Loading...
4_Green and Healthy Homes InitiativeGreen & Healthy Homes Initiative Mike Tertinger, Becky Soglin, Zach Panoff, Brian McDonough, Linnea Graffunder, Haoran Du, Andy Berg, Elizabeth Eiseman Spring 2012 Mao rrq*ce on the Mississippi L THE MIli UNIVERSITY OF IOWA School of Urban & Regional Planning / \ COMMUNITY FOUNDATION of Greater Dubuque Repair an Rehab Remove Lead Paint Green and Healthy Homes Improve Energy - Efficiency Project Goals Help Dubuque evaluate and expand the program 1 I Identify how to make the program lasting Fall Recommendations Streamline intake process I Integrate GHHI data with other systems Set standards for health and energy - efficiency gain Spring Focus (Priority Model • Efficient use of resources • Proactive process Landlords and Renters • Increased participation • Economic feasibility (Lasting Program • Innovative funding • Interdepartmental cooperation • Participant outreach Methodology • Gathered data sources for priority model • Found models for our model • Expert consultation • Literature review and case studies • Expert interviews • Other GHHI sites interviews • Review — Department of Energy Building Better Neighborhoods Program — Delta Redevelopment Corporation fignap Housenew Incoma Lows Ctlastvip.sx.) ner Mad.. -I-- Mof CriMsd tqL141.0.110Tem AO IT SIM Encraberallimutulsla liousine cowl Burtl.”4 Lewd san.2 Lw. limuishsklabsildrad Colas, Hon pr SO Ft Illvettl Wend CI Ea. ova.. —Atm.., so. Priority Model Map Output — UI Team Weightings GHHI Priority Model Group Weighting Legend Major Roads City of Dubuque Boundary Priority Score 0.0 - 25.0 25.1 - 50.0 -501.70.0 70.1 -1000 Map Created by U -Iowa GHHI Team April 18, 2012 1 Model Methodology Step 1 - Identify and gather applicable datasets for use as model variables * Step 2 — Set variable rankings * b- Step 3 - Assign weighted values to each variable a p Step 4 - Run the model / Retest with alternate weightings * Step 5 - Spatially demonstrate locations with greatest need Socio- Economic Housing Demographic Utilities Health Socio- Economic GHHI Priority Model Housing Demographic Utilities Health Median Income Cost Burdened Households Population Living in Poverty Half -Rate Refuse and Storm water Fee Households Housing Condition Ratings Age of Housing Population Age 65 and Older Population Age 10 and Younger Electricity Usage Radon Levels Socio- Economic Median Income Cost Burdened Households Population Living in Poverty 1 Half-Rate Refuse and Storm water Fee Households Utilities Housing Conditions Ratings 1 J J Age of Housing Stock Population Age 65 and Older Population Age 10 and Younger Electricity Usage Radon Levels > 50% Cost Burdened 25 to 50% Cost Burdened 10.1 to 24.9% Cost Burdened < 10 % Cost Burdened Population Living in Poverty Housing Conditions Ratings l Median Income Cost Burdened Households Half -Rate Refuse and Stormwater Fee Households 1 1 1 1 J Age of Housing Stock l Population Age 65 and Older Population Age 10 and Under Electricity Usage L Radon Levels > 50% Cost Burdened 25 to 50% Cost Burdened 10.1 to 24.9% Cost Burdened < 10% Cost Burdened 100 75 50 25 Median Income Cost Burdened Households Population Living in Poverty Half -Rate Refuse and Storm water Fee Households Housing Conditions Ratings Age of Housing Stock Population Age 65 and Older 1 Population Age 10 and Under Electricity Usage Radon Levels 13.0% > 50% Cost Burdened 25 to 50% Cost Burdened 10.1 to 24.9% Cost Burdened < 10% Cost Burdened 100 f 75 50 25 GHHIPriorit Model Ranking Weighting UI team Category Variables Classification Socio-Economic Median Household Income < Median Household Income 100 11.1% > = Median Household Income 0 Cost - Burdened Households > 50% Cost Burdened 100 13.0% 25 to 50 % Cost Burdened 75 10.1 to 24.9% Cost Burdened 50 < 10 % Cost Burdened 25 Population Living In Poverty > 35 % 100 11.7% 18.5 to 35% 75 10.0 to 18.4% 50 3.3 to 9.9 % 25 <3.3% 0 Refuse and Stormwater Half Rate Program Households Participating 100 7.8% Non - Participating 0 Housing Housing Condition Rating Below Average 100 7.1% Average 50 Above Average 0 Age of Housing 1945 or Older 100 11.7% 1946 to 1978 50 1979 to Present 0 Demographic Population Age 65 & Older >30.8% 100 9.1% 15.9 to 30.8 % 75 9.9 to 15.8 % 50 <9.8% 25 Population Age 10 & Younger > 17.2 / 100 11.1 % 11.8 to 17.2 % 75 7.4to11.7% 50 <7.3% 25 Utilities Electricity Consumption > Average Monthly kwh/sgft Consumption 100 11.1 % < = Average Monthly kwh/sgft Consumption 0 Health Radon Level Zip code 52003 - 42% Testing Above 4.0 100 6.5% Zip code 52001 - 38% Testing Above 4.0 90 Zip code 52002 - 33% Testing Avove 4.0 80 100.0% Priority Classifications • Below average block group median household income • Greater than 50% of a block group is cost - burdened • Greater than 35% of a block group living in poverty • Participation in Refuse and Stormwater Half -Rate Program • Below average housing condition ratings • Housing stock older than 1945 • Greater than 30.8% of block group population over the age of 65 • Greater than 17.2% of block group population under the age of 10 • Greater than average electricity consumption • Zip code with highest levels of radon Priority Model Map Output — UI Team Weightings GHHI Priority Model Group Weighting Legend Major Roads City of Dubuque Boundary Priority Score 0.0 - 25.0 25.1 - 50.0 -501.70.0 70.1 -1000 Map Created by U -Iowa GHHI Team April 18, 2012 1 Priority Model Results • 17% of Dubuque falls within cells showing Moderate (14.3 %) or High Priority (2.5 %) Category Very Low 23.8% Low 59.4% Moderate 14.3% High 2.5% GHHI Priority Model Legend Major Roads City of Dubuque Boundary Priority Score 0 -25 25.1 -50.0 I 1 50_1 -70_0 70.1 - 100 Map Created by U -Iowa GHH I Team April 18, 2012 Broadway Extended k - 4_ '4 i'g hbo rh o:a. A Point. Neighborhood !RiA c 4 0 Sfl;7 Na1jGkoh ©SILLtSZ 11 J 1aj,ifJ1)mhe GHHI Priority Model Legend Major Roads City of Dubuque Boundary Priority Score 0 -25 n 25.1 - 50.0 F-1 50.1 -70.0 70.1 -100 Map Created by U -Iowa GHHI Team April 18, 2012 Model Results & Historic Districts GHHI Priority Model Historical Preservation Legend Major Roads City of Dubuque Boundary QHistoric Preservation Priority Score 1 -1 0 -25.0 25.1 - 50.0 50.1 -70.0 70.1 - 100 I I Map Created by U -Iowa GHHI Team April 18. 2012 I •t Category Very Low Low Moderate of Category Cells Within Historic Districts 0% 1% 4% 6% a •. Dubuque Millworking trust m Main f Model Results & Floodplains GHHI Priority Model Legend Major Roads City of Dubuque Boundary In Floodplain Priority Score o - 25 25.1 - 50.0 50.1 - 70.0 ® 70.1 100 Map Created by U -Iowa GHHI Team April 18, 2012 s Category Very Low Moderate % of Category Cells within Floodplain 9% Low 12% 7% High 16% I Broadway -- tense I�a�rt?U]=i c .fl] r r • Ar ±d T1 0.125 0.25 Miles Priority Model: Recommendations 1. Localized outreach effort based on the model output: block -by -block 2. Incorporate the model results into funding requests: competitive advantage 3. Use Priority Model alongside Quick App form: greater efficiency in project prioritization 4. Floodplains: Prioritize homes outside the floodplain Historic Districts: Careful consideration of GHHI resources for contributing homes 1 Renters and Landlords Matter Many low- income households live in rental housing L___ Little power to improve conditions Landlords with low- income tenants: eligible but low participation Supply side Reluctance to invest in upgrades "Split Incentive" Demand side Renters may not understand GHHI benefits Insights from Case Studies Residential Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure Ordinance (Austin, Texas) • Point -of -sale encourages energy- efficiency upgrades Rental Weatherization Program (State of Wisconsin) A A A A • Requires energy- efficiency standards for rental properties at point -of -sale Insights from Case Studies Performance -based rental system (Brooklyn Center, Minnesota) • Regulatory attention for non - compliant landlords • Longer inspection cycles for compliant landlords SmartRegs (Boulder, Colorado) • Energy- efficiency rental housing codes • RentSmart database directs renters to efficient rentals Suggested Cod Jpdates International Property Maintenance Code • Most up -to -date and specific requirements for safety and health • State of Iowa has adopted GHHI -type Energy Efficiency Code • Complementary to IPMC • Ensures baseline energy - efficiency for cost - savings and resource conservation • Several options for compliance (HERS or prescriptive) Scenario 1: Baseline Economically Feasible? Yes! No Upgrades SmartCodes / No Value Impact %Change Premium Present Value of Property $643,241 Net Present Value analysis of impact of new regulations 4 scenarios (plus baseline) GHHI Investment: Scenario 2: SmartCodes / No No Upgrades Value Impact %Change SmartCode U • :rade with No Rent Premium Premium Present Value of Property $643,241 $569,457 •$73,784 Scenario 3: No Upgrades SmartCodes With Value Impact %Change SmartCode U trades with 15% Rent Premium Premium Present Value of Property $643,241 $644,755 $1,515 0% cenario 4: HHI with No Rent Premium No Upgrades GHHI / No Premium Value Impact %Change Present Value of Property $643,241 $639,422 - $3,818 -1% cenario 5: HHI with 5% Rent Premium No Upgrades GHHI With Premium Value Impact %Change Present Value of Property $643,241 $680,104 $36,864 6% — Upgrades happen sooner — Budget neutral or better — Can preserve affordability — Landlords can charge slightly more rent in proportion to the utility cost savings Rental /Landlord Recommendations 1 1. Combine incentives and regulation • Create a green and healthy inspired performance- based rental system • Coupled with point -of -sale requirements for owner - occupied housing 2. Provide marketing assistance to landlords who make upgrades • Supplements performance -based program Rental /Landlord Recommendations 3. Increase renter awareness and demand • City should actively raise consumer awareness • Benefits of living in an energy- efficient and healthy unit 4. Update the housing code and adopt new energy - efficiency code • Adopt International Property Maintenance Code • Adopt an energy- efficiency code Interdepartmental Collaboration Recommendations Project leader Streamline data collection Flexible funding options Innovative Funding Recommendations Local institutions — loan products (Credit enhancement fund Monitor state legislation Outreach Recommendations LTrack first point of contact [Use public commitments [eve rage traditional and new media i ~:1 S 11 J .11...,..- „,,,F,, I I.... ,.. , , , ,:. .„ , . A t.%ir, ,,, ' -7,0. II Itt • it i. ... ter. , _ , seas a �n4iif- h �t i M t i..�. lei