Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment
|
|
- Cuthbert Crawford
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 4120 SE International Way, Suite A 110, Milwaukie, OR SBerkland@trcsolutions.com Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment July 12, 2017 Submitted To: State of Oregon: Housing and Community Services 1225 Ferry St SE Salem, OR 97301
2
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. MARKET ASSESSMENT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION DEMOGRAPHICS... 6 Resident Income... 6 Resident Population Types MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK... 9 Multifamily vs. Single-family Distribution... 9 Vintage Building Size Fuel Types UTILITY SERVICES AREAS & RATES LOW-INCOME MARKET SEGMENTS Funding Sources Developers Complementary Programs NEW CONSTRUCTION MARKET INDICATORS CLIMATE ZONES MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Building Envelope HVAC Systems Domestic Hot Water Systems Lighting Miscellaneous Equipment & Appliances CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX A: MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Construction Type Windows Walls Ceilings Floors i TRC Energy Services
4 Heating Systems Cooling Systems - Common Area Cooling Systems - In-Unit Ventilation Systems Domestic Hot Water Systems Lighting - Common Area Lighting - Exterior Lighting - In-Unit Common Area Laundry Elevators Pools Thermostats In-Unit Appliances APPENDIX B: TABLES ii TRC Energy Services
5 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: County Map of All Multifamily Units per Census Figure 2: County Map of OHCS Multifamily Inventory (5+ Units) as of May Figure 3: Estimated Low-income Multifamily Meters in PGE & PAC Service Territory... 5 Figure 4: Oregon Demographics... 6 Figure 5: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Inventory as of May Figure 6: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Properties in Top 6 Counties... 8 Figure 7: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift... 9 Figure 8: Housing Stock Makeup Figure 9: Residential Housing Stock Vintage by County Figure 10: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings by Building Size and Vintage Figure 11: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings & Units by Number of Stories Figure 12: OHCS Multifamily Housing Stock by Building Size Figure 13: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type Figure 14: Top 6 Counties Residential Housing Heating Fuel Breakdown Figure 15: Low-income Eligible Multifamily Units in PGE & PAC Service Area Figure 16: PGE & PAC Utility Rates Figure 17: Cumulative Funding Source Breakdown of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects from Figure 18: Funding Summary of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects Figure 19: Forty Most Active Affordable Multifamily Developers and Owners in Oregon Figure 20: Complimentary Programs by Program Type and Sector Figure 21: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift Figure 22: NC Building Permits per Units by Oregon Metro Areas Figure 23: Northwest Regional Technical Forum s Heating Zones Figure 24: Northwest Regional Technical Forum s Cooling Zone Figure 25: County Map of IECC 2012 Climate Zones Figure 26: Distribution of Structural System Types by Buildings Size Figure 27: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type iii TRC Energy Services
6 Figure 28: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type Figure 29: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type Figure 30: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type Figure 31: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size Figure 32: Distribution of In-Unit & Common Area Cooling System Figure 33: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System Figure 34: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size Figure 35: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use Figure 36: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size Figure 37: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types Figure 38: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size Figure 39: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types Figure 40: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types Figure 41: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior Figure 42: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage Figure 43: Distribution of Structural System Types by Building Size Figure 44: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type Figure 45: Distribution of Wall Area by Building Size and Wall Type Figure 46: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type Figure 47: Distribution of Ceiling Area by Building Size and Ceiling Type Figure 48: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type Figure 49: Distribution of Floor Area by Building Size and Floor Type Figure 50: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type Figure 51: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type Figure 52: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size Figure 53: Distribution of Secondary Heating System by Building Size Figure 54: Distribution of Common Area Cooling Systems Figure 55: Distribution of Units with In-Unit Cooling Systems by Building Size Figure 56: Distribution of In-Unit Cooling Systems iv TRC Energy Services
7 Figure 57: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System Figure 58: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size Figure 59: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use Figure 60: Distribution of In-Unit Water Heater Types Figure 61: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size Figure 62: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types Figure 63: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamps Type and Building Size Figure 64: Distribution of Exterior Lighting Control Types Figure 65: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types Figure 66: In-Unit Lighting Characteristics Figure 67: Distribution of Building Laundry by Building Vintage Figure 68: Distribution of Common Area Dryers by Dryer Vintage Figure 69: Percentage of Buildings with Elevators by Building Size Figure 70: Percentage of Buildings with Pools by Pool Type & Building Size Figure 71: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior Figure 72: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage Figure 73: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Washers by Vintage Figure 74: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Dryers by Vintage Figure 75: Distribution of In-Unit Dishwashers by Vintage Figure 76: OHCS Multifamily Inventory vs. Total Multifamily Units as of Census Figure 77: Population Demographics by County Figure 78: Residential Housing Type Makeup per County Figure 79: OHCS Multifamily Housing Stock by Building Size Figure 80: Residential Housing Stock Vintage Figure 81: Residential Housing Stock Heating Fuel Type by County Figure 82: PGE & PacifiCorp Low-income Eligible Units Figure 83: NC Buildings Permits Statewide and by Metro Areas Figure 84: Climate Zones by County v TRC Energy Services
8
9 1. MARKET ASSESSMENT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The intent of this market assessment is to inform the design of the low-income Multifamily Energy Program (formerly known as the multifamily low income weatherization program, MULTIFAMILY ENERGY PROGRAM) so it is responsive to local conditions and produces outcomes in alignment with the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) Department s goals and objectives. This market assessment references both data sources focused on deed-restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data provided by OHCS is specific to the affordable multifamily sector, i.e. multifamily new construction and rehabilitation projects funded by OHCS. All other data sources reference the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing. These other data sources include Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), International Code Council (ICC), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Pacific Power, Portland General Electric (PGE), and the U.S. Census. We note the data source and the market sector (i.e. affordable-only or broader multifamily market) in the introduction to each major section in this document and include a full list of references in the appendix. TRC concludes the following key program design considerations from this assessment: Geographic Distribution: Within OHCS multifamily inventory, 75% of buildings are located in 10 out of the 36 counties in Oregon. The program outreach will focus on counties along the I-5 corridor but will seek to also serve buildings in the broader geographic areas to align with OHCS goal of serving the whole state. Demographics: Family housing makes up 58% of OHCS multifamily inventory and elderly housing makes up 20%. Across the state, the program design will focus on serving the family and elderly populations and aim to design program processes and outreach to fit those population types the most. Multifamily Housing Stock: 67% of buildings in OHCS multifamily inventory are pre-1990, prior to building codes being enacted. Additionally, the program will have the biggest impact targeting low-rise and mid-rise buildings, which make up 90% of the multifamily buildings stock. Low-Income Funding Sources: Leveraged Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Equity makes up 45% of total funding for OHCS multifamily projects (new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and reconstruction). OHCS funding sources constitute 16% of the total funding for multifamily projects. The program will work with OHCS to identify and prioritize other low-income funding sources the Multifamily Energy Program can leverage. Low-Income Developers: TRC identified a list of 40 affordable multifamily developers and owners who have most often participated in OHCS programs. Of these 40, approximately 27 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives. TRC proposes to engage the 40 most active developers and owners to participate in stakeholder meetings during the program design stage. Complementary Programs: In addition to incentives from OHCS, affordable multifamily developers and owners have access to funding through a number of financing and energy efficiency programs. TRC will incorporate a financing review into the project intake process to ensure that projects leverage all available funds and increase their scope of work when possible, especially multifamily prescriptive and direct install incentives offered by the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO). New Construction Market: Per Census 2010 data, 77% of existing residential buildings in Oregon are single-family and 23% are multifamily. Per National Association of Home Builders data on 2016 building permits, 56% of new construction buildings are single-family and 44% are multifamily. This indicates a strong shift in the Oregon residential market towards the construction of multifamily buildings. The 1 TRC Energy Services
10 program should leverage this increased new construction activity especially in the following metro areas: Portland, Salem, Bend, and Eugene/Springfield. Multifamily Building Characteristics: This section of the market assessment was based on a report written by Ecotope for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) titled Residential Building Stock Assessment: Multifamily Characteristics and Energy Use (September 2013). Our analysis only focuses on the key building components that will have the biggest impact on the program design. Wherever possible, the program should leverage existing incentive opportunities for these buildings components offered by Energy Trust of Oregon, and the Multifamily Energy Program should instead focus its efforts on unique energy challenges not incentivized by other complementary programs. Building Envelope: For walls, the program will advocate for non-cavity insulation, such as Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS), to reduce thermal bridging in new construction applications and also in retrofit when there are major wall improvements already happening. HVAC Systems: The program will focus on the replacement of in-unit electric baseboard systems, which make up 80% of primary heating systems. We will advocate replacing electric baseboard systems with efficient ductless heat pumps. The program should leverage current incentive offerings from Energy Trust of Oregon for ductless heat pumps. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Systems: The program should prioritize the replacement of in-unit electric DHW systems, which exist in 90% of units. The program should address DHW systems upgrades holistically to include not only the replacement of inefficient water heaters, but also consider hot water pipe insulation, tank insulation, and recirculation pump controls for central systems. Lighting: Incandescent lamps make up more than 60% of in-unit lamps. The program should address in-unit tenant lighting improvements and develop a mechanism to ensure tenants replace incandescent lights with more efficient lighting. This can be especially advantageous for low-income tenants who are direct metered and pay for their electricity usage. 2 TRC Energy Services
