Market Feasibility Analysis

Church Hill North Phase 2A 1611 North 31st Street Richmond, Independent Richmond City, Virginia 23223

Prepared For

Mr. Juan Powell The Community Builders, Inc. 1602 L Street, Suite 401 Washington DC 20036

Authorized User

Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) 601 S. Belvidere Street Richmond, Virginia 23220

Effective Date

February 19, 2018

Job Reference Number

18-123 CR

155 E. Columbus Street, Suite 220 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 Phone: (614) 833-9300 Bowennational.com Market Study Certification

NCHMA Certification

This certifies that Garth Semple, an employee of Bowen National Research, personally made an inspection of the area including competing properties and the proposed site in Richmond, Virginia. Further, the information contained in this report is true and accurate as of February 19, 2018.

Bowen National Research is a disinterested third party without any current or future financial interest in the project under consideration. We have received a fee for the preparation of the market study. However, no contingency fees exist between our firm and the client.

VHDA Certification

I affirm the following:

1. I have made a physical inspection of the site and market area 2. The appropriate information has been used in the comprehensive evaluation of the need and demand for the proposed rental units. 3. To the best of my knowledge the market can support the demand shown in this study. I understand that any misrepresentation in this statement may result in the denial of participation in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program in Virginia as administered by VHDA. 4. Neither I nor anyone at my firm has any interest in the proposed development or a relationship with the ownership entity. 5. Neither I nor anyone at my firm nor anyone acting on behalf of my firm in connection with the preparation of this report has communicated to others that my firm is representing VHDA or in any way acting for, at the request, or on behalf of VHDA. 6. Compensation for my services is not contingent upon this development receiving a LIHTC reservation or allocation.

Certified:

______Patrick M. Bowen President/Market Analyst Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus St., Suite 220 Pickerington, OH 43147 (614) 833-9300 [email protected] Date: February 19, 2018

______Garth Semple Market Analyst [email protected] Date: February 19, 2018

______Craig Rupert Market Analyst [email protected] Date: February 19, 2018

Table of Contents

I. Introduction II. Executive Summary III. Project Description IV. Area Analysis V. Rental Housing Analysis (Supply) VI. Achievable Market Rent Analysis VII. Capture Rate Analysis VIII. Local Perspective IX. Analysis & Conclusions X. Site Photographs XI. Comparable Property Profiles XII. Field Survey of Conventional Rentals XIII. Qualifications Addendum A – NCHMA Member Certification & Checklist

I. Introduction

A. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the market feasibility of a proposed Low- Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project to be developed in Richmond, Virginia. This study was initiated by Mr. Juan Powell of The Community Builders, Inc. and complies with the guidelines of the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA). This study conforms to the standards adopted by the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA). These standards include the accepted definitions of key terms used in market studies for affordable housing projects and model content standards for the content of market studies for affordable housing projects. These standards are designed to enhance the quality of market studies and to make them easier to prepare, understand and use by market analysts and end users.

B. METHODOLOGIES

Methodologies used by Bowen National Research include the following:

 The Primary Market Area (PMA) generated for the proposed site is identified. The Site PMA is generally described as the smallest geographic area expected to generate most of the support for the proposed project. Site PMAs are not defined by radius. The use of a radius is an ineffective approach because it does not consider mobility patterns, changes in socioeconomic or demographic character of neighborhoods or physical landmarks that might impede development.

PMAs are established using a variety of factors that include, but are not limited to:

 A detailed demographic and socioeconomic evaluation.  Interviews with area planners, realtors and other individuals who are familiar with area growth patterns.  A drive-time analysis to the site.  Personal observations of the field analyst.  An evaluation of existing housing supply characteristics and trends.

 A field survey of modern apartment developments is conducted. The intent of the field survey is twofold. First, the field survey is used to measure the overall strength of the apartment market. This is accomplished by an evaluation of unit mix, vacancies, rent levels and overall quality of product. The second purpose of the field survey is to establish those projects that are most likely directly comparable to the proposed property. Given the complexity of the LIHTC market, there might be multiple comparable properties.

I-1  Two types of directly comparable properties are identified through the field survey. They include other Section 42 LIHTC developments and market-rate developments that offer unit and project amenities similar to the proposed development. An in-depth evaluation of those two property types provides an indication of the potential of the proposed development.

 Economic and demographic characteristics of the area are evaluated. An economic evaluation includes an assessment of area employment composition, income growth (particularly among the target market), building statistics and area growth perceptions. The demographic evaluation uses the most recently issued Census information, as well as projections that determine what the characteristics of the market will be when the proposed project opens and after it achieves a stabilized occupancy.

 Area building statistics and interviews with officials familiar with area development provide identification of those properties that might be planned or proposed for the area that will have an impact on the marketability of the proposed development. Planned and proposed projects are always in different stages of development. As a result, it is important to establish the likelihood of construction, the timing of the project and its impact on the market and the subject development.

 We conduct an analysis following VHDA and NCHMA market study guidelines of the subject project’s required capture of the number of income- appropriate households within the Site PMA. This analysis is conducted on a renter household level and a market capture rate is determined for the subject development. This capture rate is compared with acceptable capture rates for similar types of projects to determine whether the subject development’s capture rate is achievable. In addition, Bowen National Research also compares all existing and planned LIHTC housing within the market to the number of income-appropriate households. The resulting penetration rate is evaluated in conjunction with the project’s capture rate.

 Achievable market rent for the proposed subject development is determined. Using a Rent Comparability Grid, the features of the proposed development are compared item-by-item with the most comparable properties in the market. Adjustments are made for each feature that differs from that of the proposed subject development. These adjustments are then included with the collected rent resulting in an achievable market rent for a unit comparable to the proposed unit.

I-2 C. SOURCES

Bowen National Research uses various sources to gather and confirm data used in each analysis. These sources include the following:

 The 2000 and 2010 Census on Housing  American Community Survey  ESRI  Urban Decision Group (UDG)  Applied Geographic Solutions  U.S. Department of Labor  Management for each property included in the survey  Local planning and building officials  Local housing authority representatives  U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

D. REPORT LIMITATIONS

The intent of this report is to collect and analyze significant levels of data to forecast the market success of the subject property within an agreed to time period. Bowen National Research relies on a variety of data sources to generate this report. These data sources are not always verifiable; Bowen National Research, however, makes a significant effort to assure accuracy. While this is not always possible, we believe our effort provides an acceptable standard margin of error. Bowen National Research is not responsible for errors or omissions in the data provided by other sources.

The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. Our compensation is not contingent on an action or event (such as the approval of a loan) resulting from the analyses, opinions, conclusions in or the use of this study.

Any reproduction or duplication of this report without the express approval of The Community Builders, Inc. or Bowen National Research is strictly prohibited.

I-3 II. Executive Summary

This report evaluates the market feasibility of the proposed 70-unit Church Hill North Phase 2A rental community to operate as a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project in Richmond, Virginia. Based on the findings contained in this report, it is our opinion that a market exists for the proposed subject development, assuming it is constructed and operated as outlined in this report.

The following is a summary of key findings from our report:

Project Concept

The subject project involves the new construction of the 70-unit Church Hill North Phase 2A rental community at 1611 North 31st Street in Richmond, Virginia. This project is part of the Church Hill North Revitalization project and will occupy just over three (3) acres scattered over multiple parcels on the campus of the former Armstrong High School. The subject project will offer 10 one-bedroom, 27 two- bedroom, 29 three-bedroom and four (4) four-bedroom units which will be a combination of garden- and townhome-style units located within 25, one- to three- story structures. Church Hill North Phase 2A will be developed using Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) financing and will target lower-income family households earning up to 40%, 50% and 60% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI). In addition, 17 of the 70 units will operate under the HUD Section 8 program. Note that tenants residing within the HUD Section 8 units will effectively pay up to 30% of their adjusted gross household income towards gross rent due to the presence of the subsidy. Monthly collected non-subsidized Tax Credit rents will range from $586 to $845, depending on bedroom type and AMHI level. The proposed project is expected to be complete by September 2019. Additional details regarding the project are included in Section III of this report.

Site Evaluation

The proposed subject site is comprised of vacant land on the campus of the former Armstrong High School, located in the eastern portion of Richmond. Surrounding land uses primarily consist of single-family homes, convenience stores and a cemetery. The site neighborhood is a generally residential area of Richmond with convenient access to basic community services in the area, as some are within walking distance of the site. Visibility of the proposed subject site is good, as there are unobstructed views from North 31st Street. Regardless, promotional signage placed near the intersection of 9 Mile Road and North 31st Street will increase visibility as this roadway (9 Mile Road) experiences higher volumes of vehicular traffic than North 31st Street. Accessibility of the proposed subject site is considered good as the surrounding roadways have light to moderate traffic patterns and no traffic disruptions are expected upon ingress and egress of the subject site. Additionally, the nearest GRTC bus stop is 0.1 mile north of the site, near the intersection of Creighton Road and 9 Mile Road, and provides affordable

II-1 transportation throughout Richmond and the surrounding communities. Overall, the surrounding land uses and proximity to community services are believed to enhance the marketability of the site. A detailed site evaluation is included in Section IV.

Primary Market Area

The Primary Market Area (PMA) is the geographical area from which most of the support for the proposed development is expected to originate. The Richmond Site PMA includes portions of eastern Richmond. The boundaries of the Site PMA include U.S. Highway 360 and North Laburnum Avenue to the north; North and South Laburnum Avenue to the east; U.S. Highway 60 and East Main Street to the south; and U.S. Highway 360, Interstate 64 and Interstate 95 to the west. A map of the Site PMA is included in Section IV on page 10.

Demographic Overview

The Richmond Site PMA is projected to experience both population and household growth between 2017 and 2022, a trend which has been consistent since 2000. More than 61.0% of all households were renters in 2017, which will continue, with more than 18,000 renter households projected for the market in 2022. The number of renter households is projected to increase by 903, or 7.1%, between 2017 and 2022. Nearly 68.0% of all renter households are projected to earn below $50,000 in 2022, with nearly 57.0% earning below $35,000. Based on the preceding factors, the overall demographic base will continue to expand and a large base of potential income- appropriate renter support for affordable rental product, such as that proposed at the subject site, will continue to exist in the Richmond market. Additional demographic information regarding the Site PMA is included in Section IV of this report, beginning on page 11.

Economic Summary

The labor force within the Richmond Site PMA relatively well-balanced, as no single industry segment represents more than 13.7% of the total labor force. However, more than 35.0% of the labor force within the Site PMA is comprised within the Retail Trade, Accommodation & Food Service, and Educational Services industries. Typically, these industry segments offer lower-wage paying positions, conducive to affordable housing alternatives such as that proposed for the subject site. The city of Richmond economy has experienced significant improvement over the past eight years, in terms of both total employment and the unemployment rate. Specifically, the employment base has increased by more than 20,000 jobs since 2009, while the unemployment rate has declined by more than five full percentage points, to a rate of 4.4% through November of 2017. Based on the preceding factors, and considering the numerous announcements of new and/or expanding businesses within the Richmond area, we expect the city of Richmond economy will remain strong and continue to improve for the foreseeable future. Additional economic information is included in Section IV of this report, beginning on page 16.

II-2 Housing Supply Analysis

We identified and personally surveyed 33 conventional rental housing projects containing a total of 4,921 units within the Site PMA. This survey was conducted to establish the overall strength of the rental market and to identify those properties most comparable to the subject site. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of 94.9%, a stable rate for rental housing. Each rental housing segment surveyed is summarized in the following table.

Projects Total Vacant Occupancy Project Type Surveyed Units Units Rate Market-Rate 17 2,945 199 93.2% Tax Credit 14 1,586 52 96.7% Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized 1 140 0 100.0% Government-Subsidized 1 250 0 100.0% Total 33 4,921 251 94.9%

A variety of rental product is offered within the Richmond Site PMA in terms of affordability level, as illustrated in the preceding table. Overall occupancy rates among the rental housing segments surveyed are at least 93.2%, with all housing segments offering affordable (i.e. Tax Credit and/or Government-Subsidized) rental units reporting at 96.7% or higher. These are clear indications that rental product is in high demand among all affordability levels within the Site PMA.

Comparable/Competitive Analysis

The proposed subject development will offer one- through four-bedroom units targeting general-occupancy (family) households earning up to 40%, 50% and 60% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI) under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Within the Site PMA, we identified and surveyed a total of nine conventional rental properties which operate under the LIHTC program, offer similar unit types, and target family households earning incomes similar to those targeted at the subject project. These nine LIHTC projects are considered directly competitive with the subject project and have been included in our comparable analysis.

These nine LIHTC properties and the proposed subject development are summarized as follows. Information regarding property address, phone number, contact name and utility responsibility is included in the Field Survey of Conventional Rentals.

II-3 Map Year Built/ Total Occ. Distance Waiting I.D. Project Name Renovated Units Rate to Site List Target Market Church Hill North Families; 40%, 50% & Site Phase 2A 2019 70 - - - 60% AMHI & Section 8 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1948 / 2003 294 90.1% 3.3 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI Mallard Greens 12 Townhomes 1965 / 2007 192 100.0% 0.9 Miles 5 H.H. Families; 60% AMHI 14 Market Slip 1994 30 100.0% 1.9 Miles 3 H.H. Families; 50% & 60% AMHI 16 Bradford Manor 1963 / 1996 56 100.0% 1.0 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI 17 Lawndale Farms 1965 / 1997 50 94.0% 3.3 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 2000 144 100.0% 3.1 Miles 2 H.H. Families; 60% AMHI Jefferson Mews & 2-Br: 10 20 Spring Hill Townhomes 1994 / 2014 56 94.6% 1.2 Miles H.H. Families; 50% & 60% AMHI 21 Jefferson Townhomes 1965 / 2008 218 95.4% 1.2 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI 27 Tobacco Landing 1994 62 100.0% 1.7 Miles 4 H.H. Families; 50% & 60% AMHI OCC. – Occupancy H.H. - Households

The nine LIHTC projects have a combined occupancy rate of 95.9%, with all nine properties reporting individual occupancy rates of 90.1% or higher. Note, the property reporting the lowest occupancy rate, Glenwood Farms Apartments (Map ID 5), is also the oldest of the nine properties surveyed. Five of the properties surveyed are 100.0% occupied, with four of these five maintaining waiting lists for their next available units. This is a clear indication of pent-up demand for additional family- oriented LIHTC product in this market. It is also of note that the subject project will be at least 19 years newer than the nine comparable LIHTC projects surveyed, based on their original year built. This will create a competitive advantage for the subject project and contribute to its ability to achieve premium rents within the Richmond market.

II-4 The gross rents for the competing projects and the proposed rents at the subject site, as well as their unit mixes and vacancies by bedroom are listed in the following table:

Gross Rent/Percent of AMHI (Number of Units/Vacancies) Map One- Two- Three- Four- Rent I.D. Project Name Studio Br. Br. Br. Br. Special $805/40% (7)*^ $905/50% (8) Church Hill North $783/50% (12) $1,006/50% (6)*^ $898/40% (1)*^ Site Phase 2A - $798/60% (10) $957/60% (15) $1,106/60% (8) $1,122/50% (3)*^ - $778-$854/60% $1,055-$1,095/60% 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. $674/60% (23/2) $717/60% (37/4) (184/18) (50/5) - None $938- Mallard Greens $1,028/60% $1,114-$1,189/60% 12 Townhomes - $760/60% (3/0) (186/0) (3/0) - None $706/50% (6/0) $1,025/60% 14 Market Slip - $851/60% (18/0) (6/0) - - None 16 Bradford Manor - - $727/60% (56/0) - - None 17 Lawndale Farms - - $886/60% (50/3) - - None $1,045/60% 19 Glenns at Millers Lane - - (72/0) $1,212/60% (72/0) - None $860/50% (9/0) Jefferson Mews & $700/50% (4/0) $1,055/60% $1,096/50% (22/0) 20 Spring Hill Townhomes - $855/60% (4/1) (8/0) $1,197/60% (9/2) - None $773-$783/60% $896-$906/60% $1,106-$1,136/60% $1,280- 21 Jefferson Townhomes - (61/0) (80/4) (45/6) $1,290/60% (32/0) None $726/50% (16/0) $1,045/60% 27 Tobacco Landing - $871/60% (37/0) (9/0) - - None *Subsidized Units (residents pay 30% of income towards rent) ^Reflective of maximum allowable LIHTC rent, as proposed Section 8 contract rent exceeds LIHTC rent limit

The subject’s proposed gross rents are within the range of those reported among similar unit types at the comparable LIHTC projects surveyed. It is also of note that the subject project will offer the only units set at 40% of AMHI, as well as some of the only units set at 50% of AMHI. Additionally, the subject project will offer some of the only four-bedroom units among the comparable properties. These unit types are expected to create a competitive advantage for the subject project within the Richmond market.

Comparable Tax Credit Summary

II-5 some of the only units set at 50% of AMHI, among the comparable LIHTC properties. These unit types, along with select units set at 50% of AMHI, will operate with project-based Section 8 vouchers in addition to the LIHTC program, further enhancing the marketability of the subject project among low-income households within the Richmond area. The subject project will also offer some of the only four- bedroom units among the comparable properties and will be significantly newer than the existing comparable properties surveyed, as most were originally built prior to 1995. In addition, the proposed project will offer a greater number of bathrooms within its two- and three-bedroom units, and a superior overall amenity package as compared to most of the comparable properties. Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed subject project will provide an affordable rental product that is marketable and clearly in high demand within the Richmond Site PMA.

An in-depth analysis of the Richmond rental housing market within the Site PMA is included in Section V of this report.

Achievable Market Rent

Based on the Rent Comparability Grids included in Section VI of this report, it was determined that the present-day achievable market rents for units similar to the proposed subject development are as follows:

% Proposed Achievable Market Rent Bedroom Type AMHI Collected Rent Market Rent Advantage One-Br. 60% $649 $820** 20.9% Two-Br./1.0-Bath 50% $586 $1,015** 42.3% Two-Br./2.0-Bath 60% $760 $1,040** 26.9% Two-Br. (TH) 50% $586 $1,060 44.7% Two-Br. (TH) 60% $760 $1,060 28.3% Three-Br. 40% $564* $1,570** 64.1% Three-Br. 50% $644 $1,570** 59.0% Three-Br. 60% $845 $1,570 46.2% Four-Br. 40% $621* $1,730** 64.1% Four-Br. 50% $845* $1,730** 51.2% *Reflective of maximum allowable LIHTC rent as Section 8 contract rent exceeds maximum allowable limit under LIHTC program **Based on average square footage of multiple floor plans to be offered TH – Townhome

The proposed collected rents represent market rent advantages ranging from 20.9% to 64.1%, depending upon bedroom type and AMHI level. Typically, Tax Credit rents are set 10% or more below achievable market rents to ensure that the project represents a value and will have a sufficient flow of tenants to maintain a stabilized occupancy rate. As such, the proposed collected rents will likely represent significant values in the market.

II-6 Capture Rate Estimates

The following capture rate analysis assumes the project-based Section 8 subsidy is provided to 17 of the 70 proposed units at the subject project.

Percent of Median Household Income Subsidized Units Non-Subsidized Units Non-Subsidized up to 50% AMHI at 50% AMHI Units at 60% AMHI Overall Demand Component ($0-$44,900) ($26,846-$41,800) ($27,360-$50,160) ($0-$50,160) Proposed Units 17 20 33 70 Proposed Units / Net Demand 17 / 5,013 20 / 802 33 / 873 70 / 4,946 Capture Rate = 0.3% = 2.5% = 3.8% = 1.4%

Assuming the subject project operates with a project-based subsidy available to a portion of the proposed units, the capture rates by income level are considered achievable, ranging from 0.3% at the 50% AMHI level (with subsidy) to 3.8% at the 60% AMHI level. The overall capture rate of 1.4% is considered very low and easily achievable within the Richmond Site PMA. The capture rates for the subject development, both by income level and overall, demonstrate that a deep base of potential income-appropriate support exists within the market for the subject project.

The following capture rate analysis assumes the unlikely scenario that the project- based Section 8 subsidy is lost and that all 70 proposed units at the subject project have to operate exclusively under the LIHTC guidelines.

Percent of Median Household Income 40% AMHI 50% AMHI 60% AMHI Overall Demand Component ($27,600-$35,920) ($26,846-$44,900) ($27,360-$50,160) ($26,846-$50,160) Proposed Units 8 29 33 70 Proposed Units / Net Demand 8 / 698 29 / 870 33 / 873 70 / 791 Capture Rate = 1.1% = 3.3% = 3.8% = 8.8%

Overall, the capture rates by income level are considered achievable, ranging from 1.1% at the 40% AMHI level to 3.8% at the 60% AMHI level. The overall capture rate of 8.8% is considered low and easily achievable within the Richmond Site PMA. The capture rates for the subject development, both by income level and overall, demonstrate that a deep base of potential income-appropriate support exists within the market for the subject project, even in the unlikely scenario that the project-based Section 8 subsidy is not secured for a portion of the subject units.

A detailed analysis of our demand estimates is included in Section VII.

II-7 Penetration Rate Calculations

The 1,210 existing non-subsidized general-occupancy Tax Credit units, as well as the 301 such units currently in the development pipeline within the Site PMA must also be considered when evaluating the achievable penetration rate for the subject development. The following table summarizes our market penetration rate for the subject project, based on data contained in the Demographic Characteristics and Trends Section of this report.

Market Penetration Number of LIHTC Units (Proposed and Existing) / 1,581 Income-Eligible Renter Households – 2019 / 3,335 Overall Market Penetration Rate = 47.4%

It is our opinion that the 47.4% penetration rate for the LIHTC units, both existing and proposed, is achievable. This is especially true when considering the high occupancy rates reported among most of the existing non-subsidized general- occupancy LIHTC properties in the market. It is of note, however, that there are several general-occupancy LIHTC projects planned for the Site PMA. While our preceding demand estimates indicate that sufficient support exists for both the existing and planned general-occupancy LIHTC units in this market, the introduction of multiple new general-occupancy LIHTC properties at virtually the same time will likely have a slowing impact on absorption of these new properties. This has been considered in our absorption projections later in this report.

Absorption Estimates

Considering the facts contained in this market study, as well as the preceding factors, and comparing them with other projects with similar characteristics in other markets, we are able to establish absorption projections for the proposed subject development. It is our opinion that the 70 proposed LIHTC units at the subject site will reach a stabilized occupancy of 95.0% within seven months of opening. This absorption period is based on an absorption rate of approximately nine to ten units per month.

II-8 III. Project Description

A. PROJECT NAME: Church Hill North Phase 2A

B. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1611 North 31st Street Richmond, Virginia 23223 (Independent Richmond City)

QCT: Yes DDA: No

C. PROJECT TYPE: Tax Credit & HUD Section 8

III-1 D. UNIT CONFIGURATION AND RENTS:

Program Rents Max. Allowable Total Bedroom Square % AMHI/ Collected Utility Gross LIHTC Gross Units Type Baths Style Feet Subsidy Rent Allowance Rent Rent 5 One-Br. 1.0 Garden 642 60% $649 $149 $798 $871 5 One-Br. 1.0 Garden 763 60% $649 $149 $798 $871 4 Two-Br. 1.0 Garden 889 50% $586 $197 $783 $871 6 Two-Br. 1.0 Garden 1,012 50% $586 $197 $783 $871 2 Two-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 989 50% $586 $197 $783 $871 1 Two-Br. 2.0 Garden 889 60% $760 $197 $957 $1,045 4 Two-Br. 2.0 Garden 1,012 60% $760 $197 $957 $1,045 10 Two-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 989 60% $760 $197 $957 $1,045 6 Three-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,333 40%/Sec. 8 $1,125 $261 $1,386 $805 1 Three-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,363 40%/Sec. 8 $1,125 $261 $1,386 $805 3 Three-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,270 50% $644 $261 $905 $1,006 5 Three-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,333 50% $644 $261 $905 $1,006 6 Three-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,333 50%/Sec. 8 $1,125 $261 $1,386 $1,006 8 Three-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,333 60% $845 $261 $1,106 $1,207 1 Four-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,544 40%/Sec. 8 $1,365 $319 $1,684 $898 3 Four-Br. 2.0 Townhouse 1,670 50%/Sec. 8 $1,365 $319 $1,684 $1,122 70 Total Source: The Community Builders, Inc. AMHI – Area Median Household Income (Richmond, VA MSA; 2017) Sec.8 – Section 8

Note that tenants residing within the HUD Section 8 units will effectively pay up to 30% of their adjusted gross household income towards gross rent due to the presence of the subsidy. The maximum allowable LIHTC gross rents of $805 to $1,122 are the programmatic limits for units targeting households earning up to 40% and 50% of AMHI. However, these limits would only apply in the unlikely scenario that the property ceased to operate with a project-based subsidy. We have evaluated the proposed HUD Section 8 units utilizing maximum allowable LIHTC rents throughout the remainder of this report, as these units would be required to operate at or below these rent levels in the unlikely event the project-based subsidy for these unit types was ever lost.

