final project presentation rutland housing market study and needs assessment
TRANSCRIPT
Final project presentation
RUTLAND HOUSING MARKET STUDY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
6:00 Welcome and overview of the study
6:15 Presentation Recap of findings Discussion of recommendations
7:00 Questions and comments
AGENDA
Met with City staff and toured Rutland neighborhoods
Interviewed local housing market stakeholders (Realtors®, affordable housing providers, landlords)
Compiled, analyzed and mapped data about the Rutland housing market
Meeting One: public feedback and inputDeveloped strategic recommendations
PROJECT TASKS FOR THE HOUSING STUDY
Revitalizing neighborhoods (and addressing vacant/blighted properties)
Promoting homeownershipAff ordable housing needs
KEY TOPIC AREAS FOR TODAY
REVITALIZING NEIGHBORHOODS
The City of Rutland is losing population not just because of a regional economic decline, but also because it is not competing well against other towns when households decide where to live
Poverty and unemployment is concentrated in particular neighborhoods in Rutland
The housing “product” being off ered in parts of Rutland – especially older, small-multiunit stock – is not desired by the marketplace
Key areas of concern are located west of Route 7 and close to downtown
Locally Undesirable Land Uses (LULUs) may be contributing to some issues with vacant buildings
REVITALIZATION IN RUTLAND: KEY FINDINGS
The region is not competing strongly for households
County locations are outcompeting city locations for household choices about where to live
From 2000 to 2010, Rutland City households declined by 1%; Rutland County increased by 1%.
Areas west of Route 7 have declined the fastest
COMPETITION FOR HOUSEHOLDS
Population
18,436 18,230 17,292 16,495
58,34762,142 63,400 61,642
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1980 1990 2000 2010Year
Rutland City
Rutland County
Source: Vermont Housing Data (www.housingdata.org); US Census
Households
2000 2010 % change
Tract 9630 1,955 1,970 1%
Tract 9631 1,713 1,644 -4%
Tract 9632 1,400 1,356 -3%
Tract 9633 2,384 2,434 2%Source: US Census Bureau
Area Percent below poverty in 2010
Tract 9630 13%
Tract 9631 25%
Tract 9632 19%
Tract 9633 11%
Rutland City 16%
Rutland County 12%
Vermont 11%
CONCENTRATIONS OF POVERTY
Area Unemployment rate, 2010
Rutland City 8.8%
Rutland County 7.3%
Vermont 6.2%Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
Median sale price of 2-4 unit properties during 2010-2012 was $75,000 (40% less than single-family)
Current value does not support home improvements or financing
A HOUSING PRODUCT IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT
“LULUS” AND VACANT BUILDINGS
PROMOTING HOMEOWNERSH
IP
Area Homeownership Rate, 2010
Tract 9630 72%
Tract 9631 29%
Tract 9632 57%
Tract 9633 49%
Rutland City 52%
Rutland County 70%
Vermont 71%
Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
Now is the time to buy (especially in Rutland)!A large pool of renter households exist that could
qualify to buy a homeHousing stock exists that could be converted from
investor ownership to owner-occupancyMortgage market issues are the major barrier
PROMOTING HOMEOWNERSHIP: KEY THEMES
Median home price in Rutland of about $112,000 (28 percent decline from 2006)
Aff ordable to households earning ~ $34,250 (56% of HAMFI)
Estimated 829 renters in Rutland County have income between $22,000 and $55,000 and savings and debt characteristics to buy
Another 600 renters in higher income tiers
NOW IS THE TIME TO BUY
Median Sales Price Residential Properties 6 acres or less
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012(through
4/30/2012)
Rutland City
Rutland County
Source: VT Property Transfer Tax data
CONVERTING STOCK TO HOMEOWNERSHIP
480 single-family homes and 334 two-family homes in Rutland are not owner-occupied
Rutland County: 2006 2010
Home purchase loan denial rate
19% 17%
Home improvement loan denial rate
30% 29%
Refinance denial rate 29% 23%
Purchase originations 844 246
Home improvement originations
286 101
Refinance originations 1,011 690
90+ day mortgage delinquency
0.8% 6.7%
90+ day credit card delinquency
9.2% 16.3%
MORTGAGE MARKET ISSUES
Source: 2010 HMDA data; New York Federal Reserve credit conditions data
Hickory Street apartments, Rutland Housing Authority
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Real household incomes have declined while rents have risen
Housing cost burdens are much more common now than they were 10 years ago
