General Summary of the Ten County Rural Nevada Area ...nvrural.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Full_Housing_Study_Report.pdfNevada markets include three garden/flat apartment units

General Summary of the Ten County Rural Nevada Area Housing Demand Market Analysis

of

Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lyon, Nye [Northern Area], Pershing, Storey and White Pine

for

Nevada Rural Housing Authority (NRHA) 3695 Desatoya Drive

Carson City, Nevada 89701

Effective Date

January 22, 2014 Revised August 1, 2014

Final Report October 15, 2014

Job Reference Number

9171JB

Executive Summary

Vogt Santer Insights, Ltd. (VSI), a national real estate market research firm based in Columbus, Ohio, has completed a housing assessment of various affordable and workforce housing initiatives in the ten-county, rural Nevada area that includes Churchill, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lyon, Nye (Northern Nye), Pershing, Storey and White Pine counties. The individual counties are referred to as the “Study Areas” in this evaluation. The following map illustrates the locations of the ten counties analyzed in this rural Nevada housing assessment.

This report, which considers housing data collected in the subject counties in mid- to late 2013 and early 2014, identifies and qualifies the potential demand for various market-rate, affordable and workforce housing alternatives that could be developed in the selected rural counties throughout Nevada both today and projected into the future and based upon the anticipated growth of area industry. The following map identifies the main communities within the ten county rural Nevada study area.

1

2

Residential Development Options

Five conceptual unit designs have been considered for future development purposes. These units will be utilized to assess meeting new housing construction needs within each market. The units being considered for potential development within the rural Nevada markets include three garden/flat apartment units in two-story walk-up buildings, a three-bedroom two-story townhouse with attached garage and a three-bedroom single-family home with two-car attached garage. Following is a summary of the proposed new construction development options considered:

Unit Style Square Feet Building Style

One-bedroom/1.0-bath Garden/Flat 775 4- or 8-unit Walkup Two-bedroom/2.0-bath Garden/Flat 980 4- or 8-unit Walkup

Three-bedroom/2.0-bath Garden/Flat 1,270 4- or 8-unit Walkup Three-bedroom/2.5-bath Townhouse 1,524 3-unit Two-story Three-bedroom/2.0-bath Ranch 1,610 Single-family w/2-car attached garage

The square footage of the concept units has been placed on the high side of the equation for analyzing future housing production and development cost purposes. However, the final analysis with respect to each county identifies the current size of any new construction initiatives that may be occurring in each specific area relative to the type of conceptual housing model used in this analysis. Accordingly, the cost of any new housing construction/development initiatives would have to consider unit size when pricing those housing products in each area. This will most likely become a critical aspect of any new housing construction when contemplating and dealing with establishing affordable housing alternatives for these rural communities. Based on our evaluation, the subject floor plans and subject buildings appear to be appropriate for development in most of the rural Nevada markets. The proposed developments are expected to be among the highest quality, most attractive housing in each market where developed. Proposed amenities will enhance any proposed project’s overall marketability. The following is a summary of the report. Additional detail supporting can be found in the full report.

3

Demographic Overview

The county seat of Nye County is Tonopah, located approximately 165 miles northwest from Pahrump in the northern area of the county. Due to the distance from Pahrump, and the market difference of the north area of the county, we have established three market areas, South Nye County (the Pahrump area), Southeast Nye County (the Beatty area) and Northern Nye County (the Tonopah and Northern Nye County area in General). This housing demand assessment concentrates on the Northern Nye County area due to the rural nature of the area, anticipated job growth and the ongoing shortage of housing.

The following tables rank the ten study area counties based on the 2013 estimate for the four demographic categories:

Nearly three-quarters of the state’s population and a similar ratio of households are in Clark County, which contains the Las Vegas–Paradise metropolitan area. The Las Vegas area includes three of Nevada’s four largest incorporated cities.

Demographic Comparisons – 2013 Estimates Population Households

Lyon 52,435 Lyon 19,963 Elko 50,237 Elko 17,886 Churchill 24,974 Churchill 9,711 Humboldt 17,090 Humboldt 6,437 White Pine 10,207 White Pine 3,771 Pershing 6,820 Pershing 2,021 Lander 6,050 Lander 2,294 Northern Nye 4,770 Northern Nye 1,983 Storey 4,083 Storey 1,775 Eureka 2,085 Eureka 874

Median Household Income Median Home Value Lander $68,745 Elko $163,359 Elko $68,464 Humboldt $143,007 Eureka $61,174 Storey $129,,875 Storey $58,086 White Pine $125,921 Humboldt $57,494 Churchill $120,186 Pershing $53,833 Eureka $103,378 Churchill $49,606 Pershing $96,779 White Pine $45,643 Lyon $96,717 Lyon $37,628 Northern Nye $86,345 Northern Nye $36,631 Lander $78,889

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Vogt Santer Insights

4

Household income is high in many of the study area counties. Eight of the ten have a median household income that is higher than the overall median household income of $45,164 (2013 estimate) for the state of Nevada. Median home values among the study area counties range from $78,889 to over $163,350. Compared to the statewide average, only two study area counties have a higher median home value. It is of note that the current median home value in several counties is down significantly from the 2010 Census, likely the result of the recent national recession. Area Employment Projections The projections of mining employment in the region are based primarily on county-level output projections from Moody’s Analytics, available on an annual basis through 2042. Translating these output projections to employment requires both deriving output per worker (productivity) currently and modeling productivity changes over the coming 30 years. The timing and impact of these disruptive changes are impossible to predict so none is assumed. If these occur, they are likely to increase labor productivity, so the projections in later years may be overstated. Modeling productivity growth is discussed in more detail below.

Fully reflecting the impact of the growth of mining employment on workforce and housing demand also requires including the employment impact beyond mining itself. The expansion of mining operations will directly increase employment in the rural counties of Nevada. It will also create additional supplier demands for the goods and services of other businesses in the state.

5

Following is a summary of the data included in household projections for each county: County Allocation of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Employment for 2012 and 2025:

Chu

rchi

ll

Elk

o

Eur

eka

Hum

bold

t

Lan

der

Lyo

n

Nye

Pers

hing

Stor

ey

Whi

te

Pine

2012 Total 896 4,503 5,111 2,753 2,387 757 1,830 706 154 1,414

Less Than $15,000 112 58 64 35 30 11 22 9 2 18 $15,000 to $24,999 89 479 514 283 242 92 191 72 19 145 $25,000 to $34,999 92 500 519 294 246 108 216 73 22 149 $35,000 to $49,999 155 992 1,130 608 528 167 402 156 34 312 $50,000 to $74,999 218 1,744 2,071 1,089 962 251 682 284 51 564 $75,000 to $99,999 125 523 586 319 274 91 222 81 18 163

$100,000 to $149,999 72 180 198 109 92 32 81 27 6 55 $150,000 to $199,999 21 21 21 12 10 4 11 3 1 6

$200,000 & Over 13 6 8 4 4 1 3 1 0 2

2025 Total 1,054 6,069 7,119 3,759 3,309 891 2,407 978 181 1,946

Less than $15,000 167 71 79 42 37 12 27 11 2 22 $15,000 to $24,999 106 589 645 351 303 105 232 90 21 181 $25,000 to $34,999 112 643 695 384 327 123 270 97 25 196 $35,000 to $49,999 184 1,342 1,579 833 734 197 530 217 40 431 $50,000 to $74,999 242 2,435 2,972 1,537 1,374 306 933 406 62 801 $75,000 to $99,999 135 713 833 442 387 105 292 114 21 228

$100,000 to $149,999 75 243 279 150 129 37 105 38 7 77 $150,000 to $199,999 21 26 28 16 13 5 13 4 1 8

$200,000 & Over 12 8 10 5 4 1 3 1 0 3 Source: Regionomics

6

Rental Market Characteristics The following table summarizes the projects, units and project type occupancy for each county based on our surveys:

County

Rental Market Characteristics

Market-rate Tax Credit Subsidized Tax Credit Government-Subsidized Project Units % Occ. Project Units % Occ. Project Units % Occ. Project Units % Occ.

Churchill 36 336 91.4% - - - 4 126 100% 6 132 95.5% Elko 25 1,443 97.6% 4 158 96.8% 7 264 97.0% 5 162 95.7%

Eureka 9 118 81.4% - - - - - - 1 12 100% Humboldt 13 189 89.9% 2 72 100% 2 66 100% 4 103 100%

Lander 4 28 92.9% - - - 1 28 100% 2 40 100% Lyon 6 185 93.0% 4 125 98.4% 5 129 98.4% 6 123 92.7%

Northern Nye 5 285 100% - - - - - - 3 80 97.5% Pershing 1 8 100% 1 40 65.0% 3 72 95.8% - - - Storey 6 14 71.4% - - - - - - - - -

White Pine 3 81 91.4% - - - - - - 4 128 -

Demand Calculations

To calculate demand, we have considered new income-appropriate household growth, overcrowded and substandard housing in order to establish demand for new rental units in the short term. The following table outlines an estimate of short-term support for new rental units by county:

For-Sale Homes

County(Subsidized) 0%

to 50% AMHI

(Tax Credit) 41% to 60%

AMHI

(Market Rate) Greater than 60%

AMHI(Subsidized) 0%

to 50% AMHI

(Tax Credit) 41% to 60%

AMHI

(Market Rate) (Single Family and/or Townhome Structures)

Churchill 24 29 24 24 53 19 173Elko 92 88 72 36 50 36 374

Eureka 4 2 2 2 6 8 23Humboldt 27 26 19 10 30* 32 144

Lander 18 3 7 6 9 28 72Lyon 62 45 20 18 18 36 198

Northern Nye 20 12 32 20 31 19 134Pershing 16 10 8 6 14 32 86

Storey 5 6 10 3 11 32 68White Pine 27 11 9 19 14 16 97

Totals: 295 232 204 145 235 258 1,369

Footnote: * These units are presently in the planning stage with NRHA.

Housing Demand by Type for the Four (4) Year Period Covering 2015 thru 2018

Multifamily Units Senior Housing Units

Total Housing Units

(Years 2015 thru 2018)

7

Overall housing need ranges from 23 units in Eureka County to over 370 housing units in Elko County over the next four-plus years. This demand summary includes both rental and for-sale housing needs. The rental units include subsidized, workforce/affordable and market-rate units and includes a variety of family/general occupancy as well as age-restricted. It is our opinion that this need can be met with redevelopment of existing projects, adaptive reuse, in-fill and new construction projects. Mixed-income developments targeting a variety of renters, including both general occupancy and older adult residents, provide an opportunity to meet some of each area’s noted housing need. The following table summarizes rent and housing cost estimates for each county. This is based on the proposed concept homes and a comparison of estimated costs of development. Finally, the evaluation establishes whether current housing characteristics are sufficient for additional housing development. Following is a summary:

County

Average Unit Size

(Sq. Ft.) Age of Home

(in Years)

Current Medain

Collected Market Rent

New Construction

Rent

Renter's Capacity to

Achieve New Construction

Rents (As of 2014)

Percent Difference (New

Construction to Renter Capacity)

Average Home Size

(Sq. Ft.)

