Housing Brief

 

 

PRELIMINARY KEY FINDINGS

(March 2015)

 

 

Existing Data

 

• Population: Population grew between 2000 and 2010 in Pottawatomie, Geary, and Riley Counties, with a slight decline in Lyon County, and little change in Wabaunsee and Morris Counties. Among the larger cities, Manhattan & Junction City gained population, while Emporia experienced a loss. Among smaller population centers, all gained in population with the exception of Council Grove.

 

• Age: Age follows a relatively normal distribution within the region, with the majority of residents 20 to 64 years old. The most notable trend since 2003 is a growing number of 22-44 year olds.

 

• Diversity: The Flint Hills region is majority White (82%), with about 8% black, and 4% Asian. Geary County is the most racially diverse, while Lyon and Riley Counties reflect the regional average, and the other counties have a larger white majority (94-97%). The majority of residents are non-Hispanic. Eighteen percent are Hispanic, with the largest contingent identifying as Mexican (6%).

 

• Employment: The civilian labor force in 2010 was almost 91,000, mostly in Riley and Lyon counties. The countywide labor force participation rates range from 64-71%. Like many other places during the economic recession, unemployment spiked after 2007 increasing from lows of 3-5% up to 5-8% in 2010[CPS1] , with Geary County generally having the highest unemployment rates.

 

• Jobs: The Flint Hills region has the highest number of businesses in retail, construction, professional, accommodations, health care, other services, and government. However, the government sector provides by far the most jobs within the region, followed by retail, accommodations, health care, and manufacturing.

 

• Income: On average, wages and earnings in Flint Hills remain below the state average, although the gap has lessened since 2004.  Median Household income lags behind the state average in all but two counties - Pottawatomie and Wabaunsee – with Lyon the furthest behind. Total personal income has been growing fastest in Riley County over the past four decades.

 

• Poverty: Most counties in the region have experienced an increase in the percent of the population in poverty since 1999, with the most dramatic increases in Riley (from 18 to 26 percent), and Lyon (from 14 to 23 percent) counties. Lyon County currently has the largest proportion of children ages 5 to 17 living below poverty (19%), while Morris County has the largest proportion of those age 65 and older living below poverty (13%).

 

• Housing Units: There are around 73,000 housing units in the Flint Hills region. Riley County has experienced a steady increase in housing units since 2000, while most others have had a much slower increase.

 

• Housing Quality: Chase County has the highest percentage of vacant housing units (24%) followed by Morris (20%), while Riley has the lowest (8.6%). Of those units in the region that are vacant, a high proportion are not currently on the market and may be abandoned (27%). Chase County has the oldest housing stock, with almost 80% of units built prior to 1979, and 40% prior to 1939. Geary has 30% of all units built since 2000. Severe overcrowding (more than 1.5 occupants per room) is most prevalent in Riley County (8%) followed by Geary County (3%). 3.4% of housing units in Chase County lack complete kitchens, followed by Morris County with 3%. Chase and Morris Counties also lead with the highest proportion of units lacking complete plumbing, with 2.6% and 1.4% respectively.

 

• Housing Tenure: The region has about 36,000 owner-occupied housing units and 30,000 renter-occupied units. Wabaunsee County has the highest proportion of homeowners (84%), followed closely by Morris, Pottawatomie, and Chase (73-79%). Riley and Geary has the highest proportion of renters, at 58% and 54%, respectively.

 

• Housing Cost: Median home values in 2010 ranged from $76,400 in Morris County to $154,800 in Riley County. A small proportion of homeowners without a mortgage – around 13% - are cost-burdened, or paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs. A much higher proportion of owners with a mortgage are cost-burdened (25%), with as high as 30% in Geary County. Renters fare the worst, with 48% paying more than 30% of their income for rent regionally, with almost 55% of renters in Riley County cost-burdened.

 

• Subsidized Housing Units: There are approximately 3,740 subsidized housing units in the region. More than half of these (1950) are located in Manhattan, with another 17% each in Junction City and Emporia. The most common source of funding is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, which has funded over 1385 units in 29 developments. This is followed by Project-Based Section 8 (575 units), FHA-insured mortgages (526 units), public housing (399), and Rural Section 515 (268). All of these units are generally affordable to households earning at or below 50% AMI, with some units being affordable at even lower incomes due to project-based rental assistance (e.g. public housing, Project-Based Section 8).

