|
MEMBERS: Ward 3 City Councilor Phil Fiermonte, Chair Ward 3 City
Councilor Tim Ashe Ward 7 City Councilor Carmen George Ward 4 City
Councilor Kurt Wright
COMMITTEE STAFF: Brian Pine, Assistant Director for Housing, Community
& Economic Development Office, City of Burlington, Vermont
In the summer of 2005, the City Council established housing as one of
its three priorities for in-depth Council consideration. The Housing
Super Committee (HSC) was established and Councilors Ashe, Fiermonte
(Chair), George and Wright were appointed to serve as committee members.
After several initial meetings in the fall of 2005, the committee
launched a public process to solicit community input about the pressing
housing challenges facing Burlington and some potential local solutions.
The Committee decided to pick several items from the draft
recommendations dated December 20, 2005 and have staff draft stand-alone
resolutions for Council consideration. These resolutions would serve to
direct City departments to take appropriate action. These minutes
reflect the existing set of recommendations that the Committee intends
to forward to the City Council.
The Committee discussed the current housing market conditions and
requested that CEDO provide information for this report that would give
other Councilors a full picture of the housing issues facing Vermont and
Burlington in particular. The findings discussed below, which were
excerpted from ”Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Housing & Wages Report
– 2006 Update”, provide a picture of state of housing throughout
Vermont. While there are regional variations for Burlington and
Chittenden County, where prices for buying homes and renting apartments
are the highest, the conditions described for Vermont are generally
accurate for Burlington.
The following section of this report up to “Committee
Recommendations” on page 8 was excerpted with permission from ”Between a
Rock and a Hard Place: Housing & Wages Report – 2006 Update”:
· “In 2005, the median purchase price for a home in Vermont rose to
$182,000, a 10 percent increase from 2004 and a 87 percent increase
since 1996.
· To purchase that median-priced home, a Vermont household would need
an income of approximately $65,0003; 73 percent of all Vermont
households have annual incomes below that figure.
· The median household income in Vermont is $45,7005. A household
earning that median income could afford a home priced at about $124,000.
· The median price for a newly-constructed home is much higher,
reaching $245,900 in 2005, a decrease from 2004, due to the fact that 31
percent of the new home stock was created by two affordable developments
built in South Burlington. Without those developments, the median price
of a new home reached $299,900, a slight increase from 2004.
· The average Fair Market Rent for a modest two-bedroom apartment in
Vermont reached $723 in 2005, a 29 percent increase since 1996. A
Vermont household would have to earn $13.90 per hour, or $28,903
annually, to afford that Fair Market Rent.9 At least 56 percent of
Vermont’s non-farm employees — more than 155,000 people — work in
occupations with median wages below that amount. Vermont currently has a
shortage of 21,000 affordable rental units, and we will need 12,300 more
owner-occupied units by the year 2010, virtually guaranteeing the state
will continue to have very tight rental and homeownership markets.
· The average number of Vermonters who have relied on homeless
shelters over the past four years has stayed around 4,000, one-fourth of
them children. That figure does not include the homeless who make do
with some other form of temporary — and often inadequate — housing.
· Vermonters who can get into homeless shelters are staying longer.
In 2000, the average stay in a shelter was 12 days. By 2004, the average
stay had more than doubled, to 26 days. How do we define “affordable
housing?”
The generally-accepted standard for housing affordability holds that
housing is “affordable” if the household is paying no more than 30
percent of its income for rent and utilities or for mortgage, taxes and
insurance. This standard may, in fact, be too high, given the rising
costs of other necessities, such as health care, fuel, and childcare,
but it remains the basis for defining “affordable housing.”
Affordability is determined by two factors — the cost of housing and
the ability of people to pay that cost. As home prices and rents
escalate at a rate much higher than Vermonter’s wages, housing becomes
less and less affordable for more and more people. In general, most
publicly funded housing programs are restricted to households earning no
more than 80% of HUD area median income ($56,400 for 4 people). For the
Low Income Housing Tax Credit program the income limit is 60% of area
median ($42,300) and for the Section 8 program household income must be
below 50% of median income ($35,250) in most cases. The rising cost of
housing Homeownership For most Vermonters, owning a home is fundamental
to their idea of family and is the bedrock of their financial security.
A home is, for most people, the largest asset they have. But buying a
home, and especially buying a first home, is getting more and more
expensive, even relative to rising prices of other necessities. In 2005,
the median purchase price of a home in Vermont reached $182,000, an
increase of just over 10 percent from 2004 and 87 percent from 1996.
To afford that median-priced home, the average Vermont household
would need an annual income of about $65,000. But Vermont’s median
household income is significantly lower, $45,700, enough to afford a
home priced in the $124,000 range. For new construction, prices were
much higher, although there is some good news on that front. An analysis
of available real estate sales data shows that, as of November 30th,
2005, the median price of a newly-constructed home in Vermont in 2005
was $245,900. That is a drop from 2004, and it is due to the fact that
151 affordable units — approximately 31 percent of the new units sold in
Vermont — came on the market. These units were created in two
condominium developments in the Farrell Street area in South Burlington.
Excluding those units; however, the median purchase price of a new
residence in Vermont last year would be $299,900, a slight increase from
2004.
This is one indicator suggesting much of Vermont’s single-family
housing development is still taking place at the upper end of the
market. Another is the number of million- dollar homes in Vermont, which
has grown rapidly. In 2000, Vermont had 48 million-dollar homes. By
2003, there were 1,030, which ranked Vermont 23rd in the nation in the
number of million-dollar homes relative to its total housing stock. The
number of million-dollar homes sold has increased steadily each year
from five in 2000 to 44 in 2005. Condominiums and mobile homes have been
a less-expensive alternative to traditional “stick-built” single-family
homes, but prices there are rising, too.
The median price of a primary-residence condominium in 2005 was
$176,500, a 14 percent increase from the year before. For mobile homes
with land, the median price in 2005 reached $73,750, a 9 percent
increase from 2004. Because of the large aging population competing with
younger households for low-maintenance condos, analysts estimate that
appreciation will continue for this once-affordable housing option.
High prices are, in part, a function of a still-tight housing market.
Vermont’s homeownership vacancy rate, 0.8 percent, is the fourth lowest
in the nation. In addition, speculation in Vermont’s real estate market
has helped push prices up. But isn’t the housing market cooling off?
There are signs to indicate that may be happening, but those signs don’t
automatically translate into prices coming down. A more likely result is
that single-family home prices will continue to rise at a slower rate
that will still be higher than increases in Vermonters’ wages. For
example, prices of existing Vermont houses appreciated by 12.4 percent
between September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2005, based on repeat sales
data. This was the highest appreciation rate in New England, and the
15th highest in the nation.
