Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 04/04/2022AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 180 Market Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Participation Options In Person: 180 Market Street - Auditorium - Main Floor Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request Electronically: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-council4-04-2022 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (669) 224-3412 Access Code: 822-381-621 Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, April 4, 2022 1.Pledge of Allegiance (6:30 PM) 2.Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options –Jessie Baker, City Manager (6:31 – 6:32 PM) 3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (6:33 – 6:34 PM) 4.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda (6:35 – 6:45 PM) 5.Announcements and City Manager’s Report (6:45 – 6:55 PM) 6.Consent Agenda: (6:55 – 7:00 PM) A.*** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.*** Approve minutes from February 22, March 3rd and March 21,2022 CC Meetingsand Steering committee minutes from February 28, 2022 C.***Approve grant application request by the Natural Resources and ConservationCommittee to submit an Association of Vermont Conservation Commissions grantD.***Approve VTRANS Grant Application for the paving of Dorset Street 7. Select the City's Top Dog and First Feline – Donna Kinville, City Clerk (7:00 – 7:15 PM) 8. ***Consider approval of a Resolution Condemning the Invasion of Ukraine – City Council(7:15 – 7:30 PM) 9.*** Receive a presentation on a Declaration of Inclusion and consider adoption:https://vtdeclarationofinclusion.org/ - Andrew Bolduc, Deputy City Manager (7:30 – 8:00PM) 10.Interviews with applicants for mid-term appointment to the Planning Commission,Development Review Board, and Public Arts Committee (8:00 – 8:45 PM) 11. *** Approve a fund balance allocation from the Sewer Fund for headworks repairs at the Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Plant – Tom Dipietro, Public Works Director (8:45 – 9:05 PM) 12. *** Receive draft amendments to Land Development Regulations (General Planned Unit Development & Site Amenities) and consider warning a public hearing – Paul Connor, Planning and Zoning Director (9:05 – 9:45 PM) A. *** Received proposed modifications to these amendments from Councilor Cota 13. *** Consider prioritizing adopting a Short-Term Rental Ordinance and associated implementation steps – Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair City Councilor (9:45 – 10:15 PM) 14. *** Convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following: Parkway Diner, First Class & Third-Class Restaurant/Bar License; Silver Palace, First Class & Third-Class Restaurant/Bar License; Walgreen’s #11526, Second Class License - (10:15 – 10:25 PM) 15. Possible executive session to consider applications for appointment to South Burlington Boards, Commissions and Committees and deliberative session. (10:25 PM – 11:00 PM) 16. Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments (11:00 – 11:10 PM) 17. Other Business (11:10 – 11:15 PM) 18. Adjourn (11:15 PM) Respectfully Submitted: Jessie Baker City Manager *** Attachments Included Champlain Water District Check/Voucher Register - Check Report by Fund From 4/5/2022 Through 4/5/2022 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Check Amount Invoice Number 4/5/2022 4388 Champlain Water District Invoices 252.56 SBWD-377 4/5/2022 Champlain Water District SBWD Water Consumption - March 2022 119,705.76 SBWDCONSUMP-033122 4/5/2022 4389 FirstLight Fiber Account 101167 20.95 11090656 4/5/2022 4390 F.W. Webb Company Meter Valves 677.10 75316481 4/5/2022 4391 Ti-Sales, Inc.Battery Pack 289.00 INV0141296 Total 70 - South Burlington Water Department 120,945.37 Report Total 120,945.37 70 - South Burlington Water Department SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Page: 1 CITY COUNCIL 2022 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, February 22, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Machar, Finance Director; A. Parker; B. Gilmore, P. Blizzard, E. Shait, D. Wheeler, L. Bailey, B. Sirvis, Z. Davisson, T. Getz, Wayne, B. Britt, S Dooley, S. Dopp 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology option: Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology options. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: There were no comments or questions from the public. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Mr. Barritt: Reported on the Queen City Park bike/ped scoping meeting. A public hearing will be held soon. The big issue is the bridge. In a recent examination it was found to be not high enough, and the decking is unacceptable. A sidewalk is not on the Act 250 plan. There would have to be a shared path on one side or paths on both sides. Ms. Emery asked about UMall plans. Ms. Baker said there is an LOI to purchase the Mall with conditions. She has met with them several times and anticipates closure in the next month or so. The potential buyer has a lot of experience with this type of development and is looking at 24/7 use of the site. Ms. Emery also asked about air B&Bs taking housing stock off the market and about people owning several of these to avoid property taxes. Ms. Baker said she did not see a tax impact, but this is a hot topic at the State level. A rental registry, if it happens, would have an impact. The segment of a property that is being rented would be subject to that registry. Sen. CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 2 Chittenden said he is still optimistic a rental registry will happen. He added that if the State doesn’t have one, South Burlington should. Ms. Emery noted she received links from Nick Longo regarding schedules of houses to be noise- addressed. Ms. Baker: She and Mr. Conner spoke about how a rental registry could be implemented in the city. One suggestion is to relate it to the Energy Code. This will take future planning. COVID cases are decreasing with 49 new cases in the city this week. Seven solar panels were lost or damaged by recent winds. The repair people were on site within 40 minutes and have installed a new brace on each panel. The building is fully open again. The Planning Commission is considering warning a public hearing next month on LDR updates. These could get to the Council in April. The Fire Department has teamed with UVM regarding crisis situations and the ability to talk directly with a doctor. Piloting that program will begin in March. South Burlington is the first municipality to receive an updated MS-4 permit. The final tax installment is due on 15 March. Voting has begun in the city. Requested ballots can be brought to City Hall or to the polls on Election Day. The self-checkout is working well at the Library. The next Council meeting will be on 28 February. It will be fully virtual. The Council organizational meeting will be on 3 March, 6:30 p.m. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursements b. Approve minutes of 3 January, 10 January, and 18 January from City Council meetings and 24 January from Steering Committee meeting CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 3 c. Award Bid for Kennedy Drive Crosswalk (at Twin Oaks) Project d. Authorize staff to execute the Stormwater System Engineering Agreement with Queensbury Road Housing Limited Partnership, 30 Community Drive, 55 Community Drive, Technology Park Campus, LLC; Greentree Owners Area Association, Inc.; Heathcote Associates, L.P.; The Windjammer Hospitality Group, LLC; Rice Memorial High School; and Ethan Allen Industrial Park Stormwater Management Association, Inc. Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Cota seconded. Ms. Emery asked if there are plans to upgrade Wheeler House to be more energy efficient. Mr. Bolduc said it is an old building, but it is being talked about. Mr. Barritt asked about an expense item for tires. Mr. Bolduc said he would check on that. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 6. (previously #16) Receive an update on the tenancy of 19 Gregory Drive: Ms. Baker reviewed the background of tenancy at 19 Gregory Drive. One tenant, who has leased 7200 sq. ft. at a front corner left the building in 2020 to go fully remote. They have been on a month-to-month lease which resulted in $116,000 a year to the city. With their leaving, real estate people have been engaged to look for a new tenant. The space is next to the space being reserved for Regional Dispatch. The City Council will be asked to execute any leases. 7. Public Hearing on CDBG application and possible approval of the grant application following the public hearing: Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Baker said this is an application for a Community Block Grant similar to previous grants (e.g. Allard Square). Summit Properties is the developer of affordable housing. Mr. Conner then explained the process. Mr. Getz of Summit Properties said they are asking the city’s support of their application for $1,000,000 grant to be awarded in June. They have an option on 2 lots (#10 and #11) of the CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 4 O’Brien project. There will be 2 buildings with a total of 71 affordable units and 23 market rate units. The tenants of the affordable units will include those at risk and formerly homeless. Mr. Getz then showed a plan of the area and identified the lots in question. He also showed an aerial view of the area and indicated the location of the lots. The buildings will be about 10,000 sq. ft. with parking and some underground parking and some space for outdoor amenities. Mr. Getz then showed a rendering of the buildings as approved by the DRB. All heating will be with electric mini-splits. Mr. Getz said they have built similar buildings in Winooski, both of which are full and operating very well. They manage the buildings and also provide support services for tenants. Mr. Getz then showed a slide indicating all of their potential funding sources to achieve the total cost of $27,000,000. Mr. Conner noted that the affordable units are more than what is required to be built in this project. Mr. Getz noted they have a finance compliance team and are liable if the violate the affordability restraints and supportive services. Ms. Baker said the question to the Council is whether they believe in this project enough to prioritize the funding. She noted there is not another applicant in this funding round. Mr. Cota said the commitment of Mr. Getz and his team is remarkable. Mr. Barritt agreed, but he was concerned with the lack of solar. Mr. Getz said they are planning some off-site solar to offset usage from these buildings and others. Mr. Barritt suggested looking at the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Ms. Riehle asked about the company’s track record in receiving funding. Mr. Getz said their reputation and experience is excellent, and this project checks all the boxes. Ms. Riehle asked if there will be any blasting. Mr. Getz said there are none of those challenges on this site. Ms. Dooley advised that the Affordable Housing Committee voted in support of this application at the DRB. She supports it as an individual as well. Ms. Dopp asked about mixing prices throughout the whole development, not just in 2 buildings. Mr. Conner said the affordability requirement came in after the other phases were built. There is a requirement for the affordable units to be built no later than the middle of the 6 buildings, but these are actually being built first. He added that 49 affordable units are required for the project, and they are exceeding that number. CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 5 Ms. Emery moved to approve the grant application as presented. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Receive the FY21 Audit from RHR Smith: Ms. Gilmore, Lead Auditor for RHR Smith presented the audit. She noted there were no difficulties or disagreements during the audit. She then reviewed the sections of the audit and recommended that Council members read the management discussion and analysis. The budget sheet for general operations shows a balance increase of $1,000,000, which, Ms. Gilmore said, is typical of what they are seeing during COVID times. Sen. Chittenden said this is the best audit he has seen since he has been on the Council. Ms. Gilmore said the audit has resulted in an unmodified opinion, which is the best you can have. It is a clean audit and a lot to be proud of. The Management Letter does indicate some areas for improvement, one of which is a recommendation to adapt to updates regarding federal procurement. Mr. Bolduc noted that this all happened in a pandemic and with the loss of a financial director. He praised the audit process this year. 9. Consider and possible approval of 3-year audit contract for RHR Smith: Ms. Machar said that there was an RFP issued as a good practice after a few years. It was posted on numerous sites, but resulted in only one proposal from RHR Smith. The selection committee, including a School Board representative, did an interview, and based upon that, decided to go with RHR Smith. Mr. Barritt then moved to award a 3-year contract for audit services to RHR Smith. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. City Pension Asset Update – Net Performance Report from the City’s Pension Fund Manager: Mr. Blizzard advised that the portfolio has returned 12.89% for the year. He then reviewed specific areas of investment, noting the volatility of the U.S. Equity Market (down 9+%) and CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 6 strong returns from the international markets. The big loser for the year was Emerging Markets. Mr. Blizzard noted that inflation, which is at 7.5%, is a big part of the current picture representing a dramatic change from the 3rd quarter of last year. Mr. Blizzard said some volatility is to be expected due to the Ukranian situation. 11. City Pension Actuarial Update – FY 21 Pension Valuation: Mr. Bolduc said 2021 was an exceptional year, and the city’s portfolio increased significantly. Mr. Shait noted the increase was 26.6% compared to the assumed 7.25%. Mr. Shait then reviewed actuarial funding methods and noted that they use the entry age normal method to keep things smooth over time. The recommended contribution for the coming year is #1,029,383 which is a decrease from the previous year ($1,313,000). Mr. Shait noted this plan is frozen and there will be no new employees participating. Amortization decreases each year, so by 2039, the plan will no longer exist. The plan is currently funded at 102% for present value of accrued benefits and at 98.58% on an entry age normal basis. Mr. Shait then showed a chart comparing funding ratios. The average public plan is funded at 85%, VMERS at 86%, The City of Burlington at 70%, and St. Albans at 54%. Sen. Chittenden said this is remarkable and noted that Kevin Dorn and Tom Hubbard stewarded the city to a very good place. Mr. Shait said the assumed retirement age for public safety employees is 53 and for non-public safety employees 65. There are 78 active employees in the play (which will decrease as people retire or leave). The average service is 15.97 years for non-public safety and 13.65 for public safety employees. The average active age of public safety employees is 41.14 years and 56.32 years for non-public safety. The average retirement age for public safety employees is 64.36 and for non-public safety employees 75.07. 12. Discuss funding received from the American Recovery Plan Act, discuss values for the use of these funds, and consider possible processes for moving forward: CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 7 Mr. Bolduc advised that the city can collect the full amount of lost revenue. Ms. Baker added that the funds must be allocated by the end of 2024 and used by the end of 2026. Mr. Barritt suggested uses such as affordable housing, solar panels, and purchasing property. He asked if the School District has received funds. Mr. Bolduc said they have, but he didn’t know what plans they have for those funds. Mr. Barritt said people are screaming for school construction. Mr. Bolduc said the Council can get ideas from committees and from community engagement (public hearings, surveys, etc.). One question to consider is whether to allocate all the funds to one project or to spread them over time. Ms. Emery was concerned with acrimony among committees and was concerned with having them “compete” for funds. Mr. Barritt noted the city is in a good position now and questioned where there is stress: public safety?, quality of life for employees?, quality of life for the rest of the city? Ms. Riehle felt the best use would be for something that has a long-term value. Sen. Chittenden agreed and suggested something like a one-time investment in infrastructure that would impact all the residents. And a pool. Ms. Riehle noted that would result in future carrying costs. Mr. Bolduc noted the mental health crisis as a result of COVID. Ms. Baker suggested giving committees some parameters and asking what would be best for the city. Mr. Cota said there are probably things the Council hasn’t thought of. He would like to hear ideas from committees and from the general public as well. Ms. Baker said the Council can charge staff with creating process to bring in March for use of $3,000,000 since the Council has already allocated $1,000,000 toward affordable housing. Sen. Chittenden said some of the funds could be used for small parks and other amenities near affordable housing. Ms. Riehle said she would like to see affordable home ownership which creates a way out of poverty and also creates community. CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 8 Ms. Emery suggested redeveloping buildings to make them livable and affordable. Members were agreed on the funds for affordable housing. Mr. Cota said there will have to be a partner to commit to that. Ms. Baker suggested taking staff and the Affordable Housing Committee with a way to spend $1,000,000 on affordable housing. Staff can them come back with a process for spending the balance. 13. Receive the January 2021 Financial Statements: Ms. Machar said revenues are at 62% of projections (which is ahead of schedule) and expenses at 54%. Mr. Bolduc said they will bring a more detailed report every month. 14. Consider and possible approval of a Charter Committee Resolution to expand membership and request review of governance models: Ms. Emery moved to approve the Charter Committee Resolution as presented. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Ms. Baker noted that School Board representatives can be other than elected, active members. She stressed that this is not a move to get “all resident” voting. Sen. Chittenden said he thought that more City Councilors and School Board members were needed to spread the work. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. 15. Convene as South Burlington Liquor Control Board to consider the following: Always Full Asian Market, LLC, 2nd Class License; Bliss Bee, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar License and Outside Consumption Permit; Bueno y Sano, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar License; Cheese Traders & Wine Sellers, 2nd Class License; Gracey’s Liquor Store, 2nd Class License; Gracey’s Store & Deli, 2nd Class License; GreenMountain Suites Hotel, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar License & Outside Consumption Permit; Guild Tavern, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar License; Hannaford Supermarket & Pharmacy, 2nd Class License; Healthy Living Market and Café, 2nd Class License; Jiffy Mart #468 (Kennedy Drive), 2nd Class License; Old Post, LLC (The), 1st Class & Third Class Restaurant/Bar License & Outside Consumption Permit(s) and Entertainment License; Simon’s Store & Deli (Shelburne Road), 2nd Class License; Skinny Pancake CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBURARY 2022 PAGE 9 at the Airport, 1st Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License, Vermont Pool and Bar, 1st Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License and Outside Consumption Permit, Weird Window Brewing, 1st Class Restaurant/Bar License and Outside Consumption Permit Ms. Emery moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery moved to approve the License renewals as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Sen. Chittenden abstaining. Ms. Emery moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 16. Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments: Ms. Emery: The Airport Rezoning Task Force held a public meeting. Sentiment at that meeting was overwhelming against the Airport’s request. One landlord spoke about her tenants across from the Airport land and not having her tenants’ lives further harmed. Ms. Emery spoke of the need to engage with these tenants and with underserved populations in the city. Mr. Cota: There will be service cuts from Green Mountain Transit beginning 7 March. These will affect service on Shelburne Road, the Montpelier route, St. Albans route, Jeffersonville route, and a modified Williston/Essex route. This is temporary, but it will affect people getting to/from their jobs. There will be outreach to alert people to these cuts. Mr. Cota also noted there is no settlement with rural drivers. Ms. Riehle asked whether the city’s financial commitment will go down with the cuts. Mr. Cota said it will not. 17. Other Business: No other business was presented. 18. Consider entering executive session for the purposes of discussing possible land acquisition and conducting the City Manager’s annual evaluation: CITY COUNCIL 22 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 10 Mr. Barritt moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss possible land acquisition and the City Manager’s annual evaluation, inviting Ms. Baker and Mr. Conner into the land acquisition session and Ms. Baker into the evaluation session. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council entered executive session at 9:51 p.m. Following the Executive Session, as there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk STEERING COMMITTEE 28 FEBRUARY 2022 The South Burlington Steering Committee held a public meeting on Monday, 28 February 2022, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and by remote participation. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Steering Committee Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden; J. Baker, City Manager SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Lalonde, B. Burkhardt, A. McHenry, Dr. T. Child; D. Young, Superintendent of Schools ALSO PRESENT: A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; G. Marchres, School District Director of Operations and Finance; V. Nichols, Executive Director of Learing; D. Kinville, City Clerk; M. Lyons, City Assessor; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Chief S. Burke, Police Department; H. Rees, Director of Recreation; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; J. Murray, Librarian; C. Holm, A. Parker, C. Ingalls, V. Bolduc, M. Machia, S. O’Brien, C. Trombly, D. Boyle, G. Yandow, JG, L. Bailey, R. Joy, W. Coleman, C. Tillinghast, C. Jaede, M. Mott, D. Bugbee, J. Francis, K. Bailey, P. Engels, C. Stabler, L. Rowntree, S Dooley, K. Lange, Michelle, D. Shiman, H. Linda, M. Boyer, Denise, B. Companion A. Chalnick, C. Miner 1. Instructions on Exiting the Building in Case of an Emergency and technology options : Ms. Baker provided instructions on exiting the building in an emergency and reviewed options for attending meetings remotely. Ms. Riehle asked those in attendance to take a moment to think of the Ukraine and to hope that there is a sane outcome without significant bloodshed to events happening there. 2. Presentation of City FY23 Budget: Ms. Riehle noted the City Council began building the budget back in September. Their main issues to focus on were a sensitivity to tax increase, the impact of inflation, the needs of 180 Market Street, and recovery from COVID. Ms. Baker then introduced the budget, noting that it is the result of many hours of work on the part of City staff, the Administrative Team, and the City Council. She said the budget focuses on the tax rate, recovery of functions to pre-pandemic levels, meeting the needs of 180 Market Street, funding critical pandemic-deferred expenses, and incrementally refunding the CIP. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Bolduc then reviewed the fixed liabilities. He noted that all three collective bargaining units are renegotiating contracts. The forecast is for a 5% inflation figure. There is a 7% increase in the group health plan. Mr. Bolduc noted that the city is self-insured and has collected significant savings because of that. There is also an increase in the amount for “Pennies for Paths” and “Pennies for Open Space” due to the reappraisal. The total City FY23 budget is 28,400,000 of which $18,000,000 is to be raised from property taxes. The represents a 6.27% increase of which 5.1% is from operating expenses. The balance is from the “pennies” items. The average single family home will see an increase in taxes of $118.00 for the year, and the average condo will see an increase of $80.00 for the year. Mr. Bolduc then reviewed some specific budget items and personnel updates. There will be 2 new positions at 180 Market Street, a handy person who will serve both 180 Market Street and the Gregory Drive Police Station building, and a new Library person. The need to improve technology infrastructure will be addressed with body cameras for Police and additional information technology. Mr. Bolduc also explained the use of ARPA (American Recovery Plan) dollars to address deferred capital expenses including an ambulance and dispatch consoles. There is still $4,000,000 of ARPA money to be allocated, and there will be community outreach to determine its best use for the community. Ms. Baker then showed a pie chart of how expenditures are broken out. She then reviewed city revenues of which 63% is from property taxes and 37% from sources including local option taxes (which have returned to pre-pandemic levels), increased permitting, and ARPA fund. Ms. Baker noted that the “pennies” items are being separated from the regular budget. She explained that because of reappraisal, the 1 cent taxes raised more money and thus added $95,000 to each fund. Mr. Bolduc then reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan which projects capital expenses over $10,000. It includes a reserve for 180 Market Street, increased paving ($50,000, of which $30,000 will be for recreation paths), park improvements ($65,000) which were cut during COVID. The total increase for utility rates for FY23 is $16.00 for water, sewer and stormwater. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 3 Mr. Bolduc then enumerated the emerging issues including inflation, union contracts, regional dispatch, Climate Action Plan and funding of CIP needs. Ms. Baker again thanked all city staff who helped to develop the budget. She noted that information can be found on the city’s website. Public comments or questions were then solicited. Mr. Miner asked what ARPA is. Mr. Bolduc explained it is the American Rescue Plan Act related to COVID. Mr. Miner noted that costs are going through the roof and asked what will happen when ARPA stops. Mr. Bolduc said the city can use $4,000,000 of ARPA money in future years to ease that burden. 3. Presentation of FY23 School Budget: Supt. Young said that like the City budget, work on the School budget begins in September and even earlier if they can get information from the State. The FY23 budget takes into account use of recovery money to help emerge from the pandemic. These funds need to be expended within a proscribed time period. Supt. Young then enumerated the goals that students are expected to achieve in order to be successful as they move on. These include the disposition for lifelong learning, academic proficiency, personal development and citizenship. Factors impacting the FY23 budget include: inflation, response to increasing enrollment (especially at Marcotte and Orchard schools which are each over capacity by 100 or more students), negotiations with 3 bargaining units, and the labor shortage. State factors include the CLA, which is now at 100%, and a decrease in the number of equalized pupils. The anticipated yield (set by the State) is $12,937 per pupil. Mr. Marchres then explained the property tax formula as it relates to education spending. He also noted that the proposed FY23 budget will result in a $24.00 tax increase for the year for the average condo owner and $36.000 for the average single family home owner. Supt. Young said they are working to provide better enrollment projections. The total school population projection for FY23 is 2566 which is an increase from 2536 in FY22. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 4 Ms. Nichols then reviewed the local additions to the FY 23 budget including an Executive Director of Equity, two additional Assistant Principals (who will be shared among the elementary schools), playground upgrade at Gertrude Chamberlin School, utilities, and a cleaning contract. She also noted that the administrative offices have been moved to 575 Dorset Street which will result in some costs. Supt. Young addressed facilities stewardship and noted that there was a lot that could not be done in FY22 when there was limited accessibility to school buildings. Those needs will be addressed in FY23. The Superintendent also reviewed the Master Planning outline as follows: Phase 1 – 2023-2024: Address emergent elementary enrollment issues Phase 2 - 2024-2025: Address SBHS options Phase 3 - 2026-2027: Address FHT Middle School options Phase 4 - 2026-2030: Explore property available for future school options Supt. Young said the hope is that there will be money from the State and from impact fees to offset the costs involved. Ms. Nichols noted that 68% of South Burlington households receive some level of income sensitivity. Supt. Young then showed a chart indicating the homestead tax rate history. The 10-year average is -0.31%. He also showed a chart of comparative per pupil spending, noting that South Burlington falls right about in the middle of the county. South Burlington is also lower than the state average. The Superintendent then recognized outgoing School Board members Burkhardt, Rountree, and Minier for their years of service. Public comment and questions were then solicited. Mr. McHenry asked the Superintendent to address what is not being funding the proposed budget. Supt. Young said there will not be an Assistant Superintendent, and they will not be repaving the driveway/parking lot between the High School and Middle School. STEERING COMMITTEE 28 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 5 A member of the community asked if a new school would be built on the SBHS site as he had a concern for the playing fields. Supt. Young said a previous plan had the High School moving to the east of the Middle School, but a lot could change in the future. Ms. Baker thanked outgoing Superintendent Young for his many years of service to students and to the community and looked forward to honoring him in the months to come. As there was no further business to come before the Steering Committee, Ms. Riehle moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. _______________________________ City Council Clerk ________________________________ School Board Clerk CITY COUNCIL 3 MARCH 2022 The South Burlington City Council held an organizational meeting on Thursday, 3 March 2022, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager Ms. Baker presided over the meeting until a Chair was elected. 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology option: Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology options. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: There were no comments or questions from the public. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Ms. Riehle congratulated re-elected Councilors Emery and Barritt. She expressed disappointment that only 20% of registered voters turned out for the election. Ms. Baker: Thanked the public for supporting the city budget. She congratulated Councilors Emery and Barritt and also those who were willing to put their hat into the ring. Ms. Emery noted a request from the public for trash cans on Market Street. 5. Under Sect. 13-303 of the City’s Charter, elect a Council Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk: Ms. Baker opened the floor for nominations for City Council Chair. CITY COUNCIL 3 MARCH 2022 PAGE 2 Ms. Emery nominated Mr. Riehle. Mr. Barritt seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations and Ms. Riehle was elected by a vote of 4-0. Ms. Riehle presided over the remainder of the meeting. She opened the floor for nominations for City Council Vice Chair. Mr. Barritt nominated Ms. Emery. Mr. Cota seconded. There were no further nominations, and Ms. Emery was elected by a vote of 4-0 Ms. Emery then nominated Mr. Barritt for Clerk of the City Council. Mr. Cota seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Barritt was elected by a vote of 4-0. Ms. Riehle expressed her appreciation for the confidence the Council has expressed in her and said she will do her best to have meetings run smoothly and thoughtfully. 6. Set dates and time for regular meetings being held March 2022 to February 2023: Mr. Barritt moved that the City Council meet on the first and third Mondays of the month at 6:30 p.m., unless otherwise noticed. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Annual appointments to be made by majority vote of City Council pursuant to City Charter, Chapter 13, Section 301(2): Ms. Baker recommended that the Council approve the following list: City Treasurer Andrew Bolduc City Attorney Colin McNeil Zoning Administrator Dalila Hall Acting Assistant Zoning Administrator Paul Conner Acting Assistant Zoning Administrator Marla Keene Acting Assistant Zoning Administrator Betsy Brown Acting Assistant Zoning Administrator Kelsey Peterson First Constable Detective Corporal Kevin Grealis Second Constable Detective Corporal Dan Boyer Grand Juror Jessie Baker City Agent & Trustee of Public Funds Jessie Baker CITY COUNCIL 3 MARCH 2022 PAGE 3 Code Enforcement Officer Dalila Hall Assistant Code Enforcement Officer Paul Conner Assistant Code Enforcement Officer Marla Keene Assistant Code Enforcement Officer Betsy Brown Assistant Code Enforcement Officer Kelsey Peterson Telecommunications Officer Dalila Hall Assistant Telecommunications Officer Paul Conner Assistant Telecommunications Officer Marla Keene Emergency Management Director Terry Francis Health Officer (approved by VDH) Terry Francis Ms. Emery moved to approve the slate of annual appointments as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0 8. Designate Official Paper of Record: Ms. Emery moved to designate The Other Paper as the Official Paper of Record. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Designate Official Depositories: Ms. Riehle noted that TD Bank is currently the official depository. Mr. Barritt moved to designate TD Bank as the official depository. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Appoint Council Representative to the Pension Advisory Committee: Mr. Barritt indicated his willingness to continue to serve in this capacity. Ms. Emery moved to appoint Tim Barritt as Representative to the Pension Advisory Committee. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Adopt the City Council Rules of Procedure: Ms. Baker advised that this is the same document updated to include electronic meetings. CITY COUNCIL 3 MARCH 2022 PAGE 4 Mr. Barritt moved to adopt the City Council Rules of Procedure as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 12. Adopt the Conflict of Interest and Ethical Conduct for Council and Appointed Members: Ms. Baker advised that this has been revised to include other city bodies that have been added. Ms. Emery moved to adopt the Conflict of Interest and Ethical Conduct for Council and Appointed Members as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 13. Reports to the City Council on Committee Assignments: Ms. Riehle: The Climate Task Force will meet next week. Mr. Cota: It is possible that rural GMT drivers will strike on 11 March. As of 18 March, masks will no longer be required on GMT buses. GMT is still not collecting fares, and there is an effort in Montpelier to continue this through the fiscal year. Ms. Emery: Asked to confirm that she is a voting member of the Airport Rezoning Task Force. Ms. Baker did so confirm. Mr. Barritt noted that the property in question is zoned Residential but is blocked from being residential for 25 years. Ms. Emery said they have requested Airport zoning, and the neighborhood is 99% opposed to this. 14. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Cota moved to adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk CITY COUNCIL 21 MARCH 2022 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 March 2022, at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation. MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; B. Sirvis, W. Bratt, L. Smith, D. Widman, L. Norris, K. Anderson, E. Goldman, L. Bailey 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology option: Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology options. 2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: Residents of Queen City Park, including Ms. Bratt, Mr. Smith, Mr. Widman, Ms. Norris and Ms. Anderson, asked for the city’s help in appealing the Higher Ground decision to the Environmental Court. They cited concerns regarding Red Rocks Park, noise, and traffic safety and specifically noted two accidents in recent weeks on the bridge. They felt that with the additional traffic, the safety issues would extend to Shelburne Road as patrons were leaving Higher Ground. Ms. Norris also asked that the city resume discussions on a Recreation Center. She noted that in 20 years, the population of the city has grown from 13,000 to 20,000, and the need for indoor recreation space has grown with it. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Members reported on meetings and events they had attended in past weeks. Mr. Cota also congratulated the Girls’ Snowboard Team which won the State Championship. Ms. Baker: About 60-70 people attended the SBBA meeting. CITY COUNCIL 21 MARCH 2022 PAGE 2 She made a presentation to the School Board regarding the upcoming City Charter Committee meetings and invited them to appoint two representatives to that Committee. Public Works has been cold-patching potholes. The list of paving projects will be filed by the end of the week. The City Clerk has been tracing the reapportionment discussions. South Burlington will have 5 representatives, one of whom will be shared with Williston. There will be 3 State Senators, shared among a number of communities. The city has hired a new “welcome person,” Tom Poon. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursements b. February Financials c. Approve amended License and Stormwater Agreement with City of Burlington for Stormwater improvements on Airport Drive Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Consider a Resolution Condemning the Invasion of Ukraine: Mr. Barritt read the proposed Resolution. Ms. Emery suggested some additions including more information as to why Ukraine is deserving of support as it differs from other world conflicts. She noted attacks on fleeing families and the destruction of infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and cultural sites. She also noted that elected officials have chosen to stay, displaying their commitment to democracy. Ms. Baker provided the statement from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns citing solidarity with “the people and the president and city, town and village leaders who have shown to the world that democracy is in their hearts and minds.” Mr. Barritt suggested shortening the list of those to whom the Resolution is sent. Ms. Riehle suggested adding Governor Scott to the shortened list. CITY COUNCIL 21 MARCH 2022 PAGE 3 A new draft will be presented at the next meeting. 7. Opportunity for Councilors and the public to share information and resources on Climate Change: Mr. Cota noted that House Bill #518 provides a total of $46,000,000 in ARPA funds which will be available to all towns for energy projects. The maximum per project is $250,000. Mr. Cota also noted House Bill #736 provides an additional $20,000,000 in ARPA funds to build out the “fast-charging corridor.” He suggested that the Planning Commission consider where the city can best put that money. One suggestion is to put a “fast charger” on Shelburne Road as part of a system of chargers 20 miles apart all the way to Bennington. There is also language in that bill for multi-family housing to access grants for chargers in addition to the $20,000,000 project. Mr. Bolduc advised that CCRPC and others are teaming up to consider these funds. He noted that the city has some aging buildings which could be addressed. Mr. Barritt asked if the City Hall solar panels are coming back. Mr. Bolduc said they will be following correction of an “engineering defect.” Mr. Goldman suggested some of the funding could be used to encourage business owners to have chargers at their locations. Mr. Barritt felt that since most people have their cars at their home sites, that’s where the chargers should be. He added that it will be hard to convince people if they can’t charge at home. Sen. Chittenden advised that there are some funds for apartment buildings. 8. Receive a recommendation on public engagement as we consider allocating American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds: Mr. Bolduc reviewed the history and noted there are about $4,000,000 of ARPA funds remaining to be allocated by the city. The hope is to maximize the impact of those funds. He suggested 4 listening sessions to see what the public’s priorities might be. Ms. Emery suggested getting to people in apartments and condos, and non-English speaking residents who are not usually heard from. CITY COUNCIL 21 MARCH 2022 PAGE 4 Ms. Baker said the city will get many ideas. She wanted it to be clear that this isn’t only about ARPA but about the city’s larger plan, especially as the city is beginning work on the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Riehle noted that the city has a lot of talented professionals who might be willing to facilitate some of the discussions. Mr. Goldman said it is important to consider the long-range benefits. 9. Receive the FY22 Policy Priorities and Strategies: Ms. Baker reviewed the history and noted that changes have been indicated. There will be another Council retreat in April. Ms. Emery cited the possibility of helping Dr. Childs who is a “workforce of one” who would welcome any help the Council can provide. Mr. Barritt expressed concern about cyber attack issues which have already affected institutions across the country. Mr. Bolduc said the city is contracting with Symquest now for a verification process. 10. Convene as South Burlington Liquor Control Board to consider the following: Catering By Dale, Outside Consumption Permit; Dave’s Cosmic Subs, 1st Class License; Champlain Farms-Exxon, 2nd Class License; Delta Hotels (Duke’s Public House), 1st Class, 2nd Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License, and Outside Consumption Permit; Farmers & Foragers, 1st Class & 3rd Class Commercial Caterer License; Pauline’s Café & Restaurant, 1st Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License; Shaw’s Beer & Wine, 2nd Class License; Sugarsnap, LLC, 1st Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/Bar License; Target Store #T3306, 2nd Class License; Vermont National Country Club, two (2) 1st. Class Licenses & 2nd Class License and 3rd Class License Ms. Emery moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Sen. Chittenden questioned whether the city would be better served by a specific Liquor Board. Ms. Riehle said she hoped Chief Burke would alert the Council to any “hot spots.” Ms. Baker CITY COUNCIL 21 MARCH 2022 PAGE 5 noted that every license the Board gets is reviewed by Police, Fire and Health/safety, and that the State Liquor Department does its own site visits. Mr. Cota added that having the Council hear requests provides a forum for the public to raise any issues. Sen. Chittenden moved to approve the list of Liquor License renewals as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments: Mr. Cota: Noted complaints received regarding the cutback of service on route #6. He said it will be reconsidered in May for potential restoration in June. He said the issue is a lack of drivers. Ms. Riehle asked if there is any hope for state money. Mr. Cota said there is; however, they have to prepare for the “zero funds” to end. He stressed GMT would rather have full service with fares than reduced service without fares. Mr. Barritt suggested advertising if there are any ride-share alternatives. Ms. Emery: The Airport Rezoning Task Force looked at 3 options: a deferred decision, a denial, and a development with specific conditions (e.g., setbacks, greenery). Four members voted for denial, one for deferral. The Task Force will hear from the public at another meeting and then provide a final decision. Ms. Emery said she felt there is enough land in the General Aviation area to meet the Airport’s need. She also cited public distrust of the Airport. Ms. Riehle: The Climate Action Committee is moving ahead on the State plan. They have gotten through construction and are moving into transportation. She added how impressed she is with the caliber of people on that team. 12. Other Business: Sen. Chittenden said the Senate will be hearing from mayors next week regarding H-52, a regional authority for the Airport. Ms. Baker advised that Congressman Welch secured $750,000 for Regional Dispatch. CITY COUNCIL 21 MARCH 2022 PAGE 6 13. Consider entering executive session for the purposes of a. discussing the appeal of the Burton Corporation/Higher Ground Act 250 at the Environmental Court b. Discussing pending litigation Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific find that premature general public knowledge of Burton/Higher Ground Environmental Court appeal and other confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the Council would clearly put the City at a substantial disadvantage. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Barritt then moved that having so found, the Council meet in executive session for the purpose of discussing the Burton/Higher Ground Environmental Court appeal and other confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the City Council, inviting to the session Ms. Baker, Mr. Bolduc, and Mr. McNeil. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The Council entered executive session at 8:32 p.m. As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk To: Jessie Baker, City Manager From: Katherine Boyk, Member of the City’s Natural Resources & Conservation Committee Cc: Andrew Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; Ashley Parker, Staff Liaison to the NRCC Subject: Approve submittal of grant application for the 2022 Tiny Grant through the Association of Vermont Conservation Commissions (AVCC) to fund a facilitator to assist in the Committee’s development of a City Open Space Plan. Date: April 4, 2022 The Natural Resources and Conservation Committee would like to apply for the Tiny Grant Program of the Association of Vermont Conservation Commissions (AVCC). We would use the Tiny Grant funding to hire a facilitator to help us host a public input meeting to guide the development of our Open Space Plan. The NRCC is in the early stages of creating an Open Space Plan. This work is outlined in our charge from City Council and is included in the city’s FY22 Priorities and Strategies. So far, committee members have created an outline for the plan and are currently working on compiling an inventory of open spaces and natural resources. The committee would like to gather public input to help shape the plan’s vision and goals. We feel it is important to have public input in this step so that the plan will be a reflection of the community’s values when it comes to land conservation and stewardship. We hope that the final plan will have broad community support and that this will lead to successful implementation of the plan’s suggested land conservation and stewardship practices. However, the recent community debates about the new Land Development Regulations have led us to worry that a public input meeting may become contentious. None of the current NRCC members feel that they have the skills to lead a meeting if the discussion becomes heated. For this reason, we are seeking funding from the Tiny Grant Program to hire a meeting facilitator. We have been in contact with several local facilitators and have found two candidates who may be willing to work with us if we receive funding. The committee plans to host a hybrid meeting with the option for community members to participate virtually or in-person at City Hall. The committee plans to do outreach in advance to reach diverse audiences. The anticipated timeframe for the meeting is late summer or fall 2022. The Tiny Grant Program will award a maximum of $600. This funding will cover approximately 3-4 hours of a facilitator’s time, which is the bare minimum that it will take to prepare for and lead the public South Burlington Natural Resources & Conservation Committee 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 www.sburl.com input meeting. The NRCC would be interested to know whether any City departments have discretionary funds to contribute to this project; even a small amount of additional funding will make the project more successful. Matching funds will also make our grant application more competitive. Attachments: Grant Request Form; Complete Tiny Grant Application Recommendation: Approve submittal of a grant application for the 2022 Tiny Grant through the Association of Vermont Conservation Commissions to fund a facilitator to assist in the Committee’s development of a City Open Space Plan. Additional Considerations: The application is due April 8th. 2022 Tiny Grant Application General Information Contact Person: Katherine Boyk Organization: Natural Resources & Conservation Committee — City of South Burlington Mailing Address: 180 Market St, South Burlington VT 05403 Email: katherineboyk@gmail.com Phone: 630-740-9446 Fiscal Sponsor, if any (legal name): City of South Burlington Fiscal Sponsor contact information: Ashley Parker, City Project Manager & NRCC Staff Liaison; aparker@southburlingtonvt.gov, 802-846-4146 Project information 1. Brief description of the project (300 words max) The Natural Resources & Conservation Committee (NRCC) of the City of South Burlington, VT is seeking Tiny Grant funding to hire a facilitator to help guide the process of public participation in developing an Open Space Plan for South Burlington. The NRCC is in the early stages of creating an Open Space Plan that will serve as a guide for prioritizing conservation and stewardship of land in the City to support recreation, climate change mitigation, wildlife habitat, and natural resources, and more. The committee would like to gather public input to help shape the plan’s vision and goals. We feel that this is important both so that the plan will reflect the community’s values and so that we can use this process to educate residents of South Burlington about land conservation. However, recent community debates in South Burlington about the City’s new Land Development Regulations have led the committee to worry that a public input meeting may become contentious. None of the current NRCC members feel that they have the skills to lead a meeting if the discussion becomes heated. For this reason, we are seeking funding from the Tiny Grant Program to hire a facilitator. We have been in contact with several facilitators and have found two candidates who may be willing to work with us on this project. The committee plans to host a hybrid meeting with the option for community members to participate virtually or in-person at City Hall. This model has been found to increase participation in meetings. The committee plans to do outreach in advance to reach diverse audiences. The anticipated timeframe for the meeting is late summer or fall 2022. We feel that this project is a good fit for the Tiny Grant Program’s goals of land conservation, education and outreach, stewardship, and planning. 2. Total budget for this project $600 – $1,000 3. Amount of grant money requested (min. $250 – max. $600) $600 4. Other funds, if any, for this project No additional funds have been secured at this point. 5. If yes, list the source(s) and amounts of other funds and/or in-kind contributions The committee is in the process of requesting matching funds from the City of South Burlington. Sources of in-kind contribution include committee members’ time to plan, organize, and deliver a public input meeting; use of meeting space in City Hall; use of the City’s tech equipment to hold a hybrid meeting; and staff time during the meeting. The committee also plans to ask the hired facilitator for pro bono time in addition to the time we are able to pay for with any grant funding we are awarded. One of the facilitators we talked to indicated that she would be willing to do some pro bono work. 6. Explain how these funds will make a difference to the success of your project (600 words max) The committee feels that it is important to have a public input at this stage in the development of the Open Space Plan so that the goals of plan will reflect the community’s values for land conservation and stewardship. By doing so, we hope that the final plan will have broad community support and that this will lead to successful implementation of the plan’s recommendations. We anticipate that half of the funding will go towards facilitation of the actual public meeting and half will be used for the facilitator to meet with the committee in advance to help define our goals for public participation and decide how to incorporate the input we receive into the final Open Space Plan. By providing us with seed funding to hire a facilitator, AVCC’s Tiny Grant Program will enable us to gather public input and incorporate it into the Open Space Plan. We feel that it is important for a public meeting to have a clear goal as well as civil dialogue where all voices are heard. We believe that both of these will be possible with the expertise of a professional facilitator. 7. Explain how you will measure the success of your project (300 words max) The success of this project will be measured in outputs, outcomes, and impacts. The outputs—which are the direct, quantifiable results of the project—will be measured through: • Number of public meetings held (1 meeting is anticipated with funding from the Tiny Grant Program) • Number of people attending the public meeting • Amount of public input received The anticipated outcomes—the results of the outputs—will be: • Development of the vision and goals for the Open Space Plan, which will reflect the community’s values • Increased community understanding of open space conservation and land stewardship We hope that the impact—the long-term changes as a result of the project—will be: • Approval and implementation of the Open Space Plan • Increased community support for land conservation and stewardship AVCC Tiny Grant Information Grant range: $250 - $600 Grant application due: April 8, 2022 Grant award announcement: May, 17 2022 Email: vtconservation@gmail.com (AVCC Board) Mailing address: AVCC, c/o VNRC, 11 Baldwin Street, Montpelier VT 05602 AVCC Goals: •To assist local committees/groups to become conservation commissions •To increase the functioning capacity of existing conservation commissions •Toprovideseed moneyand/ormatching funds for specific projects in the broad categories of land conservation,education and outreach, stewardship and management, and planning. To be eligible for an AVCCTiny Grant, groups must be: •Vermont conservation commissions or local committees/groups that are working towards becoming a conservation commission •Paid members of AVCC Other Stipulations: Groups must be a municipality or IRS certified 501(c)(3) public charity, or have fiscal sponsorship by a municipality or IRS certified 501(c)(3) public charity. Prior recipients of grants from AVCC must have completed those grants and closed them out. Grants cannot be used for general funds, dues or subscriptions. Timetable: Applications must be submitted by April, 8 2022. Grantees will be notified of funding approval by May 17 2022. Projects must be completed and a final report submitted by May 1, 2023. Evaluation Criteria for Grant Funding: •Demonstrated need •Evidence of matching funds and/or in-kind services •Closely aligns with grant goals •Project readiness •Local support and volunteer involvement Payment Process: The funds awarded under this grant will be available approximately a month after the awards are announced. Checks will be issued by the Vermont Community Foundation. Grant Closeout: Grantees will be required to submit online a Conservation Success Story using the AVCC website (https://vtconservation.com/success-stories/), presenting evidence of grant completion with photographs and text detailing outcomes and challenges. Acknowledgment: If awarded, grantees should credit AVCC in any publicity. Application on reverse side. 2022 Tiny Grant Application On a separate document, please provide the following information: General information Contact Person Organization Mailing Address Email Phone Fiscal Sponsor, if any (legal name) Fiscal Sponsor contact information Project information 1.Brief description of the project (300 words max) 2.Total budget for this project 3.Amount of grant money requested (min. $250 – max. $600) 4.Other funds, if any, for this project 5.If yes, list the source(s) and amounts of other funds and/or in-kind contributions 6.Explain how these funds will make a difference to the success of your project (600 words max) 7.Explain how you will measure the success of your project (300 words max) Reminder: Only AVCC members whose membership dues are current are eligible. To check your status, visit https://vtconservation.com/join-us/. Please email ALL completed applications to vtconservation@gmail.com (AVCC Board). We are strongly discouraging mailed applications due to the COVID-19 crisis, which has us checking our physical mail very infrequently. If it is not possible for you to email your application, the address is: AVCC, c/o VNRC 11 Baldwin Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Deadline: Applications must be submitted (or postmarked if sent by mail) on or before April 8, 2022. AVCC Tiny Grant Application The following language includes amendments made by Chair Riehle and Councilor Emery to Councilor Barritt’s original resolution: RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE WHEREAS, Vladimir Putin commanded the Russian military to invade the sovereign territory governed by the democratic republic of Ukraine on February 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, this invasion was accompanied by missile attacks on civilian targets including families fleeing for their lives; and WHEREAS, the Russian military is systematically destroying Ukrainian infrastructure: hospitals, schools, government buildings, in addition to transportation routes, cultural heritage sites, and people's homes; and WHEREAS, over 3 million Ukrainian inhabitants have been forced from their homes to flee to Poland and other neighboring countries as refugees; and WHEREAS, Ukrainian men between the ages of 18 and 60 years have been conscripted in a war not of their choosing; and WHEREAS, many Ukrainians have voluntarily left their peaceful, civilian lives to courageously take up arms in defense of their democracy, families, and country or provide humanitarian assistance; and WHEREAS, the United States and its allies have joined together in imposing severe economic sanctions against Russia and in supplying armaments to the heroic Ukrainian forces engaged in a battle for human rights and the preservation of their democracy. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of South Burlington, VT strongly condemns the invasion of Ukraine and stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine; and LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council demands complete troop withdrawal of Russian forces, compensation for all damages and adjudication of war crimes committed; and LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council stands with the Ukrainian people, their president, and the city, town, and village leaders who have shown to the world that democracy exists in their minds and hearts, and supports their demand for supplemental capability to push back the Russian offensive and defend civilians; and LET IT BE FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Vermont Governor Phil Scott, to U.S. President Joseph R. Biden, to U.S. Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick J. Leahy, to U.S. Representative Peter Welch, to U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders, and to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy via channels in Washington, D.C. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL THIS ___ DAY OF APRIL 2022 By City Councilors ______________________ ______________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair ______________________ _______________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Thomas Chittenden _______________________ Matt Cota MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington City Council FROM: Andrew Bolduc, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 31, 2022 RE: Declaration of Inclusion Agenda Item ______________________________________________________________________________ Background At the April 4, 2022 regular council meeting, Bob Harnish of Pittsford and Al Wakefield of Mendon, Vermont will be providing an overview of their Declaration of Inclusion Project and inquiring whether the City Council is interested in passing the same or similar declaration in South Burlington. Attached in your packets is additional background on this initiative along with a copy of their form declaration. A number of communities throughout Vermont have adopted this form document outright, while a number have also taken the opportunity to draft tailored versions of their own. Over the past couple of months, City Manager Jessie Baker and I have facilitated initial discussions with a cross-department group of department leaders and city employees who expressed interest in discussing the role we as public employees take in addressing equity, bias, and systemic racism in our government systems. While Jessie and I are impressed with what a number of individual employees and departments have already implemented, particularly in Planning & Zoning, Police, and Library, these employee discussions have begun to identify and highlight areas of improvement for dedicated city-wide efforts. A few of these policy goals are already reflected in the FY 22 Policy, Priorities, & Strategies document, such as; equitable provision of government services, more robust community outreach and input, and, developing a labor force that is representative of the community we serve. Recommendation Following the introduction of the Declaration of Inclusion project, it is management’s recommendation that Council use this opportunity as a catalyst for discussion on future priorities and values they would like to address in what could potentially become a South Burlington-specific declaration. City staff is scheduled to meet again this April 6th and will plan to dedicate a portion of that time to begin to develop those priorities and values, along with staff recommendations, into a draft declaration for Council consideration at a subsequent Council meeting. DECLARATION OF INCLUSION PREPARED FOR GOVERNMENT LEADERS A VERMONT DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION INITIATIVE Vermont's Declaration of Inclusion is a grassroots effort working with community leaders to reinforce the message that Vermont is a welcoming and safe place for all. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People – Vermont The Vermont Chamber of Commerce Vermont League of Cities and Towns Vermont Social Equity Caucus Our Partners Visit Our Website vtdeclarationofinclusion.org INTRODUCTION It is our vision that Vermont will become known as the most inclusive state in our nation for all people, regardless of how they identify. With that vision in mind, a small group of Vermont citizens organized in January of 2021 to develop strategies to assist the state, cities, and towns in the planning, adoption, and implementation of a Declaration of Inclusion. Bob Harnish, Pittsford Al Wakefield, Mendon Norman Cohen, Rutland City Liz Weinmann, Rutland City Elicia Pinsonault, Wallingford The following information is intended for use by those who are interested in learning more about this initiative as well as providing thoughts for Select Board members, Town Managers and Administrators, and Legislators who wish to lead this initiative in their respective community. BACKGROUND Vermont is a welcoming community Vermont invites all to bring their families and friends, as well as their talents and skills Vermont is a community of people who will treat them fairly, provide encouragement and support for their interests, and Vermont will bring the full resources of the State, its cities, and towns to ensure their well-being and security. Distressed by recent catastrophic events unfolding across the country relating to human rights, justice, and equality, Bob Harnish, a long-time resident of Pittsford, decided to do something. His concern led him to Al Wakefield, a former businessman in the Rutland area, who shared similar distress and felt a need to do something “hands-on.” Together, the pair began crafting an overarching statement that would build on Vermont’s agreed upon uniqueness, its long-standing reputation for being a leader in addressing injustices, and ensure that events occurring in Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, and other states do not happen here. They realized that, at the same time, such a statement could attract people with myriad skills and traditions to Vermont to live, work, and raise families. They found that statement in the Declaration of Inclusion first adopted by the Town of Franklin in 2020. Intent of the Declaration of Inclusion The intent of the Declaration of Inclusion is to indicate and reinforce the message to all visitors, residents, and those thinking about or planning to come and stay, that: DECLARATION OF INCLUSION The Town of ___________ condemns racism and welcomes all persons regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age or disability and wants everyone to feel safe and welcome in our community. As a town, we formally condemn discrimination in all its forms, commit to fair and equal treatment of everyone in our community, and will strive to ensure all our actions, policies and operating procedures reflect this commitment. The Town of _______________ is and will continue to be a place where individuals can live freely and express their opinions. By the ________________ Select Board on ________________ 2022 Goal Statement To have each Vermont municipality adopt and implement a Declaration of Inclusion. ADOPT means formal approval by the municipality's governing body. IMPLEMENT means the enactment and furtherance of plans, policies, programs, procedures, and relevant training which support and advance the intent and spirit of the Declaration. REASONS TO ADOPT THE DECLARATION A Declaration such as this would mark the town and its leaders as a forward-thinking community of people, stepping out in front for what we know is right and deeply rooted in the values that America and Vermont say they champion. We all learned early in our schooling that America assimilates people from all over the world. America has always welcomed diverse people and embraced their cultures, languages, foods, customs, and religions. This is nothing new. The Statue of Liberty is our monument to this sacred tradition. Let's take this small but affirmative step to continue this most meaningful piece of our heritage. THOUGHTS ON SELECTBOARD LEADERSHIP Select Board members are recognized by their towns for their leadership skills and are respected for their good judgment. Acting on a Declaration of Inclusion is the type of Select Board action that is expected by the voters. The role of the Select Board is changing. It is no longer limited to budgets, law enforcement, and maintaining infrastructure. Select Boards are now called upon to affirmatively and aggressively institute and promote policies and programs which support economic growth By adopting a Declaration of Inclusion, a Select Board sends a powerful, positive, forward- thinking message for the town and aligns it with other towns that are seeking healthy growth. By adopting the Declaration of Inclusion the Select Board joins the statewide effort to encourage businesses, talented individuals, and investors to come to Vermont and specifically to your town. By adopting the Declaration of Inclusion the town signals its agreement with the Governor’s Proclamation of Inclusion. The goal of the Declaration of Inclusion is to increase diversity, abolish racism, and have our towns, their employees, and policies manifest respect for the dignity of all people. This is the obligation of our largely white population and we will benefit and grow from it. Municipal leaders and law enforcement officials must engage effectively with community members on the subject of systemic racism, racial justice, public safety, and law enforcement. They need to lead the public in conversation on these and other issues important to an increasingly diverse population. There are many state organizations ready to help, including The Vermont Chamber of Commerce, Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont Office of Racial Equity, the Vermont Equity Caucus, and Vermont Council on Rural Development. "PROJECT INCLUSION" Contact Us Al Wakefield • al@wakefield-global.com • (802) 770- 3958 Bob Harnish • rharnish24@gmail.com • (802) 779-7714 Norman Cohen • norcoh26@gmail.com • (802) 558-1998 OF COUNSEL Liz Weinmann Elicia Pinsonault UPDATED FEB. 27,2022 DESIGNED BY 104 Landfill Road, South Burlington, VT 05403 www.southburlingtonvt.gov tel 802.658.7961 Memo To: South Burlington City Council From: Tom DiPietro, Director of Public Works Cc: Bob Fischer, Water Quality Superintendent Jessie Baker, City Manager Date: March 25, 2022 Re: Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility Headworks Repairs All wastewater flowing to the Airport Parkway (AP) Facility (~1.8 million gallons per day) enters through the headworks building. Equipment in the headworks removes solids, both floatable and settleable, that reach the treatment facility as part of wastewater flows. The first step in the treatment process is to filter wastewater through a 6mm rotating bandscreen. All items larger than 6mm are separated from water flows and disposed of in a landfill. Once through the bandscreen, wastewater passes through a grit removal and collection system. Removal of these materials ensures the effectiveness of all downstream treatment process, protects components (e.g. pumps, piping, etc) from damage or clogging, and ensures that the Class A Exceptional Quality (EQ) biosolids produced by the facility is of a high quality and marketable. The existing bandscreen unit at AP was installed in 2010. The main rotating gears and some of the 6mm panel sections have failed. The unit is out of service and flow is now diverted to a manual bar rack with 50 mm (~2 inch) spacing. Operators pull the “rags” (industry term) from the manual bar rack twice per day, but removal is poor and materials pass through the headworks into downstream processes. Compounding the problem is the failure of headworks diversion gates and grit chamber aeration piping. Gates are used to divert flow to different channels for maintenance and repair. The existing aluminum gates and slide rails have corroded to the point where they can no longer be used. Until these gates are replaced, wastewater staff are unable to repair broken aeration piping in the downstream grit collection chamber or remove collected materials in the grit chamber. Once the grit chamber fills, the collected material will overflow and cause issues for downstream equipment and treatment processes. Due to issues in the headworks building, you can now see plastic, latex, and other materials floating in the clarifiers. Operators are forced to use pool nets to remove as much of this material as possible. The 10-micron rotating cloth filters at the end of the treatment process ultimately prevents these items from being discharged into the Winooski River. However, if these materials are not removed early in the treatment process they will accumulate in the anaerobic digesters and eventually end up in the Class A EQ biosolids that the facility generates. These biosolids are sent to farms for beneficial reuse, but if they contain excessive plastic material they will need to be landfilled. This would result in a financial impact of $250,000-$300,000 per year to the wastewater operating budget. Water Quality division staff estimate that the cost to repair the bandscreen is ~$100,000. Repair and replacement of the gates and grit chamber pipe is ~$175,000. The total cost to repair headworks equipment is ~$275,000. At the end of FY21, the wastewater capital reserve fund had a balance of ~$2.5M. These funds have been accumulated to support future fleet purchases, upgrade of the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility (construction to start in FY23 or FY24), and as a contingency or emergency fund. Staff feels that current plant repairs are of a sufficient need and magnitude that utilizing these funds is appropriate. We are requesting that City council approves a motion to use up to $300,000 from the wastewater capital reserve to repair the bandscreen, gates and grit chamber aeration piping in the Airport Parkway wastewater treatment facility headworks building. MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington City Council Jessie Baker, City Manager FROM: Kelsey Peterson, City Planner, on behalf of the Planning Commission SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Regulations DATE: For April 4, 2022 City Council Meeting The Planning Commission is pleased to deliver to the City Council a series of proposed amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). A “red-line marked up” version of the draft LDRs in included in your packet; this and a “clean” version are posted to the City of South Burlington’s website. The amendments, and accompanying Report, were approved 6-0 by the Planning Commission on March 22nd, following a public hearing and a review of community feedback. The amendments include a new General PUD type, civic space requirement for all subdivisions, site amenity requirement for all site plans, removal of “multiple structures on a single-user lot or complex” from requiring a master plan, and addition of guidance in site plan review standards. For the purposes of warning and holding a public hearing, a formal listing of each amendment is included below. The amendments, categorized in this way, are summarized and assessed with respect to the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the formal Planning Commission Report on the Proposed Amendments, prepared in accordance with State law. A brief description of each amendment, taken from the Commission Report is included below. Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Council acknowledge receipt of the amendments and warn a public hearing for May 2, 2022, at 7:30 pm on the amendments listed below. Proposed motion: “I move to warn a public hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulations number LDR-22-01, 22-02, 22-03, and 22-04 for Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:30 pm.” Proposed Amendments: A. LDR-22-01: Establish a General Planned Unit Development Type for new PUDs and amendments to existing PUDs (Article 15.C, Section 3.07) Brief description: This amendment would create a “General Planned Unit Development” type to accompany the existing “Traditional Neighborhood” and “Conservation” PUD types. The General PUD would be permissible in zoning districts where neither of the other two PUD types are available as options and for minor amendments to pre-existing PUDs approved under prior regulations. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 1 2 DEFINITIONS 2.02 Specific Definitions . . . Inclusionary ownership unit. A dwelling unit: (1) The sales price for which does not exceed the maximum price for a household with a gross annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as calculated using a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formula that defines a unit-specific household size based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms); and (2) Which is owned by its inhabitants, whose gross annual household income at time of purchase does not exceed 100% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for the household size; and (3) The sales price for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA; Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of the purchasing household do not have to be the same. Inclusionary rental unit. A dwelling unit: (1) The rent for which does not exceed the maximum price calculated for a household with a gross annual income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, to which the unit is targeted, as calculated using a HUD formula that defines a unit-specific household size based on dwelling unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) to which the inclusionary unit is targeted; and (2) Which is rented by inhabitants whose gross annual household income at time of initial occupancy does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, adjusted for the household size; and (3) The rent for which shall remain perpetually affordable to households with a gross annual household income that does not exceed 80% of the median income for the Burlington-South Burlington MSA; Note the unit-specific household size based on the number of bedrooms and the actual household size of the renting household do not have to be the same. Inclusionary Unit. A dwelling unit that is either an Inclusionary Ownership Unit or an Inclusionary Rental Unit. . . . Inclusionary Unit. A housing unit that is affordable to a low- or moderate income household under inclusionary zoning requirements. . . . South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 1 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . 3.07 Height of Structures . . . 3.07 Height of Structures . . . D. Waiver of Maximum Height Requirements (1) Larger Rooftop Apparatus. Larger Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations, and steeples for places of worship that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C-2 above may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses. (2) R12, IA, PR, MU, C1-Air, C1-LR, AR, SW, IO, C2, Mixed IC, AIR, and AIR-IND Districts. (a) Except within a Planned Unit Development, an applicant may seek approval from the Development Review Board for the height of one or more structures to exceed the limitation set forth in Table C-2 for structures within these zoning districts. Within a Planned Unit Development, the ability of an applicant to seek approval for a structure to exceed the limitation in Table C-2 is heights are established by PUD type. (b) Submittal requirements. Any request for additional height shall be made in writing at the time of application for a Site Plan. The request must include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure, and any supplemental information the Development Review Board deems necessary in order to render a decision. (c) Standards of Review. (i) Demonstration of Compliance with the Provisions of Section 14.06 and 14.07; and, (ii) Demonstration that the proposed structure will not have an undue adverse effect on scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 1 8 CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODE DISTRICT . . . 8.08 Open Space Requirements . . . 8.08 Open Space Requirements D. General Civic Space / Site Amenity Notes (1) In all Transect Zones, only Civic Space / Site Amenity areas meeting the requirements of Appendix F Article 11.B and this article shall count towards the minimum qualifying requirements. (2) In all Transect Zones landscaped parking lot dividers and median strips shall not be considered qualifying Civic Space / Site Amenities. A divider between a parking lot and a qualifying street type shall be considered qualifying where applicable and allowable. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 5 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW . . . 14.06 General Review Standards Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, the following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The DRB shall consider the following: (a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along the street. (b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade. (c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development. (d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability within the area proposed for development. (e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of these regulations. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 5 (iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria: (I) The lot is located in an approved subdivision where the parking on each lot in the subdivision is proposed to be located between the building or buildings on each lot and the public street so that a significant greenspace surrounded by buildings may be incorporated similar to a college campus style “quad”, as detailed below. (II) The parking on any lots that include a part of the greenspace shall be aligned in a similar fashion so that the buildings are located between the greenspace and the parking and so that the parking is located between the buildings and the public street to maintain the integrity and continuity of the greenspace . (III) The minimum required total area of the greenspace shall be 150,000 square feet. For purposes of this subsection 14.07(B) (2)(b)(vi), “greenspace” shall be defined as a consolidated and continuous landscaped area located across more than two lots in the approved subdivision, similar in nature to a common open space, largely surrounded by buildings, but shall not include building or impervious parking areas. The greenspace may extend between buildings, but shall not extend beyond the building line of the principal building on each lot that includes a portion of the greenspace. The greenspace shall consist of pervious surfaces such as lawns, trees, plantings, wetlands, and gardens, and may include impervious landscape features, such as path networks, sculptures, gazebos, water features, footbridges, sitting areas, stone walls, and other features and amenities that may be built within and throughout the greenspace in order to create a more attractive and enjoyable environment. The area of the greenspace shall be calculated by measuring and adding the portion of the total greenspace defined on the site plan for each lot in the approved subdivision that includes a portion of the greenspace. (vii) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial or Industrial & Open Space Zoning Districts, and it is clear that the circulation and layout of the lot cannot reasonably be designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors / employees and the inherent operations of the use(s) on the lot; (I) In order to further reduce the likelihood of such conflicts, this exception to the general requirements for parking is only available when the uses of the lot(s) are limited to: 1. Distribution and related storage 2. Light manufacturing 3. Manufacturing 4. Processing and Storage 5. Warehousing and Distribution (II) The parking shall be limited as follows: South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 5 1. No more than 25% of the total parking on the lot shall be located between a public street and the building(s); 2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping features, and separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi-use paths by one or more of the following Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Article 11.B, except for the location standards which are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area; Community Garden; Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this Open Space shall be sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience on the adjacent public sidewalk or recreation path, (2) largely screen parking from the street right-of-way, and (3) provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The open space shall represent a minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking spaces (not including circulation infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the building. 3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development Review Board pursuant to Section 13.04 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) on a lot. Of this total increased landscaping budget, the percentage that must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard shall be equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget before any increase was $100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s), then the minimum required landscaping budget shall increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget of $110,000, and no less than 10% of the new total landscaping budget, or $11,000, must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard). 4. The applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. 5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. (c) Parking area width. Surface parking areas and affiliated drive aisles located to the side of buildings shall not exceed the width of building(s), Civic Spaces, and Site Amenities width along any street frontage. This may be calculated separately or cumulatively for corner lots. Parking approved pursuant to 14.07(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 5 screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. (3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider: (a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of development defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations, position and orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached building types. (b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural features that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular architectural style. (c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including side and back yard areas through context sensitive design. D._____Site Amenity Requirement (1) Sites are required to include a specific minimum area for appropriate Site Amenities. This section does not apply to projects within the City Center FBC District (which are governed by Section 8.08). (2) Applicability. Applications for the following shall be required to provide Site Amenities: (a) Any non-residential development over 5,000 SF. (b) Additions or expansions exceeding 5,000 SF for existing non-residential structures. (c) Any residential development, including conversion of non-residential structures to residential use. (3) The required area shall be: (a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross floor area. (b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as: (i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit; (ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or (iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit. (4) The DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Site Amenity area if the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing Civic Space or public park that is accessible by the general public and located within five-hundred (500) feet of at least one pedestrian access point for each building on the lot via a walking route and/or pedestrian way. A “safe, walkable connection” shall not include or require crossing a four-lane road. (a) The DRB may, in its discretion, give a partial credit for the required Site Amenity area if some but not all the buildings on the lot have pedestrian access points located within five-hundred (500) feet of the Civic Space or public park, as described in Section 14.06(D)(4), above. (b) The DRB cannot provide any credit to replace the remaining 50% of the Site Amenity area. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 5 of 5 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards. B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations. C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation standards of Section 15.A.14. D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved] E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to the standards contained therein. F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations. F. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. G. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met. H. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 1 15.A SUBDIVISION REVIEW 15.A.16 Blocks and Lots . . . B. Lots. All lots must be laid out to logically relate to topography and their intended use or purpose. Building lots must be laid out within existing and planned street and block configurations, in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with their intended use and these Regulations. Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations as applicable to the subdivision: (1) All proposed lots must be numbered, as shown on subdivision plans and plats. (2) The arrangement and configuration of lots must allow for the further subdivision of any remaining developable land on the tract or parcel to be subdivided. Where proposed building lots exceed minimum lot area requirements, the DRB may require that such lots be configured and developed in a manner that allows for further subdivision and infill development. (3) Building or other lots for existing or planned public facilities or uses, including public parks, as shown on the City’s Official map or proposed for dedication to the City, must be labeled and shown as such on the subdivision plan and plat. (4) Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total buildable area within the developed portion of any Major Subdivision exceeding two acres in size must be allocated to functionally integrated civic space lots, as shown on the subdivision plan and plat. (a) Required civic space must incorporate one or more allowed Civic Space Types under Article 11.B and meet associated type requirements. (b) Designated civic space lots must have frontage on or pedestrian access from an abutting street. The entrance to a civic space that does not front on an abutting street must be readily visible, apparent, and accessible from the street. (c) Civic space lots must be identified on the subdivision plat, and in associated legal documents, as Civic Space lots to be maintained and managed in single or common ownership. (d) For Major Subdivisions under six (6) acres, the DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Civic Space area if the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing Civic Space or public park that is accessible by the general public and located within five-hundred (500) feet of at least one pedestrian access point for each building in the subdivision, via a walking route or pedestrian way. A “safe, walkable connection” shall not include or require crossing a four-lane road. i. The DRB may, in its discretion, give a partial credit for the required Civic Space area if some but not all buildings in the subdivision have pedestrian access points located within five-hundred (500) feet of the Civic Space or public park, as described in Section 15.A.16, above. ii. The DRB cannot provide any credit to replace the remaining 50% of the required Civic Space area. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 1 15.B MASTER PLAN REVIEW … 15.B.02 Applicability … 15.B.02 Applicability (A) Required Approval. Master plan review and approval by the DRB is required prior to preliminary subdivision review under Article 15.A, or site plan review under Article 14, as applicable, for: (1) Any Major Subdivision involving four (4) or more acres, except for any portion of Transect Zone Subdivision within the City Center Form Based Code District. (2) Any land subdivision or site development proposed to occur over two (2) or more phases, or three (3) or more years. (3) A Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C unless, at applicant request, Master Plan review is waived by the DRB for a PUD on less than four (4) acres under 15.C.03. (4) Multiple Structures on a Single-User Lot or Complex, in accordance with Section 3.09. (5) The DRB may also require the submission of a Master Plan for any tract or parcel of land where there exists clear potential for future growth and development beyond that presented in an application, as necessary to establish physical and functional connections between areas of proposed and potential future development. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 4 15.C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.C.01 Purpose 15.C.02 Applicability 15.C.03 Planned Unit Development Review 15.C.04 General PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types 15.C.05 Conservation Development 15.C.06 Traditional Neighborhood Development 15.C.07 General PUD . . . 15.C.02 Applicability A._____Floating Zone. For purposes of these Regulations, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is an unmapped overlay zoning district or “Floating Zone,” as allowed or required within an underlying zoning district, which is applied to a particular tract or parcel of land proposed for subdivision and development. A PUD is intended to function as a more flexible, design-based zoning district in which conservation or form-based design standards also apply to proposed development. Where PUD standards differ from underlying zoning district, site plan, or subdivision standards, PUD standards shall apply. B._____PUD Types. The following types of Planned Unit Development are authorized under these Regulations by Zoning District (Table 15.C-1), subject to the associated provisions and standards of review for each PUD type: (1) Conservation Development (CON PUD) Section 15.C.05 (2) Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND PUD) Section 15.C.06 (3) General PUD Section 15.C.07 C._____Required Planned Unit Development. PUD review and approval by the DRB under this Article is required for any subdivision and development of a tract or parcel with a total area of four (4) or more acres within any zoning district listed for CON PUD and TND PUDs under Table 15.C-1. General PUDs are not mandatory in any district. D._____Elective Planned Unit Development. An applicant may elect PUD review, as allowed within specified zoning districts, for the subdivision and development of any tract or parcel: (1) Less than four (4) acres that qualifies as a Conservation PUD under Subsection 15.C.05, in which fifty percent (50%) or more of the total tract area includes one or more Hazards or Level I Resources identified for protection under Article 12. (2) Where the General PUD type is allowed under Table 15.C-1 or Section 15.C.07(C). E._____PUD Type by Zoning District. The types of PUD allowed within an underlying zoning district are specified by district in Table 15.C-1. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Table 15.C-1 PUD Types by Zoning District PUD Type Underlying Zoning Districts Conservation Development (CON PUD) (1) R1-PRD, R1-Lakeshore, R1-Lakeview, R2, Lakeshore, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR, SEQ-VC (2) A tract or parcel in any PUD-allowed zoning district in which a minimum of 50% of the total tract or parcel area consists of Hazards and/or Level I Resources (see Section 15.C.05) Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND PUD) R1-PRD, R1-Lakeview, R1-Lakeshore, R2, R4, R7, Lakeshore, Allen Road, Swift Street, R7-NC, SEQ-VR, SEQ-VC SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-NRT, only in association with a Conservation PUD, in a designated Development Area with a minimum Buildable Area of 4 acres General PUD (1) C1-R12, C1-R15, C1-AUTO, C1-AIR, C1- LR, C2, IC, AIR, AIR-I, I-O, and IA. (2) As described in Section 15.C.07(C). (1) Planned Unit Development review under this Article does not apply to subdivision and development within those zoning districts for which no PUD type is specified. In addition, (2)All PUD types are prohibited within any zoning district not listed in Table 15.C-1; and (2) All PUD types are prohibited within the SEQ-NRP Subdistrict; except for land on a tract or parcel within the SEQ-NRP that is included for conservation within a Conservation PUD. … 15.C.04 General PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types . . . D. Development Density. (5) Minimum (Base) Density. To ensure densities of development that support the efficient use of land and infrastructure, walkability, and transit-supportive development within a PUD, the following minimum residential densities of development (Base Density), expressed as the minimum number of dwelling units per acre of Buildable Area, apply within designated Development Areas proposed for residential or mixed use development, unless otherwise specified by PUD type: South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 4 (a) The minimum (base) density of residential development within a designated Residential or Mixed Use Area, as specified by PUD Type, represents the minimum number of dwelling units per acre (DU/A) that is either required or allowed by right under these Regulations, over one or more phases of development under an approved PUD Master Plan. (b) The required minimum (base) residential density within a designated Residential Area is four dwelling units per acre (4 DU/A) or the maximum residential density allowed within the underlying zoning district, whichever is greater, except within a Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) sub- district. In the SEQ, the minimum (base) residential density is 4 DU/A. (c) Within a designated Mixed Use Area, or within ½-mile of a transit route as shown on Overlay District Map 2, the required residential base density is eight dwelling units per acre (8 DU/A) or the maximum residential density allowed within the underlying zoning district, whichever is greater. (d) The residential base density may also vary by subzone, as specified by PUD type, in association with allowed housing types within that subzone. (e) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) shall not be included in the calculation of residential base density or the minimum number of required dwelling units (residential yield). (f) The minimum number of dwelling units required or allowed by right (residential yield) within a designated Residential or Mixed Use area, excluding ADUs, may be calculated as: (6) Nonresidential Base Density. There is no minimum (base) density or intensity requirement for nonresidential development within a designated Development Area. (7) Maximum Development Density. The maximum development density allowed within any PUD except a Conservation PUD shall be determined based on the total buildable area, proposed land use allocations by use category, the allowed mix of building types, and associated building lot standards as specified by PUD type. (a) The DRB may allow for an increase in the overall density of residential development within a designated Residential or Mixed Use area, for example through adjustments or modifications to the required housing mix, allowed housing types, or associated building lot or height standards, as necessary to accommodate the following: (i) The purchase and transfer of development rights from land within the SEQ-NRP or SEQ-NRT Subdistrict (Section 9.05 Transfer of Development Rights). Total Buildable Area (A) x Land Allocation (%) x Base Density (DU/A) = Min DUs (#) South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 4 (ii) The incorporation of offset housing units under inclusionary zoning (Section 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning). (iii) The incorporation of additional housing units awarded as an incentive for affordable housing development under Section 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning). (iv) The transfer of residential development density within a Conservation PUD from Level I and other resource or open space areas identified for protection that are included in a designated Conservation Area. (v) Within a Conservation PUD the maximum residential development density within the designated Development Area shall be capped as specified by zoning district under Section 15.C.05. South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 1 of 4 15.C.07 General PUD 1 2 A.____Authority and Limitations. 3 (1) The Development Review Board (DRB) has the authority under 24 VSA § 4417 to review, to 4 approve, to approve with modifications and conditions, or to disapprove an application for a Planned 5 Unit Development (PUD), as further described in Section 15.C.01. 6 (2) Limitations on DRB authority under 14.04(A)(3)(b) apply. 7 (3) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary: 8 (a) Density restrictions and/or allow an increase in overall density except as authorized via 9 use of Transferrable Development Rights or via Inclusionary Zoning. 10 (b) Requirements of the Urban Design Overlay District and Transit Overlay District, as 11 applicable. 12 (c) Applicable lot coverage and/or building coverage maximums allowed within each zoning 13 district, as measured across the PUD as a whole, except as authorized via use of Transferrable 14 Development Rights. 15 (d) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12. 16 (e) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2). 17 18 B.____General PUD Description, Purpose, and Characteristics. A General PUD is a type of planned 19 development that allows for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in order to 20 encourage innovation in design and layout and efficient use of land consistent with the Comprehensive 21 Plan. Defining characteristics of a General PUD include well-planned, -sited, and -designed development 22 projects that: 23 24 • Conform to the goals in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and South Burlington 25 City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated August 7, 2017. 26 • Support and enable affordable housing development. 27 • Contribute to the City’s economic vitality, in response to changing markets and consumer 28 demand, by providing needed housing, goods, services, and employment opportunities. 29 • Redevelop underperforming properties and commercial strips (retrofits), contaminated sites 30 (brownfields), and large expanses of parking (gray fields) into more compact forms of walkable, 31 pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development. 32 • Extend or re-establish existing street, sidewalk, and recreation path connections. 33 • Incorporate a density of development that supports walkable residential, mixed use, and transit-34 oriented development, compatible in design with the surrounding area. 35 • Improve the physical appearance, walkability, and amount of civic and green space within existing 36 residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, and commercial strip development. 37 • Introduce missing or complementary uses, facilities, services, amenities, or civic space intended 38 to serve the immediate and surrounding area. 39 • Foster context-sensitive transitions among and between neighborhoods, commercial areas, 40 mixed use areas, civic spaces, and natural resource areas. 41 42 C. Applicability. A General PUD is an allowed PUD type in the following circumstances: 43 (1) Within the underlying zoning districts listed in Table 15.C-1 for General PUD. 44 South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 2 of 4 (2) For amendments to General PUDs approved under this Section. 1 (3) For minor amendments to existing PUDs reviewed and approved under the LDRs in effect until 2 November 10, 2021, the final subdivision approval for which has not expired, regardless of zoning 3 district. 4 (a) An amendment shall be considered “minor” if it does not significantly alter the overall 5 intent or scale of the PUD, or the relationship of the approved PUD to its surroundings. A minor 6 amendment may incorporate additional land not in the PUD as previously approved, but only to 7 the extent that the additional land does not cause the PUD to exceed other requirements of this 8 section. 9 10 D._____Conformance with PUD Standards. In addition to the specific standards under this Section, all 11 standards in Section 15.C.04 shall also apply. Application and review process for a General PUD is 12 governed by Section 15.C.03. 13 14 E._____Context. For planning and design purposes, “Planning Area” is defined as the area within ¼-mile 15 of the lot or parcel to be developed, as measured from the lot line or delineated PUD boundary. 16 17 F._____General PUD Compatibility and Context Analysis 18 (1) Compatibility. PUD compatibility with the Planning Area, as determined from a detailed 19 analysis of the Development Context, shall be a primary consideration in General PUD project design, 20 and for DRB review and approval. 21 (2) “Development Context” is defined to include: 22 (a) The prevalent or recurring pattern and form of development within the Planning Area, 23 including established street grid and streetscape elements, blocks, lots, buildings and yard areas, 24 civic spaces, and parking arrangements, and 25 (b) The character of the Planning Area, as defined by: 26 (i) The planned character of an area planned for redevelopment by the City as identified 27 in the Comprehensive Plan; 28 (ii) Approved, to-be-built or recently built (within ten (10) years) development projects 29 in the Planning Area; 30 (iii) Any updates to the underlying zoning district(s) in the Planning Area within the 31 preceding ten (10) years; or 32 (iv) Zoning district purpose statements, allowed uses, and district-specific development 33 standards. 