|
All the citizens of Burlington have the right to live and raise their
families in homes which are safe and sound at a cost that allows them to afford
the other necessities of life. In the face of Burlington's prosperity, thousands
of Burlington's residents have been left behind through no fault of their own.
They include the elderly and disabled, as well as many workers whose wages have
not kept up with housing costs.
The free market for housing is often not a fair market for low income
residents. Left unchecked, market forces will allow housing to deteriorate, push
people from their homes and leave others with no homes at all. The City must act
to protect its residents from this harm through enforcement of its housing
ordinances (including its inclusionary zoning ordinance, which makes affordable
housing an integral part of every newly constructed residential project in the
City) and the provision of housing outside the private market. In addition, the
City needs to find ways to protect residents from unfair property speculation
and to give tenants the protection of just cause eviction laws.
Housing is the essence of Burlington's neighborhoods. Support for affordable
housing allows elders to remain in the homes and neighborhoods they know.
Homebuyer purchase and rehabilitation programs allow the next generation of
residents to own and modernize older homes.
The nonprofit housing organizations serve a crucial role in the development
of affordable rental housing and housing for the most vulnerable populations.
The City will continue to support these community-based nonprofit housing
developers in their efforts in Burlington and in expanding their areas of
operation beyond Burlington's Old North End - and beyond Burlington.
Affordable housing is also a balance to economic development. In boom times,
affordable housing ensures that there is housing for workers and that rising
prices do not displace residents. In a troubled economy, affordable housing
development is an economic engine and its subsidies ensure that low-income
residents are not made homeless. Finally, the use of affordable housing to
redevelop distressed neighborhoods prevents the loss of value of the surrounding
properties and encourages long-term investment by other property owners.
Control of affordable housing should rest with the community as a whole and
with the residents of that housing. Government subsidies for housing should
remain with the assisted housing, and not simply provide profits to the initial
occupant or developer. Renters deserve equal protections of their legal rights
to decent homes. The benefits and burdens of development in the community must
be evenly shared among the residents of the community and must prevent extensive
displacement and cost burdens to low income people.
Burlington's housing policy is shaped around the concept of a housing tenure
ladder. The ladder is an affordable housing system that combines security and
mobility, one that guarantees both a "right to stay put" and a
"chance to move on." The rungs of the housing tenure ladder consist of
a wide range of living situations, including single room occupancy (SRO),
family-sized apartments, detached homes, cooperatives, condominiums, group homes
and co-housing. This housing includes a wide range of tenures, including public
ownership, for-profit rental, nonprofit rentals, cooperative ownership, limited
equity condominiums and houses, and market-priced condominiums and houses.
The many different rungs allow residents to change their housing when their
needs or circumstances change, from living situations that are precarious to
those that are more secure; moving from situations that are cramped to those
that are more commodious; moving from situations requiring each and every
resident to "go it alone" to those that allow more cooperative sharing
of residential responsibilities, burdens and risks. At each rung, the tenure of
residents must be secure and opportunities must be created, with an easy process
for moving from one rung to another. The City will continue to support new
models of housing tenure that create additional rungs on the housing tenure
ladders, bridging the yawning gap between for-profit rental housing and
market-priced homeownership.
The City has a long-standing policy of minimizing involuntary displacement.
That policy is even more critical in the current housing market, where
low-income residents who lose housing stand little chance of regaining it.
The City will continue to enforce Uniform Relocation Act requirements for all
sub-grantees. The City will also continue to enforce its condominium conversion
and housing replacement ordinances, and will continue to impose rent
stabilization agreements on any landlord receiving a Housing Initiatives Program
loan.
The City will continue to support landlord-tenant resource services, funded
through the Apartment Registration Fee Ordinance. Those services include the
efforts of Vermont Tenants, Inc. and Vermont Apartment Owners Services to inform
tenants and landlords of their legal rights and responsibilities. Both landlords
and tenants often turn to Renting in Vermont, a booklet produced by Vermont
Tenants, Inc. to answer basic questions about their rights and responsibilities.
It summarizes Vermont's landlord/tenant law as well as some municipal laws,
state regulations and Vermont Supreme Court decisions that also govern the
landlord/tenant relationship. The Affordable Housing Task Force found that in
Burlington, both parties would benefit by requiring landlords to distribute a
Burlington-specific handout that outlines the rights and responsibilities of
both landlords and tenants and includes the basics of local laws and norms of
behavior that are expected of tenants, i.e. noise, trash, recycling, and housing
codes. Consideration should be given to requiring certain lease provisions in
all leases.
Under Vermont law, a landlord may terminate a tenancy for no cause. The
majority of Affordable Housing Task Force members felt that lease-abiding
tenants should be afforded some additional security of tenure by extending the
notice period for no cause evictions. Currently, tenants without written rental
agreements (leases) may be evicted provided that the landlord gives them 60-day
written notice if renting monthly, 21 days if renting weekly, and 90-day written
notice if the tenant has resided in the premises continuously for over two years
and rents monthly. Under a written rental agreement, a tenant can be evicted
under whatever time period the parties agree on, but no less than 30 days if
renting monthly, and no less than 7 days if renting weekly. A tenant with a
written lease who has resided in the premises continuously for over two years is
entitled to no less than 60 days notice for a no cause eviction. The concept of
a graduated notice period is that the longer that a tenant has resided
continuously in an apartment, the longer notice period to which they are
entitled. In March 2003, Burlington voters overwhelmingly passed a Charter
change that increases the notice period for no-cause evictions that landlords
must provide to tenants from 60 days to 90 days. In addition, the voters also
passed a Charter change increasing the notice period for rent increases from 60
days to 90 days. Both of these amendments to the City's Charter must be approved
by the General Assembly of the Vermont Legislature and signed by the Governor
before they become effective.
The City will continue to assist elderly and disabled homeowners to stay in
their homes through grants and loans provided through the City's Housing
Initiatives Program. The City will also continue to support the home?matching
program of HomeShare Vermont.
