|
A Printable Version
of the 2002 Mayor's Affordable Housing Task Force Report and Recommendations is
available.
For the printable version, you will need Adobe
Acrobat Reader. If you do not have a current copy of this free
software, you can download
it now.
1.
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING
2.
PRODUCTION OF NEW
HOUSING
3. PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE
RESIDENTS
4. PROMOTION OF AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP
LOCAL
1.1.
Adopt a flexible rehabilitation sub-code
Adopt a flexible rehab sub-code that provides clear guidelines for each category of rehabilitation, increases the
predictability for property owners and reduces the cost of rehabilitation.
(Unanimous)
Discussion: Vermont has the second oldest housing
stock in the nation, which means that rehabilitation and conversions are a
critical aspect of efforts to expand the supply of affordable housing. 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 the reason for
Burlington to develop provisions for existing buildings that are rational and
predictable and that facilitate safe and sound rehabilitated structures.
1.2. Evaluate Housing
Preservation and Replacement ordinance
Evaluate Housing Preservation and Replacement ordinance to determine if it
impedes new housing development or housing rehabilitation. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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".
1.3. Increase the use of tax
sales of delinquent properties
Increase the use of tax sales of delinquent properties for fairness to other
taxpayers and to create housing rehabilitation opportunities. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
1.4. Secure voluntary
affordability preservation agreements
The VHFA should be encouraged and supported in an effort to secure voluntary
affordability preservation agreements for those privately owned Section 8 and
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments without such protections.
(Unanimous)
Discussion: There are between 75-100 privately owned
apartments in Burlington that were rehabilitated in the early 1980s and received
"project-based" Section 8 certificates or federal Low Income Housing
Tax Credits. In order to prevent the conversion of those units to market rate
housing when their contracts expire over the next 5-10 years, agreements need to
be reached with each property owner that preserve the future affordability.
1.5. Enact Time of Sale Minimum
Housing Compliance ordinance
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: This proposal should 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 the Rental
Housing and Safety Standards Report that was completed for the VT Department of
Housing and Community Affairs in 1999.
1.6. Promote use of the federal
Rehabilitation Investment Tax Credit
This federal tax credit is for 20% of the costs of renovations to an income
producing building that is historic. The City should promote the use of this
program among Burlington property owners. (Unanimous)
Discussion: With the nation's second oldest housing
stock, Vermont is one of the states that utilize the 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.
1.7. Maintain and augment rental
rehabilitation program
The City should continue to operate and augment the resources for a
rehabilitation program for privately owned rental housing. (Unanimous)
Discussion: The Community and Economic Development
Office operates a program that provides loans and technical assistance to
private, for-profit owners of rental properties. With increased enforcement of
minimum housing standards, this type of resource becomes especially critical to
improving the condition of rental properties. The Task Force found that many
resources exist for owner-occupied rehabilitation and the nonprofit housing
organizations have access to an array of public funding sources. This program is
the state's only rehabilitation program specifically created for private sector
landlords.
REGIONAL
1.8. Promote housing rehab
programs to other municipalities
Other municipalities should be urged to create housing rehabilitation programs
for maintaining their stock of older rental housing. (Unanimous)
Discussion: Through the Vermont Community Development
Program (VCDP), a consortium of municipalities (Burlington is ineligible) could
apply for funding 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.
STATE
1.9. Investigate escalating
insurance costs
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
1.10. Support a statewide rental
housing inspection program
Urge Burlington's legislative delegation and Chittenden County senators to
support a statewide rental housing inspection program for communities that do
not already have a local inspection program. Such a program should be designed
so as to address any potential loss of housing through the provision of
relocation benefits for tenants by enforcement actions, and financial resources
to help property owners bring their units up to code or to build replacement
units. (Unanimous)
Discussion: A bill was introduced during the last
legislative session to create a statewide rental housing inspection program. As
with item 1.5 above, this proposal was included in the Rental Housing and Safety
Standards Report that was completed for the VT Department of Housing and
Community Affairs in 1999. Vermont is one of the only states in the nation that
does not have a program that provides routine inspection of rental properties.
Both tenants and property owners adjacent to rental properties would benefit
from such a program.
