REPORT OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION TO STUDY AFFORDABLE HOUSING

 

 

 

 

February __, 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1

 

 

 

Letter sending the report to the Governor and Legislature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Commission Charge

 

Membership

 

Subcommittees

 

Recommendations

 

Findings

 

               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION AND PROCESS

 

Charge (Attachment 1: Copy of Special Act Creating Commission)

 

Membership (Attachment 2: Commission Membership List)

 

Subcommittees (Attachments 3-6: Subcommittee Reports)

 

Administrative Support

 

Meeting Dates and Topics  (In table format)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

PROMOTING HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH ZONING

 

1. Require the Department of Economic and Community Development to prepare model affordable housing zoning regulations.

 

a.     The model regulations must encompass the essential elements that are needed to ensure that the requirements and intent of CGS 8-2’s provision regarding housing opportunities are adhered to, as definition of terms, affordability plan, enforcement mechanism, covenants or deed restrictions, and procedural matters the statutes requires.

 

b.     The model regulations must not dictate design and density requirements.

 

c.      The model regulations should state that municipalities that adopt them will be presumed to have workable procedural rules for affordable housing administration and enforcement.

 

2.     Require each towns to adopt by a 2002 zoning regulations that encourage housing opportunities for multi-family dwelling and that promote housing choice and economic opportunity for low- and moderate-income households.

 

3. The Housing Committee shall conduct a study to determine if each town’s multi-family zoning regulations provide realistic opportunities for developing this type of housing and whether the town’s affordable and low-and moderate-income housing zoning regulations can actually be used to develop this type of housing.  

 

CHANGES REGARDING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE APPEALS PROCEDURE

 

Definitional Changes and Clarifications

 

1. Delete the cross reference in CGS § 8-30g to the definition of affordable housing in CGS § 8-39a, but incorporate the substance of that definition in CGS § 8-30g.

 

2. Explicitly define set-aside development in CGS § 8-30g and use that term wherever a distinction must be made between assisted housing (i.e., government funded) and set-aside housing.

 

3. Clarify that the “area median income” or “state median income” referred to in CGS Sec. 8-30g is the median income determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

 

4. CGS § 8-30g is the median income determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

 

5. Clarify that the housing need that must be addressed under CGS § 8-30g is a regional need, not a local or statewide need.

 

Affordable Housing Project Eligibility Criteria

 

1.     Increase from 25% to 30% the percentage of affordable units needed to constitute a set-aside project under CGS 8-30g.

 

2.     Increase from 10% to 15% the percentage of units in a set-aside project that must be sold or rented to persons or families whose income is less than or equal to 60% of the lesser of the state or the area median income.

 

3.     Require that no rental unit at the 60% affordability level in a set-aside project shall be priced higher than the lesser of the maximum rent level currently allowed or 100% of the HUD-determined fair market rent for the area.

 

4.     Require that no rental unit at the 80% affordability level in a set-aside development shall be priced higher than the lesser of the maximum rent level currently allowed or 120% of the HUD-determined fair market rent for the area. 

 

5.     Prohibit the owner of a set-aside project from imposing maximum percentage of income requirements on tenants receiving governmental rental assistance that are more restrictive than those permitted under the program providing the assistance.

 

6.     Extend from at least 30 years to at least 50 years from initial occupancy the period during which non-assisted affordable units in a set-aside project must be subject to covenants or deed restrictions.

 

Procedural Changes

 

1. Allow local land use commissions to adopt regulations requiring applicants for a zone change connected with a proposed set-aside project to submit a conceptual site plan showing:

 

a.     the total number of units to be developed;

 

b.     how they will be arranged on the proposed site; and

 

c.      the roads, traffic circulation, sewage disposal, and water supply.

 

2. Require applicants seeking land use approvals for proposed set-aside projects to submit an Affordability Plan that has the following elements:

 

a.     The person or organization responsible for administering the plan, including complying with income limits and sale or rental restrictions during the period specified in the covenants or deed restrictions place on the affordable unit.

 

a.     Affirmative fair marketing procedures governing the sale or rental of the units.

 

b.     An example of how the sale or rental prices of the affordable units will be calculated.

 

c.      A description of the sequence in which the affordable units will be built and offered for occupancy and the general location of these units within the proposed development.

 

3. The economic and community development commissioner shall adopt regulations that at a minimum must:

 

a.     Establish criteria for preparing an affordability plan.

 

b.     Develop a formula for determining rent levels and sale prices, including maximum allowable down payments in the calculation of maximum allowable sales prices.

 

c.      Clarify the costs that are to be included when calculating maximum allowed rents and home sale prices.

 

d.     Clarify how family size and bedroom counts are to be equated when establishing maximum rental and home sale prices for the affordable units.

 

4. When deciding an appeal under CGS § 8-30g, the court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the commission has met the last three elements of CGS 8-30g(c)(1) regarding the burden of proof.

 

5. Change the procedure for resubmitting to a local land use commission a modified affordable housing project application that the commission initially denied as follows:

a.     Require the commission to determine the date of receipt of the modified application the same way it determined the date for the original application.

 

b.     Require the commission to hold a public hearing on a modified application only if it held a hearing on the original application; otherwise allow the commission to hold the hearing at its discretion.

 

c.      Extend the time period during which the commission must decided the modification (or modified application) from within 45 days to within 65 days after its receipt.

 

d.     If the inland wetlands agency must act on the modification before the commission, the commission has up to 35 days from after that the wetlands agency acted to decide modification. 

 

6. Specify that zoning commissions or their designated authorities can use the powers and remedies provided under CGS 8-12 to enforce the provisions of 8-30g.

 

Moratoria

 

Change the provisions in CGS § 8-30g providing moratoria on affordable housing appeals as follows: 

 

1.     Increase the time period for a moratorium on affordable housing project appeals from one to three years.

 

2.     Towns qualify for the moratorium they earn housing unit-equivalent points that equal 2% of the total housing units reported in the latest U.S. census or 75 unit-equivalent points.

 

3.     Units will receive points based according to the following schedule:

 

                      *Family units are those for which no age restrictions have been imposed.

 

4.     Units count toward the moratorium threshold when they receive their certificates of occupancy or when newly implemented long-term deed restrictions on already existing housing take effect.

 

5.     Points would be earned toward a moratorium net of demolition and net of actions that decrease and/or eliminate affordability.

 

6.     Moratoria do not apply to proposed projects receiving government funds if 100% of the units are at the 60% affordability level.  But each unit in these projects earns points according to the schedule above and counts toward subsequent moratoria.

 

7.     Moratoria do not apply to projects receiving government funds to build 40 units or less.

 

State Incentives to Towns where Affordable Housing was built

 

1.     The state should create an Affordable Housing Fund to reward towns where new affordable housing was built.  It should allocate the funds based on the housing unit equivalent schedule used to determine a town’s eligibility for a moratorium.

