The Town of Union is located in Broome County in the southern tier of Upstate New York. The Town of Union includes the incorporated Villages of Endicott and Johnson City as well as the unincorporated areas: Endwell, West Corners, North Endicott, West Endicott, Union Center, Fairmont Park, Westover and Choconut Center. As the birthplace of IBM, the Town of Union continues to be a center of high technology employment.
The Consolidated Plan is a comprehensive planning document that identifies the Town's overall affordable and supportive housing needs, other community development needs and outlines a strategy to address those needs. The Consolidated Plan covers years 1996 through 2000. The Plan includes a description of market and inventory characteristics, an assessment of needs and available resources and sets out a five year strategic plan that establishes priorities for meeting these needs. The Annual Action Plan outlines the intended uses of the $1.8 million of Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG) received in 1996 (FY1995).
In order to engender full citizen participation in the development of the Plan, the Town followed two distinct, but related, processes. The first effort undertaken was the inclusion of the citizens in the identification of needs, both housing and non-housing needs, and the formulation of neighborhood strategic plans. The second and concurrent thrust was the direct input to the Town Board, prior to formulation and approval of the Consolidated Plan.
The neighborhood strategic planning process is an on-going process that will continue past the initial development of the Consolidated Plan. The intent is to develop individual neighborhood strategic plans and then to merge them into a Town-wide Strategic Plan. The Town of Union has and will continue to undertake the following steps to include a wide range of its residents in the identification of housing and non-housing needs and the development of a neighborhood strategic plan. At the initial meeting, the neighborhood strategic planning process and the Consolidated Plan are explained. The Planning Department works with the neighborhood representatives to identify neighborhoods needs and problems, a set of recommendations to meet the needs and a timetable and list of agents to implement the recommendations. Strategic planning sessions were held in Central Endicott, Northside Endicott, Central Johnson City and Southside Johnson City.
The Town, on February 11, 1995, published an advertisement that included the
amount of assistance the Town expects to receive (including CDBG funds and
program income) and the range of activities that may be undertake. On March 15,
1995, a Public Hearing was held to solicit input into the plan development
process. The Town of Union on June 19, 1995, placed an advertisement notifying
the public of the availability of the preliminary Consolidated Plan, the 30 day
period of review and a summary of the Plan. The preliminary Consolidated Plan
was also submitted to the Community Development Citizens Advisory Council for
their recommendation. The Advisory Council, on July 10, 1995, recommended Town
Board approval of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan. The Town of Union Board
held a Public Hearing on the preliminary Consolidated Plan on July 5, 1995.
Full copies of the final Consolidated Plan were made available for public review
on July 20, 1995. The Town of Union Board held a Public Hearing on the final
Consolidated Plan on August 2, 1995. The Town Board of the Town of Union
approved the Consolidated Plan on August 2, 1995.
The Town of Union, in 1990, was the largest municipality in Broome County, its 59,786 people accounting for 28.2% of Broome County's population. The Town's overall population began to decline for the first time during the 1970s. This decline is attributable to the population loss in Endicott during the late 1970s to early 1980s due to the removal of housing units for the expansion of the IBM complex, the natural aging of the population and to severe economic decline, beginning in the late 1980s and continuing into the present.
In the last seven years, the manufacturing sector of the local economy has reeled from plant closings, corporate restructuring and a lack of business. The work force at the IBM Endicott facility was cut by 7,500+ jobs, from 12,500 employees to less than 5,000. Endicott-Johnson laid off 1,300 workers and subsequently, following a merger of its boot manufacturing operations with another company, closed its local operations in 1992. MLI Corporation, Ozalid Corporation and Fair Play Caramels in Johnson City, ceased their local operations.
The poverty rate in 1990 in the Town was 7.9%. Only two census block
groups, in Central Johnson City, had poverty rates over 40%. Ten percent of the
total population with income below the poverty level were minorities, although
the total minority population of the Town is 3.6%.
The full impact of the economic changes and the current level of distress are not reflected in the 1990 Census. The impact on the housing market and conditions is enormous. Obviously, increased unemployment and decreased wages for the employed will create additional cost burden problems for the area and the need for various forms of assistance. Affordability then becomes of paramount importance.
