1. St. Lawrence County
Housing Conditions Assessment Report
Assessment of Housing Conditions for the New York State Community
Development Block Grant Program
August 2016

2. ii
Contents
1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ iv
2. CountyDescription...........................................................................................................................1
2.1. CountyDemographicsandTrends........................................................................................... 1
2.1.1. St.Lawrence CountyComparedto New York State.…………………………..……….………. 1
2.1.2. St.Lawrence County,1990 – 2014…........................................................................ 3
3. HousingDescriptionof St. Lawrence County.................................................................................... 5
3.1. Demographicsand Trends....................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1. St.Lawrence County ComparedtoNew York State...........................................…... 5
3.1.2. St.Lawrence County,1990 – 2014........................................................................... 7
3.1.3. Townof Governeur.................................................................................................. 8
3.2. HousingMarket........................................................................................................................8
3.3. HomelessinSt.Lawrence County.......................................................................................... 10
3.3.1. HomelessCount..................................................................................................... 10
3.3.2. ReasonsforHomelessness.……………………………………………………………………………….. 12
3.3.3. ProposedHomeless Shelter………………………………………………………………………………. 12
3.4. WindshieldSurveys................................................................................................................ 13
4. InterviewswithAgency Heads........................................................................................................ 15
5. Online Survey.................................................................................................................................18
5.1. SurveyResults........................................................................................................................ 19
5.1.1. InputfromSurveyRespondents............................................................................ 22
6. Descriptionof Past Programs......................................................................................................... 24
6.1. CommunityDevelopmentBlockGrants.................................................................................24
6.1.1. DirectHomeownershipAssistance Program(DHAP)............................................. 24
6.1.2. HousingRehabilitation(HR)...................................................................................24
6.2. 421 – F....................................................................................................................................25
7. Summary........................................................................................................................................ 26
AppendixA – Demographic Data......................................................................................................A-1
A.1. NewYorkState Demographics2009 – 2014........................................................................A-1
A.2. St.Lawrence County Demographics 2009 – 2014................................................................A-2
A.3. St.Lawrence CountyComparedtoNew York State (2009)..................................................A-3
A.4. St.Lawrence CountyComparedtoNew York State (2014)..................................................A-4
A.5. Total Population...................................................................................................................A-5

3. iii
Contents continued
A.6. Total Numberof Households...............................................................................................A-5
A.7. Single ParentHouseholds.....................................................................................................A-6
A.8. PovertyPopulations(Total PovertyPopulation,ElderlyLivinginPoverty,&ChildrenLivingin
Poverty........................................................................................................................................A-7
A.9. UnemploymentRate............................................................................................................A-8
A.10. MedianHouseholdIncome................................................................................................A-8
A.11. AdultswithoutaHighSchool Diploma............................................................................... A-9
A.12. Year Structure Built..........................................................................................................A-10
A.13. Vacant HousingUnits.......................................................................................................A-11
A.14. MedianHome Value.........................................................................................................A-11
A.15. Statusof Occupants(Owneror Renter)...........................................................................A-12
AppendixB – WindshieldSurveyData.............................................................................................. B-1
B.1. Sample WindshieldSurveyForm, Townof CantonRoad List...............................................B-1
B.2. Windshield Survey Efforts to Illustrate Housing Conditions Results, 2000 – 2016 for St.
Lawrence County.........................................................................................................................B-2
AppendixC – St. Lawrence County CommunityDevelopmentExperience......................................... C-1
C.1. 424 Low Income Homes Repairedthrough St. Lawrence County’s Community Development
BlockGrant From1986 to 2013...................................................................................................C-1
C.2. Jurisdictions that have Adopted 421 – F to Allow Stepped Increases in Assessments After
Homesare Renovated.................................................................................................................C-2
AppendixD – Online HousingAssessmentSurvey.............................................................................D-1

4. 1
1. ExecutiveSummary
The St. Lawrence CountyHousingConditionsAssessmentReportisintendedtoprovide acomprehensive
analysisof the housingconditionsthroughoutthe countyandtoassistcommunitygroupsdetermine the
needforhousingimprovement grantsandprojects. Thisassessmentfocusedonthe demographicsof
the countycomparedto NewYork State,and overthe past twenty-six years:housingconditions, the
housingmarket;the homelesspopulation;andthe methodsfordeterminingsubstandardhousingunits.
Additionally,thisreport:incorporates interviewswithagencyheadsregardingthe currentstate of
housing, assessesthe resultsof anonline housingconditionssurveythatwasopentoall St.Lawrence
Countyresidents, anddescribes the resultsand benefitsof pastprogramsimplemented withinthe
countyto improve housingconditionstodemonstrateSt.Lawrence County’sneedforfurtherhousing
improvementfunds.
HousingconditionsinSt.Lawrence Countyare generallypoor,areflectionof the sluggisheconomyand
lack of infrastructure typical of the NorthCountryRegion. Inferiorhousingconditionsgohandand hand
withhighratesof unemployment,lowerincomes,poorperformance inschool,andinsome caseshave
adverse healtheffectson occupants.
The goal of thisreport isto establishandquantifythe needforhousingrehabilitation forSt.Lawrence
Countyfor the foreseeablefuture,andto make recommendationsforactionbygovernment,non-
profits,andthe private sectorto meetthisdemand.

5. 2
2. CountyDescription
Locatedon the Canadianborderin northernNew York,St.Lawrence County issituatedbetweenthe St.
Lawrence River,the ThousandIslandsregion,andthe AdirondackMountains. St.Lawrence Countyis
comprisedof thirty-twotowns,twelve villages,andone city;the countyseatisinthe townof Canton.
The county iscomprisedof three regions:the St.Lawrence Valley,AdirondackFoothills,andthe
AdirondackMountains.
Accordingto the AmericanCommunitySurvey,in2014, the county’spopulationwas112,015 persons
withover50 percentof the populationconcentratedfive communities:the Townof Potsdam, the Town
of Massena,the Townof Canton,the Cityof Ogdensburg,andthe Townof Governeur.
It isthe largestcountybyarea inthe state,witha total landarea of 2,685 square miles of New York
State’s54,556 square miles. The populationdensity of New YorkState is359 personspersquare mile.
St. Lawrence Countyhasa much more scatteredpopulation,withadensityof only 42 personsper
square mile.
The county’s employmentbase isnotparticularlydiverseandrecentlossesinmanufacturing
employmentare beingoffsetbyincreasesinthe service sector - particularlymedical related. The ten
largestemployers currently are:ALCOA,St.Lawrence County,ClarksonUniversity,UnitedHelpers
Organization,St.Lawrence-LewisBOCES,St.Lawrence University,Claxton-HepburnMedical Center,St.
Lawrence NYSARC,Canton-PotsdamHospital,andSUNYPotsdam.
2.1 Demographics and Trends
2.1.1.St. LawrenceCountyComparedto NewYork State
Whencomparedto NewYorkState, St. Lawrence County isrelativelyandabsolutely poorer,ismore
likelytohave citizenslivinginpoverty andisgenerally lesswell-educated. St.Lawrence Countyhasa
considerably higherpercentageof residentslivinginpoverty - especiallychildrenlivinginpoverty, lower
meanand medianhouseholdincomes,ahigherpercentageof those withlow andvery-low incomes, and
a higherpercentage of workingage personswithoutacollege degree. Forspecificdataregarding
townshipsinSt.Lawrence Countysee AppendixA– Demographic Data.

6. 3
Comparisonof Estimated PopulationDemographics of New York State and St. Lawrence County, 2009 – 2014
NewYork State PercentChange
from 2009
St. Lawrence
County
PercentChange
from 2009
Total Population 19,594,330 1% 112,015 2%
Poverty Populationas a Percentof
the Total Population
15.6% 6% 19.7% 7%
ChildrenLivingin Povertyas a
Percentof the PovertyPopulation
22.1% 4% 29.7% 11%
ElderlyLiving inPoverty as a Percent
of the PovertyPopulation
11.4% 5% 9.4% -3%
Mean HouseholdIncome $ 85,736 7% $ 58,928 16%
MedianHouseholdIncome $ 58,687 6% $ 44,454 7%
Percentof HouseholdsEarning 80%
of MedianIncome
10.6% -18% 13.4% -19%
Percentof HouseholdsEarning 50%
of MedianIncome
8.2% -1% 7.2% 0%
Percentof HouseholdsEarning 30%
of MedianIncome
6.7% 143% 8.8% 42%
UnemploymentRate 8.9% 27% 10.8% 37%
Adults Withouta High School
Diploma
14.6% -6% 12.5% -7%
Percentof WorkingAge Persons(25
years +) Withouta College Degree
57.8% -2% 67.1% 0%
Source:2009-2014 American CommunitySurvey 5-YearEstimates
From 2009 to 2014, NewYork State’sestimatedpopulation,the percentage of the populationliving
belowthe povertythreshold,meanandmedianhouseholdincome,the percentof householdsearning
30% or lessof the medianincome,andthe unemploymentrate increased. There wasastate-wide
decrease inthe percentof householdsearning 80to 31% of the medianincome,the numberof adults
withouta highschool diploma,andthe percentof workingage adultswithoutacollege degree.
Likewise,St.Lawrence Countyhadanincrease intotal population, the percentageof the total and
elderlypopulationslivinginpoverty,the meanandmedianhouseholdincome,the percentof
householdsearning 30% or lessof the medianincome,andthe unemploymentrate. Overall,the county
experiencedadecrease in the percentof elderlylivinginpoverty,the percentof householdsearning
80% of the medianincome,andthe numberof adultswithoutahighschool diploma.
Despite the relativegainsof the county,St.Lawrence Countycontinuestofall behindNew York State.
From 2012 to 2014, the percentage of the populationlivingbelow the poverty thresholdin New York
State increased6%. The percentage of the populationof St.Lawrence County livingbelow the poverty
threshold increased7%. Almost20% of St. Lawrence Countyresidentsare livingbelow the poverty
thresholdascomparedto lessthan16% of New YorkState residents. If the trendcontinues,St.
Lawrence Countywill see ahigherpercentage of itspopulationlivinginpovertyascomparedtoNew
York State in yearsto come.

