HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Homes COW Packet 01/22/2013Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
&I
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: JANUARY 14, 2013
SUBJECT: HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION
f-TITI 4 0i11MED
The Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative (the "Collaborative ") was formed via an
intergovernmental agreement in 2011 to develop sub - regional solutions that address the short
and long -term housing needs of the participating communities. The participating communities
include Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Mount Prospect, Palatine and Rolling Meadows. Homes
for a Changing Region (Homes) is a project provided to each of the Collaborative communities
free -of- charge by the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus and CMAP's LTA program with staff support
from the Metropolitan Planning Council. Homes provides technical assistance for municipal
leaders to chart future demand and supply trends for housing in their communities, and to
develop long -term housing policies. Homes plans are not land use plans and will not focus on
specific parcels.
PROGRESS TO DATE
The Homes report is divided into three Sections. The first Section is a Sub - regional housing analysis
developed to identify current conditions, project future housing demands, review recent policy
remedies, and recommend general strategies to improve sub - regional housing conditions. This
Section entitled Homes for a Changing Region: Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative, Sub -
Regional Report and Recommendations was included in the Draft discussed at the October 91h
Committee of the Whole meeting and is attached for your reference. These sub - regional facts and
general strategies will help to achieve a consensus for the direction of the Collaborative work as a
whole.
Section two entitled Housing Policy Plan: Mount Prospect is specific to the Village of Mount
Prospect. Existing conditions have been analyzed, our strengths and challenges identified and
projected housing needs have been developed along with recommended strategies to address
those needs. At this time, the project team is asking for your final review and comments on this
Section two of the report, which is specific to our community. Each of the five Collaborative
communities will have their own Section in the final report. An Appendix is also attached and
labeled as Section Three.
NEXT STEPS
At this time, the project team is asking for your final comments on Section two of this Draft. After
this final review, the complete Homes for a Changing Region report will go to print and be made
available to the public.
CONCLUSION
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and
consideration at the January 22 Committee of the Whole meeting. A representative of CMAP will
give a brief presentation regarding the Homes project at the January 22 meeting. Staff will also
be present at the meeting to answer any questions regarding this matter.
William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP
Director of Community Development
H:\ PLAN\Noffliivest Honsmg Cbllaboratice HomesforgChvi_guigRegioii Homes report to 012213 COVAHomes Mono 011113.docx
■■ Metropolitan
EE ,C,N,. Ma a p s - 14 Chicago Metropolitan
Metropolitan Planning CoundI Agency for Planning
Homes for a
Changing Region
January 2013 Draft
Section 1: Sub - Regional Report and Recommendations
Homes for a Changing Region
Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Background
This year's Homes for a Changing Region (Homes) report comes at the request of the five neighboring
municipalities that make up the Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative (Collaborative) — Arlington
Heights, Buffalo Grove, Mount Prospect, Palatine and Rolling Meadows. Compared to the 279 other
municipalities in the Chicago region, these five are middle income, predominantly owner - occupied
communities and have access to high quality public schools. The sub - region is largely auto oriented in
terms of development but has relatively good access to commuter rail. Several municipalities recently
developed more transit - oriented downtown areas. The Collaborative communities are located directly
north of the dense O'Hare and Northwest Suburban transportation job centers via Route 53, Northwest
Tollway 1 -90) and the Tri -State Tollway (1 -294).
Table 1: Median Household Income
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$ 50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Source: 2008 -2010 American Community Survey
Arlington Heights Buffalo Grove Mount Prospect Palatine Rolling Meadows
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Table 2: Tenure Status
90%
80%
70%
NO
c
60%
0
x
50%
w
Q
u 40%
U
O
0 30%
41
c
20%
w
a
10%
0%
Source: 2006 -2010 American Community Survey
■ % Rent
■ % Own
N
The Collaborative formed via an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) in 2011 to develop sub - regional
solutions that address the short and long -term housing needs of the participating communities. The IGA
created a Steering Committee made up of municipal staff members and elected officials who meet
regularly to set working priorities. The communities came together to address the common challenges
of rising foreclosures, growing income diversity, aging multi - family housing and the loss of affordable
units. Funding from The Chicago Community Trust allowed the Collaborative to hire a shared Housing
Coordinator to address these challenges. The Collaborative has also received grant resources from the
BMO Harris Bank Foundation and Village Bank and Trust, a Wintrust affiliate. Early on, the Collaborative
Steering Committee identified several strategies to pursue, including rental housing preservation, condo
foreclosure and stabilization strategies.
What follows is a sub - regional analysis of current conditions, a review of recent policy remedies, a look
forward in regards to the housing market and recommendations for future sub - regional action. Once
sub - regional issues are discussed, reports on each of the five Collaborative communities will be
presented. Sub - regional strategies help elected officials achieve a consensus around a direction for the
work of the Collaborative as a whole. The Collaborative should consider this a set of broad policy
recommendations that can be used to inform implementation priorities and a work plan for the next
several years.
Arlington Buffalo Grove Mount Prospect Palatine Rolling
Heights Meadows
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Inset:
WHAT IS "AFFORDABLE HOUSING "?
• While varying from household to household, "affordable housing" is housing that costs no
more than 30% of household income (including utilities, insurance, and taxes).
If family transportation costs are included (housing costs plus transportation costs), then
"affordability" jumps to 45% of household income. This report will cite figures from the Center for
Neighborhood Technology on the number of households that pay more than 45% of their household
income on housing and transportation costs combined.
Current Conditions
3
The severe recession, which has impacted the entire country, is now in its fifth year. Unemployment
remains high, and the foreclosure crisis continues to impact a broad range of communities. As Table 3
below shows, there have been 5,695 foreclosure filings (about 5.2% of total housing units based on 2010
census data) and 1,931 foreclosure auctions (about 1.8% of total housing units) in the five Collaborative
communities from 2009 through 2011:
Table 3: Northwest Suburban
Housing Collaborative Foreclosures
2500
c 2000
+1
U
7
a
o 1500
V1
NO
c
LL
0 1000
N
E
z 500
0
filings aucth
2009
Source: Woodstock Institute, http: / /www.woodstockinst.org
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Condominium foreclosures have been especially noteworthy:
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Table 4: Condos as a Share of Foreclosure
Aucttions vs. Owner - Occupied Units
Ir' Owner - occupied multifamily units as a percentage of all owner - occupied units (2008 -2010 ACS)
Condos as a percentage of all foreclosure auctions (2011 Woodstock)
Source: 2008 -2010 ACS, Woodstock Institute
Home prices dropped significantly and homeownership rates declined because of stagnant incomes,
high unemployment and increased credit restrictions. An increased number of owner families are now
paying more than 50% of their income for housing and housing related expenses.
Table 5: Average Home Price
Depreciation in the Past 5 Years
- 50.00%
- 40.00%
- 30.00% - 20.00% - 10.00% 0.00%
all
Source: Trulio, www.trulia.com, pulled 712512012
Cook County Lake County Arlington Buffalo Grove Mount Palatine Rolling
Heights Prospect Meadows
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Table 6: Percent of Owner Occupied Housholds
Paying More than 30% of Income on Monthly
Owner Costs
45%
c 40%
s
w
35%
0
x
w
30%
Q
u 25%
U
20%
N
C
15%
w
10%
c
w
U 5%
w
a
0%
2006 -2010 50 %+ (severely
unaffordable)
2006 -2010 30 -49% (unaffordable)
■ 2000 50 %+ (severely unaffordable)
■ 2000 30 -49% (unaffordable)
Source, 2000 Census and 2006 -2010 ACS
6 1
Many other families are "underwater," meaning the face value of their mortgages exceeds the value of
their home. The rental housing market in Collaborative communities, limited even before the current
housing crisis, is more strained than ever with a growing number of renting families paying more than
30% or even 50% of their income for rent.
Arlington Buffalo Mount Rolling
Heights Grove Prospect Palatine Meadows
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Table 7: Percent of Renter Occupied Housholds
Paying More than 30% of Income on Gross Rent
Arlington Buffalo Mount Rolling
Heights Grove Prospect Palatine Meadows
60%
0
s 50%
w
0
x
40%
Q
U
U
O 30%
v
41
w 20%
w
0
c 10%
w
U
N
O 0%
Source, 2000 Census and 2006 -2010 ACS
2006 -2010 50 %+ (severely
unaffordable)
2006 -2010 30 -49% (unaffordable)
2000 50 %+ (severely unaffordable)
01 2000 30 -49% (unaffordable)
While rental costs are rising, supply has not kept pace with demand over the past five years. While the
American Community Survey figures do not reflect this as of yet, some rental registration figures and
anecdotal evidence suggest that a growing number of single - family homes are being rented, a situation
which presents new challenges to municipal leadership.
FUTURE PROJECTIONS
L
As part of the Homes process, CMAP has developed projections to help the Collaborative and its
member municipalities anticipate changes in demand by tenure (rent vs. own) and price point through
the year 2040. Aggregate projected demand for the five - community market area indicates that demand
by low -to- moderate income families for owner - occupied housing could exceed supply. At the same
time, there could be unmet demand for housing serving the needs of upper income families, families
whose incomes exceed $100,000. Many of these upper income families, however, may choose to live in
more affordable homes and spend their income elsewhere.
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Table 8: NWSHC 2010 households and housing stock compared
with 2040 owner demand
30,000
25,000
o 20,000
v
0 15,000
10,000
D
5,000
0
7
<15k <35k <50k <75k <100k <150k 150k+
Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)
Demand at Income Level (2010)
® Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)
Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006 -2010 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth
projections as inputs.
