Housing Needs Assessment - Nevada Rural Housing Authority

Transcription

NEVADA RURAL HOUSING
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
NEVADA RURAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
MARCH 2005
NEVADA RURAL HOUSING
NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT
PREPARED BY:
NEVADA RURAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
3695 DESATOYA DRIVE
CARSON CITY, NV 89701
(775) 887-1795
D. GARY LONGAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FUNDING FOR THE REPORT GENEROUSLY PROVIDED BY:
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
FANNIE MAE NEVADA PARTNERSHIP OFFICE
HARLEY DAVIDSON CREDIT
U.S. BANK
NEVADA STATE BANK
MARCH 2005
NEVADA RURAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………… 4
CHAPTER ONE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS……………………………………. 8
CHAPTER TWO: DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING DATA…………………… 16
CHAPTER THREE: SURVEY OF NACO AND NLC&M MEMBERS………….. 38
CHAPTER FOUR: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS…………………………. 46
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………. 54
APPENDIX
RURAL HOUSING DATA BOOK…………………………… ATTACHMENT 1
HOUSING MAIL SURVEY ATTACHMENTS……………... ATTACHMENT 2
3
INTRODUCTION
Background
Rural Nevada is facing an unprecedented housing crisis.
In the western rural counties and in Nye County in the south, growth pressures from the
urban areas, and from neighboring California, have resulted in escalating land costs and
home values.
In Douglas County, the estimated financing gap to place household at 80% of area median
income into a median priced home rose from $51,952 in 2000, to $178,329 in 2004, an
increase of 243%. In Carson City, the gap grew from $24,804 to $98,579. And, in Storey
County, the gap grew from $9,423 to $109,171. We expect this affordability gap to grow in
the coming years as mortgage interest rates rise and the demand for housing continues to
increase.
While affordability is a less pressing issue in the eastern counties, many of the smaller
Nevada counties are plagued by poor housing upkeep, abandonment, and a proliferation of
sub-code manufactured homes. Boom and bust economic cycles driven by mining in many
eastern Nevada communities make housing planning difficult. And, the cost of construction
is high because of a lack of nearby developers and skilled trades people.
Multi-family housing production in the fifteen rural counties has also been at a near standstill
for the last half-dozen years. With the phasing out of the USDA Section 515 rental housing
program, and the elimination of 515 rental subsidy, there is little economic incentive to build
new multi-family rental housing. As the housing stock ages, the options for low-income
rental households become more limited.
In these traditionally conservative rural counties and towns, local administrators and public
officials are beginning to express concern about the crisis in housing. When we asked
members of the Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada League of Cities and
Municipalities in a mail survey how they would rank affordable housing among the many
competing needs in their communities, more than half ranked it a “1” or “2” on a scale of 1 to
5, with “1” being the highest priority. More than half of respondent also viewed the lack of
affordable housing as a “barrier to local economic development.” In particular,
administrators cited a shortage of both rental and ownership housing for entry-level workers.
Few rural communities have access to hard data on the housing needs in their locality or an
ability to plan for future growth. When asked, “Does your community have a plan, including
a housing element or consolidated plan, for addressing local housing need?” wholly half of
the respondents in the rural counties reported “no.” However, many rural administrators
stated that they would like assistance with preparing or updating such a local housing plan.
A Housing Needs Assessment
In response to growing housing need across the fifteen rural counties, the Nevada Rural
Housing Authority (NRHA) commissioned a Rural Housing Needs Assessment report in
June 2004. The intent of the needs assessment is provide up-to-date information on the
changing demographics, housing trends, and service gaps across the state, as well as help
inform NRHA’s current strategic planning process.
Currently, little data is available on the state of housing in Nevada’s rural communities. The
statewide Consolidated Plan 2000 – 2005 was last revised in 1999, based upon 1990 Census
data. More current needs data is available from the University of Nevada Cooperative
4
NRHA Rural Housing Needs Assessment Report—Introduction
Extensive, the Nevada Commission on Economic Development, and the Nevada Rural
Development Council. However, data from these agencies only touch on housing issues, and
never in depth. Two years ago, the Nevada Housing Division commissioned a Special Needs
Housing study. But, again, this report only addressed conditions in Washoe and Clark
County and did not survey the rural counties.
The purpose of the Rural Housing Needs Assessment report is to provide NRHA Board and
staff with immediate and reliable information about the housing conditions and needs in the
rural areas of Nevada. The study addresses the following questions:
•
What are the current demographic and economic trends in the rural areas that have an
impact on housing?
•
What are the greatest housing needs across the rural areas?
•
What are the barriers to addressing those needs?
•
Where are there opportunities for expansion of housing programs? What type of
programs?
NRHA Background
Established in 1972, the mission of the Nevada Rural Housing Authority is to develop
affordable housing programs and improve the quality of life in the rural areas of Nevada.
Originally an agency of state government, NRHA evolved into a private entity in1995 and is
govern by a Board Commissioners appointed by the Nevada League of Cities and
Municipalities and the Nevada Association of Counties.
NRHA currently operates two principal programs:
•
Section 8 Rental Assistance—NRHA is the primary provider of rental assistance in
the rural areas of Nevada. The agency currently administers over 1,500 rental
assistance vouchers to low-income families, the elderly and the disabled. NRHA
maintains field staff in multiple locations across the state to market the program,
certify households for eligibility, carry out unit inspections, and trouble-shoot if
problems arise.
•
Affordable Rental Housing—Over the last twenty-five years, NRHA has developed,
as owner and as turn-key developer, over 250 units in 7 housing developments
located in Carson City, Yerington, Fallon, Wells, and Winnemucca. NRHA also
provides professional property management to these developments, and operates a
successful computer-learning lab out of its Southgate Apartments senior residence in
Carson City.
Emerging Directions
In 2003, the NRHA Board of Commissioners made a commitment to expand the agency’s
programs and services in order to better serve citizens throughout the state. The Board
appointed a new management team, headed by D. Gary Longaker, former Executive Director
of the Southeast Texas Housing Finance Corporation, and gave staff a broad charge, to
stabilize existing operations, explore new programs areas, and diversify the agency’s revenue
base.
In the last year and a half, NRHA has made extraordinary progress, increasing utilization of
its Section 8 rental assistance program from approximately 1,100 participants to over 1,500
participants today, and stabilizing financial operations across the agency. As an indication of
5
this progress, NRHA received an “unqualified” opinion and no findings on its most recent
independent auditor’s report.
NRHA has now launched an ambitious, year-long strategic planning process to develop a
business plan that will chart the course of the agency for the next decade. With the assistance
of a seasoned facilitator, Board and staff are revisiting NRHA’s mission, its goals and
objectives, and its current practices. Based on these exercises, the group will flesh out a
series of practical next steps. Some of the possible actions that will be considered by the
agency include:
•
The certification of its spin-off 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation as a statewide
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) in order to pursue
development opportunities;
•
The exercise of the agency’s power as a statewide housing authority to issue
501(c)(3) and/or private activity bonds to finance a variety of rural housing projects;
•
The creation of a statewide Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI),
serving the banking and capital needs of rural Nevada;
•
The development of extensive home ownership and Family Self-Sufficiency tracks in
concert with its Section 8 rental assistance program to both set clear expectations and
time limits that would come with the social assistance and to help clients access the
resources they need to move towards independence;
•
The provision of strategic planning and data analysis assistance to local governments,
to assist them to develop and implement local housing action plans; and,
•
The assumption of new programs and business lines—including weatherization,
housing rehabilitation, homeownership counseling, and professional property
management—to diversify the agency’s operations and reach previously underserved
areas of the state.
The following Rural Housing Needs Assessment report is an important first step in this
strategic planning process for NRHA.
Organization of Report
The Rural Housing Needs Assessment report includes a wealth of qualitative and quantitative
data on the state of housing in Nevada’s fifteen rural counties. The report is organized as
follows:
•
Chapter One: Summary of Findings—Chapter One provides a short, bulleted
summary of the data presented in the housing needs Chapters Two, Three, and Four.
•
Chapter Two: Demographic and Housing Data—In Chapter Two, we review
demographic and housing trends across the fifteen rural counties and their
implications for housing planners. The data summarized in Chapter Two comes from
a variety of sources including: U.S Census; Nevada State Demographer; Nevada
Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation; HUD State of the Cities
Database; and Multiple Listing Service (MLS) home sale data. In addition to
common population and housing statistics, we also calculate rental housing and
homeownership affordability and changes over time. This chapter also provides
information on the amount and type of subsidized housing by county.
6
•
Chapter Three: Survey of NACO and NLC&M Members—In the summer of 2004,
the NRHA, in collaboration with the Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada
League of Cities & Municipalities, administered a short housing mail survey to
NACO and NLCM members across the state. The response rate was phenomenal,
perhaps attesting to the urgency of the topic in the minds of respondents: housing
affordability, availability, and upkeep. In Chapter Three, we detail the findings of this
rich source of qualitative data about perceived housing needs.
•
Chapter Four: Key Informant Interviews— As part of the Assessment, NRHA also
interviewed a over a dozen “key informants” in the affordable housing and
community development field in 2004 and early 2005, including public agency staff,
non-profit and for-profit developers, development consultants, property managers,
and bankers. The qualitative information in this analysis is designed to supplement
the extensive quantitative data analysis on housing and demographic trends contained
in other sections of the Housing Needs Assessment report.
•
Chapter Five: Recommendations—Finally, Chapter Five includes a bulleted summary
of recommendations for NRHA as it carries out its strategic planning process.
•
Appendix—We would also like to direct your attention to two documents included as
an Appendix to the Rural Housing Needs Assessment report. The first, a Rural
Housing Data Book, includes a compilation three-page “County Data Sheets” for
each of the fifteen rural counties. The Data Sheets provide “at-a-glance” information
on local population and housing trends, by county. Also included in the Data Book is
a list of all HUD, USDA and Nevada Housing Division subsidized housing
developments, sorted by city, town, and county, and a tabulation of Housing Choice
rental voucher usage and waiting lists by county. The second document is a set of
attachments to the mail survey, including a full tabulation of the survey results, a list
of those contacted, and a copy of the survey instrument.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the many planning and community development staff, city and
county managers, public officials, developers, bankers and others who took the time to fill
out the mail survey or take part in an interview. We would also like to thank the following
organizations for their financial support of the Rural Housing Needs Assessment report:
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Fannie Mae Nevada Partnership Office
Harley Davidson Credit
U.S. Bank
Nevada State Bank
The Rural Housing Needs Assessment was directed by Eric Novak, with research assistance
from Yette Martell-Deluca, Tina Baldassarre, and Julie Harris. Julie Harris wrote the
demographic and housing data analysis sections of the report.
7
CHAPTER ONE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This chapter provides a short summary of findings from the three data analysis chapters
of the Housing Needs Assessment Report.
Chapter Two: Analysis of Demographic and Housing Data
In Chapter Two, we review demographic and housing trends and their implications for
housing planning across the fifteen rural counties. Below are the highlights of the
findings from this chapter.
Population Characteristics
•
Nevada’s 15 rural counties on average grew 37.6% from 1990-2000, about
half the rate of the State as a whole. Similarly, from 2000-2010 the rural
areas are expected to increase 16.9%, less than half of the State’s anticipated
growth rate.
•
From 1990-2000 significant growth was seen in Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Lyon,
Nye, Pershing and Storey Counties, with Nye (82.7%) and Lyon (72.5%) showing
the most rapid increases.
•
During the decade from 2000-2010, the western rural counties and Nye
County are expected to continue to grow. The largest gains are expected in
Lyon (57.6%) and Nye (39.1%) with Churchill, Douglas and Carson City also
anticipated to grow significantly.
•
While Nevada’s rural counties as a whole show notable population gains, a
number of counties are experiencing population loss. Four counties in the
1990s exhibited losses. Esmeralda and Mineral Counties each experienced an
over 20% decline in population, with Lander and White Pine showing less
precipitous drops.
•
Income levels increased across the rural counties in the 1990s, with the largest
percent increases seen in Lyon and Lincoln (62.4% and 53.2%, respectively). The
smallest income increases were observed in Nye (19.2%) and Mineral (25.2%).
•
While population growth and income showed significant increases in the 1990s,
the percent of people who fall under the poverty level has remained relatively
stable, at around 10%
•
In the 15 rural counties, there has been a larger increase in the number of
elderly people (52.2%) than among children (34.3%).
•
The percent of the population age 65+ has increased more in the rural areas
(11.6% to 12.8%) than in the State as a whole (10.6% to 11.0%).
•
In each of the 15 rural counties, the percent of the population with a physical
disability alone accounted for 6% to 15% of the population over age five. In
places like Nye and Carson City, this equated to around 4,000 people in each
county.
8
NRHA Rural Housing Needs Assessment Report—Summary of Findings
•
Employment data for 2003 was gathered for the State of Nevada and each rural
county. The vast majority of rural counties show the highest percentage of
their employment in government.
•
Mining, while only comprising 0.8% of the State’s employment base, is very
significant in five of Nevada’s counties. Almost 90% of Eureka’s employment
in 2003 is in the mining industry. Lander and Esmeralda both have over 25% of
their employment base in mining. Humboldt and Pershing both have close to
20% of employment in the mining sector. Four other counties—Nye, Mineral,
Storey and Elko—also have economic ties to the mining industry with between
five and ten percent of their employees in 2003 working in mining.
•
Fluctuations in the unemployment rates are most evident in two of the
counties most dependent on mining—Esmeralda and Eureka.
Housing Characteristics
•
For the State and the rural counties as a whole, the percent of housing units
that are vacant declined slightly between 1990 and 2000, from 10.1% to 9.2%
at the State level and 14.0% to 13.7% across the rural areas.
•
In four counties—Eureka, Lander, Mineral and White Pine—the increase in the
percent of housing units that are vacant is significant (eight or more percentage
points). These counties are mining areas and/or have experienced significant
population declines.
•
The homeownership rates increased in nearly every rural county and in the
State as a whole in the 1990s. The percentage of housing units across Nevada
that are owner occupied increased from 54.8% in 1990 to 60.9% in 2000. The
rural total increased a bit slower, from 66.3% to 71.3%.
•
Although homeownership increased in the 1990s and early 2000s, the trend is
expected to peak in the next few years. Incomes have generally been stagnant
for the last four years and interest rates have been increasing, resulting in an
affordability gap in many counties.
•
The share of single-family units as a proportion of all housing units increased
in the rural counties between 1990 and 2000.
•
Mobile homes account for only 9.7% of all housing units in the State but an
impressive 27.9% of the housing stock in the rural counties. Mobile homes as
a percentage of all housing units declined in all counties between 1990 and 2000,
except Humboldt, which has seen an increase from 40.5% to 42.3%.
•
As with mobile homes, the percentage of multifamily/other units has declined
in the 1990s for both the State and the rural areas. In some rural
counties—Douglas, Esmeralda, Mineral—the absolute number of
multifamily/other units has declined, meaning there is no replenishment of this
valuable housing stock.
•
Building permit data shows little or no construction of multiple family housing
in most rural counties between 1997 and 2004.
9
Subsidized Housing Characteristics
•
Currently there are almost 5,000 subsidized housing units in rural Nevada,
including 1,419 (29%) tenant-based rental vouchers.
•
Over 25% of rural Nevada’s subsidized housing is in Carson City. Three
counties each have over 10% of the rural share—Elko (19.2%), Nye (11.4%) and
