Housing Market A nalysis - Lawrence, Kansas...range, with rents between $625 and $1,250 per month....

Ho

City

using

y of Law

g Mar

wrence

rket A

e

Analyssis

Augu

Ho

PrepCity oCity MPlannhttps

PrepBBC RHous1999Denv303.3www

ust 30, 2018

ousing

ared for of Lawrence Manager’s Offning & Develos://lawrenceks

ared by Research & Cosing and Comm9 Broadway, Suver, Colorado 8321.2547 fax w.bbcresearch

Marke

fice opment s.org/

onsulting munity Develouite 2200 80202‐9750 303.399.0448.com

et Anal

opment

8

ysis

Table of Contents

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING i

Executive Summary

Why Work to Address Housing Needs? ................................................................................... ES–1

Organization of Housing Market Analysis ............................................................................... ES–2

Key Findings from the Housing Market Analysis ..................................................................... ES–2

Strategic Plan for Addressing Housing Needs ......................................................................... ES–5

I. Demographic and Economic Profile

Lawrence Demographic Profile .................................................................................................. I–1

Economic Profile ......................................................................................................................... I–7

II. Housing Profile and Market Analysis

Defining and Measuring Housing Affordability ......................................................................... II–1

Existing Housing Stock ............................................................................................................... II–3

Ownership Market Trends ......................................................................................................... II–9

Rental Market Trends .............................................................................................................. II–25

Zoning and Land Use Analysis ................................................................................................. II–30

III. Community Input

Community Participation Opportunities .................................................................................. III–1

Current Housing Choice ............................................................................................................ III–2

Future Housing Plans .............................................................................................................. III–11

Lawrence’s Housing Spectrum ............................................................................................... III–12

Stakeholder Perspectives ....................................................................................................... III–18

Section Summary .................................................................................................................... III–20

IV. Findings and Recommendations

Resources ................................................................................................................................ IV–1

Addressing Needs .................................................................................................................... IV–4

Roadmap for Addressing Needs .............................................................................................. IV–6

Appendix A. Acronyms

Executive Summary

Lawrence Housing Market Analysis

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Inlate2017,theCityofLawrencecontractedwithBBCResearch&Consulting(BBC)toconductaHousingMarketAnalysis.TheprimarypurposeofthehousingstudywastoconductaComprehensiveHousingMarketStudy,updatingandexpandingthescopeofthe2005CHAT(CommunityHousingAssessmentTeam)Reporttoidentifyhousingneedsinthecity,andtoinformtheallocationofthecity’snewAffordableHousingTrustFund.

ThisstudyisacriticalpolicydocumentbecauseitservesasahousingneedsassessmentfortheCityandstakeholdersprovidingananalysisofhouseholdaffordabilitythroughoutallpopulationsegmentsofthecommunity.Thestudyhighlightsexpecteddemographictrends,futuredemandsforhousing,regulations,andobstaclespreventingthemarketfromeffectivelyrespondingtothisdemand,andaninventoryoftheassetsandprogramscurrentlyavailabletohelpthecommunityaddressthesechallenges.

ThisExecutiveSummarypresentsthefindingsfromthatstudy.Itbeginswithadiscussionaboutwhyhousingneedsexist—andthebenefitsofaddressingneeds.

Why Work to Address Housing Needs?

Housingmarketsarecomplex,largelybecauseawidevarietyoffactorsinfluencepricing.

Forexample,thecostofhousingisdependentupon

Interestrates,whichfluctuatewithglobaleconomicconditions;

Corporatetaxrates,whichincentivizeinvestorstoparticipateinaffordablehousingdevelopments;

Thecostsoflaborandmaterialsrequiredtobuildhousing;and

Demographicshifts,whichdeterminehousingdemand.

Unlikemanygoods,whichcanquicklyadjusttochangesinmarketdemand,thephysicaldevelopmentofhousing(supply)lagsbehindthefactorsthatcreatedemand.Housingdevelopment,therefore,isslowtoreacttoneeds.

Addressinghousingneedsisalotofwork.Yetthereturnonthehousinginvestmentscanbesignificantforthepublic,aswellastheprivate,sector.Recentstudieshavefoundconsistent,long‐termbenefits(andlowerpublicsectorcosts)forchildrenwholiveinstablehousingenvironments.Housingisalsoacriticalelementofcommunitycultureandidentity,animportanttoolforlocaleconomicdevelopment.

Last,butnotleast,reducinghousingcostsprovideshouseholdsadditionaldiscretionaryincometoinvestinlocalcommunities—savingforretirement,patronizingrestaurants,providingtheirchildrenwitheducationalenrichment,andrecreating.MorethanhalfofresidentsinLawrence


saidtheycutbackonentertainmentandgoingouttomanagehousingcosts.Lawrenceresidentswith$300moretospendpermonthsaidtheywould:

Savemore(46%);

Reducedebt(18%);

Gooutmorelocally(15%);

Food/improvehowweeat(15%);

Takeavacation/travel(13%);

Makehouserepairs/improvements/décor(11%);and

Buyacar(10%).

Organization of Housing Market Analysis

TheLawrenceHousingMarketStudyisorganizedaroundthefollowingsections:

Section I. Demographic Profileprovidesageneraloverviewofthedemographicandeconomicenvironmenttosetthecontextforthehousingmarketanalysis.

Section II. Housing Profile and Market AnalysisprovidesananalysisofLawrence’shousingmarketincludingadiscussionofhousingstock,trendsintheownerandrentalmarkets,andananalysisofaffordability.Thesectionconcludeswithagapsanalysistoexaminemismatchesinsupplyanddemandofhousing.

Section III. Community Inputdescribesthefindingsfromthepublicparticipationcomponentofthehousingstudy,whichincludedsurveysofresidents,students,employersandpropertyowners;focusgroupswithcommunitystakeholders;andpresentationstothepublic,theAffordableHousingAdvisoryBoard,andCityCommissioners.Morethan3,000residentsparticipatedincommunityengagementopportunities.Thepublicinputprocesswasdesignedtoassesscommunitycultureandcommunityperceptionsofhousingissues.

Section IV. Findings and Recommendations summarizeshousingneedsandtheresourcesavailabletoaddressneeds.Itconcludeswithrecommendationsforallocatingresourcesanda“dashboard”formonitoringimpact.

Key Findings from the Housing Market Analysis

Demographic shifts

Lawrence’sK‐12,collegestudent,and35‐44yearoldcohortshavegrowninthepast20years.Shiftingagecohortssuggestapatternwherestudentsleavethecityaftergraduation,perhapstofindemploymentinlargercities,resultinginanout‐migrationofyoungadults.Consistentwithnationaltrends,thecity’sBabyBoomershaveagedintosenioragecohorts.

Thecity’sgrowthbetween2010and2020islikelytoreplicate1990to2000innumbers.Thecitywillhavegained14,000residentsby2020.


ThemostpredictablefuturedemographicchangeinLawrenceistheagingofyoungerseniorsandstabilityinthenumberofmiddleagefamilies.Itisdifficulttotellifyoungadultswillcontinuetoleavethecity,giventhedynamicsofthecurrenteconomy.Moreyoungadultsmayfindwaystoremaininthecity(e.g.,startingbusinesses,pursuingworkfromhomeemployment),givenitshighdesirability.

Lawrence’sincomeprofileresemblesthatofsimilarcitieswithlargeuniversities,exceptforBoulder,Coloradowhichhasshiftedtowardhigherincomeresidentsashousingaffordabilityhasdeclined.NineteenpercentofBoulder’shouseholdsearnmorethan$150,000,comparedtoLawrence’s9percent.

Market trends and affordability

Risingpriceshavebeenmostburdensomeonrenters,includinglowandmoderateincomerenterswhowanttobuy.Since2000,thenumberoflowincomerentershasdeclined,suggestingthatrentershaveexperiencedslightincomeincreasesorleftthecity.Studentshavehadagreaterabilitytoadjusttorisingrentsduetofamilyhelp.

TheprivaterentalmarketinLawrencelargelyservesrentersearningbetween$25,000and$50,000peryear:65percentofrentalunitsarepricedwithinthatgroup’saffordabilityrange,withrentsbetween$625and$1,250permonth.Publiclysubsidizedhousingprovidesthemajorityoftheunitsaffordabletohouseholdsearninglessthan$20,000/year.

Twenty‐threepercentofrenters(about4,500households)livinginLawrenceearnlessthan$15,000peryear.Another1,900rentersearnbetween$15,000and$20,000peryear.Ofthese,5,272cannotfindrentalunitsthatareaffordable(rentingforlessthan$500permonth)andarecostburdened.1Anestimated2,500oftheserentersarestudents.

Theownershipmarketismorestronglyinfluencedbycashpurchasestodaythanin2001.2018haslowerinventoryandhomesspendfarfewerdaysonthemarketbeforebeingsold.

Anestimated2,300renterswouldliketobuy;theserenterstypicallyearn$35,000to$75,000peryearandareemployed.Theyhavefewunitstochoosefrom(fewerthan300units),especiallyconsideringunitsthatareboughtwithcash(accountingfornon‐cashpurchasestheinventorydropstojust100units).Mostoftheforsaleproductthesehouseholdscouldaffordtobuyisolderandsmall—butonrelativelylargelots.Condosandtownhomesofferotheraffordableoptions,butarelesslikelytoofferlongtermequitygains.

Needs expressed by residents and stakeholders

Extremelylowincomeresidentsarealmosttwiceaslikelyashigherincomeresidentstoratetheirhousingconditionasfairorpoor(29%v.16%).Nearlyhalfreceivefinancialsupportfromfamily/friendstopayforhousingcosts.

1The“shortage”showninthegapsmodelforhighincomerenters(earningmorethan$50,000peryear)suggeststhoserentersarespendinglessthan30percentoftheirincomeonhousing—perhapsinordertosaveforadownpaymentonahomepurchase

BBC

C RESEARCH & C

1in4resid1in3areexofaffordabl

Seniorswhcutbackonhousingcosduetofinan

1in3stude3soughtadavoidedme

Familieswiincreaseso

Householdshousing.Prpersonswitandtransiti

CONSULTING

entswithdisxtremelylowlehousingto

orentappliednmedication(sts.About1incialissues,h

entsreceivefidditionalempedicaltreatme

ithchildrenarhighutility

swithanytyproductsthatathmentalillnionalhousing

abilitiesliveiwincome.Morrent.Afforda

dforpublica(24%),orgotin10seniorshealthissues,

inancialsuppployment,13pent.

aremorelikelcosts.

peofspecialnarelackinginnesses;affordgfordomestic

inhousingthrethan1in1able,accessib

assistance(29tfoodfromaoverallworryorrentincre

portfromfampercentused

ytoexperien

needhaveavLawrenceincdable,accessibcviolencesur

hatdoesnotm0livewithfalehousingis

9%),avoidedfoodbank(2ytheywon’teases.

milyorothersdotherdebt/c

ncedisplacem

verydifficulttclude:housinblehousingforvivorsandy

EXECUTIV

meettheiraccamilyorfrienextremelydi

medicaltrea24%),inorderbeabletosta

topayhousincreditcards,1

mentduetore

timefindingangandsuppororpersonswyouthagingou

E SUMMARY, PA

cessibilityneedsduetoalafficulttofind

tment(29%)rtoaffordayintheirhom

ngcostsand10percent

ent/housingc

affordablertiveservicesithdisabilitieutoffosterca

AGE 4

eds.ackd.

),

me

1in

cost

sfores;are.

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION IV, PAGE 5

Strategic Plan for Addressing Housing Needs

The Dashboard. Thedashboardbelowdepictsshort‐termandlong‐termindicatorsofsuccess,andestimatedprojectcosts,basedontheoutcomesdevelopedbytheAHABandcurrentandfuturehousingneeds.

Dashboard to Monitor and Measure Success, City of Lawrence

Note: The proposed goal numbers are based on the renter and owners gaps analysis and needs identified by residents through the survey and are rounded for simplicity.

Short term (1‐5 years)

1. Stabilize the rental gap for non‐student renters earning < $25,000/year 100 new affordable rental units

2. Low and moderate income renters who want to become owners have more options for

purchasing affordable units

100 more units are affordable to low and moderate income renters who are

qualified to become owners

3. Persons with accessibility needs are able to get the improvements they need and/or find

visitable and accessible housing

25 renter households that receive accessibility modifications annually

4. Residents in unstable housing situations have more permanent affordable and supportive

housing options

45 tenant based rental assistance vouchers available annually

70 homes and apartments brought into good condition annually

Long term (5‐10 years)

1. Reduce the rental gap by 7.5% by adding new units affordable to non‐student renters earning

< $25,000/year

500 new affordable rental units





3. Unit accessibility for persons with disabilities is increased through rehabilitation and creation

of visitable housing



housing options


5. Residents living in housing in poor condition have improvements made 70 homes and apartments brought into good condition annually

2019‐2023

2024‐2028

5. Residents living in housing in poor condition have improvements made


Roadmap for Addressing Needs. The“roadmap”presentedbelowdetailshowtoachievethemeasuresofsuccessdepictedbythedashboard.Itisorganizedbyrecommendedyearforaction.

Roadmap to Meet Dashboard Goals, City of Lawrence


Short term (1‐5 years) 2020‐2023 Target Population Roadmap

100 new affordable

rental units renting

for less than

$500/month

Step 1. Determine available land and property: a. Inventory city land,

especially under‐utilized parcels such as parking lots, and determine

appropriateness for new housing developments. b. Working with a local

(preferably volunteer) commercial and residential real estate agent,

inventory non‐city owned and underutilized commercial and residential

properties that could be purchased and converted to permanently

affordable housing.

Step 2. Examine the sites for potential residential development.

Determine redevelopment costs and potential affordability mix (both

rental and ownership housing, a mix of MFI levels, land trust and coop

potential).

Step 3. Acquire land/property.

Step 4. Issue an RFP for a nonprofit or private partner to repurpose the

land or property acquired by city or owned by the partner into

permanent affordable housing, guided by the potential mix in Step 2.

Assumes partner receives additional grants to offset construction costs

of development.

2. Create more ownership options for

low and moderate income renters

who want to become owners

150 more units are

affordable to low

and moderate

income renters who

are qualified to

become owners,

priced between

$100,000 and

$260,000

Residents, workforce, small

households; 50‐100% MFI

renters who want to become

owners

Could be achieved through several approaches: 1) Follow Roadmap for

creating affordable units (above). In that case, it is recommended that

the for sale communities be a combination of land trust (deeply

affordable), cooperative, and modified shared equity products. 2) Use

density bonuses, potentially through an overlay district, to create more

value in land for private developers. Units created through density

bonuses would likely be attached homes serving 80‐100% MFI. 3) Long

term: Negotiate affordable for sale unit creation as part of annexations.

The proportion may vary depending on the development proposed but

should not be less than 10%.

Persons with disabilities,

persons with mental

illness/behavioral challenges;

seniors, single parents, victims

of domestic violence, persons

with criminal histories,

immigrants with no rental

history/credit

Dashboard Goals

1. Stabilize the rental gap for non‐

student renters earning <

$25,000/year by creating new

deeply, permanently affordable

rental units, Note: Affordable rentals

could take a variety of forms,

depending on the land and nature of

the land or property (traditional

public housing, transitional housing

for victims of domestic violence,

senior housing, cooperative housing,

scattered site complexes). Ideally,

housing for all vulnerable resident

groups should have supportive

services and foster community

support.


Roadmap to Meet Dashboard Goals, City of Lawrence (Continued)



3. Persons with accessibility needs

are able to get the improvements

they need and/or find visitable and

accessible housing

25 rental households

assisted with

accessibility

modifications

(benchmark is 11

annually)

Persons with disabilities who

desire to live independently;

includes many types of

disabilities, including cognitive

and self care

1) Increase number of rental households with disabilities who receive

grants from the city for accessibility improvements; 2) Consider

enhancing this program to provide additional rehabilitation and

weatherization to private property owners who agree to keep units

affordable for a period of time (10‐15 years, depending on amount of

grant); 3) Engage private sector developers in a discussion about

incentives to increase visitability in housing and consider implementing

solutions

4. Residents in unstable housing

situations have more permanent

affordable and supportive housing

options

25 more vouchers

available


persons with mental






history/credit

1) Increase TBRA to supplement Section 8 program; buy down units in

$625‐$875 range. 2) Consider creating an incentive fund for property

owners who agree to rent to voucher holders. This fund could cover the

costs of damage, wear and tear, and weatherization improvements.

5. Residents living in housing in poor

condition have improvements made

70 number of homes

and apartments

brought into good

condition

(benchmark is 35

annually)

Residents living in substandard

housing; includes persons with

disabilities living in inaccessible

housing

1) Increase funding for home modifications and weatherization. Fund

with housing trust funds to increase grant effectiveness and overall

funding by removing regulatory inefficiencies; Supplement with

incentive programs proposed above. 2) Evaluate the CIty's current

rental inspection sampling program, using guidance from the survey

data in the Housing Needs Assessment, to ensure that the City's process

has the ability to detect condition problems reported by residents. 3)

Evaluate if energy codes and programs are adding unnecessary costs to

housing payments.

Dashboard Goals




Long term (5‐10 years) 2024‐2028 Target Population Roadmap

1. Reduce the rental gap by 7.5% by

adding new units affordable to non‐

student renters earning less than

$25,000/year

500 new affordable rental units Persons with disabilities, persons with mental

illness/behavioral challenges; seniors, single

parents, victims of domestic violence, persons

with criminal histories, immigrants with no

rental history/credit

2. Low and moderate income renters

who want to become owners have

more options for purchasing

affordable units

200 more units are affordable to

low and moderate income

renters who are qualified to

become owners

Residents, workforce, small households; 50‐

100% MFI renters who want to become owners

3. Unit accessibility for persons with

disabilities is increased through

rehabilitation and creation of

visitable housing

25 annual rental households that

receive accessibility

modifications (benchmark is 11

annually)

Persons with disabilities who desire to live

independently; includes many types of

disabilities, including cognitive and self care




options

50 more vouchers available Persons with disabilities, persons with mental







70 number of homes and

apartments brought into good

condition (benchmark is 35

annually)

Residents living in substandard housing;

includes persons with disabilities living in

inaccessible housing

Dashboard Goals

B

N

BBC RESEARCH & CO

Note: Enhance existing

Financial assistan

ONSULTING

units includes activities of

nce includes vouchers and f

accessibility improvement

first time homebuyer assis

ts, weatherization, and em

stance.

mergency loans.

SECTTION IV, PAGE 9

SECTION I.

Demographic and Economic Profile

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1

SECTION I. Demographic and Economic Profile

ThissectionprovidesanoverviewofLawrence’sdemographicandeconomicenvironmenttosetthecontextforthehousingmarketanalysis.Thediscussionisorganizedaroundpopulationlevelsandtrends,householddiversity,andeconomichealth.

Lawrence Demographic Profile

Similartonationaltrends,Kansashasexperiencedapopulationshifttowardmoreurbanareasofthestate.In2016,morepeoplemovedintoDouglasCountythanmovedaway—particularlycollege‐agedadults.Lawrence’sdiverseeconomyandlargestudentpopulationplayimportantrolesinitsgrowth.TheCountyisprojectedtogrowatasteadyrateoverthenextfewdecadesandaspeoplecontinuetoseekoutmoreaffordableurbanareas,Lawrencewilllikelygrowatasimilarrate,ifnotfaster.Thesetrendsandotherdefiningcharacteristicsofthecityareexploredinthissection.

Population.AccordingtoLawrence’sPlanningandDevelopmentServicesDepartment,thecity’spopulationincreasedbymorethan10,000peoplesince2010—themostrecentpopulationestimatewas99,496.

FigureI‐1showsthepopulationtrendsforLawrence,DouglasCounty,andnearbyKansasCityMSA.Thecityhasgrownmodestlyinthelast20years,withanaveragegrowthrateof1.5percent.LawrenceexperiencedslightlyhighergrowthcomparedtotheKansasCityMSAoverall.

Figure I‐1. Population Trends, City of Lawrence, Douglas County, and Kansas City MSA, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2017

Source: 1990, 2000, and 2010 U.S. Census, 2017 Population Estimates, and City of Lawrence Planning and Development Services.

Full time students.LawrenceishometotheUniversityofKansas(KU)andHaskellIndianNationsUniversity(HINU)—bothofwhichinfluencethecity'spopulation.ResidentsassociatedwiththeseinstitutionsmaynotbeincludedinpopulationtotalsbecauseitisunclearhowmanyofthesestudentsclaimLawrenceresidencyintheCensus.KU’s2017enrollmentforfall

1990 2000 2010 2017

Kansas City, MO 435,146 441,545 459,787 488,943 53,797 0.4%

Lawrence, KS 65,608 80,098 87,643 96,892 31,284 1.5%

Manhattan, KS 37,712 44,831 52,281 54,832 17,120 1.4%

Topeka, KS 119,883 122,377 127,473 126,587 6,704 0.2%

Wichita, KS 304,011 344,284 382,368 390,591 86,580 0.9%

Dougle County, KS 81,798 99,962 110,826 120,793 38,995 1.5%

Kansas City MSA 1,566,280 1,776,062 2,009,342 2,128,912 562,632 1.1%

Compound Annual Growth

Rate (1990‐2017)

Total Growth

(1990 to 2017)


semesterreached24,891andHINUenrollsabout1,000studentspersemester.EnrolledstudentscompriseroughlyonequarteroftheresidentsinLawrence.

MorethanhalfoftheenrolledstudentsatKUmovedfromwithinKansas,whiletheremainingstudentsmovedfromotherstatesorcountries(almost10percentofKUstudentsareinternational).TwentypercentofKUstudentsliveon‐campusandtheother20,000studentsliveoff‐campus.Studentsplayakeyroleinthecity’sdemographicmakeup,aswellasthehousingmarket.SectionIIwillexaminehousingtrendsinmoredetailofstudentsandotherresidentslivinginLawrence.

Migration.During2015,morepeoplemovedintoDouglasCountythanmovedout.TheCountygainednearly1,500individualsfromotherKansascountiesandlostalmost1,000individualstootherstates.ThemajorityofresidentsmovingintoDouglascountycamefromSedgwickCounty(i.e.Wichita),followedbyTexas,NewYork,andCalifornia.

Somein‐migrationisattributedtoenrollmentatKUandHINU.AccordingtoKU’sOfficeofInstitutionalResearch&Planning,over10,000studentsmovedfromotherstatesorcountries.

KUisalsothelargestemployerinLawrenceandemploysover2,800facultymembers.Combinedwiththecity’sdiverseeconomy,theuniversitiesattractmanyyoungadultsandfamilies.

FigureI‐2examinesannualin‐migrationintoLawrencebyagefor2016.Asshown,muchofthecity'sannualin‐migrationisattributedtothecollegeageandyoungadultpopulationswhoarelikelyenrolledatKU.

Figure I‐2. Residents by Age Moving into Lawrence from Outside Douglas County, Lawrence, 2016

Note:

This includes residents that moved from outside the county, state, or the U.S.

Source:

2016 ACS 5‐year estimate.

Accordingtothe2016UnitedVanLinesMoversStudy,thetopreasonpeoplemovedtoandawayfromKansaswasforajob,followedbyfamily.Inboundmoversweremostlikelytomakebetween$100,000and$150,000andoutboundmoversweremostlikelytomakeover$150,000.

Age.CollegestudentsandyoungadultscomprisethemajorityofresidentsinLawrence,butarenotthefastestgrowingagecohorts.FigureI‐3comparestheagedistributionofLawrenceresidentssince2000.

Thelargestgrowthinpopulationoccurredinschoolagedchildrenandseniors.

Age Cohort

Infants and toddlers (0 to 4) 3%

School aged children (5 to 17) 5%

College aged adults (18 to 24) 64%

Young adults (25 to 44) 19%

Baby boomers (45 to 64) 6%

Seniors (65 and olders) 3%

100%

Total

BBC

FiguAgeLaw201

Sourc

2000 1‐yeaConsu

Figulargsop

Althbetwgrad5pe

FiguCha

Sourc

Pro

poppro

Figuslowlarg

C RESEARCH & C

ure I‐3. e Trends, wrence, 2000, 10, and 2016

ce:

and 2010 U.S. Censur ACS, and BBC Reseulting.

ure1‐4presegestchangeinphomores,and

houghLawrenween20andduate.Itislikercentincrea

ure I‐4. ange in Popula

ce: 2010 U.S. Censu

jections.Thepulationprojejectedtohav

ureI‐5depictworsteadyggestagecoho

ONSULTING

us, 2016 arch &

entsthechangnpopulationd65to74.

ncegaineda24,indicatinkelythatsomsein20to24

ation by Age,

us, 2016 1‐year ACS, a

eCenterforEectionsforDoveover200,00

tspopulationrowth,exceprt.

In

Sc

C

Y

B

Se

geinresidentoccurredinr

largenumbergthatalargeeLawrencer4yearoldres

City of Lawre

and BBC Research &

conomicDevouglasCounty00residents—

projectionsbtforseniors.

nfants and toddle

chool aged childr

ollege aged adult

oung adults (25 t

aby boomers (45

eniors (65 and ol

tsbyagegrouresidentsaged

rof18to19yeshareofstudresidentsmovsidentsduring

nce, 2010 to 2

Consulting.

velopmentandythrough206—anaverage

byage.AlmosResidentsag

ers (0 to 4)

ren (5 to 17)

ts (18 to 24)

to 44)

5 to 64)

ders)

upfrom2010d18to19,in

yearolds,thedentsdonotsvedtotheKangthesametim

2016

dBusinessRe64.Overthenannualgrow

stallagecohoged65andold

2000 20

4,345 4

10,526 10

24,569 25

22,800 24

12,103 16

5,755 6

0to2016.Ascomingfresh

ecityalsoloststayinLawrensasCityMSAmeperiod.

esearch(CEDnext50yearswthrateof1.2

ortsareprojederwillbeco

010 2016

,827 4,863

,549 12,396

,108 26,032

,063 26,032

,110 16,782

,986 9,249

SECTION I, PA

shown,thehmanand

tresidentsenceaftertheA—whichsaw

DBR)providess,theCountypercent.

ectedtohavemethesecon

1%

18%

4%

8%

4%

32%

2010‐2016

Percent Change

AGE 3

eywa

sis

nd

e

BBC

FiguPop

Sourc

Astcorrens

Hounctheincr

FiguHouComof L200201

Sourc

2000 2016 Resea

LawForOthpro

C RESEARCH & C

ure I‐5. pulation Proje

ce: The Center for E

thecityages,related.Seniouretheymain

usehold comchangedsincetotalhousehreasedby2p

ure I‐6. usehold mposition, CityLawrence, 00, 2010, and 10

ce:

and 2010 U.S. Censu1‐year ACS, and BBCarch & Consulting.

wrence’soverrexample,57hernearbycomportionoffam

ONSULTING

ection by Age,

Economic Developme

accessiblehoorsoftenrequntainahighq

mposition.Le2000.Astheoldschangesercentagepo

y

us, C

rallhouseholdpercentofMmmunitiessumilyhouseho

Famil

Hus

w

w

Ma

w

w

Fem

w

w

Non‐f

Total

Douglas Coun

ent and Business Res

ousingdemanuireassistancqualityoflife

Lawrence’shepopulationislightly.The

oints.

dcompositionManhattan's(KuchasKansasoldsthaninLa

ly households

sband and wife f

with children unde

without children u

le householder,

with children unde

without children u

male householde

with children unde

without children u

family household

households

nty, 2014 to 2

search and BBC Resea

ndandneedscewithhomewhileagingi

householdcomincreased,eashareofnon

nissimilartoKansasStateUsCityKS,Oveawrence.

amilies

er 18

under 18

no wife

er 18

under 18

er, no husband

er 18

under 18

ds

N

2064

arch & Consulting.

willincreasemaintenanceinplace.

mpositionhaschhouseholdn‐familyhouse

oothertownsUniversity)herlandPark,a

15,944 51

12,414 39

5,807 18

6,607 21

964 3

476 2

488 2

2,566 8

1,717 5

849 3

15,491 49

31,435

2000

Number

% To

House

easageanddeandtranspo

sremainedredtypegrewaeholds(e.g.st

shostingamahouseholdsarandShawnee

1% 17,8

9% 13,2

8% 6,0

1% 7,1

3% 1,1

2% 5

2% 6

8% 3,5

5% 2,0

3% 1,4

9% 18,6

36,5

otal

eholds Numb

SECTION I, PA

disabilityareortationto

elativelyndtheirshartudents)

ajoruniversitrenon‐familycontainalarg

865 49%

218 36%

049 17%

169 20%

111 3%

507 1%

604 2%

536 10%

039 6%

497 4%

641 51%

506

2016

ber

% Total

Household

AGE 4

reof

ty..ger

ds

BBC

FiguHou

Sourc

Ho10yalso

Incwel

In2famandlow

Medannand

FiguIncoOwLaw

Sourc

2000 Resea

C RESEARCH & C

ure I‐7. usehold Comp

ce: 2016 5‐year ACS

usehold sizeyears.In2000oincreasedfr

ome and pollasthepreva

2016,themedmilieswas$80dcollege‐agedwestmedianin

dianhousehonualgrowthrdrenters.

ure I‐8. ome Trends foners and Rentwrence, 2000 a

ce:

U.S. Census, 2016 1‐arch & Consulting.

ONSULTING

position by Pla

S and BBC Research &

e.Theaverag0,theaveragerom2.91to3

overty.Thisalenceofpov

dianhouseho0,042.Marrieddadults,singlncomes,allbe

oldincomehaateof2.7per

or ters , and 2016

‐year ACS, BBC

ace, 2016

& Consulting.

gesizeofLawehouseholds.12inthesam

sectionexamertyamongth

ldincomeind‐couplefamlemothers,Aelow$30,000

assteadilyincrcent.FigureI

Less than $2

$25,000‐$50

$50,000‐$75

$75,000‐$10

$100,000+

Total

Less than $2

$25,000‐$50

$50,000‐$75

$75,000‐$10

$100,000+

Total

Renters

Owners

wrence’shoussizewas2.28metimeperio

mineshousehohecity'sresid

Lawrencewamilieshadthesianresident0.

creasedsinceI‐8showsinc

25,000

0,000

5,000

00,000

25,000

0,000

5,000

00,000

seholdshasch8;in2010,itwod.

oldandfamildents.

as$54,243anhighestmedits,andNative

2000(whencometrendss

14%

28% 1

26% 2

15% 1

17% 4

100% 10

56% 3

31% 3

9% 1

3%

1%

100% 10

202000

hangedsomewas2.41.Ave

lyincomeinL

ndthemedianianincome(oeAmericanre

itwas$34,73since2000fo

8% ‐6%

10% ‐19%

24% ‐1%

13% ‐1%

44% 27%

00%

39% ‐17%

33% 2%

16% 6%

7% 5%

5% 4%

00%

Percenta

Point Cha016

SECTION I, PA

ewhatintheleragefamilys

Lawrence,as

nincomeforover$100,000esidentshadt

34),byanrbothowner

% ‐638

% ‐2,506

% 345

% 78

% 4,824

2,103

% ‐1763

% 1,363

% 1547

% 989

% 832

2,968

age

ange

Numerica

Change

AGE 5

astsize

0)the

rs

l

BBC

Lawyeabigg$10

Figucoll

FiguInco

Note:

Sourc

Morsurp

LawForfollo

Povpopmorcomforbys

Asdpop

C RESEARCH & C

wrenceexperirs,eitherbecgestincomeg00,000.

ure1‐9showlegetowns.

ure I‐9. ome Distribut

: 1‐year estimates


rethanonethprising,given

wrence’sincorks,NorthDakowedbymid

verty.Thecipulation.Therethana10pmparedtoothallindividualstudentsorso

demonstratedpulation,simi

ONSULTING

iencedalosscausethosehogainsduringt

wstheincome

ion by Place,

s were unavailable fo

S and 5‐year ACS and

hirdofthecitnthatthefigu

medistributikota—thelardleincomere

ty'spovertyroverallpoverpercentagepoherresidentslsandthenonomeotherrea

dinFigureI‐1lartonearby

inownersanouseholdsmothistimeperi

distribution

Lawrence and

or Grand Forks and M

d BBC Research & Con

ty'shouseholureincludesth

ionissimilarrgestincomecesidents(mak

ratein2011wrtyrateincludointdifferencwhiletheyarn‐studentpopason.

10,Lawrenceycollegetown

ndrentersmaovedawayoriodoccurred

forallLawre

d Similar Com

Manhattan.

nsulting.

dsearnlessthecity'sstud

toothercollecategoriesarkingbetween

was11.4percdingKUandHce.Collegestureinschool.Itpulationtode

e’spovertyratn,Manhattan.

akingunder$rhouseholdinforLawrence

nceresidents

mmunities, 201

than$35,000dentpopulatio

egetownslikeresidentsmn$50,000and

cent,afteradjHINUstudentudentsaremotisimportaneterminewhe

teisheavilyl

$25,000overncomesincreehouseholds

sandcompar

16

annually(37on.

eManhattanmakinglessthd$75,000).

justingforthtsismuchhigorelikelytobttoexamineetherhighpo

linkedtothe

SECTION I, PA

thelastfifteeeased.Themakingover

resittosimila

7%).Thisisn

andGrandhan$25,000,

hestudentgherat23.1—belowincomthepovertyrovertyiscaus

student

AGE 6

en

r

ar

ot

—erateed

BBC

FiguPov

Note:

Sourc

Lawcitie

Eco

Thipric

LabKanLawratedowU.S.for

FiguUne

Sourc

Ka

La

M

To

W

D

Ka

C RESEARCH & C

ure I‐10. verty, Lawrenc

: Students are inc

ce: 2009‐2011 ACS 3

wrencehasones,suchasTo

onomic Pro

ssectiondiscceofhousing.

bor force annsasCityMSAwrenceandthesinthecounwnturnin200.AsofMay20KansasCityM

ure I‐11. employment R

ce: Bureau of Labor

ansas City, MO

awrence, KS

Manhattan, KS

opeka, KS

Wichita, KS

ougle County, KS

ansas

ONSULTING

ce, 2011

cluded in the ACS pov

3‐year estimates and

neoftheloweopeka(20.5)a

ofile

cusseskeycom.

nd unemploA,theStateofheStateofKantryforthela08and2009,018,LawrencMSAandtheU

Rates, Lawren

r Statistics.

4

1

3

S 1

2,7

Total P

verty rates. Only data

d BBC Research & Co

estadjustedpandKansasC

mponentsof

oyment. FiguKansas,andnsashaveconast10years.Wthecityandtce’sunemployU.S.

nce, Kansas Ci

453,542

79,861

46,151

124,045

377,688

102,397

770,338

Population

a from 2011 was ava

onsulting.

povertyratesCity,Missouri

thecity'seco

ureI‐11presetheU.S.fromnsistentlyboaWhileLawrenthestatefaireymentratew

ty MSA, Kans

19.0

23.1

27.9

21.7

17.0

19.3

13.6

Poverty Rate

(All People)

ailable for poverty ra

comparedto(18.1).

onomy,which

entsunemplo2000tothe2astedsomeoncewasnotimedfarbettertwas2.9percen

sas, and Unite

18

11

11

20

16

9

12

Poverty Rate

Stude

ate excluding student

othestateand

haffectthede

oymentrates2ndquarteroofthelowestummunetothethanKansasCnt,compared

ed States, 200

8.1

1.4

1.9

0.5

6.3

9.9

2.4

e (Excluding

ents)

SECTION I, PA

ts.

dothernearb

emandforand

forLawrencef2018.unemploymeeeconomicCityMSAandwith3.6perc

0 to June 201

‐0.9

‐11.7

‐16.0

‐1.2

‐0.7

‐9.4

‐1.1

Difference in

Poverty Rate

AGE 7

by

d

e,

nt

dthecent

18


Job and wages by industry. FigureI‐12comparesDouglasCounty'sjobcompositionbyindustryfor2006and2016—theBureauofLaborStatistics(BLS)doesnotprovideemploymentdatabycity.

Figure I‐12. Average Employment, Douglas County, 2006 and 2016

Note:

Federal, state, and local government employment data unavailable for Douglas County.

Source:

Bureau of Labor Statistics and BBC Research & Consulting.

DouglasCountyhasslowlybecomemorereliantonserviceproducingindustriesandlessreliantongoodsproducingindustries.Infact,thearealostnearly1,000goodsproducingjobsinthelast10years;mostofthesejobswereinconstructionandmanufacturing.Theeducationandhealthservicesindustrygainedthemostjobs,followedbyLeisureandHospitality—twoofthelowestpaidindustries.

FigureI‐13presentswageinformationbyindustryforjobsinDouglasCountyin2006and2016.Manufacturingjobspaythehighestannualaveragewages,followedbytheinformationandfinancialactivitiesindustries.

Goods Producing (Private) 6,591 14% 5,653 11%

Natural Resources and Mining 66 0% 103 0%

Construction 2,474 5% 1,681 3%

Manufacturing 4,050 8% 3,870 8%

Service Producing (Private) 29,936 62% 31,321 64%

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 7,924 16% 8,116 16%

Information 1,039 2% 777 2%

Financial Activities 1,947 4% 1,575 3%

Professional and Business Services 5,382 11% 5,576 11%

Education and Health Services 4,855 10% 5,650 11%

Leisure and Hospitality 6,456 13% 7,063 14%

Other Services 2,332 5% 2,565 5%

Total Private Employment 36,526 76% 36,974 75%

Total Employment 48,093 100% 49,208 100%

Employment

2006 2016

% of Total Employment % of Total


Figure I‐13. Employment and Average Wages, Douglas County, 2006 and 2016

Note:

Federal, state, and local government employment data unavailable for Douglas County.

Source:

Bureau of Labor Statistics and BBC Research & Consulting.