Cost burdens are as much a product of incomes as of house prices or rents
Aff ordable rental stock is concentrated in the City of Rutland out of proportion to its share of households and jobs in the region
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN RUTLAND: KEY FINDINGS
Income Rental Households
Rental Units Considered Affordable*
Less than $5,000 155 16
$5,000 to $9,999 326 153
$10,000 to $14,999 473 209
$15,000 to $19,999 373 185
$20,000 to $24,999 384 452
$25,000 to $34,999 603 1,138
$35,000 to $49,999 603 1,202
$50,000 to $74,999 522 21
$75,000 to $99,999 125 29
$100,000 to $149,999 12 0
$150,000 or more 11 0
RENTAL STOCK PRICING VS. RENTER INCOMES
Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
• Unavailability of affordable rental stock in Rutland is most pressing for very low-income renters
Rutland City: 2000 2010 % change
Median gross rent (2010 dollars) $634 $723 14%
Median income (2010 dollars) $39,317 $38,108 -3%
Percent of renters earning under $35,000 who are cost burdened
58% 69% 11 points
Percent of renters earning over $35,000 /who are cost burdened
3% 7% 4 points
Percent of homeowners earning under $35,000 who are cost burdened
54% 70% 16 points
Percent of homeowners earning over $35,000 /who are cost burdened
6% 24% 18 points
HOUSING COST BURDENS
Source: 2000 Census; American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
CONCENTRATION OF SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING
Jobs (as of May 2012)
Households (2010)
Subsidized Housing Units (2012)
Rutland City 8,000 7,404 801
Rutland County
31,550 25,984 1,309
% of City within the County
25% 28% 61%
Source: DoRAH; Vermont Department of Labor; 2010 Census
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Implement revitalization initiatives in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown
2. Use a “Healthy Neighborhoods” approach3. Focus on a small area, building from strength rather
than weakness4. Neighborhood marketing5. Connect neighbors to drive revitalization work
REVITALIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS: SUMMARY
6. Incentivize and facilitate private market investment7. Set outcomes by property, including targeted
acquisition/rehab/resale8. Invest in downtown and in key assets and amenities
near the target area9. Support community development nonprofi ts to
develop a work focus on neighborhood revitalization10. Support “big picture” planning eff orts to change the
regional context
REVITALIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS: SUMMARY
A healthy neighborhood is: A place where it makes economic and emotional sense for
people to invest their time, money and energy A place where neighbors successfully manage neighborhood-
related issues and neighborhood change Outcome areas:
Image Market Physical conditions Neighborhood self-management
A healthy neighborhoods approach is oriented around increasing demand for the neighborhood. This is not the same type of activity as increasing housing supply, providing social services, or other activities that local governments and nonprofi ts are used to doing.
“HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS” ORIENTATION
A revitalization initiative will work best in a defined area (as small as 10-15 blocks)
Core of the work happens house by house, block by block
Need to pick this area based on strengths: Strong resident engagement Marketable assets (e.g. parks, schools, housing stock,
location) Emerging market segments or at least potential market
segments of desirable homebuyers that could be attracted to the neighborhood
TIGHT GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, SELECTED BASED ON STRENGTHS
Name the neighborhoodNeighborhood ambassadorsRealtors® on retainerNeighborhood toursEmployer-based marketing
NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETING EXAMPLES
NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETING EXAMPLES
Beauty, History, Civic SpiritThe Corn Hill NeighborhoodCorn Hill, a historic treasure on the banks of the Genesee River next to Center City, offers the best of the old and new. It is a revitalized landmark community full of restored 19th century homes in a variety of modest and elaborate styles—that are blended well with 20th century townhouses and condominiums. In most cities, these kinds of neighborhoods are only accessible by the wealthy. Here in Rochester, people from all walks of life make Corn Hill their home….
