Housing Needs Assessment of Winnemucca and its Surrounding

Transcription

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF
WINNEMUCCA AND ITS SURROUNDING
AREAS
PREPARED FOR THE
HUMBOLDT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WORKFORCE HOUSING COMMITTEE
CATHERINE COLE FERANDELLI, CHAIR
PREPARED BY
PRAXIS CONSULTING GROUP, LLC
RENO
JULY 2008
(FINAL VERSION)
Housing Needs Assessment of Winnemucca
and its Surrounding Areas
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7
I.
Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 13
II.
Demographic, Employment and Housing Data ........................................... 25
Introduction ........................................................................................... 25
Summary of Findings............................................................................. 25
Methodology ......................................................................................... 30
Population ............................................................................................. 30
Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 32
Income................................................................................................... 34
Households ............................................................................................ 36
Age........................................................................................................ 36
Disability ............................................................................................... 37
Employment .......................................................................................... 38
Unemployment ...................................................................................... 40
Housing Units and Vacancy Rates ......................................................... 41
Owner Occupied and Rental Occupied Housing Units ........................... 44
Housing Types and Age......................................................................... 45
Affordable Housing Inventory ............................................................... 49
Building Permits and Vacant Land......................................................... 51
Rental Housing Rates............................................................................. 53
Rental Housing Affordability................................................................. 56
Percent of Renter Households With Any Housing Problems .................. 59
Wages Needed to Afford Apartment Rents ............................................ 60
Ownership Housing Affordability .......................................................... 62
Percent Owner Households With Any Housing Problems ...................... 64
Owner-Occupied Housing Values .......................................................... 65
Homeownership Affordability Gap ...................................................... 66
Annual Income Needed to Afford a Home ............................................. 68
III.
Key Informant Interviews........................................................................... 73
Introduction ........................................................................................... 73
Housing Needs....................................................................................... 78
Impact on Local Economy ..................................................................... 82
Barriers to Addressing Housing Need / Recommendations..................... 83
1
Housing Needs Assessment of Winnemucca and its Surrounding Areas
Table of Contents and Index of Tables
IV.
Employer Survey........................................................................................ 87
Introduction ........................................................................................... 87
Methodology ......................................................................................... 88
Profile of Respondents........................................................................... 89
Housing Need ........................................................................................ 89
Barriers to Addressing Housing Needs................................................... 91
Housing as a Barrier to Economic Development .................................... 92
Types of Housing Needed in the Community ......................................... 94
Private Sector Assistance ....................................................................... 95
Recommendations.................................................................................. 96
V.
Recommendations ...................................................................................... 97
Attachments..........................................................................................................105
1. List of Employer Survey Respondents
2. Employer Survey Instrument
3. Employer Survey Data Tables
4. Key Informant Interview Instrument
2
INDEX OF TABLES AND CHARTS
Demographic, Employment and Housing Data
Table 1: Population
Humboldt County Winnemucca, Elko County, and State
1990, 2000, 2007, 2010 ........................................................................................... 31
Table 2: Race/Ethnicity
Humboldt County and State 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010 ............................................... 32
Table 3: HUD Area Median Family Incomes (AMIs)
Humboldt County and Elko County 1990, 2000, 2005-2008.................................... 34
Table 4: Individuals Below Poverty Level
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County, and State
1990, 2000 .............................................................................................................. 35
Table 5: Average Household Size
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County and State
1990, 2000 .............................................................................................................. 36
Table 6: Population By Age Group <18 Years and 65+ Years
1990, 2000 .............................................................................................................. 37
Table 7: Disability by Type
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County and State 2000 ................................ 38
Table 8: Non-Agricultural Employment by Industry
Humboldt County, Elko County, State 2006............................................................ 39
Table 9: Major Employers--100+ Employees
Humboldt County FY 2008 ..................................................................................... 40
Table 10: Unemployment Rates
Humboldt County, Elko County and State
1990, 1995 to March 2008....................................................................................... 41
Table 11: Housing Units - Total, Vacant and Occupied
1990, 2000 .............................................................................................................. 42
Table 12: Total Housing Units
Humboldt County and Winnemucca 2000, 2005, 2007 ............................................ 43
3
Table 13: Occupied Housing Units - Owner and Renter
1990, 2000 .............................................................................................................. 44
Table 14: Types of Housing Units
Humboldt County, Elko County and State 1990, 2000............................................. 45
Winnemucca and Humboldt County 2000-2007 ...................................................... 47
Table 16: Year Structure Built
Winnemucca, Humboldt County, Elko County, State, 2000..................................... 49
Table 17: Subsidized Rental Housing
Winnemucca 2008................................................................................................... 50
Table 18 -HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program—
Vouchers by Type
Humboldt County 2008 ........................................................................................... 51
Table 19: Humboldt County Building Permits
Number of Housing Units 1990, 2000 to March 2008.............................................. 52
Table 20: Vacant Residential Land--Zoned Single, Family
and Multi-Residential
Humboldt County and Winnemucca 2007 ............................................................... 53
Table 21: Median Gross Rent* and Percent of
Household Income Spent on Rent
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County and
State 1990, 2000...................................................................................................... 54
Table 22: Rental Listings
Winnemucca Area, February 27, 2008..................................................................... 55
Table 23: HUD Fair Market Rents*--Two Bedroom Units
Humboldt County 2000-2008 .................................................................................. 56
Table 24: Rental Housing Affordability
Rental Hslds. Paying 30%+ and 50%+ of Hsld. Income on Rent
Humboldt County, Elko County and State 1990, 2000............................................. 57
4
Households With Incomes 50% or Less of HUD
AMI Paying >30% of Income on Rent
State 1990 and 2000 ................................................................................................ 58
Table 26: Percent of Renter Households With Any Housing Problems
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County, and
State 1990, 2000...................................................................................................... 59
Table 27: Hourly Wage Needed to Afford a Two-Bedroom
Apartment Compared to Median Hourly Wage by Occupation
Humboldt County 2007 ........................................................................................... 61
Table 28: Ownership Housing Affordability
Owner Households Paying 30%+ and 50%+ of Hsld.
Income on Ownership Costs
State 1990, 2000...................................................................................................... 62
Households With Incomes 50% or less of HUD AMI
Paying > 30% of Income on Ownership Costs
State 1990 and 2000 ................................................................................................ 63
Table 30: Percent Owner Household With Any Housing Problems
State 1990 and 2000 ................................................................................................ 64
Table 31: Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units
State 1990 and 2000 ................................................................................................ 65
Table 32: Total Homes Sold and Median Sales Price
Humboldt County 2000, 2004, 2007, 2008 .............................................................. 66
Table 33: Homeownership Affordability Gap
Single Family and Manufactured Homes
Humboldt County 2000 and 2007............................................................................ 67
Figure 1: Homeownership Affordability Gap
Single Family Homes and Manufactured Homes
Humboldt County 2000, 2007 ................................................................................. 68
5
Table 34: Annual Income Needed to Afford a Single
Family Home Compared to Annual Median Income by
Occupation
Humboldt County 2007 ........................................................................................... 69
Table 35: Annual Income Needed to Afford a
Manufactured Home Compared to Annual Median Income
by Occupation
Humboldt County 2007 ........................................................................................... 70
Key Informant Interviews
Table 1: Interview and Focus Group Participants.................................................... 73
Employer Survey
Table 1: Survey Respondents by Industry ............................................................... 89
Chart 1: “How would you rank affordable and workforce housing
among the many competing needs in your community?” ......................................... 90
Chart 2: “What do you see as the greatest barriers to addressing the
housing needs in their community?”........................................................................ 91
Table 2: “Does the cost or availability of housing the Winnemucca area
have an impact on your business?” .......................................................................... 93
Chart 3: “How would you rank the impact of the cost and availability of
housing on your businesses ability to…?” ............................................................... 94
Chart 4: “What types of employee housing are most needed in the
Winnemucca area?” ................................................................................................ 95
6
Introduction
Humboldt County is currently experiencing a crisis in housing affordability and
availability.
Between 2000 and 2007, the population of the County grew by almost 2,000 residents
(1,946) or approximately 702 households. However, housing production failed to keep
pace with population growth. Only 195 units were added to the County’s housing
inventory during this seven-year period, most of it in the last three years.
The state of housing in 2008 in Humboldt County is in stark contrast to 2000, at the end
of the last economic downturn in the mining areas of Nevada. In 2000, Humboldt
County and the City of Winnemucca exhibited extremely high housing vacancy rates.
17.6% of housing units in the County (1,221 units) and 16.6% in the City (544 units)
were reported as vacant in 1999, at the time of the last decennial Census. The point-intime vacancy rate in the 2000 Census was 291.4% higher than the vacancy rate in 1990 in
the City of Winnemucca and 141.3% higher than the vacancy rate in Humboldt County.
This data provides a cautionary tale of overbuilding and abandonment that has been
emblematic of rural Nevada.
The housing stock in Humboldt County and the City of Winnemucca is older than the
State as a whole and Elko County nearby. It also consists of a disproportionate share of
manufactured housing, much of it added during the last economic boom in the late 1990s.
Based upon County Assessor data, manufactured housing units made up almost half of
the County’s housing stock in 2007 (49.2% or 3,341 units). The number of manufactured
housing units on the tax rolls actually declined this decade, the result of abandonment,
and perhaps in reaction to the over-building that occurred in the unincorporated areas in
the late 1990s. For instance, the median sale price of a manufactured housing unit in
2000 in Humboldt County was a very low $40,000, far below the actual cost of the unit
and attendant site improvements. The manufactured housing market has only recently
recovered, with median home sale prices of $115,000 in 2007. On a positive note, the
percentage of manufactured housing units on permanent foundations, treated as real
property by the County Assessor, has increased every year in Humboldt County, from
19.6% in 2002 to 28.4% in 2007.
The last 20 years has witnessed almost no new multi-family housing production in
Humboldt County. A recurrent theme in our one-on-one interviews and in the Employer
Survey was the sheer lack of available rental housing in Winnemucca, at any price.
Almost half the current multi-family housing units in the County (240 out of 546 total
units, 44.0%) are in subsidized rental housing developments in Winnemucca, which are
also heavily over-subscribed. Every affordable housing development in the City has no
vacancies and long waiting lists. And while owners have done an excellent job
7
Introduction
maintaining this valuable resource for the community, there have been no new units
added to the inventory since 2000.
As of this writing, home prices are rising and rental housing is extremely scarce.
Between 2000 and 2007, the cost of a single-family home in Humboldt County increased
by 68.0%, from $100,000 to $168,000. The median listing price of a single family home
in early 2008 was $239,900, or a 139.9% increase from 2000, well out of reach of most
working families in Humboldt County. During this period (2000-2008), median family
income in Humboldt County increased by only 18.9%.
Based upon HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR) data, the median rent for a two-bedroom unit
in Humboldt County is currently $745, up from $603 in 2000, or a 23% increase. In
2007, we estimate that the hourly wage required to afford a 2-bedroom unit in Humboldt
County was $13.79. This is well above the hourly wage of many Humboldt County
occupations, including retail and service employment and agriculture.
This crisis in affordability has a disproportionate impact on low-income households. In
2000, the last year that cross-tabulated data was available, almost half of very lowincome renter households in Humboldt County (46.4% or 258 households) had a
“housing cost burden” as defined by HUD, meaning that they expended more than 30%
of their gross income of shelter costs. This percentage was even higher in the City of
Winnemucca—56.2% or 205 households. We expect that the percentage and number of
families struggling to make their rent in 2008 is much higher than 2000, the result of lack
of new inventory and increasing rents. The percent of very low-income ownership
households with a housing cost burden in 2000 was comparable: 52.1% or 298 ownership
households in the County. These low-income homeowners are at greater risk of
foreclosure, or of being force to sell or abandon their property in economic downturns.
Housing Needs Assessment
In response to this crisis in housing availability and affordability in Winnemucca, the
Humboldt Development Authority Workforce Housing Committee (HDA WHC)
commissioned a Housing Needs Assessment study. The purpose of the Assessment is to
provide the HDA WHC and the local jurisdictions with immediate and reliable
information about the housing conditions in the City of Winnemucca and its surrounding
areas in order to guide future land use, infrastructure and public services planning. The
Assessment addresses the following questions:
•
What are the current demographic and economic trends in the City of
Winnemucca and its surrounding area that have an impact on housing?
•
What are the greatest housing needs across the area?
•
What are the barriers to addressing those needs? and,
8
Introduction
•
Where are there opportunities for expansion of housing programs? What type of
programs?
The study touches on a wide variety of housing issues in Winnemucca, including:
•
Economic Conditions—boom and bust cycles, abandonment, proximity of
housing to jobs;
•
Affordability—percent of income towards shelter costs, location of affordable
rental units, housing appreciation, energy costs, availability of public subsidies;
•
Housing Conditions—substandard housing, code enforcement, policies related to
mobile home use, availability of rehabilitation funds, weatherization;
•
Barriers to Homeownership—access to mortgage capital, affordability, down
payment assistance, credit issues;
•
Supportive Housing—aging in place, homelessness, barrier-free housing, access
to services; and,
•
Barriers to New Housing Development—availability of BLM and other land, land
use and zoning practices, property tax policies, access to public subsidy, and
manufactured housing opportunities.
Organization of Report
The Housing Needs Assessment report includes a wealth of qualitative and quantitative
data on the state of housing in Humboldt County. The report is organized as follows:
•
Chapter I: Summary of Findings—Chapter I provides a short executive summary
of the data and recommendations presented in the Report.
•
Chapter II: Demographic, Economic and Housing Data—In Chapter II, we review
housing and demographic trends in Humboldt County and their implications for
housing planners. The data summarized in Chapter II comes from a variety of
sources including: U.S Census; Nevada State Demographer; Humboldt County
Assessor; Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation; HUD
State of the Cities Database; and local home sale and rental 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 in Humboldt County.
•
Chapter III: Key Informant Interviews— As part of the Assessment, we carried
out one-on-one interviews and focus groups with over 20 individuals
knowledgeable about the Winnemucca housing market and its impact on the local
9
Introduction
community, including realtors, property managers, developers, general
contractors, planners, public officials, bankers, social service providers, and local
employers. 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 IV: Employer Survey—We also carried out a web and mail survey of
local employers in order to better understand the impact of the local housing
market on Winnemucca area businesses. The Employer Survey was sponsored by
the Humboldt County Chamber of Commerce and the Humboldt Development
Authority and was sent to the 277 members of the CoC. We received more than
50 responses to the survey. Chapter IV presents the finding of this survey.
•
Chapter V: Recommendations—Finally, Chapter V includes policy
recommendations for the HDA WHC and local governments to consider as they
carry out future housing planning.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the many residents of Humboldt County—over eighty in
all—who took the time to fill out a survey or take part in a focus group or interview. We
very much appreciate your insights and candor about Winnemucca and the local housing
market. We would also like to thank the members of the Humboldt Development
Authority Workforce Housing Committee for its research guidance and for review of the
draft Report.
Humboldt Development Authority Workforce Housing Committee
Catherine Cole Ferandelli, Chair
Pat Gray, Broker/Owner, Century 21 Sonoma
Bill Deist, Humboldt County Administrator
John Milton, Humboldt County Commissioner-Chair
Patty Herzog, Winnemucca City Council/Private Business Owner
Additional Support
Bill Sims, Business and Economic Development Specialist, Nevada Small
Business Development Center
Brenda Wiley, Administrative Assistant, Humboldt County
10
Introduction
The Housing Needs Assessment of Winnemucca and its Surrounding Areas was funded
through a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Planning Grant from the
Nevada Commission on Economic Development.
The Report was prepared by Praxis Consulting Group, LLC. Julie Harris wrote the
demographic and housing data analysis section of the report, based on tables prepared by
John Torrence. The Employer Survey chapter was written by John Torrence.
11
12
Executive Summary
Chapter I: Summary of Findings
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a stand-alone, bulleted summary of the findings
of the Report, organized by chapter as follows: Demographic, Employment and Housing
Data, Key Informant Interviews, Employer Survey, and Recommendations. The
information is repeated in the chapters to follow.
In Chapter II, we review demographic, employment and housing trends in Humboldt
County and their implications for affordable housing planning and development in the
County. For comparison purposes, we have included selected data for the State of
Nevada and Elko County.
Population Characteristics
•
Population – Between 1990 and 2000, Humboldt County grew by 3,086 people to
16,106 people, a 23.7% increase. It is estimated that an additional 1,319 people
will reside in the county by 2010 for a total of 17,425, an 8.2% increase.
Similarly, between 1990 and 2000, the city of Winnemucca increased by almost
1,000 people, a 16.1% gain. During this decade, the County population increased
at a quicker pace than the City (23.7% versus 16.1%). Much of this new growth
occurred just outside the City boundaries, in the Grass Valley area.
•
The 2007 population of Humboldt County is estimated at 18,052. The State
Demographer actually projected a decline of 627 persons between 2007 and 2010.
The 2010 population projections, however, were published in July 2006. At that
time the 2007 projection for Humboldt County was 17,402, 650 less than the
estimate of 18,052 published in 2007. It is therefore possible that the Humboldt
County 2010 projection of 17,425 is low.
•
Race/Ethnicity – Between 1990 and 2000, the greatest increases in minority
groups as a percentage of the population in both the State and in Humboldt
County were in the Hispanic and Asian populations. The Hispanic/Latino
population is the largest ethnic group in the County, 19.3% of the population in
2005. By 2010 the percentage is expected to increase to 21.0%. In 2005, 23.3%
of the State’s population was Hispanic/Latino, projected to climb to 27.8% by
2010.
13
Executive Summary
•
Income – Humboldt County’s HUD Median Family Income (AMI) for a family of
four currently stands at $66,100, which is an 18.9% increase since 2000, while
Elko County’s AMI increased 11.4% to $66,500.
•
Household Size – The household size increased slightly in Humboldt County from
2.76 to 2.77 and more significantly in Elko County from 2.79 to 2.85. The City of
Winnemucca remained stable at 2.60 persons per household.
•
Age – In Humboldt County there was a 30% increase in both the number of
children and elderly people. In the city of Winnemucca, however, there was a
higher growth rate among elderly residents. Elko County shows a larger
percentage increase in the under-18 age group.
As a percentage of the population, Humboldt County has seen a 1.1% increase in
the <18 population from 30.3% in 1990 to 31.4% in 2000. The percent of the
population age 65+ has increased more slowly in the County from 7.3% to 7.5%.
In the city of Winnemucca, 30.2% of the population was <18 years in 2000 and
9.0% was age 65+.
•
Disability – The percent of the population in Humboldt County with a physical
disability alone accounted for 6.7% of the population over age five, equating to
995 people. In Winnemucca, the percentage is lower at 4.9%, 325 people. Based
upon this data, and again, on our one-on-one interviews with key informants, we
believe that there is a great need for more barrier-free housing to serve this
population in Humboldt County.
Employment Characteristics
•
Employment – Humboldt County’s employment base is primarily in the natural
resources and mining industry (24.2%) followed by trade, transportation and
utilities (19.2%), government (18.5%) and leisure and hospitality (15.0%).
•
Unemployment – In 2007, the United States unemployment rate was 4.6%
compared to the State at 4.8%, 3.9% for Humboldt County, and 3.5% in Elko
County. First quarter 2008 unemployment rates are averaging 4.7% for Humboldt
County, 4.3% for Elko County, 5.8% for the State, and 4.9% nationwide.
14
Executive Summary
Housing Characteristics
•
Vacancy Rates – Vacancy rates have changed significantly since 2000, reflecting
the recent surge in mining activity in Humboldt County. Although updated
statistical data for overall housing units is not available, information from
Winnemucca realtors and property managers reveals that the current inventory of
for-purchase and for-rent housing is relatively low.
•
Housing Units – Humboldt County population increased by 1,946 persons from
2000 to 2007, or a 12.1% increase. With an average household size in Humboldt
County of 2.77, there was an increase of approximately 702 households during
this period. However, only 195 units were added to the County’s inventory
during this period, representing a 3.0% increase in the housing stock.
•
Owner Occupied and Rental Occupied Housing Units – Homeownership rates in
Humboldt County increased from 67.3% to 73.2%, resulting in 1,143 additional
homeowners by 2000. Homeownership in Winnemucca increased from 62.2% to
66.6% over this period, for a total of 390 new homeowners.
•
Housing Types and Age – Mobile homes comprised 42.3% of the housing stock in
Humboldt County (2,943 units) in 2000. Single-family, detached units comprised
45.7% of the housing stock (3,175 units) in 2000, compared with 50.6% in Elko
County and 52.3% in the State of Nevada as a whole. Multiple-Family/Other
units comprised only 12.0% of the total housing stock in Humboldt County (or
836 units), compared with 18.9% in Elko County and 38.1% across the State.
•
Between 2000 and 2007, there was only a 3.0% increase in the number of housing
units in Humboldt County, much lower than the 37.9% increase in the 1990s. The
vast majority (183 units) of new residences were single-family detached, for a
6.9% gain over 2000. The largest percentage gain was among multi-family
housing at 8.1% with 40 units added. Declines were seen in the number of
manufactured homes and single-family attached residences. A similar overall
pattern is evident in the city of Winnemucca. The number of manufactured
homes, however, dropped more significantly (-110 units, -16.8%), offset by 131
new single-family detached residences.
•
Humboldt County, and particularly the City of Winnemucca, suffer from a
relatively aged housing stock as compared to Elko County and the State as a
whole. Based upon 2000 Census data, the median year of structures in Humboldt
County was 1982, over 25 years old. This is compared to 1984 for Elko County
and 1986 for the State. The median age housing structure in the City of
Winnemucca was 1978, or 30 years old. In fact, over one-third (36.0%) of the
housing stock in the City in 2000 was built before 1970, compared to 22.6% in
Elko and 17.5% for the State.
15
Executive Summary
•
Affordable Housing Inventory – Humboldt County’s subsidized affordable
housing inventory comprises 240 rental units in seven developments, all located
in the City of Winnemucca. The total number of renter-occupied units in 2000
was 1,554. Therefore subsidized housing constitutes approximately 10.6% of the
County’s total rental housing stock.
•
Building Permits – From 2000 to 2007, 344 permits were issued, 264 (76.7%) for
single-family homes and 80 (23.3%) for multi-family units.
Rental Housing Affordability
•
Rental Housing Rates – Median rent in Humboldt County increased $82 from
$449 in 1990 to $531 in 2000, compared to the city of Winnemucca with an
increase of $136 from $364 to $500. The percent of household income spent on
rent in the County increased slightly from 18.4% to 19.0% whereas the percent
dropped from 20.7% to 19.2% in the City.
•
From 2000 to 2008, the HUD Fair Market Rents for a two-bedroom unit in
Humboldt County increased from $603 to $745, or 23.5%. Median Family
Income from 2000 to 2008 only increased by 18.9% over this same period.
Therefore rent levels outpaced income over the last 8 years, suggesting a higher
housing cost burden for renters in Humboldt County.
•
Rental Housing Affordability - 21.0% of Humboldt County’s households in 2000
paid 30% or more of their income on rent. Of these households 5.5% spent 50%
or more of their income on rent, considered a severe rent burden by HUD.
•
Percent of Renter Household With Any Housing Problems – Between 1990 and
2000, the percentage of renter households with any housing problems increased in
Humboldt and across the State. Humboldt County showed an almost five
percentage point gain from 24.9% in 1990 to 29.8% in 2000. Winnemucca was
comparable in 2000 at 30.1%.
Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of very low-income households with any
housing problem increased from 57.6% to 67.2%, or over two-thirds of very lowincome households. The percentage with any housing problem in the City of
Winnemucca was lower in 2000 at 62.0%.
•
Wages Needed to Afford Apartment Rents – In 2007, we estimate that the hourly
wage required to afford a 2-bedroom unit in Humboldt County was $13.79. This
is well above the hourly wage of many Humboldt County occupations, including
retail and service employment and agriculture.
16
Executive Summary
Ownership Housing Affordability
•
Ownership Housing Affordability – 15.6% of Humboldt County’s and 18.0% of
Winnemucca’s owner households in 2000 paid 30% or more of their income on
housing costs. Of these ownership households, 3.3% in the county and 3.6% in
the city spent 50% or more of their income on housing, considered a severe
housing burden by HUD.
•
Percent Owner Households With Any Housing Problems – In Humboldt and Elko
Counties the percentage of owner households with any housing problems
increased—with Humboldt County rising from 21.8% in 1990 to 28.0% in 2000.