FEDERAL
1.11. Preserve the affordability
of privately-owned, federally-assisted units
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
Top
of the Page
LOCAL
2.1. Remove barriers to housing
production
The City should address the following housing production barriers that were
identified by the Task Force (Unanimous):
a. Allowable density does not reflect actual capacity to build;
b. Lack of resources for updating zoning code;
c. Zoning and subdivision ordinances are outdated;
d. Lack of predictable permit process;
e. De novo permit hearings.
Discussion: 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 above list 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.
2.2. Gather housing development
barriers from home builders/developers
The City should convene annually a focus group of homebuilders, rental property
owners and developers to gather feedback on local barriers to housing
development. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
2.3. Implement the outstanding
recommendations of the 1990 task force
The City should implement the following recommendations of the Regulatory
Review Task Force report of 1990 (Unanimous):
a. Zoning code should be re-written to make it consistent with current planning
objectives;
b. Zero lot line zoning, performance-based zoning and Floor Area Ratio zoning
should be evaluated for feasibility in Burlington;
c. The State should allow Burlington to use "Mini-Act 250" in lieu of
another review by the District #4 Environmental Commission;
d. Design Advisory Board should be trained not to attempt re-designing projects;
e. Development Review Board should adopt more clear and narrow guidelines for
when members must recuse themselves for conflicts of interest;
f. DRB should support alternatives to the Fire Marshal's requirements for extra
turn-around space or paved lanes around buildings;
g. 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.
h. If a developer installs sprinklers when not required by code to do so, then
the Fire impact fee should be reduced.
Discussion: In 1990, the City Council created a
Regulatory Review Task Force, which was co-chaired by City Councilors Allen Gear
and Erhard Mahnke, to recommend ways to remove barriers to housing development
and rehabilitation. Out of the 61 recommendations of that group, only 8 remain
unrealized. After considering the research on which recommendations have been
implemented, the Affordable Housing Task Force voted to recommend that the above
recommendations still had merit and deserve to be implemented.
2.4. Examine the impact of City
fees on affordability of new housing
The City should 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: During both public hearings, we heard
from Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity that certain City fees added
considerable costs to their very low-income homebuyers. Currently the only City
fees that can be waived are impact fees.
2.5. Provide training for
members of the regulatory review boards
The City should 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: The Task Force heard testimony that the
citizen volunteers that serve on the City's various regulatory review boards are
insufficiently trained in their statutory roles. The special committee set up by
the legislature to improve the local permitting process also recommended this
need.
2.6. Conduct
"on-the-record" review
The City should conduct on the record development review hearings for projects
that meet the requirements for Major Impact Review. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
2.7. Explore local
"anti-snob" zoning ordinance
The City should explore establishing a local anti-snob zoning ordinance similar
to the Massachusetts law (Chapter 774). In 1969, the 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: The Task Force was intrigued by this
concept and was not willing to reject it simply because the Massachusetts law
covers the entire state. It is not clear how one community could adopt and
enforce a similar law for the local permitting process - additional research is
needed to determine if this policy is applicable in Burlington.
2.8. Insist that UVM create 400
beds by Fall 2003
UVM's housing plan (as amended in February 2002) does not meet the spirit of
the 2000 Agreement for under-graduate housing. 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.
(Unanimous)
Discussion: Many members of the Task Force believe
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 believe 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.
2.9. Create and maintain a
database of sites for housing development
CEDO should identify properties for development and redevelopment
opportunities and regularly maintain such a list for public use. In addition,
the City should engage the owners of these properties in an effort to bring
about mutually beneficial housing development. (Unanimous)
Discussion: Parties seeking to develop housing in
Burlington often contact CEDO asking for a list or map of potential development
sites. Rather than endorse the notion of the City creating such a list and
passively waiting around for developers to ask for it, the notion here is for
the City to identify the properties where housing development makes sense and to
proactively engage the owners is a dialogue about the market for housing and the
features of their property that make residential development a favorable option.
2.10. City-owned land should be
identified for affordable housing
The City should identify property owned by the City where housing would make
sense and promote such development with nonprofit and for-profit housing
developers. For example, the City-owned parking lots located on Elmwood Avenue
and Browns Court should be redeveloped for housing affordable to a range of
incomes. (Unanimous)
Discussion: The Task Force recommends that the City
inventory its land 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 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.