Churchill (10.2%). Four counties, Esmeralda, Storey, Eureka and Mineral each
have less than 1% of the housing share.
•
The rural counties have 30,711 total renter occupied housing units, 16.1% of
which are subsidized. Three counties have over 20% of their rental housing in
subsidized units: White Pine (24.1%), Pershing (20.4%) and Elko (20.2%). Two
counties, Esmeralda and Storey, have less than 1% of their rental housing stock
subsidized. Three additional counties have under 10% of their housing
subsidized—Eureka, Mineral and Douglas.
Housing Affordability
•
From 1990 to 2000, the percent of households who paid 30% or more on rent
declined in two-thirds of the rural counties.
•
In 2000, almost two-thirds of very low-income households (incomes at or
below 50% AMI) pay more than 30% of their income on rent. This
percentage of approximately 63% rent burdened households remained fixed in the
1990s.
•
Nevada saw an almost 50% increase in the 1990s in median home price from
$95,700 to $142,000 in 2000.
•
Since 2000, housing values have increased exponentially in some counties for
which we were able to secure data. Storey, Douglas and Carson City have all
had phenomenal increases in housing values between 2000 and 2004. Storey’s
median home value increased a remarkable 121.6% over four years, from
$134,800 to $298,758, compared to 99.4% for Douglas (from $181,800 to
$362,500) and 69.3% for Carson City (from $147,500 to $249,733).
•
Home values in Elko County have stagnated since 2000. In the 1990s, home
prices rose 51%, from $81,600 to $123,100, compared to 1.5% from 2000-2004
(from $123,100 to $125,000).
•
We carried out a homeownership gap analysis for all rural counties for 1990 and
2000, and when home value data was available, for 2004. Based upon this gap
analysis, the potential homebuyers at 80% of AMI were able to afford a home
in about half of Nevada’s rural counties. These counties are primarily located
in north/northeastern Nevada. Counties with positive gaps, signaling a lack of
affordability, are generally located in northwestern Nevada and Nye and Lincoln
in the south. Housing was least affordable in Douglas with a $51,952 gap in
2000 and most affordable in Eureka and White Pine, both with a gap around
-$40,000 in 2000.
•
Between 2000-2004, the most dramatic change in homeownership
affordability occurred in Storey, increasing 1,058.6% from $9,423 to
$109,171. The largest gap is in Douglas at $178,329.
10
•
In every rural county except three, the percentage of owner-occupied
households with any housing problems increased—this while incomes
generally increased in the 1990s. This suggests that while the homeownership
rate increased in the rural areas throughout the 1990s, some households were
assuming a high shelter cost burden to become homeowners.
•
In 2000, the counties with the highest percent of owner-occupied households
with any housing problems were Lyon and Pershing, both over 30%, and both
showing strong population growth in the 1990s. The counties with the lowest
percents were Lander, White Pine and Lincoln, all around 17%.
Chapter Three: Housing Mail Survey of Nevada Association of Counties and
Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities Members
In Chapter Three, we review the findings of a short housing mail survey administered by
NRHA to Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada League of Cities and
Municipalities members. Below are the highlights of the findings from the survey:
•
Housing Need—Most respondents ranked affordable housing as an important
priority in their community. Across the 17 Nevada communities, 53.2% ranked
affordable housing as a high or moderately high priority (a “1” or “2” on a scale
of 1 to 5).
•
Housing As a Barrier to Economic Development—Most respondents viewed the
lack of affordable housing as a barrier to local economic development.
Overall, 51.2% of respondents stated that the local workforce could not find
suitable and affordable housing in the community. Many counties citied a
shortage of both rental and ownership housing available to entry-level workers.
•
Specific Housing Needs— Overall, respondents saw the greatest need for low and
moderate homeownership opportunities (70.2% ranked this as either “very
important” or “important”), affordable rental housing (65.9%), elderly housing
(60.0%, 27 out of 45), and weatherization assistance (59.6%). Respondents
perceived less need in their communities for rental vouchers (34.8%), utility
assistance (34.8%), special needs housing (39.1%), and barrier-free housing
(39.1%).
•
Barriers to Affordable Housing— Not surprisingly, the greatest identified barriers
were the price of construction and/or availability of contractors (68.0%),
followed by the lack of available land (60.9%). Other identified barriers, in order
of significance, were: “lack of experience in the community in developing
affordable housing” (51.1%); “availability of infrastructure or funds for
infrastructure improvements” (51.0%); and, “availability of subsidies for
affordable housing (47.8%).
•
Need for Housing Planning—Across the 17 Nevada counties, 40.4% of
respondents reported the absence of any local housing plan. Wholly half of the
respondents in rural counties reported the absence of any housing plan,
including a local housing element to the master plan, or Consolidated Plan.
11
Potential Roles for NRHA—Recommended areas of assistance included:
education on housing needs to the general public and policy makers; assistance
in the preparation of housing plans; networking on housing resources and
financing; and actual affordable housing production.
Chapter Four: Key Informant Interviews
In Chapter Four, we summarize the findings of interviews with over a dozen “key
informants” in the affordable housing and community development field. To follow are
the highlights of their responses:
A. Housing Needs in the Rural Areas
The housing needs in the fifteen rural counties can be summarized in three words:
affordability, availability, and upkeep.
Affordability
•
Most respondents were quick to point out an affordability crisis in several of the
western rural counties, including Douglas, Carson City, Storey, Lyon and
Churchill Counties, and in southern Nye County. Home prices and rents have
increased as a spill-over of growth and appreciating land values in Washoe
County and Lake Tahoe in the north and Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark
County in the south.
•
Those interviewed expressed concern about the lack of affordable
homeownership opportunities, particularly for local service employees and
first-time homebuyers. Some cited the influx of retirees from California with
greater assets displacing local residents. One interviewee noted that the travel
distances to work are becoming greater. As Carson City and Dayton get too
expensive, workers are moving along Highway 50 to Silver Springs and Fernley
to find affordable houses.
•
In general, incomes across the rural areas are lower than in the urban areas. A
number of respondents said that without rental subsidy it is very difficult to
finance new multi-family rental housing production, in the rural counties. That
is, the economic rent—that required to cover operations, replacement reserves,
and debt service—is more than many local residents can afford to pay.
Availability
•
In some western Nevada counties, housing is unavailable at any reasonable
price, because of extreme development pressure, lack of buildable parcels, and
water and infrastructure availability.
•
Single-family home production in the western counties is not keeping pace
with demand.
•
On the multi-family side, there has been little production over the last
decade, because of warranty liability claim on condominiums and the declining
availability of rental subsidy. Vacancy rates in existing rental developments in
many towns remain under 5.0%.
12
•
Even in communities where housing prices have remained relatively stable, there
is a lack of available housing options. Several of those interviewed pointed to a
need for alternatives to mobile homes in some of the smaller rural communities.
Because of the boom and bust cycles in mining communities it is very difficult to
plan for and finance new stick-built construction.
Upkeep
•
Housing upkeep and abandonment is a significant issue in the smaller central
and eastern rural counties, where the housing stock tends to be older and in
poorer condition.
•
The multi-family rental housing stock in many communities is also old, with very
limited replacement reserves and little possibility of re-capitalization for repairs.
USDA-RD has not made rental assistance available in Nevada for several years
and is phasing out the program. As a result, developers have not developed any
new multi-family housing.
•
There is also the problem of abandonment of mobile homes in some rural
communities. As mining jobs move, there is often no economic incentive to
move the mobile home to the next job.
B. Barriers to Addressing Housing Needs
•
Rental Subsidy—Topping the list of barriers to addressing local housing needs, is
the lack of available rental subsidy. Every person interviewed who is involved
in multi-family housing production raised this issue. Without rental subsidy,
there is no economic incentive to invest in new multi-family housing or the
rehabilitation of older stock.
•
Land Availability and Cost—Land availability was cited as a major problem in
the western counties. There are virtually no new available parcels in Douglas,
Carson City, Storey, and Lyon Counties. Several cities and town in central and
eastern Nevada are reported to be land-locked as well, with federal land on all
sides.
•
Water and Infrastructure—Related to this is the difficulty of bringing water and
other infrastructure to rural sites for development. This becomes a particular
barrier for affordable housing projects, which cannot carry the significant
overhead costs of financing new sewers, water, and roads in an undeveloped area.
•
Housing Planning—Several interview participants pointed to the need for better
community planning so that affordable housing is provided in concert with other
community infrastructure, such as school, public facilities and roads, rather than
as an afterthought.
•
Depressed Housing Values—In many of the central and eastern counties, home
values have not kept pace with development costs. When the final appraised
value of a home is less than the cost to construct it, there is little economic
incentive to build new, or even to maintain existing properties.
•
Boom and Bust Cycles—The economic peaks and troughs, driven by mining
activity in some rural communities, makes housing planning particularly difficult.
As Eileen Piekarz of RCAC noted, the housing of choice inevitably becomes
13
mobile homes, which cost less and can be moved or abandoned when the jobs
move elsewhere.
•
Availability of Financing and Subsidy—Interviewees said that there were not
enough sources of financing and subsidy for affordable housing projects in
the rural communities. Most federal and state resources are distributed on a per
capita basis, meaning that approximately14% of the available resources (HUD
HOME funds, State Housing Trust Funds, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits,
Tax-Exempt Volume Cap, etc.) must be spread across 15 of the 17 Nevada
counties. Currently, there are enough 9% tax credits in the rural areas for one
approximately 40-unit project per year.
•
Developer Interest and Capacity—A number of those interviewed thought that the
lack of builders and trades people in many of the rural counties was a
significant barrier to housing production. It is neither convenient nor cost
efficient for developers or technical assistance providers to travel to the central
and eastern portions of the state. On top of this, the projects tend to be of
smaller scale with lower profit margins than those in the urban areas or the
growing western counties and southern Nye County.
•
Building Codes and Zoning—Several identified local regulatory barriers that
make housing development more costly. Participants pointed to the need for “one
stop shops” for building permits. Some also felt that local building codes and
regulations placed unreasonable demands developers of new and rehabilitated
housing.
•
Housing Planning/Lack of Data—A common complaint among those interviewed
is that there is little information available about housing conditions in the rural
communities. Much of the information on need is anecdotal; it is difficult to
shape public policy without hard data. Several respondents expressed interest in
the creation of housing plans tailored to the needs of individual rural
communities.
•
Credit History—Finally, bad credit and/or lack of a credit history among
potential homebuyers was viewed as an enormous barrier to homeownership
across the rural counties.
C. Areas of the State that Are Underserved
•
Many of those interviewed saw an extraordinary need for affordable housing
in the growing western counties, in Dayton Valley, Fernley, Carson City,
Virginia City, Incline Village, Minden and Gardnerville, and in southern Nye
County in Pahrump. Here, land is unavailable, prices are escalating, and there is
very little social infrastructure to support affordable housing development.
•
Even in some of the communities where home prices have remained stagnant,
some of those saw great housing need. Because much of the development
expertise and resources are located in the urban areas, the central and
eastern counties tend to be underserved.
D. Opportunities for Expansion of Housing Programs
•
Single Family Home Development—The most oft-cited response by those
interviewed was the need for more single-family home development and
14
affordable homeownership opportunities. One interviewee is watching federal
legislation related to the creation of a new Single-Family Housing Tax Credit,
which would function somewhat like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit for
multi-family development.
•
USDA-538 Program—There has been very little utilization of the Section 538
Loan Guarantee Program in Nevada. With the phasing out of the Section 515
program, the 538 program should be looked at more closely. The program
provides an interest subsidy on the first $1 million of debt as well as credit
enhancement on the entire loan amount, which can result in a lower cost of funds.
•
Self-Help Housing—The USDA Section 523 Self-Help Housing program
continues to be a very popular program across the rural areas. Those interviewed
thought that there will be continued opportunities for expansion of this program.
•
Use of NRHA Section 8—A number of the rental housing operators interviewed
pointed out that NRHA could be putting its Section 8 rental voucher portfolio
to work in supporting the new construction and rehabilitation of rental housing.
•
Housing Planning and Technical Assistance—As identified above, there is a great
need for housing planning in the rural counties. Those interviewed identified
several potential sources of funds for housing planning and technical assistance,
including the rural Community Development Block Grant program, USDA-RD,
and HUD.
•
Policy Development Related to Mobile Homes and Manufactured
Housing—Some respondents saw an opportunity to embrace mobile homes
and manufactured housing as a viable alternative to stick-built construction in
the rural communities. They saw opportunities for public policy initiatives to
improve the quality, affordability and financeability of this ubiquitous
housing stock. Many felt that manufactured or system-built housing might
provide some solutions for housing in the rural areas and should be pursued
further.
•
BLM Land—Finally, a number of those interviewed cited the new BLM land
program for affordable housing as an exciting potential area of expansion.
Many rural communities have BLM land near existing land settlement.
15
CHAPTER TWO: DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING DATA
Introduction
In this section of the Rural Housing Needs Assessment report, we review demographic and housing
trends and their implications for housing planning across the fifteen rural counties. The data
summarized in this section comes from a variety of sources including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1990 and 2000 U.S Census (population and housing characteristics);
Nevada State Demographer (population projections);
Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation (employment data);
HUD State of the Cities Database (housing affordability measures, building permit data);
Nevada Housing Division, USDA-Rural Development, Nevada Rural Housing Authority
and HUD (Lists of subsidized housing developments and Housing Choice Vouchers); and,
Multiple Listing Service (MLS) home sale data from various county realtor associations.
From this information, we have compiled three-page “County Data Sheets” for each of the fifteen
rural counties. The data sheets provide “at a glance” information about current demographic and
housing conditions and historic trends, including:
Population
• Population size and growth projections
• Median income and poverty rate
• Household size
• Size of different age cohorts
• Prevalence of individuals with disabilities
Subsidized Housing Characteristics
• Number of units and developments
• Target population (family, elderly disabled)
• Funding sources and presence of rental assistance
• Housing Choice Voucher usage
• Subsidized units as a % of total rental units
Employment
• Employment by industry
• Size of the labor force
• Unemployment rate
Housing Affordability Measures
• Median rent
• % of renter households with a high rent burden
• Median home sale price
• Estimated gap between 80% of median income
and a median-priced home
• % of owner households with a high shelter cost
burden
Housing Characteristics
• Number of housing units
• Vacancy rate
• Homeownership rate
• Units in structures (single-family vs. multi-family)
• Units lacking plumbing
• Building permits issued
The fifteen County Data Sheets can be found in the Rural Housing Data Book, which is an
attachment to the Rural Housing Needs Assessment report. Also included in the Data Book is a
list of all subsidized housing developments, sorted by city, town, and county, and a tabulation of
Housing Choice rental voucher usage and waiting lists by county.
We believe the data sheets will be a useful tool for local policy makers and planners in
understanding local housing conditions and in comparing conditions across counties.
The narrative in this section is intended to be a complement to the County Data Sheets. Below,
we walk through the sections of the Data Sheet—Population, Employment, Housing Conditions,
Housing Affordability—and analyze trends, both over time and geographically. We also present
summary tables for comparisons across counties and with the state as a whole.
16
NRHA Rural Housing Needs Assessment—Demographic and Housing Trends
