County of Grey Housing Study PHASE 1: Demand and Supply Analysis
N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited
July 2010
Condominium Market Analysis 1
Bennett Jones LLP NBLC Docket#: 09-2237 January 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 Report Structure ...... 2 2.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 3 2.1 Provincial Policy Statement 2005...... 3 2.2 County of Grey Official Plan ...... 3 2.3 Local Official Plans ...... 5 3.0 DEMOGRAPHIC, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC OVERVIEW ...... 9 3.1 Population...... 9 3.2 Housing ...... 13 3.3 Employment & Jobs ...... 17 3.4 Income ...... 19 4.0 MARKET CONTEXT ...... 26 4.1 Recent Development Activity ...... 26 4.2 Active Market ...... 27 4.3 Resale Market ...... 28 4.4 Dwelling Values ...... 30 4.5 Rental Market ...... 32 4.6 Housing Forecast ...... 33 4.7 Existing Housing Supply ...... 34 5.0 HOUSING TYPES ...... 36 5.1 Affordable Housing ...... 36 5.2 Social Housing ...... 37 6.0 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ...... 38 6.1 Grey County ...... 38 6.2 Local Municipalities ...... 40 7.0 SOCIAL HOUSING ...... 49 7.1 Overview ...... 49 7.2 Grey County Housing ...... 49 7.3 Independent Social Housing ...... 51 7.4 Other Social Housing Programs ...... 54 8.0 FUTURE DEMAND ...... 56 8.1 Trends & Influences Affecting Affordable & Social Housing Demand ...... 56 8.2 Affordable Housing ...... 58
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 8.3 Social Housing ...... 59 8.4 Other Housing ...... 60 9.0 SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS & ISSUES ...... 61 Appendix A – Georgian Bluffs ...... 66 Appendix B – Owen Sound ...... 68 Appendix C – Meaford ...... 70 Appendix D – Grey Highlands ...... 72 Appendix E – West Grey...... 74 Appendix F – Hanover ...... 76 Appendix G – Southgate ...... 78 Appendix H – Chatsworth ...... 80 Appendix I – The Blue Mountains ...... 82
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From a housing perspective the County of Grey is one of the most diverse communities in Ontario, with housing that caters to the most affluent buyers in Canada to housing for the most disadvantaged. The community is equally diverse in terms of demographics, employment, incomes and housing markets. As a result, there is a broad scope of issues related to housing affordability and supply in the County. Issues of housing affordability and supply range from the extreme in The Town of The Blue Mountains, due to the significant disconnect between household incomes and housing prices; to those of less concern in the Town of Hanover, due to the relatively low cost of housing and its large rental supply. The supply of social housing in the County is comparatively large compared to most proximate service providers, with the bulk of units one and two bedrooms located in the City of Owen Sound. However, there exists a comparatively small amount of social housing units in the Township of Georgian Bluffs and the Township of Chatsworth, as well as a limited supply of larger, family- orientated units. This very wide range of issues is unique in Ontario and presents unique policy challenges to the County in guiding the supply of housing and, in particular, ensuring an adequate supply of affordable, quality accommodation. This challenge is particularly acute as we expected that the demand for affordable and social housing throughout the County will increase at a rate in excess of the forecast population and housing growth. This increased demand is expected to be the result of limited employment and income growth in the County, combined with the continued growth of the real estate market, primarily a result of those moving into the County to retire and the continued attraction of the region for secondary/recreational purposes. This report provides the technical background for the Phase Two report, which includes: A summary of the housing profile of the County; Ownership and rental housing maximum affordable value targets for the County of Grey; Ownership and rental housing maximum affordable value targets for each of the local municipalities; An assessment of the existing affordable housing supply shortages or surpluses for each of the local municipalities; An overview of the existing social housing supply and trends in the County; and, An estimate of forecast future affordable and social housing needs, as well as the most suitable criteria for how new units should be distributed or targeted towards local municipalities. Using the data and analysis contained in this report, the Phase Two report will provide a detailed assessment of policies and programs to be utilized by the County to meet all future affordable, social and other housing demand.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 1 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited (NBLC) was retained by the County of Grey to prepare a Housing Needs Study. The purpose of the housing study is twofold: to provide the County with a base set of data related to housing in the County; and, to conform to the new housing policies set out under the County’s recently updated Official Plan (OPA No. 80), which among other things, addresses the potential need of the County or local municipalities to undertake a Housing Study in order to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with affordable housing. The Housing Needs Study is comprised of two phases: Phase One examines the housing supply and demand in the County, addressing both each individual local municipality and the County as a whole, concluding with identified existing or future housing needs in the County. Stemming from Phase One, Phase Two provides detailed recommendations on policies, programs and strategies to address any housing issues that arise from the Phase One report. This report constitutes Phase One of the County of Grey Housing Needs Study.
1.1 Report Structure The report structure is as follows: Examination of relevant existing or emerging provincial, county and local planning policies; Analysis of the demographic, housing and economic profile for the County, relying primarily on Statistics Canada census data. An overview of the current housing market and supply in the County, looking at actively marketing residential projects, resale data, rental market information, development applications, and other housing types in the County. Based on discussions relating to income and housing prices, provide a detailed analysis of ownership and rental housing affordability in the County and each local municipality. An overview of the social housing supply in the County, looking not only at those units administered and owned by Grey County Housing, but all other providers as well. The report concludes with commentary on existing housing needs/issues throughout the County, as well as those that are likely to exist in the future.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 2 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 2.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK It is important to acknowledge relevant in-place and emerging planning policy and guidelines at the provincial, regional and local level, as they relate to housing in the County of Grey County.
2.1 Provincial Policy Statement 2005 The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS) was enacted in March 2005, under Section Three of the Provincial Planning Act. The PPS outlines a number of policy directions related to growth management and land-use planning, including residential intensification, and a mix of housing types by unit type and affordability. Under Section 1.4, the PPS provides some key relevant policy directions, including the following: 1.4.3 Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by: a) Establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities may indentify a higher target(s) which represent the minimum target(s) for those lower-tier municipalities: b) Permitting and facilitating: 1. All forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and, 2. All forms of residential intensification and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3. c) ..n/a d) ..n/a e) Establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.
2.2 County of Grey Official Plan The County of Grey Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) in March 1998. In 2001, the towns, townships and villages in Grey County amalgamated to form the nine existing local municipalities in the County; including the inclusion of the City of Owen Sound and the Town of Hanover. The County of Grey Official Plan includes a number of relevant policies and goals related to housing, including ensuring that there is a variety of housing and development opportunities within designated Settlement Areas, encouraging the maintenance of affordable housing in Grey County, and ensuring that there are a range of alternative locations, forms and densities of housing and price ranges for all residents of the County.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 3 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 The County of Grey recently conducted a five year review of its Official Plan (OP). In March, 2009, Official Plan Amendment No 80 (OPA 80) was adopted by County Council and is currently awaiting approval of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. One of the more significant amendments to the older Official Plan included in OPA 80 is the inclusion of more detailed policies concerning housing and affordability in the County, including the inclusion of a specific Housing Policies section. The following are the most pertinent goals and policies contained in Official Plan Amendment No. 80: 1.5 Objectives 7. Ensure sufficient lands have been identified for development to accommodate a variety of mixed housing and employment opportunities to meet current and future needs. 8. Strengthen the role of Grey County as a desirable place to work, live and visit encouraging the provision of affordable, diverse and accessible housing and by promoting the provision of adequate social, recreational, cultural, health and educational services. 1.7 Growth Management Population in the County is expected to increase by 21,000 between 2006 and 2026, while the number of households is expected to increase by 11,400. Furthermore, a total of 69% of total residential unit growth or 7,900 units are targeted for designated Settlement Areas, ranging from 40% in Chatsworth to 100% in Owen Sound and Hanover. 1.8 Housing Policy It is a policy of the County to encourage a wide variety of housing by type, size and tenure to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents of the County. These policies may be elaborated upon within local municipal official plans. The County supports: a) Intensification and redevelopment, primarily within Settlement Areas, and within other areas where an appropriate level of physical and social services are available subject to the policies of Section 5.3. In this regard the County will require that the intensification targets as set out in Table 7 be met.
b) The provision of alternative forms of housing for special needs groups, where possible. Special needs groups may include, but are not limited to, seniors, physically or mentally challenged and low income earners;
c) The maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock. This will be encouraged through local maintenance and occupancy standards by-laws;
d) The utilization of available programs and/or funding, if any, from applicable levels of government for assisted housing for households, including those with special needs, as well as programs to rehabilitate older residential areas; and
e) Housing accessible to lower and moderate income households. In this regard, accessory apartments, semi-detached, duplex, townhouse and low rise apartment units will provide the bulk of affordable housing opportunities and will likely be provided within settlement areas with appropriate levels of servicing being available.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 4 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 The County will encourage local municipalities and the building and development industry to develop innovative housing designs that stress flexibility in use, mix of compatible land uses, good environmental practices, and public safety to maintain a mix of housing by both type and tenure. Local official plans shall include policies and designations to implement the policies of this Plan and the following: i) Appropriate criteria for intensification and redevelopment including site plan provisions, locational and land use compatibility criteria; ii) Policies to permit the conversion of larger single detached dwellings into multiple units; iii) Policies to preserve, improve, rehabilitate or redevelop older residential areas; and policies which permit, subject to appropriate criteria and conditions, apartments in houses. The County and/or local municipalities may undertake a Housing Study in order to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal effectively with affordable housing. 2.6.2 General Policies Affecting Settlement Area Designations (1) Local Official Plans, Secondary Plans, Plans of Subdivision and Condominium Plans shall ensure a proper and orderly street pattern, efficient use of services, and a variety of housing and development opportunities within designated Settlement Area designations.
(8) It is the policy of this Plan to encourage the maintenance of affordable housing in Grey County, ensuring there are a range of alternate locations, forms and densities of housing and price ranges for all residents of the County. The County has also set an intensification target of approximately 15% of residential growth to be located in Primary and Secondary Settlement Areas. Intensification includes: the redevelopment/reuse of brownfield land; the development of vacant/underutilized lots within previously developed areas; infill development; and, the expansion or conversion of existing buildings.
2.3 Local Official Plans Most municipalities in the County have their own Official Plan, with the exceptions of Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs (not including the former Sarawack Township) which rely on the County’s Official Plan for guidance related to planning matters. Under Section 27.1 of the Planning Act, local Official Plans must conform to the County’s (Upper Tier) Official Plan. The following provides a review of any policies contained in local Official Plans related to housing, as well as highlights any policies that may negatively impact on the provision of various housing types.
2.3.1 The Town of The Blue Mountains Official Plan Developed in the early 2000`s, the Towns Official Plan does not provide a strategy for assessing and addressing specific housing needs, nor does it adequately acknowledge the limited affordability of housing to low and medium income households. The Plan therefore provides limited opportunities for medium and higher density (more affordable housing types) in many areas of the Town. Examples of this include: Lands designated Recreational Residential (RR), which includes large areas in Craigleith and Camperdown, allow single detached and townhomes but with permitted densities of no more than 5 units per hectare.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 5 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 No residential units are permitted within Village Commercial (VC) designations where live-work and other innovative housing forms may be viable. Height limits are limited to three stories in the majority of the Town which makes the feasibility of apartments challenging. The intent of the policies relating to the Thornbury Urban Community are to maintain the Community’s low (height) profile and low density feel. Residential uses permitted in the Commercial areas of Thornbury are permitted only as accessory functions and are restricted to bachelor and 1-bedroom forms. Most importantly, the plan provides no direction in terms of maintaining an appropriate mix of housing types nor does it address housing affordability.
2.3.2 Township of Southgate’s Official Plan The Township of Southgate’s Official Plan was adopted by Council and approved by the County in 2006. The Township does not specifically provide policies for social or affordable housing development, but it does provide policies that encourage intensification and high density development. Under Section 3.2.1, one of the Township’s goals is: To provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities required to meet the current and future residents’ needs within the regional market area.
2.3.3 Municipality of West Grey’s Official Plan The Municipality of West Grey is made up of the Townships of Bentinck, Glenelg and Normanby, the former Village of Neustadt, and the former Town of Durham. The Town of Durham and the Village of Neustadt are the only areas in the Municipality to have Official Plans prior to amalgamation, approved in 1980. The Municipality of West Grey is currently awaiting the approval of the County’s Official Plan Amendment No. 80 by the province, in order to update its OP policies for the amalgamated municipality. Neither of the two Official Plans contains any relevant housing policies. The following policies constitute the bulk of the housing discussion in the two Official Plans: Section A.7 – Durham Official Plan Housing in sufficient quantities, of desirable types, and at reasonable cost be provided to meet the needs of future residents of the Town. Section C.2.4 – Neustadt Official Plan To encourage the provision of energy efficient housing in sufficient quantities, of desirable types, and at a reasonable cost, to meet the needs of future residents of the Village. Due to the existing planning mentality at the time of preparation, residential land-use designations in the two OPs are very much focused towards low density housing types, with medium and high density developments not permitted.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 6 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 2.3.4 Municipality of Meaford’s Official Plan The current Official Plan of the Municipality of Meaford was adopted by Council in 2003 and approved by the County in 2005. Under section A2.3.2 Strategic Objectives, the Official Plan encourages intensification and mix of housing types and further, under section B1.1 Urban Living Area, the municipality’s OP: Encourages the provision of a full range of housing opportunities to meet the Municipalities projected housing needs; and Promotes the efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure by creating the opportunity for various forms of residential intensification where appropriate. Section B1.1.9 Monitoring of Housing requires that a monitoring program by established by the Municipality to, among other things: a) Review historic housing production levels by location, type and tenure in the Urban Living Area; d) Identify the price of housing available on the market; and, e) Describe the location, spatial distribution, the amount and pricing of housing available for rent.
2.3.5 City of Owen Sound’s Official Plan The City of Owen Sound’s Official Plan was adopted by City Council and approved by the County in 2006, with amendments made in 2007. Owen Sound is the largest municipality in the County and has the largest number of social housing units and rental units in the County. As a result and due to the recent date of adoption of the Official Plan, the City’s Official Plan includes a number of policies that address housing and affordability, some of these policies include: Section 3.3.2.6 - Accommodate and encourage a broad range and mix of housing in terms of dwelling types, densities, tenure and cost for a diverse community; Section 3.5.2.7 - Provide and maintain a full range of housing, in terms of form, tenure and affordability, across the City’s neighbourhoods to meet current and future needs of residents; Section 4.2.5.1 - Housing designated for special groups, such as the elderly, physically or socially disadvantaged may be permitted in suitable locations within the Downtown Commercial designation; Section 5.1 East Bluffs Planning Area – The planning area should provide a range of housing types at varying price levels, but emphasis will be placed on providing affordable homes, generally complying with the provincial affordable housing guidelines. They City will assess proposals relative to providing affordable housing and approve appropriate development projects to ensure the objectives of this policy are achieved; Section 7.6.1.1 - It is the intent of this Plan to provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. Regional market area refers to an area, generally broader than a lower-tier municipality that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. An appropriate range of housing types and densities will be provided by maintaining:
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 7 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 a) The ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of ten years through residential intensification and redevelopment as well as having available lands designated and available for new residential development. b) Land suitably zoned and with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a three year supply of residential units available through intensification, redevelopment and in draft approved and registered plans. Section 7.6.1.4 – The City shall establish minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households; Section 8.2.2.4 - Community Improvement Plans shall be prepared and adopted to (e) encourage the construction of range of housing and the construction of affordable housing.
2.3.6 Township of Georgian Bluffs Currently the County of Grey Official Plan applies to areas within the geographic Townships of Keppel and Derby. The Sarawak Township area has its own OP in addition to the County OP. The outdate Sarawak OP provides little to no direction related to housing mix and affordability. However, the Township is in the process of developing its first Official Plan to guide the future development of the community. An Official Plan Background Study was recently completed on behalf of the Township of Georgian Bluffs. The background study, however, provides little guidance with regard to housing and affordability, only making recommendations related to “creative” housing types and the need to provide housing attractive to younger families and individuals.
2.3.7 Municipality of Grey Highlands Official Plan The Official Plan of Grey Highlands was adopted by council in July 2001 and was approved by the County in May 2002. The Official Plan includes a housing section, which among other things, states: b) The Municipality will promote the development of housing which is affordable for moderate and low-income households. c) The Municipality will encourage a wide variety of types and styles of housing appropriate to prevailing and anticipated demand. Housing will accommodate families, seniors, multiple and single occupants and those with specials needs.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 8 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 3.0 DEMOGRAPHIC, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC OVERVIEW This section provides a demographic, housing and economic profile for the County of Grey and its nine local municipalities, which include: City of Owen Sound, Township of Georgian Bluffs, Township of Chatsworth, Municipality of Meaford, Municipality of Grey Highlands, Municipality of West Grey, Township of Southgate, Town of Hanover and the Town of The Blue Mountains. Based primarily on Statistics Canada census data, this section is intended to provide a profile “snap-shot” of the County, to not only provide context for the latter sections of the report, but to also be used as a reference for the County and local municipalities, especially in measuring progress or change related to various planning and housing goals/targets.
3.1 Population As of 2006, the County of Grey’s population was roughly 92,400. As illustrated in Table 1, between 1996 and 2006 the County’s permanent population grew by 5.5% from 87,600 to 92,400, and by 3.7% between 2001 and 2006. This rate of growth, while positive, is considerably lower than the Provincial growth rate over the same time period, at over 13%, and neighbouring Simcoe County, at almost 28%. On the other hand, the populations of both Bruce County and Huron County both declined between 1996 and 2006. Table 1.
Local Permanent Population Distribution and Growth, County of Grey
Total Population Percentage Percentage 1996 2001 2006 Change 96-06 Change 01-06 County of Grey 87,621 89,073 92,411 5.5% 3.7% Town of The Blue Mountains 5,667 6,116 6,825 20.4% 11.6% Muncipality of Meaford 10,497 10,381 10,948 4.3% 5.5% City of Owen Sound 21,390 21,456 21,753 1.7% 1.4% Municipality of West Grey 11,499 11,741 12,193 6.0% 3.8% Municipality of Grey Highlands 8,620 9,196 9,480 10.0% 3.1% Township of Southgate 6,449 6,907 7,167 11.1% 3.8% Townshiop of Chatsworth 6,278 6,280 6,392 1.8% 1.8% Town of Hanover 6,965 6,869 7,147 2.6% 4.0% Township Georgian Bluffs 10,256 10,127 10,506 2.4% 3.7% Source: Statistic Canada The City of Owen Sound is by far the most populous municipality in the County, with nearly 22,000 people, representing nearly 25% of the County population. The Township of Chatsworth has the lowest population in the County, representing less than 7% of the County’s population. The nine local municipalities all experienced very different levels of population growth between 1996 and 2006. Despite having the second smallest population in the County, the Town of The Blue Mountains had the highest growth rate between 1996 and 2006 at 20.4%, as well as between 2001 and 2006 at 11.6%. The growth rates in the Town of The Blue Mountains are roughly double the rates of the next closest municipalities: Grey Highlands and Southgate.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 9 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
The high rates of growth in The Blue Mountains and Grey Highlands, and to a lesser degree Meaford, are due to their growing attraction to older age-groups as places to downsize and retire. The high rate of growth in Southgate, on the other hand, is due more to its proximity to other urban centres, including Shelburne, Orangeville and north-western GTA; attracting older age groups, as well as younger couples and families. It should be noted that the County has a significant number of non-permanent residents, who reside in the County on a seasonal or weekend basis. These people are largely attracted to the recreational opportunities related to Georgian Bay and the Niagara Escarpment. The largest concentrations of non-permanent population are in the Town of The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands, Meaford and Georgian Bluffs. Blue Mountain has one of the largest non-permanent populations in Southern Ontario and the largest in the County, with a non-permanent population estimated at over 9,000 people. It should be further noted, that a portion of the County’s non-permanent population likely live in the County on what would be considered a permanent basis but, due to how the census data is collected and how people respond to residency questions, is not accurately reflected in the Census data. This has significant implications related to the provision of services, taxation and future growth planning.