Occupations.AccordingtotheACS,thereare56,601residents16yearsandolderemployedinLawrence.Mostresidentsareemployedinmanagement,business,science,andartsoccupations(44%).TheothertopoccupationsinLawrencearesalesandofficeoccupations(22%)andserviceoccupations(22%).TheleastcommonoccupationsheldbyLawrenceresidentsincludeproduction,transportationandmaterialmoving(8%),aswellasnaturalresources,constructionandmaintenance(3%).

Top employers. TheUniversityofKansashashistoricallyprovidedstableemploymenttotheLawrenceandtheregion.Thecollegeprovidesmorethan9,000jobstothearea.ThesecondlargestemployerintheregionisLawrencePublicSchools.

FigureI‐14showsthetopemployersinLawrenceandDouglasCounty.Althougheducationdominatesthelocaleconomy,thereisadiversesetofemployersandindustriesthatcontributetotheregion’sstableeconomicactivity.

Goods Producing (Private) $750 $39,024 $934 $48,581

Natural Resources and Mining $433 $22,494 $645 $33,528

Construction $684 $35,589 $867 $45,060

Manufacturing $796 $41,393 $971 $50,510

Service Producing (Private) $459 $23,844 $563 $29,300

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities $465 $24,165 $558 $29,016

Information $634 $32,950 $896 $46,611

Financial Activities $710 $36,911 $868 $45,144

Professional and Business Services $571 $29,672 $749 $38,944

Education and Health Services $516 $26,824 $591 $30,706

Leisure and Hospitality $203 $10,534 $283 $14,691

Other Services $480 $24,892 $604 $31,390

Total Private Employment $511 $26,584 $620 $32,248

Total Employment $575 $29,896 $715 $37,159

Weekly

Employment

Annual

Total

2006 2016

Weekly

Employment

Annual

Total


Figure I‐14. Top Employers, Lawrence and Douglas County

Source: EDC of Lawrence & Douglas County and BBC Research & Consulting.

ThestateofKansashaslowtomoderatetaxburdenonresidentsandbusinesses,whichalsocontributestoitsstableeconomy.AccordingtoWalletHub’slatestTaxBurdenbyStatestudy,Kansasranksnumber25comparedtoallotherU.S.statesfortaxburden.Althoughverylowstatetaxesmaysoundappealinginitially,itdoesnotpromotelong‐termeconomicgrowth.Ontheotherhand,excessivelyhighstatetaxburdenlimitseconomicgrowth.Kansasisuniquebecauseitprovidesadequaterevenuesforschools,infrastructure,andpublicservices,whilenotburdeningresidentsorbusinesseswithhightaxrates.Ifthestatecontinuestohaveabalancedtaxstructure,itwillfostermoreeconomicgrowth.

Employer Product/Service

The University of Kansas Education 9,881

Lawrence Public Schools Education 1,800

City of Lawrence Government 1,455

Lawrence Memorial Hospital Medical 1,322

Berry Plastics Manufacturer 739

Hallmark Cards, Inc. Manufacturer 525

Baker University Education 496

Amarr Garage Doors Manufacturer 461

Douglas County Government 435

Boston Financial Data Services Data Services 394

The Olivia Collection Hospitality 320

K‐Mart Distribution Center Distribution Center 320

DCCCA Not for profit 295

Allen Press Printing Services 275

Community Living Opportunities Not for profit 263

Haskell Indian Nations University Education 250

Cottonwood, Incorporated Manufacturer 240

Eudora School District Education 232

Lawrence Paper Company Manufacturer 209

Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center Not for Profit 179

Westar Energy Utility 170

ICL Performance Products LP Manufacturer 161

HP Pelzer Manufacturer 160

Big Heart Pet Brands Manufacturer 160

Schlumberger Manufacturer 150

PROSOCO Manufacturer 92

Golf Course Superintendents Association of America Corporate Headquarters 85

Number of Employees

SECTION II.

Housing Profile and Market Analysis

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1

SECTION II. Housing Profile and Market Analysis

ThissectionprovidesananalysisofLawrence’shousingmarket.Itexamineshousingsupplyandavailability,developmenttrends,affordabilityofrentalandownershiphousing,andhousingdemand.TheanalysisistailoredtoLawrence’suniquemarketwhichisaffectedbythecity’shighdesirability,twoinstitutionsofhighereducationandlargepresenceofstudents,proximitytoamajormetropolitanarea,andlandanddevelopmentconstraints.

Thesectionbeginswithadefinitionofaffordabilityandhowaffordabilityistypicallymeasured.Thisfollowswithadiscussionofpricetrendsandaffordabilityinboththerentalandownershipmarkets.Thesectionconcludeswithestimatedhousingneeds.

Defining and Measuring Housing Affordability

Themosttypicaldefinitionofaffordabilityislinkedtotheideathathouseholdsshouldnotbecost burdenedbyhousing.Acostburdenedhouseholdisoneinwhichhousingcosts—therentormortgagepayment,plustaxesandutilities—consumesmorethan30percentofmonthlygrossincome.

The30percentproportionisderivedfromhistoricallytypicalmortgagelendingrequirements.Thirty‐percentallowsflexibilityforhouseholdstomanageotherexpenses(e.g.,childcare,healthcare).

Recently,the30percentthresholdhasbeenquestionedaspossiblybeinglowerthanwhatahouseholdcouldreasonablybear.Indeed,theU.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmenthasconsideredraisingthecontributionexpectedofHousingChoice(“Section8”)Voucherholdersto35percentofmonthlyincome.However,mostpolicymakersmaintainthatthe30percentthresholdisappropriate,especiallyaftertakingintoaccountincreasesinotherhouseholdexpensessuchashealthcare.

Itisgenerallyacceptedthathouseholdsshouldnotpaymorethan50percentoftheirincomesinhousingcosts.This“severe”levelofcostburdenputshouseholdsathighriskofhomelessness—andalsorestrictstheextenttowhichhouseholdscancontributetothelocaleconomy.

BBC

FiguAffo

FiguMedprotyp

Itisfactthethatperhavcoscom

C RESEARCH & C

ure II‐1. ordability Def

ureII‐2showdianFamilyIovidesthemaesthatserve

simportanttotorinpersona0‐30percenttreducehousrcentcategoryvelowoutstants).Forexammparedto$1,

CONSULTING

finitions

wstheincomencome,orMFximumaffordthehousehol

onotethatMalwealthandtMFIcategorsingcostburdyyethaveverndingmortgample,seniorsi500forallho

ethresholdstyFI,isdefineddabilityforholdsintheMF

FIisbasedondotherformsryyethaveacden.Similarlyrylowhousinagebalances.nLawrenceromeowners.

ypicallyusedannuallybaseouseholdsatIrange.

nearnedincooffinancialsccesstoothery,seniorslivinngcostburde(Theymay,hreporttheira

d,basedonLaedonHUDmeachMFIleve

omeorpublicsupport.Studrsourcesofinngonfixedineniftheyownhowever,struaveragemortg

awrence’smemarketstudiesel,aswellas

cassistanceadentsareoftenncome(e.g.,pncomesfallinntheirhomesuggletoaffordgageas$865

SECTION II, PA

edianincome.s.Thefigurethehousing

nddoesnotnrepresentedparentalsuppnthe0‐30soutrightordmaintenancpermonth,

AGE 2

.

dinort)

ce

BBC

FiguInco

Note:

Sourc

Oth

Exi

Thethofromocc

Asslowstat

C RESEARCH & C

ure II‐2. ome Threshol

: MFI = HUD Med

ce: BBC Research &

hercommoni

Housing co

housingcospricestomtocapturet

Housing ga

todemand,affordabilitexamineaff

isting Hou

eU.S.Censusserenter‐occm2000,whenupied.

shownbelowwerthanothertisticalarea(

CONSULTING

ds and Target

dian Family Income, 3

Consulting and HUD

ndicatorsofh

sts v. income

ststoincomeedianincometheuniquene

ps.Ahousingusingincomtychallengesfordabilityin

sing Stock

countsapprocupiedandthn53percent

w,Lawrence’srKansascomMSA).

t Housing

3‐person household.

D 2018 income limits

housingaffor

e.Manyindicelevels.Atthees.Althoughssofsomem

ggapsmodeleasaproxy.byincomeraLawrence.

oximately40,0ebalance,46ofunitswere

homeownersmmunitiesand

.

rdabilityinclu

esusedtomoemostsimplisuchindicesarkets(e.g.,h

comparestheThismodelaange.Thegap

000housingu6percent,ownerenter‐occup

shiprateof4dtheKansasC

ude:

onitoraffordasticlevel,theareusefulinhowproperty

esupplyofhollowsanexampsapproachi

unitsinLawrner‐occupiedpiedand47p

6percentishCity‐Missouri

abilitytrendsesecomparemcomparingmytaxesaffecth

ousingatvarminationofhsusedinthis

rence,with54d.Thisisrelatpercentwere

higherthanMi(KCMO)met

SECTION II, PA

scomparemedianhomemarkets,theyhousingcosts

iouspricepohousingssectionto

4percentoftivelyunchanowner‐

Manhattan’satropolitan

AGE 3

efails).

oints

nged

and

BBC

FiguHomof LSur

Sourc

2016

Hohomdupisa

ThemajLaw

FiguOcc

Sourc

ComattaproLawpro

C RESEARCH & C

ure II‐3. meownershipLawrence and rounding Citie

ce:

1‐year ACS.

using type.mes.Anotherplexes/triplexpartments,m

evastmajoritjorityofrentewrence.Inthe

ure II‐4. cupied Housin


mparedtoMaachedhomesoportionofmowrenceandMoportionsofa

CONSULTING

Rate, City

es, 2016

Justoverhal10percentisxes/fourplexemostofwhich

tyofLawrencers(80%)livehousingind

ng by Type and

S.

anhattan,LawandfewerlarobilehomescManhattanhavttachedanda

fofLawrencescondominiuesandjust2pareinsmallt

ceowners(87einattachedustry,tenure

d Tenure, City

wrencehasalrgerapartmecomparedtovefewerpropapartmentun

e’shousingstumandtownhpercentmobitomediumsi

7%)liveinsinunits.Figuremeansthest

y of Lawrence

largerproporentcomplexesLawrenceanportionsofsinnits,drivenby

tockismadeuhomes.Thirteilehomes.Thizedapartmen

nglefamilydeeII‐4displaystatusofrente

e, 2016

rtionofsingles.Manhattanndothercommnglefamilydystudentdem

upofsinglefaeenpercentishebalance,abntbuildings.

etachedhousshousingtyper‐orhomeow

efamilydetachasarelativemunities.Aseetachedhommandforhous

SECTION II, PA

familydetachsbout25perce

sesandthevaeby“tenure”wnership.

chedandelylargeexpected,botesandhighersing.

AGE 4

ed

ent,

ast”for

thr


Figure II‐5. Comparative Housing Type by Tenure, City of Lawrence and Surrounding Kansas Cities, 2016

Source:

2016 5‐year ACS.

FigureII‐6showsthegeographicdistributionofrentersandownersinLawrence.Rentalunitsareconcentratedinthecentralandsouthcentralpartofthecity.HomeownershipishighestinneighborhoodsontheouterringofLawrence,exceptforsouthLawrence.

Single family detached 51% 44% 68% 71% 71%

Condos/townhomes 10% 8% 4% 3% 6%

Duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes 13% 10% 6% 7% 6%

Apartments (5‐49 units) 21% 30% 14% 13% 11%

Apartments (50+ units) 3% 3% 5% 3% 3%

Mobile homes 2% 4% 2% 3% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

KCMOLawrence Manhattan Topeka Wichita

B

FP

S

BBC RESEARCH & CO

Figure II‐6. Proportion of Hom

Source: 2016 5‐year ACS.

ONSULTING

meowners and Reenters by Census BBlock Group, City of Lawrence, 20116

SECCTION II, PAGE 6

BBC

Hounit

MosLawthisare

AgeAlmsizetyp

FiguAge

Sourc

2016

Buibuilonemufluchigh

Accnum199

C RESEARCH & C

usehold sizet.Owner‐occu

sthomesinLwrenceis5.2,sisthemostc1bedroomu

e of housingmosthalfofthedunitsthataicallyhadmo

ure II‐7. e of Housing S

ce:

1‐year ACS and BBC

ilding permldingpermite,two,andmultifamilydwectuations.201h.

cordingtothemberofmulti96,thennotu

CONSULTING

e and bedroupiedunitsh

Lawrenceareaccordingtocommonsizeunits;and25p

g stock.Figuhecity’shousiarecharacteroresquarefoo

Stock, City of L

Research & Consulti

its.Thecity’sreports,aswultifamilyperellingshadbe15sawasurg

edepartmentifamilyunitspuntil2007,an

ooms. Theavaveanaverag

good‐sized.TtheCensus.Nofunit.Twenpercentare2

ureII‐7showingstockwasristicoftheciotagethanold

Lawrence, 201

ing.

sPlanning&wellasannualrmittingactivenissued,wigeinone‐and

’sreports,sinpermittedexcdinsubseque

veragehousegesizeof2.76

ThemediannNearly40perntypercento2bedroomun

sthedistribusbuiltbetweety,ashomesderunits.

16

Developmentanalysesofpvityfrom200ithmultifamildtwo‐familyp

nce1993,theceededone‐aentyearsunt

eholdsizeinL6;renters,am

numberofroorcentofhousfunitshave4nits.Only2pe

utionofLawreen1970and1andapartme

tServicesDepermitactivit8through20lypermittingpermits;thes

rehavebeenandtwo‐famitil2017.

Lawrenceis2muchlower2

omsperhousingunitshav4and5bedroercentofunit

ence’shousin1999.Thisexntsbuiltinth

epartmentproty.Thefigure017.Until201gexhibitingwehaveremai

11yearsinwilydwellingu

SECTION II, PA

2.41peoplep2.12.

singunitinve3bedroomooms;14perctsarestudios

ngstockbyagxplainsthelarhosedecades

ovidesmonthbelowshows17,moreunitswiderinedhistorica

whichtheunits:firstin

AGE 7

per

s;cent.

ge.rger

hlyssin

ally

BBC

FiguBuil201

Sourc

Perunitper

Altodupper

Coshoutheinco

Owperhom

FiguCosandLaw

Sourc

2016

C RESEARCH & C

ure II‐8. lding Permit T17

ce: 2017 Building Pe

rmitsissuedtts:0multifamrmits.

ogether,permplexes,comparyear.

st burden.Auseholds,arese,most(6,00omeonhousi

nersfacemurcentofownemesisasmuc

ure II‐9. st Burdened Od Renters, Citywrence, 2016

ce:

1‐year ACS.

CONSULTING

Trends, One, T

ermit Activity and Tr

hroughAprilmilypermitsh

mitsissuedbearedto1,102

Altogether,56costburdene00householdingcosts.

chlowerraterswithoutamchofaburden

Owners y of

Two, and Mul

ends Report.

2018showahadbeenissu

etween2013multifamilyu

6percentofaed,spending3ds)aresevere

esofcostburdmortgagefacnonownersa

ltifamily Resid

acontinuedduedcompared

andApril201units.Until20

allLawrencer30percentorelycostburde

den,with15pingcostburdasisthemort

dential Units,

developmentpdto46single

18totaled32018,multifam

renters,morermoreoftheiened,paying

percentofowden.Thissuggtgagepaymen

City of Lawre

preferencefoefamilyperm

27singlefamimilyunitsave

ethan10,000irincomeonmorethan50

wnerswithageststhatmant.

SECTION II, PA

ence, 2008 –

orsinglefamiitsand4dup

ilyhomesanderaged360un

0renterhousingcosts0percentoft

mortgageandintenanceof

AGE 8

lyplex

dnits

s.Oftheir

d16


Ownership Market Trends

ThissectiondiscussesownershipaffordabilityinLawrence,beginningwithpricetrends,andconcludingwithanestimateofcurrentandfuturegapsbetweenownershipdemandandsupply.

Price increases.Similartomosthousingmarketsacrossthecountry,Lawrencehasexperiencedsubstantialincreaseinhomepricessince2000.Asshowninthefigurebelow,themedianpriceofsoldandlistedhomeswas$129,900in2001.By2018,thishadrisento$239,700—anincreaseof85percent.

Byhometype,singlefamilyhomesandhomesinruralsubdivisionsincreasedthemostduringthisperiod,withpricesdoubling.

Figure II‐10. Median Price, Sold and Listed Homes, Lawrence, 2001 to 2018

Note: The Rural Subdivision category had fewer than 20 homes sold or listed each year and only 4 in 2018. Rural residential and condominium categories also had few listings and sales, averaging 30‐40 annually.

Source: Lawrence Multiple Listing Service, Lawrence Board of Realtors.

Priceincreaseswerenotuniform,however.Consistentwithnationaltrends,homepriceswerestable(andevendeclinedfortownhomes)between2006and2016,thenbegantorise.Priceincreasesinthepastyearhavebeenverysignificantforallproducttypesexceptcondominiumsandruralresidentialproperties.

All $129,900 $164,950 $186,900 $190,204 $239,700 85%

Single Family Detached $134,700 $174,900 $199,900 $215,000 $259,900 93%

Condominium $74,000 $82,000 $83,000 $84,400 $88,950 20%

Townhome $110,000 $138,750 $135,000 $141,750 $167,000 52%

Rural Residential $196,700 $274,500 $275,000 $336,500 $330,000 68%

Rural Subdivision $204,900 $305,000 $369,000 $279,900 $427,250 109%

2001 2006 2016 2017 2018

Change

2001‐2018

BBC

FiguAnn

Sourc

AsssimalthLawWic

Thebub

C RESEARCH & C

ure II‐11. nual Price Incr

ce: Lawrence Multip

showninthemilartothenehoughlower,wrenceismucchita.

egraphicalsobble(2005‐20

CONSULTING

reases by Hom

ple Listing Service, La

pricetrendgearbycommualsotracktrechmoreexpe

odemonstrate008)oftheU.

me Type, 2001

awrence Board of Re

graphbelow,nitiesofBaldendsoftheweensivethanth

eshowLawre.S.overall.

1 to 2018

ealtors.

Lawrence’sfodwinCityandesternKansaheKansasCity

enceandsurr

orsalepricetEudora.LawsCitysuburby‐Missourire

roundingcom

trendshavebwrence’shomebsofOlatheanegion(KCMO)

mmunitiesavo

SECTION II, PAG

beenmosteprices,ndShawnee.)overall,and

oidedthepric

GE 10

ce

BBC

FiguMed

Note:

Sourc

FiguMedto 2

Note:

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure II‐12a. dian Sale Pric

: Includes both siList Price reportoverall.

ce: Zillow Home Va

ure II‐12b. dian Sale Pric2017

: Includes both siList Price reportoverall.

ce: Zillow Home Va

CONSULTING

e of All Home

ngle family detacheds Manhattan’s media

lue Index and BBC Re

e Compared t

ngle family detacheds Manhattan’s media

lue Index and BBC Re

es, Lawrence a

d and condo units. Tran at $215,000, com

esearch & Consulting

to Median Inc

d and condo units. Tran at $215,000, com

esearch & Consulting

and Surround

rend data were not apared to $260,000 fo

g.

come, Lawren

rend data were not apared to $260,000 fo

g.

ding Communi

available for Manhattor Lawrence. This co

nce and Surrou

available for Manhattor Lawrence. This co

ities, 1998 to

tan. The first quarteompares to $180,000

unding Comm

tan. The first quarteompares to $180,000

SECTION II, PAG

2017

r 2018 Zillow Median0 for the KCMO area

munities, 1998

r 2018 Zillow Median0 for the KCMO area

GE 11

n

8

n


Impact on affordability.Curiously,becauseofthedropinmortgageloaninterestratesduringtherecession,ahouseholdcanaffordtobuymorein2018thantheycouldin2001—thussofteningtheblowofpriceincreases.Yethigherpricedhomesrequirelargerdownpayments,whichinterestratedeclinesdonotaddress.

Thetablebelowshowswhathouseholdsatvariousincomelevelscouldaffordin2001and2018—basedonaveragemortgageinterestratesinthoseyears—aswellas2019,basedonprojectionsforinterestrateincreases.Affordabilitywilldropslightlyin2019duetorateincreases;however,householdswillstillbeabletobuymorethantheycouldin2001.

Figure II‐13. Homeownership Affordability, City of Lawrence, 2001, 2018, and 2019

Note:

Interest rates assumed = 8.0% in 2001, 4.625% in 2018. 2019 assumes interest rate of 5.5%. Adjusted for changes in property taxes.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting.

Interestratesalsofailtoaddresstheproblemoflackofaffordablehousingtobuy,whichisdiscussedinthefollowingsection.

Renters who want to buy.Accordingtothesurveyconductedforthisstudy,nearly50percentofnon‐studentrenterswanttobuyhomes.Thiscomparestojust11percentofstudentrenters.

Thosenon‐studentrenterswhowanttobuy:

Earnbetween$35,000and$75,000peryear(about50to100%oftheHUDMFI);

Canaffordhomespricedbetween$110,000and$262,000;

Arebetweentheagesof35and44,employedfulltime(61%)orparttime(10%),donothavechildren,andhavesmallhouseholdsizes(2.2personsperhousehold).

Thesewant‐to‐beownerswouldbewellservedbyattachedproductsthatservesmallerfamiliesinprimeworkingyearslookingforlow‐maintenanceliving.

Otherresidentsinthemarkettobuywouldbethosewhowanttomove.Theresidentsurveyaskedaboutthedesiretomove.Thoseresidentswhowanttomoveareyoungadults(18‐24),livingwithroommates(2.7perhouseholdsize),withearningsinthe$25,000to$35,000range,andworkingfull(41%)andpart(30%)time.Residentswhowanttostayintheirhomesarethosewhowouldbeinthemarketformovingupinownership—ages45‐54,withchildren,largerhouseholdsizes,employed—butarenotexpressingstrongdemandtodoso.

Supply of affordable homes to buy.Ahousehold’scurrentchoicesforownershipbypriceandtypeareshowninthetablebelow.ThisisbasedonhomesthatwerelistedorforsalebetweenJanuaryandApril2018.

Household Income

$36,000 (50% MFI) $82,000 $110,000 $100,000

$57,000 (80% MFI) $150,000 $201,000 $180,000

$71,000 (100% MFI) $196,000 $262,000 $240,000

$86,000 (120% MFI) $240,000 $324,000 $290,000

201920182001

Affordably Priced Home


Forverylowincomehouseholds—newcollegegraduates,teachers,workersinserviceandretail,publicservantsbeginningtheircareers—34homeswereonthemarketthatwereaffordable.Aboutone‐thirdwassinglefamilyhomes;onethirdwascondominiums;andonethirdwastownhomes.

Householdsearningroughlybetween$35,000and$57,000—theincomerangeofthetypicalrenterwhowantstobuy—havemanymoreoptionsforbuyingasinglefamilyhome.Townhomesalsoservethismarketsegment.

Householdsearning$70,000andabovecanaffordavarietyofforsaleproduct.

Overall,Lawrence’scondomarketservesthelowerincomehouseholdswhowanttobecomeowners.Townhomesserveabroaderincomerangewithveryaffordabletohigherendproducts.Singlefamilydetachedhomesaremostlyaffordabletohouseholdsearning$57,000andmore.

Figure II‐14. Current Affordability by Price Point and AMI, 2018


Product differentiation.Thetypeofhomehouseholdscanbuyatvariouspricerangesvariesbysize,age,andamenities,asshowninthefollowingfigures.

Thedatainthefiguresdemonstratethat:

Condoandtownhomeaffordabilityarehighlycorrelatedwithage.Themedianpriceofcondosandtownhomesbuiltinthepast20yearsisfarhigherthanthemedianpriceofolderunits.

Similarly,oldersinglefamilydetachedhomesoffermoreaffordability.Themedianpriceofanewlybuiltsinglefamilyhomein2018is$70,000higherthanahomejust1‐5yearsold.

Themostaffordableunitsarebetween1,000and1,500squarefeet,whichissmallforafamily.

Squarefootagehasbeendecliningforallpricepoints.

Affordable to…

All Homes 34 185 77 77 75 86 534 41%

City‐Condo 14 0 1 0 2 3 20 70%

City‐Single Family 10 130 68 58 65 75 406 34%

City‐Townhouse 10 53 7 14 3 0 87 72%

Rural Residential 0 2 1 4 4 6 17 12%

Rural Subdivision 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 0%

Highest

income Total

Percent

Affordable

to 80% AMI

Number of homes listed/sold by price point in 2018

Very low

income

(50% MFI)

Low

income

(80% MFI)

Median

income

(100% MFI)

Moderate

income

(120% MFI)

High

income

Less than

$110,000

$110,000 ‐

$201,000

$201,000 ‐

$262,000

$262,000 ‐

$324,000

$324,000 ‐

$416,000

Over

$416,000


Allunits,eventhemostaffordable,haverelativelylargelots.Inmanymarkets,lotsizesof4,000to5,000squarefeet,designedaroundcourtyardsand/orwalkabletoneighborhoodparks,areinhighestdemand.Theselotsizescanoffermoreaffordabilityduetooverallneighborhooddensity.

Figure II‐15. Median Price by Year Built and Type, City of Lawrence, 2001, 2006, 2016, 2017, 2018

Note:

The number of sales for rural products is typically very low.

Source:

Lawrence Multiple Listing Service, Lawrence Board of Realtors.

Median Price, Sold & Listed Homes

All Homes $129,900 $164,950 $186,900 $190,204 $239,700Condo $74,000 $82,000 $83,500 $84,400 $88,950Single Family $134,700 $174,900 $199,900 $215,000 $259,900Townhouse $110,000 $138,750 $135,000 $141,750 $167,000Rural Residential $196,700 $274,500 $275,000 $336,500 $330,000Rural Subdivision $204,900 $305,000 $369,000 $279,900 $427,250

Median Price, new construction

All Homes $145,900 $251,900 $342,650 $339,900 $349,500Condo $357,000 $722,500Single Family $193,000 $299,500 $369,900 $382,450 $429,950Townhouse $123,900 $182,058 $259,900 $169,450 $269,900Rural Residential $193,500 $349,950Rural Subdivision $270,000 $297,500

Median Price, 1‐5 years old

All Homes $138,000 $189,900 $340,000 $318,556 $358,000Condo $219,000 $329,000 $795,000Single Family $142,450 $244,900 $340,000 $324,500 $358,000Townhouse $108,500 $152,450 $259,150 $290,950Rural Residential $219,900 $215,000 $406,250Rural Subdivision $205,950 $399,900


All Homes $136,900 $179,900 $276,450 $296,000 $299,000Condo $107,200 $79,150 $432,000 $1,425,000Single Family $143,000 $196,000 $299,950 $297,950 $293,750Townhouse $103,000 $136,850 $141,950 $145,000 $355,000Rural Residential $345,000 $265,000 $505,000 $450,000 $699,950Rural Subdivision $169,500 $323,950 $442,500





Median Price, 40+ years old

All Homes $104,950 $137,000 $155,550 $160,000 $174,950Condo $74,000 $68,500 $74,000 $80,390Single Family $104,950 $135,900 $158,000 $163,000 $178,050Townhouse $127,000 $90,500 $104,250 $94,250Rural Residential $127,000 $174,900 $205,000 $180,000 $282,250Rural Subdivision $315,000 $229,900 $160,000 $324,750

Median Price

2001 2006 2016 2017 2018


Figure II‐16. Square Footage and Lot Size, City of Lawrence, 2001, 2006, 2016, 2017, 2018


Geographic distribution.Themapsbelowshowthedistributionofhomesforsaleforsixdifferentincomeranges,in2001and2018.Themapsshow:

Veryfewoptionsforverylowincomebuyersin2001andslightlymore,butstillverylimitedproduct,in2018;

Considerablymoreoptionsoncehouseholdsreachthelowincomelevel(earning$57,000andabove).2018showsawidergeographicdistributionofhomestobuy.

UnitsthatareonlyaffordabletothehighestincomehouseholdsareclusteredinWesternLawrence.

Themapsalsodemonstratethatcondominiums—whichareshownbyreddots—remainaveryaffordableownershipoptionandcanbefoundinWesternLawrence,whichismorelimitedforaffordablesinglefamilyproduct.

All Homes

2001 1,113 1,670 2,406 3,017 3,748 4,154

2006 996 1,496 2,198 2,596 2,957 4,275

2016 1,036 1,483 2,264 2,661 3,101 3,788

2017 1,023 1,450 2,044 2,547 3,032 3,738

2018 978 1,443 1,948 2,374 2,959 3,703

Change 2001‐2018 (135) (227) (458) (643) (789) (451)

All Homes

2001 6,540 9,125 11,045 14,392 13,502 20,440

2006 6,250 8,276 10,494 12,331 11,817 18,003

2016 6,288 8,092 9,600 10,671 11,446 15,046

2017 6,119 7,500 9,838 10,018 11,900 13,939

2018 6,138 7,850 9,208 9,920 10,800 14,487

Median square footage

Median lot size (sq ft)

Less than

$110,000

$110,000 to

$201,000

$201,000 to

$262,000

$262,000 to

$324,000

$324,000 to

$416,000

Over

$416,000

Less than

$110,000

$110,000 to

$201,000

$201,000 to

$262,000

$262,000 to

$324,000

$324,000 to

$416,000 Over $416,000

B

FH

S

BBC RESEARCH & CO

Figure II‐17. Homes Affordable

Source: Lawrence Multipl

2001

ONSULTING

e to Very Low Inco

le Listing Service, Lawrence

ome Households,

e Board of Realtors.

, City of Lawrencee and Surrounding

2018

g Area, 2001 and 2

8

2018

SECTTION II, PAGE 16

B

FH

S

BBC RESEARCH & CO



2001

ONSULTING

e to Low Income H


Households, City o


of Lawrence and Surrounding Area

2018

a, 2001 and 2018


B

FH

S

BBC RESEARCH & CO



2001

ONSULTING

e to Median Incom


me Households, C


City of Lawrence aand Surrounding A

2018

Area, 2001 and 20018


B

FH

S

BBC RESEARCH & CO



2001

ONSULTING

e to Moderate Inc


come Households


s, City of Lawrencee and Surroundin

2018

g Area, 2001 and 2018


B

FH

S

BBC RESEARCH & CO



2001

ONSULTING

e to High Income


Households, City


of Lawrence and Surrounding Area

2018

a, 2001 and 2018


B

FH

S

BBC RESEARCH & CO



2001

ONSULTING

e to Highest Incom


me Households, C


City of Lawrence aand Surrounding A

2018

Area, 2001 and 20018



A changing market.Agrowingchallengeforrenterslookingtobuyisthepresenceofcashbuyersandinvestors.Cashbuyersmaybehouseholdsmovingfromhigherpricedmarketswhohaveequitytoreinvest;investorswhofindLawrence’smarkettobeattractiveandrelativelyaffordable;andparentswhoarepurchasinghomesfortheirchildrentorent.

Cashpurchaseshaveincreasedfrom5percentofallsalesinthemarketin2001to16percentin2018.Thisismuchlowerthanthepercentageofcashpurchasesnationally,whichrangesbetween20and30percent.

Asshowninthetablebelow,mostcashpurchaseswereforsinglefamilyhomes(117sales).Andmostwereforveryaffordablehomes,pricedat$200,000andless.Thehighestproportionofcashsalesoccurintheverymostaffordablerange,homespricedlessthan$110,000.

Acontinuedincreaseintheproportionofcashpurchasesisofconcern,astheycouldleadtoareductioninsupplyofaffordableandstarterhomes,assumingmostcashsaleswillbeconvertedtorentalproperties.

Figure II‐23. Cash Purchases, 2018

Source:

Lawrence Multiple Listing Service, Lawrence Board of Realtors.

Thetablebelowreportsotherindicatorsofachallengingmarket.Homesarestayingonthemarketforlesstime,andthisshiftoccurredveryquickly,in2017and2018.Homesarenotyetbeingbidoveraskingprice;however,thatislikelytooccurifpriceincreasescontinueandsupplydiminishes.

Figure II‐24. Market Demand Indicators

Source:

Lawrence Multiple Listing Service.

Homes for sale

Price Range

Less than $110,000 6 16 38%

$110,000 ‐ $201,000 12 71 17%

$201,000 ‐ $262,000 2 20 10%

$262,000 ‐ $324,000 0 19 0%

$324,000+ 5 26 35%

Type

Condo 2 7 29%

Single Family 19 117 16%

Townhome 4 24 17%

Rural 0 4 0%

All Homes 25 152 16%

Cash Total Sold % Sold for Cash

Sold homes, median amount over asking price $0 ($1,000) $0

Sold homes, median % over asking price 0% ‐1% 0%

No. sold for cash only 56 181 25

% sold for cash only 5% 17% 16%

Median days on the market 23 22 8

Range (low‐high) days on the market 0‐309 0‐538 0‐110

20182001 2016


Ownership gaps and future needs.Thisgapbetweeninterestinbuyingandavailableproductisdemonstratedbytheownersgapsanalysisshownbelow.ItisimportanttonotethatthegapsaccountsonlyforunitsthatfallwithintheaffordabilityrangeoftheMFI.The“cumulativegap”—whichisabettermeasureofneed—allowsbuyerstopurchasehomesthatarepricedatlessthantheiraffordabilityrange.

Theownersgapsmodelsshouldbeinterpretedas:

Thereare211extremelylowincomerenterswhowouldliketobuyahomeandhavenoinventorytopurchase.

Another512verylowincomerenterswouldalsoliketobuy.Theserentershaveonly34homesfromwhichtochoose.Boththeseandthe211extremelylowincomerentersareunlikelytobecomeownersexceptthroughsweatequityorlandtrustprogramsthattargetverylowincomehouseholds.

890rentersearnbetween$35,600and$57,000andwouldalsoliketoownhomes.Another334earnbetween$57,000and$71,250wouldliketobuy.Together,theseapproximately1,225renterscomprisethetargetmarketforownershipthatcouldbeachievablewithadequateproductandsomelevelofsubsidy(downpaymentassistance,interestratesubsidy,silentsecondmortgage.“Silentseconds”areoftenusedtosupportthedownpaymentforlowincomehouseholds,areprovidedbyhousingnonprofitsoragencies,andareforgivenifahouseholdoccupiesthehomeforacertainportionoftime).

Thebiggestchallengeinachievingownershipforthistargetgroupislackofsupply.Asthecumulativegapindicates,thereisashortageofaffordablehomesfortheserenters:just293homeswereaffordable.

Insum,ifeveryrenterwhowantedtobuywasqualifiedtobuy,theLawrencemarketwouldneedtoadd1,681homesforsaletoaccommodatedemand.

Toaccommodatejust10percentofrenterswhowanttobeowners,themarketwouldneedtoadd168homes;20percentofdemandwouldrequiremorethan300newunits.(Thesenumbersassumethatexistinginventorysatisfiesthedemandforsomeoftherenterswhowanttobuy).Themovementfromrenter‐toownershipwouldalsobenefittherentalmarket,whichalsohasunmetdemand,asdiscussedbelow.

Demandforownershipproductsisfromsmallerhouseholds,wholikelydesirelowermaintenancehomeswithacommunityaspect,and,forolderadults,accessibilityfeatures(smalllot,patiohomes).

Overall,thereisone home for sale for every four renters who want to buy.Byincomerange,thereis:

Onehomeforevery100renterswhowanttobuyandearnlessthan$35,000;

Onehomeforevery8renterswhowanttobuyandearnlessthan$57,000;and

Onehomeforevery6renterswhowanttobuyandearnlessthan$71,250.

.


Figure II‐25. Gaps in Units for Purchase, 2018

Note: *Based on survey data. The gaps model does not include rural for sale properties, as the inventory of affordable units was very small, and these properties add commute costs for low and moderate income owners.

Source: BBC Research & Consulting.

Renters by MFI Level

Extremely low income $0‐$21,400 $48,752 6,442 3% 211 0 0 0 0 (211)

Very low income $21,401‐$35,600 $109,479 4,982 10% 512 10 14 10 34 (478) (689)

Low income $35,600‐$57,000 $200,996 3,811 23% 890 130 0 53 183 (707) (1,396)

Median income $57,000‐$71,250 $262,203 1789 19% 334 68 1 7 76 (258) (1,654)

Moderate income $71,250‐$85,500 $323,411 1,077 13% 141 58 0 14 72 (69) (1,723)

High income $85,500+ $415,222 1,891 6% 106 140 5 13 148 42 (1,681)

19,991 2,194 406 20 87 513

Income Range

Maximum

Home Price

Renter

Households

Proportion

Who Want

to Buy* Gap

Cumulative

Gap

Affordable Homes on Market, 2018

Potential

Buyers

Single Family

Detached

Homes Condos Townhomes

Total

Units

BBC

How

sam

FiguMed

Note:

Basedand 2

Sourc

BBC R

Thipersho

FiguChaAffoMFI

Sourc

BBC R

Re

ThetotLaw

FiguMed

Sourc

2016

Sincaniinco

Resrenpay

C RESEARCH & C

w is the owne

merateasthe

ure II‐26. dian Home Pr

:

d on price increases b2018.

ce:

Research & Consultin

sincreasewicent,from41wnbelow.

ure II‐27. anges in ordability at 8I

ce:

Research & Consultin

ntal Marke

eCensusrepohemedianrewrence’smed

ure II‐28. dian Rent, 20

ce:

5‐year ACS.

ce2000,rentincreaseinmomeisnowgo

sidentsrespont.Overall,theyingtheleast

ONSULTING

ership marke

ydidbetwee

rices, 2028

between 2001

ng.

llreducethe1percentnow

80%

ng.

et Trends

ortedLawrenentreportedbianrentwas

16

tshaveincreamedianincomeoingtowardr

ndingtothesemedianrentat$660perm

80%

Aff

Nu

Per

Per

et likely to shi

n2001and2

proportionow.By2028,ne

ce’smedianrbysurveyresrelativelyhig

asedby$300eofarenterorent.

surveysavailatwas$840pemonth.Studen

% MFI Income Th

fordable Home Pr

mer Homes Affor

rcent Homes Affo

rcent of Affordab

ift?By2028,2018,median

ofhomesafforearlyhalfofa

rentat$850ppondents.Cogh,butlower

permonth,oof$8,000.Nea

ableforthissermonth.Renntsreported

hreshold

rice

rdable (based on

ordable

ble that are Attac

ifhomepricehomeprices

rdableto80paffordableun

permonthinomparedtootthanManhat

rby$3,600parlyhalfofth

studywereasntsbysub‐grpayingthem

2018 inventory)

hed

escontinuetowillbeassh

percentMFIhitswouldbe

2016,whichthercommunttan’s.

peryear.Thisheincreasein

skedtoreporroupdifferencmost,at$825p

$57,000

$201,000

219

41%

35%

2018

SECTION II, PAG

oriseattheownbelow.

householdstoattached,as

isverysimilanities,

scompareswnrentermedia

rttheirmonthce,withseniopermonth.

