get the lead out fall 2016

PbAN ANALYSIS OF LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS IN

HIGH-RISK AREAS OF SYRACUSE, NY

Get the Lead Out

82

207.2

REPORT BY THE MAXWELL COMMUNITY BENCHMARKS PROGRAMEmily Allen Nate Birnbaum Grace Bobertz Kerry Connolly Jason Deal Julia Eklund

Angelina EspinoMitchell Forbes Hannah Johnson Samantha Kessler Victoria KimEmily Knight

Carolee LantiguaTaylor Pasquariello Kyle Putnam Emilie Scardilla Nedda Sarshar Leah Strassburg

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The creation of this report would not have been possible without the contributions of many individuals and organizations. We would first like to thank Michelle Sczapanski of the City of Syracuse Division of Code Enforcement and Belen Cordon of the City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development for compiling a majority of the data used in this report. Their work provided much of the foundation of this report’s data analysis section.

We would also like to acknowledge Debra Lewis of the Onondaga County Health Department and Katie Bronson of Green & Healthy Homes Initiative, Syracuse. During the early stages of this project, these individuals provided context to our report by speaking to our team on lead poisoning and the City of Syracuse’s efforts in addressing the problem.

Special thanks to the following individuals who took the time to arrange calls and speak with our researchers. Their information and expertise aided in the development of this report’s policy recommendations.

Mary Sue Schottenfels, Executive Director – CLEARCorps Detroit

Paulette Smith, Program Administrator – Lead and Healthy Homes Program, Philadelphia

Gary Kirkmire, Director of Inspection & Compliance Services – City of Rochester

Reverend Earl Arnold and Jeffery Eysaman, Director – Central Village Boys & Girls Club

Outreach Team – Syracuse Community Health Center

Finally, we would like to extend our utmost appreciation to Stephanie Pasquale, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood and Business Development, as well as our two teaching assistants, Kelsey May and Weston Young. Their instruction, guidance, and vision led us from the early development of this report all the way to its successful completion. This report would not exist without their hard work and dedication.

Thank you all.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

BACKGROUND 4

PROBLEM STATEMENT 8

METHODS 10

FINDINGS 15

LEAD POISONING 16

DEMOGRAPHICS 19

HOUSING 32

INSPECTIONS 46

CENSUS TRACT PROFILES 57

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 68

FUNDING 73

OUTREACH STRATEGIES 75

APPENDIX 77

BACKGROUND

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DATA METHODS

FINDINGS

CENSUS TRACT PROFILES

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX

v INTRODUCTION

2

INTRODUCTION The Community Benchmarks Program of Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs was established in 1996 to support local government and nonprofit agencies through comparative data analysis and research. The program has since produced hundreds of reports containing important findings, policy recommendations, and other information to help organizations improve their performance and the societal issues they address.

The City of Syracuse has recently found itself in the news for its alarming rates of lead poisoning and the City’s efforts in obtaining federal funding for remediation. This fall, the Community Benchmarks Program worked in conjunction with the Onondaga County Health Department to analyze their datasets, alongside data collected from the U.S. Census Bureau and other sources, to determine which ten census tracts in the City of Syracuse are most at-risk for lead poisoning and in need of immediate attention. Data analysis of these census tracts is focused on the following four categories: lead poisonings, demographics, housing conditions, and inspections.

Following these data findings, this report offers a set of policy recommendations for remediating lead hazards in these ten select census tracts. Recommendations are based on successful policies and programs used in other municipalities and states, as well as their predicted feasibility in the City of Syracuse. Recognizing that a major obstacle in maintaining a robust lead remediation program is a lack of funding, this report finally explores creative funding and outreach strategies to support the recommended policies.

Lead poisoning is a serious public health problem with dangerous, longstanding consequences. It is hoped that this report will be used by the City of Syracuse to reduce lead poisoning and provide a safer environment for its community, both now and in generations to come.

3

INTRODUCTION

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DATA METHODS

FINDINGS



APPENDIX

v BACKGROUND

4

BACKGROUND History

Lead has long been used in a variety of products both in and outside of the home—yet it did not surface as a major public health hazard in the United States until it became a common additive in paint. Reaching peak usage in the 1920s, lead-based paint was widely popularized for its improved durability and appearance. The paint industry acknowledged lead-based products as being highly toxic as early as 1897, but recognition of the lasting, harmful effects of lead poisoning did not emerge within the American medical community until the 1940s.1

In the absence of federal regulation, the City of Baltimore prohibited the use of residential lead-based paint in 1951, marking the first legal ban on the product in the United States. Shortly after, the paint industry adopted a voluntary standard to limit the amount of lead pigment in interior house paint in 1955. However, it was not until 1978 that lead-based paint was fully banned for residential use, following suit of several European countries who imposed bans on consumer use of the product as early as 1909.2

Today, several federal laws and regulations are in place to further control lead-based paint hazards. Under Section IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act, state governments are authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop parts of their statewide work practice standards, accreditation and training programs, and to provide inspection certification to individuals and firms.3 Another mandate enforced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is the Lead Disclosure Rule under the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which requires

full disclosure of all known lead-based paint hazards before the selling or leasing of a property.4 Beyond state and federal regulations, however, local municipalities are typically allowed to create their own lead laws, most commonly through their code enforcement or public health policies. Many city and county governments have used this flexibility to address areas of lead hazard reduction not covered by state or federal policy.5

Current Laws and Practices

The Onondaga County Health Department currently maintains a Lead Hazard Reduction Program providing loans to property owners on a first come, first serve basis. The loan provides funds for repairs such as window and door replacement, exterior siding, and porch repair. Property owners must meet certain requirements for the program, including having homeowners and flood insurance, up-to-date property and mortgage payments, a child under the age of six residing in the unit, and an earned income below a particular threshold. All eligible property owners can apply and receive assistance for up to two properties within a two-year period. Within the guidelines, a clause states that preference must be given to rental units occupied by low-income families with at least one child under the age of six.6

The City of Syracuse’s lead program began in 1994. Due to a lack of federal funding, it was forced to shut down in 2014. The program successfully oversaw lead removal in over 2,500 properties.7 Despite the loss of funding, City officials continue to work towards ameliorating lead poisoning across the City through grants and partnerships.

5

Health Effects

Lead exposure can cause a variety of serious, permanent health problems, particularly among youth. In many cases, a child can be severely poisoned without showing any signs or symptoms; other times, symptoms do occur (typically after long periods of exposure) but are nonspecific and easily misdiagnosed as a variety of other illnesses.8

Although lead poisoning can impact nearly every system in the body, the effects of lead poisoning are most damaging to the central nervous system. Delayed puberty, stunted growth, impaired cognitive abilities, and hearing problems are among the most common effects. At extremely high concentrations, children may also experience headaches, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, agitation, and/or decreased activity and somnolence. In the most severe cases, lead poisoning can result in seizures, coma, and even death.8

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, children under the age of five are most vulnerable to these effects as they are still in the process of mental, metabolic, and physical development.9 Although the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has established 5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) as the reference level at which medical actions should take place, the CDC acknowledges that no blood lead level is safe in children.10 This finding encourages parents, educators, clinicians, and government officials to take preventative measures rather than intervening after a child has been diagnosed with lead poisoning.

While children remain the most at-risk population, lead poisoning can also pose as a serious threat to adult health. An adult exposed to lead can experience health problems ranging from decreased kidney function to

increased blood pressure, cataracts, reduced fetal growth, delayed conception and motility, and tremors.9

Academic & Behavioral Consequences

The neurological consequences of lead poisoning discussed above have a significant influence on a child’s academic success. Lead-poisoned children are shown to have lowered IQ scores even at lower levels of exposure, increasing the need for enrollment in special education services, reducing the likelihood of high school and college graduation, lowering lifetime earnings, and increasing the propensity to engage in violent criminal activity.10

A study conducted in the Chicago Public Schools found a specific relationship between childhood lead exposure and standardized test scores in math and reading. After comparing blood lead levels (BLLs) and Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT) scores of 47,168 third grade students between 2003-2006, researchers found the presence of lead at levels of 5 to 9 µg/dL increased the risk of failing math and reading exams by 32%. The results also estimated that 13% of all failing grades in reading and 15% of all failing grades in math could be attributed to the effects of lead.11

A number of long-term behavioral issues have also been linked to early lead exposure, particularly the development of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Inattentiveness, disorganization, hyperactivity, and the inability to follow directions were all reported symptoms seen by teachers of students with elevated blood lead levels. Furthermore, studies have found elevated blood lead levels to be associated with lifelong emotional problems including anxiety, depression, and increased aggression.12

6

Financial Implications

As an overall public health issue, lead poisoning bears significant economic costs. For a state of approximately 2.5 million children under the age of 18, the estimated cost of lead-associated ADHD treatment alone is nearly $18 million per year. A state meeting these same parameters is predicted to spend an additional $2.5 million on special education and $73 million in juvenile crime, both as a specific result of childhood lead exposure.13

A report released in 2010 by the American Academy of Pediatrics highlighted the benefits of investing in lead poisoning prevention. Researchers estimated that each dollar invested in controlling lead paint hazards would yield $17-$221 returned in health benefits, increased IQ, higher lifetime earnings, tax revenue, reduced spending on special education, and reduced criminal activity.14

7

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

DATA METHODS

FINDINGS



APPENDIX

v PROBLEM STATEMENT

8

PROBLEM STATEMENT According to a national study conducted by the Journal of Pediatrics, approximately three percent of children tested under the age of six are considered to have “high” blood lead levels of 5 µg/dL—the reference level the Center for Disease Control and Prevention considers cause for concern and medical action.15 Locally, however, the Onondaga County Health Department reported an alarming 13% of children tested under the age of six had blood lead levels of 10 µg/dL or higher. Of the children tested in Onondaga County with blood lead levels of 5 µg/dL and above, 90% are located in the City of Syracuse.

