TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Jennifer Palmer, Director of Housing & Community Services
REPORT BY: Jennifer Palmer, Director of Housing & Community Services
SUBJECT: Napa Valley Made the Rent report
RECOMMENDATION
title
Receive a presentation regarding the “Made the Rent” report. (No Fiscal Impact)
body
BACKGROUND
Purpose and Context of Made the Rent Report
Affordable Housing in Napa Valley—particularly rent-restricted, income-based units developed through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and supported by local investments—serves nearly 2,700 households. These homes form a core part of the county’s larger system of housing that is affordable and are a crucial component of the local response to rising housing costs.
High housing costs play a role in various challenges facing the Valley, from workforce attraction and retention, displacement of lower-income families, school disenrollment, and traffic congestion. The high cost of housing is regularly cited as a primary driver of the Valley’s drop in in-county workers (or workers who live in the county they work in)—the largest among all Bay Area counties since 2005. Driving this may also be the location of housing that is affordable near lower-wage job centers. Fewer than 5% of California’s lower-wage workers work in areas where there are more affordable rentals than low wage jobs. In Napa Valley, this has likely contributed to the loss of 8,000 households making less than $100,000 in the past two decades. Beyond rent relief, Affordable Housing plays a role in Napa Valley’s economic stability, community and school life, and climate change strategies.
Not enough is known about Affordable Housing’s success in correcting these trends, and what kinds, which locations, and what affiliate services policymakers should prioritize in the development of additional housing that is affordable.
This report is the first of its kind to evaluate whether the cost savings of Affordable Housing have a broader impact on household stability, mental well-being, geographic access, and quality of life. This report does so by identifying specific characteristics of Affordable Housing that residents cite as most critical to their livelihoods. Drawing on survey data from residents living in LIHTC-supported housing, the study offers a first-time, comprehensive framework for evaluating the value of local Affordable Housing investment beyond rent levels alone.
Major Contributions of this Report
Affordable Housing development requires significant public investment of land, financing, and political will. In an environment where Area Median Income (“AMI”) based rents are high in comparison to other CA counties, and Napa Valley residents continue to report financial stress, this can challenge public support. This report provides a more comprehensive means to evaluate how Affordable Housing impacts economic vitality through its interaction with transportation networks, job centers, and local development patterns, allowing policymakers to report success in expanded, more holistic metrics.
Rent-restricted, income-based units are just one part of Napa Valley’s larger ecosystem of low- and moderate-cost, subsidized and unsubsidized, affordable rental housing. Traditionally, housing that is affordable has been evaluated on a single dimension focused on rent levels or cost burden relief. This approach can flatten the different benefits provided by these units, from their approach to and eligibility for low rents, rental protections, level of affiliate service and quality of housing, and location. This report expands the evaluation lens, showing that location, stability, and quality are just as vital to residents’ well-being and to the regional workforce. The housing that best meets these needs for residents has the chance to best deliver on the region’s desired outcomes, like economic stability, community resilience, and health equity. This broader framework allows policymakers to understand and evaluate Affordable Housing as an economic development tool, not just a social service.
The findings suggest that the most powerful impacts of rent-restricted Affordable Housing lie in its capacity to reduce and mitigate financial stress by preserving community ties, expanding access to jobs and services, and minimizing life disruptions caused by displacement or long commutes. The report draws the following conclusions:
1. Job Preservation and Economic Stability: The report finds evidence that Affordable Housing’s proximity to jobs is among its major benefits, cited by residents as the primary reason they are able to remain in the regional workforce and/or in their current role, likely mitigating workforce displacement and/or employee turnover.
2. Mitigating Financial Stress At a Moderately Higher Cost to Renters: This study also finds that Affordable Housing is doing more than it was designed to do, picking up the slack in a fragmented housing system and easing financial stress in high-cost markets. Compared to unsubsidized housing that is affordable, deed-restricted units offer residents longer-term protections, and higher-quality standards, in a sub-market prone to housing conversions and unpredictable quality, even if residents pay slightly higher rents to live there. When Affordable Housing units also provide access to amenities and services, these benefits are worth the additional cost to the resident.
3. Addressing System Gaps in a Single Policy: We find that deed-restricted, income-based homes are doing more than capping rents—they are, in many cases, preserving access to job markets, supporting family stability, and allowing working residents to remain close to the communities, schools, and services they depend on. In this way, Napa Valley’s Affordable Housing stock helps to solve four core challenges: job retention & economic opportunity, school enrollment, displacement, and climate change—through a single policy and funding stream. Investment in and development of Affordable Housing has exceptionally broad impact on the Valley’s goals.
Key Population Studied
The report focuses on households earning less than 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) currently living in one of Napa Valley’s LITHC-supported rental housing units:
● Extremely Low-Income (ELI): under 30% AMI
● Very Low-Income (VLI): 31–50% AMI
● Low-Income (LI): up to 60% AMI
In Napa Valley, this generally means those earning annual incomes of $61,000 or less for a one-person household or $88,000 for a four-person household and often include home health aides, hospitality and retail employees, entry-level teachers—industries expecting some of the highest growth in upcoming years, according to recent projections. Seniors on fixed incomes and individuals receiving general assistance also comprise major portions of the population of rent-restricted Affordable Housing.
Report Authors and Contributors
“Made the Rent” was commissioned by Napa County’s Department of Housing & Community Services on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors and conducted by Generation Housing (“Gen H”). Gen H is a non-profit organization focused on providing public education for decision-makers and policymakers about housing policy solutions to improve the housing system. Gen H conducts research, develops reports, and acts as a regional convener aligning diverse local interests around effective housing solutions to meet local and regional housing goals. In 2024, the Napa County Board of Supervisors commissioned Generation Housing to produce the Napa Valley State of Housing and Housing Need Assessment reports, and Generation Housing is currently working with a Napa Valley steering committee to launch an embedded Napa Valley arm of the organization.
The report survey design and distribution received significant input and assistance from numerous Napa Valley community organizations, including How To ADU, Napa Housing Coalition, Napa Valley Community Housing, CommuniCare+OLE, Selena Polston Consulting, Burbank Housing, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, EAH Housing, and the Napa Valley Community Foundation.
Procedural Requirements:
No Action Required
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification: |
There is no mandate to receive this report. |
|
Is the general fund affected? |
No |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.