 

2.     Towns where the number of affordable units increases by 2% of the total housing stock receive priority for open space funds.

 

3.     The state will provide increased technical to towns that want to build affordable housing but do not have the staff to draft the plans. 

 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

 

Restore Capital Financing for Developing and Rehabilitating Affordable Housing

 

1. The state should create a housing trust fund and capitalize it with $50 million from the FY 2000 surplus.

 

2. The state should establish housing and community development policies that have clear priorities and investment strategies.  These policies must include provisions that:

 

a.      Affirmatively further racial and economic integration, including expanding multi-family rental housing opportunities in suburban and rural communities.

 

b.     Provide for the revitalization of urban neighborhoods, including expanding homeownership and increasing multi-family rehabilitation in the central cities.

 

c.      Provide a full range of supportive housing options for people with special needs or who are at risk of becoming homeless.

 

3. The state should create a unified, flexible housing and community development program within the Department of Economic and Community Development by consolidating existing categorical programs.  It should do this by:

 

a.     Establishing principles for operating these programs and holding them accountable.

 

b.     Providing a full range of financing tools, including low-interest loans and grants that can be used for construction, gap, and long-term financing.

 

c.      Using nonprofit, community-oriented organizations to implement the programs and funding community loan funds.

 

d.     Facilitating public-private partnerships and using state funds to leverage private dollars.

 

e.     Providing one, simple point for applying to housing assistance programs.

 

4. The state should promote comprehensive, community-based planning by:

 

a.     Funding local planning initiatives.

 

b.     Building on state and federal processes such as continuum of care, enterprise communities, and neighborhood revitalization zones.

 

c.      Annually funding training and technical assistance for nonprofit development organizations, allowing them to build the capacity to develop and manage housing.

 

Close the Gap Between Income, Rent, and Homeownership

 

1. The state should increase funds for the Rental Assistance Program by $30 million to serve an additional 5,000 households, restore the participant’s share to 30% of income, and raise the fair market rents to no less than those used under the federal Section 8 program.

 

2. The state should appropriate $20 million to a “housing plus” program that should serve 2,000 households in extreme need by linking rent subsidies to supportive services.  

 

3. The state should reduce reliance on housing assistance by adopting policies that assure that the people have adequate incomes.  The policies must promote good jobs paying living wages and providing full benefits. State agencies must provide incentives that promote self-sufficient wage jobs that will actually close the gap between income, rent, home purchase for full-time under paid low wage workers.  The incentives must:

 

a.     Make sure that state development deals specify wage and benefit and hour requirements.

 

b.     Require that that as many jobs as possible be full-time.

 

c.      Insure that workers can form a union in a simplified manner and free of employer resistance. 

 

Fund Services that Promote Housing Choice and Success

 

1.     The state should appropriate funds for the full range of services needed to assure that the housing market functions fairly and efficiently, and that families and individuals succeed in their housing.  The table below lists the services and the annual appropriation:

 

        *The $2 million for the program is to leverage $8 million from federal and other sources.

 

Protect Existing Housing Assets and Expand Opportunities

 

1. With respect to public housing:

 

a.     Repeal CGS § 8-70a, which creates a pilot program for selling or leasing moderate rental housing projects.

 

b.     Provide flexible one-for-one replacement requirements.

 

c.      Provide operating support for state-assisted public housing so that rents do not exceed 30% of residents’ incomes.

 

d.     Require grievance procedure and tenant participation mechanisms in state-assisted public housing and appropriate state dollars to support tenant organizations.

 

2. With respect to fair housing:

 

a.     Add fair housing analysis to the existing site selection decision making.

 

b.     Establish development funding set-asides for housing initiatives in towns that are not exempted from the affordable housing land use appeals procedure.

 

c.      Require fair housing impact assessments for any public housing demolition, disposition, replacement, or relocation proposals.

 

d.     Require the Department of Social Services to affirmatively promote fair housing choice and racial and economic integration.

 

e.     Establish a demonstration program for a regional application system and region-wide waiting list for state-assisted housing.

 

Assure Ongoing Analysis of Housing Needs and Create an Ongoing Participatory Planning Process

 

1.     The state should annually:

 

a.     Collect and make available3 date that will help in the planning, development, and evaluation of housing policies and programs.

 

b.     Report on state-assisted housing units, including their affordability, quality, and location.

 

c.      Enter into a data sharing contract with appropriate sources that maintain automated data bases of private market home prices and rents throughout the state.

 

d.     Analyze and adjust state rental assistance standards to assure accessibility of all Connecticut communities.

 

e.     To better monitor housing affordability and economic development trends, provide access to Department of Revenue Services income data, aggregated at the block group and census tract levels.

 

2.     Establish an ongoing, permanent forum of the full range of public and private stakeholders in affordable housing and community development to assess, review, and evaluate affordable housing needs and strategies in coordination with the legislative and executive branches.   

 

FINDINGS

 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ZONING REGULATIONS

 

Municipalities Need Technical Assistance in Order to Adopt Zoning Regulations that Promote Affordable Housing

 

[Giving municipal zoning commissions and their staffs the benefit of the doubt,] Drafting and adopting regulations for low and moderate income or affordable housing can be a difficult task.  Those municipalities that have not adopted such regulations, and those that have only adopted regulations that are minimal or impractical may be lacking in guidance as to what type of regulations to adopt. 

 

The [Commission’s] Zoning Regulations Subcommittee notes that New Jersey has promulgated model regulations.  In addition, there is precedent in Connecticut for this practice in the area of wetlands regulation, where the Department of Environmental Protection has prepared model regulations, which have been followed for the most part by Connecticut municipalities.  Following on the work of the Commission, which has benefited from the wide variety of expertise and experience among its members, the Subcommittee recommends that a task force be appointed to work with the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to draft such model regulations.

 

These model regulations need not prescribe a "one size fits all" requirement for density, design, dimensional, or use requirements, but rather should advise towns on such matters as how to define key terms in affordable housing land use regulations, what to require from affordable housing applicants, what to require to ensure that affordability will be maintained through covenants and restrictions, and how to be sure that appropriate enforcement mechanisms are in place.

 

[Thus, the Subcommittee recommends that the Department of Economic and Community Development, assisted by a task force, be charged with preparing, adopting, and promulgating model affordable housing regulations, at least to assist commissions that do not have such regulations.] (This thought is stated above.)

 

The Subcommittee envisions that such model regulations, when promulgated by DECD and adopted by a municipality as part of its zoning regulations, will provide the basis for a relatively uniform statewide system with respect to the procedures and administration of affordable housing restrictions and covenants.  The Subcommittee submits that an applicant who proposes to deviate from such regulations will need to provide a compelling reason for doing so.  The model regulations, when drafted, should incorporate this understanding.