The City of Syracuse faces many demographic, housing, and inspection-related realities that contribute to this problem. For instance, 72% of the City’s single-, two-, and three-family homes are built prior to 1939, far before the year lead-based paint was fully banned for residential use in 1978. The data variety of factors and conditions that put the City of Syracuse at such high risk of lead poisoning, in addition to ten specific, prioritized census tracts within the City that this report determines to be particularly at-risk.

9

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

PROBLEM STATEMENT

FINDINGS



APPENDIX

v DATA METHODS

10

METHODS The data used in this report were collected between 2006 and 2016 from Onondaga County Health Department Inspection Files (2010-2016), Syracuse City Parcel Files (2006, 2011, 2016), Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, New York State Department of Health Child Health Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, and the United States Census Bureau, including the American Community Survey (ACS).

DATA SOURCES

Onondaga County Health Department Files The Onondaga County Health Department keeps a record of every completed lead inspection and provides data on the residence of every poisoned child. This shows when the home inspection was completed and how long it took for the landlord or homeowner to reduce the risk of lead poisoning in the home.

Syracuse City Parcel Files Monthly parcel files were provided by the City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood and Business Development for the years 2006, 2011, and 2016. These files contain housing data on over 40,000 properties.

Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration This Bureau within the Department of State is responsible for policies specific to refugees in the United States. Data was specifically collected from WRAPS, the Bureau’s database that tracks the movement of refugees from various countries to their settlement locations in the United States.

New York State Department of Health Child Health Lead Poisoning Prevention Program This government website provides data on the proportion of children newly identified with a confirmed, elevated blood lead level of 10

µg/dL or greater per 1,000 children among children less than 72 months tested in the given time frame.

American Community Survey (ACS) The American Community Survey contains information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on a sample of the U.S. population. Unlike the census, not all citizens are surveyed, but the ACS offers a larger variety of data.

COMPOSITE SCORES

The ten census tracts analyzed in this report were selected using an index of the following six indicators: percent of structures built before 1978, percent of children under five years old living below the poverty line, percent of renter-occupied properties, percent of cost-burdened residents (residents paying more than 30% of their income towards rent), count of properties with open Onondaga County Health Department inspections, and the average amount of days taken by landlords to resolve lead hazard violations. Each indicator was assigned a weight between 0.5 and 2.0 based on their relative ability to predict areas at high risk of lead poisoning. Census tracts were assigned a score for each individual indicator, which were calculated by comparing the census tract’s value to the maximum and minimum of each indicator. This ranked each census tract from highest (most severe) to lowest (lease severe) in each indicator, which was used to create an average index score for each census tract. To calculate these composite scores, individual indicator scoreswere multiplied by their weight and summed together. This total was then divided by the sum of all six weights. The following table shows the top ten census tracts and their composite scores. A complete list of composite scores can be found in Appendix I.

11

Composite Score Index

Percent Built Before 1979 Percentage of Children 5 and Under Below Poverty Line

Percentage of Rental Occupied Properties

Percentage of Residents who are Cost-Burdened Count of Open Inspections Average days to Total Risk Reduced

0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1 1.5

Census Tract Data

Score Calculation

Weighted Score Data

Score Calculation

Weighted Score Data

Score Calculation

Weighted Score Data

Score Calculation

Weighted Score Data

Score Calculation

Weighted Score Data

Score Calculation

Weighted Score

Composite Score

15.00 0.95 0.89 0.44 0.72 0.79 1.19 0.54 0.58 0.29 0.73 0.80 0.80 21.00 0.36 0.36 150.67 0.53 0.80 0.65

17.01 0.91 0.78 0.39 0.78 0.86 1.28 0.36 0.38 0.19 0.70 0.75 0.75 6.00 0.10 0.10 209.83 0.74 1.11 0.64

24.00 0.77 0.45 0.22 0.77 0.84 1.26 0.50 0.54 0.27 0.61 0.64 0.64 12.00 0.21 0.21 214.61 0.76 1.14 0.62

35.00 0.85 0.64 0.32 0.68 0.74 1.12 0.54 0.58 0.29 0.67 0.72 0.72 11.00 0.19 0.19 275.69 0.97 1.46 0.68

39.00 0.86 0.67 0.34 0.84 0.92 1.38 0.48 0.52 0.26 0.63 0.67 0.67 58.00 1.00 1.00 159.74 0.56 0.85 0.75

51.00 0.97 0.93 0.46 0.63 0.69 1.03 0.51 0.54 0.27 0.75 0.83 0.83 20.00 0.34 0.34 178.41 0.63 0.95 0.65

53.00 0.92 0.82 0.41 0.89 0.98 1.47 0.45 0.49 0.24 0.60 0.62 0.62 13.00 0.22 0.22 139.90 0.49 0.74 0.62

54.00 0.93 0.83 0.41 0.78 0.86 1.29 0.35 0.38 0.19 0.61 0.64 0.64 44.00 0.76 0.76 155.33 0.55 0.82 0.69

2.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.91 1.00 1.50 0.44 0.47 0.24 0.57 0.58 0.58 9.00 0.16 0.16 123.90 0.44 0.66 0.61

58.00 0.97 0.93 0.47 0.74 0.81 1.22 0.47 0.50 0.25 0.62 0.64 0.64 25.00 0.43 0.43 192.76 0.68 1.02 0.67

12

SELECTED CENSUS TRACTS

13

CITY & COUNTY COMPARISONS

To provide a larger, comparative context for our findings specific to the City of Syracuse, data from the following cities and counties were included in many of our data visualizations: Rochester, NY Providence, RI Albany County, NY Monroe County, NY Erie County, NY

These locations were selected based on their ability to mimic the City of Syracuse in population, demographics, and as comparable Rust Belt cities.

14

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DATA METHODS



APPENDIX

v FINDINGS

15

LEAD POISONING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Onondaga County has a 3 points

higher rate of confirmed high blood

levels per 1,000 children tested than

New York State.

94% of all children tested for blood

lead levels 5 mcg/dL or greater in

Onondaga County in 2015 are located

in Syracuse

16

1. 90.4% of all children tested for blood lead levels 5 mcg/dL or greater in Onondaga County in 2015are located in Syracuse.

Source: Onondaga County Health Department Lead Poisoning Control Program

Comment: Graph does not include 0-4 mcg/dL numbers.

4.8% 5.4%

9% 10%0.8%0.9%

1.6%1.7%

0.2% 0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

0.3%0.2%

0.5%0.4%

2014 Onondaga County(n=707)

2015 Onondaga County(n=772)

2014 Syracuse, NY(n=639)

2015 Syracuse, NY(n=693)

Children Tested for Lead in Onondaga County and Syracuse with Blood Lead Level of 5 mcg/dL or Greater, by Blood Lead Level (2014-2015)

5-9 10-14 15-19 ≥20

17

2. Onondaga County has a 3 points higher rate of confirmed high blood levels per 1,000 children testedthan New York State.

Source: New York State Department of Health, 2012-2014 NYS Child Health Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Data

Comment: New York State does not include data from New York City

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Onondaga 17.4 13.3 12.7 12.1 8.3 9.5 11.5 13.8 17.4 12.7Albany 27.1 16.8 17.4 11.8 11.8 12.6 16.4 11.1 17.9 15.9Erie 24.7 22.4 20.3 16.9 16 20.7 18.3 20.1 34.1 20.2Monroe 19.7 18.4 15.2 14.5 11.2 11.4 8.1 8.5 13.8 11.4New York State* 11.6 10.1 9 7.9 7.3 7.9 7.2 7.5 11.6 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Incidence of Confirmed High Blood Lead Level (10 Micrograms or Higher per Deciliter) - Rate per 1,000 Tested Children Aged <72 Months for Selected Counties in New York State (2005-2014)

Onondaga Albany Erie Monroe New York State*

18

DEMOGRAPHICS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

All census tracts, including the

City of Syracuse have more

families near poverty or below

the poverty level

Most census tracts saw an

increase in median income over

a four-year period, however the

average median income for our

targeted tracks in 2014 was

$6,443 lower than the city

average

Census tracts with higher

percentages of children with

BLL’s are more likely to have low

percentages of children ages 18-

24 with a H.S. diploma

Targeted census tracts have a

higher percentage of rental

housing being cost burdened

than the city average

All targeted tracts had a higher

percentage of children age five

and under living below the

poverty line than the City of

Syracuse

The percentage of foreign born

residents in Syracuse was

highest in Census Tract 15 (42%)

19

1. Most of the census tracts with a high population of children under 5 living in poverty alsohave a high number of lead inspections.

20

Census Tracts 2, 39, and 58 have high percent of children under 5 in poverty and a high concentration of lead paint violations.

21

2. All census tracts had a higher percentage of children age five and under living below the poverty line than the City of Syracuse.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-14 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table B17001

Comment: The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty.

24%

50%

53%

63%

68%

72%

74%

77%

78%

78%

84%

89%

91%

New York State

Syracuse, N.Y.

Rochester, N.Y.

Tract 51

Tract 35

Tract 15

Tract 58

Tract 24

Tract 54

Tract 17.01

Tract 39

Tract 53

Tract 2

Percent of Children Age Five and Under Living Below The Poverty Line by Select Geographies (2010-2014)

22

3. In a linear relationship, census tracts with higher percentages of children with BLL’s aremore likely to have low percentages of children ages 18-24 with a high school diploma.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-14 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table S1501, Onondaga County Health Department

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Perc

enta

ge o

f 18-

24 W

ith L

ess

Than

a H

S D

iplo

ma

Percent With BLL Greater Than or Equal to 5%

Educational Attainment and Elevated BLL by Census Tract, Syracuse NY, 2010-2015

23

4. All census tracts, including the City of Syracuse have more families near poverty or below the poverty level. Census Tract 39 had the highest count (289) of families in this category.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table B17022

Comment: Counts in the ratio group 1.30 and above combine the counts from ratio groups 1.30 to 1.49 and 1.50 and 1.84 included in the census table. Families in the “under 1.30” category would be considered below/near the poverty line. Families in the “1.30 and above” category would be considered above the poverty level. See Appendix II.

