text:
I AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE on 1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS I Final Report 1995 I Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing For Correctional Service Officers I FINAL REPORT 1 Committee Members: Representative Smith, Co- chairman Representative Hart I Representative Brown Senator Noland, Co- chairman Senator Chesley Senator Arzberger December 3 1, 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. Executive Summary... .................................................................................. 1 11. Overview of Action and Recornendation of Committee ............................................................... 2 111. APPENDIX A. Minutes of Proceedings B. Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey C. Cities' response to survey SECTION I: Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers was established by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate as an appointed committee to receive testimony and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding affordable housing construction for correctional service officers ( CSOs). Membership consisted of three Senators and three members of the House of Representatives. The committee met on October 19, November 30, December 21,1995 and January 3, 1996 to consider several issues, including: + availability of affordable housing for prison employees; + prison communities need for affordable housing; + cost of development; and + best method( s) to take to begin development. Aside from assessing the need for affordable housing in prison communities, the Committee also met to determine how many correctional service officers ( CSOs) would consider relocating to rural prison complexes if affordable housing was available. A survey conducted by the Department of Corrections ( DOC) indicated that many would be willing to relocate if housing was made available. The Committee tried to determine what housing resources already exist in communities with prisons ( Buckeye, Douglas, Florence, Safford, Winslow and Yuma). The six cities varied in the need for development, with Winslow having the greatest need and Yuma expressing very little need. The Committee recommended draft legislation be developed to provide for city participation in at least two affordable housing projects that would include single- family and multi- family housing, provide preference for CSOs, phase repayment of subsidies into a revolving fund and appropriate $ 1,000,000 to the Department of Commerce to establish the fund. SECTION 11: Overview of Committee Action Overview of Committee Action October 19,1995 The Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers ( CSOs) met for the first time on October 19 ( see appendix A). At this meeting, the Committee asked the Department of Corrections to survey selected cities in order to determine CSO housing preferences and needs. The committee also emphasized the importance of determining how many CSOs would buy affordable housing if it was developed and determining what housing resources already exist in communities where state prisons are located. John Lopach, Housing Programs Manager, AZ Department of Commerce explained that barriers to housing development in prison communities include lack of consistent local government and follow- through, inability to obtain private financing, and high land and infrastructure costs. Mr. Lopach also discussed tools to attract private developers into the rural areas such as tax abatement for affordable housing development and state equity funds to attract private financing. Using carefully chosen inmate labor was also suggested as a way to cut cost of development. November 30,1995 The committee met for the second time on November 30 ( see appendix A) to hear from six cities with prisons near their communities regarding housing in their areas. John C. F. Geib, Interim Town Manager of Florence and Delbert Self, Town Manager of Buckeye provided information and charts regarding the availability and affordability of housing. The primary results of the Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey ( see Appendix B) were presented: • the Department's officers demonstrated a clear need for means of reducing their monthly housing cost; • over half indicated that the availability of affordable housing would serve as an incentive for them to relocate to an area near a rural prison complex; • should affordable housing be made available, the majority of those surveyed would prefer purchasing a home versus renting. The committee concluded at this meeting that there is both a need and an interest among CSOs and staff to relocate if affordable housing is made available in areas near rural prisons. December 21,1995 The committee met for the third time on December 21 ( see appendix A) to discuss options to resolve the affordable housing problem and to review the cities responses to the legislative option they preferred ( see appendix C). The option most often selected was to increase the State Housing Trust Fund. The committee also discussed what methods could be used as an incentive to developers. Appropriating money, a state income tax credit and providing up- front money to be paid back over time or at a good interest rate were all considered as options. January 3,1996 The final meeting of the committee took place on January 3, 1996, to review all recommendations to resolve the affordable housing problem and choose one option. An income tax credit for single- family development was ruled out because it would not be worthwhile given the current low market interest rates. The Department of Commerce recommended an appropriation to provide assistance to buyers and builders. With regard to the buyer, assistance could be given in the form of down payments and closing costs, reducing the cost of mortgage interest rates or reducing the mortgage amount. With regard to the builder, assistance could be given by competitively soliciting private sector development interest and proposals from within the affected market through the Request for Proposal process. The committee recommended that draft legislation be developed to provide for city participation in at least two affordable housing projects for single- family and multi- family projects, provide preference for CSOs, require repayment of subsidies into a revolving fund and appropriate $ 1,000,000 to the Department of Commerce, Housing and Infrastructure Development to establish the fund. h4 1 : .; d d e CiiiEF CLERK'S OFFICE / C - d L/- ZC ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Minutes of the Meeting Thursday, October 19, 1995 3: 30 p. m., Senate Hearing Room 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Noland, Co- chairman Representative Hart Representative Smith, Co- chairman Representative Brown Senator Chesley Senator Arzberger STAFF Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst Teri Grier, House Research Analyst Jason Bezozo, Senate Assistant Research Analyst Co- chairman Smith convened the meeting at 3: 30 p. m. and the attendance was noted. ( See attached sheet for other attendees.) He emphasized the importance of determining how many Correctional Service Officers ( CSOs) would buy affordable housing if it is developed, determining what housing resources already exist in prison communities and what jobs are available for spouses of CSOs in prison communities. Committee members introduced themselves and expressed their concerns regarding the issue before them. Senators Arzberger and Chesley indicated they had met with Mr. Frank Martinez and considered his ideas very worthwhile. They suggested the Committee hear Mr. Martinez's ideas at a future meeting. In so far as Hal Carden, Department of Corrections ( DOC), is brand new to his position and had outdated information from a 1989 DOC report to relate to the Committee, the Co-chairmen suggested DOC prepare more specific identification of types of housing needs by site and update information on the current availability of housing in prison communities. Senator Noland asked that Mr. Frank Martinez be directed to meet with Representative Smith and her to discuss his ideas and emphasized it is important to know what the housing needs are of all prison employees, not just CSOs. Senator Noland commented that one of the top priorities in the 1989 report was appointing a Housing Coordinator, however, it was acknowledged this has yet to be done. Scott Smith, Legislative Liaison, DOC, explained he has requested that reports from prisons on CSO turnover be downloaded in order to compute accurate figures. October 19,1995 Page 2 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Senator Chesley emphasized the Committee is not interested in turnover unless it is a result of inadequate availability of affordable housing. Senator Noland suggested that the housing problem is more connected to hiring than to turnover, as that is the reason some people do not accept employment in prison communities. She requested that DOC provide information on this aspect of the issue. Representative Smith emphasized the leadership at institutions is a major impact on turnover rates. He requested that DOC identify whether or not CSOs would live in affordable housing if it was built, and asked that DOC supply information on price ranges of housing, types of housing- be it apartments or single- family houses, number of bedrooms, etc. that would fill the need. Senator Arzberger commented that it has been observed that once CSOs receive their training they move to jobs which provide higher pay. John Lopach, Housing Programs Manager, AZ Department of Commerce, reviewed a memo from Steve Capobres, who was unable to attend the meeting, and submitted it for the record ( filed with original minutes). Mr. Lopach explained a number of barriers to housing development listed in the memo. He identified lack of consistent local government and follow- through; inability to obtain private financing, construction financing in particular; uncertain market due to one- industry economy ( prisons); area income too low to support fair market rents; subsidized rent levels too low to support affordable projects; lack of private builder interest; lack of spousal employment and recreational opportunities and high land and infrastructure costs. He emphasized that despite the barriers, the Department of Commerce has pursued, and continues to pursue, opportunities for new development in rural prison communities. Mr. Lopach explained it takes a lot of effort on the part of local leaders to get consensus in the community to see that the housing will be built and especially to offer incentives to the housing developer, for instance, by agreeing to build sewers and water works. He further explained that when low incomes are coupled with low allowable rents and high building costs because of the distance from urban centers, then additional subsidy is required. Besides the low- income housing tax- credit, he identified such sources as Housing Trust Fund money, or perhaps another federal source. Mr. Lopach summarized recommendations listed in the memo, which notes access to public funding will be more difficult to obtain with federal budget cuts, and lists tools to attract private developers: tax abatement for affordable housing development; state equity funds to attract private financing; depositing state general funds in banks willing to lend for affordable housing development ( linked deposits); local fee waivers and assistance with JOINT COMMllTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS October 19,1995 Page 3 infrastructure costs; allow and appropriate funding for DOC to build housing and use state land for affordable housing development. In response to Senator Chesley's comment that builders should be able to make money developing these communities, Mr. Lopach indicated builders report that land is difficult to find in these areas. Senator Arzberger asked if financing for builders which the Department of Commerce steers to these areas is not available. Mr. Lopach acknowledged this has been a problem, but expressed hope things are changing. He noted that in the last round of the low- income housing tax credit competition held in May, 1995, most of the winners were rural builders and all had commitments for construction and permanent financing. He explained these winners were in Flagstaff, Page, Sierra Vista and Bullhead City. Senator Arzberger asked Mr. Lopach to suggests tools or incentives the Legislature could provide to encourage financing these developments in rural areas. Mr. Lopach indicated the incentive should be as flexible as possible so it can be fit into whatever the needs of the project are. He noted the Housing Trust Fund has worked very well and is an ideal incentive. He explained it is a flexible grant which is subordinate to bank lending and also looks like equity, lowering the amount of the permanent mortgage on the property, therefore lowering the debt service and payable with lower rents. Mr. Lopach indicated $ 600,000 of Housing Trust Fund and federal home loans were used for a 48- unit apartment project in Winslow. Additionally, he noted assistance in down payment and closing costs is typically offered through the Housing Trust Fund and provides a good incentive. Senator Arzberger asked whether the state issuing Arizona tax- free bonds could enhance financing for projects. Mr. Lopach noted tax- free bonds are rationed by the federal government, but acknowledged the more Arizona could issue, the lower the cost would be for the first- time homebuyer or the ultimate mortgage that is held by the developer. Senator Arzberger suggested Mr. Frank Martinez could discuss his ideas with the Department of Commerce as well and Mr. Lopach indicated he would be happy to work with him. October 19,1995 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING Page 4 FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS I Senator Noland asked if the creation of a subfund in the Housing Trust Fund, set up for those builders developing apartments and manufactured housing in areas where prisons are located, would enhance development. I Mr. Lopach agreed the Department of Commerce could administer such a fund and match it with federal HOME money and it make investments more attractive for private 8 developers. I Senator Noland suggested that inmate labor, paid at $ 50 per hour as opposed to $ 10.00 per hour for skilled labor, could give a builder a $ 9.50 an hour savings in labor costs. 