WOOD BUFFALO HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT...2019/05/03 · WOOD BUFFALO HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Wood Buffalo Regional Report Prepared by: Urban Matters CCC 2 nd Floor, 9902 Franklin

WOOD BUFFALO HOUSING NEEDS

ASSESSMENT Wood Buffalo Regional Report

Prepared by:

Urban Matters CCC 2nd Floor, 9902 Franklin Avenue

Fort McMurray, AB T9H 2K5 P: (780) 430-4041

May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURES ..................................................................................................3

TABLES ....................................................................................................3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................1

KEY FINDINGS ..........................................................................................6

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE .............................................................8

Demographics ......................................................................................... 8 Current Population ......................................................................... 9 Age and Gender Profile .................................................................. 9 Ethnic and Cultural Identity .......................................................... 10

Households ........................................................................................... 11 Household Type ........................................................................... 11 Household Tenure ........................................................................ 12

Economy ............................................................................................... 12 Income ......................................................................................... 12 Prevalence of Low-Income ........................................................... 13 Employment ................................................................................. 14

Housing ................................................................................................. 14 Dwelling Types ............................................................................. 15 Homelessness ............................................................................. 16 Housing Supply ............................................................................ 16 Seniors Housing Profile ................................................................ 19 Primary Rental Market.................................................................. 20 Housing Indicators ....................................................................... 22

RURAL COMMUNITY SUMMARY ........................................................... 24

Population ............................................................................................. 24 Dwellings and Households .................................................................... 24 Housing Conditions ............................................................................... 25

Adequacy (State of Repair) .......................................................... 25 Suitability (Crowding) ................................................................... 26 Affordability .................................................................................. 27

Summary ............................................................................................... 28 Anzac ......................................................................................... 28 Conklin ......................................................................................... 28 Fort Chipewyan ............................................................................ 28 Fort McKay ................................................................................... 29 Janvier ......................................................................................... 29 Saprae Creek ............................................................................... 29 Gregoire Lake Estates.................................................................. 29

GAP ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 30

Affordability Analysis ............................................................................. 30 Households in Need .............................................................................. 30 Summary of Housing Needs .................................................................. 35 Community Housing Summary .............................................................. 36

FIGURES Figure 1: RMWB Age Groups, 2018 9 Figure 2: Median Sale Price for Housing in Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac and Saprae Creek, 2011-2018 16 Figure 3: Primary Rental Market Vacancy Rates (October) in Wood Buffalo 21 Figure 4: Primary Rental Market Median Rent (October) in Wood Buffalo 21 Figure 5: Primary Rental Market Number of Units (October) in Wood Buffalo 22

TABLES

Table 1: Wood Buffalo Housing Proposed Development Program – 5 to 10 Year Development Priorities 4 Table 2: RMWB Population Trend 2012-2018 9 Table 3: Ethnicity of RMWB Residents, 2018 10 Table 4: Indigenous Identity of RMWB Residents, 2016 11 Table 5: Immigrant Status of RMWB Residents, 2016 11 Table 6: RMWB Household Types, 2016 12 Table 7: RMWB Tenure by Household Age, 2018 12 Table 8: RMWB Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015 13 Table 9: RMWB Household Income, 2015 13 Table 10: Prevalence of Low-Income in RMWB, 2015 14 Table 11: RMWB Employment Statistics, 2016 14 Table 12: Dwelling Types, 2018 15 Table 13: Age of Dwellings in RMWB, 2016 15 Table 14: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 17 Table 15: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 17 Table 16: Non-Market Housing in RMWB 18 Table 17: Non-Wood Buffalo Housing Non-Market Housing 18 Table 18: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 19 Table 19: Projected Seniors Population (65+), 2023 and 2028 20 Table 20: Projected Elder Seniors Population (75+), 2023 and 2028 20 Table 21: Housing Indicators for RMWB, 2016 23 Table 22: Market and Non-Market Housing in Rural Communities 24 Table 23: Adequacy in Rural Communities 25 Table 24: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs 30 Table 25: Summary of Estimated Housing Need Across the Region 32 Table 26: Summary of Estimated Housing Need by Community 34

PAGE 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wood Buffalo Housing and Development retained Urban Matters / Urban Systems to complete a Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) area. This study included the collection, review and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data for housing across the Region and is intended to develop a more robust and comprehensive understanding of housing supply, challenges, gaps and needs within our communities here in the RMWB.

A full literature review of existing reports and studies, as well as available statistical data (including the recently completed 2018 Municipal Census) was undertaken. This data and the resulting findings were then used as the basis for engaging with each of the communities within the Region. Interviews and engagement sessions were completed with key stakeholders and community representatives in all communities within the study scope.

This report provides an overview of the regional findings. A detailed report specific to each community was also prepared:1

• Fort Chipewyan • Fort McKay • Fort McMurray, including data from Draper where available • Saprae Creek • Gregoire Lake Estates • Anzac • Janvier • Conklin

This volume of reports and findings within are intended to provide an evidence-based summary, augmented with anecdotal community context, on the housing landscape amongst RMWB communities. It is our hope this work will be instrumental in supporting the growth and development of capacity, programs and/or projects to further address key housing needs within our Region.

Key Findings

Overall, the region is affluent, with high median incomes, meaning that despite high home prices housing for most households remains affordable. However, for households earning less than $40,000 housing affordability is an acute issue, and approximately 770 renting households are in core housing need, while anywhere from about 200 to 300 individuals in the region are homeless and may not be captured by core housing need estimates.

Our research shows that there is a housing crises in many of the rural hamlets: Janvier, Conklin, Fort Chipewyan, and Fort McKay are all experiencing significant housing issues that include overcrowding, housing in poor repair, and low-income households who cannot afford even the community housing (i.e. affordable but not deeply subsidized) when they are available. Community members we engaged with indicated that the hamlets need a 1 Due to size considerations, Fort Fitzgerald was not included.

PAGE 2

community-based response to housing issues, one driven by an Indigenous perspective that understands the specific challenges and opportunities present in the communities.

Housing in Fort McMurray is also a challenge for the lowest-income earners: although rents have come down since the 2016 wildfire, they are not low enough to serve households earning less than $40,000 per year, and even some households earning less than about $70,000 may experience difficulty in affording median market rent. The 2018 homeless count in Fort McMurray counted 200 individuals who were on the street or in shelters, indicating a need to strengthen existing services and supports (such as Housing First programs) to adequately support this population.

Issues and Opportunities

Issue: In addition to the new units that are required to meet the current housing need, hundreds more are in various states of disrepair and at risk without a program to prevent existing units from falling into states beyond repair.

Recommendation: Identify sources of funding and a program to help return units to a safe and affordable condition.

Issue: There exist a number of underutilized and even vacant units.

Recommendation: Identify supports like incentives and income supports that help bridge the gap between the affordable rents that are required to meet non-market needs and the income necessary for owners to finance and maintain these investments. This may include some form of alternative rental contracts to address the unique rental patterns in the District.

Issue: Recognizing that new housing units require a significant outlay of capital, examine whether development of a regional transportation system could be a viable solution to bring people to existing underutilized units – and to contrast it with the cost for a program of development

Recommendation: Investigate opportunities within comparable communities for regional partnerships, in an effort to stretch available funding and reduce duplication of services. May also help support existing businesses expand their successful offerings (asset management, housing maintenance) to neighbouring communities.

Recommendation: Investigate whether an education and training program could help residents perform critical repairs in an effort to keep marginal properties viable.

Recommendation: Locational site analysis exercises to determine parcels of land that are supported by community amenities (i.e. transportation options, grocery stores, elementary schools) that help tenants be successful.

Recommendation: Identify opportunities to provide a benefit to neighbouring communities. Include options to provide serviced land to residents with mobile units that aren’t currently tied into municipal infrastructure.

Recommendation: Look for aging-in-place opportunities and successful programs.

PAGE 3

Recommendation: Identify a hierarchy of programming needs (i.e. day supports, health & addictions, job training, domestic-violence support, child-care), and form a strategy to better address the needs of the community and outline implementation options.

Recommendation: Dedicated, local housing solutions for more remote communities (Fort Chipewyan). Focus on indigenous designed, manufactured, assembled and maintained solutions.

Table 1 below shows a framework for a proposed five-year development program that would serve the varied needs of the region’s community. This program is based on the Gap Analysis section at the end of this report.

PAGE 4

Table 1: Wood Buffalo Housing Proposed Development Program – 3 to 5 Year Development Priorities

NEED AND DEMAND BY COMMUNITIESCOMMUNITY NUMBER

OF UNITSDISCUSSION

Conklin 36 units

• 36 units are currently proposed by the Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee. These should aim to serve primarily individuals and small families as current family housing is under-utilized.

• Ongoing support for home renovation and maintenance programs. • Emergency Health & Safety Funding • Education/Training for critical repairs • Site Analysis – connect random units to existing infrastructure • Enhanced Transportation Options (Janvier, Anzac, Fort McMurray) • Indigenous designed, manufactured, assembled, maintained housing program • Opportunity to address housing regionally

Janvier ~15 units

• Explore converting existing unused units of community housing (2 units) to social housing in order to make it more affordable.

• Develop up to an additional 15 units of housing in partnership with the community that meets the specific needs and concerns of community members; this could be phased over several years, building 5 units at a time and adjusting supports and subsidies as necessary.

• Support the development of home renovation and maintenance programs. • Emergency Health & Safety Funding • Education/Training for critical repairs • Site Analysis – connect random units to existing infrastructure • Transportation Options (Janvier, Fort McMurray • Indigenous designed, manufactured, assembled, maintained housing program • Opportunity to address housing regionally

Anzac ~5 units

• Consider options for additional seniors housing, as well as a small pool of purpose built rental serving singles at the low-end of the rental market

• Age-in -place opportunities • Permanent Housing Supports • Determine hierarchy of required programming

Saprae Creek n/a -

PAGE 5

Gregoire Lake Estates

n/a -

Fort McKay 22 units

• Support the development of housing for 11 households on Fort McKay Métis Community housing waitlist • Indigenous designed, manufactured, assembled, maintained housing program • Support additional resources and units for 11 individuals identified as chronically homeless, using a Housing First

approach • Support the development of home renovation and maintenance programs. • Expand successful (underfunded) home repair program • Age-in -place opportunities • Permanent Housing Supports • Determine hierarchy of required programming

Fort Chipewyan 30 units

• Work with community groups in Fort Chipewyan to develop about 30 units (this is the number of households paying 30% or more of their income toward housing) of mixed low-income and moderate income rental housing meeting the range of needs identified by the community, including housing for youth, elders and sin

• Support the development of home renovation and maintenance programs to support the approximately 70 units of housing needing major repairs.

• Address underutilized/vacant units • Indigenous designed, manufactured, assembled, maintained housing program • Incorporate sustainability ethic being demonstrated through solar electrical generation plant

Fort McMurray 100 units

• Based on current waitlist demand, aim to develop an additional 100 units of housing, primarily deeply subsidized housingaimed at households earning $40,000 or less in the community;

• Develop private market subsidy programs to support about 200 moderate income households ($40,000 - $70,000) to ac-cess private market rental housing that is currently vacant.

• Transportation vs new units exercise, is it viable to bring residents to existing underutilized housing in neighbouringcommunities vs developing new

Housing Affordability At A Glance 2018

EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

SOCIAL HOUSING BELOW MARKET HOUSING MARKET HOUSING

/ SUBSIDIZED/ SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING SPECTRUM

Housing is said to be affordable when no more than 30% of a household’s income is spent on shelter costs.

RENTERS IN RMWB

HOMEOWNERS IN RMWB

For households spending 30% or more on shelter, this means:

• There is less money available for food, transportation, health and recreation costs• There is little ability to save for emergencies, or to save for life goals, such as a down

payment on a home or a child’s education

64%

PROPORTION OF HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

REGIONAL MUNCIPALITY OF WOOD BUFFALO

36%

In the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo about

12.3% of families spend more than 30%of their income on shelter.

1,429 Non-Market Unitsand Subsidies

25,418 TOTAL UNITS

Housholds in Need of Housing Support Across the RMWB770 to 1080

POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHICS AND INCOME

-9%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

86,768 78,823 RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)

SENIOR

(65yrs+)

$2,794MONTHLY OWNERSHIP COST

(2016)

One-Person Household(2015)

$106,035Couples with Children(2015)

Lone Parent(2015)

Median Household Income ($) 195,570

$1,702MONTHLY RENTAL COST

(2016)

(AB avg $1,243) (AB avg $1,481)

36.9%of housing stock was built before 1990

$231,534 $120,192

KEY TAKEAWAYS• Overall, there is tremendous affluence regionally, and high incomes mean that housing remains relatively affordable for most

households

• Poverty and housing affordability remain key household issues for some groups, particularly households earning less than $70,000

• A recent homeless count in Fort McMurray shows that there are still, at minimum, 200 visibly homeless individuals in the Urban

Service Area

• Emerging research shows a significant housing crisis in the community of Conklin, affecting a large proportion of residents there

• A lack of comprehensive data makes the analysis of housing issues in smaller communities like Janvier South and Fort MacKay difficult

• Wood Buffalo has a relatively small proportion of seniors overall, but renting seniors are highly vulnerable to housing issues

• There is a relatively large Indigenous population in RMWB (approximately 10%) and when considering any housing development,

particularly in small communities with high proportions of Indigenous residents, consideration should be given to design and

programs that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural practices

• Overall, it is estimated that between 770 units and 1,080 households (with a primarily focus on renters and homeless individuals) are

in need across the RMWB , requiring a mix of repairs to existing units, new units at affordable prices and rental subsidies to access

existing market rental units.

MEDIAN INCOMES BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE

AGE

SHELTER COSTS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alberta RMWB

PAGE 8

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE

This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data for the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB). Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile. Wherever possible, 2018 RMWB data was used. However, the 2016 Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.

This regional profile is organized into five sections:

• Demographic information

• Data on household composition

• Economic data

• Housing indicators

• An analysis of housing gaps and needs

This report also includes information collected through an engagement process with stakeholders in across the region. Meetings and phone interviews were conducted with stakeholders in Conklin, Janvier, Anzac, Gregoire Lake Estates, Saprae Creek, Fort McMurray, Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan through January and February 2019. These stakeholders were invited to discuss the relevance/accuracy of the statistical information collected (2015 RMWB Census and 2016 Statistics Canada Census 2 ), as well as community context, needs, and opportunities. Stakeholder feedback is integrated within the relevant sections throughout this report, and highlighted in the gap analysis.

In addition to an overall summary of housing needs, this study intended to develop a better understanding of two key issues in the region: the housing needs of seniors in RMWB communities, and the issue of indigenous homelessness. To this end, qualitative research was conducted using the lens of the Definition of Indigenous Homelessness in Canada.3

Demographics

This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators across the RMWB, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding

2 All counts in Statistics Canada Census tabulations are subjected to random rounding. Random rounding transforms all raw counts to random rounded counts. This reduces the possibility of identifying individuals within the tabulations. This becomes apparent in smaller data sets and can result in situations where sub-groups and totals may not always conform.

3 Thistle, J. (2017.) Indigenous Defnition of Homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press.

PAGE 9

of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.

CURRENT POPULATION

Between 2015 and 2018, RMWB’s population decreased by 9%, from 86,768 residents to 78,823 residents. This is not including the project accommodations in areas outside the Urban Service Area or hamlets.

Table 2: RMWB Population Trend 2012-20184 POPULATION, 2012 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change 2018 78,823 -9% 75,009 -8% 3,814 -21% 2015 86,768 12% 81,948 N/A 4,820 N/A 2012 77,136 - - -

Source: RMWB 2018 Census

AGE AND GENDER PROFILE

The RMWB’s population is 55% male and 45% female. The balance between male and female is fairly even for children (age 0 through 14). The skew towards males is particularly pronounced for the ages 35 through 69 (for which males exceed 55% of the population).

Figure 1: RMWB Age Groups, 2018


4 These figures do not include the Project Accommodations

5,0004,0003,0002,0001,000 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Female Male

PAGE 10

ETHNIC AND CULTURAL IDE NTITY

Understanding the ethnic and cultural makeup of community is a key component of housing planning. For example, immigrants and newcomers may experience barriers when integrating into a community (language, education, etc.) that may increase housing vulnerability, while Indigenous families and individuals may prefer culturally-appropriate forms of housing, that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural practices.

RMWB’s population is predominantly Caucasian, Euro Canadian, or European at 66%. Following this, South Asian, South East Asian, and African are the most common ethnicities (6.5%, 6.4%, and 4.4% respectively). In addition, 4% identified as First Nation, 2.5% Métis, and 0.4% non-status First Nation.

Table 3: Ethnicity of RMWB Residents, 2018 ETHNICITY, 2018 Number Percent Total 67,464 100.0%

Caucasian or Euro Canadian 43,196 64.0% South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan) 4,388 6.5% South East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Filipino) 4,287 6.4% African 3,001 4.4% First Nation 2,665 4.0% Asian (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) 1,687 2.5% European 1,290 1.9% Métis 1,713 2.5% Arab 1,190 1.8% Mixed Ethnicity 1,214 1.8% Black or African Canadian 1,053 1.6% Hispanic or Latin American 848 1.3% Caribbean 394 0.6% Non-status First Nation 257 0.4% Oceania (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) 174 0.3% Inuk (Inuit) 107 0.2%


Indigenous Identity5,6 Nine percent of RMWB’s residents identify as Indigenous, from a single Indigenous background, while about 90% are non-Indigenous. This does not include the population currently living on First Nations reserves in the region.

5 Statistics Canada used the term ‘Aboriginal’ for individuals with First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity in the 2016 Census. In each community profile, we use the term ‘Indigenous’ to refer to individuals and peoples of First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity to acknowledge terminology recognized by the United Nations, through its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and shifting terminologies within both Indigenous organizations in Canada, and the Canadian government. 6 The discrepancy between Indigenous Identity from the 2016 Census of Canada, and the 2018 RMWB Census may be due to a number of factors, including non-response bias, change over time, or that only one ethnicity

PAGE 11

Table 4: Indigenous Identity of RMWB Residents, 2016

INDIGENOUS IDENTITY, 2016 Number Percent Total 71,745 100% Indigenous Identity 6,565 9% Single Indigenous responses 6,400 9% Multiple Indigenous responses 25 0% Indigenous responses not included elsewhere 135 0% Non-Indigenous Identity 64,915 90%

Source: Statistics Canada 2016 Census

Citizenship and Immigration Status

According to the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, 22% of the residents of RMWB were immigrants, and 7% of residents were recent immigrants. The Regional Municipality’s population is also 2% non-permanent residents.

Table 5: Immigrant Status of RMWB Residents, 2016

IMMIGRANT STATUS, 2016 Number Percent Total 71,475 100% Non-Immigrants 54,180 76% Immigrants 15,865 22% Recent immigrants 4,990 7% Non-Permanent Residents 1,435 2%


Households

HOUSEHOLD TYPE

RMWB households are predominantly families. There were 17,760 census families and 8,860 non-census family households in 2016.7 Half of family households were couples with children (50.1%), while just over a third (35.1%) were couples without children. There were 2,625 lone-parent families in the RMWB in 2016, representing 14.8% of all families. Of non-family households, about two-thirds were one-person households, while there were 2,910 households with two or more people.

choice was available for the 2018 RMWB Census (and as such, someone who may have more than one ethnicity may have selected a non-Indigenous ethnicity, but identified as Indigenous). 7 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family.

PAGE 12

Table 6: RMWB Household Types, 2016 HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2016

Number Percent Census Families in Private Households 17,760 100%

Couples without children 6,230 35% Couples with children 8,905 50%

Lone parent families 2,625 15% Non-Census-Family Households 8,860 100%

One-person households 5,945 67% Two-or-more person non-census family households 2,910 33%


HOUSEHOLD TE NURE

Renters represent over a third of households in the RMWB (36%). There are approximately 8,000 renting households, of which 57% are led by individuals below the age of 35, similar to owners, where 50% of households are led by individuals below the age of 35. As noted above, RMWB is a relatively young community, and the RMWB Census only counted 478 senior led households in RMWB, representing 2% of all households. Thirty-six percent (36%) of these are renters, while 64% are owners.

Table 7: RMWB Tenure by Household Age, 2018

HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 14,371 100% 8,011 100% 22,382 100%

Under 25 2,288 16% 1,481 18% 3,769 17%

25 to 34 4,817 34% 3,116 39% 7,933 35%

35 to 44 3,673 26% 1,747 22% 5,420 24%

45 to 54 1,992 14% 924 12% 2,916 13%

55 to 64 1,295 9% 571 7% 1,866 8%

65 and over 306 2% 172 2% 478 2%


Economy

INCOME

Households in the RMWB earn more across all household types than comparable median-earning households across all of Alberta. For almost all household types, the median income in the RMWB is about twice as much or more than in Alberta as a whole. The only exception is couples with children, who nonetheless earn about 1.75 times as much as provincial counterparts.

PAGE 13

Table 8: RMWB Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 RMWB Alberta

Median (all household types) $195,570 $93,835

One-Person Households $106,035 $47,948

Couple-Households without Children $209,554 $101,283

Couple-Households with Children $231,534 $133,186

Lone Parent Households $120,192 $62,909


Despite overall high incomes, there are still a number of households earning incomes well below the median income, with 5,405 households, or about one-fifth (~20%) of all households, who earn less than $100,000 per year.

Table 9: RMWB Household Income, 2015

HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2015 Number Percent Total 25,660 100% Under $5,000 440 2% $5,000 to $9,999 170 1% $10,000 to $19,999 430 2% $20,000 to $29,999 490 2% $30,000 to $39,999 480 2% $40,000 to $49,999 505 2% $50,000 to $59,999 510 2% $60,000 to $69,999 620 2% $70,000 to $79,999 530 2% $80,000 to $89,999 625 2% $90,000 to $99,999 605 2% $100,000 and over 20,255 79%


PREVALENCE OF LOW-INCOME

Overall, RMWB residents experience a lower rate of low-income than households across Alberta. Of all household groups, seniors were most likely to experience low-income, with 7.2% of all seniors being below the low-income cut off (LICO). Only 3.7% of adults (18 to 64) experienced low-income, but children (0 to 17) were nearly twice as likely to be experiencing low-income as adults.

PAGE 14

Table 10: Prevalence of Low-Income in RMWB, 2015

LOW-INCOME BASED ON THE LOW-INCOME CUT OFF (LICO), 2015

RMWB Alberta

Prevalence within Age Group Total 4.4% 9.3%

0 to 17 6.5% 12.8%

18 to 64 3.7% 8.2%

65 and over 7.2% 8.6% Source: Statistics Canada 2016 Census

EMPLOYMENT

RMWB’s employment statistics are generally stronger than Alberta as a whole. Participation rate is higher for both men and women, while the unemployment rate is only 7.0%, compared to Alberta’s 9.0%. Women have a slightly higher unemployment rate (8.3%) in RMWB compared to Alberta as a whole. The primary economic activity in RMWB is mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction (30% of the workforce), followed by construction (10%), retail (8%), accommodation and food services, health care and social assistance, transportation and warehousing, and administrative/support for waste management/remediation (each about 5% respectively).

Table 11: RMWB Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 RMWB Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 57,285 3,206,050 In Labour Force 44,680 2,302,945 Employed 41,565 2,096,105 Unemployed 3,115 206,835 Not In Labour Force 12,600 903,145 Participation Rate 78.0% 65.4% Male 86.4% 77.3% Female 68.0% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 7.0% 9.0% Male 6.1% 10.0% Female 8.3% 7.8%


Housing

This section outlines key housing indicators, including dwelling types and their state of repair, housing types by tenure, and available non-market housing stock. These indicators tell us what type of housing is currently available, and what types of housing both renters and owners occupy.

PAGE 15

DWELLING TYPES

Nearly half of the more than 25,418 dwellings around the RMWB are single detached (48%), while apartments are the next most common dwelling type (26%). Manufactured/mobile homes (11%) and townhomes (8%) are the next common forms of housing, while semi-detached and basement suites are less common.

Table 12: Dwelling Types, 2018

DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 25,418 100%

Single Detached 12,287 48%

Semi-Detached/Duplex 1,508 6%

Townhome/Row Housing 2,130 8%

Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 149 1%

Apartment/Condo 6,499 26%

Secondary/Basement Suite 46 0%

Manufactured/Mobile Home 2,736 11%

Collective Dwelling 45 0%

Other Movable Dwelling/RV 15 0%

Other 3 0%


According to the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, 47% of the homes in the RMWB were built in 2000 or before, and about 13% were built since 2011. This will likely have changed since the fire, where new builds in Fort McMurray and surrounding communities are currently being developed. There were approximately 2,500 homes destroyed by the 2016 wildfire, about 36% of which have completed rebuilding, and about 80% of which had received building permits for reconstruction.8

Table 13: Age of Dwellings in RMWB, 2016 OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 25,560 100% 1960 or before 170 1% 1961 to 1980 6,250 24% 1981 to 1990 3,065 12% 1991 to 2000 2,445 10% 2001 to 2005 4,235 17% 2006 to 2010 6,260 24% 2011 to 2016 3,245 13% Dwellings requiring major repairs 1,205 5%


8 https://www.rmwb.ca/News-Room/RMWB-Wildfire-Information/Recovery-Progress-Updates/Rebuild-Pillar-Progress.htm

https://www.rmwb.ca/News-Room/RMWB-Wildfire-Information/Recovery-Progress-Updates/Rebuild-Pillar-Progress.htm

https://www.rmwb.ca/News-Room/RMWB-Wildfire-Information/Recovery-Progress-Updates/Rebuild-Pillar-Progress.htm

PAGE 16

HOMELESSNESS

There is no comprehensive municipality-wide homeless count for all of the RMWB. However, as of the writing of this report there is research being conducted municipality-wide into homelessness and risk. There are also two important recent studies that provide some insight into the scope and scale of homelessness in the RMWB. The first is the Fort McMurray Point-in-Time Homeless Count that occurred in April 2018. The second is recent work conducted in Conklin, which provides both qualitative information and a preliminary count of households experiencing significant housing issues.

The results of the 2018 Fort McMurray Point-in-Time Homeless Count identified 200 individuals through a street and shelter survey. The results of this survey are discussed in more detail in the Fort McMurray Community Profile; however, the results show that 46% of the counted homeless population were Indigenous, 60% were considered chronically homeless, and 31% said they had no income.

Ongoing research in Conklin shows an extreme housing crisis, with severe housing safety issues through a lack of services (water, electricity), and dwellings in poor repair. Preliminary results of a survey conducted by the Alberta Rural Development Network identified 92 individuals experiencing significant housing issues, with 38 of these individuals 20 years old or under. While these households would typically be considered provisionally housed, many fit one or more of the definitions of Indigenous homelessness as outlined by Jesse Thistle, and their housing situation may be only marginally better than sleeping outside.

Homelessness across the rest of the rural communities in RMWB is unclear from the quantitative data; however, community engagement provides key qualitative input to identify current housing needs and pressures in the rural hamlets.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Figure 2 shows the median sales value for four types of housing across the communities of Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac and Saprae Creek, between 2011 and September, 2018. While variable, over time there has been a downward trend in the median sale price of homes since 2014/15, consistent with an economic downturn in Alberta and a decline in oil prices.

Figure 2: Median Sale Price for Housing in Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac and Saprae Creek, 2011-2018

$-

$200,000.00

$400,000.00

$600,000.00

$800,000.00

$1,000,000.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

SFD Semi-detached Apartment condominium Mobile with land

PAGE 17

Of the approximately 14,500 homes owned by their residents, most were single-detached homes (67%), while 14% were manufactured homes.

Table 14: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018

OWNER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 14,492 100%


Semi-Detached/Duplex 915 6%

Townhome/Row Housing 870 6%


Apartment/Condo 939 6%


Manufactured/Mobile Home 1,986 14%



Other 2 0% Source: RMWB 2018 Census The 2018 Census showed that of the approximate 8,300 rental homes in RMWB, more than half were apartments (55%), while 20% were single detached, 11% were townhouses, and the remaining units were semi-detached, manufactured/mobile homes, multiplexes, and secondary/basement suites.

