The City of Charlottesville 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing Table

Transcription

The City of Charlottesville 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing
Table of Contents
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………….…….. … 1
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………….………………… 2
Purpose………………………………………………………………………….………………... 3
Background..................................................................................................................................... 3
Current Need…………………………………………………………………………….……….. 4
A Recent History of Charlottesville Affordable Housing Policy…………………………………5
Definitions and Assumptions……………………………………………………………….……. 6
Data from the Past Five Years on Supported Affordable Housing………………………….…….8
Analysis of Supported Affordable Housing 04-09 Data………………………………….……...11
Future of Affordable Housing……………………………………………………………………14
Goal 1: Maintain the Current Number of Supported Affordable Housing………………………15
Goal 2: Maintain the Current Ratio of Supported Affordable Housing………………………….15
Goal 3: Increase the Ratio of Supported Affordable Housing…………………………………...16
Additional Considerations......................................................................................................…...17
Table 1: Projected buying power of a 2009 dollar………………………………………………...8
Table 2: Supported Affordable Units………………………………………………………….…..9
Table 3: Cost of New or Preserved Supported Affordable Units and Percents Leveraged……...12
Table 4: Summary of Affordable Housing Investment Since 2004……………………………...13
Table 5: Goal 1: Maintain the Current Number of Supported Affordable Housing……..………15
Table 6: Goal 2: Maintain the Current Ratio of Supported Affordable Housing………………..16
Table 7: Goal 3: Increase the Ratio of Supported Affordable Housing……………………….…16
Table 8: Yearly Costs for Each Goal…………………………………………………………….17
Appendix 1: Current City of Charlottesville Policies Regarding Affordable Housing…………19
Appendix 2: Additional Data……………………………………………………………………23
Appendix 3: Analysis of Affordable Housing Provided by the Private Market………………..25
Appendix 4: Additional Information Regarding CRHA Redevelopment………………………27
Adopted by City Council on 2/1/10
Executive Summary
February 2010
The Charlottesville City Council requested that the Department of Neighborhood Development
Services (NDS) prepare a report that outlines current inventory and future goals for the number
of affordable housing units in the City. This report, written by NDS staff with the input, guidance,
and approval of the City of Charlottesville Housing Advisory Committee (HAC), provides a
history of the City’s investments over the past five years, details the inventory of the existing
City-supported affordable housing stock, attempts to estimate projected costs of preserving
and/or increasing the existing affordable housing units, and recommends a goal for Council to
adopt. This report assumes that local supported affordable housing developers will continue
to provide 91.6% of the total cost to complement the City’s 8.4%. It is very important to note
that while this is the only hard data available from which to model the projections, it is unlikely
that any sized 8.4% City contribution would automatically be matched by a 91.6% ‘market’
contribution. For example, included in the previous five years of leveraged funds are US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Vouchers; yet it is
unlikely that this source will increase very much with additional city funds. It is also believed
that further progress beyond the current state could require a greatly increased percentage
contribution from the City. However, since a means to economically model this expectation is
not available, this report can only stress that the below projections, especially beyond
maintaining the current number of low income units, are a best case scenario while ‘instincts’
suggest that the incremental costs of low income housing growth will in fact be substantially
higher.
Given these caveats to the projections, to assist the City in anticipating and planning its
affordable housing investments, this report has identified three (3) options for the City Council to
consider for adaptation as its affordable housing goal over the next 15 years:
1) Maintain the current number (1,933) of supported affordable units;
2) Maintain the current ratio of supported affordable units to total housing units as the
City’s housing stock grows (Approximately One (1) supported affordable unit for every
ten (10) total units, or 10%); or
3) Increase the ratio of supported affordable units to 15% of total housing units by 2025.
A thorough description of the assumptions and calculations and an overview of the units and
funding mechanics involved can be found in the report. At its October 28, 2009 meeting, the
HAC approved this housing report and unanimously recommends that the Charlottesville
City Council pursue Goal 3 as the 15 year affordable housing goal for the City of
Charlottesville. The Goal 3 best case scenario costs are $25.7 million dollars (assuming a 2.7%
inflation rate) over fifteen years, though as stated above, the funds required could be higher since
the incremental costs to create new low income housing opportunities are most likely higher than
those based on data from the last five years.
The City of Charlottesville 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing Final for Council – Adopted 2/1/10
page 1
Acknowledgements
Developed for the Charlottesville Community by:
Charlottesville City Council
Dave Norris, Mayor
Satyendra Huja
David Brown
Holly Edwards
Kristin Szakos
Housing Advisory Committee
Dave Norris
Dan Rosensweig
Sasha Farmer
Charlie Armstrong, Co-Chair
Arthur Lichtenberger, Co-Chair
Joy Johnson
Reed Banks
Ryan Jacoby
Jennifer Jacobs
Peter Loach
Amy Kilroy
Kathy Galvin
Chris Murray
Karen Waters
Richard Spurzem
Ron White
Vicki Hawes
Charlottesville City Council
Charlottesville Planning Commission
Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors
Developer
Neighborhood Association
Public Housing Association of Residents
Region Ten
Habitat for Humanity
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
Piedmont Housing Alliance
Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing
Authority
City of Charlottesville School Board
JABA
Quality Community Council
Free Enterprise Forum
Albemarle County (non-voting)
UVa Off-Grounds Housing (non-voting)
Staff
Melissa Celii, Grants Coordinator, NDS
Teresa McCoy, Intern, NDS
page 2
February 2010
Charlottesville City Council 2025 Vision: Quality Housing Opportunities for All
Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric while offering housing that is affordable and
attainable for people of all income levels, life stages, and abilities. Our neighborhoods feature a
variety of housing types, including higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at
employment and cultural centers. We have revitalized public housing neighborhoods that include
a mixture of income and housing types and enhanced community amenities. Our housing stock is
connected with recreation facilities, parks, trails, and services.
Purpose
The purpose of “The City of Charlottesville 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing” report is to
provide the Charlottesville City Council with a history of its investments over the past five years,
an inventory of the existing affordable housing stock, recommendations on the projected costs of
preserving the existing affordable housing units, and the estimated costs of increasing affordable
housing stock in the city. This report ultimately provides an analysis of three different
options for the City’s affordable housing policy to meet its vision over the next 15 years:
Background
The City of Charlottesville believes that every person deserves access to safe and decent housing
regardless of their income and ability to pay. Through its policies and funding priorities, the City
of Charlottesville influences the supply of housing available to people of various incomes. The
City of Charlottesville recognizes the importance of having available housing to the whole
workforce. This availability provides a way to attract employers and support businesses, by
preserving the tax base, and reducing the environmental impact of long commutes. It is
important to note that the issue of affordable housing is closely tied to the supply and quality of
employment opportunities available in the community, as well as the education and skills of the
workforce. The need for affordable housing would be dramatically reduced with an adequate
supply of jobs with wages that are in line with our community’s housing costs and by increasing
the level of educational attainment of its citizens.
In early 2009, the Charlottesville City Council requested the Department of Neighborhood
Development Services (NDS) to prepare a report that outlines current housing inventory and
future goals for the number of affordable housing units in the City after the Charlottesville
Quality of Service and Efficiency Study recommended the City have a coherent strategic plan for
page 3
affordable housing1. This report has been written by NDS staff with the input, guidance, and
approval of the City of Charlottesville Housing Advisory Committee (HAC). The HAC
approved this housing report at its October 28, 2009 meeting. The HAC recommends that the
Charlottesville City Council pursue Goal 3 as the 15 year affordable housing goal for the City of
Charlottesville. The Goal 3 best case scenario costs are $25.7 million dollars (assuming a 2.7%
inflation rate) over fifteen years, though as stated above, the funds required could be higher since
the incremental costs to create new low income housing opportunities are most likely higher than
those based on data from the last five years.
Current Need
The need for affordable housing in Charlottesville is significant. The number of people who
spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs is an important indicator that can be used
to track the availability of affordable housing in an area. According to the American
Community Survey (US Census), in 2007, Charlottesville had 16,694 occupied housing units2.
A quarter of the households residing in these units were spending more than 50% of their income
towards housing costs, and most had incomes below 50% Area Median Income (AMI)3 or
$36,400 for a family of four. Further, 7,930, or almost half of all households in the City,
spent more than 30% of their income on housing costs including utilities4 (5,079 renters and
2,851 owner occupied households).
In addition to Census data, the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH)
produced a point in time survey in 2008 that documented 230 homeless adults; 150 (65%) of
those individuals were staying either in an emergency shelter or the outdoors5. The homeless
population is not included in Census data because of the transient nature of such individuals;
however, they are an important demographic to consider in any discussion regarding affordable
housing because of the potential impact on housing supply.
Another important source document for understanding the need for affordable housing is the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission’s The State of Housing Report issued in January
2007. Although the numbers cited within the report span the entire planning district and utilize
2000 Census data, the trends described are instructive for understanding the reality of the
affordable housing gap in the City of Charlottesville:
The gap analysis shows that low-income renters faced the most severe shortage of
affordable housing, which is not surprising. We estimated a gross deficit of about 4,660
affordable rental units for renters with incomes below 50% of the Area Median Family
1
Charlottesville Quality of Service and Efficiency Study. The University of Virginia Weldon Cooper Center for
Public Service. February 2009.
2
The total number of housing units was 18,407, which includes 1,713 unoccupied units.
3
Area Median Income (AMI) is determined annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
based on family size. The median income is equivalent to 100% AMI with other percentages demonstrating how
much more or less a family makes with respect to the median. For complete AMI listings see Appendix 2.
4
One component of the generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30
percent of its annual income on housing. <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing>.
5
Homelessness in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District: Sixth Annual Homeless Census & Point in Time Count.
TJACH. January 30, 2008.
page 4
Income (approximately $28,500 in 2000). Consequently, low-income renters were forced
to spend large portions of their incomes (often in excess of half) in order to obtain
housing.
The gap was largest for extremely low-income households (less than 30% AMFI) where
the number of renters exceeded the number of affordable units by 992. This gap was
increased to 3,917 as a result of higher income households out-bidding the lower income
segment and occupying nearly 60% of the units affordable to this income category. The
same phenomenon took place for the very-low income group (30-50% AMFI) with higher
income households occupying almost half (51.8%) of the units affordable at this income
level. Severe housing cost burdens cause a host of problems including underconsumption of other necessary goods and services as well as family instability.
Low and very low-income homeowners also faced a shortage of affordable units, with a
deficit of about 4,200 affordable owner units in 2000. Although there was a sufficient
number of affordable units for owners with these income levels in 2000, most were
occupied by owners with higher incomes (62.7% and 65.6%, respectively). This reduced
the surplus of units for the very-low income group from 2,134 to a much larger deficit of
4,182 units. The impact of owners with higher incomes also reduced the surplus of units
for the low-income owner households from 8,738 to a deficit of 2,152 units.
As with low-income renters, this gap forced low-income owners to pay excessively high
portions of their income for their housing. Although most homeowners have fixed
payments for principal and interest, their property tax, utilities and insurance costs
escalate over time. Since 2000, these costs have risen much more quickly than income
even for the median income family. Homeowners with below median incomes have seen
housing costs increase much more rapidly than their incomes.6
A Recent History of Charlottesville Affordable Housing Policy
For many years, to supplement market rate affordable housing units, the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA), and local area housing non-profits have been the primary providers of subsidized
affordable housing. From 1999 until 2004, the City of Charlottesville’s policies heavily
promoted the creation and retention of housing for middle income, owner occupied households.
This was based on concerns that middle income families were leaving the City7, thus programs
providing incentives for first-time homebuyers were created. While the City of Charlottesville
has been able to increase its inventory of middle income and owner-occupied housing as a
result of its efforts, over the past decade the availability of housing options for the City’s
lowest income families has not been able to keep pace with the needs.
In 2005, Charlottesville City Council adopted a housing strategy that refocused the City’s
housing policy to support affordable housing for those who live and/or work in the City by
6
7
The State of Housing Report of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, January 2007
City of Charlottesville Housing Strategy, 1999
page 5
increasing the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households
with incomes up to 80% of Area Median Income.8 In 2007, the City Council appropriated funds
for the Charlottesville Housing Fund, previously known as CAHIP, and appointed the first
members to the standing Housing Advisory Committee. In its 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the
City of Charlottesville adopted as its overall housing vision that it “shall strive to grow, sustain
and improve a housing stock that provides safe, affordable options to every segment of our
diverse population, especially those who are currently underserved.”
Definitions and Assumptions:
For the purpose of this report, housing is considered to be affordable if the occupants pay less
than 30% of their annual income on housing costs. The target population to be addressed by the
City of Charlottesville’s Affordable Housing Policy are all those residents who earn less than
80% AMI.
Definitions:
Supported Affordable Housing: These are units with various sources of public funding
and mechanisms ensuring their affordability including, but not limited to: HUD, VHDA, the City
of Charlottesville, Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers, and/or deed restrictions. Support may
be project-based for multiple units (i.e., Friendship Court), be attached to individual locations
(deed restrictions and land trusts), or reside with individual households (Housing Choice
Vouchers or downpayment assistance).
Preservation: Act of reinvesting or establishing new investments to maintain the
affordability of existing supported affordable units for both rental and purchase. Preservation
also includes maintaining existing unsupported affordable units at affordable levels over time.
Preservation lastly includes the conversion of existing market rate units into supported affordable
units. With the exception of existing public housing, over time market pressure will cause most
affordable housing to become market rate housing without preservation strategies.
New construction: This deals exclusively with the sticks and bricks construction and the
financing of new supported affordable housing units.
Financial Assistance: This can be either a rental subsidy or down payment assistance
that is used to ensure the affordability of a unit.
Deed Restrictions: For the purpose of this report, the deed restricted properties include
those properties with debt instruments for loans, including deeds of trust, that restrict the use of
the property and, in some cases, give the holder of the deed of trust a first right-of-refusal to
purchase the property. Such debt instruments may require repayment of the loan at some point
in the future while others may forgive the debt after a certain number of years if specified
conditions are met. When the debt is paid or forgiven, the restrictions are no longer in place.
Assumptions:
 This report assumes that the amount of money housing providers have been leveraging
from City housing investments remains the same into the future. On average, over the
past five years, the City contributed 8.4% of the funds needed to preserve or create
supported affordable housing, while the developers and non-profits leveraged 91.6% of
8
“Housing Strategy Charlottesville Virginia.” Adopted April, 2005.
page 6