E. TARGET MARKET: Low-Income Families

F. PROJECT DESIGN: Twenty-five (25) one- to three-story structures consisting of 70 garden- and townhome-style units.

G. ORIGINAL YEAR BUILT: Not Applicable; New Construction

H. PROJECTED OPENING DATE: September 2019

III-2 I. UNIT AMENITIES:

Each unit, once built, will include the following amenities:

 Electric Range  Central Air Conditioning  Refrigerator  Carpet  Garbage Disposal  Window Blinds  Dishwasher  Patio/Balcony  Microwave Oven  In-Unit Washer/Dryer Appliances  Security System

J. COMMUNITY AMENITIES:

The subject property will include the following community features:

 On-Site Management  Playground  Clubhouse  Resident Services Coordinator

K. UTILITY RESPONSIBILITY:

The cost of trash collection will be included in the rent, while tenants will be responsible for the following:

 General Electricity  Electric Water Heat  Electric Heat  Electric Cooking  Cold Water  Sewer

L. PARKING:

A total of 73 surface parking spaces will be available to the residents at no additional charge. This equates to approximately 1.0 space per unit.

M. CURRENT OCCUPANCY:

Not Applicable; New Construction

N. PLANNED RENOVATION:

Not Applicable; New Construction

O. STATISTICAL AREA: Richmond, VA MSA (2017)

III-3 P. FLOOR AND SITE PLAN REVIEW:

Floor and site plans were provided and reviewed at the time of this analysis. Based on our review of these plans and additional information provided by the developer at the time of this analysis, the subject project will offer a mix of garden-style, ADA accessible units, and townhome-style units containing one- to four-bedrooms. The subject units will be located within 25 one- to three-story structures which will have brick and/or cement board siding exteriors. The floor plans appear to be appropriate for the targeted tenant population and will contain between 642 and 1,670 square feet of living space, depending upon unit type. Overall, the subject units appear to be marketable in terms of overall design and the development of the subject project is expected to contribute to the revitalization of the immediate site neighborhood.

A state map, an area map and a site neighborhood map are on the following pages.

III-4 Richmond, VA Site State of Virginia State of Virgina

SITE

0 15 30 60 90 1:3,909,180 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Richmond, VA Site Surrounding Area

SITE

0 0.225 0.45 0.9 1.35 1:60,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Legend Richmond, VA Site Area Site Neighborhood N 28th St

Creighton Rd

33 N 30th St N 29th St

Nine Mile Rd VA-33

V St

N 31st St

U St

Kuhn St

T St N 32nd St Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 0CNES/Airbus0.015 0.03 DS, USDA,0.06 USGS, AEX,0.09 Miles 1:3,000 Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community IV. Area Analysis

A. SITE DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION

1. LOCATION

The subject site consists of under construction land on the grounds of the former Armstrong High School campus, located at 1611 North 31st Street, in the eastern portion of Richmond, Virginia. The subject site is approximately 2.5 miles east of downtown Richmond. The subject site visit and corresponding fieldwork were completed on February 19, 2018.

2. SURROUNDING LAND USES

The subject site is within an established area of Richmond. Surrounding land uses generally include single-family homes, convenience stores and a cemetery. Adjacent land uses are detailed as follows:

North - The northern boundary is defined by the intersection of North 31st street and 9 Mile Road. Also to the north are various retail and commercial structures, including two convenience stores and an automobile repair shop. Extending north are single-family homes and a school. Generally, the existing structures north of the subject site are considered to be in fair condition. East - The eastern boundary is defined by the Oakwood Cemetery, which buffers the site from single-family dwellings in fair condition farther east of the site. Extending east is wooded land and Interstate 64. South - The southern boundary is defined by wooded land that naturally buffers the subject site from additional portions of the Oakwood Cemetery. Extending farther south is a neighborhood of single-family homes considered to be in fair to good condition and a church. West - The western boundary is defined by North 31st Street, a lightly traveled two-lane roadway. Extending west are single-family homes considered to be in fair condition and retail and commercial structures located along 9 Mile Road.

IV-1 The subject site is within an established area of Richmond and comprised of land which is currently being cleared and/or is under construction as parts of additional phases of the subject development. Surrounding land uses primarily consist of single-family homes and local businesses and should provide an environment conducive to residential housing such as that proposed at the subject site. The development of the subject project is also expected to contribute to the revitalization of the immediate site neighborhood. Overall, the subject property is expected to fit well with the surrounding land uses and they should contribute to the marketability of the site. Photographs of the site can be found in Section VIII of this report.

3. VISIBILITY AND ACCESS

The subject site maintains significant frontage along North 31st Street and is clearly visible with unobstructed views. Additionally, the subject’s location on the campus of the former Armstrong High School is also expected to enhance awareness of the subject project as this is a well-known facility in the area. Accessibility of the subject site is good, as North 31st Street is lightly traveled and 9 Mile Road is moderately traveled and no traffic disruptions are expected at or near the subject site upon ingress and egress. Further, Interstate 64 can be accessed only 0.3 miles northeast of the subject site. Proximity to Interstate 64 is important as this major highway provides convenient access to surrounding communities and downtown Richmond and further enhances accessibility of the subject site and site neighborhood. Public transportation is available via the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) and the nearest public bus stop is located 0.1 mile north of the subject site, at the intersection of Creighton Road and 9 Mile Road. The availability of public transportation is considered beneficial to the targeted low-income population at the subject site. Based on the preceding analysis, visibility and access of the subject site are both considered good and are expected to contribute to the overall marketability of the subject project.

4. PROXIMITY TO COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The site is served by the community services detailed in the following table:

Driving Distance Community Services Name From Site (miles) Major Highways Interstate 64 0.4 East Interstate 95 1.5 West Public Bus Stop Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) 0.1 North Major Employers/ Bon Secours Richmond Community Hospital 0.7 West Employment Centers

IV-2 Driving Distance Community Services Name From Site (miles) Convenience Store Marketplace 0.3 Northwest OMG Convenience 0.3 North Express Corner Store 0.4 West Family Supermarket 1.3 West Grocery Food Circus 0.4 Northwest Community Food Market 0.3 Northwest Chimbo Supermarket 1.1 Southwest Walmart Supercenter 2.3 Northeast Discount Department Store Family Dollar Store 0.5 Northwest Family Dollar Store 0.9 West Citi Trends 2.3 Northeast Walmart Supercenter 2.3 Northeast Shopping Center/Mall East Gate Town Center 2.3 Northeast The Shops at White Oak Village 2.9 Southeast Schools: Elementary Woodville Elementary School 0.8 North Middle/Junior High Martin Luther King Middle School 1.6 West High Armstrong High School 1.3 Northwest Hospital Bon Secours Richmond Community Hospital 0.7 West Police Richmond Police Department 1.0 West Fire Richmond Fire Station 0.8 West Post Office U.S. Post Office 1.5 West Bank SunTrust Bank 1.6 West SunTrust Bank 2.0 East Franklin Federal Savings Bank 2.3 East Recreational Facilities Hidden Creek Recreation Center 1.5 North Gas Station Exxon 1.1 East CITGO 1.7 Northwest BP 1.7 Northwest Pharmacy CVS Pharmacy 1.9 West McGuire Park Pharmacy 2.0 West Walgreens 2.1 East Restaurant Carolina BBQ 0.3 Northwest Wan Jin Lou Chinese Restaurant 0.4 Northwest Sailor Pizza & Deli 0.5 Northwest Day Care Robert L. Taylor Childcare Center 1.1 West Bethlehem Baptist Day Care 1.2 West Malachi's Babyland 2.0 Northeast Community Center Hidden Creek Recreation Center 1.5 North Library Richmond Public Library 0.9 West Park Chimborazo Park 1.6 Southwest Libby Hill Park 1.8 Southwest Gillie's Creek Park 1.9 South Church St John's United Holy Church 0.6 West Woodville Presbyterian Church 0.7 Northwest Cathedral of Prayer 0.7 West

The proposed subject site is situated in the eastern portion of Richmond, and is within close proximity of numerous area services. Notably, multiple convenience stores, a grocery store, discount retailer, and multiple restaurants are located within walking distance of the subject site. The nearest public bus stop is located 0.1 mile north, near the intersection of Creighton Road and 9 Mile Road. The convenient accessibility of public transportation is considered beneficial and will likely contribute to the

IV-3 overall marketability of the subject project. Additionally, the nearest mall or shopping center is East Gate Town Center anchored by Walmart Supercenter, located approximately 2.3 miles from the proposed subject site.

Public safety services are provided via the Richmond Police and Fire departments, located 1.0 mile and 0.8 miles from the proposed subject site, respectively. Note that the nearest full-service hospital is the Bon Secours Richmond Community Hospital, located 0.7 miles west of the proposed subject site. The proximity to these community services and public safety services will positively impact the marketability of the site.

5. OVERALL SITE EVALUATION

6. CRIME ISSUES

The primary source for Crime Risk data is the FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR). The FBI collects data from each of roughly 16,000 separate law enforcement jurisdictions across the country and compiles this data into the UCR. The most recent update showed an overall coverage rate of 95% of all jurisdictions nationwide with a coverage rate of 97% of all jurisdictions in metropolitan areas.

IV-4 Applied Geographic Solutions uses the UCR at the jurisdictional level to model each of the seven crime types at other levels of geography. Risk indexes are standardized based on the national average. A Risk Index value of 100 for a particular risk indicates that, for the area, the relative probability of the risk is consistent with the average probability of that risk across the United States.

It should be noted that aggregate indexes for total crime, personal crime and property crime are not weighted, and a murder is no more significant statistically in these indexes than petty theft. Thus, caution should be exercised when using them.

Total crime risk for the Site Zip Code is 136, with an overall personal crime index of 171 and a property crime index of 131. Total crime risk for the city of Richmond is 147, with indexes for personal and property crime of 151 and 147, respectively.

Crime Risk Index Site Zip Code Richmond city Total Crime 136 147 Personal Crime 171 151 Murder 493 391 Rape 102 61 Robbery 231 246 Assault 148 117 Property Crime 131 147 Burglary 139 139 Larceny 127 145 Motor Vehicle Theft 149 176 Source: Applied Geographic Solutions

The crime risk index reported for the Site Zip Code (136) is lower than that reported for the city of Richmond (147). Although these crime indexes are above the national average of 100, they are considered relatively low for more urban markets such as the Richmond area and are expected to contribute to the overall marketability of the subject project.

Maps illustrating the location of community services and crime risk are on the following pages.

IV-5 /"

" / /"

/" /"

Richmond, VA Legend Local Community Services Site Area ±°¯ child care æ church WOODVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL å ý convenience store å elementary school ¨ fire ^ grocery

v® hospital /" WOODVILLE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH n{ library ±°¯ æ a police FAMILY DOLLAR STORE FOOD CIRCUS X ö restaurant SAILOR PIZZA & DELI ^² ö shopping OMG CONVENIENCE WAN JIN LOU CHINESE RESTAURANT X COMMUNITY FOOD MARKET ö ^² GRTC MARKETPLACE Æaý n£ transit MO CONVENIENCE STORE ö ý employers_1000_5000 ýCAROLINA BAR B QUE !

BON SECOURS RICHMOND COMMUNITY ST JOHN'S UNITED HOLY CHURCH FAMILY DOLLAR STORE æ X !v® BON SECOURS RICHMOND COMMUNITY RICHMOND PUBLIC LIBRARYÆc

RICHMOND FIRE STATION SITE RICHMOND POLICEa DEPT ¨ CATHEDRAL OF PRAYER æ

ROBERT L TAYLOR CHILDCARE CTR ±°¯

0 0.0375 0.075 0.15 0.225 N Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri 1:10,000 Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community ^²

/" /"

" / /"

/" /"

 r[ å å Richmond, VAv® å Legend Regional Community Services ¨ H! Site å elementary school ¨ fire ù fitness center s golf 5 high school Æc v® hospital n{ library !! 5 middle school r[ s ²¸ museum å å v® ôóõ park /" ¨ å a police  post office aaa ! recreation center a å shopping Þ Fairfield Commons X ÞÞÞ /"  ¨¨¨ Þ X r swimming Æc a Þ å ! ¨ ÆaX X n£ transit ! Æcôóõv® ²¸ v® ²¸!!v® ÆcX !v® H! ²¸ Þ university a  Þ employers_1000_5000 v® SITE ! Æc ôóõ²¸ Þ a ¨ !! Þ Þ ! employers_5000_10000 !! å Shopping Center å Gross Leasable Area X /" < 500,000 sq. ft. /" ùù ¨ ²¸ /"/" < 1,000,000 sq. ft. ²¸ å²¸ å /" < 3,200,000 sq. ft. ôóõ å ååå ôóõ²¸

ôóõ å !

¨ 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 0.9 N Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri  1:40,000 Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, /" NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community /"

/" /"

/" /" Richmond, VA H! Site 2017 Crime Risk Primary Market Area Block Group 1 - 50 (Half of Average) 51 - 100 (Below Average) 101 - 200 (Above Average) 201 - 400 (More than 2X Average) 401 and up (More than 4X Average) No Data

H! SITE

N 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 1.35 1:60,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Esri, AGS B. PRIMARY MARKET AREA DELINEATION

The Primary Market Area (PMA) is the geographical area from which most of the support for the proposed development is expected to originate. The Richmond Site PMA was determined through interviews with area leasing and real estate agents, planning officials, economic development representatives and the personal observations of our analysts. The personal observations of our analysts include physical and/or socioeconomic differences in the market and a demographic analysis of the area households and population.

 Shirley Champagne, Property Manager of Glenns at Millers Lane, a general-occupancy Tax Credit property located in the Site PMA, confirmed the boundaries of the Site PMA. Specifically, Ms. Champagne stated that the largest amount of support for an affordable housing project at the site’s location would come from areas directly east of downtown Richmond. Additionally, Ms. Champagne stated that due to the large size of downtown Richmond, the eastern and western downtown areas have different housing markets. Ms. Champagne confirmed that the site’s location would generate interest from potential renters currently living east of downtown, as these areas are relatively homogenous and residents would willingly relocate throughout these areas when seeking affordable housing.

 Lafonda Bullock is the Property Manager of Tobacco Landing, a general- occupancy Tax Credit property in the Site PMA. Ms. Bullock stated that a new affordable housing project at the proposed subject site would generate a large amount of support from areas in, or near, the eastern portion of downtown Richmond. According to Ms. Bullock, residents within these areas prefer to remain near downtown services as many of these services can easily be accessed via public transportation. Given the subject’s proximity to downtown Richmond and public transportation, Ms. Bullock believes that the subject project will likely attract residents from throughout the areas comprised within the Site PMA boundaries. Ms. Bullock confirmed the boundaries of the Richmond Site PMA.

The Richmond Site PMA includes portions of eastern Richmond. The boundaries of the Site PMA include U.S. Highway 360 and North Laburnum Avenue to the north; North and South Laburnum Avenue to the east; U.S. Highway 60 and East Main Street to the south; and U.S. Highway 360, Interstate 64 and Interstate 95 to the west. While we recognize that the subject project will undoubtedly receive some support from areas outside the Site PMA, this support base is expected to be minimal, thus we have not considered any secondary market area in this report.

A map delineating the boundaries of the Site PMA is included on the following page.

IV-9 Site Richmond, VA Mechanicsville Primary Market Area Primary Market Area

East Highland Park

Highland Springs

SITE

Richmond

Montrose

Sandston

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 1:63,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community C. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS

1. POPULATION TRENDS

The Site PMA population bases for 2000, 2010, 2017 (estimated) and 2022 (projected) are summarized as follows:

Year 2000 2010 2017 2022 (Census) (Census) (Estimated) (Projected) Population 43,270 45,848 50,611 54,006 Population Change - 2,578 4,763 3,395 Percent Change - 6.0% 10.4% 6.7% Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The Richmond Site PMA population base increased by 2,578 between 2000 and 2010. This represents a 6.0% increase over the 2000 population, or an annual rate of 0.6%. Between 2010 and 2017, the population increased by 4,763, or 10.4%. It is projected that the population will increase by 3,395, or 6.7%, between 2017 and 2022.

The Site PMA population bases by age are summarized as follows:

Population 2010 (Census) 2017 (Estimated) 2022 (Projected) Change 2017-2022 by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 19 & Under 12,469 27.2% 12,746 25.2% 13,294 24.6% 548 4.3% 20 to 24 4,017 8.8% 4,317 8.5% 4,286 7.9% -31 -0.7% 25 to 34 7,730 16.9% 8,987 17.8% 9,560 17.7% 573 6.4% 35 to 44 5,610 12.2% 6,075 12.0% 6,980 12.9% 905 14.9% 45 to 54 6,295 13.7% 5,976 11.8% 5,795 10.7% -181 -3.0% 55 to 64 4,818 10.5% 6,082 12.0% 6,317 11.7% 235 3.9% 65 to 74 2,622 5.7% 3,798 7.5% 4,684 8.7% 886 23.3% 75 & Over 2,289 5.0% 2,630 5.2% 3,090 5.7% 460 17.5% Total 45,850 100.0% 50,611 100.0% 54,006 100.0% 3,395 6.7% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, nearly 54% of the population was estimated to be between 25 and 64 years old in 2017. This age group is the primary group of potential renters for the subject site and will likely represent a significant number of the tenants.

IV-11 2. HOUSEHOLD TRENDS

Household trends within the Richmond Site PMA are summarized as follows:

Year 2000 2010 2017 2022 (Census) (Census) (Estimated) (Projected) Households 16,684 18,698 20,817 22,318 Household Change - 2,014 2,119 1,501 Percent Change - 12.1% 11.3% 7.2% Household Size 2.59 2.45 2.34 2.33 Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Within the Richmond Site PMA, households increased by 2,014 (12.1%) between 2000 and 2010. Between 2010 and 2017, households increased by 2,119 or 11.3%. By 2022, there will be 22,318 households, an increase of 1,501 households, or 7.2% over 2017 levels. This is an increase of approximately 300 households annually over the next five years.

The Site PMA household bases by age are summarized as follows:

Households 2010 (Census) 2017 (Estimated) 2022 (Projected) Change 2017-2022 by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Under 25 1,523 8.1% 1,579 7.6% 1,613 7.2% 34 2.2% 25 to 34 4,192 22.4% 4,759 22.9% 5,043 22.6% 284 6.0% 35 to 44 3,115 16.7% 3,206 15.4% 3,653 16.4% 447 13.9% 45 to 54 3,576 19.1% 3,224 15.5% 3,068 13.7% -156 -4.8% 55 to 64 3,033 16.2% 3,683 17.7% 3,759 16.8% 76 2.1% 65 to 74 1,791 9.6% 2,570 12.3% 3,100 13.9% 530 20.6% 75 to 84 1,096 5.9% 1,246 6.0% 1,519 6.8% 274 22.0% 85 & Over 375 2.0% 551 2.6% 562 2.5% 10 1.9% Total 18,701 100.0% 20,818 100.0% 22,317 100.0% 1,499 7.2% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Household growth is projected to occur among most age cohorts between 2017 and 2022, with the exception of the 45 to 54 age cohort. This is expected to increase demand for both family- and senior-oriented housing alternatives within the Richmond market. It is also of note that nearly 70.0% of all households are expected to be between the ages of 25 and 64 in 2022, the primary age group of potential renters for the subject project.

IV-12 Households by tenure are distributed as follows:

2010 (Census) 2017 (Estimated) 2022 (Projected) Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 7,889 42.2% 8,061 38.7% 8,659 38.8% Renter-Occupied 10,809 57.8% 12,756 61.3% 13,659 61.2% Total 18,698 100.0% 20,817 100.0% 22,318 100.0% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2017, homeowners occupied 38.7% of all occupied housing units, while the remaining 61.3% were occupied by renters. The share of renters is high and represents a good base of potential renter support in the market for the subject development. Note that the number of renter households is projected to increase by 903, or 7.1%, between 2017 and 2022. This will likely increase demand for rental housing within the Site PMA.

The household sizes by tenure within the Site PMA, based on the 2017 estimates and 2022 projections, were distributed as follows:

2017 (Estimated) 2022 (Projected) Change 2017-2022 Persons Per Renter Household Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 1 Person 5,624 44.1% 6,067 44.4% 443 7.9% 2 Persons 3,430 26.9% 3,784 27.7% 354 10.3% 3 Persons 1,727 13.5% 1,775 13.0% 48 2.8% 4 Persons 1,214 9.5% 1,270 9.3% 56 4.6% 5 Persons+ 760 6.0% 763 5.6% 3 0.4% Total 12,756 100.0% 13,660 100.0% 904 7.1% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

2017 (Estimated) 2022 (Projected) Persons Per Owner Household Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 1 Person 2,998 37.2% 3,272 37.8% 275 9.2% 2 Persons 2,939 36.5% 3,225 37.2% 286 9.7% 3 Persons 1,219 15.1% 1,252 14.5% 33 2.7% 4 Persons 647 8.0% 657 7.6% 10 1.6% 5 Persons+ 258 3.2% 253 2.9% -5 -2.0% Total 8,061 100.0% 8,659 100.0% 598 7.4% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The one- through four-bedroom units proposed for the subject project are expected to house up to six-person households. As such, the subject project will be able to accommodate most renter households in the market, based on household size.

IV-13 3. INCOME TRENDS

The distribution of households by income within the Richmond Site PMA is summarized as follows:

Household 2010 (Census) 2017 (Estimated) 2022 (Projected) Income Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Less Than $15,000 5,153 27.6% 5,166 24.8% 5,639 25.3% $15,000 to $24,999 2,562 13.7% 2,714 13.0% 2,840 12.7% $25,000 to $34,999 2,627 14.0% 2,411 11.6% 2,473 11.1% $35,000 to $49,999 2,725 14.6% 2,840 13.6% 2,917 13.1% $50,000 to $74,999 3,176 17.0% 3,820 18.4% 3,939 17.6% $75,000 to $99,999 1,159 6.2% 1,892 9.1% 2,084 9.3% $100,000 to $149,999 793 4.2% 1,251 6.0% 1,500 6.7% $150,000 to $199,999 300 1.6% 362 1.7% 468 2.1% $200,000 & Over 206 1.1% 361 1.7% 459 2.1% Total 18,701 100.0% 20,817 100.0% 22,319 100.0% Median Income $31,226 $35,621 $36,067 Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2010, the median household income was $31,226. This increased by 14.1% to $35,621 in 2017. By 2022, it is projected that the median household income will be $36,067, an increase of 1.3% over 2017.

The following tables illustrate renter household income by household size for 2010, 2017 and 2022 for the Richmond Site PMA:

Renter 2010 (Census) Households 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $15,000 1,810 1,035 606 441 335 4,227 $15,000 to $24,999 726 412 241 175 133 1,687 $25,000 to $34,999 599 379 222 161 123 1,483 $35,000 to $49,999 515 347 203 148 112 1,325 $50,000 to $74,999 542 378 221 161 122 1,424 $75,000 to $99,999 134 97 57 41 32 361 $100,000 to $149,999 73 55 32 23 18 202 $150,000 to $199,999 22 17 10 7 5 61 $200,000 & Over 16 11 7 5 4 42 Total 4,436 2,731 1,598 1,162 884 10,812 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group

IV-14 Renter 2017 (Estimated) Households 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $15,000 1,989 1,101 554 390 244 4,279 $15,000 to $24,999 886 480 242 170 106 1,884 $25,000 to $34,999 645 399 201 141 88 1,475 $35,000 to $49,999 656 425 214 151 94 1,540 $50,000 to $74,999 858 596 300 211 132 2,098 $75,000 to $99,999 299 214 108 76 48 745 $100,000 to $149,999 211 154 77 54 34 531 $150,000 to $199,999 40 30 15 11 7 102 $200,000 & Over 40 30 15 11 7 102 Total 5,624 3,430 1,727 1,214 760 12,756 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group

Renter 2022 (Projected) Households 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person+ Total Less Than $15,000 2,116 1,218 571 409 246 4,560 $15,000 to $24,999 833 482 226 162 97 1,800 $25,000 to $34,999 598 383 180 129 77 1,367 $35,000 to $49,999 674 432 202 145 87 1,540 $50,000 to $74,999 956 649 305 218 131 2,258 $75,000 to $99,999 404 281 132 94 57 967 $100,000 to $149,999 396 274 128 92 55 945 $150,000 to $199,999 45 34 16 11 7 112 $200,000 & Over 44 33 15 11 7 110 Total 6,067 3,784 1,775 1,270 763 13,660 Source: ESRI; Urban Decision Group

Data from the preceding tables is used in our demand estimates.