The City remains committed to reducing residential energy costs. The City
adopted a Minimum Rental Housing Energy Efficiency Standards Ordinance in March
of 1997, and will continue to enforce it. Through December 2002, 624 apartments
in 238 buildings had been inspected, with 233 buildings requiring some work. The
average compliance cost per unit has been $668, while the average annual savings
per unit is $138.
The City will continue to support the residential demand side management
programs of the Burlington Electric Department (BED) and Vermont Gas Systems (VGS).
BED and VGS continue to work closely together on efficiency projects, which
creates a comprehensive set of energy services for city residents. The City will
also continue to support Vermont Energy Investment Corporation's programs for
improving residential and commercial energy efficiency. With the assistance of
the Community & Economic Development Office, BED and Vermont Development
Credit Union have developed a loan program to fund energy efficiency projects.
The City supports and collaborates with the Champlain Valley Office of
Economic Opportunity's Weatherization Service to provide energy efficiency
improvements (i.e. energy analysis, insulation, low cost repairs, heating system
replacement) for residential properties. In the last five program years, the
Weatherization Service has completed weatherization of 126 buildings within the
City of Burlington, for a total of 236 residential units. Energy improvements
totaling nearly $375,000 in direct costs (excluding technical assistance,
administrative and other program expenses) have been made in the City, for an
average improvement of more than $2,975 per building or nearly $1,600 per unit.
The Weatherization Service partners with rental property owners, Vermont Gas
Systems and the Burlington Electric Department (BED) so that all organizations
can maximize their impacts. Of the $375,000 in direct costs, the Weatherization
Service provided nearly $260,000; Vermont Gas participated in nearly $85,000 of
the costs; and BED provided nearly $13,000 in funding. Property owners provided
nearly $11,500 in direct funding, as well as in-kind participation in
improvements with direct funding that did not pass through the Weatherization
Service. (Other government programs made up the remaining costs of approximately
$5,500.) CEDO will continue to provide low?interest loans from its Housing
Initiatives Program for moderate rehabilitation to meet code and increase energy
efficiency. CEDO will also continue to promote cost?effective energy
improvements in every housing project supported directly or indirectly with
public resources.
Approximately 300 units of privately owned rental housing in Burlington were
rehabilitated and received Project-Based Section 8 in the early 1980s. Presently
between 70 to 100 of those units do not have agreements ensuring their long-term
affordability. In order to prevent the conversion of those units to market rate
housing when their contracts expire over the next 5 to 10 years, agreements need
to be reached with each property owner that preserve the future affordability.
The City has designated BHA as the entity to work with the Vermont Housing
Finance Agency to encourage the conversion of privately owned Section 8
project-based developments to non-profit ownership prior to the end of the
Section 8 contracts.
In addition, the City will urge Vermont's Congressional delegation to support
a preservation tax incentive that would provide exit tax relief in order to
encourage private-sector owners of assisted housing to transfer properties to
"preservation entities" committed to preserving the stock as
affordable housing. Congress should also establish federal funding for
low-income housing preservation as proposed in S. 1365, co-sponsored by Senator
Jeffords. Preservation should be included as an eligible activity under any
National Housing Trust Fund proposal passed by Congress. Included as one of the
recommendations or the Millennial Housing Commission in May 2002, this proposal
is necessary to preserving privately owned, federally assisted units. Most of
the owners of these properties face such considerable capital tax liabilities
that they will likely sell to the highest bidder and displace the tenants.
Capital gains tax changes will encourage the sale of Section 8 New
Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation projects and Low Income Housing Tax
Credit projects to nonprofits in order to ensure long-term affordability.
The results of lead screening in the City from 1994 to 2002 show, overall, a
decided downward trend in the number of children with elevated lead levels:
| |
# Children Tested |
Blood Lead Level (ug/dL) |
| Normal (Not Elevated) |
10-14
c&v (Low) |
15-19 v (Moderate) |
20+ v (Severe) |
| 1994 |
268 |
231 |
86.2% |
30 |
11% |
1 |
.3% |
6 |
2.2% |
| 1995 |
348 |
283 |
81.3% |
50 |
14% |
5 |
1.4% |
10 |
2.9% |
| 1996 |
513 |
465 |
90.6% |
41 |
8% |
4 |
.8% |
3 |
.7% |
| 1997 |
485 |
463 |
95.5% |
18 |
3.7% |
3 |
.6% |
1 |
.2% |
| 1998 |
424 |
406 |
95.7% |
15 |
3.5% |
2 |
.5% |
1 |
.2% |
| 1999 |
462 |
446 |
96.5% |
14 |
3% |
1 |
.2% |
1 |
.2% |
| 2000 |
458 |
428 |
93.4% |
27 |
5.9% |
2 |
.4% |
1 |
.2% |
|
2001 |
363 |
354 |
97.5% |
9 |
2.5% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
| 2002 |
366 |
357 |
97.5% |
9 |
2.5% |
0 |
|
0 |
|
Over the five-year period from 1994 to 1999, Burlington's percent of children
with an elevated blood lead level (EBL) was 8.8%, compared to a statewide
percentage of 4.7%. The Vermont Department of Health is currently seeking
funding from the Center for Disease Control's Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program to undertake some targeted activities with the Burlington
Code Enforcement Office, Visiting Nurse Association, and Vermont Tenants, Inc.
to address this issue.
Many of the growing refugee community in Burlington are housed in older
housing units, where lead-based paint hazards are more likely to exist. The
Vermont Department of Health has developed Healthy Home booklets in Vietnamese
and Bosnian (as well as Spanish) to assist in screening efforts.
The City's nonprofit housing partners test the properties they rehabilitate
for lead paint hazards and collaborate with the Vermont Housing &
Conservation Board's Lead Paint Reduction Program to mitigate lead paint
hazards. CEDO's Housing Development Coordinator works as a liaison with the
state program and property owners to assure that all projects funded through
CEDO also had lead abatement work completed as part of the project. VHCB has
mitigated lead paint hazards in a total of 203 units in Burlington through
November 2002, awarding $877,598 in lead paint program funds to these projects.
All owners of multiple unit properties and contractors working on these
properties take and provide evidence that they have taken the Lead Paint
Abatement Essential Maintenance Practices (EMPs) class given in conjunction with
the State's Health Dept and VHCB's Lead paint Reduction Program.
