BRUCE COUNTY HOUSING STUDY
Final Report
MARCH 2005
12981 Keele Street, Suite #3 King City, ON L7B 1G2 www.shs-inc.ca
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Advisory Committee members for their input and assistance during the preparation of this report.
These members include:
Name Organization Bill McDougall YMYWCA Chris LaForest County of Bruce Dave Barrett Saugeen Economic Development Dick Verrips Social Services and Homes, County of Bruce Don Bushell Bruce County Accessibility Committee Judith Binder CMHC Mary Cumming Arran-Elderslie Molly McDowall Saugeen Shores Rick Hill Community Living Owen Sound and District Ross Lamont Community and Government Relations Bruce Power Russ Coultrup ReMax Kindardine Susan Earle County of Bruce Trish Borho Formosa Seniors Non Profit Housing
In addition we would also like to thank all the community partners for their time and input for this study. A list of these community partners is provided in the Appendix 11.
Consulting Team:
The consulting firm, SHS Inc., prepared the Bruce County Affordable Housing Study. The consulting team for this study was comprised of:
Christine Pacini, Principal, SHS Inc. Edward Starr, Principal, SHS Inc. Jodi Ball, Senior Policy Analyst, SHS Inc Spencer Ferdinands, Research Analyst, SHS Inc.
12981 Keele Street, Suite #3 King City, ON L7B 1G2 905.833.1313 www.shs-inc.ca
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE – HOUSING DEMAND AND SUPPLY ANALYSIS...... 1
1 INTRODUCTION...... 2 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 2 1.2 STUDY DESCRIPTION ...... 2 1.3 STUDY APPROACH AND FORMAT...... 3 1.3.1 Bruce County Affordable Housing Strategy Advisory Committee...... 3 1.3.2 Statistics Canada Data...... 4 1.3.3 Municipalities within Bruce County ...... 5 2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS...... 7 2.1 OVERVIEW ...... 7 2.2 PERMANENT POPULATION GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION...... 7 2.2.1 Comparative Population Growth Rates ...... 7 2.2.2 Trends in Population Growth by Municipality...... 8 2.2.3 Trends in Age Distribution ...... 12 2.3 HOUSEHOLD GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION ...... 14 2.3.1 Trends in Household Growth...... 14 2.3.2 Trends in Household Size ...... 16 2.3.3 Trends in Household Type ...... 17 2.4 ECONOMIC INDICATORS ...... 19 2.4.1 Economic Overview...... 19 2.4.2 Labour Force Activity by Municipality ...... 22 2.4.3 Labour Force Activity by Industry ...... 23 2.4.4 Labour force Activity by Industry by Municipality ...... 26 2.4.5 Labour Force Activity by Occupation...... 27 2.4.6 Labour Force Wage Rates by Occupation...... 27 2.4.7 Rates of Unemployment...... 28 2.5 INCOME ANALYSIS ...... 28 2.5.1 Trends in Household Income...... 28 2.5.2 Household Income by Municipality ...... 30 2.5.3 Incidence of Low Income...... 34 2.6 SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS...... 37 3 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK ...... 39 3.1 TRENDS IN DWELLING TYPES...... 39 3.1.1 Overall Mix in Dwelling Types ...... 39 3.1.2 Mix in Dwelling Types by Municipality ...... 40 3.2 TRENDS IN TENURE ...... 42 3.2.1 Trends in Housing Tenure...... 42 3.2.2 Housing Tenure by Municipality ...... 43 3.3 CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK ...... 45
3.3.1 Age of Housing Stock...... 45 3.3.2 Age of Rental Housing Stock...... 48 3.3.3 Age of Ownership Housing Stock...... 50 3.3.4 Condition of Permanent Dwellings ...... 53 3.4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK ...... 55 4 HOME OWNERSHIP MARKET...... 57 4.1 ROLE OF OWNERSHIP MARKET ...... 57 4.2 TRENDS IN OWNERSHIP TENURE ...... 58 4.3 PROPORTION OF OWNED DWELLINGS ...... 59 4.3.1 Ownership Housing Building Types for Bruce County, 1996 and 2001 ...... 60 4.3.2 Ownership Housing by Building Type throughout Bruce County...... 62 4.4 AGE OF HOMEOWNERS ...... 64 4.5 COST OF OWNERSHIP HOUSING ...... 66 4.5.1 Resale Data...... 66 4.6 HOMEOWNERSHIP AFFORDABILITY ...... 69 4.6.1 Trends in Mortgage Rates...... 69 4.6.2 Comparison of House Prices to Income Ranges...... 70 4.6.3 Comparing 1995 and 2000 Owner Incomes for Bruce County and Ontario 71 4.6.4 Income Ranges for Homeowners by Municipality...... 74 4.6.5 Proportion of Income Spent on Ownership Costs...... 74 4.7 SUMMARY OF HOME OWNERSHIP MARKET ...... 78 5 RENTAL HOUSING MARKET...... 79 5.1 ROLE OF RENTAL HOUSING MARKET...... 79 5.2 TRENDS IN RENTAL TENURE...... 79 5.3 DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL DWELLINGS ...... 81 5.4 RENTAL HOUSING BUILDING TYPES ...... 81 5.4.1 Rental Building Types in Bruce County, 1996 and 2001 ...... 81 5.4.2 Rental Building Types by Municipality, 2001 ...... 83 5.5 AGE OF RENTER HOUSEHOLDS...... 85 5.6 RENTAL MARKET VACANCY RATES ...... 88 5.7 AVERAGE MARKET RENTS...... 88 5.8 RENT GEARED-TO-INCOME HOUSING ...... 92 5.8.1 The Social Housing Portfolio ...... 92 5.8.2 Social Housing Waiting List...... 95 5.9 RENTAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ...... 98 5.9.1 Affordable Rents...... 98 5.9.2 Comparing 1995 Renter Incomes to 2000 Renter Incomes for the Bruce County...... 99 5.9.3 Renter Incomes by Municipality in 2000...... 102 5.9.4 Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income for 1995 and 2000 for Bruce County and Ontario...... 102 5.9.5 Percentage of Income Spent on Rent by Municipality for 1995 and 2000 . 103 5.10 SUMMARY OF RENTAL HOUSING MARKET ...... 105 6 POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS...... 107
6.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS...... 107 6.1.1 Ministry of Finance Population Projections...... 107 6.1.2 Population Projections based on SHS Inc Analysis...... 109 6.2 PROJECTED AGE BREAKDOWNS ...... 114 6.2.1 Assumptions...... 114 6.3 HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS ...... 116 6.3.1 SHS Inc Assumptions...... 117 6.3.2 Household Size Projections...... 118 6.3.3 Projected Households ...... 120 6.4 SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS ...... 125 7 MEETING HOUSING PROJECTIONS ...... 127 7.1 RECENT HOUSING SUPPLY ACTIVITY...... 127 7.1.1 Historical Summary of New Residential Units by Dwelling Type and Municipality ...... 127 7.1.2 Recent Housing Starts (2003) by Dwelling Type and Municipality ...... 128 7.2 COMPARISON OF RECENT ACTIVITY TO PROJECTIONS ...... 130 7.3 INVENTORY OF DESIGNATED AND AVAILABLE LANDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 130 7.3.1 Draft Approved Lots by Area ...... 130 7.4 COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE LANDS TO PROJECTIONS ...... 131 7.5 SUMMARY OF COUNTY’S ABILITY TO MEET HOUSING PROJECTIONS...... 131 8 SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING...... 133 8.1 EMERGENCY AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ...... 133 8.2 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING...... 138 8.2.1 Housing for Persons with Mental Illness...... 138 8.2.2 Housing for Persons with Physical Disabilities and Mobility Impairments . 141 8.2.3 Housing for Persons with Developmental Delays...... 148 8.3 SENIORS HOUSING ...... 150 8.3.1 Population Growth...... 150 8.3.2 Household Income of Senior Households ...... 151 8.3.3 Seniors and Tenure...... 152 8.4 ABORIGINAL HOUSING ...... 154 8.4.1 The Native Population ...... 154 8.4.2 The Rural and Native Housing Program...... 155 8.5 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING ...... 156 9 SUMMARY OF HOUSING ANALYSIS...... 158
PART TWO – AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY...... 163
10 OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGY...... 164 10.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 164 10.2 POTENTIAL IMPEDIMENTS TO ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED GAPS ...... 164
10.3 POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED GAPS ...... 164 10.4 GAPS IN HOUSING SUPPLY...... 165 10.4.1 More Housing Options Required for Seniors ...... 165 10.4.2 Strategies are Needed to Cope with Impacts of Bruce Power Expansion 165 10.4.3 Greater Diversity is Needed in New Housing Supply...... 166 10.4.4 There is a Need to Expand the Supply of Affordable Housing ...... 166 10.4.5 There is a Need for Emergency and Transitional Housing in Bruce County 166 10.4.6 The Lack of Supportive Housing Needs to be Addressed...... 167 10.4.7 There is a Need to Improve the Condition of the Housing Stock ...... 167 11 STRATEGIES FOR MEETING HOUSING NEEDS...... 168 11.1 DEFINING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ...... 168 11.2 EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS FOR SENIORS ...... 170 11.2.1 Support Services ...... 170 11.2.2 Housing Options for Seniors ...... 170 11.2.3 Redevelopment of Bruce County Housing Corporation Properties ...... 172 11.3 STRATEGIES TO COPE WITH THE IMPACTS OF BRUCE POWER EXPANSION...... 172 11.4 APPROACHES TO ACHIEVE GREATER DIVERSITY IN NEW HOUSING SUPPLY ...... 173 11.4.1 Official Plans...... 173 11.4.2 Zoning Bylaws ...... 188 11.4.3 Provincial Policy Statement on Housing ...... 201 11.5 INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING...... 203 11.5.1 Development Costs to Build Affordable Rental Units...... 204 11.5.2 Creating the Environment to Provide Municipal Incentives...... 207 11.5.3 Municipal Property Taxes ...... 208 11.5.4 Development Charges and Fees ...... 211 11.5.5 Establishing an Affordable Housing Capital Reserve Fund...... 211 11.5.6 Availability of Affordable Sites...... 212 11.5.7 Public Education ...... 213 11.5.8 Alternate Development Standards ...... 214 11.5.9 Community Support for Affordable Housing...... 214 11.5.10 Reallocate Existing RGI Housing...... 215 11.5.11 Senior Government Policies and Regulations...... 215 11.5.12 Federal Government Funding Programs...... 217 11.5.13 Provincial Government Funding Programs ...... 222 11.5.14 Second Suites/Accessory Dwelling Units...... 223 11.5.15 Making Home Ownership an Option for More Residents...... 224 11.6 ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING...... 226 11.6.1 Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) ...... 227 11.6.2 Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) ...... 227 11.6.3 Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund (PHIF) ...... 227 11.6.4 Off the Street, Into Shelter Fund (OSIS) ...... 228 11.6.5 Redirection of Emergency Hostel Funding Initiative (REHF) ...... 228 11.6.6 Rent Bank ...... 229 11.6.7 Energy Emergencies...... 229
11.7 ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR MORE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ...... 229 11.7.1 Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Funding ...... 229 11.7.2 New Places to Live Initiative ...... 230 11.7.3 Universal Accessibility for the Design and Construction of Housing ...... 231 11.8 ADDRESSING THE NEED TO IMPROVE THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSING STOCK .... 232 11.8.1 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program ...... 233 11.8.2 Emergency Repair Program (ERP)...... 233 11.8.3 Demolition Control ...... 233 12 IMPLEMENTING THE HOUSING STRATEGY...... 235 13 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES ...... 236
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Labour force Activity by Industry and Municipality, 2000...... 245 APPENDIX 2: Occupation Characteristics for persons over the age of 15 throughout Bruce County and Municipalities, 2001 ...... 248 APPENDIX 3: Occupations And Wage Rates ...... 251 APPENDIX 4: : Homeowner Household Income Ranges by Municipality, Based on 2000 Incomes ...... 256 APPENDIX 5: Renter Household Income Ranges by Municipality, Based on 2000 Incomes ...... 258 APPENDIX 6: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 1995 Household Income for Tenant Households ...... 260 APPENDIX 7: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2000 Household Income for Tenant Households ...... 265 APPENDIX 8: New Residential Building Permits Issued by Type and Municipality, 1999 to 2003 ...... 270 APPENDIX 9: County Of Bruce – Draft Approved Lots (As Of November 30, 2004) ... 272 APPENDIX 10: Housing Background Study Survey ...... 276 APPENDIX 11: Key Informants...... 280 APPENDIX 12: List of Sources ...... 281 APPENDIX 13: Summary of Housing Supply Working Group Report...... 283
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparative Growth Rates, 1981-2001 ...... 7 Table 2: Historical Population by Municipality, 1986-2001 ...... 11 Table 3: Trends in Age Distribution, Bruce County ...... 13 Table 4: Trends in Household Growth by Municipality, 1986-2001 ...... 15 Table 5: Trends in Household Size by Municipality, 1991 to 2001 ...... 16 Table 6: Persons Per Household, Bruce County, 1986-2001...... 17 Table 7: Historical Population by Household Type by Municipality and Ontario, 1991- 2001 ...... 18 Table 8: Labour Force Activity by Municipality, 1991-2001 ...... 22 Table 9: Labour Force Activity by Industry For Bruce County, 1991 ...... 24 Table 10: Labour Force Activity by Industry For Bruce County, 1996 ...... 25 Table 11: Labour Force Activity by Industry For Bruce County, 2001 ...... 26 Table 12: Unemployment Rate Based on Statistics Canada Data ...... 28 Table 13: Comparison of Average Household Income, 1990-2000...... 29 Table 14: Comparison of Median Household Income, 1990-2000 ...... 29 Table 15: Median and Average Household Income by Municipality, 2000 Incomes...... 31 Table 16: Household Income Ranges by Municipality, 2001...... 32 Table 17: Incidence of Low Income by Municipality, Bruce County, 2001...... 36 Table 18: Occupied Private Dwellings, 1991-2001...... 39 Table 19: Occupied Private Dwellings by Municipality in Bruce County, 2001 ...... 41 Table 20: Trends in Tenure in Bruce County, 1986 to 2001...... 43 Table 21: Housing Tenure by Municipality in Bruce County, 1991-2001...... 44 Table 22: : Dwellings by Age of Construction by Municipality throughout ...... 46 Table 23: Age of Rental Housing Stock Throughout Bruce County (2001) ...... 49 Table 24: Age of Ownership Housing Stock Throughout Bruce County (2001)...... 52 Table 25: Conditions of Dwellings by Municipality throughout Bruce County, 2001 ...... 54 Table 26: Trends in Ownership Dwellings by Municipality...... 59 Table 27: Distribution of Ownership Dwellings by Municipality...... 60 Table 28: Proportion of Owned Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County ...... 61 Table 29: Ownership Dwellings by Housing Structure Throughout Bruce County and Ontario (2001)...... 62 Table 30: Age of Homeowners In Bruce County and Ontario...... 65 Table 31: Age of Homeowners By Municipality (2001)...... 65 Table 32: Sales Analysis for North Bruce and South Bruce County...... 67 Table 33: Total Sales for North and South Bruce...... 69 Table 34: Affordable Ownership Costs Based on Household Income,...... 71 Table 35: Income Distribution for Bruce County and Ontario Home Owners, 1996 and 2001 ...... 73 Table 36: Percentage of Income Spent on Ownership Costs in 1995 and 2000*...... 76 Table 37: Occupied Rental Dwellings by Area, 1991-2001 ...... 80 Table 38: Distribution of Rented Dwellings by Sub-Area, 2001...... 81 Table 39: Proportion of Rented Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County ...... 82
Table 40: Rented Dwellings by Housing Structure Throughout Bruce County and Ontario (2001)...... 84 Table 41: Age of Renters in Bruce County and Ontario ...... 86 Table 42: Age of Renters By Municipality (2001) ...... 87 Table 43: Utility Adjustments According to MPAC...... 89 Table 44: Rents for Bachelor Units According to MPAC ...... 90 Table 45: Rents for One-Bedroom Units According to MPAC ...... 90 Table 46: Rents for Two-Bedroom Units According to MPAC ...... 91 Table 47: Rents for Three-Bedroom Units According to MPAC ...... 91 Table 48: Rents for Four-Bedroom Units According to MPAC ...... 92 Table 49: Cost of Five-Bedroom Units According to MPAC ...... 92 Table 50: Breakdown of the Total Social Housing Portfolio by Mandate,...... 93 Table 51: Breakdown of Total Social Housing Portfolio by Housing Mandate...... 94 Table 52: Breakdown of the RGI Units by Mandate, ...... 94 Table 53: Geographic Location of Social Housing Portfolio, Bruce County, 2004...... 95 Table 54: Bruce County Community Housing Registry, ...... 97 Table 54: Bruce County Community Housing Registry, ...... 97 Table 55: Comparison of Household Income (2000) to Affordable Rents, ...... 99 Table 56: Income Distribution for Bruce County and Ontario Renters,...... 101 Table 57: Population Projections for Bruce County...... 108 Table 58: Population Growth Assumptions throughout Bruce County...... 110 Table 59: SHS Inc Population Projections for Bruce County...... 112 Table 60: Ministry of Finance Projected Population Shares by Age Group for Bruce County...... 115 Table 61: Projected Population By Age Group, 2001 - 2021...... 116 Table 62: Projected Change in Household Size, 2001 to 2021 ...... 118 Table 63: Predicted Average Household Sizes by Municipality, 2001 to 2021...... 119 Table 64: Projected Households throughout Bruce County, 2001 to 2021...... 121 Table 65: Additional Households/Dwelling Units Required throughout Bruce County, 2001 to 2021 ...... 122 Table 66: Annual Household/Dwelling Requirements by Municipality...... 123 Table 67: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In Kincardine...... 123 Table 68: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In Saugeen Shores ...... 124 Table 69: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In South Bruce Peninsula . 124 Table 70: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In Northern Bruce Peninsula ...... 125 Table 71: Building Permits Issued in 2003 by Dwelling Type and Municipality ...... 129 Table 72: Population Age 65+ by Municipality, 1996 and 2001...... 151 Table 73: Seniors and Housing Tenure in Bruce County 1996 and 2001 ...... 153 Table 74: Distribution of the Native Population Throughout Bruce County...... 155 Table 75: Minimum Floor Areas (in square metres) ...... 190 Table 76: Group Home Policies ...... 192 Table 77: Provision of Secondary/Garden Suites...... 197 Table 78: Parking Space Policies...... 199 Table 79: Table: Estimated Development Costs – 40 Unit Apartment Development .. 205 Table 80: Ratio of Multi-Residential to Residential Tax Rates, 2000...... 208
Table 81: Summary of 2004 Tax Rates by Municipality ...... 209 Table 82: Value for Municipal Tax Equalization Based on Present Value...... 210
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bruce County Geographic Area ...... 6 Figure 2: Comparative Growth Rates, 1981/86 to 1996/2001, ...... 8 Figure 3: Historical Population by Municipality (Proportion), 1986-2001 ...... 9 Figure 4: Historical Population by Municipality (Absolute Numbers), 1986-2001 ...... 10 Figure 5: Trends in Age Distribution, Bruce County ...... 12 Figure 6: Trends in Household Growth by Municipality, 1986-2001 ...... 14 Figure 7: Comparing 2000 Average and Median Incomes for Bruce, Bruce and Leeds and Grenville...... 30 Figure 8: Comparing Age of Dwellings with Bruce and Leeds and Grenville, 2001...... 47 Figure 9: Age of Rental Housing Stock in Bruce County...... 48 Figure 10: Age of Ownership Housing Stock in Bruce County ...... 51 Figure 11: A Comparison of the Condition of Dwellings, 2001 ...... 55 Figure 12: Proportion of Owned Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County 1996 and 2001 ...... 61 Figure 13: Age of Home Owners in Bruce County and Ontario...... 64 Figure 14: Total Sales for North and South Bruce...... 68 Figure 15: Mortgage Rates...... 70 Figure 16: Average and Median Income for Bruce County Homeowners,...... 72 Figure 17: Percentage of Income Spent on Ownership Costs in 1995 and 2000, in Bruce County...... 75 Figure 18: Proportion of Rented Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County...... 82 Figure 19: Age of Renter Households in Bruce County and Ontario ...... 86 Figure 20: Centralized Waiting List Summary, Bruce County,...... 96 Figure 21: Average and Median Income for Bruce County Renters, ...... 100 Figure 22: Proportion of Income Spent on Rent in Bruce County and Ontario, ...... 103 Figure 23: Comparing the Proportion of 2000 Incomes Spent on Rent for Renter Households in Bruce, Bruce and Leeds and Grenville ...... 105 Figure 24: SHS Inc Population Projections for Bruce County...... 113 Figure 25: Predicted Average Household Sizes by Municipality, 2001 to 2021...... 120 Figure 26: Projected Households throughout Bruce County, 2001 to 2021...... 121 Figure 27: Annual Summary of Building Permits Issues for New Units in ...... 128 Figure 28: Total Building Permits Issued in 2003 by Municipality...... 129 Figure 29: Total Number of Draft Approved Lots by Municipality, ...... 131 Figure 30: Women’s House of Bruce County Shelter Usage among Women and Children, 2000-2003...... 135 Figure 31: CLOSD Group Home Usage by Clients, 2002 and 2003 ...... 149
Bruce County Housing Study
PART ONE – HOUSING DEMAND AND SUPPLY ANALYSIS
1
Bruce County Housing Study
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Bruce County has been designated as Municipal Service Manager for the administration of social housing in Bruce County and works closely with housing providers, local municipalities, community-based service agencies, social housing residents and applicants and the community at large to try to meet local housing needs. The Joint Local Transfer Plan for Social Housing prepared and approved in 2001 sets out the approach though which its responsibilities as Service Manager are carried out.
Bruce County is comprised of eight municipalities and two native reserves. Bruce County has a total population of 63,892 as per the 2001 Census. The County is characterized by three different ‘regions’. The first region, the lakeshore, is the area along Lake Huron and includes the municipalities of Saugeen Shores and Kincardine. The second main region is the rural interior comprised mainly of agricultural communities. The north region is characterized by a more scattered population and includes the municipalities of South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula.
In view of the new housing responsibilities as Service Manager, Bruce County has decided to prepare a housing study to identify the range of housing needs facing the communities within the service area and to determine approaches to help meet these needs.
1.2 Study Description
The purpose of the Bruce County Housing Study is to develop a comprehensive community strategy to deal effectively with affordable housing issues throughout Bruce County. The preparation of the strategies involves an evaluation of the current housing situation, including factors affecting demand and supply, and the development of targets, programs and policy recommendations to help meet future housing needs across the area.
2
Bruce County Housing Study
1.3 Study Approach and Format
The study is being prepared in two phases. Part One is the Demand and Supply Analysis. This phase of the work includes a review of economic and demographic indicators that impact current and future housing needs, an evaluation of current housing supply activity, the definition of affordable housing in different areas of the county, and an assessment of special housing needs.
Part Two is the development of a comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy. This phase of the work involves the development of action plans and strategies to address the housing gaps identified in the demand and supply analysis.
A key element of the study is the establishment of an Advisory Committee comprised of key stakeholders from all levels of government, non-profit and community groups and private industry.
1.3.1 Bruce County Affordable Housing Strategy Advisory Committee
The Advisory Committee will bring a comprehensive perspective to the identification of housing needs and issues in Bruce County. Membership includes representation from:
1 Upper and lower tier municipal government 2 Real Estate 3 Special Needs Housing 4 Non Profit Housing 5 Major employer 6 Private sector builder 7 Federal Government 8 Economic Development
3
Bruce County Housing Study
1.3.2 Statistics Canada Data1
The majority of the data for this study was obtained from Statistics Canada Census. According to the Statistics Canada census dictionary, most of the data were collected either from 100% of the households or on a sample basis (i.e. from a random sample of one in five households) with the data weighted to provide estimates for the entire population. The sample data was collected on a 20% sample basis and weighted to compensate for sampling. It should also be noted that for any given geographic area, the weighted population, household, dwelling or family total or subtotal may differ from that shown in reports containing data collected on a 100% basis. Such variations are due to sampling and to the fact that, unlike sample data, 100% data do not exclude institutional residents.
1 Statistics Canada provides the following explanation about confidentiality and random rounding. “The figures shown in the tables have been subjected to a confidentiality procedure known as random rounding to prevent the possibility of associating statistical data with any identifiable individual. Under this method, all figures, including totals and margins, are randomly rounded either up or down to a multiple of .5., and in some cases .10.. While providing strong protection against disclosure, this technique does not add significant error to the census data. The user should be aware that totals and margins are rounded independently of the cell data so that some differences between these and the sum of rounded cell data may exist. Also, minor differences can be expected in corresponding totals and cell values among various census tabulations. Similarly, percentages, which are calculated on rounded figures, do not necessarily add up to 100%. Order statistics (median, quartiles, percentiles, etc.) and measures of dispersion such as the standard error are computed in the usual manner. When a statistic is defined as the quotient of two numbers (which is the case for averages, percentages, and proportions), the two numbers are rounded before the division is performed. For income, owner’s payments, value of dwelling, hours worked, weeks worked and age, the sum is defined as the product of the average and the rounded weighted frequency.
Otherwise, it is the weighted sum that is rounded. It should also be noted that small cell counts may suffer a significant distortion as a result of random rounding. Individual data cells containing small numbers may lose their precision as a result. Also, a statistic is suppressed if the number of actual records used in the calculation is less than 4 or if the sum of the weight of these records is less than 10. In addition, for values expressed in dollar units, other rules are applied. For standard products, if all the values are the same, the statistic is suppressed. For all other products, the statistic is suppressed if the range of the values is too narrow or if all values are less than, in absolute value, to a specified threshold.
Users should be aware of possible data distortions when they are aggregating these rounded data. Imprecisions as a result of rounding tend to cancel each other out when data cells are re-aggregated. However, users can minimize these distortions by using, whenever possible, the appropriate subtotals when aggregating. For those requiring maximum precision, the option exists to use custom tabulations. With custom products, aggregation is done using individual census database records. Random rounding occurs only after the data cells have been aggregated, thus minimizing any distortion.” (Catalogue # 92- 378 XIE, 2001 Census Dictionary reference, p. 295).
4
Bruce County Housing Study
1.3.3 Municipalities within Bruce County
The Study Area covers the 8 municipalities and the 2 reserves comprising Bruce County. These include:
2001 Census Name 1986, 1991 and 1996 Census Areas Carrick, TP Mildmay, VL South Bruce, TP Culross, TP Teeswater, VL Kinloss, TP Huron-Kinloss, TP Lucknow, VL Huron, TP Kincardine, TP Kincardine, T Kincardine, TP Bruce, TP Tiverton, VL Greenock, TP Brockton, TP Brant, TP Walkerton, T Elderslie, TP Chesley, T Arran-Elderslie, TP Paisley, VL Arran, TP Tara, VL Saugeen, TP Saugeen Shores, T Port Elgin, T Southampton, T Amabel, TP Hepworth, VL South Bruce Peninsula, T Wiarton, Albemarle, TP Eastnor, TP Lion's Head, VL Northern Bruce Peninsula TP Lindsay, TP St. Edmunds, TP Cape Croker/Neyaashiinigmiing Data has been suppressed in the 1991, 1996 and 2001 Saugeen, R Saugeen, Reserve (data was suppressed in the 1991 Census)
Please note that Statistics Canada suppressed the data for Cape Croker during the 1991, 1996 and 2001 census years. In other words, even though the figures for Bruce County overall contain data for the Reserve, they did not publish the data for the Reserve on its own.
5
Bruce County Housing Study
The following map shows the area under study.
Figure 1: Bruce County Geographic Area
Source: http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/map_town.htm
6
Bruce County Housing Study
2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Overview
A number of demographic, social and economic conditions give rise to the demand for housing in a community. This section reviews the various changing demographic, social and economic conditions within Bruce County. It focuses on population and household characteristics, population and household growth forecasts, economic characteristics and income characteristics of the area residents.
2.2 Permanent Population Growth and Distribution
Statistics Canada data shows that in 2001, Bruce County contained a permanent population of 63,892. This represents a 2.7% decrease in population over the 1996- 2001 period. Ontario, however, has seen a population increase of 6.1% over the same period.
2.2.1 Comparative Population Growth Rates
The following Table shows that the permanent population for Bruce County has declined between 1991 and 2001. With the exception of 10.9% growth between 1986 and 1991, the County has experienced very little growth over the last twenty years. The Province, however, has experienced steady growth throughout this period.
Table 1: Comparative Growth Rates, 1981-2001 Actual Population Area 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 Bruce County 60,020 58,848 65,268 65,680 63,892 Ontario 8,625,107 9,101,694 10,084,885 10,753,573 11,410,046 Percentage Increase/Decrease Area 1981-1986 1986-91 1991-96 1996-01 1991-2001 Bruce County -2.0% 10.9% 0.6% -2.7% -2.1% Ontario 5.5% 10.8% 6.6% 6.1% 13.1% Statistics Canada; 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada Note: The Bruce County total contains population counts for the 8 Municipalities and the two Reserves
7
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 2: Comparative Growth Rates, 1981/86 to 1996/2001, Bruce County and Ontario
13.1% 1991-2001 -2.1%
6.1% 1996-01 -2.7%
1991-96 6.6% 0.6%
Time Period Time 10.8% 1986-91 10.9%
5.5% 1981-1986 -2.0%
-4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% Percent Growth/Decline
Bruce County Ontario
Statistics Canada; 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada.
2.2.2 Trends in Population Growth by Municipality
The following Table shows the population change by municipality from 1986 to 2001. This Table illustrates the different growth rates for the municipalities of Bruce County. For example, the proportion of the people living in the northern municipalities of South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula has increased from 15.7% in 1986 to 18.3% in 2001. The municipality of Huron-Kinloss is the only other municipality to show an increase in its proportion of the population.
Overall, most municipalities saw a modest increase in absolute population over the fifteen year period. The municipalities of South Bruce, Kincardine and Brockton, however, all experienced a decrease in absolute population over this period.
Over the last five years, however, all municipalities with the exception of South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula have shown a population decrease. One of the major causes of the decline was the declining levels of employment at the Bruce Nuclear plant during the mid-1990’s.
Notably, the increase in population within the municipalities of South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula is likely a result of their location in the north. They are surrounded by Georgian Bay on the east and Lake Huron on the west. This location has long been a destination for cottagers and tourists and makes a likely attraction for an aging population.
8
Bruce County Housing Study
The Saugeen Reserve has also shown an increase in population, from 587 in 1986 to 638 in 2001. Indeed, recent Statistics Canada data shows that Canada’s Aboriginal population has been increasing at a much greater rate than the population as a whole in most areas of the country.
Figure 3: Historical Population by Municipality (Proportion), 1986-2001
25.0
n 20.0
15.0
10.0
Proportion of Bruce Populatio 5.0
0.0 South Huron- Kincardine Brockton Arran- Saugeen South Northern Bruce Kinloss Elderslie Shores Bruce Bruce Peninsula Peninsula Municipality
1986 1991 1996 2001
Source: Statistics Canada: 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada.
9
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 4: Historical Population by Municipality (Absolute Numbers), 1986-2001
14,000 n 12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000 Proportion of Bruce Populatio
0
e ie la ce ss n on res i t rsl ck insu o lde n th Bru ncard e u n-Kinlo i Br P Peninsula o ro K n-E e c S ra u Hu Ar ruce Saugeen Sho B th rn Br rthe Sou o N Municipality
1986 1991 1996 2001
Source: Statistics Canada: 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada.
10
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 2: Historical Population by Municipality, 1986-2001 1986 1991 1996 2001
Area # % # % # % # % South Bruce 5,877 10.0 6,175 9.5 6,248 9.5 6,063 9.5 Huron-Kinloss 4,870 8.3 6,149 9.4 6,284 9.6 6,224 9.7 Kincardine 11,214 19.1 12,134 18.6 11,908 18.1 11,029 17.3 Brockton 9,915 16.8 10,100 15.5 10,163 15.5 9,658 15.1 Arran-Elderslie 6,236 10.6 6,711 10.3 6,851 10.4 6,577 10.3 Saugeen Shores 10,542 17.9 11,838 18.1 12,084 18.4 11,388 17.8
South Bruce Peninsula 6,511 11.1 7,734 11.8 8,004 12.2 8,090 12.7
Northern Bruce Peninsula 2,718 4.6 3,292 5.0 3,500 5.3 3,599 5.6 Saugeen R 587 1.0 - - 638 1.0 677 1.1 Cape Croker R 378 0.6 No data Bruce County 58,848 100.0 65,268 100.0 65,680 100.0 63,892 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada: 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada. * Note: Municipality totals for 1991-2001 do not add up to the published Statistics Canada total for Bruce County. This is because Statistics Canada suppressed the data for the individual Reserves during these Census years.
11
Bruce County Housing Study
2.2.3 Trends in Age Distribution
The Figure below shows an increasingly aging population within Bruce County. Quite clearly, the Figure shows a steady decrease in both the 0-19 and 20-34 age categories over the fifteen year period. While there are some fluctuations for the 35-45 age category, the remaining age categories (45+) show an increasing population.
From 1986 to 2001 the population over the age of 65 increased from 14.2% to 17.4% of total population. In contrast, the population under the age of 24 decreased from 38.1% to 31.3% over the same time period. While Bruce County is similar to the province in age distribution under the age of 24 (31.3% for Bruce County and 32.6% for the Province) its population over the age of 65 of 17.4% is well above the provincial total of 12.9%.
This aging population suggests an increasing need for housing and support services for seniors within Bruce County. Notably, the population over the age of 45 is also increasing suggesting that this aging population will continue for many years with many local ‘baby boomers’ nearing retirement age and others moving to Bruce County in search of an attractive retirement area.
Figure 5: Trends in Age Distribution, Bruce County
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0 Age Groups 10.0
5.0
0.0 0-19 20-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Proportion
1986 1991 1996 2001
Source: Statistics Canada, 1986, 1991, 1996 & 2001 Census
12
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 3: Trends in Age Distribution, Bruce County
Bruce County Ontario Age Groups 1986 1991 1996 2001 2001 # % # % # % # % # % 0-4 4,735 8.0 4,555 7.0 3,985 6.1 2,885 4.5 671,250 5.9 5-9 4,725 8.0 5,200 8.0 4,795 7.3 3,975 6.2 772,650 6.8 10-14 4,695 8.0 4,990 7.6 5,380 8.2 4,825 7.6 788,850 6.9 15-19 4,435 7.5 4,735 7.3 4,880 7.4 5,095 8.0 769,415 6.7 20-24 3,885 6.6 3,435 5.3 3,365 5.1 3,210 5.0 718,420 6.3 25-29 * * 4,200 6.4 2,900 4.4 2,370 3.7 729,655 6.4 30-34 8,960 15.2 5,105 7.8 4,390 6.7 2,790 4.4 828,840 7.3 35-39 ** ** 5,250 8.0 5,180 7.9 4,345 6.8 989,840 8.7 40-44 8,000 13.6 4,750 7.3 5,300 8.1 5,165 8.1 969,670 8.5 45-49 *** *** 3,710 5.7 4,825 7.3 5,255 8.2 859,130 7.5 50-54 5,470 9.3 3,070 4.7 3,745 5.7 4,975 7.8 776,145 6.8 55-59 **** **** 3,135 4.8 3,305 5.0 4,210 6.6 584,495 5.1 60-64 5,605 9.5 3,290 5.0 3,275 5.0 3,680 5.8 479,500 4.2 65-74 4,990 8.5 5,765 8.8 6,025 9.2 6,325 9.9 818,170 7.2 75 and over 3,355 5.7 4,085 6.3 4,320 6.6 4,770 7.5 654,000 5.7 Total 58,855 100.0 65,275 100.0 65,670 100.0 63,875 100.0 11,410,045 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 1986, 1991, 1996 & 2001 Census * included in the 30-34 **included in 40-44 *** included in 50-54 ****included in 60-64
13
Bruce County Housing Study
2.3 Household Growth and Distribution
2.3.1 Trends in Household Growth
The following Table shows that Bruce County has seen 21% household growth from 1986 to 2001. This is below the provincial average of 31% over the same time period. The municipalities of South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula, however, saw a greater percentage growth than the Province at 34.9% and 39.6% respectively. This trend in household growth is consistent with the population increases discussed in section 2.2.2.
Saugeen Shores also shows an increase in household growth of 23.2%. Although not above the provincial growth rate it is above the County’s average growth rate. Over the past five years, the municipalities of Kincardine and Brockton have experienced a decrease in households of 0.9% and 1.8% respectively. These municipalities have the lowest growth rates within the County.
Figure 6: Trends in Household Growth by Municipality, 1986-2001
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500 Number of Households of Number 1,000
500
0
e s la la ty on u ali ruc t re erslie insu ck n nins icip h B Sho e un Bro -Eld n M out Kincardine n e Pe S uron-Kinloss gee c ce P H u Arra au S Bru th
Sou orthern Br N Municipality
1986 1991 1996 2001
Source: Statistics Canada: 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada
14
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 4: Trends in Household Growth by Municipality, 1986-2001 Absolute % Change Change Area 1986 1991 1996 2001 1991-1996 1996-2001 1986-2001 1986-2001 South Bruce 1,875 2,040 2,105 2,135 3.2 1.4 13.9 260 Huron-Kinloss 1,925 2,230 2,285 2,305 2.5 0.9 19.7 380 Kincardine 3,795 4,235 4,355 4,315 2.8 -0.9 13.7 520 Brockton 3,290 3,525 3,695 3,630 4.8 -1.8 10.3 340 Arran-Elderslie 2,195 2,435 2,485 2,485 2.1 0.0 13.2 290 Saugeen Shores 3,770 4,315 4,610 4,645 6.8 0.8 23.2 875 South Bruce Peninsula 2,505 3,085 3,260 3,380 5.7 3.7 34.9 875 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,135 1,355 1,510 1,585 11.4 5.0 39.6 450 Saugeen, R - - 240 255 - 6.3 - - Cape Croker, R 120 No data Bruce County 20,625 23,630 24,565 24,960 4.0 1.6 21.0 4,335 Ontario 3,221,725 3,638,360 3,924,515 4,219,410 7.9% 7.5% 31.0% 997,685 Source: Statistics Canada: 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada
* Note: Municipality totals for 1991-2001 do not add up to the published Statistics Canada total for Bruce County. This is because Statistics Canada suppressed the data for the individual Reserves during these Census years.
15
Bruce County Housing Study
2.3.2 Trends in Household Size
The following Table shows that household size in Ontario has declined from 2.72 in 1991 to 2.70 in 2001, which is only a 0.7% decrease. Bruce County, conversely, had a 7% decrease in household size over the same period. With the exception of South Bruce, all municipalities and reserves have a smaller household size in 2001 when compared to the province.
Between municipalities, Kincardine and Saugeen Shores show the steepest decline in household size, 10.7% and 9.6% respectively. All municipalities show a steeper decline in household size compared to the province.
This observation points further to the aging of the population and the impact of trends such as growing rates of marriage break-up, lower birth rates, the movement of youth to other communities and the aging of the labour force at Bruce Power. It shows the need for a wide variety of unit types, particularly those designed for seniors and singles.
Table 5: Trends in Household Size by Municipality, 1991 to 2001 % Change in Area 1991 1996 2001 Household Size (1991-2001) South Bruce 3.00 2.95 2.83 -5.8 Huron-Kinloss 2.72 2.70 2.64 -2.9 Kincardine 2.81 2.69 2.51 -10.7 Brockton 2.80 2.72 2.59 -7.7 Arran-Elderslie 2.70 2.71 2.61 -3.6 Saugeen Shores 2.67 2.58 2.42 -9.6 South Bruce Peninsula 2.43 2.40 2.34 -3.9 Northern Bruce Peninsula 2.34 2.28 2.23 -4.7 Saugeen, R - 2.65 2.65 - Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 2.70 2.63 2.51 -7.0 Ontario 2.72 2.71 2.70 -0.7 Source: Statistics Canada: 1991, 1996, 2001 Census of Canada.
*Note: Data for Cape Croker (1991-2001) and Saugeen (1991) is suppressed by Statistics Canada
The following Table shows that the proportion of one and two person households has increased from 51.6% in 1986 to 62.9% in 2001. Conversely, the proportion of three persons+ households has declined by nearly 12%, from 48.9% to 37.1% over the same time period. In fact, there has been an absolute decrease in the number of four or more person households despite overall household growth of 21%.
16
Bruce County Housing Study
This Table again demonstrates the need to diversify housing types to accommodate the changing nature of the population, in this case particularly the need to provide housing for smaller families and singles.
Table 6: Persons Per Household, Bruce County, 1986-2001 1986 1991 1996 2001 Household Size # % # % # % # % 1 Person 4,155 20.1 5,025 21.3 5,560 22.6 6,020 24.1 2 Persons 6,490 31.5 8,085 34.2 8,665 35.3 9,675 38.8 3 Persons 3,155 15.3 3,450 14.6 3,435 14.0 3,240 13.0 4-5 Persons 5,980 29.0 6,220 26.3 6,075 24.7 5,290 21.2 6+ Persons 945 4.6 855 3.6 825 3.4 735 2.9 Total 20,625 100.0 23,630 100.0 24,565 100.0 24,960 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001 Census
2.3.3 Trends in Household Type
This Table shows that in 2001 the percentage of the population contained in family households was 74.3%. This is slightly higher than the province (70.5%). Bruce County showed a steady decline in the proportion of family households from 76.1% in 1991 to 75.1% in 1996 to 74.3% in 2001. Similarly, the Province also showed a steady decline from 73.3% in 1991 to 72.8% in 1996 to 70.5% in 2001.
Throughout the municipalities within Bruce County, there is very little variation. In 2001, South Bruce had the highest percentage of family households (77%), while Brockton and Arran-Elderslie (73.1%) had the lowest percentage of their housing stock as family households. Saugeen Reserve was slightly lower at 72.9%. All municipalities had a slightly higher proportion of family households than the Province.
The decrease in the proportion of family households points further to the need for housing to reflect this trend by ensuring a greater range of housing types, including units for singles, seniors and small family units.
17
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 7: Historical Population by Household Type by Municipality and Ontario, 1991-2001 Family Total Non-Family Total 1991 Area # % # % South Bruce 1,585 77.7 455 22.3 Huron-Kinloss 1,715 76.9 515 23.1 Kincardine 3,280 77.4 955 22.6 Brockton 2,715 77.0 810 23.0 Arran-Elderslie 1,835 75.4 600 24.6 Saugeen Shores 3,225 74.7 1,090 25.3 South Bruce Peninsula 2,285 74.1 800 25.9 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,010 74.5 345 25.5 Saugeen, R No data Cape Croker, R Bruce County 17,975 76.1 5,660 23.9 Ontario 2,668,000 73.3 970,370 26.7 1996 South Bruce 1,630 77.4 475 22.6 Huron-Kinloss 1,725 75.5 560 24.5 Kincardine 3,320 76.2 1,035 23.8 Brockton 2,805 75.8 895 24.2 Arran-Elderslie 1,890 76.2 590 23.8 Saugeen Shores 3,410 74.0 1,200 26.0 South Bruce Peninsula 2,375 73.0 880 27.0 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,105 73.2 405 26.8 Saugeen, R 180 75.0 60 25.0 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 18,445 75.1 6,115 24.9 Ontario 2,857,065 72.8 1,067,445 27.2
18
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 7: Historical Population by Household Type by Municipality and Ontario, 1991-2001 Family Total Non-Family Total 2001 South Bruce 1,645 77.0 490 23.0 Huron-Kinloss 1,725 74.8 580 25.2 Kincardine 3,240 75.1 1,075 24.9 Brockton 2,655 73.1 975 26.9 Arran-Elderslie 1,820 73.1 670 26.9 Saugeen Shores 3,460 74.5 1,185 25.5 South Bruce Peninsula 2,475 73.2 905 26.8 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,170 73.6 420 26.4 Saugeen, R 175 72.9 65 27.1 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 18,540 74.3 6420 25.7 Ontario 8,155,565 70.5 3,407,410 29.5 Source: Statistics Canada, 1991, 1996 and 2001 Census
* Note: Municipality totals for 1991-2001 do not add up to the published Statistics Canada total for Bruce County. This is because Statistics Canada suppressed the data for the individual Reserves during these Census years.
2.4 Economic Indicators
The economic profile and changing economic conditions of the community help provide an understanding of the current and future demand for housing. The following section discusses recent economic trends and their impact on housing within Bruce County.
2.4.1 Economic Overview
Bruce County has traditionally been a stable agricultural area, with its lakeshore communities serving as tourist centres throughout the summer months. As a key component of the Bruce County economy, agriculture generates over $255 million in gross annual sales (Bruce County, 2004). Over 62% of the land within Bruce County is dedicated to the agricultural industry, with over 50% of farms dedicated to the production of beef cattle.
Approximately 63% of the farms within Bruce County are family owned and operated. Moreover, its farms generate over 28,000 weeks of direct full-time and part-time employment per year. The two major dairy processing companies in Bruce County are
19
Bruce County Housing Study
Gay Lea Foods in Teeswater and Pine River Cheese in Huron Township. Bruce County is Ontario’s #1 producer of oats, #2 producer of canola, #2 producer of barley and the #2 producer of hay.
It is important to note, however, that while agriculture continues to be a significant industry within Bruce County, it has suffered over the last year and a half as a result of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy – Mad Cow Disease ). Based on a report by the Bruce County Planning and Economic Development Department, there has been a drop in gross beef sales of 57%. While there are no census figures yet, this figure is based on beef auction prices.
As stated above, over half the farms in Bruce County are dedicated to beef production. Although it is not easy to quantify the damage at this point, there has been a large impact on sales/revenues, loss of jobs and loss of spin-off dollars and jobs. This report also states that the drop in beef sales of 57% will mean over $185 million dollars will be lost. (Bruce County Planning and Economic Development Department, February 2004). If this situation does not improve, many farmers may go out of business. Many of these farmers will likely move from rural areas to local towns and will need housing which is primarily oriented towards senior citizens. This will increase the pressure to provide senior citizen housing in the towns and a major emphasis will have to be on affordability due to the uncertain financial situation of many of these individuals.
Another concern with regard to the agricultural industry in Bruce County is that many of the small family farms are being bought out by large corporations. These corporations are sometimes assembling several farms together to create larger farms. Because they are corporations, they don't need to use the farmhouses on each property, so many of them are being abandoned or rented out and falling into disrepair. This trend may result in a decline in the supply of affordable older houses in rural areas.
In the mid 1960s, Bruce Nuclear Power Development (BNPD) was developed on the lakeshore between Port Elgin and Kincardine, in the municipality of Kincardine. In May, 2001, operations of the power plant were leased to a private firm - Bruce Power. Bruce Power is Ontario's largest independent power generator employing approximately 3,500 highly skilled workers (Bruce Power, 2004). It is also by far the largest employer in Bruce County.
When it was first built, the plant attracted hundreds of employees and contributed to dramatic escalations in house prices. The initial construction brought large numbers of skilled trades to the area and placed great pressure on short-term accommodation such as rental housing and motels. This drove rents up and also affected the availability of motel accommodation for tourists. Lower income local workers in tourist, retail and other such occupations experienced great difficulty in securing housing affordable at their wage levels. After completion of the plant, the permanent labour force was comprised of well paid workers who brought their families and settled primarily in single family homes in the Kincardine/Port Elgin area and contributed to a strong market for single family detached housing along the lakeshore communities.
20
Bruce County Housing Study
Over time the labour force working at the plant began to age, leaving a current average age of approximately 47. Some of the children in these families left the area seeking jobs elsewhere. Lack of expansion at the plant led to stagnant employment levels. Population in communities such as Kincardine began to decline and local real estate markets became more affordable.
The current lease expires in 15 years. Should the lease not be renewed, the plant would shut down in 15 years and employment levels in the area would decline significantly.
Recently, Bruce Power applied to the Government of Ontario for approval to restart units #1 and #2 at the plant. Should this application be approved, Bruce Power will be granted a new 25-year lease. They would have to employ approximately 1,500-2,500 trades for 1-3 years to refurbish these units. This would again place great pressure on short-term accommodation, especially the local rental market.
Following completion of construction, several hundred new well-paying permanent jobs would be added. The intent is to fill these primarily with recent college and university graduates, thereby rejuvenating the labour force at Bruce Power and generating a further demand for ownership housing for first-time buyers.
In addition, studies conducted by groups such as Bruce Community Futures have estimated that for every two permanent jobs created at the plant, one further job is created in the community. These additional jobs would create further need for more affordable accommodation, particularly rental housing for workers earning modest wages in local service and retail jobs. Should the lease extension be approved, the County should work closely with Bruce Power to set out a realistic plan to address these potential impacts.
Also of key importance to the Bruce County economy is the growing tourism industry. It is estimated that Bruce County’s direct tourism revenue is at $118 million and growing. This figure grows closer to $295 million with income multipliers(Bruce County website, 2004, http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/bdive3.htm).
The tourism industry employs more than one in seven of the working force in Bruce County. From the beaches and hiking trails to restaurants and festivals tourism is ‘big business’ in Bruce County. According to the Regional Tourism Profiles for Bruce County (Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, 2004) between 1998 and 2002, person-visits to Bruce County by Canadians increased by 62%, person-visits by US residents increased by 16% and person-visits by residents from other countries increased by 6%. In 2002, 2.2 million people visited Bruce County (Ibid. p.4). The expansion of tourism activity in the northern areas of the Bruce peninsula, in particular, has contributed to population growth in the area, as compared to declines in most other parts of the County.
21
Bruce County Housing Study
The manufacturing sector is also an important component of the Bruce County economy. A key portion of this industry is the small scale of many manufacturing businesses located throughout Bruce County; 87% of all manufacturing businesses have between 1 and 9 employees and only 2% of businesses employ over fifty employees. The top three manufacturing sectors in Bruce County are food industries (364 employees), electrical and electronic products industries (257) and the furniture and fixture industries (190) (Ibid.).
2.4.2 Labour Force Activity by Municipality
The following Table describes the labour force by municipality based on the 1991, 1996 and 2001 Census. Labour force refers to residents living in Bruce County who are employed or seeking employment regardless of where they work (some may work outside of Bruce County).
The total labour force for Bruce County in 2001 was 32,970. This figure represents a slight decline in labour force activity of about 100 individuals over the ten year period. The municipalities of Kincardine, Brockton and Saugeen Shores have all shown a slight decline in labour force activity (primarily reflecting the decline at Bruce Nuclear), while the remaining municipalities have shown slight increases. The largest growth in labour force activity was in South Bruce Peninsula, which saw an increase in labour force of 155 jobs. These figures for labour force activity are consistent with historical population growth.
Table 8: Labour Force Activity by Municipality, 1991-2001 1991 1996 2001 Area Total % Total % Total % South Bruce 3,295 10.0 3,365 10.2 3,440 10.4 Huron-Kinloss 3,050 9.2 3,040 9.2 3,090 9.4 Kincardine 6,330 19.1 6,225 18.8 5,735 17.4 Brockton 5,430 16.4 5,525 16.7 5,310 16.1 Arran-Elderslie 3,320 10.0 3,490 10.6 3,440 10.4 Saugeen Shores 6,080 18.4 5,950 18.0 5,990 18.2 South Bruce 3,600 10.9 3,590 10.9 3,755 11.4 Peninsula Northern Bruce 1,575 4.8 1,595 4.8 1,650 5.0 Peninsula
Saugeen, R - - 270 0.8 300 0.9 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 33,070 100.0 33,050 100.0 32,970 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 1991, 1996 and 2001 Census * Note: Municipality totals for 1991-2001 do not add up to the published Statistics Canada total for Bruce County. This is because Statistics Canada suppressed the data for the individual Reserves during these Census years.
22
Bruce County Housing Study
2.4.3 Labour Force Activity by Industry
Tables 10 to 12 outline the types of jobs held by the labour force in Bruce County between 1991 and 2001. The data are shown separately because the data have been aggregated into different categories by Statistics Canada. Some key trends over the ten year period include:
1 Agriculture and primary industry employment has remained relatively steady with only a slight decline, representing 12% of the labour force in 1991, 10.8% in 1996 and 10.6% in 2001. (Please note for 1996 and 2001 Primary includes agriculture and related industries and mining).
2 The labour force in the utility industry is decreasing at a steady rate (again largely reflective of declines at Bruce Nuclear), from 16.6% in 1991 to 14.3% in 1996 to 11.4% in 2001, although the utilities industry continues to hold a significant portion of the labour force for Bruce County in 2001 (11.3%).
3 The manufacturing industry has experienced an increase in labour force of 765 jobs between 1991 and 2001, increasing its share of the labour force by 2.3%.
4 Labour force activity in the education and health industries has remained steady throughout the ten year period.
5 After a decline in jobs between 1991 and 1996 in construction, this industry sector increased the number of jobs by 320 between 1996 and 2001. This is the largest increase in labour force by industry within this time period and reflects the strong real estate market at present.
6 Accommodation and food services, although not represented individually in 1991, increased their proportion of the labour force by 195 jobs between 1996 and 2001.
23
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 9: Labour Force Activity by Industry For Bruce County, 1991 Industry Type # % Communication and other Utility 5,505 16.6 Trade 4,800 14.5 Primary 3,970 12.0 Health and Social Services 2,910 8.8 Construction 2,810 8.5 Manufacturing 2,710 8.2 Education Services 1,770 5.4 Government Services 1,630 4.9 Finance, insurance and real estate 1,120 3.4 Transportation and Storage 855 2.6 Other 4,670 14.1 Not applicable 325 1.0 Total 33,070 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census
24
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 10: Labour Force Activity by Industry For Bruce County, 1996 Industry Type # % Communication and other utility industries 4,720 14.3 Retail trade industries 3,970 12.0 Agricultural and related service industries 3,425 10.4 Manufacturing industries 3,315 10.0 Health and social service industries 3,100 9.4
Accommodation, food and beverage service industries 2,445 7.4
Construction industries 2,310 7.0 Educational service industries 1,675 5.1 Government service industries 1,095 3.3 Transportation and storage industries 1,025 3.1 Wholesale trade industries 975 3.0 Business service industries 720 2.2 Finance and insurance industries 570 1.7 Real estate operator and insurance agent industries 435 1.3 Mining (including milling), quarrying and oil well industries 130 0.4 Logging and forestry industries 110 0.3 Fishing and trapping industries 25 0.1 Other service industries 2,085 6.3 Not applicable 915 2.8 Total 33,050 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census
25
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 11: Labour Force Activity by Industry For Bruce County, 2001 Industry Type # % Retail trade 3,770 11.4 Utilities 3,715 11.3 Manufacturing 3,475 10.5 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 3,335 10.1 Health care and social assistance 3,000 9.1 Accommodation and food services 2,635 8.0 Construction 2,630 8.0 Educational services 1,690 5.1 Other services (except public administration) 1,510 4.6 Transportation and warehousing 1,080 3.3 Public administration 1,065 3.2 Administrative and support, waste management and 1,030 3.1 remediation services Professional, scientific and technical services 965 2.9 Wholesale trade 795 2.4 Finance and insurance 635 1.9 Arts, entertainment and recreation 440 1.3 Information and cultural industries 390 1.2 Real estate and rental and leasing 325 1.0 Mining and oil and gas extraction 165 0.5 Industry - Not applicable 305 0.9 Total 32,970 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
2.4.4 Labour force Activity by Industry by Municipality
Appendix 1 describes the labour force activity for each municipality for 2001 and shows the differences among the communities in Bruce County. The top four employment categories for Bruce County are retail trade, utilities, manufacturing and primary (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting). These categories represent 43.3% of the total labour force. Comparing to the Province, Bruce County has greater labour force representation in utilities (11.3% for Bruce County and 0.8% for the Province) and agriculture (10.1% for Bruce County and 2% for the Province) while the Province has greater representation in manufacturing (10.5% for Bruce County and 16.2% for the Province).
The Province also has a higher percentage of its labour force in employment categories such as professional and scientific, finance and insurance, and information and cultural services. These employment categories tend to pay higher wages, while categories such as retail trade, service and agriculture might expect more modest wages. These findings emphasize a need to provide for affordable housing in order to enable these residents to find suitable housing.
26
Bruce County Housing Study
Some notable comparisons among the municipalities of Bruce County are:
1 The greatest proportion of labour force in accommodation and food services is in the northern municipalities. It represents 12.6% of labour force activity in South Bruce Peninsula and 12.4% in Northern Bruce Peninsula. Retail trade for these municipalities represents 14.5% in South Bruce Peninsula and 15.8% in Northern Bruce Peninsula. These categories include most tourism, accommodation and restaurant related occupations, many of which may be seasonal and/or part-time paying lower wages.
2 The agricultural industry is highest in the municipality of South Bruce (20.8%). Notably, South Bruce has the largest proportion of family households within the County.
3 Just over 17% of the population of Saugeen Reserve is employed in health care or receiving social assistance. This is 8% higher than Bruce County and almost 9% higher than the Province.
2.4.5 Labour Force Activity by Occupation
Almost one quarter (23.5%) of persons over the age of 15 living in Bruce County are employed in sales and service occupations. This is similar to the Province (22.5%). Trades and related occupations comprise 19.7% of the work force and primary industry comprises 11.1%, which is well above the provincial average (2.7%). Appendix 2 provides a detailed breakdown of occupation by municipality.
2.4.6 Labour Force Wage Rates by Occupation
Appendix 3 outlines wage rates for a wide range of occupations. This data confirms that the retail trade industry earns modest incomes ranging from $8.00 - $15.00 per hour. Food and accommodation occupations are similar and range from $5.95 as a server to $15.60 as an accommodation service manager. Occupations in the construction industry can go as high as $31.31 per hour as a millwright or industrial mechanic.
As discussed previously, Bruce County has shown an increase in labour force activity in construction and manufacturing which can offer higher paying wages. Conversely, the other sectors which have experienced growth are accommodation and food services with retail trade still holding a significant portion of the labour force. These industries generally offer much more modest wages. Appendix 3 provides a detailed breakdown of occupations and wage rates. Given the anticipated growth of tourism and service- related occupations, the need for housing affordable by individuals earning these modest wage levels will grow over time.
27
Bruce County Housing Study
2.4.7 Rates of Unemployment
Bruce County has traditionally enjoyed lower rates of unemployment than the Province as a whole. The following Table shows that, in the two most recent Census periods, the unemployment rate for Bruce County and most of its eight municipalities was below the provincial average. Saugeen Reserve, however, is well above both the County and the Province and indicates that there may be a number of individuals on the Reserve experiencing difficulty in meeting housing costs.
Based on HRSDC figures of October 5 2004, the unemployment rate for Bruce County stood at 5.3%, which represents a slight increase since the 2001 Census, but is still well below levels observed in 1996.
Table 12: Unemployment Rate Based on Statistics Canada Data Area 1996 2001 South Bruce 5.7 1.9 Huron-Kinloss 7.2 2.9 Kincardine 7.8 4.8 Brockton 7.7 4.5 Arran-Elderslie 8.2 5.4 Saugeen Shores 11.2 4.5 South Bruce Peninsula 10.3 4.3 Northern Bruce Peninsula 8.2 4.8 Saugeen, R 32.7 20.3 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 8.7 4.4 Ontario 9.1 6.1 Source: Statistics Canada, 1996 and 2001 Census
2.5 Income Analysis
2.5.1 Trends in Household Income
In 2000, Bruce County had an average household income of $55,261, which is below both the provincial and the national averages. Growth in household incomes for Bruce County accelerated in the 1995-2000 period, although it did not quite keep up with the growth at the provincial or national levels.
28
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 13: Comparison of Average Household Income, 1990-2000 % Change % Change % Change Area 1990 1995 2000 1990- 1995 1995-2000 1990-2000 Bruce County $44,008 $46,472 $55,261 5.6% 18.9% 25.6% Ontario $52,225 $54,291 $66,836 4.0% 23.1% 28.0% Canada $46,137 $48,552 $58,360 5.2% 20.2% 26.5% Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 & 1996, 2001 Census
Similar to average income, median income in Bruce County in 2000 was below provincial and national levels. As with average income, median household income has grown significantly since 1995, although it has not kept up with the change in Ontario or Canada.
Table 14: Comparison of Median Household Income, 1990-2000 % Change % Change % Change Area 1990 1995 2000 1990- 1995 1995-2000 1990-2000 Bruce County $37,584 $38,724 $45,369 3.0% 14.6% 17.2% Ontario $44,432 $45,155 $53,626 1.6% 18.8% 20.7% Canada $39,013 $40,209 $46,752 3.1% 16.3% 19.8% Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 & 1996, 2001 Census
Bruce County appears to compare fairly consistently with other primarily rural counties in terms of its average and median incomes in 2001 as shown in the following Figure. In the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, for example, the 2001 average income was $56,164 (Affordable Housing Strategy for United Counties of Leeds & Grenville, 2004) – quite comparable to Bruce County. Similarly, Bruce median income was similar at $45,369, compared with $48,102 in the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville in 2001. Conversely, Bruce County exhibited higher income profiles than Oxford County, with average income at $59,196 and median income at $50,812.
29
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 7: Comparing 2000 Average and Median Incomes for Bruce, Bruce and Leeds and Grenville
$70,000 e $59,196 $60,000 $55,261 $56,164 $50,812 $48,012 $50,000 $45,369
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000 Average Median and Income Valu $0 Average Income Median Income
Bruce County Oxford County Leeds and Grenville
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
2.5.2 Household Income by Municipality
2.5.2.1 Median and Household Income by Municipality
The Table below describes the breakdown of household income by municipality for 2000. All municipalities are below the provincial average for both average income and median income. Saugeen Shores has the highest average income ($65,383) and highest median income ($55,883) within Bruce County, reflecting the large number of high-paying jobs at Bruce Power.
Notably, the municipalities of South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula have average household incomes below Bruce County. This is consistent with the findings in section 2.4.4 where the municipalities showed a high proportion of their labour force activity in retail trade and accommodation and food services. These employment sectors tend to have modest wages with many being seasonal and part- time in tourist-related activities. This points to the need to ensure that housing costs are kept as modest as possible in these areas.
This Table also shows that Saugeen Reserve has an average household income well below the County’s average. In fact it is less than half of the County’s average income and almost a third of the provincial average income.
30
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 15: Median and Average Household Income by Municipality, 2000 Incomes Area Median Household Income Average Household Income
South Bruce $48,142 $55,263 Huron-Kinloss $44,609 $57,410 Kincardine $52,911 $60,546 Brockton $42,516 $53,539 Arran-Elderslie $42,734 $50,192 Saugeen Shores $55,883 $65,383 South Bruce Peninsula $41,334 $46,204 Northern Bruce Peninsula $36,467 $47,320 Saugeen, R $22,046 $24,833 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County $45,369 $55,261 Ontario $53,626 $66,836 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
2.5.2.2 Household Income by Income Range for Municipalities
Table 17 provides a breakdown of household income for Bruce County by municipality for 2001. It shows that 31.3% of all households in Bruce County had incomes below $30,000 in 2001. This is just over 5% higher than the Provincial average of 26.1% and points to the need to ensure this large portion of the population are provided with affordable housing options.
Individual municipalities showed some variation among household income ranges. For example, 25.3% of the households in Saugeen Shores earn under $30,000, while in South Bruce Peninsula it is much higher at 37.5%. Over one third of the total households of Northern Bruce Peninsula, South Bruce Peninsula and Arran-Elderslie have household incomes below $30,000. With the exception of Saugeen Shores, all municipalities have a greater percentage of their household income below $30,000 than the Province as a whole.
31
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 16: Household Income Ranges by Municipality, 2001 Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Income Ranges # % # % # % Under $10,000 1115 4.5 218215 5.2 75 3.5 $10,000 - $19,999 3185 12.8 451345 10.7 255 11.9 $20,000 - $29,999 3515 14.1 433495 10.3 285 13.3 Under $29,999 7,815 31.3 1,103,055 26.1 615 28.8 $30,000 - $39,999 3110 12.5 438770 10.4 235 11.0 $40,000 - $49,999 2650 10.6 416275 9.9 250 11.7 $50,000 - $59,999 2260 9.1 380900 9.0 220 10.3 $60,000 - $69,999 1950 7.8 357320 8.5 140 6.6 $70,000 - $79,999 1595 6.4 303725 7.2 160 7.5 $80,000 - $89,999 1400 5.6 252550 6.0 190 8.9 $90,000 - $99,999 1055 4.2 205145 4.9 120 5.6 $100,000 and over 3120 12.5 761660 18.1 205 9.6 All households 24,955 100.0 4,219,400 100.0 2,135 100.0
Income Range Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton # % # % # % Under $10,000 70 3.0 205 4.8 215 5.9 $10,000 - $19,999 240 10.4 450 10.4 490 13.5 $20,000 - $29,999 370 16.1 505 11.7 475 13.1 Under $29,999 680 29.6 1,160 26.9 1,180 32.5 $30,000 - $39,999 360 15.7 460 10.7 535 14.7 $40,000 - $49,999 260 11.3 390 9.0 360 9.9 $50,000 - $59,999 155 6.7 385 8.9 280 7.7 $60,000 - $69,999 210 9.1 365 8.5 285 7.8 $70,000 - $79,999 100 4.3 355 8.2 250 6.9 $80,000 - $89,999 110 4.8 275 6.4 225 6.2 $90,000 - $99,999 80 3.5 240 5.6 170 4.7 $100,000 and over 345 15.0 680 15.8 350 9.6 All households 2,300 100.0 4,310 100.0 3,635 100.0
32
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 16: Household Income Ranges by Municipality, 2001 Income Range Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula # % # % # % Under $10,000 95 3.8 155 3.3 155 4.6 $10,000 - $19,999 385 15.4 530 11.4 505 14.9 $20,000 - $29,999 395 15.8 490 10.6 605 17.9 Under $29,999 875 34.9 1,175 25.3 1,265 37.4 $30,000 - $39,999 280 11.2 485 10.5 350 10.4 $40,000 - $49,999 315 12.6 375 8.1 505 14.9 $50,000 - $59,999 255 10.2 450 9.7 355 10.5 $60,000 - $69,999 220 8.8 320 6.9 300 8.9 $70,000 - $79,999 170 6.8 285 6.1 205 6.1 $80,000 - $89,999 130 5.2 300 6.5 95 2.8 $90,000 - $99,999 110 4.4 165 3.6 130 3.8 $100,000 and over 150 6.0 1085 23.4 175 5.2 All households 2,505 100.0 4,640 100.0 3,380 100.0
Northern Bruce Income Range Saugeen, R Peninsula # % # % Under $10,000 70 4.4 55 21.6 $10,000 - $19,999 205 12.9 55 21.6 $20,000 - $29,999 295 18.6 50 19.6 Under $29,999 570 35.8 160 62.7 $30,000 - $39,999 335 21.1 40 15.7 $40,000 - $49,999 155 9.7 20 7.8 $50,000 - $59,999 140 8.8 15 5.9 $60,000 - $69,999 85 5.3 10 3.9 $70,000 - $79,999 70 4.4 0 0.0 $80,000 - $89,999 80 5.0 0 0.0 $90,000 - $99,999 40 2.5 0 0.0 $100,000 and over 115 7.2 10 3.9 All households 1,590 100.0 255 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Cape Croker, Reserve
33
Bruce County Housing Study
2.5.3 Incidence of Low Income
A further important measure of housing affordability is the incidence of low income among the residents of Bruce County. Statistics Canada employs a term called “low income cut offs” to identify the incidence of low-income families and singles (i.e. families and singles living below the poverty line) within a community. Statistics Canada defines low income cut-off as, “Income levels at which families or unattached individuals spend 20% more than average on food, shelter and clothing.”
According to Statistics Canada, low-income cut-offs are based on expenditures (food, clothing and shelter) as a percentage of family income. The Statistics Canada Family Expenditures Survey (FAMEX) estimated that an average family spends 50% of its income (prior to taxes) on these necessities. In order to calculate the low income cut off level, Statistics Canada adds twenty extra points to this percentage, on the assumption families or individuals spending 70% of income on food, clothing and shelter would be “in strained circumstances”. This 70% threshold is then converted into a set of low income cut offs varying with family and community size. These data are highly informative in relation to the need for affordable housing and are presented in the Table 18.
Using this definition of low income cut offs, the following Table quantifies the incidence of low-income families, singles and population across the municipalities and Bruce County. For Bruce County it shows that in 2001 a total of 6.9% of families (1,270), 26.9% of singles (1,790) and 9.2% of the overall population (5,640) had incomes below the poverty line.
The incidence of low income is particularly noteworthy in a number of communities. For example, the municipalities of Brockton and Arran-Elderslie contain a much higher than average proportion of low income singles with 36.2% and 35.4% respectively compared to 26.9% in Bruce County. The incidence of low income families is highest in South Bruce Peninsula (8.7%) and Arran-Elderslie (8.4%).
Interestingly, Huron-Kinloss has the lowest incidence of low-income families (3.4%) and the lowest total population below the poverty line (4.8%). As shown in Appendix 1 (Labour Force Activity), a key difference among these communities is that Huron- Kinloss has a greater percentage of its workforce in the utilities sector (11.8%); the figures for Arran-Elderslie (5.1%), Brockton (4%) and South Bruce Peninsula (1.7%) are much lower.
These statistics reinforce the need to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing throughout Bruce County, with particular attention placed on the municipalities of North Bruce Peninsula, Saugeen Reserve, Brockton, Arran-Elderslie and South Bruce Peninsula.
Bruce County displays lower rates of low income households in comparison with other areas such as Peterborough, Leeds and Grenville and Oxford. In the Greater
34
Bruce County Housing Study
Peterborough Area, for example, a total of 10.1% of families, 36.7% of singles and 13.5% of the overall population had incomes below the poverty line. In comparison with Leeds and Grenville, Bruce displayed slightly lower proportions of singles households, family households and total population in low income situations. Some 7.8% of families and 27.7% of singles and 10.0% of the total population were living in low income situations in Leeds and Grenville in 2001.
Bruce County displays slightly higher levels of low income families and singles than Oxford County. In Bruce County, some 7.0% of families and 27% of singles were living in low income situations. By comparison, 8.7% of the total population in Oxford County, compared to 9.2% of Bruce County’s population, were living in low income situations.
35
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 17: Incidence of Low Income by Municipality, Bruce County, 2001 Low Low Total Total Low Total Area Total Families Income % Income % Population in Income % Singles Families Singles Households Population South Bruce 1,655 130 7.9 515 105 20.4 6,025 530 8.8 Huron-Kinloss 1,745 60 3.4 595 135 22.7 6,070 290 4.8 Kincardine 3,250 235 7.2 1,130 295 26.1 10,845 1,055 9.7 Brockton 2,690 190 7.1 1,035 375 36.2 9,395 980 10.4 Arran-Elderslie 1,835 155 8.4 735 260 35.4 6,480 830 12.8 Saugeen Shores 3,470 210 6.1 1,230 280 22.8 11,215 795 7.1 South Bruce Peninsula 2,480 215 8.7 990 245 24.7 7,875 860 10.9 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,190 85 7.1 420 95 22.6 3,525 300 8.5 Saugeen, R No data Cap Croker, R
Bruce County 18,315 1,270 6.9 6,655 1,790 26.9 61,430 5,640 9.2 Ontario 3,117,825 364,320 11.7 1,309,220 445,705 34.0 11,202,560 1,611,505 14.4 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
Note: “Total Low Income Families” and “Total Low Income Singles” deal with numbers of households and do not add to the “total Low Income Population Column”. The last column indicates the total number of persons living in these households.
Data for Saugeen Reserve has been suppressed by Statistics Canada
36
Bruce County Housing Study
2.6 Summary of Population and Household Characteristics
Population has Declined
Overall this section of the report has found that the population of Bruce County as a whole has declined between 1991 and 2001 but has seen growth in the northern municipalities of South Bruce Peninsula and North Bruce Peninsula. An important trend outlined in this section is that there is an increasingly aging population within Bruce County indicating a need for housing and support services for seniors.
Household Size has Declined
Household size in Bruce County is continuing to decline, as is the proportion of young children, suggesting the need for a higher proportion of smaller dwelling units to accommodate the increasing numbers of singles, seniors, small families and non-family households.
The Majority of Economic and Employment Growth is Part-time and Seasonal Employment
Economic indicators point out that much of the recent growth in employment in the area has been in accommodation and food services and construction. Retail trade, agriculture, manufacturing and utilities also continue to represent significant portions of the labour force. Many of the jobs in accommodation and food services and retail are part-time and seasonal employment and typically are modest paying jobs, making it difficult to afford suitable affordable housing. The future potential expansion of Bruce Power could bring rapid employment and population growth to the lakeshore area and exert both short-term and long-term pressures on the lakeshore housing market, widening the affordability gap for such households.
Unemployment Rates have Improved over Time
Unemployment rates have improved in Bruce County and are below the provincial rate in all municipalities (although unemployment is much higher for Saugeen Reserve).
Bruce County Average Household Income below the Provincial and National Levels
Average household income for Bruce County, while growing steadily in recent years, is below both provincial and national levels. The comparatively low level of income directly affects the ability of local households to afford housing costs.
Bruce County contains a Significant Number of Lower Income Households
Bruce County has a large number of lower income households. Just over 30% of all households have incomes below $30,000, with 17.3% below $20,000 (including 4.5%
37
Bruce County Housing Study
below $10,000). With the exception of Saugeen Reserve, the highest concentrations of low income households are found in two northern municipalities (South Bruce Peninsula and North Bruce Peninsula).
The Incidence of Low Income Households is More Prevalent Among Single Person Households
Overall, 6.9% of families, 26.9% of single households and 9.2% of the total population are considered to be living below the poverty line according to the Statistics Canada definition of low income cut offs. The greatest concentrations of low income families are in Arran-Elderslie and South Bruce Peninsula and the greatest concentrations of low income singles are in Arran-Elderslie and Brockton.
These findings point to the need for ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet the changing demands in communities throughout Bruce County. The remainder of this report considers in greater detail the range of affordable housing needs facing Bruce County.
38
Bruce County Housing Study
3 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
3.1 Trends in Dwelling Types
3.1.1 Overall Mix in Dwelling Types
The following Table outlines clearly the predominance of single detached dwellings within Bruce County. Single detached dwellings comprised 86.1% of all dwellings in the area in 2001; this is an increase of 2.4% from 1991. In fact the only other increase in dwelling type was in row houses, which increased by 0.5%. Notably, apartment buildings with less than five-storeys showed a decrease of 1.3%.
Table 18: Occupied Private Dwellings, 1991-2001 1991 1996 2001 Housing Type # % # % # % Single Detached 19,770 83.7 20,400 83.0 21,490 86.1 Semi-Detached 470 2.0 415 1.7 465 1.9 Row House 425 1.8 525 2.1 545 2.2 Apartment, detached duplex 220 0.9 305 1.2 150 0.6 Apartment building, five or more storeys 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.0 Apartment building, less than five storeys 2,250 9.5 2,335 9.5 2,040 8.2 Other single attached house 235 1.0 230 0.9 120 0.5 Movable unit 260 1.1 355 1.4 140 0.6 Total occupied private dwellings 23,630 100.0 24,560 100.0 24,960 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 1991, 1996, 2001 Census
Bruce County displays a higher proportion of lower density units in comparison with other primarily rural communities such as Leeds and Grenville and Oxford County. Some 88.0% of Bruce County’s housing stock, compared with 81.7% of Leeds and Grenville and 78.7% of Oxford’s dwellings, are comprised of lower density, single and semi-detached dwellings. This is primarily because Bruce County does not contain many major urban centres such as Brockville in Leeds and Grenville or Woodstock in Oxford. Bruce County contains a lower concentration of apartment units at 8.2% of total stock, compared with 14.5% in Leeds and Grenville and 14.4% in Oxford County.
39
Bruce County Housing Study
3.1.2 Mix in Dwelling Types by Municipality
The Table below shows the breakdown of dwelling types by municipality in 2001. The proportion of single-detached dwellings in Bruce County (86.1%) is much greater than the province as a whole (58%).
Interestingly, Statistics Canada data show that single-detached dwellings comprise over 80% of the housing stock in rural and smaller centres, compared to less than 45% in major urban cities such as Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. This trend is evident within Bruce County.
Half the municipalities within Bruce County as well as Saugeen Reserve have over 90% of their housing as single-detached. Saugeen Shores has the lowest percentage of single-detached homes (79.5). Conversely, it has the greatest percentage of semi- detached houses (4.9%) as well as apartment buildings that are less than five-storeys (10.6%). Saugeen Shores shows the greatest mix of housing types within Bruce County. This is perhaps to be expected, given the diversity of economic activity and population in the area (Bruce Power, tourism-related activity, retirement housing, etc.).
40
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 19: Occupied Private Dwellings by Municipality in Bruce County, 2001 Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Housing Type Total % of total Total % of total Total % of total Single-detached house 21,490 86.1 2,447,800 58.0 1,920 90.1 Semi-detached house 465 1.9 262,770 6.2 10 0.5 Row house 545 2.2 307,335 7.3 25 1.2 Apartment, detached duplex 150 0.6 922,60 2.2 0 0.0 Apartment, building that has > five storeys 5 0.0 678,320 16.1 0 0.0 Apartment, building that < five storeys 2,040 8.2 406,020 9.6 140 6.6 Other single-attached house 120 0.5 12,530 0.3 0 0.0 Movable dwelling 140 0.6 12,370 0.3 30 1.4 Total occupied private dwellings 24,955 100.0 4,219,405 100.0 2,130 100.0
Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton Housing Type Total % of total Total % of total Total % of total Single-detached house 2,105 91.5 3,590 83.2 2,970 81.8 Semi-detached house 15 0.7 90 2.1 85 2.3 Row house 25 1.1 210 4.9 110 3.0 Apartment, detached duplex 0 0.0 40 0.9 45 1.2 Apartment, building that has > five storeys 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Apartment, building that < five storeys 130 5.7 330 7.6 395 10.9 Other single-attached house 20 0.9 20 0.5 0 0.0 Movable dwelling 15 0.7 45 1.0 10 0.3 Total occupied private dwellings 2,300 100.0 4,315 100.0 3,630 100.0
South Bruce Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores Peninsula Housing Type Total % of total Total % of total % of total Single-detached house 2,190 88.3 3,695 79.5 3,060 90.5 Semi-detached house 15 0.6 230 4.9 15 0.4 Row house 20 0.8 150 3.2 0 0.0 Apartment, detached duplex 10 0.4 40 0.9 10 0.3 Apartment, building that has > five storeys 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Apartment, building that < five storeys 235 9.5 495 10.6 265 7.8 Other single-attached house 20 0.8 30 0.6 20 0.6 Movable dwelling 5 0.2 10 0.2 5 0.1 Total occupied private dwellings 2,480 100.0 4,650 100.0 3,380 100.0
41
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 19: Occupied Private Dwellings by Municipality in Bruce County, 2001
Northern Bruce Saugeen, Reserve Peninsula Housing Type Total % of total Total % of total Single-detached house 1,510 95.0 240 90.6 Semi-detached house 5 0.3 0 0.0 Row house 0 0.0 5 1.9 Apartment, detached duplex 0 0.0 0 0.0 Apartment, building that has > five storeys 0 0.0 0 0.0 Apartment, building that < five storeys 40 2.5 10 3.8 Other single-attached house 15 0.9 5 1.9 Movable dwelling 15 0.9 5 1.9 Total occupied private dwellings 1,590 100.0 265 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Cape Croker, Reserve
3.2 Trends in Tenure
3.2.1 Trends in Housing Tenure
Over eighty percent of the dwellings in Bruce County were owned in 2001 (80.7%). This represents a 2.7% increase in home ownership from 1986. This indicates that the majority of the population in Bruce County is adequately housed in a secure, stable and affordable living environment, although many of these homes are likely occupied by seniors on fixed incomes who may have difficulty maintaining them on a daily basis. Discussions with municipal staff and local realtors also indicates that many of these dwellings are quite old and in need of maintenance.
A reason for the upward trend in home ownership may be in part attributed to the reduction in mortgage rates from the early to mid-1990s. This decline in mortgage rates has increased the affordability of ownership housing for many households and has been a major factor to enable households to move to a more favourable housing situation. Of course, should interest rates return to the higher levels of the past, many of these households may be unable to carry on as homeowners and would need other options in the housing market.
By comparison, ownership rates in Leeds and Grenville and Oxford County are somewhat lower –77.1% and 73.8% respectively, compared Bruce County’s 80.7%. This translates to a lower level of rental units in Bruce County in comparison with other primarily rural counties.
42
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 20: Trends in Tenure in Bruce County, 1986 to 2001
100.0
80.0
60.0
Tenure 40.0
20.0
0.0 1986 1991 1996 2001 % Owner Occupied 78.0 78.8 78.6 80.7 % Rented 21.4 21.0 21.3 19.2 On Reserve 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 Year
Source: Statistics Canada, 1986, 1991 & 1996, 2001 Census
3.2.2 Housing Tenure by Municipality
Within the communities of Bruce County there are only slight variations in home ownership. All municipalities fall within a 10% variation in home ownership levels for 2001. The municipalities of Kincardine, Brockton and Saugeen Shores have the lowest percentage of home ownership, 77.8%, 77.7% and 79% respectively in 2001. Over the ten year period only Northern Bruce Peninsula (3.1%) and Arran-Elderslie (0.5%) showed a decline in home ownership. Notably, Northern Bruce Peninsula and Arran- Elderslie also had the highest percentage of incidence of low income (for total population) within Bruce County.
While a high level of home ownership in Bruce County is generally characteristic of favourable housing conditions, previous data on the incidence of low income households show that the lack of rental housing in these areas is likely causing hardship for many residents of these communities, especially those seniors on fixed incomes who may be finding it difficult to maintain their homes, especially with recent escalations in utility and maintenance costs.
43
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 21: Housing Tenure by Municipality in Bruce County, 1991-2001 1991 Owned Rented Area # % # % South Bruce 1,645 80.4 400 19.6 Huron-Kinloss 1,855 83.0 380 17.0 Kincardine 3,230 76.1 1,015 23.9 Brockton 2,670 75.7 855 24.3 Arran-Elderslie 1,975 82.0 435 18.0 Saugeen Shores 3,290 76.2 1,030 23.8 South Bruce Peninsula 2,535 82.2 550 17.8 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,210 89.3 145 10.7 Saugeen, R No data Cape Croker, R Bruce County 18,625 79.0 4,965 21.0
1996 Owned Rented Area # % # % South Bruce 1,695 80.5 410 19.5 Huron-Kinloss 1,900 83.5 375 16.5 Kincardine 3,320 76.3 1,030 23.7 Brockton 2,775 75.0 925 25.0 Arran-Elderslie 2,015 81.4 460 18.6 Saugeen Shores 3,495 75.7 1,120 24.3 South Bruce Peninsula 2,665 82.0 585 18.0 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,240 82.4 265 17.6 Saugeen, R 190 84.4 35 15.6 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 19,315 78.7 5,225 21.3
2001 Owned Rented Area # % # % South Bruce 1,770 82.9 365 17.1 Huron-Kinloss 1,955 84.8 350 15.2 Kincardine 3,355 77.8 960 22.2 Brockton 2,820 77.7 810 22.3 Arran-Elderslie 2,030 81.5 460 18.5 Saugeen Shores 3,675 79.0 975 21.0 South Bruce Peninsula 2,805 83.0 575 17.0 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,370 86.2 220 13.8 Saugeen, R 190 80.9 45 19.1 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 20,135 80.7 4,800 19.3 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
* Note: Municipality totals for 1991-2001 do not add up to the published Statistics Canada total for Bruce County. This is because Statistics Canada suppressed the data for the individual Reserves during these Census years.
44
Bruce County Housing Study
3.3 Condition of Housing Stock
Another important aspect of meeting housing needs is the ability of the existing housing stock to continue to provide adequate and acceptable living standards to existing residents. Accordingly, an analysis of the condition of housing stock is an important measure to identify any potential problems with the quality of housing in the area. The following discussion assesses the condition of the existing housing stock in Bruce County.
3.3.1 Age of Housing Stock
The following Table summarizes the age of construction for dwellings in Bruce County by municipality. One third of the dwellings in Bruce County were built prior to 1946, with only 3% being built post 1996. The province as a whole, however, shows much more consistency in the rate of dwelling construction with a slight decline from 1991 to 2001.
Bruce County actually experienced a peak in construction in the 1970s. This peak period, which coincides with the construction of the Bruce Nuclear plant, is shown throughout the municipalities with the exception of Northern Bruce Peninsula, which peaked throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Northern Bruce Peninsula had the highest percentage of dwelling construction (5.7%) for the 1996-2001 period in Bruce County. This is consistent with the trends in household growth (section 2.3.1) which show a 39.6% increase in household growth for Northern Bruce Peninsula during this time. The municipalities of Kincardine, Brockton and Arran-Elderslie had the lowest rates for household growth between 1996 and 2001 and also show the lowest rates in new construction (1996-2001).
Aging housing stock can result in maintenance problems and high operating costs due to the lack of energy efficient designs and deterioration of the unit. During these times of rapidly increasing energy costs, it is likely that many seniors face difficulties because they live on fixed incomes, often in older dwellings facing high costs of maintenance and high energy costs. As a result, it is important to pay close attention to identifying such problems and to seek solutions to assist seniors living in such conditions. Renters living in older single and semi detached units, especially those in rural areas, face particular problems with utility costs, which can exceed rents in some cases.
On the positive side, older dwellings often tend to be more affordable than newer homes built at higher cost. This is evident in the wide range of resale homes available across the area at relatively affordable prices. Thus, it is important that this stock be maintained, especially to help young families looking for affordable home ownership alternatives. Indeed, by providing more housing options for seniors, they may be encouraged to move from larger single detached dwellings, freeing these units up for family households.
45
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 22: Dwellings by Age of Construction by Municipality throughout Bruce County, 2001 Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Period of Total % of total Total % of total Total % of total Construction Before 1946 8,385 33.6 703,410 16.7 1,170 54.9 1946-1960 1,830 7.3 692,700 16.4 130 6.1 1961-1970 2,740 11.0 680,890 16.1 150 7.0 1971-1980 6,015 24.1 795,115 18.8 250 11.7 1981-1990 3,545 14.2 743,770 17.6 225 10.6 1991-1995 1,685 6.8 286,800 6.8 115 5.4 1996-2001 760 3.0 316,730 7.5 85 4.0 Total 24,960 100.0 4,219,415 100.0 2,125 100.0
Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton Period of Total % of total Total % of total Total % of total Construction Before 1946 925 40.2 1,105 25.6 1,585 43.7 1946-1960 110 4.8 255 5.9 345 9.5 1961-1970 195 8.5 480 11.1 395 10.9 1971-1980 550 23.9 1,585 36.7 665 18.3 1981-1990 285 12.4 535 12.4 380 10.5 1991-1995 170 7.4 250 5.8 230 6.3 1996-2001 70 3.0 105 2.4 35 1.0 Total 2,305 100.0 4,315 100.0 3,635 100.0
Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula Period of Total % of total Total % of total % of total Construction Before 1946 1,320 53.2 1,020 22.0 945 28.0 1946-1960 175 7.1 345 7.4 260 7.7 1961-1970 225 9.1 565 12.2 455 13.5 1971-1980 300 12.1 1,510 32.6 760 22.5 1981-1990 265 10.7 725 15.6 640 18.9 1991-1995 140 5.6 310 6.7 215 6.4 1996-2001 55 2.2 160 3.5 105 3.1 Total 2,480 100.0 4,635 100.0 3,380 100.0
46
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 22: Dwellings by Age of Construction by Municipality throughout Bruce County, 2001 Northern Bruce Peninsula Saugeen, Reserve Period of Total % of total Total % of total Construction Before 1946 310 19.6 0 0.0 1946-1960 175 11.1 10 4.0 1961-1970 175 11.1 55 22.0 1971-1980 295 18.7 55 22.0 1981-1990 385 24.4 60 24.0 1991-1995 150 9.5 45 18.0 1996-2001 90 5.7 25 10.0 Total 1,580 100.0 250 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Cape Croker, Reserve.
As shown in the following Figure, Bruce County contains a higher proportion of pre- 1946 dwellings in comparison with the other two areas. As a whole, Bruce County’s housing stock is slightly older than the other two communities. Only 9.8% of Bruce’s dwellings were constructed after 1991, compared to 13.4% for Oxford and 12.7% for Leeds and Grenville.
Figure 8: Comparing Age of Dwellings with Bruce and Leeds and Grenville, 2001
40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 Proportion 10.0 5.0 0.0 Before 1946-1960 1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-1995 1996-2001 1946 Period of Construction
Bruce County Oxford County Leeds and Grenville
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
47
Bruce County Housing Study
3.3.2 Age of Rental Housing Stock
The age of rental stock in Bruce County is shown in both the following Figure and Table. Overall, 36.9% of the rental units were built prior to 1946, compared to the provincial average of 15.7%. In contrast, rental stock built between 1986 and 2001 comprises 13.2%, which is slightly below provincial figures (14.5%). The distinction between the provincial totals and the totals for Bruce County can also be clearly seen during the 1946-1960 and 1961-1970 periods, where only 21.3% of the rental units in Bruce County were built compared to 40.2% for the province as a whole.
Comparing the municipalities, the figures show that the more rural municipalities have a higher percentage of rental stock built before 1946 than seen in Bruce County as a whole. These municipalities include South Bruce (50%), Huron-Kinloss (41.2%), Brockton (41.7%), Arran-Elderslie (48.3%) and South Bruce Peninsula (42%).
Notably, the municipalities of South Bruce, Huron-Kinloss, Brockton, Saugeen Shores and South Bruce Peninsula saw no increase in their rental housing stock between 1996 and 2001. This lack of expansion to the rental stock in the face of increasing numbers of senior citizen households and a large percentage of lower income households is indicative of a growing problem in the provision of affordable housing.
Figure 9: Age of Rental Housing Stock in Bruce County and Ontario (2001)
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
Proportion 15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 1945 or 1946- 1961- 1971- 1981- 1986- 1991- 1996- before 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001 Period of Construction
Bruce County Ontario
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation, 2001 Census
48
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 23: Age of Rental Housing Stock Throughout Bruce County (2001) Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Period of # % # % # % Construction 1945 or before 1,700 36.9 210,360 15.7 175 50.0 1946-1960 405 8.8 222,090 16.6 25 7.1 1961-1970 575 12.5 316,040 23.6 20 5.7 1971-1980 940 20.4 293,685 21.9 25 7.1 1981-1985 375 8.1 100,950 7.5 25 7.1 1986-1990 245 5.3 90,195 6.7 35 10.0 1991-1995 320 6.9 75,560 5.6 45 12.9 1996-2001 45 1.0 29,970 2.2 0 0.0 Total 4,605 100.0 1,338,850 100.0 350 100.0 Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton Period of # % # % # % Construction 1945 or before 140 41.2 295 31.4 315 41.7 1946-1960 25 7.4 55 5.9 75 9.9 1961-1970 30 8.8 95 10.1 95 12.6 1971-1980 70 20.6 340 36.2 95 12.6 1981-1985 25 7.4 70 7.4 60 7.9 1986-1990 20 5.9 25 2.7 55 7.3 1991-1995 30 8.8 45 4.8 60 7.9 1996-2001 0 0.0 15 1.6 0 0.0 Total 340 100.0 940 100.0 755 100.0 Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula Period of # % # % # % Construction 1945 or before 210 48.3 265 27.3 235 42.0 1946-1960 60 13.8 85 8.8 45 8.0 1961-1970 40 9.2 170 17.5 100 17.9 1971-1980 45 10.3 305 31.4 30 5.4 1981-1985 55 12.6 55 5.7 55 9.8 1986-1990 0 0.0 45 4.6 50 8.9 1991-1995 15 3.4 45 4.6 45 8.0 1996-2001 10 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 435 100.0 970 100.0 560 100.0
49
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 23: Age of Rental Housing Stock Throughout Bruce County (2001) Northern Bruce Peninsula Period of # % Construction 1945 or before 65 28.9 1946-1960 45 20.0 1961-1970 10 4.4 1971-1980 25 11.1 1981-1985 25 11.1 1986-1990 10 4.4 1991-1995 35 15.6 1996-2001 10 4.4 Total 225 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation, 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
3.3.3 Age of Ownership Housing Stock
The following data show the age of ownership housing stock in Bruce County as a whole and by municipality. Overall, 29% of the ownership stock was built prior to 1946 compared to the provincial average of 16.5%. In contrast, ownership stock built between 1981 and 2001 is lower for Bruce County (25.6%) than the province (36.6%). This again demonstrates that the housing stock of Bruce County is considerably older than the average for the province as a whole.
There is a clear peak in ownership housing in Bruce County during the 1971-1980 period, most notably in the municipalities of Saugeen Shores (33.3%) and Kincardine (38.7%), likely a result of the development of the Bruce Nuclear plant.
Compared to the rental housing stock, there is a greater percentage of new ownership housing (between 1996-2001) at 3.5% compared to new rental housing at only 1% of the housing stock.
50
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 10: Age of Ownership Housing Stock in Bruce County and Ontario (2001)
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0 Proportion 10.0
5.0
0.0 1945 or 1946- 1961- 1971- 1981- 1986- 1991- 1996- before 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001 Period of Construction
Bruce County Ontario
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation, 2001 Census
51
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 24: Age of Ownership Housing Stock Throughout Bruce County (2001) Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Period of # % # % # % Construction 1945 or before 5,220 29.0 465,240 16.5 600 45.6 1946-1960 1,350 7.5 465,630 16.5 95 7.2 1961-1970 2,015 11.2 358,795 12.8 120 9.1 1971-1980 4,840 26.9 492,115 17.5 210 16.0 1981-1985 915 5.1 216,140 7.7 50 3.8 1986-1990 1,815 10.1 327,355 11.6 105 8.0 1991-1995 1,240 6.9 206,655 7.3 60 4.6 1996-2001 630 3.5 281,870 10.0 75 5.7 Total 18,025 100.0 2,813,800 100.0 1,315 100.0 Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton Period of # % # % # % Construction 1945 or before 565 33.5 610 19.6 980 38.7 1946-1960 80 4.7 200 6.4 265 10.5 1961-1970 165 9.8 380 12.2 290 11.5 1971-1980 455 27.0 1,205 38.7 550 21.7 1981-1985 45 2.7 160 5.1 105 4.2 1986-1990 175 10.4 265 8.5 145 5.7 1991-1995 135 8.0 205 6.6 160 6.3 1996-2001 65 3.9 90 2.9 35 1.4 Total 1,685 100.0 3,115 100.0 2,530 100.0 Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula Period of # % # % # % Construction 1945 or before 930 51.4 705 19.6 635 23.7 1946-1960 120 6.6 265 7.4 205 7.7 1961-1970 160 8.8 390 10.8 350 13.1 1971-1980 240 13.3 1,200 33.3 705 26.4 1981-1985 55 3.0 210 5.8 140 5.2 1986-1990 140 7.7 405 11.3 385 14.4 1991-1995 130 7.2 270 7.5 165 6.2 1996-2001 35 1.9 155 4.3 90 3.4 Total 1,810 100.0 3,600 100.0 2,675 100.0
52
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 24: Age of Ownership Housing Stock Throughout Bruce County (2001) Northern Bruce Peninsula Period of # % Construction 1945 or before 200 15.4 1946-1960 130 10.0 1961-1970 150 11.6 1971-1980 275 21.2 1981-1985 140 10.8 1986-1990 205 15.8 1991-1995 115 8.9 1996-2001 80 6.2 Total 1,295 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation, 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
3.3.4 Condition of Permanent Dwellings
The following Table describes the condition of dwellings within Bruce County as reported in the 2001 Census. These figures are self-reported from household Census returns and are not the result of detailed inspections of the units. As a whole, 28.8% of residents feel that their home is in need of minor repair. This is slightly above the provincial average (25.5%). Just over nine percent of residents feel that their home is in need of major repairs, which is also slightly above the provincial average (7.4%).
Interestingly, the more rural municipalities have a higher number of dwellings requiring major repairs. The municipality of Arran-Elderslie is the highest at 13.1% of its dwellings requiring major repairs. Brockton has the highest absolute number of dwellings in need of major repair (400). This is consistent with findings in other sections of the study which show modest growth within these municipalities and little new housing being built with high percentages of homes being built prior to 1946 (43.7% in Brockton and 53.2% in Arran-Elderslie) (Section 3.3.1).
53
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 25: Conditions of Dwellings by Municipality throughout Bruce County, 2001 Condition of Housing Stock Area Total Regular Maintenance Minor Repairs Major Repairs # % # % # % South Bruce 1,260 59.2 665 31.2 205 9.6 2,130 Huron-Kinloss 1,375 59.7 710 30.8 220 9.5 2,305 Kincardine 2,735 63.4 1,280 29.7 300 7.0 4,315 Brockton 2,155 59.4 1,070 29.5 400 11.0 3,625 Arran-Elderslie 1,430 57.4 735 29.5 325 13.1 2,490 Saugeen Shores 3,200 68.9 1,175 25.3 270 5.8 4,645 South Bruce Peninsula 2,135 63.1 1,025 30.3 225 6.6 3,385 Northern Bruce Peninsula 965 60.9 440 27.8 180 11.4 1,585 Saugeen, R 100 40.8 50 20.4 95 38.8 245 Cape Croker, R No Data Bruce County 15,445 61.9 7,195 28.8 2,315 9.3 24,955 Ontario 2,830,380 67.1% 1,074,735 25.5% 314,300 7.4% 4,219,415 Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2001 * Note: Statistics Canada suppressed the data for Cape Croker in 2001 and as a result, municipality totals do not add up to Bruce County total.
Bruce County’s housing stock appears to be in a slighter higher state of disrepair in comparison with other primarily rural communities such as Oxford and Leeds and Grenville as shown below. Some 28.8% of Bruce, 25.5% of Leeds and 23.6% of Oxford’s dwellings have been reported as needing minor repairs. As well, 7.4% of Leeds and Grenville, 6.9% of Oxford and 9.3% of Bruce’s dwellings have been reported as requiring major repairs in 2001.
A further problem reported in this regard is that many areas of Bruce County lack experienced contractors to help repair these dwellings. This can cause further difficulty for seniors and others needing support to remain in their homes.
54
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 11: A Comparison of the Condition of Dwellings, 2001
80 69.5 70 67.1 61.9 60
50
40 28.8 25.5 Proportion 30 23.6 20 9.3 7.4 10 6.9 0 Regular Maintenance Minor Repairs Major Repairs Condition of Dwellings
Bruce County Oxford County Leeds and Grenville
Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2001
3.4 Summary of Existing Housing Stock
Single Detached Homes Dominate Market, Especially in more Rural Areas
Single-detached dwellings comprised 86.1% of the housing stock in Bruce County in 2001, showing a clear predominance of this housing type throughout the area. Apartment buildings less than five storeys is the second largest category at 8.2%.
Ownership Dwellings Dominate the Housing Market
Over eighty percent of the dwellings in Bruce County were owned in 2001, representing an increase of 2.7% in homeownership from 1986. The majority of the population in Bruce County, therefore, is likely adequately housed in a secure, stable and affordable living environment. This is consistent with a national trend towards increasing home ownership and to a great extent reflects declines in mortgage rates in recent years. CMHC states that home ownership in Canada has been steadily increasing over the last thirty years (CMHC, 2004). The highest concentration of homeownership in Bruce County is in the more rural and northern municipalities with a slightly lower proportion of homeownership in the lakeshore communities (Saugeen Shores, Kincardine).
55
Bruce County Housing Study
The Overall Housing Stock is Considerably Older Than Provincial Stock
The housing stock in Bruce County is considerably older than the province as a whole. One third of the dwellings in Bruce County were built prior to 1946 compared to 16.7% in Ontario. More than half the housing stock (51.9%) is over 30 years old. These figures suggest that problems associated with aging dwellings such as increasing repair and maintenance costs and increasing energy costs may be emerging. This is particularly the case in rural areas where older dwellings being rented out can have utility costs that exceed rent levels.
Some of the rural communities have even older age profiles of housing stock. In Arran- Elderslie and South Bruce over half their housing stock was built prior to 1946. The northern municipalities and the lakeshore municipalities have lower age profiles. Northern Bruce Peninsula in particular has newer growth and is likely not experiencing as many problems with housing conditions.
Aging housing stock can lead to high maintenance and operating costs which will affect households on fixed incomes such as seniors. Close attention should be paid to identifying strategies for these issues facing residents of Bruce County.
Between 1996 and 2001 new ownership housing increased by 3.5% compared to rental housing which increased by just 1%. While older dwellings can play an important role in providing low-cost accommodation, the creation of more up-to-date affordable rental units is a more desirable solution than relying on a stock of aging dwellings.
56
Bruce County Housing Study
4 HOME OWNERSHIP MARKET
4.1 Role of Ownership Market
Home ownership is often viewed as the ultimate housing goal in North American society. The literature details numerous advantages associated with home ownership in comparison to rental tenure. Home ownership is often equated as an expression of individualism, a symbol of status and a way of achieving financial equity (Clark 2001, Murdie and Teixeira 2001, Myers and Lee 1998). Saunders (1990) suggests that, with ownership comes:
“the right to indefinite use; the right to give away or bequeath; the right to modify; the ability to choose an appropriate price and method of payment; security of tenure; the right to do what one wills with the property; and the advantage of investing in something one controls.” (Saunders, 1990:97).
While home ownership is often regarded as the ideal type of housing, this option is not available to everyone. The dream of home ownership is virtually impossible for many individuals, such as: most new immigrants, many persons with mental, physical and developmental disabilities, many single parents with children and persons living on social assistance.
Home ownership is often viewed as the most important way to build personal assets, thereby helping to reduce poverty. It offers stability in day-to-day living and visible standing in the community.
Home ownership is also viewed as the ideal form of personal investment. In essence, a mortgage is a form of forced savings. The Canadian government attests to this fact, and has actively promoted home ownership among Canadian residents (Harris and Pratt, 1993).
Preliminary findings of a survey conducted by Habitat for Humanity – Canada, “Assessment of the Outcomes for Habitat for Humanity Home Buyers” (November 2003), has found that security of tenure can lead to improved performance in school and better behaviour among children. In fact, the preliminary findings of the assessment found that about 28% of those responding to the survey indicated that their children’s grades had improved since they moved to their Habitat home and 60% of respondents reported that their children were happier, more outgoing and more confident.
Over time, the Canadian government has introduced numerous policies to assist individuals to purchase their own homes. The Dominion Housing Act of 1935 (which
57
Bruce County Housing Study evolved into the National Housing Act) was a major policy measure aimed at stimulating home ownership. Through this Act, the federal government reduced the amount of down payment on a house from 40% to 20% of the value of the dwelling and increased the mortgage amortization period from five to twenty years (Harris and Pratt, 1993). This opened the door to home ownership to many more Canadians and was a major driver for new housing construction.
Home ownership regulations have been further relaxed through the years. Presently, a dwelling can be purchased with as little as a 5% down payment, and the remainder amortized over 25 years. Recent announcements from CMHC indicate that new regulations are being formulated which, under certain circumstances, may even permit down payments as low as 0% in future.
The higher the proportion of owner households in a community, generally the better that population is housed in terms of quality of living environment, security of tenure and affordability. Of course, for those of lower income, frail health or special needs that are unable to afford or otherwise cope with home ownership, the lack of other options in such communities can cause severe hardship.
4.2 Trends in Ownership Tenure
Over 80% of the housing stock in Bruce County is owned. All municipalities with the exception of Arran-Elderslie and Northern Bruce Peninsula have shown an increase in ownership between 1991 and 2001. The largest increase in home ownership was in South Bruce which saw an increase of 2.5% in home ownership. Kincardine (77.8%) and Brockton (77.7%) have the lowest percent of ownership. Notably, ownership within Bruce County as a whole is greater than the national figure of 66% ownership (CMHC, 2004).
58
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 26: Trends in Ownership Dwellings by Municipality in Bruce County, 1991-2001 1991 1996 2001 % of total % of total % of total Area # # # Stock Stock Stock South Bruce 1,645 80.4 1,695 80.5 1,770 82.9 Huron-Kinloss 1,855 83.0 1,900 83.5 1,955 84.8 Kincardine 3,230 76.1 3,320 76.3 3,355 77.8 Brockton 2,670 75.7 2,775 75.0 2,820 77.7 Arran-Elderslie 1,975 82.0 2,015 81.4 2,030 81.5 Saugeen Shores 3,290 76.2 3,495 75.7 3,675 79.0 South Bruce Peninsula 2,535 82.2 2,665 82.0 2,805 83.0 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,210 89.3 1,240 82.4 1,370 86.2 Saugeen, R - - 190 84.4 190 80.9 Cape Croker, R No Data Bruce County 18,625 79.0 19,315 78.7 20,135 80.7 Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 & 1996, 2001 Census
* Note: Municipality totals for 1991-2001 do not add up to the published Statistics Canada total for Bruce County. This is because Statistics Canada suppressed the data for the individual Reserves during these Census years.
4.3 Proportion of Owned Dwellings
The following Table describes the distribution of ownership in 2001 by municipality. Thirty-five percent of the housing stock for Bruce County is located in Kincardine and Saugeen Shores, with just 6.8% located in Northern Bruce Peninsula.
59
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 27: Distribution of Ownership Dwellings by Municipality in Bruce County, 2001 % Distribution by Total Housing Area # Owned Area Stock South Bruce 1,770 8.8 2,135 Huron-Kinloss 1,955 9.7 2,300 Kincardine 3,355 16.7 4,315 Brockton 2,820 14.0 3,630 Arran-Elderslie 2,030 10.1 2,490 Saugeen Shores 3,675 18.3 4,645 South Bruce Peninsula 2,805 13.9 3,385 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,370 6.8 1,585 Saugeen, R 190 0.9 240 Cape Croker, R No Data Bruce County 20,135 100.0 24,960 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
* Note: Statistics Canada suppressed the data for Cape Croker in 2001 and as a result, municipality totals do not add up to Bruce County total.
4.3.1 Ownership Housing Building Types for Bruce County, 1996 and 2001 The following Figure shows the proportion of owned dwellings by type for Bruce County as a whole in 1996 and 2001. Overall, the ownership of single-detached and semi- detached houses in 2001 has gone up from 1996. Interestingly, almost half (45%) of all semi-detached dwellings and 80% of all row dwellings in Bruce County are rented, showing the suitability of these forms of housing for rental purposes. It is also recognized that units such as semi-detached dwellings are often owned by individuals who may decide to convert them to owner-occupied dwellings or sell them to owner occupants at any time. Indeed, the proportion of rental semi-detached dwellings dropped by 5% from 1996 to 2001. This shows the lack of stability in the rental market in Bruce County and is an indicator of the importance of encouraging purpose-built rental accommodation, such as low rise apartments and duplexes.
60
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 12: Proportion of Owned Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County 1996 and 2001
100.0 88.7 89.5 90.0 82.9 82.1 80.0
70.0 63.6 60.0 55.7 50.0 50.0 44.4 40.0 Proportion 29.5 30.0 23.0 20.6 A 20.0 20.0 10.312.4 10.0
0.0 Single- Semi- Row house Apartment, Apartment, Other single- Movable detached detached detached less than five attached dwelling house house duplex storeys house Dwelling Type
Bruce County 1996 Bruce County 2001
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996 and 2001 Census
Table 28: Proportion of Owned Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County 1996 and 2001 1996 2001 Dwelling Type Bruce County Bruce County Total Owned % Owned Total Owned % Owned
Single-detached house 18,295 16,230 88.7 19,235 17,215 89.5 Semi-detached house 400 200 50.0 440 245 55.7 Row house 525 155 29.5 510 105 20.6 Apartment, detached duplex 305 70 23.0 125 25 20.0 Apartment, less than five storeys 2,325 240 10.3 2,060 255 12.4 Other single-attached house* 225 100 44.4 110 70 63.6 Movable dwelling 350 290 82.9 140 115 82.1 Total 22,425 17,285 77.1 22,620 18,030 79.7 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996 and 2001 Census
* Note: Based on the Statistics Canada definition, an other single-attached house is a “single dwelling that is attached to another building and that does not fall into any of the other categories, such as a single dwelling attached to a non-residential structure (e.g. a store or a church) or occasionally to another residential structure (e.g. an apartment building).“
61
Bruce County Housing Study
4.3.2 Ownership Housing by Building Type throughout Bruce County
The following Tables summarize housing ownership by type by municipality for 2001. Bruce County as a whole has a higher proportion (79.7%) of ownership than the Province (67.8%); however, ownership of single-detached and semi-detached houses is lower than the Province. Apartments and detached duplexes have a 20% ownership in Bruce County, which is much lower than the Province (33.4%). These patterns were fairly similar in all municipalities in Bruce County.
Table 29: Ownership Dwellings by Housing Structure Throughout Bruce County and Ontario (2001)
Bruce County Ontario Dwelling Type Total Stock # Owned % Owned Total Owned % Owned Single-detached house 19,235 17215 89.5 2,400,125 2203870 91.8 Semi-detached house 440 245 55.7 262,690 201615 76.8 Row house 510 105 20.6 306,760 178655 58.2 Apartment, detached duplex 125 25 20.0 87,790 29355 33.4 Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 672,720 134105 19.9 Apartment, less than five storeys 2,060 255 12.4 398,440 51865 13.0 Other single-attached house 110 70 63.6 12,155 4180 34.4 Movable dwelling 140 115 82.1 11,945 10140 84.9 Total 22,620 18,030 79.7 4,152,625 2,813,785 67.8 South Bruce Huron-Kinloss Dwelling Type Total Stock # Owned % Owned Total Owned % Owned Single-detached house 1,460 1295 88.7 1,830 1650 90.2 Semi-detached house 15 10 66.7 15 10 66.7 Row house 10 0 0.0 25 0 0.0 Apartment, detached duplex 10 0 0.0 0 0 - Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 145 0 0.0 125 10 8.0 Other single-attached house 10 0 0.0 20 10 50.0 Movable dwelling 30 15 50.0 0 0 - Total 1,680 1,320 78.6 2,015 1,680 83.4
62
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 29: Ownership Dwellings by Housing Structure Throughout Bruce County and Ontario (2001)
Kincardine Brockton Dwelling Type Total Stock # Owned % Owned Total Owned % Owned Single-detached house 3,305 2915 88.2 2,635 2395 90.9 Semi-detached house 105 55 52.4 65 35 53.8 Row house 225 35 15.6 100 0 0.0 Apartment, detached duplex 25 10 40.0 50 10 20.0 Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 320 35 10.9 425 70 16.5 Other single-attached house 25 0 0.0 0 0 - Movable dwelling 55 55 100.0 10 10 100.0 Total 4,060 3,105 76.5 3,285 2,520 76.7 Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores Dwelling Type Total Stock # Owned % Owned Total Owned % Owned Single-detached house 1,965 1765 89.8 3,660 3320 90.7 Semi-detached house 15 10 66.7 210 115 54.8 Row house 20 0 0.0 140 70 50.0 Apartment, detached duplex 10 0 0.0 30 10 33.3 Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 230 15 6.5 505 65 12.9 Other single-attached house 20 15 75.0 15 15 100.0 Movable dwelling 0 0 - 15 10 66.7 Total 2,260 1,805 79.9 4,575 3,605 78.8 South Bruce Peninsula Northern Bruce Peninsula Dwelling Type Total Stock # Owned % Owned Total Owned % Owned Single-detached house 2,930 2615 89.2 1,450 1265 87.2 Semi-detached house 20 15 75.0 0 0 - Row house 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, detached duplex 10 0 0.0 0 0 - Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 270 30 11.1 55 25 45.5 Other single-attached house 25 15 60.0 10 0 0.0 Movable dwelling 20 10 50.0 10 0 0.0 Total 3,275 2,685 82.0 1,525 1,290 84.6 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation - 2001 Census*.
63
Bruce County Housing Study
4.4 Age of Homeowners
The following Figure and Table compare the age of homeowners between 1996 and 2001 for Bruce County and Ontario. It is interesting to note that the proportion of total homeowners in the older age groups is much higher in Bruce County than the province as a whole and that this trend has been increasing over time. This indicates the lack of young families in Bruce County in general and is also an indicator of the lack of alternative forms of housing for seniors.
Within Bruce County, the municipalities in the North have the greatest percentage of senior homeowners, 45.5% in Northern Bruce Peninsula and 38.9% in South Bruce Peninsula. The more rural municipalities also have a high percentage of older homeowners compared to Kincardine and Saugeen Shores.
Figure 13: Age of Home Owners in Bruce County and Ontario for 1996 and 2001
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0 Proportion
5.0
0.0 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and Over Years Years Years Years Years Years Age Groups
Ontario, 1996 Ontario, 2001 Bruce County, 1996 Bruce County, 2001
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation – 1996 and 2001 Census
64
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 30: Age of Homeowners In Bruce County and Ontario for 1996 and 2001 Age Group for Ontario, 1996 Ontario, 2001 Bruce County, 1996 Bruce County, 2001 Homeowners 15 to 24 Years 0.63 0.71 0.58 0.80 25 to 34 Years 13.4 11.1 11.0 7.9 35 to 44 Years 24.4 24.5 23.0 18.3 45 to 54 Years 22.5 23.9 19.9 23.5 55 to 64 Years 16.2 16.5 16.8 18.8 65 to 74 Years 14.5 13.4 17.3 18.1 75 and Over 8.4 9.8 11.4 12.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation - 2001 Census
Table 31: Age of Homeowners By Municipality (2001) Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Age Group for # % # % # % Homeowners 15 to 24 Years 145 0.8 19,975 0.7 10 0.8 25 to 34 Years 1,420 7.9 312,505 11.1 175 13.3 35 to 44 Years 3,300 18.3 690,180 24.5 265 20.1 45 to 54 Years 4,230 23.5 673,850 23.9 290 22.0 55 to 64 Years 3,395 18.8 464,085 16.5 200 15.2 65 to 74 Years 3,265 18.1 376,710 13.4 160 12.1 75 and Over 2,270 12.6 276,485 9.8 220 16.7 Total 18,025 100.0 2,813,790 100.0 1,320 100.0
Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton Age Group for # % # % # % Homeowners 15 to 24 Years 20 1.2 30 1.0 15 0.6 25 to 34 Years 110 6.6 260 8.4 235 9.3 35 to 44 Years 300 17.9 575 18.5 550 21.8 45 to 54 Years 385 23.0 870 28.0 585 23.2 55 to 64 Years 310 18.5 610 19.6 425 16.8 65 to 74 Years 285 17.0 490 15.8 400 15.8 75 and Over 265 15.8 270 8.7 315 12.5 Total 1,675 100.0 3,105 100.0 2,525 100.0
65
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 31: Age of Homeowners By Municipality (2001) Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula Age Group for # % # % # % Homeowners 15 to 24 Years 35 1.9 15 0.4 0 0.0 25 to 34 Years 190 10.6 190 5.3 205 7.6 35 to 44 Years 390 21.7 680 18.9 390 14.6 45 to 54 Years 440 24.4 1,010 28.0 480 17.9 55 to 64 Years 255 14.2 720 20.0 560 20.9 65 to 74 Years 265 14.7 650 18.0 615 22.9 75 and Over 225 12.5 340 9.4 430 16.0 Total 1,800 100.0 3,605 100.0 2,680 100.0
Northern Bruce Peninsula Age Group for # % Homeowners 15 to 24 Years 10 0.8 25 to 34 Years 60 4.6 35 to 44 Years 155 12.0 45 to 54 Years 170 13.1 55 to 64 Years 310 23.9 65 to 74 Years 385 29.7 75 and Over 205 15.8 Total 1,295 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation - 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
4.5 Cost of Ownership Housing
Below we examine data on the cost of ownership housing in Bruce County.
4.5.1 Resale Data
The following table describes recent resale activity in Bruce County, based on data provided by ReMax Lake Lands Realty. The figures are categorized into North Bruce County and South Bruce County. North Bruce County includes North Bruce Peninsula, South Bruce Peninsula, Saugeen Shores and Arran-Elderslie. South Bruce County includes Kincardine, South Bruce, Huron-Kinloss and Brockton. Overall, there were more units sold in North Bruce County than South Bruce County in 2002 and 2003. The number of sales decreased by 16 units in North Bruce County and increased by 27 units in South Bruce County from 2002 to 2003.
66
Bruce County Housing Study
Housing prices are similar between both areas. In 2003, 52% of sale prices were over $120,000 in both areas, which represents an extremely rapid inflation of 10% in house prices in just one year. Similarly, sale prices under $69,000 decreased in both areas. North Bruce County had 23% of listings under $69,000 in 2002, which decreased to 17% in 2003. In South Bruce County, 30% of the sale prices were under $69,000 in 2002, which decreased to 14% in 2003. Therefore, in all of Bruce County, 16.2% of the houses sold in 2003 were at a cost below $69,000.
Based on the affordable ownership analysis in Section 4.6, 17.3% of households throughout Bruce County can only afford ownership dwellings that cost up to $71,500. Not only are dwellings in this category in short supply but the supply is decreasing due to rapidly escalating house prices, making it increasingly difficult for lower income households to find suitable affordable ownership housing in the resale market.
Table 32: Sales Analysis for North Bruce and South Bruce County Jan to Dec 2002 Jan to Dec 2003 Sales Price North Bruce South Bruce North Bruce South Bruce Categories County* County** County County $0 to $39,999 47 19 34 19 $40 to $49,999 22 7 24 8 $50 to 59,999 35 21 27 16 $60 to $69,999 49 33 30 19 $70 to $79,999 46 40 34 22 $80 to $89,999 57 31 48 25 $90 to $99,999 51 36 46 27 $100 to $119,999 76 50 75 70 $120 to $139,999 105 57 82 74 $140 to $159,999 62 35 77 40 Over $160,000 126 76 183 112 Total Units 676 405 660 432 Source: ReMax Lake Lands Realty, Ltd (November 2004)
Note: * North Bruce County contains: North Bruce Peninsula, South Bruce Peninsula, Saugeen Shores and Arran-Elderslie
**South Bruce County contains: Kincardine, Municipality of South Bruce, Huron-Kinloss and Brockton
The following Figure and Table add up the North Bruce and South Bruce areas to show the total sales for Bruce County in 2002 and 2003. Overall, the number of total sales was quite similar in each year (approximately 1,100). With the exception of a slight
67
Bruce County Housing Study increase (0.2%) in house sales between $40,000 to $49,000, all sales of dwellings less than $100,000 decreased. Dwelling sales over $100,000 increased by almost 12%. The greatest increase in sales was seen in houses costing over $160,000, which increased by 8.3%.
Clearly house prices are increasing within Bruce County. While low mortgage rates are making these units affordable to a wider range of households, they remain beyond reach for a large number of households of low and moderate income. Any increase in mortgage rates would reduce affordability further.
Figure 14: Total Sales for North and South Bruce
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0 Proportion of Units of Proportion 5.0
0.0
9 9 9 9 99 9 60 ,99 ,9 99 99 ,9 1 9 9, 9, 9 r $ 5 8 e $ $99,999 13 159,999 to $ $ to to Ov 0 to $49 0 to $69,9990 to $7 0 0 $0 to $39,9994 $50 6 7 $ $ $ $8 $9 120 to $100 tp $119,999$ $140 to Price
Jan to Dec 2002 Jan to Dec 2003
Source: ReMax Lake Lands Realty, Ltd (November 2004) Note: *Contains totals for both North Bruce and South Bruce County
68
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 33: Total Sales for North and South Bruce Jan to Dec 2002* Jan to Dec 2003* Sales Price # % # % Categories $0 to $39,999 66 6.1 53 4.9 $40 to $49,999 29 2.7 32 2.9 $50 to 59,999 56 5.2 43 3.9 $60 to $69,999 82 7.6 49 4.5 $70 to $79,999 86 8.0 56 5.1 $80 to $89,999 88 8.1 73 6.7 $90 to $99,999 87 8.0 73 6.7 $100 to $119,999 126 11.7 145 13.3 $120 to $139,999 162 15.0 156 14.3 $140 to $159,999 97 9.0 117 10.7 Over $160,000 202 18.7 295 27.0 Total Units 1,081 100.0 1,092 100.0 Source: ReMax Lake Lands Realty, Ltd (November 2004) Note: *Contains totals for both North Bruce and South Bruce County
4.6 Homeownership Affordability
4.6.1 Trends in Mortgage Rates
The general decline in mortgage rates witnessed since the last economic decline in 1990 has had a profound effect on the ownership market. Not only has it allowed many households to move up into larger units; it has allowed many renters to venture into ownership. This has had the effect of reducing demand for rental units.
A recent poll suggests that individuals between the ages of 18-34 now represent one- third of homebuyers in Canada. Encouraged by lower mortgage rates, this group has increased from just 10% in the 1990’s. The average age of Canadian homeowners has fallen from 48 in the 1990’s to 41 in recent years. Since 1995, the five year rate has dropped from over 10% to 6%, while the decline in short term rates has been even more pronounced.
69
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 15: Mortgage Rates
Source: CMHC/Bank of Canada, 1994Q1-2004: Q2 (2004 Housing Now, Volume 3 Issue 2)
4.6.2 Comparison of House Prices to Income Ranges
The following section provides an analysis of home ownership affordability, based on the following assumptions. Ownership housing costs (principal, interest and taxes) were calculated based on property taxes equal to 0.125% of the house value, a 10% down payment, mortgage interest rate of 6.50% fixed for five years and a 25 year amortization period.
As shown earlier, 17.3% of the households throughout Bruce County earned under $20,000 in 2001. An analysis of affordability suggests that these households can only afford ownership dwellings that cost up to $71,500 (based on spending 30% of their income on principal, interest and taxes). As shown in Table 33, such units are in extremely short supply in Bruce County as a whole, especially in the Municipality of Saugeen Shores.
As shown in Table 34, households earning between $20,000 and $29,999 can afford ownership units in the $71,500 to $105,000 range. While there are a few more ownership units on the market within this price range (see Tables 33-35), it is clear that there is very limited choice for households in this income group. Thus, for the considerable numbers of households in this income group who are not currently homeowners, the dream of home ownership holds little promise. Other housing options, primarily rental housing, are needed for these families and individuals.
Further, given the elderly profile of homeowners in Bruce County, it is likely that many of the households in this income range that have succeeded in becoming homeowners are experiencing affordability and/or maintenance difficulties in keeping their homes. The
70
Bruce County Housing Study advanced age of many of these dwellings is also likely giving rise to steadily increasing maintenance and repair costs. Other housing options more suited to their needs are needed for this group.
Table 34: Affordable Ownership Costs Based on Household Income, Bruce County, 2001 Number of % of Total Affordable Ownership Household Income ownership Ownership (Unit Cost) Households Households Under $10,000 450 2.5 Under $71,500 $10,000 to $19,999 1,680 9.3 $20,000 to $29,999 2,445 13.6 $71,500 to $105,000 $30,000 to $39,999 2,090 11.6 $105,001 to $140,000 $40,000 to $49,999 1,920 10.7 $140,001 to $172,400 Sub-total Under $49,999 8,585 47.6 $50,000 and over 9,435 52.4 $172,400 and over Total 18,020 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, and SHS Calculations
4.6.3 Comparing 1995 and 2000 Owner Incomes for Bruce County and Ontario
As shown in the following figure, median and average incomes for homeowners in Bruce County have increased between 1996 and 2001. At the same time, the table shows that a significantly higher proportion of homeowners in Bruce County are in the lower income groups than for the province as a whole.
71
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 16: Average and Median Income for Bruce County Homeowners, 1996 and 2001
$70,000 $60,961 $60,000 $51,909 $51,739 $50,000 $44,678
$40,000
Income $30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 1996 2001 Year
Median Income Average Income
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation – 1996 and 2001 Census
72
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 35: Income Distribution for Bruce County and Ontario Home Owners, 1996 and 2001 Bruce County Ontario
1996 1996 Income Categories # % # % Less than $10,000 535 3.1 59,145 2.4 $10,000 - $19,999 2,275 13.2 204,970 8.3 $20,000 - $29,999 2,560 14.8 231,365 9.4 $30,000 - $39,999 2,285 13.2 250,415 10.1 $40,000 - $49,999 1,930 11.2 272,240 11.0 $50,000 - $59,999 1,845 10.7 278,545 11.3 $60,000 - $69,999 1,500 8.7 262,390 10.6 $70,000 - $79,999 1,265 7.3 221,770 9.0 $80,000 - $89,999 910 5.3 175,400 7.1 $90,000 - $99,999 660 3.8 130,005 5.3 $100,000 and over 1,525 8.8 385,100 15.6 Total 17,290 100.0 2,471,345 100.0
Bruce County Ontario
2001 2001 Income Categories # % # % Less than $10,000 450 2.5 56,790 2.0 $10,000 - $19,999 1,680 9.3 174,645 6.2 $20,000 - $29,999 2,445 13.6 223,080 7.9 $30,000 - $39,999 2,090 11.6 244,400 8.7 $40,000 - $49,999 1,920 10.7 261,600 9.3 $50,000 - $59,999 1,785 9.9 266,190 9.5 $60,000 - $69,999 1,550 8.6 269,950 9.6 $70,000 - $79,999 1,270 7.0 243,425 8.7 $80,000 - $89,999 1,185 6.6 210,490 7.5 $90,000 - $99,999 885 4.9 176,325 6.3 $100,000 and over 2,760 15.3 686,900 24.4 Total 18,020 100.0 2,813,795 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation – 1996 and 2001 Census
73
Bruce County Housing Study
4.6.4 Income Ranges for Homeowners by Municipality
Appendix 4 looks at the income ranges for homeowners in Bruce County by municipality. Both the northern municipalities have the greatest proportion of home owners earning less than $30,000; Northern Bruce Peninsula at 33.4% and South Bruce Peninsula at 31.4%. Saugeen Shores, on the other hand, has the greatest percentage of homeowners earning more than $100,000; it is the only municipality above the provincial figure (24.4%). Kincardine has the second largest proportion at 20%.
Compared to income for all households, the proportion of owners earning less than $30,000 is less than that for total occupied dwellings by 5.9%. Not surprisingly, homeowners have higher earnings than renters. Section 5.9.3 compares homeowner incomes and average renter incomes further.
4.6.5 Proportion of Income Spent on Ownership Costs
The following Figure describes the percentage of income spent on homeownership in 1995 and 2000 for Bruce County. The data shows that there has been a decrease in the percentage of households spending over 30% of their income on ownership costs. Households spending less than 15% of their income on ownership costs have increased by 7.8%. This is a welcome trend in the housing market and is likely a reflection of declining mortgage rates.
In contrast, the municipalities of Kincardine (0.7%), Brockton (1.7%) and Northern Bruce Peninsula (3.3%) have seen an increase in the percentage of households spending over 30% of their income on homeownership costs between 1995 and 2000. All municipalities within Bruce County have seen an increase in the percentage of households spending less than 15% of their income on homeownership costs. Huron- Kinloss showed the greatest increase in this category at an increase of 10.2% between 1995 and 2000.
74
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 17: Percentage of Income Spent on Ownership Costs in 1995 and 2000, in Bruce County
60.0 55.6
50.0 47.8
40.0 37.9 31.9 30.0
Proportion 20.0
8.7 7.7 10.0 5.7 4.9
0.0 Less than 15% 15.1% to 30.0% 30.1% to 50.0% 50.1% and over Income Spent on Ownership Costs
1995 2000
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996, 2001 Census
*note: Ownership costs include, annual payment for electricity, annual payment for oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, annual payment for water and other municipal services, annual property taxes, condominium fees, monthly mortgage payment and property taxes included in mortgage payments
75
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 36: Percentage of Income Spent on Ownership Costs in 1995 and 2000*
Spending Less than 15%
% of Owners % of Owners Households Households Spending Less Total Spending Less Total Spending Spending than 15% of Ownership than 15% on Ownership Area less than less than income on Households Ownership Households 15% 15% Ownership (1995) Costs (2000) (1995) (2000) Costs (1995) (2000) South Bruce 1,280 560 43.8 1,320 700 53.0 Huron-Kinloss 1,700 870 51.2 1,685 1,035 61.4 Kincardine 3,020 1,475 48.8 3,110 1,775 57.1 Brockton 2,365 1,190 50.3 2,525 1,300 51.5 Arran-Elderslie 1,740 765 44.0 1,805 830 46.0 Saugeen Shores 3,440 1,680 n/a 3,605 2,145 59.5 South Bruce Peninsula 2,560 1,100 n/a 2,685 1,490 55.5 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,185 610 51.5 1,295 745 57.5 Bruce County 17,290 8,260 47.8 18,025 10,020 55.6 Ontario 2,471,345 1,047,420 42.4 2,813,785 1,255,485 44.6
Spending 15.1% to 30.0%
% of Owners % of Owners Households Spending Households Spending Total Total Spending between 15.1% Spending between 15.1% Ownership Ownership Area 15.1% to and 30% on 15.1% to and 30% on Households Households 30.0% Ownership 30.0% Ownership (1995) (2000) (1995) Costs (2000) Costs (1995) (2000)
South Bruce 1,280 505 39.5 1,320 500 37.9 Huron-Kinloss 1,700 565 33.2 1,685 470 27.9 Kincardine 3,020 1,205 39.9 3,110 965 31.0 Brockton 2,365 845 35.7 2,525 835 33.1 Arran-Elderslie 1,740 700 40.2 1,805 710 39.3 Saugeen Shores 3,440 1,360 n/a 3,605 1,085 30.1 South Bruce Peninsula 2,560 950 n/a 2,685 820 30.5 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,185 410 34.6 1,295 355 27.4 Bruce County 17,290 6,545 37.9 18,025 5,745 31.9 Ontario 2,471,345 973,545 39.4 2,813,785 1,089,580 38.7
76
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 36: Percentage of Income Spent on Ownership Costs in 1995 and 2000* Spending 30.1% to 50.0% % of Owners % of Owners Spending Spending Households Households Total between 30.1% Total between 30.1% Spending Spending Ownership to 50.0% of Ownership to 50.0% of Area 30.1% to 30.1% to Households income on Households income on 50.0% 50.0% (1995) Ownership (2000) Ownership (1995) (2000) Costs Costs (1995) (2000) South Bruce 1,280 130 10.2 1,320 85 6.4 Huron-Kinloss 1,700 215 12.6 1,685 140 8.3 Kincardine 3,020 195 6.5 3,110 200 6.4 Brockton 2,365 180 7.6 2,525 220 8.7 Arran-Elderslie 1,740 165 9.5 1,805 170 9.4 Saugeen Shores 3,440 235 n/a 3,605 225 6.2 South Bruce Peninsula 2,560 295 n/a 2,685 210 7.8 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,185 90 7.6 1,295 130 10.0 Bruce County 17,290 1,505 8.7 18,025 1,385 7.7 Ontario 2,471,345 288,315 11.7 2,813,785 296,490 10.5 Spending 50.1% and over % of Owners % of Owners Households Spending more Households Spending more Total Total Spending than 50.1% of Spending than 50.1% of Ownership Ownership Area 50.1% and income on 50.1% and income on Households Households over Ownership over Ownership (1995) (2000) (1995) Costs (2000) Costs (1995) (2000) South Bruce 1,280 80 6.3 1,320 40 3.0 Huron-Kinloss 1,700 50 2.9 1,685 35 2.1 Kincardine 3,020 140 4.6 3,110 165 5.3 Brockton 2,365 145 6.1 2,525 170 6.7 Arran-Elderslie 1,740 110 6.3 1,805 90 5.0 Saugeen Shores 3,440 170 n/a 3,605 150 4.2 South Bruce Peninsula 2,560 215 n/a 2,685 165 6.1 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,185 75 6.3 1,295 70 5.4 Bruce County 17,290 980 5.7 18,025 885 4.9 Ontario 2,471,345 162,065 6.6 2,813,785 172,230 6.1 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996, 2001 Census *note: Ownership costs include, annual payment for electricity, annual payment for oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, annual payment for water and other municipal services, annual property taxes, condominium fees, monthly mortgage payment and property taxes included in mortgage payments *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
77
Bruce County Housing Study
4.7 Summary of Home Ownership Market
Rate of Home Ownership has Increased Slightly over the Years
As noted earlier, homeownership is considered the ideal housing choice for many. Over eighty percent of the households in Bruce County are homeowners and most likely enjoy a stable and affordable living environment. Most of the owned dwellings are single-detached homes. Almost one quarter (23.5%) of homeowners in Bruce County in 2001 were between the ages of 45 and 55.
Home Ownership Affordable to Most Households, Except Those with Annual Income Below $30,000
Affordability issues among households earning lower incomes preclude most from obtaining ownership housing. As a result, many of these households turn to the rental market to satisfy their needs. The affordability analysis found that most households earning under $30,000 cannot afford homeownership and must turn to other options to find affordable housing. A detailed analysis of the importance of rental housing and the availability of rental housing in provided in the following chapter.
Of the owners in Bruce County as a whole, less are spending over 30% of their income on ownership costs than in previous years. Kincardine, Brockton and Northern Bruce Peninsula, however, are exceptions and have seen an increase in owners spending over 30% of their income on ownership costs. Special attention to these municipalities is required to avoid further increases in ownership costs.
78
Bruce County Housing Study
5 RENTAL HOUSING MARKET
5.1 Role of Rental Housing Market
Rental housing fulfils a number of roles in the housing market. For single individuals and non-family households it can provide a flexible form of accommodation that supports an active and mobile lifestyle. For seniors unable to cope with the day-to-day upkeep of detached homes, rental housing offers relief from the burden of maintenance and repair and greater potential for social interaction with neighbours. For persons with physical disabilities, modest unit sizes, elevators, the lack of stairs and other advantages can often better meet their needs than detached homes. For students who face a temporary living situation in a new community, short-term rental housing presents an ideal option.
Beyond these lifestyle advantages, however, perhaps the main role of rental housing in any community is its affordability relative to most forms of home ownership. Rental dwellings in most cases tend to require lower monthly payments than the principal, interest, taxes, utilities and maintenance costs associated with home ownership. There is also no need to pay down payments (other than first and last month’s rent), legal and closing fees, land transfer tax and other costs associated with the purchase of a home. Further, RGI rental housing is provided on a subsidized basis geared to 30% of gross household income, providing a fully affordable form of accommodation for households at virtually any income level.
For these and related reasons, it is critical that all communities provide a sufficient range of rental housing to meet the needs of the local population and that this supply expand as the population grows. It is also important that this supply consist primarily of permanent, purpose-built rental housing in order to ensure the stability and security of tenants.
Below we assess the ability of Bruce County’s rental market to meet the current and future needs of the population.
5.2 Trends in Rental Tenure
The following Table shows the rental tenure between 1991 and 2001 by municipality. Overall, the number of occupied rental dwellings decreased by 165 units in the ten year period. The decline was particularly steep from 1996 to 2001, with the number of occupied rental dwellings dropping by 425 (from 5,225 to 4,800 – a drop of 8.1%). Some 21% of Bruce County dwellings were rented in 1991. By 2001, this figure had declined to 19.3%.
79
Bruce County Housing Study
Part of the decline is explained by the drop in the proportion of semi-detached units occupied by renters from 1996 to 2001. Clearly, many owners of such dwellings pulled them off the rental market for various reasons during this time period. In addition, there have been some cases of existing rental dwellings being converted to condominium tenure, especially in lakeshore communities such as Kincardine. This is further evidence of the need to ensure a stable permanent stock of rental dwellings.
Only three municipalities increased their rental housing supply during this period. Arran-Elderslie increased their supply by 25 units, South Bruce Peninsula by 25 units and Northern Bruce Peninsula by 75 units.
The largest concentration of rental tenure is in the lakeshore municipalities, 975 in Saugeen Shores and 960 in Kincardine. In the 1996-2001 period, the number of occupied rental dwellings dropped considerably in each municipality (a drop of 70 units in Kincardine and 145 in Saugeen Shores). Brockton has the third largest concentration (810) and actually has the greatest percent of total stock (22.3%).
Although the rental stock overall has declined, the number of applicants on the centralized waiting list for Bruce County has increased. This is discussed further in Section 5.8.2 below.
Table 37: Occupied Rental Dwellings by Area, 1991-2001 1991 1996 2001 % of Total % of Total % of Total Area # # # Stock Stock Stock South Bruce 400 19.6 410 19.5 365 17.1 Huron-Kinloss 380 17.0 375 16.5 350 15.2 Kincardine 1,015 23.9 1,030 23.7 960 22.2 Brockton 855 24.3 925 25.0 810 22.3 Arran-Elderslie 435 18.0 460 18.6 460 18.5 Saugeen Shores 1,030 23.8 1,120 24.3 975 21.0 South Bruce Peninsula 550 17.8 585 18.0 575 17.0 Northern Bruce Peninsula 145 10.7 265 17.6 220 13.8 Saugeen, R - - 35 15.6 45 19.1 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 4,965 21.0 5,225 21.3 4,800 19.3 Source: Statistics Canada, 1991 & 1996, 2001 Census
* Note: Municipality totals for 1991-2001 do not add up to the published Statistics Canada total for Bruce County. This is because Statistics Canada suppressed the data for the individual Reserves during these Census years.
80
Bruce County Housing Study
5.3 Distribution of Rental Dwellings
The following Table shows the distribution of rental housing by municipality for 2001. Similar to owned dwellings, the bulk of the rental housing in Bruce County is located along the lakeshore areas of Saugeen Shores and Kincardine. Brockton, however, also has a high percentage of rental distribution at 16.9%.
The modest level of rental housing in the more rural municipalities is typical of smaller communities in Ontario, where homeownership tends to predominate.
Table 38: Distribution of Rented Dwellings by Sub-Area, 2001 % Distribution by Total Housing Area # Rented Area Stock South Bruce 365 7.6 2,135 Huron-Kinloss 350 7.3 2,300 Kincardine 960 20.0 4,315 Brockton 810 16.9 3,630 Arran-Elderslie 460 9.6 2,490 Saugeen Shores 975 20.3 4,645 South Bruce Peninsula 575 12.0 3,385 Northern Bruce Peninsula 220 4.6 1,585 Saugeen, R 45 0.9 240 Cape Croker, R No data Bruce County 4,800 100.0 24,960 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census * Note: Statistics Canada suppressed the data for Cape Croker in 2001 and as a result, municipality totals do not add up to Bruce County total.
5.4 Rental Housing Building Types
5.4.1 Rental Building Types in Bruce County, 1996 and 2001
The following Table shows the proportion of rented dwellings by type for Bruce County for 1996 and 2001. The data shows that there has been a decrease in the proportion of single-detached and semi-detached homes being rented, while row houses, apartments and duplexes have increased. These figures are consistent with the trend discussed in Section 4.3.1, which described an increase in ownership among single-detached and semi-detached dwellings and a decrease in row houses, apartments and duplexes.
81
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 18: Proportion of Rented Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County 1996 and 2001
100.0 89.788.1 90.0 79.4 80.0 75.476.0 70.5 70.0
60.0 53.3 50.0 50.0 45.5 40.9 40.0 Proportion
30.0
20.0 17.1 17.9 11.3 10.5 10.0
0.0 Single- Semi- Row house Apartment, Apartment, Other single- Movable detached detached detached less than five attached dwelling house house duplex storeys house Dwelling Type
Bruce County 1996 Bruce County 2001
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996 and 2001 Census
Table 39: Proportion of Rented Dwellings by Dwelling Type, Bruce County 1996 and 2001 1996 2001
Bruce County Bruce County Type of Dwelling Total Rented % Rented Total Rented % Rented Single-detached house 18,295 2,060 11.3 19,235 2,020 10.5 Semi-detached house 400 200 50.0 440 200 45.5 Row house 525 370 70.5 510 405 79.4 Apartment, detached duplex 305 230 75.4 125 95 76.0 Apartment, less than five storeys 2,325 2,085 89.7 2,060 1,815 88.1 Other single-attached house 225 120 53.3 110 45 40.9 Movable dwelling 350 60 17.1 140 25 17.9 Total 22,425 5,125 22.9 22,620 4,605 20.4 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996 and 2001 Census
82
Bruce County Housing Study
5.4.2 Rental Building Types by Municipality, 2001
Some 10.5% of the single-detached units in Bruce County as a whole are being rented out by their owners, which is slightly higher than the provincial average of 8.2%.
Some 45.5% of the County’s semi-detached housing stock, however, is also being rented out by its owners, which is almost double the Ontario average (23.2%). Further, Bruce County has a greater proportion of rented row houses and apartment/detached duplexes than the province. In fact almost eighty percent of row houses are rented compared to just 41.8% for the province. Apartment stock is predominately rental, as is the case across the province.
Discussions with local realtors indicate that cottages are frequently used as short-term rental accommodation and, in areas such as Kincardine, can often be rented during the winter months (November to April) for about $500 - $600 per month plus utilities. However, when the summer months arrive, tenants must find alternative accommodation. Thus, these units do not present a long term solution to the problem.
83
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 40: Rented Dwellings by Housing Structure Throughout Bruce County and Ontario (2001) Bruce County Ontario Type of Dwelling Total Stock # Rented % Rented Total Rented % Rented Single-detached house 19,235 2,020 10.5 2,400,125 196,255 8.2 Semi-detached house 440 200 45.5 262,690 61,070 23.2 Row house 510 405 79.4 306,760 128,110 41.8 Apartment, detached duplex 125 95 76.0 87,790 58,435 66.6 Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 672,720 538,625 80.1 Apartment, less than five storeys 2,060 1,815 88.1 398,440 346,580 87.0 Other single-attached house 110 45 40.9 12,155 7,975 65.6 Movable dwelling 140 25 17.9 11,945 1,805 15.1 Total 22,620 4,605 20.4 4,152,625 1,338,855 32.2 South Bruce Huron-Kinloss Type of Dwelling Total Stock # Rented % Rented Total Rented % Rented Single-detached house 1,460 165 11.3 1,830 180 9.8 Semi-detached house 15 0 0.0 15 0 0.0 Row house 10 10 100.0 25 20 80.0 Apartment, detached duplex 10 10 100.0 0 0 - Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 145 145 100.0 125 115 92.0 Other single-attached house 10 0 0.0 20 10 50.0 Movable dwelling 30 20 66.7 0 0 - Total 1,680 350 20.8 2,015 325 16.1 Kincardine Brockton Type of Dwelling Total Stock # Rented % Rented Total Rented % Rented Single-detached house 3,305 390 11.8 2,635 240 9.1 Semi-detached house 105 45 42.9 65 35 53.8 Row house 225 185 82.2 100 100 100.0 Apartment, detached duplex 25 15 60.0 50 40 80.0 Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 320 285 89.1 425 350 82.4 Other single-attached house 25 25 100.0 0 0 - Movable dwelling 55 0 0.0 10 0 0.0 Total 4,060 945 23.3 3,285 765 23.3
84
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 40: Rented Dwellings by Housing Structure Throughout Bruce County and Ontario (2001)
Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores Type of Dwelling Total Stock # Rented % Rented Total Rented % Rented Single-detached house 1,965 200 10.2 3,660 345 9.4 Semi-detached house 15 0 0.0 210 95 45.2 Row house 20 20 100.0 140 70 50.0 Apartment, detached duplex 10 10 100.0 30 25 83.3 Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 230 215 93.5 505 445 88.1 Other single-attached house 20 0 0.0 15 0 0.0 Movable dwelling 0 0 - 15 0 0.0 Total 2,260 445 19.7 4,575 980 21.4 South Bruce Peninsula Northern Bruce Peninsula Type of Dwelling Total Stock # Rented % Rented Total Rented % Rented Single-detached house 2,930 310 10.6 1,450 190 13.1 Semi-detached house 20 0 0.0 0 0 - Row house 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, detached duplex 10 0 0.0 0 0 - Apartment, 5+ storeys 0 0 - 0 0 - Apartment, less than five storeys 270 240 88.9 55 30 54.5 Other single-attached house 25 10 40.0 10 0 0.0 Movable dwelling 20 10 50.0 10 0 0.0 Total 3,275 570 17.4 1,525 220 14.4 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation - 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
5.5 Age of Renter Households
The following Figure and Table show the age of renter households in Bruce County and Ontario for 1996 and 2001. Bruce County shows a similar trend to the Province as far as fluctuations over the five year period. The largest fluctuation was experienced in the 25 to 34 age category which showed a decrease of 4.3% for the Province and 7.4% for Bruce County. Ontario, however, does have a higher proportion of renters in both the 25 to 34 and the 34 to 44 age categories, while Bruce County has a much higher proportion of renters over the age of 65. Over one quarter of the renters in Bruce County in 2001 were over the age of 65, including 15.5% being over the age of 75.
85
Bruce County Housing Study
By municipality, the greatest percentages of renters over the age of 65 were in Arran- Elderslie (30.3%), South Bruce (28.2%) and Huron-Kinloss (27.5%).
Figure 19: Age of Renter Households in Bruce County and Ontario for 1996 and 2001
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0 Proportion 10.0
5.0
0.0 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and Over Years Years Years Years Years Years Age Groups
Ontario (1996) Ontario (2001) Bruce County 1996 Bruce County 2001
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation – 1996 and 2001 Census
Table 41: Age of Renters in Bruce County and Ontario for 1996 and 2001 Renter Age Ontario, 1996 Ontario, 2001 Bruce County, 1996 Bruce County, 2001 Groups 15 to 24 Years 8.1 7.6 7.4 8.3 25 to 34 Years 29.1 24.8 26.0 18.6 35 to 44 Years 23.4 24.4 20.1 20.2 45 to 54 Years 13.9 16.5 11.4 16.4 55 to 64 Years 8.5 9.4 8.5 11.3 65 to 74 Years 8.6 8.2 11.0 9.7 75 and Over 8.4 9.1 15.7 15.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation - 2001 Census
86
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 42: Age of Renters By Municipality (2001) Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Renter Age # % # % # % Groups 15 to 24 Years 380 8.3 101,935 7.6 30 8.5 25 to 34 Years 855 18.6 331,435 24.8 90 25.4 35 to 44 Years 930 20.2 326,680 24.4 75 21.1 45 to 54 Years 755 16.4 220,335 16.5 35 9.9 55 to 64 Years 520 11.3 126,510 9.4 25 7.0 65 to 74 Years 445 9.7 109,615 8.2 60 16.9 75 and Over 710 15.5 122,340 9.1 40 11.3 Total 4,595 100.0 1,338,850 100.0 355 100.0
Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton Renter Age # % # % # % Groups 15 to 24 Years 25 7.2 50 5.3 105 14.0 25 to 34 Years 50 14.5 180 19.1 150 20.0 35 to 44 Years 75 21.7 175 18.6 135 18.0 45 to 54 Years 40 11.6 190 20.2 115 15.3 55 to 64 Years 60 17.4 115 12.2 80 10.7 65 to 74 Years 30 8.7 95 10.1 85 11.3 75 and Over 65 18.8 135 14.4 80 10.7 Total 345 100.0 940 100.0 750 100.0
Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula Renter Age # % # % # % Groups 15 to 24 Years 55 12.4 75 7.8 35 6.0 25 to 34 Years 85 19.1 155 16.1 95 16.4 35 to 44 Years 80 18.0 215 22.3 105 18.1 45 to 54 Years 55 12.4 145 15.0 130 22.4 55 to 64 Years 35 7.9 120 12.4 85 14.7 65 to 74 Years 50 11.2 65 6.7 55 9.5 75 and Over 85 19.1 190 19.7 75 12.9 Total 445 100.0 965 100.0 580 100.0
87
Bruce County Housing Study
Northern Bruce Peninsula Renter Age # % Groups 15 to 24 Years 15 6.7 25 to 34 Years 50 22.2 35 to 44 Years 60 26.7 45 to 54 Years 40 17.8 55 to 64 Years 10 4.4 65 to 74 Years 10 4.4 75 and Over 40 17.8 Total 225 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation - 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
5.6 Rental Market Vacancy Rates
In larger centres, CMHC conducts rental vacancy surveys. However, it does not collect data specifically for Bruce County. In order to assess vacancy trends, we spoke with local real estate agents familiar with the rental market. From the discussion, it appears there are variations in vacancies in different areas of the County.
In the lakeshore area, rental vacancies have grown in the past year and are currently estimated at about 5%. It is anticipated that this situation will grow tighter in future, especially if the Bruce Power expansion occurs. This suggests that efforts are needed to expand the rental supply in the lakeshore communities.
In the more rural areas, it is suggested that vacancy rates are higher. In some smaller rural communities, in fact, Bruce Housing Corporation itself is experiencing difficulty filling rent-geared-to-income units, primarily due to the declining population in such areas.
5.7 Average Market Rents
Because CMHC does not conduct rental surveys in Bruce County, we obtained data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), which gathers rental data as part of its responsibility to assess properties in Ontario.
The MPAC report states:
“The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (MPAC) Fair Market Rent Report provides an overview of actual rents being charged in a specific region of Ontario. Rental data for the report has been derived from information as of June 30, 2003. For
88
Bruce County Housing Study
the purposes of this report only multi-residential properties of seven units or more have been considered.
This report provides an analysis of rents by municipality stratified by building design and unit type. The sample size, median, minimum and maximum rent, charged for each category of rental accommodation is included in the report.
Rents reported for rowhouse units are at net position: utilities are not included. Rents reported for walkup and highrise units are at gross position; utilities are included. A schedule of utility adjustments used by MPAC is provided below. Net rent levels can be calculated for walkup and highrise units by removing the appropriate utility adjustment from the indicated rents.
MPAC administers a uniform, province-wide property assessment system based on current value assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Assessment Act. The Corporation provides a range of services, including the preparation of annual assessment rolls for use by municipalities and the Province to calculate property taxes and education taxes. MPAC maintains an extensive database on all properties within the province of Ontario.”
Table 43: Utility Adjustments According to MPAC Suite Type Heat Hydro Water Cable 1 Bed $25.00 $25.00 $10.00 $25.00 2 Bed $40.00 $40.00 $15.00 $25.00 3 Bed $50.00 $50.00 $20.00 $25.00 4 Bed $60.00 $60.00 $25.00 $25.00 5 Bed $60.00 $60.00 $25.00 $25.00 Bachelor $20.00 $20.00 $10.00 $25.00 Source: Bruce County, 2003 Fair Market Rent Report
The following six tables outline rents by municipality based on 2003 MPAC data.
According to MPAC figures, the cost of bachelor units range from $430 to $459 with only slight variations among municipalities. For one-bedroom unit apartments (walk- up), shown in Table 45, median rents range from $475 in South Bruce and Huron- Kinloss to $550 in Kincardine. In general, rents for one, two and three bedroom units are slightly higher in Saugeen Shores, Brockton and Kincardine for walk-up apartments and row houses. These three municipalities also have the greatest proportion of rental dwellings. Although the median rent for a three-bedroom in Huron-Kinloss is the highest there was a very small sample taken from this municipality.
Tables 48 and 49 show the average rent for four and five-bedroom units. Notably, only the municipalities of Saugeen Shores, Kincardine and Brockton have four and five bedroom units. Larger families in need of rental housing, therefore, may be forced to
89
Bruce County Housing Study
live in units that are unsuitable or relocate to one of these municipalities to find suitable rental housing.
Table 44: Rents for Bachelor Units According to MPAC Building Sample Area Minimum Median Maximum Design Size Brockton Municipality Walkup 5 $450 $450 $450 Kincardine Municipality Walkup 10 $430 $430 $430 Saugeen Shores Town Walkup 6 $459 $459 $459 Source: Bruce County, 2003 Fair Market Rent Report
Table 45: Rents for One-Bedroom Units According to MPAC Building Sample Area Minimum Median Maximum Design Size South Bruce Peninsula Town Walkup 77 $400 $488 $508 Arran-Elderslie Municipality Walkup 96 $415 $480 $774 Brockton Municipality Walkup 87 $465 $518 $775 South Bruce Municipality Walkup 60 $440 $475 $520 Huron-Kinloss Township Rowhouse 12 $390 $413 $542 Huron-Kinloss Township Walkup 64 $425 $475 $520 Kincardine Municipality Rowhouse 20 $410 $459 $507 Kincardine Municipality Walkup 126 $455 $550 $665 Northern Bruce Peninsula Municipality Walkup 10 $487 $487 $487 Saugeen Shores Town Rowhouse 14 $410 $410 $410 Saugeen Shores Town Walkup 161 $415 $525 $574 Source: Bruce County, 2003 Fair Market Rent Report
90
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 46: Rents for Two-Bedroom Units According to MPAC Building Sample Area Minimum Median Maximum Design Size South Bruce Peninsula Town Walkup 41 $414 $535 $572 Arran-Elderslie Municipality Rowhouse 16 $477 $477 $477 Arran-Elderslie Municipality Walkup 37 $405 $572 $1,013 Brockton Municipality Rowhouse 33 $475 $475 $475 Brockton Municipality Walkup 98 $485 $598 $855 South Bruce Municipality Rowhouse 12 $430 $430 $430 South Bruce Municipality Walkup 35 $500 $564 $575 Huron-Kinloss Township Rowhouse 33 $435 $445 $545 Huron-Kinloss Township Walkup 15 $512 $575 $685 Kincardine Municipality Rowhouse 27 $468 $485 $605 Kincardine Municipality Walkup 8 $478 $602 $725 Northern Bruce Peninsula Walkup >5 $546 $546 $546 Saugeen Shores Town Rowhouse 15 $560 $560 $560 Saugeen Shores Town Walkup 203 $415 $555 $720 Source: Bruce County, 2003 Fair Market Rent Report
Table 47: Rents for Three-Bedroom Units According to MPAC Building Sample Area Minimum Median Maximum Design Size South Bruce Peninsula Town Walkup >5 $522 $522 $522 Arran-Elderslie Municipality Rowhouse >5 $566 $566 $566 Arran-Elderslie Municipality Walkup 6 $529 $529 $529 Brockton Municipality Rowhouse 7 $525 $525 $525 Brockton Municipality Walkup 14 $527 $535 $669 Huron-Kinloss Township Rowhouse >5 $530 $715 $900 Kincardine Municipality Rowhouse 55 $497 $558 $590 Saugeen Shores Town Rowhouse 13 $630 $630 $630 Saugeen Shores Town Walkup 50 $499 $614 $789 Source: Bruce County, 2003 Fair Market Rent Report
91
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 48: Rents for Four-Bedroom Units According to MPAC Building Sample Municipality Minimum Median Maximum Design Size Saugeen Shores Town Rowhouse >5 $675 $675 $675 Source: Bruce County, 2003 Fair Market Rent Report
Table 49: Cost of Five-Bedroom Units According to MPAC Building Sample Area Minimum Median Maximum Design Size Brockton Municipality Walkup >5 $995 $995 $995 Kincardine Municipality Rowhouse >5 $410 $410 $410 Source: Bruce County, 2003 Fair Market Rent Report
5.8 Rent Geared-To-Income Housing
5.8.1 The Social Housing Portfolio
The next four table outline the supply of social housing in Bruce County. There are a total of 726 social housing units within Bruce County. Overall, 262 units are adult housing, 319 are seniors housing, 35 are family housing, and 110 are integrated housing. About three quarters of the units are bachelor or one bedroom units, about 15% are two bedroom units and the balance are three and four bedroom units.
Of the 726 social housing units, 528 of these units are rent-geared-to-income (RGI) units. These units represent 72.7% of the social housing portfolio in Bruce County. As shown in Table 52, 203 or 38.4% of the RGI units, are adult housing, 205 or 38.8% are seniors housing, 31 or 5.8% are family housing and 89 or 16.9% are integrated housing. Over 80% of the RGI units are bachelor and one bedroom units. In addition, there are also a total of about 30 rent supplement units throughout Bruce County. Therefore, persons other than singles and seniors in need of RGI housing in Bruce County face barriers in securing affordable housing.
Almost half (48.5%) of the RGI units in Bruce County are located in the municipalities of Kincardine and Saugeen Shores. Northern Bruce Peninsula represents only 1.5% of the total RGI units.
92
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 50: Breakdown of the Total Social Housing Portfolio by Mandate, Bruce County Integrated Total Seniors Family (Adults, Unit size/type Adult Housing Social Housing Housing Family and Housing Stock Seniors) Bachelor 4 2 - - 6
1 Bed 249 245 - 33 527 1 Bed Modified 9 12 - 4 25 Total 1 bed/bachelor 258 257 0 37 552
2 Bed - 60 4 39 103 2 Bed Modified - - - 5 5 Total 2 bed** - 60 4 44 108
3 Bed - - 27 23 50 3 Bed Modified - - - - - Total 3 bed** - - 27 23 50
4 Bed - - 4 6 10 4 Bed Modified - - - - - Total 4 Bed - - 4 6 10
Total Social Housing 262 319 35 110 726 Stock Source: Bruce County Housing Corporation, November 2004.
The following Table shows the social housing stock by mandate. As shown, the majority of the units (80.0%) serve adults and seniors. Some 15.2% of the units are integrated, while only 4.8% of the units are mandated for families only.
Key informants indicated that RGI family housing is only available in Kincardine, Port Elgin and Walkerton. The lack of such units is seen as a major problem in the County. It was suggested that it is extremely difficult to gauge the need for these units because people do not apply for family units due to lack of such accommodation in various areas of the County. Efforts are underway to provide family rent supplement units in other areas such as Wiarton, Sauble Beach, Chesley, Paisley, Tara and Bruce Peninsula.
93
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 51: Breakdown of Total Social Housing Portfolio by Housing Mandate
Type of Project # of Units % of Units
Seniors 319 43.9 Adults 262 36.1 Integrated (Adults, Family, Seniors) 110 15.2 Family 35 4.8 Total 726 100.0 Source: Bruce County Housing Corporation, November 2004.
The following Table provides a breakdown of RGI units by mandate. In total, there are 528 RGI units across the County. Total RGI units represent 72.2% of the County’s social housing stock. As shown, the majority of these units (81.4%) are one bedroom/bachelor units, followed by three bedroom units (8.3%), two bedroom units (7.4%) and four bedroom units (1.7%).
Table 52: Breakdown of the RGI Units by Mandate, Bruce County Integrated Total Seniors Family Unit size/type Adult Housing (Adults, Family Social Housing Housing Housing and Seniors) Stock Bachelor 4 2 - - 6
1 Bed 190 193 - 24 407 1 Bed Modified 9 10 - 4 23 Total 1 bed/bachelor 199 203 - 28 430
2 Bed - - 4 30 34 2 Bed Modified - - - 5 5 Total 2 bed** - - 4 35 39
3 Bed - - 24 20 44 3 Bed Modified - - - - - Total 3 bed** - - 24 20 44
4 Bed - - 3 6 9 4 Bed Modified - - - - - Total 4 Bed - - 3 6 9
Total Social Housing 203 205 31 89 528 Stock Source: Bruce County Housing Corporation, November 2004.
94
Bruce County Housing Study
The following provides a summary of the total social housing portfolio by RGI and market units by geographic location. The following Table shows that the market units are fairly evenly distributed across the County. By comparison, some 63.6% of the RGI units are concentrated in three primary municipalities. As shown, 26.7% of the RGI units are located in Kincardine, 22.3% in Saugeen Shores and 14.6% in Brockton.
Table 53: Geographic Location of Social Housing Portfolio, Bruce County, 2004 Total Social Housing Portfolio = RGI UNITS Market Rent Units RGI Units + Market Rent Units) % of Area # of Units # of Units % of Units # of Units % of Units Units South Bruce 70 9.6 48 9.1 22 11.1 Huron-Kinloss 66 9.1 46 8.7 20 10.1 Kincardine 162 22.3 141 26.7 21 10.6 Brockton 102 14.0 77 14.6 25 12.6 Arran-Elderslie 67 9.2 40 7.6 27 13.6 Saugeen Shores 147 20.2 118 22.3 29 14.6 South Bruce Peninsula 82 11.3 50 9.5 32 16.2 Northern Bruce Peninsula 30 4.1 8 1.5 22 11.1 Total Units 726 100.0 528 100.0 198 100.0 Source: Bruce County Housing Corporation, November 2004.
5.8.2 Social Housing Waiting List
The following Figure shows the number of applicants on the Bruce County centralized waiting list from December 2000 to November 2004. Overall, the number of applicants has increased over this time period. Although there was a slight decrease between 2000 and 2001 there has been an increase of 152 applicants between 2001 and 2004. This increase demonstrates the need for an increase in the supply of affordable housing within Bruce County in order to meet the increasing demand. At present there are some 264 applicants awaiting social housing units throughout the County. Of these, a total of149 were awaiting RGI units and 116 were awaiting market units. Turnover rates, which are discussed below, further point to the insufficiency in the affordable rental housing supply.
95
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 20: Centralized Waiting List Summary, Bruce County, December 2000 to November 2004
300 264 254 250 s 199 200 160 150 112 100 Number of Applicant of Number 50
0 December 2000 December 2001 December 2002 December 2003 November 2004 Time
Source: Bruce County Housing Corporation, November 2004.
The following Table shows waiting list figures by sub-area for November 2004. As shown, some 65.2% of applicants were awaiting one bedroom units, followed by two bedroom units (25.8%) and three bedroom units (9.0%).
In terms of location, most of the need appears to be in Port Elgin, Kincardine, Wiarton and Walkerton. As shown, over 85% of all applicants (196 of 264) are concentrated in these four areas.
96
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 54: Bruce County Community Housing Registry, Waiting List Statistics based on Bedroom Count, as at November 2004 Total Community 1bd 2bd 3bd
Chesley 6 - - 6 Formosa 2 - - 2 Kincardine 34 9 8 51 Lucknow 6 4 - 10 Mildmay 3 - 3 Paisley 5 6 - 11 Port Elgin 31 12 8 51 Ripley 1 - - 1 Southampton 18 - - 18 Tara 4 - - 4 Teeswater 2 3 - 5 Tobermory 5 3 - 8 Walkerton 25 9 8 42 Wiarton 30 22 - 52 Totals 172 68 24 264 Source: Bruce County Housing Corporation, November 2004.
Table 55: Bruce County Community Housing Registry, Waiting List Statistics based on RGI and Market Units, as at November 2004 Community RGI Market Total
Chesley 6 6 Formosa 2 2 Kincardine 41 10 51 Lucknow 4 6 10 Mildmay 1 2 3 Paisley 3 8 11 Port Elgin 41 10 51 Ripley 1 1 Southampton 9 9 18 Tara 2 2 4 Teeswater 1 4 5 Tobermory 1 7 8 Walkerton 22 20 42 Wiarton 16 36 52 Totals 148 116 264 Source: Bruce County Housing Corporation, November 2004.
97
Bruce County Housing Study
County officials indicated that chronic vacancies are noted in Chesley, Mildmay and Ripley in particular. It was suggested that the County is studying the possibility of converting some of the units in Ripley to two bedroom dwellings.
In addition to the County administered waiting list, the Golden Dawn housing project has approximately 70 additional applicants with 30 applicants in need of immediate accommodation.
5.9 Rental Housing Affordability
5.9.1 Affordable Rents
The following Table shows the affordable monthly rent based on household income in 2000. For the purposes of calculating affordable rent the following assumption was made:
• Rental housing costs were calculated at 30% of household income
Based on these assumptions, affordable rents were calculated for household incomes in $10,000 increments from under $10,000, to an income of $50,000.
Based on these figures, over one third of the renters cannot afford to pay more than $500 month, with 11.1% not being able to afford more than $250. As described in section 5.7, the median rent for a one bedroom in a walk-up apartment is between $475 and $550; two bedroom walk-ups are all over $500 a month. Row houses vary between $410 for a one bedroom up to $560 for a two bedroom. Given the large number of renters earning less than $20 000, it is clear than many households are paying more than 30% of their income on rent and are facing serious affordability difficulties. The only options available to these households are likely RGI units, group homes, rooming houses or secondary suites such as basement apartments.
Renter households earning between $20,000 and $29,000 can afford the median rents based on MPAC data for 2003 for one, two and three bedroom units.
98
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 56: Comparison of Household Income (2000) to Affordable Rents, Bruce County Proportion of Renter Households, Household Income Bruce County (2000) Affordable Monthly Rent Categories # %
Under $10,000 510 11.1 Under $250
$10,000 to $19,999 1,240 26.9 $250 to $500
$20,000 to $29,999 775 16.8 $500 to $750
$30,000 to $39,999 665 14.4 $750 to $1,000
$40,000 to $49,999 530 11.5 $1,000 to $1,250
$50,000 and over 890 19.3 $1,250 and higher
Source: Statistics Canada Special Tabulations (2001) and SHS Calculations
5.9.2 Comparing 1995 Renter Incomes to 2000 Renter Incomes for the Bruce County
The following Figure shows the change in both average and median renter incomes between 1996 and 2001 in Bruce County. Average income for renters in Bruce County increased by approximately 20% during this time period. Table 56 shows a decrease in the percentage of renters earning less than $30,000, which is in line with the provincial trend. Bruce County also experienced an increase in all income categories over $30, 000. These figures demonstrate an economic improvement for renters in Bruce County.
99
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 21: Average and Median Income for Bruce County Renters, 1996 and 2001
$40,000
$35,000 $33,380
$30,000 $28,222 $26,411 $25,000 $21,113 $20,000 Income $15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0 1996 2001 Year
Median Inc ome Average Income
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation – 1996 and 2001 Census
100
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 57: Income Distribution for Bruce County and Ontario Renters, 1995 and 2000
Bruce County Ontario
1995 1995
Income Categories # % # % Less than $10,000 645 12.6 178,155 12.9 $10,000 - $19,999 1,740 33.9 342,195 24.7 $20,000 - $29,999 995 19.4 236,405 17.1 $30,000 - $39,999 610 11.9 195,795 14.1 $40,000 - $49,999 420 8.2 146,590 10.6 $50,000 - $59,999 285 5.6 101,165 7.3 $60,000 - $69,999 160 3.1 67,220 4.9 $70,000 - $79,999 110 2.1 41,260 3.0 $80,000 - $89,999 55 1.1 25,930 1.9 $90,000 - $99,999 40 0.8 15,905 1.1 $100,000 and over 75 1.5 34,620 2.5 Total 5,135 100.0 1,385,240 100.0
Bruce County Ontario
2000 2000 Income Categories # % # % Less than $10,000 510 11.1 147,620 11.0 $10,000 - $19,999 1,240 26.9 271,565 20.3 $20,000 - $29,999 775 16.8 203,665 15.2 $30,000 - $39,999 665 14.4 187,460 14.0 $40,000 - $49,999 530 11.5 148,295 11.1 $50,000 - $59,999 275 6.0 109,305 8.2 $60,000 - $69,999 215 4.7 82,690 6.2 $70,000 - $79,999 140 3.0 56,400 4.2 $80,000 - $89,999 95 2.1 38,880 2.9 $90,000 - $99,999 50 1.1 26,425 2.0 $100,000 and over 115 2.5 66,540 5.0 Total 4,610 100.0 1,338,845 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation – 1996 and 2001 Census
101
Bruce County Housing Study
5.9.3 Renter Incomes by Municipality in 2000
Appendix 5 describes the renter incomes by municipality in 2000. The municipalities of Kincardine, Brockton, Arran-Elderslie and Northern Bruce Peninsula all had a greater number of households earning less than $10 000 compared to the County. Kincardine has the greatest proportion of its renters earning less than $20,000.