Demographic Summary

The Richmond Site PMA is projected to experience both population and household growth between 2017 and 2022, a trend which has been consistent since 2000. More than 61.0% of all households were renters in 2017, which will continue, with more than 18,000 renter households projected for the market in 2022. The number of renter households is projected to increase by 903, or 7.1%, between 2017 and 2022. Nearly 68.0% of all renter households are projected to earn below $50,000 in 2022, with nearly 57.0% earning below $35,000. Based on the preceding factors, the overall demographic base will continue to expand and a large base of potential income-appropriate renter support for affordable rental product, such as that proposed at the subject site, will continue to exist in the Richmond market.

IV-15 D. LOCAL ECONOMIC PROFILE AND ANALYSIS

1. LABOR FORCE PROFILE

The labor force within the Richmond Site PMA is based primarily in two sectors. Retail Trade (which comprises 13.7%) and Accommodation & Food Services comprise nearly 26% of the Site PMA labor force. Employment in the Richmond Site PMA, as of 2017, was distributed as follows:

NAICS Group Establishments Percent Employees Percent E.P.E. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 1 0.1% 3 0.0% 3.0 Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0 Utilities 1 0.1% 21 0.2% 21.0 Construction 59 5.0% 790 5.9% 13.4 Manufacturing 25 2.1% 740 5.5% 29.6 Wholesale Trade 26 2.2% 431 3.2% 16.6 Retail Trade 175 14.8% 1,852 13.7% 10.6 Transportation & Warehousing 29 2.5% 434 3.2% 15.0 Information 22 1.9% 307 2.3% 14.0 Finance & Insurance 44 3.7% 315 2.3%7.2 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 105 8.9% 447 3.3%4.3 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 106 9.0% 1,117 8.3% 10.5 Management of Companies & Enterprises 1 0.1% 11 0.1% 11.0 Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services 29 2.5% 290 2.1% 10.0 Educational Services 29 2.5% 1,324 9.8% 45.7 Health Care & Social Assistance 88 7.5% 1,315 9.7%14.9 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 25 2.1% 215 1.6% 8.6 Accommodation & Food Services 119 10.1% 1,619 12.0%13.6 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 188 15.9% 967 7.2% 5.1 Public Administration 45 3.8% 1,236 9.2% 27.5 Nonclassifiable 64 5.4% 68 0.5% 1.1 Total 1,181 100.0% 13,502 100.0% 11.4 *Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the Site PMA. These employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the Site PMA.

IV-16

Typical wages by job category for the Richmond Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are compared with those of Virginia in the following table:

Typical Wage by Occupation Type Occupation Type Richmond MSA Virginia Management Occupations $124,240 $133,050 Business and Financial Occupations $73,950 $82,750 Computer and Mathematical Occupations $86,820 $98,540 Architecture and Engineering Occupations $79,620 $87,280 Community and Social Service Occupations $46,320 $48,930 Art, Design, Entertainment and Sports Medicine Occupations $50,790 $56,730 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $72,710 $78,240 Healthcare Support Occupations $29,110 $30,100 Protective Service Occupations $41,610 $45,700 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $22,900 $23,690 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $25,740 $26,700 Personal Care and Service Occupations $25,910 $26,560 Sales and Related Occupations $41,830 $39,980 Office and Administrative Support Occupations $36,580 $37,480 Construction and Extraction Occupations $42,870 $43,740 Installation, Maintenance and Repair Occupations $48,160 $47,690 Production Occupations $39,290 $37,220 Transportation and Moving Occupations $34,090 $36,890 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics

Most annual blue-collar salaries range from $22,900 to $50,790 within the Richmond MSA. White-collar jobs, such as those related to professional positions, management and medicine, have an average salary of $87,468. It is important to note that most occupational types within the Richmond MSA have lower typical wages than the state of Virginia's typical wages.

IV-17 Regardless, the subject project will generally target lower-income households. Based on the preceding table, the area employment base appears to have a significant number of occupations with typical wages under $50,000, conducive to affordable rental product such as that proposed for the subject site.

The ten largest employers in the Richmond area are summarized below:

Employer Name Business Type Total Employed Capital One Financial Corporation Credit Cards 11,262 Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Healthcare 9,313 HCA Virginia Health System Healthcare 7,628 Bon Secours Richmond Healthcare 7,136 Walmart Retail 5,605 Dominion Virginia Power Energy 5,433 Food Lion Grocery Chain 3,963 SunTrust Banks Incorporated Financial 3,810 Altria Group Incorporated Manufacturer 3,800 Wells Fargo Financial 2,902 Total 60,852 Source: Greater Richmond Partnership 2018

According to a representative with the Greater Richmond Partnership, the Richmond economy is stable. The construction sector is strong due to the current housing industry both in multifamily and single-family homes in the city of Richmond and the surrounding counties. Additionally, there has been substantial industrial space construction in the areas near the Richmond International Airport and the Richmond Marine Terminal. The following are summaries of some notable recent economic development activity within the Richmond area:

 In November 2017 DPR Construction was chosen as the general contractor for the 1-million square foot Facebook facility that will be constructed in the White Oak Technology Park in Henrico County. The $1 billion investment is to be fully operational by 2019 and is anticipated to create 100 fulltime jobs and thousands of construction jobs within the area.

 In February 2017 Owens & Minor, a global healthcare services company, announced their selection of Richmond as the location for their multi-million-dollar investment for approximately 90,000 square feet of office space at Riverfront Plaza. The new facility will be home to the company’s 500 current employees, as well as the 300 new employees planned to be added as part of this project.

IV-18  The $35 million redevelopment of the Regency Square Mall began in January 2017 in Henrico County. The redevelopment will include 44,000 square feet of additional retail space, new signage, theater and sidewalks. Demolition of a parking deck along with demolition of the Quioccasin Road flyover bridge has already taken place. The mall is now known as Regency Mall.

 In 2017 it was announced that Thomson Reuters would open a location at the Riverfront’s West Tower in downtown Richmond which will bring 60 new jobs to the area, 40 of which were placed in 2017. The remaining 20 jobs are expected to be filled by the end of 2018.

 Panattoni Development Company is planning to construct one of the largest warehouses in South Richmond, which is currently being referred to as Virginia I-95 Distribution. The company has been considering building the two-phase 1-million square foot speculative warehouse off of Commerce Road, which is on the Richmond/Chesterfield County line. Philip Morris had formally owned the property and sold the parcel for $3.98 million in August 2017. No further information was available at the time of this report.

 Envera, a local healthcare services firm, celebrated the grand opening of their 27,000-square foot headquarters in December 2017. In addition, 120 new jobs are expected to be created at this facility.

 Amazon announced they would be opening two new distribution centers in the Richmond Region, one in Hanover County and another in Henrico County. The 328,000-square foot facility in Hanover County is expected to employ 300 people. Building permits were issued in April 2017 for the Henrico County location, though the number to be employed at this location is unknown at this time.

 iMPREG Group, a German-based manufacturer of liner systems for trenchless sewer pipes, announced in January 2017 that it will open a warehouse facility in Henrico County. iMPREG Group will create 60 jobs within this facility, located at Byrd Corporate Park near the Richmond International Airport. This distribution center will represent a $5.4 million investment, and will be the first facility opened by iMPREG Group in the United States.

IV-19  ICMA-RC, a financial service corporation, expanded their company and relocated from Washington, D.C. to the city of Richmond, at the Riverfront Plaza in Richmond’s Central Business District. The new office opened in September 2017. The company will create 100 new jobs, by the end of 2019, as well as move their existing staff of more than 100 employees from Washington, D.C. to their new location in Richmond.

 In June 2016, Thought Logic leased a 3,600 square-foot facility in Shockoe Slip at 13 South 13th Street, and plans to hire 100 employees in the Richmond area within the next three to five years.

 In 2017, AvePoint, Inc., an independent software provider specializing in Microsoft solutions, opened a new office in the city of Richmond and will hire 80 to 100 employees over the next three years, for positions in sales and back office opportunities.

 Compare.com, an auto insurance comparison website, relocated its national headquarters to Richmond. The new location has 26,000 square feet of office space in the East Shore office complex in Richmond, and has welcomed nearly one dozen new employees since January 2016. It was also anticipated that this firm would expand its workforce by 40 percent by the end of 2017.

 A $46 million renovation of the Main Street Station Shed in Shockoe Bottom at 1500 East Main Street is underway. This involves renovations to the existing train shed and the addition of 65,000 square feet of commercial space with a tourism center and indoor market. The renovations are planned to be complete by spring of 2018.

 Stone Brewing stated that they are planning to hire an additional 200 people with the opening of Stone Brewing World Bistro & Gardens in Richmond. The new addition is scheduled to open in late 2019.

 In June 2015, Elephant Auto Insurance, a subsidiary of Admiral Group, announced that it is planning a $2 million expansion in Henrico County and will create 1,173 jobs over the next few years. The company currently employs nearly 400 people.

IV-20  In February of 2015, Kels USA Corporation, a subsidiary of a Brazil- based firm, announced plans to open its first United States office in Henrico County. Kels USA manufactures metal-based parts for automotive, appliance and electronic manufacturers and also supplies brazing alloys. The company has plans to expand to manufacture its products in the area in the next two to four years. This will be a $7 million investment and is anticipated to create 100 new jobs within the area by 2019.

While these announcements likely represent only a portion of the economic expansions expected for the region, they provide clear indications as to the interest in investment and job expansions for the area. Such investment and job expansions will add to the continued growth expected for the area for the foreseeable future. WARN (layoff notices):

According to the Virginia Board of Workforce Development, there have been multiple announcements of large-scale layoffs/closures reported within the Greater Richmond area, which have effective dates since January of 2017. The following is a table summarizing these notices.

Company Location Jobs Notice Date Effective Date Land-O-Sun Dairies LLC Richmond 71 8-8-2017 10-7-2017 Martin’s Store #6428 Richmond 127 5-16-2017 8-9-2017 Martin’s Store #5700 Richmond 121 5-16-2017 8-9-2017 Riverside Pace Richmond 37 11-7-2016 2-3-2017

2. EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

The following tables were generated from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and reflect employment trends of the county in which the site is located.

Excluding 2017, the employment base has increased by 7.4% over the past five years in Richmond City, more than the Virginia state increase of 2.5%. Total employment reflects the number of employed persons who live within the county.

IV-21 The following illustrates the total employment base for the city of Richmond, the state of Virginia and the United States.

Total Employment Richmond City Virginia United States Percent Percent Percent Year Total Number Change Total Number Change Total Number Change 2007 94,548 - 3,914,087 - 146,388,400 - 2008 95,650 1.2% 3,970,428 1.4% 146,047,748 -0.2% 2009 91,416 -4.4% 3,842,516 -3.2% 140,696,560 -3.7% 2010 96,347 5.4% 3,860,386 0.5% 140,469,139 -0.2% 2011 98,520 2.3% 3,934,326 1.9% 141,791,255 0.9% 2012 101,135 2.7% 3,967,987 0.9% 143,621,634 1.3% 2013 102,934 1.8% 3,995,182 0.7% 144,996,474 1.0% 2014 105,568 2.6% 4,022,160 0.7% 147,403,607 1.7% 2015 106,690 1.1% 4,029,043 0.2% 149,648,686 1.5% 2016 108,599 1.8% 4,069,139 1.0% 152,001,644 1.6% 2017* 111,532 2.7% 4,146,134 1.9% 154,212,518 1.5% Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics *Through November

As the preceding illustrates, the city of Richmond employment base steadily increased by at least 1.1% each year since 2009, and by a total of 20,116 jobs, or 22.0%, during this time period (through November of 2017).

IV-22 Unemployment rates for the city of Richmond, the state of Virginia and the United States are illustrated as follows:

Unemployment Rate Year Richmond City Virginia United States 2007 4.4% 3.0% 4.7% 2008 5.8% 3.9% 5.8% 2009 9.6% 6.7% 9.3% 2010 9.5% 7.2% 9.7% 2011 8.5% 6.6% 9.0% 2012 7.5% 6.0% 8.1% 2013 6.8% 5.7% 7.4% 2014 6.2% 5.2% 6.2% 2015 5.2% 4.5% 5.3% 2016 4.6% 4.1% 4.9% 2017* 4.4% 3.8% 4.5% Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics *Through November

The unemployment rate in the city of Richmond has declined each year since 2009. Specifically, the unemployment rate has declined by more than five full percentage points during this time period, to a rate of just 4.4% through November of 2017. Although slightly higher than the state average, the 4.4% unemployment rate for the city of Richmond is lower than the national average of 4.5%.

The following table illustrates the monthly unemployment rate in the city of Richmond for the most recent 18-month period for which data is currently available.

IV-23

The monthly unemployment rate over the past 18-month period has remained relatively stable and generally below 5.0%.

In-place employment reflects the total number of jobs within the county/city regardless of the employee's county/city of residence. The following illustrates the total in-place employment base for the city of Richmond.

In-Place Employment Richmond City Year Employment Change Percent Change 2007 158,597 - - 2008 159,063 466 0.3% 2009 150,777 -8,286 -5.2% 2010 148,083 -2,694 -1.8% 2011 149,540 1,457 1.0% 2012 148,410 -1,130 -0.8% 2013 147,607 -803 -0.5% 2014 148,477 870 0.6% 2015 149,651 1,174 0.8% 2016 153,128 3,477 2.3% 2017* 154,185 1,057 0.7% Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics *Through June

Data for 2016, the most recent year that year-end figures are available, indicates in-place employment in the city of Richmond to be 141.0% of the total city of Richmond employment. This means that the city of Richmond has more employed persons coming to the city from other cities/counties for work (daytime employment) than those who both live and work there.

IV-24 3. ECONOMIC FORECAST

4. COMMUTING PATTERNS

Based on the American Community Survey (2011-2015), the following is a distribution of commuting patterns for Site PMA workers age 16 and over:

Workers Age 16+ Mode of Transportation Number Percent Drove Alone 14,548 72.8% Carpooled 2,002 10.0% Public Transit 1,357 6.8% Walked 689 3.4% Other Means 658 3.3% Worked at Home 726 3.6% Total 19,980 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2011-2015); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Nearly 73% of all workers drove alone, 10.0% carpooled and 6.8% used public transportation. Given the subject site serves very low-income households and is within walking distance of a public bus stop, we anticipate a higher than normal share of site residents' use of public transportation.

IV-25 Typical travel times to work for the Site PMA residents are illustrated as follows:

Workers Age 16+ Travel Time Number Percent Less Than 15 Minutes 4,564 22.8% 15 to 29 Minutes 9,707 48.6% 30 to 44 Minutes 3,359 16.8% 45 to 59 Minutes 982 4.9% 60 or More Minutes 641 3.2% Worked at Home 726 3.6% Total 19,979 100.0% Source: American Community Survey (2011-2015); ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share of area commuters has typical travel times to work ranging from 15 to 29 minutes. The subject site is within a 30-minute drive to most of the area's largest employers, which should contribute to the project's marketability. A drive-time map for the subject site is on the following page.

IV-26 Richmond, VA Site 5 minutes Drive Time from Site 10 minutes 15 minutes

0 0.5 1 2 3 1:182,728 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community V. Rental Housing Analysis (Supply)

A. OVERVIEW OF RENTAL HOUSING

The distributions of the area housing stock within the Richmond Site PMA in 2010 and 2017 (estimated) are summarized in the following table:

2010 (Census) 2017 (Estimated) Housing Status Number Percent Number Percent Total-Occupied 18,698 87.0% 20,817 87.5% Owner-Occupied 7,889 42.2% 8,061 38.7% Renter-Occupied 10,809 57.8% 12,756 61.3% Vacant 2,794 13.0% 2,985 12.5% Total 21,492 100.0% 23,802 100.0% Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Based on a 2017 update of the 2010 Census, of the 23,802 total housing units in the market, 12.5% were vacant. It is important to note however, that the number of vacant housing units included in the preceding table includes for-sale, abandoned and/or dilapidated housing units. Therefore, we have conducted a Field Survey of Conventional Rentals to better determine the strength of the long- term rental housing market within the Richmond Site PMA.

Conventional Apartments

V-1 Tax Credit Property Disclosure: In addition to the 15 properties surveyed, we also identified four additional properties that operate under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program that we were unable to survey at the time of this report. The known details of these projects based on previous surveys conducted by Bowen National Research in the Richmond area and from our review of the state Tax Credit allocation list are summarized in the following table:

Year Built/ Total Target Occupancy at Last Name Location Renovated Units Population Survey Seniors (62+); 50% & 100.0%; 50-H.H. Waitlist Fairmont House 1501 N. 21st St. 1985 / 2007 160 60% AMHI and Section 8 (February 2017) Families; 60% AMHI & 100.0%; 1-Year Waitlist Oliver Crossing 1329 Coalter St. 1956 / 2011 275 Section 8 (February 2017) Families; 60% AMHI & 100.0%; 350-H.H. Waitlist Henrico Arms 1664 Henrico Arms Pl. 1974 / 2003 232 Section 8 (February 2017) Seniors (55+); 50% 100.0%; 1-H.H. Waitlist Samantha Senior Apts. 1208 N. 28th St. 2013 39 AMHI (January 2017) H.H. - Households

As the preceding illustrates, the four LIHTC projects we were unable to survey operate with a project-based Section 8 subsidy and/or are age-restricted. As such, these properties are not considered directly competitive with the subject project. Regardless, since these properties were unable to be surveyed at the time of this report, they have been excluded from our comparable analysis, as well as our Field Survey of Conventional Rentals.

The following table summarizes the breakdown of market-rate and non- Subsidized Tax Credit units surveyed within the Site PMA.

Market-Rate Median Gross Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Rent Studio 1.0 98 3.3% 15 15.3% $865 One-Bedroom 1.0 1,138 38.6% 90 7.9% $1,044 One-Bedroom 1.5 251 8.5% 16 6.4% $1,540 Two-Bedroom 1.0 641 21.8% 20 3.1% $892 Two-Bedroom 1.5 134 4.6% 5 3.7% $1,481 Two-Bedroom 2.0 530 18.0% 48 9.1% $1,456 Two-Bedroom 2.5 78 2.6% 2 2.6% $1,396 Three-Bedroom 1.0 24 0.8% 0 0.0% $987 Three-Bedroom 1.5 5 0.2% 1 20.0% $2,002 Three-Bedroom 2.0 23 0.8% 0 0.0% $1,834 Three-Bedroom 2.5 11 0.4% 1 9.1% $1,914 Three-Bedroom 3.5 12 0.4% 1 8.3% $2,473 Total Market-Rate 2,945 100.0% 199 6.8% -

V-2 Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized Median Gross Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant Rent Studio 1.0 23 1.5% 2 8.7% $674 One-Bedroom 1.0 524 33.0% 11 2.1% $750 Two-Bedroom 1.0 566 35.7% 25 4.4% $886 Two-Bedroom 1.5 60 3.8% 0 0.0% $693 Two-Bedroom 2.0 180 11.3% 1 0.6% $1,032 Three-Bedroom 1.0 114 7.2% 12 10.5% $1,096 Three-Bedroom 1.5 15 0.9% 1 6.7% $1,096 Three-Bedroom 2.0 72 4.5% 0 0.0% $1,212 Four-Bedroom 2.0 32 2.0% 0 0.0% $1,280 Total Tax Credit 1,586 100.0% 52 3.3% -

The market-rate units are 93.2% occupied and the Tax Credit units are 96.7% occupied, demonstrating demand for both non-subsidized rental housing segments surveyed in the market. It is of note however, that the median gross Tax Credit rents reported for the market are generally significantly lower than the median gross rents reported among similar market-rate units surveyed. These lower gross rents along with the 96.7% occupancy rate are good indications that non-subsidized Tax Credit product represents a significant value in the market.

The following is a distribution of units surveyed by year built for the Site PMA:

Year Built Projects Units Vacancy Rate Before 1970 6 1,123 4.2% 1970 to 1979 1 100 0.0% 1980 to 1989 2 152 0.7% 1990 to 1999 6 663 2.7% 2000 to 2005 7 1,034 8.9% 2006 to 2010 4 1,013 5.5% 2011 0 0 0.0% 2012 2 257 3.9% 2013 0 0 0.0% 2014 1 150 15.3% 2015 1 22 13.6% 2016 1 17 5.9% 2017 0 0 0.0% 2018* 0 0 0.0% *As of February

Approximately 27% of all apartments surveyed were built prior to 1980. These older apartments have a vacancy rate of 3.8%, lower than the overall market. The newest of the non-subsidized properties surveyed is the Market Square (Map ID 11) property, a market-rate project which contains 17 units and was built in 2016. Lease-up information was unavailable for this property at the time of this report, however, the 5.9% vacancy rate reported for this property is reflective of just one (1) vacant unit at this small 17-unit property. Two other market-rate properties surveyed were built in 2014 and 2015. These two properties, Shockoe Valley

V-3 View (Map ID 18) and New East End Theatre Apartments (Map ID 30), report vacancy rates of 15.3% and 13.6%, respectively. The high vacancy rate reported at New East End Theatre Apartments is reflective of just three (3) vacant units, however, at this small 22-unit property. The vacancy rate reported at Shockoe Valley View is attributed to the time of year and students which have moved out recently, according to management at this property.

It is also of note that the newest general-occupancy Tax Credit property surveyed in the market, Glenns at Millers Lane (Map ID 19), was built in 2000 and is currently 100.0% occupied. This is a clear indication that the Richmond market would benefit from the addition of new modern Tax Credit product such as that proposed for the subject site.

The Richmond apartment market offers a wide range of rental product, in terms of price point and quality. The following table compares the gross rent (the collected rent at the site plus the estimated costs of tenant-paid utilities) of the subject project with the rent range of the existing conventional apartments surveyed in the market.

Gross Rent Existing Rentals Units (Share) with Rents Bedroom Type Proposed Subject Median Range Above Proposed Rents One-Bedroom $798-60% $1,042 $569 -$1,540 1,500 (78.4%) $783-50% 1,998 (91.3%) Two-Bedroom $1,028 $692 - $2,388 $957-60% 1,145 (52.3%) $805*-40% 276 (100.0%) $905-50% 276 (100.0%) Three-Bedroom $1,136 $987 - $2,522 $1,006*-50% 252 (91.3%) $1,106-60% 158 (57.2%) $898*-40% 32 (100.0%) Four+-Bedroom $1,290 $1,280 - $1,290 $1,122*-50% 32 (100.0%) *Reflective of maximum allowable LIHTC rent limit as proposed contract rent under Section 8 program exceeds LIHTC rent limit Most of the rents of existing rentals in the market are above the proposed rents at the subject site. As such, the subject project will likely be perceived a value in the market based on price point. The appropriateness of the proposed rents is evaluated in further detail later in this section of the report, as well as in the Achievable Market Rent Analysis section of this report.

We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" through "F". All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance). Following is a distribution by quality rating, units and vacancies.

V-4 Market-Rate Quality Rating Projects Total Units Vacancy Rate A 2 356 9.3% B+ 6 1,508 9.2% B 6 458 2.8% B- 1 395 3.8% C+ 1 128 0.0% C 1 100 0.0% Non-Subsidized Tax Credit Quality Rating Projects Total Units Vacancy Rate B+ 2 212 0.0% B 5 476 2.1% B- 3 280 0.0% C+ 1 218 4.6% C 2 344 9.3% C- 1 56 0.0%

As the preceding illustrates, vacancy rates among non-subsidized Tax Credit product in the market do not exceed 9.3%, regardless of quality rating and Tax Credit properties with a rating of “B-“ or better have overall vacancy rates of no more than 2.1%. This is a good indication that higher quality Tax Credit product is in high demand. The subject project is expected to have an excellent quality finish and aesthetic appeal upon completion, which should contribute to its overall marketability within the Site PMA.

Government-Subsidized

The two government-subsidized projects within the Site PMA operate under the HUD Section 8 program. Generally, these properties have few amenities, are older and offer small unit sizes (square feet). The government-subsidized units (both with and without Tax Credits) in the Site PMA are summarized as follows.

Subsidized Tax Credit Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant One-Bedroom 1.0 35 25.0% 0 0.0% Two-Bedroom 1.0 70 50.0% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.0 35 25.0% 0 0.0% Total Subsidized Tax Credit 140 100.0% 0 0.0% Government-Subsidized Bedroom Baths Units Distribution Vacancy % Vacant One-Bedroom 1.0 35 14.0% 0 0.0% Two-Bedroom 1.0 122 48.8% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.0 48 19.2% 0 0.0% Three-Bedroom 1.5 25 10.0% 0 0.0% Four-Bedroom 1.5 20 8.0% 0 0.0% Total Subsidized 250 100.0% 0 0.0%

V-5 The subsidized units (both with and without Tax Credits) are 100.0% occupied. Additionally, the subsidized properties surveyed maintain waiting lists of up to two years for their next available units. These high occupancy rates and extensive waiting lists are clear indications of pent-up demand for affordable rental product within the Richmond Site PMA.