2.11. Evaluate the impact of the
Inclusionary Zoning ordinance
The City should 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.
(Unanimous)
Discussion: While the Task Force unanimously approved
this recommendation, there was not unanimity about whether Inclusionary Zoning
discourages new private sector housing development. The question demands further
research to determine what impact, if any, this ordinance has on the rate of
housing production.
2.12. Develop method for
payments in lieu of creating Inclusionary units
The Inclusionary Zoning ordinance should have a clear formula for determining
the payment in lieu of building affordable units. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
REGIONAL
2.13. CCRPC should deny municipal development
plans weak on housing
CCRPC should be urged to 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: Current State planning law allows
regional planning commissions, or the Commissioner of 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.
2.14. CCRPC should facilitate a
voluntary "core compact" of communities
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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."
2.15. Municipalities should
cooperate on issues of infrastructure 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
2.16. CCRPC should provide
technical assistance with zoning updates
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
STATE
2.17. Continue and expand State
funding for housing production
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.
Increased funding should be sought wherever possible. (Unanimous)
Discussion:
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."
2.18. Prioritize infrastructure
funding for mixed-income housing
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: Certain states 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.
2.19. State-owned land should be
made available for 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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 urges that this analysis
be completed and that the results be disseminated to the public.
2.20. Remove State barriers to
housing production
The State should address the following housing production barriers that were
identified by the Task Force (Unanimous):
a. Cost and time of appeal;
b. Lack of predictable permit process;
c. Permit appeal criteria overly broad and inclusive;
d. Redundancy in the local permit process and Act 250
Discussion: 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.
2.21. State should discourage
construction phasing
Communities that enact construction phasing should not be allowed to levy impact
fees nor should they be eligible for discretionary state funding programs.
(Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
2.22. State should review
municipal plans and bylaws for housing element
The Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs (DHCA)
should review municipal development plans and zoning bylaws for consistency with
state housing goals and reject any plans or bylaws that are found to be
inconsistent with such goals. (Unanimous)
Discussion: The Commissioner of the Department of
Housing and Community Affairs 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.
2.23. The State should undertake
a comprehensive revision of Chapter 117
The Task Force endorses many of the recommendations of the Municipal Planning
Review Commission (a.k.a. Chapter 117 Committee) and urges the State to place
high priority on revising the act to make the development review process more
efficient, predictable and fair to developers. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
2.24. Change State law to raise
the standard required to appeal a permit
The City should 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
FEDERAL
2.25. Congress should continue
and expand funding for existing programs
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, as well as the amount allocated to
states without Participating Jurisdictions. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
2.26. Congress should establish
a new rental housing production program
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: As noted under item 2.17, federal support
for housing has plummeted since the mid-1980s. Other then 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 are approximately $2.7 million and the credit available is
approximately $650,000.
Top
of the Page
LOCAL
3.1. Enact a No Cause Eviction Control measure
Current State law provides inadequate eviction protection for tenants that are
abiding by their leases. A No Cause Eviction Control Measure would lengthen the
notice period required for no-cause evictions for tenants in good standing, with
graduated notice periods based on length of tenure. (Majority; 10-2)
Discussion: Under Vermont law, a landlord may terminate a tenancy for no
cause. The majority of 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.
3.2. Landlords should be allowed to charge a pet deposit
Burlington's Security deposit ordinance should be changed to allow the charging
of a pet deposit - this would open up more apartments to pet owners while giving
landlords greater protection against pet damages. Pet deposits should be set at
an amount to be determined by the landlord, but shall not exceed one month's
rent. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
3.3. Require that landlords give tenants a disclosure form
All landlords should be required to distribute a "housing disclosure
form" that outlines the rights and responsibilities of both landlords and
tenants. Consideration should be given to requiring certain lease provisions in
all leases. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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. However, the Task Force found
that in Burlington, both parties would benefit by distributing a
Burlington-specific handout that includes the basics of local laws and norms of
behavior that are expected of tenants, i.e. noise, trash, recycling, and housing
codes. Landlords should be required to distribute such a document to all
tenants.
