Prince William County is located in Northern Virginia, approximately 35 miles southwest of Washington, D.C. The County is bounded by Fairfax and Loudoun Counties to the North, Fauquier County to the West, Stafford County to the South and the Potomac River (facing Maryland) to the East.
The County and the two independent cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, together comprise an area of 355 square miles or 227,200 acres of land. One of the important unique characteristics of the Prince William Area is its land use. About one-quarter of the county's land is owned and used by the Federal government in the form of Prince William Forest Park, Quantico Marine Corps Base, Harry Diamond Laboratories (U.S. Military Reservation) and the renown Manassas National Battlefield Park. About one-half of the land is zoned agricultural and lies undeveloped and without significant infra-structure (water, sewage, paved roads, etc.). The remaining quarter of the land is predominantly zoned suburban residential and light business.
The overall goal of this Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan is to help in the development of viable communities by providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanding economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons in the Prince William Area. This will be accomplished by entitlement allocations, namely Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in the amount of $1,755,000, HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) in the amount of $506,000, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS(HOPWA) in the amount of $26,217. The fourth application is for two CDBG Section 108 loans to fund two (2) water/waste water projects in the amount of $2,231,000 and $500,000 to be used to purchase six (6) HUD-inventory houses in the Prince William Area.
Dating back to 1988-1989, when area-wide task forces on housing and the homeless produced a rational basis for assessing needs, determining priorities and allocating federal, state and local resources, individual citizens and area groups have been involved intimately. Upwards of forty such persons and groups were involved in the creation and preparation of the first 5-year CHAS (1992-1996) and the current CHAS, which remains in effect until the beginning fiscal year 1996, when it will be replaced by this Consolidated Plan.
A series of formal meetings and consultations were held between early
September and late November 1995 to solicit input on the process and content of
the Consolidated Plan, prior to preparing the draft. Subsequent to the
availability of the draft, several meetings were held during March 1995 to
discuss the draft Consolidated Plan and to solicit citizen comments. Throughout
April 1995, the city councils of Manassas and Manassas Park, along with the
Prince William Board of County Supervisors held formal work sessions and/or
hearings on the draft Consolidated Plan, prior to final approval by all three
governing bodies.
Prior to the decade of the 1980's, the Prince William Area enjoyed a reputation of being a stable, quiet, suburban community, with entire areas devoted to historic sites and recreational parks. The west end of the county, Brentsville and points west, were and still are characterized by beautiful, vintage Virginia horse farms, historic estates and much undeveloped acreage. From the 1980's to this date, however, the Prince William Area has become a dynamic, significant part of the growth experienced by all of Northern Virginia. The population growth in general terms and especially by all racial and ethnic subgroups has been significant.
Today, we see that more than 4 out of 5 area residents are White, followed by African-Americans who comprise 11%, Hispanics close to 4%, Asian and Pacific Islanders about 2% of the population. Native Americans comprise only about one-third of a percentage of all households in the area, with the very few "others", not readily identifiable within the above mentioned categories. Although the definitions and collection efforts by the U.S. Census add some degree of difficulty in making comparisons every ten years, nonetheless, the area has experienced a dramatic growth in total population, going from 144,703 in 1980 to 215,686 in 1990 and to 243,559 in 1994. This represents an overall growth of 68% since 1980 and an annual rate of growth of approximately 3.58%.
The White population grew by half as much from 126,703 in 1980 to 179,709 in
1990. The African American and Native American populations more than doubled
going from 11,781 to 25,078 and 353 to 713, respectively. The Hispanic
population (of all races) practically tripled, going from 3,272 to 9,662. The
relative growth among the minority groups seems to be consistent with national
trends, where the African American population has been growing at twice the rate
of Whites, and Hispanics at 2 ½ to 3 times the rate of Whites.
Conservatively, the entire area population should reach 276,270 by 2000, which
represents another 25 - 30% increase in the overall area population.
