City of Apache Junction, Arizona Meeting Location: City Council Chambers at City Hall Agenda 300 E

City of Apache Junction, Arizona Meeting location: City Council Chambers at City Hall Agenda 300 E. Superstition Blvd. Apache Junction, AZ City Council Work Session 85119

www.ajcity.net Ph: (480) 982-8002

Monday, June 3, 2019 7:00 PM City Council Chambers

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. ROLL CALL

C. AGENDA ITEMS

1. 19-244 Presentation by and discussion with staff and members of the health and human services commission regarding Fiscal Year 2019-2020 health and human services funding recommendations. Members of the health and human services commission will be present to answer any of the council’s questions on these recommendations. Sponsors: Kathy Connelly Attachments: 2019-HHSC-Rec 19 COMPARIS City Code 2-11

2. 19-240 Presentation and discussion on Arizona State University (ASU) Project Cities Spring 2019 Semester project entitled "Mobile Home/RV Park Transition Planning" with recommendations for the mayor, city council, and staff to consider. Graduate Student Margaret Dellow, City and ASU Project Cities staff will present the research results and recommendations. Sponsors: Larry Kirch Attachments: MHP Project

3. 19-254 Presentation and discussion on an intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Department of Transportation for the procurement of a street sweeper recently awarded the city through a Congestion Mitigation Air Quality grant. Sponsors: Shane Kiesow Attachments: ADOT IGA Street Sweeper WS AIT Submittal Letter ADOT IGA Street Sweeper Resolution No. 19-18

City of Apache Junction, Arizona Page 1 Printed on 5/29/2019 City Council Work Session Agenda June 3, 2019

4. 19-260 Presentation and discussion on recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission to move forward on planning the construction of an Off-Leash Dog Park at the County Retention Basin on Superstition Blvd. and Idaho Rd. Sponsors: Liz Langenbach Attachments: Off-Leash Dog Park Staff Memo Off-Leash Dog Park Presentation County Concept

5. 19-253 Presentation and discussion on public art, the establishment of a public art commission, and associated ordinances. Sponsors: Heather Patel Attachments: staff report

6. 19-241 Presentation and discussion on proposed Ordinance No. 1476, amending Apache Junction City Code, Volume I, Chapter 3: Administration, Article 3-9: Department Of Development Services, by repealing and replacing in its entirety Section 3-9-4, Division Of Building Safety And Inspection, repealing any conflicting provisions; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date. Sponsors: Larry Kirch and Dave Zellner Attachments: Ordinance 1476 Chapter 3

7. 19-242 Presentation and discussion on Resolution No. 19-14, declaring as a public record that certain document filed with the city clerk entitled “2019 amendments to the Apache Junction City Code, Volume I, Chapter 7: Buildings", repealing any conflicting provisions; providing for severability; and establishing an effect date. Sponsors: Larry Kirch Attachments: Resolution 19-14 Chapter 7 Buildings

8. 19-243 Presentation and discussion on Ordinance No. 1475 amending Apache Junction City Code, Volume I, Chapter 7: Buildings, by repealing and replacing in its entirety all articles under Chapter 7 and adopting by reference that certain document entitled "2019 Amendments to Apache Junction City Code, Volume I, Chapter 7: Buildings; repealing any conflicting provisions; providing for severability; establishing an effective date and providing for penalties. Sponsors: Larry Kirch and Dave Zellner Attachments: Ordinance 1475

City of Apache Junction, Arizona Page 2 Printed on 5/29/2019 City Council Work Session Agenda June 3, 2019

D. ADJOURNMENT

Copies of this agenda and additional information regarding any of the items listed above may be obtained Monday through Thursdays, 7:00a – 6:00p, excluding holidays, from the City Clerk’s office located at:

300 East Superstition Boulevard, Apache Junction, AZ

The City of Apache Junction invites and welcomes people of all abilities to use our programs, sites and facilities. Specific requests may be made by contacting the Human Resources Office at (480) 474-2617 or TDD (480) 983-0095.

City of Apache Junction, Arizona Page 3 Printed on 5/29/2019 City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction, AZ 85119 Agenda Item No. 1. File ID: 19-244

Sponsor: Kathy Connelly Agenda Date: 6/3/2019

Index: In Control: City Council Work Session

Presentation by and discussion with staff and members of the health and human services commission regarding Fiscal Year 2019-2020 health and human services funding recommendations. Members of the health and human services commission will be present to answer any of the council’s questions on these recommendations.

City of Apache Junction, Arizona Page 1 Printed on 5/29/2019

JUNE 3, 2019

MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

THROUGH: BRYANT POWELL, CITY MANAGER

FROM: JENNIFER PENA, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM FOR JUNE 3 WORK SESSION AND JUNE 4 REGULAR MEETING (FY 2019-2020 HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS)

The Health & Human Services Commission, as required by City Code, met on May 9 and May 16, 2019 to discuss and review FY 2019-2020 human services funding requests, to interview qualified applicants and to formulate their recommendations for the City Council. The commission opted to interview all four agencies that applied for funding by the January 31, 2019 deadline.

The city received applications from a total of four agencies in the following amounts:

1. Apache Junction Food Bank $75,000 2. Boys & Girls Club of the East Valley (Superstition Mountain Branch) $35,000 3. Community Alliance Against Family Abuse $18,000 4. Horizon Health & Wellness $20,000 Total $148,000

With the understanding that $80,000 had been allocated in the current fiscal year budget for this portion of human services funding and based upon agency compliance with the requirements of City Code Article 2-14, their related human service agreements and their demonstrated ability or assurance that they will provide direct services to city residents, the commission voted unanimously to make the following recommendations for FY 2019- 2020:

1. Apache Junction Food Bank - $24,500, with the stipulation that (A) the funds be used to provide emergency food for City of Apache Junction residents and continued funding for nutritional resources for those living below the poverty level for City of Apache Junction residents; (B) All quarterly reports must meet city code and contract requirements.

2. Boys & Girls Club of the East Valley (Superstition Mountain Branch) - $24,500, with the stipulation that (A) the funds be used for the academic success programs, Power Hour/Project Learn and educational enhancement programs, “Healthy Habits” and Teen Programs for City of Apache Junction residents; (B) all quarterly reports must meet city code and contract requirements.

3. Community Alliance Against Family Abuse (CAAFA) - $16,000, with the stipulation that (A) the funds be used for intervention programs for families affected by domestic abuse to include: empowerment sessions, legal advocacy services and general advocacy services for City of Apache Junction residents. (B) All quarterly reports must meet city code and contract requirements.

4. Horizon Health & Wellness (HHW) - $15,000, with the stipulation that (A) the funds be used for HHW staff to become trainers in SafeTalk and Asist, internationally acclaimed training and to provide staffing to do community-based outreach and engagement of high risk youth and their families for City of Apache Junction residents. (B) All quarterly reports must meet city code and contract requirements.

Total of recommendations - $80,000

Provisions of standard human services contracts will remain in place to include the requirements that each agency designate a primary and secondary contact person and that their names, telephone numbers and email addresses be provided to the city clerk; that all reports and other records submitted to the city be typed or prepared via word processor and be submitted in person or by first class mail; that handwritten records and reports are unacceptable; that the person assigned to completing and filing the quarterly reports be familiar with the terms and requirements of the agreement in order to avoid processing errors and delays; that the original purpose of the human services funding was to provide "start-up" monies for human services agencies for programs and not to provide annual funding for an indefinite period of time. Should any agency default in their contract, the unused funds may be distributed proportionately among the remaining agencies or, at the discretion of the city manager, be retained in the city general fund. These contracts also contain a provision regarding limitations on certain partisan political activities.

As part of their motion on the recommendations, the commission included the following: that all agencies receiving funding for FY 19-20 be advised that they will be obligated to strictly adhere to all terms and conditions as set forth in the contracts and be subject to contract cancelation if they fail to do so.

Members of the Health and Human Services Commission will be present at the June 3 work session to answer your questions on these recommendations. Direction to staff will be requested at the June 4 meeting. If so directed, the contracts will be placed on the June 18 consent agenda at which time you can approve them or opt to continue them to a later date.

Attachments: City Code Article 2-11 & Article 2-14 Funding Comparison Table

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING COMPARISON TABLE

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 A G E N C Y -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20

Apache Junction Reach Out Food 20,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 32,000 50,000 32,000 50,000 75,000 Bank, Inc. 20,000 25,000 30,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 7,000 33,000 24,500

Boys and Girls Club of Apache 30,000 30,000 20,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 35,000 Junction 8,000 8,000 11,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 30,000 29,000 24,500

Community Alliance Against 14,500 14,500 14,000 18,000 24,000 24,000 25,000 20,000 18,000 Family Abuse (CAAFA) 14,500 14,500 14,000 18,000 20,000 20,000 25,000 16,000 16,000

20,000 Horizon Health & wellness 15,000

East Valley Adult Resources (for 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 40,000 NA NA Apache Junction Senior Center 25,000 26,000 30,000 30,000 28,000 0

35,000 East Valley Adult Resources (for NA 45,000 40,000 30,000 van transportation) NA 0 NA NA 0 0 0

7,735 50,000 10,000 United Way NA NA NA NA NA 0 10,000 2,000 Code excerpt captured 05-15-19

ARTICLE 2-11: HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Section 2-11-1 Creation 2-11-2 Membership and terms of office 2-11-3 Compensation and expenses 2-11-4 Officers 2-11-5 Duties 2-11-6 Meetings 2-11-7 Vacancies 2-11-8 Removal of members

§ 2-11-5 DUTIES. The Health and Human Services Commission is hereby charged with the following duties: (A) To conduct public hearings to determine the needs of city residents with regard to public health needs, provision of human services and care of the elderly, handicapped and developmentally disabled; (B) To enhance the development of the public health through public forums, seminars and work with other agencies; (C) To review requests submitted by health and human service providers (non-profit agencies) for city funding and to make recommendations to the Council regarding that funding; (D) To assist in the development of health care facilities; and (E) To make recommendations to the Council regarding elderly health care and emergency transportation programs. (Prior Code, § 2-11-5)

§ 2-14-1 REQUESTS FOR NON-PROFIT FUNDING. (A) Required documentation. Any non-profit agency submitting a request for an allocation or grant of city funds shall submit to the city specific documentation including, but not limited to, the following: A copy of the agency's most recent audit report; a certified copy of the agency's most recent financial statement; detailed expenditure statements in order to provide a detailed accounting of all funds previously received from the city; complete information on the source and amount of funding received from all other sources such as non-governmental agencies, membership fees and dues, and private contributions; client service information as it applies to residents of the city; proof of non-profit status as determined by the Internal Revenue Service; proof of corporate status to include copies of by-laws and articles of incorporation; the source and amount of funding received from other governmental agencies; the names and addresses of current board members; and any other documentation as may be deemed necessary by the city. (B) Reporting requirements. Any non-profit agency receiving an allocation or grant of city funds shall be required to submit to the city, on a quarterly basis, a detailed accounting of the expenditure of city funds for the previous quarter, a written report outlining the agency's performance and accomplishments within the scope of work outlined in their contractual agreement with the city, and any other documentation as may be deemed necessary by the city in order to determine the agency's compliance with the provisions of the contract. (C) Contract required; procedure for distribution of funds. (1) All city funds allocated or granted to any non-profit agency shall be by means of a written contract based upon services to be provided to or work to be performed on behalf of the city and its residents in compliance with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes regarding the use of public funds. (2) All city funds allocated or granted under the provisions of this section shall be released in equal quarterly installments or quarterly payments based upon a schedule of anticipated expenses which has been approved by the Mayor and Council. No subsequent quarterly allocation or grant shall be released until such time that the receiving agency has provided all of the required documentation for the previous quarter and has provided satisfactory evidence of compliance with the scope of work stipulated in their contract with the city. (D) Submittal of requests for funding. All funding requests submitted by non-profit agencies for the allocation or grant of city funds shall be submitted to the City Clerk's office during the month of January of each year. Requests so submitted shall not be subject to city funding unless approved by the Council and only following adoption of a final budget for the subsequent fiscal year. (Ord. 659, passed 11-3-1998)

§ 2-14-2 REQUESTS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. All requests for financial assistance shall comply with the following stipulations and conditions: (A) All requests shall be filed by or on behalf of a valid, non-profit organization as qualified by the Internal Revenue Service and as registered with the Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Corporation Commission or other appropriate state office. The registration shall be current and documentation of such status and registration shall be provided at the time of the request. This article shall not apply to governmental or quasi-governmental jurisdictions; (B) All requests shall be submitted to the City Clerk during the month of January of each year in order to be eligible for consideration in conjunction with the subsequent fiscal year budget; (C) All requests received in accordance with division (B) above shall be referred to the appropriate city board or commission for purposes of review and recommendation to the Council; and (D) In those instances where a request is due to catastrophic circumstances or when the public health, safety and welfare is at risk, the requirements of this article may be waived by action of the Council. It is preferable, however, even in such instances, for the request to receive a review and recommendation from the appropriate city board or commission. (Prior Code, Art. 2-14)

City of Apache Junction, Arizona 300 E Superstition Boulevard Agenda Item Cover Sheet Apache Junction, AZ 85119 Agenda Item No. 2. File ID: 19-240

Sponsor: Larry Kirch Agenda Date: 6/3/2019

Index: In Control: City Council Work Session

Presentation and discussion on Arizona State University (ASU) Project Cities Spring 2019 Semester project entitled "Mobile Home/RV Park Transition Planning" with recommendations for the mayor, city council, and staff to consider. Graduate Student Margaret Dellow, City and ASU Project Cities staff will present the research results and recommendations.

City of Apache Junction, Arizona Page 1 Printed on 5/29/2019 Figure 1. The Lamplighter Mobile Home Park in Apache Junction.

Mobile Home Parks, RV Parks, and the Future of Affordable Housing in Apache Junction, Arizona

Maggie Dellow Master of Urban and Environmental Planning School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning Arizona State University

Mr. Larry Kirch City of Apache Junction

Dr. Meagan Ehlenz Arizona State University

Dr. Deborah Salon Arizona State University

Table of Contents

List of Figures pg. 3

Executive Summary pg. 5

Problem Statement pg. 8

Project Scope pg. 9

Literature Review pg. 10

Needs Assessment pg. 16

Analysis pg. 28

Recommendations pg. 56

Conclusion pg. 67

Appendix pg. 68

List of Figures

Figure 1 The Lamplighter Mobile Home Park in Apache Junction pg. 1

Figure 2 High-priority communities by Census Block Group in Apache Junction pg. 16

Figure 3 Housing Condition Scale pg. 17

Figure 4 Porch and Yard Scale pg. 18

Figure 5 Property Condition Scale pg. 19

Figure 6 Census block group priority matrix of high-priority communities in Apache pg. 21 Junction Figure 7 Census Block Group needs of high-priority communities in Apache Junction pg. 22

Figure 8 High-priority Amenitize Properties pg. 23

Figure 9 Map of High-priority Amenitize Properties in Apache Junction pg. 23

Figure 10 High-priority Update Properties pg. 24

Figure 11 Map of High-priority Update Properties in Apache Junction pg. 25

Figure 12 High-priority Sandbox Properties pg. 26

Figure 13 Map of High-priority Sandbox Properties in Apache Junction pg. 27

Figure 14 Examples of how different Apache Junction properties adapted over time pg. 31

Figure 15 A map identifying Census Tract 3.10 in Apache Junction as an Opportunity Zone pg. 44

Figure 16 Examples of tiny home models from three prominent tiny home manufacturers pg. 50

Figure 17 A community view of one of LIHI’s tiny house villages in Seattle pg. 51

Figure 18 An interior view of a tiny house in LIHI’s tiny house village pg. 51

Figure 19 Exterior and interior view of Alternative Living Spaces’ flagship shipping pg. 51 container model

Figure 20 Carmel Place apartment building constructed with shipping containers pg. 52

Figure 21 A rendering of the Tempe Micro Estates project pg. 52

Figure 22 An architectural rendering and floor plan of a Tempe Micro Estates unit pg. 53

Figure 23 A non-conforming mobile/RV park in Apache Junction pg. 62

Figure 24 A non-conforming mobile/RV park in Apache Junction redeveloped to conform pg. 63 with current zoning Figure 25 A non-conforming mobile/RV park developed to a new affordable housing pg. 64 overlay that reflects a micro-unit footprint

Executive Summary

Mobile housing represents over 50% of the City of Apache Junction’s housing stock. At a time when available housing assistance and subsidies do not meet demand, these units represent a valuable source of unsubsidized housing stock for Apache Junction (the City) and the United States as a whole. While their affordability is an asset, the City also has significant concerns about a number of mobile home and RV park properties. There are approximately 125 parks in Apache Junction, some of which predate the current City Zoning Code. In these cases, the properties do not comply with current requirements, but are able to continue operating because the property owners hold “rights of lawful nonconformance.” However, these park owners are limited in what they can do with their land; they are prohibited from making significant development changes, including expansion or, in the case of property destruction, rebuilding. Beyond park nonconformance, a number of individual housing units were built and established prior to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, raising concerns of housing unit quality, health and safety.

Given these circumstances, the City is at a crossroads. Though many parks have poor property conditions and/or fail to conform to the contemporary Apache Junction Zoning Code, the City also recognizes that they provide valuable affordable housing opportunities and, thus, removal is not an option.

As the City of Apache Junction considers how to confront this issue, three goals drive their efforts:

1. Preserve affordable housing to meet the demonstrated need of the Apache Junction’s population. 2. Improve the conditions of high-priority parks and increase the quality of living for residents. 3. Promote the redevelopment of parks into alternative affordable housing units when appropriate.

This report represents an effort to understand the current issues associated with aging and nonconforming mobile home parks, as well as explore options for bringing parks to conformance. The goal of this work is to develop findings and produce recommendations that satisfy Apache Junction’s goal to bring parks into conformance while preserving housing affordability for its residents. To develop findings and produce recommendations for the City, the researcher engaged in a number of research methods including a literature review and needs assessment, as well as expert and stakeholder interviews.

First, the researcher conducted a literature review to gather research related to mobile home and RV parks, as well as affordable housing development. A number of key findings emerged that provided the foundation for the report’s analysis and recommendations. The key takeaways primarily addressed the preferences of and challenges for residents in mobile homes, including:

 Residents prefer mobile home living due to their affordability, privacy, personal space and community, but not for reasons of mobility.  While mobile homes first gained popularity for their mobility, mobile homes of today are trending towards long-term housing.

 Although mobile homes provide convenient affordable housing for residents, issues related to poor park conditions and closures make mobile home residents extremely vulnerable to financial hardship and displacement.  Mobile homes provide an extremely valuable source of unsubsidized affordable housing. However, a number of other tools and strategies exist to help the promotion of affordable housing development including Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, government subsidies, and Community Land Trusts.

Second, the researcher conducted a needs assessment, intended to document the existing conditions and characteristics of non-conforming mobile home and RV park communities in Apache Junction. The City identified 28 high-priority parks for the analysis (see Figure 2). The needs assessment consisted of a:

 A Windshield Survey to assess physical conditions of housing stock and properties. The researcher created a custom survey instrument to document visual housing and park conditions.  A Geographic Analysis to assess the environment and proximity to important daily needs; the analysis relied on data and tools from the US Census Bureau, Google Maps and Walk Score.  A Demographic Analysis to establish demographic and socio-economic trends within each of Apache Junction’s Census block groups with a high-priority property, and provide comparative data across the City; the analysis relied on data from the US Census Bureau and American Consumer Survey.

Through the needs assessment, the researcher developed a typology identifying specific park needs. Parks are categorized into three unique types: Amenitize, Update, and Sandbox. Additionally, the researcher created a priority ranking for each block group with a high-priority park, ranging from 1 (highest priority) to 4 (lowest priority).

Third, the researcher conducted expert and stakeholder interviews with Apache Junction mobile home and RV park owners and professionals in affordable housing development. Five individuals from each group participated in phone interviews, lasting between 30 and 60 minutes.

Based on her analysis, the researcher established two sets of research findings (Part One and Part Two). Part One considers needs assessment data and park owner interview findings, focusing on mobile home and RV parks as affordable housing stock in Apache Junction. These research findings illustrate the very wide swath of mobile housing stock, quality, value and tenure opportunities that are available in Apache Junction. Housing quality is vast, ranging from the impeccably maintained to the undoubtedly derelict. Available stock provides opportunities for both rental and ownership; however, tenants always rent land from the property owners, which can put them in an even more vulnerable position.

Mobile housing in Apache Junction predominantly caters to full-time residents, who are typically reliant on fixed incomes—the extreme affordability of mobile homes tends to attract this clientele. When high- affordability rents are coupled with park owners’ “rights of lawful non-conformance,” owners report significant limitations on what they can do with their land. Necessary park improvements can be cost prohibitive, especially when a park owner is unable to explore development opportunities to help finance those improvements. Park owners have little incentive to make improvements while redevelopment and park improvement pressures can ultimately result in park closure and the displacement of tenants.

Part Two considers the literature review findings and expert interviews with affordable housing development experts. The findings illustrate the challenges associated with affordable housing development. Redevelopment suggests new construction. Interviewees suggest it is extremely difficult to build units that are both new and affordable; the two are diametrically opposed. As a result, successful affordable housing development requires developers to be creative, including strategies like stacking available funds, forward commitment of funds, and the subsidization of housing through revenue producing development. Other strategies might include the development of alternative housing types that are inherently more affordable, but both methods are extremely difficult for developer to successfully pull off. The federal government has helped fill existing gaps in affordable housing development through the provision of subsidies and programs, but supply still fails to meet demand. Cities can play an important role in meeting the affordable housing needs of their residents by engaging collaboratively with developers; helping developers understand where the greatest needs and opportunities for development exist. Additionally, cities can more proactively attract and incentivize affordable housing development by making scarce resources such as land and greater profit opportunities available to developers.

The report concludes with five recommendations for the City of Apache Junction:

1. Develop a strategy for the preservation, improvement, and promotion of redevelopment. The City can do this by using the two typologies developed in the needs assessment. These typologies identify the (1) priority level and (2) park needs with appropriate actions. 2. Support and invest in mobile home and RV park owners. Many of the interviewed park owners possess a great amount of knowledge and wisdom regarding how to successfully manage parks; but they also indicated there are knowledge gaps within the mobile home park community. If the City can harness the experience and insights of individual owners, they can facilitate knowledge sharing between park owners, which can significantly impact the quality of mobile housing and park management across the City. 3. Be proactive in attracting and incentivizing developers to pursue affordable and market-rate housing development in the City. Developers go where the needs are, but they are not always aware of available opportunities. The City can proactively communicate Apache Junction’s needs and establish a call to action for affordable housing. In addition, affordable housing is aided by the availability of resources; the City should consider what kinds of resources it could accumulate and make available to developers. 4. Create an action protocol for mobile home and RV parks available for sale. Following the sale of a mobile home or RV park, tenants may find themselves—and their housing status—in a vulnerable position. The City could facilitate opportunities for select parties, including tenants, non-profits, other Apache Junction park property owners—and even the City itself, to purchase the property before a landowner officially lists the land for sale. This will provide opportunities to preserve affordable housing and prevent displacement of residents. 5. Create an affordable housing development overlay district. An affordable housing overlay could be applied to non-conforming parks and create opportunities for increased density and decreased setback requirements. This would not only incentivize affordable development, but also preserve otherwise threatened affordable housing stock.

Problem Statement

Over 50% of the City of Apache Junction’s housing stock is composed of mobile, manufactured and RV homes. Of the estimated 125 mobile home and RV park communities in Apache Junction, a significant number are in advanced stages of dilapidation. Many of the most challenged parks predate the City itself, failing to conform to the contemporary zoning code and lacking modern infrastructure. For instance, the Apache Junction Zoning Code mandates that a mobile home park may be developed on a parcel of land that is at least 10 acres. Many of the non-conforming parks in Apache Junction occupy parcels as small as 0.5 acres. Additionally, many of the communities in question pose health and safety risks in general, violating city code in terms of property maintenance, building codes and refuse and garbage removal.

For many of these non-conforming mobile home and RV parks, the individual housing units are also outdated, built prior to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. Homes built prior to 1974 fail meet federal standards for quality, durability and safety. While modern mobile home communities would not allow such a home to relocate to their premises, there is no regulation or code enforcement that requires current residents of these homes to vacate, upgrade or trade in their units.

To preserve property owner interests and to ensure eventual future redevelopment, the City began granting these properties “rights of lawful non-conformance” which allows them to continue operating their property in its current fashion, but limits what owners can do with their land, prohibiting things like the addition of units or rebuilding following destruction of the property. If, for some reason, the property experiences an event that results in the destruction of units, “rights of lawful non- conformance” prohibit the property owner from redeveloping the property to match its prior form. They must rebuild to conform with current zoning. For many of these properties, redevelopment in such a way would mean the end of their business and the elimination of the affordable housing units they provide.

The City of Apache Junction recognizes that mobile home communities such as these provide valuable affordable housing stock for residents and thus outright removal of the communities is not an option. However, current housing and park conditions raise health and safety concerns and bring into question the long-term economic health of the City.

As the City of Apache Junction considers how to confront this issue, three goals drive their efforts:

Project Scope

In 2017, the City of Apache Junction contracted with ASU and the Project Cities Program to examine a range of issues. One project included an assessment of mobile home and RV parks and affordable housing opportunities. A graduate student in the Urban and Environmental Planning program (the researcher) led this project and completed a series of tasks between January and May 2019.

The researcher first conducted a literature review on mobile home/RV communities and affordable housing, relying on reports, media, case studies and scholarly materials. Research tools used included Google Scholar, the ASU academic library and books pertinent to the subject matter. The researcher reviewed existing literature to help identify barriers, opportunities and best practices for bringing mobile home and RV park communities to compliance, improving community quality and promoting redevelopment of affordable and sustainable communities.

Second, the researcher executed a needs assessment of mobile home/RV communities in Apache Junction. The City of Apache Junction identified 28 of the 125 mobile home/RV properties as “high priority;” the researcher’s target areas included the 28 high-priority properties. While the communities varied with respect to size, character and geographic location, they were all classified as “non- conforming,” meaning they do not conform to the current City Zoning Code. The needs assessment included the collection and assessment of data (e.g., Census, data from Apache Junction) and a windshield survey, which visually evaluated park and home characteristics, existing resources, and the unmet needs of each community.

The third task included semi-structured interviews to gathering insights from two integral stakeholder groups: mobile home and RV park property owners and professionals in the affordable housing development industry. Apache Junction helped to identify approximately 30 mobile home and RV community property owners to participate interviews. The interview questions focused on perceived needs, barriers, opportunities and community improvement and development interests of the property owners. The researcher extended email and phone invitations to all 30 property owners and five agreed to participate in the research. The researcher also identified professionals in various positions related to affordable housing development and mobile housing communities. The researcher performed five in- depth interviews with this group, focusing on what is needed to attract developers interested in affordable housing and redevelopment projects to Apache Junction.

Using the literature review, needs assessment and interviews, the researcher identified a series of findings for the City, including: strategies and tools for improving park conditions and a feasibility analysis for converting mobile home communities into alternative affordable housing options.

Literature Review

Mobile housing affordability

Mobile homes, including RVs and manufactured homes are an important source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the United States (Aman & Yarnal, 2010; Malpica, 2018; Baker, 2011). Because demand for affordable housing assistance outpaces supply, people go to the unsubsidized market where conditions are poorer, yet tolerated (Sullivan, 2017). Housing costs continue to rise, especially costs associated with traditional site-built homes, but the lower costs associated with mobile home manufacturing and siting have provided a pathway to home ownership for millions of Americans who would otherwise not have the opportunity of home ownership (Aman & Yarnal, 2010). Aman and Yarnal credit the growing popularity in mobile housing to affordability, availability and flexibility (2010). In a study of mobile home in Washington State, Malpica found that average mobile home costs in Seattle are significantly more affordable ($40,000) when compared to the average cost of a traditional site built home ($660,000) (2018). However, Malpica surmises that, in spite of its perceived affordability, mobile homes and living is becoming a less stable housing option, citing increasing park closures, lacking tenant protections and the immobility of homes (2018).

In studies of mobile home resident preferences, affordability is always top of mind for residents (Aman & Yarnal, 2010; Baker, Hamshaw, and Beach, 2011). Mobile home owners and tenants typically have significantly lower incomes than owners of site-built homes, so the preference for radically affordable housing is not a preference so much as a need (Baker, 2011). Malpica (2018) finds that most families residing in the Seattle-based park were low-income and Hispanic, while Baker et al. (2011) found that both education levels and household income were well below the county medians across the state of Vermont.

