The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 05/03/2005 W ~::!...'.;.'''.;'.' '."Q'....". . . ~ I '. ,... '''If. . . . .~~. .. ,0 /5,~; "" .."... \."?~''::''_~' ....;. .- COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Affordable Housing Workshop May 3, 2005 Agenda 9:00-9:05 1. Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance Backl!round: 9:05 - 9:20 Tab #1 2. Overview of Current State of Affordable Housing in Collier County- Definition, Current Availability and Shortage with Introduction Video (staff) 9:20 - 9:35 Tab #2 3. The Economics of Building Affordable Housing in Collier County (Russ Weyer, Fishkind and Associates) 9:35 - 9:55 Tab #3 4. Update on the Collier County Housing Development Corporation- (Joe Foster, President CCHDC) 9:55 - 10:15 Tab #4 5. Creating Inclusive Communities in Florida - An Overview of Florida Trends (Wight Gregor, Senior Technical Advisor-Florida Housing Coalition) 10:15 - 10:30 Break Solutions: 10:30 -11:00 Tab #5 6. County-Wide Impact Fee Deferral Program (outside counsel Tyson Smith) 11 :00 - 11 :45 Tab #6 7. Commissioner Requested Topics (staff) A. Density Issues - Tab#7 1. Density Bonuses 2. Income & Rent limits 3. Enforcement & Restrictions 4. Coastal High Hazard Area 5. Concurrency 6. Density by Right Zoning 7. Balanced Housing 8. Moderately Priced Housing B. Land Trust Tab#8 C. Interlocal Agreements Tab #9 11:45-12:30 8. Public Speakers Tab #10 12:30-1:00 9. Board Direction- Action Items 10. Adjourn Co7fi~r Cou.nty ----- -.....- - ~'__"_'~""_~"_'_'_";_'_~A'_' ----,.~~. - ~ I z o ::L ::t' f f J CD c if N ~ ... z J i l- I - 2 . Ñ c,.) ~ en ~ co I .... U1 C ~CO - >< Ñ c,.) ~ en ~ co .:.,¡ c U1 en . i n o :I en c: ~ n o 3 "" tþ flit. -. flit. .... o = tþ "'I .-. ~ ;t ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ! > (Q ~ ::I ...... . . ~p..t ,ž^-J ..ê~ ...~~ ~~~ ~~~ :> :105. ¡;¡.~ ¡¡ ;1 ~ a $("$('" ::?"" .2.¡)' ""0 ;:11 ...<'- " . 1 » ~()OJ 000 <-'30) <0. -, O~3c.. -, - -. 0 @CD~~() ::r I õ· o 0 ::J 0 -0 c:: CD c:: CJ) -, ::J S· CJ) ~ CC en D) :J s: D) .., -. :J o C- O -. :J .... < CD :J .... t: .., CD I -- CJ1 O::JOO c:()OO 00 0 c: _. 3 c. ::J ::JCD=E~ c.c CD '"" mCD-OO -oo~» CD -- ::J -h 3 c.c.c ~ CD c: 0 CD3.::Je. ;3.00;:+0) · 00 C" "C - c: "C CD ....,CDI 00 ...., c: '< 0 0) CD c: 3. 0) SQ. ,.-+o""'::J o ~c.c O....,c.c -0 ~~Q) () I -. ~O)oo < ::J ,.-+0 CD C. 0 1\J3~ g,oc. ,.-+oc.0) ::J"CD CD ...., 3 0) _. G),.-+o::J CD -. s:: I 3 -u c: 3 o -h . . 300 o 0 c: ...., c: ...., CD ::J ...., ,.-+o,.-+oCD ::J" '< ::J 1'\ '\ ,"",.-+0 ~oo- '< ::J 3 .. WCDI\J 0C.° ;:{¿ _. M o 0) VJ o ::J .þ. c.o -h -. -. ::J ::J" ::J () 0 () 0 c: 0300 3 CD CD CDO)S o ...., - ::JCDC. ::J"()OO 000) c: 00 ,.-+0 00 ,.-+0 0 - . C" ...., ::Jc:C" c.c""'CD ,:-"c.- CD 0 ::J =E CD ex> C.o ............. "C;:{¿ 0) 0 '< 0 _. -h ::J 0 c.c 0 - - -. CD ...., 0) 0 ~º- ...., ~ C.CD 0) ...., 2:0 CD 0 0) c: ::J ;3. c.'< =E (if o CD ~>< ~"C ...., CD () ~. CD CD ::J"~ o -- c: ::J ooc.c 5· 0) c.c () ...., -. ,.-+0 -. () 0) - 00 ::J" o ;::¡. 0) c.c CD o -h . -I ::T CD Z CD CD C. õ' .., » I: o .., c. D) c- - (I) J: o c: tn -- ~ CC ~~ I~ :~ ¡..-::--¡ ~~~ H'" ' ;~.~ 1 ""II>" ;¡'~ r l\'=j ~ ~ ()::J rOOCD::J 00 0-hCDC:-hC/)..-+--hc:m 3 CD CD ..-+-00 ..-+- ~ CD ..-+- ..-+- ........0 ...., """""t"" 3 ...., """""t"" 00_ . 0....... 3 CD 0 c: ro tu "C ro c.............. c: ::J 0 CD 00 ..-+- 0 00 CD ~ ~. @ § 0 _CD CD W SD :T _~ ~.. ~;:::N ~g ~ CD ~ -. s::. \,J I\.) oc.c W ~ ::J tu º- ~ 0 -h ?fl.. 0 =E::J ~mCJ1a 0=E ~'< ~.....¡ c.:: 3 ~ § Q () =E 0 =E ö ..-+- .,I::::. ..-+- ~ :::J'" 0 0 0 -¡ :::J'" W ~ ~ st~ C:~~CD~g~ CD ~ ;:t CD ...., 0 <: 0 0 '< 00 '< en () CD < ...., -h <: () -............. CD ::J 0 C. r'"\ Ö tu ~. tu 00- ~ ~ S· ë ....,::J ~ 00 00 CD c.c = ~ ::J ..., 00 ~ ...., . 0 ~C: WI\.) 00 ..-+- ex> 3 ex> 0 '-'" tu - -. 0, 0 () ~ o::J.,I::::.O 0 Q ~c.c.,l::::. c. 3 C. .............:T"CtuCD ..-+- ~ CD CD ..-+- =r o w~oSU 0 ~ ?fl..m""2.03 CD '-"';:{¿CDOr () 0 - = 0"'" CD· CD 3 ~ ...., CD -. CD 0 0 ::J '-'" 0 0 c.c...., c: c: -h CD ::J::J ...., 00 --,-..-+- o -. .:::; '<_ 3g. ~ . . . . ::J ..-+- ::J" CD ..-+-CD o ...., "-+-0 ::J"o CDc: O::J CD"-+- ::J'<... 0000 c: =E 000 1\.)"'" o~ o~ 0"'" . () CD . - -. < CD C. - 3 -c Q) n ... en o -fit » I: o .., c. Q) c- - CD ::r: o r:: en -- ~ cc C CD -fit -- n ~~ ..~~ ~~ ~ R :II!!,'" ~'-,¡¡ §~ ~ ¡"~i' 3'iC l" fJ i -- ... . .. . =E WI 3~» ex> ()~s::» o I\.)~ 0 tu 00 ex> 0 tu CD () ...., cf:. CJ1 ...., < 00 cf:. c: < 3 () ~ ..-+-::J CD c: ::J CD 0 CD >< ~ ::::;. ~ 3 0 ..-+- - 0 ...., ...., ~...J...J -h '< 0 ...., C. 00 ex> =R c.c c.c "C..-+- ::J tu ::::; . -h ex> -. ~ ::J" ::J c.c...J ...., ;:{¿ () tu =r 0 CD I C. o 0 () ::J 0 ::J 00 ~ c: ..-+- 3110C.3··CD CJ13~ c:...., » r ~::J CD r C" 3 ~ C. ::J" CD ..ex>..-+- Ë CD 0 0 tu tu CD CD ~ C. ...., CD c:...., ;::¡. ..-+- - () 0) tu ~_ ..-+-~. 00 CD ~ o W ã) ::J () W::J -. C. CJ1 c: c.c 0 I\.) c.c ::J C-. ::J CD< ~ -. S ~..-+- r c: 0 ..-+- ~ ...J 0...., CD -...., '< ::J" c: ...J..-+- - . '< - . -. ~ ..-+- '< 0 "C CD c.c ..-+- () ...J::J" -h 00 I\.) - . o - c. CD ..-+- () 0 ::J CD O"-+-tu () 00 0) CD r"\ ~...., 0 0 tu o .,I::::. < \,1 CD c:~::J = "C ë;, CD º- < <: ::J" C. -. CD - CD < ..-+- W CD ...., g ~. CD -::J" 0 '< I\.) 0 ...., C. ::J...., - ....., tu;:{¿ CD () tu » c.c r"\ Q.. ~ ::J 0 00 0'<»· \,/CD ~ c.o ~ c: ..-+- 0 00 "C -h ::J ::J ß) 0 c: 0 00 ~ ..-+- ~ -- -I::J 1'\ '\ ::J" - . '-< ::J . ..-+-::J. < CD 0 00 '< - CD::J tu "C 0) -- I - 3 ::JO.,l::::.::J~ 000-1 c. ;::¡. .. ..-+- CJ1 ..-+- ...., CD C" - - CJ1 ::J" tu 0 ::J () tu ::J 0 CD...., () s· ::J" '"' c.c 0 CD c.c ::J ,~ >< 0 -. ~ = () -. tu CD ...., - 3 -c 0) n .... tn o ~ » I: o .., c. 0) c- - CD J: o t: tn -- ::::J (Q C CD ~ -- n ~Q..-I fI~ :~ f.Z> ~(j 2 Hi ª.~ ~. . ~ j;i 1>'". 1:c r ¡;J 1 -- .... ::J" o c: 00 -- ::J c.c . . 00 ..-+- ::J" C') » 3· C') 0 ..-+- I\.) -. tu c:C/) N 0 w::J · · · · -. CD 0 ...., -t -I -I -I ::J ::J I\.) C') g 0 g. g. g. c.c 00 o 6r æ.. æ.. æ.. ::J c. ~ 00 tu - (") (") (") CD c: c: ..-+- 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ tu CD c. 00 00 ::J .... .... .... ...., ..-+- '< C. c: c: ~~~..-+- 0 CD c: 3 e!. (I) :e 0 ::J" tu >< CD CD -c ~. ~ ~ CD ::J tu Õ ~ §. S» ~ ~ CD -- 3 r-r- _ ~ ø 0 3 ::J -. :T ::J" ñ· ~ ~ 5 "C tuc. ~. CD tu (") (") S» 3 - ::J a.Õ ~ Š-~ñ'~~CC CD 0 ~ Øcð.g 3 C::T ::h=~9õ-g CD ~CD C') CD .þ.. m 0 ::+ ::J CD ~ ..-+-...., (,Ø:::; -It C:..-+- \oJ ~ ~ ~ ~. C') 00 c: os».... ~ CD c: C" """-I .... 0.. "C- Ù1 CD :e ~ ;3. "C c=s . o~~.þ.CD-C') o Co "5::J ...., '< 0 (I) ~ ~ 00 0 00 g. CÑ t..J -h -h ..-+- o Ì\) W 0 1'\'\ 00 o 0')<0,- ~.......... - .þ. ..... ~ :;:R r-r- ~o ::Joo ~ 0 c....., r ..CJ1 0 c. ~ tu CDCD ..~ C" 8 ëD ~ c: ::J ..-+- '< 00 -ho tu c: ~3. ....,,< §-C') C" ..-+- -N CD CD tu ::J ::J 00 c.ör =E C') o CD ...., :::" ~ ...., C') CD .._~.,-_.,." » I: o .., C- D) c- -» CD :I: o c: en -. :1 (Q C CD .... -. n -. .. o o en .. en -c c: c- - -. n ~Q:O :~ ..' ..::ì:::----t ~~ H~ ~~ 8 . ~ a i~· fj ~ , . . ~ g. r- CC ::T r- ::T< ~ ãJ 0 CD CD CD < D) c: f/) . . .., _ CD r+ f/) f/) 0.., 0 :: ~ ~ I\) ,,, "'C 0 .., CD :5. f/) "'C (") (Ø CJI CJI VI C. :: ~ c:"'C (") .., cc "'C D)"'C CD (Ø 0 Or: 0 en (Ø 0"'3 0 c. .., ~o ~N ~~Q. ¡¡;:~ m::CD UI Ciïca 2! ~ ;::¡.~ ~ 3 3'< iil =UI (') ~~ s-,o::. :e 5 f/) c: 0 0 ::::. ~ ~ C,... c: -. ..... ~ c: .., I» ... ...... CD - -. CD :t ;::¡: c:::: ~ CD ca s:: "i c..9- == CÞ 3 g ca Q. ... CD" < -. -" -.... :: ..... !:!: UI I» UI UI I: .., f/) ::T:5. ~ ~ (") C. C. :::. CD f/) ::::.. - (") D) _. .., ::T c:: ..J f/) f/).J N 0 CD à. g g. z 2: 0 cõ" i6 ~ :!!" ~ g :e UI CD ::D) D) =CD 0 D) ~ 1(") "t. c: D) c:: r+ c.""" -. 0- .., -. -. "" 0 'If _ _ < -- .J ~ -. ~ ... ~ Q. Õ c.. m Q. - CO 't:J C. cS ::::I 3 <Ulc::CD" CDO 31» 0 Q. CD D) <.., ...a. < c: cr CD O-lt ~:5. 3 3 .., < ..... f/) CD ~ .., ~ CD ..... c: =to CD 0 CD õQ. UI-I: ><... 0- ... .., '< ~ CD n ~ -. D) c. CD ~.~O"- "'õ<l»c. ~~ CDC. ::. 0 0 3 c:: -. ~,... -. .., ~ ::. r+ W r+ c: CD < n :T ~ c: ... VI CD' 0) ~ ::::I ::::I Q. CD g: a co (') iÞ s- UI 0" ~ Q. ~ CD UI < ~ ... Ë .!.. ::::I o = 0 _ en::::l I» CD (')~ 0... ::::I (') < :: I: 0 ~ UI ::::I I: 0 I» CD (') CD CD 0 UI (') o;::¡: C. 't:J 3 Q. c:: 0 UI .., ~ ::::. c: 3 '< -. "'P"I f/) < 3· .J f/) ~ ,... "" '""-. I» 5" co _. 0 Q. - 0 I» - ~ CD 5' N 1»::::1 ... CD ii) -Eß (') ii1 c:: I» o (') ::::I CQ CD < UI.... "'t ::::I ~ < Q. J. D) C. ,"" -. CD ,....þ.. ..,'"" ,It. ,=. 0 CD -.. "'C ~ ~ - ..,.. I» 'If ~ .., CD _. CD 0.., 0 c ~,... "'C::T " .c I» _ UI 't:J (') 0 ~ 0 CD CD I: .., !!!. 3:e (") 3 C,... 0 CD ..,.., .., D) 't:J- ~ - -' UI- "i (') -~ 0 CD (j :r::' ~i" _CD o 0 D) 0 ~ :T -. 0 D) ::!. f/) ,<.., _ r+ n ~ I» 0 ~ ::t &,;;-30 Ulg 5:~::::I .? ~ go . ..... 0 CD § ~ UI !ñ..... I» '< 3 a. ..... ;a. c. C. r+ ....a. ~ 3 D) c. c:5!: éDCD . »0:1 =:CD o :J ..,CD o.~ 0).... c-tn -0 CD-It O):I: :JO) 0.< ~ :5" OCC ~» 0'0. .., CD n.Q CD t: :I: a OCD t: tn -. :J CC ~~ ,.ž^-': ~ .. ..' ..-~ ~~ iJlr,[ ~.~ 8 . ~];I ~~ l~ ft i -C -C () 9.00 CD -C e: ::JCD::J 1""+ 1""+ 5). a '< -CD-h W (J) Q ~ -.c.c o a.-. .., CD =5. a.::J::J w ~c.c O"':::ho ro~< wO"'~ ::J '< a. e:::Je: o 0 CD "'::J-C :E I .., o -C 0 "'O-C ~-hCD Q';:+::¡" .., ::::T '< (")01""+ CDe:W ::::T(J)>< O -.CD ::J (J) ~c.cw -. -C ::J ::J..,a. c.co <=== -C -·CD .., a.::J £. CD (J) ~ (jJ 0 I""+w::J (J) (J) < W (") W ::J 1""+ . . . . . . w () 1""+ a. () -. m ~00CD..,ga.3 o -. < CD CD e: -C_ .., e: ::J CD W a.::J (") - 1""+ ::J (") CD w~ "'OCD ~w 3 0"' -h æ -c w CD< CD CD - e: ,^ CD.., """"'I( CD """"'I( v I ...J (J) a. ::J ::J --.¡oo a....J CD (J) ».. CD 1""+ (") g s· g- Õ ~ ~. ~ g 3- (J) c.c ::J -c .., 1""+ 0 ë: <:. CD 0 (J) W a. ::::T -c ,^ CD (J) -h ;:+ '< W VI _. '< _. 0"' CD ~ 0 (J) 3 '-"::J - () (J) ::J 1""+ CD 0 W W -g °I3::J-< ~ ~g3a.N -h n'\ (J) e: 9. 0 CD WI - . ::J ::::T ::J CD ~::J -. -. (J) 0 c.c .::;!" CD ::J .., ~"'c.c o ~o ()O"' ::J O"'~ 0 ~ w ro CD 3.-. a. _..,::J o -. CD CD O::::T -c 0"' (J) (J) e: ,^ -. e: 3 1""+ VI c.c -·CD ::J ~. CD 0 (J) W ::J::J::J W 1""+ c.c 1""+ -I ~ -hl1wg e: e: >< ,... """"'I( ::J::J 10.- ...J a. a. () 1""+ e: (J) 3 '""'"h .-. CD 1""+ 0"' Q~a.~ CD 1""+ 0" ;:+ CD .., ::::T:E"1J 1""+ o CD ..,W -h ::J. 0 >< c.c c.c ::::T .., 1""+ W 3 1""+ o a. CD < CD - o -c CD .., (J) .. . CD . a. CD ::J (J) -. 1""+ '< 0"' o ::J e: (J) CD (J) »:;0 ~CD o n ~ 0 C.3 ~3 -CD CD ::J Q)c. ::J Q) c.~ :EO ° ~ ~-h ~o o ~ ~ - n ::J CDn J:ãJ OQ) c:: ~. ~.::J ::JCC CC ~Q..-I ~Ž^-J :§:;I ..~> ~ z Hl . l~!! ..3];1 ;p~ U d f . . ::u I\J () S- ~ " -.... · ~ ~g~Ql1Jõ~I o 0 ....... t:: ...,c:: ~ 0.. 0) · c:: en "" t""'\. CD - Zë!: ::r ~ õ' CD:J- Q).Q g ....... =:3 · t:: 0) I ~ I Q) = I'n Q) '< () ~ 0 .~ - (1),' CD - I --........ c:: ' ::u 0 I'\.) ~ !:Q. N 0 "E. Q) CD ::r ~ :::J 0 c- CD O~ c- ....... c:::: CC =:3 CD 3 0 3 ~. - S';:¡ c- a. ...., · :::J <co < CD Q) ~ ::r 0 .. < ..., 0- · o - ..,..... I\J.......... c: c: ~ t\) 0 (t) :-i CJ)3o::J o~:J- -. CD en 0. I\J 0 CD ::J · t:: CC ~ Q) () en -0 ,,- =:3 t\) ::::; · c:: ..., ën 0.. ~ r~ 0- CCCJ) ..J ~:::.:- _ c: (') CD -. C). z CD o~. =:3 C) II'\.)~ ~ r-o ().' (t) CI) I () CDêi) ??~~ (')0 ....... c:::: \J J 0......... 0<0) t:: c- = =:3 CD CD ~ ..., "< '- . ::0 CD ar .., CD :J n CD t.n ~Q""'¡ ,.~ ~ ..~ ..~ "z;> ~C1 z ¡rr'" ~ ,,<ß. .q~ If 1 Prepared for: RWA, Inc. February 15, 2005 Collier County Workforce Origin Report . FEASINOMICS ¡ . .. ~ - . ¡ . ""; , Prepared By FEASINOMICS®, INC. 999 Vanderbilt Beach Rd., Suite 606 Naples, FL 34108 239,649.7733 Phone 239.434.8366 Fax www.Feasinomics.com · FEASINOMICS ~ f . I February 15, 2005 Mr. Dwight Nadeau RWA, Inc. 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive, Suite 270 Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Workforce Origin Report Dear Mr. Nadeau: At your request, we are pleased to provide you with the Collier County Workforce Origin Report. This report is designed to provide an understanding of the origin of Collier County's workforce, The data is from the 2000 Census County-to-County Worker Flow Files, These files were compiled from the Census 2000 responses to the long-form survey which asked questions on where people worked. The files provide data at the county level for residents of any state and for the entire nation for workers 16 years and older. This report provides a summary of both the origin and destination of Collier County's workforce, The destination of Collier County's workforce is important in understanding the total commuting patterns of the county, The following is a brief summary of the report sections. A map of Florida's counties is attached for reference, 1. Origin of Collier County's Workforce This section refers to the county of work file and provides a summary of the total labor force in Collier County and where they come from. 2. Destination of Collier County's Workforce The county of residence file is used in this section to summarize the workforce that lives in Collier County and where they work. 3. Detailed Workforce Origin Report This report provides the count of people who work in Collier County and where they come from, detailed by State and by county. 4. Population and Labor Force Data This section includes annual population estimates and labor force statistics for Collier County. Copyright © 2005 Feasinomicse>, Inc. All rights reserved. 2 Table of Contents Origin of Collier County's Workforce ........,.................................,...........,........,........,..........4 Destination of Collier County's Workforce...,........................................,......................,.......5 Detailed Workforce Origin Report ......................................,......................"................,......,6 Population and Labor Force Data .....................................................................................11 Map of Florida by County .......,..................,.......................................................................12 Census 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files ..........................................................13 Copyright © 2005 Feasinomicse>, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 Origin of Collier County's Workforce In the broadest sense the majority of Collier County's workforce lives and works in Collier County. According to 2000 Census data, Collier's workforce totaled 113,038. This includes those people who live and work in Collier as well as those who work in Collier but do not live in the county. As you can see in the pie chart below, approximately 84 percent of Collier's workforce or 95,020 people live and work in Collier County, The remaining 16 percent of Collier's workforce do not live in Collier County. Approximately 13 percent reside in Lee County and another 3 percent live in other Florida counties and outside the state of Florida. Origin of Collier County's Workforce Collier 84.1% Lee 12.7% All Other 3.2% Source: County-to-County Worker Flow, 2000 Census The following chart illustrates the same data as the above graph but also provides the count of people that work in Collier. At the time of the 2000 Census, there were 14,374 people commuting from Lee County to Collier County for employment. A smaller group of 3,644 people that work in Collier live in other counties in Florida as well as other in other states, such as New York, Texas and Michigan. Origin of Collier County's Workforce County Count Percent Collier 95,020 84.1% Lee 14,374 12.7% All Other 3,644 3.2% Total Workforce 113,038 100.0% Source: County-to-County Worker Flow, 2000 Census Copyright © 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved. 4 Destination of Collier County's Workforce The destination of Collier County's workforce is included in this report in order to understand the overall commuting patterns of its workforce. According to 2000 Census data, there are an estimated 103,068 residents of Collier County in the work force. Some of these residents stay in Collier to work while others leave the county for their employment as workers can live in one area and commute to work in another. As you can see in the pie chart below, approximately 92 percent of Collier County's residents that are in the workforce are employed in Collier County. Approximately 5 percent of Collier's workforce commutes to Lee County. A small percentage of Collier's workforce commutes to other counties and states for their employment. Destination of Collier County's Workforce Collier 92.2% Lee 4.9% All Other 2.9% Source: County-to-County Worker Flow, 2000 Census The following chart illustrates the same data as the above graph but also provides the count of people and where they work, At the time of the 2000 Census, there were 5,068 people commuting to Lee County from Collier County. These Collier residents in the Lee job market represented just 3 percent of Lee County's total workforce. Destination of Collier County's Workforce County Count Percent Collier 95,020 92.2% Lee 5,068 4.9% All Other 2,980 2.9% Total Workforce 103,068 100.0% Source: County-to-County Worker Flow, 2000 Census Copyright © 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved. 5 Detailed Workforce Origin Report The detailed report that follows provides the number of people who work in Collier County and where they come from. As you can see, most of Collier's workforce lives in Collier County. Another 14,374 people commute from Lee County to work in Collier and a little over 1,000 people commute from Hendry County, Approximately 728 people commute to Collier County from Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Florida --- ---- ------ -- ------------- ______ _____ n__.__'___ 112,244 95,020 14,374 1,049 399 329 224 157 106 70 67 58 47 Collier Co. FL Lee Co. FL Hendry Co. FL Miami-Dade Co. FL Broward Co. FL Charlotte Co. FL Sarasota Co. FL Palm Beach Co. FL Orange Co. FL Hardee Co. FL Glades Co. FL Manatee Co. FL Hillsborough Co. FL 41 Pinellas Co. FL 34 Highlands Co. FL 28 Polk Co. FL 24 Pasco Co. FL 23 Nassau Co. FL 22 Taylor Co. FL 22 SI. Johns Co. FL 20 Leon Co. FL 18 DeSoto Co. FL 17 Volusia Co. FL 17 Dixie Co. FL 16 Santa Rosa Co. FL 10 Levy Co. FL 9 Martin Co. FL 9 Osceola Co. FL 9 Monroe Co. FL 8 SI. Lucie Co. FL 6 Calhoun Co. FL 5 Madison Co. FL 5 Indian River Co. FL 1 - --------------..-------..-.-- Copyright © 2005 Feasinomics", Inc, All rights reserved. 6 Work County, State Resident State Resident County Count New York 91 Bronx Co. NY 44 Richmond Co. NY 16 Rensselaer Co. NY 8 Westchester Co. NY 7 Chautauqua Co. NY 4 Dutchess Co. NY 4 Jefferson Co. NY 4 St. Lawrence Co. NY 4 - Texas I 77 Cameron Co. TX 37 Hidalgo Co. TX 24 Harris Co. TX 10 Collin Co. TX 6 ! , , Michigan I 69 Genesee Co. MI 17 Wayne Co. MI 14 Macomb Co. MI 9 Midland Co. MI 8 Grand Traverse Co. MI 7 Oakland Co. MI 5 Roscommon Co. MI 5 I Huron Co. MI 4 I Ohio 65 - Summit Co. OH 22 Medina Co. OH 17 Columbiana Co. OH I 9 Allen Co. OH 6 Butler Co. OH 5 Lorain Co. OH 5 Van Wert Co. OH 1 Pennsylvania 61 Montgomery Co. PA 17 Philadelphia Co. PA 15 Westmoreland Co. PA 8 , Delaware Co. PA I 7 Clarion Co. PA 5 Pike Co. PA 5, I Crawford Co. PA I 2 Luzerne Co. PA 2 Copyright © 2005 Feasinomics"', Inc. All rights reserved. 7 Work County, State Resident State Resident County Count Illinois 55 Cook Co. IL 16 Lake Co. IL 14 Lee Co. IL 8 IWinnebago Co. IL 7 ¡EdwardS Co. IL 5 Menard Co. IL 5 i Georgia 44 Lumpkin Co. GA 11 Cobb Co. GA 9 Brooks Co. GA 7 Lowndes Co. GA 7 DeKalb Co. GA 4 Fannin Co. GA 4 Gilmer Co. GA 2' f---- - . . ------ ------.- -------- ,~.~ .. -- -- .-- ---~ Massachusetts Barnstable Co. MA 12 Norfolk Co. MA , 11 Worcester Co. MA 8 , i Franklin Co. MA 6 Middlesex Co. MA 5 Berkshire Co. MA 1 , , New Jersey 28 Bergen Co. NJ 17 I Hudson Co. NJ 11 Missouri 27 -~ ---- ---.--.- --...--------- -- 1---. "'- Taney Co. MO 27 North Carolina 27 Vance Co. NC 19 Wake Co. NC 6 Avery Co. NC 2i Alabama 26 Montgomery Co. AL 20 EscambiaC.9. AL__ 6 - ~- --- - -------- -._-' Copyright@ 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved. 8 Work County, State Resident State Resident County Count Colorado 25! . Denver Co. CO 13 EI Paso Co. CO . 10 Grand Co. CO 2 Virginia 19 , .Colonial Heights city VA 8 ! iVirginia Beach city VA 6 Henrico Co. VA 5 Iowa 17 Scott Co. IA 15 ! Jackson Co. IA 2 -----¡ I California , 16 ~ San Diego Co. CA 8: Santa Barbara Co. CA 8! 1 _ Kentucky___ _ 14 -- -- ..... ---------- .-- I Grant Co. KY 11 I 1 CO""",,"'" Jefferson Co. KY 3i 13 New London Co. CT 7 - I I Hartford Co. CT 6 , , Minnesota 12 'Hennepin Co. MN 6 'Kandiyohi Co. MN 4 St. Louis Co. MN 2 Indiana 11 Jackson Co. IN 6 !Marion Co. IN 5 South Carolina 11! Richland Co. SC 111 Copyright © 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved. 9 Work County, State Resident State Resident County Count Nevada 9 Clark Co. NV 9 .DC 8 ! District of Columbia DC 8 i Maine 8 Cumberland Co. ME 6 'Waldo Co. ME 21 Nebraska 8 ,Douglas Co. NE 8 i Maryland 7 - -!. Harford Co. MD 7 ,~-_.._---_._--- ------- __________,m_, ___________ Wisconsin 3 Door Co. WI 3 , Grand Total 113,038 Copyright @ 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved. 10 Population and Labor Force Data The following chart provides the annual population, size of labor force and labor force participation rate in Collier County for the years 2000 to 2003. The labor force participation rate has held steady at approximately 42 percent for the past four years. Population & Labor Force Data Collier County Population 2000 Census 251,377 Population Estimate July 1, 2001 265,769 Population Estimate July 1, 2002 276,691 Population Estimate July 1,2003 286,634 Labor Force 2000 104,694 Labor Force 2001 112,494 Labor Force 2002 116,348 Labor Force 2003 121,111 Labor Force Participation Rate 2000 41.6% Labor Force Participation Rate 2001 I 42.3% Labor Force Participation Rate 2002 I 42.0% Labor Force Participation Rate 2003 I 42.3%, Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, Labor Market Statistics Copyright © 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved. 11 Map of Florida by County COWER BROWARD \, \, (î.' MIAMI- ;' . DADE i ; ) ·1 ~.~ , / "~;/ // ð/ ,,/' ,~" Copyright © 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved. 12 Census 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files The IRS County-to-County worker flow files were compiled from the Census 2000 responses to the long form (sample) questions on where people worked. The files provide data at the county level for residents of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for workers 16 years and over in the commuter flow. There are two formats available depending on the sort order most useful. The sort order refers to whether the county of residence or the county of work is the main focus. If you are interested in the number of people who live in a county and want to know where they work, use the county of residence files. Or if you are interested in the people who work in a county and want to know where they come from, the county of work files are the ones to use. Feasinomics®, Inc. makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy of the materials or information provided herein. All information is from the Census 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow files and has not been verified. Please contact Feasinomics at (239) 649-7733 with any questions or comments. Thank you for using Feasinomics®, Inc. for your information needs. Copyright@ 2005 Feasinomics", Inc. All rights reserved, 13 ~f.a.ij~ ",.11..ÿ'') ~~~~U:l :J ;- '(\ ·J-'r~ ~d '0'/' CJJ\.H.I. ;';"1 ~ . RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2005 Transportation Services DivisIon The public C(osts ('of ina;d"eq1;late f:ß": ."ª' 'k- 1] b ,D') ~L ~ 4- a. IOr;y,a1Jàe lfJ.'~Tt1$lSJ.g in .' . €;F; ~01)ln~Y9 Florida The L8e County Board o'f County CDmmis.5ioners Man agemeot and Planning Committee S,~ptêmber 9,2002, aDd the Lee CDunty AHordabJe Housing Committee On ~~1"\t;:s""n!~.::.'r 3 2f'p·) iJ ~~_p,,,,-,} ll,,,- . j .J·';...o Prepared for the Lee County Affordable Housing Committee (AHC): Commissioner John Albion, Chairman Dottie Cook Leo Cooper Pauline Farren Walter Ferguson Yvonne Nau Jane Parker Craig Rogers Richard Sapp Fred Schilffarth Marsha Stachler Prepared By: Deborah Halliday, NfPA 127 N. Higgins St. - 3rd Floor Missoula, MT 59802 (406) 543-3550 debhalliday@msn.com Lee County AHC c/o Lee County Planning Division P.O. Box 398 Fort Myers, FL 33902 (239) 479-8547 hhtp://lee-county.com!dcdJAffordableHousinglHous i ngMain.htm September 2002 (Final Document) t ~ "f ~ ~ Acknowledgements Special thanks to Commissioner lohn Albion, chairman of the Lee County Affordable Housing Committee (ARC) for his leadership and foresight in· formulating the research question addressed in this document: ~ are the public costs to Lee County residents of an inadequate amount of affordable· housing being in place?" Many people and organizations assisted in the development of this study. They include: lohn Albion Lee County Commissioner, Chairman of AHC Glen Ahlert SQUthwest Florida Regional Planning Council Bob Beluschak Lee County Planning Division Angela Bernhard FamilyHousing Fund Mary Brooks Center for Communîty Change Housing Trust Fund Project Dottie Cook Lee County ARC . Bob Diogo Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Dr. Steven Fuller George Mason Univenity . Andy Getsch Leè County Department of Transportation Irene Giniat Helµth Planning Council of Southwest Florida Bob Giordano MIST . David HalvatZis Family Health Centers of Southwest Florida Dr. ludith Hartner Lee County Department of Health Dr. Richard Itzen Lee County School District Debbie Ketidziorski Lee Memorial Hospital lim Lewin Lee County Office of the County Manager David Loveland Lee County Department of Transportation Dr. Gary Lounsberry Southwest Florida Coalition for the Homeless Mary Ellen Miller Lee County Department of Health Bill O'Dell Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing Mike o11ifÍ Lee CountY School District Phyllis Robinson Rural Collaborative Gloria Sajgo Lee County Planning Division Gladys Schneider Lee County Habitat for Humanity Dennis Simon Lee County Planning Division Mike Smith Lee County School District Susan Strum Lee County Planning Division Annette Tartaglia Lee County School District Roger Ward Family Health Centers of Southwest Florida Dr. Doug Whittaker Lee County &hoo/ District Mattie Young Lee County School District s.~ HousIng Study\Cost of Not ProIIiding AIfotrJsbIe HousIngIDeb H6llday'$ Sút)'\Copy of Cost of not PnMdiIg ~ Housing - ~17- 02.doc - 1 - 1 '., 1 , Table of Contents & Report Sections Section 1: Executive Summary of Findings......... ..................... .............. ........................................3 Section 2: Study Overview............ ..................... ............. ....... ................... .............. ............. ...........6 . Section 3: How Affordable is Housing in Lee Coünty? .................................................................11. Provides an overview- of current and projected housing need for Lee County. It includes a section on workfoo::e projections. Workforce projection$ are key to understanding the impact housing has on transportation, as well as provide a·planning tool for anticipating upcoming growth in Lee County. Section 4: The Public Costs of Inadequate Housing ......................~.............................................14 Provides an overview of the annual public costs associated with inadequate affordabfe housing in the arenas of lost economic opportunity, transportation infrastructure, and social cost indicators. These costs are detailed in Sections 5 - 8. - Section 5: Detail of Lost Econqmic Opportunity......·....··...............~..............................................15 Section 6: Detail of Transportation I n~structure Costs.... ............. ..... ......... ..... ......... ... ............... 18 Section 7: Detail of Social Cost Indicators - Education ...............................................................21 Section 8: Detail of Social Cost Indicators - Health Care ............................................................23 Section 9: Findings and Conclusion ..................... ....... ..................... .... ............. .... ... ....................26 Provides recommendations for next steps to address the need for increased affordable housing opportunities in Lee County. Appendix A: Housing Conditions in. Lee County.................... ........... .................... ........... ........... ..30 Provides background on the definition, extent and study appfication of Lee County housing conditions. . Appendix B: Methodology....... ...... .... ................. ........... ........ ....................... ................... .....~......L32 Provides more detailed infonnation on the methodofogies used to quantify the pubrlC costs of inadequate affordable housing' in Lee County. Appendix C: Lehigh Acres & Estero CDP ....................................................................................34 Census maps Ulustrating the areas analyzed in the transportation and infrastructure-allalysis·. . Appendix D: Affordable Housing: Recommendations to Increase Homeownership..................35 The following is a list of Affordable Housing Recommendations to Increase Homeownership Prepared by the Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Incentives Committee Approved by the Affordable Housing Committee (January 9, 2002) and approved by the Board of County Commissioners Management and Planning Committee (214102) Endnotes......... ..... .............. .................................................................................................. ..... ..37 s.~ HcuskIg SWy\Cost of N« Providir9 AfmJabIe Hot.I$IngV)eb Ha/Idaý$ ~ofCost 01 not ProvIdfng AIfotúabIe Housing. 9-17- 02.doc - 2 - , " t~ 1 Executive Summary of Findings The need for affordable housing costs Lee County citizenry over $249 million each year. The purpose of this study is to ascertain if there are public costs to Lee County citizens that result from an inadequate supply of affordable housing. It there are public costs~ the study illustrates those costs through specific indicators derived from existing research in the areas· of housing, transportation infrastructrite and social policy. The following findings result from this anal~s. . 1. There is inadequate affordable housing in Lee County, Florida Ample research supports the finding that Lee County does not have enough housing that is affordable to families living at or below 800.10 Area Median Income. · The 2002 hourly wage needed to buy a median priced home in Lee CountY ($I54~OOO) is $25.87 - far exceeding the $14.86 a fire fighter earns, or the $9.66 a receptionist earns in Lee County. -~. · The development of affordable housing is declining. The percentage of single-family units priced at $120,000 or less fell ttom 40 percent of all homes built in 1999 to 26 percent of all units built in 2001. · The average cost of a two-bedroom rental apartment leapt from a 3 percent increase between 1999 and 2000 to a 25 percent increase between 2000 and 2001. · It is estimated Lee County will need 30,000 units of owner-occupied housing and 11,493 rental units by the year 2010. 2. The need for more affordable housing costs Lee County citizenry over $249 _I!1JRiºn annually and is expected to rise.with growing unmet need This study calculates the public costs associated with jnail~l1atp. housing in three sectors of the community: lost economic opportunity, transportation infrastructure, and the diréct and indirect social costs related to education and health care. This study concludes it costs Lee County citizenry: . $240.7 million per year in lost economic opportunity o $158.8 ~illion -lost jobs and wages as a result of not developing needed housing o $78.6 mUlion -lost economic opportunity as a result offamiliès spending too much money on housing o $3.3 mßIion -lost property tax revenue ~ HaØIg ~ alII« PrtNIding AI1bntabIe Housk1gIDeb Haby's studyICcpy«Cost alnot ProIddhg ~ HoœkIg. 9-17-Ø2.doc - 3 - 1 . , · $3.2 million per year in transportation infrastructure o For every 15,000 workers who must travel great distances to work: Absent aggressive measures, public costs will continue to rise as the need for more housing is unmel · $5.4 million per year in education and health care social indicators o $4.4 million - education indicators . o $1 mißion - health care indicators These figures are for 2002. These costs are expected to rise in subsequent years as the need for affordable housing outpaces efforts to. increase affordable housing opportunities, absent aggressive measures. 3. Lee County needs to initiate an aggressive affordable housing development strategy Currently in Lee'County, an average of 1,000 single-family units valued at $120,000 or less are built each year. This number would have to be doubled to -2,000 units the first year, and then assume a 12 percent increase in housing production each year following to meet the community's need for jO,ooo owner-occupied affordable housing units by the year 2010. This "can be accomplished by adopting an aggressive affordable housing development strategy that can include many innovative approaches. The Lee County Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Working Group deVeloped recommendations to increase homeownership, all of which serve well the ~eed for increased affordable housing opportunities. These recommendations have been reviewed, changed and subsequently endorsed by the Lee County Affordable Housing Committee and the Lee County Board of County Commissioners, Management and Planning Committee. Based on successes in other communities, the following' . proposed recommendations warrant special attention. · Establish a Local Housing Trust Fund Over 200 states, counties and cities nationwide operate a fund established specifically for the development of affordable housing. · Implement Ineluslonary Zoning One of the most suëcessfuI community-based efforts to increase the production of affordable housing is inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning reserves a specific percentage of housing units for lower-income hoUseholds in new developments. · Work with Employers to Encourage Employee Homeownership Incentives Increasingly, employers are creating opportunities for workers to become homeowners. Employer- issisted housing programs include down payment assistan~ low- interest loans., and the actual creation of housing units. s.~ HaJsb¡ Stud)'\Cost (Ñ Not P10vIdtrg AIIonäIe HousIng\Deb HaI1ey'a ~ (Ñ Cost (Ñ not Provfd!n¡ AifoJrJtJbé Housing. '-17- Ø2..dac - 4 - I ~ t 1 This study has tremendous value to business leaders, devel~ housing policy makers, neighborhood groups, the real estate community, and government in general, to make good decisions fOT the community as it grows. Homeownership is a cornerstone for many communities that seek neighborhood stability, a thriving economy, and overall well being. Seeking to better understand the interplay of housing with many other elements of the community is a significant step in the direction of increased homeownership opportunities for all Lee County citizenry. .. s.'V-IOUSJNG\4Jbå HousIng ~«Not Providing Affotú8bIe HocJsitJg'l)eb HaIiday's Stud)i\Capy« Cost« no( Prtwiding A/fotdebIe Housi1g. ~ 17· 02.doc - 5 - . . I . , 2 . Study Overview Having an inadequate supply of affordable housing affects all of Lee County's citizenry. Homeownership is the American Dream come true, and for many families, it is the sole asset that helps to build long-term economic secmity. The goal of increasing homeoWnership is a common one for communities: people recognize that homeownership increases neighborhood stability; helps children thrive in school and increases the well being of the entire community. Yet what happens when a community discovers that many of its citizens are unable to afford to buy a home? What can a community do when its workforce projections estimate that a majority of newcomers are younger people, many of whom will work service-sector and retail industry jobs - jobs that traditionally offer lower wages and few benefits? Lee County, Florida is confronted with such a 8Çenario at this time, and its leaders are asking similar questions of themselves' and of its citizens. This study is a first step to better understand the value that affordable housing has in theðommunity. This study calcuJ.ates the public costs associated with inadequate housing in three sectors of the community: lost economic opportunity, transportation inftastructure, and the direct and indirect social costs related to education and health care. . G3ining access to affordable housing is not an isolated concern for those families living at· the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Having an inadequate sUpply of affordable housing affects all of Lee County's citizenry. This study will help equip Lee County leaders and citizenry to make informed decisions about 1lpC9ming financial cOmmitments to affordable housing, and to the long-term health of the community as a whole. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to ascertain if there are public costs to Lee County citizens that result from an inadequate supply of affordable housing. If there are public costs, the study illustrates those costs through specific indicatorS derived from existing research in the area of housing, transpoItati()1J. and social policy. Assessing the economic impact of inadequate affordable housing Iequires a researcher to make assumptions for a wide range of variables - housing conditions, cost burden, household spending choices, labor market projections, and more. Despite the difficulties raised from this approach, it is an important task for the community to tackle for a variety of reasons. ~ HousIng Sbiy\Cost 01 NtX ProvIdIng .Ai1bRiabIe HourtIgV]eb Ha/Iday'; StudtCcpy 01 Cost 01 not ProvIdb¡ NIotd8bIe Hoœitg - ~17-02.doc - 6 - '.' . ' . This study places Lee County in the vanguard of communities seeking to better understand the interplay of housing and the economy. First, as communities grow - Lee County's population increased 32 percent from 1990-2000, considerably faster than the 24 percent the state grew and the 15 percent at which the national population grew during the same period 1 - questions of how a corimmnity can grow equitably and beautifully arise. There are many examples of communities in the United States that did not anticipate the impacts of growth on their eoDllnunity.2 Those communities have experienced skyrocketing housing prices that outstrip earned income, the loss of homeownership opportunities for entire bands of the economy, and increased traffic congestion as people cannot afford to live close to their jobs. Lee County is fortunate to be looking at the critical role affordable housing. plays in maintaining community health before these problems are compounded. Second, although there is growing research available on the economic benefits of creating affordable housing, there is little or no established research on the economic costs of not providing affordable housing. This study places Lee County in the vanguard of communities seeking to better understand the interplay of housing within t:J;1e economy. ~ _!his study establishes a starting point for· further research· and discussion. It proposes a methodology to better understand the housing-related economic relationships in the community. As more refined data becOmes available, clearer pictures can be developed. The accumulation of knowledge gained by the community through this process has tremendous value to business leaders, developers, housing policy makers, neighborhood groups, the real estate community, and government in general, to make good decisions for the community as it grows. Scope· of Research The parameters of analysis are the impacts households at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI) have on èconomic opportunities and on public costs? Lower-income households have limited resources and thus curtailed options for housing. Many of Lee County affordable housing efforts currently target this income group for assistance. Public costs are examined in three arenas: lost economic opportunity, transportation infrastructure, and social costs. Lost econonuc opportunities are the economic benefits the community foregoes by not developing affordable housing. Transportation infrastructure costs are costs associated with workers being forced to' live far from employment centers due to an inadequate supply of affordable housing located near emerging employment centers. Social costs are costs rendered to the c.ommunity in direct and in indirect ways as a result of having inadequate affordable housing for Lee County residents. s,'V1IOUStHGWbVabIe H«IskIg ~ a/ Not PfOVIdJng AifonJBbIe HousIngIDeb HaIIdaýs Sf¡Øy\Ccpy a/ Cost of not PnNfding AfIotrlebIe Housing. 9-17- 02.œc - 7 - ',I " Public costs are examined in three areas: lost economic opportunity , transportation, and social costs. Social costs are defined broadly, and there is no differentiation between services provided through County, State and Federal funding sources. This approach is taken because quantifying social costs is difficult at beSt, and so examples of the relationship between housing and social influences are chosen based on the clarity of the relationship, rather than on the source of public revenue. Lost Economic Opportunity Lost economic opportunity is . defined as the economic. benefit the County forgoes by not developing affordable housing. Lost economic opportunity is analyzed in three areas: (1) lost jobs and wages; (2) lost consumer spending; and (3) lost property taxes. The first lost economic opportunity re1a~es to the economic stimulus created by the actual construction of hçmsing that is affordable. It is estimated that Lee County will need 30,000 additional units of owner-occupied housing for residents at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI) by the year 2010.4 Residential. construction stimulates . the economy directly through job generation and wages; and indirectly as the demand for goods and services create(fby the construction of new homes creates a "Ripple Effect" throughout the local economy. This study relies upon National Association of Home B~ders' estimates for the -direct economic impact of housing Construction. This section is limited to the economic stimulus represented by owner- occupied units. It is estimàted that Lee County will need 11,493 units ofrentaI housing for residents at or below 800Át AMI by 2010. S The development of rentai properties also stimulates the economy, so this section underestimates the overall economic impact of meeting Lee County's affordable housing needs. Lost. consumer spending is the amount of money lost to the economy as a· . result of households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Thirty percent is the widely accepted U.S. Housing and Urban Development standard for the maximum a household should spend on housing costs. Households that spend more than ·30 percent of their bUdget on housing are considered cost burdened. Cost burdened households are limited in their ability to purchase other goods from the economy, such as food, transportatio~. health care, childcare and retail items. This offset of purchasing power has a significant impact on the local economy. This study estimates the annual cost of lost consmner spending as a result ofbouseholds paying too much for their housing. . The third category of lost economic opportunity is lost property tax revenue. The construction of affordable housing provides Lee County a neW and stable source of property tax revenue. This study projects- property tax revenue for the construction of 30,000 units of housing selling at $120,000 each.6 A~ rental units are excluded 1Ì'Om calculations. s.~ Hcusng ~ afN« Providing AtfonJBbIe I-IocI$ingV)eb Ha6iday'$ Study\Qpy at Cost af not ProvIdTng AifotdIIbIe Ht:Jœåg. f.17-02.doc - 8 - 1 I, . This study analyzes commuter trends of lower- wage earners and posits a more cost- effective approach as Lee County grows. Transportation Infrastructure As communities grow, the balance between where workers live and where they work can become strained. The way in which a community grows has enormous consequences to public cost. Public costs associated with how a community grows include road construction and maintenanc~ schoo~ and water and sewer utilities. Many comttlunities have conducted fiscal impact analyses to better understand the fiscal impacts of growth patterns. A comprehensive fiscal analysis is beyond the scope of this study. There are significant public S~lVings derived from the reduction of commuting and its attendant costs of congestion, accidents, and air Pollution. 7 These costs include in1Ì1lStructure costs and health concerns. There are also social costs associated with the location of affordable housing. When housing is in close proximity to high:..wage jobs, tòp-quality s~hooIs, and well-funded public safety services, children have more opportunity to acbieve economic and social stability than when they are nol8 To best represent the public costs associated with the impact an inadequate supplypf affordable housing bas on traDsportation infiastructure costs in Lee County, 'this study analyzes commuter trends oflower-wage earners and posits a more Cost-effective approach as Lee County grows. This methodology was developed through discussions with members of the Lee County Department of Transportation, County planners expex;t in U.S. Census daþ1, .and transportation analysts from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council . Social Costs Social costs, broadly defined, are costs the community bears as a result of . differing needs and capacities within the community. Communities bear social costs ÏIì order to ensure the cO~unity thrives. . Because of the multitude of variables involved in defining what makes a society healthy ·and operable, isolating and quantifying social costs is an illustrative more so than a quantifiable process. To illustrate the social costs associated with housing, researchers conducted a literature review of research that provides definitive, qualitative relationships. between housing and· two primary arenas of community-borne social costs: education and health care. -- There are many 'other community-borne social costs that· are related to inad~e housin& incJudit}g. homelessness, domestic violence, mental health care, child care, and other sociál services. This study emphasizes education and health care as a starting point for further analysis in Lee County. The relationship between education and housing is well documenteæ the more stable the home a child comes from, the more likely they are to succeed in schOol and later in the workforce.9 To best understand the costs to the educational community of Lee County, representatives from Lee County s.~ Housitg ~d No( Aorifng Nfo«Jeble ~ HeIícItq'$ study\Copy «Cost d not PI'/1IIicIkrg AIfoId8bIe HocJáJg. 8-17· 02.rkJc - e - · rhe more stable the home a child comes from, the more likely they are to sucœedin school and later in the workforce~ School Districts' Offices of Welfare and Attendance, program officers of the District's homeless services, student mobility, remediation, the Office of the Budget, and others helped to identify and quantify key indicators. Income data of students who access specific services in the education system is unavailable. Eligtòility for free or reduced lunch progouns is used. This is a . eoDnnon. approach in education poliçy analysis. Using eligtòility for ftee and reduced lunch programs underestimates the extent to which an education indicator impacts housing, because a family who is income elig¡òle for the ftee and reduced lunch program earns less than does a family at or below 8001'0 Area Median Income. This means the group of students who are at or below 80% AMI and yet ineligible for free or reduced lunches are not counted in the analysis. In addition, data is not available indicating whether the above child resides in owner-occupied or renter-occupied households. In the case of health care,· research establishes the relationship. between the health of our families and the condition and stability of our housing. Representatives ftom the' Lee County Public Health Department, Family Health Centers of Southwest Flori~ the Southwest Florida Health Plarining Councit State of Florida Health Statistics analysts and a representative ftom Lee CoÙD.ty Memorial Hospitals helped to identify key indicators to best exemplify the relationship housing has to health care. Emergency room health care services are exclud~ because the County's hospital networks are private non-profit organizations and are not funded with public tax dollars. . The hospitals playa key role in provision of health care services - Lee County Memorial Health Services provided $24.2 million in· direct charity care in 2001. 10 The costs associated with charity care and unpaid hospital bills are inevitably "cost shared" with the rest of the community, as the loss of hospital income represented by unpaid bills is offset in part 1>y paying patients' hospital cbarges.There is no set forinula a hospital uses to cost share expenses, and so this study.does not attempt to quantify tbis "Public" cost. In assessing health care costs, there are direct J.11ediCal costs (inpatient and outpatient services, medical visits and medications) and indirect ~ including the time lost from school and work: as a resu1t--of.the illness and ensuing morbidity and mortality. To estimate the extent to which Lee County bears the costs of housing-related health care costs, national data sources are applied to local case prevalence. There are also health care costs :çelated to transportation trends. Research i:Scited, although this study does not attempt to estimate transportation-related health care costs. s.~ HaI$Ing ~« N« PJovIding AIIotdebIe ffousj)¡¡IDeb Hdday'$ Study\Copy« Coat« not PrtNfding AIIoId8bIe HouskJg. i-fT· 02.doc - 10 - I ~ 3 How Affordable is Housing in Lee County? . What do workers' need to make to afford average housing costs in Lee County? Housing affordability is defined as a how much a household should make household paying no more than 30% to afford the average sale price of a . of its income on housing costs. new home built in Lee County, or the Federal and state programs define average rental property. For the housing costs for homeowners as purposes of this study, utility .costs are follows: principaL interest, taxes and not included m the renters' housing insurance (often referred to as the costs. Median incomes of select job monthly mortgage payment), and for occupations are used to help readers renters as: rent payment and utilities. better understand the gap of Chart 2.1 uses the most recent affordability in housing. demographic data available to show . . Chart 3.1 - Housing Affordability in Lee County Median .Sales Price of New & Existing Homes Single-family, 200111 Total Monthly Housing Cost to Own . 90% financed {10% down payment}; 3O-year mortgage Monthry'mortgage payment at a mortgage rate of 7.5% Monthly prorated property taxlunincorporated lee Cty ($25112) Monthr . rated aye e homeowners insurance $12513 Annual Income Required to Buy the Average House Assumi one s 30% of one's ross income on Monthly Income Required to Buy the Average House $154,000 $ 1,345 $ 53,811 $ 4,484 ~edian Income; -schoof bus driver Median Income, fire fighter Median Income, receptionistfmformation dark Median incomes for Fort M Coral MSA 14 Average A arbnent Rental Rate15Wrthout utilities s.~ HœsiJg ~«N« PrtMding Motd6bIe /iocJskrgIDeb Ha/Iday's ~ «Cost« noI ProvIdkv Nfo«ktbIe Houshg - ~1T-02.d0c - 11 - .,' . r Indicators of the Need for Affordable Housing The extent to which a community has inadequate affordable housing is measured by the availability and condition of affordable housing. Availability is measured by the extent of cost burdened households. Housing condition is measured by the degree of substandard housing in the community. 16 . The need for affordable housing is slated to increase rapidly in the next ten years. · In Lee County, 29 percent, or 50,000 households of all income levels. pay more than 30 perCent of their income on housing. 17 lower-inCome residents bear the lion~s share of the cost bmde~ representing 2 oUt of every 3 cost burdened household. IS . u.s. Census data for 2000 regarding substandard housing conditions is not yet available. Using 1990 Census data percentages and applying .themto 1998 population ~ an estimated 5 percent of all units, or 8,710 ho~eholds are substandar~ meaning the unit is. dilapidat~ does not have operable indoor plumbing, usable toilet or' shower, electricity or safe electricity, safe or adequate heat, a kitchen or has been declared unfit for habitatiOn.I9 Assuming all substandard units are inhabited by people at qr below 80% A1vfI, 13. percent of all units inhabited by peòple in this income range are substandard. Other indicators of housing need in Lee County are evident · As the community grows, development of affordable housing is being left behind. There was a 41 perCent increase in construction of single- family homes from 1999 to 2001, from 2,507 units to 3,544 units. During that same time period, the ~umber of newly built affordable units dropped 10 percent (from 1,005 units in 1999 to 908 units in 2001). The portion of affordable housing built is falling drastically: in 1999,40 percent of single-family houses built were valued at $120,000 or less. By 2001,. only 26 percent were priced in that range.20 . The average cost of a rental unit in Lee County jumped from a 3 percent increase between 1999 and 2000 (ftòIl1 $567 to $584~ to a 25 percent increase between 2000 and 2001 (froni$584 to $732). 1 . Mirroring national trends, Lee County homeownersbip rates continue to climb (76 percent in 2000, up from 72 percent in 1990).22 Employment and income growth, modest mortgage. ~terest rates and innovative mortgage products for low-income buyers· helped to boost national homeownersbip rates. 23 ..- '"Regarding· homeownersbip and.rental availability, it is estimated that . Lee County will need 30,000 new units of owner-occupied hoUsing and 11,493 rental units for residents at or below 800/C¡ AMI by the year 2010.24 The Shimberg Center assumes 100 percent of cost burdened . owner-occupied housing need housing assistance. Fifty-one percent of . 25, Lee County homeowners at or below 80% AMI are cost burdened It is reasonable to anticipate at least 50 percent of potential buyers of the 30,000 additional units win require housing assistance.26 s.'ViOUSIHGWfbtda Housitg Stud)'Co.st of Not ProtJfdb¡¡ AIbdsbIe HousingIDeb HaIiday'3 ~ of CC\s( of not Pnwiding Motú8bIe HocIring. 9-17- 02.doc - 12 - - t1.' "Once a retirement haven, lee County is now dominated by . ·'NOrking-age people." -lee County Oftìce of Ecooa~ Deverotxœnt ~Proti1e, 2001 There is· broad CODSensus· in the Lee County housing community that addressing the n~ed for affordable housing is a top priority. · The 2000 Lee County Consolidated Plan states that there is a great shortage of affordable housing units in Lee County. and estimates the current shortage to ~ over 21?OOO owner-occupied units and nearly 6,100 affordable rental units. · A lack of affordable housing is one reason families are at risk of homelessness: waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 vouchers nmnber 300 and 1,500, respectively.27 - Efforts to get families out of emergency shelters and into permanent housing are futile because there is no access to housing for families at risk ofhomelessness.23 . Workforce Projections The need for atIordable housing in Lee County is slated to increase rapidly in the next ten years. Demographic trends for Lee County indicate that the portion of the population aged 18 - 24, those j~ entering the workforce, is growing 30 percent faster in Lee County than'elsewhere in the state of Florida, and 130 percent faster than elsewhere in the Unittrd Sfat9s.29 These workers, should they chose to settle in Lee County, will be arriving at house-buying age over the next five to ten y~ Lee County will.need to take action- to be ~le. to offer this growing sector of the population the promise of an atIordable home to buy. Currently, one out of every two jobs in Lee County is in the service sector or in wholesale/retail trade. These jobs· are traditionally lower-wage jobs with few employee benefits. Service sector eJ;D.ployrirent is the fastest growing . sector of Lee County's economy: by the ~ 2008, service sector employment is expected to climb by 41 percent, addingJ9,705 neW workers to the local economy, and growing ftom 27 percent to 32 percent of totai industry employment 30 A recent Lee County workforce study prepared for -the Economic Development office of Lee County and the Lee County Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Committee report noted that Lee Cowty's· median . income is lower than the national average and is expected to grow slower for at least five years.' The report states: "These relatively low incomes create a gap in the. atIordability of housing for many of Lee Cowty's working famili· "J 1 es. ww-wage jobs create a tremendous barrier to housing affordability. A recent . report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLllIC) estimates a worker.working a minimUm wage job in ~ County ($5.15 per hour) must work 91 hours per week to afford to rent a two-bedroom unit at the area's Fair Market Rent ($608).32 The hurdle for homeownership is even higher. Without additional affordable housing units, 'it is clear that a large portion of Lee Cowty's workforce - many of whom are moving to Lee County at this J time - will be shut out of the homeownership opportunities, and thus out of the QPP-Ortunitv to establish _term. economic security. s.~ HousiJg SIudy\Cost of ~ Ãibfi8bIe Hous/ngIDeb SIuIIyV=;Ø Deb HaIi1ay study9-17'-OZV::œt «not PnMcfiJg ~ Hoœ/nf1 FiJtII· 9-17-02.doc -13 - T . .' 4 The Public Costs of Inadequate Housing Public costs to Lee County citizens due to an inadequate supply of affordable housing. .~ The public costs to Lee. County Indicators illustrate the relationship citizens due to an inadequate supply between housing and two key sectors of affordable housii:J.g are' analyzed in of the community: education and three sectors of the economy. Lost health care. Economic Opportunity is defined as the economic benefit the County These costs are in 2002 dolIars~ and foregoes by not developing needed . are expected to rise in subsequent housing. Transportation Infrastructure years as the need for affordable is represented by costs the housing outpaces efforts to increase community bears when lower-wage affordable housing opportunities, workers must travel long distances to absent aggressive measures. employment centers. Social Cost Chart 4.1 - Summary of Public Costs to Lee County Citizens due to an Inadequate Supply of Affordable Housing: 2002 Lost Economic Opportunity Lost Jobs & Wa es Lost Consumer S ndin Lost Pro erty Tax Revenue Total Lost Economic 0 Public Costs: 2002 $ 158,800,000 $ 78,644,397 $ 3,288,000 . $ 240,732,397 Educationlndicatoffi Health Care Indicators Total Social Indicators $ 4,404,181 $ 1,006,922 $ 5,411,103 Total Annual Public Costs: 2002 $ 249,407,500 ~ Housítg SUftCost of Not PIori:fng A/fotrJabIe Hoœing'Deb He/IIdaý$ SMiyICopy ci Cost of not ProvIdiJg AbfatIIe Houå1g - J. f7. a2.doc - 14 - r .. t . 5 Detail of Lost Economic Opportunity This section provides a detailed analysis of the economic opportunities Lee County foregoes by not developing affordable housing in three arenas: lost jobs and wages~ lost consumer spending, and lost property tax revenue. Residential construction stimulates the economy through job creation and wages. I: Lost Jobs & Wages It is estimated that Lee County will need 30,000 additional units of owner-occupied housing for residents at or below 80% AMI by the year 2010.33 Residential construction stimulates the economy directly through job generation and wag~ and in~y as the demand for goods and - services created by the construction of new homes creates a "Ripple Effect" throughout the economy. The National Association of Home Builders estimates the direct economic impact of the construction of 1,000 hom~ in the categories or' single-~ and multi-fainiIy construction. This study projects the lost jobs . and wages iepresetÍted. by not constructing 30,000 units of housing. An annual increase of 12 percent is used to atrive at 30,000 units built by 2010. Chart 5.1 - Lost Economic Opportunity: Lost Jobs & \J\fages ----------------- ' ~~~ ~.:.:;~ );1' , .,/:;;-:1 ~':): ~ ~;n~¡:- J¡:;:- ;ii'¡l .o":'': _::: Annuaf Units . _Bunt . 2,000 2,248 2,527 .2,840 3,192 3,588 4,033· 4,533 5095, , . ~ " I ~ : . :-;: - .......... -- - --, --_.'--- '-- -. __ ·___n. _"_ Total Lost Jobs & VVages, 2002 - 2010 .---- - - ----- ----'.-----"-.. -- --- ~-'~ _._~ -- - --. - S2,368,478,996 ~ ~ Housirg SUiy\Cost «Hot ProIIkIing Atfot08bIe Hous/nVD8b HaI1d&ý, ~«COst «not Providing AtrombIe HoœkIg. t-17-02.doc -15 - , ~ , . Cost Burdened households have artificially limited purchasing power in the economy. II: Lost Consumer Spending Cost burdened households - have incomes at or below 80% AMI.36 households that spend over 30% of This study focuses on the cost burden of their income on· housing - are households living at or below 80% limited in their ability to purchase AMI, chiefly because that income group other goods nom the economy, such is the focus of the study, but also as foo~ transportation, health care, because an extra dollar "saved" in a . childcare, and recreational and retail lower-income family is more likely to goods, due to the imbalance of be spent for real goods than is a dollar housing costs. Currently, 29%, or saved ina higher income family, which 50,000, Lee County households at has more options for investing the dollar all income levels are cost saved, thus circumventing the local burdened.35 Of these, 31,000 are economy. For more information on homeowners, and 19,000 3:èé renters. methodology used for this section, refer 66% of cost burdened households to Appendix B. í. Chart 5.2 - Lost Economic Opportunity: Consumer Spending ". Homeowners Renters ... Area Median Income for Famil'y of Very low':' Low~nco~ Very low- low-Income 4 Income (Below (51% - 80% AMI) Income (Below (51% - 8O"'AMQ 5Q% AMI 50" AMI Maximum Income $24,5OQ31 $39,2()()38 $17,48839 $27,98140 Adjusted Income (weighted $15,400 $32,161 $11,500 $22,165 ave. 41 Maximum Spent on Housing. $6131month $98OJmonth $437/month $700/month 30% Est Cost Burden:-ß1 - 49%42 38% 38% 38% .' 35% Estimated hoosin cost wlburden $7761month $1,241/month ' $544/month $8161month lQSt Consumer S din rHH $163 $261 $117 $116 T ótaf HHs Cost Burdened 31- 6,096 4,028 5,473 \5,166 49%43 . Lost Consumer S endin month $995,683 $1,052,572 $638,028 $602,256 Est Cost Burden: over 50%44 60% 60% 66% 60% Est housin cost wlburden $770/month $1,608/month $6331month $1,1081m0nth Lost Consumer S ndin rHH $158 $628 $195 $409 Total HHs Cost Burden~ > 4,951 2,140 4,555 615 50%45 ~-' . . ~ Lost Consumer S endin month S..WOUSINGWfonJable Housing Sb.JdYCostofNot PrtMding AtroIdable Housing\DebHa6idaýs SIudy\Copy of Cost of not Prom¡ng AffotdeIJ/e Housing - 9-17-l12.doc - 16- I \ Construction of affordable housing gives Lee County a . . .new and stable source. of property tax revenue. III: Lost Property Tax Revenue It is estimated that Lee County will need 30,000 additional units of owner-<>ecupied housing for residents at or below 80% AMI by the year 2010.46 Construction of 30,000 units of affordable housing provides Lee· County a new and stable source of property tax revenue. This study estimates lost tax revenue potential of not constructing 30,000 units by making the following assumptions, established with the assistance of the Lee County Office of the County Manager47: (1) the taXable value of the properties is $120,00048; (2) residents access the $25,000 homestead exemption49; (3) average tax bill is based on 2002 rates for· a home in unincorporated Lee County - this number will increase but is kept at 2002 levels for this projection; (4) residents are assessed no other mills; and (5) a 95% collection rate is assessed. 50 An annual gain of 12 percent was used to arrive at 30,000 units built by 2010. Revenue projections do not take into account growth in taxable value. Chart 5:3 - Lost Economic Opportunity: Lost Property Tax Revenue ': Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006' 2007 2008 2009 2010 , Annuál .' Units Not 2,000 2,248- . 2,527 2,840 3,192 3,588 4,033 4,533 5,095 Built Average Tax Bill Not $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 $1,644 Collected Annual Tax Revenue In $3.3 $3.7 $4.2 $4.7 $5.2 $5.9 $6.6 $7.5 $8.4 Millions , , Not· , , Collectec:(51 . TotalUnits Not Built, 2002 - 2010 -;,30,056 Total Lost Property Tax Revenue, 2002 - 2010 $49,412,739 . ~. -- S:'fIOUSING'lAtrordabIe HousIiIg Study'Cost 01 Net ProvkJing Affordable HousfngV)eb Hallday's Study\Copy of Cost 01 not PJOVÏdbg Affordable Housi1g _ 9-17- 02. doc - 17 - . 6 Detail of Transportation Infrastructure Costs "Most communities don't have a transportation problem - they have a housing p~blem.~ . ,.:. - Steptfen Fuller ~ \ - The way in which a community grows has enormous consequences to public cost. Public costs associated with how a community grows include road construction and maintenance, schools, and water and sewer utilities. A recent . comprehensive review of acadenûc research on the link between affordable housing and growth J)1()uagement concludes that while the market is the primary determinant of housing prices~ sound growth management- practices provide more affordable housing options than do traditlonal land use policies. 52 In other words~ the more we know where we'd like to go, the more. likely we are to get there. Many communities have conducted fiscal Ïmpàct analyses to better understand -. the impact growth patterns have on public costs. A study in Miçhigan comparing low- density and high-density development found that low-density development costs the community 25 percent more in road development and maintenance, 5 percent more in schoo~ - and- -15 percent more in utilities. 53 A 1992 study of New Jersey found the state could save $1.38 billion (in 1990 dollarsS) over a twenty-year period in capital costs of ro~ water and sewer faci1ities~ and schools by fOCUSÙ1ggrowth around '&centers" which allow for both housing opportunities and employment opportunities. 55 In . Florida, a 1989 study found that "compact" rather than "scattered" development can save up to $14,700 (in 1987 donars~ .per dweUUW for services and inftas1ructure costs. A comprehensive fiscal impact analysis is beyond the scope of this study. To best represent the public costs associated with the impact an inadequate supply of affordable_ housing _ has on transportation inftas1ructure costs in Lee Co~, thiS study analyzes commuter trends of .lower-wage earners and posits a more cost-effective approach as Lee County grows. As 1.œ County grow~ questions of how the community can house an increased demand for worlcers are arising. S8 Service sector employment is the fastest growing sector of 1.œ CO\mty's economy, and current data show that one out of every two jobs in Lee County is in the service sector or in wholesa1e/retail trade - traditionally tow paying jobs with feW employee benefits. 59 These worlcers will need a place to live. When lower-wage worlcers are able to live close to snbmban places of employment, there are significant public savingsftom the reduction of commuting and its attendant costs of congestion, accidents and air pollution. 60 s.~ Housing StId)\Cost «No( 1'rOIIIding Aifo«kb/e Housing'Deb HIIIfdaýa Sbty\CcpY« Cost« net PnwIdIng NbrJsbIt Howiv -1-11- 02.doc - 18 - ~ . . A lack of . affordable housing located nearby booming job centers means lower-wage workers must travel long distanpes to provide needed . employmeót --~ To illustrate this, this study examines two areas of Lee County - Lehigh Acres, where a preponderance of lower-wage workers live, and Estero, an area in which fast job growth is creating emPloyment opportunities for lower-wage workers. See Appendix C for maps of the two . 61 areas considered. This methodology was developed through discussions with members of the Lee County Department of Transportatio~ County planners expert in U.S. Census data, and transportation analysts from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.62 Lehi.gh Acres Lehigh Acres - located in the central eastern portion of unincorporated Lee Coun2' - includes 12,707 households. Lehigh Acres is a large, platted subdivision with many undeveloped lots. The land in Lehigh is relatively less eXpensive than other areas of the County, and the area is undergoing rapid residential development Lehigh Acres residents' median family income ($42,492) and median housing value ($79,400) are 8 percent and 30 percent lower than the . rest of Lee County, respectively. This indicates a propensity of households that wotX lower-wage jo1?s and live in Lehigh Acres because the housing is more affordable than in other areas of the County. Lehigh Acres' workers' mean trav~l time to worlç. ~ 29.3 minutes - 17 perCent longer than the rest of Lee County. This indicates that Lehigh Acres' residents must travel further distances than average to get to work each day. Estero Estero - located in the central southwest portion of unincorporated Lee County - includes 4,608 households and is one of the fastest- growing commercial areas in the county. It is projected that Estero is cmrently and will continue to experience an 18 percent annual rate of growth in commercial employment and an 8 percent annual increase in service sector employment thJ;ough 2010, far exceeding the County's annuai rates of growth in ~ar . dustri' 64 . m es. Estero's booming job market is creating a need for lower-wage workers. The need is already evident. A job fair was held outside of Lee County in Immokalee to recruit service sector workers to. new businesses in the Estero area. 6S Where these workers will come ftom, and where they will live, has significant financial implications for Lee County. Currently. it is unlikely many of the needed lower-wage workers will live in Estern. Estern median housing value ($153,800) is 94 percent higher than Lehigh Acres. The lack of affordable housing located nearby Estero's booming-job-market means that lower-wage workers Will have to travel distances. to provide employment for the area. To illustrate the public costs associated with lower-wage workers traveling distances for employment, two scenarios are presented. s.~ Housing ~oINot PRMding AIfonJsbIe Hoœing'l)eb HeIic/ay'f ~ofCost ofnot PIovIditg Nfotdt1bIe Hou$irg. I-17·02.doc -19 - .J ..1 The first scenario represents the The second scenario represents the current public cost of Lehigh Acres' projected public cost if these same workers' commuter trends. . To workers lived within a 5-mile driving calculate this cost, average mean radius of £stero. time is used to derive an approximate trip length to work estimation. This W oMorce projections for Lee County nUmber is then multiplied by the Lee indicate an additional 32,089 service County Department . of sector and wholesale/retail workers . Transportation's (001) valuation for will enter the Lee County job market road impact Lee County's DOT by 2008.61 If half these new workers, estimates that it costs the public $128 or 15,000, lived wi~ a 5-mile radius per mile over a twenty-year period 66 of their employment (whether it is Once the public cost of a trip is Estero òr other employment centers in estab1íshe~ a public cost per 1,000 Lee County),.the public cost would be workers traveling at these commuter substantially reduced.' rates is derived. j' Chart 6.1 - Transportation Infrastructure Costs Current.Public Cosf . Public Cost with Reduced Worker Commute Lehigh kres'MJl'ker average Wolter average trip length to 'MJrk trip IooJth to 'M>rk - 44 miles located in Estero'-roundtrip 10 miles. . roundtrip68 . Cost per vehicle mile traveled Cost per vehicle mße traveled over a over a twenty(20)-year $128 tvÆnty-year period70 $128 peri0d69 Pubfic cost per roundtrip $5;632 PubflC cost per IOO'1dtJip $1,280 Public cost.of 1,000 workers PubflC cost of 1,000 V«Jrkers , travefmg 44 miles for twenty $5,632,000 travefll1g 10 miles $1,280,000' (20) years Public Cost for 1,000 workers for 20 years ($5,625,600 - $1 ,280,(00)= $4,352,000 Public Cosffor 15,000 workers for 20 years ($4,345,600 X 15,000);:: $65,280,000 Annuai Transporta~ion Infrastructure Costs for 15000 VVorkers S3.264.000 traveling great distances to vJork (Total / 20 years) /'. '; " ~ -' S:'HOUSINGAlbúable Hc:Iu!irq ~Cost á Not PrcNiding /IJfordab/e HotárgI()eb HaIday's StWyCost d /XX PrrM:fíng AffooJabIe /ious;Jg . 9-17· Uldx: - 20- 7 Detail of Social. Cost Indicators - Education -In All1erica, housing policy is school policy. II - David Rusk The relationship between education and housing is well documented, as Chart 7.1 illustrates. The more stable the home a child comes ftom, the more likely slhe will succeed in schooL and later in the workforce. To illustrate the public costs of not providing adequate affordable housing to Lee County fami1ies,key indicators were identified within the School District that correspond most closely with established research in the field of education and housing. Indicators were identified with the , assistance of Lee County School Districts' Office of Welfare and . Attendànce, Studerit Remediation, program officers of the District's homeless services and student mobility, the Office of the Budget, and others.71 Data on income of students who use specific. services is unavailable. Eligibility for free or .reduced priced lunch programs is used to create an income parameter which is then applied to the housinguindicator (the percentage of rental households at or below 80% AMI, and the degree of residential mobility).72 This under- represents the full cost, ~ the income engtòility requirements for the free and reduced lunch programs are less than 800.10 AMI. - S:'IOUS~ HousíJg SIudy'Cost 01 Ii« Ptovöng Nfo«JebIe HousIngV)eb HøIitey's ~oICœt 01 not ProWdfng AIfo«IebItJ HocØng. 1-11- 02.d0c - 21 - .. Key Indicator Supporting Research Housing Calculation Cost Indicator Homeownership is related to children % of rental Estimated number of Supplemental scoring 9% higher on math scores, households Level J and Level 2 T»A. higher on reading scores, and a students (7,496/4 $1,860,207 Academic reduction òf chiJdren's behavioral x Instruction problems by 3%.13 Supplemental % of clrildren eligible for Academic Instruction (SAl) provides free or reduced lundr. Funding fimding for remedial assistance and (47%/s is based on the number of students x who perform "minimaUY" or % of rental households at "substantially below" in standardized or below 8()oA, AMI testing. categorized as (Ll) and L2). (5()O~/6 x Estimated SAI jùnding per LJ/ L2 student ($1.056)" Students who move frequent1yare Degree of Average number of Absenteeism more likely to have low attendance residential students aCcessing sod4l tates. Avenge reading scores are mobility work ref?tem 1: Office of 50% lower in students who move . (8,679 . $149,796 Student three or ·more times than those of x students who do not move. Students % of children eligible for Welfare & who are absent 2ÒO" of the time sèore free or reduced lunch Attendance 20 points lower than students who do (47%ll and Social not move.7I The Lee County School x District Office of Student Welfure & % of residential mobility Workers Attendance enforces coinpliance of (25%f2 attendance Jaws. Social Workers x provide care and track referrals.79 Cost per student to provide Office of Student Welfare d: Attendanœ services 146.89 Absenteeism See above. ParaprofessionaIs- Degrecof Students in Lee Count)' 2: Para- teachil1g aides - provide support for rmdential Sclrool District (60.553)14 students who arc fitDing behind in mobility x $2,394,178 professionals class Work or who need additional . % of children eligible for '. assistuibe to succeed in school. free or reduced lunch . (47%)'S x % of residential mobility (25%)14 x ---. Cost per student (() provide paraprofessionals $336.50 17 &."HOUSING\AIIot Housing SIud)'\Cost of Not Pro!t'iding AIbúabie HousIngIDeb HaIIday's ~ of Cost of not Prowfding AIbtfabIe Housing _ ~17- 02.doc - 22 - .' .1 8 Detail of Social Cost Indicators - Health Care Asthma' and teen. pregnancy .is associated with the stability and condition of housing. Research establiShes a reWionship between housing cOnditions and the extent to which people are healthy. Representatives from Lee County Public Health Department, Family Health Centers of Southwest Flori~ the Southwest Florida Health Planning ,Council, State of Florida Health Statistics analystS and Lee County Memorial Hospitals helped to verify key health care indicators, and to identifÿ extent to which these indicators òccur in Lee County." To adequately reflect health care co~ both· direct-medical costs (inpatient and outpatjent services, medical visits and medicàtions) and indirect costs, .....!..~ -~ including the time lost from school and work as a result of the illness and ensuing morbidity and mortaJity, must be considered. Direct and indirect costs are derived from data produCed at the national leveL National cost estimations are then ·applied to local occurrences. The prevalence of the housing indicator (the degree of substandard housing and the degree of residential mobility) in Lee County is then used to isolate the housing impact on the health care indicator. Cost considerations are derived for asthma and teen pregnancy. Other health care related· indicators are noted but not quantified. s."HOUSINGWfotde HocJsing ~«Not Pff:MdkIg AJIo«JBI:JIe HousingIDeb ~ ~dCost «no( ProvIding AirotfJBÌJIe Houstrg - Ø-f7- 02.doc - Z3 - . " , a Chart 8.1 - Health Care Indicators . . . . '. . Key Indicator Teen . Pregnancy Asthma Supporting Research A child who never moves is nearly one-third less likely to become an umnarried teen mother tban a child who moves four times, other. fàctors being cquall9 Taxpayea spend nearly $7 billion each year (1996 doUars) to address the social issues TCSU1ting ftom births by girls under the age of 18.. Costs include: $2.2 billion in welfare and fOOd ~ benefits; $15 billion in medical cost$; $900 million in foster care expenses; $1 billion in addiûonal prison construction; and $13 billion iÍ110st tax revenue from reduced productivity. 90 Lee County bad 200 births to mothers under 18 in 2000." . Cbildhood asthma is Jin1ced to· poor housing condiûoDS. Ð Asthma rates axe increasing most rapidly among low-income children in substandard housing. in part because these chi1c:ken dO not bave air conditioDing . and cannot affótd and-inftatmTlatory medications. shots and medicàI treatment'" The United States spends $4.6 ·billion. year caring for clñldren with asthma; more than twice the dollars are spent on children with asthma as on clñldren without ø.sffnna !IS . Housing Indicator Degree of housing Jmbility Degree of substandard housing Calculation Estimated cost of teen pregnœu:ies in ~ County ($8,000,000)'1 x % of people in community who are at or below . 8lP/ó AMI (38%) x % of residential mobility (25%) Estimated cost of total asthma cases in Lee County . (U,!J98,420)!If X . % of people in comnumlJy who are at or below 8lP/ó AMI (3BO/ó) x % of people in community w/w are at or below 8lP/ó AMI and live in substandard 1wusin 13% Cost $ 760,000 $246,922 s.~ Housng Sbty\Cost «Not ~ AIrotúabJe Housing\Deb HaIfday's ~«Cost «not PrtMdifg ~ Hausitv· Ø-17- 02.doc - 24 - ..,I &1 Other Social Costs - Health Care Lead-Based Paint Poisoning The Centers for Disease Controf calls lead-based paint the most serious environmentat health hazard for children tOOay.97 The major cause of lead poisoning in children is exposure to older houses with deteriorating paint and lead dust inside the home. Often renters are at a higher risk because landlords may not be aware that the paint contains lead or may not want to pay for repainting.98 Lead-poisoned children are: 7 times more likely to drop out of schoot; 6 times more likely to have a reading disabßity; have significantly lower IQ's, attendance rates, dass ran kings and vocabulary scores; are associated with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, and aggressive and anti-social behavior and crime in later life.99 Lee County had 7 reports of lead poisoning in 2000.100 Salmonella Poisoning Children living in overcrowded housing conditions are vulnerable to salmonella poisoning.101 Lee County had 107 cases of salmonella poisoning in 2000.102 Anemia More than 120,000 children suffer from anemia because their .families cannot afford both rent and food.103 Anemia can become a serious problem if left untreated. symptoms include fatigue, weakness, and impaired mentaf function. Data is unavçßabIe b' Lee County. Transportation Health care costs associated with growth are compelling as well. Increasing.ly, studies are linking Iow-density, auto-dependant suburban developments to a higher incidence of health problems, in part due to the unavailability of viable walking and bike riding altematives.104 Worsening traffic conärtions that result from Iow-density development are also Hnked to asthma caused by polluted aÎr.105 S;VÐUSlNG\AffordabIe HousIng Sbi)'\Cost of Hot Providing Motd8bIe Housing'Deb HaIiday's ~,j Cost of oot Providing AIbd8bIe Housing. 9-17- 02.doc - 25 - '. ..9 The need for affordable housing costs Lee Cou~ty citizenry over $249 million each year. . Findings and Conclusion The following findings result ftom an analysis of the public costs associated with inadequate·affordable housing in Lee County~ Florida. 1. . There is inadequ~te affordable housing in Lee County, Florida Ample research supports the finding that Lee County does not have enough housing that is affordable to families living at or below 80% Area Median Income. · The ·2002 hourly wage needed to buy a median priœdhome in Lee County ($1'547000) is $25.87 - far excP.P.tHng the $14.86 a fire fighter ea{DS7 or the $9.66 a receptionist earns in Lee County. · The dev~lopment of affordable housing is dec1ining The percentage of ~ single-family units priced at $120,000 or less feU ftom40 percent of aU nomes built in 1999 to 26 percent of all units built in 200 1. · The average cost of ;;L two-bedroom rental apartment leapt wm a 3 percent increase between 1999 and 2000 to a 25 percent increase between 2000 and 2001. · It is estimated Lee County will need 307000 units of owner-occupied housing and 11,493 rental units by the year 2010. 2. The n~ for more affordable housing costs Lee County citizenry over $249 million annually and' is expected to rise with growing unmet need. . This study calcu1atesthe public costs associated with inadequate housing in three sectors of the community: lost economic opportunity; transportation inftasttucture; and the direct and indirect social costs related to education and health care. This study concludes it costs Lee Co~ · $240.7 million per year in lost economic opportunity o $158.8 million -lost jobs and wages as.aresult of not developing needed housing o $78.6 mmion - lost economic opportunity as a result of families spending too much money on housing o $3.3 minion -lost property tax revenue · $3.2 million per year In transportation Infrastructure o For every 15,000 workers who must travel great distances to work. s.~ HousIng Study\Cost fA No( ProvIdfng AIIot!JtJbIe HoustIg'l)eb Hallday's Study\CÞpy fA Co$( fA not ProvIding AtbdebIe Housing. 1-17-D2.doc - 2f - 1 . .,1 .' · $5.4 million per year in education and health care social indicators o $4.4 million - education indicators o $1 mimon - hea1thcare indicators Public cost figures are for 2002. These costs are expected to rise. in subsequent years as the need for affordable housing outpaces efforts to increase affordable housing opportuniti~ absent aggressive measures. 3. lee County needs to initiate an aggressive affordable housing development strategy Currently in Lee County, an average of 1,000 single-family units valued at $120,000 or less are built each year. - This number would have to be doubled to 2,000 units the first year, and then assume a 12 percent increase in housing production each year following to meet the community's need for 30,000 owner-occupied affordable housing unitS by the year 2010. This can be accomplished by adopting an aggressive affordable housing development stpltegy that can include many innovative approach~. ~ Thè Lee County Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Working Group developed recommendations to increase homeownership, all of which serve well the need for increased affordable housing opportunities. These recommendations have been review~ changed· and subsequently endorsed by the Lee County Affordable Housing Committee and the Lee County Board of County Commi~oners Management and Planning Committee.106 The following is an abbreviated list of these recommendations; the full text can be found in Appendix D page 34 of this study. · . forgiving overdue property taxes and liens on vacant properties . identified _by non-profit housing providers Ii establishing an Affordable Housing Land Bank: Program · making available swplus county land for affordable housing· development · updating the County's affordable housing needs assessment · establishing an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Trust Fund · establishing alternative design and development review standards to promote in-fill housing · leveraging funds for affordable housing, including tax-exempt bond funds s.~ HousiJg SU:ty\Cost« Not PnM:fng AIfoofsbIe HousJngV)eb HtIIiday'$ Study\Copy of Cost« not Providirg AJbrJabIe HousIng. f.17-02.doc - 21 - .: , . · diversifying the economy to enhance employment that pays wages adequate for existing housing · educating non-profit developers on cmrent state tax incentives · encouraging employer assisted housing programs · establishing a non-profit mortgage company · encouraging local lenders to provide innovative banking products · educate all stake holders on existing housing assistance progfams · increasing housing rehabilitation activities · analyzing the need for affordable housing generated by developmen~ identifying who is respol1Slòle for meeting that need and how that need can be met . These are very important steps for the còmmunity to take of particular importance ~ the ~s to: · Establish a Lòcal Housing Trust Fund Over 130 states~ counties and cities natiónwide operate a fund established specifically for the development of affordable housing. Successful housing trust . funds . have an ongoing source of revenue and are collaborative with decision- making rep~tation from housing industry~ local government and Cònsumers. For more information on developing a local housing trust fund, see the Center for Community Change Housing' Trust Fund Project. www.communitychange.org. · Implement Inclusionary Zoning One of the most successful communit,Y-båsed' efforts to increase the production of affordable housing is inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning reserves a specific percentage 'of housing units for' lower-income households in new developments. The community establishes thresholds for' eligt.òle projects, the percentage that need to be affordable~ and the duration of affordability. For more information . and for mndPb: of successful inclusionary zoning, see www.inhousing.org. · Work with Employers to Encourage Employee Homeownershlp Incentives Increasingly~ employers are recognizing that workers who have inadequate housing are more likely to move f;requently - causing lost days on the job - and to relocaæ - . creating expensive retraining costs due to employee tmnover. Employer-assisted houSing programs include down payment assistance~ low-interest loans, and the actual creation of housing units. For more information on employer-assisted housing programs, see http://pòlicv.rutgers.eduleahltiemey famriemae.htmL s.~ Housing ~ «Not. Proridfng A/bdtJbIe HousingV)eb HaIiday'I ~oICostol not ProvIditJg AIIotd8/JIe Hou$¡"g - f.17·02.doc - 2B - . .' " , . For Further Study This study is a starting point for Lee County to better understand the interplay of affordable housing and the economy. This study proposes a methodology to better understand the way that CUlTent public costs are associated with inadequate affordable housing. There are areas that were beyond the scope of this project, and could prove useful next steps. 1. Conduct a fiscal impact analysis As COminunities grow, questions of where to direct growth and how to pay for it emerge. Lee County can benefit from a fiscal impact analysis, which would provide a clearer picture of the costs to infrastructure, transportation, school éonstruction and water and sewer that result from growth 2. Calculate the amount of money it would cost to meet the affordable housing needs of Lee County ·Establishing a firm understanding of the cost to build 30,000 units, what types of units they would be, and how they will be paid for will give citizens a better understanding of the commitment needed to house Lee County families. ". Thís study establishes the need - and quantifies the public cost - of inadequate affordable housing in Lee County. This analysis has tremendous value to business leaders, developers, housing policy makers, neighborhood groups, the real estate community, and government in general, to make good decisions for the community as it grows. Homeownership is a cornerstone for many communities that seek n~ighbOrhood stability, a thriving economy, and overall well being. Understanding the interplay of housing and the economy is significant to increasing housing opportunities for all Lee County citizenry -~~ - --~ .".;-, S:'HOUSINGWfrxåable Housing Study\Cost of Not Providing Mordable HoustIgIDeb Haliday's Study'Copy of Cœt of not Providing AfforúabIe Housk!g _ 9-17.02.doc - 29 - · ·t I , .f Housing impacts health and ability to succeed in school and in the workforce. Appendix A: Housing Conditions in Lee County Housing conditions measure the safety, adequacy and affordability of a community's housing stock. Three housing conditions are considered in this study: the degree of Cost Burden, Substandard Conditions, and Overcrowding. In addition, this study consjders the impact ofResidentiaJ Mobility as a factor. The· extent to which residents live with these housing conditions impacts their overall health and ability to succeed in schOol and in the workforce. Where data is unavailable for the purposes of tliis study, assumptions are. made and clearly stated. ." ....~ . ) S:'HXJSlNG\AtroidabIe Housing Stld)'CœtofNot Provtdrtg AIbúabIe HouskIg\Deb HaIic/ay'$ Study'CopyofCDstof notPrfNiditg AfIotdtJbIe HocJsing. 9-17. D2.doc - 30 - " , .. Chart A- HousinQ Conditions in Lee County Housing Definition Extent of the Indicator in How this Indicator is Indicator Lee County Applied in the Study A household is cost bmdened 29%, or 50,000, Lee County Cost burdened households have less . if it spends more than 30% of households of all inCome levels are money available for other goOds and its income on housing.107 For cost bÚrdened. 101 services, such as health care, food, homeowne¡s, housing costi chùdcare and retail spending. Cost Cost Burden include mortgage, principa1. 66% of these cost burdened burden is used in this study to interest & taxes; for renters, households have incomes at or below illustrate lost economic opportunity housing costs are rent and 800/Ó AMI. 109 when income is, spent on housing utilities. rather than on goods and services. A dwelling is substandard if it In 1990, 6.4% of owner-occupied Researcli shows a relationship is dilapidated, does not have and 1.4% ofrenter-occupiedhomes between children living in operable indoor plumbing. were substandard. 112 substandard conditions and overall Substandard usable toilet or shower, 2000 Census data is not yet available health and ability to succeed in Conditions electricity or safe electricity, for substmdard housing. Using 1990 school1l4 safe or adequate heat, a percentages for more recent data on Lead-based paint poisoning is linked kitchen, or has been declared total homes in Lee County, it is to ~ disabiJities and antisocial unfit for habitation. no estimated that 8,710 dwellings are behavior. IS Data is unavailable on Lead-based poisoning is an substandard Tþis reptesents 13% of the income ~l of people Jiving in important indicator of households at or belòw goo/Ó AMI. substandard housing. This study substandard hOùsing. The There were 106 cases oflead-based assumes l000/Ó ofresidcnts in major cause oflead poisoning poisoning in Lee County, 1996- S11~M;rd housing are at or below in children is exposure to older 1999. 74% of cases were in areas 80% AMI. houses with deteriorating paint where housing was· built prior to and lead dust inside the 1979.113 home. 111 The inost common measure of 2000·US Census data is not yet Oveærowding is Iinkcd to health care overaOwding is where there is available. In 1990, 4,492 units Were concerns; such as sahnonctIa more than one person per overcrowdcd..1I6 Using 1998 poisoning. Overcrowding room. For this puxpose, an numbers 65,095 households were at rooms in a dwelling are or below 80010 AML 7% were counted, not just bedrooms. overcrowded. Residential mobility·is Mobility rates vary widely between Frequent moves are linked to poor Residential measured by the ntJJDber of schools in Lee County, ftom a low of school performance and attenðanr.e times a student changes their 7.4% to a high of over 100%.111 A rates, less 1ike1ihood of graduating. Mobility residential address within a review of address changes for the and greater likelihood of teen school year. In Lee County, 2001-2002 school year revealed 37% pregnancy. I» Based on other student mobility is calculated of e1ementary-age children eligible research finding.<:. this study assumes as an student withdrawals and for the free or reduced hmch program 25% of students at or below 80% reenroDments divided by net moved one or more times dming the AMI ~ence ~~J mobility. enroDment. 