the total cost of these projects. This report assumes that local supported affordable
housing developers will continue to provide 91.6% of the total cost to complement
the City’s 8.4%. It is very important to note that while this is the only hard data
available from which to model the projections, it is unlikely that any sized 8.4% City
contribution would automatically be matched by a 91.6% ‘market’ contribution. For
example, included in the previous five years of leveraged funds are HUD Housing
Choice Vouchers and HUD HOME down-payment assistance through VDHCD; yet it is
unlikely that those two sources will increase very much with additional city funds. It is
also believed that further progress beyond the current state could require a greatly
increased percentage contribution from the City. However, since a means to
economically model this expectation is not available, this report can only stress that the
below projections, especially beyond maintaining the current number of low income
units, are a best case scenario while ‘instincts’ suggest that the incremental costs of low
income housing growth will in fact be substantially higher.
This report assumes if additional supported affordable housing units are created in the
City, there will be qualified low-income households ready to move into those units. It
should be noted that much work is still needed to create qualified and financially literate
and responsible renters and home buyers as well as to examine the credit requirements of
our affordable housing providers.
This report assumes that if future units of supported affordable housing are reserved for a
target population such as the elderly or disabled, policies will be created to ensure that
there are enough non-restricted units to meet the goals of the City.
This report offers the average number of units per year that will need to be created or
preserved to reach a given goal. While yearly targets have been identified, it is
important to keep the total end goal in mind. One year there may be no new units
and the next there may be 300 when a large scale project is finished.
As mentioned in the deed restrictions definition, some of the City’s previous investments
in affordable housing may be returned to the City. Because it is not guaranteed when and
if money will be returned, this money should be treated as a bonus that may be able to fill
leverage gaps and not part of recommended per year funding.
The dollar amounts given in this report, unless specifically stated, are in terms of “2009”
dollars and do not take inflation into account. A rough estimate of projected inflated costs
can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer
price index (CPI).9 Using average yearly CPI data from 1993 to 2008, and using these
numbers to project cost for the next fifteen years (from 2010 to 2024) of this report, a
dollar of buying power in 2009 would have the same buying power as $1.49 in 2024. In
other words, one needs to multiply our projected costs in the year 2024 by 1.49 to obtain
estimated real dollar amounts in 2024. Using this data and a compounding model for
inflation gives an average inflation rate of 2.694%. A breakdown of projected real dollar
costs per year, using this 2.694% inflation rate, can be found in below in Table 1.
The goals of this report focus solely on the production of affordable housing through financial
investment. It is important to note that the City has other tools and mechanisms available to
increase the number of affordable units or decrease housing costs. These can include zoning,
9
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for all urban
consumers (CPI-U) US city average ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
page 7
proffers, transit, density, etc. Further elaboration on these non-financial tools is available in
Appendix 1.
This report focuses on the supply side of affordable housing, ensuring there is an adequate
inventory and spectrum of housing available for all incomes and household types. However, a
complementary option, outside the scope of this report, is the development of strategies to reduce
the demand for affordable housing. Clearly, the City should be developing strategies and
supporting programs that (i) provide targeted workforce training to City residents currently living
in supported affordable housing, (ii) attract more jobs with wages that match the cost of market
rate housing in Charlottesville, and (iii) increase the level of education attainment of City
residents. Supply driven affordable housing strategies should also address demand
reduction.
Table 1
Projected buying power of a 2009 dollar
(So, for example, $100,000 of 2009 dollars will
actually require an estimated $134,000 of spending
in 2020)
Year Count of
the 15 years
projected
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
In year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Projected
Buying
power of a
2009 dollar
1
1.027
1.055
1.083
1.112
1.142
1.173
1.205
1.237
1.270
1.305
1.340
1.376
1.413
1.451
1.490
Data from the Past Five Years on Supported Affordable Housing
Supported affordable housing units have various sources of public and/or private funding and
mechanisms ensuring their affordability. Public sources include, but are not limited to: HUD,
VHDA, the City of Charlottesville, Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers, and deed restrictions.
Many units may be affordable because of more than one source of funding; however, for the
purpose of this report, every effort was made to ensure that units are only counted once, based on
page 8
its main source of funding. Table 2 lists the supported affordable housing units in 2004, the
supported units today, and also the supported units that risk losing their affordability over the
next 15 years and thus require preservation investments. Not included in these figures are the
number of households that are provided with tax or rent relief each year as this aid is awarded
given the circumstances of a certain point in time and do not have a mechanism to ensure
continued affordability.
Table 2
Supported Affordable Units: 5 year comparison and Units requiring
preservation investment in next 15 years
Units requiring
Unit Type
2004
2009
preservation
investment in
next 15 years
HUD Funded
VHDA Funded
City Funded
Housing CHOICE
Vouchers
Region Ten Funded
Deed Restrictions
Habitat for Humanity
578
401
0
405
578
448
57
399
376
440
0
n/a
100
112
14
100
311
39
Unknown
122
4 (estimated)
Total:
1610
1933
942
Source: Data provided by agencies, developers, providers, and City records.
HUD : There are 578 units currently subsidized by HUD [376 Charlottesville Redevelopment
and Housing Authority (CRHA) units and 202 at Blue Ridge Commons] and this amount has not
changed over the past five years. While none of these are at risk of losing their subsidies, all
of the 376 CRHA units will require rehabilitation or redevelopment investments over the
next 15 years.
VHDA: There were 401 VHDA units [supported through Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC)] in 2004; today there are a total of 448 units (for a full list of LIHTC units and their
terms refer to Appendix 2)]. This is an increase of 48 supported units over the past five years (33
through preserving existing unsupported units and 16 units through new construction). During
this time, only one LIHTC unit was lost. The 48 newly supported LIHTC units cost an estimated
$6.2 million to produce. An additional $16.9 million was invested over the past five years to
rehab and preserve the affordability for an existing 200 units of LIHTC housing which would
have converted to market rate. The City of Charlottesville invested about $1.1 million or 5% of
the $23.1 million total spent on LIHTC properties, with the remaining 95% being leveraged from
other sources by non-profit housing providers. Over the next 15 years, almost all of the 448
LIHTC units will require additional preservation investments.
City of Charlottesville: The City of Charlottesville loaned $850,000 to preserve 57 units
(Dogwood Housing) of affordable housing. These units will remain affordable as long as the
page 9
City has money invested in the project, although by paying off the loan the owner of Dogwood
Housing could convert the units to market rate housing as early as 2012. The total project cost to
preserve the affordability of Dogwood Housing was $6.5 million.
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8): Housing vouchers used in either market rate rental units
or as additional support in supported affordable units are another category of supported
affordable housing units in Charlottesville. Regional voucher administrators include the
Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Albemarle County, the Fluvanna/Louisa
County Housing Foundation, Nelson County, Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), Skyline CAP,
and Region Ten. Five years ago there were roughly 1,523 Housing Choice (Section 8) Vouchers
(both project and tenant based) and Mainstream Vouchers in the region. Presently, there are
approximately 1,489 Vouchers in the region. Of the total vouchers in the region, 38% or 570 are
being used within the City of Charlottesville.
Data obtained from Housing Choice Voucher administrators shows that approximately 30% of
the vouchers used in the City today are for existing supported affordable housing units (i.e.,
using a Housing Choice voucher at a VHDA LIHTC property such as Hearthwood). When
counting the total number of supported affordable units in Charlottesville, it is important to take
this into account so as not to inflate the number of affordable units available. Applying this
estimate, it can be concluded that in 2004, 405 vouchers were used for market rate rentals, and
399 are being used in 2009 for market rate rentals. Furthermore, in 2003, 1,308 names were
on the waiting lists for Housing Choice and Mainstream Vouchers; in 2009, 2,629 names
were on the waiting lists- a 100% increase.10
Region Ten: In addition to their housing vouchers, Region Ten also maintains another 100
supported affordable units. These units are funded through Shelter Plus Care subsidies,
Discharge Assistance Project (DAP) funds, and Region Ten’s own funds. There are also
apartment complexes that reserve a certain number of rooms (for example, Monticello Vista
Apartments and Midway Manor) for specific populations; however, these rooms utilize other
sources of support and are thus counted within early sections. Note that many of these supported
affordable housing units provided by Region Ten are restricted to persons with disabilities.
Deed Restrictions: The supported affordable housing units discussed above are rental units. The
City of Charlottesville and area housing non-profits also support affordable homeownership.
Deed restrictions are the preferred mechanism to guarantee affordability over time. In
2004, the City of Charlottesville, through its own homeowner rehab program as well as
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program’s (AHIP), held 37 deed restrictions and by 2009 that
number was 102. The 65 deed restrictions that were added over the past five years cost $1.66
million with an average of $25,500 per unit, proving to be a very cost effective mechanism.
Additionally, through their downpayment assistance program, Piedmont Housing Alliance had
75 deed restricted properties in 2004 and 133 properties by 2009, an increase of 58 deed
restricted properties. The City of Charlottesville also provides funds to CRHA for down
payment and closing costs. Over the past five years, downpayment assistance was applied to 59
10
It is possible for Charlottesville residents (and also non-City residents) to be on more than one waiting list, but
duplications were also possible in 2004, so the data still shows a very significant increase and need.
page 10
units. These 117 deed restricted downpayment assisted units could either be newly constructed
or existing units. When factoring in the mortgages that were able to be secured as a result of the
downpayment assistance, the average deed restricted property costs $157,200. Therefore, the
117 deed restricted downpayment assisted properties cost a total of $18.2 million. Of this
amount, the City of Charlottesville invested $780,000 or 4%, while leveraging 96% of the costs
from other sources.
New Housing Construction: Habitat for Humanity has been actively building houses in
Charlottesville for many years. By 2004, 14 completed units in Charlottesville were still
occupied by the original low income owners, and in 2009 a total of 39 completed units are
occupied by low income homeowners. These 25 new units built over the last five years cost
$4.36 million including built-in financing. Over the past five years, Piedmont Housing Alliance
has also been actively building new housing units for purchase. Since 2004, PHA has built 17
new units of supported affordable housing costing $3.52 million including built-in financing.
During this time, the City of Charlottesville has contributed $832,600 or 11% of the total $7.88
million spent on new housing construction.11
Analysis of Supported Affordable Housing 2004-2009 Data
Based on the figures found in Table 2, in 2004 there were 1,610 units of supported affordable
housing while by 2009, 330 units were added while 7 units were lost for an overall gain of 323
and a total of 1,933 units. In addition, the affordability of 200 units of existing supported
affordable housing units (VHDA funded Monticello Vista and Friendship Court original
affordability terms expired during this time) was extended another 15 years (see Appendix 2) .
Therefore, a total of 530 units of supported affordable housing were created or preserved since
2004 (see Table 3). Of the increase of 530 supported affordable units from 2004 to 2009, it
is important to note that only 16 units or 3% were actual newly constructed rental units of
affordable housing and 42 units or 8% were actual newly constructed units for purchase.
Further, the 16 units of new rental housing are restricted to persons with disabilities.
Since 2004, $57.3 million was invested in creating new or preserving existing supported
affordable housing units. Of the $57.3 million that was invested by various sources, the City of
Charlottesville contributed $4.82 million or 8.4%. This equates to an average of $964,000 per
year invested by the City over the last five years.12 During this time, affordable housing
providers leveraged the City’s investment by 91.6% of the total amount spent on new supported
affordable housing units. In other words, on average for every $1 invested in new supported
affordable units by the City of Charlottesville from 2004-2009, $10.89 was invested by
other sources.
11
Over the past five years, the average Habitat homeowner earned 42% AMI and the average PHA homeowner
earned 65% AMI.
12
Sources for City of Charlottesville funding for affordable housing include federal Community Development Block
Grant and HOME funds, as well as local general revenue funds allocated for the purpose of affordable housing.
page 11
Table 3
Costs of New or Preserved Supported Affordable Units and Percents Leveraged Since 2004
2004 Status Project/Type 2009 Status Units
Total Cost
City
Percent of
Percent
Investment
City Invest. Leveraged
9
Existing
Virnita Ct
Preservation
$2.4 million
$274,000
11%
89%
(VHDA
Unsupported
Supported
Affordable
Affordable)
Existing
VHDA
Supported
Affordable
Monticello
Vista
Existing
VHDA
Supported
Affordable
Existing
Unsupported
Affordable
Friendship
Court
Existing
Unsupported
Affordable
HO Rehabs
Existing
Unsupported
Affordable
(Special
needs)
Mews on
Little High
N/A
N/A
Either
existing
unsupported
units or
newly
constructed
units
Dogwood
Housing
Mews on
Little High
New
Construction
for Purchase
Downpayment
Assist
Total:
Preservation
(VHDA
Supported
Affordablespecial
needs)
Preservation
(VHDA
Supported
Affordable)
Preservation
(City Funded
Supported
Affordable)
Preservation
(Deed
Restricted
Supported
Affordable)
Preservation
(VHDA
Supported
Affordable
Special
Needs)
New Constr.
New Constr.
(Deed
Restricted
Supported
Affordable)
Financial
Assistance
(Deed
Restricted
Supported
Affordable)
50
$6.9 million
$350,000
5%
95%
150
$9.96 million
$500,000
5%
95%
57
$6.5 million
$850,000
13%
87%
65
$1.66 million
$1.23 million
74%
26%
24
$1.78 million
$0
0%
100%
16
$2 million
$0
0%
100%
42
$7.88 million
$832,600
11%
89%
117
$18.2 million
$780,000
4%
96%
530
$57.3 million
$4.82 million
8.4%
91.6%
page 12
Table 3 Source: Data provided by agency/developer, City records. In addition to the 530 units of supported
affordable housing, there may be additional units of market rate units that are affordable (See Appendix 3). Some
units may be reserved for special populations only.
The average cost for creating or preserving a supported affordable housing unit varies greatly
depending on the type of unit being supported as is shown in Table 4.
Rental: Since 2004, $29.6 million was invested in 306 units of supported affordable
rental housing through either preservation of existing units or the construction of new units. The
City invested a total of $2 million or 6.8% of the total investment.
Homeownership: In the same period, $27.74 million was invested in 224 homeownership
units for projects that created or retained affordable units for homeownership. The City of
Charlottesville contributed $2.82 million or 10.2% of the total.
Investment in supported affordable housing occurs through several means.
Preservation: Of the 530 units of supported affordable housing receiving investment
since 2004, 355 of those units were existing units that were preserved as or converted to
supported affordable units at a total cost of $29.27 million or $82,450 per unit. The City of
Charlottesville invested $3.2 million or 10.9% of this total.
New Construction: 58 supported affordable housing units were the result of new
construction. These units cost a total of $9.88 million or $170,300 per unit with the City
contributing $832,600 or 8.4% of the total investment.
Financial Assistance: The remaining 117 of the 530 supported affordable units utilized
financial assistance mechanisms such as downpayment assistance. These 117 units cost a total
of $18.2 million or $155,600 per unit. The City contributed almost $780,000 or 4.3% of the total
investment.
Housing Type
All Projects
Rental
Home
Ownership
Table 4
Summary of Affordable Housing Investment Since 2004
Total Cost Units Cost Per
City
Percent of
Unit
Investment
City Invest.
$57.3
530
$108,115 $4.82 million
8.4%
million
$29.6
306
$96,700
$2 million
6.8%
million
$27.7
224
$123,800 $2.82 million
10.2%
million
Affordability
mechanism
Total Cost
Units
Cost Per
Unit
City
Investment
Preservation
$29.2
million
$9.9
million
$18.2
million
355
$82,450
58
117
New Constr.
Finance Assist
Percent
Leveraged
91.6%
93.2%
89.8%
Percent
Leveraged
$3.2 million
Percent of
City
Investment
10.9%
$170,300
$833,000
8.4%
91.6%
$155,600
$780,000
4.3%
95.7%
89.1%
page 13
Table 4 shows that over the past five years, the City has invested 41.5% of its affordable housing
funds in rental and 58.5 % on homeownership. Furthermore, 66.4% of the City’s funds have
gone towards preservation of affordability, 16.2% on providing financial assistance, and 17.4%
towards construction of new units of supported affordable housing.
Future of Affordable Housing
Projecting into the future, it is important to note that affordable housing is not static. It can
fluctuate with market pressures, with funding sources, and with related regulations and policies.
It is impossible to estimate the amount of future funding that will be obtained to support many of
the units listed in the current count, particularly HUD funded units and the number of vouchers
in use. Consequently, it is imperative that the City take an active role in advocacy at the federal
level to ensure it is engaged with HUD decision makers as well as our state and national
representatives and is articulating the needs of the community.
VHDA Low-Income Housing Tax Credits have set expiration terms. If affordable units
supported by tax credits are allowed to convert to market rate, 200 affordable units will be lost in
2011 (Hearthwood), and an additional 239 units, housing our lowest income and special needs
citizens, will be lost by 2025 (Mews on Little High Street, Friendship Court, and Monticello
Vista). Also by 2025, 122 units of the affordable deed restricted units will lose their restrictions
and an estimated 4 units of Habitat for Humanity housing will become market rate. Further, it is
necessary to plan for affordable housing investments needed to assist providers, for example
CRHA or Blue Ridge Commons, with rehabilitation and/or redevelopment assistance necessary
to preserve the habitability and safety of their units.
If the City of Charlottesville chooses to no longer invest in supported affordable housing,
and no other funding sources are available, and no improvements are made to the 376
CRHA units, then 942 units of supported affordable housing that represent nearly one-half
of the City’s current stock of supported affordable housing would most likely be lost over
the next 15 years. In addition, when the City’s investment in Dogwood Housing ceases, then
another 57 units of affordable rental housing will be lost.
Goals for Supported Affordable Housing
To assist the City in anticipating and planning its affordable housing investments, this report has
identified three (3) options for the City Council to consider for adaptation as its affordable
housing goal over the next 15 years:
page 14
As stated in the ‘Assumptions’ section earlier in this report, the fiscal projections below assume
that local supported affordable housing developers will continue to provide 91.6% of the total
cost to complement the City’s 8.4%. It is very important to note that while this is the only hard
data available from which to model the projections, it is unlikely that any sized 8.4% City
contribution would automatically be matched by a 91.6% ‘market’ contribution. It is also
believed that further progress beyond the current state could require a greatly increased
percentage contribution from the City. However, since a means to economically model this
expectation is not available, this report can only stress that the below projections, especially
beyond maintaining the current number of low income units, are a best case scenario while
‘instincts’ suggest that the incremental costs of low income housing growth will in fact be
substantially higher.
Goal 1: Maintain the current number (1,933) of supported affordable units
Without any City investment, the number of supported affordable units will decrease from the
current level of 1933 to 991 over the next fifteen years. To maintain the 1933 of supported
affordable units available today, 942 units would therefore need to be created or preserved.
Based on the combined investment of the past five years, it would cost a total of $93.2 million
(assuming 2009 dollars) just to break even and keep the current number of supported
affordable housing units over the next fifteen years. Projecting a similar investment
percentage (8.4%) by the City of Charlottesville into the retention of these units, the City’s
contribution to be leveraged by developers would be $7.83 million over the next 15 years. Each
year approximately 63 units would need to be replaced at a cost of $6.2 million per year with a
leveraged City investment of $522,000 per year (in 2009 dollars). This requires that project
developers leverage $85.4 million from other funds.
Table 5
Goal 1: Costs of Maintaining the Current Number of Supported Affordable Units
Over the Next 15 Years (assuming 2009 dollars and Continued Leverage of the
City’s 8.4% Contribution)
Units to Preserve
Total Cost
City Cost
Leverage Cost
942
$93.2 million $7.83 million $85.37 million
Total
Goal 2: Maintain the current ratio of supported affordable units to total housing units as the
City’s housing stock grows (Approximately One (1) supported affordable unit for every ten (10)
total units, or 10%)
Currently just over 10% of the City’s housing stock qualifies as supported affordable housing.
The City’s total housing stock has been growing at a rate of roughly 5% every five years13; if this
trend continues, in 2025 the City’s total housing units will be 22,372. If the total number of
current supported affordable housing units are simply retained over the next 15 years as
discussed above in Goal 1, then only 8.7% of the housing stock will be supported affordable in
2025, a drop of 1.3% from today.
13
US Census data
page 15
In order to maintain the current rate of 10% of supported affordable housing units in the City,
1.3% or a total of 289 units will need to be added to the City’s inventory of supported affordable
housing (in addition to the 942 units that will need, as described in Goal 1, to be replaced just to
break even). These units could either be newly constructed units or existing units that have been
made supported affordable. With an average cost per unit of $108,115, it would cost $31.2
million to add these 289 units of supported affordable housing, plus the Goal 1 cost of $93.2
million to preserve the 942 units for a total of 1,231 units at a total cost of $124.4 million over
the next fifteen years. If the 8.4% City leverage rate for affordable housing was to hold in the
future, it would cost the City $10.45 million total over the next fifteen years or an average of 82
units per year with $696,700 direct cost to the City each year (in ‘2009’ dollars).
Table 6
Goal 2: Costs of Maintaining 10% Supported Affordable Units of Housing Total
Over the Next 15 Years (assuming 2009 dollars and Assuming Continued Leverage
of the City’s 8.4% Contribution)
Total
Units to Add and
Preserve
1,231
Total Cost
City Cost
Leverage Cost
$124.4 million
$10.45 million
$113.95 million
Goal 3: Increase the ratio of supported affordable units to 15% of total housing units by 2025
As described in Goal 2, only 8.7% of the housing stock will be supported affordable in 2025 if
the total number of current supported affordable housing units is simply retained. Therefore, a
total of 1,408 units will need to be created in order to increase the City’s supported
affordable housing units to 15% of the total housing stock over the next 15 years. This
assumes that the 942 lost units are replaced at a cost of $93.2 million. As described previously,
these units could either be newly constructed or existing units that have been made supported
affordable. Using the same averages as used in Goal 2, it would cost $152.2 million to add these
1,408 units. The total cost to achieve Goal 3 would therefore be $245.4 million to add and
preserve these 2,350 units of supported affordable housing over 15 years. If the 8.4% City
leverage rate for affordable housing was to hold in the future, it would cost the City $20.61
million total over the next fifteen years, or an average of 157 units per year with $1,374,000
direct cost to the City each year (in 2009 dollars).
Table 7
Goal 3: Costs of Increasing to 15% Supported Affordable Units of Housing Total
Over the Next 15 Years (assuming 2009 dollars and Continued Leverage of the
City’s 8.4% Contribution)
Total
Units to Add and
Preserve
2350
Total Cost
City Cost
Leverage Cost
$245.4 million
$20.61 million
$224.79 million
The dollar amounts for the three Goals in the above tables are all in 2009 dollars. In Table 8
below, the report includes a yearly estimate for the effect of inflation on the actual costs of these
goals over the next 15 years (using the average inflation rate of 2.694% as discussed in the
page 16
“Assumptions” section of this document). The total cost over 15 years has been summed and an
average cost per year determined for these inflation adjusted figures.
We have assumed, only for purposes of projecting costs, that the city funds will be allocated
roughly in the same proportions (e.g. preservation, new construction, financial assistance, etc.) as
they have in the last five years. City Council may wish to change these allocations and the
ongoing financial markets and housing opportunities will also obviously guide these decisions.
Table 8
Yearly Costs Based on the Continuing Leverage of a City’s 8.4%
Contribution, Adjusted to Project for Inflation, to Maintain and Add
Supported Affordable Units Over the Next 15 Years For Each Goal.
In
year
GOAL 1:
Maintain 1,933
Supported
Affordable
Housing Units
GOAL 2:
Maintain 10%
Support
Affordable
Housing Ratio
GOAL 3:
Increase to
15% Supported
Affordable
Housing Ratio
Cost to City
$522,000/yr in
2009 dollars
Cost to City
$696,700/yr in
2009 dollars
Cost to City
$1,374,000/yr in
2009 dollars
$536,063
$550,504
$565,335
$580,565
$596,205
$612,267
$628,762
$645,700
$663,096
$680,959
$699,304
$718,144
$737,490
$757,358
$777,762
$9,749,515
$715,469
$734,744
$754,538
$774,865
$795,740
$817,177
$839,192
$861,800
$885,017
$908,859
$933,344
$958,488
$984,310
$1,010,827
$1,038,059
$13,012,427
$1,411,016
$1,449,028
$1,488,065
$1,528,154
$1,569,322
$1,611,600
$1,655,016
$1,699,602
$1,745,390
$1,792,410
$1,840,698
$1,890,286
$1,941,211
$1,993,507
$2,047,212
$25,662,516
$649,968
$867,495
$1,710,834
Projected
buying
power factor
2010
1.027
2011
1.055
2012
1.083
2013
1.112
2014
1.142
2015
1.173
2016
1.205
2017
1.237
2018
1.270
2019
1.305
2020
1.340
2021
1.376
2022
1.413
2023
1.451
2024
1.490
2010 to 2024 Total
Average per year
Additional Considerations
There are two major future projects that have been identified as having the potential to add a
large number of supported affordable units to the City’s inventory: the redevelopment of the
page 17
Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority property throughout the City and the
redevelopment of the current Martha Jefferson Hospital site. Further details on the CRHA
project can be found in Appendix 4. At the time of this report, further information on the
redevelopment of the Martha Jefferson Hospital site was unavailable.
It is also important to note that trends in housing and housing funding have led to higher
constructions costs for new units, and that while estimates given in this report have been adjusted
for inflation based on the consumer price index for the past fifteen years, changes in housing
costs can be more volatile due to the diversity and quality of products used in construction. For
example, building houses to Earth Craft standards (as required by VHDA) has resulted in the
need to find additional sources of funding to cover the increased cost of the units.
page 18
Appendix 1: Current City of Charlottesville Policies
Regarding Affordable Housing
Policy 1: Objectives for Use of Affordable Housing Funds And Criteria/Priorities for
Award of Funds
Funding Categories
Applications will be accepted for funds committed for the following programs. The list is in no
particular order:

Redevelopment of CRHA Properties. This might involve assisting with master plans,
funding assistance or bringing private partners to the table.

Homeowner Rehabilitation. To help, primarily the elderly remain in their homes and not be
forced to sell because of deteriorating conditions and their inability to address those
conditions. Also allow smaller rehabs that do not need major overhaul and do not require
other issues to meet Section 8 standards. This will help preserve the existing housing stock
and delay gentrification.

Flexible revolving loan program. For land purchase and site development for our non-profit
partners providing affordable housing. These funds would be for a loan for five years at very
low interest and would be subordinate to banks. This would help our non-profits leverage
more private funding and encourage banks to participate in those affordable housing projects.

SRO. Build or assist with the construction of an SRO (Single Resident Occupancy) near the
Downtown or with excellent access to services. This might be done in partnership with
CRHA, Albemarle, UVA, VA Supportive Housing, or one of our non-profit partners.

Rental Rehabilitation. To assist owners of lower end rental properties to maintain their
properties to basic code requirements and keep rents as affordable at time of investment.
This should be in the form of loans and should assist those with the most affordable rents
with a cap on rents for a period of time.

Energy Efficiency. Projects that improve energy efficiency in low income homes.

Rental Subsidies. To “special needs” populations and very low income individuals defined
as 40% AMI with preference to 30% AMI.

Counseling. Credit counseling, financial education and/or eviction and foreclosure
prevention.

Affordable Rental Housing. Preservation and production of affordable rental housing.

Homeownership. Construction of new housing for homeownership
Target Populations - Funding is intended to serve the following population groups:

Homeowner Population – Support initiatives that preserve and expand homeownership
opportunities for residents who earn less than 80% of Area Median Income. As examples:
page 19

Special Needs Population – Support initiatives that preserve and expand supportive housing
opportunities for residents who have special needs* and earn less than 30% of Area Median
Income exclusive of medical expenses. Clients served must be City residents however
housing units do not need to be located within the geographical limit of the City of
Charlottesville. For projects where these funds are only a portion of the funding the number
of City residents and the recipients with income less than 40% of AMI shall be equal to the
percent of City investment or 20% at a minimum.
*The definition of a person with a special need is “any person with a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, also to include the
elderly, abused/battered spouses and/or children, and homeless persons.

Rental Population – Support initiatives that preserve and expand rental opportunities for
residents who earn less than 60% of Area Median Income.
Criteria for Review of Applications
A.











B.
Requirements for all applications:
Projects must provide for meaningful and ongoing resident and neighborhood
participation throughout the development process.
Applicants must demonstrate the financial feasibility of the project and the financial
stability of the applicant.
Successful projects will be consistent with and support the Comprehensive Plan and
the City Council Vision.
Projects will conform to newly adopted council policy and guidelines for Universal
Design and energy efficiency ratings (attached).
All homeownership projects assisted with Charlottesville Housing Funds must have a
lien in the amount of City investment for at least thirty (30) years.
All rental projects assisted with Charlottesville Housing Funds must remain
affordable to families with incomes at or below target levels for at least the life of the
City investment.
If the agency is non-profit it must have the appropriate non-profit status already
approved by the Federal Government.
The applicant is in compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations, and has
no outstanding violations, taxes or penalties.
The applicant has a well-developed organizational structure. If the applicant is nonprofit, it must have an adequate board to oversee the activities of staff and have a
clear separation of board and staff responsibilities.
Recipients of funds must be:
 City residents, or
 Employed in the City for at least 5 years
Housing must be located in the City or within the urban ring of Albemarle County.
Factors that Enhance Application:
page 20








