RUTLAND HOUSING
MARKET STUDY AND
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Final project
presentation
AGENDA
 6:00
Welcome and overview of the study
 6:15
Presentation
 Recap of findings
 Discussion of recommendations
 7:00
Questions and comments
PROJECT TASKS FOR THE HOUSING
STUDY
 Met with City staff and toured Rutland
neighborhoods
 Interviewed local housing market
stakeholders (Realtors®, affordable housing
providers, landlords)
 Compiled, analyzed and mapped data about
the Rutland housing market
 Meeting One: public feedback and input
 Developed strategic recommendations
KEY TOPIC AREAS FOR TODAY
 Revitalizing neighborhoods (and addressing vacant/blighted
properties)
 Promoting homeownership
 Af fordable housing needs
REVITALIZING
NEIGHBORHOODS
REVITALIZATION IN RUTLAND: KEY
FINDINGS
 The City of Rutland is losing population not just because of a
regional economic decline, but also because it is not
competing well against other towns when households decide
where to live
 Poverty and unemployment is concentrated in particular
neighborhoods in Rutland
 The housing “product” being of fered in parts of Rutland –
especially older, small -multiunit stock – is not desired by the
marketplace
 Key areas of concern are located west of Route 7 and close to
downtown
 Locally Undesirable Land Uses (LULUs) may be contributing to
some issues with vacant buildings
COMPETITION FOR HOUSEHOLDS
 The region is not competing
strongly for households
70,000
 County locations are
60,000
outcompeting city locations for
50,000
40,000
household choices about where
30,000
to live
20,000
 From 2000 to 2010, Rutland
10,000
City households declined by
0
1%; Rutland County increased
by 1%.
 Areas west of Route 7 have Households
declined the fastest
Population
63,400
62,142
58,347
61,642
Rutland City
Rutland County
18,436
18,230
1980
1990
17,292
16,495
2000
2010
Year
Source: Vermont Housing Data (www.housingdata.org); US Census
2000
2010
% change
Tract 9630
1,955
1,970
1%
Tract 9631
1,713
1,644
-4%
Tract 9632
1,400
1,356
-3%
Tract 9633
2,384
2,434
2%
Source: US Census Bureau
CONCENTRATIONS OF POVERT Y
Area
Percent below
poverty in 2010
Tract 9630
13%
Tract 9631
25%
Tract 9632
19%
Tract 9633
11%
Rutland City
16%
Rutland County
12%
Vermont
11%
Area
Unemployment rate, 2010
Rutland City
8.8%
Rutland County
7.3%
Vermont
6.2%
Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
A HOUSING PRODUCT IN NEED OF
IMPROVEMENT
 Median sale price of 2 -4 unit
properties during 2010 -2012
was $75,000 (40% less than
single-family)
 Current value does not support
home improvements or financing
“LULUS” AND VACANT BUILDINGS
h St
N Churc
E x e te
ve
Sc ale A
Stratton Rd
ve
Exempt
r Pl
se y
St
Ave
Prev ille
Fairvi ew Ave
Geno Ave
te r
ee
Cr
k
e
Chas e Av
Horton St
rble Ave
n Av e
Utilities
Rooming Houses
Perkins Rd
Curtis
e
a
Free m
n St
o
Hayw
Av e
Chapl in
MISC Land
Agricultural
M us
Ot
ll
Industrial
Gi lrain Av e
Common St
r
Commercial
Son ia D r
B lv d
Porte
Dorr D
Mobile Home
Hilltop Ter
Alt a Ter
Robinwoo d Ln
y Ln
ve
Alle
Ma
Apartments (5+ Units)
thern
Pe r r
r St
St
Dana Av
4-Family
Central Ave
St
Pa r k
Fo ster P l
Woodland Dr
Upland Dr
3-Family
So u
B
Av e
C
Av e
Ave A
sA
ger
n St
Gi or
Dr
e ri ne
C a th
B lv d
g e tt i
Av e
son A
Jack
ng
t
o
ve
nA
2-Family
Rach el Dr
Gran dview Te r
e
rly Av
Irv ing Hts
Sha ro n Dr
Nic ole Pl
She dd Pl
r
Newpo rt D
ve
t
re m
St
e
St
ard A
1-Family
Hil l Pond Rd
Elmwood Dr
En g
C lov
e
fly Av e
ton S t
no data/unsure
Land Use Map
Healy Ln
B u tt e r
in g
Was h
Lafayett e S
t
er St
200 Foot Buffer - Undesirable Land Uses*
City Parcels
hn
Eas te
Eas t S
Pl
Av
gt on
H ow
Vacant Structures
t Jo
St
ve
l
on P
l
Terril
kA
Nels
D ee r S t
St
St
d
Gleas on Rd
Pl
Sain
Davis
oo
c
s to
ru i
Rd
l Rd
e
C lark St
NE S ch oo
Av e
Belle vue Av
t
S Ma in S
ro
t St
Gr a n
ce S
St
E
Royce St
St
P os
Spru
1st
n St
l
Morse P
to
Was hing
sfi eld
E Cen t
St
t
le S
W
r to n
y
Wa
llie
ri n
H ar
e
Edg
Alt
Hills ide
ll
Th ra
Ca
Ct
Pa r k
e
Ives Av
Cente r
M an
Madi so n
s
Gib
e Wa
S
p
Tem
Norton Pl
Court S q
St
Jeffe
Dr
do w
t Ex d
St
rs on
Aik en Pl
St
Nichols
lin
Pla i
Sto n
Elm St
Wales St
ts R o w
nk
Sou th St
Fo rest S t
ge
Wi llow S t
B r o w n St
Rid
M erchan
St
ne
A ve
we
S to
endall Ave
West St
Ho
Mead ow S t
d
St
C ottage St
Pine S t
School S t
d
Dr
William s
t
Av e
d
en R
Av e
Burnh am
l
Riv er St
ll R
Sum mer S
Robbins St
a
Fr
d
be
Baxter St
mp
C lev eland
Beld
t
N Mai n S
Pearl St
H olly St
Ash St
Ca
ve
Library A
ve
P
Trav ers e
K
Av e
Ave
Roberts
Maple St
e
yR
C linton
Kin gs ley
e
Park Av
Ct
Kings ley
Bu s
wy 4
H igh St
Wood Ave
ve
US H
Smith St
Ave
Melro se
Oa k St
Wate r St
t t A ve
m
lu
nA
int Av
tR
Em m e
Co
b ia
Pie rpo
en
Haze l St
Cl
em
Ri
pl e
Ev ergreen Ave
Watk ins Ave
Cra mton Ave
She pard Ln
State St
North S t
Lib ra ry A
Mea
30 vacant structures out of 152 vacant
structures are adjacent to land uses
that are not desirable for residential property.
Victor Pl
Tu ttle
Dr
ve
it
Em e r
t Rd
Hillc re s
N orth
St
Sea bury
St
us Ave
Orchard Dr
St
Crescent
olin
n
Lav erne Dr
M ar
ci a L
Wendy Ln
rw
Ve rn on St
Northea st
She
Rd
o od
City Dump Rd
Patri
US Hwy 7
Lincoln A
St
t
t
Adams S
Churc h S
Grov e S t
Ve rn on
Phillip s St
r Rd
Fiel d Av e
Jan Ave
Walnut St
Vacant Structures
and Undesirable
Land Use
o d Av
e
Av e
Billings
Dr
* Undesirable Land Uses include
Route 7 and West Street corridors,
industrial uses, prisons, rooming houses,
and flood-prone areas.
0
0.2
0.4
±
0.8 Miles
PROMOTING
HOMEOWNERSHIP
Area
Homeownership
Rate, 2010
Tract 9630
72%
Tract 9631
29%
Tract 9632
57%
Tract 9633
49%
Rutland City
52%
Rutland County
70%
Vermont
71%
Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
PROMOTING HOMEOWNERSHIP: KEY
THEMES
 Now is the time to buy (especially in Rutland)!
