Embedded Files
If Navigation Menu is not displayed on the left side, click on three horizontal bars on the top left below this banner.
Amendment Summary 2022-09-27.pdfLatest Recommendations to the Council on 9/27/2022
Latest Recommendations to the Council on 9/27/2022
County Assistant Attorney Vince Robertson gave a presentation to the Council. His latest amendment recommendations are not the same as what P&Z Commission voted to recommend to the Council.
(By the way, the County is not calling this a Workforce Housing Ordinance anymore, but refers to it as part of the current Sussex County Rental Program -SCRP - in Chapter 72 of the Sussex Code.)
Robertson's recommendations did not even attempt to address the public's concerns about:
lack of public hearings - They did not even consider public comments.
environmental concerns, such as not being in a flood zone and adhering to buffer ordinance
requirement of 100-ft setback
requirement of bike/walking paths
within 1/2 mile to the DART bus stop - in fact, they removed the DART requirement altogether
the unfair rental rates and the acceptance structure that will be largely left to the full discretion of property management companies - more details below.
However, Robertson made it much more palatable to the developers - even more than what P&Z Commission earlier recommended.
Summary of Robertson's Latest recommendations for Amendments:
Summary of Robertson's Latest recommendations for Amendments:
1a. Drop requirements for residency and working in Sussex County, but a preference shall be given to those who have lived or resided in Sussex County for one year preceding application.
1b. The adult tenants do not have to provide proof that they have not been convicted of a felony and have a satisfactory credit and criminal history. But they have to comply with the criminal and credit history requirements for tenants of all leases within the proposed housing development.
2. Sussex County shall commence a comprehensive review of this program on or before January 1, 2028.
Councilman Rieley said 5 years is a long time. Robertson said an annual report might be a good suggestion.
(We agree with Rieley that 5 years is a long enough time for a good amount of damage - without public hearings on the proposals or site plans.)
3. Reduce the requirement of units within a development dedicated to this program from 30% to 25%.
4. Include "Commercial Area,' not Commercial Zone, on the Future Land Use Map in the eligible areas.
5. Remove the requirement of the DART availability but add "The site shall be located within 2,640 feet (1/2 mile) of a Principal Arterial Road, Minor Arterial Road or Major Collector Road as classified by the DelDOT.
(This opened up much wider areas of Sussex County for this program - all red, brown and yellow routes in the map below.)
6. Change the requirement ("shall") of the walking and biking trails in the setback area to a possibility ("may").
7. Reduce the setback from 100-ft to 50-ft if the building height is lower than 42 ft.
8. Sidewalks are required on one side of all streets and the interconnectivity to adjacent walkway systems whenever possible.
9. Delete the requirement of the primary view to be directed to the open space or recreational amenities.
The Ordinance Raises Fundamental Questions
The Ordinance Raises Fundamental Questions
- Eul Lee
Sussex County is considering an amendment to the Sussex County Rental Program (SCRP) of Chapter 72 to provide much-needed rental assistance. But as written is neither fair nor transparent. Due to the wide range of household income eligibility, some families who do not need this program may win the jackpot, while others in dire need may be left out.
I submitted these concerns to the County as my public comments, but they have been ignored.
1. Lack of oversight in the tenant selection process
The code does not specify how the property management companies hired by developers select tenants. There is a mandated annual audit report, but no ongoing oversight exists. The question of fairness will always linger.
While Sussex residents are demanding the County adopt the ethics standards to rid the conflict of interest - to sign the petition, visit sussex2030.com - SCRP is assigning the burden of fair housing to private companies.
2. Lack of easy access to the information on the availabilities
The availability of rental units is to be advertised on DelawareHousingSearch.org or similar sites according to the draft ordinance. What are the 'similar sites'? How often do these financially strapped families check these websites? When there are a limited number of units available, it won't be easy to apply for those available units promptly.
3. Fixed rental rates for all eligible families making 30%-80% of Area Mean Income (AMI)
Here is why the transparency and fairness of this program are essential.
The household size decides the AMI and the rental unit size for each family. Per HUD, Sussex County's AMI for a household of 4 is about $84,000, and eligible household income for SCRP is between $25,000 and $67,000. The unit size for this family can be 1 bedroom + den, 2 bedrooms, or 3 bedrooms.
Rental rates, which are about half of the market rates, for a family of 4 is $10,500 - whether the family makes $25,000 or $67,000 and regardless of rental unit size - per draft ordinance from line 606:
Families making 80% of AMI make 2.66 times the families earning 30% of AMI. Yet, they are paying the same fixed rent.
So what percentage of their income are they paying as rent?
A family earning 30% of AMI ($25,000) will pay 42% of their income - still not affordable! Market rent: about 83% of their income.
A family earning 50% of AMI ($42,000) will pay 25% of their income. Market rent: about 50% of their income.
A family earning 80% of AMI ($67,000) will pay 16% of their income. Market rent: about 31% of their income.
Troublingly, the ordinance allows families whose income grows up to 96% of AMI to continue paying the same rent. Thus, a family of 4 making $80,600 will pay only 13% of their income as rent; the market rent would be about 26% of their income.
Families making 40% of AMI might not get into this program and be forced to pay the market rate, while some lucky others earning up to 96% of AMI may pay the heavily discounted rate. This is simply not equitable.
I welcome any corrections or discussions. My desire is to ensure the appropriate assistance to families in need.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse