Baseline Housing Initiatives Report i January 23, 2023

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

ii January 23, 2023

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we’d like to thank Jotika Shetty and Jessica Gribben for their assistance and

oversight in this project. Their guidance, feedback, and assistance were invaluable as our team

were introduced to Richland County and its communities. They continuously pushed the project

in directions that will be crucial in informing the county’s housing efforts going forward.

We’d also like to thank members of the Housing Steering Committee for their review and guidance

on the project’s deliverables: Adrian Ackerman, Steve Andrews, Kelly Blankenship, Terry Carter,

Amy Hamrick, Alan Mitchell, Rebecca Owens, Duana Patton, Jodie Perry, Allie Watson, and Mike

Whisler.

Many others were invaluable in providing access to local data and troubleshooting any issues we

had with the data. We would especially like to thank Kara Russell at the Richland County Building

Department and Marc Milliron at the City of Mansfield Building Codes and Permit Department for

their help in securing permitting data. In addition, we’d like to thank Sherri Heyde, Amy Huff, and

Patrick Dropsey at the Richland County Auditor’s Office and Wendy Hunt at the Mansfield

Association of Realtors for their help in accessing local sales data. We’d also like to thank Jean

Taddie and David Gentile at the Richland County Regional Planning Commission for their help in

accessing transit and GIS data.

We’d also like to thank Duana Patton, Michelle Deskins, and Nicole Williams for graciously allowing

us to use their space at the Area Agency on Aging for our stakeholder meetings. We’d also like

to thank Allie Watson and Brady Groves at the Richland County Foundation for hosting our

strategy meetings.

Funding for this project was graciously provided by Richland County, the City of Mansfield, the

City

OF Ontario, the City of Shelby, the Village of Bellville, and the Village of Lexington

At Community Science, we’d like to thank Letia Brown and Kate Williams for their behind-the-

scenes project management oversight, Dillon Nguyen for his diligent notetaking and plan review,

and Gregory Mitchell for his assistance with mapping and creating the permitting dashboard.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

iii January 23, 2023

Finally, we extend our thanks to the dozens of stakeholders who participated in our three in-

person meetings and the strategy sessions and to the clients of the Mansfield Metropolitan

Housing Authority who shared their experiences seeking affordable housing in Richland County.

Their participation and feedback were crucial in crafting this document.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

iv January 23, 2023

Contents

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ii

Contents ...................................................................................................................... iv

Exhibits........................................................................................................................ vi

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... ix

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report .................................................................................... x

Housing Inventory Report .................................................................................................. xi

Market Analysis ............................................................................................................... xiii

Housing Needs Assessment ............................................................................................. xiv

Strategy Guide and Action Plan ......................................................................................... xv

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

Types of Housing Considered ............................................................................................. 2

Nodes .............................................................................................................................. 2

Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 1: Baseline Housing Initiatives Report ......................................................... 5

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6

Plan Review ...................................................................................................................... 9

Stakeholder Feedback ..................................................................................................... 11

Housing Services and Programs Offered ........................................................................... 18

Identifying Nodes ........................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 2: Housing Data Inventory ........................................................................... 25

Introduction and Methods ............................................................................................... 26

Population Projections ..................................................................................................... 29

Census Demographic Data ............................................................................................... 30

Census Housing Data ...................................................................................................... 36

Vacancy Data ................................................................................................................. 44

Subsidized Housing Units ................................................................................................. 45

Historic Housing Unit Counts ........................................................................................... 46

Mortgage, Home Sales, and Inventory Data ...................................................................... 48

Permitting Data .............................................................................................................. 52

Employment and Commuting Data ................................................................................... 54

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

v January 23, 2023

Static Maps ..................................................................................................................... 62

Chapter 3: Market Analysis ........................................................................................ 73

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 74

Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 74

Overall Real Estate Trends ............................................................................................... 75

Market Rate Housing ....................................................................................................... 83

Attainable Housing Analysis ............................................................................................. 92

Affordable Housing Analysis ............................................................................................. 95

Conclusions and Summary .............................................................................................. 102

Chapter 4: Richland County Housing Needs Assessment ........................................ 105

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 106

Tax Delinquencies and Demolitions ................................................................................. 106

Land Use and Zoning ..................................................................................................... 107

Projecting Housing Needs ............................................................................................... 109

Estimating Economic Development Impacts of Addressing Housing Needs ......................... 119

Identifying Housing Needs and Recommendations ........................................................... 122

Chapter 5: Strategy Guide and Action Plan ............................................................. 124

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 125

Funding and Capacity for Housing Development .............................................................. 126

Crafting Policies that Promote Housing Development........................................................ 137

Increasing the Availability of Affordable and Transitional Housing ..................................... 146

Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................. 153

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

vi January 23, 2023

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Summary of housing categories ............................................................................. 8

Exhibit 2: Responses to 'What is the Greatest Housing Need in Your Community?" ................. 16

Exhibit 3: Responses to "What do you see as the housing-related capacity that could be improved

in Richland County?" .......................................................................................................... 17

Exhibit 4: Analytic nodes for the Housing Needs Assessment ................................................ 24

Exhibit 5: Interpolation example.......................................................................................... 27

Exhibit 6: Example interpolation data .................................................................................. 27

Exhibit 7: Node interpolation by Census tract ....................................................................... 28

Exhibit 8: Richland County population projections ................................................................ 29

Exhibit 9: Racial composition by node .................................................................................. 30

Exhibit 10: Educational attainment by node ......................................................................... 31

Exhibit 11: Age by node ..................................................................................................... 32

Exhibit 12: Richland County population distribution .............................................................. 33

Exhibit 13: Poverty status ................................................................................................... 34

Exhibit 14: Population with a disability ................................................................................. 34

Exhibit 15: Population with a disability by type of disability ................................................... 35

Exhibit 16: Housing counts and tenure ................................................................................ 36

Exhibit 17: Units in structure ............................................................................................... 37

Exhibit 18: Size of housing unit ........................................................................................... 38

Exhibit 19: Year built .......................................................................................................... 38

Exhibit 20: Year residents moved into their housing unit ....................................................... 39

Exhibit 21: Contract rent ..................................................................................................... 39

Exhibit 22: Housing problems by node ................................................................................. 40

Exhibit 23: Gross rent as a percent of income ...................................................................... 41

Exhibit 24: Selected Monthly Homeownership Costs as a Percent of Household Income (SMOCAPI)

......................................................................................................................................... 41

Exhibit 25: Owner-occupied units by age ............................................................................. 42

Exhibit 26: Renter-occupied units by age ............................................................................. 42

Exhibit 27: Share of owner- and renter-occupied households with own children in housing unit

......................................................................................................................................... 43

Exhibit 28: Residential vacant units and vacancy rates.......................................................... 45

Exhibit 29: Subsidized units by node ................................................................................... 46

Exhibit 30: Historic housing unit counts by node .................................................................. 47

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

vii January 23, 2023

Exhibit 31: Historic housing counts for Mansfield, rural, and urban townships ........................ 47

Exhibit 32: Historic housing counts for Bellville, Lexington, Ontario, and Shelby ..................... 48

Exhibit 33: Relevant HMDA data .......................................................................................... 48

Exhibit 34: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) for Mansfield and peer MSAs ............................. 50

Exhibit 35: Housing inventories for Mansfield and peer MSAs ................................................ 51

Exhibit 36: Richland County single-family permits ................................................................. 52

Exhibit 37: City of Mansfield new home construction permits ................................................ 53

Exhibit 38: City of Mansfield demolition data ........................................................................ 53

Exhibit 39: Richland County residents commuting to work (commute out) ............................. 55

Exhibit 40: Where workers in Richland County reside (commute in) ...................................... 55

Exhibit 41: Home area profile: age ...................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 42: Home area profile: earnings ............................................................................... 57

Exhibit 43: Home area profile: educational attainment .......................................................... 57

Exhibit 44: Home area profile: industry ................................................................................ 58

Exhibit 45: Work area profile: age ....................................................................................... 59

Exhibit 46: Work area profile: earnings ................................................................................ 59

Exhibit 47: Work area profile: educational attainment ........................................................... 60

Exhibit 48: Work area profile: industry ................................................................................. 61

Exhibit 57: Predominant racial/ethnic group by Census tract (map) ....................................... 62

Exhibit 52: Percent of population with a Bachelor's degree (map) ......................................... 63

Exhibit 49: Percent of population age 65 and older (map) ..................................................... 64

Exhibit 56: Poverty rate and tracts of concentrated poverty (map) ........................................ 65

Exhibit 51: Percent of population with a disability (map) ....................................................... 66

Exhibit 54: Homeownership rate (map) ............................................................................... 67

Exhibit 58: Percent of housing units that are single-family detached homes (map) ................. 68

Exhibit 55: Density of mobile homes by Census tract (map) .................................................. 69

Exhibit 59: Predominant year built of housing units by Census tract (map) ............................ 70

Exhibit 50: Median contract rent (map) ............................................................................... 71

Exhibit 53: Percent of renter households paying over 30% of their income toward rent and utilities

(map) ................................................................................................................................ 72

Exhibit 60: Single-family permits by node (Richland County) ................................................. 76

Exhibit 61: Single-family permits by jurisdiction, 2012–2021 ................................................. 77

Exhibit 62: Two- and three-family permits by node (Richland County) ................................... 78

Exhibit 63: Richland County multifamily permits by node, 2002–2021 .................................... 78

Exhibit 64: City of Mansfield new home construction permits ................................................ 79

Exhibit 65: Richland County housing units sold, January 2017–July 2022 ............................... 80

Exhibit 66: Average sales price, January 2017–July 2022 ...................................................... 81

Exhibit 67: Total sales volume, January 2017–July 2022 ....................................................... 81

Exhibit 68: New listings and for-sale inventory, January 2018–July 2022: .............................. 82

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

viii January 23, 2023

Exhibit 69: Median days from listing to pending ................................................................... 83

Exhibit 70: Richland County sales prices by tiers .................................................................. 84

Exhibit 71: Year-over-year price change, home sales by market tier, January 2013–July 2022 85

Exhibit 72: Home sales by bedroom size, January 2000–July 2022 ........................................ 86

Exhibit 73: Average condo price, January 2000–July 2022 .................................................... 87

Exhibit 74: Richland County contract rents, 2015 and 2019 ................................................... 94

Exhibit 75: Federally subsidized housing inventory by node .................................................. 97

Exhibit 76: Assisted units by targeted population ................................................................. 97

Exhibit 77: Gross rent as a percent of household income for renters in Richland County, by node

......................................................................................................................................... 99

Exhibit 78: Clients served at Harmony House, 2021 and 2022. ............................................. 100

Exhibit 79: Clients served at Harmony House by age range, 2021 and 2022 ......................... 100

Exhibit 80: Changes in Richland County homeowners and renters by age ............................. 111

Exhibit 81: Changes in Richland County homeowners and renters by age cohort ................... 112

Exhibit 82: Richland County housing needs projections, 2032 .............................................. 112

Exhibit 83: Projected rental housing supply by rent, 2032 .................................................... 115

Exhibit 84: Projected owner-occupied housing supply by mortgage costs, 2032 .................... 116

Exhibit 85: Estimates of income and household size for renter households in Richland County,

2032 ................................................................................................................................ 116

Exhibit 86: Estimates of income and household size for owner households, 2032 .................. 116

Exhibit 87: Projecting Richland County affordable housing needs for renter households, 2032118

Exhibit 88: Projecting Richland County affordable housing needs for owner households, 2032

........................................................................................................................................ 119

Exhibit 89: Economic impact of building 100 new single-family homes .................................. 121

Exhibit 90: Economic impact of building 100 rental apartments ............................................ 121

Exhibit 91: Economic impact of spending $1 million in home remodeling .............................. 122

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

ix January 23, 2023

Executive Summary

This Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan is the product of over 10

months of data analysis and community conversations regarding the Richland County housing

market and how it can be strengthened going forward. Drawing on public and secondary data,

interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, and market research, it presents a comprehensive

picture of Richland County’s current housing market, identifies housing needs and opportunities

for housing development, and presents strategies for the county to pursue to strengthen its

housing market.

The document contains five chapters. These include…

• The

Baseline Housing Inventory Report provides a review of housing plans, programs,

stakeholders, and collaborations in Richland County. It also analyzes housing services

available to Richland County residents while identifying areas where service provision could

be improved through collaboration or technical assistance.

• The

Housing Data Inventory Report presents a housing data inventory for Richland County.

Using a node-based interpolation method, it presents Census and other data for each of the

analysis nodes in the county.

• The

Market Analysis includes information on permitting activity and the county’s real estate

market, including analysis of home sales within each node. It also identifies opportunities for

market-rate, attainable, and affordable housing development.

• The

Housing Needs Assessment analyzes land use and zoning across the county, and

project’s the county’s housing needs in terms of owner-occupied, rental, and affordable units

through 2032. It also includes an analysis of the economic impacts of developing housing as

well as identifying the top three housing needs for the county going forward.

• Finally, the

Strategy Guide and Action Plan identifies eight strategies that Richland County

stakeholders can pursue to strengthen the county’s development capacity, streamlining

zoning and permitting processes in the county to promote housing development (especially

of attainable housing), and expand the number of housing opportunities available for low-

income and vulnerable populations. For each strategy, the chapter both identifies key action

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

x January 23, 2023

steps for the county to pursue and presents examples that other communities have developed

in pursuing similar strategies.

Two aspects of this report make it especially unique relative to other county-wide housing market

analysis. The first is that we’ve divided the analysis into three broad market segments: market-

rate, attainable, and affordable. To summarize:

•

Affordable housing comprises housing for households earning below 80 percent of the Area

Media Income (AMI). For 2022 is $41,550 for a single-person household and $59,300 for a

family of four in Richland County. While not all households earning below those amounts

reside in subsidized housing, 80% of AMI is typically the limit for most subsidized housing

programs. Within this category, HUD has developed several additional housing categories,

including ‘Extremely low-income’ (below 30% of AMI), ‘Very low-income’ (below 50% of AMI),

and Low-income (below 80% of AMI).

•

Attainable housing comprises housing for households earning between 80–120 percent of

Area Median Income. Per HUD’s 2022 income limits, this comprises single person households

earning between $41,550–$62,280 a year and four-person households earning between

$59,300–$88,920 a year. Households in this income category earn too much to qualify for

federal rental assistance, and they are often in the market for ‘starter’ or entry-level homes.

•

Market-rate housing comprises housing for households earning above 120 percent of area

median income, or over $62,280 for a single-person household or $88,920 for a family of four.

Households in this income category are seeking a higher-end housing product with amenities

like more square footage, a larger yard, pool, finished basement, or other comforts. The

majority of households seeking market-rate housing have two incomes.

The second unique aspect of this project is that it divides Richland County into seven analysis

nodes: Bellville, Lexington, Mansfield, Ontario, Shelby, and the urban

and rural

townships.

Where available and appropriate, we’ve divided the analysis in this report by nodes.

Key findings identified in this report, organized by chapter, include the following.

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report

A SWOT Analysis of Richland County’s housing market shows both incredible pride in the

community and many emerging opportunities for housing development. Drawing on a

series of focus groups with local stakeholders, the Community Science team identified several

These include Madison, Mifflin, Springfield, and Washington Townships

Bellville, Bloominggrove, Butler, Cass, Franklin, Jackson, Monroe, Perry, Plymouth, Sandusky, Sharon,

Troy, Weller, and Worthington Townships

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

xi January 23, 2023

strengths and opportunities in Richland County’s housing market. Strengths included incredible

pride in the community among stakeholders and the diversity of the different communities across

Richland County. Both recent investments in the county and the recent reversal of its decades-

long population decline also have contributed to a sense of momentum, which fuels opportunities

for housing development. Other opportunities for housing development residential development

to capture commuters to the Intel facility currently under construction in Licking County, as well

as the large amount of vacant land in Mansfield’s inner-city neighborhoods that is available for

development.

Analysis of housing services offered shows that most services are available in Richland

County, and that there are few redundancies in service delivery. As noted by one

stakeholder, Richland County has “everything you need, but nothing more.” Nevertheless, the

analysis of current housing services noted two gaps in service delivery: transportation assistance

and housing assistance for low- to moderate-income households (e.g., those who earn too much

to qualify for certain programs but who still face significant housing needs). This latter group

comprises many older households who reside in older homes in the county with significant

maintenance needs. The services analysis also identified two redundancies in service delivery, in

rental assistance and utility assistance. However, those redundancies largely seem to be a product

of agencies utilizing different funding sources, though the report calls for greater collaboration in

delivering those services.

A lack of housing development capacity in the county fuels the weaknesses to the county’s

housing market as well as the county’s pressing technical assistance needs. Focus group

participants identified the county’s lack of development, construction, architecture, and contractor

expertise as the greatest weakness in the county’s housing market. At the affordable housing

level, the lack of a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) was also identified as

a key weakness to developing affordable housing, and for attainable housing, the lack of expertise

in rehabilitating older housing was also cited as such. For these reasons, the two primary technical

assistance needs identified for the county included (i) affordable housing financing and

development and (ii) development, contracting, and architecture services.

Housing Inventory Report

In terms of demographics, Richland County has a rapidly aging population that has

important impacts on housing development. Per recent Census data, 20 percent of the

county’s population are currently seniors, and another 14 percent are near seniors (age 55–64).

In the next 10 years, the county will need to expand the number of senior-friendly units available

so that these residents can age in place, such as condos or senior-only communities. Aging in

place may also require an expansion of home modification efforts, especially for seniors living in

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

xii January 23, 2023

the county’s older housing stock (which tends to not be accessible, with stairs and often only one

bathroom on the second floor).

Census data confirm that Richland County has an older housing stock, and that very few

units have been constructed within the last 20 years. About 20 percent of the county’s

housing units were built before 1939, and another 55 percent were constructed between 1940–

1979. Certain nodes, though, have a much older housing stock—in Shelby, for instance, nearly a

third of housing units were built before 1939, and the comparable figure in Mansfield is 25

percent. In site visits to the county and in conversations with stakeholders, many of these older

homes have not been substantially rehabbed, and many pose safety risks to their occupants (e.g.,

knob and tube wiring, asbestos, lead paint).

Relatedly, only about 9.5 percent of the county’s housing stock has been built in the last 20 years,

and very few units (well under 1,000) have been built in the past 10 years. This lack of new

construction has negative impacts on local development capacity (as people leave for ‘hotter’

housing markets), the tax base (as wealthier households desiring new housing locate to other

communities), and economic development activity (as companies looking to locate to the county

get the sense that the county is not growing or developing).

Richland County contains a large stock of mobile homes, which has unique impacts on the

county’s housing market. Per Census data, there are over 2,000 mobile homes in Richland

County. In several of the nodes—especially the urban and rural townships—mobile homes

comprise over 5 percent of their housing stocks, respectively. On the one hand, they are a

valuable source of affordable housing, and their residents typically appreciate the independence

that comes from owning the unit that one lives in. On the other hand, mobile homeowners are

vulnerable to changes in park ownership, as moving their homes entails a substantial cost (in the

thousands of dollars) that many cannot afford. Mobile homes, especially older ones, are also more

vulnerable to destruction due to fires or tornadoes.

Despite the low cost of rental housing in Richland County, many of the county’s renters

are cost burdened. While most rental opportunities in the county have contract rents under $700

a month (which is well below national figures), at least 40 percent of renters in each node (except

for Bellville) are cost-burdened—meaning they spend over 30 percent of their income toward rent

and utilities. Additionally, over one-in-five renters in the county spend over 50 percent of their

income toward rent and utilities. Looking across the nodes, both Mansfield and Shelby have the

highest rates of cost-burdened renters. These high rates of cost-burdened renters suggests the

need for additional affordable housing in the county, as well as additional rent supports (such as

housing vouchers).

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

xiii January 23, 2023

Market Analysis

Permitting in the county declined dramatically during the Great Recession and has only

begun to recover, though it remains well below pre-2007 trends. From 2002–2007, there

were at least 100 permits filed in Richland County in every year,

and in several of those years

there were over 200 permits filed. However, since then, there have yet to be 100 permits filed in

any year in Richland County (excluding Mansfield). In recent years, though, the number of permits

filed has begun to approach 100, and it may exceed this figure in 2022 or 2023. In Mansfield,

permitting activity has increased in recent years, with 22 permits filed in 2020 and 20 filed in

2021 (compared to no more than 10 permits filed in any year from 2011–2019).

The majority of new permits filed in the last 10 years have been for single-family homes

in unincorporated parts of the county. Since 2012, nearly 60 percent of all new single family

permits have been filed in the rural townships, and an additional 22 percent have been filed in

the urban townships. In terms of multifamily permitting in the last 10 years, nearly all of these

permits have been filed in Ontario, and the maximum number filed in any given year since 2016

is 13 permits (in 2018).

Richland County’s market trends suggest a tight housing market that is pushing prices

higher. While units sold have been relatively flat the last five years (averaging about 125–150

homes sold every month), average prices have increased dramatically—from $100,000 in January

2017 to nearly $175,000 today. Given how little housing has been built in the county over that

period, this suggests dramatic appreciation of existing inventory. This is further confirmed by the

days-to-pending data—over the last 3.5 years, this has gone from a median of 30 days to a

median of less than 10 days.

While house prices have increased throughout the county, they have had different

impacts in the markets in each node. For lower-cost nodes like Mansfield and Shelby, the

proportion of houses selling for under $100,000 has decreased, though both nodes still appear

to contain many opportunities for attainable homeownership. For more expensive nodes like

Ontario and Lexington, the availability of attainable homeownership opportunities has almost

completely evaporated as sales prices now increasingly push into the $300,000+ range.

Richland County’s most pressing short- to mid-term housing needs include around the

development of attainable housing, housing for seniors, and affordable housing. Key

market gaps identified include:

Due to data limitations, we do not have permitting data for Mansfield before 2011, so the findings in

this paragraph all pertain to portions of the county outside of Mansfield. In addition, we do not have

permitting data for Bellville in any year.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

xiv January 23, 2023

• Development of new owners-occupied housing in the upper attainable and lower market-rate

categories (roughly the $150,000–$225,000 price range). Given current construction costs, it

is unfeasible to develop new, unsubsidized, stick-built (i.e., non-modular) single family home

construction at this price point. Thus, the county should prioritize the development of condos,

zero-lot line homes, townhomes, and small multifamily (duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes)

housing.

• Rehabilitation of older housing into affordable and attainable homeownership opportunities.

• New market-rate housing construction specifically targeted toward seniors.

• Market-rate rental housing with contemporary amenities.

• Affordable housing, especially units targeted those who are currently unhoused or at risk of

becoming unhoused.

Housing Needs Assessment

Note: In addition to this report, we have produced a

Housing Needs Assessment for each of the

seven nodes.

Overall, zoning in Richland County is complicated, and makes the development of

attainable housing difficult. Nearly every jurisdiction in the county has its own zoning code (the

exception being some of the rural townships), and each code has its own mix of districts with

their own by-right and conditional uses, parameters (setbacks and minimum lot sizes), and

restrictions. Furthermore, the zoning map of nearly every node is heavily weighted toward R1

(single family only) zones, making attainable housing development challenging. Also making

attainable housing development challenging is that the county’s zoning codes require relatively

large lots, even for higher-density residential uses, and are very restrictive on multifamily housing

development. As we note in the report, jurisdictions in the county may consider adopting Shelby’s

small lot R1A and R2A zoning districts to promote the development of attainable housing.

Based on trends in the past 10 years, we project that Richland County will need to add

2,475 owner-occupied units and 3,364 renter-occupied units by 2032 to sustain its

growth.

Breaking down these housing needs by age group, growth in Richland County

households will be concentrated in two areas. The first will be senior households, and this is

where the majority of households growth in Richland County will occur. The second area of growth

is in younger adult households, commonly known as ‘Gen Z.’ The growth in these households

will primarily occur in the rental market, but there will also be some growth in the number of

homeowners in this age cohort as well.

In addition to constructing new units, the county will need to prioritize preventing older

units from becoming dilapidated and bringing currently vacant units back online. Based

on data from 2010–2021, we project that Richland County will lose approximately 1,700 housing

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

xv January 23, 2023

units to dilapidation by 2032. However, investing in a county-wide rehabilitation program could

prevent some of those units from exiting the housing stock. In addition, the US Postal Service

currently estimates that there are approximately 2,500 vacant units in Richland County. Returning

half of those units to a habitable state would address nearly 20 percent of the county’s housing

needs in the next 10 years.

We project that Richland County will need approximately 2,700 additional affordable

rental units by 2032, though the county will also have a surplus of affordable owner-

occupied units at that time.

Using HUD data, we project that a plurality of those affordable

units will need to be one-bedroom (1,255 units), with additional 3+ bedroom (969) and 2-

bedroom (463) units needed. All of these units will need to be affordable to households earning

less than $20,000 annually. However, by 2032, we project that the county will have a surplus of

over 5,000 deeply-affordable owner-occupied units (those affordable to those earning less than

$20,000). While many of these units likely require substantial rehabilitation work, this is a unique

opportunity for the county to move lower-income households into homeownership.

Meeting the county’s housing needs would have strong economic development impacts.

Using a formula developed by the National Association of Homebuilders, we estimate that

constructing 100 new single-family homes would contribute to nearly $28.7 million in the local

economy in the first year and will provide an additional $4 million in local income annually, in

addition to supporting 69 local jobs following construction. Similarly, developing 100 near rental

apartments would provide over $11.5 million in local income in the first year and over $2.5 million

in local income annually going forward.

Strategy Guide and Action Plan

Strategies related to improving funding and capacity for housing development center on

both developing local capacity and Richland County ‘on the radar’ of out-of-town

developers.

Specific strategies identified include promoting the county to outside developers

through a website and Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for specific sites; building the capacity of a

local organization to serve as a CHDO and identifying capacity to facilitate downtown housing

development and rehabilitation of distressed housing. We also recommend that county

stakeholders create and fund a ‘Housing Coordinator’ position to coordinate housing efforts both

within this topic and other topics.

Permitting and zoning reforms can promote housing development throughout the county,

especially the development of attainable housing. Stakeholders and developers have

consistently cited codes and permits as a barrier to new housing development in the county, and

aligning and streamlining permitting processes both within and across jurisdictions—such as by

creating a ‘one stop shop’—can ameliorate those challenges. Additionally, aligning and simplifying

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

xvi January 23, 2023

zoning both within and across jurisdictions can reduce some of the complexity associated with

development in the county, as developers must learn the ins and outs of each jurisdiction’s zoning

code. Finally, as noted in the housing needs assessments, the zoning maps and codes of each

jurisdiction are weighted toward single-family, large lot zoning. Adopting small lot zoning and

simplifying the rules for multifamily development can promote the development of attainable and

affordable housing.

To increase the availability of affordable and transitional housing, stakeholders should

prioritize opportunities for affordable homeownership and increasing housing for

vulnerable populations.

As noted in the Housing Needs Assessment, Richland County has a

surplus of affordable owner-occupied units, and local stakeholders can leverage that surplus to

create homeownership opportunities for low-income households. To do so, though, they will need

to expand the county’s capacity to rehabilitate those homes and to provide services and

homeownership education to low-income households, as many will be first-time buyers.

Expanding the number of units to vulnerable populations (such as the unhoused and those leaving

the justice system) will require investments in local service providers as well as innovative

partnerships between service providers and other groups (such as Metro Housing).

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

1 January 23, 2023

Introduction

This is an exciting time for the housing market in Richland County, Ohio. Through leadership,

creative partners, and new investments, the county is on a path to revitalization following decades

of job losses and declining population.

In partnership with the Housing Development Steering Committee, Community Science has

developed this

Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

to benchmark Richland County’s

current housing market, understand its current and project housing needs, and develop strategies

for county stakeholders to meet those needs in the coming year.

The plan is organized into five chapters. These include:

• The Baseline Housing Inventory Report provides a review of housing plans, programs,

stakeholders, and collaborations in Richland County. It also analyzes housing services

available to Richland County residents while identifying areas where service provision could

be improved through collaboration or technical assistance.

• The Housing Data Inventory Report presents a housing data inventory for Richland

County. Using a node-based interpolation method, it presents Census and other data for each

of the analysis nodes in the county. The chapter also includes a series of static maps showing

demographic and housing characteristics across the county’s Census tracts.

• The Market Analysis includes information on permitting activity and the county’s real estate

market, including analysis of home sales within each node. It also identifies opportunities for

market-rate, attainable, and affordable housing development.

• The Housing Needs Assessment analyzes land use and zoning across the county, and

project’s the county’s housing needs in terms of owner-occupied, rental, and affordable units

through 2032. It also includes an analysis of the economic impacts of developing housing as

well as identifying the top three housing needs for the county going forward.

• Finally, the Strategy Guide and Action Plan identifies eight strategies that Richland County

stakeholders can pursue to strengthen the county’s development capacity, streamlining

zoning and permitting processes in the county to promote housing development (especially

of attainable housing), and expand the number of housing opportunities available for low-

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

2 January 23, 2023

income and vulnerable populations. For each strategy, the chapter both identifies key action

steps for the county to pursue and presents examples that other communities have developed

in pursuing similar strategies.

Types of Housing Considered

Given the breadth of the housing market and the desire of community stakeholders for this report

to address the totality of Richland County’s housing market, the Community Science team divided

Richland County’s housing market into three segments: affordable, attainable, and market-rate.

These include:

•

Affordable housing comprises housing for households earning below 80 percent of the Area

Median Income (AMI). For 2022, the 80 percent AMI threshold was $41,550 for a single-

person household and $59,300 for a family of four in Richland County. Many households in

this range qualify for federally subsidized housing, though relatively few receive it.

•

Attainable housing comprises housing for households earning between 80–120 percent of

AMI. Using 2022 income limits, this single person households earning between $41,550–

$62,280 a year and four-person households earning between $59,300–$88,920 a year. These

households are typically interested in ‘starter’ or entry-level homes, and can generally afford

homes priced under $200,000.

•

Market-rate housing comprises housing for households earning above 120 percent of area

median income, or over $62,280 for a single-person household or $88,920 for a family of four.

Households seeking market-rate housing are typically seeking a higher-end housing product

and can generally afford houses priced over $200,000.

We provide greater detail on these types of housing, and the household types associated with

each, in Chapter 1.

Nodes

Another characteristic which makes this

Housing Needs Assessment

unique is that it not only

considers Richland County as a whole, but also analyzes housing market conditions in specific

‘nodes’ of Richland County. These nodes include the five largest municipalities in Richland County,

as well as two classifications for the remainder of the county (including its townships and relatively

small municipalities of Butler, Shiloh, and Plymouth). These nodes include:

• City of Mansfield

• City of Ontario

• City of Shelby

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

3 January 23, 2023

• Village of Lexington

• Village of Bellville

• Urban townships of Richland County (Madison, Mifflin, Springfield, and Washington)

• Rural townships of Richland County (Plymouth, Cass, Blooming Grove, Butler, Sharon,

Jackson, Franklin, Sandusky, Troy, Monroe, Perry, Bellville, Weller, Worthington)

We provide greater detail on these nodes, as well as a map, in Chapter 1.

Data Sources

In developing this document, the Community Science team has relied on the quantitative and

qualitative analysis of both primary and secondary data. Key data sources used include:

• Qualitative data

o Three focus groups, held in April and May 2022, with Richland County stakeholders

o Semi-structured interviews with approximately 40 stakeholders regarding Richland

County’s housing conditions

o Interviews with approximately five Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority clients

regarding their experiences seeking affordable housing

o Feedback gathered through three community meetings with Richland County housing

stakeholders (approximately 50 stakeholders in attendance at each meeting)

o Three strategy sessions (funding and capacity, development, and affordable and

transitional housing, respectively) with approximately 10 stakeholders attending each

session.

• Quantitative data

o American Community Survey demographic and housing estimates

o Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data

o Fannie Mae’s Housing Price Index

o Historic housing counts (HHUUD10)

o Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) mortgage data

o Ohio Housing Finance Agency’s USR (Urban-Suburban-Rural) indicators data

o Ohio Association of Realtors market sales data

o Richland County Auditor sales data

o Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics commuting and industry data

o HMIS (Homeless Management Information System) data

o Ohio Department of Development population projections

o Opportunity Insight’s Opportunity Atlas

o Permitting data from Richland County and the City of Mansfield

o Zillow Research housing data

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

4 January 23, 2023

These data sources are discussed in greater detail when utilized or analyzed throughout this

report.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

5 January 23, 2023

Chapter 1: Baseline Housing Initiatives Report

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

6 January 23, 2023

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report

Introduction

This Baseline Housing Initiatives Report

provides a review of housing plans, programs,

stakeholders, and collaborations in Richland County. It also analyzes housing services available

to Richland County residents while identifying areas where service provision could be improved

through collaboration or technical assistance.

Throughout this chapter and the broader

Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

, we’ll refer

to three specific types of housing: affordable, attainable, and market-rate. We have illustrated

these housing types in Exhibit 1.

To summarize:

Affordable housing comprises housing for households earning below 80 percent of the Area

Median Income (AMI). For 2022, the 80 percent AMI threshold was $41,550 for a single-person

household and $59,300 for a family of four in Richland County. While not all households earning

below those amounts reside in subsidized housing, 80% of AMI is typically the limit for most

subsidized housing programs. Within this category, HUD has developed several additional housing

categories, including ‘Extremely low-income’ (below 30% of AMI), ‘Very low-income’ (below 50%

of AMI), and ‘Low-income’ (below 80% of AMI).

The types of households seeking affordable housing are incredibly varied. At the lowest income

levels, they include households unable to work who rely solely on SSI disability income. These

also include households in food service and hospitality occupations who earn Ohio’s minimum

wage of $9.30 an hour or slightly above, and service-sector workers like those in office and

administrative support.

Attainable housing comprises housing for households earning between 80–120 percent of Area

Median Income. Per HUD’s 2022 income limits, this comprises single person households earning

between $41,550–$62,280 a year and four-person households earning between $59,300–$88,920

Occupation wage data in those tables are sourced from Indeed.com and from local hiring materials.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

7 January 23, 2023

a year. Households in this income category earn too much to qualify for federal rental assistance

and are often in the market for ‘starter’ or entry-level homes.

The types of households seeking attainable housing include a single person working in

transportation, law enforcement, or firefighting. They also includes dual-income households who,

individually, would be seeking ‘affordable’ housing but who together would be seeking attainable

housing (e.g., an administrative assistant and a food service manager).

Finally,

market-rate housing comprises housing for households earning above 120 percent of

area median income, or over $62,280 for a single-person household or $88,920 for a family of

four. Households in this income category are seeking a higher-end housing product with amenities

like more square footage, a larger yard, pool, finished basement, or other comforts. The majority

of households seeking market-rate housing have two incomes or a single high-paying job like in

the engineering field. These households also include managers at firms who have worked their

way into a higher-paying position.

The remainder of this report includes the following topics:

• The following section summarizes a review of existing housing and related plans for Richland

County. It includes a discussion identifying stakeholders, programs and initiatives, and

challenges and successes identified in those plans.

• Next, the report discusses stakeholder feedback from the focus groups and kick-off meeting

held in Ontario on April 29, 2022. The focus group analysis employs a SWOT (Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) framework to summarize feedback. The kick-off

meeting feedback presents summaries from responses to questions posed during the meeting

using the Mentimeter platform.

• The report then analyzes housing services and programs offered in the county. It presents a

summary of current services before analyzing those services in terms of (i) gaps in service

delivery, (ii) technical assistance needs, (iii) redundancies in services, and (iv) opportunities

for collaboration.

• Finally, the report concludes by identifying nodes for future analysis.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

8 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 1: Summary of housing categories

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

9 January 23, 2023

Plan Review

The first step in developing this report was to review various housing-related plans that have

been completed for Richland County and its municipalities. The goal of this review was to better

acquaint the Community Science team with stakeholders, programs and initiatives, challenges,

successes, and goals related to Richland County’s housing market. In addition to reviewing over

a dozen plans for Richland County, the Community Science team selected several plans for deeper

analysis. These include:

• City of Mansfield 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

• Richland County 2019 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

• Mansfield Rising Downtown Investment Plan 2019

• North End Community Improvement Corporation (NECIC) 2017 Economic Development Plan

• Mansfield West End Neighborhood Plan 2020

• Downtown Mansfield Housing Plan

• Lexington 2035 Comprehensive Plan

• City of Shelby Strategic Plan 2010–2030

• NECIC Senior Housing Development Feasibility Analysis (published April 2019)

Programs, Initiatives, and Opportunities

The plan analysis identified several programs, initiatives, and opportunities throughout the

county. These include:

• The Richland County Land Bank has acquired many blighted and vacant properties throughout

the county but especially in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Mansfield. This has

left many of these neighborhoods with a considerable amount of developable land. Local

stakeholders can take advantage of different funding streams to develop affordable and

attainable housing on those lots.

• Given the age of the county’s housing stock, many of the county’s homes (especially in

Mansfield, Shelby, and Bellville) are of a historic character and could appeal to younger,

‘millennial’ homebuyers who are interested in rehabbing them (if they have not been

maintained).

• In terms of development, several studies have identified types of development that are

economically feasible. For downtown Mansfield, there exists a market for small (11-unit)

market-rate apartments. Demand for these apartments would be fueled by the growth of

higher-income households in the community. In Ontario, creating a mixed-use town center

district near the OSU-Mansfield and North Central Community College area could facilitate

vibrant development.

• Richland County communities outside of Mansfield and Ontario also have a number of

amenities that can be leveraged to support additional housing development. Lexington’s parks

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

10 January 23, 2023

and recreation opportunities are an asset for the community to promote in securing additional

residential, commercial, and industrial development.

• The Mansfield Rising Initiative, in partnership with Downtown Mansfield, Inc. and other local

stakeholders, has successfully reinvigorated many of the commercial spaces in downtown

Mansfield. The Richland County Foundation has recently pledged money to help return the

spaces above downtown Mansfield’s storefronts to residential use.

Challenges

Analysis of these plans identified these cross-cutting challenges across Richland County. These

include:

• While recently reversed, the county experienced population loss for several decades and was

hit hard by the foreclosure crisis in the late 2000s. This has left the county with a large number

of abandoned homes. While the Land Bank and city governments have aggressively

demolished a large number of these abandoned homes, many still remain.

• Much of the county’s housing stock is quite old and, in addition to lacking modern amenities,

is also not accessible to elderly or disabled residents. This is especially a concern in the North

End of Mansfield, where many of the houses have obsolete systems, are in poor condition,

and have multiple stories (and thus not accessible to the elderly/disabled without

modifications). There are also concerns that many of these older properties suffer from lead

paint contamination.

• Overall, there are concerns about the quality of rental housing in Richland County, especially

in Mansfield. Many rental properties, while affordable, are in a significantly degraded condition

and contribute to a sense of blight in certain neighborhoods. Landlords for these properties

are often located out of state and are unwilling to engage in local planning efforts.

• Despite the county’s seemingly affordable housing stock, wages in the area are often not

enough for households to reside in the county without being cost-burdened. This results in

many households residing in sub-standard housing that, nevertheless, they can afford.

• Many of the smaller communities in the county struggle to attract commercial businesses to

their communities. These local businesses are crucial for improving livability and enticing

residential development.

• The topography of Richland County makes many lots undevelopable. Flooding is a concern in

many parts of the county, especially in Shelby. The topography also increases the price of

providing utilities, especially sewer lines, to undeveloped lots. This, when combined with the

relatively lower cost of housing in the county, makes housing development more difficult, as

developers are unable to recoup the cost of providing utilities by increasing the pricing of

housing. It also points to the need for innovative partnerships for providing utilities for new

developments.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

11 January 23, 2023

Stakeholder Feedback

In developing the

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report

, the Community Science team provided

three opportunities for community input. First, we held a series of three focus groups in mid-April

2022, with approximately 20 community stakeholders. Second, we hosted a kick-off meeting in

Ontario on April 29 that was attended by over 40 stakeholders. In addition to these opportunities

for community input, the Community Science team also conducted one-on-one interviews with

both stakeholders and service providers. Results from these interviews are summarized in the

following section.

Focus Groups

The Community Science team held three focus groups with local stakeholders in mid-April 2022.

Invitations to these focus groups were included in the invite to the kick-off meeting and interested

individuals could sign up to participate. In total, 17 individuals participated in these focus groups,

including representatives from

• Local government, including both elected officials and civil servants;

• Economic development;

• Real estate and property investing;

• Social service providers;

• Key local ‘anchor’ institutions.

We have summarized focus group feedback below using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,

Opportunities, and Threats) paradigm below.

Community Strengths

As expected, focus group participants expressed an incredible amount of pride about Richland

County. One described it as “amazingly livable,” while another noted that it has “everything you

need, but nothing more.” Participants were prideful not only of the community they called home,

but of the entire county as a whole. There was a palpable sense that the county had weathered

the storm of economic disinvestment and that brighter days are ahead.

Another strength of Richland County is the diversity of its communities, which was highlighted

across all focus groups. There are both extremely rural parts of the county, as well as quite urban

parts of Mansfield. The county also has several small towns which offer unique living

environments somewhere between rurality and urbanity. This diversity of communities,

particularly the presence of a larger city like Mansfield, sets Richland County apart from many of

its surrounding communities and is an asset to be leveraged.

Finally, there was a sense of positive momentum in the county resulting from both ongoing

investments and, for the first time in decades, increased population based on the most recent

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

12 January 23, 2023

Census. This positive momentum has changed the mindset of many stakeholders from being a

‘shrinking’ community to a ‘growing’ community.

Community Weaknesses

The greatest challenge identified across all three focus groups was the lack of housing supply

across the affordability spectrum—affordable, attainable, and market rate.

At the

affordable housing level, stakeholders identified that while a substantial number of units

exist (especially in Mansfield), many are lower quality and landlords are often unwilling to rent to

individuals with housing vouchers or with incomplete or negative rental histories. Demand for

these units is often high as well, allowing landlords to be ‘choosy’ with who they rent to. Many

property owners are not located in the area, making them unwilling to engage with local housing

efforts. Some participants noted that ‘tiny homes’ could be an attractive way to create new

affordable housing stock, but it appears that current zoning regulations preclude their

development.

Related to the lack of affordable housing supply is the county’s lack of a Community Housing

Development Organization, or CHDO,

though it has had them in the past (including the North

End Community Improvement Collaborative). Lacking a CHDO means that Richland County misses

out on a portion of the state’s HOME funds that are set aside to help CHDOs develop affordable

housing. High-capacity CHDOs can also serve as both (i) experts in affordable housing

development and navigating the guidelines needed to develop affordable housing; and (ii)

conveners of stakeholders to support high-quality affordable housing development (e.g.,

developers, contractors, government officials, service providers, etc.).

Another weakness related to affordable housing is the supply of deeply affordable, rapid

rehousing, supportive housing for those currently unhoused or at risk of becoming unhoused.

While the county has two shelter facilities (Harmony House and The DV Shelter) and the Mental

Health Board, Catalyst, and the Pediatric Development Center all either own or operate supportive

housing facilities, there is a general recognition that (i) the county lacks a sufficient number of

these units; and that (ii) better coordination between these agencies (in addition to other

stakeholders, like Metro Housing) is needed. There also appears to exist a need for additional

staffing, technical assistance, and capacity building among service providers for the unhoused in

the county (discussed in greater detail later in this report).

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

13 January 23, 2023

At the

attainable housing level, participants noted that current construction costs make

developing new housing product at this level virtually unfeasible without some type of subsidy.

Given the income restrictions on many different types of housing subsidy—as well as pressing

need to dedicate funding to create affordable housing—there are few opportunities to subsidize

this type of development.

One way to develop attainable housing would be to renovate the older housing stock in the county

into an attainably-priced housing product. Yet lead, asbestos, accessibility, and other issues

typical of older housing stock (e.g., knob and tube wiring) often make renovations financially

prohibitive, and many of the funds available for home renovations are limited to special

populations (e.g., the elderly and/or those with very low incomes).

At the

market rate housing level, lack of local development, construction, and contractor

expertise were cited at the greatest barrier to expanding the housing stock. Given the region’s

multi-decade period of population decline—and the county’s high rate of vacant housing following

the Great Recession—many developers and contractors left for faster-growing and more

expensive housing markets, including Columbus.

Beyond the lack of contractors and development expertise, another identified weakness for

market-rate housing development was the county’s lack of development-ready land. While

Richland County certainly has ample open space that could be developed, according to focus

participants many hurdles exist to developing that land. One is utilities (or lack thereof),

particularly sewer lines, to which many undeveloped properties lack access. Local governments

have often not extended this access for housing development and given both (i) the hilly terrain

of much of Richland County and (ii) the county’s overall lower-priced housing, having to provide

sewer access may make many housing developments economically unfeasible.

A third weakness identified was the bureaucracy associated with developing market-rate housing

across Richland County. This was noted across all focus groups, with the county’s codes and

permitting process (managed through a multi-county consortium) mentioned as being particularly

onerous and time-consuming. Additionally, many focus group participants believed that the

zoning for many areas does not reflect the most appropriate and most economically feasible type

of development.

The lack of new market-rate development inhibits the formation of housing chains, thus

exacerbating shortages of attainable and (non-subsidized) affordable housing. A housing chain

This is not a challenge unique to Richland County, and is instead faced by communities across the U.S.;

see

https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/death-of-the-starter-home-where-have-all-the-small-houses-

gone/. A key focus of this report will be to identify sustainable models for developing attainable housing

through new construction and rehabilitation of existing properties.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

14 January 23, 2023

occurs when a new, market-rate housing unit becomes available and is occupied by a local

resident. The unit that the resident leaves can then ‘filter’ down to a household at a lower income

level. Thus, lack of development of market-rate housing negatively impacts the stock of attainable

and affordable housing.

Community Opportunities

Focus group stakeholders identified several opportunities to create shared prosperity in the

Richland County housing market. Overall, there was a sense of momentum in the county creating

opportunities that have not been seen in decades, if ever. Specific projects mentioned include the

North End community center in Mansfield, work to improve flooding throughout the county, as

well as a pipeline of business attraction and expansion projects.

However, by far the most-cited opportunity for Richland County was the Intel facility that will be

opening in Licking County, just outside Columbus, in the coming years.

While the facility is

expected to employ approximately 3,000 workers, there will likely be multiples more workers

drawn to the area to work for suppliers and for industries supporting employees at the facility

(education, hospitality, etc.).

Another opportunity identified was that, due to aggressive demolitions of vacant and abandoned

property, there is a substantial amount of vacant land in Mansfield’s inner-city neighborhoods

available for development. Many of these parcels are owned by the Richland County Land Bank,

which can strategically divest these properties to support affordable, attainable, and market-rate

housing development.

Community Threats

While Richland County is currently enjoying a plethora of opportunities, with those come threats

to creating shared prosperity for current and future generations. Broadly, these threats often fell

under the category of fears that the county will fail to “seize the moment” and capitalize on the

opportunities that present themselves.

A commonly expressed sentiment across the focus groups was that stakeholders and leadership

need to think creatively and ‘outside the box’ to address the area’s housing needs. For many

housing development opportunities, Richland County is in competition—for better or worse—with

surrounding counties which, while lacking some of the amenities that Richland enjoys, can also

offer abundant land for development.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/information-technology/2022/01/14/intel-near-columbus-

ohio-what-know-site-factory-project/6514569001/

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

15 January 23, 2023

Related to this threat was the need for dynamic leadership, which was identified as a need across

multiple focus groups. While the community’s leaders have initiated a successful effort in setting

up Richland County to meet the present opportunities described in the previous section, there

was a sense that more individuals from younger generations, and those who relocated to Richland

County as adults, should be encouraged to seek elected office.

Ultimately, failing to capitalize on the current moment will mean that Richland County’s

opportunities will flow to other, surrounding counties. Several of these counties are arguably

ahead of the curve in terms of planning for housing growth, with market-rate development

occurring in Galion’s downtown and high-end rental units in Ashland.

Kick-off Meeting

With assistance from the Housing Development Steering Committee, the Community Science

team hosted a kick-off meeting for local stakeholders at the Area Office on Aging on April 29,

2022. Over 40 stakeholders—representing government, development, housing service providers,

and other interested agencies—attended the kick-off meeting. Following a short presentation

about the project, the Community Science team collected participant feedback through the

Mentimeter platform.

The second feedback question asked, “What do you see as the greatest housing need in your

community?” Individuals could provide up to three responses. A total of 40 respondents answered

this question, recording 52 total responses. These responses are categorized in Exhibit 2 (note

that responses could ‘fit’ into multiple categories, so the sum is greater than 52).

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

16 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 2: Responses to 'What is the Greatest Housing Need in Your Community?"

The greatest housing need identified was more affordable housing, which was noted by half of

all respondents. Particularly noteworthy responses here include:

• Clean, safe housing available to home buyers and renters of all incomes in all our communities

• More affordable inventory

• Safe, affordable housing to meet the needs of the current and growing population mix

Closely behind—and closely related—was the need for more housing stock in general, including

affordable, attainable, and market-rate units. Additional respondents touched on improving the

quality of housing available in Richland County (nine responses); expanding opportunities for

homeownership (eight responses), seniors (six responses), and renters (three responses); and

expanding the pool of developers and contractors in Richland County (four responses). Exemplary

comments for these categories include:

• Need new housing stock ranging from apartments, affordable housing, “starter” houses, and

custom houses

• Local contractors for construction and repair

• Fix up or replace dilapidated housing

• Homes that people can buy someday, not just to rent forever

• Updated, new construction at affordable pricing

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

17 January 23, 2023

The third and final feedback question asked respondents “What do you see as the housing-related

capacity that could be improved in Richland County?” Thirty-two participants provided responses

to this question, which are summarized in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3: Responses to "What do you see as the housing-related capacity that could be improved

in Richland County?"

Related to the previous question, the two most-common responses relate to capacity to develop

housing and attracting more developers and/or contractors to Richland County. Within the

‘housing development’ category, responses include both general capacity and the capacity to

achieve certain types of development, such as:

• Need more homes developed (general)

• Collaborative development (general)

• Start building on land bank property (specific)

• Conversion of downtown older buildings into condos (specific)

• More sustainable, energy-efficient homes/rehabs (specific)

Less frequent but still noteworthy responses to this question include expanding financing

expertise (six responses), improving property management capacity (four responses), and

streamlining bureaucracy and permitting (three responses). Within those categories, responses

include:

• Comprehensive knowledge about putting [together] deals and packages to build required

housing (financing)

• Developer friendly focus from governmental departments (bureaucracy and permitting)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

18 January 23, 2023

• Property upkeep (property management)

Housing Services and Programs Offered

This final section summarizes housing services available in Richland County. It first provides a

summary of existing services in the county. The second section analyzes current services and

presents gaps in service delivery, technical assistance needs, and collaboration needs.

Data from this section comes from analysis of existing planning documents (summarized in the

above section) as well as feedback received from stakeholders in the focus groups and in one-

on-one interviews. Especially helpful in developing the summary of existing services was the

Shelby CHIP (Community Housing Investment Program) Community Services Resource Guide.

Gaps in service delivery

In general, stakeholders have not identified any significant gaps in services for Richland County

residents—as noted earlier, one focus group participant noted that the county has “everything

you need, but nothing more.” Nonetheless, two service areas have been consistently noted as

either missing in the county or lacking.

The first is

transportation assistance. Like many smaller communities, Richland County’s public

transit service is nearly exclusively limited to the largest city and operates on limited hours

(especially during the evenings and weekends). Limited public transit service restricts the

neighborhoods where those who rely on public transit can live, and limits the jobs they can seek.

Stakeholders especially noted that the lack of late-night transit service complicates those seeking

shift (can’t get home) and 3

shift (can’t get to work).

Another gap in service delivery was housing assistance for low- to moderate-income

households

who may earn too much to qualify for programs targeting low-income households

but who still face significant housing needs. This especially includes households residing in older

homes throughout the county who are looking to respond to maintenance issues and to invest in

their property. These services could likely need to be funded through local organizations.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

19 January 23, 2023

Technical assistance needs

Analysis of services, as well as the various forms of community input, have identified the following

areas where technical assistance could improve the provision of housing-related services in the

county.

Affordable housing financing and development. As noted earlier, a key weakness in Richland

County’s housing market is the lack of a Community Housing Development Organization, or

CHDO. A key challenge in identifying a CHDO is that, per regulations, the organization must have

“the capacity to own, develop, or sponsor … HOME-assisted housing.”

This creates a Catch-22

situation where an organization cannot become a CHDO without that capacity, but it cannot gain

that capacity without becoming a CHDO. CHDO regulations are also especially strict in terms of

board composition, which prevents many organizations from successfully becoming one.

The competitive nature of LIHTC (Low Income Housing Tax Credit) allocations underscores the

need for a CHDO and additional technical expertise around LIHTC applications in Richland County.

First, under Qualified Action Plan (QAP) rules, Richland County is only eligible to receive one

award per year. Thus, it is crucial that applications from the county be as competitive as possible,

since the county cannot ‘make up’ several years of not receiving awards by, for example, getting

three awards in a single year.

Second, per the QAP, LIHTC funding is allocated to various “pools” which includes Census tracts

classified as ‘Central city,’ “Metro/Suburban,’ and ‘Rural.’ In Richland County, most of Mansfield’s

urban neighborhoods are considered ‘central city’ while the remainder of Mansfield, most of

Ontario, and some of Lexington are classified as ‘Metro/suburban’ (see this map

for tract

classifications in Richland County and this map for all Ohio tract classifications). As a result,

projects in those tracts must compete against (in all likelihood) much more sophisticated projects

submitted from Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and their surrounding suburban communities.

This further underscores the point that applications from Richland County must score highly in

order to receive funding.

More broadly from establishing a CHDO, there appears a demonstrated need for technical

assistance around affordable housing development. One such need is to expand the capacity and

seek additional funding options for existing affordable housing providers in the community. Like

many communities, many of the affordable housing providers in Richland County struggle for

funds to construct new housing units or to expand services for their clients, especially while

juggling existing service delivery. Technical assistance could offer organizations like Harmony

Ohio Housing Finance Agency regulations, https://ohiohome.org/ppd/chdo.aspx

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

20 January 23, 2023

House, Habitat for Humanity, and others with the expertise to bring additional, affordable housing

units on-line.

A second technical assistance need in this area includes, more broadly, the expertise to assemble

capital stacks to develop affordable housing, and to develop competitive applications for Low

Income Housing Tax Credit properties. Financing mixed-income and affordable housing

development is an extremely complex process and requires expertise across various federal, state,

and local housing programs. Given Richland County’s relatively small size, it is not surprising that

housing providers in the county lack this expertise.

A third need for technical assistance appears to be navigating the often-complex regulations

around using affordable housing funds, especially those subject to HUD rules. Unfortunately,

government regulations prevent the streamlining of much of this assistance, and several

stakeholders noted that they are completely bewildered by the various reporting rules and

regulations of programs like CDBG and HOME. Technical assistance in this area could help

agencies better understand the reporting and compliance requirements of HUD assistance, thus

making them more willing to seek federal dollars to support housing projects.

Development, contracting, and architecture services. As noted above, Richland County faces

a substantial gap of developers and contractors, especially quality contractors who are certified

to work on HOME and other HUD-funded projects. Technical assistance in this area could prioritize

three aspects. First, it could conduct outreach to developers and contractors in other Ohio

communities to invest in Richland County. This outreach could highlight the benefits of working

in the county as well as its recent population and economic growth and ability to support higher

housing prices. Second, it could identify quality developers and (especially) contractors who are

willing to partner with Richland County housing providers to expand the county’s housing stock.

Third, this technical assistance could identify local actors who could, with training, serve as

certified contractors on HOME and HUD-funded projects. It could also assist existing contractors

with expanding their workforce.

Separately, another identified need for technical assistance in this area is for architecture services

specifically. Like developers and contractors, these services may need to be acquired through

identifying quality organizations outside Richland County who can be attracted to work in the

county. Technical assistance here could also assist agencies in Richland County seeking

architectural services to find quality providers elsewhere in Ohio or surrounding states.

Redundancies in services

In general, community input has not identified significant redundancies in service delivery, with

two notable exceptions.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

21 January 23, 2023

The first is that several agencies in the county offer

rental assistance to low-income households.

This includes the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority, which runs the local Housing Choice

Voucher program, but also Harmony House, Community Action, Catholic Charities, and the

Salvation Army. While a community cannot provide

too

much rental assistance to low-income

households, there may be opportunities for these organizations to collaborate in the future to

streamline service delivery.

The second is that several agencies also offer

utility assistance to low-income households, and

that requirements between different programs (especially PIPP—Percentage of Income Payment

Plan—and HEAP—Home Energy Assistance Program) often make compliance difficult. Greater

coordination across these programs, as well as other agencies that provide utility assistance,

could make the process of receiving these services simpler for clients.

Opportunities for collaboration

As noted earlier, focus group participants believe that collaboration in the county—across local

governments, between local governments and service providers, and among service providers—

is generally good and has improved in recent years. This sentiment seemed especially strong

among those who were not Richland County natives and had instead moved to the county as

adults—compared to where they had lived previously.

Two areas were noted by several focus group and interview participants as areas where Richland

County stands above its peers in terms of collaboration. The first is in terms of economic

development, where the county is currently collaborating with several surrounding counties on

an economic development plan for the US 30 corridor.

A second area where stakeholders believe Richland County collaborates better than its peers is

between municipalities. Several stakeholders noted that the various municipalities in the county

see each other not as competitors, but instead as collaborators in creating shared prosperity in

the county. This certainly stands apart from most counties in the state, where many municipalities

perceive economic development as a zero-sum game and are in fierce competition with other

jurisdictions in their county.

Despite this, the focus groups and interviews yielded numerous opportunities to improve

stakeholder collaboration. These are elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Opportunities for collaboration among existing stakeholders. As noted earlier, while few

redundancies in service providers exist, interviews and analysis of services have thus far identified

two redundancies: among those providing rental assistance and those providing utility assistance

to low-income households (though keep in mind that there is overlap between the two categories;

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

22 January 23, 2023

i.e., some agencies provide both types of assistance). Collaboration among these service

providers could lead to more efficient service delivery and could assist clients in receiving services.

Another identified opportunity for collaboration is among affordable housing providers

themselves. As noted above, there are several needs for technical assistance in the Richland

County community to support the creation of new affordable housing stock, including around

creating a CHDO and assembling capital stacks for affordable housing development. However, in

conjunction with that technical assistance, it appears that affordable housing providers

themselves could better collaborate to enhance their capacity together to develop affordable

housing. This could include stakeholders like the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority,

Habitat for Humanity, Harmony House, and the North End Community Improvement

Collaborative, among others. Collaboration could allow these agencies to develop their capacity

together and to better leverage (admittedly limited) resources to produce affordable housing.

Finally, greater alignment across jurisdiction’s coding and permitting regulations could benefit the

Richland County housing market. While code and permit applications in Richland County are

administered by a multi-county consortium, each jurisdiction has its own individual regulations to

which housing providers must adhere. Simplifying or aligning these regulations could facilitate

more housing development in Richland County. There also exist opportunities here to collaborate

to address issues related to substandard housing.

Opportunities for collaboration for stakeholders not at the table.

Aside from improving

collaboration among existing stakeholders, it appears that some potential stakeholders are not as

engaged as they could be in Richland County’s housing market. One such stakeholder identified

in the focus groups is Mansfield City Schools. Like many urban school districts, Mansfield City

Schools offers a great education for students but faces challenges—both real and perceived—that

manifest as low scores on State Report Cards and a negative reputation in the community. Given

the closely intertwined nature of school quality and housing demand, involving school districts in

housing planning efforts is crucial.

Further stakeholders who could be more involved are those who deal with zoning, codes, and

permits. As noted earlier, many participants have identified regulations like zoning and

codes/permits as a weakness in the county and a factor inhibiting housing development in the

Richland County community. Greater involvement from agency staff in the housing conversations

happening in the community could, ideally, surface issues that supply-side actors (like developers

and affordable housing providers) face and could lead to positive resolutions regarding issues

faced.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

23 January 23, 2023

Identifying Nodes

Given the diversity of Richland County’s communities, this report adopts an innovative approach

analyzing housing markets across Richland County and in specific ‘nodes.’ Each node will receive

its own market analysis, housing needs assessment, and recommendations, with the

understanding that there will be overlap across the nodes. When this overlap occurs, the report

notes it.

In consultation with the Housing Development Steering Committee, we have identified the

following seven nodes, mapped below in Exhibit 4.

• City of Mansfield

• City of Ontario

• City of Shelby

• Village of Lexington

• Village of Bellville

• Urban townships of Richland County (Madison, Mifflin, Springfield, and Washington)

• Rural townships of Richland County (Plymouth, Cass, Blooming Grove, Butler, Sharon,

Jackson, Franklin, Sandusky, Troy, Monroe, Perry, Bellville, Weller, Worthington)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

24 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 4: Analytic nodes for the Housing Needs Assessment

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

25 January 23, 2023

Chapter 2: Housing Data Inventory

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

26 January 23, 2023

Chapter 3: Housing Data Inventory

Introduction and Methods

This chapter presents a housing data inventory for Richland County. It includes various data

sources that the Community Science team has collected regarding Richland County’s housing

market, though please note that the data presented here is not an exhaustive list of

all

data that

the team collected. The following

Market Analysis

chapter also contains additional data on

Richland County’s housing market.

At the conclusion of this chapter, we have included a series of static maps illustrating many of

the data points discussed throughout the chapter. We have also produced an interactive map that

showcases many of the data analyzed in both this and subsequent chapters at this link

. We have

created a short ‘how to’ video of how to use the map here.

Methodology Note

An innovative approach that the

Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

will take is to analyze

Richland County’s housing market across seven ‘nodes.’

Unfortunately, those nodes do not

necessarily align with the geographies for which various data sources—especially the Census

Bureau—reports data. In general, the research team has collected data at the finest level of

geographic detail, which for Census data is typically the Census tract.

To aggregate tract-level data to the nodes, the research team has employed an interpolation

method that assigns tract-level data to nodes based on the length of roads within each tract that

fall within a node. In short, for Census tracts that fall into multiple nodes, we’ve attributed the

amount of road length within the tract to each intersecting node, and then apportioned the tract

data of those nodes.

These include the municipalities of Bellville, Lexington, Mansfield, Ontario, and Shelby, in addition to the

rural and urban townships of Richland County.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

27 January 23, 2023

The method used to interpolate tract-level data to the analysis nodes relies on the proportion of

road length of a tract that falls within a node. In Exhibit 5, we have provided an example of a

tract (thick outline rectangle) that is crossed by three nodes (green, purple, and blue shapes).

Exhibit 5: Interpolation example

Say that there is 10 miles of road length within this tract, and 60% of it (6 miles) falls in the

green node, 30% of it (3 miles) falls in the purple node, and 10% (1 mile) falls in the light blue

node. Now let’s say that there are 100 homes in the tract, and 60 of them are owner-occupied

and 40 of them are renter occupied. The interpolation for homeownership are shown in Exhibit

6. Put simply, the values in the node interpolation columns are calculated by multiplying the

proportion of road length within the tract by the total tract values.

Exhibit 6: Example interpolation data

The advantages of interpolating is that, most obviously, it allows the research team to attribute

tract-level data to the analysis nodes, which often do not overlap with Census tract boundaries.

Interpolating by road length and not, for example, area also allows the research team to better

Housing

units

Owner

occupied

Renter

occupied

Housing

units

Owner

occupied

Renter

occupied

Green 60% 100 60 40 60 36 24

Purple 30% 100 60 40 30 18 12

Blue 10% 100 60 40 10 6 4

Tract Totals

Node interpolation

Node

Proportion

of road

length

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

28 January 23, 2023

estimate the proportion of population within the tract that falls within each node. If the team

interpolated by area, nodes with a large amount of rural land (e.g., the townships) would have a

disproportionately high amount of data attributed to them while nodes that are more developed

(e.g., the municipalities) would have less data attributed to them.

In Exhibit 7, we have included the interpolation percentages by Census tract for each node.

Exhibit 7: Node interpolation by Census tract

Tract

Bellville Lexington Mansfield Ontario

Rural

Townships

Shelby

Urban

Townships

Census tract 4

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Census tract 5

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Census tract 6

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Census tract 7

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Census tract 8

0% 0% 76% 0% 0% 0% 24%

Census tract 9

0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 83%

Census tract 10

0% 0% 68% 0% 0% 0% 32%

Census tract 11

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Census tract 12

0% 0% 92% 0% 0% 0% 8%

Census tract 13

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Census tract 14

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Census tract 15

0% 0% 61% 0% 0% 0% 39%

Census tract 16

0% 0% 65% 0% 0% 0% 35%

Census tract 17

0% 0% 82% 0% 5% 0% 13%

Census tract 18

0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 97%

Census tract 19

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Census tract 20

2% 0% 1% 0% 56% 0% 42%

Census tract 21.01

0% 0% 83% 0% 0% 0% 17%

Census tract 21.02

2% 6% 20% 0% 0% 0% 72%

Census tract 22

0% 20% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0%

Census tract 23

0% 0% 3% 7% 30% 0% 61%

Census tract 24

0% 0% 0% 89% 0% 0% 11%

Census tract 25

0% 0% 0% 0% 78% 22% 0%

Census tract 26

0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 92% 0%

Census tract 27

0% 0% 3% 0% 92% 6% 0%

Census tract 28

0% 0% 0% 0% 97% 3% 0%

Census tract 29

0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Census tract 30.01

9% 0% 0% 0% 91% 0% 0%

Census tract 30.02

0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Census tract 31

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

29 January 23, 2023

In a more practical instance, Census tract 1 in Richland County stretches across Mansfield and

Madison Township (the urban townships node). Within the Census tract there are 10 miles of

roads, and of that 6 miles (60% of the road distance) are in Mansfield and 4 miles (40% of the

road distance) are in Madison Township. If there are 100 people in poverty in this Census tract,

the interpolation method would assign 60 of them to Mansfield (100 * 60%) and 40 of them to

Madison Township (100 * 40%).