The U.S. Census Bureau defines ratio of income to poverty as a family's or person's income divided by their poverty threshold. The income-to-poverty ratio measures how close a family’s or individual’s income is to their poverty threshold. The ratio categories represent variations of poverty level. Ratios below 1.00 (below 100 percent of poverty) are below the official poverty definition. Ratios at/or above 1.00 by less than 1.25 percent have been described as "near poverty.”

Comment: The City of Syracuse results were placed in its own graph due to the city’s large counts compared to the census tracts

225

197

206

164

214

289

177

117

218

194

28

53

66

19

59

59

71

26

78

69

Tract 2

Tract 15

Tract 17.01

Tract 24

Tract 35

Tract 39

Tract 51

Tract 53

Tract 54

Tract 58

Counts of Income to Poverty Ratios of Female Householder Families with Related Children Under 18 in Select Census Tracts in

Syracuse, NY

Under 1.30 1.30 and above

5692

2936


Counts of Income to Poverty Ratios of Female Householder Families with Children Under 18 in Syracuse, New York


24

5. The percentage of foreign born residents in Syracuse was highest in Census Tract 15 (42%).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-14 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table B05002

Comment: Due to possible low language skills, fear of reciprocity, and lack of housing condition knowledge, foreign born and refugee’s tend to be at a higher risk to lead exposure and substandard housing conditions.

42%

29%

16%12% 11%

7% 7% 5% 5% 4%

12%

Tract 15 Tract 24 Tract 53 Tract 54 Tract 35 Tract 2 Tract17.01

Tract 58 Tract 51 Tract 39 Syracuse,N.Y.

Percent of Foreign Born Population by Select Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2014)

25

CensusTract 15 has 17%-39% of its population foreign-born and the highest number of lead inspections of the selected census tracts.

26

6. The number of refugees arriving in Syracuse, NY steadily increased over the span of 5 years while the New York State and Rochester, NY refugee population saw a slight decline

Source: Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Comment: There were a total of 5,467 refugee arrivals in Syracuse, N.Y. from 2010-2015. Of these arrivals, 1,434 came from Bhutan, 1,280 from Burma, and 1,080 from Somalia.

.

4,168

3,4213,754

4,007 4,012 3,904

882 827 805 944 974 1,035

619 670 662 662 560 5610

5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Refugee Arrivals in Select Cities in New York State (2010-2015)

New York State Syracuse, NY Rochester, NY

27

7. The Black or African American population is the second biggest demographic, but greatest in key Census Tracts such as 51, 53, 54, and 58.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-14 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, B25006

Comment: African American’s and minorities are subjected to worse housing conditions, including lead exposure. Our targeted tracts have many vulnerable demographics. See Appendix II.

28

8. Targeted census tracts have a higher percentage of rental housing being cost burdenedthan the city average. 79% of rental housing in tract 51 is cost burdened.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-14 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table DP04

Comment: Families that spend 30 percent or more of income on housing costs are considered "burdened" according to the United States National Housing Act of 1937. See Appendix II.

All selected cities are more cost burdened than New York State overall, with Syracuse being the second highest.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-14 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table DP04

79%75% 72% 71% 71% 70% 67% 64% 62% 60% 58%

Tract 51 Tract 15 Tract17.01

Tract 35 Tract 39 Tract 24 Tract 58 Tract 54 Tract 53 Tract 2 Syracuse,NY

Percent of Rental Housing Cost Burden for Selected Census Tracts(2010-2014)

63%58% 55% 55% 54%

Rochester, NY Syracuse, NY Buffalo, NY Albany, NY New York State

Percent of Rental Housing Cost Burden for Selected Cities in New York State (2010-2014)

29

9. Most census tracts saw an increase in median income over a four-year period, however the average median income for our targeted tracks in 2014 was $6,443 lower than the city average.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-14 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table S1903 Comment: While median income has increased in most of our targeted tracts, there overall income is still lower than the city average and well below the national average of $51,900. See Appendix II.

Median Income of Households by Census Tract in Syracuse, NY and Select Cities (2010-2014)

Census Tracts

Median Income by Year

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tract 2 $ 29,560 $ 30,841 $ 30,417 $ 32,793 $ 34,883

Tract 15 $ 24,640 $ 22,500 $ 24,740 $ 23,587 $ 24,635

Tract 17.01 $ 32,434 $ 35,455 $ 31,964 $ 27,331 $ 27,226

Tract 24 $ 22,167 $ 25,098 $ 17,488 $ 24,609 $ 22,036

Tract 35 $ 21,827 $ 26,100 $ 17,159 $ 15,819 $ 17,863

Tract 39 $ 17,795 $ 18,843 $ 19,500 $ 16,607 $ 19,758

Tract 51 $ 25,208 $ 26,078 $ 23,917 $ 21,272 $ 24,394

Tract 53 $ 15,814 $ 16,116 $ 21,352 $ 20,550 $ 21,382

Tract 54 $ 20,110 $ 21,745 $ 25,855 $ 28,929 $ 29,938

Tract 58 $ 27,604 $ 26,741 $ 27,333 $ 28,090 $ 29,014

Syracuse, N.Y. $ 30,891 $ 31,689 $ 31,459 $ 31,365 $ 31,566

Albany, N.Y. $ 39,158 $ 38,394 $ 40,145 $ 40,287 $ 41,099

Rochester, N.Y. $ 30,138 $ 30,367 $ 30,708 $ 30,875 $ 30,784

Buffalo, N.Y. $ 30,043 $ 30,230 $ 30,502 $ 30,942 $ 31,668

5%

5%

2%

2%

49%

35%

18%

11%

5%

0%

-1%

-3%

-16%

-18%

Albany, N.Y.

Buffalo, N.Y.

Rochester, N.Y.

Syracuse, N.Y.

Tract 54

Tract 53

Tract 2

Tract 39

Tract 58

Tract 15

Tract 24

Tract 51

Tract 17.01

Tract 35

Percent Change of Median Income of Households by Select Census Tracts in Syracuse, N.Y. and Select Cities (2010-2014)

30

10. Three family households had the highest taxable value across almost all census tracts. Tracts 15 and 58 along with the City of Syracuse did not follow this pattern but showed their highest taxable values being in two family homes.

Source: Monthly Parcel Merged File, March 2016

Comment: The taxable value of a household refers to the full assessed or marketable value of homes. See Appendix II.

$76,203 $69,300 $68,081 $60,300 $55,147 $54,157 $41,902 $41,018 $38,800 $36,626

$59,413

$58,295 $61,216 $59,120 $45,557 $47,908

$60,366

$34,345 $35,306 $39,452 $34,585

$68,482

$55,852 $60,947 $54,697

$42,420 $43,408 $49,036

$35,517 $33,640 $33,858 $32,565

$65,907

Tract 35 Tract 17.01 Tract 2 Tract 51 Tract 24 Tract 15 Tract 39 Tract 54 Tract 58 Tract 53 SyracuseCity

Average Taxable Value of Single, Two, and Three-Family Structures by Select Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY

Three Family Two Family Single Family

31

HOUSING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Every targeted census tract has a

renter occupied percentage

above the Syracuse, NY

particularly Census Tracts 15 and

35 which both have a percentage

of 54%.

Two family residences have the

highest percentages and counts

of vacancies, particularly Census

Tract 35 with 64% being two

family vacancies.

Our selected census tracts have

a higher percentage of two family

homes than the city average.

Two family residences have the

highest percentages and counts

of vacancies, particularly Census

Tract 35 with 64% being two

family vacancies.

All of our targeted census tracts

have 80% or higher houses built

before 1939, far greater than the

city average (72%).

Tract 51, 15, 58, and 54 have

rents higher than the citywide

average in structures built in

1939 or earlier.

32

1. All of our targeted census tracts have 80% or higher houses built before 1939, far greaterthan the city average (72%).


Comment: See appendix III for table of counts and data on houses built 1940-1979 and 1980 & after.

97% 96% 93% 90%85% 85% 85% 83% 83% 81%

72%

Tract 15(n=555)

Tract 54(n=720)

Tract 51(n=672)

Tract 58(n=733)

Tract 2(n=854)

Tract 35(n=476)

Tract 17.01(n=624)

Tract 53(n=278)

Tract 24(n=315)

Tract 39(n=700)

Syracuse,NY

(n=32,521)

Percentage of Single, Two, and Three Family Homes Built Before 1939 for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY

33

Census Tracts 15 and 54 have 61%-78% percent of housing units built before 1939 and the highest concentration of lead inspections.

34

Census Tracts 2, 53, and 58 have the highest percent of children living under 5 in poverty and percent of housing units built before 1939.

35

2. Our selected census tracts have a higher percentage of two family homes than the cityaverage.


Comment: As seen in finding 3 and 4 in the inspection section, two family homes are at a higher risk of having inspections and violations. See Appendix III.

Tract 51(n=672)

Tract 58(n=733)

Tract 17.01(n=624)

Tract 54 (n=720)

Tract 2(n=829)

Tract 24(n=316)

Tract 53(n=278)

Tract 35(n=476)

Tract 15(n=558)

Tract 39(n=701)

Syracuse,NY

(n=32,578)Single Family 75% 74% 66% 62% 61% 59% 56% 55% 53% 49% 75%Two Family 24% 25% 31% 33% 36% 35% 38% 39% 41% 45% 22%Three Family 1% 1% 3% 5% 3% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 3%

75% 74%

66%62% 61% 59%

56% 55% 53%49%

75%

24% 25%31% 33%

36% 35%38% 39% 41%

45%

22%

1% 1% 3% 5% 3% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6%3%

Single, Two, & Three Family Residences for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2016)

36

3. The rate of rental occupied housing structures has increased overall in the city of Syracuse.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006-2010, 2008-2012, 2010-2014 (5-year estimates) Table B25003

Comment: See Appendix III for counts.