8 Mr. Lopach responded that this avenue would initially frighten developers, but suggested building a demonstration house as an example. Mr. Lopach suggested the inmates could be chosen very carefully and incentivized to make it very attractive to do a very good job. He raised the concern that the trades would bring opposition. I Senator Noland noted that the trades very much want apprentice programs and qualified workers, both in short supply. She commented that inmates are currently working for cities and businesses in places like Yuma and Safford and they are a great asset for the Representative Smith commented that a prison he viewed built by inmate labor was better quality than one built privately, acknowledging there are some very well- qualified inmate laborers. I Delbert Self, Buckeye Town Manager, presented information on housing availability within the Buckeye town limits and the Buckeye " strip" area. He explained Northwood Park is a development of single- family houses on 314 to I acre lots, ranging from the low $ 90,000'~ to an excess of $ 100,000, being built in two phases, which will total 168 lots, 43 of which are currently built. He commented this may not be considered " affordable," but noted this has not been defined. I Mr. Self further explained in the Brookridge subdivision, 6,714 units are planned for single- I family, multifamily, low density, schools and open areas. He explained a builder has not yet taken over the program, but noted approximately 1,123 multi- family units will be available in the $ 70,000 to $ 80,000 range. I Mr. Self additionally noted in the town of Buckeye the Camelot rents apartments in the $ 350 to $ 450 range, the Villa, which is Section 8 housing, rents 8 3- bedroom and 8 4- bedroom apartments for 30 percent of income. He noted the Sierra Verde is also Section 8 housing and farm- home housing combined, with 12 I- bedroom and 28 2- bedroom apartments renting for 60 percent of income. 1 I JOINT COMMlll'EE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS October 19,1995 Page 5 In response to Senator Arzberger's question, Mr. Self reported there is almost no apartment vacancy at the present time. Mr. Self indicated he would prepare a booklet detailing the information he presented today for distribution to the Committee members. He related information about a plan to develop 64 residential lots, with 1,200 to 1,800 square- foot houses in the town proper, for $ 70,000 to $ 85,000. Additionally he noted there is a plan to develop a second phase of the Shepard Estates and another 160 acres to be developed west of Melrose and north of Baseline, within the Buckeye town limits. Mr. Self indicated the Valley View newspaper reported a new development, Sun Valley Ranch, consisting of 120 lots for manufactured homes, under way on Johnson Road just north of Interstate 10 at approximately 250th Avenue. He noted the advertisement lists prices beginning at $ 69,900 or $ 419.00 per month. Senator Noland asked that Mr. Self report back to the Committee on some of the tools that the Buckeye City Council feels the Legislature could provide to help meet housing needs. She commented that a manufactured subdivision in the $ 40,000 to $ 50,000 range and additional rental housing is closer to " affordable" than one- acre lots with houses. She also asked for an inventory of available housing as an aid to planning, reiterating the requirement that cities participate actively. As regards spousal employment, Mr. Self related that the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant employs approximately 2,800 people, 14 percent of whom are female; Wal Mart distribution center employs 250 people, 25 percent of whom are female; a manufacturer of mobile homes employs 21 5 people, 15 percent of whom are female; the Beam Corporation, a cut-and- sew- operation, employs 500 people, almost all of whom are female, and the school system could potentially hire spouses. Michael Ortega, City Manager, City of Douglas, explained Douglas was a " company town" when Phelps Dodge mined there and since its departure the prison has taken up some of the void. He noted there is a current housing shortage and prices are escalating. Mr. Ortega indicated the $ 50,000 to $ 60,000 range of housing exists, but it is very rare, commenting there are plenty in the $ 17,000 to $ 20,000 and $ 180,000 to $ 250,000 ranges. Consequently, he explained prison employees choose to live in Benson and Wilcox, commuting long distances. Mr. Ortega indicated he is working with developers in an effort to encourage them to come to Douglas, also to make improvements, such as expanding the golf course. He explained a master plan is being developed and he is seeking support in developing the necessary infrastructure for growth. Mr. Ortega acknowledged the City's partnership with the prison, noting inmate labor recently built a recycling center in Douglas. October 19,1995 Page 6 JOINT COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Senator Noland requested that Mr. Ortega report to the Committee on specific housing needs and what types of incentives or tools the Legislature could provide that would be helpful. She also asked for a list of projects being undertaken with inmate labor and how they are coordinated. Mr. Ortega responded that one of the major deterrents to purchasing housing is the down-payment, even when there is a regular stream of income. He suggested an incentive program centered on this would be helpful. Senator Noland suggested providing a " fast- trackn for zoning, platting etc., to keep costs down for developers. In response to Representative Smith's inquiry as to when DOC could report current information, Scott Smith indicated DOC plans to send a survey to prison employees and could report when responses are compiled, suggesting it would take one month. Representative Smith suggested it needs to take less time. and announced the next meeting would be scheduled when it is learned how quickly that information could be compiled. Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 5: 00 p. m. Respectfully submitted, Alice Kloppel, Committee Secretary ( Tapes on file in the Office of the Senate Secretary) ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers Date: Thursday, November 30, 1995 Time: 10: OO p. m. Place: House Hearing Room 1 Representative Smith called the meeting to order at 10: lO a. m. and the following attendance was noted. Members Present: Senator Gus Arzberger Representative Jack Brown Senator Larry Chesley Representative Joe Hart Senator Patricia A. Noland, Cochair Representative Tom Smith, Cochair Members Absent: None Staff: Jason Bezozo - Senate Teri Grier - House Martin Harrison - House Joni Hoffman - Senate Kathi Knox - House Scott Smith, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Corrections ( DOC), reviewed the results of the Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey ( filed with original minutes). The summarized results of the survey are as follows: 1. The Department's Officers demonstrated a clear need for means of reducing their monthly housing and transportation expenses. ' 2. 50.6% of Officers reported owning or purchasing their own home, and 47.0% reported living in a rental property. Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers November 30,1995 Page 2 3. 61.9% of Officers indicated that the availability of affordable housing would serve as an incentive for them to relocate to a rural prison complex. 4. Among those surveyed, the majority ( 62.0%) indicated that, should affordable housing be made available, and were they to take advantage of it, they would be more interested in purchasing a home than in renting. 5. As for perceptions1opinions regarding rural prison communities, Officers responded as follows: Not enough accommodations, conveniences or cultural1 recreational activities in a rural prison community 47.1% Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities 46.1% Good place to raise a family 43.1 % My spouse or another family member would be unable to find a job or would have difficulty finding work 35.8% Schools are better in rural communities 28.3% Schools are better in larger cities 13.7% 6. Concerning possible incentives to relocate to a rural prison community, Officers responded as follows: Extra pay for living in a rural area A promotion Affordable and adequate housing Better storeslshopping in or near the rural community Inexpensive and convenient transportation Would not move from where I live now 7. Regarding which rural prisons they might be willing to relocate to, the largest numbers of Officers indicated an interest in relocating to the Florence and Eyman complexes. 8. Although a higher percentage indicated an interest in relocating to ASPC-Florence than to ASPC- Safford, nonetheless, Safford was the most frequent cityltownlrural area selected for possible relocation. Minutes. of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers November 30,1995 Page 3 Mr. Smith concluded there is both the need and interest among Correctional Service Officers ( CSO) and staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas near rural prisons in the Department of Corrections. Senator Noland expressed concern regarding housing affordability and housing availability in the areas the report outlined. Mr. Smith responded that information pertaining to housing affordability and housing availability was not included in the report, but the information will be provided at a later date. Senator Arzberger asked if the reason why a large percentage of Officers want to move to Florence or Eyman is for better wages. Mr. Smith said no specific conclusion was drawn by the questions and answers provided in the survey as to why the Officers want to move to Florence or Eyman. Mr. Smith said the reason could be that because Florence and Eyman are the main complexes within the prison system, the Officers may desire to work in the central area where special programs are offered. Mr. Smith concluded there is both the need and the interest among Correctional Service Officers and staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas near rural prisons in the DOC. Salvador F. Canchola, Housing Operations Director, PPEP Microbusiness and Housing Development Corporation, reviewed the Arizona Rural Housing Delivery Systems ( filed with original minutes). Steve Capobres, Director of Housing, Department of Commerce, reviewed Alternatives for Legislative Action ( filed with original minutes). Although many alternatives were discussed, the following are the top four alternatives recommended by Mr. Capobres. 1) State Income Tax Credits State income tax credits could be granted to new affordable housing projects that are built in the prison cities. These credits could be taken by the owners of the projects or sold for cash to other Arizona businesses who could benefit from the tax credit. This concept is similar to the federal Low- Income Housing Tax Credit program which provides the same incentive toward federal income taxes. Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers November 30,1995 Page 4 * Federal income tax credits are available annually to developers willing to build or rehabilitate residential multi- family apartment projects and make them affordable. To date, almost $ 29 million in tax credits has been allocated, assisting in the creation of approximately 7,800 units of housing. These projects have leveraged nearly $ 366 million into Arizona's construction industry. Over 50 percent of the projects are in rural areas. * This program provides a dollar- for- dollar credit against federal income tax liability for ownerldevelopers of qualifying residential rental projects. The credit is intended to produce a cash subsidy to aid in the construction of affordable housing. In return, the developer agrees to restrict rents for a minimum of 30 years. Over $ 5 million is available every year. Since this credit can be taken for 10 years, the program generates $ 50 million in total availability per year. Since most developers sell this credit for 50 cents on the dollar, $ 25 million in subsidy can be generated per year from the program for apartment construction. The program currently receives requests for over four times the amount available. 2) State Equity Fund One of the biggest barriers to the development of affordable housing is the inability to raise private investment or financing. This proposal involves the creation of an independent non- profit entity ( Housing Arizona) devoted to raising equity investment. This non- profit organization would be highly skilled in multi-family development and would only do deals in conjunction with other non- profit organizations. It would not supplant existing non- profit organizations, only enhance their ability by lending expertise they lack. Instead of working to make all non- profits developers ( costly), focus the expertise in one place that could partner with others. Additionally, since this organization would have credible staff, it would be able to attract private investment and financing. By raising investment funds ( equity), a pool could be created large enough to facilitate the financing of smaller rural deals. Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers November 30,1995 Page 5 Start- up funds would be necessary to begin to raise the private capital to begin. Once the pool is created, the organization would be self- sufficient. 3) Increase State Housina Trust Fund The Trust Fund is currently funded by 35% of all unclaimed property. This is about $ 3 million a year. These resources are used for existing affordable housing programs, largely leveraging other federal and private sources of funding ( up to 10 times). There is a current strain on the Trust Fund since many organizations rely on its resources. An increase in the percentage could be proposed and targeted toward projects in the prison cities, similar to the Economic Demonstration District Program a few years ago in Florence. 4) General Fund A~ propriations Probably the easiest way to help the prison housing problem is to appropriate enough general funds to be used toward the construction of housing in the prison cities. It could take two forms: 1. Direct appropriations to the Department of Corrections to allow them to build and operate housing themselves. 2. Use the appropriations as a guarantee to leverage other private financing toward privately constructed and operated housing in the prison cities. The resources could be offered to both private and non- profit developers who could put together the best and most cost effective developments. Senator Noland commented that by providing low income and moderate income housing with incentives to Correctional Service Officers, property will become available for people to rent or buy. The effect of the whole housing market in an area should be taken into consideration. Senator Noland agreed with Number 2 under General Fund Appropriations. Minutes of Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers November 30,1995 Page 6 John C. F. Geib, Interim Town Manager, Town of Florence, provided information and charts regarding the availability of existing housing in Florence, Arizona ( filed with original minutes). Delbert Self, Town Manager, Town of Buckeye, provided information and charts regarding the availability and affordability of housing in Buckeye Valley ( filed with original minutes). Senator Noland suggested providing the city council members of other small Arizona cities with a copy of the suggested incentive program for Correctional Service Officers prepared by Mr. Capobres, asking the city council members for a response. Representative Smith agreed. The meeting adjourned at 11: 30 a. m. Respectfully submitted, Karman Cobb Committee Secretary ( Attachments and tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.) CHIFr SI- EPTS OFFICE ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE JAN 0 5 1996 AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Minutes of the Meeting Thursday, December 21, 1995 11 : 00 a. m., Senate Hearing Room 3 Members Present Senator Noland, Co- chairman Representative Smith, Co- chairman Senator Chesley Members Absent Senator Arzberger Representative Hart Representative Brown Staff Joni Hoffman, Senate Teri Grier, House Kathi Knox, House Co- chairman Noland convened the meeting at 11: I0 a. m. She explained the Committee would discuss informational items until a quorum was present to adopt recommendations. Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst, referred to a previously- distributed packet of responses from cities to legislative options put forth at the previous meeting ( filed with original minutes). She additionally distributed an " Overview of Preferred Alternatives," ( filed with original minutes) ranking the cities' choices of legislative options and explained each city's preference. Ms. Hoffman indicated Buckeye chose targeting current state resources and general fund appropriations, commenting that it is now actively utilizing resources under State programs. She also noted Buckeye approved of general fund appropriations to allow quicker development of affordable housing and to cut through red tape. Ms Hoffman indicated it also supports the continuation of tax- exempt status of housing bonds, especially a personal income tax credit for first- time homebuyers. Ms. Hoffman explained Yuma chose targeting current state resources, a state equity fund and increasing the State Housing Trust Fund, but indicated Yuma asserts it does not have an affordable housing problem. She suggested that a close look reveals it may have a problem, noting it currently participates in housing programs offered under state programs. Senator Chesley commented that when he was last in Yuma, housing which he guessed was priced at $ 65,000 to $ 95,000 was being built everywhere. He suggested Yuma was the least needful of the cities under discussion. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS December 21,1995 Page 2 Senator Noland agreed and additionally acknowledged the large quantity of mobile home parks in Yuma provides a range of housing availability. She also noted the military base there tends to create more housing options. I Ms. Hoffman indicated Douglas acknowledges it does have a housing shortage. She explained a group of homes priced at $ 70,000 will soon be available, but the $ 10,000 I down payment may pose a problem for employees with a $ 24,000 annual income. Ms. Hoffman explained housing availability is the biggest problem in Winslow, relating that even if more expensive homes were built, this would free- up more affordable housing. I Ms. Hoffman explained Safford feels there is ample supply of state land that is currently not being utilized and affordable housing could provide the " highest and best use of the land," to comply with constitutional provisions. She related Safford approves of state linked deposit program, because it keeps financing in the private sector and increasing the I State Housing Trust Fund because it is already functioning. Ms. Hoffman indicated Safford liked general fund appropriations least, because it feared the funding would be subject to I legislative whims, but generally approves of legislative involvement in the area of affordable housing. Ms. Hoffman explained that Florence recently annexed 200 acres to target for housing development and indicated there is also privately- owned undeveloped land there. Ms. Hoffman indicated the price of this land is high and infrastructure would be expensive to develop as well, emphasizing Florence definitely has a housing problem I In response to Senator Chesley's question, Senator Noland explained utilizing state- linked deposits involves ranking lenders who are competing for the investment of state general funds, in part based on their track record in making resources available for affordable b housing. Senator Noland noted that the option most often selected was to Increase the State I Housing Trust Fund. In response to Senator Noland's inquiry regarding which options the Department of I Corrections ( DOC) would most like to coordinate efforts on, Scott Smith, Legislative Liaison, DOC, did not offer specific suggestions, but indicated DOC would support whatever option was chosen. Senator Chesley commented that to increase the State Housing Trust Fund means general fund monies must be taken from other budgets, creating conflicts with other intended I recipients. He suggested this may not be the most practical choice. I December 21,1995 Page 3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OFFICERS Senator Noland noted it may be possible to include a $ 1 million or $ 2 million appropriation for affordable housing in coordination with prison expansion efforts, sharing costs with the city where expansion takes place. She asked Steve Capobres, Department of Commerce, where such an incentive may work best. Mr. Capobres suggested cities are better- equipped to deal with infrastructure development, recommending the state provide funding for actual on- site construction. He explained the cities under discussion are already being targeted for existing housing programs. Mr. Capobres recommended appropriating money which can be offered to developers, encouraging the cities to leverage some of that money for infrastructure and awarding a project to the developer with the best proposal. Representative Smith asked if the State currently offers a tax credit as an incentive to developers. Ms. Capobres indicated currently a federal income tax program is used to build new apartments and rehabilitate older ones. He explained this program will sunset in 1997, so cities under discussion will be targeted during 1996. Mr. Capobres indicated the idea behind the state income tax credit was to replace the federal program when it dissolved. He explained tax credits are sold for cash to build projects. Representative Smith asked if the tax credit program amounts to $ 7 million. Mr. Capobres indicated it amounts to approximately $ 5 million a year, but can be multiplied over a ten-year period, amounting to $ 50 million available annually. He further explained this is sold . for 50 cents on the dollar, raising $ 25 million in construction resources. Representative Smith asked if a significant improvement in affordable housing availability for Correctional Service Officers ( CSO) could be realized with a $ 5 million tax credit. Mr. Capobres confirmed a state income tax credit would be a useful incentive to developers. He commented that one advantage is, it is forgone tax revenue and not necessarily an appropriation. Mr. Capobres projected the $ 5 million could produce 1,500 units of housing. In response to Representative Smith's question, Mr. Capobres suggested that depending upon each separate market, he feels there would be developers interested in building affordable housing in the cities under discussion, if a $ 5 million state income tax credit was allocated. He explained that the federal income standard is set pretty low, making it difficult to entice developers to such markets. Mr. Capobres suggested negotiating levels of income for a state income tax credit to give developers enough incentive. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS December 21,1995 Page 4 Senator Noland expressed her concern that different levels of housing should be built to provide for different levels of employees, not only multi- housing. She asked if the federal program develops mainly multi- housing. Mr. Capobres acknowledged most federal developments are multi- housing, emphasizing this is the reason all options to promote home ownership need to be explored. Senator Noland offered suggestions such as: providing up- front money which could be paid back over time or at a good interest rate after sale and looking at prison legislation for an opportunity to attach a state tax credit that could be legislatively imposed and coordinated through Department of Commerce. Senator Noland asked that Mr. Capobres work with Scott Smith and the Director of DOC to look at what could be done at a new prison site and prison expansion sites. Senator Noland directed them to develop some recommendations on how a program should be funded to provide necessary levels of housing, suggesting it could be part of a DOC budget request as it builds a new prison or expands an existing one. There being no quorum present, Senator Noland indicated recommendations would wait until more Committee members were present and announced another meeting will be held January 3, 1996 at 3: 00 p. m. to hear recommendations. In response to Senator Chesley's questions about tax credits, it was clarified that the federal tax credit is for rental properties only. In response to Senator Chesley's inquiry about a state tax credit program, Mr. Capobres acknowledged the Legislature can write the law differently for Arizona. Representative Smith commented that Florence should be highly considered, noting it has the highest turnover rate of CSOs. Senator Chesley agreed all the cities under discussion need to be considered, emphasizing Winslow is the one in dire straits. He noted that at least Florence CSOs can reside in Mesa, Phoenix or even Tucson, but Winslow has no similar surroundings. Senator Noland and he agreed Douglas is similar to Winslow in this regard. Senator Noland acknowledged Winslow has always been in dire straits since the prison was built. Mr. Capobres indicated he would develop an example choosing Douglas first and possibly Florence, as directed by the Committee, and was encouraged by members to be creative in considering other reasonable options not already mentioned. December 21,1995 Page 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES OFFICERS Senator Noland observed this could serve as a beginning for coordination between DOC and the Department of Commerce to better address the issue of affordable housing in prison communities. Representative Smith suggested contacting the City Manager of Buckeye, who has developed well- organized housing efforts. Mr. Capobres indicated he would be seeing him after today's meeting. Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 50 a. m. Respectfully submitted, Alice Kloppel, Committee Secretary ( Tape and attachments filed with original minutes in the Office of the Senate Secretary) RECEIVED CHIEF CLERK'? OFFICE AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON JAN 0 5 1996 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Minutes of the Meeting Wednesday, January 3, 1995 3: 00 p. m., House Hearing Room 4 Members Present Senator Arzberger Representative Brown Senator Chesley Representative Hart Senator Noland, Co- chairman Representative Smith, Co- chairman Staff Joni Hoffman, Senate Analyst Kathi Knox, House Analyst Teri Grier, House Analyst Co- chairman Smith convened the meeting at 3: 50 p. m. and the attendance was noted. Steve Capobres, Department of Commerce, Housing and Infrastructure Development, distributed copies of an " Analysis on the use of State Funds with State Income Tax Credits," ( filed with original minutes) and reviewed considerations and recommendations presented in it. He suggested income tax credits for single- family development would not be worthwhile, given the current low market interest rates, the 8 percent maximum Arizona income tax rate which could be given and the question of whether it is legal to target income tax credits for a specific group of buyers. Mr. Capobres recommended an appropriation could be mandated to provide assistance to buyers and builders. With regard to the buyer, assistance could be given in the form of down payments and closing costs, reducing the cost of mortgage interest rate or reducing the mortgage amount ( i. e. from $ 70,000 to $ 60,000). Senator Chesley commented that even if a buy- down is provided, most buyers still do not have the down payment or closing costs. Mr. Capobres acknowledged this is the main problem. Representative Smith asked whether a down payment would be a gift or would be repaid at some time. Mr. Capobres indicated that usually a deed restriction is placed on the property, requiring the repayment of the grant upon sale of the house. He noted this provides encouragement for the tenants to stay in the home and not profit from selling it. With regard to assisting the builder, Mr. Capobres recommended competitively soliciting private sector development interest and proposals from within the affected market through the Request for Proposal process. He further suggested providing assistance in interest COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Page 2 January 3,1996 write- downs or loan guarantees; site assembly and acquisition support; infrastructure development and selected pre- development expenditures, such as legal, engineering and permitting fees. Senator Noland asked if an up- front allotment for development expenditures or a cost-sharing by the cities involved would be possible in this type of program. She suggested these incentives could be paid back at the point of sale of the project. Mr. Capobres acknowledged the idea is possible, reiterating that income tax credits are not being recommended for single- family development, rather an appropriation which can be used for pre- development expenses. He explained the major problem in financing development is the interim, or pre- development, costs and recommended putting an appropriation toward these. Mr. Capobres next addressed multi- family development, reviewing specific financing examples on pages three, four and five of the handout. Mr. Capobres explained the financing schemes in the handout are based upon a development cost of $ 55,000 for a 40- unit multi- family dwelling, with a maximum rent of $ 425 for a 1 - bedroom unit and $ 650 for a 2- bedroom unit. Representative Brown and Representative Smith discussed the current starting salary for Correctional Service Officers ( CSO), agreeing it is $ 20,500. Mr. Capobres explained his figures address salary levels beginning at $ 18,000 and ranging to $ 30,000. Representative Smith emphasized it is important to establish what percentage of CSOs were receiving what salary, suggesting the majority were making the starting salary of $ 20,500. Representative Brown suggested there was a spread within the range. Mr. Capobres further discussed income, expenses, acquisition and costs of the projected multi- family dwelling, noting it would cost $ 2.3 million to develop such a project. He explained there is an $ 800,000 gap between the cost of development and the $ 1.5 million maximum mortgage that a bank would allow based on the salary range being discussed. Mr. Capobres suggested filling this gap with a combination of tax credits and appropriations to make the project feasible. He also recommended competitively soliciting private sector development interest and proposals from within the affected market area and mirroring the federal tax credit program. Mr. Capobres suggested a tax credit could be used for everything associated with construction costs and the appropriations could be used for everything the tax credit does not cover including: land, marketing, permanent loan fees, title recording fees, development fees above cap and some legal fees. Page 3 January 3,1996 COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Senator Noland suggested devising a revolving fund as a mechanism to recoup appropriations upon the sale of projects to finance ongoing projects. Mr. Capobres agreed this is important and can be structured in. Senator Noland asked if there are such stipulations currently in place and Mr. Capobres explained existing programs have some form of deed restriction stipulating requirements e. g., to pay back over time, maintain affordability, etc. Senator Chesley emphasized that builders have not developed properties where there is no incentive. Representative Smith suggested that targeted cities participate in providing incentives as any development would enhance revenues there. Senator Noland suggested the best opportunity for a pilot project of this type in both single- family and multi- family developments would be in Buckeye. Additionally she suggested another project in Safford or Douglas where there is an existing problem. Senator Noland also suggested part of the new prison appropriation be used for housing projects in conjunction with city incentives. Representative Brown indicated Winslow has participated with such incentives and a multi-family dwelling was constructed. However, he noted Winslow still had not been able to attract any developers without some up- front financial assistance. He related that housing is available in Springerville and St. Johns and that turnover among CSOs is very low. He agreed that incentives should be developed in cities with existing problems to attract developers. Mr. Capobres explained the Department of Commerce was involved in the Winslow project, providing $ 600,000 to a nonprofit developer of the multi- family dwelling. He ind~ cateda memo was dispatched nationwide to attract developers to build in W~ nslow, b ut it received no response from for- profit builders. Mr. Capobres additionally commented that Winslow did not contribute a great deal; that the land was sold at face value with no discount. Mr. Capobres suggested creating incentives for local government, identifying cities needlng an appropriation and making the money available to whichever city will work with a developer to formulate the best project. He indicated once built, this project could be repeated. Representative Smith acknowledged this is an excellent idea. He suggested writing a communication to the cities under consideration relating the idea and asking them to COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS Page 4 January 3,1996 respond with their input for a development plan, then choosing the most reasonable plan submitted. Senator Arzberger questioned whether the suggestion would be a fair solution, as all the cities have a need, but some have a greater tax base and more resources to offer than others. Senator Arzberger asserted the State will need to provide up- front assistance but agreed the cities should provide whatever aid they can, suggesting multi- family housing would be the best option. He suggested affordable single- family housing is already available. Senator Chesley suggested there needs to be some conviction demonstrated by the cities and that those most willing to provide incentives should be considered first. Senator Noland suggested putting together legislation to appropriate $ 1 million to the Department of Commerce to be used for at least two participating grants for single- family and multi- family developments, which would be put out for any city to apply for and awarded to whichever city can provide the best match of its own resources. She further suggested this be set up as a revolving fund, that conditions for repayment be stipulated, based upon what input the city provides and how much money it is asking for. Senator Noland explained this may or may not include Buckeye; that housing may be included in ground- up prison costs there. In response to Representative Smith's inquiry, Mr. Capobres confirmed that his office could proceed with such a plan if the appropriation was made. There was general agreement that the money, based on very different areas of expertise, should be appropriated to the Department of Commerce and not the Department of Corrections. Representative Smith suggested that housing not be restricted only to CSOs, that vacancies could also be offered to similarly quaiifled families in the general public. Senator Noland suggested providing a CSO preference like veterans are provided, setting aside a certain percentage of the project for them and opening further vacancies to the whole community. She requested that Mr. Capobres provide guidance on wording for draft legislation and incorporate the program into others already existing. Senator Arzberger opined preference could be given to CSOs and asked that repayment of incentive and maintaining affordability be stipulated. He specifically mentioned stipulating a restriction against raising the rent to price the targeted population out of the market. Mr. Capobres indicated these mechanisms are currently included in legal documentation as a matter of course, phasing repayment depending upon how much subsidy is provided, Page 5 January 3,1996 COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS how long the project must remain affordable and regulating rents. He did not recommend stipulations be placed perpetually, but building in a cutoff into the future. Senator Noland moved that draft legislation be developed which encompasses city participation in at least two affordable housing projects to include single- family and multi- family projects, provides preference for CSOs, phases repayment of subsidies into a revolving fund and appropriates $ 1 million to the Department of Commerce, Housing and Infrastructure Development to establish the fund. The motion CARRIED by a voice vote. Senator Noland asked that the draft be developed by Mr. Capobres working with Legislative Council and that it be delivered to her and Representative Smith for review and dissemination to other Committee members. Mr. Capobres agreed to work with Legislative Council on the draft language. Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 4: 35 p. m. Respectfully submitted, . . Alice Kloppel, Committee Secretary ( Tape and attachment on file in the Office of the Senate Secretary) Department of Corrections Housing Needs Survey Division of Human Resources/ Development EEDS SURVEY SAMUEL A. LEWIS Director SHARON C. MAYES Assistant Director Jo MCDANIEL Administrator, Planning Bureau November, 1995 CSO HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY CSO HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY Task Force Participants Jo McDaniel Administrator, Planning Bureau Ann 0. Roblyer Special Projects Manager, Planning Bureau Russ Savage Operations Officer Division of Adult Institutions Scott Smith Legislative Liaison Daryl R. Fischer Research Manager, Planning Bureau Data Analvsis Provided Bv: Andy Thaker Research Analyst, Planning Bureau Humberto Cisneros Research Analyst, Planning Bureau CONTENTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 List of Tables Table 1 : Complex Where Presently Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 2: Current CSO Series Position Filled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Table 3: County of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 4: CityTTownJRural Area of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 5: Driving Distances to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 6: Number of People Residing with You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 7: Total Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 8: Current Housing Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 9: Range of Current Home Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 10: Range of Current Monthly Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 1 1 : Affordable Housing an Incentive to Relocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 12: Affordable Housing an lncentive by Current Prison Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 13: Affordable Housing an lncentive by Current CSO Series Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 14: Affordable Housing Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 1 5: Affordable Housing Bedrooms Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 16: Affordable Housing Mortgage/ Rent Willing to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 17: Perceptions/ Opinions of Rural Prison Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 18: Incentives to Relocate to Rural Prison Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 19: Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 20: Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider Relocating To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Corrections conducted a survey of staff members in the Correctional Service Officer ( CSO) series to determine their housing needs, and specifically how many would be interested in relocating to rural prisons should affordable housing be made available in those areas. CSO- series staff include Cadets, CSO Irs, CSO Ills, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains and Majors, who will be referred to hereafter as " Officers " A total of 3,249 or 65.9% of 4,927 Officers responded to the survey, and from this population a systematic random sample of 91 5 surveys was selected for analysis purposes. The results of the survey may be summarized as follows: The Deeartment's Officers demonstrate a clear need for means of reducing their monthly housina and trans~ ortation exeenses. Overall, 30.3% of Officers live at least 40 miles from work, and as many as 1 in 16 live at least 70 miles from work. Almost one- half ( 49.7%) have at least three people living with them, and more than 2 in 5 ( 40.8%) have total annual household incomes of under $ 25,000. o 50.6% of Officers reeorted ownina or ~ urchasintqh eir own home, and 47.0% re~ ortedli vina in a rental Droeertv. The most typical home value was in the range $ 50,000-$ 74,999, and the most typical monthly rent in the range $ 300.00-$ 449.99. However, 31.5% of the home owners reported a home value of under $ 50,000, while 23.0% of the renters reported a monthly rent of under $ 300. 61.9% of Officers indicated that the availabilitv of affordable housina would Serve as an incentive for them to relocate to a rural ~ r i s o nc omelex. This equates to 3,050 officers Department- wide. The percentage stating that affordable housing would serve as an incentive was highest for Officers currently employed at rural prison complexes, including prison sites at Ft. Grant ( 85.1 %), Yuma ( 81.2%), Safford ( 70.2%), Winslow ( 69.0%), and Douglas ( 67.8%). The least interest was expressed by Officers currently employed at complexes in Tucson ( 47.1 %) and Phoenix ( 47.0%). Officers employed at the Eyman ( 58.5%), Florence ( 57.8%), and Perryville ( 56.7%) complexes indicated a moderate interest. However, the lowest percentage indicating an interest in relocating was still significant at 47.0% ( Phoenix complex). Furthermore, CSO Its indicated somewhat more interest in relocating ( 66.4%) than did the higher- salaried CSO 11' s ( 57.2%). Amona those surveved, the maioritv ( 62.0%) indicated that. should affordable housina be made available, and were thev to take advantaae of it, thev would be more interested in ~ urchasina a iome than in rentinq. Most ( 76.2%) indicated that they would require at least three bedrooms to relocate. More than two- thirds ( 68.2%) indicated that they would not be willing to pay more than $ 450 a month in rent or mortgage payment. The survey results indicate that, on average, Officers would desire to relocate only if they could achieve an actual reduction in their monthly mortgagetrental payment. As for ~ erce~ tions/ o~ iniorenasa rdina rural ~ risonc ommunities. Officers res~ ondeda s follows: Not enough accommodations, conveniences or cultural/ recreational activities in a rural prison community . . . . . . . . 47.1 % Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.1 % Good place to raise a family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 % My spouse or another family member would be unable to find a job or would have difficulty finding work . . . . . . . 35.8% Schools are better in rural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3% Schools are better in larger cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7% a Concernina ~ ossiblei ncentives to relocate to a rural ~ risonc ommunitv, Officers res~ ondeda s follows: Extra pay for living in a rural area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.8% A promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4% Affordable and adequate housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.5% Better stores/ shopping in or near the rural community . . . . . . . . . 31.3% Inexpensive and convenient transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9% Would not move from where I live now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5% Reqardina which rural ~ risonsth ev miaht be willina to relocate to, the lar~ est numbers of Officers indicated an interest in relocatina to the Florence and Evman com~ lexes. The percentages for specific institutions are as follows: ASPC- Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.5 % ASPC- Eyman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8% ASPC- Winslow- Apache ( Springerville) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 % ASPC- Safford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.9% ASPC- Buckeye ( Proposed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7% ASPC- Winslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7% ASPC- Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0% ASP- Ft. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2% ASPC- Phoenix- Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6% ASPC- Perryville- Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3% Guriouslv. althouqh a hiclher ~ ercentaaein dicated an interest in relocatina to ASPC- Florence than to ASPC- Safford, nonetheless Safford was the most freauent citv/ townlrural area selected for ~ ossiblere location: Safford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3% Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 - 1% SpringervilletEagar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0% Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.8% Apache'Junction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4% Buckeye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.8% ~ a s a~ r a n d e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.7% Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.7% Ft. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.3% Winslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4.8% Show Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 % Coolidge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2.5% Avondaleflolleson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3% Douglas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0% Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Florence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. O% Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Buckeye- Proposed) . . . . . . . . . . 10.9% Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslow- Apache) . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6% Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 0.3% Sierra Vista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .9% St. Johns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 .6% Willcox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .2% Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Eyman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7% The overriding conclusion of the sunfey is that there is both the need and the interest among CSO series staff for relocating to affordable housing made available in areas near rural prisons in the Department of Corrections. INTRODUCTION In late October 1995, the Department of Corrections received a request from the Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers to conduct a survey of CSOs to ascertain their housing needs. Specifically, the Committee expressed an interest in determining how many CSOs would consider relocating to rural prison complexes should affordable housing be made available in those areas. Given significant interest among CSO's, there may be the possibility that the state could offer incentives to encourage developers to build affordable housing for CSOs in rural areas. In response to the request, a task force was formed in the Department of Corrections to coordinate the survey. The task force was given the responsibility of drawing up the survey, selecting a target sample, administering the survey, and providing a report on the results by mid- November 1995. Subsequently, a survey form was developed which addressed a range of CSO housing issues. As a result of a meeting of the task force, it was decided that all CSO series positions would be surveyed ( not just CSOs) and that all institutions would be represented. Subsequently, a meeting was held with institutional staff to acquaint them with the survey. Staff were briefed concerning 1) the reasons for the survey, 2) the importance of the survey, 3) the rationale for including staff from urban prisons, 4) the requirements of individual items from the survey, and 5) any questions or concerns on the part of staff. The institutional staff in attendance were then requested to provide survey forms to all CSO series staff in their respective institutions, to monitor completion, and to ensure that responses were as complete as possible. Finally, they were asked to forward the surveys by express mail by 5: 00 p. m. November 3, 1995, or to hand deliver them to Central Office by the close of business November 6, 1995. All institutions were able to comply within the established timeframes. Approximately 3,250 surveys were returned, with a few incomplete or completed by employees other than CSO series staff. These latter surveys were deleted from the study. Some questionnaires are still coming in as of the date of this writing, and these surveys have not been included in the database for this report. Tentatively, it appears that approximately two- thirds of available CSO series staff responded to the survey. Because of time constraints and limited staff resources, it was necessary to draw a sample from the completed questionnaires. A sample totalling 91 5 was selected, which represents 19% of the 4,927 CSO series staff on regular duty, permanently filling an authorized and budgeted position and including staff on temporary leave ( annual, sick, jury duty, etc.) as of November 7, 1995. The sampling was done randomly within complexes, with approximately one in five surveys selected for the sample. However, surveys were not selected randomly across complexes, as a minimum of 50 surveys per complex was established in order to ensure reliable results for individual complexes. The 3- page survey is reproduced on the pages following. AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE November 1995 The Ad Hoc Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Service Officers has requested ADC to complete a survey of CSOs to determine housing needs. In particular, they want to know if low- cost, or reduced- cost housing would draw CSO- series staff to prisons in rural communities. This survey requires a commitment from institutional staff to provide as complete a sampling of staff as possible in the short time frames allowed. The items require you to either write your answer in the space provided or to place a check mark by your answer. Director Lewis and the members of the Committee appreciate your cooperation with this project. 1. Specify the complex and unit where you presently work: ASPC: Unit. 2. Where do you currently reside ( town, city, rural county): 3. If you have worked at other ADC prisons in the past, please indicate where: ASPC: Unit ASPC: Unit 4. What is your current position? Cadet CSO I CSO II Sergeant Lieutenant Captain Major 5. How many people reside with you now'! None ( live alone) 1 - 2 3 - 5 C3 Over 5 ( specify how many -.) 6. What is your current household income from all sources'! $ 19,000 to $ 24,999 $ 25,000 to $ 49,999 $ 50,000 to $ 69,999 $ 70,000 to $ 99,999 G $ 100,000 or over ( Specify amount: $ .) 7. How far do you currently reside from your work site? Up to 4.9 miles 5 to 9.9 miles 10 to 19.9 miles 20 to 29.9 miles 30 miles or more ( specify how many miles .) 8. Do you own or are you purchasing your home? Yes No. 9. If yes, is your home: A house? A townhouse? 10. What is the current value of your home? $ 10,000 to $ 24,999 $ 25.000 to $ 49,000 $ 50.000 to $ 74,999 $ 75,000 to $ 99,999 $ 100.000 or over ( specify value: $ .) 1 1 . Do you rent? Yes No A mobile home? 12. If yes, do you rent a: House, Townhouse Apartment Mobile home 13. How much rent do you pay per month? ( Also complete this question if you do not pay for housing.) 0 to $ 149.99 $ 600.00 to $ 749.99 $ 150.00 to $ 299.99 $ 750.00 to $ 899.99 $ 300.00 to $ 449.99 $ 900 00 to $ 1,499.99 $ 450.00 to $ 599.99 $ 1,500 or over 14. Would the availability of affordable housing in or near rural prison communities serve as an incentive for you to move there to work? Yes. No. 15. If affordable housing were available in or near rural prison communities, would you prefer to: Purchase a home? Rent? 16. How many bedrooms do you require for your household? I? 1 2 3 4 5 or more 17. What is the monthly mortgage or rent you would be willing to pay in order to relocate to a prison in a rural area? 0 to $ 149.99 $ 600.00 to $ 749.99 $ 150.00 to $ 299.99 $ 750.00 to $ 899.99 $ 300.00 to $ 449.99 $ 900 00 to $ 1,499.99 $ 450.00 to $ 599.99 $ 1,500 or over 18. What are your perceptionsiopinions of rural prisons, and the communities where they are housed? ( Check as many as apply to you.) Good place to raise a family My spouse or another household member would be unable to find a job or would have difficulty finding work. Schools are better in larger cities. Cl Schools are better in rural communities I? Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities Not enough accommodat~ ons, c onveniences or culturalirecreational activities in small communities 19. Which of the following incentives would encourage you to move to an area near a rural prison community? A promotion Affordable and adequate houslng Inexpensive and convenient transportation Extra pay for living in a rural area Better storc;/ shopping in or near the rural community Would not move from where I live now 20. If you would like to explain an answer or to elaborate on any of the issues addressed in this survey, please enter your comments here: I PLEASE ALSO COMPLETE THE ATTACHED " QLTSTIONS ABOUT LOCATION OF HOUSING." I QUESTIONS ABOUT LOCATION OF HOUSING To complete this portion of the survey, assume that affordable housing will be available at each of the listed prisons, which meets the criteria you specified on your " Affordable Housing Questionraire." Please place a check mark for each of the rural- area prisons where you would consider working. For each prison you select, also specify the cities, towns or rural areas where you would not mind living. Maps are provided on the reverse page for your reference. 1. ASPC - Florence. Florence Coolidge Casa Grande D Eloy Apache Junction nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 3. ASPC - Winslow Winslow Joseph City Holbrook Snowflake St. Johns nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 5. ASPC - Safford Safford Willcox Ft. Grant Thatcher Clifton Morenci nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 7. ASPC - Yuma Yuma Quartsite Somerton nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 9. ASPC - Apache ( Springerville) SpringervillelEager Ci McNary Show Low i? St. Johns Snowflake 0 nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 2. ASPC - Eyman Florence Coolidge Casa Grande Eloy Apache Junction nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) Ci 4. ASPC - Douglas Douglas Bisbee Sierra Vista 0 Willcox Tombstone Huachaca City nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 6. ASPC - Ft. Grant Ft. Grant Willcox Safford Thatcher Clifton Morenci nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 8. ASP - Globe Globe Miami Superior Claypool Kearny, Hayden, Winkleman nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) 10. ASPC - Buckeye ( proposed) Buckeye Gila Bend AvondaleITolleson nearby in rural county ( 25 mi.) SURVEY RESULTS As noted in the Introduction, all departmental institutions were represented in the survey. The following tabulation summarizes for each prison complex: 1 ) the number of CSO series positions filled, 2) the number of completed surveys returned to Central Office, and 3) the number of surveys represented in the sample selected for analysis: Table 1: Complex Where presently Employed * Correctional Officer Training Academy. ** Includes 50 surveys returned and sampled from ASPC- Perryville- Yuma. ASPC- Douglas ASPC- Ey man ASPC- Florence ASPC- Perryville ASPC- Phoenix ASPC- Tucson ASPC- Winslow ASPC- Safford ASP- Fort Grant COTA + TOTAL As indicated, the survey was directed to all CSO series positions, not just CSOs. The following indicates the number of surveys sampled for each position in the CSO series, as well as the number for ccldets at the Correctional Officer Training Academy ( COTA) and other locations: COMPLEX RETURNED I SAMPLED Table 2: Current CSO Series Position Filled POSITIONS 435 979 881 559 236 861 41 7 151 115 266 4,900 213 733 669 375 * * 191 366 280 121 85 166 3,249 61 1 44 164 110** 70 106 6 1 49 50 50 915 % OF TOTAL 5.4% 35.6% 47.0% 7.9% 3.2% 0.7% 0.3% 100.0% POSITION ( CSO Series) Cadet Correctional Service Officer I Correctional Service Officer II Sergeant Lieutenant Captain Major TOTAL SURVEYS 49 326 430 72 29 6 3 915 While most of the cadets in the survey were physically at the COTA site, a few were at other locations. In addition, the COTA figures reflect higher- level staff as well as cadets. The following tables identify the counties, cities, towns, and rural counties where the Officers reflected in the sample reside. As expected, a disproportionate share of Officers live in metropolitan areas, in many cases considerably distant from the prisons where they work. Table 3: County of Residence Table 4: CitvKown/ Rural Area of Residence COUNTY OF RESIDENCE Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee Maricopa Mohave Navaho Pima Pinal Yuma TOTAL 11 Mesa SURVEYS 7 78 7 7 73 2 351 1 47 163 128 51 91 5 CITY/ TOWN/ RURAL AREA Tucson Phoenix % OF TOTAL 0.8% 8.5% 0.8% 0.8% 8.0% 0.2% 38.4% 0.1 % 5.1 % 17.8% 14.0% 5.6% 100.0% SURVEYS 138 98 Florence Safford % OF TOTAL 15.1% 10.7% Y uma Winslow Glendale Apache Junction Douglas Casa Grande Chandler 55 43 6.0% 4.7% 40 36 27 22 21 19 18 4.4% 3.9% 3.0% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1 % 2.0% Table 4 ( Continued): City/ Town/ Rural Area of Residence Of interest is the fact that Maricopa more than doubled Pima 2s a county of residence for responding Officers ( 351 to 163), and yet the city of Tucson easily exceeded tCle city of Phoenix as a city of residence ( 138 to 98). Mesa was the other major contributor of Officers in the valley area besides Phoenix, with 86. The other major cities in the valley were much further down the list: Glendale ( 271, Chandler ( 1 8), Peoria ( 1 3), Tempe ( 1 2), Gilbert ( 6), and Scottsdale ( 4). Cities providing disproportionately large numbers of Officers tended to coincide with c~ tiesh ousing state prisons, as expected: Florence ( 55), Safford ( 43), Yuma ( 40), Winslow ( 36), and Douglas ( 21). CITY/ TOWN/ RURAL AREA ( Continued) Coolidge Sierra Vista Peoria Willcox Fort Grant Tempe Bisbee Avondale Goodyear Thatcher Gilbert Globe Superior Egar Eloy Flagstaff Marana Pima Joseph City Buckeye Scottsdale Other Communities Rural Areas - TOTAL Obviously, the factor of driving distance is a major factor in Officers' level of satisfaction with their present places of employment. In particular, the sample respondents reported SURVEYS 17 16 13 13 12 12 9 8 8 8 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 47 94 91 5 % OF TOTAL 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1 . O% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7 % 0.7% 0.7% - 0.5 % 0.5% 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.4% 0.4% 5.1 % 10.3% 100.0% the following driving distances to work: Table 5: Driving Distances to Work While almost half of the respondents ( 47.5%) live within 20 miles of work, a significant proportion ( 30.3%) must drive at least 40 miles to work. Alarminalv. as manv as 1 in 16 ~ orrectionaol fficers must drive at least 70 miles to aet to work. In and of itself, this result is indicative of the need for more and better housing within proximity of state prisons! DRIVING DISTANCES 0- 4.9 Miles 5- 9.9 Miles 10- 1 9.9 Miles 20- 29.9 Miles 30- 39.9 Miles 40- 49.9 Miles 50- 59.9 Miles 60- 69.9 Miles 70 Miles or More TOTAL Because Officers typically receive, at most, moderate salaries, and in many cases have several dependents to support, anything which can reduce expenses, such as reduced traveling distances to work and lower- cost housing, would likely provide much needed assistance. As indicated by the following table, the survey shows that just 119 or 13.0% of respondents live alone. In fact, almost half ( 49.7%) have three or more individuals residing with them, typically a spouse and two or more children. SURVEYS 90 113 232 126 77 82 79 57 59 91 5 Table 6: Number of Peo~ leR esidina with You % OF TOTAL 9.8% 12.3% 25.4% 13.8% 8.4% 9.0% 8.6% 6.2% 6.4% 100.0% - -- - --- - TOTAL 91 5 1 00 . O O/ o PEOPLE RESIDING WITH YOU None - Live Alone 1- 2 3- 5 6 or More To assist in assessing housing needs, respondents were asked to indicate the range of their current total household income. The results are as follows: SURVEYS 119 341 41 3 42 % OF TOTAL 13.0% 37.3% 45.1 % 4.6% Table 7: Total Household Income While it is clear that many Officer