Integrated Housing Needs & Opportunities Study
Otsego County
Integrated Housing Needs & Opportunities Study
Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
Neighborhood
planning is hope…
People’s hope
Terry Bliss – County Planning Director
Regina Betts – NAACP representative
Terry Capuano - United Way
Kathie Greenblatt – Catholic Charities
Barbara Ann Heegan, Living Communities LLC
Joseph Middleton, Karen Halay, Deb Terrell - Bassett Hospital
Carolyn Lewis and Zondra Hart - Otsego County Economic Development
Tim Hayes - SUNY Oneonta
Dan Maskin - Opportunities for Otsego
Rob Robinson – The Otsego Chamber
Betty A. Schwerd - County Representative-District 10
Robert Taylor – Town of New Lisbon
Norm Tiffany – Habitat for Humanities
Tony Scalici - Otsego Rural Housing
Karen Sullivan - Otsego County Planning
Lee Anne White - Otsego County DSS
Frances Wright - Office for the Aging
Psalm Wyckoff - Otsego County Planning
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Special Recognition– Focus Group members
Tom Armao
Maureen Dill
Mark Barstow
Bob Harlem
Doug Beachel
Jim Hawver
Lydia Bell
Maureen Hennessy
Bruno Bruni
Gary Herzig
Pete Bussmann
Tom Horvath
Brian Clancey
Jeff House
Ed Cox
Don Huntington
Susan Dalasandro
Carolyn Lewis
Dr. Wendy Mitteager
Susan O’Handley
Sarah Patterson
Mary Rab
Mike Ranieri
Vicki Reissi
Tom Shypski
Mayor Carol Waller
Robert Wood
Otsego County
Integrated Housing Needs & Opportunities Study

Task 1 – Initial Scoping Session
 Task 2 – Public Participation
“To accomplish great
things we must not
only act, but also
dream; not only
plan, but also
believe”
Anatole France
 Task 3 – Integrated Housing Needs &
Opportunities Study
 Task 4 – Action Plans
Task 5 - Final Document
Otsego County
Components of the Housing Needs Study
 Assess housing needs in Otsego County
 Understand components of a healthy housing mix
 Steps to address local housing market needs
 Suggest housing-friendly regulation
 Potential tenant & homebuyer demand / options
Why conduct this study?

Significant recent economic changes that
affect housing stock
 Concentrated economic and workforce growth
 Shortage of affordable, quality housing in these areas
▪ Recruitment problems; Service delivery expense; Transportation issues
 Week-long family tourism (e.g. baseball camps) and other
seasonal occupancy types (e.g. students, second homeowners)

No county-wide, comprehensive and
community development plan
 Competitive disadvantage in securing state and federal funds
 Lack data on specific needs of diversified segments

Local (HH median, ’08 estimates)
 Half low/moderate household income; <80% median ($32,332)
 One-third higher income; > 120% median ($49,332)
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Oneonta Area (with students): $33,831
Route 7/I-88: $39,121
Route 28: $40,506
Route 20: $45,081
Route 51: $45,717
Regional (HH median, ’08 estimates)
 Otsego County: $40,075
 Schoharie-Chenango-Delaware: $44,686 to $40,665
 New York State: $52,865

Concentrated Rental
 Oneonta area (includes Town) homeowners (54%)
 Route 51, Route 7/88, Route 20 corridors (80+%)

Single-Family, Stick-Built Houses
 68% of county market (less in Oneonta)
 Mobile homes: 16%
Multi-family: 9%
Source: 2008 Claritas estimates

Occupied & Owned
 30,158 units
 80% occupied
 Owners (74%)
Renters (26%)
Housing Vacancy

Seasonal, Recreational, Occasional
 54% (2000 data) of vacant units
 Nearly 10% of total units
 Not so in Oneonta area
 Expected to increase in Census 2010
Migration Trends 2001-2007

Net loss
 Net outmigration of household (87 per year)

Targeted Inflows
 Neighbors: 36% in / 32% out
 Downstate: 429 households (Suffolk Co: 162)

Targeted Outflows
 698 to outside NYS (net)
 322 to NYS Capital Region (net)
 107 to Central NY (net)
Source: IRS county-level filings, 2001-2007

Diverse Renters
 Cannot afford

Rental Occupancy
 Oneonta: 46%

Do not want ownership
Route 51 Corridor: 18%
Fair Market Rents (HUD; per month; min. income required)
 One-bedroom: $586
 Two-bedroom: $689
 Three-bedroom: $916
 Four-bedroom: $952

$23,440 (30% rule)
27% of residents’ have
income below this;
would spend >30% on rent

Some Unaffordable
 No local affordable housing units targeting any households
at 50% of median income

Singles Only
 Stronger market: non-elderly & one-bedroom
 Weakest: elderly & four-bedroom

Oneonta Area
 Among Corridors, Oneonta Area showed significant housing
need/strongest support
 affordable and market rate one- and two bedroom units
 non-elderly households

Hypothetical Homeownership Program
 Private mortgage
 Average home purchase price
 Subsidy grant program, if necessary

Local illustrations
 Household size
 Household income
 5.5% interest rate; 30-year loan; 5% down
3BR for $139,000 (median, April 2009 MLS)
 4-person family, 80% median income ($42,150)

 Monthly income
 38% of income
 Less insurance, taxes, utilities
 Total available for debt
 Total grant required
$3,513
$1,335
$587
$747
$7,000