Table 9: NWSHC Projected 2040 Owner Demand by Age
of Householder
25,000
20,000
c 15,000
s
w
10,000
5,000
0
<15k <35k <50k
0 <25 ■ 25 -44
Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006 -2010 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth
projections as inputs.
<75k <100k <150k 150k+
45 -64 65+
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Rental market projections suggest that the greatest unmet demand across the Collaborative market
area will be among households earning less than $35,000 per year. These households would be looking
to rent for less than $900 per month. Seniors and adults, 25 -44 years old, could be the two age cohorts
with the greatest share of that demand.
Table 10: NWSHC 2010 households and housing stock
compared with 2040 renter demand
12,000
10,000
0 8,000
o 6,000
4,000
c
= 2,000
0
<15k <35k <50k <75k <100k <150k 150k+
Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)
Demand at Income Level (2010)
■ Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)
Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006 -2010 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth
projections as inputs.
12,000
10,000
8,000
0
w 6,000
0
= 4,000
2,000
0
Table 11: Projected 2040 Renter Demand by Age of
Householder
<15k <35k <50k <75k
■ <25 25 -44 45 -64
<100k <150k
150k+
65+
E?
Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006 -2010 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth
projections as inputs.
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
Regional and National Policy Trends
Despite slowing foreclosure filings, the number of homes in the foreclosure process remains high both
nationally and regionally. As such, federal, state and local policy makers have been busy over the last
year looking for ways to help struggling homeowners and prevent the negative community impacts
associated with vacancy.
The National Mortgage Servicing Settlement is probably the most interesting development of 2012.
Thanks to a massive state and federal civil law enforcement investigation, the settlement brought the
nation's five largest mortgage servicers into a $25 billion agreement. The agreement includes a
minimum of $17 billion in direct aid to struggling homeowners, $3 billion for an underwater mortgage
refinancing program and $5 billion to state and federal efforts. New servicing and foreclosure standards
and an independent monitor will ensure servicer compliance with the settlement. With funds from the
settlement, Illinois has already issued a $3 million worth of Request For Proposals to create foreclosure
mediation programs in counties where they do not already exist.
In 2011 Illinois launched the federally funded Illinois Hardest Hit program, offering up to $25,000 in
temporary assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure due to job loss or pay cuts. The state also
launched the Welcome Home Heroes program, providing veterans and their families secure fixed -rate
loans and up to $10,000 in down payment assistance. In early 2012, three state departments
collaborated to create the Illinois Foreclosure Prevention Network (IFPN), which provides struggling
homeowners with access to a variety of services through counselors at one - stop -shops around the state.
Finally, Cook County is moving forward with efforts to create a countywide land bank to address the
abundant supply of vacant, abandoned, tax - delinquent and foreclosed properties within the County. An
Advisory Committee is being established to explore different options for forming a non - profit
redevelopment authority for the county. Land banks are used to take possession of distressed
properties through direct purchases or non -cash transfers. Properties are held tax -free in a trust until
they can become repurposed in a manner that is consistent with the communities' values and needs.
The Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative should closely track the recommendations that come
out of the Land Bank Advisory Committee to determine how a countywide land bank could be utilized as
a tool for the Northwest suburban sub - region.
Recommendations for Future Sub - Regional Action
The five Collaborative communities are in an excellent position to move forward if they carefully plan
their future housing development. They remain, relative to many other Chicago area communities,
economically strong and well governed. Their single family housing stock is in good shape. With the
exception of Buffalo Grove's Lake County sections, they are relatively built out in terms of development.
Growth pressures are not likely to impact community resources, particularly public schools.
Based on these points, the project team recommends the following strategies to improve housing
conditions in Collaborative communities.
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations 10
• Mitigate the impact of foreclosure: As we have pointed out earlier, all Collaborative
communities have been impacted by foreclosures, especially condominium foreclosures. The
collaborative should evaluate the effectiveness of serving as a point of referral to connect
struggling homeowners with counseling and other programs created to reduce the likelihood of
mortgage default ending in foreclosure. Regional organizations continue to work proactively to
build relationships with the national banks that hold the majority of mortgages in default,
however the Collaborative may be able to influence community banks more effectively. The
collaborative should determine the willingness of local community banks to work collaboratively
on sub - regional strategies with the same objective.
Expanded efforts to track foreclosures and speed their conversion into owner - occupied or rental
properties are needed to combat the current foreclosure problem. This could include reviewing
local regulations to increase the attractiveness of Collaborative communities for investors that
purchase foreclosed properties at auction and manage them as income earning rental
properties. It might also include expanding efforts to work with banks and realtors to increase
local sales. Special focus should be given to monitoring and controlling the rental of
condominiums and single - family homes. While most collaborative communities utilize rental
licensing and landlord education programs, these should be evaluated to determine if best
practices are being followed. Creating a joint training program among the Collaborative
communities could help gain efficiencies by cutting costs and saving staff time. Thought should
be given to working with and advising condominium associations which become economically
challenged by high rates of foreclosure.
• Encourage building new housing which fits the needs of additional residents: While largely
built out, new housing development opportunities exist in all five communities. In planning for
additional growth, the communities should create a true mix of housing, including rental, small -
lot single family homes, town homes, and attached homes as well as large -lot single family
homes. It is important that new developments respond to projected population increases
incrementally as the economy slowly climbs out of the current recession.
o Take advantage of public transit: Four of the five Collaborative municipalities have
Metra train stations within their limits. The largest share of residents in all five towns
commute southeast to Chicago or neighboring communities, many along the Union
Pacific Northwest or North Central Service Metra lines. Several Collaborative
communities have been active in redeveloping the areas surrounding those stations
with mixed use, compact development. Transit - oriented development provides
residents with opportunities to decrease congestion, energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions. New development in these areas should provide a mix of
housing opportunities for families of various incomes based on projected demand.
o Include and encourage a balanced housing supply with municipal plans and
ordinances: Moving forward, Collaborative communities should consider using the
demand projections supplied by CMAP as a basis for comprehensive plan
recommendations for housing policies and allowable residential development. This
would likely mean including all types of housing in comprehensive plans, adopting
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
11
building standards for affordable housing development, using density bonuses and
allowing the development of accessory dwelling units. Often called "granny flats,"
accessory dwellings are smaller housing units are located on the same parcel as a single -
family home. They can accommodate multigenerational families, allowing seniors to age
in place or young residents to remain at home as they seek employment.
• Preserve and increase senior housing: As CMAP projections indicate, the senior population in
the collaborative could significantly grow over the next 20 to 30 years. Many area seniors will
want to remain living in their communities, as well as in their current homes. Additional
multifamily and single family complexes designed to allow seniors to age in place, both rental
and condominium, will be needed. Locating them near transit and shopping areas should be a
priority. The Collaborative should continue to stay on top of public and private sector funding
opportunities for retrofitting existing homes and new age restricted developments with design
elements and fixtures that facilitate aging in place. It should also monitor current senior demand
preferences for various housing options. New development and significant rehabilitation should
be guided by the latest research on design for accessibility and aging in place. The Collaborative
should evaluate the possibility of compiling or distributing educational materials to educate
aging homeowners on the costs, best practices and funding available for retrofitting.
• Address aging multi - family properties: All five communities have multi - family housing
complexes that are aging and need constant monitoring to make sure they remain code
compliant. Some of these complexes were built on unincorporated Cook County land which was
later annexed. Subsequent infrastructure upgrades were made combined with ongoing efforts
to improve the living units. We encourage all the Collaborative communities to continue
focusing on these complexes, regardless of their location. Rehabilitation and stabilization of
these buildings can have positive impacts on surrounding single family neighborhoods. The
Collaborative could advocate for state and federal grant, loan or tax credit programs designed to
encourage owners to upgrade energy efficiency, safety, lighting and fire safety features on
multi - family properties. Consideration could also be given to complete redevelopment where
warranted.
• Retrofit existing dwelling units and encourage energy efficient housing development: A study
completed in 2011 by the National Association of Home Builders stated that the home of the
future will be smaller and more energy efficient than its counterpart developed over the last
decade. Over the past several years, several public subsidies have been created to encourage
such development. CMAP has created an online marketplace that enables single- and
multifamily building owners to determine which subsidies they can access to retrofit their
homes to increase energy efficiency. Communities should also consider reviewing their
regulations to streamline the permitting process for new developments certified as energy
efficient under any of the leading certification organizations (LEED, Energy Star, etc.).
• Consider Live Where You Work programs: The state of Illinois provides a 50 cent tax credit on
state income tax liability for every $1 invested in programs that help employees live near their
place of employment. The Collaborative should consider engaging large employers and local
banks in an effort to take advantage of that incentive.
Sub - regional Report and Recommendations
12
• Annex unincorporated land: Parcels of unincorporated land exist in or adjacent to all five
collaborative communities. Cook County has recently announced that it wants to eliminate all
unincorporated land in the County in the next ten years. Even if annexation does not proceed,
the Collaborative should work with County officials to ensure better code enforcement in
unincorporated areas. Strategies will be needed to annex this land without placing a burden on
city and village taxpayers.
• Evaluate the costs and benefits of joining the Cook County HOME consortium: While the
collaborative communities are unable to form their own consortium to access federal housing
development funds under the HOME program, they can join the Cook County HOME
Consortium. This would add funding to the pool from which all Cook County municipalities can
draw to develop or preserve housing affordable to low income residents. The Collaborative
should consider doing this as a way to leverage funding for specific projects in the future.
