(HOME)

 

City of Roundup Housing Plan

 

 

Prepared by

 

HRDC District 6

Human Resources Development Council

203 Centennial Plaza

300 1st Avenue North

Lewistown, MT  59457

406-535-7488

 

 

 

May 2007

 

 

Profile:

Population:

When the 2000 census was conducted there were 1,931 people residing in the City of Roundup. There were 833 households of which 29.2% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 47.9 % were married couples living together, 8.9% had a female householder with no husband present, and 40.1% were non-family households.  36.7% of all households were made up of single individuals and 19.7 % of the total households had someone living alone who was 65 years or older.  The average household size was 2.25 and the average family size was 2.96.

The age of the population in the City of Roundup was reported as being 28% 19 years of age and under, 50% from 20 to 64, and 22% who were 65 years of age or older.  The median age was 41.7 years.

 The characteristics of the population, age and race, for the City of Roundup and Musselshell County are shown in the following charts.

 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

Population by Race

 

 

Race

Roundup city, Montana

Musselshell County, Montana

Total:

1,931

4,497

White alone

1,874

4,358

Black or African American alone

3

3

American Indian or Alaskan Native alone

15

57

Asian alone

2

7

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone

0

2

Some other race alone

9

17

Two or more races

28

53

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

 

Population estimate comparisons: According to the 2000 census the City of Roundup had a population of 1,931 in April with an estimate of 1,932 for July, 2000.  The population estimate difference of 1,932 for July 2000 and of 1,916 for July 2005 is a decrease of 16 people or a loss of .8%.

 Population Estimates

Year

Roundup

Musselshell  County

 Montana

2000

  1,932

           4,500

 903,531

2001

  1,907

           4,445

 906,148

2002

  1,912

           4,459

 910,357

2003

  1,922

           4,482

 917,193

2004

  1,932

           4,494

 926,345

2005

  1,916

           4,474

 934,737

Source: U S Census 2000

 

The estimated population of Musselshell County in 2006 had a 1.9% increase from 2000 estimating there are 4586 people residing in Musselshell County in 2006. This population increase is even more significant in that it is the first increase in population in Musselshell County since 2000 and shows a 2.5% increase from 2005 to 2006. At this time, the 2006 population estimates are not available for Montana cities.  

                           

                      10 Year Growth Percentage Change by County – 1995-2006

Source: Population Division U.S. Census Bureau; Census & Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce

  

 

              1 Year Growth Percentage Change by County- 2005-2006

 

           

Source: Population Division U.S. Census Bureau; Census & Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce

 

The population projection between the Census 2000 and NPA projections for 2030 forecasts Musselshell County to increase 13%. In comparison to the counties surrounding Musselshell; Fergus County has a projection of 1% increase, Petroleum a decrease of 17%, Golden Valley increase of 30% and Yellowstone 32% increase. The chart below shows these changes:

       Source: U.S. Census Bureau

 

Economic/Employment:

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis in 2005 Musselshell County had a per capita personal income of $21, 215 and was 73 percent of the state average of $29,015.  The 2005 per capita personal income reflected an increase of 5.5% from 2004.  The state of Montana had an increase of 4.2 % and the surrounding counties of Fergus County had a 3.5% increase and Golden Valley a 3.8% increase.  Between the years of 2000 and 2005 Musselshell County has seen an average increase of 5.1% and the state average was 4.8%.

 

     

          Source: BEA-Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. Department of Commerce

 

     

           Source: BEA-Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. Department of Commerce

 

The total labor force for Musselshell County in 2006 was 2,039.  The average total employed was 1,964 and the average unemployed was 75. The unemployment rate for Musselshell County in 2006 was 3.7%. The average unemployment rate for Musselshell County from the years 2000 to 2006 was 5.4% compared to the State of Montana average during the same time frame of 4.2%, Fergus County 4.7%, Golden Valley 4.9%, and Yellowstone County 3.4%.

  

     Source: Census & Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce

 

 

      Source: Census & Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce

 

According to the 2000 Census the City of Roundup had 380 people living below the poverty level or 20.3 percent of the population.  Musselshell County had 19.9% of the population living below the poverty level and Montana on an average was 14.6%.  The disabled population has a higher poverty rate than the general population with 21.3% of the disabled population living below the poverty level in Musselshell County.

