HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-28 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION
STUUDY SESSION
AUGGUST 28, 20112
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civvic Center Coouncil Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS
IIII. PUBLIC FORUM
IVV. DISCUUSSION ITEMMS
A. Drraft Housing Needs Analyysis
B. Buusiness Reteention and Exxpansion Suurvey Updatee
V. ADJOURNMENT
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
Memo
DATE: 8/28/2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
RE: Housing Needs Analysis Update 2012
Purpose
This memorandum presents a summary of the methodology used to update of the City’s Housing
Needs Analysis (HNA).
Upon adoption, the updated HNA becomes a technical supporting document to the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan and will provide a basis for future legislative decisions. The City of Ashland is not
held to state planning requirements to undertake a periodic review of housing need as the Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS197.296) only applies to communities with a population of 25,000 or more.
However, as a guide to providing for Ashland’s current and future housing needs an updated Housing
Needs Analysis, in combination with a Buildable Lands Inventory, is a useful tool in evaluating the
appropriate distribution of units by housing type in consideration of changing demographics. Together
these documents can be used to assist elected and appointed officials and staff by informing policy
decisions with regard to population growth, housing development, economic development,
redevelopment, annexation and overall growth management.
Background
In 2002, ECONorthwest prepared a Housing Needs Analysis which detailed housing and demographic
inconsistencies within the Current housing stock and projected future need based on the Oregon
Housing and Community Services Housing Needs Model. In 2007 a Rental Needs Analysis was
completed to assess the needed rental housing types based on demographic information about
Ashland households including size, age, and incomes. This Rental Needs Analysis supplemented
information in a Housing Needs Analysis. All of these studies attempt to project future land needs
relative to the existing supply of land suitable for development.
Methodology
The 2012 HNA, attached to this memo, aims to quantify projected housing needs through the year
2040, and compares those demographic needs with the currently available lands within the City’s
Urban Growth Boundary. This comparison provides the factual basis to answer the questions of “how
much residential single family and multi-family land is presently available?”, “how many residential
dwelling units can be accommodated on Ashland’s remaining developable lands?” and, “is there
enough appropriately zoned land to accommodate Ashland’s future population?”
The HNA update was completed using the Housing Needs Model, which specifically links income
characteristics to the need for various housing types by price, density, and location throughout the
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
community. The Housing Needs Model used to derive future projections was initially created by the
State of Oregon as a tool for communities throughout the state to ensure that projections of future
housing needs were driven by the demographics of the study area as opposed to simply projecting past
trends in housing production forward. The standard practice in Oregon had historically been to
extrapolate forward the past 5 or more years in housing production as the basis for determining a
region’s future housing requirements. While this market or demand driven approach was commonly
used to define the housing “needs” for an area, the true housing “needs” of that area’s population may
not have been addressed. Using the most recent US Census and American Community Survey data
regarding age demographics, household sizes, household wages and incomes, and local housing
prices (rental and ownership) are some of the inputs used in determining housing “needs” in this model.
Local housing markets are frequently not a “perfect” market where the “demand” or supply is in
equilibrium and balance with the “need”. In many regions, the new housing supply is a function of what
the local builders are inclined or able to produce, which may not be what the households in the region
actually need or desire and can afford without being cost burdened.
The HNA uses this housing model as a starting point for projecting Ashland’s housing needs to 2040.
The HNA incorporates data from the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) and evaluates Ashland’s
housing need by type and price to available land designated by Zone within the City’s UGB. This HNA
has also utilized data from:
The Housing Needs Model
U.S. Census Data
Analysis of current market conditions
Community and property owner/manager questionnaire
Population Data from Portland State University’s Population Research Center
Coordinated Population Projections from Jackson County
Employment data from the Oregon Employment Department
Housing and Development data from the City of Ashland and Jackson County
City of Ashland 2002 Housing Needs Analysis & 2007 Rental Needs Analysis
Staff analyzed data from the aforementioned sources, used projections from the Housing Needs Model,
compared them to historic development trends and suggested modifications based on the development
mix needed to meet the future housing needs. Additionally, staff related the needed housing type and
affordability projections to the potential number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on
available lands within the existing UGB by zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation.
Results
The 2012 HNA provides a projection of housing need based on past, current, and future demographic
trends and relates the housing needs of those future populations to the reality of Ashland’s available
land inventory based on data from the BLI. The HNA then recommends strategies to achieve the
desired outcome to meet projected future needs by housing type, tenure, and cost.
th
The August 28 Planning Commission study session is an opportunity to familiarize the Commission
with the HNA update. An ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the HNA as a
technical supporting document will be presented to the Housing and Planning Commissions at public
hearings for review and recommendation in September and October respectively. The HNA and
proposed ordinance will then proceed to the City Council for final adoption.
Attached
:
2012 Housing Needs Analysis Update
Housing Commission Minutes, July 25, 2012
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
3
Findings 3
Recommendations 7
City Accomplishments 9
Section I: Introduction 10
10
11
12
14
Section II: Framework/Community Context 14
15
17
19
22
Section III: Housing Trends and Existing Conditions 25
25
27
29
32
33
35
Section IV: Housing Inventory
35
35
35
36
38
38
38
40
Section V: Housing Needs
40
41
42
43
44
45
Section VI: Baseline Forecast of Housing Demand 48
49
54
Section VII: Meeting Housing needs to 2040 59
Appendix
- 1 -
The 2012 Housing Needs Analysis provides a summary of housing and demographic trends
within the City of Ashland in an effort to allow the City to meet the population’s housing needs
in the future. This report is intended to provide an evaluation of housing trends in Ashland since
the last detailed housing assessments were completed including the 2002 Housing Needs
Analysis and the 2007 Rental Needs Analysis. The following is a review of those trends, a brief
summary of steps the City has taken to address the findings, recommended actions identified in
the prior housing assessments, and an evaluation of what the results of those actions have been.
Ashland is growing-but relatively slowly
: The City of Ashland has grown in population from
16,234 in 1990 to 20,078 in 2010 according to the US Census. This 0.79% historical growth rate
is largely consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Jackson County’s population
estimate for the City of Ashland that predicts the population will continue to grow at an average
annual rate of approximately 0.75% between 2005 and 2060. Between 1990 and 2000
Ashland’s population grew by 20% while the population grew by only 2.8% in the decade
between 2000 and 2010. This marked disparity in population growth between these past two
decades may suggest that the actual annual growth rate is trending toward a diminishing growth
rate and if that proves to be the case it will be a trend which bears close monitoring.
Growth has not occurred evenly in all age groups
: The population growth rate of individuals
65 years old and older grew at a faster rate in Ashland than in the rest of the State, while the
population of individuals between the ages of 35 and 44 actually declined. In the last decades
Ashland has also seen a substantial decrease in the population of nearly all age groups between
15 and 55 (one exception was the 25-34 age groups which saw a 3.4% increase between 2000
and 2010). The populations of age groups 55 years old and older see growth with the exception
of that age group of 85 years old and older.
- 2 -
Figure 1. Ashland Persons per Age Cohort 2000-2010
ЌЎЉЉ
ЌЉЉЉ
ЋЎЉЉ
ЋЉЉЉ
ЊЎЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
ЎЉЉ
Љ
ƚǝĻƩ
ǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭǤĻğƩƭ
Ў
ƓķĻƩ
ğƓķ
ВЊЍЊВЋЍЌЍЍЍЎЍЎВЏЍАЍБЍ
Ў
ǤĻğƩƭ
ЊЉЊЎЋЉЋЎЌЎЍЎЎЎЏЉЏЎАЎ
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’s in 2010, (where those
groups saw increases of 110% and 85% respectively), will be in their 70’s and 80’s by 2020.
Overall the forecast for the State of Oregon (
Source: OREGON’S DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS February 2010, State
) anticipates there will be 53% more elderly in 2020 than in 2010. Given
Office of Economic Analysis
Ashland’s desirability as retirement destination such trending indicates Ashland will likely see a
continuation of this trend.
Fewer households own housing in Ashland compared to other areas
: The 2010 Census
showed 51% of Ashland households own their homes and 49% are in renter occupied housing.
Ashland has a lower percentage of homeowners and a higher percentage of renters than Jackson
County with a 63.3% ownership rate, the State of Oregon with a 63.8% ownership rate or the
Nation as a whole with at 66.6% homeownership rate. The 2000 Census data showed 52.3% of
housing units in Ashland were owner occupied and 47.7% of units were renter occupied. This
regional rental/owners disparity could be affected by the presence of the University which
increases the student age population that is typically in the market for rental housing, but also
shows a greater demand for rental units relative to the rest of the region.
- 3 -
The fastest growing employment sectors in Ashland do not pay enough for a household to
afford fair market rents
: Individuals employed in the fastest growing employment sectors in
Ashland, services and retail jobs; do not make enough money to pay fair market rent in Ashland.
However, this trend is not specific to Ashland; in general wages have been outpaced by housing
costs since the 1980’s.
The number of low-income households has decreased since 2000 after having increased
between 1998 and 2000
: Between 2000 and 2010 the estimated number of families and
individuals living below the poverty level has decreased from 12.5% to 11.5% and from 19.6%
to 18.8% respectively. Although the decrease is slight, it may signal a reversal in a trend
identified in the 2002 housing Needs Analysis which found an increase of 2.7% in the estimated
number of low-income households between 1998 and 2001. The 2010 Census now reports a
decrease in the number of households who report having an annual income of less than $75,000 a
year while the number of households reporting an income of over $75,000 has increased.
Housing sales prices increased nearly 50% between 1998 and 2001 and have remained
higher than the regional average
: Housing prices in the early part of the decade rose
precipitously, and in 2001 this trend was just getting started. In 2007 at the height of the housing
boom, the average home price in Ashland was $438,750. With the fall out of the housing market
in 2008 and the ensuing foreclosure crisis, housing prices in most areas fell drastically. Housing
prices also fell in Ashland during the recession, though not as significantly as in other parts of
the county. According to the Roy Wright Appraisal Service, 85 housing units sold in Ashland in
2011 the average sales price was $285,000.
The median home sales price in Ashland is not affordable to households with median
incomes:
the 2012 median household income for a family of four in the Medford/Ashland
Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a median priced home in Ashland a
household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8% of the population reports having an
income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership housing stock is targeted to this group.
It is clear that there is an excess of ownership housing on the market at price ranges which are
not commensurate with the earning capability of the majority of the population in the region.
The largest dwelling unit gap exists for households earning less than $10,000 annually:
The
findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census Data shows
that the City lacks an adequate number of rental units affordable to those residents with the
lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. Households making 30% of the Area
Median Income or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland households. Only 3.05%
of the City’s rental housing stock (approximately 152 units) is considered affordable to this
population. The City’s current need for rental housing in a price range affordable to those with
the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately 803 units
needed to house these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to these
populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35, and to a lesser extent
over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The 729
- 4 -
households under the age of 35 that report having an income of under $10,000 a year may be due
in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of non-
traditional students.
Ashland has a large deficit of affordable owner-occupied housing units
: The 2002 HNA
found that 46% of Ashland households earning below the median income could not afford to
purchase a house in Ashland. This number has grown to approximately 57% of Ashland
households; over half of the current population cannot afford to purchase a home in Ashland.
The Housing Needs Model shows that there is a deficit of housing stock costing less than
$279,300, only 22% of all housing units for sale in Ashland, while there is a surplus of 2,255
units above that price.
Few multi-family units were built between 2001 and 2010
: The 2002 HNA found that only
9% of the building permits issued between 1990 and 2001 were for multi-family housing types.
Between 2000 and 2010, 19.6% of all building permits issued were issued for multiple family
units (two-family units to five or more). Though single family units tend to get developed at a
rate twice that of multi-family units, the City has seen a significant increase in the development
of multi-family units in the past ten years. However, not all of the newly built multi-family units
were rental units, and many rental units were lost in the same period to condominium
conversion.
Ashland is falling short of providing the housing types identified in the 2002 Housing needs
analysis
: The 2002 HNA found that more single-family units were being built than was
estimated to be needed, while both multi-family housing and government assisted housing types
were either falling short or not being built at all. It is clear that single-family ownership housing
development remains the most prevalent type of housing development within Ashland, while the
housing types most needed, including multi-family rentals and government assisted housing are
not being developed in accordance with needs.
Ashland has a relatively small inventory of land zoned for multi-family housing
: The 2011
Buildable Lands Inventory identified an existing capacity for up to 1,384 Multi-family units
within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Housing Needs Model anticipates up to 1,759 multi-
family housing units will be needed to satisfy the anticipated demand for multi-family units by
the year 2040. Without changes to allowable densities, increases in mixed use developments, or
an increase in land zoned for multi-family the City may exhaust the supply of land available for
multi-family housing by the year 2034.
- 5 -
Implications of previous housing trends:
The number of affordable units in Ashland causes households to compete against each
other for housing.
Land zoned for multiple-family is being consumed for single family ownership units such
as townhomes and condominiums.
Housing costs are forcing Ashland workers to live in other communities
Housing costs may be contributing to reductions in school enrollment.
Housing costs may place greater demands on transportation systems and parking (i.e.
with more people commuting).
Housing costs may limit economic development
Following is a summary of potential land use strategies for addressing key housing issues
identified in the 2012 HNA.
Encourage more multi-family housing
: Promote policies that will increase the development of
multi-family housing and provide more affordable rental housing and to meet the needs of the
population. The 2002 HNA also recommended an increase in multi-family housing, and in the
last decade the historic development of multi-family rental housing has continued to be
insufficient to satisfy demand.
Suggestion
:Increase the land supply. The BLI data suggest that the City has capacity
for about1,384 multi-family dwellings whereas it is anticipated that 1,759 units will be
needed by 2040.One approach to encourage apartment development is to designate more
land for higher concentrations of residential units (High and Medium Density zones).
Suggestion
:Promote development of residential units in commercial and employment
zones.The BLI assumes commercial developments within employment and commercial
zones would only utilize 50% of their allowable residential capacity on average.
Increasing the prevalence of mixed use developments (beyond the 50% expectation) will
effectively increase the net supply of land and the total capacity for multi-family units.
Suggestion
:Consider restricting uses in certain zones to apartments. The building
permit data suggest that a significant amount of land designated for high-density multi-
family housing has been developed as single-family attached types that are owner
occupied units. Designating certain lands for rental units would encourage development
of apartments.
- 6 -
Suggestion
: Consider policies that encourage redevelopment or adaptive reuse of
structures. The location of rental units is also important. Increasing the supply of rental
units near employment centers and the University will make these units more attractive.
Suggestion
:Develop more government-assisted housing: The data show a need for
nearly 800 dwelling units that are affordable to households with annual incomes of
$10,000 or less. About 30% of these households, however, are in the 18-24 age range and
another 25% are age 65 or over. The data suggest the City would need to develop as
many as 50 units per year for the next 20 years to address this need. Given the number of
total housing units developed in the City in any given year is typically less than 100, it is
unlikely such a target could be met. A more realistic target would be a target based on a
percentage of total units developed in collaboration with local housing organizations,
which would be 10-15 units annually.
Encourage more affordable single-family housing types
. The average sales price of a single-
family residence was over $282,000 in 2012. Following are some approaches that can increase
more affordable single-family housing types:
Suggestion:
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 manufactured homes in parks. Revising existing policies to
more readily enable the placement of manufactured homes is one potential approach to
allowing more affordable single family housing.
Suggestion
:Evaluate land use incentives to promote affordable single family housing.
The City should evaluate existing density bonus allocations to better incentivize the
voluntary inclusion of affordable single family housing in future developments
Suggestion
:Consider allowing Accessory Residential Units as a permitted use in single
family zones. The integration of ARUs into existing neighborhoods provides for small
dedicated rental units serving single or two person households, and could also be a
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
- 7 -
Suggestion
:Reduce development fees for low-income projects: The City should conduct
a careful review of the components of housing cost and calculate the percentage of total
unit cost that is a result of development fees.
Following the Completion of the 2002 Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Action Plan the
City has completed a number of actions that directly address the recommendations identified in
the prior analysis including the following:
Develop land use policies and incentives to encourage the development of affordable and
needed housing types;
Passed annexation and zone change ordinance requirements to require the
o
inclusion of affordable housing in new developments of a type commensurate
with the market rate units provided
Passed condominium conversion ordinance requirements that help preserve multi-
o
family rental housing and affordable housing.
Passed minimum density ordinance requirements to ensure multi-family zoned
o
properties are developed at a minimum of 80% the base density and are thus not
developed as large single family lots.
Passed an ordinance amendment permitting small accessory residential units to be
o
located on small lots in multi-family zones.
Develop more government-assisted housing
Coordinated with the Housing Authority of Jackson County to develop 60 new
o
units of government assisted affordable rental housing and assisted the project
through joint acquisition of land, CDBG awards, and reduced development fees.
Reduce development fees for low-income projects
Amended the City’s Affordable Housing System Development Charge waiver
o
program to ensure a minimum period of affordability of 30 years for assisted
units.
Amended the City’s Community Development and Engineering fee waiver
o
program to make affordable units automatically eligible for the waivers.
Developed a Housing Trust Fund framework for the dedication of resources to
o
assist the City in meeting housing needs,
Develop Organizational Capacity for Affordable Housing
Dedicated General Fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
o
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;
- 8 -
Prioritized the use of CDBG funds to support the development of affordable
o
housing consistently awarding the funds to projects that increase the supply of
affordable housing
City efforts, in collaboration with the local organizations providing affordable housing, have
resulted in over 10% of all housing units developed since 2002 have been secured as
1
affordable to low-moderate income households. This percentage equates to a total of 178
units secured as affordable over the last decade.
The housing needs analysis serves as a background report to the Housing Element of the City of
Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of undertaking an analysis of housing needs is to
increase the probability that needed housing types will be built and to ensure that the city has a
suitable amount of land to meet the housing development needs.
A housing needs analysis should include a comprehensive analysis of factors affecting housing
needs and an up-to-date knowledge of trends affecting housing. Such factors along with
household income and cost information, affect the need for various housing types in a
community.
Background-Oregon Planning Requirements for Housing
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.296 contains two key objectives. These relate to housing
and land, as follows:
Housing: Ensure that development occurs at the densities and mix needed to meet a
community’s housing needs over the next 20 years; Land: Ensure that there is enough buildable
land to accommodate the 20 year housing need inside the urban growth boundary (UGB).
The City of Ashland is not required by state planning requirements to undertake a periodic
review of housing need since ORS 197.296 only applies to communities with a population of
25,000 or more. However, as a guide to providing for the current and future housing needs of its
citizenry, a housing needs analysis is a valuable tool. A housing needs analysis provides elected
and appointed officials and city staff with the necessary data to make decisions that balance the
needs of the community with regard to housing, redevelopment, annexation and growth
management, the preservation of farm land and rural areas with the need to accommodate
population growth and economic development. This analysis reviews current conditions and sets
the framework for policy discussions on housing needs.