Population Projections

Key to any housing planning efforts is understanding the population growth of a place. The Ohio

Department of Development (ODOD) produces population projections for all of Ohio’s 88 counties,

including Richland. These projections estimated that Richland County would lose 3.4 percent of

its population between the 2010–2020 Censuses (see Exhibit 8). ODOD’s population projections

anticipate that Richland County will continue to lose population in the coming decades, though

the rate of decline will slow into 2050.

Exhibit 8: Richland County population projections

Data source: Community Science analysis of Census and ODOD population data.

However, on the 2020 Census, Richland County’s population actually increased a marginal amount

(0.4%). Thus, this project has developed two alternative population projections for the county.

The first is that Richland County maintains the same growth rate as it did through the 2010–2020

period. This projection anticipates that the county’s population increases very marginally, to

126,329, by 2050.

The second projection is an ‘error correction’ model that, essentially, adds the difference between

Richland County’s actual 2010–2020 population growth and ODOD’s projected growth in that

period to all of ODOD’s subsequent population projections.

This model projects that the county’s

For reference, this difference is 3.8 percent.

Projection Change Projection Change Projection Change

2010* 124,475 - 124,475 - 124,475 -

2020** 120,200 -3.4% 124,936 0.4% 124,936 0.4%

2030 116,640 -3.0% 125,399 0.4% 125,989 0.8%

2040 115,160 -1.3% 125,863 0.4% 129,184 2.5%

2050 114,810 -0.3% 126,329 0.4% 133,707 3.5%

ODOD

Steady state

Error correction

Year

*2010 represents actual population figures all models

**2020 represents actual population figures for 'steady state' and 'error correction'

model. ODOD projections used for ODOD model.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

30 January 23, 2023

population grows modestly through 2030, then increases more substantially through 2050 to

133,707 residents.

Of course, all population projects are fraught and those presented here should just be considered

estimates, not final numbers. In general, though, they estimate that the county’s population will

not change substantially (more than a 10 percent decrease or increase) by 2050. However, of

course, these projections cannot anticipate exogenous events, like the opening of a large

manufacturing facility or a major natural disaster.

Census Demographic Data

Racial Composition

Exhibit 8 presents the racial and ethnic composition of each node in Richland County. For all

nodes except Mansfield, at least 90 percent of the population considers itself non-Hispanic white.

For Mansfield, 70 percent of the city’s population considers itself non-Hispanic White, while 20

percent considers itself non-Hispanic African American. The proportion in each node identifying

as any other race (or as two or more races) is below 6 percent for all other races. We have

mapped the predominant racial/ethnic group in each Richland County Census tract in Exhibit 49.

Exhibit 9: Racial composition by node

Note: all races are the proportion of that race that identifies as non-Hispanic (except for, obviously, Hispanic

or Latino)

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Educational Attainment

Exhibit 10 displays educational attainment (among those age 25 or older) across the analysis

nodes. In each node, a plurality of residents’ highest educational attainment is a high school

diploma or equivalent (such as a GED). With the exception of Lexington, the next-highest

educational attainment level is some college; for Lexington, it’s having a Bachelor’s degree. For

most of the nodes, relatively few residents lack a high school diploma or equivalency; the

White

African-

American

Hispanic or

Latino

Asian

Some other

race

Two or more

races

Node # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 697 (98%) 3 (0%) 1 (0%) 2 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%)

Lexington 1534 (93%) 48 (3%) 31 (2%) 3 (0%) 19 (1%) 17 (1%)

Mansfield 30945 (70%) 8598 (20%) 1215 (3%) 298 (1%) 313 (1%) 2577 (6%)

Ontario 4937 (91%) 130 (2%) 25 (0%) 205 (4%) 79 (1%) 25 (0%)

Rural Townships 33473 (96%) 398 (1%) 590 (2%) 90 (0%) 105 (0%) 288 (1%)

Shelby 5219 (96%) 12 (0%) 162 (3%) 19 (0%) 2 (0%) 6 (0%)

Urban Townships 26083 (90%) 1159 (4%) 401 (1%) 285 (1%) 315 (1%) 731 (3%)

Total 102888 (85%) 10348 (9%) 2425 (2%) 902 (1%) 833 (1%) 3649 (3%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

31 January 23, 2023

exception is Mansfield where 12 percent of residents do not hold such a qualification. We have

mapped the proportion of the population with a Bachelor’s degree in Exhibit 50.

Exhibit 10: Educational attainment by node

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

No HS Diploma

HS Diploma or

Equivalent

Some college,

no degree

Associates

Degree

Bachelors

Degree

Graduate

Degree

Node # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 20 (4%) 184 (40%) 94 (20%) 49 (11%) 86 (18%) 32 (7%)

Lexington 73 (6%) 340 (29%) 230 (20%) 165 (14%) 245 (21%) 117 (10%)

Mansfield 3508 (12%) 12090 (41%) 6667 (23%) 2528 (9%) 3353 (11%) 1281 (4%)

Ontario 175 (4%) 1353 (35%) 1026 (26%) 390 (10%) 542 (14%) 435 (11%)

Rural Townships 1601 (7%) 10036 (43%) 4303 (19%) 2334 (10%) 3126 (14%) 1715 (7%)

Shelby 325 (9%) 1697 (48%) 715 (20%) 304 (9%) 336 (10%) 144 (4%)

Urban Townships 1589 (8%) 8570 (43%) 4356 (22%) 1915 (10%) 2266 (11%) 1381 (7%)

Total 7291 (9%) 34270 (42%) 17391 (21%) 7685 (9%) 9954 (12%) 5105 (6%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan 32 January 23, 2023

Age

Exhibit 11 presents an age breakdown by node. By and large, the age distribution for each node is relatively similar, with between 21–

26 percent of residents being under age 20 and 17–25 percent being age 65 and older. We have mapped the proportion of the

population age 65 and older in Exhibit 51.

Exhibit 11: Age by node

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey data.

Age:

19 and

under 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85 and over

Node # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 175 (25%) 40 (6%) 65 (9%) 64 (9%) 81 (11%) 60 (8%) 46 (6%) 91 (13%) 70 (10%) 16 (2%)

Lexington 422 (26%) 39 (2%) 180 (11%) 255 (15%) 173 (10%) 160 (10%) 144 (9%) 164 (10%) 85 (5%) 30 (2%)

Mansfield 9852 (22%) 3630 (8%) 6589 (15%) 5696 (13%) 5279 (12%) 2712 (6%) 2764 (6%) 4142 (9%) 1771 (4%) 1511 (3%)

Ontario 1153 (21%) 264 (5%) 578 (11%) 608 (11%) 691 (13%) 448 (8%) 447 (8%) 617 (11%) 438 (8%) 156 (3%)

Rural Townships 9159 (26%) 1565 (4%) 3400 (10%) 4097 (12%) 4452 (13%) 2738 (8%) 2316 (7%) 3802 (11%) 2457 (7%) 958 (3%)

Shelby 1376 (25%) 384 (7%) 439 (8%) 630 (12%) 805 (15%) 422 (8%) 325 (6%) 426 (8%) 440 (8%) 173 (3%)

Urban Townships 6653 (23%) 1645 (6%) 3805 (13%) 3049 (11%) 3356 (12%) 2103 (7%) 2106 (7%) 3731 (13%) 1704 (6%) 821 (3%)

Total 28790 (24%) 7567 (6%) 15056 (12%) 14399 (12%) 14837 (12%) 8643 (7%) 8148 (7%) 12973 (11%) 6965 (6%) 3665 (3%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

33 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 12: Richland County population distribution

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Poverty Status

Exhibit 13 charts poverty status across the analysis nodes, as well as providing figures for

individuals living in concentrated poverty tracts (tracts with a poverty rate of 30% or above). By

and large, poverty in the county is concentrated in Mansfield, with almost 60 percent of individuals

in poverty living within the city. Mansfield is also home to the only Census tracts within the county

that are considered to be “concentrated poverty;” over 10 percent of Mansfield residents reside

in such tracts. We have mapped the poverty rate across Census tracts and highlighted tracts of

concentrated poverty in Exhibit 52.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

34 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 13: Poverty status

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Disabled Population

Exhibit 14 describes the disabled population within each node, dividing this population between

individuals with only one disability and individuals with two or more disabilities (see Exhibit 15 for

the types of disabilities included in the Census).

For both groups, figures across the nodes are

relatively similar, with 6–11 percent of the population reporting one disability and 5–10 percent

of the population reporting two or more disabilities. In total, the population reporting

at least one

disability in each node varies from 12 percent in Bellville to 21 percent in Mansfield. We have

mapped the proportion of Richland County’s population with a disability by Census tract in Exhibit

53.

Exhibit 14: Population with a disability

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Exhibit 15 breaks down the disabilities reported in the Census by type of disability; note that

individuals could report more than one type of disability. The most common type of disability

Also note that these figures are only for the non-institutionalized population.

Below poverty level

In tracts of concentrated

poverty

Node # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 38 (5%) 0 (0%)

Lexington 86 (5%) 0 (0%)

Mansfield 9222 (24%) 4681 (12%)

Ontario 179 (3%) 0 (0%)

Rural Townships 2284 (7%) 0 (0%)

Shelby 763 (14%) 0 (0%)

Urban Townships 2971 (11%) 0 (0%)

Total 15543 (14%) 4681 (4%)

One disability

Two or more

disabilities

Node # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 41 (6%) 51 (7%)

Lexington 112 (7%) 76 (5%)

Mansfield 4120 (11%) 4073 (10%)

Ontario 453 (8%) 424 (8%)

Rural Townships 2346 (7%) 2223 (6%)

Shelby 368 (7%) 444 (8%)

Urban Townships 2509 (9%) 2149 (8%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

35 January 23, 2023

reported is ambulatory, with between 5–11 percent of the population across the nodes reporting

difficulty moving. The next most common types of disability are cognitive and independent living

(six percent each of the county’s total population) and hearing disabilities (five percent of the

total population).

Exhibit 15: Population with a disability by type of disability

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Summing it up. Richland County’s demographics have numerous impacts on housing planning

for the county. The county’s population is aging rapidly—already, 20 percent of the county’s

residents are senior citizens (age 65 or older), and another 14 percent are near-seniors (age 55–

64). These residents will need housing options to age in place, such as condos or senior apartment

complexes. They may also desire modifications to their homes so they can continue to live in

them into their older years.

Furthermore, another 12 percent of the county’s population is in the age 45–54 age range, making

them prime candidates for wanting to downsize households in the next 10 years as their children

move out of the household (if they haven’t done so already). These households may also prefer

some lower-maintenance living options, such as condos. They may also appreciate smaller

housing options close to neighbors and amenities that they have come to enjoy.

Related to Richland County’s rapidly-aging population is that a substantial proportion of the

population—almost 17 percent—has a disability of some sort. The most common types of

disabilities reported are ambulatory, cognitive, and independent living. For ambulatory and

independent living disabilities, depending on the severity, many of the housing types that suit

aging in place are also appropriate for those with this disability, with the household potentially

requiring some additional supports (such as a visiting nurse or aide).

Concentrated poverty is an issue that afflicts cities across the U.S., and Mansfield is no exception.

In fact, 12 percent of the city’s population lives in tracts of concentrated poverty, meaning they

Hearing Vision Cognitive Ambulatory Self-Care

Independent

Living

Node

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 32 (5%) 10 (1%) 32 (5%) 42 (6%) 27 (4%) 30 (4%)

Lexington 73 (4%) 32 (2%) 74 (5%) 76 (5%) 21 (1%) 53 (3%)

Mansfield 1916 (5%) 1765 (5%) 3364 (9%) 4132 (11%) 1642 (4%) 2866 (7%)

Ontario 265 (5%) 328 (6%) 332 (6%) 345 (6%) 83 (2%) 191 (4%)

Rural Townships 1683 (5%) 712 (2%) 1549 (5%) 2105 (6%) 1004 (3%) 1638 (5%)

Shelby 284 (5%) 110 (2%) 292 (5%) 390 (7%) 190 (4%) 311 (6%)

Urban Townships 1312 (5%) 766 (3%) 1756 (6%) 2249 (8%) 831 (3%) 1482 (5%)

Total 5565 (5%) 3723 (3%) 7399 (6%) 9339 (8%) 3798 (3%) 6571 (6%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

36 January 23, 2023

have a poverty rate of over 30 percent. Placing additional affordable housing in these tracts is a

two-edged sword. On the one hand, new affordable housing in these neighborhoods would

involve a substantial upgrade in quality from the existing housing stock and would allow those in

poverty to remain in neighborhoods where they have already built social networks. It would also

allow those in poverty to live closer to service providers in and around downtown Mansfield.

On the other hand, it is crucial that affordable housing be spread throughout the county, including

in so-called neighborhoods of opportunity with good schools and lower crime rates. It is also

imperative to avoid any additional concentrations of poverty in these neighborhoods, as research

over the years has shown that concentrated poverty can have strongly negative effects on

neighborhood residents. Mixed-income development (which combines affordable and market-rate

units, likely at an attainable price point) may be the most appropriate type of development in

these neighborhoods, though developing and financing mixed-income development can be

especially challenging.

Census Housing Data

As described earlier, all Census data rely on the interpolations of tract data into the nodes. All

data presented here rely on 2016–2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Housing Counts and Tenure

Exhibit 16 charts housing counts across the nodes in Richland County. As expected, Mansfield

has the largest number of housing units, followed by the rural and urban townships, respectively.

Ontario and Shelby have roughly similar numbers of housing units, with Lexington and Bellville

having the fewest number of housing units across the seven nodes. We have mapped the

proportion of owner-occupied units (homeownership rate) across Census tracts in Exhibit 54.

Exhibit 16: Housing counts and tenure

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Occupied housing units Owner-occupied Renter-occupied

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 310 287 (93%) 220 (77%) 67 (23%)

Lexington 716 693 (97%) 524 (76%) 169 (24%)

Mansfield 20,453 17718 (87%) 9053 (51%) 8666 (49%)

Ontario 2,331 2171 (93%) 1724 (79%) 447 (21%)

Rural Townships 14,761 13708 (93%) 10891 (79%) 2816 (21%)

Shelby 2,619 2452 (94%) 1424 (58%) 1028 (42%)

Urban Townships 12,959 11938 (92%) 8926 (75%) 3012 (25%)

Total 54,149 48967 (90%) 32762 (67%) 16205 (33%)

Node

Total housing units

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

37 January 23, 2023

The Census divides all housing units into ‘occupied’ and ‘vacant,’ and all occupied units are

considered either owner- or renter-occupied.

Across the nodes, Mansfield has the lowest

percentage of occupied housing units, and it also has the lowest proportion of owner-occupied

units (approximately half of all occupied units). The townships, Bellville, Lexington, and Shelby

all have over 75 percent of their occupied units as owner-occupied. Shelby has a relatively smaller

proportion (58%) of owner-occupied units.

Units in Structure

Exhibit 17 charts the type of housing units across the seven nodes in Richland County. In each

of the nodes, a strong majority of housing units are in one-unit detached (i.e., single-family

residential) structures; this figure ranges from 64 percent in Mansfield to 83 percent in Bellville

and the rural townships. Ontario has a substantial portion of units (14%) in attached buildings;

these are most often rowhouses or townhouses. Shelby has a sizeable portion (18%) of units in

structures with 2–4 housing units. Roughly 10 percent of housing units in Mansfield are in larger

apartment buildings with 10 or more units. We have mapped the proportion of one-unit detached

homes in Exhibit 55 and have mapped the density of mobile homes in Exhibit 56.

Exhibit 17: Units in structure

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

House Size

Exhibit 18 charts the size of housing units across the seven nodes in Richland County. Across

each of the nodes, a plurality of housing units have three bedrooms; this amount ranges from 39

percent in Mansfield to 57 percent in Bellville. For each node, the second most-common house

size is two bedrooms, ranging from 20 percent in Bellville to 35 percent in Mansfield.

The report considers vacant units later using a more rigorous data source.

1 unit,

detached

1 unit,

attached

2-4 units 5-9 units

10 or more

units

Mobile

homes

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 256 (83%) 10 (3%) 19 (6%) 5 (2%) 12 (4%) 8 (3%)

Lexington 560 (78%) 39 (5%) 52 (7%) 15 (2%) 51 (7%) 0 (0%)

Mansfield 13011 (64%) 1144 (6%) 2518 (12%) 1182 (6%) 2003 (10%) 595 (3%)

Ontario 1624 (70%) 321 (14%) 232 (10%) 87 (4%) 61 (3%) 6 (0%)

Rural Townships 12279 (83%) 356 (2%) 1011 (7%) 147 (1%) 320 (2%) 648 (4%)

Shelby 1736 (66%) 61 (2%) 461 (18%) 94 (4%) 128 (5%) 139 (5%)

Urban Townships 9936 (77%) 426 (3%) 725 (6%) 438 (3%) 658 (5%) 775 (6%)

Total 39402 (73%) 2357 (4%) 5018 (9%) 1968 (4%) 3233 (6%) 2171 (4%)

Node

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

38 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 18: Size of housing unit

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Year Built

Exhibit 19 presents the year built of housing units in Richland County. In general, both Mansfield

and Shelby have the oldest housing stocks across the nodes, with over half of their housing units

having been built before 1960. In comparison, Bellville, Ontario, and Lexington have some of the

newest housing stocks in the county. The rural townships have an extremely varied housing stock,

with at least 15 percent of their housing stock being built in each period. The urban townships

have a housing stock that was mostly constructed in the 1940–1999 period, with few very old or

very new homes. We have mapped the predominant year built of housing in each Richland County

Census tract in Exhibit 57.

Exhibit 19: Year built

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Year Moved In

Exhibit 20 charts the year that residents moved into their current housing unit. For nearly all

nodes, a plurality of residents moved into their housing unit sometime after 2015; this figure

varies from 23 percent in the rural townships to 38 percent in Mansfield. In general, approximately

15–20 percent of residents moved into their housing unit between 2010–2014 and about 20–30

No (0)

bedroom

1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms

5 or more

bedrooms

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville

19 (6%)

19 (6%) 63 (20%) 177 (57%) 38 (12%) 12 (4%)

Lexington

5 (1%) 18 (3%) 187 (26%) 324 (45%) 139 (19%) 43 (6%)

Mansfield

478 (2%)

2418 (12%) 7234 (35%) 7992 (39%) 1977 (10%) 354 (2%)

Ontario

1 (0%) 204 (9%) 560 (24%) 1258 (54%) 255 (11%) 52 (2%)

Rural Townships

87 (1%) 659 (4%) 3342 (23%) 7847 (53%) 2109 (14%) 718 (5%)

Shelby

1 (0%) 312 (12%) 802 (31%) 1185 (45%) 271 (10%) 49 (2%)

Urban Townships

54 (0%) 782 (6%) 3311 (26%) 6913 (53%) 1597 (12%) 301 (2%)

Node

Built 2000 or

later

Built 1980-1999 Built 1960-1979 Built 1940-1959

Built 1939 or

earlier

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville

53 (17%) 64 (21%) 92 (30%) 55 (18%) 47 (15%)

Lexington

132 (18%) 102 (14%) 273 (38%) 130 (18%) 79 (11%)

Mansfield

1216 (6%) 2336 (11%) 5614 (27%) 6133 (30%) 5153 (25%)

Ontario

350 (15%) 563 (24%) 747 (32%) 581 (25%) 91 (4%)

Rural Townships

2200 (15%) 2368 (16%) 4080 (28%) 2862 (19%) 3251 (22%)

Shelby

114 (4%) 351 (13%) 489 (19%) 882 (34%) 784 (30%)

Urban Townships

1028 (8%) 2624 (20%) 4584 (35%) 3503 (27%) 1221 (9%)

Node

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

39 January 23, 2023

percent moved in between 2000 and 2009. Bellville (22%) and the rural (22%) and urban (20%)

townships have a large proportion of longer-term residents who moved into their unit before

1990.

Exhibit 20: Year residents moved into their housing unit

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Contract Rent

Contract rent represents the ‘rent asked’ of a unit. Exhibit 21 charts the number of rental units in

various contract rent bands across the analysis nodes. For most of the nodes, the most common

rent band is the $500–650 rent band, with between 23–53 percent of rental units falling within

this band. Fewer units fall within the next lower rent band ($350–$500), though note that this

range has the largest number of rental units for both Bellville (35%) and Mansfield (36%). We

have mapped median contract rent by Census tract in Exhibit 58.

Exhibit 21: Contract rent

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Housing Problems

While they have become rare, the Census continues to track several indicators of substandard

housing, including (i) lack of plumbing, (ii) lack of complete kitchen facilities, (iii) no telephone

service available, and (iv) overcrowding (more than 1 person per room) (see Exhibit 22). In

Moved in after

2015

Moved in 2010

to 2014

Moved in 2000

to 2009

Moved in 1990

to 1999

Moved in 1989

or earlier

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville

82 (29%) 41 (14%) 58 (20%) 42 (15%) 64 (22%)

Lexington

192 (28%) 140 (20%) 157 (23%) 95 (14%) 109 (16%)

Mansfield

6713 (38%) 3548 (20%) 3456 (20%) 1929 (11%) 2072 (12%)

Ontario

731 (34%) 393 (18%) 380 (17%) 367 (17%) 301 (14%)

Rural Townships

3123 (23%) 2251 (16%) 3265 (24%) 2079 (15%) 2989 (22%)

Shelby

708 (29%) 454 (19%) 757 (31%) 145 (6%) 388 (16%)

Urban Townships

3690 (31%) 1920 (16%) 2322 (19%) 1582 (13%) 2424 (20%)

Node

Under $350 $350-500 $500-650 $650-800 $800-1000 Over $1000

Node # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 14 (23%) 22 (35%) 14 (23%) 6 (10%) 5 (8%) 1 (2%)

Lexington 15 (9%) 23 (14%) 68 (42%) 20 (12%) 31 (19%) 4 (2%)

Mansfield 1215 (14%) 3084 (36%) 2721 (32%) 938 (11%) 332 (4%) 175 (2%)

Ontario 0 (0%) 30 (8%) 183 (46%) 130 (33%) 48 (12%) 7 (2%)

Rural Townships 416 (16%) 828 (32%) 843 (33%) 261 (10%) 220 (9%) 14 (1%)

Shelby 136 (14%) 287 (29%) 514 (53%) 39 (4%) 1 (0%) 0 (0%)

Urban Townships 276 (10%) 805 (28%) 1049 (36%) 443 (15%) 233 (8%) 94 (3%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

40 January 23, 2023

general, incidence of these housing problems is low across the seven nodes, with lack of

telephone service being the most common. It does appear, though, that rates of overcrowding

are higher in Mansfield, Shelby, and the townships.

One should note, though, that in conversations with local stakeholders, many believe that the

Census data

under

counts housing problems, and that many more homes in the county are

considered substandard relative to the reported data from the Census.

Exhibit 22: Housing problems by node

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Housing Cost Burden

Housing cost burden represents a situation where homeowners or renters pay a disproportionate

(typically 30% or more) of their income toward housing costs. Census data contains data on

housing cost burden for both renters and owners. For renters, the Census contains information

on gross rent as a percentage of income (GRAPI).

Renters are considered ‘cost burdened’ if

their GRAPI exceeds 30 percent of their income and ‘extremely cost burdened’ if it exceeds 50

percent of their income. We have mapped the proportion of the population paying over 30% of

their income toward gross rent in Exhibit 59.

Exhibit 23 depicts gross rent as a percentage of total income for households (GRAPI) across the

seven nodes. In Mansfield, Shelby, and the urban townships, nearly 50 percent of all renters are

considered cost burdened. Furthermore, in Mansfield, Shelby, and Lexington, nearly a quarter of

renters are considered extremely cost-burdened (though note that, in absolute terms, the figure

for Lexington is rather low). Rates of renters being cost burdened are lower in Bellville, Ontario,

Gross rent represents the cost of rent and utilities that the tenant is required to pay. It is meant to

equalize differences in what tenants are required to pay across leases (e.g., in some instances, the rent

asked—i.e., the contract rent—will include either some or all utilities).

Lacking complete

plumbing facilities

Lacking complete

kitchen facilities

No telephone service

available

Overcrowded

Node

# ( %)

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville

6 (2.1%) 5 (1.7%) 7 (2.4%) 3 (1%)

Lexington 3 (0.4%) 4 (0.6%) 15 (2.2%) 0 (0%)

Mansfield 45 (0.3%) 204 (1.2%) 320 (1.8%) 295 (1.7%)

Ontario 0 (0%) 4 (0.2%) 29 (1.3%) 1 (0%)

Rural Townships 140 (1%) 140 (1%) 372 (2.7%) 198 (1.4%)

Shelby 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 30 (1.2%) 27 (1.1%)

Urban Townships 1 (0%) 58 (0.5%) 192 (1.6%) 179 (1.5%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

41 January 23, 2023

and the rural townships. One should also note that the figures presented here are averages from

2016–2020, and do not fully capture recent rent increases that have occurred since 2020.

Exhibit 23: Gross rent as a percent of income

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

The second data point on cost burden that the Census collects is for homeowners and is called

Selected Monthly Homeownership Costs as a Percent of Household Income, or SMOCAPI.

SMOCAPI includes the cost of a mortgage as well as other home-related costs like insurance,

property taxes, and Homeowners Association or condo fees.

Exhibit 24 charts SMOCAPI across the analysis nodes. In general, rates of homeowners being cost

burdened are much lower than rates of renters being cost burdened.

However, over a quarter

of Mansfield homeowners and nearly a quarter of homeowners in the urban townships are cost-

burdened, as are nearly 20 percent of homeowners in the rural townships. In contrast to rates of

renters being cost-burdened, homeowners in Shelby have some of the lowest rates of cost burden

across the nodes.

Exhibit 24: Selected Monthly Homeownership Costs as a Percent of Household Income (SMOCAPI)

This is true in most other areas of the country as well.

Under 30%

30-40% 40-50% Over 50%

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 43 (69%) 9 (15%) 5 (8%) 5 (8%)

Lexington 98 (61%) 18 (11%) 7 (4%) 38 (24%)

Mansfield 4323 (52%) 1200 (15%) 780 (9%) 1943 (24%)

Ontario 269 (68%) 57 (14%) 13 (3%) 59 (15%)

Rural Townships 1628 (63%) 324 (13%) 183 (7%) 440 (17%)

Shelby 512 (52%) 56 (6%) 173 (18%) 237 (24%)

Urban Townships 1662 (58%) 513 (18%) 214 (7%) 468 (16%)

Total 8535 (56%) 2177 (14%) 1375 (9%) 3190 (21%)

Node

Node SMOCAPI over 30%

Bellville 24 (17%)

Lexington 41 (12%)

Mansfield 1356 (27%)

Ontario 179 (17%)

Rural Townships 1271 (19%)

Shelby 127 (16%)

Urban Townships 1094 (23%)

Total 4092 (23%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

42 January 23, 2023

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Age of homeowners and renters

Exhibit 25 and Exhibit 26 show the breakdown of homeowners and renters by age. Residents

ages 35 to 64 represent the largest group of homeowners and renters in Richland County. Young

adults (ages 15-34) make up only a small proportion of homeowners and instead make up a much

larger proportion of rental housing units.

Exhibit 25: Owner-occupied units by age

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Exhibit 26: Renter-occupied units by age

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Occupied housing units with own children

Across the analysis nodes, no more than about 25% of owner- and renter-occupied households

have their own children residing in the housing unit with them (Exhibit 27). The one exception is

the urban townships, where over a third of renting households have children. While a relatively

small proportion of households had children in Mansfield, most of the households with children

lived in rental housing. This differs from most of the other nodes, where a larger proportion of

owner-occupants have their own children living with them compared to renter-occupants.

15-34 y/o

35-64 y/o

65+ y/o

# (%) # (%) # (%)

Bellville

27 (12%)

101 (46%)

92 (42%)

Lexington

64 (12%)

328 (63%) 132 (25%)

Mansfield

662 (7%) 5121 (57%) 3270 (36%)

Ontario

153 (9%)

974 (56%) 597 (35%)

Rural Townships

1173 (11%) 6008 (55%)

3711 (34%)

Shelby

163 (11%) 733 (52%)

528 (37%)

Urban Townships

919 (10%) 4683 (52%)

3325 (37%)

Node

15-34 y/o

35-64 y/o 65+ y/o

# (%)

# (%) # (%)

Bellville

14 (20%) 43 (63%)

11 (16%)

Lexington

43 (25%) 92 (55%) 34 (20%)

Mansfield

3184 (37%) 3900 (45%)

1581 (18%)

Ontario

98 (22%) 218 (49%)

131 (29%)

Rural Townships

776 (28%) 1463 (52%) 577 (20%)

Shelby

312 (30%) 552 (54%)

164 (16%)

Urban Townships

1244 (41%)

1242 (41%) 526 (17%)

Node

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

43 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 27: Share of owner- and renter-occupied households with own children in housing unit

Data source: Community Science analysis of 2016–2020 Census tract-level American Community Survey

data.

Summing it up. The Census holds a wealth of housing data that can inform the Housing Needs

Assessment for Richland County. In reviewing the data presented above, a few points are

especially noteworthy.

First, Richland County’s housing stock is quite old. About 20 percent of housing units were built

before World War II, and another 55 percent were built between 1940–1979. Asbestos was not

banned entirely in construction until 1978, so homes built before then are likely to have asbestos

issues. Older homes (those built before 1939) that have not been updated may also have knob

and tube wiring, which poses safety risks to their occupants. More broadly, though, the county’s

old housing stock will continue to require substantial rehab work in the coming years. On the

other hand, there are ample opportunities for developers to rehabilitate these properties and to

sell them to buyers who desire a historic home.

A related point is that very little housing has been built in the county in the last 20 years—only

about 9.5 percent of the total housing stock—and even less has been built in the last 10 years.

This lack of development can have several negative impacts on the housing market. First, it

indicates that the local capacity to build (developers, contractors, carpenters, electricians,

architects) has been diminished, as individuals in those trades have likely left for hotter

construction markets. Second, the lack of new housing can have negative effects on the tax base,

as wealthier households who would prefer new housing relocate to surrounding counties. Third,

the lack of new housing can have negative effects on economic development activities, as

companies looking to locate to Richland get the sense that the county is not growing or

developing.

Moving beyond housing age, the vast majority of housing units in the county (72%) are single

family detached homes, and the majority of multifamily units (most of which are rented) are

located in Mansfield. Beyond Mansfield, though, there is a lack of units in larger multifamily

developments. This may present an opportunity for new construction, particularly in the southern

Owner-occupied

Renter-Occupied

# (%) # (%)

Bellville

56 (25%)

12 (18%)

Lexington

134 (25%) 26 (16%)

Mansfield

1498 (17%) 2205 (25%)

Ontario

445 (26%) 75 (17%)

Rural Townships

2707 (25%)

672 (24%)

Shelby

308 (22%) 215 (21%)

Urban Townships

1622 (18%)

1037 (34%)

Node

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

44 January 23, 2023

nodes of Bellville and Lexington with their proximity to I-71 and Columbus. There may also be

opportunities for these units in Ontario as short-term housing for hospital workers.

The contract rent data show that Richland County has many inexpensive (relative to national

figures) rental housing opportunities, with the majority of rentals priced under $650 a month

(though note that ACS data averages data from 2016–2020 and thus does not fully capture recent

rent increases). These data can lead to two conclusions (among others). First, there is a lack of

middle-to high-quality rental housing in the county which could command higher rents. Second—

and relatedly—there is an uncertain

market

for that type of housing, since—somewhat

intuitively—if that market existed, the units would exist also. Thus, a key element of this study

going forward will be understanding to what extent a market for higher-priced rental housing

exists in the county, and if it does, where it would best be situated.

Another critical housing issue in the county are mobile homes—according to the Census, there

are over 2,000 mobile homes in the county, and they comprise a substantial portion of the housing

stock in several nodes (including over 5% of the housing stock in the townships). Mobile homes

present unique challenges and opportunities for a housing market. On the one hand, they are a

valuable source of affordable housing, and their residents typically appreciate the independence

that comes from ownership. On the other hand, mobile homeowners are vulnerable to changes

in park ownership, as moving their homes entails a substantial cost (in the thousands of dollars)

that many cannot afford. Mobile homes, especially older ones, are also more vulnerable to

destruction from fires or tornadoes.

The final key housing data point identified here are housing problems, including cost burden.

Despite the relatively low cost of rental housing, in all nodes except Bellville, at least 40 percent

of renters are cost-burdened—meaning they spend over 30 percent of their income toward rent

and utilities. This suggests the need for additional rent supports, such as housing vouchers, and

other financial interventions such as Individual Development Accounts, or IDAs. It also suggests

the need for more subsidized, affordable housing development. While not a panacea to the issue,

financial literacy counseling can also help households who are cost-burdened to budget their

expenses

Vacancy Data

Vacancy data are sourced from the US Postal Service, which collects data on vacant addresses

and shares that information to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Data

in the table below reflect vacant residential addresses identified in the fourth quarter of each

year. Similar to the Census data, these data are reported at the tract level and are interpolated

to the nodes.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

45 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 28: Residential vacant units and vacancy rates

Data source: Community Science analysis of U.S. Postal Service vacancy data.

In general, Mansfield has the highest residential vacancy rates across the time periods, while

Bellville, Lexington, and Ontario have the lowest residential vacancy rates. Mansfield’s residential

vacancy rate decreased modestly from 2012–2021 while the residential vacancy rates for the

other nodes stayed relatively the same.

Subsidized Housing Units

The National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD) tracks subsidized housing developments

across the U.S. The table below counts the number of units in actively subsidized developments

across Richland County by the type of subsidy. These include:

• HOME program

• HUD-insured (commonly known as HUD Multifamily)

• Low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC)

• Rural housing programs (including USDA Section 515)

• Section 202 (subsidized housing for the elderly)

• Project-based Section 8

Note that, unlike the tract-level data reported elsewhere in this report, the NHPD has address-

level data for all developments, and we can geocode each development to a particular node in

the county.

These units are in HUD’s Project-based Section 8 program and are

not

units where households with a

Housing Choice Voucher (also commonly referred to as Section 8) reside.

Vacancy 2012 Vacancy 2015 Vacancy 2018 Vacancy 2021

# ( %) # ( %) # ( %) # ( %)

Bellville 4 (1.4%) 3 (1%) 3 (1%) 3 (1%)

Lexington 17 (2.3%) 11 (1.5%) 3 (0.4%) 6 (0.8%)

Mansfield 2278 (9.5%) 2085 (8.8%) 1781 (7.6%) 1700 (7.2%)

Ontario 49 (1.9%) 25 (0.9%) 22 (0.8%) 23 (0.8%)

Rural Townships 225 (1.5%) 189 (1.3%) 144 (1%) 164 (1.1%)

Shelby 165 (6.1%) 140 (5.2%) 123 (4.6%) 167 (6.2%)

Urban Townships 455 (3.4%) 447 (3.3%) 353 (2.7%) 375 (2.8%)

Total 3193 (5.4%) 2900 (5%) 2429 (4.2%) 2438 (4.1%)

Node

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

46 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 29: Subsidized units by node

Data source: National Housing Preservation Database, Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority.

* Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) administered by the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority. HCVs

allow households with a voucher to choose the rental unit they would like to live in, provided the landlord

agrees to accept the vouchers and the unit meets program guidelines. HCV tenants may reside in units

with other federal subsidies—for example, a household with a voucher may choose to live in a LIHTC

property.

Unsurprisingly, the majority (67%) of subsidized units are in Mansfield, with smaller numbers in

Shelby, Lexington, and Ontario. Despite their proximity to Mansfield and relatively large

population, very few subsidized units are in the urban townships. The largest federal subsidized

unit subsidy program in Richland County is the LIHTC program with approximately 672 subsidized

units, followed by the project-based Section 8 program with 393 units.

Aside from subsidized units, the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority has 1,806 Housing

Choice Voucher (HCV, commonly known as ‘Section 8’) clients in Richland County. Housing Choice

Vouchers allow clients to choose where they can live in the county, provided (i) the landlord

agrees to accept the voucher and (ii) the unit meets the program’s rent and safety guidelines.

While HCVs are intended to allow clients a broader range of choices of where to live, in practice

most Metro Housing HCV clients live in neighborhoods on the north and east sides of Mansfield.

Historic Housing Unit Counts

The HHUUD10 (Historic Housing and Unit and Urbanization Database) tracks the number of

housing units by Census tract at each decennial Census from 1940 to the present. Unlike the

year-built data presented earlier, this represents the actual count of housing units at each Census,

though obviously there is some overlap between the two data sources.

Exhibit 30 presents the historic housing count data as a table, and we’ve also included charts for

the data in Exhibit 31 (larger population nodes) and Exhibit 32 (smaller population nodes). Exhibit

31 illustrates that Mansfield added a substantial number of housing units through the 1980

Census, though it has seen a decrease in housing units since that time. Both the urban and rural

Node

HOME

HUD

Insured

LIHTC

Rural

housing

Project-

based

Section 8

Section

202

Section

811

Housing

Choice

Vouchers

Total

Bellville

25 25

Lexington

9 85 44 138

Mansfield

52 190 424 343 134 72 1,215

Ontario

5 88 93

Shelby

8 71 189 50 318

Urban Townships

4 18 22

Richland County

1,806* 1,806

Grand Total

74 190 672 258 393 134 90 1,806 3,617

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

47 January 23, 2023

townships have witnessed slow but steady growth in housing units across the period for which

data is available, though that growth appears to have slowed since 2010.

Exhibit 30: Historic housing unit counts by node

Data source: Community Science analysis of HHUUD10 data.

Exhibit 31: Historic housing counts for Mansfield, rural, and urban townships

Data source: Community Science analysis of HHUUD10 data.

For the less populous nodes, both Bellville and Lexington have also seen slow but steady growth

in the number of housing units since 1940. Shelby experienced a rapid growth in housing until

1960 but has only experienced modest growth since then. The number of housing units in Ontario

spiked between 1950 and 1970 but has also only modestly increased since then.

Year

Bellville Lexington Mansfield Ontario

Rural

Townships

Shelby

Urban

Townships

1940

86 95 11,176 244 5,348 1,670 1,993

1950

97 111 14,969 388 6,215 2,165 3,184

1960

130 214 18,661 921 7,970 2,473 6,212

1970

155 327 20,561 2,342 8,886 2,256 8,496

1980

210 495 22,239 1,543 11,351 2,415 10,981

1990

235 548 21,391 1,734 12,323 2,538 11,582

2000

264 619 21,639 2,107 13,487 2,674 12,273

2010

290 706 21,097 2,430 14,545 2,672 12,860

2019

311 714 20,598 2,457 14,461 2,766 12,883

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

48 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 32: Historic housing counts for Bellville, Lexington, Ontario, and Shelby

Data source: Community Science analysis of HHUUD10 data.

Mortgage, Home Sales, and Inventory Data

Mortgage Data (HMDA)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau collects data on home mortgage applications and loans

through the auspices of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, commonly known as HMDA. Data

presented in this table are for (i) first-lien, (ii) non-commercial, (iii) site-built (i.e., not

manufactured), (iv) non-reverse mortgage loans that were (v) originated. Average value is

calculated by taking the aggregate loan amount for each node and then dividing it by the number

of loans originated for that node.

Exhibit 33: Relevant HMDA data

Data source: Community Science analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data.

In general, it appears that the number of loans originated across the nodes increased over the

2018–2021 period, as did the average value of those loans. In fact, the average value of

originated loans increased over 25 percent across the four-year period for many of the nodes.

This reflects information shared in the project’s qualitative data collection regarding recent

Loans

Average

value

Loans

Average

value

Loans

Average

value

Loans

Average

value

Bellville 9

$199,178 9 $186,899 10 $153,111 9 $157,280

Lexington 30

$205,846 28 $188,288 31 $161,120 31 $165,825

Mansfield 481

$128,227 414 $117,681 371 $103,342 382 $94,882

Ontario 115

$198,695 106 $166,404 97 $168,968 84 $138,874

Rural Townships 487

$184,009 425 $172,079 422 $156,483 412 $154,456

Shelby 81

$127,081 62 $99,052 57 $103,941 67 $87,137

Urban Townships 415

$167,010

399

$152,538

371

$137,706

365

$126,587

2018

2019

2020

2021

Node

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

49 January 23, 2023

substantial increases in home prices across Richland County as well as the Zillow data presented

below.

Zillow Home Value and Inventory Data

The real estate website Zillow.com has a robust data inventory on various housing characteristics.

Unfortunately, though, coverage of Zillow data is limited, and for many data points it only covers

the largest U.S. cities and counties.

However, there are two data fields for which Zillow has data on Richland County: home values

and inventories. For home values (see Exhibit 34), data are collected monthly (though not

available every month, hence the gaps in the graph) and represent smoothed, seasonally-

adjusted values for the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI).

Data are collected for MSAs, and we

have included a set of ‘peer’ MSAs for comparison. Note that all the peer MSAs included here are

single-county MSAs.

The ZHVI represents the typical value of a home between the 35

and 65

percentile. See

https://www.zillow.com/research/zhvi-methodology-2019-highlights-26221/

for more information on the

ZHVI.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

50 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 34: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) for Mansfield and peer MSAs

Data source: Zillow Home Value Index data.

In general, home prices in the Mansfield MSA have tracked those of peer MSAs, with the closest

comparison being Lima. It appears that home values in the Mansfield MSA were the most heavily

affected by the Great Recession and stayed low during the early 2010s (likely due, at least in

part, to factory closures). In recent years, though, home values in the Mansfield MSA have risen

sharply, as they have in peer MSAs.

The second data point that Zillow collects is a smoothed inventory of all homes listed for sale,

shown in Exhibit 35. These figures are influenced by the size of the MSA, so patterns here are

more important than raw numbers. In general, it appears that the housing inventory for the

Mansfield MSA has decreased in recent years as it has in peer MSAs, with peak annual housing

inventories in 2020 and 2021 being much lower than peak inventories in 2018 and 2019. However,

one should note that the Mansfield MSA’s annual inventory floor has not decreased as much as it

has in the peer MSAs of Sandusky, Findlay, and to a lesser extent Lima.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

51 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 35: Housing inventories for Mansfield and peer MSAs

Data source: Zillow housing inventory data.

Summing it up. Both the HMDA and Zillow data show that sales prices of homes throughout

Richland County have risen dramatically in the last five years, as they have done so throughout

the U.S. The Zillow data—which stretches back further—shows dramatic increases beginning in

2015, with an especially sharp rise beginning in early 2020. The HMDA data—which is broken

down by node—shows that average sales prices for all nodes have increased dramatically, with

increases ranging from 30 percent to nearly 50 percent from 2018–2021. One should note,

though, that the HMDA data does not control for house quality (as is the case for the Zillow data).

What does the sales data say about Richland County’s housing market? For one, the recent house

price increases have provided substantial equity to long-term homeowners. Second, demand

exists for housing in the county and suggests the need for new housing development. Third, there

is a clear need for additional attainable housing in the county, as recent price increases have

likely priced out many moderate- to lower-income homebuyers. Additionally, market-rate priced

housing can also expand the supply of attainable housing through the filtering down of existing

housing—i.e., as new market-rate units come online, this allows owners of existing market-rate

units to purchase them and for their previous units to become occupied by owners of attainable

housing units moving up the housing ladder.

Additionally, the recent increases in home prices suggest the need for outreach to out-of-county

developers who may have older perceptions of the county’s housing market. It was not long

ago—per the Zillow data, about five years ago—when the median home in the county was selling

for under $100,000. Today, the median home in the county is selling for about $165,000, and

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

52 January 23, 2023

newer homes in higher quality neighborhoods are selling for double that amount. Yet it is likely

that many developers continue to perceive Richland County’s housing market as stale and one

where a developer cannot sell a house to make a profit.

Permitting Data

Permitting data are maintained by both Richland County and the City of Mansfield.

Looking first

at single-family permits for Richland County dating back to 2002 (Exhibit 36), these begin quite

high (approximately 275 per year) before falling precipitously during the Great Recession.

Permitting has only recovered modestly since then, with approximately 70–95 permits being

issued in each year since 2016.

Exhibit 36: Richland County single-family permits

Data source: Richland County permitting records.

In the Market Analysis chapter, the Community Science team provides greater analysis of the

permitting records across Richland County.

In comparison to Richland County, the City of Mansfield has issued significantly fewer permits for

new home construction (see Exhibit 37). Throughout the 2011–2019 period, the City issued fewer

than 10 permits each year, though this increased to 22 and 20 permits, respectively, in 2020 and

2021.

Note that Richland County data does not include permits in Bellville, which does not maintain any

permitting data.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

53 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 37: City of Mansfield new home construction permits

Data source: City of Mansfield permitting records.

The City of Mansfield also maintains data on demolitions conducted in the city Exhibit 38. The

number of properties demolished in a given year varies substantially, from a low of 39 in 2011 to

a high of 164 in 2013. In recent years, the city has demolished between 62 and 123 properties.

However, in every given year, a majority of properties demolished were residential in terms of

land use.

Exhibit 38: City of Mansfield demolition data

Data source: City of Mansfield demolition data.

Summing it up. The construction permit data here reinforces the Census data presented above—

that very few new residential units have been built in Richland County in the last 20 years.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

54 January 23, 2023

However, by presenting data in a year-by-year format, we can see that new permitting in the

county cratered during the Great Recession and has not recovered. The data also show how few

permits have been issued in the City of Mansfield since 2011—fewer than 100 units in a 10-year

period. Overall, the data further highlight the needs identified earlier—with so little local

construction occurring, it is unsurprising that there remains a dearth of local talent related to the

construction trades.

The demolition data show the extent of demolitions done throughout the City of Mansfield—nearly

1,000 properties over the last 10 years. These demolitions have resulted in many vacant yet

developable lots in Mansfield, particularly in the north end. To the extent that these lots are

owned by the City or the Land Bank, they present an opportunity for low-income and attainable

housing development in neighborhoods that are near many service providers. Unfortunately,

given the prevailing house prices in the neighborhoods where most demolitions have likely

occurred, there is little opportunity for market-rate housing development.

Employment and Commuting Data

The Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program maintains a

rich dataset of employment-related information down to very specific geographies. In terms of

housing planning, two types of data are particularly relevant: commuting and job/worker

characteristics.

Commuting Data

Looking first at the commuting patterns of Richland County residents, the proportion of county

residents who also work in the county has fallen from 59.9% in 2004 to 52.9% in 2019 (see

Exhibit 39). In that same time period, the proportion of county residents commuting to work in

Franklin, Ashland, and Crawford Counties has increased noticeably.

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

55 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 39: Richland County residents commuting to work (commute out)

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Turning our attention to those who

work

in Richland County, the proportion of workers who are

also Richland County residents has remained relatively stable since 2004 at approximately 55–56

percent (see Exhibit 40). Somewhat interestingly, the proportion of Richland County employees

who commute

from Ashland and Franklin Counties has increased in this time period.

Exhibit 40: Where workers in Richland County reside (commute in)

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Destination 2019 2014 2009 2004

Richland County 52.9% 57.6% 59.4% 59.9%

Franklin County 9.0% 6.5% 6.0% 8.2%

Ashland County 5.6% 5.0% 3.9% 4.0%

Crawford County 3.5% 3.2% 2.5% 2.5%

Cuyahoga County 3.3% 3.2% 3.5% 3.3%

Huron County 2.3% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2%

Knox County 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.4%

Summit County 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%

Delaware County 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9%

Stark County 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1%

Wayne County 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 1.1%

Marion County 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%

All Other Locations 14.8% 14.3% 14.6% 12.8%

Destination 2019 2014 2009 2004

Richland County 55.4% 55.8% 54.2% 56.8%

Crawford County 5.7% 5.7% 5.1% 5.4%

Ashland County 5.0% 5.1% 4.5% 4.3%

Huron County 2.6% 2.8% 2.4% 2.3%

Franklin County 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 1.1%

Morrow County 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1%

Knox County 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.9%

Cuyahoga County 1.8% 1.7% 1.8% 2.0%

Marion County 1.2% 1.3% 1.0% 1.1%

Summit County 1.2% 1.1% 1.4% 1.4%

Lorain County 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9%

Wayne County 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7%

Stark County 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1%

Lucas County 1.0% 0.9% 1.2% 1.2%

All Other Locations 15.9% 15.7% 19.2% 17.5%

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

56 January 23, 2023

Home Area Profiles

In addition to commuting data, the LEHD also maintains rich employment data on both those

who reside and work in specific geographies. Unlike the Census data described above, these data

are available at the Census block level, which allows the research team to be more specific in

allocating data to the nodes of analysis. Given this finer level of geography, we have interpolated

Census block-level data to the nodes based on the node in which the block centroid falls.

This first section inventories LEHD home area profiles. These profiles analyze the characteristics

of those who

reside

in each node.

The subsequent section analyzes worker area profiles,

categorizing those who

work

in each node.

In terms of the age of residents, characteristics are remarkably stable across the various nodes

in the county (see Exhibit 41). Approximately 50% of employed residents are between the ages

of 30–54, with approximately a quarter over age 55 and between 20–25% under age 30.

Exhibit 41: Home area profile: age

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

In terms of earnings, it appears that Mansfield residents in general earn slightly less than residents

of the county’s other nodes. A plurality of Mansfield residents earn between $1,250–$3,333 per

month, while a plurality of residents in each of the other nodes earns over $3,333 per month.

Relatively fewer residents of each node earn less than $1,250 per month.

Unlike Census demographic information, though, the characteristics presented here are for those

individuals who reside in a node and are employed somewhere (which could be in the node, elsewhere in

Richland County, or somewhere else).

Node

Total workers Under age 30 Age 30–54 Age 55 or older

Bellville

839 182 (22%) 437 (52%) 220 (26%)

Lexington

2,106 446 (21%) 1106 (53%) 554 (26%)

Mansfield

18,199

4593 (25%)

9040 (50%) 4566 (25%)

Ontario

2,555 528 (21%) 1356 (53%) 671 (26%)

Rural Townships

10,762 2406 (22%) 5498 (51%) 2858 (27%)

Shelby

4,102 1003 (24%)

2092 (51%)

1007 (25%)

Urban Townships

11,797 2709 (23%)

5967 (51%) 3121 (26%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

57 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 42: Home area profile: earnings

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Educational attainment among residents is also fairly consistent across the nodes (see Exhibit

43). Approximately a third of residents have only a high school diploma or GED, while another

third have attended some college or hold an Associate’s degree. Roughly 20–30 percent have a

Bachelor’s degree or higher, while 10 percent or fewer do not hold a high school diploma or GED.

Exhibit 43: Home area profile: educational attainment

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Finally, turning to the industry in which residents of each node are employed, there are once

again substantial similarities across the nodes (see Exhibit 44). For each node, a plurality of

residents are employed either in manufacturing or in health care services. Other industries that

employ a substantial number of Richland County residents include retail trade, education, and

hospitality/food service.

Node

Earnings of

$1250/mo or less

Earnings of

$1251–3333/mo

Earnings over

$3333/mo

Bellville

214 (26%) 281 (33%) 344 (41%)

Lexington

490 (23%) 681 (32%) 935 (44%)

Mansfield

4890 (27%) 7235 (40%) 6074 (33%)

Ontario

608 (24%) 801 (31%) 1146 (45%)

Rural Townships

2498 (23%) 3553 (33%) 4711 (44%)

Shelby

977 (24%) 1450 (35%) 1675 (41%)

Urban Townships

2891 (25%) 4247 (36%) 4659 (39%)

Node

Less than high

school

High school

diploma or GED

Some college or

Associate degree

Bachelor's

degree or higher

Bellville

47 (7%) 221 (34%) 202 (31%) 187 (28%)

Lexington

168 (10%) 537 (32%) 539 (32%) 416 (25%)

Mansfield

1554 (11%) 4686 (34%) 4522 (33%) 2844 (21%)

Ontario

182 (9%) 679 (33%) 639 (32%) 527 (26%)

Rural Townships

806 (10%) 2874 (34%) 2790 (33%) 1886 (23%)

Shelby

285 (9%) 1147 (37%) 1015 (33%) 652 (21%)

Urban Townships

849 (9%) 3173 (35%) 2990 (33%) 2076 (23%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

58 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 44: Home area profile: industry

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Work Area Profiles

As mentioned earlier, the other way that LEHD presents data is on those who work in each node

(these are called ‘work area profiles’ in the LEHD’s parlance). As shown in the tables below, there

are substantial differences in the characteristics of those who work in each node.

Industry

Bellville

Lexington

Mansfield

Ontario

Rural Townships

Shelby

Urban Townships

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing

and Hunting

5 (1%)

5 (0%) 50 (0%) 4 (0%) 55 (1%) 28 (1%) 41 (0%)

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil

and Gas Extraction

0 (0%) 4 (0%) 11 (0%) 2 (0%) 13 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (0%)

Utilities 3 (0%) 11 (1%) 91 (1%) 16 (1%) 54 (1%) 21 (1%) 79 (1%)

Construction

55 (7%) 84 (4%) 641 (4%) 110 (4%) 592 (6%) 189 (5%) 618 (5%)

Manufacturing 143 (17%) 330 (16%) 3405 (19%) 459 (18%) 2419 (22%) 1027 (25%) 2399 (20%)

Wholesale Trade

26 (3%) 83 (4%) 574 (3%) 100 (4%) 344 (3%) 146 (4%) 430 (4%)

Retail Trade 99 (12%) 223 (11%) 1976 (11%) 303 (12%) 1152 (11%) 443 (11%) 1200 (10%)

Transportation and

Warehousing

20 (2%) 52 (2%) 587 (3%) 78 (3%) 315 (3%) 127 (3%) 351 (3%)

Information 12 (1%) 40 (2%) 283 (2%) 23 (1%) 133 (1%) 56 (1%) 149 (1%)

Finance and Insurance 20 (2%) 55 (3%) 493 (3%) 74 (3%) 264 (2%) 117 (3%) 309 (3%)

Real Estate and Rental and

Leasing

3 (0%) 19 (1%) 150 (1%) 21 (1%) 83 (1%) 25 (1%) 92 (1%)

Professional, Scientific, and

Technical Services

32 (4%) 85 (4%) 559 (3%) 86 (3%) 327 (3%) 102 (2%) 411 (3%)

Management of Companies

and Enterprises

13 (2%)

32 (2%) 226 (1%) 33 (1%) 156 (1%) 45 (1%) 126 (1%)

Administrative and Support

and Waste Management and

Remediation Services

40 (5%) 114 (5%) 1533 (8%) 150 (6%) 543 (5%) 228 (6%) 736 (6%)

Educational Services

87 (10%) 223 (11%) 1286 (7%) 212 (8%) 1059 (10%) 342 (8%) 942 (8%)

Health Care and Social

Assistance

131 (16%) 361 (17%) 3049 (17%) 419 (16%) 1449 (13%) 546 (13%) 1792 (15%)

Arts, Entertainment, and

Recreation

7 (1%) 37 (2%) 199 (1%) 28 (1%) 104 (1%) 29 (1%) 131 (1%)

Accommodation and Food

Services

79 (9%) 177 (8%) 1834 (10%) 228 (9%) 910 (8%) 366 (9%) 1062 (9%)

Other Services [except

Public Administration]

24 (3%)

58 (3%) 560 (3%) 70 (3%) 308 (3%) 131 (3%) 351 (3%)

Public Administration 40 (5%) 113 (5%) 692 (4%) 139 (5%) 482 (4%) 134 (3%) 566 (5%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

59 January 23, 2023

In terms of the age of workers in each of the nodes, again we see a plurality in each is between

the ages of 30–54 (see Exhibit 45). However, in Bellville and Ontario, over a third of workers are

under age 30, and both Lexington and the urban townships also have relatively large proportions

of younger workers. In contrast, the workers in both Mansfield and Shelby skew older into the 55

and older cohort.

Exhibit 45: Work area profile: age

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Earnings across workers in each of the nodes varies substantially, as shown in Exhibit 46. In

Bellville, a majority of workers earn $1,250 a month or less, while roughly half of workers in

Shelby and the rural townships earn over $3,333 a month. Workers in both Lexington and

Mansfield are also more likely to earn in the higher income cohorts as well.

Exhibit 46: Work area profile: earnings

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Interestingly, the patterns for work area educational attainment do not necessarily follow that of

income (see Exhibit 47)—for instance, the educational attainment of Bellville workers is

comparable to those of the other nodes, while the earnings of its workers (see Exhibit 46) are

much less. In fact, the educational attainment of workers across all the nodes is very comparable,

with about a third of workers holding only a diploma or GED, a third having some college or an

Associate’s degree, roughly one-fifth having a Bachelor’s degree or higher, and about 10 percent

having less than a high school diploma.

Node

Total workers

Under age 30 Age 30–54

Age 55 or

older

Bellville

933

349 (37%) 387 (41%) 197 (21%)

Lexington 2,671 670 (25%) 1310 (49%) 691 (26%)

Mansfield

24,258

4915 (20%) 12570 (52%) 6773 (28%)

Ontario

8,123

2835 (35%) 3620 (45%) 1668 (21%)

Rural Townships

3,362 768 (23%) 1778 (53%) 816 (24%)

Shelby 3,662

740 (20%) 1908 (52%) 1014 (28%)

Urban Townships

5,044 1354 (27%) 2402 (48%) 1288 (26%)

Node

Earnings of

$1250/mo or less

Earnings of

$1251–3333/mo

Earnings over

$3333/mo

Bellville

480 (51%) 297 (32%) 156 (17%)

Lexington

499 (19%) 987 (37%) 1185 (44%)

Mansfield

5385 (22%) 9009 (37%) 9864 (41%)

Ontario

3008 (37%) 3221 (40%) 1894 (23%)

Rural Townships

797 (24%) 964 (29%) 1601 (48%)

Shelby

781 (21%) 1069 (29%) 1812 (49%)

Urban Townships

1515 (30%) 2035 (40%) 1494 (30%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

60 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 47: Work area profile: educational attainment

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Earlier, the report noted that the industry of employment for

residents

across the nodes was quite

similar (see Exhibit 44). However, in looking at the industry in which

workers

in the various nodes

are employed, we see substantial differences across the nodes (see Exhibit 48). In terms of

manufacturing employment, over half (54%) of Lexington workers are employed in this industry,

while nearly half (43%) of Shelby workers are as well. In Bellville, meanwhile, nearly half (49%)

of workers are employed in the accommodation and food service industries. For Mansfield, a

relatively large proportion (17%) of workers are in the health care and social assistance industry,

while Ontario has a disproportionate number of workers in the administrative and support services

industry (17%).

Summing it up. The commuting data show that nearly half (45%) of all Richland County workers

commute into the county for work, and that those commuters represent a mix of nearby counties

(Crawford, Ashland, Morrow) and ones that are further afield (Franklin, Cuyahoga, Marion). While

this figure is not atypical compared to other similar counties (for instance, 49% of workers

commute into Allen County), those commuters are an easy market for any new housing

development, especially with today’s high gas prices, as they might be looking to reside closer to

their jobs.

The industry work area profiles also show how the economies of the analysis nodes are

segmented, with some leaning heavily on manufacturing (Lexington and Shelby), accommodation

and food services (Bellville), health care (Mansfield), and professional services (Ontario). While

individuals can certainly commute between nodes, those economic bases suggest a market for

certain housing types in and around those nodes. For instance, the heavy lean of Bellville’s

economy toward typically lower-paid service jobs suggests the need for affordable and attainable

housing—especially given the relative lack of affordable housing developments in the node.

Meanwhile, Mansfield and Ontario likely have a market for short-term, market-rate rental housing

for nurses or other traveling professionals.

Node

Less than high

school

High school

diploma or GED

Some college or

Associate degree

Bachelor's degree

or higher

Bellville

63 (11%) 218 (37%) 193 (33%) 110 (19%)

Lexington

212 (11%) 712 (36%) 654 (33%) 423 (21%)

Mansfield

1898 (10%) 6749 (35%) 6452 (33%) 4244 (22%)

Ontario

597 (11%) 1841 (35%) 1846 (35%) 1004 (19%)

Rural Townships

252 (10%) 982 (38%) 860 (33%) 500 (19%)

Shelby

287 (10%) 1106 (38%) 946 (32%) 583 (20%)

Urban Townships

452 (12%) 1368 (37%) 1177 (32%) 693 (19%)

Richland County Housing Needs and Action Plan

61 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 48: Work area profile: industry

Data source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data.

Industry

Bellville

Lexington

Mansfield

Ontario

Rural Townships

Shelby

Urban Townships

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing

and Hunting

3 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

38 (1%)

27 (1%) 37 (1%)

Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and

Gas Extraction

0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

4 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%)

Utilities 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 152 (1%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%) 31 (1%) 73 (1%)

Construction 54 (6%) 63 (2%)

797 (3%)

196 (2%) 622 (19%)

73 (2%) 491 (10%)

Manufacturing 46 (5%) 1433 (54%) 5285 (22%) 400 (5%) 755 (22%) 1559 (43%)

431 (9%)

Wholesale Trade 22 (2%) 59 (2%) 1101 (5%) 379 (5%) 82 (2%) 14 (0%) 213 (4%)

Retail Trade 153 (16%) 114 (4%) 1903 (8%) 2264 (28%) 357 (11%) 339 (9%) 1291 (26%)

Transportation and

Warehousing

0 (0%) 32 (1%) 667 (3%) 61 (1%)

64 (2%) 146 (4%) 215 (4%)

Information 0 (0%) 7 (0%)

510 (2%)

118 (1%)

2 (0%)

66 (2%)

5 (0%)

Finance and Insurance 20 (2%) 51 (2%) 591 (2%) 124 (2%)

47 (1%)

64 (2%)

90 (2%)

Real Estate and Rental and

Leasing

4 (0%) 7 (0%) 197 (1%) 55 (1%)

7 (0%) 16 (0%) 17 (0%)

Professional, Scientific, and

Technical Services

13 (1%) 8 (0%)

565 (2%)

141 (2%)

39 (1%)

37 (1%)

118 (2%)

Management of Companies

and Enterprises

0 (0%) 15 (1%) 71 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0%)

Administrative and Support

and Waste Management and

Remediation Services

9 (1%) 26 (1%) 1895 (8%) 1395 (17%) 193 (6%) 45 (1%)

220 (4%)

Educational Services 57 (6%)

348 (13%) 1782 (7%) 352 (4%) 492 (15%) 496 (14%)

522 (10%)

Health Care and Social

Assistance

1 (0%) 222 (8%) 4099 (17%) 843 (10%) 277 (8%)

345 (9%)

430 (9%)

Arts, Entertainment, and

Recreation

42 (5%) 18 (1%) 212 (1%) 23 (0%)

23 (1%) 1 (0%) 111 (2%)

Accommodation and Food

Services

460 (49%) 196 (7%) 1630 (7%) 1416 (17%) 167 (5%) 238 (6%) 564 (11%)

Other Services [except Public

Administration]

24 (3%) 25 (1%) 825 (3%) 183 (2%) 98 (3%)

106 (3%) 134 (3%)

Public Administration

25 (3%) 44 (2%) 1976 (8%) 173 (2%) 95 (3%) 59 (2%) 79 (2%)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 62 January 23, 2023

Static Maps

Exhibit 49: Predominant racial/ethnic group by Census tract (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 63 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 50: Percent of population with a Bachelor's degree (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 64 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 51: Percent of population age 65 and older (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 65 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 52: Poverty rate and tracts of concentrated poverty (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 66 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 53: Percent of population with a disability (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 67 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 54: Homeownership rate (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 68 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 55: Percent of housing units that are single-family detached homes (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 69 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 56: Density of mobile homes by Census tract (map)

Note: dots do not correspond to actual locations of mobile homes, just the density of mobile homes within each Census tract.

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 70 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 57: Predominant year built of housing units by Census tract (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 71 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 58: Median contract rent (map)

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report 72 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 59: Percent of renter households paying over 30% of their income toward rent and utilities (map)

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

73 January 23, 2023

Chapter 3: Market Analysis

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

74 January 23, 2023

Chapter 3: Market Analysis

Introduction

This Market Analysis chapter presents a holistic overview of Richland County’s owner-occupied

and rental housing market. Drawing on data and interviews with key stakeholders, it analyzes the

county’s current housing market and trends and identifies opportunities for development in the

short- and medium-term for affordable, attainable, and market-rate housing.

Guiding the analysis presented here are the following three questions. In the final section of this

report, the report will return to these questions to organize key findings.

• What does our current market look like with respect to prices and target groups?

• Based on market information, what is the nature and extent of short-to-mid-term housing

needs in our community?

• Is there a market for unsubsidized, market-rate housing, and what communities can support

this type of housing?

As noted in the previous chapter, we have also produced an interactive map that showcases many

of the data analyzed in both this and subsequent chapters at this link

. We have created a short

‘how to’ video of how to use the map here. In addition, we have created several data visualizations

of sales and permitting data; these are linked at relevant points throughout this chapter.

Data Sources

In developing the market analysis, our team has relied on multiple data sources which have

allowed us to develop a holistic picture of Richland County’s market-rate, attainable, and

affordable housing markets. Quantitative data sources utilized in this report include:

• Ohio Association of Realtors monthly market updates (which utilize MLS data)

• Zillow research data

• Richland County Auditor sales transactions

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

75 January 23, 2023

• Permitting data from Richland County and the City of Mansfield

• American Community Survey data estimates

• National Housing Preservation Database information on federally subsidized rental properties

• Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Picture of Subsidized Households (POSH)

for information on Housing Choice Voucher clients of the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing

Authority

• HMIS (Homeless Management Information System) data for clients at Harmony House

In addition, over the last three months, our team has conducted interviews with over 30 real

estate stakeholders in Richland County and beyond to better understand the county’s current

housing market and opportunities for new housing development. These interviews have been

conducted with real estate agents and developers, bankers, affordable housing providers, agency

representatives, development consultants, and government staffers, among many others. Our

team thanks these individuals for generously sharing their time and wisdom throughout the

development of this report.

Overall Real Estate Trends

Our market analysis begins by presenting county-wide information on Richland County’s housing

market. This section of the report first reviews housing construction in the county before

discussing sales prices and volumes.

