City of Marshfield Housing Study - 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

Prepared for the City of Marshfield

By MSA Professional Services, Inc.

April 18, 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................ i CHAPTER 1 - Introduction ................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2 - Study Process ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER 3 - Findings ........................................................................ 5 3.1 Housing Supply .......................................................................................... 5 3.2 Housing Demand ..................................................................................... 22 3.3 Demand Versus Supply ........................................................................... 29 3.4 Leakage ..................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Gaps ........................................................................................................... 43 3.6 National Trends Affecting Marshfield Housing .................................... 47

CHAPTER 4 - Strategic Housing Plan .............................................. 49

APPENDIX A – Maps APPENDIX B – Survey Summary

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY About the Study This study was commissioned by the City of Marshfield in late 2013, through the City’s Economic Development Board. The objectives of this study are a better understanding of how the Marshfield area housing market works and recommendations to improve that function. More specifically, the City wants to be sure that the housing market is meeting the needs of current and prospective residents, especially for the benefit of employers as they work to attract and retain talent. The Marshfield housing market has two parts: all housing in the City of Marshfield and all the other places of residence for people who work in the city. The City understands that the housing market is regional and it would like to attract a greater share of that market.

The study uses a variety of methods and data to understand the housing market, including objective, measurable data collected from the City, Wood and Marathon Counties, the Multiple Listing Service (real estate listings and sales), the State of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Census Bureau. The study also features a series of interviews with people familiar with the housing market and a survey of area residents and employees.

Findings Housing Supply HOUSING QUANTITY BY TYPE AND TENURE Own vs rent: About 40% of all units are rental units, comparable to peer communities in the region. A disproportional number of Marshfield units are in buildings with 20 or more units.

Rental units: The City’s 3,500 rental units include about 2,100 units in multifamily buildings, 950 units in duplexes, and 400 detached single family homes.

City of Marshfield Housing Tenure by Unit Size Unit Types

Condos and townhomes: Per City parcel data, there are 152 condos and 18 townhomes in the City, together representing less than 2% of total housing units. Peer communities have more condos and townhomes based on ACS data.

1, detached 1, attached 2 apartments 3 or 4 apartments 5 to 9 apartments 10 or more apartments Mobile home or other type of housing

OwnerRenteroccupied occupied 92.10% 1.9%* 1.4%* 0.1%* 0%* 0.2%* 4.3%*

11.60% 5%* 19.5%* 5.5%* 18%* 40.00% 0.4%*

Source: ACS 2008-2012 Avg.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

i

2014 Marshfield Housing Study UNIT SIZE •

Based on City parcel data, homes in Marshfield are of modest size – 73% are less than 1,800 SF, and 90% are less than 2,400 SF.

•

A plurality of Marshfield homes have three or more bedrooms, but most of these are single family units. Units in multifamily buildings are generally smaller - about 4% of the City’s multifamily units are efficiencies, 39% one-bedroom units, 48% two-bedroom units, 9% threebedroom units, and just 1% of these units have four or more bedrooms. 1

Number of Bedrooms, Single Family vs Duplex and Multifamily

Sources: City of Marshfield Parcel Data, American Community Survey

1

Because these estimates are based on the American Community Survey, they may be off by several percentage points.

ii

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study HOUSING QUALITY •

Approximately 34% of the 5,515 single-family units were constructed before 1950, indicating a likely need for upgrades and repairs. By comparison, about 27% of single-family homes in the State of Wisconsin were built before 1950.

•

More than 1,100 (20%) of today’s homes were constructed in the 1970s, and single family construction has declined each decade since then.

Single Family Units by Date of Construction

Source: City of Marshfield Parcel Data •

Most multifamily buildings in use today were built after 1960, but about 52% of multifamily units are more than 35 years old (built before 1980) and have either already seen substantial updating and renovation or will likely need such work.

•

Looking at the value of single family homes on a per square foot basis, there is a strong correlation between age and value – the older the units are, the lower the value, even after accounting for the fact that older units are typically smaller than newer construction. The oldest units, at the center of the City, have the lowest values per square foot. Homes in this area have the greatest need for repair and updating to meet current buyer expectations.

•

The housing survey asked residents to rate the quality of their own housing. A majority of respondents had a high opinion about their own housing; however a comparison of owners and renters reveals disparate opinions. Figure 3.15 shows this disparity – the vast majority of people who responded that their housing is in “fair” or “poor” condition were renters.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

iii

2014 Marshfield Housing Study SUPPLY TRENDS Single Family Home Construction: Based on City permit data for new single family construction, construction was strong until 2003, then dropped off quickly to an average of just 10 units per year over the past 5 years. In the five years since the US economy officially pulled out of recession (2009-2013), the City of Marshfield saw 47 new homes constructed; the lowest amount of any 5-year period since the 1880s.

In contrast, a group of eight surrounding towns saw 154 new homes built in 2009-2013. These communities are obviously attracting the single family home construction market that the City of Marshfield is missing.

Multifamily Home Construction: Multifamily construction has been irregular for decades. There are a significant number of new units – just over 160 – approved for construction in 2014, on par with similar construction rates in 1991 and 2001.

Single Family Home Renovation: Homeowners were improving in some way about 7% of the single family housing stock each year from 2004 to 2010. Then, beginning in 2011, this number dropped to about 5%, where it has since remained.

Single Family and Duplex Renovations, 2004-2013

Source: City of Marshfield Permit Data

Value and Cost: The City’s single family units have an average 2013 assessed value of $129,033, based on parcel data. 2013 real estate sales data show an average single family home sale price of $121,868.

iv

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

Regional Housing Demand Population: The City of Marshfield population has been essentially steady in recent decades around 19,000 residents. The City is projected to lose population in the next 20 years based on past data, but the region is expected to grow. Based on a partial list of area communities, the market area has a net projected growth of 6.3%, or 2,600 people, over the next 20 years or so.

Households: While population has been stagnant in the City, household size has been declining.

Consistent with nationwide trends, Marshfield’s average household size for owner-occupied units declined from 2.54 in 2000 to 2.37 in 2010, creating more demand for housing units. The average household size of renter-occupied households in Marshfield, meanwhile, increased slightly between 2000 and 2010, from 1.76 to 1.79.

Age: Based on the most recent ACS estimates, the City of Marshfield population is somewhat older than the county and state benchmarks, having fewer residents under 18 and more over 65. It also has more residents age 25-34 than the counties and state.

Income and Affordability: As compared to the state as a whole, Marshfield residents have relatively low incomes, with an estimated median household income of $42,783. However, Marshfield homeowners, on average, also spend relatively less on housing as compared to their regional peers. Marshfield has the lowest median rent among its peer communities at $574, compared to a high of $749 statewide. As compared to other jurisdictions, especially the peer cities, there is a gap in units available between $1,000 and $1,499. Marshfield has only about 2% of rental units available in this price range, while Wausau, Wisconsin Rapids and Stevens Point have between 5% and 8% of rental units in this range.

Demand Versus Supply Vacancy Rates: For owner-occupied housing, a desirable vacancy rate is under 2%. The ACS estimate of 0.6% vacancy in Marshfield indicates no cause for concern in Marshfield.

For rental units, a healthy vacancy rate is 5-6% of total units – this is an appropriate balance between the interests of property owners and the interests of renters. The ACS estimate of 3.9% vacancy is low, but not problematic. It suggests capacity for additional units without putting the market out of balance.

Some interviewees reported that there are rental units available in the City, but not the units that people want.

Sales: The housing market within the City of Marshfield was affected by the Great Recession in a manner similar to the county, region and state. Home sales (the number of homes sold) declined to a low of 20% or more below pre-recession levels in 2010 and 2011, at all geographic scales, and then recovered in 2012 and 2013 to exceed pre-recession levels.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

v

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Prices: Prices are also recovering from a slump that bottomed out in 2011 and have not yet fully recovered. At the local level, City of Marshfield sale prices peaked in 2007 at $141,122 and since then hit a low point of $111,870 in 2012. A January 2014 snapshot of current listings show an average asking price of $133,883.

Listings: After dropping off less than 10% from pre-recession numbers, listings (homes on the market) were nearly 21% higher in 2013 than they were in 2007, reflecting optimism in the market.

A noteworthy finding is the small number of condominiums on the market in this January 2014 snapshot – just six.

Leakage Employment Center: Many people who work in Marshfield live elsewhere. Among City residents, there is an active workforce of roughly 9,400 people, yet there may be as many as 20,600 people employed in the city, indicating an influx of about 11,000 people every workday.

WHERE DO THEY LIVE? Based on survey and ACS data, about half of local employees live outside the City, mostly in the surrounding towns and smaller cities and villages.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY? Interview Feedback: A common response is that Marshfield is perceived to be a higher-cost place to live due to taxes and higher infrastructure requirements. Developers, bankers, and realtors all noted these issues as reasons people are looking outside the City, especially to build new homes. Interviewees also noted that many people who choose to live outside the City simply prefer rural living, for the scenery, larger lot size, etc.

Survey Responses: Survey respondents were asked to prioritize a series of issues or criteria, when selecting housing. The highest-ranked response was “cost/value”, followed by “safety” and “neighborhood”. The lowest-ranked criterion was “proximity to restaurants and shopping”.

The survey also asked people directly, “If you do not live in the City of Marshfield, please indicate why.”

Among the people who live outside the City, about one in three responded that taxes in the City are too high. One in five non-residents cited housing choice and one in five cited prices. The most common response, “other”, revealed an answer that should have been included as one of the answer choices: desire to live in the country.

Taxes: Looking at the same group of communities previously compared for population growth, we find a range of tax rates higher and lower than in Marshfield. Not surprisingly, the lowest rates in the

vi

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study marketplace are all in towns. A $200,000 home will cost the owner about $1,000 to $1,350 less per year in taxes in one of those towns than in Marshfield, based on 2012 rates.

TIF Policy and Practices: The communities of Spencer, Stratford and Pittsville each have TIF districts that include residential subdivisions. By comparison, Marshfield’s six active TIF districts are mainly targeted toward developing commercial and industrial businesses.

Supply of Available Lots: There are 233 residential parcels platted and served with utilities but not yet built upon, but only 50 such lots on the market. Of those, 38 are concentrated in four projects.

Commuting: Looking at the area around the City, a 15-minute “drive shed” includes many towns and villages around the City. The cost of commuting is low and not an impediment to living elsewhere.

Gaps This section identifies and describes the gaps in the regional housing market.

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Inadequate supply of short-term rental housing Inadequate supply of pet-friendly rental housing Inadequate supply of desirable owner-occupied housing in the city under $200,000 Inadequate supply of condominiums and townhomes Inadequate supply of acceptable rental units at the lower end of the market Inadequate supply of units at the high end of the rental market

National Trends Affecting Marshfield Housing Marshfield remains connected to and affected by trends affecting housing across the country, including changes in financial regulation, demographics, development practices and cultural norms. Thissection describes some of the most relevant changes affecting housing demand in the Marshfield area.

1) Household size is dropping and house size expanding 2) Home ownership preferences have shifted – people still aspire to home ownership but see less benefit in ownership 3) Stricter lending regulation is reducing home ownership 4) Planning and development practices are mixing uses and residential types in walkable neighborhoods

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

vii

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

Strategic Housing Plan This chapter offers goals, objectives and strategies for the City of Marshfield and its community partners to encourage and guide housing investments in the City. It is important to reiterate the underlying economic goals of this plan: 1) Fiscal health for the City through protection and growth of the real estate tax base 2) Business and employment growth through the elimination of housing choice impediments

Goal 1 – Expand options for those who wish to rent housing in Marshfield

Objective 1.1 - Increase the availability and awareness of month-to-month and 90-day leases Objective 1.2 - Increase the availability of pet-friendly units Objective 1.3 - Increase the quality of the city’s lower-priced rental units Objective 1.4 - Increase the supply of rental units at the high end of the market Strategy 1.1 Permit the construction of more mid-range and high-end rental units Strategy 1.2 Ask rental property owners to help expand renter choice Strategy 1.3 Create a rental registry or occupancy permit program Strategy 1.4 Create a rental housing rehab revolving loan fund

Goal 2 – Expand options in Marshfield for those who wish to own their home

Objective 2.1 – Increase the supply of quality homes available below $200,000 Objective 2.2 – Increase the supply of condominiums Strategy 2.1 Create a housing investment grant program Strategy 2.2 Prepare and promote remodeling “Pattern Books” Strategy 2.3 Consider subsidizing new owner-occupied housing development Strategy 2.4 Encourage the development of condominiums in a variety of formats and locations

viii

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Goal 3 – Leverage housing investments to enhance neighborhood health

Strategy 3.1 Strategy 3.2 Strategy 3.3

Encourage multiple unit types and sizes in all housing projects and throughout the City Encourage new housing development downtown Avoid development patterns that leave apartments physically isolated from other uses

Unintended Consequences Housing markets are complex and fluid ecosystems. The City should be alert to and prepared for other challenges that may arise as a result of the strategies recommended in this plan, including these: •

Rental inspections and increased competition could lead to foreclosures on the poorest-quality properties.

•

Improving housing quality could increase demand for public housing assistance

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

ix

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

x

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

CHAPTER 1 - Introduction This study was commissioned by the City of Marshfield in late 2013, through the City’s Economic Development Board. Earlier that year, the City completed an Economic Development Strategic Plan, prepared by Redevelopment Resources. That strategic plan evaluated the structure and function of the Marshfield economy, and offered a series of recommendations to enhance economic success. Among the highest-priority recommendations to be completed “immediately” – was a comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment and Market Study. The strategic plan notes that housing is central to our lives, socially and economically. At the individual level it is typically our largest single investment. At the community level it makes up the majority of community value and tax revenue – 56% in Marshfield.

Defining the Marshfield Housing Market The Marshfield housing market has two parts. The first part is all housing in the City of Marshfield.

Many of the analyses in this study focus on that part because it is most easily defined and measured, and the City has greater opportunity to influence this part of the market through regulation and incentives.

The second part of the Marshfield housing market is all the other places of residence for people who work in the City. Marshfield has a high concentration of jobs, but many of its workers commute in from other places. In approximate terms, as noted in the Economic Development Strategic Plan, the City has a population of 20,000 at night, and 30,000 during the workday. Many employees are choosing to live elsewhere. The geography of this part of the market is harder to define, but it generally includes an area extending roughly 20 miles from downtown Marshfield. This part of the market is harder for the City of Marshfield to influence.

To provide context to discussions about the other communities frequently referenced in this study we have created Figure 1.1.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

1

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 1.1 – Regional Reference Map

The Study The objectives of this study are a better understanding of how the Marshfield area housing market works, and recommendations to improve that function. More specifically, the City wants to be sure that the housing market is meeting the needs of current and prospective residents, especially for the benefit of employers as they work to attract and retain talent. The City understands that the housing market is regional, and it would like to attract a greater share of that market. As more people choose to live in Marshfield, the City will see more property tax revenue, greater resource efficiency (due to less commuting), enhanced social vibrancy, and more support for retail and service businesses.

This study evaluates the supply of housing in and around the City, demand for housing in the same area and gaps between supply and demand. For those gaps identified, strategies are offered to enable the City to help close those gaps.

2

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

CHAPTER 2 - Study Process This study uses a variety of methods and data to understand the housing market. Objective, measurable data were collected from the City, Wood and Marathon Counties, the Multiple Listing Service (real estate listings and sales), the State of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Census Bureau. The City is compared to its neighbors, peer communities, and wider context (county, state, nation) in a variety of ways, and also compared to itself in the form of time-series data that reveal trends. But such “hard data” are inadequate to understand the local market. This study also featured a series of interviews with people familiar with the housing market, and a survey of area residents and employees.

Project Oversight The study was led and refined by the City’s Economic Development Board (EDB), with support from the City’s Department of Planning and Development. Project consultant MSA Professional Services interviewed the EDB in January 2014 about their knowledge of the market and aspirations for the study.

In three subsequent meetings in February and March the EDB served as a sounding board for data findings and proposed improvement strategies.

Interviews We met and interviewed a variety of people with knowledge and insight about the local housing market, including realtors, lenders, builders, architects, landlords and employers. These interviews, conducted in January and February 2014, included the following people: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Marshfield Area Chamber of Commerce Human Resources Committee (~ 8 participants) City of Marshfield Economic Development Board (~12 participants) Marshfield Area Apartment Association (3 participants) Heritage Bank First Weber Realtors Legacy Homes Forward Financial Bank RE/MAX Realty Design Unlimited BMO Harris Bank Century 21 Realtors Nikolai Construction Associated Bank Marshfield Community Development Authority

The feedback collected in these interviews often gravitated to similar topics and viewpoints, reflecting a strong shared understanding of how the local housing market functions. This feedback is described in Chapter 3, under each topic (Supply, Demand, Leakage, Gaps). In a few cases the interviewees were not in agreement on a topic – these differing viewpoints are noted.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

3

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Community Survey A community survey was conducted in January 2014. Offered as an online survey, with paper copies available at the public library, the survey collected about 950 complete responses. The survey was promoted via published notices in the paper, an article in the paper and email invitations. The full responses are provided as an appendix to this study. Relevant findings are featured in Chapter 3.

When considering the opinions and experiences indicated in the survey, it is important to understand the bias of the survey sample. Respondents were older, wealthier, and more often homeowners than the overall population of the City of Marshfield or the wider housing market region. When appropriate, the responses of renters are reported separate from and compared to the responses of homeowners.

A Note About US Census and American Community Survey Data Some of the data used in this study comes directly from the City or the surrounding counties and its reliability and accuracy are considered strong. Other data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, which collects its data in two ways – through the decennial census and through the American Community Survey (ACS). Whereas the decennial census attempts to ask a few questions of every US resident once every 10 years, the ACS is an ongoing survey that collects sample data every year and reports estimates of population and housing characteristics. For communities smaller than 20,000 (including Marshfield), estimates are reported as rolling averages over 5-year periods – they indicate average conditions over the reporting period rather than a snapshot of a single point of time. Because the ACS estimates are based on a sample of the population, they include some error. The margin of error is reported for each estimate, and is an indication of how reliable the estimate is. As a general rule, the ACS data is quite reliable at the State level, generally reliable at the County level, and less reliable at the municipal level. The margin of error makes the data much more difficult to interpret. To convey such error in this document, any ACS numbers that have more than 20% error (meaning the actual value could be more than 20% different than the stated amount) are marked with an asterisk.

4

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

CHAPTER 3 - Findings This chapter presents the results of our various inquiries. Data from different sources and methods are compared and contrasted. The findings are organized by topic – supply, demand, leakage and gaps.

Interview feedback and survey findings are reported with the relevant topic. While no single data point or opinion offers much insight, when combined these data create a useful portrait of the market.

3.1 City of Marshfield Housing Supply This section describes current housing stock in the City of Marshfield – quantity, type, size, age, condition, location, and cost/value.

HOUSING QUANTITY BY TYPE AND TENURE 2 Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of owner-occupancy in the City, as compared to peer communities (Stevens Point, Wausau, Wisconsin Rapids), the surrounding counties, and the state. The City compares similarly to its regional peers on this metric.

Figure 3.1 – Percent of Total Housing Units Owner Occupied

Source: 2010 US Census Figure 3.2 indicates the distribution of housing units in the City, by type and compares that distribution to three peer communities, the two counties, and the State. The important finding from this American Community Survey (ACS) data is that the City of Marshfield has a relatively higher proportion of its 2

“Tenure” refers to the financial arrangement for home occupancy – renting or owning

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

5

2014 Marshfield Housing Study housing stock in multi-unit buildings – close to 40% of all units. The only comparative jurisdiction with a lower percentage of single-family units is Stevens Point, a college town. Also noteworthy is the disproportional number of Marshfield units in buildings with 20 or more units.

Figure 3.2 - Number of Housing Units, by Type City of Marshfield Number

Percent

Stevens Point

Wausau

Percent

Percent

Wisconsin Rapids Percent

Wood Co. Percent

Marathon Co.