 

• Housing Choice Vouchers: There are over 675 vouchers allocated to program administrators in the region, but only around 70% of these are being utilized. Voucher holders in the region earn around 25% of area median income, with some earning wages, a small proportion receiving welfare assistance, and a majority receiving income from other sources (e.g. social security, disability). The majority are female-headed households. Minorities are overrepresented as voucher holders in Geary (73%), Riley (46%), and Lyon (37%) counties, particularly blacks (66%; 37%, and 25% respectively).

 

• Education: Riley County has the highest percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree (42%), significantly exceeding the state average of 29%. All other counties in the region fall below the state average, with Morris having the lowest rate of 17%.

 

 

Focus Groups

 

Four (4) focus groups were held around the Manhattan metropolitan area in November and December of 2014, one each with a different set of stakeholders: real estate professionals and lenders, employers, voucher holders, and students at Kansas State University.

 

Real estate professionals & lenders (5): [CPS2] There are affordable units available – both on the private market and publicly subsidized, but some are still not able to afford the rents. Fluctuations in the job market can make households vulnerable in the event a job center closes (e.g. Tyson’s) or rumors abound about restructuring and cuts (e.g. Fort Riley). In urban areas, there are a lot of vacant, older homes in need of renovation, but it is hard to attract developers to these types of projects. In rural areas, adequate comparables can be difficult to find for home sales. Neighboring foreclosures also negatively affect home prices. Low incomes and access to credit may also be a barrier, causing potential homebuyers to seek out special mortgage products such as Rural Development Guaranteed Loans and Veteran Affairs loans, which can be bureaucratic. There are very few rural rental opportunities. Some senior housing is available in the region, but there are not many accessible units in market. Students and military households play strong role in market. Both are transient, but military households have more resources.

 

Employers: The region’s employers are concerned with housing availability in the Manhattan market, in both rental and ownership units. There is concern over ‘starter units’, or affordable units, under $200,000 for homeownership in this metro area. Employers also voice concern over the price of housing when compared to other regional markets, and often mention the Department of Agriculture’s difficulty in moving their workforce to Manhattan as an example of this difficulty. Siting the mobility and transiency of the workforce, employers shared that rural areas often have rental concerns and the aging housing infrastructure contributes to the mobility of the workforce and the commuting distances. Employers stated that the region’s quality of life and the growing Manhattan market is both a positive with regards to retaining people in the area but a negative in driving wages down and lowering the unemployment rate to a functional minimum.  

 

Voucher holders: A shortage of vouchers in Junction City leads to a long waiting list. Manhattan waiting list is shorter. Finding a unit can be a challenge, especially if one needs a larger unit. There are some landlords that are uncooperative. There are also some with bad reputations that should be avoided. Voucher holders seem content with the waiting lists and difficulty in acquiring units, as many have had comparably worse experiences in other areas of the country. Voucher holders felt no discriminatory practices locally when asked directly regarding their experiences, but mentioned other instances of implicit discriminatory practices when discussing landlords not taking vouchers or denying participation. Voucher holders were pleased with their current landlords and their experiences with the program and service providers, but showed concern over some of the bureaucracy or complications of dealing with the process, even refusing to “bother” at times, due to the complexities and demands of the process. One issue that often arose was transportation and the difficulties faced by voucher holders in getting to and from basic services, opportunities and needs.

 

Students (10): Students felt that they faced unfair treatment from landlords during the housing search, leasing, and maintenance processes. Some were not shown the units requested, and noted different treatment when their parents were present, or due to being an international student. Some students believed there was falsified information on rental advertisements. Others were asked to pay 4-6 months rent in advance in order to secure a lease. Some were asked for references, which are difficult for international students to provide. Many students have reported code violations to the city due to unresponsive landlords. They recommend a listing site for rentals with unbiased information and tenant reviews. Many students mentioned the poor conditions of rental units in the Manhattan area and did not see staying in Manhattan due to their poor rental experiences in the Manhattan market.

 

 

Stakeholder Interviews

 

Thirteen (13) stakeholder interviews have been conducted with staff from local government, public housing authorities, social service agencies, developers, contractors, and realtors. These represent eleven (11) different regions or municipalities, including Manhattan, Emporia, Junction City, Council Grove, St. Mary’s, St. George, Cottonwood Falls, and Wamego. Interviews asked how each jurisdiction promotes quality homeownership and rental housing opportunities, and any barriers that may limit such opportunities. Suggestions for local changes were solicited.