Again, the information in this section should be read with the qualitative data in the other
sections of the Assessment (the housing mail survey, the key informant interviews) for a fuller
picture of current conditions.
Population
The State of Nevada experienced tremendous population growth in the 1990s and is expected to
continue to grow at a fast rate through 2010. This mirrors the trend seen in many of the western
states. From 1990-2000, the State grew 66.3%, the highest growth rate in the nation; it is
projected to grow 40.3% between 2000 and 2010. The majority of this growth is occurring in
Clark County, the Las Vegas metropolitan area, with an 85.6% change in population from 19902000, and an expected 49.6% increase from 2000-2010. Washoe County (Reno/Sparks area),
while also experiencing strong growth, is expanding at a much slower pace than Las Vegas
(33.3% and 22.4%, respectively).
As seen in Table 1, Nevada’s 15 rural counties on average grew 37.6% from 1990-2000, about
half the rate of the State as a whole. Similarly, from 2000-2010 the rural areas are expected to
increase 16.9%, less than half of the State’s anticipated growth rate.
Table 1: Population by Rural County 1990, 2000, 2010
% Chg
County
1990
2000
90-00
Carson City
40,443
52,457
29.7%
Churchill County
17,938
23,982
33.7%
Douglas County
27,637
41,259
49.3%
Elko County
33,530
45,291
35.1%
Esmeralda County
1,344
971
-27.8%
Eureka County
1,547
1,651
6.7%
Humboldt County
12,844
16,106
25.4%
Lander County
6,266
5,794
-7.5%
Lincoln County
3,775
4,165
10.3%
Lyon County
20,001
34,501
72.5%
Mineral County
6,475
5,071
-21.7%
Nye County
17,781
32,485
82.7%
Pershing County
4,336
6,693
54.4%
Storey County
2,526
3,399
34.6%
White Pine County
9,264
9,181
-0.9%
2010
58,840
29,489
50,383
44,058
890
1,384
15,212
4,154
4,222
54,385
3,597
45,185
7,040
3,523
8,545
% Chg
00-10
12.2%
23.0%
22.1%
-2.7%
-8.3%
-16.2%
-5.6%
-28.3%
1.4%
57.6%
-29.1%
39.1%
5.2%
3.6%
-6.9%
Rural Total
330,907
16.9%
State of Nevada
1,201,833 1,998,257
66.3% 2,804,372
Source: U.S. Census and Nevada State Demographer
40.3%
205,707
283,006
37.6%
From 1990-2000 significant growth was seen in Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Lyon, Nye, Pershing
and Storey Counties, with Nye (82.7%) and Lyon (72.5%) showing the most rapid increases.
During the decade from 2000-2010 growth in the rural counties is anticipated to slow and even
decline in half of the counties. The largest gains are expected in Lyon (57.6%) and Nye (39.1%)
with Churchill, Douglas and Carson City also anticipated to grow significantly. Most of these
rapidly growing counties are in northwestern Nevada where there is spillover from Washoe
County as well as significant in-migration from California. Nye County, in southern Nevada, is
also experiencing a spillover effect from Las Vegas, especially in the Pahrump area.
17
Counties such as Storey and Carson City, which exhibited strong growth in the 1990s, are
expected to show limited growth in the future primarily due to a lack of buildable land. High
development pressure is pushing growth into neighboring counties—Douglas, Lyon and
Churchill.
While Nevada’s rural counties as a whole show notable population gains, a number of counties
are experiencing population loss. Four counties in the 1990s exhibited losses. Esmeralda and
Mineral Counties each experienced an over 20% decline in population, with Lander and White
Pine showing less precipitous drops. From 2000-2010, population decline is expected in seven
counties, including some counties (Elko and Humboldt) that experienced significant gains in the
1990s. Mineral and Lander are both anticipated to decrease nearly 30%. Less dramatic declines
are expected in Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, and White Pine. Most of these counties,
which are located in north/northeastern Nevada, are heavily dependent on the mining industry,
with its boom/bust cycles. In recent months, the mining industry has once again experienced a
resurgence in some of the rural counties—Elko, Lander and White Pine—which will have an
impact on population numbers and housing statistics.
Affordable housing needs will be evident primarily in fast growing areas where housing
production may lag behind population growth and may be priced beyond many local residents’
ability to pay. In addition, in areas that are losing jobs and population, affordable housing may
be needed despite lower housing costs because of lack of new production.
Race/Ethnicity
The State of Nevada and its 15 rural counties are becoming more diverse. In 2000, all of the
rural counties had a larger percentage of non-Hispanic, white residents than the State (75.2%),
except Mineral (74.3%). The Hispanic/Latino population is the largest ethnic group in both the
State (18.9% in 2000) and in each rural county, except Mineral where the American Indian
population is the largest group, comprising 16.1% of the populace.
From 1990 to 2000, the white/non-Hispanic population declined as a percentage of the
population in every county, whether the county gained or lost population. The greatest increases
in minority groups as a percent of county inhabitants was generally in the Asian and Black
populations, with some counties showing significant increases in Hispanic residents (Elko,
Carson City, and Nye) and American Indian population (Eureka and Mineral). Pershing County
experienced a large increase in its Black residents from 0.3% of total population in 1990 to 5.4%
in 2000.
As Nevada’s rural counties become more diverse, there may be some implications for housing,
including new housing preferences and occupancy patterns, affordability for low-wage service
employees, and issues with fair housing access and lending practices.
Income
Median household income in 2000 in Nevada’s rural counties was typically lower than the State
median ($44,581), except in five counties—Douglas, Elko, Humboldt, Lander and Storey.
Douglas had the highest median income ($51,849), 16.3% higher than the State. Lincoln had
lowest ($31,979), 28.3% lower than the State median. Median income figures are sometimes
higher in counties whose economies are based on mining, like Elko, Humboldt and Lander.
However, this may mask a bifurcated local economy with many lower wage service positions.
Income levels increased across the rural counties in the 1990s with the largest percent increases
seen in Lyon and Lincoln (62.4% and 53.2%, respectively). The smallest income increases were
observed in Nye (19.2%) and Mineral (25.2%).
18
We believe that between 2000 and 2004, household income was relatively stagnant, based on the
HUD Area Median Incomes (AMI) data, which is presented in the Homeownership Affordability
section of this narrative.
While population growth and income showed significant increases in the 1990s, the percent of
people who fall under the poverty level has remained relatively stable, rather than declining.
Some of the newcomers to the rural areas may be of lower income. In some counties dependent
on mining, job losses may have pushed people below the poverty level.
Table 2 presents an overview of poverty status among the 15 rural counties. The average
poverty threshold for a family of four persons was $12,674 in 1989 and $17,029 in 1999.
Poverty thresholds are applied on a national basis and are not adjusted for regional, State or local
variations in the cost of living.
Table 2: Poverty Status by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
County
#
%
#
Carson City
3,040
8.0%
4,923
Churchill County
1,920
11.0%
2,041
Douglas County
1,848
6.8%
2,976
Elko County
3,089
9.4%
3,947
Esmeralda County
206
15.5%
146
Eureka County
157
10.3%
206
Humboldt County
1,294
10.3%
1,539
Lander County
668
10.7%
720
Lincoln County
495
14.4%
626
Lyon County
2,381
12.1%
3,513
Mineral County
804
12.8%
761
Nye County
1,840
10.5%
3,454
Pershing County
560
13.0%
599
Storey County
240
9.5%
195
White Pine County
924
10.9%
866
Rural Total
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
%
10.0%
8.7%
7.3%
8.9%
15.3%
12.6%
9.7%
12.5%
16.5%
10.4%
15.2%
10.7%
11.4%
5.8%
11.0%
% Chg
90-00
61.9%
6.3%
61.0%
27.8%
-29.1%
31.2%
18.9%
7.8%
26.5%
47.5%
-5.3%
87.7%
7.0%
-18.8%
-6.3%
19,466
9.8%
26,512
9.7%
36.2%
119,660
10.2%
205,685
10.5%
71.9%
Between 1990 and 2000, for both the State and the rural counties as a whole, the number of
people below the poverty line has increased. The percent of the population below the poverty
line has remained stable at around 10%. There is great variation among the rural counties,
however, with eight counties in 2000 higher than the State average and seven counties below the
State level. Storey has the lowest percent poverty (5.8%) while Lincoln has the highest poverty
rate (16.5%).
Nye County had the greatest increase in the number of people below the poverty line (87.7%) but
also had the fastest population growth in the 1990s (82.7%). As a result, the percent of Nye’s
residents considered poverty status stayed virtually the same (10.5% 1990 to 10.7% 2000).
Douglas County experienced a similar pattern. Carson City, however, had a large increase in the
number of people with poverty status (61.9% increase) but also saw a significant gain in the
percent of the residents considered poverty status (8.0% in 1990 to 10.0% in 2000).
19
Several counties exhibited a decline in percent poverty status 1990-2000 despite significant
population growth. Storey County is a particularly stark example. Its population increased
34.6%, but the county saw a 18.8% decline in the number with poverty status. The percent
poverty status declined dramatically from 9.5% in 1990 to 5.8% in 2000.
Affordability is a significant issue for low-income Nevadans. Based on raw numbers between
1990 and 2000, there are more people who cannot afford market-rate housing. Despite increases
in incomes and population during the 1990s, the percentage of the population with poverty status
has not lowered. In the 2000s, the need for affordable housing is likely to increase, as incomes
languish and housing costs rise.
Households
Nationally, the average household size has declined from 2.63 in 1990 to 2.59 in 2000. However,
in the State of Nevada, the household size has increased from 2.53 to 2.62. Nevada’s increase
could be explained by the in-migration of families from other states, as well as the growth in
population groups that tend to have larger families, such as the Hispanic/Latino population and
the continued strong presence of the Mormon religion in Nevada.
The average household size increased in the 1990s in six of Nevada’s rural counties and declined
in nine counties. Increases were seen primarily in northwestern counties in Carson, Lyon,
Humboldt, Churchill and Pershing, with Elko County, in the northeast, showing the greatest
increase, from 2.79 to 2.85.
The county with the largest household size in 2000 was Elko at 2.85. Esmeralda had the smallest
at 2.12. Two-thirds of counties had lower average household sizes than State.
Age
Data on the population <18 years and 65+ years in 1990 and 2000 is presented in Tables 3 and
4. Nevada as a whole has seen about 72% growth in the number of people in both age cohorts in
the 1990s. In the 15 rural counties, however, there has been a larger increase in the number of
elderly people (52.2%) than among children (34.3%). As a percentage of the population, the
State has seen a small increase in the <18 population from 24.7% to 25.6% whereas the rural
counties have seen a small decline (27.3% to 26.7%). The percent of the population age 65+ has
increased more in the rural areas (11.6% to 12.8%) than in the State as a whole (10.6% to
11.0%).
Between 1990 and 2000, Carson City and Humboldt County exhibited the greatest increase in
the percentage of population <18 years, albeit only about one percentage point increase. The
65+ population during this same time frame exhibited over a six-percentage point increase in
Mineral, Esmeralda and Nye Counties, suggesting large retired and elderly populations.
In 2000, the rural county with the highest percentage of children was Elko (32.5%) followed
closely by Lander (32.2%). Storey had the smallest percentage of people <18 years (19.7%).
The county with the largest percentage of people 65+ in 2000 was Mineral (19.8%) followed by
Nye at 18.4%. The smallest percentage of elderly residents was in Elko (5.9%).
20
Table 3: Population <18 Years by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
County
#
%
#
%
Carson City
9,037
22.3%
12,271
23.4%
Churchill County
5,055
28.2%
6,935
28.9%
Douglas County
7,072
25.6%
9,910
24.0%
Elko County
10,810
32.2%
14,699
32.5%
Esmeralda County
323
24.0%
199
20.5%
Eureka County
425
27.5%
459
27.8%
Humboldt County
3,895
30.3%
5,062
31.4%
Lander County
2,141
34.2%
1,863
32.2%
Lincoln County
1,282
34.0%
1,255
30.1%
Lyon County
5,462
27.3%
9,345
27.1%
Mineral County
1,875
29.0%
1,237
24.4%
Nye County
4,412
24.8%
7,706
23.7%
Pershing County
1,320
30.4%
1,719
25.7%
Storey County
586
23.2%
669
19.7%
White Pine County
2,565
27.7%
2,220
24.2%
Rural Total
% Chg
90-00
35.8%
37.2%
40.1%
36.0%
-38.4%
8.0%
30.0%
-13.0%
-2.1%
71.1%
-34.0%
74.7%
30.2%
14.2%
-13.5%
56,260
27.3%
75,549
26.7%
34.3%
296,948
24.7%
511,799
25.6%
72.4%
Table 4: Population 65+ Years by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
County
#
%
#
%
Carson City
6,041
14.9%
7,837
14.9%
Churchill County
2,297
12.8%
2,865
11.9%
Douglas County
3,352
12.1%
6,257
15.2%
Elko County
2,042
6.1%
2,676
5.9%
Esmeralda County
148
11.0%
167
17.2%
Eureka County
128
8.3%
205
12.4%
Humboldt County
934
7.3%
1,213
7.5%
Lander County
371
5.9%
403
7.0%
Lincoln County
599
15.9%
673
16.2%
Lyon County
3,019
15.1%
4,743
13.7%
Mineral County
846
13.1%
1,005
19.8%
Nye County
2,179
12.3%
5,984
18.4%
Pershing County
504
11.6%
520
7.8%
Storey County
263
10.4%
446
13.1%
White Pine County
1,090
11.8%
1,239
13.5%
% Chg
90-00
29.7%
24.7%
86.7%
31.0%
12.8%
60.2%
29.9%
8.6%
12.4%
57.1%
18.8%
174.6%
3.2%
69.6%
13.7%
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
Rural Total
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
23,813
11.6%
36,233
12.8%
52.2%
127,631
10.6%
218,929
11.0%
71.5%
21
Interesting age trends are seen among those four counties that exhibited population losses in the
1990s. In Esmeralda, Lander, Mineral and White Pine Counties, the <18 population both
declined in number and percent of the population, but the 65+ age group increased not only in
percent of the population but in actual numbers. This is most likely attributed to aging in place
rather than a notable in-migration of elderly residents.
In the four counties that experienced the largest population growth in the 1990s—Douglas, Lyon,
Nye, and Pershing—the percentage of the population under 18 declined, but the changes in the
65+ percentage varied. In Douglas and Nye, the percentage increased significantly among the
65+ age group, suggesting resettlement for retirement, whereas in Lyon and Pershing, the
percentage declined.
As a general observation, affordable housing needs in the rural areas for both families and
elderly people have increased from 1990 to 2000, and are expected to continue in the 2000s as
the population is projected to grow in most counties. The data indicates that additional housing
for the elderly may be a higher priority overall given the faster growth in this age group in the
rural areas.
Disability
Data on disabilities among county and State residents in 2000 was gathered to highlight the need
for barrier-free housing for this population. In six counties—Esmeralda, Lincoln, Lyon, Mineral,
Nye and Storey—the proportion of residents with disabilities is much higher than the overall
State percentages. In each of the 15 rural counties, the percent of the population with a physical
disability alone accounted for 6% to 15% of the population over age five. In places like Nye and
Carson City, this equated to around 4,000 people in each county. The number of subsidized
housing units specifically for disabled people, however, is sorely lacking in most counties. More
detail on existing affordable housing for the disabled is discussed below.
Employment By Industry
Employment data for 2003 was gathered for the State of Nevada and each rural county.
Nevada’s employment base is primarily in leisure and hospitality industry (27.9%), followed by
trade, transportation and utilities (17.9%) government (12.4%) and professional and business
services (11.1%).
The vast majority of rural counties show the highest percentage of their employment in
government. Other notable industries in the rural counties include trade, transportation and
utilities, leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, and manufacturing. Among
the rural counties, only two—Douglas and Elko—show higher percentages of their employment
bases in leisure and hospitality (44.0% and 33.4%, respectively).
Mining, while only comprising 0.8% of the State’s employment base, is very significant in five
of Nevada’s counties. Almost 90% of Eureka’s employment in 2003 is in the mining industry.
Lander and Esmeralda both have over 25% of their employment base in mining. Humboldt and
Pershing both have close to 20% of employment in the mining sector. Four other
counties—Nye, Mineral, Storey and Elko—also have economic ties to the mining industry with
between five and ten percent of their employees in 2003 working in mining.
The boom/bust cycles in the mining industry have a significant effect on these counties. White
Pine County, although only showing 3.6% of its employment in mining, is historically tied to the
mining industry. As mentioned above, in recent months, the mining industry has once again
resurged in Elko, Lander and White Pine.
22
Planning for affordable housing can be difficult in those counties affected by the mining
boom/bust cycles. In boom times, there are problems with both housing affordability and
availability. As previously mentioned, high median income statistics in some counties with
significant mining employment mask the large number of workers in the low-income service
sector who may need assistance with shelter costs.
Unemployment
Unemployment rates for 1990, 2000 and 2003 are presented on Table 5. The State of Nevada is
consistently at or below the national average. In 2003, the United States unemployment rate was
6.0% compared to the State at 5.2%. Storey County has had the lowest unemployment rates of
all counties over the 1990 to 2003 time frame, coming in at 3.2% in 2003. The highest rate in
2003 was for Lyon County at 6.9%.
Fluctuations in the unemployment rates are most evident in two of the counties most dependent
on mining—Esmeralda and Eureka. Between 2000 and 2003 Esmeralda’s rate dropped from
9.5% to 3.9% whereas Eureka’s rate increased from 2.9% to 5.6%. Mineral County and Carson
City have also seen significant shifts in their unemployment rates over time.
Table 5: Unemployment Rates by Rural County 1990, 2000, 2003
% Chg
County
1990
2000
2003
90-00
Carson City
6.1%
3.4%
6.4%
-44.3%
Churchill County
6.6%
8.1%
6.1%