Home permitting

Understanding a county’s housing market relies on both analysis of sales and rents as well as

analysis of new home construction trends. Regarding the latter, as previously shown in this

project, very few homes have been built in Richland County since the Great Recession began in

2007. Exhibit 60 shows single-family home permits filed by node in Richland County (excluding

Mansfield and Bellville) and show the steep dive in new home construction beginning in 2006. In

fact, since 2008, no more than 100 new single-family home permits have been filed in the county

in a given year.

What new homes have been built have largely been developed in the unincorporated portions of

the county, especially the rural townships. In fact, since 2012, nearly 60 percent of all new single

family home permits have been filed in the rural townships, with an additional 22 percent being

filed in the urban townships. Within the municipalities covered by these data, Ontario has had

the largest number of single-family home permits, followed by Lexington and Shelby, respectively.

We’ve created a Tableau visualization of these data at this link

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

76 January 23, 2023

We have mapped permits filed over the last three years (going back to June 13, 2019) at

this

link. These represent approximately 250 permits filed over that period. Note that this map includes

both single-family and duplex/triplex permits.

Exhibit 60: Single-family permits by node (Richland County)

Data source: Richland County permitting records.

Breaking down the single-family permit data even further, the townships with the greatest

number of permits filed in the 2012–2021 period include Jefferson (54), Springfield (53), Troy

(52), Washington (46), and Worthington (45).

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

77 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 61: Single-family permits by jurisdiction, 2012–2021

Data source: Richland County permitting records.

Compared to single-family permits, relatively fewer permits for two- and three-dwelling unit

construction have been filed in the county since 2002 (see Exhibit 62). For all of the nodes except

Ontario, virtually no permits have been filed for these types of dwellings since 2008. However, in

Ontario, these types of permits have exploded (relatively speaking) since 2008, with up to 13

being filed in any given year.

Row Labels Permits Note

Ontario 120 N/A

Jefferson 54 Rural

Springfield 53 Urban

Troy 52 Rural

Washington 46 Urban

Worthington 45 Rural

Monroe 39 Rural

Weller 33 Rural

Mifflin 30 Urban

Lexington 28 N/A

Plymouth 27 Rural

Madison 24 Urban

Franklin 23 Rural

Perry 23 Rural

Bloominggrove 21 Rural

Cass 20 Rural

Shelby 19 N/A

Butler 17 Rural

Jackson 12 Rural

Sharon 11 Rural

Sandusky 10 Rural

Shiloh 3 Rural

Lucas 2 Rural

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

78 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 62: Two- and three-family permits by node (Richland County)

Data source: Richland County permitting records.

Like single-unit and two-/three-unit dwellings, the multifamily construction market in Richland

County also slowed abruptly during the Great Recession and has yet to recover (see Exhibit 63).

Before 2007, there were typically 10–17 multifamily permits filed in the county in a given year;

however, since 2009, there have only been six such permits filed in the entire county over that

timespan—two in 2013, two in 2015, and two in 2021. Of those six, four were in Ontario and two

were in Lexington.

Exhibit 63: Richland County multifamily permits by node, 2002–2021

Data source: Richland County permitting records.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

79 January 23, 2023

Relative to Richland County, the City of Mansfield has issued significantly fewer permits for new

home construction (see Exhibit 37). Throughout the 2011–2019 period, fewer than 10 permits

were issued in the city each year, though this increased to 22 and 20 permits, respectively, in

2020 and 2021.

Exhibit 64: City of Mansfield new home construction permits

Data source: City of Mansfield permitting records.

Overall Home Sales Data

To provide greater context for the analysis that follows, we first provide some county-wide real

estate information that highlights (i) units sold, (ii) average sales prices, and (iii) total sales

volume. Data here are sourced from the Ohio Association of Realtors and include the Mansfield

market (Richland County) as well as a comparable market (Lima) and one nearby, albeit smaller

market (Ashland).

In terms of overall units sold by month, data show that the Mansfield market (Richland County)

has held relatively steady in terms of sales volume going back to 2017, with about 150 units sold

on average per month (see Exhibit 65). There is some evidence of a slight uptick in sales in mid-

2021, though this is only a modest increase over mid-2020 figures (approximately a 10% gain).

Sales trends for the two comparable markets (Lima and Ashland) are also relatively flat over this

time period.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

80 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 65: Richland County housing units sold, January 2017–July 2022

Data source: Ohio Association of Realtors. Note: the Mansfield market includes Richland County, the Lima

market includes Allen, Hardin, and Van Wert Counties, the Ashland market includes Ashland County.

Mansfield and Ashland markets are missing data for May 2022.

The sales price data, however, show a much different trend, with Richland County’s average sales

price nearly doubling over the January 2017–July 2022 period (see Exhibit 66). Back in January

2017, the average price for a home sold in Richland County was slightly less than $100,000, but

today the average home sold in the county is fetching over $175,000. Building on the prior

discussion of permitting, given the low rates of new construction in the county, this increase in

sales prices is undoubtedly due to appreciation of the existing stock rather than new construction.

In general, sales prices in Richland County are comparable to those in the Lima market and

somewhat less than those in the Ashland market.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

81 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 66: Average sales price, January 2017–July 2022

Data source: Ohio Association of Realtors. Note: the Mansfield market includes Richland County, the Lima

market includes Allen, Hardin, and Van Wert Counties, the Ashland market includes Ashland County.

Mansfield and Ashland markets are missing data for May 2022.

Finally, the total sales volume for Richland County reflects the simple calculation of units sold

multiplied by sales price and shows that overall volumes increased in mid-2021 that corresponds

to the increase in sales prices shown earlier (see Exhibit 67).

Exhibit 67: Total sales volume, January 2017–July 2022

Data source: Ohio Association of Realtors. Note: the Mansfield market includes Richland County, the Lima

market includes Allen, Hardin, and Van Wert Counties, the Ashland market includes Ashland County.

Mansfield and Ashland markets are missing data for May 2022.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

82 January 23, 2023

For-sale inventory and time to sale

In general, the county’s for-sale inventory has only deceased slightly over the past four and a

half years and shows the seasonality typical of real estate listings (see Exhibit 68). The peak

(mid/late summer) inventory amounts have decreased modestly, from roughly 415 units in

summer 2018 to about 370 units in summer (about a 10% decrease). The number of new listings

by month has remained relatively steady from a low of about 80 in the winter months to a high

of about 170 in the summer months.

Exhibit 68: New listings and for-sale inventory, January 2018–July 2022:

Data source: Zillow Research

Evidence of the continued demand for housing is further provided by median days to pending

data (see Exhibit 69). These data plot the median amount of time (on a monthly basis) from

when a home is listed on Zillow to when a sale goes pending (typically when an initial offer is

accepted pending inspections or other contingencies). For Richland County (Mansfield MSA), this

figure has decreased from 30 days in January 2019 to less than 10 days in the three most recent

months. This is comparable to other similar markets in Ohio.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

83 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 69: Median days from listing to pending

Data source: Zillow Research

Summing it up. This section has set the stage, so to speak, for the market analysis that follows

by reviewing both construction and overall real estate trends across Richland County. In sum,

very few homes have been permitted within the county since 2007, and what homes have been

permitted tend to be in the unincorporated portions of the county, especially the rural townships.

Thus, any changes in house prices over the last 15 years are the result of appreciation of existing

inventory, not the contribution of new inventory to the housing stock.

Overall, the market trends for Richland County suggest a tight housing market that is pushing

prices higher. While units sold have been relatively flat the last five years (averaging about 125–

150 homes sold every month), average prices have increased dramatically—from $100,000 in

January 2017 to nearly $175,000 today. Given how little housing has been built in the county

over that period, this suggests dramatic appreciation of existing inventory. This is further

confirmed by the days-to-pending data—over the last 3.5 years, this has gone from a median of

30 days to a median of less than 10 days.

Market Rate Housing

This section describes Richland County’s market-rate owner-occupied housing and rental market.

To avoid repeating the analysis, the section discusses all house sales in the county (including in

the attainable and affordable ranges). The following sections will further discuss sales in those

price ranges. For the rental housing analysis, the section only discusses those opportunities in

the market-rate range.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

84 January 23, 2023

Sales trends by tiers

Zillow research provides sales data for Richland County going back to January 2000 divided by

tiers—average price for the lower third of the market, the middle third of the market, and the

upper third of the market (see this link

for a Tableau visualization of the data).

Overall, the trends for Richland County can be divided into three parts. Before the Great Recession

(2000–2007), the county experienced modest though steady price growth. During the Great

Recession and in the following years (2008–2017), the county saw home prices first decline and

then modestly increase, through sales prices did not rebound to their January 2007 peak until

mid-2019.

Exhibit 70: Richland County sales prices by tiers

Data source: Zillow Research

Zeroing in on data from the last 10 years, we can see slow but steady increases in sales prices

from January 2012–January 2020, followed by dramatic increase through the present day. Home

price growth for the upper third of the market in the last two years has been stronger (in absolute

terms) relative to the lower two tiers, with the upper tier now pushing nearly $300,000. Homes

in the lower tier of the market are still selling, on average, for below $100,000.

The year-over-year market trends confirm the data presented in the previous two charts—that

house prices have increased by at least 5 percent annually dating back to mid-2017 and have

increased at over a 15 percent clip since mid-2021 (see Exhibit 71). Interestingly, price increases

have been strongest in the middle of the market in recent years, topping out at nearly 25 percent

year-over-year in mid- to late 2021. See this link

for a Tableau visualization of this exhibit going

back to 2001.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

85 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 71: Year-over-year price change, home sales by market tier, January 2013–July 2022

Data source: Zillow Research

Returning back to those market segments, the middle of the market housing stock whose price

has increased so dramatically in recent years are homes that, pre-pandemic, would have sold in

the $100,000–$125,000 range, but are now selling for closer to $175,000. That places them firmly

in the attainable housing category, pointing to a shrinkage of the attainable housing stock in the

county. Interviews with real estate stakeholders support this point: that the inventory of quality

attainable housing in the county has shrunk dramatically as prices have increased. The report will

return to this point in the following section.

Looking at the housing market through the lens of housing size (number of bedrooms), again,

the trends here are similar to those presented in the earlier analysis: larger homes (those of five

or more bedrooms) beginning to push the $300,000 price range while smaller homes remain

closer to the $100,000 price range.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

86 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 72: Home sales by bedroom size, January 2000–July 2022

Data source: Zillow Research

As a market segment, condos in Richland County have primarily been built more recently (within

the last 20 or so years), and many either implicitly or explicitly target the senior citizen market.

Despite often being smaller housing units, they can attract a premium relative to single-family

housing options in Richland County (see Exhibit 73). In fact, the average condo in Richland County

is now fetching nearly $200,000, and the condo market has experienced year-over-year gains of

over 10 percent dating back to mid-2021. See this link

for a Tableau visualization of this exhibit

(for comparison, the visualization also includes the middle and upper tier sales prices from Exhibit

70)

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

87 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 73: Average condo price, January 2000–July 2022

Data source: Zillow Research

Sales trends by node

To better understand market trends by node, our team has analyzed Richland County Auditor

sales data for real estate transactions over the past 10 years (since January 2012). Given the

inherent messiness of analyzing these data, we’ve limited the analysis to (i) parcels whose land

use was considered single family by the Auditor; that (ii) sold for over $10,000; and (iii) were

transferred using any type of warranty deed.

One shortcoming of this analysis is that it is unable to account for housing quality. That is, we

are unable to tell whether the homes sold are in pristine condition, are somewhat flawed, or have

serious defects. To account for seriously deteriorated structures, we’ve excluded all home sales

below $10,000. However, especially for certain nodes, one may interpret sales under $50,000 as

homes that would require substantial investment to be habitable.

We’ve compiled the sales data into quarters and have divided them within price ranges of

$50,000. All figures here are linked to Tableau sheets. In each respective node’s

Housing Needs

Assessment

, we have provided greater detail and commentary on sales figures in the node.

Bellville

As the smallest node, Bellville also has some of the lowest home sales volumes, and in some

quarters the village only experienced five or fewer home sales. Relatively speaking, Bellville has

some of the highest-priced home sales in the county, with very few homes sold recently for less

than $150,000. While the most common range of home sales in the node is currently $150,000–

$200,000, the village also has seen several sales exceeding $300,000 in the past year.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

88 January 23, 2023

Mansfield

As expected, Mansfield generally has the highest sales volume relative to the other nodes, and

also has some of the lowest-priced housing among the nodes. Prior to 2021, the majority of home

sales in Mansfield were under $100,000. However, beginning in the first quarter of 2021, the

number of sales in the $100,000–$200,000 ranges begin to increase substantially, pointing to an

increase in home values given the lack of new construction in the city. These home prices, though,

still fall within the ‘attainable’ market category (discussed in the following section).

Lexington

Lexington has some of the highest sales prices in the county, owing to both a robust market for

higher-cost homes and a lack of affordable and attainable housing. Over the last year, virtually

no homes have sold in Lexington for less than $150,000, and the node has seen a substantial

increase in homes selling for over $300,000 (with several fetching over $400,000 this year).

Ontario

Like Lexington, Ontario also has some of the highest sales prices in the county, with virtually no

sales below $100,000 in the past year. In recent quarters, the number of sales in Ontario below

$150,000 has also dwindled, and many home sales in the county are now occurring in the

$200,000–$300,000 ranges. Also like Lexington, Ontario has seen a number of sales exceeding

$300,000 in recent quarters.

Shelby

The recent increases in home prices in Richland county can also be seen in Shelby, where the

number of sales in the $100,000–$150,000 and $150,000–$200,000 categories has increased

appreciably since January 2021, and the node is increasingly seeing some home sales in the

$250,000-$300,000 range. The number of home sales in Shelby for under $100,000 has dropped

during this period as well. Shelby has also, overall, seen an increase in homes sales volume since

the mid-2010s.

Rural townships

Richland County’s rural townships cover the largest geographic area of any nodes, and as

highlighted earlier, they have seen the bulk of new home construction in the county in the last

10 years. Sales prices in the rural townships are generally higher than in the incorporated nodes,

with roughly a third to a half of all sales in the past year exceeding $200,000. While relatively

small in amount, the rural townships have also seen a number of sales in the highest categories

(those exceeding $300,000) in the past two to three years.

One caveat of analyzing sales prices in rural townships is that many houses also sell with a

considerable amount of land, often many acres. This can cause the sale price to inflate relative

to other jurisdictions where most homes do not sell with a substantial amount of land.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

89 January 23, 2023

Urban townships

Second to Mansfield, the urban townships of Richland County have some of the highest sales

volumes in the county. Like many of the other nodes, the increase in home sales prices can also

been seen in the urban townships, with the number of homes selling for under $100,000

decreasing in recent years. At the same time, the urban townships have seen an increase in

homes selling in the $150,000-$200,000 and $200,000-$250,000 categories. Additionally, the

urban townships have seen an increase in homes selling at even higher price points (those

exceeding $300,000) in the past year.

Price per square foot

To standardize sales prices across the nodes, we’ve separately charted the price per square foot

of sales by month for each node. While the month-to-month data are inherently messy (use the

‘filter’ feature on the visualization to isolate prices for a single node or selected nodes), they point

to the overall trend of increasing sales prices in the county across all of the analysis nodes. In

recent months, the average price per square foot of sales in the higher-cost nodes of Bellville,

Lexington, Ontario, and both the urban and rural townships has approached if not exceeded $130

per square foot.

For the lower cost nodes of Mansfield and Shelby, the average price per square

foot of home sales has also increased, but they are more typically in the $90–$100 range.

Market rate rental housing

Market-rate housing includes not only homes for sale, but also rental housing that appeals to

individuals who earn enough to afford market-rate housing but would prefer not to purchase.

This housing can include young professionals, those on short-term or temporary job assignments,

or those who just generally prefer to rent instead of own. To appeal to this market, the housing

must include contemporary finishes but also amenities like community rooms, gyms, exterior

facilities like tennis or basketball courts, and a professional property management office.

As part of this project, we have compiled a tracking sheet of rental opportunities in Richland

County at this link

. In developing this tracking sheet, we’ve primarily relied on Apartments.com,

which in our experience largely caters to a market-rate rental housing market. We do not intend

for this tracking sheet to be an inventory of all rental properties in Richland County, but instead

to provide a glimpse of properties located in the middle and upper parts of the rental market.

In general, the Richland County market lacks any of this type of market-rate rental housing, with

a handful of exceptions. One is the Buckeye Village apartment complex near the OSU-Mansfield

campus, which offers a fitness center, clubhouse, business center, and a basketball court as on-

site amenities in addition to in-unit washer/dryers and modern appliances. While initially intended

See previous caveat about analyzing the sales prices of homes in the rural townships.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

90 January 23, 2023

only for the OSU-Mansfield student market, the complex has expanded its tenants to include other

young professionals who appreciate the amenities it offers and its proximity to shopping and

dining. Currently, the complex is able to achieve rents per square foot of $1.14–$1.82 depending

on bedroom size, which are the highest figures for traditional apartment complexes in the

Richland County market.

Another exception is the Redwood development, which recently opened between Lexington and

Mansfield. The development is quite different from Buckeye Village as it offers relatively low-

density, ranch-style housing without substantial community amenities. It does, however, offer

the convenience and privacy of single-floor living as well as attached two-car garages for each

unit. Currently, rents for the Redwood development are within the $1.30–$1.40 per square foot

range for a 12-month lease.

Aside from those two large complexes, the only other market-rate rental opportunities (aside

from single-family homes for rent) are a handful of apartments available in downtown Mansfield,

in both the Voegele Historic Lofts building and 46 Park Avenue West. These buildings are recently

renovated properties that could also appeal to this market segment, especially those within that

segment who would appreciate downtown living.

Compared to the surrounding counties of Crawford and Ashland, Richland County lacks

comparable mid- to high-end market rate rental housing. In Ashland County, both the Latitude

40 Flats and the District at Ashland are asking rents in excess of $1.00 a square foot, with studios

at the District at Ashland fetching over $2.00 per square foot. Both of these developments are

recently built and offer community amenities like a pool, fitness center, game room, and

grill/picnic area, and the District also offers a dog park. In Crawford County, the Carter Crossing

Apartments are also fetching between $1.05–$1.23 per square foot. Likewise recently built, this

complex lacks any substantial community amenities, perhaps due to the developer’s opinion that

the market in Crawford County could not support the higher rents needed to support those

amenities.

Opportunities for market-rate housing development

Real estate and development professionals interviewed for this project largely confirmed what

the data have shown: that housing prices have dramatically increased in recent years, especially

in the attainable tier (quality homes that would sell for $125,000–$200,000). This shortage was

highlighted earlier in this chapter in the node-level sales analysis: many of the nodes have seen

a dramatic decrease in home sales below $150,000, and many have also seen many more home

sales in the $300,000+ range as well

The real estate and development professionals highlighted three markets, in particular, that

appear ripe for additional market-rate housing investment. These include:

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

91 January 23, 2023

Senior housing. As noted in the Data Inventory Report, Richland County has a large population

of seniors, and a substantial portion of the county’s population will become seniors in the next

decade. Allowing those households to age in place within the community is key, and senior-

friendly developments can achieve a price premium relative to other developments. When

combined with the lower construction costs of small, single-family, condo-style development,

there appears to be demand for this housing type through the $225,000–$250,000 price point,

with the price potentially pushing higher if located in a desirable location with community

amenities.

Condos and zero-lot line developments. Related to the need for additional senior housing is

the need for condo- and zero-lot line developments that minimize homeowner responsibility while

still allowing the benefits of homeownership. This ownership model is especially well-suited for

senior citizens and those looking to downsize from a larger, suburban home while remaining in

the community. The data presented in Exhibit 73 show that condos, despite a typically smaller

footprint, enjoy a price premium relative to the overall housing market, likely due to their newer

construction. Given the lower cost of condo construction, these units could also be profitably built

in Richland County given the county’s relatively lower housing prices.

Mid-tier market rate rental housing. The data presented above show that Richland County

lacks any meaningful market-rate rental housing, especially housing with amenities that one

would find in apartment complexes in larger cities. Many of the stakeholders interviewed believed

that such a market exists in the county, especially given the ongoing construction of market-rate

rentals in surrounding counties like Ashland and Crawford and strong demand at Buckeye Village,

the only comparable apartment development in the county. While prevailing rents mean that such

a complex might not be as high-end as developments in cities like Columbus, such a development

could include amenities like a small gym, basketball or tennis courts, and a professional property

management office. Given the rents currently being achieved in Ashland, one could expect that

a development with community amenities could achieve rents of approximately $1.50–$1.75 per

square foot.

One area of recent weakness in the county’s housing market, according to stakeholders

interviewed, is the higher end of the market-rate homeownership segment—namely, homes in

the $300,00–$400,000 range. According to those interviewed, recent increases in interest rates

have pinched buyers seeking homes in this range, as many were looking to ‘move up’ in terms of

their housing quality.

Unfortunately, given today’s input cost environment, this price range (approximately $300,000-

$350,000) is some of the lowest prices where developers can profitably develop single-family

housing. This means that, until this market segment recovers or the input cost environment

changes, it does not appear that new single-family home construction (at least at an appreciable

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

92 January 23, 2023

scale) would be profitable in Richland County in the short-term. This forecast could change if

demand in this segment recovers (either through lower interest rates, appreciation of existing

homes, or increased external demand from, for example, Intel workers) or the input cost

environment changes (particularly through lower construction costs).

Attainable Housing Analysis

As discussed in the introduction, attainable housing—sometimes known as ‘workforce’ housing—

includes housing targeting households earning between 80 and 120 percent of Area Median

Income (AMI). Per HUD’s 2022 income limits, this comprises single person households earning

between $41,550–$62,280 a year and four-person households earning between $59,300–$88,920

a year. Households in this income category earn too much to qualify for federal rental assistance,

and they are often in the market for ‘starter’ or entry-level homes. To simplify the analysis

presented here, we generally consider attainable homeownership to be in the $100,000–$200,000

price range.

In terms of attainable rental housing, this targets a somewhat different market segment than

market-rate rental housing. Attainable rental housing includes generally older apartment

complexes that are still in good condition, though they might be showing some signs of age. They

might lack modern appliances and community facilities, though they may offer some limited

amenities both within the apartment (like a dishwasher or in-unit washer/dryer) or in the

community (outdoor recreation like basketball courts). The price point of these rental

opportunities is generally below $1.00 per square foot.

Attainable housing sales trends

As noted in the market rate trends by nodes above, many of the nodes (essentially all of them

except for Mansfield) have seen fewer sales within the ‘attainable’ housing category in the past

two years, especially at the lower end of the attainable category (the $100,000–$150,000 range).

This decrease has been especially noticeable in the high-demand nodes of Lexington and Ontario,

as well as in the two township nodes.

For those homes selling within the lower end of the attainable housing range, real estate and

development stakeholders have highlighted that those properties often have significant defects

that would require substantial remediation—not necessarily to bring the house up to code, but to

A four-person household earning 120% of AMI, the monthly payment on a $200,000 mortgage at

5.7% interest rates, assuming 20% down and a 30-year fixed mortgage (including taxes and PMI) would

be roughly 30% of their post-tax income. Conversely, for a single-person household earning 80% AMI

and only putting 10% down, their monthly payment on a $100,000 home would be roughly 30% of their

post-tax income.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

93 January 23, 2023

make the property attractive for owner-occupancy. Thus, while both Mansfield and Shelby still

appear to have a robust housing market at the lower attainable range, the sales price fails to

capture any required rehabilitation. In fact, many (if not most) of those houses may be selling for

renter-occupancy, with the higher sales prices undoubtedly resulting in higher rents (discussed

in the following section).

Attainable rental housing

Unlike market-rate rental housing, Richland County has a considerable amount of what could be

called ‘attainable’ rental market housing (see tracking sheet here

). This market segment includes

unsubsidized rental housing (that is, not income restricted) that targets a lower-income

population relative to market-rate housing. Across Richland County, many of these apartment

complexes were built between the late 1960s and mid-1980s. Today, they can achieve rents in

the range of $0.65 to $0.90 per square foot.

The higher end of that range includes apartments

in this market segment that nevertheless offer amenities like in-unit dishwashers.

Like the owner-occupied housing stock, Richland County has also seen an increase in rents within

this market segment over the past five years, which we’ve visualized using one-year American

Community Survey estimates on contract rents in Exhibit 74. The advantage of the one-year

estimates is that they do not average data across multiple years. However, the disadvantages

include that (i) we are not able to analyze them across nodes and (ii) the most recent data

available is from 2019.

Nevertheless, the data clearly show how the proportion of rental housing within Richland County

that rents for under $450 decreased substantially from 2015–2019, while the proportion with

rents exceeding $550 increased correspondingly over that period. This was echoed throughout

interviews with both housing providers and social service agencies, who noted that higher rents

have squeezed the budgets of those seeking both attainable and affordable rental housing.

For a typical 2-bedroom apartment, this translates to roughly a rent of $600–$800.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

94 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 74: Richland County contract rents, 2015 and 2019

Data source: American Community Survey one-year estimates.

Opportunities for attainable housing development

Across the U.S., cities are struggling with the loss of attainable or workforce housing, and the

challenges faced by communities in Richland County are not unique. Unfortunately, today’s input

cost environment (construction and labor) has made development of attainable housing

challenging for most communities in the U.S. This challenge is especially acute in communities

with lower priced housing like Richland County, as construction costs remain high and labor costs

are only marginally less than they would be in a larger, higher-cost city.

Nevertheless, there appear to be several opportunities for attainable housing development or

otherwise expanding the stock of attainable housing. These include:

Development of duplex and triplex housing, especially in nodes with lower land costs. As

noted in the previous section, there is strong demand in the county for condo and zero-lot line

developments. On the development side, this housing type can be developed more cheaply, and

could arguably be developed profitably given Richland County’s prevailing housing costs and a

sale price of $175,000–$200,000. If developed in some of the nodes in the county with lower

land costs (such as the townships, Mansfield, or Shelby), this housing could meet the need for

attainable housing (conversely, in the higher-cost nodes, it would likely target the market-rate

segment).

Strategic use of properties acquired through the land bank. The Richland County Land Bank

has acquired a number of parcels throughout Richland County, but especially in Mansfield. While

land costs are not a substantial component of development costs in neighborhoods where the

land bank has acquired properties, the conveyance of those properties to a for- or non-profit

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

95 January 23, 2023

developer to build housing targeting the attainable market could expand the stock of quality,

attainable housing in those neighborhoods. The conveyance of these properties could restrict the

income of the homebuyer to below a certain percentage of AMI to ensure that they contribute to

the attainable housing stock. If combined with the lower cost of duplex/triplex construction, this

strategy could provide needed quality attainable housing stock.

Rehabilitation of existing housing stock.

Mansfield and Shelby both have a substantial stock

of older housing that, while in need of some rehabilitation, could be brought to an owner-

occupancy standard through rehabilitation. While both municipalities have programs to support

homebuyers who are interested in purchasing and rehabbing properties, expanding these

programs exploring ways to standardize and incentivize them (e.g., lists of preferred contractors,

expedited permit approvals) could result in more rehabilitations being completed. There is also

potentially a market for developing incentives for developers/contractors to renovate houses ‘on

spec’ (i.e., without a confirmed buyer of the home) through similar incentives.

Filtering of existing housing stock.

Beyond developing new housing targeting the attainable

market category, new development in the market-rate category can, through the

process of

filtering, expand the amount of housing in the attainable category. Filtering refers to the process

that, over time, housing becomes aged and depreciates to attract a relatively lower-income

homebuyer. In fact, (arguably) the majority of attainable/workforce housing was not built to

specifically target this segment, but instead filtered down to a price point that placed it within the

‘attainable’ category. Should the input cost environment shift to a point where development of

market-rate housing in Richland County is more financially feasible, we would expect to see the

stock of attainable housing increase merely through the filtering process.

Affordable Housing Analysis

For this report, the affordable housing market includes housing opportunities that are available

to those earning below 80 percent of AMI. For 2022, this amount is $41,550 for a single-person

household and $59,300 for a family of four in Richland County. While nearly all households in this

income category qualify for some type of subsidized housing, many are unable to access this type

of housing.

Affordable homeownership opportunities

Given the relatively low prices of Richland County’s housing market, homeownership could be

attainable for certain households earning below 80 percent AMI, especially if they have a relatively

high credit score and stable employment. However, as shown in the node analysis above, the

number of homes in the county selling for under $100,000 has decreased to virtually nothing

outside of Mansfield. Furthermore, many of the homes in Mansfield selling for under $100,000

are in substantial need of repair.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

96 January 23, 2023

Nonetheless, those low-price homes may serve as an opportunity to provide low-income

households in Richland County with homeownership opportunities. As noted in the previous

section, there appears to be a viable market for repair and rehabilitation programs of older,

dilapidated homes, transitioning them to an attainable housing stock. When combined with

additional incentives (or perhaps with federal subsidies like the HOME program), these

rehabilitated properties could also be sold to those earning below 80 percent AMI. Given both the

opportunities and challenges associated with homeownership, any efforts to increase

homeownership among low-income households should be paired with financial education, credit

counseling, and similar services.

Current affordable housing rental inventory

Despite the potential availability of affordable homeownership opportunities, renting is the most

financially feasible and sensible decision for many, if not the majority of, low-income households.

This section discusses rental housing opportunities for those earning below 80 percent AMI in

Richland County, first by reviewing the unsubsidized affordable inventory before discussing

subsidized and supportive housing.

Unsubsidized affordable rental inventory

While the bulk of this section discusses subsidized rental housing available to low-income

households, one should remember that the vast majority of low-income families—

up to 75 percent

in some estimates—do not receive housing subsidies nor do they reside in a subsidized unit. Thus,

no analysis of the affordable rental inventory is complete without first looking at unsubsidized

rental properties.

As shown above in Exhibit 74, the number of rentals available for under $500 per month in the

county decreased dramatically from 2015–2019, and interviews with stakeholders and rental

housing seekers indicate that this trend has only continued since 2019. In particular, interviewees

have highlighted that the lowest-cost rental housing in the county—typically located in older

homes in Mansfield that have been subdivided into apartments—has risen in recent years as those

properties have turned over. While the rent increases associated with this turnover may appear

modest—often only $50–$100, though some interviewees have noted up to $200 increases in

some instances—they represent a substantial increase to the low-income households who reside

in these units.

Federally subsidized units

Across Richland County, there are 1,811 federally subsidized affordable housing units, with an

additional 1,903 Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing

Authority in Richland County (see Exhibit 75). Of those units, the majority are located in Mansfield,

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

97 January 23, 2023

and a majority of voucher holders reside in Mansfield as well (discussed later in this section). See

this link

for a map of subsidized developments across the county.

Exhibit 75: Federally subsidized housing inventory by node

Data source: National Housing Preservation Database.

* Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) administered by the Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority. HCVs

allow households with a voucher to choose the rental unit they would like to live in, provided the landlord

agrees to accept the vouchers and the unit meets program guidelines. HCV tenants may reside in units

with other federal subsidies—for example, a household with a voucher may choose to live in a LIHTC

property.

Many of these affordable housing units target a specific population, either because of program

guidelines (for example, Section 202 units for elderly households) or because the landlord chooses

to target them to a certain population. Of the federally subsidized units in Richland County, only

about 500 are

not

reserved for either the elderly or disabled (see Exhibit 76). Of the remainder,

about 1,200 units are reserved for the elderly and about 572 are reserved for the disabled (note

that 460 units are reserved for the elderly

disabled and are included in both of those counts).

Exhibit 76: Assisted units by targeted population

Data source: National Housing Preservation Database.

One challenge with federally subsidized units is that the subsidies have contractual end dates,

and while operators are typically able to renew the subsidies, they may choose not to at that

time. We have charted when the subsidized units in Richland County are set to have their

subsidies expire on this visualization

. In general, Richland County will see between 20–70

subsidized units sunset every year through 2030. Between 2030–2040, the number of subsidized

Node

HOME

HUD

Insured

LIHTC

Rural

housing

Project-

based

Section 8

Section

202

Section

811

Housing

Choice

Vouchers

Total

Bellville

25 25

Lexington

44 138

Mansfield

190

424 343 134 72 1,215

Ontario

Shelby

71 189 50 318

Urban Townships

4 18 22

Richland County

1,903* 1,806

Grand Total

74 190 672 258 393 134 90 1,903 3,714

Population

Assi ste d uni ts

No targeting

498

Disabled

112

Elderly

741

Elderly or disabled

460

Total

1,811

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

98 January 23, 2023

units expiring annually increases, from 90–170 (with a few exceptions with dramatically fewer

units expiring).

As noted in the table above, Metro Housing administers 1,904 Housing Choice Vouchers. These

vouchers allow households to choose a rental unit to live in, provided the landlord agrees to

accept the voucher, the unit’s rent is below federal guidelines, and the unit passes a safety

inspection. Despite this choice, in practice the vast majority of Met housing voucher holders reside

within the city of Mansfield, especially neighborhoods in north and east Mansfield (mapped

at this

link).