7. 4
Regardlessof St.Lawrence County’s3%decrease inthe percentage of elderlylivinginpovertyfrom
2012 to 2014, there wasan 11% increase inthe percentage of childrenlivingbelow the poverty
threshold,showingthatpovertyisaffectingcountyresidentsata youngerage thanthe restof the state.
From 2009 to 2014, the medianhouseholdincomeof St.Lawrence Countywas only 75% of New York
State’smedianhousehold income. Despite the apparentrelativegain of 7%,the disparityisgreater
whenlookingatthe meanhouseholdincomeinwhichthe county’sismerely 68.7% of New York State’s.
While the state’sunemploymentrate increased from7.0% in2009 to 8.9% in2014, the county’s
increased from7.9% to 10.8% in 2014, a 39% increase. The town and village ofMassena had a
substantial increase inthe unemploymentrate with percent increasesof 338% in the town and 215%
in the village principallyrelatedto manufacturing sector job lossesat General Motors and ALCOA.
In additiontohigherpercentagesof the populationlivingbelow the povertythreshold,andmedianand
meanhouseholdincomessignificantlybelow proportional levelswithNew YorkState, St.Lawrence
Countyresidentsalsolackhighlevelsof educational attainment. In2014, 12.5% of residentsdidnot
possessahighschool diplomaandoverhalf (67.1%) of workingage adultsdo nothave a college degree.
2.1.2.St. LawrenceCounty1990 – 2014
Demographic Indicators of St. Lawrence County from 1990 to 2014
1990 Value Percent 2014 Value Percent Trend
Total Population 111,974 112,015 Increase
Under 18 years 28,249 25.2% 23,411 20.9% Decrease
18-65 years 70,177 62.7% 65,529 58.5% Decrease
Over65 years 13,548 12.1% 23,075 20.6% Increase
PopulationDensity 41.7 pp mi.2
41.7 pp mi.2
No change
Numberof Households 37,877 41,579 Increase
Average HouseholdSize 2.67 persons 2.24 persons Decrease
Single Parent Households 3,518 9% 6,951 17% Increase
Single Parent Householdsin
Poverty
2,522 72% 2,220 32% Decrease
Poverty Population 17,414 16% 19,710 20% Increase
Childrenlivinginpoverty (asa
percentof the povertypop.)
5,774 33% 6,711 34% Increase
Elderlylivinginpoverty (asa
percentof the povertypop.)
1,875 11% 1,455 7.4% Decrease
In labor force 48,886 56% 49,791 56% No change
Not in labor force 37,935 44% 39,162 44% No change
Unemployed 4,533 5% 4,215 5% No change
Medianhouseholdincome $23,799 $44,454 Increase
Householdsearninglessthan
80% of medianincome
16,026 42% 16,795 40% Decrease
Adults withouta highschool
diploma
13,477 12% 11,062 10% Decrease
Source:1990 Censusand 2014 American Community Survey 5-YearEstimates

8. 5
Since 1990, the total estimated populationof St.Lawrence Countyincreasedfrom111,974 in1990 to
112,015 in2014 for an increase of 41 people. The percentage of the populationunder18years
decreasedfrom25.2% of the total populationin1990 to 20.9% of the total populationin2014. The
county’spopulation between18and 65 yearsdeclinedfrom 70,177 people (62.7%) to65,529 people
(58.5%) overthe same time frame. The percentage of St.Lawrence County’spopulationover65 years
rose from 13,548 people (12.1%) in1990 to 23,075 people (20.6%) in2014. Despite the netincrease in
population,the county’spopulationdensityfrom1990 to 2014 didnot change.
The total numberof householdsalsoincreasedduringthissame time periodwith37,877 householdsin
1990 (withanaverage householdsize of 2.67personsperhousehold) and41,579 householdsin2014
(withanaverage householdsizeof 2.24 personsperhousehold). Ironically,despite asignificantgainin
the numberof householdsoverthis14year period,the total populationlivinginhouseholdsdecreased
by approximately8,000 personsinabsolute terms.
There were 3,518 single-parenthouseholdsin1990 nearlydoublingto6,951 single-parenthouseholdsin
2014. By contrast,the numberof single-parenthouseholdslivinginpovertydecreasedfrom2,522 in
1990 to 2,220 in2014 for a percentdecrease of 12.0%. However,almost one-thirdof single-parent
households(2,220) were still livinginpoverty in 2014.
In absolute terms,the numberof peoplelivingbelow the poverty thresholdin St.Lawrence County
increasedby 4.0 percentage points, from16.0% in1990 to 20.0% in2014; a relative change of over13%.
This increase in the percent of the populationlivingbelowpoverty outpaced the increase in total
population.
St. Lawrence Countyhadan increase inthe percentage of childrenlivinginpovertyfrom 1990 to 2014.
In 1990 5,774 childrenlived inpoverty,andby2014 6,711 children were livinginpoverty. The relative
increase of childrenlivinginpoverty (nearly1,000 more children) was16.2%. This increase is even
more pronouncedgiventhe overall decrease in the number or residentsunder18 years old.
The percentof elderlylivinginpovertyinSt.Lawrence County decreased from1990 to 2014. In 1990,
1,875 elderly livedinpovertyandin2014, 1,455 elderlylived inpoverty resultinginarelative decrease
inpovertyamongthe elderlyof alittle over22 percent.
Surprisingly,despite these changingdemographics,the datarelative tothe laborforce (e.g.percentof
residentsinoroutof the labor force,those unemployed andthe annualizedunemploymentrate)
remainedthe same at56%, 44%, and 5%, respectively. Thiscoupledwiththe disproportionate
performance of householdandpercapitaincome mayhelpexplainthe relativeincreaseof persons
livinginpoverty.
From 1990 to 2014, the medianhouseholdincomeof St.Lawrence County increased from$23,799 in
1990 to $44,454 in2014 for a percentincrease of 86.8%. The percentof countyresidentsearning less
than 80% of the medianincome decreasedtwopercentage pointsduringthissame time period, from
42% of residentsin1990 to 40% in2014. Thus, despite absolute gains,only a net 2% of households
were able to escape from the 80% of medianincome strata.

9. 6
It shouldbe notedthateducational attainmentincreased overthistime frame withonly10percentof
adultsin2014 not possessingahighschool diploma(downfrom12% in 1990).
Overall, the demographictrendsof St.Lawrence Countyindicate anincrease inthe ageingpopulation
and the total povertypopulation,which,when coupledwiththe increase insingle-parenthouseholds,
leadstothe fact that householdincomesare beingstretchedfurtherin2014 than in the past, and
homeownershave greaterdifficultycovering the costsassociatedwithhome maintenance andrepairs.
3. HousingDescription
Accordingto the latestestimate,thereare 52,182 housingunits scatteredthroughoutSt.Lawrence
County,which include:year-roundunits, vacantdwellings,seasonal homesandmigratoryunits. Single-
familyhomesmake upthe largestnumberof these,with36,736 homescounty-wide.
3.1 HousingDemographics
Many of the homesthroughout St.Lawrence County are locatedinrural settings, are olderandin
seriousneedof renovationstoimprove structural damage,heatingefficiency, oraccessibility issues.
One-thirdof the homesinthe countywere builtpriorto1940, andthe medianyearstructureswere
builtwas1960. For specificinformationregardingtownshipssee AppendixA– DemographicData.
3.1.1.St. LawrenceCountyComparedto NewYork State
Comparisonof Housing DemographicsBetweenNewYork State and St. Lawrence County, 2014
NewYork State Percent St. Lawrence Co. Percent
Total Number HousingUnits 8,153,309 52,182
Housing unitsolder than 30
years
5,768,145 71% 37,362 90%
OccupiedHousing Units 7,255,528 89% 41,579 80%
Vacant HousingUnits 897,781 11% 10,603 20%
Types ofDwellingUnits
1 family 3,054,577 42% 36,736 70%
2 family/2+family 377,288 5% 783 1.5%
Apartment 3,823,663 51% 8,871 17%
Mobile home 196,156 2% 5,792 11%
Urban Location 6,971,079 85.5% 15,655 30%
Rural Location 1,182,230 14.5% 36,527 70%
Medianyear structure built 1956 1960
Medianhome value $283,700 $86,200
Renter-occupied 3,348,537 46% 12,212 29%
Owner-occupied 3,906,991 54% 29,367 71%
Overcrowdedunits 124,738 1.7% 724 1.7%
Rent burden 1,700,564 54% 5,620 46%
Source:American Community Survey 5-YearEstimates