The economic picture is also equally diverse and unique in some ways. According to the 1990 Census, almost two-thirds (64%) of all area jobs were found in the private (for profit) sector, with another quarter (27%) in federal, state and local government. Not for profit agencies (5%) and self-employed persons (4%) complete the picture. Industry-wise, service jobs account for 3 out of every 10 employed persons. Another major portion (19%) consists of wholesale and retail jobs, followed by public administration (16%). Construction accounts for one out of ten employed persons; manufacturing, transportation, real estate/finance/insurance each account for about 5-6% of all employed persons.
Racial/ethnic participation in the civilian labor force is consistent with overall proportions of the total population. Whites who comprise 83% of the population are employed at the rate of 85%. African Americans comprise about 11% of the population, but are employed at the rate of 10%. Hispanics and Asian and Pacific Islanders comprise 3% and 2% of the population; they are employed at the rate of 4% and 3%, respectively. Regarding household incomes, however, the picture is somewhat more revealing of the economic viability of area families. According to the 1990 Census, overall, 20% of all county households are at or below half of the median household income for the area, and 80% are at 51% or better of area median household income. For white households, the split is 18% below to 82% above; for African households, the split is 31% to 69%; for Hispanic households, the split is 29% to 71%; for Asian households, the split is 24% to 76%; and for Native American households, the split is 19% to 81%.
A closer look reveals that 12.7% of all Area households are in the 0-50% of area median income (HUD defines this group as the "Low-Income"). However, African American and Hispanic households comprise 21.9% and 18.6% of this group, respectively, meaning that these population subgroups are the most challenged in terms of economic viability -- ability to own or rent decent housing and generally to enjoy the prevailing lifestyle of the area.
For all three jurisdictions which make up the Prince William Area (Prince William County; cities of Manassas and Manassas Park) there are approximately 13% of the households in the 0 - 50% of area median family income, many of which are experiencing exorbitant housing costs, or living in substandard or overcrowded conditions.
Although new housing units have kept pace with the area's population growth over the years, there continues to be a gap in the range of affordability of many households. Housing in the area is predominantly driven by free marketplace economic forces, thus the gap in "affordability" here and there. Overall, the vacancy rates for rental and for-sale units seem to be healthy enough to keep the market viable, although with changing economic times, the match between supply and demand may be adversely impacted.
By virtue of historical trends and prevailing market forces, more housing development seems to be headed toward the western end of the County, where large tracts of undeveloped (no County water or sewer service) land exists. The area is fortunate in that most of its housing stock is relatively new, with a median age of only seventeen years; only about 10% is 30 years old or older.
The area has no public housing per se. Even the rental assistance provided to the 700- plus households in the Area through Section 8 Certificates or Vouchers are of the "portable" type, thus no concentration of assisted housing or households exists in the area.
With rare exceptions, the housing stock of the Prince William Area is relatively good. As of 1990, the median year of units built in the area was 1978, with 72% of all units built after 1970. Another 18% were built during the 1960's. Most of the balance was built prior to 1959, with only 2.4% built prior to 1940. As of the 1990 Census, there were a total of 74,759 housing units in the County. Of these 49,537 or (71%) were Owner-occupied units with a median value of $137,700 and median mortgage cost of $1,162 per month; 20,172 (or 29%) were Renter-occupied units with median gross rent of $736 per month; 59,895 (or 81%) are single family dwellings (detached or attached), 12,936 (or 17.3%) are multi- unit properties, the most prevalent type being in the range of 10-19 units per structure. Another 1,602 (or 2.1%) consist of mobile homes or trailers.
It is estimated that at least two-thirds or about 1,059 of all owner-occupied housing units built prior to 1949 can be deemed to be "sub-standard" in that they probably lack one or more of the items just described. Of these, about one-third are beyond "substantial rehabilitation".
Of the close to 1,900 renter-occupied housing units built prior to 1949, it is estimated that at least one-half or about 945 units can be deemed to be sub-standard. Of these, about 170 (or one-fifth) probably need to be replaced.
For both categories, owner-occupied and renter-occupied units, there are close to 800 units of each which are estimated to be "substandard but suitable for rehabilitation," although the cost of such rehabilitation may be approximate $25,000-$35,000 per unit, which by HUD's definition is considered "substantial rehabilitation".
Market conditions as well as the current, general economic climate, have somewhat dampened the rate at which new homeownership opportunities and production of rental housing have progressed. Although there is new construction proceeding throughout the area, both for ownership and rental, much of it tends to be out of the price range of what can be considered affordable. In many cases, the monthly rent or mortgage payment can easily exceed 30% of total household income, and beyond, when utilities are added.
In response to growing national and regional concerns for the plight of the homeless and as a basis for framing future program direction, the Board of County Supervisors adopted a policy in September 1988 (Res. No. 88-694, dated September 13, 1988), asserting that "all people have access to basic shelter to protect them from the elements..." Subsequently, the Board organized and commissioned the Prince William County Task Force on the Homeless, comprised of public agency officials, human services professionals, representatives of private industry and civic groups and citizens at large. In September 1989, the Task Force published its report containing numerous proposals for addressing the needs of the homeless in Prince William.
Since 1990, one 25-bed privately sponsored emergency shelter (Compassion House) has converted to serving pregnant teens, another (SERVE, Inc.) has added 20 shelter beds, and the County has assumed the management of a 30-bed winter-only emergency shelter. Previously, several area churches took turns "hosting" a 25-bed winter-only emergency shelter. Although the area net of 135 emergency shelter beds remains the same, the area has lost some capacity to serve the homeless, during the non-winter months, when only 105 beds are available to meet the needs. There is at least one other emergency shelter available (Agape House), but due to its private sponsorship, no data are available regarding services rendered.
Using unduplicated count data from the Monthly Statistical Report prepared by the Homeless Prevention Coordinator, within the County Department of Social Services, and data drawn from quarterly reports prepared by local providers for the state SHARE program, puts the area homeless population at 4,052.
Neither Prince William County, nor the Cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, have any public housing or project-based Section 8 units of any kind. The area does count on 716 rental assistance units as follows:
In Prince William County, the only Section 8 rental assistance resources available were 615 tenant-based, rental Certificates and Vouchers. The County's Waiting List, which has been closed since 1993, recently went from 1,400 to 735 due to a comprehensive purge.
The City of Manassas currently administers 52 Section 8 Certificates, of which 16 are serving "special needs" persons and 39 regular Vouchers for a total of 91 units. The Waiting List, which has been closed for some time, currently numbers 573 households.
The City of Manassas Park currently administers 10 Section 8 Certificates, of which one is serving a "special needs" person. The Waiting List has been closed for more than two years and currently numbers 32 households.
It can safely be said, that the cost of housing in the County and the two cities (both rental and for-sale) is governed by prevailing economic forces in the free market. Since the 1990 Census, the County alone has experienced a population growth of about 12.9%, while new housing units have been added at the rate of about 12.5%. In essence, new housing stock has kept pace with the population growth over the last four years, and is expected to remain so. The population forecasts adopted by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments during 1994 predict that Prince William's population will grow by 14.3% between 1990 and the year 2000. Dwelling units are projected to grow by 14.1% during the same period of time.
The one issue area developers contend with the most, and which seems to be having a direct impact on the cost of new housing, is the tap (access) fees for water and sewer connections levied by the County's Service Authority. As of this writing, the water/sewer connection fees are at $8,700 per unit, regardless of housing type (single detached, multi- family, whatever). Since this fee, along with other development costs invariably find their way to the bottom-line price or rent for a new unit, it can make the difference as to the range of "affordability" of such units.
According to the 1990 U. S. Census, HUD's applicable Fair Market Rents (FMR) are much higher than what is "affordable" to households at 50% of area median income. For example, in 1990, the FMR for a 2-bedroom apartment was $754 per month. In order for this size apartment to be "affordable" by HUD's definition, the rent would have to be $610 per month for a family whose income is around $2,033 per month or $24,396 per year. If a family earning $2,033 per month had to pay the $754 per month for rent, means that rent would account for 37% of their total income.
