Lee is correct; most Vermont municipalities have severely aging infrastructure, water, wastewater, stormwater, and road. New developments place new stresses on these. These need to be considered.
Paul is also correct; we need to find ways to reduce the cost of development. In my greater than 40 years in engineering, we see the cost of development driven by the growth in regulations, the bureaucracy, the redundancy, permit fees, and the unquantified risk to developers in negotiating the Act 250 process and the DEC process. The cost of aging infrastructure is another component.
Blair J. Enman, PE, Founding Partner
Seeking Cost Effective Solutions since 1982
61 Prospect Street
Rutland, VT 05701
(802) 775-3437
From: vtdevelopment-manager@simplelists.com [mailto:vtdevelopment-manager@simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Lee Krohn
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:15 PM
To: vtdevelopment@simplelists.com; freddieb.fb@gmail.com
Cc: Robin Scheu <rpscheu@addisoncountyedc.org>; Chris Knapp <cknapp@chp.com>; Sarah Cowan <SCOWAN@NBMVT.COM>; Joel Schwartz <jschwartz@badc.com>
Subject: RE: [VT Dev] H702 -- Workforce housing bill
Not debating the important issues raised, but just a friendly suggestion of logic: this latest comment/concept may reduce the cost of development to the developer, but the ‘community infrastructure’ to be paid for by the community can be seen as just a different type of subsidy or cost shift.
Perhaps these very real and essential costs should be shared in some fashion, since both housing and community need each other, and neither can exist successfully without the other.
LK
Lee A. Krohn, AICP
Senior Planner
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404
(802) 846-4490 ext. *30
Direct Line 802.861.0118
From: vtdevelopment-manager@simplelists.com [mailto:vtdevelopment-manager@simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Paul Ralston
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:47 PM
To: freddieb.fb@gmail.com
Cc: vtdevelopment@simplelists.com; Robin Scheu <rpscheu@addisoncountyedc.org>; Chris Knapp <cknapp@chp.com>; Sarah Cowan <SCOWAN@NBMVT.COM>; Joel Schwartz <jschwartz@badc.com>
Subject: Re: [VT Dev] H702 -- Workforce housing bill
Hi All,
It’s great to have input for our legislators on this important initiative. Our ACEDC board set this idea in motion, and we can expect a lot of discussion leading inevitably to some kind of compromise. Our first objective is to make sure legislators know that workforce housing is an serious issue, so anyone who can speak out should be encouraged to do so.
I have attached a one-pager that reflects my personal perspective and not necessarily ACEDC’s consensus opinion. What I took away from meeting with developers is that:
* Communities need to identify suitable sites for various housing development options that meet local zoning regs.
* The land must be made available for development with NO additional permitting costs.
* The ‘community infrastructure’ (roads, sidewalks, water, sewer, stormwater, etc.) must be paid for by ‘the community’, not the developer.
My personal thesis can be summed up this way: Workforce housing is made affordable not by income subsidies or cost shifts, but by reducing the cost of development.
If we can’t do that, I think we will still have a major problem.
Vermont Development Community Listserv - brought to you by White + Burke
Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. To post to this list, simply
address your email to vtdevelopment@simplelists.com. To unsubscribe from
this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com.
Vermont Development Community Listserv - brought to you by White + Burke
Real Estate Investment Advisors, Inc. To post to this list, simply
address your email to vtdevelopment@simplelists.com. To unsubscribe from
this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=KRmVqyHyKh3WNZaM43giAfnSwe1B7E6r.