3.1.1 Age Profile The population of Grey County is relatively old, with a median age of 44 in 2006, compared to 39 in the Province and 40 in Simcoe County. As highlighted in Figure 1, the difference between the median of the Province and the County is due to the significantly higher proportion of those aged between 25 and 44 in the Province and the significantly higher proportion of those aged over 44 in the County. Figure 1
Source: Statistics Canada
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 10 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Not only is the County’s median age relatively old, but it is increasingly getting older. The median age in the County in 2001 was 41. As Table 2 highlights, the increasing median age in the County is due to the increase in the proportion of older age groups and the subsequent decrease in younger age groups. Table 2. Age Profile, County of Grey, 2001 & 2006 Population % of Population % growth 2001 2006 2001 2006 2001-06 Age 0-4 4,470 4,255 5.0% 4.6% -4.8% Age 5-14 11,850 10,955 13.3% 11.9% -7.6% Age 15-19 6,510 6,595 7.3% 7.1% 1.3% Age 20-24 4,495 5,145 5.0% 5.6% 14.5% Age 25-44 21,690 20,035 24.4% 21.7% -7.6% Age 45-54 13,600 14,920 15.3% 16.1% 9.7% Age 55-64 10,425 13,205 11.7% 14.3% 26.7% Age 65-74 8,900 9,170 10.0% 9.9% 3.0% Age 75-84 5,340 5,955 6.0% 6.4% 11.5% Age 85 and over 1,795 2,165 2.0% 2.3% 20.6% Total 89,075 92,400 100.0% 100.0% 3.7% Source: Statistics Canada 2001 & 2006 The 2006 median ages in the local municipalities ranged considerably, from a low of 39 in Southgate to a high of 51 in the Town of The Blue Mountains, with the median age in other municipalities ranging between 43 and 47. Despite this range, as Figure 2 shows, the age profiles for each of the local municipalities are relatively similar to one another and to the County as a whole. The five red circles in Figure 2 highlight specific points of interest, which are: All of the local municipalities have a lower proportion of their population aged 25-44 compared to the Province. Southgate has a comparatively high proportion of people aged 25-44 and 5-14, indicating that Southgate is attracting and retaining a larger proportion of families with children than other Grey County municipalities. Georgian Bluffs and the Town of The Blue Mountains have comparatively high proportions of those aged 55-64, and in the case of The Blue Mountains, aged 65-75. This is largely due to their attraction as places to retire or downsize. Finally, Hanover and Owen Sound have the largest proportions of those aged over 75. This is typical of larger, more urban areas, which generally have the services (i.e. hospitals, medical offices and transportation) required by older age groups, as well as where public and private nursing homes and/or long-term care facilities are more often located.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 11 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Figure 2.
Source: Statistics Canada Similar to the County, all of the local municipalities are experiencing an aging of their population, with older average median ages and increased proportions of the population aged over 55. The high median age in the County and the local municipalities, except for Southgate, and the aging of each population are due to three influences: 1) Demographic Shift. The largest existing demographic of the County (as well as the Province), referred to as “Baby Boomers” or those born between 1946 and 1966, is aging. As Figure 3 indicates, based on the forecasts included within the County’s Draft Official Plan, this aging will result in the proportion of the population aged over 55 to increase from 33% of the population in 2006 to almost 42% by 2031; Figure 3.
Source: Statistics Canada
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 12 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
2) The majority of immigrants moving to each of the local municipalities are comprised largely of older individuals and couples, typically over the age of 55; and, 3) All of the local municipalities are experiencing the outmigration of younger individuals and couples, primarily for reasons of employment or educational attainment. That is, not only are the proportions of younger age groups declining, but the actual physical number of people within these age groups is declining. As Table 3 shows, the population of the County aged 44 and under decreased by 1,900 or 4.4% between 2001 and 2006, with a decline in each of the municipalities. Unlike the previous two influences, which are common throughout the Province, the actual decline in population in these age groups is not, especially in southern Ontario. Table 3.
Decline in Younger Age-Groups (0-44), County of Grey 2001 -2006
Percentage Change 2001 2006 Change 2001-06 Grey County 43,750 41,830 -4.40% -1,920 Town of The Blue Mountains 2,835 2,820 -0.50% -15 Meaford* NA NA NA NA City of Owen Sound 12,105 11,375 -6.00% -730 Municipality of West Grey 6,395 6,235 -2.50% -160 Municipality of Grey Highlands 5,030 4,920 -2.20% -110 Township of Southgate 4,395 4,340 -1.30% -55 Townshiop of Chatsworth 3,650 3,370 -7.70% -280 Town of Hanover 3,725 3,620 -2.80% -105 Township Georgian Bluffs 5,615 5,150 -8.30% -465 Source: Statistic Canada: Census 2006 & 2001
3.2 Housing As of 2006, there were 37,200 permanent housing units in the County of Grey, an increase of 1,860 units or 5.3% from 2001. Housing growth outpaced population growth in the County between 2001 and 2006 due primarily to a decrease in average household size or people per unit (ppu).
3.2.1 Permanent vs. Non-Permanent Units Residential housing units in the County can be split into two categories, those occupied by permanent residents and those by non-permanent residents or seasonal/secondary dwellings. As Table 4 shows, there are over 7,200 non-permanent units in the County representing about 16% of the County’s total housing stock. The vast majority of non-permanent units are located in the Town of The Blue Mountains and Grey Highlands, which combined account for almost 60% of the County’s non-permanent housing supply. Not surprisingly, the primary urban areas of Owen Sound and Hanover have the fewest non- permanent units.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 13 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
It should also be noted that in the County as a whole, and a number of local municipalities, the proportion of permanent units is increasing, especially in the Town of The Blue Mountains. This is primarily the result of non-permanent units being converted to permanent residences either by their owners or as a result of seasonal units being sold to permanent buyers. Note: commercial- resort units (CRUs), such as those located at the base of the Blue Mountain ski resort, are not considered to be residential units of any type. Table 4. Permanent Residents vs Non-Permanent Residents, 2006 Occupied by Usual Proportion Occupied Total Private Dwelling Residents by Usual Residents 2001 2006 2001 2006 2001 2006 Grey County 42,396 44,387 35,325 37,169 83% 84% Town of the Blue Mountains 5,374 5,619 2,585 2,939 48% 52% Meaford 4,877 5,193 4,190 4,442 86% 86% Owen Sound 9,532 9,736 9,195 9,381 96% 96% West Grey 5,062 5,265 4,505 4,719 89% 90% Grey Highlands 4,855 5,142 3,555 3,687 73% 72% Southgate 2,665 2,801 2,415 2,564 91% 92% Chatsworth 2,627 2,742 2,230 2,366 85% 86% Hanover 3,005 3,192 2,900 3,044 97% 95% Georgian Bluffs 4,399 4,697 3,750 4,027 85% 86% Source: Statistic Canada: Census 2006 & 2001
3.2.2 Unit Type The County’s permanent housing supply is very much dominated by low-density housing forms, primarily single and semi-detached units. As of 2006, over 80% of all units in the County were in low density format. This is typical for smaller, more rural areas. In fact, one of the principle reasons people chose to live in such communities is their ability to live in larger residential units, with adequate indoor and outdoor space. Of the remaining units in the County, 14% are high density, apartment units and 5% are row units. This proportion of medium and high density units is slightly higher than neighbouring counties, such as Bruce and Huron. As Table 5 reveals, the relatively high proportion of higher density units in the County is almost entirely due to the primary urban areas of Owen Sound and Hanover, which combined account for 73% of the County’s apartment supply and 58% of the County’s row/townhouse supply. Urban areas, especially those that serve large surrounding rural areas, typically have a much higher proportion of higher density units because: they offer a greater selection of services and amenities typically necessary to support successful high density developments; they have a greater range of age-groups, incomes and family types, all with differing housing needs; and they have much larger rental stocks, which are typically comprised of higher density unit types. Outside of Owen Sound and Hanover, the Town of The Blue Mountains and Meaford have comparatively higher proportions of medium and high density units. This is due to the dominance of their primary urban areas, their growing attraction to older age groups whom do not require large unit types, and due to decreasing housing affordability, especially of larger unit types.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 14 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 5. Estimated Housing Supply by Type, 2006 Singles/Semis Row/Townhomes Apartments Total % Units Proportion Units Proportion Units Proportion Units Totals Town of the Blue Mountains 2,485 85% 235 8% 210 7% 2,930 7.83% Meaford 3,895 88% 205 5% 340 8% 4,440 11.86% Owen Sound 5,325 57% 875 9% 3,180 34% 9,380 25.05% West Grey 4,350 92% 120 3% 260 5% 4,730 12.63% Grey Highlands 3,370 92% 140 4% 165 4% 3,675 9.82% Southgate 2,455 96% 20 1% 95 4% 2,570 6.86% Chatsworth 2,295 97% 30 1% 45 2% 2,370 6.33% Hanover 2,085 69% 225 7% 730 24% 3,040 8.12% Georgian Bluffs 3,925 91% 40 1% 340 8% 4,305 11.50% Grey County 30,185 81% 1,890 5% 5,365 14% 37,440 100.00% Source: Statistics Canada 2006 3.2.3 Rental vs. Ownership Over 78% of all permanent housing units in the County are owned, which is typical of larger more rural areas, where due to the nature of the housing stock, lifestyle choices and affordability, the majority of people choose to own rather than rent. As Figure 4 shows, the proportion of ownership in the County would be higher were it not for the comparatively high proportion of rental tenure in Owen Sound and Hanover. Figure 4.
Source: Statistics Canada
3.2.4 Household Composition & Size As previously mentioned, the average household size or person per unit (ppu) in the County and each of the local municipalities is decreasing, having dropped in the County from 2.52 to 2.49 between 2001 and 2006. Locally, the lowest ppus are found in the two primary urban areas of Owen Sound (2.32) and Hanover (2.35), as well as the Town of the Blue Mountains (2.32). The low
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 15 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 ppus in Owen Sound and Hanover are a result of having more singles and couples without children and is reflective of their much higher proportions of smaller, higher density unit types. The Blue Mountains on the other hand has a low ppu due to the very high proportion of older individuals and couples, i.e. one and two person households. Despite having a significant inventory of single detached and semi detached homes, the majority of the households in the County have only one or two persons per home. As illustrated in Table 6, 64% of households are comprised of only one or two persons. Owen Sound and Hanover have the largest proportion of one person households and, along with Southgate, the lowest proportion of two person households. The proportion of households comprised of three or more people are relatively similar for all local municipalities. Table 6. Private Households by Number of Persons per Household, 2006 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 or more persons Units % Units % Units % Units % Town of the Blue Mountains 785 27% 1,275 43% 345 12% 380 11% Meaford 1,020 23% 1,925 43% 585 13% 700 14% Owen Sound 3,180 34% 3,275 35% 1,290 14% 1,185 12% West Grey 1,015 21% 1,920 41% 640 14% 825 14% Grey Highlands 815 22% 1,465 40% 525 14% 650 14% Southgate 510 20% 910 36% 370 14% 550 17% Chatsworth 440 19% 1,000 42% 335 14% 430 14% Hanover 965 32% 1,135 37% 375 12% 420 13% Geogian Bluffs 675 17% 1,765 44% 595 15% 705 15% County of Grey 9,405 25% 14,670 39% 5,060 14% 5,845 16% Source: Statistic Canada: Census 2006 3.2.5 Age of Housing Stock The existing housing stock in the County is relatively old, due primarily to the historic nature of some of the municipalities but also due to the relatively limited new housing growth that has taken place in the County in the past 15-20 years. In fact 50% of all owned dwelling and 60% of all rented units in the County were built prior to 1971. Less than 20% of owned dwelling and 9% of rented units in the County were built post-1991. The older nature of the rental housing supply in the County is due to the very limited amount of new, purpose-built, rental units being built in recent years throughout Ontario, due primarily to a disconnect between achievable rental rates and construction/maintenance costs. This is especially true in areas like Grey County, were rental rates are relatively low yet construction costs are somewhat uniform across the Province. The age of the rental housing stock in the County also hints to the fact that a large portion of rental units in the Town are likely of poor condition and in need of repair/upgrading. The local municipalities with the older ownership housing stocks are the two primary urban areas of Owen Sound and Hanover, while the local municipalities with the older rental housing stocks are Georgian Bluffs and Chatsworth. The municipality with the most recently constructed ownership housing is The Blue Mountains, while West Grey, Grey Highlands and Hanover have the most recently constructed rental housing stock.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 16 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 7. Period of Housing Construction, County of Grey, 2006 Municipality Before 1945 1946-1970 1971-1990 Post 1991 Owned Rent Owned Rent Owned Rent Owned Rent Chatsworth 775 80 240 60 785 30 390 0 Percentage 35% 47% 11% 35% 36% 18% 18% 0% Southgate 715 130 330 50 685 100 525 30 Percentage 32% 42% 15% 16% 30% 32% 23% 10% West Grey 1,345 305 635 130 1,090 170 915 130 Percentage 34% 41% 16% 18% 27% 23% 23% 18% Grey Highlands 1,125 205 475 90 895 95 715 80 Percentage 35% 44% 15% 19% 28% 20% 22% 17% Meaford 1,275 220 540 190 1,035 245 845 85 Percentage 35% 30% 15% 26% 28% 33% 23% 11% Owen Sound 2,220 1,265 1,380 1,050 1,475 1,270 525 185 Percentage 40% 34% 25% 28% 26% 34% 9% 5% The Blue Mountains 500 100 400 175 870 145 710 40 Percentage 20% 22% 16% 38% 35% 32% 29% 9% Hanover 515 240 635 275 580 365 245 165 Percentage 26% 23% 32% 26% 29% 35% 12% 16% Georgian Bluffs 775 115 745 115 1,465 55 750 0 Percentage 21% 40% 20% 40% 39% 19% 20% 0% County of Grey 9,245 2,660 5,380 2,135 8,880 2,475 5,620 715 Percentage 32% 33% 18% 27% 30% 31% 19% 9% Source: NBLC & Statistics Canada Census 2006 3.3 Employment & Jobs Table 8 provides the employment (labour force) for each of the local municipalities and the County, as well as the number of jobs in each of the local municipalities. Employment is the number of people within a given area that are employed regardless of where their job is located. Jobs on the other hand, refer to the number of jobs physically located in an area regardless of who performs them. In 2006, employment in the County was 48,400, an increase 3,200 or 7% from 2001. The 2006 participation rate in the County was 64%, slightly lower than the Province at 67%1. Local employment distribution in the County is similar to population distribution; with Owen Sound having the highest employment in the County, and Chatsworth the least. As Table 9 shows, the local participation rates in the County are all 60 and above. In 2006, the number of jobs in the County was 37,600. Therefore, as of 2006, there were almost 11,000 more people employed in the County than there were jobs located within the County, indicating that a large proportion of people commute outside of the County to work. The County’s 2006 activity rate was 41%2. For economic development, lifestyle and municipal revenue
1 Participation rate arrived at by dividing the labour force by the population aged over 15. Participation rates are a good gage of economic activity and health of an area, with rates above 60% preferred. 2 Activity rate is the number of jobs divided by total population.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 17 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 purposes, it is desirable to have as many, if not more, jobs than employment in a given area and an activity rate over 40%. Unlike employment, the number of jobs and the activity rates in each of the local municipalities ranged significantly. Not surprisingly, the primary urban areas of Hanover and Owen Sound have the largest number of jobs, combined accounting for over half of all jobs located in the County, as well as significantly more jobs than employment, making the two urban areas net importers of labour. The only other local municipality with high ratio of jobs to employment is the Town of The Blue Mountains, with almost the same number of jobs as employment. As Table 9 shows, the remaining local municipalities all have significantly higher rates of employment than jobs and very low activity rates, indicating that a large number of local residents commute outside of the municipality for work. Table 8. Employment & Jobs, Grey County, 2006 Total Population Participation Activity Employment Jobs Population over 15 Rate Rate Blue Mountains 6,825 5,835 3,575 61% 3,550 52% Meaford 10,948 9,245 5,830 63% 3,225 29% Owen Sound 21,753 17,445 10,565 61% 13,870 64% West Grey 12,193 9,960 6,650 67% 3,385 28% Grey Highlands 9,480 7,770 4,915 63% 3,400 36% Southgate 7,167 5,630 3,785 67% 1,380 19% Chatsworth 6,392 5,125 3,485 68% 1,335 21% Hanover 7,147 5,825 3,495 60% 5,005 70% Georgian Bluffs 10,506 8,855 6,060 68% 2,420 23% Grey County 92,411 75,690 48,365 64% 37,610 41% Source: Statistics Canada and NBLC As mentioned, a large portion of people in each of the local municipalities works outside of their municipality of residence. These people commute to other municipalities in the County and to areas outside of the County. Based on commuting and place of work data, some of the more significant centres of employment for Grey County residents include: Collingwood, Brockton, Toronto, Kincardine, Orangeville, Shelburne and Wellington North. It should be noted, that even those municipalities that have high activity rates experience out-commuting to other municipalities both within and outside Grey County, the only difference being that these municipalities receive an equal if not greater number of people commuting in from other municipalities to work. The choice to live and work in different municipalities can be based on numerous factors, including: lack of local employment opportunities; lack of well paying employment opportunities; differences in the quality of neighbourhoods or communities; family or historical ties to the community; lifestyle choice; and differences in housing affordability.
3.3.1 Employment & Jobs by Type In terms of employment, the largest industry sectors in the County are manufacturing, retail trade, health care and social assistance, and construction. For the most part, the dominate industry sectors in the local municipalities resemble those of the County, the only exceptions being: agriculture in West Grey, Chatsworth, Grey Highlands and Southgate; accommodation and food services in The
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 18 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Blue Mountains, Meaford and Owen Sound; and professional, scientific and technical services also in The Blue Mountains. There exist the same industry concentrations of job in the County as employment. The only significant difference in terms of proportion as well as actual numbers is that there is a much larger proportion of people employed in construction than there are construction jobs in the County. Furthermore, in terms of just actual numbers, there are significantly more people employed in agriculture, manufacturing, administrative support, health care, transportation and warehousing, and social assistance, as well as construction, than there are jobs in the County. Table 9 provides a comparison between employment and jobs in the County of Grey. Table 9. Employment & Jobs Located in County of Grey, by Industry, 2006 County of Grey Employment % of Total Jobs % of Total 11,21,22 Agriculture/resource-based/Utilities 3,735 7.7% 3,055 8.1% 23 Construction 4,180 8.6% 1,420 3.8% 31-33 Manufacturing 7,695 15.9% 5,885 15.6% 41 Wholesale trade 1,355 2.8% 915 2.4% 44-45 Retail trade 5,835 12.1% 5,270 14.0% 48-49 Transportation and warehousing 1,715 3.5% 1,015 2.7% 51 Information and cultural industries 820 1.7% 685 1.8% 52 -53 Finance, insurance and Real estate 1,940 4.0% 1,670 4.4% 54 Professional, scientific and technical services 2,175 4.5% 1,545 4.1% 55 Management of companies and enterprises 35 0.1% 25 0.1% 56 Administrative and support 2,090 4.3% 1,270 3.4% 61 Educational services 2,575 5.3% 2,065 5.5% 62 Health care and social assistance 5,685 11.8% 4,985 13.3% 71 Arts, entertainment and recreation 1,210 2.5% 1,110 3.0% 72 Accommodation and food services 3,220 6.7% 3,270 8.7% 81 Other services (except public administration) 2,360 4.9% 1,965 5.2% 91 Public administration 1,720 3.6% 1,460 3.9% Total 48,345 100.0% 37,610 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada
3.4 Income
3.4.1 Individual and Household Incomes As of 2006, the County’s average pre-tax individual income was $31,900 and median pre-tax individual income was $23,900, considerably lower than the average and median incomes of the province, at $38,100 and $27,000 respectively. The Town of the Blue Mountains had by far the highest average and median individual incomes in the county; while on the other hand, Chatsworth had the lowest average income at $27,700 and Owen Sound the lowest median income of $22,200. Household income levels follow the same patterns as individual incomes in the County of Grey. The County’s 2006 average household income of $62,500 and median income of $49,900 are also significantly lower than the average and median household incomes in Ontario. The Town of The
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 19 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Blue Mountains and the Township of Georgian Bluffs have by far the highest average and median household incomes in the County, while Owen Sound and Hanover have the lowest.
Table 10. Local Pre-Tax Incomes 2005
Household Individual Average Median Average Median Ontario $77,967 $60,455 $38,099 $27,258 Grey County $62,546 $49,912 $31,917 $23,914 Town of The Blue Mountains $79,691 $59,061 $41,088 $27,538 Meaford $63,478 $51,634 $31,863 $24,175 Owen Sound $51,952 $40,919 $29,093 $22,182 West Grey $60,366 $52,119 $29,810 $24,155 Grey Highlands $68,698 $51,771 $33,835 $23,963 Southgate $67,250 $56,710 $32,248 $24,061 Chatsworth $58,008 $50,647 $27,691 $22,546 Hanover $55,866 $44,771 $30,086 $23,579 Georgian Bluffs $75,355 $62,082 $35,567 $27,258 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 One of the provincial measures for both ownership and rental housing affordability is that households be affordable to low and moderate income households. Low and moderate income households are defined as the bottom 60th percentile of household income distribution in a regional market. As a result, a detailed special run of 2006 Census data was commissioned in order to determine the income in the County and each of the local municipalities for household income percentiles. A summary of this data is presented in Table 11.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 20 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 11. Estimated 2009 Total Household Income by Percentiles - Grey County, 2009 20th 30th 40th 50th 60th 80th Average Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Georgian Bluffs $ 80,208 $ 34,351 $ 43,765 $ 53,516 $ 66,080 $ 76,809 $ 107,180 The Blue Mountains $ 84,823 $ 26,477 $ 37,282 $ 49,362 $ 62,865 $ 77,272 $ 115,494 Southgate $ 71,581 $ 31,865 $ 40,397 $ 49,776 $ 60,362 $ 73,654 $ 99,801 Grey Highlands $ 73,122 $ 28,004 $ 34,813 $ 44,834 $ 55,105 $ 65,242 $ 102,169 Meaford $ 67,566 $ 27,642 $ 35,935 $ 45,767 $ 54,959 $ 63,963 $ 92,765 West Grey $ 64,254 $ 26,920 $ 34,689 $ 44,412 $ 55,475 $ 63,739 $ 94,826 Chatsworth $ 61,744 $ 27,349 $ 34,417 $ 45,161 $ 53,909 $ 66,551 $ 90,916 Hanover $ 59,465 $ 23,849 $ 31,066 $ 37,481 $ 47,654 $ 56,003 $ 83,508 Owen Sound $ 55,298 $ 21,031 $ 26,854 $ 35,522 $ 43,554 $ 53,513 $ 80,365 Grey County $ 66,574 $ 26,032 $ 33,951 $ 43,345 $ 53,126 $ 63,871 $ 94,075 Source: NBLC & Statistics Canada Similar to the average and median household and individual incomes at the local level, there is a significant range in the various percentile household incomes. For instance the bottom 30th percentile of households in Georgian Bluffs have an income of almost $44,000, compared to less than $27,000 in the City of Owen Sound, or the bottom 60th percentile of households in the Town of The Blue Mountains have an income of over $77,000 compared to $53,500 in the City of Owen Sound. Generally speaking, those municipalities with higher average incomes also have the higher household incomes for each of the household income percentiles. This data will be utilized and explored in further detail in the section of the report measuring housing affordability.
3.4.2 Resident vs. Job Income One important measure of an area’s economic strength and standing in a region, as well as being a useful tool in highlight specific housing affordability constraints, is to compare the incomes of those that physically live in an area to those that physically work in the same area. However, as Table 12 shows, there is actually very little difference between the individual incomes of those that work in the County of Grey to those that live in the County. The primary difference appears to be in the lower income ranges, were there is a larger portion of jobs in the County with annual incomes under $10,000, and a much larger proportion of people employed in the County with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 21 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 12.
Income Groups by Place of Work vs. Place of Residence, 2006
Grey County Jobs % Resident % Less than $10,000 8,610 22.9% 15,015 19.8% $10,000 - $19,999 5,895 15.7% 16,145 21.3% $20,000 - $29,999 6,035 16.0% 12,355 16.3% $30,000 - $39,999 5,435 14.5% 9,965 13.2% $40,000 - $49,999 3,530 9.4% 6,550 8.7% $50,000 - $59,999 2,060 5.5% 4,450 5.9% $60,000 + 4,155 11.0% 8,525 11.3% Total - With Income 35,720 95.0% 73,005 96.4% Without Income 1,885 5.0% 2,690 3.6% TOTAL 37,605 100% 75,695 100% Average Income $31,200 $31,917 Source: Statistics Canada 2006, Special Run Note: The number of people with incomes is not the same as the number of people in a municipal labour force. A number of people, primarily retired,that live in a certain municipality earn an income through government transfers, pensions, etc., but are not part of the labour force. Based on: the significant difference between the number of people employed in the County and the number that work in the County; the broad range of job types that make up the difference; and the similar incomes of those living and those working in the County, it can be concluded that the decision to work outside of the County is based more on overall job opportunities than it is on higher attainable incomes. At the local level significant differences between incomes exist. As Table 13 demonstrates, the resident population of certain municipalities, including The Blue Mountains, Georgian Bluffs, Southgate and West Grey, have incomes that are considerably higher than the incomes earned by those that actually physically work in each of these municipalities. For example, the average resident of the Town of the Blue Mountains earns almost $41,100, while the average person who works in the Town, earns just over $28,000. This is further evidence that a large portion of the population in these municipalities commute to work outside of the municipalities, generally for higher paying jobs. Only the Town of Hanover and the City of Owen Sound have resident incomes lower than the incomes of jobs located within their boundaries. This provides further evidence that these two municipalities are net importers of employment and that generally speaking, it is non-locals that are employed in the higher-paying jobs in these municipalities. Finally, the difference in the incomes of local jobs between the local municipalities is indicative of the types of jobs that are concentrated in each of the local municipalities. That is, the higher paying jobs in the County exist in the City of Owen Sound and Hanover, due primarily to their larger industrial, public administration and institutional sectors, whereas the majority jobs in the other municipalities are heavily concentrated in lower paying sectors, such as the service sector, tourism and agriculture.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 22 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 13. Average Income of Jobs and Residents, Grey County, 2006
Jobs Residents % with % with Average Average income < income < Income Income $30,000 $30,000 Georgian Bluffs $ 27,978 56.4% $ 35,567 51.9% The Blue Mountains $ 28,064 57.5% $ 41,088 51.7% Southgate $ 26,066 59.7% $ 32,248 55.2% Grey Highlands $ 30,318 60.7% $ 33,835 57.8% Meaford $ 29,998 57.1% $ 31,863 58.6% West Grey $ 24,925 56.4% $ 29,810 56.6% Chatsworth $ 24,030 58.1% $ 27,691 61.5% Hanover $ 30,818 58.0% $ 30,086 60.4% Owen Sound $ 35,915 48.9% $ 29,093 60.4% Grey County $ 31,246 54.6% $ 31,917 57.5% Source: Statistics Canada 2006, Special Run
3.4.3 Incomes by Age, Sex and Family Size In order to properly address income levels in any area, especially in relation to housing needs, it is important to acknowledge three other significant income variables: age, sex and family size. The earning power of individuals fluctuates over the course of one’s life, generally starting low in younger age groups and increasing over the prime income earning years before levelling off and the declining in older age, following retirement. As Table 14 shows, this trend is no different in the County of Grey, with those in the 45-64 age group having the highest incomes and those in the 15-24 age group the lowest. At the local level this trend, for the most part, also holds true. However, like other income variables, there exists a large difference between some of the local municipalities in all of the age groups, except the 15-24 age group. The relatively uniform income levels in the younger age group is due to the fact the individuals within this age group are generally employed in the same sort of jobs, i.e. service sector, regardless of location. It is only in the older age groups does it become apparent that certain municipalities are attracting higher income earners, both working age and at retirement age, i.e. The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands and Georgian Bluffs. Regardless of the local differences, relating to housing affordability, it is clear that those individuals that are likely to have the hardest time affording to own or rent are the younger and older age groups.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 23 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 14. Individual Income by Major Age Group, County of Grey, 2006 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Average West Grey $12,172 $36,340 $33,378 $25,365 $29,810 Southgate $9,996 $39,352 $38,678 $23,128 $32,248 Grey Highlands $10,579 $37,288 $40,920 $31,369 $33,835 Hanover $11,552 $34,177 $38,150 $25,796 $30,086 Chatsworth $9,534 $30,925 $33,196 $23,634 $27,691 Blue Mountains $10,356 $41,330 $51,386 $38,304 $41,088 Meaford $10,089 $36,389 $38,553 $28,987 $31,863 Georgian Bluffs $10,964 $40,137 $42,427 $30,636 $35,567 Owen Sound $10,214 $31,673 $35,154 $28,544 $29,093 Grey $10,630 $35,724 $38,558 $28,840 $31,917 Source: Statistics Canada As is the case in most municipalities in Ontario, the average individual income for males in the County of Grey is considerably higher than females. Despite there being less of a gender income difference than the Province, it is worth acknowledging that females earn 32% less than males in the County; ranging from as high as 39% in Georgian Bluffs to as low as 24% in Grey Highlands. Table 15.
Pre-Tax Individual Incomes by Sex, Grey County, 2006
Average % Male Female Difference Ontario $46,962 $29,712 -36.7% Grey County $38,186 $25,857 -32.3% Town of The Blue Mountains $49,323 $33,196 -32.7% Meaford $38,211 $25,637 -32.9% Owen Sound $34,135 $24,731 -27.5% West Grey $35,299 $24,181 -31.5% Grey Highlands $38,451 $29,139 -24.2% Southgate $39,662 $24,463 -38.3% Chatsworth $32,683 $22,495 -31.2% Hanover $37,504 $23,688 -36.8% Georgian Bluffs $43,938 $26,810 -39.0% Source: Statistics Canada 2006
As Table 16 indicates, lone parent families in Ontario and throughout Grey County have considerably lower incomes than the average family, whom often have two income earners. Not only is the difference between all families and lone parent families significant, but lone parent families in the County, much like average household and individual incomes, earn considerably less than the Provincial average. Finally, reflective of the difference in average incomes between males and females, the average income of lone parent families headed by a female in the County are less than the average lone parent family, as well as also being far less than the Provincial average.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 24 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 16.
Average Family Incomes - Lone Parent, 2006
All Lone Parent Female Lone Families Family Parent Family Ontario $90,526 $52,555 $49,053 Grey County $73,210 $42,731 $40,598 Town of The Blue Mountains $96,343 $56,292 $57,495 Meaford $72,126 $40,203 $39,916 Owen Sound $63,531 $36,833 $35,128 West Grey $68,872 $41,318 $39,234 Grey Highlands $78,987 $49,999 $43,851 Southgate $75,306 $58,888 $56,850 Chatsworth $64,364 $49,318 $44,819 Hanover $68,014 $40,968 $39,383 Georgian Bluffs $84,333 $44,511 $42,427 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 It is worth considering the income differences between age groups, genders and family sizes, as those with the lowest incomes in each of these categories are the demographics most at risk of having difficulty affording a house to live.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 25 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
4.0 MARKET CONTEXT The housing market in Grey County varies from municipality to municipality. Those municipalities with the strongest housing markets are those that offer numerous outdoor recreation opportunities combined with direct access, or proximity, to urban services and amenities. As a result, these municipalities, which include the Town of The Blue Mountains, Meaford, Georgian Bluffs and Grey Highlands, are attractive to: older buyer groups looking to retire or downsize, families looking for a seasonal or secondary residences, as well as some permanent families that work in the region. The housing markets in the other municipalities, with the exception of Southgate, are relatively weak, attracting only limited amounts of growth, primarily from older age groups looking to live in a rural setting and/or are unable to afford other areas in the region. Southgate’s housing market is somewhat stronger due to its geographic location in the southeast of the County. It too is attracting older age groups, but is also becoming increasingly recognized as a more affordable alternative to urban areas such as Orangeville, Shelburne and the northern GTA, for younger families and couples.
4.1 Recent Development Activity Building permit activity over the past several years in the County has averaged roughly 500 new residential units per year, although as Table 17 shows, the number of new building permits issued in the most recent two years has averaged less than 400 units, considerably less than the peak years of 2005 and 2006, which averaged over 700 new units a year. Recent building permit activity by unit type in the County has been in keeping with the existing housing stock in the County, with the vast majority of permits issued (84%) for single detached units, with virtually all of the remainder in semi-detached or townhouse format. Table 17. Buliding Permit Activity, County of Grey, 2008 & 2009
Single Semis and Townhomes Apartments Total 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Town of the Blue Mountains 91 54 17 13 0 108 67 Meaford 43 42 0 0 43 42 Owen Sound 18 13 4 34 1 1 23 48 West Grey 52 40 1 0 52 41 Grey Highlands 35 28 1 0 35 29 Southgate 31 27 0 0 31 27 Chatsworth 40 29 0 0 40 29 Hanover 19 18 18 19 0 37 37 Georgian Bluffs 38 36 14 0 0 52 36 Totals 367 287 53 68 1 1 421 356 Source: County of Grey, Planning Departments for each municipality Locally, over the past decade, the majority of building permits issued have been in the Town of The Blue Mountains, and to a lesser degree, Meaford and Grey Highlands. The remaining local municipalities have seen a similar number of permits issued, averaging roughly 40 units each per year.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 26 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
The Town of The Blue Mountains, the City of Owen Sound and the Town of Hanover have the seen the bulk of recent higher density development, the majority of which has been in row/townhouse unit format.