In the process of developing this Consolidated Plan, OHCD staff has had conversations with several Prince William Health District officials including those of the Environmental Health Unit, to ascertain the status and reporting of lead screening. During a three-year period (1989-1991) the Health Department conducted blood tests on area children to identify lead levels. Only two cases of elevated lead were found. For one case, the cause was identified as a backyard full of old cars, spilled oil and gasoline, and where the child regularly played in the dirt. The causes for the second case were never identified, but lead based paint in the home was eliminated as the cause.
Due to the relatively young age of housing in the area, lead-based paint has not been considered to be a health hazard, and therefore no official program exists currently to mitigate lead poisoning. According to the Health Department, given their scarce resources and other more prevalent health hazards, and the lack of evidence of lead-based hazards, programs for lead-based abatement or remediation will not be forthcoming anytime soon.
"Quality of Life" in the communities of the Prince William Area. Included are those related to the physical environment (e.g. infra-structure), economic conditions (e.g. jobs/business related) and social well being (e.g. crime-prevention, fair housing).
The Prince William Area population has grown by 49% over the last decade. Formerly a predominately rural area, Prince William County and the two independent cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, have been considered a bedroom community wherein approximately 65-70% of the residents commute to jobs outside of the jurisdictions. With this dramatic population growth, and the accompanying socio-economic changes associated with this increase, the area has experienced pressures on existing facilities and services. The overcrowding of schools; inadequate, overcrowded and unsafe roads; deteriorating and inadequate recreation facilities; and a growing crime rate have served as a "wake-up call" for area officials that the affects of urbanizing in the context of fewer resources, is taking its toll. County agencies and private organizations have sought to address these pressures for improved physical facilities and services while State and local funds have been regularly cut in these areas.
The Office of Housing and Community Development will continue to comply with
existing reporting mechanisms including periodic written reports to the Board of
County Supervisors and the County Executive. Additionally, the citizen housing
advisory groups of the County and City of Manassas also will meet periodically
to review status and progress of specific housing and non-housing activities
contained in this Consolidated Plan. Lastly, the Citizen Participation Plan
approved for this Consolidated Plan includes the provision for holding at least
two (2) annual citizen meetings; one for assessing year-to-date performance and
one for determining the ensuing year's action plan and proposed uses of funds.
This priority focus area covers a wide range of economic capacity because it encompasses area persons and households whose incomes range from Extremely Low-Income (0-30% MFI) to Low- Income (31-50% MFI) to Moderate-Income (51-80% MFI) and who are in need of accessible and affordable rental housing or the opportunity to purchase a home.
The main goal is to generate a variety of affordable options and opportunities for renter households, first-time homebuyers and current owners of their own housing unit.
The priorities are as follows:
Expand Housing Opportunities for Extremely Low-Income Renters
Renters are experiencing major difficulties with their housing situations. This is particularly true of the group of renters whose incomes are below 50% of the Area Median Family Income (MFI). Of all renter households in the 0-30% MFI, two out of every three households are paying more than 50% of their income for housing (rent and utilities). Of the 31-50% MFI households, one in every four is paying more than 50% of their income on housing. For all households in the 0-50% MFI, seven out of ten households are paying more than the "affordable" 30% of income for housing.
"Affordable" rents fall considerably short of the applicable "Fair Market Rents" (FMR), for every size of rental unit. For the average related household in the County with three persons, which needs a two-bedroom unit, the FMR is $754. However, the rent affordable at 30% of their income equals $610. This $144 more needed to complete the rent, would obviously have to come from other areas of household need. In order for any family to "afford" this two-bedroom unit at $754, per month, means that their monthly income needs to be at least $2,513 per month or $30,150 per year.
The main goal then is to maintain and increase the stock of affordable rental units, particularly for the Extremely Low-Income group.
Planned Strategy:
Expand Housing Opportunities for First-Time Homebuyers
There are two main problems most everyone who currently rents faces, when considering buying a home. One, is the need for a large amount of cash for a down-payment and closing costs. The other, equally as difficult, is finding the appropriate unit (size, accessible, etc.) in the "right" community, and which is also affordable to the homebuyers. This is driven mostly by the mortgage a person can obtain.
