HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-07-25 Housing PACKET
Ashland Housing Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
July 25, 2012: 4:30 – 6:30pm
Council Chambers – 1175 East Main Street
1. (4:30) Approval of Minutes (5 min)
June 27, 2012
2. (4:35) Public Forum (5 min)
3.(4:40)Fair Housing Ordinance Review/Update (15 min)
4.(4:55) Preliminary review of the draft 2012 Housing Needs Analysis (30 min)
5. (5:25) Clay Street Review Discussion (10 min)
6. (5:35) Secondary Goal Discussion (10 min)
Zoning
Manufactured Housing
7.(5:45)Liaison Reports discussion (20 min)
Liaison Reports
Council (Carol Voisin)
Staff(Linda Reid)
General Announcements
8.(6:05)RVTV-New PSA Discussion (15 min)
nd
9.(6:20)August22, 2012 MeetingAgenda Items (5 min)
Commissioner items suggested(5 min)
Quorum Check – Commissioners not available to attend upcoming regular meetings
should declare their expected absence.
10.(6.25)Upcoming Events and Meetings
th
First Reading of the Fair Housing Ordinance, City Council-Aug. 7, 2012
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
4:30-6:30 PM; August 22, 2012
11. (6:30) Adjournment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the
Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
June 27, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
ChairRegina Ayars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present:Council Liaison
Regina AyarsCarol Voisin, arrived at 5:00 p.m.
Brett Ainsworth
Barb Barasa
Staff Present:
Evan LasleyLinda Reid, Housing Specialist
Ben Scott Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Clerk
Commissioners Absent
Richard Billin
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ainsworth/Lasley m/s to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2012 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice
Vote: All Ayes minutes were approved as presented.
NEW OFFICER ELECTION
The Commissioners reviewed the Ashland Municipal Code section 2.10.050, the Election of Officers, Secretary and
Subcommittees. It was determined that it was not necessary for the Commissioners to elect new officers at this
time. Ayars will remain the Chair and the Commission will discuss the election of new officers at the January 2013
meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
James Dills, previous Housing Commissioner, who worked on a video discussing the Ashland Housing Trust Fund,
was present to show his new edited version. His video is currently on YouTube and he will send the link to Reid
who will then find out if it’s possible to put the link on the City of Ashland website. Dills showed his thirteen minute
video to the Commissioners with the changes; more local pictures of affordable housing units, business and
community activities within the City. Dills used more descriptive words on the screen this time rather than just
audio questions. His hard work has been greatly appreciated.
FAIR HOUSING MATERIALS FOR NEW STUDENT ORIENTATION AND FAIR HOUISNG ORDINANCE
UPDATE
Lasley will see to it that the educational packets containing Fair Housing information get distributed with the Student
Orientation for SOU students. The Commissioners discussed different events at the college that would be
appropriate to distribute the fair housing information. It was suggested to give the information to the Student
Government at SOU who could distribute it when doing outreach.
Reid spoke with Diane Hess from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon who is putting together a job description for a
new Fair Housing Outreach Coordinator for our area. Hess is hoping when she comes down in the Fall to do
1
training she will be able to proceed with the interview process. Reid will be on the interview panel for this new
employee. The goal is to have the person hired by September.
Reid provided examples of information from the Fair Housing Council for college students. The Commissioners
discussed the different choices and decided that the one entitled “Important information for college Students” along
with the Flow Chart would be the most appropriate. Reid will see if she can get additional copies from the Fair
Housing Council and then give them to Lasley who in turn can provide them to the Student Government at SOU.
Reid said the Fair Housing Ordinance Update is on the agenda for the City Council meeting on August 7, 2012.
2012 GOAL REVIEW
The Commissioners reviewed and updated their goals.
1. Education and Outreach – RVTV Project
In July this goal was accomplished though the Commission would like to see it continue. Past
Commissioner Dills finished the first educational video about the Housing Trust Fund. Barasa will work on
this in the future but she has some roadblocks, filming equipment, editing equipment, software. It was
suggested that the next topic be about what the Housing Commission does. They would like a more variety
of interviews perhaps people on the street. It was suggested that one of the film classes at SOU might be
interested in taking on this project. Put this on the August agenda.
2. Preservation of vulnerable properties – Have done everything they can do.
3. Landlord Tenant Brochure – This was a project that Billin was working on. Since Billin is gone this evening
the Commissioners will check in with him next month to get an update.
4. Housing Trust Fund Innovative Funding Source – Currently the Commission has no consistent revenue
stream for the Housing Trust Fund. Reid confirmed that the money from the sale of Chitwood property to
the parks department did get transferred into the Housing Trust Fund account. ($125,000) The
Commissioners discussed the different sources of revenue that might be available for the Housing Trust
Fund such as Business License renewal fee and the Transient Occupancy Tax. Ainsworth is on the HTF
subcommittee and will bring some ideas for revenue sources to the August meeting.
5. Implement Action Plan steps based on the results of the Updated Housing Needs Analysis - Reid is almost
finished with the Housing Needs Analysis Update. After Bill Molnar does his final review the update goes
to the Planning Commission Study Session and then back to the Housing Commission for
recommendations and then to a regular Planning Commission meeting and then on to City Council. The
initial draft should come back to the Housing Commission in July. Should be to the Council by fall.
The Commissioners agreed they are still comfortable with these five goals and will continue working on them.
PRESERVATION PROPERTY UPDATE
Ayars gave an update after approaching the property owners of the Expiring Use Units in Ashland.
Ashley Apartments, 245 Tolman Creek,
Ashley Senior, 2301 Siskiyou,
Sun Village, 721 N Main and
Donald E. Lewis Retirement Center, 500 YMCA Way.