What about low interest rates? In recent years, low mortgage interest
rates have helped make housing a little more affordable for some, but
the gap between wages and housing costs is so large that, for many
aspiring homebuyers, low interest rates alone are not enough to make up
that difference.
Rental housing Vermont has approximately 71,000 renter households,
and many of them are seeing the costs of keeping a roof over their heads
taking larger and larger portions of their incomes. Even though our
state’s rental vacancy rate has eased somewhat over the past two years —
it’s now 4.7 percent — it is still the lowest rental vacancy rate of any
state in the nation.
The average Fair Market Rent, or FMR, for a modest two-bedroom
apartment in Vermont, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), reached $723 in 2005.25 While this is a
modest increase from the Fair Market Rent calculation for 2004, many of
Vermont’s housing experts believe HUD’s calculation understates rental
costs in Vermont because of the methodology used.
However modest the increase, renting is less affordable for thousands
of Vermonters. To pay that $723 rent, for example, a household would
have to earn at least $13.90 an hour, or $28,903 annually. This is the
“housing wage,” the income needed to pay the Fair Market Rent and
utilities while working 40 hours per week. At least 56 percent of
Vermont’s non-farm employees —155,000 people — work in occupations with
median wages below $13.90 an hour. Half of Vermont’s households have
only one, or less than one, full-time worker. As a result, approximately
54 percent of Vermont’s low-income households paid more than 30 percent
of their incomes for rent.
The situation is much harder for almost 12,900 Vermonters who live on
Supplemental Security Income, or SSI. Monthly SSI checks were $631 in
2005, or $92 less than the above-quoted Fair Market Rent. Even the
average FMR for a one-bedroom apartment in Vermont — $514 — would gobble
up 81 percent of an SSI check. It should also be noted that 56 percent
of SSI recipients have no other source of income.
Federal housing assistance declines Very low income Vermonters once
could rely on the federal government to help close the affordability
gap. Cities and states could count on federal grants and loans to help
create affordable housing. But in the last 30 years, there has been an
overall decline in funding for the HUD, and USDA Rural Development has
seen similar cutbacks. Since 1978, the high water mark for HUD funding,
its budget has declined by 66 percent. The Section 8 housing voucher
program, which helps very low income Vermonters pay their rent or, in
some cases, their mortgage, received insufficient funding this year and
last. As a result, 64 fewer Vermont households received assistance last
year. Section 8 currently serves approximately 6,000 Vermont households,
65 percent of which have members who are elderly or disabled and live on
SSI or Social Security. Changes in the funding formula and the way rent
ceilings are calculated have left many housing authorities without the
funds needed to use all their vouchers. Many Vermonters who receive
assistance find themselves having to pay more for rent. Those on
already-long waiting lists will have to wait years for Section 8
assistance.
The Community Development Block Grant program, another mainstay of
federal housing assistance, was cut by almost $500 million for the
current federal fiscal year, with Vermont scheduled to lose $1 million
and Burlington losing over $90,000. The HOME program, HUD’s Lead Hazard
Control program and the fund that pays for capital improvements to
public housing also sustained cuts.
Homelessness Vermont is still unable to provide adequate shelter for
its homeless population. The number of Vermonters relying on one of our
homeless shelters has stayed around 4,000 annually, and about 1,000 of
those people are children. This is by no means a complete count of
Vermont’s homeless population, as it cannot take into account the number
of people who are taking refuge in some other form of temporary shelter,
no matter how inadequate. The Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)
estimates that, between July 2004 and June 2005, 1,443 people were
turned away from shelters that were already filled. This means that, on
any given night, balmy summer or 40-below winter, there will be men,
women and children taking refuge in apartments or homes belonging to
friends or relatives, in abandoned buildings, in campgrounds, or in
their cars.
With the state’s housing market so tight, it is not surprising the
average stay in homeless shelters has risen from 12 days in the year
2000 to 26 days in 2005. Homeless providers say it is not uncommon for
them to serve people who are working full time, and they report the
fastest-growing portion of Vermont’s homeless population continues to be
working families.
Vermont OEO reports the number of homeless shelter “bed nights” —
defined as one person sleeping in one shelter bed for one night —
increased to almost 102,000 in 2005, a 52 percent increase in four
years.
Wages aren’t keeping up Vermont’s economy, while growing, is still
creating a large number of jobs at the lower end of the pay scale.
According to the Vermont Department of Labor figures for November, 2004,
the most recent available, the top 10 occupations with the largest
employment in the state were: cashiers; retail salespersons;
bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks; waiters and waitresses;
teacher assistants; registered nurses; office clerks, general;
secretaries, except legal, medical and executive; janitors and cleaners,
except maids and housekeeping cleaners; and truck drivers, heavy and
tractor-trailer. These jobs employ almost 60,000 Vermonters, or just
more than 19 percent of our workforce. Only two of those job categories
— registered nurses and truck drivers — had median wages of more than
Vermont’s housing wage of $28,903. The median annual wage in the largest
employment category, cashiers, was $16,790. Thousands of other
Vermonters are filling a lot of important jobs — such as childcare
workers, EMTs, and nurse’s aides — whose median wages fall below the
housing wage.
Housing development Housing development is a powerful economic
generator, and it is also becoming clear that a lack of housing
affordable to ordinary Vermonters and their families acts as a drag on
the economy. Various studies have attempted to estimate the actual
economic benefit of housing development. A study released in January by
Vermont Housing Finance Agency showed that development of 25 modest, new
single-family homes would create or support 61 jobs paying more than $2
million in wages, and would generate more than $6 million in income for
businesses.44 An October, 2003 study prepared for the Vermont Housing &
Conservation Board found that housing development created 10,000 jobs in
the state between 1998 and 2002, and that more than half of Vermont’s
construction industry jobs are related to residential construction.
But with Vermont already short 21,000 affordable rental units and in
need of 12,300 more owner-occupied units in the next five years46, it is
clear we have a great deal more work to do if we’re going to create the
housing we need and the jobs and the economic activity that come with
it. Last year, CFED, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit, non-partisan
economic policy organization formerly known as Corporation for
Enterprise Development, released its Assets & Opportunity Scorecard that
ranked states on how difficult it is for people in those states to reach
a reasonable level of comfort and security. CFED used five categories
—financial security, business development, homeownership, health care,
and education — to make its determination. Vermont received an “A” grade
for every category but one —homeownership. There, the Green Mountain
State managed only a “C.”