A complete field survey of all conventional apartments we surveyed, as well as an apartment location map, is included in Section XII, Field Survey of Conventional Rentals.

B. SURVEY OF COMPARABLE/COMPETITIVE PROPERTIES

Map Year Built/ Total Occ. Distance Waiting I.D. Project Name Renovated Units Rate to Site List Target Market Church Hill North Families; 40%, 50% & Site Phase 2A 2019 70 - - - 60% AMHI & Section 8 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1948 / 2003 294 90.1% 3.3 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI Mallard Greens 12 Townhomes 1965 / 2007 192 100.0% 0.9 Miles 5 H.H. Families; 60% AMHI 14 Market Slip 1994 30 100.0% 1.9 Miles 3 H.H. Families; 50% & 60% AMHI 16 Bradford Manor 1963 / 1996 56 100.0% 1.0 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI 17 Lawndale Farms 1965 / 1997 50 94.0% 3.3 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 2000 144 100.0% 3.1 Miles 2 H.H. Families; 60% AMHI Jefferson Mews & 2-Br: 10 20 Spring Hill Townhomes 1994 / 2014 56 94.6% 1.2 Miles H.H. Families; 50% & 60% AMHI 21 Jefferson Townhomes 1965 / 2008 218 95.4% 1.2 Miles None Families; 60% AMHI 27 Tobacco Landing 1994 62 100.0% 1.7 Miles 4 H.H. Families; 50% & 60% AMHI OCC. – Occupancy H.H. - Households

V-6 The nine LIHTC projects have a combined occupancy rate of 95.9%, with all nine properties reporting individual occupancy rates of 90.1% or higher. Note, the property reporting the lowest occupancy rate, Glenwood Farms Apartments (Map ID 5), is also the oldest of the nine properties surveyed. Five of the properties surveyed are 100.0% occupied, with four of these five maintaining waiting lists for their next available units. This is a clear indication of pent-up demand for additional family-oriented LIHTC product in this market. It is also of note that the subject project will be at least 19 years newer than the nine comparable LIHTC projects surveyed, based on their original year built. This will create a competitive advantage for the subject project and contribute to its ability to achieve premium rents within the Richmond market.

The following table identifies the comparable LIHTC properties that accept Housing Choice Vouchers as well as the approximate number and share of units occupied by residents utilizing Housing Choice Vouchers:

Map Total Number of Share of I.D. Project Name Units Vouchers Vouchers 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 294 8 2.7% 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 192 40 20.8% 14 Market Slip 30 4 13.3% 16 Bradford Manor 56 8 14.3% 17 Lawndale Farms 50* N/A - 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 144 108 75.0% 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhomes 56 12 21.4% 21 Jefferson Townhomes 218 69 31.7% 27 Tobacco Landing 62 7 11.3% Total 1,052 256 24.3% *Units not included in total N/A – Number not available

As the preceding table illustrates, there are a total of approximately 256 Voucher holders residing at the comparable properties for which this information was available within the market. This comprises 24.3% of the 1,052 total non- subsidized LIHTC units offered among these properties. This is considered a moderate share of Voucher support. When considering that nearly 76.0% of the units offered among these projects are occupied by non-Voucher holders, it can be concluded that the gross rents at these properties are achievable and will serve as accurate benchmarks with which to compare the subject project.

V-7 The gross rents for the competing projects and the proposed rents at the subject site, as well as their unit mixes and vacancies by bedroom are listed in the following table:

The unit sizes (square footage) and number of bathrooms included in each of the different LIHTC unit types offered in the market are compared with the subject development in the following tables:

V-8 Square Footage Map One- Two- Three- Four- I.D. Project Name Studio Br. Br. Br. Br. Church Hill North Phase Site 2A - 642 - 763 889 - 1,012 1,270 - 1,363 1,544 - 1,670 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 495 684 688 - 755 525 - 915 - 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes - 710 830 910 - 14 Market Slip - 500 - 800 980 - - 16 Bradford Manor --875- - 17 Lawndale Farms - - 840 - - 19 Glenns at Millers Lane - - 850 1,100 - Jefferson Mews & Spring 20 Hill Townhomes - 700 1,100 1,300 - 21 Jefferson Townhomes - 620 770 920 - 1,106 1,175 27 Tobacco Landing -662899- -

Number of Baths Map One- Two- Three- Four- I.D. Project Name Studio Br. Br. Br. Br. Church Hill North Phase Site 2A - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 2.0 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 14 Market Slip - 1.0 2.0 - - 16 Bradford Manor --1.0- - 17 Lawndale Farms - - 1.0 - - 19 Glenns at Millers Lane - - 2.0 2.0 - Jefferson Mews & Spring 20 Hill Townhomes - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.5 - 21 Jefferson Townhomes - 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 27 Tobacco Landing -1.02.0- -

The proposed development will be competitive with the existing LIHTC projects in the market based on unit size (square footage) and the number of baths offered. In fact, the subject’s three-bedroom units, as well as some two-bedroom units, will offer a greater number of bathrooms as compared to similar unit types at most of the comparable LIHTC projects.

The following tables compare the appliances and the unit and project amenities of the subject site with existing Tax Credit properties in the market.

V-9 COMPARABLE PROPERTIES AMENITIES - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

APPLIANCES UNIT AMENITIES W P I A N W T D I A E O O F S - / L W H D C R O

E E A E T O R D C L C C W F R

R M I L W K E / A E R

E S B I I

I / I I I D C N S N C A N H B A C D L B G

N P O E T I I R D T S T E U H W A E D S N A

V C R O E E M T O M R M R L A O D P R G E U A R M W C A O A T E A A S R O

W K R L R C E O F K N A T N O H P K I Y S I

I O

N N A N N A A T V U G O N E E T E A I OTHER M T N G D G C C R Y Y R E R E R P L S S

SITE X X X X X X C X X X X B S 5 X X S X X W S X B S 12 X X X X X X C B S 14 X X X X X C X X S X B O, G 16 X X X C S B O, S 17 X X X C X B S 19 X X X X X C O X X B S Exterior Storage 20 X X X X X C S S S B O, S 21 X X X X X X W X X X X B S 27 X X X X X C X B O, G

X - All Units Parking Sports Courts Floor Covering Community Space  Senior Restricted S - Some Units A - Attached B - Basketball C - Carpet A - Activity Room Market-rate OOptional- C - Carport D - Baseball Diamonds H - Hardwood L - Lounge/Gathering Room Market-rate/Tax Credit D- Detached P- Putting Green VVinyl- T- Training Room Market-rate/Government-subsidized Window Treatments O- On Street T- Tennis W- Wood Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized B - Blinds S- Surface V- Volleyball T- Tile Tax Credit C - Curtains G- Parking Garage X- Multiple Tax Credit/Government-subsidized DDrapes- (o)- Optional Government-subsidized (s)- Some

Survey Date: February 2018 V-10 COMPARABLE PROPERTIES AMENITIES - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

PROJECT AMENITIES C B O S J F U M I O S A S C O S T T M E I C C O P N I N N E P C U U A M O C P - E E L N U Z N I L L R S P S S A R Z I N C E

I U T S S U I I T Y I S L T L S N

T S S B / T L E Y G I A E E T C C

I Y

E R R S C C V U E E H O M B S

M R V A O O O G A N R N N P P O A R A

I G U U U U A T A L O A T R T D A U P C M

N N R R A E T O G R R C E O E S E I T T T A A B D R Y Y E R E E OTHER R E L S D

SITE XX X X 5 XX X 12 XXXXX X 14 XX CCTV 16 X 17 X 19 XXXX X 20 21 XX 27 X X X X CCTV

Survey Date: February 2018 V-11 The subject development will offer a unit and project amenity package which is considered very competitive with those offered among the comparable LIHTC projects. In fact, the inclusion of features such as microwave ovens, in-unit washer/dryer appliances, a club house, playground and social services package is expected to create a competitive advantage for the subject project, as most comparable properties do not include these features. The subject project does not appear to lack any key amenities that would adversely impact its marketability within the Site PMA.

Comparable/Competitive Tax Credit Summary

Nine comparable LIHTC properties were surveyed within the Richmond Site PMA, all of which report individual occupancy rates of 90.1% or higher, with a combined occupancy rate of 95.9%. Some of the comparable properties maintain waiting lists for their next available units. This is a clear indication of high and pent-up demand for additional family-oriented LIHTC product such as that proposed at the subject site. The subject’s proposed gross Tax Credit rents are within the range of those reported among similar unit types at the comparable properties and are therefore considered competitive and marketable within the Richmond Site PMA. It is also of note that the subject project will offer the only units set at 40% of AMHI, as well as some of the only units set at 50% of AMHI, among the comparable LIHTC properties. These unit types, along with select units set at 50% of AMHI, will operate with project-based Section 8 vouchers in addition to the LIHTC program, further enhancing the marketability of the subject project among low-income households within the Richmond area. The subject project will also offer some of the only four-bedroom units among the comparable properties and will be significantly newer than the existing comparable properties surveyed, as most were originally built prior to 1995. In addition, the proposed project will offer a greater number of bathrooms within its two- and three- bedroom units, and a superior overall amenity package as compared to most of the comparable properties. Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed subject project will provide an affordable rental product that is marketable and clearly in high demand within the Richmond Site PMA.

V-12 C. PLANNED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT

Despite numerous attempts, we were unable to receive a response from local planning and building representatives within the Richmond area. However, through extensive online research, and the observations of our analyst while in the field, it was determined that there are several rental housing projects currently planned and/or under construction within the Site PMA. These planned developments are summarized as follows:

Project Name Address/Location Type Units Developer Status/Details Under Construction. ECD Fall 2018 or Artisan Hill 1000 Carlisle Fulton Hill early 2019. Will offer market-rate and MRR 240 Apartments Avenue Properties “affordable” units targeting families and artists. Not on Tax Credit list. Community Allocated 2016. Under construction. Two- Apartments at 390 Kingsridge Tax 72 Housing Partners and three-bedroom units at 50% and 60% Kingsridge Phase I Road Corporation AMHI. ECD 10/2018 Goodwyn at Union Under Construction. Allocated 2016. 40%, 2230 Venable Tax & Better Housing Hill 52 50% and 60% AMHI. 40% AMHI also Street Section 8 Coalition (aka Citadel of Hope) Section 8. One-, two- and three-bedrooms Valley West, Under Construction. One- and two- 1914 East LLC and Edge MRR 160 bedrooms. At the time of this study 114 Franklin Street de Venoge and units have been preleased. Secam Properties 1903 East Marshall 1903 East Shockoe Realty Under Construction. One- and two- N/A 178 Street Marshall Street Ventures, LLC bedrooms Allocated 2015. Demolition of former structures completed. Units at 40%, 50%, Church Hill North 1611 North 31st Tax & The Community 50 and 60% AMHI. Units at 40% and the 1A (Family) Street Section 8 Builders two- and three-bedroom units at 50% will be Section 8. Allocated 2016. Demolition of former Church Hill North 1B 1611 North 31st Tax & The Community 45 structures completed. 50% and 60% AMHI (Senior) Street Section 8 Builders and Section 8. One- and two-bedrooms Allocated 2016. Permits filed 1/2017. Glenwood Ridge 3801 Glenwood Humanities Tax 82 Units at 40%, 50%, and 60% AMHI. No Apartments Avenue Foundation construction observed Allocated 2014. Two- and three-bedrooms 2614 Whitcomb Wentworth/ Ashe Gardens Tax 40 at 40% and 50% AMHI. No construction Street CBRE Realty observed. John and O Street & North 26th O Street & North N/A 12 Benedicte Under construction. ECD summer 2018. Street 26th Whitworth ECD – Estimated Completion Date N/A – Not Available MRR – Market-rate

V-13 As previously detailed, four of the planned rental communities in the development pipeline within the Site PMA are expected to operate under the LIHTC program and target family (general-occupancy) households earning income levels similar to those proposed at the subject site. Thus, these four properties, one of which is the first phase of the proposed subject project, are expected to have some competitive overlap with the proposed subject project. The unit mix by AMHI level of these planned general-occupancy LIHTC properties is summarized in Section VII, as the directly comparable units planned at these properties have been considered in our demand estimates.

D. ANTICIPATED IMPACT ON EXISTING TAX CREDIT PROPERTIES

The anticipated occupancy rates of the existing comparable Tax Credit developments during the first year of occupancy at the subject project are as follows.

Map Current Anticipated Occupancy I.D. Project Occupancy Rate Rate Through 2019 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 90.1% 90.0% + 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 100.0% 95.0% + 14 Market Slip 100.0% 95.0% + 16 Bradford Manor 100.0% 95.0% + 17 Lawndale Farms 94.0% 93.0% + 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 100.0% 95.0% + 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhomes 94.6% 93.0% + 21 Jefferson Townhomes 95.4% 95.0% + 27 Tobacco Landing 100.0% 95.0% +

As illustrated in the preceding table and previously discussed within this report, the nine comparable LIHTC projects surveyed have a combined occupancy rate of 95.9%, with all five properties reporting individual occupancy rates of 90.1% or higher. In fact, five of the properties surveyed are 100.0% occupied with four maintaining waiting lists. Based on the preceding factors, and our demand estimates included in Section VII, we do not expect the subject development to have any adverse impact on future occupancy levels at the existing comparable LIHTC projects in the market.

E. BUY VERSUS RENT ANALYSIS

According to ESRI, the median home value within the Site PMA was $137,170. At an estimated interest rate of 4.5% and a 30-year term (and 95% LTV), the monthly mortgage for a $137,170 home is $825, including estimated taxes and insurance.

V-14 Buy Versus Rent Analysis Median Home Price - ESRI $137,170 Mortgaged Value = 95% of Median Home Price $130,312 Interest Rate - Bankrate.com 4.5% Term 30 Monthly Principal & Interest $660 Estimated Taxes and Insurance* $165 Estimated Monthly Mortgage Payment $825 *Estimated at 25% of principal and interest

In comparison, the proposed collected non-subsidized rents at the subject property range from $586 to $845, depending upon unit type. While some potential tenants of the project may be able to afford the cost of a monthly mortgage for a typical home in the area, the number of potential tenants that could also afford the down payment, monthly utility expenses and/or routine maintenance costs associated with such a home is considered minimal. The subject project will also offer a comprehensive amenity package as compared to those typically included with for-sale single-family home product. Based on the preceding factors, we do not anticipate any competitive impact on or from the homebuyer market.

V-15 VI. Achievable Market Rent Analysis

A. INTRODUCTION

We identified seven market-rate properties within, and near, the Richmond Site PMA that we consider comparable in terms of age, design, unit type, and/or unit and project amenities to the proposed subject development. These selected properties are used to derive market rent for a project with characteristics similar to the proposed subject development and the subject property’s market advantage. It is important to note that, for the purpose of this analysis, we only select market-rate properties. Market-rate properties are used to determine rents that can be achieved in the open market for the proposed subject units without maximum income and rent restrictions.

The basis for the selection of these projects includes, but is not limited to, the following factors:

 Surrounding neighborhood characteristics  Target market (seniors, families, disabled, etc.)  Unit types offered (garden or townhouse, bedroom types, etc.)  Building type (single-story, midrise, high-rise, etc.)  Unit and project amenities offered  Age and appearance of property

Since it is unlikely that any two properties are identical, we adjust the collected rent (the actual rent paid by tenants) of the selected properties according to whether or not they compare favorably with the subject development. Rents of projects that have additional or better features than the subject site are adjusted negatively, while projects with inferior or fewer features are adjusted positively. For example, if the proposed subject project does not have a washer or dryer and a selected property does, then we lower the collected rent of the selected property by the estimated value of a washer and dryer to derive an achievable market rent for a project similar to the proposed project.

The rent adjustments used in this analysis are based on various sources, including known charges for additional features within the Site PMA, estimates made by area property managers and realtors, quoted rental rates from furniture rental companies and Bowen National Research’s prior experience in markets nationwide.

VI-1 It is important to note that one or more of the selected properties may be more similar to the subject property than others. These properties are given more weight in terms of reaching the final achievable market rent determination. While monetary adjustments are made for various unit and project features, the final market rent determination is based upon the judgments of our market analysts.

The proposed subject development and the seven selected properties include the following:

Unit Mix (Occupancy Rate) Map Year Built/ Total Occ. One- Two- Three- Four- I.D. Project Name Renovated Units Rate Br. Br. Br. Br. Church Hill North 10 27 29 4 Site Phase 2A 2019 70 - (-) (-) (-) (-) 26 26 3 10 Dill Building 2007 55 96.4% (96.2%) (96.2%) (100.0%) - Shockoe Valley 111 39 18 View 2014 150 84.7% (84.7%) (84.6%) - - 83 296 16 22 Lakefield Mews 1992 395 96.2% (95.2%) (96.3%) (100.0%) - 39 27 24 Raven Place Apts. 2004 66 93.9% (94.9%) (92.6%) - - River Lofts at 475 258 21 28 Tobacco Row 2008 754 93.0% (93.1%) (93.0%) (90.5%) - 143 52 11 32 Cedar Broad Apts. 2012 206 95.1% (95.8%) (94.2%) (90.9%) - 176 132 22 904 Kings Point 1985 / 2016 330 93.3% (93.8%) (91.7%) (100.0%) - Map ID 904 is located outside the Site PMA Occ. – Occupancy

The seven selected market-rate projects have a combined total of 1,956 units with an overall occupancy rate of 93.4%. None of the comparable properties has an occupancy rate below 84.7%, demonstrating that these properties are well-received and will serve as accurate benchmarks with which to compare the subject project.

The Rent Comparability Grids on the following pages show the collected rents for each of the selected properties and illustrate the adjustments made (as needed) for various features and location or neighborhood characteristics, as well as quality differences that exist among the selected properties and the proposed subject development.

VI-2 Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type ONE BEDROOM Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 Data River Lofts at Tobacco Church Hill North Phase 2A Shockoe Valley View Lakefield Mews Raven Place Apts. Cedar Broad Apts. Row on 4431 Lakefield Mews 1611 North 31st Street 1904 Cedar St. 1710 E. Broad St. 2310 E. Cary St. 1820 E. Broad St. Dr. Richmond, VA Subject Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted? $929 $915 $999 $925 $1,028 2 Date Surveyed Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 3 Rent Concessions Yes ($77) None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 85% 95% 95% 93% 96% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $852 1.41 $915 1.42 $999 1.62 $925 1.34 $1,028 1.88

B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories WU/2,3 EE/4 WU/2 EE/4 EE/3,4,5,6 EE/4,5 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 2014 $5 1992 $27 2004 $15 2008 $11 2012 $7 8 Condition/Street Appeal E E ($85) G $25 G ($100) G ($93) E ($103) 9 Neighborhood G G ($43) GG($50) G ($46) G ($51) 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 1 11111 12 # Baths 1 11111 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft. 703 603 $39 644 $23 617 $33 690 $5 547 $60 14 Balcony/Patio Y Y Y N $5 N $5 N $5 15 AC: Central/Wall C CCCCC 16 Range/Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/Dishwasher Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y 18 Washer/Dryer W/D W/D HU/L $25 W/D W/D W/D 19 Floor Coverings C WCCCW 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Secured Entry Y YN$3YYY 22 Garbage Disposal Y YYYYY 23 Ceiling Fans/Storage N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee) LOT/$0 STREET LOT/$0 STREET NONE $10 NONE $10 25 On-Site Management Y YYYYY 26 Security Features N NNNNN 27 Community Space Y YYN$5YY 28 Pool/Recreation Areas N P/F ($15) P ($10) F ($5) P/F/S/J/MT ($24) F ($5) 29 Cable/Internet Svc. Included N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) 30 Picnic Area N NNNY($3) N 31 Playground Y N$3Y N$3N$3N$3 32 Social Services Y N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 E. Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/G N/E 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/Sewer N/N N/N N/N Y/Y ($58) N/N N/N 39 Trash/Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $18 Y/N F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 4 5 6 2 6 4 6 5 6 5 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $57 ($238) $113 ($15) $71 ($245) $44 ($171) $95 ($254) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments ($58) $18 Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E ($181) $295 $98 $128 ($232) $374 ($109) $233 ($159) $349 G. Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43) $671 $1,013 $767 $816 $869 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 79% 111% 77% 88% 85% 46 Estimated Market Rent $820 $1.17 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft TWO BEDROOM - Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type 1.0 BATH Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 Data River Lofts at Tobacco Church Hill North Phase 2A Shockoe Valley View Lakefield Mews Raven Place Apts. Cedar Broad Apts. Row on 4431 Lakefield Mews 1611 North 31st Street 1904 Cedar St. 1710 E. Broad St. 2310 E. Cary St. 1820 E. Broad St. Dr. Richmond, VA Subject Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted? $1,269 $985 $1,250 $1,100 $1,385 2 Date Surveyed Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 3 Rent Concessions Yes ($106) None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 85% 95% 95% 93% 94% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $1,163 1.30 $985 1.16 $1,250 1.50 $1,100 1.28 $1,385 1.83

B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories WU/2,3 EE/4 WU/2 EE/4 EE/3,4,5,6 EE/4,5 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 2014 $5 1992 $27 2004 $15 2008 $11 2012 $7 8 Condition/Street Appeal E E ($116) G $25 G ($125) G ($110) E ($139) 9 Neighborhood G G ($58) GG($63) G ($55) G ($69) 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 2 22222 12 # Baths 1 2 ($30) 1112($30) 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft. 963 892 $25 852 $40 832 $47 860 $37 756 $74 14 Balcony/Patio Y Y Y N $5 N $5 N $5 15 AC: Central/Wall C CCCCC 16 Range/Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/Dishwasher Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y 18 Washer/Dryer W/D W/D HU/L $25 W/D W/D W/D 19 Floor Coverings C WCCCW 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Secured Entry Y YN$3YYY 22 Garbage Disposal Y YYYYY 23 Ceiling Fans/Storage N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee) LOT/$0 STREET LOT/$0 STREET NONE $10 NONE $10 25 On-Site Management Y YYYYY 26 Security Features N NNNNN 27 Community Space Y YYN$5YY 28 Pool/Recreation Areas N P/F ($15) P ($10) F ($5) P/F/S/J/MT ($24) F ($5) 29 Cable/Internet Svc. Included N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) 30 Picnic Area N NNNY($3) N 31 Playground Y N$3Y N$3N$3N$3 32 Social Services Y N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 E. Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/G N/E 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/Sewer N/N N/N N/N Y/Y ($83) N/N N/N 39 Trash/Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $18 Y/N F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 4 6 6 2 6 4 6 5 6 6 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $43 ($314) $130 ($15) $85 ($283) $76 ($197) $109 ($338) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments ($83) $18 Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E ($271) $357 $115 $145 ($281) $451 ($103) $291 ($229) $447 G. Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43) $892 $1,100 $969 $997 $1,156 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 77% 112% 78% 91% 83% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,015 $1.05 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft TWO BEDROOM - Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type 2.0 BATHS Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 Data River Lofts at Tobacco Church Hill North Phase 2A Shockoe Valley View Lakefield Mews Raven Place Apts. Cedar Broad Apts. Row on 4431 Lakefield Mews 1611 North 31st Street 1904 Cedar St. 1710 E. Broad St. 2310 E. Cary St. 1820 E. Broad St. Dr. Richmond, VA Subject Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted? $1,269 $985 $1,325 $1,100 $1,385 2 Date Surveyed Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 3 Rent Concessions Yes ($106) None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 85% 95% 86% 93% 94% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $1,163 1.30 $985 1.16 $1,325 1.21 $1,100 1.28 $1,385 1.83

