HOUSING FOR ALL TOOLKIT - JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS AND MUNICIPALITIES DRAFT - JUNE 2021 - United Community Services of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
HOUSING FOR ALL TOOLKIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
AND MUNICIPALITIES
DRAFT - JUNE 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
04 Acknowledgments
07 Executive Summary
08 Johnson County Housing Study Process
Overview
09 Housing for All Task Force Process Overview
10 Understanding the Problem
12 History of Residential Segregation
16 Barriers
18 Vision Statement
19 How Will We Measure Success?
20 Overall Approach
22 Housing for All
23 Community for All Ages
24 Overall Countywide Strategy for
Implementation
25 Goals
26 GOAL 01
Preserve and rehabilitate existing
housing stock
30 GOAL 02
Reduce overall household expenses so
housing is more affordable
38 GOAL 03
Increase the variety of housing product
types, especially middle density
46 GOAL 04
Incentivize production of affordable and
attainable housing stock by sharing risk,
reducing gaps in the private market,
and funding housing
64 GOAL 05
Build affordable and attainable housing
advocacy
68 How to Talk About Housing in Your
Community (Pro Tips)
Acknowledgments
This Housing for All Toolkit was produced by the United Nolan Sunderman – City Manager, Shawnee
Community Services of Johnson County, in partnership Maury Thompson – Deputy County Manager,
with Johnson County Government and the municipalities Johnson County
within the County, through grant support from the Health
Forward Foundation, Kansas Health Foundation, REACH Health Equity Network Members
Healthcare Foundation, and Evergy. * Indicates former members of the HEN
United Community Services of Johnson County is a catalyst Barbara Bollier* -- Kansas Senate
and resource for Johnson County and the municipalities
within the County, providing research and data on issues Brian Brown* -- IPC Healthcare, Inc. (Team Health)
that impact the health and well-being of Johnson County Carol Cartmill -- Church of the Resurrection
residents.
Irene Caudillo -- El Centro
This process involved extensive collaboration with
Tim DeWeese* -- Johnson County Mental Health
partners and community members across the County. The
Center
project team would like to thank each and every person
who dedicated their time, expertise, and resources to Dawn Downes -- REACH Healthcare Foundation
this important community effort. With their input and Amy Falk -- Health Partnership Clinic
direction, the Housing for All Toolkit is a direct reflection
Chris Engel -- City of Merriam
of the cities and County and it is with their support, the
strategies within will be implemented. Kathryn Evans* -- United Community Services of
Johnson County
United Community Services of Johnson
Megan Foreman -- Johnson County Dept. of Health
County
and Environment
Julie Brewer – Executive Director
Lindsay Hicks -- Habitat KC
Kristy Baughman – Director of Education and
Audrey Hill* -- Saint Luke’s Health System
Planning
Henry Hodes* -- Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Kathryn Evans – Manager of Special Projects
Kansas City
Cathy Goodwin – Administrative Coordinator
Elizabeth Holzschuh -- Johnson County Dept. of
Health and Environment
Technical Committee Members
Michelle Hogerty -- United Way of Greater Kansas
Mike Brungardt – City Administrator, De Soto
City
Brandi Davis -- Local Government Services Intern,
Darnell Hunt -- Johnson County NAACP
Mid-American Regional Council
Mary Lou Jaramillo -- Johnson County Latina
Chris Engel – City Administrator, Merriam
Leadership Network
Jay Leipzig - Director of Planning, Johnson County
Beth Johnson -- Overland Park Chamber of
Jack Messer – Director of Planning and Commerce
Development, Overland Park
Lougene Marsh* -- Johnson County Dept. of Health
Aimee Nassif – Chief Planning & Development and Environment
Officer, Olathe
John McKinney -- Shawnee Mission School District
Lauren Palmer - Assistant Community Development
Simon Messmer -- Aetna
Director/Local Government Services Director, Mid-
American Regional Council Judith Paulette -- City of Overland Park
Mayor Don Roberts – Edgerton Will Ruder -- Home Builders Association of Greater
KC
Mayor Paula Schwach – Westwood Hills
Amber Sellers* -- Johnson County Resident
Laura Smith – City Administrator, Mission
Kelly Selznick -- Johnson County Resident
Housing for All Toolkit
4
Peggy Shear-Martin -- Johnson County Mental Housing Study Project Team
Health Center
RDG Planning & Design - Housing Study
Susan Sherman -- City of Olathe
Amy Haase, Principal
Ken Southwick* -- Shawnee Mission School District
Charlie Cowell, Project Manager
Travis Smith* -- Johnson County AIMS
Maren Turner -- AARP
Teresa Kelly* -- Johnson County Resident
Housing for All Toolkit
5
Housing for All Task Force Members
Kate Allen Andy Graham Stacey Johnson- Terri Monrad Kevin Schutte
David Anderson Chris Gralapp Cosby Aimee Nassif Paula Schwach
Shauna Anderson Holly Grummert Geoff Jolley Mark Naster Darren Shafer
Chris Armer Justin Gust Jennifer Jones-Lacy Gary Nevius Ann Smith-Tate
Paul Atterberry Janee’ Hanzlick Lacey Kane Sandra Olivas- Judy Snyder
Ashley Barboza Dustin Hare Joe Karlin Talavera Sally Stanton
Bianca Beltran Pam Harris Deb Kaufman Lauren Palmer Jarrod Stewart
Karen Bergin Logan Heley Jason Keeler Mary Ann Pitnick Nolan Sunderman
Ashley Bieck Brian Henks Lisa Larson-Bunnell Josh Powers Mark Swails
Jon Birkel Leslie Herring Donna Lauffer Judy Rainwater Jason Swords
Stacy Boyajjan Tom Herzog Jay Leipzig Claire Reagan Ann Taylor
Cathy Boyer-Shesol Bob Hoffman Bonnie Limbird Gayle Reinsch Leticia Thompson
Brian Brown Jessica Hotaling Roxanne Kerr Courtney Reyes Manny Trillo
Lindsey Phil Rhoads
Mary Buche Darnell Hunt Dean Vakas
Lindsay Livingston Shakeena Richards
Cathy Burchett Terrie Huntington Melissa Vancrum
Adrienne Lund Aarion Rideaux
Carol Cartmill Stephanie Iser David Ward
Doug Luther Sara Ritter
Melissa Cheatham Jen Jackson Pama Weaver
Matt Mabe Jamie Roach
Phil Cook Mary Lou Jaramillo Magda
Claudia Martin- Sara Robbins Werkmeister
Stewart Curtwright Katie Jardieu Ayoade
Kim Donoway Emily Jeffrey Sharon Rodriquez Anna White
Jennifer McCabe
Jeff Ellis Melody Jerden Will Ruder Dave White
Scott McCullough
Jim Farnen Beth Johnson Barb Sack Dan Whitney
Kandy Meehan
Katy Forrest Kris Johnson Travis Schram Amanda Wilson
Jack Messer
Dan Foster Laurel Johnson Kelli Schutte Ullyses Wright
Jesse Mofle
Housing for All Task Force Project Team
Shockey Consulting - Housing for All Task Consensus KC - Facilitation Assistance
Force and Housing for All Toolkit Dan Cash, Facilitator Heidi Holliday, Facilitator
Sheila Shockey, Principal-in-Charge Brandi Fisher, Facilitator Rachel Hostetler, Facilitator
Erin Esposit, Project Manager Andrea Generaux, Facilitator Dina Newman, Facilitator
Billie Hufford, Facilitator
Maddie Hughes, Facilitator MARC – Facilitation Assistance Other – Facilitation Assistance
April Snay, Facilitator Brandi Davis, Facilitator Sara Taliaferro, Facilitator
Taylor Vande Velde, Facilitator Vanessa Vaughn West,
Tyler Waldorf, Facilitator Facilitator
Gabby Danback, Technical Producer Brian Brown, Guest Speaker
Ann Frame Hertzog, Recruitment
Thank you to members of the Technical Committee, Health Equity
Barb Sadler, Graphic Design Network, and Housing for All Task Force.
Housing for All Toolkit
6
Executive Summary
We all have an important role to play in achieving
our vision of safe, stable, and attainable housing
for all. The United Community Services of Johnson
County (UCS), in partnership with Johnson County
Government and the municipalities within the
County, facilitated a results-oriented, multi-sector
process to identify sustainable housing strategies
appropriate for each jurisdiction to ensure vibrant,
healthy communities now and into the future.
Housing affordability in Johnson County
is important for a number of reasons:
1. A sufficient supply of attainable and diverse
housing types is critical for robust local
economic growth.
2. Access to safe and stable housing is the
foundation for healthy communities and
the well-being of individuals and families
throughout the community.
3. Housing and transportation are inextricably
linked, and encouraging attainable housing
in locations connected to jobs, services,
and other amenities is a key element of
sustainable development and long-term
success.
Informed by a collaborative process involving a
Countywide Housing Study, a multi-sector Housing
for All Task Force, and extensive evidence-based
research, this Housing for All Toolkit equips local
communities with strategies for taking action
in their own jurisdictions. This serves as a go-to
resource for local governments, organizations,
service providers, developers, and residents to
learn about, take action, and contribute to housing
solutions in Johnson County.
Here you will find information on nearly 30
recommendations ranging from state legislation
to local planning and zoning, from funding
mechanisms to public-private partnerships and
beyond. This Toolkit serves as a menu of options.
Not all recommendations will be appropriate for
all community types, but the right combination and
application in your community will help shape the
future of housing in Johnson County.
Housing for All Toolkit
7
Johnson County Housing Study Process
Overview
The United Community Services of Johnson The coordination of all cities in Johnson County is
County (UCS), in partnership with Johnson County vital for addressing housing challenges in Johnson
Government and the municipalities within the County. All cities must be willing to participate in
County, conducted a housing market and needs realizing the full impact of new regional housing
assessment led by RDG Planning & Design. This strategies. Lastly, the strategies cannot be realized
resulted in the Johnson County Housing Study, an by cities alone. Extensive public and private
in-depth analysis of the current and future needs for partnerships are essential to leveraging all possible
affordable, workforce, and other housing options to resources and regional cooperation.
bridge gaps in housing demand and supply. Each
strategy in the study is included in the Housing for View the final Johnson County Housing Study
All Toolkit and is tied to a wealth of information that Report here.
forms a picture of Johnson County’s housing market.
Housing for All Toolkit
8
Housing for All Task Force Process
Overview
To move the Housing Study
outcomes into action, UCS
in partnership with Johnson
County Government and
the municipalities within the
County, conducted a multi-
sector, countywide Housing
for All Task Force organized
and facilitated by Shockey
Consulting. The Housing for
All Task Force’s goal is to
shape the future of housing by
creating strategies to achieve
the community’s vision of
safe, stable, and attainable
housing for all. This process
brought together 117 Johnson County residents and Housing for All Task Force members were
stakeholders who represent diverse backgrounds encouraged to explore evidence-based research
and unique perspectives, including residents, and housing resources on EnRICHLY, an educational
educators, employers, developers, homebuilders, social learning platform. Through this network, Task
health care providers, social service providers, and Force members engaged in relevant resources and
community leaders. The Housing for All Task Force participated in discussions to inform the decision-
met in four two-hour workshops over the course of making process.
two months to collectively determine how to meet
our future housing needs and develop a housing
View the EnRICHLY Housing Equity Learning
strategy based on the findings from the Johnson
Network here.
County Housing Study.