Table 15: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018

RENTER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 8,344 100%


Semi-Detached/Duplex 428 5%



Apartment/Condo 4,559 55%


Manufactured/Mobile Home 603 7%



Other 0 0% Source: RMWB 2018 Census

This shows that while owners are much more likely to live in single-family dwellings, renters are highly dependent on apartments for housing. However, these apartments are largely in the Urban Service Area, with only about 50 apartments spread across the rural hamlets.

PAGE 18

RMWB currently has 1,369 non-market units operated by Wood Buffalo Housing. These are primarily affordable units, which prioritizes low and middle-income families at rental rates 10% below the CMHC average. Lodge operations represent housing for seniors with 24-hour non-medical staffing. Community housing for seniors is a rent-geared-to-income program for independent living. Community housing are social housing units funded by the provincial government and operated by Wood Buffalo Housing.

Table 16: Non-Market Housing in RMWB WOOD BUFFALO NON-MARKET HOUSING UNITS BY COMMUNITY

Community

Housing

Community Housing -

Seniors, Self-Contained

Lodge Operations

Affordable Units

Housing First Clients (Rent

Supplements) Total

Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429

Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382

Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5

Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16

Janvier 0 0 0 9 0 9 Fort Chipewyan 2 10 0 5 0 17

Fort McKay 0 0 0 0 0 0

Saprae Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gregoire Lake Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0

In addition, the Salvation Army supplies rent supplements to 30 clients and Centre of Hope supplies rent supplements to 45 clients in the RMWB through their Housing First Clients program. Salvation Army, along with other non-profit providers, also provides 217 other non-market shelter beds or transitional/supportive units (as below).

Table 17: Non-Wood Buffalo Housing Non-Market Housing

OTHER NON-MARKET HOUSING Provider Description Number of Beds Salvation Army Mats 35 Salvation Army Shelter beds 32 Salvation Army Additional units with supports 22

Waypoints

Emergency women’s beds for women with or without children in crisis or escaping domestic violence (soon expanding) 36

Support through Housing Team

Transitional housing (considered community housing Table 16) 7

Waypoints Second stage/transitional housing for women with or without children fleeing violence 13

Waypoints Mixed income housing for those at risk of homelessness and low end of market units 64

Salvation Army

Supportive living for people with cognitive and physical challenges (counted as affordable housing in Table 16 above) 8

Total 217

PAGE 19

Despite the non-market units identified above, there remains a wait list for non-market housing as delivered by Wood Buffalo Housing.9 At the end of 2018, there were 135 households on the waitlist, with a total of 298 individuals within the applicant households. Of the 135 households, 5 included at least one senior, 30 included at least one dependent under 7, and 65 included at least one dependent age 7 to 18. Households on the waitlist had a median income of $1,688/month. The median time between application and the review for those households on the waitlist was 253 days.

A recent report10 on Wood Buffalo Housing clients indicated singles were the most common senior and non-senior household type, with 343 non-senior singles served, and 110 seniors. For non-seniors this was followed by singles with children, and couples with children, each with 278, and finally couples without children, 100 households served. For seniors, in addition to the singles, there were 6 couples served. The most common highest source of income for households served was employment income (highest source for 630 of 1118 households). In total 2,637 individuals were served by Wood Buffalo Housing at the time of the report.

Finally, Wood Buffalo Housing serves 148 households through a home ownership program. Of these, 5 are in the rural communities of Conklin or Janvier. Seven (7) units are available for purchase.

SENIORS HOUSING PROFILE

Seniors are predominantly owners across the region, with 64% of senior households owning, and 36% renting. Seniors who rent are much more likely to rent apartments (82%), while seniors who own are much more likely to own a single-detached home (66%). For seniors who own, while there may be no current housing need, the long-term housing need will be in ensuring there is appropriate stock of both lower-maintenance homes to purchase (e.g. condominiums) and enough rentals to accommodate seniors who may choose to downsize and rent.

Table 18: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 SENIORS' DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 306 100% 172 100% 478 100%

Single Detached 201 66% 13 8% 214 45% Semi-Detached/Duplex 22 7% 3 2% 25 5% Townhome/Row Housing 8 3% 6 3% 14 3% Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Apartment/Condo 24 8% 141 82% 165 35% Secondary/Basement Suite 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 49 16% 9 5% 58 12% Collective Dwelling 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Other 1 0% 0 0% 1 0%


9 Information provided by Wood Buffalo Housing in the January 2019 Waitlist Survey. 10 Information provided by Wood Buffalo Housing in the 4th quarter report for 2018.

PAGE 20

Seniors across the region are projected to grow modestly between 2016 and 2028: between about 1,200 and 3,200 new seniors will live in the RMWB by 2028. These figures are derived from historical population and age group growth figures, and the share of the overall population that seniors (65+) have historically represented. While this is a rapidly growing age group (projected 56% to 151% growth over about 12 years), it nonetheless remains a relatively small proportion of the overall population, and a small group in terms of overall growth. Seniors have historically represented between about 1% and 3% of the region’s population. In 2016, the majority of this group (about 82%) were based within Fort McMurray.

Table 19: Projected Seniors Population (65+), 2023 and 2028

2016 2023 2028 Low 2,080 2,694 3,240 High 2,080 3,556 5,215

Source: Derived from Statistics Canada 1996-2016 Census Growth projections for elder seniors (individuals aged 75+) show very small growth in the number of individuals (between about 290 and 410 new elderly seniors between 2016 and 2028), about a 56% and 80% growth. Elder seniors are more likely to need additional housing supports in order to age in place. Historically this group has represented less than 1% of the region’s overall population; in 2016, about 78% were living in Fort McMurray. With a planned 144 beds at Willow Square (with 108 ready upon opening, including 72 for supportive living and 36 for long-term and palliative care), many of this population’s needs will be met for the foreseeable future.

Table 20: Projected Elder Seniors Population (75+), 2023 and 2028

2,016 2,023 2,028 Low 515 667 802 High 515 724 924

Source: Derived from Statistics Canada 1996-2016 Census

PRIMARY RENTAL MARKET

The following figures show information relating to Wood Buffalo’s primary rental stock as measured in October of each year from 1990 to 2018.11 While the information provided pertains to the Wood Buffalo region generally, the vast majority of the primary rental market units are located in Fort McMurray.

Figure 3 shows the vacancy rate at 22% in 2018, down from the 2015 high of 29%, but far above the sub-3% rate seen prior to 2009. This is a very high vacancy rate.

11 The primary rental market is a subset of the total rental market, and focuses on purpose-built, multi-unit buildings.

PAGE 21

Figure 3: Primary Rental Market Vacancy Rates (October) in Wood Buffalo

Source: CMHC Information Portal

Figure 4 shows the path of median rents in the primary rental market in Wood Buffalo over time. Median rent has declined by over 25% from its high of $2,049 in 2010. Most of this decline has happened quite recently, from $2,000 in 2014 to $1,413 in 2018. The current median is at approximately the same level as it was in 2006, in the midst of a rapid upswing. The sharp decline in median rental rates since 2014 has likely been caused in part by the even sharper increase in vacancy rates. While rents may have stabilized to some degree over the past two years, the high vacancy rate may mean rents may decline further.

Figure 4: Primary Rental Market Median Rent (October) in Wood Buffalo

Source: CMHC Information Portal Figure 5 shows the number of units in the primary rental market in Wood Buffalo over time. The primary rental market included 3,202 units in 2018, up from a low of 2,622 in 2012. However, 2018 levels remain below the high of 3,797 units in 1990 (the first year for which data is available).

0.5%5.4%

29.3%

22.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$2,049

$1,413

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

PAGE 22

Figure 5: Primary Rental Market Number of Units (October) in Wood Buffalo


HOUSING INDICATORS

Table 21 shows a breakdown of housing issues across the RMWB, by renter household type. Thirty-one percent (31%) of renters are experiencing a housing issue.12 This is most pronounced for lone-parent renters, 54.5% of whom are experiencing some form of housing issue, and 37.2% of whom are experiencing an affordability issue (i.e. paying more than 30% of their income toward shelter costs).

For non-family households, just over a third (34.0%) are experiencing housing issues, while 60% of senior renters living alone are experiencing an affordability issue, and 65% are experiencing some form of housing issue.

Additionally, the Canadian Rental Housing Index found that in 2016, 630 households, or approximately 8% of all renters, were paying more than 50% of their income toward shelter costs. All of these households were in the lowest income quartile for the municipality (earning less than approximately $40,000).13 The authors also recognize that because these figures are based on Statistics Canada’s 2016 Census, they may not capture a full picture of housing issues, particularly in the rural hamlets.

12 Statistics Canada defines these three housing indicators as: “The indicator for housing adequacy is the dwelling condition. The indicator for housing suitability (a topic often referred to as crowding) is whether the dwelling has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the household. The indicator of housing affordability is the proportion of household total income that is spent on shelter costs, also referred to as shelter-cost-to-income ratio.” 13 Canadian Rental Housing Index: http://www.rentalhousingindex.ca/

3,797

2,622

3,202

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

PAGE 23

Table 21: Housing Indicators for RMWB, 2016


Total % Total % Total % Total %1,165 4.6% 1,515 5.9% 3,130 12.3% 5,360 21.0% 25,465

Census Family Households 835 4.5% 1,235 6.6% 1,785 9.5% 3,465 18.5% 18,720Couple with children 315 3.8% 490 6.0% 730 8.9% 1,375 16.8% 8,205Couple without children 200 3.3% 0 0.0% 465 7.7% 640 10.6% 6,035

Senior-led (65+) couple without children 15 4.4% 0 0.0% 30 8.8% 45 13.2% 340

Lone-parent household 90 6.8% 120 9.1% 400 30.4% 555 42.2% 1,315Non-family households 325 4.8% 275 4.1% 1,345 20.0% 1,890 28.0% 6,740

One-person households 250 5.3% 0 0.0% 1,175 25.1% 1,385 29.6% 4,680Non-family senior households 20 7.0% 0 0.0% 110 38.6% 140 49.1% 285

855 4.9% 575 3.3% 1,615 9.3% 2,835 16.4% 17,310Census Family Households 645 4.7% 530 3.9% 1,040 7.6% 2,025 14.7% 13,760

Couple with children 240 3.8% 145 2.3% 500 7.8% 805 12.6% 6,380Couple without children 155 3.6% 0 0.0% 260 6.1% 400 9.3% 4,285


Lone-parent household 45 6.3% 15 2.1% 175 24.6% 225 31.7% 710Non-family households 210 5.9% 40 5.9% 580 5.9% 810 5.9% 3,545

One-person households 165 6.2% 0 0.0% 495 18.6% 640 24.1% 2,660Non-family senior households 20 10.8% 0 0.0% 60 32.4% 80 43.2% 185

315 3.9% 940 11.5% 1,505 18.5% 2,525 31.0% 8,155Census Family Households 195 3.9% 705 14.2% 750 15.1% 1,440 29.0% 4,965

Couple with children 75 4.1% 345 19.0% 235 12.9% 565 31.0% 1,820Couple without children 50 2.8% 0 0.0% 205 11.7% 240 13.7% 1,755


Lone-parent household 45 7.4% 100 16.5% 225 37.2% 330 54.5% 605Non-family households 115 3.6% 235 7.4% 760 23.8% 1,085 34.0% 3,195

One-person households 80 4.0% 0 0.0% 685 33.8% 745 36.8% 2,025Non-family senior households 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 60 60.0% 65 65.0% 100

Renter Households

HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING HOUSING ISSUESHouseholdsAdequacy Suitability Affordability All Indicators

Owner and Renter Households

Owner Households

PAGE 24

RURAL COMMUNITY SUMMARY Population Fort McKay was the only rural community to see population growth between 2015 and 2018, an increase of 31% from 45 to 59 according to the RMWB Census (however, this number differs from engagement information provided). Anzac, Fort Chipewyan, and Janvier each saw relatively modest declines in population (8-9%), and Gregoire Lake Estates a slightly larger decline (12%). Conklin and Saprae Creek each saw substantial declines, each losing more than a quarter of their population between 2015 and 2018 (-28% and -27% respectively).

Generally, the rural communities have a slightly higher proportion of children (0-14) than the province as a whole, with all but Anzac and Janvier ranging between 21% and 23%, compared to the province’s 19% (19% of Anzac and 20% of Janvier residents were children). Anzac, Gregoire Lake Estates, and Saprae Creek each had particularly high proportions of working-age (15-64 years old) residents, ranging from 74% to 77%, compared to 69% in across the province. Finally, Anzac, Fort McKay, Saprae Creek, and most notably Gregoire Lake Estates each had particularly low proportions of senior (65 and over) residents, the first 3 ranging from 5% to 6%, and Gregoire Lake Estates with only 2% of residents (compared to the provinces 12%).

In Anzac, Conklin, Fort McKay, and Gregoire Lake Estates, gender is skewed substantially towards males, with at least 55% of residents in each of these communities identifying as male. For Anzac and Fort McKay this was particularly pronounced with 60% or more males; this means that there are at least 3 males for every two females in the community.

Dwellings and Households Anzac and Fort Chipewyan have substantially lower units of non-market housing relative to the size of the community overall. This is unsurprising given the comparatively high income levels in these communities, particularly Anzac. In contrast, Conklin, and Janvier to an even greater extent have quite high proportions of non-market units, again in line with their comparatively low income levels. While numbers are unavailable for Fort McKay, the FMMCA owns the majority of units in the community, and rents these units out at deeply subsidized rates; it is estimated that residents are only paying approximately 10-20% of the market rental rate, insufficient to cover mortgage costs. Gregoire Lake Estates and Saprae Creek have no identified non-market housing.

Table 22: Market and Non-Market Housing in Rural Communities MARKET AND NON-MARKET HOUSING Dwellings Total Non-Market Anzac 236 5 Conklin 72 16 Fort Chipewyan 314 17 Fort McKay14 25 NA Janvier 49 9

Source: RMWB 2018 Census, Assorted Resources from Wood Buffalo Housing

14 Information provided by the FMMCA Administration

PAGE 25

Statistics Canada’s information on tenure may not be representative of the situation on the ground in Wood Buffalo’s rural communities, in part because the Census may not have identified and included households living in particularly poor conditions. These statistics may also have been impacted by the 2016 wildfire and the economic downturn since 2015.

Based on the 2018 RMWB Census, tenure varies substantially across the rural communities. Saprae Creek has a particularly high ownership rate, with 96% of dwellings owner-occupied. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 94% of dwellings are rented in Fort McKay. Gregoire Lake Estates and Janvier each also have a fairly high ownership rate (86% and 78% respectively). Anzac and Conklin each have a slightly lower proportion of owner-occupied dwellings than at the provincial level (67% and 66% compared to 72%), and Fort Chipewyan has an approximately 50-50 split.

As in most cases, the most vulnerable households are typically renter households, seniors households, single-person households, and lone-parent households. That said, stakeholder information in particular for Conklin, Fort McKay, and Janvier, suggests that individuals are being forced to live in larger households due to affordability constraints, leading to overcrowding.

Housing Conditions

ADEQUACY (STATE OF REPAIR)

Inadequacy is a major concern in a number of the rural communities in Wood Buffalo, particularly Conklin, Janvier and likely Fort McKay, although Fort Chipewyan also has significant issues. Table 23: Adequacy in Rural Communities15

ADEQUACY IN RURAL COMMUNITIES Community % Inadequate % Built pre-

1990 Concerns/Issues

Anzac 13% 25% • Most seniors are owners and may be unable to maintain their homes as they age

Conklin N/A >80% (71% officially)

• Black mold • Lack of access to key services • High service connection cost ($16,000) • Inability to afford repairs/upkeep

Fort Chipewyan 24% 66% • ~50% seniors are owners (although this may be skewed due to First Nations bands’ housing ownership model)

• High proportion of single-family homes Fort McKay N/A N/A • Infrastructure gap, particularly the water

treatment facility being at capacity Janvier 30% No new housing

in last 20 years • Mold • Lack of access to key services • High service connection cost ($16,000) • Inability to afford repairs/upkeep

Saprae Creek 5% 20% Gregoire Lake Estates

23% 53%

15 Information summarized from the 2016 Census, and from engagement.

PAGE 26

Stakeholders in Conklin identified inadequacy as a major community concern, with a substantial number of residents living in unacceptable conditions; with health hazards (black mould, for example) or with no access to key services including water and septic. Connecting to services through the currently proposed Rural Water and Sewer Servicing Program being offered by the RMWB would cost far too much for many households ($16,000). Contributing to a state of disrepair is likely the age of housing in Conklin, with as much as 80% of the housing being built prior to 1980 (the official statistics underestimate the age according to stakeholders). Aside from 4 housing units added by WBH, Statistics Canada shows there has been no new housing built in the last 15 years.

Fort McKay, for which there is less information, also has a substantial infrastructure gap.

The official statistics suggest housing in Fort Chipewyan (a community with relatively high median wages) is also in disrepair, with 70 units (24% of total housing stock) requiring major repairs. Again, an aged housing stock likely is contributing to this, with 66% of housing built prior to 1990.

Janvier also has high rates of disrepair, with as much as 30% of Janvier dwellings requiring major repairs, and no new dwellings constructed since 2001. Stakeholders in Janvier likewise indicated disrepair was a major concern, mould and other forms of disrepair a common occurrence, and contributing to negative health impacts, especially for elders. The costs of connecting dwellings to services (municipal sewer and water), at approximately $16,000, are far beyond the reach of many households.

Approximately 23% of dwellings in Gregoire Lake Estates require major repairs, and 53% of dwellings were built prior to 1990, all suggesting a substantial adequacy issue, although perhaps not as acute as some of the other rural communities.

Anzac, the most affluent of the hamlets, does not suffer from the same levels of disrepair as seen in other communities, and only 25% of the housing stock was built before 1990. The most recent development in Anzac was completed in 2009. Likewise, Saprae Creek has a very low proportion of dwellings requiring major repairs, and 80% of the housing stock was built since 1990.

It’s worth noting that seniors in particular can be vulnerable to inadequacy in their housing, especially owners who may not have the ability to maintain their (often single-detached) homes. Most seniors in Anzac are owners and in Fort Chipewyan, the proportion of owners and renters for seniors households are approximately even.

SUITABILITY (CROWDING)

Suitability is a major concern within some rural communities, generally overlapping with adequacy concerns.

While the official population in Conklin is 318, estimates of the shadow population indicate that the true population may be between 400 and 450 individuals. With a lack of housing in the community, and with few employment opportunities, many individuals are working outside the community for the majority of the month, and returning to stay with friends and family for the remaining time. All these issues likely lead to substantial overcrowding and unsuitability.

PAGE 27

Fort McKay similarly has a fluctuating population with individuals living with family and friends from time to time, likely in unsuitable arrangements. Over-crowding is a major concern in the community.

Unsurprisingly given the adequacy and affordability issues within the community, overcrowding is a major issue in Janvier as well.

Fort Chipewyan is encountering suitability issues, with a high demand for housing and very limited supply. Often, crowding occurs when one family is waiting for additional housing to become available, but wait lists for housing are long, and sometimes families end up relocating back to Fort McMurray or Edmonton. The lack of available units is exacerbated to some degree by a significant number of vacant units in the community. Due to the ownership model, these units cannot be rented out, and as such, when individuals need to leave for work or education, they are forced to leave their unit unoccupied.

Anzac and Saprae Creek do not appear to have substantial suitability issues.

AFFORDABILITY

Affordability is arguably the greatest issue, with households in many of the rural communities seemingly unable to afford housing at all, let alone adequate and suitable housing.

Despite relatively low average shelter costs of ownership ($476 according to Statistics Canada, compared to $1,481 in Alberta generally), Conklin likely has substantial affordability issues that are not well captured by the statistics. Household incomes in Conklin are substantially lower than those seen in the region generally, and the economic downturn has been felt, with a lack of stable employment. Approximately 28% of residents are experiencing housing instability, and the prevalence of adequacy and suitability challenges underline the lack of affordability in the community – as residents are clearly unable to afford adequate and suitable housing. A recent study by the Alberta Rural Development Network identified 91 individuals in the community who are living functionally homeless: living in completely inadequate housing with little or no security of tenure.

In Fort McKay, it’s estimated that all community members make less than $100,000 per year. The majority of units are owned by FMMCA, and rented to residents at approximately 10-20% of market rates. Rents are insufficient to cover mortgage costs. Again, the lack of adequacy and suitability in the community indicates the unaffordability of housing. The lack of supply (with a waitlist of 11 families, and additional individuals who have not been officially added to the waitlist, and with as much as 25% of community members homeless) also indicates an unaffordability, in the sense that community members would be unable to pay the amount necessary to make the provision of additional supply economic.

In Janvier, a very low median income relative to other communities indicates a likely affordability challenge. Similar to other communities, the lack of stable jobs, evidenced in part by a high unemployment rate, is a major driver in housing challenges. Even non-market housing can be unaffordable for community members, leading to 3 of 9 below market rental units sitting unoccupied. With no true market for housing in Janvier, efforts to develop a rent-to-own program have proven unsuccessful, as residents are unsure they would be able to realize a gain through equity. Again, high levels of unsuitability and inadequacy also provide evidence of an affordability challenge of some sort.

PAGE 28

In Fort Chipewyan, while median incomes are above those of many of the other rural communities, they remain below the regional medians, and as many as 115 households earn $60,000 or less per year. Despite relatively low monthly shelter costs for both owners and renters, 14.8% of owner households and 14.3% of renter households are spending 30% or more of their pre-tax income on shelter costs. It’s also worth noting that at least according to Statistics Canada numbers, the average shelter cost for renters ($803) is above the average shelter cost for owners ($674). Shelter costs are increased substantially by high utility costs in the community. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that other necessities (most notably food) are more expensive due to the remoteness of the community.

Anzac has little in the way of affordability concerns, with 6% of households spending 30% or more of their income on shelter costs.

In Saprae Creek, while 17.5% of households spend 30% or more of their income on housing, given the extremely high incomes, it’s likely that genuine affordability issues are relatively limited within the community.

Very little information is available regarding Gregoire Lake Estates with regard to affordability, however, given the median household income more than double the provincial median, it seems likely affordability is not a major concern within the community.

Summary

ANZAC

Anzac is a relatively prosperous community, with very high median incomes. Generally, the very large majority of households in Anzac appear to be able to access adequate, suitable, and affordable housing. There is a moderate need for more seniors resources and a small number of social housing units.

CONKLIN

Conklin is experiencing a housing crisis. Housing is generally inadequate, unsuitable, and unaffordable for a high proportion of Conklin’s residents. A significant proportion of Conklin households are living in unacceptable conditions, with health hazards, and/or no access to key services. These challenges are driven in part by a lack of stable employment and low median incomes. A recent study by the ARDN suggested 46 additional units of housing are needed in the community, and estimates 92 people in the community are living in inadequate or unstable housing situations. The report estimates that 15 to 20 of new unit additions could be 3 or 4-bedroom units to accommodate the observed number of large households. The remaining units would be primarily targeted to singles and small families, as current family housing in the community provided by WBH is under-utilized.

FORT CHIPEWYAN

Fort Chipewyan is, based upon qualitative feedback, experiencing a housing crisis. Fort Chipewyan has substantial inadequacy issues (based upon the 2016 Census) and 70 units were identified as needing major repair or replacement. Engagement revealed concerns regarding housing for youth and seniors in particular. With an extremely constrained supply of housing, suitability is a major concern in the community as well. The community noted a considerable number of vacant units that could potentially be mobilized toward addressing

PAGE 29

housing, but there are issues with tenure. Finally, with regard to affordability, the generally high cost of living in the community (in large part due to remoteness) is a concern, and compounds with other affordability concerns within the community.

FORT MCKAY

Fort McKay has relatively little information available from Statistics Canada; however, based upon input from stakeholders in the community, it’s clear that Fort McKay has substantial issues relating to housing. Fort McKay is estimated to have an enormous homelessness problem, with as much as 25% of the small community homeless (11 chronically homeless individuals). Fort McKay does not have sufficient housing to accommodate those who want it, with a waitlist of 11 households, an additional 14 not officially on the waitlist, and a number of members in outlying communities that would like to return to the community if they were able. Adequacy, suitability, and affordability challenges are clear. The FMMCA owned units (almost all) are rented to residents at approximately 10-20% of market rental rates – amounts that are insufficient to cover mortgage costs.

JANVIER

Janvier has a very low median income, well under half the regional median, and appears to have a high unemployment rate. Janvier also sees adequacy, suitability, and affordability issues, with a high proportion of households requiring major repairs, little or no new construction, and prohibitively high connection costs for utilities. Poor housing conditions include health-impacting issues like mould. The community is suffering from addiction and mental health issues that are likely exacerbated by a lack of housing or poor housing conditions. There are also concerns about the inadequacy of the current housing (or activity restrictions) in meeting cultural/traditional needs.

SAPRAE CREEK

Saprae Creek is an affluent community, with median incomes for all household/family types (for which information is available) more than double the corresponding Alberta median incomes. Furthermore, 175 of 190 households have incomes of $100,000 and over. Despite these high incomes, a substantial proportion of households spend 30% or more of their income on shelter; however, this may not indicate genuine affordability concerns, as housing may be available for less than 30% of income for these households. Saprae Creek has comparatively few households requiring major repairs, and suitability has not been identified as a major concern. The 2016 wildfires destroyed a substantial number of homes in the community, and due in part to difficulties in building, insurance concerns, or trauma, not all households have returned.

GREGOIRE LAKE ESTATES

While very little information is available with regard to income in Gregoire Lake Estates, the median household income is more than double the provincial median. If this is representative of a high proportion of households, Gregoire Lake Estates is an extremely affluent community, perhaps similar to Saprae Creek in that regard. Despite the expected affluence in the community, approximately one quarter of households in the community require major repairs. Other than this, no major housing concerns were identified for Gregoire Lake Estates.

PAGE 30

GAP ANALYSIS Affordability Analysis As noted above, median incomes in RMWB are significantly higher than provincial median incomes. As such, most median-earning households in RMWB are well-positioned to afford both rental and owned housing in the RMWB. One-person households are the most likely to face an income gap when it comes to the cost of ownership, due to the relatively lower median income. A median-earning one-person household would have an income gap of just under $150/month to afford a median-priced owned home, paying no more than 30% of their income toward housing. This does not account for down payment, or changes in interest rates. Additionally, while median-earning lone-parents do not experience a gap around ownership, they only have about $200/month in earnings above a median-ownership payment, meaning additional housing costs (e.g. insurance, property taxes, etc.) could create an affordability gap for this group.

Table 24: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs

AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS, 2015

Affordable

Shelter Cost

Renter Affordability Owner Affordability Median Monthly

Shelter Cost Affordability

Gap

Median Monthly


Gap Median Household $4,889 $1,702 No gap $2,794 No gap

One-Person Households $2,651 $1,702 No gap $2,794 -$143

Couple Households Without Children

$5,239 $1,702 No gap $2,794 No gap

Couple Households With Children

$5,788 $1,702 No gap $2,794 No gap

Lone Parent Households $3,005 $1,702 No gap $2,794 $211

Households in Need

Overall, RMWB is an affordable community in which to purchase or rent a home, due to high incomes and relatively affordable cost of housing for households earning these incomes. Affordability becomes a major concern across the region for households earning an income that can’t afford median rental or ownership costs. Regionally, this income threshold is about $68,000, and may be most acute for those households earning less than $40,000 annually. Households earning less than this would not be able to afford median market rent, and may therefore experience adequacy, suitability, or affordability issues.

Table 25 provides a summary of estimated housing need across the RMWB. This estimate is derived from existing core housing need figures, and provides an estimate of renters and owners in core housing need, as well as individuals experiencing homelessness, counted by both urban and rural approaches to homelessness. The authors estimate that between 770 and 1,080 households have housing issues that could be addressed through new units, significant repairs

PAGE 31

to existing units, or subsidies allowing them access to currently available but vacant market housing. This range is provided as it is unclear whether chronically homeless individuals or households at risk of homelessness are adequately captured by either Census, as these groups can be difficult to survey. The high end of the estimate assumes few or none of the most vulnerable households are captured by Statistics Canada Census data, while the low end of the estimate assumes all homeless individuals are captured by the Census (which is unlikely).

Table 26 shows a break out of estimated housing need by individual community. These figures are largely drawn from community input during the engagement process, and most households captured in Table 26 are also assumed to be captured by the core housing need estimate from Table 25. The range of households in need in Fort McMurray is provided because it is unclear if some of the most vulnerable households in the hamlets, as well as individuals who are considered chronically homeless are captured by core housing figures provided by Statistics Canada. It is likely that some households are captured, particularly marginally housed households, while others, such as chronically homeless individuals, are not.

PAGE 32

Table 25: Summary of Estimated Housing Need Across the Region

16 A household in core housing need is one whose dwelling is considered unsuitable, inadequate or unaffordable and whose income levels are such that they could not afford alternative suitable and adequate housing in their community.

ESTIMATED NEED AND DEMAND- RMWB SOURCE OF DEMAND SOURCE

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS

DISCUSSION

Housing waitlist • Wood Buffalo Housing

135 households • There are currently 135 households on WBH’s housing waitlist; these households are

Supports for Homeless Individuals • 2018 Homeless Count

~307 individuals • According to the 2018 homeless count in Fort McMurray 200 individuals were homeless • 11 individuals were estimated to be chronically homeless in Fort McKay • 96 individuals (about 46 households) were estimated to be in dire housing conditions or at risk

of homelessness in Conklin Housing overcrowding (suitability) • Statistics Canada, Census,

2016

940 renter households 575 owner households

• According to Statistics Canada, 940 renter households and 575 owner households were in housing that was overcrowded by CMHC standards

Homes in poor state of repair (adequacy) • Statistics Canada, Census,

2016.

315 renter households • According to Statistics Canada, 315 renter households and 855 owner households across the region were in housing that requires major repairs

• Data is not available for most small communities, but about 1,020 of these households were in Fort McMurray, meaning a minimum of 150 households in hamlets are living in inadequate housing; however, many of these households may not be captured in the Census

Housing affordability (suitability) • Statistics Canada, Census,

2016

1,505 renter households 1,615 owner households

• 1,505 renter households and 1,615 owner households were paying more than 30% of their income toward shelter costs in 2016.

One or more housing indicator • Statistics Canada, Census,

2016

2,525 renter households 2,835 owner households

• 2,525 renter households were experiencing one or more of the following housing issues: overcrowding, need of major repair, or affordability

Core housing need estimate • Derived from Statistics

Canada Census, 2016

1,630 households are in core housing need

Estimated 770 renter households

• Statistics Canada shows that 1,630 households in the RMWB are in core housing need16 but does not provide a break out by renter and owner households

• Assuming households experience core housing need at a ratio comparable to overall comparable proportion of renters/owners experiencing core housing, this means about 770 renter households and 860 owner households experience core housing need

• This does not account for homelessness, or households not captured by the Statistics Canada Census

PAGE 33

Estimated 860 owner households

Summary of Households Needing Immediate Supports

Between 770 and 1,080 non-owning households

Estimated 860 owner households in core housing

need

• About 770 renter households and about 310 homeless individuals are currently experiencing significant housing issues, including affordability, income barriers, or absolute homelessness; however, it is unclear if individuals identified as homeless in rural areas would be captured by core housing need estimates, as their housing situation is reported to be in flux

• This means needing to support housing solutions for at least 770 renters and at least 200 homeless individuals, and up to about 310 homeless individuals

• Regionally, these housing needs are primarily focused in Fort McMurray (an estimated 750-800 households or individuals)

• In October 2018 there were about 678 vacant units in the RMWB, primarily in Fort McMurray • Although there are an estimated 860 owner households in core housing need, this group is

not the primary focus for Wood Buffalo Housing

PAGE 34

Table 26: Summary of Estimated Housing Need by Community

NEED AND DEMAND BY COMMUNITIES SOURCE OF DEMAND SOURCE

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS

DISCUSSION

Conklin • Community estimates

46 new units required • 46 units, primarily for singles • The community has identified a need for 46 new units, and is currently working toward a 36-

unit development; this would appropriately house about 96 residents identified as at risk or homeless

Janvier • Community estimates

~17 new units or major repairs were required

• The community estimated about 30% of units required either major repairs or new units • Overcrowding was identified as a major issue, but was not quantified

Anzac • Community estimates

~7 new units • Approximate number of new units to accommodate young renters and seniors in the community, based on community input

Saprae Creek • Existing data and

community input

n/a • Little apparent need identified

Gregoire Lake Estates • Existing data and

community input

n/a • Little apparent need identified

Fort McKay • Community estimates

36 households • 11 chronically homeless individuals who would need significant supports, 11 households on the waitlist for housing, and 14 households not on the waitlist but identified as in need of housing supports

Fort Chipewyan • Community estimates

70 units • About 70 units require major repairs or renovation • An unquantified number of units are vacant due to tenure issues and individuals living outside

the community, but being unable to rent their homes out

Fort McMurray • Estimates based on

population distribution, existing data and estimates of housing need from hamlets

600-900 households • Based on estimates of population distribution and community input from hamlet communities, Fort McMurray has an estimated 750 and 900 households in core housing need and homeless individuals in need of housing supports

• Currently, with a high vacancy rate (22.4%, or 678 units), solutions to addressing this need will come from a mixture of programs:

o Rental subsidy programs to support private market occupancy for homeless individuals and low to moderate income households

o Development of some new units and supports, particularly social housing supporting households below certain income thresholds ($40,000 for those in deep need, $68,000 for households in moderate need)

PAGE 35

Summary of Housing Needs

With between 770 units and 1,080 households and individuals (with a primarily focus on renters and homeless individuals) in need regionally, there is significant housing need across the spectrum. Although community-specific data is unavailable through Census sources, based on estimates and community-based information the following summary can be made:

• Conklin estimates that to appropriately and safely house vulnerable residents 46 new units, primarily for singles and some families, are required; this would include the estimated 96 homeless individuals in the community;

• Janvier estimates a minimum of 17 units require major repair or replacement, and overcrowding is identified as a significant issue, but not quantified;

• Fort McKay estimates about 25 households needing housing supports (not including chronically homeless individuals); supports for an estimated 11 homeless individuals are required in Fort McKay;

• Fort Chipewyan estimate a minimum of 70 units are in need of major repairs (if not replacement) and vacancies in the community are creating additional housing pressures;

• Based on core housing need estimates and community input from hamlet communities, Fort McMurray has an estimated 600 and 900 renter households in core housing need and homeless individuals in need of housing supports; this does not necessarily mean that this number of units is required, as a high vacancy rate in the community could be leveraged toward a housing subsidy program for renters at a range of income levels; however, new units should be focused primarily on social housing with deep subsidies or housing that would support Housing First initiatives (either scattered site or targeted supportive housing).

PAGE 36

Community Housing Summary

• Overall, there is significant affluence regionally, and the high incomes mean that housing for most households remains relatively affordable

• However, poverty and housing affordability remain key household issues for some groups, particularly households earning less than $70,000, due to high housing prices. Information from the Canadian Rental Housing Index shows that housing affordability is a particularly acute issue for those households earning less than $40,000.

• The Canadian Rental Housing Index found that in 2016, 630 households, or approximately 8% of all renters, were overspending significantly on housing, that is paying more than 50% of their income toward shelter costs. All of these households were in the lowest income quartile for the municipality (earning less than approximately $40,000). Approximately 770 renting households were in core housing need.

• A recent homeless count in Fort McMurray shows that there are still at minimum 200 visibly homeless individuals in the Urban Service Area, accessing services and shelter supports.

• Conklin, Fort Chipewyan, Fort McKay, and Janvier all appear, based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, to be experiencing housing crises. In all of these communities, affordability is a major concern. Beyond affordability, Conklin and Janvier, as well as Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan (although less information is available for the latter two), have major adequacy issues, and often overcrowding issues as well. In Conklin alone, an estimated 46 units of additional housing are required.

• Emerging research in the community of Conklin shows a significant housing crisis for a large proportion of residents. Conklin is a Métis community whose residents have been disenfranchised and not had their housing needs supported by senior levels of government. This lack of senior government support has translated to unacceptable housing conditions for many of Conklin’s residents, though quantification is still preliminary. These issues are common to Métis communities throughout the region; however, they have been best documented in Conklin.

• While Wood Buffalo has a relatively small proportion of seniors overall, renting seniors are highly vulnerable to housing issues, particularly affordability concerns, as they may be on a fixed income and unable to withstand significant changes in the cost of market rentals. Stakeholders noted that seniors are likely to leave the community as they get older, so additional supports and services for aging in place may be required.

• Elder seniors (75+) are more likely to need additional housing supports in order to age in place. However, historically this group has represented less than 1% of the region’s overall population. With modest projected growth for this group, and a planned 144 beds at Willow Square (with 108 ready upon opening, including 72 for supportive living and 36 for long-term and palliative care), this development represents an important resource for seniors in the community.

• While Fort McMurray has a high proportion of the region’s non-market housing, engagement participants have identified a substantial need for additional social housing

PAGE 37

units, especially to fill identified gaps in the housing spectrum. Housing First providers are having challenges taking on new clients as demand pressures have exceeded program budgets. There are at least 11 community members, currently on a waitlist, who would benefit from some form of supportive of group home facility and are currently homeless; however, Housing First providers are not currently able to accept new clients.

• The 2016 wildfire is seen as a major contributor to some of the housing challenges seen in the region, including particular hamlets, and Fort McMurray itself. This is in part to the loss of housing, but in large part due to the trauma associated with the event, and the resulting social challenges that have been seen in the community, including increasing mental health and addictions challenges, increasing domestic and sexual violence, and increasing family breakdown.

• There is a relatively large Indigenous population, with 4% of RMWB Census respondents of First Nation ethnicity, 2.5% Métis, 0.4% non-status First Nation, and 0.2% Inuk (Inuit). When considering any housing development, particularly those in small communities with Indigenous populations, consideration should be given to design and programs that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural practices.

• Overall, it is estimated that between about 770 and 1,080 households are in need across the RMWB, requiring a mix of repairs to existing units, new units at affordable prices and rental subsidies to access existing market rental units.


ASSESSMENT Fort Chipewyan

Community Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 1

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE .................................................................................. 3

Demographics ................................................................................................. 3

Current Population ................................................................................ 3

Age and Gender Profile ......................................................................... 4

Ethnic and Cultural Identity ................................................................... 4

Households ..................................................................................................... 6

Household Type .................................................................................... 6

Household Tenure ................................................................................. 6

Economy.......................................................................................................... 7

Income .................................................................................................. 7

Prevalence of Low-Income .................................................................... 8

Employment ........................................................................................... 9

Housing ........................................................................................................... 9

Dwelling Types ...................................................................................... 9 Homelessness ..................................................................................... 10

Housing Supply ................................................................................... 10

Housing Indicators ............................................................................... 12

Seniors Housing Profile ....................................................................... 13

Gap Analysis ................................................................................................. 13

Affordability Analysis ........................................................................... 13

Households in Need – Current and Projected .................................... 14

Community Housing Summary ........................................................... 14

FIGURES Figure 1: Fort Chipewyan Age Groups, 2018 .................................................................... 4

TABLES Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 .............................................................................. 4

Table 2: Ethnicity of Fort Chipewyan Residents, 2018 ...................................................... 5

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Fort Chipewyan Residents, 2016 ..................................... 5

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Fort Chipewyan Residents, 2016 ........................................ 6

Table 5: Fort Chipewyan Household Types, 2016 ............................................................ 6

Table 6: Fort Chipewyan Household Types, 2018 ............................................................ 7

Table 7: Fort Chipewyan Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015 ............................. 7

Table 8: Fort Chipewyan Household Income, 2015 .......................................................... 8

Table 9: Prevalence of Low-Income in Fort Chipewyan, 2015 .......................................... 8

Table 10: Fort Chipewyan Employment Statistics, 2016 ................................................... 9

Table 11: Dwelling Types, 2018 ...................................................................................... 10 Table 12: Age of Dwellings .............................................................................................. 10

Table 13: Non-Market Housing in Fort Chipewyan ......................................................... 11

Table 14: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type ..................................................................... 11

Table 15: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type .................................................................... 12

Table 16: Housing Indicators for Fort Chipewyan, 2015 ................................................. 12

Table 17: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 ...................... 13

Table 18: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs .............. 14


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM


RENTERS IN FORT CHIPEWYAN

HOMEOWNERS IN FORT CHIPEWYAN




50%



FORT CHIPEWYAN

17 Non-Market Units

spend more than 30%

of their income on shelter

14.8% 14.3%&OWNERS RENTERS

In Fort Chipewyan

320 TOTAL UNITS

50%


-8%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

1,014 930 RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)

SENIOR

(65yrs+)Median Household Income ($) 84,224

KEY TAKEAWAYS• There are approximately 105 households earning $60,000 or less per year, which could indicate future affordability

challenges if housing situations were to change

• The household groups most likely to be experiencing affordability challenges are one-person households, and single

parent households

• A key area of concern for Fort Chipewyan is a very high proportion of dwellings in need of major repairs (70 units, 24% of

total housing stock)

• Seniors are equally likely to be owners or renter, however a large proportion occupy single-family homes which can put a

large burden on aging households (especially with a high number of dwellings in disrepair)

• Fort Chipewyan is a predominantly Indigenous community, and when considering any housing development,

consideration should be given to design and programs that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural

practices.

AGE



Lone Parent(2015)

$111,616 $60,992


$674MONTHLY OWNERSHIP COST

(2016)

(AB avg $1,481)


SHELTER COSTS

$803MONTHLY RENTAL COST

(2016)

(AB avg $1,243)

PAGE 3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the community of Fort Chipewyan. Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile. Wherever possible, RMWB data was used. However, the Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.

This profile is organized into five sections:

• Demographic information • Data on household composition • Economic data • Housing indicators • An analysis of housing gaps and needs

This report also includes information from engagement undertaken in late February 2019. Organizations and individuals participated and provided community context, discussed the accuracy of the official statistical information (from 2015 RMWB Census and 2016 Statistics Canada Census1), and discussed the needs and opportunities within the community. This information is incorporated within the relevant sections of the report.

Demographics

This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Fort Chipewyan, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.

CU RRE NT POPULA TION

Between 2015 and 2018, Fort Chipewyan’s population decreased by 84 individuals, from 1,014 residents to 930 residents. The 2018 Municipal Census shows 20 individuals in the Shadow population.

Community members indicated during engagement that the 2015 population numbers indicated below are likely close to accurate. As such, it may be that the decrease to 2018 is slightly overstated.


PAGE 4

Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018

POPULATION, 2012 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change 2018 930 -8% 910 -10% 20 N/A 2015 1,014 1% 1,014 N/A 0 N/A 2012 1,008 - - -


AGE A ND GE NDE R PROFILE

Fort Chipewyan’s population is 50.8% male and 49.2% female. Gender mix is relatively balanced in most age categories in the community, with the exceptions being the 55-59 age group, and the teenage age groups (all skewed towards the male side).

Figure 1: Fort Chipewyan Age Groups, 2018


ETHNIC A ND CULTU RAL IDE NTITY 2 Understanding the ethnic and cultural makeup of community is a key component of housing planning. For example, immigrants and newcomers may experience barriers when

2 Statistics Canada used the term ‘Aboriginal’ for individuals with First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity in the 2016 Census. In each community profile, we use the term ‘Indigenous’ to refer to individuals and peoples of First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity to acknowledge terminology recognized by the United Nations, through its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and shifting terminologies within both Indigenous organizations in Canada, and the Canadian government.

40302010 - 10 20 30 40 50 60

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Female Male

PAGE 5

integrating into a community (language, education, etc.) that may increase housing vulnerability, while Indigenous families and individuals may prefer culturally-appropriate forms of housing, that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural practices.

Fort Chipewyan’s residents are predominantly First Nations, Métis, and of Caucasian or Euro Canadian descent. Seventy-five percent (75%) of Fort Chipewyan residents who responded identified as First Nation, 14% as Métis, and 8% as Caucasian or Euro Canadian. A small proportion of the population identifies as non-status First Nation (0.8%). Table 2: Ethnicity of Fort Chipewyan Residents, 2018

ETHNICITY, 2018 Number Percent Total 871 100.0%

Caucasian or Euro Canadian 70 8.0% South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan) 0 0.0% South East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Filipino) 1 0.1% African 0 0.0% First Nation 652 74.9% Asian (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) 1 0.1% European 1 0.1% Métis 123 14.1% Arab 4 0.5% Mixed Ethnicity 1 0.1% Black or African Canadian 0 0.0% Hispanic or Latin American 0 0.0% Caribbean 1 0.1% Non-status First Nation 7 0.8% Oceania (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) 8 0.9% Inuk (Inuit) 2 0.2%


Indigenous Identity Consistent with the Ethnicity results above, nearly nine-tenths of Fort Chipewyan’s residents identify as Indigenous, from a single Indigenous background, while about 10% are non-Indigenous.

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Fort Chipewyan Residents, 2016

INDIGENOUS IDENTITY, 2016 Number Percent Total 845 100% Indigenous Identity 745 88% Single Indigenous responses 740 88% Multiple Indigenous responses - 0% Indigenous responses not included elsewhere 10 1% Non-Indigenous Identity 100 12% Source: Statistics Canada 2016 Census

PAGE 6


According to the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, only 1% of the residents of Fort Chipewyan were immigrants, all of whom were recent immigrants.

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Fort Chipewyan Residents, 2016

IMMIGRANT STATUS, 2016 Number Percent Total 840 100% Non-Immigrants 835 99% Immigrants 10 1% Recent immigrants 10 1% Non-Permanent Residents - 0%


Households

HOUSEHOLD TYPE 3

Fort Chipewyan households are predominantly families. There were 230 census families and 80 non-census family households in 2016. A little over a third of family households were couples with children, and just under a third of family households were couples without children. There were 75 lone-parent families in Fort Chipewyan in 2016. Of non-family households, the large majority were one-person households (65 households, or 81.3% of non-family households), while there were 15 households with two or more people.

Table 5: Fort Chipewyan Household Types, 2016

HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2016 Number Percent Census Families in Private Households 230 100% Couples without children 65 28% Couples with children 90 39% Lone parent families 75 33% Non-Census-Family Households 80 100% One-person households 65 81% Two-or-more person non-census family households 15 19%


HOUSEHOLD TENURE

Renters represent half of households in Fort Chipewyan (50%). There are 148 renting households, relatively evenly distributed in terms of age categories. 38 households are led by seniors (65+), representing about 13% of all households. Overall, the older age

3 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family.

PAGE 7

categories (and the youngest) were most likely to be owners, while the middle age categories (25 to 54) were more likely to be renters.

Through the engagement participants indicated that the tenure numbers (for the 2015 census, not the 2018 census, as shown) were likely skewed due to First Nations bands’ housing ownership models. This skew may also be present in the 2018 numbers.

Table 6: Fort Chipewyan Household Types, 2018

HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 149 100% 148 100% 297 100%

Under 25 31 21% 24 16% 55 19%

25 to 34 15 10% 34 23% 49 16%

35 to 44 20 13% 30 20% 50 17%

45 to 54 24 16% 28 19% 52 18%

55 to 64 32 21% 21 14% 53 18%

65 and over 27 18% 11 7% 38 13% Source: RMWB 2018 Census

Economy INCOME

The median household in Fort Chipewyan has an income slightly less than that of the median household in Alberta ($84,224 to $93,835). However, the median one-person household and couple household without children have substantially higher incomes than the equivalent median household in Alberta. The median couple household with children in Fort Chipewyan earns substantially less than the median couple household with children in Alberta generally, and contrary to the pattern typically seen, the median couple household with children earns substantially less than the median couple household without children in Fort Chipewyan. Finally, the median lone parent household in Fort Chipewyan earns slightly less than the median lone parent household in Alberta.

Table 7: Fort Chipewyan Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 Fort Chipewyan Alberta Median (all household types) $84,224 $93,835 One-Person Households $62,720 $47,948 Couple-Households without Children $147,968 $101,283 Couple-Households with Children $111,616 $133,186 Lone Parent Households $60,992 $62,909


A third of households in Fort Chipewyan earn $100,000 or more (34%, 100 households), while 105 households earn less than $60,000. These households are most at risk of experiencing housing affordability issues.

PAGE 8

Table 8: Fort Chipewyan Household Income, 2015

HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2015 Number Percent Total 295 100% Under $5,000 5 2% $5,000 to $9,999 - 0% $10,000 to $19,999 15 5% $20,000 to $29,999 25 8% $30,000 to $39,999 25 8% $40,000 to $49,999 20 7% $50,000 to $59,999 25 8% $60,000 to $69,999 25 8% $70,000 to $79,999 25 8% $80,000 to $89,999 25 8% $90,000 to $99,999 20 7% $100,000 and over 100 34%


Engagement participants indicated that actual incomes were likely less than shown in the official Statistics Canada numbers, and noted a higher disparity in income wages.

PRE VALE NCE OF LOW-INCOME

Overall, Fort Chipewyan residents experience a higher rate of low-income than residents across Alberta. Twenty-four percent (23.9%) of children/youth (under 18), 14.7% of adults (18-64), and 19.0% of seniors (65+) experience low-income in the community. Every category nearly doubles in proportion compared to the provincial average, with seniors being more than double than the provincial average.

Table 9: Prevalence of Low-Income in Fort Chipewyan, 2015

LOW-INCOME BASED ON THE LOW-INCOME CUT OFF (LICO), 2015 Fort Chipewyan Alberta Population

Total 845 3,925,220 0 to 17 230 893,255 18 to 64 510 2,580,730 65 and over 105 451,235 Low Income

Total 145 363,890 0 to 17 55 114,215 18 to 64 75 210,870 65 and over 20 38,800 Prevalence within Age Group

Total 17.2% 9.3% 0 to 17 23.9% 12.8% 18 to 64 14.7% 8.2% 65 and over 19.0% 8.6%


PAGE 9

EMPLOYME NT

Fort Chipewyan’s employment statistics compare less favourably than the Albertan average. The labour participation rate is lower in Fort Chipewyan than in Alberta, with comparable participation by both Male and Female workers. Unemployment rates in Fort Chipewyan are more than double than Alberta’s (20.5% compared to 9.0%). Employment in Fort Chipewyan is split between a number of industries – public administration, and health care and social assistance each account for substantial amounts of Fort Chipewyan employment (16.7% and 15.5% respectively). Following these industries are educational services (11.9%), retail trade (10.7%), and construction (8.3%). A number of other industries contributing employment in Fort Chipewyan each contribute less than 5%.

Engagement participants indicated that the overall economic downturn experienced has hit Fort Chipewyan with less force than in some other areas in the RMWB, in part due to a number of projects that are progressing in the community. However, participants also indicate that there may be less willingness to work, or a skills shortage in the community.

Table 10: Fort Chipewyan Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 Fort Chipewyan Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 660 3,206,050 In Labour Force 415 2,302,945 Employed 330 2,096,105 Unemployed 85 206,835 Not In Labour Force 240 903,145 Participation Rate 62.9% 65.4% Male 65.6% 77.3% Female 62.7% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 20.5% 9.0% Male 28.6% 10.0% Female 14.3% 7.8%


Housing

This section outlines key housing indicators, including dwelling types and their state of repair, homes types by tenure, and available non-market housing stock. These indicators tell us what type of housing is currently available, and what types of housing both renters and owners occupy.

Engagement participants indicated that there is currently a housing crisis in Fort Chipewyan. Participants indicated a need including for seniors, families, singles, youth, and for subsidized/social housing.

DWE LLING TYPE S

Approximately two-thirds of the 320 homes in Fort Chipewyan are single family detached homes, while 14% are manufactured homes. The remaining homes are a mix of townhouses, semi-detached, apartments, and collective dwellings.

PAGE 10


DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 320 100%

Single Detached 212 66% Semi-Detached/Duplex 17 5% Townhome/Row Housing 27 8% Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 7 2% Apartment/Condo 6 2% Secondary/Basement Suite 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 46 14% Collective Dwelling 4 1% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 0 0% Other 1 0%


According to the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, 85% of homes in Fort Chipewyan were built in 2000 or before, and only 10% (30 of the 295 homes) were built within the last 20 years. 70 homes, equating to a quarter of total homes in Fort Chipewyan, require major repairs as of 2016.

Table 12: Age of Dwellings

OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 295 100% 1960 or before 20 7% 1961 to 1980 55 19% 1981 to 1990 110 37% 1991 to 2000 65 22% 2001 to 2005 15 5% 2006 to 2010 - 0% 2011 to 2016 15 5% Dwellings requiring major repairs 70 24%


HOMELESSNESS

There is no estimate of homelessness for Fort Chipewyan.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Despite the indicated housing crisis in Fort Chipewyan, there are a significant number of empty housing units. In some cases, these units are empty due to traditional housing ownership models of First Nations communities in Fort Chipewyan, with some of these housing units on RMWB lands. With some of these models, a house that is provided to an individual or family by the band cannot be rented out if the family or individual need to leave the community for a period of time for education or work.

PAGE 11

Fort Chipewyan currently has 17 non-market units operated by Wood Buffalo Housing: 2 community housing units, 10 self-contained seniors units and 5 affordable housing units.

Table 13: Non-Market Housing in Fort Chipewyan

WOOD BUFFALO NON-MARKET HOUSING UNITS BY COMMUNITY

Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units

Housing First Clients (Rent Supplements) Total

Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429

Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382

Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5

Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16




The 2018 Census showed that of the 149 rental homes in Fort Chipewyan, slightly more than half were single-detached homes (57%), 14% townhouses, 11% manufactured homes, 10% semi-detached or duplexes, and finally a mix of multiplexes and apartments.

Table 14: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type

RENTER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 149 100%

Single Detached 85 57% Semi-Detached/Duplex 15 10% Townhome/Row Housing 21 14% Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 7 5% Apartment/Condo 5 3% Secondary/Basement Suite 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 16 11% Collective Dwelling 0 0% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 0 0%

Other 0 0%


Of the 150 homes owned by their residents, almost four fifths were single detached (78%), the remainder are almost exclusively manufactured/mobile homes (20%).

PAGE 12

Table 15: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type

OWNER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 150 100%



HOUSING INDICA TORS

Overall, Fort Chipewyan is doing better than provincial averages with regards to housing costs. Statistics Canada identifies only 12.8% of households who spend more than 30% of their income on housing issues. Shelter costs4 are lower in Fort Chipewyan than in Alberta as a whole. However, more than four times the provincial average proportion of the Fort Chipewyan community households is in subsidized housing, representing a significant proportion of the population dependant on housing subsidization.

Crowding was identified as an issue within the community by engagement participants. Families will often stay with other families waiting for housing to become available. However, waitlists can be long, and families may move away from the community. Maintaining dwellings can also be a challenge in Fort Chipewyan, with higher costs due to the remoteness of the community. Table 16: Housing Indicators for Fort Chipewyan, 2015

HOUSING INDICATORS FOR FORT CHIPEWYAN, 2015 Fort Chipewyan Alberta Households Spending 30% or More of Their Income on Shelter 12.8% 20.9% Owner Households

Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 14.8% 15.1% Median monthly shelter cost $674 $1,481 Average monthly shelter cost $748 $1,531 Renter Households

Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 14.3% 36.0% In subsidized housing 42.9% 10.4% Median monthly shelter cost $803 $1,243 Average monthly shelter cost $870 $1,279

Source: Statistics Canada 2016

4 Statistics Canada defines shelter costs as follows: Shelter costs for owner households include, where applicable, mortgage payments, property taxes and condominium fees, along with the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services. For renter households, shelter costs include, where applicable, the rent and the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services.

PAGE 13


The majority of senior led households in Fort Chipewyan are owner households, with over twice the number as renter households. For both owner and renter senior households, approximately 80% are in single detached homes, with 15% and 9% in manufactured homes, for owners and renters respectively.

