of the primary market area, the population and household bases of
Durham County as a whole increased at a healthy pace over the most recent decade. The county’s
population grew from 223,308 to 267,587 persons, translating to annual net growth of 1.8
percent. The county’s household base increased from 89,012 to 109,348 households, translating
to annual net growth of 2.1 percent.
2. Projected Trends
As discussed above, RRPG estimates flat line growth in the Study Area and PMA between 2010
and 2013 and projects moderate growth over the next five years. RPRG projects the following
rates of population and household change between 2013 and 2018:

Increases of 145 people and 62 households per year in the Southeast Central Durham CNI
Study Area, translating to annual percentage gains of 1.2 percent and 1.7 percent
respectively.

Increases of 399 people and 172 households per year in the Primary Market Area,
translating to annual percentage gains of 1.1 percent and 1.3 percent for both statistics.
P ag e 26
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
Table 5 Population and Household Trends
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
Primary Market Area
Durham County
13,777
11,301
11,301
12,025
39,576
35,095
35,095
37,090
223,308
267,587
283,481
308,868
Population
2000 Population
2010 Population
2013 Population
2018 Population
Population Change 2000-2010
Total Change
Annual Change # / %
Population Change 2010-2013
Total Change
Annual Change # / %
Population Change 2013-2018
Total Change
Annual Change # / %
Households
2000 Households
2010 Households
2013 Households
2018 Households
Household Change 2000-2010
Total Change
Annual Change # / %
Household Change 2010-2013
Total Change
Annual Change # / %
Household Change 2013-2018
Total Change
Annual Change # / %
2012 Average Household Size
-2,476
-248
-18.0%
-2.0%
-4,481
-448
-11.3%
-1.2%
44,279
4,428
19.8%
1.8%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
15,894
5,298
5.9%
1.9%
724
145
6.4%
1.2%
1,995
399
5.7%
1.1%
25,387
5,077
9.0%
1.7%
4,481
3,583
3,583
3,895
-898
-90
13,785
12,778
12,778
13,640
89,012
109,348
115,316
125,526
-2.2%
-1,007
-101
-0.8%
20,336
2,034
2.1%
0
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
5,968
1,194
1.8%
312
62
1.7%
862
172
1.3%
10,210
2,042
0
2.39
2.49
1.7%
2.35
Sources: Esri; RPRG, Inc.
NOTE: Annual % Change is an average compounded rate.
Annual Household % Change
2.5%
2.0%
2.1%
1.5%
1.7%
1.7%
1.3%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
-0.5%
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study
Area
Primary Market Area
-0.8%
Durham County
-1.0%
2000 to 2010
-1.5%
-2.0%
-2.2%
2013 to 2018
-2.5%
P ag e 27
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context

Increases of 5,077 people and 2,042 households per year in Durham County, translating to
annual percentage increases of 1.7 percent for both statistics.
3. Senior Household Trends
Age 62+ senior households are expected to increase at substantially faster paces in all three
jurisdictions over the coming five-year period compared to the general population (Table 6). The
projected growth in the senior household base is due in part to the aging of the sizable baby boom
generation. Based on Esri figures, RPRG projects the following rates of household change among
age 62+ senior households between 2013 and 2018:

An increase of 44 age 62+ households per year in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study
Area, translating to an annual percentage increase of 4.0 percent.

An increase of 127 age 62+ households per year in the Primary Market Area, translating to
an annual percentage increase of 5.0 percent.

An increase of 1,104 age 62+ households per year in Durham County, translating to an
annual percentage increase of 4.3 percent.
Table 6 Senior Household Trends
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
2013 Senior Householders
2013 Total Households
Householders 55 to 61
Householders 62 to 64
Householders 65 to 74
Householders 75 and older
Householders 62 and older
2018 Senior Householders
2018 Total Households
Householders 55 to 61
Householders 62 to 64
Householders 65 to 74
Householders 75 and older
Householders 62 and older
Change 2013-2018
Sr HH 62+ Total Change
Annual Change # / %
Primary Market Area
Durham County
3,583
485
208
422
476
1,106
13.5%
5.8%
11.8%
13.3%
30.9%
12,778
1,704
730
1,523
1,219
3,472
13.3%
5.7%
11.9%
9.5%
27.2%
115,316
13,226
5,668
11,193
8,558
25,419
11.5%
4.9%
9.7%
7.4%
22.0%
3,895
546
234
565
526
1,325
14.0%
6.0%
14.5%
13.5%
34.0%
13,640
1,848
792
1,938
1,374
4,105
13.6%
5.8%
14.2%
10.1%
30.1%
125,526
14,311
6,133
14,735
10,069
30,937
11.4%
4.9%
11.7%
8.0%
24.6%
219
44
4.0%
633
172
5.0%
5,518
1,104
4.3%
Sources: Esri; RPRG, Inc.
NOTE: Annual % Change is an average compounded rate.
E. Demographic Characteristics
1. Age Distribution and Household Type
Table 7 presents estimated age distributions of the populations of Southeast Central Durham CNI
Study Area, the Primary Market Area, and Durham County as of 2013. The residents of the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area tend to be younger than the residents of the Primary
Market Area and the county. The median age among residents of the Southeast Central Durham
CNI Study Area is 25 years, compared to 31 years and 33 years for the Primary Market Area and
county, respectively. Thirty-six percent of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area residents
are children/ youth under the age of 19, a greater proportion than in the Primary Market Area
P ag e 28
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
(31.1 percent) and the county (25.6 percent). Both the Study Area and PMA have the same
percentage of young adults between the ages of 18 and 34 (23.6 percent) compared to 26.1
percent in the county.
Table 7 2013 Age Distribution and 2010 Household Type
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
Age (2013)
Total Population
under 19
20-34
35-62
62 and over
Median Age
Household Type (2010)
Total Households
Married
Married with children
Married without children
Not Married
Not married with children
Not married without children
Living Alone
Householders without children
Householders with children
11,301
4,050
2,669
3,080
1,503
35.8%
23.6%
27.3%
13.3%
Primary Market Area
35,095
10,920
8,300
11,126
4,749
25
3,583
588
271
317
1,666
937
729
1,329
2,375
1,208
31.1%
23.6%
31.7%
13.5%
Durham County
283,481
72,526
74,058
97,747
39,150
31
16.4%
7.6%
8.8%
46.5%
26.2%
20.3%
37.1%
66.3%
33.7%
12,778
2,953
1,409
1,544
5,366
2,861
2,505
4,459
8,508
4,270
25.6%
26.1%
34.5%
13.8%
33
23.1%
11.0%
12.1%
42.0%
22.4%
19.6%
34.9%
66.6%
33.4%
115,316
44,992
20,431
24,561
33,086
14,806
18,280
37,237
80,078
35,238
39.0%
17.7%
21.3%
28.7%
12.8%
15.9%
32.3%
69.4%
30.6%
Sources: Esri; RPRG, Inc.
% <18
2012 Age Distribution
20-34
40%
40%
35%
35%
30%
30%
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
Primary Market
Area
Durham County
Married w/Kids
Married w/o Kids
Not Married w/Kids
Not Married w/o Kids
Living Alone
2010 Household Type
0%
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
Primary Market
Area
Durham County
The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area has a lower representation in the older age
brackets – 27.3 percent of the population is between 35 and 62 and only 13.3 percent are seniors
over the age of 62 compared to the Primary Market Area) and county.
The marriage rates in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area (16.4 percent) are well below
the 23.1 percent marriage rate in the Primary Market Area and the 39.0 percent marriage rate in
Durham County. A greater proportion of households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study
Area (37.1 percent) lives alone than in the other two areas. Nearly 35 percent of households in
the Primary Market Area and 32.2 percent in Durham County are in the “Living Alone” category.
The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area also contains a greater proportion (46.5 percent) of
P ag e 29
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
households with more than one person but no married couple; household types in this category
include roommates, unmarried couples, and single-parent households – the proportion in the
Primary Market Area is 42.0 percent and in the county is even lower at 28.7 percent. Children are
present in one-third of the households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and the
Primary Market Area, and in 30.6 percent of county households.
2. Renter Household Characteristics
A significant majority of the households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area (71.9
percent) rent their homes as of 2013 (Table 8). The renter percentage in the Primary Market Area
is lower at 67.0 percent and much lower in the county at 47.0 percent, but still higher than the
national rental rate of 34.5 percent.
Table 8 Renter Household Characteristics
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
Household Tenure (2013)
Total Households
% Renters
% Owners
Senior Households 62+
% Renters
% Owners
Renter Householders by Age (2013)
Total Renter Households
% under 24
% 25-34
% 35-61
% 62 and over
Renter Households by Size (2013)
% 1 person
% 2 person
% 3 or 4 person
% 5 person+
3,583
2,576
1,007
1,591
781
810
Primary Market Area
49.1%
50.9%
12,778
8,561
4,217
5,176
3,468
1,708
2,576
239
501
1,156
681
9.3%
19.4%
44.9%
26.4%
923
623
723
307
35.8%
24.2%
28.1%
11.9%
71.9%
28.1%
Durham County
67.0%
33.0%
115,316
54,153
61,163
38,646
11,402
27,243
29.5%
70.5%
8,561
740
1,987
3,805
2,030
8.6%
23.2%
44.4%
23.7%
54,153
7,289
17,302
20,346
9,215
13.5%
32.0%
37.6%
17.0%
3,073
1,974
2,276
1,239
35.9%
23.1%
26.6%
14.5%
21,441
15,199
12,571
4,943
39.6%
28.1%
23.2%
9.1%
67.0%
33.0%
47.0%
53.0%
Source: Esri; RPRG, Inc.
2012 Renter Households by Size
1 person
45%
2 person
40%
3-4 person
35%
5 person+
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
Primary Market Area
Durham County
P ag e 30
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
The rate of homeownership among age 62+ senior householders is much higher than the overall
averages for each of the three geographies. In the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area, 50.9
percent of seniors own their homes, with higher percentages in the Primary Market Area (53.4
percent) and in the county (70.5 percent).
Approximately 44 to 45 percent of the renter households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI
Study Area and Primary Market Area are established households between ages of 35-61 while the
proportion in Durham County is lower at 37.6 percent. These households are more likely to be
permanent renters. Age 62+ senior households account for 26.4 of renters in the Southeast
Central Durham CNI Study Area compared to 23.7 percent in the Primary Market Area and 17
percent in the county. Young adults under the age of 35 comprise 28.7 percent of households in
the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area, a lesser percentage than the 31.8 percent share in
the PMA and the sizable 45.5 percent share in the county.
Relative to the Primary Market Area, the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area has a
comparable proportion of single person households at 36 percent but less than the 40 percent
share in the county. Similarly, the CNI Study Area has a similar share of two person households at
23 to 24 percent relative to the PMA and a lesser proportion than the county’s 28 percent share.
Both Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and Primary Market Area have similar proportions
of larger households (containing three or more people) at 40 to 41 percent; the county’s
proportion is smaller at 32.3 percent.
Since the 2000 Census, the proportion of renters to homeowners has increased in the Southeast
Central Durham CNI Study Area and the Primary Market Area and remained stable in Durham
County (Table 9). The renter rate of 69.5 percent in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
as of 2010 was 1.4 percentage points higher than the renter rate ten years earlier. The Primary
Market Area’s renter rate increased by 2.2 percentage points and the county’s renter rate
increased by just 0.1 percentage point between 2000 and 2010.
Table 9 Change in Renter Rates
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area
2000
Housing Units
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Total Occupied
#
1,367
3,114
4,481
Primary Market Area
Housing Units
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Total Occupied
#
5,036
8,749
13,785
Durham County
Housing Units
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Total Occupied
%
30.5%
69.5%
100%
2010
#
1,043
2,540
3,583
2000
%
36.5%
63.5%
100%
2000
#
48,297
40,715
89,012
%
54.3%
45.7%
100%
%
29.1%
70.9%
100%
2010
#
4,380
8,398
12,778
%
34.3%
65.7%
100%
2010
#
59,299
50,049
109,348
%
54.2%
45.8%
100%
Change 2000-2010
#
%
-324
-23.7%
-574
-18.4%
-898
-20.0%
Change 2000-2010
#
%
-656
-13.0%
-351
-4.0%
-1,007
-7.3%
Change 2000-2010
#
%
11,002
22.8%
9,334
22.9%
20,336
23%
Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 2000, 2010; Esri, RPRG, Inc.
P ag e 31
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
3. Income Characteristics
The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area constitutes a low-income market based on data
from the 2007-2011 American Community Survey (Table 10). RPRG estimates the 2013 median
household income in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area at $19,201, compared to
$25,785 in the Primary Market Area and $48,472 in Durham County as a whole. Only 15.1
percent of households in Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area earn $50,000 or more
annually.
Forty-eight percent of the renter households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
have annual incomes below $15,000. As is the case with overall incomes, renter household
incomes are higher (though still low) in the Primary Market Area (median $21,326) and county
(median $30,235). Only seven percent of renters in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
earn at least $50,000 per year.
Table 10 2013 Household Income
Household Income
Total Households
% < $25K
% $25 - $50K
% $50 - $100K
% $100K >
2013 Median Income
Renter Household Income
Total Renter Households
<$15K
% < $25K
% $25 - $50K
% $50 - $100K
% $100K >
2013 Median Income
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area
Primary Market Area
Durham County
3,583
2,257
63.0%
785
21.9%
440
12.3%
101
2.8%
$19,201
12,778
6,265
49.0%
3,430
26.8%
2,242
17.5%
840
6.6%
$25,785
115,316
29,095
25.2%
30,318
26.3%
34,607
30.0%
21,295
18.5%
$48,472
2,576
1,239
48.1%
659
25.6%
497
19.3%
156
6.1%
25
1.0%
<$15,000
8,561
3,129
36.6%
1,820
21.3%
2,278
26.6%
1,150
13.4%
185
2.2%
$21,326
54,153
13,619
25.1%
8,989
16.6%
17,782
32.8%
11,570
21.4%
2,193
4.0%
$30,235
2013 Renter Household Income Distribution
35%
% < $25K
% $25 - $50K
30%
% $50 - $100K
% $100K >
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
Primary Market Area
Durham County
P ag e 32
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Demographic Context
4. Cost Burdened Renter Households
‘Rent Burden’ is defined as the ratio of a household’s gross monthly housing costs – rent paid to
landlords plus utility costs – to that household’s monthly income. Typically, household rent
burdens under the LIHTC program are targeted to no more than 35 percent for family households
and 40 percent for elderly (age 65+) households.
Data regarding the concept of rent burden from the 2007-2011 ACS highlight that both family and
senior renter households in the Primary Market Area tend to pay a very high percentage of their
monthly income toward housing costs (Table 11). Households with rent burdens higher than 35
percent are considered ‘cost-burdened’. As shown, 46.7 percent of family households and 38.8
percent of all age 65+ renter households have rent burdens of 35 percent or higher.
Table 11 Cost Burden and Substandardness
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
Rent Cost Burden
Total Households
> 35% Income on Rent
> 40% Income on Rent
Senior Households 65+
> 35% Income on Rent
> 40% Income on Rent
Substandardness
Total Stock
Owner Stock Substandard
Renter Stock Substandard
Total Stock Substandard
2,523
1,135
1,020
374
144
129
3,588
47
69
116
Primary Market Area
48.6%
43.7%
7,901
3,459
3,086
39.8%
35.7%
1,076
405
361
0.0%
2.7%
3.2%
12,101
143
619
762
Durham County
46.7%
41.7%
47,796
18,661
15,727
41.3%
34.8%
38.8%
34.6%
4,435
2,010
1,694
48.5%
40.8%
0.0%
7.8%
6.3%
107,150
822
2,465
3,287
0.0%
5.2%
3.1%
Source: Esri; RPRG, Inc.
P ag e 33
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
5. EXISTING RENTAL MARKET
A. Summary of Rental Housing Stock
RPRG compiled data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007-2011 American Community Survey to
provide an overview of the rental housing stock in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area,
the Primary Market Area, and Durham County (Table 12). Multi-family structures with 5 or more
units are the dominant rental structure in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
comprising 35.1 percent of the rental stock. Smaller multi-family structures (2 to 4 units) account
for just under one third (32.3 percent) of the stock and single family detached structures comprise
29.6 percent. Rental units are more likely to be single-family detached homes in the Primary
Market Area (32.0 percent) but less likely in Durham County (21.6 percent of the stock).
Multifamily structures of at least five units contain one-third of the Primary Market Area’s rental
units and a substantial 56.9 percent of Durham County’s rental units.
Table 12 Rental Housing Stock Characteristics
Rental Housing Stock
Total Rental Stock
Structure Type
% Single Family Detached
% Single Family Attached
% Two, Three or Four Family
% Multifamily (5 + Units)
% Other (incl. Mobile Homes)
Year Built
Median Year Built
% built pre 1980
% built in 1980s
% built in 1990s
% built 2000-2004
% 2005 or later
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study
Area
Primary Market
Area
Durham County
2,523
7,901
47,796
748
53
814
886
22
2,096
152
75
83
117
29.6%
2.1%
32.3%
35.1%
0.9%
2,532
133
2,540
2,631
65
32.0%
1.7%
32.1%
33.3%
0.8%
10,346
2,339
7,375
27,203
533
21.6%
4.9%
15.4%
56.9%
1.1%
1965
83.1%
6.0%
3.0%
3.3%
4.6%
6,178
581
379
216
547
1966
78.2%
7.4%
4.8%
2.7%
6.9%
19,417
8,349
10,047
6,807
3,176
1985
40.6%
17.5%
21.0%
14.2%
6.6%
Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
Year Built
Structure Type
60%
50%
%SFD
%SFA
%2, 3 or 4 Fam
%MF
80%
40%
60%
30%
40%
20%
%pre 1980
%1980s
%1990s
%2000 or later
100%
20%
10%
0%
0%
Southeast
Primary Market Durham County
Central Durham
Area
CNI Study Area
Southeast
Central
Durham CNI
Study Area
Primary
Market Area
Durham
County
P ag e 34
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
The rental housing stock in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is on the whole
comparable in age to the PMA, but significantly older than the rental stocks in Durham County.
The median rental unit in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area as of the 2007-2011 ACS
was built in 1965, and thus was about 48 years old. The median age of rental units in the Primary
Market Area and Durham County as of the ACS dated are 1966 and 1985, respectively. About one
out of every six renter-occupied units in the primary market area was built after 1980.
B. Survey of General Occupancy Rental Communities
1. Introduction to the General Occupancy Rental Housing Survey
RPRG surveyed 11 general occupancy multifamily rental communities in the Primary Market Area
in October 2013. One tax credit property, Creekside Apartments (formerly Murdoch Apartments),
was not surveyed after repeated attempts to contact the management/ leasing office. Only three
of the 11 surveyed communities are conventional market-rate rental properties. Four surveyed
communities are comprised solely of units operating under the income and rent restrictions of the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. Three communities contain a mixture of LIHTC units and
Public Housing units. One community, Edgemont Elms, offers 80% AMI units (the tax credit
compliance period has expired) and Public Housing units. Two communities – Apartments at
American Tobacco and West Village Apartments located in downtown Durham, are targeted to
higher income renters and have been designated as Upper Tier communities. The remaining nine
communities are either affordable LIHTC developments or older properties and have been
designated as Middle/ Lower Tier communities.
Profile sheets of each surveyed general
occupancy community, with detailed information and photographs, are attached as Appendix 3.
Given inherent differences, age-restricted (senior) and deep subsidy (rent-subsidized)
communities are summarized separately in upcoming sections of this report.
2. Location
Map 6 shows the locations of the 11 surveyed general occupancy rental communities in relation to
the subject Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area. Only two of the 11 surveyed communities
are located within the programmatic boundaries of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
– the affordable Stewart Heights and the market rate Eagle Point Apartments. Both properties are
located in the southernmost portion of the Study Area. Lakemoor, an affordable community, is
located in the southernmost portion of the Primary Market Area, just north of Martin Luther King
Jr Parkway. The remaining eight communities are location north of the Durham Freeway (Route
147), north of the Study Area. Four communities are located just east of downtown in northeast
central Durham – the affordable Calvert Place, Franklin Village, Lovett Square, and Edgemont
Elms. Four communities are located in the downtown core – two are the high-end Upper Tier
communities and two are affordable communities – Main Street Townhouse and Glendale
Apartments.
3.
Age of Communities
The two Upper Tier communities were built recently in 2000 and 2008. Five of the LIHTC
communities are also of recent vintage having been built between 2001 and 2009; the other two
LIHTC properties were built in the mid 1990’s (Table 13). Edgemont Elms was built in 1989 and the
one exclusively Middle/ Lower Tier market rate property (Eagle Point) was built in 1963. American
Tobacco and West Village are example of adaptive reuse of historic former tobacco warehouses.
Stewart Heights, originally built in 1951, underwent extensive renovations in 2009.
P ag e 35
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
4. Structure Type
Six of the communities offer exclusively garden style structures and Lakemoor offers only
townhouses. Three communities offer a combination of garden
and townhouse models.
American Tobacco is a mixture of garden, townhouse, and mid-rise structures (with elevators).
Map 6 Competitive General Occupancy Rental Communities
P ag e 36
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
Table 13 Summary, Primary Market Area General Occupancy Rental Communities
Map
#
Community
Upper Tier
1
Apt at American Tobacco*
2
West Village*
Subtotal
Middle/ Lower Tier
3
Calvert Place**
4
Franklin Village**
5
Main Street TH**
6
Lakemoor**
7
Edgemont Elms - 80%
8
Eagle Point
9
Lovett Square**
10
Glendale**
11 Stewarts Heights, Square, Circle**
Subtotal
Total/Average
LIHTC Total/Average
Year
Built
Structure Total Vacant Vacancy Avg 1BR Avg 2BR
Type
Units Units
Rate Rent (1) Rent (1)
Incentive
2008 Gar/TH/ Mid 53
2000
Gar
453
2004
506
0
17
17
0.0%
3.8%
3.4%
$1,300
$1,159
$1,778
$1,202
None
None
2005
2008
2004
2001
1989
1963
1993
1997
2009
1997
1998
8
2
4
2
5
7
0
0
1
29
46
17
25.0%
5.4%
18.2%
1.3%
12.2%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
3.9%
3.7%
3.5%
$820
$975
$974
$793
$760
$675
$675
$540
$495
$460
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Gar/TH
Gar/TH
TH
Gar
Gar/TH
Gar
Gar
Gar
Gar
32
37
22
160
41
223
60
29
144
748
1,254
484
$672
$550
$900
$848
(**) Tax Credit Communities
(1) Rent is contract rent, and not adjusted for utilities or incentives
*Adaptive Reuse of historic tobacco warehouses
Source: Field Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013.
5. Size
The 11 surveyed rental communities offer 1,254 market-rate and LIHTC units. The two Upper Tier
communities offer 453 units (West Village) and 53 units (American Tobacco). The average number
of units per Middle/ Lower Tier community is approximately 83 units ranging in size from 29 units
at Glendale to 223 units at Eagle Point. Six of these communities contain 60 units or less.
6. Vacancy Rates
RPRG obtained current vacancy information for all 11 of the surveyed general occupancy rental
communities. As of our survey, 46 of the 1,254 units were report vacant, yielding a combined
vacancy rate of 3.6 percent which is indicative of healthy rental marketplace with little variation
overall between the two groupings. A 5.0 percent vacancy rate is a typical indicator of a stable
and strong rental market. Three of the smaller LIHTC/ 80% communities indicate elevated
vacancy rates from 12 to 25 percent that is likely more a function of specific management, tenant
screening practices, and seasonal turnover than market concerns. The overall vacancy rate for the
seven LIHTC communities stands at 3.5 percent.
7. Rent Concessions
There are no reported rent specials or incentives among the surveyed communities.
8. Absorption History
There are no recent examples of absorption history.
P ag e 37
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
C. Analysis of General Occupancy Rental Product and Pricing
1. Payment of Utility Costs
Eight of the 11 surveyed communities include water, sewer, and trash in the rent. Edgemont Elms
includes only trash and the two Upper Tier communities, West Village and American Tobacco, do
not include any utilities in rent (Table 14).
2. Unit Features and Finishes
The nine Middle/ Lower Tier communities offer a basic array of unit features of finishes. All
provide a range and, refrigerator in the kitchen. Five communities also provide a dishwasher and
none provide a microwave. Six of the communities provide hook-ups for washer/ dryers units;
three do not provide hook-ups. Flooring, cabinetry, and accessories are of the basic grade.
Conversely, the two Upper Tier communities provide an upgraded selection of unit features and
finishes. Both provide dishwashers and microwaves as standard in all units. Washer/ dryer units
are standard at American Tobacco and provided in select units at West Village. American Tobacco
provides loft layouts, oversized windows, wood flooring, exposed brick walls, ceramic kitchen and
bath tile, and rooftop decks and patios. Most apartments are elevator served. West Village
provides loft style floor plans, floor to ceiling windows, 11 feet to 25 feet ceilings, granite or corian
countertops, honey pine/ bamboo flooring, electric fireplaces, skylights, and Jacuzzi tubs.
Table 14 Utility Arrangement and Unit Features, General Occupancy Rental Communities
Trash
Cooking
Water
Apts at American
Tobacco
Edgemont Elms
Lakemoor
Lovett Square
Glendale
Calvert Place
Eagle Point
Lincoln
Main Street TH
Stewarts Heights,
Square, Circle
Franklin Village
Electric
West Village
Heat
Type
Heat
Community
Hot Water
Utilities Included in Rent
Elec
o o o o
o
o
STD
STD
Elec
o o o o
o
o
STD
STD
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
N/A
STD
STD
N/A
STD
N/A
N/A
STD
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Elec
o o o o
x
x
N/A
N/A
Surface
Hook Ups
Elec
o o o o
x
x
STD
N/A
Surface
Hook Ups
Elec/Gas
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Dish- Microwasher wave
Parking
In-Unit
Laundry
Surf/ Covered - Select Units
$35
Det. Garages/ St
STD - Stacked
Pking
Hook Ups
Surface
Hook Ups
Surface
Hook Ups
Surface
Hook Ups
Surface
Hook Ups
Surface
N/A
Surface
N/A
Surface
N/A
Surface
Storage
STD - In Bldg
STD - In Bldg
STD - In Bldg
STD - In Unit
STD - In Unit
Source: Field Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013.
3. Parking
All surveyed general occupancy rental communities provide ample free parking in on-site surface
parking lots except for West Village that offers detached garages and street parking. American
Tobacco also offers covered parking for a monthly charge of $35.
P ag e 38
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
4. Community Amenities
General occupancy rental communities in the Primary Market Area offer a limited number of
common area amenities for the convenience or enjoyment of residents (Table 15). The most
typical common area amenities in the Middle/ Lower Tier grouping are shared central laundry
rooms (six communities), clubhouse (four communities), and playground (four communities). One
community offers a fitness room and one community offers a pool. Only West Village of the two
Upper Tier communities offers amenities including a pool, fitness center, outdoor gas grills,
business center, conference room, and five courtyards.
Community
Clubhouse
Fitness
Room
Pool
Hot Tub
Sauna
Playground
Tennis
Court
Business
Center
Table 15 Common Area Amenities, General Occupancy Rental Communities
West Village
Apts at American Tobacco
Edgemont Elms
Lakemoor
Lovett Square
Glendale
Calvert Place
Eagle Point
Lincoln
Main Street TH
Stewarts Heights, Square, Circle
Franklin Village
o
o
o
x
x
o
o
o
o
x
o
x
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
x
x
o
o
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
x
o
o
x
x
o
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Source: Field Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013.
5. Distribution of Units by Bedroom Type
Nearly three-quarters (73.5 percent) of all Middle/ Lower Tier units are two bedroom models
(based on known distribution for 85 percent of all unit). Three bedroom models account for 17
percent while one bedroom models comprise only 3 percent. No studios are offered in this Tier.
For the two Upper Tier communities where 100 percent unit distribution is known, two bedroom
models comprise 65 percent of all units followed by a 26 percent share for one bedroom models.
Studios comprise 6 percent and three bedroom models are only 2 percent of all units. West Village
also offers 4 four-bedroom apartments not shown on this table (Table 16).
6. Unit Size
The average one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom unit sizes across the nine Middle/
Lower Tier communities are 766 square feet, 875 square feet, and 1,241 square feet respectively.
The weighted average unit sizes by community range from 704 to 820 square feet for one
bedroom models; 620 to 1,220 square feet for two bedroom models; and 920 to 1,505 square feet
P ag e 39
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
for three-bedroom models. For Upper Tier Communities, the average studio is 661 square feet,
the average one-bedroom is 937 square feet, two-bedroom units average 1,089 square feet, and
three-bedroom units average 1,793 square feet.
7. Unit Pricing/Effective Rents
The rents listed in Table 16 are net or effective rents, as opposed to published or street rents. We
calculated effective rents in order to facilitate an ‘apples to apples’ comparison of tenants’
housing costs across the surveyed communities. To derive effective rents, we first applied
downward adjustments to relevant published rents for units impacted by current rental
incentives. The effective rents further reflect adjustments to published rents to equalize the
impact of utility expenses across properties. Specifically, the effective rents reflect the
hypothetical situation where tenants of each community are responsible for utility bills other than
those for water/sewer and trash removal.
Table 16 Unit Distribution, Size and Pricing, General Occupancy Rental Communities
Total
Community
TypeUnits
Efficiency Units
One Bedroom Units
Two Bedroom Units
Units Rent(1) SF Rent/SF Units Rent(1) SF Rent/SF Units Rent(1)
Upper Tier
Apts at American
Mix 53
6 $1,323 696
Tobacco
West Village*
Garden4 53
24 $1,174 626
Subtotal/ Averages 506
$1,248 661
Unit Distribution 502
30
% of Total 99.2% 6.0%
Middle/ Lower Tier
Calvert Place-60%**
Garden/TH
32
Franklin Village-60%**
Garden/TH
37
Main Street TH-50%**
Townhouse
22
Lakemoor-60%** Garden1 60
Edgemont Elms - 80%
Garden/TH
41
Eagle Point
Garden2 23
Lovett Square-45%**
Garden60
Stewarts Heights, Garden72
Square, Circle-60%**
Glendale-60%** Garden17
Glendale-45%** Garden12
Stewarts Heights, Garden72
Square, Circle-40%**
Subtotal/ Averages 748
Unit Distribution 633
% of Total 84.6%
$1.90
$1.88
$1.89
Total/Average 1,254
Unit Distribution 1,135
30
% of Total 90.5% 2.6%
3
$1,325 1,000 $1.33
130 $1,184 875
$1,255 937
133
26.5%
17
$1.35
$1.34
$820
704
$1.16
$672
775
$0.87
$550
820
$0.67
43
766
$910
835
Rent/SF
$1.60
1
$2,535 2,206 $1.15
$1.17
$1.40
11
$2,194 1,381 $1.59
$2,364 1,793 $1.32
58
30
206
40
$975 1,130
$974 1,139
$793 1,220
$760 820
$695
$675 966
$540 620
$0.86
$0.86
$0.65
$0.93
72
$510
662
$0.77
17
12
$495
$495
768
768
$0.64
$0.64
12
2.4%
$0.70
$0.87
$410
662
$0.62
$666
875
$0.76
507
80.1%
150
13.2%
SF
$1,808 1,128
$0.89
17
2.7%
Three Bedroom Units
Rent/SF Units Rent(1)
284 $1,232 1,051
$1,520 1,089
327
65.1%
72
$681
SF
$1.09
1,505
1,310
1,330
1,141
$0.74
$0.83
$0.68
$0.74
20
$590
920
$0.64
$853
1,241 $0.69
109
####
$797
834
73.5%
78
11
$1,117
$1,093
$903
$850
$565
911
$0.87
$1,231 1399
$0.88
121
####
(**) Tax Credit Communities
*Also offers 4 four bedroom units
(1) Rent is adjusted to include only Water/Sewer and Trash and incentives
Source: Field Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013.
Across all nine Middle/ Lower Tier communities at all income targets, the average effective rents
were:



One-bedroom units at $681 for 766 square feet or $0.89 per square foot.
Two-bedroom units at $666 for 875 square feet or $0.76 per square foot.
Three-bedroom units at $853 for 1,241 square feet or $0.69 per square foot.
P ag e 40
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
The highest effective rents in the Primary Market Area for one, two and three bedroom models
are at the affordable Calvert Place and Franklin Village communities targeted to 60% AMI renters
at $820 for one bedroom models, $975 for two bedroom models, and $1,093 to $1,117 for three
bedroom models.
Upper Tier rents are in a totally separate environment at rents double to triple the Middle/ Lower
Tier rents. The average effective rents were:




Studio units at $1,248 for 661 square feet or $1.89 per square foot.
One-bedroom units at $1,255 for 937 square feet or $1.34 per square foot.
Two-bedroom units at $1,520 for 1,089 square feet or $1.40 per square foot.
Three-bedroom units at $2,364 for 1,793 square feet or $1.32 per square foot
D. Survey of Age-Restricted Rental Communities
1. Introduction to the Age-Restricted Rental Housing Survey
In addition to general occupancy communities, RPRG surveyed independent living rental
communities that are restricted to senior households with units that are not rent-subsidized.
Three such communities were identified in the Primary Market Area containing a total of 222 units
– the 160 unit Lakeside Gardens, the 18 unit Mutual Manor, and the 44 unit Rockwood North
(Table 17). All three communities restrict tenancy to senior citizens at least 62 years of age and
are affordable LIHTC properties. Profile sheets with detailed information on the three
communities are attached as Appendix 4.
Table 17 Summary - Primary Market Area Senior Rental Communities
#
Community
Year Built/
Rehabbed
Structure
Type
Total
Units
Vacant
Units
Vacancy
Rate
Avg 1 BR
Rent (1)
Avg 2 BR
Rent (1)
Incentive
1
2
3
Lakeside Gardens
Mutual Manor
Rockwood North
2002
1995
1995
Garden
Garden
Duplex
160
18
44
2
1
2
1.3%
5.6%
4.5%
$660
$475
$325
$790
$525
$445
None
None
None
5
2.3%
$487
$587
Total/Average
1997
222
Note: All communities are LIHTC communities
(1) Rent is contract rent, and not adjusted for utilities or incentives
Source: Field Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013\
2. Location
All three communities are located outside of the programmatic CNI area within the Southeast
Central Durham CNI Study Area submarket defined by RPRG (Map 7).
3. Structure Type
Rockwood Homes are two story duplex structures. Lakeside Garden is a mixture of two–story
gardens and three-story mid-rise structure – all units are served by elevators. Mutual Manor is a
garden style community. Rockwood North lies west of the Study Area along University Drive.
Mutual Manor is located just south of the southern boundary of the Study Area along Fayetteville
Street.
Lakeside Gardens lies along the southern boundary of the Primary Market Area,
immediately south of Martin Luther King Jr Parkway.
P ag e 41
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
4. Age of Communities
On average the three communities are 16 years. Two communities were built in 1995 and the
newest property, Lakeside Gardens, opened in 2002.
Map 7 Competitive Senior Rental Communities
5. Size
The three communities are disparate relative to their number of units. Lakeside Gardens (the
largest) contains 160 units; Rockwood Manor contains 44 units; and Mutual Manor contains just
18 units.
6. Vacancy Rates
As of RPRG’s October 2013 surveys, the overall vacancy rate was a nominal 2.3 percent - five units
out of 222 units were vacant. Each community reported only one to two vacancies
7. Rent Concessions
Given the low vacancy rates, none of the communities are currently offering rental incentives or
specials.
8. Absorption History
There are no recent examples of lease-up histories.
P ag e 42
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
E. Analysis of Senior Rental Product and Pricing
1. Payment of Utility Costs
Water, sewer, and trash are included in the rent at all three communities (Table 18). Lakeside
Gardens also include hot water in the rent.
2. Unit Features and Finishes
All unit kitchens at the three communities contain ranges and refrigerators. Lakeside Gardens also
provides dishwashers and breakfast bars. Grab bars are standards in the bathrooms.
Table 18 Utility Arrangement and Unit Features, Senior Rental Communities
Heat Type
Cooking
Electric
Water
Lakeside Gardens
Rockwood North
Mutual Manor
Electric
Electric
Electric
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
x
x
x
Trash
Community
Heat
Utilities included in Rent
Dishwasher
Grab
Bar
x
x
x
Std
Std
Std
Std
Std
Emergency
Pull
Van
Meals
House
keeping
Source: Phone Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013.
3. Parking
Free surfacing parking if provide at the three communities.
4. Community Amenities
All three communities feature central laundry facilities. Rockwood North offers a multi-purpose
room and outdoor gardening plots. Lakeside Gardens provides walking trails, a business center, a
lakeside gazebo, and multi-purpose room (Table 19).
Arts& Crafts
Theatre
Health Room
Conv. Store
Barber Shop
Bank
Mutual Manor
Library
Rockwood North
Walking Paths
Lakeside Gardens
Gardening
Community
Multipurpose
Room
Table 19 Common Area Amenities, Senior Rental Communities
x
x
o
o
x
o
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Source: Phone Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013.
P ag e 43
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
5. Distribution of Units by Bedroom Type
The 222 LIHTC units are 79 percent one-bedrooms (176 units) and 21 percent two-bedrooms (46
units) (Table 20). All properties contain both one and two bedroom apartments.
Table 20 Unit Distribution, Size and Pricing, Senior Rental Communities
Type
Total
Units
1. Lakeside Gardens
Year Built: 2002
Mix
60% AMI
160
160
128
$660
$660
697
697
$0.95
$0.95
32
$790
$790
921
921
$0.86
$0.86
2. Mutual Manor
Year Built: 1995
Garden
50% AMI
18
18
12
12
$475
$475
500
500
$0.95
$0.95
6
6
$525
$525
600
600
$0.88
$0.88
3. Rockwood North
Year Built: 1995
Duplex
35% AMI
45% AMI
50% AMI
60% AMI
44
36
$325
$237
$323
$348
$393
670
670
670
670
670
$0.49
$0.35
$0.48
$0.52
$0.59
8
$443
848
$0.52
$440
$440
$450
848
848
848
$0.52
$0.52
$0.53
$406
646
$0.63
$529
813
$0.65
Community
Overall Total
Unsubsidized Total/Average
% of Total Unsubsidized
222
222
100.0%
Units
One Bedroom Units
Rent (1)
SF
Rent/SF
176
79.3%
Units
Two Bedroom Units
Rent (1)
SF
Rent/SF
46
20.7%
(1) Rent is adjusted assuming that water, sewer, and trash are included.
Source: Phone Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. October 2013.
6. Unit Size
The average size of one bedroom units is 646 square feet ranging from 500 square feet at Mutual
Manor to 697 square feet at Lakeside Gardens. The average size of two bedroom units is 813
square feet ranging from 600 square feet Mutual Manor to 848 square feet at Rockwood North to
the generously sized 921 square feet units at Lakeside Gardens.
7. Unit Pricing/Effective Rents
As was the case in Table 16 in the preceding general occupancy competitive section, the rents in
Table 20 are net or effective rents that assume the inclusion of water/sewer and trash removal
utilities. The average effective rent for one bedroom models (including all income targets) is $406
for a unit sized at 646 square feet ($0.63 per square foot). One bedroom effective rents range
from $237 at the 35% AMI units offered at Rockwood North to $660 at the 60% AMI units offered
at Lakeside Gardens. The average effective rent for two bedroom models (including all income
targets) is $530 for a unit sized at 813 square feet ($0.65 per square foot). Two bedroom effective
rents range from $440 at the 45%/ 50% AMI units offered at Rockwood North to $790 at the 60%
AMI units offered at Lakeside Gardens.
F. Rent-Subsidized Rental Alternatives
1. Multifamily Communities
Beyond the market-rate and LIHTC units at the general occupancy and senior rental communities
detailed in the above sections, the Primary Market Area contains a number of multifamily rental
communities with units that are rent-subsidized. For these deep subsidy units, tenants’ out-ofpocket housing costs are income-based. Generally, the monthly cost to the tenant for rent plus
utilities is equal to approximately 30 percent of the household’s gross monthly income.
P ag e 44
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
Table 21 details a total of 17 multifamily rental communities in the Primary Market Area where all
units or a portion of the units are rent-subsidized including the subject property, McDougald
Terrace. Thirteen of the communities contain public housing units and four contain project-based
Section 8 or Section 202 units. Four of the general occupancy communities contain a mixture of
LIHTC units and Public Housing Units. Eight of the properties are age-restricted and nine are
general occupancy.
Map 8 highlights the locations of the 17 rent-subsidized rental communities. Eight of the
communities are clustered in the downtown/ northeast central Durham area north of the Study
Area. Two communities are located in East Durham and one community, Oakley Square
Apartments is located in the northeast corner of the Primary Market area, just north of Cheek
Road. Three communities are located in the Southside/ Rolling Hills redevelopment area in the
northwest corner of the Study Area. The three remaining communities (including the subject) are
located in the Study Area. St. Joseph’s Place is located south of North Carolina Central University
along Fayetteville Road. Cornwallis Road is located in Hillside Park in the southern portion of the
Study Area.
The eight rent-subsidized senior communities contain a total of 671 units. Seven of the senior
units were reported vacant during our October 2013 survey or a low combined vacancy rate of 1.0
percent. The nine rent-subsidized general occupancy communities with 947 units report a
vacancy rate of 2.6 percent. All of the Section 8/ 202 properties report waiting lists. The Public
Housing units subscribe to a citywide waiting list described below.
Table 21 Summary, Primary Market Area Rent-Subsidized Rental Communities
Location
Subsidy Type
Date Built
Total
Units
804 Angier Avenue
2521 Fayetteville Street
500 Cobb Street
1107 Morning Glory Avenue
700 S. Magnum Road
519 East Main Street
Gary St; Mozelle St; Lowry St;
Hyde Park Ave
807 S. Duke Street
Section 8
LIHTC/ Section 202
Section 8
Public Housing
Public Housing
Public Housing
1987
2002
1980
2005
1981
1969
150
32
75
25
55
106
1
0
0
0
0
5
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.7%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Public Housing
1962
50
0
0.0%
Yes
Public Housing
1978
Yes
Name
Age-Restricted Senior Communities
Durham Hosiery Mill
St. Joseph's Place
Morehead Hills
Morning Glory
Forest Hill Heights
Oldham Towers
Scattered Sites
J. J. Henderson
Senior Subtotal
General Occupancy Communities
Oakley Square Apartments
Main Street Townhomes
Vacant Vacancy
Units
Rate
178
1
0.6%
671
7
1.0%
Waiting
List
1835 Cheek Road
Section 8
n/a
99
0
0.0%
Yes
600 East Main Street
Public Housing
2004
21
4
19.0%
Yes
Yes
Calvert Place
900 East Main Street
Public Housing
2005
43
0
0.0%
Franklin Village
302 N. Blacknail Street
Public Housing
2008
46
0
0.0%
Yes
Edgemont Elms*
Cornwallis Road
Liberty Street
Hoover Road
McDougald Terrace
912 Angier Avenue
3000 Weaver Street
131 Commerce Street
1126 Hoover Road
1101 Lawson Street
Public Housing
Public Housing
Public Housing
Public Housing
Public Housing
1989
1967/1996
1972
1968/ 1993
1959/ 1984
16
200
108
54
360
0
2
3
3
13
0.0%
1.0%
2.8%
5.6%
3.6%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
General Occupancy Subtotal
Overall Total
947
1,618
25
32
2.6%
2.0%
Source: Durham Housing Authority, Field Survey, Real Property Research Group, Inc. September/ October 2013
#REF!
Subject
Also has LIHTC component
* Tax credit compliance period is over.
P ag e 45
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
Map 8 Rent-Subsidized Rental Communities
2. Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Choice Voucher Program represents an additional opportunity for low-income
households to obtain rent-subsidized rental units. The Housing Choice Voucher Program assigns
Section 8 rent subsidies to specific tenants rather than to specific units. As long as a particular
tenant continues to qualify for the program and remains compliant with its regulations, the
Housing Choice Voucher can move from rental unit to rental unit with the tenant to whom it is
assigned.
DHA administers the Housing Choice Voucher program for the Durham County and City. As of
October 13, 2013, 2,744 Section 8 housing vouchers were authorized and all vouchers are being
used. The waiting list is now closed. There are 900 names on the waiting list.
There were 2,665 applicants on the waiting list for public housing in the city of Durham as of
August 30, 2013. The breakdown of households on the waiting list in terms of the number of
bedrooms for which they would qualify is as follows: 716 applicants for studios, 1,249 applicants
P ag e 46
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
for one-bedroom models, 460 applicants for two-bedroom models, 213 applicants for threebedroom models, and 27 applicants for four- and five-bedrooms.
G. Proposed and Under Construction Rental Communities
RPRG pursued several avenues of research in an attempt to identify residential rental projects that
are actively being planned or that are currently under construction within the Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area and wider Primary Market Area. We interviewed Larry Jarvis, Associate
Director of the Community Development for the City of Durham, Shannon McLean, Chief
Development and Operations Officer for the Durham Housing Authority, planning officials, and the
local HUD office in Greensboro. We accessed listings of projects that received allocations of LowIncome Housing Tax Credits from the North Carolina Housing Finance Authority over the past five
years. Observations made during our September 18 and 19, 2013 site visit also contributed to the
process. We also interviewed local developers.
Through this research, RPRG identified two specific pipeline projects that could result in new
rental units. Both are tax credit projects – one is currently under construction and the other one is
reapplying for tax credits in the 2014 cycle. In addition, the Master Plan for the Rolling Hills/
Southside redevelopment area indicates a total of 398 rental units when the area is fully built out,
of which 221 units are in the two projects described below. We are assuming that the remaining
177 units (probably at several sites) will be come to fruition by January 1, 2019 (the five year
window in our demand analysis). Map 9 highlights the locations of the two identified projects and
the generic Southside/ Rolling Hills community. The proposed projects are:

Southside Apartments: McCormick Baron Salazar was awarded Low Income Housing Tax
Credits by NCHFA during the 2011 cycle for a general occupancy multi-family community
located in the Southside/ Rolling Hills redevelopment area. The 6.2 acre site is located along
Lakewood Avenue between South Roxboro and Fayetteville Streets. Currently under
construction, lease-up will start in January 2014 with completion by end of 2014. The 132
unit community will feature one, two, and three bedroom units of which 80 units are
affordable units targeted to 30, 50, and 60% AMI; 39 are standard market rate units; and 13
are market rate live/ work units.

Whitted School: The Whitted School property is located in the southern part of the Southside/
Rolling Hills redevelopment area. The school opened in 1922 as a black elementary school.
The Whitted School was subsequently converted to a junior high school and closed in the mid1970s. After serving as quarters for an anti-poverty agency, the former school has been vacant
since 2005. In concert with the Durham County Board of Commissioners, The Integral Group,
an Atlanta-based real estate development firm, and Forty/AM, a Durham-based community
development planning firm, are now redeveloping the campus as a site for senior housing and
as a Durham Public Schools pre-kindergarten center. The developers are seeking low-incomehousing and historic-redevelopment tax credits to rehabilitate the building. The application
was not approved in the 2013 LIHTC application round and the developers are planning on
resubmitting in the 2014 cycle. Assuming approval in the 2014 LIHTC cycle, the building is
expected to open in 2016. The senior housing will contain a total of 89 studios, one bedroom
units, and two bedroom units in both a rehabbed section and a new construction building. All
89 units will feature project based Section 8 subsidies.
P ag e 47
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Existing Rental Market
Map 9 Pipeline Rental Communities
P ag e 48
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
6. FOR-SALE MARKET CONDITIONS
A. Summary of Owner-Occupied Housing Stock
As we did earlier for the rental stock, RPRG compiled data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 20072011 American Community Survey to provide an overview of the for-sale housing stock in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area, the Primary Market Area, and Durham County. In all
three of the subject geographies, single-family detached homes account for the vast majority of
owner-occupied housing units – 93.0 percent in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area,
94.7 percent in the Primary Market Area, and 88.1 percent in Durham County (Table 22).
Nationwide, many urban areas feature a significant percentage of homeownership units in singlefamily attached layouts (i.e. townhouses, duplexes, or triplexes). This is not the case in the
Durham area, wherein single family attached units account for only 1.0 percent of owneroccupied units in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area (11 homes), 0.4 percent of
owner-occupied units in the Primary Market Area (18 homes), and 7.2 percent of owneroccupied units countywide. Similarly, homeownership units in multifamily structures of two or
more units (condominiums) represent just 4.8 percent of the for-sale stock in the Southeast
Central Durham CNI Study Area, 3.8 percent of the for-sale stock in the Primary Market Area, and
2.8 percent of the for-sale stock across Durham County. Mobile homes also constitute a small
portion of the owner-occupied housing stock ranging from just 1.1 percent in the Primary Market
Area to 2.0 in Durham County.
The owner-occupied housing stocks in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and Primary
Market Area are advanced in age compared to the owner-occupied stock of Durham County. The
median homeownership unit in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area as of the 20072011 ACS was built in 1959 and in the PMA was built in 1963. The median homeownership unit
in Durham County as of the ACS dated from 1986. Only 12.6 percent of owner-occupied units in
the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area were built after 1980.
Table 22 For-Sale Housing Stock Characteristics
For-Sale Housing Stock (2006-2010)
Total For-Sale Stock
Structure Type
% Single Family Detached
% Single Family Attached
% Two, Three or Four Family
% Multifamily (5 or more Units)
% Other (including Mobile Homes)
Year Built
Median Year Built
% built pre 1980
% built in 1980s
% built in 1990s
% built 2000-2004
% 2005 or later
Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area
Primary Market Area
Durham County
1,065
4,200
59,354
990
11
22
29
13
93.0%
1.0%
2.1%
2.7%
1.2%
3,978
18
61
95
48
87.4%
6.8%
3.0%
2.8%
0.0%
3,297
324
331
129
119
1959
931
72
32
30
0
94.7%
0.4%
1.5%
2.3%
1.1%
52,276
4,246
571
1,073
1,188
78.5%
7.7%
7.9%
3.1%
2.8%
22,803
10,997
11,146
7,910
6,498
1963
88.1%
7.2%
1.0%
1.8%
2.0%
1986
38.4%
18.5%
18.8%
13.3%
10.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 2007-2011
P ag e 49
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
B. Foreclosure Trends
According to RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties, only 0.02 percent of
housing units in zip code 27701 (the location of the subject) was in foreclosure as of August 2013.
This rate is comparable to the citywide rate of 0.02 percent and Durham County rate of 0.02
percent (Figure 6). The state of North
Carolina rate of 0.05 percent is higher
than the city and county rates but lower
than the national rate of 0.10 percent.
Figure 6 Foreclosure Activity in Durham
and Region
According to RealtyTrac, as of August
2013 there are 12 properties in zip code 27701 that are in some stage of foreclosure (default,
auction, or bank owned). In August 2013, the number of properties that received a foreclosure
filing in 27701 was 100% higher than the previous month and 78% lower than the same time last
year. Home sales for August 2013 were up 35% compared with the previous month, and up 94%
compared with a year ago. The median sales price of a non-distressed home was $146,500. The
median sales price of a foreclosure home was about $41,000 or one-third the price of nondistressed home sales. Figure 7 illustrates, even though the discount on foreclosed has widened,
the drag on home prices is becoming less of a factor.
Figure 7 Discount of
Foreclosed Sales Price vs.
Market Sales Price
P ag e 50
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
C. Recent Primary Market Area Housing Sales
1. Introduction
To gauge the value and depth of the for-sale housing market in the Primary Market Area, RPRG
analyzed Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data on closed residential property transactions that
occurred during the 21-month period between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013.
Triangle Multiple Listing Service is the local MLS system for the Durham area. Realtor Tracey
Goetz of Prudential York Simpson Underwood Realty assisted RPRG in accessing the MLS data
used for this analysis.
We compiled MLS data for the CNI Study Area (as defined by the client) and the Primary Market
Area. We geo-coded the addresses of the units sold in order to exclude units located outside of
the Primary Market Area and to highlight the Primary Market Area units located in the submarket
of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area (Map 10).
2. Sales Volume and Pricing
Table 23 presents distributions of final sales prices for housing units that sold in the Primary
Market Area over the 21 months. Distributions for units within the Primary Market Area
(inclusive of the CNI Study Area) and the CNI Study Area are presented side by side for the sake
of comparison.
The data in Table 23 indicate that the 21-month sales volume in the entire Primary Market Area
totaled 387 units of which 85 units (22.0 percent) are located in the CNI Study Area. The median
sales price in the primary market area is $50,000, 43 percent greater than the median sales price
of $35,000 in the CNI Study Area. However the average sales price in the PMA ($102,755) is
more than twice the average sales price in the CNI Study Area ($41,535) reflecting the much
greater range of home values in the larger PMA. The sales prices in the Primary Market Area are
primarily clustered in the low range ($25,000 to $39,999) that contain 22.5 percent of sales, the
very low range (less than $25,000) that contain 17.9 percent of sales with a spike in the $200,000
and above price range which account for 18.3 percent of sales.
As Map 10 indicates the higher price homes ($125,000 and above) outside of the study area
(yellow and green circles) are concentrated in two areas:
1.) The western portion of the Primary Market Area closest to Duke University
2.) The northwestern portion of the PMA in the redeveloping downtown area proximate to
renovated tobacco warehouses in Brightleaf Square and the American Tobacco District.
The sales prices in the study area are clustered in the low range ($25,000 to $39,999) that
contain 36.5 percent of sales, the very low range (less than $25,000) that contain 23.5 percent of
sales and a moderate range ($50,000 to $59,999) that contains 12.9 percent of sales.
As Map 11 indicates, the lower price homes in the CNI Study Area (less than $40,000) are located
in the northern portion of the Study area and immediately surrounding the NCCU campus.
However, the higher range ($75,000 to $200,000) of home prices (blue and green circles) are
scattered through the Study Area.
P ag e 51
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
Table 23 Sales Prices for Closed Residential Transactions Jan 2012 to Sept 2013
To
Less
$25,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$75,000
$125,000
$150,000
$200,000
From
$24,999
$39,999
$49,999
$59,999
$74,999
$124,999
$149,999
$199,999
More
Median
Average
69
87
34
27
24
36
9
30
71
387
PMA
17.8%
22.5%
8.8%
7.0%
6.2%
9.3%
2.3%
7.8%
18.3%
100.0%
$50,000
$102,755
McDougald CNI
100
20
23.5%
90
31
36.5%
80
8
9.4%
70
11
12.9%
60
6
7.1%
50
8
9.4%
40
1
1.2%
30
0
0.0%
20
0
0.0%
10
85
100.0%
0
$35,000
$41,535
PMA
Less
$25K
$25K
$40K
$50K
$60K
McDougald CNI
$75K
$125K $150K $200K
$39.9K $49.9K $59.9K $74.9K $124.9K $149.9K $199.9K more
Source:Triangle Multiple Listing Service compiled by RPRG, Inc.
Map 10 Sold MLS Listings by Price 1/12 to 9/13 –PMA
P ag e 52
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
Map 11 Sold MLS Listings Jan 12 to Sept 13 – CNI Study Area
3. Square Footage and Days on the Market
Table 24 shows the median days that the sold housing units spent on the market before selling.
During the last year and three-quarters, a home in the in the Primary Market area took
approximately 60 days to sell, somewhat longer than it took to sell in the CNI Study Area (51
days). Over 42 percent of the homes took less than 50 days to sell in the PMA compared to 48
percent in the study area. On the other side of the time continuum, 16.0 percent of the sold
homes in the PMA and 14.1 percent of the sold homes in the study area took more than 200 days
to sell.
Table 24 Days on the Market of Sold Units – Primary Market Area and CNI Study Area
To
Less
25
50
75
100
125
150
200
300
From
24
49
74
99
124
149
199
299
More
Median
Average
85
79
48
37
25
18
33
36
26
387
PMA
22.0%
20.4%
12.4%
9.6%
6.5%
4.7%
8.5%
9.3%
6.7%
100.0%
60
110
McDougald CNI
27
31.8%
15
17.6%
9
10.6%
6
7.1%
3
3.5%
4
4.7%
9
10.6%
9
10.6%
3
3.5%
85
100.0%
51
102
90
80
PMA
70
McDougald CNI
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Less
25
50
75
100
125
150
200
300
24
49
74
99
124
149
199
299
More
Days on Market
Source:Triangle Multiple Listing Service compiled by RPRG, Inc.
P ag e 53
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
The available MLS records include unit square footages by number of bedrooms for all of the
units sold in the Primary Market Area between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013. The
typical home in the market area contained three bedrooms (56 percent of units) with 1,375
square feet and sold for $81,668. Two bedroom homes were the second most prevalent model
type sold comprising 23 percent (88) of units sold at a median sales price of $78,858 for a 1,119
square foot single family home. Seventeen percent of units (64) were larger models containing
four or more bedrooms with median prices ranging from $177,606 to$271,300.
Table 25 Homes Sold in PMA by Bedroom and Square Footage
No. BR's
1
2
3
4
5+
Total/
Average
# Units
18
88
217
54
10
%
4.7%
22.7%
56.1%
14.0%
2.6%
387
Average Price
$155,619
$78,858
$81,668
$177,606
$271,300
Average SF
796
1,119
1,375
2,036
2,748
$/ Sq ft
$195.50
$70.47
$59.39
$87.23
$98.73
$102,755
1,416
$72.56
Source:Triangle Multiple Listing Service compiled by RPRG, Inc.
D. Actively Listed and Pending Housing Units
1. Available Inventory
In addition to data on housing units for which sales closed over a recent 21-month period, RPRG
obtained data on units in the Primary Market Area that were actively listed for sale or that had
pending contracts that had not yet gone to settlement as of October 9, 2013. As of early
October, the inventory of available homes in the Primary Market Area totaled 150 units (Table
26). Thirty-three of the active and pending units were in the Southeast Central Durham CNI
Study Area submarket.
Given the sales volume of 387 units for the 21 month period ending September 30, 2013 (257
units on an annualized basis), the available inventory of 150 units translates to a supply of
approximately 7.0 months.
In the
Active/Pending Units As of 10/9/13
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study
From
To
PMA
CNI Study Area
Area, 33 units were active or pending as
Up To
$19,999
3
2.0%
2
6.1%
early October, an inventory of 8.0 months
$20,000
$29,999
4
2.7%
1
3.0%
given the sale of 88 units (49 units on an
$30,000
$39,999
13
8.7%
7
21.2%
$40,000
$49,999
19
12.7%
4
12.1%
annualized basis) in the CNI Study Area
$50,000
$59,999
14
9.3%
3
9.1%
over the recent 21 months. The 6 month
$60,000
$69,999
12
8.0%
5
15.2%
inventory is considered healthy for a for$70,000
$79,999
17
11.3%
6
18.2%
sale housing market.
$80,000
$89,999
8
5.3%
1
3.0%
Table 26 Asking Prices of Active or
Pending Listings
$90,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$99,999
$149,999
$199,999
$299,999
$399,999
And Up
Total
Median
Average
5
16
6
10
6
17
150
3.3%
10.7%
4.0%
6.7%
4.0%
11.3%
100.0%
$78,200
$148,762
1
2
1
0
0
0
33
3.0%
6.1%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
$57,900
$62,209
Source: Triangle Multiple Listing Service; Compiled by RPRG, Inc.
P ag e 54
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
The median asking price across the 33 units currently active or pending in the Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area is $57,900. This median asking price is about 65 percent higher than the
median sales price of $50,000 across the 85 units that sold in the CNI Study Area between
January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013. In comparison, the median asking price of $78,200
across the Primary Market Area is 31 percent higher compared to the median sales price of
$50,000 recorded in the Primary Market Area over the last 21 months. Substantial increases in
asking prices reflect a housing market that has recovered from the recent real estate downturn.
2. New Construction For-Sale Units
There are no new home subdivisions currently active within the Primary Market Area. A small
scale, high-end condominium project, Church and Main, located at 130 E. Main Street, is
scheduled to start construction in November 2013. Eight two- and three-bedroom units are being
offered priced from $450,000 to $570,000 for apartments sized from 1,460 to 1,800 square feet.
To date four of the units have been sold. This downtown Durham project, targeted to affluent
households, will have no bearing on the type of products being contemplated as part of the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area market analysis.
E. Existing Homeownership Incentive Programs
The Durham Housing Authority operates the Homeownership Institute, a homeownership
“school” targeted to residents who are interested in purchasing a home but need assistance in
overcoming the challenges of securing equity and learning the ABC’s of homeownership. The
classes include such topics as credit repair and budgeting, foreclosure prevention, role of the
realtor, qualifying for a mortgage, home inspections/ home maintenance, and loan closing. The
City of Durham had a fund of approximately $450,000 remaining from HOPE VI grants received
during the first part of the 2000’s. These funds were set aside to provide equity contributions to
qualified homeowners. Since October 2010, 67 homeowners (identified through attendance at
the Homeownership Institute) have received equity grants ranging from $4,200 up to $8,000
(average grant was $6,650; median grant was $8,000). The funds remaining are sufficient to
service only one additional homebuyer.
The median price of the homes purchased was $127,900 (average price was $131,900). As Figure
8 indicates, most home prices were spread across the $100,000 to $200,000 with only ten sales
below $100,000. According to Bridgette Stephens, Homeownership Program Manager for the
Durham Housing Authority, one half of the homes bought were resales and one half of the
homes were new home construction. In addition to the HOPE VI equity grants, ten of the 67
homebuyers received additional assistance from several other sources including the Section 8
Voucher rent to buy program; the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta Equity Grants; and the City
of Durham Individual Development Accounts.
P ag e 55
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
Figure 8 DHA’s Hope VI Mortgage Assistance Program Oct 2011 to Sept 2013 – Durham County
25
20
Homes Sold
15
10
5
0
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
$99,999
$124,999
$149,999
$199,999
Source: Bridgette Stephens, HCV FSS/ Homeownership Program Manager, Resident Services
Department, Durham Housing Authority, December 6, 2013
Homebuyers were allowed to purchase homes anywhere in Durham County. As Map 12
illustrates, only two purchased properties are located within the boundaries of the Primary
Market Area, and just one of these in within the CNI Study Area. Another nine properties are
located within a three mile radius of the McDougald Terrace site (to the south and east) and the
remaining 56 properties are scattered within a three to nine mile radius of the site (primarily
concentrated north and east of the PMA).
P ag e 56
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions
Map 12 Location of Homes Sold Under DHA’s HOPE VI Mortgage Assistance Program
F. Proposed For-Sale Housing Communities
Using many of the same resources employed to research the pipeline for residential rental units,
RPRG sought to identify proposed communities that could introduce new for-sale housing units
to the Primary Market Area over the next few years. Based on on-line research, conversations
with local officials and local brokers, and site visit observations, no privately sponsored
subdivisions are being planned. It is possible that other small scale condominium projects could
emerge in the downtown area that will be priced well above levels being contemplated for the
subject sites.
As described in the Section II of this report, a massive redevelopment effort is being planned in
the Southside/ Rolling Hills area that will ultimately contain approximately 152 for-sale units.
Based on information provided by Larry Jarvis, Assistant Director of the Community Development
Department of the city of Durham, the following short term (completed by end of 2015) for-sale
program is planned:
P ag e 57
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For-Sale Market Conditions

