Harrison County, Indianaindianahci.org/downloads/corydon/hc-housing-needs... · 2015. 3. 19. ·...

Harrison County Housing Needs Assessment ♦ 2006

1

Harrison County, Indiana Housing Needs Assessment

Prepared for the: Harrison County Board of Commissioners

Prepared By: Strategic Development Group, Inc.

2901 North Walnut Street Bloomington, IN 47404

(800) 939-2449

With Assistance From: Blue River Services, Inc. 405 N. Capitol Avenue

Corydon, IN 47112

Steering Committee Members


Name Organization Name Organization Greg Albers Century 21 Real Estate Vickie Medlock LifeSpan Resources

Paula Craig Blue River Services Barbara Middleton

Harrison Co. Chamber of Commerce

Cathie Dunigan Blue River Services Shirley Raymond Harrison Co. Community Services

Jeni Gamble Center for Women & Families Mary Renn First Harrison Bank

Steve Gilliland Harrison Co. Community Foundation Tammy Seitz Blue River Services

Debbie Heazlitt Harrison Co. Alternative School Bill Taylor Regions Bank

Jim Heitkemper Harrison Co. Commissioners Fred Uhl Morgan Township Trustee

Joel Higgins LifeSprings Jerry Wheat Indiana University Southeast

Stephen Kiger Salvation Army Eric Wise Harrison Co. Plan Commission

Daniel Lowe Blue River Services Gary Zellers Lincoln Hills Development Corp.


2

Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................ 4

Source of Funding Participating Organizations Executive Summary ................................................................................... 6 Community Profile ...................................................................................11

Population and Demographic Data Households Type and Quality of Housing Age and Condition of Existing Housing Low-Income Areas

Housing Cost Burden................................................................................29 Low-Income Households and Percentage of Income to Housing

Reasons Underlying Analysis Housing Condition Survey .......................................................................34 Survey of Exterior Condition Identified Target Areas of Low-Income Households Changes in Housing Inventory ................................................................61 Amount of Vacant Housing Units Availability and Affordability of Houses Special Need and Homeless ......................................................................69 Availability of Housing for Special Needs Populations Services Supporting Affordable Housing ...............................................71 Community Housing Development Organizations Available Services Adequacy of Infrastructure .....................................................................72 Water, Sewage, Gas, Electricity, Telephone, Waste Neighborhood Needs.................................................................................76

Housing and Infrastructure Needs of Low-Income Households


3

Market Conditions ....................................................................................77 Population Trends Publicly Assisted Housing Impediments to Assessing Housing Adverse Effects on Rental and Ownership Local Economic Base Major Employers Regulations Affecting Housing Strategies....................................................................................................85 Sources of Funding and Financing Priorities Recommended Activities Action Plan ................................................................................................97 Activities Implementation Schedules Current Housing Delivery System Summary of Previous Housing Programs Public Participation Process Local Governing Body & Task Forces Appendix ....................................................................................................111 Public Survey Results Realtor Survey Results Banker Survey Results Key Leader Interview Summary Housing Program Funding Matrix


4

INTRODUCTION

The Housing Needs Assessment was initiated to gain a better understanding of Harrison County’s housing issues. To accomplish that task it was necessary to not only assess and survey housing conditions and problems, but also to examine the larger community. Therefore, in addition to housing data, this report explores the community in terms of its demographic composition, disability issues, income, poverty, employment, etc. The Housing Needs Assessment provides an overview of the housing needs of the community and contains four essential elements:

1. Needs Assessment 2. Market Conditions 3. Strategies 4. Action Plans

This study also examined the greater Harrison County community in terms of history, geography, quality of life, business and economic development. This was undertaken in order to gain a richer understanding of the Harrison County community, its people, culture, assets and liabilities. When combined, these elements addressed issues such as area median income, local employment statistics, population growth projections, neighborhood needs and available resources. The Housing Needs Assessment answered the questions set forth in the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority criteria. Those questions are in bold type and underlined in red throughout the report for easy access. It takes all segments of the community working together to guide the community to a better quality of life. This report, with its aggregate data, analysis and recommendations, strives for that same goal. Sources of Funding The Harrison County Board of Commissioners with assistance from the Blue River Services secured a grant from the Indiana Housing & Community Development Authority (IHCDA) in December of 2005 and work commenced in January of 2006. The IHCDA grant was funded through the Community Development Block Grant program established under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended. Participating Organizations The Harrison County Board of Commissioners and the Blue River Services (BRS) were the lead entities in the assessment. Both saw this study as a way to assess current housing issues in Harrison County and to develop a five to ten year action plan to address the shortcomings which are identified.


5

The county chose BRS as the subrecipient of this grant. BRS selected Strategic Development Group as facilitator for the grant. The first order of business was to assemble a steering committee from throughout the county. The group’s composition is detailed in the following table.


Name Organization Name Organization Greg Albers Century 21 Real Estate Vickie Medlock LifeSpan Resources

Paula Craig Blue River Services Barbara Middleton

Harrison Co. Chamber of Commerce

Cathie Dunigan Blue River Services Shirley Raymond Harrison Co. Community Services

Jeni Gamble Center for Women & Families Mary Renn First Harrison Bank

Steve Gilliland Harrison Co. Community Foundation Tammy Seitz Blue River Services

Debbie Heazlitt Harrison Co. Alternative School Bill Taylor Regions Bank

Jim Heitkemper Harrison Co. Commissioners Fred Uhl Morgan Township Trustee

Joel Higgins LifeSprings Jerry Wheat Indiana University Southeast

Stephen Kiger Salvation Army Eric Wise Harrison Co. Plan Commission

Daniel Lowe Blue River Services Gary Zellers Lincoln Hills Development Corp.

Members of the Steering Committee met regularly and participated in research activities, arranged meetings and interviews, reviewed data and documents and provided valuable assistance throughout the project. The Steering Committee was responsible for the overall direction of this study. Following the research, discussions and community involvement, the Steering Committee developed recommendations and strategies for housing issues. These results will serve as the guide and decision-making tool for government officials, planners, real-estate professionals, financial institutions and developers. This Housing Needs Assessment and corresponding action plan constitute the initial step toward developing an affordable housing program that will address both short-term and long-term needs.


6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Housing is the single largest expenditure for most American families. An adequate supply of housing is directly related to the economic and social health of a community. The failure to provide a balanced housing stock can have serious societal costs. Therefore, a comprehensive study of Harrison County housing must start with a broad overview of the county’s demographic, economic and social environment. This report combines information gathered from sources such as the U. S. Census and U.S. Office of Housing and Urban Development with primary research gathered from local and regional stakeholders through the use of surveys, interviews and meetings. This data will help the community and others to understand more fully the issues related to housing in Harrison County. This study begins with a broad and in-depth demographic overview which highlights the current condition of housing in Harrison County and provides a richer understanding of the community, its citizens, its economy and the related housing issues. A brief demographic description of Harrison County appears below and on the following pages. This overview of data is intended to acquaint the reader with the basic characteristics of Harrison County. Table 1 provides a collection of interesting facts and figures. This overview provides a glimpse into Harrison County. It includes statistics on housing units, poverty measures, home ownership and housing vacancy.

Table 1. Selected Harrison County Characteristics There were 14,565 estimated housing units in Harrison County in

2004 The 2000 Census counted 2,159 individuals living under the poverty level

More than 9.2% of children were in poverty in 2003 More than 19.1% of school-aged children qualified for free lunch

and textbooks in 2004 From 1995-2000 20,119 of Harrison County residents lived in the same

house Almost 1,206 of housing units housed 5 or more people in

2000 Approximately 10,859 of housing units were owner-occupied in 2000 Approximately 2,058 of housing units were renter-occupied in 2000

The median age of owner-occupied housing is 4 years newer than rental housing

The 2000 Census counted 782 vacant housing units in Harrison County Sources: STATS Indiana; U.S. Census; Indiana Youth Institute


7

Table 2 focuses on the population, employment, income and education characteristics of Harrison County. This table shows where the county ranks among Indiana’s 92 county’s in each category.

Table 2. Harrison County Demographic Overview Characteristic Value Rank in

State Characteristic Value Rank in

State Population (2004) 36,376 43 % of Adults 25 and older with a

HS diploma or higher 80.3% 52

Population Growth 1990-2000 21.7% 16 % of Adults 25 and older with a

BA or higher 13.1% 41

Households (2000) 12,917 44 Average Wage per Job – all jobs $27,158 71

Labor Force (2004) 18,977 41 Manufacturing - % of all jobs in county 20.8% 57

Unemployment Rate (2004) 5.3 44 Avg. wage per job - manufacturing $34,340 68

Median Household Income (2003) $45,614 19 Transportation & Warehousing -

% of all jobs in county 2.2% 51

Per Capita Personal Income (2003) $26,455 32 Avg. wage per job – transportation

& warehousing $31,046 74

Source: STATS Indiana; U.S. Census 2000 The report continues with a review of the cost burden for low-income households and the type of housing currently available in Harrison County. The report also contains a survey of residents in Harrison County and an assessment of the quality of the exterior of housing units. Included also is a description of the housing inventory and the current housing market conditions in Harrison County. This report describes services which support affordable housing and special needs populations as well as outlines specific neighborhood needs. The report concludes with the strategies identified which could potentially benefit Harrison County and its residents. Finally, an action plan is included which will serve as the guiding blueprint for future activities and change. The research uncovered many areas of concern. The project steering committee felt strongly that while there are always many issues to address, it is best to focus on only a few of the most pressing needs to ensure that they receive the attention they deserve. Also, the committee felt that it was important to confine its recommendations to activities which have clear and attainable funding sources. With this in mind, this report proposes six recommended activities. Summaries of these recommendations are found on the following page. The detailed action plan can be found on page 85.


8

Recommended Activities

Activity 1: Create a Harrison County Housing Task Force

Objective 1: Develop a coordinated and focused affordable housing program for Harrison County.

Objective 2: Provide the framework for increased funding and support from local,

regional, state and federal entities. Overview: In order to carry out an effective county-wide affordable housing strategy, a central committee consisting of representatives from housing, social service and governmental organizations as well as private stakeholders such as banks, utilities and realtors will be needed. This task force, which would most likely be led by representatives of Blue River Services and Harrison County Community Services, would be chiefly responsible for implementing the recommended activities of this study. A formalized housing task force will help facilitate an effective housing program in two ways. First, the task force provides a mechanism for sharing information between various entities and developing a coordinated effort to address housing needs. Second, demonstrating a coordinated community-wide effort will greatly benefit future grant proposals and program implementation.

Activity 2: Increase Homeownership Education opportunities

Objective: Increase the number of Harrison County residents who own their own home. Overview: Often, the only thing standing between renting and homeownership are the fundamental skills of budgeting, understanding the loan process or the knowledge that financial options exist to help individuals become successful homeowners. A comprehensive education program can make homeownership, and the advantages that come with it, attainable for more Harrison County residents. Homeownership education was rated as a top priority by the steering committee and local realtors and bankers. A recent report by the Mortgage Bankers Association showed that Indiana led the nation in mortgage foreclosures in 2005. A comprehensive, countywide approach to expand the capacity for homeownership and financial education is critical. Education should focus on financial literacy, budget counseling, credit, loss mitigation, etc.


9

Activity 3: Initiate a Housing Rehabilitation Program

Objective 1: Provide safe and decent housing for low-to-moderate-income individuals and families, senior citizens, and special needs populations.

Objective 2: Revitalize neighborhoods through reinvestment in existing housing. Overview: Many homeowners lack the resources to make the necessary home repairs. Neighborhoods decline as homes begin to deteriorate, which leads to further decline and lack of investment. Often, modest improvements will allow the elderly, disabled or low income families to remain homeowners and live in safe and decent conditions. A housing rehabilitation or micro-loan program could be used to rehabilitate owner and renter occupied homes in order to facilitate safer dwellings and neighborhood improvements. In fact, entire neighborhoods could be selected for improvements. Owner-occupied rehabilitation was ranked as one of the highest housing priorities by the steering committee. Both the realtor and banker survey results and interview responses indicate that rental rehabilitation is a major need for the county. Programs to rehabilitate rental properties will include requirements to maintain affordable rents. Activity 4: Expand Affordable Rental Opportunities

Objective 1: Ensure an adequate supply of affordable rental units in Harrison County. Objective 2: Provide safe and decent housing for low-to-moderate-income individuals

and families, senior citizens, and special needs populations. Overview: Multi-family or apartment style housing makes up a relatively small proportion of the county’s housing stock. Housing with three or more units accounts for only 4 percent of housing in the county. Quality rental units fill a vital role for low income residents, young families and individuals working toward a home purchase, individuals in transition, and senior citizens who are unable or no longer wish to own a home. Recently, steps have been taken to help alleviate this problem. Oakview and Autumn Ridge apartments in Corydon are examples of rehabilitation and new construction efforts undertaken to increase quality low-income rental housing. However, lengthy waiting lists for these developments, Section 8 vouchers, and other subsidized rental developments attest to the need for more units. There is a particular need for units which serve the lowest income residents (30% of AMI). Funding for these populations is difficult as Section 8 funding is capped. However, HUD funding is available for housing developments which serve the elderly and disabled.


10

Activity 5: Increase the Availability of Affordable or “Starter” Homes

Objective: Ensure that owner-occupied housing opportunities exist for a range of income levels.

Overview: According to the Multiple Listing Service, the average Harrison County home sold for $135,373 in 2005. Only 50 two-bedroom homes were up for sale in 2005 with an average sale price of $84,417. The growth of higher priced homes has been fueled by growth from Louisville, New Albany, etc. Housing prices and types of developments are largely market driven. A common sentiment seems to be: “Why would developers construct affordable housing when a demand for higher-end developments exists?” However, there are some creative initiatives that local governments or housing organizations can use to expand the availability of modestly priced homes. Some potential initiatives could include public/private partnerships to spur affordable single family units, studying inclusionary affordable housing standards for all new residential subdivisions, establishing low-equity housing cooperatives, or promoting the development of “patio homes”. .

Activity 6: Upgrade / Expand Sewer System in Support of Affordable

Housing

Objective: Expand the number of sites which are able to support affordable housing. Overview: Adequate infrastructure will be critical to the development of any type, including affordable housing. In fact, many programs that fund affordable housing will require that developments have access to sewers. The deployment of infrastructure such as sewers gives local officials some ability to guide growth as well as enhance other local efforts such as economic development. A survey of realtors and bankers and interviews with local leaders both indicate that sanitary sewer coverage seriously limits housing development in the county. A planned sewer upgrade in Milltown should assist affordable housing in that portion of the county.


11

COMMUNITY PROFILE Harrison County is one of 92 counties in Indiana. The county was organized on December 1, 1808. Harrison became the fourth county to be organized in the Territory of Indiana and was formed from Knox and Clark counties. The county was named after Revolutionary War hero and Territorial Governor William Henry Harrison. Corydon serves as the county seat and was the Indiana capital from 1816 to 1825. The county has 485.2 square miles in land area and a population density of 75.9 which is well below Indiana’s population density of 173.9 persons per square mile. Since the 1970s, the county has experienced significant population growth with a 68.1 percent gain. On the 2000 census form, 99.4 percent of the population reported only one race, with 0.4 percent of these reporting African-American. The population of this county is 1.0 percent Hispanic (of any race). The average household size is 2.63 persons. One of Harrison County’s greatest assets is its location. As part of the Louisville MSA, Harrison County enjoys many of the benefits of a metropolitan area while maintaining much of its small town or rural quality of life. This reality has fueled much of the county’s population growth as more and more people work in Louisville, New Albany, Jeffersonville, etc. but reside in Harrison County. The Ohio River also generates a lot opportunities such as the Caesar’s Indiana riverboat casino which is the county’s largest employer and revenue producer. In 2004, the county’s average wage per job was $27,158 which ranked 71st out of 92 counties. Manufacturing was the largest reported sector, accounting for 20.8 percent of all jobs. It had an average wage per job of $34,340.


12

POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS Population growth is important for what it reveals about a community – do a growing number of people view the area as a desirable place to live? Since the 1940’s, Harrison County has experienced significant population growth. The county’s population grew by 68 percent from 1970 -2000 alone. Table 3 outlines the population trends over the past century. The greatest population gain occurred in the 1970’s. Also, the county’s 15 percent growth in the 1990’s ranks 16th in the state for population change over that decade. The county’s population growth has out-paced the growth of the Indiana’s population since 1970. As Figure 1 illustrates, Harrison County consistently lost population share throughout the first half of the 20th century. However, that trend has reversed itself since 1970.

Figure 1. Harrison County's Population as % of the State's

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: U.S. Census 2000

Figure 2 indicates that Harrison County’s population growth is expected to continue with a 22 percent increase projected over the next 40 years.

Table 3. Population 1900-2000 Year Harrison County % Change 1900 21,702 - 1910 20,232 -6.771920 18,656 -7.791930 17,254 -7.521940 17,106 -0.861950 17,858 4.401960 19,207 7.551970 20,423 6.331980 27,276 33.561990 29,890 9.582000 34,325 14.84


Figure 2. Harrison County Population Projection

30,00034,00038,00042,00046,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040Source: U.S. Census 2000


13

Table 4. Harrison County Township Profile

Population Housing Units Township 1990 2000 Total Occupied Vacant % Vacant

Harrison County 29,890 34,325 13,699 12,917 782 5.7% Blue River township 1,898 2,009 780 723 57 7.3 Boone township 1,052 1,212 500 480 20 4.0 Franklin township 3,126 3,657 1,424 1,378 46 3.2 Harrison township 8,239 10,303 4,287 4,017 270 6.3 Heth township 956 1,291 500 469 31 6.2 Jackson township 4,569 5,124 1,996 1,918 78 3.9 Morgan township 3,220 3,733 1,462 1,366 96 6.6 Posey township 2,629 2,736 1,094 1,020 74 6.8 Spencer township 1,744 1,783 704 645 59 8.4 Taylor township 612 675 253 236 17 6.7 Washington township 372 201 109 96 13 11.9 Webster township 1,473 1,601 590 569 21 3.6

Source: U.S. Census 2000; STATS Indiana It is important to know where the population change is occurring. In order to gain a more precise understanding, it is helpful to break-down the population and housing numbers by township. Table 4 provides an overview of the township populations as well as certain housing characteristics. The highest housing vacancy rates can be found in the western portion of the county with Washington, Spencer and Blue River Townships ranking at the top of the list. In terms of population, Harrison Township is clearly the county’s most populous. Figure 3 illustrates the level of population change in the county’s townships between 1990 and 2000. All townships experienced growth in the 1990’s with the exception of Washington which lost nearly half of its population. The greatest growth was experienced in Harrison Township, which contains Corydon, and Heth Township.

Figure 3


14

The majority of the county’s population lives in unincorporated rural areas. Only 14 percent of the population lives within a designated town. The largest of these towns is Corydon which accounts for 8 percent of the county’s population. Populations of the county’s towns can be found in Table 5. As illustrated in Table 6, Harrison County’s median age is nearly 2 years older than the state as a whole. The largest discrepancy is found in the 45-64 range.

Table 6. Harrison County Age Characteristics Age Group Population 2004

(Estimate) Rank in

State Percent of Dist.

in County Percent of Dist. in

State Ages 0-4 2,268 44 6.2% 6.9% Ages 5-17 6,595 44 18.1% 18.8% Ages 18-24 3,699 43 10.2% 10.1% Ages 25-44 10,123 38 27.8% 27.8% Ages 45-64 9,520 38 26.2% 24.0% Ages 65 and older 4,171 52 11.5% 12.4% Median Age 37.5 N/A N/A 35.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Indiana Business Research Center As Table 7 outlines, over 98 percent of the Harrison County population is white, which is much higher than the state percentage of 87.5 percent. The highest minority percentage belongs to the Hispanic population which accounts for only 1 percent of the county.

Table 5. Population of Cities and Towns Community Population % of County Harrison County 34,325 100.0% Corydon 2,715 7.9% Crandall 131 0.4% Elizabeth 137 0.4% Laconia 29 0.1% Lanesville 614 1.8% Mauckport 83 0.2% Milltown (part) 412 1.2% New Amsterdam 1 0.0% New Middletown 77 0.2% Palmyra 633 1.8% Source: U.S. Census 2000


15

Table 7. Harrison County Race Characteristics Race Group Population 2000

% of County Population 2003

(Estimate) Rank in

State One Race 34,131 99.4% 36,193 White 33,769 98.4% 35,837 42 African American 126 0.4% 169 50 American Indian and Alaska Native

97 0.3% 109 36

Asian 71 0.2% 75 59 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

5 0.0% 3 51

Two or More Races 194 0.6% 183 47 Hispanic 331 1.0% 444 49 Source: U.S. Census 2000; STATS Indiana

Table 8. Harrison County Educational Characteristics Characteristic Harrison County Rank in State Indiana K-12 2004/2005 School Enrollment 6,512 42 - Public 6,142 44 - Private 370 29 - High School graduates 2003/2004 395 40 - Going to Higher Education 2003/2004 295 41 - 4-year 222 36 - 2-year 63 40 - Voc/tech. 10 75 - Adults (25+) w/ H.S. diploma or higher 80.3% 52 82.1% Adults (25+) w/ B.A. or higher degree 13.1% 41 19.4%

Source: STATS Indiana Table 8 describes the educational characteristics of Harrison County, including the number of recent graduates who intend to go on to higher education. 75 percent of the county’s 2003/2004 high school graduates expect to move onto some level of higher education. The statistics show that the county lags behind the rest of the state in terms of educational attainment, particularly in the percent of adults with 4-year college educations.


16

Transportation According to the U.S. Census 2000, approximately 94 percent of Harrison County’s workforce relied on cars, trucks, or vans to transport them to and from work. Nearly 82 percent of those workers drove to work alone. Given the relatively low population density for the county, these statistics would be expected due to a lack of demand for public transportation.

Table 9. Means of Transportation to Work Means Number Percent Total Workers 16 and Over 17,364 100.0% Car, Truck, or Van 16,356 94.2% Drove Alone 14,148 81.5% Carpooled 2,208 12.7% Public Transportation 13 0.1% Bus or Trolley Bus 13 0.1% Streetcar or Trolley Car 0 0.0% Subway or Elevated 0 0.0% Railroad 0 0.0% Ferryboat 0 0.0% Taxicab 0 0.1% Motorcycle 0 0.1% Bicycle 0 0.0% Walked 205 1.2% Other Means 100 0.6% Worked at Home 690 4.0% Source: U.S. Census 2000


17

Commuting Trends Harrison County is a significant exporter of labor. This is due, obviously, to the county’s proximity to the Louisville metropolitan area. In 2004, 40 percent of Harrison County’s resident labor force commuted out of Harrison County. Over half of these residents traveled to Kentucky. At the same time, 17 percent of Harrison County’s work force commuted from outside the county.

Figure 4 illustrates that, based on Indiana annual tax returns; the number of workers commuting into Harrison County has increased greatly (64 percent) between 1998 and 2004. Generally, this would be a sign of a growing economy. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the county has gained 3,486 jobs over this period. What the data doesn’t tell us is whether the in-commuting increase can be attributed to a growing economy alone or if there is some resident labor migration out of Harrison County. However, the resident labor force has also increased considerably between 1998 and 2004 (by 1,410 workers). Therefore, the growth of in-commuters would seem to originate outside of the county. An improved housing stock could attract more of these commuters to relocate closer to their places of employment.

Figure 4. Shift in Commuting Patterns 1998 - 2004

3,1822,8241,937 3,033

10,0069,7109,4929,177

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,000

1998 2000 2002 2004

Source: Stats Indiana

Commute In

CommuteOut


18

HOUSEHOLDS The 2000 U.S. Census reported 12,917 households in Harrison County. A household is comprised of all of the people who occupy a housing unit. It may be a family or a non-family, such as a group of friends or unmarried partners. The householder is designated as the first household member who is 18 years old or older and is an owner or renter of the housing unit. Some of the housing needs of these household groups can be inferred from census-identified characteristics. Owner-occupied households out-pace renter-occupied units by a 5 to 1 margin. Table 10 and Figure 5 outline owner vs. renter occupancy by age group. The statistics follow a predictable pattern. 40 percent of renter-occupied units are inhabited by residents under the age of 34. Meanwhile, nearly 84 percent of owner-occupied units belong to residents above the age of 35. Family households account for 75 percent of all households in Harrison County which is well above the Indiana rate of 68 percent. The rate of single parent households, 8 percent, is slightly below the state rate.

Table 10. Harrison County Household Characteristics - 2000

Age Group

Owner-occupied Percent Renter-

occupied Percent

Total 10,859 100.0% 2,058 100% 15-24 224 2.1% 308 15.0% 25-34 1,507 13.9% 504 24.5% 35-44 2,765 25.5% 456 22.2% 45-54 2,474 22.8% 266 12.9% 55-64 1,695 15.6% 180 8.7% 65 + 2,194 20.2% 344 16.7%

65-74 1,247 11.5% 145 7.0% 75-84 721 6.6% 137 6.7%

85+ 226 2.1% 62 3.0%

Total of all types of Households 12,917 Family Households 9,712 Single Parent Households 1,104 Non-family Households 3,205 Source: U.S. Census 2000

Figure 5. Percent of Owner-Occupied and Renter-Occupied Housing by Age

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85+


Owner

Renter


19

Table 11 outlines the number of households by the size. Nearly 56 percent of the households in the county are occupied by one or two residents.

Table 11. Households by Size Size Number Percent 1 person 2,673 20.7% 2 persons 4,470 34.6% 3 persons 2,473 19.1% 4 persons 2,095 16.2% 5 persons 849 6.6% 6 persons 254 2.0% 7 or more persons 103 0.8%

Average Household Size = 2.63 Source: U.S. Census 2000


20

TYPE & QUALITY HOUSING What type of housing is available for Harrison County residents? Specifically, are there adequate housing options for low-income families in the county? Information on the predominant housing types, renter vs. owner-occupancy, vacancy rates, quality of housing units and age, and location issues will help answer these questions. Housing Type The overwhelming majority of the housing stock in Harrison County is geared towards single family structures. 94 percent of the county’s housing units are classified as either detached, single-unit housing or mobile home. .

Table 12. Housing Type Composition Type Number

of Units Percent Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied

Total units 12,917 100.0% Units Percent Units PercentSingle-family Housing 1-unit detached 9,904 76.7% 9,030 83.1% 874 42.5% 1-unit attached 64 0.4% 10 0.1% 54 2.6% Mobile Home 2,182 17.0% 1,783 16.4% 399 19.4% Boat, RV, Van, etc. 9 0.0% 1 0.0% 8 0.4% Multi-family Housing 2 units 259 2.0% 18 0.2% 241 11.7% 3-4 units 160 1.3% 19 0.2% 141 6.9% 5-9 units 162 1.3% 0 0.0% 162 7.9% 10-19 units 32 0.2% 0 0.0% 32 1.6% 20-49 units 13 0.1% 0 0.0% 13 0.6% 50 or more units 132 1.0% 0 0.0% 132 6.4%

Source: U.S. Census 2000 Table 12 and Figure 6 illustrate that multi-family housing has played a limited role in the county’s housing stock. Structures with three or more units in Harrison County comprise only 3.9 percent of the housing stock. However, the U.S. Census figures do not necessarily correspond to the reality. For instance, according to the housing inventory conducted for this study, there are three developments with 50 or more units for a total of 209 units compared to the 132 shown in Table 12.

Figure 6. Housing Type Composition

1 unit detached 1 unit attached 2 units

3 to 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units

20 to 49 units 5 or more units Mobile home


21

Given the role that multi-family housing plays in providing an adequate supply of affordable, safe, and decent housing, Harrison County’s limited availability of this housing type places a burden on low income households. For instance, the 2000 U.S. Census indicates that 23 percent of the county’s renters devote greater than 30 percent of their household income to rent alone. This figure indicates that the lack of variety in housing type forces many low income residents to spend more on housing than they can afford. Other low income residents live in sub-standard housing, particularly in the rural areas of the county. Home and Rental Price Ranges Harrison County rents tend to be lower than the state as exemplified by the fact that 72 percent of the county’s rentals go for less than $500 compared to only 68 percent for the state. In terms of home values, Harrison County home values are higher than Indiana as a whole. 62 percent of the county’s owner-occupied units have a value in the $70,000 - $150,000 range compared to only 50 percent for the state.

Table 13. Harrison County Value Range &Distribution: Owner-Occupied

Harrison County Price Range (dollars) Number Percent

Indiana Percent

Under 10,000 5 0.1% 0.3% 10,000-19,999 58 0.9% 0.9% 20,000-29,999 42 0.7% 1.8% 30,000-39,999 159 2.4% 3.5% 35,000-39,999 86 1.3% 2.0% 40,000-49,999 234 3.6% 4.9% 50,000-59,999 368 5.7% 6.7% 60,000-69,999 552 8.5% 8.6% 70,000-79,999 651 10.0% 9.3% 80,000-89,999 736 11.3% 10.2% 90,000-99,999 793 12.2% 9.2%

100,000-124,999 1061 16.3% 15.2% 125,000-149,999 786 12.1% 11.0% 150,000-174,999 442 6.8% 6.5% 175,000-199,999 276 4.2% 3.8% 200,000-249,999 223 3.4% 3.8% 250,000-299,999 79 1.2% 1.9% 300,000-399,999 32 0.5% 1.4% 400,000-499,999 8 0.1% 0.5% 500,000-749,999 2 0.0% 0.4% 750,000-999,999 0 0.0% 0.1%

1,000,000 + 1 0.0% 0.1% Source: U.S. Census 2000

Table 14. Harrison County Contract Rent Range and Distribution: Renter-Occupied

Harrison County Rent Range (dollars) Number Percent

Indiana Percent

Under 100 92 4.9% 3.3% 100-149 68 3.6% 3.0% 150-199 89 4.7% 2.9% 200-249 111 5.9% 4.1% 250-299 159 8.4% 5.9% 300-349 196 10.4% 9.1% 350-399 172 9.1% 11.3% 400-449 254 13.4% 12.2% 450-499 228 12.0% 10.5% 500-549 140 7.4% 8.9% 550-599 66 3.5% 6.7% 600-649 11 0.6% 5.3% 650-699 8 0.4% 3.6% 700-749 0 0.0% 2.1% 750-799 10 0.5% 1.4% 800-899 6 0.3% 1.6% 900-999 0 0.0% 0.9%

1,000-1,249 0 0.0% 1.2% 1,250-1,499 0 0.0% 0.5% 1,500-1,999 0 0.0% 0.3%

2,000 + 0 0.00% 0.24% Source: U.S. Census 2000


22

Figures 7 and 8 provide a glimpse into the housing value patterns in Harrison County. In terms of home values and rents, many of the lowest figures can be found in the northwestern portion of the county. In terms of owner-occupied units, values appear to be lower within Corydon but substantially higher around the town limits.

Figure 8

Figure 7


23

AGE AND CONDITION OF EXISTING HOUSING

Table 15. Year Structure Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied

Number Percent

Year Structure Built: Units Number Percent 384 3.5% 1999 to March 2000 44 2.1%

1,449 13.3% 1995 to 1998 207 10.1% 1,193 11.0% 1990 to 1994 164 8.0% 1,755 16.2% 1980 to 1989 381 18.5% 2,218 20.4% 1970 to 1979 321 15.6% 948 8.7% 1960 to 1969 169 8.2% 893 8.2% 1950 to 1959 165 8.0% 459 4.2% 1940 to 1949 207 10.1%

1,562 14.4% 1939 or Earlier 398 19.4% 1977 Median Year Built 1973

Source: U.S. Census 2000 Harrison County experienced a considerable increase in housing construction in the 1990s with 28 percent of the owner-occupied housing stock being built between 1990 and March of 2000. Renter-occupied units account for over 20 percent of the total over that same period which is only slightly higher than the 1980’s for this type of construction. In terms of median year built, Harrison County housing stock is significantly younger than the state median. Harrison County’s median year built for owner-occupied units is over a decade younger than Indiana’s median of 1966. As for renter-occupied units, the county’s stock is 5 years younger the state’s median of 1968. However, as Table 15 shows, 36 percent of owner occupied homes and 46 percent of renter occupied homes were built prior to 1970. Aging homes present a variety of challenges, from health concerns such as lead based paint and mold to increased maintenance requirements. These issues tend to burden Harrison County’s low income

Figure 9


24

households disproportionately as they are less financially equipped to deal with problems as they arise. Figure 9 shows that the most recent housing construction has taken place to the west of Corydon. Conversely, the housing stock within Corydon and to the east of the town is the oldest in the county. On whole, the northern half of the county has experienced more recent construction. As indicated in Table 16, the overwhelming majority of housing units in Harrison County offer the basic necessities. Only 0.60 percent of owner-occupied units lack complete plumbing facilities and 0.46 percent lack complete kitchen facilities. In addition, only 2 percent of owner-occupied units lacked telephone service compared to nearly 13 percent for renter-occupied units.

Table 16. Kitchen & Plumbing Facilities / Telephone Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied

Number % of Owner Occupied

Facilities: Units Number % of Renter

Occupied 11,844 99.40% Complete Plumbing Facilities 4,135 99.95% 11,860 99.53% Complete Kitchen Facilities 4,083 98.69% 11,684 98.06% With Telephone 3,615 87.38%

71 0.60% Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities

2 0.05%

55 0.46% Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 54 1.31% 231 1.94% No Telephone 522 12.62%


Vacancy Rates According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 5.7 percent of Harrison County’s housing units were vacant (782 units). Of all of the vacant housing units, 37 percent were on the market to be either rented or sold Source: U.S. Census 2000

Table 17. Vacant Housing Units: Type Type Number Percent For Rent 158 20.2% For Sale Only 131 16.8% Rented/Sold, Not Occupied 65 8.3% For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 86 11.0% For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% Other Vacant 342 43.7%

Total 782 100.0%


25

The majority of the county’s vacant units are found in single-family housing. However, while 1 unit detached structures account for over 77 percent of the total housing units, they make up only 67 percent of the vacant units. Proportionately, mobile homes and multi-family units account for more vacant housing units. 51 percent of Harrison County’s vacant housing units were built prior to 1970. The age of existing vacant units increases the likelihood of other problems such as lead paint and lack of essential facilities. Vacancy rates are by far the greatest in the northwestern quarter of Harrison County as well as a portion of the county just east of Elizabeth. Corydon and areas to its south and east also have relatively high vacancy rates.

Table 18. Vacant Housing Units: Structure

Structure Number Percent 1-unit detached 525 67.1% 1-unit attached 3 0.4% 2 units 38 4.9% 3-4 units 16 2.0% 5-9 units 10 1.3% 10-19 units 10 1.3% 20-49 units 27 3.5% 50 or more units 0 0.0% Mobile home 143 18.3% Boat, RV, Van, etc. 10 1.3% Source: U.S. Census 2000

Table 19. Vacant Housing Units: Year Built

Year Built Number Percent 1999-March 2000 30 3.8% 1995-1998 75 9.6% 1990-1994 69 8.8% 1980-1989 107 13.7% 1970-1979 104 13.3% 1960-1969 70 9.0% 1950-1959 97 12.4% 1940-1949 46 5.9% 1939 or earlier 184 23.5% Source: U.S. Census 2000

Figure 10


26

LOW-INCOME AREAS Figures 11 and 12 indicate the per capita income and poverty rates for Harrison County. The highest per capita income rate can be found in the northwest portion of Corydon. Other high per capita rates are found in areas north of Corydon and eastern portion of the county near Louisville. The lowest per capita incomes can be found in the southwestern portion of the county as well as directly west of Corydon and south of Palmyra. Poverty rates follow a similar pattern.

Based on calculations from the 2000

Figure 11

Figure 12


27

U.S. Census, Harrison County had a poverty rate of 6.4 percent, which translates to 2,159 individuals below the poverty level. Of those, 662 were under the age of 18. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), the Area Median Income (AMI) for Harrison County in 1999 was $48,400. Low and moderate income households earn between 50 to 120 percent of the AMI. Extremely low income household earn less than 30 percent of the AMI, or $14,520. As the table below indicates, approximately 11.4 percent of Harrison County households earned less than $14,520 in 1999. Approximately 23.9 percent of the county’s households earned less than $24,200, or 50 percent of the AMI.

Table 20. Income Distribution in 1999 of Households and Families Households Families

Number Percent Income Range Number Percent 768 5.9% Less than $10,000 314 3.2% 715 5.5% $10,000 to $14,999 304 3.1% 919 7.1% $15,000 to $19,999 513 5.3% 694 5.4% $20,000 to $24,999 492 5.0% 796 6.2% $25,000 to $29,999 568 5.8% 978 7.6% $30,000 to $34,999 698 7.2% 900 7.0% $35,000 to $39,999 697 7.1% 962 7.4% $40,000 to $44,999 749 7.7% 904 7.0% $45,000 to $49,999 755 7.7%

1,427 11.0% $50,000 to $59,999 1,156 11.9% 1,623 12.6% $60,000 to $74,999 1,486 15.2% 1,261 9.8% $75,000 to $99,999 1,195 12.3% 518 4.0% $100,000 to $124,999 443 4.5% 207 1.6% $125,000 to $149,999 174 1.8% 119 0.9% $150,000 to $199,999 103 1.1% 133 1.0% $200,000 or more 106 1.1%

Source: U.S. Census 2000 The following table displays detailed income and poverty data for all subdivisions and places in Harrison County. Franklin Township has the highest Median Household Income and Median Family Income in the county. However, Posey Township has the highest Per Capita Income. Among the county’s twelve townships, Blue River has the highest percent (9.2%) of individuals and families below the poverty level. Of Harrison County’s places, Lanesville (located in Franklin Township) has the highest Median Household Income and Median Family Income. New Middletown, in Webster Township, has the highest Per Capita Income of the county’s places. With a few exceptions, most Harrison County towns have higher percentages of individuals and families below the poverty line than rural areas in the county. Harrison and Jackson townships have the largest percentage of the county’s populations. In Harrison Township the percent of the population living below the poverty level


28

translates to approximately 742 individuals. Similarly, there are approximately 433 individuals in Jackson Township live below the poverty level.

Table 21. Income and Poverty in 1999 of Harrison County Places Median Income Income in 1999 below poverty level

% of population for whom poverty status is determined

Subdivision Households Families

Per capita

Income All ages

Related children under 18 yrs.

65 yrs. and

older

% of families

Blue River township $41,667 $44,265 $21,679 9.2% 12.0% 14.7% 8.2% Boone township $40,234 $39,815 $17,987 6.7% 11.2% 0.0% 7.3% Franklin township $51,613 $57,839 $21,317 2.2% 1.0% 9.3% 1.9% Harrison township $40,872 $47,121 $19,767 7.2% 9.5% 9.9% 5.5% Heth township $38,906 $42,875 $16,534 5.9% 7.9% 0.0% 7.7% Jackson township $48,027 $51,289 $19,765 8.3% 10.4% 12.0% 5.9% Morgan township $42,044 $45,250 $17,120 8.0% 7.5% 11.3% 6.0% Posey township $45,813 $48,519 $22,427 2.4% 0.0% 16.8% 0.4% Spencer township $42,500 $51,023 $18,529 7.3% 6.9% 4.3% 5.3% Taylor township $47,386 $49,211 $21,141 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Washington township $34,211 $44,583 $15,513 5.0% 0.0% 18.5% 3.8% Webster township $46,779 $50,735 $18,098 6.0% 6.1% 10.9% 4.7% Place Corydon town $33,823 $41,630 $20,740 10.3% 15.2% 14.3% 9.8% Crandell town $33,333 $41,250 $15,224 9.6% 8.0% 23.8% 7.5% Elizabeth town $31,563 $38,250 $15,208 10.2% 0.0% 31.1% 8.6% Laconia town $16,667 $17,083 $9,779 50.0% 81.8% 0.0% 60.0% Lanesville town $54,219 $57,031 $18,914 2.1% 0.5% 3.6% 2.6% Mauckport town $36,964 $36,250 $15,946 18.0% 12.5% 0.0% 20.0% Milltown town (part) $30,278 $46,667 $19,404 12.5% 16.5% 18.3% 9.2% New Middletown town $45,000 $45,833 $33,423 6.3% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Palmyra town $36,964 $42,083 $15,114 7.8% 4.5% 6.7% 4.7% Source: U.S. Census 2000


29

HOUSING COST BURDEN While affordable housing covers many different income levels and price ranges, what makes housing “affordable” is the ratio of housing costs to household income. In other words, what’s affordable depends on the income level of a household. Low and moderate income households earn between 50 to 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), and often pay half of their income toward housing. Each year, the federal government calculates the median income for communities across the country to use as guidelines for federal housing programs. Area median incomes are set according to family size. The Area Median Income for Harrison County is $57,300. But there are obstacles to finding affordable rents. An extremely low income household (earning $17,190, or 30 percent of the AMI of $57,300) can afford monthly rent of no more than $430, while the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit is $563. Harrison County is part of the Louisville, Kentucky MSA. The following table shows that rents for a two-bedroom unit in Harrison County are higher than neighboring communities in Indiana.

Table 22. Fair Market Rent of Neighboring Counties - 2004 County Rent County Rent

Crawford $503 Orange $503 Floyd $563 Washington $503

Harrison $563 Indiana $622 Source: NLIHC A minimum wage earner (earning $5.15 per hour) can afford monthly rent of no more than $268, but an efficiency apartment in Harrison is $411. The Housing Wage in Harrison is $10.83. This is the amount a full-time (40 hours per week) worker must earn per hour in order to afford a two-bedroom unit at the area’s Fair Market Rent. This is equivalent to 210 percent of the minimum wage. The Housing Wage in Harrison and adjacent counties are shown in the table below.

Source: NLIHC

Table 23. Housing Wage of Neighboring Counties - 2004 County Housing Wage County Housing Wage

Crawford $9.67 Orange $9.67 Floyd $10.83 Washington $9.67

Harrison $10.83 Indiana $11.97


30

The county’s median renter income is $32,418, thus a renter earning the median renter income can afford rent of no more than $810. This leaves 34 percent of renters unable to afford the Fair Market Rent for a 2-bedroom unit. Put in human terms, a renter earning the minimum wage must work 84 hours per week to afford a 2-bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent. There is an addendum to the previous information, which is collected by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) in Washington, D.C. Because Harrison County is part of the Louisville MSA, housing prices are based in part on the higher costs associated with urban areas. Communities that are rural in nature but still within the MSA (such as Harrison County) tend to have lower prices than the MSA as a whole.

Source: NLIHC * HUD, 2005. ** “Affordable” rents represent the generally accepted standard of spending not more than 30% of income on housing costs. *** HUD, 2005.

Table 24. Summary of Housing Costs and Income Requirements 2004 Family Income

2005 Annual Median Income (AMI)* Maximum Affordable Monthly Housing Cost by % of Family AMI**

Location

Annual Monthly Annual Monthly Annual Indiana $57,973 $4,831 $17,392 $435 $725 $1,159 $1,449 Harrison County $57,300 $4,775 $17,190 $430 $716 $1,146 $1,443

Fair Market Rents (FMR)*** by Number of Bedrooms Location Zero One Two Three Four Indiana $450 $512 $622 $797 $851 Harrison County $411 $473 $563 $785 $834

2004 Renter Households Location

Estimated Renter Median Annual

Income

Income Needed to Afford 2BR FMR as %

of Renter Median

Percent of Renters Unable to Afford 2BR

FMR

Monthly Rent Affordable at Renter

Median Indiana $29,404 85% 43% $542 Harrison County $32,418 69% 34% $426

Income Needed to Afford FMR Annual Amount and Percent of Family AMI Location

0 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms $18,010 $20,462 $24,888 $31,870 $34,026 Indiana

31% 35% 43% 55% 59% $16,440 $18,920 $22,520 $31,400 $33,360 Harrison County

29% 33% 39% 55% 58%

Work Hours/Week Necessary at Minimum Wage to Afford (Indiana = $5.15)

Location 0 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Indiana 67 76 93 119 127 Harrison County 61 71 84 117 125


31

Median Rent Estimates Each year HUD determines the median rent estimates for all non-metropolitan counties and MSAs (Metropolitan Statistical Area). Harrison County is considered part of the Louisville, Kentucky MSA by HUD. Table 23 shows the median rent estimates for Harrison County from 2001-2005.

Table 25. Harrison County Median Rent Estimates Number of Bedrooms

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0 $345 $382 $393 $394 $471 1 $443 $491 $505 $506 $540 2 $544 $603 $620 $622 $639 3 $751 $832 $855 $858 $913 4 $791 $877 $901 $905 $957

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Median rent estimates differ from Fair Market Rents (FMR). Each year HUD determines an area’s FMR to “determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice Voucher program, to determine initial renewal rents for some expiring project-based Section 8 contracts, and to determine initial rents for housing assistance payment (HAP).” HUD used the 2000 U.S. Census for the first time to determine the 2005 Fair Market Rents. FMRs are used to determine the maximum monthly subsidy for assisted families. Table 24 shows recent FMRs for Harrison County.

Table 26. Harrison County Fair Market Rents Number of Bedrooms

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0 $323 $358 $368 $369 $432 1 $415 $460 $473 $475 $503 2 $510 $565 $581 $583 $597 3 $703 $779 $801 $804 $852 4 $741 $821 $845 $848 $848

Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Reasons Underlying the Housing Cost Burden There are several factors which contribute to the housing cost burden. First, Harrison County is experience significant population growth coming primarily from Louisville and New Albany. As a result, the majority of new housing developments are tailored to high income households, the cost of land suitable for building homes is becoming more expensive, property taxes are higher, and the value of existing housing is rising sharply. These factors make homeownership for low to moderate income residents very difficult.


32

Second, there is a shortage of affordable housing opportunities. As the table on page 71 illustrates, nearly all affordable housing developments in the county maintain a waiting list. The table also shows that there are only two affordable developments outside of Corydon and none in the southern portion of the county. Additionally, Harrison County Community Services reports that the waitlist for Section 8 vouchers has been closed for several years and that they are currently working off of a ten year old list. Finally, ever rising utility rates, particularly energy costs, contribute to the housing cost burden. For example, Harrison County REMC customers pay among the highest electric utility rates according to the statewide sample of utility rates in Table 25. The Harrison County REMC serves areas of the county which are outside the incorporated city and town limits.

Table 27. Monthly Residential Electric Utility Rates Based on 1,000 kWh of Consumption (July 1, 2005 rates)

2005 Rank Name Type 2004 2005 %

Change 1 Marshall County REMC Cooperative Utilities $101.65 $103.90 2.21%

2 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. Investor Owned $91.55 $97.54 6.54%

3 Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. Investor Owned $87.54 $88.67 1.29%

4 Northeastern REMC Cooperative Utilities $83.56 $85.51 2.33%

5 Kingsford Heights Municipal Municipal Utility $80.21 $82.68 3.08%

6 Harrison County REMC Cooperative Utilities $79.11 $80.86 2.22% 7 Bargersville Municipal Municipal Utility $71.32 $79.58 11.58% 8 PSI Energy Investor Owned $79.20 $79.53 0.42% 9 Jackson County REMC Cooperative Utilities $71.90 $75.73 5.32% 10 Anderson Municipal Municipal Utility $67.57 $74.08 9.64% 11 Crawfordsville Municipal Municipal Utility $65.58 $73.20 11.62% 12 Straughn Municipal Municipal Utility $64.57 $73.10 13.21% 13 Tipton Municipal Municipal Utility $60.19 $72.38 20.26% 14 Richmond Municipal Municipal Utility $63.64 $72.33 13.66% 15 Columbia City Municipal Municipal Utility $65.04 $71.86 10.48% 16 Indianapolis Power & Light Investor Owned $68.92 $70.50 2.30% 17 Logansport Municipal Municipal Utility $69.19 $70.44 1.82% 18 Lebanon Municipal Municipal Utility $63.02 $69.82 10.79%

19 American Electric Power Co. (I&M) Investor Owned $68.34 $68.93 0.86%

20 Edinburgh Municipal Municipal Utility $61.93 $67.88 9.62% 21 South Whitley Municipal Municipal Utility $69.56 $67.85 -2.46% 22 Washington Municipal Municipal Utility $61.19 $67.73 10.69% 23 Peru Municipal Municipal Utility $56.44 $67.15 18.97% 24 Frankfort Municipal Municipal Utility $60.37 $67.05 11.06%


33

2005 Rank Name Type 2004 2005 %

Change 25 Lawrenceburg Municipal Municipal Utility $57.39 $66.81 16.42% 26 Troy Municipal Municipal Utility $63.25 $62.21 -1.63% 27 Knightstown Municipal Municipal Utility $58.08 $60.24 3.72% 28 Mishawaka Municipal Municipal Utility $66.35 $58.70 -11.54% 29 Auburn Municipal Municipal Utility $42.91 $46.54 8.45%

Source: Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission


34

HOUSING CONDITION SURVEY Windshield Survey The housing condition assessment was conducted by using a “Windshield Survey,” which involved traveling through neighborhoods to ascertain the exterior condition of the housing units. Surveys were conducted in Corydon, Palmyra, Lanesville, Milltown, Crandall, Depauw, Mauckport, Laconia, Elizabeth, Senville and the St. Louis Rd. area. The tables on the following pages outline the housing conditions for each town and neighborhood which was surveyed. Each neighborhood survey is organized by the streets assessed and the categories used to rate the homes. The homes on each street are grouped by the condition category which best describes them. Total numbers and percentages are provided for each neighborhood. The assessment legend on the following page describes the scale that was used to rate homes. Of the neighborhoods assessed, Lanesville (72%) and Palmyra (58%) had the greatest percentages of homes rated in good condition. Only 3 percent of homes in Lanesville were reported to be in need of major repairs. Conversely, among incorporated towns, Mauckport (44%) and Laconia (24%) appeared to have the most units which were rated either in need of major repairs or condemnable. As for Corydon, 84 percent of the units were rated as being either in good condition or in need of only minor repairs. Streets with the highest proportion of homes rated as being in need of major repair were Poplar and Mulberry Streets as well as Loweth Avenue. While specific neighborhoods or streets or areas may be able to be labeled with one type of predominant housing condition, this survey indicates that the same is not true for an entire county or even an entire town. Therefore, it would seem that substandard housing and inadequate housing cuts across an entire county. Below is an outline criteria used for the housing condition survey

Condition Description

1 = Good Condition No obvious work needed. 2 = Minor Repairs Needed

Obvious problems with paint, broken steps, handrails, screens, gutters and downspouts or condition of sidewalks within the property.

3 = Major Repairs Needed

In need of roofing, window repair or replacement, chimney leaning or crumbling; other serious signs of dilapidation or deterioration.

4 = Condemnable Imminent danger of collapse; major health and safety concerns.


35

Harrison County Windshield Survey Neighborhoods

City/ Town

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Homes

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes

Palmyra 194 100.0% 0.0% 2.6% 57.7% 28.9% 13.4% 0.5%

The second highest percentage of homes in good condition in this survey. The majority of homes single story, many brick. A lot of new/in-fill developments.

Senville 100 55.0% 45.0% 2.0% 25.0% 29.0% 43.0% 3.0%

Clearly the most distressed area surveyed. 46% of homes in need of major repairs or are condemnable. High percentage of mobile homes.

Crandall 55 98.2% 1.8% 0.0% 41.8% 34.5% 21.8% 1.8% Homes generally in good condition. Large, new high-end development taking shape just outside of town.

Corydon 445 98.2% 1.6% 0.7% 47.6% 36.2% 15.1% 1.3%

Most neighborhoods are very well kept. Greatest proportion of substandard housing found along Poplar, Mulberry and Ridley streets.

Depauw 43 79.1% 20.9% 0.0% 46.5% 34.9% 18.6% 0.0% Majority of homes in good condition or in need of only minor repair. A high proportion of mobile homes.

Milltown 111 94.6% 5.4% 0.0% 43.2% 45.9% 9.9% 0.9% Housing in good condition generally. A lot of new modular homes, particularly along Main street.

St. Louis Rd. Area 53 86.8% 13.2% 0.0% 43.4% 28.3% 28.3% 0.0%

Very rural area. Quite a mix of old dilapidated dwellings and large, new estates.

Mauckport 48 81.3% 18.8% 8.3% 20.8% 35.4% 39.6% 4.2%

A large proportion of substandard housing, especially along Main St. Some signs of rehab. New sidewalks throughout.


36

Harrison County Windshield Survey Neighborhoods Continued

Neighborhood

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Homes

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes

Laconia 29 96.6% 3.4% 3.4% 41.4% 34.5% 24.1% 0.0% Nearly one quarter of the homes in need of major repairs.

Elizabeth 68 95.6% 4.4% 1.5% 48.5% 38.2% 13.2% 0.0%

Housing in good condition generally. Most dwellings in need of major repairs are found near the Main & Beech intersection.

Lanesville 168 99.4% 0.6% 0.6% 72.0% 25.0% 3.0% 0.0% Nearly all housing in excellent condition. Only 3% in need of major repairs.

TOTAL 1314 1224 89 17 639 441 217 14 TOTAL % 100.0% 93.2% 6.8% 1.3% 48.6% 33.6% 16.5% 1.1%


37

Palmyra

Street

Total #

of Units Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes

Avery St. 19 19 0 1 8 5 5 0 Many new brick duplexes as well as several in-fills and remodeled homes.

Catherine St. 3 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 Charles Douglas St. 9 9 0 0 8 1 0 0

Church St. 20 20 0 0 12 6 2 0 Many homes look to be remodeled or improved. Many with new siding. Several duplexes mixed-in.

Heuser St. 16 16 0 0 8 4 4 0 Mix of older and newer homes. 4 new constructions east of Hwy 135.

Huff St. 14 14 0 1 8 4 1 0

Kahl St. 16 16 0 1 13 2 0 0 All well kept, single story homes. Mostly brick with some modular’s mixed in.

Rose Dr. 9 9 0 0 5 4 0 0 Newer brick single story homes. SR 135 52 52 0 1 27 18 7 0 SR 150 24 24 0 1 10 11 1 1 Voyles St. 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 All new single story brick homes. TOTAL 194 194 0 5 112 56 21 1 TOTAL % 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 2.6% 57.7% 28.9% 13.4% 0.5%


38

Palmyra Summary


39

Palmyra Continued


40

Senville

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes

A.J. Ave. 17 9 8 0 3 6 0 0 Most dwellings are either modular or mobile homes. Majority of mobile homes in poor condition.

Hilltop Rd. 5 3 2 0 0 1 2 0 Jay Rd. 9 8 1 0 2 4 2 0 Lee Ln. 9 6 3 1 2 2 1 0 Lillian St. 15 7 8 1 2 1 2 1

New Cut Rd. 24 15 9 0 11 3 1 0 Very nice homes with acreage leading into town. In town, mostly mobile homes in disrepair.

Rosiegagle Dr 8 2 6 0 1 1 0 0 Predominately mobile homes in disrepair. One nice new construction.

Senn Ct 7 4 3 0 2 1 1 0 Wilson St. 6 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 TOTAL 100 55 45 2 25 29 43 3 TOTAL % 100.0% 55.0% 45.0% 2.0% 25.0% 29.0% 43.0% 3.0%


41

Senville Summary


42

Crandall

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes SR 335 14 14 0 0 6 5 3 0 Centre St. 8 7 1 0 2 2 3 0 Hill St. 4 4 0 0 1 1 2 0

Main St 12 12 0 0 4 5 3 0 Most homes well kept. Many with metal roofs.

Oak St. 4 4 0 0 3 1 0 0 Newer modular homes. In-fill. Rail Road Ave 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 Walnut St. 8 8 0 0 5 2 1 0 TOTAL 54 53 1 0 23 19 12 0 TOTAL % 100.0% 98.1% 1.9% 0.0% 42.6% 35.2% 22.2% 0.0%


43

Crandall Summary


44

Corydon

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes Beech St. 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 0

Capitol Blvd. 38 38 0 0 28 9 1 0 Older homes near town. Newer and much nicer homes heading east.

S. Capitol Ave. 12 12 0 0 6 4 1 1

Cardinal Ln. 5 5 0 0 0 1 4 0 Several vacant lots for in-fill in entire neighborhood. Some lots being prepped for construction.

Chestnut St. 48 48 0 0 21 21 5 1 Some multi-units in poor condition west of Hwy 337. Larger, nicer units east of 337.

Floyd St. 12 12 0 0 5 5 2 0 Several in-fill modular units. 2 lots being prepped for construction. Multi-unit structure under construction.

Franklin St. 18 15 3 0 5 7 3 0 Loweth Ave. 20 19 1 0 8 5 6 0 Several new brick duplexes. Maple St. 26 26 0 0 10 12 3 1 McKinster St. 9 7 2 0 4 2 1 0 Mulberry St. 23 23 0 0 18 13 9 0

N. Capitol Ave. 40 40 0 0 28 10 1 1 Large historic homes. Most in good condition.

N. Albany Ave. 7 7 0 0 5 2 0 0 Poplar St. 12 12 0 0 1 5 6 0


45

Corydon Continued

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes

Popular St. 4 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 Most homes in need of repair. Homes located near commercial district.

Ridley St. 34 34 0 1 15 12 5 1 Predominately bungalow style homes. Some vacant homes in bad shape.

Slemmons Ave. 15 15 0 0 7 7 1 0

Old S.R. 135 11 11 0 0 5 5 1 0 Thomas St. 14 13 1 0 7 4 0 1

Walnut St. 77 77 0 2 37 28 10 0 Many large, older homes. Some multi-unit structures mixed-in.

Wilson St. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 445 437 7 3 212 161 67 6 TOTAL % 100.0% 98.2% 1.6% 0.7% 47.6% 36.2% 15.1% 1.3%


46

Corydon Summary


47

Corydon Continued


48

Depauw

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes Cardinal Dr. 5 5 0 0 4 1 0 0 Front St. 5 5 0 0 3 1 1 0 Green St. 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Market St. 7 4 3 0 1 3 0 0 RR Ave 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 SR 337 8 8 0 0 6 2 0 0 Wetzel Dr. 14 8 6 0 5 2 1 0 TOTAL 43 34 9 0 20 15 8 0 TOTAL % 100.0% 79.1% 20.9% 0.0% 46.5% 34.9% 18.6% 0.0%


49

Depauw Summary


50

Milltown

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes Day Ln. 12 12 0 0 4 8 0 0

East St. 7 7 0 0 1 6 0 0 Most homes in need of only minor repair such as new paint.

Harrison Ave. 13 11 2 0 3 8 0 0 Hill St. 16 16 0 0 7 7 2 0

Main St. 38 37 1 0 18 13 5 1 Many new modular units. Some duplexes. Most homes in good condition.

Senn Ct. 6 3 3 0 3 0 0 0

Spencer St. 12 12 0 0 8 3 1 0 Housing for the elderly offered through Lincoln Hills.

Summers Ln. 7 7 0 0 2 5 0 0 Made up of identical “matchbox” units. TOTAL 111 105 6 0 48 51 11 1 TOTAL % 100.0% 94.6% 5.4% 0.0% 43.2% 45.9% 9.9% 0.9%


51

Milltown Summary


52

St. Louis Road Area


53

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes St. Louis Rd. 36 33 3 0 14 10 9 0

Rothrock Rd. 14 13 1 0 9 3 1 0 A mix of old dilapidated dwellings and large, new estates.

TOTAL 53 46 7 0 23 15 15 0 TOTAL % 100.0% 86.8% 13.2% 0.0% 43.4% 28.3% 28.3% 0.0% Mauckport

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes Walnut St. 13 9 4 3 3 6 3 1 Several vacant homes in ill-repair.

Main St. 26 23 3 1 5 8 12 1 50% of homes in need of major repair. Some units show signs of recent rehab.

2nd St. 3 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 4th St. 6 4 2 0 2 1 3 0 TOTAL 48 39 9 4 10 17 19 2 TOTAL % 100.0% 81.3% 18.8% 8.3% 20.8% 35.4% 39.6% 4.2%


54

St. Louis Road Summary


55

Mauckport Summary


56

Mauckport Continued


57

Laconia

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes Hwy 11 4 4 0 0 2 1 1 0 Main St. 13 12 1 0 5 5 3 0 Tobacco Landing 12 12 0 1 5 4 3 0 Dwellings show a range of styles and

conditions. TOTAL 29 28 1 1 12 10 7 0 TOTAL % 100.0% 96.6% 3.4% 3.4% 41.4% 34.5% 24.1% 0.0%


58

Elizabeth

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes

Main St. 31 30 1 1 15 12 4 0 Most homes very well kept. Some substandard units near commercial area.

Hurricane 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 0

Beech St. 23 23 0 0 12 8 3 0 Some homes in poor condition near intersection with Main. Much better heading east.

Church St. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Chestnut St. 3 3 0 0 1 2 0 0

American Legion Ln. 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

One new construction. Newly paved roads. Possible sites for more construction.

Locust St. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Dogwood St. 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 TOTAL 68 65 3 1 33 26 9 0 TOTAL % 100.0% 95.6% 4.4% 1.5% 48.5% 38.2% 13.2% 0.0%


59

Elizabeth Summary


60

Lanesville

Street

Total # of

Units

Number of

Houses

Mobile Homes

Vacant Houses

Good

Condition

Minor

Repairs

Major

Repairs

Condemnable

Notes

Main St. 57 56 1 1 35 17 5 0

A mix of housing age and styles. Only a few in need of major repair. Some new condos on the north end.

Pennington St. 22 22 0 0 15 7 0 0 Ridge Crest Dr. 10 10 0 0 8 2 0 0 Several new constructions.

Park St. 9 9 0 0 8 2 0 0 Zollman St. 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 Well kept single story stone homes. St. Johns Church Rd. 7 7 0 0 6 1 0 0

Crestview Ave. 9 9 0 0 7 1 0 0

Thomas Ave. 22 22 0 0 18 4 0 0 Mostly single story brick homes in excellent condition and well kept.

Evanston Ave. 22 22 0 0 14 8 0 0 Mostly single story. Some in need of minor repair.

Meadowlark Dr 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 TOTAL 168 167 1 1 121 42 5 0 TOTAL % 100.0% 99.4% 0.6% 0.6% 72.0% 25.0% 3.0% 0.0%


61

Lanesville Summary


62

CHANGES IN HOUSING INVENTORY According to figures from the Harrison County Plan Commission for 2000, Harrison County added 189 single family homes, 55 modular units, 65 mobile homes, and 10 duplex units. Since 1996, the Harrison County Plan Commission has issued the following number of building permits:

• 2,091 single family homes • 1,067 modular units • 1,019 mobile homes • 80 duplex units • 295 apartment units

Building in Harrison County spiked in 1999, when 642 permits were issued. Since that time, building has continued to slow especially among apartment units and other multi-family housing units. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Harrison County issued 126 building permits between January and October 2006. As the table below indicates, Harrison County only issued building permits for single family structures (which include modular and mobile homes). The average construction cost per building was $184,189. Table 28. Cumulative Year to Date New Privately-Owned Building Permits

for Harrison County January – October 2006

Type of Building Buildings Units Construction Cost Single Family 126 126 $23,207,826 2 Family 0 0 $0 3 or 4 Family 0 0 $0 5 or More Family 0 0 $0 Total 126 126 $23,207,826 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 13 illustrates the number of building permits issued in Harrison County each month between January and October 2006. The most permits were issued in June 2006.


63

Figure 13. Monthly New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits: # of Buildings 2006

3

10

1814

9

20

94

16

6

05

10152025

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.

Figure 14 illustrates the monthly construction cost for each month in 2006.

Figure 14. Monthly New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits: Construction Cost 2006

$521,318

$1,737,727

$3,127,909$2,335,000

$1,654,932

$4,772,000

$1,700,000$860,000

$2,942,101

$944,000

$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,000$6,000,000

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.

Figure 15 shows the number of buildings and number of units built each year in Harrison County between 2000 and 2005.

Figure 15. Annual New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits: # Buildings and # Units

204

186197

181

215

181

204

187198

186

215

181

160

180

200

220

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Buildings Units


64

2004 reported the highest construction cost, which correspond to the year with the most buildings and units constructed in Harrison County.

Figure 16. Annual New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits: Construction Cost

$26,270,577 $26,572,978 $28,398,462 $27,221,239

$35,238,872$30,332,061

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Table 29 indicates the location of recent home construction. Although the building permit data is incomplete for 2006 (data for December 2006 was unavailable), it is possible to make some observations. Most new home construction occurs in Harrison Township and Jackson Township.

Table 29. Housing Permits by Location: Harrison County 2005-2006

Township # of Units (2005) # of Units (2006)* Blue River 10 3 Boone 9 8 Corydon 14 8 Franklin 24 23 Harrison 60 53 Heth 10 2 Jackson 37 31 Morgan 19 6 Posey 12 8 Spencer 12 6 Taylor 4 7 Washington 11 11 Webster 15 4 County Total = 237 170 Source: Harrison County Plan Commission *Reports between January and November of 2006. Does not include building permit information for December 2006.

A majority of Harrison County’s new housing consists of single family homes. In 2005, the largest structure built was a 3875 sq. ft. single family home in Webster Township; the smallest structures were a 432 sq. ft. single family home in Posey Township and a 450 sq. ft. mobile home in Webster Township.


65

In 2006, the largest structure built was a 4700 sq. ft. single family home in Webster Township; the smallest structures were a 640 sq. ft. single family home in Posey Township and two 672 sq. ft. mobile homes in Harrison Township. The table below indicates the average size of recently constructed housing units in Harrison County. Impacts of construction on low-income families Much of Harrison County’s recent home construction consists of single family units in Harrison and Jackson townships, which include the areas around Corydon. Permits for single family units are among the most costly due to the larger size of the construction. Rural townships and areas have consistently low numbers of new home construction. Fewer than ten duplex units were constructed in 2005 and 2006 combined. There were not permits issued for apartment units in 2005, and only three were issued the following year. Housing opportunities in duplexes and apartments are among the more affordable for low-income families, but there is a lack of such construction in Harrison County. Amount of Vacant Housing Units According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 5.7 percent of Harrison County’s housing units were vacant (782 units). This figure is considerably lower than the Indiana rate of 7.7 percent. Of all of the vacant housing units, 37 percent were on the market to be either rented or sold. Vacancy rates are greatest in the northwestern portion of Harrison County. Some areas in and around Corydon have high vacancy rates as well.

Table 30. Housing Permits by Type and Size: Harrison County 2005-2006

Township Average Size of Units (2005)

Average Size of Units (2006)*

Apartment No permits issued 3 permits issued – no size data available

Duplex 1740 sq. ft. 1742 sq. ft. Mobile Home 1077 sq. ft. 1101 sq. ft. Modular 1615 sq. ft. 1586 sq. ft. Single Family 1945 sq. ft. 2048 sq. ft. Source: Harrison County Plan Commission *Reports between January and November of 2006. Does not include building permit information for December 2006.

Figure 17


66

Homes for Sale A glimpse at the current housing market speaks to the relatively high real estate prices in Harrison County. Two sources were used to create this housing market snapshot; the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) summary of home sales for all of 2005 and the Corydon Democrat’s listings of units for sale and rent for the date of March 8, 2006. The MLS data shows home sales activity over an extended period while the newspaper listings provide an indication of what a resident looking to purchase or rent a unit is likely to find at any given time. MLS data shows that 379 homes were sold in 2005 with an average sale price of $135,373. Three bedroom homes accounted for 70 percent of all homes sold. The local newspaper listed 76 homes for sale on March 8, 2006. The average listed price was $124,905. 62 percent of the homes for sale were over $100,000; 28 percent were over $150,000. Only 23 percent of the homes listed would be labeled as affordable or “starter homes” with prices below $80,000.

Table 31. Summary of Harrison County Residential Home Sales for 2005 Reported by the Multiple Listing Service

Total 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5+ Bedroom

Units Sold 379 50 265 55 9

Average List Price $141,218 $90,868 $134,163 $205,837 $236,533

Average Sale Price $135,373 $84,417 $130,433 $190,947 $224,322

% of List Price 95.9% 92.9% 97.2% 93.0% 94.8%

Average Days on Market 109 98 111 113 115

Average Square Feet 1,575 1,212 1,531 1,986 2,369

Source: Multiple Listing Service; Report covers 1/1/05 – 12/31/05

Table 32. All Homes Advertised for Sale in Harrison County Offered Through the Corydon Democrat

Date: 3/8/06 Location Area Cost Bedrooms Bathrooms Other

Corydon Country Clu Estates Dr. $298,900 3 3 3300 sq. ft.


67

Corydon Southern Heights $229,900 3 3 New construction

Corydon $219,900 4 3 1 acre Corydon Parkwood Circle $207,000 4 3 Corydon $187,900 4 3 close to I64 Corydon Delmer Lane $159,900 3 2 3+ acres

Corydon Feller Rd. $159,900 Harrison Co. Forestry

Corydon $147,500 6 3 3036 sq. ft. Corydon $146,000 3 2 Corydon $136,900 3 2 Corydon Andrew Court $133,500 3 2 2 car garage Corydon $124,900 17 acres Corydon Hillgrove Rd. $119,900 3 2 3.85 acres Corydon $110,000 1 acre Corydon Farquar Avenue $104,900 3 1.5 carriage house Corydon $89,900 4 2 Corydon $79,900 4 2 1 acre Crandall Crandall Station $197,500 3 2.5 salt box Crandall Crandall Station $189,500 3 2.5 1 acre

Crandall $168,500 3 2 Cape Cod style

Depauw $139,900 3 Location Area Cost Bedrooms Bathrooms Other

Depauw $139,900 4 2 connected to Blue Rive

Depauw Brown St. $116,000 5 2 restored farmhouse

Elizabeth $224,900 3 2 4 acres Elizabeth $174,900 3 2 1 acre Elizabeth $119,900 3 2 2 acres Elizabeth Chism Lane $115,000 3 2 1+ acre Laconia $137,900 3 2 2 acres Laconia $84,900 3 2 1 acre Laconia $79,900 Lanesville $159,900 3 2 Lanesville St. Johns Church Rd. $125,000 2.5 acres Lanesville $118,900 3 1 Lanesville $69,900 3 2 2 acres Mauckport $132,000 3 2 Mauckport $82,500 2 1 1 acre New Middletown $65,000 2 1 starter home New Salisury Old State Rd. 64 $209,900 4 2 2700 sq. ft. New Salisury Deer Ridge Way $198,000 4 2 1.91 acres New Salisury Corydon Junction Rd. $156,000 4 3 2.5 acres New Salisury Highway 64 NE $144,900 4 2.5 2 acres New Salisury $107,900 3 New Salisury $104,900 3 2 1400 sq. ft. New Salisury $104,900 3 2 3.5 acres


68

New Salisury Highway 335 NE $99,500 3 1 1.5 acres Palmyra Highway 150 N.E. $158,000 3 2 1.13 ac. Palmyra $139,900 3 2 3 acres Palmyra King's Dr. $139,900 3 1.5 7+ acres Palmyra Wetzel Rd. $82,500 3 2 1.69 acres Palmyra Avery St. $62,500 3 1 Palmyra $49,000 3 1 1200 sq. ft. Ramsey $158,000 3 2.5 2 acres Ramsey Highway 337 NW $74,950 3 2 1.39 acres $329,900 5 3.1 $245,000 4 3 19+ acres Wyandotte Cave Rd. $218,900 3 2 55 acres $119,900 4 2 1.5 acres $119,900 3 2 2.01 acre $104,900 Heidelburg Rd. SW $97,000 3 2 2.3 acres Heth Washington Rd. $95,000 3 2 1.98 acres

$95,000 3 2 detached garage

$89,900 2 1 $86,000 3 2 garage $83,500 3 2 2.2 acres Location Area Cost Bedrooms Bathrooms Other

$79,800 2 2 1.284 acres $59,900 2 1 $59,900 3 1 1 acre $58,900 2 1 $49,900 2 1.5 1+ acre Pleasure Ridge Rd. $42,500 $1,000 down $38,900 1 1 1 acre $38,900 2 1 mobile home $29,900 5 2 HUD $29,900 3 1 bungalow $29,900 2 1 large rooms

Figure 18. Range of Housing Prices from Table 27

02468

10121416

Below $50k $50-$75k $75-$100k $100-$125k $126-$150k $150-$175k $175-$200k Above$200k

Number of Homes within Price Range


69

Rental Units The average rent asked for this sample of 23 units was $506. The average is much lower when single family homes are taken out of the equation. The average rent for apartments, duplexes, and mobile homes is $432. The average for single family homes was $716. 57 percent of the dwellings listed below are two-bedroom.

Table 33. All Advertised Rental Units in Harrison County Offered Through the Corydon Democrat

Date: 3/8/06 Location Rent/ Month Type Bedrooms Bathrooms Other

Corydon $550 House 3 1 $550 deposit Corydon $475 Apartment 2 1 1 year lease Corydon $450 Apartment 1 1 Corydon $375 Mobile Home 2 1 $350 deposit Corydon $375 Apartment 2 1 No pets Crandall $700 House 3 2

Lanesville $750 House 5 1.5 $1000 deposit, $300 for gas

Lanesville $520 Apartment 2 1 New Salisbury $550 Apartment 2 1 w/d hookup

Location Rent/ Month Type Bedrooms Bathrooms Other New Salisbury $475 Apartment 2 1 Palmyra $700 House 3 1 Palmyra $350 Mobile Home 3 2 Palmyra $350 Apartment 1 1 Ramsey $500 Apartment 2 1 $1,000 House 3 1.5

$600 House 2 1 2 miles west of Corydon

$550 Town House 2 1 $375 deposit $550 Mobile Home 3 2 $550 deposit

$525 Mobile Home 3 1.5 References required

$475 Duplex 2 1 Deposit required

$300 Mobile Home 2 1 1 year lease, no pets

$275 Apartment 2 1 6 miles north of Corydon

$250 Apartment 1 1 new floor covering


70

SPECIAL NEEDS AND HOMELESS Special needs populations include groups or individuals such as the homeless, the elderly, persons with disabilities or victims of abuse. Because special needs individuals frequently depend on social services, they will often reside in proximity to locations that provide programs and services that meet their particular needs. Many special needs populations are underserved in Harrison County. Some individuals or families travel outside the county for services but many simply go without. Senior Citizens: There are three affordable housing developments in Harrison County which have units dedicated to the senior citizen population. Capital Court, a Section 8 property, and Hillview Apartments, a USDA subsidized development, are located in Corydon. As of June 2006, each unit in these properties were occupied and they had a combined waiting list of eight households. Milltown Housing for the Elderly is a Section 8 property for senior citizens with 39 units. It currently has 38 units occupied and two households on a waitlist. Lifespan Resources offers a wide range of services for the elderly population. There are three for-profit nursing home facilities in the county with a total of 270 beds. 229 of these beds were occupied as of September 1, 2005. Each of these facilities participates in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. According to the Indiana FSSA, 149 Harrison County nursing home residents received Medicaid payments for nursing facility care in June of 2005.

Table 34. Nursing Home Facilities

Facility City Type # of Beds # of Beds Occupied*

Medicare & Medicaid ?

Corydon Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Corydon Non-profit

Corp. 38 24 Yes

Harrison Health & Rehabilitation Corydon For-profit

Corp. 92 91 Yes

Indiana Creek Health & Rehabilitation Corydon For-profit

Corp. 140 114 Yes

*as of September 1, 2005 Source: Indiana State Department of Health

Figure 19


71

Homeless: There are currently no dedicated homeless shelters available in Harrison County. To access emergency shelter, a Harrison County resident would have to travel well outside the county. For instance, Haven House in Clark County or Wayside Christian Mission in Louisville are options but they are generally full and too great a distance for many homeless people to travel. Most people simply go without formal services while they are without permanent shelter. Harrison County Community Services acts as the point of entry to assistance for residents in need. They will assist any resident, including those who find themselves homeless, to find the services they need. Victims of Abuse: Harrison County has no shelter for victims of domestic abuse. The Center for Women and Families (WCF), which is based in Louisville, provides advocacy, counseling and education services in the county. WCF also operates emergency shelters for victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault in Louisville and New Albany. Hoosier Hills also operates a domestic violence shelter in Salem. Beginning in the fall of 2006, Blue River Services will partner with WCF to provide transitional rental housing units in the county for victims of domestic abuse. This facility, which is currently under renovation, will provide housing, supportive services, case management and family advocacy services. Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: Blue River Services offers a wide range of services for individuals with developmental disabilities. These services include operating group homes, in-home supported living services, and adult foster care. Individuals with Physical Disabilities: Hillview Apartments in Corydon have 8 affordable units which are dedicated for the physically disabled. Other existing affordable housing developments in Corydon have handicapped accessible units such as Oakview Apartments with 2 units. Autumn Ridge Apartments, which is currently under construction, will have 3 handicapped accessible units. However, all of these developments have lengthy waiting lists.


72

SERVICES SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING The following agencies are designated Community Housing Development Organizations which serve Harrison County: • Blue River Services, Inc. • Lincoln Hills Development Corp.

• New Hope Services Inc. • Haven House Services, Inc.

The following table outlines available services supporting affordable housing.

Table 35. Services Supporting Affordable Housing Agency Service Address Phone

Salvation Army Assistance to needy 405 N. Capitol Ave. Suite 102, Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-8118

LifeSpan Resources Area Agency on Aging 123 S Mulberry St Corydon, IN 47112 812-734-1077

LifeSpring Mental health services 535 Country Club Road, Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-2119

Blue River Services, Inc. Comprehensive Social Service Provider

1365 Old Hwy. 135 Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-2408

Blue River Services, Inc., Housing Division Affordable Housing 405 N. Capitol Ave.

Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-8016

The Center for Women and Families Assistance for Victims of Domestic/Sexual Abuse

405 N. Capital Avenue Ste. 102, Corydon, IN 47112 812-734-0280

Harrison County Community Services Assistance to Low-income Families

101 Highway 62 West, Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-8143

Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing Development

101 Highway 62 West, Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-8143

Child Care Development Fund Child Care Assistance 866-652-7027

Lincoln Hills Development Affordable Housing Provider

302 Main Street Tell City, IN 47586 812-547-3435

Division of Family and Children Assistance to Low-income Families

2026 Hwy. 337 N. W., Corydon, IN 47112 (812) 738-8166

Harrison County W.I.C. Nutritional Needs for Mothers & Children

1070 Hwy. 62 West Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-1601

Homeless Youth Program (South Harrison School Corp.)

Help Establish Stable Housing Environment

121 High School Rd. Corydon, IN 47112 812-738-2094

American Red Cross Emergency Assistance 1099 Marci Lane Georgetown, IN 47122 812-951-2288

Harrison County Township Trustees Financial Assistance Various Various

Community Action of Southern Indiana Housing & Small Business Assistance

1613 E. Eighth St. Jeffersonville, IN 47130 812-288-6451

Haven House Services Temporary & Transitional Housing

129 E. Court Avenue Jeffersonville, IN 47131 812-284-3373

Hedden House Services Transitional Housing for Recovering Addicts

801 Vincennes Street New Albany, IN 47150 812-949-0071

Hoosier Hills PACT Services for Victims of Abuse

108 S Main Street Salem, IN 47167 812-883-1959


72

ADEQUACY OF INFRASTRUCTURE Water & Sewer Service Harrison County has a number of different water and sewage operators, some public and some private. Some of the operators are large and serve several communities, while others serve only one. The adequacy of utilities was determined through personal conversations with representatives of the various water and sewage offices in Harrison County. The Corydon area, Palmyra, Milltown and Lanesville each have municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water for these systems is supplied through wells. Corydon Water & Sewer Departments, (812) 738-3958 A new service tap on a house meter costs $800. Deposits vary for owners and renters: owners pay a $43 deposit and renters pay a $73 deposit. Monthly service charges include a base fee of $2.05 and an additional $2.74 per 1,000 gallons. The average usage of Corydon’s sewer district is 1.2 million gallons per day, and the capacity is only 1.46 million gallons per day. The most recent upgrades to the plant’s capacity are more than ten years old. A new sewer service tap costs $675. Other sewer charges include a $350 capacity fee and $50 for each sewer inspection. Monthly service charges include a base fee of $3.85 and an additional $2.95 per 1,000 gallons. Elizabeth Water Co., (812) 969-2025 There is no sewer service in the Town of Elizabeth. All residents must use their own septic systems. The Elizabeth Water Company is managed through the Town Hall of Elizabeth. The facility averages approximately 445 million gallons per day. The service charges costs include a $25 deposit and $366 meter set-up fee. The flat rate for 2,000 gallons is $12.35, but users are charged per usage. Lanesville Town Hall, (812) 952-2057 The Town of Lanesville does not have its own water company and, therefore, purchases all of its water from the Town of Edwardsville in nearby Floyd County. In March 2006, Lanesville used 2.8 million gallons of water (or approximately 90,323 gallons per day). Residents of new homes pay a tap fee of $500 for water service and a deposit of $60 ($50 of which is refundable). Water rates vary for in town and out of town residents. The minimum water rates are based on 2,000 gallons and are $26.10 for in-town and $28.70 for out of town residents.

Lanesville Water Rates Location Less than 3,000 gallons More than 3,000 gallons In Town $13.05 per 1,000 gal. $12.55 per 1,000 gal. Out of Town $14.35 per 1,000 gal. $13.80 per 1,000 gal.

Lanesville operates its own sewer district. While the town has not made additions to the plant’s capacity, it has made improvements to the district’s operations and machinery. Residents pay a tap fee of $2,000 if they live in the town limits or $4,000 if they live


73

outside the borders. Sewer rates are based on water usage and cost $7.36 per 1,000 gallons; there is a base charge of $19.69 whether or not any water was used. Palmyra Town Hall, (812) 364-6106 The Town of Palmyra purchases its water from the Ramsey Water Company. The town charges $1,500 for each new water and sewer tap. Residents pay a service charge of $36.96 for a minimum of 2,000 gallons. The current monthly rate for sewer service is $9.10 per 1,000 gallons. Water rates operate on a declining scale. The first 2,000 gallons cost $8.14 each, but the rate drops to $7.37 per 1,000 gallons for up to 10,000 gallons. Ramsey Water Co., (812) 347-2551 The Ramsey Water Company, located in Ramsey, Indiana, provides water delivery to much of the area between Corydon and Palmyra in Harrison County. The company also sells water to parts of Crawford and Floyd counties. The Ramsey Water Co. distributes 2.5 million gallons per day and has a facility capacity of approximately 6.0 million gallons. Households pay $773 for each 5/8 or 3/4 inch meter set and hook up. The company charges a $2.80 flat fee and has a minimum charge of $11.64 for 2,000 gallons. The first 2,000 gallons cost $4.09 each, but the rate drops to $4.04 per 1,000 gallons for up to 8,000 gallons. Additionally, charges go down to $3.84 per 1,000 gallons for up to 15,000 gallons. The Ramsey Water Co. has no plans to increase capacity but does plan to improve waterlines and delivery to new areas. South Harrison Water Corp., (812) 968-3425 The South Harrison Water Corporation serves the entire southern half of Harrison County up to Highway 62 with the exception of the Town of Elizabeth. The facility has a capacity of 2.0 million gallons per day but only pumps an average of 750,000 gallons per day. South Harrison Water charges $560 for meter sets. Minimum charges depend on the size of the meter but average $16.00. The company’s fees are as follows:

Metered Rates Per Month Per 1,000 Gallons First 3,000 gallons $7.53 Next 7,000 gallons $6.82 Next 15,000 gallons $6.41 Next 25,000 gallons $6.00 Next 50,000 gallons $5.59 Next 100,000 gallons $4.88 Over 200,000 gallons $3.06

The South Harrison Water Corp. does not provide sewer service. According to representatives at the facility, most residents in the southern part of Harrison County have septic systems. The only exception is the Town of Laconia, which operates its own small sewer facility.


74

Main Roads, Streets, and Thoroughfares Several major thoroughfares and roadways cross through Harrison County. I-64 runs near Corydon and Lanesville, and several U.S. and state highways run throughout the county. The Harrison County Highway Department is responsible for several key services: road and roadway infrastructure maintenance; snow removal; paving quality control; and minor road construction. The county highway department has several projects currently underway, including interchanges, road enhancements, and connections. Harrison County is working on a Stormwater and Wastewater Ordinance as well as a Road Construction Ordinance to assist in adequate and safe planning for the future. Gas & Electrical utility Harrison County homes use a variety of heating fuel sources. Use of bottled, tank or LP gas and electricity is relatively equal among Harrison County homes. A considerable percentage of homes also use utility gas and wood as their primary heating fuel. Figure 16 shows the percent distribution of home heating fuel use among Harrison County occupied housing units.

Figure 20. Occupied Hosuing Units: House Heating Fuel

0.2%

0.2%

0.1%

4.7%8.4%

17.8%

34.9%

33.6%

Bottled, tank or LP gas

Electricity

Utility gas

Wood

Fuel oil, kerosene, etc

Other fuel

No fuel used

Solar energy

Electricity: Harrison County has two primary electric utility providers, Duke Energy and the Harrison County REMC, which combine to provide service throughout the entire county. Duke Energy provides service within the limits of Harrison County’s cities and towns such as Corydon. The Harrison County REMC serves all of the rural areas of the county.


75

Natural Gas: Natural gas service is available throughout much of Harrison County. Customers can purchases bottled, tank or LP gas from private companies such as Amerigas. Other natural gas utilities in the area include Indian Gas and Midwest Natural Gas. Telephone service Landline and cellular telephone service are widely available throughout Harrison County. As in most areas, telecommunications infrastructure is expanding and modernizing rapidly to keep up with demand in the county. There are several phone service providers in the area. Traditional landline service is operated by Verizon and SBC. Local phone service is available through Vonage and VolP phone services. Cellular phone service is available through Cingular Wireless, Sprint, Wirefly Mobile, Nextel Communications, and several other providers. Solid Waste Disposal Harrison County’s Solid Waste District is a recycling and environmental education organization funded through county taxes. The District offers many services to the county including five recycling centers and educational services to schools and the public. The District also sponsors environmental awareness days such as Earth Day and America Recycles Day. Corydon and Palmyra provide solid waste removal services within the city limits, but other residents of Harrison County must contact trash removal providers to arrange pickup in other areas. Waste Management Inc. and Rumpke manage trash removal and disposal throughout Harrison County. Recycling & Household Hazardous Waste Services: In Indiana, both Solid Waste Management Districts (SWMD) and local communities provide recycling and HHW services. The Harrison County Solid Waste District operates five drop-off centers for residential use. These centers are located in Corydon, Elizabeth, Lanesville, Mauckport, and Palmyra. The centers are open four days a week, including Saturdays, and collect the following materials: aluminum and steel/tin cans, plastics, newspapers, glass, cardboard and paperboard, magazines, and household batteries. The Harrison County SWMD processes approximately a million pounds per year of recyclables, all through volunteer drop-off.


76

NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS Below is a description of low-income neighborhoods with significant physical housing needs. For maps and further details on these neighborhoods, see the Housing Condition Survey starting on page 30. Corydon: According to the Housing Condition Survey, the neighborhoods that surround the county fairgrounds have the greatest physical need. This area consists roughly of Poplar Street, Ridley Street, and S. Capitol Avenue. 24 percent of the units in this area were determined to be in need of major repairs or condemnable. This area would be an ideal candidate for a rehab or demolition and in-fill program. Palmyra: Generally speaking, the housing stock within the Palmyra town limits is in good physical condition. Some areas of housing in need of rehabilitation can be found on the southern end of town. For instance, 26 percent of homes on Avery and Heuser streets were found to be in need of major repairs. Lanesville: According to the housing condition survey, the housing stock in Lanesville is in exceptional condition. Only 3 percent of homes were found to be in need of major repair. Some interviews with local leaders indicate that more affordable housing may be needed in this area. Milltown: Much of the housing on the Harrison County side of Milltown was in good condition. 89 percent of the units appeared to be in good condition or in need of only minor repairs. Proposed sewer upgrades for Milltown will benefit current and future residents. Elizabeth: The southeastern portion of town is in the greatest need of attention. Dogwood, Beech, and South Main streets have the highest rates of homes in need of major repair in the community. Mauckport: Mauckport was clearly the most distressed community assessed in the housing condition survey. 44 percent of the housing units were determined to be in need of major repairs or were condemnable. All of Mauckport would be an ideal candidate for a rehabilitation program. Some positive signs were visible such as newly installed sidewalks throughout the community. Other: In terms of housing condition and infrastructure, rural areas have greater housing needs than many of the cities and towns of Harrison County. Assessing the Senville and St. Louis Road areas provided a snapshot of housing conditions in the county’s rural areas. Each had considerably higher concentrations of housing in need of major repair than did the incorporated towns. For instance, the assessment showed that 46 percent of homes in the Senville area were in need of major repair or condemnable. The majority of rural areas are not on a sanitary sewer and failing septic systems are reported to be a major problem. Many in the county report that the lack of sewer capacity is a significant limiting factor to housing development, including affordable housing.


77

MARKET CONDITIONS Population & Demographic Trends Harrison County has a steadily growing population. The county’s 14.8% population growth between 1990 and 2000 out-paced Indiana’s growth significantly over that same period. Population growth has a direct impact on housing demand and cost. As Harrison County grows, the housing demand that goes unmet will result in higher housing costs, particularly for low income residents. As Figure 17 illustrates, much of the growth is taking place in Harrison Township. The northeastern and southeastern portions of the county are also growing rapidly. Harrison County’s population is older than the state as a whole. An aging population places different pressures on housing demand. There are currently three affordable housing developments, two in Corydon and one in Milltown, which serve the elderly population. Each of these developments maintains a waiting list. As the county’s population ages, a greater supply of affordable housing for the elderly will be necessary.

Figure 21. Age of Harrison County Population vs. Indiana

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

Under 5 5 - 14 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+Source: U.S. Census 2000 Indiana Harrison

Figure 21


78

Publicly Assisted Housing Location, Availability, and Type of Publicly Assisted Housing Access to publicly assisted affordable housing is a serious challenge for many Harrison County residents. Lengthy waiting lists for subsidized housing are common place. Tenant-based Section 8 vouchers are administered by Harrison County Community Services (HCCS). HCCS reports that its waiting list for Section 8 vouchers has been closed for several years and that they are currently working off of a ten year old list. Project-based Section 8 developments and other subsidized housing also have waiting lists. There are two project-based Section 8 developments in Harrison County as well as several others which receive either IHCDA administered Rental Housing Tax Credits (RHTCs), USDA assistance or some other form of subsidy. Again, accessibility to these housing options is severely limited. Each affordable housing development has a waitlist. These waitlists range from as few as 3 to as many as 88. Table 31 provides details on affordable housing developments in Harrison County.

Table 36. Affordable Housing Developments

Development Address Town # of Units

# of Units Occupied* Program/Notes

Capital Court 785 Regina Ln. Corydon 50 50 (3 on waitlist)

Sec. 8 & 202; Type –Elderly Mix of Studio & 1br

Corydon Apts. 860 Pflanz Dr. Corydon 24 23 (3 on waitlist)

USDA Section 515 Mix of Studio, 1 & 2br.

Hillview Apts. 1341 Hillview Dr. Corydon 71 71 (5 on waitlist)

USDA Section 515; Type – Elderly; Mix of Studio & 1br

Capitol Apartments 860 Pflanz Dr. Corydon 24 23 (3 on waitlist)

Rental Housing Tax Credits 8 1br & 16 2br units

265 Apartments 261 McGrain St. Corydon 6 4 Rental Housing Tax Credits 6 2br units

Palmyra Apts. 14020 Huff St. Palmyra 24 21 (5 on waitlist)

USDA Section 515 Mix of 1 & 2br units

Village Apts. I & II 1240 Regina Ln. Corydon 88 83 (24 on waitlist)

Rental Housing Tax Credits Mix of 1, 2 & 3br

Autumn Ridge Apts. (Under Construction) Corydon 24 24 (reserved)

(88 on waitlist) Rental Housing Tax Credits

Oakview Apts. 60, 80, 90 Cruse Loop Corydon 14 14

(50 on waitlist) Home Funds 2br units, 2 h.c. accessible

Milltown Housing for the Elderly 115 Spencer St. Milltown 39 38

(2 on waitlist) Section 8; Type –Elderly 11-1br, 4-2br, 7-3br

*as of June, 2006 Source: SDG


79

Impediments to Accessing Affordable Housing Resources The major impediment to accessing affordable housing for low-income residents is spelled out above; there simply are not enough resources to go around. Lengthy waitlists for tenant-based Section 8 vouchers and affordable housing developments are the rule rather than the exception. Another impediment for low-income residents is geography. The majority of subsidized housing is found in Corydon. Palmyra and Milltown also have some offerings but there are no developments in the southern part of the county. People living in other areas must either move to Corydon or find inexpensive accommodations closer to home. These options are often inadequate and unsafe. Owners and developers of low-income developments also have difficulty accessing resources. Subsidies for new affordable developments are usually awarded on a competitive basis which limits the number of organizations who can receive them. Many private companies which would develop more affordable housing developments are ineligible to receive subsidies such as HUD’s Section 202 or 811 programs. Adverse Effects to Home Rental or Ownership Evidence of the difficulties in obtaining access to housing funds can be found in the day-to-day activities of the county’s real estate agents and bankers. In a survey undertaken for this study (see Appendix for full report), 80 percent of the realtors and bankers surveyed said the median price of local homes is increasing. 80 percent responded that escalating land costs and the inability to accumulate capital for a down payment were either major or minor problems in the county. 90 percent responded that a shortage of rental housing was either a major or minor problem. Local Economic Base One of Harrison County’s greatest assets is its location. As part of the Louisville MSA, Harrison County enjoys many of the benefits of a metropolitan area while maintaining much of its small town or rural quality of life. As outlined in Table 32, manufacturing was the largest of the employment sectors which were reported, accounting for 20.8 percent of all jobs. It had an average wage per job of $34,340. Unfortunately, data is unavailable for several service sectors due to non-disclosure requirements. Non-reported employment sectors account for 45 percent of the total jobs in Table 32. No doubt that the majority of these jobs are with the Caesars, Indiana casino which is the county’s largest employer by a wide margin. Generally, service sector jobs are some of the lowest paying. One alarming fact is that the average wage of all jobs in Harrison County trails the state average by over $7,500. With the sole exception of public administration, wages in the county trail the state average significantly in each sector which is reported. The average manufacturing wage in the county is over $13,000 below the Indiana average.


80

Table 37. Employment & Earnings - 2004

Employment and Earnings by Industry in 2003 Employment Pct Dist.

in County Avg. Wage Per Job

(County) Avg. Wage Per Job (Indiana)

Total Covered Employment and Wages 11,953 100.00% $27,158 $34,694 Private 10,069 84.20% $26,630 $34,727 Agri., forestry, hunting 46 0.40% $18,348 $25,494 Mining 135 1.10% $35,074 $49,833 Construction 417 3.50% $27,008 $39,342 Manufacturing 2,487 20.80% $34,340 $47,642 Wholesale trade 261 2.20% $31,874 $46,108 Retail trade 1,601 13.40% $18,417 $21,446 Transportation, warehousing 259 2.20% $31,046 $36,613 Utilities 101 0.80% $50,149 $62,844 Information 75 0.60% $29,943 $39,849 Finance and Insurance 298 2.50% $32,321 $48,432 Real Estate, rental, leasing 59 0.50% $21,383 $28,852 Professional, technical services Data not available due to non-disclosure requirements $45,403 Mgmt. of companies, enterprises Data not available due to non-disclosure requirements $66,814 Administrative, waste services 331 2.80% $13,371 $22,728 Educational services Data not available due to non-disclosure requirements $33,107 Health care, social assistance Data not available due to non-disclosure requirements $34,965 Arts, entertainment, recreation Data not available due to non-disclosure requirements $25,816 Accommodation and food services Data not available due to non-disclosure requirements $11,850 Other services, exc. public admin. 240 2.00% $16,409 $22,548 Public administration 170 1.40% $34,841 $33,941

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics In addition to lower wages on average, the Harrison County economy has seen a relative spike in unemployment in the last two years. The county’s rate in 2005 was 6.3 percent compared to 5.4 percent for the state. Prior to 2004, unemployment rates in Harrison County generally trailed the state as a whole.

Figure 22. Unemployment Rates: 1996 - 2005

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Indiana Harrison


81

The following table lists the largest employers in Harrison County.

Table 38. Harrison County Major Employers Company Location Employees Product/Service

Caesars, Indiana Elizabeth 2,143 Gaming & Hotel Resort Tyson Foods Corydon 550 Poultry Processing Wal-Mart Corydon 550 Department Store & Grocery Harrison County Hospital Corydon 430 Healthcare South Harrison Community School Corporation Corydon 417 Public Education Blue River Services Corydon 350 Vocational & Social Services ICON Metal Forming LLC Corydon 320 Auto Parts Manufacturer North Harrison School Corporation Ramsey 294 Public Education Harrison County Government Corydon 235 Local Government First Harrison Bank Corydon 155 Financial Institution Daramic Corydon 126 Battery Separators Harrison Health & Rehabilitation Corydon 120 Intermediate & Skilled Care Nursing Cracker Barrell Corydon 105 Restaurant Norstam Veneers Mauckport 97 Hardwood Veneer & Dried Lumber JC Food Stores Corydon 85 Grocery Store

Speed Flex Ramsey & Elizabeth 75 Electronic Interconnectors

O'Charley's Corydon 73 Restaurant Smith Store Fixtures Depauw 67 Laminated Desk & Countertops Lanesville Community Schools Lanesville 67 Public Education Schmidt Cabinet Company N. Salisbury 60 Cabinetry Ryan's Steakhouse Corydon 60 Restaurant

Uhl Truck Sales Palmyra & Corydon 60 Heavy Duty Truck Dealer

Bush Trucking N. Salisbury 54 Long Distance Trucking Harrison REMC Corydon 51 Electric Utility Lucas Oil Products, Inc. Corydon 50 Oil & Fuel Additives McDonalds Corydon 50 Restaurant Thorn-Orwick Corydon 45 Concrete Utility Structures John Jones GM City Corydon 43 New & Used Automobiles Corydon Machine Tool Corydon 40 Machinery Frisch's Big Boy Corydon 40 Restaurant Source: Harrison County Chamber of Commerce, March 2006


82

Regulations Affecting Housing Housing Standards: Building codes, zoning ordinances, and subdivision ordinances all combine throughout Harrison County to help govern housing standards. The adoption of a community definition of substandard housing will help housing authorities deal with units that are not up to community standards. Building Inspections: County Planning and Zoning employs two building inspectors who inspect all new developments, additions and electrical upgrades in the county, including Corydon. The building inspectors ensure that all construction is in compliance with state codes. Building Permits and Fees: Harrison County Planning & Zoning issues building permits for all new construction and rehabilitation projects which take place in the county. For residential development, the county charges a $30 base fee plus $0.05 per square foot per floor in permit fees. Basements and porches have a flat $30 fee. At this rate, a new 2,000 square foot, single level home without a basement or porch will have a $130 dollar permit fee. Single and double-wide trailers have a flat $30 dollar permit fee plus $15 if they are over a basement. The Town of Corydon also issues building permits for developments within the town and a two-mile fringe. New residential developments are issued a flat $5 dollar permit fee by the town and then must obtain county permits as described above. In some cases, the additional costs associated with building or rehabilitating homes to code specifications will present financial hardships for the homeowner, contractor, or developer. In the case of rental housing, the possibility of these costs being passed on to renters also lessens the affordability of units in this situation. However, adherence to codes and enforcement of codes combine to help protect the longevity and condition of the housing stock, maintain property values, and increase personal safety.

Figure 23. Number of Permits Issued by Housing Type - 2005

65

10

189

55

00

50

100

150

200

Single Family Modular Mobile Home Apt. Units Duplex UnitsNumber of Permits Issued Source: Harrison County Plan Commission


83

Table. 39 Harrison County Building Permits 1996 - 2005 Year Total Units Single

Family Modular Mobile

Home Duplex Units

Apartment Units

1996 516 262 106 134 6 8 1997 547 233 118 136 12 48 1998 577 221 131 159 20 46 1999 642 245 174 127 22 74 2000 485 190 133 91 0 71 2001 367 176 106 83 2 0 2002 391 185 82 80 2 42 2003 356 184 86 76 4 6 2004 352 206 76 68 2 0 2005 319 189 55 65 10 0

Source: Harrison County Plan Commission

Figure 24. Harrison County Building Permits 1996 - 2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Single Family Modular Mobile Duplex Units Apt. Units Source: Harrison County Plan Commission Zoning Ordinances: Zoning ordinances throughout the county are in place to protect properties, property rights, and to assure appropriate land use and development. The Town of Corydon administers its own ordinances while the Harrison County Planning & Zoning has jurisdiction over the rest of the county. The county’s ordinances were adopted in 1974 but have undergone regular updates over the last three decades. The county adopted a new comprehensive plan in 1996 and last amended it in 2003. The Town of Corydon has also regularly updated its zoning ordinances over the past several decades. The last update was in 2003. The town is currently updating its comprehensive plan. Subdivision Ordinances: Subdivision ordinances are in place in both the Corydon and Harrison County. They govern the development of new housing and commercial developments that require new parcel creation for the new units. Various processes for land subdivision may occur depending upon the number of parcels being created.


84

Typically, a subdivision for new housing units require a public Plan Commission meeting to review the preliminary plat design and to approve or deny the proposed plat. Once a subdivision plat receives preliminary approval, construction details for all public improvements must receive approval. These improvements include such things as new roadways, utility infrastructure and storm water drainage facilities. Building Codes and Code Enforcement: Both the county and Corydon enforce zoning regulations. In the county, if a property owner is found to be in violation of a zoning ordinance, a warning letter is sent. If the property owner remains out of compliance, penalties are assessed on a graduated scale up to a maximum of $2,500. Utility Connection Fees: Utility connection fees vary widely throughout the county due to many different local water and sewer departments, private electric and gas companies etc. Many local utility connection fees can be found in the adequacy of infrastructure section starting on page 65. Historic Districts: The U.S. National Register of Historic Places recognizes one historic district in Harrison County. Corydon Historic District (listed 1979, expanded 1989) Roughly bounded by Summit, Maple & Walnut Sts., College Ave., Chestnut, Capitol, Poplar, Water, Beaver & Mulberry Sts. Historic Significance: Event, Architecture/Engineering Architectural Style: Federal Area of Significance: Architecture, Politics/Government Period of Significance: 1800-1824, 1825-1849 Owner: Private, Local Historic Function: Government, Domestic Historic Sub-function: Capitol Current Function: Commerce/Trade, Domestic, Recreation & Culture Current Sub-function: Museum, Single Dwelling

Floodplains: Floodplains are a significant feature of the county’s topography, with the existence of the east fork of the Blue River, the Indian and Little Indian Creeks and other waterways. The towns of Corydon and Milltown administer floodplain regulations within their jurisdictions while County Planning & Zoning covers the rest of the county. All three enforce flood plain management regulations that are required by FEMA and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources.


85

STRATEGIES Sources of Funding Below is an outline of housing programs and funding sources available to help address the needs which are identified in this report. A more complete housing resource matrix can be found in the appendix. Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA) Housing from Shelters to Homeownership: This program provides grants and loans to public and private organizations for the rehabilitation or new construction of affordable housing. Affordable Housing includes emergency shelters, youth shelters, transitional housing, migrant and seasonal farm worker housing, rental housing, lease purchase housing, homeowner repair, homeownership counseling with down payment assistance and single family housing for sale to low income homebuyers.

Neighborhood Assistance Program: The Neighborhood Assistance Program (NAP) offers $2.5 million in tax credits annually for distribution by not-for-profit corporations. Organizations use NAP tax credits as an incentive to help them leverage more contributions from individuals and businesses for certain neighborhood-based programs and projects.

Eligible projects include affordable housing, counseling, child-care, educational assistance, emergency assistance, job training, medical care, recreational facilities, downtown rehabilitation, and neighborhood commercial revitalization. All projects must benefit economically disadvantaged areas and/or persons. The maximum amount of tax credits allowed per organization is $50,000 per year.

Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program: This program builds on the success of the Family and Social Service Administration’s (FSSA) Weatherization program for a comprehensive owner-occupied rehabilitation program outside of HOME-Participating Jurisdiction areas. The funds are administered by the local Community Action Agency. To be eligible, homeowners must either be over the age of 60, have some sort of disability or have children under the age of 6.

Rental Housing Tax Credits: Rental Housing Tax Credits (RHTCs) are federal tax credits which are allocated to for-profit and not-for-profit developers of affordable rental housing. By reducing a developer's federal tax liability, or selling of tax credits to investors, tax credits can contribute significantly to the financial viability of developing affordable rental units.

Units financed with RHTCs must be rented to persons at or below 60 percent of the area median income. Each state has a limit on the amount of tax credits that it can allocate and demand runs about four times higher than available resources.


86

First Home: The First Home program offers below market interest rate mortgages to qualified persons. Interest rates can vary, but are usually one-half to one percent below the market rate. This program may be used in conjunction with FHA/VA, Fannie Mae, or USDA Rural Development financing. First Home/Plus: The First Home/PLUS program offers a First Home loan as well as a 5 or 10 percent down payment assistance second mortgage, capped at $3,500 or $7,000 respectively, with zero interest and no payments, which is forgiven if the borrower does not refinance and remains in the home for a specified period of time. First Home 100: First Home 100 is a partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development office. Borrowers in rural areas can qualify for a combination of two mortgages, the first being an IHCDA First Home loan with a below market interest rate and the second being a Rural Development loan with an interest rate based on the borrower’s ability to pay. Borrowers can also qualify for down payment assistance as with other IHCDA programs. Indiana Office of Community & Rural Affairs (OCRA) Community Focus Fund: OCRA assists affordable housing development through the Community Focus Fund (CFF). CFF is a grant program funded with federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars. These grants support a variety of construction projects that either benefit low to moderate income persons or eliminate blight in communities. Eligible applicants include small cities which do not receive direct CDBG entitlement money, incorporated towns and counties. CFFs can be used for infrastructure improvements in support of affordable housing development. The maximum award is $500,000 with a 10 percent local match required. Also, planning grants of up to $50,000 are available and can be used to strengthen applications for larger sums. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration (FSSA) Emergency Shelter Grant: This program provides funds for basic operating expenses and homeless prevention expenses incurred by shelters, missions, and homeless service organizations. These funds are used to improve existing agencies which serve the homeless population to purchase food, bedding, equipment and clothing. Indiana Cooperative Development Center (ICDC) The ICDC provides technical assistance for the establishment and management of a range of cooperative models, including housing. The ICDC also distributes some modest assistance grants to facilitate activities such as feasibility studies, professional services or marketing assistance.


87

Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis (FHLB) Affordable Housing Program: This program subsidizes the interest rate on advances or provides direct subsidies to member organizations in order to promote long-term lending and support for affordable renter and owner-occupied housing. The program can fund the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of properties for use as affordable housing. Community Improvement Program: This program was established to provide funding for community-oriented lending which support economic development activities that benefit low and moderate income families or neighborhoods. The funds, which can be used for the development housing, infrastructure improvements or small business development which create jobs, are provided at below market rate. This program reduces the risk to bankers of making non-conventional loans for community development. Homeownership Opportunities Program (HOP): This program supports homeownership by providing funds of up to $5,000 through member institutions for down payment and closing cost assistance. This program requires at least a 30 percent match from the prospective homeowner. Neighborhood Impact Program (NIP): Structured like the HOP program, NIP provides funds through member institutions for home repairs which will have an impact on greater neighborhood revitalization. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (USDA) Homeownership Loans: This program finances new or improved housing for low to moderate-income families or individuals. The purpose is to provide financing with no down payment and at favorable terms for the purchase, construction, rehabilitation or relocation of a dwelling. These funds are provided as either direct or guaranteed loans. Mutual Self-Help Housing Loans and Grants: This program provides loans to help groups of up to 6 to 10 low income families build their own homes by providing materials and skilled labor they cannot furnish themselves. The families must agree to work together until all the homes are complete. With this investment or “sweat equity”, homeowners pay less than if the home were built by a contractor. Grants are provided to local government and nonprofits to supervise the program and provide technical assistance. Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans: These loans are made to finance construction and site development of multi-family living quarters. Some units are reserved for people aged 62 and over. Loans can be made in this program to construct housing that will be operated in a cooperative form.


88

Home Improvement Loans and Grants: Loans are available to homeowners to remove health and safety hazards from their homes as well as make homes accessible for people with disabilities. For seniors who cannot afford a loan, grants are available for these repairs. Site Loans: These loans buy adequate building sites for development of a desirable community by private or public nonprofit organizations. Housing Preservation Grants: These grants are used to renovate deteriorating homes and rental properties occupied by low income families. Nonprofits and local governments can apply for these grants which are always used in conjunction with funds from other sources, including local and state governments and grants from private businesses. Housing Subsidies: Subsidies can be used for monthly mortgage and rental payments, limiting these costs to no more than 30 percent of the monthly income of the applicant. These subsidies can be used in conjunction with the programs described above. U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Section 202/811 Supportive Housing for the Elderly/Disabled: These separate programs provide grants for the development and operation of supportive housing for low-income citizens over the age of 62. This program also offers Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC) which covers the gap between project operating costs and the tenant contribution towards rent. Funds are available for new construction, rehabilitation or acquisition. Potential Local resources Some local needs may require that new local resources be developed. Some potential organizations or interest groups may include:

• Local Churches

• Harrison County

• Cities & Towns

• Harrison County Community Foundation

• Metro United Way

• Local Banks

• Township Trustees

• Local Service Organizations and Businesses


89

Prioritization of Strategies The Harrison County Commissioners had one primary goal in mind when it undertook this study. That goal was to improve the availability and accessibility of quality housing to the residents of Harrison County. Perhaps one of the most useful results of the housing study was to test local perceptions and anecdotal evidence against quantitative data. Now armed with information on demographic shifts, market conditions, growth projections and housing gaps, local leaders are well aware of the challenges facing Harrison County. Among the identified priorities is the need for more homeownership education opportunities as well as an expansion of affordable or “starter home” availability in the county. Below is an outline of the priority given to several program areas. Top Priorities Homeownership Counseling: Home purchase counseling was clearly the highest rated housing assistance need identified in by realtors and bankers as well as the project steering committee. Regional resources dedicated to purchase counseling do not find their way to Harrison County. Blue River Services and HCCS need support in pursuing funding for this need. Owner-Occupied and Rental Rehabilitation: Also rated as a major need by the project steering committee, the list of past projects on page 97 demonstrates some history of tackling this issue. Tenant Rental Assistance/Section 8 Housing: The lack of availability of Section 8 subsidies is a significant problem. Harrison County Community Services reports that its waiting list for Section 8 vouchers has been closed for several years and that they are currently working off of a ten year old list. Project-based Section 8 developments and other subsidized housing also have waiting lists. Homeless/Emergency Shelters: There are no homeless shelters and few emergency shelter options in the county. While not an ideal situation, there are emergency shelters in nearby communities such as New Albany, Louisville, Jeffersonville and Salem which serve Harrison County residents. Public-Private Partnerships: There have been some successful partnerships in Harrison County such as the annual “Repair a Fair” which is a community effort to renovate homes in need and certain Habitat for Humanity activities. More partnerships will be necessary to carry out some of the activities outlined in this plan.


90

Secondary Priorities Special Needs Housing: While affordable housing for special needs populations is always a concern, this issue was not considered a major problem or top priority for Harrison County. There are two affordable developments (121 units) in Corydon and one in Milltown (39 units) which cater directly to the elderly and disabled. As of June 2006, there were a total of eight households on waitlists for the two Corydon developments and two households on waitlist for the Milltown facility. Additionally, several other affordable developments have units with handicap access. Blue River Services operates a variety group homes, transitional housing opportunities, and affordable housing developments. These services help address the needs of mentally and developmentally disabled, elderly, and low-income residents of the county. Transitional Housing: There are few transitional housing options available in Harrison County. As mentioned above, Blue River Services operates a variety of group homes and transitional housing opportunities for the mentally and developmentally disabled and children in need. In the fall of 2006, Blue River Services will open Hope Manor in partnership with the Center for Women and Children. This facility will provide four transitional housing units for the victims of domestic abuse. The House of New Beginnings is a new transitional housing opportunity in the county. This development is under construction at the time of this writing but is anticipated to be open in 2006. This facility will offer 30 rooms to men recovering from drug abuse. Other transitional housing opportunities available for Harrison County residents include Hedden House in New Albany which serves women recovering from drug abuse and Haven House in Jeffersonville which serves victims of domestic abuse. Supportive Services/Supportive Infrastructure: As the table on page 97 indicates, Harrison County has a fairly complete service delivery system. However, local officials must work to ensure that the county receives its appropriate share of regional funding which is disbursed by the state. Conversion or Demolition of Vacant Housing: The housing condition survey shows that some demolition may be necessary in certain parts of the county. However, this issue is not thought be a priority.


91

Specific Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies The following priorities are based on the housing condition survey conducted for this study.

Corydon: Most neighborhoods are very well kept. Greatest proportion of substandard housing found along Poplar, Mulberry and Ridley streets. Most homes on Poplar Street, which is located near the commercial district, were found to be in need of repair. Ridley Street contains mostly bungalow style homes with several vacant homes in need of renovation. Palmyra: According to the housing assessment survey, Palmyra had the second highest percentage of homes found to be in good condition. The majority of homes were single story and many were brick. There were a lot of new or in-fill developments. Heuser and Avery streets had the highest concentration of homes in need of repair. Lanesville: Nearly all housing is in excellent condition. Only 3 percent of the housing was thought to be in need of major repairs. Milltown: Generally speaking, housing in Milltown is in good condition. There were several new modular homes, particularly along Main Street. Elizabeth: The majority of housing is in good condition. Most dwellings in need of major repairs are found near the Main and Beech intersection. Mauckport: The town has a large proportion of substandard housing, especially along Main Street. There are some signs of rehabilitation with a few homes. There are new sidewalks throughout the town. Crandall: Much of the housing in Crandall is in good condition; concentrations of homes in need of repair are found on Main and Centre streets. Laconia: The town has a wide range of housing conditions. Nearly one quarter of the homes surveyed were found to be in need of major repairs. Depauw: The majority of homes are reported to be in good condition or in need of only minor repair. The community has a high proportion of mobile homes. Senville: This is clearly the most distressed area in the housing condition survey. 46 percent of the homes in need of major repairs or are condemnable. The community has a high percentage of mobile homes.


92

Strategic Direction The identification of housing needs does little if it is not followed by recommendations on how to address those needs. This action plan aims to improve the availability and accessibility of safe, decent and affordable housing by proposing manageable initiatives complete with objectives, implementation schedules and sources of funding. The project steering committee felt strongly that while there are always many issues that need addressing, it is best to focus on only a few of the most pressing needs to ensure that they are not lost in the shuffle. Also, the committee felt that it was important to confine its recommendations to activities which have clear and attainable funding sources. With this in mind, this report proposes six primary recommendations which the steering committee feels will address the most critical areas of concern. The action plan consists of the following activities:

• Create a Harrison County Housing Task Force

• Increase Homeownership Education Opportunities

• Initiate a Housing Rehabilitation Program

• Expand Affordable Rental Housing Opportunities

• Upgrade / Expand Sewer System in Support of Affordable Housing

• Increase the Availability of Affordable or “Starter” Homes

All these recommended activities are interrelated and, to varying degrees, dependant upon each other. Although each activity deals with a somewhat different housing need, together they form a focused effort to address the county’s housing needs.


93

Recommended Activities Activity 1: Create a Harrison County Housing Task Force

Objective 1: Develop a coordinated and focused affordable housing program for

Harrison County. Objective 2: Provide the framework for increased funding and support from local,

regional, state and federal entities.

Overview: In order to carry out an effective county-wide affordable housing strategy, a central committee consisting of representatives from housing, social service and governmental organizations as well as private stakeholders such as banks, utilities and realtors will be needed. This task force, which would most likely be led by representatives of Blue River Services and Harrison County Community Services, would be chiefly responsible for implementing the recommended activities of this study. A formalized housing task force will help facilitate an effective housing program in two ways. First, the task force provides a mechanism for sharing information between various entities and developing a coordinated effort to address housing needs. Second, demonstrating a coordinated community-wide effort will greatly benefit future grant proposals and program implementation. Initial priorities for the Harrison County Housing Task Force should include:

• Securing homeownership education funding

• Ensuring that Harrison County receives its appropriate share of regional resources

• Pursuing affordable rental and owner-occupied housing initiatives


94

Activity 2: Increase Homeownership Education Opportunities

Objective: Increase the number of Harrison County residents who own their own home.

Overview: Often, the only thing standing between renting and homeownership are the fundamental skills of budgeting, understanding the loan process or the knowledge that financial options exist to help individuals become successful homeowners. A comprehensive education program can make homeownership, and the advantages that come with it, attainable for more Harrison County residents. Homeownership education was rated as a top priority by the steering committee and local realtors and bankers. A recent report by the Mortgage Bankers Association showed that Indiana led the nation in mortgage foreclosures in 2005. A comprehensive, countywide approach to expand the capacity for homeownership and financial education is critical. Education should focus on financial literacy, budget counseling, credit, loss mitigation, etc. Activity 3: Initiate a Housing Rehabilitation Program Objective 1: Provide safe and decent housing for low-to-moderate-income individuals

and families, senior citizens, and special needs populations. Objective 2: Revitalize neighborhoods through reinvestment in existing housing. Overview: Many homeowners lack the resources to make necessary repairs to their homes. Neighborhoods decline as homes begin to deteriorate, which leads to further decline and lack of investment. Often, modest improvements will allow the elderly, disabled or low income families to remain homeowners and live in safe and decent conditions. A housing rehabilitation or micro-loan program could be used to rehabilitate owner and renter occupied homes in order to facilitate safer dwellings and neighborhood improvements. In fact, entire neighborhoods could be selected for improvements. Owner-occupied rehabilitation was ranked as one of the highest housing priorities by the steering committee. Both the realtor and banker survey results and interview responses indicate that rental rehabilitation is a major need for the county. Programs to rehabilitate rental properties will include requirements to maintain affordable rents. The housing condition survey found on page 30 offers a good starting point for determining which areas of the county or particular towns are most in need of this type of assistance.


95

Activity 4: Expand Affordable Rental Opportunities Objective 1: Ensure an adequate supply of affordable rental units in Harrison County. Objective 2: Provide safe and decent housing for low-to-moderate-income individuals

and families, senior citizens, and special needs populations.

Overview: Multi-family or apartment style housing makes up a relatively small proportion of the county’s housing stock. Units with three or more units accounts for only 4 percent of housing in the county. Quality rental units fill a vital need for low income residents, young families and individuals working toward a home purchase, individuals in transition, and senior citizens who are unable or no longer wish to own a home. Recently, steps have been taken to help alleviate this problem. Oakview and Autumn Ridge apartments in Corydon are examples of rehabilitation and new construction efforts undertaken to increase quality low-income rental housing. However, lengthy waiting lists for these developments, Section 8 vouchers, and other subsidized rental developments attest to the need for more units. There is a particular need for units which serve the lowest income residents (30% of AMI). Funding for these populations is difficult as Section 8 funding is capped. However, HUD funding is available for housing developments which serve the elderly and disabled. Activity 5: Increase the Availability of Affordable or “Starter”

Homes

Objective: Ensure that owner-occupied housing opportunities exist for a range of income levels.

Overview: According to the Multiple Listing Service, the average Harrison County home sold for $135,373 in 2005. Only 50 two-bedroom homes were up for sale in 2005 with an average sale price of $84,417. The growth of higher priced homes has been fueled by growth from Louisville, New Albany, etc. Housing prices and types of developments are largely market driven. A common sentiment seems to be: “Why would developers construct affordable housing when a demand for higher-end developments exists?”


96

However, there are some creative initiatives that local governments or housing organizations can use to expand the availability of modestly priced homes. Some potential initiatives could include:

• Local government or housing organizations pursuing public/private partnerships to develop owner-occupied housing in the $60,000 - $100,000 range or provide below market rate mortgages.

• Encouraging county and town government to study the creation of inclusionary affordable housing standards for all new residential subdivisions. These standards generally require developers to make a percentage of housing units in new residential developments available to low-moderate income households. Local governments often provide incentives in exchange for these developments.

• Exploring the establishment of low-equity housing cooperatives. By purchasing shares in a “blanket” mortgage held by a non-profit cooperative corporation, low-equity cooperative owner-residents keep home purchase costs down by avoiding traditional mortgages and the associated debt service.

• Promoting the development of “patio homes” which are generally less expensive than traditional single family homes.

Activity 6: Upgrade / Expand Sewer System in Support of Affordable Housing

Objective: Expand the amount of land which is able to support affordable housing.

Overview: Adequate infrastructure will be critical to the development of any type, including affordable housing. In fact, many programs that fund affordable housing will require that developments have access to sewers. The deployment of infrastructure such as sewers gives local officials some ability to guide growth as well as enhance other local efforts such as economic development. A survey of realtors and bankers and interviews with local leaders both indicate that sanitary sewer coverage seriously limits housing development in the county. A planned sewer upgrade in Milltown should assist affordable housing in that portion of the county.


97

ACTION PLAN

Activity 1: Create a Harrison County Housing Task Force

Objective • Develop a coordinated and focused affordable housing program for

Harrison County.

• Provide the framework for increased funding and support from local, regional, state and federal entities. Rationale: A formalized housing task force will help facilitate an effective housing program in two ways. First, the task force provides a mechanism for sharing information between various entities and developing a coordinated effort to address housing needs. Second, demonstrating a coordinated community-wide effort will greatly benefit future grant proposals and program implementation.

Partners: An effective task force would consist of representatives from housing, social service and governmental organizations as well as private stakeholders such as banks, utilities and realtors. The task force will be convened by Blue River Services.

Funding Sources: The creation and administration of the housing task force will not require financial support. Participation in and operation of the housing task force will be entirely volunteer driven.

Activity 1: Benchmarks Steps Task Date

1 Hold initial meeting in the Fall of 2006. Hold subsequent meetings quarterly. 2006

2 Establish ties with regional, state and federal funding entities. 2007

3 Initiate comprehensive homeownership counseling program. 2007

4 Prioritize further housing initiatives and pursue grants. 2007


98

Activity 2: Increase Homeownership Education Opportunities

Objective • Increase the number of Harrison County residents who own their own

home. Rationale: Homeownership education was rated as a top priority by the steering committee and local realtors and bankers. A recent report by the Mortgage Bankers Association showed that Indiana led the nation in mortgage foreclosures in 2005. A comprehensive, countywide approach to expand the capacity for homeownership and financial education is critical. Education should focus on financial literacy, budget counseling, credit, loss mitigation, etc.

Partners: A wide variety of organizations can offer homeownership education. Local banks, realtor associations, local or county government or affordable housing organizations are all good candidates. Even larger organizations such as USDA can provide some services. However, to provide comprehensive, one-on-one pre and post purchase counseling requires funding and dedicated staff for this purpose. On behalf of the housing task force, Blue River Services and Harrison County Community Services are the likely candidates to administer this type of program.

Funding Sources: There are several homeownership education curriculums, such as SIRDP’s Live the Dream…Own a Home, which are available to organizations free of charge. Funding to establish a program is available through IHCDA, USDA’s Section 525 Technical & Supervisory Assistance (TSA) grants and HUD’s Community Development Technical Assistance grants.

Activity 2: Benchmarks

Steps Task Date

1 Establish homeownership education as the top priority of the Harrison County Housing Task Force. 2006

2

Determine the extent to which homeownership education already exists in the county. • Inventory existing programs • Determine and analyze levels of success of various programs • Increase marketing efforts of existing programs if necessary

2006

3

Begin resource development campaign by obtaining homeownership education sponsorship from the local private sector (i.e. banks, realtors, utilities, etc.) • Utilize free materials such as SIRDP’s Live the Dream…Own a

Home or resources from organizations such as Fannie Mae or HUD • If necessary, utilize public sector sources for funding such as

IHCDA or HUD.

2007


99

4

Begin aggressive promotional campaign for free or low-cost homeownership education opportunities. • Rely heavily on existing supportive service infrastructure and

housing delivery system

2007

5 Obtain staff training or certification if necessary 2007

6 Begin holding homeownership education training. 2008


100

Activity 3: Initiate a Housing Rehabilitation Program

Objective • Provide safe and decent housing for low-to-moderate-income individuals

and families, senior citizens, and special needs populations.

• Revitalize neighborhoods through reinvestment in existing housing. Rationale: Owner-occupied rehabilitation was ranked as one of the highest housing priorities by the steering committee. Both the realtor and banker survey results and interview responses indicate that rental rehabilitation is a major need for the county.

Partners: Rehabilitation loan programs can be administered through local lending institutions, CHDO’s, the area Community Action Agency, local units of government or USDA Rural Development. The housing task force should determine the most effective approach for this type of program.

Funding Sources: There are many programs available for home improvement projects. Potential funding organizations include the IHCDA (HOME Investment Partnerships Program or CDBG), USDA (Section 502 & 504 loans) and Federal Home Loan Bank (Community Investment & Neighborhood Impact Programs). Most work through local lending institutions, although some direct loans and grants are available.


Steps Task Date

1

Determine and prioritize neighborhoods / areas most in need of home rehabilitation. • Use the Housing Condition Survey from this study as a guide • Gather input from town and county officials and local housing

experts

2007

2

Determine appropriate funding mechanism(s) and apply to for home rehabilitation funds. Entities to consider include: • IHCDA • USDA • FHLB

2007

3 Recruit volunteers to assist with home rehabilitation for elderly and disabled residents. 2008

4 Begin aggressive promotional campaign for home rehabilitation resources. Rely heavily on existing supportive service infrastructure and housing delivery system

2008

5 Begin issuing loans or grants 2008 / 2009

6 Assess program and if successful, continue loans or grants. 2009


101

Activity 4: Expand Affordable Rental Opportunities

Objective • Ensure an adequate supply of affordable rental units in Harrison County.

• Provide safe and decent housing for low-to-moderate-income individuals and families, senior citizens, and special needs populations. Rationale: Recent steps have been taken to help alleviate this problem. Oakview and Autumn Ridge apartments in Corydon are examples of rehabilitation and new construction efforts undertaken to increase quality low-income rental housing. However, lengthy waiting lists for these developments, Section 8 vouchers, and other subsidized rental developments attest to the need for more units.

Partners: A project of this type would be initiated by one of the CHDO’s serving the area which includes Blue River Services and Lincoln Hills Development Corporation. A private company would be brought in to construct or renovate a development.

Funding Sources: Affordable housing could be facilitated through IHCDA’s Rental Housing Tax Credits or HOME funds, USDA’s Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans or Community Facilities program or HUD’s Section 202 or 811 programs which assist the elderly and disabled populations. HUD’s Section 202 or 811 programs also offer Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC) which cover the gap between project operating costs and the tenant contribution towards rent.


Steps Task Date

1 Identify potential affordable housing developers. 2006

2

Apply to IHCDA for grant to conduct feasibility study. Feasibility study will be used to:

• Identify sites • Conduct market study • Conduct environmental analysis • Develop initial architectural drawings

2006 / 2007

3

If feasibility study returns a favorable recommendation, apply for grant funding or tax credits for construction.

• Use findings of Housing Needs Assessment and feasibility study to strengthen applications.

• Enlist broad community support for project (i.e. local government, senior and disabled organizations, chamber of commerce, etc.)

2007


102

4 Once affordable housing assistance is in place, select developer / operator 2007

5 Break ground on affordable housing development. 2008

6

Begin aggressive promotional campaign. • Submit regular media releases to update progress • Develop promotional materials. • Begin to enlist residents, maintain waiting list if necessary

2008

7 Construction complete, rental units available to public. 2009


103

Activity 5: Increase the Availability of Affordable or “Starter” Homes

Objective • Ensure that owner-occupied housing opportunities exist for a range of

income levels. Rationale: According to the Multiple Listing Service, the average Harrison County home sold for $135,373 in 2005. Only 50 two-bedroom homes were up for sale in 2005 with an average sale price of $84,417. The increase of higher priced homes has been fueled by growth from Louisville and New Albany.

Partners: The Harrison County Housing Task Force, with representation from local government, affordable housing organizations and the private sector, should take the lead in identifying potential initiatives.

Funding Sources: Public/private partnerships may be facilitated through IHCDA, the Federal Home Loan Bank or USDA among others. The examination inclusionary housing standards could be assisted by the Indiana Planning Association. The Indiana Cooperative Development Center (ICDC) provides technical assistance for the establishment of several types of cooperatives, including housing. The ICDC also has some funds available for feasibility studies and market analysis.


Steps Task Date

1 Consider and select one or two initiatives towards increasing the availability of modestly priced homes. Consider the initiatives outlined in this report as well as others which may be appropriate.

2007

2 Enlist the help of national or statewide agencies or associations for technical assistance. Possibilities could include the Indiana Planning Association, Indiana Cooperative Development Center, etc.

2007

3 Implement at least one strategy. 2008


104

Activity 6: Upgrade / Expand Sewer System in Support of Affordable Housing

Objective • Expand the amount of land which is able to support affordable housing.

Rationale: A survey of realtors and bankers and interviews with local leaders both indicate that sanitary sewer coverage seriously limits housing development in the county. A planned sewer upgrade in Milltown should assist affordable housing in that portion of the county. The deployment of infrastructure such as sewers gives local officials some ability to guide growth as well as enhance other local efforts such as economic development.

Partners: County or local governments would be the driving force behind sewer projects.

Funding Sources: A potential funding source for infrastructure upgrades in support of affordable housing is the Community Focus Fund (CFF) program from the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs.

Activity 6: Benchmarks Steps Task Date

1

Inventory infrastructure needs. Conduct needs assessment for infrastructure which supports:

• Affordable housing • Economic development

2007

2 Consider pursuing Community Focus Fund grant to address infrastructure needs in support of affordable housing. 2008


105

Action Plan: Implementation Schedule

Tasks 2006 2007 2008 2009

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Hold initial meeting. Establish ties with regional, state and federal entities. Initiate homeownership counseling program. Prioritize further housing initiatives and pursue grants.

Activity 1

Hold subsequent meetings quarterly. Inventory Existing Education Opportunities Begin Resource Development Campaign

Begin Promotional Efforts If Necessary, Obtain Staff Training

Activity 2

Hold Homeownership Education Sessions



106

Tasks 2006 2007 2008 2009

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Determine Neighborhoods in Need Determine Funding Mechanism(s)

Recruit Volunteers Begin Promotional Campaign

Issue Loans or Grants

Activity 3

Assess Program

Identify Developers Apply for and Conduct Feasibility Study Apply for Tax Credits or Grants for Construction Select Developer / Operator

Break Ground

Activity 4

Begin Promotional Campaign

Open to Residents


107


Tasks 2006 2007 2008 2009

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Study initiatives to increase availability of modestly priced homes. Seek professional advice for chosen initiatives

Activity 5

Implement at least one strategy. Inventory infrastructure needs Activity 6

Identify Local Sponsors


108

Current Housing Delivery System Table 35 describes the current housing delivery system. The list includes agencies and organizations that are currently involved in local housing programs. Table 36 summarizes some of the previous housing projects that have taken place.

Table 35. Harrison County Housing Delivery System

Type of Service Organization LifeSpan Resources Blue River Services

Special Needs Populations LifeSpring

Center for Women & Families South Harrison School Corp. Harrison County Community Services American Red Cross

Haven House Services Hedden House Services

Homeless & Emergency Assistance

Hoosier Hills PACT

Blue River Services Habitat for Humanity Affordable Housing

Lincoln Hills Development Corp.

Blue River Services Hedden House Services Harrison County Community Services Haven House Services Transitional Services

Center for Women & Families

Salvation Army Harrison County W.I.C. Harrison County Community Services Township Trustees Human Service Assistance

Division of Family & Children

Table 36. Previous Housing Projects Entity Year Activity # of Units

Harrison County 1993 Homeownership Counseling/ Down Payment Assistance 25

Town of Lanesville 1994 Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation 12

Harrison County 1994 Homeownership Counseling/ Down Payment Assistance 36

Harrison County 1997 Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation 14

Blue River Services 2001 Homeownership Counseling/ Down Payment Assistance 49

Lincoln Hills Dev. Corp. 2001 Rental – New Construction 10


109

Public Participation Process This housing needs assessment and the accompanying strategy and action plan was developed, and in large part directed by the Harrison County public. From a community survey to public meetings, Harrison County residents shared their experiences and perceptions on housing issues. Successful implementation of these strategies will require the same level of public involvement. The public participation plan will be executed on several different fronts. Different means of participation will include regular media coverage, public meetings for grant applications, public meetings when a particular initiative has a direct impact on a neighborhood, and through existing public participation avenues within existing organizations and government entities. Media coverage will be critical to convey these new housing initiatives to the entire county. The Harrison County Housing Task Force will need to issue media releases when any significant step in this action plan is taken. Examples of significant steps include when an entity pursues or is awarded a grant, when a construction or rehabilitation project is approved or begins, or when a public meeting is to be held. Media releases will not be purely informational but will attempt to gather feedback from the public. Public meetings will also be an important component of participation. Many grant applications will require that public input be gathered on the proposed project prior to submission. Additionally, public meetings will be very important when a particular project such as a new affordable housing development or housing rehabilitation program will have an impact on a specific population or neighborhood. Perhaps the greatest public input will be gathered from existing service providers. Each strategy outlined above will be led by one or more existing organization or entity such as a CHDO, the Community Action Agency, or local unit of government. Each of these groups have regular board or commission meetings which are advertised and open for public participation. Most of these organizations are governed by a board of directors with significant representation from low-income residents. These existing venues for public input will be valuable. Local Governing Body & Task Forces The successful creation of a broad and committed Harrison County Housing Task Force will be the most important activity which results from this needs assessment. The task force will provide a strong signal that the community plans to address housing issues in a coordinated fashion. The task force will primarily consist of representatives from housing, social service and governmental organizations as well as private stakeholders such as banks, utilities and realtors. The accompanying strategy and action plan will serve as the initial blueprint for this group.


110

In addition to being represented on the housing task force, the local governing bodies will play a vital role in addressing the county’s housing issues. An initiative such as infrastructure improvements or possible housing incentives falls squarely within the purview of local government. However, local government will also play a vital role in the implementation of each initiative, whether through permitting and zoning, supporting or pursuing grant applications on behalf of other organizations, or pledging resources. Public involvement, particularly from low income residents, will be crucial to implementing the task force’s goals. Each quarterly task force meeting should be open to the public and legally noticed in the local news paper. In addition, many of the organizations that will participate in the task force operate in the public sphere. Many of the organizations have low income residents represented on their board of directors as well as have regular meetings which are open to public comment.

Appendix

Harrison County, Indianaindianahci.org/downloads/corydon/hc-housing-needs... · 2015. 3. 19. ·...

Documents

Transcript of Harrison County, Indianaindianahci.org/downloads/corydon/hc-housing-needs... · 2015. 3. 19. ·...