• Evaluate the costs and benefits of joining or creating a land trust: CMAP analysis has shown
that there are underutilized or vacant parcels zoned for residential development scattered
across most of the Collaborative communities. These do not provide significant opportunities for
land assembly at this time; however, in the long term the Collaborative should consider joining
or creating a land trust as a means to stabilize property values and redevelop or preserve
affordable units. Alternatively, the Collaborative could explore the possibility of creating or
joining a land bank as a strategy for maintaining and taking these properties off the market, until
an appropriate opportunity arises.
Inset:
A land trust is a non - profit organization that acquires properties through market purchase and
land donations. The land trust retains the title to the land while selling homes on it at below -
market value. The land is leased at a nominal cost to income - qualified buyers. Future affordability
is maintained through a ground lease, which requires homes on the land to be either sold back to
the land trust or to another income - qualified buyer. The resale amount is determined by a formula
that provides a fair return on investment to the seller, but also ensures the property remains
affordable to future purchasers. Homeowners are responsible for paying property taxes, which
are based on the formula value of the home. This results in significant cost savings to
homeowners.
Section 2: Housing Policy Plan (Mount Prospect Only)
Housing Policy Plan: Mount Prospect
PROJECT SUMMARY
Mount Prospect is a prosperous suburban community with a diverse range of housing types, strong
residential neighborhoods, and excellent schools. Benefiting from its prime location in the metropolitan
area's job -rich Northwest Corridor, the Village has a broad range of employers and a solid tax base to
fund municipal services. Because of its prime location, Mount Prospect residents and businesses access a
number of key regional transportation assets, including commuter rail, highways and bus service. While
essentially built out, the Village continues to take advantage of new opportunities for growth and
redevelopment, most notably in its downtown area which features shops, restaurants and residences near
its Metra station. A recent Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) grant is funding an implementation
plan to detennine future land use and development in downtown.
Even with these assets, Mount Prospect faces challenges as it plans for the future. A summary of these
challenges include:
• Numerous multi - family housing complexes built between 1960 and 1980 are aging and in need of
ongoing rehabilitation and upgrading.
• An aging population raises questions about the best ways to accommodate potential future
growth.
• The Village must weigh the pros and cons of annexing unincorporated land on its southern
border.
• The nation's foreclosure crisis continues to impact parts of the Village.
This report analyzes Mount Prospect's existing housing conditions and makes projections about its future
housing needs, concluding with a series of recommendations focused on:
• Addressing ongoing housing rehabilitation needs;
• Dealing with foreclosures and their aftermath;
• Creating opportunities for new senior housing;
• Exploring development and redevelopment opportunities in southern Mount Prospect, including
unincorporated areas; and
• Creating initiatives to increase the energy efficiency of new and existing housing.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Demographic and Economic Trends
Located in northwestern Cook County, the Village of Mount Prospect is bordered by Prospect Heights to
the north, Des Plaines to the east, Elk Grove Village to the south and Arlington Heights to the west.
Mount Prospect's population essentially leveled off during the first decade of the 21st century, at around
55,000 residents. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) produced population and
household projections as part of its GO TO 2040 plan, the seven county region's comprehensive plan for
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan January 7, 2013
sustainable prosperity for the next 30 years.' These figures indicate that if GO TO 2040 is implemented
and if the Village takes advantage of its numerous assets, its population could rise to 63,354 by 2040, an
increase of approximately 9,100 residents . As this report points out later, however, the Village currently
lacks the capacity to add this many residents without additional land area or changes to its zoning code.
Decisions in this regard, of course, would have to be carefully considered by the Village Board. It is quite
possible that housing demand may exceed supply well into the future, a fact that could put upward
pressure on housing prices.
Population and Change in Population, 2000 and 2010
Community
Population, 2000 (Census)
56,264
Population, 2010 (Census)
54,167
Change, 2000 -10
-2,097
Change as %, 2000 -10
3.7%
GO TO 2040 Projection, 2040
63,354
The Village's employment base is diverse and includes ohs in a wide variety of sectors including
administration, wholesale trade, manufacturing and education. Retail jobs comprised almost 20% of local
employment in 2010. Buffeted by the recession, overall employment in the Village decreased somewhat
between 2006 and 2010. The Village's leading employers include Caremark, Cummins- Allison and
Bosch Tool Corporation.
Mount Prospect jobs, 2005 -10
02005 62010
'RETAIL TRADE I I I I
U1 ➢MIN ISTRATI.N & 1UP1.R1I, WAST€ MGM.., .
�L!E!R�VIC
E
MANUFACTURING
PROFESS SCIENTIFIC, AN DECHNICAL.SERVICES
AND F04 SERVICES
ANAGEMEN I NI OFCOMPA 5AND'ENTERP.ISES
�
FINANCE AND INSURANCE
Im
INFORMATION
0% 595 1095 T5% 20°10
SQUFU U S. Census 8WQaU. LEV pate, OWth@ -RUP
' http: / /www.emap.illinois.gov /2040
See the Appendix for more information about these projections.
2
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan January 7, 2013
Where Do Mount Prospect's Workers Live?
While many employees commute to Mount Prospect from surrounding communities, the Village's
highway and transit access allows 13% percent of workers to come from Chicago. That Chicago is the
largest source of workers is common to many communities in the region, as both highway and rail
systems are designed, in part, to move people to and from the region's largest city. Benefiting from the
local job base, 9% of people working in Mount Prospect also live in Mount Prospect, a figure on par with
other Collaborative communities.
Whom 4D Kamt PErn3{nwr#xarkm hmk ZM?
9% MOUNT RAOSPECT
fi% A RONGT•DN
HEIGHTS
3-4 PALATINE
lair SCH
2e±t- � FtEA1AIr�l]FAdf
Where do /Mount Prospect'sworkers live?
Job counts by distance/direction in 1 all workers
aW
Jd
E>
Source US Census Eweau, LEE) Data, Qn-tr a -Map
Where Do Mount Prospect's Residents Work?
Chicago is the region's largest employment hub and for many communities, including Mount Prospect,
the most common destination for commuting residents. Seventeen percent of residents work in Chicago,
the highest percentage among the Collaborative. Such concentration lends credence to the Village's focus
on reviving downtown with transit oriented development. Citizens also commute to jobs in northwestern
Cook County, including Mount Prospect, Arlington Heights, Des Plaines, Elk Grove Village and
Schaumburg. That 7% of all employed Mount Prospect residents work in the community is typical of
most Collaborative communities. Percentages for four of the five towns range between 6 percent and 9
percent (Buffalo Grove, Mount Prospect, Palatine and Rolling Meadows), with Arlington Heights' 14
percent as the only outlier.
S — , a 0 - saA. -.. I.EDV*I- - -A 'r
`NW N E7
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
Where do Mount Prospect's residents work?
Job counts by distance /direction in 2010, all workers
13%
17% C HKAGQ
7% ARLINGTON
HfICHT5
740 � MGIwT pic[95Pd1`t
4% US PLAINES
a0x r.+, r�rranu:�vircarr
NO
'N W
,'w
SnUKO U S. CenSUS 9ureau. LEO Data On-the-WP.
Inset: WHAT IS "AFFORDABLE HOUSING "?
Wliat constitutes affordable housing varies household to household, as the measure is relative.
For this report, ive use the following US Census guidelines:
• "Affordable housing" is housing that costs no more than 30% of household income
(including utilities, insurance, and taxes)
• "Unaffordable housing" is housing that costs behwen 30% and 50% of household income
• "Severely unaffordable housing" is housing that costs more than 50% of household
income 'N
CURRENT HOUSING ANALYSIS
While Mount Prospect contains a mix of single and multi - family housing, single - family detached housing
is the predominant housing type. About 57% of local units are single - family while 37% are multi - family.
According to American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2006 -2010, the majority of single family
homes within Mount Prospect are owner- occupied (96 %) while multi - family dwellings tend to be renter
occupied (65 %). Multi - family units are generally concentrated in the southern portion of the Village
within close proximity to the I -90 corridor. A significant amount of this housing was developed in
unincorporated Cook County and subsequently annexed into the Village during the 1960s and 1970s.
The portion of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs increased between
2000 and 2010. For renters, the proportion increased from 30% to about 40 %. This ten percentage point
increase is consistent with the change seen among the other four towns over the past decade. For owners,
the number of households paying more than 30% of their income on housing costs increased from about
22% to 35 %. Similar to other Collaborative members, this change was driven by an almost doubling of
the number of homeowners paying more than 50% of their incomes on housing costs. The increasing
number of cost - burdened owners and renters in Mount Prospect over the last decade is consistent with
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan January 7, 2013
national trends. "The recession ... did little to reduce housing outlays for many Americans," due in part to
declining incomes, slow employment growth and more stringent credit requirements. 3
Mount Prospect housing type by tenure Mount Prospecttenure by unitsin structure
OWNER - OCCUPIED `RENTER- OCCUPIED * OWNER- OCCUPIED RENTER - OCCUPIED
12,000 G7
11 (DETACHED)
10,ODU
8,000
�,aoa
4,000
2,000
Source. Amer iron Communny Survey 2006 -10
0 2,000 4,0 00 6,000 8p00 10,000 12,000
Source. American Canmunity Survey 2006 -2010.