Supportive housing units

Beyond those federally subsidized units, a number of additional supportive housing units exist

within Richland County. While there are federal subsidies attached to some of these units, they

typically include robust services for tenants and are reserved for special populations, including

those who are currently unhoused and those in a drug/alcohol treatment program.

Emergency Shelter units. There are currently 100 year-round emergency shelter beds in

Richland County. This includes 54 at Harmony House and 46 at the Domestic Violence Shelter.

The latter shelter only serves survivors of domestic violence (both individuals and families), while

Harmony House serves all drop-in clients.

Permanent supportive and rapid rehousing units. Both permanent supportive housing and

rapid rehousing are designed to help those who are currently unhoused stabilize their housing

situation as quickly as possible. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) offers long-term housing

for unhoused persons with disabilities, including severe mental illness or severe addiction.

contrast, rapid rehousing provides a short-term, stable housing opportunity that allows

households to become connected with services and support.

PSH and rapid rehousing units available in the county include:

• Permanent supportive housing units:

o Owned by the Mental Health Board and operated by Catalyst: 32 units. Twelve of these

units are reserved for those with severe mental illness or severe addiction;

o HUD-funded and owned and operated by Catalyst: 24 units;

o Funded through the Ohio Department of Development and operated by Great Lakes

Community Action Program and its subrecipients: 29 units.

• Rapid rehousing units:

See https://mha.ohio.gov/supporting-providers/housing-providers/resources/permanent-supportive-

housing for more information on PSH.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

99 January 23, 2023

o Funded through the Ohio Department of Development and operated by Great Lakes

Community Action Program and its subrecipients: 58 units

Transitional housing and recovery beds. In addition to these units, Mansfield UMADAOP

(Urban Minority Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Outreach Program) operates eight transitional

housing units for youth aged 18–21. These apartments are owned by the Mental Health Board.

Mansfield UMADAOP also owns six recovery houses with 23 beds (12 for men and 11 for women)

that are targeted at those experiencing severe addiction.

Estimating affordable housing needs

While housing costs in Richland County are generally lower than the national average, this does

not mean there is a surplus of affordable housing in the county. In fact, the data suggest the

opposite: that there is strong demand for additional affordable units. Three data points are

especially relevant here.

Housing cost burden. The first is household cost burden: that is, the proportion of renters paying

over 30% or even over half of their income toward rent. Across Richland County, approximately

3,190 renter households are paying over half of their income toward rent (see Exhibit 77). While

60 percent of these households are in Mansfield, a substantial proportion are in other nodes in

the county, including well over 100 such households in Shelby and both the urban and rural

townships.

Exhibit 77: Gross rent as a percent of household income for renters in Richland County, by node

Data source: 2016–2020 American Community Survey estimates

Clients served at Harmony House. A second data point supporting the need for additional

affordable housing is the increasing volume of clients that Harmony House served in 2022 relative

to 2021 (see Exhibit 78). As the community’s drop-in shelter, Harmony House can serve as a

barometer for Richland County’s current population of unhoused persons. In the first seven

months of both years, the number of clients that Harmony House served increased by 50 percent,

from 254 to 383. The number of children served across those periods also increased nearly 50

percent, from 35 to 51.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

100 January 23, 2023

One should note, though, that in 2021 Harmony House was still abiding by COVID protocols and

had reduced the number of shelter beds it offered. Thus, the increase seen over the 2021–2022

period may be both a function of increasing demand for services as well as Harmony House

increasing its capacity to serve more clients.

Exhibit 78: Clients served at Harmony House, 2021 and 2022.

Data source: Harmony House HMIS data. Both year’s records only include January 1–July 27 in each year

for comparability.

Digging deeper into this increase, while the proportion of clients served by Harmony House

increased for all age ranges, the increase was especially prevalent for non-elderly adults (see

Exhibit 79). This suggests the need for affordable housing units that do

not

target the elderly, as

the majority of clients served by Harmony House are in the 25–54 age range.

Exhibit 79: Clients served at Harmony House by age range, 2021 and 2022

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

101 January 23, 2023

Source: Harmony House HMIS data. Both year’s records only include January 1–July 27 in each year for

comparability.

Another marker of the lack of affordable housing units is the proportion of households with

Housing Choice Vouchers (commonly known as Section 8) who are ‘on the street’—meaning they

are searching for a rental unit that will accept their voucher and which meets the program

regulations.

Per Metro Housing, approximately 150 of the households it provides with

vouchers—nearly 10 percent—are currently searching for housing. This provides further evidence

that the supply of affordable housing—especially the supply of housing that is accessible to those

with Housing Choice Vouchers—is limited in Richland County.

Affordable housing development opportunities

The data presented here point to a substantial need for additional affordable housing units in

Richland County. While the specific opportunities for affordable housing development will be

discussed in future deliverables, the data point to three especially important opportunities for

affordable housing development.

Units targeting non-elderly adults. As noted in Exhibit 76, the majority of federally subsidized

affordable units in Richland County are reserved for either the elderly or disabled, and a plurality

of those are reserved exclusively for the elderly. However, the majority of clients served at

Harmony House are non-elderly adults, suggesting a need for more affordable housing units that

welcome this population.

Additional permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing units. The increase in

Harmony House clients also points to the need for additional permanent supportive housing and

rapid re-housing units. While there are a number of such units in the county, this number has

decreased in recent years as a 10-unit PSH development closed. Expanding the capacity of local

providers to administer PSH will be crucial for the county to receive additional PSH awards in the

coming years.

Expanded affordable housing units outside of Mansfield. While the need for affordable

housing units in Mansfield is arguably the greatest in the county, there are still many households

outside of Mansfield that are paying over half of their income toward rent. Given the distribution

of cost-burdened renters across Richland County, it appears these affordable units would be best

placed in Shelby or in the townships. The need for affordable housing outside Mansfield is

For a voucher to be ‘on the street’ does not necessarily mean the household is unhoused. They may be

staying with family or in some other accommodation (like a motel) until they are able to secure a place to

live.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

102 January 23, 2023

especially acute as many of the existing affordable units subsidized through the rural housing

program are set to expire in the next 10 years.

Conclusions and Summary

This

Richland County Housing Market Analysis

has presented a holistic overview of Richland

County’s owner-occupied and rental housing market. Drawing on data and interviews with key

stakeholders, it analyzes the county’s current housing market and trends and identifies

opportunities for development.

In this final section, we summarize key findings along the three broad questions posed in the

introduction to identify the current state of Richland County’s housing market as well as market-

rate and subsidized development opportunities in the short- and medium-term.

What does our current market look like with respect to prices and target groups? Overall,

Richland County’s housing market has experienced substantial price growth in recent years, with

year-over-year home prices increasing by over 20 percent in certain months. The strongest price

growth in this period has occurred in the middle of the market

, with the average house price

increasing from about $100,000 in mid-2000 to almost $170,000 today.

While house prices have increased throughout the county, they have had different impacts on

the markets in each node. For lower-cost nodes like Mansfield and Shelby

, the proportion of

houses selling for under $100,000 has decreased, though both nodes still appear to contain many

opportunities for attainable homeownership. For more expensive nodes like

Ontario and

Lexington, the availability of attainable homeownership opportunities has almost completely

evaporated as sales prices now increasingly push into the $300,000+ range.

While Richland County does not have a substantial stock of condos and zero-lot line

developments, it appears that these properties are able to attract a price premium

, especially

given their often smaller size. Many of these developments are relatively newer, and target (either

explicitly or implicitly) a senior population.

In terms of rental housing, most opportunities in the county fall within the attainable and

affordable categories, and most advertised apartment communities are currently renting in the

$0.70–$0.90 per square foot range (approximately $600–$800 for a typical two-bedroom

apartment). In contrast to surrounding counties, there has not been development of much higher-

end rental housing in Richland County, especially housing that contains community amenities.

Based on market information, what is the nature and extent of short-to-mid-term housing

needs in our community

? Given the market information provided in this report, the county’s

most pressing short- to mid-term housing needs include the following.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

103 January 23, 2023

• Development of new owner-occupied housing in the upper attainable and lower market rate

categories—that is, housing that can sell in the $150,000–$225,000 price range. While this

housing is needed throughout the county, given current land costs, it is probably most feasible

to develop it in the lower-cost nodes of the county (i.e., not Ontario, Lexington, or to a certain

extent Bellville). Furthermore, given input (construction and labor costs), it is most feasible

to develop this housing as condo or zero-lot line developments. These allow developers to

minimize construction costs relative to single-family home construction.

• Rehabilitation of existing housing into affordable and attainable homeownership

opportunities. Given the county’s large older housing stock and its relatively low home prices,

there exists an opportunity to rehabilitate existing homes beyond merely complying with

housing codes but to a homeownership standard. Should these rehabilitations comply with

the program guidelines for HOME, they could be accomplished using ARPA funding.

• New market-rate housing construction specifically targeted toward seniors. As Richland

County’s population ages, there is a market for condo and zero-lot line construction that

specifically targets seniors (ages 55 and older) looking to downsize but still live in the area.

The county’s recent housing price increases means that this type of housing can likely attract

a premium, as those looking to downsize will be able to sell their previous home at a higher

price, which they can then use (in theory) to purchase a higher-quality condo or one with

more community amenities. Interviews and data suggest that, if located in a desirable location

and if sufficient community amenities are provided, condos in this market category could

potentially fetch up to $250,000 if not more.

• Market rate rental housing with contemporary amenities. Richland County currently lacks

many mid- to high-tier rental opportunities that provide amenities like a fitness center,

professional property management, and other community facilities. In recent years, both

Crawford and Ashland County have seen new apartment complexes developed that are

currently renting in the $1.50–$2.00 per square foot price range, suggesting that demand

exists for such a product in this region. To maximize rents, this housing should likely be

located between Lexington and Bellville with easy access to Interstate 71 or between

Lexington and Ontario to benefit from proximity to shopping and entertainment.

• Affordable housing, especially units targeting those currently unhoused or at risk of becoming

unhoused. As noted in the affordable housing analysis, the proportion of the county’s

unhoused population experiencing has increased dramatically in the past year or two and has

risen to the forefront of community conversations

. This momentum can provide an

opportunity to expand the supply of permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing that

is available in the county, as well as to invest in additional affordable housing that does not

necessarily target those currently unhoused. Given that an eligible use of ARPA funding is

affordable housing development, these funds could be used and leveraged strategically to

expand the county’s affordable housing stock.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

104 January 23, 2023

Is there a market for unsubsidized, market-rate housing, and what communities can

support this type of housing? Given the recent increases in sales prices and the short listing-

to-pending time, the data show that there is a robust demand for unsubsidized market-rate

housing, both on a homeownership and a rental model. However, the challenge for Richland

County is that, even with the recent house price increases, it does not appear that a substantial

portion of the market can support the current cost of new single-family home construction.

Where opportunities exist for new construction is in the upper portion of the attainable and the

lower portion of the market-rate housing market. With today’s input cost environment, these units

would either have to be (i) renovations of existing housing stock or (ii) duplex or triplex

construction, either through a condo or zero-lot line ownership model. There also seems to be

evidence of demand for this type of rental housing stock given the success of the Redwood

development.

Given prevailing condo prices in the county (see Exhibit 73) and a premium placed on new

construction, these units could potentially sell for $250,000 or higher if the condos provided

substantial amenities and were in a high-demand location. This makes such development

financially feasible in today’s input cost environment (and certainly more feasible than new single-

family construction). If located in a relatively lower-demand community with cheaper land costs

(such as Mansfield, Shelby, or the urban townships), this housing type could also fulfill the

demand for ‘attainable’ home ownership opportunities that the county is currently sorely lacking.

A second opportunity for unsubsidized, market-rate housing is in the rental market, particularly a

mid-tier rental housing product that appeals to young professionals saving up for a down payment

and short-term residents who may only be living in Richland County for a job engagement (e.g.,

traveling nurses). Based on demand in surrounding counties, it appears that a high-amenity

apartment community in Richland County could fetch rents up to $1.50–$2.00 per square foot.

Possible locations for this community would be between Bellville and Lexington with easy access

to Interstate 71 or somewhere in Ontario or between Ontario and Lexington.

There may also exist an opportunity for smaller market-rate apartment communities near either

downtown Mansfield or downtown Shelby. These communities may not be able to offer the same

level of amenities nor have the same number of units but could nonetheless appeal to young

professionals who prefer an ‘urban’ lifestyle. Currently, apartments in downtown Mansfield are

fetching approximately $1.00 per square foot in rent. While that rent level would not typically

support new market-rate construction, it’s possible that a higher-amenity product could rent for

closer to $1.35 per square foot, which could be financially feasible with community subsidies

(e.g., a below-market rate ground lease).

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

105 January 23, 2023

Chapter 4: Richland County Housing Needs Assessment

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

106 January 23, 2023

Introduction

This chapter provides a Housing Needs Assessment

for Richland County. The purpose of this

chapter is to evaluate Richland County’s current and future housing needs over a 10-year horizon.

In doing so, it reviews current market conditions, land use, and zoning; projects total and

affordable housing needs for Richland County through 2032; estimates the economic impacts of

addressing housing needs; and makes recommendations to meet those needs.

Our team has also prepared separate housing needs assessments for each of the seven nodes of

Richland County analyzed in this project—Bellville, Lexington, Mansfield, Ontario, Shelby, the rural

townships, and the urban townships.

As with the prior chapter, to the extent possible, we identify key housing needs for Richland

County’s affordable, attainable, and market rate housing markets.

We have created a Richland County Housing Needs Assessment map at this link

. All the mapped

data collected through this project will be mapped at that link. We have created a short ‘how to’

video of how to use the map

here.

Tax Delinquencies and Demolitions

Tax delinquencies and demolitions can signal either neighborhoods at risk of decline (tax

delinquencies) or neighborhoods in significant decline but with land available for redevelopment

(demolitions).

Tax Delinquencies

As of Summer 2022, the Richland County Treasurer reports that there are 2,476 parcels in

Richland County that are at least two years delinquent on their taxes (mapped here

). This

represents approximately 3.3 percent of all parcels in Richland County. While delinquent parcels

are spread throughout the county, it appears the greatest concentrations are in Mansfield

(especially the north end, Madison Township, and Shelby). Greater detail on each node’s tax

delinquent properties is provided in their respective

Housing Needs Assessment

documents.

Demolitions

According to the Richland County Land Bank, they have conducted demolition on 619 properties

in Richland County (mapped here

). Most of these demolitions have been done in Mansfield,

especially the north end. There have also been a handful of demolitions in Shelby. Greater detail

on each node’s demolished properties is provided in their respective

Housing Needs Assessment

documents.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

107 January 23, 2023

Land Use and Zoning

We have mapped Richland County’s land use and zoning at this link.

Land Use

In terms of land use in Richland County, we note the following patterns:

• The vast majority of the land in the rural townships is used for agricultural use, though there

is a considerable amount of low-density residential use as well, particularly in the southern

half of the county.

• The largest concentrations of commercial land use are in Mansfield and Ontario, especially

the Park Avenue West corridor.

• As expected, given the large number of single-family homes in the county, most of the land

use devoted to residential uses is for single-unit residential, though there are pockets of more

dense residential uses, especially in Mansfield and Madison Township, in addition to some

parts of Ontario.

Zoning

The link above also maps residential zoning across the county. In each node’s respective Housing

Needs Assessment, we have included a discussion of each node’s zoning map.

Zoning overview

In this county overview, we note the following county-wide patterns:

• The majority of Richland County has zoning, except for a few rural townships. Within those

townships, though, municipalities tend to have zoning e.g., (Bellville, Butler, and Lucas). Most

rural townships with zoning tend to have very large lot zoning requirements.

• Except for Mansfield and Shelby, most of the land in most of the municipalities in the county

is zoned R1 (single-unit residential). As noted in several of the node reports, there is a

mismatch between where several of these jurisdictions have zoned for single-family residential

and where development stakeholders have suggested that higher-density residential

development is feasible.

• Shelby is the only node to have separate ‘small lot’ zoning, which it has for both its R1 and

R2 zones. Its small lot zoning regulations are known as R1A and R2A, respectively. These

small lot zones could serve as examples to other nodes that are seeking to promote attainable

housing development, as allowing developments on smaller lots can reduce the cost of

development.

• Compared to the other nodes, Shelby, Mansfield, and Madison Township have a larger

proportion of their land zoned for higher-density residential.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

108 January 23, 2023

• One noteworthy discrepancy between zoning and land use is in the rural townships. As

discussed in the previous section, as expected most of the land in the rural townships is

devoted to agriculture and extraction uses; however, most of the land in the rural townships

is zoned for low-density residential. As a result of this zoning practice, it is possible to develop

low-density residential housing throughout the rural townships of Richland County.

Zoning analysis

We have summarized the zoning codes of the nodes (with the exception of the rural townships)

at this link

. Again, in each node report, we provide a detailed analysis of the node’s zoning code,

but we note the following county-side patterns.

Overall, zoning in Richland County is

complicated

. Each jurisdiction—including each municipality

and nearly every township—has its own zoning code with unique by-right and conditional uses,

parameters (e.g., setbacks and minimum lot sizes), and restrictions. Even beyond the standard

residential zones, each node also allows residential uses in other nodes (e.g., office services

zones), but these often have their own restrictions and unique parameters.

In general, the zoning codes require relatively large lots, even for higher-density residential uses.

For instance, most nodes’ R2 zoning mandates minimum lot sizes of at least 8,000 ft

(about a

fifth of an acre). For comparison, in Tacoma, WA, a recent zoning code re-write allows for lot

sizes of 5,000 ft

in ‘standard’ R2 lots and lots of as small as 3,000 ft

in dedicated ‘small lot’

zones.

Shelby, in its R2A (small lot R2) zoning, allows for a minimum lot size of 4.900 ft

for

two-family dwelling units. As we note above, adopting this small lot zoning code may be replicable

in other nodes to promote attainable housing development.

Mandating such large lots makes it uneconomical to develop attainable housing in most situations.

While land in Richland County is typically affordable, many of the development stakeholders

interviewed for this project noted that acquiring land is often difficult. Allowing for smaller lot

development would encourage housing development by allowing developers to build more units

in a given plot of land.

While we would appreciate every node replacing its R2 zoning with Shelby’s R2A zone, we realize

that this may not be politically feasible. Instead, communities may identify areas where smaller

lots would be appropriate (e.g., areas of already-existing density) and strategically zone those

areas to promote housing development.

Another factor that makes the development of attainable housing difficult is how the zoning codes

treat multifamily housing. The zoning codes, with no exceptions, do not treat small multifamily

We discuss Tacoma in greater detail in the Strategy Guide and Action Plan

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

109 January 23, 2023

units (three-plexes and four-plexes) as distinct housing types. Instead, these units are lumped

into the zoning codes’ ‘multifamily’ housing types. The exception to this is that some zoning codes

do consider townhouses as a distinct use with their own zoning requirements. However, with only

a few exceptions, townhouses are limited to the R3 (multifamily) zones.

A second factor related to making attainable housing difficult is that, with few exceptions, the

zoning codes mandate extensive landscaping and site improvements to multifamily development.

For example, Shelby’s R3 zoning mandates a 25’ buffer between any multifamily development

and a one- or two-family residential district, and Lexington’s code requires screen plantings of ‘at

least six feet’ tall surrounding a parking lot in this situation. These requirements often make small-

scale multifamily development impractical given the necessary site improvements and the inability

to use large portions of the lot. Instead, multifamily development is pushed toward larger,

suburban-style apartment complexes, similar to what you might find in the Columbus suburbs.

Projecting Housing Needs

The report now turns to projecting Richland County’s total and affordable housing needs through

2032 (ten years from when this report was written). For both projections, we use steady-state

analysis: that is, we assume that trends from the most recent decade will continue. In other

words, to project housing needs for the next 10 years (through 2032), we rely on data from the

previous 11 years (namely 2010–2021).

What these projections don’t consider are external events that could impact the county’s housing

market both positively and negatively. Certainly, the Intel development in Columbus (and the

expectation of additional development to support the facility) could impact these projections by

increasing demand for new housing in Richland County. Also, it’s unclear how the shift to virtual

employment and telework, which will likely continue in the next 10 years, will impact a low-cost

place like Richland County, as it’s possible that more people will be interested in moving to the

county so they can purchase a larger house than they could for the same price in, say, Columbus.

Conversely, it is possible that the Intel project is cancelled, or that major employers in Richland

County close or decide to relocate, which could reduce the number of new housing units needed

in the county. Thus, there is risk that the projections are either too high or too low, though we

believe that it is more likely that the projections are too low rather than too high.

Projecting total housing needs

We begin the housing projections by estimating the total number of housing units that Richland

County will need to sustain its growth in the next 10 years. In general, our method for estimating

housing needs is as follows:

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

110 January 23, 2023

• For background: the unit of analysis is households in Richland County who (i) are

homeowners and (ii) are renters. To better understand the demographics of Richland County’s

housing needs, we break down households by the age categories. All data are sourced from

the U.S. Census.

• To establish a baseline growth rate, we compare the number of renter and owner households

by age category in the 2010 U.S. Census and the 2021 American Community Survey one-year

estimates.

• To project household growth, we extend those growth rates to 2032. Because the baseline

growth rates encompass 11 years and end in 2021, these estimates apply to the total housing

units that Richland County will need by 2032.

Given that these estimates are being done in 2022, we considered modifying the 11-year baseline

growth rates (2010–2021) to account for the 10-year period from 2022–2032. However, given

the relatively few housing units that have been produced in Richland County in 2022, we decided

against it, as the figures presented here still reflect the number of housing units that the county

will need by 2032.

We also decided against doing so because we feel that, in general, the estimates presented here

are conservative relative to the number of housing units that the county will need in the next 10

years. As noted in the Baseline Housing Initiatives, we believe that Richland County is poised for

growth given the Intel facility being built near Columbus and because of the economic

development pipeline that the Richland County Chamber has put together. Thus, the figures here

should be seen as conservative estimates for the number of housing units that the county will

need by 2032.

Projecting household growth

As described in the second bullet above, Exhibit 80 charts the baseline growth rate for Richland

County and projects the county’s housing needs through 2032.

We project that by 2032,

Richland County will need an additional 2,475 owner-occupied units and 3,364 renter-

occupied units.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

111 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 80: Changes in Richland County homeowners and renters by age

Source: Projections based on 2010 U.S. Census data and 2021 American Community Survey one-year

estimates

Breaking those housing needs down by age group, we see that the growth in Richland County

households will be concentrated within two distinct age bands.

• The larger of these will be

senior households, as it appears the county’s senior population

will grow dramatically in that period. In fact, the strongest area of growth among any age

band will be those in the 65–74 age cohort.

• The second area of increased growth will be in

younger adult households (those aged 25–

34) as “Gen Z” comes of age and begins to form their own households. In particular, we

project strong growth in the 25–34 age cohort (for both owners and renters) and in the 35–

44 age cohort (for owners only).

We have aggregated these results into the bar graph below in Exhibit 81. This exhibit more clearly

shows how Richland County’s senior population is projected to grow dramatically in the next 10

years, with additional strong growth in the number of young adults (i.e., “Gen Z”) in that period

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

112 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 81: Changes in Richland County homeowners and renters by age cohort

Data source: Projections based on 2010 U.S. Census data and 2021 American Community Survey one-year

estimates

To develop the final housing projects, we took this analysis and added a 10 percent margin of

error in either direction (see Exhibit 82). The purpose of this margin is to consider the

contingencies discussed at the beginning of this section. For each projection, the ‘lower’ projection

decreases Richland County’s household growth by 10 percent, while the ‘upper’ projection

increases Richland County’s household growth by 10 percent.

Exhibit 82: Richland County housing needs projections, 2032

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

113 January 23, 2023

Data source: Projections based on 2010 U.S. Census data and 2021 American Community Survey one-year

estimates

What these projections show is how a relatively slight variation in housing projections can result

in dramatically different housing needs. For the lower projection, we would expect Richland

County to need more than 5,000 fewer housing units than it has today. On the other hand, a 10

percent increase in the housing projections would mean that Richland County would need more

than 10,000 new housing units in the next 10 years (for reference, in recent years, there have

only been about 100 permits filed in a given year).

These projections also show how failing to address barriers to housing development in the county

could impact the county’s future housing development. It would be quite easy for developers to

choose to build in surrounding counties should the barriers to housing development in Richland

County persist in the future—and in fact, given recent developments in Ashland and Galion, it

appears that many developers are choosing surrounding counties over Richland. Thus, it is crucial

that stakeholders continue to work collaboratively to address the barriers to housing development

that have been noted in this report.

Projecting loss of units

The second data point that housing needs projections rely on is the loss of housing units through

demolitions or obsolescence. To estimate the number of housing units that Richland County will

lose in the next 10 years, we analyze the number of housing units by year built from Census data.

More specifically, we analyze the number of housing units built before 1999 in both the 2010 and

2021 Census data (the latter from the American Community Survey).

In 2010, there were approximately 49,963 housing units in Richland County that had been

constructed before 2000, per Census data. However, by 2021, that number had fallen to 48,210

units. That change corresponds to a decrease of 1,753 units. Projecting those changes going

forward,

we estimate that Richland County will lose 1,694 units prior to 2032. This loss of

units is not reflected in the preceding housing projections.

One note of caution in interpreting these data, however: the period analyzed here (2010–2021)

corresponds to the period immediately following the foreclosure crisis and Great Recession. This

period saw extensive demolitions of housing units, thus exacerbating the loss of housing units. It

is not likely that Richland County will see such a large amount of housing unit losses in the next

10 years. Nevertheless, they do show how important maintaining Richland County’s rapidly aging

housing stock is to meet the county’s housing needs.

Meeting future housing needs

The housing projections here suggest that, in the next 10 years, Richland County may have to

build upwards of 7,000 housing units when population growth and deterioration of existing units

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

114 January 23, 2023

is taken into consideration. This represents a significant increase in the county’s recent building

trajectory, as in the past few years only 100–120 new permits have been filed in the county. One

should note that these projections also do not consider the impact of new development, including

Intel, as well as how the shift to remote work will impact low-cost places like Richland County.

Beyond meeting these housing needs through new construction, stakeholders may also consider

the following methods to boost the number of available housing units in the county:

•

Prevention of units from becoming dilapidated: We estimate that, in the last 10 years,

approximately 1,700 units in Richland County were demolished or otherwise came out of the

housing stock. Preventing half of those units from becoming uninhabitable in the next 10

years would meet approximately 15 percent of Richland County’s projected housing needs.

•

Making vacant units inhabitable: Per recent Postal Service vacancy data, there are

approximately 2,500 vacant residential units in Richland County. Returning half of those units

to a habitable state would address approximately 21 percent of Richland County’s projected

housing needs in the next 10 years.

Ultimately, then, without even building a single new unit, preserving half of the units that would

become dilapidated and making half of Richland County’s vacant units habitable would address

nearly a third of the county’s housing needs in the next 10 years.

In terms of the estimated mix of new housing units (e.g., affordable, market-rate, and attainable),

the following section projects affordable housing needs. In terms of the needed number of

attainable and market rate units, we note that the majority

of home sales in Richland County are

still in the ‘affordable’ and ‘attainable’ market tiers, with relatively fewer sales in the market-rate

tier (i.e., above $200,000). It is likely that, as Richland County becomes a more desirable location

and sees an influx of commuters to Delaware County and Columbus, home prices will continue

to rise, necessitating additional market-rate construction. This construction, in turn, can lead to

filtering of existing market-rate homes into the attainable price tier, and of homes that are

currently attainable into the affordable price tier.

This filtering, though, depends on robust market-rate construction that will prevent the ‘bidding

up’ of attainable housing into the market-rate tier, which appears to have occurred at a large

scale in the county recently (especially in the in-demand nodes of Ontario, Lexington, and

Bellville). If there are not enough housing units built in the county, then the need for attainable

housing will be greater, as fewer units will be filtering down to the attainable housing category.

Projecting affordable housing needs

To identify affordable housing needs for Richland County, our team relied on a methodology that

had previously been utilized by the St. Louis Affordable Housing Report Card

. These projections

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

115 January 23, 2023

rely on special tabulations created for HUD’s CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability

Strategy) data, which allow us to estimate the number of households in Richland County at various

housing levels by household size.

The affordable housing need projections were calculated for renters and homeowners separately.

Relying on Census housing data from 2010 to 2021, we estimated the potential demand and

supply for rental units and homes in 2032.

Specifically for renters, we estimated the number

of households by size and the number of rental units by rent level and number of available

bedrooms. One challenge with the CHAS data, however, is that they do not contain information

on the size of owner-occupied units. For those, we are unable to estimate affordable housing

needs by bedroom size and instead must analyze them in the aggregate.

Projecting affordable housing supply

The first step in estimating affordable housing needs is to project Richland County’s affordable

housing supply in 2032. For this analysis, we assumed a steady state of changes in the housing

supply, so whatever changes occurred in the 2010–2020 period would continue to occur through

2032. This approach has the same strengths and weaknesses of the steady-state approach used

to estimate the county’s overall housing needs.

Exhibit 83 projects Richland County’s rental housing supply in 2032 by bedroom size and rent

charged. Compared to today’s rents, there will be fewer units with rents under $500, especially

for larger bedroom sizes. In contrast, there will be strong growth in units with rents over $1,000

a month, especially for larger units (those with two or more bedrooms).

Exhibit 83: Projected rental housing supply by rent, 2032

Data source: Projections based on HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data

Exhibit 84 projects Richland County’s owner-occupied housing stock in 2032 by monthly mortgage

costs. Unlike the rental analysis, we are unable to project differences in housing costs by size of

the housing unit. Nevertheless, we project that most housing units in Richland County will have

Like the estimation of total housing units, this estimation assumes steady-state growth.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

116 January 23, 2023

monthly mortgage costs of $500–$900, with somewhat fewer having mortgage costs of $900 or

more per month.

Exhibit 84: Projected owner-occupied housing supply by mortgage costs, 2032

Data source: Projections based on HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data

Projecting affordable housing demand

To estimate demand for affordable housing, we first had to estimate the number of renter and

owner households at various income levels, and then calculate the maximum monthly housing

cost that would constitute 30 percent of their household income. In Exhibit 85 and Exhibit 86, we

have estimated these data for both renters and owners in Richland County, as well as the

maximum monthly housing cost that households of that income category could afford and remain

not cost-burdened.

Exhibit 85: Estimates of income and household size for renter households in Richland County,

2032

Data source: Projections based on HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data

Exhibit 86: Estimates of income and household size for owner households, 2032

Data source: Projections based on HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

117 January 23, 2023

In general, these projections highlight the extent to which affordable housing in Richland County

is primarily a renter issue. Despite the county having fewer renters than owners, the lower end

of the income spectrum is heavily tilted toward those who own rather than rent. What’s also

noteworthy about these projections is, while there are very few large owner households, there

are a number of larger renter households (those with 3+ persons). This suggests the need for

larger affordable housing units.

Projecting affordable housing needs

To understand Richland County’s future affordable housing needs, we combine the affordable

housing supply and demand projections to understand the ‘gap’ between what households will

be able to afford and what units will be available (and at what sizes and price points those units

will be).

Before we begin the analysis, one limitation is that the data presented only factor in housing unit

cost (rent or ownership costs) and not quality. Given our knowledge of ‘affordable’ housing units

in Richland County, it is likely that many of these units would require substantial investments to

bring them into a livable standard. However, one should note that Richland County is unique in

that, especially for homeownership, the county does have ample supply of potentially affordable

units that, with funding for rehabilitation, could be leveraged to move lower-income households

into homeownership.

Beginning with renter households, by 2032 we estimate that Richland County will need an

additional 2,687 deeply affordable units (those with rents under $500) (see Exhibit 87)

Among

those units, approximately half will need to target one-person households, while about a third

will need to target households with three or more persons. This suggests a strong need for

affordable housing units with larger number of bedrooms, as well as units that are specifically

targeted to seniors (since senior households are typically much smaller).

For this model, we assumed that 1-person households would be willing to live in studios and one-

bedrooms, and households of larger sizes would seek apartments with several bedrooms equal to the size

of their household. For reference, the Census reported that over 96% of renter-occupied units has an

equal number of bedrooms and household members.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

118 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 87: Projecting Richland County affordable housing needs for renter households, 2032

Data source: Projections based on HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data

One noteworthy aspect of this analysis, though, is that it shows that Richland County will not

have a shortage of somewhat more expensive apartments in 2032. This suggests that one way

that the county could address affordable housing needs is through demand-side subsidies, like

housing vouchers. Based on the household size analysis, demand-side subsidies may be most

appropriate for 2-person households, as we project a large surplus of 2-bedroom units at modestly

higher price points for that cohort.

In contrast, we do not project that Richland County will have a shortage of affordable

homeownership opportunities in 2032, and in fact will have a healthy surplus of affordable homes

(see Exhibit 88).

This suggests another avenue for alleviating the affordable housing gap for

the county may be to encourage low-income households to move to homeownership. Given that

homes are typically larger than apartments, these affordable ownership opportunities may

especially appropriate for larger households in need of affordable housing.

Note again, though, that this analysis does not consider housing quality. Nevertheless, though, this

stock of affordable owner-occupied housing units does present a noteworthy stock of potentially-

affordable homes

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

119 January 23, 2023

Exhibit 88: Projecting Richland County affordable housing needs for owner households, 2032

Data source: Projections based on HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data

Estimating Economic Development Impacts of Addressing Housing

Needs

The economic development impact of housing development extends beyond the dollars and cents

spent specifically on construction. For instance, a family that moves to Richland County (instead

of, say, Ashland County) because of a new housing development will pay taxes to local

jurisdictions and is more likely to patronize local businesses. Those businesses, in turn, may then

choose to reinvest the additional money they earn by hiring additional workers or adding shifts.

To analyze these cyclical impacts, researchers often use what are known as ‘input/output’ models,

which use ‘inputs’ like construction costs and units built to measure economic development

‘outputs.’ In short, input/output models suppose that investments—such as building housing—

have economic impacts beyond the dollars invested in them.

Broadly, we can describe the economic development impacts of housing construction and

rehabilitation into three ‘phases.’ Phase I comprises the construction process itself. Phase II

comprises the trickle-down economic impacts of Phase I (the construction process). Phase III

includes the economic impacts of the families who have moved into the newly constructed units.

We have summarized these phases, and their employment impacts, below.

• Phase I: Jobs created directly by housing construction or rehabilitation, primarily in

construction, the trades, architecture, and engineering. These are sometimes referred to as

‘direct effects’ because they directly occur because of housing construction.

• Phase II: Jobs created by the spending of wages earned through Phase I. For example, if a

plumber takes his family out to eat because of wages he or she earned as a result of housing

construction, and the restaurant decides to hire more to support this extra business, this is a

Phase II impact.

• Phase II: Jobs supported by the families that live in the newly constructed housing units.

Unlike the impacts of Phase II, these impacts are ongoing and accrue to the area if the unit

is occupied.

In addition to the employment impacts of housing construction, the construction and

rehabilitation of housing also impacts local government revenues across each of these phases:

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

120 January 23, 2023

• Phase I: Construction-related fees paid for permitting, utility access, and other fees. This

represents a one-time fiscal benefit.

• Phase II: Taxes paid by wages earned through housing construction. This also represents a

one-time fiscal benefit.

• Phase III: taxes paid by families that reside in the constructed or rehabilitated housing. This

fiscal benefit accrues as long as the housing is occupied.

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has developed several ‘typical case’ models to

estimate the employment and fiscal effects of housing construction and rehabilitation across those

three phases. Given the scale of the housing needs in Richland County identified earlier in this

report, we have elected to use a model developed in 2015 by NAHB that estimates the impacts

of constructing 100 single-family homes and 100 multifamily units in a metro area, in addition to

$1 million spend on residential remodeling.

We note two aspects of these models:

• Given the substantial rehabilitation needs of many older houses in Richland County, it may be

more appropriate to utilize the new construction models instead of the rehabilitation model

for those units that require substantial rehabilitation, especially those units where

rehabilitation is transforming a vacant unit into an occupied unit.

• Since these models were developed in 2015, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased

by roughly 25%. We continue to use the estimates developed in 2015 to develop

‘conservative’ estimates, but note that, to adjust for inflation, economic impacts should be

increased by 25 percent.

Economic impact of constructing 100 new single-family homes

Exhibit 89 charts the economic impacts of constructing 100 new single-family homes across the

three phases discussed earlier. It estimates that the one-year impact of constructing these units

would be approximately $28,671,000 in local income and approximately $3.3 million in local taxes

and fees. In addition, it would support nearly 400 jobs in that year.

Going forward, having 100 additional single-family units being occupied would also have

substantial economic impacts on the Richland County community. The NAHB estimates that these

Additional information on these models is available in this report (direct link: https://www.nahb.org/-

/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/housing-economics/economic-impact/economic-impact-local-

area-2015.pdf)

One reason why we have chosen not to incorporate inflation into these models is that increases in

online shopping has decreased the amount of local spending that occurs in a community, thus reducing

the total local income generated. Thus, we hope that by omitting inflation but not considering increases

in online shopping, the estimates will still ring true.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

121 January 23, 2023

units will create over $4 million annually in total local income and about $1 million annually in

local taxes and fees in addition to supporting 69 local jobs.

Exhibit 89: Economic impact of building 100 new single-family homes

Data source: NAHB impact models

Economic impact of constructing 100 rental apartments

Exhibit 90 presents the impacts of constructing 100 rental apartments per the NAHB model. While

the per-unit impacts of constructing one rental unit is less than the impact of constructing one

single-family house, the model still shows substantial economic and tax impacts from multi-family

construction. Of note, in the first year of construction, the Phase I and II impacts total over $11.5

million in local income and over $2 million in local taxes and fees, in addition to 161 local jobs

supported.

Beyond the first year, the economic impacts of housing 100 households in rental units are also

substantial, contributing over $2.6 million in local income to the economy and over half a million

in local taxes, as well as supporting 44 local jobs.

Exhibit 90: Economic impact of building 100 rental apartments

Data source: NAHB impact models

Economic impact of residential remodeling

The final NAHB model concerns the impact of $1 million spent on residential remodeling. As noted

above, these figures would only apply when the remodeling occurs in an already-occupied unit.

For when the remodeling either brings a vacant unit to an occupancy standard or prevents a unit

from becoming vacant, the two prior models would be more appropriate (depending on whether

the units were single-family or multifamily).

Economic impact Phase I Phase II Phase I + II Phase III

Timeframe: One-year One-year One-year

Annual, ongoing

Total local Income $19,204,100 $9,466,700 $28,670,800 $4,091,900

Business owners' income $6,526,750 $2,079,400 $8,606,150 $922,500

Local wages and salaries $12,677,350 $7,387,300 $20,064,650 $3,169,400

Local taxes and fees $2,152,500 $1,206,100 $3,358,600 $1,014,800

Local jobs supported 237 157 394 69

Economic impact Phase I Phase II Phase I + II Phase III

Timeframe: One-year One-year One-year

Annual, ongoing

Total local Income $7,403,300 $4,289,700 $11,693,000 $2,640,600

Business owners' income $2,750,550 $870,100 $3,620,650 $623,600

Local wages and salaries $4,652,750 $3,419,600 $8,072,350 $2,017,000

Local taxes and fees $1,699,600 $511,600 $2,211,200 $503,500

Local jobs supported 90 71 161 44

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

122 January 23, 2023

Unexpectedly, the economic impacts of home remodeling are less than the construction of new

units, and they primarily occur in Phases I and II (the year in which a unit is remodeled).

Approximately 84% of the cost of remodeling is returned to the local economy (a contribution of

$841,000 out of every $1 million spend), in addition to contributing to nearly $71,000 in local

taxes and fees. Beyond the Phase I and II impacts, though, the effect of remodeling is much

more minimal, with an estimated increase of $11,200 in local taxes and fees annually.

Exhibit 91: Economic impact of spending $1 million in home remodeling

Data source: NAHB impact models

In summary, the models presented here show that the impacts of housing construction and

remodeling are substantial and go well beyond the dollars and cents associated with the

construction process itself. Importantly, many of these impacts—those discussed in Phase III of

each model—accrue annually once the housing is constructed and occupied.

Identifying Housing Needs and Recommendations

This chapter, along with the companion reports for each node, have provided a Housing Needs

Assessment for Richland County and the jurisdictions within it. For each of the nodes, we have

identified 3–4 key recommendations for strengthening their housing market. Here, we note a few

recommendations that apply to all of Richland County. In the project’s subsequent

recommendations and implementation plan, we will identify ‘best practices’ for addressing these

housing needs.

Simplify zoning codes and make zoning more friendly to small-scale multifamily

development. As noted earlier, zoning in Richland County varies substantially across

jurisdictions, with virtually every jurisdiction (save for a few of the townships) having its own

unique zoning code with its own allowed uses and parameters. Having to learn so many different

zoning codes adds complexity and cost to any housing development in the county. Key

stakeholders should explore adding commonality to zoning codes across the county, even if they

only pertain to by-right uses (for instance, allowing two-unit dwellings in every R1 zone by-right).

An additional challenge of the zoning codes in the county is that they are unfriendly to small-

scale multifamily developments, such as three- and four-plexes and townhouses, that can serve

as attainable housing. Most of the zoning codes treat these uses as multifamily and require

Economic impact Phase I Phase II Phase I + II Phase III

Timeframe: One-year One-year One-year

Annual, ongoing

Total local Income $577,200 $263,600 $840,800 -

Business owners' income $194,500 $60,300 $254,800 -

Local wages and salaries $382,400 $203,100 $585,500 -

Local taxes and fees $36,000 $34,700 $70,700 $11,200

Local jobs supported 7.2 4.4 11.6 -

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

123 January 23, 2023

extensive setbacks and landscaping to separate them from single- and two-family residential uses.

While these setbacks may be appropriate for large, suburban-style apartment complexes, they

make the development of small-scale multifamily unprofitable.

Expand efforts to rehabilitate vacant housing units and units at risk of becoming

dilapidated. Our projections show that Richland County will need approximately 6,000 new

housing units in the next 10 years, notwithstanding any units that will leave the housing stock in

that time (e.g., by being demolished). Given the number of vacant units in the county, though,

bringing half of those units to a livable standard could address over 20 percent of the county’s

housing needs in the next 10 years. Additionally, preventing half of the units that would have

become dilapidated could address another 15 percent of the county’s housing needs.

Build capacity to develop affordable housing, especially family-sized affordable rentals.

The affordable housing projections suggest that Richland County will need approximately 2,687

deeply affordable rental units (i.e., affordable to those earning less than $20,000 annually) by

2032. Most of those units will need to either be for single-person households or for families of

three persons or more. Conversations with stakeholders have indicated that there is currently a

lack of capacity to build affordable housing in Richland County, though it appears that may soon

be changing with the Ritters Run and Turtle Creek developments. Addressing these affordable

housing needs will require this capacity in the county, and developers of affordable housing should

take note of the anticipated shortage of large affordable rental units.

For affordable homeownership, the projections above show that Richland County will have a

surplus of affordable owner-occupied units in 2032, but those projections do not consider housing

quality. Many of those units will likely require substantial investment to turn them into a desirable

property. Thus, it is crucial that the county identify funding and capacity partners to rehabilitate

affordable homeownership opportunities and to provide homebuyer education, low-cost

financing, and continued support for those purchasing these homes. These homebuyers will likely

have been renters previously, and studies have shown

that homebuyer education allows lower-

income purchasers to sustainably own a home and to benefit from increases in asset value.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

124 January 23, 2023

Chapter 5: Strategy Guide and Action Plan

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

125 January 23, 2023

Chapter 5: Strategy Guide and Action Plan

Introduction

This chapter provides the

Strategy and Action Plan

for the Richland County Housing Needs

Assessment. As the final chapter in the plan, it summarizes the challenges to Richland County’s

housing market that have been identified in previous documents while identifying potential

policies, programs, and practices that have been adopted in communities similar to Richland

County.

The chapter is organized into challenges and potential solutions related to three broad categories

that have been identified as challenges in previous chapters:

• Funding and capacity for housing development

• Crafting policies that encourage housing development

• Increasing development of affordable and transitional housing

Within each section, we first outline specific challenges that have been identified over the course

of the Housing Needs Assessment. Then, we outline a series of action steps that Richland County

stakeholders can undertake to address these challenges. To the extent possible, these action

steps are presented in a way

Each section then describes policies, programs, and practices that other jurisdictions have

adopted to address similar challenges in their own communities. We have identified these policies

through internet searches, interviews with key stakeholders, and review of planning documents.

In identifying these examples, we have prioritized communities similar to Richland County,

especially communities in Ohio. However, some are from places quite differed from Richland

County but are included here because we feel that are especially worth considering.

For each example, we have classified them as an easy win, medium-term, and long-term. In

developing these definitions, we have not only focused on the expected time for each to come to

fruition, but what it would take from the Richland County community to implement them. We

define these as the following:

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

126 January 23, 2023

• Easy win strategies are those that could be adopted either without a policy change action or

with a small amount of community input. In general, these strategies could potentially be

accomplished within a 24-month period should Richland County or its communities decide to

pursue them.

• Medium-term strategies are those that would require a policy change within a single

jurisdiction, or which would require dedicated funding for a single program. Should Richland

County or its communities decide to pursue these strategies, we anticipate that they could

be achieved within a 2–5 year period.

• Longer-term or aspirational strategies are those that would require collaboration across

jurisdictions, would require substantial funding likely involving both public and private/non-

profit actors, or which would require actual development to materialize. We anticipate that

these would take longer than 5 years to achieve, though many have short-term or

intermediate steps that stakeholders in Richland County could begin pursuing now to

achieve these longer-term goals.

Funding and Capacity for Housing Development

Like many small communities across the country, Richland County and its constituent jurisdictions

struggle with having the capacity to support housing development in terms of both

funding

development and having the

technical know-how

to support development.

In the Baseline Housing Initiatives Report, our team identified several funding and capacity-

related technical assistance needs in the county. These include:

• Funding, knowledge, and capacity related to affordable housing financing and development

• Development, contracting, and architecture services for both market-rate and affordable

housing

This section provides an overview of challenges noted in Richland County related to funding and

capacity, as well as strategies to combat these challenges.

Strategy 1: Promote Richland County to outside developers

Related to the lack of development activity in Richland County is that the county is not ‘on the

radar’ of out-of-town housing developers. In conversations with developers in Columbus and

elsewhere, none of them mentioned Richland County as a potential target for them. Reasons

given primarily related to the county’s low housing prices, slow population growth, and the

opportunity cost of not developing in a ‘hotter’ market like Delaware County.

However, recent population growth and the county’s economic development pipeline show that

Richland County is primed for growth in the coming decade, and the Housing Needs Assessment

has shown that the county will need over 5,000 housing units in the coming decade to meet

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

127 January 23, 2023

population growth. In addition, recent increases in home prices (as shown in the Market Analysis),

especially in the condo market, suggest that housing can be developed profitably in Richland

County in today’s cost environment.

Across the strategies contained in this report, promoting Richland County to outside developers

is probably one of, if not the lowest-hanging fruit and the easiest to achieve. Many of the action

steps described below could be accomplished within a year and would not require substantial

investment. Others, such as creating a Housing Coordinator position, might require greater

coordination, especially around funding.

Action steps

Specific action steps to guide this strategy include:

• Convene a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sector working group to identify how best to

promote Richland County to outside developers. Ideally, this working group would include

representatives from each municipality in Richland County, housing development

stakeholders like developers and bankers, representatives from the Convention and Visitor’s

Bureau, and other key representatives. This working group could be an outgrowth of the

current Housing Steering Committee.

• Contract with a professional website developer to stand up a website that includes relevant

information on housing development in Richland County, including development incentives,

taxes, school district information, proximity to markets, and contact information.

• Explore creating a ‘Housing Coordinator’ position to market the county to outside

developers. This position would ideally be a county-wide position and could be housed

either in the Richland County Foundation, the Richland Chamber, or potentially county

government.

• Identify a site within the county to market as through an RFP (Request for Proposals)

process. With the upcoming demolition of the Ocie Hill School site, which may serve as a

worthwhile ‘test case’ for such an RFP. The RFP should include information on the site, the

type of development desired, and whatever incentives the county/city are willing to commit

to the development.

• The ‘Housing Coordinator’ position could work with local governments and other

stakeholders to coordinate future RFPs. Other potential sites for a development RFP include

the municipal lot in downtown Mansfield and vacant shopping centers along Park Avenue W.

Website to promote the community to outside developers

• Category: Easy win

• City implemented: Zanesville, OH

• Dates implemented: unknown

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

128 January 23, 2023

Summary of program: The City of Zanesville contracted with a website developer to launch

buildzanesville.com

, which showcases various information about developing housing or

commercial land in Zanesville. Information presented includes Community Reinvestment Areas

(CRAs), Opportunity Zones, amenities, cost of living, taxes, utility cost analysis, and other

pertinent information. The site also includes some model floor plans which would conform to

zoning on city lots.

Accomplishments: According to city staff, the website has led to more developers reaching out

to the city to express interest in developing housing.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: It would be an easy win for a similar site to be

developed for all of Richland County with similar information. Alternatively, such a site could be

developed by any of the communities in Richland County.

Additional resources: Buildzanesville.com has contact information for officials in the city.

Using RFPs to market sites for affordable housing development

• Category: Easy win

• Cities implemented: Many, including Zanesville

• Dates implemented: N/A

Summary of program: Many cities have used RFPs and RFQs to attract interest in developing

affordable housing on publicly owned land, including larger lots owned by land banks. These RFPs

are some fancy, involved thing, and often just include information about the site (acreage,

proximity to amenities, sewer and utilities) and any potential incentives that the city could commit.

As noted above in Strategy 1b, these RFPs could mandate that an out-of-town developer partner

with a local organization to develop their expertise and capacity to build affordable housing.

Accomplishments: An RFP for a demolished school site (owned by the local land bank) was

recently used by the City of Zanesville to develop affordable housing through the non-competitive

tax credit program. A Columbus-based developer responded to the RFP and was recently awarded

tax credits to build affordable housing on the site. Interviews with Zanesville stakeholders indicate

that they put together simple RFP and emailed it to developers who had recently won tax credit

projects to see if any expressed interest.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: There are many vacant former school sites in

Richland County, and many (if not all) of those sites are controlled by the land bank or another

public entity. Any of those sites could serve as a ‘test case’ for such an RFP. Even if a project

didn’t come to fruition, the RFP would get the county on the radar of housing developers in other

communities.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

129 January 23, 2023

Additional resources: News article on the Zanesville affordable housing project is available

here

Housing Steering Committee to Guide Development

• Category: Easy win

• City implemented: Laramie, WY

• Dates implemented: 2019–present

Summary of program: As part of the City of Laramie’s

Thrive Laramie

10-year economic

development plan, a group of stakeholders came together to hold monthly meetings on housing-

related issues and how those would impact Laramie’s growth moving forward.

Accomplishments: While in name an economic development plan,

Thrive Laramie

included a

robust housing element and, at least partially because of the work of its housing development

roundtable, the plan resulted in the City of Laramie allowing for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

in all residential zones and in shrinking the minimum lot size for nearly all residential zones. Such

actions will increase the availability of affordable housing in Laramie.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: The Housing Development Committee could

continue holding regular meetings to discuss housing-related issues in the county and how those

could be addressed in a collaborative manner across jurisdictions.

Additional resources: More information about Thrive Laramie’s housing element here.

Strategy 2: Build local capacity for market-rate and affordable housing development

As noted in the

Baseline Housing Initiatives Report

, there is little public- and private-market

capacity in Richland County to support housing development. By and large, this is a function of

the lack of recent development activity in the county—developers and contractors are very

footloose and migrate to markets where building activity is happening. With so much construction

happening within an hour of Richland County both to the north (Cleveland suburbs) and especially

the south (Columbus suburbs), many housing professionals have migrated to those markets.

As noted in the

Housing Needs Assessment

, Richland County needs to add over 5,000 housing

units in the next decade to sustain its population growth and to lay the groundwork for future

economic development needs. Key to developing those units is to enhance local capacity to

develop market-rate and affordable housing in Richland County by identifying, leveraging, and

strengthening local resources. Such resources include non-profits that have previous housing

development expertise as well as local educational institutions that can expand the number of

construction professionals and those in the trades.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

130 January 23, 2023

Another major capacity challenge for Richland County is the lack of a Community Housing

Development Organization, or CHDO. While less important than they once were due to changes

in regulations in 2011, CHDOs still provide both tangible and intangible benefits to affordable

housing development. Tangibly, the presence of a CHDO on a tax credit application means the

development is eligible for a boost in funding. Intangibly, CHDOs can help to coordinate affordable

housing development both inside and outside the tax credit program as well as galvanizing

community support for affordable housing development.

Action steps

Specific action steps to guide this strategy include:

• Convene a community conversation to identify what organizations, if any, could serve as a

CHDO for Richland County. In determining such an organization, the county should prioritize

those groups that have previous housing development experience and the willingness to

serve the entire county. If no such organization exists, identify local funders that could

commit to funding the creation of a CHDO.

• To build the capacity of a CHDO, identify ways to partner with for-profit developers on

housing. This could be achieved through the RFP process (discussed above) by including a

clause in the RFP the whatever developer is selected must work with the local CHDO. As

one of the qualifications to become a CHDO is demonstrated capacity to develop housing,

these partnerships can give local organizations that experience.

• To broaden the county’s capacity to develop both market-rate and affordable housing,

create partnerships between local developers and technical/vocational schools to increase

the number of students enrolling in and completing training programs for construction and

related trades (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.). County stakeholders (including the

potential Housing Coordinator noted in the previous section) can also conduct outreach to

local four-year universities to identify potential partnerships for architectural services (e.g.,

internships and student projects).

Developing a CHDO through partnerships with for-profit developers

• Category: Easy win/Medium-term

• City implemented: Lima, OH

• Dates implemented: 2000-present

Summary of program: New Lima – Housing For the Future was incorporated in December 2000

and, over the last 22 years, has developed several affordable housing projects in both Lima and

in other locations in western Ohio. Key to their ability to develop affordable housing (especially

in the early years of the organization) has been ongoing partnerships with private-market

developers, including the Miller-Valentine Group. Now, New Lima can develop affordable housing

without such partnerships.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

131 January 23, 2023

Apart from its property development activities, New Lima also provides down payment assistance

and property maintenance training to low- and moderate-income households.

Accomplishments: New Lima has developed five affordable housing complexes. Four of these

are in Lima while another is in Montgomery County (Dayton).

How it could be adopted to Richland County: An organization prepared to become a CHDO

(such as NECIC) could identify private-market developers with which to partner to develop

affordable housing, potentially using non-competitive tax credits. In the affordable housing

development section of this chapter, we include some strategies for how to solicit developers to

express interest in developing affordable housing in Richland County. As part of those

solicitations, a condition could be that a non-profit in Richland County partner with the developer

to gain the necessary expertise to operate as a CHDO in the future.

Additional resources: New Lima – Housing for the Future website. Promotional video created

to showcase New Lima’s first housing development and its partnership with the Miller-Valentine

Group.

Major investment to support a CHDO

• Category: Long-term/aspirational

• City implemented: Youngstown, OH

• Dates implemented: 2009-present

Summary of program: The Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corporation was launched

in 2009 to catalyze strategic neighborhood reinvestments throughout Youngstown. Originally

funded through the City of Youngtown and a local foundation, today the YNDC receives funding

from various foundations, local corporate giving, federal funds, and city funding.

Activities undertaken by YNDC include:

• Renovations of vacant homes resold to low-income buyers at an affordable price

• HUD-approved housing counseling services

• No-cost home repairs, including no-cost roof repairs

Accomplishments: Since 2020, YNDC has demolished 770 blighted properties; renovated 133

vacant units; completed 69 emergency home repairs, 286 home repair projects, and 63 full home

rehabs. Overall, these projects have generated over $3 million in infrastructure reinvestment.

How it could be adopted to Richland County:

Unlike the Lima example above, this strategy

would require much more substantial coordination between the public sector and a foundation to

launch a new organization as a CHDO in Richland County. It’s possible, though, that the strategy

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

132 January 23, 2023

could be modified to support an existing organization (such as NECIC) with financial backing from

both the public sector and foundations to greatly expand its housing-related activities.

Additional resources: YNDC website; YNDC strategic plan which includes many

accomplishments.

Strategy 3: Identify local and out-of-town capacity and resources to facilitate downtown

housing development, infill housing, and rehabilitation of distressed housing

As shown throughout the Housing Needs Assessment, Richland County has a rapidly aging

housing stock, and many older homes face substantial physical rehabilitation needs to keep them

habitable in the years to come. Keeping older housing units from becoming uninhabitable will be

key for Richland County to meet its future housing needs. However, many stakeholders have

suggested that there’s a lack of capacity in the county to renovate older housing units at scale.

Additionally, while there have been many recent investments in the downtowns of Richland

County—especially Mansfield and Shelby—most of those investments have been in commercial

spaces, and there are relatively few residential units in either city’s downtown. Interviews with

stakeholders across the county have indicated a desire to expand residential units in these

downtowns, but that there’s a lack of capacity to bring downtown buildings to a residential

standard.

Because the development of downtown housing and the rehabilitation of older homes requires a

unique development skill set, it is possible (if not likely) that the capacity to achieve this type of

development does not currently exist in Richland County. For that reason, we have highlighted

examples below of smaller communities reaching out to out-of-town developers to achieve this

type of development. However, this does not rule out the possibility that local organizations could

partner with out-of-town developers to enhance their own capacity to conduct this type of

development. In fact, we would recommend this strategy, similar to the CHDO strategy discussed

in Strategy 1.2 above.

We should note, here, that many communities have already developed programs to promote

neighborhood and downtown revitalization. For instance, Shelby has developed some housing

incentives through its CRA, and Downtown Mansfield Inc. and the Richland County Foundation

both have crafted incentives to promote housing development in downtown Mansfield. However,

there is concern that (i) some of these CRA incentives are not well marketed and (ii) there is a

lack of local capacity to take advantage of these incentives. The action steps and examples

discussed below are designed to complement, rather than replace, these existing efforts.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

133 January 23, 2023

Action steps

• Municipalities can examine their CRA strategies to see if they promote housing

development. If not, they may engage in a community conversation with key stakeholders

(residents, school officials, developers, and others) to understand if their communities

support promoting housing through their CRAs and how best to do that. Those communities

that already promote housing through their CRAs may also engage in a similar planning

process to see if their incentives are ‘moving the needle’ on housing development.

• To promote neighborhood revitalization and to target resources (which are always limited),

cities may consider developing area or neighborhood plans to guide revitalization activity

into certain areas. To save money in developing these plans, leaders may consider reaching

out to planning schools in Ohio to gauge interest in having students complete a plan as part

of a class project.

• In cities that struggle with large amounts of vacant and substandard rental housing, leaders

may consider developing a rental and vacant housing registry. Developing such a registry

can help with code enforcement and legal issues where the parcel ownership is unclear. In

creating a registry, city officials should hold conversations with local property managers to

ensure that the fees associated with registering a property are not #

• To promote the development of downtown housing and the redevelopment of vacant

commercial spaces, city and county officials (including, potentially, the Housing Coordinator

described above) could conduct outreach to developers who have successfully revitalized

downtown and vacant commercial spaces, especially in Ohio. This outreach could gauge

developers’ interest in working in Richland County. These conversations can also identify

what incentives can best ‘move the needle’ for outside developers to come work in Richland

County.

Using CRA to promote housing development

• Category: Easy win

• Cities implemented: Ashland, Sandusky, Zanesville, others in Ohio

• Dates implemented: N/A

Summary of program: Many other ‘competitor’ communities to Richland County are using their

Community Reinvestment Areas to aggressively promote housing development and/or

rehabilitation. Ashland’s CRA provides a 100% abatement for 10 years or a 75% abatement for

15 years. Sandusky’s CRA provides a 75% abatement for 10 years. While communities in Richland

County also have CRAs, these appear to be more oriented toward commercial or industrial

development and/or their housing-related components are not well promoted.

Accomplishments:

Interviews with Ashland stakeholders indicate that their CRA has resulted in

substantial housing production, including the development of a new multifamily development.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

134 January 23, 2023

How it could be adopted to Richland County: very municipality in Richland County has a CRA;

the incentives in these could be modified to support housing construction, though these changes

might need to be negotiated with local school districts. Should this change occur, it would be

crucial for communities to market the change to developers.

Additional resources: N/A

Local fund to support housing development and beautification

• Category: Medium-term

• City implemented: Sandusky, OH

• Dates implemented: 2016–present

Summary of program: Sandusky has dedicated revenue from a recent income tax increase to

provide grants for substantial redevelopment, exterior home repairs, and home purchase

assistance. Unlike many federally funded programs, these incentives are not income restricted.

The amount of each incentive is as follows:

• Substantial redevelopment: $5,000 grants for any project over $20,000 or $7,500 grants

for new home construction

• Exterior repairs: 50% of project costs up to $3,000

• Home purchase assistance: $5,000 for eligible home purchases (must be owner-occupied

and must occupy the home for at least three years)

The budget for the program varies from $200,000 to $400,000 per year.

Accomplishments: Per City of Sandusky data, the program leveraged almost $3 million in

private-market activity in 2021 alone. Over the 2016–2021 period, the City has committed about

$1.7 million to the program, which has funded 79 substantial redevelopment grants, 516 exterior

repairs grants, 22 landscape grants, and 218 home purchase assistance grants. The $1.7 million

commitment from the city has leveraged over $34 million in private investment.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: While communities in Richland County may not

be able to commit the same resources as Sandusky (which has funded their program largely

through an income tax increase), a similar (though scaled back) program could generate private

investment in older neighborhoods throughout the county. In particular, it appears that the

substantial redevelopment and home purchase assistance programs have been the most

successful in leveraging public dollars for private investment.

Additional resources: Link to more information about Sandusky’s program here.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

135 January 23, 2023

Creating a rental and vacant housing registry and licensing

• Category: Medium-term

• Cities implemented: Several in Ohio, including Youngstown. Springfield is currently

considering adopting a registry as well.

• Dates implemented: N/A

Summary of program: Several cities in Ohio have developed registries for rental housing

properties and/or vacant properties. The fees for these programs are typically minimal – for

instance, in Youngstown, the annual fee is $40 for a single-unit property and $40 for the first unit

and $25 for additional units for a multi-unit property. Youngstown’s vacant unit registry fee is

$100 for a residential property and $250 for commercial/industrial property.

Accomplishments: The goal of these registries is not so much to generate municipal revenue

but instead to disentangle the often-confusing ownership structure of rental properties. This, in

turn, makes code enforcement and other actions easier for municipalities.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: For communities in Richland County that have

many rental properties and/or struggle with vacant properties, a registry might be a worthwhile

investment to assist with code enforcement and communication with property owners. In

adopting a registry, cities should be sure to communicate with the larger landlords in the

community to ensure that the fees and procedures are not overly onerous.

Additional resources: More information about Youngtown’s rental housing registry here.

Encouraging downtown residential development

• Category: Long-term

• City implemented: Wooster, Ohio

• Dates implemented: Early 2000s–present

Summary of program: Main Street Wooster was founded in 1985 to revitalize Wooster’s

downtown. While the organization primarily focused on streetscape and landscape improvements

and filling vacant commercial spaces in its early years, it then pivoted to focus on adding

residential units (primarily over storefronts) to Wooster’s downtown. To do so, it reached out to

a housing developer (Rose Properties) who had previous experience developing downtown

housing in Medina.

Certainly, jurisdictions could begin reaching out to developers in the short-term and could potentially

have a developer partner identified in the medium-term, but any substantial downtown residential

development would not occur for a number of years.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

136 January 23, 2023

Accomplishments: From an initial project of five apartments, Rose Properties has now

developed 145 apartments and 10 condos in downtown Wooster, with strong demand for all of

them. Due in part to the added residences, downtown Wooster now has a 100% retail occupancy

rate with a waiting list of storefronts. Stakeholders in Wooster report that its revitalized

downtown, including the presence of housing downtown, is now a recruitment tool for economic

development.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: Representatives from Mansfield, Shelby, or

another municipality could reach out to developers who have successfully rehabilitated downtown

housing in other communities in Ohio. The residential incentives recently announced by the

Richland County Foundation might be enough to attract a developer to come to Mansfield (or

another community in Richland County) to develop downtown housing.

Additional resources: More information about Main Street Wooster here.

Mixed-use redevelopment of vacant malls and shopping centers

• Category: Long-term

• Cities implemented: Aiken, SC and Woburn, MA (among many others).

• Dates implemented: 2021-present

Summary of program: Like many malls around the country, the Aiken Mall had seen increasing

vacancies and less traffic in recent years as more shoppers move online. The mall was recently

purchased by a developer who is currently redeveloping it into a mixed-use center with

apartments, retail, a hotel, and public space.

Woburn, Massachusetts also had a dying shopping mall. There, the city partnered with the

developer on a major redevelopment with commercial space and 350 housing units, 25% of which

are affordable. While the development took advantage of a unique Massachusetts program that

incentivize smart growth, many of the lessons learned could apply to Richland County, including

the importance of partnerships between the public sector and developers as well as strategic

incentives to encourage development.

Accomplishments: In Aiken, the development is currently ongoing, and the mall is being

redeveloped in phases. In the first phase, part of the mall will be redeveloped as market-rate

apartments. In future stages, development will include a public park, retail, and a hotel. In

Woburn, the redeveloped site was completed in Summer 2022.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: There have been recent news stories about the

vacant Richland County Mall and vacant shopping centers along Park Avenue West. Rezoning

these as high-density residential or as PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) may encourage

developers to build housing on these properties or to convert them to a mixed-use development

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

137 January 23, 2023

(this could be an ‘easy win’). Once rezoned, the county or the individual jurisdictions then can

promote these sites as development opportunities (medium-term/long-term).

Additional resources: News article about the Aiken Mall redevelopment here and about the

Woburn Mall redevelopment here. Developer’s summary of the Aiken redevelopment is available

here. Story map summarizing the Woburn Mall redevelopment here. List of shopping mall

redevelopment and re-use projects available here.

Crafting Policies that Promote Housing Development

Beyond funding and capacity issues, many of the policies and procedures in Richland County are

not conducive to housing development. As noted in the Housing Needs Assessment, there are

many jurisdictions in the county, and each jurisdiction has its own zoning and permitting rules

and processes. In addition to this complexity, stakeholders have noted that many of these rules

and processes are not friendly to housing development, especially the development of attainable

housing that the county sorely needs.

Beyond codes and permits, the county also has a very fragmented zoning code, and many of the

regulations around zoning are not conducive to housing development. Many of these issues are

also discussed in detail in the Housing Needs Assessment. For instance, nearly every jurisdiction

in the county has its own zoning code, and each of these zoning codes has its own unique by-

right and conditional uses, parameters (e.g., set-backs and minimum densities), and processes

for variances.

Furthermore, zoning across the county generally does not support the types of housing that can

be built in Richland County profitably in today’s cost environment. As noted in the Market Analysis,

the opportunities for housing development in Richland County today primarily center on the

development of condos and small multifamily properties (duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes), as

well as market-rate rental housing. However, the vast majority of land in the county is zoned for

single-family residential, and many zoning codes have onerous restrictions for the development

of multifamily housing (e.g., excessive setbacks, required landscaping, screening fences, etc.).

Strategy 4: Streamline and align permitting processes across jurisdictions

As noted in the Baseline Housing Initiatives Report and the Housing Needs Assessment, public-

sector officials, non-profits, and private-market developers all noted that codes and permits were

frequently seen as a barrier to housing development. Challenges related to codes and permits

include confusion about rules across jurisdictions, arbitrary application of rules, and seeing

approval processes as taking too long.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

138 January 23, 2023

Despite these challenges, we do note that there are several initiatives occurring within the county

to address these issues. For one, the county is currently moving to an electronic process to

improve the codes and permits process. Additionally, the Richland County Chamber has convened

a ‘Build Richland’ group to better understand how codes and permits are a barrier to housing

development and how those barriers can be addressed.

Action steps

Specific action steps to guide this strategy include:

• Continue the Build Richland conversations regarding how to streamline permitting processes

in the county. To the extent possible, these conversations should involve developers, codes

and permits staff, elected officials from jurisdictions across the county, and other key

stakeholders.

• To the extent possible, county stakeholders should develop metrics for how best to evaluate

the work that codes and permits is doing and identify goals for how to improve those

metrics. Key metrics can include the time it takes to move paperwork through the system,

time it takes to conduct a physical inspection, and time to communicate the results of that

inspection.

• The Build Richland group should seriously consider how best to align permitting processes

across the county. We have included some examples below of how other communities have

done so. Key activities can include (i) how to reduce the burden of filing a permit in

Richland County and (ii) how to align permitting rules across jurisdictions to eliminate

confusion.

Creating a ‘one stop shop’ and merging county and city permitting departments

• Category: Medium-term (one stop shop) and Long-term (merging departments)

• Cities implemented: Allen County and Ft. Wayne, IN

• Dates implemented: early 2000s-present

Summary of program: In the first stage of this program, the City of Fort Wayne and Allen

County streamlined each of their permitting processes across multiple departments by using a

‘one stop shop’ approach centered around a common software platform. The ‘one stop shop’

approach eliminated the need for developers to go to multiple city/county agencies to submit

forms for approval. In the second stage of this program, the City and County merged their land

use, planning, and zoning departments into a single department.

Accomplishments: City and county staff note that the ‘one stop shop’ approach streamlined the

permit routing process and information sharing across departments.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: County departments that must approve permits

could identify ways to streamline the permit filing and approval process. City and County officials

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

139 January 23, 2023

could also start discussions about ways to align permitting rules and procedures across

jurisdictions.

Additional resources: Allen County/Ft. Wayne’s permitting website is here. Their efforts are

discussed in greater detail on page 8 of this report (which also includes many other examples of

ways to streamline permitting processes.

Aligning building codes and plan review across jurisdictions

• Category: Long-term

• City implemented: Maricopa County, AZ

• Dates implemented: 2005-present

Summary of program: In Maricopa County, several jurisdictions formed the Regional Plan

Review Group. As a result of this collaboration, the participating jurisdictions adopted identical

building codes and plan review checklists, assuring builders that plans that passed review in one

jurisdiction would be acceptable to all others as well. This, in turn, saved developers money

because they were assured that a plan that was approved in one jurisdiction did not need to go

through the approval process again.

Accomplishments: In addition to the efficiencies discussed in the previous section, city officials

noted that they often consult with each other about how to interpret building codes. This results

in improved consistency in enforcement and reduced uncertainty for developers.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: It seems that aligning building codes and plan

review checklists would be especially beneficial for the townships of Richland County, as it would

potentially allow the county to assume a larger role and would minimize the burden on townships,

who often only have a part-time building inspector position.

Additional resources: Maricopa County is discussed in greater detail on pages 10 and 11 of this

report. The Center for Housing Policy also has more information on streamlining permitting

processes at this link.

Expedited permit review for affordable housing

• Category: Easy win

• Cities implemented: Pinellas County, FL

• Dates implemented: N/A

Summary of program: To incentivize the development of affordable housing, Pinellas County

adopted an expedited permit review process for affordable housing projects. This process

prioritizes the review of affordable housing projects, essentially moving them to the top of the

review queue. In addition to expedited review, Pinellas County has also adopted several other

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

140 January 23, 2023

incentives for affordable housing development, including review fee relief, reduced parking

requirements, density bonuses, and reduced setback requirements.

Accomplishments: Unknown.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: An ‘easy win’ for streamlining permitting could

be prioritizing the review of affordable housing or other desirable housing projects.

Additional resources: Pinellas County is discussed in greater detail on page 31 of this report.

Strategy 5: Align and simplify zoning across jurisdictions

As noted both in the

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment

and it’s the Housing Needs

Assessments for each node, despite its small size, Richland County has more than a dozen

different zoning codes. Each of these codes has its own districts, parameters (e.g., setbacks,

minimum lot sizes), by-right, and conditional uses. Furthermore, within each jurisdiction’s zoning

codes, there are numerous exceptions, footnotes, and other restrictions.

This zoning complexity is a deterrent to housing development in the county, as developers must

navigate the many different zoning codes to develop housing in the county. Even within a single

jurisdiction, the zoning rules can be quite complicated and overly prescriptive, thus forcing

developers to rely on variances and rezonings.

Action steps

Specific action steps to guide this strategy include:

• Individual jurisdictions, potentially with assistance from the Housing Coordinator, can

convene a local working group to examine their zoning code with an eye toward simplifying

zoning rules. In particular, jurisdictions could consider minimizing the number of conditional

uses within a zone (by making conditional uses by-right), minimizing the number of non-

parameter requirements (e.g., landscaping requirements for multifamily developments), or

potentially merging or eliminating zoning districts (e.g., merging R1 and R2 districts).

• Neighboring or similar jurisdictions may consider a cross-jurisdictional effort to align zoning

codes across their jurisdictions. For instance, it may be appropriate for multiple townships to

align their zoning codes, or similarly situated municipalities (e.g., Lexington and Bellville).

These collaborations could serve as a baseline for potentially a larger effort across the

county as discussed in the next bullet point.

• On a longer time frame, representatives from each jurisdiction and from the county

government can explore ways to potentially craft a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)

for the county. This would be a much heavier lift both politically and funding-wise, as a

consultant would need to be engaged to craft the UDO. In all likelihood, a UDO would not

be appropriate until some of the smaller zoning alignments take place across the county (as

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

141 January 23, 2023

described in the bullet point above). If those alignments are successful, county officials

should consider the feasibility of a UDO. Obviously, the Housing Coordinator role would be

crucial in both beginning conversations around a UDO and then shepherding one through

the approval process.

Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)

• Category: Long-term

• City implemented: Chatham County, NC (among others)

• Dates implemented: Planning process ongoing

Summary of program: Chatham County, NC is currently in the process of developing and

adopting a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) through a planning process known as “Recode

Chatham.” The UDO seeks to simplify the county’s existing zoning and permitting processes by

creating user-friendly development standards and review processes. The UDO will also guide

future land use in the county by prioritizes the preservation of agricultural lands while balancing

economic, housing, and infrastructure needs. Once completed, the UDO will be adopted by

Chatham County and its two constituent municipalities (Siler City and Pittsboro).

Accomplishments: N/A

How it could be adopted to Richland County: While a county-wide UDO process would be a

substantial investment in both time and money, individual jurisdictions in the county could explore

ways to align their zoning and permitting processes, especially across the townships. In addition,

jurisdictions in Richland County could adopt the spirit of a UDO by examining their existing zoning

and permitting rules to identify how they could be made more user-friendly.

Additional resources: Recode Chatham planning process website is located here. A recent news

article on the planning process can be found here.

Simplifying zoning through regional zoning ordinances

• Category: Long-term

• City implemented: Lancaster County, PA

• Dates implemented: Plan adopted in 2018

Summary of program: As part of its Places 2040 comprehensive plan, Lancaster County sought

to guide its future planning priorities away from sprawl and toward denser development. The

county also sought to streamline the planning process. The plan review process found that

Lancaster County contained over 500 zoning districts across 60 municipalities and sought to

streamline these districts into “character zones” to simplify zoning and permitting.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

142 January 23, 2023

Noting that a single zoning ordinance might not be feasible, the plan instead called for the creation

of regional zoning ordinances across similar jurisdictions. The goal of these regional zoning

ordinances is to minimize the discretionary review process and to simplify zoning overall.

Accomplishments: The plan was adopted in 2018. Lancaster County is still exploring ways to

operationalize the regional zoning concept and has prioritized a rural zoning ordinance that

encourages farmland preservation.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: Given that adopting a UDO might be a politically

fraught process, jurisdictions in the county could explore adopting simplified zoning ordinances

that stretch across communities. For instance, several townships could come together to align

their RR (rural residential) and R1 zoning ordinances. Similar communities (such as Lexington and

Bellville) could also explore ways to align their zoning ordinances.

Additional resources: Links to the Plan 2040 executive summary (page 6 discusses simplifying

zoning) and the full plan. The Lancaster County Planning 2021 Annual Report has additional

details on implementation progress.

Strategy 6: Modify zoning ordinances to promote attainable housing development

As noted in the Market Analysis and Housing Needs Assessment, house prices in Richland County

are not high enough to support single-family residential development at scale in today’s cost

environment. However, there does appear to be opportunities to profitably develop ‘missing

middle’ or attainable housing, including duplexes, triplexes, and small multifamily developments

like townhomes.

Unfortunately, though, the county’s existing zoning ordinances generally make it quite difficult to

develop this type of housing. Very few of the zoning codes allow for two-family units in R1 zones,

and many of the zoning codes do not treat townhomes as separate from other multifamily

buildings. Furthermore, the rules for multifamily development are written for large apartment

complexes and typically require costly things like greenbelts and obscuring fences for parking

lots.

More broadly, the county’s zoning ordinances require large lots that do not allow for the density

necessary to make attainable housing development feasible in today’s cost environment. For

instance, all the county’s zoning codes mandate at least a quarter-acre lot in their R1 zones, and

some require much larger lots. Mandating these large lot sizes drives up the cost of development

and makes the development of attainable housing virtually infeasible given Richland County’s

prevailing housing prices.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

143 January 23, 2023

Action steps

Specific action steps to guide this strategy include:

• As part of each jurisdiction’s zoning review (as noted in Strategy 5 above), communities can

also audit their zoning codes and maps for how they can be altered to promote attainable

housing development. In this review, the strategies noted below could serve as examples.

The Housing Coordinator role would be crucial in guiding communities through this review

and in bringing together other stakeholders (developers, residents) to participate in review

sessions.

• Community officials and the Housing Coordinator could reach out to the Ohio Housing

Finance Agency to explore ways to fund and support the development of attainable housing

in Richland County. The example below from Zanesville could inform these efforts—either

by directly copying their efforts to build modular housing on city-owned lots, or through a

similar program.

Allowing small multifamily units in R1 zones

• Category: Medium-term

• City implemented: Gainesville, FL

• Dates implemented: Adopted October 2022

Summary of program: In response to decreasing amounts of attainable and affordable housing,

the City of Gainesville reformed its zoning code earlier in 2022 to allow for duplexes, triplexes,

and quadplexes to be built by-right in the city’s R1 zones. As part of this change, though, the City

did not modify other aspects of the zoning code, such as minimum lot sizes and density

restrictions.

Accomplishments: N/A as the zoning change was only adopted in October 2022. The change

did attract substantial controversy, though, and several local politicians have promised to run for

city council to overturn the ordinance. As a result, developers may be hesitant to propose projects

for fear that an incoming council may rescind the ordinance.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: Several jurisdictions in Richland County already

allow two-family dwellings by-right in R1 zones, including Bellville, Madison Township, Mifflin

Township, and Springfield Township. Of those, though, only Mifflin Township allows for additional

density for two-family dwelling units compared to one-family units. Allowing for two-family units

in other jurisdiction’s R1 zones could promote the development of attainable housing in those

communities.

Additional resources: News articles on Gainesville’s zoning reform can be found here, here,

and here.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

144 January 23, 2023

Encouraging ‘missing middle’ housing through zoning reform

• Category: Medium-term

• City implemented: Tacoma, WA

• Dates implemented: Planning process ongoing

Summary of program: The

Home in Tacoma

Planning process is designed to recommend

changes in policy given Tacoma’s expected population growth and the decline in affordable and

attainable housing in the city. To promote ‘missing middle’ (attainable) housing development, the

city streamlined its residential zoning code to two zones: “low-scale residential” and “mid-scale

residential.” Low-scale residential zones allow for one-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, and

in some cases small multi-family buildings. Mid-scale residential zones allow for everything in low-

scale zones in addition to apartment complexes. This zoning district is limited to areas that are

close to shopping areas and already-density neighborhoods in Tacoma.

Accomplishments: Phase 1 of the planning process (the proposed zoning changes) were

completed in December 2021. Phase 2 of the planning process (implementation) is currently

ongoing.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: There are two lessons learned from Tacoma’s

planning process for communities in Richland County. First, and similar to the Gainesville example

above, the planning process promotes the development of attainable housing (duplexes,

triplexes) in its least dense residential zones (R1). Second, Tacoma has greatly streamlined its

zoning codes from several different zones to only two, one of which is relatively low density while

the other allows for greater density. Simplifying zoning will only encourage housing development

as it will be easier for developers to understand the allowable uses within a zone.

Additional resources: Link to the Home in Tacoma planning process is here. A news article on

the planning process can be found here.

Using zoning to encourage infill attainable housing development

• Category: Medium-term

• City implemented: Yellow Springs, OH

• Dates implemented: 2020-present

Summary of program: As part of their

Sustainable Yellow Springs

comprehensive planning

process, Yellow Springs identified that infill development and “missing middle” (i.e., attainable)

housing were crucial needs for the village, and that encouraging this type of development could

promote economic development in the village. As a result of this plan, the village identified several

strategies to achieve these goals, including marketing village-owned lots for residential

development, developing a ‘how to’ guide for residents to construct Accessory Dwelling Units

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

145 January 23, 2023

(ADUs), and undertaking a development code and zoning audit to identify policies that inhibit

housing development.

Accomplishments: The plan was adopted in 2020 and implementation is currently ongoing.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: Many of the strategies that Yellow Springs

adopted are included elsewhere in this report and show the usefulness of these strategies to

small- and mid-sized communities across Ohio.

Additional resources: List of implementation strategies and progress meeting those is available

here

Small lot zoning

• Category: Medium-term

• City implemented: Asheville, NC

• Dates implemented: 2017-present

Summary of program: In reviewing their zoning code, Asheville officials realized that it would

not allow development in some of the city’s oldest and most beloved neighborhoods. In short,

many of lots in those neighborhoods were non-conforming with the current zoning because (i)

the lots were too small for the current zoning or (ii) the mandatory setbacks would make

development infeasible. In response, the city reduced minimum lot widths in each zone by 20%

and reduced minimum lot sizes for multifamily developments in multifamily zones.

Accomplishments: The zoning change was adopted in 2017.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: As noted in one of the strategy sessions, many

lots in Mansfield are non-conforming with the existing zoning, thus requiring developers to either

combine lots into a single lot or to seek variances for each unit they develop. The variance process

adds uncertainty and time to the development process, both of which drive up the cost of

whatever housing is developed. By altering its zoning to better account for the existing parcel

landscape, Mansfield could encourage housing development by streamlining the development

process.

Additional resources: Information about Asheville’s zoning and development department is

available here

. A presentation the planning department gave to city council describing these

changes is available here.

Modular housing on infill lots

• Category: Medium-term/Long-term

• City implemented: Zanesville, OH

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

146 January 23, 2023

• Dates implemented: 2022-present

Summary of program: Zanesville pitched to the Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA) a pilot

program to construct 10 modular homes on infill lots in the city owned by their land bank. OHFA

provided the development team with a loan that covers the cost of purchasing and installing the

modular homes; the city contributed and land and site work. Even if the homes are sold at cost

(~$175,000), they will still be affordable to a family of four earning below 80% of Area Median

Income.

Accomplishments: The city selected Clayton Homes as the modular housing vendor and is

currently conducting site work on the properties.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: Given the number of vacant lots in Mansfield,

modular housing could be an attractive way to develop housing at an attainable price point. As

noted above, this is a pilot program for OHFA, and if Zanesville’s experience is positive, they may

be open to expanding the program to other communities. However, one item noted in Zanesville’s

application is that the city has experience supporting this type of development, and it is unclear

whether this experience exists in Richland County.

Additional resources: Information about Clayton Homes is available here. Zanesville officials

are available to answer additional questions about the program (see here).

Increasing the Availability of Affordable and Transitional Housing

Like virtually every county in the U.S., Richland County does not have enough affordable housing

to meet the needs of its low-income residents. Metro Housing has nearly 1,800 households on its

waiting list to receive a Housing Choice Voucher (i.e., Section 8), and nearly half of the renters

in the county are considered cost-burdened—meaning they pay over 50% of their income toward

rent. Per estimates in the Housing Needs Assessment, Richland County will need an additional

2,687 affordable rental housing units by 2032.

Strengthening capacities within the county to develop affordable and transitional housing is crucial

to addressing Richland County’s affordable housing needs. As noted in the

Baseline Housing

Inventory Report

, there is little capacity to develop affordable housing in the county, and the

county does not currently have a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization).

Additionally, the county lacks enough permanent supportive housing (PSH) and rapid rehousing

units to meet the needs of the unhoused and other vulnerable populations. Finally, arguably the

largest source of affordable housing in the county—mobile homes—are under development

pressure as mobile home parks can be profitably developed for a more expensive housing

product.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

147 January 23, 2023

Strategy 7: Increase opportunities for affordable homeownership

As noted in the

Market Analysis

report, Richland County’s prevailing home prices are rather low,

and the county has a substantial number of older homes priced well under $100,000. In the

Housing Needs Assessment

, our team forecasted that, by 2032, Richland County will have a

surplus of affordable owner-occupied homes (those affordable to those earning less than $35,000

annually) of nearly 33,000 homes. This makes Richland County unique in that homeownership

can be affordable for many low-income households.

While many of these homes would require significant renovation to bring them to an owner-

occupancy standard, they do present an opportunity to build wealth for low-income households

and to build community in historic neighborhoods. To do so, though, Richland County must

prioritize must both (i) identify ways to promote the rehabilitation of its older housing stock

(discussed above in Strategy 3) and (ii) build up both existing and new organizations to work with

low-income households to ensure that they can sustainably purchase a home.

Mobile homes also present an opportunity for sustainable homeownership. While the model of

mobile home ownership does not present the financial benefits of traditional (fee simple)

homeownership, many mobile home owners appreciate being able to own their own ‘home.’

However, mobile home parks across the country are under strong development pressure, with

buyers purchasing parks and either raising lot rents dramatically or closing the parks and

redeveloping them as another residential use (this is discussed in several of the nodes’

Housing

Needs Assessments

). Thus, it is crucial that Richland County—and especially those jurisdictions

with a large number of mobile homes, like the townships—identify ways to protect existing mobile

home park residents from displacement.

Action steps

• Note: See the action steps above in Strategy 3 (especially the Sandusky example) for how

to promote home rehabilitation that can drive sustainable, affordable homeownership.

• Identify local organizations that would be willing to pursue a sustainable lease-purchase

program for Richland County. Ideally, this program would be based on best practices (such

as in the CHN Housing Partners example below) so that it can make homeownership a

reality for low-income households.

• Identify funding opportunities that can be used to invest in local organizations already doing

home rehabilitation work, such as Habitat for Humanity.

• Promote partnerships between these organizations and other groups in the county that can

contribute to sustainable homeownership—such as local banks and those buying homebuyer

education. Studies have consistently shown that affordable mortgages and homebuyer

education can make homeownership more sustainable (i.e., keeping homebuyers in their

homes and current on their mortgage payments) for low-income households.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

148 January 23, 2023

• Convene a group of stakeholders to examine issues around mobile home parks in the

county and how to mitigate the negative impacts of displacement on mobile home park

residents.

Lease-purchase program to provide affordable homeownership

• Category: Medium-term

• City implemented: Cleveland, OH

• Dates implemented: 1987-present

Summary of program: CHN Housing Partners (formerly known as Cleveland Housing Network)

operates a lease purchase program that has led them to become the largest single-family

affordable housing developer in the U.S. CHN uses the tax credit program to purchase and

rehabilitate single-family homes. Under their model, families rent the homes for 15 years then

have the option to buy the house for the outstanding debt (typically about $20,000). Families

receive housing counseling throughout the 15-year lease period, but the counseling is much more

intensive in the year prior to buying the house. CHN works with banks to ensure that the

mortgages that purchasers receive a loan that is affordable to them.

Accomplishments: CHN has moved over 1,000 families into homeownership since the program

launched.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: While CHN is not interested in moving into the

Richland County market, lessons learned from their program could be adopted to the Richland

County context. Funding could either come from the tax credit program, other federal incentive

programs (e.g., HOME funding), or low-cost loan products offered by Community Development

Financial Institutions (CDFI). Interviews with representatives from FFI (a CDFI based in

Columbus) indicates that they are very interested in funding projects in Richland County. CHN

also offers consulting services to other organizations to help them develop their own lease

purchase programs.

Additional resources: More information on CHN’s lease purchase program is available here, and

a magazine article on their program is available here.

Investing in Habitat for Humanity

• Category: Medium-term

• City implemented: Many

• Dates implemented: N/A

Summary of program: Another model for promoting affordable homeownership comes from

Habitat for Humanity, where homebuyers put ‘sweat equity’ into a house before purchasing it.

Unlike a lease-purchase program, the homeowner owns the home outright without having to

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

149 January 23, 2023

lease it before owning. Many local Habitat for Humanity affiliates work closely with local banks

and homeownership education providers to (i) ensure that buyers have access to an affordable

and sustainable loan product and (ii) make sure that homebuyers are well educated on both the

homebuying process and home maintenance.

While Richland County has its own Habitat affiliate (Habitat for Humanity of Richland and

Crawford Counties), the agency struggles with the capacity to do many home renovations or new

home construction. Investing in the affiliate

Accomplishments: CHN has moved over 1,000 families into homeownership since the program

launched.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: While CHN is not interested in moving into the

Richland County market, lessons learned from their program could be adopted to the Richland

County context. Funding could either come from the tax credit program, other federal incentive

programs (e.g., HOME funding), or low-cost loan products offered by Community Development

Financial Institutions (CDFI). Interviews with representatives from FFI (a CDFI based in

Columbus) indicates that they are very interested in funding projects in Richland County. CHN

also offers consulting services to other organizations to help them develop their own lease

purchase programs.

Additional resources: More information on CHN’s lease purchase program is available here, and

a magazine article on their program is available here.

Protecting mobile home residents from displacement

• Category: Medium-term/Long-term

• City implemented: Fort Collins, CO

• Dates implemented: 2019-present

Summary of program: In response to the closing of multiple mobile home parks in Fort Collins—

which exacerbated the city’s existing shortage of affordable housing—city officials came together

to develop policies and programs to both preserve existing mobile home parks and mitigate the

negative effects of residents being displaced when mobile home parks close.

In terms of

preserving

mobile home parks, they created a specific mobile home park zoning

district, offered financial incentives to park owners to keep their parks open, and passed a

municipal ordinance giving mobile home park HOAs first right to purchase the parks when they

went for sale.

In terms of

mitigating

the negative effects of displacement, the city required additional notice of

park closure be provided to tenants before the park closed, required payment of tenants’

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

150 January 23, 2023

relocation costs, and required a relocation report be submitted to the city following park closure

showing where displaced residents moved to following the park closing.

Accomplishments: Efforts in Fort Collins recently served as an example for a bill passed by the

Colorado legislature expanding many of these protections state-wide. A mobile home park in Fort

Collins recently became one of the first to be purchased by its residents.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: While mobile homes are typically not what

people think of when they mention affordable housing, they serve as a valuable source of

affordable housing in Richland County—in fact, there are more mobile homes in the county than

there are vouchers administered by Metro Housing or housing units subsidized through other

programs. While some of the elements of Fort Collins’s law may not be possible in Ohio (especially

related to preservation), expanding protections for mobile home park residents will help ensure

that residents are not made unhoused if and when their parks are redeveloped.

Additional resources: City of Fort Collins information on mobile home redevelopment services

and more general resources on mobile homes. News article on efforts to protect mobile home

park residents in Fort Collins.

Strategy 8: Expanding housing options for the unhoused and vulnerable populations

The rates of individuals being unhoused across Ohio has increased dramatically in recent years,

and this past year saw the largest number of unsheltered unhoused recorded on record. Richland

County has also seen an increase in the number of residents using the county’s emergency drop-

in shelter.

Exacerbating this increase, the county does not have enough permanent-supportive housing and

rapid rehousing units to meet demand, and there does not appear to be the capacity within the

county to operate additional units. Not only does this lack of units impact those who are currently

unhoused, but it also negatively impacts other vulnerable populations, including the disabled and

those leaving the justice system.

Even more so than the other strategies mentioned in this chapter, action steps related to

expanding housing options for vulnerable populations are highly contingent on funding. However,

building the capacity of local organizations serving these populations can enable those

organizations to have the space to pursue additional funding opportunities. Thus, it may be

necessary to provide short-term, ‘seed’ funding for a development director position who can then

fundraise so that these groups can continue to sustain themselves.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

151 January 23, 2023

Action steps

• Identify funders who can support local organizations in developing their capacity. As noted

above, this funding could support a ‘development director’ type position who could fundraise

for local organizations so that any funding would not need to be permanent. The goal of

funding a development director would be to ensure the sustainability of local organizations

so that local funders would not permanently be funding staff time at these organizations.

• Craft partnerships between local organizations to support the development of housing for

the unhoused and other vulnerable populations, such as those leaving the justice system.

This task could potentially be undertaken by the Housing Coordinator position above.

• Build capacity to utilize the funding opportunities provided by the Ohio Department of

Development (ODOD) and other state agencies to develop housing for vulnerable

populations. As part of this project, our team has created a document of available funding

opportunities offered by ODOD that is available on the shared Google Drive. Once the

capacity of local organizations to utilize these funding opportunities has been bolstered, the

county may engage consultants to understand which programs are best suited to address

the county’s housing needs.

Building capacity to operate PSH and rapid rehousing units

• Category: Medium-term

• Cities implemented: Many

• Dates implemented: N/A

Summary of program: In conversations with both local stakeholders and those from outside

Richland County, increasing the capacity of local service providers to operate additional PSH and

rapid rehousing units was cited as a crucial need for the county. As part of the balance of state

Continuum of Care, COHHIO can provide technical assistance to local organizations looking to

developer and operate PSH and rapid rehousing units. The challenge for these local organizations,

though, is having the capacity and time to build capacity.

Accomplishments: N/A.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: Interviews with both COHHIO and other

technical service providers suggest that funding for pre-capacity building—i.e., getting local

organizations stabilized so that they have the time and energy to commit to capacity building

activities—will need to come from local sources, such as foundations and other grant-makers.

While COHHIO can provide some targeted technical assistance, because it oversees the entire

balance of state Continuum of Care (essentially all unhoused services agencies outside of the

state’s largest cities), its ability to provide this targeted TA is limited.

Additional resources: More information on COHHIO is available here.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

152 January 23, 2023

Using Housing Choice Vouchers to develop permanent supportive housing units

• Category: Long-term

• City implemented: Butler, OH

• Dates implemented: Ongoing

Summary of program: The Butler Metropolitan Housing Authority (BMHA) has recently

deepened its relationship with its local unhoused service providers. In response to a shortage of

permanently supportive housing units in the county, BMHA is dedicating 45 Housing Choice

Vouchers to a PSH development under construction in the county. Supportive services will be

provided by local service providers.

Accomplishments: The development is currently under construction.

How it could be adopted to Richland County: In an interview with the Executive Director of

BMHA, he noted that traditionally the housing authority and unhoused service providers in Butler

County were very siloed. However, over the past few years, they began a collaboration that has

led to the construction of the PSH development. This project could be an example of a potential

collaboration between Metro Housing and unhoused service providers in Richland County, where

Metro Housing could project-base some of its voucher in a PSH complex while other local agencies

provide services.

Additional resources: More information on BMHA is available here.

Collaboration to reduce recidivism and promote reentry housing

• Category: Easy win

• City implemented: Burlington, VT

• Dates implemented: Ongoing

Summary of program: To reduce recidivism among those leaving the justice system, an

advisory committee was formed in Burlington to increase the availability of housing for people

released from jail. Members of this advisory committee include the state Department of

Corrections, the Burlington Housing Authority, property owners, and local elected officials.

Accomplishments: As a result of this committee, more local property owners are willing to rent

to those leaving the justice system with the assurance that the corrections department will provide

follow-up support and housing retention services. The housing authority has also created a

dedicated housing specialist position that assists those leaving prison local housing. The housing

authority and local service providers have developed a program to offer life skills classes

(budgeting, relationship building, crisis prevention) to participants.

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

153 January 23, 2023

How it could be adopted to Richland County: While there are already existing collaborations

and meetings around unhoused issues in Richland County, these could be expanded to include

(i) a focus on reentry housing and (ii) increased participation from landlords who would be

interested in renting to those leaving the justice system. Metro Housing or another local service

provider could dedicate a staff member to work with reentry housing issues.

Additional resources: More information on Burlington and other promising practices in reentry

housing is available here

Summary and Conclusions

This chapter has provided eight strategies to improve and strengthen Richland County’s housing

market. Within each strategy, we have included a series of action steps and examples from other

communities that have pursued such a strategy. In identifying those communities, we have

prioritized communities most similar to Richland County.

Based on our understanding of interest and capacity in the county, we have divided the examples

into easy wins, medium-term, and long-term. Easy wins include those that could be accomplished

through a rules change or which would otherwise not require a policy change or collaboration

across jurisdictions. For that reason, we believe they could be accomplished within two years

should Richland County choose to pursue any of them. These include:

• Developing a website to promote the community to outside developers

• Adopting additional CRA incentives to promote housing development

• Continuing and expanding the Housing Development Steering Group

• Expediting permit review of affordable housing projects

• Using an RFP to market sites for affordable housing development

• Collaboration to reduce recidivism and promote reentry housing

Medium-term strategies are those that, in general, would require a policy change within a single

jurisdiction or would require a dedicated funding source for a single program. We anticipate that,

should the communities in Richland County decide to pursue any of these, they could be achieved

within a 2–5 year time frame. These include:

• Developing a CHDO through partnerships with private market developers

• Establishing a local fund to support housing development and beautification

• Creating a rental and vacant housing registry

• Establishing a ‘one-stop shop’ approach to filing permits

• Zoning reforms, including:

o Allowing small multifamily developments in R1 zones

o Encouraging ‘missing middle’ /attainable housing through zoning reform

Richland County Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan

154 January 23, 2023

o Using zoning to encourage infill attainable housing development

o Small lot zoning to promote infill development

• Building local capacity to operate permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing units

• Establishing policies to protect mobile home park residents

Long-term strategies are either those that we anticipate taking over three years to implement.

These largely require collaboration across jurisdictions, would involve a substantial local

investment, or which entail a specific type of housing development that would take several years

to materialize. These include:

• Major public and/or philanthropic investment to support a CHDO

• Encouraging downtown residential development

• Mixed-use redevelopment of vacant malls and shopping centers

• Various collaborative zoning and permitting actions, including:

o Merging planning and zoning departments across jurisdictions

o Aligning building codes and plan review across jurisdictions

o Establishing a Unified Development Ordinance

o Simplifying zoning through regional zoning ordinances

• Establishing a lease-purchase program to provide affordable homeownership

• Using Housing Choice Vouchers to develop permanent supportive housing units

Importantly, though, many of these long-term strategies have intermediate steps that could be

achieved in the short- and medium-terms. For instance, communities could start laying the

groundwork for encouraging downtown residential development by reaching out to developers to

gauge interest in working in Richland County. To promote the redevelopment of vacant shopping

centers, communities could strategically re-zone these for mixed-use development and could

begin reaching out to developers to gauge interest in these sites. Thus, to address the county’s

long-term housing needs, there are steps that stakeholders could take right now to achieve those

goals.