B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories WU/2,3 EE/4 WU/2 EE/4 EE/3,4,5,6 EE/4,5 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 2014 $5 1992 $27 2004 $15 2008 $11 2012 $7 8 Condition/Street Appeal E E ($116) G $25 G ($133) G ($110) E ($139) 9 Neighborhood G G ($58) GG($66) G ($55) G ($69) 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 2 22222 12 # Baths 2 2 1 $30 2 1 $30 2 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft. 987 892 $32 852 $46 1098 ($38) 860 $43 756 $79 14 Balcony/Patio Y Y Y N $5 N $5 N $5 15 AC: Central/Wall C CCCCC 16 Range/Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/Dishwasher Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y 18 Washer/Dryer W/D W/D HU/L $25 W/D W/D W/D 19 Floor Coverings C WCCCW 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Secured Entry Y YN$3YYY 22 Garbage Disposal Y YYYYY 23 Ceiling Fans/Storage N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee) LOT/$0 STREET LOT/$0 STREET NONE $10 NONE $10 25 On-Site Management Y YYYYY 26 Security Features N NNNNN 27 Community Space Y YYN$5YY 28 Pool/Recreation Areas N P/F ($15) P ($10) F ($5) P/F/S/J/MT ($24) F ($5) 29 Cable/Internet Svc. Included N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) 30 Picnic Area N NNNY($3) N 31 Playground Y N$3Y N$3N$3N$3 32 Social Services Y N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 E. Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/G N/E 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/Sewer N/N N/N N/N Y/Y ($83) N/N N/N 39 Trash/Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $18 Y/N F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 4 5 7 2 5 5 7 5 6 5 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $50 ($284) $166 ($15) $38 ($332) $112 ($197) $114 ($308) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments ($83) $18 Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E ($234) $334 $151 $181 ($377) $453 ($67) $327 ($194) $422 G. Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43) $929 $1,136 $948 $1,033 $1,191 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 80% 115% 72% 94% 86% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,040 $1.05 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft TWO BEDROOM - Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type TH Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 Data River Lofts at Tobacco Church Hill North Phase 2A Shockoe Valley View Lakefield Mews Raven Place Apts. Cedar Broad Apts. Row on 4431 Lakefield Mews 1611 North 31st Street 1904 Cedar St. 1710 E. Broad St. 2310 E. Cary St. 1820 E. Broad St. Dr. Richmond, VA Subject Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted? $1,269 $1,285 $1,325 $1,100 $1,385 2 Date Surveyed Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 3 Rent Concessions Yes ($106) None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 85% 96% 86% 93% 94% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $1,163 1.30 $1,285 1.11 $1,325 1.21 $1,100 1.28 $1,385 1.83

B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories TH/2 EE/4 TH/2 EE/4 EE/3,4,5,6 EE/4,5 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 2014 $5 1992 $27 2004 $15 2008 $11 2012 $7 8 Condition/Street Appeal E E ($116) G $25 G ($133) G ($110) E ($139) 9 Neighborhood G G ($58) GG($66) G ($55) G ($69) 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 2 22222 12 # Baths 2 2 1.5 $15 2 1 $30 2 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft. 989 892 $32 1154 ($55) 1098 ($36) 860 $43 756 $78 14 Balcony/Patio Y Y Y N $5 N $5 N $5 15 AC: Central/Wall C CCCCC 16 Range/Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/Dishwasher Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y 18 Washer/Dryer W/D W/D HU/L $25 W/D W/D W/D 19 Floor Coverings C WCCCW 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Secured Entry Y YN$3YYY 22 Garbage Disposal Y YYYYY 23 Ceiling Fans/Storage N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee) LOT/$0 STREET LOT/$0 STREET NONE $10 NONE $10 25 On-Site Management Y YYYYY 26 Security Features N NNNNN 27 Community Space Y YYN$5YY 28 Pool/Recreation Areas N P/F ($15) P ($10) F ($5) P/F/S/J/MT ($24) F ($5) 29 Cable/Internet Svc. Included N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N Y/Y ($90) 30 Picnic Area N NNNY($3) N 31 Playground Y N$3Y N$3N$3N$3 32 Social Services Y N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 E. Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/G N/E 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/Sewer N/N N/N N/N Y/Y ($83) N/N N/N 39 Trash/Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $18 Y/N F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 4 5 6 3 5 5 7 5 6 5 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $50 ($284) $105 ($70) $38 ($330) $112 ($197) $113 ($308) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments ($83) $18 Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E ($234) $334 $35 $175 ($375) $451 ($67) $327 ($195) $421 G. Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43) $929 $1,320 $950 $1,033 $1,190 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 80% 103% 72% 94% 86% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,060 $1.07 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type THREE BEDROOM Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 Data River Lofts at Tobacco Church Hill North Phase 2A Dill Building Lakefield Mews Cedar Broad Apts. Kings Point Row on 4431 Lakefield Mews 1611 North 31st Street 2020 E. Franklin St. 2310 E. Cary St. 1820 E. Broad St. 3401 Prince David Dr. Dr. Richmond, VA Subject Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted? $2,000 $1,600 $1,755 $1,720 $975 2 Date Surveyed Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 3 Rent Concessions None None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 100% 100% 92% 91% 100% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $2,000 1.33 $1,600 1.20 $1,755 1.46 $1,720 1.62 $975 0.86

B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories TH/2 EE/4 WU/2 EE/3,4,5,6 EE/4,5 TH/2 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 2007 $12 1992 $27 2008 $11 2012 $7 1985/2016 $18 8 Condition/Street Appeal E G ($200) G $25 G ($176) E ($172) G $25 9 Neighborhood G G ($100) GG($88) G ($86) G 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes No C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 3 33333 12 # Baths 2 2 2 1.5 $15 2.5 ($15) 1.5 $15 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft. 1328 1506 ($57) 1334 ($2) 1200 $41 1065 $85 1138 $61 14 Balcony/Patio Y N$5Y N$5N$5Y 15 AC: Central/Wall C CCCCC 16 Range/Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/Dishwasher Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y N/Y $5 18 Washer/Dryer W/D W/D HU/L $25 W/D W/D HU/L $25 19 Floor Coverings C WCN$10WC 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Secured Entry Y N $3 N $3 Y Y N $3 22 Garbage Disposal Y YYYYY 23 Ceiling Fans/Storage N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) N/N D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee) LOT/$0 STREET LOT/$0 NONE $10 NONE $10 LOT/$0 25 On-Site Management Y N$5YYYY 26 Security Features N NNNNN 27 Community Space Y N$5YYYN$5 28 Pool/Recreation Areas N NP($10) P/F/S/J/MT ($24) F ($5) P/F/S ($18) 29 Cable/Internet Svc Included N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N 30 Picnic Area N NNY($3) NN 31 Playground Y N$3Y N$3N$3Y 32 Social Services Y N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 E. Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/G N/E N/E 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/Sewer N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N 39 Trash/Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $18 Y/N Y/N F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 7 5 5 3 8 5 6 6 9 1 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $43 ($452) $90 ($17) $105 ($296) $120 ($373) $167 ($18) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments $18 Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E ($409) $495 $73 $107 ($173) $419 ($253) $493 $149 $185 G. Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43) $1,591 $1,673 $1,582 $1,467 $1,124 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 80% 105% 90% 85% 115% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,570 $1.18 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft Rent Comparability Grid Unit Type FOUR BEDROOM Subject Comp #1 Comp #2 Comp #3 Comp #4 Comp #5 Data River Lofts at Tobacco Church Hill North Phase 2A Dill Building Lakefield Mews Cedar Broad Apts. Kings Point Row on 4431 Lakefield Mews 1611 North 31st Street 2020 E. Franklin St. 2310 E. Cary St. 1820 E. Broad St. 3401 Prince David Dr. Dr. Richmond, VA Subject Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA Richmond, VA A. Rents Charged Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 1 $ Last Rent / Restricted? $2,000 $1,600 $2,200 $1,720 $975 2 Date Surveyed Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 Feb-18 3 Rent Concessions None None None None None 4 Occupancy for Unit Type 100% 100% 92% 91% 100% 5 Effective Rent & Rent/ sq. ft $2,000 1.33 $1,600 1.20 $2,200 1.10 $1,720 1.62 $975 0.86

B. Design, Location, Condition Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 6 Structure / Stories TH/2 EE/4 WU/2 EE/3,4,5,6 EE/4,5 TH/2 7 Yr. Built/Yr. Renovated 2019 2007 $12 1992 $27 2008 $11 2012 $7 1985/2016 $18 8 Condition/Street Appeal E G ($200) G $25 G ($220) E ($172) G $25 9 Neighborhood G G ($100) GG($110) G ($86) G 10 Same Market? Yes Yes Yes Yes No C. Unit Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 11 # Bedrooms 4 3 $50 3 $50 3 $50 3 $50 3 $50 12 # Baths 2 223.5($45) 2.5 ($15) 1.5 $15 13 Unit Interior Sq. Ft. 1639 1506 $40 1334 $92 2000 ($109) 1065 $173 1138 $151 14 Balcony/Patio Y N$5Y N$5N$5Y 15 AC: Central/Wall C CCCCC 16 Range/Refrigerator R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F R/F 17 Microwave/Dishwasher Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y N/Y $5 18 Washer/Dryer W/D W/D HU/L $25 W/D W/D HU/L $25 19 Floor Coverings C WCN$10WC 20 Window Coverings B BBBBB 21 Secured Entry Y N $3 N $3 Y Y N $3 22 Garbage Disposal Y YYYYY 23 Ceiling Fans/Storage N/N Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) Y/N ($5) N/N D Site Equipment/ Amenities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 24 Parking ( $ Fee) LOT/$0 STREET LOT/$0 NONE $10 NONE $10 LOT/$0 25 On-Site Management Y N$5YYYY 26 Security Features N NNNNN 27 Community Space Y N$5YYYN$5 28 Pool/Recreation Areas N NP($10) P/F/S/J/MT ($24) F ($5) P/F/S ($18) 29 Cable/Internet Svc. Included N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N N/N Y/Y ($90) N/N 30 Picnic Area N NNY($3) NN 31 Playground Y N$3Y N$3N$3Y 32 Social Services Y N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 N $10 E. Utilities Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj Data $ Adj 33 Heat (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 34 Cooling (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E N/E 35 Cooking (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/G N/E N/E 36 Hot Water (in rent?/ type) N/E N/E N/E N/G N/E N/E 37 Other Electric N NNNNN 38 Cold Water/Sewer N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N 39 Trash/Recycling Y/N Y/N Y/N N/N $18 Y/N Y/N F. Adjustments Recap Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg 40 # Adjustments B to D 9 4 7 2 7 7 7 6 10 1 41 Sum Adjustments B to D $133 ($395) $232 ($15) $99 ($516) $258 ($373) $307 ($18) 42 Sum Utility Adjustments $18 Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross 43 Net/ Gross Adjmts B to E ($262) $528 $217 $247 ($399) $633 ($115) $631 $289 $325 G. Adjusted & Market Rents Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent Adj. Rent 44 Adjusted Rent (5+ 43) $1,738 $1,817 $1,801 $1,605 $1,264 45 Adj Rent/Last rent 87% 114% 82% 93% 130% 46 Estimated Market Rent $1,730 $1.06 Estimated Market Rent/ Sq. Ft Once all adjustments to collected rents were made, the adjusted rents for each comparable were used to derive an achievable market rent for each bedroom type. Each property was considered and weighed based upon its proximity to the subject site and its amenities and unit layout compared to the subject site.

Based on the preceding Rent Comparability Grids, it was determined that the present-day achievable market rents for units similar to those proposed at the subject project are as follows:

B. RENT ADJUSTMENT EXPLANATIONS (RENT COMPARABILITY GRID) None of the selected properties offer the same amenities as the subject property. As a result, we have made adjustments to the collected rents to reflect the differences between the subject property and the selected properties. The following are explanations (preceded by the line reference number on the comparability grid table) for each rent adjustment made to each selected property.

1. Rents for each property are reported as collected rents. These are the actual rents paid by tenants and do not consider utilities paid by tenants. The rents reported are typical and do not consider rent concessions or special promotions. When multiple rent levels were offered, we included an average rent.

VI-9 3. One of the selected properties is currently offering a rent concession. The value of this concession has been prorated over a 12-month period and applied as a negative adjustment in Line 3 and is reflected in the effective rent for this property in Line 5.

7. Upon completion of construction, the subject project will be the newest property in the market. The selected properties were built between 1985 and 2014. We have adjusted the rents at the selected properties by $1 per year of effective age difference to reflect the age of these properties.

8. It is anticipated that the proposed subject project will have an excellent quality appearance, once construction is complete. It should be noted however, that while the subject project is expected to have a similar overall appearance as compared to the selected properties, some of the selected properties include premium interior finishes. These include but may not be limited to, stainless steel appliances, natural stone counter tops, exposed brick interior walls, exposed HVAC duct work, oversized windows, premium lighting and plumbing fixtures, and/or upgraded wood cabinetry. Such features command premium rents and are not typical among LIHTC product such as that proposed at the subject project. As such, we have applied a negative adjustment of 10% to each of the selected properties to account for the higher overall quality finishes of these properties as compared to those anticipated at the subject project.

9. The subject project will be situated within a good quality neighborhood, similar to the selected properties. However, most of the selected properties are located in, or very near, downtown Richmond. Properties located in, or near, downtown settings such as these properties can command a rent premium as compared to properties located farther distances from the city center. As such, we have applied a negative adjustment of 5% to each of the selected properties located in, or near, downtown Richmond.

10. Due to the limited supply of comparable three-bedroom market-rate rentals in the Site PMA, we also identified and surveyed one additional property located outside the Site PMA, but within the surrounding areas of Richmond, which offers three-bedroom townhome style units. Considering the location of this property in a similar area of Richmond, out-of-market adjustments were not warranted.

VI-10 11. All of the selected properties offer one-, two- and three-bedroom units. However, none of the properties offer four-bedroom units similar to those proposed at the subject site. Therefore, we have utilized the next most comparable floor plan (three-bedroom) offered among the comparable market-rate projects. A positive adjustment of $50, however, has been applied to each of these properties to account for the inclusion of an additional defined bedroom at the subject project.

12. There is a variety of the number of bathrooms offered among the selected properties. We have made adjustments of $15 per half bathroom to reflect the difference in the number of bathrooms offered at the site as compared with the comparable properties.

13. The adjustment for differences in square footage is based upon the average rent per square foot among the comparable properties. Since consumers do not value extra square footage on a dollar for dollar basis, we have used 25% of the average for this adjustment.

14.- 23. The proposed subject project will offer a unit amenity package that is slightly inferior to those offered among most of the selected properties. We have made adjustments for features lacking at the subject project, and in some cases, we have made adjustments for features the selected properties do not offer as compared to the subject project.

24.-32. The proposed project offers a project amenities package which is generally considered competitive with those offered among the selected properties. We have made however, monetary adjustments to reflect the difference between the proposed project’s and the selected properties’ project amenities.

Note, four of the selected properties include the cost of cable and Internet in the monthly rent. These expenses are not included in the proposed rent for the subject project and therefore a negative adjustment of $90 has been applied to each of these selected properties. The value of this adjustment is based on quotes provided by local cable and Internet providers and is reflected in Line 29.

33.-39. We have made adjustments as needed to reflect the differences in utility responsibility at the selected properties, as needed. The utility adjustments were based on the local housing authority’s utility cost estimates.

VI-11 VII. Capture Rate Analysis

A. DETERMINATION OF INCOME ELIGIBILITY

The number of income-eligible households necessary to support the project from the Site PMA is an important consideration in evaluating the subject project’s potential. Note that we have evaluated the subject project assuming two different scenarios. The first capture rate scenario has been calculated assuming that the project operates with a HUD Section 8 subsidy available to 17 of the 70 proposed units. In this scenario, residents of these subsidized units will be restricted to 40% and 50% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI) and will pay up to 30% of their adjusted gross income towards rent, while the non-subsidized Tax Credit units will be restricted to households paying non-subsidized rents and earning up to 50% and 60% of AMHI. We also provided a capture rate scenario for the unlikely event that the subject project lost its project-based Section 8 subsidy, thus requiring all units to operate exclusively under the Tax Credit guidelines, targeting households earning up to 40%, 50%, and 60% of AMHI.

Under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, household eligibility is based on household income not exceeding the targeted percentage of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), depending upon household size.

The subject site is within the Richmond, VA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which has a median four-person household income of $78,700 for 2017. The subject property will be restricted to households with incomes of up to 40%, 50% and 60% of AMHI. The following table summarizes the maximum allowable income by household size and AMHI level.

Targeted AMHI Maximum Allowable Income Household Size 40% 50% 60% One-Person $21,680 $27,100 $32,520 Two-Person $24,800 $31,000 $37,200 Three-Person $27,880 $34,850 $41,820 Four-Person $30,960 $38,700 $46,440 Five-Person $33,440 $41,800 $50,160 Six-Person $35,920 $44,900 $53,880

VII-1 1. Maximum Income Limits

The largest proposed units (four-bedroom) at the subject site are expected to house up to six-person households. Note however, that the four- bedroom units will be limited to households earning up to 50% of AMHI. Therefore, the three-bedroom units proposed at the subject project will effectively target higher income households than the four-bedroom units, as the three-bedroom units will target up to 60% of AMHI. As such, the maximum income limit for the subject project has been determined utilizing the five-person limit at 60% of AMHI. Based on the preceding analysis, the maximum income at the subject project is $50,160.

2. Minimum Income Requirements

Leasing industry standards typically require households to have rent-to- income ratios of 27% to 40%. Pursuant to VHDA market study guidelines, the maximum rent-to-income ratio permitted for family projects is 35%, while elderly projects have a 40% rent-to-income ratio.

Since the subject project will operate with a project-based HUD Section 8 subsidy available to a portion of the project (17 units), the subject project will effectively to be able to serve households with incomes as low as $0.

The non-subsidized LIHTC units proposed for the subject project have a lowest gross rent of $783 (two-bedroom at 50% AMHI). Over a 12-month period, the minimum annual household expenditure (rent plus tenant-paid utilities) at the subject site is $9,396. Applying a 35% rent-to-income ratio to the minimum annual household expenditure yields a minimum annual household income requirement of $26,846, for the non-subsidized LIHTC units at the subject project.

3. Income-Appropriate Range

Based on the preceding analyses, the income-appropriate range required to live at the proposed project with units built to serve households at 40%, 50% and 60% of AMHI is as follows:

Income Range Unit Type Minimum Maximum Tax Credit Only (Limited to 40% of AMHI) $27,600* $35,920 Tax Credit Only (Limited to 50% of AMHI) $26,846 $44,900 Tax Credit Only (Limited to 60% of AMHI) $27,360 $50,160 Overall Tax Credit Only $26,846 $50,160 Overall Project with Subsidy $0 $50,160 *Assumes subsidized units with contract rents exceeding maximum allowable limits operate at maximum allowable LIHTC rent limits if subsidy is lost/not secured.

VII-2 B. CAPTURE RATE CALCULATIONS

Per VHDA market study requirements, analysts are required to use net demand in calculating capture rates and the absorption period. Net demand is determined by subtracting the supply of vacant comparable units in the PMA, completed or pipeline, from Total Demand. Total Demand includes New Renter Household Growth and Demand from Existing Households (defined below).

The following are the demand components as outlined by Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA):

1. Demand from New Renter Households. Determine demand for new units in the Primary Market Area based on projected rental household growth. This is to be determined using 2017 as the base year and projecting forward to 2019 (anticipated subject completion date), per VHDA guidelines. The projected population must be limited to the target group, age- and income-appropriate. Demand for each target group must be shown separately, as reflected in the market study requirements. Demand estimates for proposals for elderly developments must be derived from household population age 65 and older. In instances where a significant number of proposed units (more than 20%) are comprised on three- and four-bedroom units, the analyst must refine the analysis by factoring in the number of large households, typically four or more persons. Failure to account for this may result in overstated demand.

2. Demand from Existing Households: The sum of demand from rental household growth and demand from all components of existing households will constitute Total Demand. The demand components from existing households are detailed below:

a) Rent overburdened households, if any, within the age group, income groups and renters targeted for the proposed development. “Over- burdened” is defined by VHDA as households paying more than 35% of gross income (40% if elderly) for gross rent. Analysts are encouraged to be conservative in this regard.

Based on the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (Table B25074), 37.0% to 60.0% of households, depending upon income level, within the site PMA, are considered to be rent overburdened.

VII-3 b) Households in substandard housing (i.e. overcrowded and/or lack of plumbing: Must be age and income group appropriate. Analysts must use their knowledge of the market area and the proposed development to determine if demand from this source is realistic. Analysts are encouraged to be conservative in this regard.

Based on the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (Table B25016), approximately 3.2% of all households within the Site PMA are living in substandard housing. Considering the targeted low- income tenant base, this estimate is considered appropriate for the area.

c) Elderly Homeowners likely to convert to rental housing: This component may not comprise more than 20% of total demand. The analyst must provide a narrative describing how these numbers were derived. Analysts are encouraged to be conservative in this regard.

The subject project is not age restricted. Therefore, we have not included this demand component.

d) Existing qualifying tenants likely to remain after renovations: This component of demand applies only to existing developments undergoing rehabilitations.

The sum of demand from rental household growth and demand from all components of existing households will constitute total demand.

C. DEMAND/CAPTURE RATE CALUCLATIONS

As discussed in the Section V of this report, we identified and surveyed nine directly comparable LIHTC projects in the Site PMA. Among these projects, there are a total of 45 vacant units. The unit breakdowns of these vacant non- subsidized Tax Credit units are illustrated in the following table. Also, note that there are four LIHTC projects planned in the Site PMA which will offer units considered directly comparable to those proposed at the subject project. The LIHTC units planned at these projects are also reflected in the following table.

VII-4 Units at Targeted AMHI (Vacant Units) Map Year LIHTC 40% 50% 60% I.D. Project Name Built/Renovated Units AMHI AMHI AMHI 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1948/2003 294 - - 294 (29) 17 Lawndale Farms 1965/1997 50 - - 50 (3) Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill 20 1994/2014 56 - 35 (0) 21 (3) Townhomes 21 Jefferson Townhomes 1965/2008 218 - - 218 (10) P/P Apartments at Kingsridge 2016 (Allocated) 72 - 36 (36) 36 (36) P/P Goodwyn at Union Hill 2016 (Allocated) 52 6 (6)* 20 (20) 26 (26) 13 (13)* P/P Church Hill North 1A 2015 (Allocated) 50** 5 (5)* 25 (25) 7 (7) P/P Glenwood Ridge Apts. 2016 (Allocated) 82 9 (9) 33 (33) 40 (40) P/P – Planned/Proposed *Subsidized Units **Tax Credit Units

The directly comparable vacant and/or planned units located among the LIHTC projects referenced in the preceding table have been subtracted from the total demand in the following analysis to determine the net demand.

VII-5 The following capture rate analysis assumes the project-based Section 8 subsidy is provided to 17 of the 70 proposed units at the subject project.

Percent of Median Household Income Subsidized Units Non-Subsidized Units Non-Subsidized Demand Component up to 50% AMHI at 50% AMHI Units at 60% AMHI Overall ($0-$44,900) ($26,846-$41,800) ($27,360-$50,160) ($0-$50,160) Demand from New Rental Households (Age- and Income-Appropriate) 8,690 - 8,654 = 36 1,865 - 1,901 = -36 2,648 - 2,680 = -33 9,227 - 9,191 = 36 + Demand from Existing Households 8,654 X 55.8% 1,901 X 46.6% 2,680 X 37.0% 9,191 X 53.5% (Rent Overburdened) = 4,829 = 886 = 992 = 4,917 + Demand from Existing Households 9,191 X 3.2% (Renters in Substandard Housing) 8,654 X 3.2% = 277 1,901 X 3.2% = 61 2,680 X 3.2% = 86 = 294 + Demand from Existing Households (Elderly Homeowner Conversion) N/A N/A N/A N/A + Demand from Existing Households (Existing Qualifying Tenants Likely to Remain After Renovations) N/A N/A N/A N/A = Total Demand 5,142 911 1,045 5,247 - Supply (Directly Comparable Vacant Units Completed or in the Pipeline) 129 109 172 301 = Net Demand 5,013 802 873 4,946 Proposed Units 17 20 33 70 Proposed Units / Net Demand 17 / 5,013 20 / 802 33 / 873 70 / 4,946 Capture Rate = 0.3% = 2.5% = 3.8% = 1.4% Total Absorption Period 2 Months 5 Months 7 Months 7Months N/A – Not Applicable

VII-6 The following capture rate analysis assumes the unlikely scenario that the project-based Section 8 subsidy is lost and that all 70 proposed units at the subject project have to operate exclusively under the LIHTC guidelines.

Percent of Median Household Income Demand Component 40% AMHI 50% AMHI 60% AMHI Overall ($27,600-$35,920) ($26,846-$44,900) ($27,360-$50,160) ($26,846-$50,160) Demand from New Rental Households 1,154 - 1,186 2,184- 2,219 = (Age- And Income-Appropriate) = -32 -35 2,648 - 2,680 = -33 2,721 - 2,756 = -35 + Demand from Existing Households 1,186 X 60.0% = 2,219 X 42.5% = (Rent Overburdened) 712 943 2,680 X 37.0% = 992 2,756 X 37.7% = 1,039 + Demand from Existing Households (Renters in Substandard Housing) 1,186 X 3.2% = 38 2,219 X 3.2% = 71 2,680 X 3.2% = 86 2,756 X 3.2% = 88 + Demand from Existing Households (Elderly Homeowner Conversion) N/A N/A N/A N/A + Demand from Existing Households (Existing Qualifying Tenants Likely to Remain After Renovations) N/A N/A N/A N/A = Total Demand 718 979 1,045 1,092 - Supply (Directly Comparable Vacant Units Completed or in the Pipeline) 20 109 172 301 = Net Demand 698 870 873 791 Proposed Units 8 29 33 70 Proposed Units / Net Demand 8 / 698 29 / 870 33 / 873 70 / 791 Capture Rate = 1.1% = 3.3% = 3.8% = 8.8% Total Absorption Period 2 Months 7Months 7Months 9 Months N/A-Not Applicable

Overall, the capture rates by income level are considered achievable, ranging from 1.1% at the 40% AMHI level to 3.8% at the 60% AMHI level. The overall capture rate of 8.8% is considered low and easily achievable within the Richmond Site PMA. The capture rates for the subject development, both by income level and overall, demonstrate that a deep base of potential income- appropriate support exists within the market for the subject project, even in the unlikely scenario that the project-based Section 8 subsidy is not secured for a portion of the subject units.

VII-7 It is also of note that the subject project will offer 33 three- and four-bedroom units, which comprise 47.1% of the subject units proposed. Based on demographic data contained within this report, a total of 1,373 size- (four- person or larger) and income-qualified renter households will exist in the market for the subject’s larger three- and four-bedroom units, assuming the availability of the project-based subsidy. This results in a simple capture rate of 2.4% (33 units / 1,373 qualified households = 2.4%). In the unlikely event the subsidy was not secured and the property had to operate exclusively under the LIHTC guidelines, a total of 405 size- and income-qualified renter households would exist, resulting in a capture rate of 8.1%. These are both considered low and achievable capture rates when only considering four- person or larger households.

D. PENETRATION RATE CALCULATIONS

Market Penetration Number of LIHTC Units (Proposed and Existing) / 1,581 Income-Eligible Renter Households – 2019 / 3,335 Overall Market Penetration Rate = 47.4%

It is our opinion that the 47.4% penetration rate for the LIHTC units, both existing and proposed, is achievable. This is especially true when considering the high occupancy rates reported among most of the existing non-subsidized general-occupancy LIHTC properties in the market. It is of note, however, that there are several general-occupancy LIHTC projects planned for the Site PMA. While our preceding demand estimates indicate that sufficient support exists for both the existing and planned general-occupancy LIHTC units in this market, the introduction of multiple new general-occupancy LIHTC properties at virtually the same time will likely have a slowing impact on absorption of these new properties. This has been considered in our absorption projections later in this report.

VII-8 E. SUPPORT FROM HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

According to a representative with the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, there are approximately 3,129 Housing Choice Voucher holders within the housing authority’s jurisdiction, and 8,022 people currently on the waiting list for additional Vouchers. The waiting list is closed and it is unknown when the waiting list will reopen. Annual turnover within the Voucher program is estimated at 144 households. This reflects the continuing need for affordable housing and/or Housing Choice Voucher assistance within the Richmond area.

If the rents do not exceed the payment standards established by the local/regional housing authority, households with Housing Choice Vouchers may be willing to reside at a LIHTC project. Established by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, the regional payment standards, as well as the proposed subject gross rents, are summarized in the following table.

Bedroom Payment Proposed Tax Credit Type Standards Gross Rents One-Bedroom $871 $798 (60%) $783 (50%) Two-Bedroom $1,005 $957 (60%) $805 (40%)* Three-Bedroom $1,332 $905 (50%) $1,106 (60%) $898 (40%)* Four-Bedroom $1,623 $1,122 (50%)* *Reflective of maximum allowable LIHTC rent as proposed Section 8 contract rent exceeds maximum allowable rent limit under LIHTC program.

As the preceding table illustrates, the proposed gross rents are below the payment standards set by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority. As such, those who hold Housing Choice Vouchers will likely respond to the subject development. This will increase the potential support component for the site and has been considered in our absorption estimates.

F. ABSORPTION PROJECTIONS

VII-9 These absorption projections assume a September 2019 opening date. A different opening may impact the absorption potential (positively or negatively) for the subject project. Further, these absorption projections assume the project will be built as outlined in this report and that 17 of the 70 proposed units will operate with project-based Section 8 vouchers. Changes to the project’s rents, amenities, floor plans, location or other features may invalidate our findings. Finally, we assume the developer and/or management will aggressively market the project throughout the Site PMA a few months in advance of its opening and continue to monitor market conditions during the project’s initial lease-up period. Note that Voucher support has also been considered in determining these absorption projections and that these absorption projections may vary depending upon the amount of Voucher support the subject development ultimately receives. Lastly, the relatively large number of new general-occupancy LIHTC properties expected to come online near, or slightly before, the proposed subject project, has also been considered in our absorption estimates.

In the unlikely event the project-based Section 8 vouchers were lost and the project had to operate exclusively under the LIHTC guidelines, it is likely that the project would experience a slightly extended absorption period as it would no longer be able to target households earning below $26,846. In this unlikely scenario, the subject project is expected to reach a stabilized occupancy rate of 95.0% within nine months of opening. This is reflective of an average absorption rate of approximately seven to eight units per month.

VII-10 VIII. Local Perspective (Interviews)

We conducted interviews with various local sources familiar with the Richmond area and the housing, economic and/or demographic characteristics that impact the need for affordable housing. These include, but are not limited to, interviews with local planning and building department representatives, local chamber of commerce and/or economic development officials, housing authority representatives, local real estate professionals and/or apartment managers.

Summaries of key interviews regarding the need for affordable rental housing within the area follow:

 Shannon Evans, Property Manager of Summerdale Apartments located within the PMA, stated northeast Richmond, specifically areas such as Montrose and Highland Springs, could use more affordable housing. Ms. Evans stated two- bedroom units are in the highest demand. Ms. Evans also explained that four- bedroom units are often requested because there are very few, if any, existing properties with four-bedroom rentals.

 Lafonda Bullock is the Property Manager of Tobacco Landing, a general- occupancy Tax Credit property located within the PMA. Ms. Bullock stated the areas east of downtown are generally low-income and lack sufficient affordable housing options. Ms. Bullock stated many affordable properties in the area maintain waitlists and are in need of additional one- and two-bedroom affordable units in Richmond.

 According to a representative with the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, there are currently more than 8,000 people on the waiting list for additional Housing Choice Vouchers within their jurisdiction. This is a clear indication of the need for affordable housing alternatives within the Richmond area.

VIII-1 IX. Analysis & Conclusions

Based on the findings reported in our market study, it is our opinion that a market exists for the 70 units proposed at the subject site, assuming it is developed as detailed in this report. Changes in the project’s site, rents, amenities or opening date may alter these findings.

The subject project will offer one- through four-bedroom units of varying unit types (i.e. garden and townhome units) and will target households earning up to 40%, 50%, and 60% of AMHI. In addition to these varying levels of AMHI, a total of 17 of the 70 proposed units will also operate with a project-based Section 8 subsidy. The variety of unit types offered, AMHI levels targeted, and subsidy availability will allow the project to appeal to a wide range of renter households within the Richmond market. This will enhance marketability of the subject project.

A total of nine comparable LIHTC projects were surveyed within the Richmond Site PMA. These nine properties report a combined occupancy rate of 95.9% and none report individual occupancy rates below 90.1%. In fact, five of the existing comparable properties are 100.0% occupied, with four of these five properties maintaining waiting lists. The subject project will help alleviate some of this pent-up demand. The subject’s proposed gross Tax Credit rents are within the range of those reported among the comparable properties and the subject project will be competitive in terms of overall unit design and amenities offered.

In addition to the subject’s competitive position, a deep base of potential renter support will also exist in the market for the subject project, as more than 61.0% of all households were estimated to be renters in 2017. This trend will continue through 2022. Additionally, the subject project has an overall capture rate of 1.4%, assuming the availability of the project-based Section 8 subsidy to a portion of the property. This is considered very low and demonstrates a deep base of potential income- qualified renter households for the subject project within the Richmond Site PMA. It is also of note that there are four additional general-occupancy LIHTC properties in the development pipeline within the Site PMA. These properties are expected to compete with the subject project. While our demand estimates indicate that a sufficient base of support exists within the market for both the subject project and these currently planned properties, the introduction of four additional competitive properties before, or near, the time of the subject’s opening will likely have a slowing impact on the absorption potential of the subject project, as well as these planned properties. This has been considered in our absorption projections.

IX-1 X. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

View of site from the north

View of site from the east

Survey Date: February 2018 X-1 N

View of site from the south

View of site from the southwest

Survey Date: February 2018 X-2 N

View of site from the west

View of site from the northwest

Survey Date: February 2018 X-3 N

North view from site

East view from site

Survey Date: February 2018 X-4 N

South view from site

Southwest view from site

Survey Date: February 2018 X-5 N

West view from site

Northwest view from site

Survey Date: February 2018 X-6 Streetscape: Northeast view of North 31st Street

Streetscape: Southwest view of North 31st Street

Survey Date: February 2018 X-7

XI.

COMPARABLE PROPERTY PROFILES

XI-1 10 Dill Building 1.7 miles to site Address 2020 E. Franklin St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 377-9900 Contact Jason Total Units 55 Vacancies 2 Percent Occupied 96.4% Project Type Market-Rate

Year Open 2007 Floors 4 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking On Street Parking, Surface Parking, Parking Garage Waiting List NONE Quality Rating B+ Neighborhood Rating B Remarks Does not accept HCV; Adaptive reuse & new construction, orig built in 1894; Bamboo flooring & carpet in bedrooms

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Trash, Cable, Internet Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Icemaker, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Microwave, Central AC, Wood Flooring, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Ceiling Fan, Blinds Project Amenities Elevator Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT 1 1 to 1.5 G 26 1 504 to 1018 $1.38 - $1.69 $850 to $1400 2 2 G 26 1 878 to 932 $1.41 - $1.42 $1250 to $1312 3 2 G 3 0 1506 $1.33 $2000

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-2 18 Shockoe Valley View 1.3 miles to site Address 1904 Cedar St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (855) 469-7522 Contact Shay Total Units 150 Vacancies 23 Percent Occupied 84.7% Project Type Market-Rate

Year Open 2014 Floors 4 Concessions One month's rent free

Parking On Street Parking, Parking Garage Waiting List NONE Quality Rating A Neighborhood Rating B Remarks Does not accept HCV; Opened 5/2014, preleasing 4/2014, 88% occ 12/2015; Ground level units have polished concrete flooring, all other levels have wood laminate; Rent range based on floor level & view

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Trash, Cable, Internet Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Icemaker, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Microwave, Central AC, Carpet, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Ceiling Fan, Intercom, Security System, Blinds Project Amenities Swimming Pool, On-site Management, Club House, Fitness Center, Elevator, Dog Run Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT 1 1 G 111 17 544 to 603 $1.54 - $1.62 $879 to $929 2 2 G 39 6 849 to 892 $1.42 - $1.49 $1269

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-3 22 Lakefield Mews 2.8 miles to site Address 4431 Lakefield Mews Dr. Richmond, VA 23231 Phone (804) 222-7777 Contact Debbie Total Units 395 Vacancies 15 Percent Occupied 96.2% Project Type Market-Rate

Year Open 1992 Floors 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking Waiting List NONE Quality Rating B- Neighborhood Rating B Remarks Does not accept HCV; Some units have black or stainless steel appliances, ground level garden units have wood plank flooring; Rents change daily

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Icemaker, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Microwave, Central AC, Carpet, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Ceiling Fan, Blinds Project Amenities Swimming Pool, On-site Management, Laundry Facility, Club House, Playground, Lake, Car Wash Area, Dog Park Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT 1 1 G 8 0 790 $1.47 $1165 1 1 G 75 4 644 $1.42 $915 2 1 G 84 4 852 $1.16 $985 2 1.5 T 134 5 1154 $1.11 $1285 2 2.5 T 39 0 1181 $1.08 $1275 2 2.5 T 39 2 1154 $1.04 $1200 3 2 G 16 0 1334 $1.20 $1600

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-4 24 Raven Place Apts. 1.7 miles to site Address 1710 E. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 365-5897 Contact Kirby Total Units 66 Vacancies 4 Percent Occupied 93.9% Project Type Market-Rate

Year Open 2004 Floors 4 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking On Street Parking, Surface Parking, Parking Garage Waiting List NONE Quality Rating B+ Neighborhood Rating B Remarks Does not accept HCV; Adaptive reuse, unknown original year built; Select units have balcony; Flooring is stained concrete or bamboo; Rent range based on floor plan, level & location

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Water, Sewer, Trash, Cable, Internet Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Icemaker, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Microwave, Central AC, Carpet, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Intercom, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management, Fitness Center, Storage, Elevator Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT 1 1 G 39 2 617 to 943 $1.14 - $1.62 $999 to $1075 2 1 G 20 1 832 $1.41 - $1.59 $1175 to $1325 2 2 G 7 1 1098 $1.21 $1325

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-5 28 River Lofts at Tobacco Row 1.6 miles to site Address 2310 E. Cary St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 649-1850 Contact Sasha Total Units 754 Vacancies 53 Percent Occupied 93.0% Project Type Market-Rate

Year Open 2008 Floors 3, 4, 5, 6 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking, Carports, Parking Garage Waiting List NONE Quality Rating B+ Neighborhood Rating B Remarks Does not accept HCV; Garden units are lofts; Units have carpet & wood floors; Top floor units have fireplace; Adaptive reuse, originally built in 1887

Features and Utilities Utilities No landlord paid utilities Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Icemaker, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Microwave, Central AC, Carpet, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Ceiling Fan, Fireplace, Intercom, Security System, Blinds Project Amenities Swimming Pool, On-site Management, Club House, Fitness Center, Jacuzzi, Sports Court, Elevator, Picnic Area, Movie Theater Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT 1 1 to 1.5 G 475 33 690 to 999 $1.34 - $1.40 $925 to $1400 2 1 to 2 G 258 18 860 to 1530 $1.28 - $1.44 $1100 to $2200 3 1.5 to 2 G 9 1 1200 to 1565 $1.45 - $1.46 $1755 to $2275 3 3.5 T 12 1 2000 $1.10 $2200

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-6 32 Cedar Broad Apts. 1.5 miles to site Address 1820 E. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 977-4870 Contact Greg Total Units 206 Vacancies 10 Percent Occupied 95.1% Project Type Market-Rate

Year Open 2012 Floors 4,5 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Carports, Parking Garage Waiting List NONE Quality Rating A Neighborhood Rating B Remarks Does not accept HCV; Some units have Juliette balcony; Bedrooms have carpet, living areas have wood laminate flooring; Rent range based on floor plan, unit location & view

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Trash, Cable, Internet Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Icemaker, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Microwave, Central AC, Wood Flooring, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Ceiling Fan, Security System, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management, Club House, Fitness Center, Elevator, WiFi in Lounge Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT 1 1 G 143 6 547 $1.81 - $1.95 $991 to $1064 2 2 G 52 3 756 $1.78 - $1.88 $1345 to $1425 3 2.5 G 11 1 1065 $1.62 $1720

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-7 904 Kings Point 3.0 miles to site Address 3401 Prince David Dr. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 788-4588 Contact Brandi Total Units 330 Vacancies 22 Percent Occupied 93.3% Project Type Market-Rate

Year Open 1985 Renovated 2016 Floors 2,3 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking, Carports Waiting List 3-br: 3 households Quality Rating B Neighborhood Rating B Remarks Does not accept HCV; Select 1-br units are lofts with ceiling fans or fireplace; Rent range based on fireplace, floor level & unit location; 2 & 3-br have washer/dryer hookups

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Central AC, Carpet, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Ceiling Fan, Fireplace, Blinds Project Amenities Swimming Pool, On-site Management, Laundry Facility, Fitness Center, Playground, Tennis Court(s), Sports Court, Car Wash Area Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT 1 1 T 68 5 788 $1.02 $805 1 1 G 108 6 608 $1.16 $705 2 2 T 12 5 1238 $0.80 $995 2 2 G 120 6 940 $0.92 $865 3 1.5 T 22 0 1138 $0.86 $975

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-8 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 3.3 miles to site Address 3753 Bolling Rd. Richmond, VA 23233 Phone (804) 643-8954 Contact Ashley Total Units 294 Vacancies 29 Percent Occupied 90.1% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1948 Renovated 2003 Floors 1, 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking Waiting List NONE Quality Rating C Neighborhood Rating C Remarks 60% AMHI; HCV (8 units); 2-br units have patios; Higher rents for renovated units

Features and Utilities Utilities No landlord paid utilities Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Central AC, Wood Flooring, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Ceiling Fan, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management, Laundry Facility, Playground Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 0 1 G 23 2 495 $1.06 $525 60% 1 1 G 37 4 684 $0.81 $555 60% 2 1 T 110 11 705 $0.85 - $0.89 $600 to $625 60% 2 1 G 74 7 688 to 755 $0.76 - $0.83 $570 60% 3 1 T 50 5 525 to 915 $0.87 - $1.45 $760 to $800 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-9 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 0.9 miles to site Address 2852 Fairfield Ave. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 222-8282 Contact Julian Total Units 192 Vacancies 0 Percent Occupied 100.0% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1965 Renovated 2007 Floors 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking Waiting List 5 households Quality Rating B- Neighborhood Rating C Remarks 60% AMHI; HCV (40 units); Rent range due to unit updates

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Water, Sewer, Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Icemaker, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Central AC, Carpet, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management, Laundry Facility, Club House, Fitness Center, Playground, Computer Lab Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 1 1 T 3 0 710 $0.95 $675 60% 2 1 T 186 0 830 $0.99 - $1.10 $825 to $915 60% 3 1 T 3 0 910 $1.07 - $1.15 $975 to $1050 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-10 14 Market Slip 1.9 miles to site Address 2 S. 17th St. Richmond, VA 23219 Phone (844) 823-3464 Contact LaFonda Total Units 30 Vacancies 0 Percent Occupied 100.0% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1994 Floors 2, 3 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking On Street Parking, Parking Garage Waiting List 3 households Quality Rating B- Neighborhood Rating B Remarks 50 & 60% AMHI; HCV (approx. 4 units); Select units have patio/balcony; Adaptive reuse, originally built in 1860

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Electric, Electric Heat, Electric HotWater, for Cooking Heat, Water, Sewer, Trash, Internet Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Central AC, Carpet, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Intercom, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management, Meeting Room, CCTV Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 1 1 G 18 0 500 to 800 $1.09 - $1.74 $871 60% 1 1 G 6 0 500 to 800 $0.91 - $1.45 $726 50% 2 2 G 6 0 980 $1.07 $1045 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-11 16 Bradford Manor 1.0 miles to site Address 2027 Fairfield Ave. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 233-3730 Contact Rebecca Total Units 56 Vacancies 0 Percent Occupied 100.0% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1963 Renovated 1996 Floors 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking On Street Parking, Surface Parking Waiting List NONE Quality Rating C- Neighborhood Rating C Remarks 60% AMHI; HCV (8 units); Random units have ceiling fans left from previous tenant

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Water, Sewer, Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Central AC, Carpet, Ceiling Fan, Blinds Project Amenities Laundry Facility Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 2 1 T 56 0 875 $0.68 $595 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-12 17 Lawndale Farms 3.3 miles to site Address 4969 Millers Ln. Richmond, VA 23231 Phone (804) 737-2677 Contact Daphne Total Units 50 Vacancies 3 Percent Occupied 94.0% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1965 Renovated 1997 Floors 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking Waiting List NONE Quality Rating C Neighborhood Rating C Remarks 60% AMHI; Accepts HCV; Washer/dryer hookups only for stackable units; Square footage estimated

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Gas Heat, Gas for Cooking, Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Central AC, Carpet, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 2 1 T 50 3 840 $0.86 $725 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-13 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 3.1 miles to site Address 4700 Millers Ln. Richmond, VA 23231 Phone (804) 652-4602 Contact Yumi Total Units 144 Vacancies 0 Percent Occupied 100.0% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 2000 Floors 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking Waiting List 2 households Quality Rating B Neighborhood Rating B Remarks 60% AMHI; HCV (108 units); 2-br have exterior storage

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Central AC, Carpet, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Blinds, Exterior Storage Project Amenities Swimming Pool, On-site Management, Laundry Facility, Club House, Playground Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 2 2 G 72 0 850 $1.02 $870 60% 3 2 G 72 0 1100 $0.89 $978 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-14 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhomes 1.2 miles to site Address 501 N. 23rd St. & 906 N. 26th St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 643-1956 Contact Kim Total Units 56 Vacancies 3 Percent Occupied 94.6% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1994 Renovated 2014 Floors 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking On Street Parking, Surface Parking Waiting List 2-br: 10 households Quality Rating B Neighborhood Rating B Remarks 50% & 60% AMHI; HCV (12 units); Select units with hookups include washer/dryer; Unit mix estimated

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Water, Sewer, Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Central AC, Carpet, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Blinds Project Amenities Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 1 1 G 4 1 700 $1.10 $770 60% 1 1 G 4 0 700 $0.88 $615 50% 2 1 to 1.5 T 8 0 1100 $0.85 $930 60% 2 1 to 1.5 T 9 0 1100 $0.67 $735 50% 3 1 to 1.5 T 9 2 1300 $0.80 $1045 60% 3 1 to 1.5 T 22 0 1300 $0.73 $944 50%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-15 21 Jefferson Townhomes 1.2 miles to site Address 1951 Venable St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 643-1131 Contact Vanessa Total Units 218 Vacancies 10 Percent Occupied 95.4% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1965 Renovated 2008 Floors 2 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking Surface Parking Waiting List NONE Quality Rating C+ Neighborhood Rating C Remarks 60% AMHI; HCV (69 units); Rent range based on unit location

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Trash, Cable, Internet Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Microwave, Central AC, Wood Flooring, Washer & Dryer, Washer/Dryer Hook Up, Patio/Deck/Balcony, Security System, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management, Security Gate Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 1 1 T 61 0 620 $1.08 - $1.10 $670 to $680 60% 2 1 T 80 4 770 $0.96 - $0.97 $740 to $750 60% 3 1 T 45 6 920 to 1106 $0.83 - $0.96 $885 to $915 60% 4 2 T 32 0 1175 $0.84 - $0.85 $990 to $1000 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-16 27 Tobacco Landing 1.7 miles to site Address 2701 E. Main St. Richmond, VA 23223 Phone (804) 649-9900 Contact Bullok Total Units 62 Vacancies 0 Percent Occupied 100.0% Project Type Tax Credit

Year Open 1994 Floors 5 Concessions No Rent Specials

Parking On Street Parking, Parking Garage Waiting List 4 households Quality Rating B Neighborhood Rating B Remarks 50% & 60% AMHI; HCV (7 units)

Features and Utilities Utilities Landlord pays Electric, Electric Heat, Electric HotWater, for Cooking Heat, Water, Sewer, Trash Unit Amenities Refrigerator, Range, Dishwasher, Disposal, Window AC, Carpet, Intercom, Blinds Project Amenities On-site Management, Laundry Facility, Meeting Room, Elevator, CCTV Unit Configuration BRs BAs TYPE UNITS VACANT SQUARE FEET $ / SQ FT COLLECTED RENT AMHI 1 1 G 16 0 662 $1.10 $726 50% 1 1 G 37 0 662 $1.32 $871 60% 2 2 G 9 0 899 $1.16 $1045 60%

Survey Date: February 2018 XI-17 XII. FIELD SURVEY OF CONVENTIONAL RENTALS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

The following section is a field survey of conventional rental properties. These properties were identified through a variety of sources including area apartment guides, yellow page listings, government agencies, the Chamber of Commerce, and our own field inspection. The intent of this field survey is to evaluate the overall strength of the existing rental market, identify trends that impact future development, and identify those properties that would be considered most comparable to the subject site.

The field survey has been organized by the type of project surveyed. Properties have been color coded to reflect the project type. Projects have been designated as market-rate, Tax Credit, government-subsidized, or a combination of the three project types. The field survey is organized as follows: · A color-coded map indicating each property surveyed and the project type followed by a list of properties surveyed. · Properties surveyed by name, address, telephone number, project type, year built or renovated (if applicable), number of floors, total units, occupancy rate, quality rating, rent incentives, and Tax Credit designation. Housing Choice Vouchers and Rental Assistance are also noted here. Note that projects are organized by project type. · Distribution of non-subsidized and subsidized units and vacancies in properties surveyed. · Listings for unit and project amenities, parking options, optional charges, utilities (including responsibility), and appliances. · Collected rent by unit type and bedrooms. · Unit size by unit type and bedrooms. · Calculations of rent per square foot (all utilities are adjusted to reflect similar utility responsibility). Data is summarized by unit type. · An analysis of units, vacancies, and median rent. Where applicable, non- subsidized units are distributed separately. · An analysis of units added to the area by project construction date and, when applicable, by year of renovation. · Aggregate data and distributions for all non-subsidized properties are provided for appliances, unit amenities and project amenities.

