Consultant: Florence faces five‑year gap of about 6,016 housing units, study finds
Loading...
Summary
A Bowen National Research market study presented to Florence City Council estimated a five‑year housing gap of roughly 6,016 units, highlighted steep cost burdens for thousands of households, low vacancy across affordable rentals, and suggested strategies including a housing coalition, developer outreach and incentives to offset high land costs.
Patrick Bowen, principal of Bowen National Research, told the Florence City Council the city faces a significant mismatch between housing demand and local supply, estimating a five‑year housing gap of about 6,016 units.
Bowen presented demographic, vacancy and sales data showing that the study area will add household growth through 2030 and that many existing residents and commuters cannot afford typical rents and home prices in Florence. "You are gonna need at least 500 new units over the next 5 years to meet up with growing need," Bowen said, adding that the full housing gap figure includes preservation and rehabilitation needs as well as new construction.
Why it matters: Bowen flagged a constellation of problems that affect local employers and the municipal tax base: limited affordable rental inventory, a high share of cost‑burdened households and a large daily inflow of commuters who earn wages but often spend outside the city. He reported more than 32,000 people commute into Florence daily and showed that vacancy among subsidized and tax‑credit housing is extremely low—about 13 units available across those categories in the survey window—while overall apartment vacancy rates are below healthy market levels.
Key findings and context: The study divided Florence into five submarkets and analyzed supply, rents, home sale availability and housing condition. Notable findings Bowen highlighted included a high share of older housing stock (about one‑third of homes for sale were built before 1970), an estimated 1,400 households living in substandard conditions (overcrowding or lacking full plumbing/kitchen facilities), and roughly 9,600 households paying more than 30% of income for housing costs, including about 4,400 households with severe cost burden (more than half of income).
Recommendations presented: Bowen recommended forming a housing coalition or task force to coordinate efforts among public, nonprofit and private partners; undertaking developer outreach and marketing to attract investment; and exploring tools such as density bonuses, fee adjustments and targeted incentives to offset high land costs. He also provided a list of roughly 62 potential development sites and identified over 70 programs and funding mechanisms (federal, state, regional) that could be used to finance projects.
City response and existing programs: City Manager (Speaker 17) summarized local tools already in use, including down‑payment assistance, targeted property acquisition and demolition for redevelopment, CDBG funds, and a locally created nonprofit, Building Florence Together, that partners with developers to provide land and down‑payment assistance. "We've created the nonprofit Building Florence Together," the city manager said, describing the city's use of local dollars and grants to bridge finance gaps and noting the need for additional state enabling legislation to expand a formal housing trust fund.
Council questions and takeaways: Council members asked whether recent changes to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules were captured in the study; Bowen said the data collection predated some ordinance changes and staff explained ADUs will be subject to the city's rental registry. Several council members pressed Bowen on land‑cost drivers versus other markets; Bowen reaffirmed that local development fees and permitting are competitive with peer communities but that high land prices and constrained inventory push developers toward higher‑priced units, reducing supply for lower‑wage households.
Next steps: Bowen urged the council not to let the study's findings "die" and recommended prioritizing a small set of actions—organizing local stakeholders into a coalition, marketing development opportunities to developers and exploring incentive tools. Council members and staff said they would review the full report and PowerPoint (the consultant left materials with staff) and consider follow‑up steps, including further analysis, developer outreach and potential legislative requests to enable broader funding tools.
The council did not take any immediate legislative action tied to the study at the meeting; it received the presentation, asked questions and discussed programmatic tools. The study and presentation materials are available from city staff per council comments; the consultant offered to assist with next‑step outreach and technical support.