11 2. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 1 The intent of this section is to map the geographic distribution of the housing stock to ensure equity in providing program services as well as document whether the geographic distribution lines up with major Oregon population centers. Key Conclusions Based on OHCS multifamily inventory 2, 30% is located in Multnomah County equivalent to 564 buildings or 26,439 dwelling units. Figures 1 and 2 show the distribution of multifamily units from both Census 2010 data and OHCS inventory. Both datasets display a similar distribution of multifamily volume across the state. Of OHCS s multifamily inventory, 80% of units are located in 10 out of the 36 total counties in Oregon. These 10 counties have 50 or more total buildings and approximately 1,000 or more units. Comparing Figures 1 and 2 shows affordable multifamily trends reflected in Figure 2 are in line with overall multifamily trends, which include market-rate housing, reflected in Figure 1. A few exceptions are Umatilla County, where the affordable multifamily volume is higher than overall multifamily volume reflected in Census data. Conversely, Polk and Benton have a slightly lower volume of affordable multifamily buildings compared to the overall multifamily volume. Program Design Considerations: The program outreach will focus on counties along the I-5 corridor with the highest concentration of multifamily units, but will seek to serve buildings in the broader geographic areas to align with OHCS goal of serving the whole state. As depicted in the Figures 1 and 2, to reach the rural eastern counties with the highest concentration of buildings, the program outreach will focus of the following counties: Umatilla, Union, and Malheur. The program will achieved this through targeted outreach through the trade ally network and announcements through Housing Authority (HA) networks. In addition, the program can consider offering bonus incentives for projects in these rural areas to stimulate participation from HVAC and insulation contractors and installers not based locally. As shown in Figure 3, Portland General Electric (PGE) serves the largest concentration of low-income multifamily dwelling units with approximately 20,000 units, and PGE also contributes 50% of the incentive budget. Pacific Power (PAC) contributes the remaining 50% of the incentive budget and serves 15,000 low-income multifamily units. Therefore, the program may need to limit participation in PGE dominant areas to ensure the majority of the remaining 50% of the incentive funding serves PAC customers. 1 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as US Census, refer to the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing. 2 In this assessment, the OHCS multifamily inventory analyzed was limited to buildings with five (5) or more units that have been historically funded by OHCS between 2002 and TRC Energy Services
12 Figure 1: County Map of All Multifamily Units per Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) Figure 2: County Map of OHCS Multifamily Inventory (5+ Units) as of May 2016 (OHCS, OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx, 2017) 3 Note: The county boundaries for PGE and PAC do not reflect the utility service territory boundaries. The purpose of the county boundaries is to indicate which counties PGE and PAC serve. PGE and PAC may not serve the entire county. 4 TRC Energy Services
13 Figure 3: Estimated Low-income Multifamily Meters in PGE & PAC Service Territory (OHCS, PPCMeters_MF_Building_NeedsAssessment, 2015) 5 TRC Energy Services
14 3. DEMOGRAPHICS 4 The intent of this section is to identify demographics considerations that are critical to program success including income and residential population types. Resident Income Key Conclusions Based on Census 2010 data, 16% of the total population in Oregon are living in poverty (as defined by the Census) 5 equivalent to more than 600,000 people. As noted in Figure 4, the statewide head of household median income is $48,803 and the family median income is $56,119. In the more recent 2015 American Community Survey, the poverty decreased slightly to 15% and median incomes have increased by 10-17%. Program Design Considerations: The program will align income eligibility restrictions based on OHCS guidelines, where tenants in at least 50% of units are at, or below, 60% AMI. The program will explore the opportunity to support multifamily properties that are not currently in the OHCS portfolio, including those that are not deed-restricted affordable housing. This could be done by setting a limit to the monthly rent based on county income data, unit size, and monthly utility allowance assumptions, as is done currently in California s Low Income Weatherization Program. The outcome would be access to funding and technical support through the program if a developer/owner is willing to maintain rent affordability for a minimum number of years (such as 10 years). Oregon Demographics Census 2010 American Community Survey 2015 Total Population 3,900,342 3,952,077 Total Poverty 6 Count 638, ,029 Poverty Rate 16% 15% Head of Household Median Income $48,803 $54,148 Family Median Income $56,119 $66,287 Figure 4: Oregon Demographics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) 4 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as US Census, refer to the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing. 5 The term poverty is used here to align with Census data, but we will use the term low-income for program purposes. 6 The 2010 U.S. Census used the following income thresholds nationwide to determine poverty statistics: Single-adult household: $11,139; Two-adult household: $14,218; Two adult & two children household: $22,113 6 TRC Energy Services
15 Resident Population Types Key Conclusions As noted in Figure 5, family and elderly housing are the two largest population types served by OHCS. Family housing makes up 58% of OHCS multifamily inventory and elderly housing make up 20%. As shown in Figure 6, in Multnomah county, where the highest concentration of affordable multifamily units are located, family and elderly populations make up 70% of the current OHCS multifamily inventory. However, supportive housing, including those that house residents with physical disability, developmental disabilities, chronic mental Illness, alcohol/drug rehab, and the homeless, collectively account for up to 28% of the total population (each of these supportive housing subcategories have over 2,000 units each statewide). Program Design Considerations: Across the state, the program design will focus on serving the family and elderly populations and aim to design program processes and outreach to fit those population types the most. For example, for family housing, focus on plug load reduction. For elderly housing, address temperature set points for heating, cooling, and water heating that optimize efficiency while also maintaining comfort. In Multnomah County, the program will look into the other population types listed above and reach out to developers targeting these population types to assess their needs. Population Type # of Units Family 46,552 Elderly 15,666 Physical Disability 3,514 Developmental Disability 2,770 Chronic Mental Illness 2,383 Alcohol/Drug Rehab 2,381 Homeless 2,276 Assisted Living 1,736 Farmworker 1,666 Domestic Violence 337 Ex/Released Offender 269 HIV/AIDS 71 Congregate Care 70 TOTAL 79,691 Figure 5: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Inventory as of May 2016 (OHCS, OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx 2017) 7 TRC Energy Services
16 Figure 6: Population Types of OHCS Multifamily Properties in Top 6 Counties (OHCS, OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx 2017) 8 TRC Energy Services
17 4. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK 7 Multifamily vs. Single-family Distribution The intent of this section is to outline the distribution of multifamily family versus single-family buildings across the state and identify regions with more prevalence of multifamily buildings. Key Conclusions As noted in Figure 7, on the existing buildings side, multifamily units comprise 23% of the housing units statewide, compared to single-family units which make up 77% of the statewide residential building stock. However, in new construction, multifamily units make up a larger proportion of the residential building stock than the existing building sector (44%), compared to 56% for single-family. Program Design Considerations: As previously noted, the program will have the biggest impact targeting counties with the highest total volume of multifamily units (Multnomah, Washington, Lane, Clackamas, Marion, and Jackson). However, as shown in Figure 8, consideration should also be made to counties that are not in the previously mentioned top counties, yet have a higher concentration of multifamily units compared to single-family homes, such as Benton, Polk, and Clatsop. Figure 7: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) (National Association of Home Builders 2017) 7 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as US Census and Ecotope, refer to the broader multifamily sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily 9 TRC Energy Services
18 Vintage Figure 8: Housing Stock Makeup (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) The intent of this section is to understand the vintage of the housing stock to inform measure packages that are most cost effective for Multifamily Energy Program participants to pursue. Key Conclusions Within OCHS multifamily inventory, 67% of multifamily buildings are pre-1990 and 33% are post-1990 (when Oregon enacted its first energy code). Figure 9 details the vintage distribution of multifamily units across counties per Census As detailed in Figure 10, nearly 80% of all multifamily buildings statewide were built prior to 1990, relatively evenly split between three vintage groupings: 23% between , 28% between , and 23% between Program Design Considerations: Most retrofit projects that will participate in the program were built before 1990, prior to building enactment of energy codes 8. The Building Characteristics section explores in more detail the implications of these pre-code buildings on program design and measure offerings Oregon and Washington had enforced energy codes by the end of this timeframe (Ecotope 2013) 10 TRC Energy Services
19 A program objective will be to focus on below-code buildings and help them make building improvements to reach and exceed current code. Figure 9: Residential Housing Stock Vintage by County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) Figure 10: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings by Building Size and Vintage (Ecotope 2013) 11 TRC Energy Services
20 Building Size The intent of this section is to understand the building size of the housing stock to inform program measure offerings. Key Conclusions As depicted in Figure 11, 65% of all multifamily buildings are low-rise (1-3 stories), 35% are mid-rise (4-6 stories), and 9% are high-rise (7+ stories). Within OHCS existing buildings inventory, multifamily buildings with 5 to 19 units make up 44% of the total buildings but only 10% of total units. Buildings with units make up 50% of total buildings and 59% of total units. Buildings with units make up 7% of total buildings and 30% of total units. Program Design Considerations: As shown in Figure 11, the program will have the biggest impact targeting low-rise and mid-rise buildings, which make up 90% of the multifamily building stock. While focusing on low- and mid-rise buildings, the program will have the biggest impact targeting buildings with units per building, as noted in Figure 12. This building size group has a balanced number of buildings and units, and targeting this group will reach the most number of buildings and units. Figure 11: Distribution of Multifamily Buildings & Units by Number of Stories (Ecotope 2013) 12 TRC Energy Services
