2R_Combined HNA and Housing Action Plan w_COVER PAGE.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
144676 characters
Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 3 Key Demographic and Housing Findings ................................................................................. 3 Core Challenges and Direction.................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 5 Community Profile ..................................................................................................... 7 Population ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Educational Attainment .............................................................................................................. 8 Age ....................................................................................................................................................9 Race and Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 11 Disability Status .......................................................................................................................... 12 Household Size ............................................................................................................................ 13 Household Income ...................................................................................................................... 15 Poverty .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Unemployment ............................................................................................................................ 19 Housing Market Conditions ................................................................................... 20 Year of Construction.................................................................................................................. 20 Housing Stock Characteristics ................................................................................................. 21 Ownership Rate ........................................................................................................................... 22 Condition of Housing Stock ...................................................................................................... 23 Overcrowding .............................................................................................................................. 25 Vacancies ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Home Value ................................................................................................................................... 27 Monthly Owner Costs ................................................................................................................ 28 Rental Market ............................................................................................................................... 32 Housing Affordability Gap Analysis ....................................................................................... 34 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 2 Next Steps: Addressing Needs in Housing Types, Availability, and Affordability .............................................................................................................. 37 The Need for Increased Housing Options ............................................................................. 37 The Need to Match Supply with Demand .............................................................................. 37 The Need to Preserve and Expand Affordable Housing ................................................... 38 Tables Table 1 Buckeye Population Growth, 2010 to 2025............................................................. 7 Table 2 Racial and Ethnic Composition of Buckeye’s Population, 2010 and 2020 .... 11 Table 3 Buckeye Disability Profile by Disability Type, 2022 ........................................... 12 Table 4 Buckeye Disability Profile by Age Group, 2022 .................................................... 13 Table 5 Households by Size, 2022 ......................................................................................... 14 Table 6 Households Income Distribution for Buckeye, 2022 ......................................... 15 Table 7 Age of Housing Stock, 2022 ..................................................................................... 20 Table 8 Buckeye’s Housing Stock by Bedroom Count, 2017 and 2022 ......................... 21 Table 9 Asking Rent Distribution for Buckeye’s Available Units, 2022 ........................ 32 Table 10 Housing Gap Analysis (Single Family and Multi Family) ................................... 35 Figures Figure 1 Population Educational Attainment by Region, 2017 and 2022 ....................... 8 Figure 2 Median Population Age by Region, 2017 and 2022 ............................................ 10 Figure 3 Real Median Household Income by Region, 2017 and 2022 ............................. 16 Figure 4 Family Poverty Rate by Region, 2017 and 2022 .................................................. 18 Figure 5 Labor Force Participation and Unemployment Rates by Region, 2022 ......... 19 Figure 6 Homeownership Rate by Region, 2017 and 2022 ................................................ 23 Figure 7 Substandard Occupied Housing Units by Region, 2022 ................................... 24 Figure 8 Rate of Overcrowding by Region, 2017 and 2022 ............................................... 25 Figure 9 Vacancy Rate by Region, 2017 and 2022 ................................................................ 27 Figure 10 Home Value Distribution in Buckeye, 2022 ..................................................... 28 Figure 11 Median Monthly Costs for Owner-Occupied Households, 2017 and 2022 .. 29 Figure 12 Homeowners With and Without Mortgages, 2017 and 2022 ........................... 30 Figure 13 Gross Rent Distribution by Region, 2022 .............................................................. 32 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 3 Executive Summary The City of Buckeye, Arizona, has experienced extraordinary population growth over the past decade, transforming into one of the nation’s fastest-growing cities. This rapid expansion has created both significant opportunities and pressing challenges, particularly regarding housing supply, diversity, and affordability. The City of Buckeye supports and encourages the development of attainable housing that accommodates a diverse range of housing needs and incomes. This Housing Needs Assessment provides a comprehensive analysis of Buckeye’s current demographic trends, housing market conditions, and affordability gaps, and will ultimately inform the Housing Action Plan. The purpose of this Housing Needs Assessment is to deliver an objective and data-driven foundation for decision-making, enabling city leaders and stakeholders to strategically address current and future housing needs, promote balanced community development, and create that housing policies are responsive to the evolving demands of Buckeye’s residents. The data and findings in this report are based on information from within the incorporated limits of Buckeye and do not include unincorporated County islands located within the planning boundary. Key Demographic and Housing Findings ◼ Rapid Growth & Changing Demographics: Buckeye's population has more than doubled since 2010, characterized by a relatively young population, larger-than-average household sizes that reflect its family-oriented character, and increasing racial and ethnic diversity. While median household incomes have risen significantly, outpacing regional growth, educational attainment levels lag slightly behind regional averages. Disability prevalence, particularly among seniors, highlights a growing need for accessible housing options. ◼ Modern but Undiversified Housing Stock: The City's housing stock is predominantly modern, with most units built since 2000, contributing to its overall good condition and relatively few issues related to aging infrastructure. However, the stock is heavily skewed toward larger, single-family homes (3+ bedrooms making up 83% of units in 2022), with limited availability of smaller units (0-1 bedrooms at 2%, 2 bedrooms at 15%). Furthermore, there is a lack of other housing typologies such as duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and other "missing middle" density housing, or high-density housing. ◼ High Homeownership & Rising Costs: Buckeye boasts an exceptionally high homeownership rate (85% in 2022), significantly above regional averages. However, rapid home value appreciation (with median prices exceeding $400,000) and increased median Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 4 monthly owner costs (rising to $1,680 by 2022) throughout the County present substantial attainability and ownership barriers. ◼ Rental Market Pressures: While relatively more attainable than core metro Phoenix, Buckeye's rental market faces increasing pressure. Rents have risen, particularly for mid- tier units. A critical shortage of deeply affordable rentals (for <30% AMI households) exists, alongside growing shortages in the market-rate and luxury segments. However, even though there seems to be more than enough homes that are attainable for low- to moderate-income renters (those earning 30-120% of the area’s median income), this doesn't necessarily mean people can find the right kind of home for their needs. The issue may not be about the total number of homes, but rather whether those homes are the right types, sizes, or quality, and if they match what people are actually looking for. Core Challenges and Direction Buckeye's primary challenge is managing the tension between its successful growth and a deepening housing affordability crisis that impacts both renters and aspiring homeowners across various income levels. Key issues include a structural mismatch between the existing housing supply dominated by larger, expensive single-family homes and the growing population's diverse needs, including smaller housing units, units for lower/moderate incomes, and specific accessibility needs. While the City has a significant stock of available land, current constraints related to water resources, infrastructure extension, and environmental factors could pose potential challenges to future development. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 5 Introduction Located in Maricopa County, Arizona, the City of Buckeye has emerged as one of the fastest- growing communities in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Its strategic location along Interstate 10, expansive land availability, and growing economic opportunities have made Buckeye a magnet for new residents and businesses. However, this rapid expansion is creating new challenges, particularly in meeting the housing needs of a diverse and growing population. Rising demand, evolving demographics, and decreasing attainability have intensified the need for a clear understanding of Buckeye’s current and future housing landscape. This document is a Housing Needs Assessment for the City of Buckeye. It provides a comprehensive analysis of demographic trends, housing market conditions, and attainability challenges. The assessment is designed to inform the City’s Housing Action Plan, guiding policy, regulatory, and programmatic solutions to ensure that Buckeye’s housing supply meets the needs of all residents as the City continues to grow. Methodology To comprehensively analyze housing conditions in Buckeye, data was collected as pertaining to demographics, economic indicators, housing market metrics, and gaps in affordability and availability. Maricopa County, the State of Arizona, and national housing trends offered comparative benchmarks throughout the study. The analysis incorporates data from PolicyMap, which is an interactive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) platform that consolidates federal, state, and local datasets to assess spatial trends in housing accessibility, affordability, and demographic shifts. It visually represents how housing availability and affordability vary across Buckeye’s neighborhoods, identifying potential areas of disparity and supporting informed analysis. PolicyMap’s main sources include the following: ◼ American Community Survey: The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that collects data continuously throughout the year on demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the most recent available data at the time of analysis were used. The primary source was the 2018–2022 five-year ACS, which offers the highest level of statistical reliability for small geographic areas. In cases where longitudinal analysis was needed, the 2013–2017 five-year ACS was also used. These two ACS datasets cover non-overlapping time periods, allowing for meaningful comparisons over time without duplication of survey years. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 6 ◼ Decennial Census: The decennial census is a population, demographic, and housing census conducted by the United States Census Bureau every 10 years. For the purposes of this study, this data was used for historical comparisons and foundational population counts. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 7 Community Profile Population A defining characteristic of the City of Buckeye over the past 15 years has been its dramatic and sustained population growth, in which Buckeye has evolved into one of the most rapidly expanding cities in the United States. Table 1 illustrates the trajectory of Buckeye's population growth over the last 15 years at approximately five-year intervals to illustrate the scale of this expansion and establish essential context for understanding the City's housing market dynamics. Table 1 Buckeye Population Growth, 2010 to 2025 Year Population Growth Since Previous Period Notes 2000 8,374 Baseline population 2005 19,931 +138% Population more than doubled since 2000, based on local estimates 2010 50,876 +155% Explosive growth over the decade; population continues to grow and thrive 2015 62,582 +23% Significant growth begins; Buckeye among fastest- growing cities 2020 91,502 +46% Growth continues at a high rate. 2024/2025* 119,000 +30% Population more than doubled since 2010, based on local estimates Source: Population figures derived from U.S. Decennial Census (2010, 2020), U.S. Special Census (2015), and City of Buckeye estimate (2024). Buckeye’s population has increased exponentially in recent years. The City experienced steady growth early in the decade, with the population increasing by 23% from 50,876 in 2010 to 62,582 in 2015. Growth accelerated even more between 2015 and 2020, when Buckeye’s population jumped by 46% to reach 91,502. This rapid expansion continued into 2024/2025, with local estimates placing the population at 119,000 - a 134% increase since 2010. As the population more than doubled over just 15 years, the City faces increasing demand for housing, infrastructure, and community services to support its expanding community while maintaining quality of life and sustainability in future development. Official projections anticipate this pattern of rapid expansion will persist in the coming years. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) forecasts Buckeye's population could reach as high as 193,600 by 2030. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 8 12% 15% 11% 13% 11% 13% 27% 26% 22% 23% 22% 24% 38% 41% 32% 33% 32% 33% 15% 13% 22% 20% 22% 19% 8% 5% 13% 11% 13% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2022 2017 2022 2017 2022 2017 Buckeye Maricopa County Phoenix-Mesa- Chandler Metro Area Less than high school graduate High school graduate (includes equivelancy) Some college or associate's degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Educational Attainment Educational attainment shapes workforce capabilities, income and employment opportunities, and economic mobility, all of which directly impact one’s access to stable housing. Higher education levels are closely linked to increased earning potential, directly influencing homeownership rates, rental attainability, and housing preferences. As Buckeye grows, understanding the relationship between education and housing is essential to developing policies that ensure equitable and sustainable access to housing. Interestingly, Buckeye falls below regional averages in education levels yet still outpaces the region in terms of household incomes. There are several possible reasons for this trend. First, Buckeye may be attracting residents whose incomes come from sources other than local employment, such as retirees, remote workers, or commuters with higher-paying jobs located elsewhere in the region. Second, the types of jobs available in and around Buckeye (such as positions in skilled trades, logistics, and certain manufacturing sectors) may offer relatively high wages without requiring advanced educational credentials. Finally, Buckeye’s growing population may include families with multiple wage earners, boosting overall household income even if individual education levels are lower. Figure 1 looks at the distribution of the population by education attainment for 2017 and 2022. Figure 1 Population Educational Attainment by Region, 2017 and 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 9 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022Key Findings Recent data indicate incremental improvements in educational attainment levels in Buckeye. the percentage of residents aged 25 and over without a high school diploma declined from 15% in 2017 to 12% in 2022,the share of adults with bachelor’s degrees rose from 13% to 15%, and those with a graduate or professional degrees increased from 5% to 8% of the 25-years-and- over population segment. Buckeye still has a lower rate of higher education attainment than Maricopa County and the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metropolitan Area as a whole, where 22% of adults have a bachelor’s degree and 13% have a graduate or professional degree in 2022. This educational disparity presents workforce competitiveness and economic diversification challenges, potentially limiting Buckeye’s ability to attract high-wage industries and workers. Age Data on median population age are presented in Figure 2. Population age is a critical demographic indicator that influences the demand for housing, including housing typologies, locations, and levels of attainability. As populations age or grow younger, housing needs to shift, requiring policy, infrastructure, and community planning adjustments. Understanding these shifts is essential for ensuring that the housing supply aligns with the needs of different age groups, from young professionals and families to retirees and seniors. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 10 Figure 2 Median Population Age by Region, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 Key Findings The data reveal that Buckeye's median age increased by roughly 1.5 years between 2017 and 2022. This change is consistent with Maricopa County and Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area, where the median age grew from 36 to 37 over the same period. Such a rise in median age has significant implications for homeownership trends. As populations age, there is typically a shift toward increased homeownership, with older residents seeking housing stability and long-term investment security. This trend suggests a continued demand for single-family homes, particularly those located close to grocery stores, medical services, and other essential amenities. Notably, it is important to also provide ownership opportunities with a range of alternative housing types, such as condominiums, cooperatives, and missing middle housing types (such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses) to accommodate for differing housing preferences. In addition, the aging population may also drive demand for housing that accommodates seniors and enables aging in place, including single-level homes, accessible housing units, and age-restricted communities. 35 37 37 34 36 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Buckeye Maricopa County Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area 2017 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 11 Though Buckeye's population is aging, the City remains younger than the region as a whole, further emphasizing the need for programs and policies that support first-time homebuyers and renters. Addressing the needs of both the aging population, as well Buckeye’s significant share of young professionals and families, is key to retaining a diverse population and sustaining the local workforce. Race and Ethnicity As Buckeye continues to experience population growth and diversification, a comprehensive analysis of racial and ethnic distributions, as shown in Table 2, is critical to ensuring equitable access to housing opportunities and fostering inclusive community development. This section examines Buckeye’s racial and ethnic composition and offers insights into how these demographic shifts impact housing needs, attainability, and neighborhood development while highlighting disparities that should be addressed through targeted policy interventions. Table 2 Racial and Ethnic Composition of Buckeye’s Population, 2010 and 2020 Race 2010 2020 White 60.2% 56.6% Black or African American 6.7% 7.2% Native American and Alaska Native 0.1% 1.9% Asian 1.8% 1.7% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 1.7% 0.3% Other 14.7% 16.2% Two or more races 14.9% 16.1% Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2020 Key Findings Buckeye’s population has become noticeably more diverse over the past decade. The percentage of residents identifying as White declined from 60.2% in 2010 to 56.6% in 2020, while multiracial individuals (“Two or more races”) grew from 14.9% to 16.1%. Notably, the Black or African American population increased from 6.7% to 7.2%, and those identifying as “Other” rose from 14.7% to 16.2%. The Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander percentages remained fairly steady, but there was a marked increase in Native American and Alaska Native residents, from 0.1% to 1.9%. Historically, the U.S. Census Bureau categorized Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity rather than a race, which is why this population isn't always listed separately in Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 12 racial breakdowns. Many Hispanic respondents typically select “Other” when asked to identify their race. This growing diversity implies that Buckeye must plan for a broader range of cultural, housing, and service needs. An increasingly multi-ethnic population often brings a variety of household sizes, multigenerational living arrangements, and housing preferences. As such, future housing strategies should prioritize flexibility in housing types, affordability, and accessibility to ensure that all segments of Buckeye’s evolving community have their needs met. Tailoring outreach and engagement to different cultural groups will also be vital for an equitable and inclusive housing plan. Disability Status Ensuring adequate housing for residents with disabilities is critical in promoting independent living, enhancing residents’ quality of life, and accommodating the unique needs of individuals with disabilities across different age groups. Table 3 examines the prevalence of disabilities within Buckeye’s population, identifying rates by disability type. Similarly, Table 4 examines the prevalence of disabilities by age group; together, these breakdowns provide insight into specific accessibility need by age and disability type. Notably, the total number of disabled residents by age group is lower than the total prevalence of disabilities by disability type, due to instances of overlap in which some residents have multiple disability types. Table 3 Buckeye Disability Profile by Disability Type, 2022 Total Residents with a Disability Number of Residents Percent of Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Hearing 3,507 4.0% Vision impairment 1,996 2.3% Cognitive* 4,488 5.1% Ambulatory 3,786 4.3% Self-care 1,659 1.9% Independent living 2,589 2.9% Total 18,025 - Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 *The US Census Bureau defines “cognitive disability” as difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 13 Table 4 Buckeye Disability Profile by Age Group, 2022 Total Residents with a Disability Number of Residents Percent of Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Residents under 18 years old 1,973 7.3% Residents 18 to 64 years old 4,965 10.1% Residents 65 years old and over 3,143 25.9% Total 10,081 11.4% Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 *The US Census Bureau defines “cognitive disability” as difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition. Key Findings The data reveals that roughly 10,100 residents in Buckeye, representing 11.4% of the civilian non-institutionalized population, report having a disability. By comparison, the countywide rate is 11.7% and the national rate is 12.9%. Disabilities affect all age groups but are most prevalent among seniors: 25.9% of residents aged 65 and older live with a disability, compared to 10.1% of adults aged 18 to 64 and 7.3% of children under 18. Among disability types, cognitive disabilities were the most commonly reported, affecting 4,488 residents. Ambulatory disabilities are also significant, affecting 3,786 residents, while hearing impairments are reported by 3,507 residents. Visual impairments were the least reported but still impacted an estimated 1,996 residents. Difficulties with self-care (1,659 residents), which the ACS defines as residents ages 5 and over who have difficulty bathing or dressing oneself, and independent living (2,589 residents), defined as residents ages 15 and older who have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping, are also prevalent, affecting some residents’ ability to carry out daily activities and sustain stable housing. The high percentage of Buckeye’s senior population living with disabilities underscores the urgent need for age-friendly housing options, particularly those that are affordable, given that many seniors rely on fixed incomes. As the population ages, the demand for single-story homes, housing that meets universal design principles, and assisted living facilities is expected to increase. Furthermore, there is an ongoing need for attainable, accessible apartments, particularly those with proximity to healthcare, employment hubs, and public transportation. Household Size The composition of households, ranging from single-person units to large multigenerational families determines the type and quantity of housing a community needs (see Table 4). Understanding these trends allows policymakers and developers to align housing supply with demographic shifts, ensuring that new developments cater to current and future residents. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 14 This section analyzes Buckeye's household size distribution and examines how these trends influence housing attainability, availability, and planning strategies. Table 5 Households by Size, 2022 Household Size All Households Owner Households Renter Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent One person 4,011 14% 3,312 14% 699 17% Two persons 9,274 33% 8,439 35% 835 20% Three persons 4,690 17% 3,873 16% 817 20% Four persons 4,194 15% 3,661 15% 533 13% Five persons 2,875 10% 2,268 10% 607 15% Six persons 1,703 6% 1,281 5% 422 10% Seven or more persons 1,358 5% 1,130 5% 228 6% Average Household Size 3.16 persons 3.12 persons 3.4 persons Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 Key Findings While average household sizes have been declining nationally due to factors such as aging populations and delayed family formation, Buckeye stands out with a relatively large average household size of 3.16 persons—well above the Maricopa County average of 2.62 and the national average of 2.50. Two-person households represent the largest segment in Buckeye at 33%, but larger households are also well-represented, with 10,130 households (36%) containing four or more persons. Among homeowners—who make up about 85% of Buckeye’s households—the average size is 3.12 persons. Thirty-five percent of owner-occupied households include two people, while a nearly equal share consist of four or more people. Renter households in Buckeye tend to be even larger, with an average size of 3.4 persons. While two and three-person renter households are most common (20% each), a substantial 44% of renter households have four or more people, including 15% with five persons. This data indicates strong family-oriented housing demand, necessitating policies that ensure continued attainability and accessibility of larger single-family residences and apartments featuring three or more bedrooms. Relatedly, the quantity of multi-person households (especially those with four or more individuals) is significant, among both renter and owner-occupied units. Multigenerational living arrangements, which are more prevalent among larger households, also drive demand for homes with additional living space, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and flexible floor plans. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 15 In addition, single-person households represent a substantial portion of the housing market, reflecting a continued need for smaller units. Expanding the supply of smaller units, such as studio apartments, ADUs, and bungalows, as well as high-density rental units, will be essential for addressing this population segment. Household Income Household income is a fundamental determinant of housing affordability, shaping homeownership rates, rental market dynamics, and overall housing demand. Income levels influence the ability of households to afford mortgages, rental payments, and essential living expenses while maintaining financial stability. Table 5 and Figure 3 examine household income trends in Buckeye, amongst both owner and renter households. Table 6 Households Income Distribution for Buckeye, 2022 Household Income All Households Owner Households Renter Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent $0 to $49,999 5,064 18% 3,987 17% 1,077 26% $50,000 to $74,999 5,309 19% 4,377 18% 932 23% >$75,000 17,732 63% 15,600 65% 2,132 51% Median Household Income $94,188 $96,566 $78,348 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2018-2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 16 Figure 3 Real Median Household Income by Region, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 Note: The values were adjusted for inflation to constant 2022 dollars. Key Findings Analysis of median household income trends from 2017 to 2022 reveals significant growth within Buckeye, outpacing regional averages. Buckeye's median household income rose substantially from approximately $73,394 in 2017 (in 2022 dollars) to $94,188 in 2022, roughly a 28% increase in real median household income. The substantial rise in Buckeye’s median household income, outpacing that of the County and metro area, suggests significant economic shifts within the City. This trend likely reflects factors such as robust local job growth, increased professional employment opportunities, and an influx of higher-income residents. Notably, the increasing number of households earning $100,000 or more indicates growing economic prosperity but also contributes to rising home prices and gentrification risks. In addition to aligning new housing production with local demand, it is crucial to expand attainable and workforce housing production to ensure that Buckeye maintains a diverse and inclusive housing landscape that mitigates displacement pressures driven by market appreciation and ensures long-term community sustainability. $94,188 $80,675 $79,935 $73,394 $69,945 $69,174 $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Buckeye Maricopa County Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area 2017 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 17 The data also suggests a large middle-class in Buckeye, as well as a significant number of households earning less than $35,000 annually. Disparities in housing accessibility by income level are evident, as owner households reported a higher median income ($96,566) compared to renter households ($78,348). While many middle-income households can afford homeownership, rising mortgage rates and property values may create future barriers to entry. Expanding policies that support homebuyers will be essential for maintaining housing attainability for Buckeye’s middle class. It is also important that affordable and workforce housing be distributed geographically throughout the city, rather than concentrated in just a few areas. Support for higher density and affordable housing can vary significantly across different neighborhoods and corridors, so a thoughtful and balanced approach to geographic distribution helps promote equity, ensure broader community buy-in, and provide all residents with access to opportunities and amenities. Currently, the City’s workforce is predominantly middle-income, highlighting the need for continued investment in workforce housing. Opportunities also exist to partner with local employers on workforce housing initiatives, such as employer-sponsored housing and rental assistance programs. While the modest increase in bachelor's degree holders indicates a gradual shift toward higher-income earners, this change is not yet substantial enough to create significant demand for high-end housing. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 18 Poverty Poverty is a critical factor influencing housing attainability, financial stability, and access to essential resources within Buckeye. Figure 4 examines key poverty trends in both Buckeye and the Greater Phoenix area and interprets their implications for housing affordability and stability. Specifically, it presents family poverty rates for 2017 and 2022. Figure 4 Family Poverty Rate by Region, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 Key Findings The family poverty rate in Buckeye fell from 9.2% in 2017 to 6.1% in 2022 (a decline of just over three percentage points) outpacing the reductions seen in both Maricopa County (from 11.4% to 8.1%) and the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area (from 11.4% to 8.1%). While fewer families live in poverty, many still face housing cost burdens and instability; continued investment in affordable housing initiatives are necessary to support lower-income residents even amidst improved economic conditions. 