117 . school year. This is consistent with Residential mobility is considered in current mobility research that finds 1 estimating social costs related to in 4 low-income students move one schools and health care. or more times during a school year, and other studies that link income and mobilitv.l19 S:'HOUSINGWbdabIe Housi1g StJJdy'Cost of Net Prt:Mdirg Motd8ble HousiJg\Deb Haliday's Sludy\QJpyofCœl. of n« Piovi1ing Moldable Hwsfng - f-17-02.doc ·31· " , .. Appendix B: Methodology This study uses the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development standard of affordability7 which states the maximum a household can spend on housing costs is 30 percent of household income. Estimating lost economic opportunity Lost consumer spending is the estimated aniount of money households at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI) overspend on housing, meaning they spend more than 300/Ó of their income on housing costs. For homeowners, housing costs include principa17 int~ taxes and insurance. For renters, housing costs include rent payments and utilities. This study does not consider utility payments in rental calculations. To estimate the amount of money households overspend on housing, the maximum income allowable fot very low-income households (below 500Æ. AMI) and low-income hoUseholds (51 % - 80% AMI) is established. This study utilizes the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Incentives Committee of the Lee County Board of County Commissioners for maximwn allowable income. To ensure that lost consumer spending is not overestimated, a weighted average adjusted 'income is established to more closely represent the amount of cost buèden households experience within each income bracket. Data is unavailable regarding the specific amount of overspending for income brackets within each maximum allowable income group for Lee County. To estimate the breakdown of overspending per income bracket, the extent of cost burden yrithin income brackets wàs derived ftom the Tampa/St. Petersburg MSA, U.S. Census Bureau, 1998. The ådjusted income is then multiplied by 30 percent to establish a maximum spent on housing allowable to not be considered cost burdened To estimate the percentage of cost burden within each.maximum allowable income group for Lee County, TampalSt. Petersburg MSA data on degree of cost burden is used. By multiplying percentage of cost burden by adjusted income; an actual housing cost can be approximated This nmnber can then be subtracted from maximum spent on lwuSingto establish a lost consumer spending amount. This process was applied to homeowners and renters in very low-income and low-income households. Estimating lost jobs and wages This study uses the National Association of Home Builders estimations to anticipate the lost jobs and wages represented by not building 30,000 units of owner-occupied, $,gle-famiIy, affordable housing. Needed rental units are not considered in this calculation. Estimating lost property taxes This study estimates the property tax revenue for 30,000 units valued at $1207000 each built over a nine- year period. It assùïries residents access the $25,000 homestead exemption, applies the 2002 average tax bill for unincorporated Lee County7 assumes residents are assessed no other tax 111ills, and asSumes 'the County has a 95 percent collection rate. An annual rate of growth of 12 percent is used to see the economic impact of building 30,000 units by 2010. . Estimating transportation InfrastrUcture costs ~ - This study utilizes u.s. ceDsus Bureau data on mean travel time to wor:k as the basis for estimating an average trip length for residents of Lehigh Acres. Average trip length is based on 3S$UIIlÍng a vehicle averages 45 miles per hour during a tripftom home to work. Cost per vehicle mile traveled is based on the Lee County Road Impact Fee Update7 April 2000. Traffic Analysis Zone data ftom the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council is uSed to project employment growth in Estero. s.~ HousiIg SLody\Cost cI Not PrINfding AffotáabIe HousitrJIDeb HaI1daý$ ~ cICost cI not Prr:Mdin¡¡ A6otd8bIe HoustIg - 9-17. 02.d0c - 32 _ . or " . . Estimating social costs Quantifying social costs is an imperfect science. Assumptions must be made on a broad set of variabl~ including housing conditions, income levels, household spending choices, and more. PeIhaps the most difficult task of tlús study is to develop a methodology to isolate the extent to which inadequate housing plays a role in the community's efforts to ensure people get good educations and become equipped to . succeed in the workforce, and become or stay in good health. Through the literature review and through extensive conversations with housing policy analysts around the country, it is apparent that no such methodology currently exists. This methodology is a starting point and should be refined as better data and analysis is developed. The methodology used is as follows: 1. Two indicators are identified for each social cost. A social indicator is identifie<L based on existing . researCh and through conversations with Lee County (governmental as well as non-governmental) professionals, and à housing condition indicator is identified based research and on existing housing conditions in Lee County. 2. The cost of the soCial indicator is then established. This cost is established through the assistance of Lee County professionals. - 3. An income analysis of the, social indicator is estimated. Where data is available, the extent to which users of the social indicator are at or below 80% AMI is used. Where income data is not available, other income indicators, such as eligibility for free and reduced-lunch, are used. 4. An income analysis of the housing indicator is estimated. Where data is available, the extent to which households at· or below 80% experience a housing condition is used- Where data is not available, aSsumptions are made and clearly stated. 5. A calculation is made: Cost of the social indicator x Estimated % of users who are at or below 800Á, AMI x Extent to which housing indicator is experienced by households at or below 800/6 AMI = Estimated Social Cost due to Housing S:'HOOSINGWfordabIe Iiocdng ~ofNot Providing Affon1ab1e Housing\Deb HaIidays Stoo'y\Copy of Cost ofnctProviã/t"fJAffOIfJabie Housing. 9-17·02.doc - 33 - ~ 0-<:::> o~ Ü .~ o :: mð U5~ w'§ cð..§ U)~ Q) \:: L. !:: ü .9 «~ ..cc.:: O){j :.c ';: c Q)r:;-- ---1:: .., ü ~ x~ =-0 è5 r,? Q) ~ CL~ 0...::: <t:~ .., '" "- \J:> o .J:) ., c<, U) N C") "" Ii) Ii) r-.. o N '" CIJ ..,. r- 1\ ! '\. ~ ~\ r\. I r-\,. \------\ /~--- 1 ~ Æ~·¡. ~ i~~\~~ "" s ~ 01'" , IX) I 2.~ 'OJ' 'I ¡ ,.... , -............... ! -'--7----- !--¡ j' ;;.J ! ~'. it'. .~I<J:~. ¡ . , t r-.', f:h¡ ..,... I '..:...,..._ ; --. I \=¡ = ..J--.-c-..- . .. . ! ! ,TIt -'r'~~ Ii) , . . . ¡--~~ :g, ;; --- '" I . ø ~, " ..'_ .. '¡~. ~ ¡ r-_....~_.l=--·~·~~,..<P..=-- ! - ',-.. # 1. ,. I ~ f, F . ¡ . I " . 2 (" 'cx). \ !, ~:ï; , \ '¡ ~. :; ï ¡;: CIJ i _. ~. /' ¡ ~ /.",'''-'~ '-"'~-'"'~f ~ 5 ¡ ..~-~.~.. 'I,.' k .~.\. ~,,«..""" ï\ . .J'.'" ' -. ·';·1 .'.... .- "~·<i;;..--'" . ... \ tç~ ¡' }-' .~.....~... ¡. ~.,ð/j<~ '" .,..#t ~ )1 ,j , ¡"'~/ ~, ~~4 ~~. I --:t C") I '"' ,I M IJ) " , II) N co '" M co to T- V 32 o .r- r-: ,~- -. ..- ø ~ ~ en 7:) ,..,. N co 1'. M a) ~ .... co· n.<- Q) . cc· r- .~. . ..... ,: 01 "'1" 1- ':j" V ':1- ..¿" '" 0..25 0::: ~ .~ (¡)t3 U5 .SO w oð ~ ëi: (/) ~t; ü ã « 'iîo <u ..c~ O)~ -- .;::: ..c Õ ~lì: '" U ~ -- X~ ~~ Q) ci Q..~ n _ «~ --. ~'-._~l--'-.~b..~...~.__~'~~.i:-ty... &S ! -- l ~ t: ttJ' l "t" ¡ f'- ~: ~ I \ \ :;..., v i ~ '. .., ~.:::; t· It> <P ,:; , : \.~\ ! ~T··-:;¡,-~'t-:-;::-· r--' r, , :-,. co _\M'I.t?,}., "r Þ \. .'Ø"}" 'O"<'i.~.:<O',,"""'''' ¡. ·~·.··~..·_.."t'··"C·~ ¡.S). "" ''''' , .... r-;' f¥ en t-- ~ --i :1. _ t_ ,¡¡:;. , I \ \: t;:1tl1: ~, .. ;¡; .I W : <0 ì . .1' .,. ...., t; . !\1~' . .~.... en" , .,-_...._.'1~- "-..~__~__~__.}..~-}-_.L.:_-r~·-_... \ ...,-_---.z- ...~.-" ~ ! ~ 1> : I I I i ~' co ¡'I "...... r-· I, I I, _ IN ('- n) \, \.C1 'I. ~ / \' \' ¡ ~ .:g' ,n !,_ </';/M, .. \ '[() '-f I MI.' ~!' "J,,'ê' ~ \ '--/1 \\.:2 1 §i ¡ .... l: :ç~ \i'~-1 -) L" ¡ . _ N· I: : N r----· '-~---.'~ '!1. ..~~ ~ \ :-.0, -:-r. "'.\-./----- - .~ ...... ,'" :.\;- -.... ~--aJ.-.. ~ ........ ~ ~ r. i I~ . / ~I" ION ," h, M; <0 . ~ ¡ /_ ~_! -..l":----œ¡-\ff,..../ '. UJ ~ ~! \.0. //Mt<'~ !.- ¡ \.. ..,"""'·v·,···· ..,.... ···:'1'1..~..·~·",...,.,.,..-..· --7/" .~._._....- ~ "". M .F"¡·'fi· \ ~ I,: ~ ¡4J \ / ~ .: I, '. l. .. ~ r4~"¿~'-'-"--''''1~ t ~. \ ~;. ~ . .:~ f I : 01 <=> ,,,,,,10/0 ...: - I/ ('.. ~ .:;,1, co 'I~I.... .t.. co ro . , I \ ...... I .-, :. I ì' -. ~ '~___-:....J.-...~~L.... '-''''h ~~".7 i , I I N co' ~ i,:::". ~~ .. t'~:~:F' '~,~:h- ~'i' ~', \, \ (~ i~ i¡ II' \1 '. r .....<'.;.c'.... ~........'..... ,', ','..." ','~-' .'-'-'. ~'. m 0, .: .-r r-. .:.' m· '·0·' .('1 c; lI":0': Ie., a co r± (J) ,~ :g.. o UJ '" m \0 ~ , co' o (') 01 00 N (", .,., <D N co> r-'<I '"" r1) N ('..1 (J;> N· "1' L('j C") -. ~ 0> '."'I:f' ,~ en t_ to ..., co co .:::: ,., ~ 1- (") . ill. r--. N aJ a: (f) It"J ¡;:. 1 "'" C""I I <t r- N co r± (J) n .D r- N o 1- ,-;:0 (") c:' r:. f' (~ I I : I Appendix 0: Affordable Housing: Recommendations to Increase Homeownership Recommendation #1 The County sJwuld look into forgiving overdue property taxes and liens. into working out a payment plan on. assessments on vacant properties identified by non-profit housing providers to nra1œ 'it .more attractive and affordable for non-profit housing providers to build in-:fìll affordable housing. 1ñe county and the non-profit housing providers should also work with other taxing districts to jòrgive overdue taxes. Recommendation #2a The County should look into establishing an Affordable Housing Land Bank Program, much lilœ the Conservation 2020 Program, for the acquisition of land for future affordable housing development. . Recommendation #2b The County sJwuld explore making available suitable surplus county landfor affordable housing development. Recommendation #3 The County should fund an update its affordable housing needs assessment and also include information on where the largest county employers are located and where their employees live, iriformaJion on wages and incomes in the county by employment sectors, the tost on "the ccunty 's physical (l7fd social infrastructure of not developing affordable housing, and the most appropriate opportunities and incentives to provide affordable hdusmg. 1ñis study should be coordinated with the existing Lee County Workforce Study. Coordinating with the Workforce Study, should enable the County to ccntinue to work towards diversifying its economy in a way that will recognize and enhance the ability of County residents to pay for standard housing that is affordable to them. Recommendation # 4 - N/A (deleted by the BOCC Management & Planning Committee) Recommendati()n # SA - N/A (deleted by the BOCC Management & Planning Committee) Recommendation # 5b As an alternative to the above paragraph, the County 's goal should be to establish an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Trust Fund to pay impact jèes jòr a designated number of affordable houses countywide. 1ñe fundingfor the Trust Fund could come from a variety of sources to include general funds; the interest generated on the èXisting impact fee jùnd and density bonus fimds. Scme or all of the impact fees for a particular affordable house could be paid out of this Trust Fund. RecommendatioD.# 6 Lee County, on a neighborhOod basis, should establish alternative design and development review standards to promote affordable housing especially in-flll housing. 'T7.øse alternative standards for affordable housing wûl alkJw a more efficient use ofland as compared with the typical single- family subdivision. 1ñese flexible design options will incorporate cost saving measures without compromising the quality of the resulting subdivision Recommendation #7 The County will consider ways to leverage an array of federal, state, and local funds for affordable housing to include tax-exempt bond funds. s.~ HoustIg ~ «Not ProriItJg AIb1:faf* Hoœ/ngIDeb HaIiday'$ Sbty'Copy «Cost of not Ptovfding AIfotdt1bIe HouskI¡¡ - f.17-D2.doc - 35 - " , " Recommendation #8 The County should continue to work towards diversifying its economy, butßo so in a way that will recognize and enhance the ability of County residents to pay for standard housing that is affordable to them. This can be an incentive for attracting businesses to Lee County by helping to meet the affordable housing needs of incoming businesses. This diversification should increase the wages of county worms and help them to afford housing. (Refer to Recommendation #3, which calls for several studies including a study on the public costs of not providing affordable housing.) Recommendation #9 Affordable housing non-profit developers to learn more about state tax incentives, such as the Community Contributions Tax Credit Program as well as other incentives as a means to diversify their funding sources. Recommendation #10 Major public and private employers should be encouraged to help their employees acquire affordable homes with down payment assistance. Staff should contac(representatives of various newspapers to see if it was possible to place a symbol, such as a logo, on a classified ad that would indicate which employers offered some type of affordable housing assistance for its employees, who qualify for affordable housing assistance. This would assist applicants when they are deciding where to apply. Recommendation #11 Explore the feasibility of establishing a non-profit mortgage company for hard to serve applicants. . . Recommendation #12 Encourage loeallenders to continue to provide innovative barlking products that will encourage affordable housing and explore the re-establishmeni of the Banking Consortium. Local lenders should be encouraged to provide below market financing for Reèommendation #13 Educate the public, affordable housing providers, lenders, real estate professionals and other employers on the availability of affordable housing programs and incentives and promote credit counseling to potential homebuyers. Staff Comment #14 The SHIP program is a construction program. At least 75% of SHIP funds must be spent on construction activities, (which includes rehabilitation activities); Lee County has endeavored to spend virtually all its funds on construction (brick and mortar) activities. Downpayment assistance for an existing home is not a corrstruction activity. A household is aided in the purchase of a house but there is no associated construction activity. However, once a household acquires an existing home, SHIP funds have been used for the rehabilitation of the existing owner-occupied homes, as rehabilìtaiio~ is a construction activity. Recommendation #15 With criteria determined by the Board of County Commissioners an analysis should be conducted to determine: a) the need for affordable housing generated by a development, .b) who has the responsibility for meeting that need and c) hów that need will be eliminated or mitigated S:'fIOUSJNG\AIfot'dabI Hoc.rsiIg Study\Cost œ Ncl.PI'OIIidÞ¡ Affotdable Housing'Deb Haliday's Sludy\CcpyofCost œnal Proviãmg AffotrJabIe Housing - 9-17-ædoc - 36 - Ji." · (f ( ... Endnotes I u.s. Census Bureau, 2000. 2 Communities in Califoinia are often cited for their proactive policies regarding growth management and housing. California cómmunities develop these policies in part as a response to existing crises in housing and affordability. Hometown Crisis: How Marin's soaring housing costs are afJéçting thepeople who live and work here. Marin Independent Journal, June 2001. · 380% Area Median Income in Lee County for a family of four is $39,200. Source: Affordable Housing: Recommendations to Increase Homeownership A report prepared by the Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Incentives Committee of the Lee County Board of Commissioners, February 2002, p. 1. 4 Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for Lee County Smmberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2000. Note: In a telephone conversation with a Shimberg Center analyst on May 1, 2002, it was revealed that there are caveats to using the Surplus/Deficit Model that established the projected need for 30,000 units by 2010, as there are many variables that determine how people choose their housing. Nonetheless, it is a starting ~int for Lee County to work from in its analysis of housing need. . The Affordable Housing Study Commission, Final Report 2001 Florida Department of Community Affairs. 6 "(d) the proposed sales prices of new. .. units, which can be lower but may not exceed 90% of median area purchase price established by U.S. Treasury Department;" Chapter 67-37.005(5)(d) State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program, Florida Administrative Code. ($121,536 is the 90% of median area purchase price established for Lee County, Florida by the U.S. Treasury Department.) . 7 Wiewel, Wim, etal. Private Benefits and Public Costs: Policies to Address Suburban Sprawl. Policy Studies Journal, v27nl, 1999, p. 104. 3 Arigoni, Danielle. Affordable Housing and Smart Growth: Making the Connection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, p. 15. . 9 See Donald R. Haurin, Toby L Parcel, R. Jean Haurin, The Impact of Homeowners hip on Child Outcomes, · Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, October 2001; Kids Mobility Project Report, Family Housing Fund. www.fhfund.org; and Hartman, Chester, High Classroom Turnover: How Children Get Left Behind, Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. 10 Lee Memorial Health System Community Report, Spring 2002. 1 I Economic Development Office of Lee County, analysis provided by Denny Grimes, VIP Rea1ty Group using Florida Gulf Coast MLA database. 12 Lee County Office of the County Manager, May 2,2002. 13 Lee County Realtor Dan Cohn, May 2, 2002. 