A substantial number of those owner households in Humboldt County with
incomes at 50% or less of HUD’s AMI have housing problems. Between 1990
and 2000, the percentage of very low-income households with any housing
problem increased over five percentage points from 56.3% to 61.9%.
•
Owner-Occupied Housing Values – Humboldt County’s home values were lower,
than the State averages, at $74,000 in 1990 and $117,400 in 2000, the increase
was more than the State at 58.6%. Winnemucca’s home values increased even
more dramatically, rising 67.3% from $74,100 in 1990 to $124,000 in 2000.
•
From 2000 to 2007, single-family home sale prices rose a notable 68.0% from a
median of $100,000 to $168,000. The 2008 data shows a median asking price of
$239,900 for single-family homes, 42.8% higher than the 2007 median sales
price. So, while the 2008 median sales price will probably be lower than the
current asking price, we still expect a significant increase in home sale prices this
year.
•
From 2000 to 2007, the median sales price of manufactured homes almost tripled
(187.5%) from $40,000 to $115,000. The asking price for manufactured homes in
2008 is $137,750, 19.8% over the 2007 median sales price.
•
Homeownership Affordability Gap – Homeownership in the Winnemucca area
became less affordable from 2000 to 2007. A household earning 80% of area
median income in 2007, or $49,040, would need a subsidy of about $10,244 in
order to afford median priced single family home at $168,000.
•
Annual Income Needed to Afford a Home – The annual income needed in 2007 to
afford a single-family home in Humboldt County was $64,695. The income
needed to afford a manufactured home in 2007 was $47,665. The median annual
income for employees in all occupations Humboldt County in 2007 was $34,944,
about one-half of the income needed to purchase a single-family home without a
significant burden.
17
Executive Summary
In February 2008, we carried out one-on-one interviews and focus groups with
individuals knowledgeable about the Winnemucca housing market and its impact on the
local community including realtors, property managers, developers, general contractors,
planners, public officials, bankers, social service providers, and local employers.
The hour-long interviews and focus groups were organized as follows. First, we asked
participants to list what they saw as the greatest housing need or problem in the
Winnemucca area. We also asked them how housing availability and affordability has an
impact on the economic health and growth prospects of the community. Interviewees
were then asked to identify any barriers to addressing housing needs in the Winnemucca
area and to recommend strategies for addressing housing needs. Twenty-three key
informants took part in either an in-person interview or a focus group. Below is a
summary of the findings of Chapter III.
Housing Needs
Rental Housing
•
All of those we interviewed spoke of the lack of available rental housing in the
community, at any price.
•
Interviewees said that there are long waiting lists for apartments in the subsidized
developments. There is a need for more affordable units on the ground.
•
Interviewees thought that there is also a need for more market-rate apartments in
the community, targeting working households who are above income for
subsidized housing, but cannot afford to buy.
•
The high demand for rental housing and limited supply has resulted in higher
rents in the last couple of years. Participants said that rents are increasingly out of
reach of low-income households and service employees. And, what is available is
of poor quality.
•
Newcomers and short-term employees have to wait six months to a year to find
permanent housing. They are increasingly finding housing in motels in
Winnemucca. One interviewee estimated that about half the motel units in town
are currently being used as weekly rentals.
18
Executive Summary
•
Employers observed that long-time residents, particularly those in service
employment, are often stuck in their current housing. They cannot move to a
larger unit as their family grows. We heard instances of doubling-up and
overcrowding—of young adults forced to move back in with parents, because of
limited housing options. We also heard anecdotally of long-time residents leaving
the area because of the lack and cost of housing.
•
This lack of affordable and available rental housing has its social costs—children
living in motels or overcrowded housing, domestic violence, crime. Planners also
pointed to the problem of illegal RV hook-ups and tent camping within the City
boundaries.
Ownership Housing
•
There appears to be an adequate supply of ownership housing in the Winnemucca
area; but much of the new stock is priced out of reach of first-time homebuyers
and middle-income residents.
•
Interviewees see a need for more housing in the $160,000 to $175,000 range,
which would be affordable to households at or below 80% of area median income.
They offered a number of suggestions for how to get to this target price, including
small lot development, manufactured housing, reduction in development
standards, use of free or low cost BLM land, and use of government subsidy to
underwrite the cost of housing and/or infrastructure.
•
While rural Nevada has been immune to date to the epidemic of foreclosures
occurring in Clark and Washoe County, it is now more difficult in Winnemucca to
qualify for a mortgage. Many low- and moderate-income residents of
Winnemucca have credit problems that, even in the best of times, would make
obtaining a mortgage difficult.
Manufactured Housing
•
According to interviewees, there was significant overbuilding in the manufactured
housing sector during the last economic boom period in the mid-1990s. Much of
this development occurred outside the City in Grass Valley, on large lots with
individual wells and septic.
•
Respondents said that it is more difficult to obtain financing for manufactured
housing than it was during the last boom period. Buyers are more wary of
investing in this housing type, because of the potential for wild fluctuations in
value, as compared with stick-built homes.
19
Executive Summary
•
We also heard from interviewees about the environmental impact of sprawl in the
1990s, much of it related to the growth in manufactured housing in Humboldt
County. They discussed the need for better land use planning to accommodate
future growth.
Senior and Disabled Housing
•
Key informants pointed to the need for more housing options for senior and
disabled households. Those who cannot wait for assisted housing, because of
long waiting lists, or afford home health care, are forced to move out of county
for services—away from familiar surroundings and friends and family.
•
Respondents pointed to the lack of downsizing options in Winnemucca for older
adults living on their own in single-family homes. They also discussed the need
for more barrier-free housing in the community for physically disabled residents
and to promote aging in place.
Impact on Local Economy
•
Most of those we interviewed thought lack of housing made it more difficult to
recruit new workers to Winnemucca, particularly in low- to moderate-wage jobs.
•
Those employers that draw primarily from the local resident population did not
see housing as a particular barrier to growth. Most of their employees seemed to
be housed—perhaps struggling with higher rents or overcrowding. The most oftcited issue facing local employers was the competition for employees with highpaying jobs in the mines.
•
Some saw current housing conditions as a fact of life in eastern Nevada, with its
boom / bust economic cycles. There is no reason to respond with new policies or
programs, because the situation will correct itself in time.
•
Others thought Winnemucca had reached a watershed. Some interviewees
believed that there is a “steady state” need for more housing in Winnemucca, both
rental and ownership housing. The demand for units, particularly “quality, stickbuilt housing,” is strong enough to withstand the next economic downturn.
Barriers to Addressing Housing Need / Recommendations
Finally, we asked key informants to identify specific barriers in the Winnemucca area to
addressing the housing needs called out above. Here, responses fell into three broad
categories: Development Barriers, Financing Barriers, and Public Policy Barriers.
Development Barriers/Recommendations
•
Development barriers included the cost of infrastructure improvements and hook20
Executive Summary
up fees and the limited pool of skilled trades in Winnemucca, which contributes to
high construction costs.
•
Some we interviewed thought that the City and County could reduce the cost of
housing development by relaxing site development standards—for instance,
allowing for a modified (drive over) curb in place of a standard concrete “L” curb
or reducing the length of driveway extensions.
Financing Barriers/Recommendations
•
Financing barriers raised by interviewees included credit problems, which prevent
low- and moderate-income homebuyers from obtaining a mortgage, changes in
the national economy and housing market, and the general mismatch between the
cost to create new housing and the income levels of those in need of housing in
Winnemucca.
•
Interviewees spoke of the need for more financial literacy education in the
schools, and of credit counseling and homebuyer training for first-time buyers.
•
The direct cost to build and finance new housing exceeds the means of most local
residents. Without some form of public subsidy, some interviewees noted, the
market will not be able to address local housing need. Interviewees
recommended that the Workforce Housing Committee investigate Federal, state,
and local subsidy programs in order to achieve affordability in housing.
Public Policy Barriers/Recommendations
•
Respondents felt that there is a need for more public education in Humboldt
County about who lives in subsidized housing and the link between affordable
housing and economic development. Interviewees thought that by making
housing a universal issue—affecting friends, family, and neighbors—it would
reduce the stigma associated with multi-family or subsidized housing in rural
Nevada.
•
Interviewees also thought that City and County government should take a more
pro-active role in promoting affordable and multi-family housing development, by
securing gap financing to make affordable or work force housing projects
feasible, identifying infill sites in the downtown appropriate for multi-family
housing, examining impact fees as they relate to infill, multi-family projects, and
exploring the use of the property tax exemption allowed under NRS 361.082 as
one additional tool to leverage new investment in the community.
21
Executive Summary
Employer Survey
In March 2008, we carried out a web and mail survey of local employers in order to
better understand the impact of the local housing market on Winnemucca area businesses.
The Employer Survey was sponsored by the Humboldt County Chamber of Commerce
and the Humboldt Development Authority and was sent to the 277 members of the CoC.
We received more than 50 responses to the survey. Below is a summary of the findings
of Chapter IV.
•
Employers indicated a significant need for more affordable and workforce housing in
Humboldt County. When asked, “How would you rank affordable and workforce
housing among the many competing needs in your community?” more than 4 in 10
(42.6%, 23 of 54) ranked it a “1” on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” meaning a “high
priority” and “5” a “low priority.” Almost two-thirds (63.0%, 34 of 54) ranked
affordable and workforce housing either a “1” or “2.”
•
According to employers, the types of housing most needed in Winnemucca are
“Rental housing at affordable rates” (82.7% [43 of 52] ranked this housing type a “1”
or a “2,” with “1” meaning “most needed”) and “Entry-level homeownership
opportunities” (80.8%, 42 of 52). Other cited housing needs in the Winnemucca area
included, in order of declining priority: “Housing (all types) within a short driving
distance of Winnemucca” (61.5% [22 of 52]);“Housing for mid- to senior-level
management employees” (39.6% [21 of 53]);“Manufactured housing opportunities”
(30.8% [16 of 52]); and, “Short-stay (6 months or less) employee housing (28.9% [15
of 52]).
•
The two most significant perceived barriers to addressing the housing needs in the
community were “the ‘boom and bust’ economic cycles in the Winnemucca area”
(75.4% [40 of 53] of respondents ranked this a “1” or “2,”) and “the price of
construction and/or availability of contractors in community” (50.9% [27 of 53]).
•
Employers stated that the cost and availability of housing in Winnemucca has an
impact on their businesses, particularly on smaller businesses of less than 10
employees. Among all employers, 55.6% (30 of 54) answered “yes” to the question
“Does the cost or availability of housing in the Winnemucca area have an impact on
your business?” 29.6% (16 of 54) answered “no,” and 14.8% (8 of 54) answered
“don’t know.” The spread between “yes” and “no” responses for smaller businesses
was 36.4%, compared to 9.5% for larger businesses, suggesting that the cost and
availability of housing has a greater perceived impact on smaller businesses.
•
According to respondents, the cost and availability of housing has a specific impact
on their business’s ability to “Attract new employees to the Winnemucca area”
(49.0%, [26 of 53] respondents ranked this either a “1” or “2), “Expand, in response
to new opportunities” (39.6% [21 of 53]), and “Retain existing employees” (28.3%
[15 of 53].
22
Executive Summary
•
Finally, we asked employers for recommendations on ways that the community could
address its housing needs. The responses fell into three categories: “Reducing
development standards and red tape,” “Promoting housing development,” and
“Attracting more public resources to Winnemucca and rural Nevada for affordable
and workforce housing.”
Recommendations
In the final chapter of the report, we provide a series of recommended actions for the
Humboldt Development Authority and its Workforce Housing Committee (HDA WHC)
based upon the information collected in the previous chapters. Many of the proposed
actions come directly from the comments of those interviewed and surveyed for this
needs assessment report.
As noted by interviewees, when entire segments of the workforce cannot afford housing,
there are repercussions for the entire community. Interviewees thought that by making
housing a universal issue—affecting friends, family, and neighbors—it would reduce the
stigma associated with multi-family and subsidized housing in rural Nevada. A diverse
inventory of housing is part of the basic infrastructure of a healthy community.
Interviewees also thought that City and County government should take a more proactive role in promoting affordable and multi-family housing development. They pointed
out that the private market is not working properly to provide a range of housing options
in the community.
The recommendations in Chapter V are as follows:
1.
Educate public officials and the general public about affordable housing
and the link between affordable housing and economic development
2.
Promote infill development and higher densities in the downtown area
3.
Explore single-family home rehabilitation as a revitalization strategy
4.
Explore opportunities to attract new multi-family development to
Winnemucca
5.
Explore downpayment assistance and below-market rate financing for
first-time homebuyers
6.
Expand financial literacy training and homebuyer counseling
7.
Explore the use of free and/or low-cost Bureau of Land Management land
available through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act
23
Executive Summary
8.
Explore the use of Land Trusts to preserve the affordability of housing for
future generations
9.
Develop innovative policies to improve the quality of manufactured
housing developments in Humboldt County
10.
Explore ways to reduce energy costs in housing
24
Housing Needs Assessment of the
City of Winnemucca and its Surrounding Areas
Chapter II: Demographic, Employment and Housing Data
Introduction
In this chapter, we review demographic, employment and housing trends in Winnemucca
and Humboldt County and their implications for housing planning and development in
the Winnemucca area. For comparison purposes, we have included selected data for Elko
County, which shares similar economic and demographic characteristics with Humboldt
County and for the State of Nevada as a whole.
The information in this chapter is meant to complement the qualitative data in other
chapters based upon the Employer Survey and the one-on-one key informant interviews
conducted in February 2008.
Unfortunately, current housing data about rural Nevada is very limited. The main source
of information about housing and population in Humboldt County is the decennial U.S.
Census, which was last conducted in 1999. We have supplemented this data with
population, economic and housing information from a variety of sources, including the
State Demographer, HUD annual projections of income and rents, local home sale
statistics, tallies of residential building permits, interviews with local realtors and
property managers, and jobs data from the State Department of Employment Training
and Rehabilitation. We would especially like to acknowledge the Humboldt County
Assessors Office, which provided current housing counts and home sales statistics.
Summary of Findings
Population Characteristics
•
Population – Between 1990 and 2000, Humboldt County grew by 3,086 people to
16,106 people, a 23.7% increase. It is estimated that an additional 1,319 people
will reside in the county by 2010 for a total of 17,425, an 8.2% increase.
Similarly, between 1990 and 2000, the city of Winnemucca increased by almost
1,000 people, a 16.1% gain. During this decade, the County population increased
at a quicker pace than the City (23.7% versus 16.1%). Much of this new growth
occurred just outside the City boundaries, in the Grass Valley area.
•
Demographer actually projected a decline of 627 persons between 2007 and 2010.
The 2010 population projections, however, were published in July 2006. At that
time the 2007 projection for Humboldt County was 17,402, 650 less than the
estimate of 18,052 published in 2007. It is therefore possible that the Humboldt
County 2010 projection of 17,425 is low.
25
•
Race/Ethnicity – Between 1990 and 2000, the greatest increases in minority
groups as a percentage of the population in both the State and in Humboldt
County were in the Hispanic and Asian populations. The Hispanic/Latino
population is the largest ethnic group in the County, 19.3% of the population in
2005. By 2010 the percentage is expected to increase to 21.0%. In 2005, 23.3%
of the State’s population was Hispanic/Latino, projected to climb to 27.8% by
2010.
•
Income – Humboldt County’s HUD Median Family Income (AMI) for a family of
four currently stands at $66,100, which is an 18.9% increase since 2000, while
Elko County’s AMI increased 11.4% to $66,500
•
Household Size – The household size increased slightly in Humboldt County from
2.76 to 2.77 and more significantly in Elko County from 2.79 to 2.85. The City of
Winnemucca remained stable at 2.60 persons per household.
•
Age – In Humboldt County there was a 30% increase in both the number of
children and elderly people. In the city of Winnemucca, however, there was a
higher growth rate among elderly residents. Elko County shows a larger
percentage increase in the under-18 age group.
As a percentage of the population, Humboldt County has seen a 1.1% increase in
the <18 population from 30.3% in 1990 to 31.4% in 2000. The percent of the
population age 65+ has increased more slowly in the county from 7.3% to 7.5%.
In the city of Winnemucca, 30.2% of the population was <18 years in 2000 and
9.0% was age 65+.
•
Disability – The percent of the population in Humboldt County with a physical
disability alone accounted for 6.7% of the population over age five, equating to
995 people. In Winnemucca, the percentage is lower at 4.9%, 325 people. Based
upon this data, and again, on our one-on-one interviews with key informants, we
believe that there is a great need for more barrier-free housing to serve this
population in Humboldt County.
Employment Characteristics
•
Employment – Humboldt County’s employment base is primarily in the natural
resources and mining industry (24.2%) followed by trade, transportation and
utilities (19.2%), government (18.5%) and leisure and hospitality (15.0%).
•
Unemployment – In 2007, the United States unemployment rate was 4.6%
compared to the State at 4.8%, 3.9% for Humboldt County, and 3.5% in Elko
County. First quarter 2008 unemployment rates are averaging 4.7% for Humboldt
County, 4.3% for Elko County, 5.8% for the State, and 4.9% nationwide.
26
Housing Characteristics
•
Vacancy Rates – Vacancy rates have changed significantly since 2000, reflecting
the recent surge in mining activity in Humboldt County. Although updated
statistical data for overall housing units is not available, information from
Winnemucca realtors and property managers reveals that the current inventory of
for-purchase and for-rent housing is relatively low.
•
Housing Units – Humboldt County population increased by 1,946 persons from
2000 to 2007, or a 12.1% increase. With an average household size in Humboldt
County of 2.77, there was an increase of approximately 702 households during
this period. However, only 195 units were added to the County’s inventory
during this period, representing a 3.0% increase in the housing stock.
•
Owner Occupied and Rental Occupied Housing Units – Homeownership rates in
homeowners by 2000. Homeownership in Winnemucca increased from 62.2% to
66.6% over this period, for a total of 390 new homeowners.
•
Housing Types and Age – Mobile homes comprised 42.3% of the housing stock in
Humboldt County (2,943 units) in 2000. Single-family, detached units comprised
45.7% of the housing stock (3,175 units) in 2000, compared with 50.6% in Elko
County and 52.3% in the State of Nevada as a whole. Multiple-Family/Other
units comprised only 12.0% of the total housing stock in Humboldt County (or
836 units), compared with 18.9% in Elko County and 38.1% across the State.
•
Between 2000 and 2007, there was only a 3.0% increase in the number of housing
units in Humboldt County, much lower than the 37.9% increase in the 1990s. The
vast majority (183 units) of new residences were single-family detached, for a
6.9% gain over 2000. The largest percentage gain was among multi-family
housing at 8.1% with 40 units added. Declines were seen in the number of
manufactured homes and single-family attached residences. A similar overall
pattern is evident in the city of Winnemucca. The number of manufactured
homes, however, dropped more significantly (-110 units, -16.8%), offset by 131
new single-family detached residences.
•
Humboldt County, and particularly the City of Winnemucca, suffer from a
relatively aged housing stock as compared to Elko County and the State as a
whole. Based upon 2000 Census data, the median year of structures in Humboldt
County was 1982, over 25 years old. This is compared to 1984 for Elko County
and 1986 for the State. The median age housing structure in the City of
Winnemucca was 1978, or 30 years old. In fact, over one-third (36.0%) of the
housing stock in the City in 2000 was built before 1970, compared to 22.6% in
Elko and 17.5% for the State.
27
•
Affordable Housing Inventory – Humboldt County’s subsidized affordable
housing inventory comprises 240 rental units in seven developments, all located
in the City of Winnemucca. The total number of renter-occupied units in 2000
was 1,554. Therefore subsidized housing constitutes approximately 10.6% of the
County’s total rental housing stock.
•
Building Permits – From 2000 to 2007, 344 permits were issued, 264 (76.7%) for
single-family homes and 80 (23.3%) for multi-family units.
•
Rental Housing Rates – Median rent in Humboldt County increased $82 from
$449 in 1990 to $531 in 2000, compared to the city of Winnemucca with an
increase of $136 from $364 to $500. The percent of household income spent on
rent in the County increased slightly from 18.4% to 19.0% whereas the percent
dropped from 20.7% to 19.2% in the City.
•
From 2000 to 2008, the HUD Fair Market Rents for a two-bedroom unit in
Humboldt County increased from $603 to $745, or 23.5%. Median Family
Income from 2000 to 2008 only increased by 18.9% over this same period.
Therefore rent levels outpaced income over the last 8 years, suggesting a higher
housing cost burden for renters in Humboldt County.
•
Rental Housing Affordability - 21.0% of Humboldt County’s households in 2000
paid 30% or more of their income on rent. Of these households 5.5% spent 50%
or more of their income on rent, considered a severe rent burden by HUD.
•
Percent of Renter Household With Any Housing Problems – Between 1990 and
2000, the percentage of renter households with any housing problems increased in
Humboldt and across the State. Humboldt County showed an almost five
comparable in 2000 at 30.1%
Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of very low-income households with any
housing problem increased from 57.6% to 67.2%, or over two-thirds of very lowincome households. The percentage with any housing problem in the City of
Winnemucca was lower in 2000 at 62.0%.
•
Wages Needed to Afford Apartment Rents – In 2007, we estimate that the hourly
wage required to afford a 2-bedroom unit in Humboldt County was $13.79. This
is well above the hourly wage of many Humboldt County occupations, including
retail and service employment and agriculture.
28
•
Ownership Housing Affordability – 15.6% of Humboldt County’s and 18.0% of
Winnemucca’s owner households in 2000 paid 30% or more of their income on
housing costs. Of these ownership households, 3.3% in the county and 3.6% in
the city spent 50% or more of their income on housing, considered a severe
housing burden by HUD.
•
Percent Owner Households With Any Housing Problems – In Humboldt and Elko
Counties the percentage of owner households with any housing problems
increased—with Humboldt County rising from 21.8% in 1990 to 28.0% in 2000.