The City will continue to undertake the following activities to address lead
paint hazards in the City's housing units:
- The City will support the continuation and expansion of a lead paint
hazard reduction strategy for the Old North End Community in collaboration with
the Vermont Department of Health and the Vermont Housing and Conservation
Board's (VHCB) Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Program.
- For housing assisted with public funds from the City's Housing Initiatives
Program, the Community & Economic Development Office (CEDO) will insist on a
plan for mitigating lead paint hazards in cases where that housing is occupied
by children under six years of age.
- CEDO will require all recipients of free exterior paint to participate in
a lead paint safety training course offered free of charge by the VHCB.
The new HUD regulations applicable to federally subsidized housing regarding lead paint
that went into effect in September 2000
require that any loose/deteriorating paint in a housing unit with a child age
six years or under must be corrected by appropriately trained maintenance
people, and that the unit must subsequently pass a clearance test. This is a
potentially serious new hurdle for recruiting private landlords to participate
in the Section 8 program. The regulations also have the potential to increase
discrimination against families with young children - a group that already
encounters great difficulty in a tight housing market.
- The City will assist BHA in the development of a program in conjunction
with the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) to perform lead-based
paint hazard reduction on Section 8 apartments at little or no cost to the
landlord.
The shortage of affordable housing in Vermont and nationally has led to a
dramatic increase in the number of homeless families and disabled individuals.
Emergency shelters are strained beyond capacity to meet this escalating need.
The largest increase in the homeless population throughout Vermont over the past
three years has been among families - many of whom have at least one full-time
wage earner. As long as a livable wage job remains out of reach for some
Vermonters, public subsidies will always be needed to help families obtain and
retain their housing.
Federal resources to fund homeless services are meager at best. Given the
imminent convergence of welfare time limits with a downturn in the economy, it
is highly likely that even greater pressure will be placed on local shelters.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Program funding must be substantially increased to
accommodate the growing number of families and individuals who are simply unable
to pay the high cost of housing in their communities.
The State should at a minimum maintain current funding levels for Homeless
Shelters and Services funded through the State Office of Economic Opportunity,
as well as the "Back Rent" Program, Temporary Housing Assistance and
Assistive Community Care Services funded through PATH, and should increase
funding levels wherever possible. These programs provide a critical safety net
that prevents many Vermonters from becoming homeless. Investment in such
programs prevents the high personal and social costs of homelessness. In
addition, the State should create a demonstration project to encourage the
development of more transitional housing for formerly homeless families.
Nationally, the Section 8 voucher program (rental assistance) serves only
about a quarter of the families eligible for assistance. The Burlington Housing
Authority, which serves all of Burlington and any dwelling unit located within a
six-mile radius of Burlington, has increased the number of Section 8 vouchers
from about 500 in 1995 to over 1,500 in 2002. Even with this significant
increase in available subsidies, there is still a considerable waiting period
for eligible applicants. The federal government should dramatically increase
funding levels for Section 8 Vouchers.
The 1996 welfare reform law gave states substantial flexibility to use
federal and state funds to design programs that help families move from welfare
to self-sufficiency. An increasing number of states and county governments are
recognizing that housing assistance is critical to the success of welfare
reform. Using federal welfare funds and state matching funds, these states are
providing housing subsidies to families that are (or recently were) on welfare.
Assistance ranges from tenant-based and project-based rental assistance to
homeownership assistance for families that are making the transition from
welfare to work. In Vermont, the main concern about this approach among
low-income advocates is that current welfare benefit levels not be reduced in
order to provide funds for housing subsidies. Vermont should explore using
untapped TANF reserve funds, without reducing benefit levels, to provide housing
subsidies to families that are (or recently were) on welfare.
In addition, too many assisted households fail to successfully maintain their
housing. Providing supportive services to families to help them address issues
that jeopardize their housing is far more cost-effective and humane than
emergency shelters. Unfortunately, there are currently no federal programs that
address this aspect of housing. Federal funds should be available to assist
public and nonprofit organizations and private sector housing providers to
provide supportive services that help tenants retain their housing. Also, the
Vermont Agency of Human Services should be encouraged to redirect resources to
support housing retention/eviction prevention programs that are more
cost-effective than emergency housing.
Despite the innovative funding strategies used by today's entrepreneurial
nonprofit housing organizations, the need for affordable housing far outpaces
the supply. Public funding, especially from the federal government, is the
greatest limiting factor in the capacity of the nonprofits to create new
affordable housing. The private sector is unable to build housing that serves
low-income households without large amounts of public subsidy.
Since 1987, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board has invested $92
million of state funds in affordable housing. This has helped to generate over
$320 million in construction activity, created approximately 10,000 jobs in
Vermont, and created or preserved over 6,000 units of housing - these benefits
reach deep into our community. But the need for affordable housing far exceeds
what the resources can deliver. To exacerbate an already bad situation, federal
support for housing has plummeted since the mid-1980s. According to the recent
report, Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Housing and Wages in Vermont, the
Section 8 new construction/substantial rehabilitation program alone funded the
construction/rehabilitation of 4,100 affordable apartments in Vermont between
1976 and 1985 (when the program was abolished). Over the next twelve years, only
2,384 units were built in Vermont with every remaining form of federal
assistance combined." The State should at a minimum maintain current
funding levels for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board and the State Low
Income Housing Tax Credit, and should increase funding wherever possible.
Other than the HOME program, which was created by Congress in 1992, there
have been no new federal programs designed to stimulate new rental housing
production for the past 15 years. The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit is
the only program specifically for new production, and applications for tax
credits far exceed the amount available. For example in the semi-annual
application round of August 2002, the total credits requested were approximately
$2.7 million and the credit available was approximately $650,000. Congress
should establish a new rental housing production program that provides capital
grants, such as the proposed National Housing Trust Fund that would build and
preserve 1.5 million units of rental housing for the lowest income families over
the next 10 years.