Engagement participants identified seniors housing in the long-term as a concern, with a need for housing allowing seniors to age in place, with a variety of health and well-being needs. Table 17: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018

SENIORS' DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 27 100% 11 100% 38 100%

Single Detached 21 78% 9 82% 30 79%

Semi-Detached/Duplex 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Townhome/Row Housing 1 4% 1 9% 2 5%

Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Apartment/Condo 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Secondary/Basement Suite 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Manufactured/Mobile Home 4 15% 1 9% 5 13%

Collective Dwelling 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other Movable Dwelling/RV 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other 1 4% 0 0% 1 3% Source: RMWB 2018 Census

Gap Analysis AFFORDA BIL ITY A NALYSIS

As noted above, median incomes in Fort Chipewyan are lower than provincial median incomes. However, most median-earning households in Fort Chipewyan are well-positioned to afford both rental and owned housing in Fort Chipewyan. One-person households and lone-parent households are the most likely to face tighter budgets when it comes to shelter costs, due to the relatively lower median income. There are currently no income gaps to afford a median-priced rental, based solely on paying no more than 30% of their income toward housing. However, Fort Chipewyan is a remote northern community that is only accessible by ice roads in the winter, and fly-in/fly-out or barge in the summer, resulting in high costs in other standard of living areas, such as food, fuel/heating, and utilities.

PAGE 14



Affordable Shelter Cost


Shelter Cost

Affordability Gap

Median Monthly

Shelter Cost

Affordability Gap

Median Household $2,106 $803 No gap $674 No gap

One-Person Households $1,568 $803 No gap $674 No gap

Couple Households Without Children

$3,699 $803 No gap $674 No gap

Couple Households With Children

$2,790 $803 No gap $674 No gap

Lone Parent Households $1,525 $803 No gap $674 No gap

As noted above, 105 households in Fort Chipewyan earn less than $60,000 annually. This means they could pay a maximum of $1,500 toward median shelter costs.

HOUSEHOLDS IN NEE D – CURRE NT A ND PROJE CTED

Despite no apparent affordability gap, stakeholders noted that there is an ongoing housing crisis in Fort Chipewyan.

• Seniors (there are currently only 4 seniors units available) that may be preparing to downsize.

• Family units (3-4 bedrooms) Some measure of subsidized/social housing (currently only 1 unit of affordable unit exists in Anzac) for families and seniors.

COMMUNITY HOUSING SU MMARY

• Overall, the median household in Fort Chipewyan earns less than the median Albertan household, although one-person households, and couple families without children compare favourably. Despite this, the prevalence of low-income is substantially higher in Fort Chipewyan than in Alberta more generally.

• There are 105 households who earn $60,000 or less per year, which could indicate future affordability issues if housing situations were to change. These households cannot afford median cost of rent. However, only 30 households through the 2016 Census were identified as paying more than 30% of annual income toward shelter costs, though, a small sample size may make this figure less reliable.

• The affordability analysis shows that the only household groups that might experience housing affordability issues based on median income are one-person households and lone parent households; however the income gap is not large, and could be addressed by finding below-median priced housing. One-person households would be more likely to experience housing pressures if purchasing, but again would be more likely to purchase an apartment/condominium or

PAGE 15

manufactured home, of which there are a relatively high number for a small community.

• One-person households and single-parent households are more likely to be part of the households that earn less than $60,000, as single-earning households, and are most likely to experience housing vulnerability.

• Seniors are more likely to be owners than renters, meaning they have security of tenure. However, a large majority of senior households according to the 2018 RMWB Census occupy single-family dwellings, which can place a burden on aging households. There is some townhouse and apartment/condominium stock to accommodate aging in the community while downsizing.

• There is predominantly an Indigenous population for this community, and when considering any housing development, consideration should be given to design and programs that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural practices.

• A key area of concern for housing in Fort Chipewyan is the high number of units requiring major repairs (70 units, 24% of the total stock according to the 2016 Census), and the costs to complete such repairs in the remote community. Additionally, the number of vacant units in the community creates housing pressure, but may also be an opportunity for addressing current issues, if these units are able to be made available.

PAGE 0


ASSESSMENT Fort McKay

Community Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

PAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE ...................................................................................4

Demographics ................................................................................................. 4 Current Population ................................................................................ 4

Age and Gender Profile ......................................................................... 5 Ethnic and Cultural Identity ................................................................... 5

Households...................................................................................................... 6 Household Type .................................................................................... 6

Household Tenure ................................................................................. 6 Economic Context ........................................................................................... 7

Income .................................................................................................. 7 Employment ........................................................................................... 7

Housing ........................................................................................................... 8 Dwelling Types ...................................................................................... 8

Homelessness ....................................................................................... 9 Housing Supply ..................................................................................... 9 Housing Indicators ............................................................................... 10

Seniors Housing Profile ....................................................................... 11 Gap Analysis ................................................................................................. 11

Affordability Analysis ........................................................................... 11 Community Housing Summary ........................................................... 11

PAGE 2

FIGURES Figure 1: Fort McKay Age Groups, 2018 ............................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Number of Dependants of Labour Force in Fort McKay ........................................................ 6 Figure 3: Employment Rate in Fort McKay ........................................................................................... 7

Figure 4: Employer Breakdown in Fort McKay ...................................................................................... 8

TABLES Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 .................................................................................................. 4

Table 2: Dwelling Types, 2019 .............................................................................................................. 9 Table 3: Non-Market Housing in Fort McKay ...................................................................................... 10 Table 4: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type ........................................................................................... 10


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM

experience chronic homelessness

25% 11ORof members individuals

In Fort McKay, it is estimated that

RENTERS IN FORT MCKAY

HOMEOWNERS IN FORT MCKAY

In addition...

• There are 11 individuals (plus their families/depends) on a waitlist for housing with Fort McKay Métis Community Association (FMMCA).

• An additional estimated 14 households have not officially applied.

90%


HOUSING NEEDS

FORT MCKAY

No Non-Market Units

10%

21 TOTAL UNITS


0%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2012-2018)

6060 RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-18yrs)

WORKING AGE

(18-64yrs)

SENIOR

(65yrs+)

Unemployed:(2018)

22%Employed:

(2018)Not in Labour Force:

(2018)

Median Household Income ($): N/A

$150MONTHLY RENTAL COST:

to

(estimated)

80-90%FMMCA subsidizes housing rent at

68% 15%

KEY TAKEAWAYS• Overall, the community of Fort McKay is a unique case where the established FMMCA manages housing in the community and heavily

subsidizes home rental costs for its members.

• Community members are highly reliant on the supports and employment opportunities provided to them through the FMMCA.

• Varied mix of household make-up, ranging from single individuals, roommates, couples, families, and various combinations of

dependants living with renters.

• As a predominately indigenous community, consideration should be given to design and programs that are designed to sustain

traditional lifestyles and cultural practices.

• The community estimates that between 22 and 36 new or renovated units are required.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

AGE

SHELTER COSTS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fort McKay

$500below market costs

PAGE 4

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the community of Fort McKay. Data for this community is limited, but was drawn from the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census. This report includes, and is more largely based on, information gathered through engagement in the community. An engagement meeting was held in Fort McMurray in mid-January 2019 with stakeholders from the community. Stakeholders were invited to comment on the accuracy of the statistical information collected, provide additional information, and discuss community context, needs, and opportunities. Stakeholder feedback is included in the relevant sections throughout the report.



Demographics This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Fort McKay, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.

CURRENT POPULATION

There are currently 60 members that live in the Fort McKay Hamlet area, unchanged from 2012. The Fort McKay Métis Community Association (FMMCA) Administration indicated that the population can fluctuate by +/- 10 individuals at anytime with members coming in and out of the community from Fort McMurray or the adjacent Fort McKay First Nation.


POPULATION, 2012 to 2018

Population, 2018 60

Population, 2012 60

Percentage Change, 2012 to 2019 0%

Source: 2018 RMWB Census

PAGE 5


Fort McKay’s population is approximately 60% male and 38% female, according to the 2018 RMWB municipal census. Gender mix is unbalanced from the survey results, although the age profile only captures data from 47 individuals, not the total population of 60. There is a significantly higher proportion of males in the age groups of 10-14 (100% male), 15-19 (83% male), and 20-24 (75% male).

Figure 1: Fort McKay Age Groups, 2018

Source: 2018 RMWB Census

There are 17 children aged 19 and under, 3 seniors (65 years and older), and 27 adults (18 to 65 years old) that are reflected in the graphic above. The 2018 RMWB Municipal Census results are consistent with this age breakdown.



Fort McKay’s residents are predominantly North American Indigenous, North American (non-Indigenous), and/or European in origin. The Fort McKay Métis comprises individuals with Cree, Dene, Métis, French and English ancestries. The most recent Labour Survey suggests that about 37% of members identify as Cree.

Indigenous Identity

It is assumed that most, if not all, of Fort McKay’s residents identify as Indigenous. The breakdown of single or multiple Indigenous identities is unknown. The 2018 RMWB

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

0-3

6-9

15-19

25-29

35-39

45-49

55-59

65-69

75 and over

Female Male

PAGE 6

Municipal Census results are consistent with this, although 3 individuals identified as Caucasian or Euro Canadian.


Citizenship statistics are unavailable, but assumed that all members living in the community are Canadian citizens.

Households

HOUSEHOLD TYPE

Fort McKay households are predominantly families. There is a mix of living arrangements in the 19 households (owned by Fort McKay Métis), from single people to a mix of roommates, siblings, children, or families living with grandparents. The following figure, from the Fort McKay Métis Labour Force Survey (2018), indicates the number of dependants an individual has responsibility for. FMMCA Administration has indicated a range from 1 individual in a household, up to possibly 10, with a median of 3 individuals living per household.

Figure 2: Number of Dependants of Labour Force in Fort McKay

Source: Fort McKay Métis Labour Force Survey (2018)

HOUSEHOLD TE NURE

Household tenure is unique in Fort McKay, whereby the FMMCA owns the majority of households in the community and manages rental costs and waiting lists. There are only 2 privately-owned households in the community. Renters therefore represent the majority of households in Fort McKay. There are 19 renting households, with no consistent or dominant household make-up. Due to the lower number of elders in the community, age does not appear to have a strong link with household tenure.

PAGE 7

Economic Context INCOME

Households in Fort McKay are assumed to earn less across all household types than comparable median-income households across all of Alberta, based on anecdotal information from FMMCA Administration and Labour Survey responses of high unemployment rates.

It is estimated that no households in Fort McKay earn more than $100,000 annually, and therefore are at risk for meeting housing affordability if the FMMCA does not continue to control housing rent.

EMPLOYMENT

Fort McKay’s employment statistics compare less favourably than the Albertan average. The labour participation rate is higher in Fort McKay than in Alberta. However, unemployment rates in Fort McKay are more than double than Alberta’s (22% compared to 9.0%).

Figure 3: Employment Rate in Fort McKay


PAGE 8

Figure 4: Employer Breakdown in Fort McKay


The figure above indicates that the Fort McKay Métis Group, including its subsidiaries or partners, is the main employer for community members at 56% of the labour force. This indicates a reliance of internal job opportunities for household income.

Housing This section outlines key housing indicators, including dwelling types and their state of repair, homes types by tenure, and available non-market housing stock. These indicators tell us what type of housing is currently available, and what types of housing both renters and owners occupy.

DWELLING TYPES

The majority of the 21 homes (of which 19 are owned by FMMCA) in Fort McKay are single family detached homes, while 20% are manufactured homes. The remaining homes are a mix of duplex or fourplex units. The 2018 RMWB Municipal Census results are fairly consistent with these results.

PAGE 9


OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURAL TYPE, AS A % OF TOTAL (2019)

Number Percent Total 21

Single-Det. 10 48% Townhouse / Fourplex 4 19% Semi to Det. / Duplex 2 10% Apartment 0 0% Manufactured Home 5 24% Basement Suite 0 0%

Source: FMMCA Administration

Details are unknown as to how old FMMCA’s housing inventory is as they came into possession of the homes after purchasing.

HOMELESSNESS

From the 2012 Fort McKay Métis Housing Needs Assessment, it was estimated that 25% of members were homeless. Administration estimates that this rate has not changed in 2019. An estimated 11 individuals are experiencing chronic homelessness that would require a safe-house or supportive living approach that includes some form of communal living/group home style housing.

There are currently 11 individuals (and their families or dependants) on a waitlist for housing with Fort McKay Métis Community Association, with an additional estimated 14 that have not officially applied.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Through stakeholder engagement, it was identified that Fort McKay Métis currently has 19 affordable housing units operated by the Community Association: 10 single family detached homes, 4 fourplex units, 2 duplex units, and 5 manufactured/mobile home units. There is, however, desire to have a more variety of non-market housing units in the future for the community.

A primary concern for stakeholders is the lack of available housing to meet community needs. All units are currently occupied, with a waiting list of 11 applicants (plus their families/dependents). There is a further estimated 14 individuals that have not formally submitted an application, but who are in need of housing.

Four of the five manufactured units in the community were originally intended to be run as transitional housing, however with the lack of available housing to move individuals or their families in to, these units have become more permanent.

PAGE 10

Table 3: Non-Market Housing in Fort McKay


Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units


Supplements) Total

Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429

Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382

Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5

Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16




The FMMCA currently rents all the housing units out to its community members.

Table 4: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type

RENTAL HOME BY DWELLING TYPE Number Percent

Total 19 100% Single-Det. 8 42% Townhouse/Fourplex 4 21% Duplex/Semi-Det. 2 10% Apartment 0 0% Manufactured Home 5 26% Basement Suite 0 0%

Source: FMMCA Administration

Currently, there are 2 homes, both single family detached homes, owned by community members.

HOUSING INDICATORS

Overall, it is difficult to compare how Fort McKay is doing to provincial averages with regards to housing costs. The FMMCA controls and subsidizes housing rent at about 80-90% below market costs. They have indicated that costs range from $150 monthly for social housing (2 bedroom units) to $350-$500 monthly at the discretion of FMMCA and the need of the applicant. FMMCA Administration has indicated that the rental costs are insufficient in covering the cost of mortgages, and therefore, are not a true reflection of the cost of housing to rentals or owners.

PAGE 11


There are no indicators of seniors housing profiles within Fort McKay Métis as there are no designated homes for seniors and they rent from the FMMCA as needed. This may therefore show a gap in appropriate housing available to seniors.

Gap Analysis

AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS

As noted above, median incomes in Fort McKay are most likely lower than provincial median incomes. However, most median-earning households in Fort McKay are well-positioned to afford rental housing in Fort McKay, thanks to the heavy subsidies provided. One-person households and lone-parent households are the most likely to face tighter budgets when it comes to shelter costs, due to the relatively lower median income. It is not known if there are any income gaps to afford a median-priced rental, based solely on paying no more than 30% of their income toward housing, as members are reliant on the subsidies offered by FMMCA for housing. However, Fort McKay is a northern community that has limited access to amenities and services, such as food and health care, and require transportation into Fort McMurray to access these, resulting in higher standards of living.

COMMUNITY HOUSING SUMMARY

• Overall the community of Fort McKay is a unique case where the established FMMCA manages housing in the community and heavily subsidizes home rental costs for its members

• The high unemployment rate mixed with suspected lower than average median household incomes make it difficult to understand the income gap affordability of housing with FMMCA’s heavy housing subsidies. However, it is clear that community members are highly reliant on the supports provided to them through the community association and employment opportunities from the Fort McKay Métis Group of Companies.

• There is a varied mix of household make-up, ranging from single individuals, roommates, couples, families, and various combinations of dependants living with renters.

• A key area of concern for housing in Fort McKay is the lack of available housing for the existing waiting list (both formal and informal). With the heavy investment in housing subsidies by the FMMCA, it is difficult for them to build and manage more units to meet this need.

• There are at least 11 community members, currently on a waitlist, who would benefit from some form of supportive of group home facility and are currently homeless.

PAGE 12

• There is currently no senior-specific housing in the community, however, the rental control by the FMMCA indicates support in making it more affordable for these individuals in the community.

• There is predominantly an Indigenous population living in this community, and when considering any housing development, consideration should be given to design and programs that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural practices.

• The community estimates that between 22 and 36 new or renovated units are required: 11 for chronically homeless individuals, 11 for families currently on the waitlist, and 14 for households not currently registered on the waitlist.


ASSESSMENT Fort McMurray and Draper

Community Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 1

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 3

Demographics ..................................................................................................................... 3

Current Population .................................................................................................... 3 Age and Gender Profile ............................................................................................. 4

Ethnic and Cultural Identity ....................................................................................... 6 Households ......................................................................................................................... 7

Household Type ........................................................................................................ 7

Household Tenure ..................................................................................................... 8 Economy ............................................................................................................................. 9

Income ...................................................................................................................... 9 Prevalence of Low-Income...................................................................................... 10

Employment ............................................................................................................ 10 Housing ............................................................................................................................. 11

Dwelling Types ........................................................................................................ 11 Homelessness ......................................................................................................... 12

Housing Supply ....................................................................................................... 13 Primary Rental Market ............................................................................................ 16

Housing Indicators................................................................................................... 17 Seniors Housing Profile ........................................................................................... 18

Gap Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 19 Affordability Analysis ............................................................................................... 19 Households in Need ................................................................................................ 19

Community Housing Summary ............................................................................... 20

FIGURES Figure 1: Fort McMurray Age Groups, 2018 .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Draper Age Groups, 2018 ...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Homelessness in Fort McMurray, 2006-2018 ...................................................................... 13

Figure 4: Median Sale Price for Housing in Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac and Saprae Creek, 2011-2018 ................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Primary Rental Market Vacancy Rates (October) in Wood Buffalo ..................................... 16 Figure 6: Primary Rental Market Median Rent (October) in Wood Buffalo ......................................... 16 Figure 7: Primary Rental Market Number of Units (October) in Wood Buffalo ................................... 17

TABLES Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 .................................................................................................. 4 Table 2: Ethnicity of Fort McMurray and Draper Residents, 2018 ........................................................ 6 Table 4: Indigenous Identity of Fort McMurray Residents, 2016 .......................................................... 7

Table 5: Immigrant Status of Fort McMurray Residents, 2016 ............................................................. 7 Table 6: Fort McMurray Household Types, 2016 .................................................................................. 8

Table 7: Fort McMurray and Draper Households by Age and Tenure, 2018 ........................................ 8 Table 9: Fort McMurray Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015 ................................................... 9

Table 10: Fort McMurray Household Income, 2015 .............................................................................. 9 Table 11: Prevalence of Low-Income in Fort McMurray, 2015 ........................................................... 10

Table 12: Fort McMurray Employment Statistics, 2016 ...................................................................... 11 Table 13: Dwelling Types, 2018 .......................................................................................................... 11

Table 14: Age of Dwellings, 2016 ........................................................................................................ 12 Table 15: Non-Market Housing in Fort McMurray ............................................................................... 14

Table 16: Non-Market Housing, Non-Wood Buffalo Housing.............................................................. 14 Table 17: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 ............................................................................... 15 Table 18: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 .............................................................................. 15

Table 19: Housing Indicators for Fort McMurray, 2015 ....................................................................... 17 Table 20: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 .......................................... 18

Table 21: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs .................................. 19


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM

spend more than 30%


9.1% 18.7%&OWNERS RENTERS

In Fort McMurray


RENTERS IN FORT MCMURRAY

HOMEOWNERS IN FORT MCMURRAY




64%



FORT MCMURRAY AND DRAPER

1,382 Non-Market Units and Subsidies

36%

24,336 TOTAL UNITS


-9%POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

82,724 75,615 FORT MCMURRAY RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)

SENIOR

(65yrs+)


(2016)



Lone Parent(2015)

Median Household Income ($): 195,656

$1,703MONTHLY RENTAL COST

(2016)

(AB avg $1,243) (AB avg $1,481)


$230,544 $123,989

KEY TAKEAWAYS• Mixed housing type – single family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments.

• Approximately two-thirds of Fort McMurray’s households are family households.

• Median incomes are substantially above median incomes in Alberta generally. 79% of Fort McMurray households earn $100,000 and

over, while slightly over 10% had an income under $60,000 – the group most likely to be experiencing affordability challenges.

• 200 individuals were identified as homeless in Fort McMurray in 2018, up from 114 in 2016, but down from 549 in 2008.

• Fort McMurray holds a majority of the non-market housing in Wood Buffalo.

• Sales values for various types of dwellings have generally decreased since 2015, in particular, the price of an apartment has decreased

substantially on average.

• While Fort McMurray has a relatively small proportion of seniors overall, renting seniors are highly vulnerable to housing issues,

particularly affordability concerns. Elder seniors (75+) are more likely to need additional housing supports in order to age in place.

• One-person and lone-parent households are most likely to be experiencing challenges with affordability

• Between about 600 and 900 new units are required to address housing need and homelessness.


AGE

SHELTER COSTS

SENIOR HOUSING

Seniors have 30 dedicated units of community housing and 39 units of lodge operations

DRAPER POPULATION (2018):148

PAGE 3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the community of Fort McMurray. Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile. Wherever possible, RMWB data was used. However, the Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.



This report also includes information collected through an engagement process with stakeholders in Fort McMurray. In mid-January 2019 a workshop was held in Fort McMurray for these stakeholders who were invited to discuss the relevance/accuracy of the statistical information collected (2015 RMWB Census and 2016 Statistics Canada Census1), as well as community context, needs, and opportunities. Stakeholder feedback is integrated within the relevant sections throughout this report, and highlighted in the gap analysis.

Demographics

This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Fort McMurray, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.

CURRENT POPULATION

Between 2015 and 2018, Fort McMurray’s total population decreased by 9%, from approximately 83,000 to 76,000. This decrease was due to a -8% decrease in the permanent population (a substantial majority of the total population) and a -18% decrease in the shadow population. These decreases were all after substantial increases in population seen from 2012 to 2015. The population decrease is primarily attributable to the 2016 wildfire that caused the evacuation of all of Fort McMurray and from which the community is still recovering.


PAGE 4


POPULATION, 2012 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change

Fort McMurray 2018 75,615 -9% 72,056 #DIV/0! 3,559 -18%

2015 82,724 13% 78,382 #DIV/0! 4,342 119%

2012 72,944 - 70,964 - 1,980 -

Draper 2018 187 - 180 - 7 -


Stakeholders indicated the population has likely declined substantially since 2015/2016 due to the wildfire, with many residents not returning afterwards, as well as the continued impacts from the economic downtown in 2014. This is consistent with the change shown between the 2015 and 2018 RMWB Censuses.

The total population in Draper was 187 in 2018, with a small proportion (approximately 4%) of individuals counted as the shadow population.


Fort McMurray’s population is 55% male and 45% female. Population is fairly balanced between male and female for the population between 0 and 14. The higher proportion of males is particularly pronounced beginning with the 35-39 age group (55.4% male), and reaches the highest level of disproportionality in the 60-64 age group (60.2% male).

In absolute terms, seniors (65 and over) represent 1,723 of Fort McMurray’s residents.

PAGE 5

Figure 1: Fort McMurray Age Groups, 2018


Draper’s population is 59% male and 41% female, fairly similar to Fort McMurray’s population. The higher proportion of males is most significant in the 10-14 age group (73% male), 15-19 age group (67% male) and the 50-54 age group (81% male). There were no individuals counted older than 70 years of age in the municipal census.

Figure 2: Draper Age Groups, 2018


5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Female Male

15 10 5 0 5 10 15

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Female Male

PAGE 6



Fort McMurray’s residents are predominantly Caucasian, Euro Canadian, or European, which together represent approximately two thirds of the population (67%). Following these groups, the most common ethnicities in Fort McMurray are South Asian (7%), South East Asian (7%), and African (5%). Three percent (3%) identified as having First Nation ethnicity, 2% Métis, and 0.4% non-status First Nations.

Draper’s residents are predominately Caucasian (76.4%). The other ethnicities are Métis (7.1%), First Nation (6.6%), Hispanic or Latin American (2.7%), European (2.2%), South East Asian (1.1%), and the remaining South Asian, Asian, or Caribbean each at 0.5%.

Table 2: Ethnicity of Fort McMurray and Draper Residents, 2018 ETHNICITY, 2018 Fort McMurray Draper Number Percent Number Percent Total 64,570 100.0% 182 100.0%

Caucasian or Euro Canadian 41,831 64.8% 139 76.4% South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri

Lankan) 4,384 6.8% 1 0.5% South East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese,

Cambodian, Malaysian, Filipino) 4,270 6.6% 2 1.1% African 2,996 4.6% 0 0.0% First Nation 1,803 2.8% 12 6.6% Asian (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) 1,672 2.6% 1 0.5% European 1,248 1.9% 4 2.2% Métis 1,240 1.9% 13 7.1% Arab 1,186 1.8% 0 0.0% Mixed Ethnicity 1,170 1.8% 4 2.2% Black or African Canadian 1,049 1.6% 0 0.0% Hispanic or Latin American 842 1.3% 5 2.7% Caribbean 392 0.6% 1 0.5% Non-status First Nation 228 0.4% 0 0.0% Oceania (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) 160 0.2% 0 0.0% Inuk (Inuit) 99 0.2% 0 0.0%


PAGE 7

Indigenous Identity2,3

Eight percent (8%) of Fort McMurray residents identified as Indigenous in the 2016 census, the vast majority of these with a single Indigenous response. This 8% represents approximately 5,200 residents, with 61,200 (92%) identifying as non-Indigenous

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Fort McMurray Residents, 2016

INDIGENOUS IDENTITY, 2016 Number Percent Total 66,385 100% Indigenous Identity 5,195 8% Single Indigenous responses 5,055 8% Multiple Indigenous responses 25 0% Indigenous responses not included elsewhere 120 0% Non-Indigenous Identity 61,190 92%



Three-quarters of Fort McMurray residents are non-immigrants, with 23% immigrants (including 7% recent immigrants), and 2% non-permanent residents.

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Fort McMurray Residents, 2016

IMMIGRANT STATUS, 2016 Number Percent Total 66,385 100% Non-Immigrants 49,615 75% Immigrants 15,380 23% Recent immigrants 4,910 7% Non-Permanent Residents 1,390 2%


Households HOUSEHOLD TYPE

Approximately two-thirds of Fort McMurray households are family households, the remaining third being non-census-family households.4 Of the 16,400 family households, 50% are couples with children, 35% couples without children, and 15% lone parent families.

2 Statistics Canada used the term ‘Aboriginal’ for individuals with First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity in the 2016 Census. In each community profile, we use the term ‘Indigenous’ to refer to individuals and peoples of First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity to acknowledge terminology recognized by the United Nations, through its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and shifting terminologies within both Indigenous organizations in Canada, and the Canadian government. 3 The discrepancy between Indigenous Identity from the 2016 Census of Canada, and the 2018 RMWB Census may be due to a number of factors, including non-response bias, change over time, or that only one ethnicity choice was available for the 2018 RMWB Census (and as such, someone who may have more than one ethnicity may have selected a non-Indigenous ethnicity, but identified as Indigenous). 4 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family.

PAGE 8

Of the non-family households, two-thirds are one-person households, and the remaining third are two-or-more person non-family households.

Table 5: Fort McMurray Household Types, 2016

HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2016 Number Percent Census Families in Private Households 16,405 100% Couples without children 5,770 35% Couples with children 8,230 50% Lone parent families 2,405 15% Non-Census-Family Households 8,410 100% One-person households 5,610 67% Two-or-more person non-census family households 2,795 33%

Source: Statistics Canada 2016 Census HOUSEHOLD TE NURE Renters represent approximately 36% of Fort McMurray households, with the remaining 64% owner-occupied. A higher proportion of renters are in the younger age categories, with 19% of renters under 25 (as compared to 16% of owners), and 39% of renters between the ages of 25 and 34 (compared to 34% of owners). Conversely, a higher proportion of owners are in the upper age categories, with 14% of owners between 45 and 54 and 9% between 55 and 64 (compared to 11% and 7% respectively for renters). The gap narrows with seniors, with 2% of owners being 65 and older, and 2% of renters.5

Table 6: Fort McMurray and Draper Households by Age and Tenure, 2018 HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE AND TENURE, 2018 Own Rent Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Fort McMurray 13,684 100% 7,707 100% 21,391 100%

Under 25 2,162 16% 1,432 19% 3,594 17% 25 to 34 4,692 34% 3,035 39% 7,727 36% 35 to 44 3,518 26% 1,675 22% 5,193 24% 45 to 54 1,876 14% 873 11% 2,749 13% 55 to 64 1,187 9% 538 7% 1,725 8%

65 and over 249 2% 154 2% 403 2% Draper 43 100% 8 100% 51 100%

Under 25 7 16% 0 0% 7 14% 25 to 34 12 28% 4 50% 16 31% 35 to 44 11 26% 0 0% 11 22% 45 to 54 7 16% 1 13% 8 16% 55 to 64 5 12% 3 38% 8 16% 65 and over 1 2% 0 0% 1 2%


5 Ages are referring to the primary respondent to the survey.

PAGE 9

Households in Draper are mainly owners as the proportion of renters in Draper is low at 8%. Owner-households are relatively young where 16% of owners are under 25, 28% between the ages of 25-34 and 26% between the ages of 35-44. Half of the renter households are in the ages 25-34 and the remaining are 45 and older.

Economy INCOME

The median household in Fort McMurray has a pre-tax income more than double that of the median Albertan household. Couple households with children are the highest earners in Fort McMurray, as in Alberta. One-person households are the lowest earners. The median lone parent household also earns substantially less than the overall median household, and substantially less than couple households. Table 7: Fort McMurray Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 Fort McMurray Alberta Median (all household types) $195,656 $93,835 One-Person Households $106,912 $47,948 Couple-Households without Children $209,528 $101,283 Couple-Households with Children $230,544 $133,186 Lone Parent Households $123,989 $62,909

Source: Statistics Canada 2016 Census3

Of the approximately 24,000 households in Fort McMurray, 19,000 (79%) had a household income of $100,000 and over. Other than these households, households were relatively evenly distributed between the $10,000 groupings under $100,000. In total 2,800 households have an income under $60,000 – the most at-risk group for experiencing housing affordability issues.

Table 8: Fort McMurray Household Income, 2015

HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2015 Number Percent Total 23,940 100% Under $5,000 415 2% $5,000 to $9,999 160 1% $10,000 to $19,999 400 2% $20,000 to $29,999 440 2% $30,000 to $39,999 440 2% $40,000 to $49,999 465 2% $50,000 to $59,999 460 2% $60,000 to $69,999 565 2% $70,000 to $79,999 490 2% $80,000 to $89,999 580 2% $90,000 to $99,999 575 2% $100,000 and over 18,945 79%


PAGE 10

Stakeholders indicated the incomes in the official statistics have likely fallen since the downturn.


Overall, and in each age group, Fort McMurray residents have a lower incidence of low-income than Albertans more generally. For 0 to 17 and 18 to 64 age groups, the proportion of residents deemed to be low-income is less than half the proportion deemed to be low-income of the same age groups in Alberta. While seniors in Fort McMurray are still less likely to be low-income, the proportion of low-income seniors in Fort McMurray is closer to the proportion in Alberta than other age groups.

Table 9: Prevalence of Low-Income in Fort McMurray, 2015

LOW-INCOME BASED ON THE LOW-INCOME CUT OFF (LICO), 2015 Fort McMurray Alberta Population Total 66,475 3,925,220 0 to 17 15,025 893,255 18 to 64 49,810 2,580,730 65 and over 1,650 451,235 Low Income Total 2,850 363,890 0 to 17 935 114,215 18 to 64 1,805 210,870 65 and over 105 38,800 Prevalence within Age Group Total 4.3% 9.3% 0 to 17 6.2% 12.8% 18 to 64 3.6% 8.2% 65 and over 6.4% 8.6%


EMPLOYMENT

Fort McMurray residents, compared to Alberta residents, have higher rates of participation in the labour force, and on-average, lower rates of unemployment. Fort McMurray has a relatively high participation rate when compared to Alberta. Some of this difference is likely due to a relatively low proportion of seniors in Fort McMurray as compared to Alberta. The participation rate is higher for both males and females in Fort McMurray. The unemployment rate for males in Fort McMurray is substantially lower than that of Alberta, with 6% unemployment in Fort McMurray and 10% in Alberta. For females, the unemployment rate in Fort McMurray is slightly higher at 8.1% than it is in Alberta at 7.8%.

The primary employment sectors in Fort McMurray are mining/oil and gas extraction (29.9%), construction (9.9%), and retail trade (8.2%). Following this, accommodation and food services, health care and social assistance, transportation and warehousing, and administrative and support for waste management and remediation services each account for approximately 5%.

PAGE 11

Ongoing unemployment due to the economic downturn has exacerbated the housing issues faced in Fort McMurray. Individuals and households are having a more difficult time finding the economic security to meet their basic needs, including housing. Table 10: Fort McMurray Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 Fort McMurray Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 53,280 3,206,050 In Labour Force 41,680 2,302,945 Employed 38,825 2,096,105 Unemployed 2,855 206,835 Not In Labour Force 11,600 903,145 Participation Rate 78.2% 65.4% Male 86.7% 77.3% Female 68.1% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 6.8% 9.0% Male 6.0% 10.0% Female 8.1% 7.8%


Housing This section outlines key housing indicators, including dwelling types and their state of repair, homes types by tenure, and available non-market housing stock. These indicators tell us what type of housing is currently available, and what types of housing both renters and owners occupy.

DWELLING TYPES

Approximately half of the 24,336 dwellings in Fort McMurray are single-detached homes (47%). Following this housing type, apartments are the most common form of housing, at 27%. Townhouses and manufactured homes represent a further 9% and 11% respectively, with semi-detached (6%) making up the majority of the remainder. Table 11: Dwelling Types, 2018

DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Fort McMurray Draper Number Percent Number Percent Total 24,336 100% 52 100%

Single Detached 11,492 47% 41 79% Semi-Detached/Duplex 1,482 6% 0 0% Townhome/Row Housing 2,099 9% 0 0% Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 142 1% 0 0% Apartment/Condo 6,462 27% 0 0% Secondary/Basement Suite 46 0% 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 2,573 11% 10 19% Collective Dwelling 35 0% 0 0% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 3 0% 1 2% Other 2 0% 0 0%


PAGE 12

According to the 2016 Census, over half of dwellings in Fort McMurray have been built since 2001. The busiest period within this time was 2006 to 2010 when 6,065 of Fort McMurray’s current dwellings were constructed, 25% of total dwellings. Another quarter of Fort McMurray’s dwellings (6,040) were constructed between 1961 and 1980, slightly more than double the 2,815 dwellings that remain from the 10 year period following.

In Draper, majority of the 52 dwellings are single-detached homes (79%), with the remaining made up of manufactured/mobile homes (19%) and just a single movable dwelling (2%).

Four percent (4%) of Fort McMurray dwellings require major repairs, approximately 1,000 homes.

Table 12: Age of Dwellings, 2016

OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 23,900 100% 1960 or before 135 1% 1961 to 1980 6,040 25% 1981 to 1990 2,815 12% 1991 to 2000 2,065 9% 2001 to 2005 3,895 16% 2006 to 2010 6,065 25% 2011 to 2016 2,885 12% Dwellings requiring major repairs 1,020 4%


HOMELESSNESS

Homelessness in Fort McMurray saw an increase from 2016 to 2018, from 114 to 200. This increase is after decreasing to 2016 levels from 549 homeless individuals in 2008. As presented in the Final Report, 5% of survey respondents were 60 and older, 33% were 45 to 59 years old, 33% 30 to 44 years old, 24% younger than 30 (including 11% 0 to 14 years old), and 5% unknown. Sixty percent (60%) self-identified as male, and 46% self-identified as Indigenous or having Indigenous ancestry.

Respondents had most recently lost their housing due to abuse (27%), addiction (20%), job loss (11%), an inability to pay their rent or mortgage (10%), wildfires (7%), and had moved to access services (6%).

Stakeholders felt that the 2018 homeless count above was an undercount of the true number of homeless. This was in part because the count took place on a particularly cold night when people may have been couch-surfing, and therefore more difficult to find.

PAGE 13

Figure 3: Homelessness in Fort McMurray, 2006-2018

Source: RMWB 2018 PIT Homeless Count Final Report

HOUSING SUPPLY



Fort McMurray currently has 1,382 non-market housing units, with 1,190 affordable units, 48 units of community housing, 39 units of lodge operations, 30 units of self-contained seniors community housing and 75 clients of Housing First Clients. Fort McMurray has 1,382 of the 1,429 units in Wood Buffalo.

200

114

294326319

549

441

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2018201620142012201020082006

$-

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

$700,000.00

$800,000.00

$900,000.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


PAGE 14

Table 13: Non-Market Housing in Fort McMurray WOOD BUFFALO NON-MARKET HOUSING UNITS BY COMMUNITY

Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units


Supplements) Total

Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429 Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382 Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5 Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16 Janvier 0 0 0 9 0 9 Fort Chipewyan 2 10 0 5 0 17 Fort McKay 0 0 0 0 0 0


A strong and consistent theme among stakeholders was the lack of social housing substantially below market. Some of the stakeholders were Housing First providers and were experiencing difficulty in transitioning their clients from streets, shelters, or transitional/supportive housing in to long-term housing that was affordable and met their needs. The costs of rental are such that subsidizing these rents is pushing agencies over their budget. As a result, and despite high demand, the RMWB (the funder) has restricted providers from accepting new clients.

The overall scarcity of units, combined with vulnerable residents’ inability to access existing social housing and current waitlists means there is a significant gap in the housing continuum. Additional non-market housing was identified as follows:

Table 14: Non-Market Housing, Non-Wood Buffalo Housing OTHER NON-MARKET HOUSING

Provider Description Number of Beds

Salvation Army Mats 35 Salvation Army Shelter beds 32 Salvation Army Additional units with supports 22

Waypoints Emergency women’s beds for women with or without children in crisis or escaping domestic violence (soon expanding) 36

Support through Housing Team Transitional housing 7

Waypoints Second stage/transitional housing for women with or without children fleeing violence 13

Waypoints Mixed income housing for those at risk of homelessness and low end of market units 64

Salvation Army Supportive living for people with cognitive and physical challenges 8 Total 217

Apartments are the most common form of rental housing in Fort McMurray, representing a slim majority (56%) of all rental housing. Single-detached homes and townhouses supply a further 30% (19% and 11% respectively), with manufactured/mobile homes, semi-detached, multiplex units, and basement suites making up the rest (in that order).

PAGE 15

Table 15: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 RENTER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Fort McMurray Draper Number Percent Number Percent Total 8,037 100% 8 100%

Single Detached 1,507 19% 5 63% Semi-Detached/Duplex 407 5% 0 0% Townhome/Row Housing 924 11% 0 0% Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 84 1% 0 0% Apartment/Condo 4,536 56% 0 0% Secondary/Basement Suite 36 0% 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 543 7% 3 38% Collective Dwelling 0 0% 0 0% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 0 0% 0 0%

Other 0 0% 0 0%


In Draper, over half of the renter homes are in the form of single-detached dwellings (63%) and the remaining are manufactured/mobiles (38%).

The majority of owner-occupied dwellings are single-detached homes in Fort McMurray, at 66% of owner-occupied dwellings. Manufactured/mobile homes are the only other dwelling type accounting for over 10% of owner-occupied dwellings at 14%. Apartments, semi-detached homes, and townhouses, each make up 7%, 7%, and 6% respectively.

The owner-occupied homes in Draper are an overwhelming majority of single-detached dwellings (81%), with manufactured/mobile homes the next common type (16%) and the remaining proportion as movable dwelling (2%).


OWNER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Fort McMurray Draper Number Percent Number Percent Total 13,803 100% 43 100%

Single Detached 9,157 66% 35 81% Semi-Detached/Duplex 912 7% 0 0% Townhome/Row Housing 868 6% 0 0% Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 35 0% 0 0% Apartment/Condo 933 7% 0 0% Secondary/Basement Suite 0 0% 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 1,894 14% 7 16% Collective Dwelling 0 0% 0 0% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 3 0% 1 2%

Other 1 0% 0 0% Source: RMWB 2018 Census

PAGE 16

PRIMARY RENTAL MARKET

The following figures show information relating to Wood Buffalo’s primary rental stock as measured in October of each year from 1990 to 2018.6 While the information provided pertains to the Wood Buffalo region generally, the vast majority of the primary rental market units are located in Fort McMurray.

Figure 5 shows the vacancy rate at 22% in 2018, down from the 2015 high of 29%, but far above the sub-3% rate seen prior to 2009. This is a very high vacancy rate, and represents about 678 units in the primary rental market that are currently vacant.

Figure 5: Primary Rental Market Vacancy Rates (October) in Wood Buffalo


Figure 6 shows the path of median rents in the primary rental market in Wood Buffalo over time. Median rent has declined by over 25% from its high of $2,049 in 2010. Most of this decline has happened quite recently, from $2,000 in 2014 to $1,413 in 2018. The current median is at approximately the same level as it was in 2006, in the midst of a rapid upswing. The sharp decline in median rental rates since 2014 has likely been caused in part by the even sharper increase in vacancy rates. While rent’s may have stabilized to some degree over the past two years, the high vacancy rate may mean rents may decline further.

Figure 6: Primary Rental Market Median Rent (October) in Wood Buffalo

Source: CMHC Information Portal 6 The primary rental market is a subset of the total rental market, and focuses on purpose-built, multi-unit buildings.

0.5%5.4%

29.3%

22.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$2,049

$1,413

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

PAGE 17

Figure 7 shows the number of units in the primary rental market in Wood Buffalo over time. The primary rental market included 3,202 units in 2018, up from a low of 2,622 in 2012. However, 2018 levels remain below the high of 3,797 units in 1990 (the first year for which data is available). Figure 7: Primary Rental Market Number of Units (October) in Wood Buffalo


HOUSING INDICATORS

Shelter costs7 for both owners and renters in Fort McMurray are higher than for owners and renters in Alberta. For owners in Fort McMurray, the median shelter cost is, at $2,800 per month, nearly double that of owners in Alberta generally. For renters, the median monthly shelter cost of $1,700 in Fort McMurray is almost 40% higher than for Alberta renters. Despite these higher shelter costs, Fort McMurray has a lower proportion of both renters and owner households spending 30% or more of their income on shelter. While 15.1% of owner households in Alberta spend over 30% of their monthly income on shelter, only 9.1% of owner households in Fort McMurray do the same. For renter households the difference is even more dramatic: while 36% of Albertan renter households spend 30% or more of their monthly income on shelter, only 18.7% of Fort McMurray households spend that proportion of their income on shelter costs.

Table 17: Housing Indicators for Fort McMurray, 2015 HOUSING INDICATORS FOR FORT MCMURRAY, 2015 Fort McMurray Alberta Households Spending 30% or More of Their Income on Shelter 12.3% 20.9% Owner Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 9.1% 15.1% Median monthly shelter cost $2,809 $1,481 Average monthly shelter cost $2,716 $1,531 Renter Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 18.7% 36.0% In subsidized housing 9.2% 10.4% Median monthly shelter cost $1,703 $1,243 Average monthly shelter cost $1,809 $1,279

Source: Statistics Canada 2016 Census 7 Statistics Canada defines shelter costs as follows: “Shelter costs for owner households include, where applicable, mortgage payments, property taxes and condominium fees, along with the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services. For renter households, shelter costs include, where applicable, the rent and the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services.”

3,797

2,622

3,202

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

PAGE 18

The combination of the economic downturn and the 2016 wildfire may have impacted these shelter cost and affordability elements substantially. Due to the wildfire Fort McMurray has seen both rental price and sales prices coming down (although not necessarily at the lower end of the market rentals). This also means that there have been a number of bankruptcies and foreclosures. Additionally, some have been unable to return home or have been delayed in their rebuilding, sometimes due to insurance issues.

Additionally, a survey was completed by Fort McMurray Métis and Wood Buffalo Housing. This survey found that of the 55 participating households, about 64% were paying more than 30% of their income toward shelter costs, indicating a need for housing options for Indigenous communities within the Urban Service Area.

Additional Core Housing Need information is available based upon the 2011 National Household Survey. Given the passage of time and major events transpiring over that period, as well as limitations in the 2011 National Household Survey, the information is of very limited value and has not been included. Core housing need data for the entire RMWB is included in the regional report.


Of the 403 senior-led households in Fort McMurray, 249 (approximately 72%) are owners. Of the senior-led owner-occupied households, 63% are single-detached dwellings, 16% manufactured homes, 9% semi-detached, 9% apartments, and 3% townhouses. Of senior renters, 92% live in apartments, with 3% in townhouses, and 3% in manufactured/mobile homes.

Table 18: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 SENIORS' DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE, 2018 Own Rent Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Fort McMurray 249 100% 154 100% 403 100%



Additional analysis of population growth for seniors and anticipated needs is discussed in the Regional report.

PAGE 19

Gap Analysis


While shelter costs in Fort McMurray are substantially above those in Alberta, median household incomes are also substantially above those in Alberta. As a result, shelter is relatively affordable for most household types in Fort McMurray. Median-earning renter households will typically not be experiencing affordability challenges, across household types. One-person owner-households may see an affordability gap, with incomes and shelter costs being such that if a one-person owner household were to earn the median income, and pay the median shelter costs they would see a monthly income gap of slightly over $100. This does not account for down payment, or changes in interest rates. Additionally, while median-earning lone-parents do not experience a gap around ownership, they only have about $300/month in earnings above a median-ownership payment, meaning additional housing costs (e.g. insurance, property taxes, etc.) could create an affordability gap for this group.

With a modest positive income gap, generally lone-parent owner households are not expected to be experiencing affordability challenges, however they are most at risk, after one-person households.



Affordable

Shelter Cost



Gap

Median Monthly


Gap Median Household $4,891 $1,703 No gap $2,809 No gap One-Person Households $2,673 $1,703 No gap $2,809 -$136 Couple Households Without Children $5,238 $1,703 No gap $2,809 No gap Couple Households With Children $5,764 $1,703 No gap $2,809 No gap Lone Parent Households $3,100 $1,703 No gap $2,809 $291

HOUSEHOLDS IN NEE D

Overall, Fort McMurray is an affordable community in which to purchase or rent a home, due to high incomes and relatively affordable cost of housing for households earning these incomes.

Affordability becomes a major concern across the region for households earning an income that can’t afford median rental or ownership costs. Regionally, this income threshold is about $68,000, and may be most acute for those households earning less than $40,000

PAGE 20

annually. Households earning less than this would not be able to afford median market rent, and may therefore experience adequacy, suitability, or affordability issues instead.

Based on estimates of core housing need and other considerations (e.g. homeless counts), between about 600 and 900 households require housing support in Fort McMurray to address housing need and homelessness. This support could include development of new units, private market rental support, or specialized housing to address issues such as mental health conditions.


• Approximately two-thirds Fort McMurray’s 24,815 households are family households, with 50% of these couples with children, and 35% couples without children, with the remaining 15% lone parent households. Fort McMurray has 8,410 non-family households, 5,610 of which are one-person households. Approximately 36% of households rent.

• Median incomes in Fort McMurray are substantially above median incomes in Alberta more generally. In the case of all but couple households with children, the median household across household and family types earns twice as much in Fort McMurray as they do in Alberta. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Fort McMurray households earn $100,000 and over. Slightly over 10% of households (approximately 2,800) had an income under $60,000 – the group that is most likely to be experiencing affordability challenges.

• Approximately half of Fort McMurray’s dwellings are single-detached homes, with apartments making up a quarter, followed by manufactured homes and townhouses, and finally semi-attached homes and basement suites. Fort McMurray’s housing stock is relatively new in many cases, with over half built since 2001. As a result, only 4% of Fort McMurray dwellings require major repairs.

• Two-hundred (200) individuals were identified as homeless in Fort McMurray in 2018. This is up from 114 in 2016, but down substantially from 549 in 2008. The majority of those homeless were male, and a disproportionate number identified as Indigenous or having Indigenous ancestry. Over a quarter of respondents indicated that they had most recently lost their housing due to abuse. Stakeholders who work with this population indicated that this was an undercount of individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

• Sales values for dwellings of various kinds have decreased since approximately 2015. In particular, apartments, which had fluctuated in price between approximately $300,000 and $400,000 between 2013 and early 2015, have since fallen to between $150,000 and $250,000.

• Fort McMurray has the large majority of the non-market housing in Wood Buffalo, with 1,337 of 1,384 units. This includes 48 of 51 community housing units, 30 of 44 self-contained community housing for seniors, 39 of 54 lodge units, 1,190 of 1,220 affordable units, and 30 of 30 Housing First Clients run by the Salvation Army. Fort McMurray also has a further 217 affordable beds and transitional units operated by organizations other than Wood Buffalo Housing.

PAGE 21

• Engagement participants indicated a need for additional social housing units, especially to fill the gap in the housing spectrum that is currently seen. Additionally, Housing First providers are having challenges and have even been restricted from taking on new clients as the demand has exceeded budgets. They have also experienced challenges transitioning clients from supportive housing or shelters into both WBH units, due to restrictions, and market units, due to cost.

• Twelve percent (12%) of Fort McMurray households (9% for owners, and 19% for renters) are spending 30% or more of their income on shelter. This is a lower proportion of households than in Alberta generally, at 21% (15% for owners, 36% for renters). However, shelter costs in Fort McMurray are substantially higher than in Alberta generally – median owner shelter costs are $2,809, nearly double the Alberta median of $1,481, and median renter shelter costs are $1,703, substantially above the Alberta median of $1,243.

• Sixty-three percent (63%) of senior-led owner households live in single detached homes, with 16% in manufactured homes, 9% in semi-detached homes, and 9% in apartments. Ninety-two (92%) of senior-led renter households live in apartments.

• While Fort McMurray has a relatively small proportion of seniors overall, renting seniors are highly vulnerable to housing issues, particularly affordability concerns, as they may be on a fixed income and unable to withstand significant changes in the cost of market rentals. Stakeholders noted that seniors are likely to leave the community as they get older, so additional supports and services for aging in place may be required.

• Elder seniors (75+) are more likely to need additional housing supports in order to age in place. Willow Square represents an important resource for older seniors in the community.8

• One-person households and lone-parent households are most likely to be experiencing an affordability challenge. If the median one-person household was paying median owner shelter costs, they would have an affordability gap of $136. While the median single-parent household, paying the median owner shelter costs would not experience an affordability gap, some households, especially single-parent households, below this median point are almost certainly experiencing substantial affordability challenges.

• Mental health, addiction, and job insecurity were identified as the three most important root causes of housing insecurity in Fort McMurray.

• The wildfire of 2016 was seen as a major contributor to some of the housing problems in Fort McMurray, in large part due to the trauma associated with it, and the resulting social challenges being seen in the community, including increasing mental health and addiction challenges; increasing domestic and sexual violence; and increasing family breakdown.

• Additionally, a survey was completed by Fort McMurray Métis and Wood Buffalo Housing. This survey found that of the 55 participating households, about 64% were

8 See full regional report for analysis of seniors projections and needs.

PAGE 22

paying more than 30% of their income toward shelter costs, indicating a need for housing options for Indigenous communities within the Urban Service Area.

• Based on estimates of core housing need and other considerations (e.g. homeless counts), between about 600 and 900 households are currently in housing need; however, there was also a vacancy of about 678 units in the rental market as of fall 2018. Much of the identified housing gap could be addressed through policy changes or if some of these units were repurposed toward some form of affordable housing. Therefore the actual need for new units to address households in core housing need and homelessness in Fort McMurray is anticipated to be much less than the 600-900 households estimated to be in need.


ASSESSMENT Saprae Creek

Community Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 1

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 3

Demographics ..................................................................................................................... 3

Current Population .................................................................................................... 3

Age and Gender Profile ............................................................................................. 4

Ethnic and Cultural Identity ....................................................................................... 4

Households ......................................................................................................................... 6

Household Type ........................................................................................................ 6

Household Tenure ..................................................................................................... 6

Economy ............................................................................................................................. 7

Income ...................................................................................................................... 7

Prevalence of Low-Income........................................................................................ 8

Employment .............................................................................................................. 9

Housing ............................................................................................................................... 9 Dwelling Types .......................................................................................................... 9

Homelessness ......................................................................................................... 10

Housing Supply ....................................................................................................... 10

Housing Indicators .................................................................................................. 12

Seniors Housing Profile ........................................................................................... 13

Gap Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 13

Affordability Analysis ............................................................................................... 13

Community Housing Summary ............................................................................... 14

FIGURES Figure 1: Saprae Creek Age Groups, 2018 ........................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Median Sale Price for Housing in Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac and

Saprae Creek, 2011-2018 ................................................................................................................... 11

TABLES Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 .................................................................................................. 3

Table 2: Ethnicity of Saprae Creek Residents, 2018 ............................................................................ 5

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Saprae Creek Residents, 2016............................................................ 5

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Saprae Creek Residents, 2016 ............................................................... 6 Table 5: Saprae Creek Household Types, 2016 ................................................................................... 6

Table 6: Saprae Creek Household Types, 2018 ................................................................................... 7

Table 7: Saprae Creek Median Incomes by Household Type, 2018 .................................................... 7

Table 8: Saprae Creek Household Income, 2015 ................................................................................. 8

Table 9: Prevalence of Low-Income in Saprae Creek, 2015 ................................................................ 8

Table 10: Saprae Creek Employment Statistics, 2016.......................................................................... 9

Table 11: Dwelling Types, 2018 .......................................................................................................... 10

Table 12: Age of Dwellings, 2016 ........................................................................................................ 10

Table 13: Non-Market Housing in Wood Buffalo, 2018 ....................................................................... 11

Table 14: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 ............................................................................... 12

Table 15: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 .............................................................................. 12

Table 16: Housing Indicators for Saprae Creek, 2015 ........................................................................ 13

Table 17: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 .......................................... 13

Table 18: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs .................................. 14


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM

RENTERS IN SAPRAE CREEK

HOMEOWNERS IN SAPRAE CREEK96%



-27%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

977 715 RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)

SENIOR

(65yrs+)

Median Household Income ($) 249,344

SAPRAE CREEK

4%

AGE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alberta Saprae Creek

220 TOTAL UNITS

No Non-Market Units

KEY TAKEAWAYS• With a very high median income (approximately $250,000), even with substantially

higher median shelter costs, Saprae Creek households will generally not be experiencing affordability challenges in a real sense

• Some of the households experiencing affordability challenges (as defined by spending 30% or more of their income on shelter) may include owners with properties more expensive than would be required for adequate, suitable housing.

• It’s likely less than 10 households earn $60,000 or less per year, an income range where affordability challenges would be most likely to occur

• No significant housing need was estimated for Saprae Creek



$292,864



(2016)

(AB avg $1,481)

19%of housing stock was built before 1990

SHELTER COSTS

PAGE 3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the community of Saprae Creek. Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile.1 Wherever possible, RMWB data was used. However, the Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.



This report also includes information from engagement undertaken in late February 2019 where community context was provided, and the accuracy of the official statistical information statistics (2015 RMWB Census and 2016 Statistics Canada Census) and the needs and opportunities within the community were discussed. This information is incorporated within the relevant sections of the report.

Demographics This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Saprae Creek, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.


Between 2015 and 2018 Saprae Creek’s population decreased by 27%, from 977 to 715. The large majority of the 715 in 2018 were permanent population (709) with 6 individuals in the shadow population.

Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 POPULATION, 2012 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change 2018 715 -27% 709 -27% 6 -25%

2015 977 6% 969 N/A 8 N/A

2012 925 Source: RMWB 2018 Census


PAGE 4


Saprae Creek’s population is 53% male and 47% female. This proportion is consistent across most of the age ranges. For seniors (65 and older), a slight majority is male (55%). Saprae Creek has a low proportion of seniors, with approximately 6% of residents 65 and older, and 79% of residents between the age of 15 and 64.