The main goal then is to create situations whereby first-time homebuyers can access the housing market to purchase an affordable house, appropriate to their needs.
Once first-time homebuyers make a purchase, one or two positive outcomes are realized almost immediately. Either the person or family vacated a rental unit, which now becomes available to others, or the household from which they moved now becomes less overcrowded.
Planned Strategy:
This priority will address needs associated with "quality of life" in the communities of the Prince William Area. Included are those related to the physical environment (e.g. infra-structure), economic conditions (e.g. jobs/business related) and social well being (e.g. crime-prevention, fair housing).
The Prince William Area population has grown by 49% over the last decade. Formerly a predominately rural area, Prince William County and the two independent cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, have been considered a bedroom community wherein approximately 65-70% of the residents commute to jobs outside of the jurisdictions. With this dramatic population growth, and the accompanying socio-economic changes associated with this increase, the area has experienced pressures on existing facilities and services. The overcrowding of schools; inadequate, overcrowded and unsafe roads; deteriorating and inadequate recreation facilities; and a growing crime rate have served as a "wake-up call" for area officials that the affects of urbanizing in the context of fewer resources, is taking its toll. County agencies and private organizations have sought to address these pressures for improved physical facilities and services while State and local funds have been regularly cut in these areas.
Economic development is the County's top strategic priority. The County's Strategic Plan adopted in September of 1993 states its top goal as follows "The County will increase and diversify the non- residential tax base through environmentally-sound businesses that provide a range of jobs that allow people to live and work in Prince William County and that reduce the residential tax burden".
To the extent possible, using available funding and technical resources, the Prince William Area will pursue the community improvements and economic development.
There is no anti-poverty strategy in the Prince William Area, per se. Whatever services and benefits Extremely Low-Income people are receiving, are being provided by DSS mostly, and are a function of available resources versus eligibility and priority.
In terms of housing, OHCD gives priority to the"neediest of the needy", especially in the use of Federal resources and programs. Poverty is a relative thing in the Commonwealth of Virginia, in that certain regions have considerably more per capita incomes than others. When compared by buying power and cost of living, higher incomes in Northern Virginia, including Prince William, account for considerably less poverty. Even the city of Manassas Park, with a 1990 median family income of $40,213 is 21% higher than the State median of $33,328. However, across the State and in Prince William as well, any household earning less than half of the area median family income is considered to be part of the poverty population.
Federal Resources - Annual Entitlement Allocations:
As can be seen in the analysis below which follows, close to $5 million of federal funds will become available during fiscal year 1996 as follows:
| CDBG Program Year IV Allocation: | $1,755,000 | ||
| HOME Program Year III Allocation: | 506,000 | ||
| HOPWA Program Year II Allocation: | 26,217 | ||
| CDBG Section 108 Loans: | 2,731,000 | ||
| Total: | $5,018,217 |
Other Resources - Non-Federal Public Sources
As for the County's contribution of General Revenue funds towards meeting some of the needs identified herein, the following are expected to be made available during fiscal year 1996:
The Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) has been delegated the responsibility to lead, manage and coordinate all housing and community development activities on behalf of the County. Through formal Cooperation Agreements with the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, OHCD also oversees, manages, and administers all federally-funded housing programs. As with its predecessor, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), OHCD will serve as the lead agency for all aspects of the Consolidated Plan.
OHCD regularly collaborates and coordinates with numerous groups, agencies and organizations in developing and implementing housing and community development programs for the entire area. OHCD identified and contacted several organizations and agencies for the purpose of soliciting one-on-one briefings, discussions, information exchange and input on key aspects of this Consolidated Plan.
Per the HUD guidelines and subsequent final regulations, OHCD developed a stand-alone document entitled "Citizen Participation Plan", which details the specific action steps to be followed to ensure maximum participation by area citizens and interested parties.
