Issues of Housing Affordability in Montgomery County, MD: Slide 1

Slide 1
Issues of Housing Affordability

In Montgomery County, MD
October 14, 2005
Maryland Citizen Planners
Sharon K. Suarez, AICP, Housing Coordinator

Research & Technology Center
Montgomery County Department of Park & Planning
Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission (M-(M-NCPPC)
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
www.mcparkandplanning.org/housing

M-NCPPC, Montgomery Co.
Slide 2

Presentation Goal
Montgomery County Housing Facts
Existing Programs
Issues Under Discussion
Research
Observations
Questions
Slide 3
Presentation Goal?

Slide 4
To share what Montgomery

County has done and is doing
to produce and maintain
affordable housing, in the hope
that you can benefit from our
experience.

Slide 5
Montgomery County
Housing Facts

Slide 6
Households by Income Category

160,000
140,000
Resident Workforce Households 148,885
120,000
100,000
80,000
89,138
60,000
40,000
47,461
38,687
20,000
0 14,274
>$20,000 $20,000 to $40,000 to $60,000 to $100,000 +
$39,999 $59,999 $99,999
Source: Montgomery County 2003 Census Update Survey

According to the 2003 Montgomery County Census Update

Survey:
Nearly 27 percent of the County’s total 338,445 households—

over 89,000 households—earned between $60,00 and $100,00 in
2002, and the median household income was $81,130.
Over 100,000 – nearly a third of the households – earned less

than $60,000 in 2002.
Nearly 44 percent of the households earned more than $100,000

in 2002.
Slide 7
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
County Medians $66,085 $67,457 $70,171 $71,551 $75,858 $78,063 $79,115 $80,962 $83,772 $86,265
Wash. PMSA AMI $68,300 $70,300 $72,300 $78,900 $82,800 $85,600 $91,500 $84,800 $85,400 $89,300


Survey, nearly 27 percent of the County’s total 338,445
households—over 89,000 households—earned between $60,00
and $100,00 in 2002
Slide 8
Number of housing sales

continues strong trend
Number of housing sales
2 5 ,0 0 0
Condos S in g le F a m ily Un its
2 0 ,0 0 0
1 5 ,0 0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Sales through 4th Quarter 2004.
Source: STAR (Static) Includes sales of new and existing condominium
units and single-family attached and detached units.
Housing Sales appear to be continuing at a strong pace for both

single-family (attached and detached) and multifamily units
(condominiums).
Sales information for 2004 indicates that over 24,300

transactions occurred. through the 4rd Quarter -- more than any
year except 2003.
Slide 9
2004 continues marked increase

in all Single-Family home prices New
Median Prices Detached
$700,000 $666,540
$600,000 Existing
Detached
$500,000 $450,000
$400,000 New
Attached
$300,000 $427,501
$200,000 Existing
Attached
$100,000 $283,500
$0
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Median prices through 3rd Quarter 2004.
Research & Technology Center Source: M-NCPPC Research & Technology Center
The hyperbolic curve continues unabated for home prices in all

single-family types. The medians through 3rd Quarter 2004 are
as follows:
New detached : $661,800

Existing detached: $450,000
New attached: $414,088
Existing attached: $274,000
Slide 10
Existing townhouses still affordable

Affordability index
1.8
Existing Townhouse
1.6
1.4
1.2
New Townhouse
1
0.8
Existing Single Family
0.6
New Single Family
0.4
0.2
0
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
Source: M-NCPPC Research & The higher the score, the more affordable the housing is.
Technology Center A score of “1.0” means the monthly cost of buying
a home equals 28% of gross median income.
(Prices 3rd Quarter 2004.)
The affordability index is adjusted each year for effective

interest rates, median income, and tax rate/$100 of valuation,
indicates that all housing has become significantly less
affordable this past year. The higher the score, the more
affordable the housing is. A score of “1.0” means the monthly
cost of buying a home equals 28% of gross median income.
Existing townhomes, the last bastion of affordability are

appreciating rapidly, and the index reflects this decreasing
affordability. The median price for these homes increased
$45,000 through the 3rd Quarter of 2004, from a median price of
$229,000 in 2003 to $274,000 at the end of the 3rd Quarter of
2004.
At a median sales price of over $414,000, new townhomes are

nearly as unaffordable as existing detached housing with a
median sales price of $450,000. Households earning the median
income of about $84,000 cannot afford either.
It would take a household income of over $182,000 per year to

afford the median sales price of nearly $662,000 for a new,
single-family detached home in Montgomery County.
Slide 11
Existing condominiums still affordable

Affordability index
1.8
1.6
EXISTING Condominiums
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
NEW Condominiums
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2001 2002 2003 2004
Assumes a $250 per month Condominium Association Fee (CAF).
a home equals 28% of gross median income.
Research & Technology Center (Prices through 3rd Quarter 2004.)
The affordability index is adjusted each year for effective

interest rates, median income, and tax rate/$100 of valuation,
indicates that all housing has become significantly less
affordable this past year. The higher the score, the more
affordable the housing is. A score of “1.0” means the monthly
cost of buying a home equals 28% of gross median income.
These next two slides show the impact of condominium fees

upon condo affordability.
Condo Association Fees of $250 were used, annualized.
Condo Median Sales Prices__2001 2002 2003 2004

Existing $115,450 $135,000 $170,000 $210,000
New $209,272 $222,150 $261,410 $303,605
All Condominiums $123,600 $143,000 $172,000 $213,000
Slide 12
Existing condominiums still affordable

Affordability index
1.8
1.6
EXISTING Condominiums
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
NEW Condominiums
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2001 2002 2003 2004
Assumes a $400 per month Condominium Association Fee (CAF).
a median priced home equals 28% of gross median income.
Research & Technology Center (Prices through 3rd Quarter 2004.)
Condos are noticeably less affordable when Condo Association

Fees of $400 were used.
Slide 13
Owner Monthly Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Housing Payment Percent
Under $299 44303 4.8 7.4 7.4
$300-599 36878 4.0 6.2 13.6
$600-799 25400 2.8 4.3 17.8
$800-899 26096 2.9 4.4 22.2
$900-999 25941 2.8 4.3 26.6
$1000-1099 29600 3.2 5.0 31.5
$1100-1199 29796 3.3 5.0 36.5
$1200-1299 43044 4.7 7.2 43.7
$1300-1399 30593 3.3 5.1 48.8
$1400-1499 26903 2.9 4.5 53.3
$1500-1599 35658 3.9 6.0 59.3
$1600-1699 25994 2.8 4.4 63.7
$1700-1799 21375 2.3 3.6 67.2
$1800- 1899 25366 2.8 4.2 71.5
$1900-1999 15221 1.7 2.5 74.0
$2000-2199 39095 4.3 6.5 80.6
$2200-2499 32696 3.6 5.5 86.1
$2500- 2999 31997 3.5 5.4 91.4
$3000-3999 34852 3.8 5.8 97.2
$4000+ 16463 1.8 2.8 100.0
Total 597271 65.3 100.0
Renters 317628 34.7
199Total
7 Census Update Survey 914900 100.0
M-NCPPC, Montgomery Cty. Source: Montgomery County 2003 Census Update Survey
44 percent of Montgomery County’s homeowners spend less

than $1,300 per month on PITI.
Over half (53 percent) send less than $1,500 per month. A
payment of $1,500 per month is affordable to a household
earning $60,000 per year.
Nearly two-thirds spend less than $2,000 per month. A payment

of $2,000 per month is affordable to a household earning
$80,000 per year.
Slide 14
2,900 Units Sold for Less Than $200,000

in 2004
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
New Exist New Exist New Exist
SFD SFD SFA SFA Condo Condo