4.2 Active Market The active residential market in the County consists of developments targeting both permanent and seasonal/secondary buyers. There are roughly 18 developments in the County actively marketing, representing about 1,000 units, of which a large portion are already sold. As the Table 18 shows, as of March 2010, the new home market in the County was dominated by the Town of The Blue Mountains and the Municipality of Meaford, accounting for almost 80% of all active units in the County. The developments are generally higher end, targeting “empty-nesters” and retirees, as well as second home buyers. The dominance of the two municipalities is largely a result of the outdoor recreation opportunities in the area, the quality and amenities in the urban areas of Meaford and Thornbury, their proximity to additional services and amenities in Collingwood and Owen Sound, and their ties to the GTA economy. Developments in these municipalities are primarily multi-storey singles or bungalows and townhomes. In The Blue Mountains, prices range between $300,000 and $1million, while in Meaford new home prices are generally over $200,000. There are only three other active developments in the County. The two developments located in Georgian Bluffs and Grey Highlands are similar in nature to those in the Blue Mountains and Meaford, in that they are also targeted towards older and second home buyers, and have a similar emphasis on the various outdoor recreation opportunities in the area, i.e. waterfront, golf and skiing. These developments consist entirely of larger multi-storey singles and bungalows and are priced between $300,000 and $500,000. The Southgate development, on the other hand, differs from the other developments in the County in that its primary target market is younger individuals and couples, looking to live in a small rural community and/or who are looking for a more affordable alternative to developments in larger, more southern urban areas. The development consists entirely of single-detached units and is priced between $190,000 and $260,000.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 27 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 18. Active Residential Development Projects, Grey County Total Total Price Range (Remaining Project Name Developer Area Product Type % Sold Units Sales Inventory) Georgian Bluffs Residences of Cobble Beach Reid's Heritage Homes Cobble Beach Singles 31 $464,300-$553,000 Bungalow w/ Loft 113 $308,900-$386,900 Residences of Cobble Beach Northridge Homes Cobble Beach Singles 13 2 15% Southgate Dundalk Homes Montgomery Homes Dundalk Singles 44 24 55% $189,900 - $259,900 Grey Highlands Beaver Valley Woodlands Willmott and Nielson Kimberly Singles 12 0 0% $400,000 Meaford Gates of Kent Reid's Heritage Homes Meaford Bungalow w/ Loft 82 $196900 - $228,500 Golfview Roger's Enterprises Meaford Serviced Lots 28 Maple Meadows Maple Meadows Homes Meaford Bungatowns 54 44 81% $199,000 -
Poplar Ridge Meaford Serviced Lots 25 $85,000 - Town of The Blue Mountains Edgewater Phase 2 Realty One Craigleith Townhomes 6 1 16% $599,000-$640500 RockPoint Construction $379,000-$459,000 Towns Far Hill Phase 1 Thornbury Townhomes & Apts. 34 11 32% Siljon Developments $275,000-$400,000 Apts. Georgian Glen Sorichetti Camperdown Bungalows 36 0 0% $498,900$579,900 Keepers Cove Reids Heritage Homes Lora Bay Bungalows 27 3 11% $310,000-$410,000 Lora Bay Phase 3 Lora Bay Corp Lora Bay Singles & Townhomes 137 43 31% $450,000-$1,000,000 Mill Pond Homes Design QuorumInc. Thornbury Townhomes 10 3 30% $299,000-$399,000 Sorichetti & Alliance Peaks Meadows Camperdown Bungalows 45 17 37% $537,900-$875,900 (base) Homes Trailheads Phase 1 MacPherson Lora Bay Singles/Semis/Towns 130 101 78% $446,000 - 1.5 million Trailwood's Phase 1 Trailwoods Corporation Lora Bay Singles 72 8 11% $450,000-$1,000,000 Willow Creek at Blue Royalton Homes Craigleith Townhomes 27 7 26% $299,900 - $369,900 Woodlands Sierra Building Group Craigleith Semis & Townhomes 72 54 75% 389,000 - 549,000 Source: NBLC
4.3 Resale Market Like the new home market, the resale market for the County includes data for both permanent and seasonal/secondary units. The County’s resale housing market over the past two years has performed relatively well, due in part to the County’s relatively limited new housing market. The past two years combined saw 4,900 units listed for sale, with over 2,200 or 45% selling, with an average price in 2009 of $260,200. It should be noted that a sales-to-listing ratio (SLR) below 40% is considered a weak or “buyers” market; between 40% and 50% a balanced market; and above 50% a strong or “sellers” market. As Table 19 shows, the local resale market varies considerably. Not surprisingly, those municipalities with no active developments, including Owen Sound, West Grey, Hanover and Chatsworth, have experienced stronger sales in terms of volume and/or SLR, than those municipalities with current active developments. Despite having stronger resales, it is the same municipalities that have experienced the bulk of recent building permit activity and that have active new home developments, which have the higher average resale prices. There are three tiers of average low density resale home prices in the County. The top tier is occupied solely by the Town of The Blue Mountains, with an average resale home value of almost $450,000, one of the highest averages in the Province outside the GTA and 66% higher than the
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 28 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 average resale price in the next closest municipality in the County. The second tier is occupied by Meaford, Grey Highlands and Georgian Bluffs, with resale values at or above the County average, ranging from $250,000 to $270,000. The bottom tier is occupied by the remaining municipalities of Owen Sound, West Grey, Southgate, Chatsworth and Hanover, with average resale prices below the County average, ranging from $190,000 to $230,000. Table 19. Residential Resales (Singles), County of Grey, 2009 2008 2009 Listings Sales SLR Price Listings Sales SLR Price Town of the Blue Mountains 540 208 39% $449,400 524 140 27% $446,400 Meaford 94 43 46% $276,209 125 34 27% $268,821 Owen Sound 507 278 55% $198,031 408 278 68% $194,132 West Grey 275 120 44% $207,871 289 144 50% $229,808 Grey Highlands 269 96 36% $243,236 219 92 42% $248,135 Southgate 119 44 37% $246,995 103 40 39% $231,740 Chatsworth 158 70 44% $223,989 128 66 52% $207,045 Hanover 201 116 58% $193,814 170 109 64% $193,309 Georgian Bluffs 232 119 51% $259,326 239 144 48% $253,179 Totals 2,395 1,094 46% $263,793 2,205 1,047 48% $250,228 Totals excluding TBM 1,855 886 48% $220,219 1,681 907 54% $219,948 Source: REALTORS Association of Grey Bruce Owen Sound & Georgian Triangle Real Estate News As Table 19 also shows, the average low desnity resale value in the County, excluding The Blue Mountains, is considerably less, at $220,000. For further comparative purposes, other average resale prices in 2009 include: Bruce County - $226,700; Market area covered by the Realtors Association of Grey Bruce Owen Sound, which includes: Grey County, Bruce County, and northern Wellington County- $219,500; Market area covered by the Georgian Triangle Real Estate Board, which includes: Clearview, Collingwood, Grey Highlands, Meaford, The Blue Mountains and Wasaga Beach - $285,800; and Province of Ontario - $318,400. Despite having only limited data, due to the lack of availability, as well as the limited amount of associated resale activity, Table 20 provides a general overview of the average resale value of various unit types, not just single detached units.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 29 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 20. Residential Resales, County of Grey 2009 Singles/Semis Townhouse Apartments Sales SLR Price Sales SLR Price Sales SLR Price Town of the Blue Mountains 140 27% $446,400 NA 0% NA 101 NA $296,000 Meaford 34 21% $268,909 0 0% $0 1 25% $195,000 Owen Sound 263 54% $194,037 24 56% $170,267 18 55% $198,078 West Grey 151 41% $228,340 4 67% $140,700 0 0% $0 Grey Highlands 92 36% $248,135 0 0% $0 1 50% $0 Southgate 45 35% $242,280 0 0% $0 0 0% $0 Chatsworth 73 40% $215,562 0 0% $0 0 0% $0 Hanover 109 54% $193,309 0 0% $0 6 100% $157,500 Georgian Bluffs 116 39% $254,633 0 0% $0 3 75% $152,333 Totals 1,023 39% $251,442 28 48% $166,043 130 48% $269,680 Source: REALTORS Association of Grey Bruce Owen Sound & Georgian Triangle Real Estate News
4.4 Dwelling Values Table 21 provides the estimated value of dwellings for each municipality, by unit type, based on 2006 Census data. These values are somewhat unreliable, as they are dated and are estimated by the current home owner and collected through census survey. Despite this, the data is useful in further identifying differences in home values between local municipalities and by unit types, as well as providing estimates of existing supply by value. The average 2006 estimated home value in the County was $244,305 and the median value was just below $200,000. The Town of The Blue Mountains had the highest average and median values, at $406,800 and $324,000 respectively, while Hanover had the lowest at $180,600 and $159,100. As can be seen, in all municipalities and the County, with the exception of The Blue Mountains, the largest proportion of homes are estimated to be worth between $150,000 and $200,000. It should be noted that in the case of Hanover and Owen Sound, the lower average and median prices are due not only to weaker housing markets, but also a greater supply of higher density units (Section 3.2.2). In all municipalities, the majority of higher density units, including townhomes and apartments are valued at the lower end of the range, usually under $250,000.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 30 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 21. Estimated Household Value, Grey County, 2006 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $500,000 Under Average Median to to to to to to to to to $750,000 Total $50,000 Value Value $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 $249,999 $299,999 $349,999 $399,999 $449,999 $749,999 and over Town of The Blue Mountains $406,839 $324,038 # of Households 30 50 80 265 250 290 290 180 275 440 235 2,385 % of Households 1.3% 2.1% 3.4% 11.1% 10.5% 12.2% 12.2% 7.5% 11.5% 18.4% 9.9% 100% Meaford $261,355 $210,465 # of Households 55 95 425 895 545 555 290 205 185 185 105 3,540 % of Households 1.6% 2.7% 12.0% 25.3% 15.4% 15.7% 8.2% 5.8% 5.2% 5.2% 3.0% 100% Owen Sound $191,623 $170,406 # of Households 90 330 1,410 1,920 850 495 210 115 100 45 35 5,600 % of Households 1.6% 5.9% 25.2% 34.3% 15.2% 8.8% 3.8% 2.1% 1.8% 0.8% 0.6% 100% West Grey $223,459 $194,860 # of Households 100 330 705 745 560 410 350 185 190 85 40 3,700 % of Households 2.7% 8.9% 19.1% 20.1% 15.1% 11.1% 9.5% 5.0% 5.1% 2.3% 1.1% 100% Grey Highlands $277,475 $224,798 # of Households 20 150 390 545 490 500 260 155 130 215 90 2,945 % of Households 0.7% 5.1% 13.2% 18.5% 16.6% 17.0% 8.8% 5.3% 4.4% 7.3% 3.1% 100% Southgate $226,565 $199,981 # of Households 35 120 295 515 415 230 185 105 90 30 15 2,035 % of Households 1.7% 5.9% 14.5% 25.3% 20.4% 11.3% 9.1% 5.2% 4.4% 1.5% 0.7% 100% Chatworth $213,087 $184,773 # of Households 50 150 330 550 370 295 85 100 35 45 15 2,025 % of Households 2.5% 7.4% 16.3% 27.2% 18.3% 14.6% 4.2% 4.9% 1.7% 2.2% 0.7% 100% Hanover $180,631 $159,078 # of Households 30 115 645 670 285 85 105 20 10 0 25 1,990 % of Households 1.5% 5.8% 32.4% 33.7% 14.3% 4.3% 5.3% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.3% 100% Georgian Bluffs $258,625 $230,022 # of Households 170 135 380 680 540 685 320 230 235 175 70 3,620 % of Households 4.7% 3.7% 10.5% 18.8% 14.9% 18.9% 8.8% 6.4% 6.5% 4.8% 1.9% 100% County of Grey $244,305 $199,882 # of Households 580 1,475 4,660 6,785 4,305 3,545 2,095 1,295 1,250 1,220 630 27,840 % of Households 2.1% 5.3% 16.7% 24.4% 15.5% 12.7% 7.5% 4.7% 4.5% 4.4% 2.3% 100% Source: Statistic Canada: Census 2006
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 31 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
4.5 Rental Market Recent CMHC rental market housing data is not available for all of Grey County, with data only available for the Municipality of Meaford, the Owen Sound Census Agglomeration (Owen Sound and Georgian Bluffs) and the Municipality of West Grey. As provided in Table 22, the number of purpose-built rental units in these areas as of year-end 2009 was over 2,100 units, the majority of which were located in the City of Owen Sound. The overall vacancy rate of the three areas was 4.7%, double the 2008 vacancy rate. It must be noted that the CMHC data only surveys purpose built rental units, ignoring the large supply of units in non-purpose built buildings, such as basement apartments, home conversions and condominiums. Table 22. Private Rental Row and Apartments - Vacancy Rates, October 2007-2009 Universe Vacant Units Vacancy Rate 2007 2008 2009 % Change 2007 2008 2009 % Change 2007 2008 2009 % Change Meaford MU - 208 217 4.3% - 1 15 1400.0% - 0.5% 6.9% 1280.0% Owen Sound CA 1,748 1,739 1,751 0.2% 49 43 80 63.3% 2.8% 2.5% 4.6% 64.3% West Grey MU - 160 159 -0.6% - 10 5 -50.0% - 6.0% 3.1% -48.3% Note: % Change from 2008 to 2009 Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Based on the 2009 CMHC Rental Market Survey, the average monthly rental rate for a bachelor apartment in the County is approximately $510; $640 for a 1-bedroom; $760 for a two bedroom; and $800 for a 3-bedroom. Since these rental rates are based on purpose-built rental units, CMHC claims that for the most part all units included in their analysis includes utility costs, on the basis that rental apartment buildings typically charge all-inclusive rates. Based on a newspaper and internet survey, as well as the active Owen Sound and Area YMCA listing for vacant apartments in the Bruce-Grey area and information provided by Grey County Housing, the average rental rates in the County are relatively consistent, with the northern municipalities, including The Blue Mountains, Meaford and Owen Sound, generally having the highest rates. The local rental rates fall within the rates determined by CMHC in the 2009 Rental Market Survey. Note: that most of the units included in this survey also include utility costs.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 32 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 23. Grey County Average Rental Housing Costs, March 2010 Room for 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Bachelor Apt. Rent Apt. Apt. Apt. West Grey $ 350 $ 450 $ 475 $ 600 $ 700 Chatsworth NA NA NA NA NA Hanover $ 400 $ 500 $ 600 $ 700 NA Owen Sound $ 400 $ 600 $ 700 $ 750 $ 900 Meaford $ 400 $ 650 $ 600 $ 750 $ 950 The Blue Mountains $ 400 $ 650 $ 725 $ 825 $ 1,050 Georgian Bluffs NA NA NA NA NA Southgate NA NA NA NA NA Grey Highlands NA NA $ 600 $ 650 NA Source: Newspape & Internet survey, Owen Sound YMCA Housing List & Grey Housing Note: Some prices surveyed do include hydro. Those with "NA" are not included due size of sample Based on these rates, the rental rates in the County are relatively affordable, especially in comparison to other municipalities in southern Ontario. According to CMHC, the 2009 average rental rate for a one bedroom apartment in Ontario (centres with 10,000+ pop.) was $825 and $955 for a two bedroom. However, while rates may be affordable, based on the low rental rates in certain municipalities, as discussed in Section 3.2.3, and the lack of available listing in some municipalities, it can be concluded that there exists a shortage of rental units in a number of municipalities in the County, including; Georgian Bluffs, Southgate, Chatsworth, The Blue Mountains and Grey Highlands. In addition to the shortage of rental units in the County, it must be reiterated that as a result of the age of the properties and the lack of proper maintenance and updating, the condition of a large portion of the County’s rental stock, particularly in the larger urban areas of Owen Sound and Hanover is very poor. This is especially true for secondary-market units, i.e. non-purpose built rental units, including converted homes and secondary suites.
4.6 Housing Forecast One of the principle background documents for the County’s Official Plan review was the Grey County Growth Management Strategy: Growth Allocations and Issues Report, produced by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. and The Centre for Spatial Economics in April of 2008. The report provided detailed population, housing and employment forecasts for the County and each of the local municipalities, as well as an assessment of future residential and employment land needs. Table 24 provides a summary of the household forecasts for the County and the local municipalities. As can be seen, there is expected to be the demand for an additional 13,100 housing units in the County by 2031. While the forecast growth is expected to be somewhat evenly spread-out across the County, the largest household growth is expected in the Township of Southgate and the City of Owen Sound, which are expected to grow by 1,900 units each by 2031, followed by Grey Highlands, which is expected to grow by 1,800 units. Interestingly, the City of Owen Sound is expected to be the same amount of household growth as Southgate despite having a lower amount of forecast population growth, due to lower average household size. The
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 33 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Town of Hanover and Township of Chatsworth are expected to see the smallest amount of growth, with 800 additional units each by 2031. Table 24. Household Growth Projections, County of Grey, 2006-2031 Growth 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2006-31 Chatsworth 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,100 3,200 800 Georgian Bluffs 4,000 4,500 4,900 5,300 5,500 5,700 1,700 Grey Highlands 3,700 4,200 4,600 5,000 5,300 5,500 1,800 Hanover 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 3,700 3,800 800 Meaford 4,400 4,700 5,000 5,300 5,500 5,600 1,200 Owen Sound 9,400 9,900 10,400 10,900 11,100 11,300 1,900 Southgate 2,600 3,000 3,500 3,900 4,200 4,500 1,900 The Blue Mountains 2,900 3,200 3,400 3,700 3,900 4,200 1,300 West Grey 4,700 5,100 5,500 5,900 6,200 6,400 1,700 County of Grey 37,100 40,400 43,500 46,600 48,500 50,200 13,100 Source: County of Grey (Malone Give Parsons LTD. & C4SE) It is estimated that the majority of household growth in the County, equal to 79% or roughly 10,300 units, will be in low-density, single-detached format. Apartments are expected to comprise the next largest amount of unit growth, accounting for 16% or 2,100 units, while row/townhomes are expected to comprise the remaining 5% or 700 units of growth. It should be further noted, that the forecast apartment growth does not consider the need to replace existing units. As previously mentioned, the condition of a number of rental units/buildings is such that they will likely have to be replaced over the forecast period. While estimates of household growth by unit type for the local municipalities is not provided, based on the existing housing stock, building permit activity and demographic trends, it is likely that the majority of medium and high density growth in the municipality will take place in the two principle urban areas of Owen Sound and Hanover, as well as the Town of The Blue Mountains and the Municipality of Meaford. These municipalities possess the necessary characteristics and offer the selection of amenities and services conducive to higher density development. Furthermore, in the case of The Blue Mountains and to a lesser degree Meaford, the limited housing affordability will force people into smaller, more dense and more affordable unit types.
4.7 Existing Housing Supply The Grey County Growth Management Strategy: Growth Allocations and Issues Report, also provided a detailed account of the existing housing supply in Grey County as of early 2008. The supply consists of: the potential through conversion/intensification, units under application, the potential supply of units on vacant designated residential lands not under application; units on vacant future development land; vacant urban fringe lands, and vacant land in hamlets and rural areas. Intensification/Conversion – The potential exists for 1,040 units through intensification, with largest portion in Owen Sound and no potential in Georgian Bluffs and Chatsworth. There is also estimated to be the potential for 800 additional in The Blue Mountains, converted from season/secondary to permanent units.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 34 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Units in the Planning Process – As of early 2008, there was an estimated 3,910 units under application in the County of Grey. The vast majority, almost 50%, located in The Blue Mountains, and over 20% located in Georgian Bluffs. Units of Vacant Designated Land – By applying residential density assumptions to net vacant residential land supplies, there was an estimated supply of 7,110 units on vacant designated residential land in the County, with the largest potential supplies in The Blue Mountains, Meaford, Owen Sound and Southgate. Units of Vacant Future Development Land – The potential on lands designated for future urban use, but with no specific land-use designation applied to the land, was estimated at 2,570 units. Units on Vacant Urban Fringe – The County of Grey’s Urban Fringe designation applies to certain lands surrounding the urban areas of West Grey, Grey Highlands and Meaford. The estimated residential supply on these lands was almost 10,000 units. Hamlet Potential – 130 units through intensification, 230 units under application, 7,880 on vacant designated hamlet land, for a total residential potential in hamlet areas of 8,240 units. Rural Lots – The estimated potential on existing rural lots of record is 7,980 units. The total residential unit potential in the County of Grey as of early 2008 was estimated at 40,850 units, over three times the forecast demand to 2031. Furthermore, all municipalities were estimated to have sufficient residential unit supplies to meet anticipated demand. In fact, the municipalities of West Grey, Meaford, The Blue Mountains and Grey Highlands have significant over supplies of settlement and non-settlement residential units, while only the City of Owen Sound can be considered to have a constrained supply of housing over the forecast period.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 35 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
5.0 HOUSING TYPES In order to provide a proper analysis of housing in Grey County, it is important to define the subject housing groups. The analysis of housing in Grey County will focus on two housing types: Affordable Housing and Social Housing.
5.1 Affordable Housing The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) define “affordable housing” as: The cost of adequate shelter should not exceed 30% of household income. Housing which costs less than this is considered affordable. This definition is in line with the definition provided in the PPS, which breaks down the term under ownership housing and rental housing: a) In the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of: 1. Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or 2. Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area. b) In the case of rental housing, the least expensive of: 1. A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or 2. A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. The PPS defines low and moderate income households as: a) Ownership housing – households with incomes in the lowest 60 percent of the income distribution for the regional market area; or b) Rental housing – households with incomes in the lowest 60 percent of the income distribution for renter households for the regional market area. The PPS define regional market area as: An area, generally broader than a lower-tier municipality that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. In southern Ontario, the upper or single-tier municipality will normally serve as the regional market area. Where a regional market area extends significantly beyond upper or single-tier boundaries it may include a combination of upper, single and/or lower-tier municipalities. Generally speaking, “affordable housing” is privately owned and/or operated housing that is priced, for rental or ownership purposes, at the low-to-mid-end of the market. This typically includes all forms of housing, although in certain municipalities, especially larger urban areas and areas with higher than average housing prices, the bulk of affordable housing units are usually in higher density formats. Affordable housing targets a broad demographic, including: students, younger individuals or families, low income families or individuals, and a proportion of seniors.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 36 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
5.2 Social Housing Under the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, social housing is defined as follows: Rental housing developed with government assistance and subsidized by government; Intended for people with low-to-moderate incomes and forms an important part of the “social safety net” for those who cannot afford market rents; and Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance, calculated at 30 percent of household income. Many non-profits and co-ops also have market rent units that are not RGI-based. Social housing is considered “non-market” housing. For the purpose of this analysis, it refers only to housing provided or owned by public or private non-profit organizations; targeted towards a specific at risk population, including: low income earners, unemployed, physically and mentally disabled, those recovering from various forms of addiction, those with mental health illnesses, the terminally ill, victims of abuse, as well as public long-term care facilities. The largest portion of social housing units in the County of Grey are owned and/or administered by the Grey County Housing. However there are other social housing providers located in the County that operate independently from the County. The remainder of this report focuses entirely on the supply and demand of affordable and social housing in the County of Grey. Other housing types, comprised entirely of market housing not measured as “affordable”, including seasonal/secondary homes, are not considered. Their exclusion is based entirely on the notion that any existing or unmet demand will be resolved through basic market forces without the need for intervention.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 37 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
6.0 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Using the definition of “affordable housing” as outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement for both ownership and rental units, this section measures housing affordability for the County of Grey as well as for each local municipality. The analysis of affordability for the County and the local municipalities takes into consideration: estimated 2009 household income distribution, existing housing values and rental rates, and the 2006 supply of households by estimated value.
6.1 Grey County Based on the household income percentiles provided in Section 3.4.1, the current affordable ownership and rental housing price in the County, based on the Provincial definitions of affordability, were calculated.
6.1.1 Ownership Affordability According to the Province’s Provincial Policy Statement, affordable home ownership is considered to be the less expensive of two scenarios. 1) Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households. The calculation of housing ownership affordability in the County uses a number of assumptions, including: that household incomes have increased at the same rate of provincial inflation since 2006; a discounted mortgage rate of 5.5% amortized over 25 years; a initial down payment of 5%; 2.75% CMHC mortgage insurance; average of all existing local municipal (and county) property tax rates; and a monthly utility cost of $200. As highlighted in Table 25, based on these assumptions, it is estimated that maximum affordable housing price for low and moderate income households (households at or below the 60th income percentile) in the County would be $192,700. Table 25. Total Household Incomes & Ownership Affordability, Grey County, 2009 Affordable Annual 2006 Grey Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable County Income (30% of Purchase income levels levels income) Price Average $ 62,546 $ 66,574 $ 19,972 $ 202,100
20th Percentile $ 24,457 $ 26,032 $ 7,810 $ 60,600 30th Percentile $ 31,897 $ 33,951 $ 10,185 $ 88,200 40th Percentile $ 40,722 $ 43,345 $ 13,003 $ 121,000 50th Percentile $ 49,912 $ 53,126 $ 15,938 $ 155,100 60th Percentile $ 60,007 $ 63,871 $ 19,161 $ 192,700 70th Percentile $ 72,384 $ 77,046 $ 23,114 $ 238,700 80th Percentile $ 88,383 $ 94,075 $ 28,222 $ 298,100 90th Percentile $ 117,018 $ 124,554 $ 37,366 $ 404,500 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 38 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
2) Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area. The measure of ownership housing affordability in Grey County based on the second criteria is dependent on what area is determined as the regional market area. The regional market area for purposes of this analysis is determined to be the County of Grey, since the County includes a very broad spectrum of local housing markets, representative of not just the County but also the broader region. Based on this analysis, an affordable ownership price in the regional market area of the County of Grey would be $225,200 based on 2009 MLS data. This is calculated by subtracting 10% of the average resale price in the County in 2009 of $250,200. Taking the lesser of the two definitions, the maximum affordable ownership home in the County of Grey is currently estimated to be $192,700. Based on this, an affordable ownership housing gap exists in the County, with affordable units priced well below average resale and new home market rates.
6.1.2 Rental Affordability According to the Province’s Provincial Policy Statement, affordable rental housing is considered to be the less expensive of two scenarios. 1) A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income rental households. Based on the calculation detailed in Table 26, low and moderate incomes for rental households, or renters in the 60th percentile of incomes and below, are able to afford rates of about $855 a month. This value is slightly above the existing rental rates in the County, which range from $500 to $800 a month for bachelor, 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units. While rental rates in the County are affordable under this definition, affordability is likely an issue for those renter households with incomes below the 40th percentile. Table 26. Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Grey County 2009 2006 County Est. 2009 30% of 2009 Rental Rental Renter Est. 2009 Household Household Household Affordable Income levels Income levels Income Monthly Rent Average Renter Household $ 33,478 $ 35,634 $ 4,180 $ 891 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 13,091 $ 13,934 $ 5,452 $ 348 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 17,073 $ 18,173 $ 6,960 $ 454 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 21,797 $ 23,200 $ 8,531 $ 580 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 26,716 $ 28,436 $ 10,256 $ 711 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 32,119 $ 34,187 $ 12,372 $ 855 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based on the difference between rental household average income and total average household income. Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 39 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
2) A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. Due to the similarity of rental rates in the County compared to most surrounding municipalities as well as the range of rental markets located within the County, the County of Grey is an appropriate regional market area for purposes of this analysis. Therefore, using the CMHC 2009 rental rates (as average market rent) for the County, which generally include utility costs; affordable rental rates in the County of Grey are determined to be at or below the following: $506 – Bachelor; $641 – 1-bedroom; $758 – 2-bedroom; and, $795 – 3-bedroom. Based on the two rental affordability calculations, the lesser of the two is the average market rent in the regional market area. As a result, the maximum affordable rental rate in the County is between $500 and $800 per month, depending on unit type/size. Based on this definition there does not exist an affordable rental housing gap in the County, however it should be acknowledged that rental affordability for renter households is much more constrained in the lower income percentiles.
6.1.3 Affordability Targets Based on the above analysis, the following are the suggested housing affordability targets for the County of Grey: As of 2009, an affordable ownership housing price in the County would be considered as any unit valued under $192,700, which is the affordable housing price for households in the 60th income percentile and below. As of 2009, an affordable monthly rental rate in the County based on the PPS criteria would be rental rates between $500 and $800 per month, depending on unit size/type.
6.2 Local Municipalities The following section provides a summary of the existing ownership and rental housing affordability in each of the local municipalities. Detailed tables for each of the municipalities, similar to the tables used for the county-wide affordability analysis, are provided in Appendices A to I.
6.2.1 Local Ownership Affordability According to the Province’s Provincial Policy Statement, affordable home ownership is considered to be the less expensive of two scenarios. 1) Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households. The methodology and assumptions used in calculating ownership affordability for the County in Section 6.1.1 are the same for calculating ownership affordability for each of the local municipalities, with one exception: the use of local household income distributions rather than
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 40 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
the County’s for measuring affordability. The Province defines low and moderate income households as those households at or below the 60th income percentile of a regional market area. Under this definition, housing affordability in each of the local municipalities would be measured using household incomes of the entire County, rather than for each local municipality, ignoring the local differences in demographics, housing markets, economies and income. NBLC believes the usage of local household distribution is a more accurate reflection of local housing affordability, especially in the County of Grey, where significant local disparities exist. As outlined in Table 27, low and moderate income households, with incomes in the 60th percentile and below, could afford maximum home purchase prices ranging from $151,600 in Owen Sound to $246,700 in The Blue Mountains. The broad local differences in affordable maximum purchase prices, for all income percentiles, are reflective of the local differences in household and individual incomes as discussed in Section 3.4. Table 27. Housing Purchase Price Affordability by Total Household Income Percentiles - Grey County, 2009
20th 30th 40th 50th 60th 80th Average Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Georgian Bluffs $ 257,200 $ 92,400 $ 126,200 $161,200 $206,500 $244,900 $354,200 The Blue Mountains $ 273,900 $ 64,100 $ 103,000 $146,300 $194,900 $246,700 $384,300 Southgate $ 218,000 $ 80,400 $ 109,900 $142,400 $179,100 $225,200 $315,800 Grey Highlands $ 230,600 $ 69,200 $ 93,500 $129,400 $166,100 $202,400 $334,600 Meaford $ 199,800 $ 64,300 $ 92,400 $125,800 $157,100 $187,600 $285,400 West Grey $ 193,400 $ 63,400 $ 90,500 $124,300 $162,800 $191,600 $299,800 Chatsworth $ 188,600 $ 66,300 $ 91,500 $129,700 $160,700 $205,600 $292,200 Hanover $ 172,000 $ 51,400 $ 75,800 $ 97,600 $132,000 $160,300 $253,500 Owen Sound $ 157,700 $ 41,700 $ 61,400 $ 90,700 $117,900 $151,600 $242,500 Grey County $ 202,100 $ 60,600 $ 88,200 $121,000 $155,100 $192,700 $298,100 Source: NBLC Based on this definition of affordability, there exists an ownership housing affordability gap in each of the local municipalities, with the maximum affordable purchase price for low and moderate income households (at or below 60th percentile) for each of the local municipalities below their current respective average MLS resale values. As Table 28 demonstrates, the most significant difference exists in The Blue Mountains, where due to the high cost of housing, the affordable purchase price is only 55% of the average 2009 MLS resale value. Due to high housing costs, low household incomes or both, significant differences also exist in Meaford, Grey Highlands, Owen Sound, West Grey and Hanover. On the other hand, housing prices in Southgate, Chatsworth and Georgian Bluffs are very close to meeting the affordability targets. It should be further noted that not only is an average MLS resale home in the Town of Southgate almost affordable, but so too are the actively marketing new housing units, which also fall within the maximum affordable purchase price threshold. The vast majority of new
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 41 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
housing units in all other municipalities do not fall within their local municipal housing affordability threshold. Table 28. Comparison of Average Market Value and Affordable Purchase Price - County of Grey, 2009 Affordable 2009 Purchase Price - Average 60th household MLS Value income percentile Difference Town of the Blue Mountains $446,400 $246,700 -$199,700 Meaford $268,821 $187,600 -$81,221 Owen Sound $194,132 $151,600 -$42,532 West Grey $229,808 $191,600 -$38,208 Grey Highlands $248,135 $202,400 -$45,735 Southgate $231,740 $225,200 -$6,540 Chatsworth $207,045 $205,600 -$1,445 Hanover $193,309 $160,300 -$33,009 Georgian Bluffs $253,179 $244,900 -$8,279 Totals $250,228 $192,700 -$57,528 Source: NBLC
Source: NBLC
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 42 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
2) Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area. In order to acknowledge the local competitive housing markets in which each of the local municipalities are a part of, two different regional market areas were used to assess local ownership housing affordability under this definition. The housing markets of The Blue Mountains, Meaford and Grey Highlands are much stronger and more orientated towards wealthier retirees/empty-nesters from the GTA, as well as the secondary recreational housing market. As a result, the area covered by the Georgian Triangle Real Estate Board (includes The Blue Mountains, Meaford, Grey Highlands, Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Clearview) is considered the regional market area for these municipalities, while for the remaining local municipalities the area covered by the Grey Bruce Owen Sound Realtors Association (which includes most of Grey County, as well as Bruce County and parts of Wellington County) was used as the regional market area. As Table 29 shows, an affordable ownership home under this definition in The Blue Mountains, Meaford and Grey Highlands would be valued under $257,200, while for the remaining local municipalities the benchmark is $197,600. These values are calculated by subtracting 10% from the average 2009 resale market value from the two regional market areas. For Hanover, Owen Sound and Grey Highlands there does not exist an ownership housing affordability gap under this scenario, due to the lower average resale value in these municipalities relative to their regional market area. For the remaining municipalities an ownership affordability gap exists, especially in the Town of The Blue Mountains, as average resale housing prices are well above the affordability threshold. Table 29. Housing Purchase Price Affordability 10% Below Regional Market Value - Grey County, 2009 Difference RMA Average MLS Average RMA Average RMA minus 10% & Resale Price - value - minus 10% Average Resale 2009 Price 2009 The Blue Mountains $446,400 $285,800 $257,220 -$189,180 Meaford $268,821 $285,800 $257,220 -$11,601 Grey Highlands $248,135 $285,800 $257,220 $9,085 Georgian Bluffs $253,179 $219,500 $197,550 -$55,629 Southgate $231,740 $219,500 $197,550 -$34,190 West Grey $229,808 $219,500 $197,550 -$32,258 Chatsworth $207,045 $219,500 $197,550 -$9,495 Hanover $193,309 $219,500 $197,550 $4,241 Owen Sound $194,132 $219,500 $197,550 $3,418 Grey County $250,228 $250,228 $225,205 -$25,023 Source: NBLC Note: Average MLS Resale 2009 from Realtors Association of Grey Bruce Owen Sound & Georgian Triangle Real Estate Board Note: Average RMA Value is Regional Market Area. For The Blue Mountains, Meaford and Grey Highlands it is the area covered by the Georgian Triangle Real Estate Board. For remaining municipalities it is area covered by Realtors Association of Grey Bruce Owen Sound.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 43 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
The maximum affordable purchase price for each of the local municipalities is the lesser of the two provincial definitions. For Georgian Bluffs, Southgate and Chatsworth an affordable ownership unit is considered as any unit valued under $197,600 or 10% below the regional market average. For the remaining municipalities an affordable ownership unit is based on the 60th percentile of household incomes, and is as follows: $246,700 – The Blue Mountains; $202,400 – Grey Highlands; $191,600 – West Grey; $187,600 - Meaford; $160,300 – Hanover; and $151,600 – Owen Sound. Based on these affordable ownership measures, a moderate affordability ownership gaps exists in all of the local municipalities, with the exception of the Town of The Blue Mountains, which has one of the more severe housing ownership affordability gaps in the Province.
6.2.2 Local Rental Affordability According to the Province’s Provincial Policy Statement, affordable rental housing is considered to be the less expensive of two scenarios. 1) A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income rental households. Based on the calculation detailed in Table 30, low and moderate income rental households in the local municipalities could afford maximum monthly rental rates ranging from $785 in Owen Sound to $1,237 in The Blue Mountains. Like the County, under this definition, no affordability gaps exists as the maximum rental affordability rates are at or above the existing rental rates in the County; ranging from $500 to $800 per month, depending on size/type. Also similar to the County, however, is that renter households with incomes below the 40th or 30th percentiles, with the exception of Southgate, would have difficulty affording rental rates in their respective municipalities. Table 30. Housing Rental Rate Affordability by Renter Household Income Percentiles - Grey County, 2009 20th 30th 40th 50th 60th 80th Average Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Georgian Bluffs $ 982 $ 421 $ 536 $ 655 $ 809 $ 941 $ 1,312 The Blue Mountains $ 1,358 $ 424 $ 597 $ 790 $ 1,006 $ 1,237 $ 1,849 Southgate $ 1,164 $ 518 $ 657 $ 810 $ 982 $ 1,198 $ 1,416 Grey Highlands $ 902 $ 346 $ 430 $ 553 $ 680 $ 805 $ 1,261 Meaford $ 880 $ 360 $ 468 $ 596 $ 716 $ 833 $ 1,209 West Grey $ 922 $ 386 $ 498 $ 637 $ 796 $ 914 $ 1,360 Chatsworth $ 961 $ 426 $ 536 $ 703 $ 839 $ 1,036 $ 1,036 Hanover $ 838 $ 336 $ 438 $ 528 $ 672 $ 789 $ 1,177 Owen Sound $ 811 $ 308 $ 394 $ 521 $ 639 $ 785 $ 1,178 Grey County $ 891 $ 348 $ 454 $ 580 $ 711 $ 855 $ 1,259 Source: NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based on the difference between the rental household average income and total average household income.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 44 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
2) A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. Since rental rates in each of the local county municipalities is relatively similar (section 4.5) and since rental rates outside of the County in neighbouring municipalities are somewhat in line with County rental rates, the use of the County of Grey as the regional market area to measure local rental affordability was deemed appropriate. Therefore, for each local municipality, using the CMHC 2009 average market rental rates for the County, which generally include utility costs; affordable rental rates are determined to be at or below the following: $506 – Bachelor; $641 – 1-bedroom; $758 – 2-bedroom; and, $795 – 3-bedroom. Based on the two rental affordability scenario calculations for the local municipalities, the maximum affordable rental rate for each of the municipalities is between $500 and $800 per month, depending on unit type/size. Based on these affordable rental thresholds, an affordable rental gap does not exist in the any of the local municipalities, with the exception of The Blue Mountains, which has market monthly rental rates of roughly $50-$100 higher than the regional market area. Again, it should be noted that rental affordability in all municipalities is much more constrained for lower income percentile households.
6.2.3 Affordability Demand vs. Supply The provincial definitions of housing affordability are useful in identifying housing affordability gaps in a municipality but are somewhat limited in their ability to assess existing and emerging housing affordability situations because they ignore two important and inter-related realities: The households (and their respective incomes) that are used to measure affordability already live in the County; and, Home ownership is not always a function of current income or housing prices. Many households acquired their homes when housing prices were lower or conversely when a household’s income was higher; the home was inherited; or homes are purchased with accumulated wealth (but have low incomes) such as some retirees. That is, through the use of the provincial affordable housing definitions (and associated calculations) one can identify in theory where household incomes and affordable housing units are out of line with existing market housing rates, but cannot identify the location or impacts of these affordability gaps in a practical sense. In order to examine affordability from another perspective, the provincial calculations can be taken one step further, by analyzing the existing supply and demand of affordable housing units at the local level. This analysis provides another indication of where the most likely affordable housing concerns exist. To this end, for each municipality, we determined the number of households based on their incomes that could afford to purchase a home within the affordable targets established in Section 6.2.1 of this report. From this, we subtracted the estimated total number of dwellings, according to the 2006 Census, that were valued within this target. Assuming that those households that cannot find
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 45 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 an affordable house to purchase are likely to rent, we then subtracted the total number of rental households in the County, which includes the approximately 1,600 social housing units in the County. The remaining number roughly represents the shortfall or surplus of homes that could be purchased or rented at an affordable price today. This analysis provides a snap-shot in time of the local affordable housing supply and makes a number of broad assumptions, including: that any household that can afford to own a house does, and those that cannot rent; that one unit is equal to one household; and that the estimates of household values reported in the 2006 census are relatively accurate. Furthermore, three other important clarifications must be made: 1. The supply and demand analysis for each of the local municipalities in the County of Grey is simplified by the lack of an affordability issue in the rental market. That is, all rental units are affordable. If a rental affordability issue existed in any of the local municipalities, the number of rental units falling outside of the affordability threshold would have to be subtracted, having the effect of reducing any local oversupply or increasing any undersupply. 2. Supply shortages representing less than 5% of a municipality’s total housing units are considered to be negligible, as these shortages can largely be attributed to the estimations and rounding included in the methodology, and/or are households accommodated in various other housing forms not covered by the analysis, such as: unreported shared accommodation, temporary shelters and commercial units (motels, inns, etc). 3. The actual shortage of affordable housing units in any of the municipalities is of little interest, but rather, the percentage of total housing units that the shortage represents is. This percentage highlights where the greatest affordable housing supply shortages exist and the magnitude of those shortages. Table 31 provides a summary of the supply and demand calculation as well as the percentage oversupply or undersupply for each of the local municipalities.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 46 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 31. Local Municipal Affordability Demand and Supply, County of Grey, 2009 Approx. Approx. Number Number of of Households 60th 10% below Units Valued with Incomes Percentage Percentile RMV Below Able to Purchase Diff. of Affordability Unit at or Below # of Rental Total Threshold - Threshold Diff. Households Diff. Households 2006 The Blue Mountains $ 246,700 $ 257,220 680 1,750 - 1,070 460 - 610 -20.8% Meaford $ 187,600 $ 257,220 1,470 2,655 - 1,185 750 - 435 -9.8% Grey Highlands $ 202,400 $ 257,220 1,110 2,215 - 1,105 475 - 630 -17.1% Georgian Bluffs $ 244,900 $ 197,550 1,370 2,000 - 630 290 - 340 -8.4% Southgate $ 225,200 $ 197,550 970 1,300 - 330 305 - 25 -1.0% West Grey $ 191,600 $ 197,550 1,880 2,840 - 960 745 - 215 -4.6% Chatsworth $ 205,600 $ 197,550 1,080 1,400 - 320 180 - 140 -5.9% Hanover $ 160,300 $ 197,550 1,300 1,840 - 540 1,060 520 17.1% Owen Sound $ 151,600 $ 197,550 1,900 5,635 - 3,735 3,770 35 0.4% Total 11,760 21,635 - 9,875 8,025 - 1,850 SourceL NBLC Note: Numbers highlighted are the respective housing ownership affordability threshold for each local municipality
Source: NBLC
Largely in line with the housing affordability gaps, the largest under-supplies of affordable housing units are estimated to exist in The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands, Meaford and
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 47 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Georgian Bluffs, with a slight under-supply also in Chatsworth. There exist over-supplies in Hanover, Owen Sound and negligible shortages in Southgate and West Grey. For the most part, the under supplies are due to one or more of the following factors: a small number of units valued below the affordability threshold; large number of households with incomes insufficient to purchase units valued above the threshold; and/or, small number of rental units (inc. social housing units).
6.2.4 Affordability Targets The following are the suggested housing affordability targets for the each of the local municipalities in the County of Grey: As of 2009, a maximum affordable ownership housing price for each of the local municipalities would be: . $246,700 in the Town of The Blue Mountains; . $187,600 in the Municipality of Meaford; . $202,400 in the Township of Grey Highlands; . $197,600 in the Township of Georgian Bluffs; . $197,600 in the Township of Southgate; . $191,600 in the Township of West Grey; . $197,600 in the Township of Chatsworth; . $160,300 in the Town of Hanover; and, . $151,600 in the City of Owen Sound. As of 2009, an affordable monthly rental rate in all of the local municipalities, based on the PPS criteria, would be rental rates of between $500 and $800 per month, depending on unit size.
