Financial Burden of Economically Vulnerable

Residents in Renton

Alex Casey & Ken Mullins

MAYOR DENIS LAW:

After serving a four-year term on the Renton City Council, former business owner Denis Law was elected Mayor of Renton in 2008 after defeating one-term Mayor Kathy Koelker by seven percentage points. After leading Renton through one of the worst recessions in decades, Law ran unopposed for a second-term and was elected Mayor in 2012. As the Mayor of Renton, he works with department administrators, presides over weekly City Council meetings and works with the Council members to develop ordinances that protect the interests of Renton’s citizens. Despite his leadership, Renton’s very-low and low-income residents struggle with financial burdens caused by housing affordability. This analysis offers Mayor Law policy goals, options, and criteria for reducing the financial burden on Renton’s most economically vulnerable residents.

! 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Poor households in Renton struggle to maintain affordable housing. Nationally, nearly two-thirds of households earning under $35,000/year spend more than 30% of their income on housing. In Renton, 82% of these households spend beyond this level of income on housing. This is a major problem for economically vulnerable households. Households who pay more than 30% of their income are considered financially burdened and experience strain affording food, transportation, medical care, and other necessities. For many residents, wages are too low or market rates are too high to afford adequate housing in Renton. Renton’s primary method of providing affordable housing for economically vulnerable residents is distributing Tenant Based housing vouchers through the federal Section 8 program. However, Section 8 does little good for residents awaiting vouchers, and currently closed its waitlist with nearly twice as many households waiting for a voucher as those who receive one. Renton currently lacks an estimated 2,137 units affordable for very-low income residents. Although Renton has a surplus of 1,170 low-income homes available, many exhibit potential "health & safety" problems. These problems tend to disproportionately affect housing affordable for economically vulnerable residents and are particularly relevant in the Sunset Area. The ideal state of affordable housing in Renton addresses the multiple facets of financial burdens on economically vulnerable residents. The goals for reducing this burden are reduced financial stress and the improved economic stability of Renton. To evaluate the strength of potential policy options, the following criteria were used: cost efficiency, impact on the housing supply, access to amenities, political feasibility, and technical feasibility. The options evaluated were: Maintain the status quo: City policy and private rental market remain unchanged

Create the Renton Earned Income Housing Credit voucher program: Provide city-funded vouchers to low-income renters based on income tax returns.

Increase the minimum wage: Raises the minimum wage in Renton to $15/hour

Expedite approval process for affordable housing: Expedites projects that create affordable rental units.

Adjust zoning codes to allow for more Accessory Dwelling Units: Relax zoning codes and size allotments to encourage ADU construction.

High on the feasibility measures and cost efficiency, Low on impact access.

High in access and technical feasibility, moderate in political feasibility, impact, and cost.

Moderate in all criteria

High in cost efficiency and political feasibility, moderate in technical feasibility and access, low in impact.

High cost efficiency, technical feasibility, and access. Low in political feasibility and impact.

This policy analysis recommends creating the Renton Earned Income Housing Credit voucher program. This option minimizes the tradeoffs associated with other options, expands housing options to economically vulnerable residents, and significantly reduces the isolation of poverty in Renton.

! 2

To: Mayor Denis Law, City of Renton From: Alex Casey and Ken Mullins Date: June 7, 2015 Re: Low-income housing affordability Poor households in Renton struggle to maintain affordable housing. Nationally,

nearly two-thirds of households earning under $35,000/year spend more than 30%1 of their

income on housing.2 In Renton, 82% of these households spend beyond this level of income on

housing.3 This is a major problem for low-income households. Households who pay more than

30% of their income are considered financially burdened and experience strain affording food,

transportation, medical care, and other necessities.4,5 The following policy options alleviate the

burden of housing cost for Renton’s most economically vulnerable residents, and embody the

city’s vision as a center of opportunity where families and businesses thrive.6

AFFORDABILITY GAP IN RENTON

Measures of housing affordability and eligibility for housing assistance rely on an

assessment of a household’s income compared to the Area Median Income (AMI).7 In Renton,

the AMI determines that very-low income households earn under $21,000/year and low-income

households earn under $35,000/year.8 Nearly one in three Renton adults fall into these

categories.9 The number of low-income or very low-income residents in Renton has increased by

15% during the past 15 years.10,11 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD) uses very-low income and low-income as technical distinctions between how many

percentage points below the AMI a household is. This analysis refers to any family earning less

than half of the AMI as economically vulnerable.

Two significant factors contribute to the financial burden of economically vulnerable

residents; spending power and cost. The current minimum wage in Renton is $9.47/hour, and the

average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,103/month (see Exhibit A).12,13 To afford this

! 3

average monthly rent without

financial burden, a resident

must earn a “housing wage”

of $21.21/hour14 or work 89.6

hours/week.15 An estimated

2,500 residents in Renton, who

work full time earn less than

$15/hour, the minimum wage of nearby Seattle.16 For some, the remedy to the housing burden is

downsizing into overcrowded units.17 In Renton 5.7% of units are considered overcrowded, more

than King County (4.7%) and national rates (4.1%).18, 19 If over occupancy is not an option,

economically vulnerable renters face a tough choice; rent relatively expensive housing and

become financially burdened, find substandard housing, or seek income supplements.

HOUSING IN RENTON

As of April 1st, the Renton Housing Authority (RHA) subsidized 1,801 housing units for

families and seniors. About half of these subsidies are part of Renton's public housing, project

based senior housing, and the RHA’s local housing subsidies. This includes four public housing

facilities, subsidizes for specific market-rate

apartments, and HUD-funded housing

facilities for seniors. The remaining half of

these households receive Section 8 Housing

Choice Vouchers (see Exhibit B for number

of households served by each program).

! 4

The Housing Choice Voucher program, enacted under Section 8 of the Housing Act of

1937, provides Tenant Based vouchers to eligible low-income households, after households

spend a required 30% – 40% of their income on housing. An amount HUD itself deems

burdensome.20 The RHA closed its wait list as of March 31, 2015 with 1,750 residents in line for

vouchers and an unknown number of residents unable to make the wait list.21 Section 8 vouchers

do an adequate job reducing housing burden, especially for individuals who spend over half their

income on housing, but only in situations where an adequate supply of suitable rentals exist.22

Section 8 does little good for residents awaiting vouchers, or if those who receive them but

cannot secure an available

apartment.

Renton currently lacks

an estimated 2,137 affordable

housing units for very-low

income residents, referred to as

very cheap housing (see Exhibit

C).23 Although Renton has a surplus of 1,170 low-income homes available, referred to as cheap

housing, the majority are older, and many have lead paint, asbestos, and lack physical attributes

such as energy efficient windows and insulation, that help control utility costs (see Exhibit D on

the following page). City inspectors observe that older rental units are more likely to contain

dangerous mold, bad wiring, illegal bedrooms, and bad fire exits as "health & safety" problems.24

These problems tend to disproportionately affect housing affordable for economically vulnerable

residents. An area of Renton where these problems are particularly pronounced is the Sunset

Exhibit C: Available Affordable Housing

Ratio to AMI Estimated Households Estimated Gap

Count Percent Units Over / (Under) Under 30%

(Very Cheap) 3,318 21% 1,181 (2,137)

30 – 50% (Cheap)

2,625 17% 3,796 1,170

50 – 80% 3,380 22% 7,691 4,311 80 – 100% 2,146 14% 1,776 (370)

100 – 120% 1,348 9% 314 (1,034) 120% or Over 2,904 18% 668 (2,236)

Total 15,721

15,426

!

! 5

Area. In the Sunset Area, 70% housing is considered substandard, 27% of residents are in

poverty and earn incomes $17,000 lower than the city average.25

In 2008, Renton passed an ordinance

permitting the construction of Accessory

Dwelling Units (ADUs) within areas zoned

for single-family housing. Anticipating

skyrocketing ADU construction, Renton

City Council limited ADUs to 800 square

feet and only allowed 50 permits passed per

year.26 Since 2008, four ADUs have been

approved within the City through the conditional use permit process, with an unknown number

of existing ADUs grandfathered into legality.27

POLICY GOALS

These policy goals reflect the ideal state of affordable housing in Renton and address the

multiple facets of financial burdens on economically vulnerable residents. The policy goals for

reducing the financial burden on Renton’s economically vulnerable residents are:

•! Reduced financial stress: Financial stress compounds the difficulties that many

economically vulnerable communities experience by damaging physical, emotional, and

mental health.28

•! Improved economic stability of Renton: Renton should grow a strong tax base, create

jobs, and financially elevate residents of the city.

! 6

POLICY OPTIONS

The policy options for reducing the financial burden of economically vulnerable residents

focus on two approaches. The first approach affects the purchasing power of residents, while the

second approach increases the supply of affordable housing in Renton.

