Printer
TextAffordable Housing and the Penny for Housing - 2009 Retreat
The Chairman explained that during the recent budget deliberations, it became clear that Board members had different opinions regarding affordable housing strategies and on how to achieve goals in affordable housing, so an entire morning at this retreat was devoted to this subject.
The general policy about
affordable housing 
is contained in the County’s Comprehensive Plan:
“Opportunities should be available to all who live or work in Fairfax County to purchase or rent safe, decent, affordable housing within their means. Affordable housing should be located as close as possible to employment opportunities without adversely affecting quality of life standards. It should be a vital element in high density and mixed-use development project, should be encouraged in revitalization areas and encouraged through more flexible zoning wherever possible.”
No disagreement was expressed regarding this policy.
The Board adopted the preventing/ending homelessness initiatives as one of the tools available to address the need for housing.
There has been a 20 percent increase in children who are homeless and attending County schools.
According to a study conducted by GMU, there is a link between jobs and housing. We have adopted a workforce housing policy but according to GMU, we potentially face a housing deficit for those who would work here of more than 63,000 by 2025.
The conversation centered on defining other tools and funding needed to address affordable housing in the County.
The system has gotten very complex and needs simplification. We should look at ways to simplify programs that the County can control.
Changes can be made to the Comprehensive Plan, so the question is whether or not the Board still agrees with the housing goal as stated and whether dedicated funds should be used to preserve or purchase affordable housing. Does the goal still fit in today’s world?
The goal may need to be updated; it doesn’t state that affordable housing should be near transportation, and the need for transportation is so closely linked to the need for affordable housing.
To redevelop affordable housing, it has to get much denser in order to make it economically feasible.
There’s an entire page on sustainable neighborhoods in the Comprehensive Plan that speaks to redevelopment of affordable housing. We need to pay attention to the Comprehensive Plan provisions on stabilizing neighborhoods. In places such as Merrifield, the potential loss of older, affordable apartments still exists.
The County is seeing units that are affordable market units, but when redeveloped they will not be required to be affordable, which will reduce the number of affordable units available.
What can the Board do to preserve affordable housing stock that has not traditionally been defined as affordable? How do you capture some percentage of the affordable units to sell below market? The penny fund stemmed from this same issue.
We need to look at opportunities near transit centers to address both affordable housing and transportation. With Dulles Metro, there should be strategies to invest and build new affordable units near transit centers such as the new Metro stations, which would go a long way toward achieving County objectives.
Should the percentage of affordable housing units near these new developments be greater than the mandated 12 percent? It may be easier to do something new than to change what’s already been done.
Placing affordable housing near employment centers is important. There already are lots of new affordable housing in and around Springfield Mall, but there are other parts of the County with high-quality employment centers and no affordable housing nearby.
There is a need for mixed-income housing, not exclusively low-income housing, and a need to disperse it around the County, particularly near job centers and transit.
What are the challenges? Will we put money on the table to ensure development of affordable housing?
Making housing available to special populations, including persons with disabilities, persons who are homeless and older persons who are low income, is a challenge. How do we ensure that this type of housing is available?
Comments have been heard from housing providers that some units designed to be accessible to those with physical disabilities are sometimes very difficult to lease. If this is true, how can it be addressed?
Single, older women are moving from their apartments because they don’t have retirement income or a job to support themselves. They were not able to make the choices or changes to sustain themselves.
Lewinsville and other projects with assisted-living units represent a need for a transition from independent living to a situation that affords a greater level of care. It is difficult to get funding for assisted-living units, and the penny for housing has, in the past, provided gap funding for this effort.
There is a pipeline of affordable housing projects. We should focus on these but resources are insufficient to move those projects forward.
There is basic agreement in the Comprehensive Plan between all the policies about affordable housing.
Affordable housing tools: There is a continuum from homelessness to workforce housing. There are currently unmet needs and a need for additional tools to supplement the federal programs and County programs.
We are addressing those who are homeless through the housing choice voucher program and the housing first program, but there are still some who are unserved for various reasons, including lack of funding and programs. There is a current waiting list.
The Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness is based on a policy of “housing first” and encourages people to go immediately into transitional housing, but the Department of Housing and Community Development deals with permanent housing. Why are some people still homeless? It has to do with the availability of units and funding.
The area median income (AMI) is roughly $100,000 in Fairfax County. A person is in a category of “extremely low income” if they make up to 30 percent of AMI; “very low income” includes persons making 31-50 percent of AMI. This is the area of greatest need but the County is currently 100 percent leased up in housing vouchers and public housing.
The penny for housing has been the County’s means of matching other available funding. CDBG and HOME funds also are used for matching, but that funding is limited.
The land-use policy, workforce housing policy and other policies are also tools that add to the stock of affordable housing. The three legs of the stool of affordable housing assistance are nonprofits, private sector providers and public (County/housing authority/federal).
How are the persons with disabilities being served relative to the rest of the persons on the housing waiting list? There’s speculation that persons aren’t being counted, but under fair housing laws, an individual self-identifies and more than a third of the persons served have disabilities. What programs and services does the Community Services Board provide?
One problem has to do with the needed services that prevent persons with disabilities from being served.
Most affordable housing is provided through federal funds. We don’t know what will happen in the future, housing vouchers may increase in the future. Public housing is funded by formula, tax credits are holding their own, stimulus funds will be short term.
There was wide consensus that those at the low end of the income range, persons who are homeless, with disabilities and the elderly are those where attention and resources should be directed. Yet to serve those with very low incomes is costly. Further, there is a need for housing production that will ensure there is a place for these individuals to live.
There is a need for a dedicated funding source for affordable
housing.
Where do we go in the future?
While trying to encourage the development community to build affordable housing, the penny fund was created to help us stem the loss of affordable units.
How do we continue to use the tools in place?
How are ongoing maintenance costs funded for purchased units, a big concern since many units are older?
We reallocated part of the penny for housing but continued our commitment to projects that were funded. We didn’t “gut” the program but decided to better define our efforts at this retreat.
The economy was booming when the penny fund was created. It has been very effective in stemming the loss of affordable apartments when so many were being converted into high-end condos or apartments. But times have changed. The economy is doing poorly, and the human services needs are especially acute. Focus has changed on housing and human services needs.
Serving the spectrum has a higher cost now; the question is how else do we service those needs? Do we shift how we use the penny fund? Our primary goal before was preservation, perhaps that goal has now changed. How should we use any dedicated funding? What should the model be for local funding? Should assistance be restricted to a certain point on a continuum of income or stage of life continuum?
Some options are:
-
A community funding pool model, but it could lack the flexibility to
react to what’s going on in the marketplace.
-
Rent subsidy model.
- A balanced model that provides direct subsidies but also funds production (and the pipeline).
Some members of the Board disagree with the policy decision to segregate some funding in the budget for a specific purpose, which was done when a penny was dedicated solely for use to preserve affordable housing. They feel that the County cannot make up for the failings of the federal government to fund affordable housing. The County budgets should be dealt with on a year-to-year basis, without dedicating funding long term through a set-aside amount.
This is a human service issue, a long-term economic issue to develop economic corridors as well as a fiscal issue in light of the overall budget.
An important question is who do we now serve? Criteria that are used to decide who is served include:
-
Persons who live and work in Fairfax County.
-
Persons with a rent burden of over 30 percent of income.
-
Persons who are homeless.
- Persons who are working.
How are important needs supported? There is an impact on public safety and transportation when housing is not available. We went to dedicated funding because there was a need to commit to annual funding. The question is how much and at what level should it be funded?
Much clearer information is needed on the current waiting lists, so the actual need can be better defined.
Another question is how to balance preservation and development of affordable housing.
Where should efforts be concentrated?
-
Persons who are homeless.
-
Persons who have disabilities.
-
Seniors.
-
Next generation housing (children).
- Workforce housing.
Workforce housing and housing for the next generation may not have to be done with local funding, but perhaps with zoning practices that provide density and financial incentives.
When the penny program was initiated, the goal was to preserve 1,000 units and actually more than 2,200 units were preserved. There was clarity of goal with measurable outcomes.
A suggestion was made to use a direct rental subsidy (the County would define the rules, administer the program, use standards and give direct funding to persons for use in housing, similar to the federal Section 8 program), aimed to reduce the waiting list by 1,500 units, to assist persons with extremely low income of up to 30 percent AMI. It would be a concrete goal, not associated with a penny on the tax rate but rather tied to the amount of funding needed.
Other funding would still be needed for projects already in the pipeline.
Nonprofits do a lot more than the government can do, and we should partner more with them. Perhaps this direct subsidy could be done partnering with the nonprofits in order to leverage more and gain flexibility.
It was noted that as an individual’s economic situation improves, their income would make them ineligible for this direct subsidy and that way it wouldn’t perpetuate the public assistance and future funds would be available to help others.
Others expressed concern with a direct subsidy program as costly and perhaps not the best approach. Some saw a need for a balanced approach that included both a direct subsidy but funding for production and preservation as well.
This idea will be staffed and a specific proposal that will address a direct subsidy approach; ways to serve the lower end of the income range; ways to partner with nonprofits and the private sector will be developed by staff and brought to the Board at its housing committee meeting. This proposal would involve:
-
Direct subsidy.
-
Partnering with nonprofits (possibly through the community funding
pool).
- Continuation of other existing programs and examination of other ways to meet housing needs (to be discussed in the Board’s Development Process Committee).
This would refocus efforts from purchasing units to subsidizing rent for extremely low-income persons and serving those at the lowest part of the housing spectrum.
The waiting list will be clarified as well.
Recognizing that opportunities should be available to all who live or work in Fairfax County to purchase or rent safe, decent, affordable housing within their means, the Board will work toward the development of alternative strategies to address current affordable housing needs. A tiered approach may include a direct rental subsidy to assist persons with low to extremely low income, partnering with nonprofits and targeting resources toward housing projects already in the pipeline.
Website Survey 