21 Fuel Types Figure 12: OHCS Multifamily Housing Stock by Building Size (OHCS, OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx 2017) The intent of this section is to understand the fuel types of the housing stock to inform measure offerings. Additionally, understanding fuel types will identify potential outside financing to leverage. Key Conclusions As Figure 13 notes, electricity heats 87% of multifamily buildings, while non-electric sources (mostly natural gas) heat the remaining 13%. Program Design Considerations: The program will focus on retrofitting electric heating systems. Please refer to the Heating Systems section for more details on the most common electric heating systems found in existing multifamily buildings. 13 TRC Energy Services
22 Figure 13: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type (Ecotope 2013) Figure 14: Top 6 Counties Residential Housing Heating Fuel Breakdown (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) 14 TRC Energy Services
23 5. UTILITY SERVICES AREAS & RATES 9 The intent of this section is to identify utility service to understand participation potential. Research on utility rates will also help determine appropriate incentive amounts. Key Conclusions As shown in Figure 15, Portland General Electric (PGE) and Pacific Power (PAC) serve nearly 25, low-income eligible multifamily units, which are located in the following counties: Multnomah, Washington, Marion, Clackamas, and Jackson. Since utilities often consider multifamily buildings both residential and commercial from a utility metering perspective, in-unit energy usage likely falls under the residential rate class and common areas/master-metered central systems under the nonresidential rate class. As shown in Figure 16, the utility rates for PGE and PAC fall in nearly the same range from $ $0.12 per kwh for both small nonresidential and residential rate classes. The base charge ranges from $ $10.50 for residential customers, and $ $17.35 for small nonresidential customers. Program Design Considerations: The program will contact PGE and PAC in the counties with the most low-income eligible multifamily units to identify opportunities to collaborate on offering incentives (through sources such as the Energy Trust). Depending on the metering configuration of a building (master-metered, sub-metered, and directmetered), a building could fall under a combination of residential and nonresidential rates. The program will work with potential program participants to understand the complexities of these rate structures to better inform the program incentive structure and utility cost savings opportunities. 9 This section references both data sources focused on deed restricted affordable multifamily housing as well as data sources that cover the broader multifamily sector (including market-rate housing). All data citing OHCS as the source is specific to the affordable multifamily sector. All other data sources, such as Portland General Electric and Pacific Power, refer to the broader small commercial and residential sector that includes affordable and market-rate multifamily housing 10 Note that this estimate is based on county-wide unit data and therefore overestimates the total number of units eligible to be served by PGE and PAC (as utility service territory boundaries do not run along county lines) 15 TRC Energy Services
24 Figure 15: Low-income Eligible Multifamily Units in PGE & PAC Service Area (OHCS, PPCMeters_MF_Building_NeedsAssessment 2015) UTILITY SMALL NONRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Portland General Electric (PGE) Effective Rate $ / kwh Base Charge Effective Rate $ / kwh Base Charge $ $16.00 $ $10.50 Pacific Power (PAC) $ $17.35 $ $9.50 Figure 16: PGE & PAC Utility Rates (Portland General Electric 2016) (Pacific Power 2017) 11 For PGE Small Nonresidential Rate the following assumptions were made: basic charge of $16.00 for single phase service; transmission charge of $ /kWh; distribution charge of $ /kWh; energy charge of $ /kWh for standard service. 12 For PGE Residential Rate the following assumptions were made: basic charge of $10.50; transmission charge of $ /kWh; distribution charge of $ /kWh; energy charge of $ /kWh for standard service over 1,000 kwh. 13 For PAC Small Nonresidential Rate the following assumptions were made: Schedule 23 basic charge of $17.35 for 1 phase; combined effective rate of $ /kWh for first 3,000 kwh. 14 For PAC Residential Rate the following assumptions were made: Schedule 4 basic charge of $9.50; combined effective rate of $ /kWh for service over 1,000 kwh. 16 TRC Energy Services
25 6. LOW-INCOME MARKET SEGMENTS Funding Sources The intent of this section is to understand market segments by funding type to tailor messages that speak their language, address specific pain points, and motivate participation. Key Conclusions Figures 17 and 18 shows Leveraged LIHTC Equity makes up 45% of total funding for OHCS multifamily projects (new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and reconstruction). OHCS funding sources constitute 16% of the total funding for multifamily projects. Program Design Considerations: The program will work with OHCS to identify and prioritize other low-income funding sources the Multifamily Energy Program can leverage within OHCS and at the state and federal level. Figure 17: Cumulative Funding Source Breakdown of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects from (OHCS, OHCS-Aff-Hsg-List.xlsx 2017) 17 TRC Energy Services
26 Funding Type Funding Source Amount % of Total Funding Leveraged LIHTC Equity Leveraged Low-income Housing Tax Credit Program Equity $1,223,414,560 Total Leveraged LIHTC Equity $1,223,414,560 50% State Loan OHCS Bond Financing or Conduit Loan $776,971,001 Total State Issued Short and Long Term Loans $776,971,001 32% OHCS Gap Funding HUD Home Investment Partnership Grant Program $133,705,499 OHCS Gap Funding OTHER OHCS Funding (defunct) $73,561,217 OHCS Gap Funding Oregon Housing Development Grant Program (Trust Fund) $66,608,988 OHCS Gap Funding General Housing Account Program $48,994,839 OHCS Gap Funding Housing Preservation Fund $44,126,385 OHCS Gap Funding LIFT Q-Bonds $38,920,376 OHCS Gap Funding Multifamily Energy Program - Weatherization Funds (PGE, PPL) (Grant or Loan) $17,416,116 OHCS Gap Funding HELP (FAF) Grant Program $5,459,000 OHCS Gap Funding Mental Health Housing Fund $3,170,370 OHCS Gap Funding Farmworker Housing Development Account $688,803 Total OHCS Gap Funding (Grants & Loans) $432,651,593 18% FUNDING GRAND TOTAL $2,433,037,154 Figure 18: Funding Summary of OHCS Funded Multifamily Projects (OHCS, OHCS-Aff-Hsg-List.xlsx 2017) 18 TRC Energy Services
27 Developers Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment The intent of this section is to identify developer candidates for stakeholder engagement, future Multifamily Energy Program incentives, and to inform territory-wide funding distribution strategy. Key Conclusions By analyzing a list of previous OHCS funding recipients, TRC identified a list of 40 affordable multifamily developers and owners who have most often participated in OHCS programs. To create this list of developer candidates, TRC reviewed a database of previous OHCS funding recipients, some of which have also participated in Multifamily Energy Program. In addition, TRC also reviewed member directories of Oregon affordable housing organizations. Of these 40, approximately 27 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives. From 2002 to 2016, approximately 385 multifamily developers and owners have received funding from OHCS. Of these, approximately 70 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives. Of the 23 housing authorities that have participated in OHCS programs, 9 have received Multifamily Energy Program incentives. Program Design Considerations: TRC proposes to engage the 40 most active developers and owners to participate in stakeholder meetings during the program design stage. To collect a comprehensive picture of barriers and benefits for participating in Multifamily Energy Program, TRC will also survey both Multifamily Energy Program participants and non-participants. This list, which includes developers in both urban and hard-to-reach areas, should ensure that TRC collects perspectives from diverse audiences, each with their own priorities. The survey will include multiple choice questions such as the following: Have you participated in Multifamily Energy Program before? Why? Why Not? The Multifamily Energy Program is considering decreasing per-project incentive caps in order to increase the overall number of projects that can participate. How would this policy impact you? Beyond financial incentives, what kind of support would you expect to receive from Multifamily Energy Program? What other funding sources do you typically leverage for your projects? Are you considering applying to Multifamily Energy Program during the next funding cycle? There is significant opportunity to increase participation from housing authorities and small to mid-sized developers and owners. On the new construction side, there is an opportunity to engage developers not currently in the affordable space. OHCS is currently developing on an initiative working with Regional Solutions on workforce housing developments (at or lower than 60% of average median income or AMI), especially in rural communities. The program could fund new construction projects if the housing, once complete, is marketed to low- or moderate-income residents. The program would therefore engage some developers who are not currently active in OHCS portfolio. 19 TRC Energy Services
28 Company Multifamily Energy Program Participant Company Multifamily Energy Program Participant ACCESS N Lennar N Bienestar N Linn County Affordable Housing N BRIDGE Housing Corp. Y Lovelace Development LLC N Caritas Community Housing Corp. Y Luckenbill-Drayton & Associates Y Chrisman Development & Management Y NeighborWorks Umpqua Y Columbia Cascade Housing Corp. N Northwest Housing Alternatives Y Community And Shelter Assistance Corp. Community Partners for Affordable Housing Inc. N Northwest Oregon Housing Authority N Y Northwest Real Estate Capital Corp. Y Cook Development Corp. N Options for Southern Oregon N GSL Properties Guardian Affordable Housing Development LLC N Oregon Mennonite Residential Services Y PNC Multifamily Capital Y Home Forward Y Polk CDC Y Housing & Community Services Agency of Lane County Y REACH Community Development Inc. Y Housing Authority of Jackson County Y Rose Community Development Corp. Y Housing Authority of Marion County Y Shangri-La Corp. N Housing Authority of Portland N Shelter Resources Y Housing Authority of Salem Y St Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County Housing Works Y Step Forward Activities Inc. Y Human Solutions Inc. Y Telos Development Y Innovative Housing Y Willamette Neighborhood Housing Services Y Y Y Figure 19: Forty Most Active Affordable Multifamily Developers and Owners in Oregon (OHCS, OHCS-Aff-Hsg-List.xlsx 2017) 20 TRC Energy Services