22.7%
Douglas County
5.1%
4.0%
5.4%
-21.6%
Elko County
5.0%
4.4%
5.5%
-12.0%
Esmeralda County
6.1%
9.5%
3.9%
55.7%
Eureka County
5.7%
2.9%
5.6%
-49.1%
Humboldt County
5.5%
5.1%
5.0%
-7.3%
Lander County
6.7%
7.7%
7.1%
14.9%
Lincoln County
7.0%
6.5%
6.6%
-7.1%
Lyon County
6.3%
6.7%
6.9%
6.3%
Mineral County
6.1%
10.0%
6.4%
63.9%
Nye County
3.6%
5.5%
6.4%
52.8%
Pershing County
4.8%
4.0%
5.5%
-16.7%
Storey County
2.4%
2.8%
3.2%
16.7%
White Pine County
6.7%
3.9%
3.9%
-41.8%
State of Nevada
4.9%
4.0%
5.2%
-18.4%
Source: Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation
% Chg
00-03
88.2%
-24.7%
35.0%
25.0%
-58.9%
93.1%
-2.0%
-7.8%
1.5%
3.0%
-36.0%
16.4%
37.5%
14.3%
0.0%
30.0%
Housing Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates have a direct correlation with housing affordability. Housing costs tend to go
down when vacancy rates increase. Inversely, a low percentage of housing units that are vacant
typically signals higher housing costs. Demand pushes housing costs up, especially in high
growth areas. Table 6 shows vacant housing units for 1990 and 2000.
23
The percent of housing units that are vacant varies significantly between counties. In 2000,
Carson City had the lowest vacancy rate at 5.2%, and Esmeralda the highest at 45.4%. Other
counties with vacancy rates under 10% include Churchill, Storey and Lyon, all high growth
counties in northwestern Nevada. While vacancy data is not available for 2004, we suspect that
these markets have tightened considerably.
Table 6: Vacant Housing Units by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
County
#
%
#
%
Carson City
733
4.4%
1,112
5.2%
Churchill County
624
8.6%
820
8.4%
Douglas County
3,550
25.1%
2,605
13.7%
Elko County
1,684
12.5%
2,818
15.3%
Esmeralda County
378
39.1%
378
45.4%
Eureka County
200
24.5%
359
35.0%
Humboldt County
506
10.0%
1,221
17.6%
Lander County
374
14.5%
687
24.7%
Lincoln County
475
26.4%
638
29.3%
Lyon County
1,042
11.9%
1,272
8.9%
Mineral County
465
15.5%
669
23.3%
Nye County
1,409
17.5%
2,625
16.5%
Pershing County
294
15.4%
427
17.9%
Storey County
79
7.3%
134
8.4%
White Pine County
686
17.2%
1,157
26.1%
% Chg
90-00
51.7%
31.4%
-26.6%
67.3%
0.0%
79.5%
141.3%
83.7%
34.3%
22.1%
43.9%
86.3%
45.2%
69.6%
68.7%
Rural Total
12,499
14.0%
16,922
13.7%
35.4%
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
52,561
10.1%
76,292
9.2%
45.1%
For the State and the rural counties as a whole, the percent of housing units that are vacant
declined slightly between 1990 and 2000, from 10.1% to 9.2% at the State level and 14.0% to
13.7% across the rural areas. The overall number of vacant units increased over the decade, but
so did the total number of housing units,. Only three counties, Douglas, Lyon and Nye exhibited
declines in the percent of vacant units. In Douglas the drop is dramatic from 25.1% to 13.7%,
and represents an absolute decline in the number of vacant units. Lyon and Nye are less striking
(11.9% to 8.9% and 17.5% to 16.5%, respectively).
In four counties—Eureka, Lander, Mineral and White Pine—the increase in the percent of
housing units that are vacant is significant (eight or more percentage points). These counties are
mining areas and/or have experienced significant population declines.
At the end of the section, we discuss data on rental housing and homeownership affordability,
both of which correlate with changes in vacancy rates.
Owner Occupied Housing Units
The good news is that homeownership rates increased in every rural county and in the State as a
whole in the 1990s. Table 7 shows that the percentage of housing units across Nevada that are
owner occupied increased from 54.8% in 1990 to 60.9% in 2000. The Rural Total increased a bit
slower, from 66.3% to 71.3%.
24
The homeownership rate is almost 80% in Storey County, the highest of the 15 counties. Carson
City, the only urban entitlement community across the rural counties, has the lowest percent of
owner occupied units at 63.1%. Pershing County had the greatest gain in the 1990s in
homeownership, from 60.7% to 69.5%, almost nine percentage points. Churchill and Carson
City both increased the slowest, just under three percentage points.
Table 7: Owner Occupied Housing Units by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
% Chg
County
#
%
#
%
90-00
Carson City
9,582
60.3%
12,724
63.1%
32.8%
Churchill County
4,204
63.1%
5,866
65.8%
39.5%
Douglas County
7,285
68.9%
12,183
74.3%
67.2%
Elko County
7,592
64.5%
10,937
69.9%
44.1%
Esmeralda County
355
60.4%
305
67.0%
-14.1%
Eureka County
421
68.2%
491
73.7%
16.6%
Humboldt County
3,054
67.3%
4,179
72.9%
36.8%
Lander County
1,555
70.3%
1,615
77.2%
3.9%
Lincoln County
974
73.5%
1,156
75.1%
18.7%
Lyon County
5,560
72.4%
9,857
75.8%
77.3%
Mineral County
1,681
66.5%
1,593
72.5%
-5.2%
Nye County
4,677
70.2%
10,167
76.4%
117.4%
Pershing County
980
60.7%
1,363
69.5%
39.1%
Storey County
734
73.0%
1,166
79.8%
58.9%
White Pine County
2,392
72.6%
2,515
76.6%
5.1%
Rural Total
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
51,046
66.3%
76,117
71.3%
49.1%
255,388
54.8%
457,247
60.9%
79.0%
According to a recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank, Nevada’s homeownership rate in
2002 was 65.5%, an increase of almost five percentage points since 2000. The report points out,
however, that Nevada ranks poorly, at 44th in the nation, on its rate of homeownership.1
Although homeownership increased in the 1990s and early 2000s, the trend is expected to flatten
out. Incomes have generally been stagnant for the last four years and interest rates have been
increasing, resulting in an affordability gap in many counties. Homeownership affordability will
be discussed below.
Housing Types
Information on housing types in the rural counties is highlighted in Tables 8-10. Table 8 shows
the percentage of single-family detached housing. Table 9 presents statistics on mobile homes
and Table 10 provides data on multiple family/other housing types.
1
“Environmental Assessment of the State of Nevada: A Guide to Nevada’s Community Development Landscape,”
by Scott Turner, Community Affairs Department, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, December 2004.
25
Table 8: Single Family Detached Housing by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
% Chg
County
#
%
#
%
90-00
Carson City
8,315
50.0%
11,982
56.3%
44.1%
Churchill County
4,067
55.8%
5,797
59.6%
42.5%
Douglas County
9,025
63.9%
13,786
72.5%
52.8%
Elko County
5,965
44.3%
9,330
50.6%
56.4%
Esmeralda County
257
26.6%
266
31.9%
3.5%
Eureka County
257
31.5%
334
32.6%
30.0%
Humboldt County
2,421
48.0%
3,175
45.7%
31.1%
Lander County
867
33.5%
947
34.1%
9.2%
Lincoln County
1,028
57.1%
1,314
60.3%
27.8%
Lyon County
4,598
52.7%
7,849
55.0%
70.7%
Mineral County
1,665
55.6%
1,789
62.4%
7.4%
Nye County
2,212
27.4%
6,187
38.8%
179.7%
Pershing County
915
48.0%
1,023
42.8%
11.8%
Storey County
681
62.8%
1,013
63.5%
48.8%
White Pine County
2,719
68.3%
3,131
70.5%
15.2%
Rural Total
44,992
50.3%
67,923
54.9%
51.0%
235,912
45.5%
432,437
52.3%
83.3%
Table 9: Mobile Homes by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
#
%
#
Carson City
2,921
17.6%
2,985
Churchill County
1,979
27.1%
2,422
Douglas County
1,489
10.5%
1,662
Elko County
4,906
36.4%
5,636
Esmeralda County
522
54.0%
408
Eureka County
502
61.4%
599
Humboldt County
2,043
40.5%
2,943
Lander County
1,572
60.8%
1,543
Lincoln County
590
32.8%
581
Lyon County
3,382
38.8%
4,878
Mineral County
799
26.7%
721
Nye County
5,044
62.5%
7,878
Pershing County
756
39.6%
1,044
Storey County
294
27.1%
405
White Pine County
862
21.6%
808
%
14.0%
24.9%
8.7%
30.5%
49.0%
58.4%
42.3%
55.5%
26.7%
34.2%
25.2%
49.4%
43.7%
25.4%
18.2%
% Chg
90-00
2.2%
22.4%
11.6%
14.9%
-21.8%
19.3%
44.1%
-1.8%
-1.5%
44.2%
-9.8%
56.2%
38.1%
37.8%
-6.3%
Rural Total
27,661
30.9%
34,513
27.9%
24.8%
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
69,655
13.4%
79,861
9.7%
14.7%
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
26
Table 10: Multiple Family/Other Housing by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
% Chg
#
%
#
%
90-00
Carson City
5,392
32.4%
6,316
29.7%
17.1%
Churchill County
1,244
17.1%
1,513
15.5%
21.6%
Douglas County
3,607
25.5%
3,558
18.7%
-1.4%
Elko County
2,590
19.2%
3,490
18.9%
34.7%
Esmeralda County
187
19.4%
159
19.1%
-15.0%
Eureka County
58
7.1%
92
9.0%
58.6%
Humboldt County
580
11.5%
836
12.0%
44.1%
Lander County
147
5.7%
290
10.4%
97.3%
Lincoln County
182
10.1%
283
13.0%
55.5%
Lyon County
742
8.5%
1,552
10.9%
109.2%
Mineral County
530
17.7%
356
12.4%
-32.8%
Nye County
817
10.1%
1,869
11.7%
128.8%
Pershing County
237
12.4%
322
13.5%
35.9%
Storey County
110
10.1%
178
11.2%
61.8%
White Pine County
401
10.1%
500
11.3%
24.7%
Rural Total
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
16,824
18.8%
21,314
17.2%
26.7%
213,291
41.1%
315,159
38.1%
47.8%
The percent of single family housing units is similar between the State and the Rural Total, both
around 50% in 2000. In both cases, the share of single-family units as a proportion of all
housing units increased between 1990 and 2000.
When looking at the percent of housing units that are mobile homes and multifamily/other,
however, the State and the rural areas differ significantly. Mobile homes account for only 9.7%
of all housing units in the State but an impressive 27.9% of the housing stock in the rural
counties. Mobile homes as a percentage of all housing units declined in all counties between
1990 and 2000, except Humboldt, which has seen an increase from 40.5% to 42.3%.
The percentage of the housing stock that is multifamily/other housing is much lower in the rural
counties (17.2%) than in the State (38.1%). As with mobile homes, the percentage of
multifamily/other units has declined in the 1990s for both the State and the rural areas. In some
rural counties—Douglas, Esmeralda, Mineral—the absolute number of multifamily/other units
has declined, meaning there is no replenishment of this valuable housing stock.
In 2000, Eureka and Lander Counties had the lowest percentages of single-family units (about
33%) and the highest number of mobile homes (over 55%). As to be expected, the percentage of
multiple family/other units is low in these counties (around 10%). These counties and others
with similar housing-type patterns depend heavily on mining for their economies. The
boom/bust cycles make low-cost and readily available mobile homes an attractive housing
alternative to stick-built housing.
On the other end of the spectrum, Douglas County has the highest percent of single-family units
(72.5%) and the lowest percentage of mobile homes (8.7%). Multiple family/other units are on
the high end of the rural percentages in Douglas at 18.7%, which is still much lower than the
State average. Carson City has the largest percentage of all rural counties of multiple
family/other housing (29.7%).
27
As affordable housing plans are developed for the rural counties, particular attention should be
paid to the low percentage of multiple family housing found in the rural areas. A discussion of
building permits below highlights the lack of new and replacement multi-family units in the rural
counties.
Median Year Built
The median year that housing stock is built provides a good marker for the demand for and the
upkeep and maintenance of quality housing. According to the 2000 Census, White Pine County
has by far the oldest housing stock with a median year built of 1958. Mineral County has the
next oldest housing stock, coming in at 1971. Nye County has the most current housing units
with a median year built of 1991. This ranking reflects the fact that Nye County had a large
demand for housing in the 1990s as evidenced by its 82.7% population increase. Lyon and Elko
have the next youngest housing stock –1987.
Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
Table 11 highlights the housing units that lack complete plumbing in 1990 and 2000. Although
the numbers are small, the percentages increased slightly for both the State and the rural counties
as a whole. The State in 2000 had 0.7% of housing units without all plumbing fixtures,
compared to 1.5% for the rural areas.
Table 11: Housing Units Lacking Complete Plumbing by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
% Chg
County
#
%
#
%
90-00
Carson City
18
0.1%
39
0.2%
116.7%
Churchill County
80
1.1%
140
1.4%
75.0%
Douglas County
31
0.2%
111
0.6%
258.1%
Elko County
150
1.1%
515
2.8%
243.3%
Esmeralda County
82
8.5%
56
6.7%
-31.7%
Eureka County
28
3.4%
44
4.3%
57.1%
Humboldt County
101
2.0%
107
1.5%
5.9%
Lander County
31
1.2%
76
2.7%
145.2%
Lincoln County
68
3.8%
72
3.3%
5.9%
Lyon County
67
0.8%
120
0.8%
79.1%
Mineral County
52
1.7%
147
5.1%
182.7%
Nye County
162
2.0%
234
1.5%
44.4%
Pershing County
23
1.2%
67
2.8%
191.3%
Storey County
12
1.1%
7
0.4%
-41.7%
White Pine County
94
2.4%
124
2.8%
31.9%
Rural Total
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
999
1.1%
1,859
1.5%
86.1%
2,702
0.5%
5,598
0.7%
107.2%
28
Esmeralda County has the highest percentage of its housing stock with incomplete plumbing,
6.7%, down from 8.5% in 1990. Mineral County, on the other hand, exhibited a significant
increase in its percentages, from 1.7% in 1990 to 5.1% in 2000.
Carson City has the lowest percentage of housing units without total plumbing (0.2%) followed
by Storey County at 0.4%.
The fact that any housing in Nevada has incomplete plumbing is undesirable and is likely a result
of inadequate household incomes to pay for the facilities. Affordable housing programs can help
remedy this situation of substandard housing.
Building Permits
Building permit data for single family and multiple family housing from 1997 through October
2004 is presented on each of the county data sheets. Generally, the data shows little or no
construction of multiple family housing in most rural counties over this time frame. Carson City,
Douglas and Lyon show the greatest numbers of multiple family housing construction. No
multiple family housing has been constructed in Lander, Lincoln, Mineral, Pershing or White
Pine since 1997. No data is available for Nye and some of the smaller counties.
The lack of new and replacement multiple family housing units in the rural areas is likely due to
low economic incentives to build such projects. The lower incomes in the rural areas are not
sufficient to support the rents necessary for new multi-family construction. On top of this, the
primary subsidy program for financing affordable multi-family rural housing—the USDA
Section 515 Program—has seen severe cut-backs in the last five years, primarily in the area of
rental assistance. In the absence of subsidy, some of the traditional developers of rural multifamily housing in Nevada have chosen to sit on the sidelines. On the ownership side, builders
and developers have shied away from condominium and townhouse development because of the
potential of lawsuits for building defects.
Subsidized Housing
Table 12 presents a compilation of all subsidized rental housing developments and units located
in the rural counties. These developments were financed primarily by the Nevada Housing
Division (NHD) using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, various HUD programs
(Project-Based Section 8, 811, 202, 226, 221(d)(3), etc.), and USDA-Rural Development, under
the 515 program. A number of the developments received both USDA 515 and NHD tax credit
financing. Most of the subsidized housing developments in rural Nevada have rental assistance.
In addition, we tabulated the presence of Housing Choice Rental Vouchers administered by
Nevada Rural Housing Authority (NRHA) across the rural counties. The vouchers are tenantbased, meaning that the rental assistance travels with the tenant as he/she seeks an apartment.
Most vouchers in the rural areas are used in private, unsubsidized housing, including singlefamily homes, apartments, and mobile homes.
Currently there are almost 5,000 subsidized housing units in rural Nevada, including 1,419
(29%) tenant-based rental vouchers. The NRHA is authorized to distribute 1,543 total vouchers.
Over 25% of rural Nevada’s subsidized housing is in Carson City. Three counties each have
over 10% of the rural share—Elko (19.2%), Nye (11.4%) and Churchill (10.2%). Four counties,
Esmeralda, Storey, Eureka and Mineral each have less than 1% of the housing share.
The rural counties have 30,711 total renter occupied housing units, 16.1% of which are
subsidized. Three counties have over 20% of their rental housing in subsidized units: White
29
Pine (24.1%), Pershing (20.4%) and Elko (20.2%). Two counties, Esmeralda and Storey, have
less than 1% of their rental housing stock subsidized. Three additional counties have under 10%
of their housing subsidized—Eureka, Mineral and Douglas.
Table 12: Subsidized Housing Units As A Percent Of All Renter Occupied
Units by Rural County 2004/2005
Subsidized Units
Renter Occupied Units
% Subsdzd
% of
% of
Units of All
County
Total
Rural NV
Total
Rural NV
Rental Units
Carson City
1,246
25.3%
7,447
24.2%
16.7%
Churchill County
505
10.2%
3,046
9.9%
16.6%
Douglas County
409
8.3%
4,218
13.7%
9.7%
Elko County
948
19.2%
4,701
15.3%
20.2%
Esmeralda County
1
0.0%
150
0.5%
0.7%
Eureka County
12
0.2%
175
0.6%
6.9%
Humboldt County
276
5.6%
1,554
5.1%
17.8%
Lander County
76
1.5%
478
1.6%
15.9%
Lincoln County
65
1.3%
384
1.3%
16.9%
Lyon County
477
9.7%
3,150
10.3%
15.1%
Mineral County
45
0.9%
604
2.0%
7.5%
Nye County
562
11.4%
3,142
10.2%
17.9%
Pershing County
122
2.5%
599
2.0%
20.4%
Storey County
2
0.0%
296
1.0%
0.7%
White Pine County
185
3.8%
767
2.5%
24.1%
Rural Nevada Total
4,931
100.0%
30,711
100.0%
16.1%
Source: Nevada Rural Housing Authority, Nevada Housing Division, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, and USDA Rural Development
A list of all subsidized housing developments by county is included in the “Rural Housing Data
Book,” which is an attachment to this report. The Data Book also includes information on
Housing Choice Voucher usage by county, and waiting lists for elderly and disabled applicants.
The County Data Sheets also indicate the number of developments and units that are specifically
set-aside for the elderly or the physically disabled, and the number of vouchers that are currently
being utilized by those populations.
Based on this data, we believe that there is a need for more housing for the physically disabled
and elderly populations across the rural counties. Currently, 421 vouchers are in use for the
disabled, with an additional 73 used for the disabled who are also elderly. As mentioned earlier,
there are about 4,000 people with physical disabilities in both Carson City and Nye County
alone. Carson City currently has 191 disabled and elderly/disabled voucher recipients. Nye has
only 89 disabled voucher recipients. Six counties have five or fewer disabled or elderly/disabled
voucher recipients—Eureka, Esmeralda, Storey, Pershing, Lander and Lincoln. And, there is
virtually no multi-family housing specifically for the physically disabled. Among all units