10. 7
Whencomparedto NewYorkState from2009 to 2014, St. Lawrence Countyhasa higherpercentage of
housingunitsolderthan30 years old, vacanthousingunits,one-familyhousingunits,mobile homes,
dwellingsinrural locations,andowner-occupieddwellings.
County-wide,the numberof householdsincreasedapproximately1.7percentfrom2009 to 2014, which
ever-so-slightlyoutpacedthe state’srate of increase. However,in St.Lawrence Countyonly80percent
of all housingunitsare occupied,whereasin New YorkState 89 percentare occupied.
Single-familyhomesmake upthe majorityof St.Lawrence County’shousingoptionsat 70% (36,736
units),followedbyapartmentsat17% (8,871 units), thenmobile homesat11% (5,792 units). Two-
familyhomesare the least availableoption throughoutthe countyatonly1.5% of the housingstock
(783 units). NewYorkState’slargestdwellingtype overallisapartments, comprising51% of the state’s
total housingunits. Single-familyhomesfollow at42% (3,054,577 units),thentwo-familyhomes at5%
(377,288 units). Mobile homesare the leastabundantdwellingtype inNew YorkState overall,only
comprising2%of all housingtypes. The highpercentage of mobile homesin St.Lawrence County’s
showsthey representamore significantaffordable housingoptioninthe Countythantheydostate-
wide.
Nearly71 percentof the housingunitsinNew YorkState are more than 30 yearsold while inSt.
Lawrence County,the figure isnearly90 percent. This issignificantbecause mosthomesbuiltbefore
1980 are contaminatedwithleadfrompaintandfinishes. Lead,wheningested,disruptsneurological
developmentandcausesotherserioushealthissues.
“Older homes require enormous maintenance, and it is my experience (as a
realtor) that many of the pre-1940 homes that were remodeled in the 80s and
90s are now again in need of extensive remodeling [to remove hazardous
building materials].”
While the medianhome value in New YorkState decreased 6percentfrom2009 to 2014, the median
home value inSt.Lawrence Countyincreasedby$9,400 or 12 percentoverthe same time period.
However,it shouldbe notedthat despite thiscounty-wide increase,the medianhome value,in St.
Lawrence Countyis $86,200, lessthan one third ofNew York State’s medianhome value.
Overall NewYorkState andSt. Lawrence Countyhada higherpercentage of owneroccupiedhousing
unitsthanrenteroccupiedunits. The village of Potsdam saw a 12% increase in the percentof owner
occupiedunits and a 5% decrease in the percentage of renter occupiedhousingunits indicative of high
rental pricesdriving out low-income tenantsand creating a more favorable market for those wishing
to purchase a home .

11. 8
3.1.2.St. LawrenceCounty1990 – 2014
Housing Indicators ofSt. Lawrence County from 1990 to 2014
1990 Value Percent 2014 Value Percent Trend
Total Number of Housing
Units
47,521 52,182 Increase
OccupiedHousing Units 37,964 79.9% 41,579 79.7% Decrease
Vacant HousingUnits 9,577 20.1% 10,603 20.3% Increase
Age (numberofunits
olderthan 30 years)
28,197 59% 37,362 72% Increase
Types ofDwellingUnits
1 family 32,363 68% 36,736 70% Increase
2 family/2+family 3,386 7% 783 2% Decrease
Apartment 5,753 12% 8,871 17% Increase
Mobile Home 6,019 13% 5,792 11% Decrease
Location
Urban 16,035 34% 15,655 30% Decrease
Rural 31,486 66% 36,527 70% Increase
Medianyear structure
Built
1950 1960 Decrease
Medianhome value $86,200
Renter-occupied 11,277 29.7% 12,212 29.4% Decrease
Owner-occupied 26,687 70.3% 29,367 70.6% Increase
Overcrowdedunits 393 1.0% 724 1.7% Increase
Rent burden 4,709 42% 5,620 46% Increase
Source:1990 Censusand 2009-2014 American Community Survey 5-YearEstimates
Since 1990, the total numberof housingunitsinSt.Lawrence Countyincreasedby4,661 units,to52,182
in2014. Despite thisincrease intotal housingunits,the percentof occupiedhousingunitsdecreased
from79.9% in 1990 to 79.7% in 2014. Overthissame time period,the numberof vacanthousingunits
inSt. Lawrence Countyincreased 10.9%.
For dwellingtypes,single-familyhomesmade upthe majorityof housingoptionsin St.Lawrence County
inboth 1990 and in2014. In 1990, 68.1% of dwellingunitswere single-familywhichincreasedto70.4%
of housingunitsin2014. From 1990 to 2014, there was a 5.6 percentage pointdecreaseinthe amount
of dwellingunitsclassifiedastwo-familyhomes. In1990 3,386 units(7.1%) were two-family
households,while in2014, 783 units(1.5%) were two-familyormore dwellings. The numberof
apartmentsincreasedoverthistime periodfrom5,753 units(12.2%) in1990 to 8,871 units(17.0% in
2014. Mobile home dwellingunitsdecreasedinabundance goingfrom12.7% (6,019 units) of the
housingstockin1990 to 11.1% (5,792) in2014.
In 1990, 33.7% of housing units(16,035 units) were locatedinan urban settingascomparedto only30%
of housingunits(15,655 units) in2014. 70% of homes (36,527 units) inthe county were inrural
locations in2014, an increase from 66.3% (31,486 units) in1990.

12. 9
The numberof housingunitsin St.Lawrence County olderthan30 yearsoldwas28,179 (59.3%) in 1990,
while in2014, itwas 37,362 units(71.6%) for an increase of 12.3 percentage points.
Overall St.Lawrence Countyhada higherpercentage of owner-occupiedhousingunitsthanrenter-
occupiedunits. In1990, the percentage of owneroccupiedhousingunitsinSt.Lawrence Countywas
70.3%. In 2014, the percentage was70.6%. The percentage of renter-occupiedhousingunitsdecreased
from29.7% of housingunitsin1990 to 29.4% of housingunitsin2014. The village ofPotsdam had a
12% increase in the percent of owneroccupiedunits and a 5% decrease in the percentage of renter
occupiedhousingunits.
St. Lawrence County’snumberof overcrowdedhouseholdsincreased by33%.
The rent burden increasedfrom42% in 1990 to 46% in 2014 for St. Lawrence County, affecting 5,620
householdsin2014.
3.1.3.Townof Governeur
In contrastto the restof St.Lawrence County,the Townof Governeur,includingthe village,differsinits
housingdemographics. From2009 to 2014, the medianhome value inthe Villageof Governeur
decreased$1,200 or 2%. Both the townand the village hada decrease inthe percentof owner-
occupiedhousingunitscombinedwith anincrease inthe percentof renter-occupiedunits. Additionally,
the townand village hada significantincrease inthe percentageof overcrowdedhouseholds,rising0.7
percentage pointsfrom1990 to 2014. These differencesinhousingindicatorsmaybe due tooutside
pressuresfromFortDrum inJeffersonCounty,asGoverneurislessthanthirtymilesfromthe military
base.
3.2 HousingMarket
ThroughoutSt.Lawrence Countythere are a varietyof housingoptionsavailable onthe housingmarket.
Althoughmosthomesinthe countyare olderand locatedinrural settings,since 2013 home salesand
price have increasedthroughoutSt.Lawrence Countywhile foreclosures,the numberof homesforsale,
and the numberof days ittook to sell ahome decreased,trendsall consistentwiththe national market.
Profile ofan Average Sold Residential Single-familyProperty2005 – 2015
2005 2015 PercentChange
Unitssold 790 627 -20.6%
MedianList Price $69,500 $94,900 +36.5%
MedianSellingPrice $65,000 $86,900 +33.7%
Average Number ofBedrooms 3.2 3.1 -3.1%
Average Number ofBathrooms 1.6 1.8 +12.5%
Average Square Footage 1,558.4 1,589.2 +2.0%
Source:St. LawrenceCountyBoard of Realtors (July 2016)
In 2005, the average single-familyresidentialhome inSt.Lawrence County cost$69,500, had 3.2
bedrooms, 1.6 bathroomsandcontained anaverage of 1,558.4 square feetof space. Overthe course of