Households earning 70 percent of area median income (about

$60,000) could afford housing priced at about $200,000. [1]
About 2,900 units (about 13 percent of the sales) sold for prices
less $200,000 in 2004. While units from all types of housing
were sold within this price range (including one new-single-
family detached unit), nearly two-thirds of the sales were of
existing condominiums and the majority of the remaining sales
were of existing single family attached houses.
[1] Assuming that 10% down, 30-year note at about 6% interest, fixed.
Slide 15
Over 840 Units Sold for Less than $150,000

in 2004
$0 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
New Exist New Exist New Exist
SFD SFD SFA SFA Condo Condo

Households earning less than 60 percent of the AMI (about

$50,000) could afford a home costing 174,500 or less.
More than 840 units (about 3.5 percent of all housing sold)
were purchased for less than $150,000 in 2004.
Survey, more than 27 percent (nearly 94,000 households)
earned less than $50,000 in 2002. [1]
While some sales occurred among nearly all structure
types, the primary homeownership opportunities for this
group were existing condominiums and existing
townhouses.
Households who move out of Montgomery County tend to
have median incomes less than $50,000, according to IRS
data.[2]
[1] Using the standard factors involved in the calculation of the Montgomery County
Affordability Index, a household earning $33,000 in 2004 could afford to buy a home costing
$112,500 and one earning $50,000 could afford a home in the mid -$174,500. Assuming that
10% down, 30-year note at about 6% interest, fixed.
[2] IRS, 2003. Data for 2001 and 2002.
Slide 16
Housing units continue

to sell quickly
Days on the market
111
Data for 2005 is a nine-month average

55 (January through September).
45
29 26 27 26 25.2
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Research & Technology Center Sources: MRIS and Mont. Co. Dept. of Finance.
Is there a bubble? I’m not seeing one yet. I watch a number of

indicators on a regular basis, such as: rate of sales (time on the
market), number of sales, median sales price by structure type
(new and used), and assessment data.
Since 2001, homes in Montgomery County have been on the

market for less than 30 days. According to MRIS data, this
trend is continuing in 2005, with the average for the first nine
months being just over 25 days.
Sources: David Platt, Economist, Montgomery County

Department of Finance and MRIS.
Slide 17
Median Sales Price - Montgomery County, MD

First Quarter Sales Comparison, 2002 to 2005
Housing Type 2002 2003 2004 2005
New Single-Family Detached
Median Price $475,256 $553,473 $659,730 $745,931
Percent Increase 16.46% 19.20% 13.07%
Existing Single-Family Detached
Median Price $303,000 $366,000 $400,000 $469,900
New Single-Family Attached
Median Price $245,200 $325,577 $416,569 $457,268
Existing Single-Family Attached
Median Price $174,900 $200,000 $249,900 $305,000
All Single Family
Median Price $252,000 $298,988 $349,900 $400,000
County Median Household Income $78,647 $79,115 $84,061 $86,265
Annual Total Housing Costs
Affordable to HHs Earning the County $23,594 $23,735 $25,218 $25,880
Median (30%)
Number of units sold in Qtr 3,950 3,200 4,013 3,808
Percent Change -18.99% 25.41% -5.11%
1st Qtr CPI (Housing) Percent
Research & Technology Center 2.3 4.2 3.5 3.8
IncreaseMontgomery Co.
M-NCPPC,
I compared 1st Quarter Sales from 2002 through 2005. Sales

prices continue to increase. The number of sales per quarter is
lower than for the same period in 2004, but is higher than the
number for the 1st Quarter of 2003.
Slide 18
Median Sales Price - Montgomery County, MD

First Quarter Condominium Sales Comparison, 2002 to 2005
Housing Type 2002 2003 2004 2005
All Condominiums
Median Price $130,000 $163,000 $195,000 $262,100
New Condominiums - All Structure Types
Median Price $192,873 $291,900 $329,944 $368,009
Used Condominiums - All Structure Types
Median Price $127,000 $155,000 $190,000 $255,000
County Median Household Income $78,647 $79,115 $84,061 $86,265
Annual Total Housing Costs Affordable to HHs
$23,594 $23,735 $25,218 $25,880
Earning the County Median (30%)
Number of units sold in Quarter 1,118 1,025 1,204 1,433
Percent Change -8.32% 17.46% 19.02%
1st Qtr CPI (Housing) Percent Increase 2.3 4.2 3.5 3.8

Condominium sales are strong.

Slide 19
2005 ASSESSMENTS Type of Unit

Running Running
Ranges SFD SFA Condos Total Percent Total Percent
Up to $99,999 23 1,245 10,628 11,896 4.26% 11,896 4.26%
$100,000 to $149,999 627 9,389 6,471 16,487 5.91% 28,383 10.17%
$150,000 to $199,999 3,830 19,405 7,970 31,205 11.18% 59,588 21.36%
$200,000 to $249,999 13,020 11,585 5,187 29,792 10.68% 89,380 32.03%
$250,000 to $299,999 22,424 7,170 2,962 32,556 11.67% 121,936 43.70%
$300,000 to $349,000 26,677 4,787 2,014 33,478 12.00% 155,414 55.70%
Subtotal <$350K 66,601 53,581 35,232 155,414
Over $350,000 110,254 9,640 3,716 123,610 44.30% 279,024 100.00%
Totals 176,855 63,221 38,948 279,024 100.00%

About a third of the properties in Montgomery County are

reassessed each year. I look at the mix of housing stock, by
assessments by structure type. Over half (over 155,000 ) of the
residences (land and improvements) in Montgomery County are
assessed at less than than $350,000 in 2005, with over a fifth
assessed at less than $200,000.
Slide 20
Not much change

2004 Assessments in composition of
Under $350K
stock assessed at
SFD
SFA
36% <$350K.
41%
2005 Assessments
C o ndo s Under $350K
23%
SFA
SFD
34%
43%
C o ndo s
23%

In 2004, well over half (57 percent) of the County’s housing stock
was assessed at less than $350,000.
More than 90,000 of those units were assessed at less than $200,000
in 2004, and nearly all of those units were reassessed in 2005.
The 2004 assessments revealed a variety of units by structure type

were assessed at less than $350,000.
Fortunately, after the reassessments for over 89,000 units were

posted in the spring of 2005, an analysis revealed that there are
approximately the same number, percentages, and types of units in
the County assessed at less than $350,000 in 2005 as there were in
2004.
Slide 21
Renter Monthly Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Housing Payment Percent
Under $249 2600 .3 1.7 1.7
$250-499 4629 .5 3.1 4.8
$500-599 3451 .4 2.3 7.1
$600-699 6203 .7 4.1 11.2
$700-799 11499 1.3 7.6 18.9
$800-899 15776 1.7 10.5 29.4
$900-999 20524 2.2 13.6 43.0
$1000-1099 25522 2.8 17.0 60.0
$1100-1199 14383 1.6 9.6 69.5
$1200-1299 13654 1.5 9.1 78.6
$1300-1399 9544 1.0 6.3 85.0
$1400-1499 3871 .4 2.6 87.5
$1500-1799 8775 1.0 5.8 93.4
$1800+ 9974 1.1 6.6 100.0
Total 150405 16.4 100.0
Owners 764495 83.6
Total 914900 100.0
Source: Montgomery County 2003 Census Update Survey