funded by NHD, HUD, USDA in the rural areas, there are only 24 multi-family units exclusively
for the physically disabled, all in Carson City.
In terms of elderly housing, the rural counties have experienced a greater increase in the 65+
years population than in the <18 years cohort. This trend is expected to continue as the overall
population ages. While additional subsidized housing for families is warranted in many
counties, the needs of the elderly population for affordable housing may be a priority.
30
Currently there are 2,133 people on the NRHA’s waiting list for Housing Choice Voucher
assistance. Elderly and disabled applicants receive a priority. According to the NRHA, the
annual turnover rate is 500 to 600 clients. Typically only 30% of those on the waiting list
respond resulting in about one year to service the 2,133 people on the list. Availability of more
vouchers and other subsidized housing options would reduce the lag time between qualifying for
rental subsidies and actually securing affordable housing.
Median Gross Rent
Although median gross rent in the State of Nevada has increased between 1990 and 2000,
income also increased, so the percent of household income spent on rent remained fairly stable at
about 26%. Table 13 shows the changes in median rent and in rent as a percent of income for
the rural counties.
Table 13: Median Gross Rent by Rural County 1990, 2000
1990
2000
% of
% of
County
$
Hhld Inc
$
Hhld Inc
Carson City
$480
27.4%
$650
26.6%
Churchill County
$459
24.4%
$595
23.0%
Douglas County
$621
26.3%
$780
26.1%
Elko County
$435
21.9%
$583
21.2%
Esmeralda County
$351
16.8%
$381
13.8%
Eureka County
$424
14.3%
$469
15.5%
Humboldt County
$449
18.4%
$531
19.0%
Lander County
$374
18.8%
$496
18.4%
Lincoln County
$264
21.7%
$328
26.6%
Lyon County
$391
25.0%
$591
24.1%
Mineral County
$432
20.8%
$398
17.9%
Nye County
$380
17.7%
$541
22.0%
Pershing County
$389
21.1%
$498
20.9%
Storey County
$441
27.8%
$513
18.2%
White Pine County
$387
21.2%
$452
19.6%
State of Nevada
Source: U.S. Census
$509
26.8%
$699
26.5%
% Chg
% Chg of
$
% Hhld Inc
90-00
90-00
35.4%
-2.9%
29.6%
-5.7%
25.6%
-0.8%
34.0%
-3.2%
8.5%
-17.9%
10.6%
8.4%
18.3%
3.3%
32.6%
-2.1%
24.2%
22.6%
51.2%
-3.6%
-7.9%
-13.9%
42.4%
24.3%
28.0%
-0.9%
16.3%
-34.5%
16.8%
-7.5%
37.3%
-1.1%
Median rents vary significantly across counties. Nye County and those areas in northwestern
Nevada that have experienced rapid growth tend to have higher rents. In 2000, Douglas had the
highest median rent, $780, compared to the State’s at $699. Three counties, Lincoln, Esmeralda,
and Mineral, all had median rents under $400, with Lincoln at $328. Esmeralda and Mineral
both lost significant population in the 1990s. Lyon and Nye, the two fastest growing counties in
the 1990s, saw tremendous increases in median rents (51.2% and 42.4% change). Mineral, on
the other hand, is the one county whose median rent actually declined by 8% from 1990-2000.
Unfortunately, current 2005 rent data is not available in the rural areas, and is not tracked by any
third-party collector of economic data. (Current rent and vacancy data is readily available from a
variety of sources for both Washoe and Clark Counties.)
As discussed earlier, vacancy rates have a direct correlation with housing affordability. Housing
costs tend to go down when vacancy rates increase. Inversely, a low percentage of housing units
31
that are vacant typically signal higher housing costs. Demand pushes housing costs up,
especially in high growth areas. This is particularly evident in places like Douglas and Lyon,
high growth counties where the percent of housing that was vacant between 1990 and 2000
dropped significantly and the rental costs increased substantially. Nye County, on the other
hand, another rapidly growing area, showed a relatively low drop in the proportion of vacant
units but housing costs raised dramatically.
Rent as a proportion of income in 2000 in all rural counties is either comparable to or less than
the State’s rate of 26.5%. Esmeralda has the lowest rate with 13.8% of its income devoted to
rent. Carson City and Lincoln are the highest at 26.6%.
Across the rural counties, the percentage of income spent on rent generally went down in the
1990s. Income gains in the 1990s typically outstripped increases in median rent. Four counties,
however, show the opposite trend. Nye and Lincoln experienced large increases in the amount
of income used on rent, while Eureka and Humboldt saw smaller gains. Two counties, Storey
and Esmeralda, saw significant reductions in rent as a proportion of income.
As previously discussed, incomes have languished in the 2000s and housing costs have
increased. As rental rates continue to rise, a higher percentage of income will be devoted to
housing costs. Affordable housing programs can help off-set this trend for those unable to
devote more income to shelter costs.
Rental Housing Affordability
Tables 14 and 15 highlight data on rental housing affordability, specifically statistics on those
households who pay high percentages of their incomes on rent.
As seen in Table 14, 39.1% of Nevada’s households in 2000 paid 30% or more of their income
on rent.2 Of these households 17.0% spent 50% or more of their income on rent. A lower
percentage of rental households in the rural counties exceed the 30% rental burden, with the
exception of Carson City, where 39.6% spent 30%+, and 19.0% exceeded 50%+ of their incomes
on rent. Esmeralda and Eureka have the lowest percentage of households paying 30%+, while
Humboldt and Lincoln have the smallest proportion paying 50%+ on rent. Page Three of each
County Data Sheet includes a graph depicting the data presented in Table 14.
From 1990 to 2000, the percent of households who paid 30% or more on rent declined in twothirds of the rural counties. Four of the five counties that showed an increase in rent burden rely
heavily on the mining industry. Nye, with its phenomenal population growth, especially in the
65+ age group, reported the largest gains in renter households with a high rent burden, from
19.3% in 1990 to 29.7% in 2000.
Table 15 displays households in 1990 and 2000 whose incomes are 50% or less of HUD’s Area
Median Income (AMI). Further, it shows how many of these especially at-risk households pay
more than 30% of their income on rent. In the State and rural counties as a whole, the proportion
of households with incomes at 50% or less of HUD’s AMI increased in the 1990s to 31.7% for
the State in 2000 and 34.6% for the Rural Total. This means that while incomes went up in the
1990s, a sizeable percentage of rural households were left behind. Almost two-thirds of these
very low-income households pay more than 30% of their income on rent. This percentage of
approximately 63% rent-burdened households remained fixed in the 1990s. In Nevada as a
2
HUD considers those renter households paying more than 30% of their income on rent to have a “high rent
burden” and those paying more than 50% of their income on rent to have a “severe rent burden.” Obviously, for
low-income households, this burden is even greater, since there is less disposable income left after rent to cover
other essential living expenses.
32
whole, the percentage of very low income household with a 30%+ rent burden declined from
78% to still high 76%.
Table 14: Rental Housing Affordability by Rural County 1990, 2000
Number Households Paying 30%+ and 50%+ of Household Income on Rent*
1990
2000
% Chg
2000
#
% of
#
% of
30%+
#
% of
County
30%+ Hhld Inc 30%+ Hhld Inc
90-00
50%+* Hhld Inc
Carson City
2,732
43.5%
2,945
39.6%
7.8%
1,416
19.0%
Churchill County
725
31.8%
725
24.6%
0.0%
368
12.5%
Douglas County
1,122
34.9%
1553
37.3%
38.4%
670
16.1%
Elko County
1,051
26.3%
1146
25.0%
9.0%
462
10.1%
Esmeralda County
38
17.4%
20
13.5%
-47.4%
14
9.5%
Eureka County
19
10.9%
23
14.2%
21.1%
12
7.4%
Humboldt County
248
17.5%
322
21.0%
29.8%
85
5.5%
Lander County
121
19.6%
112
24.1%
-7.4%
41
8.8%
Lincoln County
91
27.7%
117
30.8%
28.6%
22
5.8%
Lyon County
634
33.3%
913
30.7%
44.0%
315
10.6%
Mineral County
245
29.8%
124
21.2%
-49.4%
42
7.2%
Nye County
369
19.3%
931
29.7%
152.3%
463
14.8%
Pershing County
142
26.0%
127
22.8%
-10.6%
55
9.9%
Storey County
108
40.6%
77
25.9%
-28.7%
44
14.8%
White Pine County
223
26.0%
172
23.3%
-22.9%
63
8.5%
Rural Total
7,868
State of Nevada
83,011
* 50%+ data not available in 1990.
Source: U.S. Census
31.7%
9,307
30.9%
18.3%
4,072
13.5%
39.7%
114,455
39.1%
37.9%
49,693
17.0%
Table 15: Rental Housing Affordability by Rural County 1990, 2000
Households With Incomes 50% or Less of HUD AMI Paying >30% of Household Inc on Rent
Hholds With Inc 50% or < HUD AMI
Paying >30% of Hhold Inc on Rent
1990
2000
1990
2000
% of
% of
% Chg
% of
% of
% Chg
County
#
Hhld
#
Hhld
90-00
#
Hhld
#
Hhld
90-00
Carson City
1,966 32.8%
2,556 34.3% 30.0%
1,628 82.8%
2,028 79.3% 24.6%
Churchill County
802 32.9%
989 32.5% 23.3%
529 66.0%
551 55.7%
4.1%
Douglas County
665 20.5%
1,293 30.7% 94.4%
485 72.9%
979 75.8% 102.0%
Elko County
1,398 34.2%
1,522 32.5%
8.9%
794 56.8%
842 55.3%
6.0%
Esmeralda County
97 40.4%
52 33.1% -46.4%
33 34.0%
20 38.5% -39.3%
Eureka County
46 26.6%
84 45.4% 82.6%
13 28.3%
28 33.4% 115.4%
Humboldt County
384 27.4%
556 36.7% 44.8%
162 42.2%
259 46.6% 60.0%
Lander County
180 29.7%
173 36.7%
-3.9%
86 47.8%
71 41.0% -17.5%
Lincoln County
208 53.1%
256 66.8% 23.1%
91 43.8%
92 35.9%
1.0%
Lyon County
811 39.4%
1,049 33.5% 29.3%
451 55.6%
657 62.6% 45.6%
Mineral County
327 38.2%
205 34.9% -37.3%
179 54.8%
104 50.7% -41.9%
Nye County
578 29.4%
1,232 39.6% 113.1%
308 53.3%
764 62.0% 148.0%
Pershing County
252 38.8%
233 38.5%
-7.5%
137 54.3%
117 50.2% -14.6%
Storey County
92 37.6%
83 27.9%
-9.8%
64 69.6%
59 71.1%
-7.8%
White Pine County
318 36.3%
308 40.9%
-3.1%
182 57.2%
148 48.1% -18.6%
Rural Total
8,124 32.2%
10,591 34.6%
30.4%
5,143 63.3%
6,720 63.4%
30.7%
State of Nevada
61,655 30.0% 92,989 31.7%
Source: HUD State of the Cities Database
50.8%
48,192 78.2%
70,509 75.8%
46.3%
33
In several counties—Nye, Douglas, and Eureka—the percentage of very low-income households
increased significantly in the 1990s, as did the number of these households with a rent burden.
As could be expected based on other affordability indicators discussed above, Esmeralda and
Mineral showed the greatest declines in the number of very low-income households and number
of rent-burdened households.
Lincoln County, by far, has the largest percentage of its households in 2000 falling with income
at 50% or less of the AMI. The proportion of these households that pay more than 30% on rent,
however, is average, and has actually gone down in the 1990s. These statistics correlate with the
low gross median rent found in Lincoln County. Shelter costs there are less than in all other
counties.
Storey has the lowest percentage of very low-income households (27.9%); however, a large
proportion of these households (71.1%) pay more than 30% on rent. With high median rents,
Carson City and Douglas also show over three-fourths of their 50% AMI households paying
more than 30% on rent. In Carson City this is down from a staggering 82.8% in 1990, but in
Douglas the percentage is up to 75.8% from 72.9%. Eureka has the lowest share of households
in the 30% rent category (33.4%).
As incomes in the 2000s stagnate and housing costs rise, very low income households are
especially vulnerable. The percentage of households paying more than 30% or 50% of income
on rent is expected to increase in this decade, signaling a greater need for affordable housing
units.
Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Median owner occupied home values for 1990, 2000, and when available, 2004, are listed in
Table 16. The 2004 data is from realtor associations in Northern Nevada and Elko County.
Nevada saw an almost 50% increase in the 1990s in median home price from $95,700 to
$142,000 in 2000. Two counties had home values higher than the State median in
2000—Douglas at $181,800 and Carson City at $147,500. Mineral had the lowest median home
value at $59,500 and the smallest percent change over 1990 (4.6%). Although Esmeralda shows
the largest percent change 1990-2000 (82.6%), the actual value in 2000 is still low at $75,600.
Since 2000, housing values have increased exponentially in some counties for which we were
able to secure data. Storey, Douglas and Carson City have all had phenomenal increases in
housing values between 2000 and 2004. Storey’s median home value increased a remarkable
121.6% over four years, from $134,800 to $298,758, compared to 99.4% for Douglas (from
$181,800 to $362,500) and 69.3% for Carson City (from $147,500 to $249,733). Housing
demand is very strong in these counties primarily from people moving from California. These
newcomers are able to purchase housing in Northern Nevada for far less than what they sold
their homes for in California. It is likely that median gross rents in these counties have also
increased significantly since 2000. However, current rental data is not available for the rural
counties.
Home values in Elko County have stagnated since 2000. In the 1990s, home prices rose 51%,
from $81,600 to $123,100, compared to 1.5% from 2000-2004 (from $123,100 to $125,000).
Part of Elko County’s economy is based in the mining industry, which has languished in recent
years but is currently experiencing a resurgence.
34
Table 16: Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units by Rural County 1990, 2000, 2004
% Chg
% Chg
County
1990
2000
90-00
2004
00-10
Carson City
$99,300
$147,500
48.5%
$249,733
69.3%
Churchill County
$84,500
$117,100
38.6%
$148,060
26.4%
Douglas County
$121,000
$181,800
50.2%
$362,500
99.4%
Elko County
$81,600
$123,100
50.9%
$125,000
1.5%
Esmeralda County
$41,400
$75,600
82.6%
n/a
n/a
Eureka County
$54,600
$89,200
63.4%
n/a
n/a
Humboldt County
$74,000
$117,400
58.6%
n/a
n/a
Lander County
$58,300
$82,400
41.3%
n/a
n/a
Lincoln County
$50,900
$80,300
57.8%
n/a
n/a
Lyon County
$74,900
$119,200
59.1%
$166,208
39.4%
Mineral County
$56,900
$59,500
4.6%
n/a
n/a
Nye County
$70,800
$122,100
72.5%
n/a
n/a
Pershing County
$66,500
$82,200
23.6%
n/a
n/a
Storey County
$99,500
$134,800
35.5%
$298,758
121.6%
White Pine County
$53,000
$70,000
32.1%
n/a
n/a
State of Nevada
$95,700
$142,000
48.4%
n/a
n/a
Source: U.S. Census, Northern NV Assoc. of Realtors and Elko Co. Assoc. of Realtors
Homeownership Affordability
We carried out a homeownership gap analysis for all rural counties for 1990 and 2000, and when
home value data was available, for 2004. The housing affordability gap is the dollar difference
between the cost of purchasing a median priced home and a hypothetical buyer’s ability to pay.
We set the buyer’s income at 80% of HUD AMI, which is the maximum income level for
qualifying for Federal HOME funds, which is a common downpayment subsidy source.
Table 17 presents the gap calculated for each rural county. This analysis is presented in tabular
and line chart format on Page Three of each of the 15 County Data Sheets.
When the gap analysis results in a negative number, it indicates that incomes are sufficient to
cover the cost of purchasing a home. The larger the negative number the more affordable it is in
that locality to purchase a home. A positive number indicates that there is a “gap,” a dollar
difference, between income levels and the ability to pay for a home. The larger the positive
number the less affordable the community.
The gap calculations are based on the HUD AMI for each county, average mortgage rates by
time period, and median reported home values. As noted elsewhere, the HUD Area Median
Family Income (AMI) for most counties showed large increases in the 1990s, mirroring median
household income growth, but have slowed considerably and even declined in some areas from
2000 to 2004. Lincoln County, however, is posting an unusually large increase in AMI in the
2000s, up 61.7% since 2000. Lyon and Storey also experienced higher than average gains in
AMI in the 2000s, both near 20%.
Interest rates also have a major impact on affordability. As interest rates go down, the debt
service on a mortgage also goes down, and a buyer can assume a higher mortgage. Based upon
Mortgage Bankers Association data, the average annual interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate
mortgage was 10.01% in 1990, 8.04% in 2000, and 5.83% in 2004. Therefore, a buyer’s
purchasing power increased significantly between 1990 and 2004, based upon the lower cost of
funds alone.
35
Based upon this gap analysis, the potential homebuyers at 80% of AMI were able to afford a
home in about half of Nevada’s rural counties. These counties are primarily located in
north/northeastern Nevada. Counties with positive gaps, signally lack of affordability, are
generally located in northwestern Nevada and Nye and Lincoln in the south. Housing was least
affordable in Douglas with a $51,952 gap in 2000 and most affordable in Eureka and White Pine,
both with a gap around -$40,000 in 2000.
Table 17: Homeownership Affordability GAP by Rural County 1990, 2000, 2004
% Chg
% Chg
County
1990
2000
90-00
2004
00-10
Carson City
$30,438
$24,804
-18.5%
$98,579
297.4%
Churchill County
$36,441
$15,982
-56.1%
$15,569
-2.6%
Douglas County
$49,773
$51,952
4.4% $178,329
243.3%
Elko County
$23,770
-$8,304
-134.9%
-$35,795
-331.1%
Esmeralda County
-$15,009
-$17,130
-14.1%
n/a
n/a
Eureka County
$11,938
-$40,932
-442.9%
n/a
n/a
Humboldt County
$19,398
-$3,372
-117.4%
n/a
n/a
Lander County
-$5,046
-$34,516
-584.0%
n/a
n/a
Lincoln County
$1,920
$19,831
932.9%
n/a
n/a
Lyon County
$18,986
$32,816
72.8%
$34,766
5.9%
Mineral County
$7,312
-$30,451
-516.5%
n/a
n/a
Nye County
$9,865
$13,688
38.8%
n/a
n/a
Pershing County
$19,624
-$19,402
-198.9%
n/a
n/a
Storey County
$33,418
$9,423
-71.8% $109,171 1058.6%
White Pine County
-$4,829
-$40,166
-731.8%
n/a
n/a
Source: U.S. Census, HUD State of the Cities Database, Northern NV Assoc. of
Realtors and Elko Co. Assoc. of Realtors
Between 1990 and 2000, as interest rates dropped and incomes increased, all but four counties
showed an improvement in homeownership affordability. Affordability declined between 1990
and 2000 in high growth counties like Douglas, Lyon and Nye. The biggest improvement in
affordability was in White Pine where the gap dropped –731.8% from -$4,829 to -$40,166. The
greatest increase in gap occurred in Lincoln (932.9%) from $1,920 to $19,831.
From 2000 to 2004, only one of the six counties for which home value data was available is
affordable. Elko’s housing values have remained stable while interest rates have declined. The
other five counties, all in northwestern Nevada, have become significantly less affordable over
the four year period, except for Churchill. While Churchill’s gap improved slightly, it was still
$15,569 in 2004. The most dramatic change in homeownership affordability occurred in Storey,
increasing 1058.6% from $9,423 to $109,171. The largest gap is in Douglas at $178,329. Keep
in mind that the affordability gap over these four years increased while interest rates dropped.