29 Complementary Programs Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment The intent of this section is to identify existing and complementary programs and leveraging opportunities, including municipal, utility, green, renewable, and energy efficiency programs. Key Conclusions In addition to incentives from OHCS, affordable multifamily developers and owners have access to funding through a number of financing and energy efficiency programs. Complimentary certification programs typically include a verification requirement from registered trade allies, resulting in more reliable savings. Program Design Considerations: TRC will incorporate a financing review into the project intake process to ensure that projects leverage all available funds and increase their scope of work when possible, especially multifamily prescriptive and direct install incentives offered by the Energy Trust of Oregon. In developing trade ally guidelines, TRC will consider certification program verification processes to increase consistency across programs, when possible. Organization Program Name Program Type Sector CAPO Community Action Partnership of Oregon Energy Efficiency Rehab City of Ashland City of Ashland Housing Trust Fund Financing New/Rehab DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Certification New EPA ENERGY STAR for Existing Multifamily Buildings Certification Rehab EPA ENERGY STAR Certified Multifamily High Rise Certification New EPA ENERGY STAR Certified New Homes Certification New Earth Advantage Earth Advantage Certification New/Rehab Energy Trust Multifamily Prescriptive Program Energy Efficiency Rehab Energy Trust Multifamily Direct Install Program Energy Efficiency Rehab Energy Trust Multifamily Custom Incentives Program Energy Efficiency Rehab Enterprise Enterprise Green Communities Certification New/Rehab Mpower Oregon MPower Financing Rehab NOAH Network for Oregon Affordable Housing Financing New/Rehab PHIUS / Passive House Institute Portland Housing Bureau PHIUS+ / PHI Certification New/Rehab Portland Housing Bureau Awards Financing New/Rehab Property Fit CPACE Loan Program Financing New/Rehab USGBC LEED for Homes and Multifamily Midrise Certification New USGBC LEED Existing Buildings Certification Rehab Figure 20: Complimentary Programs by Program Type and Sector 21 TRC Energy Services
30 7. NEW CONSTRUCTION MARKET INDICATORS 15 The intent of this section is to understand the new construction economy and building permit activity to help inform the level and type of program investment for new construction. Key Conclusions As depicted in Figure 21, per Census 2010 data, 77% of existing residential units in Oregon are single-family and 23% are multifamily. Per National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) data on 2016 building permits, 56% of new construction residential units are single-family and 44% are multifamily. This indicates a strong shift in the Oregon residential market towards the construction of new multifamily units. As shown in Figure 22, per NAHB data, the metro areas with the most multifamily new construction activity projected in 2017 are Portland (7,644 units), Salem (510 units), Bend (473 units), and Eugene/Springfield (454 units). Program Design Considerations: The program should leverage the shift in multifamily new construction activity and reach out to affordable housing developers to assess how the program could support their upcoming developments in an effort that promotes energy efficiency. The program will focus its new construction outreach in the following metro areas: Portland, Salem, and Bend, which are located in PGE and PAC service territory. Figure 21: Existing Building (EB) vs New Construction (NC) Multifamily Development Shift (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) (National Association of Home Builders 2017) 15 This section only includes data sources that address the broader multifamily market, including both affordable and market-rate housing. 22 TRC Energy Services
31 Figure 22: NC Building Permits per Units by Oregon Metro Areas (National Association of Home Builders 2017) (Oregon Office of Economic Analysis 2017) 23 TRC Energy Services
32 8. CLIMATE ZONES 16 The intent of this section is to identify climate zones to help inform heating and cooling measures and magnitude of savings. Key Conclusions There are two IECC 2012 climate zones that exist in the state of Oregon, 4C and 5B. The Northwest Regional Technical Forum has three separate heating and cooling zones. Heating and cooling zone numbers may not always match for each county. Figures maps these climate zones. Oregon is a heating dominated climate, independent of which climate zone scheme is referenced. While still heating dominated, coastal Oregon (IECC zone 4C) has relatively moderate temperatures year round. However, the marine climate brings considerable and persistent moisture throughout the winter. In contrast, inland Oregon (IECC climate zone 5B) is both dryer and colder. These climate zone differences impact the construction assemblies used, insulation requirements, the balance between energy end uses, and, ultimately, the energy efficiency measures that hold the most value to a multifamily developer or owner. For instance, building envelope and air sealing improvements have higher value to energy bills and comfort in Bend than in Portland. Likewise, domestic hot water improvements may be more cost effective in the coastal cities where water heating makes up a greater percentage of the total energy use in the building. There is also a program-operations impact of the wet winters, as rain can be the cause of unexpected and persistent construction delays. Program Design Considerations: Depending on the program offering, the appropriate climate zone methodology should be selected. This may depend on what complementary programs the Multifamily Energy Program chooses to align with and what climate zone methodology they adopt, which is typically the Regional Technical Forum s method. The regional climate will inform the measures recommended by the program to participants. For example, the program will promote domestic hot water in coastal cities, whereas the program will promote envelope sealing in inland cities. 16 This section only includes data sources that address the broader multifamily market, including both affordable and market-rate housing. 24 TRC Energy Services
33 Figure 23: Northwest Regional Technical Forum s Heating Zones (Bonneville Power Administration 2011) Figure 24: Northwest Regional Technical Forum s Cooling Zone (Bonneville Power Administration 2011) 25 TRC Energy Services
34 Figure 25: County Map of IECC 2012 Climate Zones (International Code Council 2011) 26 TRC Energy Services
35 9. MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS 17 Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment The intent of this section is to identify specific multifamily building characteristics, such as envelope, HVAC, domestic hot water, lighting, appliances, to determine which energy efficiency measures the program should focus. This section only summarizes unique building characteristics that we have prioritized as targeted program design opportunities. For a full breakdown of multifamily building characteristics, refer to Appendix A. Building Envelope Program Design Considerations: Construction Type: Figure 26 shows that wood framing accounts for more than 97% of multifamily buildings. For new construction buildings, trainings on advanced framing techniques and panelized wall assemblies, such as exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS), could advance the market. Figure 26: Distribution of Structural System Types by Buildings Size (Ecotope 2013) 17 This section only includes data sources that address the broader multifamily market, including both affordable and market-rate housing. 27 TRC Energy Services
36 Windows: As shown in Figure 27, although 80% of the multifamily buildings were built before 1990, nearly 60% of the windows use Low-E coatings and most of those use modern vinyl frames. Windows are typically not a cost-effective improvement on an energy savings basis alone. When addressing windows, the program should prioritize the replacement of single pane windows in electric-heated buildings. The program design should aim to incentivize windows installed as part of a whole-building improvement and balance the overall payback with measures that have a higher return on investment. When window replacements are specified in a retrofit for non-energy reasons such as aesthetics, operability, or age replacement the program will support more energy efficient choices. In these cases, incremental costs and payback calculations of energy upgraded window replacements should be factored based on the delta between standard windows and the upgraded product. Figure 27: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type (Ecotope 2013) 28 TRC Energy Services
37 Wall Insulation: As shown in Figure 28, 90% of buildings have some level of wall insulation ranging from R-8 to R20. In retrofit scenarios, adding wall insulation is a difficult endeavor. In cases where significant wall alterations are specified for non-energy purposes such as siding or rain-screen replacement, structural improvements, or drywall replacement then insulation improvements should be a priority measure due to expected useful life of insulation and the opportunity present with exposed walls. The data in Ecotope s Multifamily Report for NEEA did not address the insulation location (ex: cavity insulation vs. exterior insulation). However, the program will advocate for non-cavity insulation, such as EIFS, to reduce thermal bridging in new construction applications and when there is opportunity in retrofit projects afforded by major wall changes/construction happening already. Panelized wall assemblies would be particularly advantageous in inland locations where it is colder or in buildings when electric heating is the primary heating source. Figure 28: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type (Ecotope 2013) 29 TRC Energy Services
38 Ceiling Insulation: Based on Figure 29, 65% of all multifamily attics are insulated above R-16. Opportunities to provide additional roof insulation in multifamily buildings beyond the current prevalence of R-16 still exist and the program will support additional roof insulation. In retrofits, additional insulation for roof decks is a difficult endeavor. However, adding attic insulation is a simpler installation, if the space is available, with spray foam and blown cellulose insulation. Since most of the existing multifamily family stock is low rise, the ceiling-to-wall area ratio is higher. As a result, adding roof insulation in low-rise buildings can yield higher energy savings, especially in vaulted and attic ceilings. When adding additional roof insulation in retrofit projects, special consideration should be made to the attic venting type to prevent moisture issues that could occur in coastal regions of the state. Figure 29: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type (Ecotope 2013) 30 TRC Energy Services
39 Floor Insulation: Based on Figure 30, 55% of all buildings have little to no floor insulation. Updating floor insulation in retrofits is not cost effective and will be a difficult endeavor for the program to address in existing buildings, especially in slab-on grade conditions. For framed floors in conditioned space that exist over uninsulated, unconditioned space (ex. crawlspaces or basements), opportunities to insulate the framed floor to mitigate the heat loss from conditioned space to uninsulated below-grade spaces should be explored. This should be considered on a case-by-case basis through on-site building audits. Figure 30: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type (Ecotope 2013) 31 TRC Energy Services
40 HVAC Systems Program Design Considerations: Heating: As shown in Figure 31, 80% of primary heating systems are electric resistance baseboards. The program will focus on the replacement of in-unit electric baseboard system and will advocate replacing electric baseboard system with efficient ductless heat pumps. The program should take into consideration current incentive offerings from Energy Trust of Oregon for ductless heat pumps. Figure 31: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size (Ecotope 2013) 32 TRC Energy Services
41 Cooling: Figure 32 indicates that 63% of all buildings have no in-unit cooling systems, and almost 70% of buildings have no cooling in common areas. With such low levels of cooling in the building stock, identifying if a program participant has cooling will be paramount to avoid an unnecessary programmatic effort. Where cooling does exist in buildings, the program will focus on equipment efficiencies and cooling distribution system improvements such as duct sealing and duct location. The program will consider opportunities for cooling improvements on a case-by-case basis through on-site building audits. The building stock assessment does not indicate the prevalence of window air conditioners. However, it is not uncommon nationally for such units to be installed by tenants of noncooling buildings. Window units are known to be both poorly operated and inefficient. The program will advocate for removal of window units when present, or tenant operational education when removal is not elected by the tenant. As noted in the heating section, the program recommendation of replacing electric baseboard heating systems with efficient ductless heat pumps systems can also provide cooling benefits with no additional costs and diminish instances of tenant installation of inefficient window air conditioning units. Figure 32: Distribution of In-Unit & Common Area Cooling System (Ecotope 2013) 33 TRC Energy Services