Overall, 13.8% of all families in owner-occupied housing have housing problems. Extremely low- and low-income families, both elderly and non-elderly, have much higher levels of distress than the Town as a whole. While 15.2% of all elderly have housing problems and cost burden greater than 30%, 66.3% of the extremely low-income have housing problems and cost burden greater than 30%. 83.5% of extremely low-income non- elderly families have a housing problem. 81.9% have a cost burden in excess of 30% and 76.4% have a cost burden in excess of 50%. Low-income non-elderly families have similar levels of distress, with 70.6% of the families having a housing problem and 64.4% having a cost burden in excess of 30%. 31.1% have a cost burden in excess of 50%.
Homeownership opportunities for extremely low-, low- and moderate-income households are nearly non-existent. There were no vacant for sale units affordable by households with income below 50% of the MFI and only limited units available to low-income households. It is difficult for people in these income groups to save enough money for a down-payment and closing costs, much less sufficient funds to reduce the mortgage amount to an affordable level.
A greater proportion of renters than owner-occupants have housing problems and cost burden in excess of 30% and 50%. Cost burden appears to be the main problem for renters. 36.7% of renters have housing problems. 35.0% of renters have cost burden in excess of 30% and 17.7% have cost burden in excess of 50%.
The number of housing units in the Town increased by 1,950 units between 1980 and 1990, continuing the trend started in 1960. In 1990 there were 26,345 housing units in the Town. The three housing types with the greatest change were single family detached, single family attached and buildings containing 5 or more units. The greatest increase was in the number of units in buildings containing 5 or more units, an increase of 657 units. Single family detached housing had the second largest increase, an increase of 442 units. Single family attached housing units are a relatively new housing type in the area. The number of single family attached housing units increased by 323 units.
Although the number of owner-occupied housing units has steadily increased since 1960, the proportion of owner-occupancy has decreased. In 1960, there were 13,024 owner- occupied units, 66.1% of occupied units. In 1990, the number of owner-occupied units had increased to 15,173, but the proportion of owner-occupied units had decreased to 61.3% of occupied units.
In the Town, 34% of the housing stock was built prior to 1940. The proportion of the housing stock built prior to 1940 in the Town has been reduced dramatically during the 1980s as a reflection of construction that occurred during that period. The percentage of housing in the Town built after 1940 increased from 56% in 1980 to 65% in 1990.
According to the 1990 Census, less than 10% of the owner-occupied housing in the Town of Union was affordable by extremely low-income people. Less than 20% of all owner- occupied housing in the Town was affordable to low-income people. Vacant for sale units were totally unaffordable by extremely low- and low-income people.
Rents are much less affordable for extremely low-income households. The rent affordable by a extremely low-income household requiring a 3-bedroom unit is $280 per month, 52.4% of the FMR, creating the greatest cost burden. Rents affordable by a extremely low-income household requiring a 2-bedroom unit is $242 per month, 56.7% of the FMR. Rents affordable by a extremely low-income household requiring a 1-bedroom unit is $215, 59.2% of the FMR. And, rents affordable by a extremely low-income household requiring a 0-bedroom unit is $188, 62.9% of the FMR.
The Census data bears out the lack of affordable rental units for renters with extremely low- and low-income. Extremely low-income households requiring 3-bedroom units had only 13.4% of the units affordable. No vacant for rents units were affordable by this household group. Extremely low-income households requiring 2-bedroom units had 7.1% of the units affordable and had 5.1% of the vacant for rent units available. Extremely low- income households requiring 0 and 1-bedroom units had 8.5% of the units affordable and 5.6% of the vacant for rent units affordable.
Low-income households would find only about half the rental housing stock to be affordable. 48.2% of 3-bedroom units, 44.5% of 2-bedroom units and 53.9% of 0 and 1- bedroom units are affordable by low-income households. A similar proportion of vacant for rent units are affordable by low-income households, 61.2%, 60.8% and 57.1% respectively.
The survey indicated that 89 individual households were in shelters or similar facilities in Broome County. The count included 90 adults and 11 children. Of the 89 households reported as homeless, less than half, 48.3%, reported Broome County as the place of residence before their homelessness. The majority of the homeless population from within the County, report Binghamton as their last permanent address, 29.2% of the total reported.