Given the Federal funding expected to be received by the area during fiscal year 1996, in the amount of $5,428,176, there are forty-three (43) specific projects in twenty-seven (27) program activities, to be funded as follows:
| CDBG Program Year IV Allocation: | CDBG Program Income: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Community Sponsored Improvements | $ 322,850.00 | Sale of HUD-Inventory Properties | $ 240,378.00 |
| County Administered Housing Rehabilitation | $ 231,531.00 | Rents from Transitional Housing | $ 34,520.00 |
| Water/Waste Water Loan Repayments (Section 108) | $ 320,496.00 | Housing Development Fund Loan | $ 6,099.00 |
| Homeless Facilities Capital Improvements | $ 116,900.00 | CDBG Planning and Administration | $ 68,725.00 |
| Family Self-Sufficiency Management | $ 68,000.00 | Total: | $ 349,722.00 |
| Transitional Housing Property Management | $ 59,002.00 | HOME Year II Allocation: | |
| Housing Development Fund Contribution | $ 45,000.00 | Purchase HUD-Inventory Properties | $ 227,935.00 |
| City of Manassas Projects | $ 158,874.00 | Homeownership Assistance | $ 98,635.00 |
| City of Manassas Park Projects | $ 36,947.00 | CHDO Set Aside | $ 75,900.00 |
| Comprehensive Housing Counseling | $ 41,900.00 | City of Manassas Projects | $ 42,943.00 |
| Community Maintenance Assistance | $ 2,500.00 | City of Manassas Park Projects | $ 9,987.00 |
| CDBG Planning and Administration | $ 351,000.00 | HOME Administration | $ 50,600.00 |
| Total: | $ 1,755,000.00 | Total: | $ 506,000.00 |
| HOME Program Year II Program Income: | HOPWA Program Year II Allocation: | ||
| Sale of HUD-Inventory Properties | $ 54,213.00 | Rental Assistance | $ 26,217.00 |
| HOME Administration | $ 6,024.00 | Total: | $ 26,217.00 |
| Total: | $ 60,237.00 | ||
| Section 108 Loans(during FY96): | |||
| Water/Waste Water Projects | $ 2,231,000.00 | ||
| Purchase HUD-Inventory Properties | $ 500,000.00 | ||
| Total: | $ 2,731,000.00 | ||
The specific activities to be undertaken for each of the targeted needs and priorities, will serve those persons and households who are eligible under each of the funding sources. Basic eligibility will predominantly consist of household income (adjusted for size family) and place on the waiting list, if one is in effect. Per Board of County Supervisors' directives, the "neediest of the needy" will receive first consideration whenever area residents apply for services.
The projects are scattered throughout Prince William County, Manassas City and Manassas Park. There are several projects whose locations are identified as "community-wide". This means that the activities and/or services to be rendered through this specific project are centralized at the location identified or the persons and households to be served live in various communities throughout the County and/or the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park.
Per the County Reorganization Plan of 1992 which created the new, independent Office of Housing and Community Development and subsequent Board of County Supervisors' resolution (Res. No. 92-683, dated July 21, 1992), the Office of Housing and Community Development has been delegated the responsibility to lead, manage and coordinate all housing and community development activities on behalf of the County.
Through formal Cooperation Agreements with the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park, OHCD also oversees, manages, and administers all federally-funded housing programs. As with its predecessor, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), OHCD will serve as the lead agency for all aspects of the Consolidated Plan.
Of the 43 total projects, 25 projects are targeted to meeting a variety of non-homeless, non-special needs for a total of $3,904,671. These projects will serve 210 households and 3,027 persons in the extremely low-income to moderate-income groups. As required by HUD, these projects also include "planning and administration" as separate activities and projects. 18 projects are targeted specifically to meeting the needs of the homeless, at-risk and elderly population subgroups, for a total of $1,523,505. These projects will serve 349 families and 39,087 individuals as follows:
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; in addition, a table provides information about the project(s).
MAP 6 depicts neighborhood segments and proposed HUD-funded projects, described in the table under MAP 5.