Projects which provide substantial leverage of other dollars will be given high priority.
Provides for at least a one-for-one replacement of any affordable units lost to
redevelopment, with a strong preference for projects that increase the supply of
affordable units.
Provides relocation assistance for any residents displaced by redevelopment (in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Act).
Provides implementation of measures to ensure that existing/long term renters have
priority access to new homeownership opportunities created in their neighborhood.
Provides for a wide variation of income towards the creation of mixed-income
neighborhoods.
Projects with housing opportunities targeted at the very low and extremely low
income populations will be given higher priority.
Inclusion of housing options for senior citizens and individuals with disabilities, with
an emphasis on universal design and visitability.
Incorporation of environmentally friendly, energy and resource-efficient and
pedestrian/transit-oriented neighborhood designs and building technologies and
infrastructure design.
Affordability
For the purpose of this program and all other City affordable housing programs, affordability is
defined below. Some specific programs may be targeted to different income ranges.
No persons or family under 80% AMI should spend more than 30% of their income on housing
costs. Furthermore, affordable projects should not gentrify communities and low-income
residents should be allowed to remain in their communities if they are redeveloped
Policy 2: Incentives the City can provide to Encourage Development with Affordable
Housing Units
1.
Low Cost Land – The City can look for opportunities to provide land, to assist with land
assembly, or to provide funding to assist with land purchase.
2.
Expedited Review Process – The City can adopt an expedited review process for projects
containing affordable units per soon to be adopted affordable housing codes (these
changes are under review by the planning staff).
3.
Housing Product types – Expand the “vision or image” of affordable housing to
encompass a wide range of housing product types (beyond single family detached). Such
product types could include (but should not be limited to) the following: accessory
apartments, attached rental and owner-occupied housing including live/work units;
townhouses; condos and apartment flats, carriage houses (i.e. multiple units in one
building designed to look like a large single home).
4.
Information data base – Compile and/or obtain maps that locate existing development
opportunities (i.e. privately and publicly owned greenfield and redevelopment sites) and
page 21
existing affordable housing locations (inclusive of public housing and privately managed
and owned Section 8 concentrations as well as average housing price ranges for each
neighborhood) relative to high intensity corridors and districts. This will assist in
determining the appropriate range of income mixing and whether or not an infill parcel or
redevelopment site could/should include mixed use.
5.
Articulate policy – Council should clearly state where dense and affordable hosing is
desired and encouraged with adequate access to transit options.
6.
Staff Assistance – Designate staff person to foster projects and public/private
partnerships (i.e. private non-profits, private developers and governmental agencies) in
affordable housing and mixed use developments as well as projects that promote
economic development and job creation in relatively underinvested, financially depressed
areas.
7.
City Funding – Provide incentive funds as outlined in Policy 3.
Policy 3: Criteria for Awarding Multi-Family Incentive Funds/Strategic Investment Funds
Revolving Loan Fund
1.
Applicants provide significant leverage to the deal. Private equity, private financing or
other government funds shall be considered as leverage funds.
2.
Projects with higher percentages of affordable units will be given priority for funding.
The minimum percentage project considered will contain 15% affordable units. For this
program, minimum affordability will be 80% of area median income, preferably with at
least 50% of funding reserved for 40% AMI or lower.
3.
All project proposals must have a mechanism in place to guarantee affordability for 30
years to be eligible, such as participation in the land trust.
4.
Minimum project type/size is a mixed use project containing non-residential, either office
or retail, and 50 or more units of residential with a mix of incomes.
5.
Sites on established transit lines or pedestrian routes will be given priority.
6.
Projects on West Main Street, Preston Avenue, Emmet Street, Cherry Avenue Zoning
Corridor or Downtown Extended Zoning Corridor will be given priority.
7.
Priority will be given to projects that give priority to City residents or persons employed
in the City.
8.
Priority will be given to projects that exhibit quality design for all units and that do not
differentiate the affordable units from market rate units.
page 22
Appendix 2: Additional Data
Tax Credit Properties in Charlottesville
221 Ninth St SW
Units
Received
or
Renewed:
TC
Expire:
Remain
affordable
until:
1
1990
2000
2005
Bedrooms
Square
Feet
Rent
Section 8 so
30% of
income
Friendship Court
150
1991/2002
2001/2012
2006/2017
2-4 bdrm
Hearthwood
Mews on Little
High Street
200
1996
2006
2011
studio - 3
bdrm
300-1200
sq ft
$500-925
39
2006
2016
2021
Monticello Vista
50
2008
2018
2023
studio - 1
bdrm
370-1093
30% of
income
Virnita Court
16
2005
2015
2020
six 1bdrm,
ten 2bdrm
510-690
sq ft
$400-650
Number of Section 8 Vouchers in Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Past and Present
Voucher Holder
2003/2004
2009
CRHA
327
300+
Albemarle County
439 funded/ 463 allocated
414 funded / 463 allocated
Fluvanna/Louisa County
146
146
Housing Foundation
Nelson County
42
54
Piedmont Housing Alliance
75
75
Skyline CAP
294
300+
(Greene/Madison/Orange)
Region 10
200
200
Total
1523
1489
Source: Voucher Holders
page 23
Appendix 2: Additional Data (continued)
Federal AMI Limits
Effective March 2009
Charlottesville Median Family Income: $72,800
# Persons in
Family/Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(30%) Extremely
Low Income
$15,300
$17,500
$19,650
$21,850
$23,600
$25,350
$27,100
$28,850
(50%)
Very Low Income
$25,500
$29,100
$32,750
$36,400
$39,300
$42,200
$45,150
$48,050
(80%)
Low Income
$40,800
$46,600
$52,450
$58,250
$62,900
$67,550
$72,250
$76,900
page 24
Appendix 3: Analysis of Affordable Housing
Provided by the Private Market
There are available affordable units provided by the private market; however, the availability of
these units varies monthly as does the income populations and household sizes that can access
them. Monthly market snapshots maintained by the City are able to show the average number of
affordable units that were available for the first half of 200914. Table i shows that when taking
into account federal AMI limits, household size, and a 30% maximum percentage of income
spent on housing costs, for example, on average there are four rental units a month available to a
one person household making 30% AMI, 40 units at 50% AMI, and 298 units at 80%. A four
person household will find the average amount of rental units available per month to be one at
30% AMI, 108 at 50% AMI, and 307 at 80% AMI.
Table i
Average Rental Units Available Per Month
Based on Income and Household Size Jan-June 09
Household Size
Earning 30% AMI Earning 50% AMI Earning 80% AMI
4
40
298
1 person
1
108
307
4 person
Table ii shows that when not factoring income or household size into the equation, and instead
focusing on the rental cost of a unit, the monthly snapshots show that for a one bedroom
apartment, on average there are 9 units with rents less than $400, 57 units with rents less than
$600, and 185 units with rents less than $800 available each month. For a two bedroom
apartment, on average there are zero units available each month with rents less than $400, three
units with rents less than $600, and 85 units with rents less than $800. For units with three or
more bedrooms, on average each month there are zero units available with rents less than $400,
one unit with rent less than $600, and 14 units with rents less than $800. It is important to note
that the monthly rental market snapshots utilize two main sources of data and duplication of units
is possible; as a result, the counts may be reflecting more units than are actually available.
Rental Size
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3+ bedrooms
Table ii
Average Rental Units Available Per Month
Based on Rent and Bedrooms Jan-June 09
Under $400
Under $600
9
57
0
3
0
1
Under $800
185
85
14
The monthly market snapshots are also able to show average availability of affordable units for
purchase (Table iii). For the first half of 2009, on average each month there was one unit
available for less than $100,000. There was an average of 57 units each month available for less
than $150,000 and 159 units available for less than $200,000. The data from both the rental and
14
Rental and Housing Monthly Snapshots from January to June, 2009. Maintained by the City of Charlottesville
Department of Neighborhood Development Services.
page 25
ownership monthly market snapshots demonstrates large gaps in the market for units that are
affordable to the lowest incomes. While this report will not provide goals for affordable units
provided by the market, it does recommend further study into ways to effectively provide
incentives to the market into providing more affordable units including better promotion and
utilization of current incentives available.
Number for Sale
Table iii
Average Homes for Sale Per Month
Based on Listing Price Jan-June 09
Under $100K
Under $150K
1
57
Under $200K
159
page 26
Appendix 4: Additional Information Regarding
CRHA Redevelopment
The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) currently manages 376 units
of public housing, located on eleven sites across the city, and plans to undertake a substantial
redevelopment process. A minimum of 376 new or modernized public housing units will be
coupled with non-subsidized, affordable rental and homeownership units, market rate units, and
commercial/retail opportunities. This redevelopment process will transform selected CRHA
properties into dynamic, mixed income neighborhoods supporting a variety of housing types and
uses, and will increase access to quality amenities and services.
The CRHA has partnered with a Redevelopment Committee (includes the Mayor, legal aid
attorneys, and community activists) and the residents of public housing for preliminary visioning
efforts. Through case-study research, interviews with the staff of other housing authorities with
redevelopment experience and their residents, and a site visit to an acclaimed project in
Maryland, the CRHA and its partners have noted best practices towards which to aspire – and
potential pitfalls against which to safeguard – during the impending redevelopment process in
Charlottesville.
One of the most important outcomes of these preliminary efforts has been the drafting and
passage of the Residents’ Bill of Rights. Unanimously approved by the CRHA Board of
Commissioners and City Council, this document features eight principles to guide redevelopment
success while protecting Charlottesville’s public housing population. Several notable features in
the Bill of Rights include (at least) a one-for-one replacement of public housing units, and a
guaranteed right-to-return for all families living in CRHA units at the beginning of
redevelopment.
Another unique CRHA initiative is its focus on youth participation during the redevelopment
process. Almost fifty percent of the residents in Charlottesville public housing are under the age
of eighteen. The CRHA is dedicated to listening to youth input throughout the process, and
learning from their unique perspectives. While all residents will be welcome to all Master
Planning events, a separate track of meetings has been established exclusively for participation
by CRHA youth.
The first step in the larger redevelopment process is the creation of a comprehensive Master Plan.
This Plan will have three goals: to assess current assets and potential options through primary
resources and significant community input; to provide an implementation plan for redevelopment
that will help improve the financial sustainability of the CRHA; and to create environmentally
and socially outstanding neighborhoods that improve the quality of life for residents.
In early 2009, the CRHA completed a competitive bid process to hire a consultant team to guide
the agency through the Master Planning phase of redevelopment. Public housing residents played
a significant role in the winning selection. The chosen consultant firm, Wallace, Roberts & Todd
(WRT) out of Philadelphia, have worked closely with CRHA staff, board members, public
housing residents, and prominent community figures to solicit input, review designs options, and
decide upon the specific course of action to breathe new life into Charlottesville’s public housing
page 27
neighborhoods and rebuild new, stronger communities. This Master Planning effort will wrap up
in early 2010 with the delivery of the Final Plan from the consultants.
Currently, the Housing Authority is looking beyond the completion of the Plan into the early
implementation stages of redevelopment. Based upon the recommendations from the consultant
team, each of the CRHA sites will undergo some sort of renovation or complete redevelopment
of its units.
page 28
The State of Housing Report
of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Produced by:
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
401 East Water Street • Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434) 979-7310 • [email protected] • Virginia Relay Users Dial: 711
The State of Housing Report
of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commissioned by the HOME Consortium
HOME Consortium and Housing Directors Council
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) operates the Thomas
Jefferson Regional HOME Consortium, the first regional consortium in the Commonwealth.
This program provides approximately $800,000 - 1,050,000 per year for housing
rehabilitation, new construction and rental development for qualifying families in the region.
The TJPDC staff prepares the Annual Consolidated Plan for housing in cooperation with
City of Charlottesville staff and administers funding to non-profit foundations and the
Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority for HOME-funded projects.
The Consortium was established in 1993 through a Cooperation Agreement among our six
member localities. The six member jurisdictions of the Consortium are the counties of
Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson, and the city of Charlottesville. As the
managing body for the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium, TJPDC convenes the
Housing Directors Council on a monthly basis.
The Housing Directors Council commissioned this report and developed the
recommendations. Members of the Housing Directors Council include:
Ron White, Albemarle County
Jane Andrews, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
Amy Kilroy, City of Charlottesville
Howard Evergreen, Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation;
Jack Naylor, Skyline Community Action Program;
George Krieger, Nelson County Community Development Foundation
Peter Loach, Piedmont Housing Alliance
Overton McGehee, Habitat for Humanity
State of Housing Report
1/19/07
Introduction
Background
Affordable housing is a significant issue in our region. Our region has ranked highly in
evaluations of desirable places to live, but high housing prices have been cited as a
negative factor. Non-profit housing foundation, elected officials, and the public at large have
known intuitively that housing costs are an issue in our community. The Housing Directors
Council, the managing body for the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium, recognized the
need to quantify the current housing situation and project the future demand for housing in
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, consisting of the City of Charlottesville and the
Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson. The Council reviewed
reports on other areas prepared by the Center for Housing Research at Virginia Tech and
concluded that this level of information and analysis was needed to provide quantitative
data for decision-makers. At their January 2006 meeting, the Housing Directors committed
carryover administrative funds to commission a report by the Center for Housing Research.
The Housing Needs Assessment and Market Analysis, completed in October 2006, is a
comprehensive assessment of affordable housing demand and housing needs for the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District.
Contents of this Report
This report consists of three basic sections:
Report Summary: A Summary of the Center for Housing Research’s report on Housing
Needs Assessment and Market Analysis in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Key
storylines from the report are summarized and illustrated. The report is included in the
appendices in its entirety. The ten main points of the report include:
1. Affordable rental supply
2. Housing for special populations (people with disabilities, homeless, elderly)
3. Workforce Housing
4. Housing cost burden
5. Commuting patterns
6. Migration patterns
7. Impact of UVA
8. Projected housing demand
9. Manufactured Housing
10. Poverty
Current Housing Programs: There are numerous programs in the Planning District to
address housing needs. Current programs are insufficient to solve the affordable housing
problem in the region, which has risen to the level of crisis for many low-income families.
This report includes a summary of current housing programs including:
Introduction
1
1. Rental Assistance
1/19/07
2. Public Housing
3. Senior Housing
4. Homelessness
5. First Time Homebuyer Assistance
6. Emergency Repair and Substantial Rehabilitation
7. Fair Housing
8. Multi-family housing development
9. Affordable housing policies
10. Tax relief programs
Recommendations: The Housing Directors Council has compiled recommendations for
local governments, non-profit foundations, and other community partners to consider.
Recommendations include:
Housing Fund
Donate Land
Affordable Rental Units
Homelessness
Workforce Housing
Mixed Used Development
Promote Better Housing Design
Rehabilitation Incentive
State Housing Trust Fund
Encourage Private Solutions
Appendices: Detailed information is included in the appendices, including:
1. The full Center for Housing Research (CHR) Report “The Housing Needs
Assessment and Market Analysis for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission”
2. Maps of usage of Housing Choice Vouchers in the Planning District
Introduction
2
Affordable Rental Supply
There is a severe deficit of rental housing
for low-income renter households. Most
units that are affordable (rent at or below
30% of income) by extremely low income
households (less than 30% area median
family income) are occupied by
households with higher incomes. This
forces low-income renters to spend large
portions of their income on housing.
Recently, several apartment complexes
have been converted to condominiums,
further reducing the supply. (p. 19-20)
Special Needs Populations
Homeless, people with disabilities and the
elderly typically have low incomes. With a
scarcity of affordable housing in the urban
core, many people with special needs live
in rural counties, restricting access to
services. The January 2006 point-in-time
survey found 173 people in shelters,
transitional housing, or unsheltered.
Factors leading to homelessness include
unemployment, lack of affordable housing,
medical problems and disability. Overall,
16.4% of the total population has a
disability. Age is a factor, with 37% of
those over 65 having a disability. (p.42-45)
Workforce Housing
Housing production has been keeping
pace with job creation, but new housing
has largely been at the high end of the
market. Jobs created typically have
incomes that require much less expensive
housing. Much of the workforce faces
housing affordability challenges,
particularly for home ownership. Two jobs
are often necessary to buy a home.
Household income (HH) was projected
from individual income (I) based on ratios
derived from Census data. (p. 20-32)
The housing market in the region is
extremely tight, with an owner vacancy
rate in 2000 of only 1/5%. The impact of
scarce housing is most severe for those
seeking lower-cost owner housing. (p. 13)
Report Summary
Top 20 Occupations in the Charlottesville MSA, 2005
Titles
# Jobs
Cashiers, food prep, wait staff, maids
Retail sales, office clerk, janitor, nursing
aide, teacher asst, receptionists
Bookkeeper, billing clerk carpenter,
customer service, groundskeeper, office
supervisor,
Teacher, accountant
Income
7,890
$15,000-$20,000
11,270
$20,000-$25,000
6,280
$25,000-$44,000
2,660
$50,000-$56,000
Affordable Housing for Selected Occupations
Affordable
Home
Price
# Affordable Units
Sold
Title
Income
Affordable
Rent
Cashier
$16,980
$425 (I)
$1,023 (HH)
$51,000
$133,000
14
654
Retail Sales
$22,750
Bookkeeper
$31,270
$569 (I)
$1087 (HH)
$782 (I)
$1,564 (HH)
$71,000
$141,000
$99,000
$207,000
40
854
177
2,892
3
Housing Cost Burden
The median house value for the Charlottesville
MSA was $225,500 in 2005, ranking 2nd in the
state amongst all MSAs. Considering the median
house value, approximately 1,100 housing units for
sale in the TJPDC were affordable to someone
making less than $62,286, the median family
income for the MSA. When looking at median
monthly owner costs for owners with a mortgage, it
costs as much to live in this MSA as the
Washington DC Metro area MSA. In 2005, the
median percent of income paid to a mortgage is
24.1 compared to the national average of 20%.
Commuting Patterns
In 2000, Planning District 10 was a net importer of
workers, with more people commuting into the
Planning District (non-residents of the Planning
District) than commuting out. The majority of incommuters are from Orange County, followed by
Augusta and Buckingham Counties. Of those
residents commuting out of the district, a majority
travel to Henrico County for employment. Looking
closer at Charlottesville and Albemarle where the
largest concentration of jobs are within the district,
Orange and Augusta Counties were the largest
population of in-commuters from outside the
district. As the largest employer in the district, UVA
attracts over 1500 employees from as far as 60
miles one-way. Over a quarter of commuters
working in Charlottesville and Albemarle commute
from outer lying areas within the planning district.
Many employees choose to live in areas further
outside the urban core from which they work due to
the affordability factor, which leads to factors such
as higher commuting costs and less quality time
spent at home. This trend negatively impacts the
region with additional financial burdens due to the
lack of integration of land-use and transportation.
Report Summary
4
Migration Patterns
Based on tax records, there was a net in-migration
of 7,818 persons into the PDC between 1999 and
2004. Out-migration to Augusta County,
Waynesboro and Buckingham County is significant
and growing. These three localities also ranked
among the top areas for the number of people
commuting into the PDC.
Within the PDC, there was a distinct pattern of
people moving out of Charlottesville and Albemarle
and into the rural counties, with Fluvanna County
receiving the most people from within the PDC.
The patterns suggest that the cost of housing is a
factor in out-migration. (p. 58-61)
Impact of UVA
UVA is the largest employer in the region with
nearly 20,000 employees. It had a student
population of 20,399 during the 2005-06 school
year.
Influence as an employer: The median family
income in 2005 for the Charlottesville Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) was $62,286. However,
UVA entry level employees make a minimum
annual wage of $19,490 ($9.37/hour), which is less
than 30% of the area median family income
(defined as extremely low income).
Influence on the rental market: Approximately 70%
of UVA students or 14,341 students live off
grounds, occupying 6,064 rental units or about
53% of the rental stock (leaving 5,300 rental units
for everyone else). Students often get help from
parents and split rental costs with other students,
thereby helping to drive up the cost of renting.
Report Summary
5
Projected Housing Demand
In 2000, there were 77,443 households in the planning
district: 49,950 owners and 27,473 renters. From 2000 –
2010 an increase of 11,159 (14.4%) households is
projected, followed by an increase of 9,713 (11.0%)
from 2010 – 2020, compared with an increase of 16,577
households from 1990 – 2000. (p. 62)
Owner demand is projected to increase by nearly 8,000
households between 2000 and 2010 and by another
6,700 households from 2010 to 2020. p. 63)
Renter demand will also increase but at a slower pace,
with an increase of 3,300 households between 2000 and
2010 and 3,000 between 2010 and 2020.
The low-Income Housing Segment: There were 15,362
low-income owner households in 2000, projected to
increase to 20,453 by 2020. This equates to a need for
an additional 5,091 affordable owner units. There were
17,910 low-income renters in 2000, increasing to 21,860
by 2010. This equates to a need for an additional 3,950
affordable rental units. (p. 69-70)
Manufactured Homes
Manufactured homes are an affordable
solution to housing needs, particularly in
rural areas. In the PDC, manufactured
homes (trailers) made up 5% of housing
units in the Charlottesville MSA in 2000. Of
these, 40% were built prior to 1976 and are
substandard by definition. Of these pre-1976
units, 40% were renter occupied in 2000,
compared to 25% renter occupancy of all
mobile homes. As older mobile homes
continue to decay, current renters will be
displaced and will need other affordable
housing options. The City of Charlottesville
prohibits the placement of new residential
mobile homes. (p. 11-12)
Poverty
Between 2000 and 2005, the poverty rate in the
Charlottesville MSA increased by 16% after a
decline of 13% from 1990 to 2000. Age is a factor
in poverty, with the highest incidence occurring in
persons under 5 years of age. Between 2000 and
2005, poverty rates increased for all age groups,
with a 47% increase for children under 5 and a
43% increase for people over the age of 65 (p. 1617)
Report Summary
Poverty Rates in Charlottesville MSA 19902005
Age Group
1990 rate
Under 5 years
14.0 %
2000 rate
2005 rate
10.9 %
16.0 %
5 to 64
13.1 %
12.4%
13.3 %
65 and older
15.3 %
6.9 %
9.9 %
Total
13.4 %
11.6 %
13.5 %
6
Current Housing Programs in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Rental Assistance
The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV), previously known as Section 8 Rental
Assistance, is a federally-funded initiative through the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). The program provides assistance to households, generally
with incomes below 50% of the area median income, with financial assistance to lease
privately-owned rental housing. Over 1,100 HCVs are available in the region, with
approximate numbers per locality shown below. In addition, the Piedmont Housing Alliance
(PHA) administers mainstream vouchers for people with disabilities, Region Ten has
vouchers for people diagnosed with mental illness, and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging
(JABA) has 26 project-based vouchers through the Department of Agriculture’s Rural
Development Program.
Voucher holders are required to pay at least 30% of their adjusted household income
towards housing costs with the HCV program paying the balance directly to the landlords.
Each participant is recertified annually or more frequently if they have changes in their
household. Vouchers may generally be used anywhere in the regardless of which
jurisdiction issues the voucher. Except for PHA and Region Ten, all waiting lists are closed
as of December 2006.
Contacts for the program in each area are:
Albemarle (435)
Charlottesville (330)
Fluvanna/Louisa (133)
Greene, Orange, Madison (144)
Nelson (41)
PHA (75 mainstream)
Region Ten (189 MI)
JABA (26 project based)
Raymond Hammond
Jesse Butler
Sherri Nicolas
Jack Naylor
George Krieger
Shelley Murphy
Reed Banks
Mike Heckman
(434) 296-5839
(434) 220-2469
(540) 967-3483
(434) 985-6066
(434) 263-8074
(434) 817-2436
(434) 972-1847
(434) 817-5226
Public Housing
The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) manages 376 units of
public housing at 11 sites in the City of Charlottesville for the exclusive use of low-income
families, seniors, and people with disabilities. Of the families currently living in public
housing, 74% have incomes at or below 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). There are
912 families on the wait list for public housing, 263 (29%) of whom are extremely lowincome families, with incomes at or below 30% of the area median income. Two hundred
and twelve (212) of the total wait list are families with dependent children. The average wait
period is 498 days.
Senior Housing
By the year 2025, Central Virginia’s senior population will almost double, creating a serious
need for increasing the area’s senior housing inventory. Though there are numerous
housing options for higher income seniors in this area, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging
(JABA) is the leading developer of affordable housing for low-moderate income seniors.
Regrettably, JABA alone cannot satisfy the increasing need for affordable independent and
assisted living senior housing. Public / private partnerships are needed to reduce the
7
serious financial strain on area housing nonprofits, and mixed income / mixed use projects
would address not only the need for senior housing, but the increasing need for workforce
housing. Progressive planning incorporating green construction and universal design would
significantly decrease life cycle costs while improving the standard of living for both young
and old.
This area’s biggest challenges include the development of affordable independent living
homes for very low to extremely low-income seniors—those with annual incomes of
$10,000 - $23,000. Equally challenging is developing financially feasible assisted living
facilities. Virginia’s Auxiliary Grant payments—supplements provided to low-income seniors
in assisted living—are among the lowest in the nation. This makes it extremely difficult to
develop and manage assisted living facilities that are financially sustainable. New ideas,
increased awareness, and aggressive planning are needed to address these challenging
issues.
Homelessness
Homelessness continues to be a pervasive problem in the region. The Planning District has
a number of organizations that participate in the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the
Homeless (TJACH) and prepare the Continuum of Care Plan for the region. TJACH
conducted its third annual Point in Time Survey on January 26-28, 2006. 173 people were
found to be homeless on January 27th, with most of these residing in emergency or
transitional facilities.
The major providers of services to the homeless in our area are the Salvation Army and
Region Ten Community Services Board (CSB). The Salvation Army operates the
Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Program. Region Ten is the primary public
provider of substance addiction and mental health services. People And Congregations
Engaged in Ministry (PACEM) operates a low-demand shelter through host congregations
that provide shelter on a rotating basis, with clean and safe dormitory-style
accommodations and access to showers and bathrooms. Other providers include On Our
Own Drop-In Center serving mentally ill or dually diagnosed persons, and AIDS Services
Group (ASG) serving persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS.
Region Ten CSB supports many people living in apartments throughout the Planning
District, with most units located in the City of Charlottesville or the growth areas of
Albemarle County. Units include supervised apartment living, supported apartment living,
congregate facilities and one residential treatment center, totaling approximately 250 units.
First Time Homebuyer Assistance
There are many resources for Homeownership Counseling in the area. Albemarle County
Housing Office has a full time program that provides individual counseling as well as
ongoing groups. The Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation (F/L HF) provides individual
counseling to residents and Habitat clients. The Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) serves
the entire region through its Regional Home Ownership Center (RHOC) providing individual
counseling to over 300 clients annually of which approximately 25% end up as
homeowners. RHOC’s comprehensive housing counseling services include financial
literacy education which includes money management and budgeting and credit counseling
reverse mortgage counseling, per and post purchase counseling, default counseling and
anti-predatory lending assistance.
8
Mortgage funding for First Time Homebuyers is available through a variety of sources
including Piedmont Housing Alliance (SPARC funds) and Rural Development.
Downpayment assistance is available through funds set up by Albemarle County, Louisa
County and the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors (CAAR) Workforce Housing
Fund. Downpayment assistance is also available using HOME funds through PHA, the
Charlottesville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (CRHA) and local housing
foundations.
The availability and production of “affordable housing” is a major gap in meeting the needs
of the area. Many of the people receiving counseling cannot find a house they can afford.
Some units have been built by PHA, Habitat for Humanity and other local foundations.
Habitat has plans to rebuild some of the trailer parks in the Charlottesville area with mixed
income housing to provide an increase in affordable units.
Emergency Repair and Substantial Rehabilitation
The need for emergency home repair and rehabilitation in Planning District 10, especially
for elderly low-income clients, far exceeds the resources available to address the problem.
Emergency repair includes rehab work to eliminate health and safety issues around the
home, and to add indoor plumbing when it doesn't exist. While these problems are more
prevalent in rural areas, they continue to exist in urban and suburban areas of our district,
as well. Indoor plumbing funds are available through the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development, as grants, and all the counties in PD 10 participate in this
program. However, the amount of DHCD funding is often not sufficient to cover the costs of
typical rehabilitations, requiring that other funds be committed as loans or grants.
Additional emergency funding is available through the Department of Agriculture Rural
Development Program. These funds are provided as grants up to $7,500, or 1% loans up to
$20,000, however these funds are extremely competitive, and are often expended early in
each funding cycle. Requirements for good credit ratings often keep many low-income
clients from accessing these funds. Recently, RD provided $90,000 in grant funds through
Piedmont Housing Alliance for rural rehab. Last year, funds up to 75% of the cost of a
project (up to $5,000) were available as a grant. This year, the program will require a 50%
match to obtain grant funding.
The City’s Handicapped Access Program provides grant funds to assist people with
disabilities in removing barriers to housing and public facilities. Such projects may include
constructing ramps and other improvements necessary at a private residence, as well as to
public buildings and facilities such as curb cuts and entrance improvements. Assistance
may be provided in the form of either a loan or a grant depending on the percentage of
household income provided by the applicant. Maximum amount of a grant is $3,200 per unit
and the maximum amount of a loan is $5,000 per unit.
Structural impediments facing emergency repair programs are the lack of contractors
willing to do the work, and the inability of most clients to handle any repayment of loans,
making a revolving loan pool difficult to maintain.
Fair Housing
PHA’s Fair Housing Program promotes equal housing opportunity and is the regional
provider of fair housing education, outreach, and advocacy services. The goal is to raise
9
awareness and promote compliance with federal and state civil rights laws that protect us
from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, familial
status (presence of children in the household), and elderliness in the rental, sale, and
financing of housing. Major services include responding to discrimination complaints and
compliance questions, conducting fair housing seminars, and creating comprehensive
educational materials, public awareness campaigns, and web site resources. Two specific
target issues are fair lending and accessible housing initiatives. In 2005, over 500 people
attended trainings and 74 people called for information or assistance.
For the past six years, the program has submitted competitive applications for funding
under HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP); for the first time, HUD funds were not
awarded for 2007, despite excellent performance evaluations and a national award from
HUD. HUD does consider local funding support in its application review process.
Charlottesville and Albemarle County each provide approximately $6,000 for the program,
but more local funding support is necessary to sustain this local fair housing initiative.
Multifamily Housing
There are several organizations developing new and preserving existing multi-family
affordable housing. Approaches include accessing Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and
partnering with other non-profits and state housing agencies to acquire and rehabilitate
older rental housing stock so that units can be upgraded and preserved for low-income
households. Examples include, but are not limited to:
•
Park’s Edge Apartments is a complex of eight building providing 96-units of affordable
rental housing in Albemarle County. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
rehabilitated Whitewood Village Apartments to preserve and upgrade these affordable
rental units.
•
Park View at South Pantops is a new tax-credit development by Shelter Development
LLC and the Jefferson Area Board of Aging (JABA), providing 90-units of affordable
senior housing community in Charlottesville.
•
Ryan School Apartments is an adaptive re-use of an old school in Nelson County by
JABA into 31 affordable Senior Living apartments
•
Virnita Court, located in Charlottesville’s Rose Hill Neighborhood, is PHA’s latest
multifamily rental development, a rehabilitation effort that will achieve Earthcraft
Certification for environmental sustainability and energy efficiency. Units are affordable
to households that are considered extremely low and low income.
•
Friendship Court is a $10 million renovation project of the complex formerly called
Garrett Square. Piedmont Housing Alliance and the National Housing Trust-Enterprise
Preservation Corporation purchased the complex from its Atlanta-based proprietor.
There is a full-time resident coordinator to assist residents with neighborhood programs
including job training and recreational activities in the community center.
Affordable housing policies
Localities play a vital role in affordable housing through the adoption and implementation of
strategies and policies. Localities use Land Use and Zoning tools, such as the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, lay out a framework to guide how and where
housing is built and maintained within an area. Localities utilize incentives, including density
bonuses, to encourage developers to include affordable units within development projects.
Albemarle County adopted a housing policy setting a target of 15% of all units developed
under rezoning and special use permits to be affordable as defined by the County, or a
10
comparable contribution to be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County.
Although the County is still in the early stages of implementing their policy, over 600 units
have been proffered, as well as over $1 million in cash proffers dedicated to affordable
housing. The City of Charlottesville has been working with developers to obtain additional
affordable units throughout the city, with a total of 35 affordable units integrated into 7
developments as of December 2006. In addition, City zoning classifications allow for the
addition of an accessory unit to a property, which can help make the primary unit more
affordable for the owners. Louisa County has designated one-quarter of one percent of its
real estate tax to a housing fund, yielding about $139,000 per year. The City of
Charlottesville, Piedmont Housing Alliance, and the Charlottesville Area Association of
Realtors have established the Thomas Jefferson Community Work Force Housing Fund
through the Charlottesville Albemarle Community Foundation (CACF) to provide down
payment assistance to members of the local work force so they could afford to live in the
communities they served The fund raising goal for the new fund is $8 million.
Tax relief
The City of Charlottesville and all five counties in the planning district provide a real estate
tax exemption for the elderly and people with disabilities. In addition, the City provides
Rental Relief to people with disabilities in the form of payment of grants to qualified City Of
Charlottesville tenants. The availability and extent of relief is based on documentation of a
disability, ownership and/or residence of the property, income and net worth.
The City also has a program to offset some of the financial impact that has resulted from
increased property tax assessments. A credit of $250 for tax year 2006 may be applied
toward December’s real estate tax bill if certain requirements are met.
11
1/19/07
Recommendations
The Housing Directors Council has reviewed the Market Study report and other data and
developed the following recommendations for implementation by localities and other
stakeholders in the Planning District. As noted in the section on current housing programs,
some of the localities in the Planning District are already implementing some of these
recommendations.
•
Housing Fund: Establish a recurring fund to preserve, develop or provide
downpayment assistance to first time homebuyers, if not already in place. This
should include an annual commitment, reviewed each year as part of the budget
cycle.
•
Donate Land: High land costs are a significant barrier to the development of
affordable housing. Localities can support affordable mixed-use development by
donating land owned by the locality or donated through the proffer process.
•
Affordable Rental Units: Support tax-credit project proposals submitted by public or
private developers within the locality. The tax-credit process is highly competitive,
and support by the locality can contribute to a favorable outcome for the proposal.
•
Homelessness: Support the recommendations included in the 2012 Plan to End
Homelessness. Recommendations include establishing a lead organization for
planning, coordination and data collection and analysis, focusing on early
intervention and prevention, increasing housing options, providing appropriate
supportive services, and securing stable, sustainable funding.
•
Workforce Housing: Explore options for providing housing for employees. This is
particularly important for large employers, with the University of Virginia first among
these. Mechanisms could include employer assisted financing, setting up individual
development accounts, and fund matching by the City, counties, or University to
match their employees’ funds.
•
Mixed-Use Development: Encourage mixed-use development by revamping zoning
ordinances to allow mixed-use and by creating incentives. Affordable housing is a
vital component of every mixed-use community. Allowing people to live in the same
communities where they work and shop improves the quality of life, increases
residents’ sense of belonging, reduces traffic congestion and benefits the
environment by reducing the use of fossil fuels. Having employment, shops, and
schools nearby significantly reduces commuting and transportation costs. Mixed-use
communities promote inclusion and diversity by incorporating housing for people of
all income levels along with supportive housing for the elderly and people with
special needs. Ultimately, mixed-use communities foster a sense of connection that
bolsters the health and vitality of a community and its residents.
•
Promote Better Housing Design: Encourage sustainable design for housing, so
that housing units operate efficiently and can be adapted as needs change.
−
Use environmentally-friendly “green” materials and techniques
−
Install energy-efficient appliances and equipment
−
Incorporate Universal Design features for visitability and to enable people to age
in place
Recommendations
12
1/19/07
•
Rehabilitation Incentive: Provide incentives for housing rehabilitation by waiving
real estate taxes on the increased value of the homes resulting from rehabilitation.
Enabling legislation is in place to allow communities to adopt policies for waiving
taxes. Localities should adopt policies to encourage redevelopment of housing,
including the conversion of hotels or motels to multi-family housing.
•
State Housing Trust Fund: Advocate for the establishment and funding of a
statewide housing trust fund.
•
Encourage Private Solutions: Continue the conversation and collaboration
between public and private sectors to encourage private sector solutions. Explore
mechanisms to encourage private solutions. Possibilities include tax incentives,
density bonuses, public investments in infrastructure, and streamlining the permit
processes for affordable mixed-use development.
There are some additional areas that warrant attention and further study. These areas
include the link between housing and transportation and the impact of affordable housing
on economic development efforts. The Housing Directors Council will continue to study
these areas and encourages localities and other organizations to research these topics and
other emerging issues that impact, or are impacted by, the supply of affordable housing in
our region.
Recommendations
13
Appendix
Appendix
1/19/07
Housing Needs and Market Analysis
Thomas Jefferson PDC
Prepared by
Marilyn Cavell
Ted Koebel, Ph.D.
Casey Dawkins, Ph.D.
Patricia Renneckar
Center for Housing Research
Virginia Tech
October 2006
Table of Contents
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
Description of Study Area..................................................................................... 5
Housing Market Characteristics ....................................................................... 6
Homeownership............................................................................................................. 6
Building Permits............................................................................................................ 9
Housing Stock.............................................................................................................. 10
Vacancy Rates ............................................................................................................. 12
Incomes and Poverty............................................................................................. 14
Household Income....................................................................................................... 14
Family Income............................................................................................................. 15
Poverty ......................................................................................................................... 16
The Affordable Housing Gap in 2000 ....................................................................... 19
Employment and Housing ................................................................................... 20
Workforce Housing..................................................................................................... 20
Employment................................................................................................................. 32
Commuting Patterns................................................................................................... 34
Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................. 39
Racial Composition..................................................................................................... 39
Patterns of Segregation............................................................................................... 39
Special Needs Populations ................................................................................ 42
Homelessness ............................................................................................................... 42
Persons with a Disability ............................................................................................ 43
Housing the Disabled .................................................................................................. 44
Senior Households....................................................................................................... 45
Housing Tenure (Owner Values and Rents).............................................. 49
Housing Prices............................................................................................................. 49
Rental Housing ............................................................................................................ 54
University Influence............................................................................................... 55
Influence on Housing Consumption .......................................................................... 55
Influence on the Rental Market................................................................................. 56
Influence as an Employer........................................................................................... 57
Population Growth and Household Composition ................................... 57
Migration ..................................................................................................................... 58
Projected Housing Demand ............................................................................... 62
Young Family Segment............................................................................................... 67
Early Middle-Age (35-44) Family Segment .............................................................. 67
Middle-Age (45-64) Family Segment......................................................................... 68
Senior (65+) Segment.................................................................................................. 68
Non-elderly (under 65) Singles and Unrelated Individuals..................................... 69
The Low-Income Housing Segment .......................................................................... 69
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 71
Summary
The need for affordable housing in the Thomas Jefferson PDC is a consistent theme
throughout this report. The Charlottesville MSA had the second highest median gross
rent as a percent of household income in 2005 (31.7%) of all MSA’s in Virginia1. The
monthly median gross rent in 2005 for the MSA was $814, and we estimated median
gross rent of $871 for two bedroom apartments on the market in January 2006 in the
PDC. In 2005, the median house value was $225,500 for the Charlottesville MSA and as
of the second quarter of 2006, the median home sales price for the PDC was $265,000.
The Charlottesville MSA tied with the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MDWV MSA for the highest median monthly owner costs for owners with a mortgage as a
percent of household income in 2005 (24.1%).
Despite high prices, home sales in the PDC were robust with sales prices in the second
quarter of 2006 increasing in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, and Louisa counties. The
number of days on the market declined steadily from 2000 to 2005 (single-family homes
were on the market for an average of 66 days in 2005 and condominiums an average of
32 days). Single-family sales increased 68% between 2000 and 2005 and condominium
sales soared over the same time period with a 294% increase in sales. Residential singlefamily building permits steadily rose through 2005, and the owner vacancy rate for the
Charlottesville MSA was less than 1% in 2005 indicating a very tight owner market.
The strong sales market is driven by higher income households and previous homeowners
taking advantage of low mortgage rates to “trade up” in the market. For many others,
homeownership is out of reach. While the homeownership rate for the PDC in 2000 was
66.5%, the homeownership rate for the Charlottesville MSA in 2005 was 63%. For a
consistently defined MSA, the comparable ownership rate in 2000 was 64.2%. It is likely
that high costs were a significant factor contributing to a lower ownership rate in 2005
than in 2000.
With a median gross rent of $814 for the MSA in 2005, renting is not a more affordable
alternative to ownership. While students at the University of Virginia clearly contribute
to a large rental market in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, other areas of the PDC
have limited rental stock. Rents in the outlying areas of the PDC are fairly comparable to
their more urban neighbors. This is partly because the supply of rental housing is
insufficient to keep up with demand as indicated by very low renter vacancy rates (3.9%
for the MSA in 2005 and even lower in some jurisdictions as indicated by 2000 renter
vacancy rates) and partly due to the high rent levels in Charlottesville and Albemarle
driven by student roommates who share the rent.
The median family income in 2005 for the Charlottesville MSA was $62,286. (The
Census Bureau warns that its 2005 median incomes may be underestimated by about
4%.) The HUD 2006 estimate for Area Median Family Income in 2006 for the
1
We included in the comparison the Washington -Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MD-WV MSA which
contains jurisdictions outside of Virginia (the ratio for this MSA was 28.6, lower than the Charlottesville
MSA).
Housing Needs and Market Analysis, Thomas Jefferson PDC
1
Charlottesville MSA was $66,500. The median household income ($47,543 in 2005
according to the Census Bureau) was significantly lower than the median family income
as the family category does not include single-person households and households made
up entirely of unrelated individuals.
While the economy in the PDC is thriving with over 17,000 new jobs between 1990 and
2000 and a current unemployment rate of 2.9%, many of these are modest paying jobs.
For the 2003-2005 time period, the top five occupations as ranked by number of workers
had an average annual wage of under $25,000. The current minimum entry level wage for
the University of Virginia, the PDC’s largest employer, is $9.37 an hour which is
equivalent to an annual wage of just under $20,000. Those at the lower end of the income
scale are losing ground as reflected by the trend in poverty rates. The 2000 poverty rate in
the MSA was about 12%, but was nearly 14% in 2005.
There is a significant shortfall of affordable housing in the PDC. We estimated a gross
deficit of about 4,660 affordable rental units for renters with incomes below 50% of the
Area Median Family Income in 2000. Low and very low-income homeowners also faced
a shortage of affordable units, with a deficit of about 4,200 affordable owner units in
2000. Even when there are a sufficient number of housing units for certain income level
households, competition for those same units from those of a higher income level
contributes to the affordable housing gap. The result is that low income people have to
pay a high portion, sometimes in excess 50%, of their income for housing. (This can also
be seen as an income problem rather than a housing problem.)
Workers in occupations vital to the community have difficulty finding affordable housing
in the PDC. We estimated that there were only 129 single-family homes and 42
condominiums sold in the PDC between 2004 and 2005 that were affordable to
firefighters and police officers based on the wage for entry-level positions. We estimated
there were 94 rental units on the market affordable to people in these occupations. With
an additional wage earner contributing to household income, we estimated there were 503
single-family homes, 503 condominiums, and 219 rental units that firefighter and police
officer households could afford. Simply stated, without an additional income source,
these vital workers and many more in lower paying occupations will find it increasingly
difficult live and work in the PDC unless housing costs go down or wages go up.
Although the evidence is not conclusive, housing costs could be contributing to the large
numbers of commuters driving from within and outside the PDC to jobs in Albemarle
County and Charlottesville. In 2000, Albemarle County and Charlottesville were net
importers of workers with (4,746 and 14,379 respectively). From within the PDC, most
workers commuted into Albemarle County from Charlottesville and Fluvanna County.
The most workers commuted into Charlottesville from Albemarle County and Fluvanna
County. From outside of the PDC, the top jurisdictions in 2000 from which workers
commuted into both Albemarle County and Charlottesville were Orange County, Augusta
County, and Buckingham County.
2
The homeless, the disabled, those living in poverty, the senior (65 and over) population,
and the university student population have special needs or impacts on housing.