Ayars and Reid met with the owner of Sun Village who has owned that property for over thirty years. The owner
was quite clear that she is opting out of the program so sometime in 2013 the units will no longer be affordable. She
is retiring and would like to sell the property. The Housing Authority of Jackson County did approach her with an
interest to purchase the property but they could not agree on a price.
2
Ayars spoke with Dena Smith, the Vice President of Housing for Pacific Retirement Service which is owned by the
Rogue Valley Manor Housing Corporation. They manage/own the Donald E Lewis retirement community located
next to the YMCA. Smith acknowledged that they are renewing the affordability annually. Though they have no
long term contract they have made an agreement to keep these units affordable for the next fifteen years.
Ayars said that the Ashley Apartments as well as the Ashley Senior Units are owned by CBM which is located in
Auburn California. They are under a Rural Development Contract and after a certain period of time, twenty years,
they have the option to sell. If they choose to sell they go through a process of offering it to non profits for a certain
period of time at which time Rural Development can come back and ask them to stay in the program and offer them
some incentives to do that.
JACKSON COUNTY HOMELESS COUNT OVERVIEW
Reid explained that this year’s data has been put in a different format making it difficult to compare to prior years.
This data is available on the ACCESS website for anyone who would like to review it. As in prior year’s one of
highest reason for causes of homelessness is the lack of ability to afford the rent due to unemployment. The
largest age group experiencing homelessness is 24 to 44 years old.
Reid is currently working on a power point presentation to present to different councils throughout the county. The
presentations will be done by the end of the year. She also has a ten year plan brochure to distribute. Reid
reminded the Commissioners that a lot still needs to be done in regard to issue of chronic homelessness, mental
health, drug addiction and health issues. Agencies like Maslow, Community Works and ACCESS are not mental
health providers or drug and alcohol councilors, they are emergency safety organizations. One thing Reid noticed
from the report was when the housing market crashed and the unemployment rate went up we saw people leaving
their households due to domestic violence and alcohol abuse. There has been a huge increase of single parents
with children.
LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION
Council –No report
Staff – Reidreported that Project Community Connect served a total of 629 people which was more than in any
prior years. The name was changed from Project Homeless Connect to Project Community Connect so that more
families on the brink might attend. A survey of event participants looked at prior year attendance. 42% of
participants said they had not attended, 15% said they had.
On a positive note there were a lot of good interactions with vendors and service providers, many providers set up
follow up appointments with event participants. There were a lot of dental extractions and department of human
service appointments scheduled. The purpose of the event is to get people connected to the services they need so
they can get their life stabilized to move on to a better place in their life.
JUNE 27TH, 2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
Quorum check; everyone will be available for the meeting
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
th
First Reading of the Fair Housing Ordinance, City Council-Aug 7, 2012
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
July 25, 2012 4:30-6:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
3
Housing Commission Memo
Title:Fair Housing Ordinance Review/Update
Date: July 25, 2012
Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
Legal is reviewing the draft ordinance I will hand out copies of the ordinance at the meeting.
Housing Commission Memo
Title:Clay Property Options
Date: July 25, 2012
Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
Background
At the September 6, 2011 regular City Council meeting the Council reviewed the options put forward by
staff regarding the next steps with the remaining property located at 360 Clay Street and the recently
available Chitwood property, and made a recommendation to sell the Chitwood property to the parks
department and to re-evaluate the options for the Clay street property next year. The Housing
Commission reviewed the staff proposed options at their regular meeting on July 27, 2011 and
forwarded the following recommendation to the council.
Housing Commission Recommendation
Issue an RFP for both the Clay Street and Chitwood properties to develop a mixed income development
that includes affordable rental and ownership housing targeted to households at 120% Area Median
Income and below.
Staff Proposed Options
Option #1: Land Bank-Given current land values, in the event the property is to be sold in whole or in
part for market rate development the Commission, and ultimately the Council, may want to consider
delaying a sale until a later date when market conditions have improved in order to maximize returns.
Further, delaying a final decision on disposition may be an alternative should the Commission or
Council desire to complete a detailed analysis of housing needs prior to determining the mix of income
and unit types to be provided.
Option #2: Sell the land for Market Value-
Determine market value of property (see comparable property estimates attached)
Public hearing on disposition of public property
Execute purchase and sale agreement
Option #3: Soliciting a proposal for an affordable/mixed-income development-
Determine development potential
Develop RFP for property
HC review of RFP
Council review and issuance of RFP
Developer selection
HC recommendation/Council decision
Public hearing on disposition of public property
Execute purchase and sale agreement
Project Development phase
2012 Housinng Needs Analyysis
(WORKINGG DRAFT June 2012)
1
pg
Findings
pg
Recommendations
City Accomplishments
Section I: Introduction
pg
pg
pg
Section II: Framework/Community Context
Section III: Housing Trends and Existing Conditions
Section IV: Housing Inventory
Section V: Housing Needs
Section VI: Baseline Forecast of Housing Demand
Section VII: Meeting Housing needs to 2040
pg
pg
Appendix
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
2
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 populations 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 what steps the City has taken to address the findings and recommended actions
identified in the prior housing assessments, and evaluate 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 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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
3
Figure 1. Ashland Persons per Age Cohort 2000-2010
ЌЎЉЉ
ЌЉЉЉ
ЋЎЉЉ
ЋЉЉЉ
ЊЎЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
ЎЉЉ
Љ
Ў
ƚǝĻƩ
ǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭ
В
ƓķĻƩ
ЊЍЊВЋЍЌЍЍЍЎЍЎВЏЍАЍБЍ
ğƓķ
Ў
ЊЉЊЎЋЉЋЎЌЎЍЎЎЎЏЉЏЎАЎ
ǤĻğƩƭ
БЎ
ЋЉЉЉ
{/ĻƓƭǒƭЋЉЊЉ
{/ĻƓƭǒƭ
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” 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
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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
4
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. This
increase may be due to the ageing of the Ashland population and continued identification as a
retirement destination.
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 income groups seeking ownership housing.
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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
5
needed to for 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 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.
(how are they counting this ??). 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 1384 Multifamily units
within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Housing Needs Model anticipates up to 1759 housing
multifamily units will be needed to satisfy the anticipated demand for multifamily 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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
6
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 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 about1384 multi-family dwellings whereas it is anticipated that 1759 units will be
needed by 2040.Approaches 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 multifamily 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
multifamily 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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
7
Suggestion: Consider policies that encourage redevelopment of 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,
would be 10-15 units annually.
Encourage more affordable single-family housing types. The average sales price of a single-
family residence was over $277,000 in 2001. Following are some approaches that can increase
more affordable single-family housing types:
Suggestion: Zone more land for small lot development. The data show a strong
correlation between lot size and housing value. The City could consider reductions in
minimum lot sizes in certain residential zones, or could take an approach like the City of
Corvallis, which requires a certain percentage of small lots (lots between 2,500 and 3,500
square feet) within subdivisions and planned unit developments.
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 parks. Revising existing policies to more readily enable the
placement of manufactured homes is one potential approach to encouraging 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
resource for more affordable housing types. The City should evaluate existing density
bonus allocations to better incentivize the voluntary inclusion of affordable single family
housing in future developments
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
8
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:
Developed 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,
o Passed condominium conversion ordinance requirements that help preserve
multifamily rental housing and affordable housing,
o Passed minimum density ordinance requirements to ensure multifamily 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 multifamily 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.
Reduced 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.
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,
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
9
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
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
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
1
See chart “Affordable Units per year” in Appendix D
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
10
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 includes adequate bathroom facilities, electricity, basic plumbing and
heating and is free of open exterior holes or cracks, and infestation meets the basic
criterion for decent housing. 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
197.490;
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
11
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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
12
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
2
The Brookings Institute, 2002.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
13
to ensure the development of a stable supply of housing for current and future residents
of Ashland at all income levels, and household types.
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.
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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
14
(BLI) and will then evaluate Ashland’s housing need by type and price. Housing needs will be
translated into residential land need based on project densities and housing types.
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 a 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
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
had 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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
15
3
Jackson County has a retirement population that exceeds the state average. This is especially
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,
and it is estimated that by 2020 the largest growth in the population will be in the 60-70 age
4
This trend, illustrated in Table 1.1 below, is seen in retirement communities throughout
group.
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.
Table 2.1
5
ASHLAND POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
1990% of 2000% of 2008% of 2010 % of total
totaltotaltotal
Under age 5 7934.8% 8024.1%1,3156.3%1068 5.3%
Age 5-9 5,39133.2% 9234.7%1,0655.1%1002 5%
Age 10-14 1,1445.9%9514.6%1206 6.0%
Age 15-19 1,9069.8%1,6137.8%1655 8.2%
Age 20-24 2,31411.9%2,25110.8%1885 9.4%
Age 25-34 5,12631.5% 2,17411.1%2,87313.8%2248 11.2%
Age 35-44 2,37812.2%2,09610.1%1918 9.5%
Age 45-54 1,5459.5% 3,24916.6%2,07210.0%2694 13.4%
Age 55-59 5513.3% 1,0425.3%1,8228.8%1806 9.0%
Age 60-64 5953.6% 6943.6%1,3186.3%1406 7.0%
Age 65-74 1,2797.8% 1,2726.5%1,6718.0%1562 7.8%
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.
5
United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 1990, 2000
statistical abstract of the United States.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
16
Age 75-84 7714.7% 1,1435.9%1,2796.2%1259 6.3%
85 and over 1841.1% 4812.5%4562.2%394 2.0%
Total16,234100% 19,522100%20,782100%20,103 100%
Population
Total3,38020.8% 7,88140%8,61841%6,427 32%
Population
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.
Table 2.2
PERCENT IN POVERTY
Household type Ashland Jackson State of United
CountyOregon States
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
Data taken from the 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 or identify the student or
seasonal status of populations in relation to census tracts, so no conclusions can be drawn about
how the student population affects these census tracts. Census data does show however that
6
2010 Census information at that level is not yet available.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
17
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 rest
of 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.
7
City of Ashland, Planning Department, Economic Opportunities Analysis 2007.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
18
Table 2.3
Household Income 2000-2010
Household Income # 2000 % 2000 # 2010 % 2010
All Households 8,552 100% 9,339 100%
1,173 13.7% 906 9.7%
Less than 10,000
918 10.7% 677 7.2%
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999 1,300 15.2% 1,203 12.9%
1,090 12.7% 1,286 13.8%
$25,000 to $34,999
$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%
789 9.2% 779 8.3%
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999 545 6.4% 819 8.8%
$150,000 to $199,999 166 1.9% 294 3.1%
121 1.4% 332 3.6%
$200,000 or More
Median Income $32,670 $40,140
U.S Census Bureau
Employment
Census counts estimate that 16,564 residents are over 16 years and over; 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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
19
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.
10
Table 2.4
EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY
%%% Jackson % State of
Industry
AshlandMedford CountyOregon
Education Services, Health Care, 27.9%20.1%21.1% 20.9%
Social Assistance
16.6%11.7%10.5% 9.2%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,
Accommodation, and food service
11.9%18.2%16.3% 12.3%
Retail Trade
Professional, Scientific, Management, 13.1%8.9%9.1% 10.0%
Administrative, waste management
4.9%8.8%8.8% 11.8%
Manufacturing
Construction4.8%6.1%7.3% 7.0%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, 3.3%6.9%5.5% 6.4%
Rental and Leasing.