$70,567

$249,000

160

30%

48%

2028

GE 25

o29

ar

withan

hlyors

BBC

Anasingavesurv

FiguDistCraiand

Sourc

Craigs

GapLawbein“Renumunit

C RESEARCH & C

analysisofreglefamilyrooragerentforveyresponde

ure II‐29. tribution of Reigslist Listingsd May 2018

ce:

slist.

ps in the rewrencein201ngcostburdentalGap”columberofaffordtsatthespec

ONSULTING

entalunitspoomsforrent.TapartmentsaentsandtheC

ent Prices in s Between Jan

ntal market16,theirincomened,andtheumnshowsthdablerentaluificincomele

stedonCraigTheaveragepandhouseswCensus.

nuary

t.FigureII‐30melevels,thenumberofunhedifferenceunits.Negativevel;positive

gslistbetweenpriceofasingwas$852,con

0comparesthemaximummnitsinthemaebetweenthevenumbers(iunitsindicat

nJanuaryandgleroomrentnsistentwitht

henumberofmonthlyrenttarketthatweenumberofrinparentheseteanexcesso

dMay2018fotalwas$378therentsrepo

frenterhoustheycouldaffereaffordableenterhousehes)indicateaofunits.

SECTION II, PAG

oundmanyfoperroom.Thortedbyboth

eholdsinfordwithoutetothem.Theholdsandtheshortageof

GE 26

orheh

e


Figure II‐30. Gaps in Rental Market, City of Lawrence, 2016

Source: 2015 5‐year ACS and BBC Research & Consulting.

ThegapsanalysisinFigureII‐30showsthat:

Twenty‐threepercentofrenters(about4,500households)livinginLawrenceearnlessthan$15,000peryear.Theserentersneedunitsthatcostlessthan$375permonthtoavoidbeingcostburdened.Just2percentofrentalunits(456units)inthecityrentforlessthan$375/month(includingsubsidizedrentalunits).Thisleavesa“gap,”orshortage,of4,000unitsfortheseextremelylowincomehouseholds.

About1,900rentersearnbetween$15,000and$20,000peryear.Thereare700rentalunitspricedattheiraffordabilityrange(between$375and$500/month),leavingashortageofabout1,200units.

Altogether,thecityhasashortageof5,272rentalunitspricedaffordablyforrentersearninglessthan$20,000peryear.1

1The“shortage”showninthegapsmodelforhighincomerenters(earningmorethan$50,000peryear)suggeststhoserentersarespendinglessthan30percentoftheirincomeonhousing—perhapsinordertosaveforadownpaymentonahomepurchase

Less than $5,000 $125 1,757 10% 351 0% (1,407) 1,321 7% ‐ 0% (1,321) (436) (351) 86

$5,000‐$9,999 $250 2,021 12% 1,188 7% (834) 1,155 6% 359 2% (796) (866) (829) 38

$10,000‐$14,999 $375 2,012 12% 3,035 18% 1,023 2,022 10% 97 0% (1,926) 10 (2,938) (2,948)

$15,000‐$19,999 $500 1,869 11% 5,122 31% 3,253 1,944 10% 715 4% (1,230) 75 (4,407) (4,482)

$20,000‐$24,999 $625 1,853 11% 3,038 18% 1,185 1,307 7% 1,995 10% 688 (546) (1,044) (498)

$25,000‐$34,999 $875 2,762 16% 2,910 17% 148 3,675 18% 6,809 35% 3,134 913 3,900 2,987

$35,000‐$49,999 $1,250 2,482 15% 847 5% (1,636) 2,932 15% 5,881 30% 2,949 450 5,034 4,584

$50,000‐$74,999 $1,875 1,591 9% 97 1% (1,494) 3,138 16% 2,552 13% (586) 1,547 2,455 908

$75,000‐$99,999 $2,500 454 3% 13 0% (441) 1,443 7% 692 4% (751) 989 679 (310)

$100,000+ $2,500+ 222 1% 42 0% (180) 1,054 5% 609 3% (445) 832 567 (265)

17,023 100% 16,640 100% 19,991 100% 19,707 100% 2,968 3,067

Renter

Incomes PercentNumberPercentNumber

Maximum Rent

+ Utilities per

Month NumberPercentNumberGapPercent

2000 2016

Renter Households Rental Units Renter Households Rental Units

2000‐2016 Change

GapGap

Renter

Households

Rental

Units


TheprivaterentalmarketinLawrencelargelyservesrentersearningbetween$25,000and$50,000peryear—65percentofrentalunitsarepricedwithinthatgroup’saffordabilityrange,withrentsbetween$625and$1,250permonth.

Publiclysubsidizedhousingprovidesthemajorityoftheunitsaffordabletohouseholdsearninglessthan$20,000/year.Withoutsubsidizedhousing,therentalgapwouldbe6,600units(v.5,272currently).

Student effect.Infall2017,theUniversityofKansasenrollednearly25,000studentsattheLawrencecampus.2Ofthese,thevastmajority—20,000students—liveoffcampus—accordingtotheuniversity’sHousingPatternsofStudentsreport.Thenumberofstudentslivingoffcampushasconsistentlybeeninthe20,000to21,000rangeduringthepast10years.

Students,therefore,makeupasignificantproportionoftherentersinLawrence.And40percentofthestudentssurveyedreportedincomesoflessthan$20,000peryear,meaningthatmanyarerepresentedintherentalgapsanalysis.

Applyingthisproportionoflowincomestudentstothegaps,assumingahouseholdsizeof2.12studentsperunit(basedonthestudentsurvey),andremovingthestudentswhoreceiveparentalassistanceforhousing,anestimated2,500ofthe5,272rentersinthegapswithneedsarestudents.Conversely,about2,800oftherenterswithneedsrepresentedbythegapsarenotstudents.

Studentsaffecttherentalmarketinmanyways,otherthancreatingdemand.Theyalsoinfluenceunitpricinginuniqueways:

Studentsmorecommonlyhaveadditional(parentorguardian)supporttopayrent.Indeed,accordingtothesurveyconductedforthisstudy,44percentofstudentsreceivehelpfromtheirparentsforrent.

Studentsmaybeperceivedashigher‐riskrenters,whichtheprivatesectorfactorsintorentalpricing.Studentsdopaymoreinrentthannon‐students,accordingtothesurvey.

Studentsarefrequentmovers,whichallowpropertyownerstomorefrequentlyraiserentalpricesinresponsetothewearandtearandtransactionalcostsoftenantmoves.Thesurveyfoundthat67percentofstudentsmovedinthepastyear.

The2,800non‐studenthouseholdswithaffordabilityneedsthatarereflectedintherentalgapsarelargely:

Residentswhoneedpubliclysubsidizedhousingandearnabout$15,000/yearonaverage.Theseresidentscanaffordtopay$500permonthinrentandutilities—rentswhichtheprivatesectorcannotprovide.

Femaleheadsofhousehold(70%);seniors(38%);residentswithdisabilities(30%);andsinglemothers(25%).

2ThisnumberincludestheEdwardsCampusinJohnsonCounty,whichhasapproximately1,800students.

BBC

Chainthofrjustmos

FiguWh

Sourc

Waandfrom

Thehou624renpro

Houpeo

The

C RESEARCH & C

ange in the hepast16yeentalswerept2percent.Tstoftheincre

ure II‐31. y Did the Gap

ce: BBC Research

ait lists.DuridHomelessnemaffordable

elatestestimausing,includin4householdstalsorrentalgrams.

useholdsontopleexperien

esewaitlistst

Atwoyear

A6‐8mont

ONSULTING

rental gapsears.Thisshifpricedtoaccohenumberofeaseinthega

ps Increase?

h & Consulting.

ngthepastseessWorkingGhousingprov

atefromthegngHousingChonwaitlistsassistance(6

hewaitlistsacinghomeles

translateinto

waitlistfora

hwaitlistfor

s.Acomparisftismostlyduommodatehoflowerincomapisduetoad

everalyears,Grouphavecoviders.

groupis738hoice,orSectin2015.The679ofthe738

areamixoflossness.

o:

affordableren

raccessibleu

sonoftherenuetoalossofouseholdsearmerentersalsdeclineinaffo

membersoftollecteddata

unduplicatedtion8,Vouchvastmajority8,92%);theb

owincomefa

ntalsforsenio

nitsinpublic

ntalgapsin20faffordablererning$15,000sodeclineddufordablerenta

theJusticeMonhousehold

dhouseholdsers.Thisisayofhouseholbalancearew

amilies,witha

ors;and

cly‐providedh

000showsasentals.In2000peryear.Byuringthisperals.

attersAfforddsonwaitlis

onwaitlistssignificantinldsarewaitinwaitingforho

about100sen

housing.

SECTION II, PAG

significantsh00,one‐quarty2016,thiswriod;howeve

ableHousingtsforhousing

foraffordablncreasefromtngforaffordaomeownershi

niorsand50

GE 29

hiftterwasr,

gg

ethebleip


How is the rental market likely to shift? Basedonthesurveyofpropertyownersconductedforthisstudyandexpectedgrowthinrenterhouseholdsweanticipatethat:

Rentalincreasesin2018shouldaverage3.5%

Theerosionofunitsinthe$500‐$625range—andthemovementoftheseunitsintohigherpricedrentalcategories—willcontinue.The2000‐2016“lossrate”ofaffordableunitsaveraged5percentofunitsperyear.

Inthenextfewyears,newrentalunitsareexpectedtobepricedbetween$875and$1,250.

Giventhesechanges,theCityofLawrenceneedsapproximately112rentalunitspricedatlessthan$500permonthtoaccommodategrowthinlowincomerentersby2020.Assumingthereislittlegrowthinthestudentpopulation,thesewouldallbenon‐students.Ifthecitywouldliketoreducetherentalgapby15percent,1,200affordablerentalswouldbeneeded.

Zoning and Land Use Analysis

Theprivatesectorplaysacriticalroleinmeetinghousingneeds.Theprivatesectorcreatesandmaintainsasignificantportionofthehousingstock,anestimated90percentoftherentalunitsandnearlyallfor‐salehomes.Citiestypicallyuselanduseplanning,zoninganddevelopmentincentivestoencourageprivatesectordevelopmentofhousingthatsupportscommunityneedsandvalues.

Anumberofstudies,includinga2006bookbyJonathanLevine(ZonedOut),havedocumentedtheimpactofzoningregulationsonthesupplyofaffordablehousing.3,4Commonzoningregulationsnegativelyimpactingaffordabledevelopmentinclude:

Minimumhousesize,lotsize,oryardsizerequirements;

Prohibitionsonaccessorydwellingunits;

Restrictionsonlandzonedandavailableformultifamilyandmanufacturedhousing;and

Excessivesubdivisionimprovementstandards.

Lawrence’sdevelopmentcodewasreviewedtodetermineifanyofthesecouldbecreatingbarrierstoaffordablehousingdevelopment.

Considerations.BasedonthestrengthsandchallengesofthehousingmarketinLawrence,thisstudyrecommendsthefollowingconsiderationsforthecity’slanduseplanning.ManyoftheseincreasethevalueembeddedinLawrence’srelativelylargelotsandaddressinefficientlanduses.Forexample,largerlotscanbeusedtoincreaseaffordabilitythroughadditions,Accessory

3Levine,Jonathan,ZonedOut(RFFPress,Washington,D.C.,2006).

4ColoradoDeportmentofLocalAffairs,ReducingHousingCoststhroughRegulatoryReform(Denver:ColoradoDepartmentofLocalAffairs,1998).


DwellingUnits(ADUs)torentandoffsetmortgagecosts,andsplitstoaddadditional,stand‐aloneaffordablehomes.

Expandwhereduplexesandattacheddwellings(townhomes,rowhomes)areallowedbyright.Duplexesandattachedhomesareanaturalproducttoaddresstheneedformoreaffordableownershiphousing,whichisneededtoaccommodateLawrence’sworkforce.Themarketfortheseproductsisgrowingwithincreasedpreferencesforlowmaintenanceliving.Duplexesandattacheddwellingscouldbeincorporatedinanaestheticallypleasingmannerintonearlyallresidentialdistricts(theexceptionwouldbeRS40andRS20)andalsoplacedinunderutilizedareasincommercialandlightindustrialcorridors.

Define“publicbenefit”inPUDstospecificallyincludeaffordablehousing,definedaccordingtotheneedsinthisstudy.Thiswouldeffectivelycreateadensitybonusforaffordablehousing.

ConsiderallowingAccessoryDwellingUnits(ADUs)inRS5.ADUscanbeplacedabovegaragesonsmalllots.

Relaxtherestrictionthatrequiresasinglelotforeverydetachedorattachedunit.Allowingmultiplehomesonsinglelotsaddressesemergingtrendsinresidentiallivingandcanfacilitatecertainformsofcooperativeliving.Thecity’scurrentrestrictionsonmobilehomeparksandplacementmaydiscouragesimilar,intentionallyaffordable,cooperativeuses.

Ensurethatlimitsonunrelatedresidentoccupancydonotcreatebarrierstopeoplelivingtogetherincooperativeenvironments,includingresidentswhodonotgenderidentify.Unrelatedoccupantlimitsarequitecommoninuniversitytownswhereovercrowdedstudenthousingcandisruptneighborhoods.Waiverscouldbegrantedforspecialoccupancypurposes.

ItshouldbenotedthatLawrenceisclosetobuildoutanddoesnothaveagreatdealofvacantlandfordevelopment.Assuch,itisimportantthatthecityaddflexibilityinexistinglandusesandunitoccupancytoaccommodatehousingneeds,asthesecannotbefullyaddressedbyaddinghousingsupplyingreenfields.

SECTION III.

Community Input

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION III, PAGE 1

SECTION III. Community Input

Thissectiondescribesthefindingsfromthepublicparticipationcomponentofthehousingstudy.Thepublicinputprocesswasdesignedtoassesscommunitycultureandcommunityperceptionsofhousingissuesthroughsurveysandstakeholderfocusgroups.

Community Participation Opportunities

ThecityofLawrencehousingstudysurveysandfocusgroupsprovidedopportunitiesforcommunityparticipationandcollecteddataaboutthehousingmarketandresidenthousingpreferences.Surveys(n=numberofparticipants)included:

Residentsurvey(n=472phoneandn=1,978online);

Employersurvey(n=57);and

Rentalpropertyowner/managersurvey(n=392).

Inadditiontothesurveys,stakeholdersparticipatedinfocusgroups;participantsincludedAHABmembers,localhousingproviders,socialandhumanserviceproviders.Populationsservedbyfocusgroupparticipantsincludeveryloworextremelylowincomeresidents,residentswithdisabilities,personsexperiencinghomelessness,domesticviolencesurvivors,youthagingoutoffostercareandothervulnerablepopulations.MembersofthepublicprovidedcommentsaboutthestudyduringpubliccommentperiodsatAHABandCityCouncilmeetings,andotherscontactedtheconsultingteamdirectlybyphoneoremail.

Resident survey.Theresidentsurveyconsistedoftwoseparatesamplingmethodologiesanddatacollectionmethods.TheintentionwastofieldasurveythatwouldrepresenttheexperiencesandpreferencesofLawrenceresidents(telephonesurvey)andtoallowallinterestedresidentstoparticipateintheprocess(onlinesurvey).CityofLawrencestaffandmembersoftheAHABreviewedthedraftsurveyinstrument.Thesurveygatheredinformationaboutresidents’housingchoicesandexperiences,futurehousingchoice,opinionsaboutLawrence’shousingspectrum,anddemographicandsocioeconomiccharacteristics.

Sampling note.ThetelephonesurveyisastatisticallyvalidrandomsampleofLawrenceresidents;samplingincludedbothlandlineandmobilephonenumbersandwasavailableinEnglishandSpanish.Resultsfromthetelephonesurveyareweightedbyrespondentageandhousingtenure(i.e.,homeowner/renter).Proportionsfromtheresidentsurveyarestatisticallyvalidandreplicableatthe95percentconfidencelevelwithamarginoferrorof+/‐5percentagepoints.ThetelephonesurveyisrepresentativeoftheexperiencesandpreferencesofLawrenceresidents.

BBC

ResmetorgSnosocisamexparesurvcomresu

Figuresp

FiguSurv

Note:

Sourc

Cu

Detpreacro

C RESEARCH & C

sponsestothethods.Convenanizationsthowballsampliialnetworksmplingmethoperiencesofseover‐represevey.Thesammposition,results.

ureIII‐1prespondents.

ure III‐I. vey Responde

: For the analysesn=472 and n=1,9

ce: BBC Research &

rrent Hous

terminingwhferences,incoossneighborh

ONSULTING

eonlinesurveniencesamplroughdirectingiswhena(e.g.,sharingdology,theonegmentsofthentedintheoeistrueforrsponsestothe

entsselected

ent Characteri

s, phone survey data 978 for the online su

Consulting from the

sing Choic

eretolivewiome,costofhhoods,andm

eyderivedfroingreferstocontact(e.g.,respondenttthesurveylinlinesurveyheLawrenceponlinesurveyrenters.Despieonlinesurve

dcharacterist

istics

are weighted to adjurvey.

e 2018 Lawrence Mar

e

ithinacommuhousing,credmore.

omconvenienpromotingthemailinvitattothesurveynkbyemailoresponsesarpopulationraandunder‐reitedifferenceeyareverysi

icsoftheunw

ust for city’s homeow

rket Study Resident T

unityisacomithistory,ma

ncesamplinghesurveytoktion)orpublipromotesthorsocialmedeusedtoexaatherthantheepresentedinesinsamplingimilartothew

weightedtele

wner/renter proport

Telephone Survey an

mplexfunctioarketavailabi

gandsnowbaknownindividicrelationsanesurveytothia).Duetothaminethepreepopulationntheunweighgmethodsanweightedtele

ephoneandon

tion and by age. For t

nd Resident Online S

nofpersonalilityofdesired

SECTION III, PA

llsamplingdualsorndsocialmedheirpeersorhenatureofteferencesandoverall.Studehtedtelephonndrespondenephonesurve

nlinesurvey

the phone survey, n=

urvey.

landhousehodhousingtyp

AGE 2

dia.

thedentsnetey

=

oldpes

BBC

Momos“cosamoIII‐2resistud

FiguTop

Note:

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ost importanstimportantst/Icouldaffoongmanyres2presentsthidentsaswelldents,seniors

Homeowneclosetoquahousingcho

Non‐studen

Amongresitheirmostiuniversity,

Inadditionhousingtha

Accesstopuresidents.

ure III‐2. p 3 Most Impo

: “All Lawrence rethe city overall; demographic an

ce: BBC Research &

ONSULTING

nt factor in inchoosingthordit”asanisidentgroupsemostimporlaskeysegms,familieswit

ersandfamilialitypublicscoice.

ntrentersvalu

identswithdiimportantfacandsizeofun

tocostandpatisclosetow

ublictranspo

ortant Factors

esidents”, “renters” aall other results are nd socioeconomic cha

Consulting from the

choosing cuheircurrenthimportantfacs,aswasthetrtantfactorsimentsofthecithchildrenan

eswithchildrchools/distric

uepetfriendl

isabilities,fewctorsinhousinit/numbero

proximitytothworkorjobo

ortationwasa

in Choosing C

and “homeowners” rfrom the online survaracteristics.

e 2018 Lawrence Mar

urrent homhome,themactor.Proximittypeofneighbinchoosingthitypopulationndothers.

renweremorct”asoneoft

lyrentalpolic

widentifiedaingchoice.Moofbedroomsa

heuniversitypportunities.

amongthethr

Current Home

results are derived frvey, which yielded su


me.WhenaskajorityofLawtytocollege/borhoodandheircurrenthnincluding,h

relikelythanthemostimpo

cies;

ahome’sacceostidentifiedastheirtopth

y,AfricanAme.

reemostimp

e

rom the weighted teufficiently large enou

Telephone Survey an

kedtoidentifywrenceresideuniversitywanumberofbehomeforallLhomeownersa

nothergrouportantfactors

essibilityfeatudcost,proximhreefactors.

ericanreside

portantfactor

lephone survey and ugh samples (n>40) fo

nd Resident Online S

SECTION III, PA

ythefactorsntsnamedasatopfactoedrooms.FiguLawrenceandrenters,

storate“beinsintheir

uresasoneomitytothe

ntsprioritize

rstoHispanic

are representative oor crosstabulation by

urvey.

