Green Bay WI Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
City of Green Bay
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
FINAL April 30, 2019
Mayor
Eric Genrich Mayor
City Council Members
Barbara Dorff
Veronica Corpus-Dax
Andy Nicholson
Bill Galvin
Craig Stevens
Kathy Lefebvre
Randy Scannell
Chris Wery
Brian Johnson
Mark Steuer
John VanderLeest
Jesse Brunette
Alderperson, District 1
Alderperson, District 2
Alderperson, District 3
Alderperson, District 4
Alderperson, District 5
Alderperson, District 6
Alderperson, District 7
Alderperson, District 8
Alderperson, District 9
Alderperson, District 10
Alderperson, District 11
Alderperson, District 12
City of Green Bay Community & Economic Development Department
A special thank you to all of our focus group participants.
Index of Tables and Figures
Figure 2-2
Figure
Figure
Figure 2-6
Figure 2-7
Table 2-8
Figure 2-10
Table 2-11
Figure 2-12
Figure 2-13
Figure 2-14
Table 2-15
Table 2-16
Figure 2-17
Figure 2-18
Figure 2-19
Figure
Table
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) is to identify practices and conditions in the City that are impeding housing opportunities for residents because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or other “protected class” status. Fair housing impediments include direct discriminatory actions, omissions or decisions related to membership in a protected class, or indirect actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices for people specifically because of their protected class membership
The City is required by the Fair Housing Act to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” The AI identifies fair housing choice constraints and offers planning strategies that can be incorporated into other community planning and development processes and decisions. This study is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a condition for receiving federal housing funds. It should be completed before the City creates its five-year “Consolidated Plan” that describes how those funds will be spent, so that the City can show that it understands the various direct and indirect impediments to fair housing choice and is actively working to eliminate discriminatory practices and disparate outcomes
Overview of Study
The City of Green Bay hired MSA Professional Services to complete an AI for the City. The AI combines data available from a wide variety of sources, including population, demographic, economic and housing data from the US Census and American Community Survey, The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and the City of Green Bay This data review and analysis was combined with information from local housing and social service professionals gathered through focus groups and questionnaires
Both the primary information that was gathered and the secondary data that was analyzed point to a similar set of housing challenges and choice impediments.
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the City of Green Bay, WI
This study identified the following impediments to fair housing choice in Green Bay. These are all indirect impediments, meaning that they do not directly limit choice for protected class residents, but they contribute to conditions that limit choice.
1. Supply Impediments
1.1 Inadequate Quality of Renter- and Owner-Occupied Housing
1.2 Inadequate Supply of Accessible Rental Units
1.3 Inadequate Supply of Smaller Rental Units
2. Affordability Impediments (Private Sector)
2.1 Inadequate Supply of Acceptable Affordable Housing
3. Financial Impediments (Private Sector)
3.1 Lack of Loans to Minorities
4. Spatial Impediments (Public and Private Sector)
4.1 Racial Segregation
4.2 Transit Commuting Difficult at Some Times and to Surrounding Areas
5. Administrative Impediments (Public Sector)
5.1 Lack of Local Fair Housing Ordinance
5.2 Restrictions on Residential Uses in Zoning Code
5.3 Limited Use of Fair Housing Complaint Procedures
5.4 Lack of Accountability for Landlords
5.5 Protected Classes Underrepresented on Boards and Commissions
Summary of Actions
The following actions are suggested to alleviate the identified indirect impediments. See Chapter V for a full description of impediments and suggested actions. Timing for the actions is suggested in this table, and is dependent on future budgeting by the City – acceptance of this study by Common Council does not constitute a commitment to this schedule.
Impediments, Goals, and Actions
1. Supply Impediments
1.1 Inadequate Quality of Renter- and OwnerOccupied Housing
Responsible Party Timeline
1.1.1 Develop list of development ready single- and multifamily sites City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2021
1.1.2 Create a housing rehab and redevelopment revolving loan fund City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2023
1.2 Inadequate Supply of Accessible Rental Units
1.2.1 Encourage retrofits to existing rental units to improve accessibility City (Council, Planning Dept.) Ongoing
1.2.2 Offer training/information to improve knowledge of “reasonable accommodation” requirements for the disabled City (Planning Dept.), Options for Independent Living, LLC Ongoing
1.3 Inadequate
Supply of Smaller Rental Units
1.3.1 Study supply gap and offer strategies to fill it Green Bay Housing Authority, City 2019-2021
2. Affordability Impediments
2.1 Inadequate Supply of Acceptable Affordable Housing
2.1.1 Update the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the inclusion of affordable units in development and redevelopment plans City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2021
2.1.2 Create a rental housing rehab and redevelopment revolving loan or grant fund (see 1.2.1) City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2023
2.1.3 Utilize TIF 1-year extension when TIDs are about to close to encourage the development of affordable housing. City (Council, Planning Dept.)
3. Financial Impediments
3.1 Lack of Loans to Minorities
2025 (next year when TIDs will close)
3.1.1 Provide more credit and home-buying education to citizens, especially minority residents City, NeighborWorks Ongoing
3.1.2 Provide education for local lenders on predatory lending practices and common pitfalls for new home buyers
3.1.3 Improve the success of minority homebuyers postpurchase – offer training on home maintenance
City (Council, Planning Dept.) Ongoing
City (Council, Planning Dept.) Ongoing
4. Spatial Impediments
4.1 Racial Segregation
4.1.1 Amend Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map to encourage development of balanced neighborhoods City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2021
4.1.2 Meet with surrounding communities and discuss housing strategies to aid in deconcentrating poverty in the City City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2024
4.2 Transit Commuting Difficult at Some Times and to Surrounding Areas
4.2.1 Evaluate changes to transit system and schedules to better support second and third shift employment, and more routes serving neighboring communities City, Green Bay Metro Transit 2019-2024
5. Administrative Impediments
5.1 Lack of Local Fair Housing Ordinance
5.1.1 Create a Fair Housing Ordinance City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2020
5.2 Restrictions on Residential Uses in Zoning Code
5.2.1 Revise zoning code to integrate R-3 into other residential areas and expand the use of mixed use districts City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2020
5.2.2 Allow three- or four-unit multi-family housing by right in the R-2 district City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2020
5.2.3 Revise zoning code to clarify regulation for manufactured and mobile homes City (Council, Planning Dept.) 2019-2020
5.3 Limited Use of Fair Housing Complaint Procedures
5.3.1 Add fair housing information and links to City’s website City (Planning Dept.) 2019-2020
5.4 Lack of Accountability for Landlords
5.4.1 Promote services of the Tenant Resource Center City (Council, Planning Dept.) Ongoing
5.4.2 Recruit and provide training to landlords and other groups to increase knowledge about Fair Housing Law City (Council, Planning Dept.), Fair Housing Council Ongoing
5.5 Protected Classes Underrepresented on Boards and Commissions
5.5.1 Actively recruit protected class representatives to each commission City (Council) Ongoing
I. Introduction
Fair housing choice is equal opportunity housing. It is the right for all people to obtain housing, of their choice, without discrimination. Provisions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) are fundamental components of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) community development and housing programs. These provisions stem from the Fair Housing Act 1; a section of which required HUD to administer the department’s programs in a manner that fulfills their AFFH obligation.
HUD maintains several Community Planning and Development Programs (CPD), including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) programs which the City of Green Bay receives. As recipients of these funds, HUD requires the City of Green Bay to work to affirmatively further fair housing. Although a grantee’s AFFH obligations arise in connection to their receipt of federal funding, the obligations extend to all housing and housing-related activities in the grantee’s jurisdictional area whether publically or privately funded.
The Federal Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Amendments established protected classes. Protected classes are groups of people who share a characteristic that historically has been used as the reason for discrimination. These characteristics have no relevance as to whether or not a person will make a good tenant or homeowner. As such, these groups are protected from housing discrimination under US, Wisconsin, and Brown County laws. Federal and State laws have slightly different sets of protected classes, while Brown County’s ordinance follows the State’s protected classes. All three levels of law are applicable within the City of Green Bay. The City of Green Bay does not have a Fair Housing Ordinance.
Table 1-1 displays the protected classes at a federal, state, and county level. For additional information on each of these laws, visit these sites (and if the address has changed, search for the specific title provided here):
Brown County Equal Opportunities in Housing Ordinance
1 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as the Fair Housing Act) prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII has been amended since its original adoption in 1968 to include more protected classes. Refer to https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_rights_and_obligations for other laws which have fair housing components. Exceptions to the Fair Housing Act, depending on the jurisdiction can include housing for elderly or disabled persons, illegal distribution or manufacture of illegal drugs, certain convictions, student status in relation to housing needs and gender where housing is devoted exclusively to members of the same sex.
Figure
1-1. Summary of Protected Classes and Exceptions
Religion
Sex/Gender
National Origin
Handicap/Disability
Perception of disability
Familial Status
Sexual Orientation
Marital Status
Ancestry
Lawful Source of Income
Age
Status as a victim of Domestic abuse, sexual abuse, or stalking (limited protections)
Physical appearance
Political beliefs
Status as a student
Arrest or conviction record (limited protections)*
Type of military discharge
Refusal to disclose Social Security Number*
Domestic Partnership Status
Citizenship Status
Gender Identity
Genetic Identity
Receipt of Rental Assistance
Exceptions
Owner-occupied buildings with 4 or fewer units
Housing for elderly or persons with disabilities
Single-family house if owner doesn’t own more than three units at a time
Family size if local building codes limit the number of occupants
Housing for elderly or persons with disabilities
Person who poses a threat to the safety of others of who would do substantial damage to property
Roommates (5 or fewer)
Housing for elderly or persons with disabilities
Protected Class Exceptions, or Legal Discrimination
There are exceptions written into the state and federal fair housing laws that allow for discrimination based on characteristics that are otherwise protected. All levels of government grant exceptions for the benefit of elderly and disabled residents, such that it is legal to offer housing designated specifically for such residents, and to discriminate against younger residents and persons without disabilities
Most levels of government allow discrimination based on criminal convictions for certain crimes that could put other tenants or employees at risk. To a limited extent, housing occupants are allowed to discriminate in the selection of other occupants, including roommates, as long as there are five or fewer people in the same unit. Owner-occupants of buildings with four or fewer units are permitted by federal law to discriminate against their renters, but this means only that the federal government cannot pursue a discrimination case in these circumstances. This exception is not included in State or County laws, meaning that all landlords are required to comply with fair housing requirements as defined at each of those levels, including duplex owners.
What is Required to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing?
The federal mandate to affirmatively further fair house (AFFH) has never included clear directives regarding how to fulfill this obligation. However, HUD defines it as requiring a grantee to:
• Conduct an analysis to identify impediments (AI) to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction,
• Take appropriate actions to overcome any impediments identified through the analysis, and
• Maintain AFFH records.
Beyond these requirements, the intent is that the City will take proactive steps to overcome historic patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities for all.
What are Impediments to Fair Housing Choice?
There are two types of impediments to fair housing choice, as defined by HUD and restated here for clarity:
• Direct impediments: any actions, omissions, or decisions that directly restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, or other protected class status;
• Indirect impediments: any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices by resulting in conditions in which members of protected classes experience disparate outcomes as compared to the general population.
Any policies, practices, or procedures that may appear neutral but operate to deny or adversely affect the availability of housing to a person may be considered an indirect impediment. To the best extent possible, this Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice defines the existence, nature, extent, and causes of fair housing choice problems within Green Bay, and the resources available to solve them. It is the goal of this document and the process by which it was created to identify any issues within the City of Green Bay that are preventing some persons from having access to housing of their choice without discrimination.
II. Background Data
This section summarizes relevant background data for the City of Green Bay Much of the data was derived from secondary sources, consisting primarily of the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey.
Caution should be used when interpreting the data from secondary sources. The United States has transitioned from the Census long-form to the American Community Survey (ACS). The majority of the data that the American Community Survey collects is from a sample of the total population; and therefore, is subject to both sampling errors (deviations from the true population) and non-sampling errors (human and processing errors). The ACS is released every year and covers all of the social, economic, housing, and demographic questions that previously were covered by the Census long-form.
–
QUICK FACTS
– 104,835 population of Green Bay
– 14.8% % of families below poverty
– 40.5% % of units that are multi-family
– 45.4% % of units renter-occupied 16.7% – 22.9% % home costs exceeding affordability 43.0% – 45.7% % renter costs exceeding affordability
Sources: 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
Unlike the Census, which attempts to take a snapshot of the population on April 1st, the ACS provides consecutive estimates. Because the data is “smoothed out” over the time period, it is near impossible to pinpoint specific changes that may have occurred during the time period. The majority of the data in this document is from the 2013-2017 ACS estimates. Because these data are only estimates, they may not accurately represent the housing climate within the City. Due to the fundamental differences in collection method, decennial Census data and ACS data cannot be directly compared with each other to draw conclusions about change over time When comparing ACS data, it is necessary to take the margin of error (MOE) into account. Due to small sample sizes, the margin of error is sometime very high, indicating low reliability –the estimate may or may not reflect reality. To account for the margin of error, ACS estimates will be shown in this report as a range instead of one number. The Census Bureau’s standard is a 90% confidence level for each estimate. For example, the 2013-2017 ACS Estimate for households in Green Bay is 42,559 with a margin of error +/- 574. We will show this estimate as a range of 41,985 – 43,133 In graphs the range will be shown through use of shading (e.g. light orange and dark orange to represent the low and high end estimate for one variable – see Figure 2-14) It is important to note the source of any of the data herein and understand the caveats that accompany them. 2 It should also be noted that there are persistent problems of the undercounting ethnic minorities and immigrants in the US Census and American Community Survey. So it is likely that especially for the Hispanic or Latino population, counts may be higher than they appear in the numbers reported here.
2 For more information on the ACS and how to appropriately interpret the data, visit www.census.gov
While data collection is a necessary part of the process to prepare an AI, it is also important to remember that the AI is meant to be a practical document that identifies impediments to fair housing choice and offers actions to help remove them. For the most part, the community is aware of impediments, and those that are not clearly presented in the data are identified through the focus group process described in this document.
Demographics
KEY FINDINGS
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
Some of the City’s Census tracts (1,2,3,4,9 and 12) have a disproportionately high concentration of either black, Native American, Asian or Hispanic residents (see Figure 2-1 for a census tract reference map). This indicates segregation and is an indicator of the existence of impediments to fair housing choice.
The City of Green Bay’s population increased steadily between 1930 and 1970, with increases ranging from 14% to 40% per decade. Since 1970, the population has increased more modestly, with increases ranging from 1% to 10% per decade. In 2010, the census reported a population of 104,057 The 2013-2017 ACS estimates show a population between 104,757 and 104,835, an increase of around 1% since the 2010 census. This 2010 count is approximately 42.0% of the population of Brown County, down from 45.1% in 2000. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the general trend in Brown County since 2010 has been that the populations of the larger, more established municipalities grew slowly, while smaller communities experienced growth rates that outpaced the state and nation. Since 2010 over 60% of population growth in the County can be accounted for by City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Hobart and Town of Ledgeview. Overall, Brown County residents are relatively young compared to other counties in Wisconsin, one contributing factor being a relatively strong annual birth rate (59-81 births per 1,000 women) For comparison, Wisconsin’s 2013-2017 birth rate was 50-52 per 1,000 women. According to 2013-2017 ACS Estimates the median age in Brown County is 36.8-37.2, compared to the State, which is 39.1-39.3.
Figure 2-1. Census Tract Reference Map
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Prepared by City of Green Bay Planning Staff (2010 Census)
According to 2013-2017 ACS Estimates, there are 41,985 – 43,133 total households in Green Bay, with an average renter household size of 2.17-2.19 and owner household size of 2.52-2.54. Household size in Green Bay has remained relatively unchanged since 2010, likely in part to the relatively high birth rate and the increase in minority households, which are often larger In many other communities and nationwide,
household size has been decreasing due to smaller family sizes, increases in life expectancy and increases in single-person households. The following map, Figure 2-2, shows the household distribution by Census tract for the City of Green Bay. Note that the map does not depict household density, only household distribution. The most populous tracts are generally suburban growth areas that include more area and have not been subdivided to normalize households as compared to other, more static tracts.
Race and Ethnicity
Figure 2-3 shows the residential patterns within the City of Green Bay by race. As the overall population increases, the percentage of the population that identifies as minority is staying roughly the same (14% in 2000 and 2010). According to the 2010 Census, the City of Green Bay is approximately 86.5% white, 2.2% black, 2.7% Asian, 2.7% American Indian, 3.7% some other race, and 2.2% that identify as two or more races.
Figure 2-2. Household Distribution by Census Tract Source: HUD Consolidated Plan and Continuum of Care Planning Tool
2-3.
Source: 2000 and 2010 Census, 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
*2013-2017 data is from ACS estimates –direct comparisons between Census data and ACS estimates are not valid.
Figures 2-4 through 2-7 show minority concentration by census tract for Green Bay and some adjoining areas.
Figure 2-4 identifies tracts with a relatively high percentage of black residents. Tracts in dark purple are those with 8% or greater black residents (2010 City-wide percentage was 2.2%). The highest concentration, 11.4% black residents, is found near downtown in census tract 12. The housing stock in this area is generally older and more affordable than other areas of the City.
Figure 2-4. Percentage of Black Population by Census Tract Source: HUD Consolidated Plan and Continuum of Care Planning Tool
Figure
Population by Race
The Asian population is distributed differently across Green Bay, as shown in Figure 2-5. While the citywide Asian population was 2.7% of the total population in 2010, there are two census tracts where the Asian population is greater than 10%; census tracts 17.01 (10.7%) and 1 (13.1%). There is a concentration of apartments here which are generally rented to University of Wisconsin – Green Bay students.
The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is located in eastern Outagamie and western Brown Counties. Some of the reservation is within the boundary of the City of Green Bay (west side), which is shown by the dark purple area on Figure 2-6. The city-wide American Indian population was 2.7% of the total population in 2010, however for the three Green Bay Census tracts within the reservation, the American Indian population is between 10.1% and 12.1%. This higher concentration is expected, and it seems surprisingly low for land that is part of the reservation.
