The Fairfax County Consolidated Plan has been developed in accordance with federal regulations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The HUD regulations combine the funding application process for four programs -- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) -- with the broader planning requirements of the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), which is replaced by the Consolidated Plan. The County's Consolidated Plan is for a five year period from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 2000, with a One-Year Action Plan for County fiscal year 1996 (FY 1996) from July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996.
Through cooperation agreements, the Fairfax County Consolidated Plan will include community development programs, affordable housing activities and homeless services in the City of Fairfax, the Town of Herndon, Town of Clifton, and Town of Vienna, and provision of homeless services for the City of Falls Church, Virginia. The Consolidated Plan addresses the proposed use of $8.5 million in federal FY 1995 funds.
The Consolidated Plan development process involved extensive citizen input
through a variety of citizen advisory groups representing housing, community
development, and human service interests throughout Fairfax County and the
participating Towns and Cities. The Proposed Consolidated Plan was
developed by the Consolidated Plan Review Committee, which is comprised of three
representatives each of the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority
(FCRHA), the Fairfax County Human Services Council (HSC), and the CHAS
Coordinating Committee. A public hearing on the Proposed Plan was held
on March 27, 1995, by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which took action
on April 24, 1995, to approve the final Consolidated Plan for submission to HUD.
For this transition year, the FCRHA held the initial hearing in May 1994 to
identify community development needs and priorities
Development of the Consolidated Plan is set against several significant demographic and economic trends. The population of the County had topped 818,000 by the 1990 census, and was estimated at 880,000 in January 1995. The number of minority persons, especially non-English speaking, had increased to 22.6% of the population in 1990, consisting of 8.3% Asian, 7.6% black, nearly 6.4% Hispanic, and 0.3% Native American and other. The elderly account for over 10% of the population, and are the fastest growing age segment. More than 90% of adults have graduated from high school, and over half have a college degree at the associate, bachelor, or post-graduate level. Although 60% of households had incomes of $50,000 or more in the 1990 U.S. census, 16% (over 47,000 households) had incomes under $30,000 and 14,620 households (5%) earned less than $15,000 per year. The metropolitan area median household income was $54,172.
Land values and the cost of housing in the County reached a high level by
1990, and with a decreasing supply of vacant land, housing costs have remained
high even with the slower economy of the early 1990's. The median market value
of housing in Fairfax County was $184,400 in 1994, well above the level
affordable to even moderate income households. The need for revitalization of
older communities and preservation of existing housing have also become
increasingly important concerns.
Special tabulations of census data provided by HUD counted 12,789 extremely low-income households in Fairfax County in 1990 who earned less than $16,250 per year (for a family of four), or 30% of the area median income. There were another 15,671 very low-income households earning 31-50% of the area median, for a combined total of 28,460 households with incomes below 50% of the area median income of $27,100 per year for a family of four.
Housing need is created by both low incomes and high costs of housing, which are higher in Fairfax County than national norms and the region in general. Using 50% of the County median income rather than the area median ($59,284 rather than $54,172), there are over 47,000 households that are potentially eligible for deep subsidy housing programs. The actual demand for housing subsidy is reflected on the FCRHA's waiting list for public housing and Section 8 certificates and vouchers, even though the list has been open to new applicants for only one month per year. At the end of 1994, the waiting list contained over 6,000 households, of which 98% had incomes below $30,000 per year and nearly 60% (3,700 households) had yearly incomes of less than $12,000.
Based on the 1990 census information, significant gaps occur at the low end of the very low-income range: the potential demand for affordable housing for households earning less than $20,000 per year exceeds the County's supply by almost 15,000 units. Similar situations exist for other low-income households, those earning 51-80% of the median income. There is a gap between potential demand and supply of some 7,600 units at this income level. For moderate income households, earning 81-95% of median income, the gap between potential demand and supply is in the range of 21,000 units.
This latter fact points to the difficulty of moderate and median income households in finding affordable housing in the County. These income groups include many public and private sector employees in public safety, teaching, technical and skilled trades, sales, services, and a variety of other occupations vital to the daily life of the community. Although the Consolidated Plan is focused more on federally funded programs targeted toward very low- and low/moderate-income households, it is recognized that the deficiency in affordable housing for moderate and median income households is an integral part of the overall problem.
Other factors can also contribute to housing needs. For minorities, potential housing discrimination is an issue that must be considered. The limited special census tabulations provided by HUD did not indicate any extraordinary disproportionate needs for minorities, particularly for renters and for the extremely low-income. The level of need appeared to be more related to lack of income than to racial or ethnic status. Fair housing cases constituted only three percent (3%) of the charges of discrimination investigated by the Fairfax County Human Rights Commission from FY 1985 through FY 1993. Almost 93% of the cases were in the area of employment discrimination.