households have a second source of income, we still find that over 40% have total incomes of less than $ 25,000, which is another indicator of the need for affordable housing. TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME $ 1 9,000 - $ 24,999 $ 25,000 - $ 49,999 $ 50,000 - $ 69,999 $ 70,000 - $ 99,999 TOTAL One of the important factors in assessing housing needs concerns the current or desired type of housing -- home, rental property, or other arrangement. According to the following, there is almost an even split ( 50.6% to 47.0%) between Officers who own or are purchasing a home and those who rent. SURVEYS 373 432 84 26 91 5 Townhouse I 16 I 1.7% % OF TOTAL 40.8% 47.2% 9.2% 2.8% 100.0% Table 8: Current Housing Arrangement HOUSING ARRANGEMENT House Townhouse I 31 I 3.4% Mobile Home TOTAL OWNIPURCHASING HOME House SURVEYS 344 % OF TOTAL 37.6% 103 463 147 Apartment OTHER ARRANGEMENT I 22 I 2.4% 11.3% 50.6% 16.1% Mobile Home TOTAL RENTING TOTAL I 91 5 I 100.0% 194 Respondents were also asked to indicate the current value of their home: Table 9: Range of Currefit Home Value 21.3% 58 430 11 CURRENT HOME VALUE I SURVEYS 1 % OF TOTAL / I 6.3% 47.0% Table 9 ( Continued): Ran- ~ eof Current Home Value CURRENT HOME VALUE ( Continued) SURVEYS % OF TOTAL $ 75,000 - $ 99,999 99 21.4% $ 100,000 - $ 149,999 49 10.6% $ 150,000 or Over 8 1.7% 11 TOTAL I 463 I 100.0% 11 I One hundred forty- six or 3 1.5 % of the 463 respondents owning or purchasing a home indicated a home value of under $ 50,000, while just 57 or 12.3% indicated a home value / of $ 100,000 or over. The most typical range was $ 50,000-$ 74,999. For those paying rent, the survey asked for the amount of the monthly payment. I I Table 10: Range of Current Monthly Rent 11 MONTHLY RENT I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11 - -- $ 600.00 or Over 59 13.7% TOTAL 430 100.0% Ninety- nine or 23.0% of the 430 who rent are paying under $ 300.00 a month, while 59, or 13.7%, pay $ 600.0 or more a month. One of the indicators judged to be relevant to the willingness of Officers to relocate is the proportion who have worked at complexes other than those at which they are presently employed. The survey results show that almost one- third ( 303 or 33.1%) of the respondents had indeed worked at another complex at some time in the past. In fact, 99 or 10.8% had worked at two or more other complexes in the past. An additional telling question on the survey is the following: Would the availability of affordable housing in or near rural prison communities serve as an incentive for you to move there to work? The responses are as follows: Table 11 : Affordable Housing an Incentive to Relocate AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE INCENTIVE SURVEYS % OF TOTAL 1' Yes 566 61.9% TOTAL 91 5 100.0% Approximately three in five Officers responding to the survey indicated that the availability of affordable housing would encourage them to relocate to a rural prison to work. Because the above was considered the most important question on the survey, the results were broken out according to current work location ( prison) and according to the Officer's current position with the Department. The following two tables indicate the percentage of Officers responding that affordable housing would provide an incentive to relocate to a rural prison. Table 12: Affordable Housing an Incentive by Current Prison Complex 11 PRISON COMPLEXILOCATION ( AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN INCENTIVE! 11 ASP - Ft. Grant I 1) ASPC - Douglas I 67.8 % I1 ASPC - Safford ASPC - Winslow ASPC - Perryville - Yuma 70.2% 69.0% I( ASPC - Perryville 1 56.7% II - - 82.0% 81.2% ASPC - Eyman ASPC - Florence I[ ASPC - Tucson 47.1 % II 58.5% 57.8% [ ASPC - Phoenix 47.0% I1 As might be expected, Officers at the Phoenix and Tucson prisons were the least likely to indicate that affordable housing would serve as an incentive to relocate to a rural prison. Officers working at the smaller rural prisons indicated the most willingness to relocate. Table 13: Affordable Housing an Incentive by Current CSO Series Position Maior I 66.7% CSO SERIES POSITION Cadet AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN INCENTIVE 81.6% As expected, CSO Its were more likely to view affordable housing as an incentive than were officers in most higher- level positions. Correctional Service Officer I Captain Sergeant Correctional Service Officer II Lieutenant 66.4% - 60.0% 57.4% 57.2% 56.0% An accompanying question concerned the respondent's preference for either renting or purchasing a home. If affordable housing were available in or near rural communities, would you prefer to: Purchase a home? Rent? Table 14: Affordable Housing Preference 11 HOUSING PREFERENCE I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11 11 Purchase a Home I 567 I 62.0% 11 11 Rent I 348 I 38.0% 11 The clear majority of respondents indicated that, should affordable housing be made available near a rural prison, they would wish to purchase a home there. TOTAL To accurately assess housing needs, information on the number of bedrooms required was requested from the respondents. How many bedrooms do you require for your household? Table 15: Affordable Housing Bedrooms Required 91 5 100.0% 1 As shown in the table, the vast majority of respondents ( 76.2%) indicated the need for at least three bedrooms. Less than 1 in 20 respondents indicated the need for just one bedroom. BEDROOMS REQUIRED One Two Three Four Five or More TOTAL The survey went on to question the respondents concerning the monthly payments they would be willing to make should they relocate to a rural area. What is the monthly mortgage or rent you would be willing to pay in order to relocate to a prison in a rural area? Table 16: Affordable Housing MortgageIRent Willing to Pay SURVEYS 42 176 472 20 1 24 91 5 % OF TOTAL 4.6% 19.2% 51.6% 22.0% 2.6% 100.0% - - - MORTGAGEIRENT WILLING TO PAY $ 0.00 - $ 149.99 SURVEYS 86 % OF TOTAL 9.4% Table 16 ( Continued): Affordable Housing MortgageIRent Willing to Pay MORTGAGEIRENT WILLING TO PAY ( Continued) I SURVEYS I % OF TOTAL 11 In comparing the above results with previous findings concerning home values and rental amounts, it becomes apparent that the respondents would require on average a lower monthly payment for housing than they are making at the present time in order to relocate. This is to be expected. - $ 600.00 - $ 749.99 $ 750.00 - $ 899.99 $ 900.00 or More TOTAL To gain a better understanding of how Officers feel about relocating to a rural prison, the survey posed the following question. What are yourperceptions/ opinions of ruralprisons, and the communities where they are housed? The following table indicates the number of respondents checking each individual item. It should be noted that just because an Officer did not check an item, it does not mean that helshe disagreed with it. Table 17: Perce~ tions/ O~ inionosf Rural Prison Communities - 71 13 4 91 5 7.8% 1.4% 0.4% 100.0% PERCEPTION/ OPINION Not enough accommodations, conveniences or cultural/ receational activities in a r u r ~ l prison community. Prefer simplified lifestyle in rural communities. Good place to raise a family. My spouse or another household member would be unable to find a job or would have difficulty finding work. Schools are better in rural communities. The most frequent perception was the last listed, namely that rural communities do not provide enough accommodations, conveniences or culturalIrecreationaI activities. Higher number of respondents also indicated that they preferred the simplified lifestyle in rural communities and that such places provided a good place to raise a family. A larger number of respondents indicated that they thought schools were better in rural communities than in larger cities ( 28.3% to 13.7%), although this did not appear to be a major issue to most r~ spondents. SURVEYS 43 1 422 394 Schools are better in larger cities. TOTAL % OF TOTAL 47.1 % 46.1 % 43.1 % 328 259 28.3% 1 125 91 5 13.7% 100.0% Concerning the issue of motivation, the survey posed the following question. Which of the I following incentives would encourage you to move to a rural prison community? Table 18: Incentives to Relocate to Rural Prison Communitv INCENTIVES TO RELOCATE Extra pay for living in a rural area. A promotion. Affordable and adequate housing. Better stores/ shopping in or near the rural community. Inexpensive and convenient transportation. Would not move from where I live now. As indicated, more than half ( 55.8%) of the respondent ; indicated that extra pay would serve as an incentive to relocate. Lesser numbers indicated that a promotion ( 48.4%) or the availability of affordable and adequate housing ( 41.5%) would serve as an incentive to relocate. SURVEYS 51 1 443 380 286 TOTAL To provide more specific information concerning where Officers would be willing to relocate, the following questions were posed concerning location of housing. TO complete this portion of the survey, assume that affordable housing will be available at each of the listed prisons, which meets the criteria you specified on your " Affordable Housing Questionnaire." Please place a check mark for each of the rural- area prisons where you would consider working. For each prison you select, also specify the cities, towns or rural areas where you would not mind living. Maps are provided on the reverse page for your reference. % OF TOTAL 55.8% 48.4% 41.5% 31.3% 264 224 The following table itemizes the number and percentage of respondents who indicated an interest in relocating to any of 10 listed prison sites. ASPC- Phoenix, ASPC- Tucson, and ASPC- Perryvilie ( except Yuma) were excluded from this portion of the survey. 28.9% 24.5% 91 5 100.0% Table 19: Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To ASPC - Safford ASPC - Buckeye ( Proposed) % OF TOTAL 43.5% 37.8% 31.1 % MIGHT CONSIDER RELOCATING TO ASPC - Florence ASPC - Eyman ASPC - Winslow - Apache ( Springerville) ASPC - Douglas SURVEYS 398 346 285 255 253 27.9% 27.7% 229 25.0% I The largest numbers of respondents indicated an interest in relocating to either the Florence ( 43.5%) or the Eyman ( 37.8%) complexes. The least numbers of respondents indicated an interest in relocating to either the Yuma or Globe prisons. Just 120 or 13.1 % of the respondents indicated no interest whatsoever in relocating to any of the above prison sites. Table 19 ( Continued): Prison Complexes Might Consider Relocating To The following table lists the individual cities, towns, and rr al areas to which the largest numbers of respondents indicated an interest in relocating. MIGHT CONSIDER RELOCATING TO ( Continued) ASPC - Ft. Grant ASPC - Phoenix - Globe ASPC - Perryville - Yuma TOTAL SURVEYS 21 2 198 195 91 5 Table 20: Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider Relocating To % OF TOTAL 23.2% 21.6% 21.3% 100.0% CITYTTOWNIRURAL AREA MIGHT RELOCATE TO Safford Florence SpringervilleIEagar Yuma Apache Junction Buckeye Casa Grande Globe Ft. Grant Winslow Show Low i Coolidge AvondaleTTolleson Douglas Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Florence) Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Buckeye- Proposed) Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslow- Apache) SURVEYS 213 193 192 172 150 145 1 44 1 44 1 40 135 120 114 113 % OF TOTAL 23.3 % 21.1 Oh 21 . O% 18.8% 16.4% 15.8% 15.7% 15.7% 15.3% 14.8% 13.1 % 12.5% 12.3% I 131 101 100 97 Snowflake Sierra Vista St. Johns 11 . O% 11 . O% 10.9% 10.6% 94 91 88 10.3% 9.9 % 9.6% Willcox I 84 1 9.2% Table 20 ( Continued): Cities/ Towns/ Rural Areas Might Consider Relocating To -- i Thatcher % OF TOTAL CITYTTOWNIRURAL AREA MIGHT RELOCATE TO I ( Continued) Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Eyman) I 80 SURVEYS 8.7% Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Winslowl - Miami ' Bisbee McNary I 42 I 4.6% 78 75 Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Douglas) Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Safford) Holbrook Superior Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASP- Ft. Grant) Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Phoenix- Globe) Rural Area ( 25 Miles from ASPC- Perryville- Yuma) Gila Bend Jose~ hC itv 8.5% 8.2% Tombstone 30 1 3.3% 59 59 58 55 55 53 50 50 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% 6.0% 6.0% 5.8% 5.5% 5.5% Somerton I 27 1 3.0% Claypool 29 1 E l o ~ Clifton Huachuca Citv 3.2% KearnylHaydenIWinkelman Quartsite Morenci 24 22 21 2.6% 2.4% 2.3% 15 14 13 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% Finally, the respondents were provided with the opportunity to record any comments they might have with regard to the issues addressed in the survey. Those comments are as follows: Number of Resoonses Trans~ ortation 9 Commuting to rural areas a problem; need to live closer to work or be compensated. 2 Need bike pathstbus route to work. 1 Travel between towns dangerous in winter. 1 Commuting time too long. 1 Like long commute to unwind. Schools 4 Schools need to compete with urban schools. 1 Like residential area due to schools. Child Care 1 Child care needs to be provided. Medical 2 Adequate, affordable medical care needs to be provided. 3 Need to be near military or regular doctorlhospital. 3 Need better health care/ insurance, including HMO- type medical insurance in rural area. PavlFinancial Concerns 20 Low paylfinancial concerns are the issue, not housinglinadequate staff. 1 Low paylinadequate number of staff. Housina/ Locational Issue 1 Inequity among prisons in regard to rental costs. 7 Prisons in undesirable locations; houses run down; don't like neighbors; lower standard of living. 2 Housing problems due to overexpansion, building where work force not available. 1 Already live in rural area. 2 Rural areas are safer and more secure compared to cities. 1 Would purchase home in some locations but rent in others. 4 Housing in this area too expensive. 