The economic consequences of our housing shortage are becoming more
apparent. Vermont’s employers, both public and private sector, are
expressing concern about the impact our housing shortage is having on
their ability to attract and retain workers, and they recognize the cost
and availability of housing for their workers is an obstacle to overall
economic development. For example, a 2005 survey of 108 Vermont
employers conducted by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency found:
· 96 respondents (89% of the sample) described the cost and
availability of housing as an obstacle to economic development that
needs to be addressed. · 99 respondents (92%) said a shortage of homes
for sale that are affordable to their employees is a problem. · 95
respondents (88%) said a shortage of rental housing that is affordable
to their employees is a problem. · 97 respondents (90%) said the
availability of affordable housing is a problem for their employees. ·
72 respondents (67%) said employees have extended commutes because local
housing is too expensive, and 53 respondents (49%) said that has
affected absenteeism, tardiness or early departures. · 61 respondents
(56%) said their companies felt pressure to pay higher salaries so
employees could afford housing, and 53 respondents (49%) said housing
costs had posed problems in their efforts to recruit employees.”
Text beginning on page 2 to this point was excerpted with permission
from “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Housing & Wages Report – 2006
Update”. For a complete version of this report, visit
www.housingawareness.org.
The above-named Housing & Wages Report concludes with the following
recommendations for ways that local officials can work to address the
need for affordable housing: “local officials should work to make sure
their communities encourage, rather than discourage, housing development
through their planning and zoning. They can create incentives for
construction and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, particularly
in town centers, and they can bring other community leaders together to
support housing and educate the public on the need for and benefits of
housing development.”
Preserve Existing Housing
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.
CEDO has been unsuccessful in previous attempts to garner enthusiasm
from other City departments for this concept. The following City
departments need to be involved in this change: Public Works, Fire,
Planning & Zoning, Attorney, and CEDO. HUD maintains a clearinghouse of
information to support this national trend and Fannie Mae has offered
technical assistance to the City.
Action: Hold public meetings and invite key stakeholders to weigh in
on this concept. Since other City departments are critical to making
this idea a reality, it is essential to get “buy-in” from department
heads. Staff should provide periodic progress reports to the Council
with the goal being to adopt a model rehab sub-code within one year.
Produce New Housing
2. Gather housing development barriers from home
builders, renovators and for-profit and nonprofit developers
The City
should convene a focus group of homebuilders and developers periodically
to gather feedback on local barriers to new housing development and
substantial rehabilitation.
Action: Draft a resolution directing CEDO and Planning & Zoning to
convene stakeholders on this issue and provide an annual progress report
to the Council on efforts to remove the identified barriers.
3. 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 of these review
boards fully understand their roles, proper meeting protocols, the
rights of all parties and to ensure impartial project review on the part
of board members.
Action: Draft a resolution directing the Department of Planning &
Zoning to ensure that all volunteers serving on regulatory review boards
receive regular training. The Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission has pledged to provide this type of training and it is part
of their mission – plans should be made to undertake this training in
the first half of 2006. The Department of Planning & Zoning should
report back to the Council by July 2006 on progress implementing this
action item.
4. 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.
Despite a unanimous 2003 City Council resolution supporting the use
of on the record hearings for certain types of projects, the Planning
Commission has not yet implemented this concept. OTR review is on hold
until January 2006 at the earliest. There are issues to be explored by
the Planning Commission before this can be implemented. OTR changes the
way the public is involved in the development review process. OTR has
worked to varying degrees in other communities. It requires much more
technical and formal expertise on the part of the developer, residents
and staff. P&Z does not yet understand the full cost of OTR and does not
have any funds presently to implement OTR. If they decide to pursue an
OTR pilot project, they would need to get additional funding either from
fee increases or the general fund.
Action: Council resolution directing Planning Commission, Planning &
Zoning staff, CEDO, City Attorney, Mayor and a Council representative to
devise a strategy for implementing on the record review by July 1, 2006.
The strategy should include a discussion of the financial cost to the
City and the staffing requirement for educating residents about the OTR
review process.
5. Insist that the number of off-campus UVM students does not
increase
As UVM realizes its goal of increasing undergraduate
enrollment, the City must secure a pledge to create enough new student
housing to prevent the absolute number of students living in community
housing from increasing beyond the level envisioned in the 2000 UVM-City
Agreement. The City estimates that number to be approximately 3,100
under-graduates.
Action: Direct the administration to negotiate a new agreement with UVM to ensure that UVM’s growth in enrollment is paired with a
commensurate growth in the supply of UVM-affiliated student housing.
6. City-owned land should be identified for affordable housing
The
City should identify City-owned property 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 considered for housing affordable to a
range of incomes.
There are presently competing interests for the municipal parking lot
located on Elmwood Avenue that make it less desirable for housing
development. The Brown’s Court parking lot is more appropriate at the
present time. This site would have considerably more development
capacity if it could be combined with the Eagle’s Club lot. However, it
may have sufficient development potential as a stand-alone lot. CEDO
expects to have a site development analysis by summer 2006 prepared by a
Norwich University student to assist in the City’s consideration of this
site for housing development.
Action: CEDO should gather all the relevant information about the
site characteristics and issue a Request for Proposals for the Browns
Court parking lot. Any proposal for housing should attempt to preserve
the number of public parking spaces in an underground parking structure.
The City should also gather similar information for other municipal
properties that are suitable for housing.
7. Update the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance
The City should amend the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance to clarify certain provisions and to
improve the effectiveness of the ordinance.
The ordinance does not provide a methodology to be used for
calculating such payments. In order to encourage developers to include
affordable units among their market rate units, the off-site option was
designed to give the DRB the ability to impose a stiff fee for building
inclusionary units on a site other than the project site. Other
communities that have inclusionary zoning allow for payments in lieu of
on-site units, but set the payment amount high enough to encourage
developers to intersperse affordable units with market units. The
rationale is that giving developers the option to write a check instead
of incorporating affordable units on-site will result in increased
funding for housing but defeat the goal of creating inclusive
developments and neighborhoods.
Action: CEDO and Planning & Zoning should work with the Attorney’s
Office to propose housekeeping changes and recommend a method for
establishing appropriate in-lieu payments. Protect Vulnerable Residents
8. Adopt lead safety ordinance to protect children from lead poisoning
Lead poisoning is the number one children’s environmental health threat
in the United States, affecting nearly 1 million young children. Lead
has been shown to cause behavioral problems, learning disabilities,
decreased intelligence, and other health problems. Burlington’s Minimum
Housing Standards ordinance only prohibits the use of lead-based paint.
