reports
Supplement to Ohio Housing Finance Agency
VWB Research and National Land Advisory Group have completed a statewide rental analysis of the Section 42 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program for the state of Ohio.
The intent of this analysis is to identify current inventory and occupancies of Tax Credit, government-subsidized and market-rate units throughout the state. The penetration rate of Tax Credit units into the number of income-qualified households has also been calculated for a variety of housing types.
This analysis has been completed for all 88 Ohio counties as well as for smaller submarkets within the eight largest metropolitan areas of the state. Essentially, this is a snapshot in time of the Section 42 Tax Credit program in Ohio.
It is important to note that this study is not intended to establish the need for Tax Credit units in any one area. This study has established the overall occupancies and penetration rates of Tax Credit properties. While it can be inferred that those counties or submarkets with high vacancies within their existing Tax Credit projects and high penetration rates are indicators of a saturated market, the unique characteristics of a proposed property and its site needs to be considered. In addition, this report makes no attempt to evaluate the quality of existing product or the capabilities of the team that manages the property. Both of these factors can have a significant impact on the success of individual properties. Finally, other than an evaluation of senior Tax Credit properties, other Tax Credit properties that serve other special needs have not been specifically addressed.
All Section 42 Tax Credit properties and government-subsidized properties in the state of Ohio were identified from lists provided by the Ohio Housing Finance Agency. For the purpose of this analysis, only properties containing at least 10 units or more were included. In the eight largest counties (determined by the dominant city in the county), only properties of 40 units or more were included.
We inventoried 813 Section 42 Tax Credit properties containing 67,033 units, 1,033 government-subsidized properties containing 82,313 units, and 385 RD 515 properties containing 14,949 units. We also surveyed 2,411 market-rate properties containing 315,301 units. Each of these properties was contacted to verify rents, vacancies and programs used for assistance. The following table provides a distribution of the total number of projects, units, and vacancies surveyed by product type:
|
PROGRAM TYPE |
PROJECTS |
UNITS |
VACANT UNITS |
VACANCY RATE |
|
TAX CREDIT PROPERTIES |
522 |
46,018 |
3,374 |
7.3% |
|
HUD (8, 202, 236) PROPERTIES W/ TAX CREDITS |
93 |
11,321 |
294 |
2.6% |
|
RD 515 PROPERTIES W/ TAX CREDITS |
174 |
6,500 |
257 |
4.0% |
|
MARKET-RATE PROPERTIES W/ TAX CREDITS |
24 |
2,994 |
195 |
6.5% |
|
TOTAL TAX CREDIT |
813 |
67,033 |
4,120 |
6.1% |
|
| ||||
|
GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED (NON T.C.) |
940 |
70,160 |
1,764 |
2.5 % |
|
RD-515 (NON T.C.) |
211 |
8,449 |
251 |
3.0% |
|
MARKET-RATE |
2,411 |
315,301 |
20,074 |
6.4% |
|
TOTAL |
4,375 |
460,743 |
26,209 |
5.7% |
Surveyed Tax Credit units include all units that rent under Section 42 guidelines. This includes new construction and renovations. The properties that did not meet the required 10-unit minimum in non-metro counties or 40-unit minimum in metro counties have not been surveyed. Government-subsidized units with Tax Credits are those government-subsidized properties that have been renovated (Preservation Projects). Note that some Tax Credit properties may also have a HAP contract.
The following tables reflect major findings of this analysis. The first table is all 88 counties by vacancy rates by project type and units and penetration rates for 2003 for 0% to 60% AMGI and 40% to 60% AMGI. Penetration rates were calculated by comparing the number of Tax Credit units to the number of income-qualified renter households. Note that units that are not subsidized (i.e. without HAP contract, Rental Assistance, Housing Choice Vouchers, etc.) were used to establish the penetration rate at 40% to 60% of AMGI. All Tax Credit units were compared to the number of income-qualified renter households to establish the penetration rate at 0% to 60% of AMGI. High vacancy rates and high penetration rates are highlighted in red. Low or nonexistent vacancies and low penetration rates are in blue. Note that counties could have a high penetration rate and low vacancy rates.