State of WI

Percent

Percent

1-unit, detached

5,142

57.30%

51.90%

61.10%

69.80%

76.30%

73.90%

66.50%

1-unit, attached

268

3.00%

4.40%*

3.20%*

2.60%*

1.70%

2.90%

4.40%

2 units

827

9.20%

11.50%*

12.10%

5.10%*

4.50%

6.10%

6.80%

3 or 4 units

218*

2.40%*

6.70%

4.40%*

3.20%*

1.70%

2.40%

3.80%

5 to 9 units

676*

7.50%*

9.10%

5.30%

7.70%

4.10%

4.60%

4.80%

10 to 19 units

452*

5.00%*

6.70%*

5.90%

2.10%*

1.90%

3.50%

3.30%

20 or more units

1,119

12.50%

6.60%

7.10%

7.30%

5.40%

3.00%

6.60%

Mobile home

269*

3.00%*

3.00%*

1.00%*

2.20%*

4.40%

3.60%

3.70%

0*

0.00%*

0.00%*

0.00%*

0.00%*

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8,971

99.90%

99.90%

100.10%

100.00%

100.00%

Boat, RV, van, etc.

TOTALS

Source: ACS 2008-2012 Avg.

100.00%

99.90%

Condominiums and Townhomes It is difficult to track condominiums using the ACS because they are an ownership structure, not a building form, and are not tracked by the ACS. However, they tend to be designed in a “1-unit attached” townhome-style format, such that the walls separating units extend from ground to roof. Figure 3.4 indicates that about 1.9% of owner-occupied units are 1-family attached. This equates to about 100 units, give or take some due to error in the ACS data. Per City parcel data; there are 152 condos and 18 townhomes in the City, together representing less than 2% of total housing units.

Rental Units According to the 2010 US Census, there were 3,517 rental units that year, comprising just over 40% of the City’s occupied housing units (see Figure 3.3). This includes all multifamily units, most duplex units,

6

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study and some single family units. City parcel data indicates, based on owner address, that only 113 of the 529 duplex properties in the City are owner-occupied. This suggests that 945 of the City’s 1,058 duplex units (89%) are rental units. City parcel data also indicates that there are 2,069 multifamily units.

ACS data in Figure 3.4 indicates that about 11.6% of the City’s renter-occupied units are single family detached units, which translates to about 400 detached single family homes on the rental market.

These 400 units represent about 7.8% of all single family detached units in the City. An interviewee for this study noted that single family homes at the low end of the market - $35,000 to $50,000 – tend to be turned into rentals because interested buyers typically lack the 20% downpayment now required by stronger lending rules.

Though some may be surprised by the number of single family units in the Marshfield rental market, this is not an unusual situation, especially as a result of housing turmoil during and after the Great Recession of 2007-2009. For comparison purposes consider that Marshfield’s peer cities – Wausau, Wisconsin Rapids and Stevens Point – have 12.0%, 12.6% and 16.3% of single family units in the rental market based on the same 2008-2012 ACS estimates. Marshfield’s home rental rate is very similar to the rates for Wood County (8.6%), Marathon County (7.8%) and the State of Wisconsin (8.4%) during that period.

Figure 3.3 – City of Marshfield Housing Units by Tenure – 2000 and 2010 Housing Units by Tenure 2000

2010

Total Units:

8,617

9,516

Total Occupied:

8,245

8,777

Owner occupied:

5,076

62% 5,260

60%

Renter occupied:

3,169

38% 3,517

40%

Figure 3.4 – City of Marshfield Housing Tenure by Unit Size

1, detached 1, attached 2 apartments 3 or 4 apartments 5 to 9 apartments 10 or more apartments Mobile home or other type of housing Source: ACS 2008-2012 Avg.

OwnerRenteroccupied occupied 92.10% 11.60% 1.9%* 5%* 1.4%* 19.5%* 0.1%* 5.5%* 0%* 18%* 0.2%* 40.00% 4.3%* 0.4%*

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

7

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.5 illustrates the location of likely rental units in the City, including multifamily and duplex units.

The location of renter-occupied single family units is not known.

Figure 3.5 – Location of Rental Units 3

3

“Rental Units” as depicted in this map includes all duplex units, of which 89% are renter-occupied, and multifamily units. It does not include rented single family units, of which there are about 400.

8

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study UNIT SIZE When looking for housing, a basic criterion is size, especially the number of bedrooms. We have several sources of data to indicate the size of units in Marshfield’s housing stock, including City parcel data, US Census data, and the community survey.

Figure 3.6 indicates the distribution of single family units by square footage. Based on City parcel data, homes in Marshfield are of modest size – 73% are less than 1,800 SF, and 90% are less than 2,400 SF. Figure 3.6 – Housing Units by Floor Area

Source: City of Marshfield Parcel Data

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

9

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.7 indicates the number of bedrooms available in City of Marshfield housing units. This graph compares different measurements of the same information; it includes City data for single family units only, and US Census and ACS data for all housing units.

Figure 3.7 – Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms

Sources: City of Marshfield Parcel Data, U.S. Census Bureau

10

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study While the City does not maintain records on the number of bedrooms in apartment units, Figure 3.8 illustrates a method of estimating the number of bedrooms in Marshfield’s apartment market. By starting with the ACS estimates for number of bedrooms, and subtracting from each category the City’s single family unit count, we can approximate the number of bedrooms in the City’s duplex and multifamily units. By this method, we conclude that about 4% of the City’s multifamily units are efficiencies, 39% one-bedroom units, 48% two-bedroom units, 9% three-bedroom units, and just 1% of these units have 4 or more bedrooms. 4 Figure 3.8 – Number of Bedrooms, Single Family vs Duplex and Multifamily

Sources: City of Marshfield Parcel Data, American Community Survey

4

Because these estimates are based on the American Community Survey, they may be off by several percentage points.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

11

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.9 illustrates the spatial distribution of the City’s single family units by number of bedrooms.

There are no noteworthy spatial trends in this data. A slight concentration of one- and two-bedroom homes in a ring around the downtown is evident, consistent with the age of homes in that part of the City.

Figure 3.9 – Single Family Units by Number of Bedrooms

12

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study HOUSING QUALITY The quality of housing in a community is difficult to measure objectively. This section considers several data sources to understand the quality and condition of Marshfield’s housing stock.

Unit Age The age of a home or apartment building is not, by itself, an adequate measure of quality or condition, but it is one useful indicator. Older homes, especially those built before 1950, tend to have worse energy performance, higher maintenance costs, and they sometimes lack things that homebuyers desire such as attached garages. Figure 3.10 indicates the decade of construction for all current single family housing units. Approximately 34% of the 5,515 single-family units were constructed before 1950. By comparison, about 27% of single-family homes in the State of Wisconsin were built before 1950. More noteworthy is the apparent building boom of the 1970’s, when more than 1,100 (20%) of today’s homes were constructed. Single family construction has declined each decade since then.

Figure 3.10 Single Family Units by Date of Construction

Source: City of Marshfield Parcel Data The decade of construction for duplex and multifamily buildings is illustrated in Figure 3.11. Only 24% of these units were built before 1950, and most from that era are duplexes. The lack of apartment buildings constructed prior to 1960 is not surprising – these are commercial properties, operated for profit, and they are much more likely than single family homes to be torn down and replaced when deemed obsolete. Having stated that, it should also be noted that about 52% of multifamily units are more than 35 years old (built before 1980) and they either have already seen substantial updating and renovation or such work is most likely needed.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

13

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.11 Duplex and Multifamily Housing Units by Date of Construction

Source: City of Marshfield Parcel Data Unit Value Another method of evaluating housing conditions is to consider the value per square foot of homes.

Figure 3.12 illustrates the relationship between the age of the home and its value per square foot. Not surprisingly, there appears to be a strong correlation between age and value – the older the units are, the lower the value, even after accounting for the fact that older units are typically smaller than newer construction. This finding may be in part an artifact of assessor assumptions based on age, but it is also likely a valid indication of housing quality. Those older homes are actually worth less because their design and conditions are less desirable to buyers than more recent construction. Note the drop in value for units built prior to 1950.

Figure 3.12 – Single Family Home Value per Square Foot, by Age of Home

Source: City of Marshfield Parcel Data

14

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.13 shows how this relationship between age and value appears when mapped. The oldest units, at the center of the City, have the lowest values per square foot. Homes in this area have the greatest need in the City for repair and updating to meet current expectations.

Figure 3.13 – Single Family Home Value per Square Foot

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

15

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Code Violations The City currently identifies code violations on a complaint basis, and issues orders to correct confirmed violations as appropriate. There have been about 420 violations recorded over the past 10 years. Maps of these violations for both single family and rental properties (see appendix A) reveal a concentration of violations in the downtown area.

Demolitions The City of Marshfield occasionally pursues condemnation and removal of homes deemed unsafe and beyond repair. There have been 24 such condemnations in the past 10 years, as illustrated in Figure 3.14. While the locations of these teardowns generally correlate with the location of older and lowervalue units, there is no other noteworthy trend. These efforts by the City are an important public function to protect resident safety and the overall quality of the City’s housing stock.

Figure 3.14 – Housing Demolitions Ordered by the City of Marshfield, 2001-2013

16

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Public Opinion about Housing Quality The housing survey asked residents to rate the quality of their own housing. A majority of respondents had a high opinion of their own housing; however a comparison of owners and renters reveals disparate opinions. Figure 3.15 shows this disparity – the vast majority of people who responded that their housing is in “fair” or “poor” condition were renters.

Figure 3.15 – Self-Reported Housing Condition, Owners vs Renters

In a related question, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of their current housing including location, size, quality and amenities (e.g. parking). The rent vs. own comparison reveals similar results – renters are less satisfied with their housing. This finding is supported and explained by various comments in the survey responses, such as these: The apartment is an older building and definitely showing its age. Better pest control. In apartment washer/dryer connections, better climate control, and parking needs to be better plowed.

Poor condition. Landlord doesn't maintain or repair things that are in poor condition or broken.

Poorly insulation, lots of heat loss, and very hot in the summer.

For the price I'm paying a month, I wish the duplex was maintained a little more by the landlords.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

17

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.16 – Self-Reported Housing Satisfaction, Owners vs Renters

SUPPLY TRENDS Single Family Home Construction Based on 20+ years of City permit data for new single family construction illustrated in Figure 3.17, construction was strong until 2003, and then dropped off quickly to an average of just 10 units per year over the past 5 years. In the five years since the US economy officially pulled out of recession (20092013), the City of Marshfield saw 47 new homes constructed. To put this number in perspective, in the five years following the start of the Great Depression, 1930-1934, the City saw more than 65 new homes constructed. That’s based on the database of homes that exist today, meaning there were more than that built, and some have since been torn down. Based on this database of current homes, the last fiveyear period that resulted in fewer than 47 homes was 1880-1884. This bears repeating – there are more homes in use today in Marshfield built between 1881 and 1885, and in any other 5-year period since then, than were built in the last five years.

18

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.17 – Single Family New Unit Construction by Year, 1990-2014

Source: City of Marshfield To further put the low levels of new single family construction in the City in perspective, and to help explain it, we can look at trends for the surrounding towns. A group of eight surrounding towns (Cameron, Lincoln, Marshfield, Richfield in Wood County and Cleveland, Day, McMillan, Spencer in Marathon County) saw 154 new homes built in 2009-2013. The combined 2010 population of these towns was a little over half that of the City of Marshfield – Marshfield built about 2.45 homes per 1,000 residents, while those towns built about 14.5 homes per 1,000 residents. Data from a couple of the smaller villages also show higher per-capita home construction, including Stratford with 11 new homes (7 per 1,000 residents) and Spencer with 18 new homes (11.4 per 1,000 residents). These communities are obviously attracting the single family home construction market that the City of Marshfield is missing.

Multifamily Home Construction Multifamily construction has been irregular for decades. There are a significant number of new units – just over 160 – approved for construction in 2014, on par with similar construction rates in 1991 and 2001. Duplex construction was stronger in the 1990s, but has slowed since then. For the period 19902004, duplex construction added an average of 9.2 units to the market each year. Since then, 20052013, the average has been 3.3 units per year.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

19

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.18 – Duplex and Multifamily New Unit Construction by Year, 1990-2014

Source: City of Marshfield

Single Family Home Renovation Existing homes will continue to require renovations and remodeling to remain viable over time. Figure 3.19 shows the past ten years of renovations to single family homes based on permits approved by the City. Assuming that homeowners typically get only one permit for a home in a given year, these data suggest that homeowners were improving in some way about 7% of the single family housing stock each year from 2004 to 2010. Then, beginning in 2011, this number dropped to about 5%, where it has hovered since then.

Figure 3.19 – Single Family Home Renovations, 2004-2013

Source: City of Marshfield Permit Data

20

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study VALUE AND COST

Figure 3.20 Value of Owner-Occupied Units

An important aspect of any market study is the cost of supply.

Figure 3.20 indicates the median value for owner-occupied units, as estimated by the ACS. While cost and value are not strictly synonymous, in the housing market they are typically aligned. This figure shows that as compared to the other most common places of residence for people who work in Marshfield, housing in the City is relatively affordable – neither at the high end or the low end of the regional market.

Of course, this is an estimate of the value of existing units. It does not reflect the cost of new housing units in particular, nor the availability of units, either by building or buying.

Cross-checking this ACS data against the City’s parcel data, we find that the City’s single family units have an average 2013 assessed value of $129,033, nearly an exact match for the ACS data. Cross-checking against cost data as indicated in real estate sales, the 2013 average sale price of single family homes in Marshfield was $121,868. See Section 3.3 Demand Versus Supply for more on sales.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

21

2014 Marshfield Housing Study 3.2 Regional Housing Demand Housing demand is about the people seeking housing. This section describes the people and households in the area, including quantities, ages and incomes.

POPULATION The City of Marshfield population has been essentially steady in recent decades, from a peak population of 19,291 in 1990, down to 18,800 in 2000, and back to 19,118 in 2010. Figure 3.21 compares Marshfield to a host of surrounding communities and its regional peers, in terms of past and future projected population. These projections, created by Wisconsin’s Demographic Services Center (part of the Department of Administration), indicate a declining population for the City. However, they project growth for many of the surrounding communities. This list, albeit incomplete, represents the places where people who work in Marshfield live. Based only on this list, the market area has a net projected growth of 6.3%, or 2,600 people, over the next 20 years or so.

Figure 3.21 – Population Change 2000-2010, 2035 projections Community County Town of McMillan Marathon Town of Cleveland Marathon Village of Hewitt Marathon City of Abbotsford Marathon Town of Spencer Marathon City of Colby Marathon Town of Richfield Wood Town of Fremont Clark Town of Day Marathon Village of Stratford Marathon City of Marshfield Wood+Marathon City of Pittsville Wood Town of Lincoln Wood Town of Cameron Wood Village of Spencer Marathon Town of Marshfield Wood Village of Unity Clark Village of Granton Clark Totals for Marshfield and selected jurisdictions

2000 1,523 1,160 670 1,956 1,341 1,616 1,523 1,190 1,023 1,523 18,800 866 1,554 510 1,932 811 368 406 38,772

2010 1,968 1,488 828 2,310 1,581 1,852 1,628 1,265 1,085 1,578 19,118 874 1,564 511 1,925 764 343 355 41,037

City of Stevens Point Portage 24,551 26,717 City of Wausau Marathon 38,404 39,106 City of Wisconsin Rapids Wood 18,348 18,367 State 5,363,675 5,686,986 Nation 281,421,906 308,745,538 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, WI Dept. of Administration

22

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

Percent 2035 DOA Change Projection 2,335 29.22% 28.28% 1,955 920 23.58% 18.10% 2,915 2,030 17.90% 14.60% 2,225 1,805 6.89% 1,610 6.30% 1,230 6.06% 1,740 3.61% 1.69% 18,585 895 0.92% 1,645 0.64% 410 0.20% 2,065 -0.36% -5.80% 740 325 -6.79% 355 -12.56% 6% 41,720 8.82% 1.83% 0.10% 6.03% 9.71%

29,980 41,450 17,990

2010-2035 Difference 19% 367 31% 467 11% 92 26% 605 28% 449 20% 373 11% 177 27% 345 13% 145 10% 162 -3% - 533 2% 21 5% 81 - 101 -20% 7% 140 -3% - 24 -5% - 18 0% 0 2,608 6.30% 3,263 2,344 - 377

12% 6% -2%

2014 Marshfield Housing Study HOUSEHOLDS While population has been stagnant in the City, household size has been declining. Consistent with nationwide trends, Marshfield’s average household size for owner-occupied units declined from 2.54 in 2000 to 2.37 in 2010. With about 60% of the City population in owner-occupied housing, even if the total population remains constant at 19,000 residents, the decline in household size increased demand for owner-occupied units by over 300. The average household size of renter-occupied households in Marshfield, meanwhile, increased slightly between 2000 and 2010, from 1.76 to 1.79. This change accounts for a modest decrease in demand for renter-occupied units by about 70 units, assuming a static total population. Note, however, that the regional population has been growing, and Marshfield has a higher percentage of the rental market than surrounding communities.

Figure 3.22 indicates the composite average Marshfield household size of 2.14 in 2010, the smallest among the regional peer communities and as compared to the State.

2000

2010

Figure 3.22 – Households and Average Household Size, 2000 and 2010 City of Marshfield

City of Stevens Point

City of Wausau

City of Wisconsin Rapids

Total Households

8,777

10,598

16,487

8,296

2,279,768

Average size

2.14

2.21

2.31

2.17

2.43

9,305

15,678

7,970

2,084,544

2.29

2.37

2.26

2.5

Total Households 8,245 Average size 2.24 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

State

23

2014 Marshfield Housing Study AGE Based on the most recent ACS estimates, the City of Marshfield population is somewhat older than the county and state benchmarks, having fewer residents under 18 and more over 65. It also has more residents age 25-34 than the counties and state. We conjecture that these numbers reflect the influence of the Marshfield Clinic, which attracts both young people for part of its workforce and older people who need or appreciate the security of being near the Clinic.

Figure 3.23 - Population by age

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg.

24

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study INCOME AND AFFORDABILITY As compared to the state as a whole, Marshfield residents have relatively low incomes. Figure 3.24 shows that incomes are low as compared to Marshfield’s peer communities too – Marshfield has an estimated median household income of $42,783. Only Stevens Point is lower, reflecting (in part) its student population.

Figure 3.24 – Median Household Income

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg. But income is only important for housing choice in its relationship to housing costs. Figure 3.25 compares Marshfield with its peers on that relationship, and finds that Marshfield homeowners, on average, spend relatively less on housing as compared to their regional peers.

Figure 3.25 – Median Monthly Owners Costs as a Percentage of Monthly Income.

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg. MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

25

2014 Marshfield Housing Study The critical “affordability” threshold is 30% of income – housing is considered affordable when it consumes 30% or less of household income. The ACS reports the percentage of people exceeding this threshold within various income brackets. As illustrated in Figure 3.26, Marshfield compares favorably to its peers by this measure also – fewer than 20% of owners exceed the affordability threshold. The lowest income brackets are the smallest ones in Marshfield, meaning low-income residents here are less likely to spend more than 30% of their income on housing than in other communities. This likely reflects the success and efforts of the Community Development Authority to help the City’s lowest-income residents maintain safe, affordable housing.

Figure 3.26 – Households with Median Monthly Owners Costs ≥ 30% of Yearly Income

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg. While the preceding data focused on homeowners, a look at rental costs and affordability is also necessary. Figure 3.27 compares the City to peer communities and the wider geographies in terms of rental costs. Of this group, Marshfield has the lowest median rent in this group at $574, compared to a high of $749 statewide. The graph reveals this in the relatively high percentage of units renting below $500 (35.5%), and the very small percentage renting above $1,000 (4%). As compared to these other jurisdictions, especially the peer cities, there is a gap in units available between $1,000 and $1,499.

Marshfield has only about 2% of rental units available in this price range, while Wausau, Wisconsin Rapids and Stevens Point have between 5% and 8% of rental units in this range.

26

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.27 – Gross Rents

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg. Putting rental costs in the context of income, we find that Marshfield compares favorably to its peers here too. As indicated in Figure 3.28, the City has fewer renters paying more than 30% of income for housing than the regional peer cities. Having said that, the fact that 45% of renters pay this much is some cause for concern, even if it is a common condition.

Figure 3.28 – Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

27

2014 Marshfield Housing Study The housing survey is also a source of data on the affordability question. As illustrated in Figure 3.29, while most respondents reported spending less than 30%, including a plurality at 15-19%, about 23% reported spending 30% or more on housing costs.

