WRAP Program Evaluation and Preliminary Findings

A Long Way From Home:The Environmental, Economic, and Social Impacts of a Limited Supply of Workforce Housing in the Asheville Metropolitan AreaConducted by:William M. RoheSpencer CowanDaniel RodriguezConducted for:The North Carolina Association of Community Development Corporations in cooperation with Mountain Housing OpportunitiesPresentation to the Housing Works Conference November 4, 2009

1Purposes of the StudyTo assess the need for workforce housing in the Asheville metropolitan areaTo assess the impacts of a lack of well located workforce housing onthe environmentthe economic health of employers and employeesthe quality of life in the areaTo identify obstacles to the construction of more workforce housing in the areaProvide recommendations for expanding the supply of well located workforce housing in the area. 2Study MethodsAnalysis of the need for workforce housing using data from sources, including:Census BureauNC Employment Security CommissionOffice of State Management and Budget

Survey of 581 lower-wage employees who commute more than 15 miles each way to work258 responses44.4 percent response rate3Study Methods (cont.)Suitability analysis to identify possible locations for the construction of workforce housing closer to major employment centers

Analysis of potential decrease in commuting distances based on suitability analysis and survey data

Interviews with 23 representatives of public, nonprofit and private organizations in the area

4Population & Employment GrowthThe population and employment in both Buncombe County and the rest of the MSA is growing rapidly.Buncombe CountyRest of MSA2000200720002007Population206,330226,771162,841176,030Total Employment106,043115,87556,22458,6175Change in Employment& Average Wages Paid in 2007Some of the lowest wage job categories are the fastest growing.Change (2000-2007)Avg. Wage 2007BuncombeRest of MSABuncombeRest of MSATotal9,8322,393$34,372$31,573Health Care/Social Assist.4,0421,511$44,051$35,532Accommodation/Food Svc.3,651798$15,483$13,269Educational Services1,608894$33,658$30,737Admin./Waste Services2,729-337$22,763$21,406Manufacturing-4,221-2,613$43,935$45,6036Housing TypesMost of the newhousing issingle family,while thenumber ofmanufacturedhomes hasdeclined.

7Fair Market Rents in the MSAAverage increaseof 43% for FMRbetween 2000and 2009.

Rents have beenrising consistently,but particularlybetween 2004and 2008.

8Rent BurdensThe percentageof households thatpay more than 30%of their incomes forrent increaseddramatically between2000 and 2007. 19,200 renters withincome under $35,000were rent burdenedin 2007.

9Cost BurdenThe housing costsof homeowners alsohave risen greatly.16,600 owners withincome under $35,000are cost burdenedin 2007.Median house valueis 4.2 times medianincome in 2007, up from 2.8 times medianincome in 2000.

10Jobs Housing MismatchBuncombe County67 percent of all jobs in the MSA54 percent of all housing units in the MSAThe other three counties in the MSA33 percent of the workforce work in another county29 percent of the workforce commute more than 30 minutes to work7,774 workers making less than $48,000 commute to within 7 miles of downtown Asheville11Are Those Who Commute Long Distances to Work Willing to Move Closer?

12Potential Impacts of Additional Workforce Housing on Commuting

Current and Hypothetical Yearly Miles Driven13Potential Impacts of Additional Workforce Housing on the Environment

Yearly Air Pollutant Emissions Savings14Impacts on Fuel Costs

Fuel Cost Savings15Reasons to Move or Not MoveI would be more likely to move ifSafe neighborhoodNeighborhood was safe for bicycling and walkingNo more expensive than where I live nowWould not consider moving becauseI like my neighborhoodI like my current houseI dont want to pay more taxes I dont want to live in a denser area

16Potential Impacts of Additional Workforce Housing on Commuting CostsAt IRS deductible rate of $0.55 per mile

Current locationannual cost = $6,600

After relocationannual cost = $1,858

Savings= $4,74217Potential Commuting Time Savedby Additional Workforce HousingTime saved in commuting187 hours per person per year

Economic value of that time$3,140 per person per year (@ $10/hr.)

Social value of that timereduction in time with family and friendsloss of sense of community and community participation

18Cost of Employee TurnoverIndustry or OccupationNumber of EmployeesCost of Replacement (per employee)Annual Cost (per 100 employees)Manufacturing20,167$15,232$1,523,200Education and Health Care44,666$15,034$1,503,400Leisure and Hospitality23,258$7,380$738,000Law Enforcement510$76,952$7,695,200Teachers3,717$15,000$1,500,00019Potential Impact of Additional Workforce Housing on Quality of Life

20Summary of Benefitsof Additional Workforce HousingWell located workforce housing has a number of quantifiable benefits including:

Significant reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissionsSignificant reductions in commuting costs

Significant reductions in commuting times allowing more time for family, friends and community activities

Significant reductions in employer costs for recruiting and training new employees21Perceived Obstacles to Developing Additional Workforce Housing in the Asheville AreaHigh land values.

Opposition from neighborhood and environmental groups.

Long and difficult city and county development review processes.

Insufficient public subsidies to help keep sale prices and rents low.

22Frequently Suggested Ways to Increasethe Supply of Workforce HousingIncrease contributions to the city and county housing trust funds.

Adopt inclusionary zoning ordinances.

Expand the number of affordable housing providers.

Increase the number of public/private partnerships.23RecommendationsSet yearly goals for production

Assess current workforce housing policies

Increase annual contributions to housing trust funds

Consider inclusionary zoning and how to preserve existing supply24Recommendations (cont.)Create working group of housing and environmental groups

Look for redevelopment opportunities

Improve cooperation and coordination among advocacy groups

25