Mount Prospecttenure by household income,
in number of occupied units
0 OWNER- OCCUPIED RENTER - OCCUPIED
Mount Prospect rental and owner housing affordability
OWNER HOUSING RENTAL HOUSING
+AFFORDABLE OUNAFFORDABLE # SEVERELY
UNAFFORDABLE
$wren Amenean C.n „u....tysurvnyr7006.1a
3,500
3,DDD
3,500
2,00
1,500
1,000
Soo
Source Am K ■n C.- S”
Current Ownership Housing
The market for owner housing in Mount Prospect reflects two distinct types of households: those who
own the home with a mortgage and those who own a home without a mortgage. Whether an owner carries
a mortgage significantly impacts which income groups can afford the unit. Owner units for households
earning less than $35,000 are only affordable to this income group if the owner does not carry a mortgage
s Joint Center for Housing Studies. (June, 2012). State of the Nation's Housing 2012. Harvard University
5
U SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME MULTIFAMILY OTHER
0
[15k t35k <50k e75k <100k <150k 150k+
;1(A ACHED)
LNI i 5
NITS
11 0 TO 19 UYIITS
9 UNIT S
E
I REUNITS
MOBILE HO ME
90A T, R7 N, ETC.
0 2,000 4,0 00 6,000 8p00 10,000 12,000
Source. American Canmunity Survey 2006 -2010.
Mount Prospecttenure by household income,
in number of occupied units
0 OWNER- OCCUPIED RENTER - OCCUPIED
Mount Prospect rental and owner housing affordability
OWNER HOUSING RENTAL HOUSING
+AFFORDABLE OUNAFFORDABLE # SEVERELY
UNAFFORDABLE
$wren Amenean C.n „u....tysurvnyr7006.1a
3,500
3,DDD
3,500
2,00
1,500
1,000
Soo
Source Am K ■n C.- S”
Current Ownership Housing
The market for owner housing in Mount Prospect reflects two distinct types of households: those who
own the home with a mortgage and those who own a home without a mortgage. Whether an owner carries
a mortgage significantly impacts which income groups can afford the unit. Owner units for households
earning less than $35,000 are only affordable to this income group if the owner does not carry a mortgage
s Joint Center for Housing Studies. (June, 2012). State of the Nation's Housing 2012. Harvard University
5
U SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME MULTIFAMILY OTHER
0
[15k t35k <50k e75k <100k <150k 150k+
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
while units affordable to households earning more than $50,000 typically require the owner to carry a
mortgage. Intuitively this difference makes sense, as owners who do not carry a mortgage typically pay
less in total housing costs, allowing the owner to use the unspent money for other household expenses. In
Mount Prospect, the likelihood of owning a home with or without a mortgage depends in part on age.
Almost two - thirds of owners without mortgages are over the age of 65, while over two- thirds of owners
with mortgages are younger than 55. Therefore, the bulk of Mount Prospect's supply of owner units
affordable to households earning less than $50,000 per year are occupied by seniors while the working
age population occupies most of the units affordable to households earning more than $50,000 per year.
Shortages exist in the owner housing supply for income groups earning less than $15,000 and more than
$100,000 annually. These shortages force households to purchase homes outside of their income levels.
Upper income families purchase units which may be more affordable to lower income households,
thereby diminishing the ability of these middle income groups to find housing affordable to them.
Conversely, households making less than $15,000 that purchase homes often spend large proportions of
their income on housing costs.
Mount Prospect comparison of owner household incomes
with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010
• ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010
ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITSAFFORDABLE AT
INCOME LEVEL (WITHOUT MORTGAGE) 2010
ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITSAFFORDABLEAT
INCOME LEVEL (WITH MORTGAGE) 2010
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
<$15 <$35 <$50 <$75 <$100 <$150 $150+
Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS
2006 -10 inputs.
Current Rental Housing
Renters earning between $15,000 and $50,000 are well served by Mount Prospect's existing rental
housing. Supply /demand gaps, however, exist at the bottom and top ends of the Village's rental market.
Shortages for households earning more than $50,000 annually result in renters at these income levels
occupying rental units affordable to $15,000450,000 households. Renters earning less than $15,000 must
live in units which cost more than 30% of their income. According to 2006 -2010 ACS data, 9% of the
Village's renters are older than 65 and 9% of the Village's cost burdened renters are older than 65. The
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
similarity in percentages indicates that senior renters are not disproportionately likely to be paying more
than 30% of their income on housing.
Mount Prospect comparison of rental household incomes
with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010
' ACTUAL I IOUSEI IOLDSAT INCOME LEVEL 2010
ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITSA ORDABLE
AT INCOME LEVEL 2010
2590 or ,
2,000
1 0 WO
i,so0
1,000
Sao
<$I$ <S35 <SSa <S75 <S100 <SISC S1SG+
Sawm.CMAP anb"tvf rvftjonex Envision Tomorrow 0W xed Houwny Model wing ACS
10 input&
Today's Market Segments and Market Preferences
This analysis used tools developed by a leading, well -known market research firm, Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI), to enrich our understanding of the housing types preferred by families
that live in Mount Prospect. The basic unit of the ESRI Community Tapestry system is the neighborhood
(based on US Census block groups). ESRI has classified every neighborhood in the country as one of 65
market segments. These segments are then combined into one of 12 LifeMode groups. Segments and
groups are assigned to neighborhoods by sorting more than 60 attributes including income, employment,
home value, housing type, education, household composition, age and other key determinants of
consumer behavior. Neighborhoods with the most similar characteristics are combined while
neighborhoods showing divergent characteristics are separated.
Ninety eight percent of Mount Prospect's households fall into five of the LifeMode groups: Upscale
Avenues, High Society, Senior Styles, Global Roots and Solo Acts.
LifeMode Groups
Income
Family Type
Average
Age
% of Total
Housing Types
Tenure
Upscale Avenues
Middle -upper
Mixed
43
J4.2%
Single family, townhome,
Own
multi-famil
High Society
Upper
Married couples
39
27.7%
Single family
Own
Senior Styles
Middle
Married no -kids
47
16.4%
Multi -unit and single
Own /rent
fainil
F Global Roots
Modest
Family mixed
31
10.4%
Multi -unit and single
Rent/own
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
family
Solo Acts Middle -upper Singles- shared 34 931% Multi -unit, townhome and Rent /own
single family
The largest group are "Upscale Avenues," affluent households who prefer a variety of housing types and
are more likely to invest in their housing through remodeling or landscaping. The next largest group,
"High Society," is made up of affluent professional headed households that prefer single - family homes.
"Senior Styles" residents have housing preferences as diverse as their circumstances, residing in single -
family homes, retirement homes, or high- rises. About 10% of households are classified as "Global
Roots," representing the Village's growing Asian population. Such households tend to have children and
rent in multi -unit buildings. Finally, "Solo Acts" are generally young single or roommate households who
prefer a mobile, urban lifestyle and denser housing options.
What does this mean for Mount Prospect's future housing needs? First, it means that the majority of
current residents have at least a moderate propensity to live in a compact neighborhood (e.g. containing a
range of housing types that encourage walking to retail stores, neighborhood amenities, other homes and
transit lines). Secondly, the groups help confirm and deepen infonnation gleaned from US Census data.
The segments for Upscale Avenues and High Society make up over 60% of Mount Prospect households,
corresponding to ACS data which points to middle and upper income owner households in single - family
homes as the most common current household type in the Village. Finally, while not an exact guide to the
future, understanding the types of housing desired by the most common LifeMode groups in Mount
Prospect can assist in planning for future housing needs.
PROJECTING FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
Housing planning needs to take into account those who might live in the community in the future. After
developing an understanding of the current housing market in Mount Prospect, the following sections
look at possible future housing demand in the Village. Blending together Census data, CMAP's local
population and household projections for the year 2040 and the ESRI Tapestry market segment data, we
can make some realistic estimates of who will want to live in Mount Prospect over the next 30 years.
Further, we can determine the types of housing necessary to meet the needs of both current and future
residents.
Future Ownership Needs
We project that over the next 30 years the number of homeowners in Mount Prospect will increase at all
seven income levels. Based on these projections, the Village's current supply of units for households in
the $15,000435,000 and $75,000 - $100,000 range would be sufficient to meet projected growth.
Shortages, however, would exist for all other income groups. While the projected shortfall of units for
upper income households ($100,000 +) indicates a potential market for upscale homes and condominiums,
many affluent households spend less than 30% of their income on housing costs. This propensity will
both temper the projected demand for upper income units and reduce the number of units for middle and
lower income households as upper income families occupy units which would otherwise be affordable to
less affluent income groups.
If the number of households earning less than $15,000 grows, we project that 65% of homeowners in this
income group could be spending more than 30% of their income on housing in 2040. Keep in mind,
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan January 7, 2013
however, that low income households may, in some cases, have assets which allow them to meet ongoing
housing expenses. This caveat is particularly important given the number of households in this income
group projected to be led by senior citizens in 2040. Moreover, the financial realities of property
acquisition, construction costs and financing make the development of owner housing at this income level
very difficult.
Given the projected ages and incomes of future owners, the High Society and Upscale Avenues groups
will likely continue to drive the market in the Village's affluent single - family neighborhoods. As Mount
Prospect ages across all income groups, particularly below $75,000, meeting the needs of senior residents
(e.g. Senior Styles) will become particularly important. Members of this segment both own and rent in
everything from single - family homes to multi -unit buildings, setting the stage for the Village to
accommodate this group through new senior housing developments, including assisted living facilities, or
efforts which allow seniors to age in place. The presence of Solo Acts and Upscale Avenues in Mount
Prospect offer the prospect for market driven townhomes and multi - family developments. While tear -
downs may continue to occur, this activity typically does not add to the overall number of units in the
Village and does not represent a way to consistently add upscale housing units.