Age of Home

(in Years)

Current Median

Sale Price

New Construction

Sale Price

Homebuyer Capacity to

Achieve Sale Price for New Construction

(As of 2014)

Percent Difference

(New Construction to homebuyer

Capacity)

Churchill 835 24 $570 $636 Sufficient 14.5% 1,760 35 $150,695 $231,974 Insufficient -3.1%Elko 749 26 $769 $636 Sufficient 15.1% 1,882 39 $172,700 $256,075 Sufficient 17.0%

Eureka 933 34 $453 $820 Insufficient -6.3% 1,740 29 $119,210 $236,754 Insufficient -12.2%Humboldt 922 27 $670 $799 Sufficient 4.5% 1,735 34 $154,200 $234,367 Sufficient 17.6%

Lander 844 28 $936 $725 Sufficient 13.2% 1,604 30 $133,385 $216,829 Sufficient 31.3%Lyon 811 19 $642 $697 Insufficient -4.6% 1,860 28 $166,450 $248,203 Sufficient 15.2%

Northern Nye 748 35 $570 $655 Insufficient -7.1% 1,534 41 $108,565 $231,357 Sufficient 4.2%* Pershing 650 28 $450 $653 Insufficient -11.3% 1,594 24 $140,872 $222,115 Sufficient 29.2% ** Storey 782 67 $458 $655 Sufficient 0.7% 1,733 34 $174,225 $241,484 Sufficient 11.5%

White Pine 896 28 $548 $767 Insufficient -18.2% 1,608 49 $170,521 $217,739 Sufficient 7.2%

Averages : 817 32 $607 $641 0.1% 1,705 34 $149,082 $233,690 11.78%

* 1 Bedroom Units Only "Red" - depicts "Current pricing DOES NOT SUPPORT New Construction at this time" ** 1 & 2 Bedroom Units Only "Black" - depicts "Current pricing SUPPORTS New Construction at this time"

For-Sale Home Pricing

(Sale Price for Median Sized Home situated on a 1/4 acre or smaller lot)

Multifamily Market Rental Rates

(Average Market Rents for 1, 2 & 3 Bedroom Garden Style Units)

Insufficient capacity does not preclude development within a community, it is a notice that current housing rents or sales prices are lower that the estimated costs with bring new rental or for-sale units to a specific area.

8

Overall Summary

For residential quality of life items, we have assigned values from high to low depending on the existing opportunities within an area. Considering a one to 16 point (points awarded highest to least) rating for the individual communities, the overall rankings for the population, household, median household incomes and the estimated short-term (five-year) demand for workforce housing for the 16 selected communities. The residential services category was scored from two to 10 points, based on limited to excellent resident services availability. Following is a summary of the communities based on overall points:

Community Population Households Median Income

Residential Services

Short-Term Affordable & Workforce

Housing Demand*

Total Points

Estimated Maximum Demand

Points Elko 15 15 14 10 90 16 70

Winnemucca 13 13 15 10 56 13 64 Fernley 16 16 10 8 40 11 61 Fallon 14 14 7 10 82 15 60 Carlin 7 7 16 6 67 14 50

Battle Mountain 10 11 12 8 12 6 47 Ely 11 12 4 8 25 10 45

Tonopah 8 8 6 6 43 12 40 West Wendover 12 10 3 8 16 7 40

Virginia City 3 4 13 6 17 8 34 Yerington 9 9 1 10 8 4 33 Lovelock 6 6 5 6 24 9 32

Wells 5 5 8 6 8 4 28 Eureka 1 2 11 6 8 4 24

Round Mountain/Hadley 2 3 9 4 0 0 18 Austin 4 1 2 2 0 0 9

*Excludes subsidized and market-rate housing need.

Based on this evaluation, the top ranked communities represent the most favorable environments for development of new residential units. These evaluations will be further detailed when considering the depth of each market and the support potential of for rent and for sale housing alternatives within each community.

9

During the timeframe in which Vogt Santer Insights conducted its research, and since having completed its reports, a number of potential developments have come to light that we determined may, or may not, have an impact on study areas. For example, currently believed for development is a new Tesla Motors manufacturing facility east of Reno, incentives for the completion of the USA Parkway, a new biofuels plant and the potential expansion of the Apple data center. As of now, each of these specific initiatives, and others, lack some specifics regarding project locations, timing, capacities and secondary impact. As a result, the full effect of these types of projects on specific housing markets cannot be assessed at this time. While the potential development and implementation of these new projects may appear to be real, they may be years off at best and because the full impact of these projects has not yet been detailed nor realized, we determined not to include these potential events in our most recent demographic analysis. These types of projects, when they are developed, and how they become operational, will most likely impact several geographical areas over the next few years, while these initiatives alone may very well serve as the impetus for additional study within those to-be-recognized areas in the near future. These types of future studies may include updates to our present studies, as well as a number of site reports designed to identify the impact on housing in those areas specifically affected. Barriers to the Production of Affordable Housing There are barriers to affordable housing that exist in each of the rural Nevada counties, which are common in small to medium-sized communities. It is not unwillingness to engage in affordable housing development by either the public or the private sector, but rather the lack of resources required for successful developments. This resource deficiency tends to manifest itself around three categories: production capacity issues, financial challenges or cost impediments to the individual(s) in the household. Potential Strategies to Eliminate Affordability Barriers Most of the common barriers that impede the development of affordable housing do not exist today as an attempt to exclude a specific class of people. They are often unintended consequences that result from market forces or broad public policy decisions. There are many ways that the various municipalities could support additional affordable housing, as the three following categories describe.

10

Production Solutions Local government can assist by removing encumbrances and streamlining the regulatory process in order to accommodate affordable housing. Suggested actions include land donation, land banking, land trusts, building development capacity, inclusionary zoning, expediting permitting and revising impact fees if applicable. Cost to the Individual Solutions Even when great care has been taken to ensure that housing is made affordable, and some of the production and financial tactics described above have been applied, housing costs may still not be affordable to prospective occupants. Methodologies such as down payment assistance, closing costs, rental assistance, lease/purchase homes and addressing the affordability gap are designed to benefit the resident directly. Financial Solutions Over the years, several tools have been created that are considered mutually beneficial to individuals, municipalities and lenders. As it relates to affordable housing, the system can break down very quickly; if no one is occupying housing, the municipalities are not realizing their goals and the financial services industry becomes weaker since it is not engaging consumers in its product line. Each scenario is different, but one, or several, of the tools may need to be applied to help an affordable housing project come to fruition, including loans, grants, bond financing, tax incentives and utilization of non-profits/foundations.

11

General Information

This section of the report provides an overview and housing demand analysis within rural Nevada. To gain a better perspective and understanding of the current housing trends and conditions in Nevada, national trends and dynamics were also examined. U.S. Population Growth, Household Growth and New Housing Supply As of Census 2010, there were 308.7 million people in the United States, a 9.7% increase from the Census 2000 population of 281.4 million. This follows an increase of 32.7 million people during the 1990s, which reflected an increase of 13.2%. Between 2000 and 2010, households within the U.S. increased by nearly 10.1 million, which represents a 9.6% increase. In comparison, the state of Nevada experienced a 35.1% increase in population between 2000 and 2010, from just less than 2.0 million to over 2.7 million. Within the ten county rural Nevada study area, which represented just less than 8% of the state’s 2010 population, the combined area population increased 19.9% from 179,092 in 2000 to 214,673 in 2010. The decade from 2000 to 2010 saw the slowest household growth in U.S. history, averaging just under 1.0% annually. This sluggish growth was largely the effect of the national recession, which caused many households to “double up” and led to reduced immigration. (Note that overall population growth also was slow, averaging 0.9% annually, but, at that rate, it still was not as slow as in the period from 1930–1940.) Statewide, housing units in the state of Nevada increased 34.0% between 2000 and 2010. In the combined ten county rural Nevada study area, housing units increased 23.9%. The number of housing units increased from 115.9 million units in 2000 to 131.7 million units in 2010, an increase of 13.6%. This was the second highest decade of new housing increase over the past 40 years. In 2010, there were 1,006,250 housing units in the state. The rural Nevada study area included 81,808 housing units in 2010. The ten county study area represents 8.1% of the statewide total.

General Information -1

The following table summarizes population and household growth compared to new housing production for the past four decades:

Population Growth vs. New Housing Production In the United States – 1970 to 2010

Population Growth

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000-2010 23.2 Million

(11.4%) 22.7 Million

(9.8%) 32.7 Million

(13.2%) 27.3 Million

(9.7%)

Household Growth 17.3 Million

(27.4%) 12.6 Million

(15.6%) 11.4 Million

(12.2%) 10.1 Million

(9.6%) Number of New Housing

Units Built

17 Million Units

14.8 Million

13.3 Million

15.8 Million Percent New Housing

Units Represent of Population Growth 98.3% 117.5% 116.7% 156.4%


Over the past 30 years, there was a steady decline in the production of multifamily units in the United States between 1970 and 1999. Multifamily units are defined as buildings that have five of more units. While the 2000 to 2010 decade saw an increase in multifamily construction compared to the previous 10-year period, compared to the 1970s, national multifamily production was off by nearly 33%. This decrease in development of new multifamily units has severely impacted the supply of affordable housing throughout the country. This development trend also occurred in the rural Nevada study area; typically though at a more significant drop off in many areas. It is estimated that currently 24% of the national housing stock is multifamily. Just less than 30% of are housing throughout the state is multifamily. The following table summarizes new multifamily production in the U.S. since 1970:

Multifamily Housing Production In the United States – 1970 to 2010

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000-2010

Total Units Constructed 1970-2010

5.0 Million 4.2 Million 2.2 Million 3.4 Million 14.8 Million Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Vogt Santer Insights

Research shows that construction of multifamily units plunged to a nearly 20-year low during the recession, creating a supply shortfall. According to recent analysis, between 2008 and 2010, construction of multifamily units fell as much as 70% from its trend growth rate over the past decade. Although multifamily construction starts have increased since the beginning of 2010, the number of units under construction is estimated to be nearly 60% below the country’s long-term average. Most of this new development is occurring in metropolitan areas.


The normal rate of household formation, because of population growth, adult children moving out of parents’ homes, divorce and other demographic events, is approximately 1.2% annually, according to U.S. Census data. Over the last four years, however, the annual rate of growth of household formation has fallen to approximately 0.5%, as people who otherwise would have moved into rental or single-family housing are continuing to live with parents, other family members, friends or roommates.

Some level of pent-up demand for new households normally forms during any economic recession. Research of 50 years of U.S. Census data indicates the current level of pent-up demand for new households is three times higher than it was at this point in the economic cycle in past recoveries, and the current level of unmet demand represents approximately 2 million households.

Since economic growth remains measured, one might expect household formation to be limited going forward, particularly since there is also a natural tendency for population and household growth rates to ease as communities get bigger. However, there is some pent-up demand among households that would have formed earlier, but were constrained by economic circumstances. A stronger economy than is currently expected could increase household growth further. Given these factors, annual household growth seems likely to fall in the range of 1.0% to 1.2% (the latter figure is on a par with household formations from 1990 to 2000, when economic growth was strong) according to demographic projections. This would mean an additional 9.5 million to 12.5 million households from 2013 to 2020 throughout the country, or 1.2 million to 1.4 million annually.

The bursting of the house price bubble led not only to greatly increased foreclosures, but to also some rethinking of the value of homeownership, at least for the present. As a result, the number of homeowners actually fell slightly in the past five years. With the for-sale market now recovering, that is not likely to continue. But the large number of young people now entering the housing market, combined with continued tight mortgage credit and households still cautious about home purchase, suggests that the renter share should be higher than in most postwar decades. A renter share of new households ranging from 40% to 60% is likely. This would put the homeownership rate in 2020 between 63.2% and 65.1%, compared with the 2012 average rate of 65.5% according to national sources. The increase in the number of all renters, whether in apartments, small multifamily buildings or single-family homes, would range from 3.8 million to 6.9 million.


Apartments historically have been the residence of choice for about 45% of all households. In recent years, the apartment share has been lower because of the housing bust-induced increase in single-family rentals, as well as the lack of new apartment supply. Going forward, that share is likely to return to 45% nationally. However, in case this does not happen, and instead the apartment share of new renter households edges down to 40% of net new renters, that would mean an additional 1.5 million to 2.8 million apartment renter households over the rest of the decade, or an average net absorption of 190,000 to 355,000 apartments per year.