Table 2.4 shows that the predominant industries in Medford and Ashland are largely similar, but
that the macro-economies of Jackson County as a whole and the State of Oregon 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 markets 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.
10
United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
20
Table 2.5
11
ASHLAND’S LARGEST EMPLOYERS
Business # of Employees % of Population
Southern Oregon University Approx. 7503.6%
Ashland Community Hospital 4101.9%
Oregon Shakespeare Festival 3981.9%
Ashland Public Schools 3501.6%
City of Ashland 2291.1%
Butler Ford Approx. 1600.7%
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. 130-1500.6%
Ashland Food Co-Op 1300.6%
Pro Tool Approx. 1000.4%
Linda Vista Approx. 750.3%
Albertsons 720.3%
Plexis Approx 700.3%
Safeway 650.3%
Town and Country Chevrolet 500.2%
Cropper Medical 500.2%
Bi-Mart 450.2%
Many Ashland Residents are employed outside of the City, and conversely many employees of
Ashland business 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,
11
City of Ashland, Chamber of Commerce website: www.ashlandchamber.com.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
21
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
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
12
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
13
supply for industrial development. The City adopted a Buildable Lands Inventory update in
2011 which has since determined that the current supply of developable commercial lands is
14
greater than the land need projected by the EOA.
\[Insert Table 3.3 from the BLI: Buildable acres: UGB & City Limits\]
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.
12
Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006.
13
Economic Opportunity Analysis for the City of Ashland, Eco-northwest, 2007.
14
City of Ashland, Planning Department, Buildable Lands Inventory 2001, pg 11.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
22
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.
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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
23
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
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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
24
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 fluxuation 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
1159 1159 80.3%
Single-Family
19 38 2.6%
Two-Family
Three and Four-Family 14 45 3.1%
30 202 13.9%
Five or More
1222 1444 100%
Total
U.S. Census Bureau buildings permit data
According to Census Data, Ashland added 1,444 new dwelling units between 2000 and 2011.
This is an increase of 16%, down from 26% from the previous ten year period. As seen in the
table above, the trend identified in both the 2002 HNA and the 2007 RNA, of single family
development over multi-family development has continued.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
25
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
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 type 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 63 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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
26
Group care homes
The City currently has a total of four group homes able to accommodate up to 20 individuals.
The University has several group housing units on campus offering a total of ??? beds. The
university is currently in the process of building a new residence hall which is estimated to house
??? people with ??? beds.
Table 3.2
2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Housing Units by Type
Units In 20002000 % 20102010 % %
StructureEstimate EstimateChange
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 3.3
Homeownership/Rental Rate Comparison
% Renters 2000 % Owners 2000 % Renters 2010 % Owners 2010
Ashland47.7% 52.3% 49% 51%
33.5% 66.5% 36.7% 63.3%
Jackson County
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 is the determining factor in where a householder
chooses to live. Often the household will forego other housing priorities, such as square footage,
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
27
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
15
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.
Income Level Income Range All Households
1 person Household
Number Percent
Extremely-Low Income 0-0-$12,300 1,242 13.3%
>30%
Low-Income$12,300-$20,500 1,246 13.3%
31%-50%
Moderate-Income $20,500-$32,800 1,248 13.4%
51%-80%
Moderate -Median Income $32,800-$40,140 933 9.9%
81%-100%
Median Income $40,140 4,670 50%
100%
Total Households 9,339 100%
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
16
increased by only 22.9%. This long term trend of housing costs outstripping incomes has
15
2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 2000 Census.
16
Ibid.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
28
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
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 answering the question posed, 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
satisfactory, the overwhelming majority of respondents felt that rental pricing was unsatisfactory.
Chart 3.1
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
29
Extremelly-Low Incoome (Less thhan 30% ofAArea Mediann Income): As shown inn Chart 3.2
below, thhe findings oof the Housinng Needs Moodel for the City of Ashlland using 22010 Census
Data, thee City of Ashhland has a sshortage of rrental units aaffordable to those resideents with thee
lowest inncomes; thosse making less than $10,000 a year. According to the Housiing Needs
Analysis, only 3.05%% of the Cityy’s rental houusing stock mmeets the neeeds of this ppopulation att
approximmately 152 unnits. The Ciity’s current need for renntal housing in a price raange affordabble
to those wwith the lowwest income iis estimated to be 955 unnits; this leavves a gap offapproximateely
803 to mmeet the needds of these veery low income househoolds. Housinng Units affoordable to theese
populatioons, which innclude predoominantly hoouseholds unnder the age of 35 and too a lesser exttent
over the age of 55, coould be offseet by Housinng Choice (foformerly secttion 8) Voucchers. The 7729
househollds under thee age of 35 thhat reports hhaving an inccome of undder $10,000 aa year may bbe
due in paart to the presence of Souuthern Oregoon Universitty, which inccludes a highh percentagee of
non-tradiitional students. Currentlly there are aapproximateely 100 housseholds who receive a rental
subsidyvvoucher fromm the Departtment of Houusing and Urrban Develoopment to offffset housingg
costs. Thhere are 142 project baseed subsidized rental unitts located wiithin the Cityy of Ashlandd. Of
these uniits 73 are sett to expire wwithin the nexxt 5 years annd the waitinng list for porrtable vouchhers
throughtthe Housing Authorityoof Jackson Coounty is appproximately tthree to fourr years out.
Households making 330% of the AAMI or less make up appproximately 12.2% of alll Ashland
househollds.
Low-Incoome (Betweeen 30% andd 50% of Areea Median IIncome): Thhe current suupply of houusing
units affoordable to loow-income ppopulations rrepresents appproximatelyy 5.68% of thhe City’s renntal
housingsstock or 283 units. The current estimmated need ffor housing aaffordable too this incomee
2012 Housinng Needs Analyysis
(WORKINGG DRAFT June 2012)
30
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.