JAaunt Paacpmcil:201106ouwholds and hnusing stackcramparad
with 2W 4wneFdliriwind
Mount Prospect projected owner demand hy age of household
DCLU PIE DHQISira05 OCKAff00A0"AT30%OFiNC.0W(2=)
, *BE MAN D ALT INCDMEt1Va (21!)
a PROA-ETED DEk1AN0 AT INCOME LEM 02040)
•1i "a
f i 1- r_1
i �
1�!sl:ti�
1,�1SO
's+ rfi~ Tnrrlunwiu0 .1cn1roaxryMu7rd'uinj1kCY
k0115n !0 aw C~4717 E'K) jG4$htMaelEhtl�uq rip0al
Future Rental Needs
0 <25 0 25 -44 0 45 -64 0654
4,OO4.i
3,500
3,000
2,500
2.000
1,500
1,000)
500
Souee. [MAA analyse o f Fragarese Fmisian Tomorrow Ba9enced lieLSmg Model using A[5
200B•2010 wd CAAAP GO TO 2040 homQho0d forecast nputs
Assuming population growth of 17% over the next 30 years, we estimate that the future need for rental
housing will surpass the current affordable stock for all income groups, except for households earning
between $35,000 and $50,000. This shortage creates opportunities for both lower and upper income rental
housing.
Unlike with owners, future housing for renters, particularly low and moderate income renters, will not be
driven by seniors. Instead, if the Village chooses to expand its rental housing stock, it will be important to
develop housing which meets the needs of people aged 25 -44. This age -group may give the Village an
<15k <35k <50k <75k <100k <150k 150k+
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
opportunity to both further its downtown redevelopment and work with local employers to meet labor
force needs. The Global Roots and Solo Acts market segments correspond most closely to the projected
future ages and incomes of Mount Prospect renters. Rental housing options for families making less than
$50,000 would be important for the Global Roots group while continuing development efforts in
downtown Mount Prospect would be attractive to some Solo Acts.
Mount PFasP■Ct7018 hwr+rhvldsand h lasing �#w?actccarnp4tF
with 2040 Fill doom nd
OCCUPIED MOUSING STUCK'ATTQRDARLE Al 30%OF INCOME (2010)
DEMAND AT INCOM,{ LEVEL L2010�
PROJECTED b'CMAND AT INCOME I EYE L 42040)
J
;o-r" Mkr FF4a rk Flls lnnm E -a , WV �
..cc.r.- r T17l;vrPrx s b- 11p , n• 1,1,1
A a-
Housing Demand by Type of Unit
Mount Prospect projected renter demand by age of household
X25 025-44 0 45 -64 0 65+
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
<15k 43 <50k <75k 100k <150k 150k+
Source' CMAP enalysisof FrWnesa Envision Tonwrow Balanced I lousing Modal o ng ACS
2096 %fJlOand CMAPGQ TO 2040 household lerecast inputs
When we combine our population and household projections for new owners and renters, we get one
possible picture of Mount Prospect's demand for additional housing units in 2040. What emerges is a
"balanced housing" profile with demand for about 1,405 additional single family, 360 townhome and
1,838 multifamily homes between now and 2040. The demand for additional denser unit types, such as
small single family homes (lots of less than 8,000 s.f.), townhomes and multi - family units would be
driven by the increasing number of low and middle income seniors along with the working age rental
population. As noted previously, these figures are based on projections; real growth may be more or less
than estimated. The ultimate decision regarding if and how Mount Prospect may grow is a local one.
10
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
Mount P rospect f uture balance housing profile
INCREMENTAL UNITS (INCLUDES NEW UNITS. REHAB It FATED
VACANT UNITS AND VACANCPE5, 2010 -2040)
.00CUPIED HOUSING SUPPLY MOUNT PROSPECT, 2010
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
LARGELOTSF SMALLLOTSF TOWNHOME MLILTIFAMILY
Sovice CMAP arolys�s of Fregon9sa Lnuiwn 7o narow Bels+ced Fbusnp Madelutlrg RCS
2GG&2010 and CMAP GO 10 2040 11 dwld Iowan mA&
CAPACITY FOR GROWTH
January 7, 2013
Estimated future population and household growth is only one -half of the equation in considering future
housing needs. As a community with numerous assets, it is understandable why many people want to live
in Mount Prospect now and in the future. But to plan for future households and housing, it is also
important to look at capacity, particularly for a community that is substantially built -out. To understand
the Village's ability to accommodate projected growth, we reviewed two key sources of capacity:
development/redevelopment and vacancy . 4
Development /Redevelopment Analysis
We analyzed the extent to which Mount Prospect could grow based on current land use regulations.
Reviewing Cook County Assessor data, we worked with Village staff to identify vacant and
redevelopable parcels (where the land value is greater than the improvement value). We then applied the
community's current zoning and development standards to figure out how many units could be built in
Mount Prospect. Based on that analysis, we estimate Mount Prospect has the capacity for about 514 new
dwelling units. Sixty percent of new units could be multi - family while 40% could be single - family
homes. This capacity would allow the Village to accommodate about 14% of the projected population
growth, or 1,300 new residents.
4 See the Appendix for more information about the methodology.
11
Vacancy Analysis
Source: CHAP analysis ofMount Prospect zoning
ordinance, Cook County assessor data
Maximum Capacity b Unit Type
Type
Units
Large Lot SF ( >8,000
s.f.)
182
Small Lot SF
( <8,000 s.£)
25
Multifamily
307
Townhome
-
Mobile Home /Other
-
TOTAL
514
Because of the current housing market, many homes now vacant may not be so in the future, allowing
people to move in without building new units. According to 2006 -2010 ACS estimates, Mount Prospect
has approximately 1,307 vacant units, or about 6% of all homes in the Village. Normal long -term vacancy
rates for a strong community are 7.4% among rental units and 1.5% among owner - occupied units.' Given
the number of local owner and rental units and a healthy housing market, the Village should only have
approximately 631 vacant units or a 3% vacancy rate. Therefore, 676 currently vacant units could be
occupied in the future as Mount Prospect grows and the market stabilizes. This capacity would allow the
Village to accommodate about 19% of the projected growth, or about 1,800 new residents.
Breakdown of Current Vacant Units
1
1200
Iwo
290
- Current Vacant Umhs
■ Vacant Units In l lealtiiy fdarket ■ Current Vacant Units to be 4ecupeed
Source: CMAP analysis ofACS 2006 -2010
FUTURE HOUSING CONCLUSION
Taking into account capacity available under development/redevelopment and vacancy, Mount Prospect
can accommodate 33% of the projected housing units that could likely be desired by future residents
based on the 2040 projections, or about 3,100 additional residents. The remaining approximately 6,000
future residents represent unmet demand, people who want to live in Mount Prospect but cannot due to a
' http: / /www.jchs.harvard.edu/ sites /jchs.harvard.edu /files /w07 -7.pdf
�r �rri.r rs aww.■..,ac rt ft"M"W0"
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
lack of available units. Many of these people would be looking for small lot single family homes,
townhome and multi - family units. The Village's current codes likely would not be able to accommodate
this future demand for these two housing types. Conversely, existing codes would accommodate future
demand for large lot single - family units. Based on these figures, the choice of if and how to grow is a
critical one.
If the Village chooses to maintain its current population level, the demand to live in Mount Prospect over
the next 30 years could increase housing costs for both renters and owners. Such rising costs can increase
the number of households paying more than 30% of their income for housing (as occurred over the past
decade) and make it difficult to maintain a diverse housing stock affordable to a wide range of incomes.
In addition, maintenance of the Village's current housing stock, particularly its multi - family housing, will
become paramount.
If the Village chooses to grow, it must determine the best locations for growth given the projected types
of housing future residents may demand: small lot single family homes, townhomes and multi - family
units. As a substantially built -out community, finding locations to build any of those unit types can be
difficult. Changing regulations to accommodate such growth must be considered carefully.
Regardless of which route the Village chooses, we encourage policy makers to use these statistics as a
guide, focusing on the relative number of single family, multi - family and townhome units which together
reflect a balanced housing market.
Mount Prospect demand vs. vacancy and capacity by housing type,
units 2010 -00
0 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY (2010)
VACANT UNITS (2010)
FSTIMA U D I NC RI AS I I N' DI MAN D F OR U NI tS (2040)
1,80o
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Snurtt CAtiRPandyvsaf Fregonese FhY15 nnFomonow llalenced Housing Mmlel,
CookCn property Assn ,date and U.S. Cm .Bureau inputs
13
LARGE LOTSF SMALL LOTSF TOWNHOME MULTIFAMILY
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
SUSTAINABILITY
January 7, 2013
In 2007, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) produced an energy and emissions profile for
Mount Prospect as part of the Municipal Energy Profile Project. Based on the report, the Village emitted
an estimated 13.58 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide (CO2e) per capita, approximately 8% less than
County emissions per capita (14.86 MT CO2e). With 90% of local emissions coming from electricity and
natural gas usage along with transportation, any forward thinking housing plan should analyze these
areas.
The table below highlights residential natural gas and energy usage in the Village and Cook County in
2007. At that time, the average Mount Prospect household spent less on energy costs than the average
Cook County household due to lower natural gas usage. One key part of local energy usage is the home
heating source. Based on data from the 2006 -2010 ACS, natural gas is the dominant local home heating
source, used by 81 % of households. Electricity provides heat for a larger percentage of renters than
owners (34% vs. 8 %).