34 (c) Current zoning purpose statements, uses, and standards only if the DRB finds there is no 35 relevant information under 15.C.07(F)(2)(a) or (b)(i) through (b)(iii), or the DRB finds that there is 36 a clear, established neighborhood street, block, and lot pattern. 37 (3) Context Analysis. The applicant must submit a written Analysis of the Development Context 38 within the Planning Area, which, at minimum, includes the information required for Master Plan 39 review under 15.B.04(C) and: 40 (a) Hazards, and Level I and Level II Resources regulated under Article 12. 41 South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 3 of 4 (b) Prevalent pattern of land subdivision and development in the Planning Area, as defined 1 by block lengths; lot size and front lot line lengths; front, side, and rear setbacks; building height 2 and coverage; and existing parking arrangements. 3 (c) Streetscape elements, including the placement, orientation, and spacing of buildings 4 along the street, existing and planned sidewalks, and existing or planned landscaping, street 5 furniture, and lighting. 6 (d) Building types and styles, including any prevalent or character-defining architectural 7 features. 8 9 G._____General PUD Dimensional Standards. 10 (1) Relevant subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and applicable overlay district dimensional 11 standards shall form the basis of the design of a General PUD and shall apply unless modified, reduced, 12 or waived by the DRB under (2) below. 13 (a) The DRB must find an application meets the requirements of 15.C.07(G)(2) in order to 14 modify, reduce, or waive Site Plan requirements using 14.04(A)(3), Site Plan application 15 requirements using 14.05(G), Subdivision requirements using 15.A.01(B)(3), Scenic Overlay 16 District requirements using 10.02(I)(2), (J), and/or (K). 17 (b) The DRB has authority to allow alternative compliance under 15.C.04(C)(3). 18 (c) Height restrictions may be modified, reduced, or waived in underlying zoning districts 19 identified in 3.07(D)(2) by the DRB under (2) below, except as noted in 15.C.07(C)(2)(b) above. 20 The standards of review in 3.07(D)(2) shall apply. 21 (d) The DRB cannot modify, reduce, or waive standards as listed in 15.C.07(A)(3). 22 (2) In response to the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area, the DRB 23 may modify, reduce, or waive one or more applicable dimensional standards as necessary to: 24 (a) Accommodate reductions in the available area associated with infill or redevelopment, 25 that result in insufficient acreage to meet applicable dimensional standards; or 26 (b) Allow for more creative and efficient subdivision and site layout and design that advances 27 the purposes of the underlying zoning district and/or the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, 28 particularly in response to existing site limitations that cannot be eliminated; or 29 (c) Ensure that the pattern and form of proposed development is compatible with existing 30 or planned Development Context in the Planning Area determined under 15.C.07(F) and to 31 Transition Zone standards in 15.C.04(E); or 32 (d) Allow for greater energy efficiency, use of alternative energy, green building design, or 33 otherwise furthering of the South Burlington City Council’s Resolution on Climate Change dated 34 August 7, 2017. 35 (3) Context shall be determined by the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning 36 Area under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G). 37 38 H._____Development Density. 39 South Burlington Land Development Regulations For City Council Public Hearing Approved by Planning Commission: March 22, 2022 Page 4 of 4 (1) Development Density regulations and definitions included in Section 15.C.04(D) shall apply to 1 General PUDs. 2 (2) Development density within a General PUD is determined by maximum development density 3 in the underlying zoning district, except as follows. 4 (a) Density can be re-allocated within the PUD area within single zoning districts; 5 (b) Additional density may be achieved through either or both Inclusionary Zoning and 6 application of Transferrable Development Rights where specifically authorized by and as 7 regulated by Section 18.01 or Section 9.05. 8 9 I._____General PUD Design Standards 10 (1) Design Standards, Generally. The design for a General PUD shall comply with existing Site 11 Plan, Subdivision, and Overlay District regulations and standards, but may allow for variations from 12 applicable regulations that respond to and incorporate the development context within the Planning 13 Area and under the specific circumstances listed in Section 15C.09(G)(4). 14 (2) Streets. Streets within a General PUD must be compatible with and connect to existing and 15 planned public street, sidewalk, and path networks in the Planning Area. 16 (a) Street and block pattern requirements of the Subdivision regulations shall apply unless 17 waived by the DRB under Section 15C.09(G)(4). 18 (3) Parking. Parking design and building location requirements applicable in all underlying zones 19 and districts apply to General PUDs, including all requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2). 20 (4) Buildings. Buildings and associated building lots within a General PUD must be compatible 21 with the development context in the Planning Area as described under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G). 22 (5) Civic Spaces and Site Amenities. Civic Spaces and/or Site Amenities must be compatible with 23 the existing or planned development context. General PUDs must comply with applicable Civic Space 24 and/or Site Amenity requirements in Subdivision (Section 15.A.16(B)(4)) and Site Plan (Section 25 14.06(4)). 26 (a) Section 15.A.16(C)(4) requirement for minimum 10% of the total buildable area to be civic 27 space lots apply to General PUDs only for PUDs that involve subdivision of land resulting in three 28 (3) or more lots, not including the resulting lots that only contain civic space(s). 29 (b) In a General PUD, Civic Spaces required under Subdivision Regulations (Section 30 15.A.16(C)(4)) and under Site Plan Regulations (Section 14.06(4)) can be satisfied by a combination 31 of Civic Spaces, Site Amenities, or a combination, applied across the PUD area. 32 (6) Housing Mix. In a General PUD with more than four (4) residential dwelling units, a mix of 33 two or more dwelling unit types (as allowed within the applicable zoning district) must be provided as 34 described by Section 15.A.17. Types of dwelling units are differentiated by either housing type under 35 Article 11.C or, within multi-family structures with more than four (4) dwelling units, by number of 36 bedrooms per unit. 37 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com South Burlington Planning Commission Proposed Land Development Regulations Amendment & Adoption Report Planning Commission Public Hearing Tuesday, March 22, 2022, 7:00 pm In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 22, 2022 at 7:00 pm, in person and via Zoom electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: A. LDR-22-01: Establish a General Planned Unit Development Type for new PUDs and amendments to existing PUDs B. LDR-22-02: Establish Site Amenity requirements for new development, expansions, or residential conversions subject to site plan review; add additional allowable Site Amenity types, and allow partial credit to Site Amenity and Civic Space requirements for nearby publicly-accessible civic spaces & parks C. LDR-22-03: Augment Site Plan review standards of Relationship of Structures to the Site, and of Relationship of Structures and Site and to Adjoining Area. D. LDR-22-04: Minor and technical amendments to include: • Adjust Master Plan applicability for single-user lots • Definitions updates and corrections Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments A. LDR-22-01: Establish a General Planned Unit Development Type for new PUDs and amendments to existing PUDs Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment This amendment would create a “General Planned Unit Development” Type to accompany the existing “Traditional Neighborhood” and “Conservation” PUD types. 2 The General PUD would be permissible in zoning districts where the other two PUD types are not available as options and for minor amendments to pre-existing PUDs approved under prior regulations. The General PUD would allow the Development Review Board to vary site plan, subdivision, and other dimensional and design standards of the Land Development Regulations in order to better achieve stated goals enumerated therein based on the needs of the site. The Development Review Board may, for identified purposes, permit modifications to lot sizes, arrangement of buildings and lots, building setbacks and heights, and re-allocation of density within the PUD. The General PUD does not authorize increases in lot coverage, development density not otherwise allowed in the Regulations, additional land uses, modification to the Environmental Protection Standards, or non- dimensional / design standards such as inclusionary zoning or energy codes. Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The proposed General PUD is intended support the land use pattern envisioned through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The General PUD uses the City’s subdivision, site plan, zoning district and general standards as the default and provides some flexibility in their application to meet site-specific needs. A context assessment of the surrounding areas is required and provides direction in the application of the standards. The General PUD will allow for site design and layout that supports infill development, including housing, in difficult sites and where the Development Review Board finds the intent of the Regulations are met. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Objectives & Strategies: Objective 3. Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and target income level, is representative of the needs of households of central Chittenden County, and maintains an efficient use of land for use by future generations. Objective 5. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate development of a high-density, City Center, mixed used transit corridors, and compact residential neighborhoods. Objective 6. Continue to be an economic hub for the region consistent with the land use goals of the city. Objective 16: Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive manner. 3 Objective 31. Conserve, restore and enhance biological diversity within the City, through careful site planning and development that is designed to avoid adverse impacts to critical wildlife resources, and that incorporates significant natural areas, communities and wildlife habitats as conserved open space. Objective 39: The majority of all new development will occur within the Shelburne Road, Williston Road, and Kennedy Drive Corridors, and other areas within the Transit service area. Strategy 8. Explore innovative land development regulations that allow for a range of residential building and neighborhood types, including but not limited to cottage housing, clustered housing and infill residential development. Ongoing Activity 1: Continue to refine the City’s Land Development Regulations to promote the Plan’s goals and objectives. Ongoing Activity 15: Continue to encourage and consider incentivizing neighborhoods that use a mix of housing types and integrate different types next to each other, rather than creating monoculture of one type of housing. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The proposed amendments allow the DRB to vary dimensional and design standards within a General PUD. They do not, however, alter the proposed or allowed land uses or densities identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments do not affect any specific proposals for planned community facilities. B. LDR-22-02: Establish Site Amenity requirements for new development, expansions, or residential conversions subject to site plan review; add additional allowable Site Amenity types, and allow partial credit to Site Amenity and Civic Space requirements for nearby publicly-accessible civic spaces & parks Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment This amendment would establish a common minimum requirement for new development or residential conversions to include Site Amenities (private or common outdoor spaces for use by residents/employees/visitors). Minimum amounts are 6% of non-residential building area or between 60 and 100 s.f. per dwelling unit (depending on building size); both figures are drawn from similar standards existing within the City Center Form Based Code. Site Amenity types are based on those created for the City Center Form Based Code. Two additional types are proposed: indoor- outdoor common area, and private balcony/porch. The amendment would allow a Park or Civic Space that is located within 500 feet to count towards 50% of the minimum requirement if that distance is a safe, walkable connection. 4 The amendment would also create allowances related to minimum Civic Space associated with major subdivisions. The minimum Civic Space requirement is proposed to be allowed to be off-site, with 500 feet (safe & walkable) where the parcel to be subdivided is 6 areas in size or less. Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The proposed amendments are identified in multiple places in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Specific Goals and Objectives furthered by these amendments: Objective 5. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate development of a high-density, City Center, mixed-used transit corridors, and compact residential neighborhoods. Objective 14. Seek a livable balance between public, commercial, and civic activity and private tranquility and promote the health, peace, and well-being of residents in their daily lives. Objective 15. For all new development, public and private, consider accessibility for users of differing ages and physical abilities Objective 16. Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive manner. Objective 30. Proactively plan for a network of interconnected and contiguous open spaces to conserve and accommodate ecological resources, active and passive recreation land, civic spaces, scenic views and vistas, forests and productive farmland and primary agricultural soils. Strategy 35. Take into account the quality of life of residents, employees, and visitors in the development of City policies, plans, projects, and regulations. Strategy 68. Redefine open space in new developments such that usable, quality open space shall be required. Qualifying open space should include civic spaces, recreation, wildlife habitat, and usable agricultural lands. Ongoing Action 11. Continue to build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner. 5 Safe, immediate access to outdoor spaces – private or shared – supports affordability by assuring that all residents are able to access the outdoors without having to own a car or use other forms of transportation. Further, the establishment of site amenities does not require a reduction in density. Additionally, most new housing in the past decade or more has included such amenities. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to be compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments do not affect any specific proposals for planned community facilities. C. LDR-22-03: Augment Site Plan review standards of Relationship of Structures to the Site, and of Relationship of Structures and Site and to Adjoining Area. Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment The proposed amendments would provide direction to applicants and the Development Review Board on applying these standards. This includes direction in consideration of Street Frontage, Building Placement and Orientation, Contract of Scale, Pedestrian Orientation, Pattern & Rhythm, Architectural Features, and Privacy. Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The proposed amendments provide greater clarity to applicants and the DRB on application of the existing standards in the Regulations. The proposed amendments do not directly impact the availability of safe and affordable housing. However, the amendments will foster more context- sensitive design in new development, which in turn supports walkability and, indirectly, overall safety of environments through greater pedestrian use. Specific Goals and Objectives furthered by these amendments: 6 Objective 5. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate development of a high-density, City Center, mixed used transit corridors, and compact residential neighborhoods. Objective 16: Build and reinforce diverse, accessible neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated development in a context-sensitive manner. Strategy 35. Take into account the quality of life of residents, employees, and visitors in the development of City policies, plans, projects, and regulations. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to be compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendments do not affect any specific proposals for planned community facilities. D. LDR-22-04 Minor and technical amendments to include: • Adjust Master Plan applicability for single-user lots • Definitions updates and corrections Brief Description of the Proposed Amendment The amendments listed above represent minor adjustments to the regulations that promote consistency in approach, policy, and organization within the Land Development Regulations. Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the context of the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1, 2016. The Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under 24 VSA 4441(c): “…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing. The Comprehensive Plan supports consistency and streamlining of regulations. Strategy 15. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of City regulations relating to permitting with an eye toward ways to eliminate outdated or duplicative requirements and to further streamline the process of 7 obtaining needed permits with a specific focus on improving predictability of the process. Move as much of the permitting process online as is viable to improve customer access and service. 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan. The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment to be compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment will not have any impact on planned community facilities. The General PUD would allow the Development Review Board to vary site plan, subdivision, and other dimensional and design standards of the Land Development Regulations in order to better achieve stated goals based on the needs of the site. The Development Review Board may, for identified purposes, permit modifications to lot sizes, arrangement of buildings and lots, building setbacks and heights, and re-allocation of density within the PUD. The General PUD does not authorize increases in lot coverage, development density not otherwise allowed in the Regulations, additional land uses, modification to the Environmental Protection Standards, or non-dimensional / design standards such as inclusionary zoning or energy codes. B. LDR-22-02: Establish Site Amenity requirements for new development, expansions, or residential conversions subject to site plan review; add additional allowable Site Amenity types, and allow partial credit to Site Amenity and Civic Space requirements for nearby publicly-accessible civic spaces & parks (Sections 14.06, 15.A.16; Article 11.B) Brief description: This amendment would establish a minimum requirement for new development or residential conversions to include Site Amenities (private or common primarily outdoor spaces for use by residents/employees/visitors). Minimum amounts are 6% of non-residential building area or between 60 and 100 s.f. per dwelling unit (depending on building size); both figures are drawn from similar standards existing within the City Center Form Based Code. Site Amenity types include those created for the City Center Form Based Code and two additional proposed types: indoor-outdoor common area, and private balcony/porch. The amendment would allow a Park or publicly-accessible Civic Space that is located within ¼ mile to count towards 50% of the minimum requirement if that distance is a safe, walkable connection. The amendment would also create allowances related to minimum Civic Space associated with major subdivisions. The minimum Civic Space requirement is proposed to be allowed to be off-site, with ¼ mile (safe & walkable) where the parcel to be subdivided is 6 areas in size or less. C. LDR-22-03: Augment Site Plan review standards of Relationship of Structures to the Site, and of Relationship of Structures and Site and to Adjoining Area (Section 14.06). Brief description: The proposed amendments would provide direction to applicants and the Development Review Board on applying these standards. This includes direction in consideration of Street Frontage, Building Placement and Orientation, Contract of Scale, Pedestrian Orientation, Pattern & Rhythm, Architectural Features, and Privacy. D. LDR-22-04: Minor and technical amendments to include: a. Adjust Master Plan applicability for single-user lots (Article 15.C) b. Definitions updates and corrections (Sections 2.02, 8.08) Brief description: The amendments listed above represent minor adjustments to the regulations that promote consistency in approach, policy, and organization within the Land Development Regulations. 2 DEFINITIONS 2.02 Specific Definitions Secure Area: [STAFF IS WORKING ON THIS FRIDAY 4/1 – this language may change before the Council meeting] 14 SITE PLAN and CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (2) Parking: (viii) The building or buildings being served by the parking area make up or are contained within the Secure Area perimeter of a publicly-owned and operated airport. 15.C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 15.C.07 General PUD A.____Authority and Limitations. (1) In addition, in no case shall the DRB vary: (a) Environmental Protection Standards under Article 12, except as authorized within that Article. (b) Parking and building location requirements in Section 14.06(A)(2), except as authorized within that Section. NOTE: New language is highlighted. March 25, 2002 To: South Burlington City Council, City Manager Jessie Baker, Deputy City Manager Andrew Bolduc, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, and Fire Chief/Fire Marshall Terry Francis From: Meaghan Emery, Council Vice-Chair Dear Colleagues, Please find attached proposed language for a city ordinance on Short-Term Rentals for the Council to consider at our regular April 4 meeting. After discovering a number of Airbnbs during my recent campaign for re-election and speaking with concerned residents, I have been following developments in Burlington regarding an ordinance recently vetoed by Mayor Weinberger. Following this veto, I began investigating on my own and learned from my research that touristic cities (like ours) are particularly vulnerable to the negative consequences of short-term rentals: foremost among them for us are loss of community-feel in neighborhoods and lowered quality of life, increased housing prices (John Burton has done research on this) with the housing market increasingly being closed to local residents who are outbid by buyers from outside the area, loss of affordable housing, and lost income for local hotels. An increase in crime, including violent crime, has also been identified as a negative consequence of short-term rentals. John Burton found two studies, called the Dartmouth Report (a policy brief for the Vermont State Legislature) and the Washington, D.C. Report, which is more focused on the issue of gentrification. The D.C. report indicates that short-term rentals drive up housing prices in touristic-centric cities, with “a 0.78% increase in property prices for each additional Airbnb listing within the 200-foot buffer” (14). The 2019 Dartmouth Report specifically finds that, “The three counties in which there is the greatest supply of Airbnb listings are also the counties which report a housing shortage. According to Airbnb, Chittenden County hosted the most guests in the state in 2018 — 72,300 — which generated $9.1 million in host income” (4). Another key finding: “Short-term rentals in Vermont are not held to the same health and safety regulations or standards of taxation as the traditional lodging and restaurant establishments in the state” (5). All municipalities in Vermont are not made alike; whereas 47% of homes are vacant in Essex County in the Northeast Kingdom, just 5% are empty in Chittenden County, according to the Dartmouth report (the term “home vacancy” is to be understood as it is used by the U.S. Census, not by realtors). For this reason, many communities in other states are finding that it is more appropriate to regulate STR at the local level because of the variety of needs dependent on the nature of the housing stock and market. According to data on the 2020 U.S. Census American Community Survey, there are 122 homes in South Burlington (indicated with a wide margin of error) that are currently either “rented but not occupied” or “for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.” There are also 84 “other vacant” homes. The U.S. Census data is used for determining state legislative districts, the distribution of federal funds, and other major policy decisions. For this reason, I believe that we should use the survey data as a reference, keeping in mind that the data is imperfect. Its purpose is to give us an adequate picture from which to draw conclusions. As the Dartmouth Report states, “the state does not possess a comprehensive list of short-term rentals” (12). Our local regulations currently require bed and breakfasts to obtain a conditional-use permit. Burlington also requires the same. However, ordinances are perhaps a more effective means of ensuring compliance with our rules because there is a non-litigated financial penalty for non-compliance and built-in incentives to comply, such as the requirement that hosts sign an affidavit. The difficulties surrounding tax collection is also a consideration. As the Dartmouth Report states, “Since 2016, Airbnb has collected and filed [meals and rooms] taxes for people using their site as a rental platform. However, other popular rental sites such as VRBO do not perform this service. The individual landlord is responsible for charging and filing the tax” (6). Hosts who advertise on VRBO (a subsidiary of HomeAway), which lists full units only, are also avoiding South Burlington’s local option tax. A contact of mine who has worked in the mortgage business for 25 years shared with me that there has been increasing investment in real estate as a “safe haven for money” since regulations were passed following the 2008 crash. He expects that pressure to continue with the current economic indicators pointing toward a possible recession. For this reason, I propose this ordinance language with some urgency. The language I propose below is modeled primarily after existing ordinances in Honolulu, HI, Berkeley and Redwood City, CA, and Seattle, WA, with provisions taken from ordinances in San Francisco, CA (home to Airbnb corporate HQ and the first city to pass an ordinance), Denver, CO, Miami, FL, Chicago, IL, and Jersey City, NJ: https://www.2ndaddress.com/research/short-term-rental-laws/ I have included the provision that the City will require license holders to sign affidavits. Denver is the only city that includes this provision, and hundreds of property owners are shutting down short-term rentals to avoid legal implications. Finally, I also checked out the VT tax code in order to ensure compliance: https://tax.vermont.gov/business/industry/short-term-rentals Thank you for your consideration, Meaghan Meaghan Emery Vice-Chair, South Burlington City Council Proposed Language for Ordinance on Short-Term Rentals in South Burlington, VT The City of South Burlington only allows hosted rentals, so-called “bed and breakfast homes," for stays of fewer than 30 days. They are only allowed in primary residences. They are banned from accessory units, income-restricted affordable housing, student housing and dormitories, and in buildings with more than four units. (see note 10) Renting out an entire home is illegal. The City requires short-term rental owners to obtain a permit (a short-term rental permit) from the City's Planning and Zoning Department. Hosts must register and pay a $250 application fee to obtain a short-term rental permit. (see notes 3 and 7) The City requires license holders to sign affidavits. (see note 6) Hosts are required to collect a 10% tax (9% meals and rooms tax + 1% local option tax). (see note 1) Hosts are required to include the permit number on any advertisement. Short-term rental hosts have to show proof that they are the primary resident and provide liability insurance of $1,000,000 for guests. (see note 2) All hosts are required to pass a fire inspection. (see note 2) All hosts are required to provide soap, clean linen, sanitized utensils, and other living necessities. All pets are prohibited. (see note 9) Parking requirements include one space per guest bedroom. (see note 4) Special events—weddings and corporate retreats—are prohibited. Short-term rental platforms must also obtain licenses from the City. (see notes 10 and 11) Existing short-term rental contracts in breach of these provisions must phase out by Jan. 1, 2023. Fines for illegal short-term rentals is $100 for the first offense, $1,000 for the second, and $2,500 for the third. They escalate to $5,000 a day for ongoing noncompliance, and up to $10,000 per day. Notes: 1. In Vermont, there is a 9% tax on lodging. 2. Vermont law pertaining to short-term rentals is found in 18 V.S.A. chapter 85, subchapter 7. 3. South Burlington Land Development Regulations define “Bed and Breakfasts” thus: “Bed and breakfast. A detached single-family residence with four or fewer rooms for rent, accommodating a maximum of ten guests, for short-term overnight lodging by the day or by the week. The single-family residence must be the primary residence of the owner or operator of the bed and breakfast. Employment shall not exceed one (1) full-time employee in addition to the owner. Only a morning meal may be provided to guests. Bed and breakfasts are also known as tourist homes.” They require conditional-use permits and the following standards must be met: “Standards for single family dwelling in same zoning district. Minimum lot size 1 acre, except SEQ-VC zoning district where there is no minimum lot size.” (Table C-2 and Appendix C) My concern is that we are not enforcing our own LDRs, which was the case in Burlington. A solution, not pursued in Burlington due to the Mayor’s veto, would be an ordinance requiring the signing of an affidavit. 4. South Burlington LDRs currently require 1 minimum and 3 maximum parking spaces per residential unit. 5. The South Burlington Sign Ordinance currently requires the following for bed and breakfasts: “Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, a sign identifying a bed and breakfast as defined by the South Burlington Land Development Regulations as presently in force or amended from time to time in a residential district shall not exceed four (4) square feet when located on a lot fronting on a street or road having a maximum posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less, or eight (8) square feet when located on a lot fronting on a street or road where the maximum posted speed limit is in excess of 25 miles per hour.” 6. The law in Denver requires registered hosts to sign an affidavit, and hundreds of property owners are reportedly shutting down short-term rentals to avoid legal implications. 7. The law in Honolulu also allows the city to confiscate rental earnings. I don't know if this would be possible here. 8. In Oakland a Conditional Use Permit is additionally required to operate short-term rentals. 9. Helen Riehle suggests regarding dogs/pet: allow dogs but have a requirement that they are fully vaccinated and aware of ticks in VT, informed of city requirements for leashing and picking up poop, are well behaved, etc. 10. Airbnb has filed and won a number of lawsuits. For instance, Seattle and New York required platforms like Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway to report all licensed operators and their listed units every month; however, the New York bill was recently blocked by a federal judge in January 2019. The important thing that we must keep in mind is to regulate the activity and not an STR platform. 11. Burlington started collecting taxes from Airbnb in 2016. The Class of 1964 Policy Research Shop SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS: REGULATIONS AND IMPACTS IN VERMONT Policy Options to Address the Uneven Playing Field Presented to the Vermont Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs PRS Policy Brief 1920-08 May 14, 2020 Prepared By: Namrata Ramakrishna Emery Rheam Blake McGill This report was written by undergraduate students at Dartmouth College under the direction of professors in the Rockefeller Center. Class of 1964 Policy Research Shop (PRS) students produce non-partisan policy analyses and present their findings in a non-advocacy manner. The PRS is fully endowed by the Dartmouth Class of 1964 through a class gift in celebration of its 50th Anniversary given to the Center. This endowment ensures that the Policy Research Shop will continue to produce high-quality, non-partisan policy research for policymakers in New Hampshire and Vermont. The PRS was previously funded by major grants from the U.S. Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) and from the Ford Foundation and by initial seed grants from the Surdna Foundation, the Lintilhac Foundation, and the Ford Motor Company Fund. Since its inception in 2005, PRS students have invested more than 70,000 hours to produce more than 200 policy briefs for policymakers in New Hampshire and Vermont. Contact: Nelson A. Rockefeller Center, 6082 Rockefeller Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/ • Email: Ronald.G.Shaiko@Dartmouth.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. PURPOSE STATEMENT 3 3. CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN VERMONT 3 3.1 DEFINING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL 3 3.2 ASSESSING THE CURRENT MARKET 4 3.2.1 Short-term Rentals and their relationship with the Greater Housing Crisis 4 3.3 CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS 5 3.3.1 Health and Safety Regulations 5 3.3.2 Tax Remittance 6 3.4 INTERMEDIARIES AND AGREEMENTS 7 4. CURRENT PRACTICE IN VERMONT LOCALITIES 8 4.1 KILLINGTON 8 4.2 STOWE 8 4.3 BURLINGTON 9 5. POLICY OPTIONS 9 5.1 MANDATE REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 9 5.2 IMPLEMENT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 5.3 IMPLEMENT LOCAL POLICIES AT THE STATE LEVEL 10 5.4 INCLUDE GREATER RESTRICTION OF THE MARKET 11 5.5 EXPAND CURRENT TAX REMITTANCE POLICIES 11 6. ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF POSSIBLE LEGISLATION 12 7. CONCLUSION 12 APPENDICES 13 APPENDIX A. THE “BIGGEST [EARNING] WEEKENDS” FOR VERMONT AIRBNB HOSTS IN 2019 13 APPENDIX B. 2019 GUEST ARRIVALS AND TOTAL HOST INCOME BY COUNTY. 14 APPENDIX C. 2019 VERMONT LISTINGS AND TOTAL HOST EARNINGS ANNUALLY BY MUNICIPALITY. 