Columbia is located in central Missouri, north of Jefferson City. It is the home of the University of Missouri at Columbia, which houses the Nation's oldest journalism school. Columbia's population is growing modestly and job growth is also steady. The unemployment rate in Columbia is low in comparison to the overall State unemployment rate. Many of the 984 jobs added annually between 1990-1993 were in the service and retail sectors which offer lower wages than other sectors.
Columbia's Consolidated Plan requests $750,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $500,000 in HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) entitlement funds for Fiscal Year 1995. These funds are expected to finance 23 activities including rehabilitation, infrastructure, accessibility, and public facilities activities. Through the State, Columbia will have access to Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds to support activities to help homeless people.
In accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
regulations, Columbia carried out a citizen participation plan that encouraged
citizen input into the development of the Consolidated Plan. Special attention
was paid to participation of low- and moderate-income residents and those who
will be most affected by the plan. The public had access to the submitted plan.
In 1990 Columbia's population was 69,101. Students make up roughly a third of Columbia's population, and only 9,000 of these live in dormitories. The community is aging: 10 percent of the population is age 62 or older, an increase of 23 percent since 1980. Minorities make up about 15 percent of the total population. Their numbers increased about 38 percent between 1980 and 1990. The Asian American and Pacific Islander population grew the most quickly, doubling in size.
The 1990 median family income (MFI) was $41,187. Fifty percent of Columbia's households are low-income (less than 80 percent of MFI) Minorities are over-represented in all low-income brackets. Figures are most telling at the top and bottom of the scale. About a quarter of whites are very low-income (those with incomes below 50 percent of MFI). About 40 percent of Native Americans and 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics fit this category as do close to 75 percent of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. At the other end, about half of all whites in higher income brackets (those households at or above 95 percent of MFI). Forty percent of Hispanics and Native Americans and less than 25 percent of African Americans and Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders share this income level.
Between 20-25 percent in all groups are low-income (51-80 percent of MFI).
About 10-15 percent of African Americans, Hispanics, and whites have moderate
incomes (81-95 percent of MFI).
Overcrowding has increased in Columbia between 1980 and 1990. It is more prevalent among renter households. The 1990 census reports 102 overcrowded owner-occupied housing units and 529 overcrowded renter-occupied units.
During the past decade, single-family (and, to some extent, multifamily) housing starts have been growing. The job market has been growing as well, and although some of that growth is in the lower paying service and retail industries, lower interest rates have made it a good time for many to buy a home. The average selling price in 1990 was $67,090.
In 1990 Columbia had 27,551 housing units. Renters occupied 53 percent of these; owners occupied 41 percent; and 6 percent were vacant. About 1,300 units were estimated to be substandard, but 99 percent of these could be rehabilitated. Of the almost 300 units for sale in 1990, 28 were affordable for extremely low-income households (those earning less than 30 percent of MFI); 82 were affordable to very low-income households; and 162 were affordable for low-income households. Nearly 1,000 rental units were available. Extremely low-income households could afford to rent 228 of these units; very low-income households could afford 771 of these units; and low-income households could afford 940 units.
The 1990 census indicated that 31 percent of Columbia's households experience cost burden, defined as spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. Sixteen 16 percent of households had severe cost burden, which is defined as spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Although more than three times as many renters (about 45 percent) have affordability problems than owners, the number of owner households with affordability problems more than doubled (from 5 to 13 percent) between 1980 and 1990.
The 1990 census reported 57 persons in homeless emergency shelters and 3 visible on the street. Six of those in shelters were under 18. More than half were reported to be substance abusers, and another 20 percent each were reported to have severe mental illness or a combination of severe mental illness and substance abuse problems. Four women and five children were staying at Comprehensive Services, a shelter for abused spouses and families. A single night count of homeless shelters in June 1993 found 135 homeless people and an estimated 35-40 unsheltered homeless. This count indicates that numbers of homeless people are increasing.
The Housing Authority of the City of Columbia (CHA) administers 741 units of low-income public housing, located at 7 sites. Almost half of the units are for families; the remainder are reserved for elderly or disabled tenants. As of October 1, 1994, there were 81 applicants on the public housing waiting list. CHA also administers 498 Section 8 certificates and 63 vouchers. There were 152 applicants on the Section 8 waiting list. Depending on the size unit requested, assistance may take as long as 2 1/2 years.
Columbia's flexible zoning, site plan review procedures, land costs, construction costs, and lack of development fees work together to support the construction of affordable housing.