Since the federal government banned lead-based paint in 1978, this
ordinance is virtually meaningless. The main lead poisoning threat to
children is created by dust in older homes from normal activity and
during painting and renovations.
The City has no ordinance requiring that property owners maintain
their units in a lead safe manner and the State does not enforce the
State Lead Law (Act 165). General contractors and painting contractors
are not required by local ordinance to use lead safe work practices,
thereby exposing children to the hazards of lead during painting and
renovation. In 2005, only 26% of Burlington children under age 6 had
undergone blood lead testing for elevated blood lead levels. The City
Council Ordinance Committee presently has a draft ordinance that was
referred for consideration in the fall of 2005. However, the City
Attorney has found that the City lacks authority to implement this draft
without legislative approval. Action: The Housing Super Committee
unanimously supports adopting a local lead safety ordinance. A
resolution should be drafted urging the Ordinance Committee to take
action on an ordinance that would result in greater compliance with the
Vermont lead Law (Act 165), and mandate lead safe work practices for
painting and renovation projects. The ordinance should be developed with
the active involvement of Code Enforcement, CEDO and Public Works. 9.
Amend fair housing/anti-discrimination ordinances and seek enforcement
funds The City should seek funding for education and enforcement of its
fair housing laws. Fair housing is an issue of growing concern in
Burlington. The City's population is increasingly diverse, and regional
market conditions have had an increasingly significant effect on fair
housing choice both within the City and within the surrounding region.
Recent studies have shown significant discrimination in both housing
sales and rental opportunities.
CEDO and the City Attorney's Office investigated the process of
seeking federal funding for education and enforcement of its own fair
housing laws. In order to qualify for funding under HUD's fair housing
programs, the City would need to amend its own fair housing ordinances
and obtain “Substantial Equivalency certification” from HUD.
Action: The Ordinance Committee should consolidate two disparate
housing discrimination ordinances and make them substantially equivalent
to federal fair housing laws. Once the City’s fair housing ordinance are
substantially equivalent to federal fair housing laws, the City should
seek enforcement funding from the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development. The Attorney’s Office should take the lead on this effort
with assistance from CEDO.
10. Amend security deposit ordinance to permit charging tenants 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.
Action: The Ordinance Committee should amend the security deposit
ordinance to allow for landlords to charge an additional amount for
tenants who wish to have a pet living in their apartment. Advocates for
people with disabilities commented that this change must acknowledge
that assistance pets for people with disabilities are required by law
and landlords are not allowed to charge extra for these pets.
11. 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.
Action: The Ordinance Committee should incorporate this requirement
into the voluntary landlord certification process that is presently
being developed by the Code Enforcement Office.
12. Strengthen Protection from Retaliatory Evictions
Current City
ordinance and State law prohibits an eviction of a tenant for reporting
code violations. Several speakers at the committee’s public hearings
testified that tenants do not report code violations due to fear of
being evicted or having their lease terminated at renewal time.
Action: Solicit input from the City Attorney’s Office, Vermont Legal
Aid and other stakeholders on the best way to deal with this issue. Also
conduct research into how other municipalities prevent retaliatory
evictions. Since most of the alleged instances of retaliatory eviction
are said to result from the tenant making complaints to Code Enforcement
about conditions, the Code Enforcement Office must be involved in
exploring any proposed remedies to this problem.
13. Mitigate High Rents
Although the Council rejected committee
consideration of a proposed rent stabilization ordinance, the upward
pressure on rents continues to be among the most vexing housing
challenges facing Burlington. The recent Allen & Brooks Report shows
that the rate of rent inflation has slowed down, but rents do continue
to increase in spite of a modestly softening rental market. The rent on
2-bedroom apartments increased 1.8% from 2004 to 2005, while 3-bedroom
rents increase by 2.8% during that period.
Action: CEDO should research best practices on ways to mitigate high
rents and prepare a set of recommendations for consideration by the City
Council Community Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee.
Promote Home Ownership
14. Encourage owner-occupancy of small apartment
buildings
The City’s Condominium Conversion ordinance should be amended
to exempt the conversion of all rental projects (one or more buildings
that are being converted) containing 15 or fewer apartments.
Action: Draft an ordinance amendment and introduce it for first
reading and referral to the Ordinance Committee.
Committee members: Tim Ashe, Phil Fiermonte, Carmen George, and Kurt
Wright Staff: Brian Pine
26 people in attendance
1. Rachel Siegel – Manhattan Drive. Burlington homes have high level
of lead-based paint. Taught the class on Essential Maintenance Practices
for keeping homes lead safe. Bought BCLT home that was in pretty good
shape. Daughter was tested for blood lead level and she had an “Elevated
Blood Level” (EBL) of 22 mg/dl (over 10 mg/dl is considered elevated).
Found high levels of lead in the soil, but there is not a program that
deals with soil. The Burlington Lead Program (CEDO), provides a great
service for lead-based paintwork in homes, but does not address soil.
Concerned about families with limited English proficiency and the very
low testing rate in VT. Even with low testing rates, VT’s has a higher
level of EBLs than national average.
Staff response: BLP is prohibited by its funding sources from using
funds to remediate soil. BLP does offer free soil testing for owners and
occupants and provides technical assistance so that the owner/occupants
can make informed decisions as to what course of action is best for them
and the safety of their families. BLP is about to launch an extensive
effort to test children for lead and provide education and outreach with
an emphasis on high-risk populations. There is some discussion about a
legislative strategy at the state level and a proposed ordinance has
been referred to the Ordinance Committee.
2. Chuck Corsey – Rock Point. Owns 3 single-family homes in the New
North End that he rents to Section 8 tenants. Does not feel supported by
Section 8 program when it comes to keeping rents high enough to cover
costs and a reasonable profit. BHA inspections are an added requirement
that other landlords don’t have to deal with and that adds costs to
having Section 8 tenants. City should consider incentives for landlords
who participate in the Section 8 program, i.e. tax them at a lower rate
or offer tax credits.
Staff response: Cuts to the Section 8 program have resulted in
decreased rents in many apartments. This results in an increase in the
tenant’s portion of the rent or a decrease in the amount of rent
collected by the landlord. Burlington Housing Authority has tried to
minimize the impact of these cuts on both tenants and landlords, but
there has been some negative impact. In addition, many owners of rental
properties, including owners who rent to Section 8 households, have seen
their property taxes increase significantly. All residential rentals are
classified by the State as commercial for property tax purposes. When
the new values that resulted from reappraisal are applied to commercial
tax rate, rental property owners have seen their operating costs
increase significantly. This will lead to increased rents and/or
possibly to landlords devoting less money to maintenance and repairs.