Residential Energy Use by Municipality Compared to Cook County (2007)
Cook County Mount Prospect
Average Electricity Use per Household
7,692 kWh 8,691 kWh
Average Annual $ for Electricity per Household*
$828 $935
Average Natural Gas Use per Household
1,130 Therms 810 Therms
Average Annual $ for Natural Gas per Household*
$1,274 $719
Average Annual Energy Costs
$2,102 $1,654
Source: CNT Energy Community Profile
*Calculated using average residential sales per kWh (ICC Utility
Sales Statistics 2007)
As it relates to transportation, Mount Prospect households drive more miles (vehicle miles traveled or
VMT) than the Cook County average (16,674 versus 14,742 respectively), according to 2007 CNT data.
Because of the additional mileage, residents pay approximately $89 more per month in transportation
costs than the average county resident based on the current IRS mileage reimbursement rate. Research by
Reid Ewing and others in the Journal of Urban Planning and Development has shown that the biggest
factor in reducing vehicle miles traveled is "by putting offices, shops, restaurants, residences, and other
codependent activities in close proximity to each other. ,6
Inset: Housing and Transportation
In recent years, the CNT developed an alternative way to define "affordable housing" as housing
which costs no more than 45% of both housing and transportation costs. According to figures from
CNT, 76% of typical regional households (a 2.73 person household earning $60,289) would pay more
than 45% of household income on housing and transportation costs combined when living in Mount
Prospect. This alternate measure finds less affordable housing in Mount Prospect than the traditional
US Census method.
6 ASCE. Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments - Six - Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental
Measures. Journal of Urban Planning, October 2010.
14
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan January 7, 2013
As discussed previously, the gap between projected housing demand and current capacity could put
upward pressure on housing prices for owners and renters over the next 30 years. That said, energy
efficiency and sustainability efforts can help mitigate rising housing costs. The Village's municipal
aggregation program, which may offer residents lower electricity rates, could help cost burdened renters
and owners. So too can a commitment to implementing energy efficient designs as part of rehabilitation
and new construction. A focus on compact neighborhoods, including transit oriented development around
the Mount Prospect Metra station, offers residents ways to reduce transportation costs. Village support for
employer assisted housing can also help reduce transportation costs by encouraging residents to work in
Mount Prospect.
URBAN DESIGN FOCUS AREA
Design Workshop
In June 2012, the Homes for a Changing Region team conducted a community workshop in Mount
Prospect. Residents, community leaders, Village officials and others presented their views on housing in
the Village in general as well as a focus area: Euclid Avenue between River Road and Burning Bush
Lane. The focus area was chosen as several of the lots in this area were identified in the capacity analysis
as underutilized and potential redevelopment opportunities. The area currently consists of large lot single -
family homes which front Euclid Avenue and some aging neighborhood commercial properties near the
intersection of Euclid Avenue and River Road. This intersection also provides a gateway into the string of
Cook County Forest Preserves and trails which nun along the Des Plaines River.
Attendees recommended providing recreation activities along Euclid Avenue that would connect with the
parks along with mixed -use development on the northwest and southwest corners of the River Road and
Euclid Avenue intersection. If the single - family parcels redevelop in the future, stakeholders suggested
replacement with a combination of housing types, including apartments and cottage housing.
These ideas were translated into the following images, showing how the area would be transformed with
infrastructure improvements and mixed use buildings. The pictures reflect not only the community
feedback from the meeting but also some of the concepts of this report, including the benefits of compact
neighborhoods. Community feedback at the meeting also identified southern Mount Prospect as an area of
opportunity and emphasized the importance of rehabilitating existing multi - developments and pursuing
senior housing.
Euclid Avenue looking west of River Road today
15
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
Euclid Avenue looking west of River Road with streetscaping
Euclid Avenue looking west of River Road with private investment
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
January 7, 2013
Having carefully analyzed Mount Prospect's current and projected housing needs, a number of practical
and achievable housing strategies will allow the Village to build upon its considerable assets while also
addressing its future challenges.
• Maintaining Housing Supply: Given the projected gap between the Village's capacity to grow
and the number of households who may want to move to Mount Prospect in the future,
maintenance of the local housing stock will be paramount. Of particular concern are the number
of aging multi - family properties which help provide 90% of the local rental stock. Continued
careful monitoring and maintenance of these facilities can ensure that affordable rental housing
options remain available for residents of all income levels even as demand rises. Implementing
recommendations in this report focused on foreclosure tracking, rental licensing and rehabilitation
will also help ensure the quality and viability of the current multi - family stock.
• Consider if and how to grow: This report projects future housing needs across the income
spectrum. The choice of if and how the Village grows over the next 30 years will impact housing
16
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
prices for both owners and renters. Therefore, Mount Prospect should consider whether and how
to accommodate projected future growth. We project demand for everything from single - family
homes to apartments. In particular, Mount Prospect should support the creation of both owner and
renter occupied housing, particularly senior housing, for households earning less than $75,000.
• Implement changes in south Mount Prospect: An unincorporated area in south Mount Prospect
includes an apartment complex, the United Airlines Training Center and a series of smaller
commercial /industrial properties along Algonquin Road and Busse Road. The Village should
explore annexing some or all of this land with the long term intention of using the existing
business base and density of multi - family properties to create a mixed -use node of workforce
housing, jobs, retail and community services in the area around Algonquin Road. Such efforts
could offer growth opportunities for a substantially developed community.
While pursuing this strategy, Mount Prospect should also work with Arlington Heights and
Rolling Meadows on coordinated strategies for the I -90 corridor. Such efforts should include:
• Support for transportation improvements on the I -90 corridor which provide greater
regional access;
• Consideration of renovation /redevelopment opportunities which build off of these
transportation improvements and emphasize pedestrian and bicycle connections; and
• Exploration of opportunities for shared social services which meet the needs of residents
in all three communities, building off the success of the CCC.
• Rehabilitation: As a CDBG entitlement community, Mount Prospect has long operated an
owner- occupied single - family rehabilitation program. Future rehabilitation efforts should
continue to include owner- occupied senior housing to further aging in place.
Foreclosures: In the short-term, one of the Village's most pressing housing issues is the impact
of foreclosures. We recommend that Mount Prospect explore two local avenues to address
foreclosures, designed to fit within the regional efforts touched on previously in this report.
o Build relationships to reduce the impact of foreclosures by:
■ Using the foreclosure data provided through Public Act 96 -0856 and Record
Information Services to map and monitor the location and change of foreclosures
within the Village. Such data can be particularly useful for the Village as in
targeting foreclosure prevention services and heightened code enforcement
services, including rental monitoring.
• Utilize foreclosure tracking to develop targeted foreclosure prevention and
disposition services through the Collaborative.
• Creating a registration program for condominium and townhouse associations
which collects contact information for the board and the number of rental units.
• Combining the information from both of these efforts to:
• Monitor the number of foreclosures within individual buildings;
• Use annual registration requirements to discuss data trends with
associations and hear concerns and issues;
17
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
• Develop benchmarks identifying when a property is considered
"troubled" (number /percentage of foreclosures, number /percentage of
rentals, number of different rental owners, utility shutoffs); and
• Work with the Collaborative to develop intervention strategies for
particularly "troubled" properties.
o Rental Licensing
• The Village's current rental licensing program requires the inspection of all
"multi - family rental structures," defined as a building containing three or more
units of which 50% are rental units. All other rental units are inspected in
response to complaints. Given the definition, many rented condominium units
may not fall under the inspection requirement until a building becomes maj ority
rental. Based on 2011 data from the Woodstock Institute, 39% of local
foreclosure auctions were condominiums even though condominiums only make
up 16% of the housing stock. Due to the number of foreclosures in condominium
buildings, the Village should continue to monitor these foreclosures and their
impacts on the condominium units. The Village should explore options to
expand its rental licensing and inspection program to these units if property
maintenance problems become more prevalent.
• Given the Village's historic emphasis on identifying units for inspection through
resident complaints, Mount Prospect should continue to provide and expand an
online mechanism for residents to file complaints or identify unlicensed rental
units.
The Village's current rental license program requires that all licensees attend the
Crime Free housing course offered by the community. As other communities,
currently or in the future, adopt similar programs, the Village should partner with
Collaborative members on local programing. Such a program could become more
attractive to landlords if tied to incentives for participation.
The Village should consider gathering the same information (ownership,
management, unit type, etc.) as the other Collaborative communities so that data
can be combined and analyzed on a regional basis. By collecting the same
information in the same format, Mount Prospect can work with its partners on
common rental housing issues, including addressing problem landlords across a
number of communities.
Senior Housing: Mount Prospect already understands the need to provide opportunities for senior
housing. The Village contains the Centennial Apartments (97 units) and Huntington Apartments
(214 units) for low income seniors. The community continues to try and increase local senior
housing options, including assisted living facilities. Given the projected increases in the local
senior population over the next 30 years, the Village should continue its commitment to providing
a mix of senior housing options through the following efforts:
o The proposed 92 unit Horizon Senior Living facility would boost the supply of affordable
senior rental options. Because this development would occur in Mount Prospect, the
Village should build a monitoring relationship with any organizations that fund this
project to understand the long -term financial health of Horizon and use that information
18
DRAFT Mount Prospect Housing Policy Plan
January 7, 2013
as a market check on the demand for future affordable senior projects in the region.