Over twice as many renter households earn less than $30,000 compared to owner households. As a whole, 54.8% of renter households in Bruce County earned less than $30,000 in 2000. Expectedly, homeowners have higher incomes than renters.
5.9.4 Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income for 1995 and 2000 for Bruce County and Ontario
A further understanding of affordability issues in Bruce County can be gained from examining the number of households paying various proportions of household income on rent.
Figure 15 describes the proportion of income spent on rent in Bruce County and Ontario in 1995 and 2000. As with homeownership, Bruce County has seen an increase in the percentage of households spending less than 15% of their income on rent and decrease in the percentage of households spending over 30% of their income on rent. This change in proportion of income spent on rent in Bruce County is in line with the shift experienced by the Province.
While these figures signal an improvement in housing affordability, it should be stressed that in 2001 over one third (34.7%) of the renters in Bruce County were spending over 30% of their income on rent and 15.4% were spending over 50% of their income on rent. The figures point to the need to provide rental housing at more affordable cost for such households.
102
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 22: Proportion of Income Spent on Rent in Bruce County and Ontario, 1995 and 2000
50.0
41.6 39.7 40.0 37.0 35.1 30.2 30.0 22.3 22.2 22.0 20.8 21.4 20.019.3 19.9 20.0 18.1 Proportion 15.1 15.4
10.0
0.0 Less than 15% 15% - 30% 30%-50% 50% and over Percentage of Income on Rent
Bruce County 1995 Bruce County 2000 Ontario 1995 Ontario 2000
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996, 2001 Census
Note: Rental costs include: annual payment for electricity, annual payment for oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, annual payment for water and other municipal services, monthly cash rent
5.9.5 Percentage of Income Spent on Rent by Municipality for 1995 and 2000
Appendices 6 and 7 show the percentage of income spent on rent by municipality for 1995 and 2000. Appendix 6 shows these data for 1995 and Appendix 7 shows the 2000 figures. Total renter households are shown by household types.
As stated above, renter households overall in Bruce County are paying a smaller percentage of their income on rent than in 1995. The percentage of one person households spending more than 30% of their income on rent has decreased by 7.9%.
For lone-parent families this figure has only decreased by 2.3%. The number of single parent renter households spending over 50% of their income has decreased by 8.6%, indicating that the economic situation is improving for these households; however, many are still living below the poverty line.
One-person renter households have experienced an increase in households living below the poverty line. Singles paying between 30-50% of their income on rent have remained relatively the same; however singles paying over 50% of their income on rent have increased by 5.5%. Given the aging population in Bruce County, seniors make up
103
Bruce County Housing Study
a large portion of the single person renter households and are facing serious affordability difficulties.
Comparatively, while the number of lone parent renter households below the poverty line is in line with the provincial figures for 2000, the number of one person renter households below the poverty line is actually lower (43.1%) in Bruce County than Ontario (51.1%). Nevertheless, the data show that almost half of all single renters in Bruce County are in this difficult economic situation.
In 2000, over half the one person renter households in the municipalities of South Bruce Peninsula (52%) and Brockton (53.4%) were paying more than 30% of their income on rent. In all municipalities, over one-third of one person renter households are paying more than 30% of their income on rent.
Examining lone parent families, Appendix 7 shows that 71.5% of lone parent renter families in Northern Bruce Peninsula are spending over 30% of their income on rent. Kincardine also has an extremely high percentage of lone parent renter families living below the poverty line (64.5%). This is the highest level of any household group and clearly demonstrates the extensive need for more affordable housing for such families.
In general, the lakeshore communities (Kincardine and Saugeen Shores) have a greater need for affordable renter housing for lone parent households than one person households, while in the more rural communities there is a greater need for affordable housing for seniors. Brockton is the exception; it has a high need in both categories (53% in both cases).
Interestingly, South Bruce has the greatest proportion of renters spending less than 15% of their income on rent. The municipality of Huron-Kinloss has the least amount of renters spending more than 30% of their income on rent (27.5% including 4.3% spending over 50%).
Bruce County is faring better in comparison with other primarily rural communities in terms of proportion of income spent on rent. As shown in the following Figure, 65.3% of Bruce, 60.6% of Oxford and 57.9% of Leeds and Grenville renters are spending less than 30.0% of income on rent. Conversely, a higher proportion of Oxford and Leeds households are spending over 50% of their income on rent. As shown, some 18.2% of Leeds, 17.6% of Oxford and 15.4% of Bruce households are spending over 50% of their income on rent.
104
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 23: Comparing the Proportion of 2000 Incomes Spent on Rent for Renter Households in Bruce, Bruce and Leeds and Grenville
40.0 36.6 37.5 35.1
30.2 30.0 24.0 23.8 21.8 20.4 19.3 20.0 17.6 18.2 15.4 Proportion
10.0
0.0 Less than 15% 15% - 30% 30%-50% 50% and over Percentage of Income on Rent
Bruce County Oxford County Leeds and Grenville
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 2001 Census
Note: Rental costs include: annual payment for electricity, annual payment for oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, annual payment for water and other municipal services, monthly cash rent
5.10 Summary of Rental Housing Market
A number of key conclusions can be reached from the above analysis.
Proportion of Rental Units Has Decreased
Rental housing is a vital element of the housing market in Bruce County. Rental housing, however, has declined over the years with virtually no new rental housing being built in many of the County’s municipalities. Waiting lists for affordable housing are also on the rise. This situation leaves few options for low and moderate income households in terms of securing adequate affordable housing. Any new rental housing has been built in the north, mainly in Northern Bruce Peninsula.
105
Bruce County Housing Study
There is a Higher Proportion of Younger and Older Renter Households in Bruce County
Over one quarter of the renters in Bruce County are over the age of 65. With an aging population (as shown in Chapter 2) there is a growing demand to increase the supply of rental housing for seniors within the County. These needs cover both seniors of lower income and those capable of paying full market rents.
The rental housing affordability analysis shows that there are very few options for affordable housing when over one-third of renters can only afford to pay $500 and under. This limits the options of these renters to bachelor and one-bedroom units only.
These observations point to the critical need for the expansion of the supply of affordable rental housing to address the current situation in Bruce County. In particular, rental housing for lone-parent families, low income singles and seniors is a real priority. According to CMHC, “despite much greater improvements experienced by renters as a group, renter households still remained 3.5 times more susceptible to being in core housing need in 2001 than were owner households.” (CMHC, 2004). Should the expansion of Bruce Power take place, the rental market along the lakeshore will be particularly impacted.
106
Bruce County Housing Study
6 POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS
6.1 Population Projections
Population projections for this study are based primarily on the SHS Inc population growth model. At the time of completing this report, only one other set of published population projections was made available to the consultants. These projections were from the Ontario Ministry of Finance (MOF). A brief discussion of these findings for the County as a whole is provided in the following sections.
As noted, SHS Inc created a set of population and household projections for each municipality for 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021. These figures were based on natural increase trends, in-migration and out-migration trends as well as discussions with local planners and economic indicators for each municipality. A summary of these detailed findings and assumptions is provided following the discussion of the MOF projections.
6.1.1 Ministry of Finance Population Projections
Population projections for Bruce County as a whole were prepared recently by the Ontario Ministry of Finance to the year 2031. These figures project an increase of 12,000 persons over the 30-year period from 2001 to 2031. The Ministry projects a natural decrease of 2,516 in the population (i.e. more deaths than births) during this period, compared to projected net in-migration of approximately 14,000.
6.1.1.1 Assumptions
The Ministry population projections are published in its Draft Population Projections Report (July 2004). The methodology used is based on the Regional Cohort Component Method: Population Growth = Births – Deaths + Net Migration.
6.1.1.2 Projected Population for 5, 10, 20 Years
The following Table presents the Ministry’s population projections for Bruce County. These projections (which are not broken down by municipality) show slow steady growth throughout this timeframe.
107
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 58: Population Projections for Bruce County Start Natural Net End Growth Year TFR Births Deaths Population Increase Migration Population Rate 1996-97 68,043 1.87 681 675 6 -198 67,851 -0.4 1997-98 67,751 1.776 651 673 -22 -356 67,281 -0.7 1998-99 67,281 1.814 600 659 -59 -449 66,680 -0.9 1999-00 66,680 1.782 546 670 -124 -1242 66,339 -0.5 2000-01 66,339 1.618 511 666 -155 243 66,342 0 2001-02 66,342 1.879 582 760 -178 628 66,792 0.7 2002-03 66,792 NA 581 792 -211 575 67,156 0.5 2003-04 67,156 1.714 572 708 -136 268 67,288 0.2 2004-05 67,288 1.708 569 721 -152 333 67,468 0.3 2005-06 67,468 1.712 572 733 -161 355 67,663 0.3 2010-11 68,691 1.755 604 776 -172 510 69,029 0.5 2015-16 70,672 1.76 615 835 -220 690 71,143 0.7 2020-21 73,169 1.766 600 905 -305 829 73,692 0.7 2025-26 75,712 1.77 572 996 -424 897 76,185 0.6 2030-31 77,870 1.77 546 1103 -557 917 78,229 0.5 Source: Statistics Canada and Ontario Ministry of Finance Draft Population Projections
Note: Intercensal estimates 91996-97 to 2000-01) of natural increase and net migration do not add up to total population growth due to residual deviation
108
Bruce County Housing Study
6.1.2 Population Projections based on SHS Inc Analysis
The following sections provide the detailed analysis of SHS Inc assumptions and findings for population projection rates for Bruce County and individual municipalities.
6.1.2.1 SHS Inc Assumptions
Discussions with major employers such as Bruce Power indicate some expected growth in certain municipalities due to economic expansion. Likewise, some economic growth in tourism appears to be contributing to increased in-migration. However, continued declines in agricultural employment and the movement of young adults out of Bruce County looking for employment elsewhere are likely to contribute to out-migration in some municipalities. As a whole, employment in the agricultural sector declined from 12.0% of labour force in 1991 to 10.6% in 2001. As well, there was also a slight increase in manufacturing employment between 1991 and 2001.
We agree with the anticipated natural decline due to more deaths than births. It is expected that this trend will continue throughout the County due the aging of the population. Conversely, due to economic trends, we expect increased in-migration close to the Bruce Nuclear plant and in tourist areas (i.e. along Lake Huron and along the Bruce Peninsula). In addition, continued out-migration in the interior rural agricultural areas is also expected. Generally, therefore, the following trends are expected:
• Municipalities likely to grow include: Kincardine, Saugeen Shores, South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula
• Municipalities likely to decline include: South Bruce, Huron-Kinloss, Brockton and Arran-Elderslie
Municipalities affected by the potential expansion of Bruce Power, growing tourism activity and the movement of seniors into the area for retirement include:
(A) SHS-Inc projects a 7.0% increase in the population in Kincardine during 2001 to 2006 due to the initial stages of the expected Bruce Power expansion and continued growth in tourism and retirement population. During 2006 to 2011 a bigger increase is expected due to plant expansion. During this timeframe, a 12.0% population increase is expected. During 2011 to 2016, in-migration is expected to level off, and therefore, a 7.0% population increase is expected. During 2016 to 2021 little to no growth is expected, and a 2.0% growth is projected.
(B) As in the case with Kincardine, a 7.0% increase in the population is expected in Saugeen Shores from 2001 to 2006. A bigger increase is expected due to plant expansion during 2006 to 2011. During this time frame, a 12.0% population increase is expected. During 2011 to 2016, in-migration is expected to level off, and
109
Bruce County Housing Study
therefore, a 7.0% population increase is expected. During 2016 to 2021 little to no growth is expected, and a 2.0% growth is projected.
(C) A 3.0% population increase is expected in South Bruce Peninsula and North Bruce Peninsula between 2001and 2006. This is mainly attributed to growth based on tourism activity and to the attraction of seniors coming to the area to retire. A 3.0% growth is also expected during 2006 to 2011 and 2011 to 2016. However, during the 2016 to 2021 period, a 0.0% growth is expected due to the aging of the population.
Municipalities expected to decline due to continued aging of the population and continued declines in agricultural employment include South Bruce, Huron Kinloss, Brockton and Arran-Elderslie.
(A) Statistics Canada data show that South Bruce, Huron Kinloss, Brockton and Arran- Elderslie as a whole declined 3.5% from 1996 to 2001. Due to continued aging and loss of agricultural employment, further declines are expected at a very modest rate of decline. Therefore a straight-line decline of 2.0% is expected for 2001 to 2006, 2006 to 2011, 2011 to 2016 and 2016 to 2021.
These assumptions are summarized in the following Table.
Table 59: Population Growth Assumptions throughout Bruce County
Area 2001 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016 2016 to 2021
Kincardine +7.0% +12.0% +7.0% +2.0% Saugeen Shores +7.0% +12.0% +7.0% +2.0% South Bruce Peninsula +3.0% +3.0% +3.0% 0.0% Northern Bruce Peninsula +3.0% +3.0% +3.0% 0.0% South Bruce -3.0% -3.0% -2.0% -2.0% Huron Kinloss -3.0% -3.0% -2.0% -2.0% Brockton -3.0% -3.0% -2.0% -2.0% Arran-Elderslie -3.0% -3.0% -2.0% -2.0% Source: SHS-Inc Assumptions based on discussions with various key informants
6.1.2.2 Population Projections
Based on the above assumptions, the following population projections have been prepared. As shown, net declines in population are noted for South Bruce (-584), Huron-Kinloss (-600), Brockton (-931) and Arran-Elderslie (-634). This is mainly attributed to depopulation due to loss of agricultural employment as well as the aging of the population. Net growth is noted for Kincardine (3,396), Saugeen Shores (3,507),
110
Bruce County Housing Study
South Bruce Peninsula (750) and Northern Bruce Peninsula (334). This has been attributed to growth based on the expansion of Bruce Nuclear Power and the tourism industry along Lake Huron and Bruce Peninsula, as well as the in-migration of seniors seeking an attractive retirement area.
In total, Bruce County’s population is expected to increase from 65,268 in 2001 to 69,130 by 2021, slightly below the 73,692 projection prepared by the Ministry of Finance. This represents a net increase of 5,238 or 8.0% over the next 20 years. Most of this growth is attributed to in-migration rather than natural increase.
111
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 60: SHS Inc Population Projections for Bruce County Change in 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Area Population (Actual) (Actual) (Actual) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (2001 to 2021) Kincardine 12,134 11,908 11,029 11,801 13,217 14,142 14,425 3,396 Saugeen Shores 11,838 12,084 11,388 12,185 13,647 14,603 14,895 3,507 South Bruce Peninsula 7,734 8,004 8,090 8,333 8,583 8,840 8,840 750 Northern Bruce Peninsula 3,292 3,500 3,599 3,707 3,818 3,933 3,933 334 South Bruce 6,175 6,248 6,063 5,881 5,705 5,591 5,479 -584 Huron-Kinloss 6,149 6,284 6,224 6,037 5,856 5,739 5,624 -600 Brockton 10,100 10,163 9,658 9,368 9,087 8,905 8,727 -931 Arran-Elderslie 6,711 6,851 6,577 6,380 6,188 6,065 5,943 -634 *Cape Croker and Saugeen - - 1,264 1,264 1,264 1,264 1,264 0 Reserve Total Bruce County 65,268 65,680 63,892 64,956 67,366 69,082 69,130 5,238 Source: Statistics Canada 1991, 1996 and 2001 Census and SHS-Inc calculations
*Note: The population on the Reserves totalled 1,264 in 2001. Due to a lack of data for prior years for the Reserves, we have held the 2001 figure of 1,264 constant for 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021
112
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 24: SHS Inc Population Projections for Bruce County
16,000
14,000
12,000 South Bruce Huron-Kinloss 10,000 Kincardine Brockton 8,000 Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores
Population 6,000 South Bruce Peninsula Northern Bruce Peninsula 4,000 Reserves
2,000
0 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Year
Source: Statistics Canada 1991, 1996 and 2001 Census and SHS-Inc calculations
*Note: The population on the Reserves totalled 1,264 in 2001. Due to a lack of data for prior years for the Reserves, we have held the 2001 figure of 1,264 constant for 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021
113
Bruce County Housing Study
6.2 Projected Age Breakdowns
6.2.1 Assumptions
In order to help develop a better understanding of the types of housing required, we also undertook an analysis of population age groups. This was undertaken by applying the July 2000 Ministry of Finance population projections by age cohorts for Bruce County. As shown in the following Table, the MOF age distributions are provided based on age groups for Bruce County residents to the year 2021. Actual Statistics Canada population proportions are provided for the 2001 Census year.
As shown, the proportion of young adults is expected to increase from 13.1% in 2001 to some 18.5% in 2021. This indicates that an increase in smaller housing units such as apartments is required in the next two decades. Conversely, the portion of middle- aged persons is expected to decline from 43.3% in 2001 to 38.3% in 2021. This suggests that the demand for single detached or semi-detached dwellings may actually decline during the next 20 year period.
Finally, the seniors population is expected to increase from 17.4% of Bruce’s total population in 2001 to some 21.7% by 2021. Seniors would also require smaller housing units such as apartments, or other forms of tenure such as life lease developments.
114
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 61: Ministry of Finance Projected Population Shares by Age Group for Bruce County
Population Breakdown by Age Group and Year based on MOF Figures Age Groups 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 (Actual) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) 0-4 4.5 4.7 5.4 5.8 5.6 5-9 6.2 4.7 4.7 5.4 5.8 10-14 7.6 6.3 4.7 4.7 5.4 15-19 8.0 7.3 6.3 4.7 4.7 Under 20 26.3 22.9 21.0 20.5 21.5 20-24 5.0 8.1 7.3 6.3 4.8 25-29 3.7 7.4 8.2 7.3 6.4 30-34 4.4 4.9 7.5 8.2 7.4 Young Adults (20 13.1 20.4 23.0 21.8 18.5 to 34) 35-39 6.8 4.6 4.9 7.5 8.2 40-44 8.1 6.8 4.6 4.9 7.4 45-49 8.2 7.9 6.7 4.6 4.8 50-54 7.8 7.9 7.7 6.5 4.5 55-59 6.6 6.9 7.6 7.4 6.3 60-64 5.8 5.4 6.6 7.2 7.1 Middle Aged 43.3 39.5 38.0 38.0 38.3 Adults (35 to 64) 65-69 4.8 5.1 6.1 6.7 9.9 70-74 4.3 4.2 4.5 5.5 75-79 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.8 80-84 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.7 7.5 85-89 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.7 90+ 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.3 Seniors (65+) 17.4 17.2 18.0 19.6 21.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance, ‘Ontario Population Projections: 1999-2028’, 2000, Statistics Canada 2001 Census
The above proportions were then applied against SHS Inc population projections. The second section of this table summarizes these findings.
As shown, a net increase is projected for young adults (aged 20 to 34) between 2001 and 2021. The data indicates that the number of young adults is expected to increase by 4,446 persons between 2001 and 2021. The absolute number of middle aged adults (aged 35 to 64) is projected to decline from 27,630 in 2001 to 26,450 in 2021. This represents a 4.2% decline over the 20 year period.
115
Bruce County Housing Study
Net growth is also noted for seniors. As shown, the number of seniors is projected to increase from 11,095 in 2001 to 15,028 in 2021, representing a 3,933 person or 35.4% increase from 2001 to 2021. These findings suggest that smaller dwelling units such as apartments would be required in the future development. This is mainly because younger adults and seniors have a higher propensity to own or rent these types of smaller units.
Table 62: Projected Population By Age Group, 2001 - 2021 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Age Groups (Actual) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) 0-4 2,885 3,021 3,623 3,997 3,894 5-9 3,975 3,040 3,134 3,713 4,000 10-14 4,825 4,075 3,164 3,223 3,711 15-19 5,095 4,727 4,218 3,243 3,231 Under 20 16,780 14,863 14,139 14,177 14,836 20-24 3,210 5,274 4,912 4,330 3,288 25-29 2,370 4,833 5,507 5,075 4,404 30-34 2,790 3,155 5,058 5,663 5,125 Young Adults (20 8,370 13,262 15,477 15,069 12,816 to 34) 35-39 4,345 3,001 3,300 5,163 5,653 40-44 5,165 4,421 3,115 3,380 5,125 45-49 5,255 5,121 4,511 3,155 3,346 50-54 4,975 5,111 5,165 4,497 3,096 55-59 4,210 4,478 5,107 5,104 4,355 60-64 3,680 3,538 4,414 4,977 4,875 Middle Aged 27,630 25,670 25,613 26,277 26,450 Adults (35 to 64) 65-69 3,097 3,418 4,203 4,654 6,325 70-74 2,762 2,851 3,125 3,788 75-79 2,436 2,383 2,449 2,644 80-84 1,553 1,885 1,842 1,875 4,770 85-89 853 1,016 1,234 1,202 90+ 460 586 705 865 Seniors (65+) 11,095 11,162 12,137 13,560 15,028
Total 63,875 64,956 67,366 69,082 69,130 Source: Ontario Ministry of Finance, ‘Ontario Population Projections: 1999-2028’, 2000, Statistics Canada 2001 Census SHS-Inc Calculations
6.3 Household Projections
The following sections provide a discussion of average household size and household growth throughout Bruce County between 2001 and 2021.
116
Bruce County Housing Study
6.3.1 SHS Inc Assumptions
Statistics Canada findings show that household size dropped by 2.6% between 1991 and 1996 in the County. It dropped a further 4.6% between 1996 and 2001. Due to the aging of the population, household size is expected to continue to drop. However, in areas close to the Bruce Nuclear plant, the drop might be less because an influx of larger families into the surrounding municipalities is expected. These municipalities include Kincardine and Saugeen Shores.
As noted, household size is expected to increase for Kincardine and Saugeen Shores due to the in-migration of younger families to work at Bruce Nuclear. At the same time, however, the continued attraction of seniors to retire in the area during this time period will contribute to declines in household size, therefore balancing the two factors. As a result, a decrease of 3.0% in household size is anticipated from 2001 to 2006. From 2006 to 2011 and 2011 to 2016 household size is not expected to decline or increase due to the families moving in and those moving out. These factors are expected to counteract one another. However, a small decline of 3.0% is expected during 2016 to 2021 due to continued aging of the population.
In all other areas, a decline in household size is expected due to the aging of the population. Declines in household size were noted for all other municipalities between 1991 and 2001 as shown in Table 5. Based on these findings, a decline of 2% in household size is expected for all municipalities between 2001 to 2006 and 2006 to 2011. A further 1.0% decline in average household size is expected in these areas for 2011 to 2016 and 2016 to 2021.
These assumptions are summarized in the following Table.
117
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 63: Projected Change in Household Size, 2001 to 2021
2001 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016 2016 to 2021 Area Kincardine -3.0% 0.0% 0.0% -3.0% Saugeen Shores -3.0% 0.0% 0.0% -3.0% South Bruce -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% Huron Kinloss -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% Brockton -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% Arran-Elderslie -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% South Bruce Peninsula -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% North Bruce Peninsula -2.0% -2.0% -1.0% -1.0% Reserves Held constant due to a lack of Census Data Source: SHS-Inc assumptions
6.3.2 Household Size Projections
The following Table and Figure show the actual household sizes that have been predicted based on the above assumptions. Overall, Bruce County average household size is expected to decline from 2.51 in 2001 to 2.36 in 2021. Decline in average household size is noted across the board with the largest decrease noted in South Bruce. Average household size is expected to decline from 2.83 in 2001 to 2.67 in 2021. The interior municipalities are expected to show the greatest declines in household size between 2001 and 2021. This is mainly attributed to the aging of the population.
118
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 64: Predicted Average Household Sizes by Municipality, 2001 to 2021
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Area (Actual) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) Kincardine 2.51 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.36 Saugeen Shores 2.42 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.27 South Bruce 2.83 2.77 2.72 2.69 2.67 Huron-Kinloss 2.64 2.58 2.53 2.51 2.48 Brockton 2.59 2.54 2.49 2.46 2.44 Arran-Elderslie 2.61 2.55 2.50 2.48 2.45 South Bruce Peninsula 2.34 2.29 2.24 2.22 2.20 Northern Bruce Peninsula 2.23 2.18 2.14 2.12 2.10 Reserves** 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 Bruce County 2.51 2.45 2.42 2.40 2.36 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census and SHS-Inc calculations
*Note: 2001 household size based on Statistics Canada 2001 Census Figures ** Household Size data was not available for Cape Croker. As a result the 2.65 average household size shown for Saugeen Reserve was used as the base figure for the 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021 projection years
119
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 25: Predicted Average Household Sizes by Municipality, 2001 to 2021
3.00
2.80
2.60
2.40 Household Size
2.20
2.00 South Huron- Kincardine Brockton Arran- Saugeen South Northern Bruce Kinloss Elderslie Shores Bruce Bruce Peninsula Peninsula Municipality
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census and SHS-Inc calculations
Note: 2001 household size based on Statistics Canada 2001 Census Figures
6.3.3 Projected Households
Based on the population and average household projections the following household counts were projected for 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021.
120
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 65: Projected Households throughout Bruce County, 2001 to 2021
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 Total Change Area (Actual) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (Projected) (2001 to 2021) Kincardine 4,388 4,841 5,421 5,801 6,100 1,712 Saugeen Shores 4,712 5,198 5,822 6,230 6,551 1,838 South Bruce Peninsula 3,463 3,640 3,826 3,980 4,021 557 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1,616 1,698 1,785 1,857 1,876 260 South Bruce 2,141 2,120 2,098 2,077 2,056 -86 Huron-Kinloss 2,362 2,337 2,314 2,290 2,267 -94 Brockton 3,732 3,694 3,656 3,619 3,582 -149 Arran-Elderslie 2,524 2,498 2,473 2,448 2,423 -101 Reserves 478 478 478 478 478 N/A Bruce County 25,416 26,504 27,872 28,780 29,353 3,937 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census and SHS-Inc calculations
Figure 26: Projected Households throughout Bruce County, 2001 to 2021
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000 Number of Households of Number 1,000
0 a ruce loss dine kton rslie ores sula sul ves th B -Kin ncar roc Elde n Sh enin enin eser Sou uron Ki B ran- gee ce P ce P R H Ar Sau Bru Bru outh hern S Nort Municipality
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census and SHS-Inc calculations
121
Bruce County Housing Study
The following Table shows household/dwelling requirements throughout Bruce County for five year periods.
Table 66: Additional Households/Dwelling Units Required throughout Bruce County, 2001 to 2021 Total Area 2001 to 2006 2006 to 2011 2011 to 2016 2016 to 2021 Growth/Decline Kincardine 452 581 380 299 1,712 Saugeen Shores 486 624 408 321 1,838 South Bruce Peninsula 177 186 155 40 557 Northern Bruce Peninsula 82 87 72 19 260 South Bruce -22 -22 -21 -21 -86 Huron-Kinloss -24 -24 -23 -23 -94 Brockton -38 -38 -37 -37 -149 Arran-Elderslie -26 -25 -25 -25 -101 Reserves 0 0 0 0 0 Bruce County 1,088 1,368 907 574 3,937 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census and SHS-Inc calculations
The above household/dwelling targets (2001 to 2021) are also broken down by municipality based on annual targets (as shown below). Total growth between 2001 and 2021 among the four municipalities where population is increasing is projected at 4,367. Growth in the other municipalities is projected at -430. As a result, total growth (growth minus declines) is projected at 3,937 units throughout Bruce County from 2001 to 2021.
For the growing municipalities, the annual average projected growth is 219 units. For the declining municipalities, there is actually a negative projection of 21 units per year. This translates to overall net projected annual growth of 197 units throughout Bruce County as shown in the following Table.
As shown below, net declines are noted for four of nine of municipalities. While no growth is expected, special needs may arise in these areas, such that some new dwelling units may be required to meet these needs.
122
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 67: Annual Household/Dwelling Requirements by Municipality Projected household and Annual dwelling growth/decline Municipality Household/Dwelling
Requirements (2001 to 2021) Kincardine 1,712 86 Saugeen Shores 1,838 92 South Bruce Peninsula 557 28 Northern Bruce Peninsula 260 13 South Bruce -86 -4 Huron-Kinloss -94 -5 Brockton -149 -7 Arran-Elderslie -101 -5 Reserves 0 0 Bruce County* 3,937* 197 Source: SHS-Inc calculations
*Note: In view of overall negative growth in some municipalities, the total growth in Bruce County (negatives and positives) is 3,937 between 2001 and 2021. However, the total positive among the four growing municipalities is 4,367 between 2001 and 2021.
The following Tables shows annual housing requirements by income groups for Kincardine, Saugeen Shores, South Bruce Peninsula and North Bruce Peninsula. The annual growth in these municipalities totals 219 units as shown in the following Table.
Table 68: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In Kincardine
% of Total Annual Housing Household Affordable Ownership Households in Requirement for Affordable Rent Income 2001 (Unit Cost) Kincardine Kincardine Under $10,000 4.8 4 Under $250 Under $71,500 $10,000 to $19,999 10.4 9 $250 to $500 $20,000 to $29,999 11.7 10 $500 to $750 $71,500 to $105,000 $30,000 to $39,999 10.7 9 $750 to $1,000 $105,001 to $140,000 $40,000 to $49,999 9.0 8 $1,000 to $1,250 $140,001 to $172,400 $50,000 and over 53.4 46 $1,250 and Higher $172,400 and over Total 100.0 86 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, and SHS Calculations
123
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 69: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In Saugeen Shores
% of Total Annual Housing Household Affordable Ownership Households in Requirements for Affordable Rent Income 2001 (Unit Cost) Saugeen Shores Saugeen Shores Under $10,000 3.3 3 Under $250 Under $71,500 $10,000 to $19,999 11.4 11 $250 to $500 $20,000 to $29,999 10.6 10 $500 to $750 $71,500 to $105,000 $30,000 to $39,999 10.5 10 $750 to $1,000 $105,001 to $140,000 $40,000 to $49,999 8.1 7 $1,000 to $1,250 $140,001 to $172,400 $50,000 and over 56.1 52 $1,250 and Higher $172,400 and over Total 100.0 92 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, and SHS Calculations
Table 70: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In South Bruce Peninsula
% of Total Annual Housing Household Households in Requirements for Affordable Ownership Affordable Rent Income 2001 South Bruce South Bruce (Unit Cost) Peninsula Peninsula Under $10,000 4.6 1 Under $250 Under $71,500 $10,000 to $19,999 14.9 4 $250 to $500 $20,000 to $29,999 17.9 5 $500 to $750 $71,500 to $105,000 $30,000 to $39,999 10.4 3 $750 to $1,000 $105,001 to $140,000 $40,000 to $49,999 14.9 4 $1,000 to $1,250 $140,001 to $172,400 $50,000 and over 37.3 10 $1,250 and Higher $172,400 and over Total 100.0 28 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, and SHS Calculations
124
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 71: Annual Housing Requirements for New Supply In Northern Bruce Peninsula
% of Total Annual Housing Household Households in Requirements for Affordable Ownership Affordable Rent Income 2001 North Bruce North Bruce (Unit Cost) Peninsula Peninsula Under $10,000 4.40 1 Under $250 Under $71,500 $10,000 to $19,999 12.89 2 $250 to $500 $20,000 to $29,999 18.55 2 $500 to $750 $71,500 to $105,000 $30,000 to $39,999 21.07 3 $750 to $1,000 $105,001 to $140,000 $40,000 to $49,999 9.75 1 $1,000 to $1,250 $140,001 to $172,400 $50,000 and over 33.30 4 $1,250 and Higher $172,400 and over Total 100.0 13 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census, and SHS Calculations
6.4 Summary of Population and Household Projections
A number of key conclusions can be reached from the above analysis.
Two Population Projection Scenarios Considered --- from Ministry of Finance and SHS Inc
Two population increase scenarios were considered for Bruce County. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) projections estimated an increase of 12,000 persons from 2001 to 2031 (or some 7,350 persons from 2001 to 2021). Following our assessment of historical growth coupled with discussion with local planners and major employers, the MOF projections were reduced to some extent. SHS Inc estimates a net growth of 5,238 persons between 2001 and 2021.
A Net Growth in Population is Forecast for Four Municipalities
Population growth forecasts are directly tied in with the expansion of Bruce Nuclear power. Municipalities likely to grow include Kincardine, Saugeen Shores, South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula. A net total increase of 7,987 persons is noted in these four municipalities between 2001 and 2021.
Conversely, municipalities such as South Bruce, Huron-Kinloss, Brockton and Arran- Elderslie are expected to decline due to the aging of the population and continued declines in agricultural employment. A net decline of 2,749 persons is expected in these municipalities to 2021.
125
Bruce County Housing Study
Population Projections Suggest the Continued Aging of the Population
Projection data by age indicates that the number of young adults is expected to increase by 4,446 persons between 2001 and 2021. The absolute number of middle aged adults (aged 35 to 64) is projected to decline from 27,630 in 2001 to 26,450 in 2021. This represents a 4.2% decline over the 20 year period.
Net growth is also noted for seniors. As shown, the number of seniors is projected to increase from 11,095 in 2001 to 15,028 in 2021, representing a 3,933 person or 35.4% increase from 2001 to 2021. Smaller dwelling units such as apartments would be required in the future development. This is mainly because younger adults and seniors have a higher propensity to own or rent these types of smaller units.
Household Growth is Expected in Municipalities in Close Proximity to Bruce Nuclear Power
Overall household size in Bruce County is expected to drop due to the aging of the population. However, the anticipated expansion of Bruce Nuclear power will ultimately affect household size because of an influx of larger families in to the surrounding municipalities. These municipalities include Kincardine and Saugeen Shores. While household size is expected to increases in these two municipalities, the continued attraction of seniors to retire in the area will contribute to declines in household size – therefore balancing the two factors. As a whole, the household size is expected to decline in all other municipalities.
A net increase of 4,367 households is noted for Kincardine (1,712), Saugeen Shores (1,838), South Bruce Peninsula (557) and Northern Bruce Peninsula (260) from 2001 to 2021. This represents an annual housing target of 219 dwellings. On the other hand, net declines are anticipated in South Bruce (-86), Huron-Kinloss (-94), Brockton (-149) and Arran-Elderslie (-101) for a total of -430. This represents an annual decline of some 21 dwellings. As a whole, the number of households is expected to increase by 3,937 in Bruce County during this period. This represents an annual housing target of 197 units over the next 20 years.
A Greater Mix of Housing Types Needed
All the data point to the aging of the population over time and growth in small households. As a result, a wider range of dwelling types such as apartments and townhouses will be required. In addition, the substantial share of non-family households (mostly singles) which are currently experiencing affordability problems would benefit from additional smaller, affordable units such as bachelor and one bedroom apartment units. Accordingly, a mix of development that provides a better overall balance of unit types by 2021, would be appropriate.
126
Bruce County Housing Study
7 MEETING HOUSING PROJECTIONS
7.1 Recent Housing Supply Activity
In order to identify and assess gaps in the housing market, it is now important to compare recent housing supply activity to the projections of housing requirements outlined above.
7.1.1 Historical Summary of New Residential Units by Dwelling Type and Municipality
Residential construction in the area has increased considerably over the last five years. From 1999 to 2003, there were 1,310 new units constructed, representing 262 homes annually. This included 1,249 singles, 6 semi-detached, 35 row houses and 20 apartments.
Over the five year period the total number of building permits issued annually increased from 143 in 1999 to 375 in 2003. Almost all of the growth (95.3%)has been in single dwellings. Building permits for single dwellings alone increased by over 38% during this time period.
Just under one third of the new units were constructed in Saugeen Shores, which contributed 321 new units (31.8%) from 1999 to 2003. After Saugeen Shores, South Bruce Peninsula was the next most active contributing 247 (24.5%), followed by Northern Bruce Peninsula at 239 new units (23.7%). All together, almost 80% of the new units within Bruce County were constructed in the municipalities of Saugeen Shores and the two northern municipalities. South Bruce saw the least amount of new development with 45 new units (all singles).
Interestingly, all apartment units built within Bruce County over the five year period were built in Huron-Kinloss, all semis were built in Kincardine and all row houses were built in Saugeen Shores. All new construction in all other municipalities was single dwellings.
Please refer to Appendix 8 for a detailed breakdown of new residential building permits issued by type and municipality.
127
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 27: Annual Summary of Building Permits Issues for New Units in Bruce County (1999 to 2003)
400 375 350 d Average Number of 329 Units Per Year 300 (1999 to 2003) =262
250 244 219 200 Number of Permits Issue Permits of Number 150 143
100 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year
Bruce County Average Number of Permits Issued (1999 to 2003)
Source: Individual Municipality Building Departments, November 2004
7.1.2 Recent Housing Starts (2003) by Dwelling Type and Municipality
Housing starts in 2003 have increased from previous years with 375 total units. These units are comprised almost exclusively of single detached (358 or 95.5%) with a few row houses (15 or 4%) and just two semi-detached units. Notably, there were no new building permits issued for apartments within Bruce County in 2003.
All municipalities within Bruce County saw new housing starts for 2003. There were 105 starts in Saugeen Shores, representing 28% of overall County activity. There were 73 starts in South Bruce Peninsula and 65 in Northern Bruce Peninsula, representing 19.5% and 17.3% respectively. Huron-Kinloss (37 or 9.9%), Kincardine (37 or 9.9%), and Brockton (32 or 8.5%) also experienced some activity as did South Bruce and Arran-Elderslie with 9 and 17 starts respectively.
128
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 72: Building Permits Issued in 2003 by Dwelling Type and Municipality Singles Semis Rows Apartments Total % of Total South Bruce 9 - - - 9 2.4 Huron-Kinloss 37 - - - 37 9.9 Kincardine 35 2 - - 37 9.9 Brockton 32 - - - 32 8.5 Arran-Elderslie 17 - - - 17 4.5 Saugeen Shores 90 - 15 - 105 28.0 South Bruce Peninsula 73 - - - 73 19.5 Northern Bruce Peninsula 65 - - - 65 17.3 Bruce County 358 2 15 0 375 100.0 % of Total 95.5 0.5 4.0 0.0 100.0 - Source: Individual Municipality Building Departments, November 2004
Figure 28: Total Building Permits Issued in 2003 by Municipality
120 105 100
80 73 65 60 37 37 40 32 17 Number of Permits 20 9
0
n s ss o la lo rslie su e in -Kin Shore n n Brockt -Eld ro Kincardine South Bruce u ce Pe H Arran Saugeen Bru th u hern Bruce Peninsula So t Nor Municipality
Source: Individual Municipality Building Departments, November 2004
129
Bruce County Housing Study
7.2 Comparison of Recent Activity to Projections
Production has averaged 262 units annually over the 5 year period from 1999 to 2003. This would be sufficient, in overall terms, to meet the projected requirement of 219 for the growing municipalities. (For the growing municipalities, the annual average projected growth is 219 units. For the declining municipalities, there is actually a negative projection of 21 units per year. This translates to overall net projected annual growth of 197 units throughout Bruce County).
Based on projected annual housing requirements for new supply in the growth municipalities, the level of production in Saugeen Shores, Northern Bruce Peninsula and South Bruce Peninsula would be adequate to meet projected requirements. Kincardine, however, has a projected requirement of 86 units per year, yet had just 37 new building permits issued in 2003.
7.3 Inventory of Designated and Available Lands for Residential Development
7.3.1 Draft Approved Lots by Area
There is potential for an additional 1,398 units in draft approved plans for Bruce County. These include 1,236 (88.6%) single family units, 119 seasonal units, 22 semi and duplex units, 12 row and townhouse units, and 6 estate units. The majority of these units (621 or 44.4%) are found in Saugeen Shores. Brockton has the second largest number of draft approved units (279 or 20%). Northern Bruce Peninsula (12.8%) and South Bruce Peninsula (13.9%) represent over one quarter of draft approved units (26.7%).
In terms of multiple units, there is potential for 34 units. Twenty of these are located in Saugeen Shores, ten in Brockton and 4 in South Bruce.
Please refer to Appendix nine for a detailed breakdown of draft approved lots for Bruce County by location.
130
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 29: Total Number of Draft Approved Lots by Municipality, as at November 30th, 2004
700 621 600
500
400
300 249 194 179 200
100 64 41 28 22
Number of Draft Approved Lots Approved Draft of Number 0 Saugeen Brockton South Northern Kincardine Arran- Huron- South Shores Bruce Bruce Elderslie Kinloss Bruce Peninsula Peninsula Municipality
Source: Bruce County Planning Department, As at November 31st, 2004
7.4 Comparison of Available Lands to Projections
Comparison of the above draft approved plans to the housing projections finds that, overall, there is sufficient land availability to support approximately 6 years of housing activity. However, discussions with local planners find that, in areas of greater demand, particularly Saugeen Shores and Kincardine, serviced residential lots are in short supply. With the potential expansion of Bruce Power, this shortage would become even more severe. Efforts are required to expand the availability of serviced lots in these two municipalities, in particular.
At the same time, the analysis also shows that the mix of units in draft approved plans does not fully reflect the nature of identified housing needs. While household size is declining, the number of small households is increasing and the demand for rental housing is growing, virtually the entire supply of units in draft approved plans are single detached dwellings best suited for larger households. Clearly, housing providers need to be encouraged to diversify the types of units being produced in order to better meet the County’s housing needs.
7.5 Summary of County’s Ability to Meet Housing Projections
The following conclusions can be reached regarding the County’s ability to meet projected housing needs:
131
Bruce County Housing Study
Overall Housing Activity Sufficient to Meet Growth Projections
The current level of overall housing activity is sufficient to meet growth projections within Bruce County.
Six Year Supply of Draft Approved Plans
The current supply of draft approved plans is sufficient to meet projected overall growth for the next six years.
Scarcity of Serviced Lots in Saugeen Shores and Kincardine
There is a scarcity of serviced lots in Saugeen Shores and Kincardine in relation to projected housing requirements. Greater efforts are required to expand the supply of such properties.
Greater Diversity in Housing Types Required
While household size is declining, the number of small households is increasing and the demand for rental housing is growing, virtually the entire supply of units in draft approved plans are single detached dwellings best suited for larger households. Housing providers need to be encouraged to diversify the types of units being produced in order to better meet the County’s housing needs.
132
Bruce County Housing Study
8 SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
The following sections discuss various special needs housing issues facing Bruce County residents. Findings are based on survey responses obtained from various organizations throughout Bruce County. The survey is provided in Appendix 10. Close to 20 organizations ranging from emergency shelters to special needs housing organizations were contacted in October and November of 2004. Findings from these consultations are summarized below.
In addition, the Bluewater Special Needs Advocacy Group (SNAG) provided a succinct synopsis of the issues facing special needs groups in Bruce County. SNAG is a newly formed grassroots proactive advisory group consisting of parents, friends and professionals advocating for more housing partnerships and services for people with special needs. The group formed in the spring of 2004 due to the high needs and lack of affordable housing services to meet the demands of special needs groups.
One of the major issues facing these persons is the lack of affordable, accessible and immediately available housing for special needs persons in crisis situations. At the present time, SNAG maintains a list of over 75 special needs families who desperately require housing and services ranging from recreation, work, education and life skills needs.
Seniors on fixed incomes, young adults living in marginal housing situations, persons with multiple disabilities, and aging families with disabled children were identified as groups facing major housing constraints and barriers in Bruce County.
8.1 Emergency and Transitional Housing
a community. Family break-up, domestic violence, loss of employment, mental illness, eviction, unexpected disasters such as fires and floods and other unforeseen situations can place families and individuals in need of emergency or temporary accommodation until more stable housing is secured.
While the above factors can all contribute to the need for emergency or temporary accommodation, observers in most communities, including Bruce County, agree that by far the greatest contributing factor to the need for such accommodation is the lack of permanent affordable housing. The lack of permanent affordable housing leaves a great many families and individuals at serious risk of homelessness, often one paycheque away from being out on the streets.
In fact, a study by Marybeth Shinn, Professor of Psychology at New York University, concluded that “subsidized housing is both necessary and sufficient to “cure” homelessness for families”.
133
Bruce County Housing Study
In addition, transitional housing plays a key role in the housing market, especially in providing an important option for homeless individuals. Transitional housing provides an opportunity for individuals living in emergency shelters or other homeless and at-risk situations to move to a supported environment where they can achieve stability in their lives and eventually move on to permanent housing that meets their needs. In essence, transitional housing can be seen as the mid point between shelters and permanent housing.
An analysis of the special needs housing stock in Bruce county revealed a gap in terms of transitional housing units (see below). A lack of such units has placed a great many households at risk of continued housing inadequacy over time. Efforts are needed to provide transitional units for individuals leaving emergency and temporary housing situations.
Below we examine the need for emergency and temporary accommodation throughout Bruce County and the programs, services and facilities available to help meet these needs. Numerous key informants commented that the need for such services has grown in recent years, corresponding closely to the decline in funding for permanent affordable housing and the cancellation of most of the social housing supply programs in the early 1990s. Other factors such as reductions in social assistance levels, tightening of eligibility regulations for such assistance, freezing of minimum wage for almost a decade, and the growing incidence of domestic violence and mental illness have also contributed to this situation.
8.1.1.1 Women’s House of Bruce County
Located in Kincardine, the Women’s House of Bruce County has been in operation for 20 years. This organization operates on an annual budget of $204,000. Some 70% of the funding is obtained from MCSS and the remainder is reached through local fundraising. The main purpose of this shelter is to provide temporary housing to women and children fleeing domestic violence, as well as women in housing crisis situations. Services include safe shelter, food, group and individual counselling, transportation to shelter or appointments, referrals to other supports, telephone counselling and crisis support.
The shelter contains a total of 16 beds and often operates at capacity. The following Figure shows shelter usage between 2000 and 2003. The number of clients remained fairly steady in 2000 and 2001 as shown. A drop in usage is noted for 2002 and 2003. This was attributed to the agency’s 19 week closure due to a labour dispute.
134
Bruce County Housing Study
Figure 30: Women’s House of Bruce County Shelter Usage among Women and Children, 2000-2003
80 72 68 70 65 62 59
s 60 56 50 50 40
30
Number of Client 20 16
10
0 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year
Number of Women Number of Children
Source: Women’s House of Bruce County, November 2004
Clients are allowed a maximum of 28 days shelter if they are in housing crisis situations such as homelessness. However, they are allowed longer stays if they are escaping domestic violence and abusive situations. Key informants indicated that the average stay is approximately 6 weeks. Longer stays usually result in less room available for clients who are not housed. This would result in women continuing to live in abusive situations. Clients coming from abusive situations are given special priority when vacancies occur in social housing units in the County.
The number of nights spent at the shelter among women and children have increased since 2000. The number of nights spent at the shelter by women and children increased from 2,738 in 2000 to 3,160 in 2003.
The costs to use the shelters are minimal to non existent. Key informants indicated that only those who are able to pay are charged a small fee for services. One of the main concerns is the lack of affordable housing availability in Bruce County. Another issue revolves around the fact that landlords prefer to rent to working persons as opposed to individuals such as displaced women and children who are on Ontario Works or disability insurance.
The lack of second stage or transitional housing in the area places most clients at risk of repeating the cycle of homelessness and poverty when they leave the facility. Measures need to be put in place to increase the supply of transitional units for women
135
Bruce County Housing Study
in this situation. The provision of emergency shelters, while helpful in the short term, does not represent a long term solution to these needs.
In addition, while this facility is of great importance to women in crisis, it is important to note that its location makes it extremely difficult for women in need in more distant areas such as the Bruce Peninsula, to reach the shelter. Efforts need to be taken to provide shelter options in such locations.
8.1.1.2 Bruce County Rent Banks
The Bruce County rent bank program commenced in early 2004 and is operated by the Bruce County Social Housing Division. Key informants indicated that the program was put into practice with $55,996 in funding from the Provincial Government. The provincial government has not committed to any further funding.
The main element of the program is to provide a grant to tenants on the verge of homelessness due to rental arrears. Since it inception, Bruce County has allocated approximately $8,000 to a total of 10 applicants. At the present time, the County has not committed to any further funding. It should be noted that tenants already in RGI units are not eligible for this program.
It was noted that that average payout stands at about $800 per applicant. Most applicants are families on various types of government support such as Ontario Works, EI or ODSP. One of the main issues faced by low income households and those on fixed and limited income is the rising costs of utilities. As a result, these households are unable to budget for rent as well as utilities thus, falling into arrears.
8.1.1.3 Owen Sound and Area Family Y Housing Support
Located in Owen Sound, the Family Y Housing Support Centre serves residents of Grey and Bruce Counties. The Family Y assists persons aged 16 and over as well as seniors with various shelter-related services. The program provides room and board to qualified youth through its Host Family Program. As well, adults accessing the program are offered apartment listings, housing search tips, help with application forms and referrals to other agencies. It should be noted that the Family YMCA does not own any rental housing and/or emergency shelters and does not provide financial aid to clients.
Key informants indicated that most clients are on a fixed income, such as Ontario Works or ODSP, and/or work at very low paying, often seasonal jobs. Lack of steady income couple with lack of affordable housing in the area are placing a great many of these clients in constrained housing situations.
Key informants identified three major issues facing Family Y clients. These are:
• the lack of rental units in a price range affordable to those on fixed incomes • the lack of affordable units to those requiring ground floor/elevator access; and
136
Bruce County Housing Study
• the lack of emergency housing for families and for women who are not leaving abuse but who are quite simply homeless.
Key informants indicated that an analysis of waiting lists for geared-to-income rental housing in Bruce County (particularly in places like Port Elgin and Kincardine) suggests that increasing the supply of RGI would be extremely beneficial to lower income households. Key informants also revealed that the cost of local private market rental apartments is financially beyond reach of individuals on any form of fixed or low income.
It was pointed out that, based on the experience of agency workers, persons on Ontario Works and ODSP are among the most marginalized. These groups are unable to secure affordable housing in the private rental market. As well, the lack of RGI units is placing these households at further risk. In addition, individuals aged 16 years to early 20’s are also faced with difficulties securing housing due to age discrimination. Any individual requiring a ground floor unit or a unit in a building with an elevator is often unsuccessful in finding anything affordable that meets these criteria.
Key informants for the Family Y also provided a summary of comments received from support staff at the organization. These are summarized as follows:
Not enough emergency housing – the only emergency housing facilities in Grey- Bruce are the Salvation Army and Good Samaritan House in Owen Sound for men only and Women’s House in Kincardine for women only. This is too distant from many communities. These shelters are often at capacity and must often turn away persons in need.
The majority of housing is too expensive for persons on “singles” Ontario Works support (approximately $520 per month total income). The least expensive market apartment units in the area are located in Chesley and rent for $275 per month plus utilities. This leaves only about $250 for utilities and day-to-day living costs. These units are often substandard.
Another key issue is the lack of available subsidized housing units in some areas of Bruce County, such as Kincardine and Saugeen Shores. Long waiting lists often discourage people from applying for housing because their needs are immediate. In addition, RGI units and vacancies are often not available in areas with employment opportunities. While some vacancies and RGI units are available in rural areas such as Ripley, supports are severely lacking in these areas. It should be noted that there are few hospitals, jobs or conveniences in these types of smaller communities. Lower income persons are on limited income and have difficulty meeting transportation costs to larger centres where more supports are located.
137
Bruce County Housing Study
8.1.1.4 Good Samaritan House of Owen Sound
While located in Owen Sound outside of Bruce County, this facility does provide emergency shelter for men age 16 or over from Grey or Bruce County. It also offers low-cost meals twice a day on weekdays and once on Saturdays. It also provides referrals to agencies, including welfare, clothing, crisis, detox and credit counselling. At the time of preparing this report, no data was available on usage of the facility.
The above discussion points to the need to expand the availability of emergency and temporary shelter in areas geographically distant from existing facilities in Kincardine and Owen Sound, especially in the Bruce Peninsula area. Transitional housing is a particular gap. Local agencies should be encouraged to consider establishing transitional housing options at suitable locations within Bruce County.
8.2 Supportive Housing
There are many individuals across Bruce County for whom a suitable place to live involves not only affordable and secure accommodation, but also an important range of support services to address unique personal needs and conditions. The response of the community to these needs has been the creation of a range of supportive housing facilities and services. Supportive housing can be defined as the integration of housing and support services for individuals who require specific services to maintain their housing and well-being. The supportive housing and services being provided in Bruce County is being delivered to four main groups – persons with mental illness, persons with physical disabilities and mobility impairments, persons with developmental delays and youth.
Below we outline the housing needs of these individuals and the range of responses developed by local agencies to try and address these needs. This information was obtained from interviews with various key informants and service providers throughout Bruce County.
8.2.1 Housing for Persons with Mental Illness
Housing for persons with severe mental illness is a complex subject. There are many types and degrees of mental illness and varying abilities of individuals to live independently. Some of the typical disorders of these individuals can include schizophrenia, mood disorders, organic brain syndrome, acquired brain injuries, paranoia, personality disorders, dual diagnosis, and so on. Each requires varying forms and degrees of support to enable individuals to function on a day-to-day basis. These conditions often leave such individuals facing poverty, discrimination and complex social issues which give rise to serious difficulty securing appropriate housing.
138
Bruce County Housing Study
In past years, persons with severe mental illness were sheltered and supported at various institutions. With the growing trend toward de-institutionalization, however, many individuals have been de-institutionalized and are expected to find suitable housing and support services within the greater community. A summary of findings is provided below.
8.2.1.1 Centre for Addictions and Mental Health
Key informants indicated that the lack of safe and supportive housing for persons with addictions and mental health issues is a major issue in Bruce County. As in the case with Bruce County, most addiction treatment services throughout the province are offered in non-residential settings. This is seen as a major drawback. There are a total of five addiction treatment programs in close proximity to Bruce County. Only two of these provide a residential component. These are:
• Withdrawal Management Services located in Owen Sound (12 beds), and • G and B House, a recovery home for men, (15 beds)
These addiction treatment services are funded through the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
It was indicated that emergency/temporary housing is an issue for a small number of people experiencing crises involving substances. Often, those experiencing addictions are housed inappropriately due to lack of affordable and safe units in the County. Key informants indicated that there are no emergency beds in the area that cater to persons with addictions (aside from the Samaritan House for men located in Owen Sound). While the number of people experiencing these types of crises is fairly low, the impacts of addictions are often significant on the person, their family, and the community.
Key informants indicated that the provision of safe and affordable supportive housing for all persons, including those suffering from addictions, should be at the forefront of future planning.
8.2.1.2 Grey-Bruce Community Connections
The following sections summarize information obtained from www.mhagb.ca. Community Connections housing support services is one of two housing programs that can offer adults with a mental illness who live in Grey and Bruce Counties with affordable housing in a group home setting. This organization possesses a total of 49 RGI units scattered across six municipalities in Grey and Bruce Counties. Of these units, nine are located in Bruce County and the remainder, 40 units are located in Grey County. The main purpose of these units is to provide safe, affordable and adequate housing for homeless and at risk persons with mental illness. Residents in the nine apartment units located in Bruce County have access to support staff for a maximum of
139
Bruce County Housing Study
three hours per week. The cost is based on an RGI basis, where ODSP clients pay a total of $414 a month and OW clients pay a total of $325.
Residential data was provided for all of Grey and Bruce for 2002 and 2003. The data showed that the number of clients increased from 42 in 2002 to 54 in 2003. Clients are allowed to stay indefinitely in these residences. As a result, waiting lists can grow due to the lack of other affordable and needs-specific housing units in Bruce County. There were a total of 21 clients on the waiting list in 2002. By 2003, however, this figure declined slightly to 16.
While the waiting list declined in 2003, it was felt that the numbers remaining on the list suggest a need to increase the supply of apartment units with support services throughout Bruce County. Key references indicated that group home type settings are not always a viable option when having to deal with persons with various degrees of mental illness diagnosis. As a result, efforts are needed to expand the supply of supported apartment and bachelor units throughout the County in order to help keep mentally ill persons off the streets and in homes.
8.2.1.3 Bruce Mental Health Support Services
Located in Wiarton, Bruce Mental Health Support Services (BMHSS) is a team of community support workers that provide flexible, individualized housing services that are client-focused and based on the individual's personal needs and wants. Their main goal is to provide a range of housing and group support services to adults with serious mental illness.
In term of housing services, the BMHSS provides three crucial services to persons with mental illness. These include supportive housing, community outreach and a housing registry. In terms of supportive housing, BMHSS operates a ten-bed group home in the town of Wiarton, where each tenant has access to his/her own bedroom. Other areas such as the kitchen, living areas and bathrooms are shared facilities. In addition, 24 hour staff support is available to facilitate co-operative living and provide skill building opportunities in a broad range of areas including basic support, life skill building, enrichment, medication management, crisis management, linking to other supports, etc. The majority of the funding for operating expenses is obtained from the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. The cost of residence in the group home is calculated on a "rent-geared-to-income" basis. There is no cost for support services. Key references indicated that there is a need for more units throughout the community. The need is required mainly for smaller units such as individual apartments or even two or three person units with support services. The Community Outreach program provides individualized support to people who choose to live anywhere in north Bruce County including their own apartment, boarding home, with family, etc. Case workers support clients to achieve successful community
140
Bruce County Housing Study
living through the development or enhancement of skills in areas including: daily living skills (i.e. meal preparation, grocery shopping, hygiene, medication management, budgeting/financial support, etc.); supportive counseling; linking with other formal and informal supports in the broader community; advocacy; social/recreational enrichment; transportation; etc. Supports are flexible and can be increased or decreased based on individual need. Finally, the Housing Registry program helps individuals locate and secure decent, affordable accommodation by maintaining lists of landlords and matching people with available housing. The Registry also provides education and resources regarding housing and tenant related issues.
BMHSS also provides group support services such as social and leisure activities, education and training and employment services.
8.2.1.4 Canadian Mental Health Association
Information for the following section was obtained online at www.cmhagb.org. The main goal of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Grey-Bruce Branch, is to advocate and provide programs and services for people with mental disorders, and to enhance, maintain, and promote the mental and emotional health of all individuals in Grey and Bruce Counties.
This organization provides seven key programs and services as identified below: • Community Leisure Access, • Leisure Links, • Distress Line, • Public Education, • Youthnet, • Good Grief, and • F.A.N. (Friends and Neighbours) Club
These programs provide advocacy and awareness for mental illness clients as well as the community at large. One of the major drawbacks cited is the lack of affordable housing units for mental illness clients in Bruce County. A lack of such units places such clients in constrained housing situations.
8.2.2 Housing for Persons with Physical Disabilities and Mobility Impairments
Housing for persons with disabilities is increasingly becoming an important issue throughout Canada. A recent study conducted by Statistics Canada through the Participation and Activities Limitations Survey (PALS), identified close to 3.5 million persons over the age of 15 with some form of physical disability in Canada. This represents close to one in eight Canadians or just over 10% of the entire population. In Ontario, the situation is a bit more serious, with one in seven persons, or 13.5% of the Provincial population, possessing some form of disability.
141
Bruce County Housing Study
The report also finds that, of Ontarians aged 15-64, some 3% have hearing disabilities, 3% have visual disabilities, 8% have mobility impairments and 7% have agility impairments. In terms of severity of the disability, some 32.8% of Ontario’s disabled population possess a mild disability, 24.4% possess a moderate disability, 28.1% possess a severe, and 14.7% possess a very severe disability. In addition, the rate of disability is directly linked to age, where 3.3% of children aged 0-14, 9.9% of people aged 15-64 and 40.5% of seniors aged 65 and over possess some form of disability.
These figures suggest that housing providers need to take into account the need for modified units in the creation of new dwellings. This is especially true in the case of Bruce County, where the seniors proportion of the population is increasing. An aging population places various demands on local housing needs. The need for affordable, accessible seniors housing is at the forefront of these needs for Bruce County. Council, local planners and builders need to place increased emphasis on the provision of accessible units for the County’s aging population.
County Council established the Accessibility Advisory Committee in September 2002 and adopted the Job Description and Terms of Reference for this Committee in May, 2003. The Accessibility Advisory Committee is responsible for the following:
• Conduct research on barriers to people with disabilities in all facilities, regulations, policies, programs, practices and services offered by the County of Bruce. • List facilities, regulations, policies, programs, practices and services that cause or may cause barriers to people with disabilities. • Identify barriers that will be removed or prevented in the coming year. • Describe how these barriers will be removed or prevented in the coming year. • Prepare a report on these activities for the County’s Corporate Services Committee.
There are various issues that surround housing providers who provide shelter to persons with physical disabilities and mobility impairments. One of the main issues facing housing providers is the notion of accessibility. Housing for persons with physical and mobility impairments must take into account numerous housing design criteria when providing housing for clients. The following is summary of the Ontarian’s with Disabilities Act.
8.2.2.1 The Ontarians with Disabilities Act
Key sources identified accessibility issues as one of the major concerns in Bruce County as well as other communities across Ontario. In response to the urgent need to increase accessibility among all people, the Government of Ontario passed the “Ontarians with Disabilities Act”.
142
Bruce County Housing Study
The main objective of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act is to work with every sector of society to eliminate accessibility barriers that preclude persons with disabilities from enjoying everyday life. The goal of the Act is to ensure no new barriers are created, and to eliminate all existing accessibility barriers throughout the Province.
The intention of the Act is to improve opportunities for person with disabilities and to increase their involvement in identifying, removing and preventing barriers to their full participation in the life of the province. In terms of housing issues, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires that all social housing service managers ensure that a certain percentage of all social housing units are accessible for persons with disabilities.
The Ontarians with Disabilities Act also outlines various duties for local municipalities to carry out, as summarized below:
a) The Act states that the Council of each municipality must prepare an accessibility plan and seek advice from the Accessibility Advisory Committee, or consult with persons with disabilities and others, if the Council has not established or continued an Accessibility Advisory Committee.
b) The accessibility plan is to address the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to persons with disabilities.
c) The accessibility plan must include the following:
a. Provide a report on the measures the municipality has taken to identify, remove and prevent barriers to person with disabilities.
b. Provide a report on measures in place to ensure that the municipality has assessed its proposals for by-laws, policies, programs, practices and services to determine their effect on accessibility for persons with disabilities.
c. Provide a list of by-laws, policies, programs, practices and services that the municipality intends to review in the coming year.
d. Provide measures that the municipality intends to undertake in the coming year to identify, remove and prevent barriers.
e. Provide all other information that the regulations prescribe for the purpose of the plan.
In addition, Councils of every municipality with a population over 10,000 must establish or continue an Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC). The purpose of the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) is to advise Council about the preparation, implementation and effectiveness of its accessibility plan. Members of the AAC must include municipal employees as well as persons with disabilities.
143
Bruce County Housing Study
The Council must seek advice from the AAC on accessibility issues for persons with disabilities prior to building structures, premises or parts of buildings. It is indicated that these rules apply to buildings purchased, leased and owned by the municipality.
In addition to the Ontarian’s with Disabilities Act, the City of London has presently implemented design principles in the creation and retrofit of buildings and dwellings. A brief discussion of the City of London Facility Accessibility Design Standards initiative is provided next.
8.2.2.2 The City of London Facility Accessibility Design Standards
New housing construction throughout Bruce County should also focus on providing a sizeable proportion of accessible units for the frail and elderly and persons with mobility impairments. It was suggested that new housing and retrofitted dwellings and commercial units should follow the “City of London Facility Accessibility Design Standards” recommendations. The report bases its universal design philosophy on seven design principles as follows.
1. Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.
2. Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.
3. Simple and Intuitive use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills or current concentration level.
4. Perceptible Information: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.
5. Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.
6. Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with a minimum of fatigue.
7. Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate size and space are provided for approach, reach, manipulation and use, regardless of user’s body position, size, posture or mobility.
The report also provides detailed layouts and measurement information for the creation and retrofitting of accessible units. A summary of the entire report is beyond the scope
144
Bruce County Housing Study
of this study and as a result, only a brief synopsis of the design elements of accessibility design is provided in the following section.
8.2.2.3 Universal Accessibility for the Design and Construction of Housing
In addition, key informants strongly suggested that local developers should use universal design for new housing construction. Research has indicated that universal design is quite different from accessible design. Accessible design refers to products and buildings that are accessible and usable and designed specifically for persons with physical disabilities and mobility impairments. On the other hand, environments and products with “universal design” are intended for all persons without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The main purpose of universal design is to simplify accessibility for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more functional and accessible by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost.
Research on www.hometime.com provided suggestions for design techniques for housing construction. Additional suggestions have been made to this list to incorporate features to be considered.
General living space Various design tips were provided to increase the accessibility for general living spaces. These design tips are as follows: • Providing large entry hallways to increase accessibility for wheel chair users. • Installing windows at a height that allows persons using wheelchairs to see outside. • Using rocker switches for lighting rather than traditional switches. • Mounting wall outlets at 20 inches off the floor rather than the traditional 12 inches off the floor. • Using doorway openings of 36” wide to increase accessibility among wheel chair users. • Using level door handles instead of doorknobs. • Ensuring stairs are at least 36 inches wide, and have treads sufficiently deep enough so a person’s entire foot may fit on the tread. • Installing handrails on every stairway. • Installing lower shelving to for easy access. • Installing flooring that is appropriate for wheelchair use.
Building Ramps
Ramps comprise the most important element of universal design. This is because the ability to enter and exit a house is the most important element in making one’s home more accessible.
145
Bruce County Housing Study
In the traditional sense, ramps are built similar to decks with concrete, vertical posts, horizontal beams, joists, deck boards, and railings, and are installed as permanent fixtures. In many cases, occupants do not always require a permanent installation, especially if the house is to be sold to a household that does not include a member with a physical disability.
It was suggested that a temporary ramp would be an ideal solution for most occupants with a physical disability. This type of new ramp system consists of platform sections that are set on stands and in turn laid on the ground. Three main advantages were seen for this type of construction:
1. It can be more affordable than traditional ramps and can easily be accomplished as a “do it yourself” project. 2. Since it is not a permanent structure, it can be easily removed when not needed. 3. The ramp system is "modular" so the same pieces can be used again to build another ramp at a different house.
Bathroom Alterations
Bathrooms are one of the most difficult rooms to alter, and therefore utilizing the principles of universal design when the home is built can assist with the process to provide necessary alterations for those with physical disabilities.
Frequently, the biggest difficulty is entering the room, as doors are often too narrow for wheelchairs. As a result, in order to give more space and clearance, the installation of swing-clear hinges was suggested so the door swings back and out away from the entrance. In addition, door stops may be removed to achieve another 0.5 inches of clearance on either side of the entrance.
More space in bathrooms can be gained by replacing a closed-in vanity with a pedestal sink. This may be problematic for families requiring extra storage space for toiletries.
A bath bench and support bars may be required for bathing. These devices can be portable, folding out of the way for storage. During the construction process, by reinforcing walls where support bars would be mounted if required by the occupant, the builder can provide a solid base for future installation at little additional cost. Hand held shower units with on/off switches should replace traditional wall mounted shower heads. These types of shower heads enable persons to adjust the water temperature, pull the diverter on the faucet and turn on the hand-held shower independently.
Grab bars are required around the toilet seat. These enable users to get on and off the toilet without assistance from others. Toilet seats that are the same height as the wheelchair are ideal. As an alternative, a removable raised seat can be used instead.
146
Bruce County Housing Study
Remodelling Kitchens:
Most kitchens are designed for a "standard" person, with standard countertop heights and upper cabinet heights made for a person with average reaching abilities in a standing position. In these cases, those with reaching, bending, or grasping limitations are presented with many challenges in a "standard" kitchen design. Kitchen remodelling is expensive and, as a result, many are forced to make due with items that are readily available.
Design modifications in kitchens could include providing countertops without cupboards underneath which would allow a person using a wheelchair to access the counter; allowing sufficient space for a side-by-side refrigerator/freezer, installing cook tops and wall ovens with front controls, and using lever-operated plumbing fixtures.
Common Areas
In addition to modifications being made to the units, additional modifications are required for common areas in multi-unit projects. These could include:
Providing sidewalks and ramps from street level to all doorways Electric door-opening devices Lighting in all common areas Larger elevators to permit a stretcher to be used Wider hallways with handrails Non-slip flooring Colour-blocking where floor height changes to assist those with visual impairments Fire alarm system with flashing lights to alert those with hearing impairments Braille lettering on all doorways and elevator buttons Mail delivery system accessible to those in wheelchairs If a laundry room is included, providing laundry equipment with front controls and front opening doors
Bruce County identified a total of 23 units that have been modified for physically handicapped persons in their social housing stock. Given the large proportion of seniors in Bruce County, this stock is inadequate to fully meet the needs that will arise in the future. Efforts are needed to expand the supply of affordable and accessible housing units throughout the County. Units should be created across the county, not just the main service areas. Often, accessible units are created in the larger urban centers and rural area residents must uproot themselves from their communities in order to access affordable and accessible units.
147
Bruce County Housing Study
8.2.3 Housing for Persons with Developmental Delays
There are four Community Living organizations funded by the Province that provide housing / residential supports to adults with developmental disabilities in Bruce County. These are listed below along with statistics based on two models of supports: Group Living (24 hour per day by staff or paid caregivers) and Supported Independent Living supports (support provided on an as needed basis in persons independently owned or rented home or apartment).
In addition to the housing / residential supports the Community Living agencies also provide other provincially and municipally funded services such as infant development, preschool resource, family support, employment and life skills supports. There are no residential services for children with developmental disabilities in Bruce or Grey Counties although out of home respite for caregivers of very high needs children is provided on a limited basis.
CLKD BPACL CLOSD CLWD Kincardine Bruce Saugeen Brocton Total South Peninsula Shores, Chesley Bruce Total Adults Served – Residential Supports 33 14 33 67 147
Total Adults Served – Non 12 12 10 123 157 Residential
Total Adults Served 2004 45 22 43 190 300
Group Living (24 hr/day staff)
# sites 2003 (Bruce Co.) 3 1 2 10 16
# sites 2004 (Bruce Co.) 3 1 2 11 17
# of residents 2003 14 3 17 42 76
# of residents 2004 14 3 17 45 79
Waiting for Group Living 167 supports (Feb 2005)
BP CL CL OS CL Kinc CL Walk Ttl
Supported Indep. Liv 2003 19 11 17 33 70
Supported Indep. Liv 2004 19 11 16 34 70
# in RGI / subs. housing 2004 1 9 4 14
148
Bruce County Housing Study
8.2.3.1 Community Living Owen Sound and District
Located in Owen Sound and Port Elgin, Community Living Owen Sound and District (CLOSD) provides community based support services to children and adults with developmental disabilities. This organization has been in existence since the mid 1950s.
CLOSD provides residential services (adults who live in 24 hour supportive housing and who live independently) respite, infant development, preschool resource, family support services, special services at home and supported employment services to children and adults with development disabilities. Close to 80 % of this organization’s operating budget is obtained from the Province via Ministry of Community and Social Services.
CLOSD also operates a total of seven group homes for persons with developmental disabilities. A total of 20 clients inhabited these facilities in 2002 and 21 in 2003. Key references indicated that the residential units always operate at capacity due to the lack of other residential services in the two counties. While these clients refer to only those living in group homes, CLOSD also supports 560 children and adults throughout the two counties. As well, CLOSD also assists 49 individuals with their long term housing needs via independent living supports at home on an as-needed basis.
Residents pay a service fee of approximately $160 per month for residential services. As well, they also pay their own or share of the household’s living expenses such as rent, utilities, taxes and food.
Figure 31: CLOSD Group Home Usage by Clients, 2002 and 2003
25
s 20
15
10
5 Number of Client of Number
0 2002 2003 Year
Total Number of Clients Number of Women Number of Men
Source: Community Living Owen Sound and District, December 2003
149
Bruce County Housing Study
In terms of housing access, key informants indicated that access to adult residential developmental services is co-ordinated on a regional (two county) basis. At present, there are 164 persons with developmental disabilities awaiting residential supports in the two counties. There are presently 115 spaces in 45 units throughout the two counties with an occupancy rate of 100% and an annual turnover rate of near zero. This does not include the waiting list for Supported Independent Living services, which support adults living independent of their parents who need less than 24 hour per day supports.
In terms of needs specific to this client group, affordability and accessibility were identified as the two key issues. In Port Elgin, for example, CLOSD contains one residence for 3 people. This unit is only affordable because of extended family member support and private backing. Rents are not affordable to persons who are on social assistance. It was estimated that more than 95 % of adults with developmental disability receive only ODSP income support and are forced to accept substandard housing, share accommodation or remain at home with their parents. In addition, rural housing options are more limited than the urban settings, particularly those that physically accessible.
There is also an issue with the increasing number of individuals with developmental disabilities requiring increased support as their parents and primary caregivers begin to age or pass on.
Key informants identified 6 key strategies that the County should undertake in the provision of affordable special needs housing for various groups of persons with specialized housing needs. These are:
• Relief from property tax on buildings owned or leased to groups providing housing supports, • Waiving of building permits on new supportive housing units, affordable housing development and accessibility related renovations, • Waiving of development fees for new housing with x% affordable housing units, • Widening eligibility criteria for accessibility rehab grants to include non profit organizations, • Conversion of public buildings for affordable and special needs housing, and • Targets for RGI units in new development.
8.3 Seniors Housing
8.3.1 Population Growth
While absolute total population has decreased in recent in Bruce County, the number of seniors is increasing. As shown, Bruce County contains a significant number of
150
Bruce County Housing Study
persons aged 65 or older - 15.6% of the total population in 1996 and 17.4% in 2001. The next Table shows the breakdown of this population by municipality.
As shown, Saugeen Shores and South Bruce Peninsula contain a total of 35.6% of all seniors in Bruce County. This is up from 34.7% in 1996. In all, absolute increases in seniors are noted for seven of the eight municipalities in Bruce County in the past five years. This aging of the population points to an ongoing need to expand the supply of housing for seniors of all income levels. In addition to housing, support services to assist seniors with day-to-day living are also integral to the well being of this group.
Table 73: Population Age 65+ by Municipality, 1996 and 2001 1996 2001 Area # % # % South Bruce 795 7.7 765 6.9 Huron-Kinloss 1,075 10.5 1,110 10.0 Kincardine 1,520 14.8 1,675 15.1 Brockton 1,390 13.5 1,495 13.5 Arran-Elderslie 1,060 10.3 1,025 9.2 Saugeen Shores 1,745 17.0 2,045 18.4 South Bruce Peninsula 1,815 17.7 1,905 17.2 Northern Bruce Peninsula 860 8.4 960 8.7 Saugeen, R No Data 55 0.5 Bruce County 10,260 100.0 11,095 100.0 Total population, 65,680 63,892 Bruce County Proportion of Seniors Population (65+) 15.6% 17.4% in Bruce County Statistics Canada: 1996, 2001 Census of Canada.
In terms of County RGI housing, it was indicated that there are eight LHC units in Port Elgin and Southampton that are designated for frail elderly and physically handicapped persons. Supports for these units are obtained from the VON, through funding from the Ministry of Health. Four of these units are completely renovated for physically handicapped persons. In addition to these units, the County’s social housing stock contains a total of 23 additional modified units for frail and handicapped persons.
8.3.2 Household Income of Senior Households
One major issue pertaining to senior citizen housing is the level of poverty among seniors due to their fixed incomes. Recent findings in the Census showed that, while
151
Bruce County Housing Study the low-income rate for seniors in Canada dropped from one in three in 1980 to one in five in 1996, many seniors still lived in poverty. It reported that 32% of unattached senior men and 53% of unattached senior women in Canada lived at or below the poverty line at that time. Living alone is considered a risk factor for poor health leading to hospitalization or placement in a long-term care facility.
It can also be pointed out that seniors living on the basic government pension (Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and GAINS-A) received $982 per month for a single individual and $1,623 per month for a couple. Compared to MPAC median rents of approximately $500 (with an additional $85 for heating and hydro) for one bedroom units, a senior on basic pension living alone in a one bedroom apartment would require about 36.0% of their total income simply to pay the rent, leaving only about $400 per month for all other expenses.
Another issue involves senior homeowners. Many of these individuals face severe affordability problems as well. Escalations in utility costs, maintenance costs and property taxes leave many senior homeowners who live on basic government pensions increasingly “house poor”. They face increasing difficulties meeting the day-to-day operating costs of homeownership, not to mention the increasing difficulty in coping with home maintenance, housekeeping and other activities of daily living.
The increases seen in property values are also contributing to higher property taxes, which are pushing ongoing operating costs past the range of some senior homeowners. While these seniors have the option of selling their homes when faced with these problems, there are very few suitable alternative forms of accommodation for them to move into.
8.3.3 Seniors and Tenure
The following Table shows trends in tenure for senior households for 1996 and 2001. The proportion of owner senior households increased from 78.4% in 1996 to 82.7% in 2001. By comparison, the proportion of renter senior households declined from 21.7% to 17.3%.
In terms of absolute numbers, senior owner households increased from 4,955 in 1996 to 5,535 in 2001. This represents an absolute growth of 580 households or an increase of 11.7% over a five year period. The number of senior renter households saw a net decline of 215 households or -15.7%.
152
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 74: Seniors and Housing Tenure in Bruce County 1996 and 2001
1996 Census
Age Groups Owners Renters 65 to 74 2,990 565 75 and Over 1,965 805 Total 4,955 1,370 Tenure Proportion 78.4 21.6
2001 Census
Age Groups Owners Renters 65 to 74 3,265 445 75 and Over 2,270 710 Total 5,535 1,155 Tenure Proportion 82.7 17.3 Statistics Canada: 1996, 2001 Custom Tabulation.
The data showed that the senior’s share of the population grew from 15.6% in 1996, to 17.4% in 2001, an increase of 835 individuals. Not only is more housing required to meet the needs of the growing seniors population; the nature of needs of the frail and elderly will also change due to physical and health considerations. This may require moving into long term care facilities or accommodation which is more appropriate to their restricted mobility. Those with restricted mobility will require accessible units such as apartments with elevators. Others will make housing decisions based on other considerations, such as: lower maintenance; the requirement for less space; or the desire to access equity from their existing home.
This will increase the demand for accommodation, in terms of housing directed exclusively at seniors (such as long term care and retirement homes) or in terms of housing which is appropriate for their age and lifestyle. Accordingly, in order to ensure that seniors have a full range of housing options, it is imperative that the market provide sufficient choice.
Ideally, higher density units, such as apartments, may be best suited for senior households. This is mainly because these units provide a lower cost alternative to single detached homes, along with reduced maintenance requirements or greater accessibility. As shown earlier, the actual number and proportion of senior home owners has actually increased throughout Bruce County. Therefore, options and
153
Bruce County Housing Study
services must be put in place to assists those seniors households with fixed and most likely lower income levels.
Additionally, it is also important that seniors have access to a range of tenure options. These include both rental and condominium models, along with alternatives such as life lease.
Life lease housing offers the potential to improve the affordability of retirement housing. This increasingly popular tenure form offers older adults the opportunity to purchase life leases which guarantee them the right to occupy a dwelling for as long as they live in exchange for a lump sum up-front payment. The dwelling then reverts back to the developer of the life lease housing project, usually a community-based, not-for-profit organization, and then the dwelling is leased to another older adult. Monthly charges cover operating costs for grounds maintenance, snow removal, etc. In some life lease developments, additional services such as meals and housekeeping can be obtained for a fee. There is considerable variation in the legal agreements and how people are compensated if they decide to move out. Life lease housing has gained considerable popularity in a number of communities across Ontario, especially in South-Western Ontario.
Finally, seniors housing should be available throughout the County. Most seniors do not like to uproot their lives and move to new communities. As a result, options should be made available to these individuals within their areas. Ideally, seniors should be able to choose to live in both a “seniors” oriented community, or among the general population with a mix of household types and ages.
8.4 Aboriginal Housing
8.4.1 The Native Population
Bruce County contains two native reserves, Neyaashiinigmiing/Cape Croker and Saugeen Reserve. Census data for Neyaashiinigmiing/Cape Croker is non-existent because this Reserve refused enumeration in the 1996 and 2001 census. Where data is available, as in the case of Saugeen Reserve, there are added potential difficulties and drawbacks to enumerating the native population. Statistics Canada does not provide an accurate measure of the native populations on reserves due to various undercounts and non-responses by the native community and points out that the quality of the collected data is likely inadequate. The census quantified a total of 545 persons in Saugeen Reserve in 1996 and a total of 580 persons in 2001. However, as noted, these are most likely undercounts of the actual population.
In this light, only a brief discussion of native persons residing in other areas of Bruce County is possible. The 1996 and 2001 Census counts for native persons show major variations from one census year to the next. This suggests a fairly mobile or non- permanent population. Undercounts of the native population may also affect these
154
Bruce County Housing Study major variations. As noted earlier, these figures are not accurate and thus are not intended to provide an exact measure of the native population. Rather, they should be viewed as an approximation.
The following Table shows the native population throughout the Bruce County municipalities and Saugeen Reserve for 1996 and 2001. Aside from the Reserve, the largest concentrations of Aboriginal persons were in Saugeen Shores (18.7%) and South Bruce Peninsula (13.9%) in 2001.
Table 75: Distribution of the Native Population Throughout Bruce County
1996 2001 % of % of Area # # Distribution Distribution South Bruce Township 0 0.0 30 2.4 Huron-Kinloss, TP 35 2.9 35 2.8 Kincardine 125 10.5 80 6.3 Brockton 65 5.4 50 4.0 Arran-Elderslie 15 1.3 25 2.0 Saugeen Shores 270 22.6 235 18.7 South Bruce Peninsula 110 9.2 175 13.9 North Bruce Peninsula 30 2.5 50 4.0 Saugeen, Reserve 545 45.6 580 46.0 Cape Croker, Reserve no data Total 1,195 100.0 1,260 100.0 Statistics Canada: 1996 and 2001 Census
8.4.2 The Rural and Native Housing Program
The following discussion is based on the findings of www.wigwamen.com/housing/rural.html. The Rural and Native Housing Program was introduced by CMHC in 1974 to address the housing needs of low-income Native and non-Native families living in rural areas. For the purposes of the RNH Program, a rural area is defined as having a population of 2,500 inhabitants or less.
The offered dwellings in the RNH Program are commonly 3-bedroom, detached bungalows. In addition, there are also a number of 2-bedroom homes, and some 4- bedroom homes. As well, a portion of the units in each area are also handicap accessible.
There are various RNH housing units serving lower income Native and non-native families in rural areas of Bruce County. In total, Bruce County contains some 73 units. Under this program, tenants and homeowners pay no more than 25% of their family
155
Bruce County Housing Study
income towards housing. The majority of the units however, are geared for native households. The subsidy is provided jointly by the federal and provincial governments. In addition to cost of rent and mortgage, tenants are responsible for heat and hydro costs, and for daily maintenance.
In terms of eligibility, the RNH Program is designed to assist low-income families with dependent children in rural areas to obtain adequate and affordable housing. An applicant family applies for a house in the area where they are currently residing. Both Native and non-Native clients are eligible for assistance through the Rural and Native Housing Program. While existing units continue to be funded, the programs for expanding the supply of such units have been terminated.
8.5 Summary of Special Needs Housing
The following summarizes our findings regarding special needs housing in Bruce County.
Inadequate Supply of Emergency Shelter Beds
Key informants identified a lack of emergency housing units in Bruce County. It was suggested that available beds constantly operate at capacity. The lack of emergency units places numerous households and individuals at the risk of homelessness. The number of shelter nights spent at the Women’s House rose from 2,738 in 2000 to 3,160 in 2003. This suggests a displacement of women into homelessness because there are an inadequate number of shelter beds to offset the demand. The only shelters for men were not even located in Bruce County, but in Owen Sound at considerable distance from many Bruce communities. The lack of any emergency housing in the Bruce Peninsula area is a particular concern.
No Transitional Housing Units in Bruce County
Another major issue facing lower income and homeless households throughout Bruce County is the lack of transitional housing units. The lack of transitional housing units leads to clients remaining in emergency housing for longer periods than intended in such temporary facilities. There is a need for an expansion of transitional housing facilities for all groups facing housing crisis issues.
Lack of Smaller Group Homes and Private Apartment/Bachelor Units with Care Services for Persons with Mental Illness
A lack of affordable housing units for persons with mental illness has also been identified as a key contributor to homelessness. While a number of group home units are available, key informants indicated that smaller facilities or private apartment units
156
Bruce County Housing Study with support services are required in Bruce County. Key informants identified various difficulties in the provision of residential and medical services in group home settings. There is a need to expand the supply of affordable housing units as well as support services for persons diagnosed with mental illness.
Need for More Accessible Units throughout Bruce County
A total of only 23 units in the social housing stock have been modified for physically handicapped persons. As noted, given the large proportion of seniors in Bruce County, this stock will become inadequate to meet increasing needs over time. Efforts are needed to expand the supply of affordable and accessible housing units throughout the County, not just the larger service areas.
Lack of Affordable Housing Units for Persons with Developmental Delays
Key informants indicated that there is a lack of affordable and adequate housing supply for persons with developmental delays. In addition, the lack of support services was identified as another issue in Bruce County. The main concern is the increasing number of individuals with developmental disabilities requiring increased support as their primary care givers begin to age.
Affordability Issues May Exist Among Some Senior Households
The data shows an aging of Bruce County’s population. The proportion of seniors aged 65 and over increased from 15.6% in 1996 to 17.4% in 2001. A relatively high proportion of the social housing stock is managed as seniors housing. However, there are numerous homeowner seniors households throughout Bruce County. Seniors living on the basic government pension and fixed incomes face major affordability issues due to rising costs of utilities and maintenance on a relatively older housing stock throughout Bruce County. In addition, mobility impairments among the seniors population is becoming more and more prevalent. The unique needs of seniors should be considered in the future development and expansion of housing supply in Bruce County.
157
Bruce County Housing Study
9 SUMMARY OF HOUSING ANALYSIS
The demand and supply study includes an analysis of population and household characteristics, existing housing stock, the home ownership market, the rental housing market, and special needs housing. The study also identifies population and housing projections and analyzes the County’s ability to meet the identified targets based on the inventory of designated and available lands. This analysis has identified a range of housing needs and gaps to be addressed in the County’s Affordable Housing Strategy.
These needs and gaps are summarized below:
1. There is a Major Need to Meet the Unique Housing Requirements of a Growing Seniors Population
Overall, the total population in Bruce County has declined between 1991 and 2001. However, there has been a substantial increase in the seniors population during this time period. In addition, population projections suggest that seniors aged 65 and older will experience substantial growth in the 20 year period 2001 to 2021. Seniors living on basic government pension and fixed incomes face major affordability issues due to rising costs of utilities and maintenance on a relatively older housing stock throughout Bruce County. In addition, mobility concerns among the seniors population will grow as the population continues to age. Key references indicated that the existing and new housing stock is not meeting these types of specialty needs. As a result, efforts are needed to increase the range of housing options for the County’s growing seniors population.
2. There is a Need to Ensure That New Housing Stock is More Diversified
Overall, Bruce County displays a very high proportion of single detached dwellings. New units coming onto the market are continuing this trend to an even greater extent. Various factors point to the need for the creation of a wider variety of dwelling types required to suit the changing needs of the community. For example, with an increasingly older population, it will be important to offer a wider range of dwelling types for those households who want to scale down.
In addition, the supply and demand analysis showed declining household sizes, an increase in the share of non-family households (mostly singles) and lone parent families. Many such households are currently experiencing affordability issues due to lack of suitable units in Bruce County. Ultimately, these households would benefit from additional smaller, affordable units such as bachelor and one bedroom apartment units. Therefore, a housing mix that provides a greater range and balance of unit types would be appropriate for Bruce County.
158
Bruce County Housing Study
3. There is a Need to Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing Units in Bruce County due to the Expansion of Bruce Nuclear Power
The future potential expansion of Bruce Power could bring rapid employment and population growth to the lakeshore area and exert both short-term and long-term pressures on the lakeshore housing market, leading to housing shortages and widening the affordability gap for many households. As a result, measures should be put into place to diversity and expand the affordable housing supply in the lakeshore area of Bruce County. The County should work closely with Bruce Power to explore options and develop strategies for meeting the needs of the anticipated short-term and long-term workforce serving the expanded facility.
4. Based on Population Projections Most of the New Affordable Housing Units Should be focused in Four Municipalities
Population growth forecasts were directly tied in with the expansion of Bruce Nuclear power. Municipalities likely to grow include Kincardine, Saugeen Shores, South Bruce Peninsula and Northern Bruce Peninsula. Due to these growth pressures, resale and new house prices are expected to rise rapidly in these areas over the next few years. There is a fear that lower income households will become further marginalized during this period due to the potential loss of affordable housing units. In order to satisfy the demand for housing for lower income households, most of the new construction and affordable housing units should be focused in these areas.
5. There is a Need to Expand the Supply of Serviced Lots in the Lakeshore Communities
Land supply appears adequate to meet growth projections with the exception of lakeshore communities, in particular Saugeen Shores and Kincardine. Efforts are needed to expand the supply of serviced lots in these communities, especially in view of the expected expansion of Bruce Nuclear.
6. There are a Number of Economic Shifts Pointing to a Strong Demand for Affordable Housing
Shifts in economic trends also point to the need for the expansion of affordable housing units in Bruce County. Most of the recent growth in employment has occurred in accommodation and food services, which generally are among the lowest paying jobs in the area. As well, retail trade, agriculture, manufacturing and utilities also continue to represent significant portions of the labour force. Many of these occupations offer typically modest paying seasonal and part time employment. Those employed in these fields will face major affordability issues if the supply of affordable units does not expand to meet growing needs.
159
Bruce County Housing Study
7. Some Segments of the Population Will Require Rental Subsidies To Meet Their Housing Needs
The data show that average household income for Bruce County, while growing steadily in recent years, is below both provincial and national levels. The comparatively low level of income directly affects the ability of local households to afford housing costs.
There is a considerable incidence of low income households in Bruce County, especially among single person households. In addition, fairly long waiting lists in certain areas of the County point to the need for additional rent supplements or other forms of rental subsidies for low-income households in these areas. The private rental market will not be able to meet the housing needs of these households even if it is able to create new affordable units.
8. There is a Need to Monitor the Condition of the Housing Stock, Especially the Rental Housing Stock
The overall housing stock in Bruce County is older than the province as a whole. Most importantly, Bruce County’s rental housing stock is much older than the provincial average. Various community partners indicated that some of the affordable housing units that are available through private landlords are substandard in nature. Efforts are needed by the County and local municipalities to address these concerns.
9. There is a Need to Increase the Supply of Affordable Home Ownership for Households Earning Under $30,000
The rate of home ownership in Bruce County has increased slightly over the years. However, affordability issues are still prevalent among households earning lower incomes. The affordability analysis found that most households earning under $30,000 cannot afford homeownership and must turn to other options to find affordable housing. Efforts may me needed to provide smaller unit types such to help households at the lower income threshold achieve homeownership and build equity over time.
At the same time, many of the older, more affordable ownership units in Bruce County are occupied by seniors who would benefit from more suitable types of accommodation. Creating such accommodation would free up these existing units and make them more available to young families and other households more suited to such dwellings.
10. There is a Need to Increase the Supply of Emergency Shelter Beds in Bruce County
The demand for emergency shelter has increased in recent years. This has been linked to longer periods of stay among clients at various shelters across the County. The lack
160
Bruce County Housing Study
of emergency units places numerous households and individuals at the risk of homelessness and continued homelessness. Homelessness does not primarily encompass people living on streets. Rather, homelessness refers primarily to those living in temporary housing situations such as couch surfing, living with friends, living in shelters and those under the threat of eviction. Aside from increasing the supply of emergency housing units, strategies are needed to develop new rent-geared-to-income housing and transitional housing units in Bruce County to provide individuals staying in emergency housing with housing options. In addition, there is a need to create more emergency housing options in geographically distant areas such as Bruce Peninsula.
11. There is no Transitional Housing in Bruce County
At the same time, the lack of transitional housing in Bruce County causes further problems. Those leaving emergency housing facilities face no alternatives other than market rent units. As discussed, the vast majority of market rent units are well beyond the affordability capabilities of lower income persons. There is a need to develop transitional housing facilities for all groups facing housing crisis issues.
12. There is a Lack of Smaller Group Homes and Private Apartment/Bachelor Units with Care Services for Persons with Mental Illness
Most of the current housing facilities for persons with mental illness are comprised of group homes. Key informants indicated that there is a need for smaller facilities or private apartment units with support services for persons with mental illness. As a result, there is a need to expand the supply of affordable housing units as well as support services for persons diagnosed with mental illness.
13. There is a Need for More Accessible Units Throughout Bruce County
The supply and demand analysis showed an aging of the population and a lack of accessible housing units in Bruce County’s housing stock. With the aging of the population the current accessible housing stock will become inadequate to meet these increasing demands. Efforts are needed to expand the supply of affordable and accessible housing units throughout the County.
14. Overall, there is a Need for More Supportive Housing Units for Special Needs Groups
There are numerous gaps in housing for various client groups requiring specialized housing and supports such as persons with mental illness, persons with developmental delays and seniors. More effort is required to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing and supports for these groups throughout Bruce County.
161
Bruce County Housing Study
In the next section of the report, we organize the above into seven major elements comprising an Affordable Housing Strategy for Bruce County.
162
Bruce County Housing Study
PART TWO – AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY
163
Bruce County Housing Study
10 OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGY
10.1 Introduction
The overall purpose of the Bruce County Housing Strategy is to develop a comprehensive community strategy for dealing effectively with affordable housing issues in the area.
A range of issues faced by local residents relative to their housing choices, as well as gaps in Bruce’s housing market were identified in Part 1: Housing Demand and Supply Analysis. The strategy builds upon the findings of the analysis and involves an evaluation of the current housing situation, including factors affecting housing demand and supply, and the development of targets, programs and policy recommendations to help meet future housing needs across the area.
10.2 Potential Impediments to Addressing Identified Gaps
Significant research has been undertaken in the last few years that identifies impediments to the provision of new affordable housing in Ontario. By understanding and addressing these barriers, approaches can be developed to help overcome identified concerns and help generate the housing required to meet Bruce’s affordable housing needs.
The potential impediments to the provision of affordable housing that are most commonly mentioned in the research are the official plan, zoning by-laws, control of demolition and conversion of rental housing, municipal financial impediments, development costs, senior government policies and regulations, and a lack of understanding by the general public of the benefits of affordable housing. In section 11, we will discuss these impediments in the context of the gaps identified in the housing assessment and recommend appropriate strategies to remove these barriers.
10.3 Potential Opportunities for Addressing Identified Gaps
Potential opportunities for addressing the identified housing gaps usually require some type of government involvement. Relevant federal and provincial government policies, regulations and funding programs, as well as potential municipal incentives, will be discussed in the context of the identified gaps. Any local initiatives for addressing affordable housing needs will also be reviewed. Recommended approaches to better utilizing these potential opportunities will be identified in section 11.
164
Bruce County Housing Study
10.4 Gaps in Housing Supply
In developing a set of recommendations aimed at filling identified gaps, it is important that there be a clear understanding of these gaps. At the same time, it is also important to prioritize those gaps that need the most urgent and immediate attention.
Section 9 of this report summarized the main findings and conclusions arising from the housing assessment. Below we organize these into seven fundamental gaps in order of priority in terms of the urgency of the problem. These gaps become the focus of the recommended housing strategy.
10.4.1 More Housing Options Required for Seniors
The housing assessment showed that the population of Bruce County is aging steadily and the number of seniors is increasing throughout the area. At the same time, little new housing aimed at the meeting the growing range of needs among these seniors is being provided. Many seniors on fixed income have few housing options, including senior homeowners who are faced with increasing utility and maintenance costs, but have insufficient incomes required to meet these costs or are experiencing increasing physical difficulty coping with the demands of homeownership. Seniors in rural communities face a lack of services and are experiencing difficulty staying within their traditional communities. The lack of transportation makes it difficult for many of these seniors to access required services. At the same time, a growing number of seniors from outside of Bruce are seeking to retire in the area due to its attractive environment and relatively lower housing costs than most parts of Ontario.
Clearly, a greater range of housing options for seniors is needed throughout the County.
10.4.2 Strategies are Needed to Cope with Impacts of Bruce Power Expansion
While not yet a certainty, there are strong indications that Bruce Power will soon gain approval to expand. This will bring a large influx of trades to the area in the short and medium term and will also eventually bring an influx of professionals to run the new facilities. Past experience shows that such an influx will exert great pressures on local housing markets, especially in Saugeen Shores and Kincardine. Rents and house prices are likely to escalate, leaving local residents working in the service and retail sectors at a disadvantage competing for available accommodation. Shortages of rental housing are likely to emerge as trades arrive to work at Bruce Power on a short and medium term basis. Shortages of serviced lots are already emerging as the area readies for future growth.
Bruce County and local municipal officials need to work together with Bruce Power to set in place a strategy for coping with these housing impacts.
165
Bruce County Housing Study
10.4.3 Greater Diversity is Needed in New Housing Supply
The analysis found that over 95% of all new housing coming onto the market in Bruce County is comprised of single detached dwellings most suitable for large families. Yet, the analysis also showed that household sizes are declining and that one and two person households now comprise the majority of households in Bruce County. With the continued growth in seniors and singles population, this trend is going to continue. Therefore, a housing mix that provides a greater range and balance of unit types would be more appropriate for Bruce County. Approaches need to be found to achieve greater diversity in housing mix across the County.
10.4.4 There is a Need to Expand the Supply of Affordable Housing
The analysis showed a large number of households across Bruce County with incomes below $30,000. A large number of renters in this income range are spending more than 30% (with many spending more than 50%) of household income on rent. Given that rent levels in most of the County require incomes beyond this level, efforts are needed to expand the supply of units affordable by households at or below this income level. Further, the waiting list for social housing currently contains 149 applicants in need of RGI rental housing and an additional 116 seeking affordable market rental housing. These figures point further to the need to expand affordable rental housing.
The analysis also shows that households of modest income have little access to ownership housing. Initiatives need to be considered to provide a greater range of inexpensive homeownership units as well.
10.4.5 There is a Need for Emergency and Transitional Housing in Bruce County
The demand for emergency shelter has increased in recent years. This has been linked to longer periods of stay among clients at various shelters across the County. The lack of emergency shelter places numerous households and individuals at the risk of continued homelessness; thus, additional temporary housing is needed. In addition, there is a need to create more emergency housing options in geographically distant areas such as Bruce Peninsula.
At the same time, the lack of transitional housing in Bruce County is a major cause of homelessness and housing affordability problems. Those leaving emergency housing facilities face no alternatives other than market rent units. The vast majority of market rent units are well beyond the affordability capabilities of lower income persons. There is a need to develop transitional housing facilities for all groups facing housing crisis issues.
166
Bruce County Housing Study
10.4.6 The Lack of Supportive Housing Needs to be Addressed
Similar to transitional housing, supportive housing plays an important role in the Bruce housing market. A variety of facilities and services provide much-needed accommodation to persons with special needs, particularly individuals with severe physical disabilities, developmental delays and mental illness.
Persons with development delays, mental illness and physical disabilities often obtain Ontario Works and ODSP benefits and often cannot afford market rent units. Consultation during the study found that the growing range of these needs is outpacing the availability of facilities and services to meet these needs. Agencies also pointed out that, not only is accommodation needed, but support service funding needs to keep pace with the growth in demand in order to ensure needs are met in the future.
10.4.7 There is a Need to Improve the Condition of the Housing Stock
The housing stock of Bruce County is older than that in the Province as a whole, especially the rental housing stock. A higher percentage of dwellings are in need of repair than the Provincial average. Discussions with local informants finds widespread concerns about seniors and other households living in older substandard dwellings with high maintenance and utility costs. Efforts are needed to improve the condition of such dwellings, especially in rural areas where few other housing alternatives are available.
167
Bruce County Housing Study
11 STRATEGIES FOR MEETING HOUSING NEEDS
Our review of the above identified gaps, as well as potential barriers to and opportunities for creating new affordable housing supply, leads to the development of a comprehensive list of strategies to help meet the identified housing needs in Bruce County. These strategies are presented below.
11.1 Defining Affordable Housing
The fundamental starting point of any affordable housing strategy is to ensure there is a clear understanding of the definition of the term “affordable”. Below we review this issue and recommend a definition for Bruce County.
There are many interpretations of the definition of affordable housing. It is important that a definition be adopted as part of this study in order to provide a clear and common level of understanding among all stakeholders and the public at large. A definition of affordable housing is also an important prerequisite for some of the assistance programs that may be available to help meet the housing needs of the residents of Bruce County. The definition must apply to both larger communities, as well as smaller, rural communities.
The Province of Ontario recently issued a definition of affordable housing in the new Provincial Policy Statement on Housing. This definition is as follows:
“In the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of:
• Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30% of gross household income for low and moderate income households; or
• Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area;
In the case of rental housing, the least expensive of:
• A unit for which rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or
• A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area.
Low and moderate income households mean:
168
Bruce County Housing Study
• In the case of ownership housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for the regional market area.
• In the case of rental housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for renter households for the regional market area.”
This definition fits well with our analysis of those households most in need of affordable housing in Bruce County, and can be applied similarly to larger communities and smaller, more rural communities. Given that the Provincial Policy Statement was recently adopted by the Province and requires municipal compliance, we believe this definition should be utilized as a fundamental basis for Bruce County’s Affordable Housing Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION # 1 That Bruce County and local municipalities adopt the following definition of affordable housing: “In the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of:
• Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30% of gross household income for low and moderate income households; or
• Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the Bruce County housing market area;
In the case of rental housing, the least expensive of:
• A unit for which rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or
• A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the Bruce County housing market area.
Low and moderate income households mean:
• In the case of ownership housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for the Bruce County housing market area.
• In the case of rental housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for renter households for the Bruce County housing market area.”
169
Bruce County Housing Study
11.2 Expanding Housing Options for Seniors
11.2.1 Support Services
During our consultation process, considerable concern was expressed about housing difficulties of seniors on fixed income, especially in rural communities. They are often in a “catch-22” situation, because rural areas lack the services they need as they age, but moving into an urban centre distances them from their lifelong support systems and families and can bring loneliness and isolation. Strategies should be pursued to bring more support services to rural areas to help seniors stay in their traditional communities.
RECOMMENDATION # 2 That Bruce County work with local municipalities and community agencies providing support services to seniors to pursue strategies to bring more support services to rural areas to help seniors stay in their traditional communities.
11.2.2 Housing Options for Seniors
CMHC has conducted extensive research on the range of housing options available for seniors or older adults, as many communities are now referring to those aged 55 and older. The following is a summary of a number of housing options for older adults. Most of these housing strategies for older adults are options which are not currently found in the area. Bruce County may want to consider establishing a Working Group on Seniors’ Housing to examine in more depth the appropriateness of some of these housing options for older adults. A similar type of working group has been recently established in the Region of Peel.
11.2.2.1 Garden Suites
A garden suite is a manufactured house that is installed on a temporary basis in the backyard of a home owned by the older adults’ child or other family member. Most garden suites are one-storey, and have one bedroom, a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom. Garden suites are designed to enable older adults to live close to a host family, while maintaining their independence and privacy. The suites are not intended as permanent additions to the lots and are designed so that they are easily movable.
170
Bruce County Housing Study
11.2.2.2 Life Lease
Life lease housing offers the potential to improve the affordability of retirement housing. This increasingly popular tenure form offers older adults the opportunity to purchase life leases which guarantee them the right to occupy a dwelling for as long as they live in exchange for a lump sum up-front payment. The dwelling then reverts back to the developer of the life lease housing project, usually a community-based, not-for-profit organization, and then the dwelling is leased to another older adult. Monthly charges cover operating costs for grounds maintenance, snow removal, etc. In some life lease developments, additional services such as meals and housekeeping can be obtained for a fee. There is considerable variation in the legal agreements and how people are compensated if they decide to move out. Life lease housing has gained considerable popularity in a number of communities across Ontario, especially in southwestern Ontario.
11.2.2.3 Abbeyfield Housing
There is a growing interest in the Abbeyfield housing concept in Canada. In Abbeyfield housing, a number of people share a large house and live like a family with a housekeeper. Residents have private rooms but share a dining room and living room. Usually about seven to ten people are accommodated in an Abbeyfield house. Residents share two meals a day in the communal dinning room and a live-in housekeeper attends to the daily running of the house, the shopping and the preparing and serving of meals.
The house is acquired and operated by a volunteer board. Both private and public money is used to fund the house. With the termination of most senior government funding, more Abbeyfield houses are likely to consider partnerships with other community organizations.
11.2.2.4 Home Sharing
This is a living arrangement where unrelated people live in a single dwelling, sharing common areas such as kitchen, bathroom and living room. This is an ideal arrangement for homeowners or tenants who would like the companionship and security of living with another person. Home sharing may give homeowners some help with household chores and, if necessary, help pay for their mortgage or property taxes. Home sharing provides tenants with decent, affordable housing.
Usually a public or non-profit agency provides match-up services and tries to ensure that both homeowners and home seekers identify all habits, hobbies, and attitudes that could affect compatibility. They also offer counselling, to ensure that both parties understand the benefits and possible disadvantages of home sharing.
171
Bruce County Housing Study
RECOMMENDATION # 3 That Bruce County consider establishing a Working Group on Older Adults’ Housing to examine in more depth the appropriateness of some of these housing options for older adults. This Group should include both private and non-profit housing sector representation and should examine both private and non-profit housing options for seniors.
11.2.3 Redevelopment of Bruce County Housing Corporation Properties
The Bruce County Housing Corporation inherited a number of properties from the former Housing Authority. These properties may offer opportunities to redevelop vacant areas that might lend themselves to expansion of the supply of seniors housing in some areas. In particular, the Corporation should determine whether opportunities exist within areas facing strong growth in seniors population, such as Saugeen Shores and Kincardine. By applying government assistance programs such as the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (see below) to these properties, there may be opportunities to expand supply in some areas.
RECOMMENDATION # 4 That Bruce County Housing Corporation undertake a review of its property portfolio to determine any potential redevelopment opportunities for seniors housing, especially within higher growth areas.
11.3 Strategies to Cope with the Impacts of Bruce Power Expansion
As noted earlier, the expected expansion of Bruce Power will place pressures on the supply and cost of housing in lakeshore communities such as Saugeen Shores and Kincardine. These impacts are expected to be particularly felt in the rental market and may leave many lower wage earners facing affordability and availability problems in the next few years.
All jurisdictions in the area have a strong interest in this issue. Bruce Power needs to ensure the availability of a sufficient supply of accommodation in order to attract the labour needed to carry out the expansion of the facility. The County and local municipalities need to ensure the infrastructure is available to support expansion of the local housing supply to cope with anticipated growth. They also need to ensure that affordable choices are available for local residents of modest income, especially those working in service and retail jobs supporting the plant. Private and non-profit housing providers need to work with these jurisdictions to understand the nature of these needs and to put in place the required units.
172
Bruce County Housing Study
Given the range of issues involved and the number of uncertainties with respect to the proposed expansion, a process of ongoing dialogue needs to be established among these organizations in order to develop appropriate strategies as events unfold.
RECOMMENDATION # 5 That a Bruce Power Housing Working Group be established comprised of representatives from Bruce Power, Bruce County, the municipalities of Kincardine and Saugeen Shores and local private and non-profit housing providers to identify housing impacts arising from the expected expansion of the Bruce Nuclear plant and to develop strategies for coping with these impacts.
11.4 Approaches to Achieve Greater Diversity in New Housing Supply
As noted earlier, there is a need to achieve greater diversity in the new housing supply, especially in the provision of smaller units such as row housing and apartments consistent with declining household sizes in the County.
Two of the potential barriers that may discourage the provision of a diversity of housing supply in areas such as Bruce County are Official Plan policies and Zoning Bylaws. We conducted a review of the housing sections of municipal Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws across Bruce County to determine whether any such barriers may exist. The results of this review are noted below.
11.4.1 Official Plans
Official Plans guide the growth and development within the County. As such, they reflect the view of each Council toward the provision of housing and can provide important support for housing initiatives. At the same time, they can act as barriers, depending on their specific strategies and policies.
Below we summarize the existing Official Plans for Bruce County and local municipalities within the County and identify any potential barriers to the provision of a diverse range of housing to meet identified needs.
Bruce County Official Plan
The overall goals and objectives for Bruce County embrace the principles of sustainable development. The Official Plan strives to achieve a balance between growth and new development and the need and desire to preserve the uniqueness of the area.
Section 4.4 (Population and Housing) of the Official Plan outlines the housing objectives for Bruce County. These objectives are:
173
Bruce County Housing Study
• promote the availability of a comprehensive network of health and social services resources for the residents of the County;
• provide for intensification in existing urban areas which enhances the positive characteristics of those areas;
• ensure a range of housing types and tenure to meet the needs of the County residents;
• ensure that new development occurs in a cohesive and efficient manner without undue impact on the social or natural environment; and
• Consult with and work co-operatively with First Nations in promoting and planning for social services.
Section 4.4.4.1 the Official Plan describes the general housing policies for the County and states that “these policies may be duplicated and/or elaborated upon within local Municipal Official Plans, as appropriate”. The housing policies are:
• The maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock shall be encouraged through local maintenance and occupancy standards by-laws.
• Intensification within urban areas, in appropriate locations, shall be encouraged provided that existing services and facilities such as parks, schools and municipal services that serve the existing housing stock are not overtaxed.
• Housing developments should be affordable to the residents of the County and provide alternative forms of housing for special needs groups.
• County Council shall, in conjunction with the respective local municipality, ensure that a wide range of housing is provided by encouraging the implementation of municipal housing statements where they exist, when approving plans of subdivision at the local and county level.
• In considering development applications, the County and local municipalities shall generally support opportunities to increase the supply of housing through intensification in appropriate locations, taking into account municipal services, transportation and environmental considerations. Housing intensification shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) the conversion of single detached dwellings, in appropriate locations, into multiple residential units; b) the creation of new residential units on vacant or underdeveloped lands through infilling in urban areas; and c) The creation of residential units above commercial uses.
174
Bruce County Housing Study
• Housing intensification shall be located primarily in Primary and Secondary Urban Communities and will be permitted in other built-up areas with full or partial municipal services, subject to the policies of this Plan.
With respect to the first policy Adequate Supply of Land and Lots the County’s goal is that at least a three year supply of residential units in draft approval and registered plans of subdivision is maintained. It further requires that each municipality provide a summary every five years of vacant land designated for new residential development.
Based on population projections, the County anticipates a total of approximately 7,900 additional units will be required to accommodate the increased population. The Official Plan outlines that local municipalities shall ensure a range of housing types, densities and options to meet local needs. Policy 4.4.4.3 Number, Range and Mix of Housing Units further states that “Local municipalities shall develop strategies to provide the opportunity for affordable housing in all new housing built in urbanized areas”. This policy also encourages municipalities to establish zoning by-laws to permit the temporary use of garden suites and “granny flats” for seniors.
Policy 4.4.4.4 Intensification states that “County Council supports the intensification of land uses for residential purposes through such means as conversion, infill of new dwelling units and redevelopment, the creation of rooming, boarding and lodging housing and the creation of accessory apartments, and by encouraging intensification in downtown commercial areas”. The OP outlines criteria for the promotion of residential intensification in areas where
• the physical potential of the existing building stock or previously developed sites can accommodate the identified forms of residential intensification; • the existing and planned services can support new households in the area; • compatibility exists with the existing built form; • the potential demand for the types of accommodation which could be produced through various forms of residential intensification can be demonstrated; • the creation of new residential units on vacant or undeveloped land can be achieved through infilling in urban areas; and • the creation of residential uses above commercial uses is feasible.
Policy 4.4.4.5 Implementation states that Bruce County shall “implement the Provincial policy of encouraging housing forms and densities to be affordable to moderate and lower income households”.
Town of Kincardine Official Plan
Goal D.1.1 of the Town of Kincardine Official Plan states that “an ample supply of affordable and quality living accommodation in terms of type and location will be
175
Bruce County Housing Study provided for the Town’s present and future residents”. Objectives outlined to achieve this goal include:
• D.1.2.4 A balanced range of housing will be provided to meet a variety of needs in terms of size, type, ownership and location.
• D.1.2.5 Assisted owner and rental housing will be encouraged as the need is identified in local and county housing studies.
With respect to the availability of affordable housing, the Official Plan outlines three goals. These are:
• The Town shall encourage an adequate supply of affordable housing.
• The Town shall attempt to have 25% of all new residential construction affordable. In a given year the residential development may meet, exceed or fall short of the 25% target and therefore, to achieve a more realistic picture of the progress made in achieving this target, five year averages shall be used to meet affordable housing objectives.
• The Town shall ensure that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law does not require standards which preclude the development of affordable housing.
Within policy D1.4.5.3 Range of Housing Types, the Town of Kincardine establishes housing targets of 70% low density and 30% medium density from 1997 to 2011. The Town also establishes housing tenure targets of 70% ownership and 30% rental from 1997 to 2011.
The Town’s OP also acknowledges that the Town “shall seek” to improve access for housing for people with special needs and that the Town will work with local groups to determine the demand for special housing needs. The OP also states that the “Town shall consider alternative approaches to providing housing targeted specifically to the seniors population”.
Some permitted uses outlined within the Official Plan (subject to the provisions of Zoning By-Laws) are home occupations, bed and breakfast operations, garden suites, day nurseries and county inns. Permission for garden suites is subject to the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law which may provide regulations which:
• Require the residential unit to be detached and accessory to a primary dwelling unit; • Restrict any business or commercial enterprise from taking place within the residence; • Require the dwelling unit to meet all requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, including yard setbacks; and, • Prohibit the use of a mobile home.
176
Bruce County Housing Study
The OP further states that Garden Suites may be subject to Site Plan Control.
The Town of Kincardine Official Plan sets out gross residential densities that apply to new low, medium and high density residential uses:
Maximum No. Of Units Per Gross Housing Type Hectare (ACRE) Low Density Single Detached 20 u.p.h. (8 u.p.a.) Semi-detached 30 u.p.h. (12 u.p.a.) Medium Density Triplex to Townhouse 40 u.p.h. (16 u.p.a.) 3 Storey Walk-up Apartments 40 u.p.h. (16 u.p.a.) High Density Apartments 85 u.p.h. (35 u.p.a.)
Eleven factors are described within the OP with respect to medium and high density housing development:
• Compatibility with existing land use in the immediate area, historical significance of existing buildings, the nature of the residential area; • Where adjacent to single family residential areas, medium and high density housing shall maintain a low building profile to conform visually to the adjacent Residential areas; • Adequate off-street parking shall be provided; • Buffering from any adjacent low density Residential use shall be provided, where necessary; • Suitable landscaping and on-site amenities shall be provided; • The adequacy and proximity of community facilities such as schools, shopping and recreational facilities; • The adequacy of m unicipal services to accommodate the proposed density of development; • Such development will be encouraged in proximity to commercial areas and to arterial or collector roads to minimize traffic congestion and facilitate access to commercial services; • The manner in which the development relates to proposed future land uses in developing residential areas; • Medium and high density housing shall be in separate zones in the Zoning By- Law. Such development will proceed by an amendment to the Zoning By-Law; and • Medium and high density housing will be subject to the Site Plan Controls of the Planning Act.
177
Bruce County Housing Study
Northern Bruce Peninsula
Section 3.1 of the Northern Bruce Peninsula Official Plan describes the residential goals and policies for the municipality. This Plan acknowledges the County’s goal to encourage and strengthen the role of secondary urban communities by offering a range of residential housing types. Tobermory and Lion’s Head are designated “Secondary Urban Community’ in the County’s Official Plan. While the OP states that detached residential units are the predominant type of housing it recognizes “that diversified, balanced and affordable housing opportunities should be provided for the residents in these urban centres”. The goals outlined within Section 3.1 are:
• To recognize Tobermory and Lion’s Head as the two primary settlement areas in the municipality and the most logical location to direct population growth and community services. • To continue the detached residential development pattern, and provide opportunities for other higher density residential forms on full municipal services. • To continue to provide an affordable supply of housing to meet the current and future needs of all segments of the municipality.
Section 3.1.2 outlines the municipality’s actions. Within this section the OP encourages a wide range of housing types and densities and recognizes opportunities for infilling and redevelopment. This section also describes the municipality’s intent to designate limited vacant blocks of lands as “residential’ to accommodate future growth.
Section 3.1.3.1 outlines policies for low density housing. Single detached development will have a maximum gross density of 17 units per hectare (7 units per gross acre). Semi-detached/duplex developments will have a maximum gross density of 26 units per hectare (10 units per gross acre). Medium density residential development will have a maximum gross density of 35 units per gross hectare (14 units per gross acre).
Requirements outlined in the Plan for medium density development include the following criteria:
• compatibility with existing land uses in the immediate area;
• designed with a maximum of three (3) storeys and a building profile which conforms visually with the surrounding residential structures;
• availability of adequate off-street parking and appropriate access and circulation for vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles;
• necessary buffering from abutting uses;
• suitable landscaping, lot grading, drainage and on-site amenities;
178
Bruce County Housing Study
The conversion of a single detached dwelling into multiple unit dwellings is recognized within the OP as a means of providing affordable rental housing and is permitted in the Residential designation subject to the requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning By- Law and must address the following development criteria:
• the dwelling is structurally sound and of sufficient size to permit the creation of one or more dwelling units;
• the lot is of sufficient size to permit the required off-street parking;
• adequate amenity areas can be provided on the lot;
• required fire escapes are located at the side or rear of the building;
• adequate access and circulation for vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles is provided;
• suitable landscaping, lot grading, drainage and on-site amenities are planned; and,
• the dwelling is or can be provided with suitable septic and/or sewer and water services.
Other permitted uses (subject to the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law) include: bed and breakfast operations; home businesses; day nurseries; group homes; garden suites; and private guest cabins.
Saugeen Shores
The Official Plan for Saugeen Shores states that the Town will require up to 1885 new housing units covering not more than 157 hectares by the year 2021 to provide for a population up to 17,267. The OP states that “the Town of Saugeen Shores supports the objectives of providing affordable housing and the objectives of the 1991 Bruce County Housing Study through the policies of this Plan”. The goals outlined within the OPs Land Use Policies include:
• To provide an ample and affordable supply of quality living accommodation in terms of type and location for the present and future residents. • To direct the development of higher residential densities to locations in proximity to major commercial facilities and main traffic routes.
The Town outlines within the OP that it will strive towards the housing mix types and housing tenure targets as set in Bruce County Housing Study. These are 70% low density, 30% medium/high density and 70% ownership, 30% rental.
179
Bruce County Housing Study
The OP also outlines objectives for special needs housing, which are:
• The Town shall seek to improve access to housing for people with special needs, including assisted housing for low income earners, seniors housing, supportive housing (housing for developmentally disabled) etc.
• The Town shall work with local groups to determine special housing needs and support local efforts for appropriate applications and proposals for special needs housing.
• The town shall consider alternative approaches to providing housing specifically targeted to the future senior population.
Additional permitted uses in areas designated Residential include:
• Parks, open space, subject to Section 3.5; • Day nurseries; • Home occupation; • Local Commercial uses, as provided for in Section 3.2 of the Plan; • Essential buildings and structures for public utilities • Institutional uses subject to Section 3.3; • Group Homes subject to Section 3.1.5 • Best and Breakfast or Tourist Homes; and • Community theatre.
Maximum gross residential densities for low density residential are 15 units per hectare for single-detached and 22 u.p.h. for semi-detached. For medium density residential development the maximum gross residential densities are 35 u.p.h. for triplexes to townhouses and three storey walk-ups.
High Density Residential uses will be encouraged near Downtown Commercial Areas.
South Bruce Peninsula
The South Bruce Peninsula Official Plan states that major forms of new residential development will be directed towards the areas of Wiarton, Hepworth and Sauble Beach with a limited amount of residential growth in secondary settlement areas and Hamlets. The Official Plan also outlines Council’s intent to support a varied and affordable supply of accommodation while acknowledging that it is expected that single-detached dwellings will be the predominant form of housing.
Section 4.5.2.1 outlines the development principles for the Municipality. This Section states that “residential intensification shall be encouraged within existing built-up areas with municipal sanitary sewer and water services as a means of urban renewal, creating affordable housing and ensuring the most efficient use of existing infrastructure and
180
Bruce County Housing Study
services, but shall only occur in a manner which maintains the general character and amenity of the host neighbourhood and shall be appropriately serviced”.
Permitted uses include single-detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings, townhouse, low-rise apartment buildings, private nursing homes, senior citizen/retirement homes, crisis centres and group homes. Some non-residential uses such as schools, churches and playgrounds may also be permitted.
General targets for low density residential density targets “shall not exceed 16 units per gross hectare (6 units per gross acre) for single-detached and 20 u.p.h. (8 u.p.a.) for semi-detached.
Medium density residential is described as triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses and low rise apartments not exceeding three storeys in height. Private nursing homes, senior citizen homes, crisis centres and group homes are also medium density. The OP states that in general medium density residential development will occur in the Town’s three primary urban settlement areas (Wiarton, Hepworth and Sauble Beach). General targets for medium density residential targets “shall not exceed 35 u.p.h. (14 u.p.a.)”.
Section 4.6.4 of the OP outlines the Town’s support for residential intensification “as a means of urban renewal, creating affordable housing and ensuring the most efficient use of existing infrastructure and services.” Further, “The Official Plan’s definition of residential intensification encompasses the residential conversion of older residential buildings no longer suited to single-detached residential use, the conversion of newer single-detached dwellings to accommodate one accessory apartment, major and minor residential infilling of vacant or under-developed lots, and the establishment of bed and breakfast accommodation."
All conversions to permit accessory apartments and of older single-dwellings into multiple residential use require an amendment to the Zoning By-Law.
South Bruce Peninsula – Wiarton Policies
The Official Plan states that Wiarton is expected to have a population of approximately 2,800 by the year 2011 and will require about 190 new housing units. In order to meet the Town’s goal to promote a mixed and affordable housing supply the Plan outlines that Council shall:
• Encourage an adequate supply of affordable housing.
• Attempt to have at least 25% of all new residential construction affordable. In a given year the residential development may meet, exceed or fall short of the 25% target and therefore, to achieve a more realistic picture of the progress made five year averages shall be used to meet affordable housing objectives.
181
Bruce County Housing Study
• Ensure that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law does not require standards which preclude the development of affordable housing.
The Policies also outline Council’s support for Special Needs Housing:
• Council shall seek to improve access to housing for people with special needs, including assisted housing for low income people, seniors housing and housing for physically and developmentally handicapped individuals.
• Council shall work with local groups to determine the demand for special needs housing. Council shall support appropriate applications and proposals for special needs housing.
• Council shall consider alternative approaches to providing housing to meet the needs of the senior population.
Low density residential developments will have a maximum gross density of 15 u.p.h. for a single detached dwelling, 20 u.p.h for semi-detached/duplex developments and a minimum of 5 u.p.h. for single detached and semi-detached/duplex developments. Medium density residential development will have a maximum net density of 35 u.p.h. Medium density residential development proposals must also address the following criteria:
• compatibility with existing land uses in the immediate area and the historical character of existing buildings;
• designed with a maximum of three (3) storeys and where possible, a building profile which conforms visually with the surrounding residential structures;
• availability of adequate off-street parking and appropriate access and circulation for vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles;
• necessary buffering from abutting uses;
• suitable landscaping, lot grading, drainage and on-site amenities; and,
• The availability of full municipal services to accommodate the proposed density of development.
The conversion of single-detached residential dwellings into apartments, rooming, boarding or lodging houses is recognized in the Plan as a means of providing affordable housing. Conversion is permitted subject to the requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.
• All residential conversion proposals shall satisfactorily address the following development criteria:
182
Bruce County Housing Study
• the dwelling is structurally sound and of sufficient size to allow the creation of one or more dwelling units;
• the lot is of sufficient size to allow the required off-street parking at he side and rear of the principal building only and allow for any proposed additions to the residential structure;
• adequate amenity areas can be retained on the lot;
• the exterior renovations have specific regard for the relationship of the building to adjacent structures;
• required fire escapes are located at the side or rear of the building;
• adequate access and circulation for vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles is provided; and,
• Suitable landscaping, lot grading, drainage and on-site amenities are planned.
Garden Suites are also permitted subject to the requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Brockton – Walkerton Community Official Plan
The OP outlines that the community requires approximately 300 new housing units between 1998 and 2016 to accommodate a population of approximately 5,640 by 2016. Goal 3.1.1 is “To promote a mixed and affordable supply of housing to meet the present and future needs of all segments of the community”. Section 3.1.4 outlines the Housing Supply and Affordable Housing policies for the municipality:
a) The Municipality shall maintain at all times a 3 year supply of serviceable draft approved and registered lots to accommodate residential demand.
b) The Municipality shall encourage housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and low income households.
c) The Municipality shall support a wide range of housing types, zoning standards and subdivision design standards to provide a full range of housing types and opportunities.
d) The Municipality may consider cost effective development standards for new residential development and redevelopment.
183
Bruce County Housing Study
e) The Municipality shall seek to improve access to housing for people with special needs, including assisted housing, seniors housing and housing for physically and developmentally challenged individuals.
f) The Municipality shall maintain a ten (10) year supply of lands designated for residential development.
The Municipality also outlines that it will strive towards the housing mix and housing tenure targets as outlined in the Bruce County Housing Strategy (1991). These targets are 70% low density, 30% medium/high density and 70% ownership and 30% rental.
Policies for Special Needs Housing as described in Section 3.1.6 are:
• The Municipality shall seek to improve access to housing for people with special needs, including assisted housing for low income earners, seniors housing, supportive housing (housing for developmentally disabled) etc.
• The Municipality shall work with local groups to determine special housing needs and support local efforts for appropriate applications and proposals for special needs housing.
• The Municipality shall consider alternative approaches to providing housing specifically targeted to the future senior population.
Section 3.1.7 of the Plan outlines the Municipalities support for the infill of existing residential areas.
Low density residential development includes dwellings with no more than 2 units, density targets for low density residential are between 12 u.p.h. and 25 u.p.h. Medium density residential development targets are a maximum of 35 u.p.h. High density residential development includes apartments with a maximum density of 86 u.p.h.
Residential conversion of existing single detached dwellings to apartment dwellings, rooming, boarding or lodging houses are recognized in the OP as a way of providing affordable rental housing and is permitted in the Residential designation. In addition to requirements in the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law the following criteria must also be met: • The density and character of adjacent development and compatibility with land uses in the immediate area;
• The adequacy of municipal services to serve the proposed conversion;
184
Bruce County Housing Study
• The adequacy of the local street network to accommodate traffic from the conversion;
• The proximity of the proposed conversion to convenient access to collector or arterial roads, locations adjacent to public open space, parks, commercial facilities, and/or the central commercial area;
• The availability of adequate offstreet parking and appropriate access and circulation for vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles;
• Suitable landscaping, lot grading, drainage and onside amenities.
Garden suites are also permitted within the Residential designation subject to requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The Comprehensive Zoning By-law may provide garden suite regulations which:
• Require the garden suite to be detached and accessory to a primary dwelling unit;
• Restrict any business or commercial enterprise from taking place within the garden suite;
• Set out the lot line setbacks and/or other restrictions i.e. minimum lot size, regulating the location of the garden suite on any lot; and
• Prohibit the use of a mobile home.
Section 4.3 Community Improvement outlines the Municipality’s goal to “improve community facilities and infrastructure to address social, environmental and economic needs of the community”. Within the Action items the OP states “promote the redevelopment of vacant or underutilized properties or buildings”.
South Bruce – Secondary Plan for the Village of Teeswater
The predominant land use as described in the Secondary Plan is for single family detached dwellings. Other forms are permitted subject to certain provisions. Council encourages infilling in existing residential neighbourhoods based on certain provisions. Provisions for residential development by plan of subdivision in undeveloped areas designated Residential are subject to a zoning by-law as well as the following:
185
Bruce County Housing Study
• The extension of residential development shall be based upon the necessity of providing additional lands for development and the municipality's financial ability and willingness to provide municipal services to the area concerned.
• New residential development by plan of subdivision will only be permitted if piped water and sanitary sewers are provided or if subsurface sewage disposal systems are acceptable to the Ministry of the Environment and the Bruce County Health Unit.
• The proposed expansion must be compatible with adjacent land use.
• The street pattern shall be designed to discourage through traffic in residential areas.
• The developer shall enter into an agreement with the Village with respect to the provision of municipal water supply, hydro services, the construction and maintenance of local roads, storm drains, the provision of open space, the provision of community facilities and the provision of community sewage treatment facilities.
• Lot frontage on arterial roads will be discouraged and lots will be serviced by internal local roads.
• Roadside tree planting shall be provided for in new residential plans of subdivision and implemented by the subdivider.
The Secondary Plan also outlines that while only limited growth is expected there is a need for a variety of dwelling types and therefore the development of multiple family dwellings will be encouraged. Among the criteria for multiple residential dwellings is that “any multiple family development shall be subject to stringent site plan control measures” and the number of units would be approved on a site specific basis by County.
The conversion of homes into apartments is permitted only for a limited time subject to amendment of the Restricted Area (Zoning) By-Law. Only the conversion of homes in existence at the time of adoption of the Plan will be allowed and “no conversions will be allowed in those areas developed after the adoption of the Plan”.
Home occupations are permitted within a dwelling unit as long as it is by a member of the household and is clearly the secondary use to the main residential use. The development of new institutional uses will be subject to a review by Council and will only be permitted after an amendment to the Restricted Area (zoning) By-Law. Group homes are permitted within the Village of Teeswater with a maximum of 10 residents.
186
Bruce County Housing Study
“Standards requiring a minimum distance between facilities will be incorporated in the implementing restricted area by-law.”
South Bruce - The Village of Mildmay Secondary Plan
The Plan outlines that the predominant residential land use will be for low and medium density residential uses. The Plan also outlines that in conforming to the goal to concentrate commercial activity in the central business area, new commercial uses will not be permitted in the “Residential” designation. Only a moderate expansion of existing residential is necessary to meet the population needs of Mildmay. To meet these demands Council will:
• Encourage infilling in existing residential areas; and • Permit mobile homes on individual lots on the north side of Fred Street. (This is the only area in Mildmay where mobile homes are permitted)
Medium density residential development will be encouraged “in appropriate locations within the Village”. The maximum density will not exceed 35 units per net hectare. The maximum density for low density residential development shall not exceed 15 units per gross hectare.
Section 4.2.9 of the Secondary Plan for Mildmay outlines policies which are intended to implement the 1991 Bruce County Municipal Housing Statement:
• The Village shall strive to maintain a wide range of housing types, including affordable housing that meets the needs of the Village residents.
• In 1995, an affordable house in the Bruce County housing market area cost approximately $126,500, or less to buy and $800, or less to rent.
a) The Village shall encourage an adequate supply of affordable housing. b) The Village shall attempt to have at least 30% of all new residential construction affordable. In a given year the residential development may meet, exceed or fall short of the minimum 30% target and therefore, to achieve a more realistic picture of the progress made in achieving five year averages shall be used to meet affordable housing objectives. Where possible, half of all affordable housing opportunities are to be affordable to low income households.
187
Bruce County Housing Study
c) The Village shall ensure that the standards of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law do not preclude the development of affordable housing opportunities.
• The Village shall strive toward maintaining a minimum three year supply of serviced draft-approved and registered lots in order to accommodate projected residential demand.
• The Village shall support a range of housing types consistent with the needs of Village residents, with this range being reflected in zoning standards and subdivision design standards.
• The Village shall strive to reach the following housing mix targets:
1991 to 2011 Low Density - 70% Medium Density - 30%
• The Village shall strive to reach the following housing tenure targets:
1991 to 2011 Ownership - 75% Rental - 25%
The above review finds that both the County and local municipality Official Plans provide strong support to the provision of a diverse range of housing types to meet identified needs. Several include targets calling for at least 30% of new housing to be medium and high density and for 25 – 30% of new housing to be rental. In some cases, municipal policies still support 25% of all new housing being affordable under the provisions of the earlier Provincial Policy Statement of the late 1980’s. Most policies also support working with local providers of special needs housing to help meet these needs as well.
We view these policies as strongly supportive of meeting the housing needs identified in our analysis and have not identified any specific barriers to the provision of a diverse range of housing types. Clearly, more direct measures are needed to achieve this objective. These measures will be identified later in this report in discussing strategies for the provision of affordable housing.
11.4.2 Zoning Bylaws
All local municipalities in Bruce County have Zoning Bylaws that regulate development activity. Various aspects of these Zoning Bylaws can have significant impact on the provision of affordable housing and other forms of accommodation required to meet identified needs.
188
Bruce County Housing Study
Zoning Bylaws contain a range of regulations and standards governing the development and use of land within a municipality. The regulations and standards that generally have the greatest impact on the provision of affordable housing are:
- The types of residential uses permitted - Minimum floor areas - Group home policies - Provision of secondary and garden suites - Parking requirements
Below we review these aspects of local Zoning Bylaws to determine whether they present any significant barriers to the provision of a diverse range of housing to meet identified needs.
189
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 76: Minimum Floor Areas (in square metres)
Lot Area Floor Area
Single Semi- Row Apartment Boarding Municipality/Town detached detached Duplex Triplex Quadruplex Housing/ House dwelling dwellings Townhouse One Two Three More than Bachelor bedroombedroomBedroom Three
634 (interior), 185 (interior), 464 (lot Plus 10 for each Kincardine 325 520 690 890 40 60 70 80 682 (Corner) 213 (end unit) size) add. Unit
550 (with municipal Plus 10 for each Arran 40 60 70 90 water and add. Unit sewer)
Plus 10 for each Chelsey 465 560 560 690 920 300 (per unit) 40 60 70 90 add. Unit
Same as Wiarton 446 650 550 600 890 40 50 60 80 90 apartment
Mildmay 800 800 800 845 890 300 (per unit) 40 50 60 80 90
500 (per Same as Plus 10 for each Teeswater 600 800 1000 1300 40 60 70 90 dwelling unit) apartment add. Unit
Culrose 550 550 (per unit) 550 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 60 60 70 70 100
Plus 10 for each Albermarle 550 550 (per unit) 550 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 40 60 70 90 add. Unit
Plus 10 for each Amabel* 550 500 800 1000 1300 500 (per unit) 40 60 70 90 add. Unit
190
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 76: Minimum Floor Areas (in square metres)
Lot Area Floor Area
Single Semi- Row Apartment Boarding Municipality/Town detached detached Duplex Triplex Quadruplex Housing/ House dwelling dwellings Townhouse One Two Three More than Bachelor bedroombedroomBedroom Three
Greenock* 550 550 (per unit) 550 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 60 60 70 70 100
Elderslie* 550 550 (per unit) 550 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 400 (per unit) 60 60 70 70 100
Plus 10 for each Paisley 600 500 800 1000 1300 500 (per unit) 40 60 70 90 add. Unit
Tara** 600 600 800 1000 1300 42 47 * Apartment buildings within certain municipalities/towns were not included. The floor areas listed are for low density multiple dwellings (semi, duplex, triplex etc.) **Floor area not provided, rather dwelling unit area listed for one and two bedroom apartments.
191
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 77: Group Home Policies Policies
Provision (in Municipality/Town Group Home Group Home 6 residents or more Halfway House residential zones)
i) whether the facility is licensed, regulated and/or approved by a government regulatory i) whether the facility is licensed, regulated and/or body; approved by a government regulatory body; ii) that a demonstrated local need exists for i) that no physical ii) that a demonstrated local need exists for such a such a facility; alterations be made to facility; iii) that additional supportive services and change the function of the iii) that additional supportive services and facilities Kincardine Yes facilities exist for the residents; structure as a single exist for the residents; iv) that 24 hour supervision and security is in detached residential iv) that no other group home is located within close place; dwelling unit; proximity to the proposed site; and, v) that no other group home is located within v) that the building meets all health and fire safety close proximity to the proposed site; and, standards. vi) that the building meets all health and fire safety standards.
No, definition provided Arran but no provision listed.
Chelsey No
192
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 77: Group Home Policies Policies i) the housing is within a single housekeeping unit; ii) the unit houses 10 or less individuals, not including live-in supervisory staff or receiving family; iii) that the facility is licensed, regulated, financed and/or approved by a government i) the housing is within a i) that the facility is licensed, regulated, financed regulatory body; single housekeeping unit; and/or approved by a government regulatory body; iv) that the sponsoring body demonstrates that ii) the unit houses five or ii) that the sponsoring body demonstrates that a need a need exists for the facility within the less individuals, not exists for the facility within the community; community; including live-in iii) that necessary supportive services are readily v) that necessary supportive services are supervisory staff or available for the residents; readily available for the residents; Wiarton yes receiving family; and, iv) that the building, in form and exterior amenities, is vi) that responsible supervision, consistent iii) that no physical in keeping with the surrounding residential with the requirements of the resident is alterations be made to neighbourhood; provided; change the function of the v) that no other group home is located within close vii) that the building, in form and exterior structure as a single proximity to the proposed site; and, amenities, is in keeping with the surrounding detached residential vi) that the building meets all health, fire safety and residential neighbourhood; dwelling unit; building code standards. viii) that no other group home is located within close proximity to the proposed site; and, ix) that the building meets all health, fire safety and building code standards. d) All housing considered under the Group Homes Policies may be subject to Site Plan Control under Section 12,5.13 of this Plan. Mildmay no Policies - 3-10 residents. "Diversity in the location of group homes shall be encouraged and standards requiring minimum distance separation between these Teeswater yes facilities will be encouraged". Also "The establishment of group homes will proceed by amendment to the restricted area (zoning) bylaw.
193
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 77: Group Home Policies Policies Culrose no Albermarle no Amabel no
Saugeen Shores yes
i) The housing is within a single housekeeping unit; ii) The unit houses 10 or fewer individuals, not including live-in supervisory staff or receiving family; iii) The facility is licensed, regulated, financed and/or approved by a i) The facility is licensed, regulated, financed i) the housing is within government regulatory body; and/or approved by a government regulatory a single detached iv) The sponsoring body demonstrates body; dwelling; that a need exists for the facility within the ii) The sponsoring body demonstrates that a ii) the unit houses five community; need exists for the facility within the community; or fewer individuals, not v) Necessary support services are readily iii) Necessary supportive services are readily including live-in available for the residents; available for the residents; Walkerton yes supervisory staff or vi) Responsible supervision, consistent iv) The building, in form and exterior amenities, receiving family; and with the requirements of the resident is is in keeping with the surrounding residential iii) that no physical provided; neighbourhood; alterations be made to vii) The building, in form and exterior v) No other group home is located within close change the function of amenities, is in keeping with the proximity to the proposed site; and the structure as a single surrounding residential neighbourhood; vi) The building meets all health, fire, safety and detached dwelling unit; viii) No other group home is located within building code standards. close proximity to the proposed site; and, ix) The building meets all health, fire, safety and building code standards. x) All housing considered under the group homes policies may be subject to Site Plan Control under Section 7.11 of this Plan. South Bruce No Peninsula
194
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 77: Group Home Policies Policies
i) the housing is within a single detached dwelling; ii) that no physical alterations be made to change the function of the structure as a single detached residential dwelling unit. iii) that the facility is licensed, regulated, financed and/or approved by a government regulatory body; iv) that necessary Northern Bruce Yes supportive services are Peninsula readily available for the residents; v) that the building, in form and exterior amenities, is in keeping with the surrounding residential neighbourhood; vi) that no other group home is located within close proximity to the proposed site; and, vii) that the building meets all health, fire safety and building code standards.
195
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 77: Group Home Policies Policies Type 1 is defined as a residential unit with up to 5 residents who are Greenock Yes, type one seniors, or persons with physically/mentally disabilities. Elderslie No Paisley No Tara No
196
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 78: Provision of Secondary/Garden Suites
Municipality/Town Residential Regulations for Residential Kincardine yes Garden Suites may be permitted within the Residential designation Arran No Chelsey no Provisions include: one additional parking spot; same yard set backs as primary residence; no additional driveways permitted; maximum no. of occupants is 2; no commercial gain/profit; meet all health, safety, Wiarton yes building code and site plan control requirements; mobile homes as garden suites prohibited; subject to agreement with municipality or sponsoring agency. Mildmay no Teeswater no Culrose no No, in zone 2 cottage residential guest Albermarle rooms are permitted as residential use. Amabel no i) Require the garden suite to be detached and accessory to a primary dwelling unit; ii) Restrict any business or commercial enterprise from taking place within the garden suite; Walkerton yes iii) Set out the lot line setbacks and/or other restrictions i.e. minimum lot size, regulating the location of the garden suite on any lot; and iv) Prohibit the use of a mobile home.
197
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 78: Provision of Secondary/Garden Suites
Municipality/Town Residential Regulations for Residential i) Criteria establishing the buildings eligible for conversion shall be included in the implementing Zoning By- law. ii) The servicing of a converted dwelling shall occur in accordance with the Municipal Servicing and General Development Policies of Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of this Official Plan. iii) The accessory dwelling unit shall be self-contained and shall have a private entrance and separate Yes, applied to the culinary and sanitary facilities. conversion of new iv) Criteria establishing minimum and maximum floor areas for an accessory apartment shall be included in single-detached the implementing Zoning By-law. This criteria shall ensure that the principal single-detached residential use dwellings to permit remains dominant. one accessory v) The accessory apartment shall form an integral part of the single-detached dwelling and be designed so apartment as to maintain the general character of the dwelling and surrounding neighbourhood. The converted dwelling South Bruce shall comply with all pertinent Provincial and municipal regulations and by-laws relative to such matters as Peninsula fire, health, safety and occupancy. vi) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided at a standard of no less than one parking space per dwelling unit. vii) Conversions to permit accessory apartments shall require an amendment to the Zoning By-law. i) require the residential unit to be detached and accessory to a primary dwelling unit: ii) restrict any business or commercial enterprise from taking place Yes within the residence; iii) require the dwelling unit to meet all requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, including yard setbacks; and, iv) prohibit the use of a mobile home. i) require the residential unit to be detached and accessory to a primary dwelling unit: Northern Bruce ii) restrict any business or commercial enterprise from taking place Yes within the residence; Peninsula iii) require the dwelling unit to meet all requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, including yard setbacks; and, iv) prohibit the use of a mobile home. Greenock no Elderslie No Paisley no Tara no
198
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 79: Parking Space Policies Required Number of
Spaces (Zones) Detached, duplex, cottage Apartment or "multiple Dwelling for exclusive use Converted Dwelling Municipality/Town and semi-detached dwelling" by elderly
Kincardine
1 space per dwelling unit; 1 space per dwelling unit; plus 2 spaces per dwelling unit(may plus 1 space for every 4 Arran 1 space for every 4 dwelling be stacked) dwelling units for visitor units for visitor parking parking
1 space per dwelling unit plus Chelsey 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space for every 4 dwelling units for visitor parking
Wiarton Mildmay Teeswater Culrose Albermarle Amabel
1 space for each 2 dwelling 1 space per dwelling unit plus unit plus 1 space for every 4 Greenock 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1 space for every 4 dwelling dwelling units for visitor units for visitor parking parking
1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit plus plus 1 space for every 4 Elderslie 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1 space for every 4 dwelling dwelling units for visitor units for visitor parking parking
199
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 79: Parking Space Policies Required Number of
Spaces (Zones) Detached, duplex, cottage Apartment or "multiple Dwelling for exclusive use Converted Dwelling Municipality/Town and semi-detached dwelling" by elderly
1 space for each 2 dwelling 1 space per dwelling unit plus unit plus 1 space for every 4 Paisley 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1 space for every 4 dwelling dwelling units for visitor units for visitor parking parking
1 space for each 2 dwelling 1 space for each dwelling unit units plus 1 space for every Tara 2 spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 space for every 4 4 dwelling units for visitor dwelling units for visitor parking parking
200
Bruce County Housing Study
Our review finds that, for the most part, zoning bylaw provisions do not significantly discourage the development of a diverse range of affordable housing. Virtually all zoning bylaws permit a wide range of dwelling types. Minimum floor areas are not excessive and support the development of smaller, lower cost units. Group homes, however, are not permitted uses in several areas. This policy needs to be re-examined in these areas, as it may be acting as a barrier to meeting special housing needs in these areas. Likewise, garden suites and secondary suites (accessory apartments) are also not permitted in several areas. Here again, these policies need to be re-examined with a view to eliminating a potential barrier to housing forms that can help meet identified needs. Parking standards appear appropriate for the various forms of housing associated, especially in those municipalities that have adopted reduced standards for seniors housing.
11.4.3 Provincial Policy Statement on Housing
A further consideration in determining whether Official Plan policies support the provision of the required range of housing is compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement on Housing.
The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing sets out policy statements on various planning issues that provide guidance to municipalities in the development of local official plan policies. One such policy statement is the Provincial Policy Statement on Housing.
In the late 1980’s, the Province of Ontario enacted a highly detailed Provincial Policy Statement on Housing that contained a number of policy guidelines setting out strong directions for meeting the range of housing needs facing Ontario communities. Among the guidelines contained in the Statement was a requirement that 25% of all new housing development had to be affordable to the lowest 60% of household income levels in the municipality. Many older Official Plans in Ontario (including some reviewed above) still make reference to this Provincial Policy Statement, and still contain policies which comply with its provisions.
This Policy Statement was subsequently repealed by the next Provincial government and replaced with a less stringent set of policies in which municipalities were to “have regard to” (rather than “require”) policies which encouraged housing to be affordable to moderate and lower income households, without setting specific targets and defining affordability. This Policy Statement has been in effect since that time and has been used to guide the development of many official plans across Ontario.
With the recent change in Provincial Government, however, has come a new Provincial Policy Statement on Housing initiative. The current government has adopted a more vigorous housing statement in which municipal policies “shall be consistent with” provincial requirements for minimum targets for moderate and low income households based on a definition of affordability.
201
Bruce County Housing Study
In accordance with the new Provincial Policy Statement, municipalities will maintain a 10 year supply of designated land and a three year supply of zoned, draft approved and registered lots. Residential intensification and redevelopment is to be the preferred means of meeting residential requirements, with designated growth areas to be used only when the former source is inadequate. Municipalities will provide for a full range of housing types and densities by identifying minimum targets for affordable housing, and supporting special needs and units created through intensification and redevelopment. Planning authorities will also direct development to areas where infrastructure and public services are adequate. Finally, municipalities would be required to establish standards for residential intensification and redevelopment which minimize costs and maintain public health and safety.
As noted earlier, the Provincial Policy Statement also requires municipalities to adopt a definition of “affordable housing” consistent with the Provincial definition. The Provincial definition is as follows:
In the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of:
• Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30% of gross household income for low and moderate income households; or
• Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area;
In the case of rental housing, the least expensive of:
• A unit for which rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or
• A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area.
Low and moderate income households mean:
• In the case of ownership housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for the regional market area.
• In the case of rental housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for renter households for the regional market area.
Our review finds that the existing County Official Plan and local Official Plans fully meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement. By adopting the definition of affordable housing suggested earlier and by adopting affordable housing targets
202
Bruce County Housing Study
consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, County policies will be fully up to date with current requirements and will help support diversity in new housing supply.
RECOMMENDATION # 6 That Bruce County adopt the following targets for new housing supply in accordance with the proposed Provincial Policy Statement on Housing: Unit Type: 70% low density, 30% medium and high density Tenure: 70% ownership housing, 30% rental housing Affordability: 30% of all new supply meet the County definition of affordable housing
As the overall planning authority in Bruce County, the County is responsible for ensuring that the targets and policies of local municipalities are also consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The County should review the projected housing needs for each municipality contained in this report and work with local municipalities to develop targets based on these projections.
For example, Section 6.3 of this report shows that Saugeen Shores requires an average of 92 additional units per year from 2001 to 2021, with approximately 25% affordable by households with incomes below $30,000. This translates to about 23 new rental and/or ownership units per year renting below $750 per month or selling below $105,000 (at current mortgage rates). The County should work with Saugeen Shores to develop targets aimed at meeting these needs and work with the municipality and local private and non-profit housing providers to support the provision of such units, especially through intensification and redevelopment.
11.5 Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing
The Demand and Supply Analysis provided a range of data demonstrating the need to expand the supply of affordable housing across Bruce County. Meeting the suggested targets for affordable housing will require strong efforts by the County and housing stakeholders to move forward with initiatives in this regard, particularly those that would expand the supply of affordable rental housing.
Our review of existing Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws in Bruce County found that they do not appear to present significant barriers to the provision of affordable housing. From our review of housing conditions in the County and various recent studies on housing costs, it appears that the main barrier to the provision of more affordable rental housing is simply the high cost of housing development. Below we review the typical costs of a hypothetical rental housing development in Bruce County and the types of supports needed to increase affordability.
203
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.1 Development Costs to Build Affordable Rental Units
The primary reason for the lack of development of private market, affordable housing over the past 20 years is simply the high cost of development itself, which leads to a lack of profitability. It simply has not been profitable for developers to build private lower end housing, given the high costs of development versus the level of rents or selling prices achievable in the market.
a) Development Costs for a Hypothetical 40 Unit Rental Apartment Building
We have estimated development costs for a hypothetical 40 unit rental apartment building in the Town of Kincardine. These costs have been determined through consultation with private developers currently active in the development of housing in the area. While there may be minor differences from area to area within Bruce County, the figures would be fairly similar for most areas.
These costs are hypothetical and are provided here for illustration purposes only. Precise development costs vary from project to project, depending on a wide range of variables such as land costs, servicing, unit sizes, unit finishes, etc. We have assumed a modest level of finishes and modest unit sizes to maintain affordability. Total floor area is estimated at 35,000 sq. ft. with above ground parking and construction costs of $100 per sq. ft.
The Table on the following page highlights the costs associated with developing new rental housing. The results show that cost reductions are required in order to produce rental housing at a level affordable by households of low and moderate income in Bruce County. As seen in this Table, this cannot be done by reducing one particular element, but rather would require changes to a variety of variables.
The per square foot hard construction costs are considered representative of typical projects of this nature. Hard costs generally include the cost of building the footings and foundations, the walls, the roof, doors and windows, stairwells, drywall unit interiors, kitchens and bathrooms, heating and air conditioning systems, etc.
Similarly, site servicing and soft costs have been taken from information provided by local developers and municipal staff. Site servicing costs generally include bringing sewer, water and hydro services onto the site, excavating, grading, landscaping and surface parking and paving. Soft costs include professional services such as architecture, planning and legal; construction financing costs; technical studies such as storm water management, soils tests, environmental tests, parking, traffic, etc.; insurance; appraisals; GST, PST, etc.
CMHC also charges a fee for mortgage insurance in the form of mortgage insurance premium. This fee is calculated on a sliding scale depending on the nature of the development and can range up to 5.5% of the mortgage amount. It is assumed the developer provides equity of 25% of the total project cost.
204
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 80: Table: Estimated Development Costs – 40 Unit Apartment Development Estimated Estimated % of Development Activity Costs Costs (Per Total (Total) Unit) Cost Land Costs Land Cost $350,000 $8,750 7.40% Realty Taxes During Construction 12,000 300 0.25% Land Transfer Tax (.5% on $55,000 plus 1% on balance) 3,225 80 0.06% Land Legal Fees/Closing 2,000 50 0.04% Offsite Services/Connections ($1,080 Sewer Connection Sanitary , $1,080 Sewer Connection Storm, $3,180 Hot 25,340 634 0.54% Water/Steam Heating connection, $20,000 Hydro service connection) Land Survey 1,500 38 0.03% Hard Costs Construction Cost ($100/sq. ft. X 35,000 sq. ft.) 3,500,000 87,500 74.10% Construction Contingency (3% of construction cost) 105,000 2,625 2.22% Appliances ($1,000/unit X 40 units plus 1 pair laundry) 42,000 1,050 0.89% Furnishings (furniture & fixtures for lobby and common areas) 3,000 75 0.06% Soft Costs Architect Fees and Disbursements (5% of construction costs 187,250 4,681 3.96% plus GST) Landscape Architect Fees and Disbursements 3,000 75 0.06% Quantity Surveyor Fees and Disbursements 20,000 500 0.42% Environmental Assessment 2,000 50 0.04% Soils Tests 3,000 75 0.06% Traffic, Parking Studies 4,000 100 0.08% Development Charges 85,775 2,144 1.82% Building Permit Fees 17,500 437 0.37%
Other municipal charges 4,000 100 0.08% Parkland Dedication Fee (5% of land value) 17,500 437 0.37% Owner Insurance During Construction 6,000 150 0.12% Marketing/Administration Costs 15,000 375 0.32% Legal Fees/Borrower 20,000 500 0.42% Development Interest on Construction Loan 80,000 2,000 1.69% CMHC Premium and PST (4.35% of mortgage financing plus 165,000 4,125 3.49%
205
Bruce County Housing Study
Table 80: Table: Estimated Development Costs – 40 Unit Apartment Development PST) Financing Commitment Fee 20,000 500 0.42% Financing Legal and Other Fees 15,000 375 0.32% CMHC Application Fee ($200/unit) 8,000 200 0.17% CMHC Draw Processing Fee (8 X $350) 2,450 61 0.05% Appraisal (GST Fair Market Value) 4,000 100 0.08% Total Development Costs $4,723,540 $118,088 100.0% ** includes parkland dedication fees (5% of land value), building permit fee, typical planning application fees
b) Impact of Development Costs on Rents
Discussions with lenders indicate that an equity contribution of 25% will normally be required from the developer in order to qualify for mortgage financing. In the above example, this equals $1,180,885 and leaves a mortgage amount of $3,542,655.
Applying current mortgage rates (5% amortized over 25 years) yields a monthly mortgage payment of approximately $20,710, or $517 per unit per month. There are also monthly operating costs which must be paid for such items as utilities, insurance, maintenance and repair, property management, capital reserve fund, property taxes, etc. In a community such as the Town of Kincardine, these typically total about $350 per unit per month. Discussions with developers also find that they typically require a profit margin of at least 10% of their equity contribution per year in order for the development to be considered financially viable, which, in this case, would total $112,075 or $233 per unit per month.
Totalling all of the above costs equals an average rent requirement of $1,100 per unit per month. Applying a guideline of 30% of household income on rent finds that a household income of $44,000 would be required in order to be able to afford an average unit in the building. These rents are well beyond the average market rents in the area and well out of reach of most households in need of affordable rental housing.
c) Providing Incentives to Reduce Rents
Accordingly, in order to provide affordable rental housing, there is a need for incentives to reduce costs, resulting in rents at more affordable levels. Below we discuss various forms of incentives that can be utilized by municipalities located in the County of Bruce for this purpose.
206
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.2 Creating the Environment to Provide Municipal Incentives
There are many benefits to creating an environment which encourages the development of new affordable rental housing units. In addition to meeting the identified need for this type of housing, creating new rental housing brings ongoing revenue to the municipality in the form of property taxes. It also provides Bruce County with a vehicle for providing local solutions to its affordable housing problem; this is especially important given the limited funding available from senior levels of government.
The Province of Ontario recently passed legislation (i.e. the Social Housing Reform Act) and made a number of changes to existing legislation (i.e. Municipal Act and Planning Act) and regulations to provide municipalities with many of the tools necessary to address local affordable housing needs. The Province has provided these new tools for municipalities designated as service managers to encourage affordable housing production.
The Social Housing Reform Act 2000 transferred to municipalities the responsibility for affordable housing. This includes responsibility for administering the existing stock of social housing, and also permits Service Managers to “establish, fund and administer programs for the provision of residential accommodation” in their service areas.
In addition, recent amendments to Section 210 of the Municipal Act allow designated municipalities (i.e. service managers) to add ‘housing’ as a class of municipal facilities and complement the new municipal authority for housing under the Social Housing Reform Act. The amendments give Service Managers the authority to stimulate the production of new affordable housing by providing:
• affordable housing producers grants • affordable housing loans • exemptions from or grants in lieu of development fees and charges • reducing or waiving property taxes or a grant in lieu of the reduction • providing land at less than market value
In order for Councils to provide incentives to the private sector, particularly in areas where community improvement plans are not in place, a "municipal housing facilities by- law" needs to be enacted. This bylaw allows municipalities to define public interests in ways which are not considered to be "bonusing" (i.e. would not give preferential treatment). By enacting a municipal housing facilities by-law, municipalities can consider a variety of funding mechanisms for affordable housing. A by-law and corresponding agreement must be entered into for each facility.
Once the municipal housing facilities by-law has been enacted by a local Council, the municipality has the authority to enter into agreements with private sector interests to provide affordable housing, provided the agreements conform to the provisions of the
207
Bruce County Housing Study
by-law. However, legislation also requires that prior to executing an agreement, the municipality must enact an enabling by-law authorizing the municipality to enter into such agreement. As a result, any agreement to convey benefits in exchange for affordable housing shall be clearly subject to Council scrutiny. Once executed, there would be an on-going requirement for the municipality to monitor and administer the conditions of the agreement.
Bruce County, as Service Manager, should enact the required municipal housing facilities by-law in order to provide the opportunity for both Bruce County and local municipalities to provide incentives to private developers to build affordable housing. Local Councils should be encouraged to support this initiative through providing incentives that would assist in overcoming the costs involved in producing affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATION # 7 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, enact a Municipal Housing Facilities By-law under Section 210 of the Municipal Act that would enable Bruce County and local municipalities to provide incentives to the private sector to create new affordable housing. The by-law would include the definition of affordable housing identified in recommendation #1 above.
11.5.3 Municipal Property Taxes
A major contributor driving up rents in many areas is the local property tax on multiple rental housing. This is a problem common to many municipalities in Ontario and has been well documented in several studies, most recently the Provincial Housing Supply Working Group. Multi-residential rental housing in most Ontario communities is taxed at a much higher rate than ownership housing. Different taxation rates in a number of Ontario municipalities are shown below.
Table 81: Ratio of Multi-Residential to Residential Tax Rates, 2000 Municipality Ratio of Multi-Residential to Residential Tax Rate Toronto 5.079 Hamilton 3.079 London 2.382 Ottawa 2.317 Sudbury 1.957
Source: Affordable Rental Housing Supply, May 2001 and Municipal Finance Departments
208
Bruce County Housing Study
The table below illustrates the current multi-residential and residential tax rates and the ratio of the multi-residential rate to the residential rate for Bruce County local municipalities. As shown, the differences in the two rates are not as great as those noted above. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity for all the local municipalities to make rental housing more affordable by equalizing the multi-residential tax rate to that of the residential tax rate.
Table 82: Summary of 2004 Tax Rates by Municipality Includes County and Education Tax Rates Residential Multi Residential Ratio South Bruce Township 1.336915 1.579551 0.85 Huron-Kinloss 1.123152 1.315961 0.85 Ward 1 1.43611 1.70186 0.84 Kincardine Ward 2 1.157203 1.357949 0.85 Ward 3 1.169735 1.373401 0.85 Brockton - Urban 1.523564 1.809708 0.84 Brockton - Rural 1.491667 1.770376 0.84 Arran-Elderslie 1.315651 1.553331 0.85 Saugeen Shores 1.317121 1.556144 0.85 South Bruce Peninsula 1.354005 1.600825 0.85 Northern Bruce Peninsula 1.114204 1.304927 0.85 County of Bruce 0.429977 0.530204 0.81
Excludes County and Education Tax Rates Residential Multi Residential Ratio South Bruce Township 0.610938 0.753347 0.81 Huron-Kinloss 0.397175 0.489757 0.81 Ward 1 0.710133 0.875656 0.81 Kincardine Ward 2 0.431226 0.531745 0.81 Ward 3 0.443758 0.547197 0.81 Brockton - Urban 0.797587 0.983504 0.81 Brockton - Rural 0.76569 0.944172 0.81 Arran-Elderslie 0.589674 0.727127 0.81 Saugeen Shores 0.591144 0.72994 0.81 South Bruce Peninsula 0.628028 0.774621 0.81 Northern Bruce Peninsula 0.388227 0.478723 0.81 Source: Individual Municipalities, 2004
The Province of Ontario has prepared a chart showing the amount of annual property tax savings and the associated present values of a ten-year stream of annual property savings based on a discount rate of 6% per annum. This table shows that annual tax savings of $300 per unit on a 20 unit building would have a net present value of $46,820. The tax savings for this hypothetical project is roughly the equivalent of a
209
Bruce County Housing Study
$46,820 capital contribution for the construction of the rental apartment building.
Table 83: Value for Municipal Tax Equalization Based on Present Value Per Unit Sample 20 Unit Sample 100 Unit 10 Year Present Annual Tax Savings Building Building Value @ 6% p.a. $ 300 $ 2,341 $ 46,820 $ 234,100 $ 900 $ 7,022 $140,440 $ 702,200 $1,500 $11,703 $234,060 $1,170,300 $2,100 $16,384 $327,680 $1,638,400 Source: Community Rental Housing Program Guidelines
The Community Rental Housing component of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (explained below) requires that, in order to qualify for funding, municipalities must bring the taxation rate for multi-residential rental housing projects built under this program to a level equal to the single family residential rate. There are a few ways that municipalities can meet this requirement.
Under the Assessment Act, a new 35-year multi-residential property tax class may be adopted by municipalities (by October 31 in any given year for the ensuing year) and the rate set lower than the existing multi-residential rate. In this case all new multi- residential buildings, including those under the Community Rental Housing program, would benefit. Creating a new multi-residential tax class for Bruce County and the local municipalities is not recommended at this time.
Alternatively, municipalities, through a municipal housing facilities by-law, may provide grants-in-lieu of property tax reduction on specific properties. This would enable the municipality to reduce the effective property tax only for those buildings receiving incentives specified in the by-law. Through these by-laws, municipalities can also exempt rental projects from property taxation. It is recommended that Bruce County and the local municipalities consider this approach for the purposes of providing similar tax incentives to the private sector and participating in the Community Rental Housing program.
RECOMMENDATION # 8 That, in order to support the development of affordable rental housing in Bruce County, Bruce County and the local municipalities consider providing grants-in-lieu of a property tax reduction to equalize the taxation rate for newly constructed multi-residential rental housing projects which meet the definition of affordable housing.
210
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.4 Development Charges and Fees
Municipalities in Bruce County charge a variety of fees and charges for various aspects of development, such as building permit fees, parkland dedication, development charges and so on. While these fees and charges generate important revenues to assist the municipality in providing important community infrastructure and facilities, they also contribute to increasing housing costs, especially for rental accommodation.
Bruce County and local municipalities should consider providing grants-in-lieu of development charges and associated fees as an incentive for the private sector to create new affordable rental units.
RECOMMENDATION # 9 That Bruce County and the local municipalities consider providing a grant-in-lieu of residential development charges, planning fees and building permit fees for new affordable housing developments in return for a commitment by the developer to meet specified affordability targets.
11.5.5 Establishing an Affordable Housing Capital Reserve Fund
As noted earlier, various forms of support and incentives are needed to help meet the high cost of developing new forms of housing so that they become affordable to low and moderate income families and individuals. This report has identified a number of such municipal sources of assistance that can play a role in meeting this objective.
Municipalities across Ontario have established affordable housing reserve funds using a number of sources including:
• a portion of the federal funds associated with various social housing programs transferred from the Province to the Service Manager • interest income from federal funds transferred to the Service Manager transfer of responsibility; • surpluses generated from administrative efficiencies; • annual contributions through the municipal budgeting process; • sale of surplus former public housing lands.
The intent of the affordable housing reserve fund is to provide the supports and incentives necessary to create an environment in which the private sector and community housing providers would be willing and able to develop affordable housing that would not require direct operating subsidies from Bruce County on an ongoing basis. The reserve fund could also be used to strategically purchase properties for affordable housing as they become available and for other affordable housing purposes.
211
Bruce County Housing Study
The affordable housing reserve fund is intended to supplement funding or in-kind supports provided by senior levels of government, community organizations, and the private sector. Another important purpose for the reserve fund is to provide start-up grants for affordable housing projects. Bruce County should consider establishing an affordable housing reserve fund for the above noted purposes.
RECOMMENDATION # 10 That Bruce County establish an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund to provide incentives to private and community organizations for the creation of affordable housing and for other affordable housing purposes.
RECOMMENDATION # 11 That Bruce County consider making an annual contribution to the Affordable/Social Housing Fund to ensure that ongoing funds are available to address identified housing needs.
11.5.6 Availability of Affordable Sites
The current real estate boom has driven up the price of lands designated for medium and high-density forms of housing in most parts of Ontario. This has resulted in a shortage of affordable sites suitable for development of modest forms of housing.
One possible source of affordable sites comes from surplus lands owned by all levels of government. Some municipalities have adopted “housing first” policies calling for surplus lands to be used for housing purposes first. These municipalities have made such sites available on a lease basis for $1 in return for the provision of various forms of affordable housing.
Surplus school properties have also been converted into affordable housing projects in a number of municipalities across Ontario. For example, a surplus school in Niagara Falls was converted into a seniors project. Surplus homes for the aged in Brantford and Newmarket have also been considered for affordable seniors housing.
The federal and provincial governments have declared a “Housing First” policy for surplus federal and provincial lands. Bruce County should work with the two senior levels of government to identify potential surplus sites that may be suitable for affordable housing developments and advocate for them to be made available at low cost for such purposes.
Bruce County, in conjunction with local municipalities, the federal government and the province, should create a comprehensive inventory of surplus government lands in the County and identify which sites may be suitable for affordable housing purposes. They
212
Bruce County Housing Study
should then work with other levels of government to make such lands available to providers of affordable housing at little or no cost.
In addition, Bruce County should maintain closer linkages with local school boards and federal and provincial agencies so that when facilities become surplus, they are considered for affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATION # 12 That Bruce County work with the local municipalities, federal and provincial governments to create a comprehensive inventory of surplus government lands and identify which sites may be suitable for affordable housing purposes.
RECOMMENDATION # 13 That Bruce County and the local municipalities consider establishing a “housing first” policy for surplus municipal lands. Specifically, that the first priority in the decision making process respecting surplus or potentially surplus municipal real property be affordable housing development and that the surplus property be made available for affordable housing purposes at a reduced cost.
RECOMMENDATION # 14 That Bruce County foster closer links with local school boards and federal and provincial agencies so that when their properties become surplus, they are considered for affordable housing purposes.
11.5.7 Public Education
Consultations with stakeholders identified a need to provide specific information on the demand for affordable rental housing to builders, lenders, realtors, community agencies and others involved in housing development. In fact, it was felt that an overall public education/awareness program would help provide greater public support for measures to address affordable housing needs and foster potential partnerships between the public and private sector.
RECOMMENDATION # 15 That Bruce County, in conjunction with the local municipalities, undertake a public education campaign to help inform and educate the public about the need for affordable rental housing facing the community and emphasize the importance of working together with the County, local municipalities, local agencies, private and non-profit developers and all other stakeholders to help facilitate its provision.
213
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.8 Alternate Development Standards
Alternate development standards are flexible planning and engineering standards that provide a range of alternatives to the current standards used for the design and construction of communities. Alternative development standards encourage affordable housing by allowing the developer to build various components of a housing project to a lower standard than conventional. Some standards which may be altered to encourage affordable housing development include: reduced setbacks, narrower lot sizes, reduced road allowance and on-street parking. An example of the use of alternative development standards in Ontario is the Cornell development in Markham. The proposed Provincial Policy Statement on Housing calls on municipalities to consider flexibility and innovation in development standards, providing they meet basic health and safety requirements.
The local municipalities may want to consider utilizing alternative development standards on a case-by-case basis for residential developments that provide new affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATION # 16 That the local municipalities of Bruce County consider utilizing alternative development standards on a case-by-case basis for residential developments that provided new affordable housing.
11.5.9 Community Support for Affordable Housing
A significant barrier to the creation of new affordable housing unit is the lack of community support that has been encountered from time-to-time for various forms of affordable housing. A number of municipalities have undertaken to help inform and educate the public about the range of urgent housing needs facing the community and the importance of working together with local municipalities, local agencies, private and non-profit developers and all other stakeholders to help facilitate its provision.
In addition, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has run a number of pilot workshops on its new initiative on Strategies for Gaining Community Acceptance. There may be an opportunity for Bruce County to work with CMHC and interested community organizations to host such a workshop in the County in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION # 17 That Bruce County request that CMHC hold a Strategies for Gaining Community Acceptance workshop to provide private and not-for-profit housing developers with strategies for gaining community acceptance of their proposed projects.
214
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.10 Reallocate Existing RGI Housing
Some Service Managers are exploring the feasibility of reallocating RGI units from buildings experiencing vacancy losses to new developments or to alternative locations where there is a greater demand for rent-geared-to-income housing. The premise is that under devolution, municipalities will have the ability to negotiate target plans and the location of RGI units, as long as the overall number of RGI units is not decreased in the municipality as a whole.
This would provide an opportunity for Bruce County to reallocate RGI units from parts of the County which may be experiencing high vacancy rates to areas where there is a greater demand for affordable rental housing. It is also a way to provide rent supplement units in new affordable rental housing projects which may be eligible for other municipal incentives.
Bruce County should examine its housing portfolio, as well as work with other housing providers, to pursue the potential for reallocating existing RGI units to new developments in order to provide an incentive for private and non-for-profit developers to create new rental housing.
RECOMMENDATION # 18 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, pursue the potential for reallocating existing rent-geared-to-income units from buildings experiencing vacancy losses to alternate locations where there is a greater demand for rent-geared-to-income housing.
11.5.11 Senior Government Policies and Regulations
As noted earlier, government fees and charges and taxation policy add significant cost to the development of both rental and ownership housing. Developers of rental housing, in particular, receive particularly unfavourable treatment from a tax standpoint. Such taxes drive up the costs further, creating disincentives for investment.
The Housing Supply Working Group, a government/industry/labour working group that includes senior representatives of the rental/development industry, has commissioned two in-depth studies of the impact of senior government taxation policies and regulations on the development of new affordable rental supply. The first study, Affordable Rental Housing Supply: The Dynamics Of The Market And Recommendations For Encouraging New Supply made recommendations relating to municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions, many of which have now been implemented. The second study, Creating a Positive Climate for Rental Housing Development Through Tax and Mortgage Insurance Reform focuses on financing and taxation of rental housing primarily at the federal level.
215
Bruce County Housing Study
The main findings of the Housing Supply Working Group reports regarding financing and taxation barriers to the production of affordable rental housing are summarized in Appendix 13. The report identifies a number of tax changes that the federal government could make to encourage rental investment.
While Bruce County cannot directly affect senior government taxation policy, it can lend its voice in advocating for changes that will have positive impact on the development of affordable rental housing.
RECOMMENDATION # 19 That Bruce County urge the federal government to change the tax system to:
i) allow rental investors to defer capital gains tax and recaptured depreciation upon the sale of a rental project if the proceeds are reinvested in new rental housing;
ii) increase the rate for capital cost allowance on new rental housing from 4 per cent to 5 per cent;
iii) allow rental housing investors to deduct soft costs rather than capitalize them;
iv) eliminate its capital taxes on rental properties;
v) allow small landlords to qualify as small businesses for the purposes of obtaining the small business corporate rate;
vi) allow all investors in rental housing to use CCA losses in determining income for tax purposes --- not just principal business corporations;
vii) undertake a comprehensive review of the ways in which federal policies act to restrict competition in the area of housing financing.
RECOMMENDATION # 20 That the Bruce County urge the provincial government to:
i) eliminate its capital taxes on rental properties;
ii) continue bilateral discussions with the federal government on more flexible financing terms for rental development;
iii) hold discussions with private sector financial or underwriting institutions, as a contingency in the event the federal government is unwilling to consider changes to their mortgage insurance provisions.
216
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.12 Federal Government Funding Programs
The federal government has introduced a number of programs to assist private and not- for-profit developers to create new affordable housing.
11.5.12.1 Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program
This new program is a joint initiative of the federal and provincial governments; however, under the current funding model, it also currently requires extensive local contributions. The Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program represents the greatest available source of senior government funding contributions (primarily federal) toward the development of new affordable housing. The current funding and unit allocation model is currently under review by the Provincial Government, who has indicated that revisions are likely to be forthcoming some time in 2005.
Average overall federal government funding under this program will not exceed $25,000 per unit. The province, municipalities and other private and non-profit partners must match this funding. Matching contributions may include capital grants for affordable housing, tax incentives, fee reductions and in-kind contributions (e.g. land). The federal and provincial funding provided under this program is an ‘up-front’ capital grant --- on- going subsidization of households is not a component of this program.
There are three components that could be funded under this agreement:
• An affordable urban rental housing program to stimulate the production of new affordable rental housing by private and not-for-profit corporations; • An affordable urban homeownership program to ease the demand for rental housing by assisting rental households to purchase newly built, affordable homes in urban neighbourhood revitalization areas; • An affordable remote housing program to create or rehabilitate through major renovation, affordable rental or ownership housing in remote areas.
The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) administers the program. MMAH is responsible for the allocation of units to each part of Ontario and for the ultimate selection of projects. Service Managers, such as Bruce County, are responsible for establishing Council-approved program requirements for the service area that are consistent with the federal and provincial requirements of the agreement.
Community Rental Housing funding is a major component of the Affordable Housing Program under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Agreement. The aim of Community Rental Housing funding is to reduce the capital costs for newly constructed rental buildings, making it economically feasible for landlords to charge affordable rents. About $220 million of the total federal funding has been allocated to the Community Rental Housing program.
217
Bruce County Housing Study
The following are some highlights of the program under the current funding model:
• The Federal government will contribute grants averaging $25,000 per unit. • The Province and local municipalities must match the federal government contribution. • The current Provincial funding commitment is $2,000 per unit in matching funding. However, during its recent consultation on a Provincial Affordable Housing Strategy, the Provincial Government did indicate its intention to increase this amount. Announcements in this regard are expected sometime in 2005, likely in conjunction with the Provincial Budget in the spring. Increased Provincial matching funds would act as a powerful incentive to enhance the effectiveness of this program. • Municipal property tax concessions and other municipal contributions, along with contributions from non-profit and charitable groups will make up the balance of the federal matching requirement. • Most of the funding at present is going to 12 municipal service areas with the lowest vacancy rates --- Toronto, Durham, Halton, Peel, York, Hamilton, Kingston, London, Ottawa, Simcoe, Waterloo and Wellington. • Other Service Managers, such as Bruce County, may apply for the balance of the funding. Requests from other Service Managers will be considered on a “first come, first serve” basis. • All projects must achieve average market rents for their areas. Service Managers may establish lower maximum rent requirements; however, this will require more contributions or concessions from the municipality. • Private sector companies, service clubs, religious groups and non-profit housing, including co-operative and charitable organizations are eligible for funding under the program. The amount of funding that can be allocated to municipally controlled non-profits is capped at 25%. • The required affordability period for projects receiving Community Rental Housing funding will be 15 years plus a five-year phase-out. Service Managers may extend the period to a 20 years plus a five-year phase-out. • The program allows for the use of a “head lease” whereby private non-profit housing groups enter into a head-lease as a tenant and sub-lease units through partnership arrangements with private sector developers. The lease could be for all or part of the building. The individual affordable units that are leased would be rented to tenants and the private sector owner would otherwise manage the building. The Community Rental Housing funding presents the Bruce County with an opportunity to increase the supply of affordable rental housing in the service area by leveraging local contributions to secure senior government funding. The preparation of this housing strategy, as well as the housing needs assessment, is an important first step in realizing some of this available funding.
218
Bruce County Housing Study
RECOMMENDATION # 21 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, undertake the necessary steps required to participate in the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program and work with proponents to put forward proposals to the Province under this program.
The County should place a major emphasis on proposals providing affordable housing for low and moderate income singles.
11.5.12.2 GST Rebate For Affordable Housing
The federal government has recently announced that non-profit housing providers with municipal status will be eligible for a 100% rebate of the GST. If a non-profit housing provider already has municipal status for the purpose of the GST rebate of 57.14%, the provider can claim a 100% GST rebate on goods and services for which taxes become payable after February 1, 2004. This is a positive move by the federal government to make the cost of creating new rental housing more affordable, however, it restricted to a limited segment of the housing development market.
For all other not-for-profit and private sector developers, the GST Rebate for Affordable Housing Program provides a partial rebate of GST on building costs for affordable rental housing. The program is funded and operated by the federal government, through Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
New rental projects, substantial renovations or conversions commenced after February 27, 2000 are eligible to apply for funding/rebates. The only affordability criterion is that the full rebate applies where the capital costs per unit are up to $350,000. A reduced rebate applies to per unit capital costs over $350,000 and up to the maximum of $450,000 per unit. The rebate is subject to a maximum of $8,750. The rebate is calculated at the rate of 36% of the actual GST incurred during development costs. The GST is often reduced from 7.0% to 4.5%.
However, new funding programs for affordable housing that lean heavily on up front capital grants, free land and other one-time sources of funding, may find it difficult to meet the 40% test of annual revenues that qualify them for the municipal status. Therefore, in cases of non-eligibility or in the event of a partnership with the private sector, this 36% rebate for rental construction, rehabilitation or conversion for all rental developers may be a good alternative for some non-profit housing providers.
219
Bruce County Housing Study
RECOMMENDATION # 22 That Bruce County urge the federal government to change the tax system to fully rebate the GST associated with the development new rental housing, including that developed by the private and not-for-profit sector, to help reduce the cost new rental housing.
11.5.12.3 CMHC Mortgage Loan Insurance for Non-Profit Groups
Mortgage loan insurance makes it easier for non-profit groups to obtain financial backing from lenders of affordable housing projects. CMHC has developed mortgage loan insurance requirements geared specifically for non-profit groups; however many supporters of affordable housing have expressed concern to CMHC about the negative impact of their mortgage insurance practices on the provision of affordable housing.
As a result, CMHC has recently made key changes to mortgage insurance for rental projects that achieve rents below new affordable target thresholds. The thresholds are set at 65% or 80% of the existing market rent distribution. These key changes came into effect in June 2003. The main features and recent enhancements for projects qualifying as affordable housing are: • Mortgage premiums have been reduced – 20% lower; • Amortization periods have been extended up to 40 years, but for every five years beyond 25 years there is a surcharge on the premium; • Maximum loan amounts have increased from 85% to 95% of lending value; • Rental achievement holdbacks have been reduced or may be waived; • There is more flexibility on Debt Coverage Ratios (DCR) when rents are below the specified market benchmarks. At market rents and the base premiums, a minimum of 1.2 DCR is required. CMHC will reduce this to as low as 1.0 for affordable housing projects with rents below the qualifying rent benchmarks. CMHC has also introduced a mechanism to encourage private partnerships. If a developer makes a contribution to an affordable housing project, the developer can qualify for a credit on mortgage insurance premiums on a future project equal to 60% of the value of the contribution. This is also applicable to non-profit groups if they are not already registered charities.
These recent changes to CMHC’s mortgage insurance requirements follow other changes to CMHC’s practices implemented in June 2002 and signal CMHC’s willingness to adjust their pricing and underwriting policies. The impact of these recent business practice changes is not known at this time.
220
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.12.4 CMHC Proposal Development Fund (PDF) Loan
CMHC provides Proposal Development Fund Loans to encourage the development of projects that provide affordable housing for seniors, the disabled or low-income Canadian households through partnership arrangements. The upset limit of each loan is $100,000. This is an annual program and it is restricted to private non-profit groups (municipal non-profit groups do not qualify). The loan must be repaid (interest free) when an affordable housing project is developed. Recent changes to the funding formula also enable CMHC to forgive 25% of the loan amount.
11.5.12.5 CMHC SEED Funding
Seed Funding offers financial assistance to housing proponents who are in the very early stages of developing a housing project proposal that will be affordable or innovative or community-based, or any combination of these characteristics. Seed Funding is offered in conjunction with CMHC's capacity development initiative.
The maximum amount of Seed Funding is $20,000 per housing project proposal. Seed Funding may be used to pay for a variety of activities in the early stages of developing a housing project proposal. These activities must be directly related to the development of the housing project proposal. Eligible items include: • housing market studies to evaluate need and demand for the proposed project; • development of a business plan; • evaluation of procurement options; • inspections of existing properties; • preparation of specifications for renovations; • preliminary architectural drawings.
Where the housing project proponent is not yet an established organization, Seed Funding may also be used for group development activities.
11.5.12.6 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) oversees the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) with current funding nation-wide of $50 million a year. RRAP helps low-income Canadians, people with disabilities and Aboriginals live in decent, affordable homes. RRAP supports the renovation and repair of housing occupied by low-income people to bring it up to basic health and safety standards. Rental and rooming house accommodation for people at risk of homelessness is also eligible for RRAP funding. RRAP also funds the conversion of non-residential buildings into rental accommodation for low-income people, thereby helping to expand the supply of affordable rental housing.
221
Bruce County Housing Study
Funding of up to $24,000 per unit is available for projects eligible for Rental RRAP funding, up to $16,000 per bed for Rooming House RRAP and up to $16,000 per bed or $24,000 per unit for RRAP – Conversion.
Given the availability of these funds on an annual basis, Bruce County should work closely with CMHC to ensure RRAP funds are fully utilized to help expand the supply of affordable rental housing in the County. Further, many municipalities have taken on the responsibility to act as CMHC's agent for the delivery of RRAP. This role would enable Bruce County to strategically direct RRAP funds to those areas where it is needed most and also would earn administrative fees for the municipality. Bruce County should contact CMHC to explore the potential for assuming this role in order to better support its Affordable Housing Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION # 23 That Bruce County work closely with the CMHC to ensure available RRAP funds are fully utilized to help expand the supply of affordable rental housing. The County should explore the potential for administering this program on behalf of CMHC in Bruce County.
11.5.13 Provincial Government Funding Programs
The provincial government also has a number of funding programs to help meet the affordable rental housing needs of low-income households.
a) Community Rental Housing & PST Grant
As mentioned above, the Province is the administrator of the Community Rental Housing funding, the major initiative under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program. Ontario’s primary contribution to the program is a PST grant of $2,000 per unit.
Although the Provincial Government promised in its election campaign to increase their level of contribution to the program, to date this has not been done. Such an increase would be of great importance to help improve the effectiveness of this program. Many other municipalities across the province have expressed concern with the limited funding contributions from the Province of Ontario towards this program. Bruce County should urge the new Provincial Government to keep its campaign promise to match the federal contribution to the program.
RECOMMENDATION # 24 That Bruce County, in conjunction with FCM and AMO, urge the Provincial government to uphold its election promise to match the federal funding available through the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program so that true affordability can be achieved.
222
Bruce County Housing Study
b) Rent Supplement Program
One possible source of funding to provide some relief for those in greatest hardship is the province’s rent supplement program. This program subsidizes individuals living in private or non-profit rental units. This is done through contracts entered into between the Service Manager and a private landlord.
Rent supplements are widely utilized by municipalities across Ontario. This program takes advantage of existing vacancies in rental housing stock, promotes integration across all communities rather than creating concentrations of social housing and encourages public/private cooperation. Rent supplements are much less expensive than placing individuals in emergency shelters and motels.
The province recently announced additional funding under its Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program. Under this new initiative, the process by which the municipalities invoice the Province based on subsidy flow will be eliminated in favour of a fixed funding approach. Essentially, the program will provide greater flexibility than existed under the previous provincial rent supplement program; however, Service Managers have noted that many costs such as administration fees, maintenance, vacancy losses and inflation have not been incorporated into the funding formula and consequently, the funding will not go as far as hoped. Improvements in flexibility include the ability to provide subsidy directly to tenants, as compared to the landlord and increased flexibility over location.
Bruce County currently administers 33 rent supplement units - 33 under the Commercial Rent Supplement Program, 16 under the Strong Communities Regular Rent Supplement Program and 5 under the Strong Communities Supportive Rent Supplement Program. The County should continue to pursue all available rent supplement units from the Province and consider placing available rent supplement units in new affordable rental housing developments in order to enable the expansion of the supply of subsidized housing in areas where it is most needed.
RECOMMENDATION # 25 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, pursue all available rent supplement units from the Province and consider placing available rent supplement units in new affordable rental housing developments in order to enable the expansion of the supply of subsidized housing in areas where it is most needed.
11.5.14 Second Suites/Accessory Dwelling Units
Numerous municipalities throughout Ontario have passed bylaws to permit accessory dwellings, along with other forms of housing like group homes, as-of-right in designated areas, as a way to meet affordable housing needs. In most cases, the bylaws tend to restrict the location of accessory dwellings to specified areas. Municipalities have
223
Bruce County Housing Study
started to look at the important role that second suites or accessory dwellings can play in meeting the affordable housing needs of communities across Ontario.
For example, The Report of the Mayor’s Action Task Force on Homelessness identified the legalization of second suites in residential zones as an important part of the City of Toronto’s overall strategy to increase affordable housing supply. In July 1999, City Council approved a new bylaw which permits, as-of-right, second suites in all single and semi-detached houses across the City. The bylaw was upheld by the Ontario Municipal Board with some modifications. As part of the second suite initiative, Council also approved funding for a promotional campaign and an education and support program for small landlords. The City of Kitchener recently passed a similar bylaw.
The review of municipal zoning bylaws in Bruce County found that some municipalities permitted second suites in accordance with various planning standards and conditions. Given their potential for meeting affordable housing needs, all municipalities in Bruce County should be encouraged to incorporate similar provisions into their zoning bylaws to encourage this form of housing, subject to appropriate standards of health and safety. This strategy would also be consistent with the new Provincial Policy Statement.
RECOMMENDATION # 26 That Bruce County encourage all local municipalities to permit accessory apartments in all residential zones, subject to appropriate standards of health and safety.
11.5.15 Making Home Ownership an Option for More Residents
Another potential strategy for increasing the availability of affordable housing is to encourage the provision of more affordable homeownership units. Homeownership is considered the ideal housing choice for many households for a variety of reasons. However, homeownership is generally not available to households in the County with annual income less than $30,000 (other than those who purchased homes years ago when costs were lower and/or their incomes were higher).
There are some programs which can assist households interested in home ownership. A number of municipalities in Ontario have also initiated local homeownership programs. These are described below.
224
Bruce County Housing Study
11.5.15.1 Home Ownership Education and Training Program
Some initiatives are currently underway at CMHC to help provide specific education on home ownership for renters who might be capable of moving to home ownership. CMHC has developed a Home Ownership Education and Training Program aimed at renters considering becoming homeowners. Helping renters to move into home ownership through education and training is one way to free up some rental units in the area.
The Canadian Home Builders’ Association also has publications and provides seminars on buying a home, the new home buying process and many more topics of benefit to new homeowners.
11.5.15.2 Local Home Ownership Program
The Region of Waterloo is undertaking an initiative to provide various forms of support for the provision of affordable home ownership. The program is aimed at households of modest income who need a moderate amount of support to move into the ownership market. A special attempt is being made to provide units targeted at households currently living in non-profit housing subsidized by the municipality as Service Manager or currently on the co-ordinated access social housing waiting list that might be able to move off the list and into home ownership through some modest assistance in overcoming barriers posed by upfront financial requirements such as down payments and through modest assistance to local developers of affordable home ownership units.
The City of Prince Albert was a key player in establishing a new affordable home ownership initiative. In this initiative, a community co-operative assists low-income households to purchase and rehabilitate existing homes. The province provides a 20 percent grant toward a down payment on the home and the City contributes a further 5 percent. The assisted homeowner must be able to afford the mortgage on the remaining 75 percent of the cost. CMHC assisted in this initiative by providing a grant from its Homegrown Solutions program.
In the last five years, Requests for Proposals were solicited by the City of Ottawa for two surplus City-owned properties. The properties were offered to the private sector at below market value in exchange for a commitment by the developer to construct affordable housing within a price range specified by the City. The first site, a former fire station, resulted in the creation of 26 stacked townhouse units in the $113,000 to $125,000 price range. An evaluation of this initiative found that all 26 households were first time homebuyers who had been previously renting in the downtown core.
This initiative was considered highly successful because new affordable ownership housing was created in an area of the downtown that needed to be revitalized and 26 rental units were freed up for others in the community. The second site employed a similar approach and it resulted in the creation of 54 stacked townhouses with an upset
225
Bruce County Housing Study
price of $154,500. Once again, these homes were geared to the first time homebuyer, resulting in the increased availability of rental units.
Habitat for Humanity, an independent, non-profit housing program dedicated to the elimination of poverty by building homes in partnership with families in need, is an example of a new home ownership initiative underway in many communities. Homeowners contribute hundreds of hours of “sweat equity” to the construction of their homes and then repay a long-term, no-interest mortgage. Mortgage costs are kept low by the use of volunteer labour and by the donation of funds and building materials.
The County and local municipalities should consider creating a Bruce County home ownership program to assist those households for which home ownership is not feasible without some form of assistance.
11.5.15.3 Pilot Home Ownership Project for RGI Tenants
One way to test the feasibility of a Bruce County home ownership program is to initiate a pilot project on surplus municipal government lands, similar to the Region of Waterloo program.
A non-profit housing provider may be interested in partnering with the County to find ways to move current RGI tenants who are close to the household income limits into home ownership. This is a win-win situation because it has the potential of moving a household on rental assistance into the private market, thereby freeing up much needed affordable rental housing and it enables the household to access the many benefits of home ownership.
RECOMMENDATION # 27 That Bruce County examine the feasibility of establishing an affordable homeownership program similar to the recent Region of Waterloo model.
RECOMMENDATION # 28 That Bruce County invite CMHC to conduct its Homeownership Education and Training Program in convenient locations within the County.
11.6 Addressing the Need for Emergency and Transitional Housing
There are a number of limited opportunities for increasing the supply of emergency and transitional housing in Bruce County. The available senior government funding programs are described below.
226
Bruce County Housing Study
11.6.1 Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI)
Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) is a community-based partnership initiative that helps communities develop a continuum of supports planned to address the issue of homelessness, identify the supports already in place to address homelessness and highlight where additional supports are needed. The continuum of supports is based on the idea of developing a seamless web of services and supports that people need to make a successful transition from the street to a more stable and secure life. SCPI requires that communities match funds for this initiative.
Bruce County was not identified as a community with significant absolute homelessness problems and as a result, it did not receive assistance to develop a community plan nor fund any initiatives. The Federal Government recently announced that SCPI is being extended to 2006. There may be an opportunity for Bruce County to request a funding allocation under the newly extended SCPI program or a future program.
RECOMMENDATION # 29 That Bruce County approach the Homelessness Secretariat to allocate funds under the Supporting Community Partnership Initiatives (SCPI) to the Bruce County area.
11.6.2 Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP)
The Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) is a program found under the RRAP initiative. SEP offers financial assistance for the repair, rehabilitation and improvement of existing shelters for women, children and youth who are victims of family violence as well as the acquisition or construction of new shelters and second stage housing where needed. Assistance is in the form of a fully forgivable loan and is available in all areas including First Nations.
11.6.3 Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund (PHIF)
The Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund (PHIF) was established to assist service managers with their new role as local service system manager for homelessness. PHIF is a $10.4 million annual program available to municipalities to fund innovative projects that provide direct services to homeless people or those at risk of homelessness. PHIF projects are intended to help get people off the street, help people get out of hostels and into permanent housing, and help people at risk of losing permanent housing. Municipal programs funded by PHIF include rent banks, street outreach, housing registries, and landlord-tenant mediation.
227
Bruce County Housing Study
11.6.4 Off the Street, Into Shelter Fund (OSIS)
Since January 1, 2001 a new provincial fund, the Off the Street, Into Shelter Fund, has been available to municipalities to help people get off the street and into shelter. The fund will be available year-round, starting now to address the most severe weather conditions.
Depending on municipal response, this fund could provide money to hire 50 or more new street outreach workers. These new workers would get to know homeless people as individuals, help them to understand that improvements are being made to hostels, and encourage them to come into shelter.
The fund is available to all municipalities. The maximum amount available to a municipality is equal to 5 per cent of its 1999 gross spending on emergency hostels. It is up to municipalities to request the money. For the first year, the province provided 100 per cent funding; however, in subsequent years, the province will pay 80 per cent and municipalities will pay 20 per cent, in the same way that annual emergency hostels costs are cost-shared.
11.6.5 Redirection of Emergency Hostel Funding Initiative (REHF)
On March 23, 1999, the Province announced the Redirection of Emergency Hostel Funding Initiative. The objectives of this initiative are to:
• Change the culture and practice of service delivery to the homeless from short- term emergency use to more effective responses of prevention and early identification which will help people find and keep stable living situations; and
• To develop an opportunity for creative and innovative approaches to service deliver.
The initiative allows municipalities providing emergency shelter service to use up to 15% of their emergency shelter funding on programs. Municipalities submit detailed business plans for each program that demonstrates that this funding will ultimately reduce current or anticipated hostel use and costs.
RECOMMENDATION # 30 That Bruce County pursue funding allocations under the Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund, the Off the Street, Into Shelter Fund (OSIS) Program and the Redirection of Emergency Hostel Funding Initiative in order to help homeless individuals find shelter, especially in severe weather conditions.
228
Bruce County Housing Study
11.6.6 Rent Bank
A rent bank is a short-term funding mechanism through which low income tenants receive assistance to address arrears. Currently, about half of the 47 Service Managers have a rent bank in their area, disbursing approximately $1 million annually. The average amount received by applicants is approximately $1,500. The province has recently announced it will provide a total of $10 million to municipalities that currently operate or wish to establish a rent bank.
These programs may either be administered directly by the Service Manager or community agency. The municipalities will also be given some flexibility in establishing eligibility criteria to reflect local needs. Tenants can only apply for assistance once every two years, to a maximum of two month’s rent. Once approved, these funds will be paid directly to the landlord. Up to 10% of the funding can be used to cover administrative costs. Service Managers will receive funding based on their share of the Ontario population. For example, Bruce County is home to about .05% of the Ontario population, and at present, the rent bank program is underway with $50,000 in funding.
11.6.7 Energy Emergencies
This fund will provide $2 million for one-time emergency assistance to assist low-income households (including those on social assistance) to deal with payment of energy utility arrears (including hydro, gas, oil and others), security deposits and reconnection fees. The maximum amount of assistance will be equal to two months energy arrears, and security and reconnection fees. Eligibility will be based on long-term ability to manage energy costs. Households will only be able to receive assistance once, except under exceptional circumstances.
11.7 Addressing the Need for More Supportive Housing
Supportive housing is housing that provides personal support services and essential homemaking in permanent, usually not-for-profit, community residential settings. A need for more supportive housing for persons with severe physical disabilities, developmental delays and mental illness has been identified.
There are a number of limited opportunities for increasing the supply of supportive housing in Bruce County. The available provincial government funding programs are described below.
11.7.1 Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Funding
The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOH-LTC) has the provincial mandate to provide services to those aged 16 or older through such programs as care for the
229
Bruce County Housing Study mentally ill, long-term care and home care. MOH-LTC provides supportive housing funding for frail and/or cognitively impaired elderly persons, people with physical disabilities or acquired brain injuries and those living with HIV/AIDS, when their requirements justify the need for the availability of 24-hour, on-site assistance. MOH- LTC provides funding to support service providers through a number of programs, including the Supportive Housing Program, Acquired Brain Injury Program, Attendant Care Program and HIV (AIDS) Program. The District Health Council determines the need for supportive housing in a community.
Funding from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is provided on an equity site system. Each of the 38 regions is assessed to determine per capital funding, current funding levels, demographics, project need, and utilization of home care. Areas are ranked by need for additional funding.
Key informants have indicated that there is a need to press senior levels of government for more funding for support services for persons with special needs. Cutbacks in support service funding in recent years have contributed heavily to housing problems being experienced by these individuals. Bruce County should lend its support to community agencies interested in pursuing additional funding from MOH-LTC to address the identified needs for special needs housing as outlined in the demand and supply analysis.
11.7.2 New Places to Live Initiative
This program is aimed at creating new accommodation for persons with developmental delays. In May 2001, the Government of Ontario invested in a five-year plan of $197 million to enhance service and supports for people with developmental delays. The funding includes $67 million in capital invested over five years to create new places to live in the community.
Funding for the program is allocated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In the first two years, $104 million from the multi-year program was allocated for the creation and provision of the following:
- More than 380 new places to live; - More than 2,340 more families received Special Services at Home; - Out-of-home respite for more than 700 new families; - Day programming for more than 370 additional people; - Funding to all developmental services agencies to hire and retain quality caregivers.
Since the initiative establishment in May 2000, more than 1,500 have been served in more than 60 projects across Ontario.
230
Bruce County Housing Study
In July of 2003 the Government announced the creation of another 205 new living places for persons with developmental delays. The Ministry will be providing $15.4 million in capital and $10.3 million in operating funding to develop a variety of accommodation options for people with developmental disabilities in various communities across Ontario.
In order to ensure that the funds are maximized, the Ministry developed a new capital selection process, which requests municipal service providers to submit proposals in relation to the provision of accommodation services to persons with developmental disabilities. The request for proposals process was established in order to ensure the highest quality of services and the most efficient use of resources.
Bruce County has been allocated 13 units recently under these programs - 5 through the MOHLTC for persons with mental health problems and 8 for frail elderly and physically handicapped individuals. Given the needs identified in this study, agencies in Bruce County should be encouraged to pursue this funding to help meet identified needs.
RECOMMENDATION # 31 That Bruce County lend its support to community agencies interested in pursuing additional funding from MOH-LTC and MCFCS to address the identified needs for special needs housing outlined in the demand and supply analysis.
11.7.3 Universal Accessibility for the Design and Construction of Housing
Universal accessibility for the design and construction of housing was strongly supported by many focus group participants. Research has indicated that universal design is quite different from accessible design. Accessible design refers to products and buildings that are accessible and usable and designed specifically for persons with physical disabilities and mobility impairments. On the other hand, environments and products with “universal design” are intended for all persons without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The main purpose of universal design is to simplify accessibility for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more functional and accessible by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost.
Focus group participants also indicated that strategies should be adopted to improve overall accessibility of housing stock and to ensure modifications in social housing units meet the needs of persons with disabilities. It was further suggested that the standards recently adopted by City of London should be considered by Bruce County.
231
Bruce County Housing Study
RECOMMENDATION # 32 That Bruce County, in conjunction with local accessibility committees, review the City of London’s Accessibility Guidelines and consider adopting them for Bruce County.
RECOMMENDATION # 33 That Bruce County, as the Service Manager, require that, where possible, units created under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program and other affordable housing programs which may be established by the federal, provincial or local governments meet universal design principles.
RECOMMENDATION # 34 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, encourage local housing providers to consider universal design principles when undertaking a major renovation in the social housing portfolio.
11.8 Addressing the Need to Improve the Condition of the Housing Stock
As noted earlier, the housing stock of Bruce County is older than that in the Province as a whole, especially the rental housing stock, and a higher percentage of dwellings are in need of repair than the Provincial average. Efforts are needed to improve the condition of such dwellings, especially in rural areas where few other housing alternatives are available.
The federal government has recognized the importance of preserving the older housing stock and has two programs which provide assistance to homeowners and landlords in this regard. These programs, as well another opportunity for preserving the existing housing stock of Bruce County, are described below.
232
Bruce County Housing Study
11.8.1 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program
As noted earlier, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) oversees the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) with current funding nation-wide of $50 million a year. RRAP helps low-income Canadians, people with disabilities and Aboriginals live in decent, affordable homes. While there are many components to RRAP, perhaps its most widely utilized function is to support the renovation and repair of housing occupied by low-income people to bring it up to basic health and safety standards. Rental and rooming house accommodation for people at risk of homelessness can also be improved through RRAP funding.
Funding of up to $24,000 per unit is available for projects eligible for Rental RRAP funding, up to $16,000 per bed for Rooming House RRAP.
Given the availability of these funds on an annual basis, Bruce County should work closely with CMHC to ensure RRAP funds are fully utilized to help improve the condition of housing in Bruce County.
11.8.2 Emergency Repair Program (ERP)
The Emergency Repair Program assists low-income homeowners or occupants in rural areas to make emergency repairs required for the continued safe occupancy of their houses. Only those repairs urgently required to make the homeowners’ or occupants’ house safe are eligible for assistance. Included are repairs to heating systems, chimneys, doors and windows, foundations, roofs, walls, floors, ceilings, vents, louvers, plumbing and electrical systems.
Financial assistance from CMHC is in the form of a contribution, which does not have to be repaid. The total contribution depends on the cost of the repairs and area. The maximum amount available to a resident of the Bruce County is $6,000/unit.
RECOMMENDATION # 35 That, as part of its public education campaign, Bruce County inform residents and local builders of the federal funding programs available to renovate and repair older, existing residential units.
11.8.3 Demolition Control
The demolition of older affordable housing stock and/or conversion of existing rental housing to condominiums can play a major role in reducing the availability of affordable rental housing. Bruce County has a significant demand for affordable rental housing as demonstrated in the housing demand and supply analysis; therefore, the preservation of existing affordable rental stock is as important as building new supply. While demolition
233
Bruce County Housing Study of existing affordable rental housing has not been much in evidence in Bruce County, there has been some incidence of conversion of existing affordable rental stock to condominium, thereby decreasing the availability of affordable rental housing. This should be discouraged in order to preserve as many rental options as possible for lower income households.
The ability of municipalities to enforce policies which discourage demolition and conversion of rental housing was reduced when the previous Provincial government repealed the Rental Housing Protection Act shortly after taking office. Some municipalities, such as the City of Toronto, have taken other measures through their Official Plan, to enforce such policies. The OMB recently upheld the City of Toronto’s approach of including policies in their Official Plan to regulate the demolition of existing affordable rental housing in accordance with housing needs.
Despite the reduction in municipal power to regulate the conversion and demolition of rental housing following the repeal of the former Rental Housing Protection Act, Bruce County and the local municipalities should be encouraged to examine how they can retain their existing rental stock through adopting appropriate policy objectives. The Province is also re-examining its position on the control of the demolition and conversion of rental housing as part of its review of the Tenant Protection Act. Bruce County should monitor the Province’s position on this issue and encourage local municipalities to adopt measures to discourage demolition and conversion of existing affordable rental housing, consistent with any new Provincial policy on the matter. The County should monitor any such activity and report such activity to Council on an annual basis.
RECOMMENDATION # 36 That Bruce County monitor Provincial policy on the demolition and conversion of affordable rental housing and encourage local municipalities to adopt measures to discourage demolition and conversion of such units, consistent with any new Provincial policy on the matter.
In particular, the County should discourage the conversion of affordable rental housing to condominiums where appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION # 37 That Bruce County, as part of its annual housing report, review the impact of applications for demolition and conversion of affordable rental housing on the supply of affordable housing.
234
Bruce County Housing Study
12 IMPLEMENTING THE HOUSING STRATEGY
A wide range of strategies has been identified in this report. Given its role in both administering existing affordable housing and in contributing to meeting identified needs across the area, the Housing Services Division should play the lead role in co-ordinating the range of activities recommended in this report. Several Municipal Service Managers that have adopted active Affordable Housing Strategies have appointed affordable housing co-ordinators to play the primary role in co-ordinating such activities.
The report recommends that an affordable housing Co-ordinator should be appointed to focus on these activities. This individual could be hired as a contract position, and the results evaluated. The funds to cover staffing and administrative costs could come from reserve funds that were transferred to the County when the administration of social housing was transferred from the Provincial Government.
Similarly, many municipalities are now taking on the administration of the RRAP Program and are earning administrative fees under this program as well. Bruce County should explore these opportunities.
At the same time, many municipalities have established ongoing Housing Advisory Committees to work together to implement Affordable Housing Strategies and address needs as they arise. The Steering Committee that has been established to guide this study provides an excellent range of resources and experience to help achieve this purpose and would be a highly suitable vehicle. Bruce County needs to explore the role of a Housing Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION # 38 That the Housing Services Division of the Social Services Department co-ordinate the implementation of the recommended Affordable Housing Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION # 39 That the County appoint an Affordable Housing Co-Ordinator as a contract position. This Co-ordinator would undertake the activities required to further research and advise on strategies that have been identified in this report, and would work out of the Housing Services Division.
RECOMMENDATION # 40 That the Housing Services Division, with assistance from other County Departments as required, prepare an annual Report Card monitoring the progress of the Affordable Housing Strategy in meeting identified housing needs and reporting on any new initiatives that should be undertaken.
235
Bruce County Housing Study
13 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
As identified throughout this report, there are a number of opportunities to expand the supply of affordable and special needs housing throughout the Bruce County. These opportunities require a strong commitment from all levels of government, the private sector, service agencies and local communities throughout the area to work together to bring such opportunities to reality.
This report has identified that the solution to the challenge of providing affordable and special needs housing lies in a multi-faceted approach combining initiatives in a number of areas.
The recommendations summarized in this section are the many options or “tools” that may be utilized by Bruce County, local municipalities and other stakeholders to meet identified housing needs. It is not intended that all tools be employed for each affordable housing project; instead, it is envisioned that each project would be considered on a case-by-case basis and that the appropriate tools be put in place to help the project achieve the identified housing targets and affordable housing definition.
The Affordable Housing Strategy recommendations are listed in their entirety below:
236
Bruce County Housing Study
Recommendation # 1 That Bruce County and local municipalities adopt the following definition of affordable housing: “In the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of:
• Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30% of gross household income for low and moderate income households; or
• Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the Bruce County housing market area;
In the case of rental housing, the least expensive of:
• A unit for which rent does not exceed 30% of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or
• A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the Bruce County housing market area.
Low and moderate income households mean:
• In the case of ownership housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for the Bruce County housing market area.
• In the case of rental housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60% of the income distribution for renter households for the Bruce County housing market area.”
Recommendation # 2 That Bruce County work with local municipalities and community agencies providing support services to seniors to pursue strategies to bring more support services to rural areas to help seniors stay in their traditional communities.
Recommendation # 3 That Bruce County consider establishing a Working Group on Older Adults’ Housing to examine in more depth the appropriateness of some of these housing options for older adults. This Group should include both private and non-profit housing sector representation and should examine both private and non-profit housing options for seniors.
237
Bruce County Housing Study
Recommendation # 4 That Bruce County Housing Corporation undertake a review of its property portfolio to determine any potential redevelopment opportunities for seniors housing, especially within higher growth areas.
Recommendation # 5 That a Bruce Power Housing Working Group be established comprised of representatives from Bruce Power, Bruce County, the municipalities of Kincardine and Saugeen Shores and local private and non-profit housing providers to identify housing impacts arising from the expected expansion of the Bruce Nuclear plant and to develop strategies for coping with these impacts.
Recommendation # 6 That Bruce County adopt the following targets for new housing supply in accordance with the proposed Provincial Policy Statement on Housing: Unit Type: 70% low density, 30% medium and high density Tenure: 70% ownership housing, 30% rental housing Affordability: 30% of all new supply meet the County definition of affordable housing
Recommendation # 7 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, enact a Municipal Housing Facilities By-law under Section 210 of the Municipal Act that would enable Bruce County and local municipalities to provide incentives to the private sector to create new affordable housing. The by-law would include the definition of affordable housing identified in recommendation #1 above.
Recommendation # 8 That, in order to support the development of affordable rental housing in Bruce County, Bruce County and the local municipalities consider providing grants-in-lieu of a property tax reduction to equalize the taxation rate for newly constructed multi-residential rental housing projects which meet the definition of affordable housing.
Recommendation # 9 That Bruce County and the local municipalities consider providing a grant-in-lieu of residential development charges, planning fees and building permit fees for new affordable housing developments in return for a commitment by the developer to meet specified affordability targets.
Recommendation # 10 That Bruce County establish an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund to provide incentives to private and community organizations for the creation of affordable housing and for other affordable housing purposes.
238
Bruce County Housing Study
Recommendation # 11 That Bruce County consider making an annual contribution to the Affordable/Social Housing Fund to ensure that ongoing funds are available to address identified housing needs.
Recommendation # 12 That Bruce County work with the local municipalities, federal and provincial governments to create a comprehensive inventory of surplus government lands and identify which sites may be suitable for affordable housing purposes.
Recommendation # 13 That Bruce County and the local municipalities consider establishing a “housing first” policy for surplus municipal lands. Specifically, that the first priority in the decision making process respecting surplus or potentially surplus municipal real property be affordable housing development and that the surplus property be made available for affordable housing purposes at a reduced cost.
Recommendation # 14 That Bruce County foster closer links with local school boards and federal and provincial agencies so that when their properties become surplus, they are considered for affordable housing purposes.
Recommendation # 15 That Bruce County, in conjunction with the local municipalities, undertake a public education campaign to help inform and educate the public about the need for affordable rental housing facing the community and emphasize the importance of working together with the County, local municipalities, local agencies, private and non-profit developers and all other stakeholders to help facilitate its provision.
Recommendation # 16 That the local municipalities of Bruce County consider utilizing alternative development standards on a case-by-case basis for residential developments that provided new affordable housing.
Recommendation # 17 That Bruce County request that CMHC hold a Strategies for Gaining Community Acceptance workshop to provide private and not-for-profit housing developers with strategies for gaining community acceptance of their proposed projects.
Recommendation # 18 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, pursue the potential for reallocating existing rent-geared-to-income units from buildings experiencing vacancy losses to alternate locations where there is a greater demand for rent-geared-to-income housing.
239
Bruce County Housing Study
Recommendation # 19 That Bruce County urge the federal government to change the tax system to:
i) allow rental investors to defer capital gains tax and recaptured depreciation upon the sale of a rental project if the proceeds are reinvested in new rental housing;
ii) increase the rate for capital cost allowance on new rental housing from 4 per cent to 5 per cent;
iii) allow rental housing investors to deduct soft costs rather than capitalize them;
iv) eliminate its capital taxes on rental properties;
v) allow small landlords to qualify as small businesses for the purposes of obtaining the small business corporate rate;
vi) allow all investors in rental housing to use CCA losses in determining income for tax purposes --- not just principal business corporations;
vii) undertake a comprehensive review of the ways in which federal policies act to restrict competition in the area of housing financing.
Recommendation # 20 That the Bruce County urge the provincial government to:
i) eliminate its capital taxes on rental properties;
ii) continue bilateral discussions with the federal government on more flexible financing terms for rental development;
iii) hold discussions with private sector financial or underwriting institutions, as a contingency in the event the federal government is unwilling to consider changes to their mortgage insurance provisions.
Recommendation # 21 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, undertake the necessary steps required to participate in the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program and work with proponents to put forward proposals to the Province under this program.
The County should place a major emphasis on proposals providing affordable housing for low and moderate income singles.
240
Bruce County Housing Study
Recommendation # 22 That Bruce County urge the federal government to change the tax system to fully rebate the GST associated with the development new rental housing, including that developed by the private and not-for-profit sector, to help reduce the cost new rental housing.
Recommendation # 23 That Bruce County work closely with the CMHC to ensure available RRAP funds are fully utilized to help expand the supply of affordable rental housing. The County should explore the potential for administering this program on behalf of CMHC in Bruce County.
Recommendation # 24 That Bruce County, in conjunction with FCM and AMO, urge the Provincial government to uphold its election promise to match the federal funding available through the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program so that true affordability can be achieved.
Recommendation # 25 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, pursue all available rent supplement units from the Province and consider placing available rent supplement units in new affordable rental housing developments in order to enable the expansion of the supply of subsidized housing in areas where it is most needed.
Recommendation # 26 That Bruce County encourage all local municipalities to permit accessory apartments in all residential zones, subject to appropriate standards of health and safety.
Recommendation # 27 That Bruce County examine the feasibility of establishing an affordable homeownership program similar to the recent Region of Waterloo model.
Recommendation # 28 That Bruce County invite CMHC to conduct its Homeownership Education and Training Program in convenient locations within the County.
Recommendation # 29 That Bruce County approach the Homelessness Secretariat to allocate funds under the Supporting Community Partnership Initiatives (SCPI) to the Bruce County area.
241
Bruce County Housing Study
Recommendation # 30 That Bruce County pursue funding allocations under the Provincial Homelessness Initiatives Fund, the Off the Street, Into Shelter Fund (OSIS) Program and the Redirection of Emergency Hostel Funding Initiative in order to help homeless individuals find shelter, especially in severe weather conditions.
Recommendation # 31 That Bruce County lend its support to community agencies interested in pursuing additional funding from MOH-LTC and MCFCS to address the identified needs for special needs housing outlined in the demand and supply analysis.
Recommendation # 32 That Bruce County, in conjunction with local accessibility committees, review the City of London’s Accessibility Guidelines and consider adopting them for Bruce County.
Recommendation # 33 That Bruce County, as the Service Manager, require that, where possible, units created under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program and other affordable housing programs which may be established by the federal, provincial or local governments meet universal design principles.
Recommendation # 34 That Bruce County, as Service Manager, encourage local housing providers to consider universal design principles when undertaking a major renovation in the social housing portfolio.
Recommendation # 35 That, as part of its public education campaign, Bruce County inform residents and local builders of the federal funding programs available to renovate and repair older, existing residential units.
Recommendation # 36 That Bruce County monitor Provincial policy on the demolition and conversion of affordable rental housing and encourage local municipalities to adopt measures to discourage demolition and conversion of such units, consistent with any new Provincial policy on the matter.
In particular, the County should discourage the conversion of affordable rental housing to condominiums where appropriate
242
Bruce County Housing Study
Recommendation # 37 That Bruce County, as part of its annual housing report, review the impact of applications for demolition and conversion of affordable rental housing on the supply of affordable housing.
Recommendation # 38 That the Housing Services Division of the Social Services Department co-ordinate the implementation of the recommended Affordable Housing Strategy.
Recommendation # 39 That the County appoint an Affordable Housing Co-Ordinator as a contract position. This Co-ordinator would undertake the activities required to further research and advise on strategies that have been identified in this report, and would work out of the Housing Services Division. Recommendation # 40 That the Housing Services Division, with assistance from other County Departments as required, prepare an annual Report Card monitoring the progress of the Affordable Housing Strategy in meeting identified housing needs and reporting on any new initiatives that should be undertaken.
243
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDICES
244
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 1: Labour force Activity by Industry and Municipality, 2000 Industry Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Huron-Kinloss
# % # % # % # % Retail trade 3,770 11.4 671,870 11.0 270 7.8 310 10.0 Utilities 3,715 11.3 46,230 0.8 80 2.3 355 11.5 Manufacturing 3,475 10.5 984,325 16.2 705 20.5 365 11.8 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 3,335 10.1 123,675 2.0 715 20.8 490 15.9 Health care and social assistance 3,000 9.1 531,795 8.7 235 6.8 250 8.1 Accommodation and food services 2,635 8.0 380,055 6.2 130 3.8 185 6.0 Construction 2,630 8.0 332,250 5.5 360 10.5 265 8.6 Educational services 1,690 5.1 371,195 6.1 120 3.5 180 5.8 Other services (except public administration) 1,510 4.6 273,120 4.5 180 5.2 110 3.6 Transportation and warehousing 1,080 3.3 280,150 4.6 140 4.1 160 5.2 Public administration 1,065 3.2 308,960 5.1 65 1.9 55 1.8 Administrative and support, waste management and 1,030 3.1 257,025 4.2 50 1.5 90 2.9 remediation services Professional, scientific and technical services 965 2.9 429,100 7.0 95 2.8 85 2.8 Wholesale trade 795 2.4 278,865 4.6 175 5.1 55 1.8 Finance and insurance 635 1.9 292,550 4.8 55 1.6 45 1.5 Arts, entertainment and recreation 440 1.3 121,950 2.0 30 0.9 35 1.1 Information and cultural industries 390 1.2 171,750 2.8 15 0.4 20 0.6 Real estate and rental and leasing 325 1.0 108,890 1.8 0 0.0 20 0.6 Mining and oil and gas extraction 165 0.5 21,110 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Management of companies and enterprises 0 0.0 7,895 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Industry - Not applicable 305 0.9 94,050 1.5 20 0.6 25 0.8 Total 32,970 100.0 6,086,815 100.0 3,440 100.0 3,090 100.3
245
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 1: Labour force Activity by Industry and Municipality, 2000 Industry Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton Arran-Elderslie
# % # % # % # % Retail trade 310 10.0 630 11.0 545 10.3 440 12.8 Utilities 355 11.5 1,210 21.1 215 4.0 175 5.1 Manufacturing 365 11.8 330 5.8 750 14.1 465 13.5 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 490 15.9 475 8.3 735 13.8 505 14.7 Health care and social assistance 250 8.1 440 7.7 600 11.3 340 9.9 Accommodation and food services 185 6.0 510 8.9 325 6.1 125 3.6 Construction 265 8.6 410 7.1 350 6.6 395 11.5 Educational services 180 5.8 220 3.8 325 6.1 195 5.7 Other services (except public administration) 110 3.6 250 4.4 260 4.9 135 3.9 Transportation and warehousing 160 5.2 160 2.8 195 3.7 160 4.7 Public administration 55 1.8 195 3.4 155 2.9 75 2.2 Administrative and support, waste management and 90 2.9 260 4.5 205 3.9 110 3.2 remediation services Professional, scientific and technical services 85 2.8 175 3.1 150 2.8 55 1.6 Wholesale trade 55 1.8 50 0.9 130 2.4 125 3.6 Finance and insurance 45 1.5 85 1.5 155 2.9 60 1.7 Arts, entertainment and recreation 35 1.1 85 1.5 50 0.9 35 1.0 Information and cultural industries 20 0.6 125 2.2 60 1.1 25 0.7 Real estate and rental and leasing 20 0.6 50 0.9 65 1.2 15 0.4 Mining and oil and gas extraction 0 0.0 10 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 Management of companies and enterprises 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Industry - Not applicable 25 0.8 60 1.0 40 0.8 20 0.6 Total 3,090 100.0 5,735 100.0 5,310 100.0 3,440 100.0
246
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 1: Labour force Activity by Industry and Municipality, 2000
South Bruce Northern Bruce Industry Saugeen Shores Saugeen, R Peninsula Peninsula
# % # % # % # % Retail trade 735 12.3 545 14.5 260 15.8 30 10.3 Utilities 1,605 26.8 65 1.7 0 0.0 10 3.4 Manufacturing 220 3.7 445 11.9 185 11.2 10 3.4 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 130 2.2 165 4.4 80 4.8 15 5.2 Health care and social assistance 540 9.0 385 10.3 115 7.0 50 17.2 Accommodation and food services 650 10.9 475 12.6 205 12.4 15 5.2 Construction 280 4.7 340 9.1 195 11.8 25 8.6 Educational services 385 6.4 170 4.5 70 4.2 0 0.0 Other services (except public administration) 255 4.3 225 6.0 70 4.2 10 3.4 Transportation and warehousing 75 1.3 100 2.7 85 5.2 0 0.0 Public administration 170 2.8 90 2.4 110 6.7 95 32.8 Administrative and support, waste management and 140 2.3 105 2.8 45 2.7 10 3.4 remediation services Professional, scientific and technical services 190 3.2 165 4.4 40 2.4 10 3.4 Wholesale trade 115 1.9 130 3.5 10 0.6 0 0.0 Finance and insurance 120 2.0 70 1.9 35 2.1 0 0.0 Arts, entertainment and recreation 140 2.3 30 0.8 25 1.5 0 0.0 Information and cultural industries 50 0.8 45 1.2 50 3.0 0 0.0 Real estate and rental and leasing 65 1.1 85 2.3 25 1.5 0 0.0 Mining and oil and gas extraction 25 0.4 100 2.7 30 1.8 0 0.0 Management of companies and enterprises 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Industry - Not applicable 90 1.5 20 0.5 15 0.9 10 3.4 Total 5,990 100.0 3,755 100.0 1,650 100.0 300 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Cape Croker Reserve.
247
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 2: Occupation Characteristics for persons over the age of 15 throughout Bruce County and Municipalities, 2001 Occupation Bruce County Ontario South Bruce Huron-Kinloss
Sales and service occupations 7,750 23.5 1,371,245 22.5 515 15.0 635 20.6 Trades, transport and equipment operators and 6,505 19.7 845,125 13.9 800 23.3 710 23.0 related Occupations unique to primary industry 3,645 11.1 164,360 2.7 695 20.2 540 17.5 Business, finance and administration 3,630 11.0 1,097,835 18.0 325 9.4 330 10.7 Management occupations 3,040 9.2 685,390 11.3 210 6.1 180 5.8 Occupations unique to processing, 2,345 7.1 492,320 8.1 450 13.1 190 6.1 manufacturing and utilities Occupations in social science, education, 1,880 5.7 455,825 7.5 155 4.5 180 5.8 government service and religion Natural and applied sciences and related 1,840 5.6 422,510 6.9 80 2.3 120 3.9 Health 1,510 4.6 286,310 4.7 160 4.7 170 5.5 Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport 515 1.6 171,840 2.8 35 1.0 20 0.6 Occupation - Not applicable 305 0.9 94,050 1.5 20 0.6 25 0.8 Total 32,965 100.0 6,086,820 100.0 3,440 100.0 3,090 100.0
248
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 2: Occupation Characteristics for persons over the age of 15 throughout Bruce County and Municipalities, 2001 Occupation Kincardine Brockton Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores
Sales and service occupations 1,405 24.5 1,165 21.9 765 22.2 1,660 27.7 Trades, transport and equipment operators and 1,130 19.7 1,015 19.1 815 23.7 860 14.4 related occupations Occupations unique to primary industry 530 9.2 745 14.0 505 14.7 225 3.8 Business, finance and administration 590 10.3 590 11.1 430 12.5 755 12.6 occupations Management occupations 520 9.1 435 8.2 210 6.1 740 12.4 Occupations unique to processing, 310 5.4 510 9.6 305 8.9 225 3.8 manufacturing and utilities Occupations in social science, education, 280 4.9 365 6.9 110 3.2 400 6.7 government service and religion Natural and applied sciences and related 540 9.4 145 2.7 80 2.3 635 10.6 occupations Health occupations 225 3.9 255 4.8 150 4.4 285 4.8 Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport 145 2.5 50 0.9 55 1.6 110 1.8 Occupation - Not applicable 65 1.1 45 0.8 20 0.6 85 1.4 Total 5,740 100.0 5,315 100.0 3,440 100.0 5,990 100.0
249
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 2: Occupation Characteristics for persons over the age of 15 throughout Bruce County and Municipalities, 2001
Southern Bruce Northern Bruce Occupation Saugeen, R Peninsula Peninsula
Sales and service occupations 1,050 27.9 400 24.3 95 31.1 Trades, transport and equipment operators and 765 20.3 330 20.1 45 14.8 related occupations Occupations unique to primary industry 240 6.4 110 6.7 20 6.6 Business, finance and administration 350 9.3 195 11.9 25 8.2 occupations Management occupations 490 13.0 225 13.7 15 4.9 Occupations unique to processing, 245 6.5 95 5.8 10 3.3 manufacturing and utilities Occupations in social science, education, 230 6.1 65 4.0 50 16.4 government service and religion Natural and applied sciences and related 135 3.6 90 5.5 10 3.3 occupations Health occupations 175 4.7 70 4.3 10 3.3
Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport 55 1.5 40 2.4 10 3.3
Occupation - Not applicable 20 0.5 10 0.6 15 4.9 Total 3,760 100.0 1,645 100.0 295 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Cape Croker Reserve.
250
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 3: Occupations And Wage Rates
Hourly Wage Occupations Accommodation Service Managers 8.00 -15.6 Accounting And Related Clerks 8.00 -17.63 Administrative Clerks 8.00 -15.28 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, I.e. Office And Planning Managers 8.50 -17 Animal Health Technologists 8.00 -11 Applied Chemical Technologists And Technicians 8.50 -16.87 Assemblers/ Fabricators/ Inspectors, Ind. Electrical Motors/ Transformers 7.50 -17.05 ATTENDANTS IN RECREATION AND SPORT, Ie., Amusement Park, Ski Lift, Bingo Hall, 6.85 -15.52 And Campground Automotive Mechanical Installers And Servicers 8.00 -16.22 BAKERS, Ranging From Apprentice To Head Baker 6.85 -9 BARTENDERS - Gratuities Are Often Paid In Addition To The Hourly Rate. 5.95 -10 Binding And Finishing Machine Operators 8.00 -12 BOILERMAKERS, Ie., Construction, Industrial And Marine 16.00 -28.94 Bookkeepers 8.00 -15.5 Bricklayers- Union Affiliation 10.00 -28.59 BUS DRIVERS AND OTHER TRANSIT OPERATORS - School Bus Drivers Can Average 7.95 -17.75 26 - 29 Per Run Or Paid Hourly CABINETMAKERS, Ie. Custom Wood Furniture Maker 9.25 -16.25 CARPENTERS - Includes Non- Certified, Certified And Unionized Workers 8 -27.22
CASHIERS, Ie., Grocery Store, Box Office, Theatre And Self Serve Gas Bar 6.85 -15.77
Cement Finishers 9.36 -20.78 Chainsaw And Skidder Operators 9.00 -15 CHEFS, Ranging From Saucier's To Executive Chefs 10.00 -21.31 Civil Engineering Technologists And Technicians 13.00 -22.24 COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS, Ie Group Home, Family Service, 8.46 -19.4 Addiction Worker, Etc. Concrete, Clay And Stone Forming Operators 10.25 -14.85
Construction Millwrights And Industrial Mechanics (Except Textile) Union Affiliation 10.25 -31.31
Construction Trades Helpers And Labourers, Union Affiliation 6.85 -31.7 Contractors/ Supervisors, Carpentry Trades Union Affiliation 10.00 -27.15
Contractors/ Supervisors, Electrical Trades/ Telecommunications Union Affiliation 12.62 -35
Contractors/ Supervisors, Heavy Construction Equipment Crews 14.95 -31
251
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 3: Occupations And Wage Rates
Hourly Wage Occupations
Contractors/ Supervisors, Metal Forming, Shaping And Erecting Trades Union Affiliation 11.00 -27.87
Contractors/ Supervisors- Other Const. Trades/ Installers/ Repairers Union Affiliation 10.00 -29.1
Contractors/ Supervisors- Pipefitting Trades Union Affiliation 15.00 -35.57 COOKS, Ranging From Grill Cooks, Apprentice Cooks To Licensed Cooks 6.85 -15.62 CRANE OPERATORS, Ie., Boom Truck, Bridge, Dragline Etc. Union Affiliation 12.50 -28.6 Customer Service, Information And Related Clerks 6.85 -18.82 Data Entry Clerks 8.50 -12.3 Deck Crew, Water Transport Union Affiliation 13.38 -22.17 DELIVERY DRIVERS, Includes Fast Food, Couriers, Newspaper. 7.15 -20 DENTAL ASSISTANTS, Includes Certified Dental Assistants 10.50 -17.19 Dental Hygienists And Dental Therapists 24.00 -36
Drillers And Blasters - Surface Mining, Quarrying And Construction 8.75 -18.5
DRY CLEANING AND LAUNDRY OCCUPATIONS - Includes Institutional Workers 7.50 -18.04
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS, Includes Day Care Worker And Pre- School 8.00 -17.71 Supervisors
Electricians (Except Industrial And Power System), Union Affiliation 12.00 -32.06
ELEMENTAL MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL ASSISTANTS, Includes Clinic Assistant, 8.00 -16.55 Occupational Therapy Aide ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER ASSISTANTS, Includes Lunch 10.03 -19.89 Room Supervisor Or Library Assistant FACILITY OPERATION MANAGERS, Ie. Area, Convention, Warehouse And Shopping 8.13 -14.83 Mall Family, Marriage And Other Related Counsellors 9.25 -19.2 FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVERS - Gratuities Often In Addition To The Hourly Rate 5.95 -13.94 Food Service Counter Attendants And Food Preparers 6.85 -14.45 Food Service Supervisors 8.00 -13.52 FORESTRY TECHNOLOGISTS AND TECHNICIANS, Ie. Enforcement Officer, Silviculture 11.00 -20 And Fire Technicians FURNITURE FINISHERS AND REFINISHERS, Ie. Polisher, Stainer, Trimmer, Machine 7.00 -11.65 Operator General Farm Workers 7.00 -14.5 General Office Clerks 6.85 -19.91 Grocery Clerks And Shelf Stockers 6.85 -12.9
252
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 3: Occupations And Wage Rates
Hourly Wage Occupations HAIRSTYLISTS AND BARBERS - Wages Could Be Hourly And/ Or Commission To Strictly 6.85 -10 Commission. Commission Generally 50% HARVESTING LABOURERS, Ie. Fruit Pickers, Crop Farm Labourers, Harvest Hand Etc. - 6.85 -10 Wages Could Be Based On Piece Work Heavy Equipment Operators (Except Crane) -Union Affiliation 10.00 -33.39 Heavy- Duty Equipment Mechanics 10.00 -20.06 Hotel Front Desk Clerks 6.85 -10
Industrial Butchers And Meat Cutters, Poultry Preparers And Related Workers 9.00 -15.45
Industrial Electricians- Union Affiliation 12.07 -36 Insulators- Union Affiliation 10.50 -27.65 Ironworkers- Union Affiliation 19.20 -28.6
JANITORS, CARETAKERS AND BUILDING SUPERINTENDENTS, In Some Cases, 6.85 -20.41 Accommodation Is Included As Part Of Wage
KITCHEN AND FOOD SERVICE HELPERS- Includes Institutional Cafeteria Workers 6.85 -18.02
Labourers In Food, Beverage And Tobacco Processing 6.85 -15.23 Labourers In Metal Fabrication 8.00 -16.35 Labourers In Rubber And Plastic Products Manufacturing 8.00 -14.28 Labourers In Wood, Pulp And Paper Processing 7.00 -10.75 Landscape And Horticultural Technicians And Specialists 8.00 -18.75
Landscaping And Grounds Maintenance Contractors And Managers 8.00 -15
Landscaping And Grounds Maintenance Labourers 6.85 -16.83 Legal Secretaries 8.00 -15.63
LIGHT DUTY CLEANERS, Examples Are: Hotel, Office, Hospital Cleaners And Sweepers 6.85 -12.04
Logging And Forestry Labourers 7.00 -11
Machine Operators And Inspectors, Electrical Apparatus Manufacturing 10.00 -16.81
Machine Operators, Mineral And Metal Processing 11.86 -16 MACHINISTS AND MACHINING AND TOOLING INSPECTORS, Ie General & Automotive 10.00 -15 Machinists, Machine Operators MAIL, POSTAL AND RELATED CLERKS (Includes Unionized Workers) 7.00 -17.67 Maîtres D'hôtel AND HOSTS/ HOSTESSES 6.85 -8
MATERIAL HANDLERS, Ie. Truck Loader, Stockpiler, Furniture Mover, Forklift Operator 7.75 -22.5
253
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 3: Occupations And Wage Rates
Hourly Wage Occupations Medical Secretaries 10.00 -17.44
MOTOR VEHICLE BODY REPAIRERS- Includes Non- Certified, Certified Workers 10.00 -18.5
Motor Vehicle Mechanics, Technicians And Mechanical Repairers - 7.50 -24.69
NURSE AIDES AND ORDERLIES, Includes Occupations Such As Health Care Aide, 8.00 -16.39 Hospital Porter Etc. Nursery And Greenhouse Workers 7.00-15.1 Other Aides And Assistants In Support Of Health Services 9.00 -17.53 OTHER ASSEMBLERS AND INSPECTORS, Ie. Eyeglass Frame Assembler, Jewellery 7.15 -16.5 Inspector, Skate Maker, Toy Inspector Other Elemental Sales Occupations 6.85 -13.75 OTHER LABOURERS IN PROCESSING, MANUFACTURING AND UTILITIES ( General 6.85 -25.91 Factory Workers From All Manufacturing Other Small Engine And Equipment Mechanics 8.50 -15.63 OTHER TRADES HELPERS AND LABOURERS, Ie., Cable Installer, Splicer Helper, 6.85 -22.5 Mechanic Helper, Aerial Spraying Assistant Other Wood Products Assemblers And Inspectors 7.50 -10.5 Painters And Coaters, Manufacturing 10.00 -17.38 Painters And Decorators- Union Affiliation 8.00 -26.8
Plasterers, Drywall Installers And Finishers And Lathers 10.80 -16
Plastic Products Assemblers, Finishers And Inspectors 8.00 -13.15 Plumbers, Union Affiliation 10.00 -31.87 Post- Secondary Teaching And Research Assistants 13.93 -17.28 Power System Electricians, Union Affiliation 26.00 -33.43
Process Control And Machine Operators, Food And Beverage Processing 6.85 -15.48
PROGRAM LEADERS AND INSTRUCTORS IN RECREATION AND SPORT, Ie Fitness, 7.00 -17.28 Camp, Lifeguard And Umpire Public Works And Maintenance Labourers 7.85 -14.07 Public Works Maintenance Equipment Operators 11.20 -15.3 Purchasing And Inventory Clerks 7.00 -12.5 Railway And Motor Transport Labourers 9.00 -14 Receptionists And Switchboard Operators 7.00 -16 REGISTERED NURSES- Includes Working In Doctor's Offices 12.00 -31.6 REGISTERED NURSING ASSISTANTS - Registered Practical Nurses Are Part Of This 9.00 -22.92 Group
254
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 3: Occupations And Wage Rates
Hourly Wage Occupations
Residential And Commercial Installers And Servicers 8.00 -17
Restaurant And Food Service Managers 7.50 -15 Retail Salespersons And Sales Clerks 6.85 -15.49 Retail Trade Managers 8.00 -15.5 Retail Trade Supervisors 7.50 -10.75 Roofers And Shinglers 8.00 -16
SALES REPRESENTATIVES, WHOLESALE TRADE (NON- TECHNICAL) Salary + 7.25 -14.89 Commission Or Commission Only = 25% To 30%
Sawmill Machine Operators 8.80 -12.5 Secretaries (Except Legal And Medical) 7.50 -18.9 SECURITY GUARDS AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS, Ranging From Crossing Guards, 6.95 -13 Bouncers To Security Officer Service Station Attendants 6.85 -9
SEWING MACHINE OPERATORS, Ie. Lining Stitcher, Sample Maker, Shoe Sewer, Etc. 6.85 -15.13
Sheet Metal Workers 10.00 -27.84 Shippers And Receivers 8.00 -15.84 Social Workers 10.72 -25.26
Steamfitters, Pipefitters And Sprinkler System Installers- Union Affiliation 20.74 -31.6
Storekeepers And Parts Clerks 6.85 -17.43
Supervisors, General Office And Administrative Support Clerks 8.25 -12.5
Supervisors, Landscape And Horticulture 9.00 -14
Supervisors, Other Products Manufacturing And Assembly 9.80 -17
Tailors, Dressmakers, Furriers And Milliners 6.85 -12 Tellers, Financial Services 9.00 -15 TRUCK DRIVERS, Ie. Long Haul, Moving And Tow Truck Drivers - Per Mile Rate = 8.00 -26.08 Average 25 To 30 Cents VISITING HOMEMAKERS, HOUSEKEEPERS AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS, Ie Home 6.85 -13.96 Health Aide, Companion Etc. Welders, Union Affiliation 10.00 -31 Woodworking Machine Operators 8.00 -13.02 Source: Bruce Community Futures Development Corporation (October 7, 2004)
255
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 4: : Homeowner Household Income Ranges by Municipality, Based on 2000 Incomes Bruce County Ontario South Bruce # % # % # % Under $10,000 450 2.5 56,790 2.0 20 1.5 $10,000 - $19,999 1,680 9.3 174,645 6.2 160 12.1 $20,000 - $29,999 2,445 13.6 223,080 7.9 195 14.7 $30,000 - $39,999 2,090 11.6 244,400 8.7 140 10.6 $40,000 - $49,999 1,920 10.7 261,600 9.3 160 12.1 $50,000 - $59,999 1,785 9.9 266,190 9.5 155 11.7 $60,000 - $69,999 1,550 8.6 269,950 9.6 90 6.8 $70,000 - $79,999 1,270 7.0 243,425 8.7 95 7.2 $80,000 - $89,999 1,185 6.6 210,490 7.5 145 10.9 $90,000 - $99,999 885 4.9 176,325 6.3 55 4.2 $100,000 and over 2,760 15.3 686,900 24.4 110 8.3 All households 18,020 100.0 2,813,795 100.0 1,325 100.0
Income Range Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton # % # % # % Under $10,000 40 2.4 75 2.4 100 4.0 $10,000 - $19,999 155 9.2 160 5.1 265 10.6 $20,000 - $29,999 295 17.5 345 11.1 325 12.9 $30,000 - $39,999 205 12.1 300 9.6 330 13.1 $40,000 - $49,999 175 10.4 265 8.5 270 10.8 $50,000 - $59,999 125 7.4 305 9.8 205 8.2 $60,000 - $69,999 180 10.7 295 9.5 205 8.2 $70,000 - $79,999 90 5.3 275 8.8 165 6.6 $80,000 - $89,999 75 4.4 250 8.0 190 7.6 $90,000 - $99,999 70 4.1 225 7.2 145 5.8 $100,000 and over 280 16.6 625 20.0 310 12.4 All households 1,690 100.0 3,120 100.0 2,510 100.0
Income Range Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula # % # % Under $10,000 25 1.4 55 1.5 95 3.5 $10,000 - $19,999 235 13.0 250 6.9 315 11.7 $20,000 - $29,999 255 14.1 340 9.4 435 16.2 $30,000 - $39,999 190 10.5 335 9.3 290 10.8
256
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 4: : Homeowner Household Income Ranges by Municipality, Based on 2000 Incomes $40,000 - $49,999 220 12.2 295 8.2 400 14.9 $50,000 - $59,999 215 11.9 375 10.4 315 11.7 $60,000 - $69,999 170 9.4 270 7.5 275 10.2 $70,000 - $79,999 160 8.9 255 7.1 180 6.7 $80,000 - $89,999 115 6.4 260 7.2 95 3.5 $90,000 - $99,999 95 5.3 145 4.0 115 4.3 $100,000 and over 125 6.9 1,025 28.4 175 6.5 All households 1,805 100.0 3,605 100.0 2,690 100.0
Income Range North Bruce Peninsula Under $10,000 40 3.1 $10,000 - $19,999 150 11.5 $20,000 - $29,999 245 18.8 $30,000 - $39,999 305 23.5 $40,000 - $49,999 135 10.4 $50,000 - $59,999 95 7.3 $60,000 - $69,999 65 5.0 $70,000 - $79,999 55 4.2 $80,000 - $89,999 60 4.6 $90,000 - $99,999 40 3.1 $100,000 and over 110 8.5 All households 1,300 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
257
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 5: Renter Household Income Ranges by Municipality, Based on 2000 Incomes Bruce County Ontario South Bruce # % # % # % Under $10,000 510 11.1 147,620 11.0 35 10.1 $10,000 - $19,999 1,240 26.9 271,565 20.3 70 20.3 $20,000 - $29,999 775 16.8 203,665 15.2 55 15.9 $30,000 - $39,999 665 14.4 187,460 14.0 65 18.8 $40,000 - $49,999 530 11.5 148,295 11.1 35 10.1 $50,000 - $59,999 275 6.0 109,305 8.2 25 7.2 $60,000 - $69,999 215 4.7 82,690 6.2 25 7.2 $70,000 - $79,999 140 3.0 56,400 4.2 10 2.9 $80,000 - $89,999 95 2.1 38,880 2.9 10 2.9 $90,000 - $99,999 50 1.1 26,425 2.0 0 0.0 $100,000 and over 115 2.5 66,540 5.0 15 4.3 All households 4,610 100.0 1,338,845 100.0 345 100.0
Income Range Huron-Kinloss Kincardine Brockton # % # % # % Under $10,000 20 6.0 120 12.7 100 13.0 $10,000 - $19,999 75 22.4 270 28.6 205 26.6 $20,000 - $29,999 45 13.4 135 14.3 115 14.9 $30,000 - $39,999 90 26.9 125 13.2 130 16.9 $40,000 - $49,999 60 17.9 90 9.5 70 9.1 $50,000 - $59,999 25 7.5 40 4.2 40 5.2 $60,000 - $69,999 10 3.0 70 7.4 35 4.5 $70,000 - $79,999 10 3.0 40 4.2 35 4.5 $80,000 - $89,999 0 0.0 20 2.1 25 3.2 $90,000 - $99,999 0 0.0 15 1.6 15 1.9 $100,000 and over 0 0.0 20 2.1 0 0.0 All households 335 100.0 945 100.0 770 100.0
Income Range Arran-Elderslie Saugeen Shores South Bruce Peninsula # % # % Under $10,000 60 13.8 100 10.3 50 8.5 $10,000 - $19,999 125 28.7 270 27.7 175 29.9 $20,000 - $29,999 100 23.0 150 15.4 140 23.9 $30,000 - $39,999 50 11.5 135 13.8 50 8.5
258
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 5: Renter Household Income Ranges by Municipality, Based on 2000 Incomes $40,000 - $49,999 80 18.4 80 8.2 105 17.9 $50,000 - $59,999 10 2.3 70 7.2 25 4.3 $60,000 - $69,999 10 2.3 35 3.6 20 3.4 $70,000 - $79,999 0 0.0 25 2.6 10 1.7 $80,000 - $89,999 0 0.0 35 3.6 0 0.0 $90,000 - $99,999 0 0.0 20 2.1 10 1.7 $100,000 and over 0 0.0 55 5.6 0 0.0 All households 435 100.0 975 100.0 585 100.0
Income Range North Bruce Peninsula Under $10,000 25 12.2 $10,000 - $19,999 55 26.8 $20,000 - $29,999 40 19.5 $30,000 - $39,999 15 7.3 $40,000 - $49,999 10 4.9 $50,000 - $59,999 40 19.5 $60,000 - $69,999 10 4.9 $70,000 - $79,999 10 4.9 $80,000 - $89,999 0 0.0 $90,000 - $99,999 0 0.0 $100,000 and over 0 0.0 All households 205 100.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 2001 Census *Note: Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
259
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 6: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 1995 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less Less than 50% and 15% - 30%- 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 30% 50% over 15% Bruce County One family household 675 1,045 485 465 25.3 39.1 18.2 17.4 All couples 595 780 310 245 30.8 40.4 16.1 12.7 Couples with children 310 420 140 145 30.5 41.4 13.8 14.3 One-family households: Lone parents 80 260 165 225 11.0 35.6 22.6 30.8 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 465 860 545 605 18.8 34.7 22.0 24.4 Non-family households: One person 375 785 530 560 16.7 34.9 23.6 24.9 only Non-family households: Two or more 90 75 20 40 40.0 33.3 8.9 17.8 persons Total Renter Households 1,140 1,905 1,030 1,070 22.2 37.0 20.0 20.8 Ontario One family household 132,475 315,995 149,895 144,590 17.8 42.5 20.2 19.5 All couples 114,970 241,885 95,375 68,875 22.1 46.4 18.3 13.2 Couples with children 57,840 136,335 54,340 43,280 19.8 46.7 18.6 14.8 One-family households: Lone parents 17,505 74,110 54,525 75,715 7.9 33.4 24.6 34.1 Multiple-family households 4,005 6,310 2,365 1,365 28.5 44.9 16.8 9.7 Non family households 72,695 253,315 152,410 149,835 11.6 40.3 24.3 23.8 Non-family households: One person 51,710 208,190 132,195 130,700 9.9 39.8 25.3 25.0 only Non-family households: Two or more 20,985 45,125 20,210 19,130 19.9 42.8 19.2 18.1 persons Total Renter Households 209,175 575,620 304,670 295,790 15.1 41.6 22.0 21.4
260
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 6: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 1995 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less Less than 50% and 15% - 30%- 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 30% 50% over 15% South Bruce One family household 50 110 15 35 23.8 52.4 7.1 16.7 All couples 55 90 10 15 32.4 52.9 5.9 8.8 Couples with children 30 40 10 10 33.3 44.4 11.1 11.1 One-family households: Lone parents 10 15 10 20 18.2 27.3 18.2 36.4 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 55 85 30 15 29.7 45.9 16.2 8.1 Non-family households: One person 30 75 30 15 20.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 only Non-family households: Two or more 25 10 0 0 71.4 28.6 0.0 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 105 195 45 50 26.6 49.4 11.4 12.7 Huron-Kinloss Less Less than 50% and 15% - 30%- 50% and 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 30% 50% over 15% One family household 50 50 15 25 35.7 35.7 10.7 17.9 All couples 50 45 10 10 43.5 39.1 8.7 8.7 Couples with children 35 30 0 10 46.7 40.0 0.0 13.3 One-family households: Lone parents 0 0 10 20 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 50 80 50 45 22.2 35.6 22.2 20.0 Non-family households: One person 40 70 50 40 20.0 35.0 25.0 20.0 only Non-family households: Two or more 15 0 0 10 60.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 persons Total Renter Households 100 130 65 70 27.4 35.6 17.8 19.2
261
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 6: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 1995 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less Less than 50% and 15% - 30%- 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 30% 50% over 15% Kincardine One family household 160 180 110 45 32.3 36.4 22.2 9.1 All couples 125 115 80 20 36.8 33.8 23.5 5.9 Couples with children 75 60 30 20 40.5 32.4 16.2 10.8 One-family households: Lone parents 35 65 30 25 22.6 41.9 19.4 16.1 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 75 190 120 165 13.6 34.5 21.8 30.0 Non-family households: One person 60 170 115 155 12.0 34.0 23.0 31.0 only Non-family households: Two or more 15 20 10 10 27.3 36.4 18.2 18.2 persons Total Renter Households 235 370 230 210 22.5 35.4 22.0 20.1 Brockton One family household 145 155 65 110 30.5 32.6 13.7 23.2 All couples 135 90 45 65 40.3 26.9 13.4 19.4 Couples with children 55 40 15 30 39.3 28.6 10.7 21.4 One-family households: Lone parents 0 65 15 45 0.0 52.0 12.0 36.0 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 80 165 110 95 17.8 36.7 24.4 21.1 Non-family households: One person 65 140 100 95 16.3 35.0 25.0 23.8 only Non-family households: Two or more 10 20 10 0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 225 320 175 205 24.3 34.6 18.9 22.2
262
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 6: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 1995 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less Less than 50% and 15% - 30%- 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 30% 50% over 15% Arran-Elderslie One family household 35 145 55 35 13.0 53.7 20.4 13.0 All couples 25 110 40 20 12.8 56.4 20.5 10.3 Couples with children 10 60 20 10 10.0 60.0 20.0 10.0 One-family households: Lone parents 10 35 10 15 14.3 50.0 14.3 21.4 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 25 70 30 60 13.5 37.8 16.2 32.4 Non-family households: One person 20 75 30 60 10.8 40.5 16.2 32.4 only Non-family households: Two or more 0 0 0 0 - - - - persons Total Renter Households 60 215 85 95 13.2 47.3 18.7 20.9 Saugeen Shores One family household 100 200 105 160 17.7 35.4 18.6 28.3 All couples 80 160 55 75 21.6 43.2 14.9 20.3 Couples with children 35 85 30 70 15.9 38.6 13.6 31.8 One-family households: Lone parents 20 40 55 80 10.3 20.5 28.2 41.0 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 125 150 140 130 22.9 27.5 25.7 23.9 Non-family households: One person 115 145 140 120 22.1 27.9 26.9 23.1 only Non-family households: Two or more 10 10 0 10 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 persons Total Renter Households 225 350 245 290 20.3 31.5 22.1 26.1
263
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 6: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 1995 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less Less than 50% and 15% - 30%- 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 30% 50% over 15% South Bruce Peninsula One family household 60 145 70 55 18.2 43.9 21.2 16.7 All couples 50 120 45 35 20.0 48.0 18.0 14.0 Couples with children 30 55 25 10 25.0 45.8 20.8 8.3 One-family households: Lone parents 10 25 25 15 13.3 33.3 33.3 20.0 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 30 95 65 55 12.2 38.8 26.5 22.4 Non-family households: One person 20 85 60 50 9.3 39.5 27.9 23.3 only Non-family households: Two or more 15 10 10 0 42.9 28.6 28.6 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 90 240 135 110 15.7 41.7 23.5 19.1
Northern Bruce Peninsula One family household 75 55 50 0 41.7 30.6 27.8 0.0 All couples 70 40 35 0 48.3 27.6 24.1 0.0 Couples with children 40 40 10 0 44.4 44.4 11.1 0.0 One-family households: Lone parents 0 10 15 0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 25 30 10 40 23.8 28.6 9.5 38.1 Non-family households: One person 20 25 10 25 25.0 31.3 12.5 31.3 only Non-family households: Two or more 0 0 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 persons Total Renter Households 100 85 60 40 35.1 29.8 21.1 14.0 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996, 2001 Census Note: Rental costs include: annual payment for electricity, annual payment for oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, annual payment for water and other municipal services, monthly cash rent Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
264
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 7: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2000 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less 50% and Less than 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 15% over Bruce County One family household 805 905 375 280 34.0 38.3 15.9 11.8 All couples 660 715 180 140 38.9 42.2 10.6 8.3 Couples with children 300 370 90 95 35.1 43.3 10.5 11.1 One-family households: Lone parents 145 185 195 150 21.5 27.4 28.9 22.2 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 585 715 515 430 26.1 31.8 22.9 19.2 Non-family households: One person only 530 670 500 410 25.1 31.8 23.7 19.4 Non-family households: Two or more 50 40 10 15 43.5 34.8 8.7 13.0 persons Total Renter Households 805 905 375 280 30.2 35.1 19.3 15.4 Ontario One family household 151,750 297,285 135,065 115,700 21.7 42.5 19.3 16.5 All couples 128,590 221,390 85,125 60,195 26.0 44.7 17.2 12.2 Couples with children 63,620 123,925 45,450 37,020 23.6 45.9 16.8 13.7 One-family households: Lone parents 23,160 75,900 49,945 55,505 11.3 37.1 24.4 27.1 Multiple-family households 6,895 7,675 2,380 1,630 37.1 41.3 12.8 8.8 Non family households 84,200 226,305 161,295 148,665 13.6 36.5 26.0 24.0 Non-family households: One person only 63,445 189,385 146,365 133,335 11.9 35.6 27.5 25.0 Non-family households: Two or more 20,760 36,925 14,930 15,325 23.6 42.0 17.0 17.4 persons Total Renter Households 242,845 531,265 298,740 265,995 18.1 39.7 22.3 19.9
265
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 7: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2000 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less 50% and Less than 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 15% over South Bruce One family household 95 80 10 25 45.2 38.1 4.8 11.9 All couples 85 55 10 10 53.1 34.4 6.3 6.3 Couples with children 35 15 0 10 58.3 25.0 0.0 16.7 One-family households: Lone parents 15 25 0 15 27.3 45.5 0.0 27.3 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 50 35 25 35 34.5 24.1 17.2 24.1 Non-family households: One person only 50 35 25 35 34.5 24.1 17.2 24.1 Non-family households: Two or more 0 0 0 0 - - - - persons Total Renter Households 145 115 35 60 40.8 32.4 9.9 16.9 Huron-Kinloss Less 50% and Less than 50% and 15% - 30% 30%-50% 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 15% over One family household 70 80 25 0 40.0 45.7 14.3 0.0 All couples 60 70 10 0 42.9 50.0 7.1 0.0 Couples with children 35 40 10 0 41.2 47.1 11.8 0.0 One-family households: Lone parents 0 10 15 0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 35 65 55 15 20.6 38.2 32.4 8.8 Non-family households: One person only 35 60 50 10 22.6 38.7 32.3 6.5 Non-family households: Two or more 0 0 0 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 persons Total Renter Households 105 145 80 15 30.4 42.0 23.2 4.3
266
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 7: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2000 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less 50% and Less than 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 15% over Kincardine One family household 130 175 95 65 28.0 37.6 20.4 14.0 All couples 120 135 30 25 38.7 43.5 9.7 8.1 Couples with children 50 80 10 25 30.3 48.5 6.1 15.2 One-family households: Lone parents 15 40 60 40 9.7 25.8 38.7 25.8 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 120 175 120 65 25.0 36.5 25.0 13.5 Non-family households: One person only 115 160 120 55 25.6 35.6 26.7 12.2 Non-family households: Two or more 10 15 0 10 28.6 42.9 0.0 28.6 persons Total Renter Households 250 350 215 130 26.5 37.0 22.8 13.8 Brockton One family household 145 140 45 45 38.7 37.3 12.0 12.0 All couples 130 125 20 30 42.6 41.0 6.6 9.8 Couples with children 45 70 10 20 31.0 48.3 6.9 13.8 One-family households: Lone parents 20 15 25 15 26.7 20.0 33.3 20.0 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 70 115 85 115 18.2 29.9 22.1 29.9 Non-family households: One person only 60 110 80 115 16.4 30.1 21.9 31.5 Non-family households: Two or more 0 10 0 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 215 255 130 160 28.3 33.6 17.1 21.1
267
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 7: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2000 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less 50% and Less than 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 15% over Arran-Elderslie One family household 65 95 60 20 27.1 39.6 25.0 8.3 All couples 55 65 45 20 29.7 35.1 24.3 10.8 Couples with children 30 40 25 10 28.6 38.1 23.8 9.5 One-family households: Lone parents 10 25 15 0 20.0 50.0 30.0 0.0 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 45 65 45 60 20.9 30.2 20.9 27.9 Non-family households: One person only 45 65 45 55 21.4 31.0 21.4 26.2 Non-family households: Two or more 0 10 0 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 110 160 105 80 24.2 35.2 23.1 17.6 Saugeen Shores One family household 175 175 75 85 34.3 34.3 14.7 16.7 All couples 120 135 30 25 38.7 43.5 9.7 8.1 Couples with children 65 45 10 0 54.2 37.5 8.3 0.0 One-family households: Lone parents 55 45 50 60 26.2 21.4 23.8 28.6 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 170 120 100 70 37.0 26.1 21.7 15.2 Non-family households: One person only 160 120 95 70 36.0 27.0 21.3 15.7 Non-family households: Two or more 0 0 10 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 345 295 175 155 35.6 30.4 18.0 16.0
268
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 7: Gross Rent as a Percentage of 2000 Household Income for Tenant Households
Absolute Numbers Percentages Less 50% and Less than 50% and Type of Household 15% - 30% 30%-50% 15% - 30% 30%-50% than 15% over 15% over
South Bruce Peninsula One family household 80 130 55 40 26.2 42.6 18.0 13.1 All couples 55 105 35 30 24.4 46.7 15.6 13.3 Couples with children 15 60 20 25 12.5 50.0 16.7 20.8 One-family households: Lone parents 30 25 15 15 35.3 29.4 17.6 17.6 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 60 85 75 55 21.8 30.9 27.3 20.0 Non-family households: One person only 45 75 80 50 18.0 30.0 32.0 20.0 Non-family households: Two or more 10 15 0 0 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 140 215 130 95 24.1 37.1 22.4 16.4
Northern Bruce Peninsula One family household 40 30 10 0 50.0 37.5 12.5 0.0 All couples 35 25 0 0 58.3 41.7 0.0 0.0 Couples with children 20 25 0 0 44.4 55.6 0.0 0.0 One-family households: Lone parents 0 10 15 10 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 Multiple-family households 0 0 0 0 - - - - Non family households 45 55 10 20 34.6 42.3 7.7 15.4 Non-family households: One person only 25 55 15 15 22.7 50.0 13.6 13.6 Non-family households: Two or more 20 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 persons Total Renter Households 85 85 20 20 40.5 40.5 9.5 9.5 Source: Statistics Canada, Special Tabulation 1996, 2001 Census Note: Rental costs include: annual payment for electricity, annual payment for oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, annual payment for water and other municipal services, monthly cash rent Data was not available for Saugeen Reserve and Cape Croker Reserve.
269
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 8: New Residential Building Permits Issued by Type and Municipality, 1999 to 2003
Type of Unit 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 1999-2003 Singles 10 12 6 8 9 45 Semis ------South Bruce Rows ------Apartments ------Total 10 12 6 8 9 45 Singles 11 27 29 33 37 137 Semis ------Huron-Kinloss Rows ------Apartments - 10 - 10 - 20 Total 11 37 29 43 37 157 Singles 12 13 20 45 35 125 Semis - 1 1 2 2 6 Kincardine Rows ------Apartments ------Total 12 14 21 47 37 131 Singles 12 11 14 20 32 89 Semis ------Brockton Rows ------Apartments ------Total 12 11 14 20 32 89 Singles 11 14 18 21 17 81 Semis ------Arran-Elderslie Rows ------Apartments ------Total 11 14 18 21 17 81 Singles 35 38 49 74 90 286 Semis ------Saugeen Shores Rows - 20 - - 15 35 Apartments ------Total 35 58 49 74 105 321 Singles 21 59 38 56 73 247 Semis ------South Bruce Peninsula Rows ------Apartments ------Total 21 59 38 56 73 247 Singles 31 39 44 60 65 239 Semis 0 Northern Bruce Peninsula Rows 0 Apartments 0 Total 31 39 44 60 65 239 Bruce County Singles 143 213 218 317 358 1,249 Semis - 1 1 2 2 6
270
Bruce County Housing Study
Rows - 20 - - 15 35 Apartments - 10 - 10 - 20 Total 143 244 219 329 375 1,310 Source: Individual Municipality Building Departments, November 2004
271
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 9: County Of Bruce – Draft Approved Lots (As Of November 30, 2004)
Municipality # of draft Lapsing File # (former Location approved Type of lots Draft approved date date (if General comments municipality) lots applicable) There is some environmental issues that must be Park lots 5,6 townplot of 41T-92001 Kincardine 15 Detached s.f. 2-Feb-93 addressed prior to final pentagrove approval. No activity since draft approval. 41t-89023 Kincardine Block b, plan m3 30 Detached s.f. 28-Jun-90 No activity since draft 41t-90010 Kincardine Pt lots 47, 48, lake range 8 Detached s.r. 13-Apr-93 approval. No activity since draft 41t-23153 Kincardine Lots 51-53, lake range 11 Detached s.f. 23-May-73 approval. Kincardine Total 64 Pt lot 54 & 55 lake Phase ii of a two phase 41t-76107 Saugeen shores range, pt block a plan 34 Detached s.f. 6-Jun-90 8-Jun-06 development (phase i – 18 337 lots). This is phase ii of a two 41t-2003- Pt park lots 5 & 9 north Saugeen shores 53 Detached s.f. 20-May-04 20-May-07 phase development (phase i 02.48 of south st. – 35 lots) 41t-2004- Awaiting draft approval from Saugeen shores Pt lot 31 & 32 lake range 31 Detached s.f. 03.48 atp (November 18, 2004) No apparent reason for applicant not obtaining final approval, other than perhaps Pt lot 21, registered plan the applicant is considering 41t-89003 Saugeen shores 13 Detached s.f. 16-Jun-89 111 another use for the subject property. Lands are probably better suited for highway commercial. Servicing issues at time of draft approval (no municipal Pt park lot 1, east of 41t-89010 Saugeen shores 18 Detached s.f. 15-Feb-90 services). Recent inquiries grenville st. regarding condo development on lands. 96 detached s.f. Issues with stormwater 41t-2004- Pt lot 52, lots 49-51 and Saugeen shores 119 18 semi 2 Jul-04 May-07 management must be 01.44 block 57, plan 11. townhouses resolved. 41t-89017 Saugeen shores Park lot 5, south of peel 62 Detached s.f. 23-Jul-92 This is phase ii of a two
272
Bruce County Housing Study
street phase development (phase i – 12 lots registered as plan 3m-170). This is phase iii of a Block 25 r.p. 3m-151, pt multiphase development 41t-95002 Saugeen shores 15 Detached s.f. 15-Apr-04 15-Apr-07 lot 10 con 9 (phase i and ii consist of 64 lots). Pt lots 44-45 lake range, November 6, 1996 – revised 41t-96001 Saugeen shores 135 Detached s.f. May-07 plan 3m-140 sept. 2001 and 2004 Issues with water table, 41t-80052 Saugeen shores Pt lots 43-50, lake range 92 Detached s.r. 31-Aug-84 zoning on subject lands. This is phase ii of a two 41T-89005 Saugeen shores Pt lots 43-45, lake range 49 Detached s.f. 19-Jul-04 phase development (phase i – 12 lots plan 3m-173).
Saugeen Shores Total 621
This is phase ii of a two Pt lot 2 & 3, block a plan 41t-89015 Huron-Kinloss 19 Detached s.r. 24-Feb-92 phase development (phase i 781 – 9 lots plan 3m-174). Clearance letters from moe and health unit. Much 41t-91009 Huron-Kinloss Pt lot 13 con a 9 Detached s.f. 8-Apr-94 inactivity since draft approval. Total Huron-Kinloss 28 Appears grading work was Park lot 26, 27 pt park 63 detached s.f. 41t-89008 Brockton 73 10-Sep-91 carried out prior to submitting lot 25 r.p. 38 10 row houses clearance letters. No activity since draft 41t-89016 Brockton Park lots 29-31 plan 38 170 Detached s.f. 2-Feb-92 approval. Most conditions satisfied. 41t-90003 Brockton Lot 69 con 1 s.d.r. 6 Estate lots 2-Apr-92 No apparent reason for not obtaining final approval. Total Brockton 249 This is phase ii of a two phase development (phase i 18 detached s.f. 4 41t-89013 South Bruce Pt park lots 4 & 5 r.p. 48 22 4-Mar-90 – 30 s.f. lots). Phase ii has duplex lots issues with hazard land (e.g. drainage)
273
Bruce County Housing Study
Total South Bruce 22
Pt lots 28 & 29, east of No apparent reason for not 41t-91007 Arran-Elderslie 41 Detached s.f. 24-Jul-92 duke street obtaining draft approval. Total Arran-Elderslie 41
South Bruce No activity since draft 41t-95001 Lot 22 con 21 10 Detached s.f. 17-Aug-95 peninsula approval. No activity since December South Bruce Lots 13-18, pt lot 4 r.p. 41t-91011 46 Detached s.f. 14-May-92 1992. No draft approved site peninsula 292, pt park Lot ‘c’ plan in file as well. Mnr and gsca provided South Bruce 41t-93001 Park lot 1 17 Detached s.f. 13-Sep-93 clearance letters. No activity peninsula since 1995. This is phase ii of a two South Bruce March 1980. County 41t-78131 Pt lot 20 con d 45 Detached s.f. 28-Apr-05 phase development (phase i peninsula approval apr. 28, 2000. 19 lots reg. As plan 3m-148) South Bruce No apparent activity since 41t-91005 Pt lot 34 con d 30 Detached s.f. 25-Oct-95 peninsula draft approval. South Bruce Draft approved @ omb. No 41t-91013 Lot 37, con d 6 Detached s.f. Jun-98 peninsula activity since draft approval. Servicing issues must be South Bruce 41t-90017 Pt lot 19 con 4 wbr 40 Detached s.f. 1990s resolved prior to final peninsula approval.
Total South Bruce Peninsula 194
North Bruce No activity since draft 41t-90015 Unit 61 plan d-7 63 Detached s.f. 10-Dec-93 peninsula approval. Final approval in process. Pt lots 22-24 con 3 wbr, This is phase ii of a two North Bruce 41t-91008 lot 24 con 4 wbr, pt lot 83 Detached s.f. 8-Aug-94 phase development. Phase i peninsula 23-25 con 5 wbr – 48 lots, 7 block reg. As plan 3m-165 sept 11, 1995. Appears portion of lands have been severed by North Bruce 41t-89020 Pt lot 27 con 4 wbr 19 Detached s.f. 26-Mar-93 consent. Is draft approved peninsula status still remain on retained portion?
274
Bruce County Housing Study
No activity in file since draft approval date. Unable to North Bruce 41t-90002 14 Detached s.f. 12-Jul-95 determine applicant and peninsula location of proposed subdivision. Total Northern Bruce Peninsula 179
Total Bruce County 1,398 Source: Bruce County Planning Department, As at November 30th, 2004
275
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 10: Housing Background Study Survey
LIST OF QUESTIONS
Name: ______
Organization Name: ______
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT ORGANIZATION
1. Tell us a bit about your organization and how it is related to the demand or supply of housing in Bruce County.
a) Where are you located?
b) How long have you been in service?
c) Who is your main client group?
d) What type of services do you provide? (Consultation? Housing? Food? Other?)
e) What, or who are your main sources of funding?
276
Bruce County Housing Study
QUESTIONS FOR LONG TERM OR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROVIDERS
2. If you are a long term or transitional housing provider, can you please provide us with some statistics? We would like to know:
a) How many housing units do you possess? Number of Units: ______
b) How many clients do you house on an annual basis?
Number of Number of TOTAL Number of Number of Youth Children Year Number of Women Men (16 to 29 (Under 15 Clients years) years) 2000 2001 2002 2003
c) Do you maintain waiting lists for housing units? We would like to know if the need is increasing.
Number of persons on the Year waiting list 2000 2001 2002 2003
d) How long are clients allowed to stay in your housing units?
e) Are there any associated costs for these units?
Daily rate? ______
Monthly rate ? ______
f) Do you possess any data related to demographic and socio-economic characteristics of your clients (i.e. age, education, income)?
g) Do you have any other form of documentation that describes the need for transitional housing in Bruce County?
277
Bruce County Housing Study
QUESTIONS FOR EMERGENCY/TEMPORARY HOUSING PROVIDERS
3. If you are an Emergency or Temporary Housing Provider, can you please provide us with some statistics? We would like to know:
a) How many emergency beds do you possess? Number of Beds: ______
b) How many clients have retained emergency accommodation at your organization on an annual basis?
TOTAL Number of Number of Number of Number of Year Number of Youth Children Women Men Clients (16 to 29 years) (Under 15 years) 2000 2001 2002 2003
c) Do you maintain waiting lists for housing units? We would like to know if the need is increasing.
Number of persons on the Year waiting list 2000 2001 2002 2003
d) How long are clients allowed to stay in your housing units?
e) Number of nights spent at the shelter?
TOTAL Number TOTAL Number TOTAL Number TOTAL Number of Nights spent of Nights spent Year of Nights spent of Nights spent by Children by Youth by Men by Women (under 15 years) (16 to 29 years) 2000 2001 2002 2003
f) Do you possess any data related to demographic and socio-economic characteristics of your clients (i.e. Age, education, income)?
278
Bruce County Housing Study
g) Are there any costs for using the shelters?
h) Do you have any other form of documentation that describes the need for emergency or temporary housing in Bruce County?
GENERAL QUESTIONS
4. In your opinion, what are some of the key housing issues in Bruce County and more specifically individual municipalities within the County?
5. Do you feel the Bruce County and its municipalities have an adequate supply of affordable rental and ownership housing? Why or why not? Do you have any documentation or statistics to support this position?
6. Are there particular groups of residents that, in your opinion, have a particularly difficult time finding affordable, adequate housing (e.g. seniors, first time home buyers)? Please elaborate.
7. Do you have any suggested actions or strategies that the County, its municipalities, private sector or others could put in place to address the housing needs of its residents?
8. Are you aware of any recently published reports, council decisions or other information on demographic, social, economic or housing issues that would be useful for us to review?
279
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 11: Key Informants
Name Organization Bill McDougall YMYWCA Casey Weichert Women's House of Bruce County Chris LaForest County of Bruce Dave Barrett Saugeen Economic Development Dave Rushton Bruce Community Futures Development Corporation Don Bushell Bruce County Accessibility Committee Donna Beatty Centre for Addictions and Mental Health Francis McAvenue Community Connections Joyce Scammell Bluewater SNAG - Special Needs Advocacy Group Judith Binder CMHC Judy Chalmers CCAC Leslie Ellis Bruce Mental Health Support Services Mary Cumming Arran-Elderslie Molly McDowall Saugeen Shores Rick Hill Community Living Owen Sound and District Ross Lamont Community and Government Relations Bruce Power Russ Coultrup ReMax Kindardine Susan Earle County of Bruce Trish Borho Formosa Seniors Non Profit Housing
280
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 12: List of Sources
Bruce County Community Housing Registry - Directory
CHRA Workshop 7, Is Housing the Cure for Homelessness?: Families and Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities, April 11, 2003
Clark, W.A.V. (2001). Immigrant Homeownership and Middle Class Identification, Rotterdam: Paper Presented to the Sixth International Metropolis Conference.
Harris, R. and G. Pratt. (1993). “The Meaning of Home, Home Ownership and Public Policy”, Chapter 15 in Bourne, L. and D. Ley (eds.), The Changing Social Geography of Canadian Cities, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 281-297.
Marshall Macklin Monaghan (1993). "County of Bruce Official Plan - Background Report" Ministry of Finance (2004). Memo
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (2003). "2003 Fair Market Rent Report - Bruce County"
Murdie, R. and C. Teixeira (2001). “Towards a Comfortable Neighbourhood and Appropriate Housing: Immigrant Experiences in Toronto”, Toronto: CERIS, CERIS Working Paper # 10.
Myers, D. and S.W. Lee (1998). “Immigrant Trajectories into Homeownership: A Temporal Analysis of Residential Assimilation”, International Migration-Review, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 593-526.
Saunders, P. (1990). A Nation of Home Owners, London: Unwin Hyman, Chapter 2, “The Desire to Own”, pp. 58-119.
SHS-Inc (2003). 'Housing Needs Analysis and Strategies for Peterborough City and County"
SHS-Inc (2004). 'Affordable Housing Strategy for United Counties of Leeds & Grenville"
281
Bruce County Housing Study
Information on Universal Design and Ontarians with Disabilities Act http://architecture.about.com/cs/handicapaccess/ http://interiordec.about.com http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/universaldesign/ http://www.ahamembership.com/non/articles/01/012901.html http://www.gov.on.ca/citizenship/accessibility/english/act2001.htm http://www.hometime.com http://www.odacommittee.net/
The Corporation of the City of London (2001). “The City of London – Facility Accessibility
Design Standards”. http://www.london.ca/Planning/FADS.pdf
282
Bruce County Housing Study
APPENDIX 13: Summary of Housing Supply Working Group Report
The Housing Supply Working Group, a government/industry/labour working group that includes senior representatives of the rental/development industry, has commissioned two in-depth studies of the impact of senior government taxation policies and regulations on the development of new affordable rental supply. The first study, Affordable Rental Housing Supply: The Dynamics Of The Market And Recommendations For Encouraging New Supply2 made recommendations relating to municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions, many of which have now been implemented. The second study, Creating a Positive Climate for Rental Housing Development Through Tax and Mortgage Insurance Reform3 focuses on financing and taxation of rental housing primarily at the federal level.
The findings of these studies are summarized below.
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
GST is a federal taxation practice that drives up the cost of producing affordable housing. Currently, GST is payable at an effective rate of 4.5 per cent on the development costs of new rental housing; no GST is paid on the sale of existing rental housing.4 In addition, GST regulations require that the full amount of GST be paid on the construction of a new rental unit when the first unit is rented. This may cause cash flow problems for a new building and may present another barrier to creating rental housing. Finally, because rents are classified as “GST-exempt”, owners of rental buildings cannot claim input tax credits for their expenses in running such buildings. Owners could only claim these credits if rents were classified as “zero-rated goods.5
The Housing Supply Working Group concludes that fully rebating new rental housing for the purposes of GST would be one of the most effective, fair and practical way to help reduce the cost new rental housing. See section 3.1.5 for information on GST rebates for non-profit housing developments.
Treatment of Capital Gains
Prior to 1972, capital gains on rental properties were not taxable. At that time, changes were introduced making 50% of such capital gains taxable. This was further increased to 75% in 1990, but has been subsequently reduced back to 50%. In 1985 a lifetime capital gains exemption for individuals was introduced. This exemption was capped at
2Housing Supply Working Group, Affordable Rental Housing Supply: The Dynamics Of The Market And Recommendations For Encouraging New Supply, May 2001 3 Housing Supply Working Group, Creating a Positive Climate for Rental Housing Development Through Tax and Mortgage Insurance Reform, November 2002 4 Housing Supply Working Group, Creating a Positive Climate for Rental Housing Development Through Tax and Mortgage Insurance Reform, November 2002, page 13 5 City of Toronto, Unlocking the Opportunity for New Rental Housing: A Call to Action, June 2001
283
Bruce County Housing Study
$100,000 in 1987 and subsequently eliminated in 1994, thereby further discouraging investment in rental housing.
The Housing Supply Working Group recommends that the federal government should allow rental investors to defer capital gains tax and recaptured depreciation upon the sale of a rental project if the proceeds are reinvested in new rental housing.6 The Working Group concludes that this measure would help to unlock the existing reluctance of investors to sell properties and invest in new rental housing.
Capital Cost Allowance (CCA)
Both of the Housing Supply Working Group’s reports found that a number of restrictions introduced in the 1970’s and 1980’s inhibited the ability of investors to benefit from CCA deductions. Two examples include restrictions on pooling of rental properties to avoid recapture of CCA at the sale of a building and prohibitions on individuals and non-real estate companies from using CCA losses to reduce taxable income.
The report calls for the federal government to increase the rate (from 4 per cent to 5 per cent) for capital cost allowance on new rental housing. An increase in the CCA rate would increase after-tax returns and thus provide a potential stimulus to new rental investment.7
Deductibility of Soft Costs
Since 1992, all investors in rental properties have had to capitalize soft costs (e.g. legal fees, architect fees, engineering studies) incurred in the construction or renovation of rental housing. This increases the up front financial burden on developers of rental housing and discourages investment.
The Housing Supply Working Group report recommends that the federal government change the tax system to allow investors to deduct soft costs rather than capitalize them. Restoring soft cost deductibility would increase the negative income (i.e. tax losses) in the first year and allow investors to reduce their taxable income from other sources. Any measures that have a positive effect on the marginal returns usually experienced by rental developers in the early years of a project can have a significant impact on the decision to build or not to build.8
Capital Taxes on Rental Properties
Both the federal and provincial governments should eliminate their respective capital taxes on rental properties according to the Housing Supply Working Group report. This controversial tax is felt by many in the real estate industry to discourage investment
6 Ibid, page 13 7 Ibid, page 14 8 Ibid, page 14
284
Bruce County Housing Study
since it is applied without regard to the economic cycle, and it discriminates unfairly against capital-intensive industries.9
Other Tax Changes
The Housing Supply Working Group has identified two other changes to the tax system which could encourage investment in residential development:
• Allowing small landlords to qualify as small businesses for the purposes of obtaining the small business corporate rate;
• Allowing all investors in rental housing to use CCA losses in determining income for tax purposes --- not just principal business corporations.
Financing New Rental Development
The report by the Housing Supply Working Group calls for the improvement of financing options for new rental housing. Builders and investors in Canada interested in new rental development face a number of systematic barriers in securing financing for rental projects:
• They require a great deal more up front equity than builders of ownership housing; • They have to commit more capital for the long term than builders of ownership housing; • They must obtain mortgage insurance to secure financing for most new rental developments; • CMHC, the only source for mortgage insurance, is seen to have an unnecessarily difficult and uncertain process for its loan valuation and associated negotiations.
These problems need to be addressed in order to provide further incentive to encourage private sector participation in rental housing.
a) Recent Changes to CMHC Mortgage Insurance Practices
Many municipalities and supporters of affordable housing have expressed concern to CMHC about the negative impact of their mortgage insurance practices on the provision of affordable housing. As a result, CMHC recently announced some changes to these practices.
In its publication entitled "Partnership Courier", June 2002, CMHC outlines these changes in practice:
CMHC is adopting a more flexible and market-oriented underwriting criteria which will
9 Ibid, page 14
285
Bruce County Housing Study result in greater access to lower cost financing for rental development thus improving the business climate for rental investors at no cost to Canadian taxpayers…..The changes mean that the level of insured financing available to borrowers will be based on current market trends rather than pre-determined minimums. Previously CMHC applied standard, uniform minimum underwriting criteria to all loans, regardless of the state of the local housing market or other characteristics of the loan.
The underwriting improvements permit:
• higher advances during construction and, in some markets, higher loan amounts. • a revised insurance premium that creates a system of surcharges based on risk factors, and • a new system of application fees that is more balanced and reflective of the costs of underwriting.
In addition, in April 2003, CMHC announced that it plans to increase access to financing of affordable housing projects through lower mortgage and insurance premiums and more flexible underwriting criteria.
These changes are an important first step and signal CMHC’s willingness to adjust their pricing and underwriting policies. The impact of these recent business practice changes is not known at this time.
The Housing Supply Work Group calls for CMHC to monitor, assess and report publicly the pace and impact of the business practice changes implemented in 2002 by CMHC.10 b) Additional Recommendations of the Housing Supply Working Group
The Housing Supply Working Group made the following recommendations to address some of the other financing problems faced by those interested in building new rental housing: • The province should continue bilateral discussions with the federal government on more flexible financing terms for rental development, with particular focus on the reinvestment of Mortgage Insurance Fund (MIF) surpluses, CMHC’s package of risk mitigation measures and opportunities for enhancing flexibility of CMHC’s mortgage insurance underwriting practices. More specifically, the federal government should dedicate CMHC surpluses to the MIF reserves in order to provide greater risk capacity and enable CMHC to adopt less stringent mortgage insurance requirements. CMHC should also develop mortgage insurance products particularly suited to affordability objectives such as projects serving those most in need.
10 Ibid, page 40
286
Bruce County Housing Study
• The province should urge the federal government to undertake a comprehensive review of the ways in which federal policies act to restrict competition in the area of housing financing. In particular, the federal government should be asked to review requirements for mortgage insurance on high ratio real estate loans in the Bank Act, and for additional capital reserves for lenders dealing with private mortgage insurers. • As a contingency in the event the federal government is unwilling to consider changes to their mortgage insurance provisions, the province should hold discussions with private sector financial or underwriting institutions. Such discussions could focus on provision of mortgage insurance and/or expansion of the range of financing options available to rental developers.
287