   Source: U.S. Census; Montana Department of Commerce- Economic and Demographic Analysis

Employment data for the City of Roundup is not available but data was collected in 2004 for Musselshell County. In 2004 there were 699 people employed by 136 establishments in Musselshell County.  The following industries employed the most people: Mining, Manufacturing, Health Care & Social Assistance, Retail Trade, and Accommodation & Food Services.  This data does not represent the self-employed.  The self-employed for Musselshell County that paid federal income tax, as a business, in 2004 were reported to be around 346 enterprises.  The largest self-employed were construction and retail trade.

   

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Compiled by Census and Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce

 

Housing:

According to the 2000 census there are a total of 977 housing units in the City of Roundup with the majority of the units (448) built prior to 1939.  Of the 977 housing units 834 were occupied units.  478 (57%) of the 834 occupied units were specified as owner-occupied units and 266 (32%) were specified as renter-occupied units.  The following table data has the number of housing units built during a specific time period.  The information includes all housing structures- Single-Family, Apartment units, Mobile Homes, RV’s etc.

 

     Year Structure Built               Number of Housing Units      

1999-2000

                       1

1995-1998

                      25

1990-1994

                      22

1980-1989

                      67

1970-1979

                    126

1960-1969

                      52

1940-1959

                    236

1939 or earlier

                    448

       Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000

 

Realtor Survey Results

A survey of Roundup area realtors was conducted in February 2007; fifty percent (50%) of those contacted returned the surveys.  Of those surveyed during the year of 2006, a total of seventeen (17) homes sold in the City of Roundup. One realtor sent a listing of homes sold with other realtors indicating a possibility of nine (9) additional homes within the city limits.  The price of homes in the Roundup area ranged from $18,000 to $299,999 listed price. The average home price from the written responses was $145,000 and an average of $108, 784 listed prices from the additional information provided. The average home price is going to be lower than the $108,784 because listings usually are a little higher than the actual selling price. The range of time that homes stay on the market varied between the responses from forty-five (45) days to six (6) months indicating an average of approximately three and three-fourths months (3.75).

The realtors indicated an average of thirty-five (35) inquiries in 2006 from interested buyers who could not find suitable or affordable homes. Most of the existing structures needed substantial repair.  

The majority of the homes sold in 2006 were to family oriented households with conventional loans the chosen method of financing.  Other methods used by families to help with their home financing were to borrow from other family members or against owned property.

 

       Source: City of Roundup 2007 Realtor Survey

 

Rental Survey Results

 

A survey of Roundup landlords was conducted in 2007 with 12 out of the 15(80%) contacted responding. One apartment unit of 50 apartments is not reported in the survey data because the units’ rental amounts are based on occupant’s income and also the occupants of the units need to be 62 or older or handicapped. The majority of the landlords rent apartments, but the types of rental units in the city of Roundup are fairly equal.  The highest percentage (39%) of the rental units were apartments, 24% were houses, and the lowest percentage were mobile homes (15%). The landlords stated that they have very few vacancies and most of the time if a vacancy comes up they can fill it.  Also when asked if they had a rental on the market to sell, two landlords responded by stating there would be two homes and ten apartments for sale, but the majority that responded stated they had no units on the market.

The data below indicates what the responses were to the survey questions.

 

THE NUMBER OF RENTAL UNIT(S) YOU OWN: (131)

HOUSES: 33 

APARTMENTS: 51 +50(not included in data results)

MOBILE HOMES: 20

MOBILE HOME LOTS: 27

 

 

    Source- City of Roundup 2007 Rental Survey

 

THE RENT AMOUNT FOR ALL UNITS: (33 Houses, 51 Apartments, 20 Mobile Homes)    There are an additional fifty subsidized apartment units not reported in this data because the rent amount is based on income.

 

Less Than $100________     # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

$100-$199           2               # of Bedrooms 1)     1    2)    1    3) ____ 4 or more_______

$200-$299          32              # of Bedrooms 1)    11   2)   21   3) ____ 4 or more_______

$300-399   ____50_____     # of Bedrooms 1)   25    2)    15   3)   10  4 or more_______

$400-499   ____19_____     # of Bedrooms 1)   1      2)   10   3)    6    4 or more   2      _                                                           

$500-599   ____1______    # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) _____ 3)   1    4 or more_______

$600-699   ___________    # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) _____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

$700 or more _________    # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) _____ 3) ____ 4 or more______

                                                                                                        

                                              Source- City of Roundup 2007 Rental Survey

 

Nine landlords (82%) indicated yes, “a security deposit is charged.  One landlord indicated no security deposit and one survey had no response.  In regards to the amount charged for a security deposit, five of the nine landlords responded by stating they charge the same as the cost of one month’s rent.

 

DO YOU CHARGE A SECURITY DEPOSIT?   YES     9          NO   1     _                                              

IF YES, WHAT AMOUNT FOR:

HOUSE:  1) Bedroom $ 200-299       2) Bedroom $ 185-$499  

     3) Bedroom $ 300-450      4 or more Bedroom $ 400-550

 APARTMENT:  1) Bedroom $ 175-300     2) Bedroom $175-350 

        3) Bedroom $175-499      4 or more Bedroom $ 400-499               

MOBILE HOME:  1) Bedroom $__________     2) Bedroom $ 175-399                                       

        3) Bedroom $300-499      4 or more Bedroom $____________

 

 

        Source- City of Roundup 2007 Rental Survey

                      

The majority of the utilities, heat and electricity, are the responsibility of the tenants in addition to the rent charged. The water bill is paid for by the landlord more frequently than the electricity or heat.

NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS WHERE HEAT

IS PAID FOR: 2 landlords- no response on survey

                         BY LANDLORD__38- 38 apartments_+50

                             BY TENANT _____59-_20 mobiles; 13 apartments; 26 houses______

NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS WHERE ELECTRICITY

IS PAID FOR: 

                              BY LANDLORD   37- 27 apartments; 2 houses; 8 unknown units +50

                              BY TENANT 62- 20 mobiles; 14 apartments; 25 houses; 3 unknown units

NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS WHERE WATER AND SEWER 

IS PAID FOR: 1 landlord –no response on survey and 1unit not accounted for on survey

                             BY LANDLORD_82-12 mobiles; 46 apartments; 17 houses; 7 unknown +50

                             BY TENANT __16-  9 houses; 2 unknown; 5 apartments_

  

        Source- City of Roundup 2007 Rental Survey

 

The age of the rental units varies with the majority of the houses in the fifty to fifty-nine years of age and apartments ranging in age from the twenty to twenty-nine years to the ninety to ninety-nine years of age. The apartment’s average age is thirty years.  The age of the rental units does show there is a need for updated housing.

NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS BY AGE: (not all units had a response as to age)

10-19 YEARS OLD __0_______________

20-29 YEARS OLD_27- 7 mobiles; 20 apartments_

30-39 YEARS OLD 19- 1 mobile; 16 apartments; 2 houses +50 apartments

40-49 YEARS OLD _7-   7 houses_________

50-59 YEARS OLD_16- 1 apartment; 15 houses_

60-69 YEARS OLD _7- 5 apartments; 2 houses___

70-79 YEARS OLD _7-   6 apartments; 1 house_

80-89 YEARS OLD       0                         _

90-99 YEARS OLD _ 3- 3 apartments_____

100+ YEARS OLD       0              _

      

          Source- City of Roundup 2007 Rental Survey

 

The number of reported rentals subsidized in Roundup is twenty-five units but one apartment complex not included in these results has fifty subsidized units that are rented to age 62 or older and/or handicapped.

NUMBER OF SUBSIDIZED UNITS BY AGE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER SUBSIDIZED UNIT: (i.e. If you have 2 subsidized at 20 years old how many of those have 1bedroom, 2 bedrooms, etc.)