Let’s look at renters.
As background,
In 2003 40 percent paid less than $1000 per month in rent;
Nearly 2/3rds paid less than $1100 per month;
And over 3/4ths paid less than $1300 per month.
Slide 22
In 2004, rents continued their

upward trend
Monthly rent, in dollars $1,154
$1,200 $1,111
$1,076
$1,030
$928
$871
$900
$726
$600
$300
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: Montgomery County Office of Turnover rents (Unsubsidized)

Landlord-Tenant Affairs
Turnover rents, or the rent charged when the unit is turned over or
newly leased, increased again in 2004. In 2004, the average turnover
rent was $1,154, up about 3.3 percent increase over the 2003
turnover rent of $1,111.
In reality, the rental rate of $1,154 per month is affordable to a

household earning about $41,500, and unfortunately, only
efficiencies and one bedroom units have average rents within that
range.
By Unit Size Turnover Rent – Market Rate Number of Units
Efficiency $ 887 2,609
1 BR $1,027 21,815
2 BR $1,211 28,072
3 BR $1,526 5,059
4 BR Plus $1,708 118
All Units $1,154 (weighted average) 57,673
By Structure Type Turnover Rent – Market Rate Number of Units

Garden $1,063 37,709
High-rise $1,338 13,361
Mid-rise $1,148 3,959
Townhouse/Piggyback $1,421 2,644
Slide 23
Apartment market not as tight, with

vacancy rates now over 5%
Vacancy rate
6%
5.1%
5% 4.4% 4.2%
4% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8%
3.0%
3% 2.5%
1.8%
2%
1%
0%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: Montgomery County Office of Vacancy rate for all units –
Landlord-Tenant Affairs market rate and subsidized, combined.
A tight rental market is indicated by a vacancy rate of 5 percent

or less.
The overall apartment vacancy rate, while still relatively healthy

at 5.1 percent, nevertheless increased in 2004 for both market
and subsidized units.
Vacancy rates were highest for the market areas of Upper

Montgomery County (7.8 percent), Rockville (7.2 percent), and
Germantown-Gaithersburg (6.5 percent). The rest of the market
areas in the county reported vacancy rates below 5 percent, with
the lowest being Olney (0.8 percent) and Darnestown-Potomac
(1.6 percent).
Slide 24
Rental Units and Turnover Rents by Unit Size

By Unit Size Turnover Number of Units
Monthly rent, in dollars
Rent
Efficiency $887 2,609

1 BR $1,027 21,815
2 BR $1,211 28,072
3 BR $1,526 5,059
4 BR Plus $1,708 118
All Units $1,154 57,673
(weighted
average)
Source: Montgomery County Office of
Research & Technology Center Landlord-Tenant Affairs
Turnover rents, or the rent charged when the unit is turned over or
newly leased, increased again in 2004. In 2004, the average turnover
rent was $1,154, up about 3.3 percent increase over the 2003
turnover rent of $1,111.
[1] The actual PITI of $1,170 monthly housing cost (PITI—
principle, interest, taxes, and insurance) for a home that cost
$175,000 compares favorably with the average turnover rent. If a
condo is purchased, then the monthly housing expense must include
that.
In reality, the rental rate of $1,154 per month is affordable to a

household earning about $41,500, and unfortunately, only
efficiencies and one bedroom units have average rents within that
range.
Slide 25
Rental Units and Turnover Rents by Structure Type

By Structure Type Turnover Number of Units
Rent
Garden $1,063 37,709
Mid-rise $1,148 3,959
High-rise $1,338 13,361
Townhse/Piggybk $1,421 2,644
All Units $1,154 57,673
(weighted
average)
Source: Montgomery County Office of
Research & Technology Center Landlord-Tenant Affairs
Turnover rents, or the rent charged when the unit is turned over or newly leased, increased again
in 2004. In 2004, the average turnover rent was $1,154, up about 3.3 percent increase over the
2003 turnover rent of $1,111.
In reality, the rental rate of $1,154 per month is affordable to a household earning about $41,500,
and unfortunately, only efficiencies and one bedroom units have average rents within that range.
By Unit Size Turnover Rent – Market Rate Number of Units

Efficiency $ 887 2,609
1 BR $1,027 21,815
2 BR $1,211 28,072
3 BR $1,526 5,059
4 BR Plus $1,708 118
By Structure Type Turnover Rent – Market Rate Number of Units

Garden $1,063 37,709
High-rise $1,338 13,361
Mid-rise $1,148 3,959
Townhouse/Piggyback $1,421 2,644
Slide 26
Existing Affordable
Housing Programs

Slide 27
Bi-Annual Housing Snapshot Report

Other
2004 EXISTING HOUSING MPDUs Affordable TDRs
UNITS SFD SFA MF MPDUs Bought Out Housing Used
Total Countywide 180,452 71,299 105,467 12,230 338 16,570 10,429

Other
January 1 to June 30, 2005 MPDUs Affordable TDRs
HOUSING COMPLETIONS SFD SFA MF MPDUs Bought Out Housing Used
Total Countywide 430 240 723 130 79 51 10

Other
January 1 to June 30, 2005 Affordable
PIPELINE APPROVALS SFD SFA MF MPDUs Housing
Total Countywide 620 363 1,458 282 67

First of all – many of our programs are multiagency and

multijurisdictional.
Some are for renters, and some are for home owners.
Some serve low-income households
Some sever median income households and households who earn
even more than the median.
Slide 28
Rental Programs H ousehold Income Levels Served Using 2004 Using 2005
AM I AM I
($85,400) ($89,300)
HOM E-Funded Rental Housing At a minimum: 20% H OM E units – HHs up to 50% $42,700 $44,650
AM I
70% HOM E units – HH s up to 60% AM I $51,240 $53,580
T enant Based Rental Assistance At a minimum: 90% H OM E units – HHs up to 60% $51,240 $53,580
AM I
Public Housing HHs up to 50% AM I $42,700 $44,650
Housing Choice V ouchers At a minimum: 75% vouchers – HH s up to 30% AM I $25,620 $26,790
25% vouchers – H Hs up to 50% AM I $42,700 $44,650
H ome O w nership Programs H ousehold Income Levels Served
American Dream Downpayment HHs up to 80% AM I $68,320 $71,440
HOC Closing Cost Assistance 1 and 2 person H Hs may earn up to 100% AM I $85,400 $89,300
3+ person HH s may earn up to 115% AM I $98,210. $102,695
HOC M ortgage Purchase Program 1 and 2 person H Hs may earn up to 100% AM I $85,400 $89,300
3+ person HH s may earn up to 115% AM I $98,210 $102,695
M oderately-Priced Dwelling Units HH up to approximately 60% of AM I $51,240 $53,580
Low-Income Housing T ax Credits At a minimum: 20% units – H Hs up to 50% AM I, or $42,700 $44,650
40% units – HHs up to 60% AM I $51,240 $53,580
CDBG -Funded Homeowner Rehab HHs up to 80% AM I $68,320 $71,440

Slide 29
Montgomery County’s Housing Policy - 2001

i Everyone with a place to call home — no one homeless.
i All housing in sound condition, meeting all building maintenance
codes.
i Adequate living space within each housing unit for its occupants.
i Affordable housing for all who live or work in the county,
regardless of age or position.
i Appropriate housing and services for each stage of life so that
people can remain in the community as they grow older.
i No discrimination in choosing a place to live, regardless of race,
color, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, presence of children, age, physical or
mental disability, or source of income.
i Housing opportunities and supportive services for those who have
mobility or sensory impairment, developmental or emotional
disabilities, or mental illness.
i Safe and sound neighborhoods with community services and well-
maintained facilities.