Mobile home tenant perceptions and preferences

Though Malpica found that owned mobile housing is sometimes higher quality than privately rented housing, this did not reflect the predominant perceptions of park residents, who identified poor housing and park quality conditions (2018). Aman and Yarnal found that 47% percent of homes are considered of average quality and condition while 45% are considered poor quality and condition (2010). Both inside and outside of mobile home parks, Baker et al. found the general view of mobile home parks as poorly- managed, ill-maintained and a perception of residents as “trailer trash” (2011). Indeed, Baker et al. reported that 38% of residents were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with park management. A report on a mobile housing park in Virginia included complaints of “distressed housing conditions, including sinking foundations, leaking roofs, plumbing, heating , or electrical problems, mold, overcrowding, and location within a high crime neighborhood” prior to redevelopment (AARP, 2012). In spite of poor housing conditions, residents were satisfied with their overall living situations (Aman & Yarnal, 2010; Baker et al, 2011).

Though cited often, affordability is not the only driving factor for continued mobile home living. When asked what they value about living in a mobile home, people living within parks or nearby other mobile home owners mention community and social capital. During redevelopment of a mobile home park in Virginia, park residents a perceived a loss of community over losing their own homes (AARP, 2012). Outside of affordability and community, residents value the layouts of their homes, ease of

10 maintenance, their location in quiet neighborhoods and access to outdoor space (Aman & Yarnal, 2010; Baker et al, 2011; AARP, 2012).

Aman and Yarnal argued that the popularity of mobile homes is due to their very nature as an easy to deploy, flexible manufactured housing option with the ability shipping and deployment anywhere (2010). However, it is the affordability of manufactured housing alone that wins favor with owners, not the often-marketed asset of mobility.

Changing mobile home trends

Mobile housing first gained popularity among the well-to-do when marketed as recreational and vacation living quarters. However, affordability of these units as primary residences soon over- shadowed mobility. When they gained favor among military members, young families and low-income individuals who craved more livable spaces, the industry adapted (Malpica, 2018). This transition from recreational to permanent housing necessitated that mobile homes become less “mobile”, though the moniker and the wheel remain. In their study of mobile housing in Pennsylvania, Aman and Yarnal (2010) found that 55% of homes had never been moved from their original sites, while Baker et al (2011) find an even higher figure of 66%. For most mobile home owners, site removal of their homes is very difficult. The costs associated with moving a mobile home may exceed the cost of the home itself (Baker et al, 2011). Additionally, as the trend of mobile home park closures gains speed, it may be hard to find a park with a lot opening (Aman & Yarnal, 2010).

Not only do mobile homes themselves tend towards permanence, their tenants do as well (Aman and Yarnal, 2010; Malpica, 2018; AARP, 2012). In Aman and Yarnal’s study, just 15% of residents surveyed responded that they had lived in their home for less than 5 years (2010). Despite possible perceptions of tenant transiency, Malpica surmised that mobile home residents tend toward stability of location in a manner similar to that of residents of traditional owned, site built housing, in which the longer a resident stays, the increased likelihood that they continue to stay (2018). Baker et al. found that 41% of residents lived in their park for at least 10 years and nearly half had lived in their park for over 20 years. 50% responded that they imagined they would continue living in the same location for at least the next 5 years (2011).

Ownership rates among mobile home residents tends to be very high. Baker et al. find that as many as 80% of mobile home park residents own their home (2011). The complication with mobile home living is that while many residents may own their home, they rarely own the land underneath it. Aman and Yarnal find that nearly half of mobile home owners lease the land their home sits on, giving rise to issues of land tenure and leaving them vulnerable to the whims of the property owners whose land they rent (2010). While conditions have improved with time, renters have historically held very limited rights and protections (2010). In fact, Malpica argues that individuals who own their home but rent the land underneath have the least amount of protections of all (2018).

In the event of a park closure or land eviction, mobile home owners are responsible to not only vacate the land, but take their homes along with them. Exorbitant relocation costs can force owners to abandon their homes entirely (Alman & Yarnal, 2018). When owners do have the means to move their homes, they often face difficulty in trying to find a new park that has lot availability. This is because of increasing resident demand and a shrinking park supply (2018). Tenants with older homes are at a particular disadvantage as they may find trouble finding a park that will accept older home models

(2018). Some states do not require landowners to compensate mobile home owners for the cost of relocating their homes (Malpica, 2018). Malpica reports of a park owner who offered each of its tenants a mere $2,000 in exchange for their mobile home upon announcing closure of the park. This amount is barely enough to cover relocation, let alone the cost of a home (2018).

Closures and consequences

Attributed to costly improvements and increasing land prices, mobile home park closures are increasing around the country. Indeed, more parks are closing rather than opening (Malpica, 2018). Furthermore, according to Baker et al., when parks close and undergo redevelopment, their new uses do not typically offer replacement affordable housing (2011). At Firs Mobile Home Park in Washington, the landowner initially planned to redevelop their land for hotels and apartment buildings (Malpica, 2018). In the Florida Keys, one article described how a developer purchased a number of parks from their original landowners and redeveloped them into luxury condominiums and multi-million dollar townhomes (Ball, 2004). This is particularly problematic for mobile home park residents in two ways. First, they face the trouble and expense of vacating their mobile home park upon closure. Second, the redevelopment of the property into more expensive uses removes a significant portion of affordable housing from the market. This increase in housing unaffordability has contributed to growing homelessness issues (Baker et al, 2011). In fact, the town of Islamorada, Florida placed a moratorium on mobile home and trailer park redevelopment in order to help protect residents from displacement and its repercussions (Ball, 2004).

When parks experience redevelopment, forcing resident to leave, there is little that park owners are required to do in order to help their tenants prepare for relocation. Some states require landowners to provide tenants with 12 months’ notice before closure or prepare relocation plans (Malpica, 2018). In Washington State, landowners were once required to pay the full amount of relocation costs for tenants under the Mobile Home Relocation Assistance Act. Legislation changes have resulted in landowners no long paying those fees. They are instead drawn from the Mobile Home Relocation Fund, which is funded entirely by mobile home owners upon purchase of a new home (Malpica, 2018). Even when money is available in the fund, many tenants do not apply for it out of fear that they will not be eligible under the funds restrictive requirements (Malpica, 2018). Additionally, when residents are able to take advantage of the mobile home relocation fund, tenants only receive reimbursement, which can cause financial strain on individuals who do not have the adequate capital up front (Malpica, 2018). Lack of protections for tenants can cause significant personal and financial hardship upon park closure.

It is not always the case that mobile home park redevelopment results in displacement of residents. After a developer bought the Sunrise Trailer Court in Virginia and the land poised for redevelopment, its residents faced eviction; Habitat for Humanity purchased the contract of sale from the would-be developer and executed a redevelopment plan that expanded housing and did not displace current residents (AARP, 2012). Through high density, mixed-use, mixed-income development, Habitat for Humanity could continue to house the current residents in new quarters for no greater costs than what they were originally paying, while also expanding market-rate housing for others in the community (AARP, 2012). The finished development included both renter and owner-occupied units, satisfying the preferences of initial residents as well as community desires (AARP, 2012). While most affordable housing in Virginia was located exclusively in distressed areas, this development helped to disperse affordable units within and economically diverse community (AARP, 2012). The project, however, was

12 not without its challenges, particularly around funding. In order to implement the work, Habitat for Humanity engaged in partnerships with local developers and major donors, in addition to securing a number of grants and financial loans (AARP, 2012).

Park preservation and improvements

As mobile home park owners continue to experience pressure to close their doors, Aman and Yarnal suggest cities help reinforce mobile home parks by providing technical assistance or incentives to current and future park owners and private interests (2010). In fact, Malpica finds that preservation of manufactured and mobile home communities is a more economical alternative that providing new replacement housing for those who experience displacement after a park closure (2018). In one instance, residents of a New Hampshire mobile home park responded to threats of closure by organizing a cooperative buyout of the park themselves. The new ownership structure has resulted in improvements in quality of life for residents and property values (Baker et al., 2011). Non-profits may also step in to purchase parks, preventing redevelopment into alternative uses (Baker et al, 2011; AARP, 2012). When homes are dilapidated beyond repair, Aman and Yarnal suggest the exploration of a “Cash for Clunkers” program to help clear out derelict housing and encourage regeneration (2010).

As reported by Sullivan, a Dallas landlord argued that, in cases of dilapidated housing, bringing homes to code is often too expensive or impossible; in these cases, tearing down homes may be the best solution to improve housing conditions (2017). When faced with repairs and code enforcement from cities, it is not uncommon for landowners to close parks and evict residents, rather than incur the costs of fixing these issues (Baker et al., 2011). This highlights another challenge to the issue of mobile home parks: the tension between landowner profit and park maintenance and quality. Sullivan reported that although rents have increased across West Dallas in general over the past two decades, housing conditions are not improving. This discontinuity suggests that landlords may be elevating profit margins, while minimizing repairs and not adequately investing in housing quality (Sullivan, 2017).

Similarly, cities may find that they too are at odds with property owners, particularly with respect to code enforcement. If property owners feel that code requirements are too stringent or burdensome, they may find it more cost effective to evict tenants, tear down houses, and consider redevelopment rather than make the necessary improvements. In the Dallas case, the landlord is pursuing a tear down option, but he is also preserving some of his properties and keeping residents in place by lending them money so that they may purchase their homes from him Sullivan, (2017).

Affordable housing development efforts

There are some examples of local government entities pursuing creative models of affordable housing preservation. In Vail, AZ, the School District is building a number of 300 to 400 square foot tiny homes on district owned land in order to better house its teachers, who have struggled to find affordable housing within the community (Kimble, 2018). Akin to the current mobile home model, teachers will purchase their homes and rent the land upon which it sits from the school district.

Other communities have relied on a community land trust model (CLT), where a non-profit organization acquires and holds land while selling the buildings or building rights that are on top of it (Davis, 2017). The CLT model makes an effective affordable housing preservation tool. In this context, the non-profit’s ownership of the land not only drives the purchase price for housing down, but it preserves the housing

13 as affordable housing stock in the long-term. Additionally, because it is non-profit owned, residents have more control of the land. Community members who reside in the community have the power to drive a CLTs development, making it much more responsive to needs (Davis, 2017). Cities that pursue a CLT can purchase abandoned or vacant land and housing and hold onto it for new affordable housing development – a strategy called land banking. A non-profit can also use the CLT model to preserve existing affordable housing stock and prevent tenant displacement by purchasing land from private owners that are under threat of redevelopment.

The value of CLTs is most pronounced when housing costs are on the rise and affordable housing units naturally become scarce (Davis, 2017). The CLT ensures that regardless of housing market changes, the affordability of the housing on the CLT is preserved. Alternatively, an economic downturn can negatively affect the CLT, making it difficult to serve the low-income households who are in most need of housing assistance. Following an economic downturn, one CLT found itself competing against market-rate housing, which had lost value (Meehan, 2014).

Additionally, CLTs can bring much needed long-term stability to a community. Because homeownership is a vehicle to accumulate wealth, neighborhoods experience cyclical turnover. CLTs remove the incentive of homeowners to move up and move out, and instead encourages them to invest in their community for the long haul (2014).

One issue with the CLT model is that it can easily fail to reach critical mass if most of the land they are able to acquire is scattered across small, dispersed parcels, as this is how the land acquisition process typically goes. To avoid piecemeal infill development of affordable housing, Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI), a Boston-based non-profit community-based planning and organizing entity, successfully employed eminent domain to acquire enough contiguous land to enable a more holistic development. Per the direction of its legal consultants, DSNI fought to use eminent domain to purchase abused and mismanaged land. (Meehan, 2014). Legal eminent domain requires that the land purchased through this tool be used for the public good. In this instance, the preservation of affordable housing, and the prevention of displacement and land speculation qualified as such. It is important to note that the circumstances surrounding DSNI’s ability to leverage eminent domain were unique. Eminent domain is not typically a tool that is available to CLTs.

Leveraging tools and subsidies for affordable housing development

When efforts for the preservation of affordable housing fail, communities can also look towards government-sponsored subsidies, like Section 8, the allocation of federal funds, like the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), and creative financing tools for new affordable housing development, like Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The major tool used for the development of affordable housing is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). Through Section 8, renters who are in need of affordable housing must pay a max of 30% of their income towards rent of privately developed, market-rate rental housing. Any difference between the total market-rate cost of rent and the 30% of monthly income that tenants are expected to pay is covered through government funds distributed by a public housing authority (Edson, 2011).

Other affordable housing tools include the HOME and CDBG programs, which provide jurisdictions with federal grant money for the purchase of land for housing, infrastructure improvements, development

14 costs, soft costs and reserves (2011). CDBG and HOME funds do not provide significant sources of money, and, on their own, could not likely fund an affordable housing development. HOME funds specifically, can be used to supplements LIHTC project funding. The LIHTC program created a tax credit that corporations and wealthy individuals could buy to lower their tax-liability. Money from those tax credit purchases can finance low-income housing projects. Though financing through the program is competitive, the successfulness of the program is indisputable, having produced over a million units of affordable housing since the program launched in 1987 (2011).

The need for affordable housing in the United States is significant and the wide swath of recent opportunities and tools for affordable housing development express the importance of a holistic and comprehensive approach to affordable housing development. For communities who have historically relied on mobile housing for affordable housing stock, navigating around increasing land values and property closures while maintaining adequate affordable housing stock to satisfy need the needs of low- income renters can be difficult, if not seemingly impossible. While unsubsidized affordable housing stock like mobile homes serve as an important resource to cities and should be preserved, modern challenges mean that it cannot be solely responsible for affordable housing stock, and therefore other mechanism for the preservation and creation of affordable housing should be considered.

Needs Assessment

The purpose of the needs assessment is to better understand the existing conditions and characteristics of the high-priority communities in Apache Junction, who are the subject of this research. The researcher used the needs assessment to establish a visually-informed understanding of high-priority communities in the City, with respect to physical housing conditions, property conditions, and demographic and housing characteristics. The needs assessment helps paint a clearer picture of community strengths, weaknesses, and trends that can better inform future policy, planning and development.

For the needs assessment, the City of Apache Junction identified 28 high-priority mobile home and RV park communities for the researcher to examine. For reporting purposes, the researcher evaluated each park within the context of their specific Census Block Group (Figure 2). This is the smallest unit of analysis reported by the US Census and American Community Survey, which provided demographic and socioeconomic data for the area. The researched completed an individual report for each of the Census Block Groups that held a high priority community (see Appendix A).

Figure 2. High-priority communities by Census Block Group in Apache Junction. Retrieved from Google Maps.

The needs assessment consisted of site visits, a windshield survey and data collection from the US Census Bureau and the American Community Survey. The purpose of the windshield survey is to visually

16 assess the physical conditions of housing stock and the properties on which the housing is located. For this assessment, the researcher developed a survey instrument to visually assess unit, park, and property conditions both individually and collectively within each park. The tool enabled the researcher to make note of unit types (mobile home, RV, other, etc.), rate individual units (including the primary structure and porches) and property conditions on a qualitative scale from excellent to poor, and respond to questions related to property and surrounding community characteristics and amenities. See Figures 3-5 for a summary of the windshield survey tool.

Figure 3: Housing Condition Scale

Excellent Good Fair Poor Homes are brand new While the structure The home is generally The home is or nearly new and in may not necessarily be older and in need of significantly aged and impeccable condition. new, the home is in updating and minor dilapidated. The units Exteriors or homes are good condition. repairs. Paint might be is in need of major well maintained, clean Exteriors of homes are faded or peeling. There repairs, and in worst and feature aesthetic mostly clean and fairly might be issues related cases, is beyond repair. deficiencies or well maintained. Paint to rust or minor body There are significant abnormalities. Nothing is fresh. Nothing is damage. For mobile aesthetic and structural is broken and the home broken and no serious homes, foundation deficiencies including is structurally sound. structural deficiencies skirting might be broken home features, observed. peeling away or significant wear and missing. tear to the body of the unit. Repairs and add- ons appear shoddy and potentially dangerous.

Mobile home in excellent Mobile home in good condition. Mobile home in fair condition. Mobile home in poor condition. condition. Champion Homes. 5th Avenue TT Park, Apache Mountain Vista MH Park, Superstition Mountain View, Junction, AZ.. Apache Junction, AZ. Apache Junction, AZ.

Figure 4: Porch and Yard Condition Scale

Excellent Good Fair Poor Porches are newly Porches appear sturdy Porches show Porches are constructed and and well-maintained beginning signs of wear significantly dilapidated appear structurally with no signs of serious and tear and may be in and in need of major sound. Porches may be structural damage. the need for some structural repairs. screened in. Yards are Porches are generally maintenance such as a Stairs might be missing impeccably manicured. tidy and organized and fresh coat of paint or or crumbling. Porches There is no plan or may be screened in. structural might have a significant weed overgrowth. Yards are generally improvements. Porches amount of waste or There is not trash, well-maintained with may be untidy and hold clutter. Yard waste or clutter in the few weeds and little some clutter. Yard maintenance is entirely yard. plant overgrowth. maintenance is neglected, plants and There is very little to no neglected. Grass is in weeds are overgrown, trash, waste or clutter need of trimming, no landscaping effort in the yard. there is presence of has been made. Yards weeds and plant have a significant overgrowth. amount of trash, waste Alternatively, yards and clutter that begins lack any sign of to pose a health and vegetation and any safety risk for landscaping. Yards are residents. littered with a moderate level of trash, waste and clutter.

Property in excellent condition. Porch in good condition. Palo Porch in fair condition. 5th Porch in poor condition. TJ’s MH Casa del Sol Resort East, Verde MH Park, Apache Avenue TT Park, Apache Park, Apache Junction. Glendale, AZ. Junction, AZ. Junction, AZ.

Figure 5: Property Condition Scale

Excellent Good Fair Poor The property is well- This property is The property is not The property is not maintained, manicured somewhat well well maintained. The well maintained. The and cared for. Roads maintained. Roads are property may or may property is not paved are paved and paved but may be not be paved, but and there might not be nighttime lighting is crumbling due to age. drivers are able to a clear road for drivers present to help drivers Drivers and pedestrian navigate through the and pedestrian and pedestrian residents are able to property with ease. residents to follow. residents alike navigate freely and easily There is some logic to Homes are not well- the park. Safety navigate the park. home placement, but organized on the measures like a Nighttime lighting may the park may not property and it is security gate or speed exist. The grounds are resemble a traditional difficult to differentiate bumps may exist. The fairly well manicured park with clearly lived-in homes from grounds are well with little to no plant defined lots. Nighttime storage and waste. maintained with no overgrowth or trash lighting may not exist. Property grounds are plant overgrowth or littering the property. The grounds are not entirely uncared for. trash littering the well manicured and There is no landscaping property. there is some weed and the property is and plant overgrowth overgrown with weeds, as well as trash strewn plantlife, and brush. across the property. There is a significant amount of trash and litter on the property grounds.

Property in excellent condition. Property in good condition. Property in fair condition. Verde Property in poor condition. TJ’s Riviera MH Park, Scottsdale, AZ. Apache Palms MH Park, Apache Court MH Park, Apache MH Park, Apache Junction. Junction. Junction.

The researcher completed the windshield survey across two visits to the City. During these visits, the researcher took photos of individual units and park conditions within each of these parks. Subsequently, the researcher evaluated the photos with the survey instrument. The researcher conducted the first site

19 visit on a Saturday morning in January 2019. Larger parks required a second visit to ensure the researcher captured all necessary information for the research. The researcher returned to Apache Junction on a Saturday morning in February 2019.

The full windshield survey can be found in Appendix A.

The second component of the needs assessment consisted of a geographic analysis. Using data available through the US Census Bureau and Google Maps, the researcher reviewed and assessed the geography of each Census Block Group to determine what assets each Block Group possessed, as well as the proximity of residents living in the block group to important daily amenities. The researcher considered resident proximity to daily needs and amenities, in addition to inventorying readily available assets. Paired with demographic data, the researcher used the geographic analysis to determine the commercial, governmental, and educational assets and needs of the community, as well as to assess whether or not proximity to certain assets represented a harm or benefit to vulnerable households who might live within or beyond the region.

The third component of the needs assessment consisted of a demographic analysis. Using data available from the US Census Bureau and American Community Survey, the researcher collected demographic data for each Census Block Group. The researcher used this data to establish trends within each block group, in addition to providing comparative data across the subject areas. The researcher was then able to consider a range of trends and projections, including population growth, racial composition, age distribution, income distribution, and changes in housing stock. Through analysis, the researcher could understand what past events have contributed or led to the present reality. This could help the researcher better understand what kind of housing stock is in high demand, based on current consumption. The researcher then made projections to inform and guide future development. Summary of Findings

While the 28 properties in this study are all considered high-priority, non-conforming properties, they vary widely across the spectrum of maintenance, livability and service. Some parks had a solid infrastructure, while others did not. Some parks had more modern, updated homes, while others largely consisted of pre-HUD trailers dating back to the 1960’s1. To complicate matters more, unit age was not the principle factor behind park quality; some parks with trailers dating back decades were in better physical condition than parks with newer, modern homes.

The geographic analyses evaluated park conditions based upon proximity to community assets, while the demographic analyses demonstrated affordable housing needs (e.g., where housing stock is transforming, where property values are rising, where there are higher concentrations of lower-income households and where affordable housing stock might in high demand or threatened).

The matrix and map below place the nine block groups that are the subjects of this study into four different categories or priorities:

1 Homes built prior to 1974 fail to meet federal standards for quality, durability and safety.

 Priority 2 – Where demographic and/or housing stock changes suggest affordable housing may be under threat, based on Census Block Group data. The geographic analysis reveals that this Block Group is a suitable location for lower-income households to live, based on their close proximity to community assets.  Priority 3 - Where there is a high demand/need for affordable housing stock, based on Census Block Group data. The geographic analysis reveals that this Block Group may not a suitable location for potentially vulnerable lower-income households to live, based on their distance to community assets.  Priority 4 - Where demographic and/or housing stock changes suggest affordable housing may be under threat, based on Census Block Group data. The geographic analysis reveals that this Block Group is may not a suitable location for potentially vulnerable lower-income households to live, based on their distance to community assets.

Figure 6. Census Block Group priority matrix of high-priority communities in Apache Junction.

Figure 7. Census Block Group needs of high-priority communities in Apache Junction. Retrieved from Google Maps.

The researcher triangulated all of the data and developed a typology of the parks based on their existing conditions and characteristics. The typology includes three categories (update, amenitize, and sandbox) that are summarized below. The full assessment of individual areas is reported in Appendix A.

Amenitize Properties: Parks in this category lack infrastructure and amenities, but possess a lot of potential. Their housing units are generally newer and in great condition. These non-conforming properties are more likely to host out-of-town visitors (e.g., snowbirds and RV units) rather than full-time residents, so they are less likely to provide valuable affordable housing stock to lower income residents of Apache Junction. Because these parks are less likely to cater to vulnerable lower-income populations, the City has more flexibility in terms of imposing standards to help update the park, if desired.

Figure 8: High-priority Amenitize Properties

Buddy’s RV Park Desert Queen

Figure 9. Map of High-priority Amenitize Properties in Apache Junction. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Update Properties: Update properties are parks that are in fair to good condition, even if they are not fully modernized. Parks may be afflicted by minor to moderate aesthetic or structural deficiencies and housing conditions are likely inconsistent. Some individual housing units may be vintage or pre-HUD units that pose health and safety risk, thus unit replacement in necessary. These parks generally have “good bones” in terms of paved roads, and park organization. These parks often require minor updates and property enhancements. Pending these changes and improvements, these parks could be preserved, allowing them to continue serving the City as valuable affordable housing stock.

Figure 10: High-priority Update Properties

Lamplighter 5th Avenue TT Park Apache Skies

Mountain Vista Arizona Sleets Casa Del Camino

Superstition Mobile Ranch Apache Palms MH Park Palo Verde MH Park

Roadrunner MH Park Saguaro Springs Foothills MH Park

Arizona RV/MH Park

Figure 11. Map of High-priority Update Properties in Apache Junction. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Sandbox Properties: Parks in this category are in generally poor condition. Units are old and in moderate to advanced stages of dilapidation; some units may predate HUD requirements. The properties consist of unpaved, generally unmaintained, dirt lots. Properties may have homes dispersed throughout the property in an unorganized fashion. Housing units may overcrowd other properties. Given their extremely poor conditions, these properties should be prioritized for redevelopment.

Figure 12: High-priority Sandbox Properties

Fuller Property Superstition Sky Villa Superstition Mountain View

Schlupe Rentals Verde Court TJ’s Mobile Home Park

Mountain Ridge Quiet Village RV Park Shady Village

Bungay Rentals Roundup MH Park B&R Trailer Park

God’s Little Acre

Figure 13. Map of High-priority Sandbox Properties in Apache Junction. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Analysis

The analysis section of this study brings together knowledge from the literature review, findings from the needs assessment and insights from stakeholder interviews. The researcher interviewed two set of stakeholders for this research: 1) mobile home and RV park property owners, and 2) professionals working in and around affordable housing development.

Mobile home and RV park property owners discussed their experiences as park owners. From these interviews, the researcher gleaned insight into the state of their parks, who they cater to, what motivates them, how they run their business, what their needs, what their tenants’ needs are, what interest they have in redevelopment, etc.

Professionals working in and around affordable housing development described their experience in the industry, what enables affordable housing development, strategies for affordable housing development, what barriers to development exist and how to overcome them, etc. Part 1: Mobile Home and RV Parks as Affordable Housing Stock in Apache Junction

Mobile home and RV park housing provides a valuable source of affordable housing for the City of Apache Junction and its most vulnerable residents. This housing type make up nearly 50% of all housing stock in Apache Junction, where median household income is significantly less than surrounding cities. This housing stock caters to a wide range of households, from retirees on fixed incomes looking for a place to park their RV during winter months, to individuals working steady low-wage jobs, to extremely low-income individuals living on social security or disability, who depend on the extremely low rents many mobile home and RV parks provide. While a number of the mobile home and RV parks in Apache Junction are challenged by deteriorating conditions and non-conformity with zoning, property owners and new developers alike described limited and unsatisfactory options for redevelopment in their interviews, leaving current residents vulnerable to an unpredictable future.

Nature of Mobile Home and RV Park Housing Stock

The mobile home and RV park housing stock in Apache Junction covers a wide swath of type, quality, condition and value. Housing in the highest priority parks is generally fair to poor in quality, afflicted by issues such as age-related wear and tear, aesthetic issues (peeling or oxidized paint, unkempt appearance, in need of updating, etc.) and some structural and safety issues (rust, crumbling stairs, makeshift or shoddy additions, broken windows, etc.).

The housing tenure opportunities available at these parks include a mix of ownership and rental opportunities, the nature of which are dependent of park owner preferences. For instance, some park owners prefer to own the mobile home units that sit in the park and charge tenants for rent just as they would if it were an apartment building. For these park owners, the value of their property resides both in their land and in the housing units that they own. When a tenant moves out, it is akin to moving out of an apartment: they simply vacate the premises of the property, taking their personal belongings with them. In this scenario, park owners are responsible for household repairs in the same way that apartment building property owners are. One property owner, who operated their park in this way, described their property as units with below-market rents (between $600 and $700 per month) and

28 park model homes that could accommodate a max of two tenants. It is worth noting that this specific property was not on the “high priority community” list for this research. The property conforms to zoning and the park owners recently cleaned it up; formerly, the property was neglected and was the site of a number of drug problems. The property owner recently updated the park, which now includes decent, newly amenitized housing stock, as well as a security gate and a pool. Unlike many of the other high-priority parks in Apache Junction, this property is home to a diverse mix of tenants including workers and non-workers across the age spectrum, from 20’s to 70’s.

Alternatively, some park owners prefer to rent only the land and tenants are required to own their own mobile homes or RVs. For these park owners, the value of their property rests entirely in the land. Since residents own their own homes, the property owner is not responsible for making home repairs or housing condition improvements, which saves the landowner money. However, this also means that the park owner has very limited control over the condition of the housing. They can certainly enforce park standards as far as appearance and upkeep, but they lack a locus of control to oversee those things themselves. From the tenant perspective, there is a high degree of vulnerability in this scenario, because they own the unit in which they live but do not have control of the land on which it sits.