Two-income household
 Bassett Healthcare Lab Tech & Housekeeper
 $55,000 total HH income
 Afford: $180,000 house
 No more than 30% of HH income on housing

Median Ask in Route 51 Corridor (May 2009)
 $110,000 to $257,000
 Depends on bedrooms
 Automotive transportation required
Case Study: Route 20 Corridor

One-income household
 Otsego County Social Welfare Examiner
 $26,000 total HH income
 Afford: $70,000 house
 No more than 30% of HH income on housing

Median Ask in Route 20 Corridor (May 2009)
 $156,500 to $730,000
 Depends on bedrooms
 Automotive transportation required
Focus Group: Building

Regulatory Boards
 Costly, lengthy process
 Board education important

Construction
 Density and economies of scale keep costs down
 Modular options

More options
 Rentals for young, professional
 Condos / Townhomes
 Downsized for Senior Citizens / Empty nesters
Focus Group: Economic Development

Regulatory Boards
 Costly, lengthy process
 Board education important

More options
 Type
 Tenure
 Income

Major Institutions Take Lead
 E.g. colleges add dormitory supply
Focus Group: Infrastructure
Sewer / Water below capacity, but OLD
 Transportation network development could
benefit ‘urban’ centers
 Shared or Consolidated services

 school districts
 public works
 public safety
 E.g. colleges add dormitory supply
Focus Group: Community Services
Aging Cohort of Mobile Homes
 Low/Mod Income can’t compete with
students or weekly renters
 Mixed income development works culturally
and economically here
 Senior and disabled housing needs rising
 Public transportation could benefit
affordable housing outside ‘urban’ centers
 Local regulations to encourage housing

Implementation Plan
Guidance to leaders about vision for the future and guide for achieving it

Goals
 Broad ideas related to achieving housing development

Strategies
 Express the general methods of achieving stated goals

Action Plans
 Detailed actions to accomplish strategies
 Information/guidance
▪ Stakeholders
▪ Timeframe
▪ steps required
Funding sources
Expected results
Otsego County Housing Goals





Provide for a variety of housing
Encourage senior housing development
Mitigate or eliminate barriers to affordable and
workforce housing through public education and
advocacy
Encourage municipalities to adopt land management
tools that create opportunities for affordable and
local workforce housing
Expand or improve public infrastructure and
transportation access to facilitate more adequate
housing
Sample Action Plan
GOAL ONE: PROVIDE FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING IN OTSEGO COUNTY
Strategy 1: Identify and improve residential development within city, town and village centers.
Action 1.2
Encourage new housing development that fills identified gaps in the housing
inventory including in the city, town and village centers such as single family homes, market rate
apartments, town homes, condominiums, lofts, and live/work space.
Based on information obtained during the planning process, it appears that a variety of housing is needed
in Otsego County to meet the needs of local residents.
Priority:
Timeframe:
Potential Stakeholders:
Potential Funding Sources:
High Priority
Medium-Term
Otsego County Planning Department, municipalities, private developers
HOME, Affordable Housing Corporation, CDBG, Private Banks
GOAL TWO: ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF SENIOR HOUSING.
Strategy 1: : Identify specific subsidized or market rate senior housing developments that
will assist the senior population in Otsego County.
Action 1.1
Work with local municipalities on their land use regulations to allow various
housing development for seniors.
There are a variety of zoning techniques that provide for senior housing options: senior housing
zoning districts; cluster housing options; elder cottages and accessory apartments.
Priority:
Medium Priority
Timeframe:
Short-Term
Potential Stakeholders:
Otsego County Planning Department, Municipalities
Potential Funding Sources:
N/A – Staff time
Action Goal: Work with 3 communities to effect land use regulation changes within 2 years
GOAL THREE: MITIGATE OR ELIMINATE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING
INITIATIVES THROUGH A PROGRAM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SUPPORT ADVOCACY.
Strategy 1: Provide assistance to local municipalities to mitigate and eliminate barriers for
housing.
Action 1.1 Work with local municipalities to streamline permitting process to develop housing.
Based on focus group comments, there is a need for revisions to the “Regulatory Approval” process for
developing housing. Ideally, the County should work with local municipalities and develop a uniform
review process to the extent possible for all municipalities within the County.
Priority:
High Priority
Timeframe:
Short-Term
Potential Stakeholders:
Otsego County Planning Department, Municipalities
Potential Funding Sources:
N/A – Staff time
Action Goal:
Develop a uniform streamlined permitting process within one year and encourage 5
municipalities to adopt the process within 3 years.
GOAL ONE: PROVIDE FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING IN OTSEGO COUNTY
Strategy 3: In partnership with both county organizations and non-profit housing organizations
promote housing rehabilitation and homeownership programs.
Action 3.1
Formally establish the Ad Hoc Housing Committee into an Otsego County Housing
Action Network
During one of the Committee meetings it was suggested that the Ad Hoc Housing Committee formally
organize and continue meeting periodically on housing issues facing Otsego County. This group could
also ensure coordination with public and non-profit housing organizations to implement housing
improvement and assistance programs.
Priority:
High Priority
Timeframe:
Short-Term
Potential Stakeholders:
Otsego County Planning Department, Ad Hoc Housing Committee,
municipalities
Potential Funding Sources:
N/A – Staff time
Action Goals:
Formally organize the group within one year
Meet a minimum of 4 times a year