AGE 3

rure

ng

f

ed

c

of y

BBC

Hopooconfamren

FiguPercHomCon

Sourc

BBC Rthe 20ResidResid

FigucharengooSiming

Aboasseincoexc

C RESEARCH & C

using condiorcondition.Hndition.Asshomilies)considetersoverall.

ure III‐3. cent Rating Thme in Fair or Pndition

ce:

Research & Consultin018 Lawrence Markeent Telephone Surveent Online Survey.

ureIII‐4presracteristics.Aters.Overall,odcondition;milartohomeogoodconditio

outthesameesstheirhomomehousehoellentconditi

ONSULTING

tion.OverallHomeownersowninFigureertheirhousi

heir Poor

ng from et Study ey and

entsrespondAsshown,mothegreatestonlyamongsowners,thegn.

shareofwhitme’sconditionoldsaremoreionandarem

l,oneinfourarelesslikeleIII‐3,twoiningtobeinfa

dents’assessmostofthediffeproportionoseniorsdoamgreatestpropo

teresidents,Anasfairorpolikelythanlo

muchlesslikel

Lawrencereslythanrenterfiverenterfaairorpoorco

mentoftheirerencesinconfhomeownermajorityconsortionofrent

AfricanAmeror;asmallerowerincomelytoratethei

sidentsratetrstothinktheamilieswithfndition;asig

home’scondinditionarebrsacrossgrouidertheirhomtersacrossgr

icanresidentproportionthouseholdstirhome’scon

theirhousingeirhousingisfiveormoremgnificantlyhig

itionbyselecetweenhomeupsratetheirmeinexcelleroupsratethe

ts,andHispanthanAsianrestoconsiderthnditionasfair

SECTION III, PA

gtobeinfairosinfairorpomembers(largherratethan

ctedhouseholeownersandrhometobentcondition.eirhomesto

nicresidentssidents.Highheirhomeinr.

AGE 4

ororrgen

ld

in

be

er


Figure III‐4. Housing Condition by Selected Household Characteristics

Note:

Income refers to household income. Disability figures refer to households that include a member with a disability.

Source:

BBC Research & Consulting from the 2018 Lawrence Market Study Resident Telephone Survey and Resident Online Survey.

FigureIII‐5considershousingconditionbytenureandthetypeofhousingunit.Renterslivingindetachedsinglefamilyhomesarelesslikelythanrentersinotherproducttypestoratetheirhomeinexcellentconditionandaremorelikelytoassessthehome’sconditionaspoor.Ownersofattachedsinglefamilyhomes(e.g.,townhomes,duplexes)aremostlikelytoratetheirhome’sconditionasexcellent.

Figure III‐5. Housing Condition by Tenure and Type of Unit

Note:

*Too few owners of condo units in multifamily buildings responded to report condition data.

Source:


All Lawrence residents 31% 45% 22% 2%

Homeowners 44% 50% 6% 1%

Renters 20% 51% 24% 5%

Senior homeowners 51% 45% 4% 0%

Senior renters 33% 48% 19% 0%

Student renters 20% 50% 26% 5%

Non‐student renters 21% 53% 21% 4%

Homeowner families with children 34% 53% 11% 2%

Renter families with children 15% 46% 32% 7%

Homeowner large family 32% 50% 14% 4%

Renter large family 17% 42% 38% 3%

Homeowners with a disability 22% 69% 7% 1%

Renters with a disability 18% 54% 21% 7%

African American residents 20% 60% 18% 3%

Asian residents 14% 48% 32% 6%

Hispanic residents 23% 51% 19% 7%

White residents 30% 50% 18% 2%

Income less than $25,000 21% 51% 23% 5%

Income $25,000 up to $50,000 22% 53% 23% 2%

Income $50,000 up to $75,000 30% 58% 10% 1%

Income $75,000 up to $100,000 37% 47% 14% 2%

Income $100,000 or more 48% 45% 6% 1%

FairPoorGoodExcellent

Housing Condition

All Lawrence residents 31% 45% 22% 2%

Homeowners 44% 50% 6% 1%

Renters 20% 51% 24% 5%

Detached single family home 36% 49% 13% 2%

Owner detached single family home 43% 51% 5% 1%

Renter detached single family home 15% 49% 31% 5%

Attached single family home 29% 48% 20% 3%

Owner attached single family home 47% 45% 9% 0%

Renter attached single family home 24% 48% 23% 5%

Renter in multifamily building* 21% 54% 21% 4%

On‐campus dorms/student housing 23% 50% 23% 4%

FairPoorGoodExcellent

Housing Condition


Repair needs.Overall,41percentofLawrenceresidentswithhomesinfairorpoorconditionneedrepairstoimprovetheirhome’scondition.Whenaskedtoidentifythemostimportantrepairneededfortheirhome,thegreatestproportionofrespondentsidentified:

Weatherization(26%);

Roof(8%);

Heating/cooling(8%);and

Bathroomplumbing(8%).

Noneoftherespondentswithrepairneedsexplicitlysharedconcernsaboutindoorairqualityorhealthimpactstheymayexperienceduetofair/poorhousingconditions;however,thesignificantneedforweatherization,roofing,andHVACrepairsmayindicatesomehouseholdsexperiencehealthimpactsduetohousingconditions.

Whenaskedwhytheseimportantrepairshavenotyetbeenmade:

Threeinfourhomeowners(75%)haven’tmadeneededrepairsbecausetheycannotaffordthem;and

Nearlythreeinfiverenters(57%)havelandlordswhorefuseorhaveyettomakeneededrepairsdespiterequests.

Overall,16percentofrenterswhoparticipatedinthesurveyliveinsinglefamilyhomes.Nearlythreein10renters(28%)whosaidtheirlandlordrefusedorhadyettomakeneededrepairsdespiterequestsliveinsinglefamilyhomes,almosttwicetheexpectedproportion.Similarly,renterslivinginmultifamilybuildingscomprise54percentofallrentersparticipatinginthesurveybutonly41percentofthosewhohavealandlordthatneedstomakearepair.Renterswhohaveunmetrepairneedsarealsomorelikelytohavehouseholdincomesof$35,000to$50,000comparedtootherrenters(17%v.11%),tohavechildrenunder18inthehome(15%v.8%),andtohavefiveormoremembersinthehousehold(18%v.7%).

Accessible housing.OneinfourLawrenceresidentswithdisabilities(24%)liveinhousingthatdoesnotmeettheiraccessibilityneeds.Amongtheresidentswhosehomesneedaccessibilitymodifications,twointhreeneedaramp,halfneedgrabbarsinbathrooms,andhalfneedwiderdoorways.

Infocusgroups,stakeholdersservingresidentswithdisabilitiesdescribedsharedthatfindingahomethatisaffordableandthatmeetstheresident’saccessibilityneedsisnearlyimpossibleinLawrence.Fewmarketraterentalshaveaccessibleunitsduetowhenthebuildingswereconstructed(pre‐ADA).Overall,unitsthatareaffordabletoresidentsrelyingondisabilityincomeareextremelyrare.Thisresultsinresidentswithdisabilitiesresortingtosecuringhousingthatdoesnotmeettheiraccessibilityneedsbutishousingtheycanafford.

Housing costs.FigureIII‐6presentsmedianmonthlyhousingcostsforLawrencerentersandhomeownersoverallandforselectedhouseholdtypes.Overall,themedianrentpaidbyallLawrencerentersparticipatingintheresidentsurveyis$840permonthplus$200inutilities.


Homeownersspend$1,500ontheirmortgages,includinginsuranceandtaxes,plus$300permonthinutilities.

Figure III‐6. Median Monthly Rent, Mortgage and Utility Costs, All Residents and Selected Household Types

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2018 Lawrence Market Study Resident Telephone Survey and Resident Online Survey.

FigureIII‐7examinesmonthlyhousingcostdatabasedonthenumberofyearsthataresidenthaslivedintheircurrenthome.Renterswhohavelivedintheirunitforlessthanoneyearhavethehighestmonthlyrent,andthosewhohavelivedintheirunitfor10ormoreyearspaythelowestmonthlyrent.Thisisnotsurprising,aslong‐termtenantsoftenbenefitfromnotosmallmonthlyrentincreasescomparedtorateschargedtonewtenants,especiallyinmarketswithstablevacancyrates.Unitturnoverprovidespropertyownersfrequentopportunitiestoincreaserentsifdemandforrentalsisstrong.

Figure III‐7. Median Monthly Rent, Mortgage and Utility Costs by Tenure and Number of Years in the Home

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2018 Lawrence Market Study Resident Telephone Survey and Resident Online Survey.

Rentalpropertyownersandmanagerswhoparticipatedintherentalsurveyreportthatvacantunitsfillquickly.Oneinthreerentalowners/managersincreasedrentsin2017and36percentplan2018increases.Themedianincreasein2018isexpectedtobe1to5percent.Despitethelowvacancyrateandshortamountoftimeunitsareavailable,somebelievethatamenity‐richlargedevelopmentstargetingstudentrentersisbeingoverbuilt.

Strategies to afford housing costs.Whenhousingcostsriseorincomesfall,residentsrespondbycuttingcostsorseekingadditionalincome.Lawrenceresidentsmostvulnerabletohousinginsecurityemployedanumberofstrategiestobeabletoaffordhousingcosts.

Households with incomes less than $20,000receivedfinancialsupportfromfamilyorfriends(46%),hadtofindadditionalemployment(28%),usedcreditcardorotherdebtto

Household Type

Large families $1,150 $200 $1,300 $350

All Lawrence residents $840 $200 $1,500 $300

Students $825 $150 $1,000 $280

Families with children under 18 $775 $230 $1,173 $300

Disability $710 $200 $1,000 $350

Seniors $660 $160 $865 $265

Median UtilitiesMedian MortgageMedian UtilitiesMedian Rent

Renter Households Homeowners

Less than 1 year (2017‐present) $870 $150 $1,053 $250

1 year up to 5 years (2012‐2017) $771 $190 $1,070 $280

5 years up to 10 years (2007‐2012) $750 $250 $664 $275

10 years or more (Prior to 2007) $590 $180 $1,095 $300

Number of Years

in Current Home Median Rent Median Utilities Median Mortgage Median Utilities

Homeowners Renter Households


payforhousingcosts(17%),andavoidedneededmedicaltreatment(16%)inordertoaffordhousing.Lessthan16percentofextremelylowincomehouseholdsreportedthattheirincomewassufficienttoaffordhousingcosts.

Seniorswhorentappliedforpublicassistance(29%),avoidedmedicaltreatment(29%),cutbackonmedication(24%),orgotfoodfromafoodbank(24%),inordertoaffordhousingcosts.About1in10seniorsoverallworrytheywon’tbeabletostayintheirhomeduetofinancialissues,healthissues,orrentincreases.

Nearlythreein10residents with disabilitiesreceivefinancialsupportfromfamilyorfriends(27%),soughtadditionalemployment(25%),avoidedneededmedicaltreatment(23%),cutbackonorstoppedtakingprescriptionsormedicine(16%),usedcreditcardorotherdebttopayforhousing(16%)inordertoaffordhousingcosts.Morethan1in10livewithfamilyorfriendsduetoalackofaffordablehousingtorent.

Oneinthreestudentsreceivefinancialsupportfromfamilyorotherstopayhousingcostsandthesameproportion—33percent—soughtadditionalemployment,13percentusedotherdebt/creditcards,and10percentavoidedmedicaltreatmentinordertopayhousingcosts.

Displacement vulnerabilities.Inthepastthreeyears,onein10Lawrencerentersexperienceddisplacement—havingtomovefromahomewhentheydidnotwanttomove.FigureIII‐8presentstheproportionofLawrencerenterswhoexperienceddisplacementinthepastthreeyearsbyselectedhouseholdcharacteristics.Asshown,renterswithchildrenandnon‐studentrentersweremostlikelytohaveexperienceddisplacementinthepastthreeyears.Studentsandhigherincomehouseholdswerelesslikelytoexperiencedisplacement.

Figure III‐8. Households Experiencing Displacement in the Past Three Years

Source:


Renter Household Type

All Lawrence renters 10%

Renters with children 17%

Non‐student renters 16%

Senior renters 14%

Renters with a disability 14%

African American renters 14%

Asian renters 12%

Renters with household income $25,000 up to $50,000 12%

Renters with large families 11%

Hispanic renters 10%

Renters with household income less than $25,000 8%

White renters 6%

Student renters 6%


Renters with household income $100,000 or more 6%


Percent

Displacement


Themostcommonreasonsforwhydisplacedrentershadtomoveinclude:

Rentincreased;couldn’taffordtostay(23%);

Costofutilities;couldn’taffordtopayutilities(16%);

Personalreasons(16%);

Changeinhouseholdsize(11%);

Ownersoldrentalunit(10%);and

Conditionissuessuchasmold,pestsorrodents(8%).

AreviewofelectricitycostscompiledbytheU.S.EnergyInformationAdministrationshowsthat,since2008,residentialusecostsforelectricityhaveincreasedby14percent(asmeasuredbycentsperkilowatthour)comparedtojust4percentforcommercialuseandadeclineforindustrialuse.1Trendsarenotreadilyavailableatsmallgeographiclevels;however,ifLawrencecostsaresimilartothoseintheU.S.,risingutilitiescostshavebeenafactorinhigherhousingcosts.

Disproportionate housing needs of Non‐White residents.Inmanycommunitiesacrossthecountry,Non‐Whiteresidentsoftenexperiencedisproportionatehousingneeds—higherproportionofcost‐burdenedhouseholds,higherratesofpoorhousingconditions,higherratesofovercrowding.Oftenthesedisproportionatehousingneedsreflectalackofaccesstoeconomicopportunityandotherimpedimentstofairhousingchoice.2TheresidentsurveypresentsanopportunitytoexploretheextenttowhichthehousingexperienceofNon‐WhiteLawrenceresidentsisdifferentfromWhiteresidents.

Housing condition.Amongstudents,therearenomeaningfuldifferencesinhowNon‐WhiteandWhiteresidentsassesstheirhousingcondition.Forexample,Non‐WhitestudentrentersareaslikelyasWhitestudentrenterstoratetheirhousingconditionasfair/poor(29%v.30%).Forthosestudentrenterslivinginunitsthatneedsometypeofrepair,weatherizationisthemosttypicalneed.Whenaskedwhyrepairshadnotyetbeenmade,thesameproportionofNon‐WhiteandWhitestudentrenters(57%)saidtheirlandlordrefusestomakerepairs.

Amongnon‐students,therearedifferencesinhousingconditionratingsbetweenNon‐WhiteandWhiteresidents,bothoverallandbytenure.Overall,28percentofNon‐Whitenon‐studentresidentsconsidertheirhousingconditiontobefair/poorcomparedto11percentofWhitenon‐studentresidents.Althoughsamplesizesbytenurearesmall,thedatasuggestthatbothNon‐Whitenon‐studenthomeownersandrentersaremorelikelytoratetheirhousingconditionfair/poorthanWhiteresidents.

1https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_3#menu

2In2017,withDouglasCountyandtheHousingAuthority,theCityofLawrencepreparedanAssessmentofFairHousingwhichconsideredfairhousingissuesindepth.https://assets.lawrenceks.org/assets/agendas/cc/2017/10‐17‐17/Lawrence‐Assessment‐of‐Fair‐Housing‐final‐v2.pdf


Strategies to afford housing costs.Overall,80percentofstudentsusedoneormorestrategiestoaffordhousingcost.ParentsoftwoinfiveWhitestudentspayalloraportionoftherent;Non‐Whitestudentsaresomewhatlesslikelytoreceivethisspecifictypeofparentalfinancialsupport(33%).TherearenoothermeaningfuldifferencesbetweenWhiteandNon‐Whitestudentsinthestrategiesusedtoaffordhousingcosts.

Amongnon‐students,59percentofWhiteresidentsand77percentofNon‐Whiteresidentsusedoneormorestrategiestoaffordhousingcosts.Forbothgroups,cuttingbackonentertainmentandgoingoutwasthemostcommonstrategy.ComparedtoWhitenon‐studentresidents,Non‐Whitenon‐studentresidentsaremorelikelytohave:

Receivedfinancialsupportfromfriends/family(30%ofNon‐Whitenon‐studentsv.16%ofWhitenon‐students);

Hadtofindadditionalemployment(27%v.14%);

Hadtogetfoodfromafoodbank(23%v.5%);

Cutbackonclasses/jobtraining(14%v.7%);

Appliedforpublicassistance(13%v.5%);

Cutbackonorstoppedtakingneededmedications(13%v.6%);and

Beenatriskofeviction(11%v.1%).

Thesefindingssuggestthatnon‐studentNon‐Whiteresidents,whoarealsomorelikelythanWhiteresidentstoberenters,experiencedisproportionatehousingneedsassociatedwithhousingcosts,andmayalsoexperiencedisparitiesinaccesstoeconomicopportunity.