 A large pool of renter households exist that could qualify to
buy a home
 Housing stock exists that could be converted from investor
ownership to owner-occupancy
 Mortgage market issues are the major barrier
NOW IS THE TIME TO BUY
 Median home price in
Rutland of about
$112,000 (28 percent
decline from 2006)
 Affordable to
households earning ~
$34,250 (56% of
HAMFI)
 Estimated 829 renters
in Rutland County have
income between
$22,000 and $55,000
and savings and debt
characteristics to buy
 Another 600 renters in
higher income tiers
Median Sales Price
Residential Properties 6 acres or less
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
Rutland City
Rutland County
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
(through
4/30/2012)
Source: VT Property Transfer Tax data
CONVERTING STOCK TO
HOMEOWNERSHIP
h St
N Churc
E x e te
ve
Sc ale A
Stratton Rd
Victor Pl
Ave
Prev ille
Fairvi ew Ave
Geno Ave
r
Common St
Porte
Dorr D
Hilltop Ter
Gi lrain Av e
B lv d
t
r Pl
Alle
St
te r
ee
Cr
Chapl in
Av e
Hayw
k
e
Chas e Av
e
Horton St
Marble Av
480 singlefamily homes
and 334 twofamily homes
in Rutland are
not owneroccupied
ve
oo d A
Av e
Curtis
e
n Av e
Perkins Rd
se y
Ot
Wall
a
Free m
n St
M us
St
Dana Av
Alt a Ter
y Ln
St
Pa r k
Robinwoo d Ln
Son ia D r
Central Ave
e
n Av
thern
Pe r r
ve
ger
963300
Fo ster P l
Woodland Dr
Upland Dr
So u
B
Av e
sA
C
Av e
ng
Ave A
ro
t
ve
Gi or
Dr
e ri ne
C a th
B lv d
i
t
t
e
g
Av e
so
Jack
Royce St
St
t St
Gr a n
ce S
Gib
n St
A
s on
Rach el Dr
Gran dview Te r
Nic ole Pl
She dd Pl
r
Newpo rt D
re m
St
er S
Irv ing Hts
Sha ro n Dr
Elmwood Dr
En g
C lov
ve
fly Av e
ton S t
erly A
E as t
Hil l Pond Rd
B u tt e r
s hin g
A ve
Healy Ln
t
E Wa
t
er St
Investor Owned
Investor Owned 2-Family
963000
Ave
oward
Lafayett e S
Eas t S
Pl
Lav erne Dr
H
City Parcels
Other Parcels
Rd
St
e
l
on P
gt on
arri n
l St
Terril
sfi eld
d
Av
Nels
Ed
on
g e rt
oo
ck
Gleas on Rd
Pl
Hills ide
W
s to
Census Tracts
ru i
Investor Owner 1-Family
l Rd
D ee r S t
St
l
Morse P
t
S Ma in S
n St
St
m ple
H
E Cen t
St
NE S ch oo
Davis
Court S q
M an
Av e
C lark St
e
e
Ives Av
St
Nichols
Cente r
Ct
Te
Norton Pl
to
Was hing
Alt
ll
Th ra
Belle vue Av
t
N Mai n S
P os
Spru
St
1st
Pa r k
Aik en Pl
Madi so n
P la i
e
Sto n
Elm St
Wales St
ts R o w
St
Sou th St
Fo rest S t
Dr
lin
nk
B r o w n St
ge
M erchan
St
Rid
A ve
we
ne
Wi llow S t
Ho
School S t
ve
West St
l
a
Fr
S to
St
C ottage St
Pine S t
d
t
Rd
l d en
P
Trav ers e
Riv er St
ll R
Sum mer S
Be
Bu s
wy 4
d
d
be
Robbins St
William s
Av e
Ave
Burnh am
e
Av
US H
H igh St
Ave
Ken dall A
ve
Maple St
Mead ow S t
mp
963100
Av e
Ca
Baxter St
yR
Lib ra ry A
Kin gs ley
St
Roberts
e
Park Av
Ct
Kings ley
C lev eland
Smith St
Sea bury
St
n
Dr
ve
Pearl St
H olly St
Ash St
n
Ave
C linton
St
Crescent
olin
ve
itus A
Em e r
Dr
t Rd
do w
Hillc re s
Mea
Tu ttle
d
x
E
St
y
N orth
Wa
llie
Ca
St
rs on
Jeffe
Wood Ave
e
b ia
Melro se
Oa k St
Wate r St
t t A ve
m
lu
int Av
tR
Em m e
Co
Pie rpo
Ri
pl e
en
Haze l St
Cl
em
Ev ergreen Ave
Watk ins Ave
Cra mton Ave
She pard Ln
State St
North S t
M ar
ci a L
Wendy Ln
Ve rn on St
Orchard Dr
Walnut St
d
Northea st
She
dR
rwo o
City Dump Rd
Patri
US Hwy 7
Lincoln A
St
t
t
Adams S
Churc h S
Grov e S t
Ve rn on
Phillip s St
r Rd
Fiel d Av e
Jan Ave
963200
Investor Owned
Single and Two
Family Homes
Billings
Dr
±
MORTGAGE MARKET ISSUES
Rutland County:
2006
2010
Home purchase loan
denial rate
19%
17%
Home improvement loan
denial rate
30%
29%
Refinance denial rate
29%
23%
Purchase originations
844
246
Home improvement
originations
286
101
Refinance originations
1,011
690
90+ day mortgage
delinquency
0.8%
6.7%
90+ day credit card
delinquency
9.2%
16.3%
Source: 2010 HMDA data; New York Federal Reserve credit conditions data
Hickory
Street
apartments,
Rutland
Housing
Authority
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
HOUSING AFFORDABILIT Y IN RUTLAND:
KEY FINDINGS
 Real household incomes have declined while rents have risen
 Housing cost burdens are much more common now than they
were 10 years ago
 Cost burdens are as much a product of incomes as of house
prices or rents
 Af fordable rental stock is concentrated in the City of Rutland
out of proportion to its share of households and jobs in the
region
RENTAL STOCK PRICING VS. RENTER
INCOMES
• Unavailability of
affordable rental
stock in Rutland is
most pressing for
very low-income
renters
Rental
Households
Rental Units
Considered
Affordable*
Less than $5,000
155
16
$5,000 to $9,999
326
153
$10,000 to $14,999
473
209
$15,000 to $19,999
373
185
$20,000 to $24,999
384
452
$25,000 to $34,999
603
1,138
$35,000 to $49,999
603
1,202
$50,000 to $74,999
522
21
$75,000 to $99,999
125
29
$100,000 to $149,999
12
0
$150,000 or more
11
0
Income
Source: American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
HOUSING COST BURDENS
Rutland City:
2000
2010
% change
Median gross rent (2010 dollars)
$634
$723
14%
Median income (2010 dollars)
$39,317
$38,108
-3%
Percent of renters earning under $35,000
who are cost burdened
58%
69%
11 points
Percent of renters earning over $35,000
/who are cost burdened
3%
7%
4 points
Percent of homeowners earning under
$35,000 who are cost burdened
54%
70%
16 points
Percent of homeowners earning over
$35,000 /who are cost burdened
6%
24%
18 points
Source: 2000 Census; American Community Survey 2010 5-year estimates
CONCENTRATION OF SUBSIDIZED RENTAL
HOUSING
Jobs (as of May
2012)
Households
(2010)
Subsidized
Housing Units
(2012)
Rutland City
8,000
7,404
801
Rutland County
31,550
25,984
1,309
% of City within
the County
25%
28%
61%
Source: DoRAH; Vermont Department of Labor; 2010 Census
RECOMMENDATIONS
REVITALIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS:
SUMMARY
1. Implement revitalization initiatives in the neighborhoods
surrounding downtown
2. Use a “Healthy Neighborhoods” approach
3. Focus on a small area, building from strength rather than
weakness
4. Neighborhood marketing
5. Connect neighbors to drive revitalization work
REVITALIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS:
SUMMARY
6. Incentivize and facilitate private market investment
7. Set outcomes by property, including targeted
acquisition/rehab/resale
8. Invest in downtown and in key assets and amenities near
the target area
9. Support community development nonprofits to develop a
work focus on neighborhood revitalization
10. Support “big picture” planning ef forts to change the regional
context
“HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS”
ORIENTATION
 A healthy neighborhood is:
 A place where it makes economic and emotional sense for people to
invest their time, money and energy
 A place where neighbors successfully manage neighborhood -related
issues and neighborhood change
 Outcome areas:




Image
Market
Physical conditions
Neighborhood self-management
 A healthy neighborhoods approach is oriented around increasing
demand for the neighborhood. This is not the same type of
activity as increasing housing supply, providing social services,
or other activities that local governments and nonprofits are
used to doing.