Mining Industry/Nevada’s Mineral Industry

Per the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology MI-2011 publication, the most recent completed report, Nevada led the nation in the production of gold and barite and was the only state that produced magnesite, lithium and the specialty clays sepiolite and saponite. Other commodities mined and produced in Nevada in 2010, more or less in order of value, included copper, silver, construction aggregate (sand, gravel, and crushed stone, including limestone and dolomite), geothermal energy, petroleum, diatomite, molybdenum, gypsum, lime (produced from limestone and dolomite), cement (produced from limestone, clay, gypsum, and iron ore), silica (industrial sand), clays, perlite, iron ore, dimension stone, salt, semiprecious gemstones (turquoise and opal), and mercury (as a byproduct of gold and silver processing).

As was the case in 2010, Nevada ranked first in the United States in value of overall nonfuel (excluding oil, gas, coal, uranium and geothermal) mineral production in 2011 (according to the U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2012).

Nevada's production of gold, valued at $8.7 billion, accounted, for 74% of the U.S. total and helped again make the U.S. the third leading gold producer in the world in 2011. Nevada alone accounted for 6.4% of world production of gold. Second to gold in terms of Nevada's mineral value in 2011 was copper ($503 million), followed by silver ($251 million), chiefly as a byproduct or co-product of gold production. Construction aggregate ranked as the fourth leading mineral commodity in 2011, with a value of $180 million. Electrical power from geothermal energy production in Nevada in 2011 was valued at $153 million.

The contributions that mining makes to the economies of Nevada and the U.S. are significant in terms of jobs, commerce, taxes, improvements to the infrastructure and lowering of the U.S. trade deficit.


The mining industry, including oil, directly employed 16,177 people in 2011 according to the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, and the industry is responsible for another 65,000 jobs related to providing the goods and services needed by the industry and its employees. Of these, companies directly employed 1,040 people in 2011 to carry out exploration for minerals and energy in Nevada, mainly for gold according to the MI-2011 report.

The map on the following page shows the state and the study area and the following map illustrates mines, oil fields and geo-thermal power plants within Nevada from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.




The following table summarizes metal mines, industrial minerals mines, oil fields and geo-thermal power plant facilities within the study area counties:

County Metal Mines

Industrial Minerals

Mines Oil

Fields Geothermal

Power Plants Churchill - 3 - 6

Elko 4 3 - 1 Eureka 4 - 3 -

Humboldt 6 1 - 1 Lander 2 3 - 1 Lyon - 2 - 1 Nye 1 2 1 -

Pershing 3 1 - 1 Storey - 2 - -

White Pine 2 - - - Source: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology The following table details the major mines and milling operations (more than 50 local employees) within each of the study area counties:

Mine/Mill Operator Commodity Type Activity

Company/ Contract

Employees Churchill County

None with more than 50 employees Elko County

Hollister Mine Rodeo Creek Gold

& Great Basin Gold Gold & Silver UG Mining 192/67

Jerritt Canyon Mine Yukon-Nevada Gold Gold, Silver &

Mercury UG, ML &

CIL

Mining, Heap Leach, Milling &

Roasting 295/75

Meikle Mine Barrick Goldstrike

Mines Gold & Silver UG & ML Mining, Milling &

Roasting 587

Midas Mine Newmont Mining

Corp. Gold & Silver UG & ML Mining & Milling 276/58

Rossi Mine BAROID/

Halliburton Energy Barite OP & ML Mining 55/98 Source: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology CIL – Carbon-in-leach CIP – Carbon-in-pulp HL – Heap leach ML – Mill OP – Open-pit mine OS – Other surface PL – Placer UG – Underground


Continued:


Company/ Contract

Employees Eureka County

Betze/Post Mine Barrick Goldstrike

Mines Gold OP, CIL, HL

& ML

Mining, Heap Leach, Milling &

Roasting 1,046

Carlin North – Genesis Newmont Mining

Corp. Gold OP, HL & ML

Mining, Bioleaching, Heap Leach, Milling &

Roasting

2,376/748 (Combined Carlin

Operations)

Carlin North – Post Newmont Mining



Roasting Combined

Carlin South - South Newmont Mining



Roasting Combined

Carlin South - Gold Newmont Mining



Roasting Combined

Ruby Hill Mine Barrick Goldstrike

Mines Gold & Silver UG & ML Heap Leach &

Milling 130/15 Humboldt County

Hycroft Mine Hycroft Resources Gold & Silver OP & HL Mining & Heap

Leach 260/1,700

Lone Tree Mine Newmont Mining

Corp. Gold & Silver OP, HL & ML Flotation, Heap Leach & Milling 67/32

Marigold Mine Goldcorp Gold & Silver OP, HL & ML Mining, Heap

Leach & Milling 293/20

Turquoise Ridge Barrick Goldstrike

Mines Gold & Silver UG Mining 371/213

Twin Creeks Mine Newmont Mining

Corp. Gold & Silver OP, HL & ML Mining, Heap

Leach & Milling 629/131 Lander County

Cortez Hills Open Pit Barrick Cortez Gold OP & ML Mining & Milling 848/ 292 (Combined Cortez Operations

Cortez Pipeline Barrick Cortez Gold OP, HL & ML Mining & Milling Combined Greystone Mine M-I Swaco Gold OP & ML Mining & Gravity 52

Phoenix Mine Newmont Mining

Corp. Gold & Silver OP, HL & ML Mining &

Heap Leach 506/136 Source: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology CIL – Carbon-in-leach CIP – Carbon-in-pulp HL – Heap leach ML – Mill OP – Open-pit mine OS – Other surface PL – Placer UG – Underground


Continued:


Company/ Contract

Employees Lyon County

Adams Gypsum Mine Art Wilson Co. Gypsum & Limestone OP & ML

Mining, Crushing, Grinding,

Screening & Pelletizing 56

Nevada Cement Nevada Cement Co. Limestone &

Clay ML

Crushing, Dry Milling & Rotary

Kiln 80 Nye County

Premier Chemicals Mine Premier Chemicals

LLC Magnesite OP & ML Mining, Calcining

& Sizing 95/1

Round Mountain Mine Round Mountain

Gold Corp. Gold & Silver OP, HL & ML

Mining, Gravity, Heap Leach &

Milling 733/194 Pershing County

Coeur Rochester Mine Coeur Rochester,

Inc. Silver & Gold OP, HL & ML Mining, Heap


Colado Plant EP Minerals, LLC Diatomite &

Perlite ML

Drying, Classification,

Grinding & Calcining 95

Florida Canyon Mine Florida Canyon

Mining, Inc. Gold & Silver OP, HL & ML Mining, Heap

Leach & Milling

177/6 (Combined With Standard Mine)

Standard Mine Florida Canyon

Mining, Inc. Gold & Silver OP, HL & ML Heap Leach Combined Storey County

Clark Mill EP Minerals, LLC Diatomite &

Perlite ML

Drying, Classification,

Grinding & Calcining 53

White Pine County

Bald Mountain Mine Barrick Gold US,

Inc. Gold, Silver &

Mercury OP, HL & ML Mining, Heap


Robinson Mine KGHM

International Ltd. Copper, Gold, Molybdenum OP & ML Mining & Milling 608

Source: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology CIL – Carbon-in-leach CIP – Carbon-in-pulp HL – Heap leach ML – Mill OP – Open-pit mine OS – Other surface PL – Placer UG – Underground


The mining industry has evolved dramatically from its early days in Nevada, from an industry requiring simple tools and often dangerous manual labor to a technical and mechanized business that requires a wide variety of employees who work in highly specialized and increasingly technical positions. Attracting qualified employees can be difficult, particularly when high commodity prices increase competition for employees to bring new operations online. The industry faces a labor shortage in the next five to ten years, as much of the current mining workforce nears retirement age. Studies by professional societies anticipate that approximately 50% percent of the current minerals and energy workforce in the United States will retire over the next decade.

The rural location of many mining operations is also an obstacle to recruitment: small populations with limited skills make local recruitment difficult. Conversely, attracting employees from urban areas to rural operations can be complicated by limited housing, infrastructure and differences in quality of life.

The cyclical nature of the industry complicates employee retention. Downturns sometimes require temporary or permanent site closures, causing employment to fluctuate with the commodity cycle. Consequently, some qualified individuals are deterred from seeking employment in the industry, and others who lose their positions may seek opportunities in other sectors. Long-Term Employment Projections1 The projections of mining employment in the region are based primarily on county-level output projections from Moody’s Analytics, available on an annual basis through 2042. Indirect and induced employment, earnings and employment impacts can be estimated by applying an economic impact model to the direct output. The increase in output per worker over time implies that employment will grow at a slower rate than output over the long run. Further, because productivity growth differs from one industry to the next, employment multiplier impacts will also change over time. County-Specific Employment and Wage Distributions The employment projections obtained through the approach outlined above are not county-specific, so they must be localized. The Moody’s Analytics output projections for metal ore mining are produced at the county level, so it is straightforward to apply the projected output per worker to these totals to obtain county-level employment.

1 The analysis described in this section and the description itself was provided by Bill LaFayette, Ph.D., owner of Regionomics, a Columbus, Ohio-based economic and workforce strategy firm.


It is not likely that the industries supplying indirect goods and services to the industry will grow proportionally to the mining activity, however. Industries tend to cluster in locations where environmental and economic conditions are most favorable to their growth – factors such as workforce, natural resources and the transportation infrastructure – and serve the needs of multiple counties from these centralized locations. In order to model these growth patterns, indirect employment is assumed to grow proportionally to the current concentration of each industry sector across the individual counties of the region. Because induced employment is sustained by the needs of households, however, this employment is much more likely to grow proportionally to the direct mining employment; this is the assumption made in that case.


County Allocation of Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment between 2012 and 2040:

Chu

rchi

ll

Elk

o

Eur

eka

Hum

bold

t

Lan

der

Lyo

n

Nye

Pers

hing

Stor

ey

Whi

te

Pine

2012 Total 896 4,503 5,111 2,753 2,387 757 1,830 706 154 1,414

Less Than $15,000 112 58 64 35 30 11 22 9 2 18 $15,000 to $24,999 89 479 514 283 242 92 191 72 19 145 $25,000 to $34,999 92 500 519 294 246 108 216 73 22 149 $35,000 to $49,999 155 992 1,130 608 528 167 402 156 34 312 $50,000 to $74,999 218 1,744 2,071 1,089 962 251 682 284 51 564 $75,000 to $99,999 125 523 586 319 274 91 222 81 18 163

$100,000 to $149,999 72 180 198 109 92 32 81 27 6 55 $150,000 to $199,999 21 21 21 12 10 4 11 3 1 6

$200,000 & Over 13 6 8 4 4 1 3 1 0 2

2015 Total 994 5,117 5,833 3,133 2,722 840 2,075 805 171 1,611

Less Than $15,000 157 66 73 40 34 12 25 10 2 21 $15,000 to $24,999 100 545 587 323 276 103 217 82 21 166 $25,000 to $34,999 105 568 593 335 281 120 245 83 24 169 $35,000 to $49,999 174 1,128 1,289 692 602 186 455 178 38 356 $50,000 to $74,999 229 1,982 2,363 1,239 1,096 279 774 324 57 642 $75,000 to $99,999 127 593 669 363 312 100 251 92 20 185

$100,000 to $149,999 71 204 226 124 105 35 92 31 7 63 $150,000 to $199,999 20 24 24 14 11 5 13 3 1 7

$200,000 & Over 11 7 9 5 4 1 3 1 0 2

2020 Total 1,035 5,804 6,771 3,588 3,150 875 2,311 931 178 1,855

Less Than $15,000 164 69 76 41 36 12 26 11 2 21 $15,000 to $24,999 105 570 622 339 292 103 225 87 21 175 $25,000 to $34,999 110 619 664 368 313 121 261 93 25 188 $35,000 to $49,999 181 1,283 1,501 795 698 194 509 206 39 411 $50,000 to $74,999 238 2,318 2,816 1,461 1,303 299 891 385 61 761 $75,000 to $99,999 132 681 790 421 367 104 281 109 21 217