Figure 2-6. Percentage of American Indian Population by Census Tract
Figure 2-5. Percentage of Asian Population by Census Tract
The distribution of Latinos shows a concentration in the City’s central neighborhood. Census tract 9 has a Latino population of 40%. This may be due in part to the nearby presence of two major employers: Green Bay Packaging and American Foods Group. Adjacent census tracts 11, 17.01 and 17.02 all have a Latino population between 30% and 40%. The Latino population is the largest minority population as compared to all other minorities populations discussed in this document. According to the 2010 Census, Latinos made up 7.3% of the total population of Green Bay.
Another way to measure concentration and segregation is with the dissimilarity index, which calculates the percentage of a group that would have to move to be equally distributed across all census tracts as compared to another group. This data is available from Brown University (http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/segregation2010/Default.aspx). For the black population, the 2010 Census dissimilarity index relative to white residents was 27. For Hispanics it was 42.2, and for Asians it was 20.7. A score of 30 or lower is considered low, 40-50 moderate, and 60 or more high. These scores indicate moderate segregation for Hispanic residents in Green Bay, and low segregation for others. This low to moderate segregation suggests that housing choice is limited for minority residents, particularly Hispanic residents, by various factors that lead those residents to choose housing only in high-minority neighborhoods. This is an indirect impediment to fair housing choice.
Figure 2-7. Percentage of Hispanic or Latino Population by Census Tract Source: HUD Consolidated Plan and Continuum of Care Planning Tool
Disability
Table 2-8 shows the number and percentage of people in the City of Green Bay with a disability, by age group The age cohort with the highest number with a disability is those age 18 to 64 years old, at between 7,832 and 8,996 people. However, the age group with the greatest percentage disability is those who are 65 and older (33-35%). This data confirms focus group interview concerns that there is a need for accessible units for the non-elderly. This also affirms the assumption that the elderly population has need for accessible housing.
Figure 2-9 indicates the number of disabled by age, by census tract. The census tract with the greatest number of residents age 18 to 64 with a disability is Census tract 16 (698 individuals, or 13.7% of the Census Tract). Census tracts 200 and 401 have the greatest number of disabled residents over age 64 (410 and 409 individuals, respectively). Mason Manor, a low- and moderate-income,146-unit complex for elderly residents, is located in census tract 4.01. There are also a several senior apartment complexes, assisted living and memory care facilities in these two census tracts.
Table 2-8. Population with a Disability Source: 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
Figure 2-9. Disability by Age Group by Census Tract
Another indicator of disability in the community is Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which the Census Bureau tracks at the tract level. SSI is designed to help people who are 65 years or older, blind or otherwise disabled, with little or no income; it provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Figure 2-10 shows the distribution of SSI. Across the City, between 4.3% and 5.9% of households received SSI in the 2013-2017 sample period. The heaviest concentrations are found in tracts 1, 3.02, 3.03, 4.01, 8, 10, and 12, all of which have greater than 7.5% of the population receiving SSI and are located in central and the near west side of Green Bay. This map of SSI recipients correlates most closely with measures of income (see Figure 2-12).
Figure 2-10. Distribution of Residents Receiving SSI by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Prepared by City of Green Bay Staff
Income and Poverty
According to the 2013-2017 ACS Estimates, the median household income in the City of Green Bay was between $44,255 and $46,691 (See Table 2-11). This suggests an increase in nominal household income within the City since 2006-2010 ACS estimates. Despite this, the median household income in the City is 19% to 31% less than the median household income in Brown County (between $55,564 and $57,986). Median household income is even lower for minorities. For those identifying as black and living in Green Bay, the median household income is between $15,189 and $22,473 and for those identifying as two or more races (non-white) the median household income is between $23,497 and $30,947. Between 16% and 19% of the individuals in the City are currently below the poverty line ($12,060); compared to between 10.6% and 12.0% of the individuals in Brown County, 12.1% and 12.5% of individuals in Wisconsin, and 14.5% and 14.7% nation-wide. If we look at minority populations specifically, between 43.5% and 64.3% of black individuals and between 31.2% and 45.6% of those identifying as two or more races (non-white) are below the poverty level. Between 12.0% and 14.8% of the families in Green Bay are below the poverty line (that line varies based on family size), while only between 8.0% and 8.2% of the families within Brown County are below the poverty line. Overall, the City of Green Bay appears to have a higher percentage of poverty than the County.
KEY FINDINGS
Income and Poverty
Certain protected class residents, especially blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, those identifying as two or more races (non-white), single female headed households, are disproportionately represented among the City’s low-income residents and have fewer housing options as a result.
Income is not a protected class, nor is it an “action, omission, or decision.” However, the disparate impact on housing choice for black, Native Americans, Hispanics, those identifying as two or more races, and single female headed households makes poverty a fair housing issue requiring the City’s continued attention in its efforts to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
* Not adjusted for inflation (in terms of 1999 dollars) ** In 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars *** In 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars
Note: 2006-2010 and 2013-2017 data are from ACS estimates –direct comparisons between Census data and ACS estimates are not valid.
Figure 2-12 shows Median Household Income by Census Tract. This map reinforces the data indicating relatively low incomes in the City as compared to the County as a whole. The lighter the color of the tracts, the lower the median household incomes Similar to the concentration of minorities, the poorest residents
Table 2-11. Income and Poverty Trends
in the City of Green Bay are living in census tracts 8 and 12. These census tracts are also two of the least populated within the City.
The tracts with the lowest household incomes are those in central Green Bay. This matches those receiving SSI in Census tracts 8 and 10, but Census tracts 11, 12 and 17.01 do not have concentrations of SSI recipients Figure 2-13 shows the percentage of residents receiving Food Stamps or SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance) benefits in the past 12 months, as reported by the Census Bureau. While between 16.4% and 18.8% of households receive such benefits city-wide, there are three tracts, shown in red, with more than 35% of residents receiving such benefits (8, 10 and 11). These tracts are located near downtown.
Figure 2-12. Median Household Income by Census Tract
Figure 2-13. Percent Households Receiving SNAP Assistance in the Past 12 Months, by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Prepared by City of Green Bay Staff
When comparing Figures 2-12 and 2-13 to the minority concentration maps (Figures 2-4 through 2-7) we can see some spatial correlation between race and poverty. The highest concentration of households receiving SNAP Assistance is found in the same tracts as areas with higher concentrations of American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, and those residents identifying as two or more races.
Figure 2-14 compares the prevalence of poverty among various racial, age, ethnic and gender groups. All groups are experiencing poverty at a higher rate in Green Bay than in the state as a whole. Comparing groups within Green Bay, there are clear racial and ethnic disparities. Whereas between 15.6% and 19.2% of white residents are considered to be under the federal poverty level, that number jumps to between 57.5% and 78.7% for blacks, 31.7% and 47.6% for Native Americans, 41.9% and 50.0% for female heads of household, 46.3% and 52.3% for those identifying as two or more races, and 34.8% and 47.2% for Hispanics
Figure 2-14. Selected Characteristics of People at Specific Levels of Poverty
Source: 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
Less than 125% of poverty level
Less than 100% of poverty level Less than 50% poverty level
These data indicate that poverty and its associated challenges are disproportionately affecting some protected classes. Because protected class residents, especially blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, female-headed households and those identifying as two or more races, are much more likely to be poor, they are disproportionately affected by conditions that limit housing choice for poor residents. Assertions elsewhere in this AI study that income-related impediments to housing choice are indirect impediments to fair housing choice are based on this data.
Employment
It is important to consider the spatial characteristics of employment centers and transportation systems in the City. Concentrations of employment opportunity should be accessible via public transit from a reasonable set of affordable housing alternatives, such that housing choices are not unduly restricted within the City by someone’s place of employment. This section describes employment conditions, generally, and the location of employment centers.
Source: Wisconsin Workforce Development
Table 2-16. Green Bay’s Largest Employers (December 2018)
Source: Wisconsin DWD Wisconomy Database
Employer (1,000+ employees)
Schneider National Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Shopko Stores
Associated Bank
Oneida Casino KI Inc.
HSHS St. Vincent Children’s Hospital Real Wisconsin Website Design
HSHS St. Vincent Hospital A Pac Customer Svc Inc.
Humana Inc.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
Bellin Health Care System Paper Converting Machine Co.
Bellin Health Sleep Center Resch Center
Bellin Hospital Green Bay Georgia-Pacific Corp.
JBS Innovative Services Inc.
JBS Green Bay Pallas Textiles
Aurora Bay Care Medical Center Prevea Health
Walmart Supercenter
KEY FINDINGS
Employment and Transportation
The employment market is relatively strong in the city and county, and major employers are distributed throughout the city, providing more opportunity to find a job and find housing near that job.
Average commute times are low and transit routes offer access to and from most areas of the city. However, second and third shift workers are unable to use public transit due to the hours of operation. Additionally, those who live and work outside of Green Bay, De Pere, Allouez, Ashwaubenon and Bellevue are not able to use public transit. Because of the correlations between poverty, transit dependence, and race, this is a mild, indirect impediment to fair housing choice.
The City of Green Bay fared worse than Brown County, Wisconsin and the nation as a whole with regard to unemployment during the 2007-2009 recession. Despite the high unemployment between 2009-2010 (11.7%), Green Bay had a sharp decrease in unemployment between 2013- 2014 (9.0% to 5.5%), In 2017 Green Bay’s unemployment rate of 3.2% is lower than the County’s (4.4%) and similar to the State’s (3.3%).
Table 2-16 identifies the City’s largest employers, and Figure 2-17 illustrates the location of most of those employers. While many of the City’s largest employers are located in Central Green Bay, there are also employers scattered throughout the city.
Figure 2-15. Unemployment Rate
Source: Google Maps
The figure below shows the location of jobs within the City where employees make $1,250 per month or less ($7.25 an hour for someone working 40 hours per week) in 2015. Over half (53%) of those working the jobs shown on the map are over age 30 and many of these jobs (74%) are in the retail, administration and support, health care, education, and accommodation/food service industries. A majority of these jobs are held by those identifying as white (88%) and a smaller portion for those identifying as black (5%), American Indian (3%), Asian (3%) and two or more races (2%). Seven percent (7%) are held by those identifying as Latino.
Source: US Census OnTheMap 2015
Figure 2-17. Green Bay’s Major Employers (1,000+ employees)
Figure 2-18. Job Locations in Green Bay for Those Making $1,250 per Month
Transportation Options and Commute Outcomes
Transit
Households without a vehicle – due to economic circumstance, disability or choice – are at a disadvantage in regards to accessing jobs, services and amenities. Convenient access to public transit is essential to these households, and, if not available, can greatly limit housing and employment options.
The Green Bay Metro provides service in the Cities of Green Bay, De Pere and the Villages of Allouez, Ashwaubenon and Bellevue There are 17 bus routes that travel though the area on regular, fixed-route schedules, one limited-service bus route and paratransit services.
Green Bay Metro operates Monday through Friday, 5:15 AM – 9:45 PM, Saturday from 7:15 AM to 6:45 PM and Sunday service on all NFL (National Football League) home games. Service on Saturday is free.
Green Bay Metro’s routing and service schedule provide good coverage, connecting residents and employment centers throughout the City. Service is stronger in areas with jobs that pay the lowest wages and public housing, indicating an active effort to match transit supply and demand. However, public transit is difficult to use for those working second or third shift based on hours of operation.
Commutes utilizing Metro by workers that work 2nd or 3rd shift are nearly impossible due to operating schedules that generally shut down by 9:45 PM. Second shift workers often get out of work at 11:00, and there is no public transportation available at this time. Those living in select communities outside of Green Bay and working in Green Bay, or vice versa, are not able to use public transit since Metro only operates in Green Bay, De Pere, Allouez, Ashwaubenon and Bellevue.
Figure 2-19. Current Green Bay Metro Routes
Source: Green Bay Metro
Commuting
Figure 2-19 shows that, in general, residents in Green Bay have a commute that is shorter than the commutes typical to both the County and the State (when looking at all modes of transportation). This is consistent with the fact that there are many employment opportunities distributed throughout the City. Most residents can get to work within 30 minutes. Between 89% and 90% of residents drive themselves to work or carpool.
Figure 2-20. Travel Time to Work (for all modes of transportation)
Source: 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
City of Green Bay
Brown County Wisconsin
Housing Stock
In general, housing in the City of Green Bay is more singlefamily homes than multi-family buildings. Between 59.9% and 62.7% of the housing stock in the City is single-family. The housing stock in Green Bay is generally older with between 64.3% and 73.5% of housing built before 1980. Lead-based paint was commonly used before 1978 and poses a risk to children who live in these homes. Lowerincome households are more likely to live in homes where lead paid has not been mitigated. According to Wisconsin Department of Health Services’ 2016 Report on Childhood Lead Poisoning in Wisconsin, 1.6% of children tested (84 total) in Brown County had lead poisoning
KEY FINDINGS
Housing Stock
Housing stock in the City is nearly twothirds single-family and the remainder multi-family, including approximately 11% of units in buildings with 10 or more units. Owner-occupancy is lower than in nearby peer community Appleton, but not unusually low. The supply of one bedroom units appears to have fallen since 2000, limiting housing options for the most disadvantaged residents. Between 64% and 74% of the City’s housing stock was built before 1980, which also poses a risk for low income families with children living in these homes.
The decrease in one bedroom units and presence of lead-based paint in older homes are impediments to fair housing choice, as they disproportionately affects non-white and disabled residents for whom such units may be the best, or only, viable housing option.
Figure 2-21. Unit Type Source: 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
Figure 2-22. Year Unit Built Source: 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
A little over half of Green Bay’s households are owner-occupied (see Table 2-22), and nearly half of all households had lived in their homes less than ten years as of 2017 (see Table 2-23). While these numbers may suggest to some a population that is excessively transient, they are normal findings as compared to other cities Table 2-24 compares Green Bay to other cities, the County and the State, and it illustrates the relationship between owner-occupancy and longevity in the same unit. Rental housing is an important component of any healthy housing market, and such housing tends to be located in cities. County and state statistics, which include both urban and rural residents, show that both owner-occupancy and time in the same housing are higher in rural areas than in cities. As owner-occupancy drops, so does the length of time residents tend to live in the same unit. Green Bay has lower owner-occupancy than Appleton, but higher than Madison.
It is important, in any urban housing market with a large rental component, to have organizations that support the healthy function of the rental market, providing training, education and advocacy both for renters and for landlords. Chapter VI of this report describes several non-profit entities that support housing needs in Green Bay, but many of these entities serve multiple counties and have limited budget and staff resources to serve the needs of Green Bay residents.
It is important to note any trends in the supply of various housing sizes, in terms of the number of rooms and bedrooms.
Unfortunately, the collection of this data shifted from a 100% count in the 2000 Census to sample estimates in the American Community Survey (ACS).
Table 2-24. Year Moved into Unit
Table 2-25. Occupancy and Year Moved Into Unit, Percentage of Units
Table 2-26. Housing Size by Number of Rooms, Percentage of All Units
Table 2-25 offers a comparison of results from these two data sets. The data suggest (but cannot reliably indicate) a slight increase in the supply of one room efficiency units and housing units with 7 or 9 rooms, and a decrease in the supply of two-room (units with one bedroom and a main living area) and five-room units While the increase in efficiency units is good, the decrease in 2 room units is undesirable
A reduction in the supply of two-room units means there are fewer options for the most disadvantaged residents, including those with very low incomes and those at risk for homelessness. Those disadvantaged populations are disproportionately non-white and have a high rate of mental illness, as indicated elsewhere in this chapter. Because of this, the reduced supply of two-room (one bedroom) units is considered an indirect impediment to fair housing choice.
Housing Supply and Vacancy
Another important metric to track the health of a housing market is the vacancy rate. A five percent rental vacancy rate is typically considered ideal, as it provides a good balance between the interests of renters and owners of rental properties A vacancy rate between one and two percent is considered ideal in the homeowner market. Table 2-22 includes homeowner and rental vacancy rates using 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
Owner-Occupied Housing
Based on that 2013-2017 ACS data, the homeowner vacancy rate was between 1.6% and 2.8%, indicating a relatively healthy owner’s market. In 2000 this rate was 0.9% based on Census data The modestly elevated vacancy rate is presumed due a combination of the age of housing in Green Bay and tightened requirements on mortgage loans.
A five-year review of home construction in the City (see Figure 2-26) reveals modest increases in construction of new single family homes since 2014. Permit data is unavailable prior to November 2013, when the City switched over to a new tracking system. Approximately 100 new homes have been permitted each year since 2016.
Stakeholder discussions (see Section 4) confirmed what ACS data tell us – that much of the housing in the City is aging and in need of rehabilitation. An aging housing stock and could be contributing to an elevated vacancy rate.
Rental Housing
KEY FINDINGS
Housing Supply and Vacancy
Vacancy rates appear healthy based on the most recent available data, but the data do not account for the quality of available units. Very few new single-family or multi-family units have been built since 2010. Interviews suggest a lack of adequate supply of decent units in both the single-family market and the multi-family rental market.
The lack of supply of acceptable single-family and multi-family units is considered an indirect impediment to fair housing choice, as it makes illegal discrimination easier to hide.
The 2013-2017 rental vacancy rate was between 2.5% and 4.9%, according to the ACS. This vacancy rate is lower than desirable A lower vacancy rate can lead to rent inflation, which enables bad landlords and substandard properties to stay in the market, and makes illegal discrimination in the renter screening process more likely. With a slightly higher vacancy rate, renters have more choices and property owners are forced to compete and to invest in their units to keep them occupied.
Based on City permit records (see Figure 2-26), multi-family construction has been light over the past five years. The high point of multifamily development was the 26 units approved for construction in 2018 (including two nine-unit buildings and one eight-unit condo development). In 2014 two three-unit buildings were approved. In 2015 a four-unit complex was approved. In 2016 a five-unit condo development was approved. Construction of multi-family units is anticipated to increase relatively soon. The following have had permits issued in the first few months of 2019 or are currently being reviewed and heading towards approval (688 units total):
Citydeck Landing
Nicolet Joint Ventures LLC 115 E Walnut St
Veteran’s Manor 2900 St Anthony Dr
Dennisons
Baird’s Crossing Condos 2445-1 Remington Rd
TMD Properties 2540 Univeristy Ave 93 unknown
GB Real Estate 3 & 4 Townhomes 306 N Van Buren 10 unknown NHS 700 N Ashland 3
Navarino Townhomes 222 S Jackson St
Dennisons
As reported in stakeholder interviews, there is a shortage of 3- to 4-bedroom units and a shortage of multi-family housing that is ADA accessible, particularly for those under the age of 65. Keep in mind that according to 2013-2017 ACS estimates, between 7 and 9% of population between the age of 18 and 34 and between 15 and 18% of the population between the age of 35 and 64 is disabled.
