Burlington is New Jersey's largest county. Although primarily rural, it is considered an "urban" county because most of its residents live in municipalities. Burlington County is situated in central New Jersey, commuting distance to New York City (to the northeast), Trenton (to the north), and Philadelphia (to the west). Between 1980 and 1990 the county attracted many former residents of those cities who were fed up with chronic urban problems such as violent crime, soaring housing costs, and inadequate schools. A nine percent rise in population brought the number of residents to 395,100. Most of the new arrivals settled near the two major highways that intersect the county: the New Jersey Turnpike and Route 295. In fact, population increases were concentrated in only four municipalities: Westhampton, Mansfield, Mount Laurel, and Evesham.
During that decade, the poverty rate in Burlington County -- reflecting the relative affluence of its newest residents -- fell 27 percent. However, increased housing costs outran wages for lower income residents. Meanwhile, the local economy was trying to cope with the proposed closure and downsizing of two major military facilities, the Army's Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base.
The Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders directed the Office of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to take the lead in preparing the Consolidated Plan. After consulting with the 60-member Community Development Advisory Committee, and holding a series of public meetings around the county, the HCD prepared plans for using annual supplementary Federal funding provided by the Community Block Grant Program (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnership program (HOME), and the Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG).
This document summarizes the county's plans for using combined 1995 HUD grant monies of $3,461,000 to enable low-income residents to purchase their first home, help repair roads and basketball courts, take homeless people off the streets, deliver meals to the home-bound elderly, and to undertake a host of other social, housing, and infrastructure improvements.
To engage the public in the planning process, Burlington County held hearings in 30 of the county's 40 municipalities to discuss proposals for community development activities. In an effort to ensure the widest possible participation, advance notices were placed in local newspapers, and community groups representing retarded citizens, the physically and mentally handicapped, and other county residents with special needs were invited to participate. Written comments were also requested.
In addition, low-income and minority residents were surveyed by social service groups to determine their views on community development priorities. State and county officials, and special human services advisory groups, such as the Comprehensive Emergency Assistance System (CEAS) Committee, convened meetings to discuss their clients' needs in regard to the Consolidated Plan. The CEAS Committee is comprised of public and private social service agencies, particularly those providing services and shelter for homeless people or those at risk of homelessness.
Following the consultative meetings, a draft of the Consolidated Plan was made available to the public for review and comment. Two final public hearings were held.
MAP 1 depicts points of interest in the jurisdiction.
The western portion of Burlington County boasts most of the county's industrial and commercial development, which expanded with the large influx of new residents in the early 1980s. The mid-county region also experienced considerable change in the last decade, adding substantial residential and commercial development to what were once rural farm lands and scattered residential communities.
The county's more affluent residents have prospered by this surge in development -- median family income (MFI) was $41,959 in 1990, compared to the national MFI of $35,939. Low-income residents have seen few benefits other than a slight increase in blue collar jobs.
Still, only about one out of seven households felt the pinch. In 1990, just 14 percent of the county's 136,554 households had incomes between 0 and 50 percent of MFI. Just over 4 percent of the population, comprising 16,084 people, fell below the poverty line. Fully 62 percent of county households enjoyed income levels greater than 95 percent of MFI.
According to the 1990 Census, more than a third of those county residents living in poverty conditions were minorities. This is significant because eight out of ten county residents are white. Minority populations are concentrated in 14 of the county's 40 municipalities. In municipalities such as Willingboro Township and Wrightstown Borough, more than half the residents are minorities (Black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander or "other"). Eight of these 14 municipalities have been declared "low income concentrated" areas. Their poverty rates are at least 1 percent higher than the county rate of 4.2 percent.
Of the county's 136,554 households in 1990, around 7 percent, or 10,369, were low- (30-50 percent of MFI) or extremely low-income (0-30 percent of MFI) owners. Of this subgroup, nearly two out of three (61 percent) were elderly. Over 10 percent of all homeowners are from a minority group, but about half of these have incomes under 50 percent of the MFI.
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.
Despite the demographic changes that occurred in the last decade, housing conditions in the county today are relatively stable. No significant additional changes in population or housing are expected in the near future. Economically, the situation is stable as well. The proposed closure and alteration of Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base did not occur as originally anticipated and both have been realigned to contribute financially to the area.