6.1% 8.1% 8.1% 9.2% 11.4% 11.4% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% Buckeye Maricopa Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area 2017 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 19 Unemployment Labor force participation and unemployment rates are key indicators of economic stability and household financial well-being. Figure 5 examines Buckeye's recent employment trends, comparing local rates with regional benchmarks to assess local economic strength and stability. Figure 5 Labor Force Participation and Unemployment Rates by Region, 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 Note: Estimated percentage of people aged 16 years or older who were in the labor force between 2018 and 2022. Key Findings The data reveal that Buckeye has a lower unemployment rate and a lower labor force participation rate compared to both Maricopa County and the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area. In 2022, Buckeye’s unemployment rate was 2.9%, while Maricopa County and the metro area reported lower rates of 3.1%. Similarly, Buckeye’s labor force participation rate was 58.2%, which is noticeably below Maricopa County’s 65% and the metro area’s 63.9%. These figures suggest that a smaller proportion of Buckeye’s working-age population is either employed or actively seeking work, while a larger share is unemployed compared to the broader region. This trend is likely attributable to the presence of multiple age-restricted active adult communities within the City, which include a significant number of retirees who are not interested in rejoining the workforce. 58.2% 65.0% 63.9% 2.9% 3.1% 3.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Buckeye Maricopa Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area Unemployment Labor Force Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 20 Housing Market Conditions Year of Construction The age of a community’s housing stock plays a significant role in shaping housing policy, attainability, and maintenance needs, as older units typically require substantial investments for preservation. Understanding the age distribution of Buckeye’s housing stock, as shown in Table 6, is critical for evaluating current and future maintenance and rehabilitation needs, as well as ensuring the current housing stock remains safe, sustainable, and habitable. Table 7 Age of Housing Stock, 2022 Year Built Number Occupied Percent Occupied 2020 or later 1,385 4.5% 2010 to 2019 12,230 39.6% 2000 to 2009 13,392 43.4% 1980 to 1999 2,428 7.8% 1960 to 1979 750 2.4% 1940 to 1959 621 2.0% 1939 or earlier 80 0.3% Median Year Built 2009 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 Key Findings Buckeye has undergone significant residential growth since the 1990s, with new large-scale suburban developments driving homeownership opportunities. This pattern aligns with regional housing trends in Maricopa County, where suburban expansion has accommodated population growth from Phoenix’s urban core. The data reveals that Buckeye’s housing stock is very modern; a median year built of 2009 illustrates just how rapidly Buckeye has developed to accommodate the City’s large population growth and suburbanization trends. Approximately 43.4% of occupied homes in Buckeye were built between 2000 and 2009, and another 39.6% were constructed from 2010 to 2019. Homes built in 2020 or later account for an additional 4.5% of the occupied housing stock. In total, nearly 88% of Buckeye’s occupied homes were built since 2000. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 21 In contrast, only 7.8% of homes were built between 1980 and 1999, and just 4.7% of the housing stock dates back to before 1980-including a mere 0.3% constructed in 1939 or earlier. This modern housing profile means that aging infrastructure issues are significantly less pronounced than in other communities regionally with older housing stocks. However, it also means that Buckeye has fewer historical or naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) units than cities with a more established housing stock. This increases reliance on new construction to meet ongoing attainable and workforce housing demands. Furthermore, this characteristic presents challenges common to high-growth suburban areas, such as ensuring new developments include diverse housing types beyond single-family homes, addressing affordability pressures amidst rising property values and development costs, and adequately managing the expansion of infrastructure required to accommodate rapid residential growth across a wide area. Housing Stock Characteristics A city’s housing stock composition, measured by the distribution of homes by bedroom count, provides insight into how well the existing housing supply accommodates different population segments — from single individuals to large families — and identifies potential imbalances or shortages that may require policy intervention. Table 7 assesses changes in the housing stock’s composition over time. Table 8 Buckeye’s Housing Stock by Bedroom Count, 2017 and 2022 Number of Bedrooms 2017 2022 Number Percent Number Percent 0 or 1 Bedroom 370 2% 550 2% Two 3,971 19% 4,647 15% 3 or more 16,474 79% 25,689 83% Total 20,815 100% 30,886 100% Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 22 Key Findings Buckeye’s housing stock predominantly comprises larger homes, a trend that intensified between 2017 and 2022 with Buckeye's rapid suburban expansion and appeal to families seeking larger residences. In comparison, the city of Goodyear had 36,560 housing units as of 2022, of which roughly 6% had 0 or 1 bedroom, 19% had 2 bedrooms, and 75% had 3 or more bedrooms. In Maricopa County as a whole, there were roughly 1.8 million housing units, of which 14% had 0 or 1 bedroom, 26% had 2 bedrooms, and 61% had 3 or more bedrooms. While Buckeye’s large stock of housing units with 3+ bedrooms support homeownership, especially for larger families, this has resulted in limited housing diversity. The relatively high share of larger units poses attainability challenges, particularly for single individuals, lower-income households, retirees downsizing, and families seeking entry-level homes. Such a shortage of two-bedroom, one-bedroom, and studio units suggests a potential market mismatch, in which rent and purchase price for these units is artificially inflated due to local demand exceeding availability within such a small market segment. As regional growth continues, balancing Buckeye’s suburban character with the need for a broader range of housing types with more modestly sized options is crucial for maintaining a competitive and accessible housing market. Ownership Rate Homeownership remains a key indicator of economic stability, long-term wealth accumulation, and community investment. Figure 6 analyzes homeownership rates in Buckeye from 2017 to 2022 as compared to the broader Maricopa County and Phoenix Metropolitan Area and evaluates key drivers behind changes in ownership rates. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 23 Figure 6 Homeownership Rate by Region, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 Key Findings Homeownership rates in Buckeye have risen considerably in recent years, mirroring and outpacing broader trends in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Buckeye’s homeownership rate jumped from 68.7% in 2017 to 85.3% in 2022, a rise of over 16 percentage points. In comparison, Maricopa County’s rate increased from 61% to 64.3%, and the Phoenix-Mesa- Chandler Metro Area saw a more modest rise from 61.9% to 65.6% during the same period. The increase reflects strong job growth, rising household incomes, and relative attainability compared to many other parts of the County. Between 2017 and 2022, all new housing constructed in Buckeye consisted solely of single-family homes. While Buckeye has traditionally maintained a high homeownership rate due to its suburban development pattern and availability of single-family homes, rising property values and increasing mortgage interest rates may present future barriers to entry for first-time buyers and moderate-income households. Limited housing diversity, including a lack of townhomes, condominiums, and other entry-level housing options, also restricts ownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers who cannot afford larger single-family homes. Condition of Housing Stock Substandard housing — units that are structurally unsound, fail to meet health and safety standards, or lack basic infrastructure such as plumbing and kitchen facilities — can negatively impact community well-being, property values, and long-term housing stability. As Buckeye continues to expand, maintaining the integrity of its housing stock is essential to preventing 85.3% 64.3% 65.6% 68.7% 61.0% 61.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Buckeye Maricopa Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area 2017 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 24 deteriorating conditions from affecting vulnerable populations, including low-income renters and homeowners who may lack the resources to maintain or rehabilitate aging units. Figure 7 depicts Buckeye’s substandard occupied housing units and compares them to other regional numbers for comparison. Figure 7 Substandard Occupied Housing Units by Region, 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 Key Findings Recent data reveals that Buckeye has a very low percentage of substandard housing units compared to regional averages. In 2022, only 0.2% of Buckeye’s occupied housing units had incomplete plumbing facilities and 0.3% had incomplete kitchen facilities, both of which are lower than the rates in Maricopa County and the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area, where 0.4% of units had incomplete plumbing and 0.6% had incomplete kitchens. This reflects the City's particularly modern housing stock, in which newer construction standards and improved building regulations produced higher-quality housing stock. Unlike older urban areas where aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance contribute to substandard conditions, Buckeye’s housing remains largely modern and structurally sound. Though Buckeye’s newer housing stock provides an advantage in preventing widespread substandard conditions, ensuring continued 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% Buckeye Maricopa County Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Metro Area Incomplete plumbing facilities Incomplete kitchen facilities Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 25 quality through continued code enforcement, expanded home improvement programs, and increased home maintenance and renovation efforts remain essential to maintaining high- quality housing stock. Overcrowding Overcrowding in housing units indicates significant housing attainability challenges, household financial strain, and inadequate housing supply. When multiple families or individuals share living space beyond the recommended occupancy limits, it can contribute to increased stress, diminished quality of life, and heightened risks related to public health and safety. Figure 8 examines the rate of overcrowding in Buckeye and surrounding regions and evaluates how attainability and housing supply affect occupancy patterns. Figure 8 Rate of Overcrowding by Region, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 0.6% 0.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 3.4% 2.4% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 2022 2017 2022 2017 2022 2017 Buckeye Maricopa Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area Overcrowded Severely Overcrowded Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 26 Note: Overcrowded defined as estimated percentage of renter-occupied housing units with 1.01 to 1.5 occupants per room. Severely Overcrowded defined as estimated percentage of renter-occupied housing units with more than 1.5 occupants per room. Key Findings Buckeye has experienced a substantial increase in overcrowding, from 2.4% in 2017 to 3.4% in 2022, surpassing the rates in both Maricopa County (3.0%) and the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area (3.0%) in 2022. Increases in overcrowding can result from limited availability of larger or affordable homes, compounded by rapid population growth that outpaces housing production. In contrast, severe overcrowding in Buckeye dropped slightly from 0.8% in 2017 to 0.6% in 2022, which is significantly lower than the severely overcrowding rates in Maricopa County (1.4%) and the metro area (1.4%) in 2022. In high-density urban areas, such as Metro Phoenix and other parts of Maricopa County, exhibit higher overcrowding rates due to limited rental stock, higher housing costs, and a more significant share of multifamily housing with smaller unit sizes. As Buckeye’s population continues to rise, it is crucial to develop a range of housing types and sizes that meet the needs of households of all sizes in order to prevent overcrowding issues in the future. It is critical to monitor the incidence of overcrowding, as it can strain household well-being by increasing stress, limiting personal space, and elevating health and safety risks. Vacancies Vacancy rates are a critical indicator of housing market conditions, reflecting the supply-demand balance and influencing market stability and attainability. Low rates generally indicate housing shortages and rising costs, while high rates may signal oversupply, low demand, or the prevalence of short-term rentals or vacation homes. Figure 9 analyzes Buckeye's vacancy rate trends and compares them to regional benchmarks and the impact on attainability. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 27 Figure 9 Vacancy Rate by Region, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 Key Findings Buckeye has experienced a decline in its vacancy rate, signaling increased housing demand and tightening of available housing inventory. This pattern mirrors trends observed in Maricopa County, and the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. These findings indicate that regional housing markets are becoming more competitive, with fewer available units relative to demand. While lower vacancy rates typically indicate a strong housing market with stable demand, they also pose risks if supply does not keep pace with growth. Nationally, a vacancy rate below 5% is often considered a sign of a particularly tight housing market, which can significantly increase home prices and rents. While representing a substantial decline and shrinking inventory, Buckeye’s 2022 rate of 9% remains above that tight market benchmark. However, it is essential to note that the ACS vacancy rate includes unoccupied second homes, short-term rentals, and other units that are not necessarily available for sale or rent; the true vacancy rate is likely lower, necessitating continued development of all types of housing to ensure future demand is met. Home Value The distribution of home values within a community provides critical insight into the character of the housing market, overall wealth, and, crucially, the accessibility of homeownership for residents across different income levels. Analyzing how home values are spread across various price brackets helps identify the predominant market segments and potential attainability challenges. Figure 10 examines the distribution of owner-occupied housing values in Buckeye. 9.0% 8.6% 9.0% 12.9% 12.4% 13.1% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Buckeye Maricopa County Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Metro Area 2017 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 28 Figure 10 Home Value Distribution in Buckeye, 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 Key Findings The 2022 home value distribution in Buckeye is heavily concentrated in the mid-range price categories. The largest share of homes (46.5%) are valued between $300,000 and $499,999, while 28.4% fall within the $200,000 to $299,999 range. Homes valued below $200,000 are increasingly rare, making up just 9.5% of the market, with only 3% valued under $50,000. At the higher end, 14.5% of homes are valued between $500,000 and $1 million, and just over one percent (1.1%) exceeds $1 million. This distribution highlights that the majority of Buckeye’s housing stock is concentrated in the $200,000 to $1 million range, with limited availability of both lower-cost and high-end homes. The small share of homes valued below $200,000 throughout the valley further underscores the scarcity of entry-level or lower-cost ownership options in the City. Monthly Owner Costs The financial commitment of homeownership extends significantly beyond the initial purchase price. Ongoing monthly owner costs, typically encompassing mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, homeowner's insurance, and utilities, represent a substantial and recurring household expenditure that directly influences housing attainability and financial stability. 3.0% 0.9% 1.1% 4.5% 28.4% 46.5% 14.5% 1.