 

Municipalities do not Appear to be Complying with the Statutory Mandate to Encourage Affordable Housing Opportunities

 

Mandate.  CGS Sec. 8-2 of the General Statutes currently states that zoning regulations of every Connecticut municipality:

 

shall also encourage the development of housing opportunities, including opportunities for multi-family dwellings, consistent with soil types, terrain and infrastructure capacity, for all residences of the municipality and the planning region in which the municipality is located, as designated by the Secretary of Office of Policy and Management under Section 16a-4a.  Such regulations shall also promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing, including housing for both low and moderate income households.

 

It is apparent from the Zoning Regulations Subcommittee's research that more than half of Connecticut municipalities have not followed this legislative direction.

 

(It should be noted that while the existing statute, CGS Sec. 8-2, provides that municipal zoning regulations shall “encourage” multi-family uses and “promote” low- and moderate-income housing, the use of the word “shall” in the context of the basic statute regarding the adoption of zoning regulations must be regarded as an existing requirement that a municipality have some form of regulations addressing each type of housing.) 

 

Affordable Housing Regulations.  The Subcommittee's research indicates that 147 municipalities have some zoning regulation that promotes or permits multi-family dwellings, but 22 do not.  Thus, 87% of towns have a zoning regulation that allows some form of multi-family housing in at least one location in town.  However, the Subcommittee would stress again that this is based on a very minimal reporting criterion and follow-up study is necessary to determine what portion of those municipalities with multi-family zoning regulations actually provide a realistic opportunity for the development of such housing.

 

Multifamily Housing Regulations.  With respect to affordable housing or low and moderate income housing, the Subcommittee's research indicates that 71 of 169 municipalities (43%) have a zoning regulation that specifically limits a portion of developable housing units to families with low or moderate income people or households.  Again, this is based on a minimal reporting criterion and is not a qualitative analysis of whether such regulations are realistic, to what land they apply, and in what zones they apply.  However, the Subcommittee would make the following observations:

 

1.  Relatively few towns, probably less than 25, can be said to have a detailed low and moderate housing zoning regulation.

 

2.  Some of the affordable housing regulations reviewed (approximately 25) apply only to elderly.

 

3.  Several municipalities do not allow private, for-profit affordable housing development, but restrict affordable housing to either town-sponsored or non-profit development groups.

 

The Subcommittee finds that [therefore recommends that CGS § 8-2 be amended to require] each municipality, by a date certain, needs to adopt zoning regulations that encourage housing opportunities for multi-family dwellings and promote low and moderate income households.  The Subcommittee respectfully submits that it will be a beneficial process for each municipality, in the context of its own individual circumstances, to be required to address, through zoning, the need for affordable housing.

 

[The Subcommittee recommends that] Municipalities need [be given ample time,] at least one year from when the legislature imposes the deadline [an amendment] and perhaps longer, to comply.  (Given the Subcommittee’s first recommendation of the promulgation of model regulations, the time for compliance might be set at one year after the promulgation of such regulations.)

 

It [The Subcommittee does not] sees no need to [recommend that] amend CGS § 8-2 [be amended to] require any greater specificity with regard to the type of zoning regulations that must be adopted.  In other words, the deadline’s goal [of the amendment] is for every municipality not now in compliance to undertake the process of adopting regulations that satisfy the statute's existing directive.

 

The Affordable Housing Zoning Regulations that Towns have Adopted Require a More In-depth Review

 

The Subcommittee had a daunting task, a review of the zoning regulations of 169municipalities, and inadequate time in which to complete that task.  It is for this reason that the Subcommittee adopted the most minimal reporting requirements. 

 

However, the Subcommittee, wherever appropriate, printed and compiled the more significant affordable housing regulations from the municipalities that it reviewed.  These regulations have been compiled in a binder that is on file with the Select Committee on Housing.  This work suggests several areas of follow-up, including (1) determining in more detail whether the zoning regulations regarding multi-family dwellings do in fact provide realistic opportunities for development of such housing and (2) whether the adopted regulations for affordable and low and moderate income housing are practical and capable of actually being used in the production of housing.

 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE APPEALS PROCEDURE

 

Several Definitions Need to be Changed or Clarified

 

“Affordable Housing.”  The Affordability and Enforcement Subcommittee found that the reference in CGS § 8-30g to CGS § 8-39a is confusing. [and should be eliminated.] CGS § 8-39a uses [refers to] 100% of median income to determine affordability whereas 8-30g uses [works from] 80 or 60% of median income.  It is also logistically cumbersome to have to refer to another section of the statutes to fully understand the affordable housing reference in CGS § 8-30g.  [Therefore, the Subcommittee recommended that] The legislature can clarify the statute by giving CGS § 8-30g [have] its own self-contained definition of affordable housing [.] without changing [The Subcommittee does not intend to change] the meaning of the existing statute. Attachment __ provides proposed statutory language.

 

“Set-Aside Development.”  The Subcommittee found that CGS § 8-30g [the Act] would read better if the distinction between “assisted housing”, a specifically defined term, and housing whose affordability is established by deed restrictions were treated verbally in a parallel manner throughout the [Act] statute.  [While the Subcommittee could have used the term “deed-restricted development,” in the end it settled on “set-aside development” as an appropriate term of use.  The Subcommittee proposes this change for clarification purposes only and does not intend it to have any substantive impact.]  Attachment __ provides proposed statutory language. 

 

“Area Median Income.”  To facilitate an understanding of the requirements of the [Act] CGS § 8-30g, the Subcommittee found that providing guidance as to the appropriate source for a determination of what constitutes “area median income” or “state median income”, including family size adjustments, would be helpful.  [To that end, the Subcommittee recommended that those terms be applied as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.  A specific reference should be added to the Act.]  Attachment __ provides proposed statutory language.

 

“Regional Need.” The Subcommittee found that the concept of “need” within CGS § 8-30g needs to  [should] be clarified [to remove any ambiguity] and made [to make the concept of need] consistent with the concept of need in [through] the related statutory provisions of Title 8.  Therefore, the Subcommittee recommended that CGS § 8-30g(c)(1)(C) [be amended] to include the word “regional” before “need”.  This change will make 8-30g consistent with the requirements in CGS § 8-2 that municipalities adopt zoning regulations that promote housing choice and economic diversity, including housing for both low and moderate income households, to meet the housing needs of the region.

 

The subcommittee determined that need should not be measured on either a statewide or local basis.  Statewide would be too broad a standard as the economies and other demographic measurements are quite different between various parts of the state.  To measure need on a local basis would simply tend to preserve the local status quo and fail to open up housing opportunities within a region.  Also, both the state and HUD have long approached housing needs regionally in other contexts.