Figure 2-27. Approved Units, 2014 to 2018
Source: City of Green Bay
As with the owner-occupied market, the appearance of a healthy balance of supply and demand in the housing market based on ACS data is likely deceiving. Feedback from local stakeholders revealed a concern with the quality of rental units due to age of the housing stock. As with the ownership market, it is quite likely that many of the available units are of poor quality and deemed unacceptable to most renters. The supply of acceptable rental units would therefore actually be much tighter
Based on interviews and observations, there is a shortage of acceptable single-family and multi-family units, and these shortages are tilting the housing market to the advantage of sellers and landlords. In such an environment, sellers and landlords can more often pick from multiple offers or applicants, and any illegal discrimination is harder to see or prove. These shortages are an indirect impediment to fair housing choice in Green Bay.
Housing Affordability
Fair Market Rents
Each year HUD releases Fair Market Rents (FMR) for metropolitan areas. FMRs are primarily used to determine payment standard amounts for the Housing Choice voucher program (Section 8); however, they can also serve as a proxy for the rental market. As indicated in Table 2-27, which compares the Green Bay area to several peer cities and regions, Green Bay rents are higher than other metro areas in Wisconsin, but lower than in Madison and Milwaukee Note that the “average” rent indicated in the table is the average of the five preceding rent amounts by unit size; it is neither the average rent for the City nor a weighted average.
KEY FINDINGS
Housing Affordability
HUD’s Fair Market Rent data shows that rental prices in the City are moderate compared to other metro areas in the state. However, ACS data also show approximately half of renters exceed what is considered affordable in terms of percentage of income spent on housing. Affordability problems are an indirect impediment to fair housing choice, as they disproportionately impact minority populations.
Table 2-29. Gross Rent
Gross Rent
The 2013-2017 ACS Estimates show that the vast majority of rents in the City are between $500 and $999, and between 15% and 18% of rents are less than $500 (Table 2-28) Green Bay has a slightly higher percentage of rents less than $500 compared to Brown County and a lower percentage available for rent at $1,000 or higher Between 10% and 16% of gross rents in the city are above $1,000. The median rent for Green Bay of between $672 and $692 is slightly lower than the county overall ($737 - $755).
Owner-Occupied Housing
Considering owner-occupied housing units, the housing stock in Green Bay had a median value of between $124,801 and $129,799 according to the 2013-2017 ACS, between 25% and 29% lower than the Brown County median of between $161,606 and $164,794, and between 35% and 36% lower than the state average of between $168,873 and $169,727 Between 63% and 68% of Green Bay’s housing stock is
Table 2-28. Fair Market Rents by HUD Metropolitan Fair Market Rent Area
valued under $150,000, compared to between 41% and 44% of Brown County’s housing stock. This is a reflection of the aging housing stock in Green Bay.
Cost Burden
In general, housing is considered ‘affordable’ if housing costs do not exceed 30% of the household’s monthly income. According to the 2013-2017 ACS Estimates, between 42% and 49% of Green Bay’s residents who are renting are exceeding the ‘affordable’ threshold. In comparison, between 16% and 24% of homeowners are exceeding the ‘affordable’ threshold (see Table 2-29). This finding suggests that although rents in Green Bay are moderate compared to other fair market rents in Wisconsin, household incomes are low.
Table 2-30. Selected Housing Costs as Percentage of Income
Source: 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
Housing Wage
Another way of looking at the cost burden of housing is by using the annual Out of Reach 3 report. This report discusses the Housing Wage: the wage one must earn in order to afford a modest rental home in a community. Because one bedroom units are one of the most affordable options to disadvantaged residents, we’ve chosen to focus on this size of apartment for analysis:
In the Green Bay HMFA (HUD Fair Market Rent Area), 2018 fair market rent (FMR) for a one bedroom apartment is $591. In order to afford this rent plus utilities (without paying over 30% of income) a household must earn $1,970 per month or $23,640 annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week at 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into an hourly wage of $11.37/hour.
The minimum wage in Green Bay (and across the State) is $7.25. In order to afford FMR for a one-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner must work 63 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, working 40 hours per week year-round, a household must include 2.1 workers earning the minimum wage in order for a twobedroom FMR unit to be affordable.
In the Green Bay HMFA the mean wage for a renter is $13.57/hour. In order to afford the one-bedroom FMR at this wage, a renter must work 45 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, working 40 hours per week year-round, a household must include 1.1 workers earning the mean renter wage in order for a twobedroom FMR to be affordable.
Although this report focuses on prior years’ census data and estimates, we feel the above is important information as it is the most accurate when making decisions about affordable housing today. But since this report uses the median household income by census tract from 2010-2015 ACS estimates, we’ll touch on
3 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Washington, D.C. (www.nlihc.org/oor)
this to make the analysis cohesive. Recall the census tracts with the lowest median household incomes (census tracts 8 and 12), at $24,865 and $25,000 respectively. In order to afford a 1 bedroom unit, fair market rent ($591), a household needs to make an annual income of $23,640, or for a 2 bedroom unit, fair market rent ($786), an income of $31,440. If we also look at monthly owner costs, the median costs for homes with mortgages in Green Bay is $1,146 per month, which is much more costly than a one bedroom FMR unit.
Based on the above information, one-bedroom and smaller units are the most affordable units to workers making the mean wage in Green Bay, thus these are the types of units the mean wage earner should be living in in order for their rents to be considered affordable. Housing affordability is an issue when the mean wage workers do not have a choice of smaller, more affordable units.
Lending Policies and Practices
The United States has a history of discriminatory practices in the owner-occupied housing market. There have been patterns of conventional lending institutions refusing to extend credit to low-income communities, especially communities of color. This practice, known as redlining, made these communities vulnerable to exploitation by less reputable, higher cost lenders that increased the incidence of fraud and foreclosures.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) was enacted by Congress in 1975 and is implemented by the Federal Reserve Board’s regulation. This regulation provides the public loan data that can be used to assist in determining whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities; helping public officials in distributing public-sector investments; and in identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns. This regulation applies to certain financial institutions, including banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other mortgage lending institutions. Institutions that meet certain minimum thresholds must disclose data regarding the disposition of applications for mortgage and home improvement loans in addition to data regarding loan originations and purchases. They are required to identify the race, sex, and income of loan applications, as well as the physical location of the subject property in census geography.
For the purpose of this analysis, HMDA data was reviewed to identify and evaluate lending practices in relation to income, race, and geographical location. This analysis focuses on loans for 1-4 unit residences. Table 2-32 and Tables 2-33, 2-34, and 235 on the following pages provide a summary of lending practices for 2017 in the City of Green Bay. HMDA data for the City of Green Bay can be viewed at https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/datapublication/
KEY FINDINGS
Lending Policies and Practices
The HMDA data show a significant disproportion in the number of minority applications submitted, and also in the number denied (although this is partly due to the fact that the minority population in Green Bay is small). Black households are least likely to pursue a loan as compared to other races and ethnicities, and black, American Indian/Alaska Natives, and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households are most likely to have loan applications denied.
These different outcomes by race and ethnicity are an impediment to fair housing choice. It is unclear from the data whether these outcomes are the result of bias and discrimination (direct impediment) or simply lesser comfort, knowledge and credit worthiness (indirect impediment), however interviews during this study did not reveal knowledge of any direct discrimination in lending practices.
In 2017, according to the HMDA data, 11,446 mortgage applications were made for the purchase, refinancing or improvement of a 1-to-4 unit property or manufactured home in Green Bay. Nearly half of these loans were
refinance loans, and are less indicative of the ability of residents to secure housing fairly. The table below summarizes the key findings of the three larger tables that follow – it indicates the percentage of loan applications by race or ethnicity, first for all loans, but then for conventional loans and FHA, FSA/RHS & VA loans, and it compares those percentages to the racial makeup of City households (which uses 2010 Census data). Note that it combines race and ethnicity and omits other categories including “race not available”; the numbers do not add up to 100%.
Table 2-31. Applications by Race & Ethnicity
Source: 2017 HMDA Data, 2013-2017 ACS Estimates
/ Pacific Islander households
The HMDA data reflect a disproportionate lack of engagement in the home ownership market by minority residents. Members of minority populations are less likely to pursue and secure a home loan than white households, as indicated by the summary table above and the detail in Table 2-31 Minority applications for all loans are occurring at rates below the representation of each race in the City’s households, with the exception of Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households. The greatest percentage disparity is among black residents, who make up 3.5% of households but only 0.5% of all loan applications.
The HMDA data also reveal that applications by Hawaiian/Pacific Islander residents are rejected at rates of 29% for conventional and FHA etc. loans, applications by American Indian/Alaska Natives residents are rejected at rates of 26%, and applications by black residents are rejected at a rate of 23%. These numbers compare to 10% rejection of applications by whites. It should be noted that the sample sizes for the minority applicants is small, and that this limits the reliability of the sample. However, the higher rejection rates for Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Natives and black residents is likely a statistically significant difference as compared to outcomes for whites. It should be noted that it is difficult to discern which local denials are based on credit worthiness and which are due to discriminatory bias, without more detailed data comparing denial rate of race for similarly credit-worthy applicants. It tells us, at minimum, that Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Natives and black residents have fewer housing choices due to fewer attempts and lesser success at securing home loans. Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders are most frequently denied loans due to lack of collateral, American Indian/Alaska Natives are most frequently denied loans due to poor credit history and black residents are most frequently denied loans due to debt-to-income ratio, credit history, collateral and other reasons.
Table 2-32. Summary of Mortgage Application Data for 1-to-4 Family and Manufactured Home Dwellings, All Loans, by Race and Ethnicity Source: HMDA 2017 Data
Table 2-33. Summary of Mortgage Application Data for 1-to-4 Family and Manufactured Home Dwellings, Conventional Loans Only, By Race and Ethnicity
Source: HMDA 2017 Data
Race; Conventional Loans
Table 2-34. Summary of Mortgage Application Data for 1-to-4 Family and Manufactured Home Dwellings, FHA, FSA/RHS & VA Loans Only, By Race and Ethnicity
Source: HMDA 2017 Data
Loan Type
Applicant Race/Ethnicity; FHA, FSA/RHS, VA
Composition
Figure 2-35. Reason for Loan Denial
Source: HMDA 2017 Data
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black
Native Hawaiian
White
Joint (2 or more races)
Homelessness
The Brown County Homeless and Housing Coalition serves about 500 people per month. There are an additional 200 single people (not including families) on waiting lists at any point in time. The County is currently refining its data collection and reporting methods to get more accurate homeless counts and identify any gaps in service.
KEY FINDINGS
Homelessness
Homelessness is, typically, disproportionately more common for non-white and disabled residents, though it is not itself an impediment to fair housing. While there are no indications that the City is acting or failing to act in a way that is causing a disproportionate outcome for protected classes, the City and its partners should focus on protected class issues in its efforts to reduce homelessness.
Stakeholder feedback also revealed that homeless shelters are seeing an increasing number of 18-21 year olds and an increasing number of people who have a combination of mental health and substance abuse issues. This uptick in mental health and substance abuse has created a need for more supportive, transitional housing for people who leave shelters. People with mental health and substance abuse issues often need a safe and stable living environment before they are able to address those issues. Transitional housing arrangements give people the support they need and help them address their issues and addictions when they feel ready (often this can be between six months and a year’s time). Transitional housing is housing that is provided to people for a fixed period of time that helps them move from the shelter system into permanent housing. Rapid rehousing is another similar option that connects people to permanent housing through a tailored package of assistance that may include the use of
time-limited financial assistance and targeted supportive services. Within Green Bay, the following are currently available (units are at scattered sites, which makes communication and consistency challenging):
• Family Services of Northeast Wisconsin - 20 units of rapid rehousing for adolescents
• NEWCAP – 50 units of rapid rehousing, with an additional 20 units becoming available in 2019
• St. John’s Homeless Shelter – 16 units of rapid rehousing
• Golden House Domestic Violence Shelter – 30 units of transitional housing, with 15 units of rapid rehousing being added in the future
• Veterans Housing – 17 units of rapid rehousing
Despite having some units, the City is in need of more transitional and rapid rehousing units to meet the needs of the homeless within the City, as it is assumed that many of those who are currently homeless are living within the City. When homeless people leave shelters, if they do not have a transitional place to go to for help, they often end up back on the street and never improve their living situation.
Homelessness historically disproportionately affects protected class residents such as racial minorities and those with physical and mental illness. The causes of homelessness can be many, and a specific impediment to fair housing choice is not easily identified, but the disparate outcome for racial minorities and residents disabled by mental/physical health deserves attention in the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing.
III. Fair Housing Profile
Fair Housing Programs and Activities
This section provides a brief overview of the current fair housing funding, programs and activities including public programs administered by the City of Green Bay and the efforts of private entities that support or affect fair housing choice.
Public and Private Groups and their Role in Housing
Funding Sources Received in Green Bay
The City of Green Bay receives federal funds for the benefit of fair housing. Priorities for these funds are outlined in the one-year Consolidated Plan Action Plan, submitted by the City to HUD annually. The 2018 Action Plan outlined goals, objectives, outcomes, and estimated funding for approximately $1,547,853 in anticipated funding. The following is a listing of these funding sources.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)- Entitlement
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Grants are awarded to entitlement communities for a variety of community development activities that develop “viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. The use and allocation of CDBG funds is determined through the five-year Consolidated Plan. The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Green Bay (RDA) makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council as to which programs CDBG funds should be allocated to
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides grants to states and cities to fund a range of activities that develop, buy or rehabilitate affordable housing. HOME funds are often used in partnership with non-profits The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Green Bay (RDA) administers the HOME program for the City
The City receives match for the CDBG and HOME programs through the contribution of site preparation, construction materials and donated labor for Habitat for Humanity and other local organizations.
Non-Profit Agencies
Although the City does not directly administer them, there are affordable housing providers, housing counseling service providers and fair housing counseling and enforcement activities administered by local, regional and statewide non-profits that serve the area.
• NeighborWorks Green Bay www.nwgreenbay.org
NeighborWorks serves the greater Green Bay area with housing, counseling and education services, homeownership lending, and housing renovation. NeighborWorks’ rental program offers apartment buildings, multi-family homes and single family homes that are affordable to working families and those on fixed incomes. The rental properties are managed by a local management company, Nelson-Minahan Realtors.
• Greater Green Bay Habitat for Humanity www.greenbayhabitat.org
Habitat for Humanity partners with families to build and purchase their own home with an affordable mortgage. Habitat uses donations, volunteer labor and donated materials to reduce the costs of building and then sells the home to a pre-selected family at no profit. A two-adult household must complete 500 hours and a single adult must complete 250 hours of sweat equity. Other requirements are that households must have a $900 down payment and make monthly mortgage payments. The mortgage is provided by Habitat at 0% interest. Habitat also offers a home repair program which offers minor exterior repairs and maintenance, gutter repair/clean up, siding/trim repair, handrails and other safety repairs. Eligible homeowners must earn less than 80% of Brown County Area Median Income.
• Integrated Community Solutions www.ics-gb.org
Integrated Community Solutions (ICS) administers the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority’s (WHEDA’s) Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance for Brown County. For households that are eligible or currently part of the Rental Assistance program, they are eligible to use their Voucher toward the mortgage on a home (Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Option). ICS also offers a Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program which is a voluntary employment program for families receiving assistance through either Housing Choice Voucher program. This program is designed to assist families in becoming self-supportive so they no longer need to rely on public assistance. FSS program coordinators assess an individual’s needs and then refers them to services including resume writing, interviewing techniques, job training, job placement, physical/mental health clinics, credit counseling, debt management, nutrition, parenting, etc.
• Legal Action of Wisconsin – Green Bay Area Office www.legalaction.org
Legal Action of Wisconsin provides legal services free of charge for low income individuals and families in Wisconsin. The non-profit law firm has an office in Green Bay that takes on cases where landlords and housing authorities violate laws and regulations related to denying public and subsidized housing, terminating public and subsidized housing, evictions, promises to repair, lockouts, security deposits, earnest money and foreclosing mortgages. Legal Action of Wisconsin also provides assistance in a variety of civil legal areas including unemployment compensation, Medical Assistance/BadgerCare, farm workers rights, divorce, crime victim rights, debt collection, arrest records, etc.
• Options for Independent Living www.optionsil.org
Options for Independent Living is committed to empowering people with disabilities to lead independent lives and offers four core services: advocacy independent living skills, information and referral, and peer support. Information and referral services covers a wide range of topics, which includes housing information. This includes guiding individuals through the steps to locate affordable, accessible housing.
• Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council www.fairhousingwisconsin.com
The City partners with the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council in order to address unfair housing practices. Through their satellite organization, the Fair Housing Council of Northeast Wisconsin (FHCNW), they have offered regular office hours in Appleton. FHCNW investigates fair housing complaints in Green Bay. They also provide referral services to people with other housing issues such as evictions, code violations, tenant rights and landlord assistance. FHCNW gives presentations around the community covering topics such as local, state and federal fair housing laws, forms of illegal discrimination, and how complaints of illegal discrimination are investigated.
• Brown County Homeless & Housing Coalition www.bchhcwi.org
The Brown County Homeless & Housing Coalition is a community-based organization which coordinates Brown County’s continuum of care for homeless and housing insecure residents. They establish provider accountability and support programming which engages persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless in their efforts to become self-sufficient.
Public Policy Impacts on Fair Housing Choice
City government has direct effects on housing choice through program funding and administration, publicly-owned housing, and fair housing ordinances. Indirectly, policies that regulate land use, building codes, member composition of important boards and commissions, and unintentional bias in public processes can all negatively affect fair housing choice.
Fair Housing Ordinance
The City of Green Bay does not currently have a fair housing ordinance or equal opportunity ordinance. The purpose of any fair housing ordinance is to protect renters/buyers in a housing market from landlord/seller discrimination due to protected class status. Although there are national, state, and county level protections for housing discrimination, it also benefits a community to have one in place locally. A local fair housing ordinance reinforces these important protections and commitments at the local level.