 

• Promoting quality, affordable homeownership opportunities: There are a few public resources available for promoting affordable homeownership. Jurisdictions that receive Community Development Block Grant funds and were awarded Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds have used them to do owner-occupied development and rehab, and demolition where necessary. Some counties or agencies run weatherization programs to assist current property owners. The City of Manhattan has provided down payment assistance and a housing rehab program. Council Grove funded a first-time homebuyer program, including tax rebates and a construction cost contribution, plus utility company incentives. Other affordable financing options for home purchase include FHA-insured mortgages, USDA rural development loans, and VA loans. Non-monetary opportunities include providing a variety of zoning types, having low land costs, providing quality schools, and general economic development activities to attract business and industry to provide jobs and improve the local tax base. Emporia has utilized a Housing Opportunity overlay district to relax some zoning requirements to allow higher density in the town center. It also provides a tax rebate program for home improvements. Some smaller towns have less experience working with development processes. Others lack zoning and building codes.

 

• Promoting quality, affordable rental housing: Affordable rental housing in the region in funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – such as public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, formerly known as Section 8 vouchers) program – or the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Multifamily Housing programs. Public housing is owned and operated by local public housing authorities (PHAs). HCV programs are administered by local PHAs or nonprofit organizations. Some units have been built through partnerships with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program. [CPS3] Some nonprofits have built affordable single family homes, duplexes, and apartments for rent. The City of Manhattan has assisted with affordable rental housing development by streamlining the development process, donating land, and waiving building permit and infrastructure fees. Other organizations offer fair housing seminars.  The City of Manhattan provided a rental inspection program that insured a level of ‘safe’ housing for a short period, but that has been rescinded and no longer provides this protection to renters.  The private sector has built some new senior facilities in some places.

 

• Barriers that limit quality, affordable housing: In general, respondents noted a variety of obstacles to accessing housing, regardless of whether or not it is for ownership or rent. Access to developable land can be a significant barrier, both in built-out urban areas and low-density rural areas with a high proportion of land zoned for agricultural use. In addition, construction costs can be high. The existing housing stock in many areas is old and in disrepair. High housing prices have pushed more residents further away from basic amenities and services. This is made more difficult by inadequate transportation options. Other barriers noted include the location of some communities within flood plains, a lack of population to demand higher quality housing, local anti-growth sentiment, a lack of accessible units, lack of capacity for building inspections and enforcement, and instances of discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation, disability, and source of income as a voucher holder.

 

• Barriers to homeownership: Barriers to building affordable homes include high land costs and large lot sizes within some subdivisions. Barriers to maintaining affordable homes include a lack of resources to promote aging in place, such as home modifications. Barriers to financing home purchase include the failure of military households to qualify due to the ineligibility of their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to count as income, coupled with other income expenditures their increase their debt.

 

• Barriers to rental housing: Many communities throughout the region are experiencing a shortage of the supply of rental units, and thus high rents. Those units that are available can be old and in disrepair with high utility costs. In some places, there is not much diversity within the rental housing stock, such as single-family and duplex rentals. Many communities do not have building codes, zoning regulations or code enforcement mechanisms in place to promote, maintain or provide any form of standardized or uniform affordable housing There is little incentive for landlords to make property repairs, or to make modifications to units to accommodate people with disabilities. Landlords also discriminate against voucher holders, sometimes due to their prior experience with the program or tenants. Subsidized units and vouchers have long waiting lists. Units are not funded enough for adequate repairs and modernization upgrades. Voucher programs also do not receive enough funding to allocate all vouchers available. In some cases, an increase in subsidized unit construction can drive down HUD-calculated Fair Market Rents and make it difficult for voucher holders to afford market rental units. Finally, there is a negative stigma attached to low-income apartments.

 

• Potential changes to expand equitable access to quality, affordable housing: Broad suggested changes include implementing living wages, improving transportation services, and building more affordable housing near job centers. In terms of the existing older housing stock, existing owners could be notified when their property requires repair and incentives programs offered for rehab and for lowering utility costs. This could be helped through partnerships with local home improvement stores. For properties that are beyond reasonable repair, programs to demolish structures and reuse lots – such as a land bank – may be useful. In terms of building new supply, increased funding from HUD would be helpful. Encouraging local Housing Choice Voucher programs for homeownership, allowing voucher holders to apply a voucher toward a mortgage payment, could also be a good strategy. For the older adult population, more assisted living is needed to promote aging in place, especially in rural communities. Finally, discrimination could be more effectively halted through increased capacity for fair housing & human rights training and investigation.