3.4. Target Code Enforcement Resources for Rental Housing
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. Posting a replacement Certificate shall cure
unauthorized removal of the Certificate, and the Landlord should not be cited
with a violation if the cure is made. (Unanimer third party.
The Task Force expressed support for broader Code Enforcement efforts on
"quality of life" issues such as parking, trash, zoning enforcement
and nuisance abatement on owner-occupied, vacant buildings and commercial
properties. However, the Task Force was concerned that tenants may be paying the
$50 annual fee to fund code enforcement that extends beyond the scope of the
Minimum Housing Code. Section 18-30 of the Code of Ordinances states that
"this fee shall be in an amount determined by and 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 resource services." There was also concern that landlords
are not posting Certificates of Compliance in their units (as required in the
code) and that CE is not enforcing this requirement. This makes it harder for a
tenant to know how their apartment stands in terms of code compliance.
3.5. Increase number of periodic inspections
Code Enforcement should conduct periodic inspections at the frequency required
in the minimum housing ordinance. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
3.6. Assess the impact of enforcing the Life Safety Code on existing units
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
3.7. Notify tenants of Minimum Housing code violations
Code Enforcement should routinely send tenants notices of violations found
during either periodic or complaint-based inspections. This practice would
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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 argued 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.
3.8. Improve public access to inspection records
The City should provide certification of such records to citizens to facilitate
the use of the records as evidence in court. All minimum housing inspection
compliance orders and Interim Certificates/Certificates of Compliance should be
available online. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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. There was praise for recent developments in the record
keeping practices of the Code Enforcement Office, but those who rely on the
records for legal purposes suggested that there is still room for improvement.
3.9. Explore exempting all federally-assisted housing from registration fees
The City should explore amending Chapter 18 to make all federally assisted
rental housing units (including Section 8 and Low Income Housing Tax Credit
units) eligible for exemption from registration fees, if a rational basis exists
for this exemption. (Majority; 11-1)
Discussion: Ordinance should be amended to recognize that the ownership
structure required under federal affordable housing programs makes many
affordable housing units ineligible for the exemption of registration fees. To
address this, the ordinance could be changed by changing the wording of Section
18-30, (a)(2) to read, "That unit meets both of the following two
tests:" and removing subsection (a)(2)(c).
REGIONAL
3.10. A fair housing analysis is needed for Chittenden County
CCRPC should conduct an analysis of the potential legal implications of zoning
and permitting laws and procedures in Chittenden County, especially with regard
to possible disparate impacts on protected classes under state and federal fair
housing law. In addition 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. (Majority;11-1)
Discussion: 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. In addition to a disparate impact analysis, CCRPC should conduct fair
housing audits to quantify the degree of housing discrimination in the County.
STATE
3.11. Expand funding for the homeless and other vulnerable populations
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. It should increase
funding levels wherever possible. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
3.12. Landlords should be limited to reasonable third party charges
The legislature should clarify landlords can only recoup third party charges
commensurate with the cost of obtaining credit reports, and other charges
incurred with third parties that are reasonably related to qualifying the
applicant for the rental of a unit. (Unanimous)
Discussion: With legislative leadership from the City of Burlington, the 2000
Vermont General Assembly passed a law prohibiting landlords from charging
prospective tenants a fee to apply for renting an apartment. Such fees created
an added financial obstacle to working people searching for an apartment. Under
current practice, it is reported that landlords are charging fees for credit
reports that exceed the cost of obtaining such reports.
3.13. Use welfare funds to provide housing assistance
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
3.14. Increase transitional housing and affordable assisted living
The State should create a demonstration project to encourage the development of
more transitional housing for formerly homeless families and affordable assisted
living for low-income seniors. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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. For low-income seniors, there is only
one assisted living facility - currently under construction, with City financial
support, at 3 Cathedral Square in Burlington. Until similar facilities are
developed in every region of Vermont, low-income seniors will be faced with few
options other than entering a nursing home - again, at considerable personal and
social cost.
3.15. State should provide funding to help tenants retain their housing
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: In Burlington, an innovative partnership between the Burlington
Housing Authority and the Committee on Temporary Shelter has been developed
under the name of the Rental Opportunity Center (ROC). The ROC provides a range
of services to tenants and landlords designed to help tenants find apartments
using the Section 8 program and to enable tenants to successfully maintain their
housing.