38%

29%

17%

5%

4%

3%

1%

-5%

-9%-15%

26%

-37%

-44%

-20%

-25%

-6%-3%

-2%

8%

62%

62%

-27%

Tract 15

Tract 24

Tract 17.01

Tract 53

Tract 2

Tract 35

Tract 51

Tract 54

Tract 58

Tract 39

Syracuse NY

Percent Change of Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Structures for Select Census Tracts, Syracuse, N.Y (2010-2014)

Renter Owner

37

The targeted census tracts have the highest concentrations of renter occupied housing units and open code violations.

38

4. Every targeted census tract has a renter occupied percentage above the Syracuse, NY particularly Census Tracts 15 and 35 which both have a percentage of 54%.


Comment: Renter occupied structures, as seen in finding 5 of the inspections section, are more prevalent to violations and lead inspections. See Appendix III for counts.

54% 54%50% 48%

46% 45% 44% 44% 43%

36%32%

Tract 15(n=558)

Tract 35(n=476)

Tract 24(n=316)

Tract 39(n=701)

Tract 58(n=733)

Tract 54(n=729)

Tract 2(n=829)

Tract 51(n=672)

Tract 53(n=278)

Tract17.01

(n=624)

Syracuse,NY

(n=32,578)

Percent Renter Occupied Properties for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2016)

39

5. Tract 51, 15, 58, and 54 have rents higher than the citywide average in structures built in 1939 or earlier.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (5-year estimates) Table B25111

Comment: See Appendix III for counts.

$548

$688

$697

$704

$714

$722

$806

$872

$877

$891

$731

Tract 53

Tract 2

Tract 24

Tract 17.01

Tract 39

Tract 35

Tract 54

Tract 58

Tract 15

Tract 51

Syracuse, NY

Median Rent for Structures Built 1939 or Earlier in Select Census Tracts, Syracuse N.Y. (2010-2014)

40

6. Two family residences have the highest percentages and counts of vacancies, particularlyCensus Tract 35 with 64% being two family vacancies.


Comment: Vacancies are seen as an area of disinvestment. With two family homes being more prevalent to inspections and violations, vacancies can be concerning. See Appendix III for counts.

8% 21% 30% 21% 20% 41% 30% 29% 35% 23% 32%

64%

59%58%

57% 57%

52%

51% 50%49%

40%

57%

8%

21%8%

7% 12%2%

9%4%

5%

6%

11%

Tract 35(n=25)

Tract 2(n=58)

Tract 53(n=50)

Tract 15(n=108)

Tract 39(n=232)

Tract 51(n=82)

Tract 54(n=152)

Tract17.01(n=24)

Tract 58(n=104)

Tract 24(n=35)

Syracuse,NY

(n=1643)

Count and Percentage of Vacancies by Single, Two, and ThreeFamilies by Selected Census Tract in Syracuse,NY (2016)

Single Family Two Family Three Family

41

The targeted census tracts have the highest concentrations of vacancies and lead paint inspections.

42

7. The targeted census tracts have the highest levels of inactive water and open lead violationcases.

43

8. The average assessed value of two family housing in our targeted tracts is lower than thecity average (with the exception of Tract, 17.01).

Source: City of Syracuse Monthly Parcel Download, August 2016

Tract17.01 Tract 35 Tract 15 Tract 51 Tract 24 Tract 39 Tract 54 Tract 42 Tract 53 Tract 54 Syracuse,

NYOne Family $72,294 $70,881 $64,632 $47,808 $45,652 $37,796 $37,215 $36,100 $35,127 $34,812 $62,022Two Family $61,773 $61,154 $58,491 $50,500 $58,800 $38,983 $37,633 $32,883 $35,037 $40,999 $61,767Three Family $70,943 $89,472 $62,633 $58,020 $57,802 $44,561 $38,526 $15,000 $43,260 $39,333 $75,030

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

Average Assessed Value of One, Two, & Three Family Structures Built 1939 & Earlier for Selected Census Tracts, Syracuse NY (2016)

One Family Two Family Three Family

44

9. Tract 24, 51, 39, 54, 58, and 53 all have assessed values lower than the citywide average.

Source: Monthly Parcel Merged File, 2006,2011, March 2016

Tract 35 Tract17.01 Tract 2 Tract 15 Tract 24 Tract 51 Tract 39 Tract 54 Tract 58 Tract 53 Syracuse,

NY2006 $58,39 $59,27 $55,31 $52,57 $46,89 $43,72 $34,72 $35,39 $35,33 $33,48 $45,342011 $62,88 $60,48 $56,19 $51,99 $46,96 $43,97 $35,59 $35,42 $35,33 $34,82 $46,192016 $57,84 $61,25 $56,71 $51,82 $45,65 $43,37 $35,39 $34,53 $35,29 $33,58 $45,73

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Assessed Value Over Time in Select Census Tracts, Syracuse, N.Y. (2006-2016)

2006 2011 2016

45

INSPECTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Number of days until risk is reduced is longer than the city

average within several selected census tracts. In Census Tract

35, it takes on average 276 days for a housing unit to be cleared

as hazard-free from lead.

Although the select census tracts

only make up about 20% of the

total population, they account for

almost half of the inspections in

all five years.

78% of housing units with an

open inspection are over 60 days

until total risk reduced in Census

Tract 39.

87% of inspections in our

targeted tracts occur in low

assessed value housing units

($59,000 or less)

Most of the inspections and

violations in Syracuse, NY occur

in two family housing.

The majority of open inspections

in our selected census tracts are

in rental properties.

46

1. Although the select census tracts only make up about 20% of the total population, theyaccount for almost half of the inspections in all five years.

Source: 2016 Onondaga County Health Department Inspect Data

182

97 101 102117

325

228 230245

272

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Inspections in Select Census Tracts and Syracuse, NY (2011-2015)

Targeted Tracts Syracuse, N.Y.

47

2. Census Tracts 15, 39, and 54 have the highest concentration of lead inspections.

48

3. Most of the lead inspections in Syracuse, NY occur in two family housing (936).

Source: 2016 Onondaga County Health Department Inspect Data

936

523

271

186

44

Two Family Single Family Apartment Three Family Multiple Residence

Lead Inspections by Land Use, Syracuse, NY (2006-2016)

49

4. The most open violations occurred in two family homes. Tract 39 had the highest number of open violations.


Comment: In Syracuse, NY, there were 110 open inspections in single family homes, 201 in two family homes, and 55 for three family homes. This citywide data follows a similar pattern to the select census tracts.

50

5. The majority of open inspections in our selected census tracts are in rental properties.

Source: Onondaga County Lead Inspections and Monthly Parcel Merged File, March 2016

Comment: Syracuse has a total of 256 open inspections, 69% (179) are in rental properties.

20

1513

1211

8 86

53

19

12

8 8

11

56

34

1

Tract 39 Tract 54 Tract 51 Tract 58 Tract 15 Tract 35 Tract 53 Tract 2 Tract 24 Tract17.01

Open Inspections in Rental Properties, Syracuse, NY(2015)

Total Open Inspections Open Inspections in Rental Properties

51

6. 78% of housing units with an open inspection are over 60 days until total risk reduced in Census Tract 39.


Comment: See Appendix IV for counts.

78%75% 75%

70% 69%63%

57% 55%52% 50%

73%

Tract 39(n=161)

Tract 24(n=18)

Tract 58(n=69)

Tract 54(n=96)

Tract 15(n=64)

Tract 51(n=50)

Tract 2(n=33)

Tract 17.01(n=11)

Tract 53(n=25)

Tract 35(n=10)

Syracuse NY(n=1152)

Percentage of Housing Units with Inspections Over 60 Days Open by Census Tract, Syracuse, NY (2015)

52

7. Number of days until risk is reduced is longer than the city average within several selected census tracts. In Census Tract 35, it takes on average 276 days for a housing unit to be cleared as hazard-free from lead.


276

215 210190

178160 155 151 140

124

158

Tract 35 Tract 24 Tract17.01

Tract 58 Tract 51 Tract 39 Tract 54 Tract 15 Tract 53 Tract 2 Syracuse,NY

Average Days to Total Risk Reduced for Selected Census Tracts, Syracuse, NY (2015)

53

8. 87% of inspections in our targeted tracts occur in low assessed value housing units ($59,000 or less). 77.5 % of inspections in Syracuse, NY occur in low assessed value housing units.



82% of open inspections within our targeted tracts occur in low assessed value housing units ($59,000 and less). 69% of open inspections in Syracuse, NY occur in low assessed value housing units.


0.5%

32%

45%

18%

4%2%1%

43% 43%

10%

1% 0%

<$20,000 $20,000-39,000 $40,000-59,000 $60,000-79,000 $80,000-99,000 $100,000+

Assesed Values of Inspections by Range for Targeted Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2011-2015)

Syracuse NY Targeted Tracts

1%

26%

42%

18%

8%5%

1%

36%

45%

13%

3% 3%

<$20,000 $20,000-39,000 $40,000-59,000 $60,000-79,000 $80,000-99,000 $100,000+

Assesed Values of Open Inspections by Range for Targeted Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2011-2015)

Syracuse NY Targeted Tracts

54

9. 170 out of the 448 (38%) properties owned by the landlord residing at 431 E. Fayette Street are two family homes. This number is significantly higher than any of the other landlords owning high numbers of two family homes.



12%

20%

38%

42%

48%

64%

431 East Fayette Street

1721 South Saline Street

4736 Onondaga Blvd

735 West Senseca Turnpike

835 West Onondaga Street

713 Vine Street

Landlords with the Highest Percentage of Houses Built Before 1939 in Syracuse, N.Y.

55

10. The owners with the highest number of lead inspections also have the highest number of open code enforcement violations.