Both trends are cause for concern in any discussion about affordable
housing.
3. Brian Everill – former renter. The large transient population of
college students causes rents to escalate and buildings to deteriorate.
Spent 13 months getting his landlord to correct code violations and
other tenants face similar conditions. Majority of renters don’t kw
their rights and are paying too much for substandard housing. Landlords
use the tight market to their advantage.
Staff response: Code Enforcement has significantly increased the
frequency with which rental properties are inspected. Improved
enforcement of the minimum housing code along with increased production
of new rental housing throughout the County will result in better
compliance with the minimum housing code.
4. Rob Foley – Hillcrest Rd. resident and landlord. He does land use
work as a lawyer. Code enforcement protects tenants and most landlords
follow the rules. Owning rental property is a business and rents
increase as costs increase. The City should focus on removing barriers
to new production. Planning & Zoning makes development difficult –
Westlake took 2 years to get a permit with no opposition. DRB does a
good job, but City departments engage in-fighting. Retrovest found the
process more complicated and burdensome than anywhere they have worked
and they have developed hundreds of rental units on the west coast. In
Residential High Density district, parking requirement should be
reduced.
Staff response: In the case of the Westlake project, there are
legitimate concerns about the length of the permit process and
inter-departmental conflicts. Zoning revision is reducing the parking
requirement in the Central Business District (downtown).
5. Cheryl Fatnassi – New North End resident and employee of
Opportunities Credit Union. The City needs a housing needs assessment to
determine how many new units are needed at what income levels and rental
versus ownership. Then conduct an inventory of vacant and under-utilized
properties and promote development. For new affordable development
(for-profit or nonprofit) City should phase in taxes over several years.
Also, City should try to combine 105% mortgage financing products with
forgivable second mortgages.
Staff response: There is a housing needs assessment for Chittenden
County, but not for Burlington. This is a question of resources. CEDO
has identified vacant and under-developed lots, but has not promoted it
yet. City has the authority to execute tax stabilization agreements, but
has never done so for affordable housing. Due to limited public
resources, City policy for housing loans made directly to homebuyers has
been to recapture down payment and rehab funds upon resale.
6. Pike Porter – Old North End resident and landlord. Appreciates
continued Council focusing on housing issues. The City Council needs to
adopt a housing mission statement for all City departments to avoid
conflicting goals and policies that create more barriers to housing
development and preservation. Examples of conflicting goals are
stringent parking requirements and promotion of green space and public
transit.
Staff response: A “housing mission statement” should be incorporated
into the Municipal Development Plan. There may continue to be
conflicting goals, but a clear statement of purpose would help to
balance these conflicts.
7. Mary Mazur – South Burlington resident, and Burlington landlord.
Presented a map of a 3-acre lot on Shelburne St. that presently has a
triplex. This lot could support new housing, but present low density
zoning limits potential development to one new unit.
Staff response: The City has to avoid spot zoning where changes are
made to a specific parcel. It is possible to increase the allowable
density on lots of a certain size that are located in low density zoning
districts – this should be part of the zoning re-write.
Councilor George asked how vulnerable populations (elderly, disabled
and non-English speaking residents) could be engaged in this process.
Michael LaPlace (ML), Director of Planning & Zoning Dept. and Peter
Potts (PP), Planning Commissioner, joined the committee in a discussion
about several issues relating to zoning and the development review
process. · On-The-Record (OTR) development review is on hold until
January 2006 at the earliest. There are considerable issues to be
explored by the Planning Commission before this can be implemented. OTR
changes the way the public is involved in development review process.
OTR has worked to varying degrees in the other community in which ML has
worked. It requires much more technical and formal expertise on the part
of the developer, residents and staff. P&Z does not understand the full
cost of OTR and does not have any funds presently to implement OTR. If
they decide to pursue an OTR pilot project, they would need to get
additional funding either from fee increases or the general fund. · The
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and City Attorney Joe
McNeil could possibly train the City’s regulatory review boards. PP
subsequently confirmed that CCRPC has the staff expertise to provide
this type of training and it is part of their mission – plans will be
made to undertake this training in the near future. · ML sees room for
improvement in the City’s development review and approval process, but
prefers to gather more information before offering changes. Once he has
completed the information gathering, he will make recommendations to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Plan for future committee hearings: 11/17 Michael Monte will attend
to discuss development of City-owned lots and UVM agreement. 12/1 Greg
McKnight and Paul Dettman will attend to discuss Code Enforcement
issues. Invite UVM President Dan Fogel to meet during the first or
second full week in December.
Committee members: Tim Ashe, Phil Fiermonte, Carmen George, and Kurt
Wright Staff: Brian Pine, Michael Monte
33 people in attendance.
After January 1, the Committee will come up with recommendations for
the full Council to consider.
1. Annie Galloway-Malikar – Moved to South Burlington to get out of
older home due to lead hazards - wants safe housing available in
Burlington. Make lead awareness part of school curriculum. Get
pediatricians to focus on it. Daughter had an elevated blood lead level
of 12 mg/dl with a finger-stick method, and then it was 8 mg/dl when
blood was drawn at FAHC. The doctor said that 20 mg/dl used to be
acceptable, so not to worry about a lead level of 8. Councilor Ashe
mentioned the proposed Lead safety ordinance.
Staff response: The Burlington Lead Program was created to make
low-income housing safe from lead-based paint hazards. BLP provides
grants and loans for lead hazard control to owners of per-1978 housing
occupied by low-income households. The following services are available
at no cost to Burlington property owners and residents: · Lead testing
for children under age 6 · Lead poisoning safety information · Technical
assistance · Safety guides to properly maintain and renovate properties
with lead paint · Home visits to test children and provide lead
poisoning education · Essential Maintenance Practices courses · Use of
HEPA vacuums for general household cleaning to collect lead dust and
paint chips The City has no ordinance requiring that property owners
maintain their units in a lead safe manner and the State does not
enforce the State Lead Law (Act 165). General contractors and painting
contractors are not required by local ordinance to use lead safe work
practices, thereby exposing children to the hazards of lead during
renovation. 2. Abbi Russell – Resident of Flynn Ave. Co-op. Co-op is
affordable housing. Appreciates BCLT homeownership efforts. Through her
VISTA position with the Burlington Neighborhood Project, she works with
refugees - too many are being taken advantage of by landlords because of
poor English skills. Refugees have large families. North Street is not
the best place for refugees with young children – not enough green space
and lead paint hazards make it not a safe place for families.
Staff response: The City provided critical financial support and
technical assistance in the creation of every housing co-op in
Burlington. The City spearheaded the effort to adopt the Cooperative
Housing Act in the 1980s that made housing co-ops possible in VT.