TIGHT GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS, SELECTED
BASED ON STRENGTHS
 A revitalization initiative will work best in a defined area (as
small as 10-15 blocks)
 Core of the work happens house by house, block by block
 Need to pick this area based on strengths:
 Strong resident engagement
 Marketable assets (e.g. parks, schools, housing stock, location)
 Emerging market segments or at least potential market segments of
desirable homebuyers that could be attracted to the neighborhood
NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETING EXAMPLES





Name the neighborhood
Neighborhood ambassadors
Realtors® on retainer
Neighborhood tours
Employer-based marketing
NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETING EXAMPLES
Beauty, History, Civic Spirit
The Corn Hill Neighborhood
Corn Hill, a historic treasure on the banks of
the Genesee River next to Center City, offers
the best of the old and new. It is a revitalized
landmark community full of restored 19th
century homes in a variety of modest and
elaborate styles—that are blended well with
20th century townhouses and
condominiums. In most cities, these kinds of
neighborhoods are only accessible by the
wealthy. Here in Rochester, people from all
walks of life make Corn Hill their home….
CONNECTING NEIGHBORS: EXAMPLES
 Ice cream socials, dog walks,
potlucks
 Beautification projects
 Purchasing cooperatives
 Neighborhood mini-grants
 One-on-one interviews, “neighbor
circles”
INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE INVESTMENT
 Housing rehab loan fund, purchase / rehab loan packages
 Tax stabilization or abatement for owner -occupants
purchasing in the target neighborhood
 Study regulatory reforms for landlords
 “Buy -hold” fund to intervene in key properties and make sure
they go to a good buyer
SET OUTCOMES BY PROPERT Y
 Examples:
 Market an exterior repair loan
 Give help to this owner to bring building up to code and improve their
rental management practices
 Get this homeowner better connected to their neighbors
 Get a strong homebuyer into this property that is for sale – help the
seller to market it, hold a “pick your neighbor” party
 Acquire, convert this property from a 3-family back into a 1-family
and sell it to a strong buyer
 Properties are next to an acquisition-rehab project – help neighbors
organize a beautification effort
AFFORDABLE RENTAL DEVELOPMENT?
 Goal of revitalization needs to be to increase demand, not
increase the supply of af fordable units
 Generally, priority should go towards encouraging more people
to buy homes in the neighborhood, including converting small
multifamily properties to more appropriate designs for owner occupancy whenever practicable
 Want to encourage private sector investment, including
investment by responsible landlords
 That said: af fordable rental development financing tools
provide a unique resource to address existing, problem
multifamily properties and rehabilitate them to a very high
standard.
INVEST IN DOWNTOWN, KEY AMENITIES
 Downtown location for high -end rental development, cultural
attractions
 Farmer’s market, other quality -of-life investments
 Waterways (East Creek, Otter Creek) / greenways / green
space
POTENTIAL ROLES FOR COMMUNIT Y
DEVELOPMENT NONPROFITS





Community building and organizing
Neighborhood marketing
Loan programs
Targeted redevelopment
Property management assistance for small landlords
“BIG PICTURE” PLANNING EFFORTS
 Regional planning around:









Economic and workforce development
Land use planning
Arts and culture
Environmental preservation
Food systems
Recreation
Education
Public health
Regional collaborations between local governments
COST IMPLICATIONS
TRIAGE APPROACH FOR
VACANT / BLIGHTED
HOUSING
Distressed Property Intervention Decision Tree
Located
in strong no
neighborhood?
yes
Let the
market
create
the
solution
Historic
or arch.
significance?
yes
Historic
rehab
project
no
LULU
impacts?
yes
Feasible
to
mitigate?
no
Demolish
and
create
buffer
no
yes
Moderate
rehab
cost?
no
yes
In target no
revitalization
area?
yes
Marketable with
incentives?
yes
Rehab
appraisal
gap <
demo +
infill cost?
Incentives for
purchase
-rehab
yes
Acquisitionrehab-resale
project; or
rental project if
part of a cluster
of multi-unit
properties
Incentives for
purchase
-rehab
no
Demolish
and
create
green
space or
build infill
no
Rehab
appraisal
gap <
demo
cost?
yes
Acquisition /
rehab /
resale
no
Demo
and land
bank
TACKLING REGIONAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CHALLENGES
KEY ACTION IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY
FINDINGS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
 Future af fordable housing creation needs to focus on
households at income levels under $20,000
 Future af fordable housing creation needs to improve fair
housing choice for these low -income populations – more
should not be created in existing high -poverty Census Tracts in
Rutland
 Given overall economic and population trends, af fordable
housing creation should avoid adding significant net new units
to the stock, when possible
 Initiatives to boost employment and earnings are critically
important for working-age households facing af fordability
challenges