42 Ventilation: As Figure 33 shows, 98% of all multifamily buildings do not have a central ventilation system. Within high-rise buildings, 25% have no central ventilation. Ventilation should not be an area of focus for the program. In cases of ventilation improvement due to health and safety issues, the program should encourage the installation of a ventilation system with efficient motors. The program should coordinate with local community action agencies when addressing these types of indoor air quality improvements. In new construction projects, the program should explore energy recovery ventilators and should encourage demand response ventilation systems for systems such as dryer and garage exhaust. Figure 33: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System (Ecotope 2013) 34 TRC Energy Services
43 Domestic Hot Water Systems Program Design Considerations: As shown in Figure 34, 90% of units use individual in-unit systems. In the case of high-rise buildings, central systems become more common. Figure 34 indicates 75% of central DHW systems are fueled by gas. 95% of in-unit DHW systems are fueled by electricity. Since the program can only incentivize electric savings, replacement of in-unit electric DHW systems should be a priority. Cost-effective DHW intervention strategies should be based on the program s history and best-practices from other multifamily programs. Some likely high-value measures are: Electric resistance DHW replacement (central and in-unit) Heat pump water heaters from NEEA s Advanced Water Heater Specification list of tested, coldclimate tuned products Hot water pipe wrap (for central systems) Recirculation pump control systems (for central systems) Hot water storage tank insulation wrap Figure 34: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size (Ecotope 2013) 35 TRC Energy Services
44 Lighting Figure 35: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use (Ecotope 2013) Program Design Considerations: Common Area Lighting: Figure 36 shows that more than 80% of common area lamps are compact fluorescent lamps or linear fluorescent lamps. The data available did not indicate if installed compact fluorescent lamps are T12, T8 or T5. The program should consider this in more detail, and if there is high volume of T12s, the program should consider replacing them wholesale or leverage current lighting incentives offered from Energy Trust of Oregon. The program should consider advocating for installation of only LED fixtures. Additionally, Figure 37 indicates that 90% of common area lighting have no common area lighting controls. The program should prioritize common area lighting controls, which would be a cost-effective improvement that could yield high savings, especially in buildings with larger footprints that have more corridor space with lighting used 24 hours a day. 36 TRC Energy Services
45 Figure 36: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size (Ecotope 2013) Figure 37: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types (Ecotope 2013) 37 TRC Energy Services
46 Exterior Lighting: As shown in Figure 38, about 80% of exterior lamps are compact fluorescent lamps or linear fluorescent. Figures 39 shows 70% of exterior lighting have some form of lighting control either through photosensors, motion sensors, or timer controls. Given the efficacy of the exterior lighting stock, lamp replacement and improvements are unlikely to be a primary program target (some cases may vary), but, when considered, the program should advocate for LED fixtures. Instead, exterior lighting controls hold the higher potential for energy savings, and the program can target properties that do not have controls through outreach. Figure 38: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size (Ecotope 2013) Figure 39: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types (Ecotope 2013) 38 TRC Energy Services
47 In-Unit Lighting: Figure 40 shows incandescent lamps make up more than 60% of the in-unit lamps. The program should address in-unit tenant lighting improvements and develop a mechanism to ensure tenants replace incandescent lights with more efficient lighting, like LED fixtures. Tenant education and owner support is a key factor for the adoption of efficient in-unit lighting. For low-income tenants that pay for their electricity use, this could have a significant impact on monthly electricity costs. Figure 40: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types (Ecotope 2013) 39 TRC Energy Services
48 Miscellaneous Equipment & Appliances Program Design Considerations: Thermostats: As noted in Figure 41, only 48% of tenants report programming their thermostats with a heating setback and only 25% report setting up a cooling setback. The program should consider providing tenant education for programming thermostats and recommended thermostat set points and setbacks. In the low-income multifamily sector, for tenants that pay for heating and cooling costs, this could have a significant impact on monthly utility costs. Special consideration for these thermostat settings should be made depending on the population type, like the elderly, who typically require higher set points. In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior Heating Thermostat Set Point 67.4 Tenants Reporting a Heating Setback 48.0% Average Size of Heating Setback 7.9 Cooling Thermostat Set Point 70.9 Tenants Reporting a Cooling Thermostat Setup 24.8% Figure 41: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior (Ecotope 2013) 40 TRC Energy Services
49 In-Unit Appliances: As noted in Figure 42 more than 65% of all in-unit refrigerators are post This is likely due to the natural replacement of refrigerators by landlords in the multifamily sector with tenant turnover. For in-unit appliances, the program should consider providing better owner education on selecting efficient appliances and providing resources on complementary programs offered through the Energy Trust of Oregon or other groups that provide in-unit appliance incentives. Figure 42: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage (Ecotope 2013) 41 TRC Energy Services
50 10. CONCLUSIONS This market assessment provides a reliable foundation for use in the design of the low-income Multifamily Energy Program. As OHCS and TRC move forward with the next steps in the program design, the following key design considerations should be explored for program success: Reach the Whole State: Focus on counties along the I-5 corridor, where there is the highest volume of low-income multifamily buildings, but also disseminate program information to the rural eastern counties of the state that are traditionally underserved. Serve the Family and Elderly Population Groups: Concentrate on serving the family and elderly populations, which make up the majority of Oregon s low-income multifamily inventory, and aim to design program processes and outreach to fit those population types the most. Leverage Other Funding Sources: The program will work with OHCS to identify and prioritize other lowincome funding sources Multifamily Energy Program can leverage in addition to incentives from OHCS. Engage Low-income Developers: Engage the most active developers and owners to participate in stakeholder meetings during the program design stage and reach out to active developers and owners that have not participated in previous OHCS energy efficiency programs. Leverage the Multifamily New Construction Shift: Given the strong shift in the Oregon market towards the construction of multifamily buildings over single-family homes, the program should leverage this increased activity especially in Portland, Salem, and Bend metro areas. Develop Program Offerings that Bring Existing Building to and Beyond Code: More than three-quarters of all multifamily buildings statewide were built prior to 1990 before Oregon enacted its first stringent energy code. The program should focus on below-code buildings to help them make building improvements to reach and exceed current code. Notable building components with opportunity for improvement include: Replacement of in-unit electric baseboard system with efficient ductless heat pumps. Prioritize the replacement of in-unit electric DHW systems. Address lighting fixture replacements in-unit and lighting controls in common area and exterior locations. 42 TRC Energy Services
51 11. REFERENCES Bonneville Power Administration. (2011, March 16). Retrieved from NW Council's Heating/Cooling zone maps: entsbycounty.pdf Ecotope. (2013). Residential Builidng Stock Assessment: Multifamily Characteristics and Eneergy Use. NEEA. International Code Council. (2011) International Energy Conservation Code. Country Club Hills, ILL: International Code Council. National Association of Home Builders. (2017, February 28). NAHB Builidng Permits by State and Metro Area. Retrieved April 25, 2017, from OHCS. (2015, April). PPCMeters_MF_Building_NeedsAssessment. OHCS. (2017, April). OHCS_affordable-housing-oregon-inventory.xlsx. OHCS. (2017, April). OHCS-Aff-Hsg-List.xlsx. Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. (2017). Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast. Pacific Power. (2017, February 1) Price Summary. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from pproved_tariffs/oregon_price_summary.pdf Portland General Electric. (2016, November 15). Rate Schedules: Residential Service & Small Nonresidential Standard Service. Retrieved 15 May, 2017, from U.S. Census Bureau. (2017, April). Compiled Tables_Census data.xlsx. 43 TRC Energy Services
52 12. APPENDIX A: MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS This appendix includes a full set of figures and analysis of multifamily building characteristics for all building components. Note: All data in this Building Characteristics section of the market assessment was derived from a report written by Ecotope for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) titled Residential Building Stock Assessment: Multifamily Characteristics and Energy Use (September 2013). This NEEA assessment assessed four states located within the NEEA service area: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The data in the NEEA report was not separated for Oregon state, and instead reflects the regional Northwest characteristics of multifamily buildings. Since 97% of the buildings sampled in the NEEA study reflect Oregon and Washington, we find the application of the building characteristics are relevant and reflective for the purposes of this Oregon Multifamily Market Assessment for use by Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS). Construction Type Figure 43: Distribution of Structural System Types by Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) 44 TRC Energy Services
53 Windows Figure 44: Distribution of Window Area by Building Vintage and Window Type (Ecotope, 2013) 45 TRC Energy Services
54 Walls Figure 45: Distribution of Wall Area by Building Size and Wall Type (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 46: Distribution of Wall Insulation by Wall Type (Ecotope, 2013) 46 TRC Energy Services
55 Ceilings Figure 47: Distribution of Ceiling Area by Building Size and Ceiling Type (Ecotope, 2013) 47 TRC Energy Services
56 Figure 48: Distribution of Ceiling Insulation by Ceiling Type (Ecotope, 2013) 48 TRC Energy Services
57 Floors Figure 49: Distribution of Floor Area by Building Size and Floor Type (Ecotope, 2013) 49 TRC Energy Services
58 Figure 50: Distribution of Floor Insulation by Floor Type (Ecotope, 2013) 50 TRC Energy Services
59 Heating Systems Figure 51: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Fuel Type (Ecotope, 2013) 51 TRC Energy Services
60 Figure 52: Distribution of Primary Heating System by Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) 52 TRC Energy Services