The stakeholder engagement indicated age distributions are changing within the community, with a growing number of seniors.

Figure 1: Saprae Creek Age Groups, 2018


ETHNIC A ND CULTU RAL IDE NTITY 2


Four-fifths (78%) of Saprae Creek residents identify as European origins, and 9% identify as Métis. Four percent (4%) of residents identified as European, nearly 3% as First Nation, and 1.4% as mixed ethnicity. The remaining ethnicities make up less than 1% of the Saprae Creek residents, including 0.3% of residents who identify as non-status First Nation.

2 Statistics Canada used the term ‘Aboriginal’ for individuals with First Nations, Metis, or Inuit identity in the 2016 Census. In each community profile, we use the term ‘Indigenous’ to refer to individuals and peoples of First Nations, Metis, or Inuit identity to acknowledge terminology recognized by the United Nations, through its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and shifting terminologies within both Indigenous organizations in Canada, and the Canadian government.

40302010 - 10 20 30 40 50

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Male Female

PAGE 5

Table 2: Ethnicity of Saprae Creek Residents, 2018 ETHNICITY Number Percent Total 652 100.0%

Caucasian or Euro Canadian 511 78.4%

South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan) 1 0.2% South East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian,

Filipino) 6 0.9%

African 5 0.8%

First Nation 16 2.5%

Asian (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) 2 0.3%

European 28 4.3%

Métis 61 9.4%

Arab 0 0.0%

Mixed Ethnicity 9 1.4%

Black or African Canadian 4 0.6%

Hispanic or Latin American 1 0.2%

Caribbean 0 0.0%

Non-status First Nation 2 0.3%

Oceania (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) 6 0.9%

Inuk (Inuit) 0 0.0% Source: RMWB 2018 Census


Eight percent (8%) of Saprae Creek residents identify as Indigenous, with 92% of residents identifying as non-Indigenous.

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Saprae Creek Residents, 2016

INDIGENOUS IDENTITY, 2016 Number Percent Total 565 100% Indigenous Identity 45 8% Single Indigenous responses 45 8% Multiple Indigenous responses - 0% Indigenous responses not included elsewhere - 0% Non-Indigenous Identity 520 92%


3 The discrepancy between Indigenous Identity from the 2016 Census of Canada, and the 2018 RMWB Census may be due to a number of factors, including non-response bias, change over time, or that only one ethnicity choice was available for the 2018 RMWB Census (and as such, someone who may have more than one ethnicity may have selected a non-Indigenous ethnicity, but identified as Indigenous).

4 Due to Statistics Canada’s rounding algorithm, small data sets may not always add up, and totals may not correspond to the sum of sub-totals (e.g. it appears there are more one and two-person households than the total of non-census family households).

PAGE 6


Approximately nine-tenths of Saprae Creek residents are non-immigrants, with approximately 10% immigrants.

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Saprae Creek Residents, 2016

IMMIGRANT STATUS, 2016 Number Percent Total 565 100% Non-Immigrants 515 91% Immigrants 55 10% Recent immigrants - 0% Non-Permanent Residents 10 2%


Households

HOUSEHOLD TYPE 5

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Saprae Creek households are family-households, while approximately 13% of households are non-family households. Of the family-households, slightly over 50% are couples with children, 44% are couples without children, and less than 5% are lone-parent families. Amongst non-family households, 80% are one-person households, and approximately 20% are two-or-more person non-family households.

Table 5: Saprae Creek Household Types, 2016



HOUSEHOLD TENURE

The large majority of Saprae Creek households are owner households, with 198 of 207 owner-occupied, and 9 renter occupied. Households are largely evenly distributed around the younger age ranges – approximately 21% of households are led by individuals under 25 years, 20% are in the 25 to 29 age range, and 25% are in the 35 to 44 age range6. On

5 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family. 6 Ages are referring to the primary respondent to the survey.

PAGE 7

the older side of this, 16% of households are in the 45 to 54 and 14% in the 55 to 64 range. All 8 senior households are owners.

Table 6: Saprae Creek Household Types, 2018


Total 198 100% 9 100% 207 100%

Under 25 39 20% 4 44% 43 21%

25 to 34 38 19% 4 44% 42 20%

35 to 44 51 26% 0 0% 51 25%

45 to 54 33 17% 1 11% 34 16%

55 to 64 29 15% 0 0% 29 14%

65 and over 8 4% 0 0% 8 4%


The engagement indicated that rental numbers in the 2015 Census are likely low, as there are a number of empty homes within the community. This is due to a combination of owners not living in the acreage home, or companies owning homes and renting them out or providing them to employees for temporary accommodations.

Economy

INCOME

The median income in Saprae Creek is more than two and a half times that of Alberta more generally. Similarly, the median income of one-person households in Saprae Creek is $121,088, more than double Alberta’s $47,948; the median income for couple households without children is $219,648 in Saprae Creek, to Alberta’s $101,283; and the median income of couple households with children is $292,864 in Saprae Creek, to $133,186 in Alberta. Information is unavailable for lone parent households in Saprae Creek.

Table 7: Saprae Creek Median Incomes by Household Type, 2018

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 Saprae Creek Alberta Median (all household types) $249,344 $93,835

One-Person Households $121,088 $47,948 Couple-Households without Children $219,648 $101,283

Couple-Households with Children $292,864 $133,186

Lone Parent Households - $62,909


The large majority (92%, or 175 of 190 households) of Saprae Creek households fall in the $100,000 and over household income bracket.

PAGE 8

Table 8: Saprae Creek Household Income, 2015 HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2015 Number Percent Total 190 100% Under $5,000 - 0% $5,000 to $9,999 - 0% $10,000 to $19,999 - 0% $20,000 to $29,999 - 0% $30,000 to $39,999 - 0% $40,000 to $49,999 - 0% $50,000 to $59,999 - 0% $60,000 to $69,999 - 0% $70,000 to $79,999 5 3% $80,000 to $89,999 - 0% $90,000 to $99,999 - 0% $100,000 and over 175 92%


The engagement feedback would suggest that due to the economic downturn, incomes may be substantially lower than those presented in the tables above.


Saprae Creek has substantially lower incidence of low-income than Alberta more generally. In total, 1.7% of Saprae Creek individuals are low-income, compared to 9.3% of Albertans. No seniors (or very few) are low-income in Saprae Creek.

Table 9: Prevalence of Low-Income in Saprae Creek, 2015

LOW-INCOME BASED ON THE LOW-INCOME CUT OFF (LICO), 2015 Saprae Creek Alberta Population Total 575 3,925,220 0 to 17 130 893,255 18 to 64 415 2,580,730 65 and over 30 451,235 Low Income Total 10 363,890 0 to 17 5 114,215 18 to 64 5 210,870 65 and over - 38,800 Prevalence within Age Group Total 1.7% 9.3% 0 to 17 3.8% 12.8% 18 to 64 1.2% 8.2% 65 and over 0.0% 8.6%


PAGE 9

EMPLOYME NT

Saprae Creek has relatively high labour participation when compared to Alberta, especially for males. Eighty percent (80%) of Saprae Creek adults are in the labour force, 91% of males, and 68% of females (compared to 65%, 77%, and 66% respectively for Alberta). Saprae Creek also has a lower unemployment rate, at 6%, than Alberta at 9%.

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction is the major industry for employment in Saprae Creek (25%), followed by construction (12.5%), manufacturing (8.8%), retail and real estate (6.3% each), and health care and social assistance, accommodation and food services, and other services (other than public administration), each making up 5% of employment. A number of other industries accounted for less than 5% each.

Table 10: Saprae Creek Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 Saprae Creek Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 505 3,206,050 In Labour Force 405 2,302,945 Employed 380 2,096,105 Unemployed 25 206,835 Not In Labour Force 100 903,145 Participation Rate 80.2% 65.4% Male 90.6% 77.3% Female 68.1% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 6.2% 9.0% Male N/A 10.0% Female N/A 7.8%


Housing


DWE LLING TYPE S

The large majority (92%) of Saprae Creek dwellings are single-detached dwellings, with the majority of the remaining 6% manufactured homes (13 units) and other movable dwellings (5 units).

PAGE 10

Table 11: Dwelling Types, 2018 DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 220 100%



Over half (54%) of Saprae Creek dwellings were constructed between 1991 and 2000. A further 24% were constructed between 2001 and 2005. Five percent (5%) of dwellings have been constructed between 2011 and 2016, 15% between 1981 and 1990, and a further 5% between 1961 and 1980. Ten (10) Saprae Creek dwellings, or 5%, require major repairs. This includes consideration for the damages and losses to dwellings that occurred in this community as a result of the 2016 Wildfire.

Table 12: Age of Dwellings, 2016

OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 205 100% 1960 or before - 0% 1961 to 1980 10 5% 1981 to 1990 30 15% 1991 to 2000 110 54% 2001 to 2005 50 24% 2006 to 2010 - 0% 2011 to 2016 10 5% Dwellings requiring major repairs 10 5%


HOMELESSNESS

No information is available regarding homelessness in Saprae Creek.

HOUSING SUPPLY


PAGE 11


Regarding the housing supply generally, feedback would suggest that there are lots available to be built upon, but currently little interest in developing the land. However, housing supply was also substantially impacted by the 2016 Wildfire, when 68 homes were lost. Rebuilding of homes has brought back an estimated 35-40 families in the community, the remaining are delayed for a variety of factors, including a lack of available homebuilders.

Information is unavailable regarding non-market housing in Saprae Creek.

Table 13: Non-Market Housing in Wood Buffalo, 2018 WOOD BUFFALO NON-MARKET HOUSING UNITS BY COMMUNITY

Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units


Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429

Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382

Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5

Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16




Eight (8) of 9 Saprae Creek rental dwellings are single-detached homes, with the remaining a single manufactured home.

$-

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

$700,000.00

$800,000.00

$900,000.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


PAGE 12

Table 14: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 RENTER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 9 100%



One-hundred and eighty-four (184) of 198 owner-occupied dwellings in Saprae Creek are single-detached dwellings (93%), with the remainder manufactured homes (11 units) and other movable dwellings (3 units).

Table 15: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 OWNER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 198 100%



HOUSING INDICA TORS

Housing indicator information is unavailable for renter households in Saprae Creek. Median and average shelter cost for Saprae Creek owner households is substantially above median shelter costs for Albertans more generally.7 The median shelter cost for owners in Saprae Creek is approximately 70% more than the median shelter cost for Albertan owners. A slightly higher proportion of Saprae Creek owners are spending 30% or more of their income on shelter costs than Albertan owners (16.2% compared to 15.1%).

7 Statistics Canada defines shelter costs as follows: “Shelter costs for owner households include, where applicable, mortgage payments, property taxes and condominium fees, along with the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services. For renter households, shelter costs include, where applicable, the rent and the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services.”

PAGE 13

Table 16: Housing Indicators for Saprae Creek, 2015

HOUSING INDICATORS FOR SAPRAE CREEK, 2015 Saprae Creek Alberta Households Spending 30% or More of Their Income on Shelter 17.5% 20.9% Owner Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 16.2% 15.1% Median monthly shelter cost $2,510 $1,481 Average monthly shelter cost $2,642 $1,531 Renter Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter N/A 36.0% In subsidized housing N/A 10.4% Median monthly shelter cost N/A $1,243 Average monthly shelter cost N/A $1,279



Seven (7) out of 8 senior households (all of which are owner households) live in single-detached dwellings, with the remaining household in a manufactured home.

Concern about a lack of housing appropriate for seniors was also expressed through feedback. With an aging population, there is concern that seniors will not be able to age in place, a concern felt across the region.

Table 17: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018

SENIORS' DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 8 100% 0 N/A 8 100%

Single Detached 7 88% 0 N/A 7 88% Semi-Detached/Duplex 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Townhome/Row Housing 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Apartment/Condo 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Secondary/Basement Suite 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 1 13% 0 N/A 1 13% Collective Dwelling 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0% Other 0 0% 0 N/A 0 0%



With particularly high median incomes for owner households (the only households for which there is available shelter cost information), affordability is not a major challenge, at least for the median households. Furthermore, with as much or more than 90% of households in

PAGE 14

Saprae Creek earning $100,000 or more (translating as $2,500 affordable shelter costs), it is quite possible that well over 90% of households are not experiencing affordability challenges. Based on median income information (and observed patterns in almost every community) one-person households and lone-parent households are most likely to be experiencing these affordability challenges.

Across all household types for which there is available information, a median income household would be able to afford median owner shelter costs.

Table 18: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS, 2015

Affordable Shelter

Cost



Gap

Median Monthly


Gap

Median Household $6,234 N/A N/A $2,510 No gap

One-Person Households $3,027 N/A N/A $2,510 No gap

Couple Households Without Children $5,491 N/A N/A $2,510 No gap

Couple Households With Children $7,322 N/A N/A $2,510 No gap

Lone Parent Households N/A N/A N/A $2,510 N/A


• With extremely high median incomes ($249,344 to Alberta’s $93,835), even with substantially higher median shelter costs, Saprae Creek households will generally not be experiencing affordability challenges.

• While a slightly higher proportion of Saprae Creek owner households are spending 30% or more of income on shelter costs than Albertan owner households generally (16.2% to 15.1%), these households may include owners with properties more expensive than would be required for adequate, suitable housing.

• It is potentially less than 10 households, in the income range of $60,000 or less per year, where affordability challenges would likely be seen.

• Over 96% of households are owner households, and the large majority of households are likely not experiencing affordability challenges. However, with a lack of information on renter household incomes, and shelter costs, it is possible that these renter households may be seeing affordability challenges.

• The sale price of dwellings in the region including Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac, and Saprae Creek have been decreasing since early 2015. For detached, single family dwellings (which make up the vast majority of Saprae Creek dwellings), these prices have decreased from approximately $750,000 in 2014, to between $550,000 and $600,000 in 2018.

• No significant housing need was estimated for Saprae Creek.


ASSESSMENT Gregoire Lake Estates Community

Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE ................................................................................... 5

Demographics .................................................................................................. 5

Current Population ................................................................................. 5

Age and Gender Profile .......................................................................... 5

Ethnic and Cultural Identity .................................................................... 6

Households ...................................................................................................... 7

Household Type ..................................................................................... 7

Household Tenure .................................................................................. 8

Economy .......................................................................................................... 8

Income ................................................................................................... 8

Prevalence of Low-Income..................................................................... 9

Employment ........................................................................................... 9

Housing .......................................................................................................... 10

Dwelling Types ..................................................................................... 10 Homelessness ...................................................................................... 11

Housing Supply .................................................................................... 11

Housing Indicators ............................................................................... 12

Seniors Housing Profile ........................................................................ 13

Gap Analysis .................................................................................................. 13

Affordability Analysis ............................................................................ 13

Community Housing Summary ............................................................ 14

FIGURES Figure 1: Gregoire Lake Estates Age Groups, 2018 ................................................................ 6

Figure 2: Median Sale Price for Housing in Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac

and Saprae Creek, 2011-2018 ............................................................................................... 11

TABLES Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 ..................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Ethnicity of Gregoire Lake Estates Residents, 2018 .................................................. 6

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Gregoire Lake Estates Residents, 2016 ................................. 7

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Gregoire Lake Estates Residents, 2016 .................................... 7

Table 5: Gregoire Lake Estates Household Types, 2016 ........................................................ 8

Table 6: Gregoire Lake Estates Household Types, 2018 ........................................................ 8

Table 7: Gregoire Lake Estates Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015.......................... 9

Table 8: Gregoire Lake Estates Employment Statistics, 2016 ................................................. 9

Table 9: Dwelling Types, 2018 ............................................................................................... 10

Table 10: Age of Dwellings in Gregoire Lake Estates, 2016 .................................................. 10 Table 11: Non-Market Housing in Gregoire Lake Estates, 2018 ........................................... 11

Table 12: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type ............................................................................ 12

Table 13: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type ........................................................................... 12

Table 14: Housing Indicators for Gregoire Lake Estates, 2015 ............................................. 13

Table 15: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs ..................... 13


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM

RENTERS IN GREGOIRE LAKE ESTATES

HOMEOWNERS IN GREGOIRE LAKE ESTATES85%



-12%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

232 204RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)SENIOR


GREGOIRE LAKE ESTATES

15%

AGE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No Non-Market Units

70 TOTAL UNITS

KEY TAKEAWAYS• Most households in Gregoire Lake Estates are family households, many with children

• Detailed income information for Gregoire Lake Estates is largely unavailable, however the median household income of approximately $230,000 suggests a highly affluent community – it’s likely very few households are experiencing affordability challenges

• Of the households in Gregoire Lake Estates, lone parent households are expected to be those most likely to be experiencing affordability challenges

• A large majority of dwellings are single-detached homes, with a substantial proportion built between 1961 and 1980, and correspondingly 23% requiring major repairs

• No significant housing need was estimated for Greogire Lake Estates.


(2016)

(AB avg $1,481)


SHELTER COSTS

PAGE 5

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the community of Gregoire Lake Estates. Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile.1 Wherever possible, RMWB data was used. However, the Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.



Demographics This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Gregoire Lake Estates, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.


Between 2015 and 2018, population in Gregoire Lake Estates decreased by 28 individuals, or -12%. In 2018 the shadow population included 25 of the 204 individuals identified, with 179 individuals making up the permanent population.

Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 POPULATION, 2012 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change 2018 204 -12% 179 -21% 25 317% 2015 232 -16% 226 N/A 6 N/A 2012 275 - - -



A slight majority of Gregoire Lake Estates’ population is male at 58%. This difference is seen most at the older ranges, beginning with the 30-34 range, and continuing until the oldest range (75 and over).


PAGE 6

Gregoire Lake Estates has a low number and proportion of seniors, with only 4 aged 65 and over.

Figure 1: Gregoire Lake Estates Age Groups, 2018


ETHNIC A ND CULTU RAL IDE NTITY

Gregoire Lake Estates’ residents are predominantly of Caucasian or Euro Canadian origins, with 86% of Gregoire Lake Estates residents identifying as such. In addition, 6% identify as Métis and 3% as First Nation.

Table 2: Ethnicity of Gregoire Lake Estates Residents, 2018 ETHNICITY, 2018 Number Percent Total 190 100.0%



15105 - 5 10 15 20

0-3

6-9

15-19

25-29

35-39

45-49

55-59

65-69

75 and over

Female Male

PAGE 7


Approximately 6% of Gregoire Lake Estates residents identify as Indigenous, and approximately 97% identify as non-Indigenous.

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Gregoire Lake Estates Residents, 20164



Citizenship and Immigration Status The vast majority (possibly all) of Gregoire Lake Estates residents are non-immigrants.

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Gregoire Lake Estates Residents, 2016

IMMIGRANT STATUS, 2016 Number Percent Total 160 100% Non-Immigrants 155 97% Immigrants - 0% Recent immigrants - 0% Non-Permanent Residents - 0%


Households

HOUSEHOLD TYPE 5

All Gregoire Lake Estates households for which data is available are family households. Of these households, half are couple households with children, with 30% couples without children, and 10% lone parent families.

2 Statistics Canada used the term ‘Aboriginal’ for individuals with First Nations, Metis, or Inuit identity in the 2016 Census. In each community profile, we use the term ‘Indigenous’ to refer to individuals and peoples of First Nations, Metis, or Inuit identity to acknowledge terminology recognized by the United Nations, through its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and shifting terminologies within both Indigenous organizations in Canada, and the Canadian government. 3 The discrepancy between Indigenous Identity from the 2016 Census of Canada, and the 2018 RMWB Census may be due to a number of factors, including non-response bias, change over time, or that only one ethnicity choice was available for the 2018 RMWB Census (and as such, someone who may have more than one ethnicity may have selected a non-Indigenous ethnicity, but identified as Indigenous). 4 Statistics Canada uses a randomized rounding algorithm to anonymize data. In small communities and data sets, this sometimes means that totals may add to more or less than 100%, instead of exactly to 100%. 5 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family.

PAGE 8

Table 5: Gregoire Lake Estates Household Types, 2016

HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2016 Number Percent Census Families in Private Households 50 100% Couples without children 15 30% Couples with children 25 50% Lone parent families 5 10% Non-Census-Family Households N/A N/A One-person households N/A N/A Two-or-more person non-census family households N/A N/A


HOUSEHOLD TENURE

Of Gregoire Lake Estates’ 65 households recorded in the 2018 municipal census, 55 are owner households, and 10 renters. The highest proportion of households were led by individuals in the 25 to 34 age group, followed by the 35 to 44, and 45 to 54 age groups.6 All the households led by individuals 55 to 64 (there being no households led by individuals 65 and over) were owner households.

Table 6: Gregoire Lake Estates Household Types, 2018 HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 55 100% 10 100% 65 100%

Under 25 6 11% 3 30% 9 14% 25 to 34 16 29% 4 40% 20 31% 35 to 44 14 25% 2 20% 16 25% 45 to 54 10 18% 1 10% 11 17% 55 to 64 9 16% 0 0% 9 14% 65 and over 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%


Economy INCOME

Detailed information about median incomes for Gregoire Lake Estates households is unavailable. However, in general, the median household income (for all household types) is more than double the median income of Albertan households more generally.

Based on the information for Saprae Creek, and for Fort McMurray more generally, it’s likely that the median income for one-person households is between $110,000 and $125,000. Similarly, the median couple household without children may have an income between $200,000 and $250,000, a couple with children around $270,000 and a lone parent family around $145,000.

6 Ages are referring to the primary respondent to the survey.

PAGE 9

Table 7: Gregoire Lake Estates Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 Gregoire Lake Estates Alberta Median (all household types) $229,376 $93,835 One-Person Households N/A $47,948 Couple-Households without Children N/A $101,283 Couple-Households with Children N/A $133,186 Lone Parent Households N/A $62,909


Given the median income of $229,376 across households, we can conclude that at least 50% (although likely a far higher proportion) of households would fall in to the $100,000 and over category.

Again, based on information for Saprae Creek and Fort McMurray, it’s likely that less than 10% of households earn less than $50,000 and similarly less than 10% earn between $50,000 and less than $100,000, with the remainder, possibly well over 80%, earning over $100,000.


No information is available regarding low-income in Gregoire Lake Estates.

EMPLOYME NT

Gregoire Lake Estates has a higher participation rate in the labour force for both males and females than Alberta generally. Eighty-three percent (83%) of males in Gregoire Lake Estates participate in the labour force, compared to 77% of Albertan males, and 75% of females in Gregoire Lake Estates participate, compared to 66% of Albertan females. Unemployment is at, or close to 0% in Gregoire Lake Estates.

Major sectors of work include educational services (20%), construction (15%), and mining/oil and gas extraction, wholesale trade, real estate rental and leasing, professional, scientific, and technical services, accommodation and food services, and public administration (each at 10%).

Table 8: Gregoire Lake Estates Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 Gregoire Lake Estates Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 130 3,206,050 In Labour Force 100 2,302,945 Employed 100 2,096,105 Unemployed - 206,835 Not In Labour Force 30 903,145 Participation Rate 65.4% Male 83.3% 77.3% Female 75.0% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 9.0% Male 0.0% 10.0% Female 0.0% 7.8%


PAGE 10

Housing


DWE LLING TYPE S

Sixty-nine (69) of the 70 dwellings identified were single detached homes, with the final dwelling a manufactured/mobile home.




Gregoire Lake Estates’ housing stock is almost entirely comprised of dwellings built prior to 2000. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Gregoire Lake Estates’ dwellings were constructed between 1961 and 1980, 15% constructed in the decade following, and 46% constructed in the decade between 1991 and 2000. Fifteen (15) of the 65 dwellings counted by Statistics Canada, or 23%, require major repairs.

Table 10: Age of Dwellings in Gregoire Lake Estates, 2016

OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 65 100% 1960 or before - 0% 1961 to 1980 25 38% 1981 to 1990 10 15% 1991 to 2000 30 46% 2001 to 2005 - 0% 2006 to 2010 - 0% 2011 to 2016 - 0% Dwellings requiring major repairs 15 23%


PAGE 11

HOMELESSNESS

There is no estimate of homelessness for Gregoire Lake Estates.

HOUSING SUPPLY



No information is available for non-market housing in Gregoire Lake Estates.

Table 11: Non-Market Housing in Gregoire Lake Estates, 2018 WOOD BUFFALO NON-MARKET HOUSING UNITS BY COMMUNITY

Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units


Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429

Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382

Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5

Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16




$-

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

$700,000.00

$800,000.00

$900,000.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


PAGE 12

All of the 10 rental dwellings in Gregoire Lake Estates are single-detached homes.

Table 12: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type RENTER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 10 100%



All but one of the 55 owner dwellings identified were single-detached homes, the one other being a manufactured/mobile home.

Table 13: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type OWNER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 55 100%



HOUSING INDICA TORS

Very limited housing indicator information is available for Gregoire Lake Estates households. Median monthly shelter costs7 and average monthly shelter costs for owner households in GLE are $2,712 and $2,438 respectively. These costs are substantially in excess of the same costs for Albertans generally.

7 Statistics Canada defines shelter costs as follows: “Shelter costs for owner households include, where applicable, mortgage payments, property taxes and condominium fees, along with the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services. For renter households, shelter costs include, where applicable, the rent and the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services.”

PAGE 13

Table 14: Housing Indicators for Gregoire Lake Estates, 2015

HOUSING INDICATORS FOR GREGOIRE LAKE ESTATES, 2015

Gregoire

Lake Estates Alberta

Households Spending 30% or More of Their Income on Shelter N/A 20.9%

Owner Households

Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 15.1% Median monthly shelter cost $2,712 $1,481 Average monthly shelter cost $2,438 $1,531 Renter Households

Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter N/A 36.0% In subsidized housing N/A 10.4% Median monthly shelter cost N/A $1,243 Average monthly shelter cost N/A $1,279



According to the RMWB 2018 municipal census, there are no senior-led households in Gregoire Lake Estates. As such, there is no information for a seniors housing profile.


Unfortunately, very limited information is available upon which to base an affordability analysis. Generally, taking the median household, the median income, and the median shelter cost, households in Gregoire Lake Estates are unlikely to be experiencing affordability challenges. Based upon the household income patterns in other communities, one-person households and lone parent households are the household types most likely to be facing affordability challenges. Table 15: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs


Affordable Shelter Cost


Shelter Cost

Affordability Gap

Median Monthly

Shelter Cost

Affordability Gap

Median Household $5,734 N/A N/A $2,712 No gap One-Person Households N/A N/A N/A $2,712 N/A

Couple Households Without Children N/A N/A N/A $2,712 N/A

Couple Households With Children N/A N/A N/A $2,712 N/A

Lone Parent Households N/A N/A N/A $2,712 N/A

PAGE 14


• Most households in Gregoire Lake Estates are family households, many with children (50%), and many couples without children (30%).

• The large majority of Gregoire Lake Estates households (55 of 65) are owner households.

• While detailed information for income in Gregoire Lake Estates is unavailable, the overall median household income of $229,376 suggests a highly affluent community. It’s likely very few households are experiencing affordability challenges. Of the households in Gregoire Lake Estates, lone-parent households are expected to be the households most likely to be experiencing affordability challenges.

• Of 70 dwellings identified in Gregoire Lake Estates, 69 of these are single-detached, with 1 manufactured/mobile home. With a substantial proportion (38%) of dwellings built between 1961 and 1980, Gregoire Lake Estates’ housing stock is somewhat aged – reflected also in 23% of dwellings (15 of 65) requiring major repairs.

• While the numbers are undoubtably dominated by Fort McMurray, median sale prices for housing, across housing types, in the region including Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac, and Saprae Creek, has seen declining housing sale prices since approximately 2015.

• No significant housing need is estimated in Gregoire Lake Estates.