Planning, Zoning and Site Selection
There are several potential areas of a City’s zoning code that could act to impede fair housing. For example, policies that set minimum sizes for homes or lots can directly affect the affordability of housing stock. Zoning policy must be carefully balanced to affirmatively further fair housing while still protecting neighborhood character and promoting the goals of the City’s comprehensive plan. The City of Green Bay’s Zoning Code (Chapter 13) was analyzed based on the following topics identified in HUD’s Fair Housing Guide:
Opportunity to develop various housing types and densities
Definition of family and restriction on number of unrelated persons
Group home and community living arrangement regulations
Treatment of mobile and manufactured homes
Lot size requirements
Accessibility
The zoning ordinance defines the following districts:
“RR” Rural Residential
“R-1” Low Density Residential – New Lots
“R-2” Medium Density Residential
“R-3” Varied Density Residential
“OR” Office Residential
“NC” Neighborhood Commercial
“C-1” Commercial One
“C-2” Commercial Two
“C-3” Commercial Three
“D-1” Downtown One
“D-2” Downtown Two
“GI” General Industry
KEY FINDINGS` Fair Housing Ordinance
Many communities have a local fair housing or equal opportunity ordinance. Such an ordinance could identify unique local protected classes (within the limits of state law) or it could simply reinforce County and State law.
The lack of a fair housing ordinance is a mild, indirect impediment to fair housing choice in Green Bay.
KEY FINDINGS` Planning, Zoning and Site Selection
Land use and development regulations play a role in promoting, restricting, providing, and/or permitting fair housing choice.
The City’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance are an indirect impediment to fair housing choice to the extent that they help perpetuate the concentration of multi-family housing (and lower-income and minority residents) in a few central city Census Tracts.
“S-RLI” Special District Light Industry
“LI” – Light Industry
“BP” Business Park
“PI” Public Property/Institutional
“CON” Conservancy
There is also a small subset of additional zoning districts within the “I-43” and “54/57” areas. Of the four residential districts, the R-3 district permits multi-family by right. All mixed use districts (OR, NC, D-1 and D-2) and commercial districts (C-1 through C-3) allow multi-family apartment style housing as permitted by right. Carriage houses (accessory dwelling units) are also permitted by right in the OR and NC districts. Short term rentals are permitted by right in the R-1, R-2 and RR districts. Live-work units are permitted by right in the OR and NC districts (see Appendix D for a table summarizing the types of residences allowed in each zoning district). The zoning map (see Figure 3-1) reveals a couple of areas lacking in R-3 or mixed use districts: the far west side residential area and far north east residential area The R-3 and mixed use districts are important to spread throughout the City to encourage healthy neighborhoods that incorporate multi-family housing
One area Green Bay’s ordinances that offers flexibility to accommodate a variety of needs and uses is the planned unit development (PUD). This type of zoning allows for a mixture of residential, commercial and public facilities along corridors. The purpose of the PUD is to encourage alternative designs that allow a mix of uses in one area and better use and integrate the site’s natural characteristics as well as the existing built environment’s characteristics. Approval of a PUD results in the creation of an overlay to the base zoning district. Many of the City’s new multi-family and transitional/shelter developments go through the PUD process, which the underlying district does not reflect on the zoning map. See “Appendix D” for Green Bay’s PUD requirements
Figure 3-1. Green Bay’s Current Zoning Map
Source: City of Green Bay
Census Tract 8, which is one of the tracts with a high concentration of poverty and protected class residents, includes a concentration of office residential and varied density residential. Census tract 12, which has one of the highest concentrations of poverty, also includes a concentration of office residential. Census Tracts 9 and 17.01, other tracts with high poverty and minority residents, are comprised of a mix of low and varied density residential, and are adjacent to Business Park and light industrial uses. Rural Residential, LowDensity Residential and Medium Density Residential area are all clustered together. This pattern is similar on the City’s Future Land Use Map (Figure 3-2). Both the zoning map and the future land use map are good tools to ensure multi-family housing is spread throughout the community to ensure healthy neighborhoods.
There are terms in a zoning code that can act as impediments, if poorly defined. A review of Green Bay’s zoning and housing code terms and definitions (see Appendix A), revealed no such impediments.
The definition of “family” in a zoning or housing ordinance can affect fair housing choice by regulating who may live together in a unit. The City of Green Bay’s definition of “family” prohibits more than three unrelated individuals from living together. “Family” is defined in the Green Bay Housing Code as:
A group of two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care arrangement living together as a single housekeeping unit or a group of not more than three adults not so related maintaining a common household.
Community Living Arrangements (CLAs) serving eight or less people are a permitted use in the residential districts R-1, R-2 and R-3, unless they do not meet the requirements in Sec. 13.1603, then they are a conditional use. CLA’s are also permitted in the Office-Residential (OR), Neighborhood Center (NC) and Downtown (D) districts, unless they do not meet the requirements in Sec. 13.1603. These requirements
Figure 3-2. City of Green Bay’s Future Land Use Map
Source: City of Green Bay
include a CLA must not be within 2,500 feet of another similar facility, the total capacity of community living arrangements within the aldermanic district may not exceed 25 or 1% of the population of that district, and the total capacity of the community living arrangement cannot exceed one percent of the City’s total population. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities are all conditional uses in the R-3 district (the same district that allows more than four-unit multi-family dwellings). The zoning code considers emergency housing/homeless shelters and transitional housing to be dormitories and does not allow these facilities by right in any residential districts; dormitories are a conditional use in the R-2 and R-3 district. As stated earlier, in Green Bay these facilities often go through the PUD process. The other option for these facilities is a conditional use permit, which is only a mild potential issue – recent statutory changes have made conditional use permitting more predictable and less vulnerable to rejection due to neighborhood objections. There are no indications that this type of housing has been difficult to site, though the City should be aware of the importance of emergency and transitional housing to preserve fair housing choices for the homeless, who are disproportionately racial minorities and those with physical and mental illness.
On the more restrictive side of Green Bay’s zoning ordinance is the treatment of mobile homes. There are currently no zoning districts which allow mobile homes. The City has five existing mobile home parks and replacement within or expansion of those parks is allowable, however new parks are not. Existing manufactured and mobile home parks must comply with Chapter 26 of Green Bay’s code of ordinances. Manufactured homes are often included in mobile home parks and ARE allowed on any residential-zoned parcel
Table 3-3. Minimum Lot Area Per Family by Zoning District and Dwelling Type
Source: City of Green Bay Zoning Code Chapter 13
“RR” Rural Residential
“R-1” Low Density Residential
Single-family detached 7,500 ft2
Duplex (per building) 7,500 ft2
Semi-detached dwelling (per lot) 6,000 ft2
“R-2” Medium Density Residential
Single-family detached 5,000 ft2
Duplex (per building) 5,000 ft2
Semi-detached dwelling (per lot) 4,000 ft2
Single-family attached 2,500 ft2 or 15/ac
“R-3” Varied Density Residential
Single-family detached 5,000 ft2
Duplex (per building) 5,000 ft2
Semi-detached dwelling (per lot) 4,000 ft2
Single-family attached 2,500 ft2 or 15/ac
Multifamily dwelling (per unit) 1,500 ft2 for 1 bdrm and 500 ft2 per additional bdrm
“OR” Office Residential
Single-family attached (per unit) 2,500 ft2
Multifamily dwelling (per unit) 2,500 ft2
“NC” Neighborhood Commercial
Multifamily dwelling (per unit) 1,500 ft2
“D-1” Downtown One
Single-family attached (per unit) 2,000 ft2
Multifamily dwelling (per unit) 1,000 ft2
“D-2” Downtown Two
Single-family attached (per unit) 2,000 ft2
Multifamily dwelling (per unit) 1,000 ft2
“C-1” Commercial One 5,000 ft2
“C-2” Commercial Two 10,000 ft2
“C-3” Commercial Three 10,000 ft2
Minimum lot sizes are another element of a zoning code that can be an impediment to fair housing choice Green Bay does have minimum lot areas per family, summarized in Table 3-3 The City’s minimum lot sizes are not excessively large and do not create an impediment.
The final topic explored was accessibility, noted by stakeholders as an issue of concern in the City. A review of the zoning ordinance and building code revealed no specific policy addressing accessibility or visitability (basic features enabling disabled visitors to a home, including a barrier-free entrance and a firstfloor bathroom able to accommodate a wheelchair). This lack of proactive policy to improve accessibility is not an impediment, per se, but it is a missed opportunity to improve accessibility over time.
Public Housing Authority Units and Tenant Selection Procedures
The Green Bay Public Housing Authority owns and operates subsidized-rent public housing in 28 locations throughout the City of Green Bay. This consists of one high rise apartment complex with 146 units, and 27 “turnkey” family sites See Figure 3-4
Demand for these units is high (See Table 3-5), particularly for two bedroom “turnkey” family sites. As the smallest homes are most affordable to those living in Green Bay currently, demand is highest for these types of units. If the Housing Authority were to construct more units, they should be smaller units to meet the demand shown here and elsewhere throughout this report.
KEY FINDINGS
Public Housing Authority Units and Tenant Selection Procedures
The Green Bay Housing Authority supports 173 low income and senior households with city-owned housing.
There do not appear to be any direct impediments to fair housing choice in the tenant selection process. Based on the large wait list for the smallest units and a lack of smaller, more affordable units in multifamily complexes, there is a market shortage for such units – this is an indirect impediment to fair housing choice.
Figure 3-4. Public Housing Location Map
Source: City of Green Bay
Table 3-5. Current Public Housing Wait List by Unit Type and Size
Source: Housing Authority of Green Bay (November 2018)
Another issue of concern is the number of scattered turnkey sites relative to the single multi-family apartment complex, as illustrated by the green and red dots in Figure 3-4 Both types of units provide positive benefits for households living in them and both contribute to healthy neighborhoods. Though it is important to note that public housing should continue to not be concentrated, in whatever form it takes. One issue that came up during a focus group meeting is multi-family apartment complexes make it easier for Housing Authorities to provide onsite services such as counseling. Units in multi-family complexes are also often smaller units (efficiencies and one bedroom units) and most affordable to those with low incomes.
A disproportionate number of Public Housing turnkey units are located in adjacent tracts 1 and 5 (see Figure 3-4), which have a higher proportion of Asian and black residents. Mason Manor, the Housing Authority’s only multifamily complex, is located adjacent to an area that has many other apartments. Our stakeholder questionnaire responses noted that this area is known as an undesirable place to live due to the high amount of rental units, crime and sub-par landlords.
Section 8 Vouchers and Associated Programs
The Brown County Housing Authority (BCHA) pays a portion of the rent for approximately 3,000 households through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program BCHA contracts with Integrated Community Solutions to administer the program. Eligible families pay between 3040% of their adjusted income for rent. The balance is subsidized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The resident’s share of the rent is reevaluated at least once a year. Eligibility is determined by the number of members in a household, a family’s gross income, criminal background checks, and rental history.
KEY FINDINGS
Section 8 Vouchers
SHA is fully utilizing its budget for Section 8 Vouchers and the wait list is currently open, though wait times are anywhere from one month to two years. Although this program is not meeting all of the demand in the community, BCHA does not have control over this the funding it is allocated.
There do not appear to be any impediments to fair housing choice in the tenant selection process.
Last year (2018), BCHA provided approximately $15.0 million in assistance to 2,865 families. Participation in the Section 8 Voucher program has been decreasing over the years due to budget cuts, which BCHA does not have control over. Participation is not decreasing by choice; the demand for these vouchers is still very high. The wait list for Section 8 Vouchers is currently open and the wait time is 1-3 months for veterans, elderly or the disabled; 9-12 months for families with children; and 2 years for singles.
Sale of Subsidized Housing and Possible Displacement
The City of Green Bay adheres to HUD regulations regarding displacement, including providing relocation assistance as provided in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. These apply not only to subsidized housing, but any acquisition of housing using federal funds, including non-profit developers using HOME, CBDG and other federal sources.
Property Tax Policies
KEY FINDINGS
Displacement and Relocation Assistance
The City has the right policies in place to help people relocate when their housing is to be sold or eliminated, as for a redevelopment project, and federal funds are used.
No impediments to fair housing choice are identified.
Figure 3-6 shows that full value property tax rates in the City of Green Bay have generally been decreasing over the last six years. “Gross full value rate” is the total general property tax divided by the full value. This rate is preferred to the general property tax local rate for making comparisons between tax districts because all taxable general property is valued at the same level. However, it must be taken into consideration that this is an average rate, and that surplus funds may have been applied to reduce the rate. “Effective full value rate” is general property tax less state property tax credit (not including lottery credit) divided by the full value. The effective rate is an average rate. Figure 3-7 shows 2017 mill rates for communities near Green Bay Green Bay’s property tax rate is lower than surrounding communities.
To offset the burden of property taxes, some residents are offered relief in the form of the Homestead Tax Credit.
Residents with a household income of $24,680 or less (2017) are eligible for the Homestead Tax Credit, which eliminates the state property tax obligation for renters, homeowners, those who reside in mobile or manufactured homes, and those in nursing homes.
KEY FINDINGS
Property Tax Policies
Property taxes affect the affordability of housing, with high property taxes limiting both ownership and rental choices. Green Bay’s property taxes have been decreasing over the last six years and are relatively low compared to surrounding communities.
Green Bay’s property tax policy does not disproportionately affect any protected classes and is therefore not an impediment to fair housing choice.
Relevant Commissions
The City has several committees that routinely make decisions that may affect fair housing choice in Green Bay. These include the Plan Commission, Redevelopment Authority, and Green Bay Housing Authority. These commissions should be representing the interests of all Green Bay residents, and should be aware of and responsive to the needs of the City’s protected classes.
Figure 3-6. Green Bay Property Tax Full Value Rate
Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue
Figure 3-7. 2017 Comparison of Property Taxes between the City of Green Bay and Surrounding Municipalities
Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue
One imperfect measure of these commissions’ ability to represent the interests of diverse residents is the representation of protected classes on each. Table 3-8 provides the available data for the makeup of these housing-related decision-making bodies The primary concern is the absence of any non-white residents on all of these commissions. While it is true that the City’s population is 81-84% white, it would be better to see nonwhite residents serving in at least a few of these 18 local leadership roles.
Examining all of the protected classes in these commissions tells us that all protected classes are underrepresented in each group, with the exception of women in the Redevelopment Authority and Green Bay Housing Authority Women make up at least half of the members on both of these commissions. Non-white members and people with disabilities are not represented in any of the groups
KEY FINDINGS
Relevant Boards and Commissions
The City of Green Bay has a few commissions that are involved in decisions affecting land use, housing, and development. These commissions should be knowledgeable and represent the interest of all residents of Green Bay.
The analysis found that all protected classes (with the exception of women on the Redevelopment Authority and Green Bay Housing Authority) are unrepresented or underrepresented in these commissions, creating a higher risk for decisions that don’t adequately consider the needs of protectedclass residents. This is an indirect impediment to fair housing choice.
Table 3-8: Boards and Commissions by Protected Class Status (January 2019)
Source: City of Green Bay
Plan Commission
The city plan commission is established to promote and administer all planning functions required by § 62.23, Wis. Stats (make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the City) (City Code 13.202)
Redevelopment Authority
The Redevelopment Authority is responsible to undertake and carry out redevelopment and urban renewal projects. Wisconsin Statutes 66.431. 4
Housing Authority
The Green Bay Housing Authority exists to provide housing for low to moderate income individuals and families.
4 Section 66.431 was the statute that originally allowed the creation of Redevelopment Authorities in Wisconsin and delegated certain powers to RDAs such as acquiring land through condemnation without a jury verdict. This statute is now Section 66.1333.
City of Green Bay Fair Housing Complaint Process
Fair housing complaints in Green Bay are handled by the Fair Housing Center (FHC) of Northeast Wisconsin, a satellite office (in Appleton) of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. The satellite office serves Brown, Calumet, Outagamie and Winnebago Counties, as well as the City of Fond du Lac. The City does not provide direct assistance for these complaints, and should refer people who wish to make fair housing complaints to the Housing Counseling Program operated by the FHC. This process was tested through an anonymous call to the City of Green Bay’s Clerk’s Office by someone who claimed to have been discriminated against based on a disability. The Clerk’s Office gave the anonymous caller the number of the City’s Residential Housing Investigator. The role of the Investigator is to investigate complaints between landlords and tenants. It is likely the call would have eventually ended up with the FHC, however FHC was not aware of this role within the City.
KEY FINDINGS
City Complaint Process
The complaint process within the City of Green Bay seems to be handled well and clearly once people are connected with the FHC. However, the City’s web resources regarding housing discrimination are nonexistent, and the when a call is placed to the City, people with fair housing complaints aren’t directed to FHC
Difficulty figuring out how to file a complaint is likely suppressing some complaints and limiting enforcement of fair housing laws. This is an indirect impediment to fair housing choice in the city.
Online information about the complaint process is also essential, especially due to the growing prevalence of smart phone use and the expectation that available resources are available online. The City does have a fillable form on its website to file a landlord/tenant complaint, which you can find by doing a Google search for “Green Bay WI housing complaint”. The website doesn’t say what types of complaints the form should be used for, though it appears fair housing complaints are not the primary target (i.e. there are questions about repairs, inspections, move-out procedure, eviction notices) The website says that for each complaint filed, the City will follow up within one month, otherwise a complainant should contact the Wisconsin Bureau of Consumer Protection. Google searches for “Green Bay WI housing discrimination” and “Green Bay WI fair housing” lead to HUD’s Fair Housing Wisconsin page which lists where to get help if you are experiencing discrimination. The Fair Housing Center of North East Wisconsin’s contact information is included on this page. The Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council webpage gives all of the contact information someone with a complaint would need and information as well as what predatory lending practices look like and what protected classes are at the federal, state and local levels. However, it is impossible to learn about the Fair Housing Council’s resources and complaint options directly via the City website (as of January 2019).
The Fair Housing Council’s office in northeast Wisconsin, in Appleton, is currently staffed by one parttime staff member. This staff member is in charge of doing education and outreach on fair housing law, for both landlords and renters. FHC offers free training to housing providers and typically meets with 20-30 landlords in Green Bay on an annual basis. They also offer technical assistance, including information of best practices, to housing providers if they have follow-up questions after the training session. FHC also hosts presentations for renters to let them know what their rights are and where they can go if they feel they have experienced housing discrimination. The staff member in Appleton talks with renters and helps them connect with the 1-877-647-FAIR intake line, which has dedicated staff members who work through the complaint process. Since there is a handoff involved in this scenario and FHC doesn’t want people to have to go through their fair housing issues more than once, the staff member in the Appleton office listens to people’s stories and then does a soft handoff to the intake staff in Milwaukee.
In total there are 12 full-time and eight part-time staff members at FHC, in a variety of roles including education and outreach, intake, technical assistance, and fair lending outreach activities for lenders, policy makers and the general public. When calls are made to the intake staff, the first thing staff does is inform the caller of their legal rights, then they discuss the complaint and what the general options are: filing a complaint with the WI Equal Rights Division, HUD or going directly to circuit court. The client then decides on the direction they would like to take. If a client chooses to go directly to court, FHC can connect them with attorneys who offer affordable rates or only require payment if a case is won.
FHC is aware that people may be unwilling to file complaints due to fear or landlord retaliation and other reasons. To encourage people who may be afraid to file complaints, FHC encourages them to have conversations with their neighbors who may have similar complaints. With a group of people who have a similar complaint, there is strength in numbers for building a case and also support for those who may be fearful of going through the complaint process.
State of Wisconsin and Federal Fair Housing Complaint Process
The State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Equal Rights Division accepts complaints from or on behalf of a person alleging discrimination within 1 year of the discriminatory action. The process begins with the filing of a four page complaint form. A hearing is held, and the decision may be appealed to the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC), which decision may be appealed to court. Procedure for these appeals differs. A civil action may be filed, taking the complaint directly to court. A civil action may include damages, including punitive damages, court costs and reasonable attorney fees. Complaint forms are readily accessible on the agency website.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development housing discrimination complaint process can be an 8 step process, beginning with a filing a short complaint. The complaint is reviewed by a fair housing specialist to determine if the alleged acts violate the Fair Housing Act. If there is evidence of a possible violation of the Act, the specialist will assist the complainant in filing an official housing discrimination complaint. HUD investigates the complaints at no cost to the complainant. The investigation will collect relevant documents or conduct on site visits, as appropriate. The Fair Housing Act requires parties to be brought together to attempt conciliation on every complaint, if the parties sign an agreement the case is closed. A “No Cause Determination” may be issued by HUD if no reasonable cause that housing discrimination has occurred or is about to occur and closes the case. If the investigation yields reasonable cause that discrimination has occurred and the law has been violated, HUD will issue a charge. A HUD Administration Law Judge (ALJ) will hear the case, unless the party elects to have the case heard in federal civil court. Complaint forms are readily accessible on the agency website.
Documented Fair Housing Complaints and Discrimination Suits
As previously mentioned, there are layers of fair housing protections in place within the City of Green Bay, the State of Wisconsin, and the federal fair housing laws. While the protected classes for each layer of law differs slightly, a victim of fair housing discrimination can file a discrimination suit with any (or all) of the applicable layers of government.
Fair Housing Complaints Filed with the Fair Housing Center (FHC) of Northeast Wisconsin
In 2018 there were a total of 13 housing-related discrimination complaints documented by the FHC. Six of these complaints were due to discrimination based on disability, one based on race, one based on familial status, one based on color/ race, one based on race/ sex, one based on race/ disability, one based on familial status/disability/ race, and one based on disability/race/lawful source of income. In 2017 there were five complaints filed; four were based on disability and one was based on race/color. In 2016 there were nine
complaints filed; four were based solely on disability, one on race, one on national origin, one on lawful source of income, one based on race/age and one based on sex/disability. In some instances, multiple referrals were made for these complaints, so the number of outcomes from the cases is higher than the number of complaints. For these 27 complaints:
• 7 clients were advised of their fair housing rights and the files were closed with no further action
• 6 clients were referred to HUD to pursue a fair housing complaint
• 8 clients were referred to the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division to pursue a fair housing complaint
• 3 clients were referred to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
• 3 clients opted not to pursue their complaints
KEY FINDINGS
Complaints and Suits
It is widely understood that the 13 housing discrimination complaints filed in with FHC over the past year underestimate the incidence of discrimination in the City. People in search of housing are generally more concerned about avoiding homelessness. People already in housing are concerned about retaliation by landlords if they were to file a complaint.
While we cannot get an accurate measure of discrimination, we know that it is occurring and is an impediment to fair housing choice for various protected classes in the City, especially for minorities and those with disabilities.
• 2 clients were referred to Options for Independent Living
• 2 complaints were successfully resolved outside of administrative or judicial processes
Determination of Unlawful Segregation
Large-scale examples of segregated housing do not appear to exist in Green Bay. No other determinations of unlawful segregation or other housing discrimination by a court or a finding of noncompliance by HUD under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or where the Secretary has issued a charge under the Fair Housing act regarding assisted housing have been made in the City of Green Bay. However, as noted in Chapter Two, there is segregation in Green Bay resulting from the concentration of multi-family housing and lower-income residents. While it may not be unlawful, it is an impediment to fair housing choice that the City should work to change.
IV. Community Input
A focus group discussions, questionnaire and phone interviews were used to collect data regarding perceived and realized impediments to fair housing choice in the City of Green Bay
Focus Group Results
The City helped gather a group of people knowledgeable about housing issues in Green Bay – people who regularly work with those who need some sort of housing assistance (city staff, non-profit leaders, management companies, developers). Most of the following information was collected during a focus group discussion on February 6, 2019. A few of these notes come from questionnaires and phone calls to experts unable to attend the February 6 meeting. Participants included:
Jerry Tyrrell
Darlene Fink
Michelle Frampton
Michelle Heeler
Tom Diedrick
Stephanie Birmingham
Shelly Johnson
Robyn Hallet
Krista Cisneroz
Robin Kuklinski
Paul Van Handel
Bob Zaspell
Jayme Valentine
Neighbor Works Green Bay
Nelson Minahan
Brown County Homeless & Housing Coalition
Habitat for Humanity
Options for Independent Living
Options for Independent Living
Fair Housing Center of NE WI
Literacy Green Bay, Inc.
City of Green Bay
Aging & Disability Resource Center
Green Bay Police Department (Community Police)
City of Green Bay – Residential Housing Inspector
Housing Authority of the City of Green Bay
The discussion at this meeting is summarized below and organized by topic, including possible impediments to fair housing choice. There were several impediment themes which were common throughout the discussions, including aging renter- and owner-occupied housing units, a lack of ADA accessible units, lack of affordable housing and lack of transitional or rapid rehousing.
While a reflection only of the opinions of the participants, they are the informed opinions of people who work in and understand housing issues in the City and region. These comments and observations therefore serve as the foundation for many of the recommended action items to improve fair housing choice in the City.
Administrative Issues
• There is a disconnect between organizations who work with people who need housing assistance and mental health case workers. Both groups need to better understand what services the others offer.
• Many surrounding communities do not have groups actively providing housing assistance for their communities - so they are not able to provide assistance to these people. It would be helpful if these communities could cooperate with Green Bay and work on providing services and affordable housing in these areas.
• Need to gather all housing-related information in one place so that developers and organizations know who needs housing and can get information on the existing available housing stock within the City.
• No formal housing task force within the City. Currently the Green Bay Homeless & Housing Coalition acts as the housing task force. There are no City representatives on the Coalition.
• When evictions are referred to Legal Action and Tenant Resource Center, housing organizations do not know if the eviction process is actually being followed or if someone could advocate on the tenant’s behalf and help them stay.
Regulatory Issues
• People who are drug users often can’t get the help they need finding housing because they are users and therefore don’t qualify.
• Registered sex offenders also do not quality for most types of housing assistance.
• If a tenant misses rent payments, this gets put on their permanent record and makes it difficult for them to find housing in the future. There is a deferred prosecution form that case managers can obtain from the Green Bay Police Department which can be used to remove missed rent payments from a person’s record.
Quality Issues
• Western Avenue and Imperial Lane are seen as bad neighborhoods to live in because of the high concentration of rental units, landlords who turn a blind eye to criminal activity and upkeep of their units. When people have limited income, no rental history and have a hard time renting, they often look in places like Western Avenue and Imperial Lane since that is all they can find.
• Landlords are unwilling to make repairs to make units safe and stable and tenants are afraid to file complaints as the landlord may try and kick them out or not renew the lease.
Affordability/Financial Issues
• There is not enough incentive for developers to develop affordable housing.
• There is a lack of understanding about what affordable housing is and that people who need affordable housing are often hard-working individuals and families.
Accessibility Issues
• Service animals are a common barrier to finding housing. Landlords need education, including reminder that service animals are not pets, they cannot charge additional deposits, increase rents, or ask if the service animals are actually needed.
• Not enough funding available to improve the aging housing stock and make it accessible for the aging population. In many cases, it is just small changes that needs to be made.
• Mental health issues are considered a disability and affect a large number of people – this is a topic often misunderstood.
• Lack of accessible housing units (particularly entrances to apartment buildings). Landlords need education about providing modifications and to be shown that any modifications they make will be marketable to renters and often can result in long-term tenants. Landlords aren’t sure what improvements they are required to make to a unit if someone has a disability. Some tenants have asked for changes and their lease isn’t being renewed and they believe this is because of their disability.
• The limited supply of accessible units often are not big enough for families.
Supply Issues
• There is lack of 3-4 bedroom units.
• When developers come to the City, they typically have plans that they are unwilling to change (i.e. not amenable to adding accessibility or a percentage of affordable units).
• Need more apartments downtown where they can be well-served by transit and other services. However, there is no grocery store downtown which is important to have near apartments. The City has been unable to get a grocery store to come downtown because the grocery stores want to see more people living downtown first.
• Limited affordable owner-occupied housing units available.
• Demand for subsidized housing, the Section 8 voucher program and homeless shelters is much greater supply.
• The high number of scattered public housing, transitional and rapid rehousing sites make it difficult to provide services to people who may need case management because they are spread out. This places more responsibility on individual landowners.
• There is a shortage of transitional and rapid rehousing in Green Bay. This is the type of housing people need when they leave homeless shelters so they can get additional help and become functioning members of society and stay off the streets.
Discriminatory Issues
• Landlords are often unwilling to take a chance on people receiving assistance because of mental health issues. Often, case management is inconsistent and landlords don’t always understand that they can reach out to case management for help. Law enforcement often gets called in to do spot case management.
• Landlords take advantage of families due to their immigration status. These families are afraid of making any waves and making complaints about their treatment or living conditions because they fear retaliation and don’t feel they have other housing options if they get evicted.
• Tenants face discrimination due to race, gender, familial status, sexual orientation and service animals. Some of these tenants are ultimately denied rental housing due to rental history, employment situation, financial situation or criminal history.
• African American residents, those with children, those with Section 8 vouchers and those who are not W-2 employees feel their rental applications are often rejected for these reasons, but there is no way to prove it.
• Somali families struggle to find housing due to a language barrier and prejudices of landlords due to their culture and religious beliefs.
• Landlords are cautious about working with people enrolled in housing assistance programs because they assume that people in programs have done something bad to be put there. Housing programs in Green Bay have also gotten a bad reputation over time, and landlords still have this mindset.
• Landlords feel it is risky accepting women from domestic violence shelters because they want to avoid problems with abusers and contact with the police.
Transportation Issues
• Metro Transit’s schedule makes the service challenging to use for third shift workers or those who work on weekends (no bus service on Sunday).
• There is no transit service to surrounding communities such as Howard, Suamico, Ledgeview, Hobart and parts of De Pere. Therefore, if you work in Green Bay and live in one of these communities, you must own a car.
• Paratransit service is limited (fixed-route only).
• There is a lack of public transit service to grocery stores (e.g. Woodman’s).
Public Comment
A draft version of the AI was available on the City’s website from May 6 through May 21 for comment. No comments were received.
A public open house was held at the end of the comment period and before adoption by Council. The open house included a presentation of the draft report and opportunities for the public to provide input on the draft and ask questions. The public open house was held from 4:00-5:00pm on Tuesday, May 21 at City Hall (100 N. Jefferson Street, Room 604, Green Bay, WI 54301). Twelve people attended the public open house. Based on feedback/questions received at the meeting, no changes were made to the document. Attendees were most concerned with implementation of the plan’s recommendations, which will be accomplished through the City’s Consolidated Plan and the City’s upcoming Comprehensive Plan update.
V. Identification of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Recommended Municipal Activities to Alleviate Impediments
The goal of this report is to identify impediments to fair housing choice in the City of Green Bay Impediments include actions, omissions, or decisions that directly or indirectly restrict residents’ choice of housing and disproportionately affect members of a protected class. This section identifies impediments created by both the public sector and the private sector, and recommends actions, typically by the City, to affirmatively further fair housing in Green Bay. In a few cases both sectors are responsible.
All impediments identified here are considered to be indirect impediments, meaning that they are circumstances that have the effect of unfairly restricting housing choice for members of a protected class. Overtly illegal discrimination that constitutes a direct impediment to fair housing choice is almost certainly occurring in the city, though this study identified little measurable evidence of such direct discrimination.
Each impediment identified is accompanied by a set of recommended actions to address the impediment. See the table of recommended actions in the Executive Summary, where possible deadlines for completion have also been suggested. The actions are offered in no particular order or priority. Selection, prioritization and scheduling of action items should occur in subsequent planning processes.
Implementation of these actions will require the coordinated effort of various groups in and outside City government, including City Council, various committees, city staff, and many private sector partners. In most cases the recommended actions identify “the City” as the actor, a generalization intended to capture all of those parties. A summary table of these actions provided in the Executive Summary offers specific responsibility assignments for each action.
1. Supply Impediments
1.1 Inadequate Quality of Renter- and Owner-Occupied Housing (Indirect Impediment)
Nearly three-fourths of the City’s housing stock (both owner- and renter-occupied) was built before 1980, so it is older and in need of repairs. One concern with older housing is that lead based paint was commonly used before 1978 and poses a risk to children who live in these homes. Lower income households are more likely to live in homes where lead paint has not been mitigated.
Vacancy rates for the City appear healthy, though there have been very few new single-family or multifamily units built since 2010 so potential buyers and renters are primarily choosing from older units, which are likely in need of some renovation. With the anticipated 688 multi-family units being constructed in the near future, this should give existing landlords incentive to improve aging multi-family units. When new units come online, older, typically more affordable homes are more likely to filter down to those with lower incomes. Older housing does serve as important source of affordable housing, but it needs to be of acceptable quality
Recommended Actions:
1.1.1 To encourage development of new housing, the City should develop a list of available single-family and multi-family sites and identify what the City is looking for (i.e. sizes and price points) so developers know what housing the City wants and where it should be located.
1.1.2 The City should consider created a housing rehab and redevelopment revolving loan fund for both renter- and owner-occupied housing. The program could be capitalized with TIF money and focused in the Census tracts with the lowest median incomes.
1.2
Inadequate Supply of Accessible Rental Units (Indirect Impediment)
Based on stakeholder feedback, and coupled with the relatively high number of those with disabilities, there is unmet demand for accessible rental units. Of the units that are accessible, many are not large enough for families and are geared toward older individuals. Accessibility problems are also the most common source of fair housing complaints.
Recommended Actions:
1.2.1 The City should encourage retrofits to existing rental units to improve accessibility. This could take the form of a rental rehab grant program that either funds the accessibility retrofits directly or makes accessibility an eligibility requirement.
1.2.2 The City should offer training and informational resources to improve both landlord and renter knowledge of “reasonable accommodation” legal requirements for disabilities. This training should also address the perception that landlords are being force to pay for costly, permanent modifications to their property. These services could be provided by the City or a third-party housing services provider.
1.3 Inadequate Supply of Smaller Rental Units (Indirect Impediment)
Smaller rental units provide choices for residents that may have few other choices. An adequate supply helps to prevent homelessness. The large wait list for the smallest units, and a lack of smaller, more affordable units in larger multi-family complexes is an indirect impediment to the fair housing choice of low-income and disabled residents, and it increases the prevalence of homelessness.
Recommended Action:
1.3.1 The Green Bay Housing Authority should further study this supply gap and offer strategies to fill the gap in smaller rental units.
1.3.2 (see recommendation 1.1.1)
2. Affordability Impediments
2.1 Inadequate Supply of Acceptable Affordable Housing (Indirect Impediment)
Affordability is not, by itself, a fair housing issue, because income is not a protected class. However, due to the strong correlation between income and race and ethnicity, such that minority residents make up a disproportionate part of the City’s low-income population, the limited supply of affordable units has the effect of restricting housing choice for minority residents. This is an indirect impediment to fair housing.
Recommended Actions:
2.1.1 The City should update the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the inclusion of affordable units in development and redevelopment plans in all parts of the City, including units deemed affordable to low income (80% of County Median Income) and very low income (50% of County Median Income) residents. The City could also consider offering incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing.
2.1.2 The City could consider creating a rental housing rehab and redevelopment revolving loan or grant fund. This program could be capitalized with TIF money and focused on the areas with greatest need (see 1.2.1).
2.1.3 To give developers more incentive to develop affordable housing within the City, the City could utilize the TIF 1-year extension (this allows a TID to be open for an additional year and funds to be used for affordable housing anywhere in the City). The next opportunity for the City to do this will be in 2025 when TIDs 4 and 12 are projected to close. The City could also consider creating an Affordable Housing Fund which can be made up of funds from TIF and General Obligation Bonding. On the private side, developers should utilize Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). LIHTC applications are given higher scores where there is funding from a local government, which the Affordable Housing Fund would do.
LIHTC (or Section 42) is a federal program which gives the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) the authority to issue tax credits for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing for low-income households. When a project is completed, investors can deduct from their taxes about 4% or 9% of their investment in the project each year for ten years. LIHTC developments must continue to meet the established affordability requirements for 30 years, with either 20% of units affordable at 50% of the Area Median Income or 40% of the units at 60% of AMI. WHEDA monitors the condition of each project awarded with credits to ensure they stay in good repair, have acceptable management practices and maintain affordability. There are two types of tax credits available within the LIHTC program:
Federal 9% Tax Credit - Competitive
The 9% tax credit is available for new construction and rehabilitation projects that do not have other federal funds. Nine percent (9%) tax credits are received through a competitive application process with WHEDA. Per WHEDA guidelines, Projects require a local funding match in order to score well.
Federal 4% Tax Credit - Non-competitive
The federal 4% tax credit is available for acquisition, new construction and rehabilitation projects, and is often used for rehabilitation. These funds can be used with other federal funds. Four percent (4%) tax credits are received through a non-competitive application process with WHEDA. Four percent (4%) tax credit projects are often more difficult to use because they require a mixture of funding sources, of which local funding is important.