 

Affordable Housing Project Eligibility Criteria

 

Required Percentage of Affordable Units. The Subcommittee found that it would be desirable to increase the percentage of affordable units required to constitute a set aside development, from 25 to 30%.  The Subcommittee was mindful of the additional difficulty this creates for an applicant to maintain the financial feasibility of a private, for-profit development.  It is possible that the cumulative changes proposed to make even more of the housing proposed under the [Act] statute affordable, may prove to be a disincentive to private developers.  However, on balance the change is recommended in light of the benefits of increasing the number of affordable units.

 

Required Percentage of Affordable Units for People at the 60% Affordability Level.  The Subcommittee found that by requiring more of the set aside units to be priced at levels that would make them affordable to [persons] people whose incomes [is] are less than or equal to 60% of the lower of the state or area median income would go a long way towards reaching those who most need to have assistance with access to the state’s more expensive housing cost communities.

 

The Subcommittee acknowledges that this recommendation may also make it less feasible for private developers to undertake set aside housing development.  However, the benefits of additional units for lower income households were determined to outweigh the risk.

 

Rent Levels for Units at the 60% Affordability Level.   The Subcommittee acknowledged that the set aside-developments were originally intended to be only one component of the affordable housing anticipated to be built [pursuant to the Act] under CGS § 8-30g.  As governmental resources for assisted housing have been significantly reduced, pressure is naturally being applied on the set aside component to make those units more accessible to low- and very low-income persons and families.

 

The Subcommittee found that it is important to the purpose of [the Act] CGS § 8-30g to facilitate the ability of persons and families within the Section 8 and RAP programs to gain access to good housing in all communities of the state.  Additionally, as the accepted formulae for setting the maximum pricing set aside rental units will not necessarily ensure that those units will be priced at the lower ends of the affordability ranges. Reducing maximum rents at the 60% income level to the lesser of the fair market rent (FRM) levels for any given region as published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ([“FMR”] HUD), or the current allowed level, will help address this concern.

 

Attachment __ provides A chart delineating the relationship of maximum FMR and current allowed rent levels, by region and by bedroom size of the units, is attached.

 

Rent Levels for Units at the 80% Affordability Level. The Subcommittee found, for the same reasons as expressed above, that it would be beneficial for achieving the affordable housing goals of [the Act] CGS § 8-30g, to require that there be a relationship between the Section 8 FMR [fair market rents] and the maximum rental levels at the 80% income level also.  After much discussion, the Subcommittee recommended that maximum rental prices be held to the lesser of the current maximum rent allowed or 120% of the area FMR.

 

Attachment __is A chart delineating the relationship between maximum FMR and current allowed rent levels, by region and by bedroom size of the units, [is attached as part of Recommendation 13.]

 

Maximum Allowed Housing Costs.  Federal and state rental assistance programs now permit, in some circumstances, tenants to pay up to 40% of their income toward rent (housing costs).  This creates a situation in which a Section 8 voucher holder or a state Rental Assistance Program participant might qualify for an affordable unit under CGS § 8-30g according to HUD’s or the state agency program’s standards, but be disqualified for occupancy by a landlord’s differing F-of-income rules.  [Again, to insure that the set-aside units remain affordable to those most in need, the Subcommittee recommends that CGS § 8-30g be amended as follows:

 

“For tenants receiving government rental assistance, an owner may not impose maximum percentage of income requirements more restrictive than those permitted under such rental assistance program.]

 

For this reason, owners need to be prohibited from imposing maximum percentage of income requirements that are more restrictive than those permitted under the tenant’s rental assistance program.

 

Time Period for Restricting Units.  The Subcommittee found that it would be desirable to increase the mandatory period of time in which a non-assisted set aside unit would have to remain affordable, from 30 years to 50 years. This would further the goal of increasing the availability of affordable units in a given community and give the community more of an opportunity to meet its own affordable housing goals before units can no longer be required to remain affordable.  However, should it be found that increasing this requirement would be a real detriment to the ability to long-term unit maintenance or securing financing, then this recommendation should not be pursued.

 

Procedural Changes

 

Site Plan Submission.  Subcommittee acknowledged that not all applicants under the CGS Sec. 8-30g [Act] have responsibly submitted a conceptual site plan with their application for an affordable housing development.  While at least one judicial decision has indicated that the provision of a conceptual site plan is not necessary to come within the [Act] statute and secure an approval unless the same requirement is imposed on non CGS § 8-30g applicants, the Subcommittee [recommends] believes that municipalities [be authorized by statute] need statutory authority to require such a plan whenever a change of zone is sought pursuant to the [Act] statute.  This will assist the municipality in better understanding the implications of the proposal in the land use context.

 

Affordability Plan. The Subcommittee strongly endorsed the concept of requiring an applicant under the Act to submit as part of the application materials for an affordable housing development, an Affordability Plan detailing how the affordable housing will be provided, priced and administered.  This requirement will insure that the applicant has thought through the details regarding the provision of such housing and will provide the municipality with sufficient details on the provision and administration of such housing to enforce the Plans’ provisions.  The Affordability Plan, as it may be amended during review of the development, should be considered part of the development’s approval and its terms binding on the applicant/developer and subsequent occupants of the affordable units.

 

In the Recommendations Section, The Subcommittee [recommendation] sets forth the [required] information that must [to] be included in the Affordability Plan.  The list is not exhaustive.  Indeed, [Recommendation 2] the Subcommittee recommends allow[s] ing the DECD Commissioner [of Economic and Community Development (“DECD”)] to adopt regulations that may include additional criteria for an Affordability Plan submission.  The Subcommittee strongly encourages DECD to expeditiously adopt such regulations and regulations that clarify which housing costs and formulae for determining sales and rental prices by family/bedroom size are to be used to better guide applicants and municipalities and to provide uniformity in the application and administration of [the Act] CGS Sec 8-30g.  Specific requirements that the Subcommittee feels should be included in those regulations are discussed [in the Findings under Recommendation 2] below.

 

The Subcommittee noted that the Affordability Plan requirements are meant to assist both the developer and municipality in structuring the proposal in compliance with [the Act] CGS § 8-30g and to facilitate enforcement of the affordability provisions.  They are not meant to imply that a municipality can so micro manage the development as to require the developer to definitively locate each and every affordable unit in the development, or risk denial.

 

In the rental context, such micro managing is impractical as rental unit locations will change as incomes of occupying tenants no longer qualify under [the Act] CGS § 8-30g and substitute units must be designated as affordable units for the development to remain in compliance with the CGS § 8-30g [Act].  It will be sufficient for the developer to indicate that within every category of unit type, i.e. 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, etc., which number (if any) will be affordable and to indicate their intended location within the development.

 

The Affordability Plan submission requirements are not meant to empower the municipality to require that affordable units be made available in every category or type of unit proposed, in every area of the development site, or to allow the municipality to dictate where they will be located.  The Subcommittee recognizes these to be marketing decisions appropriately left with the developer.