Ten individuals reported the Town of Union as their last place of residence, 11.2% of the total. The average age was 32.7 years old. None of the homeless were in families and there was only one female. Although the homeless population in the Town of Union is small, and there appears to be little difficulty for the population to be served through the existing facilities and service agencies; coordination of efforts will enhance the service delivery system.
The Town of Union has no public housing units. The Town of Union Planning Department administers the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program for the Town of Union and the Town of Vestal. Rental Assistance is provided with 296 Certificates, 20 Moderate Rehabilitation Certificates and 172 Housing Vouchers. The Town of Vestal has 22 Certificates. The programs are almost fully leased. The Town of Union Planning Department also provides tenant based rental assistance under the HOME Program for 15 families.
Other rental assistance programs are operated by MetroInterfaith and SEPP. MetroInterfaith owns three two-family buildings in the Town of Union. SEPP owns and manages two senior housing developments, Marian Apartments in Endwell and Wells Apartments in Johnson City, 103 units and 50 units respectively.
There are three main barriers to affordable housing in the Town of Union: the high cost to purchase and maintain a house, the lack of affordable rental units for extremely low- and low-income people and the overall economic decline of the area.
The economic decline and loss of manufacturing jobs in the area has worsened the barriers to affordable housing. The lack of job opportunities, especially opportunities for jobs with pay levels that are beyond extremely low-, low- and moderate-income levels, creates more competition for the affordable housing units that exist and for the housing programs that assist in making housing units affordable. The reduction in the income generated in the area has created a double burden for the taxing entities. The industrial and commercial sectors of the economy have sought and received substantial reductions in their property assessments, reflecting the downward spiral of such properties. The net result is that the residential properties are required to assume a larger proportion of the tax burden, creating additional problems for the homeowners and rental housing.
There are no current court orders, consent decrees or HUD-imposed sanctions that affect the provision of fair housing remedies.
It is estimated that 6,008 or 24% of the Town's housing units containing lead-based paint are occupied by low- and extremely low-income households. Occupants of housing units with these factors are considered to be at risk for lead poisoning. Of the Town's 14,622 occupied rental units, 23% or 3,428 housing units, are estimated to have the risk for lead poisoning. The proportion of owner-occupied housing units at risk is slightly higher, 26% of the 10,104 housing units or 2,579. During the period 1989 to April 1993, Broome County Health Department reported 70 dwelling units with a child or children with elevated blood levels (10ug/dl or higher). The 70 dwelling units contained 89 children with elevated blood levels.
The influx of refugees into the area, especially in Johnson City, has grown geometrically over the last few years. According to data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, Broome County ranked sixth highest of all counties in New York State for refugee resettlement during 1990 to 1992. It is estimated that 55% of the refugees live in Johnson City. The bulk of the refugees live in Census Tracts 139 and 140. World Relief maintains offices on Main Street in Johnson City to assist the refugees in that area. The agencies report that a major part of the housing problem is related to the lack of standard, affordable large units that can be rented on relatively short notice.
Basic to the betterment of housing and servicing the populations that are dependent is improvement to the local economy. As the proportion of the productive population decreases, the funds available, both privately and publicly, to service the dependent population will decrease, while the needs increase. Increased employment and increased earnings will lessen the affordability gap between income and housing costs. Increased employment will draw additional population and capital to the community, providing funds that can be placed in agencies and in projects to service the dependent population. So while economic development in itself is not a housing issue, it is a solution to many of the housing problems. The economic development needs can be placed in three critical areas: the redevelopment of industrial sites, financial assistance for small businesses and improvements to the two downtown areas.
The recent economic decline of the area has exacerbated the problem of facility and infrastructure improvements. As the County, State and Federal governments decreased local revenue and increased mandates, increased pressures for property tax revenues have to be offset against the decreasing ability of the residents and commercial/industrial property owners to pay for same. Priority must be given to those facility and infrastructure improvements that meet mandated requirements, meet basic health and safety issues and have a long term benefit in reducing maintenance and operating costs.
The public service needs have two main foci, assistance to the elderly and
the handicapped to maintain their independence and assistance to extremely low-,
low-and moderate-income people to encourage them to become employed and self
sufficient.
The five-year strategic plan brings needs and resources together in a coordinated housing and community development strategy. The Strategic Plan is meant to achieve the statutory goals of providing decent housing, creating suitable living environments and expanding economic opportunities, principally for extremely low-, low- and moderate- income people.
Priority 1
Provide extremely low- and low-income renters rental assistance to alleviate
rent cost burden and excessive rent cost burden, provide all renters with a
choice of standard, affordable rental units and reinforce the continued
maintenance of rental properties through proper management practices.
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE | EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HH | LOW-INCOME HH | MODERATE- INCOME HH |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIRECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE | 350* | 20* | 0* |
| RENTAL REHABILITATION | 60 | 20 | 20 |
| PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES | 20 | 20 | 10 |
| MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE | 0 | 25 | 15 |
*Does not include elderly households
Priority 2
Promote homeownership as the preferred form of housing tenure by promoting
the development of new affordable housing, by maintaining the existing
affordable housing stock and by providing financial assistance for the purchase
and maintenance of the housing stock.
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE | EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HH | LOW-INCOME HH | MODERATE- INCOME HH |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOUSING REHABILITATION | 70 | 60 | 20 |
| MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE | 0 | 60 | 20 |
Priority 3
Provide the elderly with housing opportunities and support service to
maintain their independence.
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE | EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HH | LOW-INCOME HH | MODERATE- INCOME HH |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOUSING REHABILITATION | 70 | 60 | 20 |
| RENTAL REHABILITATION | 35 | 5 | 0 |
| DIRECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE | 275 | 5 | 0 |
| SUPPORTIVE SERVICES | 50 | 10 | 0 |
Priority 4
Promote the provision of additional outreach services, supportive housing
and permanent housing for the homeless population.
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE | EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HH | LOW-INCOME HH | MODERATE- INCOME HH |
|---|---|---|---|
| RENTAL REHABILITATION | 60* | 20* | 20* |
| DIRECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE | 310* | 20* | 0* |
| SUPPORTIVE SERVICES | 10 | 0 | 0 |
* Does not differentiate between at-risk population and general population. Units noted not in addition to units noted under Priority 1
Priority 5
Provide additional affordable housing units and support services for persons
with a wide range of special needs.
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE | EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HH | LOW-INCOME HH | MODERATE- INCOME HH |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOUSING REHABILITATION | 10 | 5 | 2 |
| RENTAL REHABILITATION | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| DIRECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE | 50 | 20 | 0 |
| SUPPORTIVE SERVICES | 50 | 10 | 0 |
| MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE | 2 | 10 | 3 |
Priority 6
Provide the proper facilities and infrastructure in the older neighborhoods
to eliminate blight and to reduce the number of deteriorated and deteriorating
housing units in a manner as to prevent undue increases in local property taxes.
Construction of new recreational/community building, expansion of public parking lots as tied to the continued economic vitality of the Endicott and Johnson City downtown areas, construction of building housing Town Justices, Courts and State Police, remedial action covering the closure of Endicott landfill, street reconstruction in CDBG Target Areas to compliment housing rehabilitation activities and street lighting improvements, including the removal of unnecessary street lights and the replacement of heads with more energy efficient units.
Priority 7
Provide services and support for the elderly and other extremely low-, low-
and moderate- income people. This can be accomplished by providing social
services, recreational opportunities, housing services, counseling, training and
transportation.
Health, nutrition, education and counseling through Senior and Community Centers and specific handicapped service agencies and counseling, training, education and support services by agencies providing such skills needed to increase employability of clients.
Priority 8
Improve the Town's economy by promoting new and expanded industrial and
commercial enterprises, retaining existing enterprises and redeveloping existing
commercial and industrial facilities in order to further diversify the economic
base and to provide for increased employment on a permanent basis.
Town of Union Business Assistance Program, Site Preparation Loan/Grant Program and technical assistance to Downtown Areas.
The Town of Union is seeking to reduce the number of households with income below the poverty level by providing employment opportunities within the Town and by coordinating housing efforts with other service agencies in order to assure that the households below the poverty level can take advantage of the job creation activities.
The most significant step to be taken to assist in the reduction of poverty within the Town was the July 27, 1994 designation as an Economic development Zone. The Economic Development Zone designation required that an economic development plan and a human resources plan for the Zone be developed. The economic development plan provides an inventory of available space as well as needed infrastructure improvements, tax incentives and other financial and non-financial assistance for development and expansion of jobs in the Zone. The human resources plan requires the coordination and expansion of job training, child care services, various social services and housing services to assist Zone residents in becoming fully employed and able to get the jobs being created in the Zone. The Economic Development Zone includes the central areas of Johnson City and Endicott. The Town of Union is looking to take a similar holistic approach in implementing its various economic development and housing programs.
The primary source of funding is the Community Development Block Grant. The Town of Union is not an entitlement community for other federal programs. The Town is eligible to apply for HOME funding through the allocation to New York State. Some of the infrastructure improvements, such as the landfill closure and construction of the justice building, are being funded by the local municipalities through bond issues.
The Town of Union is fortunate in that the primary housing agencies in the
Town of Union are the same. The Community Development Block Grant
administrating agency, the Public Housing Agency and, to a degree, the Town of
Union Housing Authority are all the Town of Union Planning Department. The Town
of Union Planning Department also is involved with other service agencies, as
either a source of financing or as a representative of a housing or economic
development agency.
| 1. | Section 8 Rental Assistance Program: | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 30 households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Town-wide | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The on-going program is administered by the Town of Union Planning Department. | |||
| 2. | Multifamily Residential Rehabilitation Program (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 10 households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Town-wide | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The on-going program is administered by the Town of Union Planning Department. | |||
| 3. | Bridges I: The Bridges I Program seeks to purchase and rehabilitate rental units and to provide a rental subsidy to allow tenancy by extremely low income households. The participating households must be enrolled in an educational and/or training program. | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 8 Households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Central Endicott | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The program will be administered by the Endicott Housing Association | |||
| 4. | Weatherization Improvement Program: | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 30 households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Town-wide | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The on-going program is administered by Tioga Opportunities | |||
| 5. | Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 30 households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Town-wide | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The on-going program is administered by the Town of Union Planning Department. | |||
| 6. | Homeowner Mortgage Assistance Program (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 15 households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Town-wide | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The on-going program is administered by the Town of Union Planning Department. | |||
| 7. | Multifamily Mortgage Assistance Program (CDBG FUNDED): The Multifamily Mortgage Assistance Program provides financial assistance for first time homebuyers to purchase multifamily buildings, buildings containing three or more units). | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 5 households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Town-wide | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The on-going program is administered by the Town of Union Planning Department. | |||
| 8. | Bridges II : The Bridges II Program seeks to purchase and rehabilitate rental units and to provide a rental subsidy to allow tenancy by extremely low-income households that are either coming out of transitional housing, sheltered or are 'at-risk'. | ||
| Number of Households To Be Assisted: | 6 Households (HH) | ||
| Geographic Distribution: | Central Endicott | ||
| Service Delivery and Management: | |||
| The program will be administered by the Endicott Housing Association | |||
| 9. | Recreation Building Construction: | ||
| 10. | Parking Facilities (CDBG FUNDED): As part of the strategic plan to revitalize the Endicott downtown area, the parking facilities need to be resurfaced and striped to facilitate convenient off street parking. | ||
| 11. | Town Court/State Police Construction: | ||
| 12. | Endicott Landfill: | ||
| 13. | Street Reconstruction (CDBG FUNDED): The reconstruction of streets within Community Development Target Areas, augmenting the housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization efforts. | ||
| 14. | Street Lighting: Town of Union is embarking on a program of reducing operating and maintenance costs by removing unneeded, excess lighting structures and replacing the retained lighting standards with new more energy efficient fixtures. | ||
| 15. | Senior Services (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 16. | Handicapped Services (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 17. | Youth Services (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 18. | Day Care Services (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 19. | Health Services (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 20. | Town of Union Business Assistance Program (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 21. | Site Preparation Loan Program (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 22. | Site Preparation Grant Program (Section 108 Loan Guarantee Repayment)(CDBG FUNDED): | ||
| 23. | Economic Development Technical Assistance (CDBG FUNDED): | ||
MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas.
MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects.
MAP 6 depicts proposed HUD funded projects at street level.
MAP 7 depicts proposed HUD funded projects at street level; in addition, a table provides information about the project(s).
Harold Roth
PH: (607) 754-2102