In the event of a park closure or eviction, tenants must move their mobile home or RV from the property at great expense. In some cases and depending on the age and condition of the home, removal of a home might be impossible without causing irreparable damage. In addition, relocation can be costly and difficult, especially if the unit is older than what other parks will generally allow. In extreme cases, a tenant who is unable to move their housing unit following park closure or eviction is forced to abandon their housing unit, leaving perhaps their most valuable possession behind. One property owner interviewee who operated their park in this way reported charging tenants a total of $325 for monthly rent; $275 for land rent and $50 for utilities. According to the landowner, tenants in this particular park represented a generally older, extremely low-income and vulnerable population of tenants.

Other property owners operate their parks in both way – renting both entire housing units with land and land-only pads on which owned homes sit. One property owner interviewee who operated their park in this way described a very interesting split of housing stock on their plot of land. The housing available on the plot of land includes a single-family home, a six-unit apartment block and eleven RV pads, some of which tenants rent, and some of which they own. This property owner charges $700 for the house, $550 to $600 for an apartment, $375 to $500 for a trailer, and $240 for an RV pad only.

How Mobile Home and RV Parks are Perceived and Used by Tenants

During stakeholder interviews with mobile home and RV park property owners, different types of tenants with different types of needs were all mentioned as residents of high-priority parks.

Aside from some of the properties that host newer RVs, tenants of high priority mobile home parks tend to be full-time residents in search of extremely affordable housing. According to park owners who participated in the interviews for this study, most tenants represent the lower end of the income spectrum. For many residents, the mobile home and RV parks that they call home are their only option of affordable housing. Generally older, middle age-and beyond, many residents in these parks are on fixed incomes because of disability or social security, with no source of savings or emergency funds. They are generally long-term residents, ranging from three to ten years. Broadly, parks cater entirely to long-term, full-time residents, but sometimes there is a mix of short-term winter visitors too.

In an interview, a park owner with a diverse mix of rental options (home, apartment, trailer, and pad) stated that most residents are full-time residents, but about half of the eleven RV pads for rent are occupied about half of the time. Parks lease these part-time occupancy pads to winter visitors or tenants who intended to be long-term but leave or are asked to leave. Full-time, long-term residents occupy the other half.

Another park owner reported primarily full-time, long-term tenants, some of which use the RV park as a temporary landing place during difficult times. Some tenants will find themselves in the park after hitting hard times – perhaps losing a job or experiencing an unexpected financial setback. For these residents, their tenure in the park is temporary. The affordability of the units allows them to get back on their feet and save enough money to move out the mobile unit and into larger apartment unit with more amenities. According to the property owner, this is a rare occurrence, but it does happen from time to time. For the most part, the property owner characterized tenants as long-term, more than likely not out of preference but out of necessity. It may be the case that a resident is in an RV park because they prefer the lifestyle that a mobile home or RV can afford them, but the interviewee who spoke to this subject stated this this is not often true.

This is not to say that there is not tenant demand for mobile homes alternatives. Interviewed park owners described a high demand for housing in their parks. When one pad or unit opens up, it is generally not too difficult to find a new tenant to fill that vacancy, especially if the park owner is not overly restrictive with respect to potential tenants. Park owners attribute this high demand to not only the affordability of the units, but also to the kind of life the mobile home park can provide. One park owner speculated that mobile home living was particularly popular and sought after among residents in their park because the opportunity to rent a mobile home provided them with a greater sense of pride than alternative feasible housing options. This property is one in which the residents rent the entire unit from the park and so the only other conceivable housing option for these tenants would be to rent an apartment. Renting a house might also be an option, but given the rental rate for the mobile home units, traditional single-family home rentals are likely more expensive. This park owner believes that, especially for older generations, being able to rent an entire home along with the outdoor space provides renters with a greater sense of pride than renting an apartment unit.

Additionally, most property owners echo the belief that living in mobile home and RV parks facilitates greater bonding between residents, enabling neighbors to build a stronger sense of community. Park owners who participated in interviews stated that full-time tenants in their parks generally “have each other’s backs.”

Apache Junction Mobile Home Park Ownership and Management

It is not entirely surprising that Apache Junction has such a high percentage of mobile housing stock and mobile home and RV parks. Prior to the City’s formation, Apache Junction was under Pinal County’s zoning code. The county code was very lax with regard to standards and regulations for mobile home and RV parks. Noting Apache Junction’s draw as a tourist destination, specifically among snowbirds, property owners and businesses saw an opportunity to purchase land and easily set it up so that winter visitors and other mobile home and RV dwellers could establish, even ephemeral, roots on the land.

Contemporarily, the City of Apache Junction annexed this land and zoning codes have been enforced to prevent this kind of development from occurring again. While some properties have improved and

30 adapted to existing regulations, others have failed to make those updates and the legacy of the (unregulated) past remain. Two examples of how Apache Junction priorities have adapted and made updates over time are in Figure 14 below. A number of the high priority mobile home and RV parks in this study do not resemble true mobile home and RV parks, as defined by the zoning code. Rather, they better resemble relics of the past—a parcel of land on which a site-built home was established and the rest of the land was made available for RV and mobile home lots.

Figure 14: Examples of how different Apache Junction properties adapted over time.

Example of a park that made updates Example of a park that did not make updates

Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park Bungay Rentals Year Established: 1960 Year Established: 1951

Park Owners see Park Ownership as a Business Venture

Of all the mobile home park owners interviewed for this report, none were the original owners of their parks. In fact, all park owners had purchased their properties within the past five years. One park owner inherited the property following her father’s death, who happened to be the previous owner. The four other park owners had recently bought their respective parks as investment opportunities.

Those who recently bought their properties did so with the intention of creating an investment opportunity, though each had different motivations for wanting to own a park.

The first park owner represents a husband-wife team searching for a new investment opportunity following the sale of their commercial property. This duo is part of an investment partnership with other stakeholders. They found their current property, making a bid for the park at the very last minute. While the property owners decided to purchase the property very last minute, the owners do not regret their decision to purchase the park. They were looking for a residential property to invest in and felt that a mobile home park would be a great investment opportunity. After three years of hard work, big transitions and expensive improvements, the park is beginning to turn profit for the owners.

The second owner also bought his property as a business venture and specifically sought out his park because he likes to own units that serve low-income individuals. Rather than having altruistic motivations, he believes it makes good business sense:

“I like low income because if you find good, solid low income people, they're going to stay with you and they're going to be really, really, really good tenants because they are happy to have low income and you keep them safe … Also, if a recession hits, the $2,000 a month houses and condos and $3,000 a month houses and condos, those are going to be the first ones to take a hit. Whereas, low income is where ... these people, their incomes will not be hurt in a recession. Low income jobs are still going to be there because they are low income.”

Inside of his property, which is non-conforming and contains more units than regular zoning allows, the owner focuses on a low price per door. He may not be making a large profit from each of his tenants, but a low cost per door with many doors allows him to rent to many tenants, and build a steady revenue stream. In the event that one or two tenants leave and the owner is unable to fill the vacancy immediately, the property owner still has firm financial footing. Additionally, this owner likes owning affordable housing projects because he believes that lower-income tenants make good and loyal renters so long as the relationship between owner and renter is honest and fair.

The third property owner is in the business of purchasing dilapidated, drug-infested or struggling parks, with the intent of cleaning them up and reselling them for profit once they are stable. This owner is both mission-driven and profit-driven. He cleans up properties not only so he can later resell for a higher price, but also so that he can help create healthy communities for people in need. This owner is in the business of RV park ownership and management at a scale that extends beyond Apache Junction. He owns other market-rate RV parks in more northern parts of Arizona. These properties are not “project” properties, but simply income properties.

The fourth park owner purchased their park roughly a year ago because they like Apache Junction and saw it as a good location to operate a mobile home park. This owner is also in the business of buying, updating and operating other mobile home parks around the valley. He takes pride in a providing decent

32 housing, stating, “I kind of view myself as a farmer. I just get up every day and instead of milking the cows, I go out and sweep the streets, put in tenants and make sure they’re happy. It’s no different than making sure the cows are happy and producing milk.”

The fifth park owner inherited her family’s park following the passing of her father; she did not want to own and operate the property as a business unlike the other property owners interviewed. In fact, she recently sold the property because she no longer wanted to be responsible for the ownership of the park: “I didn't like dealing with people who had no money because you feel like a bad person. It's a business for me, and the fact that they couldn't afford to live there became my problem. We're all humans and things go wrong, but I couldn't be very flexible because it was costing me a lot of money, and that was very difficult for me.”

Honest Business

While the property owners pursuing their parks as investments may have different motivations and ways of doing business, one thing they all share is the experience of trying to clean up a mismanaged park. One park owner shared how the previous owners mismanaged the business, profiting off of its deterioration into a park with serious drug challenges, stating, “… Our issue was that the previous landlord was a slumlord and I think they were also just pocketing money from their partnership ... Their other partners decided they were selling the park and the resident owner managers were not happy with it because it was their little piggy bank. There were a lot of drugs. I mean, this was a drug park, the owners were in on it … They had stacked the rent roll so it looked as if there were more people there and paying rent when we purchased it, and then shortly after us purchasing it there was a mass exodus of these non-paying people.” Other parks owners described the effect that an absentee owner can have on a park. “[I have] run across many properties that were less than desirable, and a lot of owners are absentee with managers that have an interest in the property … In this case, there were so many individuals that were part of the drug industry and the prostitution industry in that area that we virtually had to eliminate all but three tenants over time.”

Two owners in particular went through extensive measures to clean up their parks upon acquiring the properties. In both cases, owners evicted the majority of original tenants, citing rent delinquency and/or heavy drug use. These park owners attribute much of their current success to the fact that they were able to oust troublesome tenants in favor of “good,” honest ones.

As the park owners described, a business-minded park owner who values financial stability will have no qualms about using eviction to maintain stability. Non-drug-free communities are disruptive to other tenants and can quickly have negative impacts on all tenants. In addition to heightened crime risk, non- drug-free communities may also have a higher percentage of tenants who are unable to consistently pay rent on time. It also represents an occupancy risk, as a non-drug-free community can scare away clean, responsible tenants who are simply seeking a quiet affordable place to live. Desperate property owners who are trying to maximize profits may allow questionable tenants to move in, in spite of reservations, but they will likely risk financial stability in the long-term. Responsible park owners—those with an understanding of stable profit strategies—will always choose a clean park with a higher vacancy rate over a drug-infested park at capacity, simply because of the serious issues associated with non-drug-free communities. These park owners enforce strict rules on their tenants as part of a bigger business strategy.

Based on interviews, a successful park owner also understands what a good business strategy looks like. The previously described, park owner reported he enjoys providing affordable housing units for the community because it makes good business sense. This park owner is not only relying on his occupants to be good stable tenants, he actively tries to encourage that behavior through his interactions with residents his rent levels. He believes that low-income households can be vulnerable to high rents and cost burdens—a reality that is present in other Apache Junction properties.

This park owner referenced another property owner who is in financial trouble because they make as much on rental deposits as they do on rent, due to high turnover. He stated, “One guy was looking at buying this park right across the street from [my park] and he got into some trouble. I think he had to sell it, but he pushed his manager to the point where he was making almost as much off of his deposits as he was off of his monthly rent. [Tenants] would be able to come up with the deposit and the first month's rent and not be able to do anything else and then get kicked out.” Turnover is high in this park because rents are unaffordable which ultimately results in inconsistent income for a landlord. If the landowner was to adjust rates so that they were more affordable for their tenants, they could make more money through a steady income stream, even if they are not making as much profit on single units as they think they could.

Owner Challenges

Business Management

The parks in this study were identified as high-priority by the City of Apache Junction due to their status as a non-conforming park with zoning, but also due to other physical and behavioral characteristics. There are additional parks in the City that are either non-conforming and legally conforming, but, in those instances, the City expressed less concern over these parks because they were in good condition and did not represent a negative impact on the surrounding community. This introduces the following question: of all the non-conforming parks in Apache Junction, what drives the identification of some as high-priority communities while others are less of a concern for the City.

Only three of the interviewed property owners came from the list of high-priority parks identified by the City. The remaining interviewees owned non-conforming parks, but they had successfully managed them in such a way that they were kept off of the high-priority list. Two of the three high-priority park owners both mentioned encountering difficulties with park ownership and management, including confusion filling out required forms for the county, lack of clarity regarding zoning and conformance, enforcing park standards, and managing tenant expectations and behavior, to name a few. These owners believed a devoted city-appointed liaison would be a useful resource to park owners. This liaison could help property owners navigate some of their business-ended challenges. They suggested that such a resource would help property owners operate their parks more successfully, efficiently and to the greater satisfaction of park tenants.

The parks with the most success in business management share a common characteristic: they all have an onsite manager or a team of onsite employees who serve as the eyes and ears of the park. The manager or employees work with residents to collect rents, take care of financial tasks, schedule home maintenance and repairs, and oversee grounds maintenance, etc. The interviewed park owners with this style of management attribute much of their park’s success as a more professional model of property ownership. They believed the parks that struggle the most—those in the worst condition with respect to

34 housing stock and community of tenants— have absentee owners who do not work closely with their managers. For the successful park owners, having an onsite park manager has enabled the enforcement of the standards and expectations of the park at all times. This is important on a day-to day basis, but even more so during a “clean up” process that many of these park owners spearheaded in their parks.

Though it cannot be said to be causal, it is worth noting that the interviewed park owner who recently sold their property due to poor profits and overwhelming conditions did not have a park manager on site to watch over the park, enforce standards consistently and respond to tenant or park needs.

Disruptive Tenants and Park Drug Culture

Two of the five interviewed parks owners detailed the process of “cleaning up” their parks shortly after acquiring them. In this context “cleaning up” does not refer to physical park conditions, upgrading and maintenance efforts (though this may have been a feature of the process). In this context, park owners spoke about “cleaning up” park tenant behavior.

Upon acquiring their respective properties. Each acquired parks that were deeply troubled. Absentee owners and apathetic park managers had let the conditions of the park degrade, while drugs and drug culture became deeply seated in the communities. This gave rise to issues of crime, violence, a general feeling that the park was unsafe, transient occupancy patterns, vagrancy and delinquent rent payments. Previous park owners were treating their ownership of the park as a revenue-generating venture without considering how that money was coming in, how consistently it was coming in, or what the non- monetary consequences of that revenue flow might be. One park owner stated, “One thing that I see that most owners get trapped into is money. They will compromise their standards for sake of a written check from a person that might be questionable. Once you allow an element of crime inside your property, it tends to become like a cancer and takes over the entire property and therefore your good tenants leave you.”

Two park owners who came to own properties with drug and crime issues were deeply committed to their business and creating an environment and community in which tenants could feel safe, while benefitting from the affordability of a mobile home park lifestyle. These property owners decided that regardless of any revenue stream acquired through the “drug-parks,” they preferred to own clean parks, where the tenants would be drug-free, responsible and timely in their payments. They operated under the belief that more stable tenants equate to more loyal tenants, with longer tenancies and more stable rent streams. In turn, the more steady and reliable the income, the more profit the park owners would have to reinvest in their park.

This revelation preceded a mass eviction. In each park, owners either asked the majority of tenants to leave, or forcefully evicted them. At the end of the process, three original tenants remained in each of the parks. To date, the park owners remain extra vigilant in regards to their tenants, performing interviews and background checks to ensure that the households they invite to live in their parks are not only good tenants on paper, but also good community members.

A separate park owner spoke about a deep-seated drug problem in their park that they have not been able to resolve. This park owner has not been as vigilant about monitoring tenants. When serious drug issues emerge, the owner has evicted the residents, but the problem persists with other tenants.

Tenants who are heavily influenced by drug culture are not the only challenge for property owners; property owners point to other tenant challenges. Like in any other rental-housing scenario, tenants in a mobile home park are cast as “good” or “bad.” The qualities that generally make a tenant “bad” are disruptiveness, inability to follow park rules, and rent delinquency. For many of the park owners, rent delinquency is not a problem, so long as the tenant is communicative with the property owners.

As managers of low-income residential properties, the two interviewed park owners in particular showed a heightened understanding of the vulnerabilities and challenges their tenants face. When a tenant suddenly loses a job or has a financial emergency that prevents them from making their rent payment on time, the park owners are generally happy to work with them and accept late rent payments, so long as the tenants are transparent about their challenges and are honest in their efforts to pay the park owners back. This approach to delinquent rent payments not only benefits the renter because they do not come under the threat of immediate eviction, it also benefits the landowner in the long term as they minimize vacancy and turnover within their parks.

A park owner who is quick to evict could begin to see a revolving door of tenancy, which can impact long-term revenue streams. High turnover might turn off other potential renters who feel that they will never have a real chance of getting to know their neighbors. Additionally, some leniency and understanding on the part of park owners can help strengthen their relationship with tenant. If tenants feel respected and understood, they will be less likely to move out of their park, which translates to a constant, steady stream of revenue for the park owner.

On the other hand, too much leniency on the part of the property owner can turn disastrous for both park owner and tenant alike. A park owner who inherited a park following her father’s passing was surprised to find that one of the tenants owed $1,900 in back rent at a monthly rate of $275. Her father had been too lenient with this tenant, to the point where the tenant expected their rent to be forgiven each month. Conscious of the fact that this was cutting into the already meager profits of the park, this park owner decided to proceed with the eviction process.

These issues may seem like local problems that a park owner should be able to figure out on their own. However, these challenges are not isolated; the actions of a park owner can impact the City at large, especially as it contributes to citywide concerns about affordable housing. If a park owner does not receive rent from a tenant, they are not able to maximize their profit and that impacts their ability to reinvest in property maintenance.

Tenant disruptiveness is another characteristic that makes it difficult for park owners to manage their properties; park owners report different approaches to these challenges. One park owner that catered to both mobile home and RV lot renters noticed that their RV tenants were particularly disruptive. They attributed this to lifestyle differences: RV tenants were typically winter visitors, without the same work schedules or demands as mobile home renters. RV tenants would do things like host loud parties on weeknights, while full-time tenants were trying to sleep, interrupting their schedules and negatively impacting their well-being. In response to this challenge, the park owner decided to stop renting to RVs. Instead, they have decided that they will only rent to full-time, longer-term residents. Once the last of the RVs leave the property, the owners will invest in mobile home units to place on these pads. The park owners are satisfied with this solution because it will improve the quality of life for their long-term residents, increasing the chances that they will continue to stay in the park.

Another park owner took a different approach to handling disruptive tenants. This interviewee didn’t believe eviction was worth the time or expense. In his experience, tenants will generally leave if asked and without force. As a result, this park owner uses 30-day leases with all of his tenants. This ensures that tenants are more accountable to their actions, since they know that they are not under a contract for an extended period of time. It also ensures accountability to tenants’ neighbors and fellow community members. For the park owner, a 30-day lease makes it easier to ask disruptive tenants to leave. The park owner consistently uses 30-day leases as a tool for most of his residents, regardless of how long they have been in the park. Occasionally the park owner will allow long-term residents to enter into a longer term 6-month lease if he feels comfortable with them. Because of this policy, the owner has established a long-term revenue stream that prioritizes good tenant relationships and minimizes the need for intervention.

These issues may seem like local problems that a park owner should be able to figure out on their own if they want it solved. Additionally, this may seem like an area in which the City has no control, or where people believe the City should possess no role in. However, park management should be of direct interest to the City, because physical park conditions and the quality of a city’s affordable housing stock it is directly reflected by it. Park owner ineffectiveness and park mismanagement is reflected in the physical neglect and dilapidation of a park. A city that is concerned about the physical conditions of its mobile home and RV parks should not overlook the role of the owners who manage them.

Cost Prohibitive Park Upgrades and Maintenance

One significant challenge that three of five park owners mentioned during interviews was the aging infrastructure of their parks, most notably the lack of a sewer connection. These parks are still on septic systems and, though they understand that the City would like them to connect to the municipal sewer system, such a transition is extremely cost-prohibitive at existing rent levels. One interviewee emphasized the infrastructure upgrade would be so expensive that they do not anticipate they can save for the expense; rather, they are bracing themselves for the day when they are forced to incur the debt in order to connect to sewer:

“Our infrastructure is very old … Our challenge is if something went really seriously wrong with the infrastructure. We're also on septic. And we met with ADEQ, the people that govern the septic tanks, and of course they want everybody on sewage which would cost us … a quarter [to] half million dollars to do so. And they have told us if one of our 13 septic tanks would fail, we have to go on the sewer system and that would be extremely costly. So, we have to be mindful of the fact that we’re on… septic rather than sewer.”

One interviewed park owner discussed the need for upgrades, and specifically the need for a sewer connection, as one of her park’s biggest challenges; it ultimately contributed to her decision to sell her property: “We had septic tanks still that need to be replaced to be put into sewer system, and that upgrade was going to cost more than $50,000 which is more than ... it's more than a year’s income of the park and certainly isn't the profit. It would cost a tremendous amount of money, but I think that could have helped the park to be a little more successful.”

Because structural upgrades are especially costly for Apache Junction’s mobile home parks and the incentives associated with these upgrades are so few, park owners are not inclined to act on making

37 those upgrades themselves. Instead, they are either waiting for the worst to happen or anticipating they will sell their property so they do not have to deal with it at all.

There are other upgrades that the park owners could make with respect to their properties and the amenities for tenants. However, interviewed park owners did not express much enthusiasm to invest in these projects. One of the parks that catered to an extremely low-income property boasted no amenities at all. Further, the park owner did not intend to invest in amenities, in part because the investment is cost-prohibitive given the parks revenue stream, but also because amenities would ultimately become cost-prohibitive for tenants. The owner felt the property already experienced issues with timely rent payments and amenitization would only translate to higher rent costs, which would place an even greater burden on tenants.

For interviewed park owners interested in improvements, they identified investments that would not have much of, if any, an impact on tenants. For instance, one park owner mentioned wanting to build a knee-wall. While this improvement would help make the property look nicer from the outside looking in, it would not impact the lives of tenants for better or for worse. On the other hand, such an improvement would also not impact tenant rents.

In contrast, another interviewed park owner cited $600,000 in improvements, enhancements and upgrades for their park. Notable improvements include the installation of a community pool, security gate and clubhouse. The park owner made these improvements following a mass eviction of former tenants in an attempt to change the perception of the park internally and attract a different clientele. The results have proven successful for the park owners. This particular park does not expressly cater to extremely low-income individuals, but housing is still offered below market-rate. After three years of operating and upgrading the park—using their personal capital as investment dollars, this park has finally begun to spin positive profits. It should be noted that these improvements were only made possible by access to a significant amount of capital that the park owners had immediately ready.

When asked if these kinds of resources and capital are necessary to the successful management of a park, one park owner confirmed, “You're on your own. This is purely an entrepreneurial spirit … It is a deal [people] should not enter into unless they are full capitalized.” Park owners who do not have these resources available might find themselves considerably stunted in their growth.

Lawful Non-Conformance as a Catch-22

For non-conforming parks, the owners possess rights of lawful non-conformance, which run with the land. Rights of lawful non-conformance allow property owners to continue operating their property as a mobile home or RV park, even though it does not conform to current zoning code. However, properties that have rights of lawful non-conformance are limited in what they can with their land. Once a property owner receives “rights of lawful nonconformance”, property owners cannot add more units on their land to maximize profits. Additionally, if units on the land are destroyed by a natural disaster (e.g., flood) or by accidental (e.g., fire) means, the owner is prohibited from rebuilding or replacing any structures. Once buildings are destroyed or irrevocably damaged, the property owner can only build or redevelop in a way that will conform to current zoning code. For many of these high-priority properties, the options allowed under existing zoning would either consist of much lower density housing or no residential units at all. For instance, if a grandfathered mobile home property were to experience a fire that irrevocably

38 destroyed all of its units, the owner might only be able to reconstruct one unit where there used to be 10 or 15. In this instance, the landowner would have no choice but to comply with existing zoning.

Short of natural or man-made disaster, non-conforming landowners have the option of maintaining their property in its current condition or, redeveloping it to conform to existing zoning. As relayed by interviewees, there is little to no incentive for property owners to do the latter. Operating their property as a mobile home or RV park is the land’s current highest and best use. To redevelop the site in a way that would conform to zoning would eliminate a significant amount of revenue for the property owner. Since the parks represent an investment opportunity, owners emphasize that no one would pick this option. On the flipside, park owners are also prohibited from making any other changes or improvements that generate additional revenue and/or affordable housing—even if they have land available on the property. Property owners explain they are essentially stuck operating their property as it has always been, which prevents them from pursuing very necessary updates as far as facilities and housing units.

Operating a park that caters to predominantly low-income residents, not by intention but simply due to the very nature of the housing on the property constrains what owners are willing and unwilling to do. Property owners are apprehensive about investing additional funds into property improvement when they know they will not see returns to the degree that would justify such an investment. Some improvements could be so costly that the park owner must raise rent on its tenants. As tenants are vulnerable to financial hardship, this pathway could result in the forced relocation of residents who are unable to keep up with increasing rents.

Tenant Challenges

Vulnerability

Due to the nature of mobile housing, tenants tend to possess a very particular set of vulnerabilities. Most of the tenants who prefer this type of housing stock are low-income individuals and their financial situations can be unstable. Park owners who participated in the interviews mentioned that their parks host a mix of tenants, including low-wage earners in the workforce, unemployed residents, and fixed- income households (e.g., disability, social security). Specifically for this latter group, financial instability can leave tenants very vulnerable. Without durable savings or other financial supports, the smallest emergency or routine inconvenience can impact their monthly expenses; a sick pet who needs treatment or a car that needs maintenance could mean the difference between making rent or eviction. This vulnerability can lead to eviction and homelessness in extreme cases.

Tenants are even more vulnerable when faced with a park closure, following the sale of a property. In this event, the tenant has no opportunity to ask the landowner for a rent extension or grace period. A park closure forces tenants out of a park, resulting in greater demand for affordable housing as those tenants search for new housing.

Living Quarters

In terms of tangible challenges tenants experience in the parks, one park owner commented that, in spite of living in the small quarters of mobile homes or RVs, tenants tend to have issues with a lack of space for all of their belongings. The park owner who ultimately sold her property found this particularly challenging, as she tried to work with tenants to maintain park standards, stating “We would ask them

39 to maintain the standards; just keeping their place clean, not collecting junk outside. It was such a small space they did not have a place to put their things. They had way too many things for an RV and so that was difficult.” This is important to note because it illustrates that lack of space is an issue tenants may choose to deal with in exchange for a lower rent price tag. Other park owners have drawn the conclusion that their tenants enjoy living in small units because it is easier to maintain their homes. However, on the flipside, they see tenants whose personal belonging are spilling out into their porches and yards.

Regardless of the cause of the excess things on porches and in yards, this issue indicates that people who are living in mobile home parks and RVs might be less content about the size of their units than park owners think. Additionally, if waste management and unit maintenance (e.g., clean porches, yards and homes) is something a property owner—or the City—care about, it might be worthwhile to enforce a minimum unit size that provide sufficient space for tenants so that their belongings do not spillover into public spaces. Alternately, the City could consider a regulation that requires parks to provide extra storage space for residents, with the understanding that any over spillage is punishable.

Locally Managed versus Corporate Managed of Mobile Home and RV Parks

By their very nature, mobile home parks can offer a very attractive earning potential. These higher density communities are easy to establish and do not require the same degree of resources relative to the construction of traditional site-built homes or apartments. These traits make mobile home parks very popular among local and national investors. The ownership model of these parks is something that should be noted. Each party brings different assets and limitations to the table. In thinking about the future of mobile home and RV parks in Apache Junction, it might be worthwhile to evaluate the ownership structure and management style of various properties and consider their impacts on surrounding communities.

For instance, one park owner called for the return of “mom and pop” parks, citing their responsiveness to community needs and their ability to help create a sense of community that is vital to a thriving park. In contrast, corporations may have the capital for large-scale investments and property improvements, but can also quickly become mismanaged. “Mom and pop” park owners, like the ones interviewed through this research, tend to be located close enough to their properties—and with sufficiently high investment stakes—that they are willing to commit the kind of time and care necessary for the park to be successful. Their involvement in the park also provides an opportunity for relationship building between the tenant and owner, which can help encourage longer-term tenancy and the development of healthy stable communities.