South Hillside and South Avenue: Forty-eight single family homes ranging in price from
$150,000 to $195,000 targeting mixed-income households earning up to 80% AMI are
planned. Low-interest loans will be offered that will be partially forgiven after
homeowners remain in place for a set number of years. Bungalow homes are
contemplated that will contain three and four bedrooms and two bathroom. Unit
features will include hardwood floors, stainless steel appliances, and granite countertops.
No garages will be offered.
P ag e 58
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
7. RENTAL AFFORDABILITY AND DEMAND
A. Introduction and Methodology
In order to determine potential demand for additional low-income, moderate-income and
market-rate rental housing, RPRG computed the number of households earning below the
maximum income limit for several income brackets, which are displayed as a percentage of the
Area Median Income (AMI). “Very Low Income” (VLI) households are those earning below 30
percent of AMI as adjusted for household size. “Low-Income” households are those households
with incomes at or below 50 percent of AMI as adjusted for household size. We also computed
income-eligible households at 60 percent of AMI, which is the maximum income target for units
with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Units targeted at 80 percent or 100 percent of
AMI would be considered market-rate. Income and rent limits based on HUD’s calculation of
median household income for 2013 for the Durham – Chapel Hill NC HUD Metro FMR Area are
detailed in Table 27.
Minimum income limits would be dependent on the proposed rents of individual units. As
specific proposals for new rental projects associated with the CNI have not yet been proposed,
we tested minimum income limits that are based on rents equivalent to 95 percent of the
maximum allowable net rent for each AMI level. The net rents assume the inclusion of
water/sewer and trash removal utilities and utility allowances of $88 for studios, $105 for onebedrooms, $130 for two-bedrooms, $160 for three-bedrooms, and $187 for four-bedrooms to
cover other utility costs.
Maximum income limits for the general occupancy rental market were determined by assuming
one and a half persons per bedroom. We tested general rental affordability using two-bedroom
units with the maximum income limits and associated rents assume three-person households.
For age restricted communities, maximum income limits for a two bedroom units were set
assuming a maximum two person household size, a requirement in the North Carolina Housing
Finance Agency (NCHFA) 2014 Market Study Guidelines. Thus, for senior (age 62+) rental units,
we tested affordability using two-person household income and rent limits.
The minimum income limits were calculated by applying a rent burden of 35 percent to the gross
rents for general occupancy projects, wherein gross rents are equal to out-of-pocket rent costs
plus utility bills for which the tenant is responsible. The 35 percent gross rent burden means that
tenants could spend up to 35 percent of their monthly income on rent plus utility costs. This is in
accordance with requirements for proposed LIHTC communities as stated in the NCHFA 2014
Market Study Guidelines. We used a 40 percent rent burden assumption for senior units.
Rent burdens only come into play when a unit does not have a rental subsidy such as Public
Housing/ACC or project-based Section 8. While maximum income limits apply to rent-subsidized
units, minimum incomes do not apply since tenant’s out-of-pocket costs are income-based with
the public subsidy providing the remainder of the gross rent. A household with no annual
income could technically qualify for a rent-subsidized rental unit.
P ag e 59
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
Table 27 2013 Income Limits and Maximum Rents, Durham-Chapel Hill, NC HUD Metro FMR Area
HUD 2013 Median Household Income
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC HUD Metro FMR Area
Very Low Income for 4 Person Household
2013 Computed Area Median Gross Income
Utility Allowance:
LIHTC Household Income Limits by Household Size:
Household Size
30%
1 Person
$14,220
2 Persons
$16,260
3 Persons
$18,300
4 Persons
$20,310
5 Persons
$21,960
6 Persons
$23,580
7
Persons
$0
8 Persons
$0
Imputed Income Limits by Number of Bedrooms:
Assumes 1.5 persons per Persons
bedroom
1
1.5
3
4.5
6
Bedrooms
0
1
2
3
4
30%
$14,220
$15,240
$18,300
$21,135
$23,580
$67,700
$33,850
$67,700
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
$88
$105
$130
$160
$187
40%
50%
60%
80%
100%
150%
$18,960
$21,680
$24,400
$27,080
$29,280
$31,440
$0
$0
$23,700
$27,100
$30,500
$33,850
$36,600
$39,300$0
$0
$28,440
$32,520
$36,600
$40,620
$43,920
$47,160
$0
$0
$37,920
$43,360
$48,800
$54,160
$58,560
$62,880
$0
$0
$47,400
$54,200
$61,000
$67,700
$73,200
$78,600
$0
$0
$71,100
$81,300
$91,500
$101,550
$109,800
$117,900
40%
$18,960
$20,320
$24,400
$28,180
$31,440
50%
$23,700
$25,400
$30,500
$35,225
$39,300
60%
$28,440
$30,480
$36,600
$42,270
$47,160
80%
$37,920
$40,640
$48,800
$56,360
$62,880
100%
$47,400
$50,800
$61,000
$70,450
$78,600
150%
$71,100
$76,200
$91,500
$105,675
$117,900
LIHTC Tenant Rent Limits by Number of Bedrooms:
Assumes 1.5 Persons per bedroom
# Persons
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
Gross
$356
$381
$458
$528
$590
30%
Net
$268
$276
$328
$368
$403
Gross
$474
$508
$610
$705
$786
40%
Net
$386
$403
$480
$545
$599
Gross
$593
$635
$763
$881
$983
50%
Net
$505
$530
$633
$721
$796
Gross
$711
$762
$915
$1,057
$1,179
60%
Net
$623
$657
$785
$897
$992
Gross
$948
$1,016
$1,220
$1,409
$1,572
80%
100%
Net
$860
$911
$1,090
$1,249
$1,385
Gross
$1,185
$1,355
$1,525
$1,693
$1,830
Net
$1,097
$1,250
$1,395
$1,533
$1,643
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
B. Renter Households by Income Level
RPRG first calculated the number of income-qualified renter households for six different
maximum income targets – 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent, and 100
percent of AMI with an assumption of no minimum income. The calculations – summarized in
Table 28 – highlight the depth of the market for rental units at each of the income levels in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and the wider Primary Market Area. The ‘no
minimum income’ calculations are relevant to rent-subsidized housing alternatives including
Public Housing/ACC units and Section 8 units. Since the minimum income limit associated with
each of the tested maximum income levels is fixed at $0, the number of income-qualified
households increases along with the AMI level. For example, all of the households that qualify
for the 30 percent units and all of the households with incomes between 30 percent and 40
percent of AMI would qualify for units targeted at 40 percent of AMI. Key findings from our ‘no
minimum income’ affordability analysis include:

In the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area, 82.1 percent of all renter households
would be income-qualified for rent-subsidized rental units with a maximum income limit
of 60 percent (the LIHTC maximum). Just under 57 percent of the renter households
earn no more than 30 percent of AMI, highlighting the very low-income household
profile of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area.
P ag e 60
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
Table 28 2015 Income Qualified Households, No Minimum Income
Total Renter Households
S ubmarket
AMI Level
Max.
Income
Total
Renters
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
CNI Market
2,670
1,519
56.9%
1,900
71.2%
2,060
77.2%
2,193
82.1%
2,433
91.1%
2,519
94.3%
Primary Market
8,836
3,841
43.5%
4,882
55.3%
5,582
63.2%
6,200
70.2%
7,191
81.4%
7,693
87.1%
30% AMI
$18,300
40% AMI
$24,400
50% AMI
$30,500
60% AMI
$36,600
80% AMI
$48,800
% Total # HH
100% AMI
$61,000
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min. Income based on 3 Person HH in Two Bedroom unit.
S enior (62+) Renter Households
S ubmarket
AMI Level
Max.
Income
Total
Renters
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
\
CNI Market
590
294
49.8%
378
64.1%
457
77.5%
480
81.4%
521
88.3%
556
94.2%
Primary Market
1,749
674
38.5%
882
50.4%
1,082
61.9%
1,183
67.6%
1,357
77.6%
1,500
85.8%
30% AMI
$15,240
40% AMI
$20,320
50% AMI
$25,400
60% AMI
$30,480
80% AMI
$40,600
% Total # HH
100% AMI
$50,800
% Total
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min. Income Based on 1 Person HH in One Bedroom unit.
Senior (62 +) Renter Households By AMI Level
Renter Households By AMI Level
Area
Area
30% AMI
60% AMI
100% AMI
CNI Market
30% AMI
60% AMI
100% AMI
CNI Market
Primary
Market
Primary Market
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500

Renter household incomes in the Primary Market Area trend somewhat higher than
renter household incomes in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area, but more
than 70 percent of renter households would still qualify for a rent-subsidized rental unit
with an income restriction of 60 percent of AMI.

Over 81 percent of age 62+ senior renter households in the Southeast Central Durham
CNI Study Area and 67.6 percent of age 62+ senior renter households in the Primary
Market Area have incomes at or below 60 percent of AMI. Very low-income households
with incomes at 30 percent or less of AMI represent 49.8 percent of senior renters in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and 38.5 percent of senior renters in the
Primary Market Area.

Seventy-one percent of renter households and 64 percent of senior renter households in
the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area have incomes below 40 percent of AMI.

Only 5.7 percent of all renter households and 5.8 percent of senior renter households in
the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area have incomes in excess of the area
median. In the Primary Market Area, the percentages of renters and senior renters with
incomes above 100 percent of AMI – 12.9 percent and 14.2 percent – are higher but still
rather modest.
P ag e 61
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
We next calculated the number of income-qualified renter households at the various income
levels with minimum income limits (Table 29). The calculated minimum income limits for 30
percent, 40 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent units are those that would apply to standard
LIHTC units without rental subsidies. The minimum income limits are based on rents equal to 90
percent of the maximum net rents shown in Table 27 (two-bedrooms for general occupancy and
one-bedrooms for senior). For the general occupancy analysis, the net two bedroom rents are as
follows: $295 at 30 percent of AMI, $432 at 40 percent, $569 at 50 percent, $707 at 60 percent,
$981 at 80 percent, and $1,256 at 100 percent. We confirmed that these assumptions are
reasonable though lower than the surveyed tax credit communities (the developers probably set
rents closer to the maximum income limits allowed) (see Table 16). For the senior analysis, the
net one bedroom rents are as follows: $248 for units at 30 percent of AMI, $363 at 40 percent,
$477 at 50 percent, $591 at 60 percent, $820 at 80 percent, and $1,125 at 100 percent. Three
unsubsidized senior tax credit communities currently operate in the primary market area.
Table 29 2015 Income Qualified Households, With Minimum Income
Total Renter Households
30% AMI
40% AMI
50% AMI
Min
$23,966
# HH
60% AMI
Max
$30,500
% Total
Min
$28,697
# HH
Max
$36,600
% Total
80% AMI
Min
$38,091
# HH
100% AMI
Submarket
AMI Level
Income Limits
Total Renters
Min
$14,571
# HH
Max
$18,300
% Total
Min
$19,269
# HH
Max
$24,400
% Total
Max
$48,800
% Total
Min
$47,520
# HH
Max
$61,000
% Total
CNI Market
2,670
243
9.1%
320
12.0%
188
7.0%
173
6.5%
211
7.9%
111
4.2%
Primary Market
8,836
657
7.4%
876
9.9%
773
8.7%
814
9.2%
870
9.8%
606
6.9%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min. Income based on 3 Person HH in Two Bedroom unit. Assumes 35 percent rent burden standard.
AMI Level
Income Limits
Total Renters
Submarket
30% AMI
Min
Max
$10,590 $15,240
# HH
% Total
40% AMI
Min
Max
$14,040
$20,320
# HH
% Total
Senior (62+) Renter Households
50% AMI
60% AMI
Min
Max
Min
Max
$17,460 $25,400
$20,880
$30,480
# HH
% Total
# HH
% Total
80% AMI
Min
Max
$27,750
$40,640
# HH
% Total
100% AMI
Min
Max
$36,900
$50,800
# HH
% Total
CNI Market
590
89
15.1%
107
18.1%
127
21.5%
93
15.8%
53
9.0%
48
8.1%
Primary Market
1,749
205
11.7%
260
14.9%
317
18.1%
278
15.9%
228
13.0%
199
11.4%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census, Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Min Income Based on 1 Person HH in One Bedroom unit. Assumes 40 percent rent burden standard.
Renter Households By AMI Level
Senior (62 +) Renter Households By AMI Level
30% AMI
60% AMI
100% AMI
Area
Primary Market
Primary Market
0
200
400
600
800
30% AMI
60% AMI
100% AMI
CNI Market
Area
CNI Market
1,000
0
100
200
300
400
500

Of the 2,670 renter households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area as of
2015, only 243 (9.1 percent) would qualify for unsubsidized 30 percent units, and only
320 (12.0 percent), 188 (7.0 percent), and 173 (6.5 percent) would qualify for 40, 50, and
60 percent units respectively. Similarly, only between 7.4 percent and 9.2 percent of the
8,836 renter households in the Primary Market Area would qualify for the 30 to 60
percent non rent-subsidized units.

The numbers of senior renter households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study
Area within the various tested income bands are limited – 89 of 590 senior renters for 30
percent units, 107 for 40 percent units, 127 for 50 percent units, and 93 for 60 percent
P ag e 62
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
units. Across the Primary Market Area, 317 out of 1,749 senior renter households (about
18 percent) would be income-qualified for a 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent, or 60
percent non rent-subsidized unit.

Of the various income targets tested, the pool of income-qualified renter households is
deepest within the Primary Market Area for the 60% and 80% units for general
occupancy units and for the 50% and 60% units for senior occupancy units.
C. Net Demand Analysis, Primary Market Area
1. Methodology
In this section, RPRG presents a Derivation of Demand calculation to gauge the level of demand
for new rental units in the Primary Market Area over a coming three-year period (January 2014 to
January 2017) and a coming five-year period (January 2014 to January 2019). We present the
five-year analysis in addition to RPRG’s typical three-year analysis as planning for future
development in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area through the CNI effort is in the
early stages. Certain residential components pursued through the CNI effort would likely be
brought online subsequent to the upcoming three-year period. In presenting the five-year
scenario, it is important to note the difficulty in accurately predicting the supply of rental housing
units that could be developed in the Primary Market Area over a five-year period. Projects that
have not been conceived or made public as of today could very well be built and opened before
2019.
RPRG’s Derivation of Demand calculation is a gross analysis, meaning that the calculation
balances the demand for new rental housing units of all types (i.e. luxury market-rate, more
affordable market-rate, tax credit, rent-subsidized, and age-restricted) versus the upcoming
supply of rental housing units of all types. Considerations such as household incomes and the
floor plan types and proposed rents for the subject and other pipeline projects are not factored
into the Derivation of Demand.
RPRG sums demand generated from three broad sources in order to arrive at ‘Total Demand for
New Rental Units’ over the three-year and five-year periods:

Projected Change in the Household Base. Earlier in this report, RPRG presented
projections of household change in the Primary Market Area over the 2013 to 2018
period. For the three-year demand analysis, we factor in three years’ worth of the
household change suggested by the annual rate of household change (2014 to 2015,
2015 to 2016, and 2016 to 2017). For the five-year demand analysis, we add two
additional years of household change (2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019). Note that net
household change incorporates growth or decline stemming from both household
migration into and out of the market area and organic changes within existing
households (i.e. new household formation as children move out of their parents’ homes,
divorces, and roommates beginning to rent separately).