State of Wisconsin 4% Tax Credit - Non-competitive
The state 4% tax credit is available for acquisition, new construction and rehabilitation projects. These state credits can be used to match the 4% federal funds. The state 4% tax credits are received through a non-competitive application process with WHEDA. The credits are awarded only if they are necessary for the financial feasibility of the property. A preference is given to developments located in municipalities with fewer than 150,000 people.
3. Financial Impediments
3.1
Lack of Loans to Minorities (Indirect Impediment)
The HDMA data show that minorities, especially black residents, are less likely to originate a conventional loan and more likely to be denied. If they secure a loan, it is more likely to be a non-conventional loan. The inability to secure a mortgage, refinance, or home improvement loan is clearly a barrier to housing choice. This is an indirect impediment that the City should work to eliminate.
Recommended Actions:
3.1.1 The City and the NeighborWorks should collaborate to provide more credit and home-buying education to citizens, especially minority residents. Trainers should have knowledge of the unique needs of each minority group and should provide materials in multiple languages.
3.1.2 The City should provide education and information for local lenders on predatory lending practices and common pitfalls for new buyers, to ensure that efforts to reduce the racial disparities in loan origination do not have the unintended consequence of increased rates of default and foreclosure among minority borrowers.
3.1.3 The City could address the apparent lesser interest in home ownership among minority residents by doing more to improve the success of minority homebuyers post-purchase. The City could offer workshops and training on the physical aspects of maintaining a home, energy conservation, budgeting, rehabilitation programs, home improvement loans, refinancing, money management and foreclosure prevention.
4. Spatial Impediments
4.1 Racial Segregation (Indirect Impediment)
The City has mild racial and ethnic segregation, which corresponds to concentrations of low income. This indicates a real or perceived lack of housing choices for black, Native American, Asian and Latino residents outside of neighborhoods where these minority groups are concentrated (primarily Census tracts 1,2,3,4,9 and 12 which are in/near downtown). The census tract with the highest percentage minority concentration is census tract 9 with a Latino population of 40%. This segregation is a symptom of other issues, especially income disparities, but it is also a cause, an impediment itself, because the physical segregation perpetuates the conditions that lead to differing outcomes and fewer housing choices for these residents.
Recommended Actions:
4.1.1 The City should amend the Comprehensive Plan and its Future Land Use Map to add policies that increase the supply of affordable housing for families in all areas and neighborhoods in the City. The City should incentivize the development of a mix of housing types and price points in areas without concentrations of low income and minority households. This could include the identification of High Opportunity Zones (areas with employment opportunities, high performing schools, green space, access to transit, etc.) where new affordable units are specifically encouraged and Low Opportunity Zones where new affordable units are specifically discouraged.
4.1.2 The City should have discussions with surrounding communities about developing affordable housing and creating a mix of housing types and price points in neighborhoods to aid in deconcentrating poverty and racial and ethnic segregation in Green Bay. This discussion should also occur along with a need for public transit to these outlying areas.
4.2 Transit Commuting Difficult at Some Times and to Surrounding Areas (Indirect Impediment)
The Green Bay Metro provides limited routes to outlying communities which limits transit-dependent residents to living primarily in central Green Bay where there is frequent, regular transit service. This is an impediment because it limits where these residents choose to live and/or work. Hours of operation limitations affecting 2nd and 3rd shift employees, and employees who work on Sundays, are also a concern.
Recommended Actions:
4.2.1 The Green Bay Metro should continue to evaluate changes to the transit routing system and schedules, including the potential for later routes that better support second and third shift employment, and more routes that serve neighboring communities. This evaluation should address the needs of and impact on neighborhoods with concentrations of low-income and minority residents.
5. Administrative Impediments
5.1 Lack of Local Fair Housing Ordinance (Indirect Impediment)
The City of Green Bay does not have a local fair housing ordinance. It is best practice for communities that are Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) to create a local fair housing ordinance by which local leaders affirm local support for fair housing choice.
Recommended Actions:
5.1.1 The City should create a Fair Housing Ordinance to AFFH and show local support for certain vulnerable populations. This ordinance can mirror County and State laws and should expand the definition to make discrimination based on use of Section 8 vouchers as a rent supplement illegal.
5.2 Restrictions on Residential Uses in Zoning Code (Indirect Impediment)
Within the City of Green Bay, the R-3 – Varied Residential district permits multi-family apartment style housing (buildings with more than four units) by right. All mixed use districts and commercial districts allow multi-family apartment style housing as permitted by right. There are a couple of residential areas in the City that lack R-3 and mixed use districts. Three- or four-unit multi-family housing is a permitted use in the R-3 district, but is only a conditional use in the R-2 –Medium Density Residential District.
Recommended Actions:
5.2.1 The City should consider revising its zoning map to integrate the R-3 district with other residential areas and increase the use of mixed use districts throughout the City so as to avoid future clusters of apartment-style housing.
5.2.2 The City should consider allowing three- or four-unit multi-family housing by right in the R-2 district.
5.2.3 The City should consider amending the zoning code to clarify the regulation of manufactured and mobile homes.
5.3 Limited Use of
Fair Housing Complaint Procedures
(Indirect Impediment)
The low numbers of complaints and anecdotal evidence suggest that residents don’t bother to file complaints because they don’t think it will make a difference, they have more pressing issues to deal with (usually homelessness) or they are worried about landlord retaliation. Once connected with FHC, FHC’s process for handling complaints is quite easy and staff will guide complainants through the process. However, finding information directly from the City on who to contact with a Fair Housing complaint is not intuitive - a Google search currently reveals no answers and there are not instructions on the City website.
Recommended Actions:
5.3.1 The City should add a section to its website about fair housing which lists and links to organizational resources to ensure that a search for “housing discrimination Green Bay” or similar quickly leads to the City’s information and materials. This includes adding a link to the Housing and Zoning Inspection Departments’ webpage that leads to the fair housing page for the benefit of people who land there when searching for fair housing information. The City should also consider – in addition to listing third-party resources- listing protected classes on its website as well as the local fair housing/equal opportunities ordinance to help people determine whether or not they have been the victim of illegal discrimination.
5.4 Lack of Accountability for Landlords (Indirect Impediment)
There are no organizations which focus on ensuring that landlords are providing safe and fair housing in Green Bay. Interviews generalized concerns about the behavior of a few poor-performing landlords, this included discussion about real or perceived discrimination and fear of landlord retaliation if a tenant were to report a problem.
Recommended Actions:
5.4.1 The City should promote the services of the Tenant Resource Center, which operates statewide. Tenant Resource Center gives information on rental rights and responsibilities to tenants and landlords. Services are available in English, Spanish and Hmong.
5.4.2 The City should continue to work with FHC to recruit and provide training to landlords and groups who work with racial/ethnic minorities and the low income population to increase knowledge about Fair Housing Law. Training for landlords should include busting myths about the Section 8 Voucher program and about people who are part of housing assistance programs.
5.5 Protected Classes Underrepresented on Boards and Commissions (Indirect Impediment)
All protected classes (with the exception of women on the Redevelopment Authority and Green Bay Housing Authority) are unrepresented or underrepresented in key commissions, creating a higher risk for decisions that could result in impediments to fair housing choice.
Recommended Actions:
5.5.1 The City should continue to actively recruit protected class representatives to Plan Commission, the Redevelopment Authority and the Green Bay Housing Authority
Appendix A: Relevant Zoning Code Term Definitions
Term definitions come from the City of Green Bay Zoning Code.
General Definitions
Affordable housing: Housing in which mortgage, amortization, taxes, insurance, and condominium and association fees, if any, constitute no more than 30 percent of gross annual household income for a family earning 80 percent of the region's median income. In the case of dwelling units for rent, housing that is affordable means housing for which the rent and utilities constitute no more than 30 percent of gross annual household income for a family earning 80 percent of the region's median income.
Apartment: See "Multiple-family dwelling."
Conditional uses: Uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in a particular district or districts without consideration in each case of the impact of those uses upon neighboring land and of the public need for the particular use at the particular location.
Density: The number of dwelling units permitted on a site, customarily expressed as dwelling units per acre of buildable area.
Development: Any artificial change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, the construction of buildings, structures, or accessory structures; the construction of additions or substantial improvements to buildings, structures, or accessory structures; the placement of buildings or structures; mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations; and the storage, deposition, or extraction of materials.
Development standard: Supplemental regulations that address the unique characteristics of certain land uses.
Dwelling unit: One or more rooms physically arranged so as to create an independent housekeeping establishment for occupancy by one family, with separate toilets and facilities for cooking and sleeping from any other dwelling unit.
Family: A group of two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or foster care arrangement living together as a single housekeeping unit or a group of not more than three adults not so related maintaining a common household.
Homeless family: A group of two or more related individuals who are homeless individuals.
Overlay district: A zoning district that restricts or modifies uses permitted in the underlying zoning district.
Permitted use: Any use which is or may be lawfully established in a particular district(s), provided it conforms to all the regulations and requirements applicable to that district(s) or any use determined by the zoning administrator to be substantially similar to a permitted use.
Short-term rentals (STRs): A dwelling unit in which paying guests are entitled to occupancy for a period less than 28 calendar days.
Short-term vacation unit: A dwelling unit which is provided for compensation to an occupant(s) for less than 28 consecutive calendar days, other than a bed and breakfast. For the purposes of this definition, compensation includes, but is not limited to, monetary payment, services or labor of employees.
Traditional neighborhood: A compact, mixed-use neighborhood where residential, commercial, and civic buildings are within close proximity to each other.
Transient residential use: A single-family dwelling unit in which a private home-owner’s paying guests or a corporate retreat's guests are entitled to occupancy for a period less than 28 consecutive calendar days.
Transient residential occupant: A person who is entitled to occupancy at any transient residential use.
Transient vacation unit: A dwelling unit which is provided for compensation to transient occupants for less than 28 consecutive calendar days, other than a bed and breakfast. For the purposes of this definition, compensation includes, but is not limited to, monetary payment, services or labor of employees.
Land use definitions.
Residential Uses
Single-family detached dwelling: A separate and detached one-family residence on a single lot designed and arranged for use by one family or household. See the following graphic.
Two-family dwelling, duplex: A separate or detached two-family residence on a single lot, the first and second floors of which are each designed and arranged for use by one family. This type of dwelling is commonly referred to as an upper/lower duplex. See the following graphic.
Two-family dwelling, semi-detached: A dwelling within a building containing two attached dwelling units which share a common wall. The dwelling units may be located on the same lot or on separate lots, with the common wall at the lot line. See the following graphic.
Single-family attached dwelling, townhouse: A one-family dwelling unit with an individual private entrance which is part of a structure containing more than two dwelli ng units attached horizontally in a linear arrangement and having a totally exposed front and rear wall to be used for access, light, and ventilation. See the following graphic.
Multiple family dwelling: A building containing three or more dwelling units. Also known as apartment house/apartment building. This type of dwelling typically, but not always, has a common/shared entrance. See the following graphic.
Carriage-house dwelling: An additional dwelling unit subordinate to the principal dwelling on the lot and located above a detached garage.
Live-work unit: A dwelling unit in combination with a shop, office, studio, or other workspace within the same unit where the resident occupant both lives and works.
Congregate Living Uses
Rooming house, boarding house: A building that provides a dwelling space to be occupied by four or more individuals who are unrelated and do not constitute a family or by a family and two or more unrelated individuals. A fee is paid to the leaseholder or owner for occupancy for usually longer than one night, and common facilities may be shared, including toilet and kitchen. If, in addition to a room, the leaseholder or owner, as part of the fee for services, provides meals, then
the building is considered a boarding house. A roomi ng/boarding house may be considered a dormitory as defined and regulated within this Code.
Community living arrangement: A facility licensed, operated, or permitted by the state that is either:
1. A facility where four or more children reside and are provided with care and maintenance by persons other than a relative or guardian. This definition includes foster homes, treatment foster homes, community living arrangements for children, and residential childcare centers as defined by Wisconsin State Statute, but does not include educational institutions, public agencies, hospitals, maternity homes, nursing homes, or sanitariums.
2. A facility where three or more adults not related to the operator reside and are typically provided with care, treatment, or services above the level of room service, which may include prescribed personal care. This definition includes community living arrangements (CLAs), community based residential facilities (CBRFs), and adult family homes (AFHs) as defined by Wisconsin Statutes, but does not include transitional housing, nursing homes, prisons, jails, correctional facilities, convents, monasteries/seminaries, or educational institutions and related student housing.
Shelter facility: A temporary place of lodging for homeless individual s or homeless families. A shelter facility may be considered a dormitory as defined and regulated within this Code.
Transitional housing: A premises, other than a community living arrangement or community based residential facility, for the temporary placement of persons on parole, extended supervision, or probation in a controlled environment, including supervision or monitoring. A transitional housing facility may be considered a dormitory as defined and regulated within this Code.
Dormitory: A communal-type living arrangement of four or more persons not related by blood, adoption, or marriage who share common sleeping areas, kitchen, bath, or restroom facilities. This definition includes, but is not limited to, shelter facilities, educational facility housing, rooming houses, boarding or lodging houses, community living arrangements, community based residential facilities, migrant housing, seminary, or similar institution.
Fraternity, sorority: A building used as group living quarters for students of a col lege, university, or seminary who are members of a fraternity, sorority, or other group that has been officially recognized by the college, university, or seminary. A fraternity/sorority may be considered a dormitory as defined and regulated within this Code.
Convent, monastery, seminary, and religious retreat: A building or group of buildings that serves as the primary dwelling and place of work and worship for members of a religious order. A convent, monastery, seminary, and religious retreat may be considered a dormitory as defined and regulated within this Code.
Nursing home, assisted living: A building or complex of buildings where four or more persons who are not related to the operator or administrator reside, receive care or treatment and, because or their mental or physical condition, require access to 24-hour nursing services, including limited nursing care, intermediate level nursing care, and skilled nursing services, as defined in § 50.01, Wis. Stats. A nursing home/assisted living facility may be considered a dormitory as defined and regulated within this Code.
Appendix B: Housing Discrimination Law (Wis. Stats. 106.52)
106.50 Open Housing
(1) INTENT. It is the intent of this section to render unlawful discrimination in housing. It is the declared policy of this state that all persons shall have an equal opportunity for housing regardless of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, lawful source of income, age, or ancestry and it is the duty of the political subdivisions to assist in the orderly prevention or removal of all discrimination in housing through the powers granted under ss. 66.0125 and 66.1011. The legislature hereby extends the state law governing equal housing opportunities to cover single-family residences that are owner-occupied. The legislature finds that the sale and rental of single-family residences constitute a significant portion of the housing business in this state and should be regulated. This section shall be considered an exercise of the police powers of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, dignity, and human rights of the people of this state.
(1m) DEFINITIONS In this section:
(ad) “Advertise" means to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign in connection with the sale, financing or rental of housing.
(am) “Age", in reference to a member of a protected class, means at least 18 years of age.
(b) “Aggrieved person" means a person who claims to have been injured by discrimination in housing or believes that he or she will be injured by discrimination in housing that is about to occur.
(c) “Complainant" means a person who files a complaint alleging discrimination in housing.
(d) “Conciliation" means the attempted resolution of issues raised by a complaint or by the investigation of the complaint, through informal negotiations involving the aggrieved person, the complainant, the respondent and the department.
(e) “Condominium" has the meaning given in s. 703.02 (4).
(f) “Condominium association" means an association, as defined in s. 703.02 (1m).
(g) “Disability" means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of having such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment. “Disability" does not include the current illegal use of a controlled substance, as defined in s. 961.01 (4), or a controlled substance analog, as defined in s. 961.01 (4m), unless the individual is participating in a supervised drug rehabilitation program.
(h) “Discriminate" means to segregate, separate, exclude, or treat a person or class of persons unequally in a manner described in sub. (2), (2m), or (2r) because of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, lawful source of income, age, or ancestry.
(i) “Dwelling unit" means a structure or that part of a structure that is used or intended to be used as a home, residence or sleeping place by one person or by 2 or more persons who are maintaining a common household, to the exclusion of all others.
(im) “Emotional support animal” means an animal that provides emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship for an individual but that is not trained to perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.
(j) “Family" includes one natural person.
(k) “Family status" means any of the following conditions that apply to a person seeking to rent or purchase housing or to a member or prospective member of the person's household regardless of the person's marital status:
1. A person is pregnant.
2. A person is in the process of securing sole or joint legal custody, periods of physical placement or visitation rights of a minor child.
3. A person's household includes one or more minor or adult relatives.
4. A person's household includes one or more adults or minor children in his or her legal custody or physical placement or with whom he or she has visitation rights.
5. A person's household includes one or more adults or minor children placed in his or her care under a court order, under a guardianship or with the written permission of a parent or other person having legal custody of the adult or minor child.
(km) “Hardship condition" means a situation under which a tenant in housing for older persons has legal custody or physical placement of a minor child or a minor child is placed in the tenant's care under a court order, under a guardianship or with the written permission of a parent or other person having legal custody of the minor child.
(L) “Housing" means any improved property, or any portion thereof, including a mobile home as defined in s. 101.91 (10), manufactured home, as defined in s. 101.91 (2), or condominium, that is used or occupied, or is intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied, as a home or residence. “Housing" includes any vacant land that is offered for sale or rent for the construction or location thereon of any building, structure or portion thereof that is used or occupied, or is intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied, as a home or residence.
(m) “Housing for older persons" means any of the following:
1. Housing provided under any state or federal program that the secretary determines is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons, as defined in the state or federal program.
2. Housing solely intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or older.
3. Housing primarily intended and primarily operated for occupancy by at least one person 55 years of age or older per dwelling unit.
(mm) “Interested person" means an adult relative or friend of a member of a protected class, or an official or representative of a private agency, corporation or association concerned with the welfare of a member of a protected class.
(mx) “Licensed health professional” means a physician, psychologist, social worker, or other health professional who satisfies all of the following:
1. He or she is licensed or certified in this state.
2. He or she is acting within the scope of his or her license or certification.
(nm) “Member of a protected class" means a group of natural persons, or a natural person, who may be categorized because of sex, race, color, disability, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, or stalking, lawful source of income, age, or ancestry.
(om) “Political subdivision" means a city, village, town or county.
(q) “Relative" means a parent, grandparent, greatgrandparent, stepparent, step grandparent, brother, sister, child, stepchild, grandchild, step grandchild, greatgrandchild, first cousin, 2nd cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother or half sister or any other person related by blood, marriage or adoption.