Figure 3.29 – Housing Survey Results – Affordability

Source: 2014 Marshfield Housing Survey

28

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study 3.3 Demand Versus Supply This section considers the balance between supply and demand in the housing market as revealed by vacancy rates and real estate sales and listings.

VACANCY RATES One important measure of the health of a housing market is vacancy rates. The owner-occupied and rental markets must be considered independently, as they function in very different ways. Figure 3.30 presents both rates and a comparison with peer communities.

For owner-occupied housing, a desirable vacancy rate is under 2%. Owner-occupied housing tends to remain occupied, even while available for sale. Unoccupied units often reflect undesirable circumstances, such as a foreclosure or job relocation that forces a vacancy before a home can be sold, and rising vacancy rates are usually a symptom of problems in the local economy. The ACS estimate of 0.6% vacancy indicates no cause for concern in Marshfield.

For rental units, a healthy vacancy rate is 5-6% of total units – this is an appropriate balance between the interests of property owners and the interests of renters. Substantially higher vacancy rates can make it difficult for property owners to afford maintenance and responsive management; and in the worst case can lead to foreclosure. Substantially lower vacancy rates can lead to rent inflation and enables bad landlords and substandard properties to stay in the market. When renters have choices, property owners are forced to compete and to invest in their units to keep them occupied. The ACS estimate of 3.9% vacancy is low, but not problematic. It suggests capacity for additional units without putting the market out of balance.

Figure 3.30 – Vacancy Rates City of Marshfield

City of Stevens Point

City of Wausau

City of Wisconsin Rapids

Occupied units

8,539

10,762

16,405

8,492

2,286,339

Vacant units

432*

603*

1,943

501*

334,062

0.60%*

1.00%*

3.70%*

2.90%*

1.90%

3.90%*

3.20%*

6.40%*

5.80%*

5.60%

Homeowner vacancy Rental vacancy

State

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

29

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Interview Feedback on Vacancy Rates The interviews revealed some nuance to the vacancy characteristics of the rental market. Members of the Marshfield Apartment Association reported difficulty maintaining occupancy and long periods without the ability to raise lease rates. This organization is mostly comprised of landlords with small buildings; the owners and managers of the larger buildings and complexes are not members. Contact with the larger properties, and other anecdotal feedback, reveal high demand for those properties, especially for newer, higher-end units. Most interviewees reported that there are units available in the City, but not the units that people want.

REAL ESTATE SALES AND LISTINGS To evaluate the function of the real estate market we collected data from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), which tracks real estate listings and sales. We collected MLS data for the City of Marshfield and surrounding area with assistance from a local realtor and for the county, region, and state from the Wisconsin Realtors Association. Figure 3.31 shows the number of homes sold each year, 2008-2013, as a percentage of the number sold in 2007 5. This graph shows that the housing market within the City of Marshfield was affected by the Great Recession in a manner similar to the county, region 6 and state.

Home sales declined to a low of 20% or more below pre-recession levels in 2010 and 2011, at all geographic scales, and then recovered in 2012 and 2013 to exceed pre-recession levels.

Prices are also recovering from a slump that bottomed out in 2011 and have not yet fully recovered.

Prices in the City of Marshfield have fluctuated more than in the surrounding region, including a high of 4% above 2007 prices in 2011, and a low of 10% below 2007 prices in 2012. Prices declined less in central Wisconsin than in the state as a whole, likely reflecting the fact that prices were lower here to begin with and had seen less growth prior to 2007. Figure 3.32 shows the actual prices, year by year, for Marshfield, each of the three surrounding counties, and the state. This graph shows the variation in prices and values among these counties. Marathon County, with the largest city in the region, has the highest prices and saw the greatest drop in prices. Clark County has the fewest and smallest cities and saw the least depreciation. Wood County and Marshfield fall between those counties in terms of housing prices and depreciation.

5

The “Great Recession” - is technically considered to have begun in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 in the United States.

6

The “Central Region” as tracked by the Wisconsin Realtors Association includes eight counties: Adams, Clark, Juneau, Marathon, Marquette, Portage, Waushara, and Wood.

30

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.31 – Home Sales Per Year, 2008-2013

Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS), Wisconsin Realtors Association (WRA)

Figure 3.32 – Home Sale Median Price as a Percentage of 2007 Prices, 2008-2013

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

31

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.33 – Home Sale Median Price 2007-2013

Source: Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Taking a closer look at data for the City of Marshfield only in Figure 3.34, we see the same sales data and trends illustrated in the preceding graphs. This table also includes the number of listings, revealing a notable spike in listings over the past two years. After dropping off less than 10% from pre-recession numbers, listings were nearly 21% higher in 2013 than they were in 2007. This finding likely reflects optimism by sellers about the ability to find buyers at an acceptable price, and it indicates a strong supply of existing units on the market.

Figure 3.34 - Single Family Home Sales, City of Marshfield, 2005-2013 Year 2005

Qty Sold % Change 231

% % Qty Volume Change Average Sale change Median Sale % Change Active % Change $ 28,534,044 $ 123,524 $ 113,000 371

2006

238

3.03%

$

28,655,914

0.43%

$ 120,403

-2.53%

$ 105,450

-6.68%

430

15.90%

2007

233

-2.10%

$

32,881,426

14.75%

$ 141,122

17.21%

$ 116,700

10.67%

439

2.09%

2008

200

-14.16%

$

27,815,000 -15.41%

$ 139,075

-1.45%

$ 117,000

0.26%

403

-8.20%

2009

216

8.00%

$

27,693,360

-0.44%

$ 128,210

-7.81%

$ 110,500

-5.56%

399

-0.99%

2010

186

-13.89%

$

23,048,004 -16.77%

$ 123,914

-3.35%

$ 111,750

1.13%

437

9.52%

2011

186

0.00%

$

23,739,552

3.00%

$ 127,632

3.00%

$ 121,250

8.50%

436

-0.23%

2012

204

9.68%

$

22,821,480

-3.87%

$ 111,870 -12.35%

$ 105,000

-13.40%

491

12.61%

2013

234

14.71%

$

28,517,112

24.96%

$ 121,868

$ 109,900

4.67%

530

7.94%

Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS)

32

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

8.94%

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figures 3.35 and 3.36 offer a snapshot of active listings in early January 2014. Figure 3.35 includes listings only within the City of Marshfield, while Figure 3.36 is listings within a 20-mile radius of downtown Marshfield, inclusive of the City. As illustrated in Figure 3.37, that 20-mile radius includes all of the surrounding towns and villages, but it does not include any of the peer communities of Wisconsin Rapids, Stevens Point or Wausau.

These data reveal a substantial number of listings outside the City of Marshfield, and a remarkably similar median listing price in both geographies that closely matches the 2013 median sale price in Marshfield. The average listing price in both geographies is higher than the median, a normal finding reflecting the fact that the upper end of the market is further above the median than the lower end is below it. In other words, there are plenty of homes in the $200K to $300K range that skew the average price. Of note, though, is the fact that the median price is lower in the wider area than in Marshfield, but the average price is higher. There are larger homes on more acreage outside the City skewing that number higher.

A finding of mild interest is the ratio between households and single family market listings. There are approximately 5,270 owner-occupied households in the City of Marshfield, and a ratio of 1 active singlefamily listing per 40 owner-occupied households. In the wider area, inclusive of Marshfield, there are about 18,110 owner-occupied households, and a ratio of 1 listing per 43 households. In other words, the availability of existing homes for purchase is slightly higher in the City, but essentially similar to the surrounding area.

Figure 3.35 - City of Marshfield Active Residential Listings, Jan. 8, 2014 Average Price

Median Price

132

$133,883

$110,450

153

Condo

6

$228,233

$244,900

393

Duplex

13

$91,646

$74,900

196

3

$132,300

$119,900

58

Single Family

Listings

Fourplex

Average Days on Market

Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Figure 3.36 - Marshfield Area* Active Residential Listings, Jan. 8, 2014 Average Price

Median Price

422

$139,886

$109,750

181

Condo

7

$204,614

$209,900

362

Duplex

18

$85,233

$74,950

206

3

$132,300

$119,900

58

Single Family

Fourplex

Listings

Average Days on Market

* 20 mile radius from central Marshfield, see map

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

33

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Source: Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Figure 3.37 – 20-Mile Radius from Downtown Marshfield

A noteworthy finding is the small number of condominiums on the market in this January 2014 snapshot. Those six units (seven in the wider area) have a relatively high price, more than double the single family median price, which likely explains their average time on the market greater than one year.

The MLS data also show (not listed in these tables) that in the year preceding this snapshot (January 9, 2013 to January 8, 2014), there were four condominium units sold in the City of Marshfield at an average price of $133,350, and one additional unit outside the City at a price of $78,500.

34

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study 3.4 Leakage This section describes the portion of the Marshfield housing market that is outside the City of Marshfield, and offers data to explain this ”leakage” of housing demand to other jurisdictions.

EMPLOYMENT CENTER The Marshfield housing market is broader than the City of Marshfield, as everyone understands. Many people who work in Marshfield live elsewhere. The ratio of people employed in the City of Marshfield to people that live in the City is one of the reasons for this study. Figure 3.38 compares Marshfield to peer communities and wider geographies on this ratio, and Marshfield is a remarkable outlier. Among City residents, there is an active workforce of roughly 9,400 people, per the 2008-2012 ACS. Yet there may be as many as 20,600 people employed in the City, indicating an influx of about 11,000 people every workday.

Figure 3.38 – Ratio of Employees to Residents

Geography City of Marshfield City of Wisconsin Rapids City of Stevens Point City of Wausau Wood County Marathon County Portage County Wisconsin

Employees 20,593 11,774 16,164 23,163 43,096 61,201 30,482 2,440,741

Residents 19,248 18,423 27,050 39,026 75,295 135,452 71,068 5,745,625

Ratio of Employees/ Residents 1.07 0.64 0.60 0.59 0.57 0.45 0.43 0.42

US 121,634,921 313,129,017 0.39 Source: Copyright 2012 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. All rights reserved. Esri Total Residential Population forecasts for 2012.

This daily importing of workers is a positive dynamic in several ways. It indicates a strong employment market with more job opportunities, and it is drawing retail and service customers into the City every day, enhancing the number and quality of those businesses to the benefit of residents and visitors alike.

However, it also means missed opportunities for the local government and economy. Those employees that live outside the City of Marshfield are using the City streets each day, but they are not contributing property taxes to their upkeep, except through taxes paid by their employer and any retail or service businesses they frequent. While those employees may be spending some of their income in the City, they are almost certainly spending less within the City economy than if they lived there.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

35

2014 Marshfield Housing Study WHERE DO THEY LIVE? So where do Marshfield’s workers live? There are two sources of data to answer this question. The first is the American Community Survey (ACS), which maintains data regarding where people work and where they live, and the various flows among those places. Figure 3.39 suggests that about two-thirds of employees live in the city. The remaining third commute from surrounding communities. It is important to note that this ACS data lumps rural residents into the nearest incorporated municipality – some of those “Marshfield” employees actually live in the surrounding towns.

Figure 3.39 – Top Ten Places of Residence for Marshfield Workers City of Marshfield

7315 67.66%

Village of Spencer

470

4.35%

City of Wisconsin Rapids

385

3.56%

Village of Hewitt

380

3.51%

Village of Stratford

305

2.82%

City of Stevens Point

215

1.99%

Village of Auburndale

155

1.43%

City of Loyal

140

1.29%

City of Pittsville

105

0.97% 0.79%

City of Colby

85

Figure 3.40 – Community Survey Respondents’ Place of Residence

Source: ACS 2008-2012 Avg. An alternative measure is from the community housing survey, which asked respondents to indicate their specific place of residence. Just over 50% lived in Marshfield, and the remaining 49% came from all over. The most common responses were nearby towns. See Figure 3.40 which lists the top 12 places of residence after Marshfield, excerpted from the survey summary (Appendix B). These 12 communities account for another 30% of responses. The remaining 19% included other nearby communities (e.g.

Town of Wood in Wood County, Town of Cleveland in Marathon County, Town of York in Clark County) and a few that are further away (e.g. Dane County, Chippewa County, Waukesha County).

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 12

City of Marshfield Town of McMillan Town of Lincoln Town of Richfield Town of Marshfield Village of Spencer Village of Hewitt Town of Spencer Village of Stratford Town of Day Town of Fremont Town of Rock City of Stevens Point

49.2% 4.8% 3.7% 3.5% 3.1% 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1%

Source: 2014 Marshfield Housing Survey

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study WHY DO PEOPLE LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY? There are a variety of reasons people choose to live outside the City, many of them revealed in the interviews and survey.

Interview Feedback Most of the interviews included discussion of this topic. A common response is that Marshfield is perceived to be a higher-cost place to live due to taxes and higher infrastructure requirements.

Developers, bankers, and realtors all noted these issues as reasons people are looking outside the City, especially to build a new home. They cited the lesser infrastructure requirements in the towns (no sidewalks, no curb and gutter, no sewer) and the greater tendency by the surrounding cities and villages to subsidize infrastructure with tax incremental financing (TIF). And these competitive disadvantages are constraining not only interest by homebuyers in new construction in the City, but also interest by developers to create new lots. There is general perception that the supply and choice of available lots are low, and that this is contributing to the anemic new home construction in the City.

Interviewees also noted that many people who choose to live outside the City simply prefer rural living, for the scenery, larger lot size, etc.

Survey Responses Survey respondents were asked to prioritize a series of issues, or criteria, when selecting housing. The highest-ranked response was “cost/value”, followed by “safety” and “neighborhood”. The lowestranked criterion was “proximity to restaurants and shopping”. The survey also asked people directly, “If you do not live in the City of Marshfield, please indicate why.” Figure 3.41 shows the responses from the 789 people who answered the question. Among the people who live outside the City, about one in three responded that taxes in the City are too high. One in five non-residents cited housing choice and one in five cited prices. But the most common response, “other”, revealed an answer that should have been included as one of the answer choices: desire to live in the country. People cited the need or desire for “acreage”, or “space”, or “privacy”, or “rural setting”. The most frequent word used in the comments was “country”.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

37

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.41 – Community Housing Survey Responses

Source: 2014 Marshfield Housing Survey

38

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Taxes Figure 3.42 provides context for a discussion about tax rates in Marshfield compared to other communities. Looking at the same group of communities previously compared for population growth, we find a range of tax rates higher and lower than in Marshfield. Not surprisingly, the lowest rates in the marketplace are all in towns. A $200,000 home will cost the owner about $1,000 to $1,350 less per year in taxes in one of those towns than in Marshfield, based on 2012 rates.

Figure 3.42 – 2012 Tax Rates 2012 Taxes on Effective $200,000 Tax Rate home 0.01725 $ 3,450

Difference vs.

Marshfield, $ (1,350)

Population Change, 2000-2010 0.2%

Community Town of Cameron

County Wood

Town of Cleveland

Marathon

0.01756 $

3,512

$

(1,288)

28.3%

Town of Lincoln

Wood

0.01767 $

3,534

$

(1,266)

0.6%

Town of Marshfield

Wood

0.01808 $

3,616

$

(1,184)

-5.8%

Town of McMillan

Marathon

0.01814 $

3,628

$

(1,172)

29.2%

Town of Richfield

Wood

0.01850 $

3,700

$

(1,100)

6.9%

Town of Spencer

Marathon

0.01858 $

3,716

$

(1,084)

17.9%

Town of Day

Marathon

0.01885 $

3,770

$

(1,030)

6.1%

Village of Hewitt

Marathon

0.02067 $

4,134

$

(666)

23.6%

Town of Fremont

Clark

0.02101 $

4,202

$

(598)

6.3%

Village of Stratford

Marathon

0.02112 $

4,224

$

(576)

3.6%

Village of Unity

Clark

0.02267 $

4,534

$

(266)

-6.8%

Village of Spencer

Marathon

0.02381 $

4,762

$

(38)

-0.4%

City of Stevens Point

Portage

0.02385 $

4,770

$

(30)

8.8%

City of Marshfield

Wood+Marathon

0.02400 $

4,800

$

-

1.7%

City of Abbotsford

Marathon

0.02511 $

5,022

$

222

18.1%

Village of Granton

Clark

0.02517 $

5,034

$

234

-12.6%

City of Colby

Marathon

0.02519 $

5,038

$

238

14.6%

City of Wausau

Marathon

0.02579 $

5,158

$

358

1.8%

City of Wisconsin Rapids

Wood

0.02649 $

5,298

$

498

0.1%

City of Pittsville

Wood

0.02817 $

5,634

$

834

0.9%

Source: WI Department of Revenue

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

39

2014 Marshfield Housing Study TIF Policy and Practices The communities of Spencer, Stratford and Pittsville each have TIF districts that include residential subdivisions. These communities issued bonds to develop the infrastructure in the subdivisions, and they have agreements with developers to build a certain number of homes per year. By comparison, Marshfield’s six active TIF districts are mainly targeted toward developing commercial and industrial businesses.

Supply of Available Lots Per City parcel data, there are 233 residential parcels platted and served with utilities but not yet built upon. See Figure 3.43. It should be noted that many of these lots are not on the market. Based on Multiple Listing Service data there are 50 lots available in the City as of March 2014, with a median price of $38,900. Most of these 50 lots are concentrated in a few places: • • • •

Peachtree Circle on the south side – 15 lots at a typical price of $21,000 Green Acres on the east side – 13 lots at a typical price of $39,000 Sycamore Ave on the west side – 4 lots at a typical price of $53,000 Prairie Run on the north side – 6 lots at a typical price of $62,000

The remaining 12 lots are scattered across the city.

In the 20-mile radius area around Marshfield, not including the City, there are 96 residential lots available with a median price of $25,550.

40

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Figure 3.43 – Available Residential Lots

Commuting Some interviewees noted that there is little additional commuting cost, in time or transportation, for people who choose to live outside the City. According to the ACS, the average commute time for City residents is 14.3 minutes, and almost 75% of residents have a commute less than 15 minutes. Looking at the area around the City, a 15-minute “driveshed” includes many towns and villages around the City – see the red line in Figure 3.45. And, of course, since many people who move to Marshfield likely come MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

41

2014 Marshfield Housing Study from larger urban areas where they were accustomed to commutes of 20 minutes or more, the next ring out (see the purple line) remains attractive to many Marshfield commuters.

Figure 3.44 – City of Marshfield Commute Times

Source: ACS 2008 -2012 Avg.

Figure 3.45 – Drive Time Map Red line = 15 minutes, Purple line = 20 minutes

Sources: ESRI Business Analyst Online, Google Maps

42

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study 3.5 Gaps For the purposes of this study, “gaps” are gaps between supply and demand within the regional housing market, such that people who work in Marshfield or want to live in the area are unable to find what they consider to be appropriate housing. This is distinct from leakage, which is loss of market share from the City of Marshfield to the surrounding communities.

This section identifies and describes the gaps in the regional housing market. It builds upon the data of the prior sections and features more interview and survey results that document breakdowns and shortcomings of the market.

1) INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOUSING The interviews for this study, especially with employers, revealed an acute need for short-term rental housing. When people relocate to the City they sometimes have difficulty finding good housing, and would like the flexibility of a short-term, month-to-month or 90-day rental option while they complete the search for more permanent housing. This problem is mostly invisible to long-term residents familiar with the area, but a persistent problem for new arrivals and the human resources specialists working to attract and retain new workers.

While most of the people needing this option are seeking permanent housing, there are also some short-term residents in need of better options, such as research fellows. A phone survey of apartment managers confirmed that some of the larger apartment complexes offer leases shorter than 12 months,while others do not. Those that do not offer shorter leases are trying to reduce turnover and manage the costs of cleaning, advertising, credit checks, etc., associated with tenant turnover. One of the larger management companies, Northern Management, indicated that it does offer month-tomonth leases and also some furnished apartments. The property manager noted that demand for shortterm and furnished units is strongest in the winter months.

2) INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PET-FRIENDLY RENTAL HOUSING While there were no questions about pets in the community housing survey, about 5% of renters noted a need for more units that accept pets. For example: “More rental housing, either apartments, duplexes or single family homes that accept pets.” On the flip side of the coin, one respondent complained that there are too many units that smell of pet urine. While there are certainly challenges associated with allowing pets, including the risks of noise, damage, and allergy issues for other tenants, some owners do allow pets and apparently manage those risks successfully based on the lack of other complaints about pets in the survey. Additional monthly charges for pets are typical and appropriate.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

43

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

3) INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF DESIRABLE OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING IN THE CITY UNDER $200,000 The analysis of real estate listings and sales revealed strong and seemingly healthy activity in the market in 2013, and modest prices distributed above and below a median of about $109,000. Yet in the interviews and in the survey, people repeatedly noted a need for mid-range housing. When asked in the housing survey “What housing types does Marshfield need?”, “moderately priced homes” was the most frequent affirmative response. One-third of respondents said more are needed, and another one-third said “a lot more” are needed.

So what is the disconnect between the apparent availability of modestly-priced homes and these responses? The answer may be summed up in this survey comment: “Lots of homes for sale, none that are good.” Many survey respondents note an abundance of homes that they deem unacceptable due to their condition. Realtors note demand specifically in the $125,000 to $200,000 range, which is well above the cost of over half the market. That lower-cost market is finding buyers, but it is leaving many buyers unsatisfied and pushing them to consider building new. A buyer with a budget of up to $200,000 has ample opportunity to renovate a $100,000 home, but it is apparent from survey responses and declining building permit trends that too few homebuyers and homeowners are willing to take on major renovations.

4) INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWNHOMES The interviews and survey revealed demand for condos and townhomes, especially to meet the needs of busy professionals with the income to afford comfortable housing but neither the time nor the interest in yard maintenance. When asked in the survey what type of housing they would look for when moving to or within the Marshfield area, 11.5% of respondents answered “condominium”.

These local findings are consistent with the findings from a national Urban Land Institute survey. That survey showed that “boomers” (born 1946-1964) generally live in and own single family homes, and believe that homeownership is a good investment. However, of baby boomers that expected to move within the next five years, 10% expected to move from single family detached houses to townhouses or other forms of attached housing.

Yet despite the converging interest from two different generations of homebuyers, there are only about 150 condos in the City, plus a handful of townhomes, together making up less than 2% of total housing units. This is a gap and an opportunity for developers to respond to unmet demand.

44

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study 5) INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF ACCEPTABLE RENTAL UNITS AT THE LOWER END OF THE MARKET As previously noted in the review of vacancy rates, owners of smaller, older apartment buildings have had trouble maintaining occupancy and raising rates to keep pace with inflation. At the same time, vacancy in the market as a whole is low, and it is especially low at the high end of the market, where landlords have been able to raise rates routinely and maintain occupancy. The interviews and survey results strongly reinforce this finding. Many respondents noted the poor condition of older Marshfield apartments.

This gap is similar to the quality problem in the lower range of the owner-occupied market. Yet there is a difference, most tellingly revealed in the housing survey. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement “There are appropriate and adequate housing options available within the City of Marshfield”, 45% agreed or strongly agreed, and only 33% disagreed (the remaining 22% weren’t sure).

Yet, as revealed in Figure 3.46, the responses look different when broken down into owners and renters.

A full 55% of renters disagree with the statement, and less than 15% weren’t sure. In other words, those people most familiar with the rental portion of the market have a poor opinion of the market.

Figure 3.46 – Housing Survey Responses – Appropriate Housing Options

Source: 2014 Marshfield Housing Survey

6) INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF UNITS AT THE HIGH END OF THE RENTAL MARKET Another recurring theme of the interviews and surveys was the low vacancy rate and high demand for the highest-quality rental units. The Clinic and other employers of high-income professionals draw people that need or prefer the convenience of renting and are willing to pay a premium, by Marshfield standards, to have a nice apartment. Based on ACS data, only 4% of rental units cost more than $1,000 per month.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

45

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Assuming an affordability threshhold of 30% of gross income, a household earning the median household income of $42,783 can afford to pay about $1,070 per month on housing costs. Half of Marshfield households can afford more than this. Of the 40% of all Marshfield households rent, about 20% earn more than $50,000 per year and can afford more than $1,000 per month in housing. This is 8% of all households, double the 4% of rental units available in this price range. While the ability to pay more for housing does not equate to the willingness to do so, the interview and survey results reinforce a finding of a gap between supply and demand at the high end of the market. A sample of relevant comments from the survey: “Higher end rentals seem to be missing completely.”

“High end apartment complexes for executives are missing.”

“There is a need for apartments in the executive style, with amenities for those not wanting to own right away.”

46

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study 3.6 National Trends Affecting Marshfield Housing Though not at the forefront of any national trends, Marshfield remains connected to and affected by trends affecting housing across the country, including changes in financial regulation, demographics, development practices and cultural norms. The section describes some of the most relevant changes affecting housing demand in the Marshfield area.

1) Household size and house size Household size – the number of people living together – has been in decline for more than 50 years due to multiple related trends. In 1960 the average U.S. household size was 3.35 people, and by 2010 it was 2.59. Causes include declining birthrates, declining marriage rates and increasing age of first marriage, and increased longevity. In other words, people are spending more of their lives single, and those that choose to be parents are having fewer kids.

The effects of these changes on housing are varied, and not always predictable. The size of new houses has increased more or less steadily over the past 40 years, from an average of 1,400 SF in 1970 to an average of 2,600 SF in 2013. While households have been shrinking, families have been giving children their own rooms and designating separate spaces for things like home offices. A more predictable trend is the growth of retirement housing to accommodate the needs and interests of older people, many of whom live for years as one-person households.

National data on apartment size suggest they too have grown, though not as dramatically, to an average of about 1,000 SF. Data for the city of Marshfield is silent on square footage but indicate that there are very few apartment units available with three or more bedrooms. A lack of three- and four-bedroom apartments is common – the market for these units is small and the supply is typically small also, resulting in limited availability. For families that need more bedrooms but prefer to rent or cannot purchase, duplex and single family homes on the rental market are currently and may continue to be the best option.

2) Home Ownership Preferences Census Bureau statistics confirm that rates of younger homebuyers, ages 35 and below, have been in decline since the recession. Rates have dropped for all groups, but the decrease has been more pronounced for younger buyers. 7 Studies conducted by the Joint Center for Housing Studies, Morgan Stanley, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston cite waning confidence in the investment that home ownership represents. While surveys conducted by Fannie Mae and others – including the Marshfield community housing survey conducted for this project indicate that home ownership is still a very common aspiration, much commentary on the subject reveals a theme of expanded preference for the ease and perceived lack of constraints

7

Census Bureau Homeowner Stats, homeowner rates by age 1990 - 2010

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

47

2014 Marshfield Housing Study that renting can offer. 8 It is difficult to say if home ownership rates will remain lower, or if they will return over time to pre-recession levels. The next topic suggest they will not return to those levels, even if preferences for ownership remain strong 3) Stricter Lending Regulation Lender underwriting requirements have stiffened considerably in the wake of the housing crisis that caused the Great Recession. Most recently, in January 2014, provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act kicked in that establish standards for a “qualified mortgage” that can be purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The standards compel banks to verify that borrowers’ debt-toincome ratio doesn’t exceed 43 percent of their gross income, part of an effort to prevent people from overexposing themselves to the risk of foreclosure. Banks that fail to verify this debt ratio can be sued by the borrower if he or she later defaults on the loan.

The long-term effects of this regulation are uncertain, but it is fair to assume that some aspiring homeowners will be protected from foreclosure by being denied a mortgage in the first place.

These changes, while valuable to the health of the economy, will likely prevent a return to prerecession home ownership levels.

4) Planning and Development Practices The dominant trend in community planning and development after World War II was the segregation and concentration of uses and housing types – stores here, single family homes there, apartments somewhere else. This trend has been shown to weaken neighborhoods and communities by isolating people. It is now generally recognized that healthy neighborhoods are those that people can stay in over time as their needs and interests change. Healthy neighborhoods include a mix of housing types, sizes, and price points, and they often include or are near to stores and restaurants. Healthy neighborhoods are also walkable, enabling anyone unable to drive – kids, seniors – the ability to get around safely.

8

48

Generation Rent –NPR, Millenials are not Homebuyers – USA Today

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study

CHAPTER 4 - Strategic Housing Plan This chapter offers goals, objectives and strategies for the City of Marshfield and its community partners to encourage and guide housing investments in the City. It is important to reiterate the underlying economic goals of this plan: 1) Fiscal health for the City through protection and growth of the real estate tax base This study shows the loss of housing market share to the surrounding region, and a significant daily influx of employees who live elsewhere. Those employers use City streets each day, and may be taking advantage of parks and other amenities also, but are paying their real estate taxes elsewhere. This plan seeks to reverse this trend by attracting housing investment within the City.

2) Business and employment growth through the elimination of housing choice impediments It is understood that housing investments will not drive business and employment growth, but it is also understood that a lack of units desired by employees is a recruitment and retention impediment. Employers and employees identified several supply gaps as impediments to employee attraction – this plan seeks to close those gaps.

Goal 1 – Expand options for those who wish to rent housing in Marshfield Forty percent of Marshfield residents rent their homes. Their needs are diverse, and some of those needs are unmet right now.

Objective 1.1 - Increase the availability and awareness of month-to-month and 90-day leases Interviewees and survey respondents reported demand for more short-term rentals to meet the needs of short-term workers and newcomers to the City. This is a somewhat unusual problem that the private market should be solving. Property owners can and should charge a premium for short-term rentals to cover the costs of increased turnover. Some do, but more units are needed.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

49

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Objective 1.2 - Increase the availability of pet-friendly units Many survey respondents noted difficulty finding pet-friendly units in the rental market. While there are some obvious downsides from a property owner perspective – damage, odors, noise, allergies, etc.

– there is also a clear and persistent desire to own pets that should be seen as market opportunity for enterprising property owners.

Objective 1.3 - Increase the quality of the city’s lower-priced rental units Rental housing is a commercial enterprise that needs to compete for customers or go out of business.

Many survey respondents complained about the quality of units in the City, indicating a need for investment to remain competitive.

Objective 1.4 - Increase the supply of rental units at the high end of the market Property owner and renter feedback indicated low vacancy among the City’s best units. While higherincome households tend to prefer home ownership, there will also be some that prefer to rent for a variety of reasons, including flexibility and convenience.

The following strategies are recommended to expand rental housing choices: Strategy 1.1 Permit the construction of more mid-range and high-end rental units New units should include some renting for more than $1,000/month. Adding units to the market will improve the availability of units and the willingness of property owners to address renter needs. It may also pressure some property owners of lower-quality units to invest in or sell their properties.

Note that the risk of overbuilding this end of the market is much lower than the risk of overbuilding the low end of the market. Today’s Class A rental units will be the Class B units 510 years from now. Starting with quality is a good thing for the long term health of the market.  Responsible Party – City Council  Cost – negligible  Priority – 2014, ongoing Strategy 1.2 Ask rental property owners to help expand renter choice The Marshfield Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MACCI) should reach out directly to property owners and landlords to encourage the offering of short-term leases and pet-friendly units. In the process, MACCI should build a database of properties that offer or plan to offer short-term leases and pet-friendly policies and share those findings with members, especially the HR directors of the larger employers.  Responsible Party-MACCI  Cost – negligible  Priority – 2014

50

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Strategy 1.3 Create a rental registry or occupancy permit program To ensure that basic health and safety standards are being met, the City should inspect rental units at least annually for code violations. Inspectors should operate in an educational approach, helping property owners recognize, understand, and comply with code requirements.  Responsible Party - City Council (with staff support)  Cost – One full-time inspector plus support tasks - $40,000-$60,000  Priority – 2015 Strategy 1.4 Create a rental housing rehab revolving loan fund The improvement of housing quality can be addressed with both a stick (see Strategy 1.3) and a carrot (this strategy). This program could be capitalized with TIF money and focused on the downtown area. The following criteria are suggested: • • • • • •

Focus the program in a specific area of greatest need, where the results may be more noticeable – the downtown area is recommended, or a subset thereof 0% interest, but repayment required – not forgivable Priority to exterior repairs (roofing, siding, porches), window replacements, and energy efficiency Option of an affordability cap on rental rates based on the number of bedrooms, at least during the term of the loan Dollar for dollar match, up to $10,000 maximum loan per unit, 2-unit maximum per applicant per year $50,000 suggested annual budget for the first five years.

 Responsible Party – City Council (with staff and Economic Development Board support)  Cost – $50,000/year  Priority – 2016 or 2017

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

51

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Goal 2 – Expand options in Marshfield for those who wish to own their home Sixty percent of Marshfield residents own their housing, and home ownership continues to be desirable across the demographic spectrum despite some attitudinal shifts among younger residents. There are some gaps between supply and demand that need to be addressed.

Objective 2.1 – Increase the supply of quality homes available below $200,000 Interview and survey responses indicated a desire for more homes in the City that have the right balance between cost and quality in homes for purchase. Ninety percent of existing homes are valued below $200,000, but we heard many complaints about the condition of those homes.

Objective 2.2 – Increase the supply of condominiums There are very few condominiums in a community with more residents than typical ages 25-34 and 65+.

Despite the trauma of the great recession that may have scared some developers away from the condo format, condominiums and townhomes offer genuine advantages that will be recognized in the market, especially including lower maintenance effort. While the market (developers) should be recognizing this opportunity, it appears to need help in Marshfield.

The following strategies are recommended to expand owner-occupied housing choices: Strategy 2.1

Create a housing investment grant program

The City’s housing stock needs rehabilitation and investment. A grant program could leverage significant investment. The funding source could be the City’s general fund, or tax incremental financing districts – the City should be able to include funding for this program in each new TIF district created, and allow use of the funds within one-half mile of the district.

The following criteria are suggested: •

52

Focus the program in a specific area of greatest need, where the results may be more noticeable – the downtown area is recommended, or a subset thereof

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study • • • • •

No income limits (for simplicity and broad appeal) Properties assessed below $100,000 only Owner-occupants only 10% maximum grant, minimum $2,500, maximum $10,000 $50,000 suggested annual budget

 Responsible Party - City Council (Staff, Economic Development Board)  Cost – $50,000/year plus staff administration time  Priority – 2015 Strategy 2.2 Prepare and promote remodeling “Pattern Books” Many of the City’s older homes need remodeling to make them viable in the market, sometimes including additions. Homes of the same era often have similar floor plans and exterior designs.

To encourage investment and remodeling in architecturally appropriate ways, the City could create and promote a booklet that illustrates common remodeling and addition techniques specific to a few most common home types.  Responsible Party - Planning and Development Staff  Cost – $20,000-$30,000 to hire a consultant  Priority – 2015 or 2016 Strategy 2.3 Consider subsidizing new owner-occupied housing development If the City wishes to compete effectively with the surrounding towns that don’t require much public infrastructure with housing development, and with the smaller cities and villages that require less infrastructure and/or use tax incremental financing (TIF) to pay for the infrastructure, it needs to play the same game as those cities and villages. The City can use TIF to encourage new owner-occupied housing, including single family units and condominiums.

The City Council should review current practices and discuss the use of TIF to support housing development in general and single family housing in particular.  Responsible Party - City Council (with staff support)  Cost – Variable, TIF funded  Priority – 2014 Strategy 2.4

Encourage the development of condominiums in a variety of formats and locations

Condominiums combine the financial advantages of ownership (i.e. tax credits) with many of the maintenance advantages of renting. They can take a variety of forms, from downtown “flats” to a suburban duplex arrangement. Based on survey results it is strongly recommended to include enclosed parking with condo units - more than 82% of housing survey respondents that said

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

53

2014 Marshfield Housing Study they are interested in a condo when they move next said they believe enclosed parking to be a necessity.  Responsible Party - City Council  Cost – Variable, could encourage with TIF support  Priority – 2014, ongoing

Goal 3 – Leverage housing investments to enhance neighborhood health Healthy neighborhoods include a mix of housing types, sizes, and price points, and they often include or are near to stores and restaurants. Healthy neighborhoods are also walkable, enabling anyone unable to drive – kids, seniors – the ability to get around safely.

The following strategies are recommended to enhance neighborhood health: Strategy 3.1

Encourage multiple unit types and sizes in all housing projects and throughout the City

The comprehensive plan should emphasize the importance of mixing unit types and sizes, and the future land use map and associated policies should seek to avoid concentrations of similar units, especially rental housing concentration.

Any housing proposal with more than about 20 units should include some diversity of options, at least in terms of unit size and cost. Developers should be encouraged to offer some variety, and the City should consider the characteristics of housing in the surrounding neighborhood when a new project is proposed.

Strategy 3.2

Encourage new housing development downtown

The survey results revealed no dominant preference for the location of new housing, other than “where there is space for growth”, and responses suggest a perception that there is not space for growth downtown. In fact, there are vacant lots available that could easily accommodate condominiums or apartments, either stand-alone or as part of a mixed-use development. And

54

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

2014 Marshfield Housing Study there are more locations that could be redeveloped to include new housing. New downtown housing will continue the revitalization of the downtown area, especially by increasing evening activity and retail users.

The City should identify suitable locations for new housing in a downtown plan and set parameters on development to inform and streamline the development process, especially heights, setbacks, and parking accommodation.

Strategy 3.3

Avoid development patterns that leave apartments physically isolated from other uses

Apartment complexes should be integrated with and connected to existing neighborhoods whenever possible. This includes provision of safe bike and pedestrian routes that enable residents to reach parks, retail businesses, etc.

Unintended Consequences Housing markets are complex and fluid ecosystems. Changes in one part of the market will have effects on other parts of the market. Some of these effects are predictable, and the City should be alert to and prepared for other challenges that may arise as a result of the strategies recommended in this plan.

Rental inspections and increased competition could lead to foreclosures on the poorestquality properties.

Increased supply in any market puts pressure on the lowest-quality product to improve or fail.

As more rental units are built this year and beyond, the low-quality units should have an even harder time attracting renters. This is an appropriate and useful market force, but it is worth noting the risk that some “failures� will lead some property owners to walk aware from their property rather than invest in improvements. The rental inspection program may have the same effect. Other communities that have implemented new rental inspection programs, such as Wausau, have witnessed a spike in rental property foreclosures when property owners discover that they cannot afford necessary code compliance improvements. The City and local lending institutions should be prepared for the possibility of multifamily foreclosures and should consider a partnership with the Marshfield Area Apartment Association to offer information and education on cost-effective compliance strategies that may prevent foreclosure.

Improving housing quality could increase demand for public housing assistance Interviews, affordability data and a review of current public housing demand and practices indicate that low-income residents are generally able to find housing in Marshfield, though there are concerns about the quality of the market-rate housing. As various initiatives are implemented to improve quality and safety, it is reasonable to assume that rental rates will be raised and some low-income residents will have fewer options. The City and the Community Development Authority should monitor demand for public assistance.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

55

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Appendix A: Maps Contents Rental Units per Parcel, 2013 Specialty Housing, 2013 Single Family Dwellings by Number of Bedrooms, 2013 Single Family Dwelling Value per Square Foot, 2103 Single Family/Duplex Lots Without Homes, 2013 Single Family Properties with Code Violations, 2003-2013 Rental Properties with Code Violations, 2003-2013 Properties Condemned by City Order, 2004-2013 All maps by City of Marshfield

Prepared for the City of Marshfield

By MSA Professional Services, Inc.

April 18, 2014

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

Units Per Parcel

Davis Ln

Mann St

Ruby Ln

ral

Ka th e rine Ct

Hume Ave

Je a Av n e

Palmetto

Apple

Ce nt

Ave

5th St

21st St

22nd St

24th St

24th St

26th St

Yellowstone Dr

Trophy Ln

Hume Ave

"A ) )H "

13 Æ %

35th St

B

Corporate Dr

Business Park Ave

10 £ ¤

Maximum: 206 Units Total: 4408 Units Westby Rd

0

10 £ ¤

"A )

R hfield Mars

d

13 Æ % 10

£ ¤

750

1,500

Feet

#

#

$

# %" & (

% $

#

! ' #

!

(

$

$ (

" #

) #

"

!

" $

( # $

#

$

" !"

$

$

" #%"

#

$ $

$

!"

$

"

%!

$

' $ %$

#

$

#

!"