Chart 3.2
CurrentHousingBalanceRentalUnitsbycostrange
ЋЉЉЉ
ЊЎЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
ЎЉЉ
Љ
ЉυЊВЍυЊВЎυЍЋЋυЍЋЌυЏЎЎυЏЎЏυБВАυБВБυЊЊЌЋυЊЊЌЌњ
ЎЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
IƚǒƭźƓŭ{ƷƚĭƉ/ǒƩƩĻƓƷbĻĻķ/ǒƩƩĻƓƷ{ǒƩƦƌǒƭ
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
31
Ownership Units
Extremely-Low Income (Less than 30% of Area Median Income): An individual making 30%
of AMI or $12,300 a year according to the 2012 HUD income guidelines would be able to afford
a to purchase a housing unit for a maximum of $51,115. There is very little availability of
housing at this income level, Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity provides housing targeting
extremely low-income households, but with the extremely low purchase price the private market
is unable to provide ownership units at this level. Some Mobile and Manufactured home units in
a park might be within this price range.
Low-Income (Between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income): The Housing Needs Analysis
estimates that there are 150 existing units available for $72.3 thousand and below, and an
estimated need of 401 units at this level. This leaves a gap of 251 ownership units affordable to
households earning 30%-50% of the AMI.
Moderate Income (Between 50% and 80% of Area Median Income): The number of ownership
units available that are affordable to people making 50% to 80% of AMI is estimated to be
approximately 260. The estimated need for ownership units costing between $72K-$185.3K is
2,070. The units at the high end of the price scale would be unaffordable to those earning below
50% of AMI.
Median Income:There is a limited supply of ownership units affordable to those earning
median income. According to the National Association of Home Builders Affordable Housing
17
Price Calculator, a household making the median income for the Medford/Ashland area could
afford to purchase a house for $163,126. The calculator assumes a 20% down payment, current
interest rates on a 30 year fixed loan assuming a 90% loan to value ratio. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that there are approximately 410 units available between $185,300 and below.
While many households earning median income could qualify for a loan to purchase a house at
the lower end of the scale, those same households would be cost burdened it they had to pay a
mortgage on a housing unit of over $163,000.
Over 78% of the City’s ownership housing stock consists of units of costing $279,300 and
above, while the demand for housing units in that price range is only 1,750. From Chart 3.3
below it is clear that the private market has provided a surplus of high cost housing, over 2,255
units, while the remaining 22% of the housing stock available for sale costing less than $279,300
is in such demand that there is a housing gap of 3,147 units. The highest demand is for those
units affordable to households making the 100% AMI to 120% AMI at 1,332.
17
National Association of Homebuilders affordability calculator:
http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=78355
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
32
Chart 3.3
CurrentHousingBalanceOwnershipUnits
ЎЉЉЉ
ЍЉЉЉ
ЌЉЉЉ
IƚǒƭźƓŭ{ƷƚĭƉ
ЋЉЉЉ
/ǒƩƩĻƓƷbĻĻķ
ЊЉЉЉ
/ǒƩƩĻƓƷ{ǒƩƦƌǒƭ
Љ
ЊЉЉЉ
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 the funds. 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 a minimum 20 year availability. This
Housing Needs Analysis provides a detailed assessment of precisely what mix of housing types
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
33
will be needed through 2040 (see Table___). 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.
The 20011 BLI demonstrated the following land availability by Comprehensive Plan
designation
Table ___Buildable Acres: UGB and City Limits combined
NetExpectedNeeded
Comprehensive YearSurplus
BuildableDwelling Units
PlanSupply or deficit
Acres Units Distributed
Per Airport
Airport 0
Master Plan
Commercial 15.8 252
Croman Mill 62.8 340
Downtown 2 53
Employment 105.1 221
HC 1.4 15
HDR 8.9 162
Industrial 12.1 0
LDR 38.1 70
MFR 30.8 323
NM 17.7 118
SFR 214 875
SFRR 48 103
Per SOU
SOU 19.5
Master Plan
Suburban R 42.3 311
Woodland 4.3 10
Totals622.8 2853
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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
34
The City estimates vacant buildable lands in all designations that allow residential uses have a
total capacity of 2853 dwelling units. This estimate 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.
Single Family and Manufactured housing, detached
2010 ACS estimates that there are 10,203 total units 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 3.2 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 remained fairly consistent over the previous 10 year period between 1990 and
2000. 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 3.2 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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
35
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 multifamily 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
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 the 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 that were 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 1390 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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
36
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 homeowner’s complete health and safety repairs on their homes. The
City also contains three large scale multi-family projects financed with Rural Development loan
funds. All together these units account for 153 units of below market rate and subsidized
housing within the City.
The City of Ashland is a Participating
Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG):
Jurisdiction for the Community Development Block grant program and as such receives and
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 AssistanceNumberNumberIncomeContract
TypeTypeof Units ofLimitExpiration
AssistedDate
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
18
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
19
Takilma Village Family Section 8 14 14 60% 8/31/09
20
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
18
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.
19
The owners of the Takilma Village complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2010.
20
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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
37
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 units represent units not meant for year round occupancy, so although
counted by census in the total housing, these units 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.
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,
21
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
21
United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
38
22
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
Since 2000 vacancy rates have been 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 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 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
23
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 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
22
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.
23
SOMLS Home sale statistics.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
39
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) shows that the median residential home 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.