61 Figure 53: Distribution of Secondary Heating System by Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) 53 TRC Energy Services
62 Cooling Systems - Common Area Cooling Systems - In-Unit Figure 54: Distribution of Common Area Cooling Systems (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 55: Distribution of Units with In-Unit Cooling Systems by Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) 54 TRC Energy Services
63 Figure 56: Distribution of In-Unit Cooling Systems (Ecotope, 2013) Ventilation Systems Figure 57: Distribution of Central Building Ventilation by System (Ecotope, 2013) 55 TRC Energy Services
64 Domestic Hot Water Systems Figure 58: Distribution of DHW Service Type by Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) 56 TRC Energy Services
65 Figure 59: Distribution of DHW Fuel Type by System End Use (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 60: Distribution of In-Unit Water Heater Types (Ecotope, 2013) 57 TRC Energy Services
66 Lighting - Common Area Figure 61: Distribution of Common Area Lamps by Lamp Type and Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 62: Distribution of Common Area Lighting Control Types (Ecotope, 2013) 58 TRC Energy Services
67 Lighting - Exterior Figure 63: Distribution of Exterior Lamps by Lamps Type and Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 64: Distribution of Exterior Lighting Control Types (Ecotope, 2013) 59 TRC Energy Services
68 Lighting - In-Unit Figure 65: Distribution of In-Unit Lamp Types (Ecotope, 2013) In-Unit Lighting Characteristics Fixtures per Unit 13.9 Lamps per Unit 23.2 CFLs per Unit 6.3 Halogen per Unit 0.9 Incandescent per Unit 13.9 Linear Fluorescent per Unit 1.7 Other Lamps per Unit 0.4 Figure 66: In-Unit Lighting Characteristics (Ecotope, 2013) 60 TRC Energy Services
69 Common Area Laundry Figure 67: Distribution of Building Laundry by Building Vintage (Ecotope, 2013) 61 TRC Energy Services
70 Elevators Figure 68: Distribution of Common Area Dryers by Dryer Vintage (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 69: Percentage of Buildings with Elevators by Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) 62 TRC Energy Services
71 Pools Figure 70: Percentage of Buildings with Pools by Pool Type & Building Size (Ecotope, 2013) Thermostats In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior Heating Thermostat Set Point 67.4 Tenants Reporting a Heating Setback 48.0% Average Size of Heating Setback 7.9 Cooling Thermostat Set Point 70.9 Tenants Reporting a Cooling Thermostat Setup 24.8% Figure 71: In-Unit Thermostat Settings and Behavior (Ecotope, 2013) 63 TRC Energy Services
72 In-Unit Appliances Figure 72: Distribution of In-Unit Refrigerators by Vintage (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 73: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Washers by Vintage (Ecotope, 2013) 64 TRC Energy Services
73 Figure 74: Distribution of In-Unit Clothes Dryers by Vintage (Ecotope, 2013) Figure 75: Distribution of In-Unit Dishwashers by Vintage (Ecotope, 2013) 65 TRC Energy Services
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK LOAN PROGRAM TERM SHEET
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK LOAN PROGRAM TERM SHEET Description: The Manufactured Home Park Loan Program provides permanent financing for the acquisition of mobile home parks (MHPs) by organizations interested
More informationExisting Multifamily Program Updates Fall Trade Ally Forum
Existing Multifamily Program Updates Fall Trade Ally Forum Agenda 2019 Measure Updates 2019 Forms Redesign New Offerings Multifamily Market Analysis What Qualifies as a Multifamily Property? Duplex, triplex,
More information2016 Carryover Application. Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Oregon Housing and Community Services
2016 Carryover Application Program Oregon Housing and Community Services 725 Summer Street NE, Suite B Salem, OR 97301-1266 (503) 986-2000 FAX (503) 986-2020 TTY (503) 986-2100 www.oregon.gov/ohcs Revised
More informationResearch Report #6-07 LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OFFICE.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN OREGON Research Report #6-07 LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OFFICE http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro/home.htm STATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OFFICE H-197 State Capitol Building Salem,
More informationHOUSING ELEMENT I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
HOUSING ELEMENT I. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL 1: IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A BALANCED HOUSING SUPPLY (AND A BALANCED POPULATION AND ECONOMIC BASE), EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO PROVIDE A BROAD RANGE
More informationMULTIFAMILY WEATHERIZATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
MULTIFAMILY WEATHERIZATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. How do Grantees define a multifamily building? It depends. There is not one all-encompassing definition for multifamily buildings and how they are
More informationTown of Limon Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 4 HOUSING. Limon Housing Authority Affordable Housing
CHAPTER 4 HOUSING Limon Housing Authority Affordable Housing 40 VISION Throughout the process to create this comprehensive plan, the community consistently voiced the need for more options in for-sale
More information4/18/2016. Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Housing Summit Oklahoma City
Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing 2016 Housing Summit Oklahoma City Laura Abernathy National Housing Trust National Housing Trust The National Housing Trust protects and improves existing affordable
More informationResidential New Construction Attitude and Awareness Baseline Study
Residential New Construction Attitude and Awareness Baseline Study Real Estate Appraiser Survey Report on Findings Prepared for the New Jersey Residential New Construction Working Group January 2001 Roper
More informationEXHIBIT A Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Selection Criteria
EXHIBIT A Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Selection Criteria (Applicants must achieve at least 145 points in order for the application to be considered) In calculation percentages: total residential units
More informationEffective Strategies for Achieving High Participation and Deeper Savings in Income-Eligible Multifamily Buildings
Effective Strategies for Achieving High Participation and Deeper Savings in Income-Eligible Multifamily Buildings October 2014 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE This technical memo provides best practices and strategies
More informationBarbara County Housing Element. Table 5.1 Proposed Draft Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs
Table 5.1 Proposed Draft Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs Goal 1: Enhance the Diversity, Quantity, and Quality of the Housing Supply Policy 1.1: Promote new housing opportunities adjacent to
More informationCOMPARISON OF THE LONG-TERM COST OF SHELTER ALLOWANCES AND NON-PROFIT HOUSING
COMPARISON OF THE LONG-TERM COST OF SHELTER ALLOWANCES AND NON-PROFIT HOUSING Prepared for The Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario By Clayton Research Associates Limited October, 1993 EXECUTIVE
More informationPROPOSED $100 MILLION FOR FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROPOSED $100 MILLION FOR FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING We urgently need to invest in housing production An investment in housing production is urgently needed to address the lack of affordable housing. The
More informationHOUSING ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...HO- 1 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND SNAPSHOT: PEOPLE AND HOUSING.. HO-1
HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION...HO- 1 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND SNAPSHOT: PEOPLE AND HOUSING.. HO-1 GMA GOAL AND REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING. HO-1 HOUSING NEEDS..HO-2 HOUSING ELEMENT VISION...HO-3
More informationP.O. Box. Sincerely, PHFA
June 25, 2012 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Attention: Secretary P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17105-3265 Re: Docket No. M-2012-2289411 Act 129 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program Phase
More informationPrepared For: Pennsylvania Utility Law Project (PULP) Harry Geller, Executive Director Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
THE CONTRIBUTION OF UTILITY BILLS TO THE UNAFFORDABILITY OF LOW-INCOME RENTAL HOUSING IN PENNSYLVANIA June 2009 Prepared For: Pennsylvania Utility Law Project (PULP) Harry Geller, Executive Director Harrisburg,
More informationResidential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA)for Multi-Family Housing
Residential Building Stock Assessment (RBSA)for Multi-Family Housing Tom Eckman & Massoud Jourabchi September 10, 2013 1 The Chances of Making A Better Decision Increase With Accurate Data Council s load
More informationHOUSING PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
11 HOUSING The Housing Element addresses existing and future housing needs for persons of all economic groups in the city. The Housing Element is a tool for use by citizens and public officials in understanding
More informationReach for Stranded Savings : The Challenges and Opportunities of Energy Efficiency in Affordable Multifamily
Reach for Stranded Savings : The Challenges and Opportunities of Energy Efficiency in Affordable Multifamily Scott Van Swearingen, Energy Trust of Oregon Tracy Scott, Lockheed Martin Kimberly Pray, Blue
More informationHCV Administrative Plan
6.0 HCV Project-Based Program Project-based vouchers (PBV) are an optional component of the HCV program that PHAs may choose to implement. Under this component, PHAs have been able to attach up to 20 percent
More informationCULPEPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED TO VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUNE 2013
CULPEPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED TO VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUNE 2013 Prepared by the Culpeper Affordable Housing Committee and Rappahannock-Rapidan
More informationRESIDENTIAL MARKET ANALYSIS
RESIDENTIAL MARKET ANALYSIS RMLS Student Fellow Master of Real Estate Development Candidate Many of the single family housing trends in the second quarter of 2017 bounced upwards following a continuation
More informationNaturally Occurring Affordable Housing Preservation. March 1, 2018
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Preservation March 1, 2018 Agenda Miami Affordable Housing Preservation Subsidized and NOAH Preservation NOAH Inventory Solutions Capital Capacity Policy 2 NOAH NOAH
More informationDetroit Inclusionary Housing Plan & Market Study Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Study Executive Summary August, 2016
Detroit Inclusionary Housing Plan & Market Study Preliminary Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Study Executive Summary August, 2016 Inclusionary Housing Plan & Market Study Objectives 1 Evaluate the citywide
More informationHousing Program Application (HOME & HTF) County of Bucks, Pennsylvania Housing Services
Housing Program Application (HOME & HTF) County of Bucks, Pennsylvania Housing Services Since 1989, Housing Services has been the comprehensive provider of funding for community development, housing and
More informationMaking Energy Efficient Upgrades Visible in Home Appraisals. Shaun Hassel Advanced Energy
Making Energy Efficient Upgrades Visible in Home Appraisals Shaun Hassel Advanced Energy shassel@advancedenergy.org 503-477-0469 What percentage of the nation s total energy consumption is consumed by
More informationRequest for Proposals Wake County Affordable Housing Development Program for Tax Credit Developments
2015 Request for Proposals Wake County Affordable Housing Development Program for Tax Credit Developments 1) STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND PROGRAM SUMMARY Wake County s Department of Housing and Community Revitalization
More informationMaintain its 10% set-aside for proposals involving the preservation and rehabilitation of existing multifamily rental housing in the final 2014 QAP.