A substantial number of those owner households in Humboldt County with
incomes at 50% or less of HUD’s AMI have housing problems. Between 1990
and 2000, the percentage of very low-income households with any housing
problem increased over five percentage points from 56.3% to 61.9%.
•
Owner-Occupied Housing Values – Humboldt County’s home values were lower
than the State averages at $74,000 in 1990 and $117,400 in 2000. However, this
illustrates an increase of 58.6 % in Humbolt County’s home values, which is
higher than the State of Nevada’s 10-year increase. Winnemucca’s home values
increased even more dramatically, rising 67.3% from $74,100 in 1990 to
$124,000 in 2000.
•
From 2000 to 2007, single-family home sale prices rose a notable 68.0% from a
median of $100,000 to $168,000. The 2008 data shows a median asking price of
$239,900 for single-family homes, 42.8% higher than the 2007 median sales
price. So, while the 2008 median sales price will probably be lower than the
current asking price, we still expect a significant increase in home sale prices this
year.
•
(187.5%) from $40,000 to $115,000. The asking price for manufactured homes in
2008 is $137,750, 19.8% over the 2007 median sales price.
•
Homeownership Affordability Gap – Homeownership in the Winnemucca area
became less affordable from 2000 to 2007. A household earning 80% of area
median income in 2007, or $49,040, would need a subsidy of about $10,244 in
order to afford median priced single family home at $168,000.
•
Annual Income Needed to Afford a Home – The annual income needed in 2007 to
afford a single-family home in Humboldt County was $64,695. The income
needed to afford a manufactured home in 2007 was $47,665. The median annual
income for employees in all occupations Humboldt County in 2007 was $34,944,
29
about one-half of the income needed to purchase a single-family home without a
significant burden.
Methodology
The data summarized in this chapter comes from a variety of sources including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1990 and 2000 US Census (population and housing characteristics);
Nevada State Demographer (current population estimates and projections,
race/ethnicity estimates and projections, housing counts by type);
Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation (current
employment and wage data, major employers);
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (area median family
income data [AMI], Fair Market Rents [FMR]);
HUD State of the Cities Database (housing affordability measures, building
permit data);
Humboldt County Assessor (housing counts, current home sales data, vacant land
data);
Humboldt Realty LLC and Century 21 Sonoma Realty (current rental and housing
sales data);
Nevada Housing Division, Nevada Rural Housing Authority, and Weststates
Property Management Company (subsidized rental housing data);
From the information listed above, we have created tables and a graph to accompany the
narrative.
Population
The State of Nevada experienced tremendous population growth in the 1990s and is
expected to continue to grow at a fast but decreasing rate through 2010. This mirrors the
trend observed in many of the western states. As seen in Table 1, from 1990-2000, the
State grew 61.7%, the highest growth rate in the nation; it is projected to grow 54.5%
between 2000 and 2010. The majority of this growth is occurring in Clark County (Las
Vegas) with Washoe County (Reno/Sparks) also experiencing strong growth, but at a
slower pace than Clark County.
Nevada’s rural counties also added population during this period, but at a much slower
pace. Between 1990 and 2000, Humboldt County grew by 3,086 people to 16,106
people, a 23.7% increase. It is estimated that an additional 1,319 people will reside in the
county by 2010 for a total of 17,425, an 8.2% increase. Similarly, between 1990 and
2000, the city of Winnemucca increased by almost 1,000 people, a 16.1% gain. During
this decade, the County population increased at a quicker pace than the City (23.7%
versus 16.1%). Much of this new growth occurred just outside the City boundaries, in the
Grass Valley area.
By 2007, an additional 471 people were estimated to reside in Winnemucca. About 42%
of the county’s 2007 population was estimated to live in the city of Winnemucca.
30
Projections for Winnemucca for 2010 are not available.
Elko County experienced stronger growth (34.1% gain) than Humboldt County in the
1990’s, but was projected to grow at a slower rate than Humboldt County between 2000
and 2010 (1.9%).
Table 1: Population
1990, 2000, 2007, 2010
County
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
County
1990
2000
2007
2010
13,020
16,106
18,052
17,425
6,180
7,175
7,646
n/a
33,770
45,291
50,434
46,139
1,236,130
1,998,257
2,718,337
3,087,428
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
90-00
00-10
00-07
07-10
Humboldt County
23.7%
8.2%
12.1%
-3.5%
Winnemucca
16.1%
n'a
6.6%
n/a
34.1%
1.9%
11.4%
-8.5%
61.7%
54.5%
36.0%
13.6%
Elko County
State of Nevada
County
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
# Chg
# Chg
# Chg
# Chg
90-00
00-10
00-07
07-10
3,086
1,319
1,946
-627
995
n/a
471
n/a
11,521
848
5,143
-4,295
762,127
1,089,171
720,080
369,091
Source: US Census and Nevada State Demographer
Demographer actually projected a decline of 627 persons between 2007 and 2010. The
2010 population projections, however, were published in July 2006. At that time the
2007 projection for Humboldt County was 17,402, 650 less than the estimate of 18,052
published in 2007. It is therefore possible that the Humboldt County 2010 projection of
17,425 is low.
Humboldt County is heavily dependent on the mining industry, with its boom/bust cycles.
In the last year, the mining industry has
once again experienced a resurgence in
31
Humboldt County fueled by gold prices, which topped $1,000 an ounce in early 2008.
As will follow below, housing production, especially affordable multi-family units,
typically lags behind population growth, resulting in low vacancy rates and higher
housing costs.
Race/Ethnicity
The state of Nevada is becoming more diverse. Table 2 shows that the white/nonHispanic population declined from 84.3% of the population in 1990 to 62.1% in 2005.
By 2010, the percentage of white/non-Hispanic persons in the state is projected to further
drop to 58.5%.
In Humboldt County, however, the percentage of the population that is white/nonHispanic has remained relatively constant, from 74.6% in 1990 to 75.1% in 2005. By
2010, the percentage is expected to drop slightly to 73.3%.
Between 1990 and 2000, the greatest increases in minority groups as a percentage of the
population in both the State and in Humboldt County were in the Hispanic and Asian
populations. Between 2000 and 2010, a similar pattern is expected with Humboldt
County also showing an increase in its American Indian population.
Table 2: Race/Ethnicity
Humboldt County and State 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010
Humboldt County
White Population
1990
2000
2005
2010
9,719
12,171
12,995
12,773
74.6%
75.1%
75.1%
73.3%
71
98
104
97
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
716
691
696
760
5.5%
4.3%
4.0%
4.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander Pop
57
128
151
140
% Asian/Pacific Islander
0.4%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
Hispanic/Latino Population
2,457
3,110
3,346
3,654
18.9%
19.2%
19.3%
21.0%
% White
Black Population
% Black
American Indian Population
% American Indian
% Hispanic/Latino
32
State
White Population
1990
2000
2005
2010
1,012,695
1,339,515
1,557,109
1,801,846
84.3%
66.4%
62.1%
58.5%
78,771
138,406
172,898
221,762
6.6%
6.9%
6.9%
7.2%
19,637
27,780
33,459
40,940
1.6%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
38,127
110,626
159,363
226,306
3.2%
5.5%
6.4%
7.3%
124,419
399,688
585,326
856,778
10.4%
19.8%
23.3%
27.8%
% White
Black Population
% Black
% American Indian
% Hispanic/Latino
Humboldt County
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
90-00
00-10
00-05
05-10
White Population
25.2%
4.9%
6.8%
-1.7%
0.7%
-2.4%
0.0%
-2.5%
38.0%
-1.0%
6.1%
-6.7%
10.9%
-8.0%
-0.6%
-7.4%
-3.5%
10.0%
0.7%
9.2%
-22.4%
2.2%
-5.7%
8.4%
124.6%
9.4%
18.0%
-7.3%
80.5%
1.7%
10.5%
-8.0%
26.6%
17.5%
7.6%
9.2%
1.7%
9.2%
0.8%
8.4%
% White
Black Population
% Black
% American Indian
% Hispanic/Latino
State
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
90-00
00-10
00-05
05-10
White Population
32.3%
34.5%
16.2%
15.7%
-21.1%
-12.0%
-6.6%
-5.8%
75.7%
60.2%
24.9%
28.3%
4.7%
4.9%
0.4%
4.4%
41.5%
47.4%
20.4%
22.4%
-15.7%
-3.5%
-3.2%
-0.4%
190.2%
104.6%
44.1%
42.0%
73.0%
33.9%
15.8%
15.6%
221.2%
114.4%
46.4%
46.4%
91.5%
40.3%
17.7%
19.2%
% White
Black Population
% Black
% American Indian
% Hispanic/Latino
Source: US Census and Nevada State Demographer
33
The Hispanic/Latino population is the largest ethnic group in the County, 19.3% of the
population in 2005. By 2010 the percentage is expected to increase to 21.0%. In 2005,
23.3% of the State’s population was Hispanic/Latino, projected to climb to 27.8% by
2010.
As Humboldt County becomes more diverse, there will be some implications for housing,
including new housing preferences and occupancy patterns, affordability for low-wage
employees, and issues with fair housing access and lending practices.
Income
Median family incomes in Humboldt County are among the highest in rural Nevada,
lagging only slightly behind Elko County, and Douglas and Storey County in Western
Nevada. As will be noted below, Humboldt County exhibits disproportionate
employment in a number of higher paying industries, including Natural Resources and
Mining, Government, and Trade, Transportation and Utilities.
Table 3: HUD Area Median Family Incomes (AMIs)
Humboldt County and Elko County 1990, 2000, 2005-2008
County
1990
2000
2005
2006
2007
2008
$
$
$
$
$
$
Humboldt County
$29,800 $55,600 $60,600 $59,700 $61,300 $66,100
Elko County
$31,200 $59,700 $61,050 $60,100 $61,700 $66,500
County
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
% Chg
90-00
00-05
05-08
00-08
Humboldt County
86.6%
9.0%
9.1%
18.9%
Elko County
91.3%
2.3%
8.9%
11.4%
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
As seen in Table 3, Humboldt County’s HUD Median Family Income (AMI) for a family
of four currently stands at $66,100, which is an 18.9% increase since 2000, while Elko
County’s AMI increased 11.4% to $66,500.
HUD AMIs increased significantly in the 1990s, almost doubling in both Humboldt and
Elko counties. Between 2005 and 2007, household income was stagnant. However, it
increased nearly 8% in both counties from 2007 to 2008.
HUD AMI data is not available for the State of Nevada as a whole. Generally, the urban
counties show higher median family incomes than the rural counties. In 2008, the HUD
AMI for the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA was $63,900 and for the Reno-Sparks, NV
MSA, $69,500. Most of Nevada’s rural counties, with the exception of Douglas, Storey,
Elko and Humboldt, exhibit relatively low annual AMIs.
34
Table 4 presents an overview of poverty status. While incomes have increased in
Humboldt County in the last decade, the percentage of the population living below the
poverty line has remained about the same.
The 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 4: Individuals Below Poverty Level
1990 and 2000
1990
2000
County/City
#
Humboldt County
1,294 10.3%
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
%
% Chg
# Chg
90-00
90-00
#
%
1,539
9.7%
18.9%
245
493
8.1%
682
9.5%
38.3%
189
3,089
9.4%
3,947
8.9%
27.8%
858
119,660 10.2%
205,685 10.5%
71.9% 86,025
Source: US Census
Despite increases in incomes and population growth during the 1990s, the percentage of
the population in the State who fall under the poverty level did not go down during the
decade, but rather increased slightly from 10.2% to 10.5% of the population. The total
number of people living in poverty in Nevada increased by 86,025 over the decade.
In both Humboldt and Elko Counties, the number of people living below the poverty line
also increased, by 245 persons in Humboldt County and 858 persons in Elko County.
However, the percentage of the population living in poverty dropped slightly,
approximately one-half a percentage point to 9.7% for Humboldt County, 8.9% for Elko
County. In Humboldt County this equates to 1,539 individuals who fell below the
poverty level in 2000. In the city of Winnemucca, the percent of the population with
poverty status increased in the 1990s from 8.1% of the population to 9.5%. Some of the
newcomers may be of lower income and/or cost of living increases may have pushed
people below the poverty level.
As will follow, housing availability and affordability in Humboldt County and the City of
Winnemucca have a disproportionate impact upon the area’s low-income residents.
35
Households
Nationally, the average household size declined from 2.63 in 1990 to 2.59 in 2000.
However, in the State of Nevada, the household size increased from 2.53 to 2.62 (Table
5). The household size increased slightly in Humboldt County from 2.76 to 2.77 and
more significantly in Elko County from 2.79 to 2.85. The City of Winnemucca remained
stable at 2.60 persons per household.
Table 5: Average Household Size
Humboldt County, Winnemucca,
Elko County and State 1990, 2000
1990 2000% Chg
County
#
#
90-00
Humboldt County
2.76
2.77
0.4%
Winnemucca
2.60
2.60
0.0%
Elko County
2.79
2.85
2.2%
State of Nevada
2.53
2.62
3.6%
Source: US Census
The household size increases in Nevada 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.
Age
Data on the population age <18 years and 65+ years in 1990 and 2000 is presented in
Table 6. The sheer number of people under age 18 and over age 65 has increased
dramatically throughout the State, mirroring the tremendous population growth in
Nevada between 1990 and 2000. Nevada as a whole saw a 72% increase in the number
of people in both age cohorts in the 1990s.
In Humboldt County there was a 30% increase in both the number of children and elderly
people. In the city of Winnemucca, however, there was a higher growth rate among
elderly residents. Elko County shows a larger percentage increase in the under-18 age
group.
As a percentage of the population, Humboldt County has seen a 1.1 percentage point
increase in the <18 population from 30.3% in 1990 to 31.4% in 2000. The percent of the
population age 65+ has increased more slowly in the county from 7.3% to 7.5%. In the
city of Winnemucca, 30.2% of the population was <18 years in 2000 and 9.0% was age
65+.
36
The percent of the population below 18 years of age in Humboldt and Elko County is
significantly higher than that of the State of Nevada as a whole (31.4% and 32.5%
respectively versus 25.6%). The disproportionate share of families with children, and the
increase in the number of children over the last decade, suggests that there is a need for
more family housing in the County.
Likewise, the percent of the population 65 years of age and above in Humboldt and Elko
County is lower than that of the State of Nevada as a whole (7.5% and 5.9% respectively
versus 11.0%). It is possible that older individuals are leaving Humboldt and Elko
County in higher numbers to retire elsewhere. The data, and our one-on-one interviews
with key informants, suggests that there is a need for more long-term care housing
options for older residents of Humboldt County.
Table 6: Population By Age Group <18 Years and 65+ Years
1990 and 2000
1990
County
#
2000
%
#
% Chg
90-00
%
# Chg
90-00
Population <18 Years of Age
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
3,895 30.3%
1,789 29.2%
10,810 32.2%
5,062 31.4%
2,168 30.2%
14,699 32.5%
296,948 24.7%
511,799 25.6%
30.0%
21.2%
36.0%
1,167
379
3,889
72.4% 214,851
Population 65+ Years of Age
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
934
517
2,042
7.3%
8.4%
6.1%
127,631 10.6%
1,213
643
2,676
7.5%
9.0%
5.9%
29.9%
24.4%
31.0%
279
126
634
218,929 11.0%
71.5%
91,298
Source: US Census
Disability
Data on disabilities from the 2000 U.S. Census is presented here to highlight the need for
barrier-free housing for this population. As seen in Table 7, the proportion of residents
with disabilities in Winnemucca and Humboldt County is lower than the overall State
percentages. This coincides with the lower percentage of people age 65 and above in the
Humboldt County. The only exception to this is in the area of sensory
disabilities—impairments that affect how well people see and/or hear—where 4.2% of
the population in Humboldt County in 2000 exhibited this disability, compared to 3.5%
of the state as a whole.
The percent of the population in Humboldt County with a physical disability alone
accounted for 6.7% of the population over age five, equating to 995 people. In
37
Winnemucca, the percentage is lower at 4.9%, 325 people. Based upon this data, and
again, on our one-on-one interviews with key informants, we believe that there is a great
need for more barrier-free housing to serve this population in Humboldt County.
Table 7: Disability by Type*
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County and State 2000**
Humboldt
County
Total Population 5 yrs +
Types of Disabilities
Sensory
Physical
Mental
Self-Care
14,812
616
995
495
248
Elko
County
Total Population 5 yrs +
Types of Disabilities
Sensory
Physical
Mental
Self-Care
%
Total
n/a
1,467
2,564
1,287
585
6,578
4.2%
6.7%
3.3%
1.7%
%
Total
41,449
Winnemucca
n/a
3.5%
6.2%
3.1%
1.4%
240
325
188
92
State
1,823,351
63,053
144,178
70,153
39,961
%
Total
n/a
3.6%
4.9%
2.9%
1.4%
%
Total
n/a
3.5%
7.9%
3.8%
2.2%
*Civilian noninstitutionalized population age 5 years and over. Data includes
double counting--one person can have more than one type of disability.
**1990 data excluded--not comparable to 2000 data.
Source: US Census
Employment
Employment by industry data for 2006 (the most recent full year of data) was gathered
for Humboldt County, Elko County and the State of Nevada. This data does not include
agricultural employment, which is a small but historically important sector of Humboldt
County’s economy.1 For instance, Winnemucca Farms, a potato farming and processing
operation, is one of the larger employers in the County, with over 100 employees.
Table 8 shows that Humboldt County’s employment base is primarily in the natural
resources and mining industry (24.2%) followed by trade, transportation and utilities
(19.2%), government (18.5%) and leisure and hospitality (15.0%). In Elko County and
the State as a whole, employment in the leisure and hospitality industry dominates the
1
The University of Nevada Reno University Center for Economic Development (UCED) estimated 268
employees in the agriculture sector in Humboldt County in 2002. See “Analysis of Socio-Economic Data
and Trends for Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Humboldt County: Current
and Future Employment, Output, and Occupation Forecasts, Part IV,” Technical Report UCED 2004/05-23
38
economy with 29.3% and 26.3% of total employment, respectively. Natural resources
and mining in Elko County is the fourth most dominant industry (10.2%), after
government (19.0%) and trade, transportation and utilities (18.1%).
In 2005, the UNR University Center for Economic Development (UCED) projected a net
4.64% increase in jobs between 2002 and 2012 in Humboldt County, from 8,849 to
9,260. It also projected a shift in employment from mining and construction to financial
services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Notes the Study:
For Humboldt County, the Mining Sector is forecasted to decline by 17.57
percent, and the Service Sector is projected to increase by 15.68 percent. The
Service Sector is projected to have the largest employment numbers for Humboldt
County in 2012. Economic sectors forecasted to realize an employment increase
from 2002 to 2012 are the Agriculture Sector, the Manufacturing Sector, the
Retail Trade Sector, the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Sector, the Services
Sector, and the Federal Government, Military Sector. Along with the Mining
Sector, the Construction Sector is forecasted to realize a decrease of 15.95
percent in sectoral employment from 2002 to 2012. 2
Table 8: Non-Agricultural Employment by Industry
Humboldt County, Elko County, State 2006
County
Humboldt % of
Industry
Natural Resources & Mining
County
Total
County
State
Elko
% of
% of
County
Total
State
Total
1,840
24.2%
2,100
10.2%
11,600
0.9%
Construction
390
5.1%
1,310
6.4%
142,900
11.2%
Manufacturing
320
4.2%
210
1.0%
50,400
3.9%
1,460
19.2%
3,730
18.1%
226,000
17.7%
90
1.2%
190
0.9%
15,200
1.2%
Financial Activities
120
1.6%
520
2.5%
65,300
5.1%
Professional & Bus.Services
390
5.1%
920
4.5%
157,900
12.3%
Education & Health Services
270
3.5%
1,100
5.3%
87,700
6.9%
1,140
15.0%
6,050
29.3%
337,000
26.3%
180
2.4%
570
2.8%
35,500
2.8%
Government
1,410
18.5%
3,920
19.0%
150,200
11.7%
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
7,610 100.0%
20,620
Trade, Transp. & Utilities
Information
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Source: Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation
2
Technical Report UCED 2004/05-23, page 17.
39
100.0% 1,279,700 100.0%
As seen in Table 9, the largest major employers in Humboldt County—businesses or
organizations with 100+ workers—are gold ore mining and engineering services
companies, followed by the school district, various government entities, casinos, medical
services, retail, and agriculture. Jobs in the trade, transportation and utilities industry,
such as retail salespersons and warehouse laborers, those in the leisure and hospitality
industry, such as casino service workers, and those in agriculture, such as farm laborers
are typically low-paying positions. The mining industry and related businesses, on the
other hand, provide significantly higher paying jobs for the local economy.
The median income in Humboldt County masks the relatively large number of workers in
the low-income service and laborer sectors who may need assistance with shelter costs.
As will be illustrated later in this chapter, employees who earn low wages have problems
with both housing affordability and availability in Humboldt County.
Table 9: Major Employers--100+ Employees
Humboldt County FY 2008
Employer
Newmont Mining Corporation
FMG, Inc.
Humboldt County School District
Winners Hotel and Casino Inc.
City of Winnemucca
Flying J, Inc
Humboldt County
Humboldt General Hospital
Parker's Model T, Inc.
Red Lion Inn and Casino
Schmueser & Associates
Sierra Pacific Power Company
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Winnemucca Farms, Inc.
Number of
Employees
Industry
900 - 1,099 Gold Ore Mining
500 - 599 Engineering Services
Elementary and Secondary
400 - 499 Schools
300 - 399 Casino Hotels
100 - 199 Government Services
100 - 199 Gasoline Services
Executive and Legislative Offices
100 - 199 Combined
General Medical and Surgical
100 - 199 Hospitals
100 - 199 Engineering Services
Fossil Fuel Electric Power
100 - 199 Generation
Warehouse Clubs and
100 - 199 Supercenters
100 - 199 Potato Farming
Unemployment
Unemployment rates for 1990 and from 1995 through March 2008 are presented in Table
10. Historically the State of Nevada has consistently been at or below the national
average. Starting in 2007, however, the State’s unemployment rate rose above the U.S.
average.
Since 2004, unemployment rates have been extremely low in Humboldt and Elko County,
40
the result of increases in exploration and mining employment. In 2007, the United States
unemployment rate was 4.6% compared to the State at 4.8%, 3.9% for Humboldt County,
and 3.5% in Elko County. First quarter 2008 unemployment rates are averaging 4.7% for
Humboldt County, 4.3% for Elko County, 5.8% for the State, and 4.9% nationwide.
Despite the recent increase in unemployment in Humboldt County and Nevada’s other
mining-oriented counties, these counties are currently faring better than other parts of the
State. According to the March 2008 Current Labor Force and Industrial Employment
Report published by the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and
Rehabilitation, “The only good news came from the State’s mining regions. Elko,
Esmeralda, Humboldt, Lander and White Pine counties posted unemployment rates
below 5.0 percent in March.”
Table 10: Unemployment Rates
Humboldt County, Elko County and State 1990, 1995 to March 2008
County
1990 1995 1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
% Chg
90-00
Humboldt County
Elko County
5.6% 4.5%
5.2% 6.0%
3.9%
5.1%
4.5%
4.8%
6.7%
5.9%
6.3%
5.1%
4.9%
3.9%
-12.5%
-25.0%
State of Nevada
5.1% 5.6%
5.2%
4.5%
4.4%
4.3%
4.5%
% Chg
00-08
County
2001 2002 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
-11.8%
JanMarch
2008
Humboldt County
Elko County
5.7% 5.6%
5.0% 4.6%
5.0%
4.6%
4.0%
3.9%
3.7%
3.6%
3.8%
3.6%
3.9%
3.5%
4.7%
4.3%
-4.1%
10.3%
State of Nevada
5.3% 5.7%
5.3%
4.5%
4.2%
4.2%
4.8%
5.8%
28.9%
Housing Units and Vacancy Rates
Housing data for Humboldt County is available from two primary sources: the decennial
U.S. Census for 1990 and 2000 and the Humboldt County Assessors Office.
As seen in Table 11, housing units in Humboldt County increased by 1,910 (37.9%)
between 1990 and 2000. Almost 44% (838) of these units were located within the city of
Winnemucca. Most of the county’s housing growth was in mobile home/manufactured
housing, as will be presented later. As exhibited in Table 1, the population of Humboldt
County increased by 23.7% between 1990 and 2000. So, the increase in housing units
exceeded population growth by almost 15% during this period.
In 2000, Humboldt County and the City of Winnemucca exhibited extremely high
housing vacancy rates. 17.6% of housing units in the County (1,221 units) and 16.6% in
the City (544 units) were reported as vacant in 1999, at the time of the last decennial
Census. This date coincides with the tail
end of the last economic “bust” cycle in
41
Humboldt County. The point-in-time vacancy rate in the 2000 Census is 291.4% higher
than the vacancy rate in 1990 in the City of Winnemucca and 141.3% higher in Humboldt
County. This data provides a cautionary tale of overbuilding and abandonment that has
been emblematic of rural Nevada.
Vacancy rates have changed significantly since 2000, reflecting the recent surge in
mining activity in Humboldt County. Although updated statistical data for overall
housing units is not available, information from Winnemucca realtors and property
managers reveals that the current inventory of for-purchase and for-rent housing is
relatively low.
Among both market-rent and subsidized apartment complexes there are currently waiting
lists, with waits up to six months or more in some cases.
Table 11: Housing Units - Total, Vacant and Occupied
1990 and 2000
1990
2000
% Chg
# Chg
90-00
90-00
#
%
#
%
Humboldt County
5,044
n/a
6,954
n/a
37.9%
1,910
Winnemucca
2,442
n/a
3,280
n/a
34.3%
838
13,461
n/a
18,456
n/a
37.1%
4,995
518,858
n/a
827,457
n/a
59.5% 308,599
Total Housing Units
Elko County
State of Nevada
Vacant
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
506 10.0%
1,221 17.6%
141.3%
715
5.7%
544 16.6%
291.4%
405
1,684 12.5%
2,818 15.3%
67.3%
1,134
45.1%
23,731
139
52,561 10.1%
76,292 9.2%
Occupied
Humboldt County
4,538 90.0%
5,733 82.4%
26.3%
1,195
Winnemucca
2,303 94.3%
2,736 83.4%
18.8%
433
11,777 87.5%
15,638 84.7%
32.8%
3,861
466,297 89.9%
751,165 90.8%
Elko County
State of Nevada
61.1% 284,868
Source: US Census
Table 12 highlights the change in the
number of housing units in Humboldt
42
County and Winnemucca between 2000, 2005, and 2007. Note that the 2000 numbers
are somewhat different from the US Census totals in Table 11 due to different data
sources (County Assessor and U.S. Census). The increase in housing units has been
considerably slower in the 2000s compared to the 1990s. From 2000 to 2005, there were
only 31 units added to the County with a loss of five units in the city. Between 2005 and
2007 the number of units increased substantially with 164 residences added in the
County, 63 of which were in Winnemucca. The percentage of Humboldt County’s
housing units within the city of Winnemucca has remained consistent in the 2000s,
around 46.5%.
Still, housing production lagged significantly behind population growth this decade.