1 Inexpensive rent only incentive to live in a rural community. Likes current home/ location. Would require attractive hometneighborhood to move. Would not move from urban area to small town. Home most important factor to family. Survey does not consider cost of upkeep, other home costs. Wants help from state in acquiring land near prison ( Ft. Grant). Need house for family and horses. Want to be closer to a prison; would like if quality of housing and neighborhood good. Transferring to rural prison, but family having to stay in home in urban area. There is no incentive to move near a prison. Like rural lifestyle; want to stay in rural area. Would not live in housing on or near prison grounds; especially if inmates used as labor; like to get away from work; hard since you can't associate with inmate families who live near prisons; access to staff too easy. Like to have staff housing or housing project in rural area. Don't like staff housing due to rules. Would like larger place for kids to visit. Want to transfer to urban area. Should use inmate labor to build housing for staff. Retirement 20- year retirement better than other incentives. Too near retirement to move. ADC transfer policy restrictive. Live with parents and don't pay rent. Health hazards in rural areas, such as crop dusting. Moving expenses an issue. Other ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE RESEARCH STAFF MEMO Joni L. Hoffman, Senate Legislative Research Analyst Kathi Knox, House Majority Research Analyst TO: MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFICERS DATE: December 18,1995 Re: Responses from Cities As you know, the Cochairs of this Committee sent a letter to six cities soliciting their input regarding options put forth at the last Committee meeting by Steve Capobres from the Department of Commerce ( see attached " Alternatives for Legislative Action"). The cities to which the letters were sent were Winslow, Douglas, Buckeye, Florence, Safford and Yuma. The letter was mailed December 1 and we asked the cities to respond by December 15 so that Committee members could review the material prior to the December 21 meeting. We also enlisted the help of the League of Cities and Towns staff to follow up with those cities contacted to encourage them to respond in a timely manner. Attached is a copy of the letter we sent to the cities and the responses we have received. JLH: KK: jcs Attachments OVERVIEW OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES BUCKEYE ( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES ( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS YUMA ( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES ( C) STATE EQUITY FUND ( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND DOUGLAS ( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM ( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND ( B) & ( C) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS STATE EQUITY FUND ( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS WINSLOW ( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM ( B) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS ( C) STATE EQUITY FUND ( E) STATE LAND SAFFORD ( E) STATE LAND ( A) STATE LINKED DEPOSIT PROGRAM ( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND ( H) GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FLORENCE ( B) STATE INCOME TAX CREDITS ( E) STATE LAND ( F) INCREASE STATE HOUSING TRUST FUND ( G) TARGET CURRENT STATE RESOURCES Town of B u c keye December 15,1995 Ms. Joni L. Hoffman Legislative Research Analyst Arizona State Senate 1700 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Ms. Hoffman: This is in response to the request from the Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Coriectional Services Officers, The Town of Buckeye is presently very active in the Home and CDBG programs. We intend to continue with our utilization of these two programs as long as the funds a n available. The use of General Fund Appropriations to use as leverage far private financing toward privately constmcted and operated housing in the prison cities is something we would also suppol- t. We support the continuation of the tax- exempt status of bonds to be used for housing. It would be especially helpful to see a personal income tax credit for first-time homebuyers. Of all of the above, the use of General Fund Appropriations would provide the ability to move more quickly toward affordable housing development in whatever area it might be need. e- d. The use of these funds would cut through various levels of red- tape as well. Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts relative to the above alternatives for legislative action toward providing housing for Correctional Services 0 fiicers. anager ':" 4c 100 Nonh Apache P. C. E: Y 157 Buckeye, Arizona 85326 ( 602) 386- 4691 FAX ( 602) 386- 7332 J e THE CITY OF DOUGLAS 425 TEIITH STREm, DOUGLAS, ARIZONA 85607 TELEPHONE i52Cj364- 750 7 I FAX / 520) 364- 750 7 d Michael J. P- E City Manager Senator Patricia Noland, Co- Chair Rqmsentativt Tom Smith, Co- Chair I Afbdable Houing Committee Axkmna S t3te Legislature 87a0 West Washington I Phcnix, Arizona 85007 Re Your letter dated November 30, 1995/ Affordable Housing for Correctional Service - Omcers Dcar Senator Nolanc! and % presentative Smith IEncbscd, please hxd a brief summary of the four alternatives we believe wcuid assist the I developers and rht= City of Douglas in providing affordable housing for Correctional Service CMlicers. The City of Douglas is committed to this endeavor and if you have sny question. m either the attached information or the previous data fonvarded ur? det separate cover, pkase feel bee to contact me immediately. We appreciate the State Legislature's interest in this problem and look forward to a I resolution which will benefit everyone. n I City Manager I oc= Mayor and Council Greg Lucero, Deputy City Manager Jarrie Tent, Housing Director m0: cg I ~ o~ al- a th; e ymier soathwtstm bnrdtr comrnunft; vl/ W~ thout additional Annexation, there are approximately thirty ( 30) to fifty ( 50) lots of varying sizes within the corporate limb of the City of Douglas. Land prices appear to be increasicg. Depending on the size of the lot and its location, the price ranges from $ 6,000.00 to $ 16,000.00. The shortage of affcrdable housing in Douglas may sttm from the lack of grouped developed lots which have the necessary infrastructure available to construct homes in the $ 55,000.00 to $ 65,000.00 range. A group of local investors is currently developing land ( water, sewer, curb & gutter, and strest paving) in Douglas. The houses will be approximately 1,150 Sq. Ft., wood frame with stucco and sell at a price of $ 89,900. Families with an annual income of $ 24,000 could handle a $ 59,000 mortgage but would not have $ 10,900 for a down payment for one of these $ 69,900 homes. The following altarnatives could serve t~ assist CSO's in the- acquisition of a home: State Linked De~ osiPt roararq Preference to lending institutions with a good track record f ~ mra king resources available to individuals and investors for affordable housing would be of benefi to the entire community. Increase State Housinrr Trust Fund 1HTFl Communities receiving HTF monies use it for construction, administration, demolition and other project soft ccsts, depending on the project. The lack of restriction on use and the minimal red tape connected to the HTF provides flexibility in designing an affordable housing project. An increase in the availability of HTF monies would enhance development of both affordable rental housing and t5e construction of new or rehabilitation of existing vacant houses. State Incog$ Tax Credits and Stab Eauitv Fund Once educated private investors and nonprofit organizations in the City of Douglas area would find both the State Income Tax Credit and State Housing Equity Fund ideas attractive incentives for developing affordable rental housing or single family homes for purchase. Ql General Fund A~~ m~ tiationr * A general fund appropriation with few restrictions on its use would be helpful in the City of Douglas to provide leverage to both ncnprofit and private investors. A general fund appropriation could also be used for the start up of a program similar to the State Equity Fund. r Town of FLORENCE I December 18, 1995 Senator Patricia Nolmd, Co- Chair Representative Tom Smith, Co- Chair Joint Legislative Committee on Affordable Housing for Correctional Services Officers Arizona State Lrgislaturc 1700 W. Washington Phoenix. Arizona 85007 I Honorable Senator Noland and Representative Smith: I would like to t h e this opportunity to thank you for forwarding the copy of the survey dolls bp the Deyt. Of Cor- rections concerning the housing needs of employees of the Dzpartmznt. It will be of great assistanw in our discussions with developers \ ve are aaempting to interest in our community. I With regard to the options presented by Steve Capobres, Dept. Of Carninerce. whicl~ m ay be of assistance in creating affordable housing or in attracting developers to construcr same, 11 is my belief that the following four alternatives would prove to be of most value in our con~ niullity: I. 4 State Income Tzx Credits for affordable housing built in " prison citics." I J IJst. of Stnte Lmd - there is a sizeable inventory of State Land in rht. Florerlcz area in addit~ onto the State land already designated for prisan use. I + Increase in the State Housirlg Trust Fund targeted for use in thc " prison Cities." 9' Targeting Current Srate Resources by providing bonus points for projects located in " prison cities." In addition to the funding resources listed in Mr. Capobres paper. I nrould add technical assistance from the Dept. Of Commerce staff. Snlall commwiities. such as Florence, need all the assistancc and expertise available, in assistins and working uith developers to " package" all the possible resources, thereby ending up with a truly affordable project. As far as vacant lPmd available for the development of affordable housing, the Town iiself, does not oun lat- td that would be suirable for this purpose. We have, howe\- er, just colnpleted annexing approximately 200 acres which is being targeted for housing devcloprncnt and are currently box l@$ J, P h developers wA o qre interested hi 3bu2ild in$ r T2 eT6 d2I ) h& %!%) nlitrrle~ lta nd orence, rlzona - Affordable Housing Page 2 is moving ahead, to provide the infrastructure to make this area " ripe" for development and nil1 be working closely with rhc Dept. Of Commerce staff to steer this de\ relopment in the right direction. In addition to the annexation area mentioned above, there is undeveloped, privately owned land outside of thc Town whicll could be utilized for housing development. The biggest obstacles to developnient of these areas are the asking price for the land itself as well as the cost of extending utilities to serve it. These two factors alone would almost preclude the development crf '. affordable" housing unless other " cost savings" factors couid be brought to bear. I hope this il~ fonnationw ill be of use to the Committee and should there be an). additional information I can provide, please do riot hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Interim Town Manager THE CITY O F SAFFORD December 14, 1995 .- \ ' rdir jason K. , Dezozo, Research .4ssistznt Arizona StateBenate Capitol Complex, Senate Building Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr. Dezozo: You asked us to provide you with certain information pertaining to statistics related to the City of SafTord. Specifically, you asked for housing information and information concerning inmate labor. Several Charts are inclosed that give you the information requested. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this information. Sincerely, THE CITY OF SAFFORD M &< - C \ u Ronald J lacobson / gl Enclosures ( 6) I P. O. BOX 272 SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85548 FAX ( 520) 348- 31 11 BASIC COUNTS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING Special Census of Graham County, Arizona Census Date: March 18, 1995 Persons Total Housing Graham County Pima Town SaRord City Thatcher City Total 9,950 672 3,486 1,328 29,772 1,850 8,773 3,957 Occupied 8,98 1 619 3,179 1,237 Vacant 969 5 3 289 9 1 Rate 9.73 7.89 8.33 6.85 December 14, 1995 Joni L. Hoffman, Legislative Research Analyst l Arizona State Senate 1700 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Ms. Hoffman: I AfTordable Housing for Correctional Services Officers I Senator Noland and Representative Smith asked for comments concerning alternatives that might be considered to address the issue of affordable housing for Correctional Services Officers. Ten alternatives were submitted and our preference for the four best options as far as our community is concerned follow. Please consider the four best options, in order of preference, to be: 1. Alternative E -- State Land Alternative A -- State Linked Deposit Program. rUten2tive F -- Increase State Housing Trust Fund Alternative H -- General Fund Appropriations. I Making state land available for affordable housing has the potential for providing several benefits. First, in most rural communities, conversion of state land to affordable housing property would be the highest and best use of the land and consequently comply with existing. constitutional B requirements Additionally, if this land were sold to developers for this purpose, the land would be convened to private ownership and thus provide revenue to the rural areas through property taxes I to assist in infrastructure development Alternative A keeps the financing for affordable housing in the private sector. It provides incentives B for financial institutions to make resources available for affordable housing. Developers would then have incentive to construct the needed housing. P. O. Box 272 I SAFFORD, ARIZONA 85548 FAX ( 520) 348- 31 11 AKordable Housing Page 2 of 2 Increasing the percentage of unclaimed property that is transferred to the State Housing Trust Fund would increase the resources available for additional housing. This fbnd is already fbnctional and operating so no new organizational structure would be required. I The least preferable alternative of the four options we recommend is general fbnd appropriations. This alternative has the disadvantage of being subject to the whims of the Legislature each year. It has the advantage of having the Legislature as a player in assisting in the providing of affordable housing to employees of the State. We believe that this alternative should be restricted to using the . I appropriations as guarantees to leverage other private financing for the purpose of obtaining affordable housing in the prison cities. u There is an ample supply of state land near the City of Saf5ord that is really being used for no obvious purpose at the present time. Private lands are available within the City that would be available under the right circumstances and with negotiation with land owners. I Please let me know if we can be of fbrther assistance. I Sincerely, City Manager / ( . Mayor James L. Boles 21 Williamson Avenue Winslow, Arizona 86047 ( 602) 289- 2422 Fax: ( 602) 289- 3742 TDD: ( 602) 289- 4982 Council Members Curtis Hardy Teny Nagle Dolores Rodriguez Arnold Scott Daniel Simmons T. E. Thompson December 13,1995 Jason Bezozo Arizona State Senate Capitol Complex, Senate Building Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr. Bezozo: In response to your request for infarmation, the City of Winslow would support the following options: A) State Linked Deposit Program B) State Income Tax Credits C) State Equity Fund D) State Land 2. Housing Availability: 3 Single Family Homes for sale 1 single Family Home for Rent 2 Mobile Homes for Rent 5 Apartments for Rent ( substandard and depressing) Housing Costs: ( average monthly costs) Owner Occupied with Outstanding Mortgage $ 552. Owner Occupied without Mortgage $ 166. Renter Occupied $ 331. General Housing Data: Total Housing Units = 3,109 Average # of persons per household = 3.36 Units built prior to 1939 = 25% 3. Inmate Labor Projects include weed and trash removal and irrigation ditch repair. Approximate value to City annually = $ 32,000. Approximate cost in broken equipment = $ 5,000. 