Option 1: Maintain the Status Quo: Assume current wage laws, trends in private

housing market, RHA programs, and ADU zoning regulations continue unchanged.

Purchasing Power Options

Option 2: Create the Renton Earned Income Housing Credit voucher program: Renton

offers tenant-based rental vouchers based on a direct match of each eligible recipient’s previous

year Earned Income Tax Credit. Funding the Renton Earned Income Housing Credit (REIHC)

will total one million dollars annually, the current operating surplus of the RHA. Vouchers will

be distributed through the RHA monthly, and recipients are determined through a lottery of

current Section 8 recipients who occupy very cheap housing, and households currently on the

Section 8 waitlist.

Option 3: Increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour: The minimum wage in

Renton is currently $9.47/hour. Similar to Seattle’s restructured minimum wage “step” system,

the increase will take effect over multiple years with different timeframe benchmarks for various

employer sizes. Assuming the wage increase is enacted before 2016, small businesses (fewer

than 500 employees) will have until 2022 to reach $15/hour and large businesses (more than 500

employees) will have until 2018 to reach $15/hour.

! 7

Affordable Housing Supply Options

Option 4: Expedite development approval and permitting for affordable housing: To

join the expedition program, developers pay a supplemental fee of $500 per unit. Expediting

development includes eliminating traffic and parking studies, and shorter planning and

permitting periods for developments that meet eligibility requirements.29 Eligible projects

include projects in the Sunset Area, mixed-use development projects containing affordable

housing, and projects where at least 10% of rental units are set aside are for economically

vulnerable residents.

Option 5: Adjust zoning codes to allow for additional Accessory Dwellings Units:

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are restricted by zoning codes to 800 square feet or no more

than 75% of the primary structure’s size (whichever is smaller).30 ADUs are limited to lots large

enough to allow for additional development without encroaching on setbacks, or occupying too

much of the lot’s building coverage allowance. This option increases the allowable size of ADUs

to 1,200 square feet, eliminates size restrictions as a proportion of the primary structure, cuts the

application fee in half to $500, and provides setback and lot coverage variances to homeowners.

POLICY CRITERIA

Cost efficiency Degree to which the benefits outweigh lost revenue or implementation and enforcement costs.

Impact on affordable housing opportunities

Degree to which market availability for housing attainable for economically vulnerable residents. Evaluated as the number of affordable housing units produced.

Access to Amenities Degree to which economically vulnerable residents live in mixed income areas with convenient access to amenities.

Political feasibility Degree of political support from political actors and activists in the local community.

Technical feasibility Degree to which the policy is applicable to Renton and its ease of implementation.

! 8

ANALYSIS & TRADE-OFFS For a visual analysis of policy options evaluated by the criteria, see Appendix A.

Option 1: Maintain the status quo

Cost efficiency: The Renton Housing Authority (RHA) earned nearly ten million dollars and

spent roughly fourteen million last year. After an additional five million dollars in funding from

HUD, the RHA operated at a surplus of roughly one million dollars last year.

Impact on affordable housing opportunities: RHA programs create housing for

approximately 1,800 residents.31 However, rental prices in Renton are steadily increasing. Based

on self-reported rents, costs have risen steadily since 2010. An analysis of online advertised

rentals in The City during May 2015 reveals rents are forecasted to exceed $1,450/month by

2016. If rental prices continue to increase and residents’ purchasing power remains unchanged,

the financial burden on economically vulnerable residents is expected to worsen. Appendix B

displays the trend of rental prices in Renton over the past ten years.

Access to Amenities: Residents without a vehicle and economically vulnerable residents are

disproportionally affected by Renton’s uneven access to public transportation and opportunity.32

Appendix C illustrates the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Mobility Opportunity Scale (1-5) for

Renton. The Sunset Area, Renton’s most economically disadvantaged area, scores very low on

the Mobility Opportunity Scale.

Political feasibility: Nationally, citizens rank housing cost as of lesser concern to economic

health than other issues.33 However, nearly three-quarters of leaders surveyed nationally in the

highest-cost metropolitan areas agree that a lack of affordable homes for economically

vulnerable residents in their area is a big problem. Analysis suggests there is a moderate political

support for addressing problems of housing affordability in Renton.

! 9

Technical feasibility: The Renton Housing Authority enjoys a great deal of autonomy of its

affordable housing policies. The status quo requires no additional implementation or resources.

