Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-11-17 Housing PACKET
Ashland Housing Commission Retreat November 17, 2012 Parks and Recreation Building 340 S. Pioneer (Located in Lithia Park off of Granite) (9:00) Goal Review and Discussion (30 min) a. Review 2009 Council Goals & 2012 Housing Commission Goals b. Discuss Accomplishments c. Discuss Unmet Goals i. Housing Element ii. Education and Outreach (9:30) Housing Trust Fund Discussion(20 min) (9:50) Student Fair Housing Discussion (20 Min) (10:10) Review HNA Recommendations (30 min) (10:40)Break(15 min) (10:55)Co-Housing/City Zoning Discussion (15 min) (11:10)Brainstorm and Refine goals(20 minutes) (11:30) Break and Goal prioritization (dot exercise) (20 minutes) (11:50) Commissioner suggested agenda items for January Meeting (10 min) (12:00)Lunch and Adjournment Please bring your Housing Commission Binders Updated Copies of the Housing Needs Analysis will be Provided City of Ashland, Oregon - Council Business -2011 Council Go...Page 1of 3 GO search site site map | advanced search Back to Council Business 2011 Council Liaisons 2011 Council Goals ARCHIVED CITY RECORDS City Charter City Council Information City Council Minutes/Agendas City of Ashland, Oregon / Council Business / 2011 Council Goals City Municipal Code 2011 Council Goals Council Packet Archives Documents 2011-2012 CITY COUNCIL GOALS Election Information Online Video Archives Ordinances Public Meeting Guide OVERVIEW Reports Resolutions The City Council has set goals for the next 12 to 24 months to continue Ashland’s history as a community that focuses on sustaining itself and its people. To us, sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs. The City of Ashland has a responsibility towards sustainability in five areas: Economy Environment Social Equity Municipal Organization Infrastructure ECONOMY Adopt a comprehensive economic development strategy to: diversifying the economic base of the community; support businesses that use and provide local and regional products; increase the number of family-wage jobs; and leverage Ashland’s tourism and repeat visitors Adopt an action plan to ensure City programs and activities support the overall strategic direction by June 30, 2011. Complete the feasibility study for urban renewal and tax increment financing as a method of funding infrastructure, public facilities, and economic development programs for the Croman Mill District, the railroad district, and the downtown. Increase the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty of the development process. Develop a specific action plan to respond to the recommendations of the 2006 Zucker and Seiegl Reports http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1377711/22/2011 City of Ashland, Oregon - Council Business -2011 Council Go...Page 2of 3 ENVIRONMENT Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that creates strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system. Develop a strategy to use conservation and local renewable sources to meet Tier 2 power demands. Implement specific capital projects and operational programs to ensure that City facilities and operations are a model of efficient use of water Develop a concise sustainability plan for the community and for City operations. SOCIAL EQUITY Decide whether to develop or sell the remaining land on Clay Street. Appoint an ad-hoc committee to make recommendations to the City Council by December 31, 2011 about how the City and partner organizations can work together in the long run to address the needs of homeless people and to reduce homelessness in the community. ORGANIZATION Develop plan for fiscal stability, manage costs, prioritize services, and insure key revenue streams. Adopt policies and targets to use surpluses in ending fund balances to fund longer-term reserves. g Fund Balance targets. Implement 2010 Council direction on Endin Adopt a plan to increase the City’s ability to afford the cost of employee benefits while ensuring that employee benefits remain a g and retaining a high quality work force. tool for recruitin Recognize and affirm the value of the contribution of volunteers to the City and the Community. Move to a biennial budget, with adjustments and policy discussion in the second year, with the first two year process for Fiscal Years 2012-2013 and 2013 -2014. Evaluate the need to revise the powers, duties, and membership of the Tree Commission, Housing Commission, Conservation g Commission. Commission, Public Arts Commission, and Plannin INFRASTRUCTURE Adopt an integrated land use and transportation plan to increase the viability of transit, bicycles, walking and other alternative modes of transportation; reduce per capita automobile vehicle miles traveled; provide safe walking and bicycling routes to home, work, shopping and schools; implement environmentally responsible design standards, and minimize new automobile-related infrastructure. Adopt an integrated Water Master Plan that addresses long-term http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1377711/22/2011 City of Ashland, Oregon - Council Business -2011 Council Go...Page 3of 3 water supply including climate change issues, security and redundancy, watershed health, conservation and reuse, and stream health. Complete a feasibility and financing plan regarding renovating the Grove for the Ashland Police station. Evaluate use of the existing police station for other City office needs. Printer friendly version If you have questions regarding the site, pleasecontact the webmaster. Terms of Use|Built using Project A's Site-in-a-Box ©2011 View Mobile Site http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1377711/22/2011 2 2 Findings 6 Potential Strategies 8 City Accomplishments 9 Section I: Introduction 9 10 11 13 14 Section II: Framework/Community Context 14 16 18 20 23 Section III: Housing Trends and Existing Conditions 23 26 27 30 32 34 Section IV: Housing Inventory 34 34 34 35 37 37 37 40 Section V: Housing Needs 40 40 42 43 43 44 47 Section VI: Baseline Forecast of Housing Demand 48 53 57 Section VII: Meeting Housing needs to 2040 62 Appendix - 1 - The 2012 Housing Needs Analysis provides a summary of housing and demographic trends within the City of Ashland in an effort to allow the City to meet the population’s housing needs in the future. This report is intended to provide an evaluation of housing trends in Ashland since the last detailed housing assessments were completed including the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis and the 2007 Rental Needs Analysis. The following is a review of those trends, a brief summary of steps the City has taken to address the findings, recommended actions identified in the prior housing assessments, and an evaluation of what the results of those actions have been. Ashland is growing-but relatively slowly: The City of Ashland has grown in population from 16,234 in 1990 to 20,078 in 2010 according to the US Census. This 0.79% historical growth rate is largely consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Jackson County’s population estimate for the City of Ashland that predicts the population will continue to grow at an average annual rate of approximately 0.75% between 2005 and 2060. Between 1990 and 2000 Ashland’s population grew by 20% while the population grew by only 2.8% in the decade between 2000 and 2010. This marked disparity in population growth between these past two decades may suggest that the actual annual growth rate is trending toward a diminishing growth rate and if that proves to be the case it will be a trend which bears close monitoring. Growth has not occurred evenly in all age groups: The population growth rate of individuals 65 years old and older grew at a faster rate in Ashland than in the rest of the State, while the population of individuals between the ages of 35 and 44 actually declined. In the last decades Ashland has also seen a substantial decrease in the population of nearly all age groups between 15 and 55 (one exception was the 25-34 age groups which saw a 3.4% increase between 2000 and 2010). The populations of age groups 55 years old and older see growth with the exception of that age group of 85 years old and older. - 2 - Figure 1. Ashland Persons per Age Cohort 2000-2010 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 5 over yearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyearsyears 9 Under 14192434445459647484 and 5 10152025354555606575 years 85 2000USCensus2010USCensus This trend of an aging citizenry should persist into the future as the largest population growth has been and will continue to be in the age groups represented by the large baby boom cohort. This group which was in their 40”s and 50’s in 2000, and their 50’s and 60’s in 2010, (where those groups saw increases of 110% and 85% respectively), will be in their 70’s and 80’s by 2020. Overall the forecast for the State of Oregon (Source: OREGON’S DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS February 2010, State Office of Economic Analysis) anticipates there will be 53% more elderly in 2020 than in 2010. Given Ashland’s desirability as retirement destination such trending indicates Ashland will likely see a continuation of this trend. Fewer households own housing in Ashland compared to other areas: The 2010 Census showed 51% of Ashland households own their homes and 49% are in renter occupied housing. Ashland has a lower percentage of homeowners and a higher percentage of renters than Jackson County with a 63.3% ownership rate, the State of Oregon with a 63.8% ownership rate or the Nation as a whole with at 66.6% homeownership rate. The 2000 Census data showed 52.3% of housing units in Ashland were owner occupied and 47.7% of units were renter occupied. This regional rental/owners disparity could be affected by the presence of the University which increases the student age population that is typically in the market for rental housing, but also shows a greater demand for rental units relative to the rest of the region. - 3 - The fastest growing employment sectors in Ashland do not pay enough for a household to afford fair market rents: Individuals employed in the fastest growing employment sectors in Ashland, services and retail jobs; do not make enough money to pay fair market rent in Ashland. However, this trend is not specific to Ashland; in general wages have been outpaced by housing costs since the 1980’s. The number of low-income households has decreased since 2000 after having increased between 1998 and 2000: Between 2000 and 2010 the estimated number of families and individuals living below the poverty level has decreased from 12.5% to 11.5% and from 19.6% to 18.8% respectively. Although the decrease is slight, it may signal a reversal in a trend identified in the 2002 housing Needs Analysis which found an increase of 2.7% in the estimated number of low-income households between 1998 and 2001. The 2010 Census now reports a decrease in the number of households who report having an annual income of less than $75,000 a year while the number of households reporting an income of over $75,000 has increased. Housing sales prices increased nearly 50% between 1998 and 2001 and have remained higher than the regional average: Housing prices in the early part of the decade rose precipitously, and in 2001 this trend was just getting started. In 2007 at the height of the housing boom, the average home price in Ashland was $438,750. With the fall out of the housing market in 2008 and the ensuing foreclosure crisis, housing prices in most areas fell drastically. Housing prices also fell in Ashland during the recession, though not as significantly as in other parts of the county. According to the Roy Wright Appraisal Service, 85 housing units sold in Ashland in 2011 the average sales price was $285,000. The median home sales price in Ashland is not affordable to households with median incomes: the 2012 median household income for a family of four in the Medford/Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a median priced home in Ashland a household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8% of the population reports having an income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership housing stock is targeted to this group. It is clear that there is an excess of ownership housing on the market at price ranges which are not commensurate with the earning capability of the majority of the population in the region. The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000 annually: The findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census Data shows that the City lacks an adequate number of rental units affordable to those residents with the lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. Households making 30% of the Area Median Income or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland households. Only 3.05% of the City’s rental housing stock (approximately 152 units) is considered affordable to this population. The City’s current need for rental housing in a price range affordable to those with the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately 803 units needed to house these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to these populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35, and to a lesser extent over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The 729 - 4 - households under the age of 35 that report having an income of under $10,000 a year may be due in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of non- traditional students. Ashland has a large deficit of affordable owner-occupied housing units: The 2002 HNA found that 46% of Ashland households earning below the median income could not afford to purchase a house in Ashland. This number has grown to approximately 57% of Ashland households; over half of the current population cannot afford to purchase a home in Ashland. The Housing Needs Model shows that there is a deficit of housing stock costing less than $279,300, only 22% of all housing units for sale in Ashland, while there is a surplus of 2,255 units above that price. Few multi-family units were built between 2001 and 2010: The 2002 HNA found that only 9% of the building permits issued between 1990 and 2001 were for multi-family housing types. Between 2000 and 2010, 19.6% of all building permits issued were issued for multiple family units (two-family units to five or more). Though single family units tend to get developed at a rate twice that of multi-family units, the City has seen a significant increase in the development of multi-family units in the past ten years. However, not all of the newly built multi-family units were rental units, and many rental units were lost in the same period to condominium conversion. Ashland is falling short of providing the housing types identified in the 2002 Housing needs analysis: The 2002 HNA found that more single-family units were being built than was estimated to be needed, while both multi-family housing and government assisted housing types were either falling short or not being built at all. It is clear that single-family ownership housing development remains the most prevalent type of housing development within Ashland, while the housing types most needed, including multi-family rentals and government assisted housing are not being developed in accordance with needs. Ashland has a relatively small inventory of land zoned for multi-family housing: The 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory identified an existing capacity for up to 1,384 Multi-family units within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Housing Needs Model anticipates up to 1,759 multi- family housing units will be needed to satisfy the anticipated demand for multi-family units by the year 2040. Without changes to allowable densities, increases in mixed use developments, or an increase in land zoned for multi-family the City may exhaust the supply of land available for multi-family housing by the year 2034. - 5 - Implications of previous housing trends: The number of affordable units in Ashland causes households to compete against each other for housing. Land zoned for multiple-family is being consumed for single family ownership units such as townhomes and condominiums. Housing costs are forcing Ashland workers to live in other communities Housing costs may be contributing to reductions in school enrollment. Housing costs may place greater demands on transportation systems and parking (i.e. with more people commuting). Housing costs may limit economic development Following is a summary of potential land use strategies for addressing key housing issues identified in the 2012 HNA. Encourage more multi-family housing: Promote policies that will increase the development of multi-family housing and provide more affordable rental housing and to meet the needs of the population. The 2002 HNA also recommended an increase in multi-family housing, and in the last decade the historic development of multi-family rental housing has continued to be insufficient to satisfy demand. Suggestion:Increase the land supply. The BLI data suggest that the City has capacity for about1,384 multi-family dwellings whereas it is anticipated that 1,759 units will be needed by 2040.One approach to encourage apartment development is to designate more land for higher concentrations of residential units (High and Medium Density zones). Suggestion:Promote development of residential units in commercial and employment zones.The BLI assumes commercial developments within employment and commercial zones would only utilize 50% of their allowable residential capacity on average. Increasing the prevalence of mixed use developments (beyond the 50% expectation) will effectively increase the net supply of land and the total capacity for multi-family units. Suggestion:Consider restricting uses in certain zones to apartments. The building permit data suggest that a significant amount of land designated for high-density multi- family housing has been developed as single-family attached types that are owner occupied units. Designating certain lands for rental units would encourage development of apartments. Suggestion:Examine opportunities for reductions in parking requirements for the provision of apartments meeting certain conditions. Studies have shown that the number - 6 - ofvehicles per household is lower in areas that are more conducive to walking and have greater access to transit (City of San Diego Feb. 2011).A unit’s size and level of affordability are additional conditions that could be further evaluated in consideration of needed parking and reduced parking requirements. Suggestion:Consider policies that encourage redevelopment or adaptive reuse of structures. The location of rental units is also important. Increasing the supply of rental units near employment centers and the University will make these units more attractive. Suggestion:Develop more government-assisted housing: The data show a need for nearly 800 dwelling units that are affordable to households with annual incomes of $10,000 or less. About 30% of these households, however, are in the 18-24 age range and another 25% are age 65 or over. The data suggest the City would need to develop as many as 50 units per year for the next 20 years to address this need. Given the number of total housing units developed in the City in any given year is typically less than 100, it is unlikely such a target could be met. A more realistic target would be a target based on a percentage of total units developed in collaboration with local housing organizations, which would be 10-15 units annually. Encourage more affordable single-family housing types. The average sales price of a single- family residence was over $282,000 in 2012. Following are some approaches that can increase more affordable single-family housing types: Suggestion: Evaluate land use incentives to provide for small lots intended for small unit development. The data show a strong correlation between lot size, unit size and housing cost. The City could consider reductions in minimum lot sizes in certain residential zones to specifically promote the development of smaller dwelling units. Suggestion:Evaluate land use requirements to reduce barriers for manufactured housing. The City has identified a need of 2.4% of all future housing to be manufactured homes in subdivisions and manufactured homes in parks. Revising existing policies to more readily enable the placement of manufactured homes is one potential approach to allowing more affordable single family housing. Suggestion:Evaluate land use incentives to promote affordable single family housing. The City should evaluate existing density bonus allocations to better incentivize the voluntary inclusion of affordable single family housing in future developments Suggestion:Consider allowing Accessory Residential Units as a permitted use in single family zones. The integration of ARUs into existing neighborhoods provides for small dedicated rental units serving single or two person households, and could also be a - 7 - resource for more affordable housing types. The City should evaluate ways to reduce regulatory barriers to the voluntary inclusion of ARUs in future developments and existing neighborhoods. Suggestion:Reduce development fees for low-income projects: The City should conduct a careful review of the components of housing cost and calculate the percentage of total unit cost that is a result of development fees. Following the Completion of the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Action Plan the City has completed a number of actions that directly address the recommendations identified in the prior analysis including the following: Develop land use policies and incentives to encourage the development of affordable and needed housing types; o Passed annexation and zone change ordinance requirements to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments of a type commensurate with the market rate units provided and deed restricted for a period of 60 year (Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.106.030). o Passed condominium conversion ordinance requirements that help preserve multi- family rental housing and affordable housing deed restricted for a period of 30 years per resolution 2006-13. o Passed minimum density ordinance requirements to ensure multi-family zoned properties are developed at a minimum of 80% the base density and are thus not developed as large single family lots. o Passed an ordinance amendment permitting small accessory residential units to be located on small lots in multi-family zones. Develop more government-assisted housing o Coordinated with the Housing Authority of Jackson County to develop 60 new units of government assisted affordable rental housing and assisted the project through joint acquisition of land, CDBG awards, and reduced development fees. Reduce development fees for low-income projects o Amended the City’s Affordable Housing System Development Charge waiver program to ensure a minimum period of affordability of 30 years for assisted units. o Amended the City’s Community Development and Engineering fee waiver program to make affordable units automatically eligible for the waivers. o Developed a Housing Trust Fund framework for the dedication of resources to assist the City in meeting housing needs. - 8 - Develop Organizational Capacity for Affordable Housing o Dedicated General Fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) resources to maintain a full time Affordable Housing Program staff position to work with providers of affordable housing to develop more government assisted housing locally; o Prioritized the use of CDBG funds to support the development of affordable housing consistently awarding the funds to projects that increase the supply of affordable housing City efforts, in collaboration with the local organizations providing affordable housing, have resulted in over 10% of all housing units developed since 2002 have been secured as 1 affordable to low-moderate income households. This percentage equates to a total of 178 units secured as affordable over the last decade. The housing needs analysis serves as a background report to the Housing Element of the City of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of undertaking an analysis of housing needs is to increase the probability that needed housing types will be built and to ensure that the city has a suitable amount of land to meet the housing development needs. A housing needs analysis should include a comprehensive analysis of factors affecting housing needs and an up-to-date knowledge of trends affecting housing. Such factors along with household income and cost information, affect the need for various housing types in a community. Background-Oregon Planning Requirements for Housing Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.296 contains two key objectives. These relate to housing and land, as follows: Housing: Ensure that development occurs at the densities and mix needed to meet a community’s housing needs over the next 20 years; Land: Ensure that there is enough buildable land to accommodate the 20 year housing need inside the urban growth boundary (UGB). The City of Ashland is not required by state planning requirements to undertake a periodic review of housing need since ORS 197.296 only applies to communities with a population of 25,000 or more. However, as a guide to providing for the current and future housing needs of its citizenry, a housing needs analysis is a valuable tool. A housing needs analysis provides elected 1 See chart “Affordable Units per year” in Appendix D - 9 - and appointed officials and city staff with the necessary data to make decisions that balance the needs of the community with regard to housing, redevelopment, annexation and growth management, the preservation of farm land and rural areas with the need to accommodate population growth and economic development. This analysis reviews current conditions and sets the framework for policy discussions on housing needs. Purpose-Housing Need versus Housing Demand No one would argue that that everyone should have access to decent, safe and affordable housing, but what does that really mean? Historically the evolution of housing and the housing market have not always provided those basic elements of housing which many of us now take for granted. The market has not always had an incentive or a mandate to provide those basic elements nor was there always agreement on what constituted decent, safe, or affordable when applied to housing units. Decent