October 16, 2013 Mark Shelburn North Carolina Housing Finance Agency 2508 Bush Street Raleigh, NC 27609 Re: North Carolina Draft 2014 Qualified Allocation Plan Dear Mr. Shelburn: The National Housing Trust
More informationState of Rhode Island. National Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan. July 29, 2016
HTF Program: Method of Distribution State of Rhode Island National Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan July 29, 2016 The Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is a new affordable housing production program that will
More information7/14/2016. Needed Housing. Workforce Housing. Planning for Needed Housing June 30, 2016 GOAL 10: HOUSING OAR (10)
Needed Housing Planning for Needed Housing June 30, 2016 Damon Runberg, Oregon Employment Dept. Jim Long, City of Bend Affordable Housing Mgr. Tom Kemper, Housing Works Executive Director GOAL 10: HOUSING
More informationCHAPTER 2: HOUSING. 2.1 Introduction. 2.2 Existing Housing Characteristics
CHAPTER 2: HOUSING 2.1 Introduction Housing Characteristics are related to the social and economic conditions of a community s residents and are an important element of a comprehensive plan. Information
More informationDocument under Separate Cover Refer to LPS State of Housing
Document under Separate Cover Refer to LPS5-17 216 State of Housing Contents Housing in Halton 1 Overview The Housing Continuum Halton s Housing Model 3 216 Income & Housing Costs 216 Indicator of Housing
More informationCity of St. Petersburg, Florida Consolidated Plan. Priority Needs
City of St. Petersburg, Florida 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan Priority Needs Permanent supportive housing and services for homeless and special needs populations. The Pinellas County Continuum of Care 2000
More informationCITY OF SASKATOON COUNCIL POLICY
ORIGIN/AUTHORITY Planning and Development Committee Report No. 26-1990; Legislation and Finance Committee Report No. 42-1990; City Commissioner s Report No. 29-1990, and further amendments up to and including
More informationDenver Comprehensive Housing Plan. Housing Advisory Committee Denver, CO August 3, 2017
Denver Comprehensive Housing Plan Housing Advisory Committee Denver, CO August 3, 2017 Overview 1. Review of Comprehensive Housing Plan process 2. Overview of legislative and regulatory priorities 3. Overview
More informationPORTLAND, OR MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES IN. Manufactured Housing Metropolitan Opportunity Profile: Policy Snapshot DECEMBER 2015
Manufactured Housing Metropolitan Opportunity Profile: Policy Snapshot DECEMBER 2015 MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES IN PORTLAND, OR STATE, LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL MANUFACTURED HOUSING POLICY Overall, Oregon
More informationOUTLINE OF THE CDBG-DR FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE (February 23, 2018)
OUTLINE OF THE CDBG-DR FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE (February 23, 2018) INTRODUCTION When Congress makes a special appropriation of Community Development Block Grant funds for disaster recovery (CDBG-DR), HUD
More informationThe South Australian Housing Trust Triennial Review to
The South Australian Housing Trust Triennial Review 2013-14 to 2016-17 Purpose of the review The review of the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) reflects on the activities and performance of the SAHT
More informationNon-Profit Co-operative Housing: Working to Safeguard Canada s Affordable Housing Stock for Present and Future Generations
Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada s submission to the 2009 Pre-Budget Consultations Non-Profit Co-operative Housing: Working to Safeguard Canada s Affordable Housing Stock for Present and Future
More informationN.C. Housing Finance Agency
N.C. Housing Finance Agency A. Robert Kucab Executive Director Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government N.C. Housing Finance Agency Established in G.S. Chapter 122A Created in 1973 Self-supporting
More informationDetroit Neighborhood Housing Markets
Detroit Neighborhood Housing Markets Market Study 2016 In 2016, Capital Impact s Detroit Program worked with local and national experts to determine the residential market demand across income levels for
More informationPENNSYLVANIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT Act of Dec. 18, 1992, P.L. 1376, No. 172 AN ACT Providing for the establishment and administration of an
PENNSYLVANIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT Act of Dec. 18, 1992, P.L. 1376, No. 172 AN ACT Cl. 48 Providing for the establishment and administration of an affordable housing program; and imposing additional powers
More informationGreening Affordable Housing Training U.S. Green Building Council
Greening Affordable Housing Training U.S. Green Building Council Case Study on Integrating Green Technology and Techniques in the Renovation of Affordable Housing Presentation by Tracy Kaufman November
More informationALAMEDA COUNTY HOUSING BOND. Stakeholder Proposals and Input
5 ALAMEDA COUNTY HOUSING BOND Stakeholder Proposals and Input 3-25-16 Priority Populations 6 House the most vulnerable (prioritize) Homeless people: with disabilities with mental illness Chronically homeless
More informationGlenmont Sector Plan Staff Draft AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS
Glenmont Sector Plan Staff Draft AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS UPDATED December 4, 2012 Center for Research and Information Systems Montgomery County Planning Department M-NCPPC Executive Summary The Glenmont
More informationHousing Assistance in Minnesota
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Housing in Minnesota Program Assessment October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003 Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Housing In Minnesota l\1innesotl Housing Finaru:e Agency Contentsoontents...
More informationGlenmont Sector Plan Staff Draft AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS
Glenmont Sector Plan Staff Draft AFFORDABLE HOUSING ANALYSIS November 1, 2012 Center for Research and Information Systems Montgomery County Planning Department M NCPPC Executive Summary The Glenmont Sector
More informationHOUSING INCENTIVE FUND ALLOCATION PLAN
2013-15 HOUSING INCENTIVE FUND ALLOCATION PLAN North Dakota Housing Finance Agency 2624 Vermont Avenue PO Box 1535 Bismarck, ND 58502-1535 800/292-8621 or 701/328-8072 800/366-6888 (TTY) www.ndhfa.org
More informationThe Impact of Market Rate Vacancy Increases Eleven-Year Report
The Impact of Market Rate Vacancy Increases Eleven-Year Report January 1, 1999 - December 31, 2009 Santa Monica Rent Control Board April 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary 1 Vacancy Decontrol s Effects on
More information2016 Vermont National Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan
2016 Vermont National Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan Overview The National Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is a new federal affordable housing production program that will complement existing Federal, State,
More informationNational Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan
National Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan FINAL PENDING APPROVAL OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Fostering the Development of Strong, Equitable Neighborhoods Brian Kenner Deputy
More informationAshland Transit Triangle:
Ashland Transit Triangle: Strategic Approach to Implementation Fregonese Associates Inc. 12/19/16 Phase I of the Transit Triangle Study Conducted in the Fall of 2015 Tasks Completed: Market analysis Initial
More informationBreaking Down Barriers: Exploring Program Models
Breaking Down Barriers: Exploring Program Models to Unlock Multifamily Energy Efficiency Aditya Nochur, Graduate Student, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning Harvey Michaels, Principal Investigator
More informationAffordable Housing Bonus Program. Public Questions and Answers - #2. January 26, 2016
Affordable Housing Bonus Program Public Questions and Answers - #2 January 26, 2016 The following questions about the Affordable Housing Bonus Program were submitted by the public to the Planning Department
More informationThe Onawa and CHAT Report
The Onawa and CHAT Report Black Hills Energy A Community Housing Assessment Team Study Amy Haase, AICP March 10, 2014 Population Change Onawa, 1960-2010 3,500 3,000 3,176 3,154 3,283 2,936 3,091 2,998
More informationSubject. Date: 2016/10/25. Originator s file: CD.06.AFF. Chair and Members of Planning and Development Committee
Date: 2016/10/25 Originator s file: To: Chair and Members of Planning and Development Committee CD.06.AFF From: Edward R. Sajecki, Commissioner of Planning and Building Meeting date: 2016/11/14 Subject
More informationSummary of Findings & Recommendations
Summary of Findings & Recommendations Minneapolis/St. Paul Region Mixed Income Housing Feasibility, Education and Action Project Background In 2015 and 2016, the Family Housing Fund and the Urban Land
More informationThe Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Overcoming Barriers to Affordable Housing in Rural America
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Overcoming Barriers to Affordable Housing in Rural America Rental Housing Needs in Rural America Rural communities are in critical need of affordable rental housing.
More informationAPPENDIX D FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS
APPENDIX D FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS Most of the new text in this discussion regarding the homeless population has been taken verbatim from the "Homeless and Very Low Income Housing Project:
More informationNational Low Income Housing Coalition National Housing Trust Fund Model Allocation Plan for New York June 2016
National Low Income Housing Coalition National Housing Trust Fund Model Allocation Plan for New York June 2016 The National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) will be implemented in 2016, making new funds available
More informationAPPENDIX A. Market Study Standards and Requirements
APPENDIX A Market Study Standards and Requirements Section 42(m)(1)(A)(iii) of the IRS Code and Section IV(A)(2) of the 2018 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) require market studies for all low-income housing
More informationCommunity Development
Rental Program Statement PURPOSE The rental program provides quality, safe and affordable rental housing in vibrant places by granting financial resources to our local and statewide partners. Priority
More information11 HOUSING INTRODUCTION PURPOSE
11 HOUSING INTRODUCTION The Housing Element addresses existing and future housing needs for persons of all economic groups in the city. The Housing Element is a tool for use by citizens and public officials
More informationCHAPTER 7 HOUSING. Housing May
CHAPTER 7 HOUSING Housing has been identified as an important or very important topic to be discussed within the master plan by 74% of the survey respondents in Shelburne and 65% of the respondents in
More informationBelow Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual
Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual Amended and Adopted by City Council May 5, 2015 Resolution No. 15-037 City of Cupertino Housing Division Department of Community Development
More informationNational Housing Trust Fund Implementation. Virginia Housing Alliance
National Housing Trust Fund Implementation Virginia Housing Alliance June 16, 2016 Ed Gramlich National Low Income Housing Coalition 1 What Is the National Housing Trust Fund? National Housing Trust Fund
More informationAPPENDIX C CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENERGIZE PHOENIX CORRIDOR
APPENDIX C CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENERGIZE PHOENIX CORRIDOR BACKGROUND ON RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE EP CORRIDOR The 10-mile EP corridor (Figure G1) is a highly diverse, mixed-use L-shaped
More informationTerms of Reference for Town of Caledon Housing Study
1.0 Introduction Terms of Reference for Town of Caledon Housing Study The Town of Caledon is soliciting proposals for a comprehensive Housing Study. Results of this Housing Study will serve as a guiding
More informationFounded 2000 Midwest LEED for Homes Provider 501(c)3 non profit; mission:
Founded 2000 Midwest LEED for Homes Provider 501(c)3 non profit; mission: To be a catalyst for market transformation of the built environment through education, third party verification, and partnership.