Through the City’s continuing support for the Burlington Community Land
Trust, the City is supporting housing co-ops as an affordable housing
option. Refugees are at increased risk for exposure to lead-based paint
hazards due to health, nutrition and cultural practices, but tenants
living on North St. are at no greater risk than tenants living
elsewhere.
3. Antonio – Ward 6 resident. Hopes to buy home in about 6 months.
Wants to own a property where he can rent out a unit. Developers ought
to be able to build in Burlington easier. Follow rules, but encourage
developers to create new units by reducing red tape. Too much regulation
makes it harder to create new units and drives up the cost of
development. If Burlington doesn’t make development easier, all
developers will find places to build in other towns.
Staff response: CEDO operates a program to assist owner-occupants to
buy duplexes. Improving the development review process is a priority for
the City.
4. Solveig Overby – Walnut St. resident since 1991. Conditions of
rental properties are the most serious housing issue. Giving tenants the
right to use “self-help” would be good. Vacancies in ONE appear to be on
the rise – more “For Rent” sings than ever. Tenants get into an
apartment and lose it because rents are too high. Aware of importance of
density, but should keep high density closer to downtown. Don’t need
more large low-income housing projects. The unrest in France is a good
example of the results that come from putting too many low-income people
in dense developments or neighborhoods.
Staff response: Tenants are allowed to make repairs and deduct the
cost of the repairs from their rent, as long as the proper procedure is
followed. There are more vacancies in certain areas, but the regional
vacancy rate hovers at 1.5% - a balanced rental market has a vacancy
rate of 5%. The high-rises of France where the riots took place are not
planned for any area of Burlington. The days of large public housing
projects where very low-income families are concentrated are long gone.
Apartments developed under the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit
have a wide range of incomes ranging from nearly no income to as high as
$41,400 for a 4-person family. The City encourages mixed-income
developments and the Inclusionary zoning ordinance requires it.
5. Kevin Ryan – Core problem: 1980 – 12,000 households; 2000 – 16,000
households. Household size has shrunk and that has made supply tight –
we need more housing units to house the same number of people because
fewer people live in each unit of housing. Open up the process of this
Committee to create more opportunity for dialogue – public hearing
format does not encourage exchange of ideas or creativity. Eminent
domain should be explored to acquire land for housing. Development
Review process is too burdensome. Council should focus on zoning
revisions to promote affordable housing.
Staff response: Demographic shifts to smaller household size and
delayed household formation have exacerbated the housing shortage
throughout VT. City is not pursuing eminent domain, but rather working
with public and private landowners to encourage housing development.
Development review process and zoning revisions are two of the most
significant ways that the City can impact housing development.
6. Kate Berkman – Pitkin St. resident and Vermont Legal Aid attorney.
Code Enforcement was way behind schedule in the past. Enforcement is
still a problem. Tenants get evicted if they file code complaints –
evictions are not considered retaliatory if the violation is fixed prior
to the eviction commencing. VT Code Enforcement bill is going in right
direction. She handles 4-5 retaliatory evictions every year involving
code violation complaints.
Staff response: The increased number of routine inspections paired
with more thorough enforcement of violation orders should improve the
situation for many tenants. This was the first time that the subject of
retaliatory evictions came up – conventional wisdom is that these are
the rare exceptions, but testimony suggested otherwise.
7. Shawn Star – Taxes are high and this hits landlords and tenants.
Development is good but avoid making the city a place only for the rich.
Staff response: Property tax policies are made at the state level and
Burlington has pursued more alternatives to raising property taxes than
any other VT community. Inclusionary zoning ensures that all new
development includes housing that remains perpetually affordable to low
income households.
8. Erik Hoekstra – Housing VT and Crombie St. resident. City should
focus on increasing the supply. Can’t increase supply by regulating.
Zoning should allow “up-zoning” for derelict properties - no incentive
for redeveloping. Density bonuses and IZ must be protected to get
private sector to build. Permit process is too lengthy - need to
expedite for affordable housing. Real estate is cyclical – any solutions
should be long-term in nature.
Staff response: The City has four related goals that are referred to
as the 4 Ps: production of new affordable housing; preservation of
existing affordable housing; protection of vulnerable residents;
promotion of affordable homeownership. Pursuing any one of these goals
at the exclusion of the others will worsen the housing situation for
Burlington residents.
9. Art Demarais – The term “housing shortage” does not work for the
current situation. Lots of units are for rent and sale prices are too
high - that leads to vacancies. Should not cover every piece of land in
ONE in pursuit of new housing. It is reported that CEDO has sided with a
developer on Archibald against the neighborhood – that should not
happen. Crime is making ONE property values decline. Taxes are hitting
many residents so hard that existing homeowners may be forced to sell.
Many people don’t see the value that comes from their property taxes.
Staff response: Vacancy rates were discussed above – CEDO relies on
professional analysis of the real estate market to shape policies and
programs. The Old North End is home to considerable open space on the
waterfront and the Intervale. Density is proscribed in the zoning
ordinance and there is no effort underway to increase the allowable
density in the ONE. CEDO provided technical and financial assistance to
a private developer seeking to create 27 apartments on a vacant parcel
of land located behind the Burgess Electric Supply Company on Archibald
St. and Intervale Ave. The developer received an allocation of Low
Income Housing Tax Credits from VHFA – the only tool available to
for-profit or nonprofit developers of affordable rental housing – and
obtained a zoning permit. CEDO tried to broker meetings with neighbors
to address their concerns, but was rebuked by the leaders of the
opposition. Several neighbors appealed the permit and the judge ruled in
their favor. The case is under appeal to the VT Supreme Court.
10. Betsy Pennebaker – Ward 2, owns two duplexes and lives in one of
them. The City Condo Conversion ordinance is a real barrier. Four-year
notice for elderly and disabled tenants and two-year notice for all
others is too long. If the City changes this ordinance, more affordable
condos will become available in the Old North End and student areas.
Staff response: This concept has been advanced by CEDO for several
years and was unanimously endorsed by the Mayor Affordable Housing Task
Force. The question becomes one of how many units should trigger the
ordinance if it changes from the present level of 3 or more.
11. Jane Hendley – Flynn Ave. Co-op resident. Co-ops are a great
model. Less expensive than renting and not as expensive as owning a
home. Co-ops foster a strong sense of community from working together.
The City should support housing co-ops as part of any solution.
Staff response: See response to speaker #2 above.
12. Becky Taylor – Ward St. resident, moved to Burlington 5 years
ago. Re-appraisals have caused rents to increase. Property tax is
regressive. Look at income tax.