1
See chart “Affordable Units per year” in Appendix D
- 9 -
Purpose-Housing Need versus Housing Demand
No one would argue that that everyone should have access to decent, safe and affordable
housing, but what does that really mean? Historically the evolution of housing and the housing
market have not always provided those basic elements of housing which many of us now take for
granted. The market has not always had an incentive or a mandate to provide those basic
elements nor was there always agreement on what constituted decent, safe, or affordable when
applied to housing units.
Decent Housing
: The term decent housing speaks to the physical condition of housing
units. Housing that lacks bathroom facilities, electricity, basic plumbing and heating and
is free of open exterior holes or cracks, and infestation. One measure of safe and decent
housing is the Housing Quality Standards (HQS) checklist developed by HUD (see
appendix D).
Safe Housing
: Prior to 1927 there were no building codes, with the evolution of
homeowner’s insurance and the fallout of multiple tragedies due to fire, many
communities adopted Uniform Building Codes to create safety standards and regulate the
building industry to ensure that such tragedies were averted. In the 1990’s the ICC
(International Code Council) codes were adopted in most states across the country in an
effort to standardize the accepted safety of residential and commercial buildings
nationwide.
Affordable Housing
: Affordable housing refers to a household’s ability to find housing
within their financial means. The standard measure of affordability as defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is when the cost of rent and
utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of household income. When gross rent levels
exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it places a significant burden
on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of their income toward
housing costs are called “Cost burdened”. Householders who pay more than 50% of their
income toward housing costs are called “severely cost burdened”. When households are
housing “cost burdened” their ability to pay for the other necessities of life are
compromised.
“Needed housing”:
As used in ORS 197.307, “needed housing” means housing types
determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at
particular price ranges and rent levels, including the following housing types:
Attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for
o
both owner and renter occupancy;
Government assisted housing;
o
Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to
o
197.490;
Manufactured homes on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family
o
residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured
dwelling subdivisions;.
- 10 -
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
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.
- 11 -
A report by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy entitled “The
Link between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence,” by
Chris Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Gerritt Knapp and Casey Dawkins. The report, a comprehensive
review of the academic literature on the link between growth management and housing
affordability, found that:
Market demand, not land constraints, is the primary determinant of housing prices
.
Whether growth management programs are in place or not, the strength of the housing
market is the single most important influence on housing prices. For example, Portland’s
growth in housing prices is more attributed to increase housing demand, increased
employment and rising incomes than to its urban growth boundary.
However, both traditional land use regulations and growth management policies can raise
the price of housing, but they do so in different ways:
Traditional zoning and other planning and land use controls limit the supply and
accessibility of affordable housing, thereby raising home prices by excluding
lower-income households. Such policies, already widespread in the U.S., include
requirements for low-density, rules on minimum housing size, or bans against
attached or cluster homes.
Growth management policies improve the supply and location of affordable
housing and accommodate other development needs, thereby increasing the
desirability of the community and thus the price of housing. However, higher
housing prices are often offset by lower transportation and energy costs and better
access to jobs, services, and amenities.
Since housing prices may increase in any land use environment, the decision for local
governments is between good and bad regulation to improve housing choice. Traditional
land use practices tend to zone for low-density, expensive homes that exclude lower-
income households. Good growth management policies tend to incorporate policies that
increase housing densities, mandate a mix of housing types, and promote regional fair
2
share housing.
The housing needs assessment contained in this report will be used by the City of
Ashland Community Development Department and the Ashland Housing Commission to
develop a set of strategies to address housing needs in Ashland. The overarching goal is
to ensure the development of a stable supply of housing for current and future residents
of Ashland at all income levels, and household types.
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
2
The Brookings Institute, 2002.
- 12 -
Housing Needs Model created by former Oregon Housing and Community Services
Economist Richard Bjeeland. Specifically, the report:
Describes socioeconomic characteristics and trends that affect housing;
Describes recent housing development trends;
Describes housing condition, tenure, and sales;
Assesses trends in jobs/housing location;
Quantifies housing needs by type and density, and compares it with household
incomes and other factors.
Housing Needs Analysis Organization
Following the introduction are sections presenting population trends and forecasts, rental housing
and ownership housing development trends, forecasts based on population growth, affordability
needs, and employment trends with relation to population changes and housing needs. Next the
analysis will detail the City’s existing housing inventory, its current gaps and surpluses with
future housing need projections based on the data from the Housing Needs Model and reconcile
those projections with existing and proposed land inventory. Lastly the needs analysis will
propose possible policy options for insuring that the City meets the housing and land use needs
of the population well into the future.
- 13 -
Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and the Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) worked together to identify data and methodology gaps in
implementing the State’s housing goal. The result is the Oregon Housing Model, which
specifically links income and age to housing need and affordability. The analysis uses this
housing model as a starting point for projecting Ashland’s housing needs to 2040. The analysis
will examine Ashland’s housing stock in conjunction with the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory
(BLI) and will then evaluate Ashland’s housing need by type and price.
This analysis has been compiled using the following data sources:
U.S. Census Data
Analysis of current market conditions
Community and property owner/manager questionnaire
The Housing Needs Model
Coordinated Population Projections from Jackson County
Population Data from Portland State University’s Population Research Center
Employment data from the Oregon Employment Department
Housing and Development data from the City of Ashland and Jackson County
All other citations and resources are referenced in the footnotes and attached
bibliography.
Historic Population Trends
Incorporated in 1874, Ashland had a population of just 300. Located on a stage line with
established woolen and lumber mills, the economy of the city at that time was predominantly
agricultural. By 1900 the City had 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
- 14 -
growth of the tourism industry spurred by the popularity of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
The travel/tourism industry helped to establish a base for the hospitality industry, retail shops,
and restaurants, as well as other cultural and artistic venues. By 1980, population growth tapered
off as the City experienced the impacts of a statewide recession and the decline in the timber
industry. The city long known for its cultural attractions and quality of life became an ideal spot
for retirees. At the same time, mills were closing taking with them the living wage jobs that they
provided to many area families. Despite the presence of Southern Oregon State College, the
number of people aged 15-29 began to decrease. By the mid 1990’s an alarming trend of
elementary school closures swept the city as families moved away in search of living wage jobs
and affordable housing in neighboring cities.
3
This is especially
Jackson County has a retirement population that exceeds the state average.
true of Ashland which has been an attractive area for retirees. A demographers report completed
for the Ashland School District by Portland State University’s Population Research Center noted
that; “the largest population growth has been and will continue to be in age groups represented
by the large baby boom cohort.” In 2000 there was an influx of people in the 40-50 age range,
4
and it is estimated that by 2020 the age will range from 60-70. This trend, illustrated in Table
1.1 below, is seen in retirement communities throughout the nation as the Baby Boomers,
America’s largest generation ages. This has had a disproportionately greater impact on areas like
Ashland and the rest of Southern Oregon, as they are popular areas for retirement. It is expected
that the retirement population will continue to grow, at the same rate or faster than it has in the
past two decades. The impact of a significant retiree population has had a marked affect on
several aspects of the Ashland community. The needs of a largely older, retired population have
significantly affected the types of employment found in Ashland and surrounding areas. There
has been a significant increase in the number of health care, medical, and support service jobs
due to this trend. Similarly, the rise in retail and service sector jobs is associated with this trend.
Unfortunately these new employment opportunities on average offer relatively low wages.
While the increase of the retirement population has created a demand for low wage jobs, it has
also driven up the cost of living, specifically with regard to real estate. Lastly, as mentioned
above, the increase in retirement age residents and the high cost of living has created a situation
whereby families are finding housing and/or employment elsewhere, which is having an impact
on local schools.
3
Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006, pg. 23.
4
Population Research Center, Portland State University, Ashland School District Population and Enrollment
Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19, (Demographer Report), December 2008, Pg. 7.
- 15 -
Table 2.1
5
Ashland Population by Age Group
% of % of % of
1990 2000 2008 2010 % of total
total total total
Under age 5 793 4.8% 802 4.1% 1,315 6.3% 1068 5.3%
Age 5-9 5,391 33.2% 923 4.7% 1,065 5.1% 1002 5%
Age 10-14 1,144 5.9% 951 4.6% 1206 6.0%
Age 15-19 1,906 9.8% 1,613 7.8% 1655 8.2%
Age 20-24 2,314 11.9% 2,251 10.8% 1885 9.4%
Age 25-34 5,126 31.5% 2,174 11.1% 2,873 13.8% 2248 11.2%
Age 35-44 2,378 12.2% 2,096 10.1% 1918 9.5%
Age 45-54 1,545 9.5% 3,249 16.6% 2,072 10.0% 2694 13.4%
Age 55-59 551 3.3% 1,042 5.3% 1,822 8.8% 1806 9.0%
Age 60-64 595 3.6% 694 3.6% 1,318 6.3% 1406 7.0%
Age 65-74 1,279 7.8% 1,272 6.5% 1,671 8.0% 1562 7.8%
Age 75-84 771 4.7% 1,143 5.9% 1,279 6.2% 1259 6.3%
85 and over 184 1.1% 481 2.5% 456 2.2% 394 2.0%
Total16,234 100% 19,522 100% 20,782 100% 20,103 100%
Population
Total3,380 20.8% 7,881 40% 8,618 41% 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.
5
United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 1990, 2000
statistical abstract of the United States.
- 16 -
Table 2.2
Percent in Poverty
Household type Ashland Jackson State of United States
County Oregon
Percentage of families in 11.5%9.9%9.6% 10.1%
poverty
Percentage of Individuals 18.8%14.0%14.0% 13.8%
in poverty
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
6
According to 2000 Census Data the highest proportion of low- and moderate-income
households are found in the central areas of the city north of Siskiyou Blvd, primarily in census
tracks 19.1, 19.2 and 18.4. This area has a larger proportion of the city’s multi-family properties
and is located near the University. Census data does not account for the student or seasonal
population so no conclusions can be drawn about how the student population affects these census
tracts. Census data does show however that these census tracts have the highest percentage of
minority populations and can be considered a concentration of minority population in the city
with 18, 15, and 15 percent minority populations in each census tract respectively.
Income in Oregon has been below the national average for the last quarter of a century. There
are four basic reasons that income has been lower in Oregon and Jackson County than in the U.S.
Wages for similar jobs are lower;
The occupational mix of employment is weighted toward lower paying occupations;
A higher proportion of the population in Jackson County consists of seniors who receive
only social security;
Due to a higher proportion of seniors in the population, there is a lower proportion of
7
working age residents.
6
2010 Census information at that level is not yet available.
7
City of Ashland, Planning Department, Economic Opportunities Analysis 2007.
- 17 -
Table 2.3
Household Income 2000-2010
Number of
Percentage of Number of Percentage of
households
households households households
(2000) (2000) (2010) (2010 )
All Households 8,552 100% 9,339 100%
Less than 10,000 1,173 13.7% 906 9.7%
$10,000 to $14,999 918 10.7% 677 7.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,300 15.2% 1,203 12.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,090 12.7% 1,286 13.8%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,141 13.3% 1,490 16.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,309 15.3% 1,553 16.6%
$75,000 to $99,999 789 9.2% 779 8.3%
$100,000 to $149,999 545 6.4% 819 8.8%
$150,000 to $199,999 166 1.9% 294 3.1%
$200,000 or More 121 1.4% 332 3.6%
Median Income $32,670 $40,140
Sources: U.S Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Census data
Employment
Census counts estimate that 16,564 residents are 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
- 18 -
trends in the City of Ashland at this time. However, it is easy to surmise that there is a delicate
balance to an economy based on health care, education, tourism, and recreation. Industries that
rely on discretionary income often are the first to suffer in an economic downturn. Within the
City of Ashland the hospitality industry, food service, retail trade, and entertainment top the list
of industries in which a majority of area residents are employed. See table 1.4 below.
Table 2.4
Employment and Industry
Industry Ashland Medford Jackson State of
County Oregon
Education Services, Health Care, Social 27.9% 20.1% 21.1% 20.9%
Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, 16.6% 11.7% 10.5% 9.2%
Accommodation, and food service
Retail Trade 11.9% 18.2% 16.3% 12.3%
Professional, Scientific, Management, 13.1% 8.9% 9.1% 10.0%
Administrative, waste management
Manufacturing 4.9% 8.8% 8.8% 11.8%
Construction 4.8% 6.1% 7.3% 7.0%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental 3.3% 6.9% 5.5% 6.4%
and Leasing.
Source: Bureau of the Census. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Table 2.4 shows that the predominant industries in Medford and Ashland are largely similar, but
that the macro-economies of Jackson County 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.
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,
when 65.2% of workers reported commuting to work. Workers who routinely commute to work
put added strain on both the environment through the production of pollution and the demand for
fossil fuels, and public infrastructure such as roadways and parking. The City of Ashland
continues to experience issues with traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, and parking. The lack
of housing which is affordable, accessible, and located near employment options continues to
strain the city’s resources and hamper its economic development.In the 2006 Workforce
Housing Summit Workbook, Guy Tauer, Regional Economist with the Oregon Employment
- 19 -
Department stated “Many communities and businesses have realized that their future economic
prosperity is dependent on being able to provide adequate and affordable housing for their
10
workforce, and have taken a proactive approach to dealing with this impending crisis.”
In 2011 the Ashland City Council Adopted an Economic Development strategy which was the
result of an extensive public process guided by two sub-committees appointed by the Mayor and
confirmed by the Council. The subcommittees consisted of representatives from the business
community, economic professionals, regional and state economic development agencies and
community stakeholders.
The Economic Development strategy identifies several strengths and weaknesses in the current
economic environment. Namely, the City’s primary economic industry which once consisted of
mill/factory work has been replaced by tourism. The nature of tourism in the region is seasonal
and the wages are traditionally low.
Two factors stand out as having an adverse impact upon the potential for economic development
in Ashland; housing affordability, particularly the lack of workforce housing and the limited land
11
The City adopted a Buildable Lands Inventory update in
supply for industrial development.
2011 which has since determined that the current supply of developable commercial lands is
12
greater than the land need projected by the EOA (Appendix Table A4).
Community Visions and Values
In April 2009, the Ashland City Council began work on goals to guide the City’s work for the
next 18 to 24 months. To guide their goal setting, the City Council first defined their values. They
described, in positive terms, the things they use to make decisions about what is good for the
community and good for the City of Ashland as an organization. As members of the Ashland City
Council, we value:
Participatory government.
We value government that is open, accessible, honest and
democratic. We value responsive and visionary leadership by elected officials. We have
professional, high quality staff. We seek to be efficient and effective with public funds.
Our citizens are engaged with their local government as volunteers and in critical
community decisions.
Natural Environment.
Our town is part of nature’s community. We seek to enhance the
quality of water, land, air, and wildlife. We actively support energy conservation and
alternative energy generation. Our parks and open spaces provide habitat for plants and
animals and access to nature for our residents.
Responsible Land Use
. We value sustainable use of land, water, energy, and public
services; our architectural heritage; and buildings with quality design and construction.
10
Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, February 2006.
11
Economic Opportunity Analysis for the City of Ashland, Eco-northwest, 2007.
12
City of Ashland, Planning Department, Buildable Lands Inventory 2001, pg 11.
- 20 -
We value a vibrant downtown, Lithia Park and strong neighborhoods. We support transit,
bicycling, and walking throughout our land use plans.
Free Expression
. We invite the exchange of diverse ideas. We value the social,
economic, and creative contributions of the arts, cultural activities, and community
events.
Diversity
. We are a welcoming community that invites and respects the individuality and
contributions of all people.
Economy
. We value an economy that creates wealth for all. We strive to nurture
homegrown business and to connect local consumers to local products. Our economy
supports arts and culture, connects to Southern Oregon University, and supports high
quality public services. We value a business community in tune with the environment and
that provides good wages and economic choices for individuals and families.
Distinctiveness
. Ashland is a unique part of the Rogue Valley. We depend on
partnerships in our community and region to meet many of the needs of our residents. At
the same time, we value our ability to develop innovative approaches and to chart our
own course.
Education
. We value lifelong education. We value the social, economic, cultural, and
civic contributions of strong, integrated educational institutions.
Basic Needs
. We believe each person needs public safety, water, sanitation, adequate
food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care.
Community
. We believe Ashland is a unique and special place. Residents participate in
community life and feel a sense of belonging. Community gardens, neighborhoods,
schools, volunteerism, and events bring our residents together. Residents look out for
each other and support those in need.
What objectives do housing policies try to achieve?
The development of new housing units is primarily driven by the private market and are built and
owned privately. While land use powers of local governments can impact the development of
certain housing types, the primary role of local governments has been on regulation to promote
public health and safety and to provide for the installation of infrastructure. Housing policies
work to address housing in four categories:
Community Life. From a community perspective, housing policy is intended to provide
and maintain safe, sanitary and satisfactory housing with efficiently and economically
organized community facilities to service it. In other words, housing should be
coordinated with other community and public services. Although local policies do not
always articulate this, they are implicit in most local government operations.
- 21 -
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.
- 22 -
Analysis of historical development trends provides insights into how the local housing market is
working. The housing type, mix, and density of past trends are key variables in forecasting
future land need. To undertake such an analysis the following parameters are established:
Determine the time period for which the data must be gathered.
Identify types of housing to address (all needed housing types).
Evaluate permit/subdivision data to calculate the actual mix, average actual gross density,
and average actual net density of all housing types.
In completing this analysis the City reviewed the housing mix and density of development that
occurred from 2000 through 2011 (as the 2002 HNA reviewed that data through 2001). This
long term analysis provides greater insight into the functioning of the local housing market than
would a typical five year period given fluctuation especially in consideration of the national
housing market collapse following the subprime mortgage crisis that began in 2008.
Table 3.1 shows the actual type distribution of new housing units developed between 2000 and
2011.
Table 3.1
Housing mix by Permit Issued 2000-2011
Housing Type BuildingsUnitsPercent of Units
Single-Family
1159 1159 80.3%
Two-Family
19 38 2.6%
Three and Four-Family
14 45 3.1%
Five or More
30 202 13.9%
Total 1222 1444 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau data 2000 and 2010
According to Census Data, Ashland added 1,444 new dwelling units between 2000 and 2011.
This is a 16% increase in the total number of dwellings over 10 years. This rate of unit growth
is down from 26% in the previous ten year period. As seen in the table above (Table 3.1), the
trend identified in both the 2002 HNA and the 2007 RNA, of single family development over
multi-family development has continued.
Residential Construction Trends
Housing development trends identified in the 2002 HNA have persisted. Namely single family
housing development has continued to outstrip the development of multi-family housing by a
significant margin. The need for multi-family housing continues to grow, while the development
of multi-family housing continues to lag. Rental units in price ranges affordable to those with
- 23 -
the lowest incomes are in the most demand. Lastly, ownership housing affordable to those
making median income to 120% of Area Median Income in Ashland despite recent gains is still
out of reach.