In order to achieve a vision where everyone has
opportunity and access to safe, stable, and attainable Conversations with the Task Force directly shaped
housing, we first needed to understand the barriers. the Housing for All Toolkit. The Housing for All Task
This process involved deep discussions around the Force discussed existing strategies, made additional
barriers to housing in Johnson County, including recommendations, and determined their level of
market realities, community opposition to multi- impact and feasibility in their community. Each
family housing, and socio-economic challenges. strategy included in this Toolkit is supported by the
An important component of this work involved a Housing for All Task Force.
racial equity and inclusion training for all Task Force
members to establish shared terminology, present
historic and current data for context, and discuss
and learn from the County’s history of residential
segregation. Equipped with this knowledge, Task
Force members engaged in meaningful discussions
to identify the obstacles to homeownership and
formed equitable solutions to achieve our vision.
Housing for All Toolkit
9
Understanding the Problem
Access to attainable housing has been a growing concern across
the nation for decades. A 2020 report by the National Low Income Attainable Housing
Housing Coalition found that minimum wage workers cannot afford Attainable housing is not the
a two-bedroom rental in the nation and one-bedroom rentals are not same as affordable housing or
attainable in 95% of counties. Multiple factors contribute to the lack of subsidized housing. Attainable
attainable housing including historic and current policies and wages housing refers to market
not keeping pace with costs of housing. The median contract rent for rate housing for-sale that is
Johnson County in 2018 was $884, requiring an income over $17 per unsubsidized, profitable and
hour for a unit to be affordable to renters. That number climbs for those meet the needs of those with
wishing to purchase a home in Johnson County with a median house incomes between 80% and
value of $277,300 in 2018 without consideration for maintenance 120% of the Area Median
and other costs. Income. The price points for
Historically, housing policy has been fraught with racial and economic attainable housing vary by
disparities. The post-World War II economic boom brought a rise in metro area depending on the
housing development and suburban communities. Policies restricted Area Median Income, with FHA
ownership and led to discrimination in housing and the inability for Loan Limits typically hovering
people of color to build generational wealth. The impacts of policies around 115% of Area Median
like restrictive covenants, red-lining, and block busting still play a Income. Attainable Housing
significant role in limiting housing choices in communities across the is sometimes called workforce
country. Johnson County was not immune to discriminatory policy and housing because it is important
systemic racism played a role in the development of Johnson County. to have teachers, firefighters,
Although policies have changed, the “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) police officers and others who
perspective and lack of political will to address the issue continues to make up the workforce living
drive the lack of attainable housing in Johnson County perpetuating in the community.
racial and economic disparities today. Affordable Housing
During the same time, restrictive zoning laws led to an abundance Housing and Urban Development
of single-family homes and large multi-family apartment complexes (HUD), a federal agency,
resulting in a decrease of mixed density neighborhoods and Missing defines affordable housing as
Middle Housing types such as row housing, duplexes, and smaller housing that costs no more than
multi-family developments. The lack of housing types is often cited as 30% of a household’s monthly
a barrier to attainable housing and current restrictive zoning prevents income. That means rent and
developers from increasing the number of Missing Middle Housing utilities in an apartment or the
types. The lack of diverse housing types and segregated land uses monthly mortgage payment
drives younger people away from suburbs in search of affordable and housing expenses for a
options and walkable neighborhoods with diverse business types. homeowner should be less
Existing housing stock plays a key role in addressing housing than 30% of a household’s
attainability. Maintaining the quality of existing housing is vital to monthly income to be
preventing unhealthy, unsafe, and inadequate living conditions that considered affordable. In
can leave many who struggle to find affordable housing at risk. 2018, the estimated median
household income in Johnson
Existing housing is often incompatible with the needs of individuals with
County ranged from as low
disabilities and those wishing to remain in their homes as they age.
as $52,364 in De Soto to
Building code can make it difficult and expensive to upgrade existing
$250,000 in Mission Hills. The
homes to accommodate all ages and abilities. Often a rehabilitation
median household income for
project on an existing home requires extensive upgrades to meet current
the entire County is $86,746.
building code standards that can be costly to retrofit. Elderly individuals
Housing for All Toolkit
10wishing to downsize or needing to downsize due to focus on higher value developments as building
to maintenance costs and the ability to continue attainable units is not profitable.
upkeep are faced with increasing purchase prices, Furthermore, additional monthly expenses can
creating an economic disadvantage. As elderly impact an individual’s ability to attain housing.
populations remain in their current homes, the lack Johnson County job centers that are not near public
of existing home stock that may be more affordable transit force job seekers to incur the additional costs
than new construction is a challenge to find for first- of auto ownership with an average transportation
time home buyers. cost per household in Johnson County of almost
Additionally, new construction costs have made new $13,000 per year. Additionally, the need for an
homes unattainable for many in Johnson County. automobile can impact employer costs and have
Building costs have seen increases in the cost of been shown to increase turnover and attendance
materials, labor, land, municipal and utility fees, and versus employment options along transit corridors.
costs from construction remaining idle waiting for Childcare, utilities, student loans, and other
plan approvals, permitting, and inspections. These additional costs compound affordability and many
costs increase with the need to accommodate the lack are only one paycheck or emergency away from
of consistency in regulations across communities in losing housing.
Johnson County. Construction costs lead developers
Housing for All Toolkit
11History of Residential Segregation
At a glance
Johnson County, Kansas was originally a part of the Shawnee Indian reservation and in 1854 the
area was opened to white settlement and in 1854, the area was opened to white settlement and the
county was officially created a year later.
J.C. Nichols great influenced the formation of the Federal Housing Authority and pushed his
segregationist ideas, resulting in the use of redlining and blockbusting to maintain all-white
neighborhoods.
Throughout the Kansas City metropolitan region, the history of redlining is still visible when viewing
current populations by race as stark dividing lines remain.
Johnson County also struggles with attracting LGBTQ populations with significantly lower LGBTQ
populations compared to neighboring counties.