Homeownership.Amongnon‐students,Non‐WhiteLawrenceresidentswhorespondedtothesurveyarelesslikelytobehomeowners(44%comparedto68%ofWhiterespondents).Whenaskedforthetoptworeasonstheyhavenotyetboughtahome,therewerenomeaningfuldifferencesintheresponsesbetweenWhiteandNon‐Whitenon‐studentrenterswhowanttobuy.Forbothgroups,alackofaffordablehousingtobuywastheprimaryfactor.Amongstudents,therearenomeaningfuldifferencesinhomeownershiprates(4%ofNon‐Whitestudentscomparedto5%ofWhitestudents).

Students.StudentsplayalargeroleinLawrence’srentalmarket.Amongthestudentsparticipatingintheresidentsurvey:

Most(75%)arerenters;4percentarehomeowners,andtheremainderliveinstudenthousing,includingfraternitiesandsororities;

Nearlyhalf(47%)havehelpfromparentsorguardianstopayforhousing;

Halflivewithroommatesand21percentlivealone;

Slightlyfewerthanonein10havechildrenundertheageof18livingintheirhome(8%);

Themajority(62%)havelivedintheircurrenthomeforlessthanoneyear,and32percenthavebeenintheirhomefromoneyearuptofiveyears;

BBC

Fut

The

Wafivewan

FiguoneLawmov

FiguWhmov

Note:

n=258

Sourc

BBC RResid

Mosto(

C RESEARCH & C

Morethanthousing,17familyhom

Nearlythre

Onein10li

Threeinfou

ture Housi

eresidentsur

ant to moveeyears,and3nttostayinth

Renterhourenterscomstudentren

Youngerresnextfiveyepercentof6

Households(38%comp

ureIII‐9presein10wanttwrence.Sevenversthinktha

ure III‐9. at is the primve in the futu

:

8 residents planning

ce:

Research & Consultinent Telephone Surve

stprospectiv79%).

ONSULTING

twoinfive(47percentindes;

eein10stude

ivewithfamil

urplanstom

ing Plans

rveyincluded

e.Overall,six6percentplaheircurrenth

seholdsaremmparedto28nters(79%)p

spondentsarears.Forexam65to74year

swithchildreparedto60%)

entsthetopromoveintoanpercentofthatLawrenceo

ary reason yore?

to move in the next

ng from the 2018 Lawey.

emoversthin

5%)liveinmetachedsingl

ents(28%)liv

lyorfriendsd

oveinthene

dasectionask

in10Lawrenantostayinthhomebutwo

mostlikelytopercentofhoplantomove.

remuchmoremple,65perceolds.

enunder18a).

reasonswhyalargerhomehoseplanningoffersthetyp

ou plan to

five years.

wrence Market Study

nkthatLawre

multifamilybulefamilyhom

veinhousing

duetoalack

xtfiveyears.

kingresponde

nceresidentsheircurrenthrrytheywon

plantomoveomeowners.A

elikelythanoentof25to3

arelesslikely

residentsplaeandthesamgtomoverenpeofhousing

y

enceoffersth

uildings,18pmesand11pe

theyconside

ofhousing;a

entsaboutth

splantomovehomeforasln’tbeableto.

einthenextfAslightlyhigh

olderrespond34yearoldsp

towanttom

antomoveinmeproportionntandwantttheywouldli

hetypeofhou

percentinon‐ercentlivein

ertobefairor

nd

heirfutureho

eatsomepoiongaspossib

fiveyears—7herproportio

dentstoplanplantomove,

movethanoth

thenextfivenwanttomovtobuy.Mostpiketomovet

usingtheywo

SECTION III, PAG

campusstudattachedsing

rpoor;

usingplans.

intinthenextble.Onein20

5percentofonofnon‐

tomoveinthcomparedto

herhousehold

years.Aboutveoutofprospectiveo(79%).

ouldliketom

GE 11

entgle

t0

he18

ds

t

move


Want to buy.About29percentofnon‐studentrentersplantomovebecausetheywanttobuyahome.Thenon‐studentrenterswhowanttobecomehomeowners:

Areprimarilybetweentheagesof25and34(44%)or35to44(24%);

Havehouseholdincomesof$25,000upto$50,000(41%),$50,000upto$75,000(24%),or$75,000ormore(28%);and

Oneinfivehavechildrenunderage18inthehousehold(22%).

Non‐studentrenterswhowanttobuybuthaven’tofferedanumberofreasonswhytheyhavenotyetbought.Reasonsidentifiedbyatleast10percentofnon‐studentrenterswhowanttobuyare:

HousingisnotaffordabletobuywhereIwanttolive(25%);

Can’tcomeupwithadownpayment(24%);

Incometoolowtoqualifyforamortgage(16%);

Idon’twanttobuy/liveinLawrence(15%);

ThereisnoaffordablehousingIwanttobuy(13%);

Badcredit/lowcreditscore(10%);and

Affordablehousingisn’tavailableatall—Iwouldliveanywhereinthecity(10%).

Lawrence’s Housing Spectrum

Tounderstandresidents’preferencesforthecompositionofLawrence’shousingsupplyacrosshousingtypesaswellashousingproductsandaffordabilityfordifferenttypesofhouseholds,thesurveyposedtwokeyquestions.Thefirstaskedresidentstoratetheimportancetothempersonallythatthehousingsupplyincludedhousingfordifferenttypesofresidents.ThesecondaskedwheredifferenttypesofhousingproductswouldbeappropriateinLawrence(ifatall).

Composition of Lawrence’s housing supply.ResidentsratedtheimportancetothemthatLawrence’shousingsupplyincludedhousingthatwouldappealtoorbesuitableforanumberofdifferenttypesofhouseholds.FigureIII‐10presentsthoseratings;highervaluesindicatehigheraverageimportance.Onthewhole,residents’ratingssuggestthattheypreferLawrence’shousingsupplytooffersuitableandaffordablehousingforadiversityofresidentlifestagesandincomes.ItismostimportanttoLawrenceresidentsthatthecity’shousingsupplyincludeshousingthatisaffordabletoresidentsonafixedincome,lowandmodestincomefamilies,firsttimehomebuyers,workersemployedinpublicserviceandretail/services,middleclassfamilies,andyoungadultsorfamilies.

BBC

FiguOn imp

Note:

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

ure III‐10. a scale of 1 toportant to you

: *E.g., grocery st

ce: BBC Research &

ONSULTING

o 10, where 10u is it that Law

ores, librarians, teac

Consulting from the

0 means extrewrence’s hous

chers.

e 2018 Lawrence Mar

emely importaing supply inc


ant and 1 is ncludes the fol

Telephone Survey.

not at all impolowing types

SECTION III, PAG

ortant, how of homes?

GE 13

BBC

FiguLawhou

FiguTopCod

Sourc

AppconLawtheapptowsizethe

C RESEARCH & C

ureIII‐11prewrencebasedusingforami

ure III‐11. p 3 Most Impode

ce: BBC Research &

propriate lonsiderwhethewrenceneighbshadedhouspropriate“inmwnhomeswitheassinglefamcity’ssinglef

ONSULTING

esentsthethrontherespoxofhousehol

ortant Housing

Consulting from the

ocations forerornotdiffeborhoods,oringtypesaremyneighborhhthesamesemilyhomes,sfamilyandlow

reemostimpoondent’sZIPcldincomes,se

g Types that S

e 2018 Lawrence Mar

r different herenthousingnotappropriethetopfiverhood”.Thesetback,heightmallsinglefawestdensity

ortanthousincodeofresideeniors,andfi

Should be Pre


housing progtypeswereaiateinLawrenratebythegrhousingtypetasneighboriamilyhomes,neighborhoo

ngtypesthatsence.AcrossZrst‐timehom

esent in Lawre

Telephone Survey.

duct types.appropriateince.FigureIIreatestpropoes—mediumsinghomes,duandmediumods,andsugge

shouldbepreZIPcodes,resmebuyers.

ence, by Respo

ResidentswntheirneighbII‐12presentsortionofresidsinglefamilyuplexhomeslots—aresimestanappetit

SECTION III, PAG

esentinsidentsvalue

ondent’s ZIP

ereaskedtoborhood,othstheseresultdentsasbeinghomes,onthesamelmilartomostteforallowin

GE 14

herts;g

lotofng


someincreaseddensitythroughattachedproductsthatfitwiththescaleandsetbacksofexistingsinglefamilyhomes.

Figure III‐12. Appropriate Locations for Housing Types

Source: BBC Research & Consulting from the 2018 Lawrence Market Study Resident Telephone Survey.

FigureIII‐13presentsthetopfivehousingtypesresidentsidentifiedas“appropriateinmyneighborhood”bytherespondent’sZIPcode.ThecompositionofthetopfivehousingtypesvariessomewhatbyZIPcode,reflectingthecharacterofthoseneighborhoodsandresidentpreferences.

Housing Type

Appropriate in

my

neighborhood

Appropriate

in other

Lawrence

neighborhoods

Not

appropriate

in Lawrence

Don’t

know

Medium single family homes (1,500‐3,000 sq ft) 63% 34% 1% 2%

Townhomes with same setback, height as neighboring homes 53% 33% 11% 3%

Duplex homes on same lot size as single family homes 51% 39% 9% 2%

Small single family homes (<1,500 sq ft) 51% 40% 5% 4%

Medium lots (6,000‐10,000 sqft) 43% 29% 24% 4%

ADU/granny flat 42% 39% 13% 6%

Small lots (<5,000 sqft) 41% 40% 7% 12%

Tiny homes (<500 sqft) 35% 44% 17% 5%

Apartment buildings with 5+ stories by bus/major roads 32% 52% 15% 2%

Small apartment building with <10 units 31% 49% 15% 5%

Large single family homes (5,000 sqft+) 26% 55% 17% 3%

Apartment buildings up to 5 stories by bus/major roads 23% 63% 11% 3%

Large lots (10,000+ sq ft) 12% 41% 44% 4%

BBC

FiguApp

Sourc

Apptheifamhou

C RESEARCH & C

ure III‐13. propriate Hou

ce: BBC Research &

petite for dirneighborhomilyhomesizeusingdeemed

Withrespecsinglefamil

ONSULTING

sing in My Ne

Consulting from the

ensity.Figuroodbytherese,lotflexibilitdappropriate

cttosinglefalyhomesapp

eighborhood,

e 2018 Lawrence Mar

reIII‐14lookspondent’sZIty,apartmentinagivenZIP

amilyhomes,ropriateinth

by Responde


ksathousingtIPcodeandintbuildings,anPcode(“myn

nearlyfourinheirneighbor

ent’s ZIP Code

Telephone Survey.

typesresidenncategoriesondemergingpneighborhood

nfive66046rrhood,nearly

ntsconsidereofhousingtyproducts.Thed”)vary.

residentsconytwicethatof

SECTION III, PAG

edappropriatpes—singleetypesof

nsidersmallfresidentsin

GE 16

tein

BBC

FiguApp

Note:

Sourc

C RESEARCH & C

66047andsinglefamil

Withrespectheirneighbappropriate

Withrespecapartmentbbusrouteso

Residentso

ure III‐14. petite for Den

: Percent respond

ce: BBC Research &

ONSULTING

66049.Fewelyhomesare

cttolotflexibborhoodacroebyatleasth

cttoapartmebuildingswitoronmajorr

of66044were

sity, by ZIP Co

ding yes, the housing

Consulting from the

erthanoneinappropriate,

bility,residenossallZIPcodhalfofresiden

entbuildings,thfiveormorroads.

emostlikely

ode

g type is appropriate

e 2018 Lawrence Mar

fiveresidentcomparedto

ntsareleastlides.Townhomntsinmostar

residentsofrestorieswer

tothinkADU

in their neighborhoo


tsof66044anohalfofreside

ikelytothinkmeandduplereas.

66046weretreappropriat

Usareapprop

od.

Telephone Survey.

nd66046thientslivingin

klargelotsareexproductsar

themostliketeintheirnei

priateintheir

SECTION III, PAG

nkthatlargethe66049ar

eappropriatereconsidered

elytosaythatighborhoodb

neighborhoo

GE 17

rea.

eind

tby

od.


Stakeholder Perspectives

Inadditiontothestakeholderfeedbackincorporatedabove,focusgroupparticipantsofferedadditionalinsightintothehousingneedsandchallengesofhard‐to‐houseandvulnerablepopulationsinLawrence.

Residentswhohavefelonydrugchargesandpersonsinrecoveryareparticularlyvulnerableintightrentalmarkets.Familieswithparentsinrecoveryneedstable,affordablehousingtosupporttheirrecovery—whichisverydifficulttofind.Thecity’snewhousingfundwouldbeidealforaddressingthisgapinneedandfunding(federallyfundedpropertieshaveverystrictrequirementsforcriminalhistory).

Peoplewithcriminalhistoriesfindhousingthroughinformalnetworks.Lawrencehasmanygood‐heartedpropertyownersprovidingthishousing,butthereisnoguaranteetheywillcontinuethisservicetothecommunity.

Fromtheperspectiveofstakeholders,theincentivesforrentalpropertyownerstoacceptHousingChoiceVouchers(HCV)andhouselowerincometenantshavediminishedsignificantly,duetoseveralfactors:

Propertytaxeshaveincreased,yetlowincomepersonscannotpayadditionalrentstocoverthoseincreases;and

FundingforHCVshasdeclined.

Propertyownerswouldbenefitfromaninsurancefundthatcompensatesthemfordamagecausedbytenantsperceivedas“risky”(afundakintoprivatemortgageinsurance,orPMI,whichlendersrequireofhigherriskhomebuyers).

StakeholderswhoassistvictimsofdomesticviolenceandwhowereinterviewedforthestudyagreedthatthemostsignificantneedfortheirclientsistransitionalhousingandsupporttomovefromtheemergencyshelterintostableindependentlivingLawrencehassufficientemergencyassistance/shelterbedsfordomesticviolencetomeetdemand;thegapexistsfortransitionalhousing.Thesehouseholdsareoften0‐30%income;findinganadequate,affordableplacetorentisverydifficult.Thecity’sPHAhas1024‐monthtransitionalvouchersfordomesticviolenceandwouldbenefitfromadditionalvouchers.

Personswithdisabilitiesfacemultiplebarrierstofindingthehousingtheyneed,someofwhicharerelatedtofederalfairhousingaccessibilityrequirements:

Renterswithdisabilitiesdonothavetheresourcestopayforneededaccessibilitymodificationsunlesstheyreceivegrantassistance;assuch,theyusuallygowithoutmodifications.

Federalrequirementsdonotrequirethatunitsbeaffordable.Becausemanypeoplewithdisabilitiesliveonfixedincomes,theycannotaffordtopaymarketrents,especiallynewlyconstructedbuildings.


Federalrequirementsstatethataccessibilitymodificationsmustberemovedwhenthetenantwithadisabilityleavesthepropertyandcannotinterferewiththemarketabilityoftheproperty.Propertyownerswhoperceivemodificationsasaffectingthemarketabilityoftheirpropertiesmayrefuserentstopeoplewithdisabilities;requirethatleasescontainaprovisionthatthemodificationberemoved;and/orremoveinteriorandexteriormodificationsbeforetheytrytorenttoanothertenantwithadisability.

Housingwithsupportiveservicesisneededforpersonswithmentalillnesses.Propertyownershavenoincentivetorenttopopulationsperceivedas“hardtohouse.”

Affordable,accessiblehousingisextremelydifficulttofind.Manyseniorsare“over”housedinlessthanidealhomes.AccessibilityrequirementsintheFairHousingActareinadequatetomeetneedsofpersonswithdisabilities.

Rentalpropertyowner/managerrequirementsthattenantsdemonstrateearningthreetimestherent(3Xtherent)isallbutimpossibleforresidentslivingondisabilityorsocialsecurityincometoobtainprivaterentalmarkethousing.Evenresidentswithassets,suchasaseniorwithproceedsfromahomesale,areunabletomeetthe3Xincomerequirement.The3Xrentincomerulesdisproportionatelyimpactseniorsandresidentswithdisabilitiesondisabilityincome,andmaybeadisparateimpactonthebasisofdisabilityundertheFairHousingAct.

Stakeholdersidentifiedthegreatesthousingneedsinthecityas:

Transitionalhousing/supporttotransitionfromtheemergencyshelterintoaprogramorstableindependentliving;

Rentalhousingforlargerfamilies;

Housingwithsupportiveservicesforresidentswithmentalhealthandcognitivedisabilities;

Lackofhousingaccessibletopersonswithdisabilities;and

Affordablelow/nomaintenancehomesforseniorswhoarecurrently“over”housed.

Employer perspectives.MostemployerswhoparticipatedintheemployersurveythinkitisfairlyeasyforemployeestofindhousingtorentinLawrence(10%veryeasy,52%easy).Theremainder(38%),thinkitisdifficultforemployeestofindhousingtorent.Conversely,nearlythreeinfouremployersthinkitisdifficultorverydifficultfortheiremployeestofindhousingtobuyinLawrence(43%difficult,29%verydifficult).OneinfiveemployersreporthavingdifficultyrecruitingemployeesduetohousingconditionsinLawrence.

Employersreportedthatthemostcommonwaystheiremployeesadjustwhentheycannotfindhousingtomeettheiraffordabilityneedsand/orpreferencesinclude:

Liveinanotherpartofthecountyanddrive(19%ofemployers);

Livewithfamily(18%);

Getmoreroommates(11%);and

Liveinhousinginpoorcondition(11%).


Rental property owner/manager perspectives.Propertyownersandmanagerswhoparticipatedintherentalpropertysurveyprovidedinformationabouttherentalmarket,anticipatedrentincreasesandperspectivesonissuesrelatedtooccupancyandtherentalregistrationsystem.

Half(52%)oflandlordsrentavailableunitsinlessthan1week;

Themediannumberofrentalapplicationsreceivedforeachavailablerentalunitisthreeapplications;

One‐thirdincreasedrentsin2017,and36percentplan2018increases;

Themedian2018increaseexpectedtobeonetofivepercent;

Manywouldliketosee3‐unrelatedruleincreasedto4‐unrelated;

Manyareconcernedrentalmarketisbeingoverbuilt,particularlyamenity‐richlargerdevelopmentstargetingstudentrenters;and

SeverallocalrentalpropertyownersparticipatedinfocusgroupsandspokeattheCityCouncilmeetingwherepreliminarystudyresultswerepresented.Theirprimaryconcernwasthetreatmentofpropertiesthathadbeensplitintomultipleunitsinthepastand,asaresultoflicensingrenewalsand/orfinancing,arerequiredtoconformwithcurrentzoning.Thesepropertyownersviewtheseactionsasreducingthestockofmuchneededrentals.

Section Summary

Affordabilityisoneofthetopfactorsforchoosingahomeforallresidentsandacrossresidentdemographicgroups.

Mostresidentsconsidertheirhometobeinexcellent/goodcondition.Rentersaremorelikelythanhomeownerstoliveinhousingtheyconsidertobeinfair/poorcondition,especiallyrentersofdetachedsinglefamilyhomes.Renterswithchildrenandrenterswithlargefamiliesaremorelikelythanotherrenterhouseholdstoliveinfair/poorconditionhomes.

Weatherizationistherepairneedidentifiedbythegreatestproportionofrespondents.Mosthomeownerswhoneedrepairshavenotmadethembecausetheycannotaffordtomakerepairs.