(r) “Rent" means to lease, to sublease, to let or to otherwise grant for a consideration the right of a tenant to occupy housing not owned by the tenant.
(s) “Respondent" means the person accused in a complaint or amended complaint of discrimination in housing and any other person identified in the course of an investigation as allegedly having discriminated in housing.
(t) “Sexual orientation" has the meaning given in s. 111.32 (13m)
(u) “Status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking" means the status of a person who is seeking to rent or purchase housing or of a member or prospective member of the person's household having been, or being believed by the lessor or seller of housing to be, a victim of domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), sexual assault under s. 940.225, 948.02, or 948.025, or stalking under s. 940.32
(1s) DEPARTMENT TO ADMINISTER This section shall be administered by the department through its division of equal rights. The department may promulgate such rules as are necessary to carry out this
section. No rule may prohibit the processing of any class action complaint or the ordering of any classbased remedy, or may provide that complaints may be consolidated for administrative convenience only.
(2) DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. It is unlawful for any person to discriminate:
(a) By refusing to sell, rent, finance or contract to construct housing or by refusing to negotiate or discuss the terms thereof.
(b) By refusing to permit inspection or exacting different or more stringent price, terms or conditions for the sale, lease, financing or rental of housing.
(c) By refusing to finance or sell an unimproved residential lot or to construct a home or residence upon such lot.
(d) By advertising in a manner that indicates discrimination by a preference or limitation.
(e) For a person in the business of insuring against hazards, by refusing to enter into, or by exacting different terms, conditions or privileges with respect to, a contract of insurance against hazards to a dwelling.
(f) By refusing to renew a lease, causing the eviction of a tenant from rental housing or engaging in the harassment of a tenant.
(g) In providing the privileges, services or facilities that are available in connection with housing.
(h) By falsely representing that housing is unavailable for inspection, rental or sale.
(i) By denying access to, or membership or participation in, a multiple listing service or other real estate service.
(j) By coercing, intimidating, threatening or interfering with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, a right granted or protected under this section, or with a person who has aided or encouraged another person in the exercise or enjoyment of a right granted or protected under this section.
(k) In making available any of the following transactions, or in the terms or conditions of such transactions for a person whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions:
1. The making or purchasing of loans or the provision of other financial assistance for purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing or maintaining housing or the making or purchasing of loans or the provision of other financial assistance secured by residential real estate.
2. Selling, brokering or appraising residential real property.
(L) By otherwise making unavailable or denying housing.
(2m) REPRESENTATIONS DESIGNED TO INDUCE PANIC SALES No person may induce or attempt to induce a person to sell or rent housing by representations regarding the present or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person of a particular economic status or a member of a protected class, or by representations to the effect that such present or prospective entry will or may result in any of the following:
(a) The lowering of real estate values in the area concerned.
(b) A deterioration in the character of the area concerned.
(c) An increase in criminal or antisocial behavior in the area concerned.
(d) A decline in the quality of the schools or other public facilities serving the area.
(2r) DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES PROHIBITED.
(b) Types of discrimination prohibited. In addition to discrimination prohibited under subs. (2) and (2m), no person may do any of the following:
1. Segregate, separate, exclude or treat unequally in the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, housing to a buyer or renter because of a disability of that buyer or renter, a disability of a person residing in or intending to reside in that housing after it is sold, rented or made available or a disability of a person associated with that buyer or renter.
2. Segregate, separate, exclude or treat unequally a person in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of housing, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such housing, because of a disability of that person, a disability of a person residing in or intending to reside in that housing after it is sold, rented or made available or a disability of a person associated with that person.
3. Refuse to permit, at the expense of a person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing housing that is occupied, or is to be occupied, by such a person if the modifications may be necessary to afford the person full enjoyment of the housing, except that in the case of rental housing the landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the tenant's agreement to restore the interior of the housing to the condition that existed before the modification, other than reasonable wear and tear. The landlord may not increase any customarily required security deposit. Where it is necessary to ensure that funds will be available to pay for the restorations at the end of the tenancy, the landlord may negotiate as part of a restoration agreement a requirement that the tenant pay into an interest-bearing escrow account, over a reasonable period, a reasonable amount of money not to exceed the cost of the restorations. The interest in any such account shall accrue to the benefit of the tenant. If escrowed funds are not used by the landlord for restorations, they shall be returned to the tenant.
4. Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services that are associated with the housing, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford the person equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the owner of the housing.
(bg) Animals that do work or perform tasks for individuals with disabilities.
1. If an individual has a disability and a disability-related need for an animal that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the individual, it is discrimination for a person to refuse to rent or sell housing to the individual, cause the eviction of the individual from housing, require extra compensation from the individual as a condition of continued residence in housing, or engage in the harassment of the individual because he or she keeps such an animal.
2. If an individual keeps or is seeking to keep an animal that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks in housing, an owner, lessor, lessor's agent, owner's agent, or representative of a condominium association may request that the individual submit to the owner, lessor, agent, or representative reliable documentation that the individual has a disability and reliable documentation of the disability-related need for the animal, unless the disability is readily apparent or known. If the disability is readily apparent or known but the disability-related need for the animal is not, the individual may be requested to submit reliable documentation of the disability-related need for the animal.
3. An individual with a disability who keeps an animal that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks in housing shall accept liability for sanitation with respect to, and damage to the premises caused by, the animal.
4. Nothing in this subsection prohibits an owner, lessor, lessor's agent, owner's agent, or representative of a condominium association from denying an individual the ability to keep an animal in housing if any of the following applies:
a. The individual is not disabled, does not have a disability-related need for the animal, or fails to provide the documentation requested under subd. 2.
b. Allowing the animal would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of services provided by the lessor, owner, or representative.
c. The specific animal in question poses a direct threat to a person's health or safety that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation.
d. The specific animal in question would cause substantial physical damage to a person's property that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation.
(br) Emotional support animals.
1. If an individual has a disability and a disability-related need for an emotional support animal, it is discrimination for a person to refuse to rent or sell housing to the individual, cause the eviction of the individual from housing, require extra compensation from the individual as a condition of continued residence in housing, or engage in the harassment of the individual because he or she keeps such an animal.
2. If an individual keeps or is seeking to keep an emotional support animal in housing, an owner, lessor, lessor's agent, owner's agent, or representative of a condominium association may request that the
individual submit to the owner, lessor, agent, or representative reliable documentation that the individual has a disability and reliable documentation of the disability-related need for the emotional support animal from a licensed health professional.
3. An individual with a disability who keeps an emotional support animal in housing shall accept liability for sanitation with respect to, and damage to the premises caused by, the animal.
4. Nothing in this subsection prohibits an owner, lessor, lessor's agent, owner's agent, or representative of a condominium association from denying an individual the ability to keep an animal in housing if any of the following applies:
a. The individual is not disabled, does not have a disability-related need for the animal, or fails to provide the documentation requested under subd. 2.
b. Allowing the animal would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of services provided by the lessor, owner, or representative.
c. The specific animal in question poses a direct threat to a person's health or safety that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation.
d. The specific animal in question would cause substantial physical damage to a person's property that cannot be reduced or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation.
5. An individual shall forfeit not less than $500 if he or she, for the purpose of obtaining housing, intentionally misrepresents that he or she has a disability or misrepresents the need for an emotional support animal to assist with his or her disability.
6. A licensed health professional shall forfeit not less than $500 if he or she, for the purpose of allowing the patient to obtain housing, misrepresents that his or her patient has a disability or misrepresents his or her patient's need for an emotional support animal to assist with his or her patient's disability.
(c) Design and construction of covered multifamily housing. In addition to discrimination prohibited under pars. (b), (bg), and (br) and subs. (2) and (2m), no person may design or construct covered multifamily housing, as defined in s. 101.132 (1) (d), unless it meets the standards specified in s. 101.132 (2) (a) 1. to 4. In addition, no person may remodel, as defined in s. 101.132 (1) (h), housing with 3 or more dwelling units unless the remodeled housing meets the standards specified in s. 101.132 (2) (a) 1. to 4. as required under s. 101.132 (2) (b) 1., 2. or 3., whichever is applicable.
(5m) EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
(a)
1. Nothing in this section prohibits discrimination based on age or family status with respect to housing for older persons.
1e. Under this paragraph, housing under sub. (1m) (m) 3. may qualify as housing for older persons only if the owner of the housing maintains records containing written verification that all of the following factors apply to the housing:
b. At least 80 percent of the dwelling units under sub. (1m) (m) 3. are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.
c. Policies are published and procedures are adhered to that demonstrate an intent by the owner or manager to provide housing under sub. (1m) (m) 3. for persons 55 years of age or older. The owner or manager may document compliance with this subd. 1e. c. by maintaining records containing written verification of the ages of the occupants of the housing.
1m. No person may discriminate by refusing to continue renting to a person living in housing for older persons under sub. (1m) (m) 3. who is subject to a hardship condition.
2. Under this paragraph, housing may qualify as housing for older persons with respect to persons first occupying the housing on or after September 1, 1992, regardless of whether a person who had not attained the age of 62 resided in the housing on that date or regardless of whether one or more dwelling units were unoccupied on that date, if the persons who first occupy the housing on or after that date have attained the age of 62.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from exacting different or more stringent terms or conditions for financing housing based on the age of the individual applicant for financing if the terms or conditions are reasonably related to the individual applicant.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the development of housing designed specifically for persons with disabilities and preference in favor of persons with disabilities in relation to such housing.
(d) Nothing in this section requires that housing be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the safety of other tenants or persons employed on the property or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, if the risk of direct threat or damage cannot be eliminated or sufficiently reduced through reasonable accommodations. A claim that an individual's tenancy poses a direct threat or a substantial risk of harm or damage must be evidenced by behavior by the individual that caused harm or damage, that directly threatened harm or damage, or that caused a reasonable fear of harm or damage to other tenants, persons employed on the property, or the property. No claim that an individual's tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the safety of other persons or would result in substantial damage to property may be based on the tenant's status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.
(dm) It is not discrimination based on status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking for a landlord to bring an action for eviction of a tenant based on a violation of the rental agreement or of a statute that entitles the landlord to possession of the premises, unless subd. 1. or 2.applies. A tenant has a defense to an action for eviction brought by a landlord if the tenant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the landlord knew or should have known any of the following:
1. That the tenant is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking and that the basis for the action for eviction is conduct that related to the commission of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking by a person who was not the invited guest of the tenant.
2. That the tenant is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, that the basis for the action for eviction is conduct that related to the commission of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking by a person who was the invited guest of the tenant, and that the tenant has done one of the following:
a. Sought an injunction under s. 813.12, 813.122, 813.123, or 813.125 enjoining the person from appearing on the premises.
b. Upon receiving notice under s. 704.17, provided a written statement to the landlord indicating that the person will no longer be an invited guest of the tenant and has not subsequently invited the person to be a guest of the tenant.
(e) It is not discrimination based on family status to comply with any reasonable federal, state or local government restrictions relating to the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling unit.
(em)
1. Subject to subd. 2., nothing in this section applies to a decision by an individual as to the person with whom he or she will, or continues to, share a dwelling unit, as defined in s. 101.71 (2) except that dwelling unit does not include any residence occupied by more than 5 persons.
2. Any advertisement or written notice published, posted or mailed in connection with the rental or lease of a dwelling unit under subd. 1. may not violate sub. (2) (d), 42 USC 3604 (c), or any rules or regulations promulgated under this section or 42 USC 3601 to 3619, except that such an advertisement or written notice may be for a person of the same sex as the individual who seeks a person to share the dwelling unit for which the advertisement or written notice is placed.
(f)
1. Nothing in this section prohibits an owner or agent from requiring that a person who seeks to buy or rent housing supply information concerning family status, and marital, financial, and business status but not concerning race, color, disability, sexual orientation, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, or, subject to subd. 2., age.
2. Notwithstanding subd. 1., an owner or agent may require that a person who seeks to buy or rent housing under sub. (1m) (m) 3. supply information concerning his or her age for the purpose of verifying compliance with par. (a) 1e. b.
(g) A person may not be held personally liable for monetary damages for a violation of sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) if the person reasonably relied, in good faith, on the application of the exemption under this subsection relating to housing for older persons. For purposes of this paragraph, a person
may show reasonable reliance, in good faith, on the application of the exemption under this subsection relating to housing for older persons only if the person shows all of the following:
1. That he or she has no actual knowledge that the housing is not or will not be eligible for the exemption.
2. That the owner of the housing has stated formally, in writing, that the housing complies with the requirements for the exemption.
(6) FAIR HOUSING ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Complaints.
1. The department may receive and investigate a complaint charging a violation of sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) if the complaint is filed with the department not later than one year after the alleged discrimination occurred or terminated.
2. The complaint shall include a written statement of the essential facts constituting the discrimination that is charged, and shall be signed by the complainant.
3. The complaint may be filed by an aggrieved person, by an interested person, by the department of workforce development under par. (b) or, if the complaint charges a violation of sub. (2r) (c), by the department of safety and professional services. The department of workforce development shall, upon request, provide appropriate assistance in completing and filing complaints.
4. The department shall serve notice on the aggrieved person acknowledging the filing of the complaint and advising the complainant of the time limits and choice of forums provided under this subsection and the right to bring a private civil action under sub. (6m)
5. Upon the filing of an initial, amended, final or supplemental complaint, the department shall promptly serve a copy of the complaint upon the respondent, except where testing may be conducted. The initial complaint shall be served before the commencement of the investigation by the department, except where testing may be conducted. The notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice to the respondent shall include a written statement from the department directing the respondent to respond in writing to the allegations in the complaint within 20 days after the date of the notice and further stating that, if the respondent fails to answer the complaint in writing, the department will make an initial determination as to whether discrimination has occurred based only on the department's investigation and the information supplied by the complainant.
6. The department may dismiss the complaint if the complainant fails to respond to the department within 20 days from the date of mailing of any correspondence from the department concerning the complaint, if the department's correspondence requests a response and if the correspondence is sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known-address of the complainant.
(b) Powers and duties of department. The department of workforce development and its duly authorized agents may hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, take testimony and make investigations as provided in this subsection. The department of workforce development may test and investigate for the purpose of establishing violations of sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) and may make, sign and file complaints alleging violations of sub. (2), (2m) or (2r). In addition, the department of safety and professional services may make, sign and file complaints alleging violations of sub. (2r) (c). The department of workforce development shall employ examiners to hear and decide complaints of discrimination under this section, and to assist in the administration of this section. The examiners may make findings and issue orders under this subsection. The department of workforce development shall develop and implement an investigation manual for use in conducting investigations under par. (c)
(c) Investigation and finding of probable cause.
1. The department shall investigate all complaints that allege a violation of this section and that are filed within the time specified under par. (a). The department may subpoena persons or documents for the purpose of investigation. If during an investigation it appears that the respondent has engaged in discrimination against the complainant which is not alleged in the complaint, the department may advise the complainant that the complaint should be amended. If the complaint is amended, the department shall also investigate the allegations of the amended complaint.
2. At the conclusion of the investigation of the allegations, the department shall make a determination as to whether probable cause exists to believe that discrimination has occurred or is about to occur. In
making a determination of probable cause, the department shall consider whether the facts concerning the alleged discrimination are sufficient to warrant the initiation of a civil action. If the department determines that probable cause exists, the department shall immediately issue a charge on behalf of the aggrieved person and refer the charge to the attorney general. If the attorney general concurs in the department's determination of probable cause, the attorney general shall represent the aggrieved person at the hearing under par. (f) or, if an election is made under subd. 2m., shall commence a civil action in the name of the state on behalf of the aggrieved person under sub. (6m).
2m. Service of copies of the charge shall be made on the complainant, the respondent, and the aggrieved person by certified mail, return receipt requested. When a charge is filed, a complainant, a respondent, or an aggrieved person on whose behalf the complaint was filed may elect to have the claims asserted in that charge decided in a civil action under sub. (6m) in lieu of a hearing under par. (f). The election shall be made no later than 20 days after the receipt by the electing person of service of the charge, along with information about how to make the election. If an election is made, the person making the election shall give notice of doing so to the department and to all other complainants and respondents to whom the charge relates. The department shall notify the aggrieved persons that an election is made.
3. No charge may be issued regarding alleged discrimination after the beginning of the trial of a civil action commenced by the aggrieved party under sub. (6m) or 42 USC 3613, seeking relief with respect to that discriminatory act.
4. If the department initially determines that there is no probable cause to believe that discrimination occurred as alleged in the complaint, it may dismiss those allegations. The department shall, by a notice to be served with the determination, notify the parties of the complainant's right to appeal the dismissal of the claim to the secretary for a hearing on the issue by a hearing examiner. Service of the determination shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the hearing examiner determines that no probable cause exists, that determination is the final determination of the department and may be appealed under par. (j).
(d) Temporary judicial relief. At any time after a complaint is filed alleging discrimination in violation of sub. (2), (2m), or (2r), the department may request the attorney general to file a petition in the circuit court for the county in which the act of discrimination allegedly occurred or for the county in which a respondent resides or transacts business, seeking a temporary injunction or restraining order against the respondent to prevent the respondent from performing an act that would tend to render ineffectual an order that the department may enter with respect to the complaint, pending final determination of proceedings under this section. On receipt of the department's request, the attorney general shall promptly file the petition.
(e) Conciliation.
1. Upon the filing of a complaint alleging discrimination in violation of sub. (2), (2m) or (2r), the department may endeavor to eliminate the discrimination by conference, conciliation and persuasion. The department shall notify the parties that conciliation services are available.
2. Conciliation efforts may be undertaken by the department during the period beginning with the filing of the complaint and ending with the dismissal of the complaint under par. (c) 4. or the issuance of a charge under par. (c) 2.
3. If conciliation resolves the dispute, a written conciliation agreement shall be prepared which shall state all measures to be taken by each party. The agreement may provide for dismissal of the complaint if the dismissal is without prejudice to the complainant's right to pursue the complaint against any respondent who fails to comply with the terms of the agreement. The agreement shall be signed by the respondent, the complainant and the aggrieved person and is subject to approval by the department. A conciliation agreement entered into under this subdivision is a public record and is subject to inspection under s. 19.35, unless the parties to the agreement request that the record be exempt from disclosure and the department finds that disclosure is not required to further the purposes of this section.