 

Demographic Questionnaire

 

We sent a survey to randomly selected households in 18 neighborhoods throughout the region. Six neighborhoods were in Emporia, five were in Manhattan, three were in Junction City, two were in Wamego and two neighborhoods were in other small towns. We sent an introductory postcard and then a full survey. We resent surveys to neighborhoods that had a response rate below 10 percent or fewer than 10 households responding. We received an overall response rate of 17 percent representing 221 households and 528 people. The response rate in each neighborhood varied from 31 percent to 0 percent.

 

• Overall people in the Flint Hills are satisfied with their living environment. We asked households to rate their home as a place to live on a scale of 1 to 10. The average rating was 8.7 with the mode being 10. We also asked households to rate their neighborhood on a scale of 1 to 10 and the average rating was 8.3. Not surprisingly, owners were more satisfied with their home (8.9 average rating) than renters (7.7 average rating). Manhattanites were most satisfied with their neighborhood (9.0 average rating). Those living in small towns were also highly satisfied with their neighborhood (8.7 average rating). Those living in Wamego (8.0 average rating) and Junction City (7.8 average rating) were less satisfied with their neighborhood but still rated it highly on average. Those living in Emporia were least satisfied with their neighborhood (7.5 average rating), but still rated it high on average.

 

• A large percentage of households have at least one member with a disability. We asked households about a variety of disabilities including physical and mental and found that almost a quarter of households (23 percent) had at least one member with some type of disability. 15 percent of households have a member with a mobility disability that requires the use of a wheelchair, cane or other mobility device.

 

Opinion Questionnaire

 

We received 137 questionnaires from people living in all seven counties except Chase. Most respondents lived in Riley County (60 percent). In addition, 25 percent of respondents lived in Wabaunsee County, 7 percent in Pottawatomie County, 4 percent in Lyon County, 2 percent in Geary County, and 1 percent in Morris County.

 

·      Respondents are split on the need for more housing. While people were divided about whether there was enough housing different types of housing in their community (55 percent though there was and 44 percent thought there was not), most people thought their community needed more single family housing (62 percent of respondents). In addition, 31 percent thought there was a need for more senior housing, 26 percent thought there was a need for more duplexes, townhomes or condominiums, and 26 percent thought there was a need for more apartments. Only 10 percent of respondents thought there was a need for more modular, manufactured or mobile homes.

 

·      Low income people have a hard time finding housing. The responses to the questionnaire made it apparent that it is difficult for people with low incomes to find housing, especially in Riley County. 58 percent of respondents said that people with low incomes have a hard time finding rental housing (70 percent of Riley County respondents) and 55 percent of people said that people with low incomes have a hard time finding housing to buy (67 percent of Riley County respondents). When asked if people could usually find a home to buy or rent in their budget, the majority of people said no to both (67 percent). The second most commonly cited reason that people could not buy a house in their budget was due to their inability to borrow money. The second most commonly cited reason that people could not find a home to rent was their low income. In both cases, the most commonly cited reason was the high cost of housing.

 

·      The biggest strengths of communities respondents cited were:

o   Emergency response (cited as a strength by more than half the respondents)

o   Access to schools (cited as a strength by more than half the respondents)

o   Small town feel

o   Historic nature

o   Access to shopping

o   The people

 

       The biggest weaknesses of communities respondents cited were:

o   Cost of renting (cited as a strength by more than half the respondents)

o   Cost of buying (cited as a strength by more than half the respondents)

o   Types of housing

o   Access to jobs

       The biggest opportunities of communities respondents cited were:

o   Access to schools

o   Access to shopping

 

Respondents did not cite many threats. The most cited threat, cost of renting was cited as an opportunity at about the same rate. Property tax was also cited as a threat about as frequently but not cited as an opportunity nearly as often.

 

·      Housing cost, availability and condition are issues in the region. The most commonly cited issue for finding housing in the community was the high cost. This was followed by low availability and a lack of subsidized housing. Condition was also a frequently cited issue. This was true when respondents were asked about impediments to buying or renting a home within a budget. Cost was cited as the biggest impediment for both buying and renting. For renting, the availability and condition of the housing were also frequently cited.

 

·      Many people are aware of or have experience with housing discrimination. When asked if they knew anyone (including themselves) who had experienced housing discrimination, almost half (47 percent) said they knew of discrimination against one or more groups. The most common group experiencing discrimination identified by respondents were low income (39 percent of respondents). The other groups commonly cited were people using a Section 8 Voucher (15 percent), people with a disability or handicap (15 percent), and criminal history (13 percent). Other groups cited by more than 5 percent of respondents include: families with children, race, student status and color.