For all households, almost 42% of renters and 28% of owners reported any housing problems in the 1990 census. For very low and low/moderate income households (from 0- 80% of area median income), the percentages ranged from 76% to almost 86% of renters reporting problems, and 68% to just over 81% of owners. For minorities, both overall and for Black Non-Hispanic, and for Hispanic minorities (the Asian minority was not reported separately in the HUD data), the percentages ranged from 66.5% to almost 90% for very low and low/moderate income renter households, and from 44% to 65% overall for minorities. For homeowners, there was a wider range, with 65% to 92.5% of very low and low/moderate income minorities reporting any housing problem, and 35.5% to 47% of minorities overall. The data seem to suggest that minority households with incomes above 80% of median experience a greater incidence of housing problems relative to all households, but the available information is insufficient to either verify or refute this possibility.
Several populations have special housing needs. Not only minorities and homeless families and individuals, but also the elderly, persons with disabilities (physical, mental, or substance addictions), and persons living with HIV/AIDS, have a wide range of potential special needs in housing relating to accessibility, affordability, and the availability of a variety of supportive services and resources. Models for special needs housing cover a continuum of housing options ranging from independent living to assisted living, group homes, and community and institutional residences. Access to public transportation and personal assistance services are crucial for some, and isolation from numerous environmental factors may be necessary for persons with extreme sensitivities. The availability of information about existing housing resources is also a need, especially for persons with physical and sensory disabilities.
Homelessness presents another set of special issues and needs. There were a total of nearly 3,200 persons served in the County's five community shelters or emergency placement program during fiscal year 1994, though this is a decline from previous years. Greater emphasis has been placed on preventive services, and there has been a growing need for intensive services, especially at the beginning of a shelter stay. Seventy percent (70%) of the people served in family shelters are children, over half of whom are under age 5, and these families are predominately single female headed households. While minorities were less than 23% of the County population in 1990, they accounted for 61% of the homeless (1994) and 66% of persons living in poverty (1992 data). Households with very low incomes, as well as those with special needs such as physical or mental disabilities, or substance abuse problems, are often at risk of becoming homeless. There is also an increasing need for alternative supportive living arrangements for persons with disabilities who reside in undesirable situations, or live with aging caregivers who may not be able to continue to provide care for long.
There is no evidence that lead-based paint poses a widespread hazard in housing units in Fairfax County. In 1994, eleven cases of children with blood lead levels of 15 micrograms per deciliter or greater were investigated by the Health Department, but there were no cases of childhood lead poisoning conclusively related to lead-based house paint exposure. When lead-based paint is found, there is often no immediate hazard because it is not peeling or flaking, has been covered with paint that is in good condition, or may be in a less accessible exterior location. All public housing units in the County constructed prior to 1978 have been tested, and no immediate hazards were identified. Mitigation measures for encapsulation or abatement to avoid future potential exposure are included in the five-year Comprehensive Grant Program for public housing improvements.
The 1990 census data reported a total of 307,966 housing units in Fairfax County, of which 206,882 (67%) were owner occupied and 85,463 (28%) were renter occupied, with 15,621 (5%) vacant. The County's Rental Housing Complex Census for 1990 reported an inventory of 48,510 unit in rental complexes with five or more units. The balance of the rental units (almost 37,000) were in townhouses, single family homes, private condominium or other rentals, or small multiplexes with four or fewer units. The median rent for all rental units, as reported in the federal census, was $834 per month, compared to $734 per month in rental complexes. The median in rental complexes rose to $767 per month by 1994, a net increase of 4.5%.
Preservation of existing affordable housing is an increasingly important issue, especially as market conditions improve and pressure grows for the sale, major renovation or conversion of older apartment complexes. There remain over 15,000 units of privately owned affordable rental housing in the County. Active strategies are needed to ensure the continued affordability of this inventory. In addition, there are 1,341 federally financed private units which have mortgages that are eligible for refinancing or prepayment within the next few years. These units are also vulnerable to the potential for loss as affordable rental housing.
While the County has programs, including the Affordable Dwelling Unit program, which provide homeownership opportunities for moderate income households, multi-family housing presents the most viable option for affordable housing opportunities for low and low/moderate income renter households. There is a growing imbalance between supply and demand for housing that is affordable to these income groups. Increasing the supply can take many avenues, including rental subsidies, capital write downs for acquisition or construction and the development of proactive strategies to increase the production of units that are affordable to low and very low income households. Opportunities to produce affordable housing depend on the County's land use policy and the implementation of that policy through the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Under the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan Area Plans in 1991, the potential for residential growth in the County increased by 31%, with multi-family housing increasing from 17% to 38% of the remaining planned residential development. With the completion of three special studies of major employment areas in the County and the 1994 Area Plan Review process, the multi-family housing potential has increased by more than 10,000 units.
Increased production of multi-family housing, however, also depends on an increase in land that is actually zoned for multi-family residential development. As of January 1993, there were 34,800 acres of vacant land zoned for residential development, but only about 470 acres (1.34%) was zoned at densities of 16 units to the acre and above. This production opportunity is far outweighed by the prevalence of residential zoning at very low densities. Based on current zoning, the remaining vacant land will produce about 40,000 more housing units of all types, compared to a potential of over 130,000 additional units under the Comprehensive Plan. To realize these additional units, more land will need to be rezoned to be in conformance with the higher densities allowed in the Plan. This will occur only if individual developers request, and the Board approves, such rezonings.
Based on potential build-out for vacant land that is zoned residential, multi-family housing would be approximately 23% of the total remaining development, about 9,000 units. The history of low rent unit production in recent years suggests that an optimistic maximum of 20% of units would be affordable to lower income households. These factors would yield only about 1,800 affordable units under current zoning. Even under the full potential of the new Comprehensive Plan, a maximum of less than 12,000 affordable units would be produced (at 20% of total multi-family housing production). The real number will likely be much lower than that.
As the availability of vacant land decreases, these is a corresponding shrinkage of opportunities to find new sites for affordable housing and an increase in the need to favorably consider creative alternative solutions. Mixed use zoning has been incorporated within most development centers, and several Zoning Ordinance amendments allows greater flexibility for mixed use on smaller sites and in planned development districts. Affordable housing production will increasingly depend on the proactive consideration of all potential sites and possible solutions.
The existing housing market also includes specialized housing facilities that serve persons with disabilities. There are over 1,800 nursing home beds in the County, a total of almost 2,000 adult care residence beds, privately owned continuing care (life-care) retirement communities (though these are not generally affordable), a small specialized adult foster care program, several treatment programs, supervised living, and supportive housing programs for persons with substance abuse problems, mental health needs, or mental retardation, a few beds in facilities for persons living with AIDS, and a few being established for persons with severe physical disabilities.
Assessment of the housing market also includes identification of concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and low-income households. Data from the 1990 census (by voting precinct) indicates that low-income households tend to be located in the same areas that have higher concentrations of minorities. These area are primarily the central/eastern part of the County in the areas of Bailey's Crossroads, Culmore, Seven Corners, and Jefferson Village, which have high concentrations of low income Asians and Hispanics. Both very poor whites and blacks are concentrated in south County along the Route I corridor in Lee and Mt. Vernon Magisterial Districts.
The Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority (FCRHA) owns 947 public housing units and administers 2,045 Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers. There are 1,707 other project-based Section 8 assisted units, and a total of 3,063 other federally assisted units in the County. In addition, there are 2,486 non-federally assisted units, approximately half of which are owned or administered by the FCRHA. The total number of assisted units was 10,248 as of December 1994, with additional units under development.
The County operates, through contracts with non-profit agencies, five community shelters with a bed capacity of 125 for families and 135 for single persons. When the shelters are full, alternative placements are sought for families and for disabled adults who cannot be accommodated in the shelters. A full range of services is provided to persons in the community-based shelters, including basic meals, clothing, and health care, as well as case management, service need assessment and case planning, counseling related to housing, employment and training, life skills, mental health and substance abuse counseling support, and assistance to link with services in the community that can continue after the shelter stay is completed. There are over 90 McKinney program funded transitional housing units with intensive services to help move families toward independence within two years, and 16 short-term transitional housing units operated by the non-profit agencies which run the shelters. Another non-profit agency, working with several other organizations, operates 55 units obtained through the HUD Dollar-a-year lease program for foreclosed properties.
Services to prevent homelessness are provided by a variety of public and private entities, and include mortgage/rental assistance, landlord-tenant mediation, household management assistance, budget counseling, revolving loans, and tax relief for elderly and disabled persons. A training and certification curriculum has been developed for housing counselors, and a grant project is piloting the use of intensive, community-based services to prevent homelessness in at-risk families in one targeted area of the County with a high percentage of low-income and minority households.
Public policies in Fairfax County provide a substantial policy basis for affordable housing, including statements in the adopted Goals for Fairfax County, the County's Comprehensive Plan, and various strategic planning documents for serving the homeless and for developing affordable and assisted housing. A number of barriers have also been identified, including a lag in the utilization of the mixed-use flexibility allowed under the new Comprehensive Plan, the lack of a zoning definition for Single Room Occupancy housing, restrictive eligibility and procedures in the Accessory Living Unit program, the lack of affordable and accessible units, particularly in older apartment buildings, lack of a centralized information base, underutilization of State Tax Credits for elderly and disabled persons, the need for more incentives in zoning and land use controls and ways to expedite the plan review process, and a need to develop a pilot to test variations or greater flexibility in building code siting, sizing, and development requirements or procedures to reduce the cost of housing.
The Fairfax County Community Development Program encompasses an array of
activities to improve low and moderate income communities in the County and to
provide housing and services for the County's low and moderate income
population. The primary focus is to preserve and improve neighborhoods and
existing affordable housing and to complement other County efforts to provide
new affordable housing. A number of innovative programs address the need to
improve the physical, economic and social conditions of neighborhoods throughout
the County, and to preserve, improve, and develop affordable housing.
Conservation projects address the need in many of the County's older communities
to repair aging infrastructure or bring public facilities up to current
standards. Revitalization of older commercial centers is needed to restore
economic viability. The County seeks to promote small and minority owned
businesses, and has provided a variety of public services to address specific
community needs. While these programs are targeted to benefit low and moderate
income families and neighborhoods, the results actually benefit every citizen of
Fairfax County by contributing to the overall economic health of the larger
community.
The Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan is for a five-year period, from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 2000. The Prologue to the Consolidated Plan outlines A Framework For Strategic Change which recognizes several key elements for achieving long-range public policy goals:
General priorities and broad strategies are described here in order to encompass all of the possible activities that could advance the objectives of the Consolidated Plan over a five year period. Specific priority need areas are addressed in separate sections.
The target populations for investment of housing assistance resources are grouped into three levels of priority:
High Priority:
Middle Priority:
Lower Priority:
Resources are intended to be used throughout the jurisdiction, including the participating and cooperating Towns and Cities. No housing assistance activity is categorically precluded, but specific activities undertaken will depend on a variety of inter-related factors, including availability of funding, match amounts, or potential for leveraging, availability of appropriate sites, opportunities for cooperative ventures, and the readiness of a development project to proceed. Within these constraints, high priority continues to be placed on use of federal rental assistance, construction or acquisition of new units, and provision of supportive services as an integral part of the housing assistance plan for certain categories of households.
Prevention of homelessness, preservation of existing housing, and development of a variety of creative solutions to the housing needs of different household categories will continue to be emphasized. These priorities were derived from a number of factors, including the adopted goals of the Board of Supervisors, the policy emphasis on prevention of homelessness, increased recognition of persons with special needs and the changing demographics of the County, and actions taken to preserve housing and demonstrate innovative, alternative approaches. These priorities were articulated collectively as a result of the Community-wide workshop held in June 1993 as part of the public participation process for development of the County's second CHAS, with only minor adjustments based changes in market conditions.
Prevention services are a high priority for individuals and families at risk of homelessness, and include loans and grants for security deposits, rent or mortgage assistance, utility payments, moving and storage fees to prevent eviction, landlord-tenant mediation, household management assistance, budget counseling, tax relief for the elderly and disabled, and emergency financial assistance in crisis situations to prevent the loss of housing. McKinney funding is used for outreach workers who collaborate with other agencies and provide an essential first point of contact to bring many homeless persons into services, focusing especially on individuals with mental health and/or substance abuse problems. Another grant project is piloting development of a comprehensive community- based service delivery system for families in the project area who are at risk of becoming homeless.
All families and individuals at the homeless shelters receive case management services, meals, clothing and basic health care, as well as the provision of a continuum of full service programs, including professional counselors, supplemented by volunteers and community programs, to assist in residents' efforts to end their homelessness through a variety of training, case management, counseling, and educational programs. Priority is placed on expansion of transitional housing options and supportive housing which continues a level of community support services after the family or individual has moved into permanent housing. A number of rehabilitative programs, supported employment, and job training programs are available to help people move toward independence and self-sufficiency.
Permanent supportive housing for homeless persons often depends on the provision of essential services to prevent the individual from again becoming homeless. In this respect, the person's housing needs are virtually the same as for a non-homeless person with similar special needs. Central to meeting these needs is the development of a comprehensive planning process to implement a "continuum of care" approach to homeless services, which would include prevention services, crisis intervention and support, and assistance in regaining decent and affordable housing.
Special needs housing and specialized supportive services are essential for prevention of homelessness and moving people from homelessness toward independence, as well as for independent living for non-homeless people with many different special needs. Often, persons with special needs may become homeless because their needs for supportive housing are not met. A wide variety of different housing situations must be addressed, and a full range of supportive services, from general supervision and assistance with meals or daily activities to intensive treatment services, must be available to help different people with special needs to access and remain in permanent housing. There are numerous models, such as group homes, adult assisted living facilities, single-room occupancy, supervised apartments and group living arrangements, accessory living units, as well as more conventional kinds of housing, any of which may be applicable for one or more special needs populations, depending on the particular needs to be addressed. The planning process must take into consideration the particular client group to be served, and include service specialists to ensure that necessary adaptations are incorporated and provisions made for the supportive services that may be needed.
Non-housing community development needs and priorities for public improvements, economic development, public services, and public facilities are discussed below in five major categories. Extensive citizen participation, which includes public input through citizen committees, public hearings, staff attendance at community meetings, and technical assistance provided to citizen associations, is a strong feature of the planning process for community development programs.
Conservation and Redevelopment Areas are neighborhoods in need of preservation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction, and for which the Board of Supervisors has formally adopted a Conservation or Redevelopment Plan, which enables the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority (FCRHA) to undertake specific activities in that neighborhood, as outlined in the adopted Plan. A Redevelopment Area is characterized by conditions of blight and deterioration, and other conditions preventing proper development which require major land acquisition, clearance, and reconstruction. A Conservation Area is characterized by less severe conditions of blight and deterioration, with a major emphasis on preserving and improving most existing land uses and buildings. The designation of Rehabilitation District may be used for areas adjacent to approved Conservation Areas which are beginning to deteriorate and need public action by the FCRHA to prevent further deterioration and the spread of blight.