Based upon Table 1, the Humboldt County population increased by 1,946 persons from
2000 to 2007, or a 12.1% increase. With an average household size in Humboldt County
of 2.77, there was an increase of approximately 702 households during this period.
However, only 195 units were added to the County’s inventory during this period,
representing a 3.0% increase in the housing stock.
Clearly, some of the population growth this decade was absorbed by the existing housing
inventory, which exhibited high vacancy rates in 2000 (See Table 11.) However, based
upon our Employer Survey and one-on-one interviews with key informants, we believe
there is now a need for new housing production to accommodate additional growth.
Table 12: Total Housing Units
Humboldt County and Winnemucca 2000, 2005, 2007
2000
2005
2007
% Chg
# Chg % Chg # Chg % Chg # Chg
#
#
#
00-05
00-05 05-07 05-07 00-07 00-07
Humboldt County
6,602 6,633
6,797
0.5%
31
2.5%
164
3.0%
195
Winnemucca
3,092 3,087
3,150
-0.2%
(5)
2.0%
63
1.9%
58
City % of County
46.8% 46.5% 46.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Source: Humboldt County Assessor
With the increase in mining activity and new industry coming to the Winnemucca area,
the rental market in particular will continue to be squeezed and the need for affordable
housing will also likely increase.
Vacancy rates have a direct correlation with housing affordability. Rents tend to go down
when vacancy rates increase. Inversely, a low percentage of housing units that are vacant
typically signals an increase in rental rates. Demand pushes housing costs up, especially
in high growth areas.
At the end of the section, we discuss data on rental housing and homeownership
affordability, both of which correlate with changes in vacancy rates.
43
n/a
Owner Occupied and Rental Occupied Housing Units
As incomes increased in the 1990s, homeownership rates increased in Humboldt and
Elko Counties and across the State. Table 13 shows that the percentage of owner
occupied housing units across Nevada increased from 54.8% in 1990 to 60.9% in 2000.
Table 13: Occupied Housing Units - Owner and Renter
1990 and 2000
1990
County
#
2000
%
#
% Chg # Chg
%
90-00
90-00
Owner Occupied
Humboldt County
3,054 67.3%
4,197 73.2%
37.4%
1,143
Winnemucca
1,432 62.2%
1,822 66.6%
27.2%
390
7,592 64.5%
10,937 69.9%
44.1%
3,345
255,388 54.8%
457,247 60.9%
1,484 32.7%
1,554 27.1%
4.7%
70
871 37.8%
914 33.4%
4.9%
43
4,185 35.5%
4,701 30.1%
12.3%
516
210,909 45.2%
293,918 39.1%
39.4%
83,009
Elko County
State of Nevada
79.0% 201,859
Renter Occupied
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
Source: US Census
Homeownership rates, which are higher in rural Nevada, also increased in the 1990’s.
homeowners by 2000. Homeownership in Winnemucca increased from 62.2% to 66.6%
over this period, for a total of 390 new home owners.
As ownership rates increased in Humboldt County, the percent of housing units occupied
by renters declined from 32.7% to 27.1%. Only 70 rental units were added in the 1990s,
43 of them within Winnemucca. Although homeownership increased in the 1990s and
early 2000s, the trend is currently flattening out as a result of the mortgage crisis and
stagnant wages. According to a December 2004 report by the Federal Reserve Bank,
Nevada ranks poorly on its rate of homeownership, at 44th in the nation.3
3
“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.
44
Housing Types and Age
Information on housing types in Humboldt County, Elko County, and the State is
highlighted in Table 14. The table presents statistics on single-family, detached housing,
multiple family/other housing, and mobile homes from the 1990 and 2000 Census. Table
15 provides data on housing types for 2000, 2005, and 2007 from the Humboldt County
Assessor for the County and for Winnemucca. Note that the 2000 numbers are somewhat
different between the tables due to the different data sources.
Humboldt County, Elko County and State 1990, 2000
1990
County
2000
#
%
% Chg
# Chg
90-00
90-00
#
%
2,421
48.0%
3,175
45.7%
31.1%
754
580
11.5%
836
12.0%
44.1%
256
2,043
40.5%
2,943
42.3%
44.1%
900
5,044
100.0%
6,954
100.0% 37.9%
1,910
Single Family Detached
5,965
44.3%
9,330
50.6%
56.4%
3,365
Multiple Family/Other
2,590
19.2%
3,490
18.9%
34.7%
900
Mobile Homes
4,906
36.4%
5,636
30.5%
14.9%
730
13,461
100.0%
18,456
100.0% 37.1%
4,995
235,912
45.5%
432,437
52.3%
83.3% 196,525
213,291
41.1%
315,159
38.1%
47.8% 101,868
69,655
13.4%
79,861
9.7%
518,858
100.0%
827,457
Humboldt County
Mobile Homes
TOTAL
Elko County
TOTAL
State of Nevada
Mobile Homes
TOTAL
14.7%
10,206
100.0% 59.5% 308,599
Source: US Census
As seen in Table 14, mobile homes comprised 42.3% of the housing stock in Humboldt
County (2,943 units) in 2000. This inventory of mobile home housing stock is relatively
high, even when compared with other rural Nevada counties. Only Eureka (58.4%),
Lander (55.0%), Nye (49.4%), Esmeralda (49.0%), and Pershing County (43.7%), have
higher percentages of mobile home housing stock. As comparison, Elko County
exhibited 30.5% mobile home housing stock in 2000, and the State of Nevada as a whole,
9.7%.
45
Likewise, the number of detached, single-family and multi-family units as a percentage
of the total housing stock in Humboldt County is relatively low. Single-family, detached
units comprised 45.7% of the housing stock (3,175 units) in 2000, compared with 50.6%
in Elko County and 52.3% in the State of Nevada as a whole. Multiple-Family/Other
units comprised only 12.0% of the total housing stock in Humboldt County (or 836
units), compared with 18.9% in Elko County and 38.1% across the State.
This profile of the housing inventory has important implications for housing planning and
preservation. For instance, in our interviews with key informants in Humboldt County,
we heard repeatedly about the problem of overbuilding in the mobile home/
manufactured housing sector in the late 1990’s, leading to lowered property values and
abandonment. Interviewees spoke of the need for more quality housing, both multifamily and detached single-family, and housing development closer to services and the
City center.
Table 14 also details the changes in the housing stock between 1990 and 2000 based
upon U.S. Census data. As noted in the last section, the decade saw a 37.9% increase in
the number of housing units in Humboldt County. The type of units added was relatively
evenly spread between mobile homes with a 44.1% increase, multiple family/other,
44.1% increase, and single-family detached with the lowest increase at 31.1%. In terms
of shear numbers, mobile homes increased by 900, single-family detached homes by 754,
and multiple family/other by 256.
The percent of housing units that are mobile homes increased from 40.5% to 42.3% in
Humboldt County in the 1990s, but declined in both Elko County and the State as a
whole. The share of single-family units as a proportion of all housing units decreased
between 1990 and 2000 from 48.0% to 45.7% whereas the share increased in Elko
County and the State as a whole. The percent of the housing stock that is
multifamily/other housing increased slightly in Humboldt County from 11.5% in 1990 to
12.0% in 2000, but declined elsewhere.
Table 15 shows that there was only a 3.0% increase in the number of housing units in
Humboldt County between 2000 and 2007, much lower than the 37.9% increase in the
1990s. The vast majority (183 units) of new residences were single-family detached, for
a 6.9% gain over 2000. The largest percentage gain was among multi-family housing at
8.1% with 40 units added. The percentage gain is relatively high given the small number
of multiple family units in the County. Declines were seen in the number of
manufactured homes and single-family attached residences. A similar overall pattern is
evident in the city of Winnemucca. The number of manufactured homes, however,
dropped more significantly (-110 units, -16.8%), offset by 131 new single-family
detached residences. Though, while we see a decline in the overall number of
manufactured housing units, there has been large growth in the number of manufactured
units that are categorized as being real property. Humboldt County saw the addition of
301 units from 2002 to 2007, a growth of 46%.
46
Winnemucca and Humboldt County 2000-2007
2000
2001
2002
2003
2,648
98
2,659
96
2,650
99
2,650
100
3,362
3,327
648
2,663
666
2,577
494
538
538
538
6,602
6,620
6,598
6,531
1,857
89
1,856
88
1,851
91
1,855
91
656
629
35
553
36
526
490
532
532
532
3,092
3,105
3,062
3,040
46.8%
46.9%
46.4%
46.5%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2,677
98
2,734
97
2,782
92
2,831
91
736
803
874
949
2,518
2,465
2,428
2,392
537
534
534
534
6,566
6,633
6,710
6,797
Single Fam. Detached
1,877
1,923
1,956
1,988
Single Fam. Attached
91
90
89
88
39
514
43
503
49
494
54
492
531
528
528
528
3,052
3,087
3,116
3,150
46.5%
46.5%
46.4%
46.3%
Humboldt County
Manufactured*
Real Property
Personal Property
Multi-Family
TOTAL
Winnemucca
Manufactured*
Real Property
Personal Property
Multi-Family
TOTAL
City % of County
Humboldt County
Manufactured*
Real Property
Personal Property
Multi-Family
TOTAL
Winnemucca
Manufactured*
Real Property
Personal Property
Multi-Family
TOTAL
City % of County
47
# Chg
00-05
% Chg
00-05
# Chg
00-07
% Chg
00-07
Humboldt County
Manufactured
Multi-Family
TOTAL
86
(1)
(94)
3.2%
-1.0%
-2.8%
183
(7)
(21)
6.9%
-7.1%
-0.6%
40
8.1%
40
8.1%
31
0.5%
195
3.0%
66
1
(110)
3.6%
1.1%
-16.8%
131
(1)
(110)
7.1%
-1.1%
-16.8%
38
7.8%
38
7.8%
(5)
-0.2%
58
1.9%
Winnemucca
Manufactured
Multi-Family
TOTAL
* Distinction between real and personal property was not made until 2002 Assessor's
Housing Count
As housing plans are developed for Humboldt County, particular attention should be paid
to the relatively low percentage of multiple family housing found in the area. In 2007,
only 7.9% of Humboldt County’s housing stock was multi-family, as defined by the
County Assessor. The City has a higher but still relatively low percentage of multifamily units (16.8% of total). A discussion of building permits, below, further highlights
the low number of new and replacement multi-family units being developed in the
County in the 2000s.
Humboldt County, and particularly the City of Winnemucca, suffer from a relatively aged
housing stock as compared to Elko County and the State as a whole. (See Table 16.)
Based upon 2000 Census data, the median year of structures in Humboldt County was
1982, over 25 years old. This is compared to 1984 for Elko County and 1986 for the
State. The median age housing structure in the City of Winnemucca was 1978, or 30
years old. In fact, over one-third (36.0%) of the housing stock in the City in 2000 was
built before 1970, compared to 22.6% in Elko and 17.5% for the State.
48
Table 16: Year Structure Built
Winnemucca, Humboldt County, Elko County, State, 2000
#
% Total
Year Structure Built Humboldt Humboldt
1939 or earlier
#
% Total
#
% Total
Winn.
Winn.
Elko
Elko
#
% Total
Nevada Nevada
409
5.9%
275
8.3%
1,133
6.1%
13,921
1.7%
1940-1969
1,432
20.6%
922
27.7%
3,046
16.5%
130,951
15.8%
1970-1989
2,872
41.3%
1,300
39.2%
7,885
42.7%
332,142
40.1%
1990-March 2000
Median Year Built
2,241
1982
32.2%
n/a
822
1978
24.8%
n/a
6,392
1984
34.6%
n/a
350,443
1986
42.4%
n/a
Source: US Census
As we noted in the previous section, a sizable percentage of the housing stock added in
the 1990s consisted of manufactured homes—likely of a lower quality than older stickbuilt houses. The late 2000s has seen resurgence in home building in Humboldt County,
which will result in improvements in the quality of the inventory. However, planners
should investigate ways encourage the rehabilitation and replacement of older units as
part of a comprehensive housing policy.
Affordable Housing Inventory
Humboldt County’s subsidized affordable housing inventory comprises 240 rental units
in seven developments, all located in the City of Winnemucca. (See Table 17.) The total
number of renter-occupied units in 2000 was 1,554. Therefore subsidized housing
constitutes approximately 10.6% of the County’s total rental housing stock.
Five of the seven developments were financed through the United States Department of
Agriculture Rural Development (USDA-RD) Section 515 program. Two of the
developments were financed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits allocated through
the Nevada Housing Division. Approximately three-quarters of the units (71.7% or 172
units) serve families; the remaining 28.3%, or 68 units, serve the elderly, age 62 and
above. About two-thirds of the housing units have project-based rental assistance
attached to the units, meaning that the units can serve very low-income rental households,
who pay only 30% of their adjusted gross income. Affordable rental housing units
therefore comprise a little less than half of all multi-family housing units (44.9%, or 240
out of 534 units) in Humboldt County.
The most recent affordable housing development in Humboldt County, Mountain View,
opened in about 2000. There has also been a significant effort to maintain and upgrade
the older USDA-RD properties. Humboldt Village and Sunrise Quarters, built in the
mid-70s, were rehabilitated in 2003 with financing through the Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit program. Funding applications are currently pending for the rehabilitation of
Willowbrook I and II, which were built in
the late-1980s.
49
Table 17: Subsidized Rental Housing
Winnemucca 2008
Project Name
Opening
Date
Recap.
Date Financing
Humboldt Village Apts. & Annex
Mountain View
Sunrise Quarters Apartments
Willowbrook I Apts.
Willowbrook II Apts.
Willowbrook III Apts.
Winnemucca Manor
7/20/74 2003 USDA-RD/NHD
2000
n/a
NHD
n/a
2003 NHD
4/3/87 new app. USDA-RD/NHD
5/31/88 new app. USDA-RD/NHD
1/12/95
n/a
USDA-RD/NHD
8/19/75
n/a
USDA-RD
Project Name
Type
Units
Rent
Assist
% units
Rent Ass
Family
Family
Family
Family
4
Elderly
Elderly
Elderly
3
7
66
41
29
36
172
28
20
20
68
240
63
0
0
35
98
28
20
19
67
165
95.5%
0.0%
0.0%
97.2%
57.0%
100.0%
100.0%
95.0%
98.5%
68.8%
Project Name
Wait
List*
% units
Wait List
Mountain View
Total Family
Willowbrook I Apts.
Winnemucca Manor
Total Elderly
TOTAL ALL
15
31
n/a
29
75
19
12
8
39
114
22.7%
75.6%
n/a
80.6%
43.6%
67.9%
60.0%
40.0%
57.4%
47.5%
Mountain View
Total Family
Willowbrook I Apts.
Winnemucca Manor
Total Elderly
TOTAL ALL
*As of February 2008
Sources: Nevada Housing Division (NHD), US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
US Dept of Agriculture-Rural Development (USDA-RD), Weststates Property
Management Co.
According to local property managers, there are significant waiting lists at six of the
seven subsidized rental housing complexes in Winnemucca. As of February 2008, there
were 75 individuals waiting for family units, or 43.6% of the 172 units available. Among
the three elderly complexes, there were 39 people, or 57.4% of the 68 units available.
See Table 17. There is a clear need for more subsidized rental housing in the City of
50
Winnemucca, as well as the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock.
Table 18 indicates the number of HUD Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly known as
“Section 8”) available in Humboldt County for rental assistance. Of the 30 vouchers
currently in use in Humboldt County, 13 are allocated to families/individuals, 8 to elderly
households, and 9 to disabled households.
Housing choice vouchers are administered by the Nevada Rural Housing Authority,
based in Carson City. The Voucher pays the difference in rent between 30% of the
tenants’ income and the actual rent in private market, unsubsidized housing, up to a
maximum Fair Market Rent (FMR). There is a waiting list of 21 households in
Humboldt County for new Vouchers.
The number of people on the waiting list for both the subsidized apartment complexes
and the Housing Choice Voucher program further highlights the significant need for
additional affordable housing in the Winnemucca area.
Table 18 -HUD Housing Choice Voucher
Program*--Vouchers by Type
Humboldt County 2008
Vouchers
Waiting Wait %
Total
List
Total
Family/Individual
Disabled
Elderly
TOTAL
13
9
8
12
5
4
92.3%
55.6%
50.0%
30
21
70.0%
*The Voucher pays the difference in rent between 30% of the
tenants’ income and the actual rent in private market,
unsubsidized housing, up to a maximum Fair Market Rent (FMR).
Source: Nevada Rural Housing Authority
Building Permits and Vacant Land
Humboldt County building permit data for single-family and multiple family housing for
1990 and from 2000 through March 2008 is presented in Table 19. As exhibited in the
data, there were few residential building permits issued in Humboldt County from 2001
to 2003—likely the result of overbuilding in the previous decade and a slow local
economy. Residential permits picked up at a modest rate between 2004 and 2007.
As noted above, residential production lagged significantly behind population growth this
decade. In particular, the data shows little construction multi-family housing during the
decade. From 2000 to 2007, 344 permits were issued, 264 (76.7%) for single-family
homes and 80 (23.3%) for multi-family units.
According to the Regional Planning Department, there are a number of single-family
projects with entitlements being built in small phases, as demand dictates. Residential
51
permits between 2000 and 2007 total 344 units. However, only 195 units were added to
the inventory during this period.
Currently, one 40-unit, market-rate, multi-family project is under construction in the
Winnemucca area. In 2007, 38 additional multi-family units were approved but are not
yet in construction.
The lack of new and replacement multi-family housing in Humboldt County is likely due
to low economic incentives to build such projects. Construction and development costs
have increased dramatically. Rents have not risen to a sufficient level to allow new
market-rate, multi-family projects to pencil.
Table 19: Humboldt County Building Permits
Number of Housing Units 1990, 2000 to March 2008
Units
1990 2000 2001
2002
2003
Single Family
47
6
6
8
26
Multi-Family
28
42
0
0
0
Two Family
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
75
48
6
8
26
Three and Four Family
Five or More Family
Total Units
Total
Units
Single Family
2004 2005 2006
As of
2007 00-07 Mar-08
47
58
61
52
46
13
Multi-Family
0
0
0
38
42
0
Two Family
0
0
0
2
0
0
Three and Four Family
0
0
0
0
0
0
Five or More Family
0
0
0
36
42
0
47
58
61
90
88
13
Total Units
Source: HUD State of the Cities Data Systems--Building Permit Database
52
And the subsidies to build new affordable multi-family housing in rural Nevada are
harder to come by. The main engine for affordable rental production in the rural areas,
the USDA-RD Section 515 program, was severely cut at the Federal level in the early
2000s. In particular, the rental assistance portion of the Section 515 program, which
allowed rural projects to serve extremely low-income senior and family households, was
phased out. The Nevada Housing Division competitive 9% Low Income Housing Tax
Credit program provides only enough subsidy in the 17 rural counties to fund one
approximately 40 unit project annually. And, as noted above, the last tax credit project
built in Winnemucca opened in 1996.
Zoning is also an important barrier to multi-family housing production in most
communities. We note here that very little vacant land in Winnemucca and Humboldt
County is zoned multi-residential. Based upon County Assessor data, there are only 6.04
acres, or 0.5% of all vacant residential land, zoned for multi-family housing in the City of
Winnemucca. In all of Humboldt County, there are only 353.04 acres zoned multifamily, 0.1% of the vacant residential acreage. Relaxing land use restrictions to allow for
higher densities in the City of Winnemucca, may encourage the development of more
multi-family rental housing. (See Table 20.)
Table 20: Vacant Residential Land--Zoned Single
Family and Multi-Residential
Humboldt County and Winnemucca 2007
Humboldt County
Vacant Residential Parcels
Zoned Single Family
Zoned Multi-Residential
Vacant Residential Acreage
Zoned Single Family
Winnemucca
Vacant Residential Parcels
Zoned Single Family
Vacant Residential Acreage
Zoned Single Family
% of
2007
2007
5,781.00 100.0%
5,759.00
99.6%
22.00
0.4%
290,194.22 100.0%
289,841.18
99.9%
353.04
0.1%
% of
2007
2007
373.00 100.0%
352.00
94.4%
21.00
5.6%
1,193.05 100.0%
1,187.01
99.5%
6.04
0.5%
Rental Housing Rates
Although median gross rents increased between 1990 and 2000, income gains typically
outstripped increases in median rent, so the percent of household income spent on rent
remained fairly stable from the beginning to the end of the decade. This is partly the
53
result of the dramatic downturn in the local economy by 1999, the date of the last
decennial Census.
Table 21 portrays the change in median rent and in rent as a percent of income for
Humboldt and Elko Counties, Winnemucca, and the State. Median rent in Humboldt
County increased $82 from $449 in 1990 to $531 in 2000, compared to the city of
Winnemucca with an increase of $136 from $364 to $500. The percent of household
income spent on rent in the County increased slightly from 18.4% to 19.0% whereas the
percent dropped from 20.7% to 19.2% in the City.
Table 21: Median Gross Rent* and Percent of Household Income Spent on Rent
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County and State 1990, 2000
1990
2000
% of
County
$
Hhld Inc
$
% Chg
% Chg
% of
$
% Hhld Inc
Hhld Inc
90-00
90-00
Humboldt County
$
449
18.4%
$
531
19.0%
18.3%
3.3%
Winnemucca
$
364
20.7%
$
500
19.2%
37.4%
-7.2%
Elko County
$
435
21.9%
$
583
21.2%
34.0%
-3.2%
State of Nevada
$
509
26.8%
$
699
26.5%
37.3%
-1.1%
*Gross rent is the monthly amount of rent plus the estimated average monthly cost
of utilities (electricity, gas, water and sewer) and fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.
Source: US Census
Current rental data in rural Nevada is very hard to track. For the purposes of this study,
we relied upon two sources—listings from a local realtor, and the HUD Fair Market Rent,
which is published annually and is used to set Housing Choice Voucher rental payments
to private landlords.
Table 22 highlights the median monthly rent in the Winnemucca area as of February
2008, provided by Humboldt Realty, LLC. The data includes both apartments and forrent single-family homes. It is assumed that most of the rents are net market rents with
little or no utilities included. For the 54 listings (includes one to four bedroom units), the
median net rent is $550. In order to compare these rents with the 1990 and 2000 US
Census median gross rents, a utility allowance of $128 is added to the median. A utility
allowance is the cost of a reasonable amount of utilities as determined by the local
Housing Authority for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. For this analysis, the
allowance included gas heat, gas water heating, and all electricity. The resulting gross
median rent (shelter plus utilities) is $678 in 2008, $178 more per month (36% increase)
than the median rent for Winnemucca in 2000. For Humboldt County the median gross
rent increased $147/month (28%) since 2000. Median gross rents in 2008 for onebedroom units are $540 and $615 for two-bedroom units.
54
We believe the above published rents may significantly underestimate the actual rents
currently being charged in Winnemucca. First, several of the Humboldt Realty listings
come from subsidized housing complexes, where the rents are by definition below
market. Second, based upon our key informant interviews, we learned that the newer
and/or well-maintained apartments are renting at much higher rates, with high demand
for new units. For example, two-bedroom apartments are renting at $750-$850 per
month, $250+ higher than the $500 median net rent for a two-bedroom seen in Table 22.
The relatively low rents may be an indication of the poor quality of a sizeable portion of
the existing rental housing stock in Winnemucca, which includes older apartment
developments, transient motels, and manufactured/mobile home rentals outside the City.
In some cases, the size, amenities and conditions of the units do not justify higher rents.
Table 22: Rental Listings
Winnemucca Area, February 27, 2008
Number of
Median
HUD Utility
Median
Units
Net Rent**
Allowance***
Gross Rent****
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
15
15
$450
$500
$90
$115
$540
$615
Three Bedroom
23
$650
$141
$791
1
$650
$174
$824
54
$550
$128
$678
Units*
Four Bedroom
Total Units
*Includes existing and new multiple family and single family housing
**Assumes net market rent, ie, no or limited utilities included.
***The cost of a reasonable amount of utilities as determined by HUD for the
Housing Choice Voucher Program. Includes gas heat, gas water heating, and electricity.
****The total/gross rental cost--shelter and utilities.
Source: Humboldt Realty, LLC, US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Rents
(FMRs) is another source of rental rates for Humboldt County. (See Table 23.) The
FMR is based upon the gross rent as calculated in the decennial Census, updated annually
based upon annual economic indicators.
55
Table 23 shows the FMRs for two-bedroom units in Humboldt County from 2000 to
2008. The 2008 FMR was $745, 23.5% higher than the 2000 FMR of $603. As noted in
Table 3, Median Family Income from 2000 to 2008 only increased by 18.9% over this
same period. Therefore rent levels outpaced income over the last 8 years, suggesting a
higher housing cost burden for renters in Humboldt County.
Table 23: HUD Fair Market Rents*--Two Bedroom Units
Humboldt County 2000-2008
Humboldt County
Monthly Rents
Humboldt County
Monthly Rents
2000
$603
2005
$671
2001
$610
2006
$693
2002
$629
2007
$717
2003
$653
2008
$745
2004
$671
% chg
00-08
23.5%
*Monthly rent HUD willing to pay for rental housing through the Housing
Choice Voucher Program, a rental assistance program that allows
participants to live in private market, unsubsidized housing. Fair Market)
Rents (FMRs) are gross rent estimates. They include the shelter rent
plus the cost of all tenant-paid utilities, except telephone, cable, or
satellite television service, and internet service
Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Tables 24 and 25 highlight data on rental housing affordability, specifically statistics on
those households who pay high percentages of their incomes on rent. Again, since this
data comes from the 1990 and 2000 Census, it probably understates current housing
affordability significantly.
As seen in Table 24, 21.0% of Humboldt County’s households in 2000 paid 30% or more
of their income on rent.4 Of these households 5.5% spent 50% or more of their income
on rent, considered a severe rent burden by HUD. These statistics for Humboldt County
are somewhat lower than those for the city of Winnemucca and Elko County. The State’s
statistics are significantly higher.
4
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”. For
low-income households, this burden is even greater, since there is less disposable income left after rent to
cover other essential living expenses.
56
Rental Hslds. Paying 30%+ and 50%+ of Hsld. Income on Rent
Humboldt County, Elko County and State 1990, 2000
1990
#
County/City
2000
% of
#
% Chg
% of
30% + Renters 30% + Renters
% Chg
%
# Renters Renters
90-00
90-00
2000*
#
%
50% + Renters
Humboldt County
248
17.5%
322
21.0%
29.8%
19.7%
85
5.5%
Winnemucca
143
14.8%
233
23.7%
62.9%
60.5%
62
6.3%
1,051
26.3%
1,146
25.0%
9.0%
-5.1%
462
10.1%
39.7% 114,455
39.1%
37.9%
-1.5% 49,693
17.0%
Elko County
State of Nevada
83,011
* 50% data only available for 2000
Source: US Census
From 1990 to 2000 as housing affordability improved with the rise in incomes, the
percent of households who paid 30% or more on rent increased in both Humboldt County
and Winnemucca, from 17.5% to 21.0% for the county and 14.8% to 23.7% in the city.
Both Elko County and the State saw a decline during the same time frame. Data for those
households that spent 50%+ of their income on rent is not available for 1990. As noted
above, we believe the percentage of households in 2008 with a high housing cost burden
is even greater.