More informationHOUSING AUTHORITY OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY (HACC) S. GAIN ST., OREGON CIYT, OR PROJECT-SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE FROM
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY (HACC) 13900 S. GAIN ST., OREGON CIYT, OR PROJECT-SPECIFIC APPLICATION FOR SECTION 108 LOAN GUARANTEE FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR ARBOR
More informationDate: January 9, Strategic Housing Committee. IZ Work Group. Legacy Homes Program
City of Whitefish 418 E 2 nd Street PO Box 158 Whitefish, MT 59937 Date: January 9, 2019 To: From: Subject: Strategic Housing Committee IZ Work Group Legacy Homes Program At our meeting, we are going to
More informationJuly 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 Performance Report
Grantee: Grant: Adams County, CO B-11-UN-08-0001 July 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 Performance Report 1 Grant Number: B-11-UN-08-0001 Grantee Name: Adams County, CO Grant Award Amount: $1,997,322.00
More informationHOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION DOCUMENT
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RULES 9J-5.010, FAC City of Pembroke Pines, Florida ADOPTION DOCUMENT HOUSING ELEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT ADOPTION DOCUMENT VI. GOALS, OBJECTIVES
More informationCity of Exeter Housing Element
E. Identification and Analysis of Developments At-Risk of Conversion Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a), paragraph (8), this sub-section should include an analysis of existing assisted
More informationSUPPLEMENTAL SUBJECT: WINCHESTER AND SANTANA ROW/VALLEY FAIR URBAN VILLAGE PLAN BASELINE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK ANALYSIS
COUNCIL AGENDA: 6/27/17 ITEM: 10.5 CITY OF fir is San Jose CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: SEE BELOW Memorandum FROM: Jacky Morales-Ferrand DATE: Approved Date (f,
More informationThe cost of increasing social and affordable housing supply in New South Wales
The cost of increasing social and affordable housing supply in New South Wales Prepared for Shelter NSW Date December 2014 Prepared by Emilio Ferrer 0412 2512 701 eferrer@sphere.com.au 1 Contents 1 Background
More informationA REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT
A REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF BOISE, IDAHO AUDIT / TASK: AUDIT CLIENT: REPORT DATE: October 14, 2013 AUDIT GRADE: #13-04, Property Rehabilitation / Loan
More informationH-POLICY 1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods. Ensure that Prince William County achieves new neighborhoods with a high quality of life.
HOUSING Intent The intent of the Housing Plan is to provide a framework for providing for the housing needs of all residents of Prince William County. These needs are expressed in terms of quality, affordability,
More informationCommunity Revitalization Efforts 2016 Thresholds and Scoring Criteria
s 2016 Thresholds and Scoring Criteria Definitions: a deliberate, concerted, and locally approved plan or documented interconnected series of local approvals and events intended to improve and enhance
More information2012 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers New Jersey Report
Prepared for: New Jersey Association of REALTORS Prepared by: Research Division December 2012 Table of Contents Introduction... 2 Highlights... 4 Conclusion... 7 Report Prepared by: Jessica Lautz 202-383-1155
More informationEnergy Efficiency-Based Utility Allowances: A Driver for More Efficient Affordable Housing
Energy Efficiency-Based Utility Allowances: A Driver for More Efficient Affordable Housing Nehemiah Stone, Sean Denniston, Charles Ehrlich, and Puja Manglani, Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. ABSTRACT Affordable
More informationAffordable Housing Gap and Economic Analysis
Affordable Housing Gap and Economic Analysis Town of Chapel Hill April 4, 2017 DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES D EVELOPMENT, FINANCE AND POLICY ADVISORS Town of Chapel Hill PREPARED FOR: Town of Chapel Hill
More informationCity of Sebastopol Housing Subcommittee HOUSING ACTION PLAN SURVEY RESULTS From May 22, 2016 Meeting
City of Sebastopol Housing Subcommittee HOUSING ACTION PLAN SURVEY RESULTS From May 22, 2016 Meeting Introduction The subject questionnaire was designed to obtain opinions about actions to address housing
More informationHousing Credit Modernization Becomes Law
Housing Credit Modernization Becomes Law July 30, 2008 President Bush today signed into law the most significant modernization of Low Income Housing Tax Credits since 1989, as part of the Housing and Economic
More informationIdentifying Troubled NYCHA Developments in Brooklyn. Cost Considerations for Rehabilitating Troubled NYCHA Brooklyn Developments.
Memorandum To: George Sweeting From: Sarah Stefanski Date: November 26, 2018 Subject: Cost Comparison of Rehabilitation vs. Reconstruction of Troubled NYCHA Units in Brooklyn IBO compared the cost of rehabilitating
More informationHousing Characteristics
CHAPTER 7 HOUSING The housing component of the comprehensive plan is intended to provide an analysis of housing conditions and need. This component contains a discussion of McCall s 1990 housing inventory
More informationFrom the Eyes of a Verifier. Chris Schwarzkopf
From the Eyes of a Verifier Chris Schwarzkopf The Role of a Verifier Design Guide Inspect Test Teach Certify Teammate Case Study Example #1 LIHTC Funded 1980 s Multi Family Multiple Buildings On One Site
More informationLow Income Housing Tax Credits 101 (and a little beyond 101) James Lehnhoff, Municipal Advisor
Low Income Housing Tax Credits 101 (and a little beyond 101) James Lehnhoff, Municipal Advisor 9/29/2017 1 Affordable Housing Need What is Affordable? Overview Why do affordable housing projects need financial
More informationHOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES
HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES GOAL H-1: ENSURE THE PROVISION OF SAFE, AFFORDABLE, AND ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF WALTON COUNTY. Objective H-1.1: Develop a
More informationH o u s i n g N e e d i n E a s t K i n g C o u n t y
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of Affordable Units H o u s i n g N e e d i n E a s t K i n g C o u n t y HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Cities planning under the state s Growth
More informationResidential New Construction Attitude and Awareness Baseline Study
Residential New Construction Attitude and Awareness Baseline Study Real Estate Agent Survey Report on Findings Prepared for the New Jersey Residential New Construction Working Group December 2000 Roper
More informationAttachment I is an updated memo from Pat Comarell, providing the updated balancing tests to reflect the Council s October 10 th briefing.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke & Nick Tarbet Policy Analysts DATE: October 17, 2017 RE: Housing Plan: Growing Salt Lake PLNPCM2017-00168
More informationAFFORDABLE ATLANTA. Presented By: Presented For: ULI Atlanta: LCC Working Group on Affordable Housing 1/16/18
AFFORDABLE ATLANTA DEFINING THE NEED, STRATEGY, AND COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE ATLANTA REGION Presented By: Presented For: 1/16/18 ULI Atlanta: LCC Working Group on Affordable Housing
More informationHousing and Homelessness. City of Vancouver September 2010
Housing and Homelessness City of Vancouver September 2010 1 Table of Contents Overview Key Housing Issues Homelessness Rental Housing Affordable Home Ownership Key Considerations 2 OVERVIEW 3 Overview
More informationPROSPER PORTLAND Portland, Oregon RESOLUTION NO ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR THE AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE PROGRAM
PROSPER PORTLAND Portland, Oregon RESOLUTION NO. 7277 ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR THE AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Portland ( City ) is currently engaged in the 2035 Comprehensive
More informationNORTHWEST TERRITORIES HOUSING CORPORATION
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HOUSING CORPORATION OVERVIEW MISSION The mission of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation (NWTHC) is to ensure, where appropriate and necessary, that there is a sufficient
More informationBRIDGING THE GAP: LEVERAGING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, FINANCING, AND UTILITY INCENTIVES FOR MODERATE REHAB PROJECTS
BRIDGING THE GAP: LEVERAGING ENERGY EFFICIENCY, FINANCING, AND UTILITY INCENTIVES FOR MODERATE REHAB PROJECTS ACEEE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AS A RESOURCE SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 Mark Pignatelli, ICF International
More informationAFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP Recommendations for our Region Approved February 22, 2006
AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP Recommendations for our Region Approved February 22, 2006 www.rrregion.org RAPPAHANNOCK RAPIDAN REGIONAL COMMISSION WORKFORCE HOUSING WORKING GROUP
More informationTASK 2 INITIAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS U.S. 301/GALL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR FORM-BASED CODE
TASK 2 INITIAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS U.S. 301/GALL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR FORM-BASED CODE INTRODUCTION Using the framework established by the U.S. 301/Gall Boulevard Corridor Regulating Plan (Regulating Plan),
More information