Single Family
In 2000 the estimate of one-unit detached, and one-unit attached dwelling units represented
65.3% of the housing stock. The 2008-2010 ACS estimates that one-unit attached and detached
units make up 71.9% of the City’s housing stock. This is an increase of 6.6% over the past
decade. There has been and continues to be a clear trend of the development of single-family
housing 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.
Group care homes
The City currently has a total of five group homes for youth and special needs populations able
to accommodate up to 28 individuals. The University has four group housing complexes on
campus offering a total of 1272 beds. The university is currently in the process of building a
new residence hall which is estimated to house over 800 people within two separate buildings.
However, these new beds will not increase capacity but will replace existing beds currently
available in other complexes whose space will be converted to other uses.
- 24 -
Table 3.2
2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Housing Units by Type
Units In Structure
20002000 % 2010 2010 % % Change
Estimate Estimate
9,071 100% 10,230 100% 12.8%
Total Housing Units
5,375 59.3% 6,503 63.6% 21%
1-Unit, detached
544 6.0% 853 8.3% 56.8%
1-Unit, attached
458 5.0% 526 5.1% 14.8%
2 Units
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
Ashland
47.7% 52.3% 49% 51%
Jackson County
33.5% 66.5% 36.7% 63.3%
State of Oregon
35.7% 64.3% 36.2% 63.8%
U.S. Census Bureau
Income and affordability of Housing
Housing costs are influenced by several factors; including lot size, land cost, availability of
materials, labor, interest rates, and supply and demand. Housing Choice is often driven by a
household’s income. Similarly, income is a key indicator of a households’ ability to find and
retain safe, decent housing. Income is also the main determinant in most householders’ housing
choice. A household which is cost burdened by a rent or mortgage payment (an amount which
requires a 30% or more of a household’s income) is less stable and more susceptible to loosing
that housing should some disruption to employment, health crisis or other unexpected
circumstance arise. These vulnerable households can then fall into homelessness, or require state
or federal assistance to become stable again. Ability of a household to afford monthly rent or
mortgage costs will, for the most part, also be the determining factor in where a householder
chooses to live. Often the household will forego other housing priorities, such as square footage,
bedroom size, household amenities, commute time to work and other quality of life choices due
to housing affordability.
Renter households are two times more likely to be cost burdened than owner households.
Approximately 2,737 or 63% of renter households experience cost burden, while only 1,352 or
48% of homeowners experience cost burden from housing costs. This can be attributed in part to
a higher percentage of low-income rental households than owner households. In 2000, 37% of
Ownership households paid less than 15% of their incomes toward mortgage costs, while a full
- 25 -
13
45% of renters paid more than 35% of their incomes toward housing costs. In the ensuing
decade the rapid rise in housing values has substantially increased the costs of homeownership,
but even with that increase homeowners as a group still tend to experience less cost burden than
renters.
As seen in Section II- Framework for Housing Needs-Community Context, the City of Ashland
has a higher percentage of families and individuals living below the poverty level than Jackson
County or the State of Oregon as a whole. The City also has a higher proportion of lower paying
service sector jobs and a higher percentage of seniors in the population than in other parts of the
County or State. These factors contribute to the large percentage of households experiencing
cost burden.
According to the State Housing and Community Services Department, housing cost in 1990 was
increasing at a rate of 9% while household income increased at an annual rate of 2%. Between
2000 and 2010 median mortgage costs for homeowners in Ashland went up by 53%. Rental
costs for Ashland residents increased 47% in that same period. While median Household income
14
increased by only 22.9%. This long term trend of housing costs outstripping incomes has
exacerbated the demand for affordable housing throughout the state. The increasing need for
affordable housing units has taxed the traditional methods of funding affordable housing and
cannot be sustained into the future should the trend continue.
Rental Units
2008-2010 ACS estimates that 48.2% of all occupied housing units or 4,498 are renter occupied
units. Fair Market rents for Jackson County as established by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development mandate the maximum amount that projects developed using Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) or Tax-Exempt bonds are allowed to charge. These amounts
correspond to the HUD income guidelines for that area. In 2012 the Fair Market rent for a two
bedroom unit was $807 a month. In order for an individual to afford a rental unit at that rate, and
not experience cost burden, they would need to earn $15.13 an hour.Currently the 2008-2010
ACS estimates that the median income for a worker in Ashland is $19,042 per year or $9.92 an
hour. Currently a HUD regulated two bedroom unit in Ashland is mandated to rent for $590 a
month.
In 2012 the City of Ashland posted a questionnaire on the City’s website that looked as specific
housing related questions some of which corresponded to questions posed in the 2007 Rental
Needs Analysis’ random call survey conducted by Riley Research. The City also sent out a
business reply mailer to a selected list of rental property owners and property management
companies compiled from two sources; the City’s business license registry which included all
businesses who rent six or more units, and the list of rental properties developed by SOU
13
2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 2000 Census.
14
Ibid.
- 26 -
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
somewhat satisfactory, the overwhelming majority of respondents felt that rental pricing was
unsatisfactory.
Chart 3.1
Extremely-Low Income (Less than 30% of Area Median Income):
As shown in Chart 3.2
below, the findings of the Housing Needs Model for the City of Ashland using 2010 Census
Data, the City of Ashland has a shortage of rental units affordable to those residents with the
lowest incomes; those making less than $10,000 a year. According to the Housing Needs
Analysis, only 3.05% of the City’s rental housing stock meets the needs of this population at
approximately 152 units. The City’s current need for rental housing in a price range affordable
to those with the lowest income is estimated to be 955 units; this leaves a gap of approximately
803 to meet the needs of these very low income households. Housing Units affordable to these
populations, which include predominantly households under the age of 35 and to a lesser extent
over the age of 55, could be offset by Housing Choice (formerly section 8) Vouchers. The 729
- 27 -
households under the age of 35 that reports having an income of under $10,000 a year may be
due in part to the presence of Southern Oregon University, which includes a high percentage of
non-traditional students. Currently there are approximately 100 households who receive a rental
subsidy voucher from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to offset housing
costs. There are 142 project based subsidized rental units located within the City of Ashland. Of
these units 73 are set to expire within the next 5 years and the waiting list for portable vouchers
through the Housing Authority of Jackson County is approximately three to four years out.
Households making 30% of the AMI or less make up approximately 12.2% of all Ashland
households.
Low-Income (Between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income):
The current supply of housing
units affordable to low-income populations represents approximately 5.68% of the City’s rental
housing stock or 283 units. The current estimated need for housing affordable to this income
group is 1,052 units; leaving a gap of approximately 769 units. The proportion of households
represented by this income group is fairly evenly dispersed though all age groups and represents
11.3% of all households.
Moderate Income (Between 50% and 80% of Area Median Income):
The current supply of
housing units affordable to moderate income populations represents approximately 49.3% of the
City’s rental housing stock or 2,453 units. This is by far the majority of the City’s rental housing
stock, however at the low end of the income scale (50%) nearly half of the units that fall in this
rental category would not be affordable. The need for rental units at this price point is in far less
demand as the current need is estimated to be 1,420 units, leaving a surplus of 1,034 rental units
affordable to people making between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI.
Median Income and above (100% and above):
The current supply of housing units affordable
to the population making above 80% AMI represents approximately 42% of all rental housing
units. At 2,088 units, rental housing units in this price range (approximately $898-over $1,133 a
month) are in the least demand, with current need estimated to be approximately 840 households
able to afford units in this price range, creating a surplus of 1,248 units. The surplus in units may
be due to the fact that households that are able to afford a higher rent may be opting for a unit
below that which that household may be able to afford, thereby exacerbating the deficit of rentals
at the lower end of the income scale.
- 28 -
CChart 3.2
Current Houssing Balannce-RentalUnits by ccost range
ЋЉЉЉЉ
ЊЎЉЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉЉ
ЎЉЉЉ
ЉЉ
ЉυЊВЍυЊВЎυυЍЋЋυЍЋЌЌυЏЎЎυЏЎЏυБВАυυБВБυЊЊЌЋυЊЊЌЌњ
ЎЉЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉЉ
ousing StockCrrent NeeCurrent Surplus
HHuudd
Ownershhip Units
Extremelly-Low Incoome (Less thhan 30% ofAArea Mediann Income):
An individuual making 330%
of AMI oor $12,300 aa year accordding to the 20012 HUD inncome guidellines would be able to affford
a to purchhase a housiing unit for aa maximum of $51,115. There is veery little avaiilability of
housingaat this incomme level, Roggue Valley HHabitat for HHumanity proovides housiing targetingg
extremelyy low-incomme householdds,but with the extremelly low purchhase price thhe private maarket
is unablee to provide oownershipuunits at this leevel. Some Mobile and Manufacturred home uniits in
a park miight be within this price range.
Low-Incoome (Betweeen 30% andd 50% of Areea Median IIncome):
Thhe Housing NNeeds Analyysis
estimatess that there aare 150 existting units avaailable for $72.3 thousannd and beloww, and an
estimatedd need of 401 units at thiis level. Thiis leaves a gap of 251 owwnership uniits affordable to
househollds earning 330%-50% off the AMI.
Moderatte Income (BBetween 50%% and 80% oof Area Meddian Incomee):
The numbber of ownerrship
units avaailable that arre affordablee to people mmaking 50%% to 80% of AAMI is estimmated to be
approximmately 260.The estimateed need for oownershipuunits costing between $722K-$185.3KK is
- 29 -
2,070. Thhe units at thhe high end oof the price sscale would be unaffordable to thosee earning bellow
50% of AAMI.
MedianIIncome:
Thhere is a limiited supply oof ownershipp units afforddable to thosse earning
median inncome. Acccording to thhe National AAssociation oof Home Buuilders Afforrdable Housiing
15
Price Callculator, a householdmmaking the mmedian incomme for the MMedford/Ashlland area could
afford to purchase a hhouse for $1163,126. The calculator assumes a 220% down paayment, currrent
interest rrates on a 30 year fixed loan assuminng a 90% loaan to value ratio. The Housing Needds
Model esstimates thatt there are appproximatelyy 410 units aavailable bet3300 and beloow.
ween $185,
While maany househoolds earning median incoome could quualify for a lloan to purchhase a housee at
the lowerr end of the scale, those same househholds wouldd be cost burddened it theyy had to pay a
mortgagee on a housinng unit of ovver $163,0000.
Over 78%% of the Cityy’s ownershiip housing sttock consists of units offcosting $2779,300 and
above,wwhile the demmand for houusing units inn that price rrange is onlyy 1,750. Fromm Chart 3.3
below it is clear that the private mmarket has pprovided a suurplus of higgh cost housiing, over 2,2255
units, whhile the remaaining 22% oof the housinng stock avaiilable for salle costing lesss than $2799,300
is in suchh demand thaat there is a housing gapp of 3,147 unnits. The higghest demandd is for thosee
units affoordable to hoouseholdsmmaking the 1000% AMI to 120% AMI at 1,332.
hart 3.3
CC
CurrrentHoousingBaalanceOOwnershhipUnitss
ЎЉЉЉ
ЍЉЉЉ
ЌЉЉЉ
ЋЉЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
Љ
72.3K723K<110.1K110.1K<147.6K147.6K<1855.3K185.3K<279.3K279.3++
ЊЉЉЉ
IƚǒƭźƓŭ{{ƷƚĭƉ/ǒǒƩƩĻƓƷbĻĻķ/ǒƩƩĻƓƓƷ{ǒƩƦƌǒƭ
15
Nationall Association oof Homebuilderrs affordabilityy calculator:
http://wwww.nahb.org/genneric.aspx?geneericContentID==78355
- 30 -
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 minimum 20 year availability. This
Housing Needs Analysis provides a detailed assessment of precisely what mix of housing types
will be needed through 2040 (see Table 7.1). Using this projected housing type need, and
correlating it to the land availability in each Comprehensive Plan designation we can ascertain
whether sufficient land will be available over the next 20 years or longer.
Table 3.4
Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type
SFRMultifamilyTotals
Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010
BLI)
ЊЍЏВЊЌБЍЋБЎЌ
Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis
1557 1759 3316
through 2040
Deficit by 2040 -88 -375 -463
Annual units needed through 2040 55.6 62.8 118.4
Total Year Supply 26.4 22.0 24.1
- 31 -
The City estimates vacant buildable lands in all designations that allow residential uses have a
total capacity of 2853 dwelling units within the urban growth boundary. 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. As demonstrated in Table 3.4 this capacity would accommodate approximately 22
years of multi-family housing growth, and 26.4 years of single family development.
Distribution of these potential housing units on available buildable lands based on
comprehensive plan designation is more fully detailed below.
Table 3.5
Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Dwelling Units by Type
Existing Dwelling
Net Buildable
distributed into existing capacity
Comprehensive Plan Unit Capacity
Acres
(2011 BLI)
SFRMulti-family
Per Airport
Airport 0 0 0
Master Plan
Commercial 15.8 252 0 252
Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340
Downtown 2 53 0 53
Employment 105.1 221 0 221
HC 1.4 15 0 15
HDR 8.9 162 0 162
Industrial 12.1 0 0 0
LDR 38.1 70 70 0
MFR 30.8 323 0 323
NM 17.7 118 100 18
SFR 214 875 875 0
SFRR 48 103 103 0
SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0
Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0
Woodland 4.3 10 10 0
Totals 622.8 2853 1469 1384
Expected Dwelling Units
Note: on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be
permitted as such units are not required.
- 32 -
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
of the past decade within the City of Ashland. In 2006, the City passed a condominium
conversion ordinance in an effort to mitigate the loss of existing affordable and market rate rental
properties which were not being replaced by the market.
In 2007, a comprehensive inventory of multi-family housing units was completed by Southern
Oregon University. This inventory also took into account additional uses of properties located in
these multi-family zoned areas. This inventory allowed the City to see patterns of development
within these areas. One pattern that stood out from the data collected was that single family units
on single parcels were the most common housing type found in these multi-family zones. Single
- 33 -
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
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
- 34 -
funds. All together these units account for 153 units of below market rate and subsidized
housing within the City.
Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG): The City of Ashland is a Participating
Jurisdiction for the Community Development Block grant program and as such receives 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 Assistance Number of Number of IncomeContract
Type Type Units Assisted LimitExpiration Date
Units
Ashley Garden Family RD 40 20 60% RD
Ashley Senior Senior RD 62 41 60% RD
Stratford Family Section 8 51 17 100% RD
16
Chief Tyee Family Section 8 32 29 30% 7/31/09
Donald E. Lewis Senior Section 8 40 40 30% 5/11/10
Star Thistle Disabled Section 8 12 12 50% 9/30/09
Sun Village Family Section 8 12 12 30% 1/20/13
17
Takilma Village Family Section 8 14 14 60% 8/31/09
18
Johnston Manor Senior Section 8 34 34 60% 12/26/08
TOTAL 297 219
Seasonal Units
The City of Ashland has a thriving tourism industry. Consequently many housing units in the
City are utilized on a seasonal rather than year round basis. It is difficult to discern the actual
number of seasonal and vacation rental units there are in the City, due to the proliferation of
unregistered units, however the City does keep a database of businesses registered as travelers
accommodations located within the City. In May of 2012 a total of seventy five businesses have
registered with the city as having a traveler’s accommodation or vacation rental units; these units
come in many forms, from hostel, motels, and hotels, to individual cottage units and bed and
breakfasts. Many of these 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.
16
The owners of the Chief Tyee complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2009. This complex is no longer
mandated to be affordable although it was initially developed using HUD funding.
17
The owners of the Takilma Village complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2010.
18
The owners of the Johnston Manor complex opted out of their HUD contract in 2009. This complex is no longer
mandated to be affordable although it was initially developed using HUD funding.
- 35 -
Owner Occupied units
Owner occupied units represent 51.6% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4,856 owner-
occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 10,210 individuals. The average
household size for owner-occupied dwelling units is 2.10 people per unit.
Rental Units
Renter occupied units represent 48.4% of all occupied dwelling units. There are 4553 renter-
occupied dwelling units in Ashland occupied by approximately 8,907 individuals. The average
household size for renter-occupied dwelling units is 1.96 people per units, slightly less than the
household size of the average owner occupied unit.
Housing Age and Condition
The majority of housing in Ashland, 59.6%, was built prior to 1979; with 16.6% or 1,695 units
being built prior to 1939. Despite the relative age of much of the housing stock, there are very
few units which lack basic amenities. Only 1.9% of all occupied housing units lacked complete
plumbing or kitchen facilities. 47.6% of all housing units were built between 1970 and 2000,
19
with the most new building activity taking place between 1990 and 2000. Though there are
many other factors that contribute to housing considered to be substandard those factors are not
accounted for in the Census information. There is little other comprehensive data to gain an
accurate picture of substandard housing conditions within the City.
Lead Based Paint Hazards: The age of the housing unit is a leading indicator of thepresence of
–
leadhazard, along with building maintenance. Lead was banned from residential paint in 1978.
Of the 10,319 total housing units in the City of Ashland 68% (7,000) were built prior to 1980.
The 1999 national survey found that 67% of housing built before 1940 had significant LBP
hazards. This declined to 51% of houses built between 1940 and 1959, 10% of houses built
20
between 1960 and 1977 and just 1% after that. Based on those estimates, over 3,300 homes
pose potential lead-based paint hazards in Ashland.
Vacancy Rates
Between 2000 and 2010 vacancy rates for rental and ownership units have remained relatively
unchanged. At 4.2% and 1.0% respectively, rental and ownership vacancy rates in 2010 are
relatively low. Survey results, census data, and American Community Survey (ACS) estimates
show that the vacancy rates in Ashland typically range between 3% and 4%. A recent
survey/questionnaire conducted in 2012 by the City showed the current rental vacancy rate to be
1%. This rate is below that of the overall rate for Jackson County at 3% and for the state of
19
United States. Bureau of the Census. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates.
20
Clickner, R. et al. (2001) National Survey of lead and Allergens in Housing, Final Report, Volume 1: Analysis of
Lead Hazards. Report Office of Lead Hazard Control, US Department of Housing And Urban Development.
- 36 -
Oregon as a whole at 5.6%. The overall impact of a low vacancy rate is that there are fewer
options in the rental market when people are looking for a unit to rent.
Housing Value
Housing value is a key indicator of housing affordability. The housing market has been
extremely volatile in the past decade since the last Housing Needs Analysis was completed.
However, despite a housing boom and the ensuing bust that played out in the intervening decade,
the findings of this recent effort are much the same as they were in 2002.
In the decade since the last HNA was completed housing costs within the City of Ashland have
grown at a rate much faster than that of Jackson County, and the State of Oregon as a whole.
The 2002 HNA reported an average home price of $277,742, which was an increase of 50% from
1998 (MLS reported and average sale price of $187,258 at that time). At the height of the
housing boom in 2007 the median price for an existing home in Ashland was $438,750; by April
of 2012 the median price for an existing home was $282,500; a reduction of 36% in a five year
21
period. So while home prices rose precipitously, they fell equally so, ending with the City’s
housing price at a 14 year gain of 50.9%.
Owner Occupied unit values:
According the 2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates, the Median
Home price for Ashland is $408,400 while the individual median income for workers is $19,042.
In order to afford a home in Ashland at the median price a household would have to earn
$75,000 a year, which is well above Median Household, Median Family and Median worker’s
income at $40,140, $52,940, and $19,042 respectively. In 2011 the average sales price according
to the Roy Wright appraisal service, was $285,000, while this number is substantially lower than
the median compiled by the census in 2010, it is still out of reach for households earning the
median income in Ashland. The 2012 median household income for a family of four in the
Medford/Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area is $58,500. In order to afford a home in Ashland
at the 2011 median price a household would have to earn $75,000 a year. Only 23.8% of the
population reports having an income over $75,000 a year, while 50% of the ownership housing
stock is targeted to this group. Conversely for a home to be affordable to a median household
with an income of 58,500 a house could cost no more than $220,000. At this price there are 31
units out of 212 currently listed as available for sale within Ashland.
Residential Home Sales:
Recent data from the Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service
(SOMLS) 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.
21
SOMLS Home sale statistics.
- 37 -
CChart 4.1
ExistingHHome Saless-Ashland//JacksonCCounty
ЎЉЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЍЎЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЍЉЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЌЎЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЌЉЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЋЎЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЋЉЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЊЎЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЊЉЉͲЉЉЉЉ
ЎЉͲЉЉЉЉ
Љ
ЋЉЉЉЋЉЉААЋЉЊЊЋЉЊЋ
Existing Home ales MedinCunty Existing Home ales
SSaaooSS
- 38 -
Projecting Ashland’s Housing need
Section III looked at housing and economic trends that effect housing demand in Ashland.
Section IV evaluated the existing housing stock targeted to various demographic groups within
the population. This section will assess the City’s housing stock based on the current needs and
those likely to persist or arise into the future. Section I, makes the distinction between housing
need and housing demand. Housing demand is housing that the market built or is likely to build
in the future. Housing need is based on the broad mandate of Goal 10 that requires communities
plan for housing that meets the needs of households at all income levels. This section focuses on
two specific need components: housing needs by housing type and density as implied by
households’ ability to afford housing, and the needs of special populations.
Methodology
The following analysis uses a methodology suggested by Planning for Residential Growth: A
Workbook for Oregon’s Urban Areas produced by the Transportation and Growth Management
Program (TGM). The steps outlined in that document have been followed where feasible. City
staff also contracted with former State of Oregon Economist, Richard Bjelland, to update the
Housing Needs Model he created for Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and
which has been used as a basis for projecting housing needs throughout the state in numerous
Housing Needs Analysis. The Housing Needs Model utilized a methodology based on housing
tenure, price, and housing type choices to determine housing needs, rather than a market or
demand driven approach which was commonly used to define housing needs for an area. Rather
than looking at historic housing production trends then projecting them forward, the Housing
Needs Model looks at the age/income demographic of a study area and projects those
demographic trends into the future as the market driven method will show development trends,
those historic trends may not have been meeting the housing needs of the population to begin
with . Where needed data obtained from the Housing Needs Model was supplemented with data
obtained from a City conducted survey of property owners and an online questionnaire, and
census data comparisons.
Populations Projections
The components of population change are births, deaths, and migration. In compiling data on
population rates for the city of Ashland four main sources of data were used. The Certified
population counts provided by Portland State University’s Population Research Center, the 2005-
2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2010 Census, and the coordinated
population estimates through Jackson County’s Comprehensive Plan.???
- 39 -
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.
Table 5.1
City 1990 2000 % Change 2010 % Change AAGR
1990-2000 2000-2010
Ashland 16,234 19,532 20% 20,078 2.8% .79%
Medford 46,951 63,154 34.5% 74,907 18.6% 1.98%
Jackson County
146,389 181,269 23.8% 203,206 12.1% 1.29%
U.S. Census. Historic AAGR (average annual growth rate)
Table 5.2
City Estimate Census Change % Change AAGR
July 1, 2010 April 1, 20002000-20102000-2010
Ashland
21,460 19,5221,9389.9% 0.9%
Medford
77,485 63,68713,79821.7% 2.2%
Jackson County
207,745 181,26926,47614.6% 1.5%
PSU Population Research Center data estimate based on 2000 Census Data
Table 5.3
Age Groups 1990 %2000 %%2010 %%AAGR
ChangChang
ee
Under 19
24.5
4,775 24.5%4,931 3.3% 0.33%
%
6,184 38% 14.6%
20-24
2,314 11.9%1,885 9.4% -18.5% -1.85%
25-34 11.2
2,174 11.1%2,248 3.4% 0.34%
31.5
%
5,126 -11.2%
%
35-44
2,378 12.2%1,918 9.5% -19.3% -3.13%
45-54
13.4
1,545 9.5% 3,249 16.6%110% 2,694 -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%
Total
16,234 100% 19,522 100% 20.3% 20,103 100% 3% 1.19%
population
U.S. Census Bureau
- 40 -
Age of Householder and age of projections
There is a direct correlation between age of householder, income of householder and housing
type. For example, an individual 35 years old to about 65 years old earning area median and
above is more likely to move from rental housing to ownership housing because that individual
has the means to purchase housing and the ability to maintain that housing and live
independently. Similarly, households that are considered moderate income and below (80%
AMI) have higher rental rates due to an inability to purchase housing despite other factors
including ability to maintain that housing and to maintain an independent lifestyle. Those
populations considered elderly move from homeownership to renter as they lose the ability to
maintain their housing units and an independent lifestyle.
As shown in table 5.3 above, the group represented by ages 25-44 in 1990 was the largest age
group at 31.5%. A decade later that population counted toward the 45-55 age group, which grew
in that ten year period by 110% accounting for the aging of the existing population, but also an
in-migration of a substantial number of peoples in that age group. In that same 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.
- 41 -
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
22
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
23
These trends point to
population and consequently the reduction in school district enrollment.
an increasing percentage of ownership housing being occupied by older householders. It is clear
in table 5.4 below that the two biggest factors in determining homeownership are income and age
of householder. As household income increases among all age groups so too does the rate of
homeownership. This is also true of age, showing older householders with the highest
percentages of homeownership despite income.
Table 5.4
Percentage of Homeownership by Age and Income, 2010 HNM
Household Age of Head of Household
Income
15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+
<10K
2.9%7.9%16.0%25.0%43.0%46.1%40.0%
10<20K 3.6%12.7%25.0%37.0%47.0%61.0%56.2%
20<30K 6.0%16.6%36.0%45.0%54.0%73.2%67.1%
30<40K 7.9%23.9%48.0%53.7%60.0%74.4%70.1%
40<50K 10.8%32.9%58.1%62.4%80.0%91.0%84.0%
50<75K 22.5%49.9%72.0%82.9%88.6%92.1%91.2%
75K+32.0%75.0%83.0%92.0%96.0%97.0%93.0%
Household Income
The Oregon Housing Needs Model Methodology states that “household income is the key
variable in determining the affordability component of housing need and is strongly correlated
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
22
Ashland School District. Ashland School district Enrollment Forecasts 2009-10 to 2018-19. Portland State
University Populations Research Center. December 2008, page 1.
23
Ashland School District. Ashland School District Population and Enrollment Forecasts 2012-13 to 2021-22. page
12.
- 42 -
tables 5.4 and 5.5 age and income are the two biggest factors in housing choice. Table 5.4 above
shows the relationship between age and income on homeownership rates; homeownership rates
rise with increasing income and as householder’s age. Whereas the relationship of age and
income to rental units is the converse; as incomes and ages rise rental rates decrease.
Table 5.5
Percentage of Renters by Age and Income, 2010 HNM
Household Age of Head of Household
Income
15-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 65-75 75+
<10K 97.1%92.1%84.0%75.0%57.0%53.9%60.0%
10<20K 96.4%87.3%75.0%63.0%53.0%39.0%43.8%
20<30K 94.0%83.4%64.0%55.0%46.0%26.8%32.9%
30<40K 92.1%76.1%52.0%46.3%40.0%25.6%29.9%
40<50K 89.2%67.1%41.9%37.6%20.0%9.0%16.0%
50<75K 77.5%50.1%28.0%17.1%11.4%7.9%8.8%
75K+68.0%25.0%17.0%8.0%4.0%3.0%7.0%
Income Projections
Household income is difficult to predict. Based on past trends, incomes are expected to increase
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
24
two-bedroom rental units. The following table is from that report and illustrates their findings.
24
City of Ashland Rental Needs Analysis. Ferrarini & Associates, Inc 2007.
- 43 -
Table 5.6
City of Ashland Rental Housing Need by Unit Type RNA 2007
Type Demand Supply Net Need
Studio 1,039 392 647
1 Bedroom 1,290 1,188 102
2 Bedroom 872 1,676 (804)
3+ Bedroom 900 846 54
Total
4,102 4,102 0
25
Source: US Census and Ferrarini & Associates
An updated analysis of household size and type found much the same thing. There is a definite
lack of studio units for the growing percentage of 1-person households among both renter and
owner-occupied households, both of which grew at two and three times the rate respectively of
the total populations of all renter and owner households. This could be attributed to three
factors; the disproportionate growth of older households, a nearly 50% reduction in the number
of 1-room dwelling units between 2000 and 2010, and the disparate increase in one and two
person households. One factor that is estimated to have a substantial impact on the housing
market is the steep decline of all owner occupied households larger than two individuals. These
findings were further substantiated in the property owner and manager questionnaires sent out by
the City in early 2012 which showed that studios were most in demand, while two bedrooms
were in least demand.
Table 5.7
Housing Units by Room Size
Rooms 2000 % 2000 2010 %2010 % Change
1 Room 493 5.4% 247 2.4% -49.9%
2 Room 692 7.6% 515 5.0% -25.6%
3 Room 870 9.6% 1,252 12.2% 43.9%
4 Room 1,856 20.5% 2,043 20.0% 10.1%
5 Room 1,822 20.1% 2,168 21.2% 19%
6 Room 1,498 16.5% 1,601 15.7% 6.9%
7 Room 827 9.1% 1,387 13.6% 67.7%
8 Room 624 6.9% 521 5.1% -16.5%
9 or More 389 4.3% 469 4.8% 20.6%
U.S. Census Bureau
25
Ibid.
- 44 -
Table 5.8
Owner Occupied Units by Household Size
HH Size
2000 2000% 2010 2010% % Change
Total 4,456 100 4,856 100% 9%
1-person 1,117 25.1% 1,460 30.1% 30.7%
2-person 1,946 43.7% 2,212 45.6% 13.7%
3-person 647 14.5% 623 12.8% -3.7%
4-person 532 11.9% 412 8.5% -22.6%
5-person 157 3.5% 103 2.1% -34.4%
6-person 45 1.0% 34 .7% -24.4%
7 or more 12 0.3% 12 .2% 0%
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.9
Renter Occupied housing by household size
HH Size 2000 2000% 2010 2010% % Change
Total 4,081 100% 4,553 100% 11.6%
1-person 1,722 42.2 2,086 45.8% 21.1%
2-person 1,361 33.3% 1,336 29.3% -1.8%
3-person 594 14.6% 646 14.2% 8.8%
4-person 262 6.4% 305 6.7% 16.4%
5-person 90 2.2% 118 2.6% 31.1%
6-person 33 .8% 41 .9% 24.2%
7 or more 19 0.5% 21 0.5 10.5%
U.S. Census Bureau
Table 5.10
Estimate of Rental Units Needed by Household Size and Type
26
Needs Analysis No. of HH Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3+ Bedroom
1-person
2,086 1,252 834
2-person
1,336 601 601 134
3-person
646 291 355
4-person
305 31 274
5-person
118 118
6-person
41 41
7-person
21 21
Demand 4,553 1,252 1,435 923 943
Supply
255 1,506 3,647 4,822
Surplus/Deficit (997) 71 2,724 3,879
U.S. Census Bureau
26
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)
- 45 -
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
Table 6.1-Baseline forecast of Housing Demand 2010-2040
Variable Value
Current Future Change
Population
20,07828,6708,492
Persons in Group Quarters 9611,450489
Occupied DU 9,40912,9623,553
Single Family Dwelling Units
27
Percent Single Family DU 71.9%73.9%
Number of Single Family DU 7,3569,5912,235
28
Persons in single family HH 14,93320,1415,208
Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5%
2,235
Total New Single Family needed
Multiple Family Dwelling Units
Percent Multi-Family DU 26.6%25.5%
29
Number of Multiple-family DU 2,7203,311591
Persons in Multiple-Family HH 5,5226,9851,463
Aggregate Vacancy Rate 2.5%
591
New Multiple-Family DU
Totals
Total occupied dwelling units -
Aggregate HH size 2.032.1
Vacant dwelling units - 583
Total new Dwelling units needed -2,657
Dwelling units needed annually 88.6
27
Future projections based on 2009ACS units by tenure and HNA Template 2-projected future housing status as of
2040.
28
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.
29
Same as above.
- 46 -
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
- 47 -
summary, the financial need is substantial and a large deficit of lower cost units exists several
points should be kept in mind when interpreting this data:
Because all of the affordability guidelines are based on median family income, the
percentage of households meeting the income criteria are comparable in all jurisdictions.
For example, 36% of households earn 80% of the area median income. Thus, the income
guidelines provide a rough estimate of financial need and may mask other barriers to
affordable housing such as move-in costs, competition for housing from higher income
households, and availability of suitable units.
The ratios applied in the HUD income guidelines are defined such that somewhere
around 40% of households will always be considered low income. Ashland 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.
Table 6.2
Rental Units needed by Type
Type Demand Supply Net Need/Surplus
Studio 1,252 255 -997
1-Bedroom 1,435 1506 71
2-Bedroom 923 3647 2,724
3+ Bedroom 943 4,822 3,879
Housing Affordability
The standard measure of affordability as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is when the cost of rent and utilities (gross rent) is less than 30% of
income. When gross rent levels exceed 30% of income, particularly by a large percentage, it
places a significant burden on household finances. Householders who pay more than 30% of
their income toward housing costs are called “Cost burdened”. Householders who pay more than
50% of their income toward housing costs are called “severely cost burdened”. When
households are housing “cost burdened” their ability to pay for the other necessities of life are
compromised.
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
- 48 -
were identified as housing cost burdened by the 2000 Census at 56%. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that the City needs 1,163 units targeting those with those lowest incomes, with
rents below $195 a month, 1,166 units with rents between $195-422, and 243 units with rents
between $423-655. It is expected that the City will have a surplus of all units with rents at $656
and above. The Housing Needs Model shows that the majority of the rental units will need to be
targeted to those households earning 50% AMI and below. (See appendix)
Homeowners experience less cost burden than renters, but there continues to be a deficit of
housing for moderate to above median income households and a surplus of units targeting those
earning $75,000 a year and above, which is less than 25% of the population. The Housing Needs
Model estimates that the City will need; 402 housing units available under $72.3k, 950 units with
sale prices between $72.3k-110.1k, 916 units with sale prices between $110.1k-147.6k, 745 units
with sale prices between $147.6k-185.3k, and 1,594 units with sale prices between $185.3k-
279.3k. The majority of the ownership units will be targeted to those making the area median
income to 120% of the AMI. The model assumes a surplus of units priced at $279.3k and above.
(See appendix)
Housing Density
Figure 6.1on page 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 multi-family developments is often developed as single family
attached due to market forces, high end multi-family developments such as condominiums and
townhouses are more economically attractive to private market developers looking to maximize
density and profits. This has made it difficult for non-profit and for-profit developers to
construct affordable and market rate multi-family 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.
- 49 -
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
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.
- 50 -
Figure 6.2
Owner Occupied units by affordability
ЋЎЉЉ
ЋЉЉЉ
ЊЎЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
ЎЉЉ
Љ
ѡАЋ͵ЌАЋ͵ЌѡЊЊЉ͵ЊYЊЊЉ͵ЊYѡЊЍА͵ЏЊЍА͵ЏѡЊБЎ͵ЌƉЊБЎ͵ЌƉѡЋАВ͵ЌƉЋАВ͵ЌƉ
hǞƓĻƩƭŷźƦ ƓźƷƭ9ǣźƭƷźƓŭhǞƓĻƩƭŷźƦ ƓźƷƭbĻĻķĻķ
Figure 6.3
Rental Units needed by affordability
ЊЋЉЉ
ЊЉЉЉ
БЉЉ
of
NumberUnits
ЏЉЉ
ЍЉЉ
ЋЉЉ
Љ
ЉЊВЍЊВЎЍЋЋЍЋЌЏЎЎЏЎЏБВАБВБЊЊЌЋЊЊЌЌњ
RentalAmountinDollars
9ǣźƭƷźƓŭwĻƓƷğƌ ƓźƷƭbĻĻķĻķwĻƓƷğƌ ƓźƷƭ
- 51 -
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 population Existing Units Population % of Housing Housing
Available Available Gap
Elderly 1,119 8,047 13.9% 6,928
Frail Elderly 8 919 0.9% 911
Section IV-Ashland’s Housing Inventory, details the number of existing retirement and assisted
living units within the City. The 2010 Housing Needs Model estimates that a total of 257 new
units will need to be added to the City’s existing stock to house populations’ ages 65 years old
and older. Of those units 83 rentals and 174 ownership units will be needed to accommodate the
housing needs of seniors.
Special needs housing
The 2010 Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations completed by Oregon
Housing and Community Services to prioritize funding for new affordable housing units
throughout the state looks at the number of housing units available to various special needs
households by County. The OHCS Needs Analysis Priorities for Special Needs Populations
estimates that that there are very few housing units currently in existence throughout the county
for the majority of the people who could be categorized as having special needs. See table 6.4
below for details.
- 52 -
Table 6.4
Special Needs Housing vs. Population (Jackson County)
Special Needs Population Existing Units Population % of Housing Housing
Available Available Gap
Alcohol & Drug Rehab 54 4,440 1.2% 4,386
Chronically Mentally Ill 47 2.842 1.7% 2,795
Developmental Disability 44 794 5.5% 750
Domestic Violence 33 170 19.3% 137
Farm workers 77 3,735 2.1% 3,658
HIV/AIDS 4 136 2.9% 132
Physically Disabled 44 497 8.9% 453
Released Offenders 0 194 0.0% 194
As seen in the table above there is currently a significant housing gap to serve special needs
populations. If a proportionate percentage of the population were to be extrapolated forward to
the 2040 population projection for the County, peoples with special needs would be an estimated
6.3% of the County’s population or 11,031 people. As the population increases it is evident that
the number of housing units available to serve populations with special needs will continue to
fall far short of the need for such housing unless a concerted effort to develop housing is
encouraged.
Housing Stock available to persons with Disabilities
Census data reports that 2,379 people 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
30
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.
30
State of Oregon, Department of Health Services Website:
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/data/docs/Livingcounty.xls
- 53 -
Homelesss Needs
It is estimmated that inn 2008, 1 in eevery two huundred people in the statte of Oregonn was homeleess.
Data fromm the Point iin Time hommeless Countt conducted across the State of Oregon and
throughoout the U.S. iin January 2008 showedd that Oregonn has the higghest concenttration of
homelesss people of aany state at .554 percent oor 20,653. The 2011 Poiint in Time hhomeless couunt
for Jacksson County ttotaled 1,0499 people. Tootals are not broken out pper jurisdictiion but are ffor
the entiree Continuumm of Care reggion. Of the 1,049 respoondents 39%% identified thhemselves as
chronicallly homelesss (continuous for a year oor more or hhad at least fofour episodess of
sly homeles
homelesssness in the ppast three yeears), 48%, oor 502 responndents were families witth children. The
majority of the respoondents 26% cited “coulddn’t afford reent” at the reeason for leaaving their laast
living arrrangement.
AshlandSchool Disttrict
An article published in the Ashlaand Daily Tiddings reporteed on a rise in poverty inn rural areas.
Specificaally, the articcle cited drammatically inccreased poveerty rates ammong childreen in areas deeeply
31
affectedbby the recession includinng Medford and Ashlandd. The Ashhland Schoool District
reportedthat for the 22010-2011sschool year 884 children ccurrently atteending schoool within thee
district reeport being hhomeless.TThis number is up from 662 the previoous year. Figgure 5
20011 One-Nigght Homeless Countt for Jackson Countyy
Single Addult Men
One Pareent Family Wiith Children
Couplewwithout childreen
Two pareent Family witth Children
Unaccommpanied Youthh (17 or undeer)
Other
OregonHHousing andd Communityy Services reeceive federaal and state rresources to be used to
supportsservices for hhomeless poopulations.TThey includee: Emergency Housing AAccount,
Emergenncy Shelter ggrants, State Homeless AAssistance Prrogram, Shellter Plus Carre, and
Supplemmental Assistaance for Faccilities to Asssist Homelesss. Additionnally, under tthe Federal
31
Hammonnd, Betsy. “Ruural Students mmost likely to livve in poverty SSome Southernn Oregon districts see high rattes.”
Ashland DDaily Tidings 01 Dec. 2009.
- 54 -
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.
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.
- 55 -
Housing Distribution Strategy
In order to meet housing needs of the community over the planning period (Through the year
2040), some modification in the current distribution of housing that is being developed by the
demand driven market will be required. The proposed modification is shown in Table 7.1 below.
Table 7.1
Housing Type Distribution
Housing Type TotalEstimate
FutureFinal Target Current Needed
Housing of Existing
Needed/Distribution of Approx.Distribution to
32
UnitsUnits
Gap Housing by Distribution meet future
33
Needed Type in 2040 by Typeunit need
in 2040
Single Family
8,913 7,356 1,557 65.80% 80.26% 45.50%
Manufactured 325 154 171 2.40% - 5.0%
DU in Park
Duplex Units 420 526 -106 3.10% 2.63% N/A
Tri-Quad Units 569 530 39 4.20% 3.12% 1.1%
5+ Multi-Family 3,319 1,655 1,655 24.50% 13.99% 48.4%
Total
13,545 10,230 3,315 100% 100% 100%
This distribution modification is further exemplified by the 2010 Housing Needs Model outputs
for unit type based on income and affordability. Based on Census data for income, the City
needs many more low cost rental units, which are often multi-family units and government
assisted housing units whether through tax-credits, loans, or subsidies in the form of project
based or portable housing vouchers. The City has a deficit of ownership units below $279k. The
Housing Needs Model shows a total deficit of 2,719 ownership units affordable to people
making below $75,000 annually.
In order to achieve the desired distribution by 2040, the City will need to modify the
development mix in favor of multi-family units over that of predominantly single family units
which has historically prevailed. The City will need to substantially increase its stock of multi-
family units in order to meet the desired distribution by 2040, skewing the development of such
units by beyond parity with the development of single family units to close the gap.
32
From 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
33
Number derived from Census Building Permit Data 2000-2011. See Appendix for details.
- 56 -
Table 7.2
Estimate of Income and Affordability - Housing Needs Model 2010
Rentals/monthly rent Number of Existing Units Current Needed Units Current Surplus/Gap
0-$194 152955 -805
$195-422 2831,052 -769
$423-655 1,052940 112
$656-897 1,401480 922
$898-1132 830557 273
$1133+ 1,258283 975
Total 4,9764,266 710
Ownership Unit Values
<$72.3k 150401 -251
$72.3k<110.1k 82749 -667
$110.1k<147.6k 18665 -648
$147.6<185.3k 160656 -497
$185.3k<279.3k 6761332 -656
$279.3k+ 40041750 2255
50895552 -463
Total Units
Challenges and Recommendations
Challenges
To the degree the 2010 Housing Needs Model projections are accurate representations of
Ashland’s future housing needs, then City may be faced with the following challenges over the
next 20 years:
How and where to zone and “protect” land for affordable rental and ownership housing as
well as multiple-family housing at all levels.
How to encourage developers to build what Ashland needs (by price/affordability), rather
than the products they are comfortable building or which yield the greatest profit.
How to continue to create and sustain Ashland’s great neighborhoods.
House to create a variety of housing types and incomes in neighborhoods.
How to encourage effective partnerships to increase funding for low-income housing and
provide responsive, coordinated and effective housing choices and service.
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, consistent
with other plan goals.
Objectives
- 57 -
Strive to maintain a diversity of population groups in Ashland, especially if increased growth
pressure leads to more expensive housing. Concentrate on population groups that are important
to Ashland’s character, such as students, artists and actors, employees of the city, school district,
and college, service personnel who work in the tourism industry, hourly wage earners in local
industries, and local residents who have not retired and live on fixed income. (Ashland
Comprehensive Plan)
Increase owner-occupied households to comparable levels with county and state ownership
averages.
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 an existing residential area.
Support efforts for rehabilitation and preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods
Consider allowing and encouraging accessory apartments in new and existing
neighborhoods as an outright permitted activity in single family zones.
Consider restricting the development of detached single family residential units in multi-
family zones.
Challenges
The local economy does not provide wages that are commensurate with housing costs.
- 58 -
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.
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.
Conclusion
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.
Below is a brief summary of some of the policy approaches that communities can consider to
address housing affordability.
Remove Barriers: Barriers to construction of needed housing or efficient use of land are
those that public policy has imposed. A jurisdiction would select measures in this category if
it has evidence that the market wants to build needed housing types or densities but is kept
from doing so by public policies. The City should review policies to weed out ineffective
policies, obsolete design standards unnecessarily burdensome permitting processes and
inadequate or inappropriate zoning.
- 59 -
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.
Explore cost reducing measures including costs of public services and facilities, development
fees, and other processing costs. An example of a less commonly considered incentive
includes working with neighborhood groups to address concerns. If successful, this can
reduce costs of lengthy appeals to the developer.
Require Performance: These measures are mandatory plan policies and code requirements
affecting development. A jurisdiction would select measures in this category if it has
evidence that the market is not likely to respond, at the level of incentive that a community
can provide.
The public sector is not directly producing the housing. Therefore, estimates of the likely
effect of these measures should be qualified by some uncertainty about exactly how the
private sector will respond. For example, if higher density requirements or mandatory
design standards are perceived by the development community (designers, builders, lenders
as unprofitable or unmarketable, the desired housing may not get built in the community. In
the case of up-zoning for higher densities, this may result in no housing development instead
of housing at lower densities. For this reason, jurisdictions should seek a balance in
adopting regulations and try to redirect, not stifle market forces that produce most of a
community’s housing. In many cases, requirements should be applied uniformly on all
developments so that no particular development gains a competitive advantage. This will
encourage developers to find ways to produce the product within market constraints.
Review development standards? Lot size typically impacts the price of lots 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.
- 60 -
Appendix
- 61 -
Table A-1
Housing demand /capacity comparison by unit type
SFRMultifamilyTotals
Existing Dwelling Unit Capacity (2010
BLI)
ЊЍЏВЊЌБЍЋБЎЌ
Needed Units per Housing Gap Analysis
ЊАЎВЌЌЊЏ
1557
through 2040
Deficit by 2040
-88 -375 -463
Annual units needed through 2040 ЏЋ͵БЊЊБ͵Ѝ
55.6
Total Year Supply
26.422.024.1
- 62 -
Table A-2
Future Needed Unit Distributed by Comprehensive Plan Designation
Dwelling Units by Type
Existing
Netdistributed into existing
ComprehensiveDwelling Unit
Buildablecapacity
PlanCapacity
Acres
(2011 BLI)
SFRMulti-family
Per Airport
Airport 0 0 0
Master Plan
Commercial 15.8 252 0 252
Croman Mill 62.8 340 0 340
Downtown 2 53 0 53
Employment 105.1 221 0 221
HC 1.4 15 0 15
HDR 8.9 162 0 162
Industrial 12.1 0 0 0
LDR 38.1 70 70 0
MFR 30.8 323 0 323
NM 17.7 118 100 18
SFR 214 875 875 0
SFRR 48 103 103 0
SOU 19.5 SOU Master Plan 0 0
Suburban R 42.3 311 311 0
Woodland 4.3 10 10 0
Totals 622.8 2853 1469 1384
Expected Dwelling Units
Note: on Commercial and Employment Lands have been reduced by 50% from what would be
permitted as such units are not required.
- 63 -
Table A- 3a
Housing Units by Type 2002-2011
Data Derived from City Database (EDEN)
Year Permit Issued Group
Mixed Use – Multi-Accessory New
Homes
aboveFamilyResidential Condominium
commercial Units Units (not
including mixed
use)
2002 3---30 (SOU)
2003 2---
2004 2---
2005 426 68
2006 22 5448
2007 13 227
2008 9280
2009
0110
2010
060 40
2011 209 (SOU)
3
Total 58 96 27 63 239
Table A-3b
Units per Year by Type 2002-2011
Data on single family and multi-family development derived from Census data
YearSingleMulti-Accessory Condominium Group Homes Manufactured
PermitFamilyFamilyResidential Conversions Homes
Issued Units
2002 99 9 - - 30 (SOU) 1
2003 125 64 - 14 0
2004 103 55 - 4 0
2005 128 43 6 22 0
2006 47 57 4 34 0
2007 52 11 2 8 0 1
2008 20 12 8 10 0 0
2009 25 1 1 0 0 0
2010 34 10 4 0 0
2011 24 6 2 0 209 (SOU)
Total 657 268 27 92 209 2
- 64 -
Table A-4
Comprehensive Plan# of ParcelsNet Buildable Acres
Airport 9 Per Airport Master Plan
Commercial 52 15.8
Croman Mill 31 62.8
Downtown 17 2
Employment 114 105.1
HC 10 1.4
HDR 48 8.9
Industrial 6 12.1
LDR 83 38.1
MFR 115 30.8
NM 77 17.7
SFR 552 214
SFRR 27 48
SOU 19 19.5
Suburban R 50 42.3
Woodland 30 4.3
Totals 1240622.8
Source: Table 3.3 from the BLI: Buildable acres: UGB & City Limits
- 65 -
Table A5
Ashland’s largest employers
Business # of Employees % of Population
Southern Oregon University Approx. 750 3.6%
Ashland Community Hospital 410 1.9%
Oregon Shakespeare Festival 398 1.9%
Ashland Public Schools 350 1.6%
City of Ashland 229 1.1%
Butler Ford Approx. 160 0.7%
Pathway Enterprises, Inc. 130-150 0.6%
Ashland Food Co-Op 130 0.6%
Pro Tool Approx. 100 0.4%
Linda Vista Approx. 75 0.3%
Albertsons 72 0.3%
Plexis Approx 70 0.3%
Safeway 65 0.3%
Town and Country Chevrolet 50 0.2%
Cropper Medical 50 0.2%
Bi-Mart 45 0.2%
Source: City of Ashland, Chamber of Commerce website: www.ashlandchamber.com.
- 66 -
Table A6
Population Projections
- 67 -
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
July 25, 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
Brett Ainsworth
Staff Present:
Barb Barasa
Evan LasleyLinda Reid, Housing Specialist
Ben Scott Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Commissioners Absent
Richard Billin
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Lasley/Scott m/s to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2012 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote:
All Ayes minutes were approved as presented.
FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE REVIEW/UPDATE
Reid presented the Fair Housing Ordinance draft having received it back from the City Legal Department. Most of
the changes were minor with the exception of section “N” Fair Housing Officer. The Legal Department suggested
that the City Attorney, the City Administrator, the Municipal Judge and the Director of Development meet together
and discuss who should be the designated Fair Housing Officer and serve in that role. Currently it is the City
Attorney. Since that meeting has not taken place the agenda item has been bumped from the August City Council
meeting and Reid is not sure when it will go forward. Reid will bring it back to the Housing Commission once the
amendment has been made. At this point all Fair Housing complaints that come to the City get evaluated by Reid
and then are referred to BOLI with the State or to HUD with the Federal Government. Reid did not believe that the
City Attorney has had to act in this capacity in the past.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE DRAFT 2012 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Reid explained that the Housing Needs Analysis serves a couple of purposes. This report gives the City a look at
what the housing needs and demands are within the community and match those up with our inventory of land.
ORS 197.267 requires that cities of a certain size undertake a Housing Needs Analysis periodically. Ashland is not
large enough to be compelled to do a Housing Needs Analysis; we do it so we can help the elected and appointed
officials plan and prepare for housing needs, stated Reid.
This draft will be presented next to the Planning Commission at a study session followed by a public hearing at
both the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council. This analysis will be
useful in terms of reviews with planning actions and would be adopted by the City Council as an appendage to the
Comprehensive Plan. This draft is still in the preliminary stages but Reid would like some feedback from the
Commissioners.
1
The Commissioners discussed the potential land use strategies for addressing key housing issues identified in the
2012 Housing Needs Analysis. One topic discussed was the evaluation of parking requirements and potential
reductions to promote smaller unit sizes. Goldman said a recent change to parking standards was made city wide
with the Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone. A unit 500 square feet or less does not need additional parking spaces
and an increase to on street parking was made. An allowance was also made allowing seven bike parking spots to
substitute for automobile parking which would most benefit places such as apartments.
.
The Commissioners inquired if Southern Oregon University expects to fill all the new Dormitory rooms being built
off of Walker Street. They questioned the need for so many units taking into consideration the current enrollment.
The college owns many private rental properties which are not included in the count and would this create
vacancies with those homes when the dorm room are filled asked the Commissioners? Goldman stated that none
of the SOU owned units are indicated in their 2020 master plan as going into market rate housing. Reid stated that
Census data used to compile the housing information in the Housing Needs Analysis does take into account SOU
multi-family rental properties and counts the dorms as group housing.
The Commissioners agreed when Reid presents this draft to City Council she needs to focus on the
recommendations that staff is making in order to help address the housing issues. What kind of housing are we
going to need to accommodate the future population of Ashland?
The Housing Needs Analysis shows that homeownership rates in Ashland lag behind that of Medford, Jackson
County and the State of Oregon. Ownership and rental rates are more of a 50/50 split in Ashland rather than a
60/30 ownership to rental rate which it the average for the County and the State.
The chart on page 65 of the HNA shows a simple breakdown of existing units. If development continues as it has
historically, the City will be looking at a deficit of rental units by 2040. The main purpose of the chart is to determine
if the City has enough land in each zone to accommodate the development of needed housing types.
The Commissioners will take the opportunity to continue to review the Housing Needs Analysis and then get back
with Reid with any comments or recommendation of changes. After that it will go to a public review before the
Planning and Housing commission.
CLAY STREET REVIEW DISCUSSION
The Commissioners reviewed the three options for the property located at 360 Clay Street.
Land Bank until current land values increase.
Sell the land for Market Value
Solicit a proposal for an affordable/mixed-income development
The Commissioners recommended that Reid does a survey of housing providers to see what their future plans
might be. At one point Jackson County Housing Authority was interested in developing the property.
Reid said that Oregon Housing announced their 2012 consolidated funding cycle awards last week. Access was
fully funded for their six unit Hyde Park project located in Ashland onDollarhide. The Southern Oregon region
received a large amount of the funding. Reid said a wide variety of funding is available through the State of Oregon,
HUD (Federal Government), Oregon Trust fund money, Home Money, low income tax credits, Oregon affordable
tax credits.
After Reid surveys the Housing providers the Commissioners will discuss at next month’s regular meeting in August
the options and make a recommendation to go to the City Council.
Scott/Lasley m/s to move the Housing Commission meeting to the Siskiyou Room at the department of Community
Development and Engineering located at 51 Winburn Way. Voice vote; All Ayes, motion passed. The meeting will
be at 4:00 p.m.
2
SECONDARY GOAL DISCUSSION
Two of the Housing Commission secondary goals are looking at multi-family zoning and manufactured housing.
The Commissioners are concerned about the obstacles preventing home owners from building affordable units.
The Commissioners discussed the possibility of restricting Single Family Homes in Multi-Family zones. Goldman
explained that in 2004 the City passed a minimum density ordinance for Multi-Family zones. It states that an
applicant would need to build out at 80 percent the base density at a minimum. He suggested asking the people
who own property in Multi-Family zones if they would have a concern with an added limitation.
Goldman gave an update on the vacant land inventory in Ashland. R-3 is a High Density Residential zone and R-2
is Multi-Family Residential. Goldman said there is roughly 40 acres of vacant land available in those two zones to
meet the City’s multi-family needs.
LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION
Council –
No report
Staff-
At the August regular Housing Meeting City Recorder Barbara Christianson and City Attorney, David Loman
will be giving a presentation on Commission ethics and rules.
ND
AUGUST 22, 2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
Housing Trust Fund
Clay Street property options
Fair Housing Ordinance Options
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
th
First Reading of the Fair Housing Ordinance, City Council-Aug 7, 2012
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
August 22, 2012 4:00-6:00 PM in the Siskiyou Room located at the Community Development and Engineering
Building at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland Oregon.