Table 25 displays renter 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 atrisk households pay more than 30% of their income on rent. In Humboldt County, the
proportion of renter households with incomes at 50% or less of HUD’s AMI increased in
the 1990s from 27.4% to 36.7% in 2000. In all, 556 households in Humboldt County in
2000 had incomes at or below 50% of area median income and met the HUD definition
of “very low income” household. This means that while incomes went up in the 1990s, a
sizeable percentage of households were left behind.
This population tends to pay a significant proportion of their disposable income on
housing costs. In 2000, nearly half of these very low-income households in Humboldt
County paid more than 30% of their income on rent. Between 1990 and 2000, the
percentage of very low income households with a 30%+ rent burden increased from
41.9% to 46.4%. Winnemucca was even higher in 2000, with 56.2% of very low-income
households (or 205 households) paying more than 30% of their disposable income on
rent. No data is available for the City for 1990.
57
Households With Incomes 50% or Less of HUD AMI
Paying >30% of Income on Rent
1990 and 2000
Hholds with Inc 50% or < HUD AMI
1990
2000
% of
County
#
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
Hhld
#
%
% of
Chg
Hhld
90-00
384 27.4%
556 36.7% 44.8%
n/a
365 38.3%
n/a
1,398 34.2%
61,655 30.0%
1,522 32.5%
n/a
8.9%
92,989 31.7% 50.8%
Paying >30% of Hhold Inc on Rent
1990
2000
% of
County
Humboldt County
Winnemucca
Elko County
State of Nevada
#
Hhld
#
%
% of
Chg
Hhld
90-00
161 41.9%
258 46.4% 60.2%
n/a
205 56.2%
n/a
842 55.3%
6.0%
n/a
794 56.8%
48,192 78.2%
70,509 75.8% 46.3%
Source: HUD State of the Cities Database (CHAS)
As discussed earlier, vacancy rates have a direct correlation with housing affordability.
Rents tend to go down when vacancy rates increase. Inversely, a low percentage of
housing units that are vacant typically signal an increase in rents.
In the 1990s there was a modest increase in rent affordability as incomes grew faster than
rents. Generally, incomes in the 2000s have not kept pace with increased rental rates,
making rental housing less affordable in recent years. In light of the low vacancy rates
and higher rental rates in Humboldt County in the last few years, we expect the
percentage of households paying more than 30% or 50% of income on rent to have
increased significantly.
58
Percent of Renter Households With Any Housing Problems
Data on the percent of renter-occupied households that have any housing problems in
1990 and 2000 is presented in Table 26.
Table 26: Percent of Renter Households With
Any Housing Problems*
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County,
and State 1990, 2000
All Renter Households
County
Humboldt County
1990
2000
% Chg
%
%
90-00
24.9%
29.8%
19.7%
n/a
30.1%
n/a
Elko County
36.0%
30.3%
-15.8%
State of Nevada
45.9%
47.5%
3.5%
Winnemucca**
Rental HH W/Income <= 50% HUD AMI
County
Humboldt County
1990
2000
% Chg
%
%
90-00
57.6%
67.2%
16.7%
n/a
62.0%
n/a
Elko County
64.4%
65.0%
0.9%
State of Nevada
82.0%
81.3%
-0.9%
Winnemucca**
*Cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding
and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
**1990 data not available for Winnemucca
Source: US Dept of Housing and Urban Development
State of the Cities Database
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. Table 26 also highlights those renter households whose incomes are 50% or
less of HUD’s Area Median Income (AMI) that have any housing problems.
Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of renter households with any housing problems
increased in Humboldt and across the State—this while incomes increased in the 1990s.
Elko County’s percentage actually declined. Humboldt County showed an almost five
comparable in 2000 at 30.1%. No data for Winnemucca is available for 1990.
A significant number of those households in Humboldt County with incomes at 50% or
59
less of HUD’s AMI have housing problems. Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of
very low-income households with any housing problem increased from 57.6% to 67.2%,
or over two-thirds of very low-income households. The percentage with any housing
problem in the City of Winnemucca was lower in 2000 at 62.0%.
Wages Needed to Afford Apartment Rents
Table 27 shows the hourly wages needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment in the
Winnemucca area in 2007, based on HUD’s Fair Market Rent of $717. The rent includes
shelter and utility costs (gross rent). The wages assume that rental costs do not exceed
30% of income. The table also indicates median hourly wages for various occupations in
Humboldt County to show the ability of workers in these occupations to afford rental
housing.
The hourly wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment in Humboldt County is
$13.79. The median hourly wage for employees in all occupations represented in
Humboldt County is $16.80, higher than the wage needed to afford a two-bedroom
apartment.
As previously noted, employment in the Winnemucca area is dominated by the mining
industry, trade, transportation and utility industry, the leisure and hospitality industry, and
agriculture. Wages for a number of occupations within these employment sectors are
included in Table 27.
Most of the service workers employed in the leisure and hospitality industry and some of
those in the agriculture industry earn low wages, making the current cost of housing
burdensome. Gaming dealers, maids/housekeepers, waiters/waitresses, cooks and food
prep workers, retail sales workers, and farm workers and laborers all earn a median
hourly wage of less than $10.30/hour, less than needed to afford renting a two-bedroom
apartment. Truck drivers, earning an average hourly wage of $14.81, are the first
workers on the list to earn sufficient income to afford a two-bedroom rental.
60
Table 27 Hourly Wage Needed to Afford a Two-Bedroom Apartment
Compared to Median Hourly Wage by Occupation
Hourly
Wage
Wage Needed to Afford 2 Bedroom
Apartment*
$ Diff
2 BR
% Diff
2 BR
n/a
n/a
$
13.79
Occupation*
Gaming Dealers**
Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners
Waiters & Waitresses
Cooks & Food Prep Workers
Retail Sales Workers
Farm Workers & Laborers**
Truck Drivers, Light or Delivery Services
Construction Laborers
Gaming Supervisors
Carpenters
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total All Occupations
Laborers & Freight, Stock, & Material Movers
Extraction Workers
Police & Sheriff Patrol Officers
Primary, Secondary & Special Education
Teachers**
Registered Nurses
Mining & Geological Engineers
Lawyers**
Physicians & Surgeons
(7.21)
(7.16)
(7.13)
(6.37)
(4.91)
(3.51)
1.02
2.88
1.85
2.72
-52.3%
-51.9%
-51.7%
-46.2%
-35.6%
-25.5%
7.4%
20.9%
13.4%
19.7%
$
$
$
6.58 $
6.63 $
6.66 $
7.42 $
8.88 $
10.28 $
14.81
$
16.67
$
15.64
$
16.51
$
$
16.80 $
17.59
$
21.09
$
22.17
$
3.01
3.80
7.30
8.38
21.8%
27.6%
52.9%
60.8%
$
$
$
$
$
22.99
28.28
32.08
34.77
45.58
9.20
14.49
18.29
20.98
31.79
66.7%
105.1%
132.6%
152.1%
230.5%
$
$
$
$
$
* Hourly wage that must be earned so that rent does not exceed 30% of income,
a standard measure of affordability based on US Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) standards. 2007 HUD Fair Market Rent for 2 BR: $717/month.
Rent includes shelter and utility costs (gross rent).
** Data not available for Humboldt County. Wages from BOS-II (Balance of State),
which includes Humboldt Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, Pershing
and White Pine Counties.
Sources: NV Dept. of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation, 2007 NV OES Wage Report
US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Fair Market Rents
61
Tables 28 and 29 highlight data on homeownership affordability, specifically statistics
on those households who pay high percentages of their incomes on housing costs.
As seen in Table 28, 15.6% of Humboldt County’s and 18.0% of Winnemucca’s owner
households in 2000 paid 30% or more of their income on housing costs.5 Of these
ownership households, 3.3% in the county and 3.6% in the city spent 50% or more of
their income on housing, considered a severe housing burden by HUD. These statistics
are lower than those for Elko County and significantly lower than the State as a whole.
Although housing affordability improved overall with the rise in incomes from 1990 to
2000, the percent of households who paid 30% or more on homeownership costs
increased throughout the State. In Humboldt County the percentage declined slightly but
in the city of Winnemucca it rose from 10.7% to 18.0%. This suggests that while the
homeownership rate increased in Winnemucca throughout the 1990s, some households
were assuming a high shelter cost burden to become homeowners. During economic
downturns, such as the decline in the mining industry around the year 2000, these at-risk
households were more susceptible to financial crises that can lead to bankruptcy and
mortgage default.
Owner Households Paying 30%+ and 50%+ of Hsld. Income on Ownership Costs
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County and State 1990, 2000*
1990
2000
% of
County
2000
% of
#
Owner
#
30% +
HH
30% +
% Chg
Owner # Owners
HH
90-00
% Chg
% of
% Owners
#
Owner
90-00
50% +
HH
Humboldt County
231 16.4%
310 15.6%
34.2%
-5.2%
65
3.3%
Winnemucca
104 10.7%
240 18.0%
130.8%
67.6%
48
3.6%
459 12.1%
1,198 18.8%
161.0%
55.2%
423
6.6%
43,037 23.1% 99,946 27.5%
132.2%
18.8%
32,983
9.1%
Elko County
State of Nevada
*50%+ data not available in 1990.
Source: US Census
5
HUD considers those owner households paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs to have a
“high housing burden” and those paying more than 50% of their income on housing costs to have a “severe
housing burden”. For low-income households, this burden is even greater, since there is less disposable
income left after housing costs to cover other essential living expenses.
62
Table 29 displays ownership 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 ownership costs. In
Humboldt County, the proportion of ownership households with incomes at 50% or less
of HUD’s AMI declined in the 1990s from 17.5% to 13.7% in 2000. In the city of
Winnemucca, in 2000 the percentage of very low-income ownership households was
significantly higher (21.2%) than the County. No data is available for the City in 1990.
About one-half of these very low-income ownership households in Humboldt County and
in Winnemucca paid more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Between 1990 and
2000, the percentage of very low income households with a 30%+ housing cost burden
increased in the County from 44.5% to 52.1%.
Households With Incomes 50% or less of HUD AMI
Paying > 30% of Income on Ownership Costs
1990 and 2000
Hholds with Inc 50% or < HUD AMI
1990
2000
% of
County
#
Humboldt County
State of Nevada
#
% Chg
Hhlds
90-00
560 17.5%
572
13.7%
n/a
587
21.2%
n/a
1,250 15.8%
1,576
14.4%
26.1%
32,852 12.6%
56,130
12.3%
70.9%
Winnemucca*
Elko County
Hhlds
% of
n/a
2.1%
Paying >30% of Hhold Inc on Ownership Costs
1990
2000
% of
County
Humboldt County
Winnemucca*
Elko County
State of Nevada
#
Hhlds
#
% of
% Chg
Hhlds
90-00
249 44.5%
298
52.1%
19.7%
n/a
313
53.3%
n/a
511 40.9%
808
51.3%
58.1%
19,709 60.0%
36,470
65.0%
85.0%
n/a
*1990 data not available for Winnemucca
Source: State of the Cities Database
63
Again, we do not have cross-tabular data on housing cost burden in 2008 for owner
households. Based upon the increase in home values in the last several years, we expect
it has increased.
Percent Owner Households With Any Housing Problems
Data on the percentage of owner-occupied households that have any housing problems in
1990 and 2000 is presented in Table 30. 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. The table also highlights those owner
households whose incomes are 50% or less of HUD’s Area Median Income (AMI) that
have any housing problems.
Table 30: Percent Owner Household
With Any Housing Problems*
Humboldt County, Winnemucca, Elko County
and State 1990 and 2000
All Owner Households
County
Humboldt County
1990
2000
% Chg
%
%
90-00
21.8%
28.0%
28.4%
n/a
27.4%
n/a
Elko County
20.8%
27.0%
29.8%
State of Nevada
25.9%
30.4%
17.4%
Winnemucca
Owner HH W/Inc <=50% HUD AMI
County
Humboldt County
1990
2000
% Chg
%
%
90-00
56.3%
61.9%
n/a
62.0%
n/a
Elko County
49.4%
57.5%
16.4%
State of Nevada
62.3%
67.5%
8.3%
Winnemucca
9.9%
*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
In Humboldt and Elko Counties and the State, the percentage of owner households with
any housing problems increased—this while incomes rose in the 1990s. The two
counties showed a faster increase than the State, with Humboldt County rising from
21.8% in 1990 to 28.0% in 2000.
64
A substantial number of those owner households in Humboldt County with incomes at
50% or less of HUD’s AMI have housing problems. Between 1990 and 2000, the
percentage of very low-income households with any housing problems increased over
five percentage points from 56.3% to 61.9%.
As previously stated, this data suggests that while the homeownership rate increased in
Humboldt County 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.
Owner-Occupied Housing Values
Median owner-occupied home values for 1990 and 2000 are listed in Table 31. Nevada
saw a 48.4% increase in the 1990s in median home price from $95,700 to $142,000 in
2000. Although Humboldt County’s home values were lower at $74,000 in 1990 and
$117,400 in 2000, the increase was more than the State at 58.6%. Winnemucca’s home
values increased even more dramatically, rising 67.3% from $74,100 in 1990 to $124,000
in 2000.
Table 31: Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units
1990 and 2000
% Chg
County
1990
2000
90-00
Humboldt County
$
74,000
$ 117,400
58.6%
Winnemucca
$
74,100
$ 124,000
67.3%
Elko County
$
81,600
$ 123,100
50.9%
State of Nevada
$
95,700
$ 142,000
48.4%
Source: US Census
Table 32 shows the median sales price for all existing and new single-family homes and
manufactured homes in Humboldt County for the years 2000, 2004, and 2007, as
recorded at the Humboldt County Assessor’s Office. The 2008 data is based upon
listings for homes currently for sale as of February 2008 from Century 21 Sonoma
Realty.
From 2000 to 2007, single-family home sale prices rose a notable 68.0% from a median
of $100,000 to $168,000. The 2008 data shows a median asking price of $239,900 for
single-family homes, 42.8% higher than the 2007 median sales price. So, while the 2008
median sales price will probably be lower than the current asking price, we still expect a
significant increase in home sale prices this year.
65
(187.5%) from $40,000 to $115,000. The asking price for manufactured homes in 2008
is $137,750, 19.8% over the 2007 median sales price. The value of manufactured homes
appears to be much more sensitive to changes in the local economy than single-family
homes. The last downturn in the Humboldt County economy in the late 1990s saw a
significant drop in the value of manufactured homes, leading sometimes to foreclosure or
abandonment.
Table 32: Total Homes Sold and Median Sales Price
Humboldt County 2000, 2004, 2007, 2008
# Chg. % Chg.
City
2000
2004
2007
2008*
00-07
00-07
Single Family Homes
108
249
155
46
47
43.5%
Manufactured Homes**
117
150
147
54
30
25.6%
Total Homes Sold
Median Sales Price
Single Family Homes
Manufactured Homes**
$100,000
$40,000
$120,000 $168,000 $239,900 $68,000
68.0%
$55,000 $115,000 $137,750 $75,000 187.5%
*2008 figures based on homes currently for sale as of February 2008.
**Includes manufactured homes from land use codes 220, 230, and 260.
Sources: Humboldt County Assessor's Office, Century 21 Sonoma Realty
It is worth noting that Humboldt County and most of rural Nevada did not experience the
type of super-inflation and drop in single family home values that has been seen in
Washoe County and Clark County over the last five years. Consequently, Humboldt
County has been relatively immune to the recent foreclosure crisis in urban Nevada.
According to the Northern Nevada Business Weekly, Humboldt County posted only 3
foreclosure actions in March 2008.6 This is partly the result of the countercyclical
economy in the area, where housing demand is currently high. But locals also point to a
relatively conservative local culture, less intent upon speculation in real estate.
Homeownership Affordability Gap
Finally, we carried out a homeownership gap analysis for Humboldt County for 2000 and
2007. 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 Area Median Family Income (AMI). The 80% level is
the maximum income level for qualifying for HUD HOME funds, which is a common
down payment subsidy source. We calculated the affordability gap for both single-family
homes and manufactured homes. Table 33 presents the gaps calculated for both time
6
“ ‘What Foreclosure Problem?’ Rural Areas Wonder,” Northern Nevada Business Weekly, May 5, 2008,
Volume 6, Number 39, page 1.
66
periods and for both housing types. This analysis is also presented in a line graph,
Figure 1.
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.
Table 33 : Homeownership Affordability Gap
Single Family and Manufactured Homes
Humboldt County 2000 and 2007
2007
% Chg
00-07
Affordability Gap
2000
HUD Area Median Income (AMI)
80% AMI
Interest Rate*
Capitalized House Price Maximum @ 80% AMI**
Single Family Homes
Manufactured Homes
Median Home Value***
Single Family Homes
Manufactured Homes
Gap @ 80% AMI****
Single Family Homes
Manufactured Homes
$55,600 $61,300 10.3%
$44,480 $49,040 10.3%
8.04%
6.34% -21.1%
$120,250 $157,756
$118,450 $156,166
31.2%
31.8%
$100,000 $168,000 68.0%
$40,000 $115,000 187.5%
-$20,250 $10,244 -150.6%
-$78,450 -$41,166 -47.5%
* Freddie Mac. Average annual interest rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages.
** Assumes 28% of income available annually for shelter: mortgage, property taxes and insurance
*** Humboldt County Assessor's Office--median sales price for single family residences
**** Difference between Capitalized House Price Maximum and Median Home Value.
Sources: U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Humboldt County
Assessor, Freddie Mac.
The gap calculations are based on the HUD AMI for Humboldt County, average
mortgage rates by time period, an assumption that 28% of income is available annually
for housing costs (including principal and interest on a mortgage, taxes, and insurance),
and median sales prices for single-family and manufactured homes. As noted elsewhere,
the HUD AMI showed a large increase in the 1990s but has slowed considerably in the
2000s. However, there was a 7.8% increase in Humboldt County’s AMI from 2007 to
2008. Home values increased steadily in the 1990s but have risen dramatically in the last
few years.
Interest rates 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 Freddie Mac data, the average annual interest rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage
was 8.04% in 2000, and 6.34% in 2007. Therefore, a buyer’s purchasing power increased
between 2000 and 2007, based upon the lower cost of funds alone.
67
Based upon this gap analysis, the potential homebuyer at 80% of AMI in Humboldt
County was able to afford either a single-family or a manufactured home in 2000. The
gap in 2000 for a single-family home was -$20,250 and -$78,450 for a manufactured
home. In 2007, a positive gap ($10,244), signaling a lack of affordability, was calculated
for those homebuyers wishing to purchase a single-family home. Manufactured homes
were still affordable in 2007 with a -$41,166 gap.
To summarize, homeownership in the Winnemucca area became less affordable from
2000 to 2007. A household earning 80% of area median income in 2007, or $49,040,
would need a subsidy of about $10,244 in order to afford median priced single family
home at $168,000. We expect that this affordability gap has increased in the last year as
home prices continue to rise.
Keep in mind that the affordability gap over these seven years increased despite the drop
in interest rates. Home values appreciated and income levels rose modestly, offsetting
the decline in interest rates.
180000
Figure 1
Homeownership Affordability Gap
Single Family Homes and Manufactured Homes
Humboldt County 2000 and 2007
160000
140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
-20000
2000
80% Area Median Income (AMI)
80% Gap--Single Family
2007
Med Home Value-Single Family
80% Gap--Manufactured
Med Home Value-Manufactured
Annual Income Needed to Afford a Home
Table 34 and Table 35 indicate the annual income needed to afford a single-family home
or a manufactured home in Humboldt County in 2007. To be considered affordable, it is
assumed that the mortgage, taxes, and insurance do not exceed 28% of income. Median
annual incomes for various occupations in Humboldt County are presented to show the
ability of workers in these occupations to afford homeownership.
68
Table 34: Annual Income Needed to Afford a Single Family Home
Compared to Annual Median Income by Occupation
Annual
$
%
Income Difference Difference
Annual Income Needed to Afford a Single Family
Home*
$64,695
n/a
n/a
Occupation
Gaming Dealers**
Gaming Supervisors
Carpenters
Extraction Workers
Primary, Secondary & Special Education Teachers**
Registered Nurses
Lawyers**
$13,674 -$51,021
$13,790 -$50,905
$13,853 -$50,842
$15,434 -$49,261
$18,470 -$46,225
$21,378 -$43,317
$30,805 -$33,890
$34,674 -$30,021
$32,531 -$32,164
$34,341 -$30,354
$34,944 -$29,751
$36,587 -$28,108
$43,867 -$20,828
$46,114 -$18,581
$47,824 -$16,871
$58,822
-$5,873
$66,726
$2,031
$72,327
$7,632
$94,806
$30,111
-78.9%
-78.7%
-78.6%
-76.1%
-71.5%
-67.0%
-52.4%
-46.4%
-49.7%
-46.9%
-46.0%
-43.4%
-32.2%
-28.7%
-26.1%
-9.1%
3.1%
11.8%
46.5%
*2007 median sales price of single family homes per Assessors Office: $168,000.
To be considered affordable, conventional mortgage underwriting guidelines requires that not more than
28% of household income should be used to pay the mortgage, property taxes and insurance. Annual
income needed to qualify for a mortgage calculated using the average annual interest rate on a 30-year
fixed-rate mortgage from Freddie Mac. Assumes a 2% down payment and the use of private mortgage
insurance. Includes principal, interest, taxes and insurance.
**Data not available for Humboldt County. Wages from BOS-II (Balance of State), which includes
Humboldt Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, Pershing, and White Pine Counties.
Sources: NV Dept. of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation 2007 NV OES Wage Report,
Humboldt County Assessor
The annual income needed in 2007 to afford a single-family home in Humboldt County
was $64,695. The income needed to afford a manufactured home in 2007 was $47,665.
The median annual income for employees in all occupations Humboldt County in 2007
was $34,944, about one-half of the income needed to purchase a single-family home
without a significant burden.
As previously noted, employment in the Winnemucca area is dominated by the mining
industry, trade, transportation and utility industry, the leisure and hospitality industry, and
agriculture. Median incomes for a number of occupations within these employment
69
sectors are included in Table 34 and Table 35.
Table 35: Annual Income Needed to Afford a Manufactured Home
Compared to Annual Median Income by Occupation
Annual
$
%
Income Difference Difference
Annual Income Needed to Afford a Manufactured
Home*
$47,665
n/a
n/a
Occupation
Gaming Dealers**
Gaming Supervisors
Carpenters
Extraction Workers
Primary, Secondary & Special Education Teachers**
Registered Nurses
Lawyers**
$13,674 -$33,991
$13,790 -$33,875
$13,853 -$33,812
$15,434 -$32,231
$18,470 -$29,195
$21,378 -$26,287
$30,805 -$16,860
$34,674 -$12,991
$32,531 -$15,134
$34,341 -$13,324
$34,944 -$12,721
$36,587 -$11,078
$43,867
-$3,798
$46,114
-$1,551
$47,824
$159
$58,822
$11,157
$66,726
$19,061
$72,327
$24,662
$94,806
$47,141
-71.3%
-71.1%
-70.9%
-67.6%
-61.2%
-55.1%
-35.4%
-27.3%
-31.8%
-28.0%
-26.7%
-23.2%
-8.0%
-3.3%
0.3%
23.4%
40.0%
51.7%
98.9%
*2007 median sales price of manufactured homes per Assessors Office: $115,000.
To be considered affordable, conventional mortgage underwriting guidelines requires that not more than
28% of household income should be used to pay the mortgage, property taxes and insurance. Annual
income needed to qualify for a mortgage calculated using the average annual interest rate on a 30-year
fixed-rate mortgage from Freddie Mac. Assumes a 2% down payment and the use of private mortgage
insurance. Includes principal, interest, taxes and insurance.
**Data not available for Humboldt County. Wages from BOS-II (Balance of State), which includes
Humboldt Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, Pershing, and White Pine Counties.
Sources: NV Dept. of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation 2007 NV OES Wage Report,
Humboldt County Assessor
Most of the service workers employed in the leisure and hospitality industry and some of
those in the agriculture industry earn low wages that make housing costs extremely
onerous. Gaming dealers, maids/housekeepers, waiters/waitresses, cooks and food prep
workers, retail sales workers, and farm workers and laborers all earn median incomes of
less than $18,500/year, less than 30% of the income needed to afford single-family
homeownership, and less than 40% needed for purchasing a manufactured home.
As seen in Table 33, only three of the occupations listed—mining and geological
70
engineers, lawyers, and physicians and surgeons—have sufficient income as a single
earner to purchase a median priced single-family home without a significant housing cost
burden. Table 34 shows that in addition to those occupations mentioned above, teachers
and nurses also earn enough income to afford a median priced manufactured home, but
not a median priced single family home without a significant housing cost burden.
71
72
Chapter III: Key Informant Interviews
Introduction
In February 2008, Praxis Consulting Group LLC carried out one-on-one interviews and
focus groups with individuals knowledgeable about the Winnemucca housing market and
its impact on the local community, including realtors, property managers, developers,
general contractors, planners, public officials, bankers, social service providers, and local
employers. A list of those who took part in the interviews and focus groups is listed in
Table One below. We would like to thank all of the interviewees for their time and
thoughtful responses.
Table 1: Interview and Focus Group Participants
Terry Boyle, Red Lion Inn
Harold Hawkins, Vision West Realty
Michael Bumgartner, Humboldt County
School District
Dave Jensen, Humboldt County School
District
Lisa Costa-Campbell, Great Basin
College
Jackie Kerns, JOIN
Joyce Lacaillade, Regional Planning and
Zoning
Bill Deist, Humboldt County
Administrator
Dee Larios, Senior Citizens of Humboldt
County
Mimi Dumosch, Carry-On Trailer
Corporation
Hilmi Mohammad, Developer
Pamela Fabor, Humboldt Realty
Joyce ______, Winnemucca Farms
Catherine Cole Ferandelli, Realtor
Chelle Robinson, District Attorney's
Office
Helen Goucher, Weststates Property
Management
Dave Roden, U.S. Bank
Pat Gray, Sonoma Realty
Red Sheppard, TG Sheppard
Construction
Holly Gregory, Weststates Property
Management
Annie Vandermeer, Newmont Gold
Sandy Hammigrin, Regional Planning
and Zoning
Steve West, Winnemucca City Manager
73
The hour-long interviews and focus groups were organized as follows. First, we asked
participants to list what they saw as the greatest housing needs or problems in the
Winnemucca area. We also asked them how housing availability and affordability has an
impact on the economic health and growth prospects of the community. Interviewees
were then asked to identify any barriers to addressing housing need in the Winnemucca
area and to recommend strategies for addressing housing need. Twenty-three key
informants took part in either an in-person interview or a focus group.
The key informant interviews provide a rich source of qualitative data on local housing
needs, and is a complement to the other chapters of this report: the Employer Survey and
the analysis of demographic, housing and economic data.
Summary of Findings
Housing Needs—Rental Housing
•
•