Park and Affordability Preservation through Community Land Trust

Park tenant vulnerability is a major issue for mobile home and RV park tenants. This vulnerability is explicitly pronounced when a park comes under the threat of sale, subjecting tenants to the unpredictable whims of a new park owner whose motivations are unclear. Depending on their intentions, new park owners could impose new improvements that result in increased an unaffordable rent increases, or park redevelopment in general that displaces tenants entirely.

The Community Land Trust is a tool recommended by interviewees working in affordable housing development that can ensure preservation of parks and their affordability. Through the community land

40 trust model, land is owned by a non-profit or governmental entity, while the housing, which sits upon the land, is owned by the tenant. This model preserves the long-term affordability of housing because tenants are not paying for the land. When a tenant decides to move, they sell their home back to the Community Land Trust, not the general public. The Community Land Trust can then resell that housing unit to a new tenant at a cost discounted by the cost of land.

A Community Land Trust could occur organically, with the acquisition of a new “virgin” piece of land, or an existing piece of land on which housing already exists is transferred to a land trust property. For communities who are concerned about the vulnerability of mobile home and RV park tenants, a Community Land Trust might be an option to consider when parks are either vastly mismanaged or when they are put up for sale. If the park can be acquired, the Community Land Trust model cannot only ensure continued affordability, it can help promote property improvements and management that is more responsible Part 2: Development and Redevelopment of New Affordable Housing Stock

The City is concerned with the state of mobile housing because they recognize it as an important source of affordable housing. Mobile homes and RVs are important to the affordable housing sphere because they represent unsubsidized housing stock, which means they are both simple and cost-efficient to deploy. However, interviewees repeatedly echoed that a comprehensive affordable housing strategy must include both subsidized and unsubsidized housing stock. Unsubsidized affordable housing stock, also referred to as naturally occurring affordable housing, is attractive to a community because it takes no extra effort to establish. It simply occurs on its own in response to market forces and the supply exists to meet the demand. In the City of Apache Junction, this naturally occurring affordable housing resembles mobile home and RV housing stock. Understandably, for very low-income individuals and households, the supplied housing will not be of a high or luxury standard. Rather, it will be of low quality at a cost that the supplier can afford to offer it, especially if unregulated by the local government.

Subsidized housing has the ability to fill the gap between what tenants can afford and the full cost of higher quality, market rate housing stock. Stakeholders interviewed for this research cite Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) as the main tool through which they are able to develop affordable housing projects.

Affordable Housing Development Finance

LIHTC

LIHTC enables the sale of tax-credits to corporations. The purchase of those tax credits helps to fund an affordable housing project that is either 80% or 100% reserved for low-income households who are required to spend no more than 30% of their income on rent. It represents a supply-side subsidy.

When asked why LIHTC is the main mechanism used to produce affordable housing, an affordable housing developer responded, “Well, to be honest with you, the main reason is because that's the only mechanism out there. There are not many ways to finance affordable housing. We don't have a lot of tools in our toolbox, especially in Arizona, but really nationally; they say that over 95% of all affordable housing in the country is financed with low-income housing tax credits.” Though it may be a main tool because it is the only tool, LIHTC is extremely valuable. It maximizes the number of housing units that

41 can accommodate low-income households because it enables entire apartment complexes to open and provide affordable rents to residents.

At the same time, organizing a LIHTC-funded development can be difficult. Many moving parts must align in order for the project to be successful. Additionally, jockeying for LIHTC funding is very competitive and only a small number of projects that apply for LIHTC funding each year receive the funds needed for development. The decision for which projects will receive LIHTC funding comes down to a point-system, wherein projects are scored based on certain desirable characteristics of the development (e.g., geographic location, the particular populations the development serves, architectural features, proximity to community assets, sustainability features, etc.). This can be problematic for areas lacking common point-earning assets, such as public transportation.

When development of affordable housing stock is not possible, populations may apply for Section-8 vouchers. Section-8 vouchers work by subsidizing individual households who find a market-rate apartment that they would like to live in. If vouchers are accepted, the tenant will pay 30% of their income to rent and the voucher will cover the difference between what they can afford and the going- rate of the apartment. However, similar to the scarcity of LIHTC funding, there is simply not enough supply in the Section-8 Voucher bucket to meet the expressed demand.

In the City of Apache Junction, neither of these common affordable housing subsidies are cure-alls. Apache Junction currently has four LIHTC-funded projects, but competing for LIHTC funding, especially as the program grows in popularity and funds grow ever smaller, may become more difficult for non- profit and for-profit developers working in the City. Proximity to public transit is a major point category in the LIHTC application, earning a potential project 20 of 113 points. As such, Apache Junction’s complete lack of public transit may pose a large barrier for LIHTC-funded projects, as they compete for funding against proposals in more transit-rich communities like Phoenix and Tempe. This barrier is not impossible to overcome, however. Interviewees, while stressing the difficulty this poses, emphasize that, through creativity, developers can make up points in other categories to remain competitive.

Concerning other point categories, it is conceivable that certain locations in Apache Junction could be likely sites for LIHTC-funded projects.

Beyond incorporating point-earning elements into LIHTC proposals—some of which fall outside of the developer’s control, a project can increase their competitive value by crafting a compelling story and addressing a real and pronounced need that is of great interest to the local community and the state of Arizona as a whole. From experience, an affordable housing developer stated, “What I have found is that great ideas attract money and resources. The more, the better idea that you have the greater chance you'll have of getting it done because ultimately at the end of the day, people get excited about great ideas and when there's community collaboration, and common ground, and winners on all sides, you're just going to be so much more successful in attracting competitive resources.” In this developer’s experience, crafting a compelling story looks like identifying particular population and building to meet their explicit needs. Similarly, the City of Apache Junction might be able to identify a certain population towards whom they would like to allocate a project. Through conversations with park owners, some specific populations might include the elderly or individuals with disabilities.

Opportunity Zones and O-Funds

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, brought with it a new vehicle for community investment. As of June 2018, 8,700 U.S. Census Tracts have been labelled as “Opportunity Zones” based on their lower than average median household income, higher than average poverty rate, and higher than average unemployment rate. In general, Opportunity Zones are areas in need of economic development. Similar to LIHTC, Qualified Opportunity Funds allow for private investment to achieve community development. Unlike LIHTC, there is no cap on the funding. Eligible corporations and partnerships can form a Qualified Opportunity Fund into which individuals, corporations, and other entities who sell an asset, can contribute their capital gains for up to ten years in exchange for decreased capital gains taxation (if the money is kept in the fund for 5-9 years) or total capital gains tax forgiveness (if the money is kept in the fund for 10 years).

The Qualified Opportunity Fund would invest its funds into residential and community development projects that should pay its investors dividends. An affordable housing developer commented on the usefulness of leveraging the Opportunity Zone Program for the construction of workforce housing:

“ [For the Opportunity Zone Program], there is a play with what we call workforce housing, which is that target of 80 to 120% AMI, which there's a huge need for. That's your typical working family that's making those wages. Obviously somebody's making minimum wage in there. The need for that kind of housing is huge also. That definitely works with opportunity zone funds, because there's enough revenue from the rents that they can charge for folks that are making 80 to 120% and that's 30%. That's the standard. That is enough money that there would be a return on the investor's equity. It's not huge returns, but we're building a project right now that's 140 units of workforce housing, and there's about an 8% return on that. That is palatable for some investors”

Affordable housing serving between 80% and 120% AMI will not meet the needs of extremely low- income households, but it would reach to lower to middle-income households. In the needs assessment, several of the study’s block groups were in states of transition, where median household incomes are increasing. As the concentration of extremely low-income families lessens, the need for this level of workforce housing will increase and the Opportunity Zone may provide a viable path forward.

A community’s ability to reap the benefits of the Opportunity Zone program is dependent on whether or not a census tract within the community is an Opportunity Zone. For Apache Junction, Census Tract 3.10 is a designated Opportunity Zone. Per the needs assessment, this tract encompasses six of the 28 high- priority parks in Apache Junction. It is also the most eastward tract in Apache Junction and, thus, is far more rural than other parts of the City. Comprised of extremely low-density and sometimes pastoral development, this tract has a low population density of 1,003.1 persons per square mile, compared to 2415.4, 4208.5 and 2,055.3 persons per square mile in neighboring tracts. The median household income in this tract is a few thousand dollars lower than neighboring tracts at $35,750. This tract has seen recent changes and improvements, such as the development of a strip mall with grocery store, restaurants, health clinic and other commercial properties. These recent changes and the lowland costs could spark interest in the holders of and investors in Qualified Opportunity Funds. In particular, profit- driven investors may be motivated to invest in more luxury developments that could offer a higher percentage return on investment, which may take them out of the running for Apache Junction. However, there are opportunities through creative financing, lifted zoning restrictions and other

43 incentives that could be used to elevate Apache Junction’s ability to compete for development projects among Qualified Opportunity Funds.

Creativity in Financing

Figure 15. A map identifying Census Tract 3.10 in Apache Junction as an Opportunity Zone. Retrieved from Arizona Commerce Authority. Even when LIHTC funds are available to developers, they require additional funds to implement the project. This has forced developers—both non-profit and for-profit—and cities to pursue creative financing strategies. Some developers have found success in stacking other federal funds and resources. One interviewee in particular referenced the financing of a project in Yuma, AZ, where LIHTC financing was stacked with project-based Section 8 funds. For project-based Section-8, the Housing Authority can carve out a percentage of money allocated to Section-8 vouchers and apply that money towards total rents within a project. Essentially, it works as a guaranteed revenue stream for the developer to ensure that operating costs are covered.

Other cities and housing authorities have worked together to combine multiple sources of federal funds, in order to close the gap for LIHTC-funded projects. Interviewees participating in this research have cited the use of CDBG and HOME funds entitled to the city as resources for developing affordable housing. One particular city, which was deeply committed to the success of an affordable housing development, gave a forward commitment of the following year’s CDBG funds to ensure the successful construction of a project. Distributed annually, federal funds are allocated towards projects and ongoing city improvements or maintenance rather quickly. A commitment of future CDBG funds ensures the funds will be available and signals to a developer that a city is deeply committed to a project, in addition to forcing the city to put some skin in the game. Developers can use that forward commitment of funds to leverage additional dollars from lenders or other investors.

Creative financing is not only applicable at the inception of a project, but throughout its existence. For example, one interviewee discussed an affordable housing project by Chicanos por la Causa, which consists of the redevelopment of mobile home park. The Mesa Royale is an antiquated and run-down mobile home park in Mesa, Arizona. Chicanos por la Causa, a local non-profit, purchased the property with plans for a redevelopment project that not only avoids displacement of residents, but also turns profit to operate sustainably. The project consists of two land sales, including the park itself and an adjacent motel. During park redevelopment that will result in affordable apartments, residents who lived there will temporarily move into the motel, avoiding displacement. In addition to the affordable apartments, market-rate townhomes will be built on the property. These townhomes will enable Chicanos por la Causa to maintain the affordability of the apartments.

Engaging Collaboratively

Creativity in funding sources and opportunities is one way that a city can attract developers to their community. While developers may be responsible for applying for LIHTC, there is opportunity for the process to be more collaborative. Interviewees described how the process of working with affordable housing developers has been both collaborative and non-collaborative. One municipality states that in their experience, affordable housing developers typically find land and concoct projects on their own before seeking support of the city. This city had not explored the opportunity of intentionally seeking out developers to engage in affordable housing development, admitting that this is something they may pursue in the future. Alternately, one affordable housing developer stated that their organization is comfortable working independently from cities, though they are also very experienced in responding directly to cities’ “Request for Proposals” (RFPs). When asked how their firm decides on which communities to work in, a developer responded, “We'll go wherever the opportunities present themselves.” This underlines the importance of a city expressing their needs to the development community. Developers will work where needed, but they need to be expressly told what those needs are first.

Engaging collaboratively can help a city spur affordable housing development in a number of ways. For example, a city-issued RFP signals to developers that the municipality recognizes there is a need for affordable housing, but also that the city is looking for solutions to a problem they cannot solve on their own. The RFP process not only takes the onus off of the city, it also enables the developer to take control of the creative process, giving them permission to design a product for the city. This approach also makes the community’s needs explicitly clear. If not given the opportunity to collaborate with cities and housing authorities early on, developers work independently in the early stages, only seeking support from the city once they buy the land and flesh out the concept. Collaboration in the early stages means that the city and developers are on the same page from day one. Not only can this help to expedite the process, it maximizes opportunity for community and political support. Through a collaborative approach, the developer never has to guess what a city might want, approve or support, saving time and other resources.

Releasing RFPs could fit into a city’s broader strategy of relationship building and affordable housing development by bringing in developers for specific projects of special concern to the city. Once they have been introduced to the city and worked successfully with its leaders, developers will be more apt to identify gaps they can fill and future projects they envision to be worthwhile to the community, as well as successful.

Incentivizing Affordable Housing Developers

Non-profit affordable housing developers are business-minded at their core. Because they are looking to maximize their profit, the more resources they can be offered upfront, the more incentivized they will be to engage with a city. Typically, cities incentivize developers by donating or exchanging city-owned land in return for an affordable housing development. Occasionally, affordable housing developers may take it upon themselves to acquire land for development on their own, but this is atypical.

Land is a costly resource for developers; if cities can make opportunities to provide land, it reduces developer expenses and risk. While land may be the most significant asset a city can offer, it is not the only incentive that they can offer to potential developers. They can attract developers by waiving typical fees imposed by the city during development.

Additionally, the forward commitment of CDBG or HOME funds can be used to entice developers not only to engage in work with the city, but also to develop top-of the line development for a city that will provide valuable housing stock for years to come. Following initial development, LIHTC-funded projects remain affordable housing for at least 15 years. At the end of that 15-year term, the owner has the option of flipping that development to a market-rate property or preserving it as affordable housing. Perhaps because of these standards, projects with more bells and whistles, like LEED certification and higher-quality amenities, are more likely approved for LIHTC funds owing to their ability to better stand the test of time. If a city is able to forward commitment additional federal funds, a developer can translate that money into their development plans which will not only produce a better product for residents, the project may have a better chance of being approved—benefitting the city and the developer.

Cities also have the option of incentivizing developers through more creative zoning. If a city wants to publish an RFP for a parcel of city-owned land, they have the option to modify regulations for the particular project, contingent on its future as an affordable housing project. Amended zoning regulations could include increased maximum density, increased maximum building height, or decreased parking requirements. If the more flexible zoning restrictions are competitive with or provide more opportunities and freedom than other municipalities, it could offer the developers incentive to pursue work in one city over another.

Incentivizing all forms and levels of Development

Interviewees stressed a comprehensive affordable housing plan should include more than low-income housing projects. Professionals in the affordable housing development industry pointed to the construction of market-rate and above market-rate housing projects as essential strategies for achieving housing affordability in a city:

“In Phoenix, we complain all the time about these high-end luxury apartment complexes that seem to be popping up on every corner, but they actually have a positive effect statistically on the cost of housing in any marketplace because it's purely supply and demand. It's basic economics. The more supply you're producing in a community, even if it's high-end expensive housing, it's going to have downward pressure on other housing options in the community in terms of cost over time. It will ultimately make any marketplace more affordable if you hit a certain production point”.

Following this logic, one method to ensure that naturally occurring affordable housing exists in a city is to produce a lot of housing at a variety of price points. A city that can attract development at any price point, even a higher price point will create the necessary downward pressure on the housing market to achieve a desired rate of affordable housing stock. It should be noted that in certain cities, such a strategy could have the opposite effect. Cities who are landlocked or whose housing demand is greater than supply will eventually see rising housing rates.

If a city can successfully adopt a market-rate and above market-rate housing development strategy to naturally drive down housing prices in their market, the city can also employ additional strategies for the intentional inclusion of affordable housing development. While Arizona prohibits inclusionary zoning mandates, professionals in affordable housing development, recommend that cities encourage inclusionary zoning by developers through the use of incentives. The design of optional inclusionary zoning programs varies by city, but the general idea is that the programs would provide some sort of valuable incentive to the developer in exchange for the inclusion of a specified number of below market- rate units in a project. Some incentives might include: lessened building height restrictions, less restrictive building setback requirements, expedited administrative processes, or waived development fees. In exchange, the developer would commit to the inclusion of a share of housing reserved for qualified lower-income individuals or families.

Alternatively, a city might consider utilizing a fee-first program. Through a fee first program, developers who begin a housing development project are required to either devote a percentage of their units to affordable housing or pay a fee that would go into a pool of affordable housing funds that the city can utilize for future projects. This strategy ensures that steps are being taken to meet affordable housing needs. Using funds from the fee-first program, cities would be able do things like purchase land to donate to affordable housing developers, or they could use them in conjunction with federal funds that have been earmarked for community improvements and low-income housing updates, or cash-for clunkers programs.

By stimulating overall housing development in a city, the city can take advantage of perhaps the most efficient strategy of affordable housing development: housing filtering. The idea behind housing filtering is that even new, market-rate housing will become affordable as it ages. It naturally trades hands, from- higher income groups and, eventually, filters down to lower-income groups, serving all income levels across itself lifespan. It is a long-range perspective, but the efficiency of housing filtering is difficult to deny, as it does not rely on any new development to address affordable housing needs. Through filtering, luxury, market-rate and below-market rate development housing development are one in the same. It is just a matter of time before all populations can be served.

Unlike mobile housing, aging site-built homes are not as prone to structural issues. They also have the opportunity to sustain—or even gain—value over time, rather than lose value like mobile homes, helping lower-income individuals combat against the “poor pays more” phenomena. It important to note the caveat here is that even through house filtering, the city could eventually find itself in a similar situation to its challenge with deteriorated mobile housing units today, wherein the filtered housing reaches deterioration by the time it becomes affordable. A general increase in site built housing stock can help create more naturally occurring affordable housing stock. For a city like Apache Junction, that is trying to transition away from mobile housing stock, this strategy might be a good long-term fix.

Barriers to Affordable Housing Development

There are a number of obstacles to affordable housing development that both developers and city officials should consider. Some of the most contentious barriers relate to federal funding allocations. LIHTC relies on a point system to help allocators determine which projects receive funding and which do not. The point system considers things like whether the project serves special populations, the project’s proximity to daily needs, and use of sustainable building materials, for example. It also assesses the project’s proximity to a public transportation system, which accounts for 20 of the possible 113 points possible. As a result, successful LIHTC projects are more likely to locate in more urban settings, as they have a better success rate of maximizing points due geographic characteristics and proximity to existing city services.

For more rural communities without the demand or resources for a public transportation system, the loss of these points can mean the difference between a project getting funded or not. Coincidentally, it may be communities without a public transportation system that are most need of affordable housing. Apache Junction, for instance, has a lower median household income than all other cities in the Phoenix metro area, many of which partial or full public transportation systems serve. The low median household income is not unrelated to the City’s geography. Given that half of its housing stock consists of mobile homes, one of the greatest assets Apache Junction has is its affordable housing stock. Yet its rural character and distance from the Phoenix metro core is part of the reason Apache Junction’s housing can be more affordable. Yet, affordable housing developers struggle to bring new high quality, lower-cost projects into the City because of the lack of urban amenities required to garner sufficient LIHTC points.

Similarly, one of the biggest reasons driving greater investment in urban markets is due to the location of bank branches. Banks are the largest investors and purchasers of tax credits in the nation. Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), banks are required to reinvest in the communities where they have branch locations. Because banks have more branches in urban places, these locations are more likely to see investment than rural communities with fewer branches.

The consideration of Difficult Development Areas (DDAs) is one way to incentivize rural development through LIHTC. Most DDAs are in rural communities, where they lack the population base, the employment base and the amenities and services that make development easier. Developers interested in pursuing projects within a DDA can be awarded a 30% funding bump relative to what they would receive elsewhere. The project still must satisfy the LIHTC point system with all of its hurdles, but, if successful, the potential payout for developers is greater and that can translate to big impact for a community in need of affordable housing.

Affordable Housing Forms

In affordable housing development, high-density multi-family projects are common because the high density allows developers to maximize profits through price per door. Developers are not only attracted to multi-family projects because they maximize profits, but also because of the way that LIHTC-funding works. When asked about housing projects that stray from the traditional higher density, multi-family configuration, one housing developer who uses LIHTC for funding projects mentioned the growing popularity of tiny home communities and high-density home ownership within the housing industry but did not indicate any experience or interest in developing these types of housing. This is likely because LIHTC projects can be converted to market-rate housing following 15 years of preservation as affordable housing. A multi-family project would be easier to convert to market-rate housing than alternative

48 housing types, like single-family rentals, especially in the form of tiny homes or shipping container homes.

Though they may be less palatable to affordable housing developers, single-family homes in the form of micro-units, tiny homes or shipping container homes could be a feasible affordable housing option. Additionally, if taking the place of existing mobile home and RV homes, single-family homes are likely more attractive to tenants as well. During stakeholder interviews, mobile home and RV park owners stated that their tenants liked living in a mobile home because of the independence, privacy and sense of pride it afforded them. Additionally, while mobile homes were once valued for their mobile nature, the available research on mobile home parks and their residents suggest that this characteristic is no longer highly valued, especially since the majority of mobile homes are never relocated after their initial siting. Instead, residents state affordability and proximity to social opportunities as their favorite things about living in a mobile home.

When considering redevelopment of a mobile home park, landowners should take into consideration the tenant preference for non-mobile, low square foot, detached housing. This preference is only deduced through a select number of stakeholder interviews with property owners. Prior to redevelopment, landowners should discuss preferences with their tenants.

Single-family rentals or owned units in the form of micro-units, tiny homes and shipping container housing would be appropriate alternative housing for a transitioning mobile home or RV park. These forms of housing would not only have a similar footprint to mobile homes and RVs, meaning a similar number of units can occupy the same space, they would be housing forms that mobile home and RV residents would be comfortable transitioning to.

It should be noted that while micro-units, tiny homes and shipping container housing are perceived as affordable due to their small size, thought they are actually quite competitive with other forms of housing on a dollar per square foot basis. Homes at the heart of the tiny house movement – for all of their popularity – do not typically come with a smaller price tag in comparison to alternative housing on a dollar per square foot basis. A comparison of six major private tiny home manufacturers (Timbercraft, Tiny Innovations, Minarc, Kasita, New Frontier and Greenmoxie) finds that tiny homes can range in price anywhere from $37,000 to $150,000. This means that, at just a few hundred square feet, tiny homes typically sell for anywhere from $115 per square foot (at the more affordable end) to $516 per square foot (at the more luxury end). In comparison, according to 2017 American Community Survey data, the median price of mobile homes in Apache Junction was $36,700, on par with the least expensive of the tiny home new builds previously mentioned. Mobile homes typically range in square footage from 600 to 1,330, with 1,080 square feet being most common. Calculated per square foot, an average priced and average sized mobile home sells at $33.98 per square foot. In terms of affordability, the popular tiny homes on the market do not compete with current mobile housing stock.

Figure 16. Examples of tiny home models from three prominent tiny home manufacturers.

Timber Craft Tiny Homes, Ynez Model - $50,000 - $150,000

Exterior and interior views of Timbercraft’s Ynez model. Retrieved from Timbercraft Tiny Homes.

Greenmoxie Homes, flagship model - $65,000

Exterior and interior views of Greenmoxie’s flagship model. Retrieved from Greenmoxie.

Tiny Innovations – Vashon model - $67,500

Exterior and interior views of Tiny Innovation’s Vashon model. Retrieved from Tiny Innovations.

In spite of their expensive price tag on the private market, stripped down, non-luxury tiny homes can provide affordable housing stock for special populations. In Seattle, the Low-Income Housing Institute (LIHI) provides emergency shelter for homeless populations through tiny home villages throughout the City. However, these tiny homes’ amenities are few. Offering electricity, overhead light, a heater, and a communal kitchen and bathrooms, the tiny homes in these communities stated as offering “tremendous benefits over tents” – the likely alternative Figure 17. A community view of one of LIHI’s tiny house villages in for the individuals who live in these homes. Seattle. Retrieved from Low-Income Housing Institute. LIHI relies on this tiny home model to provide emergency shelter for appropriate individuals and households, including whole families, large families, LGBTQ individuals, straight or gay couples, families with teenage sons, immigrant or refugee households, undocumented households, single men with children, people with pets and people with warrants. For these individuals and households, finding a bend in a traditional shelter might be difficult or impossible. The privacy afforded by the tiny house village model is ideal for homeless individuals and households like these. However, lacking many basic home amenities such as plumbing, the tiny homes built in these communities are little more than shelters and should not be looked to as a model of affordable housing for low-income individuals.

Similar to tiny home construction, shipping container housing has gained

Figure 18. An interior view of a popularity for its modern, kitschy style. At 20’ x 8’ or 40’ x 8’, DIY builders tiny house in LIHI’s tiny house who are after the tiny home footprint seek shipping containers to serve as village. Retrieved from Low- the shell of their residence. Not only do these serve as a sustainable Income Housing Institute. housing option, utilizing old shipping containers that may otherwise remain unused, they can bring down construction costs for housing materials and labor due to their “manufactured” nature. DIY builders who utilize shipping containers rather than other salvaged or found

Figure 19. Exterior and interior view of Alternative Living Spaces’ flagship shipping container model. Retrieved from Alternative Living Spaces.

51 materials can warrant the same precautions as tiny house builder previously mentioned; the lack of regulation enforcement around DIY homes and lack of knowledge of DIY homebuilders can be a problem for cities. While tiny home manufacturers are using shipping containers as shells for homes, the ultimate price tag is no more affordable than manufactured tiny homes mentioned above. Las Vegas-based tiny home manufacturer specializing in shipping container homes, Alternative Living Spaces, advertises their flagship model for $38,500. Though it is a complete home with full bathroom and kitchen, the model is just 143 square feet which calculates to be cost of about $269 per square foot, which may be competitive with traditional housing types on a per square foot basis, but unaffordable in comparison to existing mobile and RV housing. Other developers are using shipping containers as the structure for high-density, multi-family projects, such as Carmel Place in New York. The project pieces together 65 shipping containers Figure 20. Carmel Place apartment building constructed with shipping through modular construction. Though containers. Retrieved from nARCHITECTS. residents live in a 20’ x 8’ micro-units, rents start at $2,750.

Not too dissimilar to tiny homes and shipping container units, micro units are a form of detached or attached low square foot housing. Unlikely tiny homes which tend to be built on trailers, micro-units are site built. As an affordable housing alternative to mobile homes, micro-units encounter the same issues as tiny homes. Their competitive on a square foot basis with homes of a large square footage, but not nearly as affordable as traditional mobile and modular homes that Apache Junction residents are already living in. Newtown Community Development Corporation is currently in the process of building 13-unit Tempe Micro Estates in Tempe, Arizona, following the micro-unit model. Each micro-unit in this development is just 600 square feet, but accommodates a full living room, kitchen and second story bedroom. Figure 21. A rendering of the Tempe Micro Estates project. Retrieved from Newtown CDC.

To promote and maintain affordability the Tempe Micro Estates will be built on land that will be maintained as a land trust by Newtown CDC, which will help drive down the price of home ownership for prospective homebuyers. Each unit will be for sale at $138,000 which calculates to $230 per square foot. This number is on par with the average cost per square foot of the tiny home and shipping container alternatives mentioned previously. While this per square foot cost is significantly higher than the square foot cost of mobile and RV housing that currently exists in Apache Junction, a site-built micro-unit like the ones built by Newtown CDC will retain their value in a way that mobile housing simply cannot do. A micro-unit will allow low-income owners to build equity and accumulate wealth in a way that mobile housing is not equipped to do. In way micro-unit model would not only provide a suitable affordable housing alternative, it could actually provide an opportunity for home owners to forge a pathway out of the financial hardship that required individuals to live in something like a mobile Figure 22. An architectural rendering and floor plan of a Tempe Micro Estates unit. Retrieved from Newtown CDC. home or RV in the first place. In terms of providing replacement housing for many of the individuals who currently live in mobile homes and RV parks, a $138,000 price tag might feel steep, especially for an individual who owns their mobile home outright or finances their mobile or tiny home through a chattel loan. Unlike a traditional home loan whose loan term is anywhere between 15 to 30 years or beyond, a chattel loan’s term is significantly shorter, typically anywhere from 2 to 7 years. In this way, chattel loans are similar to auto loans. Additionally, chattel loans typically have much higher interest rates, also similar to auto loans. With a sit built micro-unit, homebuyers could finance the purchase of their home with a traditional home loan, allowing for greater affordability for individuals at the lower end of the economic ladder.