15 APPENDIX D. CASE COMPARISONS OF REGULATORY PROVISIONS IN DIFFERENT STATES 18 REFERENCES 31 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Vermont tourism industry has historically served as an effective source of tax revenue for the state. There are disparities in the taxation and regulation of traditional tourist lodging, like hotels, and the new and burgeoning short-term rental market. The Vermont Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs is seeking to understand three main areas to better inform policy making for short-term rental units. These include: (1) the current tax, health and safety regulations for short-term rental units and how these regulations compare to more traditional bed and breakfasts, hotels and motels, (2) perspectives of stakeholders, and (3) the economic and social impacts of these short-term rentals on the individual, community, and state. The Committee seeks to understand how state regulations on short-term rentals compare with those in similar states. Ultimately, the legislature hopes to develop and implement a system of taxation and regulation for the growing pool of short-term rental units across the state. We will analyze the current state of regulation on short-term rentals, analyze its impacts, compare these regulations with states and localities with similar short-term rental markets and tourism sectors, and deliver recommendations based on our findings. 2 1. INTRODUCTION Since its official launch in March 2008, Airbnb has facilitated 500 million guest stays at short-term rentals in more than 100,000 cities.1 According to a 2017 report by the Vermont Department of Health, short-term rentals in Vermont account for 3,600 of the more than seven million active listings on Airbnb.2 The Vermont state legislature reports that three- fourths of the listings are advertising whole-home rentals during which the host, or owner of the property, is away.3 The burgeoning short-term rental market has coincided with a housing crisis that has left many citizens of the state unable to find and maintain residences in long-term housing. This is particularly true in the tourist destinations of Chittenden, Rutland and Lamoille Counties.4 In recent years, these short-term rentals have brought tourists from across the country to Vermont and the option to rent part or all of their properties provides a secondary income for many in the Green Mountain state. The rentals have also caused conflict between permanent residents and tourists. The Vermont hotel industry has called for uniformity of regulations across industries. In 2017, the Vermont Department of Health commissioned the aforementioned report; it has since taken measures to attempt regulation of such listings. These measures will be discussed in more detail in section 3.2 of this report.5 The Vermont State Legislature seeks to balance the interests of the long-term residents, visitors, and business owners in the tourism industry. The recommendations offered in this document seek to achieve such a balance. 1.1 Tourism as a Consideration Thirteen million people visit Vermont as tourists each year.6 The Vermont tourism industry accounts for ten percent of the state workforce—32,000 jobs—and $2.8 billion in economic activity annually.7 When considering the impact of tourism and recreation on the Vermont economy, it is useful to compare its “local quotient” or the relative economic significance of its tourism with that of other states. Visitor accommodation represents three times more economic activity in Vermont than in other states in the northeast.8 According to January 2020 data provided by Liz DeBold Fusco, Northeast Press Secretary at Airbnb, “Vermont Airbnb hosts earned $15.1 million during the ‘biggest weekends’ of 2019.” Approximately 69,800 guests arrived in Vermont during these five weekends. The dates of these high-traffic weekends are outlined in Appendix A and were provided via email by Ms. DeBold Fusco. These weekends aligned with holidays, including Columbus Day, President’s Day, Valentine’s Day, and the Saturday, Sunday and Monday immediately following Christmas. It is important to note tourism increases generally during those weekends, but Airbnb plays a key role in housing tourists.9 3 Tourism benefits local businesses, and consequently, local economies. According to an Airbnb survey of more than 35,000 responses from their host and guest community in the United States: ● 92 percent of Airbnb hosts say they recommend restaurants and cafes to guests. ● 56 percent of Airbnb hosts say they recommend cultural activities such as museums, festivals, and historical sites to guests. ● 55 percent of Airbnb hosts say hosting has helped them afford their homes. ● On average, Airbnb guests say 41 percent of their spending occurs in the neighborhood where they stay.10 Hosts of short-term rentals have also benefited financially. Since Airbnb was founded, hosts have earned over $65 billion renting and sharing their homes. In 2019, Airbnb reached a landmark cumulative $2 billion in tourist-related taxes that have been collected and remitted to local governments on behalf of our global host community over the past four years.11 A table found in Appendix C , also provided via email by Airbnb, breaks down the number of guest arrivals to properties. While the Vermont tourism industry appears to prosper, hotels and inns tell a different story. Darren Drevik, on behalf of the Vermont Inn and Bed and Breakfast Association, believes that inns and bed and breakfasts must adapt or be forced out of business by the price competitiveness of short-term rentals. Inns and bed and breakfasts claim they are being priced out of the market by short-term rentals. Free from much of the costly regulatory burden, hosts of short-terms rentals can charge less per night, says Drevik. He believes adapting to include breakfast or experiences such as spas helps them stand out and stay in business. 2. PURPOSE STATEMENT This report aims to support Vermont in exploring policy options available to regulate short- term rentals to ensure tax collection and health and safety standards. Already, partnerships have been forged with short-term rental platforms, such as Airbnb, to directly collect and deliver taxes from these stays. Ensuring oversight of health and safety measures has been more difficult. 3. CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN VERMONT An existing scaffolding of regulation in the state of Vermont offers an opportunity to develop legislation on short-term rentals to meet the needs of the state. 3.1 Defining a Short-term Rental A “short-term rental” is a rental of sleeping accommodations that is for less than one calendar month (or less than thirty consecutive days). Conversely, a rental for a calendar 4 month or more is a rental to a permanent resident that is not subject to Vermont meals and rooms tax and does not require informational reporting by an internet platform.12 3.2 Assessing the Current Market Douglas Farnham, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Taxes, estimates that Airbnb captures 50 percent of the short-term rental market and has generated a significant portion of the tax revenue collected.13 The three counties in which there is the greatest supply of Airbnb listings are also the counties which report a housing shortage. According to Airbnb, Chittenden County hosted the most guests in the state in 2018 — 72,300 — which generated $9.1 million in host income. Rutland County was second with 51,400 guests generating $7.9 million in income for hosts followed by Lamoille, Windham and Washington counties.14 A further breakdown shows listings from 71 Vermont towns on Airbnb. Burlington and Rutland have the most with 490 and 480 host properties respectively, according to data shared by Airbnb with the state Department of Taxes. Stowe is third with 330 hosts. The top three counties also have a vacancy range of five percent in Chittenden to 26.6 percent in Rutland in 2017.15 This is amongst the lowest vacancy rates in the state. The available homes tend to be mismatched with the needs of the community. There are few small homes that are affordable for the elderly or new homebuyers. Much of the housing stock (26.7 percent) was constructed 80 years ago.16 Most vacant houses in Vermont are secondary seasonal and recreational homes; the vacancy rate is uneven across the state. For example, nearly 47 percent of homes are vacant in Essex County, in the Northeast Kingdom. Conversely, just five percent are empty in Chittenden County. It is essential to understand the types of homes rented as short-term units in these counties, in particular. Using AirDNA,17 a data visualization tool that presents short-term rental market data per community, we were able to conduct analysis of the “types” of short-term rentals and how frequently properties are listed in the areas with the greatest number of listings. In the top five municipalities with Airbnb listings (Rutland, Burlington, Stowe, Montpelier, and Dover), 68 percent of units are registered on Airbnb, 17.8 percent are listed exclusively on VRBO, and about 12.4 percent are listed on both. The majority of listings, 79.6 percent, are complete homes available for rent. This begins to build a case for short-term rentals affecting housing stock in the state. About 19.6 percent of the listings are rooms within a residence. These listings see an average occupancy rate of 53.2 percent. 3.2.1 Short-term Rentals and their relationship with the Greater Housing Crisis “More than one in three Vermont households live in homes that consume unsustainably high portions of their income, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.”18 A report by the Urban Institute cites insufficient construction as one possible cause.19 Another contributor is the secondary home market. Workers in counties highly trafficked by tourists are unable to afford housing in the places in which they work. The Vermont state legislature 5 fears that short-term rentals could contribute to or exacerbate the affordable housing crisis. If secondary or tertiary homeowners can rent out their homes while they are away, these seasonal or recreational homes become economically feasible or even profitable. The short- term rental market may incentivize owners to take the properties off the long-term rental market.20 A lack of long-term rental options hinders working class individuals from finding lodging near their jobs. Anecdotal evidence suggests properties are being purchased and immediately listed on sites like Airbnb.21 Some “super hosts” manage several properties at a time. The COVID-19 pandemic has hit these hosts particularly hard. A Wall Street Journal article from April 28, 2020 chronicles stories of those hosts who, once making “magical money,” are facing financial ruin as the short-term rental market dries up.22 Airbnb has pledged $250 million dollars as of the end of April to support those hosts who have faced cancellations due to the pandemic.23 3.3 Current Rules and Regulations Vermont is among states like New York, California, and Wyoming where tourism plays a significant role in the economy. They are also on the forefront of seeking to regulate short- term-rental units. Many states are yet to take any steps to regulate the market. Any legislation that enforces stricter thresholds tends to be made by localities where short-term rentals are prominent. There are two main categories of regulation: health and safety regulation and tax remittance. 3.3.1 Health and Safety Regulations Short-term rentals in Vermont are not held to the same health and safety regulations or standards of taxation as the traditional lodging and restaurant establishments in the state. In recent years, the state has taken measures to narrow this gap, but disparity remains. In conversation with Darren Drevik, on behalf of the Vermont Inn and Bed and Breakfast Association, he shared that this disparity is of greatest concern to hotel proprietors and innkeepers in the state of Vermont. They claim a lack of regulation unfairly advantages short-term hosts and drives down market price. They implore the state to even the playing field, by either increasing regulations on short-term rentals, or deregulating inns and hotels, and letting the market decide the rest. Differences in health and safety standards have left many state legislators fearful that visitors to Vermont are not safeguarded against the actions of their hosts or the conditions of their homes. Legislators are especially concerned about those units run by absentee landlords who are not privy to the day-to-day, on-site operations. Measures taken by the state to execute inspections on short-term rental properties are hindered by a lack of information, resources, and cooperation from short-term renters. Current policies function as unfunded mandates with few mechanisms for enforcement. 6 Registration of short-term rentals is necessary if the state aims to enforce health and safety regulations equally between the hotel industry and short-term rentals. The Department of Public Safety—Division of Fire Safety has regulatory authority over all “public buildings” which includes buildings rented as accommodations regardless of duration.24 The Department of Taxes has tried to disseminate an information packet to hosts prepared by the Department of Health “pertaining to the health, safety, and financial obligations of short-term rental operators, including information regarding the importance of reviewing options for property and liability insurance.”25 These short-term units do have fire safety requirements, including the use of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, proper egress, and may also require change of use permits. Overall, there is a lack of the resources necessary to perform routine inspections of all short-term rentals within this category. The Division does respond to complaints, conduct fatality investigations, and issues change of use permits. The Division conducts annual inspections of residential care homes but not of rental housing or lodging facilities.26 Therefore, without the initiative of the owner, there is a lack of follow through. Ultimately, very few homes are checked. Of the small percentage of registered short-term units, an even smaller subset of hosts initiates inspections. Hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts that fall under lodging establishments have to meet a higher bar of health and safety regulations, especially if they serve food. They are subject to frequent inspection to meet health standards for serving food. All these entities are registered with the state and need to be licensed to function. Registration fees for lodging establishments can range from $130 to $1,000.27 Owners of these establishments describe requirements as uneven compared to the regulation compliance required for short-term renters. 3.3.2 Tax Remittance Currently, there are several taxes scheduled to apply to short-term rentals. The first of these is the Meals and Rooms Tax. Vermont charges a nine percent Meals and Rooms Tax. This tax applies to any purchase of meals, alcohol sold in bars, and room rentals. The Vermont Department of Taxes writes “sleeping accommodations offered to the public for a consideration on premises operated by a private person, entity, institution, or organization are subject to the Vermont Meals and Rooms Tax if those rentals total fifteen or more days in any one calendar year.”28 However, if lodging is rented to the same person for 30 or more consecutive days, different laws apply. This means that short-term rentals are legally obligated to file and pay the Vermont Meals and Rooms Tax. Since 2016, Airbnb has collected and filed these taxes for people using their site as a rental platform.29 However, other popular rental sites such as VRBO do not perform this service. The individual landlord is responsible for charging and filing the tax.30 7 There is also the Local Option Tax. Municipalities can choose to levy this tax on meals and alcohol, rooms, and/or any items subject to sales tax.31 Currently, there are 15 municipalities in Vermont that apply the tax to all sales taxable items and 19 that collect the Local Option Meals and Rooms Tax and Alcoholic Beverage Tax. Many of the same municipalities appear on both lists. In addition to those municipalities, the cities of Burlington, Rutland, and St. Albans collect their own local taxes on meals, lodging, entertainment, and alcoholic beverages.32 Vermont also taxes all property state-wide to fund schools. Property falls into two categories: homestead or nonresidential.33 Property cannot be considered a homestead if any of the following conditions are true: the owner is not a Vermont resident, it is leased more than 182 days a year, it is used exclusively for a commercial purpose (including rentals), it is a second home, camp, vacation, or summer cottage.34 Property tax rates vary between towns. A statistical breakdown of the reports is provided in Table 1. Overall, there is not a significant difference in the property tax rates between homesteads and nonresidential properties. Table 1. Variance in Vermont Property Tax Rates for FY 2020 Category Minimum Maximum Mean Median Homestead .9758 percent 2.2532 percent 1.5092 percent 1.5235 percent Nonresidential 1.3143 percent 2.0528 percent 1.5886 percent 1.5864 percent Source: Vermont Department of Taxes. FY20 Education Tax Rates. Vermont: 2019. 35 3.4 Intermediaries and Agreements The key intermediaries that facilitate short-term rentals between hosts and guests are Airbnb and VRBO, now a subsidiary of HomeAway. A key difference is VRBO and HomeAway list full units only.36 The introduction of short-term rentals has made collection of the Meals and Rooms Tax difficult and stakeholders in the traditional lodging and restaurant industries are calling on the legislature to create an even playing field for both markets. In 2016, Airbnb agreed to remit taxes directly to the Vermont Department of Taxes. In 2018, the booking site also passed onto the state $7.8 million in rooms and meals and local option tax revenues.37 Agreements with booking websites like the one made with Airbnb in 2016 have aided the state in collecting the once avoided Meals and Rooms taxes. However, this ad hoc system of an intermediary like Airbnb remitting taxes does not address the ability of the state to collect Meals and Rooms taxes from all of its short-term renters. Moving forward, the state may pursue similar agreements with other booking websites like VRBO to ensure more short-term rentals are remitting taxes. 8 4. CURRENT PRACTICE IN VERMONT LOCALITIES Within Vermont, there exists a range of local regulation on short-term rentals. Some areas have a higher concentration of units and, as a result, regulate more strictly. These areas include Killington, Stowe and Burlington. 4.1 Killington38 In January of 2020, the Town of Killington Planning Commission passed new zoning bylaws pertaining to short-term rentals. The town defines a short-term rental as “A furnished house, condominium, or other dwelling room or self-contained dwelling unit rented to the transient, traveling, or vacationing public for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days and for more than 14 days per calendar year”. The new bylaws state that being or containing a short-term rental qualifies a building as a “public building” and makes it “subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Vermont Division of Fire Safety pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §2730(a)(1)(D).” Units with a capacity greater than eight occupants are required to obtain a Public Building Permit from the State of Vermont Division of Fire Safety. Smaller units can use a self-certification form instead. Short-term rental owners are also required to provide proof that the liability insurance for the unit applies to any injuries or damages resulting from use of the property as a short-term rental. These elements are required for a property to receive the zoning permit to be used as a short-term rental. 4.2 Stowe39 In Stowe, single-family homes, condominium units, and apartments are permitted to be rented if the rental is for one week or longer. Rentals for less than that are considered to be lodging facilities and are only permitted within certain zoning districts. In addition, with approval, any house may be converted to a bed and breakfast. A bed and breakfast requires the owner or a permanent occupant to live at the bed and breakfast. Upon request, the State Fire Marshall will complete an inspection for safety code compliance. A typical inspection includes ensuring that there is code compliance in regards to egress windows, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, stairways, and handrails. The current cost for an inspection is $125. Homeowner insurance policies generally carry a “business activity exclusion.” In other words, any claim involving a “business activity” could rightfully be denied. Short- term rentals are considered a business, so any claims could be denied. Generally hosts will need a different type of insurance to cover damage and liabilities when you have short- term renters. Some companies, such as Airbnb, are offering some form of additional insurance. 9 4.3 Burlington The more urban nature of Burlington differentiates it from other high-traffic tourist regions in Vermont. The city is currently in the early stages of short-term rental regulation. While ordinances have not yet been enacted, there is a proposed framework. Burlington plans to differentiate between individual rooms rented out within a larger unit and entire units being rented. The number of individual bedrooms that will be allowed to be rented depends on the zoning type of the property. Homes with one or two rented bedrooms would be exempt from a registration requirement. In residential districts, one parking space would be required for each rented bedroom or whole unit. The proposal includes expanding the current bed and breakfast zoning standards to apply to short-term rentals.40 It also suggests limiting the number of whole-unit rentals per building based on the number of units in that building. These zoning regulations would not apply to units rented less than 10 consecutive and 30 total days in any 12-month period. The most significant proposed regulation would require that hosts be a resident of the property of the rental unit. The city believes this will decrease market competition. They also believe that limiting the number of units per building that can be rented on a short-term basis will increase the housing stock available to Burlington residents. 5. POLICY OPTIONS We present five state-wide policy options for short-term rental regulation to meet previously articulated needs. 5.1 Mandate Registration and Enforcement While registration with the state is mandatory, Airbnbs are exempt from the policy. Without enforcing registration of units or information reporting by internet platforms for short-term rentals, the state is less able to directly regulate health and safety via health and fire inspection. The state has oversight over registered units, but very few units per municipality are registered in the state. If Airbnb and VRBO units were to be registered, the state could account for more than 50 percent of the short-term rental market. In order to hold unit owners accountable for the health and safety of their visitors, this will need to change. Without knowing the number and locations of these properties, the Vermont Department of Health has no means of identifying and investigated units for compliance. For example, there are 870 units listed with Airbnb in Stowe and 850 units with Airbnb in Burlington compared to only 126 and 26 rental operators registered with the State of Vermont in these two locations. In all likelihood, many of these operators are using the Airbnb exemption to avoid registering. Using mechanisms that have enabled Airbnb to remit taxes to also register homes will be useful. In all cases, there is a discrepancy in the number of operators registered with the state of Vermont, and the number of units listed. While one operator may be an absentee landlord 10 and own multiple units, it is unlikely that each of 26 operators owns an average of 32 units. Until a reliable count is possible—sometimes collected at the local level through the additional one percent local room and board tax—there will be great difficulty in ensuring adherence to health and safety regulation. In 2017, 75 percent of operators fall into the category of hosts with one-to-two listed units and the remaining 25 percent are rented through hosts with three or more units. These statistics tell a compelling story of under registration. Increasing funding and manpower dedicated to enforcing current legislation around registration may be essential first steps. With effective registration, there are opportunities to institute oversight like in Florida where all units three stories or more in height must file every three years a certificate stating that any and all balconies, platforms, stairways, and railways have been inspected by a person competent to conduct such inspections and are safe, secure, and free of defects.41 It is mandated that the Department of Health will conduct inspections, but a lack of manpower and funding has created an attitude of discontent by innkeepers and bed and breakfast operators. They feel that the attempts by government regulators to level the playing field are half-hearted at best. Owners of short-term rentals can request an inspection, but few do. Moving toward requiring and enforcing registration, licensing, and inspection will require government to allocate additional resources to facilitate implementation. 5.2 Implement Insurance Requirements In 2018, Act 10 of a special session of the Vermont legislature required the Department of Taxes to provide information about the importance of reviewing options for property and liability insurance for short-term rentals.42 It did not outline any specific insurance requirements. Most homeowners insurance policies include a “business activity exclusion” which means that many claims related to short-term rentals can be denied.43 However, there are insurance agencies in Vermont that sell packages for short-term rental properties that include coverage for business-related claims. If hosts do not have these types of policies, they may have to assume responsibility for injuries, accidents, or damages occurring on or to their properties as a result of rental business. The state is already somewhat removed from this but implementing insurance requirements could help decrease potential numbers of lawsuits and may increase the safety of many properties since insurance agencies will not insure unsafe spaces. One thing to consider is that more comprehensive insurance policies are costlier, so those lower-income hosts who rent their homes as a means of necessary income may lose their ability to do so if they were required to buy more expensive policies. 5.3 Implement Local Policies at the State Level Expanding policies already enacted in Vermont towns and cities to statewide legislation is a possibility in certain cases. For example, implementing minimum stays (one week or 11 more) as is the case in Stowe, reduces the competition with bed and breakfasts and hotels. Requiring hosts to live on the property (as is proposed in Burlington) decreases market competition. The difficulty with expanding some of these policies is that it does not take into account the variance in population density, primary activities driving tourism, and current housing stock issues of each town. Policies that are a good fit for Burlington may not be practical for the rural parts of the state. The tourism market in towns like Stowe and Killington may be more competitive than in other less resort-inclusive towns. It is worthwhile for the state to look at the policies proposed or already in place in these localities and selecting certain components of them is definitely feasible. However, it is important that they keep in mind similarities and differences between these small geographic areas and the state writ large. Vermont is leading the way for statewide legislation to address short-term rental units. An option remains to decentralize the approach and have municipalities implement the conditions that best fit their local context. 5.4 Include Greater Restriction of the Market As it relates to the housing stock shortage, short-term rentals can be further regulated as is the case in Massachusetts where tourism also plays a key role in its economy. In such states, only primary residences can be listed as short-term rentals. This could reopen housing stock because in municipalities with significant housing shortages such as Killington, Stowe or Burlington, 65-to-96 percent of the homes listed are entire houses.44 This may restrict the economic benefits of tourism, and analysis of more effective ways to ensure affordable housing may require other policies that do not sacrifice the benefits of short-term rentals and the tourism they bring to cities. Zoning, construction subsidies and more can be approached to address a lack of available and affordable housing in these areas. It may be important to regulate full home short-term rentals and short-term room rentals differently. In Kansas and Minnesota, the law defines the two entities differently: entire property, or multiple property rentals can be treated and regulated like inns, bed and breakfasts and hotels requiring health and safety thresholds to be met. These more specific definitions of hotel or guest house put limits on duration of stay, or number of beds on property to dissuade entire home rentals. This may allow elderly hosts to continue to preserve their supplemental income, reduce pressure on the housing stock, and discourage practices by absentee landlords who buy and rent out multiple properties that are in most ways the same as hotels and inns. 5.5 Expand Current Tax Remittance Policies If the remittance of taxes is the highest priority, then entering agreements with VRBO and any other listing sites may be the best way to attain compliance. If the state does not want to take on responsibility for permitting or licensing rentals, it may seek to utilize the 12 platforms these vendors use, to remit the expected taxes. Allowing for audits, if necessary, will present an accountability measure. 6. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE LEGISLATION Vermont is a leader in legislating short-term rentals at the state level. However, calculating and extrapolating the economic impact of stricter regulation is difficult. These changes have all happened in the last two-to-three years. Comprehensive data are not available yet. For example, it would be extremely interesting to understand the social and economic impact of new legislation in Massachusetts on insurance requirements and required registration of units. These fall within policy measures Vermont could consider, but around the country, there are no evaluations completed in regards to impact.45 The Department of Taxes may also wish to look into declaration of short-term rental income on the individual and joint filings from owners of short-term rentals to assure that this income is captured and taxed appropriately. 7. CONCLUSION Short-term rentals contribute positively to the Vermont tourism industry. Guests who use intermediaries like Airbnb and VRBO patronize local businesses, such as restaurants, and contribute to secondary revenue streams for their hosts. Short-term rentals are not regulated like the traditional hotel and restaurant industry. An agreement between Airbnb and the Vermont state legislature allows the intermediary to remit Meals and Rooms taxes. However, the state does not possess a comprehensive list of short-term rentals. This creates challenges around health and safety regulation and additional taxation. The recommendations outlined in this document include mandatory registration, implementation of insurance requirements, statewide uniformity of regulation, restriction of the market, expansion of taxation. It is difficult to predict the economic impact of the proposed recommendations. The Vermont state legislature may wish to consider such impact and feasibility before it implements these proposed recommendations. 