Fifteen Conservation Areas (two inactive), three Redevelopment Areas, and three Rehabilitation Districts have been established in Fairfax County. A number of improvements have been completed in the various Conservation Areas, and planned improvements are continuing or pending in seven of these areas. These improvements include road and storm drainage improvements in five areas, renovation and expansion of community centers in two of these areas, and construction of sanitary sewer systems in two other areas. Major activities are basically complete in two of the Redevelopment Areas, and are underway in the third. Planning is underway for two additional proposed Redevelopment Areas. In the Rehabilitation Districts, the primary activity is the provision of loan funds under the County's Home Improvement Loan Program. No additional public improvement needs were specifically identified for the Rehabilitation Districts.
Community Improvement Neighborhoods are designated by the Board of Supervisors under the Community Improvement Program, which was established to improve the quality of moderate income neighborhoods in the County. Public improvements are provided on a partnership basis with property owners sharing in the cost of some improvements, while others are paid for entirely by public funds. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters, driveway entrances, and storm drainage systems are among the improvements that may be constructed. The Board has adopted Community Improvement Plans for 29 neighborhoods, and planning is underway to screen and select two additional neighborhoods. Improvements in this program are funded primarily through Fairfax County General Obligation Bonds. No federal funds have been used or are anticipated for the continuation of these improvements.
Economic Development activities include Commercial Revitalization in the older commercial centers of the County and Small and Minority Business Development. The older commercial centers are experiencing stages of economic stagnation and decline. Major problems include poor physical appearance and image, obsolete physical pattern and traffic congestion, lack of visual and functional amenities for shoppers, and inadequate promotion and marketing. These centers have stable, but slow growing markets, and face intense competition from newer commercial centers. Public improvements and upkeep in these areas also have historically been spotty. The Board of Supervisors has approved funding for public improvements in six areas, has established a Division of Revitalization within the Department of Housing and Community Development, and created a Revitalization Policy Committee to review recommendations to be made based on an assessment of the existing commercial revitalization program, which is underway.
Small and Minority Business Development is being promoted by the establishment of a Small and Disadvantaged Business Commission (SDBC), which has advised the Board on changes in County policies and procedures to enhance opportunities for small, minority- owned, and women-owned business to participate in County procurements. As a result of work by the SDBC, the County is participating in a public/private partnership to establish the South County Small Business Development Outreach Center (BDOC) in the Route One corridor. Following an initial marketing study, the BDOC will offer a variety of business training and development programs, including financial assistance to small and minority owned businesses.
Public Services are provided by a variety of public and private, non-profit, and civic organizations to address three general categories of need. Emergency Assistance provides short-term assistance to low and moderate income persons to answer immediate needs and prevent loss of employment or homelessness. Services and Programs Working With Minority Populations Experiencing Significant Language Barriers provides a variety of activities, including English language classes, alcohol and drug abuse prevention services, job training and placement, social services, and vital information that will assist these persons in becoming self-sufficient. Community Support Activities include a variety of services, such as transportation, supportive counseling for children, training by mentors, and youth activities, which address family issues and help to strengthen existing communities of affordable housing.
Other Public Facility and Community Development Needs have been identified by non-profit organizations, neighborhood and civic associations, and public agencies, and have included a variety of projects to address the need for adult day care centers, the extension of public water service, improvements to recreational facilities, and accessibility improvements.
The Board of Supervisors has adopted four long-range objectives for the County's Community Development Program, which will be achieved through the implementation of seven short-range objectives. The long-range objectives were developed in accordance with the primary objectives and requirements of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended:
Programs and projects to achieve these goals are undertaken Countywide, and in cooperating jurisdictions, with emphasis on participation of citizens and organized citizen groups. Projects may also be undertaken in conjunction with public housing improvements to be made through the Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP), as has occurred in two developments where renovations were made with CGP funds and on-site public service programs are provided with partial funding through the Community Development program.
A needs assessment survey of a sample of very low-income households in the County is conducted every three years. Affordable housing is consistently reported as the number one need. For families with meager resources, the threat of eviction is a constant reality, particularly when a crisis occurs, such as illness or sudden loss of income. The County's Eviction Prevention Program, and the non-profit operated Homeless Prevention Program are designed to provide emergency financial help in these situation to prevent evictions and/or foreclosures. In addition, through contracts with non-profit community based agencies, housing counseling and placement services are provided to low-income households. Funds are also raised through donations for emergency rental assistance and prevention of eviction. In FY 1994, over $250,000 was raised and 6,735 persons were assisted through the Housing Counseling and Placement program.
The County's approved Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP) describes the number and type of both physical and management improvements planned to improve the physical units and living environment of public housing residents. Public housing improvements will utilize more than $1.2 million in annual funding under the Comprehensive Grant Program to directly benefit the residents. Program priorities were established based on an objective assessment provided by an engineering and property management consultant as well as input from the residents. The two major priorities were improvements needed to bring older public housing units in line with the high quality standards of newer units, and improvements that enhance the County's capacity for long-term property maintenance, to effectively extend the useful life of public housing units. In addition, turnaround positions and training for managers is included to reduce the turnaround time on vacated units from 27 to under 20 days. During the five year period of the approved CGP major improvements are planned for six developments, with 60% of the improvements planned for the physical structures and replacement of major systems, and another 24% planned for non-dwelling structures, equipment and other features to improve the quality of the living environment. The FCRHA has also adopted policies and procedures for resident initiatives in four areas.