$100,000 to $149,999 73 232 265 143 123 36 101 36 7 73 $150,000 to $199,999 21 25 27 15 12 5 13 4 1 8

$200,000 & Over 11 8 9 5 4 1 3 1 0 2

Source: Regionomics and Vogt Santer Insights



Chu

rchi

ll

Elk

o

Eur

eka

Hum

bold

t

Lan

der

Lyo

n

Nye

Pers

hing

Stor

ey

Whi

te

Pine

2025 Total 1,054 6,069 7,119 3,759 3,309 891 2,407 978 181 1,946

Less than $15,000 167 71 79 42 37 12 27 11 2 22 $15,000 to $24,999 106 589 645 351 303 105 232 90 21 181 $25,000 to $34,999 112 643 695 384 327 123 270 97 25 196 $35,000 to $49,999 184 1,342 1,579 833 734 197 530 217 40 431 $50,000 to $74,999 242 2,435 2,972 1,537 1,374 306 933 406 62 801 $75,000 to $99,999 135 713 833 442 387 105 292 114 21 228

$100,000 to $149,999 75 243 279 150 129 37 105 38 7 77 $150,000 to $199,999 21 26 28 16 13 5 13 4 1 8

$200,000 & Over 12 8 10 5 4 1 3 1 0 3 2030

Total 1,098 6,456 7,610 4,007 3,535 928 2,551 1,044 189 2,077 Less Than $15,000 173 74 83 44 39 12 28 11 3 23 $15,000 to $24,999 111 618 679 368 319 109 243 94 22 190 $25,000 to $34,999 116 679 738 406 347 127 284 103 26 208 $35,000 to $49,999 192 1,429 1,689 888 785 206 563 232 42 461 $50,000 to $74,999 253 2,603 3,189 1,646 1,474 321 995 435 65 859 $75,000 to $99,999 141 759 893 472 415 109 310 123 22 244

$100,000 to $149,999 78 258 299 160 139 38 111 41 8 82 $150,000 to $199,999 22 28 30 17 14 5 14 4 1 8

$200,000 & Over 12 8 10 5 5 1 3 1 0 3

2035 Total 1,157 6,909 8,174 4,295 3,795 978 2,722 2,722 199 1,121

Less Than $15,000 183 78 87 47 41 13 30 30 3 12 $15,000 to $24,999 117 653 720 390 338 114 256 256 23 100 $25,000 to $34,999 123 722 789 433 371 133 301 301 27 110 $35,000 to $49,999 202 1,530 1,815 953 843 217 601 601 44 249 $50,000 to $74,999 266 2,797 3,438 1,771 1,588 340 1,067 1,067 69 469 $75,000 to $99,999 148 814 962 507 446 115 331 331 23 132

$100,000 to $149,999 82 276 321 171 149 40 118 118 8 44 $150,000 to $199,999 23 30 32 18 15 5 15 15 1 4

$200,000 & Over 13 9 11 6 5 1 4 4 0 1




Chu

rchi

ll

Elk

o

Eur

eka

Hum

bold

t

Lan

der

Lyo

n

Nye

Pers

hing

Stor

ey

Whi

te

Pine

2040 Total 1,207 7,295 8,651 4,539 4,015 1,021 2,868 1,186 208 2,356

Less than $15,000 191 82 91 49 43 14 31 13 3 25 $15,000 to $24,999 122 684 755 408 354 118 268 105 24 211 $25,000 to $34,999 128 759 833 456 391 139 316 116 28 234 $35,000 to $49,999 211 1,616 1,921 1,007 892 226 633 263 46 523 $50,000 to $74,999 278 2,962 3,646 1,876 1,684 356 1,128 497 73 980 $75,000 to $99,999 154 860 1,019 536 473 120 349 140 24 277

$100,000 to $149,999 86 292 340 181 158 42 124 47 9 93 $150,000 to $199,999 24 31 34 19 16 5 15 5 1 9

$200,000 & Over 13 9 11 6 5 1 4 2 0 3


Workforce recruitment, retention and development efforts are critical to ensure that the mining industry and other area major employers and employment centers continues to operate efficiently and to create economic value in Nevada. This is a major factor in studying the rural Nevada housing market in the ten county study.

Following are individual demographic summaries of the ten study area counties.


Churchill County

County Seat: Fallon County Size: 5,023 square miles (4,929 square miles land; 294 square miles water)

Key Demographic Data Population Households

2000 Census 23,982 2000 Census 8,912 2010 Census 24,877 2010 Census 9,671 Change 2000-2010 + 895 Change 2000-2010 + 759 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 3.7% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 8.5% 2013 Estimated 24,974 2013 Estimated 9,711 Change 2010-2013 + 97 Change 2010-2013 + 40 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.4% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.4% 2018 Projected 24,604 2018 Projected 9,633 Change 2013-2018 -370 Change 2013-2018 -78 Percent Change 2013-2018 -1.5% Percent Change 2013-2018 -0.8%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $40,808 2000 Census $106,300 2010 Census $51,750 2010 Census $187,122 Change 2000-2010 + $10,942 Change 2000-2010 + $80,822 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 26.8% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 76.0% 2013 Estimated $49,606 2013 Estimated $120,186 Change 2010-2013 - $2,144 Change 2010-2013 - $66,936 Percent Change 2010-2013 - 4.1% Percent Change 2010-2013 - 35.8% 2018 Projected $47,988 2018 Projected $133,394 Change 2013-2018 - $1,618 Change 2013-2018 + $13,208 Percent Change 2013-2018 - 3.3% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 11.0%



Elko County

County Seat: Elko County Size: 17,203 square miles (17,179 square miles land; 24 square miles water)


2000 Census 45,291 2000 Census 15,638 2010 Census 48,818 2010 Census 17,442 Change 2000-2010 + 3,527 Change 2000-2010 + 1,804 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 7.8% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 11.5% 2013 Estimated 50,237 2013 Estimated 17,886 Change 2010-2013 + 1,419 Change 2010-2013 + 444 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 2.9% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 2.5% 2018 Projected 52,526 2018 Projected 18,957 Change 2013-2018 + 2,289 Change 2013-2018 + 1,071 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 4.6% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 6.0%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $48,383 2000 Census $106,200 2010 Census $68,018 2010 Census $177,997 Change 2000-2010 + $19,635 Change 2000-2010 + $71,797 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 40.6% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 67.6% 2013 Estimated $68,464 2013 Estimated $163,359 Change 2010-2013 + $446 Change 2010-2013 - $14,638 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.7% Percent Change 2010-2013 - 8.2% 2018 Projected $74,479 2018 Projected $170,092 Change 2013-2018 + $6,015 Change 2013-2018 + $6,733 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 8.8% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 4.1%



Eureka County

County Seat: Eureka County Size: 4,180 square miles (4,176 square miles land; 4 square miles water)


2000 Census 1,651 2000 Census 666 2010 Census 1,987 2010 Census 836 Change 2000-2010 + 336 Change 2000-2010 + 170 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 20.4% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 25.5% 2013 Estimated 2,085 2013 Estimated 874 Change 2010-2013 + 98 Change 2010-2013 + 38 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 5.0% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 4.5% 2018 Projected 2,282 2018 Projected 972 Change 2013-2018 + 197 Change 2013-2018 + 98 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 9.4% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 11.2%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $41,417 2000 Census $65,600 2010 Census $65,431 2010 Census $93.836 Change 2000-2010 + $24,014 Change 2000-2010 + $28,236 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 58.0% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 43.0% 2013 Estimated $61,174 2013 Estimated $103,378 Change 2010-2013 -$4,257 Change 2010-2013 + $9,542 Percent Change 2010-2013 -6.5% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 10.2% 2018 Projected $61,505 2018 Projected $109,483 Change 2013-2018 + 6,015 Change 2013-2018 + $6,105 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 8.8% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 5.9%



Humboldt County

County Seat: Winnemucca County Size: 9,658 square miles (9,648 square miles land; 10 square miles water)


2000 Census 16,106 2000 Census 5,733 2010 Census 16,528 2010 Census 6,289 Change 2000-2010 + 422 Change 2000-2010 + 556 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 2.6% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 9.7% 2013 Estimated 17,090 2013 Estimated 6,437 Change 2010-2013 + 562 Change 2010-2013 + 148 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 3.4% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 2.4% 2018 Projected 17,988 2018 Projected 6,899 Change 2013-2018 + 898 Change 2013-2018 + 462 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 5.3% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 7.2%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $47,147 2000 Census $93,200 2010 Census $58,615 2010 Census $138,467 Change 2000-2010 + $11,468 Change 2000-2010 + $45,267 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 24.3% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 48.6% 2013 Estimated $57,494 2013 Estimated $143,007 Change 2010-2013 - $1,121 Change 2010-2013 + $4,540 Percent Change 2010-2013 - 1.9% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 3.3% 2018 Projected $61,863 2018 Projected $148,454 Change 2013-2018 + $4,369 Change 2013-2018 + $5,447 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 7.6% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 3.8%



Lander County

County Seat: Battle Mountain County Size: 5,519 square miles (5,494 square miles land; 25 square miles water)


2000 Census 5,794 2000 Census 2,093 2010 Census 5,775 2010 Census 2,213 Change 2000-2010 - 19 Change 2000-2010 + 120 Percent Change 2000-2010 - 0.3% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 5.7% 2013 Estimated 6,050 2013 Estimated 2,294 Change 2010-2013 + 275 Change 2010-2013 + 81 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 4.8% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 3.7% 2018 Projected 6,472 2018 Projected 2,455 Change 2013-2018 + 422 Change 2013-2018 + 161 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 7.0% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 7.0%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $46,067 2000 Census $66,000 2010 Census $67,233 2010 Census $104,045 Change 2000-2010 + $21,166 Change 2000-2010 + $38,045 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 45.9% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 57.6% 2013 Estimated $68,745 2013 Estimated $78,889 Change 2010-2013 + $1,512 Change 2010-2013 - $25,156 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 2.2% Percent Change 2010-2013 - 24.2% 2018 Projected $75, 146 2018 Projected $85,653 Change 2013-2018 + 6,401 Change 2013-2018 + $6,764 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 9.3% Percent Change 2013-2018 +8.6%



Lyon County

County Seat: Yerington County Size: 2,046 square miles (1,994 square miles land; 22 square miles water)


2000 Census 34,501 2000 Census 13,007 2010 Census 51,980 2010 Census 19,808 Change 2000-2010 + 17,479 Change 2000-2010 + 6,801 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 50.7% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 52.3% 2013 Estimated 52,435 2013 Estimated 19,963 Change 2010-2013 + 455 Change 2010-2013 + 155 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.9% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.8% 2018 Projected 53,298 2018 Projected 20,335 Change 2013-2018 + 863 Change 2013-2018 + 372 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 1.6% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 1.9%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $40,699 2000 Census $103,800 2010 Census $49,451 2010 Census $189,233 Change 2000-2010 + $8,752 Change 2000-2010 + $85,433 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 21.5% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 82.3% 2013 Estimated $37,628 2013 Estimated $96,717 Change 2010-2013 - $11,823 Change 2010-2013 - $92,516 Percent Change 2010-2013 -23.9% Percent Change 2010-2013 - 48.9% 2018 Projected $33,520 2018 Projected $107,675 Change 2013-2018 - $4,108 Change 2013-2018 + $10,958 Percent Change 2013-2018 - 10.9% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 11.3%



Nye County

County Seat: Tonopah County Size: 18,159 square miles (18,147 square miles land; 12 square miles water)