The gist of the next three slides is that Montgomery County is

committed in policy to housing diversity, housing choice, and fair
housing for its residents on a Countywide basis.
In 2001 it updated its official housing policy.

Slide 30
Montgomery County’s Housing Policy - 2001

i Low production of multifamily housing, causing extremely low
rental vacancy rates and historically high increases in rent.
i Residential housing production, especially of units for individuals
and households below the median income, not keeping pace with
recent increases in demand.
i Aging neighborhoods, many 50 years old or more, needing
reinvestment and stabilization.
i Most new development opportunities in infill development or
redevelopment of older and obsolete communities and structures
as the county nears build-out.
i Increasing demand for independent- and assisted-living senior
housing as the population ages.
i Increasing demand for housing for individuals and families
transitioning from homelessness as various federal programs that
subsidize buildings expire.
i An affordable assisted housing stock under intense pressure.

Slide 31
Montgomery County Housing Objectives

1. Variety and choice in housing, in various types of new and existing
neighborhoods in conformance with the County’s General Plan.
2. Assistance for persons with diverse housing needs, including housing for
the elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with mental illness, and
persons transitioning from homelessness.
3. Safe, high-quality neighborhoods.
4. Communities with affordable housing throughout the County, especially
for households at the median income level and below.
5. Housing for all stages of life to serve the County’s existing and planned
employment and the changing needs of its residents.
6. Equal opportunity housing, to ensure that all residents have an
opportunity to purchase, rent, finance, and occupy housing in the
county.
7. Sustainable communities and environmental sensitivity in housing,
neighborhood design, and redevelopment.

Slide 32
Montgomery County’s Housing Policy – 2001

Production Goals
Affordable Housing Program: Proposed Annual Production Goals
(Averages for the last two fiscal years, FY99 and FY00, are shown in parentheses.)
Owner Rental Total Cost
Programs Units Units (County $)
Moderately Priced Dwelling 200 100 $0

Units (149) (83) ($0)
Section 8 Certificates/ Housing 200 $0

Vouchers (190) ($0)
Group Home/Transitional/ 100 $500,000 –

Special Needs Housing $1,000,000
Production (29) ($145,000)
Home Ownership 30* $600,000

(11*) ($296,000)

As part of the 2001 Housing Policy development, production

goals were determined based on an average of previous years.
Then, implementation goals were calculated… (next two slides)
Slide 33
More Production Goals

O w ner R ental T otal C ost
Program s U nits U nits (County $)
N onprofit M ultifam ily 150* $1,500,000 –

R ehabilitation $2,250,000
(55*) ($543,000)
N ew C onstruction 200 $800,000 –

$2,000,000
(0) ($0)
Preservation of Federally 200* $1,600,000 –

A ssisted H ousing $2,400,000
(121*) ($780,000)
H O C and N onprofit M PD U 60 $1,800,000

A cquisition (29) ($870,000)
M ultifam ily R ehabilitation 150* $750,000 –

Loans $1,500,000
(5*) ($108,000)
C onstruction of E lderly H ousing 250 $3,750,000 –

and A ssisted Living U nits $5,750,000
(18) ($683,000)

Slide 34
Still More Production Goals

Owner Rental Total Cost
Programs Units Units (County $)
Accessory Apartments 50 $0
(15) ($0)
Preservation of Threatened 950* $0

Multifamily Housing (950*) ($0)
Acquisition of Threatened 150* $0 – $1,500,000

Multifamily Housing (24*) ($516,000)
HOC Public Housing 100* $700,000 –

Rehabilitation 1,500,000
(40*) ($290,000)
Total Units: Total Cost to County:
New: 1,160 (513) $12 – $20,300,000
Preserved: 1,730 (1,206) ($4,231,000)
Total: 2,890 (1,719)

Note the total: Over $20-million dollars per year would be

needed to accomplish the production goals on a regular basis.
Slide 35
HIF 1989 through 2000

This chart is from the housing policy document and indicates the
variability of the funding levels of the Housing Initiative Fund in
prior years.
Slide 36
The $21-million
HOUSING INIATIVE
FUND (HIF)
2.5% of
Property Tax

The result was that the County Council set up a dedicated

funding level for the HIF of 2.5 percent of the general fund
property taxes. Based on property taxes, the HIF received $21-
million dollars.
In 2004, thousands of units of affordable housing were produced

with money from the HIF.
To get a sense of the impact of the HIF, DHCA’s executive

director, Elizabeth Davison, claims that she can typically get a
1:7 leverage with HIF dollars, which means the $21-million will
result in over $140-million.
Slide 37
HIF – Acquisition and Renovation of

Threatened Affordable Apartment Buildings

In threatened affordable apartment buildings, over 900 units

were acquired and renovated.
Slide 38
HIF – Special Needs and Homelessness

The HIF funded the development of 97 units for persons

with special needs or for the homeless. In fact all but 10
units were for the homeless.
Slide 39
HIF – Elderly/New Construction

In 2004, the HIF constructed 749 units of new elderly

housing.
Slide 40
HIF – Working with Not-for-Profit Developers

The HIF, works with not-for-profit developers, such as Maryland

Housing Partnership (MHP). In 2004, MHP borrowed $1.6-million
from the HIF to purchase the 22-unit Amherst Apartments. This is
the third property in the Amherst community that MHP is
renovating and constructing. Between 1998 and 2002 MHP used
HIF money to purchase and renovate 258 units in two adjacent
properties.
Additionally, the HIF preserved 1,141 federally subsidized units in

2004.
Slide 41
MPDU Production 1976 to 2004

County - For Sale County - Rental Rockville - For Sale Rockville - Rental
1400
1200
1000
Number of Units
800
600
400
200
0
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
The MPDU program serves families/households earning not more

than about 70 percent of AMI. As discussed earlier, the new MPDU
income guidelines actually go up to about 73.5 percent of AMI.
In the Housing Policy, the production goal for MPDUs is 300 units
per year.
Over 11,647 MPDUs have been constructed in the County, since the
program began.
On average, the County has produced fewer than 420 MPDU units
have been completed each year since 1976, with fewer than 300 units
having been completed each year since 2000.
Approximately 80 percent of the MPDUs have been offered for sale,

the rest have been offered for rent.
Because control periods expire, housing staff estimates that roughly

2,500 MPDUs remain under control at this time.
Since its inception, the MPDU law has been amended by 18 Bills and
numerous zoning text amendments and
Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44
Productivity Housing
i Adopted in early 1990s
i For certain commercial and industrial zones
i The purposes include:
– Promote the construction of housing affordable to
household with incomes at or below the AMI
– Provision greater choices in housing
– Reducing critical labor shortages of skilled and semi-
skilled workers by providing housing accessible to the
workplace
One project to date!
Administered much like the MPDU program.

Requires at least 35% of the DUs to be sold or rented to households
with incomes below AMI.
Slide 45
Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) program

Slide 46
TDRs cost
about $40K
each now but
they enable
greater
densities in
receiving
areas – and
that helps
build
affordable
housing!