$

$ (

" #

# # % #

" # ! #

$ (

"

$

%"

(

$

"

$

!"&

Stadt Rd

100 Units and Greater

Heritage Dr

Heritage Dr

Washington Ave

50 to 99 Units

Heritage Dr

Minimum: 1 Unit

Lincoln Ave

21 to 49 Units

BB " )

Apartment Units Per Parcel Statistics:

Oriole Ln

9 to 20 Units

Enterpr is

e Dr

5 to 8 Units

d

3 to 4 Units

Commer ce Dr

nwin

2 or Less Units

Dr

34th St

"A )

Rd

Dow

Airp a rk

Rental Units Units Per Parcel

Yellowstone

Mallard Ave

Praschak St

Yellow River Rd

Milling Ln

Short Ln

Stadt Rd

Green Acres

Auburn

H " )

Laemle Ave

13 Æ %

"H )

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave 4th St

Nikolai Ave

St

Tamarack Ave Washington Ave

Tamarack

Bluebird Ln

St

8 th

20th St

Pheasant Ln

Bluebird Ct

Wil low 4th

Anton Ave

F el ke r

Ave

to A ve

Maywood Ave

28th

Cherry Ave

Felker Ave

27th

Meadowbrook Dr

Arnold St

2 5t h St

26th St

Anton C t

Meadow Ln

Ant on Ave

Auburn Ave

Ave A ve

H in ma J un n o

dy A ve

Weber Ave Wil low Ave

e tto Pal m

Ave le

A pp

Ave E lm

P ur

d get t

Irene Ave

Hume Ave

Palmetto Ave

Plum

Ash

A ve

A sh

ch Pe a

20th St

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave

Peach Ave

Cedar Ave

A ve

A ve

P al m et

Hemlock Ave

Wallonnie

t St

ve

Apple Ave

B lo

Fillmore S

A iso n

Vine Ave

De po

St

19th St

wy

Wittman Ave

Jun Ct o Willo w Ct Hum e Do ege Ct St

18th St

el Tre mm t ec C

29th St

St

"Y )

Lawraine St

M ad

Dr

Ci r

15th St

Pk an

Cedar

Vin e

P ea

21st

6t h

Weister Ct 14th St

Apple Ave Erickson Ave Palmetto Ave

20th

nd

Moniqu e Ln

Hintz St

Av e

19th

25th St

Central Ave

ch

Ash

Vin e

9 th

Peach Ave

is

St

6th

7 th

vela

St

8th

18th

103

St

Edi so n St

Emerald St

"Y )

Dr

Rod d

Che r

A ve

Ave

rry

C he

St

5 th

4 th

P

Lincoln Ave

ry

r Av

St

A ve

Ave

h

St

17th St

Cedar Ave

A ve

) "

A ve

ve ut A

st n

Ave ple Av e

dar Ce

A ve

r al Cen t

C he

50 H

26th 26th Cir 27th 27th Cir 28th 28th Cir 29th

Airport Rd

9 th

16th

25th St

Airport Ln

Ma

P in

st n u

t

Oak Ave

Ave

Clark

Locust Ave

11t h

Central Ave

) "

3r d

15th

88

St

k wy n ut P

B

2nd

r Bu t t e

17th St

Ct

Wildwood

) " 206 60 Adams Ave

Balboa Ave

Schmidt Ave

Devine D

H

10t

Becker Rd

Fores54 t St

r

r

) "

91

h

1 st

100

Tiny TigersCt

Ka r u D a

14th St

7th

12t

Forest St

C le

Trout Rd

112

y kw

13th St

t St

b ra Ln De

Ives St

sP

12th St

6 th

St

P ark

5 th

St

Upham St

ran

11t h St

St

Magee

53 4 th

St

Vilas St

te Ve

Arlington St

97

Maple Ave

8th St Park

H

eA ve Spr u ce Av e Wa lnut Av e Che st n ut A ve

Highland Ave

Drake Ave

rtin D Ma

Severns

Wood

Columbus Ave

St

Maryknoll Ave

Birch Ave

Cypress Ave

Sycamore Ave

7th

3r d

Dep o

St

r

t

St

C he

Ced a

2nd

r

6th

ris o n

e

Spr u

C oncord Ave

State Ave

Westview Dr 4th St

"Y )

St

ce A ve

St

Walnut Ave

Ave

Oak Ave Pine A ve

old

Gr a

Ca

Hinman Ave

Fig

Balsam

St Joseph Ave y

Chestnut Ave Av e

Ave

North Hills Wo od o a Br dw ay Ave Shaw an o Dr

Wood

Columbus Ave

r Dr

Lau re l Ct

Wisconsin

Schmidt Ave

Adams Ave

Drake Ct

Lincoln Ave Magnolia

Ley

Mulberry

Larch Ave

Pkw

A rn

5th St

Schmidt Ave

Roberta Ln

Wren Rd

Evergreen

an s

k Ave

Linden Ave

te r

e tt

H ar

Wausha ra Dr

Wood County

Rene Marcy Ct

Kalsched St

97 Æ %

nt S t F ra nk lin St E dis on S t Doe ge S C le t ve l and St Blo dge tt S t Arn old St

Oa

Hawthorn Ave

Blo dg

68

Ives St

Western St

Ve

Hawthorn Ave

Laurel St

Kalsched

North St

St

s bu r D

m

Leonhard

Jefferson

Adler Rd

5th St

Holly Ave

e

n ho

State St

Col u

Ln

w sv ie

Wren Rd

Briarwood St wD irvi e r Fa Onstad Dr Blodgett St

70 70

Upham St

105

H e ide Ln

r

y Saw

Ridge Rd

ry ko Hic

Holly Ct

"Y )

Upham St

rat

Adler Rd

Laird St

Ma

"Y )

Colonial St

Marathon County McMillan St

McMillan St

nD me

Ives St

13 Æ %

McMillan St

n eL

St

Jefferson St

Ives St

Adams Ave

n tho

Amber Dr

Sunset Dr

R edhawk Ln

ow

Pheasant a ra M Nelson St

AAA

Northridge St

l W ild f

Prairie D r

Rd

60

" )

59

e r Dr Meadow Ave

Dr

ta

n Ru

McMillan St

Wood County

Ash St

Popple Ave

rt e Sh o

n Fro

ge

Marathon County

141

Sunflower St

Luther Ct Immanuel Ct

kw sP an

ss Dr

t er Ve

Frey Ave

Spencer St

Zyg St

Ln

97 Æ %

Galvin Ave

Ed

w o od

110

Wilderness View Dr

Hamus Dr

ge

"E )

D eer Run Ave

Ct

e Av

y kw

St Joseph Ave

o od

pp

sP an

Po

t er Ve

Lincoln Ave

C andlew

P enney Ln

y

Staadt A ve

Mann St

P eachtree

Villa

n Ma Ln

Mann St

te r et St u H

2/4/2014

Williams Dr

Zimmermann Rd

R uhe

ille nv

City of Marshfield, WI

Galvin Ave

Meadow Ave

Highlan

d Dr

13 Æ %

Frey C t

Frey A v e

Rainbow Ridge Rd

Rental Units

%"

#

$ (

" #

# #

# #"

#

! " $

$

$ (

" #

!$

" $

$

F:\Home\GIS\Depts\Planning\proj\HousingAssessment\Housing2013\Rentals.mxd

by Type

Williams Dr

Mann St

ss Dr rt e

Dr

Galvin Ave

Ka th e rine Ct

Hume Ave

Je a Av n e

Palmetto

Apple

Hinman Ave

ral Ce nt

Ave

5th St

28th

"H )

Hume Ave

24th St

24th St

26th St

Yellowstone Dr

e Dr

BB " )

Home & Business

Corporate Dr

d

RCAC Residential Care Aprts

Business Park Ave

nwin

Commer ce Dr Enterpr is

34th St

"A )

Rd

Dow

Airp a rk

CBRF

Heritage Dr

Heritage Dr

Heritage Dr

10 £ ¤

Elderly-Disabled Aprts

"A )

R hfield Mars

d

13 Æ % 10

£ ¤

750

1,500

Feet

#

#

$

# %" & (

% $

#

! ' #

!

(

$

$ (

" #

) #

"

!

" $

( # $

#

$

" !"

$

$

" #%"

#

$ $

$

!"

$

"

%!

$

' $ %$

#

$

#

!"

$

$ (

" #

# # % #

" # ! #

$ (

"

$

%"

(

$

"

$

!"&

Stadt Rd

10 £ ¤

Washington Ave

Boarding/Transitional Housing

Lincoln Ave

Westby Rd

0

Oriole Ln

Elderly Apartments

B

13 Æ %

35th St

Dr

Yellowstone

Mallard Ave

Yellow River Rd

Rooming House

Educational Related

22nd St

Praschak St

Hotel / Motel

Disabled Housing

"A ) )H "

Stadt Rd

21st St

Benevolent Housing County Group Home

Milling Ln

Short Ln

Laemle Ave

Green Acres

Auburn

Anton Ave

13 Æ %

H " )

Trophy Ln

27th

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave 4th St

Nikolai Ave

St

Tamarack Ave

26th St

Bluebird Ln

St

8 th

20th St

Pheasant Ln

Bluebird Ct

Wil low 4th

2 5t h St

Tamarack

Maywood Ave

Felker Ave

Washington Ave

20th St

Meadowbrook Dr

Arnold St

Popple Ave

F el ke r

Ave

to A ve

P al m et

Hemlock Ave

19th St

Anton C t

Meadow Ln

Ant on Ave

d get t

"Y )

Hintz St

Fillmore S

Auburn Ave

Ave A ve

H in ma J un n o

dy A ve

Ave E lm

Weber Ave Wil low Ave

e tto

Ave le

A pp

Pal m

t St

Irene Ave

Hume Ave

Palmetto Ave

Plum

Ash

A ve

A sh

ch Pe a

P ur

B lo

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave

Peach Ave

Cedar Ave

A ve

Vin e

ch

P ea

Wallonnie

De po

St

Cherry Ave

Apple Ave

Jun Ct o Willo w Ct Hum e Do ege Ct St

18th St

el Tre mm t ec C

29th St

St

ve

Vine Ave

nd

Moniqu e Ln

Lawraine St

A iso n

Wittman Ave

vela

"Y )

M ad

Dr

Ci r

15th St

wy

Cedar

A ve

r Av

A ve

Ave

Ash

Vin e

21st

25th St

Central Ave

Che r

Ave

rry

Peach Ave

Cedar Ave

A ve is

Weister Ct 14th St

Apple Ave Erickson Ave Palmetto Ave

Locust Ave

Maple Ave

20th

Edi so n St

Emerald St

Av e

19th

Becker Rd

Dr

Rod d

18th

6t h

Pk an

Lincoln Ave

St

P

Nursing Home

St

k wy n ut P

Residential & Commercial

7 th

C le

St

6th

9 th

17th St

Central Ave 26th 26th Cir 27th 27th Cir 28th 28th Cir 29th

5 th

4 th

8th

16th

"H )

A ve

ve ut A

st n

Ave ple Av e

Ma

dar Ce

A ve Cen t

C he

St

St

15th

25th St

Airport Rd

3r d

C he

P in

st n u

t

Oak Ave

Ave

Clark

Wildwood

Adams Ave

Balboa Ave

Schmidt Ave

r

Ct

St

r Bu t t e

17th St

) "

h

St

Tiny TigersCt

Trout Rd

Forest S t

r

Devine D

H

h

2nd

b ra Ln De

Ka r u D a

) "

12t

Forest St

1 st

r

Ives St

y kw

14th St

11t h

9 th

Upham St

sP

13th St

10t

Vilas St

ran

12th St

7th

St

P ark

5 th

St

t St

Ca

te Ve

Arlington St

St

Magee

St

4 th

6 th

r al

Highland Ave

Drake Ave

8th St Park

H

eA ve Spr u ce Av e Wa lnut Av e Che st n ut A ve

Columbus Ave

rtin D Ma

Severns

Wood

Schmidt Ave

St

Maryknoll Ave

Birch Ave

Cypress Ave

Sycamore Ave

7th

3r d

Dep o

Wausha ra Dr

Wood County

Rene Marcy Ct

t

St

C he

Ced a

2nd

r

6th

11t h St

Speciality Housing Airport Ln

by Type

e

Spr u

C oncord Ave

Westview Dr 4th St

St

ry

St

"Y )

St

ris o n

A ve

y

old

Gr a

nt S t F ra nk lin St E dis on S t Doe ge S C le t ve l and St Blo dge tt S t Arn old St

ce A ve

Pkw

e tt

Walnut Ave

Oak Ave Pine A ve

Ave

Wood

an s

A rn

Chestnut Ave Av e

Ave Fig Balsam

St Joseph Ave

r Dr

Lau re l Ct

Wisconsin

Schmidt Ave

Adams Ave

Drake Ct

Lincoln Ave Magnolia

Ley

Mulberry

Blo dg

H ar

H e ide Ln

Kalsched St

97 Æ %

Ives St

k Ave

Larch Ave

Jefferson

Oa

Evergreen

te r

Kalsched

Western St

Ve

m

Leonhard

North St

St

Linden Ave

n ho

Hawthorn Ave

Laurel St

rat

Hawthorn Ave

Columbus Ave

Wren Rd

Upham St

Adler Rd

s bu r D

Holly Ave

e

Marathon County McMillan St

McMillan St

5th St

w sv ie

Wren Rd

Upham St

Ma

Briarwood St wD irvi e r Fa Onstad Dr Blodgett St

Col u

Ln

McMillan St

r

Roberta Ln

Laird St

y Saw

State St

l

Colonial St

Ridge Rd

ry ko Hic

"Y )

13 Æ %

5th St

) "

R edhawk Ln

nD me

Ives St

B

Northridge St

n eL

St

Ives St

Adams Ave

n tho

Jefferson St

Holly Ct

AAA

ow

Pheasant a ra M

Amber Dr

Adler Rd

W ild f

Prairie D r

Rd Nelson St

"Y )

Ash St

North Hills Wo od o a Br dw ay Ave Shaw an o Dr

ta

n Ru

McMillan St

Sunset Dr

e r Dr Meadow Ave

Sh o

n Fro

ge

Wood County

" )

Sunflower St

State Ave

kw sP an y

Luther Ct Immanuel Ct

Frey Ave

t er Ve

Ruby Ln

Zyg St

Ln

97 Æ %

Wilderness View Dr

Hamus Dr

w o od

Ed

ge

"E )

D eer Run Ave

P enney Ln

Ct

e Av

y kw

St Joseph Ave

o od

pp

sP an

Po

t er Ve

Lincoln Ave

C andlew

Spencer St

Marathon County

2/3/2014

Mann St

P eachtree

Villa

Mann St

te r et St u H

City of Marshfield, WI Staadt A ve

Meadow Ave Zimmermann Rd

R uhe

ille nv

n Ma Ln

Frey C t

Highlan

d Dr

13 Æ %

Galvin Ave

Davis Ln

Frey A v e

Rainbow Ridge Rd

Speciality Housing

%"

#

$ (

" #

# #

# #"

#

! " $

$

$ (

" #

!$

" $

$

F:\Home\GIS\Depts\Planning\proj\HousingAssessment\Housing2013\SpecialityHousing.mxd

Single Family Dwellings

by Number of Bedrooms

t e ss Dr

Dr

K ath e rin e Ct

Hume Ave

Je a Av n e

Palmetto

Apple

Hinman Ave

r al Cen t

Irene A ve

Bluebird Ln

H

24th St

24th St

26th St

Yellowstone Dr

13

35th St

Heritage Dr

Number of Bedrooms

Minimum Number of Bedrooms: 1

3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms

Lincoln Ave

Maximum Westby Rd Number of Bedrooms: 9

Oriole Ln

Number of Bedroom Statistics:

2 Bedrooms

5 Bedrooms

10

Average Number of Bedrooms: 3.12

B

More than 5 Bedrooms

10

10 Washington Ave

1 Bedroom

Heritage

Heritage Dr

A

R hfield Mars

13

d

0

750

1,500

Feet

#

#

$

# %" & (

% $

#

! ' #

!

(

$

$ (

" #

) #

"

!

" $

( # $

#

$

" !"

$

$

" #%"

#

$ $

$

!"

$

"

%!

$

' $ %$

#

$

#

!"

$

$ (

" #

# # % #

" # ! #

$ (

"

$

%"

(

$

"

$

!"&

%"

#

$ (

" #

# #

# #"

#

! " $

$

$ (

" #

!$

" $

$

Mill Creek Rd

Stadt Rd

BB

34th St

Corporate Dr

e Dr

Enterpri s

Business Park Ave

Commerce Dr

d wi n

Single Family Dwellings by

Yellowst

A

Rd

n Do w

Airp a rk

Dr

22nd St

Stadt Rd

H

Trophy Ln

Hume Ave

A Nikolai Ave

21st St

Praschak St

Yellow River R d

Milling Ln

Short Ln

Laemle Ave

Anton Ave

Popple Ave

5th St

Auburn

Green Acres

H

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave 4th St

Mallard Ave

Cherry Ave

28th

Tamarack

Maywood Ave

27th

Meadow Ln

Ave Ave

A ve

Tamarack Ave

St

13 20th St

Pheasant Ln

Bluebird Ct

St

25 t h St

26th St

Meadowbrook Dr

Arnold St

8 th

Washington Ave

20th St

Anton C t

W ill ow

Av e F el ke r

St

19th St

el Tre mm t ec C

29th St

A nton A ve

Palmetto Ave

Hume Ave

Weber Ave Wil low Ave

Auburn Ave

Elm

yA ve

A ve

Hin ma Ju n n o

App le

Ave

Palm e tto

Ave

Ave

Av e

e tto

4 th

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave

Peach Ave

Plum

Ash Ave

Ash

ch P ea

Pur d

t

Ave ison M ad

Wallonnie

t St

wy

Vine Ave

Blo d ge t

Y

Lawraine St

Pk an

Cedar

t

Moniqu e Ln

Hintz St

Jun Ct o Willo Fillmore S w Ct Hum e Doe ge Ct St

18th St

P

Dr

C ir

15th St

Felker Ave

21st

25th St

Central Ave

Palm

Hemlock Ave

Peach Ave

20th

dS

Emerald St

Ave

19th

6 th

Weister Ct 14th St

Apple Ave Erickson Ave Palmetto Ave

18th

Wittman Ave

St

St

7 th

9 th

l an

St

6 th

8 th

Peachtree

Ave is

4 th

y

Cedar Ave

Locust Ave

Ave

e

r Av

Ced a

St

St

Cle ve

Trout Rd

Forest St

Y

Dr

Rod d

Cedar Ave

e t Av

Av e ple

Ma

r h

Becker Rd

E dis on St

Dep o

kw nu t P

Lincoln Ave

5 th

St

17th St

Central Ave

Airport Rd

9 th

16th

H

St

3rd

Ced a

Ave ntra l Ce

11t h

25th St

Airport Ln

2nd

A ve Che rry Ave Vi n e Ave Ash A ve Pea ch Ave

t Av

e C he s tn ut A ve

ve

A ve

ce A

tn u Ch es

10t

h

1 st

15th

26th 26th Cir 27th 27th Cir 28th 28th Cir 29th

Chestnut Ave A ve

Ave ce Spr u

C oncord Ave

Spr u

Wa lnu

7 th

t

Oak Ave

A ve

Clark

6th

12t

t

r Bu t t e

17th St

Ct

W ildwood

Adams Ave

Balboa Ave

Schmidt Ave

Devine D r

H

5 th

St

St

ot S

Tiny TigersCt

Ka u Dr ra

14th St

Forest St

t

y kw

13th St

4 th

D ep

t

sP

H

12th St

St

P ark

nS t

on S

t

nS

ran

Park

Pin e

Magee

nt S

te Ve

ew

Arlington St

St

rriso

C he rry Vin e

Wood State Ave

Highland Ave

Drake Ave

8th St

Severns

Wood

Columbus Ave

St

Maryknoll Ave

Birch Ave

Cypress Ave

Sycamore Ave

7th

nkli

St Cle v ela nd St Blo dge tt S t Arn old St

3rd

a rtin D M

ege

Gr a

Ives St

t

St

Do

2nd

r

6th

Fra

Edi s

Av e

St

Walnut Ave

O ak Ave Pine Ave

Ave

Laur e l Ct Westview Dr 4th St

11th St

B

Fig Balsam

St Joseph Ave

r Dr

s Pk wy

Y

St

Ha

tn u

Adams Ave Columbus Ave

Drake Ct

Wisconsin

Schmidt Ave

Adams Ave

Lincoln Ave Magnolia

Ley

Mulberry

A rn old

5th St

Schmidt Ave

Roberta Ln

Wren Rd

Larch Ave

r an

e tt

k Ave

Evergreen

Blo dg

Oa

Linden Ave

te

Ve

Holly Ave

Western St

Upham St

b ra Ln De

Kalsched St

97

Ives St

North St

St

Hawthorn Ave

hon

s bu r D

Hawthorn Ave

Laurel St

Kalsched Jeffer son

Adler Rd

5th St

svi

Wren Rd

Briarwood St rvi ew D r F ai Onstad Dr Blodgett St

rat Ma

ry ko Hi c Ln

e

Vilas St

n eL

Ridge Rd

Colu m

Leonhar d

r

r

y Sa w

State St

Upham St

Ca

Wood County

Rene Marcy Ct

nD

Upham St

Wausha r a Dr

McMillan St

H e ide Ln

me

Rainbow Ridge Rd

t nS ho

Y

Laird St

Marathon County

McMillan St

Che s

rat Ma Ives St

13

Colonial St

McMillan St

Apple Ave

Pheasant

Prairi e D r

Rd

Ives St

l

ow

nt a Jefferson St

Holly Ct

W ild f

Nort h Hills Wo od Broa dw ay Ave Shaw an o Dr

F ro

Amber Dr

Adler Rd

e r Dr Meadow Ave

Sh or

kw

n

Luther Ct Immanuel Ct

sP

Nelson St

Y

Northridge St

R edhawk Ln

Maple Ave

Frey Ave

ran

Ru

McMillan St

Sunset Dr

Ash St

Sunflower St

ge

Wood County

AAA

Galvin Ave

Ed

te Ve

R uby Ln

Zyg St

Ln

w o od

97

Wilderness View Dr

Hamus Dr

y

ge

E

D eer Run Ave

St Joseph Ave

e Av pp

Ct oo d

Po

kw sP an te r Ve

Lincoln Ave

Mann St

C andlew

Spencer St

Marathon County

2/26/2014

Mann St

Pe n n e y L n

y

City of Marshfield, WI

William s Dr

Zimmermann Rd

Ln

Villa

Frey Ct

M an

Mann St

er e tt St Hu

d Dr

n

Ruhe

e v ill

Staadt Ave

Highlan

M eadow Ave

Frey A v e

13

Galvin Ave

Davis Ln

F:\Home\GIS\Depts\Planning\proj\HousingAssessment\Housing2013\NumberofBedrooms.mxd