As opposed to manufactured tiny homes and container housing, site-built micro-unit development could provide the greatest chances for long-term affordability and sustainability. However, micro-unit development like in the case of the Tempe Micro Estates is new and still emerging. It is not yet a norm in affordable housing industry. In fact, during stakeholder interviews with affordable housing professionals, just one of five total respondents mentioned micro-units as a conceivable affordable housing alternative. At this point in time, micro-unit development will require the right developer and the right opportunity to come to fruition. A city can play a role in this development by creating the right kind of environment and opportunities to attract developers and CDCs who are skilled in micro-unit development.

During stakeholder interviews, affordable housing developers mentioned rising costs of materials and labors as one major barrier to development. In the construction of high-density, attached, multifamily buildings, as is common among most affordable housing development, developers have little choice but to rely on subcontractors. However, with smaller-foot print projects that can be modularized and easily

53 replicated, like tiny homes or micro-units, a construction model that utilizes volunteer labor and home owner sweat equity, similar to the Habitat for Humanity model, could be considered.

For its tiny home villages, LIHI was able to construct its mobile home communities through the free- labor of apprenticeship programs out of trade schools and volunteer labor from faith-based groups, schools, corporations, construction companies and other individuals. In partnership with a non-profit organization, the city of Apache Junction could allocate HOME or CDBG funds towards the purchase of tiny home plans, necessary materials and certain construction processes that cannot be handed off to volunteer labor. A non-profit organization that specializes in affordable housing development, like Habitat for Humanity and others, or a CDC would organize the labor necessary for all other construction processes. The city could leverage the skills of the local volunteer community as well as partner universities and trade schools.

While construction in this way may make micro-unit, tiny home and container home development financially feasible for cities, there are a number of uncertainties that should be kept in mind. Firstly, the differences between a tiny home on wheels and an RV or mobile home are few if any at all. Transferring residents of mobile homes into tiny homes alone will do little to nothing in addressing issues related to rent and housing vulnerability. Additionally, the emergence of tiny homes, micro-units and shipping container homes are a recent trend, the longevity of which is uncertain. Turning to micro development at this time could offer immediate relief at the expense of future unforeseen consequences and challenges similar to those experienced by the dilapidated mobile home and RV parks of today.

NIMBY

NIMBYism—an acronym for “Not in my Backyard”—is a barrier that is broadly experienced across the affordable housing industry. Especially in more affluent areas, low-income housing projects can be met with apprehension, criticism and full-blown opposition. An affordable housing advocate explained, “I’ve heard a lot of examples why people oppose affordable housing. It’s a misconception [and] a generalization that these folks, that people in affordable housing don’t work, people in affordable housing are homeless, and it’s going to bring crime into our area … not really fully understanding the need of affordable housing, who is going to be in affordable housing, and how it can actually serve to better their community.” NIMBYism can give rise to powerful, collective opposition to a project. Local community members who feel strongly enough may choose to self-organize to formally oppose and petition against a project, lengthening the process of development in the best cases and completely killing projects in the worst cases.

Developers who feel that a community may have strong opposition to a project may decide to avoid development projects in those areas entirely, choosing not to take a risk in investing time, resources and effort into a project that will never get off of the ground. One of the Apache Junction’s greatest strengths may not just be the lack of NIMBYism, but a complete reversal of the concept—YIMBYism (Yes in my Backyard).

With the lowest median household income in the state, Apache Junction is composed of predominantly lower-income individuals and households. Low-income housing, though mostly naturally occurring within mobile home and RV parks, is nothing new. It already exists and most residents of Apache Junction are already neighbors to people who live in affordable housing developments. They may have some judgements about their neighbors, but this has not influenced their decision to live in the

54 community. Whether this trait indicates an understanding of the importance of affordable housing or a general tolerance does not really matter.

What is more important is that residents are content living next to affordable households in Apache Junction, and therefore, are less likely to feel threatened in the event of a developer siting an affordable housing development in the city. In fact, depending on the circumstances of the location of the development, resident might even be excited to welcome a new affordable housing development in their neighborhoods, especially if the new development takes the place of an existing dilapidated site. There are certain mobile home and RV parks in Apache Junction that have deep-seated drug and crime problems. If there are plans to redevelop affordable mobile home and RV parks into alternative affordable housing sites, one successful strategy might be to prioritize these problem areas for redevelopment first, converting a NIMBY into a YIMBY.

Recommendations

The following recommendations for the City of Apache Junction were written with three main goals in mind:

1. Develop a Strategy for Preservation, Improvement, and Promotion of Redevelopment

The findings from the housing needs assessment can help inform a comprehensive strategy for the preservation, improvement and promotion of redevelopment of mobile housing. There are two different perspectives to consider when using the housing needs findings: block groups needs and property needs.

Block Group needs are separated into four categories: Priority 1, Priority 2, Priority 3, and Priority 4.

Apache Junction can use this scale to more explicitly prioritize the needs of parks in the City. The scale is already listed in descending order, where Priority 1 block groups should be prioritized first and Priority 4 block groups should be prioritized last. Priority 1 block groups are ranked highest because they are theoretically the easiest to serve—where affordable housing demand is high and tenants are best served by the geography. In other words, these properties represent “low hanging fruit.” The mobile home and RV parks in Priority 1 block groups may arguably be the most valuable to the City.

Property needs are separated into three categories:

 Amenitize Properties  Update Properties  Sandbox Properties

Necessary actions for parks should be influenced by the property needs group each park belongs to.

Amenitize properties likely do not provide a meaningful source of affordable housing for the City and so the City should impose standards on these parks such as sewer connection and property pavement. Because these parks do not represent significant affordable housing stock, those impositions will not likely make tenants vulnerable to displacement. Granting property owners rights of lawful non- conformance is an aggressive enough strategy for promoting redevelopment in these properties.

Update properties, on the other hand, represent the City’s most trusted source of affordable housing stock. Though these properties need property improvements, too heavy a hand could put undue pressure on property owners and tenants, jeopardizing affordable housing stock. Apache Junction should prioritize the preservation of these properties. Granting property owners rights of lawful non- conformance is not an aggressive enough strategy for promoting redevelopment, and it can be

56 dangerous for the future of affordable housing in Apache Junction. The City should consider methods to incentivize, rather than impose redevelopment, along with outright housing preservation.

Sandbox properties are in such poor condition that while they provide the City with affordable housing stock, they should be prioritized for redevelopment. Granting property owners rights of lawful non- conformance is not an aggressive enough strategy for promoting redevelopment because it allows property owners to continue operating a seriously substandard park well-into the future, without any opportunity or incentive for development.

2. Support and Invest in Mobile Home and RV Park Owners

The advanced dilapidation of many mobile home parks and their housing stock can understandably be a source of significant frustration for the City, especially in light of property owners who appear careless and absent. However, the right property owner can make all the difference in turning around a property. Many of the interviewees in this research illustrate that the type of business ownership for park owners matters, as does their stewardship of the property. Many of the interviewed park owners possess a great amount of knowledge and wisdom regarding how to successfully manage parks; but they also indicated there are knowledge gaps within the mobile home park community. If the City can harness the experience and insights of individual owners, they can facilitate knowledge sharing between park owners, which can significantly impact the quality of mobile housing and park management across the City.

One strategy that Apache Junction should consider employing is marketing mobile home park ownership opportunities, especially those of Update Properties, to “Mom and Pop” residential property owners, who may not have heard about the great ownership opportunities that Apache Junction can provide. While new mobile home parks may not be opening, the business model continues to be attractive to investors due to its high potential as a profit-generating machine. However, not all investors and managers are created equally. There are some property owners who are strictly cash motivated, while others take pride in the management of the business and providing decent housing. Those parks in Apache Junction owned and operated by the latter have done significantly better, not only for the owners, but for the residents and the City as a whole. The City should be invested in its mobile home park owners. If the City can reach out to potential investors who share their community-minded affordable housing motivations, Apache Junction can attract the kind of business acumen needed to transition its parks away from dilapidation and towards decent and dignified affordable housing.

To elaborate further on this opportunity, the City might consider building a mobile home and RV park owner database. In this database, the park can keep track of park ownership, park needs and opportunities as well as park owner interests, skills and abilities. The City can track interactions with each park owner, making note of what their current efforts are on their land, as well as their challenges. Through the database, the City could deliver precision feedback and support to parks in need.

To further support its current mobile home park owners, Apache Junction should consider how it might leverage the experiences and expertise of property owners and managers around the City. Property owners who were interviewed for this research often made assumptions about the reasons other park owners in the City managed their business the way they do. Interviewees alluded to park owners not performing background checks, price-gouging and prioritizing money over managing their clientele. Whether these decisions were intentionally made for nefarious reasons or not, the reasons behind these

57 decisions may simply stem from a park owner making uninformed choices. For instance, they might charge too much in rent, driving out tenants, without realizing how much more profitable they could be if they approached their renters with more understanding and support. Additionally, park owners might not run background checks on their tenants because they do not know how or are unaware of resources available to them. By creating some sort of mechanism through which park owners can share their best practices with one another, park owners can support one another to not only be more profitable in their business, but also provide better affordable housing stock for the City.

Park owners who were interviewed for this research expressed a desire to collaborate and work more closely with the City to realize the City’s goals for mobile home and RV parks. Many park owners feel that the only time they hear from the City is through code enforcement efforts. Additionally, park owners want to make changes and improvements to their land but they do not know what the City wants done and are cautious about investing resources on proposals only to have them rejected. One thing the City could do to better support property owners, as well as influence redevelopment of mobile home and RV parks, is to actively and consistently invite park owners to collaborate and work together. This could take the form of “office hours,” symposiums, or a devoted professional liaison employed by the City.

3. Be Proactive in Attracting and Incentivizing Developers to Pursue Affordable and Market-rate Housing Development in the City

Developers go where the needs are, but they are not always aware of available opportunities; they need to be informed of potential opportunities. More often than not, developers will identify their own projects, before approaching a City to seek support; it is less common for cities to seek developers for opportunities. While this approach is fine and has historically worked for developers, it forces cities to wait for a developer to propose a project.

One way Apache Junction could build momentum behind affordable housing development and the redevelopment of Sandbox Properties specifically, would be to adopt a more proactive approach of attracting and incentivizing developers to pursue both affordable and market-rate housing within the City.

First and foremost, Apache Junction should begin publishing RFPs for projects in the City, offering any appropriate City-owned land as incentive. Land can be cost-prohibitive for developers, so a subsidy in the form of City-owned land can make the difference between a project proposal (and construction) or nothing.

The approval of LIHTC projects in Apache Junction may be difficult, as the lack of public transportation is a significant barrier to receiving LIHTC funding, but it will not rule out a project entirely. Affordable housing developers who are skilled in LIHTC may have to exercise their creative juices, but there are opportunities to navigate around this barrier. Further, Apache Junction may be able to leverage some incentives to make it worth an affordable housing developer’s time, including:

- Focusing RFPs in Apache Junction’s Difficult Development Areas (DDA) will provide more capital for developers that will ultimately translate to larger profits. The City should make sure that developers know where DDA’s are and what opportunities exist within them.

- For LIHTC-funded projects, the City can lift zoning restrictions that would otherwise limit the developer’s opportunity. Especially in Apache Junction, where housing development is predominantly low-density, developers may shy away from projects, believing they will not have an opportunity to maximize profits due to zoning restrictions. If the City can make some zoning exceptions for LIHTC-funded projects, like decreased setbacks, higher density, and/or higher building heights, a developer may find that working in Apache Junction will be worth their while. - Apache Junction can incentivize affordable housing developers by tying federal funds that the City receives in the form of HOME and CDBG funds to approved LIHTC projects. However, because Apache Junction is not an entitlement community and must apply for these funds every year, allocations are ultimately unknown. Based on historic allocations, the City could decide to set aside some portion of these funds for special incentives. Apache Junction can also look into how it might leverage project-based Section 8 voucher funds from the county in order to further subsidize rents on an entire low-income project.

This information can be packaged into marketing collateral that can be dispersed to appropriate local and national affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers are not just interested in turning a profit, but filling a need for the community, so Apache Junction should convey to developers the City’s most pronounced needs and why people should care.

When designing its affordable housing development strategy, the City would be remiss to not consider the development of market-rate housing as a component. Housing at all price points is necessary for a comprehensive housing strategy, so the City should also consider what would attract developers of market-rate housing.

Apache Junction has a number of features that attract people to the City. Some people like the distance from the traffic and congestion of Phoenix. Others like the proximity to Superstition Mountains and associated recreational opportunities. By leveraging its assets, Apache Junction can work with developers to cater to the housing needs of a clientele who would be interested in moving to the City. Therefore, Apache Junction’s housing strategy should run parallel to the City’s marketing and branding strategy.

While responding to housing demand in this way, the City has opportunities to contribute to affordable housing development in a variety of explicit and implicit ways. First, the City can make optional inclusionary zoning an option for developers. This strategy enables the City to offer incentives, such as waived fees and lifted zoning restrictions, to a market-rate housing developer in exchange for the inclusion of affordable units in the development.

If there is sufficient demand for residential development, the City could employ a fee first program that would give developers the option of either incorporating affordable units into their developments or requiring a fee be paid to the City’s affordable housing fund. The funds can then be used by the City for affordable housing needs, including acquiring land to offer affordable housing developers.

Through the development of market-rate housing, the City will have an opportunity to inject even more affordable housing units directly into its community by creating downward pressure on the market to keep rates affordable. Additionally, this will stimulate housing filtering that will naturally create more affordable housing stock.

4. Create an Action Protocol for Mobile Home and RV Parks Available for Sale

Following the sale of a mobile home or RV park, tenants may find themselves—and their housing status—in a vulnerable position. A new landowner can very easy displace park tenants should they choose to raise rents or redevelop the land. To prevent displacement in this way, the City should facilitate opportunities for select parties, including tenants, non-profits, other Apache Junction park property owners—and even the City itself, to purchase the property before a landowner officially lists the land for sale.

The City should first consider facilitating a discussion with residents about the possibility of becoming a resident-owned community. Similar to the CLT, the resident-owned community model—often a housing cooperative—allows residents of the mobile home park to collectively pool funds to purchase the park. This model not only preserves the park as affordable housing for residents, it gives residents greater control over their community. This can be a beneficial option for properties that were previously mismanaged or neglected by an owner. However, there can also be challenges associated with long term self-management and, in the case of disinvested properties, generating sufficient capital to both improve and maintain the park.

Alternatively, the City could look towards local community non-profits or a community development corporation (CDC) as a potential CLT steward, who could step in to purchase the land and maintain it as affordable housing stock.

In conjunction with recommendation 2 (support and invest in mobile home park owners), the City should also reach out to existing successful property owners, making them aware of opportunities to acquire new properties. Mobile park owner interviewees shared similar positive sentiments regarding owning and operating parks in Apache Junction. Most of the property owners operated multiple parks around the state and, thus, viewed park ownership as an active business venture, not a passive income stream. If existing Apache Junction park owners are made aware of new ownership opportunities and encouraged to take them, this could help ensure that available parks are not only passed into trusted hands, but owned by individuals who have demonstrated their commitment to providing housing to low-income individuals and households.

Lastly, the City could reach into its own coffers for the funds to purchase the land and maintain it in its current state. Eventually, the City could offer this land to an affordable housing developer as part of a project incentive for new development.

In order to best facilitate this process, Apache Junction could propose an ordinance—in conjunction with recommendation 5 (create an affordable housing development overlay district)—that requires a mobile home or RV park owner to provide the City and park residents with the right of first refusal ahead of a public listing of a property for sale. This advanced notice could provide the City and park residents with enough notice to coordinate a bid for the land if desired.

If park residents, the City and/or local non-profits are unable or unwilling to purchase the land, resulting in its sale to an external buyer, the affordable housing development overlay proposed in the next section could help to ensure that the land is maintained as affordable housing stock.

5. Create an Affordable Housing Development Overlay District

Because zoning can represent a central barrier for both park owners and developers, especially in relation to non-conforming parks, Apache Junction should consider creating an affordable housing development overlay district that could be applied to non-conforming parks including aforementioned Update and Sandbox Properties. Affordable housing development overlays have historically been utilized in areas where affordable housing is scarce. The overlay not only incentivizes affordable development, but also preserves affordable housing stock in a place where it would otherwise be threatened.

This proposed affordable housing overlay would preserve existing properties as affordable housing stock, but also provide more development options to property owners and prospective land buyers. Granting park owners rights of legal nonconformance is not a sufficiently aggressive strategy for mobile home park redevelopment. This essentially ties the hands of park owners, prohibiting them from making changes to their land, disincentivizing them from making much needed updates to aging and dilapidated properties. As options for redevelopment are limited under current zoning, most park owners are currently operating their parks at its highest and best value, in spite of non-conformity. Redeveloping land in accordance with current zoning would be costly and would likely result in a much lower-density single-family development that would not provide the same profitability as its prior use. Additionally, the redeveloped housing would more than likely have to be market-rate housing, thereby eliminating valuable affordable housing stock from the community.

An overlay could enact special zoning requirements that would permit increased densities, less restrictive height restrictions, and/or decreased setbacks, that would allow property owners to make better use of their land and, ultimately, generate more sustainable profits. The zoning overlay would create incentive for park owners to update their land, infrastructure, and housing in accordance with City goals, with the trade-off that the property technically continues to be legally non-conforming. At the same time, the zoning overlay would mandate that the housing has to be preserved for lower- income households. Regardless of the housing that is built on the land, its highest and best use will always be to provide housing for low-income households, until the zoning overlay is removed.

Within the overlay, the City can impose certain standards property owners must maintain, including (but not limited to) sewer connection, paving the lot, dust control measures, community space provisions, and/or community amenity provisions.

The creation of a new affordable housing zoning district could allow for a number of configurations and housing types, including: attached or detached apartments, micro-units, tiny home communities, or shipping container housing. Ideally, the configuration would support low-cost, higher-density units. The zoning overlay could also continue to allow for the siting of mobile homes and RVs with the stipulation that mobile housing units must satisfy HUD conditions (i.e., no units pre-dating HUD regulations); it could also enforce other park condition standards, such as adequate waste removal and devoted tenant storage. The affordability of the redeveloped land in the zoning overlay will ultimately be determined by the type of development that is permitted, rather than form alone.

Figure 23 depicts an aerial view of a non-conforming property in Apache Junction, in its current state. Per the needs assessment, his property was determined to be a Sandbox property. With 1.32 acres and nine housing units, this property does not conform to current zoning.

Figure 23: A non-conforming mobile/RV park in Apache Junction. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Assuming the property owner possesses rights of lawful nonconformance, they can continue operating their park in this fashion until redevelopment becomes unavoidable. At the time of redevelopment, the property owner will be required to develop in accordance with current zoning code. Figure 24 depicts the highest density at which the property could be redeveloped while meeting existing zoning regulations.

The depiction in Figure 24 serves as a conceptual model of what is possible. In this example, the land has been redeveloped to the fullest extent of the zoning district, which allows for eight single-wide mobile home units. This illustrates how the landowner would lose unit density, and ultimately rent profit, if they were to redevelop their land to conform with zoning regulations. Redevelopment of the property would certainly come at a cost, which could only be recouped through increased rents, thus, eliminating a degree of housing affordability that tenants have relied on.

Figure 24: A non-conforming mobile/RV park in Apache Junction redeveloped to conform with current zoning. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Through an affordable housing development overlay, property owners could be granted more opportunity and incentive to redevelop their land for greater profit, while maintaining—and even increasing—affordable housing units for the City.

Figure 25 conceptually illustrates the kind of density that could be achieved by the zoning overlay district. This serves as just one example of how the affordable housing overlay could look. In this particular example, the zoning overlay would accommodate one-bedroom micro-units. By decreasing minimum lot areas and setback requirements, property owners would have the opportunity to redevelop their land to accommodate more tenants, which would ultimately translate into higher profits. The affordable housing zoning overlay would also include provisions that serve the City’s needs in order to ensure tenants received adequate and high-quality housing—a provision that is not upheld through the existing zoning regulations and legal non-conformance arrangements.

Figure 25: A non-conforming mobile/RV park developed to a new affordable housing overlay that reflects a micro-unit footprint. Retrieved from Google Maps. Through the zoning overlay, the City of Apache Junction could achieve each of its three goals expressed at the beginning of this section:

To help finance park redevelopment without the aid of affordable housing developers, the City should work with interested owners to ensure they are aware of potential options. First and foremost, a park owner might already have the capital to allow for these updates and redevelopments. During stakeholder interviews, many owners mentioned that they choose to run their park with zero-debt, so any money that they have already allocated for park improvements has come from their own pocket. Park owners should first consider how much of their own capital they can apply to the redevelopment.

Since having a large pool of financial resources is integral to park redevelopment, the City should determine what sort of financial options they or local non-profits might have available. For park owners who do not have access to necessary capital and prefer to operate their park with zero debt, traditional

64 financing models such as bank loans will not be an attractive option. However, the City could help establish a creative alternative. For instance, perhaps there is an opportunity to use a CLT model to help park owners access capital for redevelopment. Under this conceptual CLT model, a park owner would sell their land to a CLT steward, with the agreement that the park owner could develop housing on the land, using any and all capital from the land sale for housing redevelopment and property updates. The park owner would then only own the housing they developed. When the park owner rents the housing to tenants, rent only covers the housing structure, not the land it sits on, which helps keep housing for tenants affordable. This option could provide the park owner the necessary resources to redevelop and update their park, while preserving the affordability of the land for tenants. Additionally, so long as the CLT owns the land under a park owner’s homes, they serve as a continuous steward.

Alternatively, a landowner who does not have the necessary capital to redevelop their land following the re-zoning might feel inclined to sell their land to the City, a non-profit or a CDC who has the necessary capital and interest in affordable housing development.

One of the more creative mechanisms that Apache Junction might consider to help support redevelopment of properties is similar to a “Cash for Clunkers” program. The traditional “Cash for Clunkers” program provides owners of energy inefficient vehicles with a lump sum of money should they consent to trade it in. In a mobile home application of the program, the City would use available Federal funds to facilitate the recycling and replacement of dilapidated pre-HUD homes that pose health and safety risks. Parks who choose to use the affordable housing overlay to make improvements and updates to their properties while increasing density of mobile homes or RVs could recycle and replace the qualifying mobile home units they own for updated models or a cash lump sum. This benefits property owners who get new housing stock that will drive up demand for their park. It also benefits tenants who will have new, clean and safe housing to live in, and it will help the City incentivize parks to clean up. Because the program would be the vehicle for the recycle and replacement of homes, the City should enforce stipulations, such as tenants incurring a nominal monthly fee to lease the new unit to help recoup costs.

Finally, drawing from the experience of Seattle’s tiny home villages, which were constructed by LIHI and Habitat for Humanity, the City could leverage the skills of the local volunteer community, as well as those studying relevant subjects at neighboring colleges and universities. Through university-community partnerships, cities can leverage the diverse skills and interests of students across a variety of relevant disciplines including planning, architecture, construction, design, business, economics, public administration, etc. Applied learning and research programs within these institutions not only allow cities and organizations to access untapped student potential, they provide universities with the opportunity to create richer professional experiences for their students. These partnerships are a burgeoning trend across higher education, with active programs at several institutions, including UC Berkeley, Northwestern, and University of Michigan, wherein students act as consultants for external clients and cities, performing research and making recommendations. ASU’s Project Cities program is one such example of an applied learning university-community partnership.

Many university-community program models could be useful for addressing the City’s affordable housing needs. Through a student competition or capstone course, students across a variety of disciplines (e.g., sustainability, architecture, planning, construction engineering, etc.) could collaborate to develop parcel-specific plans for a tiny home or micro-unit development that conform to the City’s

65 zoning regulations. Students could respond to specific priorities that, for example, encourage cost reduction, quick build time, use of recycled materials, energy efficient features, etc.

Subsequently, another course could bring together students from disciplines such as construction and non-profit leadership development and management to oversee the construction of the project. In this case, and in conjunction with appropriate supervision, construction students could manage the construction zone and nonprofit leadership and management students could recruit and manage the volunteer labor that works on home assembly tasks. Construction materials can be funded university donors or Federal funds. This kind of experiential approach would likely be most appropriate for a Sandbox property or vacant land owned by the City or a CLT, rather than a private landowner.

Following a successful proof of concept, this model could be deployed with private property owners, who could provide funding for materials, saving on labor and freeing up the City’s HOME and CDBG funds for alternative uses. Additionally, property owners who opt to participate in this construction model could be charged a modest fee or tax that can be used for future affordable housing development efforts.

Conclusion

Providing adequate affordable housing is a great challenge currently facing the United States. At a time when available government subsidies and housing assistance do not meet demand, mobile and RV homes represent a valuable source of unsubsidized housing that should not be overlooked.

However, mobile housing is not without its own problems. For the City of Apache Junction specifically, many mobile home parks are afflicted with issues related to poor unit conditions and park quality. To complicate matters, parks that possess “rights of lawful non-conformance” have little incentive or opportunity to make significant development changes that could improve the quality of life for park residents. While these issues are of significant concern, the City of Apache Junction recognizes the important value these parks provide to the community as it relates to affordable housing stock.

The purpose of this report was to explore how the City might preserve affordable housing stock while improving park and unit conditions, as well as the promotion of development and redevelopment of alternative forms of affordable housing. The City of Apache Junction can realize this goal through a number of less than radical actions. By simply leveraging knowledge and tools that currently exist in very precise and specific ways, the City of Apache Junction can administer the creation of safe, high-quality, affordable housing stock that serves that Apache Junction community.

Appendix A

Apache Junction Housing Needs Assessment of 28 High-priority Communities Full Report

Introduction

The purpose of the needs assessment is to document the existing conditions and characteristics of the high-priority mobile home and RV park communities in Apache Junction. The researcher used the needs assessment to develop a detailed understanding of high-priority communities in the City, with respect to physical housing conditions, property conditions, and demographic and housing characteristics. The needs assessment helps paint a clearer picture of community strengths, weaknesses and trends that can be used to better inform future policy, planning and development.

The full housing needs assessment consists of an evaluation of 28 high-priority mobile home and RV park communities across nine Census Block Groups and their geography in Apache Junction, using data collected from site visits, and the US Census Bureau and American Community Survey.

The full needs assessment is a compilation of nine mini-reports – 1 for each block group in which at least one high-priority community is located. By Block Group, each report provides a: 1) summary of geographic characteristics, 2) review of zoning, 3) demographic, socioeconomic and housing analysis, including assessment of change over time and perceived trends, 4) detailed report of each individual property conditions, and 5) a summary of key findings.

Using data collected from the US Census Bureau and American Community Survey, the researcher performed a geographic and demographic analysis for each block group. Key findings included parks’ proximity to community assets as well as socioeconomic trends, and demonstrated affordable housing needs (e.g., where housing stock is transforming, where property values are rising, where there are higher concentrations of lower-income households and where affordable housing stock might be in high demand or threatened).

Based on this assessment, the researcher created a priority ranking for each block group with a high- priority park, ranging from 1 (highest priority) to 4 (lowest priority):

 Priority 1 – Where there is a high demand/need for affordable housing stock, based on Census Block Group data. The geographic analysis reveals that this Block Group is a suitable location for lower-income households to live, based on their close proximity to community assets.  Priority 2 – Where demographic and/or housing stock changes suggest affordable housing may be under threat, based on Census Block Group data. The geographic analysis reveals that this Block Group is a suitable location for lower-income households to live, based on their close proximity to community assets.  Priority 3 - Where there is a high demand/need for affordable housing stock, based on Census Block Group data. The geographic analysis reveals that this Block Group may not a suitable location for potentially vulnerable lower-income households to live, based on their distance to community assets.  Priority 4 - Where demographic and/or housing stock changes suggest affordable housing may be under threat, based on Census Block Group data. The geographic analysis reveals that this Block Group is may not a suitable location for potentially vulnerable lower-income households to live, based on their distance to community assets.