Montgomery County’s agricultural reserve comprises over 93,000

acres—more than any other urban county in the nation.
Over half is preserved through the TDR program.
----------
If asked, Montgomery County has 577 active farms (mostly
equestrian) and 350 horticultural enterprises.
Slide 47
Issues Currently
Under Discussion

Slide 48
Develop a Workforce
Housing Program
Supply Solutions
Demand Solutions

Slide 49
Relationship of Top 30 High Demand Occupations in Region

with County and State Housing Wages (Rental)
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00 M O N T G O M E R Y C O . H O US IN G
WA G E
$20.00
M A R YLA N D S H O US IN G WA G E
$10.00
$0.00
.
d
din ers
AG
E
s
ni iv e
s.
s
s
...
an
s
er
ep l , a NG ts
Ex A G
s
clu a nr s
ts
s, s
or
e s
l M P r al
er
s
Fa
es
er
...
ftw ts
ar
st L i ves
rs
ss st
IN s
O r et s
s
r ia
er on
tiv st
Ja c ut
n
ag
se
an s
le e
H
S r ie
s
rd
. H ec or
or eep n W ier
an
So i s
at
ta
A ali
ag
e
ito
M r
dm en al y
ss
r s ng ork
in nd W
tr a aly
to
s wy e
g
ov er s
ua
er ale en
ur
O l S di t
r im ms nom
ig
G
U a
nd e
k ti o s h
is
le
ut
in ci
ud
an
tr e
C
st
is n
An
m pe
G
E
ec
Se g C
,G
se ra Ca
in t A
M
eg d A
em a
ve
ai
d
co
y
Ex
Ad S
ia s
ke a SI
s
d eta r k s
re
W
r it
in
ns
In
i
m
ys E
an
In
d or t
s e dic U
te
cu
ep
ef
te
d
m
io
al
le
a
O
at S
is
t
Y ega
an
an pp
hi
s
ffi M ys
in
d ge
C
at
ke
g
o uepa
H l, M H
Sy
nt
M il
A
ke
C
er
u
,S
e
rS
se
s
anna
of ga DS
ER L
ta
ri e S
er
C
ffic
p
Se d H Pr
n
e
un
ou
rs
te
O
ce a
an R
io
ta ter
a it
e N
W
O
ee
d
pu
at
H
co
er t L LA
nd
W
c r pu
a n s a oo
an
g
m
g in
om
d
Ac
in
la
ag ep Y
M
ou
Se om
id F
an
r
es
an x c A R
ck
fo
rv
En
O
ra
O
C
e
In
e C
to
s
tiv
TG
e
of
/M E M
d
e
en
tio Ma
,S
d
ec
ai
ar
d
s
N
an
M
G
er
ht
et
O
tw
pt
ag
e ig
r
M
of
tiv
te
n
rs s ,
xc
an
rS
pu
Fr
cu
so r ie
ra
M
om
xe
te
(
vi ta
pa
s/
an
od r s
pu
er r e
C
or
F o ne
re
om
rs
up ec
is
P
a
re
rv
S
C
ne C le
pe
bo
La
Su
nd
S
d
C rs a
e
e
in
L in
bi
-L
o
nit
om
st
st
F ir
Ja
F ir
1997 Census Update Survey
M-NCPPC, Montgomery Cty.
The Round 7.0 forecast predicts that Montgomery County will gain
about 80,000 jobs by 2015, for a total of about 580,000 jobs--up from
a 500,000 jobs in 2005.[1] Based on commuting flows from the
1980, 1990, and 2000 Census, it is reasonable to assume that between
35 and 40 percent of the workers will commute into the county to
work. That translates into a range of 203,000 and 232,000 workers
commuting into the County from other jurisdictions.[2]
Of the recently reported Top 30 High Demand Occupations in
Region through 2010,[3] over half of the jobs will not pay enough to
allow the employees to pay the average countywide turnover rents in
Montgomery County. (Figure 6) Further, of the 200,000 jobs
anticipated, regionally, it is anticipated that 75 percent (about
150,000) will be in six, key, high-demand occupations in that not will
generate incomes high enough to afford more than $700 a month in
total housing costs for a single-person household. In 2004, the
average monthly rent for an efficiency apartment in Montgomery
County was ($877).
[1] Round 7.0 Washington Council of Governments’ Forecast. Maryland Department of Business & Economic
Development (DBED) estimated 450,000 jobs in 2004, “Montgomery County, MD, Brief Economic Facts,” 2004-
2005, p.1 (www.choose Maryland.org).
[2]Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Commuting Patterns in the Washington Metropolitan Region,
1992 and 2000. (Based on data from the US Bureau of the Census, 1980, 1990, and 2000.)
[3]U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2004, for the metropolitan Washington DC area. The exact demands from
the regional workforce are hard to determine, because BLS reports job data for the entire metropolitan Washington
DC region (PMSA)--Washington, DC, and parts of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Slide 50
Affordable
Regional Average Affordable Purchase Price
Housing Affordability Anticipated Average Annual Monthly based on Annual
By Key Occupation Employment Wage Salary Rent or PITI Salary
Janitor 55,430 $9.21 $20,850 $521 $69,500.00
Retail Salesperson 80,000 $11.24 $23,390 $585 $77,966.67
Construction Laborer 20,600 $13.45 $27,790 $695 $92,633.33

Firefighter 3,770 $20.11 $41,830 $1,046 $139,433.33
Elementary School
Teacher 30,590 N.A. $49,440 $1,236 $164,800.00
Police Officer 15,380 $23.84 $49,590 $1,240 $165,300.00

Of the several key jobs frequently listed as indices for workforce

housing affordability—such as schoolteachers, firefighters, nurses,
retail sales persons, construction laborers, and janitors—none can
afford to purchase the median- priced home on a single person’s
salary. In fact, none of the key positions listed in Figures 7 and 8
can afford a home that costs over $170,000. At the 2004 rental
turnover rates, retail sales persons, construction laborers, and
janitors will not be able to afford an efficiency apartment with an
average turnover rent of $887.
In a Washington Post Article on Tuesday, Montgomery County

Council Members said that ….
About 25 percent of the county's teachers and 75 percent of its
firefighters live outside the county,
"We're telling them, in effect, that we're happy to have them work
here but go look for housing in Frederick, Pennsylvania or West
Virginia," Silverman said.
Slide 51
% of % of % of New % of Exist % of Line % of Cumulative

2004 SALES - % of Total Total Total Total Condo Total Condo Total Total % of Total
Number of Units by New Sales in Sales in New Sales in Exist Sales in (all Sales in (all Sales in Sales in Sales in
Type of Unit Ranges SFD County Exist SFD County SFA County SFA County types) County types) County Line Total County County
$0 to $99,999 0 0.00% 2 0.0% 14 0.1% 7 0.0% 60 0.3% 138 0.6% 221 1.0% 1.0%
$100,000 to
$149,999 1 0.00% 13 0.1% 30 0.1% 98 0.4% 53 0.2% 647 2.8% 842 3.7% 4.7%
$150,000 to
$199,999 0 0.00% 54 0.2% 0 0.0% 497 2.2% 180 0.8% 1,104 4.9% 1,835 8.1% 12.7%
$200,000 to
$249,999 0 0.00% 257 1.1% 0 0.0% 1,243 5.5% 401 1.8% 670 2.9% 2,571 11.3% 24.0%
$250,000 to
$299,999 1 0.00% 751 3.3% 5 0.0% 1,427 6.3% 299 1.3% 419 1.8% 2,902 12.8% 36.8%
$300,000 to
$349,000 0 0.00% 1,290 5.7% 64 0.3% 931 4.1% 251 1.1% 265 1.2% 2,801 12.3% 49.1%
Subtotals <
$350,000 2 0.01% 2,367 10.4% 113 0.5% 4,203 18.5% 1,244 5.5% 3,243 14.3% 11,172 49.1% 49.1%
Sub Totals -
Over $350,000 894 3.9% 7,734 34.0% 552 2.4% 1,561 6.9% 414 1.8% 430 1.9% 11,585 50.9% 100.0%
Totals 896 3.9% 10,101 44.4% 665 2.9% 5,764 25.3% 1,658 7.3% 3,673 16.1% 22,757 100.0%

Most activity was in the resale of homes in 2004. In 2004, about

23,000 housing units were sold: 17,426 single-family units
(detached and attached, new and used, combined) and 5,331
condominium units (all types, new and used).
Nearly 86 percent of all sales were of existing units, with over 44
percent of all sales being existing (used) single-family detached
homes.
Sales of new units, all types, contributed to just over 14 percent
of the sales activity in 2004.
Of the housing units sold, nearly half sold for less than $350,000,
and fewer than 13 percent of the housing sold for less than
$200,000. A household earning the 2004 AMI ($85,400) might be
able to afford unit costing about $325,000, while households
earning less than 70 percent of AMI, may be able to afford a
home costing about $180,000.[1]
[1] Assuming 10 percent down, good credit, good terms, and less than
30 percent of income spent on housing costs.
Slide 52
We are developing both supply

and demand solutions
iSupply
– adding more units
iDemand – helping workers afford units

Slide 53
A supply-side solution
County Council has introduced a
bill to ensure that workforce
housing is built near metro stations.
“… 10 percent of homes built in new
developments near Metro stations (will) be set
aside for middle-class families being priced out
of the county's soaring real estate market.
Council member Steven A. Silverman (D-At
Large) said the "workforce" housing initiative he
is proposing would help people who earn 80 to Steve Silverman
120 percent of the area's median income --
$89,000 for a family of four, or $71,000 for a
family of two. That would essentially include
families with incomes of about $50,000 to
$100,000, he said.”
Washington Post, October 11, 2005
Slide 54
Demand-side solutions
i Vouchers
i Closing
Cost Assistance
i Employer Assisted Housing programs
(EAH)
EAH programs used to common – preachers, nurses,

janitors, etc.
When Park Houses are rented to M-NCPPC’s employees,
it functions both as a supply and demand program.

Slide 55
Increase Density and Mix of

Uses Near Transit

Slide 56
Construction of single-family homes declined in 2004 for

the second consecutive year which increased the
imbalance between demand and supply.
Number of Single-Family Homes B uilt

M ontgo mery County
5 ,0 00
4 ,0 00
Number
3 ,0 00
2 ,0 00 4,530 4,172
4,036
2,924 3,177
1 ,0 00 2,062 1,647
1,572
0
1 9 97 1 9 98 1 9 99 2 0 00 2 0 01 2 0 02 2 0 03 2 0 04
C ale ndar Ye ar
SOURCE : Do dge An aly tics, M cGraw-Hill Con str uct ion
Data f or 20 0 4 are p relimin ary

Home prices up almost 14% in 2004, exceeding the 13% in 2003.

But single-family home construction down nearly 20% in 2004 after
decreasing 50% un 2003.
Source: David Platt, Montgomery County Office of Finance, January
2005.
Slide 57
Multi-family units remain a larger

share of home construction
8,000
7,000 Housing completions, in units.
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
Single-Family Detached
2,000
1,000 Townhouse
Multi-family
0 1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source; M-NCPPC Research &
Technology Center Housing completions totaled almost 4,300 units, down
Research & Technology Center from almost 5,500 units for both 2002 and 2003
Housing completions totaled almost 4,300 units, about 1,000 fewer

completions than in the previous two years.
Almost 5,500 units were constructed in 2002 and in 2003.

Slide 58
2.5 times more multi-family approvals

than single-family units
Single-family:
1,600 units
Multi-family:
4,224 units
Source; M-NCPPC Research & Technology Center. Subdivision approvals in 2004 by units.

In 2003, we had a ratio of 4:1 multi-family to single-family, because

we approved 4,871 multi-family and only 1,192 single-family homes.
In 2004, we approved more single-family homes and fewer multi-

family than in 2003, which changed the ratio to 2.5:1, multi-family
to single-family homes.
Slide 59
Shady Grove
Metro
i Mix of residential, office,
retail and commercial
development with parks,
recreation and other
community serving uses.
i Between 5,400 and 6, 340
new units and
approximately 7,000 new
jobs
i Provides a variety of
affordable and work-
force housing.

Features a mix of residential, office, retail and commercial development concentrated at

the Metro station with parks, recreation and other community serving uses.
Strengthens the existing Derwood community by providing compatible development,

better access to the Metro station, increased recreation and park opportunities and new
public facilities including a library and an elementary school.
Supports technology uses along the Shady Grove Technology Corridor.
Achieves between 5,400 and 6, 340 new residential units and approximately 7,000 new
jobs within the planning area.
Provides a variety of housing choices with affordable and work-force housing.
Creates a new street network in the Metro Neighborhoods that improves access to the
Metro Station and expands bikeways and the trail system serving the community.
Emphasizes transit use by requiring new development to mitigate vehicular trips.
Creates a series of open spaces, urban and public parks, and streetscapes with ground
level retail/commercial uses that accommodate pedestrians and encourage street life.
Stages new development to ensure timely provision of public facilities such as schools,
parks and transportation improvements.
Was scheduled for a vote this fall….stay tuned!

Slide 60
Preserve Existing Market-

Rate Affordable Rental Units

Slide 61
Number of Units Renting for

Less Than $700 a Month is Dimishing
3000
2500 2596
2000
1500 1689
1381
1000 871
500
0
2001 2002 2003 2004

Some loss of affordable rents is the natural result of market

increases in the rents. As I discussed earlier, several
occupations anticipated to be in high demand do not generate
enough money to allow job holders to afford more than $700 per
month rent.
As of 2004, only 871 apartments remained in the county that

rented for less than $700 a month, and only 18 were vacant
during that year, and
There have not been 50 of units renting for less than $700 in any
given year since 2001.
Slide 62
We Want to Slow Down the Rate of

Rentals Being Converted to Condos
i In March of 2005, County Council staff
reported that there had been no rental units
lost to condo conversions in the previous
8 fiscal years.
i By the end of September 2005, the
Department of Housing & Community
Affairs reported that 3,800+ units had been
or were about to be converted to condos!

Montgomery County has a strong anti-tenant displacement law

(53A) and yet it provides for extended tenancies for various
protected groups and provides a first right of refusal to the County
and HOC to buy the property if the property is offered for sale.
This represents less than five percent of the rental housing stock of
over 71K units, but DHCA anticipates that as much as 10 percent of
the rental units may be converted to condo over next few years.
Currently, the conversion activity is primarily in the upper

end of the market, but the County Council is thinking about
widening the life tenancy exemption and disability criteria,
in order to expand the percent of residents that could be
allowed to remain as renters when a rental building goes
condo.
Slide 63
Streamline the Accessory

Apartment Approval Process

Slide 64
Make it easier to obtain a permit for an

accessory apartment or “Granny Flat”
i Itsnot as easy as you think.
i In 2003, DHCA began work on an change to
the Accessory Apartment process to make it
easier for interior accessory apartments.
i In 2004, the bill was introduced.
i Currently, it is on the back burner.

Wanted to make it an administrative process, rather than a

special exception process.
Reduce the fees and the staff time to review.
It’s not dead yet.

Slide 65
Monitor and Plan for the

Impact of the
Baby Boomers!