Single Family Dwelling Value

t e ss Dr

Dr

K ath e rin e Ct

28th

H

Bluebird Ln

Stadt Rd

Meadow Ln

A nton A ve

Galvin Ave 24th St

24th St

26th St

Yellowstone Dr

13

35th St

Enterpri s

BB

$80.01 to $90.00

Heritage Dr

$90.01 to $100.00

34th St

Corporate Dr

Average value: $83.98/sq ft

Business Park Ave

Commerce Dr

Dr

Heritage

Heritage Dr

10

Lincoln Ave

$130.01 to $140.00 $140.01 to $150.00 B

$150.01 and Greater

10

10 Washington Ave

Westby Rd

Oriole Ln

$100.01 to $110.00

Yellowst

A

Rd

Airp a rk

Maximum value: $2530.32/sq ft

22nd St

Nikolai Ave

H

Stadt Rd

A

A

R hfield Mars

13

d

0

750

1,500

Feet

#

#

$

# %" & (

% $

#

! ' #

!

(

$

$ (

" #

) #

"

!

" $

( # $

#

$

" !"

$

$

" #%"

#

$ $

$

!"

$

"

%!

$

' $ %$

#

$

#

!"

$

$ (

" #

# # % #

" # ! #

$ (

"

$

%"

(

$

"

$

!"&

%"

#

$ (

" #

# #

# #"

#

! " $

$

$ (

" #

!$

" $

$

Mill Creek Rd

Stadt Rd

River R d MinimumYellow value: $12.40/sq ft

Milling Ln

Laemle Ave

Anton Ave

21st St

Hume Ave

27th

Short Ln

Trophy Ln

26th St

Tamarack

Maywood Ave

Felker Ave

29th St

25 t h St

H

5th St

Auburn

Green Acres

Washington Ave

4th St

Popple Ave

Tamarack Ave

St

13 20th St

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave Weber Ave Wil low Ave

Ave Ave

A ve W ill ow

Av e F el ke r

el Tre mm t ec C

Irene A ve

Hume Ave

Palmetto Ave

Pur d

Auburn Ave

Elm

yA ve

A ve

Hin ma Ju n n o

App le

Ave

Palm e tto

Ave

Ave

Ash

ch P ea

Av e

e tto

Palm

Hemlock Ave

8 th

Value Statistics:

$110.01 to $120.00

Staadt Ave

Hume Ave

Je a Av n e

Peach Ave

Plum

Ash Ave

Ave

e

r Av

Ced a

Apple Ave Erickson Ave Palmetto Ave

Peach Ave Wallonnie

Palmetto

Apple

Hinman Ave

r al Cen t

Cedar Ave

e t Av

Av e ple

Ma

r

Vine Ave

20th St

Pheasant Ln

Bluebird Ct

St

18th St

Cherry Ave

Cedar

4 th

St

19th St

Meadowbrook Dr

Mallard Ave

Central Ave

Wittman Ave

15th St

Anton C t

Arnold St

wy

Peachtree

Ave is

Cedar Ave

Locust Ave Rod d

t

Ave ison M ad

Lincoln Ave

t St

Y

Hintz St

Jun Ct o Willo Fillmore S w Ct Hum e Doe ge Ct St

Blo d ge t

Moniqu e Ln

Lawraine St

Pk an

C ir

6 th

Weister Ct 14th St

P

Dr

t

Y

Dr

21st

dS

St

y

20th

l an

Emerald St

Ave

19th

Cle ve

Trout Rd

Forest St

Praschak St

$70.01 to $80.00

$120.01 to $130.00

18th

e Dr

$60.01 to $70.00

St

St

7 th

9 th

d wi n

$50.01 to $60.00

4 th

6 th

8 th

n Do w

$40.01 to $50.00

St

St

Becker Rd

E dis on St

Dep o

kw nu t P

$40.00 or Less

h

25th St

Single Family Dwelling Value Value per Sq. Foot Square Foot

5 th

St

17th St

Central Ave

Airport Rd

9 th

16th

H

St

3rd

Ced a

Ave ntra l Ce

11t h

25th St

Airport Ln

2nd

A ve Che rry Ave Vi n e Ave Ash A ve Pea ch Ave

t Av

e C he s tn ut A ve

ve

A ve

ce A

tn u Ch es

10t

h

1 st

15th

26th 26th Cir 27th 27th Cir 28th 28th Cir 29th

Chestnut Ave A ve

Ave ce Spr u

C oncord Ave

Spr u

Wa lnu

7 th

t

Oak Ave

A ve

Clark

6th

12t

t

r Bu t t e

17th St

Ct

W ildwood

Adams Ave

Balboa Ave

Schmidt Ave

Devine D r

H

5 th

St

St

ot S

Tiny TigersCt

Ka u Dr ra

14th St

Forest St

t

y kw

13th St

4 th

D ep

t

sP

H

12th St

St

P ark

nS t

on S

t

nS

ran

Park

Pin e

Magee

nt S

te Ve

ew

Arlington St

St

rriso

C he rry Vin e

Wood State Ave

Highland Ave

Drake Ave

8th St

Severns

Wood

Columbus Ave

St

Maryknoll Ave

Birch Ave

Cypress Ave

Sycamore Ave

7th

nkli

St Cle v ela nd St Blo dge tt S t Arn old St

3rd

a rtin D M

ege

Gr a

Ives St

t

St

Do

2nd

r

6th

Fra

Edi s

Av e

St

Walnut Ave

O ak Ave Pine Ave

Ave

Laur e l Ct Westview Dr 4th St

11th St

B

Fig Balsam

St Joseph Ave

r Dr

s Pk wy

Y

St

Ha

tn u

Adams Ave Columbus Ave

Drake Ct

Wisconsin

Schmidt Ave

Adams Ave

Lincoln Ave Magnolia

Ley

Mulberry

A rn old

5th St

Schmidt Ave

Roberta Ln

Wren Rd

Larch Ave

r an

e tt

k Ave

Evergreen

Blo dg

Oa

Linden Ave

te

Ve

Holly Ave

Western St

Upham St

b ra Ln De

Kalsched St

97

Ives St

North St

St

Hawthorn Ave

hon

s bu r D

Hawthorn Ave

Laurel St

Kalsched Jeffer son

Adler Rd

5th St

svi

Wren Rd

Briarwood St rvi ew D r F ai Onstad Dr Blodgett St

rat Ma

ry ko Hi c Ln

e

Vilas St

n eL

Ridge Rd

Colu m

Leonhar d

r

r

y Sa w

State St

Upham St

Ca

Wood County

Rene Marcy Ct

nD

Upham St

Wausha r a Dr

McMillan St

H e ide Ln

me

Rainbow Ridge Rd

t nS ho

Y

Laird St

Marathon County

McMillan St

Che s

rat Ma Ives St

13

Colonial St

McMillan St

Apple Ave

Pheasant

Prairi e D r

Rd

Ives St

l

ow

nt a Jefferson St

Holly Ct

W ild f

Nort h Hills Wo od Broa dw ay Ave Shaw an o Dr

F ro

Amber Dr

Adler Rd

e r Dr Meadow Ave

Sh or

kw

n

Luther Ct Immanuel Ct

sP

Nelson St

Y

Northridge St

R edhawk Ln

Maple Ave

Frey Ave

ran

Ru

McMillan St

Sunset Dr

Ash St

Sunflower St

ge

Wood County

AAA

Galvin Ave

Ed

te Ve

R uby Ln

Zyg St

Ln

w o od

97

Wilderness View Dr

Hamus Dr

y

ge

E

D eer Run Ave

St Joseph Ave

e Av pp

Ct oo d

Po

kw sP an te r Ve

Lincoln Ave

Mann St

C andlew

Spencer St

Marathon County

2/24/2014

Mann St

Pe n n e y L n

y

City of Marshfield, WI

William s Dr

Zimmermann Rd

Ln

Villa

Frey Ct

M an

Mann St

er e tt St Hu

d Dr

n

Ruhe

e v ill

Value per Square Foot

Highlan

M eadow Ave

Frey A v e

13

Galvin Ave

Davis Ln

F:\Home\GIS\Depts\Planning\proj\HousingAssessment\Housing2013\SingleFamDwellValue.mxd

Available Residential Developed Lots

William s Dr

Zimmermann Rd

Ed

te Ve

Dr

K ath e rin e Ct

Hume Ave

Je a Av n e

Palmetto

Apple

Hinman Ave

r al Cen t

Weber Ave Wil low Ave

H

Bluebird Ln

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave

Hume Ave

H

24th St

26th St

Yellowstone Dr

Corporate Dr

Heritage Dr

Heritage

Heritage Dr

B

Available Residential Developed Lots Mill Creek Rd

10

10 Washington Ave

Lincoln Ave

Westby Rd

Oriole Ln

10

A

R hfield Mars

13

d

0

750

1,500

Feet

Stadt Rd

e Dr

Business Park Ave

d wi n

Commerce Dr Enterpri s

34th St

A

Rd

n Do w

Airp a rk

BB

Yellowst

Mallard Ave

13

35th St

Dr

22nd St 24th St

Praschak St

Yellow River R d

Milling Ln

A

Stadt Rd

21st St

Nikolai Ave

Anton Ave

Popple Ave

Short Ln

Laemle Ave

Green Acres

H

5th St

Trophy Ln

28th

Tamarack

Maywood Ave

Felker Ave

27th

Cherry Ave

29th St

A nton A ve

4th St

Auburn

25 t h St

26th St

Meadow Ln

Ave Ave

A ve

Tamarack Ave

St

13 20th St

Pheasant Ln

Bluebird Ct

St

8 th

Washington Ave

el Tre mm t ec C

Meadowbrook Dr

Arnold St

18th St

20th St

Anton C t

W ill ow

Av e St

19th St

Irene A ve

Hume Ave

Palmetto Ave

Pur d

t

Auburn Ave

Elm

yA ve

A ve

Hin ma Ju n n o

App le

Ave

Palm e tto

Ave

Ave

F el ke r

4 th

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave

Peach Ave

Plum

Ash Ave

Ash

ch P ea

Av e

e tto

Hemlock Ave

Wallonnie

t St

Ave ison M ad

Vine Ave

Blo d ge t

Y

Hintz St

Jun Ct o Willo Fillmore S w Ct Hum e Doe ge Ct St

wy

Cedar

t

Moniqu e Ln

Lawraine St

Pk an

C ir

15th St

P

Dr

6 th

Weister Ct 14th St

Apple Ave Erickson Ave Palmetto Ave

21st

dS

Emerald St

Y

Dr

20th

l an

Trout Rd

Forest St

Ave

19th

25th St

Central Ave

Palm

9 th

18th

Wittman Ave

St

St

7 th

8 th

Cle ve

St

6 th

Peach Ave

Ave is

4 th

y

Cedar Ave

Locust Ave

Cedar Ave

e

e

r Av

ple Ma

r St

St

Becker Rd

E dis on St

Dep o

kw nu t P

Rod d

5 th

Ced a

Ave ntra l

h

17th St

Central Ave

Lincoln Ave

St

3rd

St

16th

H

C he rry Vin e

Ced a

Av e

Wa lnu

Ce

A ve

2nd

A ve Che rry Ave Vi n e Ave Ash A ve Pea ch Ave

e C he s tn ut A ve

ve

A ve

ce A

Spr u

t Av

h

9 th

Tiny TigersCt

Ave

Av e ce Spr u

C oncord Ave

Pin e

tn u Ch es

10t

11t h

t

Oak Ave

7 th

12t

t

1 st

15th

26th 26th Cir 27th 27th Cir 28th 28th Cir 29th

Airport Rd

t Av

O ak Ave Pine Ave

Ave

Wood State Ave

Highland Ave

Clark

6th

25th St

Airport Ln

5 th

St

St

ot S

r Bu t t e

17th St

Ct

W ildwood

Adams Ave

Balboa Ave

Schmidt Ave

Devine D r

H

Forest St

t

Ka u Dr ra

14th St

4 th

D ep

t

y kw

13th St

nS t

on S

t

nS

sP

12th St

St

P ark

nt S

ran

Park

H

Walnut Ave

r Dr

Laur e l Ct

Magee

nkli

rriso

Ives St

te Ve

ew

Arlington St

St

ege

Gr a

St Cle v ela nd St Blo dge tt S t Arn old St

3rd

Severns

Wood

8th St

Fra

Do

2nd

a rtin D M

Drake Ave

St

Columbus Ave

7th

Maryknoll Ave

Birch Ave

Cypress Ave

Sycamore Ave

St

Chestnut Ave A ve

Ave Fig Balsam

St

tn u

Adams Ave Columbus Ave

Drake Ct

Wisconsin

Schmidt Ave

Adams Ave

Lincoln Ave Magnolia

Ley

Mulberry

Larch Ave

s Pk wy

Y

St

Upham St

b ra Ln De

t

6th

Schmidt Ave

Roberta Ln

Wren Rd

Evergreen

A rn old

Ha

Edi s

k Ave

Linden Ave

e tt

Oa

Hawthorn Ave

r an

r

Holly Ave

Blo dg

Vilas St

Kalsched St

97

Ives St

Western St

Ve

Hawthorn Ave

Jeffer son

5th St

11th St

B

Kalsched

North St

St te

Westview Dr 4th St

5th St

svi

Wren Rd

Laurel St

hon

s bu r D

Ln

e

Adler Rd

Colu m

Leonhar d

r

n eL

Briarwood St rvi ew D r F ai Onstad Dr Blodgett St State St

Upham St

Ca

Wood County

Rene Marcy Ct

r

Ridge Rd

ry ko Hi c

Holly Ct

Y

y Sa w

rat Ma

Adler Rd

Upham St

Wausha r a Dr

McMillan St

H e ide Ln

nD

Ives St

Laird St

Marathon County

McMillan St

me

Rainbow Ridge Rd

t nS ho

Ives St

13

Colonial St

McMillan St

Che s

rat Ma Jefferson St

l

Apple Ave

Pheasant

Prairi e D r

Rd Amber Dr

Y

W ild f

ow

nt a

n

St Joseph Ave

F ro

Nelson St

Sunset Dr

e r Dr Meadow Ave

Sh or

kw

Ru

McMillan St

Wood County

Northridge St

R edhawk Ln

Nort h Hills Wo od Broa dw ay Ave Shaw an o Dr

sP

ge

Marathon County

Ash St

Sunflower St

Luther Ct Immanuel Ct

ran

t e ss Dr

R uby Ln

Maple Ave

Frey Ave

Spencer St

AAA

Galvin Ave

Ln

w o od

97

Wilderness View Dr

Zyg St

Peachtree

e Av pp

y

ge

E

Hamus Dr

C andlew

D eer Run Ave

Lincoln Ave

Mann St

Ct oo d

Po

kw sP an te r Ve

Pe n n e y L n

y

2/26/2014

Mann St

St Joseph Ave

Ln

Villa

Frey Ct

M an

Mann St

er e tt St Hu

d Dr

n

Ruhe

e v ill

City of Marshfield, WI

Staadt Ave

Highlan

M eadow Ave

Frey A v e

13

Galvin Ave

Davis Ln

#

#

$

# %" & (

% $

#

! ' #

!

(

$

$ (

" #

) #

"

!

" $

( # $

#

$

" !"

$

$

" #%"

#

$ $

$

!"

$

"

%!

$

' $ %$

#

$

#

!"

$

$ (

" #

# # % #

" # ! #

$ (

"

$

%"

(

$

"

$

!"&

%"

#

$ (

" #

# #

# #"

#

! " $

$

$ (

" #

!$

" $

$

F:\Home\GIS\Depts\Planning\proj\HousingAssessment\Housing2013\ResDevAvailLots.mxd

Single Family Properites With Code Violations

Williams Dr

t e ss Dr

Dr

K a th e rine Ct

Hinman Ave

Hume Ave

Je a Av n e

Palmetto

Bluebird Ln

Galvin Ave

H

5th St

21st St

H

24th St

24th St

26th St

Yellowstone Dr

Praschak St

13

35th St

e Dr

BB

B

Heritage

Heritage Dr

Minimum: 1 Violations/Parcel

Maximum: 7 Violations/Parcel Mill Creek Rd

10

10 Washington Ave

Total: 157 Parcels

Lincoln Ave

Code Violations Per Parcel Statistics:

4 5-7

Oriole Ln

Westby Rd

3

Heritage Dr

10

1 2

Corporate Dr

d

Code Violations Violations per Parcel

Business Park Ave

nwin

Commerce Dr Enterpris

34th St

A

Rd

D ow

Airp a rk

Dr

Yellowst

A

Mars

hfield

13

Rd 0

750

1,500

Feet

Stadt Rd

Yellow River Rd

22nd St

Trophy Ln

Hume Ave

A

Stadt Rd

Anton Ave

Laemle Ave

Washington Ave

Green Acres

Auburn

Milli ng Ln

Short Ln

Nikolai Ave

Popple Ave

13

H

Stadt Rd

Anton Ave

Meadow Ln

Ave Ave

Ave W il lo w

4th St

Mallard Ave

Cherry Ave

Tamarack

Maywood Ave

27th

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave

Weber Ave Wil low Ave

Auburn Ave

dy Ave

Pu r

St

Tamarack Ave

8th

20th St

Pheasant Ln

Bluebird Ct

St

Ave

Felker Ave

Irene Ave

Hume Ave

Palmetto Ave

Hi n ma Jun n o

Ap p le

Ave

El m r Av e

Fel ke

Hemlock Ave

Meadowbrook Dr

Arnold St

25th St

26th St 28th

Anton Ct

i s on

Wallonnie

Pal

Ave

As h

ch P ea

Pa l me tto A ve

ch

Pe a

Apple Ave Erickson Ave Palmetto Ave

me tto

Ave

Ave

Vin e

Ave

Ave

As h

Vin e

Peach Ave

Plum

Ash

Ave

rry

ar A ve

Ch e

Ced

Ave

Ave

Ch e

d ge t t

Y

Lawraine St

M ad

Vine Ave

20th St

Pkwy

Cedar

t

4th

St

19th St

el Tremm t ec C

29th St

Blo

Moniqu e Ln

Hintz St

Jun Ct o Willo Fillmore S w Ct Hum e Do e ge Ct St

18th St

an

Cir

15th St

P

Dr

6t h

Weister Ct 14th St

Peach Ave

Cedar Ave

21st

Y

Dr

20th

25th St

Central Ave

7 th

kwy

Maple Ave

19th

Wittman Ave

6 th

9th

18th

Apple

tral Ce n

stnu t Av e

Che

Ave ple

Ma

ar Ced

Ave tral Ce n

Ch e

Ave

St

St

ot S

Emerald St

A ve

dis

4th

P rnut

Rod

5 th

St

De p

St

8 th

17th St

Central Ave

Lincoln Ave

Ave

Ave uce Spr

C oncord Ave

stnu t

Oak Ave Locust Ave

Wildwood

Adams Ave

Balboa Ave

Schmidt Ave

St

St

16th

H

26th 26th Cir 27th 27th Cir 28th 28th Cir 29th

Airport Rd

h

St

15th

25th St

Airport Ln

3 rd

But t e

17th St

Ct

11th

12t h

St

Ed i s on St

Trout Rd

Forest St

r

Devine D r

H

10t

9th

Becker Rd

Ka r u D a

14th St

Ave

Clark

13th St

2nd

vela nd

y kw

H

12th St

1st

Cl e

sP

11th St

7 th

St

ot S t

Tiny TigersCt

r an

Park

6 th

St Ma g e e Park

5th

Forest St

te Ve

ew

Arlington St

Pin eA ve Sp r uce Ave Wa lnut Ave Che stnu t Av e

8th St

St

4 th

St

Ives St

Cedar Ave

Oak Ave Pine Ave

Ave

Wood

rtin D

Highland Ave

Drake Ave

Ma

3 rd

Severns

Wood

Columbus Ave

St

Schmidt Ave

7th

Maryknoll Ave

Birch Ave

Cypress Ave

Sycamore Ave

St

De p

a Ln

t

6th

Chestnut Ave Ave

Ave Fig Balsam

r Dr

Laure l Ct

Wisconsin

Schmidt Ave

Adams Ave

Drake Ct

Lincoln Ave Magnolia

Ley

Mulberry

Larch Ave

Evergreen

Linden Ave

Columbus Ave

Wren Rd

Roberta Ln

Hawthorn Ave

2nd

5th St

r

Holly Ave

k Ave

s bu r D

Westview Dr 4th St

Oa

ry ko

Hawthorn Ave

y

St

Y

St

Adler Rd

5th St

s vi

Wren Rd

Ve

Pkw

ri s o nS t nt S t F ra nkli nS t Ed i son S t Do e ge St Cl e vela nd St Blo dge tt S t A rn old St

Gr a

n

St

a ns

Blo dge tt A rn old

Ha r

br De

Kalsched St

97

Ives St

Western St

Upham St

eL

on

ter

Jefferson

North St

Vilas St

r

rat h

Hi c Ln

Laurel St

Ma

Briarwood St wD irvie r Fa Onstad Dr Blodgett St

Kalsched

Ca r

Wood County

Rene Marcy Ct

nD

Ridge Rd

Col um

Leonhard

Wausha r a Dr

McMillan St

H e ide Ln

me

Adams Ave

t nS t ho

Y

ye Saw

State St

Upham St

Apple Ave

ra Ives St

Colonial St Laird St

Upham St

Marathon County

McMillan St

Ave

Ma

Ives St

13

McMillan St

Luther Ct Immanuel Ct

Prairie D

Pheasant

Rd

ow

n ta

Rainbow Ridge Rd

Redhawk Ln

St Joseph Ave

F ro

e r Dr Meadow Ave

Sh or

kw

Jefferson St

B

Northridge St

l

State Ave

sP

Amber Dr

Adler Rd

Ash St

North Hills Wo od Broadw ay Ave S haw an o Dr

ran

Nelson St

Holly Ct

W il d f

r

Frey Ave

te Ve

n Ru

McMillan St

Y

Ln

Sunflower St

ge

Sunset Dr

Zyg St

AAA

Hamus Dr

Ed

w o od

97

Wilderness View Dr

Galvin Ave

D eer Run Ave

wy

Ruby Ln

E

Walnut Ave

e Av

Pk

St Joseph Ave

Ct

ns

ge

Staadt Ave

Meadow Ave Lincoln Ave

oo d

ra

pp Po

te Ve

Penney Ln

y

Wood County

City of Marshfield, WI 3/21/2014 Mann St

Candlew

Spencer St

Marathon County

Violations per Parcel 2003-2013

Mann St

rry

Mann St

er ett St u H

Peachtree

Villa

Ln

Ma

n

Zimmermann Rd

Ruhe

ille nv

Highlan

d Dr

Frey Ct

Frey A v e

13

Galvin Ave

Davis Ln

#

#

$

# %" &

(

% $

#

! ' #

!

(

$

$ (

" #

) #

"

!

" $

( # $

#

$

" !"

$

$

"

#%"

#

$ $

$

!"

$

"

%!

$

' $ %$

#

$

#

!"

$

$ (

" #

# # % #

"

# ! #

$ (

"

$

%"

(

$

"

$

!"&

%"

#

$ (

" #

# #

# #"

#

! " $

$

$ (

" #

!$

" $

$

F:\Home\GIS\Depts\Planning\proj\HousingAssessment\Housing2013\SingleFamDwellings_CodeViolation.mxd

Davis Ln

Sh or t e ss Dr

Hume Ave

Je a Av n e

Hinman Ave

Bluebird Ln

H

Galvin Ave

Hume Ave

27th

28th

H

24th St

24th St

26th St

Yellowstone Dr

13

35th St

e Dr

BB

Violations per Parcel

Heritage Dr

Maximum: 100 Violations/Parcel

50 - 100 B

10

A

hfield Mars

Rd

10

13 750

1,500

Feet

#

#

$

# %" &

(

% $

#

! ' #

!

(

$

$ (

" #

) #

"

!

" $

( # $

#

$

" !"

$

$

"

#%"

#

$ $

$

!"

$

"

%!

$

' $ %$

#

$

#

!"

$

$ (

" #

# # % #

"

# ! #

$ (

"

$

%"

(

$

"

$

!"&

Stadt Rd

11 - 49

Lincoln Ave

Minimum: Violations/Parcel Westby1 Rd

Washington Ave

5 - 10

0

Oriole Ln

Total: 63 Parcels

Heritage Dr

Heritage Dr

10

Code Violations Per Parcel Statistics:

2-4

34th St

Corporate Dr

d Enterpris

Business Park Ave

Commerce Dr

nwin

Code Violations

Yellowstone

A

Rd

D ow

Airp a rk

Dr

22nd St

Stadt Rd

A

Mallard Ave

Yellow River Rd

Milli ng Ln

Laemle Ave 21st St

Nikolai Ave

20th St

Auburn

Short Ln

Trophy Ln

26th St

Tamarack

Maywood Ave

Green Acres

H

5th St

Popple Ave

13

25th St

Cherry Ave

Felker Ave

4th St

Anton Ave

St 8th

Washington Ave

20th St

Stadt Rd

Meadow Ln

Anton Ave

Auburn Ave

Ave low Wil t

Tamarack Ave

19th St

Stadt Rd

Galvin Ave

Irene Ave

Hume Ave

Weber Ave Wil low Ave

Ave Ave

Hi n ma Jun n o

Pur

Ave

Fel ker

St

Pheasant Ln

Bluebird Ct

Praschak St

1

Staadt Ave

Galvin Ave

K a th e rine Ct

Palmetto

Palmetto Ave

me tto Pa l

dy

El m

Ave

le

App

Ave

Ash

P ea ch tto A ve

me

Pal

Hemlock Ave

Wallonnie

Ave

Ave

Vin e

Pe a ch

Ash

Apple Ave Erickson Ave Palmetto Ave

4th S

Ave

Apple Ave

Peach Ave

Plum

Ash Ave

Ch e

Ave

Ave

Vin e

Apple

Ce n t ra l

Ave

e

rry

ar A v

Ce d

Ave

Ch e rry

Meadowbrook Dr

Arnold St

18th St

el Tremm t ec C

29th St

t

ett

Y

Anton Ct

ison

Vine Ave

15th St

Pkwy

Cir

6t h

an

Cedar

t

ot S

M ad

Dr

25th St

Central Ave

Cedar Ave

t Av e stnu Ch e

ple Ave Ave

Ma

ar Ced

Ave Ce n t ra l

21st

Wittman Ave

St

Weister Ct 14th St

Peach Ave

Ave

Maple Ave

Cedar Ave

Locust Ave dis

Ave

Ave uce Sp r

C oncord Ave

Ch e stnu

t

Oak Ave

Ave

Clark

Wildwood

Spr

Highland Ave

Drake Ave

Adams Ave

Balboa Ave

Schmidt Ave

r

eA ve uce Ave Wa lnut Ave Ch e stn ut A ve

20th

Jun Ct o Willo Fillmore S w Ct Hum e Do e ge Ct St

Blo dg

Moniqu e Ln

Hintz St

Ave

19th

t

Emerald St

Lawraine St

Dr

Rod

18th

dS

St

P

Lincoln Ave

4th S

kw y

Airport Rd

7th

vela n

De p

6 th

9 th

17th St

Central Ave 26th 26th Cir 27th 27th Cir 28th 28th Cir 29th

5 th

8 th

16th

25th St

Airport Ln

3 rd

15th

H

St

P rnut

B

2nd

Bu t t e

17th St

Ct

1st

Cl e

Edi s on St

Trout Rd

Forest St

Y

Dr

Devine D

H

9th St 10t h St 11th St 12t h

Becker Rd

Ka r u a

14th St

ot S t

Tiny TigersCt

y

13th St

St

Forest St

kw

H

12th St

St

Park

De p

t

sP

11th St

7 th

nS

ra n

Park

St

Ma g e e

St

4 th

5th

6th

nt S t

te Ve

ew

Arlington St

Pin

Columbus Ave

8th St

Severns

Wood

Schmidt Ave

St

Maryknoll Ave

Birch Ave

Cypress Ave

Sycamore Ave

7th

3 rd

rtin D Ma

Fra n

riso

Ives St

t

St

Walnut Ave

Oak Ave Pine Ave

Ave

Wood

2nd

5th St 6th

Chestnut Ave Ave

Ave Fig Balsam

r Dr

Laure l Ct

Wisconsin

Schmidt Ave

Adams Ave

Drake Ct

Lincoln Ave Magnolia

Ley

Mulberry

Columbus Ave

Wren Rd

Larch Ave

Westview Dr 4th St

k Ave

Evergreen

St

St

Gr a

klin St Ed i son S t Do e ge S Cl e t vela nd St Blo dge tt S t A rn o ld St

Y

Oa

Hawthorn Ave

dge tt A rn old

s Pk wy

r

Holly Ave

Ve

Linden Ave

t

s bu r D

Hawthorn Ave

nS

ra n

Blo

Adler Rd

5th St

s vi

Wren Rd

Western St

Ha r

bra Ln

Kalsched St

97

Ives St

North St

Upham St

De

n

Jefferson

Vilas St

eL

ho

te

Kalsched

Ca r

Wood County

Rene Marcy Ct

r

ra t

ry ko Ln

Laurel St

Ma

Briarwood St wD irvie r Fa Onstad Dr Blodgett St

Col um

Leonhard

Wausha r a Dr

McMillan St

H e ide Ln

nD

Ridge Rd

Hi c

Y

ye Saw

State St

Upham St

St Joseph Ave

t nS

Ives St

Colonial St Laird St

Upham St

Marathon County

McMillan St

me

Adams Ave

tho

Ives St

13

McMillan St

Ave

ra

Roberta Ln

Redhawk Ln

l

Luther Ct Immanuel Ct

Ma Jefferson St

Holly Ct

W il d f

Prairie D

Pheasant

Rd Amber Dr

Adler Rd

Northridge St

ow

ta Nelson St

Y

e r Dr Meadow Ave

Dr

n Fro

n Ru

McMillan St

Sunset Dr

Ash St

North Hills Wo od o a B r dw ay Ave S haw an o Dr

kw

ge

Wood County

Ln

Sunflower St

State Ave

P ns y

r

Frey Ave

a ter Ve

Ruby Ln

Zyg St

AAA

Galvin Ave

Ed

w o od

97

Wilderness View Dr

Hamus Dr

Ct

e Av

wy Pk

ge

E

D eer Run Ave

Lincoln Ave

oo d

ns

pp

ra

Po

te Ve

Penney Ln

Mann St

Candlew

Spencer St

Marathon County

3/21/2014

Mann St

Peachtree

Man Ln

H

Mann St

r tte t ue S

St Joseph Ave

e

City of Marshfield, WI

Williams Dr

Zimmermann Rd

Ruhe

Villa

Frey Ct ill nv

d Dr

13

Violations per Parcel 2003-2013

Highlan

Meadow Ave

Frey Av e

Rainbow Ridge Rd

Rental Properties With Code Violations

%"

#

$ (

" #

# #

# #"

#

! " $

$

$ (

" #

!$

" $

$

F:\Home\GIS\Depts\Planning\proj\HousingAssessment\Housing2013\Rentals_CodeViolation.mxd

Condemned Properties Ordered by the City of Marshfield, WI 2004 - 2013

! (

1

Condemned Property List

1: 3021 W Mann St - TF Home - Constr. 1885 Removed 2006 - Vacant and Repair Cost > 50% of home value 2: 1110 W McMillan S - SF Home - Constr. 1900 Removed 2005 - Vacant and Repair Cost >50% of home value 3: 1727 N Central Ave - SF Home - Removed 2008 - Unsafe 4: 904 N Maple Ave - SF Home - Constr, 1909 - Removed 2012 5: 213 W Doege St - SF Home - Constr. 1941 Removed 2011 - Repair Cost >50% of home value

!

(2

6: 200 N Pine Ave - SF Home - Constr. 1880 Removed 2006 - Vacant and fire damage 7: 111 N Maple Ave - SF Home - Removed 2004 Vacant and Nonconforming

! (

3

8: 406 N Cherry Ave - TF Home - Comstr. 1888 Removed 2013 - Repair cost >50% of home value 9: 606 E Becker Rd - Mobile Home - Constr. 1928 Removed 2006 - Unsafe 10: 2010 E Emerald St - SF Home - Constr. 1972 Removed 2008 - Fire and repair cost >50% of home value

!

(4 ! (

6

!

(5 ! (

9

! (

8

!

(7

! ( 17

20

! ! (( ! ( 21 !

(22

19

! ( 12

10

14: 1103 E Blodgett St - SF Home - Constr. 1942 Removed 2006 - Repair cost >50% of home value 15: 1000 E Arnold St - Mobile Home - Constr. 1902 Removed 2010 - Unsafe 16. 800 E 2nd St - TF Home - Constr. 1900 Removed 2013 - Repair cost >50% of home value

( !

(13 !

(14!

!

(11 ! (

!

(24

11: 410 W 5th St - SF Home - Constr. 1910 Removed 2013 - Repair cost >50% of home value 12: 1212 E Doege St - SF Home - Constr. 1947 Removed 2007 - Repair cost >50% of home value 13: 406 N Juno Ave - Mobile Home - Constr. 1949 Removed 2005 - Fire and repair cost >50% of home value

16

!

(15

17: 505 S Vine Ave - TF Home - Constr. 1885 - Removed 2005

! (

18

18. 507 S Peach Ave - SF Home - Constr. 1920 Removed 2007 - Vacant and repair cost >50% of home value 19: 214 W 11th St - SF Home - Constr. 1885 Removed 2006 - Repair cost >50% of home value 20: 110 W 11th St - SF Home - Constr. 1910 Removed 2013 - Repair cost >50% of home value 21. 1110 S Central Ave - TF Home - Constr. 1902 Removed 2012 - Repair cost >50% of home value

! (

Condemned Properties City Limits

Map Created: January 16, 2014

! (

23

p

22. 108 W 14th St - SF Home - Removed 2013 - Unsafe

23. 2215 S Maple Ave - Mobile Home - Removed 2012 - Unsafe

24. 715 E Becker Rd - SF Home - Constr. 1900 Removed 2013 - Repair cost >50% of home value

0

0.25

0.5

1

1.5 Miles

2014 Marshfield Housing Study Appendix B: Survey Summary Report Contents Current Housing..................................................................2 Income and Employment....................................................5 Housing Condition and Investment.....................................6 Housing Preferences............................................................8 Sample Survey...................................................................12

Background As part of the 2014 Marshfield Housing Study, a survey was conducted for people who live or work in the City, to gather their input on housing choices, needs, and preferences.

The survey was conducted in January 2014. It was promoted in news stories, press releases and via emails through local organizations. Respondents were encouraged to take the survey online, though hard copies were also available at the Marshfield Public Library. Over one thousand people completed the survey.

Prepared for the City of Marshfield This report summarizes the responses of local residents and stakeholders, identifies differences responses Services, Inc.

By MSAinProfessional between homeowners and renters, and provides samples April of respondent comments, typically to reinforce the18, 2014 majority viewpoints.

MSA Professional Services, Inc. April 2014

Survey Summary Report Current Housing

1. In what county do you currently live?

2.1% 1.5%

Location The survey began by asking respondents about where they currently live. Results showed that a majority of respondents (69.4%) reside in Wood County, 19.7% in Marathon County, and the remainder living in other counties.

7.3% Wood County 19.7%

Marathon County Clark County Portage County Other

The single location with the most responses was the City of Marshfield itself with over 500 residents (49.2% of responses) participating in the survey. Surrounding communities were also represented, as shown in the table to the right.

69.4%

Where Respondents Live Top 12 Locations Outside the City

Housing Type The vast majority of respondents (85.6%) live in single family detached homes, with just under 1% more living in some type of attached single family unit. Single family units were also the most common type of rental. Residents of multi-family housing represented just over 10% of the survey sample.

City of Marshfield Town of McMillan Town of Lincoln Town of Richfield Town of Marshfield Village of Spencer

49.2% 4.8% 3.7% 3.5% 3.1% 2.2%

Village of Hewitt Town of Spencer 8 Village of Stratford

2.0% 2.0% 1.8%

Town of Day Town of Fremont 11 Town of Rock 12 City of Stevens Point

1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1%

1 2 3 4 5

It should be noted that only about 60% of housing units in the City of Marshfield are single family units (attached or detached); the over-representation of single family homeowners in this survey sample reflects the higher percentage of such residents in other communities, and the general tendency for homeowners to respond to surveys and pubic outreach efforts more than renters.

6

9

Housing Size A majority of all respondents (51%), including those in single family and multi-family units, reported having three bedrooms, with another 33% reporting four or more bedrooms.

4. How many bedrooms does your current home

have?

60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Efficiency

2

One

Two

Three

Four or more

Survey Summary Report 85.6% 10.0%

2. Please identify your current housing type.

85.6%

9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0%

Current Housing Type by Ownership Status 50.00%

95.5%

45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00%

Own

25.00%

Rent

20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

3

Survey Summary Report Housing Costs and Affordability Respondents overwhelmingly owned their homes, with nearly 85% claiming ownership. When asked about assessed property values, the single most frequent response category was $100,000 to $149,999.

5. Do you own or rent your current housing?

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

Homeowners most often estimated their monthly housing expenses to be between $1,000 to $1,499 ($12,000 to $17,998 annually).

50.0%

For those that rent their homes, A plurality (42.1%) estimated that their monthly housing expenses fell between $500 to $749 ($6,000 to $8,988 annually).

10.0%

For both renters and owners, the percentage of gross household income that went towards housing was most frequently reported to be between 15-19%.