Chart 4.1
Existing Home Sales-Ashland/Jackson County
ЎЉЉͲЉЉЉ
ЍЎЉͲЉЉЉ
ЍЉЉͲЉЉЉ
ЌЎЉͲЉЉЉ
ЌЉЉͲЉЉЉ
9ǣźƭƷźƓŭIƚƒĻ{ğƌĻƭ
ЋЎЉͲЉЉЉ
aĻķźğƓ
ЋЉЉͲЉЉЉ
/ƚǒƓƷǤ9ǣźƭƷźƓŭIƚƒĻ
{ğƌĻƭ
ЊЎЉͲЉЉЉ
ЊЉЉͲЉЉЉ
ЎЉͲЉЉЉ
Љ
ЋЉЉЉЋЉЉАЋЉЊЊЋЉЊЋ
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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
40
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.???
The primary indicator 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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
41
Table 5.1
City19902000% Change 2010% Change AAGR
1990-20002000-2010
Ashland16,234 19,532 20% 20,078 2.8% .79%
Medford 46,951 63,154 34.5% 74,907 18.6% 1.98%
146,389 181,269 23.8% 203,206 12.1% 1.29%
Jackson County
U.S. Census. AAGR is average annual growth rate
Table 5.2
CityEstimate Census April Change 2000-% Change AAGR
July 1, 20101, 200020102000-2010
Ashland21,460 19,5221,9389.9% 0.9%
77,485 63,68713,79821.7% 2.2%
Medford
Jackson County 207,745 181,26926,47614.6% 1.5%
PSU Population Research Center data estimate based on 2000 Census Data
Table 5.3
Age Groups 1990 %2000 %%2010 %%AAGR
ChangeChange
Under 19 6,184 38% 4,775 24.5% 14.6% 4,931 24.5% 3.3% 0.33%
20-24 2,314 11.9% 1,885 9.4% -18.5% -1.85%
25-34 5,126 31.5% 2,174 11.1% -11.2% 2,248 11.2% 3.4% 0.34%
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%
Total16,234100% 19,522 100% 20.3% 20,103 100% 3% 1.19%
population
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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
42
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 period the 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 old and older. The last
decade 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. The housing needs of elderly
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
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 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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
43
24
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
25
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
HouseholdAge of Head of Household
Income
15-2525-3535-4545-5555-6565-7575+
<10K2.9% 7.9% 16.0% 25.0% 43.0% 46.1% 40.0%
10<20K3.6%12.7%25.0%37.0%47.0%61.0%56.2%
20<30K6.0% 16.6% 36.0% 45.0% 54.0% 73.2% 67.1%
30<40K7.9%23.9%48.0%53.7%60.0%74.4%70.1%
40<50K10.8% 32.9% 58.1% 62.4% 80.0% 91.0% 84.0%
50<75K22.5%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
with housing tenure”. The Housing Needs Model estimates that there is currently a significant
gap of housing units at price ranges affordable 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.
24
Ashland School District. Ashland School district Enrollment Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19. Portland State
University Populations Research Center. December 2008, page 1.
25
Ashland School District. Ashland School District Population and Enrollment Forecasts 2012-13 to 2021-22. page
12.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
44
Table 5.5
Percentage of Renters by Age and Income, 2010 HNM
HouseholdAge of Head of Household
Income
15-2525-3535-4545-5555-6565-7575+
<10K97.1% 92.1% 84.0% 75.0% 57.0% 53.9% 60.0%
10<20K96.4%87.3%75.0%63.0%53.0%39.0%43.8%
20<30K94.0% 83.4% 64.0% 55.0% 46.0% 26.8% 32.9%
30<40K92.1%76.1%52.0%46.3%40.0%25.6%29.9%
40<50K89.2% 67.1% 41.9% 37.6% 20.0% 9.0% 16.0%
50<75K77.5%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
slightly (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
one bedroom and three bedroom units. The analysis also showed that there was an oversupply of
26
two-bedroom rental units. The following table is from that report and illustrates their findings.
26
City of Ashland Rental Needs Analysis. Ferrarini & Associates, Inc 2007.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
45
Table 5.6
City of Ashland Rental Housing Need by Unit Type RNA 2007
TypeDemandSupply Net Need
Studio1,039 392 647
1,290 1,188 102
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom 872 1,676 (804)
3+ Bedroom 900 846 54
Total4,102 4,102 0
27
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
493 5.4% 247 2.4% -49.9%
1 Room
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%
1,822 20.1% 2,168 21.2% 19%
5 Room
1,498 16.5% 1,601 15.7% 6.9%
6 Room
827 9.1% 1,387 13.6% 67.7%
7 Room
624 6.9% 521 5.1% -16.5%
8 Room
389 4.3% 469 4.8% 20.6%
9 or More
U.S. Census Bureau
27
Ibid.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
46
Table 5.8
Owner Occupied Units by Household Size
HH Size 20002000%20102010%% Change
4,456 100 4,856 100% 9%
Total
1-person 1,117 25.1% 1,460 30.1% 30.7%
1,946 43.7% 2,212 45.6% 13.7%
2-person
3-person 647 14.5% 623 12.8% -3.7%
532 11.9% 412 8.5% -22.6%
4-person
5-person 157 3.5% 103 2.1% -34.4%
45 1.0% 34 .7% -24.4%
6-person
7 or more 12 0.3% 12 .2% 0%
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.9
Renter Occupied housing by household size
HH Size 20002000%20102010%% Change
Total4,081 100% 4,553 100% 11.6%
1,722 42.2 2,086 45.8% 21.1%
1-person
2-person 1,361 33.3% 1,336 29.3% -1.8%
594 14.6% 646 14.2% 8.8%
3-person
4-person 262 6.4% 305 6.7% 16.4%
90 2.2% 118 2.6% 31.1%
5-person
6-person 33 .8% 41 .9% 24.2%
19 0.5% 21 0.5 10.5%
7 or more
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.10
Estimate of Rental Units Needed by Household Size and Type
28
Units Needed
Needs Analysis No. of HH Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom
2,086 1,252 834
1-person
2-person 1,336 601 601 134
646 291 355
3-person
4-person 305 31 274
118 118
5-person
6-person 41 41
21 21
7-person
Demand 4,553 1,252 1,435 923 943
255 1,506 3,647 4,822
Supply
Surplus/Deficit (997)71 2,724 3,879
U.S. Census Bureau
28
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)
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
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 twenty 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 twenty 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 years census information and the Housing Needs Model
Table 6.1-Baseline forecast of Housing Demand 2010-2040
Variable Value
Current Future Change
20,07828,6708,492
Population
9611,450489
Persons in Group Quarters
Occupied DU 9,40912,9623,553
Single Family Dwelling Units
29
71.9%73.9%
Percent Single Family DU
7,3569,5912,235
Number of Single Family DU
30
14,93320,1415,208
Persons in single family HH
Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5%
Total New Single Family needed 2,235
Multiple Family Dwelling Units
26.6%25.5%
Percent Multi-Family DU
31
2,7203,311591
Number of Multiple-family DU
5,5226,9851,463
Persons in Multiple-Family HH
2.5%
Aggregate Vacancy Rate
New Multiple-Family DU 591
Totals
-
Total occupied dwelling units
2.032.1
Aggregate HH size
- 583
Vacant dwelling units
-2,657
Total new Dwelling units needed
88.6
Dwelling units needed annually
29
Future projections based on 2009ACS units by tenure and HNA Template 2-projected future housing status as of
2040.