The same factors were established for the eight largest metropolitan areas by submarket in the following table:
|
VACANCY RATE |
PENETRATION RATE 2003 | |||||
|
COUNTY |
TAX CREDIT |
GOVERNMENT- SUBSIDIZED |
RURAL DEVELOPMENT 515 |
MARKET- RATE |
0% - 60% AMGI |
40% - 60% AMGI |
|
AKRON |
| |||||
|
Central |
0.9% |
3.7% |
NU |
2.7% |
8.3% |
7.0% |
|
East |
2.4% |
1.3% |
NU |
4.2% |
2.6% |
3.3% |
|
North |
NU |
0.0% |
NU |
9.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
Northwest |
1.9% |
0.3% |
NU |
11.0% |
8.2% |
9.1% |
|
South |
4.9% |
0.2% |
NU |
4.5% |
6.7% |
8.9% |
|
West |
0.0% |
0.5% |
NU |
3.0% |
8.8% |
0.8% |
|
CANTON |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
0.9% |
4.5% |
NU |
14.9% |
3.6% |
5.1% |
|
East |
1.2% |
0.0% |
2.7% |
9.3% |
3.3% |
4.5% |
|
North |
NU |
0.0% |
NU |
6.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
West |
16.7% |
1.6% |
0.0% |
4.5% |
3.8% |
4.7% |
|
CINCINNATI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
12.6% |
2.3% |
NU |
5.8% |
12.4% |
18.1% |
|
Northeast Central |
5.9% |
0.2% |
NU |
7.2% |
5.3% |
5.7% |
|
Near East |
3.8% |
10.8% |
NU |
6.0% |
1.8% |
2.2% |
|
North Central |
3.3% |
3.5% |
NU |
8.3% |
7.3% |
8.0% |
|
Northeast |
NU |
1.8% |
NU |
5.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
Northwest |
5.8% |
0.0% |
NU |
5.6% |
8.1% |
3.6% |
|
Southeast |
NU |
3.0% |
NU |
8.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
Southwest |
0.0% |
3.7% |
NU |
8.4% |
2.3% |
3.1% |
|
CLEVELAND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downtown |
4.9% |
0.5% |
NU |
8.3% |
12.6% |
21.5% |
|
East |
7.5% |
0.6% |
NU |
6.2% |
25.4% |
16.7% |
|
South |
NU |
0.0% |
NU |
3.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
South Central |
2.8% |
1.5% |
NU |
2.8% |
14.8% |
18.2% |
|
Southeast |
NU |
0.0% |
NU |
4.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
Southwest |
NU |
0.0% |
NU |
7.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
West |
2.8% |
0.0% |
NU |
4.5% |
16.1% |
16.3% |
|
COLUMBUS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central |
0.0% |
0.0% |
NU |
6.1% |
8.5% |
11.9% |
|
East |
8.6% |
0.0% |
NU |
9.0% |
15.5% |
13.9% |
|
Northeast |
4.2% |
0.2% |
NU |
8.2% |
20.9% |
22.4% |
|
North Central |
0.2% |
0.0% |
NU |
6.1% |
2.3% |
3.3% |
|
Northwest |
19.6% |
0.0% |
NU |
9.2% |
16.1% |
21.3% |
|
Southeast |
12.6% |
0.0% |
NU |
8.7% |
13.7% |
14.0% |
|
Southwest |
7.8% |
0.6% |
NU |
9.3% |
40.3% |
50.4% |
|
DAYTON |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East |
2.6% |
5.4% |
NU |
6.0% |
10.0% |
6.1% |
|
Huber Heights |
1.0% |
0.0% |
NU |
6.4% |
11.5% |
13.0% |
|
Northwest |
10.7% |
1.2% |
14.0% |
4.6% |
15.2% |
15.8% |
|
Southeast |
4.6% |
1.2% |
NU |
5.8% |
10.9% |
8.8% |
|
Southwest |
3.0% |
1.9% |
NU |
5.0% |
12.8% |
10.4% |
|
Vandalia |
3.4% |
8.6% |
NU |
4.9% |
7.8% |
7.2% |
|
TOLEDO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downtown |
8.4% |
7.6% |
NU |
15.2% |
18.6% |
26.6% |
|
North |
NU |
9.3% |
NU |
4.4% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
Oregon |
0.0% |
1.9% |
NU |
2.1% |
1.7% |
2.9% |
|
South Central |
1.4% |
0.4% |
NU |
6.6% |
8.5% |
13.6% |
|
Southwest |
8.3% |
5.5% |
NU |
5.2% |
8.5% |
12.5% |
|
West |
4.6% |
3.4% |
NU |
5.9% |
6.7% |
7.7% |
|
YOUNGSTOWN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northeast |
9.5% |
8.6% |
NU |
4.1% |
5.5% |
7.5% |
|
Northwest |
NU |
0.7% |
NU |
10.6% |
1.4% |
2.1% |
|
Southeast |
2.3% |
0.0% |
NU |
7.1% |
6.5% |
5.7% |
|
Southwest |
0.0% |
2.4% |
0.0% |
13.8% |
3.9% |
0.9% |
Additional statewide and metropolitan maps illustrating trends impacting the rental housing market in Ohio can be found in Section V and Section VI in this report.