Housing: The term decent housing speaks to the physical condition of housing units. Housing that lacks bathroom facilities, electricity, basic plumbing and heating and is free of open exterior holes or cracks, and infestation. One measure of safe and decent housing is the Housing Quality Standards (HQS) checklist developed by HUD (see appendix D). Safe Housing: Prior to 1927 there were no building codes, with the evolution of homeowner’s insurance and the fallout of multiple tragedies due to fire, many communities adopted Uniform Building Codes to create safety standards and regulate the building industry to ensure that such tragedies were averted. In the 1990’s the ICC (International Code Council) codes were adopted in most states across the country in an effort to standardize the accepted safety of residential and commercial buildings nationwide. Affordable Housing: Affordable housing refers to a household’s ability to find housing within their financial means. The standard measure of affordability as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is when the cost of rent and utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of household income. When gross rent levels exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it places a significant burden on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of their income toward housing costs are called “Cost burdened”. Householders who pay more than 50% of their income toward housing costs are called “severely cost burdened”. When households are housing “cost burdened” their ability to pay for the other necessities of life are compromised. “Needed housing”: As used in ORS 197.307, “needed housing” means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, including the following housing types: o Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; o Government assisted housing; o Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to - 10 - 197.490; o Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions. Growth Management and Housing Affordability While state policy does not make a clear distinction between need and demand, it is instructive to make such a distinction based on housing policy: Housing Need is based on the broad mandate of Goal 10 that requires communities plan for housing that meets the needs of households at all income levels. Thus, Goal 10 implies that everyone has a housing need. However standards defined by public agencies that provide housing assistance (primarily HUD), identify several need components: financial need, housing condition, crowding, and needs of special populations. Housing Market Demand is what households demonstrate they are willing to purchase or rent in the market place. Growth in population leads to a demand for housing units that is usually met primarily by the construction of new housing units by the private sector based on developer’s best judgments about the types of housing that will be absorbed by the market. It is the role of cities under Goal 10 to adopt and implement policies that will encourage the provision of housing units that meet the needs of all residents. It is unlikely that the housing market in any area will provide housing to meet the needs of every household. However, it is incumbent upon the jurisdiction to endeavor to meet the basic housing needs of its citizenry. At the extreme there is homelessness: some people do not have any shelter at all. Close behind follows substandard housing (with health and safety problems), space problems (the structure is adequate but overcrowded), and economic and social problems (the structure is adequate in quality and size, but a household has to devote so much of its income to housing payments that other aspects of its quality of life suffer). Moreover, while some housing is government assisted housing, public agencies do not have the financial resources to meet but a small fraction of that need. New housing does not and is not likely to fully address all these needs because housing developers, like any other business, typically try to maximize their profits. A common assumption concerning the impact of growth management policies is that by limiting the supply of developable land, such policies reduce the supply of housing. Basic economic theory suggests that if housing supply is low relative to demand, than the price for it will be high, reducing its affordability. However, this is a simplistic view. Housing prices are determined by a variety of complex factors, such as the price of land, the supply and types of existing housing, the demand for housing, the amount of residential choice in the region, and household mobility. Further in a community like Ashland, that is an attractive destination for both tourism and - 11 - retirement, the “demand” for housing in the community is not isolated to the existing residential base. Rather national market forces are also factors in establishing local housing prices as the potential buyers of Ashland’s housing stock come from many areas around the country. A report by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy entitled “The Link between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence,” by Chris Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Gerritt Knapp and Casey Dawkins. The report, a comprehensive review of the academic literature on the link between growth management and housing affordability, found that: Market demand, not land constraints, is the primary determinant of housing prices. Whether growth management programs are in place or not, the strength of the housing market is the single most important influence on housing prices. For example, Portland’s growth in housing prices is more attributed to increase housing demand, increased employment and rising incomes than to its urban growth boundary. However, both traditional land use regulations and growth management policies can raise the price of housing, but they do so in different ways: Traditional zoning and other planning and land use controls limit the supply and accessibility of affordable housing, thereby raising home prices by excluding lower-income households. Such policies, already widespread in the U.S., include requirements for low-density, rules on minimum housing size, or bans against attached or cluster homes. Growth management policies improve the supply and location of affordable housing and accommodate other development needs, thereby increasing the desirability of the community and thus the price of housing. However, higher housing prices are often offset by lower transportation and energy costs and better access to jobs, services, and amenities. Since housing prices may increase in any land use environment, the decision for local governments is between good and bad regulation to improve housing choice. Traditional land use practices tend to zone for low-density, expensive homes that exclude lower- income households. Good growth management policies tend to incorporate policies that increase housing densities, mandate a mix of housing types, and promote regional fair 2 share housing. The housing needs assessment contained in this report will be used by the City of Ashland Community Development Department and the Ashland Housing Commission to develop a set of strategies to address housing needs in Ashland. The overarching goal is to ensure the development of a stable supply of housing for current and future residents of Ashland at all income levels, and household types. 2 The Brookings Institute, 2002. - 12 - More specifically, this report is intended to present an evaluation of housing trends in Ashland since the last detailed assessment was completed in 2002, and project current and future housing needs based on 2010 Census data, community questionnaires, and the Housing Needs Model created by former Oregon Housing and Community Services Economist Richard Bjeeland. Specifically, the report: Describes socioeconomic characteristics and trends that affect housing; Describes recent housing development trends; Describes housing condition, tenure, and sales; Assesses trends in jobs/housing location; Quantifies housing needs by type and density, and compares it with household incomes and other factors. Housing Needs Analysis Organization Following the introduction are sections presenting population trends and forecasts, rental housing and ownership housing development trends, forecasts based on population growth, affordability needs, and employment trends with relation to population changes and housing needs. Next the analysis will detail the City’s existing housing inventory, its current gaps and surpluses with future housing need projections based on the data from the Housing Needs Model and reconcile those projections with existing and proposed land inventory. Lastly the needs analysis will propose possible policy options for insuring that the City meets the housing and land use needs of the population well into the future. - 13 - Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) worked together to identify data and methodology gaps in implementing the State’s housing goal. The result is the Oregon Housing Model, which specifically links income and age to housing need and affordability. The analysis uses this housing model as a starting point for projecting Ashland’s housing needs to 2040. The analysis will examine Ashland’s housing stock in conjunction with the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and will then evaluate Ashland’s housing need by type and price. This analysis has been compiled using the following data sources: U.S. Census Data Analysis of current market conditions Community and property owner/manager questionnaire The Housing Needs Model Coordinated Population Projections from Jackson County Population Data from Portland State University’s Population Research Center Employment data from the Oregon Employment Department Housing and Development data from the City of Ashland and Jackson County All other citations and resources are referenced in the footnotes and attached bibliography. Historic Population Trends Incorporated in 1874, Ashland had a population of just 300. Located on a stage line with established woolen and lumber mills, the economy of the city at that time was predominantly agricultural. By 1900 the City had grown to 3,000 residents. Ashland became the division point for the Southern Pacific’s San Francisco-Portland rail line. The city experienced a population boom with the coming of the rail road. In 1899 a normal school was established. Over time the institution became known as Southern Oregon State College and eventually Southern Oregon University. The University has helped attract diverse populations to the community contributing to both the economic and cultural development of the community. Between 1900 and 1950 the population grew steadily to 7,739. Then with the emergence of the timber industry in the Rogue Valley, the city once again experienced a population boom almost doubling in size to 12,342, by 1970. The decade between 1970 and 1980 saw heavy migration to Oregon from other states, in that time the City’s population increased by approximately 2,600 people. By the late 1970’s the main economic support for the Ashland community came from the - 14 - growth of the tourism industry spurred by the popularity of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The travel/tourism industry helped to establish a base for the hospitality industry, retail shops, and restaurants, as well as other cultural and artistic venues. By 1980, population growth tapered off as the City experienced the impacts of a statewide recession and the decline in the timber industry. The city long known for its cultural attractions and quality of life became an ideal spot for retirees. At the same time, mills were closing taking with them the living wage jobs that they provided to many area families. Despite the presence of Southern Oregon State College, the number of people aged 15-29 began to decrease. By the mid 1990’s an alarming trend of elementary school closures swept the city as families moved away in search of living wage jobs and affordable housing in neighboring cities. 3 This is especially Jackson County has a retirement population that exceeds the state average. true of Ashland which has been an attractive area for retirees. A demographers report completed for the Ashland School District by Portland State University’s Population Research Center noted that; “the largest population growth has been and will continue to be in age groups represented by the large baby boom cohort.” In 2000 there was an influx of people in the 40-50 age range, 4 and it is estimated that by 2020 the age will range from 60-70. This trend, illustrated in Table 1.1 below, is seen in retirement communities throughout the nation as the Baby Boomers, America’s largest generation ages. This has had a disproportionately greater impact on areas like Ashland and the rest of Southern Oregon, as they are popular areas for retirement. It is expected that the retirement population will continue to grow, at the same rate or faster than it has in the past two decades. The impact of a significant retiree population has had a marked affect on several aspects of the Ashland community. The needs of a largely older, retired population have significantly affected the types of employment found in Ashland and surrounding areas. There has been a significant increase in the number of health care, medical, and support service jobs due to this trend. Similarly, the rise in retail and service sector jobs is associated with this trend. Unfortunately these new employment opportunities on average offer relatively low wages. While the increase of the retirement population has created a demand for low wage jobs, it has also driven up the cost of living, specifically with regard to real estate. Lastly, as mentioned above, the increase in retirement age residents and the high cost of living has created a situation whereby families are finding housing and/or employment elsewhere, which is having an impact on local schools. 3 Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006, pg. 23. 4 Population Research Center, Portland State University, Ashland School District Population and Enrollment Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19, (Demographer Report), December 2008, Pg. 7. - 15 - Table 2.1 5 Ashland Population by Age Group % of % of % of % of 1990 2000 2008 2010 total total total total Under age 5 793 4.8% 802 4.1% 1,315 6.3% 1068 5.3% Age 5-9 923 4.7% 1,065 5.1% 1002 5% Age 10-14 1,144 5.9% 951 4.6% 1206 6.0% 5,391 33.2% Age 15-19 1,906 9.8% 1,613 7.8% 1655 8.2% Age 20-24 2,314 11.9% 2,251 10.8% 1885 9.4% Age 25-34 2,174 11.1% 2,873 13.8% 2248 11.2% 5,126 31.5% Age 35-44 2,378 12.2% 2,096 10.1% 1918 9.5% Age 45-54 1,545 9.5% 3,249 16.6% 2,072 10.0% 2694 13.4% Age 55-59 551 3.3% 1,042 5.3% 1,822 8.8% 1806 9.0% Age 60-64 595 3.6% 694 3.6% 1,318 6.3% 1406 7.0% Age 65-74 1,279 7.8% 1,272 6.5% 1,671 8.0% 1562 7.8% Age 75-84 771 4.7% 1,143 5.9% 1,279 6.2% 1259 6.3% 85 and over 184 1.1% 481 2.5% 456 2.2% 394 2.0% Total 16,234 100% 19,522 100% 20,782 100% 20,103 100% Population Total Population3,380 20.8% 4632 23.8% 6546 31.6% 6,427 32% 55 and older Economic Conditions As noted in the narrative above, the City’s economic development grew out of its location along major transportation routes, agricultural pursuits, and natural and cultural resources. As industries based on natural and agriculture resources waned, those farm and factory/mill jobs were replaced by predominantly service sector employment and health care driven by a shift in the population toward an older demographic (see table 1.2 above). Often these service sector jobs offer lower wages, fewer benefits, and less steady employment. These factors contributed greatly to a decrease in living wage jobs within the city, prompting many young families to seek employment elsewhere and lowering the median income of the area significantly. The 2006- 2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates the median household income for the City of Ashland at $40,140. This is lower than the median household income of Jackson County as a whole which is estimated to be $44,142, and significantly lower than the median income of the average American household, at $51,914. Similarly, the percentage of families and individual living below the poverty level is substantially greater in Ashland than in Jackson County, in the State of Oregon or in the rest of the Nation. See table 1.2 below for details. 5 United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 1990, 2000 statistical abstract of the United States. - 16 - Table 2.2 Percent in Poverty Household type Ashland Jackson State of United States County Oregon Percentage of families in 11.5%9.9%9.6% 10.1% poverty Percentage of Individuals 18.8%14.0%14.0% 13.8% in poverty Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 6 According to 2000 Census Data the highest proportion of low- and moderate-income households are found in the central areas of the city north of Siskiyou Blvd, primarily in census tracks 19.1, 19.2 and 18.4. This area has a larger proportion of the city’s multi-family properties and is located near the University. Census data does not account for the student or seasonal population so no conclusions can be drawn about how the student population affects these census tracts. Census data does show however that these census tracts have the highest percentage of minority populations and can be considered a concentration of minority population in the city with 18, 15, and 15 percent minority populations in each census tract respectively. Income in Oregon has been below the national average for the last quarter of a century. There are four basic reasons that income has been lower in Oregon and Jackson County than in the U.S. Wages for similar jobs are lower; The occupational mix of employment is weighted toward lower paying occupations; A higher proportion of the population in Jackson County consists of seniors who receive only social security; Due to a higher proportion of seniors in the population, there is a lower proportion of 7 working age residents. 6 2010 Census information at that level is not yet available. 7 City of Ashland, Planning Department, Economic Opportunities Analysis 2007. - 17 - Table 2.3 Household Income 2000-2010 Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of households households households households (2000) (2000) (2010) (2010 ) All Households 8,552 100% 9,339 100% Less than 10,000 1,173 13.7% 906 9.7% $10,000 to $14,999 918 10.7% 677 7.2% $15,000 to $24,999 1,300 15.2% 1,203 12.9% $25,000 to $34,999 1,090 12.7% 1,286 13.8% $35,000 to $49,999 1,141 13.3% 1,490 16.0% $50,000 to $74,999 1,309 15.3% 1,553 16.6% $75,000 to $99,999 789 9.2% 779 8.3% $100,000 to $149,999 545 6.4% 819 8.8% $150,000 to $199,999 166 1.9% 294 3.1% $200,000 or More 121 1.4% 332 3.6% Median Income $32,670 $40,140 Sources: U.S Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Census data Employment Census counts estimate that 16,564 residents are 16 years old and older; of that number 10,322 are in the labor force. The unemployment rate in Ashland at the time of the American Community Survey 2006-2010 5-year estimates was 8.1%. However, current Oregon Employment Department data shows the unemployment rates for Jackson County in March of 2012 were 10.6% down from 11.3% in March of 2011. The unemployment rate for the State of Oregon is slightly higher than that of the rest of the country; though significantly lower than that of Jackson County at 8.6%. Between 2000 and 2007 Jackson County added 10,246 jobs, twelve percent over the seven year period. Growth slowed in early 2008 and in October 2008 the country began to post year to year job losses. By 2010, employment had fallen below its 2004 level, mainly due to the loss of 9,550 8 jobs between 2007 and 2010. In a recent press release, the Oregon Employment Department stated. “As the recovery from the Great Recession continues, unemployment rates continue their slow downward drift. Unlike Oregon overall, job growth has yet to resume in the Rogue Valley. But we were in a deep hole and it will take a number of years to gain back all of the jobs lost. As government sectors are continuing to grapple with revenue losses, these sectors are poised for 9 continued job cuts.” Though all sectors of the economy have experienced severe job losses and contraction, the public sector, construction and the hospitality industry, three major employers in the region and in Ashland have been hard hit by the recent economic downturn. It would be difficult to estimate the true impact that the economic downturn has had on the employment 8 Current Employment by Industry,” Oregon Employment Department, OLMIS. Average annual non-farm employment in Jacskon County was 83,910 in 2007, 75,640 in 2008, and 74,360 in 2010. 9 Recent Trends: Region 8, Guy Tauer, Published April 1, 2012, Oregon Employment Department, Worksource qualityinfo.org - 18 - trends in the City of Ashland at this time. However, it is easy to surmise that there is a delicate balance to an economy based on health care, education, tourism, and recreation. Industries that rely on discretionary income often are the first to suffer in an economic downturn. Within the City of Ashland the hospitality industry, food service, retail trade, and entertainment top the list of industries in which a majority of area residents are employed. See table 1.4 below. Table 2.4 Employment and Industry Industry Ashland Medford Jackson State of County Oregon Education Services, Health Care, Social 27.9% 20.1% 21.1% 20.9% Assistance Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 16.6% 11.7% 10.5% 9.2% Accommodation, and food service Retail Trade 11.9% 18.2% 16.3% 12.3% Professional, Scientific, Management, 13.1% 8.9% 9.1% 10.0% Administrative, waste management Manufacturing 4.9% 8.8% 8.8% 11.8% Construction 4.8% 6.1% 7.3% 7.0% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental 3.3% 6.9% 5.5% 6.4% and Leasing. Source: Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Table 2.4 shows that the predominant industries in Medford and Ashland are largely similar, but that the macro-economies of Jackson County and the State of Oregon as a whole show a more equitable distribution of employment throughout several diversified industries, though all employment within the state relies heavily on Education, Health Care, and Social Assistance. All of the predominant industries in the state show a particular vulnerability toward the housing and stock market’s collapse and the ensuing economic downturn. This no doubt accounts for the State of Oregon having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Many Ashland Residents are employed outside of the City, and conversely many employees of Ashland businesses live outside of the Ashland Community. The 2006-2010 American Community Survey estimates that 68.6% of workers 16 years old and older commute an average of 16 minutes to get to their place of employment. The majority of those commuting to work drove alone, 6.2 percent carpooled, 1.3 percent took public transportation, and 18 percent used other means. The remaining 13.3 percent worked at home. This number has grown since 2000, when 65.2% of workers reported commuting to work. Workers who routinely commute to work put added strain on both the environment through the production of pollution and the demand for fossil fuels, and public infrastructure such as roadways and parking. The City of Ashland continues to experience issues with traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, and parking. The lack of housing which is affordable, accessible, and located near employment options continues to strain the city’s resources and hamper its economic development.In the 2006 Workforce Housing Summit Workbook, Guy Tauer, Regional Economist with the Oregon Employment - 19 - Department stated “Many communities and businesses have realized that their future economic prosperity is dependent on being able to provide adequate and affordable housing for their 10 workforce, and have taken a proactive approach to dealing with this impending crisis.” In 2011 the Ashland City Council Adopted an Economic Development strategy which was the result of an extensive public process guided by two sub-committees appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. The subcommittees consisted of representatives from the business community, economic professionals, regional and state economic development agencies and community stakeholders. The Economic Development strategy identifies several strengths and weaknesses in the current economic environment. Namely, the City’s primary economic industry which once consisted of mill/factory work has been replaced by tourism. The nature of tourism in the region is seasonal and the wages are traditionally low. Two factors stand out as having an adverse impact upon the potential for economic development in Ashland; housing affordability, particularly the lack of workforce housing and the limited land 11 The City adopted a Buildable Lands Inventory update in supply for industrial development. 2011 which has since determined that the current supply of developable commercial lands is 12 greater than the land need projected by the EOA (Appendix Table A4). Community Visions and Values In April 2009, the Ashland City Council began work on goals to guide the City’s work for the next 18 to 24 months. To guide their goal setting, the City Council first defined their values. They described, in positive terms, the things they use to make decisions about what is good for the community and good for the City of Ashland as an organization. As members of the Ashland City Council, we value: Participatory government. We value government that is open, accessible, honest and democratic. We value responsive and visionary leadership by elected officials. We have professional, high quality staff. We seek to be efficient and effective with public funds. Our citizens are engaged with their local government as volunteers and in critical community decisions. Natural Environment. Our town is part of nature’s community. We seek to enhance the quality of water, land, air, and wildlife. We actively support energy conservation and alternative energy generation. Our parks and open spaces provide habitat for plants and animals and access to nature for our residents. Responsible Land Use. We value sustainable use of land, water, energy, and public services; our architectural heritage; and buildings with quality design and construction. 10 Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006. 11 Economic Opportunity Analysis for the City of Ashland, Eco-northwest, 2007. 12 City of Ashland, Planning Department, Buildable Lands Inventory 2001, pg 11. - 20 - We value a vibrant downtown, Lithia Park and strong neighborhoods. We support transit, bicycling, and walking throughout our land use plans. Free Expression. We invite the exchange of diverse ideas. We value the social, economic, and creative contributions of the arts, cultural activities, and community events. Diversity. We are a welcoming community that invites and respects the individuality and contributions of all people. Economy. We value an economy that creates wealth for all. We strive to nurture homegrown business and to connect local consumers to local products. Our economy supports arts and culture, connects to Southern Oregon University, and supports high quality public services. We value a business community in tune with the environment and that provides good wages and economic choices for individuals and families. Distinctiveness. Ashland is a unique part of the Rogue Valley. We depend on partnerships in our community and region to meet many of the needs of our residents. At the same time, we value our ability to develop innovative approaches and to chart our own course. Education. We value lifelong education. We value the social, economic, cultural, and civic contributions of strong, integrated educational institutions. Basic Needs. We believe each person needs public safety, water, sanitation, adequate food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care. Community. We believe Ashland is a unique and special place. Residents participate in community life and feel a sense of belonging. Community gardens, neighborhoods, schools, volunteerism, and events bring our residents together. Residents look out for each other and support those in need. What objectives do housing policies try to achieve? The development of new housing units is primarily driven by the private market and are built and owned privately. While land use powers of local governments can impact the development of certain housing types, the primary role of local governments has been on regulation to promote public health and safety and to provide for the installation of infrastructure. Housing policies work to address housing in four categories: Community Life. From a community perspective, housing policy is intended to provide and maintain safe, sanitary and satisfactory housing with efficiently and economically organized community facilities to service it. In other words, housing should be coordinated with other community and public services. Although local policies do not always articulate this, they are implicit in most local government operations. Comprehensive plans, zoning, subdivision ordinances, building codes, and capital - 21 - improvement programs are techniques most cities use to manage housing an its development. Local public facilities such as schools, fire and police stations, parks, and roads are usually designed and coordinated to meet demands created by housing development. Social and equity concerns. The key objective of social goals is to reduce or eliminate housing inadequacies affecting the poor, those unable to find suitable housing, and those discriminated against. In other words, communities have an obligation to provide safe, satisfactory housing opportunities to all households, at costs they can afford, without regard to income, race, religion, national origin, family structure, or disability. Design and environmental quality. The location and design of housing affect the natural environment, residents’ quality of life, and the nature of community life. The objectives of policies that address design and environmental quality include neighborhood and housing designs that: meet household needs, maintain quality of life, provide efficient use of land and resources, reduce environmental impacts, and allow for the establishment of social and civic life and institutions. Most communities address these issues though local building codes, comprehensive land use plans, and development codes. Stability of production. Housing is a factor in every community’s economy. The cyclical nature of housing markets, however, crates uncertainties for investment, labor, and builders. The International City Manager’s Association suggests that local government policies should address this issue-most do not. Moreover, external factors (e.g. interest rates, cost building materials, etc.) that bear upon local housing markets tend to undermine the effectiveness of such policies. - 22 - Analysis of historical development trends provides insights into how the local housing market is working. The housing type, mix, and density of past trends are key variables in forecasting future land need. To undertake such an analysis the following parameters are established: Determine the time period for which the data must be gathered. Identify types of housing to address (all needed housing types). Evaluate permit/subdivision data to calculate the actual mix, average actual gross density, and average actual net density of all housing types. In completing this analysis the City reviewed the housing mix and density of development that occurred from 2000 through 2011 (as the 2002 HNA reviewed that data through 2001). This long term analysis provides greater insight into the functioning of the local housing market than would a typical five year period given fluctuation especially in consideration of the national housing market collapse following the subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2008. Table 3.1 shows the actual type distribution of new housing units developed between 2000 and 2011. Table 3.1 Housing mix by Permit Issued 2000-2011 Housing Type BuildingsUnitsPercent of Units Single-Family1159 1159 80.3% Two-Family 19 38 2.6% Three and Four-Family 14 45 3.1% Five or More 30 202 13.9% 1222 1444 100% Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau data 2000 and 2010 According to Census Data, Ashland added 1,444 new dwelling units between 2000 and 2011. This is a 16% increase in the total number of dwellings over 10 years. This rate of unit growth is down from 26% in the previous ten year period. As seen in the table above (Table 3.1), the trend identified in both the 2002 HNA and the 2007 RNA, of single family development over multi- family development has continued. Residential Construction Trends Housing development trends identified in the 2002 HNA have persisted. Namely single family housing development has continued to outstrip the development of multi-family housing by a significant margin. The need for multi-family housing continues to grow, while the development of multi-family housing continues to lag. Rental units in price ranges affordable to those with - 23 - the lowest incomes are in the most demand. Lastly, ownership housing affordable to those making median income to 120% of Area Median Income in Ashland despite recent gains is still out of reach. Single Family In 2000 the estimate of one-unit detached, and one-unit attached dwelling units represented 65.3% of the housing stock. The 2008-2010 ACS estimates that one-unit attached and detached units make up 71.9% of the City’s housing stock. This is an increase of 6.6% over the past decade. There has been and continues to be a clear trend of the development of single-family housing types over all other housing types. Multi-family The 2008-2010 ACS estimates that Ashland’s housing stock is made up primarily of single family units, with only 29.4% multi-family units. This disparity in the development of single family versus multi-family development is shown in table 3.1 above. Condominium Ownership The City allows conversion of existing apartments to ownership units only in cases where 25% of the units converted are affordable and where the current residents have first right of refusal. The Affordable Housing Program parameters under resolution 2006-13 establish that rental apartments converted into condominiums are to be affordable at the 80% income level for a period of not less than 30 years. Since 2003, ninety-two units have converted from rental units to condo-minimized ownership units. Twenty-eight of those units which have converted have been deed restricted as affordable. In that same period sixty-three new Condominium units have been developed. Since 2008 no new condominium units have been built or converted. Retirement and assisted living The City of Ashland has three large retirement/assisted living facilities and one nursing home. Altogether these facilities comprise 293 dwelling units and maintain an average occupancy rate of approximately 82%. These facilities were developed primarily in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. No new facilities have been developed in the last decade. Group housing The City currently has a total of five group homes for youth and special needs populations able to accommodate up to 28 individuals. The University has four group housing complexes on campus offering a total of 1070 beds. The university is currently in the process of building a new residence hall which is estimated to house over 800 people within two separate buildings. However, these new beds will not increase capacity but will replace existing beds currently available in other complexes whose space will be converted to other uses. - 24 - Southern Oregon University (SOU) housing and enrollment As mentioned in the section on group housing above, SOU maintains four group housing complexes with the current capacity to house 1,070 individuals.SOU also maintains two large scale multi-family developments, Old Mill Village Phase I and II, which constitutes their family housing units. These two rental complexes are comprised of 130 and 35 units respectively and offer a range of 1 bedroom units to 4 bedroom units with a base capacity to house approximately 384 individuals. SOU also maintains approximately 28 single family houses varying in size from studio to 4-bedroom. Taken altogether SOU has the ability to house approximately 1,490- 1,520 individuals. In fall of 2012, SOU had a total enrollment of 6,336 students (exclusive of dual high school credit students).Of that total 912 student resided in dormitories, 125 students resided in family student housing (this total does not include family members who are not currently enrolled students who also reside in the family housing complexes), and 2,376 students resided in non-college owned housing within the City of Ashland. The remaining 2,923 students resided outside of Ashland. Table 3.2 below provides a breakdown of the areas where the majority of SOU students reside. Table 3.2 Southern Oregon University Fall 2012 Enrolled Student Population by Mailing Address Place of Residence* Number of Students Percentage SOU Dormitories 912 14% SOU Family Housing 125 2% Ashland 2,376 38% Medford 843 13% Areas outside of Medford and Ashland 2,080 33% 6336 100% Total *Place of residence is determined by mailing address (Source-SOU Institutional Research Center Fall 2012) - 25 - Table 3.3 2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates Housing Units by Type Units In Structure 20002000 % 2010 2010 % % Change Estimate Estimate Total Housing Units 9,071 100% 10,230 100% 12.8% 1-Unit, detached 5,375 59.3% 6,503 63.6% 21% 1-Unit, attached 544 6.0% 853 8.3% 56.8% 2 Units 458 5.0% 526 5.1% 14.8% 3-4 Units 641 7.1% 530 5.2% -17.3% 5-9 Units 609 6.7% 513 5.0% -15.8% 10-19 Units 380 4.2% 405 7.3% 6.6% 20 or More Units 821 9.1% 746 7.3% -9.1% Mobile Home 225 2.5% 154 1.5% -31.6% Table 3.4 Homeownership/Rental Rate Comparison % Renters 2000 % Owners 2000 % Renters 2010 % Owners 2010 Ashland 47.7% 52.3% 49% 51% Jackson County 33.5% 66.5% 36.7% 63.3% State of Oregon 35.7% 64.3% 36.2% 63.8% U.S. Census Bureau Income and affordability of Housing Housing costs are influenced by several factors, including: lot size, land cost, availability of materials, labor, interest rates, and supply and demand. Housing Choice is often driven by a household’s income. Similarly, income is a key indicator of a households’ ability to find and retain safe, decent housing. Income is also the main determinant in most householders’ housing choice. A household which is cost burdened by a rent or mortgage payment (an amount which requires a 30% or more of a household’s income) is less stable and more susceptible to losing that housing should some disruption to employment, health crisis or other unexpected circumstance arise. These vulnerable households can then fall into homelessness, or require state or federal assistance to become stable again. Ability of a household to afford monthly rent or mortgage costs will, for the most part, also be the determining factor in where a householder chooses to live. Often the household will forego other housing priorities, such as square footage, bedroom size, household amenities, commute time to work, and other quality of life choices due to housing affordability. Renter households are two times more likely to be cost burdened than owner households. Approximately 2,737 or 63% of renter households experience cost burden, while only 1,352 or 48% of homeowners experience cost burden from housing costs. This can be attributed in part to a higher percentage of low-income rental households than owner households. In 2000, 37% of Ownership households paid less than 15% of their incomes toward mortgage costs, while a full - 26 - 13 45% of renters paid more than 35% of their incomes toward housing costs. In the ensuing decade the rapid rise in housing values has substantially increased the costs of homeownership, but even with that increase homeowners as a group still tend to experience less cost burden than renters. As seen in Section II- Framework for Housing Needs-Community Context, the City of Ashland has a higher percentage of families and individuals living below the poverty level than Jackson County or the State of Oregon as a whole. The City also has a higher proportion of lower paying service sector jobs and a higher percentage of seniors in the population than in other parts of the County or State. These factors contribute to the large percentage of households experiencing cost burden. According to the State Housing and Community Services Department, housing cost in 1990 was increasing at a rate of 9% while household income increased at an annual rate of 2%. Between 2000 and 2010 median mortgage costs for homeowners in Ashland went up by 53%. Rental costs for Ashland residents increased 47% in that same period. While median Household income 14 increased by only 22.9%. This long term trend of housing costs outstripping incomes has exacerbated the demand for affordable housing throughout the state. The increasing need for affordable housing units has taxed the traditional methods of funding affordable housing and cannot be sustained into the future should the trend continue. Rental Units 2008-2010 ACS estimates that 48.2% of all occupied housing units or 4,498 are renter occupied units. Fair Market rents for Jackson County as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development mandate the maximum amount that projects developed using Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) or Tax-Exempt bonds are allowed to charge. These amounts correspond to the HUD income guidelines for that area. In 2012 the Fair Market rent for a two bedroom unit was $807 a month. In order for an individual to afford a rental unit at that rate, and not experience cost burden, they would need to earn $15.13 an hour.Currently the 2008-2010 ACS estimates that the median income for a worker in Ashland is $19,042 per year or $9.92 an hour. Currently a HUD regulated two bedroom unit in Ashland is mandated to rent for $590 a month. In 2012 the City of Ashland posted a questionnaire on the City’s website that looked as specific housing related questions some of which corresponded to questions posed in the 2007 Rental Needs Analysis’ random call survey conducted by Riley Research. The City also sent out a business reply mailer to a selected list of rental property owners and property management companies compiled from two sources; the City’s business license registry( which included all businesses who rent six or more units), and the list of rental properties developed by SOU 13 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 2000 Census. 14 Ibid. - 27 - planning students in 2007. The information gathered from the community questionnaire and the direct mailing are cited throughout this document. One question posed asked respondents to rate rental housing options in three areas on a scale of one to ten. Of the 110 respondents that answered the question, the majority believed that the availability of rental options, the quality of rentals, and rental pricing were all less than satisfactory. While the majority of the respondents felt that rent availability and quality were somewhat satisfactory, the overwhelming majority of respondents felt that rental pricing was unsatisfactory. Chart 3.1 Extremely-Low Income (Less than 30% of Area Median Income): As shown in Chart 3.2 below, the findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census Data, the City of Ashland has a shortage of rental units affordable to those residents with the lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. According to the Housing Needs Analysis, only 3.05% of the City’s rental housing stock meets the needs of this population at approximately 152 units. The City’s current need for rental housing in a price range affordable to those with the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately 803 units to meet the needs of these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to these populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35 and to a lesser extent over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The - 28 - 729 households under the age of 35 that report having an income of under $10,000 a year may be due in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of non-traditional students. Currently there are approximately 100 households who receive a rental subsidy voucher from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to offset housing costs. There are 142 project based subsidized rental units located within the City of Ashland. Of these units 73 are set to expire within the next 5 years and the waiting list for portable vouchers through the Housing Authority of Jackson County is approximately three to four years out. Households making 30% of the AMI or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland households. Low-Income (Between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income): The current supply of housing units affordable to low-income populations represents approximately 5.68% of the City’s rental housing stock or 283 units. The current estimated need for housing affordable to this income group is 1,052 units; leaving a gap of approximately 769 units. The proportion of households represented by this income group is fairly evenly dispersed though all age groups and represents 11.3% of all households. Moderate Income (Between 50% and 80% of Area Median Income): The current supply of housing units affordable to moderate income populations represents approximately 49.3% of the City’s rental housing stock or 2,453 units. This is by far the majority of the City’s rental housing stock, however at the low end of the income scale (50%) nearly half of the units that fall in this rental category would not be affordable. The need for rental units at this price point is in far less demand as the current need is estimated to be 1,420 units, leaving a surplus of 1,034 rental units affordable to people making between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI. Median Income and above (100% and above): The current supply of housing units affordable to the population making above 80% AMI represents approximately 42% of all rental housing units. At 2,088 units, rental housing units in this price range (approximately $898-over $1,133 a month) are in the least demand, with current need estimated to be approximately 840 households able to afford units in this price range, creating a surplus of 1,248 units. The surplus in units may be due to the fact that households that are able to afford a higher rent may be opting for a unit below that which that household may be able to afford, thereby exacerbating the deficit of rentals at the lower end of the income scale. - 29 - CChart 3.2 Current Houssing Balannce-RentalUnits by ccost range 20000 15000 10000 5000 00 0$194$195$$422$4233$655$656$897$$898$1132$1133+ 5000 10000 HHousing StockCuurrent NeeddCurrent Surplus Ownershhip Units Extremelly-Low Incoome (Less thhan 30% ofAArea Mediann Income): An individuual making 330% of AMI oor $12,300 aa year accordding to the 20012 HUD inncome guidellines would be able to affford to purchaase a housingg unit for a mmaximum off $51,115. TThere is veryy little availaability of houusing at this inccome level, Rogue Valleey Habitat foor Humanityy provides hoousing targetting extremeely low-income househoolds,but withh the extremmely low purcchase price tthe private mmarket is unaable to providde ownershipp units at thiss level. Somme Mobile annd Manufacttured home uunits in a parrk might be within this pprice range. Low-Incoome (Betweeen 30% andd 50% of Areea Median IIncome): Thhe Housing NNeeds Analyysis estimatess that there aare 150 existting units avaailable for $72.3 thousannd and beloww, and an estimatedd need of 401 units at thiis level. Thiis leaves a gap of 251 owwnership uniits affordable to househollds earning 330%-50% off the AMI. Moderatte Income (BBetween 50%% and 80% oof Area Meddian Incomee):The numbber of ownerrship units avaailable that arre affordablee to people mmaking 50%% to 80% of AAMI is estimmated to be approximmately 260.The estimateed need for oownershipuunits costing between $722K-$185.3KK is 2,070. Thhe units at thhe high end oof the price sscale would be unaffordable to thosee earning bellow 50% of AAMI. - 30 - MedianIIncome:Thhere is a limiited supply oof ownershipp units afforddable to thosse earning median inncome. Acccording to thhe National AAssociation oof Home Buuilders Afforrdable Housiing 15 Price Callculator, a householdmmaking the mmedian incomme for the MMedford/Ashlland area could afford to purchase a hhouse for $1163,126. The calculator assumes a 220% down paayment, currrent interest rrates on a 30 year fixed loan assuminng a 90% loaan to value ratio. The Housing Needds Model esstimates thatt there are appproximatelyy 410 units aavailable bet3300 and beloow. ween $185, While maany househoolds earning median incoome could quualify for a lloan to purchhase a housee at the lowerr end of the scale, those same househholds wouldd be cost burddened it theyy had to pay a mortgagee on a housinng unit of ovver $163,0000. Over 78%% of the Cityy’s ownershiip housing sttock consists of units whhich cost $2779,300 and above,wwhile the demmand for houusing units inn that price rrange is onlyy about 1,7500 householdss. From Chhart 3.3 beloww it is clear tthat the private market hhas providedd a surplus off high cost housing,over 2,255 uunits, while the remaininng 22% of thhe housing sttock availabble for sale costing leess than $2779,300 is in ssuch demandd that there is a housing gap of 3,1477 units. The highestddemand is for those unitss affordable tto householdds making thhe 100% AMMI to 120% AAMI at approxximately 1,332 househollds. CChart 3.3 /ǒƩƩƩĻƓƷIƚƚǒƭźƓŭ.ğğƌğƓĭĻhhǞƓĻƩƭŷŷźƦ ƓźƷƭƭ 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 72.3K723K<110.1K110.1K<147.6K147.6K<1855.3K185.3K<279.3K279.3++ 1000 HousingSStockCuurrentNeedCurrenntSurplus 15 Nationall Association oof Homebuilderrs affordabilityy calculator: http://wwww.nahb.org/genneric.aspx?geneericContentID==78355 - 31 - While it is clear that it is not profitable for the private market to build housing targeting those households at the 50% of AMI and below, housing units targeting 50% to 100% AMI while slightly more feasible still requires some incentive and subsidy to make the development feasible. Further, these units will have to compete with units of a similar price in the nearby markets of Talent, Phoenix, and Medford, which while requiring a longer commute time, can often offer more house for the same or even a lower price. At the same time the only entities that can provide ownership housing targeting moderate and low-income households are affordable housing providers, which utilize federal, state and local tax credit and subsidy programs in order to develop such units. These entities are few in a small region like Southern Oregon and must compete with the rest of the state for funding. Capacity building for these affordable housing entities can be difficult as affordable housing financing can be a complex and highly competitive process, and more so in a time of shrinking federal and state funding for such programs. Buildable land supply Land supply affects land price and by extension, housing price.Statewide Planning Goal 10, and ORS 197.296, requires communities to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable residential land within their Urban Growth Boundaries. The City of Ashland’s supply of buildable lands was recently quantified in the 2011 Buildable Lands inventory adopted in November 2011. The land availability component of a Buildable Lands Inventory needs to be compared to the expected demand for various housing types to ensure minimum 20 year availability. This Housing Needs Analysis provides a detailed assessment of precisely what mix of housing types will be needed through 2040 (see Table 7.1). Using this projected housing type need, and correlating it to the land availability in each Comprehensive Plan designation we can ascertain whether sufficient land will be available over the next 20 years or longer. Table 3.5 Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type {CwaǒƌƷźŅğƒźƌǤƚƷğƌƭ Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010 BLI) 146913842853 Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis 1557 1759 3316 through 2040 Deficit by 2040 -88 -375 -463 Annual units needed through 2040 55.6 62.8 118.4 Total Year Supply 26.4 22.0 24.1 - 32 - The City estimates vacant buildable lands in all designations that allow residential uses have a total capacity of 2853 dwelling units within the urban growth boundary. It is important to note that the inventory of available land includes a significant number of small lots within the City limits that can only accommodate 2-4 additional units given their size. The need for larger developments of multifamily housing (5+ units) requires larger undeveloped properties of the type that are typically located outside the City Limits, yet within the Urban Growth Boundary. The estimate of dwelling unit capacity includes a 50% reduction for residential on Commercial and Employment Lands as such units are not required and it is unlikely that all future commercial development will incorporate a residential component. As demonstrated in Table 3.5 this capacity would accommodate approximately 22 years of multi-family housing growth, and 26.4 years of single family development. Distribution of these potential housing units on available buildable lands based on comprehensive plan designation is more fully detailed below. Table 3.6 Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation Dwelling Units by Type Existing Dwelling Net Buildable distributed into existing capacity Comprehensive Plan Unit Capacity Acres (2011 BLI) SFRMulti-family Per Airport Airport 0 0 0 Master Plan Commercial 15.8 252 0 252 Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340 Downtown 2 53 0 53 Employment 105.1 221 0 221 HC 1.4 15 0 15 HDR 8.9 162 0 162 Industrial 12.1 0 0 0 LDR 38.1 70 70 0 MFR 30.8 323 0 323 NM 17.7 118 100 18 SFR 214 875 875 0 SFRR 48 103 103 0 SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0 Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0 Woodland 4.3 10 10 0 Totals 622.8 2853 1469 1384 Note:Expected Dwelling Units on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be permitted as such units are not required. - 33 - Single Family and Manufactured housing, detached 2010 ACS estimates that there are 10,203 total housing units within the City of Ashland. Of that total 6,710 are 1 unit detached, and 46 are Mobile home units on individual lots. Between 1990 and 2010 there has been a marked increase in the supply of attached and detached single family units. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of single family detached units increased by 52%, between 2000 and 2010 that increase was 21%. While the number of mobile home units in the City decreased by 1.5%. (See Table 3.3 on page 24). Manufactured housing units in parks As mentioned above the number of mobile home units located in the City has decreased in recent years after remaining fairly consistent. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of mobile home units in the City increased by 18%, then between 2000 and 2010 the number of mobile home units decreased by 9% for an overall 20 year decrease of 1.9%. There are currently two mobile home parks within the City. A park formerly located across the street from “Upper Pines”, known as “Lower Pines” was sold and the purchasers redeveloped the land in to a mixed use commercial development, the loss of this park may account for the decrease in units between 2000 and 2010. Multiple or single-family units, attached; 2010 ACS estimates that there are 810 1- unit attached, 424 duplexes (2-units), and 2,194 units of three or more, down from 2,451 just ten years earlier. All together multi-family and single family attached housing types make up 38.2% of the total housing stock. Another trend which is highlighted in the Table 3.3 on page 24 has been the decrease of medium and large scale multi-family developments. The number of multi-family units consisting of more than 4 housing units has decreased significantly between 1990 and 2005. Complexes consisting of between 5 and 19 saw a decrease of 2% between 1990 and 2000, similarly complexes consisting of more than 20 units saw a 9.1% decrease between 2000 and 2010. This is due in part to the conversion of multi-family rental properties to saleable condominium units, caused by the high land values of the past decade within the City of Ashland. In 2006, the City passed a condominium conversion ordinance in an effort to mitigate the loss of existing affordable and market rate rental properties which were not being replaced by the market. In 2007, a comprehensive inventory of multi-family housing units was completed by Southern Oregon University. This inventory also took into account additional uses of properties located in these multi-family zoned areas. This inventory allowed the City to see patterns of development within these areas. One pattern that stood out from the data collected was that single family units on single parcels were the most common housing type found in these multi-family zones. Single - 34 - family homes comprised one third of all housing units in these zones. This highlights another predominant problem with the development of multi-family properties, the majority of the property zoned for multi-family, higher density development does not build out as such contributing to a lack of more affordable housing types. Government assisted housing (below market-rate housing) Most people think of government assisted housing as Public housing or subsidized housing through the Housing Choice Voucher (formerly known as the Section-8 program) program However, there are several different avenues in which the government assists developers to provide affordable housing. Many large scale developments utilize a combination of funding sources in order to complete a project. Detailed below are a few of the most prevalent types of government assisted housing programs: Low-income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC):The Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program assists both for-profit and non-profit housing developers in financing affordable housing projects for low-income families and individuals. Some local developers of affordable housing are eligible to apply to Oregon Housing and Community Services which allocates funds based on a statewide Consolidated Plan. The City of Ashland has two projects totaling 66 units developed using LIHTCs and expects to see another six unit tax credit project developed in the near future. Public Housing Assistance-Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing Authority of Jackson County is the local provider of HUD funded housing programs such as the Housing Choice Voucher program and the Public Housing program. Currently the Housing Authority receives approximately 1,390 Housing Choice Vouchers for all of Jackson County. Just over 100 of those vouchers are provided to City of Ashland residents. There are no public housing units in Jackson County. Home Program: The City of Ashland is not currently a participating jurisdiction for HUD’s HOME funds. Some local developers of affordable housing are eligible to apply to Oregon Housing and Community Services which allocates funds based on a statewide Consolidated Plan. USDA Rural Development Mutual Self Help Home Loans/SHOP: The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development offers several loan options to assist low to moderate income households attain homeownership. In recent years the City of Ashland has awarded Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation CDBG funds to help leverage funds and initiate two Self help homeownership projects comprising 30 units that utilized funds from Rural Development programs. Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has utilized Self Help Ownership Program (SHOP) grant funds awarded to Community Frameworks from HUD on these projects. Similarly USDA Rural Development also offers low-interest loans and grants to assist low to moderate income homeowner’s complete health and safety repairs on their homes. The City also contains three large scale multi-family projects financed with Rural - 35 - Development loan funds. All together these units account for 153 units of below market rate and subsidized housing within the City. Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG): The City of Ashland is a Participating Jurisdiction for the Community Development Block grant program and as such receives an annual allocation of funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to undertake a variety of activities including the provision of affordable housing. The City has often prioritized the use of CDBG funding in support of affordable housing projects. Table 4.1 Government Assisted Rental Units Property Name Property Assistance Number of Number of IncomeContract Type Type Units Assisted LimitExpiration Date Units Ashley Garden Family RD 40 20 60% RD Ashley Senior Senior RD 62 41 60% RD Stratford Family Section 8 51 17 100% RD 16 Chief Tyee Family Section 8 32 29 30% 7/31/09 Donald E. Lewis Senior Section 8 40 40 30% 5/11/10 Star Thistle Disabled Section 8 12 12 50% 9/30/09 Sun Village Family Section 8 12 12 30% 1/20/13 17 Takilma Village Family Section 8 14 14 60% 8/31/09 18 Johnston Manor Senior Section 8 34 34 60% 12/26/08 TOTAL 297 219 Seasonal Units The City of Ashland has a thriving tourism industry. Consequently many housing units in the City are utilized on a seasonal rather than year round basis. It is difficult to discern the actual number of seasonal and vacation rental units there are in the City, due to the proliferation of unregistered units, however the City does keep a database of businesses registered as travelers accommodations located within the City. In May of 2012 a total of seventy five businesses have registered with the city as having a traveler’s accommodation or vacation rental units; these units come in many forms, from hostel, motels, and hotels, to individual cottage units and bed and breakfasts. Many of these housing units represent units not meant for year round occupancy, so although counted by census in the housing total, they are counted as vacant units. Between 2000 and 2010 the number of these units has doubled, and they now represent 3.8% of the City’s housing stock. These units will not contribute to the overall housing inventory available to meet the types of housing need quantified in this analysis. 16 The owners of the Chief Tyee complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2009. This complex is no longer mandated to be affordable although it was initially developed using HUD funding. 17 The owners of the Takilma Village complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2010. 18 The owners of the Johnston Manor complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2009. This complex is no longer mandated to be affordable although it was initially developed using HUD funding. - 36 - Owner Occupied units Owner occupied units represent 51.6% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4,856 owner- occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 10,210 individuals. The average household size for owner-occupied dwelling units is 2.10 people per unit. Rental Units Renter occupied units represent 48.4% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4553 renter- occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 8,907 individuals. The average household size for renter-occupied dwelling units is 1.96 people per units, slightly less than the household size of the average owner occupied unit. Housing Age and Condition The majority of housing in Ashland, 59.6%, was built prior to 1979; with 16.6% or 1,695 units being built prior to 1939. Despite the relative age of much of the housing stock, there are very few units which lack basic amenities. Only 1.9% of all occupied housing units lacked complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. 47.6% of all housing units were built between 1970 and 2000, 19 with the most new building activity taking place between 1990 and 2000. Though there are many other factors that contribute to housing considered to be substandard those factors are not accounted for in the Census information. There is little other comprehensive data to gain an accurate picture of substandard housing conditions within the City. Lead Based Paint Hazards: The age of the housing unit is a leading indicator of thepresence of lead –hazard, along with building maintenance. Lead was banned from residential paint in 1978. Of the 10,319 total housing units in the City of Ashland 68% (7,000) were built prior to 1980. The 1999 national survey found that 67% of housing built before 1940 had significant LBP hazards. This declined to 51% of houses built between 1940 and 1959, 10% of houses built 20 between 1960 and 1977 and just 1% after that. Based on those estimates, over 3,300 homes pose potential lead-based paint hazards in Ashland. Vacancy Rates Between 2000 and 2010 vacancy rates for rental and ownership units have remained relatively unchanged. At 4.2% and 1.0% respectively, rental and ownership vacancy rates in 2010 are relatively low. Survey results, census data, and American Community Survey (ACS) estimates show that the vacancy rates in Ashland typically range between 3% and 4%. A recent survey/questionnaire conducted in 2012 by the City showed the current rental vacancy rate to be 1%. This rate is below that of the overall rate for Jackson County at 3% and for the state of 19 United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. 20 Clickner, R. et al. (2001) National Survey of lead and Allergens in Housing, Final Report, Volume 1: Analysis of Lead Hazards. Report Office of Lead Hazard Control, US Department of Housing And Urban Development. - 37 - Oregon as a whole at 5.6%. The overall impact of a low vacancy rate is that there are fewer options in the rental market when people are looking for a unit to rent. Housing Value Housing value is a key indicator of housing affordability. The housing market has been extremely volatile in the past decade since the last Housing Needs Analysis was completed. However, despite a housing boom and the ensuing bust that played out in the intervening decade, the findings of this recent effort are much the same as they were in 2002. In the decade since the last HNA was completed housing costs within the City of Ashland have grown at a rate much faster than that of Jackson County, and the State of Oregon as a whole. The 2002 HNA reported an average home price of $277,742, which was an increase of 50% from 1998 (MLS reported and average sale price of $187,258 at that time). At the height of the housing boom in 2007 the median price for an existing home in Ashland was $438,750; by April of 2012 the median price for an existing home was $282,500; a reduction of 36% in a five year 21 period. So while home prices rose precipitously, they fell equally so, ending with the City’s housing price at a 14 year gain of 50.9%. Owner Occupied unit values: According to the 2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates, the Median Home price for Ashland is $408,400 while the individual median income for workers is $19,042. In order to afford a home in Ashland at the median price a household would have to earn $75,000 a year, which is well above Median Household, Median Family and Median worker’s income at $40,140, $52,940, and $19,042 respectively. In 2011 the average sales price according to the Roy Wright appraisal service, was $285,000, while this number is substantially lower than the median compiled by the census in 2010, it is still out of reach for households earning the median income in Ashland. The 2012 median household income for a family of four in the Medford/Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a home in Ashland at the 2011 median price a household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8% of the population reports having an income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership housing stock is targeted to this group. Conversely for a home to be affordable to a median household with an income of $58,500 a house could cost no more than $220,000. At this price there are 31 units out of 212 currently listed as available for sale within Ashland. Residential Home Sales: Recent data from the Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service (SOMLS) show that the median residential sale price of a home in Ashland has dropped considerably since the peak of the housing boom in 2007 by 36.2%; from a high of $438,750 to a low in 2012 of $282,500. The 2010 Census estimates the median home price at $408,400, which may reflect the market at a higher point when census data was collected, than the more recent SOMLS data. 21 SOMLS Home sale statistics. - 38 - CChart 4.1 MedianSSales Pricee of Existinng Homes --Ashland/JJackson County 500,0000 450,0000 400,0000 350,0000 300,0000 250,0000 200,0000 150,0000 100,0000 50,0000 0 20002007720112012 Ashlandd Median Purchase PrriceCounty Mediaan Purchasee Price - 39 - Projecting Ashland’s Housing need Section III looked at housing and economic trends that effect housing demand in Ashland. Section IV evaluated the existing housing stock targeted to various demographic groups within the population. This section will assess the City’s housing stock based on the current needs and those likely to persist or arise into the future. Section I, makes the distinction between housing need and housing demand. Housing demand is housing that the market built or is likely to build in the future. Housing need is based on the broad mandate of Goal 10 that requires communities plan for housing that meets the needs of households at all income levels. This section focuses on two specific need components: housing needs by housing type and density as implied by households’ ability to afford housing, and the needs of special populations. Methodology The following analysis uses a methodology suggested by Planning for Residential Growth: A Workbook for Oregon’s Urban Areas produced by the Transportation and Growth Management Program (TGM). The steps outlined in that document have been followed where feasible. City staff also contracted with former State of Oregon Economist, Richard Bjelland, to update the Housing Needs Model he created for Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and which has been used as a basis for projecting housing needs throughout the state in numerous Housing Needs Analysis. The Housing Needs Model utilized a methodology based on housing tenure, price, and housing type choices to determine housing needs, rather than a market or demand driven approach which was commonly used to define housing needs for an area. Rather than looking at historic housing production trends then projecting them forward, the Housing Needs Model looks at the age/income demographic of a study area and projects those demographic trends into the future as the market driven method will show development trends, those historic trends may not have been meeting the housing needs of the population to begin with . Where needed, data obtained from the Housing Needs Model was supplemented with data obtained from a City conducted survey of property owners and an online questionnaire, and census data comparisons. Populations Projections The components of population change are births, deaths, and migration. In compiling data on population rates for the city of Ashland four main sources of data were used. The Certified population counts provided by Portland State University’s Population Research Center, the 2005- 2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2010 Census, and the coordinated population estimates through Jackson County’s Comprehensive Plan. - 40 - The primary determinant of future housing need is the projected population growth and the demographics of that population. The City’s Comprehensive Plan projects an approximate population growth rate of 0.75% per year. This equates to approximately 187 new residents per year. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below look at population change over the past two decades and compares the differences in the population projections between the PSU population Research Center and the U.S. Census data with the Comprehensive Plan Projections. The Census data from the twenty year period is in line with the City’s comprehensive plan projections for population growth, while the PSU population counts based on the 2000 Census estimates a slightly (though not significantly) larger growth rate across the board. It is also clear from the tables below that the City of Ashland grows at a much slower rate than that of Medford or the County as a whole. If the trend continues into the next three decades then Ashland’s population should grow by approximately 6,000 and be slightly below the 28,670 projected by the County’s coordinated population estimate. Table 5.1 City 1990 2000 % Change 2010 % Change Average 1990-2000 2000-2010 Annual growth 22 rate Ashland 16,234 19,532 20% 20,078 2.8% .79% 46,951 63,154 34.5% 74,907 18.6% 1.98% Medford 146,389 181,269 23.8% 203,206 12.1% 1.29% Jackson County U.S. Census. Historic AAGR (average annual growth rate) Table 5.2 City Estimate Census Change % Change Average July 1, 2010 April 1, 20002000-20102000-2010 Annual growth rate Ashland 21,460 19,5221,9389.9% 0.9% Medford 77,485 63,68713,79821.7% 2.2% Jackson County 207,745 181,26926,47614.6% 1.5% PSU Population Research Center data estimate based on 2000 Census Data Table 5.3 Average 1990 2000 2010 Annual Age Groups Popula% of Popul% of PercentPopul% of Percent growth tiontotalation totalChange ation totalChange rate from 1990from 2000 pop. pop. pop. Under 19 4,775 24.5% 4,931 24.5% 3.3% 0.33% 6,184 38% 14.6% 20-24 2,314 11.9% 1,885 9.4% -18.5% -1.85% 25-34 2,174 11.1% 2,248 11.2% 3.4% 0.34% 31.5 5,126 -11.2% % 35-44 2,378 12.2% 1,918 9.5% -19.3% -3.13% 45-54 1,545 9.5% 3,249 16.6% 110% 2,694 13.4% -17.1% 3.72% 55-64 1,146 6.9% 1,736 8.9% 51.5% 3,212 16% 85% 9.01% 65-74 1,279 7.8% 1,272 6.5% -0.5% 1,562 7.8% 22.8% 1.11% 75+ 955 5.8% 1,624 8.4% 70.4% 1,653 8.3% 1.8% 3.65% 22 Average Annual Growth Rate calculated over a Twenty year period from 1990-2010. - 41 - Total population 19,5220,10 16,234 100% 100% 20.3% 100% 3% 1.19% 23 U.S. Census Bureau Age of Householder and age of projections There is a direct correlation between age of householder, income of householder and housing type. For example, an individual 35 years old to about 65 years old earning area median and above is more likely to move from rental housing to ownership housing because that individual has the means to purchase housing and the ability to maintain that housing and live independently. Similarly, households that are considered moderate income and below (80% AMI) have higher rental rates due to an inability to purchase housing despite other factors including ability to maintain that housing and to maintain an independent lifestyle. Those populations considered elderly move from homeownership to renter as they lose the ability to maintain their housing units and an independent lifestyle. As shown in table 5.3 above, the group represented by ages 25-44 in 1990 was the largest age group at 31.5%. A decade later that population counted toward the 45-55 age group, which grew in that ten year period by 110% accounting for the aging of the existing population, but also an in-migration of a substantial number of peoples in that age group. In that same periodthe City saw a distinct shift, from a population more evenly distributed between all age groups to a population more heavily populated by peoples in age groups of 45 years and older. The last decade (1990-2000) saw these age groups grow by double digits while younger age groups experienced little or even negative growth (-11.2 in the 35-44 age group). By 2010 nearly all age groups under 45 years old saw negative growth rates, with the exception of age groups under 19 years and 25 through 24. However, these age groups grew at a rate of less than one third of the overall annual average population growth, while age groups represented by 55-64 year olds grew at a rate nearly 10 times that of the general population. These projections show that the trend pointed out in the 2002 HNA still bears out; though the Ashland population is growing at a steady (albeit slow) rate, this growth is not divided evenly across all age groups. If this trend of aging households in Ashland continues into the future, housing targeting those populations 75 years old and older will need to be developed. That is housing that accommodates aging in place and ADA accommodations. Housing for the aged populations could also require units with less square footage and fewer bedrooms and with little to no landscape maintenance. Lastly, as householder’s age, homeownership becomes less economically advantageous and often homeowners opt to rent. Consequently the market for large single family houses on large lots could decline as the largest segments of the population ages. Theoretically, as older householders move out of existing single family units, the ownership housing freed up will serve as more affordable options for the next generations moving out of rentals and into homeownership. But if these population trends continue that may not be the case. For as those existing households age out of their current residences the population - 42 - replacing them, those households 44 years and under, are showing growth rates below that of the general population and in some instances negative growth rates, which will lead to less demand for and a surplus of existing ownership units. The population is projected to grow by 8,567 individuals over the next 30 years. The Housing Needs Model estimates that the City will need to add 2,657 new housing units in the next thirty years to accommodate the increased populations. If the trends of the past few decades bear out, the majority of these new housing units will be targeted to older households. Housing ownership by age of householder The 2012 to 2022 Ashland School District Enrollment Forecast shows a long term trend of declining birth rates within the Ashland School district. Similarly the forecast shows a general declining population of younger households with children over the last decade and partially 23 attributes this to an inability of young families with children to afford housing in Ashland. The school district demographic report also cites low birth rates and in-migration of householders 45 years old and older as other factors which contribute to the general aging of the Ashland 24 population and consequently the reduction in school district enrollment. These trends point to an increasing percentage of ownership housing being occupied by older householders. It is clear in table 5.4 below that the two biggest factors in determining homeownership are income and age of householder. As household income increases among all age groups so too does the rate of homeownership. This is also true of age, showing older householders with the highest percentages of homeownership despite income. Table 5.4 Percentage of Homeownership by Age and Income, 2010 HNM Household Age of Head of Household Income 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+ <10K 2.9%7.9%16.0%25.0%43.0%46.1%40.0% 10<20K 3.6%12.7%25.0%37.0%47.0%61.0%56.2% 20<30K 6.0%16.6%36.0%45.0%54.0%73.2%67.1% 30<40K 7.9%23.9%48.0%53.7%60.0%74.4%70.1% 40<50K 10.8%32.9%58.1%62.4%80.0%91.0%84.0% 50<75K 22.5%49.9%72.0%82.9%88.6%92.1%91.2% 75K+32.0%75.0%83.0%92.0%96.0%97.0%93.0% Household Income The Oregon Housing Needs Model Methodology states that “household income is the key variable in determining the affordability component of housing need and is strongly correlated 23 Ashland School District. Ashland School district Enrollment Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19. Portland State University Populations Research Center. December 2008, page 1. 