 

     1 landlord no response and 1 responded 2 mobiles 1-3 bedroom and 1-2 bedroom no year indicated

 

10-19 YEARS OLD ________   # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

20-29 YEARS OLD 2 unknown types; 11 apartments # of Bedrooms 1) 8    2) 4   3)   1    4 or more _____

30-39 YEARS OLD 2 houses; 7 apartments # of Bedrooms 1)   8   2) __ 3)   1   4 or more______

40-49 YEARS OLD ________     # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

50-59 YEARS OLD  ________    # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

60-69 YEARS OLD  ________    # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

70-79 YEARS OLD  ________    # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

80-89 YEARS OLD  ________    # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

90-99 YEARS OLD 1 apartment # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2)    1     3) ____ 4 or more_____

100+ YEARS OLD   _______      # of Bedrooms 1) ____ 2) ____ 3) ____ 4 or more_______

 

Structural Survey

A “windshield” housing survey of the city of Roundup housing conditions was completed in early January 2007. 797 housing units were surveyed. The method used was the structural condition survey providing points for housing conditions indicating the condition as being “standard”, “moderately substandard”, “substantially substandard” or “severely substandard”.  The “windshield” survey does not require inspection of the interior of each housing unit, just a visual inspection from the outside.  

Six categories were assessed when viewing a home.  The homes were rated by points on their foundation, exterior wall/porch/stairs, windows/doors, roof, chimney/vents, and electrical service. When the point scores are summed the totals provide the mechanism to appraise the housing condition.

 The foundation of a home is rated as follows:

§         0-There is no visible sign of sagging or other noticeable support defects

§         2- The foundation has holes, major cracks and severe sagging or other major defects

§         6- The foundation has major holes and provides little protection from the elements such as rain or snow.

The exterior walls, porches, or stairs are rated:

§         0- They are visually in good shape

§         2- Some porches or stairs are sagging out of alignment, or buckling outward, the siding is loose; paint chipping or worn away in major areas, mortar decomposing in brick or stone structures, and stucco or plaster badly cracked

§         6- Exterior walls, porches or stairs are badly aligned, sagging, or with holes, siding is missing, or building materials in advance stages of deterioration such as mortar missing, bricks or stones loose or missing and stucco or plaster missing or chipping.

The windows/doors of a home are rated:

§         0- They appear in good shape.

§         2- The windows or doors need minor repairs, caulking, single pane or plastic vinyl weatherizing.

§         6- The exterior doors and windows are broken, large cracks, holes, missing parts or in other words need major repair. 

The roof is assessed as follows:

§         0- No sagging is evident and the roofing material is in good shape.

§         2- The roof line is slightly sagging, roof materials loose, or a few missing shingles.

§         6- The roof line sags extensively and roofing materials are missing, holes evident, flashing missing or rusted through.

The chimney/vents are graded:

§         0- The chimney and vents are in good shape and the chimney projects above the roof line three feet or more.

§         2- Some rusting or evidence of deterioration is evident, such as if a brick chimney- loose bricks or mortar deterioration.

§         6- The chimney/vents are in need of major repair or replacement or missing vents.

 The electrical service is rated:

§         0- The wires to unit appear to be of good quality and condition and proper grounding.

§         2- Wires to unit appear to be worn and deteriorated and inadequate grounding.

§         6- No electricity to the housing unit, hazardous wires, and no grounding evident.

The points assessed for each home were added up and compiled. After the data was compiled the majority of the homes total point ratings were inflated by the point data of the electrical service. As shown in the following chart the homes rated in accordance to the six categories, the electrical service to the majority (95%) of the homes rated a 0 but only 64% of the homes rated in the 0 category for foundation condition, 67% in the walls/porches/stairs category, 68% rated 0 for windows/doors, 73% roof condition and 83% chimney/ vent category.

 

      Source: Windshield housing survey

 

To conduct the structural survey the City of Roundup was divided up into four sections; North West which is all homes north of Eighth Avenue and west of Main Street, South West encompasses west of Main Street and south of Eighth Avenue, North East covers the area north of Eighth Avenue and east of Main Street, and the South East encompasses south of Eighth Avenue and east of Main Street. 

There were a total of 797 homes surveyed, of these, 21 homes were considered to be dilapidated and 15 in need of substantial repair.  In a break down by area, the South East had 11 homes categorized as needing substantial repair and 5 homes assessed as being dilapidated, the South West had 2 homes needing substantial repair and 14 at the dilapidated stage, the North East had 9 homes needing substantial repair and 0 homes considered to be dilapidated. In the North West area there were 2 homes considered needing substantial repair and 2 homes assessed as dilapidated. 

The results indicated that some areas of Roundup particularly the South East have a substantially larger percentage of substandard housing. 

In the South East area there are 58 homes that are classified as substandard and 79 homes that are standard condition out of 137 surveyed or approximately 43% of the homes are substandard and 57% of the homes are rated as standard condition.  If the electrical service points are excluded from the structural condition survey, there would be only 52% of the homes as standard condition, 36% moderately substandard and 12% substantially to severely substandard. 

 

 

      Source: Windshield housing survey

 

The South West area has 43 homes that are substandard and 234 standard condition or 15% of the homes are substandard and 84% rated as standard condition.  When the electrical service is disregarded from the structural point survey only 69% of the homes are rated as standard condition, 25% moderately substandard and 6 % as substantially to severely substandard.

         Source: Windshield housing survey

 

In the North East area of the 99 homes surveyed the overall condition of the homes is better than the south Roundup homes. 90 of the homes in the north east rated as standard condition and 9 moderately substandard or 91% in good condition and only 9% moderately substandard. When the electrical service point data is not factored into the conditional format, 73 homes in the North East are rated as standard, 25 moderately substandard, and 1 home substantially substandard.

 

  

      Source: Windshield housing survey

The North West area of Roundup is newer homes as the conditional survey of the North West area 284 homes indicates, 263 are standard condition and 17 substandard or 93% standard and a little over 7% are substandard.  When the electrical service points were not a factor in the overall structural condition of the North West homes the condition of the homes did decrease as only 230(81%) homes were standard condition, 48(17%) moderate substandard and 6(2%) substantial to severely substantial condition.

 

                                                                                                     

   Source: Windshield housing survey

Needs Assessment

 

District 6 HRDC conducted a community needs assessment for all the six counties that they serve.  262 surveys were delivered to households in Musselshell County that had accessed HRDC 6 services within the time frame of October 1st, 2005 through March 1st, 2007.  The rate of return for Musselshell County was 14%.  95% of those responding listed Roundup as their town of residence.  The information used in this report was obtained from the thirty-seven (37) surveys returned from Musselshell County.  Some responses may report less than a total number of thirty-seven (37), because some respondents did not answer every question.  The average age of those responding was fifty-seven (57). 

Of thirty-six responses, twenty-four (24) live in a residential home. The other respondents lived in modular housing, mobile homes, and RV’s. The majority (67%) of the respondents owns their own home and twenty-eight percent (28%) rent with twenty percent (20%) of those renters receiving rental assistance.  The rental amount listed by the respondents ranged from $100 to $475 with the average being $256.43 per month.  Most of the residents are fairly stable.  They do not have a tendency to move; in fact, of the respondents, only one household has moved once in the prior twelve months from when the survey was conducted.

The housing situation from those responding to the survey indicated some shortcomings.    Seven (7) of thirty-four (34) respondents indicated no repairs were needed at their place of residency, ten (10) or twenty-seven percent (27%) indicated their place of living is in need of serious repair, fifteen (15) or forty-one percent (41%) indicated only minor repairs are needed at their residence, and two (2) indicated their place of residence is in hazardous condition. This data is shown in the following chart.

    Source: HRDC Community Needs Assessment

 

 

Of those responding to the survey, two (2) of the households indicated their housing was not adequate in the number of bedrooms for their family size.

The respondents to the survey indicated some of the housing obstacles they have encountered are: affordable rent, affordable down payment, poor credit, and poor condition of homes.

The survey asked respondents to rank community concerns.  The chart below illustrates the top concerns or needs the respondents felt were needed in Roundup.

     Source: HRDC Community Needs Assessment

In 2002-2003 Eastern Montana Consortium conducted a Housing and Community Needs Assessment Survey in Musselshell County. Two hundred and fifty-nine( 259) people responded to the survey.  The survey participants were asked to prioritize the needs of the County.  The data in the following table illustrates the responses the participants rated as the highest housing needs in Musselshell County:

 

    Eastern Montana Consortium: Musselshell County Housing Survey & Community Needs Assessment

 

Additionally, one hundred thirty-two (132) of the survey participants were open to the concept of applying to grant and/or loan programs to assist in the financing associated with the rehabilitation of owner occupied housing, one hundred nineteen (119) rehabilitation of renter-occupied housing.  Also one hundred sixty-two respondents of the two hundred fifty-nine (259) request funding for first-time homebuyers.