2000 Census 32,494 2000 Census 13,311 2010 Census 43,915 2010 Census 18,014 Change 2000-2010 + 11,421 Change 2000-2010 + 4,703 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 35.1% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 35.3% 2013 Estimated 44,168 2013 Estimated 18,102 Change 2010-2013 + 253 Change 2010-2013 + 89 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.6% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.5% 2018 Projected 44,268 2018 Projected 18,174 Change 2013-2018 + 100 Change 2013-2018 + 71 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 0.2% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 0.4%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $36,024 2000 Census $96,300 2010 Census $43,278 2010 Census $165,573 Change 2000-2010 + $7,254 Change 2000-2010 + $69,273 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 20.1% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 71.9% 2013 Estimated $28,873 2013 Estimated $93,520 Change 2010-2013 - $14,405 Change 2010-2013 - $72,053 Percent Change 2010-2013 - 33.3% Percent Change 2010-2013 - 43.5% 2018 Projected $25,071 2018 Projected $106,017 Change 2013-2018 - $3,802 Change 2013-2018 + $12,.497 Percent Change 2013-2018 - 13.2% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 13.4%



Northern Nye County Submarket (Highlighted in Yellow)

County Seat: Tonopah Submarket Size: 11,837 square miles (65.2% of Overall County)


2000 Census 5,251 2000 Census 2,076 2010 Census 4,752 2010 Census 1,970 Change 2000-2010 - 499 Change 2000-2010 - 106 Percent Change 2000-2010 - 9.5% Percent Change 2000-2010 - 5.1% 2013 Estimated 4,770 2013 Estimated 1,983 Change 2010-2013 + 18 Change 2010-2013 + 13 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.4% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.7% 2018 Projected 4,707 2018 Projected 1,962 Change 2013-2018 - 63 Change 2013-2018 -21 Percent Change 2013-2018 - 1.3% Percent Change 2013-2018 - 1.1%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census - 2000 Census - 2010 Census $52,029 2010 Census $78,675 Change 2000-2010 - Change 2000-2010 - Percent Change 2000-2010 - Percent Change 2000-2010 - 2013 Estimated $36,631 2013 Estimated $86,345 Change 2010-2013 - $15,398 Change 2010-2013 + $7,670 Percent Change 2010-2013 - 29.6% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 9.7% 2018 Projected $27,721 2018 Projected $93,224 Change 2013-2018 - $8,910 Change 2013-2018 + $6,879 Percent Change 2013-2018 - 24.3% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 8.0%



Pershing County

County Seat: Lovelock County Size: 6,068 square miles (6,037 square miles land; 31 square miles water)


2000 Census 6,693 2000 Census 1,962 2010 Census 6,753 2010 Census 2,018 Change 2000-2010 + 60 Change 2000-2010 + 56 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 0.9% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 2.9% 2013 Estimated 6,820 2013 Estimated 2,021 Change 2010-2013 + 67 Change 2010-2013 +3 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 1.0% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 0.1% 2018 Projected 6,779 2018 Projected 2,039 Change 2013-2018 - 41 Change 2013-2018 + 18 Percent Change 2013-2018 - 0.6% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 0.9%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $40,670 2000 Census $79,500 2010 Census $59,321 2010 Census $135,360 Change 2000-2010 + $18,651 Change 2000-2010 + $55,860 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 45.9% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 70.3% 2013 Estimated $53,833 2013 Estimated $96,779 Change 2010-2013 - $5,488 Change 2010-2013 - $38,581 Percent Change 2010-2013 - 9.3% Percent Change 2010-2013 - 28.5% 2018 Projected $55,184 2018 Projected $103,679 Change 2013-2018 + 1,351 Change 2013-2018 + $6,900 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 2.5% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 7.1%



Storey County

County Seat: Virginia City County Size: 264 square miles (263 square miles land; 1 square mile water)


2000 Census 3,399 2000 Census 1,462 2010 Census 4,010 2010 Census 1,742 Change 2000-2010 + 611 Change 2000-2010 + 280 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 18.0% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 19.2% 2013 Estimated 4,083 2013 Estimated 1,775 Change 2010-2013 + 73 Change 2010-2013 + 33 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 1.8% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 1.9% 2018 Projected 4,133 2018 Projected 1,800 Change 2013-2018 + 50 Change 2013-2018 + 25 Percent Change 2013-2018 +1.2% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 1.4%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $45,490 2000 Census $122,400 2010 Census $58,741 2010 Census $266,440 Change 2000-2010 + $13,251 Change 2000-2010 + $144,040 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 29.1% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 117.7% 2013 Estimated $58,086 2013 Estimated $129,875 Change 2010-2013 - $655 Change 2010-2013 - $139,465 Percent Change 2010-2013 - 1.1% Percent Change 2010-2013 - 52.3% 2018 Projected $56,978 2018 Projected $197,017 Change 2013-2018 - $1,108 Change 2013-2018 + $67,142 Percent Change 2013-2018 - 1.9% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 51.7%



White Pine County

County Seat: Ely County Size: 8,897 square miles (8,876 square miles land; 24 square miles water)


2000 Census 9,181 2000 Census 3,282 2010 Census 10,030 2010 Census 3,707 Change 2000-2010 + 849 Change 2000-2010 + 425 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 9.2% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 12.9% 2013 Estimated 10,207 2013 Estimated 3,771 Change 2010-2013 + 177 Change 2010-2013 + 64 Percent Change 2010-2013 + 1.8% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 1.7% 2018 Projected 10,509 2018 Projected 3,933 Change 2013-2018 + 302 Change 2013-2018 + 162 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 3.0% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 4.3%

Median Household Income Median Home Value 2000 Census $45,490 2000 Census $122,400 2010 Census $48,014 2010 Census $123,494 Change 2000-2010 + $2,524 Change 2000-2010 + $1,094 Percent Change 2000-2010 + 5.6% Percent Change 2000-2010 + 0.9% 2013 Estimated $45,643 2013 Estimated $125,921 Change 2010-2013 - $2,371 Change 2010-2013 + $2,427 Percent Change 2010-2013 - 4.9% Percent Change 2010-2013 + 2.0% 2018 Projected $46,067 2018 Projected $128,480 Change 2013-2018 + $424 Change 2013-2018 + $2,559 Percent Change 2013-2018 + 0.1% Percent Change 2013-2018 + 2.0%



The following tables rank the ten study area counties based on the 2013 estimate for the four demographic categories and provide a comparison to state of Nevada averages for population, household, based on the 17 counties in the state along with median income and median home value:

Nearly three-quarters of the state’s population and a similar ratio of households are in Clark County, which contains the Las Vegas–Paradise metropolitan area. The Las Vegas area includes Nevada’s three largest incorporated cities. Among the 10 rural Nevada study areas, 2013 population estimates range from 2,085 in eureka County to 52,435 in Lyon County. The 2013 study area households range from 874 in Eureka County to 19,963 in Lyon County.

Demographic Comparisons – 2013 Estimates Population Households

State of Nevada 163,752 State of Nevada 61,050 Lyon 52,435 Lyon 19,963 Elko 50,237 Elko 17,886 Churchill 24,974 Churchill 9,711 Humboldt 17,090 Humboldt 6,437 White Pine 10,207 White Pine 3,771 Pershing 6,820 Pershing 2,021 Lander 6,050 Lander 2,294 Northern Nye Submarket 4,770 Northern Nye Submarket 1,983 Storey 4,083 Storey 1,775 Eureka 2,085 Eureka 874

Median Household Income Median Home Value Lander $68,745 Elko $163,359 Elko $68,464 Humboldt $143,007 Eureka $61,174 State of Nevada $143,004 Storey $58,086 Storey $129,,875 Humboldt $57,494 White Pine $125,921 Pershing $53,833 Churchill $120,186 Churchill $49,606 Eureka $103,378 White Pine $45,643 Pershing $96,779 State of Nevada $45,164 Lyon $96,717 Lyon $37,628 Northern Nye Submarket $86,345 Northern Nye Submarket $36,631 Lander $78,889



Household income is high in many of the study area counties. Eight of the ten have a median household income that is higher than the overall median household income of $45,164 (2013 estimate) for the state of Nevada. Lyon and the Northern Nye submarket have the lowest estimated median household income for 2013, at $36,631 and $37,628, respectively. Lander and Elko counties had the two highest 2013 median household incomes among the ten study areas. Both were above $68,400 in 2013. Median home values among the study area counties range from $78,889 to over $163,350. Compared to the statewide average, only two study area counties have a higher median home value. It is of note that the current median home value in several counties is down significantly from the 2010 Census, likely the result of the lingering effect of the recent national recession. The following tables detail population, household and median incomes for the 16 communities within the ten county study area:

Community County Community

Type

2010 2010 Median Household

Income Population Households Fallon Churchill City 8,606 3,535 $41,090 Carlin

Elko

City 2,368 882 $63,009 Elko City 18,297 6,743 $58,678 Wells City 1,292 545 $43,936

West Wendover City 4,410 1,354 $34,988 Eureka Eureka CDP 610 272 $56,515

Winnemucca Humboldt City 7,396 2,926 $60,282 Battle Mountain

Lander CDP 3,635 1,364 $57,894

Austin CDP 1,009 102 $45,243 Fernley

Lyon City 19,368 7,048 $49,976

Yerington City 3,048 1,302 $24,407 Round Mountain/Hadley Nye

(Northern Nye Submarket) Unincorporated 744 298 $49,412

Tonopah CDP 2,478 1,053 $40,699 Lovelock Pershing City 1,894 768 $40,090

Virginia City Storey CDP 855 410 $58,530 Ely White Pine City 4,255 1,856 $35,012

CDP-Census Designated Place

Fernley in Lyon County and Elko in Elko County are the two largest communities within the 10 county study area. Eureka, the unincorporated Round Mountain/Hadley area and Virginia City are the three smallest communities. Households are similar, ranging from 102 in Austin to 7,048 in Fernley.


The following table ranks the study area communities by 2010 population and households from highest to lowest:

2010 Population 2010 Households Community Population Community Households

Fernley 19,368 Fernley 7,048 Elko 18,297 Elko 6,743

Fallon 8,606 Fallon 3,535 Winnemucca 7,396 Winnemucca 2,926

West Wendover 4,410 Ely 1,856 Ely 4,255 Battle Mountain 1,364

Battle Mountain 3,635 West Wendover 1,354 Yerington 3,048 Yerington 1,302 Tonopah 2,478 Tonopah 1,053

Carlin 2,368 Carlin 882 Lovelock 1,894 Lovelock 768

Wells 1,292 Wells 545 Austin 1,009 Virginia City 410

Virginia City 855 Round Mountain/Hadley 298 Round Mountain/Hadley 744 Eureka 272

Eureka 610 Austin 102 The 2010 median household income for the designated communities within the study area ranges from $24,407 in Yerington to over $63,000 in Carlin. The following table ranks the individual communities by median household incomes:

2010 Median Household Income Community Income

Carlin $63,009 Winnemucca $60,282

Elko $58,678 Virginia City $58,530

Battle Mountain $57,894 Eureka $56,515 Fernley $49,976

Round Mountain/Hadley $49,412 Wells $43,936 Fallon $41,090

Tonopah $40,699 Lovelock $40,694

Ely $35,012 West Wendover $34,988

Austin $34,243 Yerington $24,407

On the following pages is a summary of area infrastructure and residential services available in the study area communities:


List of Infrastructure, Services & Quality of

Life Characteristics

(√ Indicates Facili�es Adequate to

support New Construction)Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate

Utilities & Infrastructure

Water x 8,500 x 17,000 x 527 x 10,000 x 4,600 x 2,900 x 2,600 x 240 x 600 x 5,400

Sewer x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Electricity x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Natural Gas x √√√√ x √√√√ x Limited x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Propane Gas x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Garbage/Trash Removal x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Retail Shopping Facilities x x x Limited x x Limited x Limited x Limited x Limited x Limited x Limited