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $299,999 $300,000 to $499,999 $500,000 to $999,999 $1,000,000 or more Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 29 Understanding the prevalence of mortgage debt among homeowners provides critical context, revealing the proportion of households directly exposed to these fluctuating monthly costs. This section delves into these crucial aspects of Buckeye's housing market by analyzing recent data on both monthly median owner costs for residents with a mortgage, and the corresponding share of homeowners carrying mortgage debt. Median Monthly Owner Costs Median monthly cost is a vital indicator of the typical financial outlay required for homeowners actively paying a mortgage. Figure 11 presents these costs for 2017 and 2022, comparing Buckeye to the region more broadly. Figure 11 Median Monthly Costs for Owner-Occupied Households, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 Note: The values were adjusted for inflation to constant 2022 dollars. Increases across the region occurred between 2017 and 2022. However, when adjusted for inflation, the median monthly owner cost only slightly increased in Buckeye, from $1,574 in 2017 (in 2022 dollars) to $1,680 in 2022, representing only a $106 increase. Despite this increase, Buckeye's median costs in 2022 remained lower than those in Maricopa County ($1,787) and the Phoenix Metro Area ($1,757). Buckeye’s marginal increase in ownership costs mirrored the rise seen across the region during this period. Though the City maintains relative attainability when compared to its regional neighbors, the $1,680 median monthly cost ($20,160 annually) still presents a potential $1,680 $1,787 $1,757 $1,574 $1,730 $1,424 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 Buckeye Maricopa County Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area 2017 2022 Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 30 attainability challenge for many households in the City. Furthermore, many of these homeowners purchased their homes when interest rates and home prices were significantly lower than they are today. Prevalence of Mortgage Debt Beyond the cost itself, the proportion of homeowners carrying mortgage debt provides a crucial context for understanding the widespread nature of these monthly costs. Figure 12 shows the share of homeowners with and without mortgages in Buckeye compared to the region. Figure 12 Homeowners With and Without Mortgages, 2017 and 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 & 2022 78% 78% 68% 70% 67% 69% 22% 22% 32% 30% 33% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2022 2017 2022 2017 2022 2017 Buckeye Maricopa Phoenix-Mesa- Chandler Metro Area With Mortgage Without Mortgage Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 31 Key Findings Buckeye displays a significantly higher reliance on mortgage financing compared to the region. An estimated 78% of Buckeye homeowners held a mortgage in 2022, notably higher than the rates in Maricopa County (68%) and the Phoenix Metro Area (67%). Correspondingly, only about one-fifth (22%) of Buckeye homeowners own their property free and clear, compared to roughly one-third in the comparison geographies. This high prevalence of mortgage debt is characteristic of a rapidly growing community attracting new residents, particularly younger households and families likely purchasing homes more recently and requiring financing. In addition, this proportion indicates that many homes in Buckeye were recently purchased. Though this measure signifies an active real estate market, it also highlights a potential vulnerability: a large majority of the City's homeowners are directly impacted by monthly principal, interest, taxes, and insurance payments and are, therefore, more sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates, property taxes, and insurance costs compared to communities with a larger share of outright owners. This dynamic may also suggest lower aggregate household equity within Buckeye compared to more established areas. Considering mortgage debt and monthly owner costs together highlights increasing financial pressure on a large segment of Buckeye homeowners, which can be alleviated by through strategies to address ongoing ownership costs (such property tax relief or energy-efficiency incentives) and supporting pathways to attainable homeownership (including first-time homebuyer and down-payment assistance). Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 32 Rental Market An analysis of Buckeye’s rental market—including gross rents, affordability metrics, and regional rent comparisons—offers valuable insights into housing accessibility and cost pressures facing renter households. Table 8 and Figure 13 examine the distribution of gross rents for available units in Buckeye. Table 8 evaluates affordability and availability relative to the Area Median Income (AMI) benchmarks of $88,000, while Figure 13 offers regional context for comparison. Table 9 Asking Rent Distribution for Buckeye’s Available Units, 2022 Rent Available Units Minimum Income Required to Afford Maximum Rent Number Percent Value Percent AMI Less than $1,000 858 21.3% $39,960 45% $1,000-$1,499 884 22.0% $59,960 68% $1,500-$1,999 1,385 34.4% $79,960 91% $2,000-$2,499 698 17.4% $99,960 114% $2,500-$2,999 196 4.9% $119,960 136% Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 Figure 13 Gross Rent Distribution by Region, 2022 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2022 43.3% 51.8% 4.9% 54.8% 39.3% 5.9% 55.1% 39.2% 5.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Less than $1,500 $1,500 to $2,499 $2,500 or more Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metro Area Maricopa Buckeye Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 33 Key Findings A significant portion of Buckeye’s available rental units exceed affordability thresholds for low- and moderate-income households, particularly those earning below 60% of AMI. High rental costs are making it difficult for these groups to secure stable housing without experiencing cost burdens (defined as spending more than 30% of one’s monthly gross income on housing costs, including utilities). Furthermore, as rental prices continue to rise, these households are left with limited financial flexibility for other essential expenses such as healthcare, transportation, and childcare, making long-term housing stability more precarious for affected renters. In addition, Buckeye has the lowest share of rental units priced below $1,500 per month among the three geographies compared, and the highest share of units in the mid-tier range ($1,500– $2,499). This notable disparity suggests that Buckeye's rental market is less accessible to lower-income households than previously assumed and is increasingly concentrated in higher rent brackets. The high percentage of mid-tier rentals reflects rising construction and land costs, a shift in market orientation toward higher-income tenants, and strong in-migration from other parts of the region. Buckeye's suburban growth pattern, which once provided cost advantages, is now converging with broader metro-level housing pressures, diminishing its affordability buffer. While some units remain attainable for households earning at or above the AMI, those earning below 80% of AMI face increasing challenges in finding suitable rental options within their financial means; residents earning below 60% of the FY 2024 Area Median Income (approximately $56,500) are likely to be priced out of the market altogether. Addressing these challenges requires proactive policies that expand attainable rental options, enhance rental assistance programs, and reduce housing-related cost burdens. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 34 Housing Affordability Gap Analysis The availability of housing that aligns with household income levels is essential for maintaining a healthy and sustainable housing market. When demand for housing outstrips supply, housing instability and cost burdens increase, particularly among low- and moderate-income households. There is also growing demand for attainable housing across the 80-120% AMI range. Understanding the housing gap in Buckeye provides key insights into where supply shortages exist and how targeted housing policy can address these disparities. Table 9 identifies the housing gap in Buckeye by AMI level, highlighting mismatches between household income and available housing options. The table illustrates the estimated shortage of housing units by affordability tier in 2024, and projects the estimated shortage of housing units by affordability in 2029. Estimated housing need in 2024 is calculated by identifying deficiencies in the current housing supply using indicators such as suboptimal vacancy rates and overcrowding, then allocating the resulting countywide shortfall to municipalities based on their share of household population, housing growth since 2010, and workforce presence. Future housing needs are projected by estimating population and employment growth through 2029, applying headship rates (measured as the proportion of the population aged 15 and older who are householders) to translate population into household demand, adding a vacancy buffer to support a healthy housing market, and distributing the resulting unit need across HUD-defined income tiers using Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. This methodology was developed by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and the City provided these figures to the Arizona Department of Housing to comply with SB 1162. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 35 Table 10 Housing Gap Analysis (Single Family and Multi Family) Affordability Tier 2024 Housing Units Deficiency 2029 Housing Units Needed Households making less than 30% Area Median Income 170 720 Households making 30 to 50% Area Median Income 210 890 Households making 50 to 80% Area Median Income 490 2,020 Households making 80 to 100% Area Median Income 390 1,590 Households making more than 100% Area Median Income 1,580 6,520 TOTAL 2,840 11,730 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona State Demographer's Office, Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Central Arizona Governments (CAG), Pima Association of Governments (PAG), League of AZ Cities and Towns Note: Rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not add due to rounding. HUD Area Median Family Income (AMI) from 2021 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Key Findings Currently, Buckeye faces significant housing shortages that impact affordability and accessibility across all household income levels, limiting opportunities for stable housing across multiple demographics. As the City experiences continued population growth and economic expansion, the demand for affordable and workforce housing has outpaced supply, exacerbating cost burdens and displacement risks for vulnerable populations. As of 2024, Buckeye faces a shortage of 2,840 housing units across all levels of affordability. This need is projected to grow to 11,730 additional units by 2029. The greatest deficiencies and future needs are concentrated in homes affordable to households earning above 100% of the AMI, indicating a current and projected future shortage in market-rate housing units. Notably, there are also substantial gaps for those in the 50–80% AMI range and the 80–100% AMI range, initiating a lack of current and projected future workforce housing in Buckeye. Though the lowest-income tiers (30–50% AMI and below 30% AMI) have the smallest number of units needed, these residents are the most vulnerable to housing insecurity and displacement. This pattern shows that Buckeye’s housing market is under strain across every income level. As Buckeye continues to grow, addressing these shortages will require a comprehensive approach, including expanding the supply of both affordable and market-rate housing, making sure that new developments match the needs of local households in terms of size and quality, and prioritizing deeply affordable options for the most vulnerable. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 36 Analysis of Housing Gaps and Market Imbalances Affordable Housing Shortages (Less than 50% AMI) Buckeye faces a shortage of deeply affordable housing for its lowest-income residents. By 2029, a projected 720 units will be needed for households earning less than 30% of the AMI. The need for affordable housing extends into the 30–50% AMI range, with projected deficits of 890 units by 2029. These gaps affect the City’s most vulnerable populations, such as seniors, people with disabilities, and families who face a heightened risk of overcrowding and unstable housing without access to affordable options. It is crucial to expand housing opportunities for these populations to prevent displacement and housing instability. Moderate-Income and Workforce Housing (50-100% AMI) The need for increased housing opportunities continues into the 50–80% AMI and 80-100% AMI ranges, with projected deficits of 2,020 and 1,590 units by 2029, respectively. While these shortages are not as severe as those at the highest income tier, they still represent a substantial barrier for many working families and individuals who may be unable to find appropriately priced housing. Such a lack of workforce housing indicates that even moderate-income workers such as teachers, healthcare staff, and public safety personnel will be unable to afford to live in the City, ultimately harming workforce retention. Market-Rate and Higher-Income Housing (More than 100% AMI) The largest projected shortfall is in the market-rate and higher-income segments. By 2029, Buckeye will need 6,520 additional housing units for households earning more than 100% of AMI. This reflects the City’s rapid population growth and signals that even those with incomes above the median will face increasing difficulty securing suitable housing unless new units are added to the market, which will likely further increase rents and home prices across all income tiers. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 37 Next Steps: Addressing Needs in Housing Types, Availability, and Affordability This Housing Needs Assessment offers a comprehensive analysis of current demographic trends, housing market conditions, current and future affordability gaps, and related challenges. This assessment will serve as the foundation for the City’s Housing Action Plan, which will translate the data and findings into implementable policy, regulatory, and programmatic actions. The findings of this assessment illustrate the need for increased housing options, the need to align housing supplies with current and future housing demand, and the need to preserve and expand affordable housing. The Need for Increased Housing Options A healthy housing market should provide a diverse range of housing options, including single- family housing of varying bedroom sizes, ADUs, bungalows, manufactured/modular houses, higher-density housing options, and “missing middle” housing choices such as duplexes, townhomes, and cottage courts. Currently, the vast majority of land in Buckeye permits residential in some capacity, whether established through a specific residential zoning category or as a permitted use in some commercial districts While this offers plenty of space for developable land, much of the residential product is approved through a Community Master Plan (CMP). While these dominantly feature single family product, some multi-family product is approved as a part of these plans. It is recommended that the city continue to work with the development community and encourage diverse housing products through the CMPs. Through a mix of zoning and land use reform, streamlining permitting and review processes, and offering technical assistance and incentives for developers to ease barriers to construction, the City can enable a wider range of housing options, greatly strengthening the local housing market and accommodating the evolving needs of Buckeye’s residents. The Need to Match Supply with Demand The identified data on community preferences, housing supplies, and the existing and future demand for housing provide the opportunity to align housing production with housing demand. There is an illustrated need for increased housing suitable for residents across all income levels, as well as accessible housing for seniors and individuals with disabilities, and workforce housing for middle-income professionals. The increasing demand for housing in Buckeye has left many residents struggling to find suitable accommodations within their financial means, regardless of household income. Housing shortages are significantly pronounced even for those making at or above the City’s median income, resulting in many higher-income residents occupying cheaper naturally occurring Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 38 affordable units. This further displaces lower-income residents, who are often forced into overcrowded or substandard housing conditions or displaced from Buckeye entirely. Beyond affordability concerns, Buckeye’s housing market also lacks sufficient housing for seniors and individuals with disabilities. The City's aging population requires an expanded supply of age-friendly housing, including single-story homes, independent living communities, and assisted living facilities. Without these options, many seniors may be forced to leave the City or remain in homes that no longer meet their mobility and accessibility needs. Similarly, individuals with disabilities struggle to find appropriate rental housing that meets their specific requirements, particularly in terms of affordability, accessibility, and proximity to essential services. Lastly, the City’s middle-income professionals, such as those in education, healthcare, and law enforcement, face significant challenges in securing affordable housing within Buckeye. Rising home prices have made it increasingly difficult for this demographic to transition into homeownership, while rental rates for market-rate apartments have climbed beyond the affordability thresholds of many workforce households. As a result, many middle-income workers are forced to seek housing further from their places of employment, increasing commute times and reducing their overall quality of life. The limited availability of workforce housing near employment centers has broader implications for the City’s economic stability, as a lack of housing options for the essential workforce impacts labor retention and job market competitiveness. If housing affordability concerns continue, Buckeye may struggle to attract and retain a stable workforce, which is essential for sustaining long-term economic growth. By working with local developers, nonprofits, and other housing providers, and by driving development toward targeted areas, typologies, and income groups, Buckeye can ensure that the housing needs of all residents are met. The Need to Preserve and Expand Affordable Housing The data highlights a widening affordability gap