Based on the outcome of this relationship building, the Village should identify
opportunities for senior housing, including assisted living facilities, in locations suitable
for redevelopment.
• As a matter of policy, senior developments should include infrastructure improvements
that increase walkability to services and retail. In the short term, Mount Prospect should
explore such infrastructure improvements around existing senior developments.
• While new housing options are important, many seniors will want to stay in their current
home. Therefore, the Village should work with the Collaborative to develop "aging in
place" information for residents which would identify important modifications needed to
improve accessibility, eliminate barriers and create safer spaces.
• Because of local desire for an assisted living facility, the Village should identify factors
which prevent its development and develop a strategy to overcome these obstacles.
• Sustainability and Affordability: Utility and maintenance costs are key components of any
household's ability to afford a unit. With the number of people desiring to live in Mount Prospect
projected to grow in the future, energy efficiency offers a way for the Village to help offset some
housing cost increases. Therefore, working with the Collaborative, the Village should identify
funding sources for energy efficiency projects for both single - family and multi - family structures.
Once funding is identified, Mount Prospect should develop programs which focus on rental
structures, or design a means of making property owners aware of these opportunities. In a
similar vein, local taxes also impact housing affordability. Therefore, the Village should continue
working with local taxing bodies to help keep taxes lower.
Explore new funding sources: As noted previously, CDBG funding helps pay for many of the
Village's current housing efforts, such as the rehabilitation program. Additional funding sources
would help speed implementation of this report. Therefore, the Village should explore new
funding sources for local housing activities. One such option may be joining the Cook County
HOME Consortium, allowing the Village access to federal funds for rehabilitation, new
construction and housing services for low and moderate income households.
CONCLUSION
As a built out community, Mount Prospect faces the challenge of continuing to provide a diversity of
housing options in the face of limited capacity for growth. Projected future demand across all income
levels and in a number of key demographics (seniors and young working -age households in particular)
offers the chance to further the Village's redevelopment efforts in downtown and southern Mount
Prospect. Embracing a mix of recommendations designed to help mitigate foreclosures and maintain the
current housing stock while furthering redevelopment in key locations will allow the community to make
the most of these prospects.
19
Section 3: Appendix
Appendix
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
This technical memorandum provides an overview of three key analytical tools used for the Phase II,
Year 6 Homes for a Changing Region report: a housing needs analysis, a capacity analysis, and the ESRI
Tapestry market segmentation system.
HOUSING ANALYSIS
The housing needs analysis was conducted using a model to determine housing needs for each of five
communities and the aggregate of all five combined. The model's results are driven by current and
projected demographics and regional tenure choices. The model's outputs include needed housing
units by tenure (ownership versus rental) by income range. We use the model to find gaps that may
represent current unmet needs and future housing needs. In this project, the model has been used to
identify local and subregional housing needs and market opportunities.
How Does the Model Work?
The housing needs for the region are driven by the current housing choices in the region and the
projected future demographic trends. In many areas around the country, the standard practice for
estimating future housing need has been to use the past to extrapolate future housing requirements.
While this market or demand driven approach was commonly used to define the housing "needs" for
an area, the true housing "needs" of that area's population may not have been addressed. Using
Fregonese Associates' Balanced Housing Model, tenure choices and incomes determine housing
"need." In this model, "affordable" is not referring to low- income housing, but rather to the relationship
between incomes and housing costs. The "30% rule" assumes that housing is only affordable for a
household if it spends less than 30% of its gross income on housing expenses.
The model's approach was designed based on research showing that two variables - age of head of
household (Age =A) and household income (Income =l) - demonstrated significantly stronger
correlation with housing tenure than other variables, including household size. Fregonese Associates
selected these two variables as the primary demographic variables for the model. In addition,
household income is another key variable used to help determine the affordability component of
housing needs. As expected, data gathered during research on model development showed that
different Age /Income (AI) cohorts make significantly different housing tenure choices. For example, a
household headed by a 53 year -old and earning $126,000 is likely to make a different housing choice
than one headed by a 29 year -old and earning $43,000.
The model is first used to calculate the total number of housing units needed for the planning period
based on:
• CMAP GO TO 2040 population and household projections.
• Number of people in group quarters.
• Number of occupied housing units (number of households).
• Average household size.
• Assumed vacancy rate for the study area in a healthy housing market.
The data sources for the population estimates, people in group quarters, and occupied housing units
were taken from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 -2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data. The
number of households in each Al cohort was calculated by utilizing ACS data to determine the
percentages of households that are in the 28 Al cohorts (4 age cohorts and 7 income cohorts).
Figure 1: Age Ranges and Income Ranges for Homes Analysis
Age Range:
<25
25 -44
45 -64
65+
Income Ranges
<15k
15k <35k
35k <50k
50k <75k
75k <100k
100k <150k
150k+
The ACS - generated tenure parameters used in the model represent the probabilities of being a renter
or homeowner for each of the 28 Al cohorts. Based on these tenure parameters, the model allocates
those households in each Al cohort to an indicated number of rental and ownership units that is
affordable for the income range for that cohort. The model then aggregates the units demanded within
each income range to show the total units that could be afforded at each income range by tenure. To
estimate the future Al cohorts, the current Al percentages were adjusted to reflect demographic
forecasts for the nation by the US Census Bureau.
CMAP GO TO 2040 Population and Household Projections
The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2040 Forecast of Population, Households and Employment
was developed in support of the GO TO 2040 comprehensive regional plan adopted on October 13,
2010. This forecast was developed through the creation of a "reference scenario" based on current
population and land use trends. Mathematical modeling techniques were then employed to evaluate
how the distribution of population and employment would change in response to different planning
strategies which might increase or dampen the amount of socioeconomic activity within a given area.
The data in this forecast reflect the CMAP Preferred Regional Scenario, which was developed in part
through a series of Invent the Future workshops held throughout the region between May and
September 2009. Because of the connection between the projections and the Preferred Regional
Scenario, the projections reflect a region where the GO TO 2040 Plan has been successfully
implemented.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
As part of our more detailed housing analysis, a capacity analysis was conducted for Arlington
Heights, Buffalo Grove, Mount Prospect, Palatine and Rolling Meadows. The capacity analysis
contained two major components.
• An estimate of the amount of development potential remaining under the existing zoning
based on developable and /or redevelopable land or long -term planning. This approach uses
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the calculated development capacity of land is
based on standardized buildable land assumptions.
• The number of currently vacant housing units that may be occupied by future households as
the local housing markets stabilize. This approach is based on both nationwide research on the
vacancy rates typically associated with rental and owner housing along with ACS data on the
current local vacancy rate.
When these sources of capacity are combined, they illustrate each community's ability to
accommodate projected future growth without adjustments to local zoning ordinances.
Geographic Information Systems
GIS was used to calculate vacant and redevelopable land, after environmentally constrained lands
were removed. The basic GIS process involved several steps:
• Lake County and Cook County Assessor parcel data (2009) was used to summarize vacant
acres of land by zone (this includes removal of environmentally constrained land, e.g.
wetlands, flood plains, and steep slopes).
• Lake County and Cook County Assessor 2009 parcel data was used to summarize
redevelopable acres of land by zone, based on the ratio of land value to improvement value.
• The maximum density allowed in the zoning code for each zone was calculated using
municipal zoning codes as a guide.
• The development potential of vacant land by zone was calculated by multiplying maximum
density by vacant acres.
• The development potential of redevelopable land by zone was calculated by multiplying
maximum density by non - vacant acres and by a redevelopment percentage.
• The initial capacity estimates were reviewed with villages for review and refinement.
• Based on municipal input, necessary adjustments were made.
FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND BY TYPE: ESRI TAPESTRY DATA AND NATIONAL RESIDENTIAL
PREFERENCE SURVEYS
Each community's future housing demand by type was estimated based on:
• Local existing housing stock.
• Local existing ESRI Tapestry LifeMode segment groups.
• National future housing preference surveys.
ESRI Tapestry market research data was used to identify groups of market segments comprising the
largest percentages of each community's population today. The largest LifeMode groups were
summarized in each community's report. The ESRI data is useful in helping the municipalities
understand and take advantage of the types of housing and neighborhoods preferred by these groups.
We also used the LifeMode characteristics to approximate each LifeMode group's current housing
type preference, and their propensity for living in a compact or non - traditional neighborhood in the
future. The average ages provided in each community report represent the weighted average of
median ages for that particular community's market segment mix.
LifeMode Groups
Median Ages
Income
Family Type
Preference for Compact neighborhoods
L1
High Society
34 -47
Upper
Married Couples
Low
L2
Upscale Avenues
32 -43
Middle -Upper
Mixed
Medium
L3
Metropolis
29 -39
Middle
Mixed
Medium
L4
Solo Acts
29 -39
Middle -Upper
Singles- shared
High
L5
Senior Styles
42 -73
Middle
Married no -kids
Medium
L6
Scholars and Patriots
22 -43
Modest
Married With Kids, singles
High
L7
High Hopes
30 -33
Middle
Family Mixed
Medium
L3
Global Roots
26 -37
Modest
Family Mixed
High
L9
Family Portrait
29 -55
Varies
Married w/ Kids
Low
L10
Traditional Living
32 -39
Modest
Mixed
Medium
L11
Factories and Farms
35 -49
Modest
Married Couple Families
Low
L12
American Quilt
32 -43
Middle
Married Couple Families
Low
66
Unclassified
Unknown
Then, several recent national surveys on residential preference were analyzed and incorporated into
each community's projections. These surveys were compiled by the University of Utah's Dr. Arthur C.