13 Appendices Appendix A. The “Biggest [Earning] Weekends” for Vermont Airbnb Hosts in 2019 2019 Weekend Dates Total Guest Arrivals Total Host Earnings Upcoming 2020 Weekend Dates December 27-29, 2019 16,900 $5.2 million December 25-27, 2020 October 11-13, 2019 15,500 $2.3 million October 9-11, 2020 February 15-17, 2019 14,200 $3.3 million February 14-16, 2020 January 18-20, 2019 11,800 $2.5 million January 17-19, 2020 14 Appendix B. 2019 Guest Arrivals and Total Host Income by County. County Total 2019 Guest Arrivals Total 2019 Host Income Addison 13,200 $1.8 million Bennington 34,300 $6 million Caledonia 16,500 $2 million Chittenden 88,800 $12 million Essex 1,500 $200,000 Franklin 5,200 $700,000 Grand Isle 400 $50,000 Lamoille 58,000 $11.2 million Orange 6,800 $700,000 Orleans 17,400 $2.4 million Rutland 70,700 $11.5 million Washington 43,500 $6.3 million Windham 52,700 $7.5 million Windsor 35,400 $5.8 million 15 Appendix C. 2019 Vermont Listings and Total Host Earnings Annually by Municipality. City Current Active Listings Inbound Guests (Annual) Nights Typical Listing Hosted Per Year Total Host Earnings (Annual) Average Daily Rate Rutland 1,100 66,700 25 $10,600,000 $139 Burlington 850 63,700 67 $8,500,000 $109 Stowe 870 40,300 22 $8,400,000 $152 Montpelier 390 17,900 29 $2,700,000 $102 Dover 290 16,000 25 $2,400,000 $135 Bennington 320 15,500 26 $2,600,000 $116 Ludlow 370 14,700 21 $2,600,000 $143 Newport 240 11,700 30 $1,600,000 $95 Wilmington 200 11,300 21 $1,400,000 $113 Brattleboro 170 11,300 52 $1,300,000 $94 Morristown 170 9,700 35 $1,300,000 $85 Lyndon 160 9,100 25 $1,000,000 $91 Middlebury (village) 230 8,400 30 $1,200,000 $104 Waitsfield 170 8,400 34 $1,200,000 $113 Rockingham 120 7,200 27 $1,100,000 $113 Manchester Center 130 6,800 22 $1,200,000 $123 Waterbury 100 6,800 46 $1,000,000 $113 Barre 170 6,700 19 $900,000 $94 Chester 110 6,400 38 $800,000 $106 Manchester 150 6,200 26 $1,200,000 $128 Colchester 100 5,800 43 $1,000,000 $115 South Burlington 70 5,300 47 $600,000 $85 Cambridge 150 4,600 29 $600,000 $100 Winooski 50 4,100 103 $400,000 $98 Saint Albans 90 3,500 39 $500,000 $87 Newfane 40 3,500 54 $500,000 $106 Richmond 50 3,200 47 $400,000 $100 Fairlee 40 3,200 45 $400,000 $106 Putney 50 2,800 44 $400,000 $114 Bristol 50 2,800 77 $300,000 $75 Rochester 40 2,600 42 $400,000 $100 Dorset 60 2,400 20 $400,000 $119 16 Randolph 30 2,300 27 $200,000 $74 Arlington 50 2,200 45 $300,000 $106 Quechee 50 2,100 21 $400,000 $115 Hardwick 50 2,100 35 $300,000 $100 East Burke 40 2,100 41 $300,000 $107 Shelburne 30 2,000 40 $300,000 $87 Hyde Park 30 2,000 71 $200,000 $102 Hinesburg 30 2,000 72 $300,000 $117 Vergennes 40 1,900 53 $200,000 $105 Norwich 70 1,800 22 $300,000 $111 Cavendish 50 1,700 23 $300,000 $123 Plainfield 30 1,700 43 $200,000 $85 Bradford 20 1,600 69 $200,000 $66 Hartland 30 1,500 37 $200,000 $94 Johnson 20 1,500 29 $200,000 $107 Castleton 30 1,400 46 $200,000 $84 Greensboro 40 1,300 35 $200,000 $102 Windsor 30 1,300 71 $200,000 $75 Essex Junction 30 1,300 48 $200,000 $90 Barton 30 1,300 30 $100,000 $72 Wells 20 1,300 36 $100,000 $79 Williston 20 1,300 32 $100,000 $89 Glover 30 1,100 32 $100,000 $71 Northfield 30 1,100 60 $100,000 $80 Danville 20 1,100 39 $100,000 $71 Bethel 20 1,100 37 $100,000 $82 White River Jct. 40 1,000 12 $200,000 $106 Springfield 30 1,000 69 $100,000 $89 Saint Johnsbury 20 1,000 39 $100,000 $127 Jericho 20 990 35 $100,000 $107 Island Pond 30 920 45 $100,000 $65 Swanton 20 860 45 $100,000 $75 Pittsford 10 850 35 $100,000 $73 West Brattleboro 20 810 34 $100,000 $92 Brandon 10 680 34 $100,000 $71 Jeffersonville 30 620 13 $100,000 $134 Richford 10 590 18 $100,000 $115 17 Marshfield 10 590 80 $100,000 $121 Barnet 20 580 24 $100,000 $104 18 Appendix D. Case Comparisons of Regulatory Provisions by State This is a modified version of the https://realtorparty.realtor/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/HTA-Chart-State-Short-Term-Rental-Regulation.pdf table. State Regulatory Provisions Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming There are no statewide statutes or regulations regarding short-term vacation rentals. Instead, all restrictions fall to the local jurisdictions where the rental properties are located. Alaska A person who is collecting rental income is deemed to be engaged in business activity and must obtain a business license from the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. Arizona A municipality may not prohibit vacation rentals or short-term rentals or restrict the use of or regulate vacation rentals or short-term rentals based on their classification, use or occupancy. However, a municipality may regulate such rentals for the purpose of protecting the public’s health and safety, “including rules and regulations related to fire and building codes, health and sanitation, transportation or traffic control, solid or hazardous waste and pollution control, and designation of an emergency point of contact.” A city or town may also adopt and enforce residential use and zoning ordinances, including those related to noise, protection of welfare, property maintenance and other nuisance issues. “Vacation rental” or “short-term rental” is defined as “any individually or collectively owned single-family or one-to-four-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative or timeshare, that is also a 19 transient public lodging establishment or owner- occupied residential home offered for transient use.” “Transient” is any person who either at the person’s own expense or at the expense of another obtains lodging space or the use of lodging space on a daily or weekly basis, or on any other basis for less than 30 consecutive days. California In California, short-term vacation rentals are generally regulated by the local city or county. The rules vary by locality depending on minimum night stay, the percentage of occupancy taxes and reporting and licensing requirements. However, a statewide law imposes specific recordkeeping requirements on a person or entity, including a person employed by a real estate broker, who, on behalf of another, solicits or arranges, or accepts reservations or money, or both, for transient occupancies in a dwelling unit in a common- interest development, or an apartment building or complex, or in a single- family home. Such persons must also comply with all collection, payment, and recordkeeping requirements of a transient occupancy tax ordinance, if any, applicable to the occupancy. However, a real estate licensee may satisfy these requirements by compliance with the Real Estate Law. Another statewide law requires a rental listing platform such as Airbnb or VBRO to post a notice advising tenants who are listing a room or home to review their leases and insurance policies for restrictions on such activity. Colorado Colorado does not generally regulate short-term rentals, but the Real Estate Commission has taken the position that, although activities relating to these agreements are exempt from the definition of real estate brokerage, a broker must escrow funds coming into their possession involving short-term rental. District of Columbia Short-term rental operators must obtain city permits and hosts may only rent out their primary residence, not second or third homes. Hosts can only offer short- term rentals for up to 90 days a year when they are not present. The rules also prohibit tenants from renting out their units as vacation rentals. Fines for violating the law start at $500 and go up to $6,000.46 20 Florida The regulation of public lodging establishments is preempted to the state. However, a local government or local enforcement district may conduct inspections of public lodging establishments for compliance with the Florida Building Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. “A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals,” except that this does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011. A public lodging establishment, including a “vacation rental”, must be licensed annually by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Any rules or regulations established by the operator of a vacation rental must be printed in the English language and posted in a prominent place within the rental. The operator must maintain at all times a register, signed by guests who occupy rental units within the establishment, showing the dates when the units were occupied and the rates charged for their occupancy. This register must be maintained in chronological order and available for inspection by the Division at any time. Operators need not make available registers which are more than two years old. Every public lodging establishment that is three stories or more in height must file every three years a certificate stating that any and all balconies, platforms, stairways, and railways have been inspected by a person competent to conduct such inspections and are safe, secure, and free of defects. A “vacation rental” means “any unit or group of units in a condominium or cooperative or any individually or collectively owned single-family, two- family, three- family, or four-family house or dwelling unit that is also a transient public lodging establishment but that is not a timeshare project”. A “transient public lodging establishment” is “any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings which is 21 rented to gu=ests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests.” Hawaii Owner/Operator Each operator as a condition precedent to engaging or continuing in the business of furnishing transient accommodations must register with the Director of Taxation the name and address of each place of business within Hawaii subject to Chapter 237D. The registration, or in lieu thereof a notice stating where the registration may be inspected and examined, must at all times be conspicuously displayed at the place for which it is issued. Additionally, the name, phone number, and electronic mail address of the local contact must at all times be so displayed or made available Any advertisement, including an online advertisement, for any transient accommodation must conspicuously provide: • the registration identification number or an electronic link to the registration identification number of the operator; and • the local contact’s name, phone number, and electronic mail address, provided that if this information is provided to the transient or occupant prior to the furnishing of the accommodation, this contact posting requirement is deemed satisfied. Every person authorized under an agreement by the owner of transient accommodations located within Hawaii to collect rent on behalf of such owner must ensure that every written rental collection agreement displays on the first page of the agreement the name, address, social security or federal identification number, and, if available, the general excise tax license and transient accommodations tax registration numbers of the owner of the transient accommodations being rented, the address of the property being rented, and the following statement set forth in bold print and 10-point type size: 22 “Hawaii transient accommodations taxes must be paid on the gross rents collected by any person renting transient accommodations in the state of Hawaii. A copy of the first page of the agreement, or of federal Internal Revenue Form 1099 stating the amount of the rents collected, shall be filed with the Hawaii Department of Taxation.” “Transient accommodations” means the furnishing of a room, apartment, suite, single-family dwelling, or the like to a transient for less than 180 consecutive days for each letting “that provides living quarters, sleeping, or housekeeping accommodations, or other place in which lodgings are regularly furnished to transients.” Idaho “Neither a county nor a city may enact or enforce any ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals or vacation rentals in the county or city.” However, they may “implement such reasonable regulations as it deems necessary to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate.” Such rentals must be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all applicable zoning requirements. A local government may not regulate the operation of a short-term rental marketplace, such as Airbnb or VRBO. Indiana With regard to short-term rentals that are rented through a short-term rental platform, Indiana law: • provides a short-term rental of an owner’s primary residence is a permitted residential use under any applicable local-government ordinance and may not be prohibited; • provides in the case of residential property that is not owner- occupied, a local unit of government (local unit) may require a special exception, special use, or zoning variance for the short-term rental of the property and may not interpret and enforce zoning regulations for a variance in a manner that is intended or has the effect of prohibiting or unreasonably restricting all short-term rentals of the property; 23 • allows a local unit to regulate short-term rental of residential property only for specified purposes, such as fire and building safety, sanitation, noise, traffic control and nuisance issues; • allows a local unit to require an owner to obtain one permit for each property, regardless of the number of dwelling units or detached accessory structures on the property that the owner offers as a short-term rental; • allows a local unit to charge a fee of not more than $150 for an initial permit and for a permit issued after the revocation of a permit, but prohibits a unit from charging a renewal fee; and • allows a local unit to limit or prohibit short-term rentals located within a conservancy district. The law does not apply to: • a zoning ordinance or any other ordinance adopted before January 1, 2018, that prohibits, regulates, or restricts short- term rentals in any manner; or • property owner associations, condominium associations, homeowner associations, or cooperatives. Kansas If a short-term vacation rental meets the definition of a “hotel”, it must be licensed annually by the Department of Agriculture after a prelicensure inspection for compliance with Department lodging establishment regulations. If a short-term vacation rental meets the definition of a “guest house”, it is not required to have a lodging license, but it must be inspected if the Secretary of Agriculture receives a complaint concerning such guest house. ”Guest house” means “every building or other structure which is kept, used, maintained, advertised or held out to the public to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished for pay to transient or permanent guests. A guest house shall accommodate no more than seven guests in no more than three rooms furnished with sleeping accommodations, regardless of whether common facilities for the serving or preparation of food are maintained.” There are no other statewide statutes or regulations regarding short-term vacation rentals in Kansas. 24 Instead, all restrictions fall to the local jurisdictions where the rental properties are located. Massachusetts The Department of Health “has determined that lodging provided through Airbnb or similar online services is subject to local licensure or permitting as a lodging house or bed and breakfast in the same manner as traditional lodging houses and bed and breakfast establishments are licensed or permitted.” Mass. Dep’t Health Memorandum, Licensing of Online Home Rental Services (May 16, 2014). Legislation passed by the legislature in 2018, H.B. 4841, would require operators to carry not less than $1 million of liability coverage for each stay unless the hosting platform provides coverage. It also would allow a city or town to limit areas, number and length of the rentals and to require licensing or permitting and inspections of rental establishments. Minnesota If a vacation home rental property meets the definition of “lodging establishment” for Department of Health purposes, it must be licensed annually and be inspected at least every 24 months by the Department’ “Lodging establishment” means “a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public as regular roomers, for periods of one week or more, and having five or more beds to let to the public.” Nebraska Nebraska lawmakers gave overwhelming approval to a bill that would prohibit cities from banning short-term housing rentals such as the ones advertised on online sites like Airbnb.47 New Hampshire New Hampshire does not generally regulate short-term vacation rentals. However, any advertisement for a short-term rental by print, display, publication, distribution, or online listing offering a short-term rental must include the meals and rooms license number of the operator. A “short-term rental” is defined as “the rental of one or more rooms in a 25 residential unit for occupancy for tourist or transient use for less than 185 consecutive days.” New York In New York state, it unlawful to advertise occupancy or use of dwelling units in a class A multiple dwelling for occupancy that would violate the requirement that a class A multiple dwelling shall only be used for permanent residence purposes, meaning occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for 30 consecutive days or more. Class A multiple dwellings include “tenements, flat houses, maisonette apartments, apartment houses, apartment hotels, bachelor apartments, studio apartments, duplex apartments, kitchenette apartments, garden-type maisonette dwelling projects, and all other multiple dwellings except class B multiple dwellings.” Therefore, short-term rentals are not permitted in such buildings nor may they be advertised on platforms like Airbnb or VRBO for such purposes. North Carolina For purposes of North Carolina’s extensive Vacation Rental Act, a “vacation rental is defined as the rental of an apartment, condominium, single-family home, townhouse, cottage, or other property that is devoted to residential use or occupancy by one or more persons “for vacation, leisure, or recreation purposes for fewer than 90 days by a person who has a place of permanent residence to which he or she intends to return.” Exception: The Act does not apply to rentals to persons temporarily renting a dwelling unit when traveling away from their primary residence for business or employment purposes. A landlord or real estate broker and tenant must execute a vacation rental agreement, which is valid and enforceable only if the tenant has accepted the agreement as evidenced by: • the tenant’s signature on the agreement; • the tenant’s payment of any monies to the landlord or broker after receipt of the agreement; or • the tenant’s taking possession of the property after his or her receipt of the agreement. 26 The required contents of the agreement are specified in § 42A-11, including the wording of a mandatory notice which must be conspicuously displayed on its face. Note: Any real estate broker who executes a vacation rental agreement that does not conform to the Act or fails to execute a vacation rental agreement is guilty of an unfair trade practice and is prohibited from commencing an expedited eviction proceeding as provided by the Act. Any advance payments, other than a security deposit received by the landlord or real estate broker must be deposited in a trust account in a federally insured depository institution or a trust institution authorized to do business in Illinois no later than three banking days after payment receipt. Disbursement and use, as well as refund of such funds are controlled by the Act. The Act specifies the grounds and procedures for expedited eviction of vacation rental occupants. It also sets forth procedures to be followed in instances where mandatory evacuations of the property are ordered by governmental authorities. A landlord must provide fit premises as described in the Act, which includes complying with all applicable codes and providing smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors. A tenant must maintain the vacation rental while in occupancy. A real estate broker who manages a vacation rental property on behalf of a landlord must: • manage the property in accordance with the terms of the written agency agreement signed by the landlord and broker; • offer vacation rental property to the public for leasing in compliance with all applicable federal and North Carolina laws, regulations, and ethical duties, including, but not limited to, those prohibiting; • notify the landlord regarding any necessary and follow the landlord’s direction in arranging for any such repairs; • verify that the landlord has installed operable smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms; and • verify that the landlord has annually placed new batteries in a battery-operated smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm. 27 Rhode Island A Rhode Island municipality may not prohibit an owner from offering a room, house, or other such residential unit through a hosting platform or prohibit a hosting platform from providing a person or entity the means to rent, pay for or otherwise reserve a residential unit. Legislation introduced in 2018, H.B. 8189, which would have significantly regulated short-term rentals statewide, did not pass. South Carolina The South Carolina Vacation Rental Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-50-210 to 270 (2018), applies to the rental of residential property for a period of fewer than 90 days. It governs vacation rental agreements, evidence of acceptance of such agreements, advance payment, and rental management company responsibilities. Tennessee A local governing body shall not: • prohibit the use of property as a short-term rental unit; or • restrict the use of or otherwise regulate a short-term rental unit based on the unit’s classification, use, or occupancy. A local governing body may, however: • enact, maintain, or enforce a local law that regulates property used as a short-term rental unit if governing body demonstrates that the “primary purpose of the local law is the least restrictive means to protect the public’s health and safety;” or • “apply a local law that regulates land use to a short- term rental unit in the same manner as other residential dwellings.” “Local laws” include those concerning residential use and other zoning matters, noise, property maintenance, and nuisance. A local governing body may limit or prohibit the use of a short-term rental unit to prohibit or restrict housing of sexual offenders, operation of specified residential treatment facilities licensed, selling of illegal drugs, selling of beer or alcoholic beverages or other activity that requires a permit or license under Title 57, or operation as an adult-oriented establishment. A short-term rental unit provider, or an online short- term rental unit marketplace on the provider’s behalf, 28 must maintain at least $500,000 in liability insurance or coverage to cover damage done or suffered by any person renting the unit. A short-term rental unit provider must comply with all requirements regarding fire sprinklers, smoke alarms, and carbon monoxide alarms. “Short-term rental unit” is defined as “a residential dwelling, including a single-family dwelling or a unit in a multi-unit building, such as an apartment building, condominium, cooperative, or time-share, that is rented wholly or partially for a fee for a period of less than thirty (30) continuous days.” Utah Municipalities and counties may not: • enact or enforce an ordinance that prohibits an individual from listing or offering a short-term rental on a short-term rental website; or • use an ordinance that prohibits the act of renting a short-term rental to fine, charge, prosecute, or otherwise punish an individual solely for the act of listing or offering a short-term rental on a short-term rental website. “Short-term rental” is a residential unit or any portion of a residential unit that the owner or the lessee of the unit offers for occupancy for fewer than 30 consecutive days. Vermont A person may not operate or maintain a lodging establishment, including a short-term rental, unless he or she obtains from the Commissioner of Health an annual license authorizing such operation. Exception: The licensing requirement applies only to those short-term rentals that solicit public patronage by advertising by means of signs, notices, placards, radio, electronic communications, or printed announcements The business of conducting a short-term rental may not be conducted under unclean, unsanitary, or unhealthful conditions. The Commissioner may inspect, at all reasonable times, a short-term rental and the registrant’s records related to it. A short-term rental operator must post within the unit a telephone number for the person responsible for the unit and contact information for the Department of 29 Health and the Department of Public Safety’s Division of Fire Safety. “Short-term rental” is defined as “a furnished house, condominium, or other dwelling room or self-contained dwelling unit rented to the transient, traveling, or vacationing public for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days and for more than 14 days per calendar year.” Note: The Department of Health is charged with preparing “a packet of information pertaining to the health, safety, and financial obligations of short-term rental operators, including information regarding the importance of reviewing options for property and liability insurance with the operator’s insurance company.” Virginia Any locality may, by ordinance, establish a short-term rental registry and require operators within the locality to register annually, providing the complete name of the operator and the address of each property in the locality offered for short-term rental by the operator. “Short-term rental” is “the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy”. Such an ordinance may not require a person to register if such person is: • licensed by the Real Estate Board or is a property owner who is represented by a real estate licensee; • registered pursuant to the Virginia Real Estate Time- Share Act; • licensed or registered with the Department of Health, related to the provision of room or space for lodging; or • licensed or registered with the locality, related to the rental or management of real property, including licensed real estate professionals, hotels, motels, campgrounds, and bed and breakfast establishments. Such an ordinance may also provide that an operator required to register may be prohibited from offering a specific property for short-term rental upon multiple violations on more than three occasions of applicable 30 state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, as they relate to the short-term rentals. Wisconsin Cities, villages, towns, and counties may not enact or enforce an ordinance that prohibits the rental of a residential dwelling for seven consecutive days or longer. If a residential dwelling is rented for periods of between seven and 28 consecutive days, cities, villages, towns, and counties may limit the total number of days within any consecutive 365-day period that the dwelling may be rented to no fewer than 180 days, and they may require that the days run consecutively. Anyone who maintains, manages, or operates a short- term rental for more than 10 nights each year must obtain a tourist rooming house license from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and also obtain a license for conducting such activities from the city, village, town, or county if any of these enact an ordinance requiring such a license. Short-term rentals are defined as “a residential dwelling that is offered for rent for a fee and for fewer than 29 consecutive days.” 31 REFERENCES 1 Airbnb. “Fast Facts.” Airbnb. 2019. https://news.airbnb.com/fast-facts/ 2 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 3 D’Ambrosio, Dan. “Innkeepers, Lawmaker Push For Airbnb Regulation.” Burlington Free Press, January 24, 2018. https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/2018/01/24/vt-inn-owners-say-airbnb-and- others-unfair-competition/1028290001/ 4 Evancie, Angela, and Henry Epp. “Why Does Vermont Have Such A Housing Crunch?” Vermont Public Radio, www.vpr.org/post/why-does-vermont-have-such-housing-crunch#stream/0. 5 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 6 “Scott Releases Tourism Benchmark Study,” Vermont Business Magazine, December 21, 2018. https://vermontbiz.com/news/2018/december/21/scott-releases-tourism-benchmark-study 7 Ibid. 8 Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing. 2017 Benchmark Report: Tourism in Vermont. Vermont: 2017. https://accd.vermont.gov/sites/accdnew/files/documents/VDTM/BenchmarkStudy/VDTM- Research-2017BenchmarkStudyFullReport.pdf 9 Airbnb. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 “Collecting and Reporting.” Collecting and Reporting | Department of Taxes. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://tax.vermont.gov/business-and-corp/meals-and-rooms-tax/short-term-rentals/collecting-and- reporting. 13 Edwards, Bruce. “Vermont Grapples with Airbnb Issues.” Rutland Herald, September 5, 2019. https://www.rutlandherald.com/news/business_vermont/business_vt_news/vermont-grapples-with-airbnb- issues/article_5fcd43c9-b35c-5b92-becc-e5f6aaa8d913.html. 14 Ibid. 15 Epp, Henry and Evancie, Angela. “Why Does Vermont Have Such a Housing Crunch?” Vermont Public Radio, March 8, 2019. https://www.vpr.org/post/why-does-vermont-have-such-housing-crunch#stream/0 16 Ibid. 17 AirDNA is a market minder platform that supports visualization of data around Airbnb and VRBO; it is intended to help inform owners and their business strategies around renting. Grey, David, Miguel Romero, and Cameron Tabatabai. “Short-Term Rental Data & Analytics: Airbnb & Vrbo.” AirDNA. https://www.airdna.co/. 18 “What Would It Take to Solve the Affordable Housing Crisis?” VHFA.org - Vermont Housing Finance Agency, April 4, 2019. https://www.vhfa.org/news/blog/what-would-it-take-solve-affordable-housing- crisis. 19 “Housing.” Urban Institute Next 50. https://next50.urban.org/question/housing?cm_ven=ExactTarget&cm_cat=HFPC+-+02-22-2019+- +N50+Spec&cm_pla=All+Subscribers&cm_ite=focuses+on+affordable+housing&cm_lm=lblack- plumeau@vhfa.org&cm_ainfo=&&utm_source=MarketingCloud&&utm_medium=newsletters&&utm_ca mpaign=news-HFPC&&#housing-promising-solutions 20 “Airbnb's Negative Impact On Housing & Rent Studies Show Airbnb & Short-Term Rentals Deplete Housing & Raise Rent Pricing.” httrps://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/WorkGroups/Senate%20Economic%20Development/Sho rt%20Term%20Rentals/W~Ronda%20Berns~Fact%20Sheet%20Airbnb%20Impact%20on%20Housing~2- 6-2019.pdf 21Owens, Nancy. “Nancy Owens: Short-Term Rentals and the Housing Market.” VTDigger, June 23, 2019. https://vtdigger.org/2019/06/23/nancy-owens-short-term-rentals-and-the-housing-market/. 32 22 Mickle, Tripp, and Preetika Rana. “'A Bargain With the Devil'-Bill Comes Due for Overextended Airbnb Hosts.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, April 28, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a- bargain-with-the-devilbill-comes-due-for-overextended-airbnb-hosts-11588083336. 23 “$250M To Support Hosts Impacted by Cancellations - Resource Center.” Airbnb. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://www.airbnb.com/resources/hosting-homes/a/250m-to-support-hosts-impacted-by- cancellations-165. 24 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 25 Vermont Department of Taxes. Act 10 (Special Session) 2018 Legislation Relating to Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2018. https://tax.vermont.gov/short-term-rentals-update 26 Vermont Department of health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 27 Vermont General Assembly. Title 18: Health, Chapter 85: Food and Lodging Establishments. Vermont: 2018. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/18/085 28 Vermont Department of Taxes. Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/business- and-corp/meals-and-rooms-tax/short-term-rentals 29 Airbnb. “Airbnb Collects Landmark $1 Billion in Hotel and Tourism Taxes.” Airbnb Newsroom, December 6, 2018. https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-collects-landmark-1-billion-in-hotel-and-tourism-taxes/ 30 Vermont Department of Taxes. Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/business- and-corp/meals-and-rooms-tax/short-term-rentals 31 Ibid. 32 Vermont Department of Taxes. Participating Municipalities: Local Options Sales Tax. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/business-and-corp/sales-and-use-tax/local-option-tax/municipalities 33 Vermont Department of Taxes. Property Tax: Frequently Asked Questions. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/tax-professionals/property-taxes 34 Vermont Department of Taxes. Homestead Declaration. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/property-owners/homestead-declaration 35 “Department of Taxes.” FY20 Education Tax Rates | Department of Taxes. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://tax.vermont.gov/content/fy20-education-tax-rates. 36 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 37 Edwards, Bruce. “Vermont Grapples with Airbnb Issues.” Rutland Herald, September 5, 2019. https://www.rutlandherald.com/news/business_vermont/business_vt_news/vermont-grapples-with-airbnb- issues/article_5fcd43c9-b35c-5b92-becc-e5f6aaa8d913.html 38“Town of Killington Zoning Amendments,” n.d. https://www.killingtontown.com/vertical/sites/%7BE4345A2E-9636-47A3-9B74- 2E6220745729%7D/uploads/KTN_Zoning_Amendments_approved_by_PC_-_January_8_2020.pdf 39“Stowe FAQ,” n.d. http://townofstowevt.org/vertical/Sites/{97FA91EA-60A3-4AC6-8466- F386C5AE9012}/uploads/FAQ_Short-Term_Rentals.pdf. 40 “Regulatory Framework for Short-Term Rentals.” Regulatory Framework for Short-Term Rentals | City of Burlington, Vermont. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/mayor/housingpolicy/str. 41 State Short-Term Rental Regulation Chart – November 2018. National Association of Realtors. https://realtorparty.realtor/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/HTA-Chart-State-Short-Term-Rental- Regulation.pdf 42 Vermont Department of Taxes. Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/short-term- rentals-update 43“Stowe FAQ,” n.d. http://townofstowevt.org/vertical/Sites/{97FA91EA-60A3-4AC6-8466- F386C5AE9012}/uploads/FAQ_Short-Term_Rentals.pdf. 44 Grey, David, Miguel Romero, and Cameron Tabatabai. “Short-Term Rental Data & Analytics: Airbnb & Vrbo.” AirDNA. https://www.airdna.co/. 33 45 Logan, Tim. “Airbnb to Appeal Ruling That Upheld Key Part of City's Short-Term Rental Law - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, June 4, 2019. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/06/04/airbnb-appeal-ruling-that-upheld-key-part-city-short- term-rental-law/tcacer69WueDpxolJmNk3O/story.html. 46“New Washington, D.C., Airbnb Law Goes into Effect October 1.” MyLodgeTax, October 2, 2019. https://www.avalara.com/mylodgetax/en/blog/2019/10/new-washington-dc-airbnb-law-goes-into-effect- october-1.html. 47 Ozaki, Andrew. “Bill to Protect, Regulate, Tax Airbnb Rentals Advances.” KETV. KETV, February 2, 2019. https://www.ketv.com/article/bill-to-protect-regulate-tax-airbnb-rentals-advances/26116971. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhpd20 Housing Policy Debate ISSN: 1051-1482 (Print) 2152-050X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhpd20 Examining the Impact of Short-Term Rentals on Housing Prices in Washington, DC: Implications for Housing Policy and Equity Zhenpeng Zou To cite this article: Zhenpeng Zou (2019): Examining the Impact of Short-Term Rentals on Housing Prices in Washington, DC: Implications for Housing Policy and Equity, Housing PolicyDebate, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2019.1681016 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1681016 Published online: 03 Dec 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 45 View related articles View Crossmark data Examining the Impact of Short-Term Rentals on Housing Prices in Washington, DC: Implications for Housing Policy and Equity Zhenpeng Zou Department of Urban Studies and Planning, School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, University of Maryland, College Park, USA ABSTRACT As on-demand short-term rentals (STRs) grow popular with the rise of sharing platforms like Airbnb, regulations for the STR market have become the center of a debate among policymakers, housing interest groups, the hotelandlodgingindustry,andSTRplatforms.Washington,DC,thenation’s capital and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the United States, is on the front lines of legalizing and regulating the STR business. WiththeheatedpolicydebateoverwhetherSTRsdisrupttherentalhousing market in DC, a concrete discussion about what STRs impose on the owner housing market is left out. Using web-scraped data from Airbnb and property-level data from the city, I investigated the net impact of STRs on single-family property prices through a series of hedonic analyses. The results suggest that having Airbnb establishments in the neighborhood can significantly inflate property prices. Because of the uneven spatial market penetration of STRs, such price impact could inequitably affect low- income homebuyers and add another hurdle to resolving the housing affordability issue faced by policymakers in Washington, DC. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 17 February 2019 Accepted 13 October 2019 KEYWORDS short-term rentals (STRs); Airbnb; housing prices; hedonic analysis 1. From Niche to Mainstream: The Global and Local Rise of STRs Charles Dickens would probably reckon, had he lived in the 21st century, that “It is the best of times; it is the worst of times—for sharing”: We ride with strangers in an Uber; we sit in a cubicle next to an entrepreneur at WeWork; we dare to stay with other travelers in an Airbnb rental. The ideology behind sharing is collaborative consumption—a concept built upon a set of principles such as a critical mass of idling capacities, belief in the commons, and trust in strangers (Sundararajan, 2016). The sharing economy is painted by some as a utopian solution for the underutilized resources in our society and by others as a dystopian road to digital elitism (Kenny & Zysman,2016). The global success of on-demand short-term rental (STR) platforms like Airbnb highlights the phenomenal sharing economy. Thanks to advancements in information and communication tech- nologies (ICTs) and the advent of an integrated (matching, booking, payment, etc.) peer-to-peer marketplace, the searching cost for STRs has notably decreased for both the demand and the supply side (Einav, Farronato, & Levin,2016). Contrary to a centralized economy, where transactional cost is lowered through economies of scale, the sharing economy creates a decentralized market that facilitates heterogeneous product choices (Einav et al.,2016). In addition, crowd-based networks and access without ownership remove the hurdle for ordinary people to participate in the sharing economy, blurring the boundary between a personal property and a professional establishment (Sundararajan,2016). CONTACT Zhenpeng Zou zhenpeng@umd.edu HOUSING POLICY DEBATE https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1681016 © 2019 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University In the global context, the soaring sharing economy translates into a rapid STR market expansion: Since its first booking in 2008, Airbnb has accumulated more than 5 million listings in 191 countries around the world and accommodated more than 300 million guests in the past decade (Airbnb, 2018). In the local context—the study area of this article—Airbnb entered Washington, DC, in 2009, and other platforms such as HomeAway and Vrbo followed suit. A typical STR host accommodates guests 32 days of a calendar year and makes an average income of $3,400, according to a survey conducted by Airbnb in 2016 (Airbnb,2016). As of August 2017, the number of Airbnb listings in Washington, DC, exceeded 8,000, based on web-scraped Airbnb data. 1 The number of listings peaked around the inauguration of the Trump administration and the following Women’s March in the middle of January 2017, when hundreds of thousands of visitors gathered in the nation’s capital to witness these historical moments (New York Times,2017). When filtered by whether a listing has any reviews, an indicator of STR business activities (Barron, Kung, & Proserpio,2017), active Airbnb listings grew steadily in number.Figure 1 shows time trends for the total number of listings accessible through Airbnb.com, and the number of listings with at least one review from August 2015 to July 2017. According to an Airbnb report (2017), 88% of the hosts in Washington, DC, share space in their permanent home. In 2016, a total of 7,100 entire-home listings hosted at least one stay. In another report (Airbnb,2016), the platform claimed that 76% of its hosts rent out their primary dwelling for STR activities. Cross-referencing different data sources, I come up with the following first impressions of STRs in DC: (a) Washington, DC, is an emerging STR market, owing to its unique status as the nation’s capital and its numerous tourist attractions; (b) the majority of Airbnb’s thousands of listings were registered under a primary residential dwelling, although Airbnb (or other STR platforms) never revealed the number of additional listings registered by a single host or whether all hosts complied with local zoning codes, which may strictly prohibit STRs at certain locations; and (c) there is a sizable commercial STR market, in which the primary function of a property is STR business instead of long-term rental or residency. Spatially, STR listings tend to cluster at tourist hot spots and mixed-use residential areas. I plotted two kernel density maps of Airbnb listings at two points in time (February 2015 and February 2017) based on web-scraped, geocoded Airbnb listing data 2 (see Figure 2(a,b)). In addition to clusters in Figure 1.Number of Airbnb listings in Washington, DC, January 2015–July 2017. 2 Z. ZOU the densely populated historical and commercial neighborhoods, STRs also expanded to residential neighborhoods in the Northwest and the Northeast, and across the Anacostia River (Southeast), within a 2-year span. This market expansion is intriguing as the east side of DC is traditionally a less heated housing market with a noticeable growth in recent years (The Washington Post,2018a). Innovations in business and technology often outpace legislation that confines the boundaries of their practice. Once a niche market product, STRs are no exception. Although triumphed by many who profited in the sharing economy, STR platforms increasingly clash with cities as issues, such as illegal listings and unmannerly guest behavior, start to make headlines. The central research ques- tion of this article is whether the thriving STR business in Washington, DC, is a significant factor that drives up single-family property prices in the owner housing market. In addition, it is vital to understand which neighborhoods are most impacted by STRs, especially the neighborhoods with high shares of racial minorities. Many issues with and discussions about STRs are described in the literature. In the following section, I thoroughly review the broader literature on this novel yet controversial topic, with a focus on the welfare impacts STRs have imposed on different communities. 2. STR Literature Review 2.1. Virtues and Vices of STRs STRs only became a popular research subject recently, because of their novelty. Early research focused on descriptive analyses of successes and setbacks of the STR business model: By adopting a trust and reputation system, STR platforms managed to minimize the potential risks of sharing with strangers (Abrahao, Parigi, Gupta, & Cook,2017; Frenken & Schor,2017). On the other hand, a rating system could introduce unintended statistical and social biases because of information asymmetry. For instance, Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers (2015) found that ratings on Airbnb were overwhelmingly positive, disguising variations in service quality. In addition, STR platforms introduced a two-sided feedback system for guests and hosts, where ratings were usually inflated out of fear of retaliation Figure 2.(a) Airbnb listing locations, February 2015. (b) Airbnb listing locations, February 2017. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 3 (Tadelis,2016). Fradkin, Grewal, and Holtz (2018) conducted two field experiments to improve the effectiveness of the rating system for Airbnb. They found that both financial rewards and simulta- neous reviews could readily eliminate strategic reciprocity in the STR rating process. Although addressing the importance of designing a robust rating system for STR platforms, researchers also found worrisome evidence that social biases were held against STR participants of color. Edelman, Luca, and Svirsky (2017) implemented an audit experiment on Airbnb and found a significantly higher number of booking request rejections of African American guests as compared with white guests. In addition, black hosts were found to earn significantly less rent from STRs than their white counterparts after controlling for housing conditions and location factors (Edelman & Luca,2014). STR platforms claimed that they were not liable for such social biases as a result of their ambiguous policies on user profile photos and listing descriptions (Edelman & Luca,2014). As allegations of discriminatory cases accumulate, public appeals for regulatory measures to hold STR platforms accountable for nondiscriminatory business conduct are also increasing. Having observed the global success of STRs, researchers in tourism and hospitality tried to assess how this emerging market would impact the traditional lodging industry. Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers (2017) suggested that Airbnb could be responsible for a revenue loss of 8–10% for traditional hotel chains in Austin, Texas. The new competition from STR platforms, however, can substantially benefit consumers as lodging cost is brought down (Guttentag,2015). It is no surprise that the incumbent hotels and lodging establishments will defend their business interests by pursuing legislation/regulation against the disruptive STRs. A major argument against the platforms is that they essentially created a deregulated market without enforcing regulation, such as business registration, on their participating hosts (Guttentag,2015). Unlicensed accommodation providers could impose safety and public health risks on guests (Gurran,2018). Furthermore, unlicensed STR listings could escape tax liabilities, providing an unfair advantage over traditional lodging establish- ments that obey tax rules (Gurran,2018; Guttentag,2015). This tax issue is typically resolved through tax agreements between a city government and STR platforms, allowing a city to collect hotel-like taxes on each booking (Bibler, Teltser, & Tremblay,2018). Yet it is not commonly practiced by all city governments in the United States, especially those of small cities (DiNatale, Lewis, & Parker,2018). 2.2. STRs’Externalities In addition to affecting subscribers and the hospitality industry, STRs also impact the welfare level of the broader community through externalities. Externalities exist naturally, as the market is imperfect. Whereas subscribers (hosts and guests) and STR platforms are tied to a legally binding contract, nonsubscribers cannot hold platforms accountable for their behavior. Neither can nonsubscribers invoke market incentives, such as withholding their patronage, to change platforms’behavior (Edelman & Geradin,2016). In the context of STR, the most obvious externality comes from changes to quality of life. Neighborhood quality, unbounded by ownership, could fall victim to a tragedy of the commons, such as constant interruptions to the neighbors from STR guests, overconsumption of rivalrous public goods (e.g., parking space), and reckless guest behavior (e.g., hosting loud parties; Edelman & Geradin,2016). Filippas and Horton (2017) theoretically articulate that negative home-sharing externalities cannot be entirely internalized in a tenant decide regime. The externalities associated with STRs are complicated in that they are both “technological”(i.e., spillovers) and “pecuniary” (Scitovsky,1954, p. 146). Technological externalities of STRs are the social costs incurred by STR guests and borne by the public. Pecuniary externalities of STRs, on the other hand, are the overall housing price and value changes as a result of the advent of STRs in a city (Filippas & Horton,2017). Empirically, quantifying externalities is a difficult task because of their nonmarket nature. Hedonic pricing is a popular empirical approach for valuation of nonmarket goods, which implicitly embeds nonmarket locational characteristics into determinants of property prices/values (Rosen,1974). 4 Z. ZOU Whereas policymaking toward eliminating technological externalities is straightforward, such as restrictions against the use of STRs for events and zoning compliance (e.g., Office of Short-Term Rentals San Francisco,2018), policymaking toward remedying pecuniary externalities involves a complicated planning issue. Specifically, STR platforms are condemned for exploiting the afford- able rental housing stock that could have been rented by long-term renters and for inflating rent and property value (Edelman & Geradin,2016; Gurran,2018; Gurran & Phibbs,2017). Pecuniary extern- alities are a product of interdependence among members of the economy. They cannot be resolved by simply applying policy tools to move the economic equilibrium from the private optimum to the social optimum (Scitovsky,1954). A change in policy to address pecuniary externalities, such as restricting the number of listings per host, is likely to change the dynamics of the entire STR market. A summary of STR externalities is provided in Figure 3. Unlike green space or air pollution, which can be unambiguously categorized as an amenity or a disamenity, respectively, to quality of life, having STRs in a neighborhood can be considered both an amenity and a disamenity. What is revealed through differences in property prices/values is the net effect of STR externalities. Recent empirical results suggest that STRs seem to boost property values or rent (Horn & Merante,2017; Sheppard & Udell,2016; Wachsmuth, Kerrigan, Chaney, & Shillolo,2017; Wachsmuth & Weisler,2018), indicating that the positive externalities associated with STRs dominate the negative ones. Previous literature theorizes potential mechanisms of STRs’positive impact on property prices. STRs offer an extra income that can help property owners maintain ownership for longer as the cost of ownership is reduced (Sheppard & Udell,2016). This extra income stream is capitalized into property prices (Barron et al.,2017). This is a plausible mechanism in particular for those who would otherwise have been evicted from their property because of financial struggles. In addition, STRs could generate new interests in real estate investment: Urban space becomes more valuable as tourists and residents take advantage of STRs (Sheppard & Udell,2016). With limited urban land supply for new development, investors will seek to convert the existing housing stock into STRs, bidding up property prices and making life more difficult for first-time homebuyers and long-term renters. This is exactly what Wachsmuth and Weisler (2018, p. 5) described as “gentrification without redevelopment”: A rent (price) gap emerged as the result of a strong tourist demand for STRs. A strong economic incentive followed for real estate investors to evict existing long-term tenants or to cash out existing homeowners. They then converted properties into STRs without building anything new. Figure 3.Short term rentals' (STRs') welfare impact and mechanism. Modified from Sheppard and Udell (2016, p. 9). HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 5 2.3. STRs’Housing Market Implications Empirically, previous research reached an early consensus that the advent of STR platforms, such as Airbnb,resultedinnetincreasesineitherpropertypricesorrent(Barronetal.,2017;Horn&Merante,2017; Sheppard & Udell,2016; Wachsmuth et al.,2017). As new evidence emerged, the debate intensified over whether STRs exacerbated the housing affordability crisis in major U.S. and international cities. Nevertheless, a lack of robust rental housing transaction data made it difficult for housing policy researchers to produce fruitful results to stir up a conversation. Previous analyses on rental data are aggregatedeitheratthecensustractlevel(e.g.,Horn&Merante,2017)orthemetropolitanarealevel(e.g., Barron et al.,2017). No property/parcel-level rental housing analysis exists at this point, to my knowledge. Many STR proponents found the argument of a direct substitution between STRs and long-term rentals unconvincing. A report on the impact of Airbnb on the Portland, Oregon, housing market suggested that “somewhere between 83 and 377 units (or 0.03% of the total housing stock in Portland) would be considered full-time Airbnb rentals”(ECONorthwest,2016,p.1).Itisunclearwhether restraining the number of full-time STR listings in a city could significantly shrink the rental housing shortage. Opponents of unregulated STRs focused on the issue in regard to commercial STR hosts, who rented multiple listings for an extended number of days in a year (from 3 months to year round). According to a local nonprofit organization, more than one third of all listings in DC could be categorized as commercial listings (DC Working Families,2017). In Canada, researchers found that 13,700 entire homes out of 81,000 Airbnb listings were rented for more than 60 days a year in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver(Wachsmuthetal.,2017).Thedefinitionofan entirehome istricky,sinceitdoesnotnecessarily mean that the property owner lives elsewhere. In the ECONorthwest report (2016), a fair observation was made that Airbnb’sdefinition of an entire home includes (a) accessory dwellings attached to a property, (b) parts of a property with a separate entrance and private rooms, and (c) a basement unit without a separate entrance. In addition, a property owner can list multiple bedrooms as multiple listings on the platform, contrary to the DC report’sargumentthatacommercialhostmusthaverentedoutmorethan one property. As Wachsmuth et al. (2017) point out, current observations about Airbnb are based on third-party information and data sources (e.g., web-scraped data). Any statement with a high level of confidence would require direct data from STR platforms with accurate details. The rest of the article is organized as follows: In Section 3, I highlight controversies around STRs in Washington,DC,and ongoing efforts towardregulatingtheSTR market. In Section 4,I summarizethe Airbnb and property data used in the analysis. Empirical frameworks and results are presented in Section 5. Robustness checks are provided in Section 6. Lastly, I discuss policy implications and conclude the article in Section 7. 3. STR Controversies and Regulations in the District of Columbia 3.1. Growing STR Business Amid Controversies There is no doubt that STR platforms like Airbnb provide economic benefit to DC residents. However, the relationshipbetweenSTRplatformsandthecityisnot alwayspositive.A majorconcernaboutSTRsisthat commercial hosts occupy precious housing resources that could have housed long-term renters in the city. In its defense, Airbnb (2017) argued that only0.22%ofthe entirehomelistings were booked formore thanhalfayearin2016.Inaddition,theaveragemonthlyincomeforanSTRhost($680)isonlyafractionof the average monthly rental income in DC ($2,299). 3 Therefore, from an economic perspective, part-time STRs, which comprise 60% of all entire home units, can hardly substitute for long-term rentals. Another concern regarding STRs’housing market impact has to do with its spatial concentration around tourist hot spots. Areas like downtown and Capitol Hill are real estate heavens and attract heavy tourist traffic. It is, to say the least, worrisome that STRs may significantly change the housing market dynamics in these areas. If a property price premium is transmitted to the rental housing market in such areas, then long-term renters will have to endure inflating rent as a spillover from increasing housing prices. 6 Z. ZOU Other stories unfolded that STR platforms barely regulated their hosts in terms of business registrations or compliance with local zoning ordinances, such as the strict condominium rules that prohibit short-term sublets (The Washington Post,2017a). In one case, several apartment buildings were converted illegally into full-time STRs as opposed to being leased to long-term renters (Greater Greater Washington,2017). STR platforms were not well received by all. Therefore, the city government decided to intervene in the unregulated STR market. 3.2. DC’s STR Regulatory Framework In January 2017, Kenyan McDuffie, city councilmember representing Ward 5, introduced the Home/ Short-Term Rental Regulation and Affordable Housing Protection Act of 2017 (B22-92), which was the first official attempt to legalize and regulate STRs. Proponents and opponents fiercely expressed their positions during the first public hearing in April 2017 over the current state and practice of STRs in DC and to what extent the STR business should be regulated (Council of the District of Columbia,2018). The initial proposal was not well received as STR platforms and subscribers felt the bill “goes too far and is too restrictive”by capping the number of days in a year for STR operation at 15 days (The Washington Post,2017b). After inaction for more than a year, the city council moved the legislation forward in October 2018 with significant amendments to the original bill: STR listings were capped at 90 business days per calendar year; the monetary penalty for violations was reduced; and any STR listing located outside of a host’s primary residence requires a license for operation (Council of the District of Columbia,2018). The city council passed the bill unanimously in November 2018, marking the end of an era of unregulated STRs in Washington, DC. Table A1 highlights the legislative contexts of B22-92. It also describes approved STR bills and ordinances from the neighboring counties, including Arlington County, Virginia; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Montgomery County, Maryland. There are many similarities among these legisla- tions: an STR is defined as the transient occupancy of a residential dwelling (owned or rented); a business license is acquired conditional upon inspections from the regulatory body; only the primary residence is allowed for STRs, where the physical presence of the residents is required for at least 180 days in a calendar year; and the maximum number of STR days in a calendar year and the maximum number of guests are specified. On the otherhand, these bills and ordinances also differ from eachother: whereas both counties in Maryland and the DC government passed jurisdictional bills, Arlington County only revised its zoningordinances.Havingthezoningcommissionenforcingtheordinances withthepowerto suspend or revoke a permit may yield better enforcement outcomes, but it could also cause an admin- istrativeburden.DC’sSTRbillremainsthemostrestrictiveintermsofits90-daycapforSTR(asopposedto 120daysor180days)withspecialexemptions.Inaddition,B22-92istheonlybillthatspecifiesthepenalty for each violation. In response to legislative approval, STR platforms quickly denounced the council’s action and aimed to bring the case directly to a 2020 ballot initiative (The Washington Post,2018b). If passing legislation on STRs requires year-long efforts, then enforcing STR regulations entails admin- istrative readiness and coordination. Underprepared implementation of STR regulations results in unin- tended consequences. One such consequence is a cumbersome registration process. As one of the first cities to pass an STR legislation in 2016, San Francisco, California, only registered 2,168 Airbnb hosts as of early 2018, leavingthe majority of its8,000STRlistingswithnolegalstatus(SanFrancisco Chronicle,2018). Similarly, by 8 months after the legislation took effect, the Arlington County government had only issued 101 transient rental permits on an estimated owner base of 1,600 STRs (INSIDENOVA,2017). If the low registration rate is a mixed outcome of uncooperative STR owners and inefficient administrative proce- dures, thentheexistenceofunregistered/commercial listings heightens alack of regulatoryenforcement. AirDNA (2018) data suggest that 5,778 Airbnb listings in San Francisco remain active, despite the fact that the municipal STR bill has been in effect for 2 years. Should the platforms be fined for listing unregistered STRs? Should the city go after each unregistered STR owner? These unresolved issues are common to municipal lawmakers and governing bodies everywhere, including the District of Columbia. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 7 In the housing policy debate over STRs’impact on DC’s housing market, a missing piece of the puzzle is how STRs could impact property owners and homebuyers. In the following sections, I will empirically investigate this issue using unique open-source data. 4. Empirical Data 4.1. Data Sources Airbnb data: Although data from STR platforms are almost impossible to acquire, third-party web-scraped dataareavailablehavebecomepopularforresearchpurposes(e.g.,Wegmann&Jiao,2017).Web-scraped STR data are subject to some limitations, such as the use of location proxies. Yet such data provide comprehensive information about an available listing, including listing amenities and reviews. Through real-time data scraping, researchers can describe STR activities subject to a degree of discretion. Researchers either design their own scraper (e.g., Barron et al.,2017) or rely on third-party scrapers, such as Inside Airbnb (e.g., Gurran & Phibbs,2017;Horn&Merante,2017)andAirDNA(e.g.,Wachsmuth& Weisler,2018). In this study, I used data collected by Tom Slee from September 2014 to July 2017. 4 Sixweb-scrapedAirbnb datasetsat half-year intervalswerecombinedtorepresentAirbnb listings in DC from early 2015 to mid-2017. The half-year intervals deliberately take into account seasonal fluctuations in tourism (March through August are typically the popular months for DC). Although the data do not cover the initial entry of Airbnb into the DC market, they cover the period when the STR business took off in DC (see Figure 1). Housing data: Housing information came from the Open DC data portal with periodically updated property sales records and city-wide housing appraisal records. The appraisal data provide under- lying housing attributes, such as the number of rooms, bathrooms, and stories; the square footage; and the estimated building year. Property sales records from the Integrated Tax System Public Extract (ITSPE) and appraisal data from the Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) database were extracted and combined using a unique identifier, Square Suffix Lot (SSL). After trimming the data set using matching criteria, completeness of attributes, and exclusions of extreme values, I derived the final data set of property sales records during September 2014–July 2017. Neighborhood data: Aside from housing attributes, neighborhood characteristics are also deter- ministic in hedonic prices. I included the most important attributes in the final data set, such as access to Metrorail stations, public schools, and historical landmarks. In addition, underlying popula- tion attributes at the census tract level were extracted from the American Community Survey database and were incorporated into the final data set. 4.2. Data Processing Because of the size of the housing data sets, neither sales records nor appraisal data were geocoded. Iapplied theMasterAddress Repository(MAR)geocodertogeolocateeachSSLwithintheITSPEdatabase by a 92% matching criterion. Only 7,334 out of the 110,883 records were dropped because of low matching rates. The ITSPE data were then merged with the CAMA residential data based on SSL, and 52,577 single-family property sales records were successfully matched. 5 In the end, 12,680 records between September 2014 and July 2017 were kept in the final single-family housing data set. I measured Airbnb density by counting the number of listings within a certain buffer distance of a property sales point at a given period of time. Four buffer sizes were included in the analyses: 100 feet, 200feet,500feet,and1,000feet.Choosingabuffersizeismoreofanartthanascience:whereasasmaller buffercapturesanSTR’smostdirectimpactonaproperty’sprice,alargerbufferallowsformorevariations inAirbnbdensityandcapturesthebroadereconomic impactofAirbnbactivitiesontheneighborhood.As a comparison, Sheppard and Udell (2016)testeddifferent buffer sizes from 200 meters (656 feet) to 2,000 meters (6,560 feet). Some studies calculated Airbnb density at an aggregated level, such as census tracts (Horn & Merante,2017). I did not include a buffer size smaller than 100 feet or larger than 1,000 feet 8 Z. ZOU because(a)thevariationinAirbnbdensitywasinsignificantforasmallerbuffer,and(b)theneighborhood impactofasinglelistingwastooweakforamuchlargerbuffer.Withanincreasedbuffersize,morelistings will be included, but the listings farther away from the centroid will have a smaller impact on property prices.Figure 4 illustrates the Airbnb density at different buffers in the ArcGIS environment. 4.3. Summary Statistics Summary statistics of the final data set are presented in Table A2. The average number of Airbnb listings within 100 feet of a single-family property sales point is 0.21. The variation is so small for this Figure 4.Example of Airbnb density buffers around a property sales point. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 9 search radius that it may affect the precision of the point estimate in the hedonic regression model. The Airbnb density increases to 0.85, 5.06, and 18.63 for search radiuses of 200 feet, 500 feet, and 1,000 feet, respectively, from a property sales point. In theory, the marginal effect of each Airbnb listing on a property’s price will decay as the buffer size increases. Therefore, I anticipate a declining magnitude in hedonic point estimates for the Airbnb density variable for a larger buffer. The sample average single-family property price is $762,000 and the median price is $630,000, higher than the median home value in DC of $544,000 in 2017. 6 The sample average property land area is 3,000 square feet (sqft) and the average structure area is about 1,700 sqft, with 7.5 rooms, 2.2 bathrooms, 0.6 half-bathrooms, and 1.2 kitchens. In addition, basic amenities are usually included, such as a fireplace, an air conditioner, and a heating system. As for neighborhood attributes, a typical property resides in a populated urban area with heavy traffic (as indicated by the number of crash incidents within a half-mile buffer) and some crime incidents. A propertyusually has agood access to publicschools within walking distance (0.5 miles). A property also hasaneasyaccesstoaMetrorailstationandcommercialareas.InWashington,DC,itisespeciallycommon to have historical landmarks in the neighborhood. Such amenities can have significant impacts on property prices. In terms of neighborhood demographics, a typical DC property is located in a neighborhood with an employed, educated, middle-class population. However, the population demographics differ significantly by zip code. I carefully controlled for such zip code fixed effects and STR clustering effects in the models specified in the next section. I conducted a Pearson’s correlation test 7 to examine the preliminary bivariate relationship between Airbnb density and property prices and to detect the unusual signs of different housing and neighborhood attributes in explaining property prices. All Airbnb density variables were positively correlated with property prices, suggesting a net positive externality from STRs. Most signs of the correlation statistics made sense. No perfect collinearity was found except for income and education at the census tract level. 5. Hedonic Analyses of Airbnbs’Effect on Property Prices Empirically, the hedonic pricing model is one of the most widely adopted approaches to study consumers’willingness to pay for nonmarket goods. In this study, Airbnb density, defined by the number of Airbnb listings within a particular distance from a property sales point, runs into the regression analyses as a hedonic attribute. I constructed three models to fully investigate Airbnbs’ impact on property prices: a pooled cross-sectional model, a fixed-effects model at the census block level, and a first-difference model. 5.1. Model Specifications The full-sample cross-sectional model considers the most comprehensive set of explanatory vari- ables, including housing attributes, neighborhood factors, sociodemographic attributes at the census tract level, and a series of time and location fixed effects. The model is specified as follows: lgpricein ¼α þ Airbnbinβ þ Xinδ þ Nnφ þ εin (1) Housing price takes a logarithmic form to account for the right-skewedness in distribution,Xin represents housing and neighborhood attributes, and Nn represents demographic attributes that are common to each property i in census tract n. The census-block-level fixed-effects model controls for unobserved time-invariant characteristics that may jointly affect housing prices and Airbnb activities, such as commercial activities, infra- structure, and public facilities. In addition, a time trend is added to the model to control for common housing market fluctuations over different periods. The model is specified as follows: 10 Z. ZOU lgpricebt ¼α þ Airbnbbtβ þ Xbtδ þ Nbtφ þ ωb þ θt þ εbt (2) The unit of observation is a representative property in census block b during period t. Both block- level fixed effects ωb and common time trends θt are included. The nation’s capital experienced a historical influx of visitors in January 2017. Both supporters and protesters congested the city during the Trump administration’s inauguration and the Women’sMarch the following day (the latter attracted much heavier traffic). Having anticipated the unprecedented demand for lodging, the local STR community expanded dramatically between November 2016 and January 2017, from 5,975 listings to 9,097 listings,according to the web-scraped data. This exogenous demandshockcreatedauniqueopportunityformeto conductabefore/afteranalysisonhownewAirbnb listings/activities affected property prices. I selected block-level data between March 2016 and November 2016 for the before period and data between February 2017 and July 2017 for the after period. The final data set consists of 2,047 observations for 1,027 blocks. I then applied a first-difference model to understand how changes in Airbnb density affected property prices: Δlgpriceb ¼α þ ΔAirbnbbβ þ ΔXbδ þ ΔNbφ þ Δεb (3) 5.2. Empirical Results The main estimation results are presented in Table A3. Panel A of the table reports the regression coefficients and standard errors for the most important variables in the pooled cross-sectional model. It is evident that (a) having Airbnb listings in the neighborhood mildly raises a single- family property’s price, and (b) the average effect of a listing decays as the search buffer broadens. Other significant variables also help explain property prices, such as good property appraisal grades andconditions,having publicschools and historicallandmarkswithin walking distance,and dwelling in a wealthy community. The model’s goodness of fit is high, with R2 > 0.80. Panel Bshowsregression coefficientsand standard errorsoftheAirbnb listing densityvariables forthe fixed-effects model. The coefficients on the Airbnb densities at the 200-foot, 500-foot, and 1000-foot buffers hold their statistical significance, and they are slightly larger in magnitude than those in Panel A. Whereas the fixed-effects model controls for unobserved time-invariant characteristics at the census tract level, the model’sgoodnessoffit drops because of aggregation. Nevertheless, the results from both models suggest a price premium on properties because of the presence of Airbnb listings in the neighborhood. Panel C of Table A3 shows hedonic regression results for the first-difference model. Again, the coefficients on Airbnb densities at the 200-foot, 500-foot, and 1000-foot buffers remain statistically significant. The magnitudes are much larger because of the dramatic increase in Airbnb density between November 2016 and January 2017. One possible explanation is that the transition to a new administration led to a temporary spike in housing demand to accommodate new residents. Airbnb (and STRs in general) fulfilled the transitional housing need. 5.3. STRs’Inequitable Impact on Property Prices To quantify the impact of Airbnb listings on property prices, I calculated the aggregate impact by multiplying the point estimates from the fixed-effects model and the average density of Airbnb listings for each buffer size. The impacts were then summarized by zip code to account for the unbalanced spatial distribution of Airbnb listings. The results are presented in Table A4. In particular, the underlying demographic composition varies significantly across zip codes in DC because of historical redlining (Lloyd,2016). Certain zip code areas have a much higher concentration of HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 11 Hispanic/Latino and/or African American populations. Historically, displacement of the black popu- lation was prominent in DC (Jackson,2015). It is vital to understand whether STRs have significantly impacted people of color in the city. For the entire city, Airbnb alone could account for an increase in single-family property price by 0.66% to 2.24%. The impact was mild yet nontrivial. Alarmingly, Airbnb was responsible for a significant leap (>5%) in property prices in tourist hot spots, such as downtown (zip code 20005), Shaw (20001), Adams Morgan (20009), Dupont Circle (20036), and Foggy Bottom–George Washington University (20037). These neighborhoods were already overheated in terms of housing demand because of their advantageous locations. STR-related housing investment will only aggra- vate the housing affordability issue. What is more unsettling is that Shaw (20001), NOMA–Trinidad (20002), Capitol Hill (20003), and Columbia Heights(20010) also experienced anoticeable price inflation (>3%) becauseof STRs. These zip code areas are populated by Hispanics and African Americans, as shown in the last two columns of Table A4. Although the increasing price is good news for current homeowners, it acts as a potential hurdle preventing new homebuyers from moving into these neighborhoods. Moreover, it is reasonable to worry that the price premium will be eventually borne by long-term renters, jeopardizing low-income minority renters who could be displaced from the city. This is the missing piece previously ignored in the debates over STRs’housing market consequences in Washington, DC: Not only could STR platforms occupy valuable housing stock, but their business could significantly drive up housing costs in neighborhoods with a concentrated minority population. 6. Robustness Checks 6.1. Robustness Checks on Active Airbnb Listings As mentioned in Section 3, housing advocacy groups and other STR opponents were most con- cerned about the entire home STR listings that might have consumed the existing housing stock. To inquire into this issue, I subdivided the Airbnb listing data by two additional criteria: a listing (a) was categorized as entire home, and (b) had at least one review to signal its active status. About 70% of the observations were preserved after this additional screening. After rerunning all three models, I present robustness check results in Table A5.Surprisingly, whereas the statistical significance of the regression coefficients and the goodness of fitresemble those in Table A3, the magnitudes of coefficients are larger for the 100-foot and 200-foot buffers and smaller for the 500-foot and 1000-foot buffers compared with the results in Table A3. Such interesting results can be explained by a perfectly reasonable rationale: Active STR listings have a stronger localized impact on property prices as their activeness indicates business success and attractiveness to new investors. On the other hand, broader economic benefit usually requires a cluster of listings in a larger buffer area. With fewer listings in a large buffer, the magnitude of the Airbnb density impact declines. 6.2. A Robustness Check on the Rental Housing Market Although the focus of this article is the single-family owner housing market, it will enrich the discussion to look into STRs’impacts on the rental housing market. I could not access disaggregated rental transaction data, so the robustness check was done at the aggregate zip code level. I used Zillow Rent Index (ZRI), a smoothed measure of the median estimated market rate rent, across zip codes in Washington, DC, over time for this exercise. 8 When applied to the same empirical models, the rental data yielded statistically insignificant results (see Table A6). The most plausible estimate is the coefficient on the Airbnb density at the 200-foot buffer. The estimate is positive yet statistically insignificant. In addition, Washington, DC, adopted a strict Rent Control Act, in which any rent hike falls under rent control except for a few exemptions (such as rental units built after 1975 and 12 Z. ZOU federally/district-subsidized rental units). 9 From the housing data set, 74% of the single-family units and60%of themultifamily/condominiumunits were builtpriorto1975,suggestingthatthemajority of the older housing units in DC fall under the rent control umbrella. This is somewhat reassuring for the most vulnerable renters in the city. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that thorough and robust research using high-quality disaggregated rental housing data must be conducted to solve the rental housing puzzle of STRs’housing market consequences. 7. Discussion 7.1. Policy Implications This article provides empirical evidence of STRs’impacts on property prices. The topic has pivotal welfare implications that should not be neglected. Previous attempts to understand STRs’housing market impacts in DC were descriptive and lacked rigor. In this article, I took advantage of innovative web-scraped Airbnb data to demonstrate the indirect impact (externalities) of Airbnb listings on single-family property prices through hedonic analyses. The results suggest that unregulated growth in STR business created an inequitable property price premium that could distress first-time home- buyers and negatively affect long-term renters if the price premium results in higher rent. This study comes out in a particularly meaningful time in the wake of new STR regulations in the District of Columbia. The lengthy legislative process took almost 2 years to finish, with another 11 months of a transition period to go before the regulations come into effect. Although stories about how STR business helped struggling families afford their homes in one of the nation’s most expensive cities (The Washington Post,2018a) should not be neglected, cities ought to realize that anxious STR investors can make life much harder for people who are still seeking a home. STR regulation should by no means deprive a resident of their right to earn an extra income through home-sharing. The unanimous criticism of the stiff cap on STR days in the original bill proposal is proof of this. Strict as it still is, the final version allows for a primary dwelling to be rented 90 days a year. Although it has yet to be tested how effectively the regulation will be enforced, the bill can hopefully cool down STR-related housing investment by prohibiting commercial listings outside of a host’s primary dwelling. It remains challenging as the city must get STR platforms on board to make considerable efforts to remove illegal listings. Any attempt to resolve the conflict between pro-STR and anti-STR communities without a collaborative approach has no chance to succeed. From a planner’s perspective, functional zoning ordinances and an effective zoning board play critical roles in regulating STRs.Table A1 shows that all passed STR legislations revise zoning ordinances to unambiguously confine a residential property’s STR usage. In the case of Arlington County, the zoning commission is also the issuer of STR licenses, empowering the county’s planning body to oversee STR operation and law compliance. In addition to revising zoning codes, planning and housing authorities should keep a keen eye on the affordable housing stock and ensure that the valuable rental housing resources for voucher holders and other affordable housing program participants are not jeopardized by illegal or irrational STR investments. On the other hand, there is a silver lining to foster collaboration between the housing authority and STR platform in home sharing programs (e.g., Department of Housing and Urban Development,2016). Rather than treating STRs as a threat to affordable housing, cities could potentially benefit from the crowd-sourcing technology supported by STR platforms to match voucher holders and rental housing owners. Cities should embark on the smart city concept by thinking and acting innovatively to address existing conundrums. A new type of home sharing program through STRs would be a great experiment to produce a social good through a private– public partnership between a city and STR platforms. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 13 7.2. Limitations and Beyond the Study I acknowledge that this study cannot directly answer the question of how STRs gentrify a city. Gentrification is a complicated issue that goes beyond the scope of the partial equilibrium analyses presented inthis article.Wewillhave toreflectonthemoney-chasing real estatedevelopment thatis by no means affordable to low-income households and racial minorities. We will also have to ask homeowners why they prefer to invest in the STR business. Instead, this study confirms the hypothesis that STRs make it more expensive to own a property in a tourist paradise like Washington, DC. Moreover, and perhaps more alarmingly, they have made the historically minority-concentrated neighborhoods more expensive. Because of the short observation time, the data did not support a parcel-level repeated sales model, which would have been a more robust empirical approach. Nevertheless, all three hedonic models confirmed that STRs indeed inflated single-family property prices. To put this article into perspective, I compared the empirical results with the findings from previous studies: In this article, I find a 0.78% increase in property prices for each additional Airbnb listing within the 200-foot buffer; Barron et al. (2017)find a 0.64% increase in property prices with a 10% increase in Airbnb listings; and Sheppard and Udell (2016)find a6–9% increase in property prices when the number of Airbnb listings doubles within a 300-meter buffer, which translates into a 1.30–1.96% increase in property prices for each additional Airbnb listing in New York City. Different as our methodologies, data, and studies areas are, we come to similar conclusions. Although I included a robustness check on Airbnb’s price effect on aggregated median rent at the zip code level, the results are rather inconclusive. Unsurprisingly, the level of geographic aggregation andthelengthofthetimeserieslimitedtheinterpretabilityoftheresults.FollowingBarronetal.(2017) and Horn and Merante (2017), I believe that the story for Washington, DC, is probably not so different; thatis,STRsalsodriveuprent.Recentstudiesusingweb-scrapedCraigslistdata(e.g.,Boeing&Waddell, 2017) inspire a new research agenda on STRs’rental housing market consequences. Last but not least, hedonic models were only able to allow me to derive the net impact of Airbnb density on property prices. It is unclear what the driving factor is in determining the positive net externality. Judging from the literature (Wachsmuth & Weisler,2018), investors bidding up prices because of the extra income from STR is a more plausible mechanism than the other two (increasing quality of life and more space demanded by existing property owners). As a new wave of jurisdictions start to legalize and regulate STRs, it will be interesting to compare the STR market before and after regulations take effect. One of the greatest debates is whether innovation and technology improve quality of life. In the case of STRs, it is a housing policy debate centering on an innovation in technology that redefines how we live and how we travel. Notes 1.The main data source for this article is the Inside Airbnb website supported by Tom Slee (http://insideairbnb. com/about.html).I appreciate his data collection efforts, in terms of both frequency and quality. However, the data collection process stopped by mid 2017. According to another source, AirDNA, the current number of Airbnb listings in Washington, DC,fluctuates around 7,000. This could be a result of market saturation, policy uncertainty, or a combination of the two. 2.According to the declaimers on Inside Airbnb, the locational information of an Airbnb listing that is publicly available on airbnb.com is typically within a 450-foot distance from its actual address to protect anonymity of a host’s information. This is not problem for the purpose of this study because Airbnb listings are characterized as a density attribute within a certain buffer distance. 3.According to Insider Airbnb, the estimated full-time STR monthly income is about $986 (http://insideairbnb. com/washington-dc/),still much lower than the average rental price (even for a studio). 4.The scraper operator, Tom Slee, stopped Airbnb data collection after the summer 2017 because of an over- whelming number of requests. He directed requestors to other open-data sources such as Inside Airbnb. 5.Another 39,886 records were matched for condominium and multifamily sales records. Condominium data were excluded from this study because of unobserved attributes (such as condominium management quality) that could be crucial in determining their prices. 14 Z. ZOU 6.The median value for condominiums is $440,000, but the condominium sample was excluded because of a lack of detailed condominium attributes in the appraisal database. 7.Because of the size of the Pearson’s correlation matrix, I decided not to include it in the article. 8.See the methodology to calculate the ZRI here:https://www.zillow.com/research/zillow-rent-index-methodol ogy-2393/ 9.See the Rent Control Fact Sheet here:https://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/service_content/ attachments/Rent%20Control%20Fact%20Sheet%202018.pdf Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Gerrit Knaap and Dr. Casey Dawkins from the University of Maryland, College Park, for their insights on the research question discussed in this article. I would also like to thank Hannah Younes from the University of Maryland, College Park, for her helpful edits of the manuscript. Lastly, I appreciate all three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, suggestions, and words of encouragement. Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes on Contributor Zhenpeng Zou is a PhD candidate in the Urban and Regional Planning and Design Program, University of Maryland, College Park, and a research assistant at the National Center for Smart Growth, University of Maryland, College Park. ORCID Zhenpeng Zou http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1789-7638 References Abrahao, B., Parigi, P., Gupta, A., & Cook, K. (2017). Reputation offsets trust judgments based on social biases among Airbnb users.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,114(37), 9848–9853. Airbnb. (2016).Overview of the Airbnb community in Washington, DC. Retrieved fromhttps://www.airbnbaction.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/AirbnbWashingtonDCEconomicImpactReportOctober2201.pdf Airbnb. (2017).Airbnb, housing, and the District of Columbia. Retrieved from https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content /uploads/sites/24/2017/04/2017-04-Airbnb-D.C.-Housing-Report.pdf Airbnb. (2018).Fast facts. Retrieved from https://press.airbnb.com/fast-facts/ AirDNA. (2018)San Francisco overview. Retrieved from https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/ san-francisco/overview Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2017).The sharing economy and housing affordability: Evidence from Airbnb. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3006832 Bibler, A., Teltser, K., & Tremblay, M. (2018).Inferring tax compliance from pass-through: Evidence from Airbnb tax enforcement agreements. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3117021 Boeing, G., & Waddell, P. (2017). New insights into rental housing markets across the united states: Web scraping and analyzing Craigslist rental listings.Journal of Planning Education and Research,37(4), 457–476. Council of the District of Columbia. (2018).B22-0092 –Short-term rental regulation and affordable housing protection act of 2017. Retrieved from http://lims.dccouncil.us/Legislation/B22–0092 DC Working Families. (2017).Airbnb’s impact in Washington DC –Selling the district short. Retrieved from http:// dcsharebetter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/D.C.-Housing-Report_Web.pdf Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2016).Home sharing. Retrieved from https://www.huduser. gov/portal/casestudies/study-09282016-1.html DiNatale, S., Lewis, R., & Parker, R. (2018). Short-term rentals in small cities in Oregon: Impacts and regulations.Land Use Policy,79,407–423. ECONorthwest. (2016).Housing affordability impacts of Airbnb in Portland. Portland, OR: Author. Edelman, B., & Geradin, D. (2016). Efficiency and regulatory shortcuts: How should we regulate companies like Airbnb and Uber?Stanford Technology Law Review,19(2), 293–328. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 15 Edelman, B., & Luca, M. (2014). Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb.com. Working Paper. Retrieved from https:// www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Airbnb_92dd6086-6e46-4eaf-9cea-60fe5ba3c596.pdf Edelman, B., Luca, M., & Svirsky, D. (2017). Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence from a field experiment.American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,9(2), 1–22. Einav, L., Farronato, C., & Levin, J. (2016). Peer-to-peer markets.Annual Review of Economics,8, 615–635. Filippas, A., & Horton, J. J. (2017). The tragedy of your upstairs neighbor: When is the home-sharing externality internalized? Working Paper. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443343. Fradkin, A., Grewal, E., & Holtz, D. (2018). The determinants of online review informativeness: Evidence from field experiments on Airbnb. Working Paper. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 2939064. Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective.Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,23,3–10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003. Greater Greater Washington. (2017).DC wins a big victory against landlords who convert housing to Airbnb-like hotels. Retrieved from https://ggwash.org/view/65046/dc-wins-a-big-victory-against-landlords-who-convert-housing-to- airbnb-like-hotels Gurran, N. (2018). Global home-sharing, local communities and the Airbnb debate: A planning research agenda. Planning Theory & Practice,19(2), 298–304. Gurran, N., & Phibbs, P. (2017). When tourists move in: How should urban planners respond to Airbnb?Journal of the American Planning Association,83(1), 80–92. Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector.Current Issues in Tourism,18(12), 1192–1217. Horn, K., & Merante, M. (2017). Is home sharing driving up rents? Evidence from Airbnb in Boston.Journal of Housing Economics,38,14–24. INSIDENOVA. (2017).Arlington seeing new tax revenue from Airbnb-style rentals. Retrieved from http://www.insidenova. com/news/arlington/arlington-seeing-new-tax-revenue-from-airbnb-style-rentals/article_1e191132-8e45-11e7- b384-175da4d36dd0.html Jackson, J. (2015). The consequences of gentrification for racial change in Washington, DC.Housing Policy Debate,25(2), 353–373. Kenny, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy.Issues in Science and Technology,32(3), 61–69. Lloyd, J. (2016). Fighting redlining and gentrification in Washington, DC: The Adams-Morgan organization and tenant right to purchase.Journal of Urban History,42(6), 1091–1109. The New York Times.(2017).Crowd scientists say Women’s March in Washington had 3 times as many people as Trump’s inauguration. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/22/us/politics/womens-march-trump- crowd-estimates.html Office of Short-Term Rentals, San Francisco. (2018).About short-term rentals. Retrieved from https://shorttermrentals. sfgov.org/about Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition.Journal of Political Economy,82(1), 34–55. San Francisco Chronicle.(2018).Airbnb loses thousands of hosts in San Francisco. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle. com/business/article/Airbnb-loses-thousands-of-hosts-in-SF-as-12496624.php Scitovsky, T. (1954). Two concepts of external economies.Journal of Political Economy,62(2), 143–151. Sheppard, S., & Udell, A. (2016). Do Airbnb properties affect house prices? Working Paper. Retrieved from https://web. williams.edu/Economics/wp/SheppardUdellAirbnbAffectHousePrices.pdf. Sundararajan,A. (2016).The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262034579. Tadelis, S. (2016). Reputation and feedback systems in online platform markets.Annual Review of Economics,8, 321–340. Wachsmuth, D., Kerrigan, D., Chaney, D., & Shillolo, A. (2017). Short-term cities: Airbnb’s impact on Canadian housing markets. Retrieved from http://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/airbnb/ Wachsmuth, D., & Weisler, A. (2018). Airbnb and the rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy.Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,50(6), 1147–1170. The Washington Post.(2017a).DC sues company for allegedly treating rent-control apartments like ‘hotel rooms’. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/dc-sues-company-for-allegedly-treating-rent- control-apartments-like-hotel-rooms/2017/04/25/e42ebb50-291a-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_ term=.06833c8f83ed The Washington Post.(2017b).Money and liability are among issues driving the DC Airbnb bill. Retrieved from https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2017/09/18/money-and-liability-are-among-issues-driving-the-d-c-airbnb- bill/ The Washington Post.(2018a).East of the Anacostia, where there are no hotels, Airbnb has been a boon for property owners and guests. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/east-of-the-anacostia-where-there- are-no-hotels-airbnb-has-been-a-been-a-boon-for-property-owners-and-guests/2018/10/28/35f6bb14-d7d8-11e8- 83a2-d1c3da28d6b6_story.html 16 Z. ZOU The Washington Post.(2018b).DC government to propose zoning changes to permit Airbnbs in residential neighborhoods. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-government-to-propose-zoning-changes-to- permit-airbnbs-in-residential-neighborhoods/2018/10/30/c2e160ae-dbbd-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_ term=.d4dbb10ed53b Wegmann, J., & Jiao, J. (2017). Taming airbnb: Toward guiding principles for local regulation of urban vacation rentals based on empirical results from five U.S. cities.Land Use Policy,69, 494–501. Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2015).A first look at online reputation on Airbnb, where every stay is above average. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2554500 Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry.Journal of Marketing Research,54(5), 687–705. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 17 Table A1.Comparison of short-term rental legislative frameworks in the DC metropolitan area.JurisdictionWashington, DCArlington County, VAMontgomery County, MD Prince George’s County, MDLegislative framework B 22–92 (Proposed bill and amendments) Zoning Code 12.9.11 and 12.9.12 Zoning Text Amendment 17–03 andSenate Bill 2-16CB-10-2018 and CB-11-2018DefinitionSTR means paid lodging for transient guestswith the host present, unless it is a vacationrental. An STR is not a hotel, inn, motel,boarding house, or bed and breakfast.An accessory homestay is a specialtype of home occupation thatallows the occupant of a residentialdwelling unit to host short-termovernight guests.STR means the residential occupancyof a dwelling unit for a fee for lessthan 30 consecutive days. An STR isnot a bed and breakfast.STR means a residential dwelling unitoccupied by an STR guest, otherthan a permanent occupant, forfewer than 31 consecutive daysand no more than 90 days percalendar year.Business license A license issued by the Department ofConsumer and Regulatory Affairs. Valid fora period of 2 years.Accessory homestay permit from theZoning Administrator. Renewedannually.A license issued by the director of theDepartment of Health and HumanServices is required. Renewedannually.Annual issuance of a license by theDepartment of Permitting,Inspections, and Enforcement.Zoning ordinance DC Zoning Commission will revise zoningcodes to permit STRs.Arlington County Zoning Code12.9.11 and 12.9.12Montgomery County Zoning TextAmendment 17-03CB-10-2018 (Sec. 27–464.09“TouristHome as an‘Accessory Use’”)Days of STRs ina calendar year90 days (unless the host has received anexemption)180 days120 days (no cap for rental days withphysical presence of the owner)90 days if not occupied by the owner,or 180 days if occupied by theownerPrimary dwellingrequirementPrimary residence only, which means theproperty is eligible for the homesteaddeduction pursuant.Primary residence only. The dwellingunit must be occupied for at least185 days per year.Primary residence only (farm tenantdwelling or on-site accessorydwelling prohibited).Must be primary residence to get thelicense. However, no statedrestriction on rental dwellings oncelicense is obtained.Maximum number ofdwellings per host11 (single family; multifamily is subjectto the same rule as condo/apartment)1 (owner’s property or owner-authorized resident’s primaryresidence)Multiple; however, the combinedallowable time frames shall notexceed the permissible calendardaysMaximum number ofrooms per dwellingNo cap, as long as all rooms/suites are withinthe property.No cap. All rented bedrooms must bein the main building. Accessorydwelling allowed with a permit.No cap. Only habitable rooms can beused by guests.No cap. Only habitable rooms can beusedby guests.Maximum number ofguests per dwelling8 (or 2 per bedroom, whichever is greater) 6 (or 2 per bedroom, whichever isgreater)6 (only counting guests 18 years orolder, and maximum 2 perbedroom)8 (and no more than 3 guests perbedroom)Safety code requirements Smoke detectors and carbon monoxidedetectorsFire extinguishers, smoke detectors,and carbon monoxide detectorsSmoke detectors and carbonmonoxide detectors; sanitationfacilitiesSmoke detectors and carbonmonoxide detectors;fireextinguishers; posted emergencycontact andfloor plan(Continued)Appendix18 Z. ZOU Table A1.(Continued).JurisdictionWashington, DCArlington County, VAMontgomery County, MD Prince George’s County, MDOther requirements Liability insurance required. No visitor parkingpermit for STR guests.Forbidden for commercial meetings,or other gatherings for direct orindirect compensation.HOA, condo, and co-op associationswill be notified when anapplication isfiled. An applicationis not prohibited by HOA,condominium document, or rentallease.Liability insurance required.Compliance with the requirementsof HOA, condo association, etc. Oneparking space for every threeguests.Tax14.50%7.25% transient occupancy tax7%7%PenaltyAny host who violates regulations is subject toa civil penalty of $500, $2,000, and $6,000for thefirst, second, and third violations,respectively. Suspension and revocation ofthe license.The permit may be revoked with nonew permit for 1 year in the eventof three or more violations, failureto comply with the zoningordinance, or refusal to cooperatewith a complaint investigation.The license is suspended for anapplicant who has received at leastthree complaints that are verifiedas violations within a 12-monthperiod. No new issuance within3 years after a license is revoked.An STR license may be suspended orrevoked at any time because ofnoncompliance with therequirements, citations, orviolations of the building,electrical, plumbing, or zoningcode. In addition, subject to a civilfine of up to $1,000.Legislative outcome Adopted on November 13, 2018, and effectivein October 2019.Adopted in November 2017 andeffective since January 2018.Senate Bill 2–16 and ZTA 17–03became effective on July 1, 2018.Adopted on October 23, 2018, andeffective October 1, 2019.Note. HOA = homeowners’association. STR = short-term rental. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 19 Table A2.Summary statistics.Variable(name)Mean SDVariableMean SDAirbnb attributesNeighborhood attributesAirbnb listings within 100 ft (Airbnb100 ft) 0.21 0.56 Annual number of traffic incidents within 0.5 miles (numCrash)152.3 114.7Airbnb listings within 200 ft (Airbnb200 ft) 0.85 1.52 Annual number of crime incidents within 0.5 miles (numCrime)326.0 265.3Airbnb listings within 500 ft (Airbnb500 ft) 5.06 7.35 Number of public schools within 0.5 miles (pubschool)2.38 1.82Airbnb listings within 1,000 ft (Airbnb1000 ft) 18.63 26.12 Number of charter schools within 0.5 miles (chaschool)2.60 2.59Housing attributesNumber of metrorail stations within 0.5 miles (metro)0.43 0.66Property prices in $ (last_sale_price)762,842 754,505 Number of historical sites within 0.5 miles (landmark)9.53 15.12Land area in 1,000s of sqft (landarea)3.087 2.835 Demographic attributes (census tract level)Estimated year built (eyb)1970 17.44 Total population in a tract (totalpop)3,904 1,458Number of rooms (rooms)7.44 2.51 Population density per acre (popden)15.20 9.69Number of bathrooms (bathrm)2.24 1.06 Percentage of adults (pct_adult)0.18 0.06Number of half-bathrooms (hf_bathrm)0.65 0.60 Percentage Hispanic/Latino (pct_hisp)0.09 0.08Number of kitchens (kitchens)1.24 0.63 Percentage highly educated—postbachelor (pct_educated)0.29 0.19Number offireplaces (fireplaces)0.60 0.89 Percentage high income—>$20,000 (pct_highinc)0.15 0.14Square footage (sqft)1,693 818.6 Unemployment percentage (pct_unemp)0.11 0.07Air conditioning—dummy variable, 1 is yes (ac) 0.73 0.45 Poverty rate (pct_poverty)0.15 0.10Number of stories (stories)2.19 0.80 Number of observations12,680Grade: 1 is low, 12 is exceptional (grade) 4.25 1.38 Other housing attributes: exterior wall type (extwall), roof type (roof), interior wall type (intwall), heatingtype (heat), building structure (structure), land use code (usecode)Condition: 1 is poor, 6 is excellent (condition) 3.81 0.80Note:SD = standard deviation. 20 Z. ZOU Table A3.Empirical results of the three models. 100 ft buffer 200 ft buffer 500 ft buffer 1,000 ft buffer Variable name Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Panel A: Pooled cross-sectional model (dependent variable: logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0065 (0.006) 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0026** (0.001) 0.0011** (0.000) Landarea 0.0107*** (0.002) 0.0107*** (0.002) 0.0108*** (0.002) 0.0109*** (0.002) Estimated year built (eyb) 0.0002 (0.000) 0.0002 (0.000) 0.0002 (0.000) 0.0002 (0.000) Air conditioning 0.0723*** (0.017) 0.0725*** (0.017) 0.0724*** (0.017) 0.0723*** (0.017) Fireplaces 0.0227*** (0.006) 0.0228*** (0.006) 0.0226*** (0.006) 0.0224*** (0.006) Rooms 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0051* (0.003) Bathroom 0.0648*** (0.004) 0.0648*** (0.004) 0.0649*** (0.004) 0.0652*** (0.004) Half bathroom 0.0278*** (0.005) 0.0278*** (0.005) 0.0278*** (0.005) 0.0278*** (0.005) Sqft 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) Stories 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) Grade 0.0397*** (0.010) 0.0397*** (0.010) 0.0397*** (0.010) 0.0397*** (0.010) Condition 0.1233*** (0.007) 0.1233*** (0.007) 0.1231*** (0.007) 0.1232*** (0.007) Kitchens -0.0291 (0.018)-0.0288 (0.018)-0.0282 (0.018)-0.0281 (0.018) Public school 0.0072** (0.003) 0.0071** (0.003) 0.0068** (0.003) 0.0064** (0.003) Metro area 0.0229 (0.013) 0.0227 (0.013) 0.0220 (0.013) 0.0222 (0.013) Landmark 0.0029*** (0.001) 0.0029*** (0.001) 0.0028*** (0.001) 0.0028*** (0.001) Percentage_adult 0.3242** (0.131) 0.3214** (0.131) 0.3144** (0.130) 0.3078** (0.129) Percentage_educated 0.5133*** (0.113) 0.5046*** (0.114) 0.4819*** (0.114) 0.4650*** (0.116) Percentage_unemp -0.4268*** (0.136)-0.4306*** (0.136)-0.4365*** (0.135)-0.4387*** (0.137) Constant 11.4146*** (0.882) 11.4154*** (0.879) 11.4058*** (0.862) 11.4174*** (0.846) Other controlled variables Heat type, land use type, structure type, interior and exterior wall type, roof type, number of traffic and crime incidents, number of charter schools, population density, % Hispanic population, % high-income households, poverty rate Zip code dummies ✓✓✓✓ Period dummies ✓✓✓✓ Cluster SE ✓✓✓✓ N 12,680 12,680 12,680 12,680 R2 0.8095 0.8095 0.8097 0.8099 Panel B: Fixed-effects model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0060 (0.008) 0.0078* (0.003) 0.0037** (0.001) 0.0012*** (0.000) Other controlled variables Land area, estimated year built, air conditioning,fireplaces, rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, half- bathrooms, sqft, stories, grade, condition, heat type, land use type, structure type, interior and exterior wall type, roof type, number of traffic and crime incidents, constant Period dummies ✓✓ ✓ ✓ N 7,624 7,624 7,624 7,624 N blocks 2,378 2,378 2,378 2,378 R2 0.3905 0.3910 0.3923 0.3925 Panel C: First-difference model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0212 (0.016) 0.0136* (0.008) 0.0103*** (0.002) 0.0031*** (0.001) Other controlled variables Land area, estimated year built, air conditioning,fireplaces, rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, half- bathrooms, sqft, stories, grade, condition, heat type, land use type, structure type, interior and exterior wall type, roof type, number of traffic and crime incidents, constant After 0.0283 (0.017) 0.0275 (0.017) 0.0249 (0.017) 0.0240 (0.017) N 2,047 2,047 2,047 2,047 N blocks 1,027 1,027 1,027 1,027 R2 0.3704 0.3712 0.3804 0.3792 Note. SE = standard error. The robust standard error is given in parentheses. *p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 21 Table A4.Aggregate impact of Airbnb on property price by zip code. 200-ft 500-ft 1,000-ft Zip code Density Impact (%) Density Impact (%) Density Impact (%) Hispanic (%) Black (%) 20001 2.61 2.04 15.33 5.67 55.49 6.66 9.22 50.75 20002 1.51 1.18 8.78 3.25 32.45 3.89 4.39 61.33 20003 1.45 1.13 8.64 3.20 31.37 3.76 5.12 36.41 20005 2.68 2.09 24.23 8.97 102.09 12.25 16.77 15.17 20007 0.79 0.62 4.92 1.82 17.72 2.13 7.12 3.12 20008 0.41 0.32 2.53 0.94 9.74 1.17 7.67 5.10 20009 3.43 2.68 20.63 7.63 79.21 9.51 15.13 20.69 20010 1.89 1.47 11.41 4.22 43.68 5.24 30.11 31.07 20011 0.44 0.34 2.7 1.00 10.11 1.21 21.18 65.31 20012 0.21 0.16 1.4 0.52 4.71 0.57 11.22 64.29 20015 0.17 0.13 1.09 0.40 3.54 0.42 6.52 9.00 20016 0.15 0.12 0.98 0.36 3.55 0.43 7.30 4.25 20017 0.35 0.27 2.15 0.80 7.54 0.90 6.49 71.42 20018 0.16 0.12 1.05 0.39 4.21 0.51 5.87 85.08 20019 0.15 0.12 0.7 0.26 2.16 0.26 2.41 94.98 20020 0.21 0.16 1.32 0.49 4.44 0.53 1.41 95.00 20024 0.7 0.55 5.62 2.08 18.11 2.17 5.16 54.50 20032 0.07 0.05 0.38 0.14 1.12 0.13 2.33 90.00 20036 4.36 3.40 29.64 10.97 86.79 10.41 7.62 7.78 20037 3.2 2.50 19.97 7.39 65.79 7.89 5.77 6.32 DC 0.85 0.66 5.06 1.87 18.63 2.24 9.10 50.03 Table A5.Robustness check using entire-unit Airbnb listings with reviews. 100 ft buffer 200 ft buffer 500 ft buffer 1,000 ft buffer Variable name Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Panel A: Pooled cross-sectional model (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0140 (0.008) 0.0071* (0.003) 0.0028** (0.001) 0.0011*** (0.000) N 12,680 12,680 12,680 12,680 R2 0.8091 0.8091 0.8092 0.8092 Panel B: Fixed-effects model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0096 (0.011) 0.0086* (0.005) 0.0033** (0.001) 0.0008*** (0.000) N 7,624 7,624 7,624 7,624 N blocks 2,378 2,378 2,378 2,378 R2 0.3906 0.3909 0.3913 0.3910 Panel C: First-difference model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0258 (0.022) 0.0050 (0.011) 0.0057* (0.003) 0.0017* (0.001) N 2,047 2,047 2,047 2,047 N blocks 1,027 1,027 1,027 1,027 R2 0.3705 0.3698 0.3718 0.3715 Note.SE = standard error. The robust standard error is given in parentheses. *p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01. Table A6.Empirical results for median rent price at the zip code level. 100 ft buffer 200 ft buffer 500 ft buffer 1,000 ft buffer Variable name Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Panel A: Fixed-effects model at the zip code level (dependent variable: logarithm of median rent price) Airbnb density -0.0002 (0.016) 0.0065 (0.005) 0.0011 (0.001) 0.0004 (0.000) Other controls Land area, estimated year built, air conditioning,fireplaces, rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, half-bathrooms, sqft, stories, grade, condition, number of traffic and crime incidents, constant N 119 119 119 119 N Zip codes 20 20 20 20 R2 0.4202 0.4310 0.4283 0.4373 Note. SE = standard error. The robust standard error is given in parentheses. *p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01. 22 Z. ZOU 180 Market St South Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4105 April 4, 2022 The following 2022 first, second and third class liquor licenses, outside consumption and entertainment permits were approved by the South Burlington Liquor Control Board after review by the City tax, fire and police departments: NAME DESCRIPTION Parkway Diner (NEW) First Class & Third Class Restaurant/Bar License Silver Palace First Class & Third Class Restaurant/Bar License Walgreen’s #11526 Second Class License SOUTH BURLINGTON LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD Helen Riehle Meagan Emery Tom Chittenden Tim Barritt Matt Cota