Units Removed from the Housing Stock. Demand for new housing units is generated
when the stock of available units in a given market ceases to meet the housing needs of
households that wish to remain residents of the market. A number of factors can
contribute to the removal of housing units in a given market. A May 2011 report
prepared for HUD by Econometrica, Inc. provides quantitative evidence of such removal
P ag e 63
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
factors.4 Using data collected as part of the national American Housing Survey (AHS) in
2007 and 2009, Econometrica highlighted the portions of the total number of housing
units lost attributable to each of the following: units lost through demolition or natural
disasters; units badly damaged or condemned (and thus unlivable); units lost due to
merger of two or more units into a single unit or the conversion of a single unit into
multiple units; units changed from residential to non-residential use; units (primarily
mobile homes) moved out from their 2007 location; and units lost in other unclassified
ways. The Econometrica data is referred to as Components of Inventory Change (CINCH)
data (Table 30).
Table 30 Components of Inventory Change
A. Characteristics
Total Housing Stock
Occupancy
Occupied units
G. ‘07
H. ‘07 units
E.
F. ‘07 units house or changed to I. ‘07 units lost J. ‘07 units
D. 2007 units Change in lost due to
mobile
non
through
badly
C. Present in present in character- conversion
home
residential demolition or damaged or
2007
2009
istics
/merger moved out
use
disaster
condemned
128,203
126,119
110,692
100,730
8,880
13,109
5,072
7,299
4,402
2,362
1,775
23,505
23,213
Midwest
29,602
29,202
South
48,881
47,783
West
26,214
25,920
Owner occupied
75,647
68,551
6,642
Renter occupied
35,045
27,331
7,086
36,122
35,494
In Suburbs
59,794
59,005
Outside Metro Area
32,287
31,619
Vacant
Seasonal
Region (All Units)
Northeast
Metro Status
In Central Cities
K. ‘07
units lost
in other
ways
TOTAL Lost
Total
to Stock exclude MH
Annual
193
411
288
491
302
400
2,085
1,674
837
0.15%
0.32%
0.22%
0.38%
0.24%
0.31%
1.63%
1.31%
0.65%
124
0.11%
60
0.46%
8
0.18%
263
0.24%
110
0.84%
38
0.86%
125
0.11%
91
0.69%
72
1.64%
227
0.21%
204
1.56%
59
1.34%
130
0.12%
151
1.15%
21
0.48%
212
0.19%
122
0.93%
66
1.50%
1,081
0.98%
738
5.63%
264
6.00%
818
0.74%
628
4.79%
226
5.13%
409
0.37%
314
2.40%
113
2.57%
49
0.21%
58
0.20%
48
0.10%
38
0.14%
29
0.12%
51
0.17%
280
0.57%
50
0.19%
61
0.26%
34
0.11%
156
0.32%
37
0.14%
33
0.14%
110
0.37%
287
0.59%
60
0.23%
51
0.22%
76
0.26%
155
0.32%
20
0.08%
69
0.29%
71
0.24%
171
0.35%
88
0.34%
292
1.24%
400
1.35%
1,097
2.24%
293
1.12%
263
1.12%
349
1.18%
817
1.67%
243
0.93%
132
0.56%
175
0.59%
409
0.84%
122
0.46%
48
0.06%
76
0.22%
124
0.16%
139
0.40%
57
0.08%
68
0.19%
96
0.13%
132
0.38%
40
0.05%
91
0.26%
90
0.12%
122
0.35%
455
0.60%
628
1.79%
331
0.44%
489
1.40%
166
0.22%
245
0.70%
77
0.21%
80
0.13%
35
0.11%
48
0.13%
182
0.30%
180
0.56%
88
0.24%
133
0.22%
67
0.21%
135
0.37%
187
0.31%
169
0.52%
139
0.38%
80
0.13%
83
0.26%
140
0.39%
128
0.21%
132
0.41%
627
1.74%
790
1.32%
666
2.06%
579
1.60%
608
1.02%
486
1.51%
290
0.80%
304
0.51%
243
0.75%
Source: American Housing Survey, Components of Inventory Change 2007-2009; Prepared by Ecometrica, Inc. for U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Office
of Policy Development & Research; May 2011
Using statistical observations from CINCH data, Econometrica determined that the
average annual loss of occupied housing units in the United States between 2007 and
2009 (for all reasons other than the moving of homes, particularly mobile homes) was
0.37 percent of the total occupied stock which we use in a standard demand analysis. In
the South, the annual demotion rate is more than double the national average at 0.84.
Within this market, two properties have been specifically identified to be demolished
over the next five years– the 360 unit McDougald Terrace and the 150 unit Lincoln
Apartments. Based on regional trends and these specific demolition projects, we have
4
American Housing Survey, Components of Inventory Change 2007-2009; Prepared by Econometrica, Inc. for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development & Research; May 2011.
P ag e 64
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
increased the annual demolition rate to 1.0 percent which incorporates the leveling of
the two housing development plus normal scattered housing loss throughout the PMA.

Competitive Multifamily Vacancy Rates. The final source of demand that factors into
RPRG’s calculation of net demand for new rental units is the observed vacancy rate in the
Primary Market Area’s competitive rental market. RPRG assumes that a 5.0 percent
vacancy rate – a typical underwriting standard – is required to keep a rental market
relatively elastic. Elasticity in this context means that an adequate number of quality
housing units are vacant and available at any given time so that households seeking
rental units can be accommodated and can have some choice among units. When the
market vacancy rate is below 5.0 percent, additional units are needed to ensure an
adequate number of available units from which to choose. When the market vacancy
rate is above 5.0 percent, the market has the capacity to absorb some additional
demand, whereby that amount of demand would not need to be met through the
development of new units.
2. Demand Analysis
Table 31 applies the discussion of sources of demand for new rental units to the Primary Market
Area. Demand calculations are shown for both the upcoming three-year period and the
upcoming five-year period. The steps in our Derivation of Demand analysis for the three-year
period between January 2014 and January 2017 are as follows:

Based on Esri projections, RPRG estimates that there are 12,778 households in the
Primary Market Area as of 2013, a number that is projected to increase to 13,640
households by 2018. Based on this estimate and projection, RPRG derived the number of
households in the Primary Market Area as of 2014 (12,950) and 2017 (13,468) through
interpolation. The Primary Market Area is expected to gain approximately 517 net
households during the three-year period.

Using statistical observations from CINCH data and known future demolitions of major
rental developments, RPRG has determined that the annual demolition rate over the
next five years will be 1.0 percent of the total occupied stock.

We determined the size of the housing stock in the Primary Market Area for 2014, 2015,
and 2016 via interpolation of Esri housing stock estimates for 2010 and 2015. Applying
the assumed 1.0 percent removal rate over the three years in question, we estimate that
467 units are likely to be lost.

Adding the net household increases from the number of units to be removed from the
market, we calculate the net new demand for housing units of all types over the threeyear period to be 984 units.

An estimated 67.0 percent of all households in the Primary Market Area are renters as of
2013. The renter percentage is projected to remain fairly stable, increasing by just 0.8
point to 67.8 percent by 2018. Based on these figures, we calculated an average renter
percentage of 67.3 percent for the January 2014 to January 2017 period. The net
household change and unit removal components of demand that yield demand for 663
new rental units over the three-year period.

Shifting to the third component of demand, RPRG surveyed existing rental communities
in the Primary Market Area that fall into four basic categories: general occupancy
market-rate and LIHTC properties (11 communities with 1,254 units); senior market-rate
and LIHTC properties (3 communities with 222 units); general occupancy rent-subsidized
properties (eight communities with 671 units), and senior rent-subsidized properties
(nine communities with 947 units). The total surveyed competitive inventory contains
P ag e 65
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand
Table 31 Derivation of Demand
Demand
Projected Change in Household Base
January 2014 Households
January 2017 Households
January 2019 Households
Net Change in Households
Add: Units Removed from Housing Stock
2014 Housing Stock
2015 Housing Stock
2016 Housing Stock
2017 Housing Stock
2018 Housing Stock
Total Units Removed from Housing Stock
2017
Units
12,950
13,468
517
Housing
Stock
15,365
15,569
15,774
15,978
16,183
Removal
Rate
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
1.00%
Units
Removed
154
156
158
160
162
New Housing Demand
Average Percent Renter Households over Analysis Period
New Rental Housing Demand
Add: Multifamily Competitive Vacancy
Stabilized Multifamily Communities (Gen. Occ/ Sen)
Deep-Subsidy Multifamily Communities
Subtotal Stabilized Communities
Communities Under Lease Up
Total Competitive Inventory
Inventory
1,476
1,618
3,094
Vacant
51
32
83
0
3,094
0
83
Market Vacancy at 5%
Less: Current Vacant Units
Vacant Units Required to Reach 5% Market Vacancy
Whitted Senior
Southside McCormack Baron
Remaining Rental Units per Southside/ Rolling Hills Master Plan
Total New Rental Supply
Excess Demand for Rental Housing
Source: RPRG, Inc.
13,812
862
467
467
789
789
984
67.3%
663
1,651
67.5%
1,114
72
72
734
1186
155
-83
Total Demand for New Rental Units
Planned Additions to the Supply
2019
Units
12,950
Total Units
89
132
177
398
95% Occupancy
85
85
125
125
168
210
378
524
808
3,094 units, of which 83 were reported vacant during RPRG’s October 2013 surveys,
yielding a combined vacancy rate of about 2.7 percent.

RPRG assume a 95 percent occupancy level in calculating the third component of
demand. Given the surveyed competitive marketplace of 3,094 units, approximately 155
vacancies would be required to arrive at a 5.0 percent vacancy rate. Subtracting the 83
currently vacant units from this number reveals that the existing communities in the
Primary Market Area have the capacity to serve 72 additional renter households before
the market reaches a 95 percent occupancy level.

Summing demand from household change, projected unit removals, and the current
combined vacancy rate, we arrive at a demand for new rental units of 734 units.
P ag e 66
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand

Total rental demand must be balanced against new rental stock likely to be added
between January 2014 and January 2017. There are two pipeline projects currently being
contemplated in the market area – Whitted Senior and Southside McCormack Baron
Apartments. Applying a structural vacancy rate of five percent, the two pipeline
communities would add 210 rental units to the market.

Upon subtracting the expected additions to the supply (210 units) from total demand for
new rental units (536 units), we arrive at a substantial surplus demand of 524 rental units
in the Primary Market Area as of January 2017.
Moving to the five-year demand analysis, we first factor in two additional years of household
change and two additional years of unit removals. Projected household increases between
January 2014 and January 2019 total 862 households, while projected unit removals over the
period total 789 units. Assuming 67.5 percent of these households/units are renters/rentals, the
new demand for renter units over the five-year period is 1,114 units. Adding the 72 units needed
to arrive at 95 percent occupancy in the existing market, we calculate a demand for 1,186 new
rental units in the Primary Market Area between January 2014 and January 2019.
We are assuming that the remaining 177 rental units programmed in the Master Plan for
Southside/ Rolling Hills will appear by January 1, 2019 even though developers/ or financing have
not yet been identified. RPRG is not presently aware of any additional projects that are
expected to result in new rental supply between January 2017 and January 2019. As such, the
demand for 1,186 new rental units would be balanced against a supply of 378 units (including the
original two projects from the three year analysis). Subtracting the expected additions to supply
over the five-year period (378 units) from the total demand for new rental units (1,186 units), we
arrive at an excess supply of approximately 808 rental units in the Primary Market Area as of
January 2019.
3. Conclusions on Demand
With moderate household growth, two new rental proposals, this analysis demonstrates pent up
demand for rental housing over the next three years in the market area. As growth continues
through 2019, there will be more than sufficient demand to absorb an additional rental projects
planned in the Southside/ Rolling Hills area and further expand pent up demand to 808 units. In
addition, this analysis does not reflect the extensive and increasing need for affordable housing
in this market. Within a tight rental market, an increasing percentage of households are rent
burdened, pointing to the pressure for an expansion of the affordable housing stock.
D. Overall Conclusion on Rental Demand and Affordability
Based on our analyses of affordability, net demand for general rental housing and indicators of
affordable housing need, we present our recommendations for developing new rental housing in
the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and wider Primary Market Area. Key findings of
the analyses include:

The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area constitutes a low-income submarket
where rent-subsidized units might be expected to thrive. Seven out of ten renter
households have incomes at or below 40 percent of AMI, and about 80 percent of these
earn less than 30 percent of AMI. One half of senior renters in the Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area have incomes of no more than 30 percent of AMI.

Renter household incomes in the Primary Market Area trend somewhat higher than
renter household incomes in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area; however,
almost three quarters of renter households have incomes at or below 60 percent of AMI.
P ag e 67
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Rental Affordability and Demand

Limited numbers of households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and the
Primary Market Area would qualify for LIHTC rental units without rent subsidies,
assuming a 35 percent gross rent burden and rents somewhat lower than the prevailing
rents at recently developed local LIHTC communities. If rents were raised to existing
rent levels at LIHTC communities, the number of eligible households would be even
lower.

Only 5.3 percent of renters in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and 12.9
percent of renters in the Primary Market Area have incomes at or above the area
median, suggesting a limited demand for higher-end market-rate rental units.

There appears to be pent-up demand for over 500 new rental units through January 1,
2017 and a greater pent-up demand of 800 units through January 1, 2019. These
numbers are consistent with the DHA’s plan to add several hundred new residential
rental units in the Study Area in addition to replacing the 350 Public Housing units once
McDougald Terrace is demolished.

If the partners in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area program elect to pursue
new rental units in the short-term, an appropriately priced affordable general occupancy
and a mix of affordable/ subsidized senior rental community may prove the best
opportunities based on limited vacancies at existing LIHTC general occupancy
communities and virtually full occupancies at all existing independent senior
communities (both subsidized and non-subsidized).

Forty-nine percent of all renters and nearly 39 percent of age 65+ renters in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area are cost burdened, an indicator of need for
rental units serving very low-income households.
P ag e 68
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For Sale Affordability
8. FOR SALE AFFORDABILITY
To measure the income-qualified potential target market for for-sale housing in the Primary
Market Area, RPRG conducted an affordability analysis to determine the range of new home
prices that might be affordable in the Primary Market Area. (Table 32). RPRG has estimated
these prices since there is no recent new single family home construction in the PMA.
Our affordability analysis makes the following assumptions in calculating the expected monthly
payments for homes at each of the four base prices analyzed:






Options selected by the homebuyer will add 15 percent to the base price
A down payment of 5.0 percent
A 30-year mortgage with a 5.0 percent interest rate assuming mortgage insurance
A $25 to $65 monthly community or association fee
A $25 to $65 monthly homeowner’s insurance premium
A property tax rate equivalent to 1.34 percent of the taxable value of the property, with
taxable value equal to 100 percent of the property’s assessed value
We further assume that underwriting standards would consider a unit affordable to a household
spending up to 28 percent of its income for principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI).
Table 32 2015 For-Sale Affordability Analysis, Primary Market Area
Product
SF
Base Price
$100,000
Base Price plus 15% Options
$115,000
% Down Payment
5%
$ Down Payment
$5,750
Term
30
Interest Rate
5.00%
Local Property Tax Rate
$1.34
Homeowner Insurance
$25
Condominium Fee/ Homeowner Assoc
$25
Payment
$780
Income Range
$26,757
# Qualified Hslds
6,650
% of Total PMA Households
50.0%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census,Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
SF
$150,000
$172,500
5%
$8,625
30
5.00%
$1.34
$35
$35
$1,166
$39,964
4,763
35.8%
SF
$200,000
$230,000
5%
$11,500
30
5.00%
$1.34
$45
$45
$1,551
$53,172
3,283
24.7%
SF
$250,000
$287,500
5%
$14,375
30
5.00%
$1.34
$55
$55
$1,936
$66,379
2,359
17.7%
SF
$300,000
$345,000
5%
$17,250
30
5.00%
$1.34
$65
$65
$2,321
$79,586
1,609
12.1%
As shown in Table 32, 6,650 households, one-half of the households projected to reside in the
PMA in 2015, would be able to afford a $100,000 home (roughly twice the median sales price of
existing homes sold in the PMA over the last 21 months). This percentage drops to 25 percent
(3,283 households) on a $200,000 home and to 12 percent (1,609 households) on a $300,000
homes.
While the affordability analysis indicates deep pools of income-qualified households that could
afford homes priced between $100,000 and $200,000 and more limited numbers above
$200,000, the demand for new homeownership units cannot be tied directly to the calculated
numbers of income-qualified households. The near collapse of the for-sale housing market
nationally and the subsequent tightening of lending restrictions significantly lowered demand for
P ag e 69
Southeast Central Durham CNI | For Sale Affordability
for-sale housing units in most markets. The national trend over the past several years has been
away from homeownership and toward rental housing. For example, the Primary Market Area
lost a net of 656 homeowner households between 2000 and 2010, while at the same time only
losing 351 renter households. This trend is buoyed by ‘renters by choice’, those households that
could afford a for-sale housing unit but opt for a rental unit instead. Despite low home values,
many households in the Primary Market Area likely elect to rent due to concerns about
employment stability, concerns about resale value, the costs of maintaining older units, and
other reasons.
P ag e 70
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
9. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Key Findings
1. Site and Area Analysis
McDougald Terrace, the primary Durham site currently targeted through the Choice
Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI), is a suitable location for redevelopment with new residential
products. The site is close to many key institutional anchors, most notably North Carolina Central
University, that provide stability, employment, and potential new residents.

Not only is the subject several blocks from NCCU and Durham Technical Community
College, it is within two miles of the re-emerging downtown area of Durham, four miles
from the Duke University Campuses and the Duke Medical complex, and ten miles from
the heart of the Research Triangle Park.

The site is easily accessed via major thoroughfares and is mostly surrounded by longestablished modest, yet generally well maintained, single-family detached homes.

Anchored by NCCU in the heart of the CNI Study Area, the two massive redevelopment
projects - the Southside/ Rolling Hills program on the northwestern side (and the
redevelopment of the adjacent Fayette Place site) and the proposed redevelopment of
the McDougald Terrace site (along with the adjacent Lincoln Apartments parcel) on the
eastern side should provide the necessary scale to regenerate the Study Area.
2. Economic Analysis
Durham County has successfully transitioned from a low wage manufacturing economy to a welldiversified growing modern economy, buoyed by the twin economic engines of the Duke
University/ Medical campuses and the Research Triangle Park. The solid economic footing has
helped the area weather the recent recession in better shape than most areas.

Major employers in Durham are Duke University and Duke Medical Center (34,000
employees, 14,000 students) about two miles west of the original downtown area and
companies in the Research Triangle Park (49,000 employees), located ten miles to the
south.

The continuing revitalization of downtown Durham, centered on the adaptive reuse of
millions of square feet of former tobacco warehouses, has created a third leg for
economic growth. The emerging new downtown has attracted scores of loft residential
communities, offices, studios, restaurants, and entertainment venues.

The CNI Study Area is strategically located central to all three economic drivers – four
miles east of the Duke campuses, one mile south of downtown, and ten miles northeast
of RTP. Two other large educational institutions are located within and adjacent to the
CNI Study Area – North Carolina Central University with 1,434 employees and Durham
Technical Community College with 791 employees.

Since 2000, the local unemployment rate in Durham County consistently remained below
state and national rates even though the state of North Carolina’s rate generally tracked
higher than the national rate. As of Q2 2013, the county’s unemployment rate stood at
7.2 percent, falling from a peak of 8.4 percent in 2010, two points below the state rate of
9.2 percent and 0.5 point below the national rate of 7.7 percent.

Since 2010, the level of at-place employment has rebounded growing to 184,500 jobs in
2012, about 1,000 greater than the previous peak year of 2008. Over a period of 13
years, Durham County’s job base has grown by 17,600 jobs, a gain of 10.6 percent.
P ag e 71
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
3. Demographic Analysis
RPRG projects ongoing moderate upward trends in population and households for both the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and the Primary Market Area over the next five years
recovering from losses between 2000 and 2010. Senior households for both areas will grow at
faster rates than the general population. The population in both areas is characterized by
younger (particular for the Study Area), lower-income households.

The boundaries of the two census tract area used to approximate the Southeast Central
Durham CNI Study Area encompass a larger area than the actual CNI neighborhood. The
population of our analysis area, based on the 2010 US Census, stood at 13,777 persons
compared to the actual CNI neighborhood 2010 population of 7,200 persons, or 52.3
percent of the total of RPRG’s CNI market area.

The 12 census-tract Primary Market Area, drawn to define a residential market area that
would include competitive multi-family communities, incorporates the five tracts of the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area and additional tracts to the north, south, east,
and west, encompassing the central part of Durham including downtown.