To assess housing conditions, the researcher developed a survey instrument which enabled the researcher to rate unit, porch and property conditions along a qualitative scale from excellent to poor, and respond to questions related to property and surrounding community characteristics and amenities. This qualitative assessment allowed the researcher to develop a typology identifying specific park needs. Parks are categorized into three unique types:

 Amenitize Properties: Parks in this category lack infrastructure and amenities but they possess a lot of potential and housing units are generally newer and in great condition. These non- conforming properties are more likely to host out-of-town visitors (e.g., snowbirds and RV units) rather than full-time residents, so they are less likely to provide valuable affordable housing stock to lower income residents of Apache Junction. Because these parks are less likely to cater to vulnerable lower-income populations, the City has more flexibility in terms of imposing standards to help update the park, if desired.  Update Properties: Update properties are parks that are in fair to good condition, even if they are not fully modernized. Parks may be afflicted by minor to moderate aesthetic or structural deficiencies and housing conditions are likely inconsistent. Some individual housing units may be vintage or pre-HUD units that pose health and safety risk, thus unit replacement in necessary. These parks generally have “good bones” in terms of paved roads, and park organization. These parks are in need of minor updates and property enhancements. Pending these changes and improvements, these parks could be preserved, allowing them to continue serving the City as valuable affordable housing stock.  Sandbox Properties: Parks in this category are in generally poor condition. Units are old and in moderate to advanced stages of dilapidation; some units may predate HUD requirements. The properties consist of unpaved, dirt lots that are generally not maintained. Properties may have homes dispersed throughout the property in an unorganized fashion. Other properties may be overcrowded with housing units. Given their extremely poor conditions, these properties should be prioritized for redevelopment.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Block Group Designation: Priority 1

Size: ≈ 0.5 square miles

Geographic parameters:

 Broadway Ave (South)  Meridian Rd (West)  Apache Trail (North)  Ironwood Dr (West)

Number of high priority mobile home/RV parks: 4  Lamplighter MH Park  5th Avenue TT Park  B&R Trailer Park  Apache Skies MH Park Figure A1.1. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Geographic characteristics:

Block Group 1 in Census Tract 3.12 is largely characterized by low-density residential development including single-family detached homes, some multi-family attached homes (condominiums), as well as mobile, manufactured and RV homes. Commercial development is concentrated on north side of the tract along Apache Trail. The population of this block group is 1,867, resulting in a density of 3,739.3 persons per square mile. This figure is a bit low compared to the population density of Census Tract 3.12 as a whole (4,208.5 persons per square mile). Additionally, there are lighter commercial uses along Ironwood Dr on the east side of the tract. These commercial uses provide residents with access to complete daily needs as well as serve as employment opportunities. Located near the City’s commercial hub, residents in this block group are in close proximity to uses and assets that would allow them to fulfill some basic daily needs without having the leave the block group. Measured from the center of the block group, block group1 of census tract 3.12 earned a walk score of 44/100 and a bike score of 60/100.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Proximity to daily needs:

Proximity to Nearest… Distance… Description…. Inside Block Group?

Grocery Store: 0.3 Miles Walmart Supercenter Yes

0.9 Miles Safeway Yes

Convenience Store/Gas 0.2 Miles Circle K Yes Station: Bank: 0.5 Miles Wells Fargo Yes

Health Services: 1.5 Miles NextCare Urgent Care Yes

Pharmacy: 0.8 Miles Walgreens No

Police Station: 2.2 Miles Apache Junction Police No Department

Fire Department: 1.5 Miles District Station 261 No

Faith Communities: 0.8 Miles 29:11 Church Yes

Education: 2.2 Miles Brinton Elementary School No

2.2 Miles Cactus Canyon Junior High School No

1.8 Miles Apache Junction High School No

2.2 Miles Central Arizona College No

Recreation/Community 1.0 Miles Apache Junction Little League Yes Space: Complex

Figure A1.2. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12, Proximity to Daily Needs. Measured with Google Maps from the geographic center of the block group estimated 455 S Delaware Dr, Apache Junction.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Zoning

This block group is predominantly zone for single-family detached housing that accommodates conventional and manufactured housing. There are small plots of land that are specifically zoned for mobile home and recreational vehicle parks scattered throughout. A small strip of land running from North to South along Delaware Drive is zoned for multiple family development of a higher density. Land zoned for business development is concentrated along Apache Trail, Apache Junction’s main thoroughfare through the City.

Zoning Districts – Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

B-1 General Commercial. Generally intended for commercial uses that serve a local and regional market.

B-2 Old West Commercial. Generally intended for commercial uses located within the Downtown Transition Area.

B-5 Industrial. Generally intended for light industrial uses permitted by right, and heavy industrial uses permitted as conditional uses.

MHP Manufactured Home Park. Maximum density of 14 units/acre and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

PI Public and Institutional. Generally intended for public, quasi-public and institutional uses.

RM-2 High Density Multiple-Family Residential. Maximum density of 22 units/acre (i.e., 1,980 square feet per unit) and minimum development parcel size of 7,000 square feet.

RS-5 Medium/High Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Allows only conventional housing.

RS-10 Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Allows only conventional housing.

RS-10M Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing.

RS-20 Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Allows only conventional housing.

RS-20M Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing.

RVP Recreational Vehicle Park. Maximum density of 20 units/acre max and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

PD Planned Development Overlay. Generally intended for site and building design flexibility in accordance with Vol. II, § 1-4-3.

Figure A1.3. Zoning Districts in Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12. Retrieved from The City of Apache Junction. 73

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

. Retrieved from City of Apache Junction. Apache of from City . Retrieved Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12 Tract 1, Census Group Block

- Zoning Map Map Zoning

. Figure A1.4 Figure

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Demographics

In terms of demographics, this block group is predominantly younger, low-income, white households. Median household income is well below the county median, which is itself far below county and state levels. A staggering 35% of households are living below the poverty level, a figure that exceeds other geographies. While the median age of Apache Junction is higher than county averages the Census Block’s median age is just 39.2 which is more in line with Pinal and Maricopa Counties and the State of Arizona as a whole. It should be noted that between 2013 and 2017 the median age increased from 35.5. This increase indicates that the population is either growing older or older residents are moving in. ACS data also reveals that residents within this Census Block Group have significantly less educational attainment when compared to the City, county and surrounding geographies. In Apache Junction as a whole, 57.7% of residents attended at least some college. In this census block, just 29.6% of residents have attended at least some college.

Figure A1.5. Percent of Household Living below the Poverty Level. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Though still significantly lower than surrounding geographies, median household income in the Census Block Group has been on the rise, increasing by 1.78% between 2013 and 2017. This rate of change is greater than the rate seen in both the City of Apache Junction and Pinal County as a whole.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Block Group 1, Apache Pinal County Maricopa Arizona Census Tract Junction County 3.12 Population: 1,867 38,452 405,537 4,155,501 6,809,946 Median Age: 39.2 52.2 38.5 36 37.2 Median Household $27,708 $39,119 $52,628 $58,580 $53,510 Income: Household Income 35.0% 19.5% 14.6% 13.6% 15.0% Below Poverty Level

Race White 91.4% 91.0% 80.4% 78.0% 77.5% Black or African American 1.0% 1.2% 4.5% 5.4% 4.3%

American Indian and 6.5% 1.8% 5.0% 1.9% 4.4% Alaska Native Asian 0.0% 1.2% 1.7% 3.9% 3.1%

Native Hawaiian and 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% Other Pacific Islander Some other race 0.4% 1.7% 4.4% 7.1% 7.0% Two or more races 0.7% 3.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5%

Educational Attainment No Schooling Completed 3.9% 2.1% 1.3% 1.5% 1.5%

High School Diploma 36.0% 19.7% 23.5% 19.2% 20.1% GED or Alternative 11.9% 3.8% 6.4% 3.5% 4.0% Credential Some College, No Degree 10.7% 22.1% 27.6% 24.4% 25.3% Associate’s Degree 4.8% 7.8% 9.2% 8.5% 8.6% Bachelor’s Degree 7.7% 17.8% 11.9% 20.0% 17.8% Master’s Degree 4.4% 7.1% 5.2% 8.3% 7.7%

Professional School 0.0% 1.9% 0.7% 1.9% 1.8% Degree Doctorate Degree 2.0% 1.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2%

Figure A1.6. Selected Demographics. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Current housing characteristics:

At 57.8%, more than half of residents within this block group are renters rather than owners. This figure is more than 30% greater than Apache Junction figures as a whole. While Apache Junction’s occupied housing stock is largely made up of mobile homes, significantly more than the county and surrounding geographies, the block group has similarly high percentage of mobile housing at 44.3%.

Figure A1.7. Housing Stock Distribution of Block Group 1, Figure A1.8. Housing Stock Distribution of Apache Junction. Census Tract 3.12. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5- 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov. Retrieved from census.gov.

A change in housing type between 2013 and 2017 reveals this block group is in a state of transition. During this period of time, the percentage of detached housing and attached housing decreased by nearly 10% and 3.5% respectively while the percentage of mobile housing increased. When we consider the total housing unit growth of 159 units, we can calculate that nearly 57 and 3 units of detached and attached housing were lost, respectively, while 174 units of mobile housing were added in this block group.

Housing Type

Figure A1.9. Change in Housing Type of Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12 between 2013 and 2017. 2013, 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

In line with the county, this block group has a significantly lower median gross rent than the county and neighboring Maricopa County at $714. In fact, this value has decreased by at a rate of nearly 4% per year

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

between 2013 and 2017, resulting in a total decrease of $114. Paired with the fact that housing units increased by 159 units during this same time frame, the decrease in median rent likely indicates that new housing stock built during this times was on the more affordable side.

Similarly, median home value is significantly less than the median household incomes of Apache Junction, Pinal and Maricopa counties, and the state of Arizona as a whole.

Figure A1.10. Comparison of Median House Values. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Figure A1.11. Change in Housing Vacancy of Apache Junction Block Groups with High Priority Mobile Home and RV Parks between 2013 and 2017. 2013, 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

A vacancy rate of nearly 5% less than the City’s indicates that people are either more attracted to this area or leaving homes in this area less often than other parts of the City. Compared to the other block groups in this area, the change in percent vacancy rate between 2013 and 2017, is large. Given the fact that mobile housing units increased in this block group while detached and attached housing units decreased during this period, it is reasonable to surmise that mobile housing is in higher demand compared to detached and attached housing.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

The average household size of this block group is smaller than all compared geographies. In fact, when comparing the average household size between 2013 and 2017, we find a significant decrease from 2.71 to 2.25 persons per household. Population, in total grew, by 549 individuals during the same timeframe, indicating that people moving into the area were part of smaller household sizes than what was previously the case. In this same timeframe, housing stock grew significantly, by 3.75% per year, when compared to surrounding geographies (1.55%, 1.17%, 0.75% and 0.7% per year in Apache Junction, Pinal County, Maricopa County and Arizona respectively).

Block Group Apache Pinal County Maricopa Arizona 1, Census Junction County Tract 3.12 Total Housing Units: 1,061 21,990 168,786 1,699,628 2,941,894

Vacancy: 21.9% 24.7% 20.9% 12.4% 15.6%

Total Occupied Housing 829 16,550 133,513 1,489,533 2,482,311 Units

Owner Occupied 42.2% 72.8% 72.6% 61.0% 63.1%

Renter Occupied 57.8% 27.2% 27.4% 39.0% 36.9%

Total Detached 28.2% 38.4% 73.3% 64.7% 63.9% Total Attached 27.5% 11.0% 6.9% 30.0% 25.2% Total Mobile Home 44.3% 47.6% 19.0% 5.1% 10.5% Total Boat, RV, Van, etc. 0.0% 3.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% Median Gross Rent 714 764 1014 1033 972 Median House Value 58,100 90,600 157,200 225,000 193,200 Average Persons per 2.25 2.31 2.85 2.75 2.68 Household Family Households 51.0% 63.5% 69.9% 65.5% 65.4%

Figure A1.12. Selected Housing Data. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

High-priority mobile home and RV parks

Block Group 1 in Census Tract 3.12 holds four high-priority mobile home or RV parks, as designated by City of Apache Junction officials.

1. Lamplighter MH Park 2. 5th Avenue TT Park 3. B&R Trailer Park 4. Apache Skies MH Park

Figure A1.13. High-priority Mobile Home and RV Parks in Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12. Retrieved from Google Maps. The following sections will provide greater detail on housing conditions within each of these parks. Lamplighter MH Park - (Update Property)

Address 2810 W 4th Avenue Acreage 4.717 Spaces 57 DU per acre ≈ 12 Age restricted? 55+ Year built 1971 Housing type Predominantly mobile Figure A1.14. Tarps draping an RV. Lamplighter Mobile Home home trailers, some RVs Park.

Housing Fair/Poor Conditions Though many of the newer manufactured homes are in better condition, older trailer units have rust, body damage and many makeshift add-ons to do not Figure A1.15. Older mobile home with minor body damage. appear safe. Tarps and various Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. materials seen draping one trailer. Crumbling stairs, peeling siding. Newer homes on the east side have fewer issues that tend to be more aesthetic in nature – old paint, minor body damage.

Figure A1.16. Mobile home with crumbling stairs. Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. 80

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Porch/Yard Fair/Poor Conditions The older trailer porches are in bad shape. They are constructed out of various found materials, seem structurally unsound and dangerous. Many porches and yards are littered with trash, waste and discarded items. The Figure A1.17. RV with makeshift add-on constructed from newer homes are less afflicted by found materials. Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. these issues, giving the appearance of tidiness from the street.

Property Fair Conditions Figure A1.18. Mobile home porch. Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. The road into the park is paved. There are speed bumps and there is signage indicating speed the speed limit within the park. Each lot is clearly marked. The property has been landscaped with palm trees. However, there is a lot of trash littering the premises.

Figure A1.19. A view of homes along the main street of Property  Laundry facilities the park. Lamplighter Mobile Home Park. amenities:  Community pool  Shuffle board

Figure A1.20. Waste on park property. Lamplighter Mobile Home Park.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

5th Avenue TT Park – (Update Property)

Address 450 S. Smythe Drive Acreage 0.8144 Spaces 14 DU per acre ≈ 17 Age restricted? 55+ Year built 1963 Housing type Mobile home trailers Figure A1.21. Site built home with aesthetic issues. 5th Avenue TT Park.

Housing Fair Conditions Generally, the homes in this park suffer from aesthetic issues such as peeling paint, aluminum siding peeling away from home, tears in mesh screen doors, cracks in the foundation skirting, and dirty Figure A1.22. Home with body damage, garden in yard. building up on the exterior of the 5th Avenue TT Park. homes. Additionally, it appears that some additions or fixes were made to the homes that look like short-cuts. Aside from aesthetics, there does not appear to be any serious structural issues. There is one home that appears very well taken care of: clean, fresh paint, new3 windows, etc.

Figure A1.23. Mobile home trailer with well-maintained exterior. 5th Avenue TT Park.

Porch/Yard Fair Conditions There is some clutter in the yards such as trash and discarded items. Some yards clearly appear untended and a bit overgrown with weeds. One property is using an EZ-Up for a carport. Some residents have paid specific care

Figure A1.24. Mobile home trailer with porch full of 82 th furniture pieces. 5 Avenue TT Park. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

to their yards, adding decorations, starting a garden, displaying planter boxes with flowers, stringing up holiday decorations, landscaping etc.

Property N/A Conditions The property is not a mobile home park in the traditional sense since Figure A1.25. Mobile home trailer with tidy porch, flowers homes are placed directly on the in yard. 5th Avenue TT Park. street like any other traditional site-built home. The nature of the park makes this aspect difficult to judge.

Property  None amenities:

Figure A1.26. Mobile home trailer with EZ-Up for carport. th 5 Avenue TT Park.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

B&R Trailer Park – (Sandbox Property)

Address 710 S. Lawson Drive Acreage 2.27 Spaces 39 DU per acre ≈ 17 Age restricted? No Year built 1964 Housing type Mobile home trailers, many pre-HUD

Figure A1.27. Older mobile home trailer with discarded furniture/waste in side yard. B&R Trailer Park.

Housing Poor/Fair Conditions The homes in this park are all older pre-HUD mobile homes. Given their age, homes tend to have a fair amount of visible wear and tear. Exterior paint is old and faded, the aluminum siding of homes is dented, window shingles are missing and askew. Aside from Figure A1.28. Well-tended older mobile home trailer. B&R aesthetic issues there do not Trailer Park. appear to be any serious structural issues that can be witnessed from the street, at least. It is not safe, however, to assume those issue do not exist simply because of the age of the homes.

Porch/Yard Poor Conditions There are some questionably constructed stairs and ramps leading to the homes. Many of the Figure A1.29. Landscaped front yard. B&R Trailer Park. yards are overgrown with brush and weeds. Carports seem to have been constructed from found

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

materials (copper piping?) and do not appear sturdy. Many of the carports seem to be used as additional storage or a place to keep discarded items such as old sofas and refrigerators no longer in use. Some residents have put in effort to landscape their yards, others have let them become dilapidated. Some carport roofs touch the carport or home next to it which may be a building code

violation. Figure A1.30. Carports touching/crowded carports used as storage. B&R Trailer Park.

Property Fair Conditions The road through the park is paved and clearly defined. There is no communal area for residents and abundant outdoor lighting was not found. All homes are equipped with a designated parking spot next to their homes

Figure A1.31. Fenced carport used as storage/living room furniture of front deck. B&R Trailer Park. Property  None amenities:

Figure A1.32. Well-tended exteriors of older mobile home trailers. B&R Trailer Park.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

Apache Skies MH Park – (Update Property)

Address 102 S. Ironwood Drive Acreage 8.68 Spaces 90 DU per acre ≈ 10.4 Age restricted? No Year built 1971 Housing type Mobile home trailers

Figure A1.33. Mobile home trailer with body/window damage. Apache Skies Mobile Home Park.

Housing Fair/Poor Conditions Some homes are better taken care of than others, but common among many of the homes were issues such as broken windows, broken foundation skirting, accumulation of rust, peeling paint, boarded up windows, and Figure A1.34. Remains of a torn down mobile home trailer. Apache Skies Mobile Home Park. excessive dirt.

Porch/Yard Fair Conditions Many of the porch shades seem a bit shoddy, structurally unsound. Similarly, some of the stair leading to porches and front doors seem shoddily constructed, unsafe. Figure A1.35. Older mobile home with wear and tear. There is a lot of trash and clutter Apache Skies Mobile Home Park. on porches. Fencing is falling apart.

Property Good Conditions

Figure A1.36. Well-tended front yard. Apache Skies Mobile Home Park. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12

The property is fully paved and speed bumps are painted. There is signage throughout the park and landscaping welcomes visitor sand residents upon entry to the park. Overhead lighting is witnessed. There do not seem to be any communal gathering areas or amenities. In multiple areas of the park children were seen playing in the street. As this community is Figure A1.37. Tidy porches/side yards. Apache Skies tucked away from main streets Mobile Home Park. and very well self-contained, this may indicate that residents feel safe/at home here. All sites are equipped with a parking spot next to the home. There is signage throughout the property that parking on the street is prohibited.

Figure A1.38. Side yards used for waste removal/storage. Apache Skies Mobile Home Park.

Property  None amenities:

Figure A1.39. A view of Apache Skies park property. Apache Skies Mobile Home Park.

Key Findings

 High priority parks in this block group are generally older and in more advanced stages of dilapidation than other parks in the City. RVs are less common so it is likely that most individuals living in this block group are full-time residents in need of affordable housing stock.  A decreasing vacancy rate coupled with an increase in mobile housing stock indicates increased demand for mobile housing options in this block group.  Residents in this block group are in close proximity to daily needs which is a significant benefit to lower-income residents who may not have reliable means of transportation.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13  Considering the expressed housing demand paired with close proximity to commercial and other geographic assets, this block group is one where adequate affordable housing stock is critical. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Block Group Designation: Priority 4

Size: ≈ 0.5 square miles

Population Density: 4,672.3

Geographic parameters:

 Southern Ave (South)  Meridian Rd (West)  Broadway Ave (North)  Delaware St (West)

Number of high priority mobile home/RV parks: 7  Mountain Vista MH Park  Alan Fuller Property  Superstition Sky Villa Figure A2.1. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13. Retrieved from Google Maps.  Schlupe Rentals  Verde Court MH Park  Buddy’s RV Park

Geographic characteristics:

Block Group 1 in Census Tract 3.12 is largely characterized by low-density residential development including single-family detached homes, mobile, manufactured and RV homes. This block group is home to two gated communities, one of which has a community center. With the exception of one auto repair shop, commercial development is non-existent. The population of this block group is 2,352, resulting in a density of 4,672.3 persons per square mile. This figure is high compared to the population density of Census Tract 3.12 as a whole (4,208.5 persons per square mile). Taken from the center of the block group, this block group earned a walk score of 14/100 and a bike score of 51/100. Residents in this block group would not be able to fulfill their basic daily needs from inside this block group. With the nearest grocery store and most commercial assets at least one mile away, residents in this block group would find it very difficult to fulfill their basic daily needs from this block group without a car.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Proximity to daily needs:

Proximity to Nearest… Distance… Description…. Inside Block Group?

Grocery Store: 1.2 Miles Safeway No

1.3 Miles Walmart Supercenter No

Convenience Store/Gas 0.8 Miles Circle K No Station: Bank: 1.5 Miles Wells Fargo No

Health Services: 0.9 Miles NextCare Urgent Care No

Pharmacy: 1.3 Miles Walgreens No

Police Station: 3.3 Miles Apache Junction Police No Department

Fire Department: 1.8 Miles District Station 263 No

Faith Communities: 0.6 Miles Gospel Tabernacle Yes

Education: 1.7 Miles Brinton Elementary School No

1.7 Miles Cactus Canyon Junior High School No

1.4 Miles Apache Junction High School No

2.7 Miles Central Arizona College No

Recreation/Community 1.5 Miles Apache Junction Little League No Space: Complex

1.6 Miles Apache Junction Skate Park No

Figure A2.2. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13, Proximity to Daily Needs. Measured with Google Maps from the geographic center of the block group estimated 2798 W 16th Ave, Apache Junction.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Zoning

This block group is predominantly zoned for single-family detached housing that allows for conventional and manufactured housing. There is land zone for multiple family development but is a very small planned development. There is a spattering of mobile home and recreational vehicle parks distributed through out the block group but they are concentrated along the Meridian Rd to the west and Broadway Ave to the north. There is a 15.67 acre plot of land zoned for general commercial business, but it is currently vacant. It has a planned development overlay which likely indicates the land will not be vacant for long as there are plans for its development.

Zoning Districts – Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

B-1 General Commercial. Generally intended for commercial uses that serve a local and regional market.

MHP Manufactured Home Park. Maximum density of 14 units/acre and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

RM-2 High Density Multiple-Family Residential. Maximum density of 22 units/acre (i.e., 1,980 square feet per unit) and minimum development parcel size of 7,000 square feet.

RS-7M Medium/High Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing. RS-20M Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing.

RVP Recreational Vehicle Park. Maximum density of 20 units/acre max and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

PD Planned Development Overlay. Generally intended for site and building design flexibility in accordance with Vol. II, § 1-4-3.

Figure A2.3. Zoning Districts in Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13. Retrieved from The City of Apache Junction.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

. Retrieved from City of Apache Junction. Apache of from City . Retrieved Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.12 Tract 1, Census Group Block

- Zoning Map Map Zoning

. Figure A2.4 Figure

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Demographics

In terms of demographics, this block group is predominantly older, white households of average income. The median age in this block group is 7.7 years older than the median age of Apache Junction and older than many of the block groups in this study. Between the years of 2013 and 2017, the median age increased from 49.8.

Figure A2.5. Median Age of Block Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5- Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov. Though 21.6% of the population in this block group earn a household income that puts them below the poverty line, this value has decreased from 27.1% since 2013. During this same period, the median household income rose by over $5,000. A population increase of 389 people indicates that the change in demographics is likely due to population that is moving in rather than an aging population or increasing incomes of the population that already lives there. As far as race, this census block has more white residents than Apache Junction and surrounding geographies. This census block does not have the same degree of educational attainment as Apache Junction and surrounding geographies. In Apache Junction as a whole, 57.7% of residents attended at least some college. In this census block, just 43.1% of residents have attended at least some college.

Between 2013 and 2017, median gross rents increased from $331 to $620 at a rate of 11.65% per year, and housing units increased by 25 units. Upon closer examination of the block group and its activity, we find that the completion of construction for two gated communities coincides with our study period. The increases in number of housing units, median gross rents and median income may be a result of this construction and the arrival of new residents.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Block Group Apache Pinal County Maricopa Arizona 1, Census Junction County Tract 3.13 Population: 2,352 38,452 405,537 4,155,501 6,809,946 Median Age: 58.9 52.2 38.5 36 37.2 Median Household Income: $37,875 $39,119 $52,628 $58,580 $53,510

Household Income Below 21.6% 19.5% 14.6% 13.6% 15.0% Poverty Level Hispanic or Latino by Origin Not Hispanic or Latino 87.4% 85.5% 70.4% 69.4% 69.1% Hispanic or Latino 12.6% 14.5% 29.6% 30.6% 30.9% Race White 94.2% 91.0% 80.4% 78.0% 77.5% Black or African American 0.7% 1.2% 4.5% 5.4% 4.3%

American Indian and Alaska 4.4% 1.8% 5.0% 1.9% 4.4% Native Asian 3.1% 1.2% 1.7% 3.9% 3.1%

Native Hawaiian and Other 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% Pacific Islander Some other race 7.0% 1.7% 4.4% 7.1% 7.0% Two or more races 3.5% 3.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% Educational Attainment No Schooling Completed 1.7% 2.1% 1.3% 1.5% 1.5%

High School Diploma 30.4% 19.7% 23.5% 19.2% 20.1% GED or Alternative Credential 11.5% 3.8% 6.4% 3.5% 4.0% Some College, No Degree 26.7% 22.1% 27.6% 24.4% 25.3% Associate’s Degree 6.5% 7.8% 9.2% 8.5% 8.6% Bachelor’s Degree 7.6% 17.8% 11.9% 20.0% 17.8% Master’s Degree 2.3% 7.1% 5.2% 8.3% 7.7%

Professional School Degree 0.0% 1.9% 0.7% 1.9% 1.8% Doctorate Degree 0.0% 1.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2%

Figure A2.6. Selected Demographics. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Current housing characteristics:

Housing characteristics for this block group share a number of similarities with Apache Junction as a whole, specifically in regards to the renter-owner distribution. For each geography, just over 70% of residents own their homes while a little under 30% rent. Additionally, just over 60% of households in the block group are family households for both this census block group and Apache Junction as a whole.

Of all housing, over 50% of units in this block group are single detached homes, followed by 36.7% mobile homes. Dissimilar to the City of Apache Junction, this block group does not contain any attached housing.

Figure A2.7. Housing Stock Distribution of Block Group 1, Figure A2.8. Housing Stock Distribution of Apache Junction. Census Tract 3.13. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5- 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov. Retrieved from census.gov.

While it has increased significantly, median gross rent for this area is still less than Apache Junction’s median by over $140. In spite of this, median house value in this block group is nearly $40,000 more than the median house value of Apache Junction as well as a number of the other block groups in this study. Such a difference could be attributed to the new housing stock that was recently developed as well as the greater percentage of detached housing and complete lack of attached housing stock which is generally more affordable.

Figure A2.9. Comparison of Median House Value. 2017 Figure A2.10. Comparison of Median House Value across American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved Block Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year from census.gov. Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Between 2013 and 2017, vacancy in this block group decreased from 2.3% to 18.6%. During this same period, housing units increased by 100 units and the distribution of housing types changed in all facets.

Housing Type

Figure A2.11. Change in Housing Type of Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13 between 2013 and 2017. 2013, 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

When calculated, this block group lost 5, 58 and 68 units of attached, mobile and boat, van or RV housing, respectively. Detached housing increased by approximately 231 units.

Block Group Apache Pinal County Maricopa Arizona 1, Census Junction County Tract 3.13 Total Housing Units: 1,244 21,990 168,786 1,699,628 2,941,894

Vacancy: 18.6% 24.7% 20.9% 12.4% 15.6%

Total Occupied Housing 956 16,550 133,513 1,489,533 2,482,311 Units

Owner Occupied 71.1% 72.8% 72.6% 61.0% 63.1%

Renter Occupied 28.9% 27.2% 27.4% 39.0% 36.9%

Detached 54.8% 38.4% 73.3% 64.7% 63.9% Attached 0.0% 11.0% 6.9% 30.0% 25.2% Mobile Home 37.5% 47.6% 19.0% 5.1% 10.5% Boat, RV, Van, etc. 7.7% 3.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% Median Gross Rent 620 764 1014 1033 972

Median House Value 129,900 90,600 157,200 225,000 193,200

Average Persons per 2.32 2.31 2.85 2.75 2.68 Household Family Households 62.3% 63.5% 69.9% 65.5% 65.4%

Figure A2.12. Selected Housing Data. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

High-priority mobile home and RV parks

Block Group 1 in Census Tract 3.13 holds 7 high-priority mobile home or RV parks, as designated by City of Apache Junction officials.

5. Mountain Vista MH Park 6. Fuller Property 7. Superstition Sky Villa 8. Superstition Mountain View MH Park 9. Schlupe Rentals 10. Verde Court MH Park 11. Buddy’s RV Park Figure A2.13. High-priority Mobile Home and RV Parks in Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13. Retrieved from Google Maps. The following sections will provide greater detail on housing conditions within each of these parks.

Mountain Vista MH Park – (Update Property)

Address 1100 S. Warner Drive Acreage 5 Spaces 44 DU per acre ≈ 8.8 Age restricted? No Year built 1960 Housing type Mobile home trailers

Figure A2.14. Mobile home trailer showing signs of wear and tear. Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park.

Housing Fair Conditions Homes in this park are of varying house conditions, from good to poor. Some homes are newer and well maintained: fresh paint, clean exterior, no damages, etc. Others have peeling paint, external structures falling apart, rusty air conditioning unit, foundation skirting falling apart/off, broken Figure A2.15. Mobile home trailer showing advanced signs of walls, and haphazard repairs. wear and tear. Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Porch/Yard Fair/Poor Conditions Some porches are well cared for and maintained while others have lots of trash and unwanted items strewn about. There are some issues with porches and stairs that appear to be haphazardly constructed and potentially structurally unsound.

Figure A2.16. Mobile home trailer stairs in need of a coat of paint. Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park.

Property Fair Conditions The park is fully paved and there is signage/directional arrows for residents and visitors, however they are sun- bleached/damaged/falling and could use repair or replacement. Figure A2.17. Side yard used for storage. Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park. There is lots of trash strewn about the perimeter of the property – things like wrappers, cups, water bottles, etc. In spite of apparent landscaping in the form of shade trees, there is a significant amount of weeds growing throughout the property. There does not seem to be any communal space for residents, not any usable green space for a possible future Figure A2.18. Porch and yard of a newer mobile home. communal use. There is not Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park. significant overhead nighttime lighting to be observed in the park. All sites are equipped with adequate parking space next to the homes. Additionally, people are parking in front of their homes when more space is required for household vehicles.

Figure A2.19. View of the mobile home park property. Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park. 97

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Property  None amenities:

Figure A2.20. Trash and weeds on the property. Mountain Vista Mobile Home Park. Fuller Property – (Sandbox Property)

Address 2833 W. 12th Place Acreage 0.9 Spaces Unable to determine DU per acre Unable to determine Age restricted? No Year built 1954 Housing type Mobile home trailers, some pre-HUD Figure A2.21. Site built home at the front of the lot. Fuller Property.

Housing Poor Conditions Homes are generally old, pre-HUD mobile homes with additions (rooms/porches/entryways) constructed of plywood. Broken doors and fences are repaired by shoddy patchwork. Paint is cracked and peeling. Sun shades Figure A2.22. Old, vacant trailer. Fuller Property. are falling apart, windows are boarded up. One of the homes appears to be completely abandoned.

Porch/Yard Poor Conditions Homes on this property do not have well-designated porches

98 Figure A2.23. Trailer with add-on built at its entrance. Fuller Property. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

since the homes are placed on the property with little logic. However, what small porch and yard areas each home does appear to have are generally overgrown with weeds. Trash and clutter are also strewn about in front of homes. Where some sites have constructed fences to help contain their yards, those fences are damaged and falling apart.

Figure A2.24. Older trailer with boarded up windows. Fuller Property. Property Poor Conditions The entire park is gravel and there is no clear driveway for residents or visitors to enter in on. Additionally, there is no logic to home placement. While many of the other parks in this study line up their sites in rows or logical configurations, the homes on this Figure A2.25. A view of the dirt lot on which mobile homes are property have simply been placed placed. Fuller Property. haphazardly. The result of this decision has left a large amount of underutilized space in the middle of the park. Waste clutters the property, which is also overgrown by weeds. The property is generally uncared for and more closely resembles an abandoned storage or bulk trash facility than a residence. There is no communal Figure A2.26. A view of adjacent property. Fuller Property. space for residents and no overhead nighttime lighting. Sites are not equipped with designated parking spots. Cars are parked randomly around the property.

Property  None amenities: Figure A2.27. Resident parking and vehicle storage on the property. Fuller Property.

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Superstition Sky Villa – (Sandbox Property)

Address 1347 S. Meridian Drive Acreage 1.89 Spaces Unable to determine, estimated 12 DU per acre Unable to determine, ≈ 6.4 Age restricted? No Year built 1954 Housing type Predominantly RVs, some mobile home trailers

Figure A2.28. Old mobile home trailer showing signs of wear and tear. Superstition Sky Villa.

Housing Fair Conditions Homes on this site are of varying quality. Some are brand new Rvs while others are trailers dating back to the 1980’s and 1970’s. In some cases it is difficult to tell what trailers/vehicles are being lived in since some of the space in the back of the park is used for storage. There is a semi-cab on site but it is difficult to tell if

someone is using this as living Figure A2.29. Densely packed mobile home units. Superstition quarters or if it is simply being Sky Villa. stored here. Additionally, an old school bus with siding covering the windows is on site. Given its nature, it is safe to assuming someone is living inside.

Porch/Yard Poor Conditions

This is difficult to assess fairly. Because units are spaced so tightly together, there is not much room for parches or yards, which Figure A2.30. Old RV unit. Superstition Sky Villa. could earn the classification of poor on its own. Where people do have space, awnings nearly touch

100

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

the next home over which is a building code violation and safety hazard.

Property Fair Conditions Due to the layout of the property, it is difficult to discern how many Figure A2.31. Four densely packed mobile home units. Superstition Sky Villa. units are lived in in this park. Units seems strewn about and sites are not numbered. There are definite concerns of overcrowding although this is not reflected in the DU per acre due to the layout of the site. Units are concentrated along the south and east sides of the park and squeezed together very tightly while there is additional ample room closer to the northwest corner of the property. Some trash strewn (but not as much as other properties), Figure A2.32. Extra boat and recreational vehicle storage in the but the owner has taken some back of the park. Superstition Sky Villa. care to landscape the front of the property. A lot of space devoted to boat storage and other structures. Near the entrance of the property there are lights that would help drivers enter the park but adequate overhead nighttime lighting was not observed. Each unit is not equipped with a devoted parking space next to the home. Residents seem to park in front of their homes or in other Figure A2.33. Site built home near the front of the property. spots around the property. This Superstition Sky Villa. property is along a main road but lacks fencing or gating to provide privacy for residents

Property  None amenities: Figure A2.34. Small housing unit stored in the back of the park. Superstition Sky Villa.

101

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Superstition Mountain View MH Park – (Sandbox Property)

Address 1420 S. Warner Drive Acreage 0.91 Spaces 10 DU per acre ≈ 11 Age restricted? No Year built 1957 Housing type Mobile home trailers (some pre-HUD) and RVs

Housing Poor/Fair Figure A2.35. Old mobile home trailer showing advanced signs Conditions of dilapidation. Superstition Mountain View Mobile Home Park. Homes in this park are predominantly older mobile homes (likely pre-HUD) and two manufactured homes. As the homes have begun to incur damage and fall apart, tenants have undergone repairs using replacement parts that do not match or seem inappropriate to the building. Add-on stairs and storage units made out of what appears to be found materials, raising concerns of stability and safety. Foundation skirtings are pulling away from the homes. Figure A2.36. EZ Up without sunshade used as carport. Superstition Mountain View Mobile Home Park. Aluminum bodies appear dented, having incurred body damage over the years. Mesh screen doors are torn. Overall, the homes are not well-kept and seem to have been neglected.

Porch/Yard Fair Conditions Porches generally have lots of clutter and trash. Many yards are overgrown with weeds. Tenants

have taken the time and effort to Figure A2.37. Mobile home trailer with fence constructed out of fence off their own yards, but they garden lattice. Superstition Mountain View Mobile Home Park. are using a variety of inconsistent

102

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

fencing materials including lattice, chain link, and plywood. One unit has used an EZ-Up as a carport, yet the EZ-Up does not have its sun shade on top.

Property Poor Conditions Units are dispersed around the perimeter of the property rather Figure A2.38. Porch used for waste/storage. Superstition than organized as a park. Because Mountain View Mobile Home Park. of this layout, there is a significant amount of underutilized land on site. Additionally, units are not clearly numbered so it can be challenging to determine how many homes are in the park at first glance. The lot is entirely gravel and there is not clear driveway into or out of the park aside from the entry/exit point. Figure A2.39. Mobile home trailer with large fenced off yard. The property is littered with trash. Superstition Mountain View Mobile Home Park. Parking spaces for each unit are not clearly defined. Come tenants have created their own areas fro parking. There is a strange fenced off area behind the site built home with makeshift garages or shelters for storage - in bad condition. Children are playing in the street which may indicate residents feel safe in this community.

Figure A2.40. Site built home located at the front of the property. Superstition Mountain View Mobile Home Park.

Property  None amenities:

Figure A2.41. Waste littering the property. Superstition Mountain View Mobile Home Park. 103

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Schlupe Rentals – (Sandbox Property)

Address 1477 S. Warner Drive Acreage 0.93 Spaces 10 DU per acre ≈ 10.8 Age restricted? No Year built 1985

Housing type Mobile home trailers (some Figure A2.42. Old mobile home trailer showing signs of wear pre-HUD), and RVs and tear. Schlupe Rentals.

Housing Poor Conditions Homes in this park are predominantly older mobile Figure A2.43. Pre-HUD mobile home trailers in poor condition. Schlupe Rentals. homes (likely pre-HUD) and some more recent trailers. Homes are afflicted by general wear and tear due to the age of the homes – rust, body damage, fading/peeling paint.

Porch/Yard N/A Conditions Beyond the small staircases that Figure A2.44. Waste and/or storage littering the front porch of lead up to individual units, there is the site built home on property. Schlupe Rentals. not much yard or porch space to assess. Due to the layout of the park, units do not seem to have the opportunity for personal yard or porch space.

Property Poor Conditions

Figure A2.45. Waste and/or storage littering the back porch104 of the site built home on property. Schlupe Rentals. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

There is one site built building located in the very middle of the property with mobile home units surrounding it on the back and the south side. It is very overcrowded behind the site built home, so much so that cars cannot complete a circle through the property. Because of this is it hard to get a sense of how many units or tenants are in the back or what their housing conditions are. This Figure A2.46. A view of the dirt lot property on which mobile park is not laid out like a homes are placed. Schlupe Rentals. traditional park. Additionally, the park layout has left a significant amount of underutilized land closer to the front of the property. The property has lots of overgrowth and weeds. Discarded trimmings from trees are scattered about park and dumped in a pile next to the dumpster. Sites do not seem to have devoted parking spots. There are some parking spots available in front of the site built home but the remainder of the vehicles on the Figure A2.47. A pile of yard trimmings next to the dumpster on property are parked haphazardly site. Schlupe Rentals. in front of units.

Property  None amenities:

Figure A2.48. Mailboxes for residents in the park. Schlupe Rentals.

105

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Verde Court MH Park – (Sandbox Property)

Address 1651 S. Cedar Drive Acreage 0.72 Spaces 5 DU per acre ≈ 6.9 Age restricted? No Year built 1977 Housing type Mobile home trailers

Figure A2.49. Trailer showing minor signs of wear and tear. Verde Court Mobile Home Park.

Housing Fair Conditions There have been many makeshift improvements and repairs made to homes in this park which does not reflect a good quality of the housing. While one home seems

to be in very decent condition, the Figure A2.50. Older mobile home trailer with add-on rooms. remainder are less cared for. Verde Court Mobile Home Park. Siding is pulling away from the homes and the exteriors in general are dirty and not well- maintained.

Porch/Yard Fair Conditions A small minority of the homes’ Figure A2.51. A site built building next to a mobile home trailer. yards are cared for and manicured Verde Court Mobile Home Park. event to the smallest degree. Yards and porches in this park are predominantly littered with trash, such as old cups, kegs, tires, furniture, etc. Additionally, yards are overgrown with plants and weeds.

Figure A2.52. Untended side yards housing waste and/or storage. Verde Court Mobile Home Park. 106

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Property Fair Conditions This park is not organized like a traditional mobile home park. Rather than a sophisticated organization or configuration of homes along a street, homes units have simply been place along the perimeter of the lot. Because of this layout, there is a great degree of underutilized open space in the Figure A2.53. Waste and storage behind home. Verde Court park. The lot is entirely gravel and Mobile Home Park. there is not driveway or path for resident and visitors to use. There is not overhead nighttime lighting in this park. Homes do not have clearly defined parking lots for residents but residents have no trouble parking next to or in front of their homes.

Property  None amenities: Figure A2.54. A view of the dirt lot property on which mobile homes are placed. Verde Court Mobile Home Park.

107

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

Buddy’s RV Park – (Amenitize Property)

Address 1665 S. Meridian Drive Acreage 2.7 Spaces Unable to determine DU per acre Unable to determine Age restricted? Yes Year built 2003 Housing type RVs

Housing Good Conditions FigureImage A2.552.53. New. New RVs RVs in in good good condition. condition. Buddy’s Buddy’s RV RV Park Park. . Most of the RVs in this park are nearly brand new, in very good condition. Clearly a property where out of towners come to stay for an extended period of time. It is difficult to tell how many units are located in the park because there are not permanent sites. RVs are packed in very tightly to optimize space.

Porch/Yard N/A Figure A2.56. Ample room on the property. Buddy’s RV Park. Conditions The RVs are so tightly packed in that residents do not have much yard or porch space.

Property Good Conditions The property is not luxurious but it is well cared for. There are no overgrown plants, no weeds, no trash – very clean. There is some semblance of a sophisticated Figure A2.57. New RVs on the property. Buddy’s RV Park. organization of RVs in this park. The lot is fully gravel but there is not a driveway for residents or

108

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.13

visitors to drive in on. There does not seem to be and overhead nighttime lighting. There are some patches or underutilized empty space scattered throughout the park but this may be set aside for additional RVs when the park nears capacity. Each unit does have a devoted space for parking next to each home.

Figure A2.58. Gravel lot with lack of tenant amenities. Buddy’s RV Park. Property  None amenities:

Figure A2.59. Densely parked RVs. Buddy’s RV Park.

Key Findings

 The housing in high priority parks in this block group is in generally poor condition and tends to be afflicted by aesthetic and structural deficiencies and in need of repair.  Lacking amenities, most parks, with the exception of Mountain Vista Park, more closely resemble dirt lots on which mobile home and RV units have been unceremoniously deposited rather than a true mobile home community.  Many mobile home parks in this block group have site built homes near the front of the property line. The remainder of lot space is reserved for mobile homes and RVs.  Buddy’s RV Park is an outlier in this block group in terms of housing and residents. This park strictly contains RVs, most of which are newer stock likely belonging to out-of-town winter visitors rather than full-time residents. The remaining parks are more likely to house full-time residents.  As median household income and median house values increase due to new construction projects, mobile home and RV parks in this block group could begin to feel threatened by the prospect of redevelopment, especially since they are grandfathered properties with limited options for property enhancement or increased density.  This block group is not well-served by nearby commercial development. Households in this block group would have difficulty fulfilling basic daily needs without reliable transportation.

109

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Block Group Designation: Priority 1

Size: ≈ 0.25 square miles

Geographic parameters:

 Apache Trail (South)  Delaware Dr (West)  Superstition Blvd (North)  Ironwood Dr (East)

Number of high priority mobile home/RV parks: 7  Arizona Sleets MH Park  Desert Queen MH Park  TJ’s MH Park  Mountain Ridge RV Park  Bonas Property Figure A3.1. Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08. Retrieved from Google Maps.  Quiet Village RV Park

 Shady Village MH Park

Geographic characteristics: Block Group in Census Tract 3.08 is largely characterized by low density residential development in the form of mobile home communities as well as single-family detached homes and a very small amount of attached housing stock. There is some commercial development located on the southern edge of the block group along Apache Trail, Apache Junction’s main thoroughfare. Additionally, residents in this block group have easy access to the commercial uses located in nearby block groups. The current population of the block group is 748, resulting in a population density of 2,978 persons per square mile. Taken from the middle of the block group, this black groups earns a walk score of 41/100 and a bike score of 62/100. Most errands require a car, but given a closer proximity to Apache Trail and its surrounding businesses, residents would be able to fulfill some of their basic needs on foot.

110

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Proximity to daily needs:

Proximity to Nearest… Distance… Description…. Inside Block Group?

Grocery Store: 0.7 Miles Walmart Supercenter No

Convenience Store/Gas 0.7 Miles Chevron Yes Station: Bank: 0.8 Miles Wells Fargo No

Health Services: 2.2 Miles NextCare Urgent Care No

Pharmacy: 1.0 Miles Walgreens Pharmacy No

Police Station: 1.8 Miles Apache Junction Police No Department

Fire Department: 1.0 Miles District Station 261 No

Faith Communities: 0.0 Miles Desert Chapel United Methodist Yes

0.3 Miles First Assembly of God Yes

Education: 2.4 Miles Four Peaks Elementary School No

2.5 Miles Cactus Canyon Junior High School No

2.4 Miles Apache Junction High School No

2.2 Miles Central Arizona College No

Recreation/Community 0.9 Miles Apache Junction Little League No Space: Complex

Figure A3.2. Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08, Proximity to Daily Needs. Measured with Google Maps from the geographic center of the block group estimated 2011 W Belmar Ct, Apache Junction.

111

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Zoning

This block group is predominantly zoned for medium density single-family detached housing which allows for conventional and manufactured housing. There is a considerable amount of land zoned for mobile home and recreational vehicle parks in this block group. This land is disbursed throughout the block group, but it is concentrated closer towards Apache Trail, Apache Junction’s main thoroughfare. There is also a significant amount of land zoned for commercial development along Apache Trail towards the south as well as Superstition Blvd to the north. There is a 4.31 acreage lot in the very middle of the block group that is zoned for general rural low density single-family detached residential which would be incongruous with the block group, but this lot contains a church rather than low density rural housing.

Zoning Districts – Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

B-1 General Commercial. Generally intended for commercial uses that serve a local and regional market.

B-2 Old West Commercial. Generally intended for commercial uses located within the Downtown Transition Area.

MHP Manufactured Home Park. Maximum density of 14 units/acre and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

RM-1 High Density Multiple-Family Residential. Maximum density of 13 units/acre (i.e., 3,350 square feet per unit) and minimum development parcel size of 7,000 square feet.

RS-10 Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Allows only conventional housing.

RS-10M Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing.

RS-20M Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing.

RS-GR General Rural Low Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 1.25 acres. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing.

RVP Recreational Vehicle Park. Maximum density of 20 units/acre max and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

PD Planned Development Overlay. Generally intended for site and building design flexibility in accordance with Vol. II, § 1-4-3.

Figure A3.3. Zoning Districts in Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08. Retrieved from The City of Apache Junction.

112

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

from City of Apache Junction. Apache of from City

. Retrieved Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08 Tract 4, Census Group Block

- Zoning Map Map Zoning

. Figure A3.3 Figure

113

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Demographics

Block Group 4 in Census Tract 3.08 is predominantly home to older, low-income white households. At 51.8%, this block group has the highest poverty rate of all block groups included in this study. At $19,833, the median household income is nearly $20,000 less than median household income of Apache Junction in general. These changes in poverty and median household income have been recent. Since 2013, the median income in this block group has dropped significantly from $30,017. This decrease quantifies a 8.48% decrease per year, greater than any other block group in this study.

Figure A3.5. Change in Median Household Income of across Block Groups from 2013 to 2017. 2013, 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov. Per such a shift, the poverty rate has similarly been affected between the years of 2013 and 2017, increasing from 40.6% to 51.8%. Such a dramatic shift reflects a 2.8% per year increase of household living below the poverty level – a figure greater than any other block group in this study.

Figure A3.6. Percent of Households Living below the Poverty Level. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

During this same period of time, the population of this block group decreased by 351 persons, from 1099 in 2013 to 748 in 2017. This nearly 32% decrease is significant compared to the population changes experienced by the other block groups in this study. Though it is not clear, the apparent changes in

114

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

median household income and poverty may simply be related to the sudden decrease in population, rather than related to a severe downward trend of their own. Rather than households in this block group earning less and sinking deeper into poverty with every passing year, the data may simply be reflecting the residence of more lower-income households in proportion to higher-income families if higher income families are moving out of the area.

If median household income continues to decrease and the number of households living below the poverty level continue to increase at the given rate, the median household income would reach well below $3,000 while the percentage of households living below the poverty level would reach nearly 98% by the year 2040. As such projections are not realistic, it would be worthwhile to understand what events lead to such a significant decrease in population so that the City of Apache Junction can gain a better realistic understanding of what future projections may be.

Figure A3.7. Comparison of Educational Attainment. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Residents in this block group have lesser rates of educational attainment than surrounding geographies. A greater proportion of residents have completed no schooling than surrounding geographies, and a smaller proportion of residents have achieved a Bachelor’s degree than surrounding geographies. In the largest group for educational attainment is surrounding geographies is those who have achieved a Bachelor’s degree. For this block group, the largest group is those who have achieved a High School Diploma.

115

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Block Group Apache Pinal Maricopa Arizona 4, Census Junction County County Tract 3.08 Population: 748 38,452 405,537 4,155,501 6,809,946 Median Age: 50.3 52.2 38.5 36 37.2 Median Household Income: $19,833 $39,119 $52,628 $58,580 $53,510

Household Income Below 51.8% 19.5% 14.6% 13.6% 15.0% Poverty Level Hispanic or Latino by Origin Not Hispanic or Latino 100.0% 85.5% 70.4% 69.4% 69.1% Hispanic or Latino 0.0% 14.5% 29.6% 30.6% 30.9% Race White 95.7% 91.0% 80.4% 78.0% 77.5% Black or African American 0.0% 1.2% 4.5% 5.4% 4.3%

American Indian and Alaska 0.0% 1.8% 5.0% 1.9% 4.4% Native Asian 0.0% 1.2% 1.7% 3.9% 3.1%

Native Hawaiian and Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% Pacific Islander Some other race 0.0% 1.7% 4.4% 7.1% 7.0% Two or more races 4.3% 3.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% Educational Attainment No Schooling Completed 2.9% 2.1% 1.3% 1.5% 1.5%

High School Diploma 32.0% 19.7% 23.5% 19.2% 20.1% GED or Alternative Credential 4.3% 3.8% 6.4% 3.5% 4.0% Some College, No Degree 25.6% 22.1% 27.6% 24.4% 25.3% Associate’s Degree 11.1% 7.8% 9.2% 8.5% 8.6% Bachelor’s Degree 2.9% 17.8% 11.9% 20.0% 17.8% Master’s Degree 3.0% 7.1% 5.2% 8.3% 7.7%

Professional School Degree 0.0% 1.9% 0.7% 1.9% 1.8% Doctorate Degree 0.0% 1.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2%

Figure A3.8. Selected Demographics. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

116

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Current Housing Characteristics

Contributing to the significant population decrease discussed earlier, between the years of 2013 and 2017, this census block group lost 195 housing units. No other block groups in this study experienced the same degree of housing unit loss during this timeframe. In fact, only 4 of the total 9 block groups experienced a loss in housing units at all.

Figure A3.9. Change in Number of Housing Units Across Block Groups between 2013 and 2017. 2013, 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

This block group’s predominant housing stock is mobile homes at 61%, which is 13% more than Apache Junction as a whole, but closer in proportion to the other block groups in this study.

Figure A3.10. Housing Stock Distribution of Block Group 4, Figure A3.11. Housing Stock Distribution of Apache Junction. Census Tract 3.08. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5- 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov. Retrieved from census.gov.

There is a very small percentage of attached housing in this block group – just 2.97% compared to Apache Junction’s 11%. Particularly interesting is the significantly higher percentage of total boats, RVs and Vans used as housing units in the block group in comparison to surrounding block groups and to the City of Apache Junction as a whole. In fact, this census block group has one of the highest proportions boats, RVs and vans used as housing units among all block groups in the study.

117

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

At $647, the median gross rent is more than $100 less than median gross rent in Apache Junction as a whole. Since 2013, the median gross rent has experienced just a modest increase from $614. Compared to the other block groups in the study, this block group’s median gross rent is about average.

Figure A3.12 Comparison of Median Gross Rent. 2017 Figure A3.13. Comparison of Median Gross Rent across Block American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year from census.gov. Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Quite dissimilar to the City of Apache Junction and all other block groups in this study, the percentage of households that are families is quite low at 20.9%. In other geographies, the percentage of family households is typically closer to 50-70% range. In 2013, the percentage of family households was over two times as much as the 2017 figure at 42.7%. Because we know that this block group experienced a significant population decrease between 2013 and 2017, we might surmise that a greater proportion of residents who left this block group during that time were family households, leaving a greater proportion of non-family households behind.

Figure A3.14. Comparison of Household Type across Block Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

118

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Block Group Apache Pinal County Maricopa Arizona 4, Census Junction County Tract 3.08 Total Housing Units: 539 21,990 168,786 1,699,628 2,941,894

Vacancy: 27.3% 24.7% 20.9% 12.4% 15.6%

Total Occupied Housing 392 16,550 133,513 1,489,533 2,482,311 Units

Owner Occupied 53.3% 72.8% 72.6% 61.0% 63.1%

Renter Occupied 46.7% 27.2% 27.4% 39.0% 36.9%

Detached 27.3% 38.4% 73.3% 64.7% 63.9% Attached 3.0% 11.0% 6.9% 30.0% 25.2% Mobile Home 61.0% 47.6% 19.0% 5.1% 10.5% Boat, RV, Van, etc. 8.7% 3.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% Median Gross Rent 647 764 1014 1033 972

Median House Value 51,000 90,600 157,200 225,000 193,200

Average Persons per 1.91 2.31 2.85 2.75 2.68 Household Family Households 20.9% 63.5% 69.9% 65.5% 65.4%

Figure A3.15. Selected Housing Data. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

119

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

High-priority mobile home and RV parks

Block Group 4 in Census Tract 3.08 holds 7 high- priority mobile home or RV parks, as designated by City of Apache Junction officials.

12. Arizona Sleets MH Park 13. Desert Queen MH Park 14. TJ’s MH Park 15. Mountain Ridge RV Park 16. Saguaro Springs 17. Quiet Village RV Park 18. Shady Village MH Park

Figure A3.16. High-priority Mobile Home and RV Parks in Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08. Retrieved from Google Maps.

The following sections will provide greater detail on housing conditions within each of these parks.

Arizona Sleets MH Park – (Update Property)

Address 686 N. Ocotillo Drive Acreage 2.83 Spaces 28 DU per acre ≈ 9.9 Age restricted? No Year built 1972 Housing type Mobile home trailers Figure A3.17. Mobile home trailer showing signs of wear and tear. Arizona Sleets Mobile Home Park.

Housing Fair Conditions While some homes are better taken care of than others, all of them are older – dating from the 70's. In general, homes are afflicted by chipping paint, peeling Figure A3.18. Mobile home trailer with tended yard. Arizona Sleets Mobile Home Park.

120

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

foundation skirts, boarded up windows in an occupied home. Though certainly not a serious structural issue, one home foundation is completely exposed. The ones that look more cared for are in fair/good condition.

Figure A3.19. Mobile home trailer with missing foundation skirting. Arizona Sleets Mobile Home Park. Porch/Yard Fair Conditions

Some owners have made sure that their porches are clean and cared for – through landscaping and decorating. Other yards are cluttered with discarded items, waste (plywood). Most of the steps that lead to homes are in Figure A3.20. Mobile home trailer with a well-maintained front decent condition. One set in yard. Arizona Sleets Mobile Home Park. particular looks a little untrustworthy, as if it could fall apart. An EZ-Up is used as a carport.

Property Fair Conditions The road into the park is paved and the homes are set on gravel. There are speed bumps along the road and signage signifying speed Figure A3.21. Mobile homes are each clearly identified with limits inside the park. The fence their own number. Arizona Sleets Mobile Home Park. surrounding the property is in bad condition in certain parts. Each home is clearly marked. There does not appear to be a communal area for residents. There are a couple light poles providing nighttime lighting. Each unit is equipped with a devoted parking space next to the home.

