Survey of Housing Status & Need – Executive Summary
Rappahannock County, VA
Rappahannock Community Housing Partnership/Fauquier Housing Corporation
A study of the housing circumstances of the Public Employee Workforce &
Low to Moderate Income Senior Citizens of Rappahannock County, VA
In the summer of 2007, Rappahannock Community Housing Partnership, a branch of Fauquier Housing Corporation, distributed a Survey of Housing Status & Need to the employees of Rappahannock County Public Schools (RCPS) and Rappahannock County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO). In the winter of 2007-08 an adapted version of the same survey was distributed to a sample of low to moderate income senior citizens of Rappahannock County. Together, RCPS and RCSO survey participants represent a large majority of the public employee workforce and therefore a significant sector of those residents needing access to housing in Rappahannock County. The senior citizens, as a group with fixed incomes, specific housing design needs, and an increasing population, represent a sector of our community necessitous of affordable and accessible housing resources. Assessing the housing needs and status of these two significant demographic sectors is an important first step in ensuring that “affordable housing be available to all socio-economic levels,” as set forth in the vision statement of the Rappahannock County Comprehensive Plan[1].
The following Executive Summary outlines the key findings of the Survey of Housing Status & Need distributed to the afore-mentioned focus groups. The first section presents key findings of the Public Employee Workforce Housing, providing data from the individual Public School and Sheriff’s Office Housing Survey data, in addition to Combined Workforce figures. The second section of this summary highlights key findings of the Low to Moderate Income Senior Citizen Housing Survey. Complete documents of all three housing surveys can be accessed by visiting www.rapphousing.org or call the Fauquier Housing Corporation office – 540-341-2805.
SURVEY OF HOUSING STATUS & NEED, Rappahannock County, VA
A study of the housing circumstances of the Public Employee Workforce & Low to Moderate Income Senior Citizens of Rappahannock County.
Summer 2007 – Spring 2008
Produced by the Rappahannock Community Housing Partnership
Technical Assistance & Funding Provided by Fauquier Housing Corporation
Principal Author:
Leandra Vittitow
Project Coordinator,
Rappahannock Community Housing Partnership
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
RCHP would like to acknowledge the assistance in producing this publication and thank the following people:
Bette Mahoney, Rappahannock County – Data Analysis
Robert Chappel, Rappahannock County Public School Administrator – RCPS Survey Distribution
Sheriff Larry Sheretz, Rappahannock County Sheriff’s Office – RCSO Survey Distribution
Sharon Pyne, Rappahannock County Social Services – Senior Survey Distribution
Darcy Cantor, Rappahannock County Senior Center – Senior Survey Distribution
Key Findings –
Public Employee Workforce Housing
In addition to the Combined Workforce, RCPS, and RCSO categories, data representing Renter Respondents and Single Income Respondents (those respondents dependent solely on the income of their individual employment) is provided.
Borderline
Affordability - The standard “affordability” definition is housing
costs composing no more than 33% of one’s income. Housing costs include rent or
mortgage, homeowners’ insurance, property taxes, and utilities. As depicted in
Figure 1, the median workforce respondent housing costs and income
ratio provides for borderline affordable housing. In the case of Renter
respondents of the Sheriff’s Office, housing is less than affordable.