Involvement in Management by residents occurs in three components. The Anti-Drug Strategy/Security includes a mandatory tenant orientation program for all new tenants prior to lease-up, additional police patrols and a neighborhood watch program in certain projects, and a drug elimination coordinator who is responsible for all phases of the drug elimination program. Resident Participation/Management is accomplished through the Resident Activity Committee, which identifies and addresses a wide variety of concerns and issues relating to the quality of life, represents resident input to grant applications, and provides a variety of recreational and educational activities for both children and adults who live in the communities served. Economic Development/Self-Sufficiency programs incorporate several elements, including the federal Family Self-sufficiency program featured in both the Section 8 and public housing programs, and local programs focused on comprehensive home economics training, a comprehensive community based effort to prevent child abuse and neglect, on-site programs offering prevention services, tutoring, newsletters, E-S-L courses, parenting skills and child development programs.
Participation in Homeownership is offered through the Special Tenant Equity Program (STEP), which provides qualified public housing residents an opportunity to transition to affordable homeownership by allowing the tenant to escrow a portion of their rent payment until a balance is accrued that is sufficient to make a down payment to purchase a home. STEP includes below-market financing and a silent second trust to lower the cost of the home to the purchaser. The program provides comprehensive training in all areas of homeownership and support services from staff for each participant. Public housing residents can also participate in other homeownership programs offered by the County.
The Fairfax County Health Department conducts environmental lead investigations and screens all children seen in Health Department pediatrics clinics for blood-lead levels. Requests from the community for screening on children are also addressed. When childhood blood-lead levels are 15 mg/dl or greater, an interdisciplinary Health Department team conducts a thorough investigation of all possible sources of lead exposure, assists in managing the case, and counsels and follows-up with the family on methods to reduce the lead exposure potential. The Division of Environmental Health responds with three programs, at no cost to citizens needing services, when a concern about lead exposure exists, but there is no childhood lead poisoning. In addition, the FCRHA has completed required testing on pre-1978 public housing units. Although there is a very low risk of any lead hazard, abatement and encapsulation procedures for 106 units with potential exposure, primarily exterior, will be performed under the Comprehensive Grant Program plan for public housing improvements.
Strategies to remove or ameliorate any negative effects of public policies have been identified and developed primarily in areas that affect specific zoning provisions. The initial strategies for development of additional planning incentives, examination of program and building regulations, and consideration of possible "pilot projects" focus on providing further definition for these ideas in order to develop specific, meaningful actions that can be taken. Several areas are identified, including: promoting the utilization of Mixed-use/Multi-use Development flexibility allowed under the new Comprehensive Plan and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; developing a Definition of Single Room Occupancy (SRO); expanding the eligibility for the Accessory Living Unit program, and eliminating narrow restrictions on the program; Encouraging Use of State Tax Credits to private owners of rental housing in return for reduced rent for an elderly or disabled household; developing procedures to Expedite the Plan Review Process; Creating Incentives for affordable housing production; Reviewing State and Local Building Codes for consistency; exploring Possible "Pilot Project" Variations in Requirements to Reduce Costs, and Monitoring and Evaluating Housing Programs and Program Organization.
An extensive list with brief descriptions is included in the Consolidated Plan of Private Industry, Non-profit Organizations, Volunteer Ecumenical Groups and Churches, and Public Institutions that contribute to the delivery of housing, homeless, and community development programs and services in the County. The major identified strengths are the high levels of policy and program planning in the County, and the importance that affordable housing has been given throughout the County's human service agencies. Gaps exist that result from long-standing procedures that evolved from disparate funding sources and regulatory requirements. Declines in federal and state funding are imposing greater emphasis on the coordination of resources, which has required the County to re-examine its service delivery system to find ways to fill the gaps. This re-examination is addressed through the Human Services Redesign.
Beyond Human Services, however, the County agencies responsible for administration of physical development procedures must play an important role in achieving housing and community development objectives. Historically, the communication and coordination gaps between these agencies and the human service providers have been significant, and have produced barriers to accomplishing affordable housing production and community development goals. The identification and implementation of steps to reduce these barriers is an important part of the Consolidated Plan strategies.
The gaps in the institutional structure are identified in three areas: coordination in service planning and delivery, access to information, and public and institutional support. Several aspects of the Human Services Redesign address these concerns. Human Services administration and management is being consolidated, integrated, and streamlined to support service delivery. The 13 previously existing agencies will be consolidated and integrated into six service areas, with Housing and Community Development programs as one of those areas. There will be greater flexibility in deploying staff and leveraging financial resources. The system will emphasize prevention and intervention, and will be community-based. Human Services will work closely with traditional business partners, and develop new partnerships with private organizations and the community. The new system will make possible informed decisions based on access to up-to-date information on client needs, social trends, and program performance.