40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

0.0% Own

Rent

5b. What is the approximate assessed value of your home?

35.0% 30.0%

7. Please estimate the percentage of your gross household income spent on housing costs.

25.0% 20.0%

25.0% 15.0%

20.0% 10.0%

15.0% 5.0%

10.0% 0.0% Less than $50,000

5.0%

$50,000 to $99,999

$100,000 to $149,999

$150,000 to $200,000

$200,000 to $300,000

$300,000 to $500,0000

0.0% Less than 10% 10-14%

15-19%

20-24%

25-29%

30-34%

35-39%

40% or more

5a. Approximately how much do you currently pay for your

housing each month, including mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities (water, heat, electricity, etc.) and any condominium fees?

30.0%

5c. Approximately how much do you currently

pay for your housing each month, including rent, insurance and utilities (water, heat, electricity, etc.)?

45.0% 40.0%

25.0%

35.0% 20.0%

30.0% 25.0%

15.0%

20.0% 10.0%

15.0% 10.0%

5.0%

5.0% 0.0% Less than $300

4

$300 to $499

$500 to $749

$750 to $999

$1,000 to $1,499

$1,500 to $1,999

$2,000 to $2,499

$2,500 or more

0.0% Less than $200

$200 to $299

$300 to $499

$500 to $749

$750 to $999

$1,000 to $1,499

$1,500 or more

More than $500,000

Survey Summary Report Income and Employment

8. Please indicate your

In total, 93.9% of respondents reported to be employed with most (87.4%) having a full-time job. There were no respondents that identified as being unemployed, though some written responses indicated that respondents may not have been actively working (e.g. students, those on disability). Numerous responses also indicated having multiple jobs.

100.0% 90.0%

employment status.

87.4%

80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

3.9%

6.5% 10.0% Gross household income was most often reported to be 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% between $100,000 and $149,999. Generally responses were clustered between $75,000 and $149,999, with 60% falling into this range. The category of “educational services, and healthcare and social assistance” was the most popular selection for surveytakers describing their industry 6. Please estimate your gross annual household income. of employment, indicative of the Clinic as a major employment 30.0% center in the Marshfield area. 25.0% “Finance and insurance, and real 20.0% estate and leasing and rental” was the second most popular industry 15.0% with 19.5% of respondents 10.0% working in these fields.

5.0%

2.1%

0.0% Less than $15,000

$15,000 to $24,999

$25,000 to $34,999

$35,000 to $49,999

$50,000 to $74,999

$75,000 to $99,999

$100,000 to $150,000 to Greater than Do not wish $149,999 $199,999 $200,000 to provide this information

9. In which industry are you primarily employed (greatest number of hours) or seeking work?

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

Educational Finance and services, and insurance, and health care and real estate and social assistance rental and leasing

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities

Other (please specify)

Manufacturing

Retail trade

Information

Public administration

Other services, except public administration

Construction

Agriculture, Arts, Wholesale trade forestry, fishing entertainment, and hunting, and and recreation, mining and accommodation and food services

5

Survey Summary Report Housing Condition and Investment

10. What is the condition of your home or apartment?

60.0%

Condition and Satisfaction In general respondents evaluated their current homes favorably. More than 91% rated the condition of their home or apartment to be either excellent or good. At least 70% of respondents reported being “satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” with the location, quality, size, and amenities of their current housing. Those that rated their home’s condition to be fair or poor were most often renters.

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Excellent

Investment Over 62% of respondents indicated that they had invested at least $2500 into their homes within the past five years.

Roof repairs were the most common type of investment that were mentioned in written comments.

Good

Fair

Poor

Home Condition by Ownership Status 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

Own

50.0%

Rent

40.0%

In regards to future investments, 73.7% indicated that they intended or were likely to invest more than $2,500 into their homes. Roof repairs were again the most mentioned investment. 8.6% of respondents didn’t expect that they would own a home in the next five years.

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Excellent

Good

Fair

12.In the next 5 years, do you intend to invest

more than $2,500 in home improvements?

11.8%

5.9%

8.6%

NA - I don't expect to own a home in the next 5 years Yes Likely

26.5%

Unlikely

47.2%

No

11. In the past 5 years, have you invested more than $2,500 in improvements to an existing home, not including storm damage repair? If so, approximately home much have you invested?

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

6

N/A

$0 to $2,500

$2,500 to $4,999

$5,000 to $9,999

$10,000 to $19,999

$20,000 to $29,999

$30,000 to $39,999

$40,000 to $49,999

$50,000 to $74,999

$75,000 to $99,999

$100,000 or more

Poor

Survey Summary Report 13.

How satisfied are you with your current housing?

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% Very dissatisfied

60.0%

Dissatisfied

50.0%

Neutral Satisfied

40.0%

Very satisfied

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Location

Quality

Size

Amenities (e.g. parking)

How satisfied are you with your current housing?

100.00%

Location

Quality

Size

Amenities

90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00%

Rent Own

20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

7

Survey Summary Report Housing Preferences

14. If moving to or within the Marshfield area, what type of housing would you look for?

Preferences for future housing generally reflected the features that respondents reported of their current homes. Single family homes were most desired by a large margin, and three bedrooms was the most popular size.

84.9%

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0%

Cost/Value was most often ranked as the most important factor when selecting housing, with an average rank of about 2.4 (where 1 is most important and 7 least important). Safety and “Neighborhood” were 2nd and 3rd in the average rankings. Proximity to restaurants and shopping, was ranked at least important, on average. Many indicated that their top preference was to live outside city limits in a more rural setting.

20.0%

11.5%

11.5%

10.0% Single family home

Apartment

Condominium

4.4%

3.5%

0.7%

Senior housing

Short term housing (90 days or less)

0.0%

Other

Desired Housing Type by Ownership Status 50.0%

78.5%

45.0% 40.0%

“Country living is a necessity.”

“I’d actually think I’d look just outside the city limits for our next home.”

35.0% 30.0%

Own

25.0%

Rent

20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Single family home

“Safety is a priority. We have small children. We want to be away from busy streets.”

Apartment

Condominium

Senior housing

Short term housing (90 days or less)

Other

15. If moving, what size of home would you likely need?

50.0% 45.0%

Respondents were also asked to rank the importance of specific amenities in their housing selection process. Fully enclosed parking was designated a necessity by 75.1% of respondents (unusually cold weather at the time of the survey may have influenced responses). Storage space was identified as a necessity by 66.9% of respondents.

Wooded yards and home office space were least frequently labeled either necessary or important.

8

40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Efficiency

One bedroom

Two bedroom

Three Bedroom

Four bedroom or larger

Other

Survey Summary Report 16. How important to you are the following housing features?

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

I don't want this

50% 40%

Acceptable but not important

30%

Important but not necessary

20%

Very Important ‐ a necessity

10% 0% Fully enclosed parking

Storage space

A small yard where I can garden or kids can play

Covered parking

A large yard (i.e. 1/2 acre or more)

Home office space

A wooded yard (either private or shared)

17. Please rank the following issues in order of importance to

you in selecting housing.

Cost/Value Safety Neighborhood Proximity to work Schools Proximity to extended family Proximity to restaurants and shopping 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Most important

5.00

6.00

least important

21. In your opinion, what housing types does the City of Marshfield need?

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00%

Not sure

60.00%

Don't need more

50.00% Need a little more

40.00% 30.00%

Need a lot more

20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Rental housing Moderately priced Single family homes homes for first-time homebuyers

Townhomes/Duplexes

Apartments

Assisted living for seniors

Condominiums

Short-term housing (90 days or less)

Executive homes

9

Survey Summary Report In regards to housing expenses, most respondents (28.5%) indicated that they would be willing to spend $1,000 to $1,4999 per month on housing ($12,000 to $17,988 annually). However responses also indicated that this figure may be greater than what they’d prefer.

“I would like to be in the $500-699, but that price is not practical for adequate housing.”

18.Approximately how much are you willing to spend on

housing per month for the housing you want? Please consider and include taxes, insurance, and utilities.

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

For respondents that live outside of Marshfield, costs were also a concern. Just under 19% thought that property taxes were too high. A desire for rural living was also a popular theme in responses.

15.0%

10.0%

“Considering selling house because of high taxes.”

5.0%

“I used to live in Marshfield and couldn’t stand being so close to my neighbors.”

0.0% Less than $300

$300 to $499

$500 to $699

$700 to $999

$1,000 to $1,499

$1,500 to $1,999

$2,000 to $2,499

$2,500 or more

“We wanted rural living as we do some hobby farming.”

Despite some concerns about affordability, most respondents believed that housing options in Marshfield were adequate. However, renters as a whole disagreed with the overall consensus. Those that disagreed often identified a gap between low-priced and often run-down housing and high-end options, especially for rentals.

19. If you do not live in the City of Marshfield, please indicate why.

50.0% 45.0%

“All of the apartments are either senior/low income housing or so expensive an entry level professional cannot afford them.”

“There is not a large selection in the middle of the market.”

40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

Moderately priced homes were the most common type 0.0% Not Other (please Property I couldn't find Housing To live closer To live closer of housing that respondents thought the City needed, applicable - I specify) taxes are too the housing I prices are too to my to family live in the high wanted high spouse's job followed by single family units for first-time buyers. HighCity of Marshfield end homes were met with the most resistance, with 43.7% saying that Marshfield did not need more. Opinions on rental housing favored single family options but in general agreed that more were needed.

20. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

"There are appropriate and adequate housing options available within the City of Marshfield."

Agreement By Ownership Status 45.0% 40.0%

45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

35.0% 30.0%

Own

25.0%

Rent

20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I'm not sure

0.0% Strongly agree

10

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

I'm not sure

Survey Summary Report In regards to where new housing should be located, results were clear in showing a preference for building at the periphery. 44.2% of respondents agreed that new housing definitely belongs at the edges of the City. Locating downtown was least favored with 37.4% opposing. Preventing congestion and protecting the values of existing properties were mentioned in many responses as the rationale behind building at the edges, though many also acknowledged the potential issue of sprawl. Renters were more likely than owners to have an opinion on this question, and more likely to favor new housing downtown and near the clinic.

“Unless the housing replaces existing housing to improve quality, adding more to the downtown area would clutter it and devalue homes. The same would happen near the clinic.”

22. In your opinion, where in the City of Marshfield should new housing be located?

100.0%

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

This location is fine

50.0%

No, not here No opinion

40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Downtown

60.0%

“The area surrounding the Clinic is already highly residential. Existing neighborhoods should not be destroyed to put up apartment complexes.”

Yes, definitely here

At the edges

Near the Clinic

23. Would better housing options affect your decision to move to the City of Marshfield?

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%

“Near the Clinic will add to the already congested traffic and parking.”

0.0% NA - I already live in No, it would not Yes, I would move Yes, though it would Yes, I would be more the City of affect my decision to here if I could find be a minor factor in likely to move to Marshfield move here the housing I want my decision to move Marshfield if there to Marshfield were better housing options

“Infill first. There is no real options for building your own house that is not a predesigned boring subdivision without annexing.”

For most respondents that lived outside of Marshfield however, better housing options were not enough to sway their decision as to whether to move to the City. Again taxes and rural amenities were frequently mentioned by those outside the City, as well as residents considering leaving.

“I have been thinking of moving into town but the property taxes are crazy high!”

“I think you might want to look at this more as a retention issue rather than an attraction issue.”

“I’m happy where I am only 8 minutes from Marshfield. I want to be in the country.”

“Currently I live in Marshfield, but am looking to re-locate to a surrounding area where I can have a larger yard. I would stay in Marshfield if I could find a home like this.”

“The assessed value of homes in Marshfield and, by proxy, property taxes on said homes, seem to be substantially inflated and much larger cities in Wisconsin have more reasonable valuations and taxes for nicer homes.”

“Better housing and taxation rates will affect my decision to STAY in the city limits.”

11

Marshfield Housing Survey Summary Report

Survey

Sample Survey

Please share your thoughts by Saturday, January 25, 2014.

The City of Marshfield is working to improve local housing options.

The City has retained a planning consultant, MSA Professional Services, Inc., to conduct a study of current conditions and future needs. The study will result in a strategic plan to fill gaps in the local housing market.

MSA is seeking feedback from people who live or work in the City of Marshfield regarding their housing needs and wants.

If you live or work in Marshfield, please take this survey.

If possible, we ask that you take the online survey, available here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MarshfieldHousingSurvey or here: miniurl.com/6mwc or via this QR code:

This paper copy includes the same questions as the online survey. If filling out a paper copy, please return your finished survey to the front desk of the Marshfield Public Library, or to Planning and Economic Development Director Jason Angell (see below).

If you have questions about this survey, please contact: Jason Angell City of Marshfield Director of Planning and Economic Development Jason.Angell@ci.marshfield.wi.us Direct: (715) 486-2074

12

Survey Summary Report Your Housing Today 1.

Where do you currently live?

2.

Please indicate your current housing type: Single family home (one home on one lot) Single unit attached to other single units (e.g. a townhome) Duplex/twinhome (two units) Unit in building with 3 -4 units Other:________________________

3.

5.

Unit in a building with 5 -9 units Unit in a building with 10 -19 units Unit in a building with 20 or more units Mobile home

How many people in each of the following age groups live in your household, including yourself?

Under 18

4.

Circle one: City/Village/Town of___________________ County:_______________

18 -24

25 -34

35 -44

45 -64

65 -84

How many bedrooms does your current home have?

Efficiency – no separate bedroom One Two

Three

Do you own or rent your current housing?

Rent

Own

If you own your home:

85 or older

Four or more

If you rent your home:

5a. Approximately how much do you currently pay for your housing each month including mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities (heat, water, electricity, etc.) and any condominium fees?

Less than $300 (<$3,600/yr)

$1,000 to $1,499 ($12,000 to $17,999/yr)

$300 to $499 ($3,600 to $5,999/yr)

$1,500 to $1,999 ($18,000 to $23,999/yr)

$500 to $749 ($6,000 to $8,999/yr)

$2,000 to $2,499 ($24,000 to $29,999/yr)

$750 to $999 ($9,000 to $11,999/yr)

$2,500 or more ($30,000 or more/yr)

5b. What is the approximate assessed value of your home?

Less than $50,000

$200,000 to $299,999

$50,000 to $99,999

$300,000 to $499,999

$100,000 to $149,999

More than $500,000

5c. Approximately how much do you currently pay for your housing each month including rent, insurance, and utilities (heat, water, electricity, etc.)?

Less than $200 (<$2,400/yr) $200 to $299 ($2,400 to $3,599/yr) $300 to $499 ($3,600 to $5,999/yr) $500 to $749 ($6,000 to $8,999/yr) $750 to $999 ($9,000 to $11,999/yr) $1,000 to $1,499 ($12,000 to $17,999/yr) $1,500 or more ($18,000 or more/yr)

$150,000 to $199,999

Comments regarding your current housing: _________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 6

13

Survey Summary Report Income and Employment 6.

Please estimate your gross annual household income (this helps us estimate housing affordability).

Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999

7.

Please estimate the percentage of your gross household income spent on housing costs.

Less than 10% 10 – 14% 15 – 19% 20 – 24%

8.

$75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $144,999 $75,000 to $99,999 Greater than $200,000 Do not wish to provide this information

25 – 29% 30 – 34% 35 – 39% 40% or more

Please indicate your employment status.

Employed full-time Employed part-time

Unemployed

Homemaker

Retired

Other:________________________ 9.

In which industry are you primarily employed (greatest number of hours) or seeking work? (check one) Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and warehousing, and utilities Information Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services Educational services, and health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Public administration Other (please specify)___________________________

Comments regarding income and employment: ______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2 of 6

14

Survey Summary Report Housing Condition and Investment 10.

What is the condition of your home or apartment?

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. In the past 5 years, have you invested more than $2,500 in improvements to an existing home, not including storm damage repair? If so, approximately home much have you invested?

No - $0 to $2,499

$20,000 to $29,999

$50,000 to $74,999

$2,500 to $4,999

$30,000 to $39,999

$75,000 to $99,999

$5,000 to $9,999

$40,000 to $49,999

$100,000 or more

$10,000 to $19,999

N/A – I haven’t owned a home in the past 5 years

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 12.

In the next 5 years, do you intend to invest more than $2,500 in home improvements?

Yes

Likely

Unlikely

No

N/A – I don’t expect to own a home in the next 5 years

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 6

15

Survey Summary Report Your Housing Preferences 13.

How satisfied are you with your current housing?

Very Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Satisfied dissatisfied a. Location ..................................................... ................ ................ ................ .................... b. Quality ....................................................... ................ ................ ................ .................... c. Size............................................................. ................ ................ ................ .................... d. Amenities (e.g. parking) ............................ ................ ................ ................ ....................

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 14.

If moving to or within the Marshfield area, what type of housing would you look for? (check one) Single family home Apartment Condominium Senior housing Short term housing (90 days or less) Other:________________________

15.

If moving, what size of home would you likely need?

Efficiency 16.

Two bedroom

Three bedroom

Other:______________

Very important; Important but Acceptable but Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t a necessity not necessary not important want Covered parking. ..................................................... ............................... ...................... .....................

Fully enclosed parking ............................................ ............................... ....................... .....................

Small yard for gardening or kids to play in . ........... ............................... ....................... .....................

Wooded yard (private or shared) . ......................... ............................... ....................... .....................

Large yard (1/2 acre or larger) . .............................. ............................... ....................... .....................

Storage space ......................................................... ............................... ....................... .....................

Home office space . ................................................ ............................... ....................... .....................

Other_____________________ ............................. ............................... ....................... .....................

Please rank the following issues in order of importance to you in selecting housing. (1 most important, 7 least) Proximity to extended family Schools Neighborhood Proximity to restaurants and shopping Cost / value Safety Proximity to work Page 4 of 6

16

Four bedroom or larger

How important to you are the following housing features?

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

17.

One bedroom

Survey Summary Report 18.

Approximately how much are you willing to spend on housing per month for the housing you want?

(Please consider and include taxes, insurance, and utilities.)

Less than $300 (<$3,600/yr)

$1,000 to $1,499 ($12,000 to $17,999/yr)

$300 to $499 ($3,600 to $5,999/yr)

$1,500 to $1,999 ($18,000 to $23,999/yr)

$500 to $749 ($6,000 to $8,999/yr)

$2,000 to $2,499 ($24,000 to $29,999/yr)

$750 to $999 ($9,000 to $11,999/yr)

$2,500 or more ($30,000 or more/yr)

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 19.

If you do not live in the City of Marshfield, please indicate why. (Select all that apply) Not applicable - I live in the City of Marshfield I couldn't find the housing I wanted Property taxes are too high Housing prices are too high To live closer to family To live closer to my spouse's job Other (please specify)___________________________

Marshfield Housing Needs 20. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

"There are appropriate and adequate housing options available within the City of Marshfield."

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Sure 21.

In your opinion, what housing types does the City of Marshfield need?

Need a Need a Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need Not lot more little more more sure a. Moderately priced homes ........................................ ............... ............... ............. b. Single family homes for first time buyers. ............... ............... ............... ............. c. Townhouses / Duplexes. .......................................... ............... ............... ............. d. Executive homes. ..................................................... ............... ............... ............. e. Rental housing.......................................................... ............... ............... ............. f. Apartments. .............................................................. ............... ............... ............. g. Assisted living for seniors ......................................... ............... ............... ............. h. Short-term housing (90 days or less). ...................... ............... ............... ............. i. Condominiums .......................................................... ............... ............... ............. j. Other_____________________ ............................... ............... ............... .............

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 6

17

Survey Summary Report 22.

In your opinion, where in the City of Marshfield should new housing be located?

Yes, definitely This location No, No here is fine not here opinion a.Downtown ................................................. ................... ................... ................. b. At the edges .............................................. ................... ................... ................. c. Near the Clinic ........................................... ................... ................... .................

Please share any further thoughts about where new housing should or should not be built: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 23.

Would better housing options affect your decision to move to the City of Marshfield?

Not applicable - I live in the City of Marshfield Yes, I would move here if I could find the housing I want Yes, I would be more likely to move to Marshfield if there were better housing options Yes, though it would be a minor factor in my decision to move to Marshfield No, it would not affect my decision to move here

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 24.

Is there anything else you would like us to know about housing in the City of Marshfield?

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 6 of 6

18