1. Housing Needs Assessment
and the comprehensive plan
Gayl Curtiss – Planning Commissioner
Kirsten Sackett – Community Development Director
Angela San Filippo – Long Range Planner

2. Outline Comprehensive planning Housing study components Key findings
How to get involved

3. Comprehensive Planning
Provides the framework for how our community will grow
Reflection of community involvement
Centerpiece of local planning
Thorough review every 8 years
Amended annually
Non-regulatory

4. Study components Population and household characteristics
Housing inventory
Housing affordability
Housing market trends
Stakeholder outreach
Landlord and developer surveys
Policy recommendations

5. Age distribution by life stage
Demographics
CWU student population
About ½ of City population
33% of City population is students living off campus
Seniors
Projected growth of senior population
13% with senior householder
CWU
school year – 9,656 students attending CWU on campus in Ellensburg – this is about ½ the population of Ellensburg.
According to CWU about 3,340 students live in student housing on campus, leaving about 33% of the Ellensburg’s population being students living off campus.
Seniors
Countywide projections for population 65 and older – currently about 14% of countywide population is 65 or older, OFM projects this share of the population to rise to 20% by 2030 as baby boomers age, potential to increase by 4,000 over the next 20 years.
As the urban center of the County, Ellensburg could expect increasing demand for senior housing and assisted living facilities.
41% of people age 65 and older have one or more disabilities.
Age distribution by life stage
BERK, 2017

6. Households by household type Household type description
Small family
Families with 2-4 members
Large family
Families with 5+ members
Elderly family
2 persons, either/both 62+
Other non-family
2+ unrelated people living together
88% of population resides in households, including the UGA about 90% live in households. Remainder of the population resides in group quarters (residence halls, assisted living facilities, jails)
Family – two or more persons living together related by birth, marriage or adoption.
Average household size in Ellensburg: 2.16
Family household size: 2.86
Non-family household: 1.7
Ellensburg has a greater share of 1-person households than its neighbors and a much smaller share of 4 or more person households. Much can be attributed to the large university student population in Ellensburg and comparatively smaller share of family households.
The ‘not elderly living alone’ and ‘other non-family’ are probably made up of many college students, CWU students living along off campus and unrelated CWU students sharing apartments or single family homes off campus.
BERK, 2017

7. Housing tenure and household size
Non-family households are more likely to be renters (makes sense considering high student population in this group).
Largest rental market is for 1-person households.
Notable – 30% of renter households have 3 or more members, given apartments tend to be smaller in size many of these households likely reside in single-family detached housing stock
BERK, 2017

8. Household size and units in housing stock
Comparison of the number of bedrooms of existing housing stock and compares it to the size of households.
For example there are nearly 2,500 households with 1 member, yet there is less than 1,900 studio or 1-bedroom housing units combined.
Important to note that much of the current supply of smaller unit apartment homes are marketed exclusively to students and serve as off-campus student housing. Housing stock generally supplies units that are too large for the kinds of households that exist in Ellensburg, overcrowding still exists among many households.
HUD identifies overcrowding as more than 1 occupant per room – based on this definition 253 renter-occupied and 89 owner-occupied households are estimated to be overcrowded.
Property managers indicated there are many student houses that share bedrooms, convert garage spaces, or use otherwise adapting to expand sleeping arrangements to bring rental costs down.
BERK, 2017

9. Owner and renter households by income level
Area median income
Very low income
Under 30% AMI
Low income
30-50% AMI
Moderate income
50-80% AMI
Lower middle income
80-100% AMI
Above median income
Above 100% AMI
Median household income - $28,341
Median family household income - $60,650
Area median income - $65,600
HUD provides household income breakdowns relative to Kittitas County area median income.
Owner-occupied households are far more likely to be in a higher income category, with 69% earning more than AMI.
Only 14% of renter households earn more than AMI, and nearly 2/3 have incomes below 50% of AMI
BERK, 2017

10. Owner and renter households by income level
HUD deems housing to be affordable if a household spends no more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs (rent plus basic utilities or gross monthly owner costs) – not cost burdened.
Cost burdened – 30-50% of gross income on housing costs
Severely cost burdened – greater than 50% of gross income on housing costs
Not calculated – HUD does not calculate the level of cost burden for households earning 0 or negative income, these are represented separately in the chart, most are assumed to be severely cost burdened (exceptions might be those living in shelters or other subsidized housing).
Data is from and includes downturn in housing market and rise in unemployment during and following the last economic recession. Housing costs have increased during the past few years.
BERK, 2017

11. Rental household cost burden by income category
Draw attention to renters because of the high number of households that are cost burdened – almost 70%. This includes many CWU students.
Expected that majority of CWU students are cost burdened – however this is expected to be a temporary situation and students that receive support from parent household are not likely to show this as income.
Housing needs for students often differ from other household types…
Unique pressures created by off-campus student housing needs, off-campus student-oriented housing is often leased by the room. Model that works for students and the landlord for a variety of reasons, but in the end it increased the rent on the whole unit. Potential to drive up cost of housing across the market
BERK, 2017