Nelson in The New California Dream: How Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing
Market. The summary of the nation's estimated future demand is shown below.
Figure 1: Comparative Demand by Housing Unit Type from National Surveys
(Compiled by Dr. Arthur C. Nelson)
Nelson Total
RCLCO
Myers and Gearin
AHS
Demand
Owner Demand
Townhouse
Supply
AHS Supply'
Housing type
20061%1
20081%1
Demand 2001 I %1
2 , 009(%)
20091%1
Multifamily
23
24
—
23
23
Townhouse
15
10
17
5
5
Smalt Lot
37
35
—
15
25
Conventional Lot
25
31
—
57
47
Sources: Myers and Gearin 120011, Nelson
120061, RCLCO 120081, U.S. Census Bureau 120101.
Date. — not available.
a. 'Small tot = one -sixth acre
b. Small lot = one- quarter acre
Source. The New California Dream: How Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing Market.
Dr. Arthur C- Nelson, Urban Land Institute, December 2011
hat p:lAwww_ uli_ orgfResearchAndPublicationsf-- /media /Res earcl ;A nd Publi cations/ Report /UL I%20V+oices %20Nelson%20
T he9624Newl.*2OCalifomio %2CDream.oshx
ADVISORY GROUP: CMAP HOUSING COMMITTEE
Nora Boyer, Village of Arlington Heights
Rob Breymaier, Oak Park Regional Housing Center
Elizabeth Caton, Northwest Side Housing Center
Sarah Ciampi, Lake County Community Development Division
Paul Colgan, Colgan Public Affairs
Spencer Cowan, Woodstock Institute
Adam Dontz, Lake Star Advisors
Nancy Firfer, Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC)
Andy Geer, Enterprise Community Partners
Sharon Gorrell, Illinois Association of Realtors
Adam Gross, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI)
Tammie Grossman, Village of Oak Park
Calvin Holmes, Chicago Community Loan Fund
Jane Hornstein, Cook County Bureau of Economic Development
Kevin Jackson, Chicago Rehab Network
Christine Kolb, Urban Land Institute (ULI)
Paul Leder, Manhard Consulting, Ltd.
Anthony Manno, Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
Taylor McKinney, Center for Neighborhood Technology
Allison Milld Clements, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus
Janice Morrissy, South Suburban Housing Collaborative
Carrol Roark, DuPage County
Geoff Smith, DePaul University
Andrea Traudt, Illinois Housing Council
Joanna Trotter, Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC)
Kim Ulbrich, McHenry County Department of Planning and Development
Milo Vodopic, MacArthur Foundation
Stacie Young, The Preservation Compact
COMBINED NORTHWEST SUBURBAN HOUSING COLLABORATIVE
Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010 -2040
The data for 2006 -2010 average comes directly from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community
Survey. The projections for 2040 reflect a forecast of each community's potential population and
household growth if the CMAP's GO TO 2040 plan is implemented.
Estimated 2040 Housing Demand by Income
The tables in this section compare the number of dwelling units in 2010 (ACS data) that were
"affordable" to households within an income category to the projected demand for such units in 2040.
A unit is defined as "affordable" if a household can live in it by allocating no more than 30% of its
income for housing - related costs (rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc.). If the 2010 housing stock
for an income category exceeds the 2040 demand projections, it means that a municipality may
already have units beyond its forecasted need. If, however, 2040 demand is higher than the 2010
housing stock, additional units will be needed to meet projected demand.
Rental Housing - Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
2006 -2010 ACS
2040 CMAP
% Change
Households
101,973
116,654
14.4%
Population
261,679
305,444
16.7%
The data for 2006 -2010 average comes directly from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community
Survey. The projections for 2040 reflect a forecast of each community's potential population and
household growth if the CMAP's GO TO 2040 plan is implemented.
Estimated 2040 Housing Demand by Income
The tables in this section compare the number of dwelling units in 2010 (ACS data) that were
"affordable" to households within an income category to the projected demand for such units in 2040.
A unit is defined as "affordable" if a household can live in it by allocating no more than 30% of its
income for housing - related costs (rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc.). If the 2010 housing stock
for an income category exceeds the 2040 demand projections, it means that a municipality may
already have units beyond its forecasted need. If, however, 2040 demand is higher than the 2010
housing stock, additional units will be needed to meet projected demand.
Rental Housing - Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
Please note that housing units may notadd up exactly to 100% duc to founding,
Owner Housing - Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
<15k
<35k
<50k
<75k
<100k
<150k
150k+
Total
Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)
1,761
5,596
11,108
4,427
1,163
267
160
24,402
Demand at Income Level (2010)
4,277
9,661
5,35£3
2,692
1,411
312
272
24,432
Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)
4,645
10,691
6,047
3,065
1,593
342
247
27,135
Tar et Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income
1 2
1 5
n/a
I n/a
1 435
1 5751
87
2 653
Additional Units Bey ond Forecasted Need Within this Income Rare
I n/o
I n/a
I 5,061
1 1,362
1 n/o
I n/a
I n/a
n/a
Please note that housing units may notadd up exactly to 100% duc to founding,
Owner Housing - Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
Pluasc note. *hat hrmsing <<nrts may nrit�add uG� exactly to /00 due to rounding.
<15k
<35k
<50k
<75k
<100k
<150k
150k+
Total
Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)
1,540
16,606
9,35£3
16,053
24,769
6,109
3,055
77,496
Demand at Income Level (2010)
3,733
10,711
9,536
16,316
12,336
12,762
12,002
77,496
Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)
5,400
14,817
12,339
19,865
14,426
13,669
12,216
92,732
Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income
3,860
n/a
2,981
3,807
n/a
7,560
9,161
15,236
Additional Units Bey ond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range
n/a
1,789
n/a
n/a
10,343
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pluasc note. *hat hrmsing <<nrts may nrit�add uG� exactly to /00 due to rounding.
Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006 -2040 Housing Stock
This section contains the charts which illustrate the data from the tables above.
NWSHC 2010 households and housing stack compare -d with 2040 renter darnand
12,=
IgL1I1
�19G1'
aim
D
-715 i30% 1119[ 15M.
NW5IfC7DIO households and housing stock comparedwlth 2M owrw demand
n
d I
74ADD
SRIiF
CIY iiSk c'd' sF9k clgk t75� I.'l>e.
a¢{ {b[:TI MyJ3Ll@1.W. 7r }9Y.gL N.pgnklN'J01 eLk+n++0 L'{GXrrt LCML 17R1QI ■ir{*{r�t LknlM 11 '>•f[+YI Ii+RI {�
MOUNT PROSPECT
Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010 -2040
Estimated 2040 Housing Demand by Income
Rental Housing - Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
Mount Prospect
2006 -2010 ACS
2040 CMAP
% Change
Households
20,447
23,378
14.3%
Population
53,838
63,354
17.6%
Estimated 2040 Housing Demand by Income
Rental Housing - Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
Mount Prospect
<15k
<35k
<50k
<75k
<100k
<150k
150k+
Total
Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)
263
2,135
2,540
416
104
19
11
5,492
Demand at Income Level (2010)
727
2,376
1,324
637
269
144
15
5,492
Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)
737
2,652
1,600
753
360
135
15
6,352
Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income
520
517
n/a
337
256
166
4
860
Additional Units Bey ond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range
1 n/a
I n/a
1 940
1 n/a
n/a
I n/a
I n/a
n/a
Picase �ot�.thathousinguutsma �otadd uPcxactlyto 100 %dui.torounding,
Owner Housing - Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative
Mount Prosp
<15k
<35k
<50k
<75k
<100k
<150k
150k+
Total
Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)
362
4,237
1,639
2,746
4,319
1,06£3
534
14,955
Demand at Income Level (2010)
793
2,191
1,766
3,429
2,462
2,530
1,7£33
14,955
Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)
1,054
1 2,974
1 2,201
1 4,125
1 2,764
1 2,711
1 1,369
1 17,693
Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income
692
n/a
512
1,379
n/a
1,643
1,335
2,743
Additional Units Bey ond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range
n/a
1263
n/a
n/a
1555
n/a
n/a
n/a
Plcasc note that honsing un is I aynotndd no exactly to 100: oI c to rounding.
Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006 -2010 Housing Stock
Mount Prospect 2010 households acrd housing stock compared with 2040 owner
demand
SAM
ISM -
1,500!
iAm --
5oD
6 _
ci5k c35k 66k
a acruard Iiw*g slnrkAffwda6fe at m of hrnmrdminl
-'25k
•Demand ul Wn rLeM WWI
siWk K MAX Mk *
■ Pmkr *d Demand 31 . hrnmr Lear) LZM
Mount Prospect 2010 hov"hol& and housing stock compared with 2040 renter
demand
J,LUj
—
i.DDO
kt k Kewk <iok
45k k i5ft+
aCXTWOrd HM-IF ilxk Adf- r*br4q 9% of {1ulo
D- 1PI -.+mr Lewl 1AII1.4 ■Frnor.t*l Lin nd M. rrMM Lr+rl l llMj
Mount Prospect 2010 households acrd housing stock compared with 2040 owner
demand
SAM
ISM -
1,500!
iAm --
5oD
6 _
ci5k c35k 66k
a acruard Iiw*g slnrkAffwda6fe at m of hrnmrdminl
-'25k
•Demand ul Wn rLeM WWI
siWk K MAX Mk *
■ Pmkr *d Demand 31 . hrnmr Lear) LZM