Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Healthy Housing Rental Vacancy Rate Prevails in Burlington

July 4, 2017

Healthy Housing Rental Vacancy Rate Prevails in Burlington

...the rental vacancy rate continues upward and may already be in “glut” territory of 6 to 7 percent

A July snapshot count of online available Burlington housing rentals totaled 344, more than double a similar July 2016 survey finding of 129 vacant available rentals. This 344 July number alone represents a rental vacancy rate of 3.5% using the base of 2010 rentals, well within a “healthy” rental housing market range of 3-5%.

The latest snapshot survey reveals apartment prices fairly stable over the past year while all bedroom sizes except studio (they increased from 14 to 24) available vacancies more than doubled (Table 1) in the past 12 months. While median rents increased somewhat over the past year, the number of units available today below the 2016 median rents increased substantially. The 344 survey units represent only part of the available rentals which may easily exceed 500 or 600 with an actual rental vacancy rate of 6% to 7%. Larger apartment complexes, particularly those which are now opening—like the former orphanage Liberty House of 65 units on North Avenue—are tabulated with as little as one or two vacancies. The overall project of Cambrian Rise development of 733 mostly apartments, including Liberty House, on lands once owned by the Vermont Catholic Archdiocese is equal to about 7% of the entire Burlington 2010 rental inventory of 9,800.

The January private comprehensive survey by Allen Brooks found Chittenden County's rental vacancy rate of 4.4%, well within the range of “healthy,” 3-5%. The July snapshot survey indicates the current Burlington vacancy rate may be above of the “healthy” maximum which places financial strains on landlord, especially those with a few rentals. The Allen and Brooks January survey predicted a stabilization of rental prices and increasing vacancies in 2017, and the new snapshot survey supports those comments. With a healthy vacancy rate those seeking to rent obtain a reasonable choice and landlords do have to consider the market when pricing apartments. A “glut” occurs when a surplus supply of apartments force landlords to reduce rents below what it costs to operate and maintain, thereby leading to a decline in the condition and quality of the rental inventory.

With Burlington built or well into development about 2,500 apartments since 2013, a glut of vacant apartments--6% or more if the July data is any indicator--becomes a surprising problem after over two decades when vacancy rates seldom rose over 2.5% and rarely reached the healthy 3-5% vacancy level—and never a rental glut. (Note the 2,500 number does not include 274 housing units proposed in Burlington Town Center [BTC] re-development.)

The snapshot survey data is tabulated directly from Craigslist and other online services. From the 2010 Census, Burlington rental inventory totaled 9,800, 12% of the State rental housing. One major project renting this summer is the Cambrian Rise “Liberty House” with 65 studio and one-bedroom apartments in the former Catholic orphanage building on North Avenue. Clearly the June and July period is a very busy rental season and a firmer picture can be provided in a similar survey done in October when student rentals are fully reflected and apartment turnovers are relatively low.

Table 1

Comparison of July 2016 and July 2017 Burlington Snapshot Surveys
of Online Listings of Rental Apartments and Homes

Bedrooms    Number for Rent    Price Range   Median (Middle) Price
                        2016 2017               2017          2016 2017 % Change

0 (studio)         14    24              $725-$1,285          $968   $962    -0.6

1                      38   102              $700-$2,200         $1,050  $1,150  9.5

2                     43    135              $895-$3,350         $1,350  $1,450  6.9

3                     26     53               $600-$3,333         $1,825  $1,975  8.2

4 or more         8     30               $1,900-$3,900       $2,400  $2,633  9.7

Total 129 344
The April to July snapshot survey comparison, Table 2, confirms a pattern of stable median rents when increasing numbers of rentals considered. Four snapshot rental surveys—July and October 2016, and April and July 2017—show a continuing increase in online listings.