Seven percent of owner-occupied housing, or 7,319 units, have substandard conditions. For rental housing, the percentage of substandard housing is 5 percent or 1,792 units. Fortunately, 9 out of 10 of these are suitable for rehabilitation.
Although overcrowding is not a problem in owner-occupied housing, it is a problem in 4 percent of rental units. One quarter of these house families with more than five members and three-quarters of those families have very-low incomes.
New prosperity brought a dramatic rise in housing prices. The median value of housing in Burlington County nearly tripled in the last census period, from $48,000 in 1980 to $122,400 in 1990. Rising costs priced many first-time home buyers out of the market. In 1993 the top moderate income level for a family of 3 in Burlington County was $33,550. If the affordable purchase price of a home should be twice annual income, this model family could buy a home costing no more than $67,100. Of the 3,787 single family homes listed for sale in Burlington County in December 1993, fewer than 300 units were priced at 62,000 or less. These prices have created new demands for rental housing (raising rental prices) and higher property tax burdens for existing home owners.
The incomes of poorer homeowners in Burlington County are hit hard by the cost of maintaining their homes. Almost half of extremely low-income elderly owners spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing and related costs. Four-fifths of all extremely low-income owners and three-quarters of non-elderly low-income owner households spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Even half of moderate income owners other than elderly have a similar cost burden.
The situation is the same or slightly worse for minority homeowners. All extremely low-income Hispanic homeowners (54 households) report some type of housing problems (defined as excessive cost or substandard conditions or overcrowding) and over half of all moderate-income Hispanic homeowners (123) report housing problems. Three-quarters of extremely low-income black owners (431 households) and even over half of moderate-income black homeowners reported housing problems.
Low- and extremely low-income households, over a quarter minorities, rent 8,096 units. Between 60 and 80 percent of very low-income households were spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent and utilities. Well over half of all low-income renter households and one-third to over one-half of moderate income renters have housing costs that are more than 30 percent of their incomes. Minority renter households do not experience a disproportionate cost burden compared with non-minority renter households.
A one-night survey of homeless facilities in the county estimated there were 400 homeless people. The respondents were relatively young, predominantly minority, often unemployed, and not well educated. Burlington County believes this figure to be lower than the reality because much of the area is rural. However, the county has not yet established a process for identifying rural homeless people. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents fit into one or more of the following categories of special service needs: severe mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, homeless youth, AIDS/related diseases, and veterans.
Burlington County has three public housing authorities: Beverly City, Burlington City, and Florence Township. These provide a total of 211 housing units. At the present time, there are no vacancies and each authority maintains a waiting list of 60-75 households. All units are in good condition and need modification only to make the housing accessible for persons with disabilities.
The county identified the following practices that have a negative affect on the cost of housing or on incentives to develop, maintain or improve affordable housing:
Burlington County will undertake an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice.
Approximately 70 percent of Burlington County's housing stock may contain lead-based paint. Some 24,600 low- and moderate-income households occupy these pre-1980 housing units. Pediatricians routinely test children for the presence of lead in their blood. Recently the standards have been made more stringent, lowering the level of lead considered dangerous. The Health Department received six pediatrician referrals in one month. This caseload is as high as that referred over the prior three-year period.
Although official data is not available to demonstrate the housing requirements of populations with special needs, service agencies indicate that there is a serious lack of housing suitable for physically handicapped persons. There are 33,000 persons in Burlington County who are classified as disabled. These include persons with physical, developmental, or mental disabilities. Their greatest needs are for accessibility, affordability, and supportive services. Their work limitations means they often must rely on Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Benefits which severely limits their access to market-rate housing. Nearly 6,000 of this group may need supportive services not now available.
The Burlington County Office on Aging surveyed the numbers of elderly served through home visits, case management, Meals on Wheels, and congregate meals and determined that 8 percent need supportive housing. On the other hand, 40 percent of Burlington County's frail elderly (5,827 persons) need supportive housing. This may include affordable housing, accessible housing, support with daily living activities, transportation, or access to nutritious meals.