30
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.
31
Same as above.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
48
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 20 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 one-fifth of the 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.
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:
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
49
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 will add
more than 8,492 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.
4 ¡«¤ΕȁΑ2¤³ «5¨³²¤¤£¤£¡¸4¸¯¤
4¸¯¤$¤¬ £3´¯¯«¸.¤³.¤¤£ȝ3´±¯«´²
3³´£¨®ΐǾΑΔΑΑΔΔΘΘΖ
ΐ"¤£±®®¬ΐǾΓΒΔΐΔΏΕΖΐ
Α"¤£±®®¬ΘΑΒΒΕΓΖΑǾΖΑΓ
Βχ"¤£±®®¬ΘΓΒΓǾΗΑΑΒǾΗΖΘ
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.
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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
50
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 6.1,on page 50, 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. Thought there is more land zoned for single family
development, land zoned for multifamily developments is often developed as single family
attached due to market forces, high end multifamily 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 multifamily complexes which was shown to be the housing
type most in demand by the 2007 RNA within the city. Similarly many of the existing affordable
and market rate units are HUD expiring use properties, once the HUD contract has expired the
units can convert to market rate rentals or be condo minimized.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
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 multiple
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
52
family housing, and for a greater number of single family housing types on smaller 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.
Figure 6.2
Owner Occupied units by affordability
ЋЎЉЉ
ЋЉЉЉ
ЊЎЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
hǞƓĻƩƭŷźƦ
ƓźƷƭ9ǣźƭƷźƓŭ
hǞƓĻƩƭŷźƦ
ƓźƷƭbĻĻķĻķ
ЎЉЉ
Љ
Figure 6.3
Rental Units needed by affordability
ЊЋЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
БЉЉ
ЏЉЉ9ǣźƭƷźƓŭwĻƓƷğƌ
ƓźƷƭ
bĻĻķĻķwĻƓƷğƌ
ƓźƷƭ
ЍЉЉ
ЋЉЉ
Љ
Numberof
ЉЊВЍЊВЎЍЋЋЍЋЌЏЎЎЏЎЏБВАБВБЊЊЌЋЊЊЌЌњ
Units
RentalAmountinDollars
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
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 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 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
Special Needs populationExisting Units Population% of Housing Housing
Available Available Gap
1,119 8,047 13.9% 6,928
Elderly
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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
54
for the majority of the people who could be categorized as having special needs. See table 6.4
below for details.
Table 6.4 Special Needs Housing vs. Population
Special Needs Population Existing Units Population% of Housing Housing
Available Available Gap
Alcohol & Drug Rehab 54 4,440 1.2% 4,386
47 2.842 1.7% 2,795
Chronically Mentally Ill
44 794 5.5% 750
Developmental Disability
Domestic Violence 33 170 19.3% 137
77 3,735 2.1% 3,658
Farm workers
4 136 2.9% 132
HIV/AIDS
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 5 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
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
55
32
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.
Homeless Needs
It is estimated that in 2008, 1 in every two hundred people in the state of Oregon was homeless.
Data from the Point in Time homeless Count conducted across the State of Oregon and
throughout the U.S. in January 2008 showed that Oregon has the highest concentration of
homeless people of any state at .54 percent or 20,653. The 2011 Point in Time homeless count
for Jackson County totaled 1,049 people. Totals are not broken out per jurisdiction but are for
the entire Continuum of Care region. Of the 1,049 respondents 39% identified themselves as
chronically homeless (continuously homeless for a year or more or had at least four episodes of
homelessness in the past three years), 48%, or 502 respondents were families with children. The
majority of the respondents 26% cited “couldn’t afford rent” at the reason for leaving their last
living arrangement.
Ashland School District
An article published in the Ashland Daily Tidings reported on a rise in poverty in rural areas.
Specifically, the article cited dramatically increased poverty rates among children in areas deeply
33
The Ashland School District
affected by the recession including Medford and Ashland.
reported that for the 2010-2011 school year 84 children currently attending school within the
district report being homeless. This number is up from 62 the previous year. Figure 5
32
State of Oregon, Department of Health Services Website:
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/data/docs/Livingcounty.xls
33
Hammond, Betsy. “Rural Students most likely to live in poverty Some Southern Oregon districts see high rates.”