14 Florida A.gency for Workforce Innovation, Labor Market Statistics, 2001. 15 Demographic Profile 2002 Economic Development Office of Lee County, p. 15. 16 State of Florida Consolidated Plan, FFY 2000 - 2004, p. 13. 17 Lee County Three Year Strategic Plan, FY 2000- 2002. 18 The Affordable Housing Study Commission, Final Report 2001. 19 These numbers are arrived at usìng 1990 US Census percentages and applying them to more recent housing data. .20 Lee County Department of Community Development, June 11,2002. 21 Demographic Profile 2002, p. 15. 22 1990 source: The Lee Plan 2000 Codification. 2000 source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000, Table DP-l. 2,3 The State of the Nation's Housing: 2001, Joint Center for Housing Studies, p. 13. 24 Homeciwnership estimates baSed on Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for Lee County. Rental unit estimates based on The Affordable Housing Study Commission, Final Report 2001. 2S The Affordable Housing Study Commission, Final Report 2001. 26 Ibid. 27 2000 Homeless Continuum of Care Lee County, p. 12. S:IffOUSINGlAffordable Housing StudylCost of Ncl Providing Affordable HousinglDeb HaHiday's SIudy\Ccpy of Cost of not Providing AffOtdable Housing _ 9-17. 02.doc _ 37 . " . . ' ,) I ... . 21 Telephone conversation with Dr. Gary Lounsberry, Southwest Florida Coalition for the Homeless7 April 167 2002. 29 Demographic Profile 2001, p. 2. 30 Ibid, p. 3. 31 Affordable Housing: Recommendations to Increase Homeownership, p. 10. 32 Out of Reach National Low Income Housing Coa.Iitio~ September 2001. 33 AfJòrdable Housing Needs Assessment for Lee County. . 34 The National Association of Home Builders estimates that 2,448 jobs are created per thousand single- family homes bui1~ representing $79,400,000 in wages. Data is based on national estimates. www.nahb.org. 3S Lee County Three Year strategic Plan, FY 2000 - 2002. 36 The Affordable Housing Study Commission, Final Report 2001. 37 Affordable Housing: Recommendations to Increase Homeownership. 38 Ibid. 39 The Affordable Housing Study Commission, Final RePort 2001. . .eo Ibid.- 41 The average income of a cost burdened household within an income parameter (ex: "Below 5()o¡fo AMr') for Lee County is unavailable. To estimate. the percentages (not real numbers) of households within income parameters cited in the American Housing Survey for the Tampa/St. Petersburg MS~ US Census B~ 1998 are used. The Tamp~ St. Petersburg msa is used because it is most applicable data available. 42 The estimated cost burden within an income parameter (ex: "Below 50% AMI") for Lee County is unavailable. To estimate, the percentages (not real numbers) ofhousehólds within income parameters cited in the Americm Housing Survey for the Tampa-St. Petersburg Metropolitan ~ US Census B~ 1998 are-USed. 43 The extent to which households experience cost burden is estimated by applying State of Florida Consolidated Pl~ FFY 2002 ~ 2004 statewide housing assistance percentages for households by income, p. 13 to The Affordable Housing Study Commission, estimations of actual number of households that are cost burdened. -« The estimated cost burden within an income parameter (ex: '"Below 50% AMI") for Lee County is unavailable. To estimate, the percentages (not real numbers) of households within income parameters cited in the American Housing Survey for the Tampa-St. Petersburg Metropolitan ~ US Census Bùreau, 1998 . are used. 45 The extent to which households experience cost burden is estimated by applying State of Florida Consolidated PI~ FFY 2002 - 2004 statewide housing assistance percentages for households by income; p. 13 to The Affordable Housing Study Commission estimations of actual number of households that are cost burdened. . 46 Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for Lee County. _ 47 Estimates developed with assistance from Jim Le~ Lee County Office of the County Manager. . 48 "(d) the proposed sales prices of new... units, which can be lower but may not exceed 90% of median area purchase price established by U.S. Treasmy Department;7' Chapter 67-37.oo5(5)(d) State Housing Initiatives Partnership Pro~ Florida Administrative Code. ($121,536 is the 90% of median area purchase price established for Lee County, Florida by the U.S. Treasury Department.) , 49 The homestead exemption allows owner-occupied dwelling units to exempt $25,000 off the taxable value of the home. sO Florida State Law mandates that a 95% collection rate is assumed in estimating property taxes for budgeting purposes. 51 Annual Property Tax Revenue is calculated by taking the number of units x average tax bill x a 95% collection rate. s.~ HousíIg SLoåy\Cost at Not PrIMfing MotrJ8bIe HoosingVJeb Hafdaý$ SM1ÿCopy of Cost at no( ProWtlng AIIo«kbIe Housing - ~17. 02.doc - 38 - . J... ."- ,. . . f J . ..... 52 Nelson, Arthur C., et aI. The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence. The BrooIångs Institution, 2002. 53 Burchell, Robert W. (Rutgers University). Land Use Decision Making: Its Role in a Sustainable Future for Michigan. MSU Extension, January 9;.10, 1996. pp. 1-34. The terms "low-densiif' and "high-density" are not defined by number ofunits per acre. ~ Using Northeast Consumer Price Index figures, $1.38 billion in 1990 dollats would equate to $1.9 billion in 2002 dollars. 55 Burchell, Robert W~, et aI. Impact Analysis of the New Jersey InJerim State Development and RedevelopmenJ Plan, Report II: Research Findings. Report prepared for New Jersey Office of State Planning, Trenton, NY, 1992. "Using Southeast Consumer Price Index figures, $14,700 in 1987 dollars would equate to $22,652 in 2002 dollars. . 57 Duncan,James, et aI. The Search for Efficient Growth Patterns: A Study of the Fiscal Impacts of Developments in Florida. Report prepared for Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, July 1989. 58 "Lee leaders fighting to get mall developer to help build affordable housing." Bonita Daily News, March 21,2002. 59 Demographic Profile 2001, p. 2. 60 Wiewel, Wun, et aI. .. t 61 Lehigh Acres and Estero maps represent approximate Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (ITGERS) place borders. TIGERS is a geographic database produced by the US Census to provide census, mapping and boundary information to the public. 62 Methodology was developed with assistance ftom Andy Getscb, Lee County Department of Transportation, Bob Beluschak and Dennis Simon, Lee County Planning Division, and Bob Diogo and Glen AhIert, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 63 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table DP-l. 64 Bob Diogo, Southwest Florida RegionaI Planning Council Traffic Analysis Zone, 2002. 6S Telephone conversati9n with Glen Ahlert, Southwest Florida Regional PlaIining Council, May 21, 2002. Job fair took place in March 2000. . 66 $128 per vehicle mile traveled represents the replacement cost of a roadway. Roadways are intended to have a 20-year lifespan, hence the twenty-year period used. The estimate includes a credit cómponent to compensate for the gas tax revenue that helps to pay for road constructions and maintenance. Source: Road IlltPact Fee Update-Lee County, Florida. Lee County Department of Transportation, April 2000, p. 12. 67 Demographic Profile 2001, p. 3. .. > Q U.S. Census data provides mean travel time for Lehigh Acres CDP. Trip length is derived by assuming a . vehicle averages 45 miles per hour during a trip from home to work. 69 Road Impact Fee Update - Lee County. Florida.' 70 Ibid. 71 Indicators were· developed with assistance from Mattie Young, Dr. Doug WbittakP.r, Annette Tartaglia, Mike Smith, Mike Ollifl: Sr..RÌchard Itzen, Lee County School District 72 Eligibility for free or reduced price lunches is a standard measurement oflow-income children in school. 73 Donald R. Haurin, et aI. . 74 SAl funding is based on individual student test scores, not on total number of students. To derive an estimated number of students, a 25% duplication is assumed. Source of data: Lee County School District, 2002. 75 Florida Department of Education. Average eligibility is derived from data for elementary eligibility ~S2.1 %) and middle school elig¡òility (42.4%). Data is unavailable for high school-age students. 6 The Affordable Housing Study Commission, Final Report 2001. S;WOUSINGWbdabIeItJu$ing SW)oICostofH« Prottling AIbå8/bIe HousiJgIDeb Haliday's Stu:tyICopyofCost afn« PnMdingA/'folfiable Housing_ 9-t7-fJ2.doC - 39 - ..."; fll; r .. . ',1 t i ... 17 Estimated SA! funding per Level and Level 2 students is derived &om Lee County School District total allocation for 2000-2001 ($7,918,789) divided by the estimated number of Level 1 and Level 2 students ~.496). . Kids Mobility Project Report. 79 Social W oders provide key assistance to students and families struggling with patterns of non- attendance. A centralized mainf!ame referral system tracks the type and number ofreferra1s in a given year. The system is compliant with state law, which requires specific school-based interventions in response to Students who fail to show for school within established parameters. 80 Lee County School District Office of Student Welfare and Attendance, average number of students 1998- 200t. 81 Florida Department of Education. Average eligibility is derived from data for elementary elig¡òility (52.1 %) and middle school elig¡òility (42.4%). Data is unavailable for high school-age students. 82 Based on other research; this study assumes 25% oflow-income students experience residential mobility. . See Appendix A for more information on residential mobility. B3.Estimated Office of Student Welfare & Attendance funding per student is derived from Lee County School District total allocation for 2000-2001 ($1~74,858) divided by the average number of students ~ing the social work referral ~em (8,679). Lee County School District Budget Office. s.4 Lee County School District Office of Student Welfare and Attendance, average number of students 1998- 200t. as Florida Department of Education. Average elig¡òility is derived from data for elementary elig¡òility ~2.1 %)and middle school e~g¡Dility (42.4%). Data is tma,:ailable for high schoo~-age stu~eh~' . . . Based on other research, this study assumes 25% oflow-mcome students expenence reSIdential mobility. See Appendix A for more infoDnation on residential mobility. 87 Estimated paraprofessional fimding per student is derived frOm Lee County School District total allocation for 2000-2001 ($20,315,982) divided by total student emollment (60,553). Lee County School District Budget Office. 88 Indicators were developed with assistance from Dr. Judith Hartner and Mary Ellen Miller, Lee County DepaItment of Health, David Halvatzis, Family Health Centers of Southwest Florida, Irene Giniat, Southwest Florida Health Planning Council, and Debbie Kendziorsk:L Lee Memorial Hospital.. 19 Haveman, Robert and Wolfe, Barbara, Succeeding Generations (New York, NY: Russell Sage, 1994), pp. 250-251. 90 "'96 Cost of Teen Pregnancy is Put at $1 Billion" New York Times, June 13, 1996. The study, released by the Robin Hood Foundation, compared the consequences of childbirth for teenage mothers, their children and the fathers of babies with people from the same social background whose first pregnancy was-delayed until the woman was 20 or 21. www.ncpa.orglpdlsocia1/socialc.html 91 Florida Public Health Information Data System, Lee County Public Health Department, 2002. 92 Estimate uses a per-teen-pregnancy cost of $40,000, multiplied by the number of teen pregnancies in Lee County (200). The per-teen-pregnancy cost is based on the national cost of $7 billion divided by the national number of pregnancies of 115,000. www.nq>a.orglpdlsocia1/socialc.html _ 93 Daren Briscoe, Housing Crisis Harmfid to Kids Children's Advocate, September-October, 1999. www.4children.org 94 The State of America's Children Yearbook 2000, Children's Defense Fund, March 2000. 9S Brodsky, Karen, Overcoming Financial Barriers to Improving Asthma Care for Children, Center for Health Care Strategies, March 2002. 96 Data is not available for actual cost oftotaI asthma cases in Le County. To arrive at an estimat~ the total estimated cost of direct medical and indirect costs, including the value of time lost &om school and work ~ a result of asthma morbidity and mortality, for Tampa, Florida ($11,901,000) is used. This cost is multiplied by the percentage of asthma cases in Lee County versus Hillsborough County (which includes s.~ Housing SbttCost of Not Ptoriiirg Aifotr/øbIe HocJsiIgIDeb HatiIý$ Study'ClJpyofOlst ofno(ProWdkIg A/bd8bIø HoustJg - '-11· 02.doc - ~ - .. .. ,... '", . . . .. .. .. Tampa) (42%). Tampa costs are 1994 numbers. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. www.aafa.org. IJ7 Georgia Consolidated Plan, FFY 2000 Interim Consolidated Plan of the State of Georgia, Georgia l)epartment of Community Affairs, May 2000, p. 64. 98 Strege-FlQra, Carson. Economic Benefits of Investing in a State Housing Trust Fund, Montana Housing Partnership, Fall 1998, p. 11. 99 See Public Health Service (1991). Strategic plan for the elimination of children lead poisoning. Hyattsville, MÐ: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Appendix II. See also H.L Needleman, A. Schell, et al. "The long-term effects of exposure to low doses oflead in childhood. An II-year follow-up ~rt," New England Journal of Medicine, January 11, 1990,322:83-88. 1 Florida Public Health Information Data System, Lee County Public Health Departmen~ 2002. 101 Conversation with Dr. Judith Hartner, Director of Lee County'Public Health Departmen~·April23, 2002. 102 Florida Public Health Information Data System, Lee County Public Health Department; 2002. 103 Daren Briscoe. 104 Frank, Lawrence, D. and Engelke, Peter. How Land Use and Transportation Systems Impact Public Health. Active Community Environments Working Paper 1, Centers for Disease Control, httµ:J/www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpalaces.htm. . 10511ìis was borne out by Atlanta during the 1996 Olympic Gam~ in which public efforts to discourage- vehicle use and to promote mass t:ranSit had the unintended effect of dramatically reducing hospitalizations for asthma attacks, particularly among children. The study noted a 23% decrease in morning traffic and' a 42% drop in daily hospitali7.ations got asthma among children between the ages of one and sixteen. SoUrce: Friedman, Michael S et al Impact of Changes in TranSportation and Commuting Behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic games 'in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma. Journal qf the American Medical Association, February 21,2001, http://www.iama.ama-assn.orglissues!v285n7/abs/joc90862.htm. 106. Florida Public Health Information Data System, Lee County Public Health Departmen~ 2002. 107 Nationally recognized measuremen~ established by U.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 108 Lee COunty Three Year Strategic Plan, FY 2000 - 2002. 109 The Affordable HOusing Study Commission, Final Report 2001. Florida Depar1ment of Community Affairs. 110 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development III Strege-Flora, Carson. 112 Lee County Three Year Strategic Plan, FY 2000 - 2002. 113 Ibid. 114 See BriScoe, Daren; and The State of America's Children Yearbook 2000. 115 Brodsky, Karen. 1161990 US Census Bureau. 117 Lee County School District 118 Lee County School District. . 119 See Kids Mobility Project Report; The Condition of Education 1995, National Center for Education Statistics, htto:l/nces.ed.gov/~ubs/celc9546aOl.htm1; Highly Mobile Students: Educational Problems and Possible Solutions, ERIC/CUE Digest, Number 73; Dobson, Janet M. et at, Pupil Mobility in Schools Final ~Qrt, Migration Research Uni~ September 2000. . 1 See Hartman, Chester; Haveman, and Wolfe; Kids Mobility Project Report. S:ViOUSlNG\4fkKdab1e /-IoustJg StJdy\Cost of Not ProvidiJg AIfotdable Housing\Deb HaI1fday's .StUdY\COPY of Cost of no( Providing At'fotdBbIe Housing. 9- 1 7- 02.doc - 41 -