Parks & Recreational Facilities x x x x x x x x x

Educational Facilities x x x x x x x x x x

Grocery x x x x x Limited x Limited x Limited x Limited x x

Entertainment x x x x x x x x Limited x x

Movie Theater x x x x x

Hospital x x x Limited x x x x Limited x Limited x

Medical x x x Limited x x x Limited x Limited x Limited x Limited x

Library x x x x x x x x x x

Hotel/Motel x x x x x x x x Limited x Limited x

Bank x x x Limited x x Limited x x x Limited x Limited x

Full-service Restaurant x x x Limited x x x x Limited x x




support New Construction) Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate Exist Adequate


Water x 2,207 x 350 x 14,000 x 1,200

Sewer x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Electricity x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Natural Gas x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Propane Gas x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Garbage/Trash Removal x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√ x √√√√

Retail Shopping Facilities x Limited x Limited x x Limited

Parks & Recreational Facilities x x x

Educational Facilities x x x x

Grocery x Limited x x

Entertainment x

Movie Theater

Hospital

Medical x

Library x x x

Hotel/Motel x

Bank x Limited x

Full-service Restaurant x

Nye Pershing Story White Pine

Fallon Elko Eureka Winnemucca Battle Mountain Yerington

Churchill Elko Eureka Humboldt Lander Lyon

Tonapah Lovelock Virginia City Ely

White Pine

Carlin Austin Fernley Round Mountain/Hadley

Churchill Elko Eureka Humboldt Lander Lyon Nye Pershing Story




support New Construction) Exist Adequate


Water x 1,250

Sewer x √√√√

Electricity x √√√√

Natural Gas x √√√√

Propane Gas x √√√√

Garbage/Trash Removal x √√√√

Retail Shopping Facilities Limited

Parks & Recreational Facilities x

Educational Facilities x

Grocery x

Entertainment x

Movie Theater

Hospital

Medical x

Library x

Hotel/Motel x

Bank x

Full-service Restaurant




support New Construction) Exist Adequate


Water x

Sewer x

Electricity x

Natural Gas x √√√√

Propane Gas x √√√√

Garbage/Trash Removal x √√√√

Retail Shopping Facilities

Parks & Recreational Facilities

Educational Facilities

Grocery x

Entertainment

Movie Theater

Hospital

Medical

Library

Hotel/Motel

Bank

Full-service Restaurant

White Pine

Wells


White Pine

West Wendover


For residential quality of life items, we have assigned values from high to low depending on the existing opportunities within an area. Considering a one to 16 point rating for the individual communities, following is a summary of the overall rankings for the population, household, median household incomes, residential services and the estimated short-term (five-year) demand for workforce housing for the 16 selected communities:

Community Population Households Median Income

Residential Services

Short-Term Affordable &

Workforce Housing Demand

Total Points

Estimated Maximum Demand

Points Elko 15 15 14 10 90 16 70

Winnemucca 13 13 15 10 56 13 64 Fernley 16 16 10 8 40 11 61 Fallon 14 14 7 10 82 15 60 Carlin 7 7 16 6 67 14 50

Battle Mountain 10 11 12 8 12 6 47 Ely 11 12 4 8 25 10 45

Tonopah 8 8 6 6 43 12 40 West Wendover 12 10 3 8 16 7 40

Virginia City 3 4 13 6 17 8 34 Yerington 9 9 1 10 8 4 33 Lovelock 6 6 5 6 24 9 32

Wells 5 5 8 6 8 4 28 Eureka 1 2 11 6 8 4 24

Round Mountain/Hadley 2 3 9 4 0 0 18 Austin 4 1 2 2 0 0 9

Based on this evaluation, the top ranked communities represent the most favorable environments for development of new residential units. These evaluations will be further detailed when considering the depth of each market and the support potential of for rent and for sale housing alternatives within each community.


During the timeframe in which Vogt Santer Insights conducted its research, and since having completed its reports, a number of potential developments have come to light that we determined may, or may not, have an impact on study areas. For example, currently believed for development is a new Tesla Motors manufacturing facility east of Reno, incentives for the completion of the USA Parkway, a new biofuels plant and the potential expansion of the Apple data center. As of now, each of these specific initiatives, and others, lack some specifics regarding project locations, timing, capacities and secondary impact. As a result, the full effect of these types of projects on specific housing markets cannot be assessed at this time. While the potential development and implementation of these new projects may appear to be real, they may be years off at best and because the full impact of these projects has not yet been detailed nor realized, we determined not to include these potential events in our most recent demographic analysis. These types of projects, when they are developed, and how they become operational, will most likely impact several geographical areas over the next few years, while these initiatives alone may very well serve as the impetus for additional study within those to-be-recognized areas in the near future. These types of future studies may include updates to our present studies, as well as a number of site reports designed to identify the impact on housing in those areas specifically affected.


Qualifications A. The Company

Vogt Santer Insights is a real estate research firm established to provide accurate and insightful market forecasts for a broad range client base. The principals of the firm, Robert Vogt and Chip Santer, have more than 60 years of combined real estate and market feasibility experience throughout the United States. Serving real estate developers, syndicators, lenders, state housing finance agencies and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the firm provides market feasibility studies for affordable housing, market-rate apartments, condominiums, senior housing, student housing and single-family developments.

B. The Staff

Robert Vogt has conducted and reviewed more than 7,000 market analyses over the past 30 years for market-rate and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartments as well as studies for single-family, golf course/residential, office, retail and elderly housing throughout the United States. Mr. Vogt is a founding member and the past chairman of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (formerly known as the National Council of Affordable Housing Market Analysts), a group formed to bring standards and professional practices to market feasibility. He is a frequent speaker at many real estate and state housing conferences. Mr. Vogt has a bachelor’s degree in finance, real estate and urban land economics from The Ohio State University. Chip Santer has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of local, state and national entities involved in multifamily and single-family housing development, syndication, regulation and brokerage in both the for profit and not-for-profit sectors. As president and CEO of National Affordable Housing Trust, Mr. Santer led a turn-around operation affiliated with National Church Residences, Retirement Housing Foundation and Volunteers of America that developed and financed more than 3,000 units of housing throughout the United States with corporate and private funds, including a public fund with 1,100 investors. He was a former Superintendent and CEO of the Ohio Real Estate Commission, and serves on several boards and commissions. Mr. Santer is a graduate of Ohio University.

1

Andrew W. Mazak has over 10 years of experience in the real estate market research field. He has personally written more than 1,000 market feasibility studies in numerous markets throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. These studies include the analysis of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartments, market-rate apartments, government-subsidized apartments, student housing developments, farm-worker housing projects, condominium communities, single-family subdivisions and senior-living developments, as well as overall community-, city- and county-wide housing needs assessments. Mr. Mazak has a bachelor's degree in Business Management and Marketing from Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. Nancy Patzer has more than 15 years of experience in community development research, including securing grant financing for a variety of local governments and organizations and providing planning direction and motivation through research for United Way of Central Ohio and the City of Columbus. As a project director for Vogt Santer Insights, Ms. Patzer has conducted market studies in the areas of housing, senior residential care, retail/commercial, comprehensive planning and redevelopment strategies, among others. Ms. Patzer has extensive experience working with a variety of state finance agencies as well as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Housing Administration. She has attended the most recent FHA LEAN Program training sessions. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Journalism from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, Ohio University. Jim Beery has more than 20 years’ experience in the real estate market feasibility profession. He has written market studies for a variety of development projects, including multifamily apartments (market-rate, affordable housing, and government-subsidized), residential condominiums, hotels, office developments, retail centers, recreational facilities, commercial developments, single-family developments and assisted living properties for older adults. Other consulting assignments include numerous community redevelopment and commercial revitalization projects. Recently he attended the HUD MAP Training for industry partners in Washington D.C. and received continuing education certification from the Lender Qualification and Monitoring Division. Mr. Beery has a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration (Finance major) from The Ohio State University.

2

Jennifer Tristano has been involved in the production of more than 2,000 market feasibility studies during the last several years. During her time as an editor, Ms. Tristano became well acquainted with the market study guidelines and requirements of state finance agencies as well as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s various programs. In addition, Ms. Tristano has researched market conditions for a variety of project types, including apartments (Tax Credit, subsidized and market-rate), senior residential care facilities, student housing developments and condominium communities. Ms. Tristano graduated summa cum laude from The Ohio State University. Nathan Young has more than seven years of experience in the real estate profession. He has conducted field research and written market studies in hundreds of rural and urban markets throughout the United States. Mr. Young’s real estate experience includes analysis of apartment (subsidized, Tax Credit and market-rate), senior housing (i.e. nursing homes, assisted living, etc.), student housing, condominium, retail, office, self-storage facilities and repositioning of assets to optimize feasibility. Mr. Young has experience in working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and has attended FHA LEAN program training. Mr. Young has a bachelor’s degree in Engineering (Civil) from The Ohio State University. Jimmy Beery has analyzed real estate markets in more than 35 states. In this time, Mr. Beery has conducted a broad range of studies, including Low-Income Housing Tax Credit apartments, luxury market-rate apartments, student housing analysis, rent comparability studies, condominium and single-family home communities, mixed-use developments, lodging, retail and commercial space. Mr. Beery has a bachelor’s degree in Human Ecology from The Ohio State University. Field Staff – Vogt Santer Insights maintains a field staff of professionals experienced at collecting critical on-site real estate data. Each member has been fully trained to evaluate site attributes, area competitors, market trends, economic characteristics and a wide range of issues impacting the viability of real estate development.

3

Glossary/Dictionary Term

Definition

ABSORPTION PERIOD:

The period necessary for a newly constructed or renovated property to achieve the stabilized level of occupancy. The absorption period begins when the first certificate of occupancy is issued and ends when the last unit to reach the stabilized level of occupancy has a signed lease. Assumes a typical pre-marketing period, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The month that leasing is assumed to begin should accompany all absorption estimates.

ABSORPTION RATE:

The average number of units rented each month during the absorption period.

ACCEPTABLE RENT BURDEN:

The rent-to-income ratio used to qualify tenants for both income-restricted and non-income restricted units. The acceptable rent burden varies depending on the requirements of funding sources, government funding sources, target markets, and local conditions.

ACCESSORY USE: The use of a building, structure, or land that is subordinate to, customarily incidental to, and ordinarily found in association with, the principal use it serves.

ACHIEVABLE RENTS:

See Market Rent, Achievable Restricted Rent.

ACRE: 43,560 square feet (about the size of a football field). AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

In general, housing for which the occupant(s) is/are paying no more than 30% of household income for gross housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some jurisdictions may define affordable housing based on other, locally determined criteria, and that this definition is intended solely as an approximate guideline or general rule of thumb.

AMENITY: Tangible or intangible benefits offered to a tenant. Typical amenities include on-site recreational facilities, planned programs, services and activities.

Glossary-1

AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (ACS):

A nationwide survey designed to provide communities with a fresh look at how they are changing. It is a critical element in the Census Bureau's reengineered 2010 census plan. The ACS collects information such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home value, veteran status, and other important data from U.S. households.

AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY (AHS):

Contains data on apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, vacant homes, family composition, income, housing and neighborhood quality, housing costs, equipment, fuels, size of housing units, and recent movers. National data are collected every other year, from a fixed sample of about 50,000 homes, plus new construction each year. The survey started in 1973 and has relied on the same sample since 1985, allowing users to view statistical changes in homes and households over the years. In some metropolitan areas, additional samples (every four to six years) measure local conditions.

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (AAF):

Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 provides for annual rent adjustments for housing units assisted under this section. HUD develops the rent adjustment factors, called AAFs, based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) data on changes in residential rent and utility costs. HUD publishes the AAFs annually in the Federal Register.

ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION CONTRACT (ACC):

Annual contracts with Public Housing Authorities for payments toward rent, financing debt service, and financing for modernization.