in Buckeye, particularly for low- and moderate- income households. While Buckeye has seen strong income growth, it has not kept pace with the rapid increase in home values and rental rates. As part of the ongoing Housing Action Plan, the City should explore the use of a number of incentives that can be offered to developers to encourage and facilitate the creation of new affordable housing units. Incentives such as density bonuses, land donations, and expedited reviews and permitting greatly helps to reduce regulatory and administrative barriers, speed up timelines, and lower the cost of development, ultimately increasing the feasibility of projects with a set-aside of affordable units. In addition, Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 39 the City should explore partnership opportunities, such as those with nonprofits, community organizations and land trusts, and private developers. Such partnerships can help to align goals and efforts and can ensure that resources are pooled effectively. By taking a proactive and multi-pronged approach to preserving and expanding affordable housing, Buckeye can prevent displacement, retain its workforce, and ensure inclusive growth as it continues to attract new residents. These strategies will help stabilize rents, protect vulnerable populations, and maintain housing affordability across all income levels. Buckeye Housing Needs Assessment 40 This page left intentionally blank. Buckeye Housing Action Plan 1 Housing Action Plan Background This Housing Action Plan (HAP) is a plan, mandated by the state, that offers strategic policy guidance to address current and future housing needs within the City. Its core aim is to promote greater housing diversity, affordability, and attainability for Buckeye residents across all income levels. This HAP follows the completion of the City’s Housing Needs Assessment (HNA), which is a study to better understand the types of housing available, challenges with affordability, and gaps in housing supply. This Plan is in compliance with the requirements of ARS 9-469, as approved by SB1162, and offers input from local residents and stakeholders, recommended policy changes, regulatory updates, and programmatic investments to support the City’s housing goals and needs, and an implementation plan to guide future growth and development. Community Engagement Community engagement shaped this assessment by incorporating residents’ lived experiences into the process and grounding the analysis in local perspectives. Matrix developed a bilingual community survey, which the City of Buckeye distributed. The survey received strong participation from residents and offered insight into housing experiences and concerns. In addition to the survey, Matrix facilitated a community meeting at the City offices, and the City hosted a second event with seniors at the Buckeye Senior Center. Community input is reflected throughout the report’s findings and recommendations. Resident Survey In collaboration with City staff, Matrix developed a resident survey covering a wide range of housing-related topics. The survey was available in both English and Spanish and remained open for approximately four months, from February to May 2025. It was promoted through multiple channels, including social media, and hard copies were distributed at the senior center, City-led events, and community meetings. In total, 617 responses were collected, Housing Action Plan 2 providing meaningful input on housing needs, challenges, and preferences. A summary of the full results is included at the end of this report. The survey was an opt-in effort, meaning participants were not randomly selected but chose to respond voluntarily. While most surveys rely on some level of voluntary participation, statistically representative efforts, like the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, use random sampling and apply weighting to better reflect the broader population. This survey, by contrast, was open to any interested residents and may reflect some degree of self-selection bias, with certain groups overrepresented and others underrepresented. Specifically, the survey included proportionately more responses from Buckeye’s senior population and may not adequately reflect the housing perspectives of the City’s broader demographics. Future engagement efforts should aim to gather input from the City’s young families, renters, and workforce-age residents, to better inform housing needs and priorities. Its findings should be viewed as a complement to the more representative data sources presented earlier in the report, offering additional and more recent insight into the experiences and perspectives of those who participated. Housing Action Plan 3 Key Findings ◼ Residency and Demographics ◼ 57% have resided in Buckeye for more than 10 years. ◼ 80% of respondents are aged 65 or older, indicating a large senior population. ◼ 41% of households consist of just one person; 28% have two people. ◼ Income and Affordability ◼ 38% of respondents households earned less than $30,390 in the past year; a significant portion (21%) were unsure about their income. ◼ 23% of respondents have limited consumption of food, medicine, or other essentials to cover housing costs. ◼ 59% feel their current housing is affordable based on their household income, but 23% do not. ◼ 29% have found it difficult to save for emergencies due to housing costs. ◼ Housing Tenure and Satisfaction ◼ 54% own their home or live in a home owned by someone in their household; 21% rent. ◼ 69% found it not difficult at all to locate housing in Buckeye. ◼ 57% are very satisfied with their current housing situation; only 10% are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ◼ 81% rate the condition of their current housing as excellent or good. ◼ Housing Types and Priorities ◼ 77% want Buckeye to prioritize senior living facilities. Housing Action Plan 4 ◼ 34% want more apartments, 32% want traditional single-family homes, and 20% want duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes. ◼ 36% feel a senior living facility best fits their household’s needs; 53% prefer a single- family home. ◼ Key Housing Challenges ◼ 65% see inadequate senior housing as a pressing issue. ◼ 63% say rent is unaffordable. ◼ 52% say younger people cannot afford to buy homes. ◼ 59% are concerned about rising utility costs. ◼ 21% say both single-family homes and apartments are in short supply. ◼ Community Growth and Development ◼ 61% think it is very important for Buckeye to offer a wider variety of housing options. ◼ 42% prefer new housing development in downtown Buckeye; 45% near schools or retail centers. ◼ 81% are concerned about increasing traffic and congestion due to growth. ◼ 69% are concerned about strain on water or utility resources. ◼ Policy and Services ◼ 62% (combined strongly agree/agree) support city incentives for developers to build affordable housing. ◼ 87% want senior expanded services from the new Human Services Department. ◼ 56% want housing assistance. ◼ 79% say better public transportation is very important. All survey responses are detailed in Appendix A. Housing Action Plan 5 Community Workshop On May 12, 2025, the City of Buckeye hosted a community workshop at Buckeye City Hall East at the Landing to involve residents in the development of this report. The event served two main purposes: to share information about the project’s goals and to gather input on the most pressing housing challenges and opportunities facing Buckeye. The workshop featured a mix of informational and interactive materials, creating a space for participants to learn, share their experiences, and contribute ideas for the future of housing in their community. Following this workshop, City staff hosted a second event at the senior center on May 28, 2025. This session included the same activities and discussion prompts but focused on gathering additional input from a broader and more diverse group of residents. Meeting Materials Meeting materials included the following informational and interactive materials, and are visualized on the following two pages. ◼ Educational and Housing Data Boards ◼ What is a Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan? ◼ Rapid Growth and Changing Demographics ◼ High Rental Costs and Affordability Concerns ◼ High Rates and Costs of Ownership ◼ Interactive Boards ◼ Visual Preference - What Types of Housing Would Work in Buckeye? ◼ Agree/Disagree - Housing Perspectives ◼ Housing Needs Assessment and Action Plan Fact Sheet ◼ Resident Survey Housing Action Plan 6 Housing Action Plan 7 May 12, 2025 - Community Meeting May 28, 2025 - Community Meeting Housing Action Plan 8 Introduction As of 2025, the City of Buckeye has an estimated population of roughly 106,000 residents, and encompasses approximately 640 square acres of Planning Area, and 400 square acres of property within the City’s jurisdiction. Due largely in part to the City’s explosive population growth, rising home costs are presenting challenges for both renting and ownership, placing economic pressure on low-, moderate-, and even higher-income residents. Furthermore, the vast majority of Buckeye’s housing consists of larger, single- family homes, with very limited smaller units or "missing middle" options (duplexes, townhomes, etc.), which can offer residents more affordable options. Without intervention, the city risks exacerbating affordability challenges, overcrowding, and diminishing quality of life for current and future residents; addressing Buckeye’s challenges around housing diversity and attainability will require a combination of strategies, including promoting more efficient land use, expanding housing options, updating policies and regulations, and identifying effective funding sources. Together, these strategies support greater housing accessibility and affordability for all residents. Because no single solution can meet the full range of housing needs, a multi-faceted approach is essential to respond to both current conditions and future demands. As of July 2025, the City is in the process of updating its Development Code, with goals to revise development standards, design standards, and the use table to enable and address emerging product types, such as missing middle housing options (in accordance with HB2721, which applies to all Arizona municipalities with populations of 75,000 or more). Many of the recommendations in this report align with and support the priorities developing through that update. Housing Action Plan 9 Catalytic Development Areas The City’s rapid growth is evident in a wave of projects that are reshaping the City’s landscape and broadening housing options for residents. Throughout the City, development and redevelopment opportunities abound, particularly in catalytic areas such as Downtown Buckeye and The Landing, both primed for investment and new growth. These locations, guided by Community Master Plans, offer the City a strong foundation to support attainable housing through a range of housing options, from mixed-use multifamily developments to “missing middle” housing (such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes). These efforts have helped Buckeye to successfully begin addressing the community’s evolving housing needs and adapt to changing market conditions. Downtown Buckeye recently completed a specific area plan that promotes an ambitious, multi-phased approach aimed at transforming downtown Buckeye into a vibrant, walkable, and economically robust center for both residents and visitors. The City's ongoing revitalization efforts should prioritize mixed-use projects that blend residential, commercial, and public uses. Buckeye's downtown plan emphasizes adaptive reuse of historic buildings, transforming spaces into unique residential units that preserve the City's heritage while adding much-needed housing stock. This area presents a unique opportunity to promote live-work spaces that cater to entrepreneurs, artists, and small businesses, creating housing solutions for this specialized workforce. The Landing is a transformative, large-scale mixed-use project, being shaped by a specific area plan that presents significant opportunities to boost housing supply and drive economic vitality for Buckeye. Multifamily projects and new housing units are already underway, highlighting The Landing’s role as an important opportunity area for diverse housing options. The vision for this area includes dense, mixed-use multi-family developments while encouraging missing middle housing options to provide residents with a broader range of housing choices. However, density restrictions influenced by Luke Air Force Base’s graduated density policy currently limit the number of units that can be built in this area. Where safety and feasibility allow, the City should pursue renegotiation or Housing Action Plan 10 increased flexibility in density policies to enable more housing units within The Landing’s core, while continuing to respect Luke AFB’s operational needs. Initiating direct discussions with base leadership, the City can present a data-driven proposal that balances community housing demands with base safety. Together, both parties can explore alternative mitigation strategies and, if consensus is reached, formalize any changes through a memorandum of understanding or intergovernmental agreement. In both areas, implementing a mixed-use density bonus policy would be especially effective, incentivizing developers to create projects that integrate housing, commercial, and community uses. To successfully implement this policy, Buckeye should establish clear base zoning parameters with bonus allowances typically ranging from 10-25% density increases, along with corresponding height and unit count adjustments. The policy should define qualifying mixed-use requirements, including minimum percentages of residential versus commercial space, required ground-floor commercial or community uses, and integration of missing middle housing types. A tiered incentive structure would maximize effectiveness, offering a basic 10-15% density bonus for projects that meet fundamental mixed-use and missing middle housing requirements, while providing enhanced bonuses of 20-25% for developments that include designated affordable units or significant community benefits such as active public spaces or covered bike parking. To encourage participation, the City should streamline the administrative process through fast-track review and permitting for qualifying projects, with clear application criteria and a desired review time of 10 days, and a desired total turnaround time of less than 30 days. Such a framework for a fast-track permitting and review process can be found in Appendix C. The implementation should also address infrastructure considerations and establish design standards that ensure mixed-use Source: City of Buckeye, AZ This configuration shows how the built environment in downtown Buckeye is being transformed into a more pedestrian friendly area that complements mixed-use development. Housing Action Plan 11 developments integrate well with surrounding neighborhoods while meeting traffic, parking, and utility capacity needs. Currently, the code allows for up to a 15% parking reduction for mixed-use developments, helping to lower development costs and promote walkability and the use of alternative modes of transportation. However, the City should explore increasing the applicable parking reduction to up to 25% for mixed-use developments receiving any density bonuses outside the downtown area, as such a density bonus would otherwise increase overall parking requirements and development costs, potentially acting as a disincentive for such a bonus. The City of Buckeye, AZ currently offers several downtown development incentive programs designed to encourage investment and revitalization. These include the Catalyst Program, which provides up to $50,000 in reimbursable funding to assist with building rehabilitation, as well as general economic incentives such as tax breaks and expedited permitting processes that help reduce upfront costs for qualifying projects. The city also employs downtown-specific zoning overlays and regularly updates its Development Code to increase regulatory flexibility and expedite approvals, all aligned with the goals outlined in the recently adopted Downtown Specific Area Plan (DSAP), which guides land use, design, transportation, and economic strategies. Robust community engagement ensures these programs remain responsive to public input. To enhance these efforts, Buckeye could consider expanding funding caps or tiering the Catalyst Program to better support larger or phased projects, introducing dedicated façade improvement grants to encourage visual enhancements, and explicitly incentivizing affordable housing and mixed-use developments to promote inclusive, pedestrian-friendly growth. Additionally, measuring and publicizing program outcomes regularly would allow for data-driven refinements, while increasing technical assistance through workshops and design support could help more property owners and businesses successfully navigate the process. Finally, leveraging state and federal funding opportunities alongside local incentives could significantly boost the overall resources available for downtown revitalization. By continuously reviewing and adapting these strategies based on market trends and community feedback, Buckeye can maintain momentum toward a vibrant, thriving downtown district. Development Incentives Development incentives are powerful tools for streamlining affordable housing production, supporting economic growth, and encouraging a diverse and resilient housing market. These incentives are strategically designed to leverage private investment while minimizing the need for direct public funding. These incentives can be strategically utilized for specific projects that the City is actively trying to attract, such as senior housing developments that Housing Action Plan 12 serve Buckeye's aging population or projects that demonstrate they are providing critical housing for low-to-moderate income individuals who are essential to the community's workforce and economic vitality. To address Buckeye's urgent need for attainable housing, the City should implement a targeted set of development incentives that increase development feasibility and lower potential regulatory and administrative barriers to housing production. Enforcement and Compliance Notably, to ensure the savings from development incentives are passed along to buyers and renters of affordable housing, Buckeye should include enforceable contract terms requiring maintained affordability for a set time period (of at least 20 years), clawback provisions to recover funds if unmet, and regular reporting for transparency. The City can explore the use of a monitoring agent to ensure the designated units are affordable, in good condition, and otherwise in compliance with the stipulations of the development agreement. ◼ Due Diligence Assistance: Providing due diligence support helps developers access critical data and information on developable parcels that are well-suited for residential projects. This assistance, which includes resources such as the Site Suitability Analysis in Appendix B, helps developers to identify properties with the highest potential for successful housing development. By reducing upfront risk and uncertainty, the City makes it more attractive for developers to invest in these projects. Lowering the likelihood of costly delays or unforeseen site issues helps ensure that viable projects move forward efficiently. This proactive assistance demonstrates the City's commitment to facilitating attainable housing development, which can attract developers who might otherwise be hesitant to navigate complex regulatory environments or uncertain market conditions, such as smaller development firms. The City benefits significantly from this approach as it accelerates the delivery of much- needed housing inventory, generates increased property tax revenue from developed parcels, stimulates local economic activity through construction jobs and related services, and helps fulfill municipal housing goals more efficiently than traditional market-driven approaches. Additionally, by streamlining the development process and reducing developer costs, the City indirectly helps keep housing prices more Housing Action Plan 13 affordable for residents while building stronger partnerships with the development community that can lead to future collaborative projects. ◼ Density Incentives: Granting density bonuses for projects that include a designated percentage of desired housing types, such as senior housing or affordable and workforce housing, allows developers to maximize the use of available land while offsetting the financial challenges of serving specific community needs. This approach helps to increase the total number of housing units and promotes more efficient land use. For the City, density incentives create substantial benefits by generating higher property tax revenues per acre due to increased unit counts, reducing infrastructure costs per unit by maximizing the utility of existing or planned infrastructure investments, and helping the City meet its housing diversity goals without depleting municipal budgets through direct subsidies. ◼ Waiver or Reduction of Development-Related Fees: Waiving or reducing building permit fees, plan review fees, and utility connection fees for housing projects directly lowers project costs. Strategic fee reductions represent a calculated investment that yields multiple returns: accelerated project timelines that bring housing to market faster, increased development activity that stimulates construction employment and related economic activity, and the ability to compete effectively with neighboring jurisdictions for high-quality development projects. The ability to grant fee waivers also provides the City with negotiation leverage to secure specific community benefits, design standards, or amenities that might otherwise be cost-prohibitive for developers to include. By reducing upfront capital requirements, the City can require developers to allocate resources toward higher-quality construction, innovative design features, or additional community-serving elements that enhance neighborhood value. Ultimately, these measures are not just a short-term incentive but a prudent fiscal decision. The City reduces its long-term reliance on public subsidies and infrastructure interventions by stimulating new development and expanding the tax base. The resulting increase in property values and economic activity generates ongoing municipal revenues that far exceed the initial investment in fee relief. This approach aligns with sound financial management by leveraging limited resources to maximize long-term returns for the City and its residents. ◼ Reimbursement of Development Impact Fees: Reimbursing development impact fees for housing projects reduces the financial burden on developers. By easing the upfront costs associated with these fees, the City can encourage more projects to Housing Action Plan 14 break ground, resulting in a greater supply of attainable housing. For the City, impact fee reimbursement programs create a unique opportunity to strategically direct development toward priority areas or housing types while maintaining the revenue stream necessary for infrastructure improvements. Impact fee reimbursement also enables the City to establish performance-based incentives, where reimbursements are tied to specific outcomes such as construction timelines, occupancy targets, or ongoing affordability commitments. By reducing developers' carrying costs and cash flow pressures during the critical pre-construction phase, the City helps ensure that viable projects can secure financing and move forward even in challenging market conditions. This incentive is especially important in a competitive real estate market, where even small financial barriers can deter investment in specialized housing types that serve important community needs. Development Code Updates At the time of this report, the City of Buckeye is undertaking a comprehensive update to its Development Code. Many of the housing policy recommendations and incentives outlined in this action plan are anticipated to be incorporated into the ongoing code revision process, reflecting the City's aspirations for a more flexible, efficient, and responsive approach to development. These proactive changes are intended to streamline processes, reduce barriers to housing production, and support Buckeye's evolving growth and housing needs. While the current code update addresses immediate priorities, additional recommendations are included here to accommodate future needs and evolving development patterns. These considerations are intended to inform future amendments to the Development Code as Buckeye's landscape and housing demands continue to shift. Housing Action Plan 15 ◼ Administrative and By-Approval Processes: Lengthy and unpredictable approval processes represent significant barriers to attainable housing development. Administrative delays translate directly into increased development costs through extended financing periods, inflation impacts on materials and labor, and opportunity costs for developers and landowners. These expenses are ultimately passed on to homebuyers and renters. Streamlined processes benefit both the development community and City staff by creating more predictable workloads and clearer expectations. The City of Buckeye's development code updates ensure compliance with state legislation, including SB 1162, which establishes streamlined approval requirements for housing development. Beyond meeting these state mandates, the City can integrate flexibility in design requirements and development standards into existing Alternative Equivalent Compliance processes, encouraging creative and unique designs of desired housing types, while still ensuring development meets the underlying intent of City regulations. Lastly, the City can explore the provision of additional expedited review benefits and development incentives for projects that specifically demonstrate they are providing specialized housing types, such as senior housing, affordable housing, andworkforce housing. By granting projects that meet specific affordability or community benefit criteria with expedited permitting and review processes, the City not only incentives desired housing types, but it brings these projects to the market quicker, benefiting Buckeye residents. A sample framework of a streamlined development process is included in Appendix C. ◼ Permitted Uses: Buckeye has improved its permitted use table to allow diverse housing types by right, eliminating costly and uncertain discretionary review processes. This approach supports missing middle housing as a bridge between single-family homes and large apartments, offering attainable homeownership and rental options while preserving neighborhood character. These smaller, lower- maintenance units suit young professionals, seniors downsizing, and students. City- backed pre-approved design guidelines for these types of housing help speed approvals while maintaining quality and community standards, resulting in a more diverse, stable housing stock amid economic changes. Goodyear, Arizona recently adopted design standards that include special exemptions aimed at increasing housing affordability. During the design review process, applicants seeking to enhance affordability can request exceptions to any “shall” guidelines, provided the project continues to align with the overarching design principles. These exceptions can be administratively approved by the Development Services Department director or a designee and may include additional conditions. Housing Action Plan 16 To enhance streamlining further, Buckeye could consider: ◼ Simplifying definitions and use categories to clearly identify missing middle housing for easier processing. ◼ Developing consolidated checklists or flowcharts to reduce permitting steps. ◼ Minimizing discretionary reviews by shifting approvals to administrative permits. ◼ Standalone guidelines for standardized design and development standards. ◼ Density Standards: Increasing allowable density represents one of the most impactful tools for expanding attainable housing options. Higher density development spreads land costs across more units, reducing per-unit expenses and making housing more accessible to low and moderate-income households. Strategic density increases in appropriate locations, particularly near catalyst development areas, employment centers, and Interstate-10, maximize the efficiency of public investments and help reduce sprawl-related costs for both the City and residents. Density bonuses tied to affordability requirements create powerful incentives for developers to include attainable units while maintaining project viability. ◼ Parking Requirements: Excessive parking requirements artificially inflate housing costs by mandating expensive infrastructure that may not reflect actual usage patterns, particularly in walkable areas or developments serving car-light households. Reducing parking minimums for attainable housing allows those savings to be passed through to residents while supporting more compact development patterns. Flexible parking standards that consider location, transit access, and demographic factors enable more responsive development that matches community needs. This is particularly important for missing middle housing types, where traditional suburban parking standards may not align with the urban or transitional contexts where these housing types are most appropriate and needed. Robust parking reductions may be more feasible in the future, as transit service is expanded in Buckeye. Housing Action Plan 17 Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are self-contained living spaces on the same property as a primary residence, offering independent living, sleeping, and sanitation facilities. They can be detached structures (like granny flats) or attached to the primary home. ADUs serve as a strategic tool to address housing needs while supporting multigenerational living arrangements that are increasingly important to families seeking to care for aging parents, providing housing for young adults, or accommodating changing household dynamics. ADUs provide naturally occurring affordable housing by utilizing existing infrastructure and neighborhood amenities while typically providing smaller unit sizes and cheaper rental and ownership costs. In addition, ADUs offer the potential to generate supplemental rental income for property owners, which is particularly valuable for seniors and others on fixed incomes. While the City of Buckeye is already in compliance with HB 2720 ADU requirements, creating a comprehensive pre-approved ADU program can significantly expand housing options within existing neighborhoods. Housing Action Plan 18 A pre-approved ADU program requires upfront time and capacity investments by the City but delivers substantial long-term benefits to residents and the community. The program involves creating a library of standardized architectural designs that have already undergone complete plan review, structural engineering analysis, and code compliance verification. Such designs should include a range of ADUs, with varying numbers of bedrooms, unit sizes, architectural styles, and building footprints. This comprehensive process includes coordinating with local utilities to ensure designs accommodate standard service connections, working with fire departments to verify safety requirements, and conducting thorough reviews of accessibility standards and building code compliance. The City's investment in this process means that residents purchasing these standard plans receive fully vetted designs that eliminate months of back-and-forth plan review, costly design revisions, and uncertainty about approval outcomes. Each pre-approved design includes detailed construction drawings, materials specifications, and step-by-step permitting guidance, effectively providing residents with a turnkey development pathway. This approach makes ADUs accessible to lower- and middle-income homeowners who might otherwise find the development process prohibitively expensive or complicated. Traditional custom ADU development can require $5,000-$15,000 in architectural and engineering fees before construction even begins, not including potential revision costs and extended timeline expenses. Pre-approved plans typically cost a fraction of custom design fees while providing residents with confidence that their project will meet all regulatory requirements. The program simultaneously gives the City greater control over ensuring high-quality design standards that complement and blend in with existing neighborhoods. By curating designs that meet aesthetic and functional criteria, the City can ensure ADUs enhance rather than detract from neighborhood character while maintaining consistent standards for materials, proportions, and site integration. Tucson, Arizona Tucson’s “Casita Model Plan Library” offers homeowners currently 6 pre-approved ADU designs, allowing for faster permitting and reduced design costs. The program streamlines the process of building casitas, helping to increase the city’s housing options and expand affordability. Since its launch, the library has led to a rise in casita interest and permitting activity. Housing Action Plan 19 Affordable Housing Affordable housing ensures that individuals and families with low or moderate incomes, typically under 80% of the area median income, can access safe and stable homes without spending a disproportionate share of their earnings. This category includes seniors on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, households experiencing economic hardship, and many working families. In Buckeye, with median monthly owner costs at $1,680, many residents are at risk of being priced out. This can lead to longer commutes, fragmented community ties, and increased strain on social services. Affordable housing initiatives protect housing stability across a wide income spectrum, reduce displacement, and promote stronger and more resilient neighborhoods where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. Workforce Housing Workforce housing is designed to serve moderate-income households, often earning between 80% and 120% of the area median income. These residents are vital to the local economy but are increasingly priced out of living in the communities where they work. This group includes teachers, first responders, healthcare workers, municipal employees, and service industry staff. In Buckeye, where median monthly owner costs have reached $1,680, many in this income range face growing challenges finding attainable homes nearby. When these workers have to commute long distances, local businesses experience higher turnover and rising recruitment costs, and community stability is weakened. Creating housing options that align with workforce incomes helps keep essential workers rooted in the community, strengthens the local economy, and preserves its quality of life. Community Land Trust A community land trust (CLT) works through a nonprofit organization that owns land on behalf of a community and leases it long-term to homeowners, enabling affordable homeownership by separating land ownership from building ownership and ensuring the property remains affordable through resale restrictions. CLTs are a powerful tool for maintaining affordability in perpetuity. While community land trusts are typically rooted in grassroots efforts, Buckeye can help by providing funding, discounted or publicly donated land, technical assistance, and policy support to bolster their efforts. Unlike traditional affordable housing programs that may lose their affordability requirements over time, CLTs ensure that housing remains accessible to low- and moderate-income families for With 84% of Buckeye’s housing being 3+ bedroom single-family homes and only 8% offering 0-1 bedrooms, there is a significant mismatch between available housing and the needs of smaller households, workers, and seniors, leading to affordability issues that threaten workforce retention and community diversity. Housing Action Plan 20 generations. This model allows the City to make a one-time investment that continues paying dividends indefinitely, protecting against displacement while keeping homeownership opportunities within reach for working families. By pairing the CLT model with a 99-year ground lease, residents gain influence over neighborhood development and functional ownership, all while substantially reducing homeownership costs. Fee Transparency Buckeye can further encourage workforce housing development by working directly with the development community. Administrative fees can represent an initial barrier when calculating total project costs and are widely recognized as a barrier to attainable housing production. By restructuring fee schedules for affordable and attainable housing projects, Buckeye can directly reduce housing production costs without compromising quality standards. Additionally, collaborating with developers to identify suitable development areas through the comprehensive site suitability analysis referenced in Appendix A ensures that workforce housing is built in locations with appropriate infrastructure, transportation access, and community amenities. The City can further enhance this by creating an interactive dashboard to update the analysis routinely based on evolving community conditions. Housing Action Plan 21 Workforce Housing Trust Fund A Workforce Housing Trust Fund is a dedicated source of local funding that can be used to address a variety of housing needs. Buckeye should establish such a fund to provide gap financing for affordable housing developments, funding for the maintenance and preservation of current housing, rental or down payment assistance, and support for emergency and transitional housing needs. Buckeye should establish a workforce housing trust fund using a combination of local and external funding sources. The City can allocate a portion of its general fund or create a dedicated budget line to seed the fund. By investing the principal in interest-bearing accounts or other low-risk financial instruments, the fund can grow over time as earned interest is reinvested, providing a sustainable revenue source for future housing initiatives. Additional funding may come from developer fees, state and federal grants, low-interest loans, philanthropic contributions, and voluntary donations from local employers or developers. Managing the fund locally will enable Buckeye to respond quickly and flexibly to evolving housing challenges. Having a local trust fund gives Buckeye greater control and flexibility over its housing initiatives. It allows the City to fill funding gaps that state and federal programs may not address annually and to prioritize projects that are most urgent or impactful for the community. Furthermore, a trust fund can also be used to leverage additional private or public investment. Leveraging matching funds from state or federal programs means using local dollars from a housing trust fund to unlock additional funding from higher levels of government, effectively multiplying the impact of the City's initial investment. Tempe, Arizona: The “Home in Five” program provides down payment and closing cost assistance of up to 6% of the home’s purchase price, with an extra 1% available for teachers and first responders, making homeownership more attainable for these essential workers. These loans are funded through the state and administered through Maricopa County. Eligible buyers must complete an approved homebuyer education course and meet credit and income requirements in order to qualify and be eligible for the loan to be forgiven. Housing Action Plan 22 Senior Housing Buckeye's aging population faces a critical housing shortage, with only 2.1% of current housing units meeting accessibility standards. This gap affects seniors and individuals with disabilities across all income levels, requiring targeted strategies that address accessibility, affordability, and diverse care needs. The City can leverage established funding programs like Section 811 to connect seniors with resources for home accessibility upgrades while simultaneously developing a comprehensive Universal Design checklist to ensure consistent accessibility implementation across new developments for residents 55+ years old or for a specific percentage of all new developments. This tool serves dual purposes: establishing clear development standards while educating builders and designers about features that support independent living. Currently, a significant gap exists between publicly funded and private senior living facilities, with seniors needing diverse options ranging from age-restricted neighborhoods to memory care and skilled nursing facilities. Buckeye can address this by partnering with nonprofit housing partners, such as Housing for Hope, the Foundation for Senior Living, and LifeStream Complete Senior Living, regional community development organizations like Trellis and Chicanos por la Causa, and financial partners like Western Alliance Bank and FirstBank to create mixed-income, age- restricted communities that serve various care needs. These partnerships allow the City to combine public resources with private development expertise, accessing diverse funding streams while leveraging additional knowledge and capital to create affordable communities offering a mix of housing types, including independent What are Universal Design principles? These principles guide the development of housing that is accessible and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. Key features include zero- step entrances, lever- style door handles, wider doorways, and accessible bathrooms. This helps homes adapt to changing needs and support residents. Case Studies: Senior Housing Senior Bridge, Phoenix A city-backed project using repurposed shipping containers offers 40 transitional units and 65 permanent affordable apartments for low-income seniors (55+). It features universal design, 24-hour supervision, and easy access to transit, combining public resources and private partnership for accessible, affordable living. Casa Azure, Phoenix Developed by Dominium, Casa Azure provides 189 affordable, age-restricted senior apartments. The community is adjacent to family housing, supports mixed incomes, and demonstrates the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits to create accessible units that f i i l Housing Action Plan 23 living apartments and supportive housing units that provide a continuum of care options. To encourage senior housing development, Buckeye should implement targeted incentives that make these projects financially viable. Density bonuses, allowing up to 30% increased unit counts for projects including age-restricted senior housing with accessible housing components, provide strong financial motivation for developers. Additional senior housing bonuses such as reduced fees, expedited permitting, or expanded development rights further enhance project attractiveness, while parking requirement reductions for senior developments recognize this population's typically lower vehicle ownership rates, reducing development costs while maintaining appropriate parking levels. This comprehensive approach creates a continuum of care options while making senior housing development financially attractive to the development community. Community Services Department Buckeye’s existing Human Services Division within the Community Services Department delivers valuable resources and information on housing assistance, shelter, and homeless services, laying a strong foundation for expanding the Community Services Department to address the City’s growing housing challenges. To build the division effectively, the city should leverage partnerships with other service providers and non-profits to cover prevention, intervention, and education for diverse vulnerable populations. A robust Human Services Division serves as the backbone of Buckeye’s attainable housing strategy, connecting housing needs with holistic support systems that promote housing stability and success. Stable, affordable, and accessible housing is a crucial determinant of health and well-being, making the integration of human services essential for any effective housing initiative. The expanded division should prioritize homelessness prevention by strengthening rental assistance and eviction prevention programs and offering comprehensive case management services. By partnering with regional agencies such as Maricopa County, neighboring cities, and other service providers, Buckeye can tap into additional funding and coordinate with existing Continuum of Care networks to improve service delivery, data collection, and access to federal funding for homeless services. These partnerships help the City provide emergency rental assistance, security deposit support, legal support, and eviction prevention services, keeping families housed during crises while leveraging regional expertise, collaboration, and resources. Support for seniors and individuals with disabilities represents another area for divisional growth. As the division grows, it could provide accessible housing navigation services as well as establish partnerships with disability advocacy organizations to deliver Housing Action Plan 24 comprehensive support for these groups. Additionally, the division should offer one-on-one assistance for all residents seeking housing, including help referring applicants to providers and where appropriate assistance with applications for affordable rentals, housing vouchers, and homeownership programs. This creates a centralized resource that streamlines access to housing opportunities. This approach is particularly essential because housing challenges rarely exist in isolation and require wraparound services to achieve lasting solutions. Housing instability in any form, such as difficulty paying rent, spending significant portions of household income on housing, overcrowded living conditions, frequent moves, eviction, unsafe housing, or homelessness, can significantly impact the well-being of youth and families in both the short- and long-term. Community education and outreach initiatives will amplify the department’s impact, including workshops on tenant rights, fair housing, homeownership, and financial literacy. Regular resource fairs connecting residents to local nonprofits, social services, and employment resources build a strong support network that addresses the interconnected challenges of housing stability. Incorporating tenant and landlord rights education into these programs promotes fair housing practices and helps prevent disputes that could lead to housing instability. Local housing strategies provide a framework to unite various funding sources and policy strands into a coordinated approach for tackling local housing challenges, with human services departments uniquely positioned to serve as this coordinating hub. The division’s role in data collection and outcome tracking is also vital for long-term housing strategy success. By monitoring housing stability outcomes, evaluating program effectiveness, and identifying emerging needs, the human services division supplies the evidence base necessary for policy adjustments and continued funding justification. This approach makes Buckeye’s housing investments measurable and builds the community partnerships and trust needed for sustained progress. Collaborating with Homeowners Associations Many Buckeye subdivisions operate under covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that explicitly prohibit ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and other "missing middle" housing types, creating significant barriers to housing diversity and affordability within established neighborhoods. These restrictions, often written when housing needs and market conditions differed substantially from today's challenges, effectively limit the City's ability to implement comprehensive housing strategies even when zoning changes would Housing Action Plan 25 otherwise permit diverse housing options. Additionally, homeowners and HOA boards may resist new housing types due to common concerns about property values, neighborhood character, parking availability, and the impacts of increased density on community infrastructure and quality of life. To address these challenges, the City must first ensure that HOAs understand the legal hierarchy governing their communities, specifically that City ordinances and state laws supersede conflicting CC&Rs when housing policies are adopted through official legislative processes. However, this approach should be balanced with recognition that reasonable design standards, architectural guidelines, and aesthetic requirements should still apply to maintain neighborhood cohesion and property values. The City should offer direct administrative support to HOAs seeking to amend their CC&Rs, particularly for restrictions that conflict with the zoning entitlements, the Community Master Plan, or newly adopted housing policies, providing template language, legal guidance, and streamlined approval processes that reduce the burden on volunteer boards navigating complex amendment procedures. Educational outreach functions as an essential component of this collaborative strategy, with the City offering regular workshops for HOA boards, property managers, and residents that focus on the demonstrated benefits of diverse housing types, updates on relevant state and local housing laws, and clear explanations of how Buckeye's housing goals align with community interests. These sessions should address common misconceptions about density and housing diversity while providing concrete examples of successful implementations in similar communities, emphasizing how thoughtful housing diversity can enhance rather than detract from neighborhood stability and property values. To incentivize voluntary cooperation, Buckeye should consider implementing a comprehensive recognition and support program that includes technical assistance for communities that proactively update their CC&Rs to permit more diverse housing options. This approach, combined with public acknowledgment of HOAs that adopt pro-housing policies through City awards or recognition programs, creates positive incentives for change while building community support for broader housing initiatives. By positioning Housing Action Plan 26 HOAs as partners rather than obstacles in the quest for attainable housing, the City can leverage existing community structures to advance housing goals while respecting property rights and neighborhood governance systems. Housing Action Plan 27 State and Federal Funding Opportunities State and federal subsidies are an important way to increase a project’s viability and scale. By lowering the overall cost of development, a project becomes much more feasible. Subsidies can help to attract investment to underserved areas and can support projects that provide greater levels of affordability than would otherwise be possible. In addition, subsidies can often be tied to long-term affordability requirements, ensuring that housing remains affordable for future generations. Notably, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) offer several funding programs that Buckeye can leverage to address its housing challenges. These programs were selected based on gaps identified in the City’s housing stock through market analysis and community input. Some are available only to local governments, while others are open to nonprofits and other housing partners. To make the most of these resources, Buckeye can focus on raising awareness of various local, state, and federal funding sources among residents, developers, and community organizations. Hosting informational workshops, developing funding resource guides, and strengthening partnerships with housing providers can increase participation and help maximize the impact of available funding. Aligning local efforts with these established programs will support the development of more affordable and workforce housing that supports the City’s economic development initiatives. Government Property Lease Excise Tax The Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) is a tax established by the state of Arizona as a redevelopment tool that replaces traditional property tax with an excise tax for certain properties. When a government entity (such as a city or county) owns property and leases it to a private party for commercial, industrial, or residential rental use, the lessee pays an excise tax based on the square footage and use type of the building, rather than paying a property tax based on its value. This tax structure can provide significant property tax relief to qualifying projects, lowering development and operating costs, and