Table 2

    Comparison of April 2017 and July 2017 Burlington Snapshot Surveys
    of Online Listings of Rental Apartments: Numbers and Median Rents
    By Bedroom Size

Bedrooms      For Rent Number       Median (Middle) Price
                        April    July                      April     July
0 (studio)            13    24                        $1,100  $962

1                         81  102                        $1,140   $1,150

2                        86   135                        $1,495   $1,450

3                       42     53                          $2,175   $1,975 

4 or more         28     30                           $2,650   $2,633

Total 250 344

The snapshot surveys began in conjunction with the Coalition for a Livable City efforts to reduce and re-imagine the BTC re-development, questioning both the need for a large slug of downtown housing and the myth that BTC $1,000 one-bedroom apartments responded either to market need or were, as promoted, “affordable” much less providing “livable rents” or “shelter security.”

Several factors can account for increases Burlington and Chittenden County rental vacancies. The impact of a net increase of 300 students being housed this fall at the new UVM dormitory and 300 Champlain College students to be housed at Eagles Landing housing on St. Paul Street in fall 2018 both reduce student rental market demand. Also, there are questions about possible declines in student resident numbers at all area colleges because of either the demographic decline in college age populations and/or free tuition for college educations sudden starts this fall throughout the public universities in New York State and in the City of Boston.

While there is population growth in Chittenden County, the composition of that growth radically differs the past when under-65 age population naturally increased in the County and the State. Since 2010, ten of fourteen Vermont counties actually lost population. But as important, State official population projections, averaged, predict a doubling of senior population while residents under 65 decline—even in Chittenden County. Since 2010 the County growth of about 800 residents yearly mirrors the State average official population projections for 2010-2030. But the official predictions show the current growth composed of about 1,000 seniors and a decline of 200 under-age 65 residents. If this is currently taking place, then the demand surely mounts for not only small apartments—studios and one-bedroom housing units—but also a surge in demand for senior housing along the continuum which house independent residents, assisted living facilities, and finally nursing homes.

Finally, there is a complete lack of housing planning and policy development in Vermont as well as needed housing assistance. Vermont has no state housing plan while regularly producing an update to comprehensive transportation and energy plans. Further while about 13% of all Vermont renters are low income households benefiting from “livable rents” paying a maximum of 30% of income for rent--mostly from federal housing programs like Section 8—those programs stopped expanding early in the last decade as the federal government a abandoned efforts to provide housing assistance to all those of low and moderate income. In addition, today in an age where most Vermonters in their working lives will experience several job changes with the ups and downs of income, “shelter security” may well be as important as regular housing assistance--”shelter security” being assured a reduction in housing costs with dips in income from illness, unemployment, etc. “Shelter security” is also provided by Section 8 type units with rental amount decreased (and increased) as tenant incomes change.

The response to the federal government abandoning housing assistance has resulted in well intentioned but fragmented responses at the state and local levels. Hospitals, the corrections system and mental health field has resorted using non-housing streams of government funding to pay for housing as a far cheaper and far more beneficial to client needs than holding these individuals in institutional conditions. These often creative effort do in fact provide a context for formal, focused state and local housing assistance programs. For sure, there are today plenty of apartments ready to house the homeless and those in need of shelter.

Burlington housing market rental websites:



Bissonette Properties:


Tony Redington

Blog: TonyRVT.blogspot.com
Twitter: @TonyRVT60

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Vermont Plays Scrooge with State Budget

Tom Pelham, a former budget leader, calls the Vermont budget "skating on thin ice." But with his personal blinders on, Pelham never bothers to explain the reality of U.S./VT gross product placed into government hands for needed investments and services on average amounts to 8.8% less than the typical developed nation (Wall Street Journal June 13). Yes, Mr. Pelham really preaches the Scrooge message echoed by the Vermont Legislature and Governor Scott that we have empty pockets with only crumbs left for those in need as we slowly cut back--not expand--on the needs of our residents. Yes, the U.S. and Vermont--among the wealthiest in the world if not number one--remains a cheapskate when it comes to spending on citizens needs.  The only growth since the 1980s in household economics?  Growing inequality!  
How much a cheapskate Vermont State governmental expenditures? Well, 8.8% of our gross state product (GSP) of about $30 billion comes out to $2.4 billion a year additional in our State General Fund budget, the amount a typical nation in our league might devote to the public sector in services and investments.  Our current tax revenue for the General Fund for the upcoming budget (if ever passed!) amounts to $1.8 billion for FY 2018.  Add 8.8% more of gross state product--$2.7 billion--and you get to more than double, over $4 billion in the General Fund for Governor Scott and the Legislature to apply to Vermont needs.  In reality, that extra $2.4 billion (remember that figure only gets to the average developed nation government spending!)--would get allocated among the federal, State and local governments.