ASSESSMENT Anzac Community Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................1

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE ...................................................................................3

Demographics ................................................................................................. 3 Current Population ................................................................................ 3 Age and Gender Profile ......................................................................... 4 Ethnic and Cultural Identity ................................................................... 4

Households...................................................................................................... 6 Household Type .................................................................................... 6 Household Tenure ................................................................................. 6

Economy .......................................................................................................... 7 Income .................................................................................................. 7 Prevalence of Low-Income .................................................................... 8 Employment ........................................................................................... 9

Housing ........................................................................................................... 9 Dwelling Types ...................................................................................... 9 Homelessness ..................................................................................... 10 Housing Supply ................................................................................... 10 Housing Indicators ............................................................................... 12 Seniors Housing Profile ....................................................................... 13

GAP ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 14

Affordability Analysis ..................................................................................... 14 Households in Need – Current and Projected .................................... 15

Community Housing Summary ..................................................................... 15

FIGURES Figure 1: Anzac Age Groups, 2018 ................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Median Sale Price for Housing in Fort McMurray, Gregoire Lake Estates, Anzac and Saprae Creek, 2011-2018 ............................................................................. 11

TABLES Table 1: Population Trend, 2015-2018 .............................................................................. 3

Table 2: Ethnicity of Anzac Residents, 2018 ..................................................................... 5 Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Anzac Residents, 2016 .................................................... 5

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Anzac Residents, 2016 ....................................................... 6 Table 5: Anzac Household Types, 2016 ............................................................................ 6 Table 6: Anzac Tenure by Household Age, 2018 .............................................................. 7

Table 7: Anzac Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015 ............................................. 7 Table 8: Anzac Household Income, 2015 .......................................................................... 8

Table 9: Prevalence of Low-Income in Anzac, 2015 ......................................................... 8 Table 10: Anzac Employment Statistics, 2016 .................................................................. 9

Table 11: Dwelling Types, 2018 ...................................................................................... 10 Table 12: Age of Dwellings .............................................................................................. 10

Table 13: Non-Market Housing in Anzac ......................................................................... 11 Table 14: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 ........................................................... 12

Table 15: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 .......................................................... 12 Table 16: Housing Indicators for Anzac, 2015 ................................................................. 13

Table 17: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 ...................... 13 Table 18: Affordability Analysis based on Median Incomes and Shelter Costs .............. 14


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM

spend more than 30%


In Anzac, about 6% of households


RENTERS IN ANZAC

HOMEOWNERS IN ANZAC




67%



ANZAC

5 Non-Market Units

33%

243 TOTAL UNITS


-9%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

763 692 RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)

SENIOR


KEY TAKEAWAYS• Overall an affluent community, with a high median income and housing prices in line with those incomes

• 35 households earn $60,000 or less per year, which could indicate affordability issues if housing situations were to

change

• One-person households may be experiencing housing affordability challenges, however the income gap is not large

• A high proportion of Anzac dwellings require major repairs (25 units, 13% of the total housing stock in the 2016

Census)

• Most seniors are owners, which can provide security of tenure, however a large majority live in single-family dwellings,

which can place a large burden on senior households

• Anzac has a relatively large Indigenous population for a small community, and when considering any housing

development, consideration should be given to design and programs that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles

and cultural practices

• About 7 renter households are experiencing core housing need and indicate a need for new units or supports

AGE



Lone Parent(2015)

$220,928 $100,608



(2016)$1,752MONTHLY RENTAL COST

(2016)

(AB avg $1,243) (AB avg $1,481)

25%of housing stock was built before 1990

SHELTER COSTS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alberta Anzac

PAGE 3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the hamlet of Anzac. Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile. Wherever possible, RMWB data was used. However, the Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.



This profile also includes information communicated through an engagement process within the Anzac and Willow Lake communities over several days. Organizations and individuals were met with in mid-January 2019. The purpose of these sessions was to provide background on the Needs Assessment and to seek community input on information collected (2015 RMWB Census and 2016 Statistics Canada Census1), and key community housing concerns and issues.

Demographics This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Anzac, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.

CURRENT POPULATION

Between 2015 and 2018, Anzac’s population decreased by 49 individuals, from 763 residents to 692 residents. The residential shadow population was 127, while there were 565 individuals counted as the permanent population. Anzac had the highest proportion of residents identified as part of the residential shadow population of any community, just under one-fourth (18%).

Table 1: Population Trend, 2015-2018 POPULATION, 2015 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change 2018 692 -9% 565 -7% 127 -19% 2015 763 7% 606 N/A 157 N/A 2012 714 - -

Source: RMWB 2018 Census 1 All counts in Statistics Canada Census tabulations are subjected to random rounding. Random rounding transforms all raw counts to random rounded counts. This reduces the possibility of identifying individuals within the tabulations. This becomes apparent in smaller data sets and can result in situations where sub-groups and totals may not always conform.

PAGE 4

Engagement participants were surprised at the population figures, and indicated that population had since likely been reduced dramatically due to out-migration. The 2018 Census confirms this view as the population numbers indicate a decrease in population.


Anzac’s population is 60% male and 40% female. Although men outnumber women across most age categories, women outnumber men in the youth population between ages 0 to 3; 6 to 9; and in the older population, 70 and over.

Figure 1: Anzac Age Groups, 2018




Anzac’s residents are predominantly Caucasian or Euro Canadian European (71%), First Nation (11%), Métis (9%), and mixed ethnicity (4%). A small number of residents are Asian, South East Asian, South Asian, European, non-status First Nation, and Inuk.

4020 - 20 40 60 80

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Male Female

PAGE 5

Table 2: Ethnicity of Anzac Residents, 2018

ETHNICITY Number Percent Total 608 100.0%

Caucasian or Euro Canadian 433 71.2%

South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan) 2 0.3% South East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Filipino) 6 1.0%

African 0 0.0% First Nation 64 10.5%

Asian (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) 9 1.5% European 3 0.5%

Métis 56 9.2%

Arab 0 0.0% Mixed Ethnicity 25 4.1%

Black or African Canadian 0 0.0% Hispanic or Latin American 0 0.0%

Caribbean 0 0.0%

Non-status First Nation 6 1.0% Oceania (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) 0 0.0%

Inuk (Inuit) 4 0.7%


Indigenous Identity

One-fifth of Anzac’s residents identify as Indigenous, from a single Indigenous background, while about 80% are non-Indigenous. This does not include the population currently living in Gregoire Lake 176 Indian Reserve, which is beyond the scope of this study.

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Anzac Residents, 2016




According to the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, only 6% of the residents of Anzac were immigrants, and only about 2% of residents were recent immigrants.

PAGE 6

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Anzac Residents, 2016

IMMIGRANT STATUS, 2016 Number Percent Total 570 100% Non-Immigrants 540 95% Immigrants 30 5% Recent immigrants 10 2% Non-Permanent Residents - 0%


Households

HOUSEHOLD TYPE 2

Anzac households are predominantly families. There were 140 census families and 65 non-census family households in 2016. Half of family households were couples with children, while just over a third (36%) were couples without children. There were 25 lone-parent families in Anzac in 2016. Of non-family households, the large majority were one-person households (45 households, or 70% of non-family households), while there were 15 households with two or more people.

Table 5: Anzac Household Types, 2016



HOUSEHOLD TE NURE

Renters represent just over a third of households in Anzac (33%). There are 74 renting households, of which the large majority are younger than 45 (82%). In comparison, more than half (65%) of Anzac owners are below age 45, while the other 35% are 45 or older. Only 12 households in Anzac are senior households (65+), representing about 5% of all households. Older households are much more likely to own than rent (28 out of 34 senior households own).

2 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family.

PAGE 7

Table 6: Anzac Tenure by Household Age, 2018

HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 148 100% 74 100% 222 100%

Under 25 28 19% 9 12% 37 17%

25 to 34 31 21% 21 28% 52 23%

35 to 44 38 26% 31 42% 69 31% 45 to 54 23 16% 7 9% 30 14%

55 to 64 19 13% 3 4% 22 10%

65 and over 9 6% 3 4% 12 5%


Engagement participants were surprised by the proportion of renters that were indicated in the 2015 Census and noted there was likely a higher proportion of owners than reflected in the statistics.

Economy

INCOME

Households in Anzac earn more across all household types than comparable median-earning households across all of Alberta. The lowest earners are one-person households, who have a median income of $65,792 annually. Lone-parent households also earn less than half of the median income for couples with children.

Table 7: Anzac Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 Anzac Alberta Median (all household types) $186,880 $93,835 One-Person Households $65,792 $47,948 Couple-Households without Children $201,984 $101,283 Couple-Households with Children $220,928 $133,186 Lone Parent Households $100,608 $62,909


More than three-quarters of households in Anzac earn $100,000 or more, while 35 households earn less than $60,000. These households are most at risk of experiencing housing affordability issues.

PAGE 8

Table 8: Anzac Household Income, 2015

HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2015 Number Percent Total 195 100% Under $5,000 - 0% $5,000 to $9,999 5 3% $10,000 to $19,999 5 3% $20,000 to $29,999 - 0% $30,000 to $39,999 10 5% $40,000 to $49,999 5 3% $50,000 to $59,999 10 5% $60,000 to $69,999 - 0% $70,000 to $79,999 5 3% $80,000 to $89,999 5 3% $90,000 to $99,999 5 3% $100,000 and over 150 77%


While the official information indicates high incomes, engagement participants communicated that incomes were likely down from the official information, due to the economic downturn. Additionally, stakeholders identified the challenge of individuals having some access to affordable housing, but are discouraged from seeking better employment (and higher income) as they worry about becoming ineligible for their housing.


Overall, Anzac residents experience a lower rate of low-income than residents across Alberta. There are no seniors (65+) who were experiencing low-income in 2016, and 3.7% of children/youth (under 18) and 3.2% of adults (18 to 64) experienced low-income.

Table 9: Prevalence of Low-Income in Anzac, 2015

LOW-INCOME BASED ON THE LOW-INCOME CUT OFF (LICO), 2015 Anzac Alberta Population Total 545 3,925,220 0 to 17 155 893,255 18 to 64 375 2,580,730 65 and over 20 451,235 Low Income Total 20 363,890 0 to 17 5 114,215 18 to 64 10 210,870 65 and over - 38,800 Prevalence within Age Group Total 3.7% 9.3% 0 to 17 3.2% 12.8% 18 to 64 2.7% 8.2% 65 and over 0.0% 8.6%


PAGE 9

EMPLOYMENT

Anzac’s employment statistics compare favourably with Alberta’s. The labour participation rate is only slightly lower in Anzac than in Alberta, though men have a higher participation rate than women (85.7% compared to 40.5%). Unemployment rates in Anzac are lower than Alberta’s (3.9% compared to 9.0%). The primary employment sectors in Anzac are mining/oil and gas extraction (24% of working individuals), retail (14%), construction (12%), as well as associated professional and administrative services.

Table 10: Anzac Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 Anzac Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 395 3,206,050 In Labour Force 255 2,302,945 Employed 240 2,096,105 Unemployed 10 206,835 Not In Labour Force 145 903,145 Participation Rate 64.6% 71.8% Male 85.7% 77.3% Female 40.5% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 3.9% 9.0% Male 5.6% 10.0% Female 0.0% 7.8%


The closure of the Nexen plant in early 2016 had a negative impact on a number of the employees who live in Anzac. However, a Suncor facility is being built, and stakeholders indicated there were discussions on ensuring employment for locals.

Housing


DWELLING TYPES

More than half of the 243 homes in Anzac counted in the 2018 RMWB Census are single-detached homes, while an additional 23% are manufactured homes (56 units). The remaining homes are apartment units (31 units), collective dwellings (3 units) and movable dwelling (1 unit).

PAGE 10



Single Detached 152 63% Semi-Detached/Duplex 0 0%


Multiplex (fourplex, triplex) 0 0% Apartment/Condo 31 13%

Secondary/Basement Suite 0 0% Manufactured/Mobile Home 56 23%



Other 0 0% Source: RMWB 2018 Census

According to the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, 38% of the homes in Anzac were built in 2000 or before, and more than 60% (130 of the 190 homes counted) were built within the last twenty years. Twenty-five homes in Anzac required major repairs as of 2016.

Families requiring larger units (3-4 bedrooms) were identified by engagement participants as a group in that required additional housing.

Table 12: Age of Dwellings

OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 190 100% 1960 or before - 0% 1961 to 1980 20 11% 1981 to 1990 30 16% 1991 to 2000 20 11% 2001 to 2005 60 32% 2006 to 2010 40 21% 2011 to 2016 30 16% Dwellings requiring major repairs 25 13%


HOMELESSNESS

There is no estimate of homelessness for Anzac.

HOUSING SUPPLY


PAGE 11


Anzac currently has five non-market units operated by Wood Buffalo Housing: 1 community housing unit, and 4 self-contained seniors units.

Table 13: Non-Market Housing in Anzac WOOD BUFFALO NON-MARKET HOUSING UNITS BY COMMUNITY

Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units


Supplements) Total

Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429

Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382

Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5

Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16




The 2018 Census showed that of the 74 rental homes in Anzac, 41% were single-detached homes and about a third were manufactured homes (34%). Of the remaining dwellings, 24% were apartments and there was a single movable dwelling.

$-

$100,000.00

$200,000.00

$300,000.00

$400,000.00

$500,000.00

$600,000.00

$700,000.00

$800,000.00

$900,000.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


PAGE 12

Table 14: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018




Of the 148 homes owned by Anzac’s residents, most were single-detached homes (80%), while about one-sixth (16%) were manufactured homes. A small number of owned apartments (6 units) round out Anzac’s housing stock.





HOUSING INDICATORS

Overall, Anzac faired significantly better than provincial averages with regards to housing. Statistics Canada identifies only 10 households who spend more than 30% of their income on housing issues, and due to the small sample sizes and Statistics Canada’s rounding algorithm, this shows up as a 0% of owners and renters experiencing affordability issues. Shelter costs3 are higher in Anzac than in Alberta as a whole.

3 Statistics Canada defines shelter costs as follows: Shelter costs for owner households include, where applicable, mortgage payments, property taxes and condominium fees, along with the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services. For renter households, shelter costs include, where applicable, the rent and the costs of electricity, heat, water and other municipal services.

PAGE 13

Table 16: Housing Indicators for Anzac, 2015

HOUSING INDICATORS FOR ANZAC, 2015 Anzac Alberta Households Spending 30% or More of Their Income on Shelter 6% 21% Owner Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 0% 15% Median monthly shelter cost $2,220 $1,481 Average monthly shelter cost $2,174 $1,531 Renter Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter 0% 36% In subsidized housing 0% 10% Median monthly shelter cost $1,752 $1,243 Average monthly shelter cost $1,825 $1,279


Engagement participants communicated that rental and mortgage costs are each higher than reflected in the official statistics.

Within these shelter costs, engagement participants noted high utility costs as well as rising rents, despite rising vacancy rates.


Seniors are predominantly owners in Anzac, favouring single-detached dwellings: 7 of the 12 senior households counted in the 2018 Census are in single-detached homes. The 2 remaining households live in an apartment dwelling and a manufactured home. Only 3 senior households were identified as renters and these households live in manufactured homes.


SENIORS' DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 9 100% 3 100% 12 100%










Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%


PAGE 14

Seniors were identified as a key population group that had a housing need by engagement participants. There are only currently 4 seniors units available in Anzac, and other seniors may be preparing to downsize as maintaining a home becomes increasingly difficult for seniors, despite a desire to age in their own homes. Additional housing options for seniors could allow seniors to age in place. This need for seniors was identified by all stakeholders consulted.

GAP ANALYSIS

Affordability Analysis

As noted above, median incomes in Anzac are significantly higher than provincial median incomes. As such, most median-earning households in Anzac are well-positioned to afford both rental and owned housing in Anzac. One-person households are the most likely to face an income gap when it comes to shelter costs, due to the relatively lower median income. A median-earning one-person household would have an income gap of just over $100/month to afford a median-priced rental, paying no more than 30% of their income toward housing. This gap grows for a median-earning one-person household looking to purchase a home.

Additionally, while median-earning lone-parents do not experience a gap around ownership, they only have about $300/month in earnings above a median-ownership payment, meaning additional housing costs (e.g. insurance, property taxes, etc.) could create an affordability gap for this group.



Affordable

Shelter Cost



Gap

Median Monthly


Gap Median Household $4,672 $1,752 No gap $2,220 No gap One-Person Households $1,645 $1,752 -$107 $2,220 -$575 Couple Households Without Children $5,050 $1,752 No gap $2,220 No gap Couple Households With Children $5,523 $1,752 No gap $2,220 No gap Lone Parent Households $2,515 $1,752 No gap $2,220 $295

As noted above, 35 households in Anzac earn less than $60,000 annually. This means they could pay a maximum of $1,500 toward median shelter costs. However, the 2016 Census only identifies 10 households currently experiencing housing affordability, and does not indicate whether they are renters or owners.

PAGE 15

Groups in need of additional options or supports included seniors and families (requiring 3-4 bedrooms). Affordability is being compromised by high utility costs, rising rents, increasing need for maintenance, and a general economic downturn in the community.

Stakeholders identified a home repair or maintenance grants could be valuable in the community, as well as rental subsidies, and a greater supply of affordable (perhaps subsidized) housing. Currently there is only one unit of social housing in Anzac, intended to be a transitional unit for those in need off temporary support. This social housing is most needed by families and young, first-time renters.

There was interest in seeing the purchase of existing condominiums to be managed as social or affordable housing units, as well as an affordable home ownership program.

HOUSEHOLDS IN NEE D – CURRENT AND PROJECTED

As noted above, 35 households in Anzac earn less than $60,000 annually. This means they could pay a maximum of $1,500 toward median shelter costs. However, the 2016 Census only identifies 10 households currently experiencing housing affordability, and does not indicate whether they are renters or owners.

Based on estimates of core housing need, about 7 renter households in Anzac are experiencing core housing need.

Community Housing Summary

• Overall the community of Anzac is an affluent community, with a high median income and housing prices that are in line with those incomes.

• There are 35 households who earn $60,000 or less per year, which could indicate future affordability issues if housing situations were to change. These household cannot afford median cost of rent. However, only 10 households through the 2016 Census were identified as paying more than 30% of annual income toward shelter costs, though, a small sample size may make this figure less reliable.

• The affordability analysis shows that the only household group that might experience housing affordability issues based on median income are one-person households; however, the income gap is not large, and could be addressed by finding below-median priced housing. One-person households would be more likely to experience housing pressures if purchasing, but again would be more likely to purchase an apartment/condominium or manufactured home, of which there are a relatively high number for a small community.

• Despite the relatively high incomes in Anzac, engagement participants noted affordability challenges as rents have not come down despite the economic downturn and a higher vacancy rate.

• Seniors, families, and first-time renters were identified as primary groups in need of additional housing opportunities by stakeholders.

PAGE 16

• One-person households and single-parent households are more likely to be part of the households that earn less than $60,000, as single-earning households, and are most likely to experience housing vulnerability.

• A key area of concern for housing in Anzac is the high number of units requiring major repairs (25 units, 13% of the total stock according to the 2016 Census). This issue was confirmed by stakeholders.

• Currently seniors may have difficulty aging in place with very little supply of seniors’ housing.

• Most seniors are owners, not renters, meaning they have security of tenure. However, a large majority of senior households according to the 2018 RMWB Census occupy single-family dwellings, which can place a burden on aging households. There is some apartment/condominium stock to accommodate aging in the community while downsizing (31 units, 13% of housing stock).

• Site servicing, transportation, and rural support services were identified as additional challenges in the community.

• Stakeholders expressed interest in rental subsidies, an expansion of social or affordable housing stock, and an affordable ownership program.

• There is a relatively large Indigenous population for a small community, and when considering any housing development, consideration should be given to design and programs that are designed to sustain traditional lifestyles and cultural practices.

• Based on estimates of core housing need, a few renter households in Anzac are experiencing core housing need, indicating a need for new units or supports.


ASSESSMENT Janvier South

Community Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Key Findings .................................................................................................................. 1

Community Housing Profile ........................................................................................... 3

Demographics ......................................................................................................... 3

Current Population ........................................................................................ 3

Age And Gender Profile ................................................................................ 4

Ethnic And Cultural Identity .......................................................................... 4

Households ............................................................................................................. 6

Household Type ............................................................................................ 6

Household Tenure ........................................................................................ 6

Economy ................................................................................................................. 7

Income ......................................................................................................... 7

Low-Income Households .............................................................................. 8

Employment .................................................................................................. 8

Housing .................................................................................................................. 8

Dwelling Types .............................................................................................. 8

Homelessness ............................................................................................ 10

Housing Supply ........................................................................................... 10

Housing Indicators ...................................................................................... 11

Seniors Housing Profile .............................................................................. 11

Gap Analysis ......................................................................................................... 12

Affordability Analysis ................................................................................... 12

Community Housing Summary ................................................................... 12

FIGURES Figure 1: Janvier South Age Groups, 2018 .................................................................. 4

TABLES Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 .......................................................................... 3

Table 2: Ethnicity of Janvier South Residents, 2018 .................................................... 5

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Janvier South Residents, 2016.................................... 5

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Janvier South Residents, 2016 ....................................... 6

Table 5: Janvier South Household Types, 2016 ........................................................... 6

Table 6: Janvier South Tenure, 2018 ............................................................................ 7

Table 7: Janvier South Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015 ............................ 7

Table 8: Janvier South Employment Statistics, 2016.................................................... 8

Table 9: Dwelling Types, 2018 ...................................................................................... 9

Table 10: Age of Dwellings in Janvier South, 2016 ...................................................... 9 Table 11: Non-Market Housing in Janvier South, 2018 .............................................. 10

Table 12: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 ....................................................... 10

Table 13: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 ...................................................... 11

Table 14: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 .................. 11


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM

spend more than 30%


In Janvier SouthIn Janvier South, with a very low median income relatively, a high proportion of households, especially renter households, one-person households, and lone-parent households, likely


RENTERS IN JANVIER SOUTH

HOMEOWNERS IN JANVIER SOUTH

For households spending 30% or more on shelther this means:



78%



JANVIER SOUTH*

9 Non-Market Units

22%

*Janvier South does not include the Janvier Reserve community.

55 TOTAL UNITS


-9%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

155 141 RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)

SENIOR


KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Unemployment is very high in Janvier, as confirmed by engagement participants. This is seen as a major driver of the housing issues seen in the community.

• With a median household income less than half that of the median Albertan household more generally, many households are likely to be experiencing substantial affordability challenges.

• As much as 30% of Janvier South dwellings require major repairs, and no new dwellings have been constructed since 2000.

• Janvier South has 9 affordable housing units, however even these units are unaffordable for community members with 3 remaining unoccupied.

• An estimated 30% of households in the community are in need of some form of housing support, including more affordable housing or major repairs. This represents about 17 units.

AGE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alberta Janvier South

PAGE 3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the community of Janvier South. Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile.1 Wherever possible, RMWB data was used. However, the Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.



This report also includes information from engagements undertaken in Janvier in mid-January 2019. Residents and leaders in the hamlet of the community participated and provided community context, discussed the accuracy of the official statistical information (data from 2015 RMWB Census and 2016 Statistics Canada Census), and discussed the needs and opportunities within the community. Feedback is integrated in each of the relevant sections below.

Demographics

This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Janvier South, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.


Between 2015 and 2018, Janvier South’s population declined 9% from 155 to 141. Four (4) individuals were identified as a part of the shadow population in Janvier South with the remaining 137 as permanent population.

Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 POPULATION, 2012 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change 2018 141 -9% 137 -12% 4 N/A 2015 155 -9% 155 N/A 0 N/A 2012 171 - - -



PAGE 4


The overall population in Janvier South is 51% female. The proportion of women or men are higher in certain Javier South age groups and are evenly split in other age groups.

Figure 1: Janvier South Age Groups, 2018


ETHNIC A ND CULTU RAL IDE NTITY 2


Approximately 52% of Janvier South residents identified as First Nation. Nearly 35% of residents identified as Métis, and almost 9% identified as Caucasian or Euro Canadian. Of the remaining population, 3% identified as non-status First Nation and 2% identified as European.

2 Statistics Canada used the term ‘Aboriginal’ for individuals with First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity in the 2016 Census. In each community profile, we use the term ‘Indigenous’ to refer to individuals and peoples of First Nations, Métis, or Inuit identity to acknowledge terminology recognized by the United Nations, through its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and shifting terminologies within both Indigenous organizations in Canada, and the Canadian government.

8642 - 2 4 6 8

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Male Female

PAGE 5

Table 2: Ethnicity of Janvier South Residents, 2018 ETHNICITY Number Percent Total 130 100.0%




Eighty percent (80%) of Janvier South residents identified as Indigenous, and 13% as non-Indigenous.

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Janvier South Residents, 2016




All Janvier South residents (or close to all, dependent on rounding) are non-immigrants.

3 The discrepancy between Indigenous Identity from the 2016 Census of Canada, and the 2018 RMWB Census may be due to a number of factors, including non-response bias, change over time, or that only one ethnicity choice was available for the 2018 RMWB Census (and as such, someone who may have more than one ethnicity may have selected a non-Indigenous ethnicity, but identified as Indigenous). 4 Statistics Canada uses a randomized rounding algorithm to anonymize data. In small communities and data sets, this sometimes means that totals may add to more or less than 100%, instead of exactly to 100%.

PAGE 6

Table 4: Immigrant Status of Janvier South Residents, 2016

IMMIGRANT STATUS, 2016 Number Percent Total 70 100% Non-Immigrants 70 100% Immigrants - 0% Recent immigrants - 0% Non-Permanent Residents - 0%


Households HOUSEHOLD TYPE 5

Half, or slightly over half of Janvier South’s households are family households. Of these family households, approximately 40% are couples without children, 40% lone-parent families, and 20% couples with children. Of non-family households, most, or all households are one-person households.

Table 5: Janvier South Household Types, 2016

HOUSEHOLD TYPE, 2016 Number Percent Census Families in Private Households 25 100% Couples without children 10 40% Couples with children 5 20% Lone parent families 10 40% Non-Census-Family Households 20 100% One-person households 15 75% Two-or-more person non-census family households - 0%


HOUSEHOLD TENURE

Approximately three-fourths (78%) of Janvier South households are owner occupied households, with the remaining as renter households (22%). Eighteen percent (18%) of owner households are led by individuals aged 25 to 34, another 15% by individuals aged 35 to 44, 21% by individuals aged 45 to 54, 18% by individuals aged 55 to 64, and finally 10% by individuals aged 65 and older.6 These proportions are generally not substantially different between owners and renters (at least not with sample sizes large enough to identify these differences). Majority of senior households (65 and older) are owner households in Janvier South.

5 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family. 6 Ages are referring to the primary respondent to the survey.

PAGE 7

Table 6: Janvier South Tenure, 2018 HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 39 100% 11 100% 50 100%

Under 25 7 18% 1 9% 8 16%

25 to 34 7 18% 1 9% 8 16%

35 to 44 6 15% 1 9% 7 14%

45 to 54 8 21% 4 36% 12 24%

55 to 64 7 18% 3 27% 10 20%


Engagement participants indicated that the true proportion of owners might be higher than indicated within the 2015 Census statistics.

Economy

INCOME

Detailed income information for various household types in unavailable for Janvier South. Median household income in Janvier South is slightly less than half that of median household income for Alberta more generally.

As the median income in Janvier South is substantially lower than that of other communities in Wood Buffalo, it is difficult to make a comparison. Across communities, incomes for one person households and lone parent households are substantially lower than the median incomes generally. If this pattern is matched in Janvier South, median incomes for one person households may be close to $25,000, and median incomes for lone parent households in the range of $30,000. Median incomes for couple households with and without children likely surpass the overall median and are perhaps near $50,000.

Table 7: Janvier South Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 Janvier South Alberta Median (all household types) $43,648 $93,835 One-Person Households N/A $47,948 Couple-Households without Children N/A $101,283 Couple-Households with Children N/A $133,186 Lone Parent Households N/A $62,909


Information regarding households in various income brackets is unavailable for Janvier South. With a median household income of $43,648, at least 50% of households in Janvier South have an income under $50,000. This would likely include a substantial number of households making approximately 50% to 75% of this amount – especially one person and lone parent households.

PAGE 8

LOW-INCOME HOUSE HOLDS

Information regarding low-income status in Janvier South is unavailable.

EMPLOYME NT

It is unclear the degree to which employment statistics for Janvier South are reliable. According to Statistics Canada, Janvier South has a 80% participation rate, higher than Alberta’s 65%. Janvier South also has an unemployment rate substantially higher than Alberta’s, at 25% compared to Alberta’s 9%.

Educational services are the largest industry of employment in Janvier South (50%), followed by construction, administrative and support, waste management and remediation services, and health care and social assistance (each 25%, due to random rounding).

Table 8: Janvier South Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 Janvier South Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 50 3,206,050 In Labour Force 40 2,302,945 Employed 30 2,096,105 Unemployed 10 206,835 Not In Labour Force 10 903,145 Participation Rate 80.0% 65.4% Male 0.0% 77.3% Female 71.4% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 25.0% 9.0% Male 0.0% 10.0% Female 40.0% 7.8%


Despite the high unemployment rate suggested by the official statistics, engagement participants estimated a far higher rate, as high as 80%. High unemployment in the community is seen as a major driver of the housing issues seen by the community. Those who could find employment could not find secure, long -term employment according to engagement participants. With variable or seasonal work contracts, some can afford rent one month, and not the next. This access to employment is linked in part to transportation issues – with a bus only running twice a week.

Housing


DWE LLING TYPE S

Eight-seven (87%) of Janvier South dwellings are single-detached dwellings, with the remainder made up of semi-detached dwellings (5 units) and manufactured homes (2 units).

PAGE 9




Engagement participants indicated some concern with the form of housing in the community. Participants communicated concerns regarding safety, and a lack of consultation. In particular, in the manufactured units there is only one main exit, and there were concerns that window exits would be unsafe for vulnerable populations. Furthermore, unit types were seen as not addressing cultural needs, and did not allow cultural activities.

Approximately 40% of Janvier South dwellings were constructed between 1991 and 2000, with another 30% constructed between 1981 and 1990. Ten (10) dwellings in Janvier South require major repairs, approximately 30% of all dwellings.

Engagement participants confirmed a substantial proportion of the housing in the community is in a state of disrepair. With no new housing built in the community since 2000, households are in need of major repairs and mould was identified as a common occurrence. While some communities (Conklin and Fort McKay for example) have programs in place to support renovations and repairs, there is currently no access to such a program in Janvier.

Furthermore, servicing is inadequate in places in Janvier. The commitment to site servicing with municipal water and sewer was a key reason for many to move from the reserve to the hamlet, however with the proposed cost at $16,000, most Janvier hamlet households will be unable to afford this.

Table 10: Age of Dwellings in Janvier South, 2016

OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 35 100% 1960 or before - 0% 1961 to 1980 - 0% 1981 to 1990 10 29% 1991 to 2000 15 43% 2001 to 2005 - 0% 2006 to 2010 - 0% 2011 to 2016 - 0% Dwellings requiring major repairs 10 29%


PAGE 10

HOMELESSNESS

No information is available for homelessness in Janvier South.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Engagement participants indicated a challenge in the community with overcrowding, suggesting there is not enough supply in the community. Janvier South currently has 9 non-market housing units. All of these units are affordable housing units.

Table 11: Non-Market Housing in Janvier South, 2018 WOOD BUFFALO NON-MARKET HOUSING UNITS BY COMMUNITY

Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units


Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429 Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382 Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5 Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16 Janvier 0 0 0 9 0 9 Fort Chipewyan 2 10 0 5 0 17 Fort McKay 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saprae Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gregoire Lake Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0

Engagement participants indicated concern that the Wood Buffalo Housing units were not addressing community needs. While there are 9 units, only 6 were currently occupied even with the need in the community. Participants indicated these units were empty due to rental rates that remained unaffordable for community members, despite being considered affordable under regional or provincial definitions.

Seven (7) out of 11 rental households live in single-detached dwellings, with a further 4 households living in semi-detached dwellings.

Table 12: Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 RENTER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 11 100%



PAGE 11

All but 3 of 39 owner occupied dwellings in Janvier South are single-detached dwellings, with the 1 being a semi-detached dwelling and 2 as manufactured homes.

Table 13: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 OWNER DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE, 2018 Number Percent Total 39 100%



HOUSING INDICA TORS

Official information is unavailable on housing indicators for Janvier South. However, as discussed above, participants indicated affordability remains a substantial problem for community members as individuals in need still cannot afford the rental rates of the affordable units within the community. Additionally, utility costs made the units even more unaffordable. Finally, rising property taxes were identified as an issue.


Four (4) of 5 seniors households live in single-detached homes, with the remaining household in a manufactured home. As mentioned previously, 4 of the 5 senior households in Janvier South are owners of their dwellings.

Table 14: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 SENIORS' DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 4 100% 1 100% 5 100%



PAGE 12

Gap Analysis

AFFORDA BIL ITY A NALYSIS

Information upon which to base an affordability analysis for Janvier South is unavailable. However, with the median income at $43,648, it’s likely a large proportion of households are experiencing substantial affordability challenge.

HOUSEHOLDS IN NEE D – CURRE NT A ND PROJE CTED

In Janvier, stakeholders estimated about 30% of households in the community needed some form of housing support, including more affordable housing or major repairs. This represents about 17 units.


• Unemployment is very high in Janvier, as confirmed by engagement participants. This is seen as a major driver of the housing issues seen in the community.

• The median household income in Janvier South is $43,648, less than half that of the median Alberta household ($93,835). As such, many households are likely to be experiencing substantial affordability challenges.

• As much as 30% of Janvier South dwellings require major repairs, and no dwellings have been constructed since 2000. Issues with the housing include mould, as well as a lack of servicing for water and sewer.

• Janvier South has 9 affordable housing units, however even these units are unaffordable for community members with 3 remaining unoccupied.

• Housing in the community is not seen to meet community needs. In particular, the form of the manufactured units, as well as restrictions on cultural practices were issues. Overcrowding is also an issue in the community.

• Janvier is experiencing a number of other issues that compound or add to the housing issues in the community; these include addiction and mental health issues, and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) in some cases. There is a lack of resources to support residents experiencing these issues.

• Engagement participants discussed what were seen as broken promises, noting recently the cost estimates of full municipal servicing, and deeper historical issues regarding agreements with the provincial and federal governments. The legacy of colonialism remains present in the community, both in terms of current housing conditions and underlying social issues.

• In Janvier, stakeholders estimated about 30% of households in the community needed some form of housing support, including more affordable housing or major repairs. This represents about 17 units.


ASSESSMENT Conklin Community Report

Prepared by:



May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 1

Community Housing Profile ............................................................................................. 3

Demographics ........................................................................................................... 3

Current Population ........................................................................................... 3

Age And Gender Profile ................................................................................... 4

Households ............................................................................................................... 6

Household Type ............................................................................................... 6

Household Tenure ........................................................................................... 6

Economic Context ..................................................................................................... 7

Income ............................................................................................................. 7

Prevalence Of Low-Income .............................................................................. 7

Employment ..................................................................................................... 8

Housing ..................................................................................................................... 8

Dwelling Types ................................................................................................ 8

Homelessness ............................................................................................... 10

Housing Supply .............................................................................................. 10

Housing Indicators ......................................................................................... 12

Seniors Housing Profile.................................................................................. 13

Gap Analysis ................................................................................................................. 13

Community Housing Summary ....................................................................... 13

FIGURES Figure 1: Conklin Age Groups, 2015........................................................................................... 4

TABLES

Table 1: Population Trend, 2012-2018 ....................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Ethnicity of Conklin Residents, 2018 ............................................................................. 5

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Conklin Residents, 2016 ............................................................ 5

Table 4: Conklin Household Types, 2016 ................................................................................... 6

Table 5: Conklin Household Tenure, 2018.................................................................................. 6

Table 6: Conklin Median Incomes by Household Type, 2015 ..................................................... 7

Table 7: Conklin Employment Statistics, 2016 ............................................................................ 8

Table 8: Conklin Dwelling Types, 2018 ....................................................................................... 9

Table 9: Age of Dwellings in Conklin, 2016............................................................................... 10

Table 10: Non-Market Housing in Conklin, 2018....................................................................... 11

Table 11: Conklin Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 ........................................................ 11

Table 12: Owned Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018 .................................................................... 12

Table 13: Housing Indicators for Conklin, 2015 ........................................................................ 12

Table 14: Senior (65+) Households by Dwelling Type and Tenure, 2018 ................................. 13


EMERGENCYSHELTERS

TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING

SUPPORTIVE

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET RENTAL

HOUSING

BELOW MARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP

RENTALMARKET

HOMEOWNERSHIP



HOUSING SPECTRUM

spend more than 30%


In Conklinwith relatively low median incomes, a high proportion of households, especially renter households, one-person households, and lone-parent households, likely


RENTERS IN CONKLIN

HOMEOWNERS IN CONKLIN




66%



CONKLIN

16 Non-Market Units

34%

96 TOTAL UNITS


-28%

POPULATION GROWTH

(2015-2018)

376 272 RESIDENTS

CHILDREN

(0-14yrs)

WORKING AGE

(15-64yrs)

SENIOR


KEY TAKEAWAYS• Stats Canada data is insufficient to fully understand the community of Conklin, as the population count is

substantially lower than that through the RMWB Census – this is likely due to the substandard living conditions in

which many residents live that are not counted by Statistics Canada

• The community of Conklin is experiencing a housing crisis with 28% of permanent residents experiencing housing

instability. There is a significant need for investment in new housing stock to serve a wide variety of household

types.

• Many households are single parent families or individuals living alone.

• The ARDN housing survey is supported by limited Statistics Canada data showing significantly lower household

incomes in Conklin when compared to the region

• Many of Conklin’s residents feel disenfranchised by local and senior governments, and unable to address the

current housing crisis

• Housing need is estimated to be approximately 46 community housing units.

AGE



Lone Parent(2015)

$86,983 $45,154


$476MONTHLY OWNERSHIP COST

(2016)

(AB avg $1,481)


SHELTER COSTS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Alberta Anzac

PAGE 3

COMMUNITY HOUSING PROFILE This document provides an overview of key demographic, economic, and housing data from the hamlet of Conklin. Data is drawn from two key sources: the 2018 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Census, and the 2016 Statistics Canada Census Community Profile. Wherever possible, RMWB data was used. However, the Statistics Canada data supplemented the RMWB data in key areas, such as income and housing affordability.



Additionally, this report includes information gathered from stakeholders in the community. Representatives from two community groups were met in mid-January 2019. These stakeholders provided community context, feedback on the accuracy of the official statistics (data from 2015 RMWB Census and 2016 Statistics Canada Census1), and needs and opportunities in the community. This information is incorporated within the relevant sections of the report.

Demographics This section examines a number of population and demographic indicators in Conklin, including population growth, gender, the age profile of the community, and the ethnic profile of the community. These indicators are key to developing an understanding of housing need, as different age groups and ethnic or cultural backgrounds may have different housing needs.

CURRENT POPULATION

Between 2015 and 2018, Conklin’s population decreased by 104 individuals, -28%. Of the 272 respondents, 58 were counted as part of the shadow population, while 214 were permanent residents.


POPULATION, 2012 to 2018 Total Permanent Shadow Number % Change Number % Change Number % Change 2018 272 -28% 214 -36% 58 35% 2015 376 18% 333 N/A 43 N/A

2012 318 - - - Source: RMWB 2018 Census 1 Statistics Canada Census tabulations are subjected to random rounding. Random rounding transforms all raw counts to random rounded counts. This reduces the possibility of identifying individuals within the tabulations. This becomes apparent in smaller data sets and can result in situations where sub-groups and totals may not always conform.

PAGE 4

Engagement participants indicate the shadow population in Conklin may actually bring the total population to as high as 400 or 450 people.


Conklin’s population is 55% male and 45% female. Men outnumber or are equal to women in most age categories.

Figure 1: Conklin Age Groups, 2018


Ethnic and Cultural Identity


Conklin’s residents are predominantly Métis (69%) with some Caucasian or Euro Canadian European (14%), and First Nation (11%). A small number of residents are South East Asian, European, mixed ethnicity, or non-status First Nation and each account for less than 5%.

15105 - 5 10 15 20

0-34-56-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-74

75 and over

Male Female

PAGE 5

Table 2: Ethnicity of Conklin Residents, 2018

ETHNICITY Number Percent Total 207 100.0%

Caucasian or Euro Canadian 28 13.5% South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan) 0 0.0% South East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Filipino) 2 1.0% African 0 0.0% First Nation 22 10.6% Asian (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) 0 0.0% European 1 0.5% Métis 143 69.1% Arab 0 0.0% Mixed Ethnicity 2 1.0% Black or African Canadian 0 0.0% Hispanic or Latin American 0 0.0% Caribbean 0 0.0% Non-status First Nation 9 4.3% Oceania (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) 0 0.0%

Inuk (Inuit) 0 0.0%

Indigenous Identity2

Conklin is an Indigenous community, with 85% of its residents identifying as Indigenous, while about 13% identify as non-Indigenous. The community has few immigrant residents (~5%), and none are recent immigrants.

Table 3: Indigenous Identity of Conklin Residents, 2016

INDIGENOUS IDENTITY, 2016 Number Percent Total 195 100% Indigenous Identity 165 85% Single Indigenous responses 160 82% Multiple Indigenous responses - 0% Indigenous responses not included elsewhere 10 5% Non-Indigenous Identity 25 13%


2 The discrepancy between Indigenous Identity from the 2016 Census of Canada, and the 2018 RMWB Census may be due to a number of factors, including non-response bias, change over time, or that only one ethnicity choice was available for the 2018 RMWB Census (and as such, someone who may have more than one ethnicity may have selected a non-Indigenous ethnicity, but identified as Indigenous).

PAGE 6

Households HOUSEHOLD TYPE 3

Two-thirds of Conklin households are family households. There are a significant number of lone-parent households, accounting for 70% of all families. There are also approximately 25 one-person households in Conklin, and a small number of two-person households.4 Typically, because these households only have one income-earner, they may be more subject to housing affordability issues.

Table 4: Conklin Household Types, 2016



HOUSEHOLD TE NURE

Renters represent over a third of all households in Conklin (34%). There are 27 renting households, which are relatively evenly distributed across all age groups with a notable number of renters in the 25 to 34 age group. Comparatively, most owners (74%) are 35 or older. There were 7 senior households total in Conklin in 2018, most of which (88%) were owners.

Table 5: Conklin Household Tenure, 2018


Total 53 100% 27 100% 80 100% Under 25 8 15% 3 11% 11 14% 25 to 34 6 11% 10 37% 16 20% 35 to 44 15 28% 4 15% 19 24% 45 to 54 11 21% 6 22% 17 21% 55 to 64 6 11% 3 11% 9 11%


3 Census family households are those that contain at least one census family. Non-census-family households are either one person living alone or a group of two or more persons who live together but do not constitute a census family. 4 Due to Statistics Canada’s rounding algorithm, small data sets may not always add up, and totals may not correspond to the sum of sub-totals (e.g. it appears there are more one and two-person households than the total of non-census family households).

PAGE 7

Engagement participants communicated that defining home ownership and rental tenures were difficult within the community as some residents may own their cabin, trailer, or hut, but not the land on which it is located.

Economic Context

INCOME

The median household income in Conklin is about 80% of the median household income for Alberta as a whole. While median income data was not available for specific household types, estimates in Table 6 show that households in Conklin earn less than their counterparts both across the RMWB and Alberta.5 Median household income in Conklin is 38% of regional median household income. One-person and lone-parent households are estimated to earn the lowest median income and these households represent a significant portion of all households in Conklin (~80% of households in the community).

Table 6: Conklin Median Incomes by Household Type, 20156

MEDIAN INCOMES, 2015 Conklin Alberta Median (all household types) $73,472 $93,835 One-Person Households $39,835 $47,948 Couple-Households without Children $78,726 $101,283 Couple-Households with Children $86,983 $133,186 Lone Parent Households $45,154 $62,909


Additional data for income levels of households and prevalence of low-income individuals is unavailable through the 2016 Statistics Canada Census and 2018 RMWB Census.


There is no data available in Conklin to indicate prevalence. However, as noted above, Conklin’s incomes are significantly lower than median incomes across the region. In May 2018 Willow Springs Strategic Solutions published a report entitled How much longer? A Preliminary Assessment of Homelessness in Conklin. The report outlines the severity of the housing crisis in Conklin, highlighting low-incomes and poor housing conditions. The findings of the report are based on a series of focus groups and meetings held in late 2017 with approximately 60 community members, including youth, adults and Elders. Nearly every participant in these focus groups felt affected by the current housing crisis, and participants indicated that the high cost of housing, particularly for individuals with low incomes, was a major factor in the current housing crisis.

5 See RMWB Summary Report for income statistics for the Regional Municipality.

6 Only median household income was available for Conklin. Median incomes for each household type were calculated using the median household income as a benchmark, and using ratios from the RMWB to calculate median incomes for specific household types (e.g. one-person households in the RMWB earn 54% of the median total, so this ratio was applied in Conklin to calculate one-person household median income).

PAGE 8

EMPLOYMENT

Conklin’s employment statistics show a lower labour force participation rate and a higher unemployment than both the RMWB as a whole, and the province of Alberta. The labour force participation rate for the community is 45.2%, compared with 78.0% in RMWB and Alberta. The unemployment rate for the community is 28.6%, compared with 7.0% and 9.0% respectively for the RMWB and Alberta.

Table 7: Conklin Employment Statistics, 2016

LABOUR FORCE STATISTICS, 2016 Conklin Alberta Total Population (15 and Over) 155 3,206,050 In Labour Force 70 2,302,945 Employed 45 2,096,105 Unemployed 20 206,835 Not In Labour Force 85 903,145 Participation Rate 45.2% 65.4% Male 56.2% 77.3% Female 26.7% 66.4% Unemployment Rate 28.6% 9.0% Male 44.4% 10.0% Female 0.0% 7.8%


According to engagement participants, the economic downturn in the oil sector has led to people returning to the community. However, those returning to the community lack stable employment and can contribute to overcrowding and a strain on services. On the other side, those seeking stable employment have moved away in search of work. The economic context has led to some using a strategy of staying in camp housing for 25 days a month, and returning to stay with friends or family in Conklin for the remaining period. However, given a movement toward restricting or ending fly-in, fly-out camps, there could be significant implications on the housing status of many Conklin residents.

Housing

DWELLING TYPES

More than half of the homes (55%) in Conklin counted in the 2018 RMWB Census are single-detached homes, while just over a third are manufactured homes (34%). The remaining 11% are other movable dwellings (5%), collective dwellings (3%), and semi-detached (2%).

PAGE 9

Table 8: Conklin Dwelling Types, 2018








Other 0 0%


According to the 2016 Statistics Canada Census, 80% of the homes in Conklin were built in 2000 or before, and only about 13% have been built since 2000 (10 of the 75 homes counted). It appears no homes require major repairs; however Statistics Canada’s rounding to 0 may account for no homes being captured by this question. Stakeholders in the community estimated 80% of housing stock was built even prior to 1980, and that no housing stock has been built in the last 15 years (which is in conflict with the Statistics Canada data below).

This figure is also problematic, as evidenced by the research conducted by Willow Spring Solutions into an ongoing homelessness crisis in Conklin. Many households are living in poorly maintained trailer and RVs. These homes may not be captured at all as dwellings by the Statistics Canada Census, and therefore would not be considered when analysing maintenance requirements. The report notes that “A number of houses in Conklin have been built with scrap lumber, garage kits, and repurposed ATCO trailers and RVs, many of which were originally manufactured in the 1970s. Few if any of these units have running water or sewer, and most depend upon a mix of wood-burning, propane and electrical heating. Air circulation is poor, living quarters are cramped, and many of the homes are affected by a greater or lesser degree by black mould.”7

Engagement participants confirmed the inaccuracy of the official statistical information regarding the need for major repairs. Participants noted there are a large number of Conklin residents living at risk of homelessness or in unacceptable conditions, with health hazards (like black mould), or no access to key services (like water or septic). Participants indicated almost all existing privately-owned housing stock in Conklin has severe infrastructure or maintenance issues. Although water and sewer services have been developed in the

7 Fortna, Peter (2018). How Much Longer? A Preliminary Assessment of Homelessness in Conklin, Alberta. Report Prepared for the Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee.

https://bit.ly/2GKr5k9

https://bit.ly/2GKr5k9

PAGE 10

community, the cost of connection ($16,000 per household) is far beyond the reach of the most vulnerable in the community.

Table 9: Age of Dwellings in Conklin, 2016

OCCUPIED PRIVATE DWELLINGS BY PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION, 2016 Number Percent Total 75 100% 1960 or before 10 13% 1961 to 1980 30 40% 1981 to 1990 10 13% 1991 to 2000 10 13% 2001 to 2005 - 0% 2006 to 2010 10 13% 2011 to 2016 - 0% Dwellings requiring major repairs - 0%


HOMELESSNESS

Preliminary data from a homeless count conducted by the Alberta Rural Development Network indicates that of the total population, there are 92 individuals experiencing housing instability in Conklin, and 38 of these individuals 20 years old or under.8 The How Much Longer? report states that “the homelessness crisis is the primary issue facing Conklin today.” The crisis itself stems from a combination of rapid economic growth due to “extractive industrial developments [that] … provide surprisingly few benefits” to a community like Conklin, coupled with historical failure of senior government to provide land and housing to the community.

While these households would typically be considered provisionally housed, many fit one or more indicators of Indigenous homelessness, and their housing situations are only marginally better than sleeping outside.

While the report does not quantify need, it does note that ‘there are not enough houses available to ensure each Conklin resident has a safe place to rest his or her head every night, and this reality exacerbates existing community problems.” The report goes on to document the extent of the crisis in Conklin, with extensive photos of marginal living conditions experienced by a number of residents.

Wood Buffalo Housing has recently developed four new units of family-oriented affordable housing for the residents of Conklin; however, the need, as indicated in the report, extends well beyond this new supply.

HOUSING SUPPLY

According to engagement participants the housing supply in Conklin is inadequate in terms of both adequacy (not requiring any major repairs) and suitability (enough bedrooms for the size and composition of households). A 2006 report identified the need for 46 units of housing in the community, a number that remains consistent with current needs according

8 Alberta Rural Development Network (2018). Conklin Homelessness Report.

PAGE 11

to the more recent report by the ARDN. Overcrowding in the housing that does exist in the community has been exacerbated by the displacement of residents in other communities due to the 2016 wildfires.

As of late 2018, Wood Buffalo Housing has 16 units of affordable housing in Conklin. As noted above, four of these units were introduced within the last 6 months. This category of housing is for low and middle-income families at rental rates 10% below CMHC average. However, there is difficulty in bringing tenants to reside in the units because there are no applicants. This indicates the units are either too large for individuals or the units are unaffordable at the below-market rental rates.

Table 10: Non-Market Housing in Conklin, 2018


Community

Housing

Community Housing -


Lodge Operations

Affordable Units


Supplements) Total

Total 51 44 39 1,220 75 1,429

Fort McMurray 48 30 39 1,190 75 1,382

Anzac 1 4 0 0 0 5

Conklin 0 0 0 16 0 16




The 2018 Census showed that of the 29 rental homes in Conklin, 45% were manufactured homes while 41% are single-detached homes and 14% were movable dwellings. These figures would not include new affordable units introduced by Wood Buffalo Housing in 2018.

Table 11: Conklin Rental Homes by Dwelling Type, 2018




PAGE 12

Of the 48 homes owned by Conklin residents, most were single-detached homes (61%), while 33% were manufactured homes. A small number of semi-detached (2 units) and other movable dwelling (1 unit) round out Conklin’s owned housing stock.







Collective Dwelling 0 0% Other Movable Dwelling/RV 1 2%

Other 0 0%


HOUSING INDICATORS

Much of the housing indicators data is unavailable for Conklin, due to the small size of the community. Overall, median shelter costs for owners are significantly lower than across Alberta. Shelter costs for renters appear to be unavailable, despite at least 19 rented dwellings in 2015.

Table 13: Housing Indicators for Conklin, 2015

HOUSING INDICATORS FOR CONKLIN, 2015 Conklin Alberta Households Spending 30% or More of Their Income on Shelter 20.9% Owner Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter N/A 15.1% Median monthly shelter cost $476 $1,481 Average monthly shelter cost $780 $1,531 Renter Households Spending 30% or more of their income on shelter N/A 36.0% In subsidized housing N/A 10.4% Median monthly shelter cost N/A $1,243 Average monthly shelter cost N/A $1,279


PAGE 13


Seniors are predominantly owners in Conklin, with only one senior household renting. Most senior households (5 of the 7 households counted in 2018) lived in single-detached homes, while 3 lived in manufactured homes.


SENIORS' DWELLINGS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND TENURE, 2018 Owner Renter Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 7 100% 1 100% 8 100%










Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Source: RMWB 2018 Census Gap Analysis


As shown in Table 13, data is not available for a robust affordability analysis in Conklin. However, the How Much Longer? report outlines the extent to which new, affordable housing is required in Conklin in order to address an ongoing homelessness crisis. Further, the ARDN’s housing survey shows 92 individuals experiencing housing instability in Conklin.


• Overall, Statistics Canada data is insufficient to fully understand the community of Conklin, as their population count is significantly lower than the RMWB Census figures. This is likely because of the substandard living conditions in which many residents live that are not counted by Statistics Canada.

• The community of Conklin is experiencing a significant housing crisis. With 28% of permanent residents experiencing housing instability, there is a significant need for investment in new housing stock to serve a wide variety of residents, including families. The results of the ADRN’s housing survey will provide more complete community data, which will support further analysis when publicly available.

PAGE 14

• Based on available data from Statistics Canada, most of these households are likely single parent families or individuals living alone. While housing affordability is one important component, other social supports could contribute to the health and well-being of single-parent families or individuals living alone.

• The ARDN’s analysis is supported by the limited income data available through Statistics Canada, which shows a significantly lower household income in Conklin when compared to the region.

• Many of Conklin’s residents feel disenfranchised by local and senior governments, and unable to address the current housing crisis.

• Engagement participants confirmed the housing crisis in Conklin – many community members are living in unsuitable and/or overcrowded housing. A substantial number of Conklin residents are living at risk of homelessness or in unacceptable conditions, with health hazards, and/or without basic access to key services like water or septic.

• The housing stock in Conklin is very old, with as much as 80% built prior to 2000 and little to none built since 2000 according to stakeholders. This age in the housing stock is likely contributing to the disrepair seen in the community.

• The economic downturn has contributed to overcrowding with community members returning without work. This is placing additional strains on the housing and support services within the community.

• The housing need in Conklin is estimated to be approximately 46 community housing units.

SOURCES

Alberta Rural Development Network. (2018). Conklin Homelessness Report.

British Columbia Non-Profit Housing Association, Canadian Rental Housing Index http://www.rentalhousingindex.ca/

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Housing Market Information Portal https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en#Profile/1/1/Canada

Fort McKay Métis Community Association, 2018 Labour Force Survey

Fortna, P. (2018). How Much Longer? A Preliminary Assessment of Homelessness in Conklin, Alberta. Report Prepared for the Conklin Resource Development Advisory Committee.

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, 2018 Census

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, 2018 Point-in-Time Homeless Count Final Report https://www.rmwb.ca/Assets/Departments/Community+Services/2018+PIT+Homeless+Count+-+Key+Findings.pdf

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Rebuild Pillar Progress Update https://www.rmwb.ca/News-Room/RMWB-Wildfire-Information/Recovery-Progress-Updates/Rebuild Pillar-Progress.htm

Statistics Canada, 2016 Census https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

Thistle, J. (2017). Indigenous Definition of Homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press.

Wood Buffalo Housing, 2019 Waitlist Survey.

Wood Buffalo Housing, 2018 Fourth Quarter Report.

Documents

WOOD BUFFALO HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT...2019/05/03 · WOOD BUFFALO HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Wood Buffalo Regional Report Prepared by: Urban Matters CCC 2 nd Floor, 9902 Franklin