Jefferson County, founded in 1861, was one of Colorado's first counties. Located to the west of Denver, the county has long been a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas. Historically the small, concentrated urban areas have been separated by lower de nsity development.
Over the past four decades, the county has experienced significant growth, most of which has been in the unincorporated portion of the county. This area is a mix of suburban and mountainous areas and is made up of middle- and upper-class neighborhoods with newer single-family homes. Although the city of Golden has recently experienced a surge in new home construction, other participating cities, including Edgewater, Mountain View, and Wheat Ridge, have grown more slowly. These cities are characterized by smaller, older housing stock and high concentrations of low- and moderate-income households.
Jefferson County received $1,340,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and $399,000 in HOME funds. The CDBG funded projects proposed in the first year include rehabilitation of single-family homes, group homes, and health facilities; social serv ices for low-income families, abused women, homeless people, the elderly, and youth; public facilities acquisition and improvements; accessibility improvements; employment training; rental assistance; and new housing construction.
Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan. The county and the cities held public meetings with particular emphasis on low- and very low-income residents in areas where housing and community development funds might be spent. These meetings responded to proposals and comments on housing and community development needs, proposed activities, and uses of funds. Six additional town meetings hosted by the county commissioners gave citizens another opportunity to comment on issues of conc ern.
Jefferson County will continue to aggressively support outreach throughout the life of the Consolidated Plan. Recipients of CDBG or HOME funds will be encouraged to inform the public of the programs being made available. For instance, the public housing a uthority will use several public outreach efforts to inform citizens who might be interested in the single-family housing rehabilitation program. When programs are being evaluated with an eye toward future funding, the county will undertake additional out reach efforts.
In addition, housing needs will be examined in the unincorporated areas of the county, such as Coal Creek Canyon, Tiny Town, Pleasant View, and Buffalo Creek. Citizen participation will be a vital component in this assessment.
Jefferson County grew rapidly until the 1980s. At that time factors such as the drop in oil prices, decline in agricultural industry, and the loss of energy-related jobs slowed population growth. Since the 1990 census, the county's population has increase d annually by 2 percent, to the current 475,000. The cities have grown slower than the unincorporated areas. In 1990, 12 percent of the population, (7,335 persons) belonged to a minority group. Of these, 7 percent were Hispanic, 2 percent Asian, 1 percent each African American, Native American, and "other."
Job growth also was 2 percent annually. Growth occurred in all sectors except the higher paying mining and manufacturing sectors, which lost 2,282 jobs. The service industry grew the fastest, with an average annual salary of $28,200 -- 10 percent less tha
n the average salary for all sectors. Major employers include R-1 School District, the Federal Government, EG&G-Rocky Flats, Martin Marietta, and Adolph Coors Company. The average unemployment rate for 1993 was 4.1 percent, although it tended to be somewh
at higher in some areas of minority population concentration.
The cities of Edgewater, Golden, Mountain View, and Wheat Ridge grew slower than the surrounding unincorporated areas. The cities have a higher concentration of older housing built in the 1950s and 1960s and a higher ratio of renters to owners than in the unincorporated areas. The four cities also have higher concentrations of elderly, lower-income, and minority populations.
Currently 180,000 of the 190,000 units of housing in the county are occupied. Population and job growth indicate that an additional 12,550 housing units will be needed by the year 2000.
Of the 70,707 households in the area, three-quarters are homeowners and the other quarter are renters. Over 30,000 area homeowners are classified as very low income (at 0-30 percent of median family income or MFI), low income (30-50 percent of MFI) or mod erate income (50-80 percent of MFI). Sixty-two percent of all low- and moderate-income households own their own homes. Of those, however, almost half are experiencing some type of housing problem. Only one-third of elderly homeowners have low incomes.
There is a need to increase the opportunity for homeownership among minorities. Just over half of all minority households are homeowners, compared to almost three-quarters of white households.
There are 190,000 units of housing in the county and four-fifths of those are single-family homes. More than 10,000 new housing units were added to the county's housing stock since the 1990 census; most of these were built outside older city limits and in the mountain communities. The largest proportion of these were single-family homes priced at $125,000 and above. The median value of a new single-family home in mid-1994 was $179,202. From 1993 to 1994, the average price of existing family homes rose 11 percent to $145,641.
Most housing stock is in good condition, although there is a higher proportion of substandard housing in Mountain View where 43 percent of the housing was built before 1940. A total of 784 units are classified as substandard.
The most common housing problem experienced by all low- to moderate-income households was the high cost of housing. This was especially true among renters where apartment vacancy rates at a low 3 percent have pushed the average rental rate to $519. In 19 90, 65 percent of the very low-income renters (0-30 percent of the MFI) had to spend at least half of their household income on rent and utilities. Fifty-three percent of elderly low- and moderate-income renters reported having some housing problem.
Homeowners were not exempt from cost burdens. Of low- and moderate-income owners, 5,473 spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs and 2,425 spent more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners created a Special Commission on Hunger and Homelessness that surveyed people who were being served in county shelters. Of the 112 sheltered homeless surveyed, 63 percent were between 22 and 40, 71 percent were w omen, and 56 percent were single parents. Although Hispanics and African Americans comprise 7 percent and under 1 percent of the population respectively, they were overrepresented as shelter residents: 9 percent Hispanics and 8 percent African Americans. Incomes of sheltered homeless people were extremely low, with 72 percent earning less than $3,000 per year. Half of the children involved were under five.
Estimations of the various subpopulations are admittedly in need of further study. The county estimates that two of ten homeless people are severely mentally ill, three of ten are substance addicted, and half are both. The percent of the homeless populati on with an AIDS-related disease is 1 percent. The Commission found that 26 percent of the homeless were victims of domestic violence, while Family Tree, a battered women's shelter, reported that over 70 percent of the families they shelter became homeless due to domestic violence.
The Commission recommended:
A 1994 continuum of care symposium also identified needs for permanent supportive housing, prevention programs, and ways to better coordinate existing services.
The Jefferson County Housing Authority (JCHA) reports 494 households on the public housing waiting list, over a hundred more than a year ago. The public housing inventory contains 65 public housing units, 622 Section 8 assisted housing units, and 14 handi capped accessible units. An additional 333 Section 8 units are under construction. There are no vacancies.
JCHA estimates a need for 500 affordable rental homes and 500 units of affordable ownership housing. JCHA operates 40 scattered-site homeownership units, but competition for the units is keen.
The primary barrier to providing affordable owner or rental housing in Jefferson County is the high cost of land and development. Because of high demand, developers are more likely to build more profitable single-family homes or luxury rental apartments, rather than moderately priced rental units. The low apartment vacancy rates compound the problem by pushing rental rates upward, stimulating the construction of high-end apartments.
Although zoning, subdivision, building code regulations, and development fees drive the cost of housing up, the county views these as necessary to promote good planning, public safety, and to recover costs associated with development. Although the inadequ ate housing mix is a problem, many local plans do allow for a limited amount of higher density homes which provide the opportunity for lowering per unit costs.
Impediments to fair housing choice may come from banks or other lending institutions, from the real estate sector, from housing developers, or from the public sector. At this time, Jefferson County does not have information on what obstacles to fair housi ng choice exist or where they might be concentrated in the county, if present. The county plans to conduct an in-depth analysis of the impediments to fair housing choice. This will be followed by an action plan to address the specific concerns or complain ts identified. The goal of this action plan will be to increase the range of locational choices available to households, including those of minorities, families, and persons with disabilities.
In 1994, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment tested 108 Jefferson County children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years for lead. Seven of those children had elevated blood lead levels, but none were high enough to present a health proble m. Of the 14,252 housing units with a potential for lead hazards, an estimated 4,840 units were occupied by persons with very low incomes and 8,900 by persons with low incomes.
There were 300 elderly and frail elderly residents on the waiting list for assisted housing in the county. There is a pressing need for subsidized housing for seniors who are physically, but not financially, able to stay in their homes. For frail elderly who can no longer stay in their homes but are not in need of a nursing home, there is a need for affordable assisted-living units. Most of those currently available are private and do not accept Medicaid. The waiting period for subsidized senior housing i n Jefferson County is 2 years (compared to 3 months in Denver).
There is an acute need for a licensed personal care boarding home and/or an alternate care facility for individuals who are infected with HIV/AIDS. There is currently one unlicensed personal care boarding home serving this population and two hospices for those with less than 6 months to live but not on life support. It is estimated that a new 20-bed facility would fill immediately.
The Jefferson County Housing Authority has 193 persons on its list for accessible subsidized housing. The need is increasing because people with severe disabilities are living longer. There is an additional need for larger apartments for quadriplegic pers ons and/or those with live-in attendants.
The Jefferson County Community Center for Developmental Disabilities has called for 25 additional group homes, 19 single-family homes, 19 accessible single story homes, and 37 apartments. About 300 persons are on their waiting list, half of which would mo ve immediately into housing if it were available. Thirty to 40 are in increasingly tenuous positions, and 10 of those are in critical situations where their families can no longer house them at home. More options for emergency, transitional, and respite c are are needed.
The Jefferson Center for Mental Health reports that 4,828 clients were served during 1993-94. The trend toward deinstitutionalization is severely limiting the creation of new beds for this group. Families caring for the mentally ill need relief in the for m of respite care or permanent placement in residential care, but all institutions have long waiting lists and no vacancies.
The greatest needs identified by the county and its cities were infrastructure improvements, particularly for streets and sidewalks. Water improvements were important for Golden and Mountain View. Funding for these improvements will come from a variety of sources, including local government general funds, impact fees, special districts, and State and Federal highway funds.
Parks and recreation areas were given a high priority. Jefferson County Open Space, which is funded through a .5 percent tax, has a $36 million budget to fund projects within the county and the cities. Neighborhood parks and recreational centers can be fu nded through the Open Space budget.