Note: While it is not necessary to conduct specific affordability analysis for the specific demographic groups discussed in Section 3.4.3, it is worth acknowledging that women, younger and older individuals, and single parent families (particularly those headed by a woman), due to lower average incomes, have a more difficult time affording ownership and rental housing units in the County.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 48 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
7.0 SOCIAL HOUSING
7.1 Overview According to the Ontario Social Housing Primer, developed by Social Housing Services Corporation, social housing was developed in order to address the following issues: To provide affordable rents for low and moderate income households; To replace deteriorated or low-quality housing, preserve affordable rental buildings, and ensure mixed-income neighbourhoods; To provide new rental housing; and To provide supportive housing (housing with support services) for those who need it. Social housing is permanent or temporary housing provided by both non-profit organizations, targeting various at risk groups including: low-income singles, couples, families and seniors; homeless; those with physical and mental disabilities; those suffering from abuse; those suffering from addiction; and the critically ill. In Ontario there are generally two primary social housing providers: Local Housing Corporations and other non-profit housing providers. Local Housing Corporations are owned and managed by Service Managers, which is the government body designated by the Province as responsible for housing, social welfare and ambulance services. Up until 2001, Local Housing Corporations were owned and operated by the provincial government, but have since been downloaded to various Service Managers, which are generally comprised of upper-tier or single-tier municipal governments. Local Housing Corporation units are mostly permanent rental units, largely targeted towards low-income households. Other non-profit housing providers are owned and operated by various other housing providers, including religious organizations, ethnic groups, support service providers and local government. The other non-profit housing provider units are both permanent and temporary, and are targeted towards a range of tenants, including low income households, as well as numerous other at risk groups. Funding for such providers usually comes from local municipalities, community/ethnic groups, support service providers (i.e. CMAH), various provincial ministries, and in some cases local Service Managers. Social housing in the County of Grey can also be split into those units owned and administered by the Local Housing Corporation – Grey County Housing and other non-profit housing providers. Units within these two categories are the subject of the remainder of this section.
7.2 Grey County Housing
7.2.1 Supply Table 32 provides a summary of the social housing units administered by the Grey County Housing. There are a total of 1,421 housing units owned and/or administered by Grey County Housing, consisting of units ranging from bachelor units up to 5-bedroom units. All of the units are provided on a rent-geared-to-income basis, of which the majority are one and two bedroom units primarily serving seniors, couples and singles. The majority of existing tenants are senior and single
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 49 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 males between 40 and 60, with a large portion receiving Federal and/or Provincial transfers, including Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Owen Sounds has the largest number of units, with 832 units, more than 50% of the total units in the County. Other large concentrations exist in Meaford with 181 units and Hanover with 111 units. On the other hand, Georgian Bluffs does not have any social housing units under the jurisdiction of Grey County Housing. The bulk of the units were built prior to 1980, with the last social housing development currently owned and administered by Grey County Housing built over 15 years ago; a 3-storey apartment building in Hanover with a total of 48 units. Interestingly, compared to other proximate regions, the County of Grey has a relatively large amount of social housing units owned/administered by their Local Housing Corporation. As the following table reveals, Grey County has the second largest number of units and the largest number as a ratio of social housing units to total households. Table 33. Supply of Social Housing Various Upper Tier Municipalities, 2009 2006 - # of Ratio # of Social Permanent Social/Permanent Housing Units Households Housing Grey County 1,421 37,110 0.038 Bruce County 731 26,327 0.028 Chatham-Kent 1,472 43,562 0.034 Haldimand County 284 16,300 0.017 Lambton County 771 51,928 0.015 Perth County 663 28,545 0.023 Dufferin County 225 18,797 0.012 Note: does not include rent supplement units Source: County websites and housing studies 7.2.2 Demand The current Grey County Housing waiting list is approximately 740 units or in roughly one unit for every 2 existing units. The current waiting list is the highest level it has been in the past seven years and well above the 2003-09 average of 660 units. On the other hand, the number of move-ins in 2009 was 180 units, the second lowest level since 2003 and below the 2003-09 average of 190 units. Based on the existing waiting list of 740 units and the average number of move-ins, assuming no new applications, the estimated time to meet demand or clear the waiting list would be less than four years. Unfortunately, however, there are numerous new applications for Grey County Housing units each year, averaging roughly 630 units annually between 2003 and 2009. In 2009 there were almost 650 new applications, a significant increase from both 2007 and 2008, but in keeping with the 2003-09 average. Based on the average number of new applications and the average number of move-ins, there would be an additional 440 units added to the waiting list each year. While this number in actuality is much less, due to a large number of applications being deactivated or not meeting the specified criteria for consideration, the County’s waiting list and associated wait-time
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 50 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 appear to be increasing. This trend is illustrated in Figure 5, with both the number of new applications and waiting list levels treading upwards and the number of move-ins remaining relatively stable or treading slightly lower.
Figure 5.
7.3 Independent Social Housing Table 34 on the following page provides a summary of the social housing units that are not owned and/or administered by Grey County Housing, but rather by other non-profit organizations in the County. There are approximately a 169 additional social housing units in the County, made up of single rooms, single houses and apartment units. Much like the social housing units administered by the County, the majority of these other units are located in the City of Owen Sound, accounting for over 50% of the additional units, with Chatsworth and Meaford also having a significant amount. There are no independent social housing units in the Town of The Blue Mountains. The target tenants of the independent social housing units are largely targeted towards the aboriginal population and seniors, as well as those with mental or physical disabilities, and temporary/transitional units for those suffering from substance abuse. Like Grey County Housing Units, a large portion of tenants currently receive Federal or Provincial transfers, including Ontario Works and ODSP.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 51 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 32. Overview of Grey County Social Housing - Feb 2010
Municipality Community Total Units Bedroom Types Designation Provider Chatsworth Chatsworth 22 1 bedroom Senior, Adult Grey County Housing Southgate Dundalk 49 bachelor & 1 bedroom Senior, Adult Grey County Housing Holstein 16 1 bedroom Senior, Adult Grey County Housing West Grey Durham 78 Family, Grey County Housing & Garafraxa 1, 2 & 3 bedroom Senior, Adult Non-Profit Neustadt 20 1 & 2 bedroom Senior Neustadt Hillside Manor Grey Highlands Flesherton 10 bachelor & 1 bedroom Senior, Adult Grey County Housing Markdale 42 1 bedroom Senior, Adult Grey County Housing Meaford Meaford Family, Grey County Housing & Golden 181 1, 2, 3 & 4 bedroom Senior, Adult Town Residential Community Inc. Owen Sound Owen Sound Grey County Housing, Owen Sound Municipal Non-Profit Housing 832 Women, Corp., Lutheran Social Services, Family, Rockcliffe Seniors Complex, bachelor, 1, 2, 3, & 4 bedroom Senior, Adult Maam Wiim Win Native Homes Town of The Blue Mountains Thornbury 60 1 bedroom Senior, Adult Grey County Housing Hanover Hanover Family, Grey County Housing & Lutheran 111 bachelor, 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom Senior, Adult Social Services Inc. Total 1,421 Source: NBLC & Grey Housing
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 52 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Table 34. Overview of Independent Social Housing in the County of Grey Number Bedroom Name Community of Units Types Target Residents Provider/Notes Southgate 152 Bradley Dundalk 1 Single House Aboriginals Ontario Aboriginal Services Corporation 138 Osprey Dundalk 2 duplex Southeast Grey Community Outreach Dundalk 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Meaford Godfrey House Meaford 32 Rotary Club of Meaford Meaford 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incoporated Hanover 11th Ave. Hanover 5 Single Rooms Disabilities HARC Inc. 7th Ave Hanover 5 Single Rooms Disabilities HARC Inc.
Owen Sound G & B House Owen Sound 15 Single rooms Substance Abuse Mental Health and Addiction Services Grey- Keystone Owen Sound 7 Teen Mental Health Keystone Child, Youth & Family Services Kelso Seniors Owen Sound 25 Single rooms Seniors Frank Smith Apt. Owen Sound 40 Aprt. Units Owen Sound 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Grey Highlands Bognor 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Markdale 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Flesherton 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Georgian Bluffs Keppel Township 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Shallow Lake 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Chatsworth Participation Lodge Holland Centre 20 Single room Physical and Participation Lodge and Community Services Holland Centre 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Desboro 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Chatsworth 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Sullivan 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated Keady 1 Single House Aboriginals Wigwamen Incorporated West Grey HARC Neustadt 4 Single room Disabilities HARC Inc. Total 169 Source: NBLC and local municipal staff
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 53 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
7.4 Other Social Housing Programs Social housing units in the County of Grey are provided directly through the units owned and administered by the County and other non-profits groups, as discussed, but also indirectly, through various other County, Provincial or Federal programs, the majority of which consist of rent supplements or interest free loans. The following is an overview of other programs available in the County of Grey to assist low income individuals and families either purchase or rent a home: Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program: Homeownership Component A 20-year interest-free loan up to $85,000 maximum, to assist low to moderate income rental households purchase affordable homes. In the County of Grey, the maximum household income to apply is $55,000. The maximum house price is $170,000. Funding provided by the Federal and Provincial government and administered by Grey County Housing. Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program: Rent Supplement A program to assist service managers provide low-income households with affordable housing without the need to build additional units. The rent supplement, which is intended to make-up the difference between actual market rent and what the household can afford to paid, is paid to the landlord. To be eligible, households must be on social housing waiting lists, meet Household Income Limits and not receive rent-geared-to-income benefits. 10% of the service manager’s total units must be allocated to victims of domestic violence. Eligible units to receive supplement must be self contained and do not include: hostels, group home or congregate living arrangements, nursing and retirement homes. Monthly rent should not exceed the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation market rent for the area. Funding provided by the Federal and Provincial government and administered by Grey County Housing. Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program: Social Housing Renovation and Retrofit Program Program to provide funding to repair and regenerate eligible social housing projects, which includes making homes accessible to everyone, reduce social housing operating costs, and reduce waiting lists by restoring vacant buildings. Eligible projects include: . Public housing projects developed by the Ontario Housing Corporation (now the Ontario Mortgage and Housing Corporation) and transferred to SMs under the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (SHRA); . Projects funded under the SHRA and formerly funded under: . Federal/Provincial non-profit housing programs (non-profit and cooperative housing); and
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 54 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
. Unilateral Provincial non-profit housing programs (non-profit and cooperative housing). . Projects developed under the Federal Section 95 housing program, including the Urban Native Housing Program; . Projects developed under the Section 26 housing program (including the Limited Dividend Program) and the Section 27 housing program directly funded by CMHC.; and . Off-reserve projects funded under the Rural and Native Housing Rental Program. Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program Funding provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well as the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Administered by local Service Managers. Rent supplements to households unable to afford rent. Available for regular and supportive rental housing units. Service managers enter into rent supplement agreements directly with landlords and receive fixed quarterly payments from the ministry based on their own Program Take-Up Plans. Can be provided separately or as part of Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program.
Rental Opportunity for Ontario Families A five-year program beginning in January 2008 funded and administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The program provides a housing allowance of up to $100 per month to low-income working families struggling with housing affordability in the province. Generally, these are families with at least one child under the age of 18, who are currently renting and are earning from $5,000 to $20,000 (net income) per year. To be eligible: . Family earning should have an Adjusted Family Net Income below $20,000; . Having one or more dependent children under the age of 18; . Paying more than 30% of income towards rent; . Having less than $10,000 in liquid assets (e.g., cash, bank account, bonds or stocks); . Not receiving social assistance or any other rent subsidy; and . Being a resident of Ontario and meeting program requirements for status in Canada.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 55 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
8.0 FUTURE DEMAND This section provides an overview of the expected future demand for affordable and social housing in the County. This section accepts the housing forecasts produced as part of the County’s Official Plan review and discussed in Sections 4.6 and provides an assessment of what portion of the forecast housing demand is likely to be for affordable and social housing units.
8.1 Trends & Influences Affecting Affordable & Social Housing Demand Given the outlook of population and housing growth and in order to maintain the same levels of supply, the need for additional affordable and social housing units will exist throughout the County, with the amount varying by each local municipality. However, it is expected that the demand for additional affordable and social housing units beyond what is required to maintain existing levels, will be required due to three primary, related factors: employment/income, the housing market, and inflation.
8.1.1 Employment – Income In line with estimates of employment growth by industry outlined in the County’s background growth management report, employment in the County’s two most dominant industries, industrial and agriculture, is expected to decline. This decline is expected to be the result of increased productivity, increased regional, national and global competition; the overall decline in the Province’s manufacturing base; and, the County’s limited competitive advantages. Industrial activities typically like to be in close proximity to major highways and other major transportation infrastructure, large educated labour forces, and close to major markets, including the U.S. While there may be some growth in other sectors, including knowledge-based industries, economic and employment growth in the County is likely to be largely the result of growth in the service sector and tourism industries, as the natural attraction of the area continues to attract increased amounts of permanent and seasonal residents, as well as tourists. Despite the likelihood for economic growth in these sectors, the associated incomes are comparatively low, with only limited long-term career potential. As a result, a large portion of the resident population will continue to commute to other municipalities in Southern Ontario for better paying and skilled employment, and more importantly, individual and household income levels will not increase significantly and will remain comparatively low. This has significant implications for future affordable and social housing demand in the County, as income makes up one half of the affordability calculation. If housing prices continue to increase without similar increases in employment and income, the demand for affordable accommodation will also increase.
8.1.2 Housing Market Despite the relatively weak economic growth forecast for the County in the next 20 years, it is expected that the County’s housing market, especially ownership market, will remain relatively strong. It is very unusual for a housing market to continue to perform strongly despite limited economic growth/strength, however the continued strength of the County’s housing market is based on the following factors:
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 56 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Retirement market – Every local municipality in the County has, and will continue, to attract a large portion of non-local buyers that are either retired or starting to “slow-down”. The vast majority of in-migrants to the County will be over the age 55, attracted to one or more of the following characteristics: . Natural and physical setting; . Numerous outdoor, 4-season, recreation opportunities; . Available services and amenities, particularly the hospitals located in Meaford, Owen Sound, Hanover, and the planned Centre Grey Hospital in Markdale (Grey Highlands); . High quality of life; . Proximity to large urban areas, including the cities of Collingwood, Barrie and the GTA; . The small town or rural nature of various communities; and . For some municipalities, the relative affordability of housing. Commuter market - In the case of some municipalities, there is expected to be increased demand by those commuting to work in other municipalities. This is expected to be the case in Southgate, due to its proximity to large urban areas to the south and its relative affordability, as well as Meaford, The Blue Mountains and Grey Highlands, due to their outdoor recreation opportunities, including their relative proximity to certain large urban areas. Non-permanent market – The demand for non-permanent/seasonal units in some municipalities, especially Georgian Bluffs, Meaford, The Blue Mountains and Grey Highlands, is also expected to remain strong and will continue to influence the permanent housing market, due to the lack of separation or intermingling of the permanent and non- permanent housing markets, the increased propensity for people to purchase seasonal units with the idea of living in them permanently in the future, and the exclusivity of living in permanently in high-demand, seasonal locations. Limited active/new housing market – Due to the existing, and likely continued, limited new home market in some municipalities, there will be increased pressure on the resale housing market. Aging of the Population – Not only will the majority of new immigrants to the County be older individuals and couples, but the existing local population will continue to age, further decreasing the average household size. As a result, additional units will be required to accommodate the same sized population. Cost of Construction – In keeping with past trends, the cost of construction in the Province will likely increase, with the cost of likely to be passed on to the consumer, therefore increasing housing costs. Finally, as a result in the increased strength of the County’s housing market, due to the aforementioned reasons, as well as the limited supply of rental units in some of the local municipalities and employment growth in the service sector and tourism, it is likely that the demand
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 57 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010 for rental accommodation will also increase, pushing up the rental rates in the County from their existing affordable levels.
8.1.3 Income Growth vs. Housing Affordability Based on census data, summarized in Table 37, the increase of median household incomes for the County and each of the municipalities between 2001and 2006 were compared to the increase of average rental rates and housing values over the same time period. Table 35 illustrates that, household incomes and rental rates in the County increased by approximately the same amount, while estimated housing values increased significantly more than income levels. This trend is generally the case in each of the local municipalities, with the exception of The Blue Mountains, where average rental rates increased significantly more than household incomes. It can be concluded that for each municipality household ownership affordability decreased between 2001 and 2006 for all municipalities and the County while, with the exception of The Blue Mountains, rental housing affordability remained stable or in some cases increased over the same time period. Table 35. Household Income, Average Rent & Value of Dwelling Increase, Grey County 2001-2006 Median Household Income Average Rent Average Value of Dwelling 2001 2006 % Increase 2001 2006 % Increase 2001 2006 % Increase Georgian Bluffs $ 53,136 $ 62,082 16.8% $ 554 $ 557 0.5% $ 154,404 $ 258,625 67.5% The Blue Mountains $ 47,809 $ 59,061 23.5% $ 567 $ 854 50.6% $ 247,264 $ 406,839 64.5% Southgate $ 44,858 $ 56,710 26.4% $ 519 $ 621 19.7% $ 148,972 $ 226,565 52.1% Grey Highlands $ 46,239 $ 51,771 12.0% $ 583 $ 633 8.6% $ 168,607 $ 277,475 64.6% Meaford $ 35,193 $ 51,634 46.7% $ 588 $ 684 16.3% $ 138,800 $ 261,355 88.3% West Grey $ 45,350 $ 52,119 14.9% $ 513 $ 596 16.2% $ 135,612 $ 223,459 64.8% Chatsworth $ 44,318 $ 50,647 14.3% $ 552 $ 559 1.3% $ 130,421 $ 213,087 63.4% Hanover $ 38,956 $ 44,771 14.9% $ 570 $ 665 16.7% $ 123,524 $ 180,631 46.2% Owen Sound $ 35,746 $ 40,919 14.5% $ 545 $ 616 13.0% $ 121,720 $ 191,623 57.4% Grey County $ 43,107 $ 49,912 15.8% $ 550 $ 638 16.0% $ 150,214 $ 244,305 62.6% Source: Statistics Canada 2001 & 2006 Based on our economic and housing market outlook for the County, this trend is likely to continue, with housing prices, and potentially rental rates, increasing in the County more quickly than household incomes.
8.2 Affordable Housing Assuming that the proportion of affordable ownership units in the County remains the same and that rental units remain affordable to the vast majority of total households, based on forecast housing growth, it is estimated that the County will require over 7,000 additional affordable housing units by 2031, consisting of roughly 4,200 ownership units and 2,800 rental units (not including social housing units) just to maintain current local affordable housing levels. This represents almost 54% of all forecast new housing units for the County; the same proportion of affordable housing units, not including social housing units, that currently exist in the County.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 58 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Maintaining or improving upon the same levels of affordable housing in each of the local municipalities in the future is likely to be difficult without policy intervention, given the anticipated increase in housing prices and the limited growth in employment and income levels. Keeping this in mind, the County may want to consider policy targets for affordable housing for each of the municipalities, with an overall County objective of roughly 50% to 60% of all new housing units in the County meeting the suggested housing affordability targets, of which roughly 60% should be ownership and 40% should be in rental format, roughly the same as the existing affordable housing split in the County. The affordable housing needs in the County are diverse and range from municipality to municipality. Due to differing local needs, it is suggested that new affordable housing units be targeted towards specific municipalities based on need, as assessed through one or a combination of the following criteria: 1. Those with the largest existing affordable housing under supplies, which includes , The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands, and Meaford; 2. Those municipalities with the greatest ownership housing affordability gaps, which includes; The Blue Mountains, Georgian Bluffs and Meaford; and, 3. Those municipalities that are expected to experience the greatest amount of population and housing growth, i.e. Southgate and Owen Sound. Not only is a large portion of new housing growth in the County required, but it must be reflective of the expected composition of the County’s population. Primarily, a large portion of new affordable housing units must be geared towards resident retirees, seniors and those requiring assisted living and long-term care. This includes a large amount of higher density, smaller units, located on one level and located close to necessary amenities and services. At the same time, in order to attract and retain younger individuals and families, a portion of the new affordable units, primarily ownership units, must be designed and located with this buyer-group in mind.