24 Ashland School District. Ashland School District Population and Enrollment Forecasts 2012-13 to 2021-22. page 12. - 43 - with housing tenure”. The Housing Needs Model estimates that there is currently a significant gap of housing units at price ranges affordable to those with the lowest incomes and surplus of housing units affordable to those making above the area median income. Households who experience cost burden are more vulnerable and at a higher risk of homelessness. As seen in tables 5.4 and 5.5 age and income are the two biggest factors in housing choice. Table 5.4 above shows the relationship between age and income on homeownership rates; homeownership rates rise with increasing income and as householder’s age. Whereas the relationship of age and income to rental units is the converse; as incomes and ages rise rental rates decrease. Table 5.5 Percentage of Renters by Age and Income, 2010 HNM Household Age of Head of Household Income 15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+ <10K 97.1%92.1%84.0%75.0%57.0%53.9%60.0% 10<20K 96.4%87.3%75.0%63.0%53.0%39.0%43.8% 20<30K 94.0%83.4%64.0%55.0%46.0%26.8%32.9% 30<40K 92.1%76.1%52.0%46.3%40.0%25.6%29.9% 40<50K 89.2%67.1%41.9%37.6%20.0%9.0%16.0% 50<75K 77.5%50.1%28.0%17.1%11.4%7.9%8.8% 75K+68.0%25.0%17.0%8.0%4.0%3.0%7.0% Income Projections Household income is difficult to predict. Based on past trends, incomes are expected to increase (Median Household Income increased by 22.9% over the past decade). Poverty Status In 2000 12.5% of Ashland families, and 19.6% of all individuals lived below the federal poverty level. By 2010 those numbers have declined slightly to 11.5% and 18.8% respectively. Household Size and composition Household size within the City of Ashland has been decreasing slowly over the past two decades. Currently the average household size is estimated to be 2.08 persons per unit for owner-occupied households and 2.06 for renter households. The 2000 census estimated the average household size of owner-occupied units to be 2.30 and for renter occupied units to be 1.98. The average estimated household size for all housing types was 2.14. The Housing needs model uses a current household size of 2.119 and for forecasting purposes uses the same estimate. The 2007 RNA conducted property interviews with five property managers and from that information and the information gathered from a needs analysis conducted concurrently, Ferrarini and Associates determined that the greatest need in Ashland at that time was for the development of more studio apartments followed by a need for a relatively modest number of - 44 - one bedroom and three bedroom units. The analysis also showed that there was an oversupply of 25 two-bedroom rental units. The following table is from that report and illustrates their findings. 25 City of Ashland Rental Needs Analysis. Ferrarini & Associates, Inc 2007. - 45 - Table 5.6 City of Ashland Rental Housing Need by Unit Type RNA 2007 Type Demand Supply Net Need Studio 1,039 392 647 1 Bedroom 1,290 1,188 102 2 Bedroom 872 1,676 (804) 3+ Bedroom 900 846 54 Total 4,102 4,102 0 26 Source: US Census and Ferrarini & Associates An updated analysis of household size and type found much the same thing. There is a definite lack of studio units for the growing percentage of 1-person households among both renter and owner-occupied households, both of which grew at two and three times the rate respectively of the total populations of all renter and owner households. This could be attributed to three factors; the disproportionate growth of older households, a nearly 50% reduction in the number of 1-room dwelling units between 2000 and 2010, and the disparate increase in one and two person households. One factor that is estimated to have a substantial impact on the housing market is the steep decline of all owner occupied households larger than two individuals. These findings were further substantiated in the property owner and manager questionnaires sent out by the City in early 2012 which showed that studios were most in demand, while two bedrooms were in least demand. Table 5.7 Housing Units by Room Size Rooms 2000 % 2000 2010 %2010 % Change 1 Room 493 5.4% 247 2.4% -49.9% 2 Room 692 7.6% 515 5.0% -25.6% 3 Room 870 9.6% 1,252 12.2% 43.9% 4 Room 1,856 20.5% 2,043 20.0% 10.1% 5 Room 1,822 20.1% 2,168 21.2% 19% 6 Room 1,498 16.5% 1,601 15.7% 6.9% 7 Room 827 9.1% 1,387 13.6% 67.7% 8 Room 624 6.9% 521 5.1% -16.5% 9 or More 389 4.3% 469 4.8% 20.6% U.S. Census Bureau 26 Ibid. - 46 - Table 5.8 Owner Occupied Units by Household Size HH Size 2000 2000% 2010 2010% % Change Total 4,456 100 4,856 100% 9% 1-person 1,117 25.1% 1,460 30.1% 30.7% 2-person 1,946 43.7% 2,212 45.6% 13.7% 3-person 647 14.5% 623 12.8% -3.7% 4-person 532 11.9% 412 8.5% -22.6% 5-person 157 3.5% 103 2.1% -34.4% 6-person 45 1.0% 34 .7% -24.4% 7 or more 12 0.3% 12 .2% 0% U.S. Census Bureau Table 5.9 Renter Occupied housing by household size HH Size 2000 2000% 2010 2010% % Change Total 4,081 100% 4,553 100% 11.6% 1-person 1,722 42.2 2,086 45.8% 21.1% 2-person 1,361 33.3% 1,336 29.3% -1.8% 3-person 594 14.6% 646 14.2% 8.8% 4-person 262 6.4% 305 6.7% 16.4% 5-person 90 2.2% 118 2.6% 31.1% 6-person 33 .8% 41 .9% 24.2% 7 or more 19 0.5% 21 0.5 10.5% U.S. Census Bureau Table 5.10 27 Estimate of Rental Units Needed by Household Size and Type 2010 Needs Analysis No. of HH Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom 1-person 2,086 1,252 834 2-person 1,336 601 601 134 3-person 646 291 355 4-person 305 31 274 5-person 118 118 6-person 41 41 7-person 21 21 Demand 4,553 1,252 1,435 923 943 Supply 255 1,506 3,647 4,822 Surplus/Deficit (997) 71 2,724 3,879 U.S. Census Bureau 27 Estimated household preferences based on percentages from the 2007 RNA-derived from Riley Research community survey. (60%-studio, 40% & 45%-1bdrm, 45%,40% & 10%-2bdrm, 10%,60%,90%&100%-3+bdrm) - 47 - This section concludes with a baseline forecast of housing demand. The baseline forecast represents our best estimate of how the market will perform over the next thirty years. The forecast assumes no changes in current City policy. In summary it is intended to provide a rough estimate of what the housing market will build in Ashland over the next thirty years. The forecast relies on the County’s coordinated population forecast as its foundation but also utilizes assumptions about average household size, persons in group quarters, and housing trends from a variety of sources including prior year’s census information and the Housing Needs Model. Table 6.1-Baseline forecast of Housing Demand 2010-2040 Variable Value Current-2010 Future-2040 Change Population 20,07828,6708,592 Persons in Group Quarters 9611,450489 Occupied DU 9,40912,9623,553 Single Family Dwelling Units 28 Percent Single Family DU 71.9%73.9% Number of Single Family DU 7,3569,5912,235 29 Persons in single family HH 14,93320,1415,208 Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5% Total New Single Family needed 2,235 Multiple Family Dwelling Units Percent Multi-Family DU 26.6%25.5% 30 Number of Multiple-family DU 2,7203,311591 Persons in Multiple-Family HH 5,5226,9851,463 Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5% New Multiple-Family DU 591 Total New Dwelling Units Needed Per the 2010 Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland - Aggregate HH size 2.032.1 28 Future projections based on Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, 2007-2009ACS 3- year estimates: Tenure by units in Structure, 2007-2009 ACS 3-year estimates: Total population in occupied housing units by tenure by units in sturcture and HNA Template 2-projected future housing status as of 2040. (See also Table A-7 in the Appendices. 29 Persons in household is calculated using aggregate household size per 2006-2010 ACS, the occupancy of the unit is not determined to be either rental or ownership households. 30 Same as above. - 48 - Vacant dwelling units - 583 Total new Dwelling units needed -2,657 over the next 30 years Dwelling units needed annually 88.6 Table 6.1 Table 6.1 is a baseline forecast of housing demand. That is to say that the table extrapolates the housing mix that would occur in the future based on past trends and market demand. The forecast utilizes data from two sources; the 2010 Housing Needs Model (which uses the county coordinated population projection) estimates for housing occupancy, household size, and vacancy rate, and the 2007-2009 American Community Survey estimates of total population in occupied housing units by tenure by units in structure (see appendix). This projection is solely based on housing demand and past trends, and predicts what the housing market demand would provide in the next thirty year period. However, housing market demand does not correlate to the housing needs of the community, as can be seen from the table. The housing market would continue to provide a surplus of single family housing units further intensifying the need for multi-family housing and housing that is affordable to the majority of Ashland’s residents. To base the housing needs of future populations upon historic trends would be to continue the inequities of the past into the future, and that is not the goal of this needs analysis. Instead, the needs analysis will use this baseline forecast to show how development trends within the city should be modified in order to meet the needs of the population rather than the demands of the private market. Housing needs by type and density We begin our analysis of housing need by reviewing the housing needs identified in the City’s 2002 HNA. The results show some profound differences between identified need by type and permits issued by type. The number of single-family permits issued in the decade between the last HNA and this current effort shows that the number of Single Family units continues to be developed at a rate nearly double that of multi-family. The 2002 study identified needed housing for the 20-year period between 2000 and 2020. At this point, the City is half way through that planning period. While some differences between identified need and what housing has been built can be explained by the cyclical nature of the housing market, particularly in multiple family housing, the development of the most needed housing types, low-cost ownership and government assisted and affordable rentals, lack the funding and support to develop at the levels that the community needs. These trends will continue, as long as the private market is driven by profit and the federal budget for affordable housing continues to be reduced.In Summary, the City is continuing to fall short of providing needed housing types as identified in earlier studies. - 49 - The baseline forecast however, is a forecast of housing demand. Other data presented in Section III, suggest that the market is not meeting the housing needs of many Ashland residents and workers. The continued disparity in the increase in housing costs compared to the increase in wages has aggravated the problem. Moreover, even if housing prices increase at a slower rate, the types of jobs forecast to grow in Ashland will not allow workers to afford housing. In summary, the financial need is substantial and a large deficit of lower cost units exists several points should be kept in mind when interpreting this data: Because all of the affordability guidelines are based on median family income, the percentage of households meeting the income criteria are comparable in all jurisdictions. For example, 36% of households earn 80% of the area median income. Thus, the income guidelines provide a rough estimate of financial need and may mask other barriers to affordable housing such as move-in costs, competition for housing from higher income households, and availability of suitable units. The ratios applied in the HUD income guidelines are defined such that somewhere around 40% of households will always be considered low income. Ashland is expected to add 8,592 households between 2010 and 2040. Assuming 36% of these new households are considered low-income by HUD, about 3,057 of these new households will be low-income. Table 6.2 Rental Units needed by Type Type Demand Supply Net Need/Surplus Studio 1,252 255 -997 1-Bedroom 1,435 1506 71 2-Bedroom 923 3647 2,724 3+ Bedroom 943 4,822 3,879 Housing Affordability The standard measure of affordability as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is when the cost of rent and utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of income. When gross rent levels exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it places a significant burden on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of their income toward housing costs are called “Cost burdened”. Householders who pay more than 50% of their income toward housing costs are called “severely cost burdened”. When households are housing “cost burdened” their ability to pay for the other necessities of life are compromised. - 50 - Historically a large percentage of renters in Ashland expend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The 2009-2010 American Community Survey data showed that 63% of renters in Ashland were cost burdened, of the 4,313 renter households in Ashland 2,714 pay more than 30% of their income toward housing costs. This is a 10% increase in the number of renters who were identified as housing cost burdened by the 2000 Census at 56%. The Housing Needs Model estimates that the City needs 1,163 units targeting those with those lowest incomes, with rents below $195 a month, 1,166 units with rents between $195-422, and 243 units with rents between $423-655. It is expected that the City will have a surplus of all units with rents at $656 and above. The Housing Needs Model shows that the majority of the rental units will need to be targeted to those households earning 50% AMI and below. (See appendix) Homeowners experience less cost burden than renters, but there continues to be a deficit of housing for moderate to above median income households and a surplus of units targeting those earning $75,000 a year and above, which is less than 25% of the population. The Housing Needs Model estimates that the City will need; 402 housing units available under $72.3k, 950 units with sale prices between $72.3k-110.1k, 916 units with sale prices between $110.1k-147.6k, 745 units with sale prices between $147.6k-185.3k, and 1,594 units with sale prices between $185.3k- 279.3k. The majority of the ownership units will be targeted to those making the area median income to 120% of the AMI. The model assumes a surplus of units priced at $279.3k and above. (See appendix) Housing Density Figure 6.1on page 51, show housing density in terms of units per acre mapped by census block. The City is comprised primarily of land zoned for single family dwelling units. Due to the high cost of land in the City of Ashland, most developments maximize the allowable density. One exception is land zoned for multi-family development. Though there is more land zoned for single family development, land zoned for multi-family developments is often developed as single family attached due to market forces, high end multi-family developments such as condominiums and townhouses are more economically attractive to private market developers looking to maximize density and profits. This has made it difficult for non-profit and for-profit developers to construct affordable and market rate multi-family rental complexes which were shown to be the housing type most in demand by the 2007 RNA. Similarly many of the existing affordable and market rate units are HUD expiring use properties, once the HUD contract has expired the rental units can convert to market rate rentals or be condo minimized. - 51 - Figure 6.1 The findings of the Housing Needs Model and an analysis of income and housing cost indicate that: A median family household cannot afford to purchase a home in Ashland. The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000 annually. The city needs approximately 803 additional units costing less than $200 per month. These units fall in the category of government assisted housing. Only 232 owner-occupied units in Ashland are valued, under $110,000 or about 4.5% of all owner occupied units. The small number of owner-occupied units valued under $110,000 limits ownership options in Ashland for households earning less than $40,000 annually. In summary, our evaluation of housing mix, density, and affordability suggests that the City continues to struggle with issues of affordability and needs to plan for a larger share of multi- family housing, and for a greater number of single family housing types on smaller size lots. Housing tenure remained fairly constant at 52% and 48% respectively for owners and renters, though the ownership rate for Ashland is lower than that of the surrounding areas it is similar to other communities which contain universities. - 52 - Figure 6.2 Owner Occupied units by affordability Figure 6.3 Rental Units needed by affordability - 53 - Housing needs of special populations Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) identify several “special populations” that have housing needs distinctly different than the general population. These include the frail and elderly, farm workers, peoples with disabilities, persons recently released from state institutions, and persons infected with the HIV virus, among others. The housing needs of these special populations are highly dependent on individual circumstances. It is not uncommon for the same individual to be classified into two or more of the categories. As such, it is very difficult to develop an estimate of the number and type of housing units needed to accommodate these special populations. In this section we estimate the number of persons with such disabilities and provide projections based on data provided by the 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations compiled by OHCS. Senior housing The 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations completed by OHCS to prioritize funding for new affordable housing units throughout the state looks at the number of housing units available to and the population of various special needs households by County. The OHCS Needs Analysis Priorities for senior housing is detailed in Table 6.3 below. Table 6.3 Senior Housing vs. Population (Jackson County) Special Needs population Existing Units Population % of Housing Housing Available Available Gap Elderly 1,119 8,047 13.9% 6,928 Frail Elderly 8 919 0.9% 911 Section IV-Ashland’s Housing Inventory, details the number of existing retirement and assisted living units within the City. The 2010 Housing Needs Model estimates that a total of 257 new units will need to be added to the City’s existing stock to house populations’ ages 65 years old and older. Of those units 83 rentals and 174 ownership units will be needed to accommodate the housing needs of seniors. Special needs housing The 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations completed by Oregon Housing and Community Services to prioritize funding for new affordable housing units throughout the state looks at the number of housing units available to various special needs households by County. The OHCS Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations estimates that that there are very few housing units currently in existence throughout the county for the majority of the people who could be categorized as having special needs. See table 6.4 below for details. Table 6.4 - 54 - Special Needs Housing vs. Population (Jackson County) Special Needs Population Existing Units Population % of Housing Housing Available Available Gap Alcohol & Drug Rehab 54 4,440 1.2% 4,386 Chronically Mentally Ill 47 2.842 1.7% 2,795 Developmental Disability 44 794 5.5% 750 Domestic Violence 33 170 19.3% 137 Farm workers 77 3,735 2.1% 3,658 HIV/AIDS 4 136 2.9% 132 Physically Disabled 44 497 8.9% 453 Released Offenders 0 194 0.0% 194 As seen in the table above there is currently a significant housing gap to serve special needs populations. If a proportionate percentage of the population were to be extrapolated forward to the 2040 population projection for the County, peoples with special needs would be an estimated 6.3% of the County’s population or 11,031 people. As the population increases it is evident that the number of housing units available to serve populations with special needs will continue to fall far short of the need for such housing unless a concerted effort to develop housing is encouraged. Housing Stock available to persons with Disabilities Census data reports that 2,379 people five years old and older with disabilities resided in Ashland in 2000. Peoples with Disabilities made up 12.8% of the population at that time. The 2010 Census and the 5-year American Community Survey estimates do not provide updated information about peoples with disabilities. However, as the City of Ashland has a greater percentage of the population which is 50 years old or older it can be expected that as the population ages housing that meets the changing needs of the population will need to be provided. Currently the extent of housing stock available to peoples with disabilities is not known. However four complexes representing 148 units designated for seniors and peoples with disabilities are listed on the preservation property list which are in danger of expiring as dedicated affordable housing for seniors and peoples with disabilities. Housing Stock available to persons with HIV/AIDS Information on the housing stock available for persons with HIV/AIDS is currently unavailable for the Medford/Ashland MSA. State of Oregon department of health services records show that 31 there are 149 people with HIV/AIDS living in Jackson County. The number of people with HIV/AIDS living within the City of Ashland is not known. Consequently, the City does not prioritize or track the development of housing stock available to persons with HIV/AIDS. 31 State of Oregon, Department of Health Services Website: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/data/docs/Livingcounty.xls - 55 - Homelesss Needs It is estimmated that inn 2008, 1 in eevery two huundred people in the statte of Oregonn was homeleess. Data fromm the Point iin Time hommeless Countt conducted across the State of Oregon and throughoout the U.S. iin January 2008 showedd that Oregonn has the higghest concenttration of homelesss people of aany state at .554 percent oor 20,653. The 2011 Poiint in Time hhomeless couunt for Jacksson County ttotaled 1,0499 people. Tootals are not broken out pper jurisdictiion but are ffor the entiree Continuumm of Care reggion. Of the 1,049 respoondents 39%% identified thhemselves as chronicallly homelesss (continuous for a year oor more or hhad at least fofour episodess of sly homeles homelesssness in the ppast three yeears), 48%, oor 502 responndents were families witth children. The majority of the respoondents 26% cited “coulddn’t afford reent” at the reeason for leaaving their laast living arrrangement. AshlandSchool Disttrict An article published in the Ashlaand Daily Tiddings reporteed on a rise in poverty inn rural areas. Specificaally, the articcle cited drammatically inccreased poveerty rates ammong childreen in areas deeeply 32 affectedbby the recession includinng Medford and Ashlandd. The Ashhland Schoool District reportedthat for the 22010-2011sschool year 884 children ccurrently atteending schoool within thee district reeport being hhomeless.TThis number is up from 662 the previoous year. Figgure 5 20011 One-Nigght Homeless Countt for Jackson Countyy Single Addult Men One Pareent Family Wiith Children Couplewwithout childreen Two pareent Family witth Children Unaccommpanied Youthh (17 or undeer) Other OregonHHousing andd Communityy Services reeceive federaal and state rresources to be used to supportsservices for hhomeless poopulations.TThey includee: Emergency Housing AAccount, Emergenncy Shelter ggrants, State Homeless AAssistance Prrogram, Shellter Plus Carre, and Supplemmental Assistaance for Faccilities to Asssist Homelesss. Additionnally, under tthe Federal 32 Hammonnd, Betsy. “Ruural Students mmost likely to livve in poverty SSome Southernn Oregon districts see high rattes.” Ashland DDaily Tidings 01 Dec. 2009. - 56 - Continuum of Care program administered by HUD, local governments and agencies can apply for federal funding for programs and services to prevent and combat homelessness. The Jackson County Continuum of Care has been the recipient of McKinney Vento funds since 2000. The City of Ashland does not directly receive any funds to assist homeless persons or persons at risk of becoming homeless, and there is no longer a local organization that provides services to homeless populations; however City of Ashland residents can access available services, programs and funds through ACCESS, Inc. the regional Community Action Agency that serves Jackson and Josephine Counties. Similarly, many non-profit agencies that provide housing or support services for homeless populations are eligible to apply for funds through OHCS or through the Jackson County Continuum of Care. In 2007, Interfaith Care Community of Ashland (ICCA), the sole provider of homeless services located within the City of Ashland, closed its Ashland location and consolidated its operations to that agency’s Medford office. Since the loss of ICCA the City passed an ordinance to set up an emergency shelter in times of inclement weather. Several local faith based organizations and Peace House, a local non-profit, offer weekly hot meals, showers, and occasionally a place to sleep. Though there are limited local housing resources for the City’s homeless populations, there are several organizations that provide emergency shelter, transitional housing, and other resources and supportive services for homeless individuals in Medford, but many of the City’s homeless lack the resources for or have transportation to get to those providers in Medford which is 19 miles away. Rental units at price ranges affordable to those with the lowest incomes (>$10,000 a year) would serve to reduce homelessness. The 2010 Housing Needs Model shows this population has the greatest need for housing. It is known that households who experience cost burden, those who pay a disproportionate percentage of wages toward housing costs, are the most vulnerable, and have an increased risk for falling into homelessness. Similarly, individuals and families transitioning from homelessness often have little or no ability to pay housing costs. These individuals and families need housing that is either subsidized or extremely affordable in able to work toward stabilization and self-sufficiency. - 57 - Housing Distribution Strategy In order to meet housing needs of the community over the planning period (Through the year 2040), some modification in the current distribution of housing that is being developed by the demand driven market will be required. The proposed modification is shown in Table 7.1 below. Table 7.1 Housing Type Distribution TotalEstimate Housing Type FutureFinal Target Current Needed Housing of Existing Needed/Distribution of Approx.Distribution to 33 UnitsUnits Gap Housing by Distribution meet future 34 Needed Type in 2040 by Typeunit need in 2040 Single Family 8,913 7,356 1,557 65.80% 80.26% 45.50% 325 154 171 2.40% - 5.0% Manufactured DU in Park 420 526 -106 3.10% 2.63% N/A Duplex Units 569 530 39 4.20% 3.12% 1.1% Tri-Quad Units 3,319 1,655 1,655 24.50% 13.99% 48.4% 5+ Multi-Family Total 13,545 10,230 3,315 100% 100% 100% This distribution modification is further exemplified by the 2010 Housing Needs Model outputs for unit type based on income and affordability. Based on Census data for income, the City needs many more low cost rental units, which are often multi-family units and government assisted housing units whether through tax-credits, loans, or subsidies in the form of project based or portable housing vouchers. The City has a deficit of ownership units below $279k. The Housing Needs Model shows a total deficit of 2,719 ownership units affordable to people making below $75,000 annually, which is the salary needed to afford a housing unit with a 35 purchase price of $279K . In order to achieve the desired distribution by 2040, the City will need to modify the development mix in favor of multi-family units over that of predominantly single family units which has historically prevailed. The City will need to substantially increase its stock of multi- family units in order to meet the desired distribution by 2040, skewing the development of such units beyond parity with the development of single family units to close the gap. 33 From 2006-2010 American Community Survey. 