ANNUAL DEMAND: The total estimated demand present in the market in any one year for the type of units proposed.

ANNUAL INCOME: The HOME Program allows the use of three income definitions for the purpose of determining applicant eligibility:

1. Annual income as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (24 CFR 5.609);

2. Annual income as reported under the Census Long Form for the most recent decennial census; or

3. Adjusted gross income as defined for purposes of reporting under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1040 series for individual federal annual income tax purposes.

Glossary-2

ASSISTED HOUSING:

Housing where federal, state or other programs subsidize the monthly costs to the tenants.

ATTACHED HOUSING:

Two or more dwelling units connected with party walls (e.g. townhouses or flats).

AUTOMATED PRICE OPTIMIZATION SYSTEMS (APOS)

Management software programs that attempt to maximize rents based on the current market trends and occupancy at the subject site and that matches a prospective tenant to a lease option. YieldStar and LRO are two of the most popular programs.

BASIC RENT: The minimum monthly rent that tenants who do not have rental assistance pay to lease units developed through the USDA-RD Section 515 Program, the HUD Section 236 Program and HUD Section 223(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate Program. The Basic Rent is calculated as the amount of rent required to operate the property, maintain debt service on a subsidized mortgage with a below-market interest rate, and provide a return on equity to the developer in accordance with the regulatory documents governing the property.

BELOW MARKET INTEREST RATE PROGRAM (BMIR):

Program targeted to renters with income not exceeding 80% of area median income by limiting rents based on HUD’s BMIR Program requirements and through the provision of an interest reduction contract to subsidize the market interest rate to a below-market rate. Interest rates are typically subsidized to effective rates of 1% or 3%.

BIAS: A proclivity or preference, particularly one that inhibits or entirely prevents an impartial judgment.

BROWNFIELD: Abandoned, idled, and underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion and redevelopment is burdened by real or potential environmental contamination.

BUILDING CODE: A set of building construction requirements developed and administered by national and local bodies to ensure that buildings meet certain minimum standards for structural integrity, safety, design, and durability.

CENSUS TRACT: A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county or

statistically equivalent entity delineated for data presentation purposes by a local group of census data users or the geographic staff of a regional census center in accordance with Census Bureau guidelines.

Glossary-3

CENSUS TRACT NUMBER:

A four-digit basic number, followed by an optional two-digit decimal suffix, used to identify a census tract within a county or statistically equivalent entity.

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD):

The center of commercial activity within a town or city; usually the largest and oldest concentration of such activity.

COLLECTED RENT (STREET RENT):

The rent that an apartment, without rent or income restrictions or rent subsidies, would command in the primary market area considering its location, features and amenities. The collected rent should be adjusted for concessions and owner paid utilities included in the rent. See the NCHMA publication Calculating Market Rent.

COMBINED STATISTICAL AREA (CSA):

May comprise two or more metropolitan statistical areas, a metropolitan statistical area and a micropolitan statistical area, two or more micropolitan statistical areas, or multiple metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas that have social and economic ties as measured by commuting, but at lower levels than are found among counties within metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas.

COMMERCIAL BUILDING:

Any building other than a residential or government building, including any building constructed for industrial, retail, business, or public purposes.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CDC):

Entrepreneurial institution combining public and private resources to aid in the development of socio-economically disadvantaged areas.

COMPARABLE PROPERTY:

A property that is representative of the rental housing choices of the subject’s primary market area and that is similar in construction, size, amenities, location, and/or age. Comparable and competitive properties are generally used to derive market rent and to evaluate the subject’s position in the market. See the NCHMA white paper Selecting Comparable Properties

COMPETITIVE PROPERTY:

A property that is comparable to the subject and that competes at nearly the same rent levels and tenant profile, such as age, family or income.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG):

Created under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, this program provides grant funds to local and state governments to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing with a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities to assist low- and moderate-income residents.

Glossary-4

CONCESSION: Discount given to a prospective tenant to induce the potential resident to sign a lease. Concessions typically are in the form of reduced rent or free rent for a specific lease term, or free amenities, which are normally charged separately (i.e. washer/dryer, parking).

CONDOMINIUM: A form of ownership in which the separate owners of the individual units jointly own the development’s common areas and facilities.

CONSOLIDATED METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA (CMSA):

An area that has a census population of one million or more and has component parts that qualify as primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs) based on official standards, and local opinion favors the designation. CMSAs consist of whole counties except for the New England states, where they consist of county subdivisions (primarily cities and towns).

CONSOLIDATED PLAN:

A document written by a state or local government describing the housing needs of the low- and moderate-income residents, outlining strategies to meet these needs, and listing all resources available to implement the strategies. This document is required in order to receive HUD Community Planning and Development funds.

CONTRACT RENT: 1. The actual monthly rent payable by the tenant, including any rent subsidy

paid on behalf of the tenant, to the owner, inclusive of all terms of the lease. (HUD & RD) 2. The monthly rent agreed to between a tenant and a property owner (Census).

COOPERATIVE (Co-op):

Housing in which each member shares in the ownership of the whole project with the exclusive right to occupy a specific unit and to participate in development operations through the purchase of stock.

DEMAND: The total number of households in a defined market area that would potentially move into the proposed new or renovated housing units. These households must be of the appropriate age, income, tenure and size for a specific proposed development. Components of demand vary and can include household growth; turnover, those living in substandard conditions, rent over-burdened households, and demolished housing units. Demand is project specific.

DETACHED HOUSING:

A freestanding dwelling unit, typically single-family, situated on its own lot.

Glossary-5

DIFFICULT DEVELOPMENT AREA (DDA):

Any area designated by the HUD Secretary as an area that has high construction, land, and utility costs relative to the area median gross income.

EFFECTIVE RENTS: Contract rent less concession. ELDERLY OR SENIOR HOUSING:

Housing where (1) all the units in the property are restricted for occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older or (2) at least 80% of the units in each building are restricted for occupancy by Households where at least one Household member is 55 years of age or older and the housing is designed with amenities and facilities designed to meet the needs of senior citizens.

EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) PROGRAM:

A federal CPD program grant designed to help improve the quality of existing emergency shelters for the homeless, to make additional shelters available, to meet the costs of operating shelters, to provide essential social services to homeless individuals, and to help prevent homelessness. ESG also provides short-term homeless prevention assistance to persons at imminent risk of losing their own housing due to eviction, foreclosure, or utility shutoffs.

EMINENT DOMAIN: An exercise of the power of government or quasi-government agencies (such as airport authorities, highway commissions, community development agencies, and utility companies) to take private property for public use.

ENERGY AUDIT: Any process that identifies and specifies the energy and cost savings likely

to be realized through the purchase and installation of particular energy efficiency measures or renewable energy measures.

EXTREMELY LOW INCOME:

Person or Household with income below 30% of Area Median Income adjusted for Household size.

FAIR MARKET RENT (FMR):

Primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program, to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, to determine initial rents for housing assistance payment contracts in the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy program, and to serve as a rent ceiling in the HOME rental assistance program.

FAIR MARKET VALUE:

The amount of money that would probably be paid for a property in a sale between a willing seller, who does not have to sell, and a willing buyer, who does not have to buy.

FANNIE MAE: See GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISE.

Glossary-6

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION (FHA):

Provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA-approved lenders throughout the United States and its territories. FHA insures mortgages on single-family, multifamily, and manufactured homes and hospitals. It is the largest insurer of mortgages in the world, insuring over 34 million properties since its inception in 1934.

GARDEN APARTMENTS:

Apartments in low-rise buildings (typically two to four stories) that feature low density, ample open-space around buildings, and on-site parking.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS):

A computer system for the input, storage, processing, applications development, retrieval, and maintenance of information about the points, lines, and areas that represent the streets and roads, rivers, railroads, geographic entities, and other features on the surface of the earth. Typically, information that previously was available only on paper maps.

GEOCODING: The process of identifying the coordinates of a location given its address.

GROSS RENT: The monthly housing cost to a tenant, which equals the contract rent, provided for in the lease plus the estimated cost of all tenant paid utilities.

GROSS RENT as a PERCENTAGE of INCOME:

The ratio of gross rent to household income. It is used as a measure of housing affordability by policymakers and as a determinant of eligibility for federal housing programs and is often referred to as a housing cost burden.

For this report, a renting household is considered “burdened” if the household is required to spend 35 percent or more of its income on housing costs.

HIGH-RISE: A residential building having more than 10 stories.

HOME (HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM):

Provides formula grants to states and localities that communities use, often in partnership with local nonprofit groups, to fund a wide range of activities that build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or homeownership, or to provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.

HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE PROGRAM (HOZ):

Allows communities to reclaim vacant and blighted properties, increase homeownership, and promote economic revitalization by creating entire neighborhoods of new, single-family homes, called HOZs.

HOUSEHOLD: One or more people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of

residence.

Glossary-7

HOUSEHOLD TRENDS:

Changes in the number of households for a particular area over a specific period of time, which is a function of new household formations (e.g. at marriage or separation), changes in average household size, and net migration.

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER (SECTION 8 PROGRAM):

Federal rent subsidy program under Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act, which issues rent vouchers to eligible Households to use in the housing of their choice. The voucher payment subsidizes the difference between the Gross Rent and the tenant’s contribution of 30% of adjusted income, (or 10% of gross income, whichever is greater). In cases where 30% of the tenants’ income is less than the utility allowance, the tenant will receive an assistance payment. In other cases, the tenant is responsible for paying his share of the rent each month.

HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (HFA):

State or local agencies responsible for financing housing and administering Assisted Housing programs.

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA):

Provides housing assistance and supportive services to low-income people with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA funds may also be used for health care and mental health services, chemical dependency treatment, nutritional services, case management, assistance with daily living, and other supportive services.

HOUSING UNIT: House, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms used as a separate living quarters by a single household.

HUD METRO FMR AREA:

Indicates that only a portion of the OMB-defined core-based statistical area (CBSA) is in the area to which the income limits or FMRs apply. HUD is required by OMB to alter the name of metropolitan geographic entities it derives from the CBSAs when the geography is not the same as that established by OMB.

HUD USER: An information resource from HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research offering a wide range of low- and no-cost content of interest to housing and community development researchers, government officials, academics, policymakers, and the American public. HUD USER is the primary source for federal government reports and information on housing policy and programs, building technology, economic development, urban planning, and other housing-related topics.

Glossary-8

INCOME LIMIT (IL): Determines the eligibility of applicants for HUD's assisted housing programs. The major active assisted housing programs are the Public Housing program, the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program, Section 202 housing for the elderly, and Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities.

LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC):

A program to generate equity for investment in affordable rental housing authorized pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. The program requires that a certain percentage of units built be restricted for occupancy to households earning 60% or less of Area Median Income, and that the rents on these units be restricted accordingly. The tax incentive is intended to increase the availability of low-income housing. The program provides an income tax credit to owners of newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated low-income rental housing projects.

LOW INCOME PERSON or HOUSEHOLD WITH GROSS:

Household income below 80% of Area Median Income adjusted for household size.

LOW RISE BUILDING:

A building with one to three stories.

MARKET ADVANTAGE:

The difference, expressed as a percentage, between the estimated market rent for an apartment property without income restrictions and the lesser of (a) the owner’s proposed rents or (b) the maximum rents permitted by the financing program for the same apartment property. (market rent – proposed rent) / proposed rent * 100.

MARKET ANALYSIS:

A study of real estate market conditions for a specific type of property.

MARKET AREA: See primary market area.

MARKET RENT: The rent that an apartment, without rent or income restrictions or rent subsidies, would command in the primary market area considering its location, features and amenities. Market rent should be adjusted for concessions and owner paid utilities included in the rent. See the NCHMA publication Calculating Market Rent.