Johnson County, Kansas was originally a part of to 63,000 by 1950, and again almost doubled
the Shawnee Indian reservation and in 1854 the to 120,000 by 1960. Less than 1% of Johnson
area was opened to white settlement and the county County’s population in 1960 was non-white.
was officially created a year later. Over the next Many of the neighborhoods in Johnson County were
15 years the population of Johnson County would designed by developers to be all-white. Racially
grow to 13,000 residents. The population remained restrictive covenants were used to prevent non-white
relatively unchanged until the 1910s. Fueled by home buyers from settling in Johnson County. The
the construction of interurban railroads, suburban restrictive covenants were championed by J.C.
developments became attractive to residents Nichols and promoted across the country as “best
wishing to escape the industrialized areas of Kansas practices” for developing all-white communities and
City. Johnson County’s population increased to excluding primarily Black and Jewish populations
over 33,000 residents by 1940, almost doubled
Source: State Historical Society of Missouri
Housing for All Toolkit
12from purchasing of communities with loans being denied in areas
Systemic Racism a property and with higher racial minority populations.
system in which public homes in “upscale Johnson County also struggles with attracting
policies, institutional communities”. LGBTQ populations with significantly lower LGBTQ
practices, cultural J.C. Nichols greatly populations compared to neighboring counties.
representations, and influenced the Census data showing same sex unmarried population
other norms work formation of the percentages of total unmarried populations are half
in various, often Federal Housing of Jackson County’s population and Wyandotte
reinforcing ways to Authority (FHA) County’s population percentage is four times that of
perpetuate racial and pushed his Johnson County.
inequalities. (Also segregationist ideas
referred to as structural It is important to talk about and address past
resulting in the use and current impacts of systemic racism and the
or institutional racism).of redlining and lack of diversity in Johnson County to prevent
blockbusting to similar outcomes as new policies and programs
maintain all-white neighborhood developments are instituted. Johnson County wants to create
across the country and in Johnson County. an inclusive, welcoming community that does not
Although restrictive covenants have been ruled exclude anyone.
unenforceable, the effects of the covenants remain in
Johnson County today as racial minority populations
account for less than 15% of the total population.
Neighboring Jackson County, Missouri’s racial
minority population accounts for nearly 30% of the
overall population and racial minority populations
in Wyandotte County, Kansas are near 33% of the
total population.
Throughout the Kansas City metropolitan region, the
history of redlining is still visible when viewing current
populations by race as stark dividing lines remain.
Reports have shown that these policies continue
in many areas today with African Americans and
Latinos experiencing significantly higher rates of
being declined for mortgage loans and many
institutions only servicing predominantly white areas
Source
Historic Links:
Systemic Racism Explained
Johnson County Department
of Health & Environment
History, Housing & Health
Dividing Lines: A History of
Segregation in Kansas City
Source
Housing for All Toolkit
13History
5 EXAMPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN THE UNITED STATES
Enslavement in the U.S. Race and World War II
The impacts of slavery on race relations The heroic accounts of racial minorities in
remain today. Failures by federal and state WWII led to attempts to end centuries of
governments to officially acknowledge and segregation and racism in the military, but
apologize for the atrocities of slavery along with today the relationship between Nazism and
displays of confederate images and debates white supremacy are still prominent in American
over the iconizing of confederate leaders culture. Internment camps were used during
perpetuate division and influence policy today. WWII to imprison Japanese Americans due to
unfounded fears of espionage. Profiling based
Racism in Medicine on race continues today.
Racism in medicine has been well documented Racial Profiling
through U.S. history. Accounts of unethical
and harmful medical studies and procedures Racial profiling remains a significant issue in the
performed on minorities (without consent and U.S. today. Stop and Frisk and policies allowing
compensation) along with denial of services officers to ask for citizenship documentation
and treatment have been well documented and without cause continue across the U.S. today.
continue today. Denial of benefits for Black Unconscious biases impact decisions and
veterans, studies like the Tuskegee Institute actions from people every day. Incidents of
syphilis study, and race-norming in medical increased calls to police and escalations over
treatment most recently acknowledged by benign activities are common and often a result
the National Football League are just a few of conscious and unconscious racial profiling.
examples of racism in medicine.
Housing for All Toolkit
14…in Policing …by Retailers
Patterns of racial inequalities in policing and Incidents of “shopping while Black” have been
U.S. court systems have been well documented well documented and occur frequently. Reports
and continue to occur today. Traffic stops target of being followed throughout a retailer are
racial minorities at higher rates and data shows widespread and the frequency increases at
those stopped are more likely to be searched. stores with higher prices.
Racial minorities have higher arrest and
conviction rates along with receiving greater Race, Intolerance, and the Church
penalties. In recent years, religious organizations have
…in Education faced allegations and issued apologies
for historic and continued acts of racial
There is a noticeable gap in funding for discrimination. Churches in the U.S. remain
education when you compare communities largely racially segregated today because of the
of color to white communities. The funding continued discrimination that occurs. In addition
disparities overflow to extracurricular activities to issues identified in religious organizations,
also, leaving racial minorities with fewer religion is often used by businesses to deny
opportunities. Racial minorities are asked service to racial minorities and LGBTQ+
for identification at educational incidents to individuals. The belief that individuals have the
validate their presence at higher rates than right discriminate based on religious beliefs
fellow white students. increased from 8% in 2014 to 22% in 2019.
Housing for All Toolkit
15Barriers FINANCIAL RISK OVER TIME
Barriers Addressed in the Financial risk for developers is increased as projects
Housing for All Toolkit take longer to complete. Prolonged periods waiting
for approval of plans, permitting, inspections, and
ABILITY TO AGE IN PLACE
other regulatory requirements can increase the
Aging in place allows a person to continue to live in development costs and risks incurred by financing
their home and community and remain independent institutions and developers.
and safe, regardless of age, income, or ability.
KNOWLEDGE OF PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES
COMPETITIVE INVESTMENT BUYERS
Multiple programs are currently available to help
Homebuyers, especially first-time homebuyers, often with development costs and home ownership. Each
meet competition from investment buyers who make program comes with different requirements and the
full cash offers to flip or rent the property at a higher public may not be aware of what options are
price. available and how to navigate the programs.