Portions of the new system are being implemented. The Unified Intake System
will provide for a seamless delivery of services through a team-based case
management system. The new Department of Family Services incorporates the
services and functions that were previously administered by several agencies.
Moreover, the Consolidated Plan Review Committee also seeks to examine and
address the broader issues of integrating housing and human service programs.
Resources that may be used in housing and community development activities are available from a variety of sources. Some of these provide annual funding; others require grant applications for funding through public or private organizations. Sources of funds include the federal, state, and local governments, and private for-profit and non-profit organizations.
A variety of sources are used to leverage funds, including private financing, federal and state loans, bond proceeds, as well as grants. A combination of federal, state, and local funds frequently provide required match funds. Non-profit agencies are able to combine private donations with federal, state and local grants.
The Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority (FCRHA) is empowered to acquire and own real property. The FCRHA receives proffered contributions of land from private developers, and purchases land with proceeds from bond sales, loan funds, and other sources of equity. Several years may be required to assemble parcels for a proposed development, develop site plans and infrastructure, and obtain financing for construction.
The Consolidated Plan Review Committee (CPRC) held two meetings and distributed over 250 copies of a Working Draft to members of ten designated citizen groups and agency staffs to develop a recommended action plan for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds. The CPRC considered specific eligibility criteria and requirements of each funding source, existing priority criteria, existing commitments, and the need to continue ongoing programs. The recommendations of the CPRC were contained in the Proposed Consolidated Plan, of which approximately 500 copies were distributed for public review and comment.
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors formally adopted priorities for the use of CDBG funds, and also approved a set of rating criteria to evaluate CDBG projects for funding consideration. Priority in the current Action Plan for FY 1996 is given to:
(b) capitalimprovement projectsindesignated Conservation and Redevelopment Areas,
(c) organizations, programs, and projects which are not solely dependent upon CDBG funds for implementation, and
(d) affordable housing projects and programs that enable low income and disabled residents to work and live independently in a safe and healthy environment.
The CPRC recommended funding for projects which are required to meet legal commitments and to administer federal funding programs, for ongoing projects and programs which direct funding toward the production and preservation of affordable housing, for ongoing capital improvement projects in designated Conservation Areas, for ongoing projects providing public services to the County's low and moderate income population, and for new initiatives to preserve and develop affordable housing. The CPRC recommendations included granting a 2% cost-of-living increase over FY 1995 funding levels for on-going non-profit programs which are continued. The Board of Supervisors adopted most of the CPRC's recommendations, but made several adjustments to funding levels and included additional projects. A summary of the total CDBG funding of $6,528,000 for FY 1996 is included with this Citizens' Summary.
The federal HOME regulations require that 15% of the total HOME grant be set aside for investment in housing to be developed, sponsored, or owned by non-profit groups which have been certified as Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). Local jurisdictions may also designate 10% of the HOME grant for administrative costs to support the operation of the HOME program. Local priorities for the use of HOME funds are primarily for various housing development costs, and also to continue a program of tenant-based rental assistance for the elderly residents of two projects. The CPRC recommended funding for projects which meet HOME eligibility criteria and regulatory provisions, and continue ongoing programs previously approved by the Board of Supervisors for HOME funds. The Board of Supervisors approved the CPRC recommendations for a total of $1,696,000 in HOME funding in County FY 1996.
Fairfax County operates five full-service emergency shelters for homeless single adults and families with a projected County cost of over $3.1 million for County FY 1996. Priority for use of the Emergency Shelter Grant allocation of $195,000 is to partially offset these shelter operating expenses. The shelters are located in Reston, Bailey's Crossroads, Falls Church, Alexandria (Route 1 corridor), and Fort Belvoir.
The District of Columbia receives funds through the HOPWA program for the entire eligible metropolitan statistical area. The funds are sub-allocated to Northern Virginia jurisdictions through the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. It is estimated that Fairfax County will receive approximately $167,326 in federal FY 1995 funds. Fairfax County's priority for use of these funds is for rental assistance to persons living with AIDS to help maintain housing for these individuals as their physical condition deteriorates.
The coordination of various resources to achieve the stated objectives is addressed in detail in the adopted Citizen Participation Plan. The process involves a variety of citizen advisory groups representing housing, community development, and human service interests throughout Fairfax County. The primary coordinating group is the Consolidated Plan Review Committee and the primary coordinating agency is the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The improvement of public housing is accomplished primarily through the use of the Comprehensive Grant Program which provides funding for the FCRHA to make physical and management improvements in public housing. A key resource for resident initiatives, implemented by HCD, is the Drug Elimination Grant which funds a comprehensive drug prevention and elimination program. A Resident Activity Committee contributes to the drug elimination program, as well as representing resident views and providing community-based services.
The two most prevalent barriers to affordable housing are private market conditions that emphasize the production of high cost housing and the lack of adequate subsidies for low- income renters in a high cost market. Recent changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance have increased opportunities for multi-family housing production that may contribute to the availability of private market units.