Burlington currently receives slightly over $1 million of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $500,000 of HOME Investment Partnership
funds. The City uses roughly one-third of the CDBG funds and all of the HOME
funds in support of affordable housing. The amount of funding that the City
receives under both programs has remained relatively unchanged over the past
decade. Any increase to either program will allow the City to assist more low
and moderate-income households with their housing needs. Congress should, at a
minimum, maintain current funding levels for CDBG and HOME and should seek to
increase funding levels wherever possible. In particular, the Vermont
Congressional Delegation is urged to keep pushing for an increase in the small
state minimum under the HOME program.
The greatest challenge facing Burlington in its efforts to increase the rate
of homeownership is a lack of grant funds available for rehabilitation to make
older homes in central city neighborhoods competitive with surrounding newer
homes. Most of the older homes do not appraise at a level high enough to finance
the rehabilitation needed to bring the properties up to modern codes and
livability standards. Capital grants for rehabilitation along with financial
assistance for down-payments and closing costs and homeownership training, are
among the most significant ways that the City can support increased
homeownership in Burlington. The City Council should seek voter approval for
increasing the Housing Trust Fund tax rate by one cent or by developing a new,
alternate funding source for the purpose of supporting homeownership in areas of
the city with low rates of homeownership.
Under the VHCB HOMELAND Program, lower-income households can receive
financial assistance to purchase their own home from offerings on the private
market. Depending on income level, need and other factors, grants of up to
$20,000 are available through the Burlington Community Land Trust to reduce the
purchase price. Homebuyer education and preparedness is provided through BCLT's
HomeOwnership Center. State funding for both of these programs is often the key
to unlocking the door to homeownership for low-income families, and must be
maintained.
At the City's request, in May 2002, the Board of Commissioners of the Vermont
Housing Finance Agency increased VHFA's income and purchase price limits for two
of Burlington's census tracts (4 and 10). This change will expand purchase
options to first-time homebuyers, but the limits need to be increased for other
neighborhoods in order to extend this incentive to more buyers, and to make
urban home buying more attractive. Federal rules which prohibit VHFA from making
this change for census tracts with poverty rates below a set level should be
changed. Due to an increase in the median household income in census tract 10
from the 2000 Census, this tract is no longer eligible for the increased income
and purchase price limits.
In addition, the City will encourage Congress to establish tax credits and
other incentives to encourage the production of owner-occupied housing
affordable to low and moderate-income households and increase funding for
homeownership counseling. Administered through state housing finance agencies,
the tax credit could be used to offset the developer's total development cost
(in areas where the cost to build or rehabilitate a home is greater than the
appraised value) or as a credit to lenders who provide lower-cost mortgages to
qualified buyers. This concept is included in the Millennial Housing Commission
Report, which was presented to Congress in May 2002.
Burlington Housing Authority (BHA) operates one of the nation's most
successful Section 8 homeownership demonstration projects. This program is a
very effective way to extend the benefits of homeownership to very low-income
families. The Task Force concluded that the City ought to find ways to provide
direct financial support for the growth of BHA's Section 8 homeownership
program. Increased funds available to the Burlington Housing Trust Fund should
be considered for supporting this program.
Resources to encourage homeownership can also be increased through
employer-assisted programs. FannieMae has developed an Employer-Assisted Housing
initiative to help police, firefighters, and teachers purchase homes in the
communities they serve. Such programs not only improve municipalities' ability
to recruit and retain valuable employees, but they contribute enormously to the
stability and security of neighborhoods. The City will work with FannieMae, the
HomeOwnership Center of Chittenden County, and the Vermont Development Credit
Union to design such a program and will also urge its two largest employers, the
University of Vermont and Fletcher Allen Health Care, to join the effort and
create companion programs for their employees.
There is very limited developable land available in the City of Burlington.
The Task Force recommended that the City inventory the land it owns and assess
the suitability of such land for housing development. If any such sites are
identified, the City should make them available for affordable housing
development through an open competition. CEDO and Planning & Zoning should
coordinate this inventory of lands, and all departments should cooperate in this
process. Through long-term leases, resale restrictions, and limited equity
provisions, the City should use this land subsidy to create perpetually
affordable housing.
The State of Vermont owns land in Burlington that is appropriate for housing
development. An inventory of State-owned land should be created and requests for
proposals should be solicited from affordable housing developers for appropriate
sites. During the 2001 Legislative session, the Vermont General Assembly passed
H.483, "AN ACT TO STIMULATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING."
Among several other provisions, the Act directed the Secretary of the Agency of
Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) to address the link between jobs and
housing. One of the recommendations of the ACCD Secretary was to "direct
the Vermont Housing Council and the ACCD Secretary to explore possible
non-student uses of institutional lands owned by the University of Vermont and
… explore the possible use of other state lands for housing development."
The Task Force strongly urged that this analysis be completed and that the
results be disseminated to the public.
In addition, CEDO should identify privately-owned properties for development
and redevelopment opportunities and regularly maintain such a list for public
use. For example, adaptive reuse of commercial properties and redevelopment of
surface parking lots are two options for developing new housing within the City.
In addition, the City should engage the owners of these properties in an effort
to bring about mutually beneficial housing development.
Low-income households continue to experience significant property tax burdens
even with Act 60. After monthly mortgage payments, property taxes are the single
largest housing expense for homeowners - a cost that prevents many households
from making the move from renting to owning. The State must reduce its reliance
on the property tax as the primary means of funding education. With the notable
exception of certain service-enhanced housing developments where the federal
government has required the sponsor to obtain property tax exemption, it has
been and will continue to be City policy that all affordable housing (regardless
of ownership or type of tenure) shall pay property taxes based on fair market
value. Appropriate adjustments in value are made to reflect the deed
restrictions that ensure perpetual affordability.
In response to mounting concerns about the negative impacts of such large
numbers of students living in certain areas of the city, the City Council passed
an ordinance regulating the number of unrelated adults living in one housing
unit. Unless the City or the Development Review Board deems a household a
"functional family", the zoning ordinance permits no more than four
unrelated adults to live in any one housing unit in low and medium density
residential zoning districts. Partly due to the enactment of this ordinance, a
gradual trend is emerging: landlords of "student" houses in sections
of Wards One and Two are beginning to put their properties on the market for
reversion back to single family or duplex owner-occupied occupancy.
In addition, the City and the University signed an agreement in November 2000 that says,
"UVM agrees to take action designed to increase the number of beds
available for students by a total of no less than 400 beds over and above the
number of beds that the parties agree were available on the UVM campus fall
semester 1999, that is, 3735". The occupancy goal for these beds was fall
2003. As of March 2003, UVM had initiated the following student housing
projects:
- Catamount Apartments: 394-bed project received a zoning permit on April 3,
2002, but was appealed by a South Prospect Street resident on April 15, 2002.
UVM redesigned the project and submitted material for an amended permit in March
2003 that includes 203 new beds for upper-class and graduate students. Seeking
local and Act 250 approval in Spring 2003 and construction beginning in fall
2003. Ready for occupancy by fall 2004, assuming no delays due to permit
appeals.
- Purchase of Trinity College campus adds up to 200 student beds.
- Reconfiguration of existing residence hall space will provide 125 beds.
- Construction planned for University Heights will provide up to 850 new beds for
undergraduate students; occupancy being planned for 2005/2006.
- Living/Learning will be removing offices and converting the space to
residential, creating up to 40 new beds (tentative estimate).
The total maximum projected on-campus additional beds is 1,375 - this
does not include any private sector student housing projects that may be
pursued.
Many members of the Task Force believed that UVM's revised housing plans are
not in compliance with the 2000 agreement between UVM and the City. At issue is
UVM's change of plans to construct 400 beds on Redstone Campus - the revised
plan involves building 214 new beds on Redstone Campus, create 100 new beds at
the Living and Learning complex through renovation, and lease another 120 beds
on Trinity Campus. Although the total number of new beds under the revised plan
is greater than 400, many Task Force members believed that UVM should have to
meet their obligation through new construction on campus - the 2000 agreement is
silent on the question of location for the 400 new beds. The City should insist
that UVM fulfill its obligation by creating new, on-campus housing that will
appeal to third and fourth year students ready for occupancy by the fall of
2003.
A change to the zoning ordinance allowing accessory apartments (not exceeding
25% of total square feet of a building) under the condition that the owner
(person whose name is on the deed) lives in the home might encourage the sale of
larger single-family homes in the center city that are currently being rented as
group quarters and conversion to owner-occupied homes. Very often, the fair
market value of these properties operating as rentals is inflated beyond the
price that is attractive for owner-occupants. By allowing the creation of an
accessory apartment, the economics of the real estate transaction are more
favorable for conversion to owner-occupancy. The city will explore this
possibility.
The City's Condominium Conversion ordinance covers any rental property of
more than 2 units. There are many properties that have been converted into
multiple rental units that would be appropriate for conversion to owner-occupied
condominiums. It may encourage homeownership in areas with low homeownership
rates if the ordinance is amended to encourage the conversion to condominiums of
3-6 unit rental buildings. State law that governs condo conversion would still
apply.
Current ordinance requires that every rental unit in Burlington receive a
Minimum Housing Inspection every three years. Routine inspections are considered
to be a better way to ensure safe and decent housing than relying primarily on
tenant complaints. According to some tenant advocates, an inspection
upon-complaint system results in a low level of compliance, discourages tenants
from making formal complaints and increases tenants' fear or landlord
retaliation. According to the Code Enforcement Office, current staffing levels
and workloads put inspections on a six-year cycle. With over 9,000 rental units
in Burlington, the City should inspect 3,000 units per year.
Jeff Kronschnabl conducted a study of the City's Code Enforcement program in
September 2002. The report recommends a three-tiered rental inspection
process should be developed as follows:
- Tier #1 - Inspect problem properties - top priority.
- Tier #2 - Random
inspection of properties that are not inspected by any other government or
quasi-governmental entity and/or respond to requests by property owners to
complete an inspection.
- Tier #3 - Random inspection of properties that are
inspected by other government entities.
The City Code Enforcement Office should utilize rental registration fees
solely for the purposes stated in the Minimum Housing Ordinance, target its
inspection program to units not inspected by housing authorities and other
public third parties, and issue Interim Certificates/Certificates of Compliance
for posting in apartment buildings. Code Enforcement must enforce the
requirement that landlords post Certificates of Compliance so that tenants know
how their apartment stands in terms of code compliance. Posting a replacement
Certificate should cure unauthorized removal of the Certificate, however, and
the Landlord should not be cited with a violation if the cure is made.
However, Code Enforcement should not enforce the Life Safety Code as part of
minimum housing inspections on existing apartments unless and until the City
Council conducts an analysis on the impact of such enforcement on housing
affordability and approves such a policy change. The Life Safety code was
created to improve the safety of all buildings, with many exceptions and
equivalencies allowed for existing buildings. Fire safety officials often argue
that most existing buildings can be modified to comply with the Life Safety code
without undue financial burden, while owners of rental property and some tenant
advocates caution that applying the Life Safety code to existing rental
buildings will further increase rents and displace low-income tenants.
Under current practice, tenants are not routinely informed when Code
Enforcement has issued a notice of code violation. Most tenants lack the
expertise to understand what conditions are legal and what are not, or what the
proper remedies may be under local and state law. Unless they know that a
landlord has been ordered to make a repair, they cannot assist the inspectors
with enforcing compliance. Tenant advocates argue further that tenants need a
permanent written record of code violations to support a defense of rent
withholding under state law, because without it they are vulnerable to eviction
when they exercise their right to withhold rent for habitability violations.
Code Enforcement will begin to routinely send tenants notices of violations
found during either periodic or complaint-based inspections. This practice will
inform tenants of the violations and the order to correct, so that they are able
to assist the inspectors in following up with enforcing compliance.
Minimum housing inspection records are subject to the Public Records Act and
must be made available for inspection and copying by any citizen who asks for
them. Recent developments in the record keeping practices of the Code
Enforcement Office have been praised, but those who rely on the records for
legal purposes suggest that there is still room for improvement. Specifically,
the City should provide certification of such records to citizens to facilitate
the use of the records as evidence in court, and all minimum housing inspection
compliance orders and Interim Certificates/Certificates of Compliance should be
available online.