To the extent known, there are no court orders, consent decrees, or HUD-imposed sanctions affecting the provision of assisted housing or fair housing remedies in Columbia.
Before 1990 census data were available, Columbia conducted a fair housing choice impediments study to determine if the needs of local residents with disabilities were being met by CDBG and Rental Rehabilitation programs. The focus was placed on these services because of the university's commitment to recruiting students with disabilities. The study showed a need to increase physical and programmatic accessibility to Columbia's housing programs. It proposed that special attention be given to rehabilitation applications to make accessibility alterations.
Lead-based paint is a potential human and environmental health hazard. Low-income areas and homes not well maintained tend to pose the greatest risk. The number of housing units constructed before 1980 is a satisfactory indicator of housing containing lead-based paint; Columbia has 14,436 low-income households in pre-1980 housing stock.
Portions of Columbia's elderly and disabled populations need supportive housing on a daily basis. Using national estimates as an example, Columbia may have about 112-176 elderly households who need financial or supportive services assistance. Elderly persons on fixed incomes may need rehabilitation, weatherization, and utility assistance programs. While some frail elderly may need home health or meal delivery, others may be able to live independently if the housing design can be altered by installing railings or relocating rooms to the main floor.
One of the primary independent living service providers for the physically handicapped in Columbia, Services for Independent Living, indicates that physical housing design is a primary impediment to independent living for persons with disabilities. Columbia expects about 100 households to need assistance because of physical disabilities.
Although there may be between 500-1,200 persons in Columbia with mental illnesses, not all of these can be classified as severe and not all of these persons are at risk for homelessness. The institutionalized population is assumed to the most vulnerable. Columbia estimates that 360 persons use Columbia's mental hospital per year and national figures indicate that a third of them need housing assistance upon release. This number would be about 53 households, which roughly corresponds with the estimate of 50 households provided by the Phoenix House, a homeless special needs and substance abuse residential facility.
Some developmentally disabled people may not require institutionalization, but may need some financial or supportive housing. Group or supervised living arrangements are the most common environments. Columbia anticipates accommodating 75 additional households with developmentally disabled persons. There are currently 60 households provided by the Central Missouri Counties Human Development Corporation.
The Missouri Department of Health reported 103 HIV-positive cases in Boone County in June 1994. An estimated 80 percent of those reside in Columbia. The National Commission on AIDS reports that about one-third to one-half of persons living with AIDS are either homeless or at risk of homelessness. Columbia estimates there may be 41 persons with AIDS or related diseases who will need supportive housing.
Columbia will allocate 60-65 percent of available CDBG funds to improve low-income areas. This category includes city projects completed on public property or city right-of-way. Planning and administration costs for all CDBG activities are also included under this heading.
An additional 10-15 percent of available funds will be used for community
facilities. This category includes funding to improve buildings occupied by
community service agencies and organizations. It also includes physical
improvement projects that eliminate blight or support economic development
activities. Other projects that complement or support city- operated programs or
services, such as handicap access, may also be considered under this category.
Columbia's housing priorities are formulated around the following four groups of people. Because these groups have differing housing needs, the strategies that will be pursued to meet their needs also may differ. Where applicable, 5-year goals have been listed.
The priorities for renters include:
The priorities for owners include:
Priorities for the homeless include:
Priorities for populations with special needs include:
Non-housing community development activities will primarily benefit low- and moderate-income households and clientele. Some activities will improve the city or city services as a whole. High priority needs will be funded and medium priority needs will be funded as additional money exists.
High priority has been assigned to the following:
Medium priority has been assigned to the following:
Columbia will use the following State programs to support its activities:
The city will use the following local programs to support its activities:
The city will use the following for-profit resources to support its activities:
The city will use the following nonprofit resources to support its activities:
As the resources indicate, Columbia has assembled Federal, State, county, and municipal players to carry out its strategic plan:
Nonprofit organizations referred to throughout this narrative provide a variety of service, including: shelters, counseling, rehabilitation, meals, health care, and employment services. The role of the for-profit development and financial communities is discussed in the resources section.
While the system already has many strengths, there are opportunities as
well. The greatest needs are increasing education about the number of resources
available, building the administering capacity to use resources, and
establishing more efficient coordination among all housing service providers.
During 1995-1996, Columbia is planning 23 activities using CDBG, HOME, and State ESG funding. Key projects include the following:
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).