34 Number derived from Census Building Permit Data 2000-2011. See Appendix for details. 35 National Association of Homebuilders affordability calculator: http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=78355 - 58 - Table 7.2 Estimate of Income and Affordability - Housing Needs Model 2010 Rentals/monthly rent Number of Existing Units Current Needed Units Current Surplus/Gap 0-$194 152955 -805 $195-422 2831,052 -769 $423-655 1,052940 112 $656-897 1,401480 922 $898-1132 830557 273 $1133+ 1,258283 975 Total 4,9764,266 710 Ownership Unit Values <$72.3k 150401 -251 $72.3k<110.1k 82749 -667 $110.1k<147.6k 18665 -648 $147.6<185.3k 160656 -497 $185.3k<279.3k 6761332 -656 $279.3k+ 40041750 2255 Total Units 50895552 -463 Challenges and Potential Strategies Challenges To the degree the 2010 Housing Needs Model projections are accurate representations of Ashland’s future housing needs, then City may be faced with the following challenges over the next 20 years: How and where to zone and “protect” land for affordable rental and ownership housing as well as multiple-family housing at all levels. How to encourage developers to build what Ashland needs (by price/affordability), rather than the products they are comfortable building or which yield the greatest profit. How to continue to create and sustain Ashland’s great neighborhoods. House to create a variety of housing types and incomes in neighborhoods. How to encourage effective partnerships to increase funding for low-income housing and provide responsive, coordinated and effective housing choices and service. Goal To provide for the needs of the expected population growth in Ashland over the next 20 years and maintain a diversity of income, cultural, and age groups in Ashland’s population, consistent with other plan goals. - 59 - Objectives Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in Ashland, especially if increased growth pressure leads to more expensive housing. Concentrate on population groups that are important to Ashland’s character, such as students, artists and actors, employees of the city, school district, and college, service personnel who work in the tourism industry, hourly wage earners in local industries, and local residents who have not retired and live on fixed income. (Ashland Comprehensive Plan) Increase owner-occupied households to comparable levels with county and state ownership averages. Potential Strategies The City needs to look ways to encourage; Rental housing at rates affordable to low to moderate income households, Ownership housing opportunities that are targeted to the 76% of the population that earns less than $75,000 a year, More housing types targeted to seniors and peoples with disabilities, More studios and one bedroom units, More multi-family housing types, Manufactured housing in parks and on single family lots. Challenges To ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross- section of Ashland’s population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. (Ashland Comprehensive Plan) Objectives Conserve land and reduce the impact of land prices on housing to the maximum extent possible. Potential Strategies Encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area, Consider mixed uses wherever they will not disrupt an existing residential area, Support efforts for rehabilitation and preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods, Consider allowing and encouraging accessory apartments in new and existing, neighborhoods as an outright permitted activity in single family zones, Consider restricting the development of detached single family residential units in multi- family zones. - 60 - Challenges The local economy does not provide wages that are commensurate with housing costs. 49% of homeowners with mortgages, 14% of homeowners without mortgages, and 63% of renter households spent more than 30% of household income on housing costs. Objectives In order to provide for the long-term self-sufficiency of Ashland’s low- and moderate-income households, the issue of affordable housing must be addressed in a comprehensive manner. In addition to the land use related actions already identified, the following actions may help meet the objectives of decreasing the percentage of households who experience cost burden. Potential Strategies Provide more economic opportunities for Ashland residents by improving the local economy and attracting more “family wage” jobs, Support efforts of affordable housing providers, including; the Housing Authority of Jackson County, Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity, Access, Inc., Ashland Community Land Trust, and Umpqua Community Development Corporationto provide affordable housing, financial assistance, and services to Ashland low and moderate income, elderly, and special needs households, Dedicate Community Development Block Grant funds as projects and needs arise, Work with employers to better understand the demographics and housing preferences of their workforce. Conclusion The identification of a set of land use policies that will lead to the development of more affordable housing while achieving other community goals is difficult at best. Ashland however, is not the only community in Oregon, or the United states that is facing housing affordability problems. A considerable body of literature exists on land use policy and affordable housing that summarizes approaches that communities have used to address the housing affordability issue. In general, communities should review policies to ensure that (1) they do not create barriers to or exclude any housing types, and (2) they reduce the cost of housing. Below is a brief summary of some of the policy approaches that communities can consider to address housing affordability. Remove Barriers: Barriers to construction of needed housing or efficient use of land are those that public policy has imposed. A jurisdiction would select measures in this category if it has evidence that the market wants to build needed housing types or densities but is kept from doing so by public policies. The City should review policies to weed out ineffective - 61 - policies, obsolete design standards unnecessarily burdensome permitting processes and inadequate or inappropriate zoning. Provide Incentives: Incentives are measures that increase the likelihood that developers will provide needed housing or use land efficiently as a result of reduced costs. A community would select measures in this category, if it has evidence that the market might be willing to build a certain type or density of housing, but there is uncertainty about the success in the market place and/or current economic conditions for such development are less than optimal. Explore cost reducing measures including costs of public services and facilities, development fees, and other processing costs. An example of a less commonly considered incentive includes working with neighborhood groups to address concerns. If successful, this can reduce costs of lengthy appeals to the developer. Require Performance: These measures are mandatory plan policies and code requirements affecting development. A jurisdiction would select measures in this category if it has evidence that the market is not likely to respond, at the level of incentive that a community can provide. The public sector is not directly producing the housing. Therefore, estimates of the likely effect of these measures should be qualified by some uncertainty about exactly how the private sector will respond. For example, if higher density requirements or mandatory design standards are perceived by the development community (designers, builders, lenders as unprofitable or unmarketable, the desired housing may not get built in the community. In the case of up-zoning for higher densities, this may result in no housing development instead of housing at lower densities. For this reason, jurisdictions should seek a balance in adopting regulations and try to redirect, not stifle market forces that produce most of a community’s housing. In many cases, requirements should be applied uniformly on all developments so that no particular development gains a competitive advantage. This will encourage developers to find ways to produce the product within market constraints. Review development standards? Lot size typically impacts the price of lots, the size of housing units allowed and the overall price of housing units. Evaluate minimum lot sizes and setbacks, maximum heights and lot coverage of all zones. Evaluate compatibility standards, particularly for multiple-family developments and infill sites. Evaluate incentives for the development of smaller units. - 62 - Appendix - 63 - Table A-1 Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type {CwaǒƌƷźŅğƒźƌǤƚƷğƌƭ Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010 BLI) 146913842853 Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis 1557 17593316 through 2040 -88 -375 -463 Deficit by 2040 55.6 62.8118.4 Annual units needed through 2040 ЋЏ͵ЍЋЋ͵ЉЋЍ͵Њ Total Year Supply - 64 - Table A-2 Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation Dwelling Units by Type Existing Netdistributed into existing ComprehensiveDwelling Unit Buildablecapacity PlanCapacity Acres (2011 BLI) SFRMulti-family Per Airport Airport 0 0 0 Master Plan Commercial 15.8 252 0 252 Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340 Downtown 2 53 0 53 Employment 105.1 221 0 221 HC 1.4 15 0 15 HDR 8.9 162 0 162 Industrial 12.1 0 0 0 LDR 38.1 70 70 0 MFR 30.8 323 0 323 NM 17.7 118 100 18 SFR 214 875 875 0 SFRR 48 103 103 0 SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0 Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0 Woodland 4.3 10 10 0 Totals 622.8 2853 1469 1384 Note:Expected Dwelling Units on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be permitted as such units are not required. - 65 - Table A- 3a Housing Units by Type 2002-2011 Data Derived from City Database (EDEN) Year Permit Issued Mixed Use – Multi-Accessory New Group aboveFamilyResidential Condominium Homes commercial Units Units (not including mixed use) 3--- 2002 30 (SOU) 2--- 2003 2--- 2004 426 68 2005 22 5448 2006 13 227 2007 9280 2008 2009 0110 2010 060 40 2011 3209 (SOU) Total 58 96 27 63 239 Table A-3b Units per Year by Type 2002-2011 Data on single family and multi-family development derived from Census data YearSingleMulti-Accessory Condominium Group Homes Manufactured PermitFamilyFamilyResidential Conversions Homes Issued Units 2002 99 9 - - 30 (SOU) 1 2003 125 64 - 14 0 2004 103 55 - 4 0 2005 128 43 6 22 0 2006 47 57 4 34 0 2007 52 11 2 8 0 1 2008 20 12 8 10 0 0 2009 25 1 1 0 0 0 2010 34 10 4 0 0 2011 24 6 2 0 209 (SOU) Total 657 268 27 92 209 2 - 66 - Table A-4 Comprehensive Plan# of ParcelsNet Buildable Acres Airport 9 Per Airport Master Plan Commercial 52 15.8 Croman Mill 31 62.8 Downtown 17 2 Employment 114 105.1 HC 10 1.4 HDR 48 8.9 Industrial 6 12.1 LDR 83 38.1 MFR 115 30.8 NM 77 17.7 SFR 552 214 SFRR 27 48 SOU 19 19.5 Suburban R 50 42.3 Woodland 30 4.3 Totals 1240622.8 Source: Table 3.3 from the BLI: Buildable acres: UGB & City Limits - 67 - Table A5 Ashland’s largest employers Business # of Employees % of Population Southern Oregon University Approx. 750 3.6% Ashland Community Hospital 410 1.9% Oregon Shakespeare Festival 398 1.9% Ashland Public Schools 350 1.6% City of Ashland 229 1.1% Butler Ford Approx. 160 0.7% Pathway Enterprises, Inc. 130-150 0.6% Ashland Food Co-Op 130 0.6% Pro Tool Approx. 100 0.4% Linda Vista Approx. 75 0.3% Albertsons 72 0.3% Plexis Approx 70 0.3% Safeway 65 0.3% Town and Country Chevrolet 50 0.2% Cropper Medical 50 0.2% Bi-Mart 45 0.2% Source: City of Ashland, Chamber of Commerce website: www.ashlandchamber.com. - 68 - Table A6 Population Projections - 69 - Table A7 5ğƷğğƭƭǒƒƦƷźƚƓƭźƓĭƚƒƦźƌźƓŭğĬƌĻЏ͵Њ.ğƭĻƌźƓĻŅƚƩĻĭğƭƷƚŅIƚǒƭźƓŭ5ĻƒğƓķЋ /ĻƓƭǒƭ5ğƷğğƓķIƚǒƭźƓŭbĻĻķƭaƚķĻƌtƩƚƆĻĭƷźƚƓƭ 37 2009 American Number of Percentage Population Percent of Number of 36 Community SurveyUnits of Units HousingHousing Units 3839 Units 20402040 Total Occupied housing 9819100%20147100%12962 units Owner Occupied 483149%1023649%6351 Housing Units 1 detached 414042%985042%54445444 1 attached 3714%4%518518 2 units 00%00%03111 3 or 4 00%00%0518 5 to 9 410%1810%53 ВЎВЊ 10 to 19 250%0%0 АЌ͵ВВі 20 to 49 901%1%130130 50 or more 00%0%0 Mobile Home 1642%2052%25953 Renter Occupied 498851%991151%6611259 housing units 1 detached 236324%620324%3111389 1 attached 4384%4%518648 2 units 2933%13563%389508 3 to 4 5045%5%648456 5 to 9 3854%23134%508513 10 to 19 3464%4%456332 20 to 49 3894%4%51323 50 or more 2523%3%332 ЌЌЊЊ Mobile Home 180%390%23 ЋЎ͵ЎЍі 36 2007-2009 American Community Survey 3-year Estimates, Tenure by Units in Structure. 37 Population distribution from the 2007-2009 American Community Survey 3-year estimates Total Population in Occupied Housing units by tenure by units in Structure. 38 Assuming no change in policy or market conditions projecting the 2010 percentage of housing units by type forward to 2040. 39 Number of housing units expected to e needed in 2040 according to the 2010 Housing Needs Model version 1 - 70 - HOUSINGWORKPLAN HOUSINGWORKPLAN Prepared by the Department of Community Development 2013-2015 2013-2015 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 1 TABLEOFCONTENTS TABLEOFCONTENTS PURPOSE OF WORK PLAN ............................................... 3 HOUSING PROGRAM OVERVIEW ..................................... 5 HOUSING PROGRAM SPECIALIST ............................................. 6 HOUSING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION .................................... 7 HOUSING COMMISSION .................................................... 8 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ............................................................... 9 HOUSING TRUST FUND FINANCING .................................................... 9 CDBG PROGRAM ............................................................. 10 GENERAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ........................................... 11 CONSOLIDATED PLAN UPDATE ......................................................... 12 FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS ................................... 13 FAIR HOUSING REGIONAL COORDINATION ..................................... 13 LAND USE AMENDMENTS............................................... 17 HOUSING AND RENTAL NEEDS ANALYSIS UPDATE ..................... 18 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE .................. 18 VERTICAL HOUSING TAX CREDIT ...................................................... 20 PERMIT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS OUTRIGHT .................. 22 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS .......................... 22 CLAY STREET ....................................................................................... 23 HYDE PARK ........................................................................................... 24 PRESERVATION PROJECTS ............................................................... 25 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 2 Purpose of the Plan This Housing Work Plan is intended to identify specific housing activities that have been initiated by the City to be completed in the short term (2 to 3-year period). The plan will provide direction to City staff, and provide Performance Measures for Elected and appointed Officials to monitor the objectives and the success of the housing program. The plan aims to identify the specific benefits to be realized for each individual project. Lastly the time frame in which the objectives are expected to be met and a visible method to monitor and measure progress in meeting the objectives is indicated for each activity. Given limited resources and Staff time the individual activities also contain an estimate of staff and funding needs to accomplish the tasks. The nature of housing development and planning often requires a multiyear process to take a project from conception to completion. For the purposes of this work-plan the final outcome of a project initiated in Fiscal Year 2012 may not be realized during a 2 year period. In such cases milestones expected to be accomplished and a timeframe to completion is provided. A number of other housing activities are ongoing by their very nature, such as education and outreach, monitoring existing long term affordable housing units, and administration of the Community Development Block Grant program. In such cases the activity is defined and it is noted that the project will be ongoing. Further an estimate of the time commitment necessary to undertake these ongoing projects is provided to assist resource allocation. 2011-2012 Council Goals Relating to the Housing Program The Housing Program’s purpose is to work in concert with the Council to achieve the housing related goals and to carry out the Council’s values as they relate to Personal well-being and social equity. Social Equity Decide whether to develop or sell the remaining land on Clay Street. Appoint an ad-hoc committee to make recommendations to the City Council by December 31, 2011 about how the City and partner organizations can work together in the long run to address the needs of homeless people and to reduce homelessness in the community. To this end the City Council appointed and ad-hoc committee in May of 2011. The Committee solicited proposals from community stakeholders then forwarded four of those proposals received to the Council for review and approval. In April of 2012 the City Council extended the charge of the committee for another year, extending their authorization to April 2013. Currently the Housing Program Staff provides staff support for the committee. Similarly, the City maintains membership on the Jackson County Community Services Consortium’s Jackson County Homeless Task Force. The Jackson County Homeless Task force along with ACCESS, Inc. acts as the lead entities for the Jackson County Continuum of Care which oversees the allocation of the Federal Continuum of Care funding countywide. The Jackson County Homeless Task Force assists in the coordination of partner organization that work together to address the needs of homeless populations regionally. Staff attends meetings regularly and works to implement the 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 3 action steps identified in the Jackson County 10-year plan to end homelessness. Housing Program staff also attends the recently formed Ashland Citizen’s coalition meetings and works to coordinate the activities of that body with the Jackson County Homeless Task Force as well as to provide information on regional homeless resources and services. Economy Increase the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty of the development process. Develop a specific action plan to respond to the recommendations of the 2006 Zucker and Siegel Reports. The Housing Work Plan was a document that was recommended in the 2006 Zucker report to outline a clear set of objectives for the housing program. Conservation and Sustainability Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards and fee structures that create strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system. Identifying where and how to link City policies and incentives for higher density housing to investments in multimodal transportation will help to meet the City’s Conservation and Sustainability goals by reducing car travel, enhancing community connections, encouraging alternative modes of transportation through smarter design and planning, and providing increased opportunities for affordable housing development. In the period covered by this Work Plan, the Housing program will be exploring ways in which higher density housing can be encouraged in identified transit corridors and areas which have the potential for redevelopment. To that end City staff has applied for and been granted funds from the State of Oregon’s Transportation Growth Program to complete a land use and transportation plan for the 94 acre North Normal Avenue area, known as the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. The Normal Neighborhood Plan is intended to help guide future development and accommodate housing while enhancing mobility by planning for safe walking and bicycle routes and providing convenient access to future bus service. Similarly, incentives such as subsidizing infrastructure costs through SDC deferrals or CDBG support, and tax incentive programs that engage private and public development entities, such as vertical housing tax credit programs are ways in which the Housing Program will work to encourage the goals of conservation and sustainability. Develop a strategy to use conservation and local renewable sources to meet Tier 2 power demands. Housing Program Staff maintains a partnership with ACCESS, Inc. the County’s Community Action Agency, which provides low-income weatherization assistance to qualified low-income households. In prior years the City has granted funds to the Housing Authority of Jackson County to complete emergency and necessary repairs to homes occupied by low-income homeowners. The Home Repair program funds are in what is known as a revolving loan fund, meaning that the repayments from loans go back into the program to complete further repairs. Lastly, the City received an additional allocation of CDBG dollars from the 2008 American Recovery and Re- 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 4 investment Act. The City used the funds to complete energy efficiency upgrades to benefit low and moderate income homeowners in conjunction with the City’s Conservation program. Modifications to the Plan Should identified work arise that falls outside the defined scope of this work plan, the Project Manager must either deem the work out of scope and defer it, or in the event the new item is considered a high priority by the City, than the decision to expand the scope of the work plan to include the work will be necessary. The latter choice would result in changes to the work plan, resource allocation, budget and/or schedule.The City recently completed an update of the City’s Housing Needs Analysis, the findings of this document may identify strategies and priorities which may serve to modify this work plan, if so directed by the Council. The Ashland Housing Program Overview The term “Ashland Housing Program” is applied to various activities the City undertakes to address the unmet housing needs within our community. As there is no single means of adequately addressing the housing issues facing the City, a comprehensive approach toward program development has evolved over time. This comprehensive approach is appropriate to ensure we can implement all tools available to increase the supply of affordable housing. The Housing Program therefore has included the of development Land Use regulations, provision of financial assistance through Community Development Block Grants and the development of a Housing Trust Fund, and direct project development in collaboration with affordable housing providers. The chart provided below illustrates the general distribution of time dedicated to each aspect of the Housing Program over the course of a year. It is important to note that although the percentages provided approximate an annual distribution of time , due to the nature of housing development, grant cycles, and planning and administration the amount of time dedicated to given activities fluctuates considerably through the course of a year. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 5 Misc. 5% Document CDBG Preparation 25% 10% Project Development 10% Regional Program Coordination Administration 15% 20% Commission Support 10% Educationand Oureach 5% 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 6 The Housing Program Specialist The Housing Program Specialist position is involved in all aspects of planning, organizing, coordinating, and directing housing related projects, programs, functions, and activities of the City. With a specific focus on affordable housing activities, administration includes working closely with the Community Development Director, the Housing Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council to accomplish the goals outlined by the City Council. Additionally the administrative work of the Housing Program Specialist includes coordination with other City departments, a variety of public and private organizations, consultants, contractors, citizen groups, and the general public in developing or maintaining programs, and implementing projects in an effort to retain or developing needed housing. Essential job duties of the Housing Program Specialist included implementing the priority items identified in the 2008-2010 Housing Work Plan and the City of Ashland’s 2002 Housing Action Plan, those items which were not completed have been carried forward to be completed in this timeframe as well as implementing the additional items identified in the 2012-2015 Work Plan. Prior Work Plan and Action Plan Accomplishments Establish an Affordable Housing Trust Fund Adopt land use regulations that promote affordable housing o Annexation Ordinance o Zone Change Ordinance o SDC Deferral Ordinance changes o Condominium Conversion Ordinance Develop organizational capacity o Created a full time position to coordinate the Affordable housing program Regulatory Barriers Joint meeting Convene Employers group to develop employer assisted housing Ongoing Outreach and education Preserve and create affordable housing Identify long term funding sources for Housing Trust Fund Yet to be completed Strengthen provisions for accessory residential units to encourage their development Researching and identifying and recommending long-term funding sources for the Housing Trust Fund. Essential Duties Provide program and policy recommendations to help clarify and help develop administrative procedures and practices related to the City’s housing programs to assure that these programs are meeting identified needs and City Council Goals. Participation in strategic planning for assisted and affordable housing programs. Administration of the City’s Community Development Block Grant program to ensure compliance with HUD regulations for services to low and moderate-income households. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 7 Maintain awareness of new HUD policies and regulations, maintain required data, and prepare required reports. Maintain communication with regional HUD staff and CDBG subrecipients. Conducting contract monitoring site visits in accordance with HUD regulations. Negotiate and develop contracts and amendments to reflect City policies on housing. Review contract requirements and verify that the delivery of services or housing is in compliance with contract terms. Conduct studies and collect data to determine housing needs and the availability of resources for funding current or new programs. Respond to Council requests for information by submitting written reports or making oral presentations. Work in collaboration with Planning and Legal Departments to research and development standardized legal documents to record long-term and perpetual affordability requirements. Continuous work to improve operations, streamlines work processes, and to provide quality customer service. Collaborate with regional housing providers to coordinate services and efficiently manage limited housing resources. The Housing Program Specialist also acts as the City Staff Liaison to the Ashland Housing Commission and the Ad Hoc Homeless Steering Committee to assist them is addressing their respective missions and goals Housing Program Administration Administration of the existing City of Ashland Housing Programs is an vital part of the work of the Housing Program Specialist to maintain the integrity of the program and to ensure that the benefits of the needed housing secured through the program are realized by the community. In an effort to secure housing as affordable the City of Ashland has offered a number of incentives to housing providers including the waiving of System Development Charges, waiving of Community Development and Engineering Fees, direct subsidy in the form of CDBG grants or City property, Density Bonuses in residential development, as well as supporting the housing provider in their efforts to secure additional funding. To ensure that affordable housing units that are created are maintained as affordable the City imposes deed restrictions and liens on covered units to regulate the qualifying incomes of households and maximum rents and sale prices. Communicating the incentives available, regulations and restrictions to housing providers, buyers and rentals is an important function to promote the success of the programs. The development and review of contracts, deed restrictions, and covenants, is a necessary administrative function of the Housing Program Specialist. Further the prequalification of occupant households through income verification and monitoring of rents or sales prices through review of purchase agreements and tax information is a vital role to maintain the integrity of the program. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 8 General Housing Program Administrative tasks: Advise the Community Development Director, City Administrator and other management staff, the Housing Commission, the Planning Commission, and City Council on housing related issues and matters; provide advice and recommendations related to program implementation, development plans, and funding availability. Coordinate efforts of City departments involved in the planning and implementation of development projects. Coordinate with City, federal, state, and non-profit agencies and private companies to develop resources; monitor funding opportunities for housing and housing programs. Development and Review of Development Agreements, Contracts, Covenants, Deed restrictions and Liens. Work closely with homeowners, landlords, contractors, developers, business owners, and property owners in providing program related information and resolving concerns. Coordinate with regional providers of housing and social services to integrate services and serve vulnerable populations efficiently. Process housing related financial transactions and legal documents. Verification of household income and assets to qualify potential residents of designated affordable housing. Monitoring of covered units to ensure rents, sales price, and occupant households remain compliant with the City programs. Maintenance of files and databases regarding covered affordable housing units, liens, terms of affordability, period of affordability, and occupant household information. Administration of the CDBG program - addressed on page 8 of this work plan as a separate item Each time new affordable housing units are created the program specialist will have to complete all associated documentation for SDC deferrals, Resale Restriction Covenants, Income verification, review of all Covenants Conditions and Restrictions and Bylaws for a given project to ensure consistency with the program requirements. On an ongoing basis the Housing Program Specialist shall complete these tasks for new developments and at each transfer of covered property. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 9 Housing Commission The City of Ashland Housing Commission was established in 1996 in an effort to address the housing needs of the City. The mission of the Ashland Housing Commission is to encourage housing that is available and affordable to a wider range of city residents and preserves the diversity and character of the community by providing opportunities to enhance cooperation between the public and private sectors, encouragement of financial entities to support housing programs in the city, and coordination of housing and supportive services programs. The powers and duties of the Housing Commission are: To develop and recommend coordinated housing and supportive services programs; • •To recommend housing and supportive services priorities for the City; •To review and make recommendations to the City Council and Budget Committee on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and related allocations; •To investigate Federal, State, County and private funding for implementation of City housing programs; •To oversee the compilation of accurate information on the City's housing supply and affordability; •To monitor projects funded with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Housing Trust Fund; •To act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council regarding housing and related issues in the City and the City's properties; •To foster public knowledge and support of the official City housing programs. Education and Outreach The City Ashland Housing Commission has executed a number of Education and Outreach activities during the previous work plan period, including, the organization of a Workforce Housing Summit, which brought together several communities throughout the region to discuss issues facing populations struggling with housing and generate ideas to combat those issues. For the 2012-2015 Work Plan, the Housing Commission has put forth several innovative and noteworthy proposals to provide education and outreach, including; Producing a short program for the local public access television station. Creating a resource guide for homeowner’s facing foreclosure Creating an information brochure on tenant rights. Housing Trust Fund The Ashland Housing Commission has undertaken the process of developing a Housing Trust Fund to assist in providing a financial resource to promote the development of needed housing within our community. The Housing Commission over the course of 2007 examined the components of a Trust Fund and solicited input on the potential uses of a housing trust fund. The 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 10 City completed a survey of residents (online) and a survey of key stakeholders (direct mail to developers, realtors, affordable housing providers, held a public forum with a national expert on Housing Trust Funds, Mary Brooks, and reviewed the development of the Trust Fund Platform at various public meetings of the Housing Commission. The Housing Trust Fund ordinance was adopted by the City in October of 2008. At that time a finite source of revenue, the remaining repayments from a 1985 housing rehabilitation loan program granted to the City through the federal CDBG program, were dedicated to the trust fund. The total amount of loans outstanding at the time of dedication was $101,127.48. An HTF is successful only to the degree that it has a sustainable funding source to direct to supported activities. The Housing Commission has determined that the most appropriate way to approach the development of the Ashland Housing Trust Fund was in two parts. The first part was the development of the platform. By identifying intended uses of the trust funds the City will be better able to determine the funding needs, and to articulate precisely what secured funds wouldbe used to support. The second part of the approach is to identify potential revenue streams the City would employ to support the Trust fund. Federal and state funding programs, general obligation bonds, tax increment financing impact fees, in-lieu fees, sales and property taxes, demolition fees, linkage fees, and private funding sources, will all have to be examined to develop a comprehensive strategy to provide a continued funding stream to support affordable housing and the implementation of a local Housing Trust Fund. The following tasks will have to be completed to fully evaluate potential funding sources: Revenue projections based on sources Implementation requirements (election/adoption process) Legal permissibility (Oregon State, Local Charter) Identify Impediments to implementation Research Success in other Communities Cost of developing resource Degree of City control Timeline: As noted above the development of the Housing Trust Fund was to be completed in two phases. The first phase of Platform development was completed in October of 2008. The second phase, financial analysis and securing funding, is expected to be completed before the expiration of this work plan. Community Development Block Grant Program Description of the program: The City of Ashland 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program addresses the needs of Ashland’s population, and aims to establish strategies to address the highest priority needs of our extremely low and moderate-income residents. Specifically the five-year Consolidated Plan provides the basis for allocating U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds under the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). During each year of the five-year plan, the city prepares an Annual Action Plan that outlines the specific program activities to be carried out in meeting the Consolidated Plan strategies. Each Year the City receives approximately $200,000 in CDBG funds, of which 20% is available for administration of the CDBG Program. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 11 The chart on the next page illustrates the cyclical nature of doing the base administration of the CDBG Program and its intensity at various times throughout a year. It is important to note that this chart reflects only the regular annual tasks related to administration of the program including: RFP issuance in January of each year, due in late February Housing Commission Review: March st City Council awards: May 1 th Annual Action Plan prepared: April 15 Subrecipient Agreements completed: July1. Environmental Reviews, Requests for Release of Funds, and Public Noticing for specific projects (may occur at any time throughout a year) Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) – Data gathering, development and Review: July and August. Due September. Subrecipient Monitoring November-December Maintenance of HUD Integrated Disbursement and Information System for release of funds (IDIS: Accounting, Draw-downs, requests for payments, performance measures, client benefit reports) CDBG Administration Time Allocation Estimates 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 12 Additionally, non-annual tasks such as the development of a 5 year Consolidated Plan, Fair Housing Activities other than ongoing education and responsiveness to questions regarding discrimination are not included in this time estimate. The current Five-Year Consolidated Plan reports on the goals and outcomes for the time period of 2010-2014, and thus will need to be updated for the 2015-2019 period. This update will be a substantial undertaking to be initiated in October of 2014 to be completed and adopted prior to the 2015 Program Year. The Consolidated Plan is discussed in greater detail on Page 10. Performance Measures for current CDBG Administration:The activities of any particular year are included in the Annual CDBG Action Plan which outlines all CDBG expenditures and expected accomplishments. Approval of an Annual CDBG Action Plan is expected in May of each Consolidated Plan year. The Action Plan shall include specific performance measures under each identified goal and is thus the most appropriate source to reference for the Performance Measures relating to administration of the CDBG program. CDBG Consolidated Plan Update 2015-2019 The CDBG program requires the City to maintain a five-year “Consolidated Plan” which assesses and prioritizes the housing and homeless needs in Ashland. The CDBG Consolidated Plan also contains “spending priorities” which determine the types of projects for which the funds may be used. The following spending priorities are included in the adopted CDBG Consolidated Plan. In updating the five year Plan the Housing Program Specialist will research and update sections for the Consolidated Plan to include: Citizen Participation Plan Community Profile Housing Needs Analysis (Nov 2012) Housing Market Analysis Homeless and Human Services Demographic Maps Performance Measures Key Interviews and demographic surveys Public hearings In 2004-2005 the City Hired a consultant to complete the research and public involvement process to update the prior 5-year plan to reflect changing demographics and CDBG spending priorities. The cost of this work was $10,000 however the consultant selected was simultaneously undertaking an update of the City of Medford’s Consolidated Plan, so Ashland benefited from the amortized research and plan development. To undertake this effort independently of the City of Medford’s 5-year update would likely increase a consultant’s project costs to approximately $30,000. Alternatively in 2010 the update was completed by City Staff and the City of Ashland 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 13 Housing Commission. This effort took place over a seven month period with the majority of the work expending approximately 50% of the Housing Program Specialists time for a limited (approximately a three month) period. This work effort will begin in 2014 and is expected to expend the same amount of staff time as the effort in 2010, which was approximately 7 months of staff time with a concentrated effort for a 3 month period. Performance Measures and outcomes:Award and delivery of CDBG funds to eligible activities. Develop a scope of work complete research, provide opportunities for public involvement regarding priority needs; prepare plan prepared; housing Commission Review; City Council Review and Approval: HUD review and Approval of the CDBG 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Fair Housing Activities Analysis of Impediments The Analysis of Impediments (AI) is a review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. The AI is a HUD required analysis that should be completed ever 3 years and at a minimum should be prepared in advance of the 5-year Consolidated Plan to inform the development of the plans section of Fair Housing. Ashland completed an update of the AI in Program Year 2008. The City funded FHCO to undertake an update of the City’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing choice. The updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified several impediments to fair housing choice. Some of the impediments and proposed solutions are public sector and are able to be corrected by the City, while some of them will take coordination and cooperation from the City with the private sector. Highlighted below are 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 14 those impediments which the City intends on taking action on during the period covered by the Work Plan. Fair Housing Regional Coordination City staff has coordinated extensively with City of Medford staff to reach regional providers of social and commercial housing services. The City’s have also partnered to more efficiently utilize limited resources that the City’s have to devote to Fair Housing Activities. Similarly, City staff is a member of the Southern Oregon Housing Resource Center board, which works to coordinate housing resources and to act as a one stop for all populations seeking housing resources. All members of the SOHRC board as well as the SOHRC itself are federally mandated to undertake fair housing activities that affirmatively further fair housing. As such, the board members which include representatives from both Jackson and Josephine Counties, the Cities of Medford, Ashland, and Grants Pass, the Housing Authority of Jackson County and the Josephine County Housing Council, have expressed an interest in pursuing a partnership to better utilize the limited funds that all of the members have to devote to fair housing activities while still working to educate the community about fair housing and provide resources in the event that fair housing issues arise. Consequently the board chair has organized a regional meeting to discuss the implementation of such a partnership, how it would work to meet everyone’s needs while providing increased fair housing resources for the entire region. Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified by the 2008 AI to be addressed through regional coordination of Fair Housing Activities Proactively conduct testing of sale and rental properties to identify such practices as racial steering and other violations of the Fair Housing Act at an early stage. The regional coordinating fair housing partners should contract with an organization experienced in fair housing testing to conduct periodic testing of real estate agents, developers, landlords, and apartment managers to identify racial and ethnic steering within the region and steering of minorities away from Ashland. Such testing should include controlled samples that are large enough to provide statistically significant result and finding. Develop or arrange for periodic workshops targeted to HOA officers and management companies to make them fully aware of their obligations under the federal, state, and local fair housing laws. Work with the Southern Oregon Housing Resource Center to provide opportunities for financial counseling to better prepare applicants before they submit a mortgage loan application. This counseling will benefit all Jackson and Josephine County residents, but significant outreach efforts will be made to racial and ethnic minorities, especially non- white Hispanics, African-American, Native Americans and Asians. Partner with other CDBG jurisdictions to evaluate the potential for regional collaboration around fair housing resources. Partner with other CDBG jurisdictions (City of Medford, State of Oregon) to establish a regional fair housing office that could respond to complaints, conduct trainings and outreach, and monitor and comment on systemic fair housing issues raised by policies 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 15 adopted by the city (e.g. planning and zoning). This option would address the reality that current city staff has sufficient workloads that they could not add more duties to their portfolios, and the other reality that there are not enough funds to create a full-time position to address fair housing issues. A regional partnership could be established, the governments could contract with a private organization that would provide staff and resources to address the fair housing needs of Southern Oregon. Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified by the 2008 AI to be addressed by the City Staff and the Housing Commission Amending the City’s fair housing ordinance to address the following: o Clearly protect disability, including the right to reasonable accommodations and modifications. o Establish a one year period for victims of discrimination to report violations o Clarify alternative complaint options o Adopted in November of 2012. Develop City Staff expertise and coordination regarding fair housing. o Provide advanced fair housing training for the City’s fair housing officer. o Provide resources to distribute to various departments (Police, administration, planning, building, etc.) o Make it easy for potential victims of housing discrimination to get resources and referrals. o Ensure that city staff in charge of issuing, inspecting, and approving building permits and certificates of occupancy for new multi-family housing built in Ashland are familiar with the accessibility requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. Ashland will disseminate information about fair housing laws generally and its own ordinance specifically. o Develop a fair housing brochure that clearly explains what fair housing is, what classes are protected, the time limit on filing a complaint, and instructions on how to easily file a complaint. o Make improvements to Ashland’s webpage on fair housing. The City of Ashland Housing Commission has already taken action to address some of the issues raised in the draft AI. A presentation given by the FHCO at the Housing Commission’s June 2009 meeting highlighted some of the issues which the Housing Commission could have substantial involvement in implementing; such as updating the City’s Fair Housing Ordinance, and researching rental registries. Over the period covered by this Work Plan the City will work toward identifying impediments and the actions needed to overcome those impediments. Following is a list of actions that the City has already implemented, and actions that the City intends to work toward implementing. The City provides information on Fair Housing at Pre-applications for Accessory Rental Units and Multi-Family Developments The City provides information and referral services to residents regarding Fair Housing and tenant rights. (AI-Recommendation XII-XIII) 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 16 In 2007-08 the City of Ashland partnered with the City of Medford to put together 4 web based seminars that aired statewide. One of the seminars was tester training. The City annually awards Social Service grants to the center for non-profit legal services to “provide advocacy, advice and representation” on issues including tenant rights and fair housing. For the 2010-2011, 2-year grant cycle the City has awarded the Center for non- profit legal services $12,078. Ashland supports the Fair Housing Council of Oregon through CDBG awards that promote training and education to landlords and tenants, as well as information on tenant rights and advocacy. (AI-Recommendation XII-XIII) The City of Ashland continues to collaborate with the City of Medford to conduct Fair Housing Activities that promote Fair Housing practices throughout the Southern Oregon region. The City’s recently partnered to implement Fair Housing trainings targeted to real- estate agents and Homeowners Associations. City staff collaborates with members of the Southern Oregon Regional Housing Center and the Southern Oregon Rental Owner’s Association to partner in bringing more fair housing resources to the Southern Oregon region. (AI Recommendation II and VII) City staff and the City’s Housing Commission are working to establish a rental registry which will allow the city to better gather data and maintain accurate information on housing trends, to track shifts in populations and housing demands, and identify emerging trends that may reflect illegal activities. (AI Recommendation VI) The City of Ashland is a member of the Southern Oregon Housing Resource Center Board and actively works to promote the mission of the Resource Center in education and resources for low-income homebuyers, which includes education on mortgage lending practices and financial counseling. (AI Recommendation VIII) City staff and the City’s Housing Commission are working on updating the City’s Fair Housing Ordinance to bring it up to State and Federal standards with further protections for peoples with disabilities and clearly defined complaint options. (AI Recommendation IX) The City of Ashland promotes the development and retention of affordable housing that provides housing opportunities for a range of incomes and household types, often this housing utilizes funding from state or federal entities which mandate adherence to fair housing laws. (AI-Recommendation XI) Performance Measures and Benchmarks: Adoption of an updated Fair Housing Ordinance (Adopted by the City Council in November 2012); regional coordination around fair housing resources, education and outreach to identified populations to affirmatively further fair housing. Organize two to three trainings annually throughout Jackson and Josephine County. (Regional Fair Housing Coordinator hired by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon to serve the Southern Oregon area in November 2012). 