ADJOURNMENT
- The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
3
Counccil Commmuniccation
June 5,2012 –Businesss Meetting
Ecoomic Deelopmen Strate – Quarterl Updae
nnvvttgyytt
FROM:
Bill Molnar, Director, CCommunity DDevelopmennt, molnarb@@ashland.or.us
SUMMARYY
In conjunctiion with the adoption of the Econommic Developmment Strateggy in July of 2011, the Council
requested immplementatioon updates oon a quarterlyy basis as thhe project mooves from strrategy devellopment
and adoptionn to active immplementatiion. A reportt and summaary of the finndings from the Chambeer of
Commerce BBusiness Reetention and ExpansionSSurvey (BR&&E) will be tthe primary area of focuus for this
quarterly uppdate. The reeport focusess on informaation receiveed through inn-depth interrviews with llocal
businessesbby business lleaders that sseeks to idenntify specificc issues and challenges tto business hhealth and
growth. Thee BR&E proggram taps thhe informatioon collected through in-pperson intervviews to faciilitate
problem sollving and inccrease commmunication beetween businnesses and ppolicymakerss. The survey also
helps the chhamber and ccity identify business neeeds for expaansion in termms of workfoorce skills, pphysical
space, and innfrastructuree. The reportt concludes bby suggestinng that in ordder to addresss local businness
needs and cooncerns highhlighted by tthe survey, aadditional follow-up willl be necessarry as a meanns by
which local businessesccan formallyy clarify and communicaate their issuees.
BACKGROOUND ANDD POLICY IIMPLICATTIONS:
The Econommic Development Strateggy was approoved by Couuncil on Julyy 19, 2011. AAs part of thhe
adoption, Coouncil directted Staff to pprovide quarrterly updatees on the impplementationn of the Strattegy,
particularlywith regards to the statuus of “prioritty one” actioon items, whhich include:
1)Conducta Business RRetention & ExpansionSSurvey
- On Traack
– Presenntation to Council June 22012
2)Designatee City Staff “point of coontact”
Compleete
-– Commmunity Development Direector for remmainder of FYY 2011-12
3)Formalize relationshiips and roless for Strategyy implementtation amongg major partners
Pendinng
- - Informaal initial coorrdination bettween regionnal partners iinitiated by JJackson Couunty
4)Maximize impact of existing Cityy Economic Development, Culturaland Sustainaability grantt process
Compllete
- – In Febbruary, 2012, Council paassed a resoluution adoptinng goals, criiteria and
requiremments for annuual grant proocess. The BBudget Commmittee has reequested a mmore simplifiied grant
processaand staff willl present ideas to the Citty Council inn early fiscall year 2013.
5)Evaluatethe use of UUrban Renewwal Districts
Feasibility StudyCComplete
- –– Council to ddiscuss nextt steps in summmer 2012
PPage 1 of 2
6)Improve the land usee developmennt process
Compllete -On Gooing
- – Goal update preseented to Couuncil Januaryy 18, 2012. CCommunity
Developmment and Plaanning Commmission areworking ona Unified Laand Use Codde (Siegel
Recommmendation) thhat would adddress the Economic Devvelopment Sttrategy priorrity action reegarding
timelinesss, predictabiility and potential impaccts of development proceess to econommic developpment
projects.
The attachedd quarterly rreport providdes a descripption of the wwork to date on priority oone actions, as well
as a brief uppdate on otheer priority twwo and threee actions wheere activity wwas initiatedd by City stafff or in
coordinationn with local community partners.
FISCAL IMMPLICATIOONS:
N/A
STAFF REECOMMENNDATIONAAND REQUUESTED ACCTION:
Staff recommmends Counncil accept thhe quarterly report as preesented, andd request thatt staff providde
additionalddirection or innformation aas needed.
SUGGESTED MOTIOON:
N/A
ATTACHMMENTS:
Quarterlly Report
2012 Buusiness Retenntion and Exxpansion Surrvey - Execuutive Summaary
Reportoof the Findinngs of the 20012 Ashland Business annd Retention Survey, by Rebecca L. Reid
Memo frfrom Mayor Strombergrregarding SOOU class quaality of life ppresentation
PPage 2 of 2
2012 Business Retention and Expansion Survey
Executive Summary
Ashland’s Business Retention and Expansion program has been in place since 2006 when
the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and the Cityof Ashland first surveyed local
businesses to learn about their challenges, goals and successes in doing business in
Ashland. The program’s principal objectives are to identify issues, facilitate problem
solving and increase communication between businesses, the Chamberand policymakers.
Through the BR&E survey theChamber and the City identify business needs for expansion
in terms of workforce skills, physical space, and infrastructure. Where needed, the program
follows up on urgent local business issues, or “Red Flags,” that may jeopardize the health
and/or retention of a given business. The Chamber’s Rapid Response Team works with
businesses, and where necessary, local agencies and government, to assist in the resolution
of issues.
Key findings of Ashland’s 2012 Business Retention and Expansion Survey are:
1.The advantages of doing business in Ashland centered on the City’s quality of life,
natural and cultural assets, and its small-town feel. Disadvantages principally
related to the relatively small labor pool and its lack of specialized and technical
skills.
2.While some businesses endured hardships through the recent recession most
maintained or increased their sales.
3.Local businesses took pride in their employees, loyal customers and “weathering
the storm” during the recent recession.
4.Businesses struggled with difficulties of hiring qualified and skilled workers. Most
pointed to the need for more technical, sales and marketing training, for both
current employees and for the local workforce.
5.Over the past three years businesses reported that they increased purchases from
regional sources and increased their sales to external markets.
6.Expectations for the future were optimistic. Most businesses looked forward to
gains in employment, sales, customers and profits over the next three years.
7.Nearly half the businesses were expecting to expand physically over the next three
years. The majority had concerns about their ability to expand in their present
location due to conditional use permits, zoning restrictions or lack of space.
8.Businesses urged a streamlining of the local land use process and felt the effort
would support future business development.
1
9.Interest in sustainable business programs and practices was prevalent across
businesses.
10.Businesses were interested in deepening their connections with regional companies
and institutions, particularly with SOU, RCC and SOREDI.
The information and feedback collected through the 2012 BR&E interview will help to
clarify and refine the City of Ashland’s Economic Development Strategy and to better
guide programs of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. To the extent possible, businesses’
needs and concerns will be addressed by both the City and the Chamber, through existing
or new programs, and throughinformed political and community discourse.
2
Report on the Findings of the
2012 Ashland Business and Retention Survey
Prepared by Rebecca L. Reid, Consultant
For the City of Ashland and the Ashland Chamber of Commerce
May 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………….5
I. General Overview of Selected Businesses………………………….7
II. Advantages of Growing Business in Ashland ……………11
(Item “a”)
III. Disadvantages and Challenges of Growing a Business
inAshland ……………………………………….11
(Item “a”)
IV.Impacts of the Recession and Businesses’ Challenges and Successes
………………………………….……13
(Items “b” and “f”)
V. Future Business Growth, Expansion and Barriers ()……..…18
Item “g”
VI. Workforce and Professional Development Needs
………………………………………..…….21
Items “d” and “e”)
VII. Needs by Business Stage …………………….……………24
(Item “h”)
VIII. Supply Chain and Markets …………………….………….27
(Item “i”)
IX. Sustainability ………………………………….…………..29
(Item “j”)
X. Ideas for a Healthy Economic Future ………………….31
(Item “c”)
Conclusions……………………………………….……………31
Appendices
Appendix A:List of Businesses Interviewed for 2012 Business Retention
and Expansion Program……………………………….….33
Appendix B:The 2012 Ashland Business Retention & Expansion Survey...35
2
List of Graphs
Graph 1Employment and Payroll, 2010, Industries of Selected Businesses
for BR&E, 2012
Graph 2Employment and Payroll, 2010, All Ashland Industries, 2012
Graph 3Employee Occupations of BR&E Businesses
Graph 4Distribution of Selected Businesses by Number of Employees
Graph 5Distribution of Selected Businesses by Year Established
Graph 6Distribution of Selected Businesses, Moved vs. Established in Ashland
Graph 7Changes in Employment overthePast Three Years
Graph 8Changes in Economic Indicators over the Past Three Years
Graph 9Share of BR&E Businesses that had Difficulty Accessing Financing
Graph 10Changes in Economic Indicators Expected over the Next Three Years
Graph 11Square Footage Needed for Expansion
Graph 12Future Infrastructure and Space Needs
Graph 13Importance and Adequacy of Infrastructure
Graph 14Occupations of BR&E Businesses
Graph 15Skill and Training Needs of BR&E Businesses
Graph 16Areas of Occupational Training Difficult to Access in Ashland or the Rogue Valley
Graph 17Space Needed for Future Expansion by Business Age
Graph 18Future Building Needs by Business Age
Graph 19Training Needs by Business Age
Graph 20Distribution of Purchases and Sales
Graph 21Net Change in Geographic Location of Purchases/Sales in Past Three Years
Graph 22Conservation Activities, Average Ratings of Importance
Graph 23Conservation Activities, Share of Businesses That Wants to Learn More
3
List of Tables
Table 1Impacts and Challenges of the Recession
Table 2Business Successes
Table 3Ages of Businesses
4
Introduction
Since 2006 Ashland businesses have been surveyed periodically through a Business Retention and
Expansion (BR&E)program developed by the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and funded through the
Chamber and the City of Ashland. The centerpiece of the program is an in-depth interview with local
businesses by business leaders that seeks toidentify specific issues and challenges to businesshealth
and growth. The BR&E program taps the information collected through in-person interviews to
facilitate problem solving and increase communication between businesses and policymakers. The
survey also helps the Chamber and City identify business needs for expansion in terms of workforce
skills, physical space, and infrastructure. Where needed, the program follows up on urgent local
business issues, or “Red Flags,” that may jeopardize the health and/or retention of a given business.
The Chamber’s Rapid Response Team works with businesses, and where necessary, local agencies and
government, to assist in the resolution of issues.
The Chamber’s BR&E program is coordinated through its Leadership Team, a group of business
leaders, City officials, Chamber staff and consultant. Through a series of meetings the team identified
the program’sobjectives, developed the interview instrument, selected businesses, and invited and
trained local business leaders to conduct the personal interviews. Eighteen leaders completed32 hour-
1
long interviewsbetween January and March 2012.
As in previous BR&E surveys, the 2012 instrument sought to provide the Chamber and City with
actionable information about the business community such as:basic information about the business
(such as age, employmentand occupation levels); workforce needs and training; linkages between
local and regional businesses; indicators of business activity in the past and expectations for the future;
challenges to business success; and business needs for physical expansion and infrastructure.
Additionally, the 2012 survey queried businesses about the importance of sustainability and about their
interest in specific conservation and sustainability programs.Unlike earlier surveys, the 2012
instrument posed many open-ended questions andencouraged businesses to respond in detail. As a
result, comments were grouped into general categories or themes in order to summarize the spirit of
diverse answers, as well as to protect the anonymity of the participating businesses.The 2012 Ashland
BR&E Survey is located in Appendix B.
Additionally, the 2012 BR&E interviewscollected business commentson priorities and actions
2
addressed in the City’s Economic Development Strategy.Due to the importance of this feedback, the
report organizes the findings of theBR&E interviews by ten topics relating to the City’s strategy:
a.Advantages and challenges of growing a business in Ashland;
b.Successes and challenges over the past recessionary years;
c.Businesses’ suggestions about waysto make Ashland’s economic future healthier;
d.Educational and skill needs and/or gaps inthe existing workforce;
e. Educational and professional development needs and resources or support for business owners and
their leadership teams;
f. Types of investment capital needed or desired for business growth;
g. Future physical growth needs, challenges or barriers to growth ;
1
The city contracted for 25 completed interviews with businesses.
2
City of Ashland, “Economic Development Strategy, Enhancing Economic Strength in Community,” adopted by Ashland
City Council, July 2011.
5
h. Needs unique to first, second and third stage businesses;
i. Dependence on other local and regional businessesfor success;
j. The significance or importance that businesses place on sustainable business operations and
decisions and their interest in pursuing it further.
The BR&E team selected businesses across key localindustrial sectors, including professional and
technical services, specialty manufacturing and retail, health care, arts and entertainment, and
3
accommodations and food services.Furthermore, in line with the City’s economic development
strategy, the team sought to interview businesses with characteristics identified in the City’s economic
development strategy, such as those that:
Are committed to operating their business and living in Ashland
Rely on and earn a competitive advantage from innovation, creativity, design and technology in
their operations for new product development, creation or expansion of niche markets, process
improvements, etc.
Produce specialty and value added goods or services with a market beyond our local economy
Purchasefrom the local and regional economy for supply or provide goods or services that
reduce the need of the community to purchase goods or services from outside of region
Produce a wide variety of different types of products and services, emphasis onbusinesses that:
Use local design, engineering and pre-production development with larger scale
o
production occurring elsewhere;
Are locally-based top leadership/decision making team with some operation functions
o
possibly occurring elsewhere;
Employ an educated, creative and innovative workforce;
o
Access and benefit from high speed broadband internet services;
o
Havelimited need for large outdoor storage, large scale production facilities or
o
significant off-site water or energy needs for local operations;
Seequality of life as a key business and personal measure of success.
o
The organization of this report follows the informational needs of the City of Ashland as it refines its
economic development strategy, and of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce as it develops its programs
to support Ashland’s businesses and the community at large. To gain a feel for feedbackfrom the
businesses interviewed, answers and comments to open-ended questions are featured end of each
section.Major sections of the report are:
I. General Overview of Selected Businesses
II. Advantages of Growing Business in Ashland (Item “a”)
III. Disadvantages and Challenges of Growing a Business in Ashland (Item “a”)
IV. Impacts of the Recession and Businesses’ Challengesand Successes(Items “b” and “f”)
V. Future Business Growth, Expansionand Barriers(Item “g”)
VI. Workforce and Professional Development Needs (Items “d” and “e”)
VII. Needs by Business Stage (Item “h”)
VIII. Supply Chain and Markets (Item “i”)
IX.Sustainability (Item “j”)
X.Ideas for a Healthy Economic Future (Item “c”)
XI. Conclusions
3
A list of the Ashland businesses interviewed may be found in Appendix A.
6
I. General Overview of Selected Businesses
One objective of the BR&E interview was to collect basic (and confidential) information about each
business and their employees. Taken as a whole,employment of selected businesses totaled 2,230 and
4
accounted for 19% of Ashland’s total employment and 23% of its payrollin 2010.Over one quarter of
employeesand 40% of payrollof selected firms worked for businesses in the arts, entertainment and
recreation sector. Businesses allocated to the “Other” categoryaccounted for another quarterof
employment.This category includes companies that were located beyond the city limits, or those
whose confidentiality would be compromised by reporting them in their specific industries. Several
businesses thatwere locatedoutside Ashland city limits were also included in this category. A high
priority in the selection of businesses was to interview high-skill, technology-oriented companies.
According to the employment data, 7% of employment and 16% of payroll of selected businesses
related to firms in information, professional, scientific and technical services. Most of thesecompanies
are small, yet pay higher wages than the group as a whole.
Throughout the presentation of results of this survey it is important to note that the sample of
businesses surveyed is representative of the distribution of neither Ashland’s businessesnor its
industries. Comparing Graph 1 to Graph 2,it is clear that the City’s employment is distributed across
more sectors, such as construction, real estate and finance, and educational andhealth services than is
employment oftheselected BR&E businesses. As discussed in the introduction,businesses with
specific profiles were selected for this year’s BR&E program rather than attempting to draw a
“representative sample”of Ashland’s business.
Graph 1.
Employment and Payroll, 2010
Industries of Selected Businesses for BR&E
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade
Real Estate, Finance and Insurance
Info./Prof., Sci., and Tech. Services
Educational Services
Health Care* and Social Assistance
Arts, Enter, & Recreation
Accom. and Food Services
Other Industries
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
% Employment% Pay
Source: Oregon Employment Department, 2011
4
Employment and payroll data is based on records of selected businesses from the Oregon Department of Employment.
Access to this confidential data was granted to the City of Ashland and this project for “planning purposes.”
7
Graph 2.
Employment and Payroll, 2010
All Ashland Industries
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade
Real Estate, Finance and Insurance
Info./Prof., Sci., and Tech. Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Industries
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
% Employment% Pay
Source: Oregon Employment Department, 2011
Because learning about employees’skills and training needs isan important objective of this survey,
businesses were asked about the kinds of occupations in which their employees worked (Graph 3).
Over half of the employees of BR&E businesses workedin a clerical, sales or production occupations.
Higher-skill jobs, such as those in management and technical occupations, were held by 14% and 11%
of employees, respectively.
Graph 3.
Employee Occupations
of BR&E Businesses
2,230 Employees Total
17%
n
ctio
rodu
P
19%
t
por
/Sup
rical
Cle
11%
al
nic
Tech
2%
g
etin
ark
M
17%
ales
S
14%
l
ona
essi
rof
t./P
Mgm
0%5%10%15%20%
8
Where employees of Ashland businesses live andwhere they work are important questionsto officials
planning for the City’s future land use needs. Nearly two out of three businesses estimated that at least
half of their employees lived in Ashland. Alternatively, over half of BR&E business reported that they
employed workers at locations outside the City, principally within the Rogue Valley. Still, over 80% of
the 2,230 employees working for selected businesses worked in Ashland.
In addition to information about businesses’ employees, characteristicsof the businesses themselves
were recorded. Measured by employment, the sizes of businesses were well-distributedacross small,
medium and large companies. About 25% of the firms employed 10 or fewer workers, and another
25% accounted for over 100 employees(Graph 4).
Graph 4.
Distribution of Selected Businessses
by Number of Employees
100 Employees
Under 10
and over , 25%
Employees, 25%
50 to 99
Employees, 16%
10 to 49
Employees, 34%
Similarly, the survey sample encompassed a cross-section of businesses by age(Graph 5). Just over
half were “Established” companies, founded between 1983 and 2001. Another third were long-
standing, “Historic” businesses established prior to 1983. The remaining 13% were “New” companies.
Section VIIof this report examinesthe needs of businesses depending on the stage (or age)of their
business.
9
Graph 5.
Distribution of Selected Businessses
by Year Established
New (2002-
2012), 13%
Historic (1900-
1982), 33%
Established
(1983-2001),
53%
Aside from mere curiosity about the history of businesses that relocated to Ashland, an important
question is whether companies also moved their employees with them or if they hired employees
locally. The one-third of BR&E businesses who relocated to Ashland reported that they hired 75% of
their workforce locally at thetime that they moved(Graph 6).
Graph 6.
Distribution of Selected Businesses
Moved to vs. Established in Ashland
Moved to
Ashland
32%
Established in
Ashland 68%
55 Employees
75% hired in Ashland
10
Finding out how local businesses fared the recent recession is a central question of the 2012 BR&E
survey. While this issue is addressed fully in Section IV, it is clear from Graph 7 that most businesses
eithermaintained or increased their levels of employment in the recent past. Less than a thirdreported
cuts in employment.
Graph 7.
Changes in Employment
Over the Past Three Years
Varied
3%
Stayed the
Increased
Same
48%
21%
Decreased
28%
II.Advantagesof Growing a Business in Ashland(Item “a”)
Throughout the survey, businesses mentioned advantages of living and doing business in Ashland, or
talked about what attracted them and kept them in Ashland. About half ofthe businesses pointed to the
City’s quality of life, including its livability, small-town feel,beautyand opportunities for outdoor
recreation. About one in four businesses cited benefits of being located close to friends and relatives.
Others described Ashland’s cultural attractions, the educational system,and living in a “college town”
as important to them personally.More business-related advantages mentioned included the Ashland
Fiber Network (“Connection is better than in Denver”)and close proximity to other related businesses.
Several companies appreciated their loyal customers and employees.
III. Disadvantages and Challenges of Growing aBusiness in Ashland (Item “a”)
Acrossresponses to numerous open-ended questions, businesses pointed to challenges they faced in
doing business in Ashland. Most issues mentioned echoed those of the earlier 2006 and 2008 Ashland
BR&E surveys. Grouped intofour themes, businesses listed challenges involving the local and
regional workforce; the relatively small local market for their products or services; local landuse
processes and policies; anti-businesses sentiments; and “Miscellaneous” challenges.
11
Themost-frequently mentionedchallenges for local businesses concerned labor hiring and skills
issues. Many acknowledged the region’s relatively small labor pool, particularly for higher-skill and
technical workers. This limitation made finding qualified employees difficult. In the case of lower-skill
or minimum-wage workers businesses complained that employees often lacked “a good work ethic” or
the “willingness to work.” Section VI discusses businesses’ needs for workforce skills and training.
Many businesses referred to real or perceived issues related to local policies and politics.A number of
business owners commented on land use and zoning policies that were“difficult to navigate,”or
offered remarks like“the City says itwants to grow business but makes it too hard.”Some businesses
expanded their concern beyond City Hall to say that “theCity and community are anti-business.”
On the other hand,not all businesses experienced challenges with the land use process. Several noted
that the process“Didn’t go too bad,” and “Getting approved went fine…approved on the first pass
through.”In fact, across the businesses interviewed the local land use permit processwas rated
favorably. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1= “Very Important”)respondents rated the importance of the land use
process an average of 2.2 and its adequacy an average of 2.1(1= “Very Adequate”).Nearly three out
of four businesses felt that the City’s land use process was “Adequate-to-Very Adequate.”
The majority of businesses judged the small-town feel and quality of life as an advantage to living and
doing businesses in Ashland. However, many faced the down-side of smaller markets, not only for
specialized or skilled labor, but for those selling to localand regional customers. Disadvantages
reported included more competition for customers and visitors; lower incomes of locals; finding local
manufacturing resources; and the need to adjust to seasonal fluctuations in business activity.
Other disadvantages of doing businesses were listed in thisand past surveys. Several companies
complained about panhandling and other homeless issuesdowntown or on their property, the lack of
affordable housingfor employees, and the inadequacy ofcell phone service in south end of town.
Concern about limited space for business expansion was also expressed and is discussed more fully in
Section V.
Other Business Comments, Advantages
“There is an amazing sense of community one gets from living and working here.”
Moved business here because …
“Such things as the food co-op”
“We wanted a place with a university”
“Microbreweries”
“We wanteda place away from the big city”
12
Disadvantages
“Haven't found resources here, especially suppliers or manufacturers”
“Difficulty of recruiting technical talent”
“Challenges of filling scientific and technical positions”
“Lack of south Ashland cell phone tower limits our company”
“I would like to expand, but there is no place to go”
“Lessdisposable income in the valley”
IV. Impacts of the Recession and Businesses’Challenges and Successes (Items “b” and “f”)
Challenges and Impacts of Recession (Item “b”)
During an economic slowdown economy-wide demand for goods and services, investment in capital
and incomes decline. This economic contraction affects business activity in most industrial sectorsand
createsuncertainty about the future for both workers and businesses. Since the recent recession lead to
economic distress throughout the nation, the BR&E team wanted to find out the impact of the
slowdown on local businesses.Businesses reported on changes in indicators of business activity such
as recent shifts in employment, sales, market reach and profits. Additionally, interviewers asked open-
ended questions about the general and local impacts, the challenges and the successes businesses
experienced during the recession. These quantitative and qualitative measures provide a well-rounded
picture of the impact of the recession on the selected businesses and their industries.
The recent economic slowdown negatively affected around 30% of local businesses(Graph 8). A third
experienced a decline in sales, and a lesser 29% reported decreases in employment and profits.
However, close to 40% of businesses reported increasesin sales, employment and customer volume.
Changes in market or geographic reach were decisive;businesses either successfully extended their
markets during the slowdown or lost some of their geographic reach.
Over half the responses to questions aboutthe impact of the recession on their business werenegative
(Table 1).About one third of the businesses pointed to simply lack of demand or increased economic
uncertainty. Some narrowed their comments to point to challenges with downsizing or making changes
in production.
Impacts were felt both from the national and local markets of the selectedcompanies. Not surprisingly,
these companies reported some kind of decline in business activity, either through sales, volume of
customers, or size of market. A number of businessesresponded to these challengesby scaling back
production or sales activity, downsizing,or increasing efficiencies. Businesses mentioned impacts such
as slowed demand for their products, traveler spending declines, and the need to downsize their
company.Other businesses reported challenges adjusting to reduced government or foundation funding
or donations.
13
Graph 8.
Changes in Economic Indicators
Over the Past Three Years
0%20%40%60%
DecreasedStayed the SameIncreased
However, nearly a third of the answers also showed that businesses took the opportunity during the
slowdown to make internal changes. Many listed that they developed marketing and business plans,
refined their vision, and worked to retain their good employees.They became “leaner and meaner” to
“weather the economic storm.”
Specific impacts that businesses faced locally were increased competition from related businesses and
decreased travelerspending. A few businesses mentioned that their local market was less affected by
the slowdown than were their national markets. Several experienced the benefits of hiring from a better
local labor pool.Challenges businesses faced locally focused on finding good-quality, skilled labor,
and for some, finding workers who "were willing to work." Other local challenges included dealing
with increased seasonal fluctuations in business, and geographically-limited cell phone service.
14
Table 1.
Impacts and Challenges of the RecessionOverallLocal
Impacts
Decrease in business activity
Scaled back/downsized/became leaner
Business growth
Varied impacts + and -
No changeor challenges
Less funding or donations
Local less affected than national economy
Increased competition
Travel/Spending down
Easier to hire
Challenges
Economy/Lack of demand/Uncertainty
Marketing/Sales/Business plan/Defining vision
Worker issues/Finding skilled labor
Problems resulting from downsizing
Keeping employees content
Wearing too many hats
No challenges
Local government/Ordinances
Increased competition
Seasonal fluctuations more pronounced
Limited cell phone service
Other Business Comments,Challengesof the Recession
“Despite economy they have continued to grow.”
“Business has not slowed but the downturn has caused them to become better business people”
“They encouraged creativity in cutting costs to offset the downed economy.”
“Local conditions have very little impact except for the availability and quality of employee hires is better.”
“Uncertainty by people/customers nationwide; Some of our retailers have gone out of business.”
“Greater negative impact from local economy…(due to)less disposableincome in the Valley.”
Impactsof the Recession
“The local slowdown…lots of small businesses cutting costs.”
“They have not upgraded (infrastructure)or other costly items in an effort to keep costs down.”
15
Need for Investment Capital (Item “f”)
While interest rates have been historically low, investment has lagged and business financing has been
difficult to access across the country since the recession began. Interviewers askedwhether local
business experienced financing issues. Just over half of the businesses rated the level of difficulty
accessing credit (Graph 9).Nearly two-thirds of these reported that financing was “Somewhat-to-Very
Difficult” to access for existing operations. Funding for expansion proved to be more challenging for
the majority of these businesses: 70% said that financing was “Somewhat-to-Very Difficult” to secure
5
for business growth or expansion.
In spite of over one-third of businesses expressing difficulty accessing financing, tight credit
conditions were not mentioned as an impact or challengeof doing businessnor of the recent recession.
Additionally, no businesses listed the need to address financing issues in response to future challenges
or in their ideas for fosteringfuture economic growth (Sections V and X, respectively).
Graph 9.
Share of BR&E Businesses
that had Difficulty Accessing Financing
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Not at all DifficultSomewhatVery Difficult
Difficult
for Existing Operationsfor Expansion
Other Business Comments on Financing Difficulties
“We have a very good relationship with ourbank. No barriers at the present moment.”
“Process was lengthier, though not negatively impacted”
“Slower growth, passed up opportunities, reduced scale of production”
“We haven’t grown as quickly as we would have liked.”
“We missed opportunities that wecould have takenadvantage of”
“Local financing is not available.”
5
38% of businesses expanded sales, and 44% hired more employees over the past three years (Graph 8).
16
Businesses’ Successes during the Recession (Item “b”)
As businesses adapted to the challenges and impacts of the recession, they had also had successes to
report (Table 2).Around 40% of selected businesses reported increasesover the past three yearsin
business activity indicators such as employment, sales, customers, and geographic reach. Between 25%
and 30% reported no changesin the indicators, many adding that simply weathering the economic
downturn was a success. A number of businesses reported that economic slowdownled them to focus
on internal challenges, such as developing a business or marketing plan, defining a vision. Pride in
their employees and loyal customers during challenging time was expressed by a quarter of businesses.
Table 2.
Business SuccessesOverallLocal
New or improved quality of products and services
Using new technologies
National exposure
Growth/Market expansion
Still in business/Weathered downturn/Debt free
Loyal customers
Internal planning
Employee training and work ethic
Meeting community needs
Improvements in property/Infrastructure
Employees willingness to work together as a team
Other Business Comments, Successes
“Despite economy they havecontinued to grow.”
“Developeda business strategy; Employees work together--a great team.”
“Saw growth in community support”
“Yes, they encouraged creativity in cutting costs to offset the downed economy”
“Easier to hire”
17
V.Future Business Growth, Expansion and Barriers (Item “g”)
Looking to the future survey participants expressed very optimistic expectations for their business
(Graph 10).With the exception of extending their geographic reach, the majority of companies
anticipated growth in indicators of businesses success over the nextthree years. Most decisive is the
ninety percent of businesses that expect their profits to grow.
Graph 10.
Changes in Economic Indicators
Expected over the Next Three Years
0%20%40%60%80%100%
DecreaseStay the SameIncrease
Consistent with this optimistic vieware the 41% of businesses who are considering expanding
physically over the next three years, most of which intend to stay in Ashland. However, 66% are
concerned that the present location of their business does not provide for future expansion. Reasons
for concern that businesses cited included limitationsof conditional use permits; lack of adjoining
land; costs of extending utilities; and issues with zoning and/or the land use permit process.
Twenty-eight percent of businesses reported that they needed additional land for their future building
needs (Graph 11). Summed across businesses space needs totaled 137,800 square feet, or an average of
15,311 per business. Space needs varied from 10,000 to 24,999 sq. ft. for half of the expanding
companies, and 13% anticipated needing over 25,000 square feet. Manufacturing, office space and
parking were kinds of space needs that one quarter to one third of businesses expected to need (Graph
12).
18
Graph 11.
Square Footage Needed for Expansion
28% of Businesses Need Additional Space
Total Square Footage*: 137,800
25,000 and up,
13%
Under 10,000
sq. ft., 38%
10,000 to 24,999,
50%
* Gross amount. See Footnote 6
Graph 12.
Future Infrastructure and Space Needs
0%10%20%30%40%
Looking ahead to supporting future economic health, interviewersasked businesses to rate the
importance and adequacy of various aspects of the City’s infrastructure to their business’ success
(Graph 13). On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=Very Important/Very Adequate, Internet access and
electricity were deemed ‘Very Important” by most businesses, with average scores close to “1.” The
19
adequacy of both was similarly rated “Very Adequate.” Freeway access and water quality and supply
were rated on average “Somewhat-to-Very Important,” but their adequacy was rated closer to
‘Somewhat Adequate.” In contrast to specific complaints about parking elsewhere in the interview,
overall businesses rated parking as “Adequate” and of average importance. The greatest gap between
importance to businesses and adequacy deemed by businesses was for cell phone service. Some
businesses complained that the poor quality of servicewas a significant challenge to doing business in
Ashland.
Graph 13.
Importance and Adequacy of Infrastructure
Average Ratings, Scale 1-5 (1 = Excellent/Adequacy)
More Important
Importance
Adequacy
012345
* Answered by fewer than 75% of businesses
The City’s land use and permit laws and processes received conflicting feedback throughout the
interview. On average businesses rated its importance as “Somewhat Important,” and its adequacy as
“Somewhat Adequate.” Positive comments about the process included “Didn’t go too bad,” and
“Getting approved went well—approved on the first pass-through.” On the other hand, concerns about
the land use process, the conditional use system, and City zoning were expressed across survey
questions. Reference to these concerns were made in response to open-ended questions about the
disadvantages and challenges of doing business in Ashland, regulations that inhibit businesses’ ability
to grow, and recommendations for assuring Ashland’s future economic health. Across various survey
questions, about 20% of businesses expressed concern about the real or perceived challenges of
navigating the City’s land use process or that “City ordinances hinder growth.”
Reflecting their overall optimism, businesses listed their future goals and challenges. Most businesses
seemed to set their sights on increasing sales or other measures of business activity(Graph 10).
Beyond these specific goals noted were: raising guest satisfaction; growing largerdealer networks;
20
expanding uses of technology;or innovating more. Several businesses focused on sustainability goals
such as seeking more sustainability solutions and being carbon-neutral by 2030. Challenges of
reaching their goals centered on economic uncertainty, competition, maintaining staff through growth,
adapting to changing technology,and concern about the City’s land use processes.
Other Business Comments,Infrastructure
“AFN is critical to business”
“Local Streetsadequate--tough fortrucks coming off interstate 5”
“Cell phone: Cannot get good cell service to conduct work”
Goals and Challenges in the Future
“Fulfill environmental sustainability goals”
“Grow 50-100% revenue; grow profits yieldhigh margin”
“Retooling and relearning given huge technology shifts”
“Zoning regulations--the City says it wants to growbusiness but makes it too hard”
“There is a perception that the City is anti-business “
“Local tax is pretty high, (would be better in Medford). High price for office space. We make a choice to pay
more in Ashland. Wish we had incentive”
VI. Workforce and Professional Development Needs (Items “d” and “e”)
Employment in BR&E businesses was well-distributed across major occupational groups (Graph 14).
Of the 2,230 employees represented by surveyed firms, over 50% of employees worked in occupations
that were low-skill, such as clerical and sales, or mid-skill, such as production. Over one-third of
employment of BR&E businesses fell into high-skill technical, management and professional
occupations.
Arecurring issuethroughout the survey centered on the challenges of hiring skilled or qualified
employees. The area’s small labor pool was noted as a disadvantage of doing business in Ashland,
particularly for technical, specialized and production workforce skills. Businesses pointed to the need
to improve local workforce and skills gaps as an important step toward fostering future economic
growth.
21
Graph 14
.
Occupations of BR&E Businesses
2,230 Employees Total
17%
19%
11%
2%
17%
14%
0%10%20%30%
Local businesses reported that additional training could serve as one way of addressing their workforce
needs. Except forclerical occupations, manybusinesses (40% to 66%) reported thatthe remaining
occupational skills were important tothe success of their business. Additionally, more training was
needed in each of these areas (Graph 15). The need for additional technical training in particular was
expressed in responses throughout the interview. Over three quarters stated that technical training in
particular was “Very Important” to their current operations and future growth. Management, sales and
marketing occupations were other areas that about 70% of business rated as “Very Important” to their
business success.
Graph 15.
Skill and Training Needs of BR&E Businesses
0%20%40%60%80%
Skill NeedsNeed More Training
22
Accessing skills training for their current employees provedto be another challenge for many local
businesses(Graph 16). Clearly, finding training resources in Ashland proved more difficult that in the
larger Rogue Valley region. Still, for over one-fifth of the businesses technical and sales training were
difficult to find both in Ashland and in the region. Less than 20% of businesses had trouble finding
training in clerical, production, management and marketing occupations. To address their training
needs businesses recommended stronger ties between businesses and local schools and universities to
improve skills of new workers,or to assist in training current employees through continuing education.
Graph 16.
Areas of Occupational Training
Difficult to Access in Ashland or the Rogue Valley
9%
19%
3%
Difficult to
9%
Find in Rogue
Valley
22%
31%
16%
Difficult to
28%
Find in
Ashland
22%
31%
13%
22%
0%10%20%30%40%
Educational and professional development needs and resources/support for business owners and
theirleadership teams (Item “e”)
Business owners and their management staff also need access to professional development resources to
upgrade and update their skill, as well as to grow professionally in tandem with their business. Two of
three businesses reported that they had taken advantage of locally-provided professional development
resources. For the remaining third the most-cited reasons for not tapping local resources included: did
not have time for training; could not afford; that the development resources did not fit their needs; and
the business owner did not feel the need for further professional development. As noted in Graph 16,
only 13% of businesses reported that they were unable meet their management training needs within
the Rogue Valley region. Furthermore, when asked if professional training opportunities were offered
locally, only 20% of respondents replied that they would “Somewhat-or-Very Likely” utilize them and
46% said it was “Somewhat-to-Very Unlikely”that they would take advantage of these resources.
23
Other Business Comments, Workforce Skills and Development
“We develop everyone in-house, not looking for specific skills but trainable people.”
“(Challenges finding:) engineers: electrical, software, mechanical. They are mostly hiring from Seattle, Detroit,
California. If they have a family, they do not want to relocate.”
“Recruiting employees with specific qualifications to relocate to Ashland”
“Since we are a design and development company, it would be helpful to establish a relationship with OIT in
Klamath Falls.”
“Training through RCC and SOU isimportant for technical jobs”
VII. Business Needs by Business Stage (Item “h”)
To assess specific business needs by “stage of business,” selected companies where categorized by age
(Table 3): “New” companies were established in 2002 or laterand make up nearly a third of the
selected businesses; over half were “Established” companies founded between 1983 and 2001; and
“Historic” firms were thoseestablished prior to 1983. They represented 13% of the businesses
interviewed.Needs were analyzed by age for physical expansion, infrastructure needs, and employee
training.
Table 3.
Age of Businesses% of BusinessesPlan to ExpandRoom for Expansion
Yes No
New (2002-2012)13%100%20%80%
Established (1983-2001)53%28%35%53%
Historic (1900-1982)31%33%50%50%
All Selected Businesses100%48%33%67%
Overall, nearly half of selected businesses (48%) expected to need room for expansionover the next
three years. Two-thirds of these judged that there was no room for expansion at their present location.
6
Across all business, total space needs were projected to total 137,800 square feet, an average of
15,300 sq. feet per firm (Table 3, Graph 17). All “New” businesses reported expectations to physically
expand in the future. Most did not have room at their current location but estimated needing only 18%
of the total space needs of the businesses interviewed. In contrast, a minority of “Established” and
Historic” businesses anticipated future expansion, but together then reportedthe majority of space
needs, 23% and 60% respectively.
The kinds of space and infrastructure businesses needed followed logically from their ages (Graph 18).
‘New” companies had greater needs across all categories, except for manufacturing space. All ‘New”
6
This figure is a gross amount of square footage. Vacated space would need to netted out to determine the total square
footage needed for future businesses expansion in Ashland.
24
firms also expressed need for more office space, and the majority echoed the need for additional
parking and storage space. A higher share of Established” businesses reported needing more
manufacturing space and increased delivery access. Like “New” businesses, these companies were
looking ahead to the need for more parking space. At the other end of the spectrum were the lower
percentages of “Historic” business expressing specific building and infrastructure needs. Only the need
for additional retail space was noted by a higher share of older companies.
Graph 17.
Space Needed for Future Expansion
by Business Age
Total: 137,800 sq. feet*
New (2002-
2012), 18%
Established
Historic (1900-
(1983-2001),
1982), 60%
23%
* Gross amount. See Footnote 6
The need for some kind of workforce training was reported by most of the businesses. As discussed in
Section VI, with the exception of clerical skills, between 44% and 47% of thebusinesses confirmed
that their employees needed additional training across all queried categories. “New” companies
differed considerably from the other two types of businesses (Graph IV). Training in the production
occupations was the only category in which a higher percentage of “New” businesses showed interest
as compared to the overall sample. Only 25% of these companies felt they needed training in any of
the other occupations. A much larger share of “Historical” businesses expressed need for management
skills training (60% vs. 44% overall), and to a lesser extent, marketing. “Established” businesses
showed interest across all skills trainingcategories except clerical training.
25
Graph 18.
Future Building Needs
By Business Age
0%20%40%60%80%100%
HistoricEstablishedNew
Graph19.
Training Needs
By Business Age
0%20%40%60%80%
HistoricEstablishedNew
26
Other Business Comments, Stage of Business
“(Expand)Not at this point in the business' life (Established)”
“If company reaches point of increased production will most likely move to Medford (New)”
“No available land at existing location to ownor move to (Historic)”
VIII. Supply Chain and Markets (Item “i”)
A central concept of many economic development theories is that for an area to increase itseconomic
“wealth,” whether measured by employment or income, it must increasepurchasing linkages with
regional businesses, yet have “enginesof growth” in industries which “export” out of the area. The
notion asserts that local economic development is stimulated and supported by external demand or
markets. In Ashland’s casein particular, this external demand may be thought of as both external
consumers or as out-of-area consumers coming to Ashlandto purchasegoods and serviceson site—
visitors.
BR&E interviewers asked businesses what share of their purchases and salescame from regional,
national orforeign markets, and how the volume of these transactions had changed over the past three
years (Graphs20 and 21). Given the limited size of the Rogue Valley economy, particularly for
specialized inputs, and given the growth of on-line sales,it makes sense that half of the companies
responded that the majority of their purchases were made through external markets. However, it is
notable that a net of 24% companies said they had increased regional purchases over the past three
years. In net terms (increases –decreases), local companies cut back purchases domestically, and 18%
of businesses(net)said they had increased their purchasing abroad.
Graph 20.
Distribution of Purchases and Sales
Share of Businesses
with Majorities in Various Locations
80%
Purchases
Sales
60%
50%
45%
44%
41%
40%
16%
20%
10%
0%
27
What is more, over the past three years the share of firms who increased their sales outside the Rogue
Valley grewby a net of 25% nationally and 29% abroad. Whether thesenet changes continueisa
question to address in future BR&E interviews. At this point the findings suggest that key Ashland
businesses are strengthening regional linkages through their purchases and augmenting demand for
local products through sales to external markets.
Graph 21.
Net Change in Geographic Location of Purchases/Sales
in Past Three Years
Purchases
Sales
40%
29%
25%
24%
18%
20%
5%
0%
-14%
-20%
Nearly halfthe companies (47%) reported that at least some part of their business involved
manufacturing (including food and wine). All but two statedthat at least some of their production
occurred in Ashland, and two-thirds of these said that allof their production took place in Ashland.
One in five reported manufacturing activities outside of Ashlandat such locations as the Rogue Valley,
Portland, California, India, China, Taiwan, the Czech Republic,and Hungary.
Across comments made throughout the interview, it is clear that most businesses value using or
seeking out local suppliers and/or that they want to extend the market reach for their products and
service beyond Ashland.
Other Business Comments,Supply Chain Challenges
“Finding new companies to work for, looking beyond local businesses for opportunities”
“Local customer support growing consistently”
‘We haven't found resources here, such as suppliers, manufacturers (manufacturing business)”
28
Comments, Supply Chain Successes
“Local customer supportis growing consistently”
“Projects reaching all over the globe”
“Still growing, becoming nationally-known”
“We buy everything we can locally (manufacturingbusiness)”
Future Goals
“Reach/move into area of the Rogue Valleythat we do not serve”
Recommendations for Future Growth
“Utilize things we have in place, less outsourcing, outside consultants. We have smart people here”
“Hire/contract more with local consulting resources as opposed to those that are out of area”
“Bring in new diverse produce to be grown locally”
X.Sustainability (Item “j”)
I
Ashland’s community, businesses and government place high priority on sustainability, whether it
means supporting conservation measures at home and work, efficientuse of resources, and/or
encouraging business operations that are viable long term both economically andenvironmentally. In
the BR&E interview businesses were asked to rate the importance of various City-supported
conservation activities(Graph 22). On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1=”Very Important,” mostbusinesses
viewed various activities as “Somewhat-to-Very Important.” In particular, energy conservation and
recycling programs were rated as “Very Important.”
Graph 22.
Conservation Activities
Average Ratings of Importance
(Scale 1-5, 1 = Very Important)
More Important
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0
29
As another measure of the value of conservation activities to the selected businesses, nearly half were
interested in learning more about transportation fuel efficiency, local food production and renewable
energy programs (Graph 23). Only one in four businesses requested more information about recycling,
likely because this program is well-understood and enjoys wide participation of Ashland’s residents
and businesses.
Graph 23.
Conservation Activities
Share of Businesses That Wants to Learn More
31%
25%
31%
47%
31%
47%
44%
0%20%40%60%
Other Business Comments, Sustainability
“
They are growing their reputation as a company with strong environmental commitment”
“Employee attitude is to conserve.”
“Renewable energy: more on personal level. Recycling: always dealing with waste material”
“Solar panels are too expensive and would love to see the government help with incentives”
Recommendations to Foster Future Growth
“Take a much more aggressive position on long-term viability of what we make and how we steward it in the
community”
“More needs to be done on sustainable agriculture and energy”
“Put Ashland on the map for encouraging local & sustainable products”
“Support for biodynamic and sustainability projects”
Challenges
“Finding products available locally to meet company goals of sustainability”
30
X.Ideas for a Healthy Economic Future(Item “c”)
At the conclusion of the interview, businesses were invited to share ideas about what they thought
could foster a healthy economic future for Ashland. Nearly half offered recommendations about
business development: targeting high-tech and/or innovative businesses,promoting existing businesses
and the City’s quality of life, attracting businesses that use sustainable practices, embracing tourism as
a key part of the economy, and sending the message that “Ashland is interested in business
development.”
Nearly one third commented on the City planning policies or politics. Several businesses encouraged
addressing Ashland’s anti-growth reputation. Other suggested streamlining the land use and permit
processes,or “sending a message”that the City supports the business community. Comments were
added acknowledging and supporting the City’s Economic Development Strategy and expressing
appreciation for the City’s business outreach effortsthrough the strategy and the BR&E program.
Athird theme supporting future economic health focused on workforce education and training.
Suggestions included: improving technical training in schools;preparing students for work through
internshipsand workforce skills training; (the City or Chamber) serving as liaison(s)between SOU,
OIT and RCC students and potential local businesses; and providing basic skills and hospitality
training to minimum wage and service industry employees.
Cooperation between businesses, the public sector,and education was an additional recommendation
made by multiple businesses. Many referred to the potential benefits of networking with Chamber,
SOREDI or other Rogue Valley businesses. Some narrowed their comments to urge increased
communications and resource-sharing across Ashland-based businesses.
Businesses made other recommendations such as increasing awareness for all arts in the City and
addressing itshomeless and panhandling issues.
XI. Conclusions
The 2012 Business Retention and Expansion program set out to learn about selected businesses’
experiences during the recessionand of doing businesses in Ashland. The Chamber of Commerce and
the City of Ashland were particularly interested in their expectations, goals and ideas for the future of
their businesses and for the health of the Ashland economy. Important findings of the thirty-two
business interviews are:
1.The advantages of doing business in Ashlandcentered on the City’s quality of life,naturaland
cultural assets, and its small-town feel. Disadvantages principally related to the relatively small
labor pool and its lack of specialized and technical skills.
2.While some businesses endured hardships through the recent recession most maintained or
increased their sales.
3.Local businesses took pride in their employees, loyal customers and “weathering the storm”
during the recent recession.
31
4.Businesses struggled with difficulties of hiring qualified and skilled workers. Most pointed to
the need for more technical, sales and marketing training, for both currentemployees and for
the local workforce.
5.Over the past three years businesses reported that they increased purchases from regional
sources and increased their sales to external markets.
6.Expectations for the future were optimistic. Most businesses looked forward to gains in
employment, sales, customers and profits over the next three years.
7.Nearly half the businesses were expecting to expand physically over the next three years. The
majority had concerns about their ability to expand in their present location due to conditional
use permits, zoning restrictions or lack of space.
8.Businesses urged a streamlining of the local land use process and felt the effort would support
future business development.
9.Interest in sustainable business programs and practices was prevalent across businesses.
10.Businesses were interested in deepening their connections with regional companies and
institutions, particularly with SOU, RCC and SOREDI.
It is the goal of the BR&E Leadership Team that the information presented in this report help to refine
the City’s Economic Development Strategy and to enrich programs through the Chamber of
Commerce. To the extent possible, businesses’ needs and concerns will be addressed byboth the City
and the Chamber, either through the Chamber’s Rapid Response Team, through existing or new
programs, or through informed political and community discourse. The BRE program serves as an
important effortin reaching out to the City’s business community to understandits needs and
perspectives. It takes theimportant step of enhancing communications between businesses and
Ashland’s community overall.
32
Appendix A
Businesses Interviewed
for the 2012 Business Retention and Expansion Program
33
Businesses Interviewed
for the 2012 Business Retention and Expansion Program
Ashland Community Hospital Oregon Cabaret Theatre
Ashland Food Cooperative Oregon Shakespeare Festival Assn.
Ashland Springs Hotel Pacific Domes
Bauer Premium Fly ReelsPlexis Healthcare Systems
Brammo Inc. Professional ToolManufacturing
Christopher Briscoe & Associates Project A*
Cropper Medical Rogue Valley Roasting Company
Dagoba Chocolate Scienceworks Hands-on Museum
Deux ChatsSki Ashland
DotcomjungleSky Research
Hakatai EnterprisesStanding Stone Brewing Company
Hassell Fabrication*Stratford Inn
Illahe Studios and GalleryThe Modern Fan Company
Independent Printing CompanyTree Star
MassifWeisinger's*
New Horizons WoodworksYala/Dreamsacks
Interviewed in 2006
*Located outside of City limits
34
Appendix B
2012 Ashland Business Retention & Expansion Survey
35
Firm ID: ______
2012 Ashland BR&E Survey
Ashland Chamber of Commerce and City of Ashland
Survey Date: ______________________ Interviewer: ________________________
Person Interviewed: _________________ Scribe: ___________________________
Definitions
Local –Within Ashland
Ashland-based workforce–Employees physically present at your Ashland operations location
Business abroad–Commerce between your business in Ashland and foreign customers/clients
Regional/Rogue Valley-Jackson and Josephine Counties
Total employees or workforce–All you business’s employees (excluding contractor or consultants),
regardless of location.
Business Background
1.In what year was the business established? ____________
2.Was the business …
Established in Ashland? Year:____ # of Employees when established? _____
Moved to Ashland? Year:____ From Where?: __________________________
How many employees moved with the business to Ashland? _____
How many employees were hired locally? ______
What were the mainreasons you relocated your business to Ashland?
3.How many people does your business currently employ?
In Ashland: __________ Outside of Ashland: _______ Where? __________
36
4.How many of your employees are:
(Read List)
Category#Or%
____________
Full-Time
____________
Part-Time
____________
Seasonal
____________
Management
Sales____________
Marketing____________
Technical____________
____________
Clerical/Office
Production____________
Other: _____________________
5.What percentage of your employees who work in Ashland also lives in Ashland? ____%
Over the Past Three Years
6.(Over the past 3 years)Have the following increased, decreased or stayed the same for
your business:
IncreasedDecreasedStayed the Same
Past Three Years
Sales
Number of Customers
Profits
Employment
Geographic Reach
Where?
7.(Over the past 3 years)How have overall economic conditions impacted your business?
8.(Over the past 3 years)How have local economic conditions impacted your business?
37
i.What have been your business’s specific challenges?
1)Overall
2)Locally
ii.What successes has your business experienced?
1)Overall
2)Locally
Future Plans/Goals over the Next Three Years
9.(Over thenextthree years) Do you expect the following to increase, decrease or stay the
same for your business:
IncreaseDecreaseStay the Same
Next Three Years
Sales
Number of Customers
Profits
Employment
Geographic Reach
Where?
10.(Over thenextthree years) What are your goals for your business?
38
11.(Over thenextthree years) What specific challenges to you expect to face?
12.What percentage of your
purchasesfor supplies, raw materials and services
(legal,
would you say comes from:
accounting, marketing, etc.)(Read List)
Businesses within the Rogue Valley%Compared to 3 years ago
____
Higher
Lower
Same
Businesses outside the Rogue Valley%
Higher
Where?
Lower
____
Same
%
Businesses Abroad
Higher
What countries: _____________________
Lower
_____________________
____
Same
13.Approximate percentage of your total salesto:
(Read List)
%Compared to 3 years ago
Businesses within the Rogue Valley
____
Higher
Lower
Same
Businessesoutside the Rogue Valley%
Higher
Where?
Lower
____
Same
%
Businesses Abroad
Higher
What Countries: _____________________
Lower
_____________________
____
Same
14.For manufacturing businesses:Where specifically is/are your product(s) manufactured?
___% in Ashland ___% Where?______________%____ Where?_______________
39
Workforce Skills & Training
15.What workforce skills do you need for your business and how important are they to your
existing and future operations?
(Open-ended, Check/Note all mentioned)
NeedsImportance
Skills Areas
(Rate 1-5, 1=Very Important)
Management
____
Sales
____
Marketing
____
Technical
____
Clerical/Office
____
Production
____
Other: ______________
____
16.What specific skills do you have difficulty finding in the local and regional labor force and
how important are they to your current operations and future growth plans?
AshlandRogue ValleyImportance
Lacking in Labor Force
(Local)(Regional)(Rate 1-5, 1=Very Important)
Management
____
Sales
____
Marketing
____
Technical
____
Clerical/Office
____
Production
____
Other: _________
____
40
17.Approximately how many hours of training do you provide your employees in a “typical
year” in the following skill areas?
Skills AreasAnnual Training Time
(hours)
Management
Sales
Marketing
Technical
Clerical/Office
Production
Other: _________
18.In what areas do your existing employees need more training?
(Open-ended)
Training Needs
Management
Sales
Marketing
Technical
Clerical/Office
Production
Other: _________
19.For what areas do you have difficulty finding training resourcesin Ashland and the Rogue
Valley?
In AshlandIn the Rogue Valley
Difficult Finding Resources
Management
Sales
Marketing
Technical
Clerical/Office
Production
Other: _________
41
20.Does your executive, management or ownership team currently access locally-provided
professional development resources? Yes No
1)If NO, why not?
2)If local professional development training or mentoring opportunities were
available locally, how likely would your business utilize them?
Very Likely 1 2345 Very Unlikely
Probe:
21.For what skill areas or services does your business hire consultant/professional
services/contractors and where are they located?
AshlandRogueOutside the From Where?
Outsourced/Contracted
ValleyRogue Valley
Professional
________
(such as
accounting, legal, financial,
medical, etc.)
Management
________
Sales
________
Marketing
________
Technical
________
Clerical/Office
________
Production
________
Other: _________
________
22.What are the main reasons you hire consultants/contractors from outside the region?
42
Physical Space and Infrastructure
23.Do you currently OwnLeaseRent the space you do business in?
//
24.In the next three years do you plan to:
OwnLeaseRent the space you do business in?
//
25.Does your current business location provide adequate opportunities for future expansion?
Yes No
If NO, why not?
If NO, where would you consider expanding…
Within Ashland:
Outside of Ashland:
26.If your business expands physically, what kind of space and facilities will you need?
Building Needs
Size/Sq. Footage_______
Office Space
Retail Space
Manufacturing/Production Space
Storage
Loading Dock
Delivery Access
Truck Turnaround
Parking
Other: _____________
43
27.In the next three years are you planning to expand or move your business….
No
Yes:
Expand:
At current location in Ashland
To another location in Ashland. Where? ____________________
Some operations outside of Ashland. Where? ________________
What are the main reasons you would locate these elsewhere?
Move:
To another location within Ashland. Where? ________________
Out of Ashland. Where? ________________
What are the key factors for moving your business out of Ashland?
28.Rank the importance of the following systems and infrastructure to your business’s
existing and future success and rate the condition or adequacy of each.
Importance ConditionComments
Infrastructure
(Rate1-5, 1=Very Important)
or Adequacy
(Rate 1-5, 1=Excellent)
Local street system
Freeway access
Water quality &
supply
Internet
Access/Bandwidth
Electric Utility
Local land use
permit process
Regional airport –
Medford
Local airport –
Ashland
Downtown Parking
Cell phone service
Other: _________
44
Access to Capital
29.Over the past three years, on a scale of 1 to 3, how difficult has it been for your business
to access capital, such as loan financing or credit, for financing….
a) existing operations and b) expansion
…And what have been the barriers to accessing funds in each case?
1= Not at all Difficult2=Somewhat Difficult3=Very Difficult
Access to Capital forDifficultyBarriers to Accessing Capital
(list)
a) Existing operations
___
b) Business growth or expansion___
Other: ________________
30.If access has been difficult (2 or 3), how has your business been impacted?
31.What specific government regulation, program, policy or tax significantly affects your
business’s ability to grow and/or be successful?
i.Local
ii.State
iii.Federal
32.What regional information resources, organizations and agencies do you currently access
for business assistance, development and training?
45
33.How important are the following resource conservation activities to your business?
…..Would you like to learn more about these activities?
ImportanceWant to Learn More
Conservation Activities
Rate 1-5, 1=Very Important)
Energy conservation______
Renewable energy (solar, wind ______
thermal, etc.)
Water Conservation______
Recycling
______
Local purchasing of goods and
______
services
Local food production______
Transportation fuel conservation______
34.How can the City of Ashland, the Ashland Chamber of Commerce, SOU and other local
and regional agencies and partners support and foster future local economic health?
35.In addition to the topics covered in this survey, what do you think is needed to make
Ashland’s economic future healthier?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
46