Affordableandaccessiblehousingisextremelydifficultforresidentswithdisabilitiestofind.

Renterswithchildren,non‐studentrenters,andseniorrentersaremostvulnerabletodisplacement,comparedtootherrenters.

Fornon‐studentrenterswhowanttoown,alackofaffordablehousingintheareastheywanttoliveand/oralackofadownpaymentarethemostcommonbarrierstoowning.

Lawrenceresidentsvalueahousingsupplythatservesresidentsofallincomesandlifestages.Basedontheirsurveyresponses,amajorityorpluralityofresidentsinmostareasbelievethatproductsthatmayincreaseaffordability—lowdensityattachedhousing,smallandmediumlotsandhomesizes—areappropriateintheirneighborhoods.

SECTION IV.

Findings and Recommendations


SECTION IV. Findings and Recommendations

ThissectionevaluatestheresourcesandoptionsavailabletoLawrencetoaddressthehousingchallengesidentifiedinpriorsectionsofthisreport.Theseresourcesincludedirectallocationsoffundingforhousing,aswellasothereffectivecontributions(e.g.,zoningandlandusemodificationstoincentivizedevelopment).

Theprimaryfocusofthissectionisrecommendationsforstrategiestoaddressneeds.Thisispresentedintheformofa“dashboard”formeasuringprogressanda“roadmap”togetthere.

Theserecommendationswereinformedbybestpracticesinsimilarcommunities—yetareuniquetoLawrence.TheyfocusonhowtoretainwhatmakesLawrenceaspecialplaceforavarietyofresidentstocallhome.

Resources

TheCityofLawrenceisfortunatetohaveanumberofdirectfinancialresourcesthatsupporthousinginvestments.Mostimpressiveisthenewdedicatedhousingfund,whichwasapprovedbyvotersinlate2017.Housingtrustfundsnotonlyprovideadditionalresourcestocommunitieswithfewerrequirementsthanfederalorstatesources,theycanbeusedtoleverageotherresources,bringingmoreprivateandpublicinvestmentintoacommunity.Thisisimportantbecausemanyfoundationsandbusinessesbaseinvestmentdecisionsonthedemonstratedcommitment,whichincludescontributionoflocalresources.

AccordingtotheCenterforCommunityChange,therearenearly800housingtrustfundsintheUnitedStates—yetthesearenotdistributedaccordingtoneeds.MosthousingtrustfundsexistontheEastCoast,followedbyCalifornia.Areaswithsomeofthegreatestneeds—e.g.,ruralAmericawithlittleeconomicdevelopmentandagingpopulations—lackhousingtrustfunds.1Lawrence’shousingfundisastrongtestamenttotheuniqueandcommittedcommunityculturethecityhasfosteredandsupported.

Lawrence’scurrentresourcesavailabletoaddresshousingneedsinclude:

InJanuary2017,theCityincorporatedaffordable housing requirementsintotheCity’seconomicdevelopmentpolicyregardinganymixed‐useprojectwhichcreatesfourormorehousingunits.

Newdedicated housing fund.InNovember2017,Lawrenceresidentsvotedinfavorofaproposedretailers’salestaxfor“thepurposesofprovidingandimprovingthequality,availability,andaffordabilityofhousinginLawrence;acquiringlandforfutureaffordable

1http://housingtrustfundproject.org/housing‐trust‐funds/


housingunits;investinginprivate/publicpartnershipsfortheprovisionofaffordablehousing;andsuchotherrelatedaffordablehousingpurposesasmaybeinthebestinterestoftheCity..”2.Thetaxisthefiveone‐hundredthsof1percent(0.05%),equivalenttoonecentona$20purchase.CollectionbeginsonApril1,2019andwillsunsetin10years.TheCityestimatesthatthetaxwillgenerate$10.5millionoverthe10yearperiod.

DirectallocationsoftheCommunity Development Block Grant(CDBG)andHOME

Investment Partnerships Fund(HOME)fromtheU.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)—approximately$900,000annually.Thesefundsarecurrentlyusedforhomerehabilitationforlowincomehomeowners($200,000in2018programyeartoassisttwohouseholds);firsttimehomebuyerassistance($90,000forthreehouseholds);weatherizationandemergencyrepairsforhomeowners($115,000for35households);accessibilityimprovementstorentalhousing($33,000for11households);tenantbasedrentalassistance($171,000for20households);andsubsidiesforaffordablehousingconstruction($50,000fortwohouseholds);aswellaspublicinfrastructureimprovementsthatsupportneighborhoodrevitalization(sidewalkrepairs,publicfacilityprojects),andfundstosupporttheoperationsofnonprofitserviceproviders.

ThefederalEmergency Shelter Grant(ESG)—receivedthroughtheStateKansasHousingResourcesCorporation.ESGdollarsareavailabletohelpfamiliesat‐riskoforexperiencinghomelessnessfindtemporaryandpermanenthousing.

TheCityofLawrencereceivedatotalof$1,312,384fromtheStateofKansasfortheNeighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP1).ThisgrantbeganwithanoriginalformulaallocationtotheCityin2009,andlaterincludedseveralsubsequentapplicationstoaccessProgramIncomefromtheStatewithintheNSP1program.Theprogramwasclosedinlate2017andultimatelyprovided12newunitsofaffordablerentalhousingtothecommunity.Thehouseholdsthatresideintheseunitsfallbetween50%AMIand80%AMI.TheunitswereconstructedbyandaremanagedbytheLawrenceCommunityHousingTrust.

Rental licensing program—Thegoalofthecity’srentallicensingprogramistoensurethatrentersliveinsafeandhabitablehousing.EffectiveJanuary1,2015,allrentalpropertiesinLawrencemustmaintainavalidrentallicenseandundergoperiodicinspectionsincompliancewithCityOrdinance8840.

Past housing investments.Lawrencehasinvestedinaffordablehousingthroughgeneralfundallocationsandleveragingpartnerships:

2005 Housing Trust Fund Projects.In2005,theCityallocated$570,000toemergencyrentalassistance,ahomelessmanagementinformationsystem,constructionofnineaffordableelderlyhousingunits,acquisition/developmentofpropertyforHabitatforHumanity,theHomelesstoHousedprogram,andtolandacquisitionfortheCommunityHousingTrust.

2Textinquotationisdirectlyfromtheballotquestion.


Housing Demonstration Project.ThroughthispartnershipbetweentheCityofLawrence,TenantstoHomeowners,HabitatforHumanity,FamilyPromise,LawrenceDouglasCountyHousingAuthority,andWillowDomesticViolenceCenter,$100,000ofcityfundswereleveragedtoconstructthreepermanentlyaffordablehomesin2017.

Transitional Housing Voucher Program.Throughthisprogram,theLawrenceDouglasCountyHousingAuthorityreceived$100,000fromtheCitytoprovidehousingvoucherstohelpfamiliesmovefromtheLawrenceCommunityShelterintotransitionalhousingin2017.

TheCityisalsofortunatetohaveanAffordable Housing Advisory Board(AHAB)thatwasestablishedinmid‐2015.TheroleoftheAHABisto:

AdvisetheGoverningBodyregardingissuesaffectingaffordablehousingandsupportiveservicesinthecommunity;

OverseeandfacilitatethepurposeoftheAffordableHousingTrustFund,whichistosupporttheacquisition,rehabilitation,anddevelopmentofaffordablehousingandsupportiveservicessothatallpersonsinthecommunityhaveaccesstoindependentlivingwithdignity;

MakerecommendationstotheGoverningBodyregardingtheexpenditureofmoneyfromtheAffordableHousingTrustFundinordertofundprojects,asreviewedandapprovedbytheBoard,thatareconsistentwiththepurposeoftheAffordableHousingTrustFund;and

MakerecommendationstotheGoverningBodyregardingthecultivationandmaintenanceofsteadyandvariousstreamsofincometofundtheAffordableHousingTrustFund.However,theBoardshallnotapplyforanygrantwithoutpriorapprovaloftheGoverningBody;norshallitacceptanygiftordonationwithoutpriorapprovaloftheGoverningBody.

TheBoardrepresentsavarietyofinterestsandincludes:

TworepresentativesoftheCityofLawrence,appointedbytheGoverningBoard;

OnerepresentativeofDouglasCounty,appointedbytheBoardofCountyCommissioners;

OnerepresentativeoftheLawrence‐DouglasCountyHousingAuthority,oranysuccessorininterest,appointedbytheGoverningBody;

OnerepresentativeofFamilyPromiseofLawrence,appointedbytheGoverningBody;

OnerepresentativeofLawrenceHabitatforHumanity,appointedbytheGoverningBody;

OnerepresentativeofTenantstoHomeowners,Inc.,appointedbytheGoverningBody;

Onerepresentativewhoisacurrentorformerresidentofsubsidizedhousing,appointedbytheGoverningBody;

BBC

Ad

Sectinfodev

The

C RESEARCH & C

Onereprese

OnerepreseGoverningB

Onereprese

OnerepreseBody;and

Onereprese

dressing N

tionsIIandIIormationwasveloped,throu

ecity’shousin

ONSULTING

entativeofJu

entativeofthBody;

entativeofth

entativeofth

entativeofth

Needs

IIofthisreposprovidedtoughconsultan

ngneeds,byt

usticeMatters

heLawrenceH

heUniversity

heLawrenceC

heLawrenceB

ortthedataantheAHAB,Lantpresentatio

typeandpopu

sofLawrence

HomeBuilder

ofKansas,ap

ChamberofC

BoardofReal

ndinformatioawrencecitizeonsinApril,M

ulationmost

e,appointedb

rsAssociation

ppointedbyth

Commerce,ap

ltors,appoint

onanalyzedfens,andtheCMay,andJune

affected,incl

bytheGovern

n,appointed

heGoverning

ppointedbyth

tedbytheGov

forthisstudy.CityCommisse2018.

ude:

SECTION IV, PA

ningBody;

bythe

gBody;

heGoverning

verningBody

.Thissionasitwas

AGE 4

g

y.

BBC

OnJmeereca

Durprio

Gu

SucHouaddthe

C RESEARCH & C

June4,2018,etingwasopeapofthefind

ringtheworkoritizationof

iding princi

1. TheCitybroad.”Tincentivandeval

2. “Thereisneedswflexibilit

3. “Wecanentitlemhousing

4. Housingthehous

ccessful outusingTrustFudressthemoscityhome.

ONSULTING

aworkshopentoandattedingsfromthe

kshop,theAHneedsandall

ples.

yofLawrenceThecity’sroleizingandparluatingprogr

snosilverbuwillalwaysexityadjusttoun

asktheprivamentsprovidecontribution

ginvestmentssingneedstha

tcomes.Theund.Theseoustseverehous

washeldwitendedbymaneanalysisand

ABdevelopedlocatingtheh

e’sroleinaddeshouldfocurtneringwithess.

ullet.”Thehoustinsomefonmetdemand

atesectortohvaluetothensinreturn.

shouldbefoatexist.

AHABalsocoutcomeswousingneeds,an

htheAHABtnymembersodcommunity

dasetofguidhousingtrust

dressinghoususonfacilitatitheprivates

usingmarketrm.Housingpdasthecityc

helpinthisenprivatesecto

cusedonthe

onsideredaruldhelpLawrndensuretha

toprioritizethofthepublic.engagement

dingprincipletfund:

ingneedsshoingnewafforector,enactin

isdynamicaprogramsandchanges.

ndeavor.”Pubor.Itisapprop

areaswhere

rangeofoutcorenceretainwatalltypesof

hecity’shousTheworksho.

esfordeterm

ouldbe“reasrdabledevelongreasonable

andever‐chandpoliciessho

blicsectorinvpriatetoaskf

themarketi

omesforthewhatisspeciaf residentscan

SECTION IV, PA

singneeds;thopbeganwith

miningthe

onableandpment,eregulations,

nging.Housinouldallow

vestmentsanforaffordable

sunabletom

Affordablealaboutthecincontinueto

AGE 5

heha

,

ng

nde

meet

ity,ocall


The Dashboard. Thedashboardbelowdepictsshort‐termandlong‐termindicatorsofsuccess,andestimatedprojectcosts,basedontheoutcomesdevelopedbytheAHABandcurrentandfuturehousingneeds.

Dashboard to Monitor and Measure Success, City of Lawrence


Short term (1‐5 years)

1. Stabilize the rental gap for non‐student renters earning < $25,000/year 100 new affordable rental units





3. Persons with accessibility needs are able to get the improvements they need and/or find

visitable and accessible housing



housing options


70 homes and apartments brought into good condition annually

Long term (5‐10 years)

1. Reduce the rental gap by 7.5% by adding new units affordable to non‐student renters earning

< $25,000/year

500 new affordable rental units





3. Unit accessibility for persons with disabilities is increased through rehabilitation and creation

of visitable housing



housing options


5. Residents living in housing in poor condition have improvements made 70 homes and apartments brought into good condition annually

2019‐2023

2024‐2028

5. Residents living in housing in poor condition have improvements made


Roadmap for Addressing Needs. The“roadmap”presentedbelowdetailshowtoachievethemeasuresofsuccessdepictedbythedashboard.Itisorganizedbyrecommendedyearforaction.

Roadmap to Meet Dashboard Goals, City of Lawrence



100 new affordable

rental units renting

for less than

$500/month

Step 1. Determine available land and property: a. Inventory city land,

especially under‐utilized parcels such as parking lots, and determine

appropriateness for new housing developments. b. Working with a local

(preferably volunteer) commercial and residential real estate agent,

inventory non‐city owned and underutilized commercial and residential

properties that could be purchased and converted to permanently

affordable housing.

Step 2. Examine the sites for potential residential development.

Determine redevelopment costs and potential affordability mix (both

rental and ownership housing, a mix of MFI levels, land trust and coop

potential).

Step 3. Acquire land/property.

Step 4. Issue an RFP for a nonprofit or private partner to repurpose the

land or property acquired by city or owned by the partner into

permanent affordable housing, guided by the potential mix in Step 2.

Assumes partner receives additional grants to offset construction costs

of development.

2. Create more ownership options for

low and moderate income renters

who want to become owners

150 more units are

affordable to low

and moderate

income renters who

are qualified to

become owners,

priced between

$100,000 and

$260,000

Residents, workforce, small

households; 50‐100% MFI

renters who want to become

owners

Could be achieved through several approaches: 1) Follow Roadmap for

creating affordable units (above). In that case, it is recommended that

the for sale communities be a combination of land trust (deeply

affordable), cooperative, and modified shared equity products. 2) Use

density bonuses, potentially through an overlay district, to create more

value in land for private developers. Units created through density

bonuses would likely be attached homes serving 80‐100% MFI. 3) Long

term: Negotiate affordable for sale unit creation as part of annexations.

The proportion may vary depending on the development proposed but

should not be less than 10%.


persons with mental






history/credit

Dashboard Goals

1. Stabilize the rental gap for non‐

student renters earning <

$25,000/year by creating new

deeply, permanently affordable

rental units, Note: Affordable rentals

could take a variety of forms,

depending on the land and nature of

the land or property (traditional

public housing, transitional housing

for victims of domestic violence,

senior housing, cooperative housing,

scattered site complexes). Ideally,

housing for all vulnerable resident

groups should have supportive

services and foster community

support.





3. Persons with accessibility needs

are able to get the improvements

they need and/or find visitable and

accessible housing

25 rental households

assisted with

accessibility

modifications

(benchmark is 11

annually)

Persons with disabilities who

desire to live independently;

includes many types of

disabilities, including cognitive

and self care

1) Increase number of rental households with disabilities who receive

grants from the city for accessibility improvements; 2) Consider

enhancing this program to provide additional rehabilitation and

weatherization to private property owners who agree to keep units

affordable for a period of time (10‐15 years, depending on amount of

grant); 3) Engage private sector developers in a discussion about

incentives to increase visitability in housing and consider implementing

solutions




options

25 more vouchers

available


persons with mental






history/credit

1) Increase TBRA to supplement Section 8 program; buy down units in

$625‐$875 range. 2) Consider creating an incentive fund for property

owners who agree to rent to voucher holders. This fund could cover the

costs of damage, wear and tear, and weatherization improvements.



70 number of homes

and apartments

brought into good

condition

(benchmark is 35

annually)

Residents living in substandard

housing; includes persons with

disabilities living in inaccessible

housing

1) Increase funding for home modifications and weatherization. Fund

with housing trust funds to increase grant effectiveness and overall

funding by removing regulatory inefficiencies; Supplement with

incentive programs proposed above. 2) Evaluate the CIty's current

rental inspection sampling program, using guidance from the survey

data in the Housing Needs Assessment, to ensure that the City's process

has the ability to detect condition problems reported by residents. 3)

Evaluate if energy codes and programs are adding unnecessary costs to

housing payments.

Dashboard Goals




Long term (5‐10 years) 2024‐2028 Target Population Roadmap

1. Reduce the rental gap by 7.5% by

adding new units affordable to non‐

student renters earning less than

$25,000/year

500 new affordable rental units Persons with disabilities, persons with mental





2. Low and moderate income renters

who want to become owners have

more options for purchasing

affordable units

200 more units are affordable to

low and moderate income

renters who are qualified to

become owners

Residents, workforce, small households; 50‐

100% MFI renters who want to become owners

3. Unit accessibility for persons with

disabilities is increased through

rehabilitation and creation of

visitable housing

25 annual rental households that

receive accessibility

modifications (benchmark is 11

annually)

Persons with disabilities who desire to live

independently; includes many types of

disabilities, including cognitive and self care




options

50 more vouchers available Persons with disabilities, persons with mental







70 number of homes and

apartments brought into good

condition (benchmark is 35

annually)

Residents living in substandard housing;

includes persons with disabilities living in

inaccessible housing

Dashboard Goals

B

N

BBC RESEARCH & CO

Note: Enhance existing

Financial assistan

ONSULTING

units includes activities of

nce includes vouchers and f

accessibility improvement

first time homebuyer assis

ts, weatherization, and em

stance.

mergency loans.

SECTION IV, PAGE 10

APPENDIX A.

Acronyms

BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX A, PAGE 1

Acronyms used in Housing Studies

Commonly used acronyms in housing market analyses and referred to in this report include:

ACS – American Community Survey

ADA – Americans With Disabilities Act

AFFH – Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

AFH – Assessment of Fair Housing

AI – Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

AMI/MFI – Area Median Income / Median Family Income

CDBG – Community Development Block Grant

CIL – Center for Independent Living

ESG – Emergency Solutions Grant

FHA – Fair Housing Act (sometimes referred to as the Federal Fair Housing Act, or FFHA, to

distinguish from the Federal Housing Administration)

HMA – Housing Market Analysis

HOME – HOME Investment Partnership Program

HUD – U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development

LIHTC – Low Income Housing Tax Credit

MLS – Multiple Listing Service

MSA – Metropolitan Statistical Area

NIMBY – “Not In My Back Yard”

NOAH – Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing

PHA – Public Housing Agency

Date post:	03-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Housing Market A nalysis - Lawrence, Kansas...range, with rents between $625 and $1,250 per month....

Documents