COST OF HOUSING LACK OF DIVERSE HOUSING TYPES
When housing and transportation costs are Zoning in many communities combined with
combined, a threshold of less than 45% of the financial returns limit the type of new housing
household income should be spent on housing and constructed in communities to detached single family
transportation. When housing and transportation and large multi-family developments. This has
costs are combined, a threshold of less than 45% of created a lack of Missing Middle Housing types.
the household income should be spent on housing
LIMITED SUPPLY OF FIRST-TIME HOME BUYER OPTIONS
and transportation.
First-time home buyer options typically include
DEVELOPMENT COSTS smaller and existing housing. Increasing costs in new
Development costs encompass a large range of costs construction and fewer Missing Middle Housing
that developers incur to acquire land, meet options leads to individuals remaining in homes
government regulations and requirements, add leaving little existing stock available for first-time
required infrastructure, along with many other costs home buyers.
to develop.
Housing for All Toolkit
16MISINFORMATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA QUALITY OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Misinformation, often spread through social media, Existing housing stock may not be well maintained
can create opposition from residents when and in need of rehabilitation to make the housing
affordable housing projects are proposed. adequate for habitation. Many jurisdictions have
guidelines that address exterior housing quality, but
NOT IN MY BACKYARD (NIMBY-ISM) regulations are rare to ensure interiors are
NIMBY stands for “Not in My Backyard” and in the maintained.
context of housing, the abbreviation refers to
residents who broadly oppose new housing SYSTEMIC RACISM
construction, oftentimes multi-family housing, in their The history of Johnson County includes practices and
communities. The opposition to affordable or policies that restricted and continue to impact
attainable housing is usually based on fear, housing access for communities of color.
prejudice, and assumed characteristics of the
population that will be living in the development. REHABILITATION COSTS
Rehabilitation of existing properties can require
OVERALL COST OF LIVING developers to complete additional updates outside of
Expenses such as housing, transportation, utilities, the original scope of work, increasing the costs for
healthcare, food, childcare, and other basic rehabilitation.
expenses account for the overall cost of living.
Increasing costs of basic needs without comparable RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS
wage increases can decrease the amount of income Current zoning and community regulations can
available for housing or lead to forgoing basic prevent developers from building housing types that
needs in order to afford housing. may be more affordable to individuals.
POLITICAL WILL
The determination of a politician to act on an issue
to produce a desired outcome. Political will can be
impacted by many factors and impact how
attainable housing choices is addressed in a
community.
Housing for All Toolkit
17Vision Statement
To achieve SAFE, STABLE, and
ATTAINABLE housing for all who
want to live in Johnson County.
Housing for All Toolkit
18How Will We Measure Success?
Increase amount of housing units.
Increase housing choice (type of housing, price points,
and acceptance).
Reduce the number of households that are cost-
burdened due to housing.
Increase access to transit and employment.
Improve health outcomes.
Improve environmental outcomes.
Increase awareness, action, and partnerships. Increase
grassroots efforts/advocacy in support of this issue.
Increase dispersion of attainable and affordable
housing choices geographically throughout the
community.
Increase diversity and inclusion of residents in Johnson
County.
Increase investment from public, private, and non-profit
sources
Increase number of permits pulled for rehabilitation.
Housing for All Toolkit
19Overall Approach
The overall approach of the Johnson County Housing Loan Limits typically hovering around 115% of
for All Task Force work is to increase housing options Area Median Income. Attainable housing is not the
for all by removing barriers to quality, healthy same as affordable housing or subsidized housing.
housing. The phrase “FOR ALL” is intentional. Attainable Housing is sometimes called workforce
For All represents the desire to be inclusive of all housing because it is important to have teachers,
people regardless of race, ethnicity, age, gender, firefighters, police officers and others who make up
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, the workforce living in the community.
gender expression, disability, economic status, Affordable Housing
and other diverse backgrounds. United States Department of Housing and Urban
For All means increasing the total amount of Development (HUD) defines affordability as paying
housing available as a strategy to reduce overall no more than 30% of median household income
costs. When housing supply is low, the price per for housing. This affordability standard is not an
unit rises. When housing supply is high, the price underwriting standard, and it does not say that
per unit reduces. households are unable to pay more than that
For All reflects the need for a variety of housing amount, but it is a
products at various price points so that all people useful rule-of-thumb.
who work in Johnson County have more of an Households may
opportunity to live here as well. A variety of choose to pay more
housing products are needed to meet the needs to get the housing
of people who are at different stages of life and they need or want
accommodate the preferences of all generations. but, according to
HUD standards,
More supply is needed across all price points and they should have
housing types. The approach of the Housing for access to decent,
All Toolkit is targeted to specifically address the safe housing for
following housing solutions: no more than 30%
Attainable Housing of their household income. While the goal is to
keep housing costs at 30% of Median Household
Affordable Housing
Income, the “H+T Index” or cost of housing and
Subsidized Housing transportation should not go above 45% of income.
Anything more is a cost burden. Most cities in
Attainable Housing
Johnson County saw household incomes rise by a
Attainable housing refers to market rate housing lower percentage than home and rental costs in the
for-sale that is unsubsidized, profitable, and meets past decade. The most impacted are households
the needs of those with incomes between 80% making under $50,000 who rent. They have more
and 120% of the Area Median Income. The price difficulty finding affordable options than those that
points for attainable housing vary by metro area can purchase because of fewer options and rents
depending on the Area Median Income, with FHA increasing faster than incomes.
Homeowners paying Renters paying more
Median Mortgage more than 30% on Median Rent than 30% of income on
housing housing
$1,799 18% $1,109 39.6%
Housing for All Toolkit
20Can Afford Total for Housing +
Can Afford 30%
15% for Transportation Can
AMI Annual Salary for Housing
Transportation Afford Without Being
Monthly
Monthly Burdened
Bank Teller
30% $716 $358 $1,074
$28,632
Administrative Assistant
50% $1,109 $555 $1,664
$44,372
Food Services Manager
80% $1,730 $865 $2,595
$69,213
Civil Engineer
100% $2,063 $1,032 $3,095
$82,529
Actuarial
120% $2,602 $1,301 $3,903
$104,095
Source: Based on salary data from the 2017 Paycheck to Paycheck Database for the Kansas
City KC-MO region and the 2017 Johnson County median household income
Subsidized Housing
Many federal and state
housing funding programs
are tied to the 30%, 50%,
and 80% of the median
income for households of
different sizes. Examples
of eligibility for subsidized
housing, cost burdened, and
targeted income levels for
attainability. For a bank teller,
making about 30% AMI,
they could afford at most
a 1-bedroom apartment.