13. 10
tenyears,the medianlistprice hasincreased36.5% to $94,900 and a mediansellingprice hasincreased
33.7% to $86,900 in 2015. The average numberof bedroomsdecreased3.1% from3.2 to 3.1 in while
the average numberof bathroomsincreased12.5% to 1.8 overthe tenyearperiod. The average square
footage alsoincreased2.0%from2005 to 2015, while the average numberof unitssolddecreased
20.6% to 627 in 2015.
St. Lawrence County Board of Realtors Monthly Indicators,2013 – 2015
2013 2014 2015
Key Metrics 12 Month
Average
Percent
Change
12 Month
Average
Percent
Change
12 Month
Average
Percent
Change
NewListings 98 +10.1% 110 +12.2% 126 +11.5%
PendingSales 46 -2.1% 45 -2.2% 55 +25.0%
ClosedSales 46 0.0% 43 -8.5% 50 +13.6%
Days on Market 157 -12.8% 147 -5.8% 158 +7.5%
MedianSalesPrice $80,000 0.0% $84,000 +5.7% $87,000 +3.6%
Average Sales Price $96,010 +2.9% $96,067 +0.7% $101,927 +6.5%
Percentof List Price
Received
91.4% -0.4% 91.8% +0.5% 91.6% -0.2%
Housing
AffordabilityIndex
262 +5.0% 307 -9.6% 404 -1.4%
Inventoryof Homes
for Sale
656 +1.1% 778 +17.7% 984 +17.6%
Months’ Supplyof
Inventory
14.3 +4.4% 17.6 +22.2% 19.8 +4.8%
Source:MonthlyIndicatorReportsfromSt. Lawrence CountyBoardof Realtors,2013 – 2015
From 2013 to 2015 the numberof newlistings,acountof the propertiesthathave beennewlylistedon
the marketin a givenmonth,inSt.Lawrence Countyincreased29 percent,from98 in 2013 to 126 in
2015. Whencombinedwiththe county’sconsistentpopulationanddeclininghighwage jobbase,this
situationisindicativeof residentssellingtheirhomesandleavingthe county.
Closedsales(the actual salesthatclosed),decreasedfrom2013 to 2014, and then increasedfrom2014
to 2015. In 2015, the 12 monthaverage forclosedsalesinSt.Lawrence Countywas50, for a percent
increase of 13.6% over the three yearperiod.
The numberof dayson the marketuntil sale forhomesinSt. Lawrence Countydecreasedby10 daysor
5.8% from 2013 to 2014, butthenincreasedby11 daysfrom 2014 to 2015 fora 7.5% increase. ASof
December2015, the average numberof dayson the market until sale is158 days, or almosthalf a year.
Thisis troublesomeforthose lookingtosell theirhome topurchase another,asmosthouseholdsinthe
countycannot affordmultiple mortgagepayments.
The mediansalesprice, increasedfrom2013 to 2015, fora total increase of 9%. In Decemberof 2015,
the mediansalesprice hadincreased$7,000 to $87,000.

14. 11
From 2013 to 2015 the average price forall closedsalesincreased6% from$96,010 in 2013 to 101,927
in2015 for an increase of $5,917.
Overall,the percentof listprice apropertyultimatelysoldfor didnotappreciably change from2013 to
2015.
In St.Lawrence Countythe housingaffordabilityindex,inwhichhighervaluesindicate greater
affordability,increased54%from2013 to 2014. The index measureshow muchthe medianincome will
coverwhat isnecessarytoqualifyfora median- pricedhome undercurrentinterestrates. In2013 the
housingaffordabilityindexwas262, in2014, it was307, andin 2015 itwas 404, for a total increase of
54%. Basedon thistrend,homesinSt.Lawrence Countyare becomingmore affordable,butthe quality
and conditionof these homesisunknown. Itmaybe that homesare becomingmore affordable because
theyare insubstandardconditionandcannotsell forthe marketprice.
The inventoryof homesforsale,the numberof propertiesavailable forsale inactive status,increased
50% from2013 to 2015. From 2013 to 2014, the inventoryincreased17.7% and againfrom2014 to
2015, itincreased17.6%. By Decemberof 2015, the average inventoryof homesforsale was984,
meaningthatthere isalmosta surplusof 1,000 homesthroughoutthe countywithnoincrease in
populationtooccupythem.
Months’supplyof inventory,the inventoryof homesforsale atthe endof a givenmonthdividedbythe
pendingsales,increased38%from 2013 to 2015, for a current average of 19.8 months.
3.3 Homeless inSt. Lawrence County
In 2012, HUD broadeneditsdefinitionof homelessnessencompassfourbroadcategoriesof
homelessnessincluding: peoplewhoare livinginaplace notmeantfor humanhabitation; peoplewho
are losingtheirprimarynighttime residence;familieswithchildrenorunaccompaniedyouthwhoare
unstablyhousedandlikelytocontinue inthatstate; people whoare fleeingorattemptingtoflee
domesticviolence. The majorityof homelessinSt.Lawrence Countyfall intothe near-homeless
categoryin thattheydo not have a primarynighttime residence,buttheyare notlivingonthe streets.
3.3.1. Homeless Count
HomelessCountin St. Lawrence County, 2015
Agency Reportedto HomelessIndividuals Percentof Homeless
Departmentof Social Services 255 21%
MaximizingIndependentLivingChoices(MILC) 438 36%
Departmentof Education 533 (children) 43%
Source:Departmentof Social Services, North County ThisWeek
Betweenthe St.Lawrence CountyDepartmentof Social Services,MaximizingIndependentLiving
Choices,andthe Departmentof Education,preliminaryestimatescountover1,000 homelessindividuals
throughoutSt.Lawrence County. However,asassistance providedthrough these organizations isoften

15. 12
temporary, itwasnot possible todistinguishif homelessindividualssoughtassistance frommultiple
sources.
Source of ShelterforSchool-age (pre-K– 12) Homelessin St. Lawrence County,2014 – 2015
Source of Shelter Numberof Homeless
Children
Percentof Homeless
Children
Living withrelativesor other family 485 91%
Hotel/Motel 5 1%
Primarynighttime residence 38 7%
Unsheltered 5 1%
Source:NorthCountry Now,NewYorkStateEducation Department
Of the 533 homelesschildreninSt.Lawrence County,the majority(99%) were able tofindshelter,thus
theywere nothomelessbutratheratrisk of homelessness.
3.3.2. Reasons forHomelessness
Accordingto a surveycommissionedbythe PointsNorthHousingCoalitioninJanuary2016, chronic
substance abuse,lowincomes,mental illness,andunemploymentare the drivingforcesbehind
homelessnessinSt.Lawrence County. Of the respondentsfromJefferson,Lewis,andSt.Lawrence
Counties,245 individualsor43% were fromSt.Lawrence County.
Reasons for Homelessness
Percentage of Respondents
Housing-related 52%
Temporarylivingarrangementended 13%
Releasedfromhospital/jail 11%
Non-paymentof rent 6%
Evictedforotherreason 8%
Financial reasons 53%
Unemployed/lostjob 23%
Notenoughincome tomeetneeds 17%
No jobsavailable 9%
Welfare benefitsended 3%
No childcare available 0.4%
Chose notto work 0.4%
Health- or Family-related 56%
Alcohol/drugproblems 17%
Mental health/emotional problems 13%
Physical health 9%
Breakup/divorce/separation/death 9%
Escapingabuse/domesticviolence 7%
Court-orderedtoleave home 2%
Ran away fromhome 0.4%
Source:PointsNorthHousing Coalition and North Country Now

16. 13
Of the respondentsfromSt.Lawrence County,52% were homelessforhousing-relatedreasons,53%for
financial reasons,and56%for healthor family-relatedreasons. The majorityof individuals hadmore
than one reasonforbeinghomeless,typicallyafinancial burdencombinedwithhealthorfamily-related
problems. The top five reasonsforhomelessnesswere:unemployment,nothavingenoughincome to
meetone'sneeds,alcohol ordrugproblems,endof temporarylivingarrangements, andmental health
issues.
Sources ofIncome for HomelessPopulation
Source of Income Percentof Homeless
No Income 20%
Some EarnedIncome 28%
Social Security/DisabilityBenefits 25%
TemporarySocial ServicesBenefits 22%
Alimony/ChildSupport 12%
Other 5%
Source:PointsNorthHousing Coalition and North Country Now
The surveyalsofoundthat homelessinthe countysufferedfrommultiple financialissuesaswell.
Despite the commonmisconceptionaboutthe homelessbeingunemployed,28% reportedhavingsome
earnedincome, showingtheywere tryingtoworkandbecome financiallyindependent. 25% were
receivingsocial securityordisabilitybenefits andanadditional 54homelessindividualsreceived
temporarybenefitsfromthe Departmentof Social Services. However,the temporarynature of these
benefitsdidprovide enoughassistance togetthese individualsbackontheirfeet.
3.3.3. Proposed HomelessShelter
A recentarticle publishedinNorthCountryThisWeek(Massena-Ogdensburgedition) - alocal county-
wide paper- reportson the lack of a homelessshelterinSt. Lawrence County andthe reasonsbehind
proposingone. Followingthe article,anonline communitypoll regardingthe feasibilityof ahomeless
shelterwithinSt.Lawrence County,wasposedonthe paper’swebsite.
Participantswere asked, “Doyoufeel ahomelessshelterorsheltersshouldbe builtinSt.Lawrence
County,andif yes,howdo you feel itshouldbe done?”
Of the respondents,the majority (63.9percent) feltthatsomethingshouldbe done toaidthe homeless
inobtainingshelter. Thirty-twopercentof respondentsdidnotfeelthata shelterwas necessary.
North Country Now Questionof the Week
Responses Percentof Respondents
Yes,a fewscatteredaroundthe county 37.7%
No,we do not needone 31.6%
Yes,small onesineachtown 18.5%
Yes,a large one,centrallylocated 7.7%
Unsure 6.4%

17. 14
3.4 Windshield Surveys
Windshieldsurveys, anassessmentof acommunityconductedbytravelingaroundthe communityina
car makingobservationsabout the qualityof housingunitshasbeenatool of the St. Lawrence Planning
Office since 2000. For eachsurvey,a particularcommunityis selected;all of the roadswithinare
determinedandputintoa chart (see AppendixB.1.Sample WindshieldSurveyForm,Town of Canton
Road List),and thenoverthe course of a day or two,the community issurveyedbycar.
Each house israted on a scale of 1 – 3 with1 beinginstandardcondition(noapparentissueswiththe
roof,siding,windows,orfoundationfromthe outside),2beinginsubstandardcondition(workneeded
on the unitsto bringitup to standardcondition),and3 beingindilapidatedcondition(the units isin
critical condition). The informationgatheredinthese surveysallowedthe PlanningOfficetomake basic
assumptionsabout the qualityof housinginthe county andidentify specificneedsresidents face.
With3,120 milesof road, surveyingeveryhouseinSt.Lawrence Countyisnotpractical. From
windshieldsurveys,aseriesof “snapshots”of housingconditionsincommunitiesaroundSt.Lawrence
County helpsdetermine the conditionsof dwellings. Althoughawindshieldsurveyisacursory
assessmentbasedsolelyonexteriorappearancesandcharacteristicsof ahousingunit,itdoesprovide
general informationonthe numberof housesinanarea and their apparentcondition.
Windshieldsurveyshave been conducted throughoutSt.Lawrence Countyin twenty-five towns,villages,
and CDPs including:the Cityof Ogdensburg,NorfolkCDP,Townof Brasher,Townof Canton,Townof De
Kalb, Townof Edwards, Townof Fowler, Townof Governeur,Townof Hammond, Townof Hermon,
Townof Louisville, Townof Macomb, Townof Madrid, Townof Morristown,Townof Parishville, Town
of Potsdam,Townof Rossie,Townof Russell,Townof Stockholm, Village of Canton, Village of
Heuvelton, Village of Massena, Villageof Norwood, Village of Potsdam, andthe Village of Waddington.
Overall,forty-fourpercent(44%) of all housingunitsinthe countyhave beensurveyed,containing forty
percent(41%) of St.Lawrence County’spopulation,andmostof the housingpredatesthe housing
assistance fundingbyatleast30 years. For more informationonpreviouslysurveyedmunicipalities,see
AppendixB.2. WindshieldSurveyEffortsto Illustrate Housing ConditionsResults,2000 – 2016 for St.
Lawrence County.
“I am now 65 years oldand have a numberof health problems. I coulduse all the
help I can get. I have13 stairsto climbevery time I need to goto the bathroom.
My back porch isfallingdownandI'm afraidone of these daysI'm goingto go
throughit.” –AnonymousSurveyRespondent
Overthe course of the windshieldsurveyperiod26,987 housingunits(65%) were surveyed,of which
8,993 were determinedtobe insubstandardcondition. The percentof housingunitsinsubstandard
conditionrangedfrom60.0% of the total numberof occupiedhousingunitsinthe Village of Massenato
8.6% of the occupiedhousingunitsinthe Townof Fowler. The average percentof substandardhousing
unitscounty-widewas32.4%.

18. 15
WindshieldSurveyResultsforMunicipalitiesinSt. Lawrence County, 2000 – Present
Municipality
Occupied
Housing
Units
Percent
Substandard
Housing
Units
Substandard
Housing
Units
Population Percentof
County’s
Population
City of Ogdensburg 4,170 11.0% 457 11,029 9.8%
Town of Brasher 852 23.1% 197 2,129 1.9%
Town of Canton 3,314 27.0% 895 11,223 10.0%
Town of De Kalb 786 31.2% 245 2,182 1.9%
Town of Edwards 442 23.3% 103 827 0.7%
Town of Fowler 802 8.6% 69 2,162 1.9%
Town of Hermon 386 37.6% 145 1,082 1.0%
Town of Louisville 1,348 24.7% 333 3,141 2.8%
Town of Macomb 312 48.7% 152 843 0.8%
Town of Madrid 664 25.6% 170 1,708 1.5%
Town of Morristown 869 58.5% 508 2,242 2.0%
Town of Parishville 886 36.7% 325 2,068 1.8%
Town of Potsdam 3,666 26.4% 968 16,172 14.4%
Town of Rossie 314 38.8% 122 787 0.7%
Town of Russell 768 45.4% 349 1,869 1.7%
Town of Stockholm 1,454 36.1% 525 3,678 3.3%
St. Lawrence County 21,033 31.4% (avg.) 5,563 63,142 56.4%
Source:St. LawrenceCountyPlanning Office
For the municipalitiessurveyedin St.Lawrence County,the average percentof substandardhousing
unitswas 31.4%. A total of 21,033 housingunits inthese communities were surveyed,housing 63,142
residentsmakingup56.4%of the county’s population.
In the Village of Massena, housingconditionsare showingsignsof stress,asretiredownersare seeing
theirfactorypensionsdecline,newfamiliesholdontomultiple service jobsjusttopaythe mortgage,
and widowsandsingle-parentfamiliescannotaffordbasicrepairsandupgrades. The Villageestimates
that more than 60% of all housingunitsare substandard,andinsome neighborhoodsthe figure isclose
to 80%. See AppendixB.2. WindshieldSurveyEffortstoIllustrate HousingConditionsResults,2000 –
2016 for St. Lawrence County for additional surveyedcommunities.

19. 16
4. InterviewSummarieswithAgencyHeads
In additiontowindshieldsurveys,interviewswere conductedwithmembersof variouscountyagencies
and organizationsincluding: Departmentof Social Services,MaximizingIndependentLivingChoices
(MILC), NorthCountryHousingCouncil,Office forthe Aging, St.Lawrence CountyBoardof Realtors, and
St. Lawrence CountyCommunityDevelopmentProgram(CDP).
The followingquestionswere posedtothe interviewees:
1. How wouldyoudescribe the housingconditionsandhousingqualityof St.Lawrence County?
2. What do youperceive asthe biggestchallengesfacinghousinginthe county?
3. What are yourprimaryconcernsregardinghousing?
4. How can the housingconditionsbe improved?
5. How complicateddoyoufeel obtaininghousingimprovementfundsare?
6. How doeshousingaffectyourclientbase?
7. What are the benefitsof housinginSt.Lawrence County?
The housingconditionsof St.Lawrence Countywere describedasolderhomesneedingupkeepand
rehabilitation due toeconomicstruggles. Housingpricesare lowerthanthe restof the state,despite
havinga swathof nice propertiesalongthe St.Lawrence Riverandinthe Townsof Potsdamand Canton.
Rental propertieswereespeciallynotedfortheirpoorquality,highcost,andlackof code enforcement.
Amongthe groupsthat struggle to afford quality housing,the homeless,elderly, disabled, andlow
income groupswere mentioned - all of whomtendtobe politicallyand sociallydisenfranchised aswell.
In 2014, 120 of the 286 homelesspeople inSt.Lawrence Countyrefusedtheirplacementsbythe
Departmentof Social Services,accordingtoPatrickHand,AdultProtective Supervisor,due toalack of
affordable rentalsin villageswhichleftthose searchingforhousingacceptinghousinginrural areas,or
refusingtheirplacementandremaininghomeless.

20. 17
AndreaMontgomery,Directorof the Office forthe Agingexpandedonthisissue. “Housingforsenior
citizensisinshortsupplyotherthannursinghomesorassistedlivingfacilities,”she said,explainingthat
manyseniorsare mightbe livingona fixedincome,butdonotneedtobe ina nursinghome or care
facility. “Theyjustneedacommunitywhere theyfeel safe.”
Employeesfromthe NorthCountryHousingCouncil echoedtheseremarks. “There isanabundance of
substandard,olderhomessufferingfromnoupkeepdue tolackof fundsand elderlyinhabitants. Also,
due to the sloweconomicgrowthof the region, a lotof housingrehabilitationisneeded.”
Whenaskedwhythe housingqualitymightbe thisway,respondentscitedlackof funds,fixedincomes,
sloweconomicgrowthinthe county, lackof landlordaccountability, andlittle tonoknowledgeof how
to carry out basichome repairs. Lance Evans,Executive Officerof the St.Lawrence CountyBoardof
Realtors,citedhighstate andcountypropertytaxescoupledwithstudentloansinhibityounger
residentsfrompurchasing theirownhome andinsteadforce themtorent. Weatherizationissues,such
as insufficientinsulation,energyinefficientdoorsandwindows,andoutdatedheatingappliancesin
olderresidenceswere alsocitedascontributorstoundesirable housingconditionsthroughoutthe
county.
Some of the biggestchallengesfacinghousinginthe countyare a shortage of code-complianthousing,a
lack of amenitiesandtransportationwithinwalkingdistance of village housing,individualsnotbeing
able to affordstandardhomes, inaccessiblehomes, andthe lackof skill-basedtradesrequiredforhome
maintenance.
Those interviewedvoicedtheirprimaryconcernsabouthousinginthe countynamingalack of quality
rental unitsforlowincome residents,manyolderhomes withoutnew builds,andfew housingchoices
for those livingonfixedincomes. While othercountiesinthe state have beensuccessfulinattracting
developerstobuild low-income tax-credithousing,thishasnotbeenthe case in St.Lawrence County.
Developers are reluctanttobuildthe thirtyunitsrequiredforcost-effectivenessdue toSt.Lawrence
County’s rural settingandlackof otherdevelopmentopportunities. Instead,these residentsremain
livingintheircurrent homes,manyof whichhave structural issues.
In additiontostructural issues,accessibilityisamajorconcernfor the elderlyandthe disabled. Courtnie
Toms,from MaximizingIndependentLivingChoicesinMassena,detailedthe realityforthose whocould
no longersafelymove throughouttheirownhomes. “We see manyseniorcitizensnow confinedto
wheelchairsthatdonot have ramps leadingintotheirhomes,ora bathroomon the groundfloorwhich
theycan access. Instead,theyleave theirhomesandmove intonursinghomesorassistedliving
facilities,andtheirhouse becomesabandoned.”
Furthermore,the age of the housesthroughoutthe countyandthe associatedmaintenance coststake a
toll onhomeowners. Oftentimeshomeownerscanaffordapiece of property,andmake the monthly
mortgage payment,butlackthe extramoneyfor home improvements. If theyare able torehab their
home,theyare thenfacedwithincreasedtaxes –somethingtheydidnotinitiallybudgetfor.

21. 18
Intervieweeswere notshyabouttheirsuggestionsforimprovinghousingconditions. Recommendations
included holdinglandlordsmore accountableforthe conditionsof theirrental units, aconsolidated
source of home improvementgrants,provisionsforcreatinga modestwayof livingforseniorsona
budgetwhostill wanttolive independently,more CommunityDevelopmentBlockGrantfunds,courses
on howto carry out home maintenance,andimprovingthe economy.
As the goal of the CDBG is to repairsubstandardhomesandhelpwithpurchasinghomes,we asked
intervieweeshowcomplicatedtheyfeltitwastoobtainhousingimprovementfunds. The Department
of Social Servicesfeltthatinformationforapplicantswasnotreadilyavailable,andthe fundingwasnot
centralized. Othersechoedthissentimentsaying that,“there isalimitedamountof home improvement
fundsavailable,”and“there isa lack of informationaboutgrantavailability.” Norma Cary,Executive
Directorof the St. Lawrence CountyCommunityDevelopmentProgram(CDP) feltthat,“home
improvementfundsare difficulttoobtainbecause there issuchademandforthem. Many of the
workingpoorand middle-income householdscouldbenefitfromthe improvementfundsaswell.”
Othersacknowledgedthatwhile thereisalack of knowledge andpromotion of programs,the process
itself isrelativelysimple. However,manyelderlyresidentsare worriedaboutscamsandare skeptical
aboutthe housingrehabilitationgrants. The NorthCountryHousingCouncil doesitsbesttoclarifythese
misconceptionstopotential clients. Meetingsregardingthese grantsfacilitatedbythe countygenerally
have lowattendance,anda lackof reliable transportationpreventsthosewhomaybenefitthe most
fromattending. The HousingCouncil notedthatothersourcesof fundingare harderto come by andare
more difficultforclientsto qualifyfor.
Despite these shortcomingsof funding,the servicesprovidedbythe HousingCouncilandvarious
agencieshave aprofoundimpactonthe clientbase. The large percentage of St.Lawrence County’s
elderlypopulationincreasesthe numberof reversemortgages,andthe numberof seniorswhoremain
intheirhomesratherthan downsizingormovingintoassistedlivingfacilities. Inturn,thisplacesa
financial strainonthispopulation groupintermsof taxes,heatingtheirhome duringthe winterand
carryingout regularhome maintenance tasks. Asthe elderlyare unable toupkeeptheirhomes,the
housesdepreciate andthe nature of rural housingleadsto social andphysical isolation.
In additiontothe elderlypopulationhavingdifficultymaintainingtheirhomes,the low income
populationcannotaffordtodo soas well. Thisplacesa greaterdemandonhousingassistance offices
and alsocalls intoquestionwhetherornotclientswill maintaintheirhomesaftertheyreceive
assistance fixingthemuporpurchasinga new home. But homeownershipandpropermaintenance can
alsobe responsible forclients’happinessandwell-beingasChrisRediehs,Commissionerof Social
Services, noted. “Goodhousingisresponsibleforthe happinessandwell-beingof the clientsIworkwith.
Whenhousingis indecentshape,clientsare more motivated,usuallyendupbeingemployed,andpass
that positivityontotheirchildren.”
Housingprovidesthe largestsource of infrastructure inthe countyanditisthe core of social fabricof
the community. Familylifeiscentered around the home andwhentheyare ingoodconditioneveryone
benefits. Whenhomesare indisrepair,the wholefamilystruggles. The communityfeelwasnotedby

22. 19
multiple interviewees. Despitethe county’srural setting,lowerpropertytaxes,andavailabilityof land,
neighborsstill lookoutforeachother.
Overall,housinginSt.Lawrence Countyisgenerally affordable,aslongasone has a steadyincome.
Intervieweesnoted animprovementin the qualityandconditionsof housinginthe past twenty yearsor
so, perhapsdue to increasedknowledgeand fundingforhome repairs. Whilethe countyhasmade
stridesinimprovingthe qualityandconditionof itshousingstock,muchmore workisstill needed so
more residentscanexperience “prideof place.”
5. OnlineHousingAssessmentSurvey
To determine if the demographicdatacollectedfromthe 2010 Censusand2014 AmericanCommunity
Surveyestimateswasaccurate,anonline surveyof housingwascreated;opentoall St. Lawrence
Countyresidents. Questionswere basedonindicatorsof housingneedsfromHUD’s Research to
Develop CommunityNeedsIndex from2007, the PlanningOffice’sCommunityDevelopmentBlock
Grant/HOME ProgramIncome and HousingConditionsSurveyfrom2015, and indicatorsof poorhousing
fromthe AmericanCommunitySurveyestimates. The surveywascreatedusingGoogleDocs,accessed
throughthe main page of the county’swebsite, andincludedavarietyof multiplechoice andshort
answerquestions,someof whichdidnotrequire ananswerdue toconfidentialityreasons. See
Appendix Dfora copy of the survey.
The followingquestions were posedtorespondents:
1. Where do youlive?
2. Do youlive ina village orhamlet?
3. Whenwas the structure built?
4. Are you a homeowner?
5. Are you a renter?
6. What isthe numberof personsinthe household?
7. What was yourhouseholdincome inthe pastyear?
8. What isthe numberof bedroomsinyourhousehold?
9. What isthe numberof bathroomsinyourhousehold?
10. What isyour household’ssource of heat?
11. Please rate the followingcomponentsonascale of 1-3 with1 being“insoundcondition”,2
“needingrepair”,and3 being“incritical condition”. (17itemsneededtobe checked.)
12. If you couldfix of improve one areaof your residence itwouldbe…
13. Otherthoughtsor comments regardinghousinginSt.Lawrence County

23. 20
The goal of the surveywasto getat least1,000 responses. Itwaspostedonthe mainpage of the St.
Lawrence Countywebsite,sharedwithall countyemployees,circulatedthroughemail contacts,and
promotedonChannel 7 News, WPDMradio station, NorthCountryNow,andothermediaoutlets.
5.1 Survey Results
Overthe course of one month,the online surveyreceived736 responses.
Of the 736 respondents,23.8%live inCanton, 12.9% inPotsdam, 2.4% in Governeur,5.8% inMassena,
and 7.9% in Ogdensburg. The townof Hopkintonhadnorespondents. AlthoughPotsdamandCanton
are twoof the populationcentersinthe county,the highproportionof response fromthese twotowns
may be due to the majorityof countyand universityemployeeslivinginthesetwotownsandthe
numberof mediaoutletslocatedwithinthesetwotown.
48.9% of residentswhotookthe surveylive inavillage orhamletwhile the 2010 Census determined
that only30% of county-widehousingunits were locatedwithin anurbansetting.
What is the type of dwellingunit?
DwellingType Online Survey ACS 2014 Estimates
1 family 85.1% 70.4%
2 family 4.3%
1.5%
2+ family 1.5%
Mobile home 5% 11.1%
Apartment 4.1% 17.0%
85.1% of dwellingunitswere classifiedas1 family;4.3% as 2 family;1.5% as 2+ family;5.0% as mobile
homes;and4.1% as apartments. Accordingtothe ACS 2014 estimates, 70.4% of dwellingunitswere 1
family;1.5% was 2 familyormore;11.1% were mobile homes;and17.0% were apartments.
Where Do You Live?
Brasher Canton
Clare Clifton
Colton De Kalb
De Peyster Edwards
Fine Fowler
Governeur Hammond
Hermon Lawrence
Lisbon Louisville
Macomb Madrid
Massena Morristown
Norfolk Ogdensburg
Oswegatchie Parishville
Piercefield Pierrepont
Pitcairn Potsdam
Rossie Russell
Stockholm Waddington