Trade-Offs: Maintaining the status quo does not effectively reduce the financial burden on

economically vulnerable residents, nor improve the economic stability of Renton. With rents in

Renton expected to increase in the following years; the high proportion of households on the

Section 8 waitlist; and the continued uneven access to amenities for residents in the Sunset Area,

this option ranks very poorly on its impact on the affordable housing market and access to

amenities. Because the RHA operated at a surplus of one million dollars last year and preserves

flexibility in controlling their housing policies, the status quo is cost efficient, politically and

technically feasible, and provides benchmarks to compare other options against.

Option 2: Create the Renton Earned Income Housing Credit voucher program

Cost efficiency: Capping the Earned Income Housing Credit at one million dollars

predetermines a fixed cost, with minimal additional staff or administration costs necessary.

Based on the average Earned Income Tax Credit return for Washington State, the Renton Earned

Income Housing Credit can provide 414 households an additional $200 per month in rental

assistance. Because the REIHC is tied to the EITC—which is designed to incentivize and reward

work by initially increasing its benefits with earnings34—there are limited costs from the loss of

economic productivity typically associated with safety net programs.

Impact on affordable housing opportunities: Under the assumption that recipients of the

REIHC will increase the quality of their housing after an increase in spending power, the

analysis suggests a moderate decrease in the deficit of very cheap housing and surplus of cheap

housing. Appendix D demonstrates the anticipated effect on the Renton rental gap analysis as

! 10

recipients of the REIHC become capable of affording relatively costlier housing and pull the

rental distribution closer to the optimum market equilibrium.

Access to Amenities: A voucher system allows increased spending power and increased

ability to secure housing in preferable areas. Nationally, recipients of renter choice vouchers are

far less likely than other forms of public housing to live in clusters of concentrated poverty,

which are correlated with reduced access to amenities.35

Political feasibility: Among the general public, affordable housing programs that create

rental opportunities are significantly less popular36 than programs that create homeownership.37

However, the cost of the REIHC is relatively low and avoids transferring funds from other

departments or additional revenue generation. Creation of this program is unlikely to spark much

public or political backlash.

Technical feasibility: Renton is a rare example of a city of its size that contains its own

Housing Authority. 38 This puts Renton in a unique position to offer such a program without

significant implementation costs.

Trade-Offs: Basing the REIHC on a federal income tax return does very little to help the

lowest income residents who are unemployed or severely underemployed. Rents could also

increase citywide as more money entering the market increases rental demand. The most

damaging tradeoff, however, could occur if the recipients remain in their current, very cheap

housing. This would halt the trickle down benefit of opening up very cheap housing for non-

recipients and severely dampen the impact on the affordable housing market. Compared to other

options, this option has the greatest impact on increasing resident’s access to amenities and is

very technically feasible. However, with a cost of one million dollars, this option is the most

expensive.

! 11

Option 3: Increase the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour

Cost efficiency: The major cost of increasing the minimum wage is hiring enforcement

officers to ensure businesses abide by the new policy. Renton will need to only hire two

enforcement officers, which will cost $128,000/year.39

Impact on affordable housing opportunities: At the current minimum wage of $9.47/hour,

full-time workers earn $19,698/year. This yearly income puts them under 30% of the AMI in

Renton and into the very-low income bracket. Increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour

increases these workers income to $31,200/year, slightly below 50% of the AMI and into the

low-income bracket. Appendix E demonstrates the anticipated effect on the Renton rental gap

analysis as full-time workers gain the ability to afford relatively costlier housing, and reduces the

rental gap between very cheap and cheap housing by 79%.

Access to Amenities: Increasing economically vulnerable residents’ wages provides increased

mobility, greater ability to afford transportation, and relatively enhanced purchasing power. This

allows residents to move out of concentrated areas of poverty and closer to amenities.

Political feasibility: When Seattle increased the minimum wage to $15/hour, the policy

received support from the Democratic Party and faced opposition from the Republican Party.

Renton’s proposed increase should face the same political environment. In the last Presidential

election, 70.5% of Renton residents voted Democratic.40 If this trend continues, this option gains

voter support.

Technical feasibility: By mirroring Seattle’s “step” system, Renton has a model for

establishing timeframes and monitoring enforcement. However, minimum wage increases have

mostly been implemented in large cities. When SeaTac recently increased their minimum wage,

it faced harsh opposition from critics arguing the increase would eliminate 5% - 10% of entry-

! 12

level jobs. Because the majority of economically vulnerable residents work entry-level jobs, this

could be a major concern for Renton.

Trade-Offs: By reducing the rental gap between very cheap and cheap housing by 79%, this

option has the greatest impact on the affordable housing market, and greatly improves residents’

access to amenities by increasing the purchasing power. After Seattle increased the minimum

wage, however, Republican leaders signaled that they would not allow the Washington state

Senate to vote on a more modest plan for a $12/hour statewide minimum wage. This attitude

proposes significant risks for this option and makes it one of the most politically controversial

policy options.

Option 4: Expedite development approval and permitting for affordable housing

Cost efficiency: Charging $500 per unit for eligible projects expects to generate $15,000 for

Renton in the first year. By eliminating traffic and parking studies, Renton reduces the overall

cost of approving a permit and saves additional money and resources.

Impact on affordable housing opportunities: Quicker approval for affordable housing is

expected to spur the construction of 30-50 affordable housing units per year. However, since

Renton currently lacks 2,137 housing units for very-low income residents, 30-50 additional units

have a relatively small impact on housing opportunities.

Access to Amenities: Expediting the approval process increases the construction of affordable

housing and mixed-use developments where affordable housing is currently limited. This

positively impacts economically vulnerable residents’ access to amenities by allowing them to

live in neighborhoods that lacked affordable units before the policy.

! 13

Political feasibility: Since this option facilitates affordable housing development, generates

revenue for the city, benefits developers who opt-in, and improves the economic stability of

Renton, it should face little political opposition.

Technical feasibility: In working with the City Planning Department, this option requires no

additional resources and is easy to implement. However, it does require employees to learn new

skills and obtain different certifications that involve additional time and training.

Trade-Offs: Though this option generates $15,000 for the city and is politically and

technically feasible compared to other options, it does not significantly reduce the financial stress

on Renton’s most economically vulnerable residents, or improve their ability to find affordable

housing. In eliminating traffic and parking studies, Renton is vulnerable to unseen safety hazards

and traffic incidents. Lastly, if the incentives do not continue to outweigh the cost to developers

of creating affordable units, participation in the program will suffer.

Option 5: Adjust zoning codes to allow for additional accessory dwellings

Cost efficiency: The cost to the city of adjusting the zoning codes will be minimal, less than

ten thousand dollars annually in combined lost revenue from reduced applications fees and

additional staff time to process increased applications.

Impact on affordable housing opportunities: Under the current zoning policies only four

ADUs were constructed since 2008, so there is little evidence that demand is near the current

annual limit of 50. Raising the maximum allowable size would have the greatest impact on

demand and could spur the development of 10-30 units per year after enactment.41,42 In Portland,

however, nearly one in five ADUs are rented at zero or seriously low cost, suggesting that ADU

builders were not acting as real estate agents but providing “volunteer affordable housing,” likely

to family members.43

! 14

Access to Amenities: Unlike affordable apartment complexes, ADUs are limited to one unit

per lot. Therefore, it is unlikely that a significant clustering of low-income housing occurs.

Relaxed ADU policies may allow low-income rental options in more affluent neighborhoods that

feature better access to amenities.

Political feasibility: Although allowing a larger secondary residential structure would make

ADUs more popular in Renton, a city official speculated that Renton would be unlikely to

support a policy that allows for a secondary structure as large as single-family home on a lot.44

Technical feasibility: Since Renton already allows some ADUs and contains many eligible

lots for ADU construction, this option is easy to implement and very applicable to Renton.

Trade-Offs: In costing less than $10,000/year and working with current departments, this is

one of the most cost efficient and technically feasible options. However, altering zoning

restrictions may create parking concerns and decrease property values due to lack of curb appeal

resulting from setback encroachment. If like in Portland, a significant number of below market

rate ADUs are rented to family members, it may exclude a large number of economically

vulnerable renters without financially supportive family members from the benefits of new

ADUs. Lastly, the biggest drawback to this option is the high potential political pushback and

minimal impact on the affordable housing market.

! 15

FINAL RECOMMENDATION Upon analysis of the policy options we recommend creating the Renton Earned

Income Housing Credit voucher program. This recommendation is based off the following

insights:

•! Renton does not have a shortage of rental housing, but it needs a redistribution of renters

into different price levels of apartments to reduce the gap between very cheap and cheap

housing. This option reduces this gap by 25%. Though not as effective as the minimum

wage, which reduces the gap by 79%, this option achieves an adequate redistribution

without potential political backlash. The REIHC will reduce the number of residents

living in isolated clusters of poverty, and improves resident’s access to amenities.