Interviewees said that there are long waiting lists for apartments in the
subsidized developments. There is a need for more affordable units on the
ground.
•
Interviewees thought that there is also a need for more market-rate apartments
in the community, targeting working households who are above income for
subsidized housing, but cannot afford to buy.
•
The high demand for rental housing and limited supply has resulted in higher
rents in the last couple of years. Participants said that rents are increasingly out
of reach of low-income households and service employees. And, what is
available is of poor quality.
•
Newcomers and short-term employees have to wait six months to a year to
find permanent housing. They are increasingly finding housing in motels in
Winnemucca. One interviewee estimated that about half the motel units in town
are currently being used as weekly rentals.
•
Employers observed that long-time residents, particularly those in service
employment, are often stuck in their current housing. They cannot move to a
larger unit as their family grows. We heard instances of doubling-up and
overcrowding—of young adults forced to move back in with parents, because of
limited housing options. We also heard anecdotally of long-time residents leaving
the area because of the lack and cost of housing.
74
•
This lack of affordable and available rental housing has its social
costs—children living in motels or overcrowded housing, domestic violence,
and crime. Planners also pointed to the problem of illegal RV hook-ups and tent
camping within the City boundaries.
Housing Needs—Ownership Housing
•
There appears to be an adequate supply of ownership housing in the
Winnemucca area; but much of the new stock is priced out of reach of firsttime homebuyers and middle-income residents.
•
Interviewees see a need for more housing in the $160,000 to $175,000 range,
which would be affordable to households at or below 80% of area median
income. They offered a number of suggestions for how to get to this target price,
including small lot development, manufactured housing, reduction in
development standards, use of free or low cost BLM land, and use of government
subsidy to underwrite the cost of housing and/or infrastructure.
•
While rural Nevada has been immune, to date, to the epidemic of
foreclosures occurring in Clark and Washoe County, it is now more difficult
in Winnemucca to qualify for a mortgage. Many low- and moderate-income
residents of Winnemucca have credit problems that, even in the best of times,
would make obtaining a mortgage difficult.
Housing Needs—Manufactured Housing
•
According to interviewees, there was significant overbuilding in the
manufactured housing sector during the last economic boom period in the
mid-1990s. Much of this development occurred outside the City in Grass Valley,
on large lots with individual wells and septic.
•
Respondents said that it is more difficult to obtain financing for manufactured
housing than it was during the last boom period. Buyers are more wary of
investing in this housing type, because of the potential for wild fluctuations in
value, as compared with stick-built homes.
•
We also heard from interviewees about the environmental impact of sprawl in
the 1990s, much of it related to the growth in manufactured housing in Humboldt
County. They discussed the need for better land use planning to accommodate
future growth.
75
Housing Needs—Senior and Disabled Housing
•
Key informants pointed to the need for more housing options for senior and
disabled households. Those who cannot wait for assisted housing, because of
long waiting lists, or afford home health care, are forced to move out of county
for services—away from familiar surroundings and friends and family.
•
Respondents pointed to the lack of downsizing options in Winnemucca for
older adults living on their own in single-family homes. They also discussed the
need for more barrier-free housing in the community for physically disabled
residents and to promote aging in place.
•
Most of those we interviewed thought lack of housing made it more difficult to
recruit new workers to Winnemucca, particularly in low- to moderate-wage
jobs.
•
Those employers that draw primarily from the local resident population did
not see housing as a particular barrier to growth. Most of their employees
seemed to be housed—perhaps struggling with higher rents or overcrowding. The
most oft-cited issue facing local employers was the competition for employees
with high-paying jobs in the mines.
•
Some saw current housing conditions as a fact of life in eastern Nevada, with its
boom / bust economic cycles. There is no reason to respond with new policies or
programs, because the situation will correct itself in time.
•
Others thought Winnemucca had reached a watershed. Some interviewees
believed that there is a “steady state” need for more housing in Winnemucca,
both rental and ownership housing. The demand for units, particularly
“quality, stick-built housing,” is strong enough to withstand the next economic
downturn.
Barriers to Addressing Housing Need / Recommendations
Finally, we asked key informants to identify specific barriers in the Winnemucca area to
addressing the housing needs called out above. Here, responses fell into three broad
categories: Development Barriers, Financing Barriers, and Public Policy Barriers.
Development Barriers/Recommendations
•
Development barriers included the cost of infrastructure improvements and
hook-up fees and the limited pool of skilled trades in Winnemucca, which
contributes to high construction costs.
76
•
Some we interviewed thought that the City and County could reduce the cost of
housing development by relaxing site development standards—for instance,
allowing for a modified (drive over) curb in place of a standard concrete “L” curb
or reducing the length of driveway extensions.
Financing Barriers/Recommendations
•
Financing barriers raised by interviewees included credit problems, which
prevent low- and moderate-income homebuyers from obtaining a mortgage,
changes in the national economy and housing market, and the general mismatch
between the cost to create new housing and the income levels of those in need of
housing in Winnemucca.
•
Interviewees spoke of the need for more financial literacy education in the
schools, and of credit counseling and homebuyer training for first-time
buyers.
•
The direct cost to build and finance new housing exceeds the means of most local
residents. Without some form of public subsidy, some interviewees noted, the
market will not be able to address local housing need. Interviewees
recommended that the Workforce Housing Committee investigate Federal,
state, and local subsidy programs in order to achieve affordability in
housing.
Public Policy Barriers/Recommendations
•
Respondents felt that there is a need for more public education in Humboldt
County about who lives in subsidized housing and the link between
affordable housing and economic development. Interviewees thought that by
making housing a universal issue—affecting friends, family, and neighbors—it
would reduce the stigma associated with multi-family or subsidized housing in
rural Nevada.
•
Interviewees also thought that City and County government should take a
more pro-active role in promoting affordable and multi-family housing
development, by securing gap financing to make affordable or work force
housing projects feasible, identifying infill sites in the downtown appropriate for
multi-family housing, examining impact fees as they relate to infill, multi-family
projects, and exploring the use of the property tax exemption allowed under NRS
361.082 as one additional tool to leverage new investment in the community.
Please find below a more in-depth record of the interview findings, organized in sections
by housing need, community impact, and then barriers and recommendations. The
interview instrument can be found at the end of this chapter.
77
Housing Needs
Rental Housing
Rentals are non-existent around here. Brutal.
Need more rental units than houses for purchase.
Rentals are a huge need for service employees and lower-paid workers…
Service employees—families living in motels: Can afford to rent but can’t find a
place to rent.
Participants made a number of observations about rental housing. First, they said that
there is a lack of supply. There has been no new production of multi-family housing
since the beginning of the decade, with the exception of the 42-unit rental development
going up north of town.
Much of the existing multi-family rental housing is subsidized, serving very low-income
households. Interviewees said that there are long waiting lists for apartments in the
subsidized developments. There is a need for more affordable units on the ground.
However, participants observed that there is a sizeable renter population that is above
income, and therefore cannot qualify for subsidized housing. Noted one, “those who
make $12 an hour end up living in tents.” Interviewees thought that there is also a need
for more market-rate apartment housing in the community, targeting working households
who are above income for subsidized housing, but cannot afford to buy.
The high demand for rental housing and limited supply has resulted in higher rents in the
last couple of years. Participants said that rents are increasingly out of reach of lowincome households and service employees. And, what is available is of poor quality.
Respondents said that “nicer” units are very hard to find, and often are leased by word of
mouth. “You have to be a detective to find availability for rentals, because owners are
reluctant to advertise them to the public,” said one interviewee. Large apartments of
three or more bedrooms are in especially short supply.
Employers observed that long-time residents, particularly those in service employment,
are often stuck in their current housing. They cannot move to a larger unit as their family
grows. We heard instances of doubling-up and overcrowding—of young adults forced to
move back in with parents, because of limited housing options. We also heard
anecdotally of long-time residents leaving the area because of the lack and cost of
housing.
78
This lack of affordable and available rental housing has its social costs—children living
in motels or overcrowded housing, domestic violence, crime. Living in close quarters,
observed one social worker, can cause tensions in a family to flare up. There are few
housing options locally for domestic violence victims. Many stay put, considering the
alternatives in a small town. Planners also pointed to the problem of illegal RV hook-ups
and tent camping within the City boundaries.
Newcomers and short-term employees have to wait six months to a year to find
permanent housing. They are increasingly finding housing in motels in Winnemucca.
One interviewee estimated that about half the motel units in town are currently being
used as weekly rentals. We interviewed one person who has been living in a motel room
with a hot plate for the last six months, paying $900 a month. Others cited rents as high
as $1,300 and $1,750 month for motel living.
Respondents observed that transient employees in the exploration and mining fields, with
high hourly wages, can afford the high motel rents. Many come to Winnemucca without
families and so don’t mind the limited housing options. Some have houses in the
communities they left, which they cannot sell, and so could not afford to buy anyway.
Ownership Housing
The biggest need is for middle-income housing. Right now, the only housing
being built is for upper-income households.
There appears to be an adequate supply of ownership housing in the Winnemucca area;
but much of the new stock is priced out of reach of first-time homebuyers and middleincome residents.
While the Winnemucca housing market did not experience the hyperinflation that
occurred in urban Nevada in the mid-2000s, housing prices have gone up. Respondents
said that most of the new housing being built is priced above $300,000, and is not
affordable to most local residents. Local homebuilders are said to be very busy, but are
only building high-end units.
Interviewees see a need for more housing in the $160,000 to $175,000 range, which
would be affordable to households at or below 80% of area median income. They offered
a number of suggestions for how to get to this target price, including small lot
development, manufactured housing, reduction in development standards, use of free or
low cost BLM land, and use of government subsidy to underwrite the cost of housing
and/or infrastructure.
Several respondents pointed to the TG (“Red”) Sheppard project north of town as a
possible solution to the challenge of creating affordable workforce housing. According
to Mr. Sheppard, the first five units will come on line this fall. They will be 3 bedroom, 2
79
bath houses ranging from 1,072 to 1,460 square feet on 6,000 square foot lots. The
houses will be priced below $180,000. Mr. Sheppard said that he is able to achieve this
price by building at a higher density, thus spreading the cost of land and infrastructure
over multiple units, and by using panelization in the construction. The walls will be
framed in a controlled factory setting, shipped to the site, and lifted into place by crane.
Panelization typically results in higher quality construction and less spoilage. It also
shortens the on-site construction schedule.
One interviewee observed that there are still good values in single family homes in the
older parts of the downtown. However, we also heard that these older homes are
increasingly being converted from ownership to rental housing to serve the strong rental
housing market.
Finally, respondents said that the foreclosure crisis is having an impact on
homeownership in Winnemucca. While rural Nevada has been immune to date to the
epidemic of foreclosures occurring in Clark and Washoe County, it is now more difficult
to qualify for a mortgage. And, many low- and moderate-income residents of
Winnemucca have credit problems that, even in the best of times, would make obtaining
a mortgage difficult.
Manufactured Housing
In 1997 and 1998, manufactured homes were easy to obtain. Land was cheap.
But, when the jobs left, the people left, and there were a lot of foreclosures.
Hundreds of manufactured homes sat on the market…Mortgage companies are
now a lot more restrictive, and very few new manufactured homes are going in.
But, getting a stick-built home requires a one- to two-year wait. We need
housing! It’s a mess!
housing sector during the last economic boom period in the mid-1990s. Much of this
development occurred outside the City in Grass Valley, on large lots with individual
wells and septic. Interviewees discussed the problem of foreclosures and abandonment
that followed in the late 1990s, as the population declined.
Today, many of the mobile home parks in Winnemucca are only half full. Respondents
said that it is more difficult to obtain financing for manufactured housing than it was
during the last boom period. And, buyers are more wary of investing in this housing
type, because of the potential for wild fluctuations in value, as compared with stick-built
homes.
We also heard from interviewees about the environmental impact of sprawl in the 1990s,
much of it related to the growth in manufactured housing in Humboldt County. Several
pointed to the recent discovery of nitrates in well water in Grass Valley and of the
possibility of a development moratorium until sewer service can be extended to support
80
the urbanized unincorporated areas—at significant public cost. They discussed the need
for better land use planning to accommodate future growth.
Still, manufactured housing makes up almost half of the County’s housing stock. It costs
significantly less than stick-built, single-family homes. Any affordable housing plan in
Humboldt County will need to include manufactured housing as a component.
Housing for Seniors and Disabled Residents
When the local facilities are full, elderly and infirm residents get sent out of
County, which is a shame.
More planning for senior housing and aging-in-place [is needed]. Supportive
housing is not really available in Winnemucca. Both the nursing home and
Beehive have waiting lists.
Need for downsizing options for seniors in Winnemucca. There’s nowhere to go if
you want to sell your house and downsize in Winnemucca.
Not enough senior housing available. There is a 9-13 month waiting list for our
units. How many are forced to live with family when they’d rather be on their
own?
People aren’t educated on senior housing options.
Finally, key informants pointed to the need for more housing options for senior and
disabled households. They noted that the two housing options for infirm
residents—Harmony Manor, a nursing home, and the Beehive Homes of Winnemucca, a
small, assisted living home—are currently full with long waiting lists. Home health care
services are very limited in the community. Those who cannot wait for assisted housing
or afford home care, are forced to move out of county for services—away from familiar
surroundings and friends and family.
Only three of the seven subsidized housing developments in town, consisting of 68 units,
are restricted to elderly and disabled households. These have long waiting lists.
Respondents also pointed to the lack of downsizing options in Winnemucca for older
adults living on their own in single family homes. Some thought there might be a market
for apartment or condominium living close to services and the downtown.
Interviewees also discussed the need for more barrier-free housing in the community for
physically disabled residents and to promote aging in place.
81
A couple of new businesses/industries have come into the area, but the wages are
lower than the mines. More businesses would be attracted to the area if there was
affordable and middle-income housing available.
Housing may be a deterrent for new businesses—hard to own a home.
Need diversification of economic base to keep foreclosures down.
Yes, [housing is] absolutely limiting economic growth of area!
Very difficult to get good trades people (any trades)—no place for them to live.
Can’t find a place they can afford.
Housing is limiting the diversification of the economy.
Interviewees observed that the availability and affordability of housing has an impact on
local economic development. Most of those we interviewed thought lack of housing
made it more difficult to recruit new workers to Winnemucca, particularly in low- to
moderate-wage jobs.
A common rite of passage upon relocating to Winnemucca for some we interviewed was
living in a motel or temporary housing, then waiting six months to a year to buy a house.
This might not be a deterrent, if one were relocating to an executive position in town.
Interviewees saw the housing market as one of a number of barriers to attracting new
businesses to Winnemucca, which also included the isolation of rural Nevada and limited
access to retail, cultural, and health care services.
Those employers that draw primarily from the local resident population did not see
housing as a particular barrier to growth. Most of their employees seemed to be properly
housed—perhaps struggling with higher rents or overcrowding. The most oft-cited issue
facing local employers was the competition for employees with high-paying jobs in the
mines. As one person noted, “there are more jobs than people right now.” And another,
“It’s very competitive to find employees, and mining is at the top of the food chain.”
Some saw current housing conditions as a fact of life in eastern Nevada, with its boom /
bust economic cycles. There is no reason to respond with new policies or programs,
because the situation will correct itself in time.
Others thought Winnemucca had reached a watershed. They observed that the local
economy is more diverse than it was ten years ago, at the last downturn. Mining
operations are also structured differently today. The Newmont workforce was observed
to be fairly stable, with one mine in closure and reclamation and others ramping up. The
82
number of Newmont employees is about the same as one year ago. Based on this, some
interviewees believed that there is a “steady state” need for more housing in
Winnemucca, both rental and ownership housing. The demand for units, particularly
“quality, stick-built housing,” is strong enough to withstand the next economic downturn.
Barriers to Addressing Housing Needs / Recommendations
We then asked key informants to identify specific barriers in the Winnemucca area to
addressing the housing needs called out above. We also asked for recommendations on
addressing housing needs. Here, responses fell into three broad categories:
•
Development barriers, such as construction costs, lack of skilled trades, and
infrastructure costs;
•
Financing barriers, including an unpredictable local economy, lack of subsidies
for affordable housing, and poor individual credit histories; and,
•
Public policy barriers, including the need for more public education about housing
and the lack of pro-active government policies.
Development Barriers
Identified development barriers included the cost of infrastructure improvements and
hook-up fees and the limited pool of skilled trades in Winnemucca, which contributes to
high construction costs.
Interviewees estimated that it costs about $20,000 per lot in the City for site work,
including grading, roads, utilities, curbs and sidewalks. Hook up fees for sewer and
water can add another $4,000 per lot. Improved lots near the high school run from
$30,000 to $40,000, which makes it very difficult to deliver a finished house for under
$200,000.
Outside of town, unimproved land is available for $12,000 to $18,000 for 5 acres.
However, large-lot development outside the urban area may become more difficult in the
future because of transportation and water quality issues. One interviewee estimated the
cost of extending sewer service to the more populated parts of Grass Valley at $14 - $15
million, which would then have to be financed through new assessment districts.
Some we interviewed thought that the City and County could reduce the cost of housing
development by relaxing site development standards—for instance, allowing for a
modified (drive over) curb in place of a standard concrete “L” curb or reducing the length
of driveway extensions. Developers expressed some frustration with new, more
restrictive building codes, which result in higher costs.
Still, interviewees conceded that the infrastructure costs and impact fees are not
unusually high in Humboldt County when compared to other communities. The City and
County are generally seen as “developer friendly.” For instance, the County allows
83
developers to finance hook-up fees over an extended period, rather than requiring
payment at the time of issuance of the building permit.
Interviewees also pointed to a lack of trades workers in the community. Homebuilders
rely on contractors from western Nevada and Idaho in many trades. Interviewees
expressed frustration that most housing development is focused on the more profitable
high-end homes. And even these are being built out in small phases of 2-3 units at a
time. There seems to be a high level of caution among developers of
overbuilding—perhaps based upon the experiences of the late 1990s or observing the
current downturn in the housing markets in Washoe and Lyon County.
Financing Barriers
Most people who earn enough for a $150,000 house have credit problems. They
need help with credit issues—people feel like they’re stuck.
People can’t sell their homes to come here. Retirees have fallen off from
Northern California and Reno. Some came and they decided didn’t like the rural
lifestyle.
The market for entry level home is $160,000-$175,000. For single-family, stickbuilt housing, you need subsidy to make it happen.
Financing barriers raised by interviewees included credit problems, which prevent lowand moderate-income homebuyers from obtaining a mortgage, changes in the national
economy and housing market, and the general mismatch between the cost to create new
housing and the income levels of those in need of housing in Winnemucca.
While the local economy is strong, interviewees said the credit crisis and the decline in
housing values nationally is having a spillover effect in rural Nevada. Interviewees
pointed to a drop in demand for ownership housing in Winnemucca both from miners,
who are unable to sell their homes elsewhere, because of the declining housing market,
and new retirees from Northern Nevada and California.
Those we interviewed thought it might be more difficult now for developers to raise
capital for real estate projects—which might explain the piece-meal phasing on new
home projects. Financing for manufactured housing is also more expensive and difficult
now to obtain.
The credit crisis is making it more difficult to qualify homebuyers locally. Interviewees
spoke of the need for more financial literacy education in the schools, and of credit
counseling and homebuyer training for first-time buyers.
Finally, key informants talked about the mismatch between the cost of housing and the
income level of those in need of housing in Winnemucca. The economics of housing has
84
changed in the last five years. The direct cost to build and finance new housing exceeds
the means of most local residents. Without some form of public subsidy, some
interviewees noted, the market will not be able to address local housing need.
Interviewees recommended that the Workforce Housing Committee investigate Federal,
state, and local subsidy programs in order to achieve affordability in housing, including:
•
Self-help housing—both the USDA Section 523 and Habitat for Humanity
programs;
•
Partnering with Nevada Rural Housing Authority, which operates the Housing
Choice Voucher rental assistance program in rural Nevada, a single-family
mortgage program, and owns Winnemucca Manor, a senior subsidized housing
development;
•
Free or low-cost land from the Bureau of Land Management, available through
the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act;
•
Monies for infrastructure improvements associated with affordable housing
projects;
•
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HUD HOME funds and state Housing Trust
Funds through the Nevada Housing Division; and,
•
The property tax exemption allowed under NRS 361.082 for affordable housing
projects that include HOME funds in their financing.
Public Policy Barriers
Those who stay in the community may have a job but not earn enough to afford
their own place—they often live with parents.
You need to earn $14-$15/hour to afford $800 a month rent.
Housing costs too much for people with low incomes – we’re not talking about
those who qualify for assistance. Just young people not earning much money.
There isn’t anything available people can afford. They want $1,000 for a 2- to 3bedroom house.
It’s too expensive. My daughter is paying $575 for 2-bedroom apartment, but it is
being raised to $675.
85
A third set of barriers to addressing affordable housing that surfaced in our interviews fell
into the category of public policy. Respondents felt that there is a need for more public
education in Humboldt County about who lives in subsidized housing and the link
between affordable housing and economic development. The Housing Needs
Assessment Report may be a first step in that education process.
When entire segments of the workforce cannot afford housing, there are repercussions for
the entire community. Interviewees thought that by making housing a universal
issue—affecting friends, family, and neighbors—it would reduce the stigma associated
with multi-family and subsidized housing in rural Nevada. A diverse inventory of
housing is part of the basic infrastructure of a healthy community.
out that the market is not working properly to provide a range of housing options in the
community.
Local government could take a more active role by securing gap financing from the state
or Federal level to make affordable or work force housing projects feasible, identifying
infill sites in the downtown appropriate for multi-family housing, examining impact fees