12. Cost burdened renter households by household type
The category other includes non-family households with no members 62 or older, likely that many of these households include students at CWU and it is the best proxy for which cost burden data is available. Not surprising that they are the largest number of cost burdened renter households.
Other households types that are useful in understanding housing needs among households that are not likely occupied by university students –
Greatest need – affordable housing for small families and elderly people living alone.
BERK, 2017
Household type description
Small family
Families with 2-4 members
Large family
Families with 5+ members
Elderly family
2 persons, either/both 62+
Other non-family
2+ unrelated people living together
Elderly non-family
Age 62+, living alone

13. Renter household income and rental affordability gap
Rental housing costs rising – 2011 – 2016 single family rents rose at rate of 2.9%
Multifamily rents rose by 1.8%
In recent years, rising at a higher rate – 2016 single family 5.4%. Multifamily by 5.9%.
Wenatchee similar rate, increase in Seattle slightly higher (8.4%), Yakima slower (4.2%)
Comparison of renter household counts by income range to the estimated number of housing units offered on the market at rents affordable to those income levels, Includes the downturn in the housing market during last recession and only partially overlaps the more recent period of rising housing costs.
2,606 households earning below 30% AMI while only 573 units were offered at a rent affordable to these households, shortage of over 2,000 units.
Data indicates that there is a surplus of units affordable to all other income levels. The largest surplus was in units affordable to the moderate income households (50-80% AMI)
Apparent inconsistency between these findings and the high level of cost burden experienced by renters in the low and moderate income categories.
Possible explanations –
middle and higher income households may be occupying some share of the units that would otherwise be affordable to those with lower incomes (down renting), thereby reducing the supply of units affordable to those with lower incomes.
Findings do not consider alignment between household size and affordable units at an appropriate size, there may be affordable 1-2 bedroom units available even though those units would likely not meet the needs of a 4-5 person family earning 50% AMI.
Utilities are not considered in the count of units offered by affordability level.
BERK, 2017

14. Ellensburg housing stock and unit production
BERK, 2017
As of 2016 – 8,363 housing units in Ellensburg. 49% single family, 47% multifamily structures, and less than 4% are mobile homes.
Between 2010 and new homes were built - 56% single family units, 7% duplexes, 3-4 unit 7%, 5+ units 14%, mobile home placements 21% (Rosewood). Less than a quarter of the production during this time period was in multifamily housing.
Lack of alignment between recent home productions and the current housing needs in Ellensburg. Nearly 2/3 of Ellensburg households have only 1 or 2 members and 70% of households are renters. Findings indicate there may be greater demand for multifamily housing and smaller units sizes than the market is currently providing.
Interviews and focus group indicate that single family homes are a proven market if builders and developers can produce units for young families, single professionals and first time homebuyers at the desired price point ($220,000 - $250,000); consistent with median home sale price of $225,000. Challenges for local builders to produce housing at this price point – availability of skilled and unskilled labor and increases in material costs.
Local builders - building at higher price points is a riskier market – people are staying where they’re at.
Barriers to entering the multifamily housing market – sales market for both individual units and complexes is inconsistent, no market to quickly and efficiently sell new multi-family units. Carrying costs association with holding properties until they are sold is a financial burden that cuts into the profit margin. Also, do not feel that they have the resources to manage rental properties.
BERK, 2017

15. Employment – total primary jobs
BERK, 2017
Both stakeholder outreach workshops and interviews, participants highlighted the lack of well-paying job opportunities in Ellensburg.
Between 2013 and 2014 there was an 8% decline in the total number of workers in Ellensburg, loss of 533 primary jobs. More recent data suggests that we are gaining some of these jobs back, with significant growth occurring countywide since October September 2014-September 2015 countywide numbers show a growth rate of 12.1%, far greater than the previous 14 years, unclear whether this recent growth represents a temporary bump or a sign of continued growth.
Slow decline in number of workers whose primary job pays $1250/month or less; 2002 – 2011 steady gain in the number of workers whose primary job pays more than $3333 per month.
Between loss in the number of workers who work in the middle and upper wage levels ($1251 per month and higher).
Generally trend has been towards a greater share of jobs in the middle and upper wage levels and lower share of jobs in the lower wage level.

16. Primary job location
Slow decline in the number of Ellensburg residents who work in Kittitas County, steady increase in the number of Ellensburg residents who work outside Kittitas County. In 2014 the counties with the greatest shares workers from Ellensburg; Kittitas (53%, King (14%), Yakima (9%)

17. Ways to get and stay involved
Community input on land uses
Comment on draft work products
May 8: Community values follow up activity
12:30pm – 2:30pm | 5:30pm – 7:30pm
May 24: Community mapping activity

18. Questions ?
Kirsten Sackett | Community Development Director | |
Angela San Filippo | Long Range Planner | |