 

That being said, the Affordability Plan is the vehicle through which the applicant should describe the intended dispersion of the affordable units throughout appropriate areas of the proposed development, recognizing that not every area of the development or every category of unit type must have an affordable component.  The municipality should accept the applicant’s proposal as long as it is reasonable, complies with the Act, and does not stigmatize the affordable units by segregating them from market rate units.

 

Additionally, the affordability plan should set forth a general schedule of when the affordable units will be built and offered for occupancy.  To comply with [the Act] CGS § 8-30g, the applicant must bring the affordable units to market at the same time as the market rate units, on a pro rata basis commensurate with the percentage of affordable to market rate units in the entire development. Enforcement of the Affordability Plan provisions will insure that no municipality is left with a development where only the market rate units, and none or less than the required number of affordable units, have been made available for occupancy.

 

Finally, the Subcommittee notes that with the adoption of a good Affordability Plan as part of the affordable housing development approval, the municipality has the tools necessary to enforce the applicants’ commitment to provide affordable housing and to insure compliance with the Act. 

 

Attachment __ provides sample statutory language as well as model calculations for the determination of sale and rental prices, attached or to be attached.

 

DECD Guidance.  The Subcommittee recognized that applicants and municipalities alike are often unsure how to determine the maximum allowable rent or sales price and how to administer affordable housing developments to conform with [the Act] CGS § 8-30g.  It agreed that there should be an easily accessed informational source to address the questions that have arisen under [the Act] CGS § 8-30g regarding pricing and income qualifications to insure uniformity in application and to avoid the abuses some claim currently exist. 

 

The subcommittee believed that the logical location for these guidelines would be in the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies as promulgated by the DECD commissioner [of Economic and Community development] pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 54 (“Regulations”).  Regulations administering or clarifying the provisions of Section 8-30g currently exist at Section 8-30g-1 through 8-30g-4.  Locating this information in the Agency’s Regulations, rather than in the statute, will allow for greater flexibility in making any future adjustments.

 

Calculation of Housing Costs.  As previously noted, the Subcommittee recommended that DECD be able to develop additional criteria for Affordability Plan submissions if it should prove necessary to further clarify the requirements suggested for the Act.  The subcommittee also recommended that the regulations set forth the housing costs that are to be included in calculating maximum allowable rental and sales prices, to include the following:

 

 

Heat and utility costs may be calculated by reasonable estimation.

[Rental	Sales
Rent Common charges (if tenant is directly responsible) Heat Utilities (except for telephone or cable TV)	Periodic mortgage payments Taxes Insurance Common charges (if common interest comm) Heat Utilities (except for telephone or cable TV)

Heat and utility costs may be calculated by reasonable estimation.]

 

Maximum Down Payment [Maximum].  The Subcommittee responded to the concern expressed by several municipal representatives that sales prices are being set too high for the affordable units because some developers are accepting high downpayments from purchasers.  The high downpayment may enable the developer to get a high sales price and still find income qualifying buyers, often those on fixed incomes who may have significant assets to apply to the downpayment.  The Subcommittee acknowledged that the use of a high downpayment is contrary to the intent of the [Act] statute and poses a significant (and possibly unforeseen) problem at the time of resale.  Therefore, the Subcommittee expects that DECD will adopt a regulation that will clarify that the allowable downpayment for computation of a maximum acceptable sales price to comply with the [Act] statute, will not exceed 10% of the sales price.

 

Formulae For Sales and Rental Price Calculations.  The Subcommittee recommended that the Regulations include formulae to assist applicants and municipalities in determining the maximum allowable prices for the affordable units offered for sale or lease, by family size as related to the number of bedrooms provided.  For this purpose, the Subcommittee recommended that family size be increased by 1.5 persons for each additional bedroom.  Studios or efficiency units should be presumed to be occupied by one individual.  One bedroom units would be credited with an allowable family income level of 1.5 persons.  Where this results in a fractional number of persons (e.g. 4.5 persons in a 3 bedroom unit), the qualifying income amount should be determined by interpolating between the incomes for the next highest and lowest whole numbers (e.g. the qualifying income for a 4.5 person household is the midpoint between the incomes for a 4 and 5 person household).

 

Attachment ­__ provides Sample calculations for rental and sales price computations [are attached].

 

Computation of Qualifying Incomes. The Subcommittee recommended that the Regulations provide a listing of those considerations to be included in the computation of income for the purpose of qualification under the [Act] statute.  At a minimum, the Subcommittee suggested that application forms and the qualification process comply with the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3601et seq. and the Connecticut Fair Housing Act, C.G.S. Sections 46a-64b, 64c(“Fair Housing Acts”).  Additionally, the criteria used by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations as it may be amended, should be referenced or included in the regulation’s definition of annual household income.

 

A sample definition of annual household income is attached for consideration by DECD.

 

I recommend that the tables below be deleted from this section and added as attachments.

                                                                                                            Sample Computations for

                        Sample Maximum Price Calculation                          a Family of Four, Based on

at 80% of Statewide Median                                                        1999 data             

 

1.	Determine 1999 (or relevant year) area median income for PMSA or statewide median as published by HUD:	$  62,000
2.	Calculate 80% of item 1:	$  49,600
3.	Calculate 30% of item 2 representing the maximum portion of a family’s income that may be used for housing:	$  14,880
4.	Divide item 3 by twelve (12) to determine the maximum monthly outlay:	$    1,240
5.	Determine by reasonable estimate monthly expenses, including taxes, insurance, heat and utility costs excluding telephone and cable television and required common interest ownership fees:	$       500
6.	Subtract item 5 from item 4 to determine the amount available for mortgage principal and interest.	$       740
7.	Apply item 6 to a reasonable mortgage term (30 years) at then prevailing interest rate (7.5% for this sample calculation) to determine the financeable amount:	$115,000 (est.)
8.	Assume 10% down payment	$  11,500
9.	Add items 7 and 8 to determine the MAXIMUM SALE PRICE:	$126,500 (est.)

 

Sample Computations for

 

                        Calculation Maximum Sale Price                               a Family of Four, Based on

at 60% of Statewide Median                                                        1999 data             

 

1.	Determine 1999 (or relevant year) area median income for PMSA or statewide median as published by HUD:	$  62,000
2.	Calculate 80% of item 1:	$  37,200
3.	Calculate 30% of item 2 representing the maximum portion of a family’s income that may be used for housing:	$  11,160
4.	Divide item 3 by twelve (12) to determine the maximum monthly outlay:	$       930
5.	Determine by reasonable estimate monthly expenses, including taxes, insurance, heat and utility costs excluding telephone and cable television and required common interest ownership fees:	$       420
6.	Subtract item 5 from item 4 to determine the amount available for mortgage principal and interest.	$       510
7.	Apply item 6 to a reasonable mortgage term (30 years) at then prevailing interest rate (7.5% for this sample calculation) to determine the financeable amount:	$  85,000 (est.)
8.	Assume 10% down payment	$    8,000
9.	Add items 7 and 8 to determine the MAXIMUM SALE PRICE:	$  93,000 (est.)

 

Standard of Review.  The Subcommittee discussed the implications of the recent Christian Activities Council decision (insert cite) with regard to the standard of review to be applied by the court in its review of the burden of proof in CGS § 8-30g appeals.  The sufficient evidence standard in the first prong was not intended in the original statute to apply to the other three prongs, which were to be decided by the court as a matter of law.  To restore the standard of review as intended, and as well established prior to this recent opinion, the Subcommittee recommends inserting the words “as a matter of law” prior to the second prong. 

 

As clarified, CGS § 8-30g would restore the court’s intended role, which was to undertake a plenary review with respect to the second, third, and fourth prongs.  Without this clarification, the standard of judicial review of decisions under CGS § 8-30g will be lower than the traditional administrative land use decisions such as site plans and subdivisions, an incongruous situation for a remedial statute with a strong public policy purpose. 

 

Attachment __ provides proposed statutory language.

 

Application Resubmission Procedures. The Subcommittee found that the resubmission and review procedures for the filing of a modified proposal in response to any objections or restrictions articulated by a commission in its denial of an affordable housing development leave too short a time period for adequate review.  Particularly where a public hearing is required or where the modified proposal will necessitate a resubmission to an inland wetland and watercourses agency, the resubmission and review procedures should provide sufficient time for those considerations.  While the Subcommittee was mindful of the harm that too extended a review time period could have on an applicant, especially nonprofit applicants who may not have significant resources to carry financing costs or the costs of contract extensions, etc., the Subcommittee felt the proposed extensions are appropriate.

 

Attachment __ provides proposed statutory language.

 

Zoning Enforcement with Respect to CGS § 8-30g.  The Subcommittee discussed the oft expressed municipal concern that municipalities lack the tools to effectively enforce the provisions of an affordable housing development to insure that the affordable units are timely provided and otherwise comply with the terms of approval and the overall requirements of [the Act]. CGS § 8-30g. The Subcommittee’s recommendations to require submission of an Affordability Plan and a conceptual site plan will assist municipalities in clarifying exactly what is expected of an applicant in order to comply with the development approval. 

 

The Subcommittee believes that existing law empowers a municipality to mandate compliance with the provisions of approval through a variety of available mechanisms including cease and desist orders, the refusal to issue building or zoning permits or certificates of occupancy, the refusal to release bonds posted for completion of certain improvements, and the utilization of the zoning enforcement remedies available to municipalities pursuant to CGS § 8-12.

         

Moratoria

 

The Municipal Exemptions and Incentives Subcommittee found that towns have not used the one-year moratorium under CGS § 8-30g for three reasons:

 

1.     One year was not long enough to create an incentive for towns to attempt to earn a moratorium.

 

2.     A town could only earn a moratorium only once.

 

 

3.      Projects eligible to be counted toward a moratorium have to be developed under programs that are not as active as had been anticipated when the law was first enacted.

 

Changing CGS § 8-30g to extend the moratorium period would cause towns to be more proactive in creating affordable housing.  The Committee also found that the U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial census is more reliable as a measure of a town’s housing stock than the methodology DECD uses to annually tally towns’ housing stock. 

 

HOUSING PROGRAMS

 

Needs Assessment

 

"The booming economy, along with a backlog of demand caused by the four-year hiatus, has created an unprecedented need for housing in the department's history," Cuomo said. "An estimated 5.3 million families live in sub-standard housing in the United States or pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent," he said.

"Rents are rising at double the rate of inflation, and low-income families
are being priced out of the market." Cuomo said. "Areas once marginal are
being redeveloped and gentrified," he said. "Affordable Housing is a
national crisis, not Republican or Democratic," he said.

Andrew Cuomo, speaking to the press as he announced a proposal to double Section 8 vouchers, January 6, 2000

 

The charge directing the work of the Housing Needs Sub-committee was the third charge to the Blue Ribbon Commission “…and the extent to which the current market for housing in the state meets the housing needs of very low, low, and moderate income households.”

 

The dominant themes that run throughout our recommendations are as follows:

 

ü      Leveraging private sector dollars

 

ü      Encouraging public-private partnerships

 

ü      View housing in context of comprehensive community-based development strategies including job creation strategies to close the housing-income gap

 

ü      Target scarce resources to those with the greatest need

 

ü      Regulatory relief by consolidating existing programs creating both greater management flexibility within agencies as well as simplifying user access to such programs

 

ü      Housing strategies should foster family stability and self-sufficiency

 

ü      Promote housing choice and vibrant, diverse communities

Housing is a basic need for everyone.  It is the single greatest expense of most families’ income.  Because household income changes as families change—marriage, family growth, divorce, death, retirement—and because housing costs change with the economy, it is difficult to capture precise numbers of Connecticut residents who are experiencing housing problems. 

 

Nonetheless, the needs assessment committee looked at a variety of data that substantiate that thousands of Connecticut citizens are experiencing moderate to severe housing difficulties.  Despite working hard to improve their lives, these Connecticut residents are living in substandard housing, paying more than 40% of their income in rent, or living on the streets and in shelters. 

 

According to the Department of Economic and Community Development,

 

Increasing numbers of municipalities across Connecticut are finding that they cannot house those who were raised in the community and those who serve the community.  Recent college graduates earning entry-level salaries cannot afford the cost of single-family homes, even with two incomes.  Teachers and municipal employees cannot afford to live in the towns where they work, and the elderly and those on fixed incomes cannot compete in the housing market.  To help ensure the prosperity of a community, all population groups need to be represented.  If adequate housing choices and opportunities are not available for all residents, regardless of age and income, the community will eventually wither due to its own exclusionary practices.

 

For the working poor and other low income families, the state's economic upturn is more of the same rather than something new.  Most failed to benefit from the economic climb of the late 1990s. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that many of these families lost economic ground and some were much worse off in 1998 than in 1990.

 

Although declining sales prices have increased housing affordability for homeowners, to some degree, there remains an extremely strong demand for, and a need to provide affordable housing options and opportunities in all areas of Connecticut.  Low, very low, and especially extremely low income families are faced with the dilemma of finding affordable housing.  By all indications, the demand for affordable housing does not look to lessen in the foreseeable future.

 

Extremely low-income households have incomes between 0 and 30% of Area Median Income, including all households at or below the poverty level.  They have the fewest housing choices and the greatest needs for assistance to afford decent housing.  In 1997, there were 159,433 extremely low-income households in Connecticut; a 13.2% increase from 1990.  Fifteen percent of all renters fall in this category.  Estimates indicate that an additional 1,047 households will fall into this income category by 2002.

 

The number of households in Connecticut that are very low income or at 31%-50% of Area Median Income was 132,657, an increase of 10.6% from 1990.  By 2002, this population group is expected to remain relatively stable at 132,468 households.  This group also has serious housing needs.

 

The number of low income households in Connecticut (51% to 80% of Area Median Income) was 210,432 in 1997 an increase of almost 60% from the 1990 census. By 2002, this population group is expected to decrease to 192,598 households.  It is estimated that at least 15% of all renters in Connecticut fall into this income group.

 

From October 1997 - September 1998, 15,917 different people used emergency homeless shelters, a 3.5% increase over the prior year.  Of the people using shelters, 2,800 were children under 18 years of age.  Over 18% of those who stayed in shelters were employed.  Additional data provided by the Department of Social Services, continuum of care plans and point in time counts of the homeless in Hartford and Fairfield County indicate that about one-third of people who are homeless in Connecticut suffer from mental illness; 50% are chemically addicted; 25% have a dual diagnosis of both chemical addiction and mental illness and 14% have AIDS.

 

The nearly 16,000 people using shelters does not account for those people who are living doubled up with family and friends because they cannot afford to rent an apartment or people living in abandoned buildings or are the streets.  It is impossible to have an accurate count of this population.

 

Many of the recommendations in Section II and III will address the needs of people who are homeless in Connecticut.

 

Housing for Persons with Special Needs

 

There are 189,700 special needs households in Connecticut that face housing problems or risk of homelessness, including frail elderly, mentally ill, physically disabled, and persons living with AIDS.

 

Only a portion of people with disabilities receive social security income and state supplemental income.  Table I represents the percentage of income recipient of SSI and State Supplemental benefits must pay to access housing in various areas of Connecticut.

 

Table I:  SSI/State Supplemental Benefits As A Percentage Of

Median Income And Percentage Of Income Needed

For Efficiency And One Bedroom Units

 

 

At 30% of a household’s income dedicated for housing costs, it is clear that the over 34,000 individuals who receive social security income and state supplemental benefits due to a disability are unable to afford even an efficiency in any region of the state. 

 

Table II documents the number of individuals in Connecticut who receive SSI/SSDI benefits by type of disability, number and percentage of the Connecticut population.  (Social Security Administration Statistics 1998).

 

Table II:  SSI Recipients By Disability Type, Number,

And Percentage Of Total State Population, 1998

                                               

 

According to the Department of Economic and Community Development:  “. . .  persons who receive Federal SSI and State Supplemental income benefits and the vast majority of individuals who use publicly funded services are facing extreme barriers to accessing housing.  The past decade has seen a greater number of persons who must expend more than 50% of their income to secure housing.  Effective service delivery/treatment is diminished if consumers lack the income to access housing.  If this barrier is not addressed, Connecticut will continue to experience a high incidence of homelessness among these individuals who are disabled and poor.”

 

Closing the Gap Between Income, Rent and Homeownership

 

In 1995, the State of Connecticut created the Department of Economic and Community Development. This new department merged the Department of Housing and the Department of Economic Development. The State did this in recognition of the fact that people’s ability to afford housing is intimately tied to their income. Said another way, if the state could create more jobs, there could be less reliance on subsidized housing programs. This report recognizes that the economy and housing are related. We suggest the state needs to go further in defining how economics and housing are tied together.

 

DECD in their presentation to the Blue Ribbon Commission stated they are committed to: “Housing, Jobs, and Health Communities.” They offered statistics about the ‘health’ of the state’s economy, for example an all-time low unemployment rate of 2.1%; a growth rate of 5.3%; and business confidence at an all-time high.” What these numbers don’t tell is who is this economy benefiting? Specifically, is the state creating good jobs? Jobs that are full-time, offer health insurance and pensions, and pay a livable or self-sufficiency wage?

 

Unfortunately, the trend in Connecticut is no different than elsewhere in the nation today. We see indicators of a strong economy, but not an economy that is strongly benefiting large numbers of workers or the general population. Study after study reinforces this same theme. Quoting from a recent report entitled The Policy Shift to Good Jobs, “The standards, mostly enacted within the last five years, range from wage and health insurance requirements to full-time hours rules. They were found in 26 cities, 16 states and four counties. They span almost every kind of incentive, from property tax abatements and training grants to enterprise zones and industrial development bonds.”

 

An example might be the Warbourg, Dillon, Read (Swiss Bank) subsidy and proposed subsidy from the state. Janitors who clean the Swiss Bank in Stamford earn $6,976 per year. This is because the jobs are primarily part-time, not full-time, pay no benefits, and are poverty wage jobs. The state should not encourage job creation in this manner with taxpayer subsidies. Rather, we should mandate that all relevant departments in the state who are involved in development deal making mandate that in exchange for tax relief and other subsidies, we need good job creation. The kind that will make is so that the company in question helps end the housing crisis by paying their workers a decent, family supporting wage. In the case of Swiss Bank, converting 40 plus part time janitors to full-time workers at a decent wage with benefits would mean that many less people who have to rely on subsidized housing programs of the state.

 

Continuing with a passage from the national report entitled The Policy Shift to Good Jobs:

 

"I am amazed at the breadth of this trend," said Good Jobs First Director Greg LeRoy. "It strongly suggests a trend back to basics: economic development starts with raising people's living standards. Next, we need to be sure that the standards are enforced and evaluated for effectiveness."

 

Collectively, the standards represent a major policy shift in state and local economic development, with public officials increasingly requiring job-quality quid pro quos in exchange for subsidies. Compared to "living wage" ordinances (of which there are now 40), the study finds that wage standards applied to development subsidies are more likely to be pegged to labor-market rates, and are therefore higher and more varied as a group. They also cover more workers. More than half the jurisdictions apply a standard to more than one incentive program or to total development assistance above a fixed-dollar threshold, beginning between $5,000 and $100,000.

 

The survey found three general types of wage standards: those based on a multiple of federal subsistence measures such as the minimum wage or family-poverty line; those set at fixed dollar amounts; and those based on local market wages. Generally, those wages pegged to the poverty line are lower and those tied to the market are higher.

 

Half of the jurisdictions either require or encourage subsidized employers to provide healthcare. Some provide for lower wage standards when health care is provided.

 

The following jurisdictions apply job quality standards to one or more economic development incentive program ("†" indicates that the standard is part of a living wage law covering both contractors and incentives, "‡" indicates a living wage law covering incentives only):

 

 

Given that the state took the initiative and the lead to merge housing and economic development, it’s only appropriate then that this Blue Ribbon Commission make recommendations that respond to—and make recommendations about—the link between the economy, jobs, wages and the need for state funding for housing programs.

 

Ongoing Needs Assessment

 

In its recommendations, the Needs Sub-Committee calls for more regular collection and analysis of housing needs data by the state.  Such an analysis if done on an annual basis can be used to guide priority setting for federal, state and local funding for housing and community development.  Affordable housing needs vary in regions of the state, the data collection would allow regions and localities to address the needs in their communities.

 

In 1997 – 502,522 households at 80% of AMI or below

Breakout as follows:

 

1997 Census Estimate

Income Group      0-30%         31-50%       51-80%

# in group             159,433      132,657      210,432

growth rate

from 1990             13.2%         10.9%         54.8%

 

Affordable Housing Units – Total of  434,607

 

Gov    Gov             Deed Private         CHFA PrivatelyAssisted  Assisted      Restricted   Rental                                      Owned

                   Family                  Elderly                                     Affordable                      Affordable

 

                   73,913                  38,420                  432             237,330      24,512                  60,000

 

Supply Shortfall 67,915 units affordable to households between 0-80% of AMI

 

Other areas

 

Elderly Housing (Renter Households)

 

Income Group                # of Households    # paying >30%      # paying > 50%

0-30%                            39,347                           23,157 (58.8%)     13,941 (35.4%)

 

31-50%                 18,325                           10,300 (56.2%)     3,978 (21.7%)

 

51-80%                 9,655                    4,052  (42%)                   477 (4.9%)

 

Housing is a basic need for everyone.  It is the single greatest expense of most families’ income.  Because household income changes as families change—marriage, family growth, divorce, death, retirement—and because housing costs change with the economy, it is difficult to capture precise numbers of Connecticut residents who are experiencing housing problems. 

 

Nonetheless, the needs assessment committee looked at a variety of data that substantiate that thousands of Connecticut citizens are experiencing moderate to severe housing difficulties.  Despite working hard to improve their lives, these Connecticut residents are living in substandard housing, paying more than 40% of their income in rent, or living on the streets and in shelters. 

 

According to DECD [the Department of Economic and Community Development],

 

Increasing numbers of municipalities across Connecticut are finding that they cannot house those who were raised in the community and those who serve the community.  Recent college graduates earning entry-level salaries cannot afford the cost of single-family homes, even with two incomes.  Teachers and municipal employees cannot afford to live in the towns where they work, and the elderly and those on fixed incomes cannot compete in the housing market.  To help ensure the prosperity of a community, all population groups need to be represented.  If adequate housing choices and opportunities are not available for all residents, regardless of age and income, the community will eventually wither due to its own exclusionary practices.

 

For the working poor and other low income families, the state's economic upturn is more of the same rather than something new.  Most failed to benefit from the economic climb of the late 1990s. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that many of these families lost economic ground and some were much worse off in 1998 than in 1990.

 

Although declining sales prices have increased housing affordability for homeowners, to some degree, there remains an extremely strong demand for, and a need to provide affordable housing options and opportunities in all areas of Connecticut.  Low, very low, and especially extremely low income families are faced with the dilemma of finding affordable housing.  By all indications, the demand for affordable housing does not look to lessen in the foreseeable future.

 

Extremely low-income households have incomes between 0 and 30% of Area Median Income, including all households at or below the poverty level.  They have the fewest housing choices and the greatest needs for assistance to afford decent housing.  In 1997, there were 159,433 extremely low-income households in Connecticut; a 13.2% increase from 1990.  Fifteen percent of all renters fall in this category.  Estimates indicate that an additional 1,047 households will fall into this income category by 2002.

 

The number of households in Connecticut that are very low-income or at 31%-50% of Area Median Income was 132,657, an increase of 10.6% from 1990.  By 2002, this population group is expected to remain relatively stable at 132,468 households.  This group also has serious housing needs.

 

The number of low income households in Connecticut (51% to 80% of Area Median Income) was 210,432 in 1997 an increase of almost 60% from the 1990 census. By 2002, this population group is expected to decrease to 192,598 households.  It is estimated that at least 15% of all renters in Connecticut fall into this income group.

 

(Insert under section 3)

 

Homelessness

 

From October 1997 - September 1998, 15,917 different people used emergency homeless shelters, a 3.5% increase over the prior year.   Of the people using shelters, 2,800 were children under 18 years of age.  Over 18% of those who stayed in shelters were employed.  Additional data provided by the Department of Social Services, continuum of care plans and point in time counts of the homeless in Hartford and Fairfield County indicate that about one-third of people who are homeless in Connecticut suffer from mental illness; 50% are chemically addicted; 25% have a dual diagnosis of both chemical addiction and mental illness and 14% have AIDS.

 

The nearly 16,000 people using shelters does not account for those people who are living doubled up with family and friends because they cannot afford to rent an apartment or people living in abandoned buildings or are the streets.  It is impossible to have an accurate count of this population.

 

Many of the Subcommittee’s recommendations [in Section II and III will] address the needs of people who are homeless in Connecticut.

 

(section 3)

Housing for Persons with Special Needs

 

There are 189,700 special needs households in Connecticut that face housing problems or risk of homelessness, including frail elderly, mentally ill, physically disabled, and persons living with AIDS.

 

Only a portion of people with disabilities receive social security income and state supplemental income.  Table I represents the percentage of income recipient of SSI and State Supplemental benefits must pay to access housing in various areas of Connecticut.

 

Table 1:SSI/State Supplemental Benefits As A Percentage Of Median Income And Percentage Of Income Needed

For Efficiency And One Bedroom Units

 

 

At 30% of a household’s income dedicated for housing costs, it is clear that the over 34,000 individuals who receive social security income and state supplemental benefits due to a disability are unable to afford even an efficiency in any region of the state. 

 

Table II documents the number of individuals in Connecticut who receive SSI/SSDI benefits by type of disability, number and percentage of the Connecticut population.  (Social Security Administration Statistics 1998).

 

Table 2: SSI Recipients By Disability Type, Number,

And Percentage Of Total State Population, 1998

 

 

According to DECD [the Department of Economic and Community Development]:

 

persons who receive Federal SSI and State Supplemental income benefits and the vast majority of individuals who use publicly funded services are facing extreme barriers to accessing housing.  The past decade has seen a greater number of persons who must expend more than 50% of their income to secure housing.  Effective service delivery/treatment is diminished if consumers lack the income to access housing.  If this barrier is not addressed, Connecticut will continue to experience a high incidence of homelessness among these individuals who are disabled and poor.

 

(section 5)

 

Ongoing Needs Assessment

 

In its recommendations, the Needs Sub-Committee calls for more regular collection and analysis of housing needs data by the state.  Such an analysis if done on an annual basis can be used to guide priority setting for federal, state and local funding for housing and community development.  Affordable housing needs vary in regions of the state, the data collection would allow regions and localities to address the needs in their communities.