Glossary-9

MARKET STUDY: A comprehensive study of a specific proposal including a review of the housing market in a defined market area. Project specific market studies are often used by developers, syndicators, and government entities to determine the appropriateness of a proposed development, whereas market specific market studies are used to determine what housing needs, if any, exist within a specific geography. The minimal content of a market study is shown in the NCHMA publication Model Content for Market Studies for Rental Housing.

MARKETABILITY: The manner in which the subject fits into the market; the relative desirability of a property (for sale or lease) in comparison with similar or competing properties in the area.

MARKET VACANCY RATE, ECONOMIC:

Percentage of rent loss due to concessions, vacancies, and non-payment of rent on occupied units.

MARKET VACANCY RATE, PHYSICAL:

Average number of apartment units in any market that are unoccupied divided by the total number of apartment units in the same market, excluding units in properties, which are in the lease-up stage.

METROPOLITAN AREA (MA):

A large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that has a high degree of economic and social integration with that nucleus.

METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA (MSA):

An area with at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core, as measured by commuting ties.

MICROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA:

An area with at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core, as measured by commuting ties.

MID-RISE: A building with four to 10 stories.

MIGRATION: The movement of households into or out of an area, especially a primary market area.

MIXED INCOME PROPERTY:

An apartment property containing (1) both income restricted and unrestricted units or (2) units restricted at two or more income limits (i.e. low income tax credit property with income limits of 30%, 50% and 60%).

MOBILITY: The ease with which people move from one location to another.

MODERATE INCOME:

Person or Household with gross household income between 80% and 120% of area median income adjusted for Household size.

Glossary-10

MOVE-UP DEMAND:

An estimate of how many consumers are able and willing to relocate to more expensive or desirable units. Examples: tenants who move from class C properties to class B properties, or tenants who move from older tax credit properties to newer tax credit properties.

MULTIFAMILY: Structures that contain more than two housing units.

NEIGHBORHOOD: An area of a city or town with common demographic and economic features that distinguish it from adjoining areas.

NET RENT: (also referred to as contract rent or lease rent) Gross rent less tenant paid utilities.

NEW ENGLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA (NECMA):

A county-based area designated by the federal Office of Management and Budget to provide an alternative to the county subdivision-based metropolitan areas in New England.

OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH (PD&R):

HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) maintains current information on housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as well as conducts research on priority housing and community development issues. The office provides reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy decisions. In 1978, PD&R established HUD USER, an information resource for housing and community development researchers, government officials, academics, policymakers, and the American public.

PAYMENT STANDARD:

The Section 8 Voucher Payment Standard is the most the Housing Authority can pay to help a family with rent. The family's voucher will show the number of bedrooms authorized by the Housing Authority, based on the number of persons in the family.

The Housing Authority establishes Voucher Payment Standards (VPS) based on the Fair Market Rents (FMR), which are established at least annually by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The VPS is the maximum subsidy the Housing Authority can provide toward the contract rent (rent plus utility allowance for utilities, stove or refrigerator paid or provided by the tenant). If the contract rent (rent plus utility allowance) is more than the VPS, the family must make up the difference out of its own pocket.

Glossary-11

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/fmr2013f/FY2013F_SCHEDULE_B.pdf

http://www.hacla.org/utility/

http://www.hacla.org/utility/

The Housing Authority must use the smaller of the number of bedrooms in the rental unit or the number of bedrooms on the voucher to determine the VPS. For example, if a family locates a two-bedroom unit with a three-bedroom voucher, the two-bedroom VPS must be used to calculate your tenant portion of the rent.

PENETRATION RATE:

The percentage of age and income qualified renter households in the primary market area that all existing and proposed properties, to be completed within six months of the subject, and which are competitively priced to the subject that must be captured to achieve the stabilized level of occupancy. Funding agencies may require restrictions to the qualified Households used in the calculation including age, income, living in substandard housing, mover ship and other comparable factors. Units in all proposals / households in market * 100 See also: capture rate.

PENT-UP DEMAND: A market in which there is a scarcity of supply and vacancy rates are very low.

PERCENTILE RENT ESTIMATES (50th):

Calculated for all FMR areas. These are not fair market rents. Under certain conditions, as set forth in the Interim Rule (Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 191, Monday October 2, 2000, pages 58870—58875), these 50th percentile rents can be used to set success rate payment standards.

POPULATION TRENDS:

Changes in population levels for a particular area over a specific period of time, which is a function of the level of births, deaths, and net migration.

PRIMARY MARKET AREA (PMA):

A geographic area from which a property is expected to draw the majority of its residents. See the NCHMA publication Determining Market Area.

PRIMARY METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA (PMSA):

An area that qualifies as a metropolitan statistical area has a census population of 1 million or more; two or more PMSAs may be designated within it if they meet published official standards and local opinion favors the designation.

PROGRAMMATIC RENTS:

See restricted rents.

PROJECT-BASED RENT ASSISTANCE:

Rental assistance from any source that is allocated to the property or a specific number of units in the property and is available to each income eligible tenant of the property or an assisted unit.

PUBLIC HOUSING or LOW INCOME CONVENTIONAL PUBLIC HOUSING:

HUD program administered by local (or regional) housing authorities which serves Low- and Very-Low Income Households with rent based on the same formula used for HUD Section 8 assistance.

Glossary-12

QUALIFIED CENSUS TRACT (QCT):

Any census tract (or equivalent geographic area defined by the Census Bureau) in which at least 50% of households have an income less than 60% of the area median gross income.

REDEVELOPMENT: The redesign or rehabilitation of an existing property.

REGULATORY BARRIERS CLEARINGHOUSE (RBC):

Collects, processes, assembles, and disseminates information on the barriers faced in the creation and maintenance of affordable housing. The Clearinghouse is hosted by HUD USER.

RENT BURDEN: Gross rent divided by adjusted monthly household income.

RENT BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS:

Households with rent burden above the level determined by the lender, investor, or public program to be an acceptable rent-to-income ratio.

RENTAL VACANCY RATE:

The proportion of the rental inventory that is vacant and “for rent.” It is computed by dividing the number of vacant units “for rent” by the sum of renter-occupied units, vacant units “for rent,” and vacant units that have been rented but not yet occupied, and then multiplying by 100.

RESTRICTED RENT: The rent charged under the restrictions of a specific housing program or subsidy.

RESTRICTED RENT, ACHIEVABLE:

The rents that the project can attain taking into account both market conditions and rent in the primary market area and income restrictions.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT (RD) MARKET RENT:

A monthly rent that can be charged for an apartment under a specific USDA-RD housing program, that reflects the agency’s estimate of the rent required to operate the property, maintain debt service on an un-subsidized mortgage and provide an adequate return to the property owner. This rent is the maximum rent that a tenant can pay at an RD Property.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT (RD) PROGRAM:

(Formerly the Farmers Home Administration Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program) Federal program that provides low interest loans to finance housing, which serves low- and moderate-income persons in rural areas who pay 30% of their adjusted income on rent or the basic rent, whichever is the higher (but not exceeding the market rent). The Program may include property based rental assistance and interest reduction contracts to write down the interest on the loan to as low as 1%.

SATURATION: The point at which there is no longer demand to support additional units. Saturation usually refers to a particular segment of a specific market.

Glossary-13

SECONDARY MARKET AREA (SMA):

The portion of a market area that supplies additional support to an apartment property beyond that provided by the primary market area.

SECTION 202: Provides capital advances to finance the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition (with or without rehabilitation) of structures that will serve as supportive housing for very-low-income elderly persons, including the frail elderly, and provides rent subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable.

SECTION 236: Program Federal program, which provides interest reduction payments for loans that finance housing, targeted to Households with income not exceeding 80% of area median income who pay rent equal to the greater of Basic Rent or 30% of their adjusted income. All rents are capped at a HUD approved market rent.

SECTION 8 EXISISTING RENTAL ASSISTANCE:

Provides rental assistance to very low- and low-income families who are unable to afford market rents. Assistance may be in the form of vouchers or certificates.

SECTION 8 HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM:

Allows low-income families who qualify for Section 8 rental assistance to use their certificates or vouchers to pay for homeownership costs under a mortgage.

SECTION 811: Program Federal program, which provides direct capital assistance and operating or rental assistance to finance housing designed for occupancy by persons with disabilities who have income not exceeding 50% of Area Median Income. The program is limited to housing owned by 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations or by limited partnerships where the sole general partner is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING:

A dwelling unit, either attached or detached, designed for use by one Household and with direct access to a street. It does not share heating facilities or other essential building facilities with any other dwelling.

SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION:

Specific market niche that is typically not catered to in a conventional apartment property. Examples of special needs populations include: substance abusers, visually impaired person or persons with mobility limitations.

STABILIZED LEVEL OF OCCUPANCY:

The underwritten or actual number of occupied units that a property is expected to maintain after the initial rent-up period, expressed as a percentage of the total units.

Glossary-14

STATE DATA CENTER (SDC):

A state agency or university facility identified by the governor of each state to participate in the Census Bureau’s cooperative network for the dissemination of the census data.

SUBSIDY: Monthly income received by a tenant or by an owner on behalf of a tenant to pay the difference between the apartment’s contract rent and the amount paid by the tenant toward rent.

SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS:

Housing conditions that are conventionally considered unacceptable which may be defined in terms of lacking plumbing facilities, one or more major systems not functioning properly, or overcrowded conditions.

SWEAT EQUITY: Using labor to build or improve a property as part of the down payment.

TARGET INCOME BAND:

The income band from which the subject property will draw tenants.

TARGET POPULATION:

The market segment or segments a development will appeal or cater to. State agencies often use target population to refer to various income set asides, elderly v. family, etc.

TENANT: One who rents real property from another.

TENANT PAID UTILITIES:

The cost of utilities (not including cable, telephone, or internet) necessary for the habitation of a dwelling unit, which are paid by the tenant.

TENURE: The distinction between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units.

TOWNHOUSE (or ROW HOUSE):

Single-family attached residence separated from another by party walls, usually on a narrow lot offering small front and back-yards; also called a row house.

TURNOVER: An estimate of the number of housing units in a market area as a percentage

of total housing units in the market area that will likely change occupants in any one year. See also: vacancy period. Housing units with new occupants / housing units * 100

TURNOVER PERCENT:

The percent of occupants in a given apartment complex that move in one year.

UNMET HOUSING NEED:

New units required in the market area to accommodate household growth, homeless people, and households in substandard conditions.

Glossary-15

UNRESTRICTED UNITS:

Units that are not subject to any income or rent restrictions.

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU:

Serves as the leading source of quality data about our nation's people and economy.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD):

Established in 1965, HUD's mission is to increase homeownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination. To fulfill this mission, HUD will embrace high standards of ethics, management and accountability and forge new partnerships — particularly with faith-based and community organizations — that leverage resources and improve HUD's ability to be effective on the community level.

UTILITY ALLOWANCE:

The utility allowance is the local housing authority’s estimate of the monthly cost of the reasonable consumption of those essential utilities (and, if supplied by the tenant, the refrigerator and/or stove) not included in the tenant rent but for which the tenant is responsible. The utility allowance does not include the cost of telephone or cable services.

VACANCY PERIOD: The amount of time that an apartment remains vacant and available for rent.

VACANCY RATE, ECONOMIC: VACANCY RATE: PHYSICAL

Maximum potential revenue less actual rent revenue divided by maximum potential rent revenue. The number of total habitable units that are vacant divided by the total number of units in the property.

VERY LOW INCOME:

Person or Household whose gross household income does not exceed 50% of Area Median Income adjusted for Household size.

ZONING: The classification of land by types of uses permitted and prohibited in a given district, and by densities and intensities permitted and prohibited, including regulations regarding building location on lots.

Glossary-16

Documents

General Summary of the Ten County Rural Nevada Area ...nvrural.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Full_Housing_Study_Report.pdfNevada markets include three garden/flat apartment units