Owner Name Owner Address # of inspections Properties IPS

Complaints Open Lead Inspections

GSPDC STE 375 431 E. FAYETTE ST Syracuse NY 47 448 50 23

William D'Angelo 713 VINE ST Liverpool NY 40 36 46 2 Endzone Properties PO BOX 11506 Syracuse NY 34 39 71 2 Brian Murphy 735 W SENECA TNPK Syracuse NY 32 68 40 1 Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp 1721 S SALINA ST Syracuse NY 20 86 13 3

Syracuse Housing Authority

PIONEER HOMES 516 BURT ST Syracuse NY 16 33 2 13

A&M Properties A&M PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 216 Clay NY 14 43 38 4

Lawrence Davis 549 W SENECA TPKE Syracuse NY 13 10 9 0 Floyd Mitchell PO BOX 541 Syracuse NY 11 13 20 5 Castaldo Holdings Inc 16 ALEX WAY Poughkeepsie NY 10 18 16 1 Wayne Wager 329 WILMORE PL Syracuse NY 10 32 3 1 Giovanni Canzano PO BOX 11662 Syracuse NY 9 26 10 0 Ivan Lucak PO BOX 244 Syracuse NY 9 6 6 2 Salina Square LLC 1201 E FAYETTE ST Syracuse NY 9 138 8 7 Ross H Sanford III 255 FITCH ST Syracuse NY 8 9 4 3 Fhalil Cliona Nic An 3109 BRAMBLE DR Reno NV 8 5 9 3 Peter Martin PO BOX 747 Bayside CA 8 14 7 0 121 Pond St LLC 121 POND ST Syracuse NY 7 7 4 1 Mansop Enterprises LLC 2000 E. FAYETTE ST Syracuse NY 7 5 14 0 Voumard Rental Properties 221 BOSTON ST Syracuse NY 7 4 11 2

Hasan Properties LLC 4170 OLD HOMESTEAD RD Syracuse NY 7 7 11 0

Anita Washinton 8053 CANDELA LN Clay NY 7 7 7 1

Mbar Holdings MBAR HOLDINGS PO BOX 150603 Brooklyn NY 7 10 3 0

56

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DATA METHODS

FINDINGS


APPENDIX

v CENSUS TRACT PROFILES

57

60% Rental HousingCost Burden

85% houses builtbefore 1939

44% renter occupied

$66,860 Average of Assessed

Two Family Home Values

CENSUS TRACT 2

Number of Open Inspections: 6

Number of Open Violations: 2

Inspections 60+ Days Open: 57%

Average Days until Risk Reduced: 124

Of the 36% two family homes,

59% are vacant.

91% Children Under 5 Living in Poverty

6% African American4% Foreign-Born

58



54% renter occupied








57% are vacant.

CENSUS TRACT 1572% Children Under 5 Living in Poverty

29% African American 42% Foreign-Born

59



36% renter occupied








50% are vacant.

CENSUS TRACT 17.0178% Children Under 5 Living in Poverty


60



50% renter occupied








35% are vacant.



61



34% renter occupied










64% are vacant.

62



48% renter occupied



CENSUS TRACT 39








57% are vacant.

63



44% renter occupied



CENSUS TRACT 51








52% are vacant.

64



43% renter occupied



CENSUS TRACT 53








58% are vacant.

65



45% renter occupied

$37,665Average of Assessed


CENSUS TRACT 54








51% are vacant.

66



46% renter occupied










49% are vacant.

67

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DATA METHODS

FINDINGS


APPENDIX

v POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

68


Maryland Lead Risk Reduction in Housing Act

WHAT: The State of Maryland enacted the Lead Risk Reduction in Housing Act in 1994, requiring owners of all rental structures built before 1950 to register their properties with the state. The law was amended in 2012 to include properties built before 1978. Each year, owners must pay a $30 registration fee or be subject to a penalty of $90.

The law also requires that, after any change in tenant occupancy, the owner must arrange for an independent, accredited lead inspector to complete a visual inspection for chipping or peeling paint and to test the property for lead-contaminated dust. If any chipping or peeling is visible, the owner must have an accredited lead inspector remove or replace the paint. A “failing certificate” is filed to the Maryland Department of the Environment if a property fails the lead dust test.

For those properties that do not pass inspection—or for any property occupied by a pregnant woman or child under the age of six with blood lead levels over 10 µg/dL— property owners must remediate the hazards and pass a secondary dust test within 30 days. If tenants must be temporarily relocated during this time, owners are responsible for incurring all

associated costs. Owners are finally issued a Lead Paint Risk Reduction Certificate once their property passes inspection.

Although this law passed in 1994, it was not fully implemented until two years later.16

WHY: Since this policy was put into effect, the State of Maryland has seen significant improvements. In 1995, one year before the law went into effect, approximately 12,000 children ages 0-72 months tested positive for blood lead levels above the acceptable limit. By 2014, 355 of the 109,031 children tested (0.3%) showed positive for elevated blood lead levels.17

Within the City of Syracuse, a similar policy would require a great deal of financial and human support to maintain registration data, collect fees, and administer private inspections. Significant coordination between private lead inspectors, City officials, and the Onondaga County Health Department would be necessary to ensure all processes are properly completed. Still, this model may be beneficial to pursue as it shifts much of the responsibility of lead hazard reduction from City staff to landlords and private inspectors.

69

Rochester Ordinance

WHAT: The City of Rochester implemented three lead ordinances in 2005: City Code Resolutions 23, 24 and 25. Ordinance 23 states that City will use the Certificate of Occupancy inspection process as a foundation for addressing lead paint poisoning. Through this process, the City conducts regular and ongoing visual inspections to ensure the property is adhering to all local, state and federal codes. Ordinance 23 also identifies 39 census tracts that have a “disproportionately high number of cases of lead poisoning,” which will be targeted specifically. Based on the type of residential unit, however, the Certificates of Occupancy must be renewed at different intervals.18

One- and two-family structures must renew their Certificate of Occupancy every six years, while multiple dwellings and mixed use occupancies with at least one occupied unit must be renewed every three years. The exception to this rule is if a one- or two-family structure is located in a “Lead High Risk Area,” in which case a Certificate of Occupancy must also be renewed every three years. Those who fail to comply are subject to a fine of $150 per violation, which is doubled each subsequent time up to $600. The process for renewing a Certificate of Occupancy can be found in Appendix X.19

Once approved by the inspector, the pending Certificate of Occupancy is electronically placed in a queue for the support staff to process. Unless the owner or agent expresses a need to have the Certificate of Occupancy processed sooner, it is typically processed and mailed to the applicant within ten business days of being requested by the inspector.19Beyond updating their inspection processes, the City also recognized the importance of encouraging residents to

request inspections themselves, particularly those of single-family, owner-occupied homes. The City subsequently established a voluntary program under Ordinance 25 to promote proactivity and awareness, wherein homebuyers are provided a database of all properties that have undergone treatment for lead remediation or abatement.20 According to Gary Kirkmire, Director of Inspection and Compliance Services, the City employs 24 state-certified code enforcement officers to conduct tests and sampling. In total, these projects cost the City an estimated $600,000 per year. Of that amount, Monroe County pays just over 50% at $310,000 (G. Kirkmire, personal communication, November 10, 2016).

WHY: Following the implementation of these ordinances, the City of Rochester saw an 85% decrease in the total number of children with lead poisoning between 2004 to 2015.21 Adopting similar policies in the City of Syracuse would certainly be ambitious, as conducting inspections of all rental properties every 3-6 years would require a significant expansion of both personnel and funding. However, given the City of Syracuse’s relationship with Onondaga County, funding this kind of program may be more feasible if the two jurisdictions were to combine financial resources.

70

Philadelphia Lead Court

WHAT: In 2002, Philadelphia created the nation’s first-ever Lead Court to exclusively oversee cases involving lead remediation orders. If property owners fail to show adequate progress in remediating identified lead hazards, the Lead Court provides the City with legal authority to impose fines between $1,000 and $5,000 per violation. In response to a citywide backlog of nearly 1,400 properties with open lead violations, the City established the specialty court to better ensure compliance and quicken the remediation process. The Lead Court convenes on a bi-weekly basis and hears 20-35 cases during each session.22

WHY: Philadelphia’s Lead Court has yielded major results. Since its implementation, the City has seen a 50% reduction in the number of children affected by lead poisoning. In addition, homes are being cleared at four times the rate of clearance in 2001. Between 2002 to 2008, 59% of properties have been cleared due to litigation; the percent of clearance has not been higher due to budgetary limitations met by both property owners and the City.22

Implementing a model of this policy in the City of Syracuse may be somewhat feasible. The City currently maintains a Housing Court that convenes once a month, which could be adjusted to include an additional session for lead-related litigation. However, a Lead Court in the City of Syracuse may be most effective paired with a law or program providing additional support to property owners. With a limited amount of resources to assist in the remediation process, a system of fines may be less effective at ensuring landlord compliance. Additional challenges to pursuing this model include obtaining the funding and legal personnel to hold an additional session per month.

71

City of Detroit Property Maintenance Code

WHAT: Following an amendment made to the City Code in 2010, the City of Detroit Buildings and Safety Engineering Department currently enforces a Property Maintenance Code requiring the following:

1. All owners of rental properties built before 1978 must have a lead inspection and risk assessment performed to determine the presence of lead-based paint

2. Prior to tenant occupation of the property, all identified hazards must be reduced or controlled using interim controls and/or state-defined abatement standards

3. In order to receive a Certificate of Compliance from the City of Detroit, owners must obtain both a lead clearance and clearance examination by a state certified inspector. A Certificate of Compliance is required for occupancy.

A number of financial penalties are in place to ensure compliance among property owners, including a $500 fine imposed for each day a lead hazard violation remains open. Additional fines specifically for non-compliance with the Property Maintenance Code range from $500-$2,000 for the first offense, $1,000-$4,000 for the second offense, $2,000-$8,000 for third offense, and $2,000-$8,000 for all subsequent offenses, depending on the number of units per housing structure.