Ashland Daily Tidings 01 Dec. 2009.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
56
2011OneNightHomelessCountforJacksonCounty
SingleAdultMen
OneParentFamilyWith
Children
Couplewithoutchildren
TwoparentFamilywith
Children
UnaccompaniedYouth(17or
under)
Other
Oregon Housing and Community Services receive federal and state resources to be used to
support services for homeless populations. They include: Emergency Housing Account,
Emergency Shelter grants, State Homeless Assistance Program, Shelter Plus Care, and
Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist Homeless. Additionally, under the Federal
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
Continuum of Care has been the recipient of McKinney Vento funds. 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 CAP 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 Oregon Housing and Community
Services 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
including 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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
57
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.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
58
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
HousingFinalTotalCurrentNeededEstimate of Future
TypeDistributionHousingApprox.DistributionExistingNeeded/
35
of Housing UnitsDistributionto meet UnitsGap
34
by Type in Neededby Typefuture units
2040in 2040
65.80% 8,91380.26%45.50%7,356 1,557
Single Family
2.40% 325-5.0%154 171
Manufactured
DU in Park
3.10% 4202.63%N/A526 -106
Duplex Units
Tri-Quad4.20% 5693.12%1.1%530 39
Units
5+ Multi-24.50% 3,31913.99%48.4%1,655 1,655
Family
100% 13,545100%100%10,230 3,315
Total
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.
34
Number derived from Census Building Permit Data 2000-2011. See Appendix for details.
35
From 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
59
Table 7.2
Estimate of Income and Affordability HNM 2010
Rentals/monthly rent Number of Existing Current Needed Current
UnitsUnitsSurplus/Gap
0-$194152955 -805
$195-4222831,052 -769
1,052940 112
$423-655
$656-8971,401480 922
830557 273
$898-1132
1,258283 975
$1133+
Total
4,9764,266 710
Ownership Unit Values
150401 -251
<$72.3k
$72.3k<110.1k82749 -667
18665 -648
$110.1k<147.6k
160656 -497
$147.6<185.3k
$185.3k<279.3k6761332 -656
40041750 2255
$279.3k+
Total Units
50895552 -463
Challenges and Recommendations
Challenges
If the 2010 Housing Needs Model projections are representative of Ashland’s future housing
needs, then City may be faced with the following challenges of 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.
How to continue to create and sustain Albany’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.
Goals
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, consisten
with other plan goals.
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
60
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
o 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 an live on fixed income. (Ashland
Comprehensive Plan)
Increase owner-occupied households to comparable levels with county and state ownership
averages.
Recommendations
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.
Recommendations
Encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area.
Consider mixed uses wherever they will not disrupt and 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 no longer allowing detached single family residential units in multi-family
zones?
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
61
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.
Recommendations
Provide more economic opportunities for Ashland residents by improving the local
economy and attracting more “family wage” jobs to Albany.
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 Corporation. To 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.
Challenges
The identification of a set of land use policies that will lead to 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 or
exclude to any housing types, and (2) they reduce the cost of housing.
This section summarizes some of the policy approaches that communities can consider to
address housing affordability.
Objectives
Recommendations
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
62
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 policies, obsolete
design standards (ie. Manufactured housing) unnecessarily burdensome permitting processes and
inadequate or inappropriate zoning.
Provide Incentives: Incentives are measures that increase the likelihood 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.
Costs can be reduced by these 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 and may affect the
size of housing units allowing 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.
Create and sustain great neighborhoods for all Residents
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
63
BREAKDOWN OF HOUSING BY TYPE, ASHLAND 1990-2010
ChangeChangeChange
Type of Unit 1990 Census 2000 Census 2006-10 American
1990-2000-1990-
Community Survey
200020102010
Number % Number % Number %
Single Family 4,764 66% 5,919 65% 7,356 71.9% 24% 24.2% 54.4%
Detached 4,519 63% 5,375 59% 6,503 63.6% 19% 21% 44%
Attached 245 3% 544 6% 853 8.3% 122% 57% 248%
2,171 30% 2,909 32% 2720 26.6% 34% -6.5% 25%
Multi-Family
838 12% 1,099 12% 1,043 10.2% 31% -5% 24.5%
2-4 Units
1,006 14% 989 11% 918 9% -1.6% -7.2% -8.7%
5-19 Units
20+ Units 327 5% 821 9% 746 7.3% 151% -6% 135%
Mobile Homes 190 3% 225 3% 154 1.5% 18% -9.1% -1.9%
Other 70 1% 18 1% 0 0% -74% -1% -1%
Total 7,195 100% 9,071 100% 10,230 100% 26% 12.8% 42.2%
Bedrooms 2010 %2010
No Bdrm 255 2.5%
1 Bdrm 1,506 14.7%
2 Bdrm 3,647 35.7%
3 Bdrm 3,617 35.4%
4 Bdrm 1,025 10.0%
5 or More 180 1.8%
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
64
Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type
SFRMultifamilyTotals
Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010
ЊЍЏВЊЌБЍЋБЎЌ
BLI)
Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis
1557
ЊАЎВЌЌЊЏ
through 2040
-88 -375 -463
Deficit by 2040
55.6
ЏЋ͵БЊЊБ͵Ѝ
Annual units needed through 2040
26.422.024.1
Total Year Supply
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
65
Table X>X
Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Dwelling Units by Type
Existing Dwelling
distributed into existing capacity
Net Buildable
Comprehensive Plan Unit Capacity (2010
Acres
BLI)
SFRMultifamily
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
Totals622.8 2853 1469 1384
2012 Housing Needs Analysis
(WORKING DRAFT June 2012)
66