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 17 Land Use Activities Housing Needs and Rental Needs Analysis Update The City of Ashland is responsible for planning for the housing needs of its citizens as part of federal and state laws. The City uses several tools to plan for future development. One such tool is the Housing Needs Analysis. The information in the Housing Needs Analysis is intended to provide the City of Ashland with reliable statistical information on its housing market. This information will help the city develop policies and programs to ensure it is meetings its obligation under Oregon's Statewide Planning Goal 10, which requires local governments to "encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households." In order to keep apprised of housing trends, market conditions, and community needs, City staff completed an update to the Housing Needs Analysis document. The previous Housing Needs Analysis was completed in 2002. In that ten year period the City has seen some sweeping changes in housing cost and composition. The updated Housing Needs Analysis document adopted by the Council in November of 2012, looked at current land supply as identified in the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory and reconciled land availability with future projected housing need by type and income. The projections were based on historic housing development trends, population projections and the household composition of Ashland’s anticipated future population. This allows the City to determine what types of housing and how much the City will need to accommodate citizens housing needs. The process of updating this document took several months and utilized a variety of resources to: Assess the condition of housing stock and land ownership. Determine the number and median cost per year of owner occupied housing. In Conjunction with the City’s Buildable Lands Inventory Document updated in 2011, identify vacant land suitable for residential development, Identify land whose development is not being maximized, and determine future land needs. Determine Vacancy Rates for rental housing. Analyze rental rates and unit sizes against the needs of the rental populations. Quantify housing needs for specific economic and population groups utilizing the Oregon Housing and Land use Model Configured for the City of Ashland. Develop and implement a community-wide questionnaire to garner information on housing needs and choices. Develop and implement a survey targeting rental housing owners and managers to establish an updateable database of rental unit size, type and rental rates. The City completed a draft of the updated Housing Needs Analysis in the summer of 2012 and presented the draft document to the Housing and Planning Commissions for Review. Staff solicited community input on the draft document before bringing it before the City Council for review and approval in November of 2012. Performance Measures: Adoption of an updated Housing Needs Analysis as a technical supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan.(November/December 2012) 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 18 Benchmarks Public Input on development of the draft Housing Needs Analysis Draft and revise narrative Housing Commission Review Planning Commission Review City Council Review and adoption Housing Needs Analysis Update and Ordinance Adoption Jan Feb MarApr May Jun Jul Aug SeptOctNov Actions 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Community/Landlord Survey Review and Interpret Data Draft Narrative Document review and revision Draft Ordinance Housing Comm. Review Planning Comm. Review CC Review and Approval Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update Oregon’s statewide Planning Goal 10 is, “To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.” The City’s Housing Element is an important part of the overall Comprehensive Plan, as housing makes up the vast majority of land use in an urban area. In addition, LCDC Goal 10 requires that: Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried, and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, types, and density. Because of this, the City has a responsibility to inventory its land and ensure that the proper amounts of land are set aside to accommodate the various housing needs in the City, and that its land development ordinances are broad enough to allow for variation in housing type and density. The Housing Needs Analysis, Rental Needs Analysis, and Buildable Lands Inventory, are all documents that inform the development of a community’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 19 The purpose of the Housing Element is to present analysis of trends as well as identify goals and policies that may affect housing needs in the City of Ashland for the next 20 years. Since the last Housing Element revision took place in 1981, the current document does not reflect the demographics or housing trends that exist in the City today, let alone allow for policy makers to plan two decades into the future. Since that time the City has adopted several technical supporting documents, such as, the Rental Needs Analysis in 2007, and the Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) in 2011 and the Housing Needs Analysis in 2012. In 2010, Jackson County approved new coordinated population projections for the county and individual jurisdictions within the county. The 2012 Housing Needs Analysis used these coordinated counts as a basis for future population projections, similarly the update of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan will base any future growth assumptions on the same. The effort at this time is to update the narrative. It is recommended that; “plans provide for continuing review of housing need projections and should establish a process for accommodating needed revisions”. Consequently, some aspects of the City’s housing Element are outdated and do not reflect the needs and realities of the Community. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Nov DecJan FebMarAprMayJunJul Aug SepOctNov ACTION 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Review City’s Element Gather & Review other Elements Gather & Review related documents Seek Public Input Draft Housing Element Comments Legal Review Findings DLCD Revisions Commission Review and Approval CC Review and Approval Performance Measures: Adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 20 Vertical Housing Tax Credit The Vertical Housing Program encourages mixed use commercial/residential developments in areas designated by communities through a partial property tax exemption. The purpose of the program is to encourage investment in and rehabilitation of properties in targeted areas of the community, to augment the availability of appropriate housing and to revitalize communities. The program encourages mixed use developments that contain both non-residential and residential uses in areas designated by the Jurisdiction. The exemption varies in accordance with the number of residential floors on a project with a maximum property tax exemption of 80% over 10 years. An additional property tax exemption on the land may be given if some or all of the residential housing is for low-income persons (80% of AMI or below). Eligible Zones: Any area that meets the criteria for a Vertical Housing Zone which has been designated by the local jurisdiction and has been approved by the Department. Eligible Projects: A mixed-use project that contains both non-residential and residential uses that meets the certified project criteria located in a Vertical Housing Zone designated by the local jurisdiction and approved by the Department. The project can be new construction or rehabilitation of a multiple-story building, or group of buildings with at least one multiple-story building. Certified Project: Any project that has made application to and has been approved by the Department may receive a partial tax exemption as determined by the number of Equalized Floors for a maximum of 10 years. Equalized Floors: The tax exemption will be based on the number of Equalized Floors as determined by the total square footage divided by the number of actual floors of the project that are at least 500 square feet per floor. Equalized floors will be rounded down to the nearest whole number (e.g., any equalized quotient between 1.0 and 1.99 will have a rounded Equalized Floor equivalent of 1.0). Steps for creation of a Vertical Housing Zone: Identify a zone, provide concise documentation for any of the below that apply; o Is the proposed VHDZ within the Applicants jurisdiction? o Is it comprised by the core area of an urban center?* o Is it within a ½ mile radius of existing/planned light rail? o Is it within ¼ mile of fixed-route transit service? o Does it contain property for which land-use comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances effectively allow “mixed-use” with residential? Draft a map to scale of the area showing the boundaries of the proposed VHDZ. Draft a description of the Applicants purpose or expectations for designating the zone include. o Any height or floor area limitation that will be placed on proposed projects seeking the tax exemption. o If know a description of potential project(s) in the zone. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 21 Provide a property inventory by tax account (list the number of property tax accounts to be included in the proposed zone) Identify all local taxing districts (other than the applicant city/county, that levy taxes on the property proposed for inclusion in the VHDZ. Notify all listed taxing districts within the proposed VHDZ, include in the notification; o Description of the VHDZ proposed for designation o Explain how certain future new taxable property might be partially exempt within a designated zone for a 10 year period. o Detail the process by which a local taxing district listed under ORS 198.010 or 198.180** may elect to not participate in the designated zone and continue to impose taxes on otherwise exempt property. o Provide at least 45 days, in which the district may formally submit such an election to the applicant. Draft a Resolution to be adopted by the governing body authorizing a request for designation by applicant. ESTABLISHING A VERTICAL HOUSING TAX CREDIT ZONE ActionSeptOct NovDecJanFebMar Apr May JunJulAugSept 2013201320132013201420142014201420142014201420142014 Look at Tax Districts Identify Zones Draft Description Notification of Taxing Districts Draft Resolution 45 Day Waiting period HC Review PC Review CC Resolution adoption Submit Applications to OHCS 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 22 Accessory Residential Units Permit Accessory Residential Unit’s Outright Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) provide an excellent source of affordable housing, particularly for elderly or single residents. Ashland currently allows for the development of accessory units as a conditional use in single-family residential areas. They must meet the same lot coverage and setback standards as the base zone, are limited to 50% of the size of the primary unit on the lot, and cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. Accessory Residential Units in single family zones require Conditional Use Permit approval which is subject to public notice and a public hearing to evaluate the impacts of the proposed use. Given the nature of ARUs, a number of other communities in Oregon allow such small units as a permitted use in all residential zones without a public hearing. The City of Ashland amended the land use code in 2008 to allow ARUs of less than 500sq.ft. in multifamily zones (R-2, R-3). ARU units in multifamily zones are still reviewed by staff through a Site Design Review process to ensure existing planning, zoning and building requirements are met but they do not require a Conditional Use Permit. The 2003 Housing Action Plan recommended amendments to the Land Use Ordinance to permit ARUs outright in all single family zones and to no longer require the discretionary Conditional Use Permit approval. Staff will present the Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council options for consideration that would allow ARUs as an outright permitted use in single family zones provided they meet specific size limits and conditions similar to other permitted uses (e.g., setbacks, lot coverage, parking etc.). Evaluate Potential Strategies Identified in 2012 HNA City staff will evaluate potential strategies identified in the 2012 HNA for feasibility and impact upon Council and Department head direction. Some strategies which may be explored include: Encourage the development and retention of more Multi-family residential units Encourage the development of more affordable Single Family Residential Manufactured Dwelling standards In April of 2012 Planning staff began the process of combining the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and related development standards into a Unified Land Use Code. The ALUO was originally adopted in 1964 and has been incrementally amended with the passage of time. Consequently inconsistencies have been encorporated within the document, it has become difficult to navigate, and contains repeditive elements. Upon completion the Uniform Land Use Code will also address outdated issues that fail to take into account Impovements in green building technology and development standards with regard to housing types. Changes will include reviewing and amending the standards applied to manufactured dwelling units in single family zones. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 23 Normal Neighborhood Plan In 2011 the City of Ashland received a grant award from the State of Oregon’s Transportation Growth Program to complete a land use and transportation plan for the 94 acre North Normal Avenue area. The Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan is intended to help guilde the development of individual properties as they become annexed into the City to protect and enhance natural features while accomodating new development that meets the needs of the community while providing for multi-modal transportation options. The Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan seeks to: Encorporate Affordable housing requirements Evaluate the plan for consistency with housing need as identified in the 2012 HNA o Encourage the development of Apartments in Multi-family Residential zones Review and consider including cottage housing standards within the plan Housing Development Projects The City of Ashland does not develop housing directly. Utilizing the established expertise of regional affordable housing providers the City often partners with non-profit organizations to support the development of affordable housing. Additionally for-profit developers are also responsible for development of much of Ashland's affordable housing stock through the application of land use requirements or in utilizing incentives offered by the City. Since the last Housing Work plan was adopted several affordable housing projects have been completed including the first large scale multi-family development built in Ashland in over 20 years. Unfortunately, the City has also lost several affordable housing units through the expiration of HUD contracts that provided federal subsidy to tenants as well as federal revenue to the area. The housing market has changed dramatically since the last Housing work plan was developed. Since 2008, the City has seen an overall decline in housing development as a wave of foreclosures swept the country lowing property values and flooding the housing market. This new economic climate impacted affordable housing in several ways, some positively and some negatively. Lowered land values and stricter lending regulations have made it harder for private developers to obtain loans and made it less lucrative and feasible to invest in new developments. The glut of foreclosed homes hampered the demand for new ownership housing thereby stagnating new construction in the region and adversely impacting employment in the housing sector, one of the biggest employment sectors in the Rogue Valley. At the same time, the lowered property values allowed affordable housing developers to buy into the Ashland market, foreclosed land, and federal support for affordable housing development provided guaranteed financing that could not be obtained by private developers. All of this at a time when over 9% of the State’s populations was seeing lowered incomes due to job loss. Recent Census Bureau data has shown that the rate of poverty has risen for a third year in a row to 15.1 %, while median household income declined. These and other recent demographic trends have served to further increasing cost burden beyond the households of those in poverty and raising the demand for affordable housing to its highest level in decades. Consequently with less overall development of housing, the City is placing a greater priority of the preservation of existing affordable housing units. More specifically, those units which were provided as affordable through HUD contracts, and which are at the end of their contract life and set to revert to market rate housing. These units will be detailed further in the Preservation properties section below. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 24 This section is intended to provide a listing of those affordable housing projects that are currently underway within the City of Ashland. The development of affordable housing is often a multi-year process from inception to completion. Additionally those projects that have been funded through Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS), The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Rural Development (RD), are listed in a separate table. Pictured on this Page: The development of 6 units of low-income ownership housing by Groundworks CDC. Clay Street In 2010 the City Council identified the goal of deciding whether to sell or develop the remaining 0.92 acres of City owned land on Lower Clay Street. In October of 2011 the property received an Estimate of Value of $340,000. Staff also contacted several developers of affordable housing to determine the interest and ability of those organizations in responding to a request for proposals should the Council direct staff to issue one. Three of the organizations responded that they would not be interested at this time for a variety of reasons including: the cost of development, a lack of potential buyers, and insufficient land to meet development needs. However three organizations expressed an interest in and capacity for a development project of that size and scope in the near future. One developer expressed a preference for a simple sale of public property transaction. Disposition of public property would require that the property first be divided through a formal land use process to create discrete lots of record. At the regular City Council meeting held on th September 6, 2011 Staff presented three options for the Clay Street Property: Sell the property for market value. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 25 Issue a Request for Proposals for the development of affordable/workforce housing. Land Bank the property at 380 Clay until such time as land values and lending conditions are more favorable to maximize value through sale or development as affordable housing. The Council reviewed the options proposed by staff and approved a motion to direct staff to take no action on the lower Clay Street property at this time with the intent to re-evaluate the City’s options upon significant changes in the housing and lending markets in one year’s time. In November/December of 2012 City staff will undertake the survey and partition of the Clay street property in order to separate the newly purchased park property from the property that the City will retain. Further, staff will complete an appraisal of the property to provide information to Council and prepare for future development. Performance Measures and Project Benchmarks:UndertakeaReview of market conditions in mid-2012 to advice on the disposition or development options for the Clay street property if the market conditions have changed significantly enough to merit re-evaluation in September 2012. Hyde Park Project The City granted Access, Inc. $134,000 in CDBG funds to purchase a foreclosed property with the potential for the development of six rental housing units Performance Measures and Project Benchmarks:Land Acquisition, CFC grant Award, Planning and Building Permit submittal, Construction Start, Completion of six affordable rental units by low income households. Hyde Park Development Timeline Activity DecJan 2012 Mar 2012Apr 2012 Oct- 12 Nov- 12 Jun- 13 2011 Land Acquisition State CFC app. due CFC award Planning & Building Permits Construction Start Certificate of Occupancy This project is in the initial stages; having completed the land purchase, obtained grant funds for construction from Oregon Housing and Community Services, and planning review, Access has 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 26 now submitted for building permits (Nov 2012) in preparation of breaking ground in December 2012. The project is expected to be completed in June of 2013. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 27 Preservation Projects/Expiring Use Units Preservation properties are rental housing projects which are at-risk of losing their federal housing subsidies. Properties with Project Based Section 8 subsidies serve residents with the lowest incomes, including seniors, peoples with disabilities, and families with small children, and single parent families. The Section 8 program allows tenants to pay a truly affordable rent based on their household income. If rent subsidies are lost, they will not be replaced, and the City loses a valuable federal resource in addressing the housing needs of the low-income citizens in our community. Preservation properties also include those with HUD insured mortgages; projects funded under HUD’s 202 or 811 housing programs; properties developed with funds from the Rural Development Department; and properties that were built using low-income Housing tax credits. For the City of Ashland these units represent 217 units of multi-family housing, or Performance Measures and Project Benchmarks:Contact property owners ensure that CDBG prioritizes the use for preservation and/or subsidized units, Coordinate with Oregon Housing and Community Services, HUD, and local housing providers to facilitate purchase/retention of preservation units. The tables on pages 24 and 25 lists all affordable housing units within the City and projects that have been completed through City of Ashland programs including System Development Deferral, and Community Development Block Grant funds or any combination. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 28 Ashland Affordable Housing Developments 2004- 2011 Affordable Housing Units Units Year Deed Period of Secured as affordable by CompletedRestricted Affordability Resale Restriction Covenants/Trust Deeds(years) 41 Garfield St. (CDBG) 6 2004 99 238 Eigth St 1 2004 20 311 Hersey (CDBG) 1 2004 30 234 Grant St. (CDBG) 1 2004 99 232 Grant St. (CDBG) 1 2004 99 274 Nevada St 1 2004 20 290 Patterson (CDBG) 1 2004 30 321 Hersey (CDBG) 1 2004 30 181 California St. 1 2004 20 798 Park St (condo-conversion) 3 2004 20 315 Beach St (condo-conversion) 1 2004 20 920 E Main St. 1 2005 20 967 Elkader St. 1 2005 20 968 Glendale Ave. (condo-conversion) 2 2005 20 264 Grant St 2 2005 20 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. (CDBG) 9 2006 99 Ashland St and Clay St (Barclay Sq.) 8 2006 99 404-408 Bridge St. (CDBG) 2 2006 99 Fordyce St. Cohousing (zone change) 2 2007 60 851 N Main Townhomes (condo-conversion) 1 2007 30 39 Garfield St. (CDBG) 2 2007 99 117 Garfield St. (condo-conversion) 3 2007 30 132 N Mountain Ave. (condo-conversion) 1 2007 30 Chestnut St. (condo-conversion) 2 2007 30 222 VanNess Ave. (condo-conversion) 1 2007 30 Terrace Court (CDBG/SDC) 62007 99 Snowberry Brook (Annexation/CDBG/SDC) 60 2010 60 410-412 Bridge (CDBG/SDC) 22011 99 Rice Park (Annexation/SDC) 15 2011 99 TOTAL138 Deed Restricted Units SDC only Year Deed Period of Loans can be repaid Restricted Affordability (years) Crispin Street 31994 20 Crocker Street 21993 20 Evan Lane 11994 20 Mill Pond Road 11994 20 Patterson Street 21994 20 Poplar Place 51992 20 Rose Lane 21995-1997 20 Starflower Lane 12000 20 Tolman Creek 12002 20 Village Square Drive 11998 20 Total Pre-2004 SDC only loans19 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 29 Pending development. Projects approved or Land Notes Period of Acquired. Affordability (years) Hyde Park (Annexation/CDBG) 6Land acquired 60 Total Pending6 HUD and Rural Development financed affordable and Number of Units Number of subsidized units-Expiring Use/Preservation Properties Subsidized Units Ashley Garden RD 40 20 Ashley Senior RD 62 41 1 StratfordRD 51 17 Donald E. Lewis-Senior HUD 40 40 Star Thistle-Disabled HUD 12 12 Sun Village HUD 12 12 Total HUD/RD Affordable/Subsidized 217142 Units Total of all Deed Restricted Affordable and Subsidized Units 374 1 The Stratford was purchased in 2009 and remains affordable. 2012-2015 Housing Work Plan (draft) 30