IRONBOUND COMMUNITY CORPORATION Summary Statistics Building Sheets Kelly Timmes 7/1/13 A statistical summary of the characteristics of the 13 privately-owned, federally-subsidized housing projects in Essex County with active contracts as of June 3rd, 13. The data analyzed comes from the HUD Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 Contracts Database (accessed March 6, 13).
Page 1 Properties There are 13 privately-owned, federally-subsidized multifamily properties in Essex County, NJ. Seventy-one over half of the properties are in Newark. Nineteen properties (14%) are in East Orange. 5% are in Orange. 4% are in Montclair. 4% are in West Orange. 3% are in Irvington. 3% are in Maplewood. Bloomfield and South Orange each have 3 properties (%). Verona and West Caldwell each have properties (%). Belleville, Caldwell, Cedar Grove, Glen Ridge, and Livingston each have one property (1%). Location Percentage Properties of Properties Belleville 1 1% Bloomfield 3 % Caldwell 1 1% Cedar Grove 1 1% East Orange 19 14% Glen Ridge 1 1% Irvington 4 3% Livingston 1 1% Maplewood 4 3% Montclair 5 4% Newark 71 54% Nutley 3 % Orange 6 5% South Orange 3 % Verona % West Caldwell % West Orange 5 4% Grand Total 13 1%
Page Units Among the 13 properties, there are 13,998 units total. Property Units (by Count) Property Units (by Percentage) n- Assisted Units 6% 14, 13,11 1, 1, 8, Assisted Units 94% 6, 4,, Assisted Units 877 n- Assisted Units 94% (13,11) of these units receive federal assistance. Units by Location Newark East Orange Orange Irvington West Orange Montclair Nutley Verona Caldwell Cedar Grove Bloomfield Maplewood South Orange West Caldwell Belleville Livingston Glen Ridge Assisted Units Total Units, 4, 6, 8, 1,
Page 3 Location Assisted Units Total Units Percentage of Total Assisted Units Newark 7,844 8,465 6% East Orange,175,184 17% Orange 799 866 6% Irvington 453 454 3% West Orange 417 417 3% Montclair 41 457 3% Nutley 8 1 % Verona 16 16 1% Caldwell 159 159 1% Cedar Grove 149 15 1% Bloomfield 135 53 1% Maplewood 13 13 1% South Orange 71 7 1% West Caldwell 11 11 % Belleville 6 7 % Livingston 5 5 % Glen Ridge 3 3 % Grand Total 13,11 13,998 1% 6% of the assisted units are in Newark. 17% of the assisted units are in East Orange. 6% of the assisted units are in Orange. % of the assisted units are in Nutley. West Orange, Montclair, and Irvington each have 3% of the assisted units. other location has more than - 1% of the assisted units.
Page 4 Assisted Units Of the 13,11 assisted units, 1% (1,565) of the units had zero bedrooms. 6% (7,81) of the units had one bedroom. 18% (,41) of the units had two bedrooms. 8% (1,87) of the units had three bedrooms. % (7) of the units had four bedrooms. % (4) of the units had five or more bedrooms. Type of Assisted Units (by Percentage) Four- % Two- 18% Three- 8% Zero- 1% One- 6% Five-or- More- % Units 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3,, 1, 1,565 Zero- Type of Assisted Units (by Count) 7,81 One-,41 Two- 1,87 Three- 7 4 Four- Five-or- More- Series1 1,565 7,81,41 1,87 7 4 Type of Unit
Page 5 Rent-to-FMR Ratio Rent to FMR Ratio (by Percentage) Rent-to-FMR ratio: the average ratio between a property s rents and the fair market rents (FMR). 11-13% 131-14% 13% 5% 141-16% 5% >16% (1%) 19% <8% 11-1% 6% 31% 8-1% 5 (19%) of the properties had a rent-to-fmr ratio of less than 8%. 41 (31%) of the properties had a rent-to-fmr ratio of between 8 and 1%. 35 (6%) of the properties had a rent-to-fmr ratio of between 11 and 1%. 17 (13%) of the properties had a rent-to-fmr ratio of between 11 and 13%. 6 (5%) of the properties had a rent-to-fmr ratio of between 131 and 14%. 6 (5%) of the properties had a rent-to-fmr ratio of between 141 and 16%. (1%) of the properties had a rent-to-fmr ratio of more than 16%. Rent to FMR Ratio (by Percentage) 5 4 41 35 Properties 3 1 5 17 6 6 <8% 8-1% 11-1% 11-13% 131-14% 141-16% >16% Rent (as Percentage of FMR)
Page 6 Program Type Program Type (by Percentage) Sec 8 SR % /8 NC 9% Sec 8 NC 5% HFDA/8 NC 19% Rent Supp 3% RAP 8% PRAC/811 14% PD/8 Existing 1% HFDA/8 SR 5% LMSA 3% PRAC/ 3% Pension Fund 1% Properties 3 5 15 1 5 1 5 /8NC HFDA/8NC HFDA/8SR LMSA 6 Program Type (by Count) 4 13 PD/8 Existing Pension Fund 4 19 1 PRAC/ PRAC/811 RAP Rent Supp Sec 8 NC Sec 8 SR Total 1 5 6 4 13 4 19 1 4 7 6 Program 4 7 6 1 (9%) of the properties are in the Sec. /Sec. 8 New Construction (/8NC) program. 5 (19%) of the properties are in the State Agency/Sec. 8 New Construction (HFDA/8NC) program. 6 (5%) of the properties are in the State Agency/Sec. 8 Substantial Rehabilitation (HFDA/8SR) program. 4 (3%) of the properties are in the Loan Management Set-Aside (LMSA) program. 13 (1%) of the properties are in the Sec. 8 Property Disposition/Existing Housing (PD/ Existing) program. (%) of the properties are in the Sec. 8 Community Investment Demonstration (Pension Fund) program. 4 (3%) of the properties are in the Sec. /Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC/) program. 19 (14%) of the properties are in the Sec. 811/Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC/811) program. 1 (8%) of the properties are in the Rental Assistance Program (RAP) program. 4 (3%) of the properties are in the Rent Supplement (Rent Supp) program. 7 (5%) of the properties are in the Sec. 8 New Construction (Sec 8 NC) program. 6 (%) of the properties are in the Sec. 8 Substantial Rehabilitation (Sec 8 SR) program.