Senior, handicapped, and youth services and accessibility needs were also defined as high priority activities. Many service programs are funded through Federal, State, and local government. The highest priority economic development needs in the county are
attracting new businesses, training and retention of the workforce, and developing commercial and industrial infrastructure. The Jefferson Economic Council, which works to promote job growth and expansion, is funded by the county and private businesses.
Jefferson County and participating municipalities worked closely with service providers, community representatives, members of the public, and elected officials to define housing and community development priorities. Over the next 5 years, the county plan s to emphasize:
The planning process begun with the Consolidated Plan will not end there: the Future Jeffco plan is establishing a vision for how the county should grow, develop, and provide services in the future. It is also addressing the coordination needed to ensure a high quality of life for county citizens. The first task is to create policy statements on issue areas such as land use and development, health and human services, natural resources, education, arts, humanities, and culture. Strategies and activities wi ll then be defined to carry out the policies. The Consolidated Plan may need revision following the 1995 program year to accommodate this process.
Objective: Increase and preserve the supply of affordable rental units. Proposed strategies:
Objective: Increase and preserve homeownership for low- and moderate-income people. Proposed strategies:
Objective: Preserve and increase the supply of permanent supportive housing and services for nonhomeless people with special needs. Proposed strategies:
Objective: Ensure that those needing housing assistance also have access to supportive services. Proposed strategies:
Objective: Increase emergency shelter, transitional housing facilities, and prevention programs. Proposed strategies:
Objective: Identify nonhousing needs such as deteriorating infrastructure, public facilities, and services, and promote economic development. Proposed strategies:
To reduce the number of households living below the poverty line, Jefferson County will encourage Jeffco Employment and Training Services, the Jefferson County Department of Social Services, the Jeffco Self-Sufficiency Council, and other public and privat e agencies to work together to address poverty. Any antipoverty strategy will need to address the following:
A lack of resources continues to be the greatest problem in meeting community needs, especially in housing. Since most public infrastructure improvements are funded through other Federal, State, or local sources, it is anticipated that Jefferson County's Community Development Block Grant program and HOME funds will be used to focus on services, housing and neighborhood projects, and revitalization and infrastructure improvements in the older cities. The county will examine other funding sources, including cooperative projects among the various agencies and local governments so that the community can be served more effectively.
Jefferson County leverages Federal funds received by the Department of Social Services to provide many services, including job training, child care, and short-term housing assistance with vouchers. Nonprofit groups provide a lion's share of the services, and emergency shelter programs. Funding from these groups comes from Federal grants and private donations.
The county and participating cities have capital improvement needs that are covered by their general funds. These are often supplemented by Federal and State highway funds. Only Mountain View requested Federal grant monies to leverage general fund monies to repair infrastructure.
There is no publicly owned property in Jefferson County to accommodate plan needs, but some nonprofit organizations have been able to secure land with privately donated funds. For example, Colorado Homeless Families plans to construct 12 transitional hous ing units in 1995 on land purchased with private donations. This is an area of funding with future potential.
A lack of coordination of funding sources among the many jurisdictions within the county is a common problem. For example, there are 138 special districts in Jefferson County that provide services in excess of those provided by the county and cities. Serv ices range from water and sanitation to fire protection, road improvements, parks, and recreation. In response to increased competition for shrinking resources, the county, cities, school district, and special districts have begun to work together to iden tify opportunities for joint projects and other measures to maximize tax dollars.
Jefferson County and the participating cities will continue to coordinate efforts to meet the housing and community development needs of county residents. Many other groups will work with the local and county governments to develop and implement the Conso lidated Plan.
Public agencies providing housing resources, including the Jefferson County Housing Authority, community development agencies, and agencies administering programs such as HOPE, HOME, and CDBG will have an active role in defining needs and proposing projec ts and programs for the HOME grant.
An example of cooperative efforts across agency and community lines is the Jeffco Self-Sufficiency Council. The Council was founded 4 years ago by service providers and community leaders who wanted to improve coordination of services among public, private
, and community agencies for families attempting to become independent of welfare and other public supports. Three public housing authorities committed 79 Section 8 rental assistance vouchers to the program. A wide range of other agencies, organizations,
businesses, and individuals donate services, money, time, and organizational expertise. There are many other cooperative efforts that will help Jefferson County administer the strategic plan effectively.
Eleven topic areas and related actions have been identified by Jefferson County to address its housing and community development needs in 1995:
To address emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless individuals and families:
To prevent low-income individuals and families with children from becoming homeless:
To help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living:
To foster and maintain affordable housing:
To reduce the number of households with incomes below the poverty line:
To develop institutional structure:
To address obstacles to meeting underserved needs:
To address nonhousing community development needs:
To foster public housing improvements and resident initiatives:
To remove barriers to affordable housing:
To enhance coordination between public and private housing social service agencies:
MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas.
MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects.
MAP 6 is a map, sectioned by neighborhood, which depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects.
MAP 7 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within one of the four neighborhoods indicated in MAP 6.
MAP 8 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects within another of the four neighborhoods indicated in MAP 6.
MAP 9 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded project(s) from a street level vantage point; in addition, a table provides information about the project(s).