In 2005, interest rates are starting to climb, and housing demand in northwestern Nevada
continues to be strong from the influx of Californians. This, along with generally stagnate
growth in median income, will produce even larger housing affordability gaps in these
northwestern counties.
36
Percent Owner Households With Any Housing Problems
Data on the percent of owner-occupied households that have any housing problems in 1990 and
2000 is presented in Table 18. Housing problems include a shelter cost burden greater than 30%
of income (the most prevalent issue) and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or
plumbing facilities.
In every rural county except three, the percentage of owner-occupied households with any
housing problems increased—this while incomes generally increased in the 1990s. This suggests
that while the homeownership rate increased in the rural areas throughout the 1990s, some
households were assuming a high shelter cost burden to become homeowners. During economic
downturns, these at-risk households are more susceptible to financial crises that can lead to
bankruptcy and mortgage default.
Of the 12 counties that increased in the percent of owner-occupied households with housing
problems, three experienced over a 50% change: Eureka, Nye and Pershing. In fact, Eureka
increased dramatically, by 90.1%, likely due to fluctuations in the mining industry.
Only three of the 15 rural counties show a decline in housing problems—Esmeralda, Lander and
Lincoln. The first two counties are mining dependent and lost population in the 1990s.
In 2000, the counties with the highest percent of owner-occupied households with any housing
problems were Lyon and Pershing, both over 30%, and both showing strong population growth
in the 1990s. The counties with the lowest percents were Lander, White Pine and Lincoln, all
around 17%.
Table 18: % Owner Households With Any Housing
Problems by Rural County 1990, 2000*
1990
2000
% Chg
County
%
%
90-00
Carson City
19.6%
25.7%
31.1%
Churchill County
22.9%
24.9%
8.7%
Douglas County
24.6%
29.6%
20.3%
Elko County
20.8%
27.0%
29.8%
Esmeralda County
22.5%
18.1%
-19.6%
Eureka County
15.2%
28.9%
90.1%
Humboldt County
21.8%
28.0%
28.4%
Lander County
18.2%
17.4%
-4.4%
Lincoln County
17.7%
17.5%
-1.1%
Lyon County
24.5%
31.7%
29.4%
Mineral County
18.2%
18.5%
1.6%
Nye County
17.1%
27.7%
62.0%
Pershing County
18.9%
30.0%
58.7%
Storey County
27.0%
27.7%
2.6%
White Pine County
15.9%
17.4%
9.4%
State of Nevada
34.7%
30.4%
-12.4%
*Cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding
and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Source: HUD State of the Cities Database
37
CHAPTER THREE: SURVEY OF NACO AND NLC&M MEMBERS
Introduction
As an important element of the Rural Housing Needs Assessment report, NRHA, in
collaboration with the Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada League of Cities &
Municipalities, administered a short mail survey to NACO and NLC&M members across the
state. The response rate was phenomenal, perhaps attesting to the urgency of the topic in the
minds of respondents: housing affordability, availability, and upkeep.
Below, we detail the findings of this rich source of qualitative data about perceived housing
needs. The narrative is organized as follows. First, we describe the methodology, including who
responded and the response rate. In the remainder of the narrative, we provide an analysis of the
survey responses, including sections on perceived housing need, barriers to affordable housing,
and the presence of housing planning in different jurisdictions.
The full survey tabulation, a list of those contacted, and a copy of the survey instrument are
included as attachments to this report.
Methodology
In June 2004, the Nevada Rural Housing Authority mailed a 2-page housing survey to local
governments in all 17 Nevada counties. The Statewide Housing Needs Assessment Survey was
co-sponsored by the Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada League of Cities &
Municipalities, which co-signed the cover letter to the survey and encouraged their member
organizations to take part.
The survey (in the attachments) consisted of a number of short answer and ranking questions
designed to measure the perceived need for a variety of housing products, and the barriers to the
creation of affordable housing in each locality.
While the focus of the Nevada Rural Housing Authority’s work is the 15 rural counties, the
survey was also mailed to representatives in Washoe and Clark County, and so provides a
statewide picture of perceived housing conditions.
The response rate was very high for a mail survey of this sort. Of the 80 government staff and
public officials contacted, 47 (58.8%) returned the completed survey. Each county is represented
by at least one respondent. This response rate is particularly significant given that a number of
the communities contacted do not have full-time planning or community development staff.
The type of respondent differed by county. In larger urban areas, the respondents were typically
community development and planning staff. In smaller and rural communities, the respondents
included city managers, county commissioners, and economic development administrators.
The following narrative provides a summary of responses by topic area.
Housing Need
We first asked respondents on a scale of “1” to “5,” with “1” begin a high priority and “5” being
a low priority, how they would “rank affordable housing among the many competing needs in
[their] community.”
Most respondents ranked affordable housing as a high or moderately high priority in their
community (a ranking of “1” or “2”). Among the respondents, 53.2% (25 out of 47) ranked
38
NRHA Rural Housing Needs Assessment—Mail Survey Findings
affordable housing as a high or moderately high priority. In the 2 urban counties, the perceived
need was even higher: 66% (6 out of 9) ranked affordable housing as a high or moderately high
priority.1
Perceived Housing Priority
70.0%
60.0%
Percentage
50.0%
40.0%
Moderately High
High Priority
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
All Counties
Rural
Counties
Urban
Counties
WNHC Area
Respondents
The perceived need among respondents may have been even higher. Based upon later openended
questions, it appears that some respondents personally felt that the need for affordable housing
was very great, but thought that there was not support for more affordable housing in their local
community.
As a follow-on question, we asked respondents what they saw as the greatest housing needs or
problems in their locality.
Specific housing needs varied by community. In the large urban areas, there was a stated need
for more affordable housing serving very low-income residents. Entry-level homeownership was
another perceived need. In Carson, Douglas. Lyon, Churchill, and Nye Counties, which have
experienced significant recent growth, respondents were concerned about rising land and housing
costs, lack of developable sites, lack of affordable rental housing, and housing upkeep and code
violations.
The perceived needs in the less populated rural counties focused on housing and mobile home
abandonment, code violations, and the boom and bust cycles that make planning for housing
difficult.
1
The responses were analyzed in four geographic groupings: 1) all 17 Nevada counties; 2) the 2 urban counties,
Washoe and Clark; 3) the 15 rural counties; and 4) the Western Nevada HOME Consortium (WNHC) area, which
consists of 7 rural counties in Northwest Nevada: Carson, Douglas, Storey, Lyon, Churchill, Pershing, and Mineral.
39
Housing as a Barrier to Economic Development
Most respondents viewed the lack of affordable housing as a barrier to local economic
development.
Overall, 51.2% of respondents (22 out of 43) stated that the local workforce could not find
suitable and affordable housing in the community. Many counties citied a shortage of both rental
and ownership housing available to entry-level workers. This was true of respondents from
Carson, Churchill, Clark, Douglas, Nye, Storey, and Washoe Counties.
In Storey County, where a large industrial center is planned, officials are anticipating a great
need for worker housing in the coming decade. In Humboldt County, a respondent cited the need
for housing for casino and customer service workers. Several respondents noted that the demand
for housing among retirees was driving up prices and making it difficult for local workers to
compete.
Specific Housing Needs
We also asked local government representatives to rank the need for different housing products
and programs.
Overall, respondents saw the greatest need for low and moderate-income homeownership
opportunities (70.2%, 33 out of 47, ranked this as either “very important” or “important”),
affordable rental housing (65.9%, 31 out of 47), elderly housing (60.0%, 27 out of 45), and
weatherization assistance (59.6%, 28 out of 47). Respondents perceived less but still
considerable need in their communities for rental vouchers (34.8%, 16 out of 47), utility
assistance (34.8%, 16 out of 47), special needs housing (39.1%, 18 out of 46), and barrier-free
housing (39.1%, 18 out of 46).
Housing Priorities (All Counties)
80.0%
70.0%
Percentage
60.0%
50.0%
Important
40.0%
Very Important
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
H
om
eo
w
ne
rs
hi
p
O
pp
Re or
n t
Re ta uni
n l H tie
U tal ou s
ti
lit Vo sin
y u g
Sp
A c
ec Eld ss he
ia er ist rs
B l N ly an
H ar ee Ho ce
om ri d u
e
e r-F s H sin
Re re o g
W
p e us
ea A air H ing
th pa A ou
er rt ss sin
iz m is g
at e ta
io nt nc
n R e
A eh
ss a
is b.
ta
nc
e
0.0%
40
Housing Priorities (Rural Counties)
70.0%
60.0%
Percentage
50.0%
40.0%
Important
30.0%
Very Important
20.0%
10.0%
Ho
m
eo
w
ne
rs
hi
p
O
pp
Re ort
nt un
it
Re al
nt Ho ies
us
Ut al
ilit Vo ing
u
y
A ch
Sp
s
ec Eld sis ers
ia erl ta
l
y
Ba Ne H nce
Ho rr ed ou
m ier- s H sin
g
e
F
Re re ous
e
i
p
W
Ho ng
a
ea A ir
th pa As usin
er rtm sis g
iz
at en tan
c
io t
R e
n
A eh
ss ab
is
ta .
nc
e
0.0%
Housing Priorities (Urban Counties)
120.0%
Percentage
100.0%
80.0%
Important
60.0%
Very Important
40.0%
20.0%
Ho
m
eo
w
ne
rs
hi
p
O
pp
Re or
n t
Re ta uni
n l H tie
Ut tal ou s
ilit V si
y ou ng
Sp
A c
E
ec ld ss her
ia er ist s
B l N ly an
Ho ar ee Ho ce
m rier ds us
i
e
Re Fre Hou ng
W
pa e
s
ea A ir H ing
th pa A ou
s
s
er rt s in
iz m ist g
at en a
io t nc
n
e
A Reh
ss a
is b.
ta
nc
e
0.0%
However, there was a great variation in the responses by community. For instance, in the 15 rural
counties, 63.1% of respondents (24 out of 38) ranked weatherization assistance as either “very
important” or “important.” In the urban counties, only 44.4% (4 out of 9) ranked weatherization
as either “very important” or “important.” Similarly, home repair assistance was perceived as a
greater need in the rural counties (50.0%, 19 out of 38) than in the urban counties (44.4%, 4 out
of 9).
Interestingly, affordable rental housing was perceived as a great need in both the rural counties
(65.8%, 25 out of 38) and the two urban counties (66.6%, 6 out of 9). However, low and
41
moderate-income homeownership housing was perceived as a greater need among respondents
from the urban counties (100%, 9 out of 9) than from the rural counties (63.2%, 24 out of 38).
Barriers to Affordable Housing
We then asked respondents what they saw as the greatest barriers to affordable housing in their
communities.
Not surprisingly, the greatest identified barriers were “the price of construction and/or
availability of contractors,” followed by the lack of available land. Across the 17 counties, 68.0%
of respondents (32 out of 47) ranked the “price of construction and/or availability of contractors”
as either a “1” or “2” on a 1 to 5 scale, indicating a significant or high barrier to affordable
housing. 60.9% of respondents (28 out of 46) viewed “availability of developable land” as a
significant or high barrier.
Other identified barriers, in order of significance, were: “lack of experience in the community in
developing affordable housing” (51.1%); “availability of infrastructure or funds for infrastructure
improvements” (51.0%); and, “availability of subsidies for affordable housing” (47.8%).
Again, the identified barriers differed between the urban and rural areas. For instance, among the
15 rural counties, 57.9% of respondents (22 out of 38) saw “lack of experience in the community
developing affordable housing” as a significant or high barrier. Whereas in the urban counties,
only 22% of respondents (2 out of 9) viewed this as a distinct barrier. And, NIMBY-ism was
perceived as a great barrier in the urban counties (75%, 6 out of 8), and not so in the rural
counties (31.6%, 12 out of 38).
We expected local governments would report “concern about tax exemptions or abatements for
affordable housing projects” as a barrier. However, across the state, this issue was not perceived
as a significant barrier. Only 34.0% of respondents (16 out of 47) saw the affordable housing tax
exemption as a significant or high barrier to local production. This low percentage held across
both the rural and urban counties.
Housing Barriers (All Counties)
High Impact
Ca
pi
ta
N
re
l
IM
:T
B
ax
Yis
-E
m
xe
La
m
ck
pt
of
io
Pr
ns
A
ic
va
e
i
l.
of
La
Co
nd
ns
La
tr
uc
ck
tio
La
of
n
ck
Su
of
bs
La
I
i
nf
di
ck
es
ra
of
st
r
De
uc
v.
tu
re
Ex
pe
rie
nc
e
Significant Impact
Co
nc
er
n
A
cc
es
s
to
Percentage
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
42
Housing Barriers (Rural Counties)
70.0%
60.0%
Percentage
50.0%
40.0%
High Impact
30.0%
Significant Impact
20.0%
10.0%
Co
nc
er
n
A
cc
es
s
to
Ca
pi
ta
N
re
l
I
M
:T
B
Yax
i
-E
sm
xe
La
m
ck
pt
of
io
Pr
ns
A
ic
va
e
i
l.
of
La
Co
nd
ns
La
tr
uc
ck
tio
La
of
n
ck
Su
of
bs
La
i
I
di
nf
ck
es
ra
of
st
r
De
uc
tu
v.
re
Ex
pe
rie
nc
e
0.0%
Housing Barriers (Rural Counties)
70.0%
60.0%
Percentage
50.0%
40.0%
High Impact
30.0%
Significant Impact
20.0%
10.0%
Co
nc
er
n
A
cc
es
s
to
Ca
pi
ta
N
re
l
IM
:T
BY
ax
is
-E
m
xe
La
m
ck
pt
of
io
Pr
ns
A
ic
va
e
il.
of
La
Co
nd
ns
La
tr
uc
ck
tio
La
of
n
ck
Su
of
bs
La
i
I
di
nf
ck
es
ra
of
st
r
De
uc
tu
v.
re
Ex
pe
rie
nc
e
0.0%
Need for Housing Planning
Among the potential business opportunities for Nevada Rural Housing Authority is in assisting
local communities with developing affordable housing plans. The survey confirmed the need for
housing planning at the local level.
When asked, “Does your community have a plan, including a housing element or consolidated
plan, for addressing local housing need?” wholly half of the respondents in rural counties
reported “no” (50%, 19 out of 38). Among all respondents, 40.4% (19 out of 47) reported the
absence of any local housing plan.
This is not surprising, since the HUD Consolidated Plan is only required in entitlement
communities, which are all located in Clark and Washoe Counties. Carson City, whose
population recently topped 50,000, and is now a HUD entitlement community, reported that it is
43
in the process of writing a Consolidated Plan as well as updating its land use master plan.
Several communities reported having a housing element as part of their master plan, including
Carson, Clark, Douglas, Elko, Fernley in Lyon County, and Washoe. However, as will be noted
at the end of this narrative, a number of communities requested assistance from NRHA with
formulating or updating local housing plans.
Local Housing Plan?
120.0%
Percentage
100.0%
80.0%
No
60.0%
Yes
Don’t Know
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
All Counties
Rural
Counties
Urban
Counties
WNHC Area
Respondent
Availability of BLM Land for Affordable Housing
The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 allows for the sale of BLM land for
affordable housing at a greatly discounted price, from 5% to 25% of the appraised value. In his
2005 State of the State address, Governor Guinn pointed to this program as a new and important
tool for addressing housing needs.
In the survey, we asked local governments whether there might be BLM land in their
communities that would be appropriate future locations for market-rate and affordable housing.
Over three-quarters of respondents (76.5%, 36 out of 47) responded in the affirmative. This
percentage held in both the rural areas (73.7%, 28 out of 38) and urban areas (88.9% 8 out of 9).
A number of counties reported having available BLM land adjacent to existing residential
neighborhoods, and therefore within reach of infrastructure. Respondents in Carson City noted
that they are in the process of revising their urban interface plan with the BLM—in particular
noting available land along the eastern entry to the city. Clark County, also, is in the process of
identifying parcels for nomination to the BLM for affordable housing.
Brownfield Sites
We also asked respondents whether there might be contaminated or “brownfield” sites in their
communities that might, after remediation, be appropriate sites for housing. Only 12.8% (6 out of
47) were aware of appropriate brownfield sites in their counties.
44
Potential Roles for NRHA
Finally, we asked local governments if they were familiar with the work of NRHA, and, as a
follow-on, how NRHA could be of assistance to their communities in addressing local housing
needs.
Most respondents reported that they were familiar with the work of the agency. Across the 17
Nevada counties, 80.4% of respondents (37 out of 46) reported “yes” to this question. The
familiarity was of course higher in the rural counties (83.8%, 31 out of 37) than the urban
counties (66.7%, 6 out of 9), since NRHA does not currently operate in Clark and Washoe
Counties. Fully 94.1% of respondents (16 out of 17) in the Western Nevada HOME Consortium
region were familiar with NRHA.
Perhaps most interesting were the ideas from local governments on how NRHA could be of
assistance in addressing housing needs. These included:
Education—“continue to be proactive emphasizing mixed-use and mixed-income
housing,” “encourage and stimulate the economics of future projects,” “open invitation to
NRHA to attend town board meetings and speak of your mission,” “monthly visits to
community, “ “work with economic development authority,” “educating political
decision makers would be very valuable.”
Planning—“help preparing housing plans,” “update processes for housing elements,”
“work with Navy on military housing issues,” “the adopted plan needs updating.”
Networking—“copies of affordable housing agreements,” “information on other counties
in Nevada,” “information and assistance securing grant funds for housing planning,”
“better and more consistent contact with local governments and organizations regarding
housing issues.”
Project Development—“relocate low-income citizens from run-down mobile homes to
real housing,” “onward with existing projects,” “look at multi-family housing and
mixeduse development,” “find some property and build,” “affordable housing for future
home owners,” “help rehabilitate old homes,” “get financing for new homes or
acquisitions.”
These ideas will be reviewed as part of NRHA’s strategic planning which is currently in process.
45
CHAPTER FOUR: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
Introduction
As part of the Rural Housing Needs Assessment Report, NRHA interviewed a over a
dozen “key informants” in the affordable housing and community development field in
2004 and early 2005, including public agency staff, non-profit and for-profit developers,
development consultants, property managers, and bankers. Those interviewed included:
•
Bill Brewer, Housing Director, USDA Rural Development
•
Joe Cobry, Director of Social Services, Churchill County
•
Carl Dahlen, Rural Economic Development Coordinator, Nevada Commission on
Economic Development
•
Greg Evangelatos, Land Development Director, Landmark Communities
•
Holly Gregory, President, Westates Property Management
•
Ann Harrington, Affordable Housing Developer
•
Jay Hiner, VP Community Development, Nevada State Bank
•
Mike Lynch, Executive Director, Builders Association of Northern Nevada
•
Rex Massey, Planning Consultant
•
Joe McCarthy, Economic Development and Redevelopment Manager, Carson
City
•
Amanda Mitchell, Program Officer, Fannie Mae Nevada Partnership Office
•
Bob Nielsen, President, Shelter, Inc. and Manage, Inc.
•
Debbie Parra, HOME Funds Coordinator, Nevada Housing Division
•
Charlene Peterson, Director, Fannie Mae Nevada Partnership Office
•
Eileen Piekarz, Housing Planner, Rural Community Assistance Corporation
•
Ron Trunk, Executive Director, Citizens for Affordable Housing, Inc.
We asked respondents four primary questions:
•
What do you see as the greatest housing needs in the rural areas?
•
What do you see as the barriers in addressing those needs?
•
Are there areas of the state that are particularly underserved? Why? And,
•
Where do you see opportunities for expansion of housing programs? What type
of programs?
46
NRHA Rural Housing Needs Assessment—Key Informant Interviews
To follow is a summary of their responses. We also draw upon two public input sessions
in this narrative: a June 9, 2004 planning session at Nevada Rural Housing Authority,
entitled “Financing Rural Housing,” which included participation from the local HUD
office, USDA-Rural Development, and a number of local community development
bankers; and the write-up of nineteen “Listening Sessions” carried out by the Nevada
Rural Development Council in 2003 and 2004.
The qualitative information in this analysis is designed to supplement the extensive
quantitative data analysis on housing and demographic trends contained in other sections
of the Housing Needs Assessment report. Some of the quantitative data comes from the
Year 2000 U.S. Census, and is dated. Sometimes, the “on the ground” perceptions of
developers, property managers, and funders are more direct and current than the available
quantitative data.
Housing Needs in the Rural Areas
The housing needs in the fifteen rural counties can be summarized in three words:
affordability, availability, and upkeep.
Affordability—Most respondents were quick to point out an affordability crisis in
several of the western rural counties, including Douglas, Carson City, Storey, Lyon and
Churchill Counties, and in southern Nye County. Home prices and rents have increased
as a spill-over of growth and appreciating land values in Washoe County and Lake Tahoe
in the north and Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County in the south.
Those interviewed expressed concern about the lack of affordable homeownership
opportunities, particularly for local service employees and first-time homebuyers.
Some cited the influx of retirees from California with greater assets displacing local
residents. One interviewee noted that the travel distances to work are becoming greater.
As Carson City and Dayton get too expensive, workers are moving along Highway 50 to
Silver Springs and Fernley to find affordable houses.
Holly Gregory, from Westates Property Management, noted that several cities and towns
in the east, including Elko, Ely and Battle Mountain, are also experiencing rising housing
costs because of a resurgence in the mining industry in the last year. Bill Brewer of
USDA Rural Development noted that affordability in these mining communities is a
major concern for low-wage service employees. He added that the relatively high
reported median incomes in some of these counties mask the bifurcated wage structure,
with mining jobs paying well, and service positions paying poorly.
In general, incomes across the rural areas are lower than in the urban areas. A number of
respondents said that without rental subsidy it is very difficult to finance new multifamily rental housing production, in the rural counties. That is, the economic rent—that
required to cover operations, replacement reserves, and debt service—is more than many
local residents can afford to pay.
Availability—Which segues well into the discussion of housing availability. In some
western Nevada counties, housing is unavailable at any reasonable price, because of
extreme development pressure, lack of buildable parcels, and water and infrastructure
availability.
Single-family home production in the western counties is not keeping pace with
demand.
47
On the multi-family side, there has been little production over the last decade,
because of warranty liability claim on condominiums and the declining availability of
rental subsidy. Vacancy rates in existing rental developments in many towns remain
under 5.0%. Eileen Piekarz from Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC)
expressed concern that as USDA-RD Section 515 rental developments reach their
twenty-year expiration period, owners in communities with appreciating land value will
decide to opt out of the program, resulting in a further loss of valuable subsidized rental
units.
Even in communities where housing prices have remained relatively stable, there is a
lack of available housing options. Several of those interviewed pointed to a need for
alternatives to mobile homes in some of the smaller rural communities. Because of the
boom and bust cycles in mining communities it is very difficult to plan for and finance
new stick-built construction. According to an article in the Reno Gazette-Journal, the
town of Jackpot, on the northeast Nevada border with Idaho, has a severe lack of housing
for local employees.1 Mike Lynch from the Buildings Association of Northern Nevada
reported that homebuilders have traditionally neglected the central and eastern counties,
because of the small scale of projects and the distance from their urban bases.
Housing Upkeep—Finally, and related to the above issues of affordability and
availability, is housing upkeep and abandonment. This is a significant issue in the
smaller central and eastern rural counties, where the housing stock tends to be older and
in poorer condition. Rural Nevada Development Corporation in Ely operates a
weatherization and housing rehabilitation program in the eastern counties. Ferrell
Hansen, the Executive Director, reports the difficulty of fixing up this older housing
stock, where the cost of home repairs could top the entire appraised value of the
property.
The multi-family rental housing stock in many communities is also old, with very limited
replacement reserves and little possibility of re-capitalization for repairs. Perhaps the
largest builder of multi-family housing in the rural communities is the Gregory
Development Group, which owns and operates over 60 developments with over 3,000
units. Holly Gregory, the co-founder, reports that much of their portfolio is subsidized
with rental assistance through the Section 515 Program. However, USDA-RD has not
made rental assistance available in Nevada for several years and is phasing out the
program. As a result, the Gregory Development Group has not developed any new multifamily housing. The company has focused, instead, on identifying physically distressed
developments that already have rental assistance, which they then rehabilitate using the
low-income housing tax credit program.
Eileen Piekarz of RCAC discussed the problem of abandonment of mobile homes in
some rural communities. As mining jobs move, there is often no economic incentive to
move the mobile home to the next job. So, it is left behind to decay.
Barriers to Addressing Housing Needs
Not surprisingly, those interviewed had a lot to say about the perceived barriers to
addressing housing needs. In the fast growing rural counties, the barriers included the
high cost of land and construction, the lack of available subsidy, NIMBY-ism, and
the lack of local government support. In the smaller central and eastern rural counties,
the barriers included the boom and bust economic cycles, depressed housing values,
lack of rental subsidy, and the lack of developer interest. Across the state, there was
1
“Cactus Petes, Jackpot’s Biggest Casino, Nearly Full All Year,” Reno Gazette-Journal, April 15, 2004.
48
concern about the poor credit histories of potential homebuyers, which is a significant
barrier to mortgage financing, as well as the desire for more data on housing needs and
thoughtful planning, which would include the participation of local governments.
Rental Subsidy—Again, topping the list of barriers to addressing local housing needs, is
the lack of available rental subsidy. Every person interviewed who is involved in
multi-family housing production raised this issue. Without rental subsidy, there is no
economic incentive to invest in new multi-family housing or the rehabilitation of older
stock. As one respondent observed, “the U.S. Government has abdicated its
responsibility to provide affordable housing…”
The lack of available rental subsidy puts the Nevada Rural Housing Authority in a
privileged position, as the sole operator of the Section 8 voucher program in the rural
counties. Many respondents thought that NRHA could provide a valuable service by
project-basing some of its voucher portfolio to support worthy projects in communities
with a lack of available rental housing. As one respondent observed, the purpose of the
Housing Choice voucher is to provide tenants with a choice of places to live. But, if
there is no rental housing in a community, then there is no choice.
Land Availability and Cost—Land availability was cited as a major problem in the
western counties. There are virtually no new available parcels in Douglas, Carson City,
Storey, and Lyon Counties. Several cities and town in central and eastern Nevada are
reported to be land-locked as well, with federal land on all sides.
Water and Infrastructure—Related to this is the difficulty of bringing water and other
infrastructure to rural sites for development. This becomes a particular barrier for
affordable housing projects, which cannot carry the significant overhead costs of
financing new sewers, water, and roads in an undeveloped area.
Several interview participants pointed to the need for better community planning so
that affordable housing is provided in concert with other community infrastructure, such
as school, public facilities and roads, rather than as an afterthought.
Depressed Housing Values—In many of the central and eastern counties, home values
have not kept pace with development costs. When the final appraised value of a home
is less than the cost to construct it, there is little economic incentive to build new, or even
to maintain existing properties.
Boom and Bust Cycles—The economic peaks and troughs, driven by mining activity in
some rural communities, makes housing planning particularly difficult. As Eileen
Piekarz of RCAC noted, the housing of choice inevitably becomes mobile homes,
which cost less and can be moved or abandoned when the jobs move elsewhere.
Availability of Financing and Subsidy—Interviewees said that there were not enough
sources of financing and subsidy for affordable housing projects in the rural
communities. Most federal and state resources are distributed on a per capita basis,
meaning that approximately14% of the available resources (HUD HOME funds, State
Housing Trust Funds, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Tax-Exempt Volume Cap, etc.)
must be spread across 15 of the 17 Nevada counties. Currently, there are enough 9% tax
credits in the rural areas for one approximately 40-unit project per year.
One respondent noted that the state tax-exempt bond program is not a practical
financing source in the rural areas because: 1) the Volume Cap each county receives
49
individually is not enough by itself to finance a housing project; and 2) under the State
Multi-Family Bond Program, each financing requires a separate issuance of bonds,
making smaller housing projects—say, less than 100 units—impractical.
On top of this, the Western Nevada HOME Consortium, representing the seven western
rural counties, virtually shut its doors last year, with several million dollars in HOME
funds unallocated. Some respondents see this as both a barrier, and as a potential future
opportunity for re-crafting public policy with regard to affordable housing in the western
counties.
Charlene Peterson from the Fannie Mae Nevada Partnership Office cited a lack of
lenders and originator in some rural counties. She thought that potential homebuyers
in some rural are poorly served by large or out-of-state lenders, who may not have staff
on the ground to visit the property and may be unfamiliar with the typical underwriting
concerns, like finding reliable appraisal comparables. However, without public subsidy,
it is difficult to bring financeable deals to conventional lenders.
Developer Interest and Capacity—A number of those interviewed thought that the lack of
builders and trades people in many of the rural counties was a significant barrier to
housing production. As Ann Harrington, an affordable housing developer and consultant
pointed out, the distances are too great for many developers to travel. It is neither
convenient nor cost efficient for developers or technical assistance providers to travel to
the central and eastern portions of the state. On top of this, the projects tend to be of
smaller scale with lower profit margins than those in the urban areas or the growing
western counties and southern Nye County.
Development capacity was cited by many as an obstacle. It is difficult for local groups
throughout the rural areas to compete for resources with more sophisticated big city
developers. So, for instance, rural Nevada projects do not score as well as others when
competing for federal HUD grants or Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco
Affordable Housing Program grants.
With the exception of RCAC, whose housing staff focus primarily of self-help projects in
Nevada, there are no other community development technical assistance providers in the
rural communities.
Building Codes and Zoning—Several identified local regulatory barriers that make
housing development more costly. Carl Dahlen from the Nevada Commission on
Economic Development said that the lack of zoning in Nye County (the County bases
land-use decisions on a Land Use Plan in place of zoning), lends some unpredictability to
development process. Greg Evangelatos, Director of Land Acquisition for Landmark
Communities, thought that rural planning staff and boards could be much more creative
in their approval of planned unit developments and other techniques that might allow for
higher density development as well as a diversity of land uses and housing types.
Because of the lack of available land, he feels that local agencies should be promoting
higher densities in the existing settled areas, to counter new growth that only occurs at the
fringes.
However, Mr. Evangelatos also noted that builders will most often take the path of least
resistance, building the same “cookie cutter” developments again and again. He observed
that some builders in the rural areas avoid planned unit developments because of the
additional burden of homeowners associations and open space, which they must
maintain.
50
Participants in the Nevada Rural Development Council Listening Sessions pointed to the
need for “one stop shops” for building permits. Some also felt that local building codes
and regulations placed unreasonable demands developers of new and rehabilitated
housing.
Finally, some interviewees observed that the permit and entitlement process takes an
unreasonably long time in a number of rural communities. In growing western counties,
offices are understaffed, resulting in delays. And, in some of the less populated counties,
the project review process must be delayed or outsourced because of the great distances
that must sometimes be traveled or the lack of full-time planning or building department
staff.
Housing Planning/Lack of Data—A common complaint among those interviewed is that
there is little information available about housing conditions in the rural communities.
Much of the information on need is anecdotal; it is difficult to shape public policy
without hard data.
Several respondents expressed interest in the creation of housing plans tailored to the
needs of individual rural communities. For instance, according to Joe McCarthy,
Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment for Carson City, the City has
hired a consultant and is currently in the process of updating the Housing Element of its
General Plan. Last year, Carl Dahlen from the Nevada Commission on Economic
Development expressed interest in preparing an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
for the rural counties. And, according to Joe Cobry, Director of Social Services for
Churchill County, the County recently submitted an application for CDBG dollars to
carry out a local housing needs analysis.
These local housing plan would be extremely valuable, says Bill Brewer from USDARural Development, in putting housing “on the radar screen” in rural counties, and in
educating local Commissioners.
Credit History—Finally, bad credit and/or lack of a credit history among potential
homebuyers was viewed as an enormous barrier to homeownership across the rural
counties. Ron Truck, Executive Director of Citizens for Affordable Housing, Inc., spoke
of the difficulty of identifying potential self-help housing participants because applicants
cannot meet minimum underwriting standards. Others pointed to the difficulty of
obtaining first-time homebuyer training and credit counseling in the rural counties,
because of the distance to reach programs.
Areas of the State that Are Underserved
We asked those interviewed if there are areas of the state that are particularly
underserved. Briefly, respondents thought that much of rural Nevada is underserved,
but for different reasons.
Many of those interviewed saw an extraordinary need for affordable housing in the
growing western counties, in Dayton Valley, Fernley, Carson City, Virginia City,
Incline Village, Minden and Gardnerville, and in southern Nye County in Pahrump.
Here, land is unavailable, prices are escalating, and there is very little social infrastructure