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-1 · A rent distribution is provided for all market-rate and non-subsidized Tax Credit units by unit type. Note that rents are adjusted to reflect common utility responsibility. · Aggregation of projects by utility responsibility (market-rate and non-subsidized Tax Credit only). · A utility allowance worksheet.

Note that other than the property listing following the map, data is organized by project types. Market-rate properties (blue designation) are first followed by variations of market-rate and Tax Credit properties. Non-government subsidized Tax Credit properties are red and government-subsidized properties are yellow. See the color codes at the bottom of each page for specific project types.

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-2 Richmond, VA H! Site Apartments Apartment Locations (!5 Type (! Govt-sub (!26 (! Mkt rate (! Tax Credit (! Tax Credit/Govt-sub

(!12 (!16

(!2 H! SITE (!25 (!21 (!24 (!18 (!32 !11 (!20 (!1 14 ( 31 30 3 (! (! 29 (! (! (!23 (! (!10 15 (!13 (! (!28 4 (!27 (! (!9

(!22 (!8 19 (!6 (!

(!17

(!7 N (!33 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1:55,000 Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community MAP IDENTIFICATION LIST - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

MAP PROJ. QUALITY YEAR TOTAL OCC. DISTANCE ID PROJECT NAME TYPE RATING BUILT UNITS VACANT RATE TO SITE*  1 Bowler Retirement Community TAX B 1998 62 0 100.0% 1.1  2 Carter Woods I & II TAX B 2004 152 7 95.4% 1.3 3 Villas of Oakwood MRR B 1940 313 5 98.4% 1.0 4 Lava Lofts MRR B 2012 51 0 100.0% 1.1 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. TAX C 1948 294 29 90.1% 3.3 6 Ashley Oaks Apts. GSS B 1976 250 0 100.0% 1.9 7 Williamsburg Village TGS C+ 1972 140 0 100.0% 2.7  8 Reflections TAX B+ 2002 104 0 100.0% 3.2 9 Honey Brook Apts. MRR C+ 1985 128 0 100.0% 3.1 10 Dill Building MRR B+ 2007 55 2 96.4% 1.7 11 Market Square MRR B 2016 17 1 94.1% 1.9 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes TAX B- 1965 192 0 100.0% 0.9 13 Poythress Building Apts. MRR B 2000 31 3 90.3% 1.7 14 Market Slip TAX B- 1994 30 0 100.0% 1.9  15 Bacon Retirement Community TAX B- 1999 58 0 100.0% 0.9 16 Bradford Manor TAX C- 1963 56 0 100.0% 1.0 17 Lawndale Farms TAX C 1965 50 3 94.0% 3.3 18 Shockoe Valley View MRR A 2014 150 23 84.7% 1.3 19 Glenns at Millers Lane TAX B 2000 144 0 100.0% 3.1 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhome TAX B 1994 56 3 94.6% 1.2 21 Jefferson Townhomes TAX C+ 1965 218 10 95.4% 1.2 22 Lakefield Mews MRR B- 1992 395 15 96.2% 2.8 23 Upper Lofts at Canal Walk MRR B+ 2004 490 78 84.1% 1.8 24 Raven Place Apts. MRR B+ 2004 66 4 93.9% 1.7 25 17th Street Lofts MRR B 1980 24 1 95.8% 1.5 26 Stoneyridge Apts. MRR C 1972 100 0 100.0% 3.1 27 Tobacco Landing TAX B 1994 62 0 100.0% 1.7 28 River Lofts at Tobacco Row MRR B+ 2008 754 53 93.0% 1.6 29 Old Stone Row at Shockoe Valley Heights MRR B+ 2010 96 1 99.0% 1.6 30 New East End Theater Apts. MRR B 2015 22 3 86.4% 1.2 31 Shockoe Center Apts. MRR B+ 2002 47 0 100.0% 1.7 32 Cedar Broad Apts. MRR A 2012 206 10 95.1% 1.5  33 Darby House TAX B+ 2006 108 0 100.0% 2.8

 Senior Restricted * - Drive Distance (Miles) Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Survey Date: February 2018 XII-4 MAP IDENTIFICATION LIST - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

PROJECT TYPE PROJECTS SURVEYED TOTAL UNITS VACANT OCCUPANCY RATE U/C MRR 17 2,945 199 93.2% 10 TAX 14 1,586 52 96.7% 0 TGS 1 140 0 100.0% 0 GSS 1 250 0 100.0% 0 Total units does not include units under construction.

MARKET-RATE BEDROOMS BATHS UNITS DISTRIBUTION VACANT %VACANT MEDIAN GROSS RENT 0 1 98 3.3% 15 15.3% $865 1 1 1,138 38.6% 90 7.9% $1,044 1 1.5 251 8.5% 16 6.4% $1,540 2 1 641 21.8% 20 3.1% $892 2 1.5 134 4.6% 5 3.7% $1,481 2 2 530 18.0% 48 9.1% $1,456 2 2.5 78 2.6% 2 2.6% $1,396 3 1 24 0.8% 0 0.0% $987 3 1.5 5 0.2% 1 20.0% $2,002 3 2 23 0.8% 0 0.0% $1,834 3 2.5 11 0.4% 1 9.1% $1,914 3 3.5 12 0.4% 1 8.3% $2,473 TOTAL 2,945 100.0% 199 6.8% 10 UNITS UNDER CONSTRUCTION TAX CREDIT, NON-SUBSIDIZED BEDROOMS BATHS UNITS DISTRIBUTION VACANT %VACANT MEDIAN GROSS RENT 0 1 23 1.5% 2 8.7% $674 1 1 524 33.0% 11 2.1% $750 2 1 566 35.7% 25 4.4% $886 2 1.5 60 3.8% 0 0.0% $693 2 2 180 11.3% 1 0.6% $1,032 3 1 114 7.2% 12 10.5% $1,096 3 1.5 15 0.9% 1 6.7% $1,096 3 2 72 4.5% 0 0.0% $1,212 4 2 32 2.0% 0 0.0% $1,280 TOTAL 1,586 100.0% 52 3.3% TAX CREDIT, GOVERMENT-SUBSIDIZED BEDROOMS BATHS UNITS DISTRIBUTION VACANT %VACANT MEDIAN GROSS RENT 1 1 35 25.0% 0 0.0% N.A. 2 1 70 50.0% 0 0.0% N.A. 3 1 35 25.0% 0 0.0% N.A. TOTAL 140 100.0% 0 0.0% GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED BEDROOMS BATHS UNITS DISTRIBUTION VACANT %VACANT 1 1 35 14.0% 0 0.0% N.A. 2 1 122 48.8% 0 0.0% N.A. 3 1 48 19.2% 0 0.0% N.A. 3 1.5 25 10.0% 0 0.0% N.A. 4 1.5 20 8.0% 0 0.0% N.A. TOTAL 250 100.0% 0 0.0% GRAND TOTAL 4,921 - 251 5.1%

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-6 DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS BY BEDROOM NON-SUBSIDIZED SUBSIDIZED

276 6% 108 2189 32 28% 48% 1% 0 BEDROOMS 20 5% 1 BEDROOM 121 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMS 3% 2 BEDROOMS 70 3 BEDROOMS 3 BEDROOMS 18% 4 BEDROOMS 4 BEDROOMS 192 1913 49% 42%

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-7 SURVEY OF PROPERTIES - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

1 Bowler Retirement Community Address 608 N. 26th St. Phone (804) 644-5607 Total Units 62 Richmond, VA 23230 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1998 Contact Cathy Occupied 100.0% Comments 60% AMHI; Accepts HCV; Some units are all vinyl Floors 3 flooring; Year built estimated Quality Rating B Senior Restricted (55+) Waiting List None 2 Carter Woods I & II Address 301 Dabbs House Rd. Phone (804) 222-4395 Total Units 152 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 7 Year Built 2004 Contact Rebecca Occupied 95.4% Comments 40% & 50% & 60% AMHI; HCV (14 units); Phase II Floors 2,3 opened in 2006 Quality Rating B Senior Restricted (62+) Waiting List 6 households 3 Villas of Oakwood Address 3508 E. Richmond Rd. Phone (804) 477-3807 Total Units 313 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 5 Year Built 1940 Renovated 2009 Contact Kristin Occupied 98.4% Comments Does not accept HCV; Some units have hardwood flooring; Floors 2,3 Higher townhome rent includes fenced yard Quality Rating B

Waiting List Rent Special $500 off 1st month's rent None 4 Lava Lofts Address 310 N. 33rd St. Phone (855) 969-3331 Total Units 51 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 2012 Contact Lindsay Occupied 100.0% Comments Does not accept HCV; Adaptive reuse of school, built in Floors 3 1901; Surface parking avail across street, no charge, 8 Quality Rating B reserved spaces avail $85/mo Waiting List 2-br: 4 households 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. Address 3753 Bolling Rd. Phone (804) 643-8954 Total Units 294 Richmond, VA 23233 (Contact in person) Vacancies 29 Year Built 1948 Renovated 2003 Contact Ashley Occupied 90.1% Comments 60% AMHI; HCV (8 units); 2-br units have patios; Higher Floors 1, 2 rents for renovated units Quality Rating C

Waiting List None

Project Type

Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Survey Date: February 2018 XII-8 SURVEY OF PROPERTIES - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

6 Ashley Oaks Apts. Address 1402 Jennie Scher Rd. Phone (804) 222-8776 Total Units 250 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1976 Renovated 2009 Contact Tiana Occupied 100.0% Comments HUD Section 8; Townhomes have patios, 4-br have Floors 2 washer/dryer hookups; Unit mix estimated Quality Rating B

Waiting List 2 years 7 Williamsburg Village Address 1658 Thalia Crescent Phone (804) 222-8610 Total Units 140 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1972 Renovated 2002 Contact Danielle Occupied 100.0% Comments 60% AMHI (140 units); HUD Section 8 (139 units); Floors 2 Square footage estimated Quality Rating C+

Waiting List 2 years 8 Reflections Address 461 Lou's Lore Ln. Phone (804) 497-4343 Total Units 104 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 2002 Contact Erica Occupied 100.0% Comments 40% & 50% AMHI; HCV (13 units) Floors 1 Quality Rating B+ Senior Restricted (55+) Waiting List 3 years 9 Honey Brook Apts. Address 3500 Kings Dr. Phone (804) 226-2600 Total Units 128 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1985 Contact Lisa Occupied 100.0% Comments HCV (8 units) Floors 2, 2.5 Quality Rating C+

Waiting List 18 households 10 Dill Building Address 2020 E. Franklin St. Phone (804) 377-9900 Total Units 55 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 2 Year Built 2007 Contact Jason Occupied 96.4% Comments Does not accept HCV; Adaptive reuse & new construction, Floors 4 orig built in 1894; Bamboo flooring & carpet in bedrooms Quality Rating B+

Waiting List None

Project Type

11 Market Square Address 1710 E Franklin St. Phone (804) 342-5800 Total Units 17 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 1 Year Built 2016 Contact Lyndi Occupied 94.1% Comments Does not accept HCV; Select units have patio & fireplace; Floors 3 Lofts have polished concrete floors, 1 & 2-br have wood Quality Rating B laminate flooring; Adaptive reuse, originally built in 1842; Square footage estimated Waiting List None 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes Address 2852 Fairfield Ave. Phone (804) 222-8282 Total Units 192 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1965 Renovated 2007 Contact Julian Occupied 100.0% Comments 60% AMHI; HCV (40 units); Rent range due to unit Floors 2 updates Quality Rating B-

Waiting List 5 households 13 Poythress Building Apts. Address 16 N. 22nd St. Phone (804) 649-0591 Total Units 31 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 3 Year Built 2000 Contact Beth Occupied 90.3% Comments Does not accept HCV; Rents change daily; Adaptive reuse Floors 4 of tobacco factory, originally built in 1870 Quality Rating B

Waiting List None 14 Market Slip Address 2 S. 17th St. Phone (844) 823-3464 Total Units 30 Richmond, VA 23219 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1994 Contact LaFonda Occupied 100.0% Comments 50 & 60% AMHI; HCV (approx. 4 units); Select units have Floors 2, 3 patio/balcony; Adaptive reuse, originally built in 1860 Quality Rating B-

Waiting List 3 households 15 Bacon Retirement Community Address 815 N. 35th St. Phone (804) 644-5607 Total Units 58 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1999 Contact Cathy Occupied 100.0% Comments 50% & 60% AMHI; Accepts HCV; Select units have vinyl Floors 1,2.5 flooring; Rent range based on floor level & views; Quality Rating B- Adaptive reuse, built in 1913; Unit mix estimated Senior Restricted (55+) Waiting List None

Project Type

16 Bradford Manor Address 2027 Fairfield Ave. Phone (804) 233-3730 Total Units 56 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1963 Renovated 1996 Contact Rebecca Occupied 100.0% Comments 60% AMHI; HCV (8 units); Random units have ceiling Floors 2 fans left from previous tenant Quality Rating C-

Waiting List None 17 Lawndale Farms Address 4969 Millers Ln. Phone (804) 737-2677 Total Units 50 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 3 Year Built 1965 Renovated 1997 Contact Daphne Occupied 94.0% Comments 60% AMHI; Accepts HCV; Washer/dryer hookups only for Floors 2 stackable units; Square footage estimated Quality Rating C

Waiting List None 18 Shockoe Valley View Address 1904 Cedar St. Phone (855) 469-7522 Total Units 150 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 23 Year Built 2014 Contact Shay Occupied 84.7% Comments Does not accept HCV; Opened 5/2014, preleasing 4/2014, Floors 4 88% occ 12/2015; Ground level units have polished Quality Rating A concrete flooring, all other levels have wood laminate; Rent range based on floor level & view Waiting List Rent Special One month's rent free None 19 Glenns at Millers Lane Address 4700 Millers Ln. Phone (804) 652-4602 Total Units 144 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 2000 Contact Yumi Occupied 100.0% Comments 60% AMHI; HCV (108 units); 2-br have exterior storage Floors 2 Quality Rating B

Waiting List 2 households 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhomes Address 501 N. 23rd St. & 906 N. 26th St. Phone (804) 643-1956 Total Units 56 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 3 Year Built 1994 Renovated 2014 Contact Kim Occupied 94.6% Comments 50% & 60% AMHI; HCV (12 units); Select units with Floors 2 hookups include washer/dryer; Unit mix estimated Quality Rating B

Waiting List 2-br: 10 households

Project Type

21 Jefferson Townhomes Address 1951 Venable St. Phone (804) 643-1131 Total Units 218 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 10 Year Built 1965 Renovated 2008 Contact Vanessa Occupied 95.4% Comments 60% AMHI; HCV (69 units); Rent range based on unit Floors 2 location Quality Rating C+

Waiting List None 22 Lakefield Mews Address 4431 Lakefield Mews Dr. Phone (804) 222-7777 Total Units 395 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 15 Year Built 1992 Contact Debbie Occupied 96.2% Comments Does not accept HCV; Some units have black or stainless Floors 2 steel appliances, ground level garden units have wood Quality Rating B- plank flooring; Rents change daily Waiting List None 23 Upper Lofts at Canal Walk Address 1915 E. Main St. Phone (804) 643-5638 Total Units 490 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 78 Year Built 2004 Contact Kristen Occupied 84.1% Comments Does not accept HCV; Select units have ceiling fans & Floors 1,3,4 icemaker; Three 1-br (1025 sf) are 2 level penthouse units; Quality Rating B+ One manager unit not included in total; Adaptive reuse of historic building, orig built in 1893;10 units UC, unknown Waiting List None 24 Raven Place Apts. Address 1710 E. Broad St. Phone (804) 365-5897 Total Units 66 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 4 Year Built 2004 Contact Kirby Occupied 93.9% Comments Does not accept HCV; Adaptive reuse, unknown original Floors 4 year built; Select units have balcony; Flooring is stained Quality Rating B+ concrete or bamboo; Rent range based on floor plan, level & location Waiting List None 25 17th Street Lofts Address 333 N. 17th St. Phone (804) 293-0633 Total Units 24 Richmond, VA 23219 (Contact in person) Vacancies 1 Year Built 1980 Renovated 2005 Contact Tangie Occupied 95.8% Comments Does not accept HCV; Loft style units; Year built & square Floors 4 footage estimated Quality Rating B

Waiting List None

Project Type

26 Stoneyridge Apts. Address 3462 Howard Rd. Phone (804) 644-9163 Total Units 100 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1972 Contact Deena Occupied 100.0% Comments Does not accept HCV Floors 1,2 Quality Rating C

Waiting List None 27 Tobacco Landing Address 2701 E. Main St. Phone (804) 649-9900 Total Units 62 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 1994 Contact Bullok Occupied 100.0% Comments 50% & 60% AMHI; HCV (7 units) Floors 5 Quality Rating B

Waiting List 4 households 28 River Lofts at Tobacco Row Address 2310 E. Cary St. Phone (804) 649-1850 Total Units 754 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 53 Year Built 2008 Contact Sasha Occupied 93.0% Comments Does not accept HCV; Garden units are lofts; Units have Floors 3, 4, 5, 6 carpet & wood floors; Top floor units have fireplace; Quality Rating B+ Adaptive reuse, originally built in 1887 Waiting List None 29 Old Stone Row at Shockoe Valley Heights Address 2005 E. Franklin St. Phone (804) 440-7368 Total Units 96 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 1 Year Built 2010 Contact Becky Occupied 99.0% Comments 5-8 units at 80% AMHI with VHDA Bond; Does not Floors 5 accept HCV; 1st floor retail Quality Rating B+

Waiting List None 30 New East End Theater Apts. Address 418 N. 25th St. Phone (804) 419-5793 Total Units 22 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 3 Year Built 2015 Contact Josh Occupied 86.4% Comments Accepts HCV; Adaptive reuse, originally built in 1938 Floors 3 Quality Rating B

Waiting List None

Project Type

31 Shockoe Center Apts. Address 1900 E. Franklin St. Phone (804) 377-9900 Total Units 47 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 2002 Contact Jason Occupied 100.0% Comments Does not accept HCV; Select units have ceiling fans; Floors 4 Hardwood flooring; Rents change daily; Adaptive reuse, Quality Rating B+ originally built in 1880 Waiting List None 32 Cedar Broad Apts. Address 1820 E. Broad St. Phone (804) 977-4870 Total Units 206 Richmond, VA 23223 (Contact in person) Vacancies 10 Year Built 2012 Contact Greg Occupied 95.1% Comments Does not accept HCV; Some units have Juliette balcony; Floors 4,5 Bedrooms have carpet, living areas have wood laminate Quality Rating A flooring; Rent range based on floor plan, unit location & view Waiting List None 33 Darby House Address 1400 Shirleydale Ave. Phone (804) 236-8382 Total Units 108 Richmond, VA 23231 (Contact in person) Vacancies 0 Year Built 2006 Contact Kelly Occupied 100.0% Comments 40% & 50% AMHI; HCV (14 units); E-Call buttons are Floors 4 pendants provided at no additional cost Quality Rating B+ Senior Restricted (62+) Waiting List 60-65 households

Project Type

MAP GARDEN UNITS TOWNHOUSE UNITS ID STUDIO 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4+ BR 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4+ BR  1 $680 to $750  2 $510 to $790 $600 to $940 3 $640 $800 $690 $765 to $825 4 $1030 to $1200 $1450 to $1750 5 $525 $555 $570 $600 to $625 $760 to $800  8 $798 $601 to $798 9 $730 $775 to $814 10 $850 to $1400 $1250 to $1312 $2000 11 $1200 $1400 $1500 12 $675 $825 to $915 $975 to $1050 13 $1040 to $1294 $1299 to $1340 14 $726 to $871 $1045  15 $680 to $750 $800 16 $595 17 $725 18 $879 to $929 $1269 19 $870 $978 20 $615 to $770 $735 to $930 $944 to $1045 21 $670 to $680 $740 to $750 $885 to $915 $990 to $1000 22 $915 to $1165 $985 $1600 $1200 to $1285 23 $820 to $905 $1046 to $1084 $1496 $983 to $1091 24 $999 to $1075 $1175 to $1325 25 $1075 $1550 26 $650 $750 $875 27 $726 to $871 $1045 28 $925 to $1400 $1100 to $2200 $1755 to $2275 $2200 29 $850 to $1175 $1400 to $1650 30 $1000 to $1200 $1300 to $1500 31 $1044 to $1189 $1517 to $1766 32 $991 to $1064 $1345 to $1425 $1720  33 $500 to $655 $775

 Senior Restricted Market-rate Market-rate/Tax Credit Market-rate/Government-subsidized Market-rate/Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Tax Credit Tax Credit/Government-subsidized Government-subsidized Survey Date: February 2018 XII-15 PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

STUDIO UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME BATHS UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT. 11 Market Square 1 675 $1160 $1.72 23 Upper Lofts at Canal Walk 1 400 to 850 $780 to $865 $1.02 to $1.95 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1 495 $674 $1.36 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME BATHS UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT. 3 Villas of Oakwood 1 560 to 694 $709 to $775 $1.12 to $1.27 4 Lava Lofts 1 600 to 1000 $1099 to $1269 $1.27 to $1.83 9 Honey Brook Apts. 1 625 $799 $1.28 10 Dill Building 1 to 1.5 504 to 1018 $937 to $1487 $1.46 to $1.86 11 Market Square 1 850 $1360 $1.60 13 Poythress Building Apts. 1 511 to 700 $1104 to $1358 $1.94 to $2.16 18 Shockoe Valley View 1 544 to 603 $966 to $1016 $1.68 to $1.78 22 Lakefield Mews 1 644 to 790 $1042 to $1292 $1.62 to $1.64 23 Upper Lofts at Canal Walk 1 550 to 1025 $943 to $1051 $1.03 to $1.71 24 Raven Place Apts. 1 617 to 943 $1028 to $1104 $1.17 to $1.67 25 17th Street Lofts 1 599 to 663 $1035 $1.56 to $1.73 26 Stoneyridge Apts. 1 475 $719 $1.51 28 River Lofts at Tobacco Row 1 to 1.5 690 to 999 $1065 to $1540 $1.54 to $1.54 29 Old Stone Row at Shockoe Valley Heights 1 533 to 699 $810 to $1135 $1.52 to $1.62 30 New East End Theater Apts. 1 573 to 690 $1029 to $1229 $1.78 to $1.80 31 Shockoe Center Apts. 1 500 to 800 $1004 to $1149 $1.44 to $2.01 32 Cedar Broad Apts. 1 547 $1078 to $1151 $1.97 to $2.10  1 Bowler Retirement Community 1 600 $680 to $750 $1.13 to $1.25  2 Carter Woods I & II 1 600 $579 to $859 $0.97 to $1.43 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1 684 $717 $1.05  8 Reflections 1 788 $867 $1.10 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 1 710 $760 $1.07 14 Market Slip 1 500 to 800 $706 to $851 $1.06 to $1.41  15 Bacon Retirement Community 1 600 $680 to $750 $1.13 to $1.25 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhomes 1 700 $700 to $855 $1.00 to $1.22 21 Jefferson Townhomes 1 620 $773 to $783 $1.25 to $1.26 27 Tobacco Landing 1 662 $726 to $871 $1.10 to $1.32  33 Darby House 1 623 to 643 $569 to $724 $0.91 to $1.13 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME BATHS UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT.