Figure A3.22. Park fence in poor condition. Arizona Sleets Mobile Home Park. 121

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Property  None amenities:

Figure A3.22. Well-tended yard. Arizona Sleets Mobile Home Park. Desert Queen MH Park – (Amenitize Property)

Address 310 N. Ocotillo Drive Acreage 2.93 Spaces 63 DU per acre ≈ 21.5 Age restricted? Yes Year built 1969 Housing type Predominantly RVs, very few mobile home trailers

Figure A3.23. RVs packed densely in the park. Desert Queen Mobile Home Park.

Housing Good/Fair Conditions Housing stock is mostly newer RVs and older mobile home trailers. The RVs were in very good condition – clean, no damage, no hazards. The mobile homes were Figure A3.24. RVs in good condition. Desert Queen Mobile in poorer condition, rusty and a Home Park. little beat up. This community likely caters predominantly to out of town visitors.

Porch/Yard Fair Conditions Yards are fairly well maintained - not overgrown. Some clutter but Figure A3.25. Out of state license plates belonging to RV owners. Desert Queen Mobile Home Park. 122

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

no trash. Homes were very close together so residents do not have much room for outdoor personal space like a porch or yard.

Property Fair Conditions The road could use repaving and the speed bumps repainting, but the property is generally clean and Figure A3.26. Neat front yard. Desert Queen Mobile Home well-maintained. This property is Park. fenced in with three gates. One of these gates stays open during the day but it may close at a certain time in the evening to ensure security for residents. No abundant overhead nighttime lighting was observed. Each unit is equipped with a designated parking spot next to the home.

Figure A3.27. View of the RV park front office. Desert Queen Property  Laundry facilities Mobile Home Park. amenities:  Shower facilities

TJ’S MH Park – (Sandbox Property)

Address 253 N. Ocotillo Drive Acreage .98 Spaces Unable to Determine DU per acre Unable to Determine Age restricted? No Year built 1949 Housing type Mobile home trailers, RVs and fifth wheels Figure A3.28. Old fifth wheels in poor condition, property littered with trash. TJ’s Mobile Home Park.

123

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Housing Conditions Poor The housing units in this park are older trailers and manufactured homes. Units are afflicted by general wear and tear to do their age, rust, discoloration, and body damage. There are many makeshift additions (awnings, stairs, handrails) that present Figure A3.29. Back porch used for storage. TJ’s Mobile Home Park. safety concerns.

Porch/Yard Poor Conditions

Porches in this park seem to be used as additional storage space or an area to discard old, unwanted items – lots of porches are cluttered with items. Tenants seem to be rather organized but Figure A3.30. Front porch used for storage/waste. TJ’s Mobile have no opportunity to hide their Home Park. storage in a structure which gives the appearance of a mess. Other tenants have no shame about their messes (old trash cans, rusty chairs, ice chests, strewn messes). Some porch structures are of significantly poor quality, afflicted by splintering wood, peeling paint, and structural inadequacies. One tenant constructed a corrugated Figure A3.31. Blanket used to provide shade, storage shack metal makeshift storage unit. One built with corrugated metal. TJ’s Mobile Home Park. tenant is using an old blanket as a sun screen on their porch. There is an awning assembled out of corrugated metal which seems to be added on, perhaps illegally

Property Poor Conditions

Figure A3.32. Waste dumped on property. TJ’s Mobile Home Park.

124

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

There is a fair amount of trash littering property: cups, plastic, railroad waste, cement blocks, full trashcans, baskets and shopping carts full of trash, and an old deteriorating mattress. There is a strange little shack - use is not clear but it looks rather makeshift. While there is evidence of some intentional landscaping (trees surrounding by garden pavers), there is much weed overgrowth. Figure A3.33. Waste/old mattress dumped on property. The property is surrounded by TJ’s Mobile Home Park. chain link fence which is lined by wooden boards, cardboard, and other found materials to provide privacy. There is a decent amount of open underutilized land but it is currently covered in trash and discarded items, some of which may be an environmental concern. The park is a full gravel lot. No overhead nighttime lighting is observed. Homes have space next to and in front for parking. Figure A3.34. Trash on property. TJ’s Mobile Home Park.

Property  None amenities:

Mountain Ridge RV Park – (Sandbox Property)

Address 153 N. Ocotillo Drive Acreage 0.98 Spaces 16 DU per acre ≈ 16.3 Age restricted? No Year built 1950 Housing type Mobile home trailers (many pre-HUD) and RVs Figure A3.35. Old mobile home trailers showing signs of wear and tear. Mountain Ridge RV Park.

125

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Housing Fair/Poor Conditions This park is home to older pre- HUD mobile homes and trailers. While some are well-maintained and cared for, others are falling apart. There are some issues with foundation skirting falling apart, rust, discoloration, shoddy repairs. Housing conditions are difficult to an abundance of foliage and Figure A3.36. Airstream trailer with add-on room. screens that obscure the view Mountain Ridge RV Park. from the main drive in.

Porch/Yard Poor Conditions Many homes have makeshift porches and entryways that have been constructed and pieced

together using a number of Figure A3.37. Fenced in front yard with lots of clutter, various materials. Some homes various materials used to construct fence. Mountain Ridge achieve shading by stringing up an RV Park. assortment of sheets and tarps. The porch ceilings and carports sometimes cover resident homes or touch neighboring homes or carports which presents a serious fire hazard. Porches and yards have significant trash, clutter and discarded items. Figure A3.38. Front yard walls constructed with a number of different materials. Mountain Ridge RV Park.

Property Fair/Poor Conditions

An effort has been made by the property owner through landscaping, flower planting, decorating, etc. to create a peaceful and whimsical community. Homes are very close

Figure A3.39. Home with well-tended front yard. Mountain Ridge RV Park. 126

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

to one another and it is difficult to drive through the park safely. The driveway is paved and there are speed limit signs for drivers. Once you drive to the back of the park, the only way to turn your car around is by doing a multi-point turn and coming out the entry way. Each home is equipped with a parking spot next to the unit but Figure A3.40. Old mobile home trailer, showing signs of the close proximity of homes age-related wear and tear by well cared for. Mountain Ridge RV Park. makes parking a squeeze and ac concern. No overhead nighttime lighting is observed.

Property  Laundry facilities amenities:

Figure A3.41. Area under awning used for storage. Mountain Ridge RV Park.

Saguaro Springs – (Update Property)

Address 135 N. Ocotillo Drive Acreage .98 Spaces 12 DU per acre ≈ 12.2 Age restricted? No Year built 1969 Housing type Mobile home trailers and RVs

Figure A3.42. Old mobile home trailer underneath awning. Saguaro Springs.

127

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Housing Good/ Fair Conditions One of the older trailers in the front of the park is in poorer condition simply due to wear and tear from old age. However, there are newer units in the back end of the park that are in very decent Figure A3.43. Densely packed mobile home trailers. condition. No structural issues, no Saguaro Springs. damages, few aesthetic issues. Porch/Yard Fair Conditions

Room for porches and yard are limited. When residents do have a porch area, it is generally well- kept and tidy. The awnings above those porches present some concern as they do not always look sturdy and they are very close to neighboring homes which may be a hazard.

Property Fair Figure A3.44. Site built apartments to supplement mobile home units. Saguaro Springs. Conditions Not luxurious but it is clean and well-maintained. The park is fully gravel but this gravel has been brought in from an outside source. The owner has enhanced the property with landscaping and a fountain. There is boat, trailer and vehicle storage located in the back of the property. There are signs that indicate the speed limit for residents and visitors. There is no waste, clutter or plant life Figure A3.45. A view of the gravel lot mobile home park. overgrowth. There is a good Saguaro Springs. amount of usable space near the back of the park. Currently there is a table and chairs for residents to use under a tall shade tree in this area. When this site was visited, many of the tenants were outside of their units, socializing and tending to their homes. There is

128

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

not adequate parking space between the homes like in many of the other parks so most residents park in front of their homes or wherever they can find space in the park.

Property  Table and chairs under amenities: shade tree

Figure A3.46. Table and chairs for residents to use set up underneath a large shade tree. Saguaro Springs.

Quiet Village RV Park - (Sandbox Property)

Address 330 N. Saguaro Drive Acreage 0.61 Spaces 3 DU per acre ≈ 4.9 Age restricted? No Year built 1948 Housing type Mobile home trailers and RVs

Figure A3.47. Site built building near the front of the Housing Poor property. Quiet Village RV Park. Conditions Units inside the park are very old trailers. Their housing quality is rated poor due to their age and wear and tear. No serious structural damage was observed, but homes are afflicted by some body damage, discolorations, etc. There are two site built buildings on the property but it is difficult to tell the nature of these buildings. Figure A3.48. Old mobile home trailers showing age- related signs of wear and tear. Quiet Village RV Park.

129

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Porch/Yard Fair Conditions There is some trash and discarded items on the porches. There is some weed growth. Conditions are not alarming.

Property Fair Conditions The property is fully gravel and it is difficult to drive into the property. There is no signage for speed limits or directional arrows. There is a clear layout to the property, but due to its size and the number of units, it appear that this “park” is actually someone’s own residential lot on which they added a couple of trailers for renters. One overhead nighttime light is observed but it appears to be at a significant distance. There is a designated space for parking next to each unit.

Property  None amenities:

Shady Village MH Park – (Sandbox)

Address 287 N. Ocotillo Drive Acreage .98 Spaces Difficult to Determine DU per acre Difficult to Determine Age restricted? No Year built 1960 Housing type Predominantly RVs and fifth wheels

Figure A3.49. Site built home on property. Shady Village MH Park. 130

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Housing Fair Conditions Though some units are a bit dated, they are not in poor condition. No structural damages, aesthetic concerns. Units seem clean and well-cared for by residents.

Porch/Yard Conditions Fair Yards and patios are quite messy. Figure A3.50. Front porch/yard strewn with waste. Shady Unlike many of the other Village MH Park. properties, it does not appear that this mess is an accumulation of trash, just items that could be better stored in a unit out of site.

Property Fair Conditions There is a clear direction for driving through the park. While the lot is entirely gravel units are simply placed on the land, there is some logic and organization to their placement. The property is not luxurious but it seems to be well-maintained. Not a lot of trash or plan overgrowth. There is a significant amount of space in the back of the park. There are more mailboxes than units in the park so the extra space is likely reserved for more units. There does not seem to be any sort of communal space for residents nor is there any overhead nighttime lighting. Units do not have a formal designated parking spot so residents simply park next to or in front of units wherever they can find the space. This does not seem to be a formalized park, but rather a plot of land where people can park their homes for a fee.

131

Block Group 4, Census Tract 3.08

Property  None amenities:

Key Findings

 The housing in high priority parks in this block group is generally older trailers and RVs. The housing is in generally poor condition and tends to be afflicted by aesthetic deficiencies and in need of repair.  Half of the properties in this block group are unpaved and units more or less haphazardly placed throughout the lot. Of those properties, there is usually at least one site built home around which RVs or trailers have been placed as rental properties.  With the exception of the Desert Queen Mobile Home Park (host to mainly RVs, many of which belong to out-of-towners), the housing units in this block group are likely home to mainly full- time Apache Junction residents.  This block group is experiencing a state of transition, losing a significant amount of its population and housing units. This loss may be linked with an increasing poverty rate, far greater than any other block group in the study.  This block group is a good location for lower-income households to reside. Though most errands require a car, households are within a reasonable enough walking distance from Apache Junction’s main thoroughfare and accompanying businesses if they lacked access to reliable transportation.

132

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Block Group Designation: Priority 2

Size: ≈ .50 square miles

Geographic parameters:

 Apache Trail (South)  Ironwood Dr (West)  Superstition Blvd (North)  State Rte 88 (East)

Number of high priority mobile home/RV parks: 1

 Bungay Rentals

Figure A4.1. Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Geographic characteristics:

Block Group 2 in Census Tract 3.09 is diverse in terms of development. Characterized by low-density single family development, mobile home and RV parks, commercial development and government uses, this block group has many uses. Commercial development is concentrated along the south side of the block group, running along Apache Trail. Single family housing is concentrated on the west side of the block group closer to Ironwood Dr. The block group is home to a very large age-restricted RV resort located running the length of the block group from the north to south end. Located in the north east corner of the block group is a number of governmental uses including the Unites States Post Office, the Social Security office, A Fired Department and the MVD. With a population of 1,225, this block group has a density of 2,450 people per square mile. This density is on the lower side compared to all of the other block groups in this study. A contributing factor may be related the amount of undeveloped land in this block group. Measured from the center of the block group, this block group earns a walk score of 31/100 and a bike score of 53/100. Restaurants and convenience stores can be found nearby, both inside the block group along Apache Trail and just outside of the block group on along the south side of Apache Trail. However, the closest grocery store is nearly 1.5 miles away making it difficult for a resident of this block group to fulfill at least some of their basic needs without reliable transportation.

133

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Proximity to daily needs:

Proximity to Nearest… Distance… Description…. Inside Block Group?

Grocery Store: 1.0 Miles Fry’s Marketplace No

Convenience Store/Gas 0.7 Miles Circle K Yes Station: Bank: 0.5 Miles Chase Bank Yes

Health Services: 1.0 Miles Heavens Urgent Care No

Pharmacy: 0.8 Miles CVS Pharmacy No

Police Station: 0.8 Miles Apache Junction Police No Department

Fire Department: 0.4 Miles District Station 261 Yes

Faith Communities: 0.3 Miles Epiphany of Christ Lutheran No Church

0.4 Miles Shree Swaminayaran Gurukul No

Education: 1.5 Miles Four Peaks Elementary School No

2.2 Miles Cactus Canyon Junior High School No

2.4 Miles Apache Junction High School No

1.4 Miles Central Arizona College No

Recreation/Community 0.8 Miles Flatiron Park Yes Space:

Figure A4.2. Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09, Proximity to Daily Needs. Measured with Google Maps from the geographic center of the block group estimated 499 N Rennick Dr, Apache Junction.

134

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Zoning

This block group is diversely zoned. Much of the land towards the west side of the block group is zoned for medium density single-family detached housing that allows for conventional and manufactured housing. Further east there is a large swath of land zoned as both a recreational vehicle park and a mobile home park where the density of housing increases considerable. Land along the east border of the block group is zoned for City Center development which allows for commercial, recreational and multiple family residential land uses. This is land where the City is trying to direct downtown development. The northeast corner of the block group is zoned for public and institutional uses, where many local government buildings are located. Most of the land running along Apache Trail, Apache Junctions main thoroughfare is zoned for commercial development. There is a 6.72 acre plot of land in the very middle of the block group that is incongruous with the rest of the block group, but this land is vacant.

Zoning Districts – Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

B-1 General Commercial. Generally intended for commercial uses that serve a local and regional market.

B-2 Old West Commercial. Generally intended for commercial uses located within the Downtown Transition Area.

B-3 City Center. Generally intended for commercial, recreational and/or multi-family residential land uses located within the Core Downtown Area.

MHP Manufactured Home Park. Maximum density of 14 units/acre and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

PI Public and Institutional. Generally intended for public, quasi-public and institutional uses.

RM-1 High Density Multiple-Family Residential. Maximum density of 13 units/acre (i.e., 3,350 square feet per unit) and minimum development parcel size of 7,000 square feet.

RM-2 High Density Multiple-Family Residential. Maximum density of 22 units/acre (i.e., 1,980 square feet per unit) and minimum development parcel size of 7,000 square feet.

RS-20 Medium Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Allows only conventional housing.

RS-GR General Rural Low Density Single-Family Detached Residential. Minimum lot size of 1.25 acres. Allows both conventional and manufactured housing.

RVP Recreational Vehicle Park. Maximum density of 20 units/acre max and minimum development parcel size of 10 acres.

PD Planned Development Overlay. Generally intended for site and building design flexibility in accordance with Vol. II, § 1-4-3. Figure A4.3. Zoning Districts in Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09. Retrieved from The City of Apache Junction.

135

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

City of Apache Junction. Apache of City . Retrieved from . Retrieved Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09 Tract Group 2, Census Block

- Zoning Map Map Zoning

Figure A4.4. Figure

136

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Demographics

This block group is largely characterized by older, low-income, white households. The median age in this census block group is 68 – significantly older than Apache Junction’s already comparatively high median age of 58. This block group has the highest median age of all block groups in the study.

Figure A4.5. Comparison of Median Age across Block Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Though this block groups percentage of households living below the poverty line is just a couple of percentage points above Apache Junction’s the median household income is much lower – more than $7,000 less – however, it is steadily increasing. Between the years of 2013 and 2017, median income in this block group increased by $848.50, at a rate of 2.92% per year.

The median income in this block group is increasing at a greater rate than Apache, Junction, Pinal County and Arizona as a whole.

In spite of this increase in median income, poverty is rising. Between 2013 and 2017, poverty rose from 18.8% to 21.40%. During the same time period population in this block group increased by 360 persons from 865 to 1225. Paired with the increase in the poverty rate, we can surmise that the population that has moved into the block group between these years represents higher percentage of low-income individuals. However, because median household income increased overall, there are some households moving into the block group who are of a higher income.

Figure A4.6. Comparison of Change in Median Household Income between 2013 and 137 2017. 2013, 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov. Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

The increase in poverty rate observed between 2013 and 2017 could be attributed to the population increase observed during the same period. During this time, population increased by 360 people.

Figure A4.7. Comparison of Percent of Households Living below the Poverty Level across Block Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Residents in this block group are mainly non-Hispanic white. Just 1.9% of residents in this block group are Hispanic or Latino compared to 14.5% in Apache Junction as a whole.

Residents in this block group have a lesser extent of educational attainment than Apache Junction as a whole. While there are fewer residents in this block group who received no schooling, compared to Apache Junction, residents in this block group are more likely to have only achieved a High School Diploma. In Apache Junction, residents are most likely to have at least achieved some college.

Figure A4.8. Comparison of Educational Attainment. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5- Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

138

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Block Group Apache Pinal County Maricopa Arizona 2, Census Junction County Tract 3.09 Population: 1,225 38,452 405,537 4,155,501 6,809,946 Median Age: 68 52.2 38.5 36 37.2 Median Household Income: $32,422 $39,119 $52,628 $58,580 $53,510

Household Income Below 21.40% 19.5% 14.6% 13.6% 15.0% Poverty Level Hispanic or Latino by Origin Not Hispanic or Latino 98.1% 85.5% 70.4% 69.4% 69.1% Hispanic or Latino 1.9% 14.5% 29.6% 30.6% 30.9% Race White 97.2% 91.0% 80.4% 78.0% 77.5% Black or African American 0.0% 1.2% 4.5% 5.4% 4.3%

American Indian and Alaska 0.0% 1.8% 5.0% 1.9% 4.4% Native Asian 0.0% 1.2% 1.7% 3.9% 3.1%

Native Hawaiian and Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% Pacific Islander Some other race 0.0% 1.7% 4.4% 7.1% 7.0% Two or more races 2.8% 3.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% Educational Attainment No Schooling Completed 1.5% 2.1% 1.3% 1.5% 1.5%

High School Diploma 43.8% 19.7% 23.5% 19.2% 20.1% GED or Alternative Credential 0.0% 3.8% 6.4% 3.5% 4.0% Some College, No Degree 34.2% 22.1% 27.6% 24.4% 25.3% Associate’s Degree 5.2% 7.8% 9.2% 8.5% 8.6% Bachelor’s Degree 7.2% 17.8% 11.9% 20.0% 17.8% Master’s Degree 0.6% 7.1% 5.2% 8.3% 7.7%

Professional School Degree 0.0% 1.9% 0.7% 1.9% 1.8% Doctorate Degree 0.0% 1.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2%

Figure A4.9. Selected Demographics. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

139

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Current Housing Characteristics

In this block group, mobile homes make up 74% of housing stock. This is nearly 30% more than the housing stock in Apache Junction as a whole. Compared to the City, this block group has a similar percentage of attached housing but a significantly less amount of single-family detached housing.

Figure A4.10. Housing Stock Distribution of Block Group 2, Figure A4.11. Housing Stock Distribution Apache Junction. Census Tract 3.09. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5- 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov. Retrieved from census.gov.

In total, housing stock decreased by 4 units, so the percentage change in housing stock type gives a clear indication of how housing construction has affected the area. Mobile housing stock has decreased by approximately 15%. In its place we see an increase in decreased, attached and boat, van and RV housing stock.

Figure A4.12. Change in Housing Type of Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09 between 2013 and 2017. 2013, 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

The median house value in this block group is just $46,600, more than $40,000 less than the median house value of Apache Junction as a whole. Not only is this figure low compared to Apache Junction and surrounding geographies, it is low compared to most of the of the block groups in this study.

140

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Figure A4.13. Comparison of Median House Values. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

This low average home value is likely related to the high percentage of mobile home units in the block group. The median gross rent in this block group is nearly $200 less than in Apache Junction, and it is the lowest among other block groups in this study.

Similar to the City and surrounding geographies, the majority of households in this block group are families at nearly 60%. In Apache Junction the percent of family households is just a bit more at 63.5%, however the average household size in Apache Junction is significantly more than the block group being studied (2.31 compared to 1.94). Taking into consideration the median age of this particular block group, it can be surmised that while the percentage of families in the block group is similar to Apache Junction, many of the families are of smaller sizes – perhaps just retired husband and wife pairs.

Figure A4.14. Comparison of Median Gross Rent across Block Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

The rate of owner occupied housing in this block group is not only high compared to Apache Junction, it is also high compared to all other surrounding geographies. This figure may also be related to the demographics, specifically in terms of age, of the residents living in this block group.

141

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Interestingly, while the population of this block group increased by 360 persons between 2013 and 2017, the number of housing units fell by four. During this same time period the vacancy rate of housing units decreased from 46.2% to 39.3%. The change in housing stock type indicates that households moving into this block group were not just moving into existing vacant housing, but that housing was being redeveloped at a nearly net zero gain. Population density is increasing in this block group, but this is not paired with any increase in housing units.

Figure A4.15. Comparison of the Change in Vacancy Rate across Block Groups. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

Block Group Apache Pinal County Maricopa Arizona 2, Census Junction County Tract 3.09 Total Housing Units: 1,042 21,990 168,786 1,699,628 2,941,894

Vacancy: 39.3% 24.7% 20.9% 12.4% 15.6%

Total Occupied Housing 632 16,550 133,513 1,489,533 2,482,311 Units

Owner Occupied 82.8% 72.8% 72.6% 61.0% 63.1%

Renter Occupied 17.2% 27.2% 27.4% 39.0% 36.9%

Detached 19.8% 38.4% 73.3% 64.7% 63.9% Attached 5.6% 11.0% 6.9% 30.0% 25.2% Mobile Home 73.8% 47.6% 19.0% 5.1% 10.5% Boat, RV, Van, etc. 0.9% 3.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% Median Gross Rent 579 764 1014 1033 972

Median House Value 46,600 90,600 157,200 225,000 193,200

Average Persons per 1.94 2.31 2.85 2.75 2.68 Household Family Households 59.8% 63.5% 69.9% 65.5% 65.4%

Figure A4.16. Selected Housing Data. 2017 American Consumer Survey Data, 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from census.gov.

142

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

High-priority mobile home and RV parks

Block Group 2 in Census Tract 3.09 holds one high-priority mobile home or RV parks, as designated by City of Apache Junction officials.

20. Bungay Rentals

Figure A4.17. High-priority Mobile Home and RV Parks in Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09. Retrieved from Google Maps.

The following section will provide greater detail on housing conditions within each of these parks.

Bungay Rentals – (Sandbox Property)

Address 526 N. Gold Drive Acreage 1 Spaces Unable to determine DU per acre Unable to determine Age restricted? No Year built 1951 Housing type Mobile home trailers and RVs

Figure A4.18. Old mobile home trailers showing signs of wear and tear, yet well-maintained and tidy. Bungay Rentals.

Housing Poor/Fair Conditions Homes in this park are very old and worn. Units are afflicted by things like broken windows, sun- bleached paint, body damage, boarded up windows. Some of the RVs that are parked in the

Figure A4.19. Mobile home trailer with a landscaped front yard. Bungay Rentals. 143

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

property appear to be in very decent condition.

Porch/Yard Poor Conditions

Many of the units have their own Image 4.20. Mobile home trailer with fenced in front yard, tidy fenced of yards made out of appearance. Bungay Rentals. various materials including lattices, chain link and iron. Many of the yards have a significant amount of trash, waste, clutter and weeds. Some units are so tightly packed together that there is no room for porches or yards.

Property Poor Conditions The units on this lot are not Image 4.21. Trailer with mobile home remnants. Bungay organized in any logical order. The Rentals. entire lot is gravel and homes seem to be randomly and sporadically distributed across the lot. Because of this, there is a significant amount of underutilized land on the property. There is lots of trash and clutter throughout the property. As far as communal areas, there is a corner of the park that has a significant amount of space devoted to an altar of sorts. It is unclear if this fulfills a specific Image 4.22. A view of the dirt lot property on which mobile religious need or is simply for homes are placed. Bungay Rentals. decoration. It is unclear if resident use this area. No overhead nighttime lighting was observed in the park. There are no real designated spots for parking – residents park wherever they can find the room.

Property  None amenities:

144

Figure A4.20. Mobile home trailer with fenced in front yard, tidy appearance. Bungay Rentals.

Figure A4.21. Trailer with mobile home remnants. Bungay Rentals.

Figure A4.22. A view of the dirt lot property on which mobile homes are placed. Bungay Rentals.

Block Group 2, Census Tract 3.09

Key Findings

 This block group is hold predominantly mobile housing units, likely due to the very large mobile home park that occupies nearly 1/3 of the block group.  The housing stock outside of this park is changing, with the proportion of mobile housing units decreasing and single family detached housing increasing.  Vacancy rates are decreasing indicating a demand for the new housing being constructed in this block group.  Surrounded by underdeveloped land and aging properties, and as one of the only mobile home parks of such poor condition, Bungay Rentals may come under threat of redevelopment in the future if the trend of single family detached home development continues.

145

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.09

Block Group Designation: Priority 4

Size: ≈ 1 square mile

Geographic parameters:

 Superstition Blvd (South)  Ironwood Dr (West)  Lost Dutchman Blvd (North)  Idaho Rd (East)

Number of high priority mobile home/RV parks: 2

 Casa Del Camino  Roundup MH Park Figure A5.1. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.09. Retrieved from Google Maps.

Geographic characteristics:

Block Group 1 in Census Tract 3.09 is diverse in terms of residential development. Housing stock includes low-density single-family detached housing, medium to high-density mobile park and RV community development, and medium to high-density multi-family attached housing. There is not a significant amount of commercial development in this block group and what commercial development there is, is mostly contained to specialty commercial retail development and office space. At 1 square mile, this block group has a very low relative population density of 1,853 people per square mile. Much of the land in this block group is undeveloped or vacant. Measured from the center of the block group, this block group has a walk score of 9/100 and a bike score of 38/100. For residents in this block group, having a car is absolutely critical to fulfilling daily needs, especially since nearby, walkable commercial development does not include many of those needs.

146

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.09

Proximity to daily needs:

Proximity to Nearest… Distance… Description…. Inside Block Group?

Grocery Store: 1.7 Miles Fry’s Marketplace No

Convenience Store/Gas 1.0 Miles Circle K No Station: Bank: 1.2 Miles Chase Bank No

Health Services: 1.7 Miles Heavens Urgent Care No

Pharmacy: 1.7 Miles Fry’s Marketplace Pharmacy No

Police Station: 0.9 Miles Apache Junction Police No Department Fire Department: 0.7 Miles District Station 261 No

Faith Communities: 0.6 Miles Epiphany of Christ Lutheran Yes Church

0.6 Miles Shree Swaminayaran Gurukul Yes

0.6 Miles Wings of Life Worship Center Yes

Education: 0.7 Miles Four Peaks Elementary School No

3.0 Miles Cactus Canyon Junior High School No

3.1 Miles Apache Junction High School No

2.2 Miles Central Arizona College No Recreation/Community 1.4 Miles Flatiron Park No Space: 1.4 Miles Prospector Park No Figure A5.2. Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.09, Proximity to Daily Needs. Measured with Google Maps from the geographic center of the block group estimated 798 W Teepee St, Apache Junction.

147

Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.09

Zoning

This block group is predominantly zoned for general rural low-density single-family detached residential development, especially toward the outer reaches of the block group near Lost Dutchman Blvd. There is land also a fair amount of medium density single-family detached housing distributed throughout the block group. Closer to Superstition Blvd to the South, near where the City is directing development for its City Center district, there is land zoned for higher-density development in the form of attached housing, mobile home and recreational vehicle parks.

Zoning Districts – Block Group 1, Census Tract 3.09