8.3 Social Housing Similar to affordable housing, based on the forecast housing growth and supply and demand analysis, it is estimated that an additional 600 social housing units, representing over 8% of all new housing units, are required in the County in order maintain the same level of service in light of population growth. However in order to meet the expected increased future demand for social housing, which is supported by the emerging trends discussed in Section 7.2.2, it is recommended that a target of over 600 additional social housing units, all in rental format, be set. However, providing the required number of new social housing units is almost completely subject to available funding and resources. Similar to affordable housing needs, future social housing needs in the County are not uniform across each of the local municipalities. As a result, all additional social housing units should be targeted towards local municipalities on a needs basis, assessed using one or a combination of the following criteria: 1. Those municipalities with the largest affordable housing supply shortages; 2. Those municipalities that already possess the services and amenities necessary for supporting the range of residents of social housing units, i.e. Owen Sound and Hanover;
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 59 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
3. Those municipalities with existing low ratios of social housing units compared to the County average, which includes Georgian Bluffs, Chatsworth and Grey Highlands; and, 4. Those municipalities that are forecast to experience the greatest amount of population and housing growth. The additional social housing units must also be reflective of the future demographic composition of the County, as well as existing social housing needs. As a result, it is suggested that a large proportion of social housing units be one and two bedroom in size, targeting mostly singles and older individuals and couples. While there is currently the need for family sized units in some of the municipalities, there is no reason to suspect that the demand for such units will increase from past levels, nor is there reason to suspect that the need for special needs units will increase from past levels.
8.4 Other Housing Due to population growth, demographics, economic/social investment and the general passage of time, a variety of other housing types must also be considered when planning for future housing needs in the County of Grey. This includes: Suitably designed and located seniors housing, including retirement homes, assisted living and long-term care facilities; The maintenance and upgrading of existing rental units, especially those built prior to 1970; Student housing in the City of Owen Sound; and The provision of rural home and lot severances in some targeted areas, including Mennonite communities. The maintenance and upgrading of existing rental units is particularly important as the affordable supply and demand analysis does not consider the condition of rental housing units. That is, while there may exist sufficient rental housing in the County or in a given municipality to meet or offset affordable ownership housing demand, it may be of very poor quality. Excluding such rental units would increase the under supply or further limit the over supply of affordable housing units in the local municipalities, this is especially true in the City of Owen Sound, where a significant supply of rental units exist, many of which are quite old, and where only a limited oversupply of affordable housing exists. In light of forecast population and housing growth; existing and emerging demographic, economic and housing market trends; and the desire to maintain the existing affordable housing equilibrium in the County, the need for additional affordable, social and other housing units in the County is clear. How to meet this need is up to various levels of government, the private sector and non- profit organizations. The role and responsibility of the County of Grey specifically in meeting this future needs is the topic of the Phase Two report.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 60 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
9.0 SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS & ISSUES This chapter provides a summary of the most significant issues and conclusions stemming from the Phase One analysis, as well as highlights core existing and future housing needs in the County. The conclusions, issues and housing needs are separated by major themes.
Policy The updated County Official Plan provides basic housing policies as well as guidance to the local municipalities. However, the OP does not provide detailed housing goals and targets or programs and actions necessary for achieving identified goals and targets. The updated County OP does recognize the need to undertake a housing study at the County and/or local municipal level in order to develop a strategy to deal with affordable housing. With the exception of Owen Sound and to a lesser degree Meaford, the majority of local Official Plans are somewhat dated and contain little to no policies or guidelines related to housing. In fact, some local Official Plans contain policies that actually limit housing choice, mix and affordability. Demographics The County has experienced a comparatively limited amount of growth in recent years relative to other areas of Southern Ontario. Population Growth in the County is largely the result of in-migration of older individuals and couples. The majority of recent growth has taken place in the Town of The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands and Southgate. The higher rates of population growth in The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands, Meaford and Georgian Bluffs are due to the large amount of older age-groups moving into the area. This is due to the physical beauty of the region, good access to services and numerous outdoor recreation opportunities. The high rate of growth experienced in Southgate is also due to growth in older age groups, but also due to the Township’s increasing attraction to younger couples and families as an affordable alternative to the larger urban areas to the south. Population growth in the remaining municipalities has been relatively limited and primarily a result of in-migration of older age-groups looking for affordable, small-town or rural communities in which to retire. Overall, the County’s population is aging and is relatively old in comparison to most other areas of the province, due to a significantly larger proportion of the population aged over 55. The Township of Southgate has the youngest population, while the Town of The Blue Mountains has the oldest population in the County. The aging of the County’s population is expected to continue, with the proportion of those aged over 55 expected to increase from 33% to 42% by 2031.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 61 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
The aging of the population is the result of demographic shift, the large in-migration of older age-groups, and the out-migration of younger age-groups. The physical number of people aged under 44 in the County decreased between 2001 and 2006. Housing There exists a large amount of non-permanent/seasonal dwelling units in the County, largely located along the Georgian Bay waterfront and within the Niagara Escarpment. In a number of the local municipalities the proportion of non-permanent/seasonal households appears to be decreasing as owners of the properties move toward living in the region on more full-time basis. A large portion of which do not claim permanent residency in the County. The County is dominated by low density housing types, with the majority of higher density housing (primarily apartment units) located in Owen Sound and Hanover, and to a lesser degree The Blue Mountains and Meaford. Large proportion of housing in the County is owned, due primarily to ownership affordability and the limited supply of rental units. The bulk of rental units in the County are located in Owen Sound and Hanover. Average household size in the County and each of the municipalities is declining, due primarily to the age of the population. The housing stock in the County, particularly the rental stock, is quite old, with a large portion of units built prior to 1970. Employment & Income The level of employment or the number of residents of the County that are employed is significantly higher than the number of jobs that are physically located in the County, indicating that the County is a large net exporter of employment, i.e. residents commute outside of the County for work. However, the industry concentrations of employment and jobs in the County are relatively similar, with concentrations in manufacturing, retail trade, health care and social services and construction. Individual and household income in the County are relatively low compared to other areas of Ontario, although a significant range in terms of both average incomes and by household percentiles exists between the local municipalities. Owen Sound and Hanover generally have the lowest incomes, while The Blue Mountains and Georgian Bluffs have the highest. The average income of employment and jobs in the County are almost the same, which combined with the similar industry concentrations, indicates that people are commuting outside of the County more for the availability of job opportunities than for the type of jobs. Some municipalities, such as The Blue Mountains and Georgian Bluffs, have much higher employment income and job income, due primarily to the lower paying nature of jobs located in the municipalities, i.e. service sector and tourism related. As is the case in most municipalities, the average incomes of women, younger and older age groups and single parents, especially those single female parents, are much lower than the average incomes in the County.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 62 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Housing Market Housing development activity in the County has slowed in recent years, with all development in low-density, and some medium-density (townhome), format. Recent development activity has been concentrated in specific municipalities, especially The Blue Mountains and Meaford. The existing new housing market is dominated by projects in the Town of The Blue Mountains, and to a lesser degree, Meaford, with only 3 or 4 developments currently marketing outside of these municipalities. The majority of new homes are single detached houses, mostly bungalows, and townhouses, with prices starting in the high $200,000s for most projects, with the exception of those in Meaford and Southgate, which start at under $200,000. The resale housing market in the County and in most local municipalities is quite strong, due in part to the limited new housing market. The average resale value in the County is about $250,000. Local resale values can be split into three categories: The Blue Mountains at an average of about $450,000; Meaford, Grey Highlands and Georgian Bluffs in the range of $250,000 to $260,000; and the remaining municipalities in the range of $190,000 to $230,000. Only a limited amount of resale activity in the County is in higher density housing forms, however, they generally have lower resale values. Based on 2006 Census data, the average dwelling unit in the County was worth $244,000, with almost 50% of houses valued at under $200,000. Rental market in the County is relatively small and is dominated by Owen Sound, Hanover and Meaford, with a vacancy rate estimated at under 5%. The average monthly rental rates throughout the County range from $500 to $800 depending on unit size/type, with only the Town of The Blue Mountains falling slightly beyond this range. These rental rates are comparatively affordable to many areas in southern Ontario. A large portion of rental units in the County are believed to be in poor condition and in need of repairs and upgrading. It is estimated that the County will grow by over 13,000 housing units by 2031, and be relatively evenly distributed throughout the County, with the largest growth expected to occur in Southgate and Owen Sound. About 80% of housing growth is expected to be in single detached units, with 16% in apartment format and 5% in row/townhouse format. The vast majority of higher density housing growth is likely to take place in Owen Sound, Hanover, The Blue Mountains and Meaford. There is an estimated existing residential unit supply in the County of almost 41,000 units, more than enough to meet forecast housing demand at the County and local level. Housing Affordability The two provincial definitions of ownership housing affordability result in maximum affordable housing prices in the County of $192,700 and $225,200. Therefore, at the
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 63 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
County level, an affordable ownership unit is considered any unit priced under $193,000 as of 2009, well below average market price in the County. The lower of the two provincial definitions of rental affordability at the County level is related to existing market rates. Therefore at the County level, affordable rental rates are considered to be between $500 and $800 a month depending on unit type/size, in line with market rates. Like most municipalities in Ontario rental affordability and ownership affordability, is considerably for those household, particularly rental households, in the lower income percentiles. For The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands, West Grey, Meaford, Hanover and Owen Sound, the lower of the two provincial definitions of ownership affordability was the definition related to household income percentiles. As a result, the maximum affordable housing price for these municipalities as of 2009 is: . $246,700 – The Blue Mountains; . $202,400 – Grey Highlands; . $191,600 – West Grey; . $187,800 – Meaford; . $160,300 – Hanover; and, . $151,600 – Owen Sound. For Georgian Bluffs, Southgate and Chatsworth, the lower of the two provincial definitions of ownership affordability was the definition related to 10% below regional market value. As a result, the maximum affordable housing price for these three municipalities as of 2009 is $197,600. The lower of the two provincial definitions of rental affordability for all of the local municipalities is the definition related to average rates in the regional market area. As a result, affordable monthly rental rates in each of the municipalities ranges from $500 to $800, depending on unit type/size. Rental rates are deemed to be generally affordable in all local municipalities, with only the Town of The Blue Mountains having average rental rates slightly above regional market rates. Based on an analysis of affordable housing supply and demand, there exists an affordable housing shortage in The Blue Mountains, Meaford, Grey Highlands, Georgian Bluffs, as well as Chatsworth. Over supplies of affordable housing units currently exist in Hanover and Owen Sound, with only negligible shortages in West Grey and Southgate. Housing affordability is more constrained for women, single parent households, as well as younger and senior age-groups. Social Housing There are 1,471 social housing units in the County owned/administered by Grey County Housing, the Local Housing Provider for the County of Grey, the largest proportion of units as a percentage of total households, of all surrounding Local Housing Providers (i.e. Bruce, Lambton, Dufferin, etc.). All of the Grey County Housing units are rent-geared-to-income, of which the majority are 1 and 2 bedroom units, primarily serving seniors, single men and couples.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 64 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Over 50% of Grey County Housing units are located in Owen Sound, with other large concentrations in Hanover and Meaford. Demand for Grey County Housing units is on the rise, with the number of applications and the number of units on the waiting list both increasing, and the turn-over rate remaining relatively stable. There also exists an additional 170 units owned and operated independently from Grey County Housing, providing permanent and temporary accommodation to a variety of target at-risk groups. Furthermore, the County also participates in a variety of other programs that provide housing assistance, primarily through rent supplements and loans. Future Demand There is no reason to expect that the existing levels of demand for affordable, social and other specific housing forms will decrease in the future. It is estimated that over 7,000 additional affordable housing units or 54% of total forecast housing growth, as well as 600 new social housing units will be required throughout the County by 2031, just to maintain current levels of supply and service in light of forecast population and household growth. Due to declines in some economic sectors, only moderate increases in average incomes, the continued strength of the County’s housing market, particularly ownership housing, as well as the continued disconnect between income and housing price inflation; the demand for affordable, social and other specific housing types is expected to increase from current levels. Affordable housing needs will further increase if existing supply/service levels in some municipalities are to be improved upon. In order to meet the expected increased demand, the number of new affordable housing units should be targeted at approximately 50% to 60% of all new housing units on a county-wide basis, with 60% in ownership format and the remaining 40% in rental format. The number of new social housing units should be targeted at over 600 units. Using specific criteria, additional affordable and social housing units should be targeted towards certain municipalities based on need. The three municipalities most in need of additional affordable housing units are: The Blue Mountains, Meaford and Grey Highlands. The three municipalities most in need of additional social housing units are: The Blue Mountains, Grey Highlands, and Owen Sound. Finally, consideration should also be given to the provision of various forms of seniors housing, the rehabilitation and upgrading of the rental stock, student housing in Owen Sound and the provision of rural homes/lots in specific communities/areas.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 65 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX A – GEORGIAN BLUFFS
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Georgian Bluffs, Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Total HouseholdsCumulative Cumulative Renter CumulativeHouseholds Cumulative Total % Total % of Total Total % Total % of Total Total - Households 4035 100% 295 93% 10th Percentile ($19023 and under) 410 10% 410 10% 100 34% 100 34% 20th Percentile ($19024 to $32273) 400 10% 810 20% 50 17% 150 51% 30th Percentile ($32274 to $41117) 395 10% 1205 30% 60 20% 210 71% 40th Percentile ($41118 to $50278) 410 10% 1615 40% 0 0% 210 71% 50th Percentile ($50279 to $62082) 405 10% 2020 50% 25 8% 235 80% 60th Percentile ($62083 to $72162) 405 10% 2425 60% 15 5% 250 85% 70th Percentile ($72163 to $83264) 400 10% 2825 70% 15 5% 265 90% 80th Percentile ($83265 to $100695) 410 10% 3235 80% 0 0% 265 90% 90th Percentile ($100696 to $129516) 395 10% 3630 90% 0 0% 265 90% 100th Percentile ($129517 and over) 405 10% 4035 100% 10 3% 275 93% Average total household income $ $75,355 $36,909 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Georgian Bluffs, 2009
Affordable 2006 Annual Georgian Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable Bluffs income Income (30% of Purchase levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 62,082 $ 66,080 $ 19,824 $ 206,500 Average Household Incomes $ 75,355 $ 80,208 $ 24,062 $ 257,200
20th Percentile $ 32,273 $ 34,351 $ 10,305 $ 92,400 30th Percentile $ 41,117 $ 43,765 $ 13,129 $ 126,200 40th Percentile $ 50,278 $ 53,516 $ 16,055 $ 161,200 50th Percentile $ 62,082 $ 66,080 $ 19,824 $ 206,500 60th Percentile $ 72,162 $ 76,809 $ 23,043 $ 244,900 70th Percentile $ 83,264 $ 88,626 $ 26,588 $ 287,500 80th Percentile $ 100,695 $ 107,180 $ 32,154 $ 354,200 90th Percentile $ 129,516 $ 137,857 $ 41,357 $ 464,500 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 66 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Georgian Bluffs 2009 Est. 2009 Town 2006 Town Rental Rental Household Est. 2009 Household Income Affordable Income levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 30,820 $ 32,805 $ 820 Average Household Incomes $ 36,909 $ 39,286 $ 982 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 15,807 $ 16,825 $ 421 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 20,139 $ 21,436 $ 536 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 24,626 $ 26,212 $ 655 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 30,408 $ 32,366 $ 809 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 35,345 $ 37,621 $ 941 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 67 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX B – OWEN SOUND