FEDERAL
3.16. Enhance the utilization of Section 8 vouchers
Urge the Vermont Congressional Delegation to seek reforms to the Section 8
Program, including creation of a "Voucher Success Program," designed
to enhance the usefulness of vouchers in tight rental markets like Burlington's.
(Unanimous)
Discussion: Only about a third of voucher recipients in Burlington are
successful in finding an apartment because of our low vacancy rate and
escalating rents. Housing Authorities need more flexibility in program operation
in order to tailor the voucher program to local market conditions and to be able
to provide more support in the housing search
3.17. Increase funding for the
homeless and other vulnerable populations
The federal government should dramatically increase funding levels for the
McKinney Homeless Assistance Program and Section 8 Vouchers. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
Discussion: 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. 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 funding must be increased to
accommodate the growing number of families and individuals who are simply unable
to pay the high cost of housing in their communities.
3.18. Provide federal funding to
support tenant retention
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
Top
of the Page
LOCAL
4.1 Increase Housing Trust Fund
revenue to support homeownership
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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: The greatest challenge facing Burlington
in our 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.
4.2 Encourage owner-occupancy of
small apartment buildings
The City's Condominium Conversion ordinance should be amended to exempt the
conversion of all rental buildings containing six or fewer apartments. The City
should explore increasing the exemption further. (Unanimous)
Discussion: The City 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.
4.3 Encourage accessory
apartments in single-family homes and barns/garages
Allow 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. An approved accessory apartment would be disallowed if and
when the property ceases to be owner-occupied. This use would be subject to all
applicable regulations. (Unanimous)
Discussion: A similar recommendation was included in
the Affordable Housing Task Force report of 1986. This concept was suggested to
the Task Force by a neighborhood activist in hopes that such a change would
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.
4.4 Continue operating support
for BCLT's HomeOwnership Center
The City should continue providing grants to the Burlington Community Land Trust
to support the operations of the HomeOwnership Center. (Unanimous)
Discussion: With financial support from the City, the
Burlington Community Land Trust operates the NeighborWorks HomeOwnership Center
(HOC) of Vermont. The HOC provides training and counseling for homebuyers of all
incomes and financial assistance to low and moderate income homebuyers.
4.5 Support for Section 8
homeownership
The City should explore ways in which it can directly support the growth of the
Burlington Housing Authority's homeownership option program. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
4.6 City employees should be
encouraged to buy homes in Burlington
The City should create an Employer Assisted Housing benefit to encourage City
employees to buy homes in neighborhoods with low rates of homeownership.
(Unanimous)
Discussion: 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. In
Burlington, we will be working with FannieMae, the HomeOwnership Center of
Chittenden County, and the Vermont Development Credit Union to design such a
program. We will also urge our two largest employers, the University of Vermont
and Fletcher Allen Health Care, to join us in this effort and create companion
programs for their employees.
REGIONAL
4.7 Promote housing trust funds
to other municipalities
CCRPC and the University of Vermont's Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC)
should promote the concept of municipal housing trust funds as a way to raise
funds for low and moderate-income homeownership. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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. In the fall of 2002, the COPC will hold a
regional housing conference and actively promote the concept of municipalities
creating their own local housing trust funds.
STATE
4.8 State funding for
homeownership should be maintained
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) funding for the HomeOwnership
Centers and the Homeland Program should be maintained. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
4.9 Raise VHFA program limits to
encourage homeownership in Burlington
Vermont Housing Finance Agency income limits and purchase price limits should be
increased in every Census tract in Burlington as a way to make urban home buying
more attractive. (Unanimous)
Discussion: At the City's request, the Board of
Commissioners of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency recently increased VHFA's
income and purchase price limits for two of Burlington's census tracts (4 and
10). Federal rules prohibit VHFA from making this change for census tracts with
poverty rates below a set level. 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.
4.10 Reduce the reliance on
property taxes to fund education
The State must reduce its reliance on the property tax as the primary means of
funding education (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
FEDERAL
4.11 Federal incentives to
encourage affordable homeownership production
Congress should 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. (Unanimous)
Discussion: 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.
Top
of the Page / Up / Next
|