Page 7 Contract Administrator Contract Administrator (by Percentage) Performance- Based ACC 14% Eighteen (14%) of the properties have a Performance-Based Annual Contributions Contract (ACC). HUD- Administered 33% Pre- Performance- Based ACC 53% Seventy (53%) of the properties have a Pre-Performance-Based Annual Contributions Contract (ACC). Forty-four (33%) of the properties have a HUD-Administered Contract. Contract Administrator (by Count) 8 7 7 Contracts 6 5 4 3 1 18 44 Performance-Based ACC Pre-Performance-Based ACC Contract Administrator HUD-Administered
Page 8 Contract Document Type Contract Document Type (by Percentage) Ninety-five (7%) of the properties have a Housing Assistance Program (HAP) contract. PRAC 17% SUP 3% Twenty-three (17%) of the properties have a Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC). HAP 7% RAP 8% Ten (8%) of the properties have a Rental Assistance Payment (RAP) contract. Four (3%) of the properties have a Rent Supplement (SUP) contract. Contract Document Type (by Count) 1 95 Contracts 8 6 4 3 4 1 HAP PRAC SUP RAP Type of Contract
Page 9 Contract Expiration Contract Expiration Fiscal Year (By Property) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 31 3 33 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 3 4 5 6 9 3 31 3 33 18 6 1 11 8 7 1 7 7 4 1 1 7 4 11 1 5 1 15 5 3 Properties Contract Expiration Fiscal Year (By Assisted Units) 4 85 96 81 463 474 575 796 933 8 78 1,9 1,3 1,57 1,41 1,3 1,78 43 65 5 1, 1,5, Units Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the properties have contracts that will expire before FY. 18 (14%) of the properties have contracts that are due to expire in FY13. 6 (%) of the properties have that are due to expire in FY14. 4% of the assisted units are under contracts that will expire before FY. 1,9 (8%) of the units are under contracts that are due to expire in FY13. 1,3 (1%) of the units are under contracts are due to expire in FY14.
Page 1 Contract Term The vast majority (83%) of contracts have a term of 1 year, 5 years, years, or 4 years. Length of Contract Term (in Years) (in Months) = 3 months = 1 year Contract Term = 1 contract Contracts.5 3 1 1 1 3 36 5 4 48 5 6 1 1 3 15 18 4 4 64 3.5 7 1 3 36 4 4 48 6 5 599 1
Page 11 Financing Category Fifty-six (4%) of the properties are in the Subsidized, HUD Financing category. Financing Category Name (by Percentage) Twenty-four (18%) of the properties are in the Insured- Subsidized category. Thirty (3%) of the properties are in the /811 category. Subsidized, HUD Financing 4% Subsidized - Previously Insured 14% /811 3% Insured- Subsidized 18% Subsidized- Previously /811 % HUD Held 1% Properties 6 5 4 3 1 3 /811 HUD Held Financing Category Name (by Count) 4 Insured- Subsidized Subsidized - Previously /811 18 Subsidized - Previously Insured 56 Subsidized, HUD Financing Total 3 4 18 56 Property Category Eighteen (14%) of the properties are in the Subsidized Previously Insured category. Two (1%) of the properties are in the HUD-Held category. Two (%) of the properties are in the Subsidized Previously /811 category.
Page 1 Primary Financing Type Primary Financing Type (by Percentage) n- Insured 8% HUD lists Unknown as the primary financing type of almost half (46%) of the properties. HUD Held 1% Flexible Subsidy 4% Insured 18% /811 3% Unknown 46% Thirty (3%) of the properties are primarily financed through the /811 program. Twenty-four (18%) of the properties are insured. Ten (8%) are non-insured. Five properties (4%) have a Flexible Subsidy. Two properties (1%) are HUD-Held 7 6 5 61 Primary Financing Type (by Count) Properties 4 3 3 4 1 Unknown /811 Flexible Subsidy 5 1 HUD Held Insured n-insured Primary Financing Type
Page 13 Loan Characteristics Zero loans were noted to be: HUD-Owned, Hospital, Nursing Home, Board and Care, Assisted Living, Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR), Mortgage Insurance Premium (MIP), or Co-Insured 4 properties (18%) held an Insured loan. 3 properties (3%) held /811 loan. 13 properties (1%) held a HUD-held loan. 16 properties (1%) held a Refinanced loan. 6 properties (5%) held a 1(d)(3) loan. 1 properties (9%) held a 1(d)(4) loan. 16 properties (1%) held a 36 loan. 14 properties (11%) held a n-insured loan. 1 property (1%) held a Risk-Sharing loan. Is Insured Is /811 Is HUD-Held 1 4 18 1 3 1 1 13 119 Is Refinanced Is 1(d)(3) Is 1(d)(4) 116 16 1 1 1 1 16 6 1 Is 36 Is n-insured Is Risk-Sharing 1 116 1 118 1 131 16 14 1