Of course we need tax reform and more taxes at the same time on the well-to-do, luxury goods, etc.--that is the message of Public Assets led "One Vermont" plan endorsed by the Council of Vermont Elders (COVE) an others this year--a recognition we are more Scrooge than just about any nation on earth (or state)! Bah, humbug Tom Pelham, Governor Scott and the Vermont Legislature!

Thursday, February 2, 2017

The Vermont Population Bomb

The Vermont Population Bomb

Those concerned with ongoing world population growth always describe it as a “bomb” assuredly exhausting global natural resources, making average individual economic betterment impossible, and defeating global sustainability.

Meanwhile Vermont not unlike other northeastern states and aging nations suddenly finds itself sitting in a long period of demographic stagnation as the young and working age population declines and senior numbers climb through the roof. Conservatively, using the average of the two State population projections, the 2010-2030 period features a yearly decline of working age population of 2,100 and the young 0-20 1,400 while seniors soar 4,400 or a town the size of Stowe added each year!

The senior population bomb got plenty of attention of Governor Jim Douglas early in the century, the decline in the young those concerned with why school costs rise with declining student numbers, and finally in the recent election campaign the disappearing and aging workforce segment came into regular discussion. In his budget message Governor Scott called the growth of the workforce necessary for stabilizing the support for tax revenues but did not bother to note the trend of workforce decline of 2,100 a year or specific steps to slow the leakage much less how to reverse the long term trend.
Demographic trends are not a mystery and Vermont like all states and do periodic releases of official projections of populations by age which agencies must use in preparation of policies, plans and programs. The two current projections provide no comfort to the State leadership or those in our cities and towns. Vermont's two official 2010-2030 populations start from the same 2010 Census population of 625,700 (numbers here are rounded to the nearest 100) with projections showing: Scenario A a growth to 670,100 or 44,400 more residents and, Scenario B decline of 5,300 to 620,500.

As a practical matter these 20 year projections developed every so often have tended toward paralleling U.S.Census which has a large staff dealing with all aspects of current and future demographic estimates for the nation as a whole, the states and right down to each of our Vermont counties, towns and even state representative districts.

So Vermont and its political leaders face a different kind of population bomb, one of declining children each year or 17% for the 2010-2030 period; a double digit decline, 11%, of working age population 20-65; and an almost doubling of the senior population, 97% or an 88,900 increase.

So what is the Vermont change in population in 2016 and how does it compare with the two projection from the 2010 Census scenarios, one predicting an increase of 44,400 and the second a 5,300 decline? Census for 2016: Vermont population down 1,100! The decline suggests Scenario B is more likely than Scenario A. While the analysis here averages the two scenarios, Scenario B would mean an even greater loss of under 20 population as well as the 20-65 workforce population while still reaching an 82% increase in seniors.

The numbers for Vermont counties and towns can reach even starker levels, again using just the two scenario average. Nine of fourteen counties have lost population since 2010, Census estimates. Projections show practically all counties lose both young and working age population while senior aged numbers soars—even Chittenden County with a 11% decline in the young 0-19, a drop 5% working age, and 111% increase in seniors. Still overall population of Chittenden County 2010-2030 us projected to grow, thanks to the seniors numbers, 7% for the 20 year period.