Staff response: Re-appraisal is mandated by state law and is intended
to bring assessed values in line with fair market value. Overall,
commercial values have not increased at the rate of residential
properties. For both landlords and tenants, the re-appraisal hit
especially hard because rental properties are taxed at the higher
commercial rate. Tax policy is set at the state level and income taxes
are under the sole purview of the Vermont General Assembly.
13. Kevin Ryan – Need to strengthen protection against retaliatory
eviction to encourage more tenants to come forward with code complaints.
Staff response: See response to speaker #6 above.
14. Steve Eckberg – Complained about loud neighbor and got evicted.
Tenants need recourses to fight unfair evictions.
Staff response: Burlington voters rejected a Just Cause Eviction
measure in 1988 (48% Yes - 52% No).
Public hearing was adjourned, and the committee held a discussion
with Michael Monte, CEDO Director.
Michael’s comments:
· CEDO can provide data on vacancy rates. Allen & Brooks summary data
is available. Nonprofit sector has created a large supply of affordable
housing. Other communities need to contribute more.
· DRB process:
Zoning re-write is going to address this, but City has failed to really
improve process. Administration does not have authority to change the
process. Better process may increase production, but there is no
evidence to guarantee that.
· City-owned lots status: Bove’s was easy to
convert to housing. Elmwood Ave. lot very different story. Federal
Building is main user—wait at least 6-9 months before beginning any
process to convert to housing. Federal courthouse and CCV issues
complicate matters – they both need the parking and are valuable to our
downtown. Browns Court would be fine for housing development, and it
would be even more optimal if the Eagles Club were available. The City
should put this lot out to bid and try to preserve the current public
parking.
· AARP – Burlington is hoping to become a model city for
elderly. Lack housing for moderate-income elderly. Causes logjam of
starter homes, where owners remain in homes that should be freed up for
new homebuyers.
· CEDO will provide the number of new units built each
decade, and the development update is available on the Planning & Zoning
web site.
· North 40 – April 2006 is when the public process for future
plans opens up. There are restrictions on how that land can be used.
Committee discussion:
· UVM – Get enrollment and housing numbers from
UVM. Update committee after UVM meeting on status of housing – staff
note: meeting planned for 11/28 was postponed and is being re-scheduled.
· Pet Deposit – draft an ordinance change for committee consideration.
·
Condo Conversion – make recommendation on ideal number of units to be
exempt.
Committee members: Tim Ashe, Phil Fiermonte, Carmen George, and Kurt
Wright Staff: Brian Pine
25 people in attendance.
1. Karen Unsworth – Unsworth Properties, Inc., owns apartments in
Burlington and South Burlington. Vacancy rate going up. New construction
has increased the supply of apartments. City makes it hard to do
business as a landlord - $75 fee/unit/year, property taxes are high,
smoke and CO detector requirements all cost $. City Council should know
that landlords are faced with increased costs of operation.
Staff response: The City has established extensions on the new
requirements for both smoke and CO detectors and created a rebate
program for landlords who provide housing to Section 8 households. The
Apartment Registration Fee is an integral part of protecting tenants
from the dangers that might arise from an apartment – without the
funding source, tenants would not have the same level of protection
provided by routine inspections.
2. Frank Donath – New North End resident and landlord. Not a
developer, but thinks Inclusionary Zoning is unfair to other buyers or
renters. If Burlington wants to create affordable housing, create a
local Sec. 8 program with local tax dollars.
Staff response: Inclusionary zoning is paired with a density bonus
and lot coverage bonus that ameliorates some of the revenue loss caused
reduced rents or sale prices. The voters did approve 1 penny for the
Housing Trust Fund in 1989, but establishing a local rental assistance
program with local tax dollars is not feasible.
3. Sylvia Lane – South Meadow resident for 18 years. Rent was
increased from $658 to $1,000. Sec. 8 with VSHA has not indicated how
much her portion will increase – she needs notice soon. The City should
look into why rents are increasing at South Meadow and if they are
following the terms of their financing.
Staff response: CEDO staff has determined that the rents at South
Meadow are consistent with their financing agreements to maintain 40
units affordable to low-income households.
4. Marcia Mason – Flynn Ave. Co-op. Affordable housing includes
co-ops and the residents are diverse—share tools and responsibility. Why
are housing co-ops not more prominent in housing agenda? Burlington has
about 115 co-op units.
Staff response: CEDO has played a key role in the development of all
115 units of co-op housing in Burlington. Unfortunately, the range of
financing options to co-ops is narrower than available for affordable
rental housing or homeownership. CEDO continues to support co-op
development through its ongoing support of the BCLT. CEDO has committed
funding to BCLT for a downtown housing project that may be developed as
a housing co-op.
5. Carolyn Phillips – Moved from Florida 4 yrs. ago. This is the
hardest housing market because wages don’t match housing prices. Served
as VISTA with BCLT and LCHDC. City should keep supporting nonprofits to
deliver affordable housing and Section 8 as a way to help people move
off public assistance. Used Section 8 herself to get on her own
feet—need to support programs that help people move from tenant to
homeowner.
Staff response: The City has supported a housing ladder of tenure
that ensures people have the right to stay put and the mobility to move
if their needs/desires change.
6. Kevin Ryan – Trouble with being a tenant. Lost everything in an
apartment where the landlord confiscated his belongings. Population in
region is growing and placing increased strain on housing. Supply is the
answer to both affordability and habitability. More units cause prices
to decrease and conditions to improve. Need city policies to encourage
new development.
Staff response: Burlington was recognized by HUD in 2005 for its
efforts to remove regulatory barriers to new housing development. More
work is needed to improve the development process.
7. Sandy Wynne – Been tenant, homeowner, realtor, and landlord.
Serves on the CCRPC as a housing rep. Market is softening at all levels.
Sale prices are coming down. Landlords are facing more competition that
should improve both conditions and rents. Review Governor’s Housing
Plan. Property transfer tax should be removed from lower-priced homes.
UVM drives up rents and values. Concerned that Council in not holding
UVM accountable for housing new students. Housing is regional—Burlington
cannot solve all of the shortage. Concerned about City’s infrastructure.
Enforcement—continues to see bad conditions. CO detectors are still
missing in many apartments. Abandoned house (Walnut St.), properties
allowed to decline without consequence.
Staff response: Increased housing supply has slowed rental housing
inflation, but rents have not gone down. Purchase prices have cooled
off, but are increasing more modestly than in recent past. New UVM units
will have an overall positive impact on the market. There is ongoing
dialogue with UVM about the need to house more students, especially in
light of enrollment growth. City has pushed for a regional fair share of
affordable housing and endorsed the regional Housing Targets in 2005.