as they relate to infill, multi-family projects, and exploring the use of the property tax
exemption allowed under NRS 361.082 as one additional tool to leverage new investment
in the community.
86
Chapter IV: Employer Survey
Introduction
In March 2008, Praxis Consulting Group carried out a web and mail survey of local
employers in order to better understand the impact of the local housing market on
Winnemucca area businesses. The Employer Survey was sponsored by the Humboldt
County Chamber of Commerce and the Humboldt Development Authority and was sent
to the 277 members of the CoC. We received more than 50 responses to the survey.
Please find below a summary of the findings of the Employer Survey, followed by a
detailed analysis of the survey responses. The survey tabulation, list of participants, and
survey instrument are included as attachments to this report.
Summary of Findings
•
Employers indicated a significant need for more affordable and workforce
housing in Humboldt County. When asked, “How would you rank affordable and
workforce housing among the many competing needs in your community?” more
than 4 in 10 (42.6%, 23 of 54) ranked it a “1” on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” meaning a
“high priority” and “5” a “low priority.” Almost two-thirds (63.0%, 34 of 54) ranked
affordable and workforce housing either a “1” or “2.”
•
According to employers, the types of housing most needed in Winnemucca are
“Rental housing at affordable rates” (82.7% [43 of 52] ranked this housing type a “1”
or a “2,” with “1” meaning “most needed”) and “Entry-level homeownership
opportunities” (80.8%, 42 of 52). Other cited housing needs in the Winnemucca area
included, in order of declining priority: “Housing (all types) within a short driving
distance of Winnemucca” (61.5% [22 of 52]);“Housing for mid- to senior-level
management employees” (39.6% [21 of 53]);“Manufactured housing opportunities”
(30.8% [16 of 52]); and, “Short-stay (6 months or less) employee housing (28.9% [15
of 52]).
•
The two most significant perceived barriers to addressing the housing needs in the
community were “the ‘boom and bust’ economic cycles in the Winnemucca area”
(75.4% [40 of 53] of respondents ranked this a “1” or “2,”) and “the price of
construction and/or availability of contractors in community” (50.9% [27 of 53]).
•
Employers stated that the cost and availability of housing in Winnemucca has an
impact on their businesses, particularly on smaller businesses of less than 10
employees. Among all employers, 55.6% (30 of 54) answered “yes” to the question
“Does the cost or availability of housing in the Winnemucca area have an impact on
87
Employee Survey
your business?” 29.6% (16 of 54) answered “no,” and 14.8% (8 of 54) answered
“don’t know.” The spread between “yes” and “no” responses for smaller businesses
was 36.4%, compared to 9.5% for larger businesses, suggesting that the cost and
availability of housing has a greater perceived impact on smaller businesses.
•
According to respondents, the cost and availability of housing has a specific impact
on their business’s ability to “Attract new employees to the Winnemucca area”
(49.0%, [26 of 53] respondents ranked this either a “1” or “2), “Expand, in response
to new opportunities” (39.6% [21 of 53]), and “Retain existing employees” (28.3%
[15 of 53]).
•
address its housing needs. The responses fell into three categories: “Reducing
development standards and red tape,” “Promoting housing development,” and
“Attracting more public resources to Winnemucca and rural Nevada for affordable
and workforce housing.”
Methodology
In March 2008, Praxis Consulting Group LLC distributed a two-page Employer Survey
to members of the Humboldt County Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of the survey
was to ascertain the impact of the local housing market on area businesses. Are
businesses and their employees affected by the cost and/or availability of housing? How
does the housing market affect the ability of businesses to relocate to Winnemucca, to
expand, or to attract and hold on to good employees? What recommendations do
employers have for addressing housing needs and/or for reducing barriers to new housing
development?
The survey was administered in two forms: as an online survey through
SurveyMonkey.com® to those CoC members with identified e-mail addresses, and as a
paper survey by mail to those members without e-mail addresses. To increase the return
rate, we also ran an article in Humboldt Sun about the Housing Needs Assessment. And,
we re-contacted e-mail participants twice over a three-week period reminding them to
complete the web survey.
The response rate was commendable. Of the 277 surveys sent out, subtracting 23 that
were returned due to incorrect e-mail or mail addresses, 55 were completed by
participants, resulting an overall return rate of 21.7% (55 of 254). The response rate to the
e-mail survey was higher at 24.9% (42 of 169). 15.3% responded to the mail survey (13
of 85).
We would like to thank all those who took part in the Employer Survey for their time and
thoughtful responses.
88
Employee Survey
Profile of Respondents
The businesses that responded to the survey were as diverse as the community they
represent. We received responses from small and large retail businesses, government
agencies, non-profit organizations, utility companies, and construction and mining
concerns.
The most common industries represented in the Employer Survey were Retail Trade
(28.0%, 14 of 50 respondents), followed by Education, Health and Social Services
(16.0%, 8 of 50) and Construction (8.0%, 4 of 50). Almost half of the respondents
checked “Other” as their industry. These included representatives of utilities, media,
government, real estate, and financial services. (See Table 1.)
Table 1: Survey Respondents by Industry
Retail Trade
14
28.0%
Education, Health, and Social Services
8
16.0%
Construction
4
8.0%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,
Accommodation and Food Services
Mining
Manufacturing
2
1
0
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Agriculture
0
0.0%
Other
21
Total
50
Source: Winnemucca Employer Survey, March 2008
42.0%
100.0%
Almost two-thirds of survey respondents represented smaller businesses of 9 or fewer
employees (62.3% 33 of 53); and of these, most respondents were either self-employed or
employed only 1 or 2 workers. The remaining one-third of respondents represented
larger employers with 10 or more employees (37.7%, 20 of 53). The largest employers
represented in the survey were Newmont Mining Corporation, the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, Humboldt Human Development Services, H.E. Hunewill Construction
Company, and Khoury’s Marketplace, each representing a different sector of the
economy. Overall, the businesses that responded to the Employer Survey employ over
1,900 workers in Humboldt County.
The following narrative provides a summary of responses by topic area. The detailed
survey tabulation, list of participants, and survey instrument are included as attachments
to this chapter.
Housing Need
Employers indicated a great need for more affordable and workforce housing in
Humboldt County. When asked “How would you rank affordable and workforce
housing among the many competing needs in your community?” more than 4 in 10
89
Employee Survey
(42.6%, 23 of 54) ranked it a “1” on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” meaning a “high priority”
and “5” a “low priority. Almost two-thirds (63.0%, 34 of 54) ranked affordable and
workforce housing either a “1” or “2.” (See Chart 1.)
Smaller employers indicated a somewhat greater need for affordable and workforce
housing than larger employers. In businesses with less than 10 employees, 63.7% (21 of
33) ranked affordable and workforce housing a “1” or “2,” with 48.5% (16 out of 33)
ranking it a “1” or “high priority.” Among employers with 10 or more employees, 61.9%
(13 of 21) ranked affordable and workforce housing a “1” or “2,” with only 33.3% (7 out
of 21) ranking it a “high priority.” It is possible that the housing crunch is having a
greater impact on smaller businesses in Winnemucca, which may pay lower wages or
offer fewer benefits.
Chart 1: “How would you rank affordable and workforce housing
among the many competing needs in your community?”
Housing Needs - All Employers
60.0%
Percentage
50.0%
42.6%
40.0%
30.0%
20.4%
20.0%
20.4%
11.1%
10.0%
5.6%
0.0%
1 - High
Priority
2
3 - Medium
Priority
4
5 - Low
Priority
Responses
As a follow-on, open-ended question, we asked respondents what they saw as the
“greatest housing needs or problems in the Winnemucca area.”
Here, the responses fell into two categories. First employers indicated a need for more
housing units on the ground, and particularly more rental housing units. Common
responses included: “not enough rentals,” “virtually nothing available,” and “middle
income houses are hard to find in the area, and rentals are almost non-existent.” One
employer observed that “there are not enough rentals available for incoming staff to
relocate” to Winnemucca. Another pointed out that the available rental units are not in
good condition or sized for families.
Affordability was the other major concern. Respondents cited a need for more affordable
housing, and more entry-level ownership housing (for instance, “3-4 bedroom houses in
90
Employee Survey
the $175,000 to $225,000 range”). One employer observed that there is a need for more
“affordable rental and ownership housing for the workforce housing sector of the
population (60% - 100% of area median income).” Another pointed out that “the
majority of jobs are service industry, minimum wage jobs and the housing prices are
based upon the mining industry wages.” A common refrain in both the Employer Survey
and in our one-on-one interviews with key informants was that the existing subsidized
housing in Winnemucca only serves very low-income households. However, there is also
a great need for unsubsidized housing serving working people who are over-income and
do not qualify for USDA or tax credit housing.
Barriers to Addressing Housing Needs
We next asked respondents to rank on a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” meaning “significant
impact” and “5” meaning “having no impact at all,” what they see as the greatest barriers
to addressing the housing need in their community.
Not surprisingly, the two most significant perceived barriers were “the ‘boom and bust’
economic cycles in the Winnemucca area” and “the price of construction and/or
availability of contractors in community.” (See Chart 2.)
Chart 2: What do you see as the greatest barriers to addressing the
housing needs in their community?
Barriers to Housing Needs - All Employers
80.0%
70.0%
Percentage
60.0%
50.0%
2 - High Impact
1 - Significant Impact
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
..
or
re
ru
ct
u
nf
ra
st
of
i
on
st
r
lit
y
of
c
Av
ai
la
bi
e
pr
ic
e
Th
fu
n
av
or
d/
an
uc
tio
n
de
ve
of
y
lit
bi
ai
la
Av
...
nd
la
e
lo
y
m
in
ot
(N
m
-is
BY
NI
M
bl
pa
ba
eb
ho
m
on
g
am
s
m
le
pr
ob
it
Cr
ed
ck
y
uy
ca
p
ag
e
tg
or
m
to
ac
ce
ss
r
pe
el
o
ev
D
ar
d)
ita
..
cl
cy
ic
om
ec
on
st
"
bu
d
an
oo
m
"b
e
Th
er
s
l
0.0%
Barriers
75.4% (40 of 53) of respondents ranked “the boom and bust economic cycles a “1” or
“2,” with 50.9% (27 of 53) of respondents ranking it a “1” or “significant impact” in
addressing housing needs in the community.
The “price of construction and/or availability of contractors in community” was the next
highest perceived barrier. 71.6% (38 of 53) of respondents ranked it as having at least a
91
Employee Survey
“1” or “2,” with 35.8% (19 of 53) ranking it a “1”, having a “significant impact.”
Other perceived barriers in declining priority were:
•
“credit problems among homeowners” (52.8%, 28 of 53) ranked this a “1” or
a “2;”
•
“availability of infrastructure or funds for infrastructure improvements
(50.9%, 27 of 53);
•
“developer access to mortgage capital” (35.9%, 19 of 53);
•
“availability of developable land” (31.5%, 17 of 53); and,
•
“NIMBY-ism (not in my backyard)” (26.4%, 14 of 53).
It is interesting to note that the constellation of affordable housing issues and barriers in
Humboldt County are very different from that of urban Nevada, where land and
neighborhood opposition are often among the highest perceived barriers. In our one-onone interviews in Humboldt County, we learned that the cost and availability of
infrastructure is a far more significant barrier to housing development—particularly
related to the expansion of services to Grass Valley—than the availability of land.
Housing as a Barrier to Economic Development
Employers stated that the cost and availability of housing in Winnemucca has an impact
on their businesses, particularly on smaller businesses of less than 10 employees. Among
all employers, 55.6% (30 of 54) answered “yes” to the question “Does the cost or
availability of housing in the Winnemucca area have an impact on your business?”
29.6% (16 of 54) answered “no,” and 14.8% (8 of 54) answered “Don’t know.”
Smaller businesses were more likely than larger businesses to answer “yes” to this
question of housing as a barrier to business health. Among employers with less than 10
employees 60.6% (20 of 33) answered “yes” and 24.2% (8 out 33) answered “no.” The
percentage spread between those answering “yes” and “no” was 36.4%, a significant gap
showing that owners of smaller businesses perceive affordable housing as having a
greater impact on their business.
Among businesses with 10 or more employees, 47.6% (10 of 21) answered “yes,” and
38.1% (8 of 21) answered “no.” The spread between “yes” and “no” responses was
9.5%, compared to 36.4% for smaller businesses, suggesting again that the cost and
availability of housing is having a lesser-perceived impact on larger businesses. (See
Table 2.)
92
Employee Survey
Possible Answer
# answered
% answered
Yes
30
55.6%
No
16
29.6%
Don't Know
8
14.8%
Yes
20
60.6%
No
8
24.2%
Don't Know
5
15.2%
Yes
10
47.6%
No
8
38.1%
3
14.3%
Don't Know
10 or more Less than 10
All
Employees Employees Employers
Table 2: Does the cost or availability of housing in the
Winnemucca area have an impact on your business?
As a follow up to that question, we asked employers to identify specific ways in which
the cost and availability of housing affects their businesses.
On a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” meaning having a “significant impact” and “5”
meaning having “no impact at all,” almost half of respondents (49.0%, 26 of 53)
ranked “Attract new employees to the Winnemucca area” either a “1” or “2.”
Interestingly, larger employers ranked this as a high impact more often than smaller
employers (61.9% vs. 40.7%). It is possible that larger employers are more focused upon
attracting new workers from outside to the region, while smaller employers tend to draw
from the existing pool of workers in Winnemucca. (See Chart 3.)
Respondents next cited “Expand, in response to new opportunities” as a specific impact
on their businesses. 39.6% (21 of 53) of respondents ranked this impact either a “1” or
“2.” Both smaller and larger employers responded in similar percentages to this impact.
Finally, 28.3% of respondents (15 of 53) ranked “Retain existing employees” as either a
“1” or “2.” Here again, larger employers ranked this as a high impact more often than
smaller employers (38.1% vs. 21.9%). Larger employers, those with 10 or more workers,
seem to perceive the cost and availability of housing to have an impact on their ability to
retain workers.
93
Employee Survey
Chart 3: “How would you rank the impact of the cost and availability of
housing on your businesses ability to…?”
Lack of Housing as A Barrier to Economic Development - All
Employers
60.0%
50.0%
Percentage
40.0%
2 - High Impact
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Expand, in response to new
opportunities
Retain existing employees
Attract new employees to the
Winnemucca area
Barriers
Types of Housing Needed in the Community
According to employers, the types of housing most needed in Winnemucca are “Rental
housing at affordable rates” (82.7%, 43 of 52, ranked this housing type a “1” or a “2,”
with “1” meaning “most needed”) and “Entry-level homeownership opportunities”
(80.8%, 42 of 52). These responses mirror the open-ended responses cited above, where
rental housing and affordable homeownership opportunities were mentioned most often
by respondents. The responses from smaller and larger employers were about the same
in these categories. (See Chart 4.)
Other cited housing needs in the Winnemucca area included, in order of declining
priority:
“Housing (all types) within a short driving distance of Winnemucca” (61.5%, 22
of 52);
“Housing for mid- to senior-level management employees” (39.6%, 21 of 53);
“Manufactured housing opportunities” (30.8%, 16 of 52); and,
“Short-stay (6 months or less) employee housing (28.9%, 15 of 52).
Larger employers (10 or more employees) indicated somewhat more need, as compared
to smaller employers, for short-stay rental housing (32.9% vs. 19.3% ranked this housing
94
Employee Survey
type a “1” or a “2,” with “1” meaning “most needed”). Smaller employers cited more of
a need for housing within a short driving distance of Winnemucca (64.5% vs. 57.2%),
manufactured housing opportunities (32.2% vs. 28.5%), and interestingly, housing for
mid- to senior-level management employees (50.0% vs. 23.8%).
Chart 4: “What types of employee housing are most needed in the
Winnemucca area?”
Types of Housing Needed - All Employers
90.0%
80.0%
Percentage
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
2 - Needed
1 - Most Needed
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Housing (all
types) within a
short driving
distance of
Winnemucca
Manufactured
housing
opportunities
Housing for
mid-to seniorlevel
management
employees
Entry-level
homeownership
opportunities
Rental housing
at affordable
rates
Short-stay (6
months or less)
employee
housing
0.0%
Types of Housing
Based upon the survey responses, it appears that employers do not see manufactured
housing as solving the identified housing needs in the community. Respondents also
showed a specific interest in housing that is located close to jobs and services. Both of
these responses have implications for future land use planning in the greater Winnemucca
area.
Private Sector Assistance
Given the identified housing need, we asked respondents, “Does your business offer
housing assistance to employees?” Of the 54 respondents, only 1 business (1.9%) stated
that it offered housing assistance to its employees, in the form of down payment
assistance. No business stated that it is currently considering offering housing assistance
to its employees.
95
Employee Survey
Recommendations
address its housing needs. Here, the responses fell into three categories.
•
Reduce development standards and “red tape.” Some respondents suggested
that local governments examine ways to reduce the costs of development by
relaxing design standards, extending infrastructure, or reducing “red tape.”
•
Promote housing development. Related to this, respondents recommended that
the community find ways to encourage and support more housing development.
Responses included:
Continue to support affordable housing projects;
Encourage and support efforts of private enterprise to provide housing;
Work with developer to build rental properties;
Attract more quality contractors, build more low cost rentals, subsidized
rentals;
Encourage developers to build low to mid range houses; and,
Build something.
•
Attract more public resources to Winnemucca and rural Nevada to support
housing developments. Survey respondents thought the community could be doing
more to attract public resources to rural Nevada for affordable and workforce
housing. One recommended “Seek partnering with other rural Northern Nevada
communities to share ideas and trades people.” Get more active in raising [the issue
of] the shortage of workforce housing in the rurals to the Nevada Legislature and
other important related entities.”
Finally, one survey respondent recommended that new workforce housing be targeted to
service employee working at “stores, fast food chains, and casinos where so many of our
residents work. And another suggested that new rental housing be located within walking
distance of stores and services.
96
Chapter V: Recommendations
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to better understand the impact of
housing availability and affordability on the economic health and growth prospects of the
City of Winnemucca and the nearby-populated portions of Humboldt County.
In this final section of the report, we provide a series of recommended actions for the
Humboldt Development Authority and its Workforce Housing Committee (HDA WHC)
based upon the information collected in the previous chapters. What are the identified
service gaps in Winnemucca and its surrounding areas? How can the HDA WHC and
local governments position themselves to better serve these housing needs? What
resources can the HDA WHC and local governments draw upon to address service gaps?
As noted by interviewees, when entire segments of the workforce cannot afford housing,
there are repercussions for the entire community. Interviewees thought that by making
housing a universal issue—affecting friends, family, and neighbors—it would reduce the
stigma associated with multi-family and subsidized housing in rural Nevada. A diverse
inventory of housing is part of the basic infrastructure of a healthy community.
out that the private market is not working properly to provide a range of housing options
in the community.
Below, we briefly list a set of recommendations for the HDA WHC and local
governments to consider as they plan housing 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.
Educate public officials and the general public about affordable housing and
the link between affordable housing and economic development
Interviewees saw a need for greater education about what affordable and workforce
housing are, and the place of affordable housing in the local economy. Advocates,
planners and public officials need to do a better job at describing the crisis in housing
availability and affordability in Winnemucca, and the impact of housing on quality of
life, on schools, and on the ability to attract new businesses to the region.
There are also many myths about affordable housing that circulate in the community:
affordable housing lowers property values in the surrounding neighborhood; the
occupants of affordable housing are different from you and me; affordable housing is
“the projects.” Advocates, planners and public officials can dispel these myths by
97
Recommendations
accurately portraying the “face” of affordable housing: service employees, seniors on a
fixed income, working families.
The HDA WHC can take the lead in this effort by sharing the findings of this report in
the media, at community and business association meetings, and with public officials.
The HDA WHC should also look at effective models already in place around the country
for educating local residents and public officials about the need for affordable housing in
the community and promoting pro-active housing policy.7 It is worth noting that many
Winnemucca residents are already sympathetic to the need for more affordable housing
serving a range of income levels. At a HDA WHC Visioning Workshop held in February
2007, participants indicted that the greatest housing need in Winnemucca was for those
earning less than 60% of Area Median Income or $39,660 for a family of four, which is
just above the “very low income” threshold as defined by HUD. One interviewee noted
that if we stay away from labels, like “low income,” and discuss instead the individuals in
the community who would benefit from affordable housing—school teachers, waitresses,
bank tellers—we would be more likely to generate broad support for new housing
initiatives.
2.
Promote infill development and higher densities in the downtown area
Infill parcels within Winnemucca and the urbanized portions of Humboldt County are
ideal locations for affordable and workforce housing, because of their proximity to jobs
and services. Infill projects, with access to existing City infrastructure (sewer, storm
water, water, gas, electricity, and roads) are potentially less costly to develop and less of
a drain on public services. In contrast, we heard repeatedly in our interviews about the
enormous potential cost to extend sewerage to the populated portions of Grass Valley in
order to protect ground water. Affordable infill housing projects can also be important
anchors in distressed neighborhoods, removing blight and re-knitting the urban fabric.
Affordable housing is often the nicest developments in a neighborhood; rather than lower
property values, these development can spur additional private investment.
However, infill parcels are often more difficult to develop than cheap land at the edge of
the urban area because of land cost and speculation, the possible need for zoning
approvals and regulatory relief, difficulty with parcel assembly, messy title and utility
issues, odd-shaped parcels and other development constraints, and potential
neighborhood opposition.
7
See: Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which is made up of business-related organizations promoting
affordable housing at http://www.svmg.org/index.html; Envision Utah, another stakeholders effort at
http://www.envisionutah.org/index.phtml; the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
(NPH) “Community Acceptance Toolbox” at http://www.nonprofithousing.org/actioncenter
/toolbox/acceptance/index.atomic; and the Fort Collins, Colorado “Faces/Places of Affordable Housing” at
http://www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/affordablehousing/faces-places-posters.php
98
Recommendations
The HDA WHC and local governments can play an important role in promoting infill
housing development, by inventorying available vacant or underutilized parcels in the
City, acquiring or swapping parcels to consolidate buildable sites, and removing
regulatory barriers to infill development, such as site development standards (set-backs,
parking ratios, etc.) that might be more appropriate for suburban subdivisions.
Interviewees thought that underutilized mobile home parks in the City of Winnemucca
might be good candidates for new infill development.
3.
Explore single-family home rehabilitation as a revitalization strategy
Another promising neighborhood revitalization strategy is housing rehabilitation.
Interviewees thought that there might be opportunities to fix up older homes in the
downtown to make them available to first-time and low- to moderate-income
homebuyers. Rehabilitation is generally much less costly than new construction. It can
be an effective strategy for increasing homeownership rates, reducing blight in downtown
neighborhoods, and supplying much needed affordable housing.
A variety of public funds are available for housing rehabilitation, including HUD HOME
and state Low-Income Housing Trust Funds, Community Development Block Grants
funds, and weatherization funds through the Nevada Housing Division. Rural Nevada
Development Corporation (RNDC), based in Ely, currently operates a Homeowner
Rehabilitation Program and Weatherization Program in rural Nevada. The HDA WHC
could explore partnering with RNDC to bring these housing services to Winnemucca.
4.
Explore opportunities to attract new multi-family development to
Winnemucca
New and rehabilitated multifamily housing is sorely needed in Winnemucca. However,
the lower incomes of rural renter households do not support new housing production,
particularly without rental assistance.
Interviewees identified senior and supported housing as a particular need in Winnemucca.
The primary mechanism for producing new affordable rental housing in rural Nevada is
the 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Unfortunately, Nevada’s 15 rural counties
receive only about $550,000 annually in competitive 9% tax credits, which is enough to
create about 40 new units of housing—this is one new rental project a year. The tax