In the State of Michigan, renting a housing unit containing known lead-based paint hazards is also considered a criminal offense when child occupants are found to have elevated blood lead levels. Under these circumstances, property owners face up to 93 days in jail and a $5,000 fine for a first-time offense. Fines increase to $10,000 for all subsequent offenses.23

WHY: By holding landlords and property owners legally accountable to the requirements under the Property Maintenance Code, the City of Detroit has seen significant improvements in lead hazard reduction. According to City officials, local prosecutors have brought many property owners to court for non-compliance, resulting in the remediation of nearly 300 additional rental properties (M. Schottenfel, personal communication, November 18, 2016). Given such a high volume of litigation, a model of this policy may be most feasible in the City of Syracuse alongside the implementation of a designated Lead Court. However, imposing such steep fines would provide the City much-needed revenue, some of which be directed towards funding the court.

72

FUNDING

Social Impact Bonds.An innovative alternative to relying on federal grants or philanthropy, social impact bonds (SIBs) are a modern funding tool that leverages private investment to fund prevention-focused social programs. Private investors are only repaid for the upfront funding they provide if the objective or goal of the program is effectively met based on mutually agreed-on, measurable metrics. These reimbursements (in addition to returns of up to 13%) are provided by the federal government using funds that have been saved by reducing the social problem at hand.24

SIBs are currently launched 17 states, with Massachusetts being the first to pilot the funding strategy to address issues of homelessness and youth recidivism.25 In using SIBs to fund lead-related programs, a major challenge the City of Syracuse may encounter is identifying which quantitative metrics should be used to determine program effectiveness. It may be difficult to prove any reductions in lead poisoning are a direct result of the program and not some intervening variable. Still, social impact bonds remain a promising funding technique for lead policies and programs that may be worthwhile for the City of Syracuse to examine.

Medicaid Reimbursment Through a federal-state waiver granting the state authority to operate its entire public health care program in 2009, the State of Rhode Island currently uses Medicaid to fund a majority of its non-medical, case management lead services. These services (including window replacement, lead education, home visits and inspections, and dust and soil tests) are administered by four, state-certified Comprehensive Lead Centers (CLCs), which Medicaid reimburses through an independent

billing process. While the services offered by CLCs are available to all children in the state, regardless of their insurance provider, CLCs are only fully reimbursed for services provided to Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of six with elevated blood lead levels of 15 µg/dL or greater. Despite these limitations, this funding mechanism continues to provide the state significant financial support, as nearly half of children with the with blood lead levels of 5 µg/dL are enrolled in the state Medicaid program.26

Obtaining insurance-based funding for lead programs in City of Syracuse would be a lengthy and ambitious process. Beyond requiring federal legislation granting New York State the independence to manage its health care programs, centralized service centers modeling Rhode Island’s CLCs would have to be funded and staffed; otherwise, pursuing this strategy would entail a complete restructuring of the reimbursement system. However, the strategy serves as a successful example of funding lead programs through creative avenues, which the City of Syracuse may be able to draw from to identify other potential funding streams.

Taxes, Fees & Fines In 2004, the State of New Jersey created a Lead Hazard Control Assistance Fund (LHCAF) to provide loans and grants to eligible property owners for lead hazard remediation efforts. A significant portion of the LHCAF is funded by a statewide sales tax imposed on every container of paint or surface coating material. Of this collected sales tax revenue, a minimum of $7 million and maximum of $14 million per year must be allocated towards the LHCAF. The LHCAF is also funded by a $20 per unit fee

73

charged at the time of all inspections required of multiple dwellings. The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs estimates nearly 140,000 multiple dwellings are subject to lead-associated inspections each year, yielding an additional $2,800,000 collected from this fee alone that can be used to support the LHCAF.27 It is unlikely the City of Syracuse could depend of these taxes and fees as the sole funding mechanism for their lead programs, but these strategies may be worth pursuing as a supplemental funding source.

New Jersey’s Lead Hazard Control Assistance Fund and Missouri’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund use fees from various legislation or fines from code violations to fund programs such as rental housing inspections, lead remediation programs, etc. If, in the city of Syracuse the money from code violation fines simply goes into the general fund, it may be worth looking to create a fund solely set aside for lead remediation programs the city decides to implement. This way, funds associated with substandard housing will be used specifically to address substandard housing in the city, rather than fund policies unrelated to the issue at hand.

The city of Syracuse should continue to apply for grant funding designated for housing remediation. Since the city recently was denied a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, efforts to improve the reputation of city management should be actively pursued. Further, it should work with the Onondaga County Health Department as they were recently granted with housing remediation funds from HUD. Some of those funds will most likely be allocated for the city specifically. Combining funding methods previously mentioned with grant money, moreover combining government and non-governmental funds, will increase the opportunities for the city to expand its lead remediation efforts and programs.

74

OUTREACH STRATEGIES Lead remediation policies in the City of Syracuse have been mainly reactive, with the few proactive components of these policies relying on the self-reporting of lead paint hazards by tenants or landlords. This report recommends a new and innovative outreach program that allows the City to lower the rate of childhood lead poisonings by addressing hazards before poisoning occurs. Traditional outreach methods such as public forums and newspaper articles tend to be less effective in disinvested neighborhoods. By tailoring outreach strategies to the specific needs of each community within a populace, other lead programs have seen great success. Tailored outreach in the City of Syracuse would involve researching and understanding the populations of our selected census tracts and partnering with community organizations to create more effective outreach procedures. When reaching out to the City’s diverse communities, it is important to consider the following:

Communication: English may limitaccess to the refugee population.

Time constraints: Public meetings canprove difficult with many low-incomefamily members working multiple jobs.

Child Care: Families may not haveaccess to child care in order to attendpublic meetings.

Religious/faith affiliations: Someconsiderations may need to be madefor separate belief systems.

Culture: Consider the customs andtraditions of the diverse Syracusepopulation and work with local andcommunity leaders that are trustedand have the trust of their

Rhode Island Lead Rehabilitation Seminar The Lead Hazard Mitigation Act requires property owners to take a 3-hour Lead Hazard Awareness Seminar. Classes are available online for tenants to educate themselves on the causes and symptoms of lead poisoning. There is also an interactive database of resources that property owners and tenants can use when faced with lead hazards.

Connecticut State Department of Education Lead Prevention and Intervention The Connecticut State Department of Education provides online resources and services for lead hazard prevention and remediation. In addition, teachers receive training from the Department in educating parents on the importance of applying for health and safety inspections in their homes. Through this public education-based strategy, teachers are able to connect concerned parents with the resources available to help them with lead hazards.

75

CITY OF SYRACUSE OUTREACH STRATEGIES

Faith-Based Organizations The Church and places of spiritual dwelling are particularly instrumental in areas of disinvestment. Leaders in these organizations are well-equipped to speak on issues facing their communities. These faith based groups can be an effective tool in building public awareness and community activism. The faith-based organizations listed below may be useful in making lead a more salient issue across the community:

Alliance of Communities TRansformingSyracuse (ACTS)

Tucker Missionary Baptist Church AME Zion Church Islamic Society of Central New York

(ISCNY) Catholic Charities of Onondaga County Interfaith Works

Parent-Based Organizations Parent-run organizations have the direct reach and ability to mobilize parents in the community. Many after school programs and community centers have strong relationships with the parents of the children attending the center, as many parents serve as volunteers themselves. Relaying information through the following centers may go a long way in ameliorating the lead poisoning in the City of Syracuse:

Parents for Public Schools Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) - 17

elementary schools in the SyracuseCity School District

Wilson Park Community Center Boys and Girls Club Centers - 6 clubs in

the City of Syracuse

Social Service Organizations Many social service providers in the City of Syracuse staff a Housing Coordinator, whose primary responsibilities include helping families in certain communities advocate for better housing conditions. The Syracuse Community Health Center, located on the Southside, serves 60-70% of Syracuse’s at risk populations, including the elderly, single family households, households below the poverty level, Medicaid recipients, and those without a high school diploma. Currently, the Center provides free lead testing to children upon a parent’s request. Their programs on other medical issues are typically well-attended, suggesting this organization and the at-risk populations they reach may be a useful source for lead education and outreach.

76

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

PROBLEM STATEMENT

DATA METHODS

FINDINGS



v APPENDIX

77

APPENDIX I

78

APPENDIX II

Demographics

Nativity and Citizenship Status for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse New York (2010-2014)

Geography Total Margin of Error

Foreign Born

Margin of

Error

Naturalized U.S. citizen

Margin of Error

Foreign Born: Not a U.S. citizen

Margin of Error

Tract 2 2,917 387 190 165 42 46 148 152 Tract 15 3,230 375 1,358 349 162 68 1,196 350 Tract 17.01 2,611 360 183 110 137 78 46 43 Tract 24 1,962 333 572 191 76 45 496 184 Tract 35 2,382 320 267 119 53 51 214 100 Tract 39 3,394 333 130 101 65 50 65 56 Tract 51 2,247 277 102 65 54 40 48 34 Tract 53 1,953 242 308 209 89 63 219 195 Tract 54 3,156 345 386 215 183 152 203 182 Tract 58 2,571 279 136 66 112 55 24 23 Syracuse, NY 144,648 52 17,120 975 5,465 547 11,655 916

Percentage of Householders by Race for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2010-2014)

Census Tract % White

% Black or African

American

% American Indian and

Alaska native % Asian

% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific

Islander % Some

other race % Two or

more races Total

Tract 2 83% 6% 0% 5% 0% 4% 2% 1,311 Tract 15 39% 29% 0% 18% 0% 8% 6% 942

Tract 17.01 72% 16% 3% 3% 0% 6% 0% 1,001

Tract 24 59% 30% 2% 6% 0% 2% 2% 751 Tract 35 48% 41% 0% 5% 0% 2% 4% 947 Tract 39 42% 46% 0% 1% 0% 8% 3% 1,242 Tract 51 34% 59% 1% 1% 0% 4% 1% 840