4. The City of Winslow owns property that would be suitable for affordable housing, and there is considerable acreage that is undeveloped and zoned for housing held by private owners. However, as you can see by the housing costs, affordability is not the concern in Winslow. Our issue is availability. Even high end housing would improve the situation by Ereeing up more affordable housing currently being occupied by higher income families. The one subsidized development that was built in Winslow is a barren, desolate eyesore and we have no interest in developing anymore of that type housing. In fact, low housing costs is the reason given by many developers for not wanting to develop in Wislow. Unfortunately, none of these surveys takes the quality of the housing into consideration. If we condemned the number of dwelling units that are substandard and should be condemned, our citizens would be living in the streets. The catch 22 for us is that the low cost of these units skews the market data to the extent that this is not perceived as a profitable market. If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me at ( 520) 289- 341 1 ext. 227. Sincerely, Jennifer Meyer ~ ommunity~~ evelo~ rMnaennatg er cc: 6on McDaniel, City Administrator INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY OF YUMA Tlus information was provided on December 14 by telephone call from Ms. Marty McCune from the City of Yuma. Ms McCune is the Neighborhood Specialist. Ms. McCune indicated that Yuma does not have a problem with available affordable housing. If pressed to choose from the listing of options, Yuma believes that C) State Equity Fund and F) Increase State Housing Trust Fund are the best options for - Yuma. YUMA CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR 1995 CITIZEN'S SUMMARY Action Plan CDBG fhds in the amount of $ 1,057,000 are programmed for a variety of housing and community development activities including expansion of the senior center, renovation of a downtown hotel for affordable housing, public services, downtown streetscape improvements, downtown plan, and mixed use comdor study. HOME hnds are not received on an entitlement basis, but must be applied for through the state. Funds for Tenant Based Rental Assistance have been received for four years. Citizen Participation The City's citizen participation process began with development and adoption of a new Citizen Participation Plan in January. Also in January, public hearings were held in locations other than City Hall for the first time. In February, a meeting was held with social service agencies to discuss service coordination and identi@ gaps. The group has continued to meet on a regular basis to discuss the service c h a t e in the community. In April, the draft Consolidated Plan was made available for public review, two public hearings were held, City staff met with the Housing Authority Resident Council to discuss plan elements, and another meeting was held with social service agencies. May saw consideration by City Council of proposed CDBG activities, and final adoption of the Plan. COMMUNITY PROFILE The City of Yuma, Arizona is located in the far southwest comer of the state on the banks of the Colorado River. The river forms the border between Arizona and California, and Yuma is also close to two states in Mexico - Baja California about 10 miles to the west and Sonora about twenty miles to the south. Yuma has historically been a city to go through on the way to somewhere else -- being half way between Phoenix and San Diego and half way between Los Angeles and Tucson. Yuma was the lower fording point on the Colorado River and thus every major movement which contributed to the development of the American west went through Yuma and left its mark on the history of the area. The major c~ ntnbutortso the economy of the area are agriculture, tourism and government. Tourism brings more than 50,000 winter residents from northern states and Canada to Yuma each year which impacts both services in the community generally and the housing market. The majority of the winter visitors stay in RV parks outside the City limits, however a number rent apartments each year making the rental market extremely tight during the winter months. Agriculture also contributes Yuma consolidated Plan Summary Page 2 to the tight rental market as lettuce and citrus harvest seasons bring many farmworkers to the area from September to April. The total population of the City of Yuma grew from 42,433 in 1980 to 54,923 in 1990 -- a 29% increase in population. The number of households grew even more - by 37% from 14,045 in 1980 tb 19,282 in 1990. The 1995 Special Census showed a population of 60,457, with 24,857 households. There was a shift in proportions of ethnic and racial groups between 1980 and 1990. The proportion of whites in the population fell from 67% of total population in 1980 to just over 58% in 1990. Proportions of all minorities rose, with the largest increase being in the proportion of Hispanics going from 27% in 1980 to 35.6% in 1990. Yuma County includes a relatively large number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Approximately 2,400 farmworkers work and reside in Yuma County . Assuming an average family size of 4.5 persons per household, a minimum population of 10,800 persons comprise farmworker families permanently living within Yuma County. ( This figure would increase to 12,800 to 13,100 when migrant fmworkers permanently residing elsewhere in the State or Southwest U. S. are factored into the equation.) HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Conditions Yuma is experiencing rapid growth, with the metropolitan area being the fourth fastest growing metropolitan area in the country. The seasonal nature of the economy from both agriculture and tourism, and stubborn double- digit unemployment, remain issues in providing affordable housing. There have been a number of major commercial projects in the last several years including Target, Dillards, Toys R Us, Super K Mart, however most of these businesses provide jobs minimum wages and seasonal employment. Several new industrial projects are being developed to provide higher paying year- round jobs. Housing Needs The discussion which follows uses the term " housing problems" extensively. " Housing Problems" are defined as one or more of three items -- a) cost burden - paying more than 30% of income for rent and utility costs; b) overcrowding, and c) substandard housing conditions. Data was provided by KUD for households with housing problems. Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary Page 3 While 46% of renter households in the City of Yuma have housing problems of some sort, the percentage jumps to nearly 80% for findies making less than 5 1% of MFI. For all minority headed households, the chance is even higher with 87% and 81% of those in the income categories of 0- 30% Median Family Income ( MFI), and 3 1- 50% MFI respectively having housing problems. For black households the percentage is even higher, with 92% of those in the 0- 30% MFI category having housing problems, and 100% of those in the 3 1%- 50% category having problems. Hispanics fare better than blacks, with 86% of those in the 0- 30% MFI category having problems, and only 77% of those in the 3 1- 50% category having housing problems. Family type is another way to analyze the extent to which income level affects housing problems, with 78% of renter households below 5 1% of MFI having housing problems. Elderly families are the least likely to suffer housing problems, and large families ( 5 or more persons) are the most likely to have problems. All minority households suffer more than the general population from housing problems when their incomes are less than 5 1% of MFI. Only 24% of homeowners have housing problems when their incomes are less than 5 1% of MFI. The percentage jumps to 72% for those with incomes under 30% MFI and 60% for those from 3 1- 50%. For minority owners, 78% of those with less than 30% MFI and 64% of those from 3 1- 50% MFI have have housing problems. Family size is another indicator, with 100% of large families in all categories having housing problems. Housing Market Conditions In 1990 U. S. Census, Yuma had approximately 10,784 detached housing units, 1,290 one- unit attached structures, 6,004 multi- fdy units, and 4,611 mobile home, trailers, or other units. Mobile homes represent a significant portion of the City's housing stock, as approximately 2,000 units are situated on subdivided urban land, 68 on unsubdivided land, and 2,3 18 units situated in 134 mobile home parks located throughout the City. There are approximately 5 18 mixed residential dwellings with the City. Vacancy rates for housing fluctuate significantly over time and are contingent on dynamic market conditions. Because of the seasonal nature of Yuma's economy, vacancies are plentihl in the summer and virtually nonexistent during the winter months. Housing Affordability + For Yuma County, median family income rose by 71% between 1980 and 1990. Monthly contract rent rose by 79% during the same period, resulting in a 4.8% erosion of rental affordability. In December, 1994, MFI rose to $ 30,100, a 29% increase from 1990. + Homeownership affordability rose 7.6% during the same 10- year period, mdung it easier to own a home. Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary Page 4 + Only 15% of owner occupied dwellings surveyed were valued under $ 50,000. leading to the conclusion that gains in affordability have likely benefitted moderate income households the most. + In January, 1995, according to the Norton Report, the median closed price for a home was $ 62,275, with a 4 bedroom house costing $ 1 15,000 which is well out of . the range of low-moderate income people. Housing Condition About 17% of occupied owner units were substandard according to the 1990 Census, with 13% of rental units also substandard. Based on information fkom the City of Yuma Housing Assistance Plan in 1991, approximately 69% of occupied substandard owner and renter units were estimated to be suitable for rehabilitation, with the balance not economically feasible to repair. Overcrowding According to the 1990 Census, 6% of owner- occupied dwellings and 16% of renter- occupied dwellings were in an overcrowded condition ( more than 1.01 persondroom) in 1990. Concentrations of Minorig and Low- Income Householdy Generally speaking, the farther north a census tract is located, the greater the minority and low-income concentrations. The greatest concentration of minority households - 64% - is located in Census Tract 1, and the least concentration - 17% in Census Tract 10. The City's North End Redevelopment Project Area is within Census Tract 1. The City considers any area which exceeds 50% low- income or minority to be an area of concentration and a location for special outreach efforts. Affordable Housing Needs Rental .4ssistar1ce is needed because renters make up 61.5% of very low- income households and 55.3% of other low- income households, and more than 75% pay in excess of 30% of their income for rent and utilities in the very low income category; Housing Authority waiting lists for rental assistance and conventional public housing exceed 1,400 on EACH list; renter households with " worst case" needs number more than 1,100; vacancy rates in existing rental housing are low, especially in the winter. New Concnuction can be justified because there is adequate vacant land available for the development of new rental or owner occupied housing; There are approximately 722 households which have five or more persons which are very low income or other low income; rental units having three or more bedrooms are scarce and are generally not affordable to very low or low income renters; there is not a supply of vacant and habitable public housing in excess of turnover units. I Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary Page 5 I Housing Rehabilitation is needed because substandard units make up 17% of the housing stock which is owner occupied, with 86% of those units considered suitable for rehabilitation; high unemployment affects an owner's ability to maintain his property and can lead to deterioration or loss I of buildings. Rehabilitation of rental units is also needed. Homebuyer Assistance is needed because mortgage fhds are plentill and rates are low, however m low income homebuyers have difficulty coming up with downpayment and closing costs. Homeless Needs According to a State- sponsored Yuma County Homeless Survey it is estimated that some 600 I homeless persons are in Yuma during the winter months. There are emergency shelter facilities for the homeless in Yuma with Crossroads Mission being the largest with the ability to provide 70 emergency shelter beds for males; 40 emergency beds for women and children Unduplicated numbers 8 , showing shelter service use in 1994 were 2,300 individuals and 600 families. Approximately 200 people are turned away annually due to unavailable beds. Other agencies which provide limited beds for specific user populations include Catholic Community Services for victims of domestic violence, and Behavioral Health Services for seriously mentally ill I persons. The Council of Governments operates a motel voucher program to provide limited emergency assistance, as well as a rent and mortgage program to keep people from becoming homeless. I The City of Yuma surveyed the social services agencies regarding the needs of the homeless, and first priority was given to homeless families. The primary identified need is support facilities and services, I with rehabilitation of existing housing units coming in next in priority order.. There is reasonable coordination among the providers of service to attempt to avoid duplication. The City has participated with CDBG hnding for transitional housing for mentally ill homeless with Behavioral I Health Services and with Safe House for victims of domestic violence Rental assistance is a secondary need as the need for housing assistance is great for those who are homeless. The Housing Authority has six Section 8 certificates desi- g nated for homeless households. Public and Assisted Housing Needs The City's Housing Authority manages 185 public housing units with another 50 under construction on four sites. All units are in excellent condition. The Authority regularly applies for CIAP and CDBG hnds to repair these units and sites.. I Housing Authority units are well managed, and no improvements are needed in management. There I are a number of programs ongoing for public housing tenants including drug elimination, Family Self Sufficiency Program, working to publicize the low- rent program and develop a network of responsible Section 8 Landlords, and assessment of tenant's needs. Other activities include resident Yuma Consolidated Plan Summary Page 6 councils, tenant patrols, participation in the Boys and Girls club, gang awareness meetings, teenager programs and teen dances. Other units currently assisted by state or federal funds: ( a) Section 8 Units - 806 New Construction - 110 - Private Mod Rehab - 9 - Private Certificates and Vouchers - 687 ( Elderly - 76, Family 61 1) - HACY ( b) All privately- owned rental housing Section 202 Elderly - 60 units Low Income Housing Tax Credit - 144 Units Farmers Home 5 16 - Farmworker Housing - 32 units
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.