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Owen Sound, Households by Income Percentiles Total Households Renter Households Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative % Total % Total % of Total Total % Total of Total Total - Households 9,380 100% 3,775 100% 10th Percentile ($14395 and under) 940 10% 940 10% 735 19% 735 19% 20th Percentile ($14396 to $19759) 935 10% 1,875 20% 665 18% 1,400 37% 30th Percentile ($19760 to $26229) 945 10% 2,820 30% 595 16% 1,995 53% 40th Percentile ($26230 to $33373) 945 10% 3,765 40% 475 13% 2,470 65% 50th Percentile ($33374 to $40919) 930 10% 4,695 50% 410 11% 2,880 76% 60th Percentile ($40920 to $50275) 940 10% 5,635 60% 315 8% 3,195 85% 70th Percentile ($50276 to $60974) 930 10% 6,565 70% 265 7% 3,460 92% 80th Percentile ($60975 to $75503) 940 10% 7,505 80% 190 5% 3,650 97% 90th Percentile ($75504 to $101122) 940 10% 8,445 90% 110 3% 3,760 100% 100th Percentile ($101123 and over) 940 10% 9,385 100% 25 1% 3,785 100% Average total household income $ $ 40,919 $ 24,880 Median total household income $ $ 51,952 $ 30,468 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Owen Sound, 2009 Affordable 2006 Owen Annual Sound Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable income Income (30% of Purchase levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 40,919 $ 43,554 $ 13,066 $ 117,900 Average Household Incomes $ 51,952 $ 55,298 $ 16,589 $ 157,700
20th Percentile $ 19,759 $ 21,031 $ 6,309 $ 41,700 30th Percentile $ 25,229 $ 26,854 $ 8,056 $ 61,400 40th Percentile $ 33,373 $ 35,522 $ 10,657 $ 90,700 50th Percentile $ 40,919 $ 43,554 $ 13,066 $ 117,900 60th Percentile $ 50,275 $ 53,513 $ 16,054 $ 151,600 70th Percentile $ 60,974 $ 64,901 $ 19,470 $ 190,200 80th Percentile $ 75,503 $ 80,365 $ 24,110 $ 242,500 90th Percentile $ 101,122 $ 107,634 $ 32,290 $ 334,800 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 68 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Owen Sound 2009 Est. 2009 2006 Town Town Rental Rental Household Household Est. 2009 Income Income Affordable levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 24,880 $ 26,482 $ 662 Average Household Incomes $ 30,468 $ 32,430 $ 811 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 11,588 $ 12,334 $ 308 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 14,796 $ 15,749 $ 394 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 19,572 $ 20,833 $ 521 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 23,998 $ 25,543 $ 639 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 29,484 $ 31,383 $ 785 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 69 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX C – MEAFORD
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Meaford, Households by Income Percentiles Total Households Renter Households Cumulativ Cumulativ Cumulativ e % of Cumulativ e % of Total % e Total Total Total % e Total Total Total - Households 4440 100% 745 100% 10th Percentile ($16500 and under) 445 10% 445 10% 210 28% 210 28% 20th Percentile ($16501 to $25970) 445 10% 890 20% 145 19% 355 48% 30th Percentile ($25971 to $33761) 445 10% 1335 30% 100 13% 455 61% 40th Percentile ($33762 to $42998) 440 10% 1775 40% 75 10% 530 71% 50th Percentile ($42999 to $51634) 445 10% 2220 50% 75 10% 605 81% 60th Percentile ($51635 to $60093) 435 10% 2655 60% 35 5% 640 86% 70th Percentile ($60094 to $72289) 455 10% 3110 70% 40 5% 680 91% 80th Percentile ($72290 to $87152) 455 10% 3565 80% 35 5% 715 96% 90th Percentile ($87153 to $118432) 440 10% 4005 90% 20 3% 735 99% 100th Percentile ($118433 and over) 445 10% 4,450 100% 10 1% 745 100% Average total household income $ $ 51,634 $ 26,723 Median total household income $ $ 63,478 $ 33,079 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Meaford, 2009 Affordable 2006 Annual Meaford Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable income Income (30% of Purchase levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 51,634 $ 54,959 $ 16,488 $ 157,100 Average Household Incomes $ 63,478 $ 67,566 $ 20,270 $ 199,800
20th Percentile $ 25,970 $ 27,642 $ 8,293 $ 64,300 30th Percentile $ 33,761 $ 35,935 $ 10,781 $ 92,400 40th Percentile $ 42,998 $ 45,767 $ 13,730 $ 125,800 50th Percentile $ 51,634 $ 54,959 $ 16,488 $ 157,100 60th Percentile $ 60,093 $ 63,963 $ 19,189 $ 187,600 70th Percentile $ 72,289 $ 76,944 $ 23,083 $ 231,600 80th Percentile $ 87,152 $ 92,765 $ 27,829 $ 285,400 90th Percentile $ 118,432 $ 126,059 $ 37,818 $ 398,400 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 70 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Meaford 2009 Est. 2009 2006 Town Town Rental Rental Household Household Est. 2009 Income Income Affordable levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 26,723 $ 28,444 $ 711 Average Household Incomes $ 33,079 $ 35,209 $ 880 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 13,533 $ 14,405 $ 360 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 17,593 $ 18,726 $ 468 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 22,407 $ 23,850 $ 596 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 26,907 $ 28,640 $ 716 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 31,315 $ 33,332 $ 833 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 71 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX D – GREY HIGHLANDS
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Grey Highlands, Households by Income Percentiles Total Households Renter Households Cumulativ Cumulativ Cumulativ e % of Cumulativ e % of Total % e Total Total Total % e Total Total Total - Households 3685 100% 470 100% 10th Percentile ($17004 and under) 370 10% 370 10% 125 27% 125 27% 20th Percentile ($17005 to $26310) 370 10% 740 20% 130 28% 255 54% 30th Percentile ($26311 to $32707) 355 10% 1095 30% 110 23% 365 78% 40th Percentile ($32708 to $42121) 385 10% 1480 40% 35 7% 400 85% 50th Percentile ($42122 to $51771) 360 10% 1840 50% 15 3% 415 88% 60th Percentile ($51772 to $61295) 375 10% 2215 60% 10 2% 425 90% 70th Percentile ($61296 to $74984) 355 10% 2570 70% 25 5% 450 96% 80th Percentile ($74985 to $95987) 380 10% 2950 80% 0 0% 450 96% 90th Percentile ($95988 to $121972) 380 10% 3330 90% 10 2% 460 98% 100th Percentile ($121973 and over) 355 10% 3685 100% 10 2% 470 100% Average total household income $ $ 51,771 $ 25,272 Median total household income $ $ 68,698 $ 33,914 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Grey Highlands, 2009 Affordable Annual 2006 Grey Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable Highlands Income (30% of Purchase income levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 51,771 $ 55,105 $ 16,532 $ 166,100 Average Household Incomes $ 68,698 $ 73,122 $ 21,937 $ 230,600
20th Percentile $ 26,310 $ 28,004 $ 8,401 $ 69,200 30th Percentile $ 32,707 $ 34,813 $ 10,444 $ 93,500 40th Percentile $ 42,121 $ 44,834 $ 13,450 $ 129,400 50th Percentile $ 51,771 $ 55,105 $ 16,532 $ 166,100 60th Percentile $ 61,295 $ 65,242 $ 19,573 $ 202,400 70th Percentile $ 74,984 $ 79,813 $ 23,944 $ 254,500 80th Percentile $ 95,987 $ 102,169 $ 30,651 $ 334,600 90th Percentile $ 121,973 $ 129,828 $ 38,948 $ 433,500 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 72 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Grey Highlands 2009
2006 Town Est. 2009 Rental Town Rental Household Household Est. 2009 Income Income Affordable levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 25,272 $ 26,900 $ 672 Average Household Incomes $ 33,914 $ 36,098 $ 902 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 12,988 $ 13,825 $ 346 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 16,146 $ 17,186 $ 430 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 20,794 $ 22,133 $ 553 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 25,558 $ 27,204 $ 680 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 30,259 $ 32,208 $ 805 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 73 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX E – WEST GREY
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 West Grey, Households by Income Percentiles Total Households Renter Households Cumulativ Cumulativ Cumulativ e % of Cumulativ e % of Total % e Total Total Total % e Total Total Total - Households 4,725 100% 740 99% 10th Percentile ($16293 and under) 470 10% 470 10% 180 24% 180 24% 20th Percentile ($16294 to $25291) 490 10% 960 20% 140 19% 320 43% 30th Percentile ($25292 to $32590) 460 10% 1,420 30% 105 14% 425 57% 40th Percentile ($32591 to $41725) 475 10% 1,895 40% 65 9% 490 66% 50th Percentile ($41726 to $52119) 480 10% 2,375 50% 90 12% 580 78% 60th Percentile ($52120 to $59883) 465 10% 2,840 60% 75 10% 655 89% 70th Percentile ($59884 to $73038) 470 10% 3,310 70% 55 7% 710 96% 80th Percentile ($73039 to $89089) 475 10% 3,785 80% 20 3% 730 99% 90th Percentile ($89090 to $115984) 475 10% 4,260 90% 0 0% 730 99% 100th Percentile ($115985 and over) 470 10% 4,730 100% 0 0% 730 99% Average total household income $ $ 52,119 $ 29,961 Median total household income $ $ 60,366 $ 34,638 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, West Grey, 2009 Affordable Annual 2006 West Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable Grey income Income (30% of Purchase levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 52,119 $ 55,475 $ 16,643 $ 162,800 Average Household Incomes $ 60,366 $ 64,254 $ 19,276 $ 193,400
20th Percentile $ 25,291 $ 26,920 $ 8,076 $ 63,400 30th Percentile $ 32,590 $ 34,689 $ 10,407 $ 90,500 40th Percentile $ 41,725 $ 44,412 $ 13,324 $ 124,300 50th Percentile $ 52,119 $ 55,475 $ 16,643 $ 162,800 60th Percentile $ 59,883 $ 63,739 $ 19,122 $ 191,600 70th Percentile $ 73,038 $ 77,742 $ 23,322 $ 240,300 80th Percentile $ 89,089 $ 94,826 $ 28,448 $ 299,800 90th Percentile $ 115,984 $ 123,453 $ 37,036 $ 399,300 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 74 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, West Grey 2009 Est. 2009 Town 2006 Town Rental Rental Household Est. 2009 Household Income Affordable Income levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 29,961 $ 31,890 $ 797 Average Household Incomes $ 34,638 $ 36,869 $ 922 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 14,512 $ 15,447 $ 386 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 18,700 $ 19,904 $ 498 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 23,942 $ 25,484 $ 637 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 29,906 $ 31,832 $ 796 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 34,361 $ 36,574 $ 914 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 75 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX F – HANOVER
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Hanover, Households by Income Percentiles Total Households Renter Households Cumulativ Cumulativ Cumulativ e % of Cumulativ e % of Total % e Total Total Total % e Total Total Total - Households 3,045 100% 1,060 100% 10th Percentile ($16675 and under) 305 10% 305 10% 235 22% 235 22% 20th Percentile ($16676 to $22406) 310 10% 615 20% 195 18% 430 41% 30th Percentile ($22407 to $29186) 305 10% 920 30% 160 15% 590 56% 40th Percentile ($29187 to $35213) 305 10% 1,225 40% 115 11% 705 67% 50th Percentile ($35214 to $44771) 305 10% 1,530 50% 125 12% 830 78% 60th Percentile ($44772 to $52615) 310 10% 1,840 60% 95 9% 925 87% 70th Percentile ($52616 to $66612) 295 10% 2,135 70% 50 5% 975 92% 80th Percentile ($66613 to $78455) 305 10% 2,440 80% 65 6% 1,040 98% 90th Percentile ($78456 to $107440) 305 10% 2,745 90% 10 1% 1,050 99% 100th Percentile ($107441 and over) 305 10% 3,050 100% 15 1% 1,065 100% Average total household income $ $ 44,771 $ 26,843 Median total household income $ $ 55,867 $ 31,491 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Hanover, 2009 Affordable 2006 Annual Hanover Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable income Income (30% of Purchase levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 44,771 $ 47,654 $ 14,296 $ 132,000 Average Household Incomes $ 55,867 $ 59,465 $ 17,839 $ 172,000
20th Percentile $ 22,406 $ 23,849 $ 7,155 $ 51,400 30th Percentile $ 29,186 $ 31,066 $ 9,320 $ 75,800 40th Percentile $ 35,213 $ 37,481 $ 11,244 $ 97,600 50th Percentile $ 44,771 $ 47,654 $ 14,296 $ 132,000 60th Percentile $ 52,615 $ 56,003 $ 16,801 $ 160,300 70th Percentile $ 66,612 $ 70,902 $ 21,271 $ 210,800 80th Percentile $ 78,455 $ 83,508 $ 25,052 $ 253,500 90th Percentile $ 107,440 $ 114,359 $ 34,308 $ 358,100 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 76 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Hanover 2009 Est. 2009 2006 Town Town Rental Rental Household Household Est. 2009 Income Income Affordable levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 26,843 $ 28,572 $ 714 Average Household Incomes $ 31,491 $ 33,519 $ 838 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 12,630 $ 13,443 $ 336 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 16,452 $ 17,511 $ 438 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 19,849 $ 21,127 $ 528 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 25,236 $ 26,862 $ 672 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 29,658 $ 31,568 $ 789 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 77 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX G – SOUTHGATE
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Southgate, Households by Income Percentiles Total Households Renter Households Cumulativ Cumulativ Cumulativ e % of Cumulativ e % of Total % e Total Total Total % e Total Total Total - Households 2,565 100% 305 97% 10th Percentile ($18993 and under) 250 10% 250 10% 80 26% 80 26% 20th Percentile ($18994 to $29937) 260 10% 510 20% 60 20% 140 46% 30th Percentile ($29938 to $37953) 260 10% 770 30% 40 13% 180 59% 40th Percentile ($37954 to $46764) 255 10% 1,025 40% 0 0% 180 59% 50th Percentile ($46765 to $56710) 255 10% 1,280 50% 15 5% 195 64% 60th Percentile ($56711 to $69198) 255 10% 1,535 60% 25 8% 220 72% 70th Percentile ($69199 to $79789) 260 10% 1,795 70% 20 7% 240 79% 80th Percentile ($79790 to $93763) 260 10% 2,055 80% 30 10% 270 89% 90th Percentile ($93764 to $121283) 260 10% 2,315 90% 25 8% 295 97% 100th Percentile ($121284 and over) 255 10% 2,570 100% 0 0% 295 97% Average total household income $ $ 56,710 $ 30,717 Median total household income $ $ 67,250 $ 43,749 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Southgate, 2009 Affordable 2006 Annual Southgate Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable income Income (30% of Purchase levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 56,710 $ 60,362 $ 18,109 $ 179,100 Average Household Incomes $ 67,250 $ 71,581 $ 21,474 $ 218,000
20th Percentile $ 29,937 $ 31,865 $ 9,559 $ 80,400 30th Percentile $ 37,953 $ 40,397 $ 12,119 $ 109,900 40th Percentile $ 46,764 $ 49,776 $ 14,933 $ 142,400 50th Percentile $ 56,710 $ 60,362 $ 18,109 $ 179,100 60th Percentile $ 69,198 $ 73,654 $ 22,096 $ 225,200 70th Percentile $ 79,789 $ 84,927 $ 25,478 $ 264,300 80th Percentile $ 93,763 $ 99,801 $ 29,940 $ 315,800 90th Percentile $ 121,283 $ 129,094 $ 38,728 $ 417,400 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 78 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Southgate 2009 Est. 2009 2006 Town Town Rental Rental Household Household Est. 2009 Income Income Affordable levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 30,717 $ 32,695 $ 817 Average Household Incomes $ 43,749 $ 46,566 $ 1,164 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 19,475 $ 20,730 $ 518 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 24,690 $ 26,280 $ 657 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 30,422 $ 32,381 $ 810 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 36,892 $ 39,268 $ 982 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 45,016 $ 47,915 $ 1,198 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 79 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX H – CHATSWORTH
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Chatsworth, Households by Income Percentiles Total Households Renter Households Cumulativ Cumulativ Cumulativ e % of Cumulativ e % of Total % e Total Total Total % e Total Total Total - Households 2,370 100% 180 94% 10th Percentile ($18007 and under) 240 10% 240 10% 35 19% 35 19% 20th Percentile ($18008 to $25694) 230 10% 470 20% 30 17% 65 36% 30th Percentile ($25695 to $32335) 235 10% 705 30% 40 22% 105 58% 40th Percentile ($32336 to $42429) 240 10% 945 40% 25 14% 130 72% 50th Percentile ($42430 to $50647) 225 9% 1,170 49% 0 0% 130 72% 60th Percentile ($50648 to $62524) 245 10% 1,415 60% 10 6% 140 78% 70th Percentile ($62525 to $73212) 235 10% 1,650 70% 10 6% 150 83% 80th Percentile ($73213 to $85415) 240 10% 1,890 80% 10 6% 160 89% 90th Percentile ($85416 to $109303) 235 10% 2,125 90% 10 6% 170 94% 100th Percentile ($109304 and over) 240 10% 2,365 100% 0 0% 170 94% Average total household income $ $ 50,647 $ 30,500 Median total household income $ $ 58,008 $ 36,129 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Chatsworth, 2009 Affordable 2006 Annual Chatsworth Est. 2009 Carrying Affordable income Income Cost (30% Purchase levels levels of income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 50,647 $ 53,909 $ 16,173 $ 160,700 Average Household Incomes $ 58,008 $ 61,744 $ 18,523 $ 188,600
20th Percentile $ 25,694 $ 27,349 $ 8,205 $ 66,300 30th Percentile $ 32,335 $ 34,417 $ 10,325 $ 91,500 40th Percentile $ 42,429 $ 45,161 $ 13,548 $ 129,700 50th Percentile $ 50,647 $ 53,909 $ 16,173 $ 160,700 60th Percentile $ 62,524 $ 66,551 $ 19,965 $ 205,600 70th Percentile $ 73,212 $ 77,927 $ 23,378 $ 246,000 80th Percentile $ 85,415 $ 90,916 $ 27,275 $ 292,200 90th Percentile $ 109,303 $ 116,342 $ 34,903 $ 382,500 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 80 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, Chatsworth 2009 Est. 2009 2006 Town Town Rental Rental Est. 2009 Household Household Affordable Income Income Monthly levels levels Rent Median Household Incomes $ 30,500 $ 32,464 $ 812 Average Household Incomes $ 36,129 $ 38,456 $ 961 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 16,003 $ 17,034 $ 426 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 20,139 $ 21,436 $ 536 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 26,426 $ 28,128 $ 703 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 31,544 $ 33,576 $ 839 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 38,942 $ 41,450 $ 1,036 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 81 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
APPENDIX I – THE BLUE MOUNTAINS
Total and Renter Households by Income Percentiles, 2006 Town of The Blue Mountains, Households by Income Percentiles - Total and Renter Households, 2006 Total Households Renter Households Cumulativ Cumulative Cumulative Cumulativ e % of Total % Total % of Total Total % e Total Total Total - Households 2,935 100% 465 100% 10th Percentile ($16,799 and under) 290 10% 290 10% 110 24% 110 24% 20th Percentile ($16,800-$24,875) 285 10% 575 20% 45 10% 155 33% 30th Percentile ($24,876-$35,026) 300 10% 875 30% 50 11% 205 44% 40th Percentile ($35,027-$46,375) 290 10% 1,165 40% 45 10% 250 54% 50th Percentile ($46,376-$59,061) 295 10% 1,460 50% 65 14% 315 68% 60th Percentile ($59,062-$72,597) 290 10% 1,750 60% 50 11% 365 78% 70th Percentile ($72,598-$88,193) 300 10% 2,050 70% 45 10% 410 88% 80th Percentile ($88,194-$108,506) 290 10% 2,340 80% 15 3% 425 91% 90th Percentile ($108,507-$155,094) 295 10% 2,635 90% 20 4% 445 96% 100th Percentile ($155,095 +) 290 10% 2,925 100% 20 4% 465 100% Average total household income $ $ 79,691 $ 51,031 Median total household income $ $ 59,061 $ 40,818 Source: Census Canada 2006, Special Run Note: Rental household split does not refer to percentiles but does refer to respective percentile incomes. Cumulative % of Totals are more reflective of percentile split for these households.
Affordable Housing Purchase Prices by Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Household Incomes & Affordability, Town of The Blue Mountains 2009 Affordable 2006 Blue Annual Mountains Est. 2009 Carrying Cost Affordable income Income (30% of Purchase levels levels income) Price Median Household Incomes $ 59,061 $ 62,865 $ 18,859 $ 194,900 Average Household Incomes $ 79,691 $ 84,823 $ 25,447 $ 273,900
20th Percentile $ 24,875 $ 26,477 $ 7,943 $ 64,100 30th Percentile $ 35,026 $ 37,282 $ 11,185 $ 103,000 40th Percentile $ 46,375 $ 49,362 $ 14,808 $ 146,300 50th Percentile $ 59,061 $ 62,865 $ 18,859 $ 194,900 60th Percentile $ 72,597 $ 77,272 $ 23,182 $ 246,700 70th Percentile $ 88,193 $ 93,873 $ 28,162 $ 306,400 80th Percentile $ 108,506 $ 115,494 $ 34,648 $ 384,300 90th Percentile $ 155,094 $ 165,082 $ 49,525 $ 562,500 Source: Statistics Canada 2006 & NBLC Note: 2009 income levels are calculated on 2006-2009 Ontario inflation rates
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 82 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010
Affordable Monthly Rent by Renter Household Income Percentiles, 2009 Renter Household Incomes and Affordable Monthly Rents, The Town of The Blue Mountains 2009 Est. 2009 2006 Town Town Rental Rental Household Household Est. 2009 Income Income Affordable levels levels Monthly Rent Median Household Incomes $ 40,818 $ 43,446 $ 1,086 Average Household Incomes $ 51,031 $ 54,318 $ 1,358 Renter Household 20th Percentile $ 15,929 $ 16,955 $ 424 Renter Household 30th Percentile $ 22,429 $ 23,874 $ 597 Renter Household 40th Percentile $ 29,697 $ 31,609 $ 790 Renter Household 50th Percentile $ 37,821 $ 40,256 $ 1,006 Renter Household 60th Percentile $ 46,489 $ 49,482 $ 1,237 Source: Statistics Canada & NBLC Note: 2006 Rental household income levels are estimates based difference between rental household average income and total average household income Note: 2009 income levels are estimated by applying 2006-2009 inflation rates to the 2006 income levels.
County of Grey Housing Study – Phase One 83 | P a g e NBLC Docket#: 10-2245 July 2010