For a typical county other than Chittenden there is a population decline and the projections are far starker. Addison County numbers are: 3.9% drop in population overall, 0-20 age down 36% and working age 20-65 down 21% while senior numbers jump 112%. Again, if 2010-2016 Census estimates are in indicator, these numbers could show even greater differentials.

Again it is so important to emphasize these Vermont numbers are not that much different than those of other northeastern states or slow growth ones in the midwest. All Vermont's neighbors will be pushing in the same direction in all likelihood to staunch the flow of declining workforce and the young while dealing with a massive increase in their senior populations.   

The two key reports on projecting Vermont populations are:
1. “Vermont Population Projections 2010-2030” K Jones and L Schwarz, Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development (2013). This report contains population projections for 2020 and 2030 for the State and counties by age for two secenarios (A and B); and in addition total town population projections for both scenarios for 2020 and 2030.

2. “The Challenges of Projecting Vermont's Population” by the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office (2015).

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

How to Make Progress Using a Snail Pace

Senator Leahy this week received a straight faced report in VT Digger on moving another step forward in customs pre-clearance in Montreal considered necessary for resumption of a rail connection to Montreal.  This in spite of the fact such service existing for more than a century until abandoned in the 1980s.   More important connectivity could be obtained and a profit gained by a simple connection by by a dedicated bus (an "Ambus") between the Amtrak Vermonter serving St. Albans to DC and Montreal's Gare Centrale.  Service was run for a time by bus using a regular Greyhound service with far more difficult scheduling (leaving about 5 a.m. in Montreal) and years before the new freeway extension north of the border cutting about 20 minutes in highway travel times.  It is so ironic that while the Vermont Agency of Transportation started an equivalent "Ambus" connection between Bennington last year to the Amtrak Station in Albany at a heavy subsidy, making a profit with a Montreal Ambus remains on the shelf.  Clear example of bureaucratic hypocrisy?

Here is a comment just made in reference to Stn. Leahy work on customs pre-clearance at Gare Central for New York and Vermont train connections:

"The charade of taking a Montreal/Vermont rail connection seriously masks taking action today to provide a daily rail/Ambus connection to Gare Centrale Montreal drawing 15,000 to 30,000 yearly riders onto the mostly empty train in Vermont, the Vermonter which travels between St. Albans and DC. Forget the $1 million potential profit and thereby equal reduction of State dollars required to support the two Vermont Amtrak trains, Vermonters cannot use this safe and cheaper way to get to the Great North.  So sad the Vermont Agency of Transportation continues this malign neglect of rail connectivity while touting its own great work of completing (almost) its two-decade effort to extend the Ethan Allen Amtrak service from Rutland 55 miles to Burlington.  (Oh, yes, it is only 55 miles because the 13 miles of track from Charlotte to Union Station Burlington has been Amtrak ready since Dr. Dean's Champlain Flyer investments in 1999-2000.)"

Monday, October 17, 2016

Sinex Mall Proposal--No Housing or Benefit to the Very Low Income

There is not a single unit of Sinex 54 "affordable" units for the "poor and disenfranchised" as he Mayor Weinberger has sometimes referred within the Sinex Mall proposal.  All 54 Sinex units are moderate income with rent caps of $1,000 monthly for a one-bedroom and $1,200 for a two bedroom.

Burlington now has about one in three non-student households living in “affordable units”--Burlington Housing Authority with most of the “deep subsidy” affordable units which reach down to $0 income and the bulk of affordables, non-profit rentals with “shallow subsidy” primarily by Champlain Hosing Trust and Cathedral.  Added to these are the “inclusionary zoning housing” like that proposed in the Sinex project. They represent at most today about 8% of all affordable units and Sinex units (some would likely be built with or with the Mall as proposed) about, potentially, just 2 percent of the affordable units in the City—again those Sinex would be shallow subsidy for moderate income residents. Actually the percentage of affordable units in Burlington is very remarkable, about 2,500 units.  This total is reached when you include Burlington Colege (Erik Farrell's Cambrian Rise, 675 units) project and Ireland's 220 units on Grove Street now renting, Bayberry Commons.

We all support a responsible mixed Mall redevelopment--so some affordable units surely will be developed on the Mall property. This analysis does not include inclusionary from the 62 Bove project units now moving forward on Pearl Street.

In terms of sheer numbers of housing units being added in Burlington the Sinex overall project of 274 unit remains a small part of the expansion of housing begun in 2013 with over half the 2,000 expansion of rental housing—equal to 20% of the 10,000 rental units in Burlington in the 2010 census—more than enough to effect a dampening impact on market rents. Already the vacancy rate has moved toward healthy status and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable futgure as over half the 2,000 units under development are in place today. Student population is in a downward trend and both UVM and Champlain College are adding substantial numbers of beds in housing coming online within 24 months.

Vacancy in Burlington now reaches about 3 percent in the healthy range with more than 226 rental vacancies found in an October “snapshot” rental survey. There is no basis for claiming in any way shape or manner the Sinex project addresses any housing problem in Burlington at all and mostly--over 200 units--provides $1,600 to $2,000 monthly rentals on up (Sinex said at a New North End meeting he is not sure the units will be rentals or condos).  Talk to any small landlord they will tell you how loose the market is and how it is taking longer and longer to rent their units. 


Two major types of housing are needed: (1) more senior housing (0 in Sinex); and (2) very low income vouchers for both families and seniors (again, none in the Sinex project).  This was the message from U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Castro and the speakers when he visited and opened Bright Street.  You will hear from COVE which advocates for seniors and low income housing proponents seeking support for a 1% (about $2 a night) lodging charge to support a very low income housing program by the State reaching upwards of 1,000 low income families and households. 

Stop listening to the misleading material form the City administration

And please join CLC in supporting a "better" Town Center, a responsible City development approach and reject the massive Sinex complex. 

"Snapshot Survey" of Available Burlington Rentals October 2016

October 2016

Snapshot of Burlington Rental Vacancies Reflects Healthy Condition and Plentiful Rental Availabilities, Surprising Trends

--Burlington rental vacancy rate very likely in “healthy” range
--226 rentals listed (equals 2.3% of 2010 total rental units)
--one rental offered with first month “free”
--about 250 vacant student “beds” in 4-6 bedroom rentals

An early October “snapshot” of Burlngton available rental vacancies reveals a plentiful availability of one bedroom and larger rentals and a likely vacancy rate within the “healthy” 3 to 5% range.

A check on selected websites identified 226 available to rent. The 226 along represent 2.3% vacancy based on the 2010 Census of almost 10,000 rental housing units in the City. The 2.3% is only an indicator, not reflective of the actual, higher, rate. For example, for Bissonette Properties which has a considerable number of rentals only three were tabulated (one each for three bedroom categories) and for the S. D. Ireland Grove Street project which is open and continually finishing sections of its 220 unit project, just a single one bedroom and two bedroom were included in the tabulations. Not all websites with listings were tabulated, though most of the popular ones, such as Craig's List and apartments.com are included. One would expect the Burlington rental market well into the lower end of the 3-5% vacancy rate, considered “healthy” by housing analysts.

The Burlington housing market which neared a vacancy rate of as little as one percent in the 2011-2013 period clearly began to loosen considerably in 2015, according to local landlords who in some cases saw calls from prospective renters from one or more calls daily dropping to one a week or so. The most recent two private semi-annual Chittenden County vacancy surveys found an average of 2.5% vacancy through early this year and predicted the rate would climb over 3.0% later in 2016. This snapshot survey adds some evidence supporting that prediction.

Table 1 outlines the tabulation from observations October 7 of rental availabilities by bedroom size with price ranges and median provided. Table 2 provides similar data from the July survey. The October survey takes place after the annual student migration back to college at UVM and Champlain College which together have 15,000 enrolled.

Median Rents

The most significant rental number, the median rent for a one-bedroom, remained constant at $1,050 for both surveys almost the exact number of available units (37 in October, 38 in July). The two-bedroom median rent did increase 11% from $1,350 in July to $1,500 in October—but 70 units were tabulated in October versus only 43 in July so one would expect several units were available in October at the July median number.

Table 1: Burlngton Vacant Available Rentals October 2016: by Bedroom Size— Total Rentals, Price Range, and Median Rent

226 Apartments 10/07/2016

Summary              Total                          $ Range                           $ Median

0 BR                      1                              800                                      800
1 BR                      37                            750-1,500                         1,050

2 BR                      70                             850-2,250                         1,500

3 BR                      62                           1,050-2,250                        2,160

4 BR+                    56                            1,000-5,000                       3,300

Table 2: Burlngton Vacant Available Rentals July 2016: by Bedroom Size— Total Rentals, Price Range, and Median Rent

129 Apartments

Summary              Total                          $ Range                           $ Median

0 BR                     14                              700-1,400                            968
1 BR                      38                             700-1,900                         1,050

2 BR                      43                             950-2,600                         1,350

3 BR                      26                             799-2,595                         1,825

4 BR+                      8                             875-2,900                         2,400

The three-bedroom and four+-bedroom increased medians really are not comparable to July as 108 were tabulated in October versus 34 in July. Further, a large number of rentals were single family homes which likely skewed upward the median rents on both bedroom groups.

Overall Trends

The surveys here take place in a period of dynamic change in the Burlington rental housing market which totaled 9,800 total rental units (occupied and vacant available) in the 2010 Census. Starting in 2013 after rental units added averaging mid-double digits a year, through this summer a total of over 2,000 rentals were added or in late process of development—almost 700 per year. Over half the units are built or under construction with the S. D. Ireland Bayberry on Grove Street, 220 units, the largest with some completed and occupied and others coming on line regularly. The largest project, Cambrian Rise, 675 units at former Diocesan lands sold by Burlington College, is late in the development process. These 2,000 rental units moving through development along represent a 20% increase in the rental inventory as of 2010.

“Dormitory Housing” Trend

A very surprising finding in the October survey is the number 56 rentals of 4-6 bedrooms totaling about 250 beds—the type of housing based on the units tabulated rented primarily to the college student population. It is fair to say much of these larger rentals are “dormitory” housing rented by college students. The UVM student population peaked in 2010 and Champlain College expects its resident student body of about 2,200 to remain constant while growing its online programming. Given the current vacancies, it is well known the major new dormitory building on the UVM campus set to be occupied next fall will also house about 300 students now housed mostly in Burlington rentals. This likely means another 70-90 rental vacancies will occur by mid-2017 from this change alone.

Student Population Choosing Smaller Rentals?

Another trend—yet to be tested fully—may be students taking advantage of a larger housing supply to reside in 2 or 3 bedroom units rather than 4-6 bedroom arrangements. It is obviously easier and more satisfying for students to make arrangements for a smaller “home share” situation as well as less competition for common areas (kitchens, living rooms, etc.). And pricing increase per bedroom from 2, to 3, to 4 and over bedroom units is about $300 to $400 per bedroom. Until the last year or so the availability of any sized apartment was constrained. Now there appears to be a considerable available vacant units except in the efficiency category.


Burlington with its housing production expansion since 2013 with over 2,000 rentals built, being built or well into the development process has well exceeded its share of a Regional Housing Initiative aimed adding 3,500 housing units in a five year period. And, Burlington is remarkable in providing “affordable” rental housing (affordable including both Public Housing, Section 8 vouchers, and non-profit housing by Champlain Housing Trust and Cathedral). The 2,500 affordable existing or contained in the 2,000 housing units referenced above insure that about 30% of non-student rental households in Burlington reside in “affordable” homes.

The demographics of Chittenden County for 2010-2030 show in population projections a slight decline In those aged under 65 years and a doubling of those aged over 65—senior population growing from 17,400 in 2010 to 36,500 in 2030. This is an increase of almost 900 seniors yearly.

The prime housing needs for Burlington? First and foremost, age restricted housing for the growing senior population. Second, the need is for very low income housing assistance for s somewhat stable non-senior family population and for seniors. The Sinex Mall provides no senior housing and no deep subsidy units benefiting the very low income.

Burlington Town Center

This analysis excludes likely additional housing in a Burlngton Town Center development. The Coalition for a Livable City campaign for a “Better Town Center” advocates for a project within current zoning but with increased proportions of affordable housing units, probably very near the Sinex proposal of 54 units. Overall, total housing units might be reduced to perhaps 150. Clearly there is no need for student housing in newly developed housing in the downtown or elsewhere in the City at this time as both UVM and Champlain College continue to make strides to sharply reduce their dependance on the City housing to supply the needs of their students.

Market for Market Rate Housing?

Clearly the Burlington housing market has changed radically in the past two years. There are questions. In certain housing categories—larger bedroom sizes, for example—the City may be facing a housing glut. Certainly the top one percent will always be served by the “market”--has been (see Lake Street, Westlake, etc., developments). At this point, just adding more units of housing with a plentiful supply (and already set to grow further) of market housing becomes a low priority. And, placing ongoing efforts at more non-profit housing (in all its many varieties) and finding new State and local sources to provide deep subsidies for low income households becomes the major priority for all age groups.

Tony Redington

Burlington "Inclusionary Zoning" Affordable Housing--A Preliminary Analysis


Here are three arbitrarily selected examples of households and maximum rents (rent cap) which would be offered by a landlord for an inclusionary unit of housing. There is cap on how low the rent can be set, and presumably landlords would be somewhat flexible in terms of moving rents lower than the cap rental rate towards the objective of no more than 30% of income by a household for rent (including all utilities). The three households are: (1) a two person household near the income maximum who would pay less than 30% of income under the rent cap, actually 25%; (2) a single individual making $15 an hour who would pay almost 40% of income; and (3) a single parent or couple with one child who occupying a 2 bedroom apartment and in this case paying at the rent cap 37% of income for housing.

Maximum Incomes to Qualify for “Affordable” Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Units

1 Person: $58,800 2 Person $67,200 3 Person $75,600 4 Person $84,000 ….8 Person $110,900

Three different households

(1) Couple with income $50,000 (needs 1 bedroom apartment)
(2) Single person with $31,200 income ($15 an hour) (applies to studio or 1 bedroom apartment)
(3) Single parent or couple with one child $40,000 income (needs 2 bedroom apartment)

Eligible in terms of household income at 100% Burlington median income or less?
(1) Yes ; (2) Yes; (3) Yes

Cap on rent (rent maximum)

For 1 bedroom

Rent cap is 65% of median rent for household size, then multiplied by 0.3 (30% of income to gross rent including all utilities). In this case rent cap calculated, 1.5 persons assumed with 65% set at: 0.65 x [(1 person median income $58,800 plus 2 person median income of $67,200 divided by 2) x (30% or 0.3) or (58,800+67200/2) x 0.3 ] or 0.65 x $63,000 x 0.3 or $12,285 rent maximum yearly ($1,024 monthly). This 1 bedroom rent cap applies to examples (1) and (2)

For 2 bedroom, this analysis assumes 3 persons ($75,600 income) with calculation of rent cap: (Income estimate using 3 person income x 0.65 times 0.3) or ($75,000 x 0.65 x 0.3) or $14,625 yearly or $1,229 monthly. The 2 bedroom rent cap applies in case 

Percent of income paid for rental at rent cap
  1. Couple with $50,000 income $1,024 a month rent 24.6% of income
  2. Single person with $31,200 income
($15 an hour wage) $1,024 monthly rent 39.4% of income.
(3) Single parent or couple with one child
$40,000 income, $1,219 a month rent 36.9% of income