The primary impetus behind the effort described in the Prologue: A Framework for Strategic Change, is the need to coordinate resources in ways that will promote individual and family self-sufficiency. Although no specific measures for increasing incomes are included at this time, this effort contemplates the inclusion of job training and other income enhancing educational programs among the resources that will be evaluated for closer coordination. The coordination of housing and human services resources is intended, in part, to foster turnover in publicly managed units serving low-income households, thereby expanding the benefit of limited resources.
In addition to a comprehensive assessment of procedures for resource allocation and coordination, the project described in the Prologue also includes the development of standards and procedures which will be used to monitor the performance and effectiveness of housing and community development activities. The resulting monitoring process will be used to ensure long-term compliance with all applicable program regulations and statutes.
A total of 13 separate Certifications were attached to the Consolidated Plan in accordance with HUD regulations. A Summary of Comments received during the public comment period was also included in the attachments. Appendices included CDBG Proposal Summaries, a chart listing advisory group recommendations and Board of Supervisors action, and the Citizen Participation Plan.
Following this page in the Citizens' Summary is a list of the projects approved for funding through the Consolidated Plan and a map displaying projects that have a specific address or neighborhood location. The majority of projects are either County-wide or cover several census tracts; these projects are not displayed on the map.
| CDBG PROJECT NAME | |
| Affordable Housing Fund | $ 406,181 |
| Housing Program Section 108 Loan Payments | 1,891,000 |
| UCM Office Building Purchase (1) | 125,000 |
| Relocation Services | 312,791 |
| Home Improvement Loan Program | 600,000 |
| Home Repair for the Elderly Program | 205,132 |
| City of Fairfax Home Improvement Loan Program | 25,000 |
| CRS Homes for the Homeless (One Dollar Lease Program) | 114,818 |
| Gum Springs Gateway Housing Project | 15,810 |
| Homestretch | 102,408 |
| Housing Opportunities Foundation Home Purchase Assistance | 15,300 |
| Good Shepherd Housing and Family Services Case Management | 30,600 |
| Community Development Administration and Planning | 564,676 |
| Reston Interfaith Housing Development Program | 41,762 |
| Robert Pierre Johnson Housing Development Corporation Administration | 39,088 |
| Wesley Housing Development Corporation Administration | 69,248 |
| Catholics for Housing Administration | 38,369 |
| Capital Project Contingency Fund | 65,000 |
| Fairhaven Public Improvements Phase VI - Construction (9) | 237,500 |
| Jefferson Manor Public Improvements Phase IV - Design (13) | 150,000 |
| Gum Springs Storm Drainage Improvements Phase V - Land Acquisition (11) | 300,000 |
| Bailey's Road Improvements Phase V - Land Acquisition (8) | 200,000 |
| James Lee Community Center Playground Improvements (74) | 60,000 |
| VoA Chesapeake Bailey's Crossroads Shelter Expansion (75) | 60,000 |
| Housing Counseling and Placement Program | 142,100 |
| Herndon-Reston F.I.S.H. Family Assistance | 22,134 |
| Center for Multicultural Human Services Multicultural Outreach Services | 40,800 |
| FACETS - Family Enrichment Series for Public Housing Residents (63) | 70,800 |
| Vietnamese Resettlement Association Refugee Drop-In Center | 54,060 |
| YMCA Korean Center Alcohol and Drug Prevention | 27,540 |
| Indo-Chinese Community Center Refugee Helping Refugee | 20,400 |
| Virginia Cooperative Extension/Bailey's Making the Grade Camp and Youth Prevention Programs | 97,775 |
| Korean Service Center Comprehensive Social Services | 56,100 |
| Kurdish Human Rights Watch Education and Counseling Services | 79,101 |
| DCRS Teen Intervention and Prevention Services - PIT Camp Project (72) | 22,747 |
| Afghan Academy Cultural and Educational Services | 37,500 |
| Korean American Association English and Vocational Training | 54,010 |
| Black Women United for Action (BWUFA) Adopt A Neighborhood (Mentoring Through Excellence) (23) | 43,985 |
| NOVAUL South County Regional Business Partnership | 55,265 |
| Business Development Assistance to Language Minorities | 34,000 |
| TOTAL CDBG FUNDING | $6,528,000 |
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (HOME) | |
| CHDO Set-Aside | $254,400 |
| Elderly Rental Assistance (78) | 175,947 |
| HOME Administration | 169,600 |
| Housing Development Costs | 1,096,053 |
| TOTAL HOME FUNDING | $1,696,000 |
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) | |
| Shelter Operating Expenses in Reston, Bailey's Crossroads, Falls Church, Route 1 Corridor, and Fort Belvoir (81) | $195,000 |
| TOTAL ESG FUNDS | $195,000 |
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) | |
| Rental Assistance to Persons with AIDS - Countywide (estimated) | $167,326 |
| TOTAL ESTIMATED HOPWA FUNDS | $167,326 |
GRAND TOTAL - CONSOLIDATED PLAN FUNDING | $8,586,326 |
NOTE: Projects listed above with a number in parentheses (#) have a specific address or neighborhood location and are shown on the map on the following page.
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, 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.