Ice cream socials, dog walks, potlucks
Beautification projectsPurchasing cooperativesNeighborhood mini-grantsOne-on-one interviews,
“neighbor circles”
CONNECTING NEIGHBORS: EXAMPLES
Housing rehab loan fund, purchase / rehab loan packages
Tax stabilization or abatement for owner-occupants purchasing in the target neighborhood
Study regulatory reforms for landlords“Buy-hold” fund to intervene in key properties and
make sure they go to a good buyer
INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE INVESTMENT
Examples: Market an exterior repair loan Give help to this owner to bring building up to code and
improve their rental management practices Get this homeowner better connected to their neighbors Get a strong homebuyer into this property that is for sale –
help the seller to market it, hold a “pick your neighbor” party
Acquire, convert this property from a 3-family back into a 1-family and sell it to a strong buyer
Properties are next to an acquisition-rehab project – help neighbors organize a beautification effort
SET OUTCOMES BY PROPERTY
Goal of revitalization needs to be to increase demand, not increase the supply of aff ordable units
Generally, priority should go towards encouraging more people to buy homes in the neighborhood, including converting small multifamily properties to more appropriate designs for owner-occupancy whenever practicable
Want to encourage private sector investment, including investment by responsible landlords
That said: aff ordable rental development financing tools provide a unique resource to address existing, problem multifamily properties and rehabilitate them to a very high standard.
AFFORDABLE RENTAL DEVELOPMENT?
Downtown location for high-end rental development, cultural attractions
Farmer’s market, other quality-of-life investmentsWaterways (East Creek, Otter Creek) / greenways /
green space
INVEST IN DOWNTOWN, KEY AMENITIES
Community building and organizingNeighborhood marketingLoan programs Targeted redevelopment Property management assistance for small landlords
POTENTIAL ROLES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NONPROFITS
Regional planning around: Economic and workforce development Land use planning Arts and culture Environmental preservation Food systems Recreation Education Public health Regional collaborations between local governments
“BIG PICTURE” PLANNING EFFORTS
COST IMPLICATIONS
TRIAGE APPROACH FOR VACANT /
BLIGHTED HOUSING
Let the market create
the solution
Historic rehab project
Acquisition-rehab-resale
project; or rental project if part of a cluster
of multi-unit properties
Located in strong neighbor-
hood?
Historic or arch. signifi-cance?
In target revitaliza-
tionarea?
Moderate rehab cost?
Feasible to
mitigate?
Demolish and
create buffer
Incen-tives for
purchase-rehab
Rehab appraisal
gap < demo +
infill cost?
Market-able with
incen-tives?
Demolish and
create green
space or build infill
LULU impacts?
yes
no
yes yes yes yes yes
no no no
no
no noRehab
appraisal gap < demo cost?
Incen-tives for
purchase-rehab
Acquisi-tion /
rehab / resale
Demo and land
bank
yes yes no
noyes
Distressed Property Intervention Decision Tree
TACKLING REGIONAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CHALLENGES
Future aff ordable housing creation needs to focus on households at income levels under $20,000
Future aff ordable housing creation needs to improve fair housing choice for these low-income populations – more should not be created in existing high-poverty Census Tracts in Rutland
Given overall economic and population trends, aff ordable housing creation should avoid adding significant net new units to the stock, when possible
Initiatives to boost employment and earnings are critically important for working-age households facing aff ordability challenges
KEY ACTION IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY FINDINGS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING