HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Developing an Affordable Housing Strategy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/10/2016
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Sandy Belson, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-736-7135
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel
while Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality ITEM TITLE: DEVELOPING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY
ACTION
REQUESTED:
1 - Determine if further clarification or information is needed to understand the
issue of affordable housing within the City of Springfield. 2 – Identify potential outcomes that the Council would like to achieve in developing
an affordable housing strategy.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City recognizes that there is an affordable housing issue within the larger
community. Staff analyzed the current situation to better understand the extent of
the problem and to provide Council a framework for discussing potential strategies the City can employ to improve the situation. We did not attempt to update the
analyses prepared for the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis - 2011 or the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan – 2015.
ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Council Briefing Memo
2 – Key Findings 3 – Data Analysis 4 – Summary of Interviews
5 – Policy Analysis 6 – Maps
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
In our analysis, staff narrowed the lens on Springfield and the current housing
problems faced by Springfield residents. First, we conducted an analysis of the
City’s progress in implementing adopted policies. Then we undertook a quantitative data analysis followed by interviews with a variety of people who work
with some aspect of the provision of housing. This work session is an opportunity for the City Council to review the data, discuss the issue of affordable housing and identify desired outcomes. Staff will return in a future work session with potential
strategies the Council can explore to foster housing choice and affordability. The financial impact will depend on what Council ultimately includes in the affordable housing strategy.
It must be recognized that addressing the affordable housing issue is a complex
problem that Springfield does not face alone. The housing market is a regional
market, the City does not directly provide housing, and the City must operate within the framework of Statewide Planning Goals, statutes, and rules. However, Council
has an important role to play in setting priorities for how staff and resources are
used to support efforts that improve housing affordability in our community.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 10/10/2016
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW Director
Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
BRIEFING
Subject: Developing an Affordable Housing Strategy MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The City recognizes that there is an affordable housing issue within the larger community. Staff analyzed the current situation to better understand the extent of the problem
and to provide Council a framework for discussing potential strategies the City can employ to improve the situation. We did not attempt to update the analyses prepared for the Springfield
Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis - 2011 or the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated
Plan – 2015.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel While Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality
BACKGROUND:
Housing has always been and always will be a critical component of a community. The
City has policies about housing in various adopted plans and the City has a housing
program supported by funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). However, there is recognition at the local and regional level that although the economy has recovered from the recession, Springfield residents struggle to find and afford housing. These conversations have led to this work session to begin the
discussion of how to create an affordable housing strategy for the City of Springfield.
Asking the questions
In creating an affordable housing strategy, there are a series of questions to guide the process.
What is the problem?
Who is affected?
Why is there a problem?
What is the City doing and what has the City done?
What outcomes does the City want to achieve?
Answering these questions will form the basis on which to build a strategy that provides
guidance to Council and staff to be strategic in utilizing public resources to achieve
desired outcomes.
Analyzing the problem
Housing is a complex issue. One question leads to another and potential responses have
AIS Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM 10/6/2016
implications beyond the scope of housing. In an effort to analyze the scope and breadth of the problem, staff took the following steps to understand and analyze the problem.
The Key Findings presents a summary of the issues and data discovered in the data
analysis, interviews, and policy analysis. (Attachment 2)
Quantitative Analysis – We gathered data about Springfield’s demographics, income,
and housing from the American Community Survey and other sources. We reviewed
statistics from Lane County about homelessness. We collected local information about
rental assistance, home ownership assistance, and development costs. (Attachment 3)
Interviews – We talked with various people involved in the provision of housing to
understand the affordable housing problem from different perspectives. (Attachment 4)
Policy Analysis – We reviewed the city’s adopted policy and determined what the City
has already done to implement those policies. (Attachment 5)
If needed, these documents can be updated to include additional information or analysis
as requested by Council.
Answering the preliminary questions
This memo is a high level synthesis of the research and analysis conducted to help
answer the questions posed above.
What is the problem?
Shortage of housing – Vacancy rates are low. There is a lack of housing at all levels: emergency shelter, transitional housing, subsidized rental housing, market rate
rental housing, spaces in manufactured home parks, condominiums and single-
family homes.
Housing is expensive - 41% of households are burdened with housing costs exceeding
30% of their income (i.e. “cost burdened”).
Who is affected?
Renters – 53% of renters are cost-burdened.
Owners – 36% of homeowners are cost-burdened.
Female-headed households – 46% of female-headed households live in poverty and 71% rely on public assistance (food stamp benefits, cash assistance, and/or
supplemental security income).
Children – One in four children live in poverty.
Those on limited or fixed incomes – Those who receive a modest monthly income such
as seniors or disabled people may not be able to afford increases in housing costs.
Special needs populations – Populations recovering from trauma, dealing with illness or
addictions, newly independent youth, and those with criminal backgrounds have
AIS Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5
MEMORANDUM 10/6/2016
needs for social services in addition to stable, secure housing.
Why is there a problem?
Limited profit opportunities – Developers see few opportunities to make a profit on
housing at low to moderate price points given high land and construction costs.
Stagnant wages - Housing costs have increased much faster than incomes.
Public subsidy insufficient – There are not enough subsidies to make enough housing
affordable to low-income households.
What is the City doing and what has the City done?
Assists with home purchases – The SHOP program uses HUD funds to provide down-
payment assistance for qualifying first time homebuyers. The City has also
provided funds to Habitat for Humanity.
Supports homeowners – The City pays for home repairs for low-income home owners
with HUD funds and waives development code fees for low-income applicants.
Helps fund new rental housing – The City uses HUD funds and waives development
code application fees to assist non-profit developers that build complexes that are
affordable to targeted populations.
Helps fund acquisition of rental housing – The City uses HUD funds to assist non-profit
developers that purchase existing housing which is then rented to targeted populations.
Exempts property taxes – Through the vertical housing program, a portion of annual
property taxes for the Royal Building are exempted.
Supports the emergency shelter – The City pays Saint Vincent de Paul to manage the
emergency shelter program for shelters located in parking lots of local churches.
Contributes to social services – The City helps fund the Human Services Commission
for staff costs to non-profit organizations serving low-income clients. The City
contributes to the G-Street Oasis.
Amended the development code – In 2013, the City adopted amendments to establish the
Small Lot Residential District. The City has not yet zoned any property with this new zoning district.
The housing continuum
One important concept in the dynamics of housing in a community is that a healthy
community relies on a housing continuum. The type of housing that someone needs or can afford changes over time and in response to life circumstances. However, if there
are gaps in the continuum or missing rungs in the ladder, someone may not be able to
easily step up or down that ladder. If the gap is too wide, the separation between
segments of the population will increase potentially causing rifts in the community. For
example, someone living in a subsidized apartment who earns a raise that puts her above the income cap for the subsidized apartment may not be able to move into a market rate
apartment if all the market rate rents are more than she can afford. If a retired couple no
longer desires the maintenance of a big house and yard but can’t find a small
condominium to purchase, they may end up staying in their big house but not
maintaining it sufficiently. Purchasing a mobile home in a park may allow a young
AIS Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5
MEMORANDUM 10/6/2016
family the pride of homeownership and a chance to build equity without taking on a big mortgage. Providing a diversity of housing types at various price points expands options
available in the housing continuum.
Although Springfield’s housing continuum does not extend far into high end housing, it
does offer a pretty good mix of housing types and price points. However, the housing market is so tight that there is currently a need for housing at all price points. Single-
family homes have dominated recent housing production. Currently there is one
apartment complex under construction which is the first new market rate apartment
complex to be built since 2008.
Answering the last question
With understanding of the salient issues around affordable housing in Springfield, the
next step in creating a housing strategy is to identify areas of focus. Based on Council’s
direction, staff will bring suggestions of various strategies to achieve desired outcomes
to a future work session. Given the magnitude of the cost burden on Springfield’s residents, it is unrealistic to think that the City alone can solve the problem. But, by
identifying an area or areas of focus, the City can be strategic in investing its resources.
Thus, selection of desired outcomes will ultimately be based both on the needs of
Springfield residents and the values of our community.
What outcomes does the City want to achieve?
The following outcomes are examples for Council’s consideration. These examples
could be modified or combined. There may be others to consider.
Assist a particular population such as seniors or families with children
Expand transitional/emergency shelter options
Establish policy to require/encourage support of income-qualified units
Increase the number of new rental units (both market rate and income-qualified)
Create additional opportunities for home-ownership for low-income households
Increase the supply of small footprint houses
Encourage medium and high density housing types
Support the rehabilitation/preservation of existing housing stock
Build relationships and mobilize community leaders
There are two other components that are involved in addressing affordable housing that
are not specifically housing. As a household income increases, housing becomes more
affordable. Thus, one way to balance the equation is by reducing unemployment and
bringing in higher wage jobs. Another way to balance the equation is with social services. If people have other types of subsidies or assistance (non-housing), they may be able to weather some of life’s storms or overcome problems that are preventing them
from obtaining and maintaining their housing.
AIS Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5
MEMORANDUM 10/6/2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1 - Determine if further clarification or information is needed to understand the issue of
affordable housing in Springfield.
2 – Identify potential outcomes desired in developing an affordable housing strategy.
AIS Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5
Key Findings – Affordable Housing in Springfield
Housing costs in Springfield are increasing faster than incomes. This trend is not sustainable.
Springfield’s median household income increased 20% between 2000 and 2013.
Gross rents increased 39% and the median house value increased 43%.
One in five Springfield residents lives in poverty.
One in four children lives in poverty.
30% of people with disabilities live in poverty.
46% of people living in female-headed households are in poverty.
Five of the 112 poverty hotspots in Oregon are located in Springfield.
Half of Springfield’s population struggles to afford basic needs.
53% of renters are cost-burdened.
36% of homeowners are cost-burdened.
4,220 households paid more than half their income on housing.
53% of Springfield households earned less than the median income for Lane County.
More than half (53%) of Springfield households own their own home.
Less than half (48%) of Springfield’s children live in owner-occupied homes.
Few low-income households receive needed housing assistance.
1.7% of homeowners are benefitting from down-payment assistance.
6.7% of households who rent live in income-qualified units.
9.1% of households who rent benefit from a Section 8 voucher.
A majority (55%) of households who rent have an annual income of less than $35,000.
One out of four households who rent has annual incomes of less than $20,000 and
thus experiences a high housing cost burden.
12,167 homeless people sought social services through Lane County Human Services in 2015.
1,451 people were counted homeless in Lane County on Jan. 27, 2016.
During the 2014-15 school year, 4.4% of the students in Springfield schools (491
children) were homeless.
The supply of rental housing is low.
Rental vacancy rates are close to 0%.
Those qualified for subsidized housing wait years before a unit becomes available.
Since 2010, Springfield has experienced a net loss of 54 units for qualifying low-
income residents.
Since 2010, 2 new apartment complexes have been built adding 21 new apartments.
AIS Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
Demand for housing is high
The number of home sales in Springfield jumped from around 750 in 2013 and 2014
to 1000 in 2015.
It is a seller’s market. There is only a two-month’s supply of homes for sale.
The low vacancy rate and lack of available housing in Springfield is limiting growth.
From 2010 to 2015, Springfield’s population grew 1.2% while Eugene’s grew 4.6%.
Since 2008, only 719 units have been added to Springfield’s housing stock.
Overcrowding is not a major housing problem.
3% of households had more than one person per room.
More than half of the housing in Springfield (55%) is single-family homes.
The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis projected that 52% of
new dwelling units to meet the need for 2030 would be single-family homes.
86% of new housing constructed since 2010 have been single-family homes.
Young families move to Springfield because the housing is more affordable.
Four of five new residents relocated from elsewhere in Lane County.
People moving to Springfield have lower incomes than established Springfield
residents.
Housing at the high-end of the market is very limited.
Only 2% of rents were more than $1500 in 2014.
Only 1.3% of owners valued their houses at more than $500,000 in 2014.
Constructing housing for the low-income population requires multiple subsidies.
New construction relies on the limited and competitive state award of low-income
housing tax credits
State award of low-income housing tax credits considers local support.
Providing affordable housing sometimes conflicts with other community goals.
Scaling SDCs to unit size rather than system impact would incentivize construction of
more affordable housing.
Regulations that contribute to neighborhood compatibility and livability may add to
housing costs.
There is a need for more housing at all price points.
AIS Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
1
Data Analysis - Affordable Housing in Springfield
To describe the current housing market situation, we analyzed data related to Springfield
residents and their housing. The first section of this analysis provides a brief demographic
overview of Springfield’s population. The next sections present analysis of the availability of
housing, the cost of housing, and a brief mention of other housing problems. The following
sections of this chapter present information on homelessness and discusses current programs
to assist with obtaining housing. The subsequent sections take a look at household mobility
and how the incomes of those moving to Springfield compare with current residents. As
children are Springfield’s future, a section of this chapter presents data on their living
situations. The chapter ends with a sampling of development costs.
Demographics1
Age
Springfield’s median age was 34.6, meaning half the population is younger than 34.6 years old
and the other half is older. Springfield’s population is somewhat younger than the state’s as
Oregon’s median age is 39.1 years. In 2014, there were 13,977 children under 18 years old. In
2014, 6,798 residents were 65 years or older compared with 6,413 in 2010. In general,
Springfield’s population continues to age.
Disability
In 2014, it was estimated that one in six people had a disability. A higher percentage of them
(30%) were living in poverty compared to the general population (21%).
Employment
The following chart shows the number of people 16 to 64 years old who are working.
1 Data in this Demographics section from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Worked full-
time, 16,483
Worked part-
time, 13,231
Did not work,
10,914
Workers within the 16-64 year old Population
AIS Attachment 3, Page 1 of 39
2
Unemployment
Springfield’s unemployment rate in September 2015 was 6.2% compared with 5.6% in Oregon.
Looking at the pie chart above, it is clear that we have a significant population of adults
between the ages of 16 and 64 who are not working or who may be underemployed. Some of
these people may not be actively seeking employment because of their disabilities, family
obligations, enrollment in school, or personal preference. Others may have given up and
dropped out of the labor force.
Average Household Size
The average size of a household that owned its home was 2.54 people, slightly more than the
average size of a rental household of 2.47 people.
Housing Type
In 2014, more than half (55%) of households in Springfield lived in single-family detached
houses. Almost one quarter (22%) lived in apartments. See the attached maps for the general
location of single-family homes, manufactured home parks, and apartments in Springfield.
Map 1: Estimated Market Value of Single-Family Homes/Condominiums
Map 2: Manufactured Home Parks
Map 3: Multi-Family Housing
Housing Tenure
Fifty-three percent of households in Springfield own their own home compared with 61%
statewide.
The Survey of Consumer Expectations Housing Survey 20162 by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York provides information on expectations related to housing on a national level. When
2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/sceIndex/housing.html#main
Single-family
detached,
13,779
Mobile Home,
2346
Single-family
attached or
duplex, 3323
Apartments,
5623
Housing Types in Springfield
AIS Attachment 3, Page 2 of 39
3
asked if they had the financial resources to do so, renters have come to view owning a home
more favorably over the past year. About 74% of renters nationwide would prefer or
strongly prefer to own their own home. Those under 50 years of age have a stronger
preference toward ownership.
Survey of Consumer Expectations by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/sceIndex/housing.html#indicators/Renters/g42
Housing Availability
The Eugene-Springfield Metro area faces a lack of available housing. Even for those people who
have the means to purchase or rent a home, securing housing is not easy. The supply of
housing has not been able to keep up with the demand, creating a tight housing market. The
lack of supply is creating a high demand as shown in low vacancy rates and long waiting lists. It
is not unusual for the supply of housing to lag behind the demand as it takes at least one year
and often longer for a developer or builder to acquire the land, design the home(s), obtain
necessary permits and financing, and then construct the project.
Vacancy Rates
Based on the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the homeowner
vacancy rate in 2014 was 2.2% and the vacancy rate for rentals was 3.7%. From speaking with
property management companies, with the exception of student housing around the University
of Oregon, the rental vacancy rate in Springfield is now less than 1% meaning less than a
transitional vacancy rate. Property managers have waiting lists for units that become available.
The Regional Multiple Listing Service calculates an inventory in months of homes listed for sale.
The inventory number is based on how long it would take to sell the entire stock of homes at
the current sales pace. An inventory of less than six months contributes to a sellers’ market.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2015 2016
Renters: Preference for Owning a Home
Strongly prefer owning
Prefer owning
Indifferent
Prefer renting
Strongly prefer renting
AIS Attachment 3, Page 3 of 39
4
For Lane County, this inventory recently dipped to a low of 1.8 months in June of 2016 and was
at 2.0 months in August, a significant drop from 7.0 months at the beginning of 2014.
As the graph below shows, this low inventory of homes is based on lots of homes being sold
creating a hot market with houses being sold soon after being listed.
Source: Regional Multiple Listing Service
New Housing ConstructedRecently, most homes built in Springfield were single family
dwellings. Since 2008, 621 single-family detached homes were built but only two were
accessory dwelling units (built on the same lot as a single-family house). A total of 11 duplexes
(22 dwelling units) were permitted since 2008. Three apartment complexes were permitted
since 2008, adding 76 new units. The biggest of these complexes was Aster Apartments built by
St. Vincent de Paul in 2009 which provides 54 apartments for very-low income seniors. A total
of 719 housing units have been added to the housing stock since 2008. Map 4: New
Residential Construction Since 2008 shows where these new homes were built.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Home Sales in Springfield
Total Number of
Listings Sold
Number of New Home
Listings Sold
AIS Attachment 3, Page 4 of 39
5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Building Permits Survey
Although 2015 saw an increase in building new homes, development has not continued pace
with the need for dwelling units identified by the 2011 Residential Lands and Housing Needs
Analysis. Homebuilding has been on a general decline in Springfield since the mid-1990s.
The chart below shows that 63% of Springfield’s housing stock was built before 1980. It also
shows that residential construction for this decade is not on track to reach the numbers of
homes built between 2000 and 2009. Clearly, we have not been building the 296 new dwelling
units per year that the 2011 Residential Lands and Housing Needs Analysis anticipated needing
to accommodate Springfield’s adopted population projection for the year 2030.
Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates 2010-2014
Future Housing Needed
The 2011 Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis included an estimate of
needed dwelling units by income level for the 2010-2013 period based on 2007 household
incomes.
102 90 67 65
99 72
35
91
55
16
5
10
2
2
6
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Number of Units New Residential Construction Since 2008
Two Family
Five or More Family
Single Family
01000200030004000
5000600070008000
Estimated # of Dwelling Units Year Built
# of Dwelling Units by Year Built
AIS Attachment 3, Page 5 of 39
6
Population Growth
Other than a decline right before 1900, Springfield’s population has grown since it was
incorporated in 1885.
Source: US Census and Portland State University Population Research Center Estimate
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Springfield Population Growth
AIS Attachment 3, Page 6 of 39
7
In 2015, Springfield’s population is estimated to have reached 60,135. In the past five years,
Springfield’s population has grown more slowly than Eugene’s or even Lane County as a whole.
Population Increase 2010-20153
Springfield 1.2%
Eugene 4.6%
Lane County 3.0%
Cost of Housing
Comparing Housing Costs and Income
Springfield’s median household income and home values are much lower than the State’s, but
the rents in Springfield are only slightly lower than the State’s.
Comparing Housing Costs and Income in 2013
City of
Springfield
Oregon
Median house/condo value $159,203 $229,700
Median household income $39,756 $50,251
Median monthly gross rent* $810 $885
* Gross rent includes the contract rent plus electricity, gas, water, sewer, and fuel
Source: Census American Community Survey
The cost of housing has increased much more than household incomes since 2000 as shown in
the table below.
Comparing Housing and Income in Springfield between 2000 and 2013
2000 2013 % increase
Median house/condo value $111,700 $159,203 43%
Median household income $33,031 $39,756 20%
Median monthly gross rent $582 $810 39%
Source: US Census and Census American Community Survey
The graph below shows that a high number of households earned annual incomes between
$10,000 and $25,000 while many more earned between $30,000 and $45,000 in 2013. Very
few earned over $150,000.
3 2010 population from the US Census and 2015 estimate from Portland State Population Research Center
AIS Attachment 3, Page 7 of 39
8
Most rents range from $400 to $1,000 with a few higher priced rents between $1,000 and
$1,250 per month and a few high-end rentals priced from $1,250 to $1,500 per month. A few
households pay less than $400 per month.
The graph for home values shows there a number of homes valued less than $40,000 which
most likely are mobile homes located within mobile home parks. The highest numbers of
homes were valued between $150,000 and $175,000. Springfield does not appear to have a
large spread of home prices, with very few valued over $300,000 and virtually none over
$500,000.
See Map 1: Estimated Market Value of Single-Family Homes/Condominiums for the geographic
distribution of the home values across Springfield.
Median Household Income by Neighborhood
See Map 5: Median Household Income by US Census Block Group for which areas of Springfield
have higher income households or lower income households.
Poverty
In 2014, one of five people in Springfield was living in poverty. Of the 40,268 people between
16 and 64 years old, 22% were living poverty. Highest poverty rates were found among Black
residents (44%), two or more race residents (35%), and Hispanic or Latino residents (32%).
AIS Attachment 3, Page 8 of 39
9
See the description of Springfield’s High Poverty Hotspots as prepared by Oregon’s Department
of Human Services at the end of this chapter. Five of the state’s 112 poverty hotspots are
located within Springfield (including Glenwood).
In addition to those living in poverty, about 27% of households in Springfield are asset limited,
income constrained and employed (ALICE) 4. These households earn more than the poverty
level, but struggle to afford the basic cost of living based on United Way’s household survival
budget. As shown in the graph below, combining “ALICE” households with the households
below the poverty line indicate that about 49% of Springfield households struggle to afford
basic needs, leaving a household vulnerable to unexpected expenses. Based on United Way’s
calculations for Lane County, a single adult would need to earn $9.15 an hour for an annual
total or $18,300 to afford the basic necessities. For a family of two adults, an infant, and a
preschooler, one parent would need to earn $27.26 per hour working full-time for an annual
income of $54,516 to afford the basic necessities.
ALICE – Asset Limited, Income Constrained and Employed
Source: United Way ALICE Report, 2016
Housing Cost Burden
Households who pay more than 30% of their incomes to housing and necessary utilities5
(hereafter referred to as housing) are considered to be cost burdened. In Springfield, 9,760
households paid more than 30% of their incomes on housing and necessary utilities and 4,220
households paid more than 50% of their income for housing. In other words, 41% of households
in Springfield were cost-burdened.
4 ALICE report, United Way: Pacific Northwest: Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (2016) 5 Utilities do not include cable, telephone, or internet.
0.18
0.29 0.23 0.21 0.22
0.26
0.2
0.22 0.28 0.27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Albany Corvallis Eugene Medford Springfield
Household Economics Compared Across Cities
ALICE
Poverty
AIS Attachment 3, Page 9 of 39
10
Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimate (2009-2013)
As shown in the chart below, Springfield has a higher percentage of owners with a housing cost
burden than home owners in Albany, Corvallis, Eugene, and Medford. However, compared
with renters in those cities, Springfield has fewer renters who are cost burdened.
Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimate (2009-2013)
Cost burdens are most significant for low-income households. The US Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) has established definitions for low, very low, and extremely-low
income populations as percentages of median family income. The HUD 2014 median family
income for a family of four in Lane County was $55,200. About 53% percent of Springfield’s
households earn less than HUD’s calculated median income for Lane County. The following
charts show the cost burden for households based on their income relative to the HUD 2014
median family income.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Cost Burden between 30% and
50%
Cost Burden >50%
Households in Springfield with Cost Burden
Owner
Renter
0.27 0.24 0.29 0.35 0.36
0.59 0.58 0.61 0.6
0.51
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Albany Corvallis Eugene Medford Springfield
Comparison of Housing Cost Burden
Cost Burdened Owners
Cost Burdened Renters
AIS Attachment 3, Page 10 of 39
11
Most of the extremely-low income households (<30% HUD area median family income - HAMFI)
paid more than 50% of the income on housing. These 1,835 extremely-low income households
with severe cost burdens are on the verge of becoming homeless as each month they must
decide whether to pay rent/mortgage and utilities, or pay for other needs such as
transportation, food, or medical care. Even 1,235 households who earn between 30% and 50%
of HAMFI have severe cost burdens and also face difficult decisions each month. Some of the
low (50%-80% HAMFI) and very-low income households (30%-50% HAMFI), particularly the
homeowners, had no cost burden. These households are likely to be seniors who are living in
homes that have no mortgage. According to the American Community Survey, in 2013, there
were 7,141 homes with mortgages in Springfield (2,034 of those with a second mortgage
and/or a home equity loan) and 1,775 homes without mortgages.
More than three out of four low-income households (<80% HAMFI) renting their home were
cost-burdened while two out of five were severely cost burdened. Once incomes reached the
area median income, few renters (165 households) were cost burdened but some owners
(1,455 households) were cost burdened.
2016-HUD Area Median Family Income for Eugene/Springfield
Persons in Household 1 2 3 4 5
Extremely low income – 30% $12,200 $13,950 $15,700 $17,400 $18,800
Very low income – 50% $20,300 $23,200 $26,100 $29,000 $31,350
Low income – 80% $32,500 $37,150 $41,800 $46,400 $50,150
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
# of Renter Households Household Income as % of HUD Area Median
Family Income
Housing Cost - Renters
No burden (less
than 30% of
income)
Cost burden
between 30% &
50% of income
Severe cost
burden > 50% of
income
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
# of Owner Households Household Income as % of HUD
Area Median Family Income
Housing Cost - Owners
AIS Attachment 3, Page 11 of 39
12
Of the 8,649 households who held a mortgage, 44% were paying more than 30% of their
income on housing and utilities. The median monthly housing cost in 2014 was $1,333 with
3,568 households paying between $1000 and $1500 per month. For the 3,774 households who
owned their house without a mortgage, 22% paid more than 30% of their income for housing
and utilities.
Households who pay a large portion of their incomes on housing often face daily financial
pressures. Federal Reserve Board data6 from 2015 shows that almost half of U.S. households
(47%) could not cover an emergency expense costing $400 or would have to borrow money
or sell something. These households are living on the financial edge which could result in
major disruption in their lives and potentially even disaster.
Gross Rent
In 2014 the median monthly gross rent (including necessary utilities) in Springfield was $799.
One-third of gross rents were between $750 and $999 per month. One in five households
paying rent paid between $1000 and $1499 per month.
6 http://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
# of Households Gross Monthly Rent in 2014
AIS Attachment 3, Page 12 of 39
13
House Prices
Source: Regional Multiple Listing Service
According to the Regional Multiple Listing Service (RMLS), for the first half of 2016 the
average sale price in the Springfield area (West Springfield) was $184,700 and the median
price was $175,000. The average sale price in Thurston was $217,600 and the median price
was $210,000.
Other Housing Problems
Generally, households in Springfield were not over-crowded as only 3% of households had
more than one person per room. Substandard housing was also not a major problem as only
305 occupied housing units lacked complete kitchen facilities and only 131 lacked complete
plumbing facilities. Altogether, 44% of households report a housing problem (36% of owner
households and 53% of renter households). The largest housing problem reported by far was a
cost burden.
Rental Assistance
For households struggling to pay rent, there are various sources of potential assistance.
Section 8 Vouchers
Lane County’s Housing Authority and Community Services Agency (HACSA) administers the
Section 8 vouchers, a federally funded program that in 2015 provided more than $13.9 million
in rental assistance to households in Lane County. A Section 8 recipient can use a voucher to
rent housing of his/her choice from a private landlord, as long as the rent amount is
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
House Prices in Springfield
Average Sold Price
Median Sold Price
New House - Average
Sold Price
New House - Median
Sold Price
AIS Attachment 3, Page 13 of 39
14
appropriate and the housing unit passes housing quality inspection. Qualified tenants pay 30%
of their adjusted monthly income for rent and utilities and HACSA pays the landlord the
remaining rent. The waiting list for this program is currently closed. When HACSA last opened
its waiting list in 2015, about 5,000 people applied. Through a lottery system, 3,000 people
were placed on the waiting list of Section 8 housing for one of the 3,045 vouchers in use in Lane
County. As of this writing, HACSA has contacted persons through lottery number 1600. There
are 1023 vouchers that are being used to rent homes in Springfield.
Public Housing
HACSA operates two complexes in Springfield which allow residents to pay a maximum of 30%
of their adjusted income for rent and utilities. McKenzie Village, located at 715 Oakdale
Avenue includes 172 units including one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Pengra Court,
located along R Street between 10th and 13th includes 22 units of two- and three-bedroom
units. The wait list for one-bedroom units is closed because it is already so long. The most
recent household to be placed in a one-bedroom unit was placed on the waiting list in April of
2010. Households being offered two-bedroom units in 2016 were placed on the waiting list in
August 2013, and households being offered three-bedroom units were placed on the waiting
list in July 2014.
Income-Qualified Housing
A variety of housing has been developed by non-profit organizations and private developers
that are only available to low- or very-low income, and extremely-low income households. In
addition to public housing and Section 8 vouchers, there are about 550 housing units available
to income-qualified tenants. Map 6: Income-Qualified Rental Housing shows locations of
housing that provides housing for those with limited incomes. Depending on the subsidy
provided and corresponding requirements, households must have incomes at or below 30%,
50%, 60% or 80% of the average median income to qualify to rent these housing units. Also,
depending on the regulations, some have set rents and the households may pay more than 30%
of their income on rent and utilities. For example, McKenzie Meadows rents a two-bedroom
apartment with one bathroom for $718. Many of these complexes maintain waiting lists of
prospective tenants. For example, at Rainbow Village which includes a mix of market-rate and
subsidized housing units, 151 people are on the waiting list for income-qualified one-bedroom
apartments, 85 were on the list for two-bedrooms, 51 for three-bedrooms, and 29 for four-
bedrooms. As with public housing, households must wait several years for income-qualified
housing, and the smaller the unit the longer the wait. The Royal Building on Main Street has
more than 300 people on its waiting list for the one-bedroom apartments.
Two apartment complexes, the Lindale and Springsite, went conventional (market-rate) around
2012 after their affordability period had expired. Thus, these 76 units, although they still have
reasonable rents ($600-$650 per month for a one-bedroom apartment and $700-$750 for a
two-bedroom apartment) are now longer restricted to households with low-incomes.
AIS Attachment 3, Page 14 of 39
15
Special Needs
Several income-qualified complexes in Springfield target particular populations. For example,
Aster Apartments on 3rd Street and Island Park Apartments on C Street provide seniors who
have incomes that do not exceed 50% of the area median income with housing in which the
residents pay 30% of their income for rent and utilities. Afiya Apartments on Main Street
serves residents with psychiatric disabilities who pay 30% of their income for housing. NEDCO
manages five homes that it rents to families who had experienced foreclosure. Mainstream
Housing rents a duplex on Shady Loop to previously homeless families with a family member
who is disabled. The A Street Apartments target the chronically mentally ill and those in
drug/alcohol rehabilitation programs.
Lane County provides rental assistance to homeless households through its Continuum of Care
grant. These households may be in transitional housing, rapid rehousing, or permanent support
housing. See “Housing Providers” for Lane County’s Coordinated Entry at the end of this
chapter.
This study did not inventory the group homes and congregate care facilities in Springfield.
Although they provide housing, separating the housing subsidy from other service subsidies is
complex and beyond the scope of this analysis.
Other Rental Assistance Programs
Last fiscal year, Catholic Community Services provided rental assistance to 181 households,
helping 539 people in Lane County. Forty percent were Springfield residents, 52% were Eugene
residents, and 8% were from outside the Eugene/Springfield area. About one-third of these
households received short-term (one-month) emergency rental assistance while the other two-
thirds were in a three- to twelve-month rental assistance program. More than 20% of
Springfield’s population received some type of assistance (food, clothing, etc.) from Catholic
Community Service this past year. Other churches and aid agencies also offer limited, short-
term emergency help that may include rent or utility assistance.
Utility Assistance Programs
Project Share offers assistance to those facing wintertime heating emergencies to customers of
Springfield Utility Board (SUB). To qualify, customers must be in danger of having their
electricity shut off due to non-payment during the winter months. Customers are limited to
assistance one time during the year. Last winter, SUB offered $144,654 to help 965
households. The federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), administered
by Catholic Community Services is also available to low-income residents experiencing heating
emergencies. This program helped 1,183 households in the 97477 and 97478 zip codes this past
federal fiscal year (2015-16).
AIS Attachment 3, Page 15 of 39
16
Home Ownership Assistance
SHOP
Springfield’s Home Ownership Program (SHOP) assists low-income residents (those earning
less than 80% of the area median income) with the first-time purchase of a home by using
federal HOME funds, offering up to $7000 toward down payment and related costs of buying
a home. The loan is interest-free and the repayment is generally not required until the
home is sold. The funding agency, the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
sets a maximum home price for use of these funds. Currently, the maximum price for a
qualifying home is $218,000. Map 1: Estimated Market Value of Single-Family
Homes/Condominiums provides an idea of the areas of Springfield where there are homes
that the County Assessor has determined have a market value of less than $218,000. About
three out of four homes are valued at $218,000 or less.
Just as the number of home sales overall has been increasing since 2011, the number of
homes that are sold in Springfield at prices lower than the HUD limit has also been increasing
since 2011. At the end of 2013, an average of 24 houses per month sold at $171,000 or less,
HUD’s price limit at that time. There was an average of 28 sales per month in 2014 and into
April 2015 when HUD’s price limit was $179,000. HUD raised the sale price limit to $209,000
on April 13, 2015 and for the next year there were on average 46 sales per month of homes
selling for under that price. The maximum price for a home is now $218,000 and this
summer there have been an average of 48 sales of homes sold for less than that amount.
Map 7: Houses Purchased with Financial Assistance shows the locations of houses purchased
with the benefit of SHOP funds where the households are currently paying off their
mortgages. These houses are widely scattered across the City of Springfield.
Habitat for Humanity
Also on Map 7 are the houses financed by Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity believes
in a market system that allows people to gain wealth/equity. On its own, the market would
favor the profit making aspect of home construction and inhibit the low income households
from having an opportunity to become homeowners and gain equity. Households earning
between 30% and 60% of the area median income (AMI) are Springfield-Eugene Habitat’s target
clientele. Helping those between 30% and 40% AMI creates a loss for Habitat as those people
cannot afford to pay the full cost of the mortgage and related costs. Property taxes make up
about half of the monthly housing costs for Habitat owners. Habitat limits total cost of
mortgage, property taxes and Homeowners Association fees to 28% of income. That monthly
principal cost is then fixed over the life of the mortgage, while the property tax and
Homeowner Association costs may vary from year to year depending on external factors as with
other property owners in the community.
Habitat relies on volunteer labor and sweat equity to reduce costs. It builds energy efficient
houses and invests in materials that minimize repair costs. Part of Habitat’s affordability
approach is in keeping size modest. Habitat for Humanity sets national standards such that
AIS Attachment 3, Page 16 of 39
17
two- bedroom homes have 900 square feet, three-bedroom homes have 1070 square feet, and
four-bedroom homes have 1250 square feet, plus or minus 10% depending on design within the
lot.
Since 1990, Springfield-Eugene Habitat for Humanity has built 54 homes, 37 of them in
Springfield with a 38th home currently under construction. Twenty-one Springfield homes have
mortgages currently being serviced by Habitat. No Habitat family has experienced foreclosure
in the Springfield-Eugene area.
NEDCO
The Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) offers workshops, classes, and
individual pre-purchase counseling. NEDCO also connects potential homeowners to other
community resources and offers its own down payment assistance programs. These programs
offer anywhere from $2000 to $10,000 in grants or “silent second” loans (zero interest and no
payments until sale of home). NEDCO has 24 Springfield down-payment assistance loans on the
books, totaling more than $427,000 and dating back to 2002.
Homeless in Lane County
Lane County’s Human Services Commission conducts an annual count of the homeless in
January. This year, there were 1,451 people counted in a myriad of locations including streets,
under bridges, in parks, and at food pantries, day access centers, schools, churches, emergency
shelters, and transitional housing programs. Of the 1,451 people counted, 405 individuals were
staying in emergency shelter, 112 were living in transitional housing designated for the
homeless, and 934 were without shelter. See the Highlights of the 2016 Annual Homeless Point
in Time Count and Housing Providers for Lane County Coordinated Entry at the end of this
chapter for more information about homelessness in Lane County and programs in place to
help get people into housing beyond the emergency shelters.
Demographics – Geographic Mobility
Four out of five new residents moved to Springfield from somewhere in Lane County. Renters
moved into their current home on average two years ago and homeowners moved in on
average eleven years ago. Those between the ages of 18 and 24 were the most mobile; 47% of
residents within this age group had moved to Springfield within the past year (based on
American Community Survey data of 2010-2014). Young families are also mobile with one-third
of adults 25 to 34 years old and children between 1 and 4 years old as new residents of
Springfield. Those between 65 and 74 years were the most stable with only 7.4% moving to
Springfield in the past year.
Those moving here in 2014 had median incomes lower than established Springfield residents.
Sixty percent of workers living in Springfield actually worked outside the City. Although there is
no data to explain why these new residents have chosen to live in Springfield, anecdotal
AIS Attachment 3, Page 17 of 39
18
evidence indicates that many young households choose to live in Springfield in order to access
housing and utilities that are more affordable than those found in Eugene. New residents are
also three times more likely to rent rather than own their home.
2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Children
Sixty percent of children under the age of 18 lived in married-couple households in 2014.7
Thirty-one percent of children lived in female-headed households (no husband present), while
8% lived in male-headed households (no wife present). The graph below shows that a majority
of the single-parent households had lower household incomes than married couple families.
Most of the children in households receiving public assistance (Supplemental Security income,
cash public assistance, or Food Stamp/SNAP benefits) lived in female-headed households.
Forty-six percent of the people living in female-headed households were living in poverty.
7 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
All Residents
over 15 years
old
Moved from
within Lane
County
Moved from
another
county in
Oregon
Moved from
another state
Moved from
abroad
Median Income of Residents Who Relocated to
Springfield in 2014
AIS Attachment 3, Page 18 of 39
19
2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Fifty-two percent of children under 18 live in rented homes. Those most likely to live in an
owner-occupied house live in married couple households.
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Married couple
family
Male householder,
no wife present
Female
householder, no
husband present
Median Income of Households with
Children under 18-years old
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Married
couple
family
Male
householder,
no wife
present
Female
householder,
no husband
presentNumber of Children Household Type
Household Type for Children
under 18-years old
Without public
assistance
With public
assistance
AIS Attachment 3, Page 19 of 39
20
2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
During the 2013-14 school year, there were 615 students8 within the Springfield School District
counted as homeless sometime during the school year. This total included 459 students
doubled-up by sharing the housing of other persons, 66 living in shelters or transitional housing
or waiting foster care, 56 un-sheltered (living in cars, parks, campgrounds, streets, abandoned
buildings), and 34 staying in hotels/motels. The number of homeless students dropped to 491
in the 2014-15 school year9.
Development Costs
Permit Fees and System Development Charges
In 2014 Springfield began authorizing permits for the largest new multifamily residential
development since 2008. The Fifth Street Project includes 38 new townhouse apartment
homes, each at around 830 square feet. The estimated construction value (excluding land) is
just over $3.5 million and total permit costs are estimated at 14% of the total valuation for the
project. System Development Charges (SDCs) accounted for 91% of permit costs for the
project; about 60% of these charges go to the City of Springfield and about 30% of the SDC
charges go to Willamalane. SDCs are about $12,000 per apartment.
8 EDFacts SY 2013-14 Homeless Students Enrolled (C118) http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-
files/lea-homeless-enrolled-sy2013-14-pub.csv 9 http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?id=13280&typeid=5
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Married couple
family
Male
householder, no
wife present
Female
householder, no
husband presentNumber of Children Housing Tenure for Children under 18-years old
In owner-
occupied
housing units
In renter-
occupied
housing units
AIS Attachment 3, Page 20 of 39
21
As a comparison, SDCs cost about $14,967 for a single-family home of 2,500 square feet with 2
½ bathrooms. SDCs are calculated based on square footage of the home as well as plumbing
fixtures. For a single family residential unit of only 800 square feet to be built with minimal
fixtures, SDCs amount to about $9,688.
The chart below depicts the difference between the SDC charges for a multifamily
development, like the apartments on 5th Street, with the cost of SDCs for a similarly sized home.
As illustrated above, SDC charges for similarly sized units (800 square feet) are much higher for
multifamily development. Conversely, a house of more than three times the size does not pay a
comparable proportion of SDCs compared to the smaller units.
$14,967
$9,688
$12,000
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
New House 2,500 Sq Feet New House 800 Sq Feet Apts on 5th, 830 Sq Feet
SDC Comparison
AIS Attachment 3, Page 21 of 39
High Poverty Hotspots1 – South Eugene, Lane County
High poverty hotspots are geographic concentrations of poor residents. This report identifies high poverty hotspots on the south side of
the city of Eugene in Lane County. It provides a profile of their residents using Census Bureau, DHS, and Oregon Employment
Department (OED) data. DHS administrative data on SNAP clients were pulled for all clients known to be living in the hotspots in
January 2015. SNAP information was used because SNAP is the single largest DHS/OHA program, it has a high participation rate
among Oregon’s poor and low income residents, and it has reliable geographic information. Statewide, about 96 percent of SNAP clients have addresses that can be reliably located within a census tract.
Once data on SNAP clients within the hotspot were pulled, information about them was assembled from the DHS Integrated Client
Services (ICS) data warehouse. ICS contains information on clients from nearly all DHS/OHA programs from January 2000 to
present. In addition, Oregon employment and earnings history for all clients has been provided by OED and incorporated into ICS.
The purpose of this report is to identify high poverty areas and describe residents and SNAP clients living in them. Characteristics of
the hotspots are compared with each other, the county, and Oregon. Data are presented in a series of tables that follow. Bullet points
are provided when there is pertinent information not included in the tables. Data in this report should be considered a means to
illustrate the lives of hotspot residents with respect to family structure, geographic mobility, employment history, and to identify potential barriers to self-sufficiency. Knowledge about local high poverty hotspots can be useful when designing and locating
programs and services targeted to low income people. Poverty concentrations also pose a number of challenges for local public
schools.
Two areas of south Eugene are high poverty hotspots. Hotspots in west/central Eugene, Springfield, Cottage Grove, Junction City, and Mapleton are covered in separate reports.
According to Census Bureau and DHS data, 2 percent of Lane County’s population, 2 percent of its poor, and 2 percent of its SNAP
clients live in the areas described below.
1. Hotspot: The Census Bureau’s definition of a poverty area is a tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more. We define a high poverty hotspot as a census
tract or contiguous group of tracts with poverty rates of 20 percent or more for two consecutive measurements. Poverty rates were measured in the Census
Bureau’s 2009-2013 and 2008-2012 American Community Surveys (ACS). Tracts must also have fewer than 20 percent of residents living in group quarters and fewer than 20 percent of adult residents who are higher education students. For these reasons several tracts around the University of Oregon that have high poverty rates were omitted from this analysis.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 22 of 39
Figure 1: Poverty hotspot: Amazon-Tugman Parks
Amazon-Tugman Parks (Census Tract 51, Figure 1)
Location: South
Eugene, encompassing
part of the Southeast neighborhood
Boundaries:
North: 30th and E 29th
avenues South: E 40th Avenue,
Dillard and Fox Hollow
roads
East: Amazon
Parkway, Hilyard Street, Amazon Canal
West: Portland and
Willamette streets
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 23 of 39
Figure 2: Poverty hotspot: Glenwood
Glenwood
(Census Tract 36, Figure 2)
Location: A portion of
south Eugene, the
unincorporated area of Glenwood, and the area
around Lane
Community College
Boundaries: North: The Willamette
River
South: Electric power
intertie East: The Willamette River, Union Pacific
Railroad tracks
West: Sylvan Street,
Floral Hill Drive, 30th
Avenue, Agate Street, the Eugene city limits,
Spring Boulevard,
Shasta Loop, Barber
Drive, Old Dillard
Road, Hunters Glen Drive, Dillard Road
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 24 of 39
Table 1 South Eugene hotspots: neighborhood characteristics from the Census Bureau1
Census measures compared to the county and state (Table 1)
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 25 of 39
Table 2 South Eugene hotspots: characteristics of SNAP clients
Characteristics of SNAP hotspot clients compared to county and state (Table 2)
Among all Oregon hotspots, clients
in the Amazon-Tugman Parks area had the 13th highest rate of mental health program participation.
Among all Oregon hotspots, clients in the Glenwood area had the 14th highest rate of mental health program participation
and the 14th highest rate of alcohol and drug
program participation.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 26 of 39
Table 3 South Eugene hotspots: employment history for adult SNAP clients1
Employment characteristics of adult SNAP hotspot clients compared to county and state (Table 3)
In the Amazon hotspot, the number of employed clients increased slightly in all sectors shown in Table 3 with the exception
of manufacturing and construction.
In the Glenwood hotspot the number of employed clients increased
slightly in accommodation and food
services and health care/social assistance,
but these gains were not sufficient to offset
employment declines in other sectors.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 27 of 39
Table 4 South Eugene hotspots: address history for SNAP clients1,2
Geographic mobility (Table 4) Measuring the number of moves registered by SNAP households is important because low income families often move as a response
to job loss, a change in household composition, or eviction. Children who move frequently are more likely to experience academic and
social challenges in school.2 The overwhelming majority of moves among SNAP clients are short-distance, but patterns vary in rural versus urban areas. Census tracts are larger in rural areas and distances are longer between urban areas in largely rural counties. Clients in rural areas are more likely to move within the same census tract or move to a different county than are clients in urban areas.
Due to the smaller size of urban census tracts, clients in urban areas are more likely to move to a different tract within the same county
than are rural clients.
Migration patterns among clients in both hotspots
were overwhelmingly urban,
with more than 80 percent of
moves originating from another census tract in Lane County.
One fifth of Amazon and one-third of Gateway hotspot movers relocated from
another hotspot. The most
common areas of origination
were the Churchill, Gateway, and Whiteaker/Trainsong hotspots in Eugene and
Springfield.
For those who had relocated from another county,
the most common counties of origin were Douglas and Linn counties.
.
2 The negative effects on low income children associated with frequent moves and school changes are well documented in peer-reviewed literature.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 28 of 39
High Poverty Hotspots1 – Springfield, Lane County
High poverty hotspots are geographic concentrations of poor residents. This report identifies high poverty hotspots in and around the
city of Springfield in Lane County and provides a profile of residents using Census Bureau, DHS, and Oregon Employment
Department (OED) data. DHS administrative data on SNAP clients were pulled for all clients known to be living in the hotspots in
January 2015. SNAP information was used because SNAP is the single largest DHS/OHA program, it has a high participation rate
among Oregon’s poor and low income residents, and it has reliable geographic information. Statewide, about 96 percent of SNAP clients have addresses that can be reliably located within a census tract.
Once data on SNAP clients within the hotspot were pulled, information about them was assembled from the DHS Integrated Client
Services (ICS) data warehouse. ICS contains information on clients from nearly all DHS/OHA programs from January 2000 to
present. In addition, Oregon employment and earnings history for all clients has been provided by OED and incorporated into ICS.
The purpose of this report is to identify high poverty areas and describe residents and SNAP clients living in them. Characteristics of
the hotspots are compared with each other, the county, and Oregon. Data are presented in a series of tables that follow. Bullet points
are provided when there is pertinent information not included in the tables. Data in this report should be considered a means to
illustrate the lives of hotspot residents with respect to family structure, geographic mobility, employment history, and to identify potential barriers to self-sufficiency. Knowledge about local high poverty hotspots can be useful when designing and locating
programs and services targeted to low income people. Poverty concentrations also pose a number of challenges for local public
schools.
Four areas of Springfield are high poverty hotspots. Hotspots in Eugene, Cottage Grove, Junction City, and around Mapleton are covered in separate reports.
According to Census Bureau and DHS data, 7 percent of Lane County’s population, 11 of its poor and 12 percent of its SNAP clients
live in the areas described below.
1 Hotspot: The Census Bureau’s definition of a poverty area is a tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or more. We define a high poverty hotspot as a census tract or contiguous group of tracts with poverty rates of 20 percent or more for two consecutive measurements. Poverty rates were measured in the Census Bureau’s 2009-2013 and 2008-2012 American Community Surveys (ACS).
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 29 of 39
Figure 1: Poverty hotspot: Springfield – East Main Area
East Main
(Census Tract 19.04, Figure 1)
Location: A portion of
the East Main
neighborhood within the city of Springfield
Boundaries:
North: Main Street and
U.S. Highway 126 South: Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Mt.
Vernon Road
East: S 57th Street West: by S 42nd Street
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 30 of 39
Figure 2: Poverty hotspot: Springfield – Gateway Area
Gateway
(Census tracts 21.01 and 21.02, Figure 2)
Location: The Gateway
area within the city of
Springfield and unincorporated land
north of the city along
the McKenzie River
Boundaries: North: The McKenzie
River
South: U.S. Highway
126 East: The McKenzie River, 5th and 7th streets
West: I-5
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 31 of 39
Figure 3: Poverty hotspot: Springfield – West Springfield Area
West Springfield
(Census Tracts 32.01, Figure 3)
Location: The western
edge of the city of
Springfield Boundaries:
North: U.S. Highway
126 South: W Centennial Boulevard
East: Pioneer Parkway
West
West: I-5
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 32 of 39
Figure 4: Poverty hotspot: Springfield – Willamalane Park Area
Willamalane Park (Census tracts 33.01 and 33.02, Figure
4)
Location: The
Willamalane area of the city of Springfield
Boundaries:
North: U.S. Highway
126 South: S A Street and
the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks
East: 14th Street and
Mohawk Boulevard West: Pioneer Parkway
West
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 33 of 39
Table 1 Springfield hotspots: neighborhood characteristics from the Census Bureau1
Census measures compared to the county and state (Table 1)
In the Gateway hotspot, the poverty rate
was 28 percent in tract
21.01 and 27 percent in
tract 21.02.
In the
Willamalane hotspot, the
poverty rate was 38
percent in tract 33.01 and 41 percent in tract 33.02. The combined poverty
rate was the 5th highest
among all 112 Oregon
hotspots. The area also ranked 20th highest in percentage of households
headed by single
mothers.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 34 of 39
Table 2 Springfield hotspots: characteristics of SNAP clients
Characteristics of SNAP hotspot clients compared to county and state (Table 2)
Among all Oregon
hotspots, clients in the Willamalane Park area had the 16th highest participation rate in
alcohol and drug programs and
the 19th highest rate of mental
health program participation. Those factors and its high poverty rate and percentage of
single mothers contributed to
the area’s hotspot index rank of
18.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 35 of 39
Table 3 Springfield hotspots: employment history for adult SNAP clients1
Employment characteristics of adult SNAP hotspot clients compared to county and state (Table 3)
Client employment in
all of the Springfield hotspots increased between 2009 and 2014. Most of the increase
came from employment in
administrative services,
where more than half were employed in temporary help services during 2014.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 36 of 39
Table 4 Springfield hotspots: address history for SNAP clients1,2
Geographic mobility (Table 4)
Measuring the number of moves registered by SNAP households is important because low income families often move as a response
to job loss, a change in household composition, or eviction. Children who move frequently are more likely to experience academic and
social challenges in school.2 The overwhelming majority of moves among SNAP clients are short-distance, but patterns vary in rural versus urban areas. Census tracts are larger in rural areas and distances are longer between urban areas in largely rural counties.
Clients in rural areas are more likely to move within the same census tract or move to a different county than are clients in urban areas.
Due to the smaller size of urban census tracts, clients in urban areas are more likely to move to a different tract within the same county
than are rural clients.
Migration patterns among
clients in these
hotspots were
urban, with three-quarters of
movers
originating from
another census
tract in Lane County.
One-
quarter of movers relocated
from another
hotspot, mostly
in the Eugene-
Springfield area.
For those who relocated from another county, the most common counties of origin were Linn and Douglas.
2 The negative effects on low income children associated with frequent moves and school changes are well documented in peer-reviewed literature.
Oregon DHS Office of Forecasting, Research, & Analysis May 2015
AIS Attachment 3, Page 37 of 39
Report Owner: Lane County Human Services, Contact Pearl Wolfe
2016 Annual Homeless Point in Time Count
HIGHLIGHTS
1,451 people were counted during Lane County‘s 2016 Annual Point in Time Count
This number includes homeless community members who were counted in a myriad of locations including the streets,
under bridges, in parks, at food pantries, day access centers, schools, churches, emergency shelters, and transitional
housing programs for homeless persons on January 27, 2016. Approximately 124 staff and volunteers from 32
organizations counted homeless people this year.
Of the 1,451 people counted:
405 individuals were staying in Emergency Shelter
112 individuals were living in Transitional Housing (up to 24 months) designated for people who are homeless
934 men, women, and children were without shelter
Total 1,451 individuals
Highlights of the count:
224 family members in homeless households with children; 129 sheltered; 95 unsheltered
162 homeless veterans: 52 sheltered; 110 unsheltered:
574 chronically homeless people: 86 sheltered; 488 unsheltered
434 people have a mental illness
232 people have chronic alcohol/substance abuse issues
13 unaccompanied homeless youth (under 18)
Other Factors
12,167 individuals who were homeless sought social services through Lane County Human Services Division
funded programs during Calendar Year (CY) 2015. 4,646 had a long-term disability and 942 were veterans.
949 unduplicated individuals were served at the St. Vincent de Paul Egan Warming Center during 12 nights of the
winter season at 14 faith-based sites and the Lane Community College during the 2015-16 winter season.
2,156 homeless students attended public school in Lane County during the 2014-15 school year (Oregon Dept. of
Education).
258 homeless youth were served at the Looking Glass New Roads Access Center, (ages 16-21) CY 2015
165 runaway and homeless youth stayed at Station 7 ( under age 18) during CY 2015
2,298 people stayed at the Eugene Mission during CY 2015
Unique to This Year’s Count
1.5% decrease of overall count between the 2015 and 2016 Counts. (A 31% decrease from 2011 to 2016)
Veterans organizations made a concerted effort to count homeless veterans.
644 formerly homeless people live in permanent housing designated for homeless people on the night of the
count.
Law Enforcement shared locations with Count Organizers to increase the accuracy of the Count.
AIS Attachment 3, Page 38 of 39
Housing Providers
Lane County Coordinated Entry
February 9, 2015
Transitional Housing
Up to 24 months of Rent Assistance and Case Management to households who are Literally Homeless.
Provider Program Households Restrictions
St. Vincent de Paul Connections Families Past landlord debt cannot exceed $700.00
Rapid Rehousing
Up to 24 months of Rent Assistance and Case Management to households who are Literally Homeless.
Provider Program Households Restrictions
Catholic
Community
Services
McKenzie Families
Looking Glass ESG Rapid Rehousing Singles and Families Youth ages 16-22
Looking Glass McKenzie Singles and Families Youth ages 16-22
ShelterCare Cascades Singles Must be Medically Fragile
ShelterCare McKenzie Families
SVDP Eugene
Service Station
ESG Rapid Rehousing Singles
SVDP First Place
Family Center
ESG Rapid Rehousing Families
Womenspace ESG Rapid Rehousing Singles and Families Must be Fleeing Domestic Violence
Permanent Supportive Housing
Long-term Rent Assistance and Case Management to households who are Literally Homeless and where one
member of the household has a disability.
Provider Program Population Restrictions
Housing and
Community
Services Agency
(HACSA)
Shelter Plus Care Singles and Families Oregon Health Plan
Mainstream
Housing Inc
Emerald Options Singles and Families Households with a Developmental
Disability
ShelterCare Camas Singles and Families Chronically Homeless and have a
Mental Illness or Acute Medical Issue
ShelterCare Shankle Singles Chronically Homeless and have a
Mental Illness
SVDP First Place
Family Center
First Place
Families Project
Families Chronically Homeless
SVDP LIFT Singles and Families Exiting Drug and Alcohol Treatment
SVDP Vet LIFT Singles Veterans
AIS Attachment 3, Page 39 of 39
1
Summary of Interviews – Affordable Housing in Springfield
Many of the people interviewed for this study highlighted the inherent tension or contradiction
of housing as a financial investment versus housing as a human right. Relying on the market to
achieve a balance between supply and demand ultimately breaks down because there is no
profit to be made in providing housing to owners or renters with inadequate means to pay their
share of the cost of the land, materials, labor, debt service, and soft costs that contribute to the
ultimate cost of housing. In addition, our society has determined that there are basic standards
for our housing (building codes) and neighborhoods (zoning regulations) that preclude the
market from providing (substandard) housing that those with the lowest incomes could afford.
The public then is in the position of subsidizing housing for those who otherwise cannot afford
it. But public funding for housing is limited. Neither the market nor the public sector is able to
meet the current need for affordable housing, and some people are living on the edge or falling
through the resulting gaps. Communities are realizing that investing in the provision of housing
(especially to house the unhoused) provides savings in medical, police, education, and social
services.
We asked a variety of people who work with some aspect of the provision of housing what they
think about the state of affordable housing in Springfield. The data shows that two out of five
households in Springfield pay more than 30% of their income on housing. Households with
Section 8 vouchers or living on disability can’t find a market rate unit they can afford. Vacancy
rates are low and housing costs are increasing faster than incomes. There is a high demand for
affordable housing among the City’s low-income population and some people are living on the
streets and camping along the rivers.
In order to understand more about how the market is failing to provide sufficient units of
affordable housing, and why certain populations are cost-burdened, we interviewed local
housing developers (both non-profit and for-profit), real estate professionals, property
managers, service providers, and City staff. (See the list of People Interviewed at the end of
this chapter). Across the interviews, two themes emerged: why households are cost-
burdened, and what the City can do to help. What follows is a synopsis of those interviews.
Housing Affordability: Why are Households in our Community Cost-Burdened?
Lack of available housing across the spectrum
There is general agreement from those interviewed that there is a lack of housing available in
Springfield at all levels along the spectrum. This shortage includes emergency shelter, rental
units, RV and manufactured dwelling spaces, developable lots for sale, and houses/condos for
sale. If there is a gap in the housing spectrum and people are unable to step up to the next
level, the gap ends up widening, keeping economic segments apart. For example, if families
living in market-rate rentals are unable to purchase a home, they will never have a chance to
build up equity and continue moving up the ladder. A healthy community needs all the rungs in
the housing ladder to enable people to step up, or to step down without falling off.
AIS Attachment 4, Page 1 of 10
2
Housing prices have increased and sales have increased creating a seller’s market. Even those
qualifying for entry-level home loans are having a difficult time finding homes to purchase.
Local property managers say the current housing market is the tightest they’ve seen in the past
20 years. For income-qualified housing, the waiting lists for some properties are in the
hundreds. With few affordable market-rate options, there is lower turnover within the income-
restricted apartments as families are unable to find housing they can afford elsewhere.
Equity investors are buying real-estate in the metro area and increasing rents to provide a
return on the investment. Without new market rate apartments added to the housing supply,
there is little pressure to decrease rents or repair older apartments to attract renters.
New construction is expensive
Nearly all developers interviewed, both for-profit and non-profit, attributed the high cost of
housing development to either one or two factors: cost of land and high system development
charges (SDCs).
Land – Both for-profit and non-profit developers mentioned what they see as a limited
supply of residential land for development. Further, they have recently seen the cost of
land increase over time while anticipated revenues (i.e. rents/housing costs) have not
increased at the same pace. As some have noted, Springfield’s city limits are
constrained by two rivers and include steep slopes. State land use requirements for
expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB) are viewed by several as limiting the land
supply. Some developers say that the limited supply of available land has increased to
the point that they can’t pencil out a project given other constraints. In-fill
development takes advantage of existing infrastructure but does not provide for
economies of scale and construction costs increase because of working in constrained
environments.
To finance new construction of income-restricted multi-family units, a local affordable
housing developer cites 40 units as the “sweet spot” for financing given expected
revenue of rents set at 50% of area median income (AMI). However, that same
developer cites a lack of available land that is large enough to accommodate this
number of units. Other local non-profit developers lament the time it takes to buy land
or property with federal money, given the requirements of environmental review and
time needed to secure financing. In a hot real estate market, it is in the interest of the
property owner to move quickly to finalize a sale which often excludes non-profit
developers from consideration.
System Development Charges (SDCs) – Nearly all housing developers – both for-profit
and non-profit – spoke to the high cost of SDC’s. Developers view Springfield’s SDCs
(including those of Willamalane and MWMC) as relatively more expensive than nearby
jurisdictions. For a single family home, one developer notes that the permits and SDCs
in Springfield cost 50% more than Eugene for a similarly sized unit. For multifamily
apartments, the SDCs and permit fees combined can be a couple hundred thousand
AIS Attachment 4, Page 2 of 10
3
dollars and, from the developer’s perspective, prevent the project from moving forward.
Additionally, given the structure of calculating SDCs, the high cost does not incentivize
building small, affordable units, including accessory dwelling units. A couple developers
claimed that reducing SDCs will ultimately provide monetary benefit to the city since
some SDCs are better than no SDCs and new construction brings with it increased
property taxes.
House Size – Several of those interviewed pointed out the need for smaller houses as a
way of making home ownership more affordable. In addition, at least one interviewer
recognized the demographic trend whereby the Millennials, Gen Xers, and retiring Baby
Boomers are reversing the decade’s long trend of building bigger and bigger houses for
fewer and fewer people. These smaller houses also correspond to cities’ desires for
density rather than expanding the urban growth boundary.
Subsidies needed for income-restricted housing – Non-profit developers in particular
stated they would need a subsidy to develop any income-restricted multi-family project,
particularly to be competitive in being selected by the State for financing through Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits. Even with the tax credits, those developers have trouble
financing a project that allows for low rents and limited risk to investors without
additional subsidies from local jurisdictions. Most non-profit developers cited the
property tax exemption and SDC waivers in Eugene as not only major incentives to build,
but also necessary to allow for lower rents.
Why Some Households Struggle to Afford Rent
As developers noted, any additional costs incurred add to the sale price or rent. Increases in the
cost of land, SDCs, interest rates, and labor can have an impact anywhere from an increase of
$30/month in rent to $12,000 on the price of a home, a significant cost for those making less
than the area’s median income.
Wage stagnation – The question of affordability is dependent not only on the cost of
rent or sale price of housing, but how that compares with household income. Service
providers we interviewed pointed to wage stagnation and limited high paying jobs as
why some households have trouble finding rents at less than 30% of their income. If
wages don’t increase at the rate of expenses, including housing, people will have more
difficulty finding housing that is affordable. Capping rents can help low-income folks
afford other necessities, including childcare, food, healthcare, and transportation. But
an increase in wages or a higher paying job would ultimately help these individuals be
able to move along the housing continuum.
Limited government assistance – It was noted by some housing providers that there are
members of our community that will never be able to support themselves with
employment due to a disability or mental illness. For these households who rely on
government assistance, having dedicated housing with limited rents and residential
services is a need the market isn’t currently offering in sufficient quantities.
AIS Attachment 4, Page 3 of 10
4
Additionally, while some low-income individuals qualify for federally funded rental
assistance (i.e. housing vouchers) to supplement their ability to pay for housing, the
waiting lists for certain vouchers are so long that it can take years before a voucher
“frees up.” For one-bedroom units, the wait for a housing voucher is on average 5 years
long and the list is currently closed due to overwhelming demand.
Special needs in addition to housing – Some populations have additional needs that
need to be addressed and managed in order to remain stable and successfully housed.
Projects that include some sort of government subsidy almost always provide residential
services that range from financial literacy to medication management to classes in
nutrition. For certain populations, such as those recovering from trauma or those
dealing with illness or addictions, providing housing may be an important first step, but
access to other services are necessary for achieving some level of self-sufficiency or at
least stability.
Those interviewed identified the following populations as the most vulnerable or those
most in need: the homeless, low-income families with children, the mentally ill, newly
independent youth, seniors on fixed incomes, and the developmentally disabled.
Upfront costs to rent – Service providers point out that additional costs to rent housing,
including the application fee, security deposit, and first and possibly last month’s rent,
can be prohibitive for some households. Some people may have enough income to pay
the monthly rent but don’t have the savings to pay these additional costs upfront.
Personal barriers – Housing providers and property managers also spoke to an
individual’s personal barriers that may pose a risk to landlords, thus limiting their
housing options. In particular, a criminal background, a lack of or poor rental history,
bad credit history, lack of steady employment history, or living independently for the
first time – can be a risk landlords aren’t willing to take. Additional circumstances,
including inexperience living independently and/or managing one’s finances can result
in individuals losing their housing if there are nuisance complaints or missed monthly
payments. These situations then result in poor rental history and can pose problems in
the future.
Homelessness
Most people who become homeless due to circumstances and not by choice seek out services
and generally do not cause the problems that result in police calls. They work hard to stay
“invisible”. However, calls to police related to homelessness tend to focus on those trespassing
or camping along the rivers. Camping along the rivers can harm the environment due to human
waste and trash contaminating the river. The public invests a lot of resources to move the
camps.
Services for the homeless - Getting around to various services is a major undertaking.
Most services for the homeless are located in Eugene, but some people prefer to stay in
AIS Attachment 4, Page 4 of 10
5
Springfield because they identify with Springfield as their community. G Street Oasis
provides some services to homeless families. Ebbert Methodist Church has become a
de facto limited service provider for homeless singles and couples. But there are no
bathrooms available at night. There is no free medical care in Springfield other than the
emergency room or through CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets).
Emergency shelter - The only legal places for the homeless in Springfield to “live” are at
the few churches that make their parking lots available for two or three households
needing emergency shelter. While the city’s program was designed to be temporary,
residents are staying longer than expected because they are having difficulty finding
other housing options. When the temperature falls below 30 degrees, Springfield’s two
Egan Warming Centers open to the homeless.
Housing Affordability: What Can the City Do?
While some of the issues affecting housing affordability are outside the City’s purview, housing
developers identified potential efforts by the City to help increase the housing stock in
Springfield across the housing continuum. Nearly everyone interviewed acknowledged the
importance of having a diversity of housing and encouraged the City to focus its efforts on the
full continuum of housing needs, including rentals and homes for ownership, both market rate
and income-qualified.
Given the cost of construction for new development, and low wages that many households
currently have, most solutions offered pointed to helping reduce the cost of construction in
order to allow development to pencil out, and to help lower rents. However, given the
magnitude of need, it was noted that any additional effort the City made would make a
difference.
Help finance development of new units
o Land banking – Affordable housing developers all pointed to land banking as a solution
that would help cut the cost of development. Many developers pointed to Eugene’s
program in which the City buys the land, and offers it through a Request for Proposals
coupled with other incentives (most often federal HOME funds, property tax
exemptions, SDC waivers, or infrastructure investment), in exchange for a targeted,
income-restricted housing development. This model reduces construction costs,
inherently brings with it City support, and ultimately makes the project more
competitive for state tax credits.
o System Development Charges (SDCs) – Given the perceived high cost of SDCs, many for-
profit and non-profit housing developers pointed to the need to re-evaluate the cost
structure, and/or grant exemptions, for local SDCs – including not just the City’s portion
– in order to incentive residential construction, particularly in exchange for affordable
units.
AIS Attachment 4, Page 5 of 10
6
o Property tax exemption – Affordable housing developers also pointed to the benefit of a
local property tax exemption for housing targeting low-income households, which
would help developers pencil out a budget with capped revenue given lower rents.
o Create other means of generating revenue – Many encouraged the City to look into
other means of raising revenue for the purposes of developing more subsidized housing.
This could include adopting a Construction Excise Tax or offering a housing bond.
Provide other types of financial assistance
o Provide assistance in affording existing housing – Use HUD funds in support of rental
assistance (or assistance with other household expenses) and/or home-ownership
assistance.
o Support social services – The police chief thought that the most effective use of public
funds would be to deal with mental illness, recognizing that it is difficult and expensive
to treat mental illness. Others suggested additional funds for case management,
particularly for those moving into homes from the streets, to lower the risk to landlords
and to improve the success rate of the housing. A few suggested future funding of
CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) when current grant runs out in
2017.
o Economic development – Help bring jobs to Springfield.
Non-financial assistance
o Set goals/priorities for type of housing needed and targeted population – Affordable
housing developers in particular mentioned it’d be helpful to know the City’s priorities,
namely the type of housing most needed, the target population, and/or geographic
location (neighborhood). amend
o Land/project identification - Affordable housing developers noted that they were having
difficulty just finding land available to buy or properties ripe for rehabilitation. Any
assistance the City could provide – in identifying preferred locations, reaching out to
property owners, or re-purposing their own assets or those of other public entities for
affordable housing – would be most welcome.
o Modify the development code – Development professionals did not express major
complaints about the city’s zoning regulations but did cite a few areas that could be
reviewed to increase certainty in the approval process or remove barriers to affordable
housing. These areas included on-site parking, minimum lot size, required open-space,
accessory dwelling units, solar access, and cottage clusters.
AIS Attachment 4, Page 6 of 10
7
o Reconsider some of the city’s zoning – Determine if the City has appropriately zoned its
land such that medium and high density housing is designated in the right places (near
transit, grocery stores and schools)?
o Expand the sites for transitional and temporary housing – Help identify additional sites
under the city’s emergency shelter code for car camping and consider allowing other
temporary or transitional options.
o Help navigate development code and approval process – Affordable housing developers
mentioned the complexity and uncertainty in the City’s development and review
process. They suggested appointing an internal liaison within the Department of
Development and Public Works who is familiar with both City code and federal housing
requirements and constraints.
o Bring community leaders together – The issue of housing affordability extends beyond
the purview of just City Hall. Service providers encouraged the City to reach other to
other community leaders and organizations on solving this problem, including
employers, non-profits, developers, TEAM Springfield, churches, City Club, and the
Chamber of Commerce.
o Advocate for resources and policy changes – The city could advocate at the state and
national level for increased support for affordable housing.
o Address landlord tenant issues - Educate tenants about their rights in dealing with
landlords who provide substandard housing. Help landlords better understand and
manage the risk posed by certain populations.
AIS Attachment 4, Page 7 of 10
Statement from Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance to Springfield City Council Work Session
Oct. 10, 2016
We at Springfield Shelter Right Alliance, a group organized by CALC’s Springfield Alliance for Equality
and Respect (SAfER), want to thank the city of Springfield for taking the time to learn about the housing
needs of our community and having staff address this issue. As a group, we focus our attention on the
needs and concerns of our unhoused neighbors and those at risk of losing their housing. In the past, we
have partnered with the City of Springfield to bring the St. Vincent De Paul parking program here and
recently, planted the seeds for the G St. Oasis Family program. We believe that housing is a human
right. Therefore, we would like to see the city place a priority on the development of housing options
that would meet the needs of our neighbors with small incomes. Some of these folks are senior citizens
with small fixed incomes, young people just starting out who do not have stable family support, and
people with disabilities. Many of these folks have some income, but not enough to secure housing in
the current market.
We also would like the city to consider the option of “Housing First” for persons who are currently
without housing. Some of these persons deal with multiple barriers to housing. Therefore we would
like to see the expansion of emergency and non-traditional housing options that can help people have a
stable place to recover from the trauma of being unhoused and to rebuild their lives and family
relationships. Non-traditional options could include small home shelters, rest areas for legal camping,
and tiny house villages. Some of these options, such as Opportunity Village in Eugene, have been
successful in helping people move from homelessness to more stability.
Finally, we invite the city to make sure any efforts to expand the housing stock in our city include
provisions for low income housing and take advantage of the inclusionary zoning option. This would
allow us to keep alive one of the strengths of Springfield, the home town feel that includes people of
different economic means living together in neighborhoods.
We want to thank staff member Sandy Belson for visiting with us and inviting us to submit this
statement for the consideration of the City Council. We look forward to continued dialogue and work
together to meet the needs and receive the gifts of our low income neighbors.
Sincerely,
Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance
Contact person: Rev. June Fothergill, 541-603-8706
Gary Cornelius
Shelley Corteville
Gloria Griffith
Marion Malcomb
Linda Mears
Rev. Jeff Savage
Barbara Utt and others
AIS Attachment 4, Page 8 of 10
People Interviewed
Non-Profit Housing Developers/Managers
Don Griffin, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity
Susan Ban, Executive Director of ShelterCare
Jackie LaRue, Resource Development Director for Mainstream Housing
Kristen Karle, Housing Development Director for St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County
Nora Cronin, Housing Development Associate for St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County
Emily Reiman, Executive Director NEDCO
Lori Love, BuildingWorks Director for NEDCO
Darcy Phillips, Executive Director of Cornerstone Community Housing
Jill Chadbourne, Chief Financial Officer of Cornerstone Community Housing
Amy Cubbage, Asset Manager of Cornerstone Community Housing
Development and Real Estate Professionals
Anne DeLaney, Architect with Bergsund DeLaney Architecture and Planning PC
Dan Hill, Architect and Builder with Arbor South Architecture and Construction
Ed McMahon, Executive Vice President of Lane County Homebuilders Association
Hugh Pritchard, Developer
Richard Hunsaker, Managing Partner for Circle H LLC Land Acquisition and Development
Rick Duncan, Partner of Duncan & Brown Real Estate Analysts
Todd Woodley, President of Woodley Properties, Inc., a property development company
Rene Nelson, Real Estate Broker at PacWest Commercial Real Estate, Inc.
Service Providers
Tom Mulhern, Executive Director of Catholic Community Services
Noreen Dunnells, President and CEO of United Way of Lane County
Janet Thorn, McKinney Vento Homeless Liason for Springfield Schools
Steve Manela, Lane County Human Services Division Manager
Beth Perry-Ochs, Rent Assistance Division Director with Lane County’s HACSA
Reverend June Fothergill, Pastor of the Ebbert United Methodist Church
Keith Heath, Program Manager for St. Vincent de Paul
Roxanne O’Brien, Program Manager for St. Vincent de Paul
Property Managers
Steve Graves, Chief Executive Officer of Oregon West Management, LLC
Tia Polity of Acorn Property Management, President of the Rental Owners Association
Lola McAlister, Co-owner of Roosevelt Enterprises, LLC, a property management company
Teresa DeForrest, Village East Site Manager for Guardian Management
Kristin Voltz, Rainbow Village Site Manager for Guardian Management
Diane, Lindale Site Manager for Al Angelo Company
AIS Attachment 4, Page 9 of 10
City Staff
Rick Lewis, Acting Police Chief
Michael Harman, Associate Program Manager for Police Department
Greg Mott, Current Development Manager
Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor
David Bowlsby, Building Official
Linda Pauly, Principal Planner
Andy Limbird, Senior Planner
AIS Attachment 4, Page 10 of 10
1
Policy Analysis – Affordable Housing in Springfield
This chapter starts off with a definition of affordable housing and then features the city’s
policies on affordable housing from three adopted plans and provides a response (in italics) as
to how these policies have been addressed or implemented. The three adopted plans are:
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan - 2015
Definition of Affordable Housing
To begin the discussion, it is helpful to define some terms. The following text comes from page
73 of the Springfield Housing Needs Analysis of April 2011 prepared by ECONorthwest.
“The terms affordable and low income housing are often used interchangeably. These
terms, however, have different meanings:
Affordable housing refers to households’ ability to find housing within their
financial means. Households that spend more than 30% of their income on
housing and certain utilities are considered to experience cost burden. As such,
any household that pays more than 30% experiences cost burden and does not
have affordable housing. Thus affordable housing applies to all households in
the community.
Low-income housing refers to housing for “low-income” households. HUD (the
US Department of Housing and Urban Development) considers a household low-
income if it earns 80% or less of median family income. In short low-income
housing is targeted at households that earn 80% or less of median family income.
“These definitions mean that any household can experience cost burden and that
affordable housing applies to all households in an area. Low-income housing targets
low-income households. . . . It is important to underscore the point that many
households that experience cost burden have jobs and are otherwise productive
members of society. A household earning 80% of median family income in Springfield
earns about $39,000 annually or about $18.50 per hour for a full-time employee. (As of
2013, the median household income had increased to $39,756 per year or $19.11 per
hour for a full-time employee.) The maximum affordable purchase price for a household
earning $39,000 annually is about $120,000. Depending on household size many of
these households are eligible for government housing assistance programs.”
Statewide planning Goal 10 requires cities to adopt policies that encourage housing at price
ranges commensurate with incomes. In short, state land use policy does not distinguish
between households of different income levels and requires cities to adopt policies that
encourage housing for all households.
AIS Attachment 5, Page 1 of 11
2
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
The Metro Plan is the official long-range comprehensive plan (public policy document) of
metropolitan Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield.
Chapter III-A Residential Land Use and Housing Element
This Element addresses the housing needs of current and future residents of the entire Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area. The Metro Plan policies from the Affordable, Special Need, and
Fair Housing topic have been included here.
Policies for Affordable1, Special Need2, and Fair Housing
A.27 Seek to maintain and increase public and private assistance for low- and very low-
income households that are unable to pay for shelter on the open market.
Several non-profit organizations and churches provide emergency assistance to those
who face problems maintaining their housing. Most of the public assistance for low- and
very low-income households is handled by the Lane County Housing Authority and
Community Services Agency (HACSA). Catholic Community Services also provides some
rental assistance.
Housing Authority and Community Services Agency
HACSA provides Section 8 vouchers to qualified households needing assistance renting
housing on the open market. There is more demand for these vouchers than HACSA can
meet, thus HACSA maintains a waiting list which is now closed. The last time it was
open, 5000 people applied. HACSA used a lottery system and placed 3000 on the waiting
list. There are currently 3045 housing vouchers in use in Lane County, 1023 of which are
being used in Springfield. On a county-wide basis, the amount of rental housing
assistance that HACSA has provided through this Section 8 program has not been
increasing to meet the need.
Rental Assistance Provided Annually through HACSA’s Section 8 Vouchers
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
$13,497,456 $13,642,305 $14,187,055 $14,293,759 $13,890,628 $13,909,520
HACSA’s fiscal year (FY) is October through September
1 Affordable housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below median income pays no more than 30
percent of its total gross income on housing and utilities. [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
(HUD) figure for 1997 annual median income for a family of three in Lane County is $33,900; 30 percent =
$847/month.] 2 Special need housing: Housing for special needs populations. These populations represent some unique sets of
housing problems and are usually at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace due to circumstances beyond
their control. These subgroups include, but are not limited to, the elderly, persons with disabilities, homeless
individuals and families, at-risk youth, large families, farm workers, and persons being released from correctional
institutions.
AIS Attachment 5, Page 2 of 11
3
Catholic Community Services
Last fiscal year (ending June 30, 2016), Catholic Community Services provided rental
assistance to 181 households/539 people in Lane County. Forty percent were Springfield
residents, 52% were Eugene residents, and 8% were rural/non-metro Lane County.
About one-third received short-term (one-month) emergency rental assistance, while the
other two-thirds were in the three- to twelve-month rental assistance programs. The
total rental assistance provided was $241,928; about $100,000 of which is estimated to
have been provided to Springfield residents.
Homeownership Assistance
The City of Springfield and NEDCO both have programs to assist potential homeowners
with down-payment assistance if they qualify as low-income households. The City has
assisted 70 households through the federally-funded SHOP program since 2010. NEDCO
has assisted 7 in 2010-2011 but had no further funding until this year.
A.28 Seek to maintain and increase the supply of rental housing and increase home
ownership options for low- and very low-income households by providing economic and
other incentives, such as density bonuses, to developers that agree to provide needed
below-market and service-enhanced housing in the community.
Rental Housing
One project was added to the supply of rental housing for low- and very-low income
households in Springfield in 2011. The City of Springfield allocated $415,000 of HOME
funds to Afiya Apartments at 1082 Main Street. The housing complex helps adults with
psychiatric disabilities with low incomes to live on their own. Residents benefit from
case-management counseling, skills training, and medication monitoring. The 16 one-
bedroom apartments are owned by Church of the Brethren and managed by ShelterCare.
The City waived the development application fee and reduced the on-site parking
requirements given that most tenants would not own vehicles. Afiya is a federal Section
811 project that limits gross rent (including certain utilities) to 30% of household income.
It also received financial support from Oregon Housing and Community Services.
NEDCO purchased and rehabilitated three single-family homes and one-half a duplex
(condominium conversion) between 2012 and 2014 to provide rental housing for families
who had experienced foreclosure. The City of Springfield allocated $50,000 in HOME
funds for each house.
This year, the HOME Consortium provided $191,000 to Mainstream Housing, Inc to buy
and rehabilitate a duplex on Shady Loop to provide housing to homeless families with a
member that has development disabilities.
The Home Consortium is supporting a St. Vincent de Paul development adjacent to Afiya
on Church of the Brethren property with $615,000 in HOME funds. If it is awarded Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits by Oregon Housing and Community Services, the
AIS Attachment 5, Page 3 of 11
4
Myrtlewood will provide 35 one-bedroom apartments, seven of which will be for
residents with intellectual disabilities served by Mainstream Housing and one for the on-
site manager. The remaining units will be for residents with incomes at or below 50% of
the average median income. Like Afiya, the Myrtlewood will benefit from development
application fee waivers and reduced parking requirements.
Since 2010, the HUD requirements for income restrictions on two apartment complexes
were lifted, The Lindale at 363 Lindale Drive and SpringSite at 195 B Street. This action
removed 76 apartments (14 one-bedroom, 60 two-bedroom, and 2 three-bedroom) from
the inventory of rental housing restricted to households qualified as low-income.
Homeownership
Habitat for Humanity has been building houses at the Meyer Estates Subdivision which
was plated in 2008. Nine have been completed and the last one is scheduled for
completion in February. The City provided $200,000 to assist with construction of these
homes.
Habitat is currently working on plans for a 12-unit cluster subdivision on land that it
owns on R and Q Streets.
A.29 Consider public purposes such as low3- and very low4-income housing when evaluating
UGB expansions.
The Springfield Housing Needs Analysis adopted in 2011 identified sufficient land within
the UGB to meet Springfield’s 20-year supply of residential land.
A.30 Balance the need to provide a sufficient amount of land to accommodate affordable
housing with the community’s goals to maintain a compact urban form.
The Springfield Housing Needs Analysis adopted in 2011 identified sufficient land within
the UGB to meet Springfield’s 20-year supply of residential land.
A.31 Consider the unique housing problems experienced by special needs populations,
including the homeless, through review of local zoning and development regulations,
other codes and public safety regulations to accommodate these special needs.
Sara Abarbanel, Cassandra Bayer, Paloma Curcuera, and Nancy Stetson of the Goldman
School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley prepared a report for the
3 Low income housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below 80 percent of median income pays no more
than 30 percent of its total gross household income on housing and utilities. (HUD’s figure for 1997 annual 80
percent of median for a family of three in Lane County is $27,150; 30 percent = $678/month.) 4 Very low income housing: Housing priced so that a household at or below 50 percent of median income pays no
more than 30 percent of its total gross household income on housing and utilities. (HUD’s figure for 1997 annual
50 percent of median of a family of three in Lane County is $16,950; 30 percent = $423/month.)
AIS Attachment 5, Page 4 of 11
5
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Portland, Oregon Field
Office. This report, “Making a Tiny Deal Out of It: A Feasibility Study of Tiny Home
Villages to Increase Affordable Housing in Lane County, Oregon” evaluated the feasibility
of tiny home villages meeting Springfield’s land use and building requirements. This
Report determined that tiny home villages could be built under Springfield’s current
code. Tiny home villages based on a transitional housing model with a shared kitchen
facility would require some creative design if individual ownership of the homes was a
goal of the developer. One code requirement that restricts options for “tiny houses” was
a minimum size for manufactured homes of 1000 square feet. Smaller homes are
allowed as site-built (120 square feet), trailers (house on wheels), or if they are
assembled on site.
No other amendments to zoning and development regulations or other codes and public
safety regulations have been identified as needed to accommodate special needs
populations.
A.32 Encourage the development of affordable housing for special needs populations that
may include service delivery enhancements on-site.
The rental housing described under Policy A.28 was not only developed to be affordable
to those of low-income, but also to populations with special needs. The Afiya
Apartments are provided services through Sheltercare. Residents of the Myrtlewood will
be provided services by Mainstream Housing.
Lt. Russ Boring and Court Supervisor Allie Sederlin are participating in a Frequent Users
Systems Engagement (FUSE) Workgroup as part of an initiative to break the cycle of
incarceration and homelessness among individuals with complex behavioral health
challenges who are the highest users of jails, hospitals, emergency medical, homeless
shelters and encampments, and other crisis service systems. This group is looking at a
“Housing First” approach to address criminal recidivism.
A.33 Consider local zoning and development regulations impact on the cost of housing.
There has not been a study to quantify the impact that zoning regulations have on the
cost of housing. In general, single-family homes built in Springfield exceed minimum
building code requirements.
A.34 Protect all persons from housing discrimination.
We have not taken any recent proactive measures to educate people about the
requirements for fair housing, nor have we been made aware of any claims of housing
discrimination.
AIS Attachment 5, Page 5 of 11
6
Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
In 2011, the City of Springfield and Lane County adopted a Residential Land Use and Housing
Element that addresses Springfield’s city-specific residential land needs (Springfield 2030
Comprehensive Plan). This element addresses the Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing, “To
provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.” This element includes the goals,
objectives, policies and implementation actions that are consistent with and carry out the
Metro Plan while demonstrating the City’s ongoing commitment to increasing housing choice
and residential densities within Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary. The policies (in the
shaded blue boxes) and implementation actions that promote and support housing choice and
affordability are included here.
Goal HG-2 Foster Housing Choice and Affordability
Policy
H.7
Continue to develop and update regulatory options and incentives to encourage and
facilitate development of more attached and clustered single-family housing types in
the low density and medium density districts.
Implementation
Action
7.1 Establish a small lot (3,000 square feet minimum lot size) special low-
moderate density zoning district with a density range of 8-14 du/acre to:
support development of smaller single family detached and
attached dwelling housing types;
support a greater diversity of housing mix; and
provide a moderate transition zone between lower and higher
density neighborhoods.
To implement Phase I of the land use efficiency measures to implement the
2030 Comprehensive Plan, the City Council adopted amendments to the
Development Code on March 4, 2013. These amendments included the
establishment of a new Small Lot Residential District. Although this District
does not establish a 3,000 square foot minimum lot size, it does establish
sites for residential development where a mix of attached and detached
single-family dwellings are permitted on small lots/parcels with a density
range of 8-14 dwelling units per net acre.
Implementation
Action
7.2 Apply small lot zoning (3,000 square feet minimum lot size) to infill
opportunity sites identified in neighborhood planning processes.
Other than Glenwood, there have been no neighborhood planning
processes. The Small Lot Residential District has yet to be applied since
there has not yet been a Refinement Plan or Master Plan approved that
includes this zoning district.
Implementation
Action
7.3 As part of the Jasper-Natron refinement planning process, conduct analysis
to determine applicability of the Residential Small Lot zoning district to
maximize efficient use of land constrained by wetland resources.
AIS Attachment 5, Page 6 of 11
7
The City has not yet undertaken a refinement planning process for Jasper-
Natron.
Implementation
Action
7.4 As part of the Glenwood refinement planning process, conduct analysis to
determine applicability of the Residential Small Lot zoning district in the
existing residential neighborhoods south of Franklin Boulevard.
The residential neighborhoods south of Franklin Boulevard have not yet
been included in a Glenwood refinement planning process.
Policy
H.8
Continue to support and assist affordable home ownership through programs that
subsidize the development of affordable homes and provide down payment
assistance to income-qualified homeowners.
The City provided $200,000 to Habitat for Humanity to assist in the construction of
houses within Meyer Estates. The City has also provided 70 households with down-
payment assistance ($629,776 in loans) through the federally-funded SHOP program
since FY 2010/11.
Policy
H.9
Provide a broad range of quality accessible and affordable housing options for very
low, low and moderate income residents. Affordable housing is defined as housing
for which persons or families pay 30 percent or less of their gross income for
housing, including necessary and essential utilities [Oregon Revised Statute 456.055].
There are about 750 housing units in Springfield (not including group homes and
group quarters) in complexes that are restricted to populations that qualify as low,
very low, and extremely low income families. In some cases, the amount paid for rent
and essential utilities is limited to 30%. In other cases, the rents are fixed and the
renter may end up paying more than 30%. See Map 6 of Income-Limited Rental
Housing for the locations of these units.
Implementation
Action
9.1 Support the development of subsidized affordable housing with a goal of
assisting 100 affordable housing units every five years, consistent with the
Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan 2010.
Between 2010 and 2015, the City supported development of 15 subsidized
housing units at Afiya, eight Habitat for Humanity houses at Meyer Estates
resulting in 23 new housing units. It also assisted with NEDCO’s purchase
of four homes to rent to families who had experienced foreclosure and
through the HOME Consortium contributed to Mainstream Housing’s
purchase of a duplex to rent to homeless families that include a member
who is disabled.
Through the HOME Consortium, the City is supporting the development of
the Myrtlewood which would increase the inventory of subsidized housing
units by 22 units.
AIS Attachment 5, Page 7 of 11
8
Implementation
Action
9.2 Create a land banking program to reserve land for affordable housing, as
described in the 2010 “Complete Neighborhoods, Complete Streets” grant
application, continue to seek grant funding sources for the program, and
seek to implement this strategy in the Glenwood Riverfront District.
The City has not created a land banking program.
The Lane County Housing Authority and Community Services Agency
(HACSA) has an option agreement on property within the Glenwood
Riverfront District that it wants to develop as subsidized housing. The City
of Springfield has allocated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding toward this project but as the project has been delayed, the CDBG
funding will likely need to be re-allocated to another project.
Implementation
Action
9.3 Evaluate publicly-owned land sites for future development of affordable
housing.
The City has not evaluated publicly-owned sites with the intent of making
them available for affordable housing.
Implementation
Action
9.4 Continue to seek input from a housing task force to assess and evaluate
the effects of City policies and regulations on housing development costs
and overall housing affordability, considering the balance between housing
affordability and other objectives such as environmental quality, urban
design quality, maintenance of neighborhood character and protection of
public health, safety and welfare.
The City does not currently have a housing task force to assess and
evaluate the effects of City policies and regulations.
Policy
H.10
Through the updating and development of each neighborhood refinement plan,
district plan or specific area plan, amend land use plans to increase development
opportunities for quality affordable housing in locations served by existing and
planned frequent transit service that provides access to employment centers,
shopping, health care, civic, recreational and cultural services.
The City has not developed or updated any neighborhood refinement plans other
than Glenwood since adoption of this Residential Chapter of Springfield’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan in 2011. As part of the Downtown Design Standards project, the
City Council is considering allowing residential as an allowed use without the
requirement that it be paired with a commercial use. In addition, the Council is
considering a smaller lot size that would allow for residential infill in certain parts of
Downtown.
Implementation
Action
10.1 Identify and collect baseline data of Springfield’s existing supply of
affordable housing units, their physical location, and their surroundings.
What is affordable is dependent on the resources and income of the
AIS Attachment 5, Page 8 of 11
9
household. The following maps show the location of some of the
affordable housing units within the city relative to schools, parks, and
transit routes. The attached maps show the locations of:
Map 1 – Estimated Market Value of Single-Family Houses and
Condominiums
Map 2 – Manufactured Home Parks
Map 3 – Multi-Family Housing
Map 6 – Income-Qualified Rental Housing
Implementation
Action
10.2 Continue to creatively explore funding tools and options to leverage public,
nonprofit and private investment in affordable housing.
The commitment of local CDBG and HOME funds for eligible housing
developments enables affordable housing developers to obtain additional
financial support from “outside” sources including other federal and state
resources. This “leveraging” significantly increases the impact and value of
the local subsidy. One example of is the Royal Building in downtown
Springfield which was financed in large part through Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits but also benefited from other tax credits, Oregon Housing and
Community Services Trust Funds and Weatherization Funds, City of
Springfield HOME and CDBG funds, a deferred development fee, and funds
from Enterprise Green Communities and energy incentives. It continues to
benefit from vertical housing property tax exemption.
Implementation
Action
10.3 Continue to develop strategies and programs that support the repair,
preservation and improvement of the existing supply of affordable housing
stock and the enhancement of existing affordable neighborhoods.
Through the City’s federally-funded Housing Rehab Program for low-
income homeowners (EHR), the City has supported the repair, preservation
and improvement of 337 homes since 2010 (52 in fiscal year 2015-16).
The City is currently using CDBG funds to construct a pedestrian crossing of
Centennial Blvd. and a pedestrian path from Centennial Blvd. to
Willamalane Park through the 13th Street right-of-way. In addition, the
project includes improved lighting throughout this neighborhood of
affordable housing.
Implementation
Action
10.4 Support the rehabilitation of existing multi-family complexes.
Jim’s Landing and Village East underwent rehabilitation in the last six
years. The City assisted with the relocation of the existing tenants in Jim’s
Landing. Guardian Real Estate Services purchased Village East apartments,
rehabilitated them, and celebrated a grand re-opening in 2015. HUD
extended the project-based Section 8 contract for 20 years to ensure on-
going subsidized housing.
AIS Attachment 5, Page 9 of 11
10
Implementation
Action
10.5 Consider establishing urban renewal district set-asides for affordable
housing.
Each of the two urban renewal district plans identified opportunities for
financially supporting affordable housing. There have been discussions
about the need for affordable housing and the appropriate ways to utilize
urban renewal in supporting those needs. At this time, the Agency has not
generated a formal “set-aside”. Rather, current focus areas have been in
capital infrastructure investment and land assembly. In the past, funds
were provided for home repair and improvement in Glenwood, although
not specifically aimed at the development of affordable housing.
Implementation
Action
10.6 In order to control the effects of regulatory processes on housing price,
strive to minimize the time taken to process land use and building permits,
subject to the need to review projects in accordance with applicable
regulations. Continue to give priority in the plan review process to permits
for very low-income housing.
The City continues to solicit developer input to improve procedures, utilizes
technology to better serve its customers, and ensures that staff are trained
in customer service. The city processes permit applications efficiently
within the constraints of public notice and required processes.
For actions and reviews required by the Development Code, the City offers
fee waivers to non-profit affordable housing providers and to low-income
citizens.
Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan - 2015
The Eugene-Springfield 2015 Consolidated Plan presents the strategic vision for housing and
community development for the period beginning in July 2015 and ending in June 2020. The
goals and activities outlined in the Consolidated Plan are based on the priorities identified
through an analysis of community needs and on an extensive community outreach process.
The Cities of Eugene and Springfield must complete and adopt a Consolidated Plan every five
years in order to receive Community Development Block (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership
Program (HOME) and other federal grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
The table below lists the seven strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan, a list of eligible
activities to meet the strategies, and Springfield’s 5 year outcome goal for certain activities. The
table also includes information on FY16 and FY17 CDBG allocations, including grant recipients,
funding amounts, and outcomes, as it relates to the Consolidated Plan.
AIS Attachment 5, Page 10 of 11
11
2015 Eugene-Springfield 5 Year Consolidated Plan
(2015-2020)
FY 16 and FY17 CDBG allocations
Strategies Activity Springfield CDBG 5 year
goal
Grant recipient (FY 16-17)
Funding amount
(FY16-17)
Outcome (as of June 30,
2016)
1. Increase the
supply of affordable
housing
Acquisition (e.g. land,
buildings, apartments)
1 site acquired 5
homeowner housing units
added
- - -
2. Rehabilitate existing
housing stock
Housing rehab for low-income
homeowners (EHR)
200 home- owner units
rehabilitated
City of Springfield $251,604 52 home-owner units
rehabilitated
Rehab rental apartments 5 units rehabilitated - - -
3. Provide down-
payment assistance
Down-payment
assistance for low-income residents
(SHOP)
50 low-income
residents assisted
City of
Springfield
$200,000 3 low-income
households assisted
4. Remove barriers to
affordable housing
Fair housing events 5 events - - -
5. Support the
Human Service Delivery
system
Funding to the
Human Services Commission (HSC)
for staff costs to non-profits serving low-
income clients
65,000 persons
assisted with public service
activities
Relief Nursery;
Womenspace; Food for Lane
County; Catholic Community
Services (CCS)
$143,208 10,763 persons
assisted
G Street OASIS $36,000 Underway
Non-profit capital improvements 4 facilities improved; 5,000
persons assisted
- - -
Transitional or emergency beds 5 new beds - - -
6. Special
Economic Development
Activities
Equipment, Loans,
Improvements to for-profit businesses
- - - -
Microenterprise
assistance
55 micro
business trainees; 5 jobs
created
NEDCO $66,879
(FY 2015)
7 businesses &
25 clients trained;
0 jobs created
7. Improve
neighbor-hoods and slum/blight
areas
Public improvements
in low-income neighborhoods
2 projects City of
Springfield – Sidewalk and
lighting project
$278,199 1 project
underway
Building rehab in a slum/blight area 2 projects NEDCO Sprout! $159,510 (and
FY13-14)
1 project underway
AIS Attachment 5, Page 11 of 11
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
ååå
å å
å
å
åå
å
å
åå
ÆP
ÆP
MT
P
ISG
A
H
WILLAMETTERIVER
MIDDLEFKWILLAMETTE
I-5
MCKENZIERIVER
0 0.5 10.25 Mi.
