The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibit AThe City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan .. A.�.....-.... �. �� _: Vis, �• - $l Metropolitan XUI Center FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY © 2019 Florida International University Metropolitan Center All rights reserved. NO PART OF THE REPORT MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM, WITHOUT PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE FIU METROPOLITAN CENTER FZU I Metropolitan Center FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY The Florida International University Metropolitan Center is Florida's leading urban policy think tank and solutions center. Established in 1997, the Center provides economic development, strategic planning, community revitalization, and performance improvement services to public, private and non-profit organizations in South Florida. Its staff and senior researchers are leaders in their respective fields, and bring extensive research, practical, and professional experience to each project. The Center's research has catalyzed major policy initiatives and projects in housing, economic redevelopment, transportation, social services, and health services throughout South Florida. Study Team Edward Murray, Ph.D., AICP Associate Director, FIU Metropolitan Center Kevin T. Greiner, MUP, JD Senior Fellow, FIU Metropolitan Center Maria Ilcheva, Ph.D. Assistant Director of Planning and Operations, FIU Metropolitan Center Nika Langevin Research Specialist, FIU Metropolitan Center Introduction............................................................................................ 1 Defining Affordable Housing and Measuring Affordability......................................................................1 Methodologyand Scope of Study................................................................................................................4 The State of Affordable Housing In Miami.................................................................................................4 The City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan................................................................................. 6 GoalStatement.................................................................................................................................................6 GuidingPrinciples............................................................................................................................................6 Housing Supply Analysis........................................................................ 7 HousingInventory............................................................................................................................................7 Tightening of Vacancy Rates and Changing Vacancy Structure..........................................................11 Competing in a Global Residential Real Estate Market..........................................................................11 ConstructionCosts........................................................................................................................................13 Rapidly Rising Home Values, Sale Prices, and Rents.............................................................................14 AnAging Housing Stock...............................................................................................................................16 Rapid Decline in the Supply of Mid and Low -Price Housing Units.......................................................17 Land and Redevelopment Capacity...........................................................................................................19 Major Planned Public Housing Projects....................................................................................................24 DemandAnalysis.................................................................................. ?. Population Growth and Household Formation........................................................................................27 EmploymentBase..........................................................................................................................................28 JobGrowth......................................................................................................................................................30 CityResident Occupations...........................................................................................................................31 Earnings...........................................................................................................................................................32 Household Incomes and Income Disparity...............................................................................................34 Changes in Housing Preference.................................................................................................................38 Miami's Affordable Housing Gap .......................................................... 39 Measuring the City's Affordability Gap......................................................................................................39 Housing Price/ Income Multiplier..............................................................................................................39 Housing and Transportation Costs............................................................................................................40 CostBurden....................................................................................................................................................42 Affordable Housing Demand -Supply Analysis.........................................................................................45 Targeting Affordable Housing Development Opportunity .................... 62 The Geography of Affordable Housing Opportunity...............................................................................62 The City of Miami Affordable Housing Needs Assessment provides a current market perspective on the key demand and supply factors impacting the production and availability of affordable housing in the City of Miami. In the post -recession economic recovery period since 2012, significant changes have occurred in the City and Miami- Dade County's housing market that have impacted housing supply and demand and overall affordability. The contributing factors and conditions include a trend toward high-end, multi -family housing development, a lack of affordable housing production, low vacancy rates and stagnant wages and household incomes. In particular, affordable rental housing production has not kept pace with increasing affordable rental housing demand. Further, escalating rent prices fueled by a rental housing shortage are significantly impacting Miami's working families and households. The vast preponderance of City workers earn wages in service sector occupations, including retail trade, leisure and hospitality, and educational and health services. The household incomes of these service sector workers limit housing choices to affordable rental housing opportunities, where available. A basic premise of all housing markets is the need to create and maintain a "spectrum" of housing choice and opportunity for local residents. This axiom establishes that housing choice and needs differ in most communities due to a variety of factors including household income, population age, proximity of employment and mere preference. A spectrum of owner and rental housing choice and opportunity is particularly important in supporting the range of income groups that reside in the City. An adequate supply of affordable owner and rental housing provides choice and opportunity for service sector working individuals and families who comprise the majority of the City's workforce. An understanding of the shifting demands for housing is critical for the creation of effective housing policies and strategies. The increasing demand for worker housing documented in prior housing studies has magnified the importance of providing a wide spectrum of owner and renter choice and opportunity with respect to affordability, location and access to jobs. Defining Affordable Housing and Measuring Affordability Housing affordability is generally defined as the capacity of households to consume housing services and, specifically, the relationship between household incomes and prevailing housing prices and rents. The standard most used by various units of government is that households should spend no more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost -burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. This is also the standard definition for housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and most state programs, including various housing programs administered through the State of Florida's Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) and Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). 1 Affordability Indices One measure of housing affordability is the cost of homeownership, commonly conveyed through housing affordability indices. These indices generally indicate that affordability increased substantially toward the end of the last decade, primarily as a result of lower interest rates during that period. A housing affordability index for an area brings together the price and the income elements that contribute to housing affordability. The following describes the most recognized affordability indices: National Association of Realtors (NAR) Index The most common index is that produced by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The affordability index measures whether or not a typical family could qualify for a mortgage loan on a typical home. A typical home is defined as the national median -priced, existing single- family home as calculated by NAR. The typical family is defined as one earning the median family income as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The prevailing mortgage interest rate is the effective rate on loans closed on existing homes from the Federal Housing Finance Board and HSH Associates, Butler, N.J. These components are used to determine if the median income family can qualify for a mortgage on a typical home. To interpret the indices, a value of 100 means that a family with the median income has exactly enough income to qualify for a mortgage on a median- priced home. An index above 100 signifies that family earning the median income has more than enough income to qualify for a mortgage loan on a median -priced home, assuming a 20 percent down payment. For example, a composite Housing Affordability Index (HAI) of 120.0 means a family earning the median family income has 120 percent of the income necessary to qualify for a conventional loan covering 80 percent of a median -priced existing single-family home. An increase in the HAI, then, shows that this family is more able to afford the median priced home. The calculation assumes a down payment of 20 percent of the home price and it assumes a qualifying ratio of 25 percent. That means the monthly principal and interest (P&I) payment cannot exceed 25 percent of the median family monthly income. Housing Opportunity Index The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has developed a Housing Opportunity Index, which is defined as the share of homes affordable for median household incomes for each metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The NAHB Index has certain intuitive limitations as housing affordability scores are generally more favorable in metropolitan areas that are rated as "least desirable places to live" according to Places Rated Almanac (Brookings Institution, 2002). The "median house price -income ratio" used by the National Association of Realtors and other housing analysts is a key economic indicator in assessing local market trends and vitality. During the height of the "housing bubble", the median house price -to -income ratio more than tripled in many high-priced metropolitan markets such as New York City, Boston and Los Angeles. In Miami, the median house price -to -income ratio rose from 4:1 to 7:1 during this period. 2 Housing and Transportation Affordability Index As noted above, housing affordability is generally defined as the capacity of households to consume housing services and, specifically, the relationship between household incomes and prevailing housing prices and rents. The standard HUD definition that households should spend no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs is most frequently used by various units of government. However, a number of housing studies in recent years have shown a clear correlation between workforce housing demand and transportation costs. The critical link between housing and transportation costs has significant implications with respect to housing choice and affordability. Housing and transportation costs can severely limit a working household's choice both in terms of housing and job location. Rising gas and overall transportation costs have significant impacts on both homeowners and renters. The location of affordable rental housing is particularly relevant as proximity to job centers and access to transit is vital to a renter dominated workforce principally comprised of low- and moderate -income households. The Housing and Transportation Affordability Index (H+T Index) developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) demonstrates the inadequacy of traditional measures of housing cost burden. To calculate the H in the H+T Index, housing costs are derived from nationally available datasets. Median selected monthly owner costs for owners with a mortgage and median gross rent, both are averaged and weighted by the ratio of owner- to renter -occupied housing units from the tenure variable for every block group. Transportation costs, the T in the H+T Index, are modeled based on three components of transportation behavior—auto ownership, auto use, and transit use—which are combined to estimate the cost of transportation. While housing alone is traditionally considered affordable when consuming no more than 30 percent of income, the H+T Index limits the combined costs of transportation and housing consuming to no more than 45 percent of household income. Why does this matter? According to CNT, a typical household's transportation costs can range from 12 percent of household income in communities with compact development and access to transit options, to more than 32 percent in the far exurbs. 3 Methodology and Scope of Study The methodology used by the FIU Metropolitan Center in the research and preparation of the City of Miami Affordable Housing Needs Assessment was to assess current market data and conditions to determine changes in existing and future housing demand. The housing demand and supply assessment examines the existing and future housing needs of the City's resident worker population and provides several layers of affordability gap analysis based on prevailing wages, household incomes, and housing values. The study includes the following elements: ■ Housing Supply Analysis: This section provides a detailed analysis of the City's and District's housing inventory/supply based on housing type, tenure, development activity and housing values; ■ Housing Demand Analysis: This section provides a detailed analysis of the City's and District's current housing demand (need) based on an economic base analysis of the City and its impact on owner and renter households; ■ Existing Affordable Housing Supply/Demand Analysis: This section provides a baseline housing affordability calculation for owner and renter units by household income category at the City and District levels. The State of Affordable Housing In Miami The City of Miami has experienced a steady resurgence since the Great Recession marked by significant population gain and upswing in commercial and residential real estate development. The City's population has increased by 25.8 percent (90,943 persons) since 2007. However, the City's housing tenure has undergone a significant change during this period. Since 2007, renters have increased by 33 percent, while owners have decreased by 17 percent. Miami's homeownership rate has dipped to only 30 percent. Significantly, the City's comeback has been geographically uneven. While some districts and neighborhoods have benefited financially from recent growth and development, others have been experiencing rising rents and home prices and unprecedented gentrification that has threatened longtime residents and businesses with displacement. Upward housing price trends typically move much faster than wages and income. Historically, housing prices and rents in the City have demonstrated considerable rates of increase over short time periods. Conversely, the City would need to undergo a monumental change in its industrial and occupation structure that creates higher wages and income to significantly impact its affordability indicators (affordable housing cost and income gaps). Historically, the local economy has shown that it can shed high -wage jobs very quickly, but has shown resistance to adding new high -skill, high -paying jobs. Housing affordability problems in the City of Miami has been a longer-term trend that became evident during the previous decade. The cost -burdened share of renters in the City grew from 48.7 percent (42,551 renters) in 2000 to 64.3 percent (62,935 renters) in 2010 as rents and household incomes steadily diverged This became most evident with the onset of Housing Bubble in 2004 and the subsequent Great Recession in 2008. Adjusting for inflation, the median rent gross rent increased by 15 percent annually between 2012-2017, while the median renter income grew by less than 1 percent. 11 As the nation's most unaffordable urban housing market, solving housing affordability is one of the City's most pressing problems. Left unchecked, the rising share of housing as a percentage of household costs poses a serious threat to the viability of the City's economy. Specifically, the City's perspective needs to expand, embracing affordable housing as a key investment in its economic competitiveness. The strategic advantages of a more affordable City housing market include: ■ Housing affordability can be a potent tool for improving economic performance, driving employment growth, productivity, wages, business development, and retaining high -skilled, educated workers; ■ Housing affordability promotes inclusive economic growth where families at the bottom and middle share in expanding regional economic opportunity. In fact, it doubtful that the City can create significant upward economic mobility without the wealth and asset building effects of affordable home ownership; ■ Raising the income and net wealth of even a small percentage of the City's households up to the Area Median Income results in broad-based economic growth, high -wage job creation, increased tax revenue, and lower public costs for health, human services and policing. The cumulative economic impacts of greater, more widespread housing affordability would be a major boost to developing a more diversified, higher income City economy; ■ Housing affordability also plays a major role in developing, re -developing and diversifying neighborhoods without the negative impacts of rapid gentrification. Miami has numerous core neighborhoods suffering from the impacts of long-term, persistent poverty. Focused investment strategies to improve housing affordability would improve these communities and benefit the entire City economy Policy Direction The complexity of the "post -bubble" housing market places significant responsibilities on local governments and agencies. Affordable and accessible housing for working families and households is vital to the local economy and contributes greatly to community attachment and well-being. The provision of affordable and accessible housing for working families and households can be effectively accomplished through coordinated and integrated policies at the local level. The policy underpinnings for a more aggressive local housing delivery system include the following: ■ Each municipality has a "resident workforce" composed of working families and households whose mobility is integral to the economic strength and character of each community; ■ Elected and appointed municipal officials are in need of new and innovative solutions to their local housing needs during a "new normal" where federal and state housing funds have become increasingly scarce and insufficient; ■ An effective and sustainable response to worker housing needs requires policies developed and implemented at the municipal and county levels of local government; and ■ Local affordable housing policies and programs must be performance -driven. 5 The City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan The City of Miami is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the U.S. composed of vibrant neighborhoods including Allapattah, Coconut Grove, Edison, Little Havana, Model City, Overtown and Wynwood. Recognizing the need to maintain and enhance its cultural diversity, the City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan will help ensure the values that are central to the City and its neighborhoods — diversity, inclusivity, sustainability — are supported by a spectrum of housing choice and opportunity. Without a sufficient supply of housing affordable to lower -wage workers, it will become increasingly difficult for the City to attract and retain a diverse workforce and grow vibrant and sustainable neighborhood economies. As such, the City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan will provide the analytical and policy framework to advance a bold action agenda to address the City's current and future supply and demand of affordable housing. Goal Statement The goal of the City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan is to increase the quantity and quality of affordable owner and rental housing to all who want to live in the City of Miami by promoting the development of new units, the preservation of existing units and the enhancement of Miami's neighborhoods. Guiding Principles Guiding Principles of the City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan: ■ The Plan will provide expanded housing opportunities at a cost Miami's low- and moderate - income households can afford without compromising essential needs; ■ New housing development will enhance economic opportunity and community well-being, while ensuring resiliency in Miami's coastal environment; ■ The Plan will produce a high-quality living environment and promote the preservation of stable residential neighborhoods; ■ The Plan will develop a variety of affordable housing types and designs to give Miami owners and renters a wide spectrum of housing choice and opportunity; ■ The Plan will integrate affordable housing development with land use and transportation The Goal Statement and Guiding Principles of the City of Miami Affordable Housing Master Plan offer a vision for the City of Miami that is inclusive, equitable and provides economic opportunity for current and future residents of the City. Equitable development is a positive development strategy that ensures everyone participates in and benefits from the region's economic transformation specially low-income residents, communities of color, immigrants, and others at risk of being left behind. It requires an intentional focus on eliminating racial inequities and barriers, and making accountable and catalytic investments to assure that lower -wealth residents live in healthy, safe, opportunity -rich neighborhoods that reflect their culture connect (and are not displaced from them) to economic and housing opportunities. 0 Housing affordability is a balance between local incomes and local real estate prices. The dynamics, and market conditions of affordability are driven by 1) demand factors including population growth, household lifestyle preferences, local and non -regional housing purchasers and renters, 2) the supply, condition and development of housing unit stock over time, and 3) economic dynamics including job creation, occupational structure, and household earnings. A detailed review of Miami's housing market and economic characteristics reveals that it has, and continues to undergo significant change since 2000, and in particular, since the recession. The City's population has increased by 25.8 percent since 2007 following a surge in commercial and residential development. During this growth period, the City's housing market has undergone significant changes marked by escalating housing prices, dramatic shifts in tenure and heightened levels of cost -burdened renters and owners. The housing supply analysis section of the housing needs assessment quantifies the extent to which the housing market is impacting the City of Miami's affordable housing supply. In order to develop an understanding of the City's overall housing supply conditions, it is important to assess the existing housing inventory, including changes in occupancy status, vacancies, development trends, and sales and rental activity. Housing Inventory From 2013 to 2017 the City's housing inventory grew by 8,680 units, and average of 1,736 units per year. During the last 5 years, the City's housing stock has continued to undergo three important shifts: ■ A shift from single family to multi -family housing: The number of single-family units in the City declined by 876 units, while multi -family units grew by over 8,900 units. The largest increase has been in units in buildings of 50 units or more; ■ Greatest growth in small units: Units of 2 bedrooms or less continue to make up over 76 percent of the City's housing stock, and zero -bedroom units (studio units) provided the bulk of the growth in the City's housing inventory (3,113 units); and ■ A City of renters: Miami has a particularly high proportion of rental housing. 70 percent of its occupied housing is rental housing, continuing its upward trend over the last 5 years — up from 67 percent in 2013. The City added over 13,000 rental units from 2013 to 2017. The city's high rate of rental housing in comparison to its cohort cities is most likely a function of the City rising housing prices, low relative incomes, shifts in demand (preference), and tighter debt financing. 7 ■ 2013 ■ 2017 60,000 50,000 Total Units Added: 8,680 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Single Family 1Attached 2Units 3or4Units 5to9Units 10 to 19 Units 20 to 49 Units 50 or more Mobile home Boat, RV, van, Detached Units etc. Source: 2009 2013, 2013 2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 ■ 2013 ■ 2017 d 0 0 0 w No bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more bedrooms Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates Miami Orlando Boston San Francisco Oakland Buffalo Cleveland Atlanta Honolulu Austin Seattle Minneapolis Baltimore Memphis Pittsburgh Detroit Tampa Denver Las Vegas Raleigh Charlotte Portland Kansas City Jacksonville Albuquerque 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates ✓'J Owner -Occupied Units (%) leo, do\,Z, e00 ,moo O\O, 0,3, O\O/ 1 Coconut Grove Renter -Occupied Units (%) 'I-. ami Vest Fl�gler III � TI I• — J Coral Way — —rNo hCoro huyGrc J5. $oLLtllCo�QnllLTirovo Islands ,,; /\� 2 � \ Islands � L� Tightening of Vacancy Rates and Changing Vacancy Structure Since 2013 ]Miami has experienced a continued tightening of its available housing supply. Despite an over 9 percent increase in supply, the absolute number of vacant units declined from 2013 to 2017. Every category of vacancy recorded by the US Census experienced supply declines of 14 to 47 percent. Units intended for sale or rent decreased from 9 percent to 6 percent of total inventory. Units kept off the market for personal use (rented, not occupied, sold not occupied, and seasonal units) represent the single largest share of vacancies, at 10 percent of total inventory. At least 15,591 units are currently kept off the market for local renters and buyers. Total Housing Units 150,974 164,734 9% Total Vacant Housing Units 36,964 24% 31,884 19% -14% For rent 10,337 7% 8,440 5% -18% Rented, not occupied 2,576 2% 1,377 1% -47% For sale only 2,919 2% 1,666 1% -43% Sold, not occupied 1,246 1% 1,019 1% -18% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 12,440 8% 13,195 8% 6% For migrant workers 27 0% 16 0% -41% Othervacant 7,419 5% 6,171 4% -17% Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates Competing in a Global Residential Real Estate Market Miami's reputation as a destination for international investor -buyers has played a large part in driving demand for owner -occupied home sales, particularly for condominiums. Demand from buyers outside the region and the demand for vacation and investor units is a mixed blessing. First, this demand drives one of the world's largest and most sophisticated real estate development industries, employing thousands and bringing Billions into the local economy. Second, however, local resident home buyers increasingly compete in an international real estate market against better funded buyers. Third, Miami's overwhelming international demand drives housing prices that are out of touch with local incomes. Lastly, Additionally, as noted, the volume of international and out-of-town sales are most likely driving the growing inventory of units being taken off the market completely. A 2013 study by Miami -Dade County's Regulatory & Economic Resources Department noted "a widening gap between the volume of sales to domestic first-time homebuyers and sales to mainly foreign investors," and that domestic home buyers are at a competitive disadvantage with international buyers, particularly because cash buyers can offer much greater speed to closing and in many cases are more willing to sweeten an offer by waiving a pre-closing inspection. [Miami -Dade County Regulatory & Economic Resources Department] 82 percent of foreign buyers purchase homes in Miami -Dade in all-cash transactions, by mid -2013 cash sales of condos peaked at 78 percent (more than double the national average), and has declined to near 65 percent of all condominium sales. 11 Analysis of the Miami -Dade County Assessor's files indicates that a significant portion of the County and City's residential housing stock is owned as investor units, rather than as primary domiciles. The County's Homestead property tax exception which reduces the assessed value of a residential property, is only available to homeowners who live in their homes as their primary residence, and serves as the best single measure of the proportion of homes owned as investor units. Our analysis, shown below, indicates that 47 percent of all single family and condominium units are owned as non - primary units across the County as a whole, and that same number is over 62 percent in the City of Miami. Miami -Dade Courrty Single Family Properties 316,894 Homestead Exempted 237,333 75% Non -Homestead Exempted 79,561 25% Condominium Properties 310,877 Homestead Exempted 98,174 32% Non -Homestead Exempted 212,703 68% TOTAL 627,771 Homestead Exempted 335,507 53% Non -Homestead Exempted 292,264 47% City of Miami Single Family Properties 33,657 Homestead Exempted 22,568 67% Non -Homestead Exempted 11,089 33% Condominium Properties 63,775 Homestead Exempted 14,413 23% Non -Homestead Exempted 49,362 77% TOTAL 97,432 Homestead Exempted 36,981 38% Non -Homestead Exempted 60,451 62% Source: Miami -Dade County Assessor Database, March 2019 Analysis by RU Metroppoliton Center 12 Construction Costs Construction costs in Miami have increased over 7 percent since 2010. However, Miami, construction costs across most building types in Miami and South Florida have historically been lower than the rest of the US. The current gap between overall construction prices in Miami and the US average, at 23 percent, is larger than it has been in 20 years. Consistently lower construction costs in Miami should be an advantage for developing affordable housing. However, this advantage may be offset by higher land costs in Miami, pushing total project costs may be closer to, or above the US average. Final development costs for affordable housing in Miami will be very sensitive to variable land costs, based on location and demand. ■ Miami -Dade 200 ■ US 150 100 50 0 OQ`l �2, OAR o�5 ti ti ti ti ti T ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Source. RS Means Inc. 13 Rapidly Rising Home Values, Sale Prices, and Rents Miami's December 2018 median home sale price (all unit types), at $350,000, is near the middle of the benchmark cohort cities. Miami condominium sale prices since 2013 have actually run below prices across the rest of the US and Miami -Dade County. However, the City's median condominium sale prince has increased 59 percent since 2013, more than double the rate of increase for the County. Unlike condo prices, median single-family home sale prices in the City are higher than the US and the County, and from 2013 to 2019 have also increased considerably faster. Miami's median single- family home price has increased over 83 percent since 2013, compared to 79 and 50 percent for the County and the US over the same period. Miami apartment rents have followed a different pattern. Miami multi -family rents have consistently been higher than the County and the US, by as much as 20 and 44 percent, respectively. However, due to declining median rents from 2016 through 2018, the City's overall rate of increase has been less than the County and Nation. Rents for new construction consistently run considerably higher than for existing units. San Francisco Oakland Seattle Boston Honolulu Portland Denver Austin Miami Atlanta Las Vegas Raleigh Minneapolis Orlando Charlotte Tampa Kansas City Jacksonville Pittsburgh Baltimore Buffalo Cleveland Memphis Detroit $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 Data provided by Redfin, a national real estate brokerage, 2019 14 nchmark -iian Data provided by Redfin, a national real estate brokerage, 2019 14 $280,000 $230,000 $180,000 —US —Miami -Dade County —Miami $130,000 $80,000 - 2/1/13 2/1/14 2/1/15 2/1/16 2/1/17 2/1/18 2/1/15 Data provided by Redfin, a national real estate brokerage, 2019 $400,000 —Miami -Dade —Miami us $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 Feb 13 Feb 14 Feb 15 Data provided by Redfin, a national real estate brokerage, 2019 Fetr16 Fetr17 Feb -18 Feb -19 15 52200 $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 —us —Miami -Dade $1,200 —Miami $1,000 2013-01 2014-01 2015-01 2015-01 2017-01 2018-01 2019-01 Data provided by Zillow. com, 2019 An Aging Housing Stock Miami has a significantly aging housing stock. 62 percent of the City's housing units were built before 1980. The bulk of the City's oldest housing units are single-family homes. 20% Miami -Dade.• 18% ■Miami 16% ■Miami -Dade 14% County 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1939 or 1940 to 1950 to 1960 to 1970 to 1980 to 1990 to 2000 to 2010 to 2014 or earlier 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2013 later 16 Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates Rapid Decline in the Supply of Mid and Low -Price Housing Units As housing prices and rents have increased in Miami, the supply of affordable existing and new housing units has dropped precipitously. In particular, both owner and renter units at the middle and bottom of the price scale has been hollowed out over the last 5 years. Nationally, the affordable home price for a household at the median income is $139,438. In Miami, the affordable purchase price for a household earning the City median income $109,465. For a household earning 81 to 120 percent of the City's median income, a rent between $807 and $1,209 per month is affordable under HUD guidelines. However, the supply of both owner and renter units affordable to households earning as much as 200 percent of the City's median income has declined rapidly in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of total housing supply. In particular, the number of owner units priced under $250,000 and rental units priced at $800 per month have been decimated since 2013. Over the same period the numbers and relative portion of units priced over $250,000 and $900 per month has increased rapidly. $1,000,000 or more $750,000 to $999,999 $500,000 to $749,999 $400,000 to $49 9,999 $300,000 to $399,999 $250,000 to $299,999 $200,000 to $249,999 1 $175,000 to $199,999 $150,000 to $174,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $90,000 to $99,999 $80,000 to $89,999 $70,000 to $79,999 $60,000 to $69,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $40,000 to $49,99 9 $35,000 to $39,999 ■ $30,000 to $34,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $20,000 to $24,999 ■ $15,000 to $19,999 $10,000 to $14,999 Less than $10,000 l� (12,000) (10,000) (8000) (6000) (4000) (2000) - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Source: 2009-2013,2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 17 $750,000 to $999,999 $400,000 to $499,999 $250,000 to $299,999 $175,000 to $199,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $90,000 to $99,999 $70,000 to $79,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $15,000 to $19,999 Less than $10,000 -1,600 -1,200 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 $2,000 or more $1,500 to $1,999 $1,250 to $1,499 $1,000 to $1,249 $900 to $999 $800 to $899 ■ $750 to $799 $700 to $749 Net Units st $650 to $699 • $600 to $649 Less Than $1,000 per • $550 to $599 3,405 $500 to $549 $450 to $499 ■ $400 to $449 $350 to $399 $300 to $349 ■ $250 to $299 $200 to $249 $150 to $199 $100 to $149 ■ Less than $100 ■ (1,100)(600) (100) 400 900 1,400 1,900 2,400 2,900 3,400 3,900 4,400 4,900 5,400 Source 2009-2073,2073-2077 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates In .I -800 -400 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 $2,000 or more $1,500 to $1,999 $1,250 to $1,499 $1,000 to $1,249 $900 to $999 $800 to $899 ■ $750 to $799 $700 to $749 Net Units st $650 to $699 • $600 to $649 Less Than $1,000 per • $550 to $599 3,405 $500 to $549 $450 to $499 ■ $400 to $449 $350 to $399 $300 to $349 ■ $250 to $299 $200 to $249 $150 to $199 $100 to $149 ■ Less than $100 ■ (1,100)(600) (100) 400 900 1,400 1,900 2,400 2,900 3,400 3,900 4,400 4,900 5,400 Source 2009-2073,2073-2077 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates In Land and Redevelopment Capacity Increasing the City's supply of affordable housing will require a combination of 1) new ground up development, 2) preservation of existing affordable units, and 3) redevelopment and expansion of the City's existing public housing. The availability of land and units for redevelopment will be a crucial factor in building the City's affordable housing inventory. Vacant Property An analysis of vacant property using the Miami -Dade County Assessor's property database indicates that vacant properties available and suitable for development for new housing are in short supply within the City. After removing properties not zoned or suitable for residential development and utility easements, the Center's analysis indicates that out of a total of 167 Million square feet of vacant property in the City, only 29.3 Million square feet can potentially be redeveloped for residential uses. Of this inventory, only 3.5 Million square feet of vacant property zoned and suitable for residential development are owned by public entities and institutions. /f this total inventory is actually developable for residential use, at the maximum zoning density allowed under Miami 21, it could support the development of up to 70,000 units on privately owned properties, and 10,000 units on publicly owned properties. However, this estimate may be significantly optimistic, as the bulk of vacant properties within this inventory are characterized by 1) a significant inventory of vacant land that is already committed to existing commercial development and/or market rate residential development; 2) parcels, both large and small which are scattered and cannot be assembled into larger parcels, and 3) properties that although either zoned for residential development or currently have older housing units on them, are no longer suitable housing locations. CityTotal (exluding Industrial) 5,466 167,042,357 Vacant Land for Multi Family Development Total Parcels in T-5 and T-6 (>5,000 sq.ft.) Total Public Parcels in T-5 and T-6 (> 5,000 sq.ft.) Vacant Land for Small Building Apartments Total Parcels in T-4 (5,000>20,000 sq.ft) Total Public Parcels in T-4 (5,000>20,000 sq.ft) Vacant Land for Single and Two -Family Development Total Parcels in T-3 (5,000> sq.ft) Total Public Parcels in T-3 (5,000> sq.ft) Total for Potential Residential Development Total for Potential Residential Development (Public Land) 1,447 19,131,191 154 2,973,919 279 2,099,723 30 225,539 927 8,095,597 42 399,376 2,653 29,326,511 226 3,598,834 Vacant Parcels - High Density Multifamily Development Q Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters Q 09/-30% Q 31% - 509% Q 51% - 100% Land Use Q Vacant Residential 0 Vacant Commercial Q Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot Q Vacant Insitutional: Land - Vacant Govt.: Municipal ® Vacant Govt.: Dade County ® Vacant Govt.: School Board Q Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot - Vacant Govt.: Land - Vacant Govt.: Federal 0 Vacant Govt.: State 'Flagami } West Flagler , • Upper Eastside �Litde Haiti Wynwood' �.. A Overto, to DOWntOWn •.Little Havana ~' 4 Coral Way North,Coconut Grove a i Coconut Grove Islands 2 Islands Vacant Parcels - Low Density Multifamily Development 0 Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters j Q 0%-30% Q 31%- 50% _.- - 51%-100% Land Use Q Vacant Residential Little Vacant Commercial Q Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot Model City — Q Vacant Insitutional: Land ', rJ - Vacant Govt.: Municipal - Vacant Govt.: Dade County - Vacant Govt.: School Board = Q Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot Q Vacant Govt.: Land -Wyr Vacant Govt.: Federal 0 Vacant Govt.: State _= ta Allapatr h Upper Eastside Haiti r- 1 � Overtown Flagami Do nt Little Havana.,, - West Flagler ,' , ' -- 3 4 Coral Way North Coconut Grove Islands 2 Islands Vacant Parcels - Single & Two-family Development Q Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters Q 0% -30% Q 31% - 50% Q 51% - 100% Land Use Q Vacant Residential Vacant Commercial Q Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot Q Vacant Insitutional: Land - Vacant Govt.: Municipal Vacant Govt.: Dade County Q Vacant Govt.: School Board Q Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot - Vacant Govt.: Land - Vacant Govt.: Federal Q Vacant Govt.: State Upper,Eastside 1 , 0 ertown Flagami i - Downtown Islands Little Havana West Flagler ° 3 � 4 Coral Way a Islands - North Coconut'Grove South CoconutlGrove Little Haiti -Mb el -c -i - '••Y Allapattah Wynwoo d 1 , 0 ertown Flagami i - Downtown Islands Little Havana West Flagler ° 3 � 4 Coral Way a Islands - North Coconut'Grove South CoconutlGrove Economically Underperforming Non -Vacant Properties Targeting existing housing for redevelopment and/or conversion to affordable housing can be the fastest and most cost-efficient means of building an affordable housing inventory. Economically underperforming properties are undervalued relative to the rest of the market, usually due to disrepair, foreclosure, extended vacancy, or a homeowner falling behind on maintenance. Economically underperforming residential properties are those whose per -square -foot value is less than 1/5 the median value for all other properties in its land -use class. Based on an analysis of the County Assessor's database, 9,861 non -vacant properties out of the City's over 155,000 total residential properties are economically underperforming (9 percent of all residential properties). This inventory represents over 52 Million square feetof land area, over27.5 Million square feetof building, and over 23,000 living units. 0101 -RESIDENTIAL- SINGLE FAMILY :1 UNIT 33,5$0 $155.72. 0102 -RESIDENTIAL -SINGLE LAM ILY:ADDITIONALLIVIN0QUARTERS 39 $244.14 0104 -RESIDENTIAL -SINGLE FAMILY:RESIDENTIAL- TOTALVALUE 25 $330.5$ 0105 -RESIDENTIAL -SINGLE FAMILY:CLUSTERHOME 7b $19$.52 0303-MULTIFAMILY10UNITS PLUS :MULTIFAMILY3ORMORE UNITS 1,259 $122.99 0317-MULTIFAMILY10UNITS PLUS :COMMERCIAL- TOTALVALUE 1 $137.24 0407- RESIDENTIAL- TOTALVALOE: CONDOMINIUM -RESIDENTIAL 52,9$5 $260.23 0410- RESIDENTIAL- TOTALVALOE: TOWNHOUSE 420 $224.34 0423- RESIDENTIAL- TOTALVALOE: CONDOMINIUM -TIMESHARING 229 $371.53 0508 -COOPERATIVE -RESIDENTIAL: COOPERATIVE - RESIDENTIAL 580 $33.24 0802-MULTIFAMILY2-9 UNITS:2LIVINGUNITS 12,017 $128.52 0803-MULTIFAMILY2-9 UNITS :MULTIFAMILY3ORMORE UNITS 4,052 $128.83 8501 -COUNTY: RESIDENTIAL- SINGLEFAMILY 44 $1$2.39 115,277 Source: Miami -Dade County Assessor Database, March 2019 Analysis by FIU Metroppolitan Center 1,538 43,151,141 2,48$,421 3,470 b 48,271 13,997 11 10 14,829 1 5,108 10 128 5,278,559 15,5441 bb 11,288 7,442 - 7,912,$72 5;704 94 187,bb3 115,873 94 1 12,999 1 30 - 30 484 2,$58,004 980,077 9b4 127 758,229 428,$$1 599 1 5.300 1.074 1 9,861 52,101,996 27,512,048 23,172 23 Major Planned Public Housing Projects Miami -Dade County Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program Miami -Dade County's Public Housing and Community Development (PHCD) Division oversees approximately 9,000 public housing units, of which over 6,800, in 72 different developments, are located within the City. This inventory is a significant chunk of the City's affordable housing, and may be increased under the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD) program. Public housing across the US has been faced with increasing costs for rehabilitation, maintenance and development, and at the same time, shrinking Federal and State funding to maintain, develop, and operate traditional public housing projects. The RAD program allows local Public Housing Authorities (PHA) to shift the ownership and operation of Public Housing developments to third- party owners and operators. PHCD plans to convert 6,426 units of County Public housing to third -party ownership and operation as quickly as it can. The PHCD plans to sell or transfer housing developments to for-profit or non- profit third -party owners. The new owners then finance improvements and maintain the housing for families in need. Critically, in order for new owners to make a profit, typically new ownership has the option of increasing the density of the existing development, adding both more below-market and market -rate units to the community. The RAD program is designed to re -structure old public housing into mixed-use, mixed -income communities. The RAD Program could affect the entire stock of public housing in the City, converting them to mixed -income, mixed-use neighborhoods. 14 of the County's planned projects are in Miami. Given the density bonuses in the City's zoning code available at these locations, RAD conversion could result in the addition of 5,433 new mixed -income affordable housing units. The PHCD communities planned for RAD redevelopment are: ■ Claude Pepper ■ Culmer Gardens ■ Edison Plaza ■ Gwen Cherry 23 ■ Haley Sofge Phase 1 & 2 ■ Helen Sawyer ■ Joe Moretti Phase 2B ■ Little Havana Homes ■ Rainbow Village ■ Robert King High ■ Victory Homes 24 Population Growth and Household Formation Miami continues to be a popular destination for new residents from the US and abroad. Miami's 9 percent population growth from 2013 to 2017 was nearly 2.5 times the national average. The City's population growth ranked sixth among its benchmark cohort cities. If growth continues at its 5 -year annual average (2.11 percent), the City's population will grow to 512,700. Seattle Orlando Austin Denver Charlotte Miami Raleigh Atlanta Tampa Boston Portland Minneapolis San Francisco Oakland Las Vegas Jacksonville Kansas City Honolulu Albuquerque Memphis Baltimore Pittsburgh Buffalo Cleveland Detroit -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1 % 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Source: 2009-2073, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 25 Household Formation Miami is currently almost evenly split between family and non -family households, at 55 and 45 percent, respectively. Among the benchmark cities, Miami still has a relatively high proportion of family households. However, since 2013 the rate of growth of non -family households has doubled family households. Las Vegas Jacksonville Charlotte Honolulu Albuquerque Memphis Raleigh Oakland Detroit Miami Tampa Kansas City Orlando Austin Portland Baltimore Buffalo Cleveland Denver Boston San Francisco Seattle Minneapolis Pittsburgh Atlanta 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Source: 2009-2073, 2073-2077 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates — Median Miami has a relatively large average household size compared to its competitors. Yet the City's average household size has been shrinking since 2013. 1 -person households are the largest and fastest growing category of households in Miami. 1 -and -2 -person households have grown from 66 to 68 percent of all households. 26 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Las Vegas Miami Honolulu Jacksonville Detroit Oakland Charlotte Memphis Albuquerque Baltimore Austin Orlando Raleigh Tampa Boston San Francisco Portland Kansas City Denver Minneapolis Buffalo Atlanta C level a nd Seattle Pittsburgh Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates — Median 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1 person 2 person ■ 2013 ■ 2017 3 person 4 person or more Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates F Employment Base Miami's economy is a balance between high -wage, high -skilled industries, and its tourism, visitation, and hospitality sectors. 25 sectors accounting for 56 percent of all jobs in the City: 9036 Education and Hospitals (Local Government) 41,203 $50,135 7225 Restaurants and Other Eating Places 19,882 $24,859 6221 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 16,323 $66,756 4811 Scheduled Air Transportation 11,383 $88,824 9026 Education and Hospitals (State Government) 10,386 $38,147 5616 Investigation and Security Services 8,341 $26,488 5411 Legal Services 8,085 $102,049 9039 Local Government, Excluding Education and Hospitals 7,316 $70,929 4831 Deep Sea, Coastal, and Great Lakes Water Transportation 6,347 $101,122 6211 Offices of Physicians 5,929 $73,809 7211 Traveler Accommodation 5,427 $37,528 5313 Activities Related to Real Estate 5,405 $50,575 6113 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools 5,019 $56,296 4451 Grocery Stores 4,822 $23,913 7223 Special Food Services 4,575 $24,803 5416 Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services 4,318 $69,642 6214 Outpatient Care Centers 4,179 $52,588 5613 Employment Services 4,008 $35,554 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 3,663 $71,638 9011 Federal Government, Civilian 3,587 $87,200 5242 Agencies, Brokerages, and Other Insurance Related Activities 3,535 $68,596 5415 Computer Systems Design and Related Services 3,485 $87,902 5221 Depository Credit Intermediation 3,415 $90,852 6216 Home Health Care Services 3,375 $33,670 6111 Elementary and Secondary Schools 2 372 Source: EMSI Inc. 197,380 W Miami s Competitive Advantage job growth is typically led by industries that have a local competitive advantage, compared to companies in the same industry elsewhere in the US. Industry Location Quotient is a measure of the relative proportion of jobs in an industry compared to the total number of jobs. An industry location quotient more than 1 means that an area has a greater percentage of jobs in that industry than the rest of the US. A location quotient of 1.5 or more indicates that an industry has a significant local competitive advantage over other locations. Miami's most competitive industries are shown in the table below. 4831 Deep Sea, Coastal, and Great Lakes Water Transportation 73.45 6,347 4883 Support Activities for Water Transportation 15.97 3,291 4811 Scheduled Air Transportation 11.47 11,383 5152 Cableand Other Subscription Programming 7.49 887 5615 Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services 6.06 3,251 4872 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water 4.43 181 4812 Nonscheduled Air Transportation 4.19 436 4853 Taxi and Limousine Service 4.16 2,306 5616 Investigation and Security Services 3.97 8,341 8132 Grantmaking and Giving Services 3.76 1,208 4879 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other 3.51 26 5122 Sound Recording Industries 3.47 221 7112 Spectator Sports 3.07 1,300 6222 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals 3.07 816 5321 Automotive Equipment Rental and Leasing 3.07 1,459 4512 Book Stores and News Dealers 2.98 551 5313 Activities Related to Real Estate 2.91 5,405 5411 Legal Services 2.77 8,085 7132 Gambling Industries 2.71 756 4885 Freight Transportation Arrangement 2.70 1,469 8114 Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance 2.68 922 7113 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events 2.56 922 7223 Special Food Services 2.54 4,575 7121 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions 2.50 935 5174 Satellite Telecommunications 2.37 46 4239 Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 2.34 1,628 8112 Electronicand Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance 2.33 649 4243 Apparel, Piece Goods, and Notions Merchant Wholesalers 2.29 788 4881 Support Activities for Air Transportation 2.25 1,094 6114 Business Schools and Computer and Management Training 2.23 362 9036 Education and Hospitals (Local Government) 2.20 41,203 6223 Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals 2.18 1,096 8129 Other Personal Services 2.12 2,070 2379 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 2.08 581 5414 Specialized Design Services 2.04 1.289 115,878 Percent of Total Jobs 33% 0�40�' Job Growth The City's economy has steadily added jobs each year since the bottom of the recession, growing jobs at an annual average rate of 2% from 2010 to 2918. 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 0O1 QQti 003 QUA QO5 QO0 Q61 QO0 QQq QUO 011 Q�`L Q�3 QUA Q�5 Q�0 Q0 Q�0 Q\q 'D O�1 �`fO 0,f3 QUA ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti Source: EMSI Inc. The City will continue to add jobs through 2024, but at less than half the annual average than the past 5 years (1 percent per year). The 25 industries providing 69% of all new jobs in the City through 2024 include: 7225 Restaurants and Other Eating Places 19,882 21,655 1,773 $24,859 6221 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals 16,323 17,665 1,342 $66,756 5313 Activities Related to Real Estate 5,405 6,728 1,323 $50,575 6113 Colleges,Universities, and Professional Schools 5,019 5,997 978 $56,296 2371 Utility System Construction 1,457 2,389 932 $63,464 4811 Sched uled Air Transportation 11,383 12,243 860 $88,824 6216 Home Health Care Services 3,375 4,158 783 $33,670 6211 Offices of Physicians 5,929 6,692 763 $73,809 5416 Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services 4,318 5,045 727 $69,642 6214 Outpatient Care Centers 4,179 4,840 661 $52,588 6111 Elementary and Secondary Schools 3,372 3,986 614 $39,621 4853 Taxi and Limousine Service 2,306 2,865 559 $21,538 7223 Special Food Services 4,575 5,120 545 $24,803 5415 Computer Systems Design and Related Services 3,485 3,978 493 $87,902 4541 Electronic Shopping and Mail -Order Houses 1,091 1,551 460 $33,935 2361 Residential Building Construction 2,676 3,056 380 $44,695 4883 Support Activities for Water Transportation 3,291 3,665 374 $40,243 5413 Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services 3,663 4,025 362 $71,638 8129 Other Personal Services 2,070 2,416 346 $22,610 5411 Legal Services 8,085 8,421 336 $102,049 4411 Automobile Dealers 2,795 3,103 308 $58,294 5617 Servicesto Buildings and Dwellings 2,989 3,285 296 $20,834 4244 Groceryand Related Product Merchant Wholesalers 2,931 3,226 295 $53,738 8132 Grantmaking and Giving Services 1,208 1,486 278 $51,885 W City Resident Occupations While jobs created in the City are balanced between high and low skill and income industries, City residents largely work in lower income, lower -skilled occupations. The leading occupations for City workers , representing 37 percent of all resident workers are: 43-9061 Office Clerks, General 5,115 $28,196.06 35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses 5,040 $21,787.75 43-4051 Customer Service Representatives 5,001 $30,248.85 41-2011 Cashiers 4,747 $19,409.84 35-3021 Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food 4,545 $19,202.09 43-6014 Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive 4,366 $34,093.14 37-2011 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 4,108 $21,109.92 37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 4,102 $22,225.66 29-1141 Registered Nurses 3,948 $64,261.42 53-7062 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 3,917 $27,773.96 33-9032 Security Guards 3,613 $22,150.07 43-5081 Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 3,281 $23,170.68 35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant 2,910 $27,152.88 53-3032 Heavy and Tractor- Trailer Truck Drivers 2,786 $36,150.77 41-4012 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific Products 2,754 $45,748.10 23-1011 Lawyers 2,542 $100,908.10 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 2,484 $37,416.99 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors 2,480 $61,469.82 11-1021 General and Operations Managers 2,437 $102,150.96 43-1011 First -Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers 2,423 $51,901.94 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 2,393 $32,720.90 47-2061 Construction Laborers 2.368 $25.961.96 Percent of All Resident Workers 37% 25-1099 Postsecondary Teachers 5,759 7,846 2,087 $67,102.78 29-1141 Registered Nurses 9,083 10,201 1,118 $64,261.42 53-3041 Taxi Drivers and Chauffeurs 2,440 3,006 566 $22,178.46 35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses 5,759 6,296 538 $21,787.75 47-2061 Construction Laborers 2,575 3,029 454 $25,961.96 53-7062 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 5,849 6,268 420 $27,773.96 35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant 3,361 3,737 376 $27,152.88 31-9092 Medical Assistants 2,130 2,490 361 $30,791.36 35-3021 Combined Food Preparationand Serving Workers, Including Fast Food 6,315 6,666 351 $19,202.09 49-9071 Maintenanceand RepairWorkers, General 3,691 4,023 333 $32,720.90 53-2031 Flight Attendants 3,091 3,422 330 $33,654.56 39-9021 Personal Care Aides 1,198 1,528 330 $22,945.34 31-1011 Home Health Aides 1,390 1,691 301 $23,235.40 37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 4,149 4,445 296 $22,225.66 11-1021 General and Operations Managers 3,382 3,666 284 $102,150.96 41-9022 Real Estate Sales Agents 2,011 2,287 276 $37,113.20 41-2031 Retail Salespersons 8,078 8,336 258 $21,326.46 11-9199 Managers, All Other 1,997 2,252 255 $39,224.32 31-1014 Nursing Assistants 3,427 3,664 236 $24,234.94 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors 3,573 3,804 231 $61,469.82 53-3032 Heavy and Tractor Trailer Truck Drivers 3,059 3,287 228 $36,150.77 15-1132 Software Developers, Applications 966 1,190 224 $76,812.20 13-1111 Management Analysts 1,763 1,979 216 $56,778.98 13-1199 Business Operations Specialists, All Other 2,646 2,861 215 $63,612.22 11-9141 Property, Real Estate, and Community Association Managers 1,463 1,674 211 $40,650.42 Source: EMSI Inc. 31 Earnings The City's occupational structure results in wages for residents that are considerably lower than its benchmark counterparts cities. Adjusted for inflation, wages since 2013 have grown 11 percent since 2013. However, with annual median resident worker earnings at $24,931, Miami ranks 3r1 last among the benchmark cohort. Additionally, the City creates higher paying jobs at a much slower rate than comparable cities. It's 75/50 ratio — the ratio of workers earning $75,000 or more per year versus those earning less than $50,00 per year — is near the bottom of the benchmark cohort. 72 percent of the City's resident workers earn less than $75,00 per year. 52 percent of City residents work in occupations with median annual earnings less than $350,000. 45 percent of the jobs created in the City from now through 2024 will be in occupations with a median annual income less than $35,000 per year. The percentage of City residents working in occupations earning less than $35,000 per year will remain the same. San Francisco Seattle Denver Atla nta Boston Honolulu Austin Oakland Raleigh Charlotte Baltimore Portland Minneapolis Kansas City Tampa Las Vegas Jacksonville Albuquerque Orlando Pittsburgh Memphis Buffalo Miami Cleveland Detroit 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 32 -5% Seattle San Francisco Austin Denver Miami Atlanta Boston Pittsburgh Raleigh Oakland Honolulu Portland Charlotte Baltimore Orlando Buffalo Detroit Minneapolis Tampa Kansas City Cleveland Las Vegas Memphis Jacksonville Albuquerque 0% 5% 10% Source: 2009-2073, 2073-2077 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates -0.2 0.3 0.8 1.3 San Francisco Seattle Boston Oakland Atlanta Portland Denver Minneapolis Austin Charlotte Raleigh Tampa Baltimore Honolulu Pittsburgh Albuquerque Kansas City Las Vegas Orlando Jacksonville Buffalo Miami Memphis Cleveland Detroit Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 15% 1.8 33 0�40�' Household Incomes and Income Disparity At $33,999, Miami's median household income is only 59 percent of the US median income, and only 73 percent of Miami-Dade's median household income. Adjusted for inflation, the City's median household income has grown by just over 6 percent. Miami has one of the highest income gaps between households at the top and bottom of all cities in the US. The mean income of households in the top 5 percent of income in the City is more than 52 times the mean income of households in the lowest 20 percent of income. 53 percent of Miami's households earn less than $50,000. The City's poverty rate, hovering between 22 and 26 percent over the last decade, is also one of the highest among comparable cities in the US. San Francisco Seattle Honolulu Austin Oakland Boston Portland Raleigh Denver Charlotte Minneapolis Las Vegas Atlanta Jacksonville Kansas City Albuquerque Tampa Baltimore Orlando Pittsburgh Memphis Buffalo Miami Cleveland Detroit 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates All Dollar values are in CPI adjusted 2017 Dollars 01 Medidn 100,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 $0- $25,000- $50,000- $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 ■ 2013 ■ 2017 I I d $75,000- $100,000- $200,000+ $100,000 $200,000 Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% San Francisco Seattle Oakland Denver Austin Portland Boston Raleigh Baltimore Pittsburgh Miami Minneapolis Tampa Charlotte Atlanta Buffalo Kansas Qty Honolulu Orlando Jacksonville Cleveland Detroit Las Vegas Albuquerque Memphis Source: 2009-2( All Dollar values 13, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates are in CPI adjusted 2017 Dollars 35 0�40�7 0 5 Atlanta Boston Miami San Francisco Tampa Baltimore Pittsburgh Memphis Cleveland Detroit Minneapolis Oakland Buffalo Denver Seattle Charlotte Portland Austin Orlando Kansas City Honolulu Las Vegas Jacksonville Albuquerque Raleigh 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Detroit Cleveland Buffalo Memphis Miami Baltimore Atlanta Pittsburgh Minneapolis Boston Tampa Orlando Oakland Albuquerque Kansas City Jacksonville Portland Las Vegas Austin Denver Charlotte —•—Median Raleigh Seattle San Francisco Honolulu Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates All Dollar values are in CPI adjusted 2017 Dollars Area Median Income (AMI) �- 4\0 14 .O �7 0 _J Little Haiti Model City 5 i W,ynwood AIlapattah 1 0 ertdwn. Flagami Downtown Little Havana [:lands West Flagler 3 4 Coral Way 2 Islands North Coconut Grove South Goconu-Grove 0�40�' Changes in Housing Preference In addition to economics and the tightening of credit for home mortgages, the region's shift from owner occupancy to renting has been driven by demographic and lifestyle preference shifts among older (55 years and up) and millennial (ages 17 to 35) households. Millennials and downsizing empty nesters are driving demand for different types and locations of housing. Both 55 plus and millennial households are seeking: ■ Rental, rather than owner housing, and smaller size units, even for single family homes; ■ Neighborhoods in close proximity to shopping, conveniences, recreation and entertainment; ■ Locations requiring less drive time to work, and in proximity (less than 112 mile) to mass transit, and a mix of alternative transportation modes, including bicycles and walking. Millennials are the first generation since the invention of the automobile to drive less miles than their parents, and this trend is accelerating; and ■ More outdoor amenities, including garden plots, walking/jogging trails, parks, outdoor pools, and local drug/convenience stores, and 68 percent of those aged 55-64 and 69 percent of those 65+ want a single -story dwelling. W Measuring the City's Affordability Gap Determining the City's need for affordable housing can be accomplished combing three methods: 1) assessing the general gap between incomes and housing prices relative to other markets, 2) the number of households spending higher percentages of their income on housing costs relative to other markets, and 3) an evaluation of the demand and supply for housing affordable to households at various income levels. Housing Price/ Income Multiplier The ratio of median housed income to median home sale price is a general indicator of the scale of housing un -affordability. In Miami, the median home sale price is 9.1 times the median household income. This ratio is not only almost double the median for its benchmark competitors, and despite the fact that is median sale price is 112 that of Oakland and Boston, and 113 rd of San Francisco, has the fourth highest cost -to -income ratio of similar cities. Because of Miami's lower incomes and earnings, combined with its rapid rates of sale and rent price increases, the median home sale price for all unit types in Miami is unaffordable to 90% of all workers in the County, and 81 % of all Households in the City. San Francisco Oakland Boston Miami Seattle Honolulu Portland Denver Austin Atlanta Orlando Cleveland Las Vegas Tampa Minneapolis Detroit Raleigh Buffalo Charlotte Kansas City Jacksonville Pittsburgh Baltimore Memphis - 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 Source: 20092073,2073-2077 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates —Benchmark Median Sales data provided by Redfin, a national real estate brokerage, 2019 39 0�40�' Housing and Transportation Costs Transportation costs can be a significant additional household expense, and impacts lower-income households most. According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology's national Housing & Transportation Cost Index, average transportation cost for households in Miami is 20 percent of household income. The city's residents have lower transportation costs than the rest of the County, but this additional 20 percent or more is significant. Households in a large swath of the City at its western edges, spend an average of 36 to 54 percent of income on transportation. Access to existing and planned transit, including the County's proposed expansion of light-rail transit incorporated in the SMART plan, can be a significant component in the success of affordable housing. In addition, investment in Transit Oriented Development mixed-use projects is currently one of the highest -demanded products from institutional investors, and is generating the highest return among all real estate investment vehicles. Strategic flfJdRJC _s`LlR`d1f Gl':I _ Miami Ares l,�mrdenr # M Rapid 3 I %lamr' Transit � u QN (SMART) Plan, F�yr ,I TP4 Nw"nq 4r2nrhAbri I 1 Aliowlr _ Fail, rte' [ r I � _.+ti obx F FPIC]'IQCiF#tll7[]li. 6 v,r ron"11m IRI.FFK, F f OPAIDO -WEST I FJ S L a s x e d..� :�I° �....i a■ 4 s a F .neiwna.°rs. _W I f in €NDALL C4RRIRQR V�,. 49 rf°ra, i ` � 1'iileera: y'1 5• I��LY -w.y .�'w P(a hlt2flt RAj" $ rr..r. r. LE-GEND nvcmrwaraonwae: Carjkrsay T-1 ��ws� riyn l Y +s++ �_gn:Fs4 �E.]Wul U 1a' n UD �P_ftko- k 4� I ¢ �ka crr— 77. +,� r,ata �� F - — riufi �Fll�a,axFo rror,w,n i1FFfl wh'�vma. �+.�� rrt+- tr.SiP!4[. FIWYs7rIpLo[¢nLL"•e r.e.u" °hlar:[Y Fysxu 4rd"fupa, Nsr N � Irhen-wet � F!pth6�.Y {wa� � . _ '� y � 1}4p'16xltar�d � ;ww,"'-{%"44i�•; � F�+r`2�"+m ca;i� P F woo City 'rllGd rSIF44iI}' I I °. y 'V -KO M— WkAr 41 Cost Burden The fundamental measuring stick of housing affordability is the percentage of income a household pays for housing costs, or housing cost burden. As developed by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the accepted guideline is that a household should spend 30 percent or less of its total income on all housing costs (rent, mortgage, maintenance, etc.). Households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on total housing costs are defined as Cost -Burdened, while households spending more than 50 percent of household income on housing expenses are defined as Severely Cost -Burdened. First, Miami is distinguished from the rest of the US in three ways: 1) its excessively high composition of cost -burdened households, 2) its rising composition of cost -burdened renter households, and 3) its rising portion of "severely" cost -burdened households. With 57 percent of its households cost burdened, Miami may be the most unaffordable City in the US. 94,638 Miami households are cost -burdened — 74,753 renter households, and 19,885 owner households — representing 65 percent of renters and 40 percent of all owners. The percentage of cost burdened households increases with decreasing household income. By comparison, 32 percent of all US households are cost burdened. The median measure for the study's benchmark cities is 39 percent. This means that to reach a nationally comparative level of total cost burdened households, through a variety and programs and policy, the City needs to move between 30,000 and 41,000 households out of cost burdened status. Miami Oakland Boston Orlando Honolulu Detroit Baltimore Portland Memphis Tampa Cleveland Atlanta Las Vegas Austin Buffalo San Francisco Denver Seattle Minneapolis Jacksonville Albuquerque Pittsburgh Charlotte Kansas City Raleigh 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 42 0�40�' Miami Honolulu Detroit Orlando Oakland Tampa Boston Memphis Portland Baltimore Buffalo Las Vegas Albuquerque Cleveland Jacksonville Denver Austin Atlanta Minneapolis Seattle Raleigh Pittsburgh Charlotte Kansas City San Francisco 0% 5% 109 159 2099 259 3099 359 409 459 509 559 609 659 Source: 20042013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates Miami Oakland Boston Honolulu Portland San Francisco Baltimore Detroit Orlando Las Vegas Memphis Cleveland Seattle Tampa Atlanta Jacksonville Denver Austin Albuquerque Minneapolis Charlotte Kansas City Buffalo Pittsburgh Raleigh 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% Miedlan Source: 2009-2013, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates 43 Affordable Housing Demand -Supply Analysis City -Wide Housing affordability in Miami -Dade cuts across a wide range of households. The needs of households on different rungs of the income ladder differ considerably, and is made even more complex by changing age, household formation, family size and composition, and housing preferences. HUD's basic classification system pegs affordable housing needs to how much money a household earns relative to the Area Median Income (AMI), or median household income of the County or metropolitan region. HUD classifies households into four categories relative to AMI: ■ Extremely Low Income (ELI): Households with income at or below the Poverty Guideline or 30% of AMI, whichever is higher; ■ Very Low Income (VLI): Households with income between 31 % and 50% of AMI; ■ Low Income (LI): Households with income between 51% and 80% of AMI Middle Income (MI): Households with income between 81 % and 100% of AMI; and ■ Moderate Income: Households with incomes from 80% to 120% of AMI. The Center completed an analysis of housing supply and demand, at each HUD defined income level. The analysis looks at the number of households at each income level, the rent and purchase price affordable to each income level, and the City's supply of housing units at those rents/prices. The Center's affordable housing supply/demand analysis indicates the City has a shortage of 69,464 affordable housing units. Renter Housing *income Numberof Renter Affordable Rent Levels Numberof Renter Units Within &rplus Gap wit in Analysis Category Households (Demand) Affordable iit�ordable Price Range rice Range Extremely Lowlncome 0-30%Median 0%Median 30%Median ian $0-$12,098 22,680 $0 $302 % 15,603 Low Income$12,099-$20,163 31-50%Median 31%Median 50% Median ianVery 431-50%Median 7,764 $303 $504 % 4,066 Income 51-80%Median 51%Median 80%Median dianLow $20,164-$32,261 19,067 $505 $806 4% 4,496 Moderate Income 81-120%Median 81%Median 120%Median dian $32262-$48392 1 19,003 1 $807 1 $1209 1 37,720(198%) 18716 45 S() Er. District 1 Analysis Housing and Economic Characteristics There are 30,524 housing units in District 1, of which, 35.8 percent are in multi -family structures of 20 units or more. Single-family structures comprise 24.8 percent of units in the District. An estimated 54 percent of units (16,485 units) are in structures 50 years of age or older. The 73,575 residents of District 1 are primarily renters (76.2 percent/21,573 households) with a median household income of $22,760, compared to $28,650 for City renters, as a whole.With nearly 9 in 10 apartments unaffordable to District 1 residents, an estimated 67 percent of renters are cost -burdened and 37 percent "severely' cost -burdened. In the Allapattah neighborhood, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment has increased by 25 percent in the last three years. Educational attainment in District 1 is the lowest in the City. Only 12.8 percent of the population age 25 years and older have a bachelor's degree or higher and 32.6 percent do not have a high school diploma. By comparison, 26.4 of the City's population age 25 years and over have a bachelor's degree or higher and 24.4 percent are without a high schooldiploma. The poverty rate in District 1 for families with children is 38 percent, compared to 31.8 percent for the City of Miami, as a whole. The labor force participation rate of 56.8 percent is the lowest among all City Districts. Most workers are employed in low-wage service sector occupations with average annual earnings of $21,600 to $32,400. A A1A AA 41500_`ITAL lC1A'TS A+ -T 1 UMaPEEOED TSCMEET ■ in 10 THE OF 01; OF �YJ LDW A MODERATE IIIa)ME RENTERS RENTERS IN IC15f C,_ i ARE COST•BURCAETIED NEARLY �r 8in10 9 in 10 37% RENTAL UNITS ARE TO LOW _1 :,:M1SPEND MORE T MAN 50% THEIR f KVVOROA6SE TO SOW R MODERATE 81COIE INCOME ON HOUSRM RETTttvs AW"t EAFL"ITNG`* Q.N,i,TNG FROM NEEDED TO MEET NEARLY ¢I 8in10 �t HOMES ARE MORE mw sus TalE9S UK@JfOanAae TO LOW R MODERATE INCOME ERS OWNERS C]HOLDREN: 401% NEARLY ��+rr.r+rrywpg 41200NOFES ARE AW"t EAFL"ITNG`* Q.N,i,TNG FROM NEEDED TO MEET VASRIWTR.a_ 261/6 THE DEMAND OF .A�.Oaai NA•f0 LOW @ MODERATE $21,600.. $32,400 DXS)K OWNERS AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES A � A , ! A 5in10AAAAA NOME OWNERS IN DISTRICT S ARE COST- BURDENED Extremely Cost -Burdened Renters S .f 1 3 4 2 L ¢I CNONERS SPENo A TYPICAL RESMfKT LS RACE_ MORE mw sus TalE9S + �Iy 0600ME ON HON5W. A � A , ! A 5in10AAAAA NOME OWNERS IN DISTRICT S ARE COST- BURDENED Extremely Cost -Burdened Renters S .f 1 3 4 2 L M TOTAL G .*wR OF REsO Pm- 85,146 HELM POVERTY LEVB.: A TYPICAL RESMfKT LS RACE_ EMKIM IN SERVICE. SALE A I i • Rv C]HOLDREN: 401% CIWiCE IDOIISTRIES WITH AVERAGE ��+rr.r+rrywpg AW"t EAFL"ITNG`* Q.N,i,TNG FROM VASRIWTR.a_ 261/6 .A�.Oaai NA•f0 SENIOR", 381/6 $21,600.. $32,400 M Existing Housing Demand and Supply The majority (60.8 percent/13,113 households) of District 1 renters fall within the "Extremely -Low" to "Moderate" household income categories. The "Existing Housing Demand and Supply Analysis" below shows a significant supply gap of 7,827 affordable units for renters in the four household income categories. District 1: Existing Renter Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. An Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis for District 1 shows a supply gap of 543 units in the "Low" household income category and a small surplus of 31 units in the "moderate" household income category. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 3,650 units affordable owner units in District 1. District 1: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis � . ... Extremely Low 0-30% Median 1 0% Median 30% Median 0-30% Median Income $0-$6,828 2,737 $0 $171 479 2,258 Very Low 31-50% Median 81-120% Median 31% Median 50% Median 31-50% Median Income $6829 - $11,380 3,192 $171 $285 2,184 1,008 Low Income 51-80% Median Moderate 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Renters $11,380 - $18,208 3,654 $285 $455 886 2,768 Moderate 81-120% Median 924 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Renters $18,209 - $27,312 3,530 $455 $683 1,736 1,793 Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. An Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis for District 1 shows a supply gap of 543 units in the "Low" household income category and a small surplus of 31 units in the "moderate" household income category. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 3,650 units affordable owner units in District 1. District 1: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. ... .. Low Income 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Owners $13,627 - $21,376 764 $40,882 $64,128 1 221 543 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $21,377 - $32,064 893 $64,129 $96,192 924 31 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $21,377 - $32,064 4,573 $64,129 $96,192 924 3,650 and Renters Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. District 1 - Vacant Parcels for Potential High Density Multifamily Development ■LL LJ I1� m 41 a 1 1 mo &o e• ��i all • ■ 1. Iv 1 . ■ R I ■ l l ■ ■1 ■II 0 Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters Q •4 0% - 30% 6r ■ 1■ Municipal ■15 1 Vacant Govt.: Dade County Q 51% - 100% Q Vacant Govt.: School Board Land Use ■LL LJ I1� m 41 a 1 1 mo &o e• ��i all • ■ 1. Iv 1 . ■ R I ■ l l ■ ■1 ■II 0 Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters Q Vacant Insitutional: Land 0% - 30% Vacant Govt.: Municipal 0 31% - 50% Vacant Govt.: Dade County Q 51% - 100% Q Vacant Govt.: School Board Land Use 0 Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot Q Vacant Residential Vacant Govt.: Land Vacant Commercial Vacant Govt.: Federal = Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot 0 Vacant Govt.: State 49 District 2 Analysis Housing and Economic Characteristics There are 53,580 housing units in District 2, of which, 72 percent are in multi -family structures of 20 units or more. Single-family structures comprise 24.8 percent of units in the District. An estimated 47.2 percent of units (25,291 units) in the District have been built since 2000. District 2 has the highest vacancy rate in the City (29.2 percent/15,742 units). The high vacancy rate is mainly attributed to the large share (61.2 percent/9,638 units) of "seasonal" vacancies The 81,355 residents of District 2 are primarily renters (63.1 percent/23,514 households) with a median household income of $61,850 compared to $28,650 for City renters, as a whole. An estimated 50 percent of District 2 renters are cost -burdened and 26 percent "severely, cost - burdened. Educational attainment in District 2 is the highest in the City with 57.9 percent of the population 25 years and older with a bachelor's degree or higher. By comparison, 26.4 of the City's population age 25 years and over have a bachelor's degree or higher. The labor force participation rate in District 2 is 71.0 percent, compared to 61.8 percent for the City, as a whole. Workers are employed in a variety of industries and occupations including Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services; educational services and healthcare; and finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing. Average annual earnings range from $24,500 in low wage service occupations to $121,600 in professional and management occupations. NEARLY NEARLY 5f000 ENTAL LN[TS. WARL: 2 in FIFIE'ED TO MEET THE DEMAND RENTERS CF ALL 42411 5 in 10 I HOMESAAE INMME LEAELS RENTERS IN DISTRTCd 2 ARE COS7-6NRNNED UNAFFORD.0ZLE (BgRElELY LOW - i�wAr�Ar+e•[ws NEARLY LOW INCOI$} 2 in 10 26% RE`i F L ABLETE N LOW ir OF U117EAS SPEND MORE THAN 543*THEDR ]F!`Of•IE 4N HODSFNG COMER RENTERS INCOME BEATERS I S 610... NEARLY ALm*wR of RESIDENTS: 81,335 2 in 10 4-1- HOMESAAE IN`DHE ON HOl1SL'1G ■—P-4 UNAFFORD.0ZLE TO LOW i�wAr�Ar+e•[ws AME ODRATE NEClE AMML EARNINGS RANGING FROM OWNERS. �caC WORKFORCE- 15% 4 # W r a N4 Pe" NEARLY $KS007,$121,G00 ...L i �r.rr _ P_ wt 610... NEEDED TO FEET TME DEMAND CF LOW A MODERATE INOW OWNERS ,67111 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES r-) ALm*wR of RESIDENTS: 81,335 OF OVlN. 59END A TYPICAL RESICCHT IS RACE- MORE THAN 5446 THETA IN`DHE ON HOl1SL'1G ■—P-4 �p CHILDREN_ IM NEARLY in 10 we HOME OWNERS IN DISTRICT Y ARE D DST -BURDENED MEMO ALm*wR of RESIDENTS: 81,335 BELOW POVERTY LEVEL A TYPICAL RESICCHT IS RACE- EMPLOYEI3IN MANAGEMENT, SAIF $ ■—P-4 �p CHILDREN_ IM OFFICE INDUSTRIES WrrM AVERAGEAlk i�wAr�Ar+e•[ws AMML EARNINGS RANGING FROM i��A�s>re feria. �caC WORKFORCE- 15% W r a N4 Pe" SENICIRS: �8% $KS007,$121,G00 ...L i �r.rr _ P_ wt Existing Housing Demand and Supply The majority (60.8 percent/14,125 households) of District 2 renters fall within the "Extremely -Low" to "Moderate" household income categories. The "Existing Housing Demand and Supply Analysis" below shows a significant supply gap of 5,021 affordable renter units for households within the "Extremely -Low." "Very Low" and "Low" household income categories and substantial surplus in the "Moderate" household income category. District 2: Existing Renter Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. District 2 has relatively smaller owner affordable housing gaps in the "Low" and "Moderate" household income categories. The gap in these household income categories totals 612 units. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 4,319 affordable owner units in District 2. District 2: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis .. ..Affordable ECH Income 11. HouseholdsTotal Affordable Affordable Affordable . 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Owners Extremely Low 0-30% Median $114,253 0% Median 30% Median 0-30% Median Income $0-$18,855 3,658 $0 $464 713 2,945 Very Low 31-50% Median 31% Median 50% Median 31-50% Median Income $18,556 - $30,925 2,859 $465 $773 1,288 1,571 Low Income 51-80% Median $268,830 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Renters $30,926 - $49,480 3,483 $773 $1,237 2,978 505 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Renters $49,480 - $74,220 4,125 $1,237 $1,856 7,518 3,393 Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. District 2 has relatively smaller owner affordable housing gaps in the "Low" and "Moderate" household income categories. The gap in these household income categories totals 612 units. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 4,319 affordable owner units in District 2. District 2: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. 51 Number of Owner Surplus/Gap ..Affordable ECH Income 11. HouseholdsTotal Affordable Affordable (Supply) Price Range_ Low Income 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Owners $38,084 - $59,740 1,276 $114,253 $179,220 889 386 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $59,741 - $89,610 1,780 $179,221 $268,830 1,553 226 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $59,741 - $89,610 5,872 $179,221 $268,830 1,553 4,319 and Renters Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. 51 District 2 - Vacant Parcels for Potential High Density Multifamily Development ® Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters 0% - 30% 0 31% - 50% Q 51% - 100% Land Use Q Vacant Residential Vacant Commercial 0 Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot Q Vacant Insitutional: Land Vacant Govt.: Municipal Vacant Govt.: Dade County Vacant Govt.: School Board Q Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot Vacant Govt.: Land Vacant Govt.: Federal Q Vacant Govt.: State M MI lni District 3 Analysis Housing and Economic Characteristics There are 34,420 housing units in District 3, of which, 47.6 percent are in multi -family structures of 10 or more units. Single-family structures comprise 24.8 percent of units in the District. An estimated 60.6 percent of units (20,854 units) are in structures 50 years of age or older. The 81,002 residents of District 3 are primarily renters (83.9 percent/25,351 households) with a median household income of $22,760, compared to $28,650 for City renters, as a whole.With nearly 6 in 10 apartments unaffordable to District 3 residents, an estimated 70 percent of renters are cost -burdened and 38 percent "severely' cost -burdened. . Educational attainment in District 3 is among the lowest in the City with only 17.0 percent of the population age 25 years and older with a bachelor's degree or higher. An estimated 33.5 percent of the District's population are without a high school diploma. By comparison, 26.4 of the City's population age 25 years and over have a bachelor's degree or higher and 24.4 percent are without a high school diploma. The poverty rate in District 3 for families with children is 36 percent, compared to 31.8 percent for the City of Miami, as a whole. The labor force participation rate of 60.7 percent is among the lowest of City Districts. Most workers are employed in low-wage service sector occupations with average annual earnings of $21,600 to $32,400. 8�y ��yyhh 140 U =: NTu METS ARE /\ ^.Q ^61 f`ti �'� Sin THEDOFOMEiT „£OF 7.in 1� A RENTERS OF ALL INCOME LEVELS RENtERs W DISMtCT I ARE COST-ti11A.DENED �'"" "•� (alVE?ELY LOW QmcEv4O`5i swT-AYoua 1{ 600 HOMES ARE NDDERATE IMMMES) 1 !+-� tip.• ,ar>,r �.,� �r 6 in 10 SENIORSi 38% 38% RENTAL (MOS ARE LW4k9K7R110k1_E TO LOW/ �\ OF RENTERS SFEND / M9RC T m 's T' ILII[ k MWEAATE INCOME `� ISCOF•S ON HOUSING RENTERSAFFORDABLE HOUSING NEARLY TOTAL NL BER OF RESIDENTS 81,002 iii Sin 10 c� A TYPICAL RISH)ENT 15 RA": k FYCUJE�ATE (hWNERSL iNCC} 1 �'"" "•� NEARLY QmcEv4O`5i swT-AYoua 1{ 600 HOMES ARE NEEDED to MEET !+-� tip.• ,ar>,r �.,� THE DEMAND OF LOW k MODERATE SENIORSi 38% tNCoME DWVNERs l#:r. QW4ff`I:P jj 21 °/o ;)dNERS SPEND MORE ThAN-W%T1EM lliCTME ON HOU52T in 101AwAww HOME Owr;- ARE COST-SURDENED Nazza TOTAL NL BER OF RESIDENTS 81,002 iii N&DW POVERTY LEVEL: A TYPICAL RISH)ENT 15 RA": EMPLOYEE) IN SERVICE, SALE 9!I� �'"" "•� MLDREN: 360/6 QmcEv4O`5i swT-AYoua 1{ .�k,..,.�. �...r.+r R44UA.L Ek;LRENGS kWSING FR.LF1 !+-� tip.• ,ar>,r �.,� WORK 22% SENIORSi 38% $21,6x40-. $32,400 ,...�,� 53 Existing Housing Demand and Supply The majority (57.7 percent/14,632 households) of District 3 renters fall within the "Extremely -Low" to "Moderate" household income categories. The "Existing Housing Demand and Supply Analysis" below shows a significant supply gap of 8,482 affordable units for renters in the four household income categories. District 3: Existing Renter Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. In District 3, 5 in 10 owner properties are unaffordable to resident homebuyers. An estimated 40 percent of owners are cost -burdened and 21 percent "severely" cost- burdened." There exists a supply gap of 573 owner units for "Low" and "Moderate" income owner households. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 4,4,00 affordable owner units in District 3. District 3: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis qW Total Number of Owner Surplus/Gap KH Income7 ,;.Affordable . dffi ate..(Demand) IL AffordableAffordable IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA Range (Supply) Price Range Low Income 51-80% Median Extremely Low 0-30% Median 51-80% Median 0% Median 30% Median 0-30% Median Income $0-$6,895 2,644 $0 $172 385 2,260 Very Low 31-50% Median 81-120% Median 31% Median 50% Median 31-50% Median Income $6,896 - $11,492 3,422 $172 $287 2,115 1,307 Low Income 51-80% Median 120% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Renters $11,493 - $18,387 4,324 $287 $460 1,183 3,141 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Renters $18,387 - $27,581 4,242 $460 $690 2,468 1,774 Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. In District 3, 5 in 10 owner properties are unaffordable to resident homebuyers. An estimated 40 percent of owners are cost -burdened and 21 percent "severely" cost- burdened." There exists a supply gap of 573 owner units for "Low" and "Moderate" income owner households. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 4,4,00 affordable owner units in District 3. District 3: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. qW Total Number of Owner Surplus/Gap KH Income7 ,;.Affordable . dffi ate..(Demand) IL AffordableAffordable IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA Range (Supply) Price Range Low Income 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Owners $13,009 - $20,406 508 $39,026 $61,217 204 304 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $20,407 - $30,608 565 $61,218 $91,825 297 269 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $20,407 - $30,608 4,717 $61,218 $91,825 297 4,420 and Renters Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. District 3 - Vacant Parcels for Potential High Density Multifamily Development ® Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters 0% - 30% 0 31% - 50% Q 51% - 100% Land Use Q Vacant Residential Vacant Commercial 0 Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot Q Vacant Insitutional: Land Vacant Govt.: Municipal Vacant Govt.: Dade County Vacant Govt.: School Board Q Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot Vacant Govt.: Land Vacant Govt.: Federal Q Vacant Govt.: State I 60 District 4 Analysis Housing and Economic Characteristics There are 38,769 housing units in District 4, of which, 66.0 percent are single-family attached and detached structures. An estimated 66 percent of units (26,363 units) are in structures 50 years of age or older. The 104,688 residents of District 4 are primarily renters (53.0 percent/21,573 households) with a median household income of $31.828, compared to $28,650 for City renters, as a whole. With nearly 9 in 10 apartments unaffordable to District 4 residents, an estimated 67 percent of renters are cost -burdened and 38 percent "severely" cost -burdened. Educational attainment in District 3 is relatively low with 22.5 percent of the population age 25 years and older with a bachelor's degree or higher. An estimated 23.2 percent of the District's population are without a high school diploma. By comparison, 26.4 of the City's population age 25 years and over have a bachelor's degree or higher and 24.4 percent are without a high school diploma. The labor force participation rate in District 4 is 60.5 percent, compared to 61.8 percent for the City, as a whole. Workers are employed in a variety of industries and occupations including educational services and healthcare, retail and accommodation and food services. Average annual earnings range from $21,600 in low wage occupations to $101,000 in professional and management occupations. NEARLY 7 in 10 �� HOMES ARE UM1NFFORDABLE TO LOW O NERS ATE IALCOi€ L�hYNEPS NEARLY 3t200MOMES ARE NEEDED TO MEET Tli DEMAND Of LM A MODERATE INCOME CKUNERS 56 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES NEARLY SA�7��l■ 500 uwrrs ARE NEARLY OF OYld1ER5 SPE"IP r �"`T�� YO i 6n 10 A INCOME ON HOUSING ■" pw RENTERSCFALL OffICE INOWMMS YVTtH AW9U4GE � � ■ffi-* rr txw INCOME LEUELS RENTERS IN DISTRDCY 4 ARE COST -BURDENED WDRVL LICE: 17% (EA'YROWLY LOU! - SENIORS: 22% NEA_-;. � MDDERATEIW3WESj 238% 4 in 10 RENTAL UNITS. ARE OF SPEND MGRST AN NNeOD RATEI Y9 L95Y MODERATE INCCdE y H�Ol�4l�� INCOME'{r RENTERS NEARLY 7 in 10 �� HOMES ARE UM1NFFORDABLE TO LOW O NERS ATE IALCOi€ L�hYNEPS NEARLY 3t200MOMES ARE NEEDED TO MEET Tli DEMAND Of LM A MODERATE INCOME CKUNERS 56 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES NEARLY *. 4in1 A HOME OWNERS IN DISTRICT 4 ARELAST-BURDENED '°/o OF OYld1ER5 SPE"IP A TYPICAL RESTDENIT 15 RACE: MORE THAN 50% THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING ■" pw CM71T]REN: NEARLY *. 4in1 A HOME OWNERS IN DISTRICT 4 ARELAST-BURDENED TOTALmoom OF RegDENY5: 104,60000 BELOW POVERTY LEVEL: A TYPICAL RESTDENIT 15 RACE: EMPLOYED 1N MANAaMENFt. SALE a ■" pw CM71T]REN: OffICE INOWMMS YVTtH AW9U4GE � � ■ffi-* rr txw AAtAIAL FARKNGS RANGOC FROM 111 ■.irrwr waft# WDRVL LICE: 17% ■ArUV /MV SENIORS: 22% $211600m$1011000 � ■Tr r.®.v pH1 Existing Housing Demand and Supply The majority (37.1 percent/7,496 households) of District 4 renters fall within the "Extremely -Low" to "Moderate' household income categories. The "Existing Housing Demand and Supply Analysis" below shows a significant supply gap of 5,856 affordable renter units for households in the "Extremely Low, "Very Low" and "Low" household income categories and a smaller gap of 246 units in the "Moderate' household income category. District 4: Existing Renter Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. An Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis for District 4 shows a supply gap of 3,244 units in the "Low" and "Moderate" household income categories. When combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate' renter household category, there exists a gap of 5,056 affordable owner units in District 4. District 4: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis ..MORN,. . IM Low Income ------------ 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Owners $18,714 - $29,356 1 2,434 $56,143 $88,068 356 2,078 Extremely Low 0-30% Median 0% Median 30% Median 0-30% Median Income Owners Income $0-$9,548 2,088 $0 $239 385 1,703 Very Low 31-50% Median 81% Median 31% Median 50% Median 31-50% Median Income Owners Income $9,549 - $15,914 2,196 $239 $398 445 1,750 Low Income 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Renters $15,915 - $25,462 3,212 $398 $637 809 2,403 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Renters $25,463 - $38,194 3,789 $637 $955 4,035 246 Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. An Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis for District 4 shows a supply gap of 3,244 units in the "Low" and "Moderate" household income categories. When combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate' renter household category, there exists a gap of 5,056 affordable owner units in District 4. District 4: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the RU Metropolitan Center. No ..MORN,. . IM Low Income ------------ 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Owners $18,714 - $29,356 1 2,434 $56,143 $88,068 356 2,078 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $29,356 - $44,034 2,124 $88,069 $132,102 958 1,166 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $29,356 - $44,034 6,014 $88,069 $132,102 958 5,056 and Renters Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the RU Metropolitan Center. No District 4 - Vacant Parcels for Potential High Density Multifamily Development I { d J YI � 1 � o �1 I 1 � � r` orifi Ga � 1 e`S = Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters Q Vacant Insitutional: Land 0% - 30% Vacant Govt.: Municipal 31%- 50% ' Dade County Q 51%-100% ® Vacant Govt.: School Board y 0 Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot Q Vacant Residential Vacant Govt.: Land Vacant Commercial Vacant Govt.: Federal 58 Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot Q Vacant Govt.: I { d J YI � 1 � o �1 I 1 � � r` orifi Ga � 1 e`S = Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters Q Vacant Insitutional: Land 0% - 30% Vacant Govt.: Municipal 31%- 50% Vacant Govt.: Dade County Q 51%-100% ® Vacant Govt.: School Board Land Use 0 Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot Q Vacant Residential Vacant Govt.: Land Vacant Commercial Vacant Govt.: Federal 58 Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot Q Vacant Govt.: State District 5 Analysis Housing and Economic Characteristics There are 41,525 housing units in District 5, of which, single-family detached/attached structures comprise 39.1 percent of all units in the District. An estimated 33.4 percent of units are in multi -family structures of 10 or more units. An estimated 60.6 percent of units (20,854 units) are in structures 50 years of age or older. The 89,862 residents of District 5 are primarily renters (74.4 percent/26,850 households) with a median household income of $22,760, compared to $28,650 for City renters, as a whole. With nearly 5 in 10 apartments unaffordable to District 3 residents, an estimated 60 percent of renters are cost -burdened and 34 percent "severely' cost -burdened. . Educational attainment in District 5 is among the lowest in the City with only 16.9 percent of the population age 25 years and older with a bachelor's degree or higher. An estimated 27.5 percent of the District's population are without a high school diploma. By comparison, 26.4 of the City's population age 25 years and over have a bachelor's degree or higher and 24.4 percent are without a high school diploma. The poverty rate in District 5 for families with children is 49 percent, compared to 31.8 percent for the City of Miami, as a whole. The labor force participation rate of 58.8 percent compared to 61.8 percent for the City, as a whole. Most workers are employed in low-wage service sector occupations with average annual earnings of $21,600 to $32,400. 8�y4EEARLY�t�l7��//��7L7 EHTAL LHTTS-AAE � � + NEARUI A tloo THE DEMAND OF � �� 6 in 10 41L INODME LEVELS EEXTREMELY LOVE - RENTERS IN DISMI3CT 5 ARE CDGT-EURCENED NEARL5 MODERATE INCOMES) CE 1NDUSTRIEs WtTH AVERA�Cf in 102` 34% RENTAL (ANUS. ARE �THM' HEIR EL MODERATE IN To Low & Mi]IIERATE ILICOFE RENTERS ■iwwRwi [aw SENIOU: 36% NEARLY 10% 1 1in10 A TYPICAL RESIDENT 1'S RA,CE- 41L HOMES ARE IN03I'4E ON HOUSING UMWFfORI ABLE TO Lbw CE 1NDUSTRIEs WtTH AVERA�Cf INCOME OWNERS AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHALLENGES NEARLY NEARLY 121LILYITS ARE EDEDTO MEET THE in 10w , TFE ®D OfLOW INCOME OWNS` HOME OWNERS IN DISTRICT 5 ARE COST -BURDENED 10% OF ,v'h'VERS SPEND A TYPICAL RESIDENT 1'S RA,CE- MORE THAN 50% THEIR IN03I'4E ON HOUSING A CHWREW 490/a NEARLY NEARLY 121LILYITS ARE EDEDTO MEET THE in 10w , TFE ®D OfLOW INCOME OWNS` HOME OWNERS IN DISTRICT 5 ARE COST -BURDENED 061 TOTAL NL*WR OF R£SICIFMfis. 89,862 RELOW POVERTY LEVEL. A TYPICAL RESIDENT 1'S RA,CE- EMPLOYEaD M SERVICE, SALE 9 t A CHWREW 490/a CE 1NDUSTRIEs WtTH AVERA�Cf ANIti1JAL EARYEUGS R/ NGING FROM MRKFDRCE. 31%fla ■iwwRwi [aw SENIOU: 36% $21,600 $32 404 TCI i ___;L,W ■r«...�.�I - �■.r:--jM%p 061 Existing Housing Demand and Supply An estimated 48.9 percent (13,141 households) of District 5 renters fall within the "Extremely -Low" to "Moderate' household income categories. The "Existing Housing Demand and Supply Analysis" below shows a significant supply gap of 8,100 affordable units for renters in the four household income categories. District 5: Existing Renter Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. District 5 has a relatively smaller affordability need for owners. Only 1 in 10 owner properties are unaffordable to resident homebuyers. An estimated 20 percent of owners are cost -burdened and 10 percent "severely" cost -burdened." There exists a supply gap of 121 owner units in the "Low" household income category and a small surplus of 233 units in the "Moderate' household income category. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 3,512 affordable owner units in District 5. District 5: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis HH Incom .. I, =' . . 1 FlaEYLSOMs . . Extremely Low 0-30% Median 0% Median 30% Median 0-30% Median Income $0-$5,790 3,346 $0 $145 435 2,911 Very Low 31-50% Median 51% Median 31% Median 50% Median 31-50% Median Income $5,791 - $9,650 3,025 $145 $241 1,173 1,852 Low Income 51-80% Median 81-120% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Renters $9,651 - $15,440 3,321 $241 $386 1,234 2,087 Moderate 81-120% Median 233 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Renters $15,441 - $23,160 3,449 $386 $579 2,199 1,250 Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. District 5 has a relatively smaller affordability need for owners. Only 1 in 10 owner properties are unaffordable to resident homebuyers. An estimated 20 percent of owners are cost -burdened and 10 percent "severely" cost -burdened." There exists a supply gap of 121 owner units in the "Low" household income category and a small surplus of 233 units in the "Moderate' household income category. However, when combined with potential buyers in the "Moderate" renter household category, there exists a gap of 3,512 affordable owner units in District 5. District 5: Existing Owner Housing Demand and Supply Analysis Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. Low Income 51-80% Median 51% Median 80% Median 51-80% Median Owners $18,588 - $29,158 1,102 $55,765 $87,475 1 981 121 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $29,159 - $43,738 1,059 $87,476 $131,213 1,292 233 Moderate 81-120% Median 81% Median 120% Median 81-120% Median Income Owners $29,159 - $43,738 4,804 $87,476 $131,213 1,292 3,512 and Renters Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey, table and calculations by the FIU Metropolitan Center. District 5 - Vacant Parcels for Potential High Density Multifamily Development E= Qualified Opportunity Zones Extremely Cost -burdened Renters 0 0% - 30% 0 31% - 50% Q 51% — 1010% Land Use Q Vacant Residential Vacant Commercial 0 Vacant Insitutional: Parking Lot 0 Vacant Insitutional: Land Vacant Govt.: Municipal Vacant Govt.: Dade County Q Vacant Govt.: School Board Q Vacant Govt.: Parking Lot Vacant Govt.: Land Vacant Govt.: Federal Q Vacant Govt.: State The Geography of Affordable Housing Opportunity Geographically targeting the City's future affordable housing development efforts will be crucial to its success. The conclusion from decades of affordable housing investment and development experience across the US is that geographically concentrating affordable housing investment 1) creates the highest level of impact, and leverages public dollars by generating spin-off investment and development resulting from improved housing, 2) insures greater project success, as an increasing density of improved housing conditions improves market conditions for successive projects, 3) is the only way to truly transform neighborhoods, and 4) is the best defense against large-scale gentrification and displacement. Selecting the geographic targets for future affordable housing preservation and development balances need with opportunity. Clearly, the City's greatest need is to rapidly increase its supply of multi -family rental units, balanced with creating opportunities for access to home -ownership. Both needs will require redevelopment and improvement, preservation, and development of new housing units. Taking into consideration the City's demand, supply, and policy framework, the factors considers to develop a short list of priority neighborhoods for affordable housing development efforts include: ■ Need, most specifically neighborhoods where incomes are lowest, cost burden is highest, and the threat of gentrification and displacement is highest; ■ Properties and neighborhoods both suitable for, and already zoned for residential development, especially high-density development zoning with density and parking bonuses available under the City's zoning code; ■ The availability of low-cost land, both with structures and vacant parcels. Specifically, neighborhoods where the inventory of available affordable housing units, and economically underperforming properties is highest, and coincides with need; ■ Proximity to existing County public housing projects targeted for redevelopment and expansion under the Federal Rental Assistance (RAD) program; ■ Proximity to existing and planned public transit, ideally within 'h mile of existing and future transit corridors; ■ The availability of larger vacant property parcels suitable for the development of affordable multi -family developments; and ■ Neighborhoods either already in economic development zones that include financial and development incentives, including Federal Opportunity Zones, and Census tracts qualified for the use of Federal and State tax credits, including New Markets Tax Credits. 62 D/O