Tract 53 10% 86% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 554 Tract 54 9% 81% 0% 4% 0% 4% 2% 873 Tract 58 22% 68% 1% 0% 0% 3% 7% 836 Syracuse

, NY 62% 28% 1% 4% 0% 2% 3% 55,279

79

Median Income of Households by Census Tract in Syracuse, NY and Select Cities (2010-2014)

Census Tracts

Median Income by Year

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tract 2 $ 29,560 $ 30,841 $ 30,417 $ 32,793 $ 34,883

Tract 15 $ 24,640 $ 22,500 $ 24,740 $ 23,587 $ 24,635

Tract 17.01 $ 32,434 $ 35,455 $ 31,964 $ 27,331 $ 27,226

Tract 24 $ 22,167 $ 25,098 $ 17,488 $ 24,609 $ 22,036

Tract 35 $ 21,827 $ 26,100 $ 17,159 $ 15,819 $ 17,863

Tract 39 $ 17,795 $ 18,843 $ 19,500 $ 16,607 $ 19,758

Tract 51 $ 25,208 $ 26,078 $ 23,917 $ 21,272 $ 24,394

Tract 53 $ 15,814 $ 16,116 $ 21,352 $ 20,550 $ 21,382

Tract 54 $ 20,110 $ 21,745 $ 25,855 $ 28,929 $ 29,938

Tract 58 $ 27,604 $ 26,741 $ 27,333 $ 28,090 $ 29,014

Syracuse, N.Y. $ 30,891 $ 31,689 $ 31,459 $ 31,365 $ 31,566

Albany, N.Y. $ 39,158 $ 38,394 $ 40,145 $ 40,287 $ 41,099

Rochester, N.Y. $ 30,138 $ 30,367 $ 30,708 $ 30,875 $ 30,784

Buffalo, N.Y. $ 30,043 $ 30,230 $ 30,502 $ 30,942 $ 31,668

80

APPENDIX III

Housing

Percentage of Single, Two, and Three Family Homes by Year Built for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY

Census Tract Year Built Structure Total Homes Count Single Family Two Family Three Family Total

Tract 15 1939 Earlier 50% 6% 41% 97%

555 1950-1979 2% 0% 1% 3%

1980 After 0% 0% 0% 0%

Tract 17.01 1939 Earlier 54% 29% 2% 85%

624 1950-1979 7% 2% 0% 9%

1980 After 6% 0% 0% 6%

Tract 24 1939 Earlier 43% 6% 34% 83%

315 1950-1979 1% 0% 2% 3%

1980 After 14% 0% 0% 14%

Tract 35 1939 Earlier 44% 5% 37% 85%

476 1950-1979 2% 0% 2% 4%

1980 After 9% 0% 1% 11%

Tract 39 1939 Earlier 32% 6% 43% 81%

700 1950-1979 0.4% 0.3% 1.0% 1.7%

1980 After 16% 0% 1% 17%

Tract 2 1939 Earlier 48% 3% 35% 85%

824 1950-1979 13% 0% 1% 14%

1980 After 1% 0% 0% 1%

Tract 51 1939 Earlier 70% 1% 22% 93%

672 1950-1979 5% 0% 1% 7%

1980 After 0% 0% 0% 0%

Tract 53 1939 Earlier 41% 6% 37% 83%

278 1950-1979 1% 0% 0% 2%

1980 After 14% 0% 1% 15%

Tract 54 1939 Earlier 59% 5% 32% 96%

720 1950-1979 1% 0% 0% 1%

1980 After 2% 0.0% 0.4% 3%

Tract 58 1939 Earlier 66% 1% 22% 90% 733

1950-1979 7% 0% 2% 9%

81

1980 After 1% 0% 0% 1%

Syracuse 1939 Earlier 50%ff 2% 20% 72%

32521 1950-1979 23% 0% 1% 24%

1980 After 3% 0% 0% 3%

Single, Two, & Three Family Residences for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2016)

Census Tract Single Family Two Family Three Family Total

Syracuse, NY 75% 22% 3% 32,578 Tract 51 75% 24% 1% 672 Tract 58 74% 25% 1% 733 Tract 17.01 66% 31% 3% 624 Tract 54 62% 33% 5% 720

Tract 2 61% 36% 3% 829 Tract 24 59% 35% 6% 316 Tract 53 56% 38% 6% 278 Tract 35 55% 39% 5% 476 Tract 15 53% 41% 6% 558 Tract 39 49% 45% 6% 701

Percentage of Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Structures for Select Census Tracts, Syracuse N.Y (2010-2014)

Census Tract 2010 2012 2014 Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner

Tract 2 51% 49% 60% 40% 64% 36% Tract 15 87% 13% 81% 19% 80% 20% Tract 17.01 61% 39% 61% 39% 57% 43% Tract 24 82% 18% 86% 14% 87% 13% Tract 35 72% 28% 70% 30% 73% 27% Tract 39 81% 19% 73% 27% 69% 31% Tract 51 55% 45% 55% 45% 56% 44% Tract 53 60% 40% 70% 30% 77% 23% Tract 54 55% 45% 65% 35% 64% 36% Tract 58 49% 51% 54% 46% 68% 32% Syracuse, NY 59% 41% 60% 40% 61% 39%

82

Percent Renter Occupied Properties for Selected Census Tracts in Syracuse, NY (2016)

Census Tract Percent Renter Occupied Total

Tract 15 54% 558

Tract 35 54% 476

Tract 24 50% 316

Tract 39 48% 701

Tract 58 46% 733

Tract 54 45% 729

Tract 2 44% 829

Tract 51 44% 672

Tract 53 43% 278

Tract 17.01 36% 624

Syracuse, NY 32% 32,578

Median Rent for Structures Built 1939 or Earlier in Select Census Tracts, Syracuse, N.Y. (2010-2014)

Census Tract Median Gross Rent 1939 or Earlier Median Gross Rent (All Structures)

Tract 53 $ 548 $ 667

Tract 2 $ 688 $ 723

Tract 24 $ 697 $ 718

Tract 17.01 $ 704 $ 714

Tract 39 $ 714 $ 702

Tract 35 $ 722 $ 722

Tract 54 $ 806 $ 884

Tract 58 $ 872 $ 898

Tract 15 $ 877 $ 823

Tract 51 $ 891 $ 824 Syracuse, NY $ 731 $ 719

83

Count and Percentage of Vacancies by Single, Two, and Three Families by Selected Census Tract in Syracuse, NY (2016)

Census Tract Single Family Two Family Three Family Total Count Tract 51 41% 52% 2% 82 Tract 58 35% 49% 5% 104 Tract 53 30% 58% 8% 50 Tract 54 30% 51% 9% 152 Tract 17.01 29% 50% 4% 24 Tract 24 23% 40% 6% 35 Tract 15 21% 57% 7% 108 Tract 2 21% 59% 21% 58 Tract 39 20% 57% 12% 232

Tract 35 8% 64% 8% 25 Syracuse, NY 32% 57% 11% 1,643

Average Assessed Value of One, Two, Three Family Houses Built Before 1941

Census Tract

Landuse

One Family Two Family Three Family Average

Tract 17.01 $72,294 $61,773 $70,943 $68,336

Tract 35 $70,881 $61,154 $89,472 $73,836

Tract 15 $64,632 $58,491 $62,633 $61,919

Tract 51 $47,808 $50,500 $58,020 $52,109

Tract 24 $45,652 $58,800 $57,802 $54,085

Tract 39 $37,796 $38,983 $44,561 $40,447

Tract 54 $37,215 $37,633 $38,526 $37,791

Tract 42 $36,100 $32,883 $15,000 $27,994

Tract 53 $35,127 $35,037 $43,260 $37,808

Tract 54 $34,812 $40,999 $39,333 $38,381

Syracuse, NY $62,022 $61,767 $75,030 $66,273

84

Assessed Value Over Time (2006-2016)

Census Tract 2006 2011 2016

Tract 35 $ 58,395 $ 62,886 $ 57,843

Tract 17.01 $ 59,276 $ 60,482 $ 61,258

Tract 2 $ 55,311 $ 56,192 $ 56,712

Tract 15 $ 52,573 $ 51,993 $ 51,828

Tract 24 $ 46,890 $ 46,961 $ 45,658

Tract 51 $ 43,726 $ 43,971 $ 43,370

Tract 39 $ 34,726 $ 35,590 $ 35,391

Tract 54 $ 35,391 $ 35,423 $ 34,539

Tract 58 $ 35,332 $ 35,338 $ 35,299

Tract 53 $ 33,486 $ 34,828 $ 33,584

Syracuse, NY $ 45,349 $ 46,190 $ 45,734

85

APPENDIX IV

Inspections

Open Violations by Landuse for Selected Census Tracts, Syracuse NY

Census Tract Single Family Two Family Three Family Grand Total

Tract 15 1 9 4 14

Tract 17.01 1 4 0 5

Tract 2 1 1 0 2

Tract 24 4 4 1 9

Tract 35 0 7 0 7

Tract 39 15 30 7 52

Tract 51 6 14 0 20

Tract 53 2 7 3 12

Tract 54 17 14 4 35

Tract 58 6 10 0 16

Syracuse, NY 110 201 55 366

Percentage of Housing Units with Inspections Over 60 Days Open

Census Tract Percentage Count

Tract 39 78% 161

Tract 24 75% 18

Tract 58 75% 69

Tract 54 70% 96

Tract 15 69% 64

Tract 51 63% 50

Tract 2 57% 33

Tract 17.01 55% 11

Tract 53 52% 25

Tract 35 50% 10

86

Average Days to Total Risk Reduced by Census Tract, Syracuse, NY Census Tract Average Count

Tract 35 276 13 Tract 24 215 23

Tract 17.01 210 18 Tract 58 190 87 Tract 51 178 66 Tract 39 160 204 Tract 54 155 127 Tract 15 151 90 Tract 53 140 40 Tract 2 124 59

Syracuse, N.Y. 158 1,578

87

Assessed Value of Properties with Closed Inspections by Range in Selected Census Tracts, Syracuse N.Y.