 

Opportunity Mapping

 

• According to initial analysis under HUD’s Racial Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Ethnic Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RCAP/ECAP)[1], the Flint Hills region is fortunate not to experience such widespread disparities and poverty at the census tract level.

 

• With the help of the Ohio State University’s Kirwan Institute, we mapped a “Relative” RCAP/ECAP for the Flint Hills’ Manhattan Metropolitan Statistical Area. The Relative RCAP/ECAP considered the top 20% Census Tracts in Non-white (%) and Poverty (%) in Kansas, in relation to the HUD Opportunity Index[CPS4] [2]. Even at this rather coarse level, we can see challenges with fair and equitable access to opportunity. These maps show that the “Very Low” Opportunity Index areas are centralized in the urban areas of Junction City and Manhattan, with the “Very High” Opportunity Index areas in the contiguous suburbs and bordering Wamego.

 

• The only Top quintile census tract in both Non-White and Poverty rests in the north-easterly sections of Junction City, stretching towards Ft. Riley, with half in “Very Low” Opportunity and half in “Low” Opportunity.

 

• This trend continues for most of the study, where the suburban areas rank high in Job Accessibility Index, Labor Market and School Index, while the urban areas are in the lower quintiles.

 

• If we are to look simply at the Poor Populations, as defined by HUD,[CPS5]  across the region, we would may overlook rural poverty, but if we examine the Family Poverty Rate we see Council Grove and areas of Pottawatomie and Wabaunsee Counties appearing.

 

• Council Grove, the area from St. George to Wamego and the urban areas show the highest percentage of welfare recipients.

 

• Although Kansas is a relatively homogeneous state when it comes to race, opportunity mapping highlights the relative segregation of race, ethnicity and even age and family composition. Families with children under 18 are in the suburban areas of our metro area, while the region’s elderly reside in the inner-suburbs of Junction City and Manhattan.

 

• Opportunity Mapping allows us to see where demographic disparities correlate with access to services, jobs and other opportunities. From the metropolitan level view, the region’s highest poverty rate areas have limited access to many services, especially medical services and elementary and secondary schools in Junction City.

 

• Those limited to alternative means of transportation to jobs, services and other opportunities have distinct challenges in rural America and even in the urban centers of these quickly growing regions. With the regional transit services just introducing fixed-route services over the past three years, the metropolitan area is beginning to offer affordable and convenient options to much of Manhattan, parts of Junction City and a route tying Wamego to Manhattan.

 

• Although Manhattan has the most transit service in the region, it still limits access to opportunity for some. Most of Manhattan’s poorest populations live in areas over a quarter-mile from transit service, where the main routes concentrate service around the downtown and university districts.

 

• ATA Bus’ hours and service are rapidly expanding with some of the fastest growing routes in the state. Yet service routes could be rerouted to serve those who need these alternatives for their daily needs.

 

• Regional rural transportation is provided by many carriers and most operate on a 24-hour demand response system. As the population continues to age, many have expressed concerns about aging-in-place needs and the growing demand for rural transit options.

 

 

Housing Demand Analysis

 

• The Flint Hills Region is projected to grow at around .62% per year for the next ten years.

 

• The proportion of renters and those aged 20-29 (54.5% & 24.8% in 2013, respectively) continues to increase.

 

• Rents and home values also increased from 2000-2010, at nearly twice the national rate.

 

• 30.1% of residents spent more than 30% of the median household income on housing costs in 2010.

 

• The Flint Hills Region is projected to need 4,950 new one-family & 3,050 new multi-family units to be built in the next ten years. On average, this is around 20% more than has been built in the past ten years.

 

• A continued shortfall of new construction will cause housing costs to continue to rise, negatively impacting affordability and economic growth and pressuring areas outside the metro area to contribute to mitigate for the housing shortage.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (RCAPs/ECAPs), HUD PD&R has developed a census tract based definition for RCAP/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: RCAP/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are much lower in many parts of the country, we supplement this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be an RCAP/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. Census tracts with this extreme poverty that satisfy the racial/ethnic concentration threshold are deemed RCAPs/ECAPs.

 

[2] HUD Opportunity Index is a factor analysis of variables ranging from poverty, educational attainment, cost of rental housing, race and ethnicity, high turnover and population growth, where opportunity is mapped according to the Housing Choice Marketing Opportunity Index: Analysis of Data at the Tract and Block Group Level, by Kirk McClure (2011)