24. 21
Whenwas the structure built?
Year Structure Built Online Survey ACS 2014 Estimates
Before 1940 47% 33%
1940 – 1959 12% 17%
1960 – 1979 16.2% 21%
1980 – 1999 15.6% 21%
2000 – present 9.2% 8%
47% of housingstructureswere builtbefore 1940, 12% from 1940 to 1959, 16.2% from 1960 to 1979,
and 15.6% from1980 to 1999. 9.2% of the county’sstructureswere built after2000. Accordingto the
ACS2014 5-year estimate,33%of housingunitswere builtbefore 1940; 17% from1940 to 1959; 21%
from1960 to 1979 and from 1980 to 1999; 8% of housingunitswere builtfrom2000 to the present.
85.9% of respondentswere homeowners,12.8% were renters,and1.3% of respondentswere neither
homeownersnorrenters. From2009 to 2014, the AmericanCommunitySurveyfoundthat71% of
occupieddwellingunitswere owneroccupiedand29% were renteroccupied.
Whenis the number of personsin the household?
Numberof Persons Online Survey ACS 2014 Estimates
1 person 14% 28.5%
2 persons 39.9% 38.3%
3 persons 17.7% 13.8%
4 persons 17.8%
19.4%5 persons 6.8%
6 persons 3.7%
The majorityof householdswere 2-personhouseholdswith 39.9% of residentsselectingthatoption. 1-
personhouseholdscomprised 14%;3-personhouseholdsmade up17.7%; 4-personhouseholdswere
17.8% of households; 6.8%of householdshad5members;and 3.7% of householdscounty-widehad6 or
more members. In2014, the ACSestimatedthat1-personhouseholdswere28.5% of the total occupied
housingunits;2-personhouseholdswere 38.3%;3-personhouseholds13.8%;and4-or-more-person
householdscomprised19.4%of the county’stotal occupiedhousingunits.
What was your householdincome in the past year?
Income Range Online Survey ACS 2014 Estimates
Lessthan $10,000 2% 7.7%
$10,000 – $14,999 3% 5.3%
$15,000 – $24,999 5.5% 9.9%
$25,000 – $34,999 9.1% 9%
$35,000 – $49,999 13.6% 12.7%
$50,000 – $74,999 22.5% 16.4%
$75,000 – $99,999 19.5% 12%
$100,000 – $149,999 18.8% 14.3%
$150,000 – $199,999 4.4% 6.3%
More than $200,000 1.5% 7.3%

25. 22
For householdincome, the majority(60.8%) of respondents’incomesrangedfrom $50,000 to $149,999.
13.6% made between$35,000 and $49,999; 9.1% earned$25,000 to $34,999. 5.5% earned$15,000 to
$24,999; 4.4% of householdsbroughtin$150,000 to $199,999; 3% made $10,000 to $14,999, and 3.5%
earnedmore than$200,000 or lessthan$10,000.
What is the number of bedroomsand bathrooms in your household?
Numberof
Bedrooms
Online
Survey
ACS 2014
Estimates
Numberof
Bathrooms
Online
Survey
ACS 2014
Estimates
No bedroom 0% 1.0% No bathroom 0% 1.8%
1 bedroom 4.8% 11.5% 1 bathroom 39.1%
98.2%
2 – 3
bedrooms
68.6% 66.2% 2 – 3
bathrooms
59.5%
4 or more
bedrooms
26.5% 21.3% 4 or more
bathrooms
1.4%
68.6% of householdshad2 to 3 bedroomsand 59.7% had 2 to 3 bathrooms. 26.5% of homeshad 4 or
more bedroomswhile only 1.4%had4 or more bathrooms. 4.8% of householdswere one-bedroom
onesand 38.9% of homeswere one-bathroomresidences. Norespondentshadnobedroomor no
bathroomintheirhousehold. Incomparisonthe 2014 ACSestimates had66.2% of housingunitshaving
2 or 3 bedrooms,21.3%4 or more bedrooms,11.5% having1 bedroom, and1.0% of occupiedhousing
unitshavingnobedroom. Forbathrooms,accordingto the 2014 ACS estimates,98.2% of occupied
housingunitshadcomplete plumbingfacilities.
What is your household’ssource ofheat?
Source of Heat Online Survey ACS 2014 Estimates
Utilitygas 39.4% 34.7%
Bottled,tank,orLP gas 14.7% 7.9%
Electricity 7.2% 11.7%
Fuel oil,kerosene,etc. 33.6% 29.1%
Coal or coke 0.1% 0.1%
Wood 25.8%
16.2%Solarenergy 1.4%
Other 4.8%
No fuel 0% 0.3%
For sourcesof heat,respondentscouldselectatleastone optionfromthe nine available:utilitygas;
bottled,tank,orLP gas; electricity;fueloil,kerosene,etc.;coal or coke;wood;solarenergy;other;or no
fuel. Mosthomeswere heatedwithutilitygas(39.4%),followedbyfuel oil orkerosene at 33.6%, and
woodat 25.8%. No residenceslackedasource of heat. Accordingto the 2014 ACS,34.7% of housing
unitswere heatedwithutilitygas;7.9%withbottled,tank,orLP gas; 11.7% withelectricity;29.1% with
fuel oil,kerosene,etc.;0.1%withcoal or coke;16.2% withwood,solarenergy,orother;and 0.3% of
occupiedhousingunitsdidnotuse asource of fuel.

26. 23
To determine the conditionof surveyparticipants’housingstructures,theywere askedtorate the
followingcomponentsonascale of 1-3, or mark themas not applicable totheirlivingsituation.
Participantsratedthe:foundation,windows,doors,plumbing,heating,electrical,well,septic,insulation,
roofingmaterial,sidingmaterial,porches,exteriorsteps,chimneys,floors,ceilings,andstairsorrailing
withintheirhousehold. Mostresidenceswithinvillagesdidnotrate theirwell orsepticsystemsasthey
are on village waterandsewer. However,forall componentsthere werehomesinneedof repairandin
critical condition. The toptensubstandarditemswere:windows (34%),insulation (31%),porches (31%),
doors(30%), floors(29%),exteriorsteps(29%), sidingmaterial (29%),roofingmaterial (25%),foundation
(24%),and plumbing(24%).
Of the 714 respondents,382 chose to answerthe open-endedquestion,“If youcouldfix orimprove one
area of your residence,itwouldbe…” The top tenresponseswere:roofingmaterial,windows,siding
material,floors, insulation,foundation,bathroom,plumbing,kitchen,andbasement. Weatherization
improvementswere the mostcommonwith26% of participantswantingtofix theirroof, 18% wanting
to replace theirsiding,17%focusingon theirwindows, 14% improvingthe floorsinside,and11%
improvingthe insulationtomake theirhome more energy-efficient.
5.1.1.Input fromSurvey Respondents
AmongcommentsandconcernsregardinghousinginSt.Lawrence County,highpropertytaxes
(especiallywithinthe villages),landlordissuesforrenters,prominence of abandonedandvacant
buildings,lackof home maintenance,large elderlypopulation,andnotenoughassistance forworking
familieswere amongthe topconcerns.
“I consider myself very lucky,mostof the housing stockisnot in asgood of shapeasmine.”
“Assessmentsaremuch too high for thisarea. Peoplecan't makeenough to fix up their property when
they are justscraping by to be able to stay in it.”
“The lack of decently priced housing thatdoesn'tneed massiverepairshaskeptus renters.”

27. 24
“My husband and Ihavebeen fortunateand had theopportunity to build ourown homewhen we
married. I do realize that thereare many residentsin the County thathavenotbeen as fortunateand
havehomethathavesomeserious safety issues. Isupportany effortsthattheCounty makesin finding
assistanceforthesehomeownersto help give themstability and safety thateveryone’shomeshould give
them.”
“Our houseis falling in everywhereand wecan't get caughtup to fix it.”
“People are hesitantaboutfixing up their homesand making themlookgood becausethemoreyou put
into it and the better it looksthe more taxesyou pay.”
“Like mostof the NorthCounty,too many propertiesareabandoned and falling down.Taxesaremuch
too high forthe propertiesand outof line with mostresidents'income.County residentsdeservedecent,
safe,affordablehomes.”
“I am concerned aboutthenumberof abandoned homesand feelmuch isneeded for energy efficiency
and renewableenergy. Also SLC is uniquein thatpeoplerelatively well-off mightlive a quarterof a mile
frompeopleof poverty – I thinkthis makesusmore understanding of whatothersexperienceand putsa
“face” on povertythatonemight nothavein moresegregated neighborhoods.”
Overall,the surveyservedtoprovide the PlanningOffice withinputconcerninghousingconditionsfrom
countyresidents. Inconjunctionwiththe interviewswithagencyheads,the concernsaboutthe state of
the county’shousingare the same. Weatherizationremainsanissue forbothresidentsandthe North
CountryHousingCouncil, andthere isa concernamongthe Office for the Aging,the Departmentof
Social Services,andresidentsoverthe increasingage of the county’spopulationandwhatitmeansfor
home maintenance.

28. 25
6. DescriptionofPastPrograms
6.1 CDBG Program
For overfourdecades,St.Lawrence Countyhasoperatedprogramsto assistlow-income householdsto
purchase theirfirsthomes,andmake repairstobringthese homestostandardcondition. Additional
County-sponsoredprogramshave helpedlow-income personsrehabilitate theirhomes. See AppendixC
– St. Lawrence CountyCommunity DevelopmentExperience.
6.1.1.Direct HomeownershipAssistanceProgram(DHAP)
Since 1982, St. Lawrence Countyhas continuously operatedits homeownershipassistanceprogram
(DHAP). Overthe course of this program, twenty-tworoundsof DHAPassistance have beensecuredby
the county. 575 low-income householdshave beenabletobuytheirfirsthomesthroughthe helpof
these funds. Withanaverage of 2.56 personsperhousehold,DHAPhasassistedin 1,470 persons
movingintotheirownsafe,standard-conditionhomes.
St. Lawrence CountyusesDHAPfundstohelpwithdownpaymentsandclosingcosts. While manylow-
income householdscanafforda monthlyrentormortgage payment, they cannotoftensave fora
sufficientdownpayment(typically20%of the purchase price),or the associatedclosingcostsfromthe
sale. By providingfundstohelpclientsreacha20% downpayment,St.Lawrence Countyenablesclients
to obtainmortgage loansfromtraditional banks. DHAPinvestmentshave leveragedover$21.8 million
inconventional loans.
DHAP limitsthe purchase price thatpotential homeownersare allowedtooffer. St.Lawrence County
has determinedthatmostlow-income householdscanaffordan80% mortgage,withassociated
propertytaxesandhomeownersinsurance forahouse sellingfor$90,000 or less. The county’smost
recentanalysisof the housingmarket,in2015, indicatedthe $90,000 sellingprice representedthe
mediansellingprice forall homesonthe marketduringthatpointintime.
St. Lawrence Countyhasobtainedandinvestedalmost$12.7 millioninCommunityDevelopmentBlock
Grants (CDBG) fundsinits DHAP. This investmenthasgeneratedanadditional $21.8 millionin
investmentbylenders. DHAPhomeshave beenpurchasedin41of the county’s45 municipalities. Only
33 of these units(6%) were purchasedinLMICensusTracts.
DHAP has also hada positive effectonhousingconditions. Everyhome purchasedthroughthe DHAPis
inspectedbyatrainedRehabilitationSpecialist;eachhome iseitherdeterminedtobe instandard
condition,orthe scope of work isdetermined,andgrantfundsapprovedtomake neededrepairs.
6.1.2.HousingRehabilitation(HR)
St. Lawrence County hasoperateditshousingrehabilitationprogram regularly since 1982. Twenty-six
CommunityDevelopmentBlockGrantHousingRehabilitation awardshave beenmade tothe county and
have beenusedtohelpover579 low-income householdsmake significantrepairstotheirhomes. Atan

29. 26
average householdsizeof 2.56 persons,the County’sHRprogramshave assisted1,480 persons with
makingtheirhomessafe,sanitaryanddecent.
In the past,county-administeredhousingrehabprojects were writtenonbehalfof individual townsbut
a communitycan onlysubmitone applicationperyear,andthe Countyhas previouslychosentomake
itsannual applicationforDHAP. As a result,residentsin19 of the county’s32 towns have never had
access to housingrehabilitationassistance. In2015, St. Lawrence Countyswitchedtoastrategyof
writingone application everyotheryeartosupporta county-widehousingrehabilitation
program. Underthis new strategy,noeligiblehousingunit,noreligiblehousehold,will be precluded
fromparticipationbasedontheirlocation.
County-fundedHRprojectshave generallybeencomprehensiveintheirapproachto
rehabilitation. Duringinspectionsby RehabilitationSpecialist,everyitemthatneedsattentiontobring
the home to standardcondition iswrittenup. Nolimitsare predeterminedforaproject;eachhome
receivesthe repairsneededtomake itstandard. Forits currentprogram, the CountywideHousing
RehabilitationProgram,the Countyanticipatesspendinganaverage of $34,850 perhousingunitto bring
themintostandardcondition.
HR projectsare opentoeligiblerentersorhomeowners. Homeownersreceive agrantfor the full costof
rehabilitation. Forrenters,the Countywill executeanagreementwiththe propertyowner;they must
contribute 25% of a projectcost;the remaining75% isprovidedbythe Countyas a grant. In return,
landlordsmustagree tolimitrentincreasesforatleastfive years.
In all,St.Lawrence Countyhasworkedincommunitiesall acrossthe Countytomake substantial
investmentsinhousingstock. The Countyhasinvestedin1,150 homes,makingsure thattheyare in
standardcondition. Thisrepresentsadirectinvestmentinover2.7% of all occupiedunits. The County’s
housing-relatedactivitieshave directlybenefitted2,955low-income residents;thus,the Countyhas
provideddirecthousingassistance toover2.6% of itspopulation.
To summarize,26 roundsof housingrehabilitationfundinghave enabledover550 households tomake
substantial repairstotheirhomes,sothattheyandtheirfamiliescanlive inhomesthatare safe,
sanitaryand decent. 22 roundsof DHAPfundinghave enabledover575 households topurchase
standard-conditionhomesincommunitiesof theirchoice acrossSt.Lawrence County.
6.2. 421-F
Throughsection421-F of the Real PropertyTax Law,governingbodiescanadoptlocal lawsoffering
partial tax exemptionsforresidential propertiesthatare reconstructed,altered,orimproved.
ThroughoutSt. Lawrence County,the townsof:Colton,De Kalb,Edwards,Hammond,Madrid,
Morristown,Potsdam,andRussell;the cityof Ogdensburg;the villagesof:Canton,Norwood,and
Potsdam;andthe OgdensburgandPotsdamschool districtshave adopted421-Flegislationthatallows
for steppedincreasesinassessmentsafterhomesare renovated. Fora map detailingthese areas,see
AppendixC.2 - Jurisdictionsthat have Adopted421 – F to AllowSteppedIncreasesinAssessments
After Homesare Renovated.

30. 27
7. Summary
In conclusion,the housingconditionsof St.Lawrence Countyhave notimprovedinrecentyearsdespite
the annual increase inmedianhouseholdincomeandthe pastcommunitydevelopmentefforts. The
countysuffersfroma stagnantpopulationthatis increasinglycomprisedof olderresidents. Low
incomes,sloweconomicgrowth,lackof infrastructure,the lossof manufacturingjobs,increasinglyolder
residences,anda highpercentage of mobilehomesalsoaffectthe countyandhave a profoundimpact
on the housingconditions.
An oldercounty-wide populationisdetrimental forthe housingconditionsasolderresidentsare most
oftenona fixedincome,physicallyunabletomake neededrepairs,andlesslikelythanyounger
residentstomake home improvementstoincrease resale value. While homesoccupiedbythe elderly
are notsubjectto vacancy,theyare subjecttodisrepair,thuscontributingtothe poorconditionsof
residencesinthe county.
A countymedianhouseholdincome significantlylowerthanthatof New York State alsocontributesto
the state of housingconditions. Those earninglessmoneyare lesslikelytobe able toaffordhomesin
standardconditionandlackthe additional incometorehabilitate the homestobringthemintostandard
condition. A large chunkof the countyisbarleygettingbyintheircurrentlivingsituationandthere are
otherprioritiesforthembesideshome improvements.
The highpercentage of mobile homes throughoutSt.Lawrence Countyandthe home values
considerablybelowthe state average,show thathousingthroughoutthe countyismore affordable than
elsewhere inthe state. Thisisa benefitforthose lookingtomove tothe area and purchase a home but
that isnot a trendthat is happening. Instead,there isrelativelycheaphousingforresidentsthatcomes
at the costof qualityanddurability.
In lookingatthe long-termviabilityof decentaffordable housing,suchastax-creditlow-incomehousing,
it isnot a recommendedoptionasthere isnot enough demandforit. The highvacancy statusof
housingunitsthroughoutthe countycombinedwiththe highinventoryof homesforsale,andincreased
listingspermonthandmonths’supplyof inventory,show thatthere isplentyof housingavailable,
althoughitmay notbe desirable,instandardcondition,oraffordable forthe low-incomeresidents. St.
Lawrence Countydoesnotexperience ashortage of housingandbuildingmore wouldbe amistake.
Possible policyrecommendations includerehabilitate vacanthomesforthe homeless,developing
policiesof rehabilitatingentire neighborhoods,andmakinghousingimprovementfundsmore available
to those that needthem.
As St.Lawrence Countydoeshave between1and1,000 homelessindividuals,theyare inneedof a
more permanentplace tostay,otherthan the temporaryassistance currentlyprovidedbylocal
organizations. A possibleideawouldbe todevelopaprogramforthose whoare homelesstoworkwith
local contractors and housingrehabilitationorganizationstofix up vacanthomesto reside in. Bybeing
part of the process,these individualswouldhave avestedinterestindoingthe necessarywork,and
“givingaway”a fixedupvacanthome is betterthancontinuingtoletitfall intodisrepair.

31. 28
A situationthatisunique tothe NorthCountryand St. Lawrence Countyisthe incidence of substandard
homesdispersedthoughneighborhoodsof nice,standardhomes. Fromtime totime,some of these
substandardhomesare rehabilitated,butnotall homesinthe neighborhoodare,whichcontinuesto
decrease propertyvalues. A possiblesolutionwouldbe tofocuson communityrehabilitationinsteadof
individualhomes. While some homeswouldneedmore workthanothers,the endresult wouldbe an
improvedcommunityforall members involved.
While othersourcesof fundingforhome improvementare availablethroughthe HOME program,
Leverage fundingforRPCs,Weatherization,andWRAP,Native housingfunding,USDA,andFederal
programsfor publicor specializedhousing,the availabilityof informationisnoteasilyaccessible and
residentsare oftentooovercome bythe applicationprocessestoevenapply. Informationalprograms
and classestohelpresidentsapplywouldbe abonus,especiallyforthose withoutinternetaccessof
familiaritywithonline applications.
Finally,programsforelderlytoimprove andmaintaintheirhomeswouldbe beneficialforSt.Lawrence
County. A programthat couldprovide thisneeded assistance wouldenable more elderlyresidentsto
stay intheirhomes,thusreducingthe demandonnursinghomesandassistedlivingfacilities.
Additionally, the developmentof sucha program couldprovide jobopportunitiesforthe homelessand
helpreduce the numberof substandardandvacanthousingunitscounty-wide.