4. Whenever the department has reasonable cause to believe that a respondent has breached a conciliation agreement, the department shall refer the matter to the attorney general with a recommendation that a civil action be filed for enforcement of the agreement.
(f) Hearing procedures.
1. After the department issues a charge under par. (c) 2., the department shall serve the charge, along with a written notice of hearing, specifying the nature and acts of discrimination which appear to have been committed, and requiring the respondent to answer the charge at a hearing before an examiner. The notice shall specify a time of hearing, not less than 10 days after service of the charge, and a place of hearing within the county in which the violation is alleged to have occurred.
2. If an election is not made under par. (c) 2m., the hearing shall be conducted by a hearing examiner. If the attorney general has concurred in the department's determination of probable cause under par. (c) 2., the aggrieved person on whose behalf the charge was issued shall be represented by the attorney general. Any other person who is aggrieved, with respect to the issues to be determined at the hearing, may be represented by private counsel.
3. The department, the attorney general, or a party's attorney of record may issue a subpoena to compel the attendance of a witness or the production of evidence. A subpoena issued by an attorney shall be in substantially the same form as provided in s. 805.07 (4) and shall be served in the manner provided in s. 805.07 (5). The attorney shall, at the time of issuance, send a copy of the subpoena to the hearing examiner who is responsible for conducting the hearing.
4. The testimony at the hearing shall be recorded by the department. Discovery shall be conducted as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible, consistent with the need of all parties to obtain relevant evidence. The hearing under this paragraph shall be conducted as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible, consistent with the needs and rights of the parties to obtain a fair hearing and a complete record. The burden of proof is on the party alleging discrimination.
5. If after the hearing the examiner finds by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the respondent has violated sub. (2), (2m) or (2r), the examiner shall make written findings and order the respondent to take actions that will effectuate the purpose of sub. (2), (2m) or (2r), and may order other penalties, damages and costs as provided in pars. (h) and (i). The department shall serve a certified copy of the final findings and order on the aggrieved party, the complainant and the respondent. The order shall have the same force as other orders of the department and be enforced as provided in this subsection except that the enforcement of the order is automatically stayed upon the filing of a petition for review under par. (j).
6. If the examiner finds that the respondent has not engaged in discrimination as alleged in the complaint, the department shall serve a certified copy of the examiner's findings on the aggrieved party, the complainant and the respondent together with an order dismissing the complaint. If the complaint is dismissed, costs in an amount not to exceed $100 plus actual disbursements for the attendance of witnesses may be assessed against the department in the discretion of the department.
(g) Time limitations.
1. The department shall commence proceedings with respect to a complaint before the end of the 30th day after receipt of the complaint.
2. The department shall investigate the allegations of the complaint and complete the investigation not later than 100 days after receipt of the complaint. If the department is unable to complete the investigation within 100 days, it shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so.
3. The department shall make final administrative disposition of a complaint within one year after the date of receipt of a complaint, unless it is impracticable to do so. If the department is unable to do so, it shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so.
(h) Damages and penalties.
1. If the hearing examiner finds that a respondent has engaged in or is about to engage in a discriminatory act prohibited under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r), the hearing examiner shall promptly issue an order for such relief as may be appropriate, which may include economic and noneconomic damages suffered by the
aggrieved person, regardless of whether he or she intervened in the action, and injunctive or other equitable relief. The hearing examiner may not order punitive damages.
2. In addition to any damages ordered under subd. 1., the hearing examiner may assess a forfeiture against a respondent who is not a natural person in an amount not exceeding $10,000, unless the respondent who is not a natural person has been adjudged to have committed any prior discriminatory act under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r). If a respondent who is not a natural person has been adjudged to have committed one other discriminatory act under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) during the preceding 5-year period, based on the offense date of the prior discriminatory act, the hearing examiner may assess a forfeiture in an amount not exceeding $25,000. If a respondent who is not a natural person has been adjudged to have committed 2 or more prior discriminatory acts under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) during the preceding 7-year period, based on the offense date of the prior discriminatory act, the hearing examiner may assess a forfeiture in an amount not exceeding $50,000.
3. In addition to any damages ordered under subd. 1., the administrative law judge may assess a forfeiture against a respondent who is a natural person in an amount not exceeding $10,000, unless the respondent who is a natural person has been adjudged to have committed any prior discriminatory act under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r). If a respondent who is a natural person has been adjudged to have committed one other prior discriminatory act under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) based on an offense date that is before September 1, 1992, the administrative law judge may assess a forfeiture in an amount not exceeding $25,000. If a respondent who is a natural person has been adjudged to have committed 2 or more prior discriminatory acts under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) based on an offense date that is before September 1, 1992, the administrative law judge may assess a forfeiture in an amount not exceeding $50,000.
(i) Attorney fees and costs. The hearing examiner may allow a prevailing complainant, including the state, reasonable attorney fees and costs. The state shall be liable for those fees and costs if the state is a respondent and is determined to have committed a discriminatory act under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r).
(j) Judicial review. Within 30 days after service upon all parties of an order or determination of the department under this subsection, the respondent, the complainant or the aggrieved party may appeal the order or the determination to the circuit court for the county in which the alleged discrimination took place by the filing of a petition for review. The court shall review the order or determination as provided in ss. 227.52 to 227.58.
(6m) CIVIL ACTIONS.
(a) Any person alleging a violation of sub. (2), (2m), or (2r), including the attorney general on behalf of an aggrieved person, may bring a civil action for injunctive relief, for damages, including punitive damages, and, in the case of a prevailing plaintiff, for court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
(b) An action commenced under par. (a) may be brought in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred or for the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has a principal place of business, and shall be commenced within one year after the alleged violation occurred or terminated. The one-year statute of limitations under this paragraph shall be tolled while an administrative proceeding with respect to the same complaint is pending.
(c) The court may issue a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order to assure the rights granted by this section. The court may order other relief that the court considers appropriate, including monetary damages, actual and punitive, a forfeiture as provided in sub. (6) (h) and costs and fees as provided in sub. (6) (i).
(d) If the attorney general has reasonable cause to believe that any person is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) or that any person has been denied any of the rights granted under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r), and such denial raises an issue of general public importance, the department of justice may commence a civil action.
(8) DISCRIMINATION BY LICENSED OR CHARTERED PERSONS.
(a) If the department finds reasonable cause to believe that an act of discrimination has been or is being committed in violation of this section by a person taking an action prohibited under sub. (2), (2m) or (2r) and that the person is licensed or chartered under state law, the department shall
notify the licensing or chartering agency of its findings and may file a complaint with such agency together with a request that the agency initiate proceedings to suspend or revoke the license or charter of such person or take other less restrictive disciplinary action.
(b) Upon filing a complaint under par. (a), the department shall make available to the appropriate licensing or chartering agency all pertinent documents and files in its custody, and shall cooperate fully with such agency in the agency's proceedings.
Appendix C: Maps
Appendix D: Zoning Code
Summary of Residential Uses within Zoning Districts
Dwelling Type
Note: P = Permitted Use; C = Conditional Use
Planned Unit Development Zoning Code Excerpt
Sec. 13.1901. - Purpose.
The Planned Unit Development District is established as a means to facilitate the development of land in an integrated and innovative fashion, to allow for flexibility in site design, and to encourage development that is sensitive to environmental, cultural, and economic considerations. Approval of a Planned Unit Development District shall result in the creation of an overlay to the base zoning district, with specific requirements and standards that are unique to the planned development.
Sec. 13.1902. - Identified objectives.
When reviewing requests for approval of a planned unit development, the city shall consider whether the objectives listed below will be served or achieved. Planned unit developments should not be allowed simply for the purpose of increasing overall density or allowing development that otherwise could not be approved.
(a) Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to commercial facilities.
(b) Promotion of integrated land uses allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities along corridors and in transitional areas.
(c)Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches.
(d) Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities.
(e) Preservation of historic buildings, structures, or landscape features through adaptive reuse of public or private preservation of land.
(f) Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities, and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques.
(g) Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility with surrounding land uses.
(h)Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on transportation, and the promotion of energy resource conservation.
• Sec. 13.1903. - Relationship to other applicable regulations.
(a) In general. A Planned Unit Development shall comply with all standards, procedures, and regulations of this ordinance that are applicable to the individual uses within the development and to the site plan review standards in subchapter 13.1800, Site plan review, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(1) Platting requirement. All land within a planned unit development shall be platted into one or more lots in compliance with the requirements of the subdivision and platting regulations. The development plan for the planned unit development shall include the necessary information to serve as a preliminary plat for the development.
(b) Permitted uses. The PUD shall identify all proposed land uses, and those uses shall become permitted uses upon the approval of the planned unit development by the common council.
(1) Placement of structures. More than one principal building may be placed on a platted lot within a planned unit development. The appearance and compatibility of buildings in relation to one another, other site elements, and surrounding development shall be considered in the review process.
(2) Floor area and height. The PUD may provide for an increase in the maximum gross floor area, floor area ratio, and/or maximum building height allowed in the base zoning district for the purpose of promoting project integration and additional site amenities.
(3) Building setbacks. The PUD may provide for a reduction in or elimination of required setbacks in the base zoning district, provided that a landscaped setback area of the minimum width established for the base zoning district is maintained along the periphery of the PUD.
(4) Lot requirements. The city council may authorize reductions in the area and width of individual lots within a PUD from that required for the base zoning district, provided that such reductions are compensated for by an equivalent amount of open space elsewhere in the planned unit development. Such open space shall not include areas designated as public or private streets. The plan may increase the maximum density beyond that permitted in the base zoning district for the purpose of promoting an integrated project with a variety of housing types and additional site amenities.
(5) Open space. For all PUDs, at least 20 percent of the project area not within street rights-of-way shall be preserved as protected open space. Such open space must be available to the residents, tenants, or customers of the PUD for recreational purposes or similar benefit. Land reserved for stormwater detention facilities and other required site improvements shall not be applied to this requirement. Open space shall be designed to meet the needs of residents of the PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods to the extent practicable for parks, playgrounds, playing fields, and other recreational facilities.
(6) Street layout. The PUD should maintain the existing street grid where present and restore the street grid where it has been disrupted. In newly developing areas, streets shall be designed to maximize connectivity in each cardinal direction, except where environmental or physical constraints make this infeasible. All streets shall terminate at other streets, at public land, or at an environmentally sensitive area as defined by the county, except that local streets may terminate in stub streets when those will be connected to other streets in future phases of the development or adjacent developments.
(7) Other exceptions. As part of PUD approval, the city council is authorized to approve other exceptions to the zoning controls applicable to the base zoning district. Such exceptions shall only be granted when they are clearly warranted to achieve the objectives identified in section 13.1902
Sec. 13.1904. - Preliminary application procedure.
Any person having a legal or equitable interest in a property may file a development plan application for a planned unit development. The application shall be filed with the planning department on an approved form and with a preliminary plan, as described in section 13.1905.
Sec. 13.1905. - Preliminary plan required.
(a) Upon application of a PUD, the developer of a planned unit development project shall meet with the planning department staff to review a preliminary plan for the project prior to submittal of a final development plan for approval. Statements made at the consultation are not legally binding. The meeting is intended to ensure that the developer is aware of the community's standards and policies for the planned unit development. The preliminary plan shall be legibly drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals 200 feet and shall include the following minimum information:
(1) Name and address of the recorded owner of development.
(2) Name of developer if different from owner.
(3) Name of individual responsible for preparation of the preliminary plan.
(4) North arrow, graphic scale, and the date of the drawing.
(5) Tract boundaries and a statement of the total acreage of the tract.
(6) Significant physical features within the tract, including existing 2' contours, watercourses, ponds, lakes, and wetlands and proposed changes in those features.
(7) All contemplated land uses within the tract.
(8) An indicator of the contemplated intensity of use, i.e., gross floor area and number of prospective tenants in office, commercial, and recreational development and gross density in residential development.
(9) Existing buildings that may affect the proposed development and proposed location of all principal structures and associated parking areas.
(10) Proposed circulation systems (pedestrian, bicycle, auto, transit) by type and how they relate to the existing network outside this site.
(11) Existing rights-of-way and easements which may affect the PUD project.
(12) In the case of plans which call for development in phases, a map at an appropriate scale showing the phases of development.
(13) Any other documents and supporting information deemed necessary by the planning department staff.
Sec. 13.1906. - Preliminary plan review.
(a) Planning staff shall review the preliminary plan to determine whether the plan adequately achieves the following objectives:
(1) Adequate property controls are established to protect the individual owner's rights and property values and to define legal responsibilities for maintenance and upkeep.
(2) The internal circulation plan and access points to surrounding streets are adequate for the safety and convenience of the project residents and the general public.
(3) A sufficient amount of usable open space is provided.
(4) The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding area.
(5) The project will not place a burden on existing municipal infrastructure, including utility and drainage systems.
(6) The development schedule ensures a logical development of the site, protecting the interests of project residents and the general public.
(7) The planned unit development is in reasonable compliance with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan.
(8) Other health, safety, and welfare considerations as deemed appropriate by planning staff;
(b) The preliminary plan may be submitted for review by other departments, agencies, or third parties as may be deemed necessary by planning staff. Such departments, agencies, or third parties may include Department of Public Works, school districts, public utilities, or adjacent land owners.
(c) Planning staff shall compile a list of recommended or required revisions that shall be incorporated in the final development plan.
DIVISION 2. - FINAL PLAN
Sec. 13.1907. - Submission of final plan.
(a) In general. The applicant shall revise the preliminary plan as provided in section 13.1905 and submit a final plan for approval by the plan commission and common council. The final application shall include a narrative statement, site plan, building plans and elevations, applicable fee as set from time to time by the common council, and any other information requested by the planning department, the plan commission, or common council. The final application shall include two full copies of all plans plus two 11" × 17" copies of all plans.
(b) Narrative statement. A written narrative of the proposed development indicating the following information in a format to be provided by the planning department.
(1) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient property control to carry out the planned unit development project.
(2) How the proposed development meets the identified objectives of this chapter.
(3) Development schedule showing the timing and phasing of the proposed development.
(4) A summary of the total number of units of each residential use, the acreage devoted to all land uses, and the overall net density of the development.
(5) A summary of the use, height, and gross floor area of all buildings.
(6) Architectural design standards that will be implemented as part of the development.
(7) The anticipated market which the development is intended to serve.
(8) The form of ownership and maintenance of all common open space, recreational facilities, and other common areas intended for the exclusive use of the residence.
(9) List of proposed protective covenants, easements, or restrictions to be imposed to protect open space and other identified resources.
(10) Any variances, modifications, or waivers requested from the development standards of this section and the reasons for the request.
(c) Site plan information and contents. The site plan submitted in support of a development plan shall include the following information, unless specifically waived by the zoning administrator prior to submittal.
(1) All information provided in the preliminary plan.
(2) Name of proposed development. Names shall not duplicate nor too closely resemble names of existing subdivisions or developments.
(3) Location of boundary lines in relation to known section, quarter-section, or quarterquarter-section lines comprising a legal description of the property.
(4) Natural drainage patterns and water resources, including wetland, floodplains, streams, drainage swales, ponds, and lakes and proposed changes to these.
(5) Proposed lot coverage of buildings and structures.
(6) Approximate gross and net floor areas by use.
(7) Architectural renderings and elevations of structures and improvements.
(8) Specifications of structural finish materials.
(9) Total amount of open space, both improved and unimproved.
(10) All existing streets, including streets reserved on the official map or adjoining the site, including names, right-of-way widths, and pavement width.
(11) Proposed circulation systems by type and the proposed width of rights-of-way and pavement width.
(12) All existing sanitary and storm sewers, water lines, fire hydrants, utility transmission lines, bridges, railroads, etc. within the project boundaries.
(13) A description of the proposed system for drainage, water supply, sewage disposal, and power and communication lines.
(14) Location, width, and purpose of existing easements and utility rights-of-way within the PUD.
(15) Proposed covenants, grants of easements, or other restrictions to be imposed upon the use of land and structures.
(16) In the case of plans which call for development in stages, a map at an appropriate scale showing the successive phases and a schedule of time within which applications for final approval of all parts of the development are intended to be filled.
(17) A general landscaping plan, as required by subchapter 13.1800, Site plan review.
Sec. 13.1908. - Plan Commission review.
The plan commission shall review each complete application for a planned unit development and may suspend the rules to hear from the developer or any other interested party. The plan commission shall make a recommendation for approval, conditions for approval, or denial of the PUD to the common council.
Sec. 13.1909. - Council action.
(a) The common council shall make the final decision regarding all applications for planned unit development approval. Upon approval of the development plan, the official zoning map shall be amended to designate the property as a "PUD" overlay district.
(b) Established conditions of approval. The common council may establish any reasonable conditions of approval they determine are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts of the development, to protect neighboring properties, and to achieve the objectives of this subchapter.
Sec. 13.1910. - Phasing of development.
Phasing of a planned unit development shall be permitted, provided that each individual phase is designed and developed to exist as an independent unit and that the construction and improvement of common open space and site amenities shown on the development plan proceeds at the same rate as the construction of dwellings and other permitted land uses. Any violation of this provision shall authorize the city council to hold a public hearing to review the status of the planned unit development and impose any remedies it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, revocation of permits, issuance of construction orders, or issuance of citations for failure to comply with such orders.
Sec. 13.1911. - Expiration of approval.
The planned unit development shall remain valid for a period of one year from the date of approval, unless a longer time-period has been agreed to by the council. If construction has not commenced during this period, the planned unit development shall be considered void and the overlay designation removed, unless a petition for a time extension has been granted by the council. Any extension requests shall be submitted in writing to the common council at least 30 days prior to expiration of the approval and shall describe reasons for the delay in construction of the project.
Sec. 13.1912. - Plan consistency.
The city shall withhold approval of any final plat, site plan, or building permit required for a planned unit development if the proposal is inconsistent with the development plan as approved, except as provided below:
(a) Minor revisions. Minor changes may be authorized by the community development review team if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the development plan was approved. Changes are minor if the change does not cause:
(1) A change in the use or character of the development.
(2) An increase in overall coverage of structures.
(3) An increase in the intensity of use.
(4) An increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public utilities.
(5) A reduction in approved open space.
(6) A reduction of off-street parking/loading spaces.
(7) A reduction in required pavement widths.
(b) Major revisions. All changes that are not minor shall require an amendment or repeal of the original PUD and approval of a revised development plan, in accordance with this chapter.