Figure 1: Housing Costs vs. Income
|
Group |
Median Monthly Housing Cost |
Median Monthly Household Income |
% of Income Spent on Housing |
|
|
All Respondents |
|
|
|
Combined Workforce |
$1,200 |
$4,500 |
27% |
|
RCPS |
$1,122 |
$5,000 |
25% |
|
RCSO |
$1,028 |
$3,682 |
28%
|
|
|
Single Income, only |
|
|
|
Combined Workforce |
$1,091 |
$3,500 |
31% |
|
RCPS |
$1,267 |
$3,583 |
32% |
|
RCSO |
$732 |
$2,500 |
29% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Renters, only
|
|
|
|
Combined Workforce |
$921 |
$3,417 |
27% |
|
RCPS |
$891 |
$3,629 |
25% |
|
RCSO |
$964 |
$2,500 |
39% |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Data collected from the Survey of Housing Status & Need, 2007 - Rappahannock Community Housing Partnership
Figure 2: Percentile Breakdown of Housing Cost Expenditure
Unaffordable
Figure 3: Community Context
|
Group |
Annual Median Income(AMI) |
% of County AMI |
|
|
County |
$53,062[2] |
|
|
|
Combined Workforce |
$42,000* |
79% |
High end of LOW |
|
RCPS |
$42,996* |
81% |
Low end of MODERATE |
|
RCSO |
$30,000* |
57% |
LOW |
*Salary figures represent incomes of Single Income respondents
Limited Access to
Home Ownership - For public workforce employees looking to buy
a new home or graduate to homeownership for the first time, there are few to no
affordable homes for sale. Figure 4 outlines the affordable home price and
availability according to income. Figure 5 compares availability of affordable
housing in neighboring counties.
Figure4: Home Buyer’s Budget
|
Group |
Annual Median Income[3] |
Affordable Home Price[4] |
Homes Sold Within Range [5] |
|
|
All Respondents |
|
2006 2007 |
|
Combined Workforce |
$54,000 |
$169,493 |
5 - 9% 0 |
|
RCPS |
$60,000 |
$193,346 |
5 - 9% 3 – 9% |
|
RCSO |
$44,184 |
$130,623 |
3 - 5% 0 |
|
|
Single Income, only |
|
|
|
Combined Workforce |
$42,000 |
$121,944 |
3 - 5% 0 |
|
RCPS |
$42,996 |
$125,861 |
3 - 5% 0 |
|
RCPS |
$30,000 |
$74,265 |
1 - 2% 0 |
|
|
Renter, only |
|
|
|
Combined Workforce |
$41,004 |
$117,866 |
3 - 5% 0 |
|
RCPS |
$43,548 |
$128,032 |
3 - 5% 0 |
|
RCSO |
$30,000 |
$74,265 |
1 - 2% 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
% of
Home Sales within “Affordable” Range
Figure 5: Regional Housing Options
|
Group |
Affordable Home Price |
Rappahannock 2006 2007 |
Fauquier 2006 2007 |
Culpeper 2006 2007 |
|
Total Workforce |
$169,493 |
|
.5% 1% |
3% 7% |
|
Single Income Workforce |
$121,944 |
5% 0% |
.12% .15% |
.5% 1% |
|
Renter Workforce |
$117,866 |
5% 0% |
0% 0% |
.3% 1% |
Commuters’ Burden
– One quarter of the public workforce employee survey respondents commute to
work from out of county (27% of RCPS respondents and 21% of RCSO respondents).
The average roundtrip commute for these commuters is forty-seven miles. With
drivers seeing unprecedented gas prices and fuel prices only expected to rise,
this is a significant burden on the commuters’ budget. The majority of these
out-of-county respondents, 84%, report experiencing a “lack of affordable homes
for sale in Rappahannock County.” 37% of commuters also say they find that
“available affordable homes are poor quality or too small.” It can be
deduced from this data that one quarter of the public workforce employees
cannot afford to live in the county in which they serve.
Lack of Options – Many
employees of the public workforce are faced with limited affordable housing
options. Housing Survey respondents were asked if they had experienced any
of the following difficulties in finding housing for themselves or their
families:
Figure 6: Housing Difficulties
|
|
Combined Workforce |
RCPS |
RCSO |
|
|
44% |
45% |
40% |
|
Available, affordable homes are poor quality or too small |
41% |
43% |
33% |
|
|
4% |
2% |
13% |
|
Limited number of homes for sale |
47% |
48% |
40% |
|
Don’t have enough money for required down payment on a home |
27% |
26% |
33% |
|
Can’t qualify for a mortgage at today’s interest rates and home prices |
12% |
12% |
13% |
|
Trouble qualifying for a home because of bad credit rating |
11% |
7% |
27% |
Source: Data collected from the Survey of Housing Status & Need, 2007 –
Rappahannock Community Housing Partnership
Signifies what are reported to be the most important problems faced by workforce respondents.