Slide 66
1 2 ,0 0 0
GENDER
1 . M a le 2 . F e m a le
1 0 ,0 0 0
8 ,0 0 0 6 ,4 4 3
1 6 .9 3 %
6 ,2 3 2
6 ,0 0 0 1 6 .3 8 %
5 ,6 2 5
1 4 .7 8 %
5 ,4 5 6
4 ,0 0 0 1 4 .3 4 %
4 ,5 4 9
2 ,0 2 1 1 1 .9 6 %
2 ,0 0 0 5 .3 1 %
2 ,9 7 6
7 .8 2 % 2 ,3 8 5
6 .2 7 %
1 ,3 3 6
1 ,0 2 2
3 .5 1 %
2 .6 9 %
0
01. Under 0 2 . $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 to 0 3 . $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 to 0 4 . $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 to 0 5 . $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 to
$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 u n d e r $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 u n d e r $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 u n d e r $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 u n d e r $ 5 0 ,0 0 0
S e n io r s w it h H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e s L e s s T h a n $ 5 0 , 0 0 0
by G ender

I conducted a survey of Montgomery County residents 55 years

of age or older and found that most reported that they lived in
households that earned over $100,000 in 2003.
Among those seniors living in households that earned less than
$50,000, females outnumber males nearly 2:1 (67.8 percent for
females to 32.2% for males).
Slide 67
1 2 ,0 0 0
AGE
55 - 64 6 5 o r o ld e r
1 0 ,0 0 0
8 ,0 0 0 6 ,5 3 2
1 7 .1 7 %
6 ,0 0 0 6 ,7 1 0
1 7 .6 4 % 5 ,4 0 4
1 4 .2 %
4 ,6 1 0
1 2 .1 2 %
4 ,0 0 0
4 ,4 5 9
2 ,1 6 1
2 ,0 0 0 5 .6 8 %
1 1 .7 2 %
2 ,4 9 9 2 ,6 0 6
2 ,1 8 2
6 .5 7 % 6 .8 5 %
5 .7 3 %
882
2 .3 2 %
0
Under $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 to
$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 to u n d e r to u n d e r to u n d e r $ 5 0 ,0 0 0
$ 2 0 ,0 0 0 $ 3 0 ,0 0 0 $ 4 0 ,0 0 0
S e n io rs w ith H o u s e h o ld In c o m e s L e s s T h a n $ 5 0 ,0 0 0
b y A g e C a te g o ry

REGARDLESS OF GENDER, MOST EARNING LESS THAN

$50,000 PER HOUSEHOLD PER YEAR ARE 65 YEARS OF
AGE OR OLDER.
Slide 68
57% who plan to retire will stay

in Montgomery County
1 . Y es 2. N o 8 . D O N 'T K N O W

When asked, just over 57 percent of persons 55 and older

who plan to retire, plan to do so in Montgomery County,
with most being in the 55 to 64 age group.
Nearly 22 percent (over 16,000 persons) plan to retire
somewhere else.
Over 20 percent (nearly 15,000 persons) just do not know
whether or not they will retire in the County.
Slide 69
Most plan to always live in their

current residence!
1. Yes 2. N o 8 . D O N 'T K NO W
Q C 2 D o yo u th in k yo u r cu rren t r esid en ce is w h ere yo u w ill

Nearly 6 out over every 10 think they will live in their

current residence.
Approximately 58 percent (more than 98,400 persons)

think that they will always live in their current
residence.
Nearly 30 percent (just under 51,000 persons) do not

believe that they will always live in their current
residence, over 12 percent (over 20,500 persons) did
not know or refused.
Slide 70
Nearly all 55 and older live near transit!

W here Residents 55 Years of Age and Older
Live in Montgomery County.
13.4%
4.3%
2.4%
15.0% Silver Spring
0.1% Rockville
Bethesda/Tw inbrook
6.8%
Gaithersburg
Germantow n
Kensington
Garrett Park
Rural Areas
21.9%
31.6%

• Nearly one-third (about 32 percent) live within the greater

Silver Spring zip codes, which includes Leisure World;
• Nearly 22 percent live within the greater Rockville zip
codes,
• 15 percent reside within the Bethesda zip code area; and
• over 13 percent reside within the Gaithersburg zip code
areas.
Though about 4.6 percent of those interviewed either

refused to answer or did not know which zip code area they
resided in, over 95 percent did. Of that group, fewer than seven
percent indicated that they lived in rural areas of the County.
Slide 71
For those 55 and older the median

home is 35 years old.
689
QD3 How old is your
0.45% current home?
"Five or less"
"6 to 10 years"
"11 to 25 years"
8,180 "26 to 49 years"
5.33% 6,062
50 to 99 years
3.95%
30,609 "100 or more
19.95% years"
35,733
23.28%
72,191
47.04%

Age of Home
The population 55 years of age or older in Montgomery
County lives in homes with a median age of 35 years.
Almost a third live (nearly 50,000 residents) in homes that
are 25 years of age or younger, with just over five percent
(nearly 8,200 residents) living in homes that are five years of
age or younger.
Nearly half (47 percent or over 72,200 residents) live in homes

that are older than 26 years of age but less than 50 years of age.
Nearly a fifth (over 31,000 residents) live in homes that are 50

years of age or older.
Slide 72
Many 55 and older have lived at their

residences more than 20 years.
QD1. How long hav e you liv e d at your curre nt re side nce ?
=>30 years DON'T KNOW

29% 0%
(46,953)
(503)
REFUSED
25 < 30 years 0% (422)
9%
< 1 year
(15,782)
3%
(4,953)
1 < 5 years
20 < 25 years
13%
11%
(21,926)
(18,961)
5 < 10 years
11%
15 < 20 years
(18,888)
13%
(21,336) 10 < 15 years
11%
(17,861)
Tenure
Nearly half (48.5 percent)—or over 82,700 persons—
have lived at their current residences 20 years or
longer.
Nearly 30 percent (over 47,000 persons) have lived at
their current residences for 30 years or longer.
Nearly 16 percent (15.8 percent)—nearly 27,000
persons—have lived at their residence fewer than five
years.
Slide 73
Most live in Single-Family

Detached homes.
120,000
55 - 64 65 or older
100,000
57,679
34.04%
80,000
60,000
40,000
57,297
33.81%
20,000 11,385 11,056 6.52%

6.72% 11,455
6.76%
10,494 7,107
6.19% 2,673 161
163
4.19%
0 1.58% 0.1%
1. A single family 2. A townhouse or 3. Low-rise 4. High-rise 5. Other (mobile
detached house duplex (also triplex, apartment or condo apartment or condo home, etc.)
quadraplex, building (4 floors or building (5 floors or
rowhouse,s less) more)
QD4 What kind of house do you live in?

Type of Home
Over two-thirds (nearly 68 percent), or over 115,500 persons in
this age group live in single-family detached houses.
Nearly 13 percent—or about 21,880 persons—live in a
townhouse, duplex, or other plex.
Nearly 11 percent—over 18,560 persons—live in a low-rise
condominium or apartment.
Over eight percent—about 13,730 persons—live in a highrise
condominium or apartment.
About 15,700 persons (over nine percent of the total) reported
that they currently live in a development or complex that is
seniors-only,
and
Almost all of those (over 12,700 persons) liked living in a
seniors-only building or complex.
Slide 74
Painting and Plastering were the

most frequent repairs reported.
Most Common Repairs Reported
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
QD8 b _ 1 QD8 b _ 9 QD8 b _ 2 QD8 b _ 6 QD8 b _ 3 QD8 b _ 10 QD8 b _ 4 QD8 b _ 5 QD8 b _ 7 M o d QD8 b _ 8
P aint ing a nd M ino r Ap p lianc es B a s e me nt o r P lumb ing Ot he r Ele ct rica l Ve rmin/ b ug s fo r S p e c P hys M ajo r
p la s t e ring s t ruc t ura l ro o f wiring s t ruc t ura l

Nearly a quarter of the respondents reported that their home

needed some type of repair. On average, the older the home, the
more likely the residents were to report that the home needed
repairs, maintenance or modification.
The relative “youth” of the housing stock in Montgomery County is

likely the reason for low reporting of repairs for older housing.
Three out of every 10 persons reporting that their home needed

repair live in a home that is between 35 and 50 years old.
The bulk of the residents living in homes 15 through 55 years old

reporting the highest percent of homes in need of repairs,
maintenance or modification.
Slide 75
Over 5% have modified their homes.