stimulating private investment. Furthermore, Buckeye can structure their local GPLET policies to require an affordable or workforce housing set-aside for mixed-use or residential projects, supporting the flexible development of mixed-income housing options. Housing Action Plan 28 Community Development Block Grants The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a federal program administered by HUD that provides annual grants to states, cities, and counties to support a wide range of community development activities, including housing initiatives, particularly for low- and moderate-income individuals and households. This program is administered through the ADOH. CDBG funds can support a wide range of housing activities, such as housing rehabilitation, homeownership assistance, site acquisition and predevelopment activities, and infrastructure improvements. However, the funds cannot be used directly for the construction of new housing. This program mandates that at least 70% of CDBG funds be used for activities that support the low- and moderate-income population; the program’s flexibility and emphasis on lower-income populations make it well- suited for promoting affordable housing projects. Housing Action Plan 29 Section 108 Loan-Guarantee Program The Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program is a HUD program that allows CDBG recipients to leverage their annual grant allocations for flexible financing for economic development, infrastructure, and housing projects. Housing-related activities that can qualify include housing rehabilitation and affordable housing construction. Self-Help Ownership Program Authorized by the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996, the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) provides funding to assist nonprofit organizations and consortia in creating affordable homeownership opportunities for low-income families. The program specifically supports the purchase of home sites and the development of infrastructure for homes built or rehabilitated through sweat equity and homeowner participation. Notably, this program can only be used for single-family detached structures, and not for single-family attached structures (such as duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes) or multi- family developments. Eligible expenses under SHOP are limited to land acquisition, infrastructure improvements, and related administrative costs necessary for these activities. The funds cannot be used for actual construction. All projects must directly benefit low-income households, enabling families who might not otherwise achieve homeownership to do so. Additionally, the average combined cost of land acquisition and infrastructure improvements for each unit must not exceed $25,000. HOME Investment Partnerships Program The Arizona Department of Housing administers the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) program, which was created by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. This federal program, allocated through the HUD, aims to increase the number of families served with decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing while expanding the long-term supply of affordable housing throughout Arizona. ADOH's Community Development and Revitalization division utilizes HOME funds to provide grants for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation projects. These grants are available to towns, counties, and non-profit entities across the state. ADOH publishes an Housing Action Plan 30 annual Notice of Funding Availability for HOME-funded owner-occupied housing rehabilitation programs, allowing eligible organizations to apply for funding to improve and preserve affordable housing stock. The HOME Consortium membership is made up of Maricopa County (Lead Agency) and the City of Avondale, City of Chandler, Town of Gilbert, City of Glendale, City of Peoria, City of Scottsdale, City of Surprise, City of Tempe and unincorporated Maricopa County. Though the consortium does not currently include the City of Buckeye, the City should join the consortium to tap into this funding source. Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program provides funding to develop and subsidize rental housing with supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities. This program enables individuals with disabilities to live independently while receiving the assistance they need to thrive. Section 811 funds can be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of affordable housing units and include rental subsidies to ensure affordability for residents. For a community like Buckeye, the program could address gaps in attainable housing for individuals with disabilities. By partnering with nonprofits or housing authorities experienced in serving this population, Buckeye could help direct funding toward the creation of supportive housing options, thereby enhancing inclusivity and quality of life for residents with disabilities. American Rescue Plan Act American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds can be used for a wide variety of housing and infrastructure projects, so long as the funds address a public health or economic harm caused or worsened by COVID-19, especially for low-income or disproportionately impacted communities. These funds can be used for initiatives such as emergency housing assistance, supportive housing and shelter, new construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing units (for rental or ownership), down payment and homeowner support, and infrastructure improvements such as water and sewer construction or upgrades. Housing Action Plan 31 Mortgage Assistance Program The Arizona Department of Housing has recently announced a Notice of Funding Availability for its Mortgage Assistance Program, leveraging funds from the ARPA. This initiative, part of the Arizona is Home program, aims to support first-time homebuyers in purchasing properties, including single-family residences, one-to-four-unit dwellings, condos, and townhomes. ADOH plans to allocate $1.5 million to one or more Industrial Development Authorities to implement or support existing Mortgage Assistance Programs. The program builds upon previous efforts, which have already provided $10 million from the State Housing Trust Fund and $3 million in ARPA funding to assist eligible individuals and families with incomes up to 120% of AMI. Residential Loan Servicing The Arizona Department of Housing provides Residential Loan Servicing for homeowners with liens recorded against their properties by various state entities, including the Arizona Department of Housing, Arizona Housing Finance Authority, Arizona Department of Commerce, and the Arizona Home Foreclosure Prevention Funding Corporation. These liens secure loans of state or federal funds provided as assistance to homeowners. ADOH's Residential Loan Servicing staff offers services related to these loans, including requesting subordination agreements, obtaining loan payoff statements, and processing short sale payoffs. These services help homeowners manage their obligations and navigate property ownership or financing changes. Many of these loans, such as those from the Save Our Home AZ Program, may have specific terms and conditions, including zero percent interest, no monthly payments, and potential forgiveness after a set period. Homeowners with liens from these programs can contact ADOH's Residential Loan Servicing staff for assistance and should review their specific loan documents or contact ADOH directly for detailed information about their particular loan terms and available services. Emergency Solutions Grant Program The Emergency Solutions Grant Program is a HUD program that awards grants to communities to assist people with obtaining and maintaining permanent housing. The Housing Action Plan 32 program funds various eligible activities, including outreach to those experiencing homelessness, homelessness prevention efforts, rapid re-housing assistance, improving emergency shelter conditions, and implementing Homeless Management Information Systems. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the main federal program meant to incentivize financing for the rehabilitation or construction of very low and low-income rental housing. LIHTC is funded and allocated at the federal level but is administered by the Arizona Department of Housing. Developers must set aside a minimum percentage of units to be affordable to very low- and low- income renters for at least 30 years in exchange for a reduction in federal tax liability over ten consecutive years. There are non- competitive credits (4%) meant to subsidize 30%of the low-income unit costs and competitive credits (9%) meant to subsidize 70%of the low-income unit costs. Competitive credits are often awarded to developments with a higher percentage of set-aside low- income units. They are also often reserved for more pressing projects that address housing for specific vulnerable groups, such as homeless individuals or people with special needs. The following table illustrates all the currently operational LIHTC properties in Buckeye, including an estimated 681 current income-restricted LIHTC units: Development Name Address Year Constructed Total Units Income Restrictions Unit Mix Buckeye Villa/AZ3 Portfolio 300 S 9th St 1982/Current Acquisition and Rehab 170 LIHTC 60% AMI 2, 3, and 4- bedroom Housing Action Plan 33 Development Name Address Year Constructed Total Units Income Restrictions Unit Mix Sierra Verde Apartments 150 N Apache Rd 1989 40 LIHTC Not specified Not specified Buckeye Senior Apartments 605 S Fourth St 1990 40 LIHTC 30% AMI Not specified (Senior) Cholla Ranch Apartments 316 N Miller Rd / 7400 S Miller Rd 2001 132 (124 LIHTC) 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% AMI 2 and 3-bedroo Riverwood Apartments 25157 W Beloat Rd 2002 148 (88 LIHTC) Not specified Not specified Smoketree Apartments 902 E Centre Ave 2004 24 (19 LIHTC) 70% AMI Not specified Solana Villas 21699 W Yuma Rd 2024 200 LIHTC 60% AMI 1, 2, and 3- bedroom Watson Homes 415 S 5th Street Application (2023) 52 LIHTC Not specified Not specified Sidney Village 1485 S Apache Rd Under development 200 LIHTC 60% AMI 3 and 4-bedroo (townhome) Housing Action Plan 34 Development Name Address Year Constructed Total Units Income Restrictions Unit Mix Monte Verde Parcel 1.11(a) Lower Buckeye & Apache Rd Proposed 280 (Unspecified LIHTC) Not specified Not specified Sundance @ Buckeye Yuma & Apache Rd Planned 394 (Unspecified LIHTC) Not specified Not specified Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing is an annual federal grant administered by HUD to support communities that are actively taking steps to remove barriers to affordable housing production and preservation. Grants of up to $10 million can be awarded to local governments for actions to further develop and implement housing policy plans, to improve housing strategies, and to facilitate housing production and preservation. The grant can fund amendments to current policies and codes, education and outreach activities, and demonstration projects, among other related activities. Private Activity Bonds Private Activity Bonds (PABs) are tax-exempt municipal bonds which enable state and local governments to leverage private capital for public benefit projects, with affordable housing comprising over 90% of PAB utilization nationwide. States receive their federal allocation and subdivide it between state agencies (50%) and local governments (50%), typically using population-based formulas. The most powerful aspect of PAB financing for affordable housing lies in its automatic qualification for 4% LIHTC when bonds finance at least 50% of project development costs, resulting in PABs being used as the primary vehicle for accessing these credits. Housing Action Plan 35 Implementation Plan This implementation plan provides Buckeye with a clear, actionable framework for moving its housing strategies forward. It translates broad goals and strategies into specific steps with assigned responsibilities, timelines, and measurable outcomes. With this structure in place, City staff, leaders, and partners can better coordinate efforts, allocate resources, and track progress on key initiatives. The plan is designed as a practical tool for decision-making and collaboration. It outlines the next steps for each strategy, clarifies roles, and helps keep efforts on schedule. Regular review is encouraged to assess progress, identify what’s working, and adjust as the City’s needs evolve. The plan also serves as a communication tool, helping the City convey its housing priorities and actions to residents, developers, and other stakeholders. These strategies represent important steps toward addressing Buckeye’s housing needs, but their implementation will require further discussion and formal approval by City Council. 0-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years Ongoing Housing Action Plan 36 Strategy Timeline Performance Metric Intended Impact Responsible Department(s) Council Workshop(s) on Housing Strategies Workshop(s) completion; implementation consensus To explore housing strategies and evaluate timelines City Council Density Bonus Policy Number of projects using density bonuses; new units created Increase housing supply, particularly for workforce and senior housing Planning & Zoning; Development Services Waiver/Reduction of Development- related Fees Number of projects receiving fee waivers; reduction in development costs Lower barriers to affordable housing development Development Services; Finance Streamlined Administrative & Approval Processes Average project approval time; number of fast- tracked projects Reduce development timelines and costs Development Services; Planning & Zoning Development Code Updates Code amendments adopted; time to adoption Modernize regulations to support housing goals Planning & Zoning Site Suitability Dashboard Number of suitable sites identified resulting in construction; frequency of analysis updates Reduce due diligence costs for residential development. Planning & Zoning; GIS/IT (if applicable for maintenance) Senior Housing Incentives & Universal Design Standards Number of senior/accessible units created; percent of housing meeting accessibility standards Address the senior housing shortage and improve accessibility Planning & Zoning; Development Services; Human Services Division Housing Action Plan 37 Pre-Approved ADU Program Number of ADUs permitted; average permit processing time Provide a cost- effective housing option for residents Planning & Zoning; Development Services; Human Services Division Mixed-Use & Missing Middle Housing Development Incentives Number of mixed- use/missing middle projects approved; percent increase in housing diversity Increase housing diversity, promote attainability for homeowners and renters Planning & Zoning; Development Services Human Services Division Expansion Number of residents served; percent reduction in housing instability Connect residents to housing assistance and wraparound services Human Resources; Human Services Division State & Federal Funding Applications Number of grants awarded; funding leveraged Maximize external resources for housing initiatives City Manager’s Office; Planning & Zoning; Development Services; Human Services; Government Affairs Community Engagement & Education Number of workshops/events; resident participation rates Build support for housing initiatives and inform residents of supportive programing and financial assistance Community Services; Communications and Government Affairs; Partnering Municipalities and Organizations Housing Action Plan 39 Appendix B: Suitability Analysis A site suitability analysis evaluates potential locations for new residential development by integrating geographic data to identify parcels best suited for affordable housing, senior housing, or multi-family projects. Using GIS, this analysis weights various data layers based on their importance to housing objectives, then scores and ranks sites to create a suitability map. This provides the City and development community with data-driven insights to identify optimal construction sites. The evaluation criteria include: Category Scoring Maximum Score Access to Existing Infrastructure Within 1/2 mile = 5 Within 1 mile = 3 Within 3 miles = 1 3+ miles = 0 5 Education Within 1/2 mile = 5 Within 1 mile = 3 Within 3 miles = 1 3+ miles = 0 5 Economic Health Within 1/2 mile = 5 Within 1 mile = 3 Within 3 miles = 1 3+ miles = 0 5 Assessed Value per Acre <= $80,186 = 5 >$80,186 and <= $193,575 = 4 > $193,575 and <= $386,142 = 3 > $386,142 and <= $727,642 = 2 > $727,642 and <=$2,187,305 = 1 5 Transit Within 1/2 mile = 5 Within 3 miles = 3 Within 5 miles = 1 5+ miles = 0 5 Parks and Open Space Within 1/2 mile = 5 Within 1 mile = 3 Within 3 miles = 1 3+ miles = 0 5 Grocery Stores Within 1/2 mile = 5 Within 1 mile = 3 Within 3 miles = 1 3+ miles = 0 5 Medical Centers Within 1/2 mile = 5 Within 3 miles = 3 Within 5 miles = 1 5+ miles = 0 5 Zoning Residential = 5 other = 0 5 Total Score: 45 Insert MAP Insert spreadsheet with scored parcels Ji m m ie Wash Ent e rp r is e Ca n al B ox Was h Wagne r Wash Winters W a s h B P o wer l in e W a sh Wi n ters Wash A Mill W a sh F ourm i le W ash Star W as h R a inbo w Wash Trilby Wash Waterma n Wash Beardsl ey Ca n al Da g gs W as h Ja ckra b b i t W a sh A Buckeye C anal H assay amp a River Gila Rive r 10 85 Suitability Score (out of 45) <16 16 - 23 24 - 29 30 - 36 37 - 45 City of Buckeye Highway Stream Housing Suitability Analysis Buckeye, Arizona 0 2 4 Miles Path: Z:\gis_projects\MAG_HOME\City_of_Buckeye\active\apps\Buckeye_Housing_2025.aprx 303 60