RPRG projects moderate increases of 145 households per year (1.2 percent) in the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area through 2018 and increases of 399 households
per year (1.1 percent) in the Primary Market Area.

Age 62+ senior households are expected to increase in both jurisdictions at paces
significantly greater than that experienced by the general population over the coming
five-year period , which is due in part to aging-in-place as opposed to in-migration of
senior households.

The median age among residents of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is 25
years, compared to 31 years for the Primary Market Area. Between 27 and 32 percent of
the renter households in both geographies are established households between ages of
35-61. These households are more likely to be permanent renters.

The Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area constitutes a low-income market - RPRG
estimates the 2013 median household income at $19,201. Incomes in the Primary
Market Area trend more moderate, with a median household income of $25,785. Fortyeight percent of the renter households in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area
have annual incomes below $15,000.

Both family and senior renter households in the Primary Market Area tend to pay a very
high percentage of their monthly income toward housing costs. Households with rent
burdens higher than 35 percent are considered ‘cost-burdened’. Forty-seven percent of
family households and 39 percent of 65+ renter households have rent burdens of 35
percent or higher.
4. Competitive General Occupancy and Senior Rental Environment
The rental market is healthy, with low vacancy rates. Almost all of the affordable communities
(eight of nine) are tax credit properties – the two most recent market rate communities are
higher end adaptive reuse loft projects in downtown commanding much higher rents than the
remainder of the surveyed rental stock.

The rental housing stock in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is old - the
median rental unit was built in 1965, and thus was about 48 years old. The median age
of rental units in the Primary Market Area is comparable. About one out of every six
renter-occupied units in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area was built after
1980.
P ag e 72
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions

The general occupancy rental market vacancy rate is a low 3.7 percent with no leasing
specials.

Average effective rents of the nine affordable communities at all income targets are:
o
o
o
One-bedroom units at $681 for 766 square feet or $0.89 per square foot.
Two-bedroom units at $666 for 875 square feet or $0.76 per square foot.
Three-bedroom units at $853 for 1,241 square feet or $0.69 per square foot.

The two downtown Tobacco District communities are in a separate rental environment
commanding rents double to triple the Middle/ Lower Tier rents.

Three senior independent living rental communities with and inventory of 222 nonsubsidized units operate in the Primary Market Area. As of RPRG’s October 2013 surveys,
the overall vacancy rate was a nominal 2.3 percent - five units out of 222 units were
vacant. Each community reported only one to two vacancies
5. Rent-Subsidized Rental Environment
Virtually full occupancy at rent-subsidized rental and public housing communities plus waiting
lists for these communities and the Housing Choice Voucher program suggest high demand for
affordable rental housing among the Primary Market Area’s lowest-income households.

Eight of the 17 rent-subsidized communities are restricted to seniors and contain 671
units. The vacancy rate for the senior communities is a low 1.0 percent. The nine rentsubsidized general occupancy communities contain a total of 947 units and the vacancy
rate is 2.6 percent. All properties report waiting lists.

DHA administers the 2,744 voucher Housing Choice Voucher program for the Durham
County and City. As of October 13, 2013, all vouchers were are being used and the
waiting list is now closed with 900 names on the waiting list. There were 2,665
applicants on the waiting list for public housing in the city and county.
6. For-Sale Housing Analysis
Home prices in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area are among the lowest in a Primary
Market Area with a moderately-valued homeownership stock. There are no new privately
financed home communities; the only active community is a small high- end infill condominium
project in the downtown area.

The median sales price of existing properties in the primary market area is $50,000, 43
percent greater than the median sales price of $35,000 in the CNI Study Area. The sales
prices in the Primary Market Area are primarily clustered in the low range ($25,000 to
$39,999) that contain 22.5 percent of sales, the very low range (less than $25,000) that
contain 17.9 percent of sales with a spike in the $200,000 and above price range which
account for 18.3 percent of sales.

The sales prices of existing units in the study area are clustered in the low range
($25,000 to $39,999) that contain 36.5 percent of sales, the very low range (less than
$25,000) that contain 23.5 percent of sales and a moderate range ($50,000 to $59,999)
that contains 12.9 percent of sales.

During the last 21 months, a home in the in the Primary Market area took approximately
60 days to sell, longer than it took to sell in the CNI Study Area (51 days).

The owner-occupied housing stock in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area is
older with a median year built of 1959 compared to the age of the owner-occupied
stocks of the Primary Market Area (1963) and Durham County (1986).
P ag e 73
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions

The DHA has sponsored a successful homeownership program through the targeted use
of HOPE VI Mortgage Assistance Grants and the Homeownership Institute (a program
that educates potential homeowners about purchasing and maintaining homes). Since
October 2010, 67 homes scattered throughout Durham County (a mixture of resales and
new homes) have been sold under this program.
7. Residential Pipeline
The residential development pipeline in the Primary Market Area is concentrated in the
Southside/ Rolling Hills redevelopment area. Two affordable rental projects have been identified
with others programmed for later stages

The first project, a 132 unit general occupancy community being developed by
McCormack Baron Salazar, was awarded tax credits by NCHFA in 2011 and is currently
under construction with completion by end of 2014.

The second project is the proposed adaptive use of the Whitted School campus into 89
senior apartments and a pre-K learning center. The project was not approved in the
current tax credit round but is being resubmitted in the 2014 round.

The Master Plan for Southside/ Rolling Hills proposes a total of 398 rental units when
totally built out. Assuming the first two projects are built, another 177 rental units are
planned.

The Master Plan for Southside/ Rolling Hills also proposes 152 for sale units. The first
phase, totaling 48 units, is scheduled to begin development in 2014. Bungalow style
homes are expected to sell for $150,000 to $200,000 with numerous incentives for
potential buyers relative to interest rates, equity grants, homeowner training, and loan
deferments.

Scattered small scale condominium developments are being proposed in the downtown
area targeted at price levels well beyond the scope of the CNI Study Area.
B. Product Recommendations
The Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grant awarded to the DHA specifically identifies several sites
as targets for redevelopment including the primary target – the 360 unit McDougald Terrace
campus (25 acre site); the vacant Lincoln Apartments (10 acre site); and the former Fayette Place
Apartments (20 acre site).
The proximate location of the McDougald and Lincoln sites will create a unified 45 acre
redevelopment parcel that should provide sufficient scale to significantly impact and upgrade the
immediate residential community. In a similar fashion, the proximity of the Fayette Place site to
the much larger Southside/ Rolling Hills redevelopment campus will also create a scale large
enough to transform the entire area. The central location of the NCCU campus in between these
two targeted areas provides key linkages and a stabilizing influence.
Based on data and market conditions, a healthy pent-up demand for 808 units of rental housing
through January 1, 2019 has been calculated that corresponds with the client’s target goal of
replacing the 360 unit McDougald Terrace with a 700 to 900 unit mixed-use and mixed income
residential community spread over various sites. One potential development program is
summarized below with specific product recommendations following for each proposed uses
(Table 33).
Overall we recommend that 815 new residential units to be phased in over a five year period.
This schedule is a general outline of possible outcomes that can be fine-tuned over the planning
process with additions, subtractions, and/ or revisions as more specific programmatic elements
P ag e 74
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
are proposed. Forty-four percent of the proposed units are replacement units for McDougald
Terrace and would be located within the CNI Study Area, spread over the three sites. We also
suggest two mid-rise independent senior facilities (one affordable and one subsidized) located on
the McDougald/ Lincoln parcels sited close enough to utilize shared amenities. We also
recommend locating an affordable/ market rate general occupancy project in the Fayette Place
parcel close to a similar community currently under construction in Southside and the higher end
downtown rental communities. Another general occupancy mixed income community
(affordable/ Section 8) could be located on the McDougald site. The final phase is a small for-sale
component that will either be scattered throughout the neighborhood or targeted on a specific
redevelopment area with the CNI Study Area. Homeownership programs are typically the last
portion of a redevelopment program to take root since potential homebuyers are protective
about preserving their home equity.
As outlined, 80 percent of units (660) are targeted to general occupancy tenancies and 20
percent (165) are targeted to seniors. Subsidized, income-based tenancies comprise 62 percent
of units (178) and the remaining 38 percent of units (317) are non-subsidized affordable and
market rate tenancies.
Table 33 Proposed Redevelopment of McDougald, Lincoln & Fayette Place Sites
Type
LIHTC - 30%, 50%, 60%.
Section 8 (40%)
Public Housing
Sect 8/ LIHTC
LIHTC 60%, Market
Public Housing
LIHTC - 30%, 50%, 60%
For Sale
Totals - Site
Target Market
Age -Restricted
General Occupancy
Target
Market
General
Occupancy
General
Occupancy
Senior - 62+
General
Occupancy
General
Occupancy
Senior - 62+
General
Occupancy
Total
Units
%
1 BR
2 BR
3 BR
120
15%
44
68
8
300
37%
105
95
70
100
12%
84
16
120
15%
36
72
12
60
7%
25
20
10
65
8%
55
10
50
6%
36
4BR
30
5
14
815
100%
349
281
136
49
No.
%
Rental Program
No.
165
20%
Affordable/ Subsidized
508
650
80%
Affordable/ Market Rate
307
Completed by 1/1/2017
465
Completed by 1/1/2019
Location
Timing
McDougald
1/1/2017
McDougald, Lincoln, Fayette
Place
1/1/2017
Lincoln
1/1/2017
Fayette Place
1/1/2019
McDougald, Lincoln
1/1/2019
McDougald
Scattered Site or Targeted
Redevelopment Area
1/1/2019
1/1/2019
%
62%
38%
350
1. General Occupancy Subsidized Community:
Based on our affordability analysis, occupancy levels at existing rent-subsidized general
occupancy properties and the status of the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list, rent-subsidized
rental units are most in demand in the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area. Thus, care
should be taken to preserve the existing number of occupied general occupancy public housing
units (360) at McDougald Terrace. The replacement units would be located within the
boundaries of the CNI Study Area scattered among the three identified sites.
We suggest providing a mix of unit types such as garden, duplex, and townhouse units to create
different densities and an appealing design that incorporates more open spaces, play areas, and
passive recreation than currently offered at McDougald Terrace. Weighing demand derived from
waiting lists versus current floor plans, we suggest a greater focus on smaller units with 130 one
bedrooms (16 percent), following by 115 two bedroom units (32 percent), 80 three bedroom
units (22 percent), and 35 four bedroom units (18 percent). RPRG recommends one-bedroom
P ag e 75
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
unit sizes of 700 square feet, two-bedroom unit sizes of 900 square feet, three-bedroom unit
sizes of 1,150 square feet, and four-bedroom sizes of 1,300 square feet (Table 34).
Table 34 Proposed Public Housing Apartments
Beds
Baths
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
2.5
Project Total
No.
130
115
80
35
360
% of
% of
Existing Proposed
16%
36%
38%
32%
28%
22%
18%
10%
Area (SF)
Rent*
700
Inc Based
900
Inc Based
1150
Inc Based
1300
Inc Based
Program
PH
PH
PH
PH
% on WL
47%
17%
8%
1%
Note: One bedroom % on Waiting List includes studios and one bedrooms
Target populations would be similar to existing residents – single person households, single
parent households with children, coupled households, and families. In unit features for
subsidized/ public housing apartments should feature refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, and
washer-dryer hook-ups. Common area amenities should include a community room, computer
room, exercise area, laundry rooms, playgrounds, basketball courts, and outdoor sitting/ grilling
areas.
2. General Occupancy Affordable/ Market Rate Rental Community:
Existing market rate general occupancy communities are performing well with vacancies below 5
percent - the two downtown high-end communities are 3.4 percent vacant and the two older
more affordable communities are 4.5 vacant. There is a small band of households (19 percent of
PMA renter households) who could afford market rate rents targeted to units at 80% to 120% of
AMI that is large enough to support some additional market rate products.
There are currently a limited number of market rate communities in the PMA besides the two
high-end downtown tobacco loft developments. Edgemont Elms, built in 1989, is the newest
community that targets market rate tenants. In this case, the tax credit window expired and rents
were increased to 80% AMI. However, the current LIHTC community under construction in
Southside contains 39 market rate units.
We have recommended a mixed income community project on the Fayette Place parcel, close to
a similar community currently under construction in Southside and proximate to the higher end
rental communities in downtown. The proposed units mix is outlined in Table 35.
P ag e 76
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
Table 35 Proposed Mixed-Income LIHTC/ Market Rate Apartments
Beds
Baths
1
1
1
1
One Bedroom Total
2
2
2
2
Two Bedroom Total
3
2
3
2
Three Bedroom Total
Project Total
No.
28
8
36
56
16
72
9
3
12
120
%
23%
7%
30%
47%
13%
60%
8%
3%
10%
Area (SF)
Rent*
Rent/ SF
Program
950
950
$746
$1,036
$0.79
$1.09
60%
Market
1200
1200
$852
$1,187
$0.71
$0.99
60%
Market
725
725
$624
$865
LIHTC= 78%
$0.86
$1.19
Market=
60%
Market
23%
*All utilities paid by landlord except water, sewer, trash
Note: Tax Credit rents are estimated at 95 percent of allowable rents; market rents are set at 95 percent of
80% AMI rents
We have suggested a 120 unit mixed income project comprised of 93 LIHTC units targeting 60%
AMI (78 percent) and 27 market rate units (23 percent). One bedroom units comprise 30 percent
of units (36 units); two bedroom units comprise 60 percent of units (72 units); and three
bedroom units comprise 10 percent of units (12 units). Recommended sizes are 725 square feet
for one bedroom units, 950 square feet for two bedrooms and 1,200 square feet for three
bedrooms units.
We have proposed pricing for the LIHTC units for illustrative purposes only. Depending on final
configuration, financing options, and design constraints, the ultimate pricing structure could look
different.
Pricing for the 60% AMI unit are 95 percent of the allowed maximum rents per the 2013 Income
Limits and Maximum Rents guideline issued by HUD for the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC HUD Metro
FMR Area (Table 27) and are comparable to most existing 60% AMI rents in the PMA. Proposed
market rate rents are priced at 95 percent of the 80% AMI allowed maximum rents - $865 for
one bedroom units, $1,036 for two bedroom units and $1,187 for three bedroom units. The
relative positioning of these rents are illustrated in the scatter grams presented in Figure 9 (the
30% and 40% AMI rents for the second general occupancy community are also presented on the
scatter gram).
P ag e 77
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
Figure 9 Price Positioning – Mixed Income Community CNI Study Area
One Bedroom Rent by Unit Size
1,050
Apts at American Tobacco
Square Feet
950
West Village
850
Eagle Point
Main Street TH-50%
750
Subject-60%
Subject-Mkt
Market Rate
Subject-50%
Subject-30%
Calvert Place-60%
Tax Credit
650
$225
$325
$425
$525
$625
$725
$825
$925
$1,025
$1,125
$1,225
$1,325
Net Rent
Two Bedroom Rent by Unit Size
1,300
Main Street TH-50%
1,200
Franklin Village-60%
Apts at American Tobacco
Calvert Place-60%
1,100
West Village
Square Feet
1,000
Eagle Point
Subject-30%
900
Subject-Mkt
Subject-60%
Subject-50%
Lakemoor-60%
800
Glendale-45% & 60%
700
600
$275
Stewarts Heights,
Square, Circle-40%
Market Rate
Stewarts Heights,
Square, Circle-60%
Tax Credit
Lovett Square-45%
$375
$475
$575
$675
$775
$875
$975
$1,075
$1,175
$1,275
$1,375
$1,475
$1,575
$1,675
$1,775
$1,875
Net Rent
P ag e 78
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
Three Bedroom Rent by Unit Size
2,300
Apts at American Tobacco
2,100
1,900
Square Feet
1,700
Calvert Place-60%
1,500
West Village
1,300
Main Street TH-50%
Franklin Village-60%
Subject-60%
1,100
Subject50%
Subject-Mkt
Lakemoor-60%
Market Rate
Tax Credit
900
$400
Lovett Square-45%
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
$2,200
$2,400
$2,600
Net Rent

One bedroom units are slightly larger than the one bedroom units at Calvert Place built in
2005 and the new units being built at Southside and are smaller than the Main Street
townhouses and the oversized downtown loft models. The 60% AMI rent is positioned
below the one 50% AMI rent and above the older Eagle Point market rate unit. The
market rate rent is positioned higher than the Calvert Place 60% AMI units and well
below the downtown comps.

Two bedroom units are sized in the mid-range of surveyed units. The 60% AMI rent is
also located in the mid-range of other surveyed 60% AMI comps. The market rate rent is
higher than the 60% AMI rents at Franklin Village and Calvert Place and below the two
downtown properties.

Three bedroom units are sized in the middle range of the surveyed comps except for the
oversized loft models at American Tobacco. The 60% AMI rent is positioned in the lower
range of the other 50% and 60% AMI units. The market rent is above the tax credit rents
but significantly below the two downtown loft properties.
Target populations would be young professionals (single, coupled, and in roommate situations),
married and coupled households with or without small children, and empty nesters. Large
potential tenant pools are located at the North Carolina Central University campus, the Durham
Technical Community College, downtown Durham commercial and business establishments, and
the Duke educational and medical campuses.
We suggest in unit features such as refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, microwaves, and in-unit
washer-dryers. Common area amenities should include a resident lounge, business center,
P ag e 79
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
fitness facility, pool and playground. Parking should be provided at no extra charge on surface
parking lots.
Following our estimate of the depth of demand for net new rental units in the market area, we
next tested whether sufficient income qualified households would be available to support the
specific units at the affordable/ market rate property. This analysis is conducted independently
of the Demand for Rental Housing, as units that turn over at the subject property are likely to be
filled by a combination of new households and existing households moving within the market
area.
The affordability analysis tests the percent of income-qualified households in the market area
that the subject community would need to capture in order to achieve full occupancy. The first
component of the Affordability Analysis involves looking at total income and renter income
among market area households for the target year (hypothetical) of 2015. This is when the
majority of the subject’s units are likely to be available for lease. RPRG subsequently calculated
the income distribution for both total households and renter households based on the
relationship between owner and renter household incomes by income cohort from the 20072011 American Community Survey with estimates and projected income growth since the Census
(Table 36).
Table 36 2015 Total and Renter Income Distribution, Primary Market Area
Primary Market Area
less than
$15,000
$25,000
$35,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$150,000
$15,000
$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
$149,999
Over
Total
Median Income
Total Households
#
4,079
2,125
1,533
1,881
1,749
805
465
486
13,123
%
31.1%
16.2%
11.7%
14.3%
13.3%
6.1%
3.5%
3.7%
100%
$27,332
Renter Households
#
3,277
1,708
1,085
1,219
919
412
158
58
8,836
%
37.1%
19.3%
12.3%
13.8%
10.4%
4.7%
1.8%
0.7%
100%
$21,679
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011 Projections, RPRG, Inc.
A particular housing unit is typically said to be affordable to households that would be expending
a certain percentage of their annual income or less on the expenses related to living in that unit.
In the case of rental units, these expenses are generally of two types – monthly contract rents
paid to landlords and payment of utility bills for which the tenant is responsible. The sum of the
contract rent and utility bills is referred to as a household’s ‘gross rent burden’. This analysis is
based on a 35 percent rent burden. We have assumed that water, sewer, and trash are included
in the rent and all other utilities are paid by the tenant.
The steps in the affordability analysis (Table 37) are demonstrated for the subject’s 60% AMI onebedroom units. This analysis can be similarly applied to the 60% AMI two and three-bedroom
units and the market rate one, two, and three bedroom units. The steps are as follows:

There are a total of 28 one-bedroom units targeted to 60% AMI at the subject. The
average one-bedroom unit has a gross rent burden of $729 ($624 contract rent plus
P ag e 80
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
$105 utility allowance for tenant-paid utilities). By applying a 35 percent rent burden
to this gross rent, we determined that these one-bedroom units would be affordable
to households earning at least $24,994 per year. The projected number of market
area households earning at least this amount in 2015 is 6,920.

On the assumption of 1.5 persons per bedroom and an income ceiling of 60 percent
AMI, the maximum income for households renting a one-bedroom unit at the subject
is $30,480. According to the interpolated income distribution for 2015, there will be
6,079 households in the market area with incomes exceeding this upper income
limit.

Subtracting the 6,079 households with incomes above the maximum income limit
from the 6,920 households who have the minimum income necessary to rent this
unit, RPRG calculates that 841 households in the market area would be incomequalified for the subject’s one-bedroom units. The subject would have to capture 3.3
percent of these households to fill these 28 units.
P ag e 81
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
Table 37 Affordability Analysis General Occupancy Rental
60% Units
One Bedroom
Number of Units
Net Rent
Gross Rent
% Income for Shelter
Income Range (Min, Max)
Total Households
Range of Qualified Hslds
# Qualified Households
Total HH Capture Rate
Renter Households
Range of Qualified Hhdls
# Qualified Hhlds
Renter HH Capture Rate
80% Units
Number of Units
Net Rent
Gross Rent
% Income for Shelter
Income Range (Min, Max)
Total Households
Range of Qualified Hslds
# Qualified Households
Min.
28
$624
$729
35%
$24,994
$30,480
Min.
56
$746
$876
35%
$30,034
Max.
$36,600
Units
Min.
9
$852
$1,012
35%
$34,697
Max.
$42,270
No Data
Min.
0
--35%
na
Max.
0
6,079
841
3.3%
6,147
5,185
962
5.8%
5,432
4,474
958
0.9%
0
0
0
0
3,852
3,256
596
4.7%
3,305
2,636
669
8.4%
2,799
2,175
624
1.4%
0
0
0
na
One Bedroom
8
$865
$970
35%
$33,257
$40,640
5,653
4,679
974
Two Bedroom
16
$1,036
$1,166
35%
$39,977
$48,800
4,762
0.8%
2,955
2,307
647
1.2%
3,655
1,106
Three Bedroom
3
$1,187
$1,347
35%
$46,183
$56,360
3,984
1.4%
2,361
1,644
717
2.2%
All Households = 13,123
# Qualified
Band of Qualified Hhlds
HHs
$42,270
Income
$24,994
4,474
60% Units
93
Households
6,920
2,446
$56,360
Income
$33,257
3,060
80% Units
27
Households
5,653
2,593
Income
$24,994
$56,360
Total Units
120
Households
6,920
3,060
3,860
Source: 2010 U.S. Census,Esri, Estimates, RPRG, Inc.
Income
Target
Three Bedroom
6,920
Unit Total HH Capture Rate
Renter Households
Range of Qualified Hhdls
# Qualified Hhlds
Renter HH Capture Rate
Max.
Two Bedroom
3,060
923
No Data
0
--35%
na
0
0.3%
1,857
Capture Rate
3.8%
1.0%
3.1%
1,313
544
0.6%
0
0
0
na
0
0
0
na
Renter Households = 8,836
# Qualified
Band of Qualified Hhlds
Capture Rate
HHs
$42,270
$24,994
2,175
5.5%
3,852
1,677
$56,360
$33,257
1,313
1.6%
2,955
1,642
$24,994
$56,360
3,852
1,313
2,539
4.7%

Using the same methodology on the interpolated income distribution for renter
households in 2015, RPRG estimates there would be 596 renter households in the
market area in 2015 that would be income-qualified for these one-bedroom units.

The subject would need to capture 4.7 percent of these renter households in order
to fill all 28 units.