Code Enforcement has significantly improved all aspects of the minimum
housing inspection program. See staff response to item 8 below for
discussion of proposed changes to the VT property transfer tax.
8. Colin Bloch – Ward 5, Ferguson Ave., HOC Director at BCLT. Commend
City for progress that’s been made national model. Affordable housing is
essential to our economic vitality. Must have housing for all segments
of workforce. Regionalism is the answer to housing problem. Need other
communities to step up. Permit reform—need more predictable process.
Need IZ on statewide level. Property Transfer Tax goes to VHCB. Fifty
percent is statutory level, but less than ½ comes to VHCB. Progressive
PTTR would capture some of the windfall that sellers get at sale. City
should build on successes of the part—be inclusive in this process.
Staff response: A bill has been introduced in the Vermont General
Assembly that would create a tiered property transfer tax that would
lower the transfer tax on the purchase of homes priced below $300,000 to
.50% and create a progressive tax rate on homes over that amount. 50% of
the net new revenues generated by this change will go to affordable
housing through the Vermont Housing & Conservation Trust Fund.
9. Maggie Standley – Tenant who wishes to buy a home. Renter for 4 ½
years at 155 S. Union St. Landlord raised her rent from $800 to $1,600.
As a renter at 198 King St., she had a very negative experience. Put
complaints about conditions in writing, and got no response from the
landlord. Afraid to call Code Enforcement. Landlord hired lawyer to
intimidate her after the complaint. Lost electricity and had poor heat.
Landlord did not renew lease due to her complaints. Got some advice, but
couldn’t afford a lawyer. Not a positive experience with Code
Enforcement. Felt powerless—got the run-around with Code, BED and DPW.
Need more checks and balances for tenants. Now she rents from Unsworth
Properties and they are great.
Staff response: City has no authority to regulate rents. Code
Enforcement has improved the response time and follow-up enforcement
when violations are uncovered.
10. Pike Porter– Hears the phrase “affordable housing”, but worries
that the problem is broader. Where does the City want to go with housing
and how do we get there? Need to look at all City policies and how they
support or hinder the City’s housing goals. Need a housing mission
statement.
Staff response: The City’s housing goals are to: Protect the
vulnerable; Preserve existing housing; Produce new affordable housing;
Promote homeownership.
11. Tayt Brooks – Homebuilders and Remodelers Association of Northern
VT. Housing is a problem for all of NW Vermont. Pent up demand with
limited supply. Impact fees and IZ drive prices up. Twenty-five
communities have Impact Fees in Vermont. Impact fees price out many
potential buyers. Builders have to borrow from a bank to pay impact fees
and over the life of the loan the total cost to the buyer is triple the
original amount. In Burlington, a 1,000 square foot home is charged
$2,234. This is a carrying cost for the builder and. Census shows
decreased population. School enrollment from 3,496 in 2004 to 3,010 by
2015. If population and enrollment is decreasing, why levy impact fees?
Inclusionary Zoning is price control. Reduces supply and increases
prices. The City of Los Angeles had a decrease in # of affordable units
after IZ was adopted. ICV is the only developer who hasn’t received a
waiver to meet IZ requirement— that shows the ordinance doesn’t work.
Staff response: More and more communities are Impact fees to pay for
some of the cost of providing the public facilities required to serve
new development – in Burlington, these fees cover streets, parks,
schools, police, fire, libraries. Development impact fees tend to create
a more equitable distribution of growth-related costs. Without such
fees, existing residents of the community are constantly subsidizing
people who move into the community later. The City’s impact fee
ordinance includes a graduated waiver provision – the fee is
progressively reduced as the rent or sale price of the new housing
decreases. Housing that is affordable to households earning less than
50% of HUD area median income pays no impact fees. There is no “carrying
cost” to a builder or developer since impact fees are typically paid
when the zoning certificate of occupancy is issued just prior to sale or
lease of the units. The amount of impact fees in Burlington are
comparable to surrounding communities and are based on the square feet
of the new housing rather than a flat fee per new unit as with other
communities.
Inclusionary zoning requires that new residential development include
a certain percentage of low- and moderate-income housing. This practice
is growing in popularity and Burlington’s ordinance is often cited as a
model program. There are numerous studies that show the concept is an
effective tool to create affordable housing without spending public
dollars. The requirement is combined with density and lot coverage
bonuses to keep the cost of building below-market-rate housing from
being overly burdensome to developers. The comment that ICV is the only
developer to meet the requirements of the ordinance without needing a
waiver is incorrect. In the 15 years since Inclusionary Zoning has been
in effect, only one developer has received approval to meet the
obligation off-site (College & Battery).
12. Kenneth. Property management company that doesn’t follow laws. If
they charge fees for credit checks, they should perform the checks.
Section 8 needs more checks and balances for tenants. Eviction notices
often result in being removed from the program—not fair to tenants.
Appreciates Greg’s efforts at Code Enforcement on a vacant building in
his neighborhood.
Staff response: Code Enforcement has stepped up the enforcement of
the vacant building ordinance.
13. Dawn Moskowitz – Works at Opportunities Credit Union, Ward 5
Resident. It so hard to help low-income people buy homes. Policies
should connect housing with transportation. Need to integrate housing
with transportation so people don’t fear new housing so much. Regional
approach is needed.
Staff response: The limited reach of CCTA hinders efforts to achieve
a greater regional distribution of affordable housing. Until CCTA
funding is decoupled from the property tax, there will be resistance
from suburban communities to become members.
Code Enforcement – Paul Dettman, BHA Director, and Greg McKnight,
Code Enforcement Director. · Inspection protocol for BHA-inspected
units. Greg was concerned that Section 8 units would be subject to
standards that differ from all other units. 681 BHA owned and managed
units will not be subject to Code Enforcement inspections. Properties
with more than 10 units will be done as coordinated inspections between
BHA and CE. Self-certification of landlords might be offered to owners
who have completed a training course. This concept is still under
development.
· November 9, 6:30 p.m. C.P. Smith School
· November 17, 6:30 p.m.
Wheeler School
· December 1, 6:30 p.m. Champlain School
The City Council
Super Committee on Housing wants to hear about housing problems and
local solutions. This information is available in alternative formats
for people with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities who require
assistance are encouraged to contact CEDO at least 72 hours in advance.
For info on local housing initiatives, call CEDO at 865-7144 or 865-7142
TTY, or go to: www.cedoburlington.org
Top
of the Page / Up
Page last updated March 28, 2006 |