The needs from both surveys are very similar. Affordable rentals and the overall condition of housing are concerns in Roundup.

 

 

Summary and Recommendations

 

The Musselshell Housing Advisory Committee, responsible for spearheading the preparation of this Housing Plan, has identified many housing needs within the Roundup community as listed below.  The housing needs are based on the analysis of the U. S. Census data, the structural condition survey results, landlord and realtor surveys and discussions, comments from the Public Hearing held January 24, 2007, discussions with community leaders, and the community needs assessment survey results reported in this document.

 

  1. There appears to be a lack of suitable affordable housing for rentals. The average age of rentals being approximately forty years old and most rentals being two bedrooms.  With the population projected to increase there may be a shortage of adequate units.
  2.  The dilapidated housing conditions in areas of Roundup, especially the South East and South West. A need of a demolition project of the older homes possibly being replaced with manufactured housing or new construction.  The age and condition of many of the structures indicates that it would be more cost effective to demolish the existing units and replace them with manufactured housing or new construction.  A manufactured housing company is considering expanding its operations to Roundup.  This may help with affordability.
  3. Many homes are simply in need of repair.  A demolition project in conjunction with a rehabilitation project focused on not only repair, but energy conservation measures as well, would accommodate the stated needs for senior home repair, home heating, and weatherization.  A combination of demolition and rehabilitation would also improve the overall quality of the housing stock in the South East and South West areas of Roundup.
  4. Lack of affordable housing to purchase appears to be a major concern.  Based on the condition of housing and the annual average wage of approximately $23,755.  There is likely to be a shortage of adequate housing available to purchase.  Improving the availability of good quality homes will increase the chances of the Roundup area attracting industries.

The housing issues presented are; affordable, good quality housing for rent or purchase; significant number of substandard units in the South East and South West portions of town; a desire for additional senior home repair/weatherization programs.  Roundup can focus on methods to improve the general structural conditions with a rehabilitation project and a demolition project.  With these housing needs in mind, the Housing Advisory Committee has identified the following priorities:

 

1. Housing Rehabilitation:   Two areas have been targeted for potential housing rehabilitation projects.  These two areas, South West and South East, have the greatest substandard housing as indicated on pages twenty (20) through twenty-two (22) of this document. Using Main Street and Eighth Avenue as dividers the South East area has 48% of the area being substandard and the South West area has 31% classified as substandard.  Demolition of some of the existing housing stock will provide some building sites possibly being replaced with manufactured housing or new construction. The committee understands that feasibility, zoning, and infrastructure will have to be considered if manufactured housing or new construction will be used for replacements.  Also funding sources need to be considered.  Sources for funding and consultation may include but not limited to: Montana Department of Commerce Community Development Block Grant Program, application date- November 2, 2007;  Montana Department of Commerce HOME Investment Partnership Program- Single Family Pilot Program is open application and a construction grant application is March, 2008; Montana Homeownership Network; USDA Housing Preservation Grant Program- The Housing Preservation Grant (HPG) program provides grants to sponsoring organizations for the repair or rehabilitation of low- and very low-income housing.  The grants are competitive and are made available in areas where there is a concentration of need.- can apply in June, 2008; Human Resources Development Council District 6 Weatherization Program is currently coordinating on a rehabilitation project with the City of Stanford and would be willing to coordinate in similar manner with the City of Roundup.

 

2. Affordability for housing for purchase or rent: Some HOME funds are available for Musselshell County with HRDC District 6 administering a Single Family Pilot Program (a need stated at the Public Hearing and in the Needs Assessments) which can assist first-time homebuyers with down payments and closing costs. The availability of quality housing may be impacted more if industry continues to look at Roundup. The coal industry is looking for a new buyer and Roundup has been mentioned as a future site for a Camelina plant.  The housing committee should continue to seek opportunities to increase the amount of affordable, quality housing units for rent or purchase. A phase II project of looking into renovation of the upper levels of the downtown buildings for rentals may be considered.