When asked why they choose to rent, renter respondents replied:
· Can’t afford to buy a home – 60%
· Saving to buy a home – 25%
· Planning to stay a short time – 25%
· Little or no upkeep – 8%
Low to Moderate Income Senior Citizen Housing - Within the respondent sample for this survey of Rappahannock County Senior Residents, there are three basic categories – homeowners, renters, and boarders. While the first two subsets are self-explanatory, “boarders” are defined as someone living in a house owned by someone else, whether sharing the house or living there alone, who does not pay any significant portion of living expenses.
Universal Design
Deficit - The lack of Universal Design (UD) features is a key
concern for many seniors. The majority of respondents do not have features
such as grab rails in the bathrooms or ramped entryways to accommodate their
present or future physical needs.
· 67% of senior respondents have no house entry with less than one step or ramped entrance
· 70% of senior respondents do not have bathrooms with enough room to maneuver a wheelchair
· 87% of respondents have no grab rails near the toilet and/or tub
Of the senior respondents reporting physical disabilities that presently inhibit their ability to get around inside the house, only 13% (2 of the 16 persons) have UD features to facilitate their needs.
A sizeable segment of our
local senior citizen population cannot afford their housing. 33% of respondents
live below poverty level[6].
With 52% of respondents (excluding those seniors boarding with family) paying
more than one third of their income on housing expenses, some sort of
assistance is necessary. However, as most already pay below-market value rents
and no to below-average mortgages, this relief cannot be expected from the
public housing market.
Figure 7: Housing Costs vs. Income
|
Group |
MedianMonthly Housing Costs |
Median Monthly Household Income |
Percentage of Monthly Income Spent on Housing* |
|
Entire Group -30 |
$300 |
$900 |
33% |
|
Owner - 18(60%) |
$272 |
$888 |
31% |
|
Renter - 7(23%) |
$600 |
$1000 |
60% |
|
Boarder - 5(17%) |
$0 |
$950 |
0% |
|
Group, excluding “Boarder” data |
$327 |
$900 |
36% |
Figure
8: Percentile Breakdown of Housing Cost Expenditure
Renter’s Budget
Crunch - Assistance to the senior citizens who rent is
imperative. As most senior homeowners have no mortgage, and “boarders” have
minimal to no housing expenses, renters are the most vulnerable senior segment.
Even while paying below-market level rental rates ($460 a month on average),
the average senior renter is paying 60% of their monthly income on housing.
When asked to list their reasons for renting, the most common responses were:
· “Little or no upkeep required” - 70%
· “Can’t afford to buy a home” - 60%
Property Taxes vs.
Fixed Incomes - Property taxes present a disproportionate challenge
to many senior housing budgets. For homeowners, property taxes account for half
of monthly housing costs, on average. 20% of respondents commented on the
overburden of taxes in the county and the stress of increased taxes when living
on a fixed income. 28% of homeowners have received property tax relief; 94% of
homeowners have income levels which qualify for 100% tax relief.
· Portion of senior respondents paying real estate taxes – 60%
· Average yearly real estate tax fee - $1800 ($150.00 a month)
· Senior respondents receiving county assistance with property taxes – 11%
Utility Bill Burdens
- Utility bills represent an excessive percentage of housing expenditure. On
average, utility expenses make up half of all monthly housing expenses. This
burden of expense is most felt by those heating with fuel oil. 28% of
respondents are paying 25% or more of their monthly income on utilities.
- Portion of respondents paying utilities – 83% (all respondents excluding Boarders)
- Average monthly utility bill - $141
- Those spending at least 25% of monthly income on utility bills – 28%
- Respondents receiving occasional financial assistance with utility payments – 30%
Of the overburdened set paying 25% or more of their monthly income on utilities, the majority of them heat with fuel oil; none receive financial assistance with utility payments. With the rising cost of petroleum, this expense can only be expected to rise.