The same methodology was applied to test the affordability of the subject’s 60%
two-bedroom and three bedroom units, the market rate (80% AMI) units, and for the
project as a whole. Overall, the subject would need to capture 3.1 percent of all
income qualified households in the market area and 4.7 percent of all income
qualified renter households in order to lease all 120 units.
The renter capture rate of 4.7 percent suggests sufficient income-qualified renter households in
the market area in 2015 to absorb all 120 of the subject’s proposed units, even with an artificial
P ag e 82
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
rent ceiling of 80 percent AMI for market rate units.
reasonable and achievable.
RPRG judges that this capture rate is
3. General Occupancy Affordable/ Section 8 Rental Community:
This proposed community is more similar to the existing tax credit communities that offer a
combination of affordable and Section 8 subsidized units. The unit mix is similar to the mixedincome general occupancy example with the distinction that there are forty-eight 30% AMI units
carrying deep subsidies. The remaining units are divided among 50% and 60% units - there are
no market rate units (Table 38). Unit features and communities would also be similar to the
example described above.
Table 38 Proposed Subsidized/ Affordable General Occupancy Apartments
Beds
Baths
No.
1
1
24
1
1
12
1
1
8
One Bedroom Total 44
2
2
24
2
2
26
2
2
18
Two Bedroom Total 68
3
2
4
3
2
4
Three Bedroom Total 8
Project Total
120
%
20%
10%
7%
37%
20%
22%
15%
57%
3%
3%
7%
Area (SF)
Rent*
Rent/ SF
$0.36
$0.69
$0.86
30%/ Sect 8
50%
60%
950
950
950
$309
$601
$746
$0.33
$0.63
$0.79
30%/ Sect 8
50%
60%
1200
1200
$685
$852
$0.57
$0.71
50%
60%
725
725
725
$262
$503
$624
LIHTC= 60%
Program
Sect 8= 40%
*All utilities paid by landlord except water, sewer, trash
Note: Tax Credit rents are estimated at 95 percent of allowable rents.
4. Age-Restricted Senior Rental Community
A limited number of senior households would qualify for non-rent subsidized affordable units only 18 to 21 percent of seniors in both the study area and PMA fall within the 30 to 60 percent
AMI range. However, the three affordable non-subsidized independent senior communities in
the PMA enjoy very low vacancy rates and carry waiting lists. In addition, given the virtual 100
percent occupancy at the eight communities containing 671 rent-subsidized units and the large
pool of lower income senior renters, there appears to be a need for additional subsidized senior
rental housing in the Primary Market Area. We thus suggest a two tiered approach - a smaller tax
credit community with no subsidies sized at 65 units (Table 39) and a larger 100 unit subsidized
senior facility (Table 40). If one property is located on the southern portion of the McDougald
parcel and the other property is located on the northern portion of the Lincoln parcel, the two
senior residences would create a mini-senior campus that could utilize shared amenities.
P ag e 83
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
Table 39 Proposed Senior Residence in CNI Study Area without subsidy
Beds
No.
%
Area (SF)
Rent*
Rent/ SF
Program
1
1
1
1
1
1
One Bedroom Total
Baths
14
20
22
56
22%
31%
34%
86%
650
650
650
$262
$503
$624
$0.40
$0.77
$0.96
30%
50%
60%
2
1
2
1
Two Bedroom Total
2
7
9
3%
11%
14%
850
850
$309
$601
$0.36
$0.71
30%
50%
Project Total
65
LIHTC= 100%
*All utilities paid by landlord except water, sewer, trash
Note: Tax Credit rents are estimated at 95 percent of allowable rents
Table 40 Proposed Senior Residence in CNI Study Area with subsidy
Beds
Baths
No.
%
Area (SF)
Rent*
Rent/ SF
Program
1
1
One Bedroom Total
84
84
84%
84%
650
Inc Based
n/a
30%/ Sect 8
2
1
Two Bedroom Total
16
16
16%
16%
850
Inc Based
n/a
30%/ Sect 8
Project Total
100
LIHTC/ Sect 8= 100%
*All utilities paid by landlord
Note: Tax Credit rents are estimated at 95 percent of allowable rents
Since most senior households consist of one member, we propose primarily one bedroom
apartments (85 percent) with 15 percent of the units designed as two bedroom apartments for
both communities. Recommended units sizes are 650 square feet for one bedroom units and 850
square feet for two bedroom units that are comparable in size to other tax credit communities.
The facilities would offer interior hallways and elevator service.
Senior residences should feature refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, emergency pull chords, and
grab bars. Centralized laundry rooms are suitable in a multifamily building with enclosed
corridors. A common area community room and wellness room should also be provided with
such outdoor features as benches and/or gazebo.
5. For-Sale Community
No traditional single family for-sale market-rate housing subdivisions are currently active or
planned in the Primary Market Area. We do not recommend launching a sizable traditional forsale subdivision or scattered site program as part of the Choice Neighborhoods effort, as the
isolation from new activity would likely impede sales. We have identified a 150 community with
for-sale bungalow, duplex, and townhouse style homes planned in the Southside/ Rolling Hills
(SRH) subdivision that should appear over the next five years. This community will be publicly
subsidized by city/ county contributions of land and infrastructure, deferred equity grants/ loans,
and low interest loan. A possible strategy would be to leverage this investment and develop a
small for sale community in the Fayette Place campus that will build upon the future track record
of new homeowners in the SRH. It would be prudent to begin this program on the tail end of the
McDougald redevelopment period so that market forces could possibly start playing a larger role.
P ag e 84
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
Another strategy would be to leverage the successful homeownership program operated under
the auspices of the Resident Services Department of the Durham Housing Authority onto the new
plans for the CNI Study Area. The program utilized residential funds left over the city HOPE VI
accounts that enabled 67 Durham County residents to purchase a home with the assistance of
Hope VI equity grants and the DHA’s Homeowner Institute. However, the potential homeowners
were not restricted to any particular area. If additional funds can be identified to provide a pool
for equity grants, it could be possible to establish a similar program for the CNI Study Area.
However, the legality of restricting homeownership choices under a grant program is beyond the
expertise of this consultant. It might be easier to designate a specific block area for development
(as mentioned above) and funnel the grant funds to this project.
Given the dominance of single-family detached housing in the Southeast Central Durham CNI
Study Area, any future for-sale housing units pursued by DHA should be detached in nature
comparable to the bungalow models being proposed in parts of the SRH. We are proposing up to
50 single family homes, built in phases, offering three and four bedroom two –story models that
could be a combination of new construction and renovation of existing structures. Floor plans
could range in size from 1,500 to 1,750 square feet with base prices starting from $150,000 to
$195,000, similar to the program currently proposed in SRH.
Unit features could include
hardwood flooring in living area, stainless steel appliances, upgraded wood cabinets and
countertops, ceramic tile in baths, and a front porch and rear deck.
Equity and financing would be underwritten by a combination of state/ federal programs and
public grants. If the SRH program becomes established, it might be possible limit public
involvement and/or raise base prices.
The for sale affordability analysis described in an earlier section indicates that 25 to 35 percent of
PMA households could “theoretically” afford homes priced in this range assuming 5 percent
equity and 5 percent, 30 year term mortgages. While this range appear to indicate deep pools of
income-qualified households that could afford homes at this price level, the demand for new
homeownership units cannot be tied directly to the calculated numbers of income-qualified
households. The near collapse of the for-sale housing market nationally and the subsequent
tightening of lending restrictions significantly lowered demand for for-sale housing units in most
markets. The national trend over the past several years has been away from homeownership
and toward rental housing. Despite low home values, many households in the Primary Market
Area likely elect to rent due to concerns about employment stability, concerns about resale
value, the costs of maintaining older units, and other reasons.
We have recommended a preliminary unit mix schedule for this program located within the
Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area that would consist of 50 units split among three basic
models.
Table 41 Proposed For Sale Prototype Community
Beds
Baths
No.
%
Area (SF)
Sale Price
3
2
18
36%
1,490
$150,000
3
2
18
36%
1,655
$175,000
14
50
28%
1,750
$195,000
4
2
Project Total
Program
Land/ infrastructure public grants;
deferred equity loans; low interest
financing (portion forgiven after
long term residency)
P ag e 85
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Findings and Conclusions
Targeted households would be similar to those at the mixed income rental development but less
transient in nature – young and middle-age professionals, single and dual parent households with
young children, and older households who are well established or close to retirement.
C. Overall Conclusions
Viable options for development of a mix of residential options exist at the McDougald, Lincoln,
and Fayette Place sites. In addition, the substantial redevelopment of the Southside/ Rolling Hills
area will revitalize the northwestern portion of the Study Area and enhance the likelihood of
success for the entire community. The Study Area is further strengthened by the North Carolina
Central University anchor and proximity to the Duke University/ Medical campuses and RTP that
provide stability, economic opportunities, and a captive resident pool. To accomplish the
transformation of the Southeast Central Durham CNI Study Area requires vision and careful
planning on the part of the City of Durham leadership team.
Projects with the greatest likelihood for success over the coming five years include a rentsubsidized senior community, an affordable senior community, replacement general occupancy
public housing, and both a mixed income and an affordable/ subsidized general occupancy
community. There is also an opportunity to develop a small scale for-sale program in the latter
stages of the Study Area development period either situated close to the home ownership
community being planned in the Southside/ Rolling Hills community or scattered throughout the
CNI Study Area.
We hope you find this analysis helpful in your decision making process.
_______________________
Jerry Levin
Senior Analyst
____________________
Robert M. Lefenfeld
Managing Principal
P ag e 86
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Appendix 1 Underlying Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
10. APPENDIX 1 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING
CONDITIONS
In conducting the analysis, we will make the following assumptions, except as otherwise noted in
our report:
1. There are no zoning, building, safety, environmental or other federal, state or local laws,
regulations or codes which would prohibit or impair the development, marketing or operation of
the subject project in the manner contemplated in our report, and the subject project will be
developed, marketed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and codes.
2. No material changes will occur in (a) any federal, state or local law, regulation or code
(including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) affecting the subject project, or (b) any
federal, state or local grant, financing or other program which is to be utilized in connection with
the subject project.
3. The local, national and international economies will not deteriorate, and there will be no
significant changes in interest rates or in rates of inflation or deflation.
4. The subject project will be served by adequate transportation, utilities and governmental
facilities.
5. The subject project will not be subjected to any war, energy crisis, embargo, strike,
earthquake, flood, fire or other casualty or act of God.
6. The subject project will be on the market at the time and with the product anticipated in our
report, and at the price position specified in our report.
7. The subject project will be developed, marketed and operated in a highly professional
manner.
8. No projects will be developed which will be in competition with the subject project, except as
set forth in our report.
9. There are neither existing judgments nor any pending or threatened litigation, which could
hinder the development, marketing or operation of the subject project.
P ag e 87
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Appendix 1 Underlying Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
The analysis will be subject to the following limiting conditions, except as otherwise noted in our
report:
1. The analysis contained in this report necessarily incorporates numerous estimates and
assumptions with respect to property performance, general and local business and economic
conditions, the absence of material changes in the competitive environment and other matters.
Some estimates or assumptions, however, inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated
events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results achieved during the period
covered by our analysis will vary from our estimates and the variations may be material.
2. Our absorption estimates are based on the assumption that the product recommendations
set forth in our report will be followed without material deviation.
3. All estimates of future dollar amounts are based on the current value of the dollar, without
any allowance for inflation or deflation.
4. We have no responsibility for considerations requiring expertise in other fields. Such
considerations include, but are not limited to, legal matters, environmental matters, architectural
matters, geologic considerations, such as soils and seismic stability, and civil, mechanical,
electrical, structural and other engineering matters.
5. Information, estimates and opinions contained in or referred to in our report, which we have
obtained from sources outside of this office, are assumed to be reliable and have not been
independently verified.
6. The conclusions and recommendations in our report are subject to these Underlying
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and to any additional assumptions or conditions set forth in
the body of our report.
P ag e 88
Southeast Central Durham CNI | APPENDIX 2 Resumes
11.
APPENDIX 2 RESUMES
P ag e 89
ROBERT M. LEFENFELD
Managing Principal
Mr. Lefenfeld is the Managing Principal of the firm with over 30 years of experience in the field of
residential market research. Before founding Real Property Research Group in February, 2001, Bob
served as an officer of research subsidiaries of the accounting firm of Reznick Fedder & Silverman
and Legg Mason. Between 1998 and 2001, Bob was Managing Director of RF&S Realty Advisors,
conducting market studies throughout the United States on rental and for sale projects. From 1987 to
1995, Bob served as Senior Vice President of Legg Mason Realty Group, managing the firm’s
consulting practice and serving as publisher of a Mid-Atlantic residential data service, Housing
Market Profiles. Prior to joining Legg Mason, Bob spent ten years with the Baltimore Metropolitan
Council as a housing economist. Bob also served as Research Director for Regency Homes between
1995 and 1998, analyzing markets throughout the Eastern United States and evaluating the
company’s active building operation.
Bob oversees the execution and completion of all of the firm’s research assignments, ranging from a
strategic assessment of new development and building opportunities throughout a region to the
development and refinement of a particular product on a specific site. He combines extensive
experience in the real estate industry with capabilities in database development and information
management. Over the years, he has developed a series of information products and proprietary
databases serving real estate professionals.
Bob has lectured and written extensively on the subject of residential real estate market analysis. He
has served as a panel member, speaker, and lecturer at events held by the National Association of
Homebuilders, the National Council on Seniors’ Housing and various local homebuilder associations.
Bob serves as a visiting professor for the Graduate Programs in Real Estate Development, School of
Architecture, Planning and Preservation, University of Maryland College Park. He also serves as
Immediate Past Chair of the National Council of Affordable Housing Market Analysts (NCAHMA)
and is a board member of the Baltimore chapter of Lambda Alpha Land Economics Society.
AREAS OF CONCENTRATION:
•
•
•
Strategic Assessments: Mr. Lefenfeld has conducted numerous corridor analyses throughout the
United States to assist building and real estate companies in evaluating development
opportunities. Such analyses document demographic, economic, competitive, and proposed
development activity by submarket and discuss opportunities for development.
Feasibility Analysis: Mr. Lefenfeld has conducted feasibility studies for various types of
residential developments for builders and developers. Subjects for these analyses have included
for-sale single-family and townhouse developments, age-restricted rental and for-sale
developments, large multi-product PUDs, urban renovations and continuing care facilities for the
elderly.
Information Products: Bob has developed a series of proprietary databases to assist clients in
monitoring growth trends. Subjects of these databases have included for sale housing, pipeline
information, and rental communities. Information compiled is committed to a Geographic
Information System (GIS), facilitating the comprehensive integration of data.
EDUCATION:
Master of Urban and Regional Planning; The George Washington University.
Bachelor of Arts - Political Science; Northeastern University.
GERALD R. LEVIN
Senior Analyst
Mr. Levin has over 30 years of experience in all aspects of real estate development, financial and
market feasibility analyses, financing and due diligence, project management, marketing, and
development programming. Along with research experience with Real Property Research Group and
Gladstone Associates, his work experience has included development and asset management. Prior to
joining Real Property Research Group as a Director, Mr. Levin was part of senior management at
Landex Corporation, a regional development and property management firm specializing in
redevelopment of multi-family properties, and at Struever Bros., Eccles & Rouse, Baltimore’s largest
developer of historic properties. He served 12 years as Vice President of Chevy Chase/ B. F. Saul Co.
in Washington DC where he managed $300 million plus residential and commercial real estate
portfolios in both the development and work-out departments; served as Director of Development for
RS Properties in Baltimore, a real estate investment firm specializing in the historic redevelopment of
urban properties; and served as Financial Services Officer for the Baltimore Economic Development
Corporation.
AREAS OF CONCENTRATION:
•
•
•
Feasibility Analysis: Mr. Levin’s experience has encompassed a wide range of studies
including: residential (single-family, townhouse, multi-family, condominium, senior, active adult,
lot sales, tax credit), industrial, office, retail, research & development, special purpose (retreat
facilities, performing arts Centers, self-storage facilities, convention centers, conference
facilities), and mixed- use development. Recent studies have focused on family and senior tax
credit communities, inner-city revitalization projects, and due diligence for investment funds in
locations throughout the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
Site Analysis and Development Programming: Mr. Levin has a comprehensive background in
development including analysis of zoning and public ordinance compatibility, the neighborhood
setting, availability of utilities, public transit and road connections, market feasibility, community
issues, and developer experience. His development experience has included preparation of
development profiles based on site features and market, development of public/ private
partnerships to showcase “anchor” projects impacted by public infrastructure (i.e., transit
stations), project scheduling, coordination of financing, due diligence, community participation,
and coordination of critical issues – environment review, historic certification, historic tax credits,
transportation linkages, and parking.
Financial Analyses and Financial Packaging: Mr. Levin has a broad background in the
preparation of proforma development budgets and operating statements, analysis of economic
returns to owners and investors, the preparation of financial loan packages for review by potential
lenders, investors, and owners including project overview, project financial information, market
overview, status of required public approvals/ actions, and the oversight of the due diligence
process required for transfer of property and loan closings.
EDUCATION:
Master of Urban and Regional Planning; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Bachelor of Arts, Economics; Yale University
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Appendix 3 General Rental Community Profiles
12.
APPENDIX 3 GENERAL RENTAL COMMUNITY PROFILES
P ag e 90
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Apts at American Tobacco
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: Market Rate - General
300 Blackwell St, Apt 218
Durham,NC 27701
53 Units
Structure Type: 5-Story Mix
Last Major Rehab in 2008
0.0% Vacant (0 units vacant) as of 10/21/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
One
Opened in 1910
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
11.3%
$1,323
696
$1.90
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Centrl Lndry:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
5.7%
$1,325
1,000
$1.33
--
--
--
--
81.1%
$1,808
1,128
$1.60
Elevator:
Fitness:
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
1.9%
$2,535
2,206
$1.15
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
One/Den
Two
Two/Den
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; Microwave; In Unit Laundry (Stacked); Central
A/C; Hardwood / Carpet
Select Units: Patio/Balcony
Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Detached Garage
Fee: $0
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: Capital Broadcasting
Owner: --
Comments
Adaptive reuse of tobacco factory. Some 1BRs/1.5 ba; 2BRs have 1-2.5 ba. Sq ft is approx. Includes 8 commercial units.
Formerly managed by Greystar. Across from Performing Arts Center. Grilling area. Bike storage available. 2-4 stories.
Parking fee is variable & may change under new management. Renovations to begin soon on upper levels.
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/21/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
Program
Date
%Vac
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
Mid Rise - Elevator
--
Eff
1
6
$1,300
696
$1.87
Market
10/21/13
0.0%
$1,325 $1,808 $2,535
Mid Rise - Elevator
--
1
1
3
$1,300
1,000
$1.30
Market
Mid Rise - Elevator
--
2
1
22
$1,750
1,100
$1.59
Market
Mid Rise - Elevator
--
2
1.5
7
$1,750
1,100
$1.59
Market
Mid Rise - Elevator
--
2
2
8
$1,750
1,100
$1.59
Market
Townhouse
--
2
2
5
$1,950
1,300
$1.50
Market
Townhouse
--
2
2.5
1
$1,950
1,300
$1.50
Market
Townhouse
--
3
2
1
$2,500
2,206
$1.13
Market
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Apts at American Tobacco
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC183-019578
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Calvert Place
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - General
900 East Main Street
Durham,NC
32 Units
Structure Type: Garden/TH
Opened in 2005
25.0% Vacant (8 units vacant) as of 10/18/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
One
--
$820
704
$1.16
One/Den
--
--
--
--
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Centrl Lndry:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
Two
--
$975
1,130
$0.86
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
--
$1,117
1,505
$0.74
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups); Central A/C;
Patio/Balcony; Storage (In Unit); Carpet / Ceramic
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Additional 43 public housing units not included below.
Waitlist
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/18/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Program
Date
%Vac
10/18/13 25.0%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
Garden
--
1
1
--
$820
704
$1.16 LIHTC/ 60%
$820
$975 $1,117
Townhouse
--
2
1.5
--
$971
1,067
$.91 LIHTC/ 60%
8/2/13
6.3%
$897
$972 $1,063
Garden
--
2
1
--
$977
1,086
$.90 LIHTC/ 60%
2/16/10
15.6%
$707
$833 $1,007
Garden
--
2
2
--
$977
1,102
$.89 LIHTC/ 60%
Garden
--
2
2
--
$977
1,196
$.82 LIHTC/ 60%
Townhouse
--
2
1.5
--
$971
1,198
$.81 LIHTC/ 60%
Garden
--
3
2
--
$1,123
1,329
$.84 LIHTC/ 60%
Townhouse
--
3
2.5
--
$1,108
1,357
$.82 LIHTC/ 60%
Garden
--
3
2
--
$1,123
1,426
$.79 LIHTC/ 60%
Garden
--
3
2
--
$1,123
1,639
$.69 LIHTC/ 60%
Townhouse
--
3
2.5
--
$1,108
1,774
$.62 LIHTC/ 60%
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Calvert Place
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-013723
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Edgemont Elms
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: Market Rate - General
912 Angier Avenue
Durham,NC 27701
41 Units
Structure Type: 0-Story Garden/TH
Opened in 1989
12.2% Vacant (5 units vacant) as of 10/18/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
One
--
--
--
--
Centrl Lndry:
One/Den
--
--
--
--
73.2%
$695
--
--
Elevator:
Fitness:
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
26.8%
$565
--
--
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
Two
Two/Den
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Disposal; In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups); Window A/C; Carpet
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Formerly LIHTC 50% units. Tax credit compliance period is over.
Additional 16 units of public housing (10 1BR, 7 2BR).
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/18/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Program
Garden
--
2
1
30
$675
--
--
Market
Townhouse
--
3
1.5
11
$540
--
--
Market
Date
%Vac
10/18/13 12.2%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
--
$695
--
6/9/04
0.0%
--
$512
$565
2/1/03
22.0%
--
$471
$520
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Edgemont Elms
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric/Gas
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-004931
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Franklin Village
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - General
302 N Blacknall St.
Durham,NC
37 Units
Structure Type: Garden/TH
Opened in 2008
5.4% Vacant (2 units vacant) as of 10/18/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
One
--
--
--
--
Centrl Lndry:
One/Den
--
--
--
--
Two
--
$974
1,139
$0.86
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
--
$1,093
1,310
$0.83
--
$1,227
1,458
$0.84
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups); Central A/C;
Patio/Balcony
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Picninc Area
Additional 46 public housing units not shown below.
8 units are market rate (same rents as LIHTC).
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/18/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Date
%Vac
Garden
--
2
2
--
$977
1,056
$.93 LIHTC/ 60%
Program
10/18/13
5.4%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
--
$974 $1,093
Townhouse
--
2
2.5
--
$971
1,222
$.79 LIHTC/ 60%
3/2/10
13.5%
--
$806
Townhouse
--
3
2.5
--
$1,108
1,305
$.85 LIHTC/ 60%
Garden
--
3
2
--
$1,078
1,315
$.82 LIHTC/ 60%
Garden
--
4
2
--
$1,227
1,429
$.86 LIHTC/ 60%
Townhouse
--
4
2.5
--
$1,227
1,487
$.83 LIHTC/ 60%
$986
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Franklin Village
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-013855
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Glendale
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - General
823 North Mangum Street
Durham,NC 27701
29 Units
Structure Type: 2-Story Garden
Opened in 1997
0.0% Vacant (0 units vacant) as of 10/17/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
One
--
--
--
--
Centrl Lndry:
One/Den
--
--
--
--
$495
768
$0.64
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
Two 100.0%
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Disposal; In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups); Central A/C; Carpet /
Vinyl/Linoleum
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/17/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Date
%Vac
Garden
--
2
1
17
$495
768
$.64 LIHTC/ 60%
Program
10/17/13
0.0%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
--
$495
--
Garden
--
2
1
12
$495
768
$.64 LIHTC/ 45%
8/1/13
3.4%
--
$505
--
2/15/10
0.0%
--
$495
--
6/7/04
10.3%
--
$460
--
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Glendale
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-004965
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Eagle Point
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: Market Rate - General
412 East Pilot Street
Durham,NC 27707
223 Units
Structure Type: Garden
Opened in 1963
3.1% Vacant (7 units vacant) as of 10/17/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
One
One/Den
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
----7.6%
$550
820
$0.67
--
--
--
--
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Centrl Lndry:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
92.4%
$675
966
$0.70
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
Two
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Central A/C; Patio/Balcony; Carpet / Vinyl/Linoleum
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Formerly Hampton Crossing/Ivy Commons.
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/17/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Program
Date
%Vac
Garden
--
1
1
17
$550
820
$.67
Market
10/17/13
3.1%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
$550
$675
--
Garden
--
2
1
206
$675
966
$.70
Market
2/23/10
20.2%
$465
$595
--
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
HEagle Point
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-013726
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Lakemoor
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - General
205 Kent Lake Drive
Durham,NC 27713
160 Units
Structure Type: 3-Story Garden
Opened in 2001
1.3% Vacant (2 units vacant) as of 10/17/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
One
--
--
--
--
Centrl Lndry:
One/Den
--
--
--
--
36.3%
$760
820
$0.93
Elevator:
Fitness:
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
48.8%
$850
1,141
$0.74
15.0%
$990
1,373
$0.72
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
Two
Two/Den
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups); Central A/C; Patio/Balcony;
Carpet / Ceramic
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Management did not give a specific reason for high vacancy.
4 bedroom units have been full for multiple years, listed rent is from 2004
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/17/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Date
%Vac
Garden
--
2
1
58
$760
820
$.93 LIHTC/ 60%
Program
10/17/13
1.3%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
--
$760
$850
Garden
--
3
2
78
$850
1,141
$.74 LIHTC/ 60%
2/12/10
22.5%
--
$630
$730
Garden
--
4
2
24
$990
1,373
$.72 LIHTC/ 60%
12/2/04
11.3%
--
$599
$649
2/1/03
15.6%
--
$695
$795
* Indicates initial lease-up.
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Lakemoor
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-004935
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Lovett Square
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - General
211 Stokes Street
Durham,NC 27701
60 Units
Structure Type: Garden
Opened in 1993
0.0% Vacant (0 units vacant) as of 10/17/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
One
--
--
--
--
Centrl Lndry:
One/Den
--
--
--
--
66.7%
$540
620
$0.87
Elevator:
Fitness:
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
33.3%
$590
920
$0.64
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
Two
Two/Den
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups); Central A/C;
Patio/Balcony; Carpet
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/17/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Date
%Vac
Garden
--
2
1
40
$540
620
$.87 LIHTC/ 45%
Program
10/17/13
0.0%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
--
$540
$590
Garden
--
3
1.5
20
$590
920
$.64 LIHTC/ 45%
2/15/10
0.0%
--
$525
$575
6/7/04
3.3%
--
$470
$520
2/3/03
3.3%
--
$470
$520
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Lovett Square
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-004943
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Main Street TH
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - General
600 East Main Street
Durham,NC
22 Units
Structure Type: Townhouse
Opened in 2004
18.2% Vacant (4 units vacant) as of 10/18/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
One
--
$672
775
$0.87
One/Den
--
--
--
--
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Centrl Lndry:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
Two
--
$793
1,220
$0.65
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
--
$903
1,330
$0.68
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; Central A/C; Patio/Balcony; Storage (In Unit);
Carpet / Ceramic
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Management said they also have 30% and 50% units but set rents were not available.
22 units are LIHTC. An additional 21 units of public housing not shown below
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/18/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Program
Date
%Vac
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
Townhouse
--
1
1
--
$672
775
$.87 LIHTC/ 50%
10/18/13 18.2%
$672
$397
$452
Townhouse
--
2
2
--
$793
1,110
$.71 LIHTC/ 50%
2/16/10
$627
$740
$845
Townhouse
--
2
1
--
--
1,330
-- LIHTC/ 50%
Townhouse
--
3
2
--
$903
1,330
$.68 LIHTC/ 50%
Townhouse
--
3
2.5
--
--
1,330
-- LIHTC/ 50%
9.1%
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Main Street TH
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-013728
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
Stewarts Heights, Square, Circle
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - General
202 Jan Ct.
Durham,NC 27707
144 Units
Structure Type: Garden
Last Major Rehab in 2009
0.7% Vacant (1 units vacant) as of 10/18/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
Opened in 1951
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
One
--
--
--
--
Centrl Lndry:
One/Den
--
--
--
--
$460
662
$0.69
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
Two 100.0%
CarWash:
Features
Standard: In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups); Central A/C; Patio/Balcony; Hardwood
Select Units: -Optional($): -Security: -Parking 1: Free Surface Parking
Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: -Owner: --
Comments
Total gut rehab finished October 2009.
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/18/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Date
%Vac
Garden
--
2
1
72
$410
662
$.62 LIHTC/ 40%
Program
10/18/13
0.7%
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
--
$460
--
Garden
--
2
1
72
$510
662
$.77 LIHTC/ 60%
2/24/10
0.0%
--
$448
--
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Stewarts Heights, Square, Circle
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-013733
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
RealProperty ResearchGroup
West Village
Multifamily Community Profile
CommunityType: Market Rate - General
212 North Duke Street, #133
Durham,NC 27701
453 Units
Structure Type: 0-Story Garden
Opened in 2000
3.8% Vacant (17 units vacant) as of 10/17/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Eff
One
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
5.3%
$1,174
626
$1.88
Clubhouse:
Comm Rm:
Pool-Outdr:
Basketball:
Centrl Lndry:
Tennis:
Volleyball:
28.7%
$1,184
875
$1.35
--
--
--
--
62.7%
$1,232
1,051
$1.17
Elevator:
Fitness:
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
BusinessCtr:
Three
2.4%
$2,192
1,376
$1.59
0.9%
$2,323
1,903
$1.22
Sauna:
Playground:
ComputerCtr:
Four+
One/Den
Two
Two/Den
CarWash:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; Microwave; Ceiling Fan; Patio/Balcony;
HighCeilings; Broadband Internet; Hardwood
Select Units: Fireplace
Optional($): -Security: Intercom
Parking 1: -Fee: --
Parking 2: -Fee: --
Property Manager: Druker & Falk LLC
Owner: Blue Devil Ventures West Vil
Comments
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/17/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
Program
Date
%Vac
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
Garden
--
Eff
1
24
$1,151
626
$1.84
Market
10/17/13
3.8%
$1,184 $1,232 $2,192
Garden
--
1
1
130
$1,159
875
$1.33
Market
6/24/04
1.1%
$882 $1,174 $1,485
Garden
--
2
1.5
95
$1,125
1,078
$1.04
Market
2/1/03
1.5%
$895 $1,064 $1,448
Garden
--
2
2
94
$1,330
1,095
$1.21
Market
Garden
--
2
1
95
$1,151
980
$1.17
Market
Garden
--
3
2
6
$2,140
1,331
$1.61
Market
Garden
--
3
2.5
5
$2,177
1,430
$1.52
Market
Garden
--
4
2.5
4
$2,283
1,903
$1.20
Market
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
West Village
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-004921
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of concessions and assumes that water, sewer and trash is included in rent
(2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
Southeast Central Durham CNI | Appendix 4 Senior Rental Community Profiles
13.
APPENDIX 4 SENIOR RENTAL COMMUNITY PROFILES
P ag e 91
RealProperty Research Group
Lakeside Gardens
Senior Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - Elderly
820 Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway
Durham,NC 27713
160 Units
Structure Type: Mix
Opened in 2002
1.3% Vacant (2 units vacant) as of 10/17/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Eff
One
--
$660
697
$0.95
One/Den
--
--
--
--
Clubhouse:
Gardening:
Library:
Comm Rm:
Arts&Crafts:
Health Rms:
Centrl Lndry:
Two
--
$790
921
$0.86
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
Conv Store:
Three
Four+
---
---
---
---
Sauna:
Walking Pth:
ComputerCtr:
Guest Suite:
Beauty Salon:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; Microwave; Ceiling Fan; Central A/C; Cable TV
Select Units: -Optional($): --
Security: -Parking: --
Comments
Owner: --
Property Manager: --
Entry Fee:
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/17/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
$0
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Program
Date
%Vac
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
--
1
1
--
$680
697
$.98 LIHTC/ 60%
10/17/13
1.3%
$660
$790
--
--
2
2
--
$815
921
$.88 LIHTC/ 60%
2/3/03*
75.6%
--
--
--
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Lakeside Gardens
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of utilities and concessions. (2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-004937
RealProperty Research Group
Mutual Manor
Senior Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - Elderly
3146 Fayetteville Road
Durham,NC
18 Units
Structure Type: Garden
Opened in 1995
5.6% Vacant (1 units vacant) as of 10/18/2013
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Eff
One
66.7%
$475
500
$0.95
--
--
--
--
One/Den
Clubhouse:
Gardening:
Library:
Comm Rm:
Arts&Crafts:
Health Rms:
Centrl Lndry:
33.3%
$525
600
$0.88
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
Conv Store:
Three
Four+
---
---
---
---
Sauna:
Walking Pth:
ComputerCtr:
Two
Guest Suite:
Beauty Salon:
Features
Standard: Central A/C
Select Units: -Optional($): --
Security: -Parking: --
Comments
About 1 apartment available per year, fills up immediately
Accepts Section 8 vouchers
1 vacant 2BR; Waitlist for 1BRs.
Owner: --
Property Manager: Woodland Associates
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 10/18/2013) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Program
Date
%Vac
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
Garden
--
1
1
12
$475
500
$.95 LIHTC/ 50%
10/18/13
5.6%
$475
$525
--
Garden
--
2
1
6
$525
600
$.88 LIHTC/ 50%
1/19/99
0.0%
--
--
--
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Mutual Manor
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of utilities and concessions. (2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-001553
RealProperty Research Group
Rockwood North
Senior Community Profile
CommunityType: LIHTC - Elderly
1 Rock Cottage Ct
Durham,NC 27707
44 Units
Structure Type: 2-Story Duplex
Opened in 1995
4.5% Vacant (2 units vacant) as of 2/3/2003
Unit Mix & Effective Rent (1)
Bedroom
Community Amenities
%Total Avg Rent Avg SqFt Avg $/SqFt
-----
Eff
One
--
$325
670
$0.49
One/Den
--
--
--
--
Clubhouse:
Gardening:
Library:
Comm Rm:
Arts&Crafts:
Health Rms:
Centrl Lndry:
Two
--
$445
848
$0.52
Elevator:
Fitness:
Two/Den
--
--
--
--
Hot Tub:
Conv Store:
Three
Four+
---
---
---
---
Sauna:
Walking Pth:
ComputerCtr:
Guest Suite:
Beauty Salon:
Features
Standard: Dishwasher; Disposal; In Unit Laundry (Hook-ups)
Select Units: -Optional($): --
Security: -Parking: Free Surface Parking
Comments
Two 1 bedrooms available, phase I 1995, phase II 1999
20 phase I, 24 phase II. Most 2 bedrooms are upstairs.
Owner: --
Property Manager: --
Entry Fee:
Floorplans (Published Rents as of 2/3/2003) (2)
Description
Feature
BRs Bath #Units
Rent
SqFt Rent/SF
$0
Historic Vacancy & Eff. Rent (1)
Program
Date
%Vac
1BR $ 2BR $ 3BR $
A / Garden
--
1
1
--
$237
670
$.35 LIHTC/ 35%
2/3/03
4.5%
$325
$445
--
B / Garden
--
1
1
--
$323
670
$.48 LIHTC/ 45%
1/19/00
4.5%
--
--
--
C / Garden
--
1
1
--
$348
670
$.52 LIHTC/ 50%
D / Garden
--
1
1
--
$393
670
$.59 LIHTC/ 60%
E / Garden
--
2
1
--
$444
848
$.52 LIHTC/ 45%
F / Garden
--
2
1
--
$440
848
$.52 LIHTC/ 50%
G / Garden
--
2
1
--
$450
848
$.53 LIHTC/ 60%
Adjustments to Rent
Incentives:
None
Utilities in Rent:
Heat:
Hot Water:
Rockwood North
© 2013 Real Property Research Group, Inc.
(1) Effective Rent is Published Rent, net of utilities and concessions. (2) Published Rent is rent as quoted by management.
Heat Fuel: Electric
Cooking:
Electricity:
Wtr/Swr:
Trash:
NC063-004940