credit is typically packaged with other public and private funds in order cover the entire
development cost, including the USDA-515 Loan Program or USDA-538 Loan
Guarantee Program, state HOME and Housing Trust Funds, and conventional debt. Even
with these many layers of financing, the margins may be still too thin to make a new
rental project pencil. And the tax credit rents, in the $650 to $750 range for a one- or
two-bedroom apartment respectively, may be too high to serve very low-income families
and seniors, without additional rental assistance.
99
Recommendations
The HDA WHC and local governments could help kick-start private, multi-family
housing development in Winnemucca by bringing additional resources to the table for a
pilot project. Such resources could include:
•
Free or low-cost land through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act (SNPLMA) (See below.);
•
A property tax exemption as allowed under NRS 361.082, or reduction in
property taxes, for rent restricted affordable housing developments;
•
Project-based rental assistance, in partnership with the Nevada Rural Housing
Authority, in order to provide housing to very low income renters, who would not
ordinarily be served under the tax credit program; and,
•
A reduction in the cost of hook-up fees or assistance in financing the fees over an
extended period.
The Clark County BLM Pilot, described below, is a good example of how a local
government can partner with private developers to bring desperately needed affordable
housing to one’s community.
Some of these mechanisms have already been used in Winnemucca on previous multifamily housing projects. For instance, the developer of one affordable housing project
pays reduced property taxes based upon the reduced assessed value of the property as an
income-restricted development. Another developer was allowed by the City to repay the
cost of sewer and water hook up fees over a five-year period.
The City might also want to consider instituting hook-up fee structure that assesses multifamily developments at a lower rate per unit than detached single-family homes, based
upon typically lower levels of consumption.
5.
Explore downpayment assistance and below-market rate financing for firsttime homebuyers
Humboldt County did not experience the type of hyperinflation in home values that
occurred in Washoe and Clark County in 2004 through 2006. While the cost of a
detached single-family home in Humboldt County has gone up, the financing gap in 2007
to place a low-income households (at 80% of area median income, or $49,040 for a
family of four) into a median price home at $168,000, was only $10,244. This gap is
significantly lower than the financing gap to homeownership in urban Nevada. It is
attainable.
Potential sources of gap financing include for downpayment assistance and below-market
rate subordinate debt include HUD HOME funds, state Low-Income Housing Trust
Funds, and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco Affordable Housing Program and
100
Recommendations
AHEAD Program funds. In addition, the Nevada Housing Division, Nevada Rural
Housing Authority and USDA-RD each offer below-market rate mortgage products and
downpayment assistance.
The HDA WHC could partner with these agencies, or with a non-profit organization like
RNDC, to bring these gap financing products to Winnemucca, with the goal of creating 5
to 10 new affordable homeownership opportunities a year.
6.
Expand financial literacy training and homebuyer counseling
Further, the HDA WHC could explore ways to better prepare first-time and low- to
moderate-income homebuyers for homeownership, through homebuyer training, credit
counseling, and the creation of Individual Development or Savings Accounts, which
provide matching funds for down payment. Both the Nevada Rural Housing Authority
and RNDC operate homebuyer training and savings programs. The HDA WHC should
also explore partnerships with local banks to bring financial literacy and credit counseling
programs to Winnemucca.
7.
Explore the use of free and/or low-cost Bureau of Land Management land
available through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act
The interviewees identified lack of affordable or developable land 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 Winnemucca.
The HDA WHC could work with the local government or the Nevada Rural Housing
Authority to identify 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 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. The HDA WHC could also assist
local government in packaging additional subsidy and low-cost financing to make such
projects viable.
The Clark County Affordable Housing BLM Pilot Program is one example of how a local
government can promote the development of affordable housing by bringing resources to
the table and reducing development barriers. In Spring and Summer 2006, the Clark
County Community Resources Management Department released two Requests for
Proposals (RFPs) seeking private developers to build new affordable rental housing on
101
Recommendations
lands that would be conveyed through the BLM SNPLMA process described above.
Prior to the release of each RFP, County staff devised the project concept (building type,
number of units, affordability requirements) and completed the zoning and public review
process for each parcel. The County also set aside HUD HOME funds in an amount
sufficient to bridge the financing gap in the projects and created a “Red Flag” team
among County departments in order to speed the review and permitting process once the
developers were selected.
The first BLM Pilot RFP was issued by Clark County in March of 2006, to develop 105
units of affordable or mixed-income senior rental housing on a 5-acre BLM parcel. The
second RFP was issued in May of 2006, to develop 180 units of affordable or mixedincome family rental on a 10-acre BLM parcel. The County anticipates additional
development projects, including affordable homeownership projects in the next year.
8.
Explore the use of Land Trusts to preserve the affordability of housing for
future generations
A Community Land Trust (“CLT”) is a mechanism for ensuring the long-term
affordability of housing, particularly in strong housing markets where appreciation is a
problem. CLTs have also been used effectively to assist owners of mobile homes to
collectively purchase their trailer parks in order to fix them up and preserve their use and
affordability.
CLT refers to the process of separating land from building (house) for the purpose of
transferring title to the house without selling the land. It also denotes the nonprofit
organization that holds title to the land and manages the ground leases on community
land trust properties.
Homeownership becomes more affordable because the transfer of title to the homeowner
does not include a fee interest in the land; the sales price is based on the value of the
improvements, without the value of the land. The land is owned by a 501(c)(3)
corporation, which provides a 99-year ground lease to the homeowner.
The ground lease has a resale provision that ensures that the property will be affordable
in perpetuity. The home must be sold to an income-eligible buyer at an affordable price.
The resale provision will typically provide a reasonable return to the homeowner, but the
appreciation may be far less than standard market appreciation. The resale provision will
also typically provide a right of first refusal in favor of the CLT.
From the standpoint of the buyer, the CLT home provides homeownership in a market
where the alternative is to rent or move away. From the standpoint of the local
government, public funders providing subsidy, and affordable housing advocates, the
CLT provides a way of creating a permanent affordable housing stock.
The Nevada Rural Housing Authority is currently creating a statewide CLT, and
102
Recommendations
developing the legal mechanisms and financing tools for CLT projects. The HDA WHC
could explore partnering with NRHA to develop a CLT model for Winnemucca, perhaps
in as part of a pilot project on BLM land.
9.
Develop innovative policies to improve the quality of manufactured housing
developments in Humboldt County
housing sector during the last economic boom period in the mid-1990s. Much of this
development occurred outside the City in Grass Valley, on large lots with individual
wells and septic. Interviewees discussed the problem of foreclosures and abandonment
that followed in the late 1990s, as the population declined.
Still, manufactured housing makes up almost half of the County’s housing stock. It costs
significantly less than stick-built, single-family homes. Any affordable housing plan in
Humboldt County will need to include manufactured housing as a component.
The HDA WHC could assist in improving the quality of living conditions for residents of
manufactured housing. 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 lowcost 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 coown the land under their units, provide for common grounds upkeep, and prevent
displacement as land becomes more valuable.
The HDA WHC could also explore the potential cost savings of using out-of-state
manufactured housing versus local stick-built housing for affordable single-family home
development. 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 Nevada. 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.
One interviewee noted that a regional modular homebuilder was investigating relocating
its operations to Winnemucca, which would provide multiple economic and housing
benefits locally.
The HDA WHC should also investigate a number of national initiatives to improve the
quality of manufactured housing. The I’M HOME, or Innovations in Manufactured
Homes initiative, through the Corporation for Enterprise Development, supports
programs across the country that are helping families who choose manufactured homes.
To be good investments for these families, manufactured homes must be well built and
installed on a proper foundation once they reach their destination. Their financing must
103
Recommendations
be fair and affordable. Homeowners should own, or have long-term control over, the land
underneath the homes. And, finally, when it’s time to move, the homeowners must be
able to sell the homes at a fair value. (See: http://www.cfed.org/.)
ROC USA (“resident owned communities”) is a national network of technical assistance
providers that help owners of manufactured housing to purchase their communities.
(See: http://www.rocusa.org/index.htm.)
10.
Explore ways to reduce energy costs in housing
Rising energy costs are having a significant impact on housing affordability. The HDA
WHC and local governments should promote energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources such as solar and geothermal in all future affordable housing projects.
The HDA WHC should also explore the low-income housing weatherization program
through the Nevada Housing Division as a way of reducing energy costs for low-income
homeowners in Winnemucca.
104
Attachments
1. Employer Survey Respondents
2. Employer Survey Instrument
3. Employer Survey Data Tables
4. Key Informant Interview Instrument
105
Employer Survey
List of Participants
Karen Aldrion, Broker, The Zaring
Corp/Canyon Run Ranchettes
Jennifer Fears, Owner, Advertising
Specialties
Margaret Aranguena, Store Manager,
Alltel
Catherine Ferandelli, Regional Planning
Commissioner, Income Property Owner
Henry Arrien, Partner, Gamma Electric
Susan Fouchet, E-Ventures
Charles Austin, Owner, Bikes and More
Michael Grantham, Manager, AT&T
Carolyn Avey, Senior Health and Safety
Trainer, Newmont Mining
Patrick Gray, Broker/Owner, Century 21
Sonoma Realty
Leann Barta, Board Member, Northern
NV Arts Council
Tracy Guinn, Administrative Assistant
III, Rural Clinics-Winnemucca Mental
Health Center
Brian Belanger
Melissa Betes, Owner, Premier Salon
and Spa
Patricia Herzog, President/Owner,
Global Coffee
Rudy James Holly
Bob Bolton, General Manager, KWNA
Radio
Carol Bricker, Office Manager/Owner,
Viper Glass
William Clem, Owner, The Prospectors
Nook
Tiffany Howard, Director, Winnemucca
Domestic Violence Shelter, Inc.
Loren Hunewill, President, H.E.
Hunewill Const. Co. Inc.
Mark James, Sales & Service, Solid
Gold Homes
Dave Hays, Assistant Field Manager,
Nonrenewable Resources BLM
Kim Jones, Owner, Karma
Helene Desrosiers, Manager , Owner,
Childcare / Hotel
Sam Khoury, President, Khoury's
Marketplace
Patty Ellifritz, Owner, Mad Hatter
Tom Klein, TEKEE Enterprises, LLC
Carmen Kofoed, Special Projects
Director, Winnemucca Publishing
James Kracaw, Manager, SPPCo
Jaclyn Lafferty, Administrative
Coordinator, Frontier Community
Coalition
Pam Leach, Co-Owner, Any Road
Music
Jessie Lindsey, Office
Manager/Controller, Bosch Motors Inc.
Denyse Lizer, CEO, Humboldt Human
Development
Kent Maher, Owner, O-Kent Mager
Attorney
Jeannie McRae, Partner, O K Tire Store
Lyn Meoldy, Treasurer, Paradise Valley
Community, Inc.
Kitty Nash, Sales Consultant, PDC Phone Directories Company
Cindy Neeley-Sigurdson, Agent, State
Farm Insurance
Gina Orr, Practice Administrator,
Golden Valley Medical Center
Janine Robinson, Owner, Whitcome &
Associates
Sal Romero, Owner, Burdettes
J.D. Schlottmann, Owner, Image by
Design
Barbara Sealy, Director, Winnemucca
Food Bank
Robert Shaw, Owner, Computer Tamer
David Simsek, Owner, Monument
Valley Free Arms
Richard Stone, Owner, Stoneworks
Kyle Swanson, Owner, Law Office of
Kyle B. Swanson
Shane Thacker, District Manager,
Southwest Gas Corp
LeAnn Way, Loan Officer, Eagle Home
Mortgage
Karen West, Office Mgr., State of NV Dept of Employment, Training & Rehab
Saunders Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
Housing Needs Assessment for the City of Winnemucca
and its Surrounding Area
Employer Survey
The Humboldt Development Authority, in partnership with the Humboldt County Chamber of Commerce, is carrying out this
Employer Survey to better understand the impact of housing availability and affordability on the economic health and growth
prospects of our area.
Please take a few minutes to answer this mail survey. All responses will be kept confidential. And we will provide you with a copy
of the summary report by e-mail this spring. Mail your survey back in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope or fax it
to 775-201-9655.
For more information about the Winnemucca Housing Needs Assessment and this Employer Survey, please feel free to contact Bill
Sims, Business and Economic Development Specialist, Nevada Small Business Development Center, 623-1064, or [email protected].
Thanks!
1. Contact Information
Name:
Title:
Organization:
Phone #:
E-mail Address:
2.
Broadly, in what industry is your business involved (Check one)
❏
❏
❏
❏
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
❏
Other, please specify:
3.
What is the approximate size of your workforce?:
4.
On a scale of 1 to 5, with “1” being a “high priority” and “5” being a “low priority,” how would you rank
affordable and workforce housing among the many competing needs in your community? (Circle one)
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Education, Health, and Social Services
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,
Accommodation and Food Services
❏
❏
❏
❏
High
Priority
1
employees
#
Medium
Priority
2
3
Low
Priority
4
5
5.
What do you see as the greatest housing needs or problems in the Winnemucca area?
6.
What do you see as the greatest barriers to addressing the housing needs in your community? On a scale
of 1 - 5, with “1” meaning having a “significant impact” and “5” meaning having “no impact at all” on the
availability of workforce and affordable housing, how would you rank each of the following:
Significant
Impact
Some
Impact
No
Impact
The “boom and bust” economic cycles in the
Winnemucca area
1
2
3
4
5
Developer access to mortgage capital
1
2
3
4
5
Credit problems among homebuyers
1
2
3
4
5
NIMBY-ism (Not in my backyard)
1
2
3
4
5
Availability of developable land
1
2
3
4
5
The price of construction and/or availability of contractors
in community
1
2
3
4
5
Page 1
Significant
Impact
Some
Impact
No
Impact
Availability of subsidies for affordable housing
1
2
3
4
5
Availability of infrastructure or funds for infrastructure
improvements
1
2
3
4
5
❏ no
❏ don’t know
7.
Does the cost or availability of housing in the Winnemucca area having
an impact on your business?
❏ yes
8.
On a scale of 1 - 5, with “1” meaning having a “significant impact” and “5” meaning having “no impact at all,”
how would you rank the impact of the cost and availability of housing on your business’ ability to:
Significant
Impact
Some
Impact
No
Impact
Expand, in response to new opportunities
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Attract new employees to the Winnemucca area
1
2
3
4
5
9.
What types of employee housing are most needed in the Winnemucca area? On a scale of 1 - 5, with “1”
meaning “most needed” and “5” meaning “not needed at all,” how would you rank the need for the following types of
employee housing in the Winnemucca area:
Most
Needed
10.
11.
Not Needed
At All
Short-stay (6 months of less) employee housing
1
2
3
4
5
Rental housing at affordable rates
1
2
3
4
5
Entry-level homeownership opportunities
1
2
3
4
5
Housing for mid- to senior-level management employees
1
2
3
4
5
Manufactured housing opportunities
1
2
3
4
5
Housing (all types) within a short driving distance of
Winnemucca
1
2
3
4
5
❏ no
❏ don’t know
Does your business currently offer housing assistance to employees?
❏ yes
If yes, does your business offer housing assistance in any of the following areas:
Employer-owned housing?
Stipends to employees for rent?
Stipends to employees for mortgage payments?
Down payment assistance?
Relocation assistance?
12.
Somewhat
Needed
Is your business considering offering housing assistance to employees?
❏ yes
❏ yes
❏ yes
❏ yes
❏ yes
❏ no
❏ no
❏ no
❏ no
❏ no
❏ yes
❏ no
❏ don’t know
❏ don’t know
❏ don’t know
❏ don’t know
❏ don’t know
❏ don’t know
13.
If yes, what types of housing assistance to employees is your business considering?
14.
Finally, do you have any recommendations to the Humboldt Development Authority and the Humboldt
County Chamber of Commerce on ways that the community could address its housing needs?
Thank you for filling out this survey!
Page 2
Housing Needs Assessment of the City of Winnemucca and its Surrounding Areas
Employers Survey
Data Tables
42.6%
20.4%
20.4%
11.1%
5.6%
48.5%
15.2%
12.1%
18.2%
6.1%
33.3%
28.6%
33.3%
0.0%
4.8%
Less than 10
Employees
23
11
11
6
3
16
5
4
6
2
7
6
7
0
1
10 or more
Employees
1 - High Priority
2
3 - Medium Priority
4
5 - Low Priority
1 - High Priority
2
3 - Medium Priority
4
5 - Low Priority
1 - High Priority
2
3 - Medium Priority
4
5 - Low Priority
All Employers
How would you rank affordable and workforce housing among
the many competing needs in your community?
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
5 - No Impact at All
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
Page 1 of 9
(9/2/08)
50.9%
24.5%
18.9%
3.8%
1.9%
50.0%
21.9%
25.0%
3.1%
0.0%
52.4%
28.6%
9.5%
4.8%
4.8%
Less than 10
Employees
27
13
10
2
1
16
7
8
1
0
11
6
2
1
1
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
The "boom and bust" economic cycles in the Winnemucca area
Employers Survey
Data Tables
9
10
26
5
3
7
5
15
3
2
2
5
11
2
1
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
17.0%
18.9%
49.1%
9.4%
5.7%
21.9%
15.6%
46.9%
9.4%
6.3%
9.5%
23.8%
52.4%
9.5%
4.8%
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
Less than 10
All Employers
Employees
Developer access to mortgage capital
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
Page 2 of 9
(9/2/08)
26.4%
26.4%
41.5%
3.8%
1.9%
25.0%
31.3%
37.5%
6.3%
0.0%
28.6%
19.0%
47.6%
0.0%
4.8%
Less than 10
Employees
14
14
22
2
1
8
10
12
2
0
6
4
10
0
1
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
Credit problems among homebuyers
Employers Survey
Data Tables
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
11.3%
15.1%
26.4%
26.4%
20.8%
15.6%
15.6%
37.5%
18.8%
12.5%
4.8%
14.3%
9.5%
38.1%
33.3%
Less than 10
Employees
6
8
14
14
11
5
5
12
6
4
1
3
2
8
7
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
NIMBY-ism (Not in my backyard)
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
9
5
8
4
7
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
1
2
4
7
7
Page 3 of 9
(9/2/08)
18.5%
13.0%
22.2%
20.4%
25.9%
27.3%
15.2%
24.2%
12.1%
21.2%
4.8%
9.5%
19.0%
33.3%
33.3%
Less than 10
Employees
10
7
12
11
14
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
Availability of developable land
Employers Survey
Data Tables
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
35.8%
35.8%
18.9%
5.7%
3.8%
37.5%
43.8%
15.6%
3.1%
0.0%
33.3%
23.8%
23.8%
9.5%
9.5%
Less than 10
Employees
19
19
10
3
2
12
14
5
1
0
7
5
5
2
2
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
The price of construction and/or availability of contractors in
community
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
Page 4 of 9
(9/2/08)
24.5%
26.4%
37.7%
9.4%
1.9%
21.9%
31.3%
43.8%
3.1%
0.0%
28.6%
19.0%
28.6%
19.0%
4.8%
Less than 10
Employees
13
14
20
5
1
7
10
14
1
0
6
4
6
4
1
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
Availability of infrastructure or funds for infrastructure
improvements
Employers Survey
Data Tables
30
55.6%
No
16
29.6%
Don't Know
8
14.8%
Yes
20
60.6%
No
8
24.2%
Don't Know
5
15.2%
Yes
10
47.6%
No
8
38.1%
Don't Know
3
14.3%
Less than
10 or more
10
Employees
Employees
Yes
All
Employers
Does the cost or availability of housing in the Winnemucca area
have an impact on your business?
#
%
answer- answerPossible Answer
ed
ed
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
Page 5 of 9
(9/2/08)
28.3%
11.3%
22.6%
17.0%
20.8%
28.1%
9.4%
31.3%
6.3%
25.0%
28.6%
14.3%
9.5%
33.3%
14.3%
Less than 10
Employees
15
6
12
9
11
9
3
10
2
8
6
3
2
7
3
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
Expand, in response to new opportunities
Employers Survey
Data Tables
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
Less than 10
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
17.0%
11.3%
13.2%
24.5%
34.0%
12.5%
9.4%
12.5%
18.8%
46.9%
23.8%
14.3%
14.3%
33.3%
14.3%
10 or more
Employees
9
6
7
13
18
4
3
4
6
15
5
3
3
7
3
All Employers
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
7
6
8
4
7
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
7
6
6
1
1
Page 6 of 9
(9/2/08)
26.4%
22.6%
26.4%
9.4%
15.1%
21.9%
18.8%
25.0%
12.5%
21.9%
33.3%
28.6%
28.6%
4.8%
4.8%
Less than 10
Employees
14
12
14
5
8
10 or more
Employees
2
3 - Medium Impact
4
All Employers
Attract new employees to the Winnemucca area
Employers Survey
Data Tables
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
5 - Not Needed at All
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
7.7%
21.2%
44.2%
13.5%
13.5%
3.2%
16.1%
51.6%
16.1%
12.9%
14.3%
28.6%
33.3%
9.5%
14.3%
Less than 10
Employees
4
11
23
7
7
1
5
16
5
4
3
6
7
2
3
10 or more
Employees
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
All Employers
Short-stay (6 months or less) employee housing
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
Page 7 of 9
(9/2/08)
42.3%
40.4%
9.6%
5.8%
1.9%
38.7%
41.9%
12.9%
3.2%
3.2%
47.6%
38.1%
4.8%
9.5%
0.0%
Less than 10
Employees
22
21
5
3
1
12
13
4
1
1
10
8
1
2
0
10 or more
Employees
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
All Employers
Rental housing at affordable rates
Employers Survey
Data Tables
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
48.1%
32.7%
13.5%
3.8%
1.9%
45.2%
35.5%
12.9%
3.2%
3.2%
52.4%
28.6%
14.3%
4.8%
0.0%
Less than 10
Employees
25
17
7
2
1
14
11
4
1
1
11
6
3
1
0
10 or more
Employees
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
All Employers
Entry-level homeownership opportunities
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
Page 8 of 9
(9/2/08)
15.1%
24.5%
28.3%
22.6%
9.4%
21.9%
28.1%
25.0%
15.6%
9.4%
4.8%
19.0%
33.3%
33.3%
9.5%
Less than 10
Employees
8
13
15
12
5
7
9
8
5
3
1
4
7
7
2
10 or more
Employees
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
All Employers
Housing for mid-to senior-level management employees
Employers Survey
Data Tables
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
13.5%
17.3%
36.5%
17.3%
15.4%
16.1%
16.1%
38.7%
9.7%
19.4%
9.5%
19.0%
33.3%
28.6%
9.5%
Less than 10
Employees
7
9
19
9
8
5
5
12
3
6
2
4
7
6
2
10 or more
Employees
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
All Employers
Manufactured housing opportunities
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
32.7%
28.8%
19.2%
15.4%
3.8%
35.5%
29.0%
16.1%
12.9%
6.5%
28.6%
28.6%
23.8%
19.0%
0.0%
Less than 10
Employees
17
15
10
8
2
11
9
5
4
2
6
6
5
4
0
10 or more
Employees
1 - Most Needed
2
3 - Somewhat Needed
4
All Employers
Housing (all types) within a short driving distance of
Winnemucca
Yes
No
Don't Know
1
52
1
Page 9 of 9
(9/2/08)
1.9%
96.3%
1.9%
All
Employers
Does your business currently offer housing assistance to
employees?
Housing Needs Assessment for the City of Winnemucca
and its Surrounding Area
Interview Instrument
We have been commissioned by the Workforce Housing Committee of the Humboldt
Development Authority to perform a Housing Needs Assessment for the City of
Winnemucca and its surrounding area. The purpose of this study is to determine the
impact of housing availability and affordability on the economic health and growth
prospects of the area.
As part of the data collection, we are carrying out one-on-one interviews with “key
informants,” individuals knowledgeable about the local housing market including City
and County staff, realtors, general contractors, developers, bank and public funder
representatives, human service providers, and representatives of major employers.
I have a set of questions for you related to housing issues. All responses will be kept
confidential. And we will provide you with a copy of the final report, which will be
completed this summer.
1. First, please tell me about your work and how you come in contact with housing
issues and/or the housing production process.
Prompt: Are you directly involved in the development or promotion of housing?
2. What do you see as the greatest housing needs or problems in Winnemucca and
its surrounding areas?
3. Does the local housing market have an impact on the economic health and
growth prospects of the Winnemucca area? If yes, please explain.
Prompt: Can the local workforce find suitable and affordable housing in the
area?
Prompt: Is housing availability and/or affordability seen as a barrier to attracting
new businesses to the area or hamper the growth of existing businesses?
4. What do you see as the greatest barriers to affordable and workforce housing
production in Winnemucca and its surrounding areas?
Page 1 of 2
5. Can you give me an example from your work of how these barriers have an
impact on the cost or availability of housing?
6. What changes would you recommend, if any, to address these barriers:
--within local government?
--at the state level?
--within the private sector?
7. Are you familiar with efforts here or elsewhere to promote the development of
affordable and workforce housing? These strategies are often combined with
certain development incentives, like density bonuses, to partially compensate the
developer.
Prompt: Do you think developers, public officials, the public, and others in the
Winnemucca area would embrace pro-affordable or workforce housing concepts?
Prompt: What would have to occur to make that a reality? (Who would have to be
convinced? What would the process look like?)
8. Are there others you would recommend me speaking to, here in Humboldt
County, or elsewhere, that would have something to say about current housing
issues and the creation of more affordable and workforce housing?
Thank you for your participation.
Page 2 of 2

Housing Needs Assessment of Winnemucca and its Surrounding

Transcription

Similar documents

West Humboldt Park Neighborhood Marketing

Classifieds - Shepherd Express

hotel humboldt: a venezuelan dictator`s valhalla

April 2015 - The Emerald Magazine

Spring 2008 - Humboldt State University

NEVADA BOB`S GOLF - Ideal Builders Inc.

on your alamo rentals.

artDepartment of - Humboldt State University

Information and floor plans

Untitled