The City of Burlington has a separate ordinance regulating security deposits.
This law limits the total amount of deposit a landlord can charge to no more
than one month's rent, regardless of whether it is called a security deposit, a
damage deposit or pet deposit. Advocates for both landlords and tenants spoke in
favor of amending the ordinance to allow for landlords to charge an additional
amount for tenants who wish to have a pet living in their apartment - this
measure has the potential of freeing up more apartments for pet-owners by
providing landlords with added protection against incurring the cost of repairs
that may result from damage caused by pets.
The City should enact an ordinance that requires every rental property placed
on the market for sale to be inspected for Minimum Housing Code compliance prior
to sale, parallel the City's Time of Sale Energy Ordinance. The seller or buyer
could assume responsibility for achieving code compliance, but in either case,
Burlington's rental properties would see an incremental gain in compliance at an
appropriate time for the cost of compliance to be weighed into the sale price.
Obviously, properties that have been routinely maintained are unlikely to see
any surprises in the time of sale inspection and compliance process. This
ordinance should have an anti-speculation effect in the sale of rental
properties. This proposal was included in both the Affordable Housing Task
Report of 1986 and in the Rental Housing and Safety Standards Report that was
completed for the Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs in 1999.
Historically, the City of Burlington has allowed delinquent property tax
payers a lengthy period of time before initiating a tax sale. This practice has
the unintended effect of accelerating property deterioration and places an
unfair burden on property tax payers that are current on their taxes. More
timely enforcement of the tax sale provision in State law would send a clear
message that delinquent property taxes and the resultant property deterioration
that typically accompanies tax delinquencies will not be tolerated by the City
of Burlington.
Many resources exist for owner-occupied rehabilitation and the nonprofit
housing organizations have access to an array of public funding sources.
However, the RePAIR program (operated by the Community & Economic
Development Office in Burlington) is one of the state's only rehabilitation
program specifically created for private sector landlords. With increased
enforcement of minimum housing standards, resources for private sector landlords
become especially critical to improving the condition of rental properties. On a
regional level, any single municipality or a consortium of municipalities
(Burlington is ineligible) could apply for funding through the Vermont Community
Development Program (VCDP) to operate a regional rental rehabilitation loan
program. Using a combination of VCDP and private loan capital, these resources
could be leveraged to provide significant assistance to rental property owners
throughout the region.
With the nation's second oldest housing stock, Vermont is one of the states
that utilize the federal Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit (RITC) the most. However, the vast majority of income-producing rental property owners that
undertake substantial rehabilitation are unaware of this federal tax incentive.
Increased familiarity with the RITC among City code, planning and development
officials will result in greater awareness and use of this significant federal
incentive for rehabilitation.
For many years owners of affordable rental properties have faced increased
insurance premiums or fewer options among insurance carriers. This problem was
exacerbated by the events of September 11, and the situation has reached crisis
proportions that justify an investigation by state regulators. Some communities
are developing more affordable alternatives to private sector insurance to save
on premiums. The City will ask the Vermont Commissioner of Banking, Insurance
and Health Care Access to investigate rapidly escalating insurance costs for
multi-family rental property and housing designed for people with special needs
or to explore more affordable alternatives to private-sector insurance.
During both the task force meetings and the public hearings, considerable
time was spent discussing the barriers to new development that are under the
City's control. The list below represents the consensus of the Task Force about
the top five barriers to new housing development over which the City has the
greatest degree of control, and which the City should address:
- Allowable density does not reflect actual capacity to build;
- Lack of
resources for updating zoning code;
- Zoning and subdivision ordinances are
outdated;
- Lack of predictable permit process;
- De novo permit hearings.
The City should also implement the following unrealized recommendations of
the Regulatory Review Task Force report of 1990:
- Zoning code should be re-written to make it consistent with current
planning objectives;
- Zero lot line zoning, performance-based zoning and Floor
Area Ratio zoning should be evaluated for feasibility in Burlington;
- The
State should allow Burlington to use "Mini-Act 250" in lieu of another
review by the District #4 Environmental Commission;
- Design Advisory Board
should be trained not to attempt re-designing projects;
- Development Review
Board should adopt more clear and narrow guidelines for when members must recuse
themselves for conflicts of interest;
- DRB should support alternatives to the
Fire Marshal's requirements for extra turn-around space or paved lanes around
buildings;
- DPW and the Fire Marshal's Office (FMO) sign-off on initial plans
should indicate that substantive issues have been resolved. Final say over
differing interpretations should reside with the City Engineer or DPW Director.
- If a developer installs sprinklers when not required by code to do so, then
the Fire impact fee should be reduced.
In response to a trend of conversions of residential buildings to commercial
uses and several high profile demolitions of residential structures, the City
Council adopted Article 15 of the zoning code in 1988. Among other things, this
provision requires "that an owner shall replace any housing units that are
demolished or converted to a nonresidential use". The City will evaluate
this ordinance to determine if it impedes new housing development or housing
rehabilitation.
The City will also evaluate the impact of the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance
on housing production and report to the Council. As required by Article 14 (Inclusionary
Zoning), the Housing Trust should perform this function every two years. In
addition, the City will revise the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance to have a clear
formula for determining the payment in lieu of building affordable units. Under
the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, "the development review board at its
sole discretion may allow any developer of a covered project that is not located
within a waterfront zoning district to comply with the requirements of Sec.
14.1.8 and 14.1.9 (affordability requirements) by constructing inclusionary
units on a site other than that on which the covered project is located, subject
to the following conditions: The number of inclusionary units to be provided by
the developer or by the developer's designee through off-site development shall
be no fewer than 1.25 times the number otherwise required by this article…"
In the case of only one previous housing development project, the DRB (formerly
the Planning Commission) allowed the developer to meet their Inclusionary Zoning
requirements by providing a payment in lieu to the City's Housing Trust Fund.
The ordinance as currently drafted does not provide a methodology to be used for
calculating such payments. The Task Force did not debate the merits of allowing
for the "off-site option", but rather recommended that if the City
allows for this option, the methodology for calculating payments be clear and
transparent.
To date, very few Vermont communities have adopted on the record development
review hearings. When a permit is appealed, the case goes to Environmental Court
as a de novo hearing - a new hearing in which the judgment of the first hearing
(DRB) is suspended and the case proceeds as if it had originated in
Environmental Court. This means that when a party appeals a local permit (or an
Act 250 permit), the permit application starts over. The information that was
filed, the expert testimony offered, the public comments made, and the written
record - all of this is ignored and the process begins anew. The additional
time, costs and formalities associated with the use of the Municipal
Administrative Procedures Act (MAPA) are the main concerns about adopting on the
record review, but the Task Force believed that the benefits of on the record
review outweigh these concerns. In order to address this problem at the local
level, the City should allocate sufficient resources necessary to conduct zoning
permit hearings on the record for projects that meet the requirements for Major
Impact Review.
Additionally, the City needs to provide annual training to the Development
Review, Design Advisory and Conservation Boards to ensure that members fully
understand their roles, proper meeting protocols, the rights of all parties and
to ensure impartial project review on the part of board members.
Certain city fees added considerable costs to developing housing for very
low-income homebuyers. Currently the only city fees that can be waived are
impact fees. The City can examine city-imposed fees for such purposes as
excavation and sewer connection to determine whether waivers for affordable
housing will help encourage more new development of affordable owner-occupied
units.
Barriers to rehabilitation include the building code. Existing buildings that
were built to comply with an earlier building code or with no code at all are
often still safe and sound. Cities across the country are discovering that it is
no longer logical that a building which can remain unimproved must be upgraded
in numerous respects, many of which provide minimal safety improvement, simply
because the owner chooses to improve the building. This approach often
discourages owners from making any improvements. The building code, which is
designed for new construction, can add unnecessarily to the time and expense of
rehabilitating existing buildings because it was not written with existing
buildings in mind. For new construction, complying with the building code is a
straightforward process, but it is difficult to apply the code rationally and
predictably to existing buildings. This is reason for Burlington to develop
provisions for existing buildings that are rational and predictable and that
facilitate safe and sound rehabilitated structures.
At the state permitting level, there are numerous relevant recommendations
included in the Report of the Municipal Planning Review Commission to the
Vermont General Assembly (January 2002). Although the Task Force decided not to
endorse every one of these recommendations, they did recommend a comprehensive
revision to the section of the Vermont Statutes governing the local permit
process and how it interacts with Act 250. They also recommended that the State
address the following specific housing production barriers:
- Cost and time of appeal;
- Lack of predictable permit process;
- Permit
appeal criteria overly broad and inclusive;
- Redundancies in the local permit
process and Act 250.
The City will advocate for legislative changes governing the rules for
appealing zoning and Act 250 permits that: 1) revise the definition of
"interested person" as recommended by the Chapter 117 Committee; 2)
codify the steps that must be taken prior to filing an appeal; 3) require
appellants to participate materially in the development review process, as
recommended by the Chapter 117 Committee. The process required of adopting
zoning bylaws and municipal development plans is an open and democratic process.
Citizens have influence over the adoption of zoning bylaws and municipal
development plans through their local elected and appointed officials. For the
development review process, public funds are spent identifying interested
parties and providing adequate notice for hearings. Filing an appeal of a permit
serves an injunction to prevent the developer from continuing their project. As
such, the State must raise the burden for appeals. There should be a higher
burden of proof that there was a failure of due process and that the appellant
was denied their rights under law. These measures would help discourage
frivolous permit appeals that are intended to stop development or to compel the
developer to modify their project outside of the development review process.
On December 31, 2002, the Vermont Environmental Board (with two members
dissenting) issued a sweeping jurisdictional opinion in a case brought by
neighbors opposing an 8-unit home ownership project sponsored by Green Mountain
Habitat for Humanity and the Burlington Housing Authority. The decision has
profound implications for all developers of single family and duplex housing in
Vermont. Under the Board's decision in the Green Mountain Habitat for
Humanity/Burlington Housing Authority Declaratory Ruling # 406:
- Act 250 jurisdiction will automatically apply to any developer of
single-family homes when the developer commences construction of the 10th house
built within five years and within a five-mile radius of each other.
- Jurisdiction will apply even though all 10 units were constructed on
pre-existing lots and no subdivision was required for any of the lots.
- Jurisdiction applies even though the houses are built on non-contiguous
parcels and are spread throughout the 5-mile radius.
- Jurisdiction applies automatically - no showing is required that the 10
houses spread throughout a 5 mile radius will have any impact whatsoever on the
environment.
- Under the decision, a developer must obtain a separate Act 250 permit for
the 10th house and for each separate house built after house # 10.
The City will seek to amend §6001 by adding a new section 3(D) as follows:
"Housing which consists of one or more single family or duplex units
located on existing non-contiguous lots shall not be subject to jurisdiction
under this chapter, provided that each such unit has received any needed zoning
approval by the municipality in which the lot is located and, if applicable,
subdivision approval by the municipality and the State."
Finally, the City should explore establishing a local anti-snob zoning
ordinance similar to the Massachusetts law (Chapter 774). In 1969, the
Massachusetts Legislature adopted "anti-snob zoning" legislation to
make it easier to develop affordable housing throughout the state, especially in
communities with little low- and moderate-income housing. This law allows the
State to override local zoning restrictions in such communities if needed to
allow for the development of low- and moderate-income housing.
There are currently zoning and infrastructure barriers that make development
of affordable housing in the suburbs difficult if not impossible. Among the key
research findings of the University of Vermont's Community Outreach Partnership
Center is "that in other states, regional housing coordination has been
mandated by both state officials and supreme courts, in some cases over the
strenuous objection of impacted municipalities … However, a voluntary fair
share compact between the region's municipalities offers some distinct
advantages over the more rigid top-down approaches attempted in other states.
Most importantly, it allows towns to design an equitable long-term policy
solution that achieves incremental progress without causing unnecessary
divisiveness and political backlash." Each member community would agree to
take certain threshold measures, e.g.. create a housing trust fund, increase
zoning density, waive impact fees, or reserve infrastructure capacity to
encourage affordable housing development. Communities that enact residential
phasing would not be eligible for membership in such a core compact. The City
will continue to work with the Chittenden County
Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) and member communities to develop a workforce
housing allocation plan that sets measurable market-rate and affordable housing
production goals for every community.