The county did not have time to conduct a thorough community development needs assessment. During the first two years covered by this plan, the county will analyze the situation and develop an amended Consolidated Plan which meets HUD's requirements and will serve the county as an effective guide. The actions proposed will be coordinated with other community initiatives and resources to benefit low-income residents. The planning strategy need not start from scratch. There are a number of pertinent plans such as the 1994 Overall Economic Development Plan, the Burlington County Human Services Plan 1989-94, and the Employment and Training Plan for the 1994 fiscal year which can assist in community development planning. The county will consult with residents; county, municipal, and State departments; public housing authorities; educational and financial institutions; housing providers and developers; and advisory groups. At this time, the county envisions focusing on the following community development concerns:
Burlington County's strategic plan includes two targeted plans with shorter time periods. The Planning Strategy, referred to earlier, takes place between 1995 and 1996. It will develop a comprehensive, long-term community development plan. More immediate concerns will be dealt with in the Community Development Strategy presented below, which covers 1995-1997. Housing priorities extend over the entire five-year period.
The Planning Strategy includes both housing and community development projects. For instance, the consultation activities will strengthen existing local or regional relationships and provide an opportunity for new linkages to emerge. The county will also compile an inventory of financial institutions and the community reinvestment programs they offer. The county also has determined that community awareness about the needs of low-income residents should be raised. Dedicated community leaders and advocacy groups may be the best resource to show that addressing low-income needs is good for the whole community.
The strategic plan will address problems of high cost and substandard conditions for very low- and low-income renters and owners. Another strong emphasis will be on reducing substandard conditions and costs for moderate income renters, especially those who are elderly.
Burlington County will address these needs with the following activities:
In addition to CDBG, and HOME funds, these projects may be funded by the following Federal programs: Section 8, Section 202 and 811, and HOPE for Elderly Independence Demonstration Program. Potential State resources include Neighborhood Preservation, Balanced House, and CDBG/Small Cities. Locally, Burlington County may apply to the Home Improvement Loan Program and the Neighborhood Preservation Programs.
There are a number of new supportive housing projects underway to meet the demand for small group homes with attendant services, and for independent living housing. These projects will add 236 new supportive housing units.
Over the next five years, Burlington County will expand its continuum of care system to assist the homeless in the following ways:
Outreach, Intake, Assessment
Prevention
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Shelter
Permanent Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Continue to educate local community leaders about supportive housing.
Emergency Shelter Grant, CDBG, HOME, and State programs will fund many of these activities.
Although Burlington County will be using the next two years to develop a broad community development plan, it has, nonetheless, a number of priorities for the years 1995-1997. Based on municipal, nonprofit organization, and county departmental plans, the county proposes to improve or expand the following, primarily in low-income areas:
While CDBG funding will be directed toward these activities, it will not cover their entire cost. Other resources will include local tax revenues, Health and Human Services, Economic Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Labor Department, and other HUD funds.
The county has a strong antipoverty strategy in place. Its planning and advisory committees assure a comprehensive and coordinated exchange between public and private organizations. In addition to the many excellent nonprofit organizations, the county's offices of Housing and Community Development, Job Training, Health and Human Services, Economic Development, Office of Aging, County Welfare Board and the municipal welfare offices provide the services needed for the antipoverty strategy. Programs such as the Home Improvement Loan Program, Job Training Program, and Family Development will be expanded over the next five years as required to meet the needs of low-income county residents.
The Burlington County Office of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has primary responsibility for administering this plan. The Community Development Advisory Committee and the Comprehensive Emergency Assistance System (CEAS) Committee, important to the Consolidated Plan planning process, will continue to be an important link between nonprofit and private sector organizations, and the municipal and county governments. Experienced agencies will have primary responsibility for activities specific to their skills. For instance, nonprofit and county human services agencies will administer social services tasks. Private industry, including financial institutions, are the principal resource for implementing economic development activities.
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; as well as, provides a table with information about the project(s)
Projects funded primarily or exclusively by CDBG include:
In the "strategy" component of this application, Burlington County examined its long-term goals for the continuum of care. In 1995, some planning, development, and implementation activities will begin or be expanded:
Many of the projects addressed in the 1995 action plan will increase or expand projects that serve residents throughout the county. Services projects include:
Housing activities include:
Economic development activities include:
Improvements to public facilities include:
CDBG funding for municipal efforts are concentrated in the distressed areas of Beverly City and Mount Holly Township, which have among the highest concentrations of minority and low-income populations in the county.