TWO-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME BATHS UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT. 3 Villas of Oakwood 1 822 to 870 $878 to $938 $1.07 to $1.08 4 Lava Lofts 1 to 2 950 to 1300 $1542 to $1842 $1.42 to $1.62 9 Honey Brook Apts. 1 975 $867 $0.89 2 975 $906 $0.93 10 Dill Building 2 878 to 932 $1385 to $1447 $1.55 to $1.58 11 Market Square 2 1000 $1460 $1.46 13 Poythress Building Apts. 2 735 to 1185 $1383 to $1424 $1.20 to $1.88 18 Shockoe Valley View 2 849 to 892 $1404 $1.57 to $1.65 22 Lakefield Mews 1 852 $1160 $1.36 1.5 1154 $1481 $1.28 2.5 1154 to 1181 $1396 to $1471 $1.21 to $1.25 23 Upper Lofts at Canal Walk 2 940 to 1300 $1456 $1.12 to $1.55 24 Raven Place Apts. 1 832 $1227 to $1377 $1.47 to $1.66 2 1098 $1377 $1.25 25 17th Street Lofts 2 938 to 1086 $1510 $1.39 to $1.61 26 Stoneyridge Apts. 1 715 $842 $1.18 28 River Lofts at Tobacco Row 1 to 2 860 to 1530 $1288 to $2388 $1.50 to $1.56 29 Old Stone Row at Shockoe Valley Heights 2 831 to 964 $1360 to $1610 $1.64 to $1.67 30 New East End Theater Apts. 1 632 to 1016 $1352 to $1552 $1.53 to $2.14 31 Shockoe Center Apts. 1 to 2 1000 to 1300 $1477 to $1726 $1.33 to $1.48 32 Cedar Broad Apts. 2 756 $1480 to $1560 $1.96 to $2.06  2 Carter Woods I & II 2 800 $692 to $1032 $0.87 to $1.29 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1 688 to 755 $778 to $854 $1.13 to $1.13  8 Reflections 1.5 997 $693 to $890 $0.70 to $0.89 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 1 830 $938 to $1028 $1.13 to $1.24 14 Market Slip 2 980 $1025 $1.05  15 Bacon Retirement Community 1 800 $800 $1.00 16 Bradford Manor 1 875 $727 $0.83 17 Lawndale Farms 1 840 $886 $1.05 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 2 850 $1045 $1.23 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhomes 1 to 1.5 1100 $860 to $1055 $0.78 to $0.96 21 Jefferson Townhomes 1 770 $896 to $906 $1.16 to $1.18 27 Tobacco Landing 2 899 $1045 $1.16  33 Darby House 2 883 $867 $0.98

THREE-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME BATHS UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT. 10 Dill Building 2 1506 $2194 $1.46 22 Lakefield Mews 2 1334 $1834 $1.37 26 Stoneyridge Apts. 1 915 $987 $1.08 28 River Lofts at Tobacco Row 1.5 to 2 1200 to 1565 $2002 to $2522 $1.61 to $1.67 3.5 2000 $2473 $1.24 32 Cedar Broad Apts. 2.5 1065 $1914 $1.80 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 1 525 to 915 $1055 to $1095 $1.20 to $2.01 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 1 910 $1114 to $1189 $1.22 to $1.31 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 2 1100 $1212 $1.10 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill Townhomes 1 to 1.5 1300 $1096 to $1197 $0.84 to $0.92 21 Jefferson Townhomes 1 920 to 1106 $1106 to $1136 $1.03 to $1.20 FOUR+ BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME BATHS UNIT SIZE GROSS RENT $ / SQ. FT. 21 Jefferson Townhomes 2 1175 $1280 to $1290 $1.09 to $1.10

MARKET-RATE UNIT TYPE ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR GARDEN $1.62 $1.35 $1.38 TOWNHOUSE $1.08 $1.20 $1.24

TAX CREDIT (NON-SUBSIDIZED) UNIT TYPE ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR GARDEN $1.19 $1.06 $1.10 TOWNHOUSE $1.25 $1.12 $1.25

COMBINED UNIT TYPE ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR GARDEN $1.51 $1.29 $1.23 TOWNHOUSE $1.22 $1.15 $1.25

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-19 TAX CREDIT UNITS - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

STUDIO UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNITS SQUARE FEET # OF BATHS % AMHI COLLECTED RENT 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 23 495 1 60% $525 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNITS SQUARE FEET # OF BATHS % AMHI COLLECTED RENT  33 Darby House 11 623 - 643 1 40% $500  2 Carter Woods I & II 16 600 1 40% $510 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 37 684 1 60% $555 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill 4 700 1 50% $615 Townhomes  2 Carter Woods I & II 31 600 1 50% $645  33 Darby House 65 623 - 643 1 50% $655 21 Jefferson Townhomes 61 620 1 60% $670 - $680 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 3 710 1 60% $675  15 Bacon Retirement Community 11 600 1 50% $680  1 Bowler Retirement Community 10 600 1 50% $680 7 Williamsburg Village 35 950 1 60% $702 14 Market Slip 6 500 - 800 1 50% $726 27 Tobacco Landing 16 662 1 50% $726  15 Bacon Retirement Community 46 600 1 60% $750  1 Bowler Retirement Community 52 600 1 60% $750 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill 4 700 1 60% $770 Townhomes  2 Carter Woods I & II 44 600 1 60% $790  8 Reflections 52 788 1 50% $798 27 Tobacco Landing 37 662 1 60% $871 14 Market Slip 18 500 - 800 1 60% $871

 - Senior Restricted

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-20 TAX CREDIT UNITS - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

TWO-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNITS SQUARE FEET # OF BATHS % AMHI COLLECTED RENT 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 74 688 - 755 1 60% $570 16 Bradford Manor 56 875 1 60% $595  2 Carter Woods I & II 20 800 2 40% $600 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 110 705 1 60% $600 - $625  8 Reflections 41 997 1.5 40% $601 17 Lawndale Farms 50 840 1 60% $725 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill 9 1100 1 - 1.5 50% $735 Townhomes 21 Jefferson Townhomes 80 770 1 60% $740 - $750  33 Darby House 32 883 2 50% $775  2 Carter Woods I & II 10 800 2 50% $775 7 Williamsburg Village 70 1100 1 60% $794  8 Reflections 11 997 1.5 50% $798  15 Bacon Retirement Community 1 800 1 60% $800 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 186 830 1 60% $825 - $915 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 72 850 2 60% $870 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill 8 1100 1 - 1.5 60% $930 Townhomes  2 Carter Woods I & II 31 800 2 60% $940 14 Market Slip 6 980 2 60% $1045 27 Tobacco Landing 9 899 2 60% $1045 THREE-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNITS SQUARE FEET # OF BATHS % AMHI COLLECTED RENT 5 Glenwood Farms Apts. 50 525 - 915 1 60% $760 - $800 21 Jefferson Townhomes 45 920 - 1106 1 60% $885 - $915 7 Williamsburg Village 35 1250 1 60% $931 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill 22 1300 1 - 1.5 50% $944 Townhomes 12 Mallard Greens Townhomes 3 910 1 60% $975 - $1050 19 Glenns at Millers Lane 72 1100 2 60% $978 20 Jefferson Mews & Spring Hill 9 1300 1 - 1.5 60% $1045 Townhomes FOUR-BEDROOM UNITS MAP ID PROJECT NAME UNITS SQUARE FEET # OF BATHS % AMHI COLLECTED RENT 21 Jefferson Townhomes 32 1175 2 60% $990 - $1000

 - Senior Restricted

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-21 QUALITY RATING - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

MARKET-RATE PROJECTS AND UNITS QUALITY TOTAL VACANCY MEDIAN GROSS RENT RATING PROJECTS UNITS RATE STUDIOS ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR FOUR-BR A 2 356 9.3% $1,078 $1,480 $1,914 B+ 6 1,508 9.2% $865 $1,065 $1,456 $2,473 B 6 458 2.8% $1,160 $1,099 $892 B- 1 395 3.8% $1,042 $1,471 $1,834 C+ 1 128 0.0% $799 $906 C 1 100 0.0% $719 $842 $987 TAX CREDIT (NON-SUBSIDIZED) PROJECTS AND UNITS QUALITY TOTAL VACANCY MEDIAN GROSS RENT RATING PROJECTS UNITS RATE STUDIOS ONE-BR TWO-BR THREE-BR FOUR-BR B+ 2 212 0.0% $724 $867 B 5 476 2.1% $750 $1,045 $1,212 B- 3 280 0.0% $750 $1,025 $1,114 C+ 1 218 4.6% $783 $896 $1,136 $1,280 C 2 344 9.3% $674 $717 $829 $1,055 C- 1 56 0.0% $727 DISTRIBUTION OF UNITS BY QUALITY RATING

MARKET-RATE UNITS TAX CREDIT UNITS C 3%

C+ C+ 4% C- 4% 14% A C 12% B B+ 22% 29% 52% B 16% B+ B- 13% B- 13% 18%

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-22 YEAR BUILT - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA *

YEAR RANGE PROJECTS UNITS VACANT % VACANT TOTAL UNITS DISTRIBUTION Before 1970 6 1123 47 4.2% 1123 24.8% 1970 to 1979 1 100 0 0.0% 1223 2.2% 1980 to 1989 2 152 1 0.7% 1375 3.4% 1990 to 1999 6 663 18 2.7% 2038 14.6% 2000 to 2005 7 1034 92 8.9% 3072 22.8% 2006 to 2010 4 1013 56 5.5% 4085 22.4% 2011 0 0 0 0.0% 4085 0.0% 2012 2 257 10 3.9% 4342 5.7% 2013 0 0 0 0.0% 4342 0.0% 2014 1 150 23 15.3% 4492 3.3% 2015 1 22 3 13.6% 4514 0.5% 2016 1 17 1 5.9% 4531 0.4% 2017 0 0 0 0.0% 4531 0.0% 2018** 0 0 0 0.0% 4531 0.0% TOTAL 31 4531 251 5.5% 4531 100.0 %

YEAR RENOVATED - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA *

YEAR RANGE PROJECTS UNITS VACANT % VACANT TOTAL UNITS DISTRIBUTION Before 1970 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1970 to 1979 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1980 to 1989 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1990 to 1999 2 106 3 2.8% 106 8.8% 2000 to 2005 2 318 30 9.4% 424 26.4% 2006 to 2010 3 723 15 2.1% 1147 60.1% 2011 0 0 0 0.0% 1147 0.0% 2012 0 0 0 0.0% 1147 0.0% 2013 0 0 0 0.0% 1147 0.0% 2014 1 56 3 5.4% 1203 4.7% 2015 0 0 0 0.0% 1203 0.0% 2016 0 0 0 0.0% 1203 0.0% 2017 0 0 0 0.0% 1203 0.0% 2018** 0 0 0 0.0% 1203 0.0% TOTAL 8 1203 51 4.2% 1203 100.0 %

Note: The upper table (Year Built) includes all of the units included in the lower table. * Only Market-Rate and Tax Credit projects. Does not include government-subsidized projects. ** As of February 2018

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-23 APPLIANCES AND UNIT AMENITIES - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

APPLIANCES APPLIANCE PROJECTS PERCENT UNITS* RANGE 31 100.0% 4,531 REFRIGERATOR 31 100.0% 4,531 ICEMAKER 12 38.7% 2,461 DISHWASHER 26 83.9% 4,205 DISPOSAL 27 87.1% 4,229 MICROWAVE 14 45.2% 2,598 UNIT AMENITIES AMENITY PROJECTS PERCENT UNITS* AC - CENTRAL 30 96.8% 4,469 AC - WINDOW 1 3.2% 62 FLOOR COVERING 30 96.8% 4,514 WASHER/DRYER 18 58.1% 2,726 WASHER/DRYER HOOK-UP 21 67.7% 3,369 PATIO/DECK/BALCONY 18 58.1% 3,380 CEILING FAN 15 48.4% 2,950 FIREPLACE 4 12.9% 1,285 BASEMENT 0 0.0% INTERCOM SYSTEM 12 38.7% 1,909 SECURITY SYSTEM 5 16.1% 1,345 WINDOW TREATMENTS 30 96.8% 4,509 FURNISHED UNITS 0 0.0% E-CALL BUTTON 3 9.7% 364

* - Does not include units where appliances/amenities are optional; Only includes market-rate or non-government subsidized Tax Credit.

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-24 PROJECT AMENITIES - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

PROJECT AMENITIES AMENITY PROJECTS PERCENT UNITS POOL 7 22.6% 2,181 ON-SITE MANAGEMENT 24 77.4% 4,270 LAUNDRY 12 38.7% 1,755 CLUB HOUSE 8 25.8% 2,435 MEETING ROOM 7 22.6% 519 FITNESS CENTER 15 48.4% 2,702 JACUZZI/SAUNA 1 3.2% 754 PLAYGROUND 6 19.4% 1,466 COMPUTER LAB 3 9.7% 452 SPORTS COURT 1 3.2% 754 STORAGE 0 0.0% LAKE 1 3.2% 395 ELEVATOR 17 54.8% 2,434 SECURITY GATE 3 9.7% 816 BUSINESS CENTER 0 0.0% CAR WASH AREA 2 6.5% 708 PICNIC AREA 5 16.1% 1,399 CONCIERGE SERVICE 0 0.0% SOCIAL SERVICE PACKAGE 2 6.5% 256

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-25 DISTRIBUTION OF UTILITIES - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

UTILITY NUMBER OF NUMBER OF DISTRIBUTION (RESPONSIBILITY) PROJECTS UNITS OF UNITS HEAT LANDLORD ELECTRIC E 8 824 16.7% GAS G 2 112 2.3% TENANT ELECTRIC E 19 3,439 69.9% GAS G 4 546 11.1% 100.0% COOKING FUEL LANDLORD ELECTRIC E 9 855 17.4% GAS G 2 112 2.3% TENANT ELECTRIC E 19 3,702 75.2% GAS G 3 252 5.1% 100.0% HOT WATER LANDLORD ELECTRIC E 8 824 16.7% GAS G 1621.3% TENANT ELECTRIC E 20 2,791 56.7% GAS G 4 1,244 25.3% 100.0% ELECTRIC LANDLORD L 9 886 18.0% TENANT T 24 4,035 82.0% 100.0% WATER LANDLORD L 24 2,655 54.0% TENANT T 9 2,266 46.0% 100.0% SEWER LANDLORD L 24 2,655 54.0% TENANT T 9 2,266 46.0% TRASH PICK-UP 100.0% LANDLORD L 31 3,873 78.7% TENANT T 2 1,048 21.3% 100.0%

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-26 UTILITY ALLOWANCE - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

HEATINGHOT WATER COOKING BRUNIT TYPE GAS ELEC STEAM OTHER GAS ELEC GAS ELEC ELECWATER SEWER TRASH CABLE 0 GARDEN $34 $14 $57 $7 $11 $3 $5 $31 $21 $33 $18 $20 1 GARDEN $38 $16 $68 $8 $13 $4 $5 $35 $23 $35 $18 $20 1 TOWNHOUSE $45 $23 $89 $10 $16 $4 $5 $41 $23 $35 $18 $20 2 GARDEN $41 $21 $77 $12 $17 $5 $8 $46 $33 $50 $18 $20 2 TOWNHOUSE $49 $27 $100 $14 $21 $5 $8 $57 $33 $50 $18 $20 3 GARDEN $44 $24 $87 $15 $20 $7 $10 $58 $50 $72 $18 $20 3 TOWNHOUSE $53 $31 $112 $19 $25 $7 $10 $73 $50 $72 $18 $20 4 GARDEN $48 $27 $96 $19 $24 $8 $13 $69 $68 $95 $18 $20 4 TOWNHOUSE $56 $35 $123 $23 $29 $8 $13 $90 $68 $95 $18 $20

VA-Richmond (1/2018) Fees

Survey Date: February 2018 XII-27 XIII. Qualifications

The Company

Bowen National Research employs an expert staff to ensure that each market study is of the utmost quality. Each staff member has hands-on experience evaluating sites and comparable properties, analyzing market characteristics and trends, and providing realistic recommendations and conclusions. The Bowen National Research staff has the expertise to provide the answers for your development.

Company Leadership

Patrick Bowen is the President of Bowen National Research. He has prepared and supervised thousands of market feasibility studies for all types of real estate products, including affordable family and senior housing, multifamily market- rate housing and student housing, since 1996. He has also prepared various studies for submittal as part of HUD 221(d)(3) & (4), HUD 202 developments and applications for housing for Native Americans. He has also conducted studies and provided advice to city, county and state development entities as it relates to residential development, including affordable and market rate housing, for both rental and for-sale housing. Mr. Bowen has worked closely with many state and federal housing agencies to assist them with their market study guidelines. Mr. Bowen has his bachelor’s degree in legal administration (with emphasis on business and law) from the University of West Florida.

Desireé Johnson is the Director of Operations for Bowen National Research. Ms. Johnson is responsible for all client relations, the procurement of work contracts, and the overall supervision and day-to-day operations of the company. She has been involved in the real estate market research industry since 2006. Ms. Johnson has an Associate of Applied Science in Office Administration from Columbus State Community College.

Market Analysts

Christopher T. Bunch, Market Analyst has over ten years of professional experience in real estate, including five years of experience in the real estate market research field. Mr. Bunch is responsible for preparing market feasibility studies for a variety of clients. Mr. Bunch earned a bachelor’s degree in Geography with a concentration in Urban and Regional Planning from Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

XIII-1 Lisa Goff, Market Analyst, has conducted site-specific analyses in both rural and urban markets throughout the country. She is also experienced in the day-to-day operation and financing of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and subsidized properties, which gives her a unique understanding of the impact of housing development on current market conditions.

Luke Mortensen, Market Analyst, is experienced in the assessment of housing operating under various programs throughout the country, as well as other development alternatives. He is also experienced in evaluating projects in the development pipeline and economic trends. Mr. Mortensen received his Bachelor’s Degree in Sports Leadership and Management from Miami University.

Jeff Peters, Market Analyst, has conducted on-site inspection and analysis for rental properties throughout the country since 2014. He is familiar with multiple types of rental housing programs, the day-to-day interaction with property managers and leasing agents and the collection of pertinent property details. Mr. Peters graduated from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Economics.

Gregory Piduch, Market Analyst, has conducted site-specific analyses in both metro and rural areas throughout the country. He is familiar with multiple types of rental housing programs, the day-to-day interaction with property managers and leasing agents and the collection of pertinent property details. Mr. Piduch holds a Bachelor of Arts in Communication and Rhetoric from the University of Albany, State University of New York and a Master of Professional Studies in Sports Industry Management from Georgetown University.

Craig Rupert, Market Analyst, has conducted market analysis in both urban and rural markets throughout the United States since 2010. Mr. Rupert is experienced in the evaluation of multiple types of housing programs, including market-rate, Tax Credit and various government subsidies and uses this knowledge and research to provide both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Mr. Rupert has a degree in Hospitality Management from Youngstown State University.

Garth Semple, Market Analyst, has surveyed both urban and rural markets throughout the country. He is trained to understand the nuances of various rental housing programs and their construction and is experienced in the collection of rental housing data from leasing agents, property managers, and other housing experts within the market. Mr. Semple graduated from Elizabethtown College and has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology.

XIII-2 Jack Wiseman, Market Analyst, has conducted extensive market research in over 200 markets throughout the United States since 2007. He provides thorough evaluation of site attributes, area competitors, market trends, economic characteristics and a wide range of issues impacting the viability of real estate development. He has evaluated market conditions for a variety of real estate alternatives, including affordable and market-rate apartments, retail and office establishments, student housing, and a variety of senior residential alternatives. Mr. Wiseman has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from Miami University.

Chris Leahy, Market Analyst, has conducted site-specific analyses in both metro and rural areas throughout the country. He is familiar with multiple types of rental housing programs, the day-to-day interaction with property managers and leasing agents and the collection of pertinent property details. Mr. Leahy has a Bachelor of Science degree in Financial Management and Business Administration from Franklin University.

Research Staff

Bowen National Research employs a staff of in-house researchers who are experienced in the surveying and evaluation of all rental and for-sale housing types, as well as in conducting interviews and surveys with city officials, economic development offices, chambers of commerce, housing authorities and residents.

Stephanie Viren is the Research and Travel Coordinator at Bowen National Research. Ms. Viren focuses on collecting detailed data concerning housing conditions in various markets throughout the United States. Ms. Viren has extensive interviewing skills and experience and also possesses the expertise necessary to conduct surveys of diverse pools of respondents regarding population and housing trends, housing marketability, economic development and other socioeconomic issues relative to the housing industry. Ms. Viren's professional specialty is condominium and senior housing research. Ms. Viren earned a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration from Heidelberg University.

Kelly Wiseman, Research Specialist Director, has significant experience in the evaluation and surveying of housing projects operating under a variety of programs. In addition, she has conducted numerous interviews with experts throughout the country, including economic development, planning, housing authorities and other stakeholders.

June Davis, Office Manager of Bowen National Research, has been in the market feasibility research industry since 1988. Ms. Davis has overseen production on over 20,000 market studies for projects throughout the United States.

XIII-3 Addendum A – Member Certification & Checklist_

This market study has been prepared by Bowen National Research, a member in good standing of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA). This study has been prepared in conformance with the standards adopted by NCHMA for the market analysts’ industry. These standards include the Standard Definitions of Key Terms Used in Market Studies for Housing Projects, and Model Content Standards for the Content of Market Studies for Housing Projects. These Standards are designed to enhance the quality of market studies and to make them easier to prepare, understand, and use by market analysts and by the end users. These Standards are voluntary only, and no legal responsibility regarding their use is assumed by the National Council of Housing Market Analysts.

Bowen National Research is duly qualified and experienced in providing market analysis for housing. The company’s principals participate in the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) educational and information sharing programs to maintain the highest professional standards and state-of-the-art knowledge. Bowen National Research is an independent market analyst. No principal or employee of Bowen National Research has any financial interest whatsoever in the development for which this analysis has been undertaken.

______Patrick M. Bowen President/Market Analyst Bowen National Research 155 E. Columbus St., Suite 220 Pickerington, OH 43147 (614) 833-9300 [email protected] Date: February 19, 2018

______Craig Rupert Market Analyst [email protected] Date: February 19, 2018

Note: Information on the National Council of Housing Market Analysts may be obtained by calling 202-939-1750, or by visiting http://www.housingonline.com.

A-1

ADDENDUM-MARKET STUDY INDEX

A. INTRODUCTION

Members of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts provide a checklist referencing all components of their market study. This checklist is intended to assist readers on the location content of issues relevant to the evaluation and analysis of market studies.

B. DESCRIPTION AND PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETING

The following components have been addressed in this market study. The section number of each component is noted below. Each component is fully discussed in that section. In cases where the item is not relevant, the author has indicated ‘N/A’ or not applicable. Where a conflict with or variation from client standards or client requirements exists, the author has indicated a ‘VAR’ (variation) with a comment explaining the conflict.

C. CHECKLIST

Section (s) Executive Summary 1. Executive Summary II Project Description 2. Proposed number of bedrooms and baths proposed, income limitations, proposed rents and utility allowances III 3. Utilities (and utility sources) included in rent III 4. Project design description III 5. Unit and project amenities; parking III 6. Public programs included III 7. Target population description III 8. Date of construction/preliminary completion III 9. If rehabilitation, existing unit breakdown and rents III 10. Reference to review/status of project plans III Location and Market Area 11. Market area/secondary market area description IV 12. Concise description of the site and adjacent parcels IV 13. Description of site characteristics IV 14. Site photos/maps X 15. Map of community services IV 16. Visibility and accessibility evaluation IV 17. Crime Information IV

A-2 CHECKLIST (Continued)

Section (s) Employment and Economy 18. Employment by industry IV 19. Historical unemployment rate IV 20. Area major employers IV 21. Five-year employment growth IV 22. Typical wages by occupation IV 23. Discussion of commuting patterns of area workers IV Demographic Characteristics 24. Population and household estimates and projections IV 25. Area building permits V 26. Distribution of income IV 27. Households by tenure IV Competitive Environment 28. Comparable property profiles XI 29. Map of comparable properties X 30. Comparable property photographs XI 31. Existing rental housing evaluation V 32. Comparable property discussion V 33. Area vacancy rates, including rates for Tax Credit and government-subsidized V 34. Comparison of subject property to comparable properties V 35. Availability of Housing Choice Vouchers V 36. Identification of waiting lists V & XII 37. Description of overall rental market including share of market-rate and affordable V properties 38. List of existing LIHTC properties V 39. Discussion of future changes in housing stock V 40. Discussion of availability and cost of other affordable housing options including V homeownership 41. Tax Credit and other planned or under construction rental communities in market area V Analysis/Conclusions 42. Calculation and analysis of Capture Rate VII 43. Calculation and analysis of Penetration Rate VII 44. Evaluation of proposed rent levels V & VI 45. Derivation of Achievable Market Rent and Market Advantage VI 46. Derivation of Achievable Restricted Rent N/A 47. Precise statement of key conclusions II 48. Market strengths and weaknesses impacting project II 49. Recommendations and/or modification to project discussion II 50. Discussion of subject property’s impact on existing housing V 51. Absorption projection with issues impacting performance II 52. Discussion of risks or other mitigating circumstances impacting project projection II 53. Interviews with area housing stakeholders V

A-3 CHECKLIST (Continued)

Section (s) Other Requirements 54. Preparation date of report Title Page 55. Date of Field Work Certification 56. Certifications Certification 57. Statement of qualifications XIII 58. Sources of data not otherwise identified I 59. Utility allowance schedule XII

A-4