In the absence of voluntary efforts, there are landmark Supreme Court
decisions in other states that found the exclusive zoning and permitting laws
and procedures of certain municipalities served to perpetuate discrimination
against and segregation of people of color and people with low incomes. Because
low-income people are found in greater proportions among people with
disabilities and people of color, land use policies that prevent the
construction of affordable housing have been deemed to have a disparate impact
on protected classes under federal and state fair housing law and have been
overturned or corrected through court-mandated measures. The CCRPC should conduct an analysis of the potential
legal implications of zoning and permitting laws and procedures in Chittenden
County, especiaion, a Chittenden
County focused fair housing audit of business practices should be conducted to
determine the degree and extent of fair housing law violations perpetrated
against individuals in several key protected classes.
Many towns in Chittenden County lack adequate staff to develop zoning changes
to encourage more affordable housing. CCRPC has professional planners that
should develop a set of model zoning bylaws to provide towns with the tools to
revise their own zoning to encourage affordable housing. CCRPC should assist all
18-member communities with identifying land appropriate for new housing
development and suggesting zoning changes that encourage the development of more
affordable housing.
When municipal officials discuss regional distribution of affordable housing,
the conversation inevitably leads to the issue of infrastructure - primarily
water and sewer capacity. Given that infrastructure capacity is uneven among
municipalities, and there is a purported desire and willingness to achieve a
more balanced regional distribution of affordable housing, the conditions are
ideal for CCRPC to broker inter-municipal agreements to "share" water
and sewer capacity. CCRPC should facilitate regional cooperation on issues of
water and sewer as a means of developing more affordable housing in communities
without adequate infrastructure capacity.
The State should give priority for all capital funding to municipalities that
are taking steps to create housing in their communities that meets the needs of
households with a range of incomes, including units that are permanently
affordable. This would parallel efforts in other states that have offered
preferential treatment to encourage municipalities to adopt policies that
promote affordable housing. In its 1999 report, the Joint Housing Committee of
the Vermont Legislature recommended that the State "provide incentives,
such as the authority to levy local option taxes, prioritizing towns for
discretionary funds such as CDBG grants, pollution control, water supply,
municipal planning funds, loans from the State infrastructure bank and
transportation money for public transportation expansion and development, to
municipalities to motivate them to adopt local policies such as cluster housing,
denser development, inclusionary zoning, and sewer and water capacity set-asides
for affordable housing projects that promote affordable housing
development." Implementing this recommendation would stimulate substantive
changes in municipal planning and development policies throughout our region.
Current State planning law allows regional planning commissions, or the
Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (DHCA), to deny
any municipal development plan that fails to include an affordable housing
component. However, neither the CCRPC nor the DHCA Commissioner has ever
rejected a municipal development plan because of a weak housing element. CCRPC
should deny any municipal development plan that fails to include an affordable
housing provision with specific production goals and every municipality should
be urged to conduct a build-out analysis for future housing development.
The Commissioner of DHCA has the statutory responsibility to review municipal
plans that have not been submitted for regional approval, specifically for
compliance with state affordable housing goals. Such review should take place
and, in cases where zoning bylaws are found to be in violation, the Commissioner
should have the authority to suspend the municipality's ability to levy impact
fees and its eligibility for discretionary state funding programs until the
violation is corrected.
At least one Chittenden County municipality has enacted "phasing"
of residential construction - a planning tool that limits the number of permits
issued to construct new units. Williston's phasing policy limits the number of
new units to 80 per year, but allows this limit to be increased for affordable
units. If however, Williston issues permits for more than 80 units in any given
year, the maximum number of units that can be permitted the following year is
reduced by the corresponding amount. This practice has the effect of forcing
other communities in the same housing market to absorb an increased share of new
residential growth, and limits the ability of the housing development community
to respond to changing housing needs. Communities that enact construction
phasing should not be allowed to levy impact fees nor should they be eligible
for discretionary state funding programs.
In 2001, the Vermont General Assembly passed Act 62, which created the
Municipal Planning Review Commission (MPRC). Commonly referred to as the
"Chapter 117 Committee", the MPRC was created to review 24 VSA Chapter
117, the regulatory component of the Planning and Development Act, and to
recommend changes designed to encourage and promote responsible development of
affordable housing throughout Vermont. While the Task Force was not prepared to
debate all 38 recommendation of the MPRC, they did agree that most of the
recommended changes to Chapter 117 will promote more affordable housing by
reducing the amount of time and the potential costs of the local permitting
process, and urge the State to place high priority on revising the act to make
the development review process more efficient, predictable and fair to
developers.
There are currently 275 housing trust funds in cities, counties and states
throughout the United States. They are providing at least $750 million each and
every year to support critical housing needs. In Burlington, the only
municipality in Vermont with its own housing trust fund, the voter-approved tax
(one cent on every $100 of property value) will generate $185,000 for fiscal
year 2003. If the six largest municipalities in Chittenden County created
housing trust funds, it would generate more than $1 million for affordable
housing. The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) and the
Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs should promote the concept
of municipal housing trust funds as a way to raise funds for low and
moderate-income housing..
The City can convene annually a focus group of homebuilders, rental property
owners and developers to gather feedback on local barriers to housing
development. It has been many years since these stakeholders were invited by the
City to provide their feedback on local barriers to development. The leadership
of the various trade groups that represent these constituencies has already
agreed to assist with organizing such discussions.
Pursuant to section 18-15 of the City Code of Ordinances, a
registration fee is charged to the owner of every rental unit in the city
that is subject to periodic inspections.
This fee, which was initially $25 per unit per year, was recently
increased from $25 per unit per year to $38 in 2000 and to $50 in 2002, and
is dedicated solely to the cost of providing rental housing inspection
services, clerical, administrative and mediation support services for the
Housing Board of Review and landlord/tenant resources services.
Page last updated May 13, 2003
|