Reasonable Rent Determination Comparability Study Summary

Janell Hoppe – National ManagerJanell Hoppe – National Manager

EZ-Reasonable Rent DeterminationEZ-Reasonable Rent Determination

a Division ofa Division of

2

TopicsCompliant Data CollectionData Collection StrategyCollect Comparables Unit DataAssign Rental Market Value

(RMV)Collected Data VerificationQuality AssuranceComparability Study StatisticsQuestions and Answers

3

Compliant Data Collection

24 CFR Section 982.507, Rent to Owner: Reasonable Rent, Section 985.3, (b) of the SEMAP rule, Notice PIH 2003-12,  Notice PIH 2009-51, Notice PIH 2010-18

Use only unassisted unitsConsider all HUD characteristics –

location, unit size, unit type, quality, age, amenities, housing services, maintenance, utilities provided by the owner

4

Data Collection Strategy

CMHA provided Voucher Holder data by zip codeThose zip codes currently

under leaseMobility areas that might

offer enhanced opportunities for Participant self-sufficiency

5

Data Collection Strategy

Nelrod developed data collection strategy within voucher holder zip codes

Ratio matching – Example10% of voucher holders located in zip 45205; 10% of comps in 45205

10% of units are single family units; 10% of comparables will be single

family units(Comp ratios subj. to availability)

6

Collect Comparables Unit Data

Start Comparables CollectionVarious data sources used to

identify comps Property Manager/Real Estate

Marketing Websites Local Newspaper/Craigslist Ads For Rent Signs Local Landlords at CMHA

Community Meeting

7

Collect Comparables Unit Data

Data Collected Unit address Landlord information Unit quality (based on HQS)

Excellent-exceeds HQS Good-meets HQS w/upgrades Fair-barely meets HQS or

minimum repairs needed Poor-many repairs needed

8

Collect Comparables Unit Data

Data Collected Age Unit Type Amenities ( A/C, carpeting, appliances,

fireplace, community pool, etc) Facilities (community pool, off-street

parking, storage, etc) Housing Services (package receiving,

etc) Maintenance (onsite, offsite, poor)

9

Collect Comparables Unit Data

Data CollectedUtilities included in rentRent amount (actual vs

proposed when available)Size (includes sq. feet when

available)Number of bedroomsNumber of bathrooms

10

Assign Rental Market Value (RMV) to Collected Comparables

View1-3 block radius surrounding comp. unit High RMV – Above average

neighborhood includes:New constructionLuxury communitiesCommunity amenities such as

golf coursesState of the art systemsModern appliances

11

Assign Rental Market Value (RMV) to Collected Comparables

Medium RMV – Average neighborhood includesIntermediate community (slightly

less favorable than luxury communities)

Newer larger homesCommunity amenities such as

community pool/fitness centerQuality finishes, adequate systems

and appliances

12

Assign Rental Market Value (RMV) to Collected Comparables

Low RMV –Minimal, depleted or impoverished communitiesMinimal

Older, smaller homes in good condition (starter-homes)

Community amenities such as parksDepleted or Impoverished

Much older communitiesLarge amount of crimeHomes may be in bad physical condition,

abandoned or vandalized

13

Collected Data Verification

Off-site VerificationsLandlord phone

call/emailProperty tax recordsSatellite imagery

14

Collected Data Verification

Onsite VerificationsCounty-wide

neighborhoods tour of zip code areas

Performed approximately 350 onsite unit assessments

15

Quality Assurance

Identify/Delete Anomaly Comparability UnitsVery high rentVery low rentUnit values unequal to

requested rent

16

Comparability Study Statistics

1005 comparable units as of May 2010 included both vacant and occupied units

Beginning June 2010 add additional 35 comps per month for 11 months

17

Comparability Study Statistics

Comps by Bedroom SizeEfficiencies – 4%1 Bedroom – 33%2 Bedroom – 28%3 Bedroom – 25%4 Bedroom – 8%5 Bedroom – 2%6 Bedroom – 01%

18

Comparability Study Statistics

Comps by Structure TypesGarden walkup/multi family-

64%Townhouse - 6%Rowhouse – 2%Duplex – 0.1%Highrise – 4%Single family units – 24%

19

Comparability Study Statistics

Zip code containing highest % of high RMV

45208

20

Comparability Study Statistics

Zip codes containing 60% or greater medium RMV

45241, 45248, 45255

21

Comparability Study Statistics

Zips codes representing deconcentration and/or

expanding housing opportunities RMVs

45208, 45241, 45248, 45255

22

Comparability Study Summary

Zip codes containing relatively even match of medium and

low RMVs (ranged from 40% to 60%)

45213, 45219, 45239, 45230 and 45242

23

Comparability Study Statistics

Zip codes containing the highest % of low RMVs

45204, 45205, 45207, 45211, 45214, 45216, 45223, 45224,

45225

24

Comparability Study Statistics

Zip codes that had a significant % of high, medium and low

RMVs (may offer widest selection of potential HCVP

units)45202, 45215, 45220, 45227,

45236, and 45246

25

Questions and Answers