•! Tenant-based vouchers improve the socio-economic diversity of neighborhoods, assist

families in moving to higher quality neighborhoods, and significantly impact residents

access to amenities. Since this option is based on the Earned Income Tax Credit return

and replicates Section 8, the REIHC can be expected to achieve these same results while

simultaneously incentivizing employment and economic growth.

•! The use of a lottery system among eligible participants ensures that residents have an

equal opportunity to receive the benefits of this option.

•! If more funding or political will becomes available, the REIHC can be easily expanded to

affect a broader impact on the affordable housing market without additional tradeoffs.

! 16

Appendix A: Matrix POLICY CRITERIA

Cost Efficiency Impact on affordable housing market

Access to Amenities Political Feasibility Technical Feasibility

POLICY OPTIONS

Maintain the Status Quo

Medium: RHA operated at surplus of $1 million due to funding from HUD. However, funding is not guaranteed to continue from year-to-year

Very Low: Rental prices in Renton are increasing, with average rent forecasted to exceed $1,450/month. 1,800 households provided aid through RHA

Low: Renton has uneven access to amenities for residents without a vehicle and very-low income residents. Particularly in the Sunset Area

Medium: Both parties typically agree that housing cost is of less priority than other city problems, such as poverty and budget issues

Very High: The RHA has flexibility in controlling their housing policies. This option requires no additional implementation

Create the Renton Earned Income Housing Credit voucher

program

Low: Capped cost at one million dollars with minimal additional administration costs

Medium: Reduces the deficit between very cheap and cheap housing and provides 414 households sufficient funds to rent higher quality housing

Very High: Vouchers strongly reduce the likelihood of residents living in isolated or clustered areas of poverty

Medium: Likely to be less popular than programs that create homeownership. However, the low cost increases political support

Very High: The RHA can easily implement this program

Increase the minimum wage

to $15.00 per hour

Medium: Hiring two enforcement officers will cost Renton $128,000/year

Medium: Increases minimum wage workers income to $31,200/year, which reduces the deficit between very cheap and cheap housing by 79%

Medium: Increased wage allows economically vulnerable residents to have better access to amenities

Medium: Supported by the Democratic party. In the 2012 Presidential election, 70.5% of residents. However, strong opposition from the Republican party exists

Medium: Mirroring Seattle’s “step” model. However, minimum wage increases have been mostly implemented in large cities.

Expedite development approval and

permitting

Very High: Generates $15,000 for Renton in the first year

Low: Spurs the construction of 30-50 housing units.

Medium: Increases the construction of mixed-used projects

Very High: By generating revenue for the city and constructing affordable housing, options easily gains political support

Medium: Works with the City Planning Department and requires no additional resources

Adjust zoning codes to allow for additional

accessory dwellings

High: Costs less than $10,000 in lost revenue and reduced application fees

Very Low: Only 4 ADUs have been constructed since 2008 and only 10-30 units are expected after relaxed regulations

High: Since ADUs are limited to one unit per lot, clustering of poverty is reduced

Low: Renton is unlikely to support a policy allowing a secondary large structure per lot