to support affordable housing development.
Joe Cobry from Churchill County noted a similar, but perhaps less intense, phenomenon
in Fallon, where home prices have appreciated steadily from 2000 through 2004. Mr.
51
Cobry stated that one of the disturbing trends in Fallon is the conversion of dozens of
motels into weekly and monthly rentals serving year-round residents.
Holly Gregory from Westates Property Management observed a tightening housing
market in Elko, Ely, and Battle Mountain in late 2004 on account of the resurgence of
mining.
Even in some of the communities where home prices have remained stagnant, some of
those saw great housing need. Because much of the development expertise and
resources are located in the urban areas, the central and eastern counties tend to be
underserved. Jay Hiner of Nevada State Bank observed a need for more senior
supported housing and assisted living in White Pine and Lincoln Counties. Charlene
Peterson of Fannie Mae pointed to a great need for housing development and capacity
building on Native American lands.
Opportunities for Expansion of Housing Programs
Finally, we asked those interviews whether they saw opportunities for expansion of
housing programs in the rural areas. Below is a list of programs in the rural counties
cited by respondents:
Single Family Home Development—The most oft-cited response by those interviewed
was the need for more single-family home development and affordable
homeownership opportunities. Bill Brewer from USDA-RD said that the 15-year rentto-own option under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program might be an area to
explore. He noted that Lodgebuilders, an out-of-state developer, is carrying out a tax
credit rent-to-own project in Mesquite.
Single Family Housing Tax Credit—Charlene Peterson from Fannie Mae is watching
federal legislation related to the creation of a new Single-Family Housing Tax Credit,
which would function somewhat like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit for multifamily development.
USDA-538 Program—Bill Brewer noted that there has been very little utilization of the
Section 538 Loan Guarantee Program in Nevada. With the phasing out of the Section
515 program, the 538 program should be looked at more closely. The program provides
an interest subsidy on the first $1 million of debt as well as credit enhancement on the
entire loan amount, which can result in a lower cost of funds. The Section 538 Program
is currently being used by CAHI and Community Development, Inc. of Idaho on a tax
credit project in Fernley.
Self-Help Housing—The USDA Section 523 Self-Help Housing program continues to
be a very popular program across the rural areas. However, until recently there were no
technical assistance providers in southern Nevada. Currently, CAHI and Color Country
Community Housing, Inc. of St. George, UT are beginning self-help projects in the south,
in Mesquite and Pahrump. Those interviewed thought that there will be continued
opportunities for expansion of this program.
Use of NRHA Section 8—A number of the rental housing operators interviewed pointed
out that NRHA could be putting its Section 8 rental voucher portfolio to work in
supporting the new construction and rehabilitation of rental housing. As one respondent
observed, without available rental housing in some rural communities there is no housing
choice.
52
Respondents also suggested that NRHA look into using some of its portfolio to create a
rural Section 8 homeownership program.
Housing Planning and Technical Assistance—As identified above, there is a great need
for housing planning in the rural counties. Those interviewed identified several
potential sources of funds for housing planning and technical assistance, including the
rural Community Development Block Grant program, USDA-RD, and HUD. Carl
Dahlen noted that requests for CDBG funds must come from the local government to
NCED. And, Eileen Piekarz observed that HUD is limiting its technical assistance grants
to qualified Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) and only for
technical assistance that will result in the direct production of housing units.
Policy Development Related to Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing—Some
respondents saw an opportunity to embrace mobile homes and manufactured
housing as a viable alternative to stick-built construction in the rural communities. They
saw opportunities for public policy initiatives to improve the quality, affordability
and financeability of this ubiquitous housing stock. Amanda Mitchell from Fannie
Mae noted that Fannie Mae had recently released new underwriting guidelines on mobile
home lending. Eileen Piekarz of RCAC said that some abandonment could be prevented
if there were a program for subsidizing the transportation of mobile homes to new sites,
following the jobs. Many felt that manufactured or system-built housing might provide
some solutions for housing in the rural areas and should be pursued further.
BLM Land—Finally, a number of those interviewed cited the new BLM land program
for affordable housing as an exciting potential area of expansion. Many rural
communities have BLM land near existing land settlement. Respondents thought that
that NRHA could play a potential role in assisting local communities in identifying
parcels and structuring affordable housing projects for public or private development.
53
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
The intent of the Rural Housing Needs Assessment report is provide up-to-date
information on the changing demographics, housing trends, and service gaps across the
state, as well as help inform NRHA’s current strategic planning process.
In this final section of the report, we provide a series of recommended actions for NRHA
based upon the information collected in the previous chapters. What are the identified
service gaps across rural Nevada? How can NRHA position itself to better serve the
housing needs of rural Nevada? What resources can NRHA draw upon to address these
service gaps? Where should it begin?
Below, we briefly list a set of recommendations for NRHA to consider as it carries out its
strategic planning process and begins to build a business plan for the next decade. Many
of the proposed actions come directly from the comments of those interviewed and
surveyed for this needs assessment report.
1. Assistance to Local Governments in Housing Planning
As is abundantly clear from the report, there is very little housing planning occurring
throughout the rural counties. Representatives of a number of counties, cities, and towns,
particularly those at the forefront of growth, have expressed interest in planning
assistance, if available.
It should be noted that this Rural Housing Needs Assessment report, and the forthcoming
state Consolidated Plan (2006-2010), do not replace the need for local planning. Rural
Nevada is so diverse that a single planning document could not address the needs of each
locality. Further, as has been noted throughout this report, much housing data is not
available for the rural counties between the decennial U.S. Census periods, including
median rents, vacancy rates, and home sale prices. Social service providers in the rural
counties note that the face of homelessness, and of families and individuals who are atrisk of homelessness, is less visible than in urban areas because of geography, culture,
and a fewer service options.
NRHA could respond to this need by providing assistance to communities in carrying out
their own local housing needs assessments and in preparing housing elements and plans
that respond to identified needs. As noted elsewhere in the report, possible sources of
funding for such studies might include the Nevada Commission on Economic
Development, the state Housing Division, the Western Nevada HOME Consortium,
USDA-Rural Development, and HUD.
2. Multi-Family Housing Production and Preservation
New and rehabilitated multifamily housing is sorely needed in many rural counties.
However, the lower incomes of rural renter households do not support new housing
production without rental assistance.
NRHA could position itself to become an important provider of new and rehabilitated
multi-family housing in the rural communities if it were to “project-based” a small
portion of its Housing Choice Voucher portfolio for new projects. For instance, if NRHA
were to set-aside 10% of its portfolio (or 150 vouchers) for multi-family production, this
would result in 5 new or rehabilitated developments of 30 units each.
This rental assistance could then be combined with existing public and private resources,
including Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, the USDA-515 Loan Program, the USDA54
NRHA Housing Needs Assessment—Recommendations
538 Loan Guarantee Program, state and Consortium HOME funds, and conventional
debt, in the production of multi-family housing
It should be noted that most of the western Nevada counties have been designated HUD
“Difficult Development Areas” and are eligible for a 30% boost in tax credits. Further,
Douglas County provides a 25% density bonus in its ordinance for affordable multifamily housing. NHRA should explore ways that it can utilize these additional resources
for development in the fast-growing western counties and in southern Nye County.
NRHA should also explore ways to preserve older USDA-RD Section 515 developments
that may be reaching the end of their 20-year compliance period. In stronger real estate
markets, the private owners of these properties may decide to “opt-out” of the subsidy
program, further reducing the limited affordable multi-family stock in the rural counties.
NRHA should explore ways to partner with USDA-RD to act as a long-term steward for
these valuable properties.
3. Single-Family Housing Production and Homeownership
Given the choice, most rural households would choose to live in and own their own home
over living in an apartment. However, in the fast-growing western and southern counties,
long-time local residents and their children are being displaced by rising land costs and
home values. And, while land may be more plentiful in the central and eastern portions
of the state, the cost of stick-built construction is high, because of the distance to reach
skilled labor and materials.
NRHA should explore ways that it can facilitate new affordable single-family home
production and homeownership. For example, in one scenario, NRHA could work with a
local government to carryout predevelopment on an affordable housing or mixed-income
tract development. It could hire a designer and engineer to prepare a master plan and
conceptual unit plans. It could acquire land through the BLM (see more below) at a
reduced cost. It could secure funding for needed infrastructure improvements through the
NCED, USDA-RD, or RCAC. And, NRHA could utilize its powers as a statewide
housing authority to issue tax-exempt or 501(c)(3) bonds for development. With this
valuable package of resources, NRHA and/or the local government could then entice a
regional homebuilder to implement the plan and market the completed units to qualifying
homebuyers. In this case, NRHA is a facilitator and direct funder of an affordable
housing development that would not have occurred but for the development skills and
resources that it could bring to the table.
Further, NRHA could explore ways to better prepare its own low-income clients for
homeownership, through homebuyer training, credit counseling, Family Self-Sufficiency
programming, the creation of Individual Development or Savings Accounts for down
payment, and the conversion of individual rental vouchers to homeownership vouchers to
write-down the cost of a mortgage. NRHA is already implementing some of these
homeownership programs.
4. BLM Land
Lack of affordable or developable land was identified in the housing mail survey as an
important barrier to the production of affordable housing.
We believe that the BLM land program for affordable housing—a product of the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998—could be an important resource
for the promotion of affordable single- and multi-family housing in the rural
communities.
55
NRHA could assist local governments is identifying BLM land that is near residential
development or within the path of growth and that is developable, taking into account
topography, zoning, availability of water rights, and infrastructure. The Act allows land
to be transferred directly to local governments or to a local housing authority, including
NRHA, for the production of bona fide affordable housing projects, as determined by
HUD.
As noted above, low-cost land alone is sometimes not enough to provide the economic
incentives to develop housing in isolated rural areas. NRHA could also assist local
government in packaging additional subsidy and low-cost financing to make such
projects viable.
5. Policy Development Related to Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing
As planners, we need to accept that a sizeable portion of the rural housing stock is, and
will continue to be, mobile homes. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, mobile homes
accounted for 27.9% of the housing stock in the rural counties, or over 34,500 units. In
some counties, such as Eureka, Lander, Esmeralda, Humboldt, Pershing, and Nye, mobile
home account for over 40% of the housing stock.
The U.S. Census categorizes a mobile home with an attached permanent structure as a
detached single-family homes. It does not categorize manufactured homes separately,
and we assume here that manufactured homes are counted by the Census as detached
single-family homes and not as mobile homes. Therefore, we believe that the total
number of mobile homes and manufactured housing units in the rural counties may be
even larger than the 2000 tally.
NRHA could assist in improving the quality of living conditions for mobile home
dwellers. For example, the Clark County Housing Authority decided to operate its own
mobile home park for seniors in order to offer hook-ups to seniors at low-cost and ensure
a high level of physical upkeep and services. Other communities have explored the
options of land trusts or cooperatives to allow mobile home dwellers to co-own the land
under their units, provide for common grounds upkeep, and prevent displacement as land
becomes more valuable.
With regard to manufactured housing, NRHA could explore the potential cost savings of
using out-of-state manufactured housing versus local stick-built housing for affordable
single-family home developments. Currently, manufactured housing is available from
factories in California and Idaho. However, even with the extra transportation cost, there
still may be savings associated with manufactured housing development in the rural
counties. As noted in the report, the skilled trades and materials are often not available
locally, creating a distinct advantage to manufactured housing. A manufactured unit can
also be developed more quickly, which is a plus when considering the boom/bust
economies in the counties dependent upon mining. Further, we understand that Fannie
Mae has recently promulgated new underwriting criteria for the financing of
manufactured housing, which will make bank financing of houses easier.
NRHA could assist in exploring manufactured housing options, and could promote better
quality design of communities consisting primarily of manufactured units.
6. Policy Development Related to New Financing Mechanisms for the Rural
Counties
56
As was noted in the report, there is a lack of reliable public funding programs for
affordable housing production. The state tax-exempt bond program is virtually unusable
in the rural counties for multi-family projects because each new housing project requires
a separate bond issuance. The typical bond project in Nevada exceeds 100 units in size in
order to cover the extraordinary transaction costs of an issuance. Further, the state tax
exempt volume cap is distributed to the counties on a per capita basis, meaning that 14%
of the tax exempt volume cap must be shared by the 15 rural counties. In order for a rural
county to use its volume cap, it must broker for cap from other counties: each allocation
is too small in itself to support a project.
NRHA could intervene in this process by working with the Nevada Housing Division to
develop financing products that better serve the needs of rural counties. For instance, the
NHD could issue tax-exempt bonds for multiple projects, so that the overhead costs could
be shared. Alternately, NRHA could work through its parent organizations, the Nevada
Association of Counties and the Nevada League of Cities and Municipalities, to develop
alternative financing mechanisms that better serve the development needs of rural
Nevada. As we understand it, NRHA is empowered through state legislation to issues
tax-exempt bonds on its own for public benefit projects. It could also utilize its nonprofit spin-off corporation to issue 501(c)(3) bonds.
NRHA may also have an opportunity to operate the Western Nevada HOME Consortium,
which serves the seven western Nevada counties, through its Participating Jurisdiction,
Lyon County. We understand that Lyon County will be issuing an Request for Proposals
in the coming weeks to select an operator for the Consortium. If NRHA were to assume
this role, it could perhaps develop financing products which, when combined with
HOME funds, would result in new production in the western counties.
7. Additional Research
And finally, NRHA could expand the scope of this Need Assessment report to carry out
more in-depth investigations of specific housing issues. For instance, because of the
limited scope of the project, we only touched upon special needs housing, homelessness,
and housing for the frail elderly—all which are critical issues in the rural areas.
Nearly all of our data analysis was based upon existing information, either easily
available on the web or available for all 15 counties through one source, such as HUD or
multiple listing service. We therefore have very little information by city and town on
rental housing vacancy rates, median rents, expiring Section 515 rental projects, current
home sale prices, and the availability of developable land for new affordable housing.
We believe that the anecdotal information collected through mail surveys and interviews
is extremely valuable. However, we also see the need for more data collection and
analysis of housing trends in the rural counties.
57

Housing Needs Assessment - Nevada Rural Housing Authority

Transcription

Similar documents

Rural AmeriTowne

The Witchcliffe Farmhouse - The Rural Building Company

OCEF Programs

Do you want to buy a house with no money down?

OSSBERGER Small decentralized hydropower stations

Ethiopian girl Drinking

Prezentacja programu PowerPoint

Enterprising Eastern Perthshire Ltd

15 Term 4 Week 2 Week 42

Universitas Katolik Parahyangan