Modifications Made to Current Home
9,000
8,000
Approx. No. of Persons

7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
QE1-6 Created a QE1-2 Made it QE1-4 Installed a QE1-1 Built QE1-3 Installed QE1-5
full bath on the first handicapped and/or ramp to front or bedroom on the elevator or lift Built/Renovated
floor w heelchair back door first floor device room for in-home
accessible caregiver

Just over five percent of this population (about 8,000

persons) has modified their current home in one or more of six
important ways:
- created a bath on the first floor,
- made the home handicapped or wheelchair accessible,
- installed a ramp,
- built a bedroom on the first floor,
- installed an elevator or a lift, or
built or renovated a room for a caregiver,
in that order.
Slide 76
About 9% of households have problems with

daily living activities.
8,000
Stairs or Steps
7,000
Light housework Bathing
6,000
Grocery shopping Laundry
5,000
Leaving the home Toileting
4,000
Meal Preparation Using the telephone
3,000
Dressing
2,000
Eating
1,000
0
QE 3 S - QE 3 - 3 Light QE 3 - 10 QE3 - 9 QE 3 - 8 Me al QE 3 - 6 QE 3 - 5 QE 3 - 7 QE 3 - 4 QE 3 - 2 QE 3 - 1
Ot he r - S t air s hous e wor k Gr oc e r y Le avin g t he P r e par at ion B at hin g Laun dr y T oile t in g Us in g t he Dr e s s in g E at in g

or S t e ps s hoppin g home t e le phon e

Approximately nine percent of those 55 or older reported that

in their household one or more persons have problems with one
or more daily living activities.
Three percent of persons 55 to 64 years of age and over five

percent of persons 65 years or older reported one or more other
problems, instead of or in addition to those listed above.
Slide 77
About 9% of households have problems with

daily living activities.
Problem s w ith Leaving the Home and Grocery Shopping
Stairs or Steps 2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
55 - 64 65 or older
QE3-9 Has problems leaving the home

55 - 64 65 or older QE3-10 Has problems grocery shopping

For this group, the big problem was climbing stairs or steps.
Over 4.1 percent of seniors (about 7,095 persons) indicated a
problem with stairs or steps. Over two-thirds were 65 years of
age or older.
Approximately 2.2 percent of the respondents (representing

about 3,670 persons) indicated that they had problems grocery
shopping, and
Approximately 1.7 percent (approximately 2,955 persons)

reported problems leaving the home.
These are “fragile” numbers that we will continue to watch.

Slide 78
Ongoing Research

Slide 79
Workforce Housing
Mature Commercial Centers Study
More 55+ Housing Preferences Surveys
More County Census Update Surveys
Analysis of Older Commercial Centers
Construction Costs
Breadbasket Analysis/self-sufficiency
standard
Preservation of Market Affordable
Multifamily Rental Housing

Slide 80
Analysis of Sales
Analysis of Assessment Data
Analysis of Zoning Yields
Analysis of vacant and publically-owned
land
Impact of Development on Affordable
Housing (Affordable Housing Impact
Statement)
Homelessness and Special Needs Housing
– inventories and needs analysis

Slide 81
Consideration of small area planning

Review and update of the
•Housing Policy,
•Zones
•Master Plan
•Sector Plans

Slide 82
Observations

Slide 83
1. Affordable housing is a many

splendored thing, and
a) It comes in a variety of structure
types and price ranges;
b) No one tool will fix all the problems;
and
c) Look for both Supply AND Demand
solutions.

Slide 84
2. A local Housing Policy is critical, and

should be reflected in plans and zones.
3. A dedicated Housing Initiative Fund
will provide stability for your local
efforts.
4. Success isn’t accidental – plan for
change: monitor, measure, report, and,
if necessary, modify. Repeat.
5. Your program/polices/plans/zoning
need regular review – Be prepared to
make changes, as needed.
Slide 85
5. Look for emerging trends!

6. Seek good ideas!
7. When dealing with major investments
of public infrastructure – use an
appropriate definition of “standing.”
8. Develop rules for sensitive information
9. Develop rules for civility in public
discourse.
10. Plan for continuing education.
Slide 86
Questions?

Slide 87

October 14, 2005
Maryland Citizen Planners
Sharon K. Suarez, AICP, Housing Coordinator

Montgomery County Department of Park & Planning
Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission (M-(M-NCPPC)
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
www.mcparkandplanning.org/housing

Issues of Housing Affordability in Montgomery County, MD: Slide 1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Issues of Housing Affordability in Montgomery County, MD: Slide 1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Slide 1

Issues of Housing Affordability

Sharon K. Suarez, AICP, Housing Coordinator

Research & Technology Center

Issues of Housing Affordability

Research & Technology Center

To share what Montgomery

Research & Technology Center

Research & Technology Center

Households by Income Category

Source: Montgomery County 2003 Census Update Survey

Research & Technology Center

According to the 2003 Montgomery County Census Update

Nearly 27 percent of the County’s total 338,445 households—

Over 100,000 – nearly a third of the households – earned less

Nearly 44 percent of the households earned more than $100,000

Research & Technology Center

According to the 2003 Montgomery County Census Update

Number of housing sales

Housing Sales appear to be continuing at a strong pace for both

Sales information for 2004 indicates that over 24,300

2004 continues marked increase

The hyperbolic curve continues unabated for home prices in all

New detached : $661,800

Existing townhouses still affordable

The affordability index is adjusted each year for effective

Existing townhomes, the last bastion of affordability are

At a median sales price of over $414,000, new townhomes are

It would take a household income of over $182,000 per year to

Existing condominiums still affordable

The affordability index is adjusted each year for effective

These next two slides show the impact of condominium fees

Condo Association Fees of $250 were used, annualized.

Condo Median Sales Prices__2001 2002 2003 2004

Existing condominiums still affordable

Condos are noticeably less affordable when Condo Association

Owner Monthly Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

44 percent of Montgomery County’s homeowners spend less

Nearly two-thirds spend less than $2,000 per month. A payment

2,900 Units Sold for Less Than $200,000

Research & Technology Center

Households earning 70 percent of area median income (about

Over 840 Units Sold for Less than $150,000

Research & Technology Center

Households earning less than 60 percent of the AMI (about

Housing units continue

Data for 2005 is a nine-month average

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Is there a bubble? I’m not seeing one yet. I watch a number of

Since 2001, homes in Montgomery County have been on the

Sources: David Platt, Economist, Montgomery County

Median Sales Price - Montgomery County, MD

I compared 1st Quarter Sales from 2002 through 2005. Sales

Median Sales Price - Montgomery County, MD

Research & Technology Center

Condominium sales are strong.

2005 ASSESSMENTS Type of Unit

Research & Technology Center

About a third of the properties in Montgomery County are

Not much change

Research & Technology Center

The 2004 assessments revealed a variety of units by structure type