High: Renton already has departments to access proposals for ADUs

! 17

Appendix B: Rental trends in Renton

! 18

Appendix C: Map of Mobility/Transportation Index by Census Tract in Renton, 2012

! 19

Appendix D: Anticipated effect of REIHC on the rental gap

! 20

Appendix E: Anticipated effect of increasing the minimum wage on the rental gap

! 21

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Since 1981, 30% of income has been considered the threshold for burdensome housing cost and remains the standard for most rental housing programs. This is considered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as the standard by which federal policy measures housing affordability. 2 United States. Census Bureau. American Housing Survey. "American FactFinder National Tables" American Housing Survey 2013. Washington: US Census Bureau, Web. 10 May 2015. 3 City of Renton. “Community Needs Assessment of Human Services and Housing” Community and Economic Development. City of Renton. N.p., June 2014. 4 "Affordable Housing." Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Web. 17 May 2015. 5 Michael E. Stone. "Housing Affordability: One-Third of a Nation Shelter-Poor" A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda. Ed. Rachel G. Bratt, Michael E. Stone, Chester Hartman. Temple University Press, 2006. 38-60. 6 “2016-2021 Vision, Mission, Business Plan.” Business. City of Renton n.d. Web 17 May 2015. 7 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) releases the AMI, which determines housing program eligibility by calculating the median income of households for the area and grouping residents into income ranges. The AMI in Renton is calculated to be $70,657/year. 8 $21,000 represents 30% of the AMI and $35,000 represents 50% of the AMI 9 City of Renton. (2012). 2012 Community Survey. Available from City of Renton Web site: http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Governement/AJLS/City%20of%20Renton%20Community%20Survey_Residential_Survey_final.pdf?n=1387 10 In 2001 23% of residents were lower than 50% of AMI, now 38% of residents are in this very low to low-income category. 11 City of Renton. Planning Department. “Comprehensive Housing Plan.” Adopted 11/01/04. 12 City of Renton. “Community Needs Assessment of Human Services and Housing” Community and Economic Development. City of Renton. N.p., June 2014. Web. 13 "Minimum Wage." Minimum Wage. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, n.d. Web. 17 May 2015. 14 "Housing Wage Calculator." National Low Income Housing Coalition. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2015. 15 Ibid. 16 United States. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2013. Washington: US Census Bureau, Web. 3 June 2015. 17 Overcrowded is considered by HUD and the City of Renton as a household with a Person Per Room ratio above 1.0 18 United States. Census Bureau. American Housing Survey. "American FactFinder National Tables" American Housing Survey 2013. Washington: US Census Bureau, Web. 10 May 2015. 19 City of Renton. “Community Needs Assessment of Human Services and Housing” Community and Economic Development. City of Renton. N.p., June 2014. Web. 20 "Affordable Housing." Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Web. 17 May 2015. 21 Renton Housing Authority. “Communities and Waitlists” Updated 3/31/15. 22 Stegman, Michael A., Walter R. Davis, and Roberto Quercia. "The earned income tax credit as an instrument of housing policy." (2004): 203-260. 23 City of Renton. “Community Needs Assessment of Human Services and Housing” Community and Economic Development. City of Renton. N.p., June 2014. Web. 24 Ibid. 25 City of Renton “Sunset Revitalization Overview” Available at: https://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/projects/Sunset_Area_Brochure.pdf?n=2095 26 City of Renton. Department of Community and Economic Development “Customer Information Bulletin: Accessory Dwelling Units.” Revised 3/2015. 27 Email correspondence with Renton Planning Manager 5/27/15 28 Choi, Laura. "Financial stress and its physical effects on individuals and communities." Community Development Investment Review 5.3 (2009): 120-122. 29 Litman, Todd. "Affordable-accessible housing in a dynamic city." Victoria. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2013). 30 City of Renton. Department of Community and Economic Development “Customer Information Bulletin: Accessory Dwelling Units.” Revised 3/2015. 31 City of Renton. “2013-2014 Adopted Budget.” Updated 2/13/13. 32 City of Renton. “Community Needs Assessment of Human Services and Housing” Community and Economic Development. City of Renton. N.p., June 2014. Web 33 Working Families, Homes for, Americans' Views of Home Affordability (July 1, 2006). 34 Stegman, Michael A., Walter R. Davis, and Roberto Quercia. "The earned income tax credit as an instrument of housing policy." (2004): 203-260. 35 Turner, Margery Austin. "Section 8 mobility and neighborhood health." (2000). 36 39% of adults said they are comfortable with affordable rental units in their neighborhood compared to 61% who said they were comfortable with units specified as homes for purchase. 37 Working Families, Homes for, Americans' Views of Home Affordability (July 1, 2006). 38 "PHA Contact Information." PHA Contact Information. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Web. 02 June 2015. 39 The average annual salary for an enforcement officer is $64,000/year 40!"Renton, WA Politics and Election Data." Renton, WA Politics and Election Data. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 May 2015.!41 Email correspondence with Renton Planning Manager 5/27/15 42 Accessory Dwelling Units: A Case Study. Rep. Prepared For: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Prepared By: Sage Computing, Inc. Reston, VA, June 2008. Web. 43 Palmeri, Jordan. Accessory Dwelling Units in Portland, Oregon Evaluation and Interpretation of a Survey of ADU Owners. Rep. N.p.: State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Materials Management, 1 June 2014. Web. 44 Email correspondence with Renton Planning Manager 5/27/15!