An administrative assistant
making 50% AMI could
afford up to a 2-bedroom
apartment. A food service
manager making 80% AMI
could afford any rental and
is the breaking point for
wages that would support
purchasing a home.
Housing for All Toolkit
21Housing for All
Housing demand is most often spurred by a change housing market. We are seeing the impacts already
in lifestyle such as marriage, divorce, change in as many seniors are moving out of Johnson County
employment, birth of a child, children moving out, to find housing options that better suit their needs.
or retirement, any of which can result in a choice to There is a substantial need for Universal Design,
simplify life with low-maintenance living and greater the process of creating housing products that are
disposable income. In Johnson County, a transition is accessible to people regardless of their age,
happening where many homeowners are aging and ability, or lifestyle. Universal Design suits everyone,
the population is turning over. Most of the current including those aging, those establishing roots,
population is either elderly or just putting roots young families, and empty nesters. It is important
down as young families. Nationally, the number of that a variety of housing be available at different
individuals moving into their retirement over the next price points and for all stages of life.
ten years will be at the highest rates in history. This
population shift will have a significant impact on the
Housing for All Toolkit
22Community for All Ages
The Communities for All Ages Recognition Program, The Housing Toolkit includes multiple
an initiative of KC Communities for All Ages and recommendations that will help address housing for
the First Suburbs Coalition, offers an incentive to all ages and specifically help increase housing
local cities and counties to become more welcoming options for aging populations. Throughout the
to residents of all ages and, in the process, more document recommendations that directly or indirectly
vibrant, healthy, and prosperous. Communities create solutions for Community for All Ages are
can work to achieve three progressive levels of identified with a icon.
recognition: Bronze (awareness), Silver (assessment)
or Gold (policy adoption). Participating communities
assess existing policies and actions in the areas of
public spaces and outdoor buildings; housing and
commercial development; transportation/mobility;
social inclusion, communication and participation;
civic participation and employment; and community
and health services. For information, visit the website.
Housing for All Toolkit
23Overall Countywide Strategy for
Implementation
Convene stakeholders to inventory resources, identify gaps,
STEP 1 and prioritize housing stock to be preserved, rehabilitated,
and built.
Review zoning, property maintenance, building codes and
STEP 2 ordinances.
STEP 3 Establish organized, informed housing advocates.
Target currently available resources to priority initiatives
STEP 4 and locations.
Create organizational and legal mechanisms to leverage
STEP 5 additional housing resources.
Leverage additional housing resources and allocate them to
STEP 6 fill targeted gaps and fund priority initiatives.
STEP 7 Measure outcomes. Adjust. Adopt.
Housing for All Toolkit
24Goals
01 Preserve and rehabilitate existing housing stock
02 Reduce overall household expenses so housing is more
affordable
03 Increase the variety of housing product types, especially
middle density
04
Incentivize production of affordable and
attainable housing stock by sharing risk, reducing gaps
in the private market, and funding housing
05 Build affordable and attainable housing advocacy
Housing for All Toolkit
25GOAL 01
The Johnson County Housing Study prioritizes
the need to maintain existing attainable
housing throughout the County. Houses in
good condition now are not guaranteed to be
Preserve and in good condition in the future. Many areas of
Johnson County are older and have increased
Rehabilitate Existing needs for regular property maintenance. This is
a heavy expense for some households. These
Housing Stock are areas to conserve and ensure homeowners
have the funds to upkeep the homes.
RECOMMENDATIONS OVERVIEW:
Encourage housing revitalization by reviewing codes and ordinances and by:
Evaluating existing housing preservation, property maintenance, health and safety
codes, and rehabilitation programs for effectiveness regularly, set new goals, and
1.A
reallocate funding if needed.
Create or modify a redevelopment code and/or variance process to encourage
residential reinvestment while still ensuring building safety.
1.B Assist with maintenance and repair costs to ensure safe housing.
Promote “Opportunity to Purchase” policies, which require owners to notify tenants
1.C of intent to sell and provide them (or an approved third party) an opportunity to
purchase.
Top recommendation as recommended by Housing Task Force
Community for All Ages, see page 23
Housing for All Toolkit
26RECOMMENDATION 1.A
Encourage housing revitalization by reviewing codes and ordinances and by:
Evaluating existing housing preservation, property maintenance, health
and safety codes, and rehabilitation programs for effectiveness regularly,
set new goals, and reallocate funding if needed.
Create or modify a redevelopment code and/or variance process to
encourage residential reinvestment while still ensuring building safety.
CONTEXT:
Evaluating existing programs is key to maintaining effective programs. When evaluating existing
programs, cities should set performance metrics to measure success, ensure sufficient allocation of
funds to programs, and evaluate elimination of ineffective funds or policies to reduce inefficiencies
in time and resources. Evaluating programs regularly can often be pushed aside for lack of priority
and simply evaluating programs without identified performance metrics does not have the impact
of implementing new innovative policies and actions.
Rehabilitating existing properties can trigger compliance with current building codes for the entire
residential structure. Requiring everything to be brought the current building code, especially
for large multi-family properties can be costly. By creating a redevelopment code to encourage
residential reinvestment, communities can still ensure building safety while reducing the cost burden
on the property owner. Reducing the cost burden on the property owner or developer will result in
more affordable housing options within the existing housing stock.
BARRIERS ADDRESSED:
Knowledge of programs and resources, quality of existing housing stock, rehabilitation costs,
restrictions and regulations
COMMUNITY TYPE:
GOAL 1: Preserve and rehabilitate existing housing stock
Countywide
IMPLEMENTATION LEAD:
Mid-America Regional Council convenes County and municipalities
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME:
1 - 3 years
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of municipalities that review codes and ordinances
Total dollars invested in housing renovation
CASE STUDIES:
There are many programs used in Johnson County cities today that can help rehabilitate existing
housing. The Housing Study provides guidance on the evaluation process along with the programs
that are currently available in Johnson County (pages 299 and 308 – 309). View Housing Related
Programs in Johnson County of the Johnson County Housing Study here.
A case study by the National Association of Home Builders compares the differences between
conventional building codes and rehab codes looking at a single-family house in Chester Township,
New Jersey. Read the study here.
Housing for All Toolkit
27RECOMMENDATION 1.B
Assist with maintenance and repair costs to ensure safe housing.
CONTEXT:
The goal of these programs is to allow homeowners who might not otherwise be able to afford
necessary repairs to maintain a safe and healthy living environment. Owners can use these funds
to bring a property up to code, tend to electricity or plumbing issues, repair the roof and floor,
or make upgrades that enhance the home’s energy efficiency or accessibility. Assistance with
maintenance costs can help prevent the displacement of low-income households who otherwise
may struggle to keep their home in livable condition. Aside from improving living conditions and
safety, maintaining homes also increases community appearance and property values. Programs
addressing these issues tend to aid in drastic scenarios or when buildings are in serious need
rather than addressing needs along the way to upkeep and maintain housing.
BARRIERS ADDRESSED:
Johnson County already has
Knowledge of programs and resources, quality of
two existing programs:
existing housing stock, rehabilitation costs
Johnson County Minor Home
Repair Program
COMMUNITY TYPE:
HOME Program
Countywide
Some Johnson County
IMPLEMENTATION LEAD: Municipalities have existing
programs:
County, municipalities
Lenexa – Exterior Grant
Reimbursement Program
GOAL 1: Preserve and rehabilitate existing housing stock
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME:
Merriam – Exterior Home
3 - 5 years
Improvement Grant
Mission – Mission Possible
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
(minor home repair)
Investment in housing rehabilitation
Olathe – Deferred Loan
Number of housing units rehabilitated Program
Olathe – Emergency Repair
CASE STUDIES: Program
Kansas City offers various home repair programs Prairie Village – Exterior
available to low- and moderate-income households. Grant Program
Learn more about the programs offered here. Roeland Park – Neighbors
Helping Neighbors Program
Housing for All Toolkit
28RECOMMENDATION 1.C
Promote “Opportunity to Purchase” policies, which require owners to notify
tenants of intent to sell and provide them (or an approved third party) an
opportunity to purchase
CONTEXT:
The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) provides tenants of single-family housing units or
qualified non-profits the opportunity to purchase a home before it goes on the market.
The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) offer tenants and qualified non-profits the first
right to purchase multi-family buildings For example, this program has a proven track record in
Washington DC of preventing displacement, preserving affordable housing, and advancing racial
equity by creating cooperative ownership opportunities. This can be enforced through a rental
property license.
While getting legislation to pass could be difficult, municipalities can pass policies which increase
the feasibility of the recommendation. This would address the trend of out-of-state investors buying
up homes for rental properties. Clear distinction between multi-family buildings and single-family
homes would need to be addressed in the policies, and another ramification is that classifications
of buildings are taxed differently.
BARRIERS ADDRESSED:
Competitive investment buyers, cost of housing, limited supply of first-time homebuyer options
COMMUNITY TYPE:
All
IMPLEMENTATION LEAD:
GOAL 1: Preserve and rehabilitate existing housing stock
Municipalities
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME:
3 - 5 years
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Number of housing units purchased by previous renters
CASE STUDIES:
COPA was created to prevent tenant displacement and promote the creation and preservation of
affordable rental housing. Check out how it’s working in San Francisco.
Washington D.C. was the first community to enact TOPA. Between 2002 and 2013, thousands
of low-income residents have been able to remain in almost 1,400 units preserved under the
program. Learn how the program has helped retain affordable housing here. You can also find
details on Washington D.C.’s program here.
Housing for All Toolkit
29The strict cost of a mortgage, rent,
GOAL 02 property taxes, and insurance are
not the only costs a household
bears. Transportation, childcare,
and property maintenance are
Reduce overall household other major expenses for Johnson
County residents. Addressing
expenses so housing is household expenses that impact
the overall cost of living is a
more affordable way to make housing in Johnson
County more attainable.
RECOMMENDATIONS OVERVIEW:
Reduce overall household expenses by locating housing near employment centers
with transportation options by providing incentives to developers in these locations.
2.A Work with Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to include projects for the
Transportation Improvement Plan that improve access to housing and jobs.
2.B Expand utility assistance program resources and reach.
Provide additional housing choice vouchers, allow for voucher portability between
2.C jurisdictions, and increase landlord education and awareness to promote voucher
acceptance.
Work with housing authorities to consider incentives for locating affordable housing
2.D developments, and of Replacement Housing Factor (RHF) Fund units near transit.
Encourage employers to offer a program to provide additional housing services and
2.E resources and reduced rent on market rate rental housing.
Support incentives and partnerships to address quality of life issues, including
2.F wrap-around services that create or provide access to health and wellness spaces
and activities.
Top recommendation as recommended by Housing Task Force
Community for All Ages, see page 23
Housing for All Toolkit
30RECOMMENDATION 2.A
Reduce overall household expenses by locating housing near employment
centers with transportation options by providing incentives to developers in
these locations. Work with Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to include
projects for the Transportation Improvement Plan that improve access to
housing and jobs.
CONTEXT:
Increasing access to transportation options other than single passenger cars gives opportunities for
households to spend less on mobility. For some households, these options are a necessity. There is
a large amount of land in Johnson County that is undeveloped along major transportation routes.
These are opportunities to increase density and bring public transportation to more areas.
The federal government standard defining affordable transportation costs is less than 15% of annual
income. An individual’s transportation costs can vary greatly across the country depending on
density, location of jobs and affordable housing, and mass transportation options. Transportation
costs more than 15% can greatly impact the ability to afford housing in communities. Cities
can prioritize and incentivize developers to provide attainable housing units near jobs and
transportation to help lessen the transportation barriers faced by lower-income households and
to make living in Johnson County more feasible for households with one or no personal vehicles.
Johnson County Transit is reviewing current transportation options in order to reprioritize resources
to support more transit options in Johnson County with a focus on transit that supports workforce
housing and improving transit access along employment corridors (Housing Study page 53, Place
of Work map).
GOAL 2: Reduce overall household expenses so housing is more affordable
BARRIERS ADDRESSED:
Cost of housing, lack of diverse housing types, limited supply of first-time home buyer options,
overall cost of living
COMMUNITY TYPE:
All
IMPLEMENTATION LEAD:
County, municipalities, KCATA
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME:
3 - 5 years
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Total number of attainable housing units within a 15-minute walk to an employment center or
a less than 10-minute walk to a transportation solution
Total transportation dollars leveraged from Federal funding sources to support affordable
housing Countywide
CASE STUDIES:
Developments near transit stops can help reduce overall costs for individuals by reducing/
eliminating the cost of single driver transportation options. The Housing Study identifies strategies
for affordable transit orientated developments.
Affordable housing is highly desired around transit and lower-income populations, employers of
lower-income populations, and patrons of those businesses benefit the most from transit access.
Learn more about incentivizing housing around transit locations here.
MARC conducts an environmental justice analysis when they update the Transportation Improvement
Plan. You can find the 2018-2022 TIP here.
Housing for All Toolkit
31RECOMMENDATION 2.B
Expand utility assistance program resources and reach.
CONTEXT:
The Housing for All Task Force identified the overall cost of living as a barrier to affordable
housing. By assisting low-income individuals and families with utility bill payments, people can
prioritize spending on rent, mortgage, or other household costs. The Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) assists eligible low-income households with their heating and cooling
energy costs, bill payment assistance, energy crisis assistance, weatherization, and energy-related
home repairs. Local utilities and non-profit organizations may provide additional assistance.
BARRIERS ADDRESSED:
Overall cost of living
COMMUNITY TYPE:
All
IMPLEMENTATION LEAD:
GOAL 2: Reduce overall household expenses so housing is more affordable
County, municipalities, non-profit, local utility companies
Some Johnson County
Municipalities have
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME: existing programs:
3 - 5 years Merriam - Franchise Fee
Rebate
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Mission – Community
Total dollars of assistance provided Rebate Program (Franchise
Fee/ Property Tax/Solid
Waste Utility Rebates)
CASE STUDIES:
Roeland Park – Property
Multiple programs can help reduce energy costs for Tax Rebate Program
individuals and families providing overall cost savings to
Johnson County – Senior
help make housing affordable. Learn about the different
Rebate Program
programs that are available in Kansas here.
Housing for All Toolkit
32RECOMMENDATION 2.C
Provide additional housing choice vouchers, allow for voucher portability
between jurisdictions, and increase landlord education and awareness to
promote voucher acceptance.
CONTEXT:
Housing vouchers can allow people who may otherwise not be able to live in a community the
ability to do so. Vouchers help to address those that are cost burdened paying more than 30% of
their income on housing, which allows them to live more comfortably and be able to better afford
other expenses such as childcare, utilities, or transportation. Housing vouchers can lead to red
flagging renters and misconceptions or stereotypes of those using vouchers and not all landlords
may accept vouchers.
In Johnson County, there are available vouchers but a lack of housing units that will accept vouchers.
Allowing for voucher portability between jurisdictions and increased landlord education to promote
voucher acceptance will help address this issue. As voucher use increases, it is important to ensure
the community meets increased demand for vouchers. This can be accomplished by approaching
and working with the Congressional Delegation to expand resources, working with the Kansas
Legislation to implement programs, and supplementing voucher programs with local resources.
GOAL 2: Reduce overall household expenses so housing is more affordable
BARRIERS ADDRESSED:
Cost of housing, knowledge of programs and resources, NIMBY-ism, overall cost of living
COMMUNITY TYPE:
All
IMPLEMENTATION LEAD:
County, non-profit
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME:
3 - 5 years
The Johnson County Housing
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Authority has a Section 8
Total dollars in housing vouchers used Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
Total units accepting vouchers Program.
Learn more here.
CASE STUDIES:
Housing Choice Vouchers can help families move to higher quality neighborhoods, improve
neighborhood socio-economic diversity, and reduce homelessness, family separations, and
exposure to crime. Learn more about the effectiveness of Housing Choice Voucher programs here.
Learn about the Housing Choice Vouchers Program here.
Housing for All Toolkit
33RECOMMENDATION 2.D
Work with housing authorities to consider incentives for locating affordable
housing developments, and of Replacement Housing Factor (RHF) Fund units
near transit.
CONTEXT:
Replacement Housing Factor Fund Grants are awarded to public housing agencies that have
removed housing units from inventory for the sole purpose of developing new public housing
units. All replacement units must be undertaken in accordance with public housing development
regulations, meaning there is an opportunity to incentivize, encourage, or require the development
of affordable housing units near transit. Additionally, there are a significant number of HUD-
assisted properties that are near transit. The preservation of these and other federally subsidized
housing units within walking distance of transit stations are an important element of a mixed-
income, transit-oriented housing strategy.
BARRIERS ADDRESSED:
Cost of housing, lack of diverse housing types, overall cost of living
COMMUNITY TYPE:
GOAL 2: Reduce overall household expenses so housing is more affordable
Large and mid-sized municipalities
IMPLEMENTATION LEAD:
County
IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME:
1 - 3 years
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Total units developed along major corridors served by transit stops
CASE STUDIES:
Learn about Replacement Housing Factor Funding here.
Housing for All Toolkit
34You can also read