å Schools
ÆP Hospitals
Railroads
Bus Routes
Parks
NORTH
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Map 1: Estimated Market Value of
Single-Family Homes/Condominiums
Main St
Cam p C r e e k R d
Q St
S A St
Thurston Rd
McK e n z i e V ie w D r
28th StDaisy St42nd StB St
Har
21st StOlympic St
Ja
s
p
eBob Straub Pkwy
Centennial Blvd
7th St5th StBlvdSeavey Loop RdGateway StW D St
Chad
S 2nd St10th St31st StE St
S 28th StG StPionee
r
Pa
rkway
Eas
t
69th StS 42nd St19th St66th StOldMohawkRdAspen St30th StPioneerParkwayWest58th Stame
F
a
r
S 32nd St 36th St48th StS 70th StFairview Dr
14th StAugusta StS 67th StW Cen te n n ia lB lv d
Yolanda Ave
Laura StHayden Bridge Rd
International W ay
18th StHigh Banks Rd
CommercialAve 52nd StMt Vernon RdS 57th StRainbow DrSat
re
S
t
Hayden Bridge WayBogart LnBrackenfernRdN Garden WayBeltline Rd
W Q St
nsr owAGame Farm Rd
Menlo Lp
mit Ave
Industrial Ave
Deadmond Ferry Rd
S 5th StCardinal
W
a
yOld Coburg RdS 14th St
Hayden Bridge Rd
S 10th StE St
I-105
A St
Jasper Rd 35th StMi
l
l
S
tGame Farm RdCity LimitsSeptember 13, 2016
5
126
$218k and over (3,205)
From $150k to $218k (5,584)
From $100k to $150k (4,332)
Under $100k (895)
Database made available through the Lane Council
AIS Attachment 6, Page 1 of 7
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
ååå
å å
å
å
åå
å
å
åå
ÆP
ÆP
MT
P
ISG
A
H
WILLAMETTERIVER
MIDDLEFKWILLAMETTE
I-5
MCKENZIERIVER
Main St
Cam p C r e e k R d
Q St
S A St
Thurston Rd
McK e n z i e V ie w D r
28th StDaisy St42nd StB St
Harlo
21st StOlympic St
Ja
s
p
eBob Straub Pkwy
Centennial Blvd
7th St5th StBlvdSeavey Loop RdGateway StW D St
Chad
S 2nd St10th St31st StE St
S 28th StG StPionee
r
Pa
rkway
Eas
t
69th StS 42nd St19th St66th StOldMohawkRdAspen St30th StPioneerParkwayWest58th Stame
S 32nd StMcVay Hwy36th St48th StS 70th StFairview Dr
14th StAugusta StS 67th StW Cen te n n ia lB lv d
Yolanda Ave
Laura StHayden Bridge Rd
International W ay
18th StHigh Banks Rd
CommercialAve 52nd StMt Vernon RdS 57th StRainbow DrSat
re
S
t
S 58th StHayden Bridge Way
IBogart LnBrackenfernRdN Garden WayBeltline Rd
G onyeaRd
W Q St
nsr owAvGame Farm Rd
Menlo Lp
mit Ave
Industrial Ave
Deadmond Ferry Rd
S 5th StCardinal
W
a
yOld Coburg RdS 14th St
Hayden Bridge Rd
S 10th StE St
I-105
A St
Jasper Rd Jasper Rd 58th St35th StMi
l
l
S
tGame Farm Rd0 0.5 10.25 Mi.
å Schools
ÆP Hospitals
Railroads
Bus Routes
Parks
NORTH
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Map 2: Manufactured Home Parks
Number of Spaces
City LimitsSeptember 13, 2016
5
126 110
92
93
88
229
222
140
77
86
6911
81
130134
64
30
Source: Taxlots with Manufactured Home Parks were culled from the Lane County Assessor’s Database
using land use codes and descriptions. Data are available through the Lane Council of Governments.
Manufactured Home Parks
XX
1,656 Total Spaces
AIS Attachment 6, Page 2 of 7
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
ååå
å å
å
å
åå
å
å
åå
ÆP
ÆP
MT
P
ISG
A
H
WILLAMETTERIVER
MIDDLEFKWILLAMETTE
I-5
MCKENZIERIVER
Main St
Cam p C r e e k R d
Q St
S A St
Thurston Rd
McK e n z i e V ie w D r
28th StDaisy St42nd StB St
Har
21st StOlympic St
Ja
s
p
eBob Straub Pkwy
Centennial Blvd
7th St5th StBlvdSeavey Loop RdGateway StW D St
Chad
D
r
S 2nd St10th St31st StE St
S 28th StG StPionee
r
Pa
rkway
Eas
t
69th StS 42nd St19th St66th StOldMohawkRdAspen St30th StPioneerParkwayWest58th Stame
F
a
rm
R
d
S 32nd StMcVay Hwy36th St48th StS 70th StFairview Dr
14th StAugusta StS 67th StW Cen te n n ia lB lv d
Yolanda Ave
Laura StHayden Bridge Rd
International W ay
18th StHigh Banks Rd
CommercialAve 52nd StMt Vernon RdS 57th StRainbow DrSat
re
S
t
S 58th StHayden Bridge WayBogart LnBrackenfernRdN Garden WayBeltline Rd
G onyeaRd
W Q St
nsr owAGame Farm Rd
Menlo Lp
mit Ave
Industrial Ave
Deadmond Ferry Rd
S 5th StCardinal
W
a
yOld Coburg RdS 14th St
Hayden Bridge Rd
S 10th StE St
I-105
A St
I-5Onr
a
mp I-5
Jasper Rd Jasper Rd 58th St35th StMi
l
l
S
tGame Farm Rd0 0.5 10.25 Mi.
å Schools
ÆP Hospitals
Railroads
Bus Routes
Parks
NORTH
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Map 3: Multi-Family Housing
City LimitsSeptember 29, 2016
5
126
Source: Taxlots with Mutli-family housing were
culled from the Lane County Land Use layer for
incorporated cities within Lane County, using
land use codes and descriptions. Data are
available through the Lane Council of Governments.
Apartment With 5 to 19 Units (3,087)
Apartment With 20 Units or More (1,073)
Apartment With 1 to 4 Units (1,116)
AIS Attachment 6, Page 3 of 7
G G G G G
G G G G G
G G G G G
G G G G G
MT
P
ISG
A
H
WILLAMETTERIVER
MIDDLEFKWILLAMETTE
I-5
MCKENZIERIVER
Main St
Cam p C r e e k R d
Q St
S A St
Thurston Rd
McK e n z i e V ie w D r
28th StDaisy St42nd StB St
Har
21st StOlympic St
Ja
s
p
eBob Straub Pkwy
Centennial Blvd
7th St5th StBlvdSeavey Loop RdGateway StW D St
Chad
S 2nd St10th St31st StE St
S 28th StG StPionee
r
Pa
rkway
Eas
t
69th StS 42nd St19th St66th StOldMohawkRdAspen St30th StPioneerParkwayWest58th Stame
F
a
r
S 32nd StMcVay Hwy36th St48th StS 70th StFairview Dr
14th StAugusta StS 67th StW Cen te n n ia lB lv d
Yolanda Ave
Laura St
International W ay
18th StHigh Banks Rd
CommercialAve 52nd StMt Vernon RdS 57th StRainbow DrSat
re
S
t
Hayden Bridge WayBogart LnBrackenfernRdN Garden WayBeltline Rd
G onyeaRd
W Q St
nsr owAGame Farm Rd
Menlo Lp
mit Ave
Industrial Ave
Deadmond Ferry Rd
S 5th StCardinal
W
a
yOld Coburg RdS 14th St
Hayden Bridge Rd
S 10th StE St
I-105
A St
Jasper Rd
35th StMi
l
l
S
tGame Farm Rd0 0.5 10.25 Mi.
NORTH
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Map 4: New Residential Construction Since 2008
Market Value (# of taxlots)
City Limits
Railroad
September 22, 2016
5
126
Source: New Units (-) were culled from the Lane County
Assessor’s Database made available through the Lane Council of Governments.
Home $218,000 (237),
Home > $218,000 (344)
Duplex (31)
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Residential
AIS Attachment 6, Page 4 of 7
ÆP
ÆP
MT
P
ISG
A
H
WILLAMETTERIVER
MIDDLEFKWILLAMETTE
I-5
MCKENZIERIVER
Main St
Cam p C r e e k R d
Q St
S A St
Thurston Rd
McK e n z i e V ie w D r
28th StDaisy St42nd StB St
Har
21st StOlympic St
Ja
s
p
eBob Straub Pkwy
Centennial Blvd
7th St5th StBlvdSeavey Loop RdGateway StW D St
Chad
D
r
S 2nd St10th St31st StE St
S 28th StG StPionee
r
Pa
rkway
Eas
t
69th StS 42nd St19th St66th StOldMohawkRdAspen St30th StPioneerParkwayWest58th Stame
F
a
rm
R
d
S 32nd StMcVay Hwy36th St48th StS 70th StFairview Dr
14th StAugusta StS 67th StW Cen te n n ia lB lv d
Yolanda Ave
Laura StHayden Bridge Rd
International W ay
18th StHigh Banks Rd
CommercialAve 52nd StMt Vernon RdS 57th StRainbow DrSat
re
S
t
S 58th StHayden Bridge WayBogart LnBrackenfernRdN Garden WayBeltline Rd
G onyeaRd
W Q St
nsr owAGame Farm Rd
Menlo Lp
mit Ave
Industrial Ave
Deadmond Ferry Rd
S 5th StCardinal
W
a
yOld Coburg RdS 14th St
Hayden Bridge Rd
S 10th StE St
I-105
A St
I-5Onr
a
mp I-5
Jasper Rd Jasper Rd 58th St35th StMi
l
l
S
tGame Farm Rd0 0.5 10.25 M .Railroads
NORTH
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.City LimitsSeptember 23, 2016
5
126
Map 5: 2014 Median Household
Income by U.S. Census Block Group
$17, 466 - $27,000
$27,001 - $37,000
$37,001 - $47,000
$47,001 - $57,000
$57,001 - $91,719
Source: "Income Earned in Last 12 Months."
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
AIS Attachment 6, Page 5 of 7
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
ååå
å å
å
å
åå
å
å
åå
ÆP
ÆP
MT
P
ISG
A
H
WILLAMETTERIVER
MIDDLEFKWILLAMETTE
I-5
MCKENZIERIVER
Main St
Cam p C r e e k R d
Q St
S A St
Thurston Rd
McK e n z i e V ie w D r
28th StDaisy St42nd StB St
Harlow Rd
21st StOlympic St
Ja
s
p
eBob Straub Pkwy
Centennial Blvd
7th St5th StBlvdSeavey Loop RdGateway StW D St
Chad
D
r
S 2nd St10th St31st StE St
S 28th StG StPionee
r
Pa
rkway
Eas
t
69th StS 42nd St19th St66th StOldMohawkRdAspen St30th StPioneerParkwayWest58th Stame
F
a
rm
R
d
S 32nd StMcVay Hwy36th St48th StS 70th StFairview Dr
14th StAugusta StS 67th StW Cen te n n ia lB lv d
Yolanda Ave
Laura StHayden Bridge Rd
International W ay
18th StHigh Banks Rd
CommercialAve 52nd StMt Vernon RdS 57th StRainbow DrSat
re
S
t
S 58th StHayden Bridge Way
I-5 OfframpBogart LnBrackenfernRdN Garden WayBeltline Rd
G onyeaRd
W Q St
nsr owAveSGardenWay
Game Farm Rd
Menlo Lp
mit Ave
Industrial Ave
Deadmond Ferry Rd
S 5th StCardinal
W
a
yOld Coburg RdS 14th St I-5Hayden Bridge Rd
S 10th StI-5
E St
I-105
I-5
A St
I-5Onr
a
mp I-5
Jasper Rd Jasper Rd 58th St35th StMi
l
l
S
tGame Farm Rd0 0.5 10.25 Mi.
å Schools
ÆP Hospitals
Railroads
Bus Routes
Parks
NORTH
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Map 6: Income-Qualied Rental Housing
Housing Owner
CornerstoneHACSAMainstream HousingNEDCOPrivateShelterCareSt. Vincent de Paul100 units
1 unit
Units in Development
City LimitsLaurel Hill CtrCascadeCare Services4
4
9
2
2
8
3
42
17
60
54
26
12 1833
10
96 22
100
10
8
26
104 2 214 29 9 219 26 143 12
September 21, 2016
5
126
2
2
2
Total housing units may include on-site managers. Group homes and congregatecare facilities are not shown on the map.
172
2
AIS Attachment 6, Page 6 of 7
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
ååå
å å
å
å
åå
å
å
åå
ÆP
ÆP
MT
P
ISG
A
H
WILLAMETTERIVER
MIDDLEFKWILLAMETTE
I-5
MCKENZIERIVER
Main St
Cam p C r e e k R d
Q St
S A St
Thurston Rd
McK e n z i e V ie w D r
28th StDaisy St42nd StB St
Har
21st StOlympic St
Ja
s
p
eBob Straub Pkwy
Centennial Blvd
7th St5th StBlvdSeavey Loop RdGateway StW D St
Chad
D
r
S 2nd St10th St31st StE St
S 28th StG StPionee
r
Pa
rkway
Eas
t
69th StS 42nd St19th St66th StOldMohawkRdAspen St30th StPioneerParkwayWest58th Stame
F
a
rm
R
d
S 32nd StMcVay Hwy36th St48th StS 70th StFairview Dr
14th StAugusta StS 67th StW Cen te n n ia lB lv d
Yolanda Ave
Laura StHayden Bridge Rd
International W ay
18th StHigh Banks Rd
CommercialAve 52nd StMt Vernon RdS 57th StRainbow DrSat
re
S
t
S 58th StHayden Bridge WayBogart LnBrackenfernRdBeltline Rd
G onyeaRd
W Q St
nsr owAGame Farm Rd
Menlo Lp
mit Ave
Industrial Ave
Deadmond Ferry Rd
S 5th StCardinal
W
a
yOld Coburg RdS 14th St
Hayden Bridge Rd
S 10th StE St
I-105
A St
Jasper Rd 58th St35th StMi
l
l
S
tGame Farm Rd0 0.5 10.25 Mi.
å Schools
ÆP Hospitals
Railroads
Bus Routes
Parks
NORTH
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
Map 7: Houses Purchased With Financial Assistance
City LimitsSeptember 29, 2016
5
126
Map illustrates houses purchased by rst-time home-buyer households , who are currently
paying o the initial assisted mortgage.
9
8
4
5
44
2
AIS Attachment 6, Page 7 of 7