Census Tract

Assessed Value Range

<$20,000 $20,000-

39,000 $40,000-

59,000 $60,000-

79,000 $80,000-

99,000 $100,000+ Total Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Tract 15 1 0 9 1 51 4 20 4 1 0 0 2 82 7 89 Tract 17.01 1 0 0 0 11 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 16 4 20 Tract 2 0 0 19 0 0 2 28 4 5 0 0 0 52 6 58 Tract 24 0 0 3 2 11 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 17 7 24 Tract 35 0 0 2 2 8 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 11 9 20 Tract 39 1 1 122 15 52 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 181 26 207 Tract 51 0 0 18 3 33 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 63 16 79 Tract 53 0 0 21 5 18 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 8 48 Tract 54 0 0 56 6 58 11 4 0 0 2 0 0 118 19 137 Tract 58 2 0 39 7 38 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 13 92 Syracuse NY 6 3 444 76 615 124 236 54 39 22 12 14 1,352 293 1645

88

Owner Address Count of two family homes

713 Vine Street 18

118 Julian Place 21

523 First Street 22

990 James Street 29

40 Eaton Road 29

735 West Seneca Turnpike 30

500 Westcott Street 32

1721 S. Salina Street 39

1201 E. Fayette Street 46

431 E. Fayette Street 170

89

APPENDIX V

90

<all other values>LandUse

ApartmentCemeteryCommercialCommunity ServicesMultiple ResidenceParkingParksReligiousSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyUtilitiesVacant Land

¯ 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles

Census Tract 15

By Emilie Scardilla and Sam Kessler, December 5, 2016Source: Syracuse Tax Parcel Data (2015)

91

Legend<all other values>

LandUseApartmentCommercialCommunity ServicesIndustrialMultiple ResidenceParkingParksReligiousSchoolsSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyUtilitiesVacant Land

0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles¯

Census Tract 17.01

Created By Sam Kessler, November 30, 2016Source: Syracuse Tax Parcel Data (2015)92

Landuse and Census Tract 35, Syracuse N.Y., 2015

Created by Victoria Kim, November 17, 2016Source: Syracuse Tax Parcel Data (2015)¯ 0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles

Legend

LandUseApartmentCemeteryCommercialCommunity ServicesIndustrialMultiple ResidenceParkingParksRecreationReligiousSchoolsSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyUtilitiesVacant Land

94

All Other Values

LandUseApartmentCommercialCommunity ServicesMultiple ResidenceParkingParksRecreationReligiousSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyVacant Land

Created By Emilie Scardilla, November 28, 2016Source: Syracuse Tax Parcel Data (2015)¯ 0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles

Census Tract 39

95

Census Tract 51

Source: Syracuse Tax Parcels, May 2015By: Emilie Scardilla, November 7, 2016

SyracuseTaxParcelsMay2015 selection<all other values>

LandUseApartmentCommercialCommunity ServicesMultiple ResidenceParkingParksRecreationReligiousSchoolsSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyVacant Land

¯ 0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles

96

Census Tract 53


LandUseApartmentCommercialCommunity ServicesIndustrialMultiple ResidenceParkingParksRecreationReligiousSchoolsSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyVacant Land

Created by Sam Kessler, November 30, 2016Source: Syracuse Tax Parcel Data (2015)

0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles¯ 97

Census Tract 54


LandUseApartmentCommercialCommunity ServicesMultiple ResidenceParkingRecreationReligiousSchoolsSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyVacant Land

Created By Sam Kessler, November 30, 2016Source: Syracuse Tax Parcel Data (2015)¯ 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles 98

¯ 0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles


LandUse

ApartmentCommercialCommunity ServicesMultiple ResidenceParkingParksReligiousSchoolsSingle FamilyThree FamilyTwo FamilyVacant Land

Census Tract 58

Created By Sam AKessler, December 1, 2016Source: Syracuse Tax Parcel Data (2015)99

APPENDIX VI

Process for Renewing a Certificate of Occupancy

1. Each month, a list is generated reporting all expired Certificates of Occupancy. Certificate of Occupancy applications are then mailed to all property owners on this list.

2. Once a letter has been sent, a case is generated, assigned to the area Code Enforcement Officer, and electronically sent to them to be acted on in 40 days.

3. Once a completed application has been approved by Zoning and submitted to the permit office along with the associated fees, an appointment is scheduled and the owner is notified by mail of the date and time. If the date or time is not convenient, the owner can call and request it to be changed.

4. If an application is not received from property owners within the 40 day allowance, the assigned inspector is dispatched to the location and an exterior inspection is conducted from the right of way. Any exterior related violations, including failure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, are cited on a Notice and Order. The Notice and Order is mailed the next day to the property owner.

5. The assigned inspector meets the owner or their representative at the location and an inspection of the structure and premises is conducted. Any code violations found on the inspection are captured in a Notice and Order (including whether a lead dust wipe test is necessary) and the order is mailed to the property owner the following day.

6. Once all outstanding violations have been corrected and abated, or if after conducting the initial inspection no violations were identified, the assigned inspector will approve the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy electronically using his/her pen-tablet.

7. Once approved by the inspector, the pending Certificate of Occupancy is electronically placed in a queue for the support staff to process. Unless the owner or agent expresses a need to have the Certificate of Occupancy processed sooner, it is typically processed and mailed to the applicant within ten business days of being requested by the inspector.19

100

APPENDIX VII

References

1 - The History of the Use of Lead-Based Paint - Understanding Lead Pigment Litigation. (n.d.).

Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.leadlawsuits.com/history/history-of-the-use-of-lead-paint/

2 - Facts and Firsts of Lead. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst29.html

3 - Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Facilities. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13,

2016, from https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/toxic-substances-control-act-tsca-and-federal-facilities

4 - The Lead Disclosure Rule. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/enforcement/disclosure

5 - Korfmacher, K. S., & Hanley, M. L. (2013). Are Local Laws the Key to Ending Childhood Lead

Poisoning? Retrieved December 13, 2016, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967847/

6 - Lead Reduction Program. Onondaga County Government. Retrieved November 10, 2016

from http://www.ongov.net/cd/leadReduction.html

7 - Knauss, Tim. Syracuse Lead Program to Close After Being Denied Federal Funding. The Post

Standard. Retrieved November 10, 2016 from http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/syracuse_lead_program_to_close_after_being_denied_federal_funding.html

8 - What Are the Physiologic Effects of Lead Exposure? (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016,

from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=7&po=10

9 - Lead and Your Health. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Retrieved

101

September 29, 2016 from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/lead_and_your_health_508.pdf

10 - Center for Disease Control. (2010). CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood

Lead Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in “Low Level Lead Exposure Harms

Children: A Renewed Call of Primary Prevention.”

11 - Evens et al. (2015). The impact of low-level lead toxicity on school performance among

children in the Chicago Public Schools: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Environmental Health, 14-21.

12 - Lead in kids' blood linked with behavioral and emotional problems. (2015). Retrieved

December 13, 2016, from https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/lead-kids-blood-linked-behavioral-emotional-problems

13 - Economic Impacts of Lead Exposure and Remediation in Michigan. (2014, June). Michigan

Risk Science Center & Michigan Network for Children’s Environmental Health. Retrieved November 6, 2016 from https://www.ecocenter.org/sites/default/files/Lead_Cost_Report_MI_2014_smaller.pdf

14 - Lead Exposure in Children: Prevention, Detection, and Management. (2005). Pediatrics,

116(4), 1036-1046. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1947

15 - McClure, Leland F. et al. Blood Lead Levels in Young Children: US, 2009-2015. The Journal

of Pediatrics, Volume 175 , 173 - 181.

16 - Summary of Compliance Requirements. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Land/Documents/LeadFactSheets/LeadfsStandardofCare.pdf

17 - Lead poisoning cases drop in Baltimore and in Maryland, Department of the Environment

moves to reduce potential exposures in more homes. (2013, September 13). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://news.maryland.gov/mde/2015/09/03/lead-poisoning-cases-drop-in-baltimore-and-in-maryland-department-of-the-environment-moves-to-reduce-potential-exposures-in-more-homes/

102

18 - City of Rochester. City Council Resolution 2005-23. Rochester, NY:City Council. 2005b.

Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.letsmakeleadhistory.org/HelpfulLinks/tabid/77/Default.aspx

19 - Certificate of Occupancy. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589935004

20 - City of Rochester. City Council Resolution 2005-25. Rochester, NY:City Council. 2005d.

Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.letsmakeleadhistory.org/HelpfulLinks/tabid/77/Default.aspx

21 - Lead poisoned continues decade-long decrease. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

https://www.flhsa.org/lead-poisoned-continues-decade-long-decrease

22 - Public Citizens for Children and Youth. (2008). The Lead Court and Healthier Children: The

Philadelphia Story 2008 (Part 3). Philadelphia, PA: Brown, C., Simon, A., Holmes, S.

Retrieved December 13, 2016, from https://www.in.gov/isdh/files/Philly_Lead_Court.pdf

23 - Lead and the Law. CLEARCorps Detroit. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from

http://clearcorpsdetroit.org/lead-faq/lead-and-the-law/

24 - Social Impact Bonds. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/initiatives/social-impact-bonds/

25 - Pettus, Ashley. (2013, July). Social Impact Bonds. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved from

http://harvardmag.com/pdf/2013/07-pdfs/0713-11.pdf

26 - Case Studies in Healthcare Financing of Healthy Homes Services: Medicaid Reimbursement

for Lead Follow-Up Services in Rhode Island. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.nchh.org/Portals/0/Contents/Lead_RI_final.pdf

27 - New Jersey Legislature, Office of Legislative Services. (2004, February 04). [S. Doc. 1348

from 210th Cong.]. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/S1500/1348_E1.HTM

103