Homelessness, the most severe housing problem, continues in the PDC but a greater
number of homeless were accessing shelters in 2006 than prior years.
Persons with disabilities (16% of the persons 5 or older in the PDC had at least one
disability in 2000) have difficulty finding affordable housing close to needed services.
The poverty rate in the region grew by 16% from 2000 to 2005 with about 14% of the
population of the Charlottesville MSA living below poverty in 2005 (as compared to
about a 12% poverty rate in the MSA and an 11% poverty rate in the PDC in 2000).
This means those who can least afford housing are also increasing.
About 20% of households in the MSA in 2005 and the PDC in 2000 had a
householder 65 years of age or older. About a fourth of non-family households in the
PDC were senior non-family households, which for the most part would be seniors
living alone. About 30% of owner households with incomes below 30% of median
family income were households having one or two members aged 62 to 74 years of
age.
The large presence of college students in the PDC has a significant impact on the
rental market in the area. We estimate that students consume about 53% of the rental
stock in Charlottesville. In addition, the artificial demographics students bring to the
area (a parent who helps support their student often lives in a higher paying area and
considers the rent their student splits with other students a bargain) help drive up the
cost of renting.
Racial segregation also influences the housing choices available to minorities. An index
measuring segregation indicated a moderate level of segregation of blacks from whites in
the PDC in 2000.
The PDC has been growing in population slowly, but steadily. Between 2000 and 2005
the regional population grew by an estimated 10,200 to 11,500 people through net inmigration. Most of the in-migrants to the PDC come from outside of Virginia. The
largest number of in-migrants from a single location to the PDC moved from Fairfax
County followed by Amherst County and Henrico County. The largest number of people
moving out of the PDC went to other states. Flow to in-state locations was next for
receiving the most out-migrants. The single location for the largest number of outmigrants from the PDC was Henrico County followed by Orange, Fairfax, and Augusta
counties. Albemarle County had the largest number of in-migrants from outside the PDC
of any PDC jurisdiction. On the other hand, Albemarle County lost more people than it
gained from 1999 to 2004 to the PDC jurisdictions of Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and
Nelson counties. Charlottesville, with a net migration of -2,208, was the only jurisdiction
in the PDC that lost more people than it gained both from outside and within the PDC.
The population and consequently the number of households are expected to grow steadily
in the PDC through the next decade. An increase of 11,159 households is projected for
2000-2010 followed by an increase of 9,713 from 2010-2020. An increase in households
implies the need for additional housing units to accommodate those households. We
3
project owner and renter housing demand to continue to increase, reaching 7,836 units by
2010 and 6,754 by 2020 for owners and 3,323 units by 2010 and 2,958 by 2020 for
renters.
4
Description of Study Area
Located southwest of the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA metropolitan area
and west of the Richmond metropolitan area, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission’s (PDC) central location in the Piedmont Region of Virginia makes it an
attractive place to live and work. Planning districts were established by the Virginia
General Assembly and consist of a group of counties and independent cities with
common regional interests (PDC’s are Virginia geographic units and are not Censusdesignated geographies). As part of their regional mission, the Thomas Jefferson PDC
commissioned the Center for Housing Research at Virginia Tech to prepare this housing
needs and market analysis for the district.2
The Thomas Jefferson PDC is comprised of six jurisdictions: Albemarle County,
Fluvanna County, Greene County, Louisa County, Nelson County, and the City of
Charlottesville. The PDC is represented partially in the Charlottesville Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) which includes all jurisdictions except Louisa County. The focus
of this study is the PDC as a whole, although each jurisdiction within the PDC has its
own unique characteristics that are sometimes discussed.
A largely rural area, the 2005 Census population estimate for the PDC was 218,444
persons for an area covering approximately 2,146 square miles. Albemarle County, with
over 40% of the PDC’s population and consisting of 726 square miles, is the largest
jurisdiction within the PDC. Centrally located within the PDC, Charlottesville is the
home of the University of Virginia and provides the most jobs in the district. Both these
jurisdictions (which we sometimes refer to as the urban core areas of the PDC)
significantly impact their more rural neighbors especially in respect to where people live
and work.
People are attracted to the PDC for many reasons. The PDC offers an excellent quality of
life and a variety of job opportunities. For example, young professionals come to the
PDC for good jobs, the appealing urban atmosphere of Charlottesville, and outdoor
recreation opportunities. Regional salespersons choose the PDC as their home base as it
offers easy access to customers along the eastern seaboard. Pilots who operate out of
Dulles International Airport, about an hour north of the area, sometimes choose the PDC
as a place where their children can get a good education yet is away from the traffic and
even higher living costs of Northern Virginia. Some choose the area as the location for
their second home or for investment property. Retirees come to the PDC so that they can
be close to family located in the area or in a number of other metropolitan areas close by
and be assured of excellent health care. All come to enjoy the history and beauty of the
area and the educational, cultural, and sports activities associated with the University of
Virginia.
2
Please note that whenever possible we used the most recent data available for this study. For many housing statistics,
the 2000 Census data were the most recent data available. Most of the data we reported for the PDC were aggregated
from jurisdiction level. However, as a surrogate for PDC level data, we occasionally used the American Community
Survey’s 2005 MSA data which does not include Louisa County.
5
Whether people migrate from other areas to live in the PDC or already live in the area,
housing choices are many. Depending on needs or interests, a person can live in a rural or
more urban setting, a single-family home or a condominium. Nelson County, the home of
Wintergreen Resort, offers a variety of options for second homes. Planned communities
such as Forest Lakes in Albemarle County offer a broad range of housing choices and
community amenities appealing to families, young professionals, and retirees.
Charlottesville offers mixed use housing in a more urban setting. Students and others not
interested in the owner market have a large stock of rental housing to choose from in
Charlottesville and Albemarle including luxury apartments such as Eagles Landing. What
the PDC does not offer in abundance, is affordable housing for those with limited
incomes already living and working in the area.
Housing Market Characteristics
The housing market in the Thomas Jefferson PDC is growing and has both positive and
negative impacts on the area and its residents. In 2004, there were an estimated 94,751
housing units in the PDC (37,839 or 40% of those units were located in Albemarle
County) as compared to 85,724 units in 2000 (about an 11% increase). In 2000, the PDC
had 77,520 occupied housing units (or households), 51,568 of which were owneroccupied and 25,952 renter-occupied. The Center for Housing Research projects owner
and renter housing demand to continue to increase, reaching 7,836 units by 2010 and
6,754 by 2020 for owners and 3,323 units by 2010 and 2,958 by 2020 for renters.
Homeownership
As shown in Figure 1, the 2005 homeownership rate for the Charlottesville MSA was
63%, down from the 2000 rate (for a consistently defined MSA, the comparable
ownership rate in 2000 was 64.3% while the homeownership rate for the PDC was
66.5%). By comparison, Virginia’s homeownership rate in 2005 was 69.6% and 68.1% in
2000. From 1990 to 2000, the homeownership rate increased for both the PDC and
Virginia with the homeownership rate for the PDC increasing at a greater rate than the
state. Between 2000 and 2005, however, this trend changed. The homeownership rate for
the MSA (and by assumption the PDC) declined between 2000 and 2005 while the
homeownership rate for the state increased. It is likely that high costs in PDC were a
significant factor contributing to a lower homeownership rate in 2005 than in 2000.
6
Figure 1: Housing Tenure, 1990-2005
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
80.0%
70.0%
68.1%
66.3%
69.6%
66.5%
63.5%
63.0%
Percentage
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
33.7%
36.5%
31.9%
30.4%
37.0%
33.5%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1990
2000
2005
Virginia
1990
2000
2005
TJ PDC (MSA for 2005)
Source: US Census 1990-2000 and Census 2005 ACS
To get a better sense of homeownership in the PDC, we need to look at each jurisdiction
(PDC comparisons must be based on 2000 data since 2005 data were not available for all
jurisdictions). As seen in Table 1, some jurisdictions have quite high ownership rates
while others (Albemarle County and Charlottesville) have lower rates. Fluvanna had the
highest homeownership rate in 2000 (85.3%). The counties of Greene, Louisa, and
Nelson also had 2000 homeownership rates above 80%. The counties of Fluvanna and
Greene had a considerable jump in their homeownership rates between 1990 and 2000
(6.8% and 6.1% respectively). On the other hand, Charlottesville’s rate declined by
nearly 4% over the decade. Charlottesville had the lowest percent of owners in 2000
(40.9%). The relatively large number of renters in Charlottesville significantly lowered
the homeownership rate for the PDC. Clearly the student rental market in Charlottesville
reduces the homeownership rate of the City and consequently the whole PDC. In addition
to rental demand among college students, higher land costs in Charlottesville and in
Albemarle, as well as the availability of urban services, result in higher densities and the
centralization of rental housing.
7
Table 1: Homeownership Rate by Jurisdictions, TJ PDC, 2000
Homeownership Rate
Year
Albemarle
Fluvanna
Greene Louisa
1990
64.1%
79.8%
76.8%
79.9%
2000
65.8%
85.3%
81.5%
81.4%
Nelson
79.1%
80.8%
Charlottesville
42.4%
40.9%
Source: US Census 2000
Map 1 shows for the PDC in 2000 the percent owners by block group (block groups are
small Census-designated geographies that make up a county or independent city). The
map allows us to see small areas where homeownership was more concentrated and
conversely, areas where renter occupied units were most prevalent.
Map 1.
8
Building Permits
The number of authorized residential single-family building permits steadily increased
from 2000 to 2005 in the Thomas Jefferson PDC. In 2005, 2,279 single-family building
permits were issued throughout the PDC. (See Figure 2.)
Figure 2: Residential Single-family Building
Permits, 2000-2005, TJ PDC
Number of Units
2500
2279
2000
1500
1847
1627
1952
1853
1451
1000
500
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: Weldon Cooper Center
As shown in Figure 3, single-family building activity varied within the PDC over a six
year time period. Albemarle had the largest number of single-family permits issued while
Charlottesville had the lowest. The number of permits held relatively steady for Nelson
and Greene counties between 2000 and 2005 while the number of permits in Fluvanna
County decreased. Louisa County had a significant increase in the number of residential
units built, with 262 permits issued in 2000 compared to 728 in 2005.
Figure 3: Residential Single-family Building
Permits, 2000-2005 by Jurisdiction
Number of Units
800
700
600
Albemarle
500
400
Greene
Fluvanna
300
200
Louisa
100
0
Charlottesville
Nelson
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
9
Residential multi-family building permits almost exclusively were issued in Albemarle
County and Charlottesville between 2000 and 2005. Figure 4 shows the building permit
activity for those two jurisdictions (Fluvanna and Louisa counties had a few multi-family
permits issued, but that permit activity is not shown). In 2002, Albemarle had a strong
surge in multi-family building permits (1,120 units) which reflects the building of large
apartment complexes in close proximity to Charlottesville intended to attract the UVa
student market. After dropping in 2003 and 2004, Albemarle saw a modest rise in multifamily building permits in 2005 (108 units). Charlottesville’s peak in multi-family
building permits over the six year period was in 2003 (299 units). Since that time multifamily building permits in Charlottesville have steadily, but slowing declined with
permits issued for 122 multi-family units in 2005.
Figure 4: Residential Multi-family
Building Permits, 2000-2005
Number of Units
1200
1000
Albemarle
800
Charlottesville
600
400
200
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Housing Stock
Table 2 shows that in 2005 nearly two-thirds of the housing stock in the Charlottesville
MSA consisted of single-family units. While the MSA does not include Louisa County
and therefore is not directly comparable to the 1990 and 2000 PDC data, Table 2 shows a
trend toward an increased number of multi-family units after stagnation or even a slight
drop between 1990 and 2000 in the PDC. The percent of manufactured housing (the
Census refers to these as mobile homes) decreased by nearly 20% in the PDC from 1990
to 2000. The MSA data suggests manufactured homes were an even smaller share of the
stock in 2005.
10
Table 2: Units in Structure TJ PDC, 1990-2000 and Charlottesville MSA, 2005
Units in Structure
Single-family
Duplex/Townhouses (3-4 units
attached)
Multi-family
Manufactured housing
Total Housing Units
TJ PDC
1990
2000
47,560
69.9%
63,197
73.7%
MSA
2005
65.7%
4,785
9,301
5,382
68,075
11.7%
17.3%
5.4%
74,443
7.0%
13.7%
7.9%
5,281
11,629
5,504
85,724
6.2%
13.6%
6.4%
Source: US Census 1990-2000 and 2005 ACS
As shown in Table 3, as would be expected, over half of Charlottesville’s housing stock
in 2000 was multi-family. Fluvanna County, Greene County, Louisa County, and Nelson
County all had a large portion of single-family units and a negligible amount of multifamily housing stock. Louisa County had the highest percentage of manufactured homes
(13%) and housing stock in both Greene and Nelson counties consisted of 10%
manufactured homes. Less than 1% of Charlottesville’s housing stock was manufactured
homes in 2000.
Table 3: Units in Structure by Jurisdiction TJ PDC, 1990-2000
TJ PDC Jurisdiction
Units in Structure
Albemarle Fluvanna Greene Louisa Nelson
Single-family
62.9%
91.1%
83.7%
81.7% 72.4%
Duplex/Townhouses(3-4 units
attached)
14.5%
2.1%
3.1%
2.5%
6.8%
Multi-family
17.3%
0.8%
1.7%
2.3%
10.0%
Manufactured housing
5.2%
5.6%
11.3%
13.3% 10.8%
Total Housing Units
33,720
8,018
5,986
11,855 8,554
Charlottesville
47.6%
25.9%
25.7%
0.8%
17,591
Source: US Census 1990-2000
Manufactured Housing
Manufactured homes typically have been considered an affordable housing option. In
2005, manufactured homes accounted for only 5% of occupied housing units in the
Charlottesville MSA. One reason for the decline (as seen in Table 2) in manufactured
homes is that they are aging. According to the 2000 Census, across all jurisdictions in the
PDC, about 40% of manufactured homes were built prior to 1979. The 1974 National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act passed by HUD created
stringent regulations for building and placement of manufactured homes. The intent was
to improve the quality and durability of manufactured units in order to reduce personal
injury and property damage. In Charlottesville, over half of all manufactured stock was
built prior to the HUD ordinance. Newer, better quality, manufactured homes are not an
option in the city, however, as current zoning in the city prohibits the placement of any
new manufactured units for residential purposes.
11
While the aging stock of manufactured homes in the area brings into question the quality
of housing these units provide, for many residents, particularly in rural areas,
manufactured homes are an affordable solution to housing needs (the 2005 median value
of manufactured homes in MSA was $84,900). Also, with few rental options (almost no
multi-family units) in rural areas, manufactured housing can serve an important role in
the rental market. Of the manufactured units built prior to 1979 in the PDC, 40% were
renter-occupied in 2000 while for all manufactured homes, 25% were renter-occupied. As
older manufactured units continue to decay, displaced residents will need other options
for affordable housing.
Vacancy Rates
The vacancy rate3 is a key indicator of the adequacy of the supply of housing relative to
demand. A five percent vacancy rate is largely accepted as a minimum benchmark for a
sufficient number of housing units available for occupancy by people searching for
housing. Vacancy rates below five percent often reflect “tight” housing markets where
prices can escalate rapidly and supply is low. Rates significantly above five percent can
reflect “weak” markets where prices (and maintenance) can be depressed by an excess
supply of housing.
Rather than looking at the total vacancy rate, we generally look at the vacancy rate for
renters and the vacancy rate for owners. The 2000 renter vacancy rate for the PDC (3.4%)
as shown in Table 4 was well below the five percent benchmark that indicates a tight
market and a shortage of rental housing. While renter vacancy rates declined more from
1990 to 2000 for Virginia (35% decline) than for the PDC, the renter vacancy rate for the
PDC declined by 26% percent, showing a significant tightening of the rental market over
the decade. In 2000, the renter vacancy rate for the PDC was nearly two points lower than
the rate for Virginia. Based on the Census 2005 American Community Survey (ACS), the
renter vacancy rate for the Charlottesville MSA in 2005 was 3.9%, only slightly higher
than the 2000 rate for the PDC.
According to HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, there are indications
that renter vacancy rates in the PDC are rising from the 2000 rate in response to
significant building of apartments in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. HUD estimated
a 5.4% renter vacancy rate for the area including Charlottesville and Albemarle, Fluvanna
and Greene Counties as of January 2005. We determined that new apartment complexes
such as Eagles Landing located in Albemarle County just outside the Charlottesville
border are actively seeking renters. While rents are still quite high in the area, they should
begin to level off in response to excess supply. In addition, a surge in ownership demand
fueled by low interest rates could be a factor in raising renter vacancy rates. While the
2005 ACS data for the MSA indicates the renter market in the PDC is still tight, a renter
3
The vacancy rate includes only those units for sale or rent and available for occupancy (units for sale or
rent /(units for sale or rent + occupied units)). In contrast, total vacant units include these units as well as
units rented or sold but not occupied (vacant units used for seasonal, recreational or occasional use; vacant
units used for migrant workers; and “other” vacant units not available for occupancy).
12
vacancy rate above the five percent mark as estimated by HUD would indicate that the
area has achieved a reasonable balance between supply and demand.
Table 4: Vacancy Rates by Tenure, TJ PDC, 1990-2000
Virginia
Vacancy Rate
Renter
Owner
1990
8.2%
2.1%
Charlottesville Area
2000
5.3%
1.7%
TJ PDC
1990
2000
4.6%
3.4%
1.4%
1.5%
MSA
2005
3.9%
.7%
HUD
Area
2005
5.4%*
1.5%*
Source: US Census 1990-2000 and 2005 ACS
* HUD estimate (only covers Albemarle,
Greene, Fluvanna, and Charlottesville)
Owner vacancy rates in the PDC in 2000 were extremely tight at 1.5% (see Table 4). The
PDC owner vacancy rate was fairly comparable to that of Virginia in 2000 (1.7%) but
while the owner vacancy rate dropped from 1990 to 2000 in Virginia (from 2.1% to
1.7%), it rose slightly in the PDC. Although the 2000 rate in the PDC was slightly higher
than in 1990, more important is that supply did not respond to demand over the decade.
While HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research reports recent estimates that
indicate the rental market has responded to demand, the picture for the owner market is
not as optimistic. HUD estimates a 1.5% owner vacancy rate for the area including
Charlottesville and Albemarle, Fluvanna and Greene Counties as of January 2005. This
estimated owner vacancy rate reflects little or no change since 2000 and indeed since
1990. Even more compelling that the owner market has gotten even tighter in the PDC,
the 2005 ACS reports a .7% owner vacancy rate for the Charlottesville MSA.
The overall tightness of the housing market in the PDC will continue to push housing
prices and rents higher unless the supply of housing increases sufficiently to produce
vacancy rates around 5% (which would have required an additional 1,940 vacant units for
sale and 470 vacant units for rent based on the number of owner and renter occupied units
in 2000). According to HUD, the rental market is leveling off with evidence of excess
units (at least in the higher end market).
The impact of scarce housing is most severe for those seeking lower-cost owner housing.
It is virtually impossible to expand the supply of lower cost housing through new
construction due to land and construction costs. And with a severe housing shortage,
older and lower quality units become more and more attractive to people with higher
incomes. Extremely low vacancy rates lead to “bidding wars” when home seekers
compete for units that come on the market, with sellers often receiving bids well above
their asking price. This shrinks the supply of housing affordable to households with
modest incomes by displacing them with households with higher incomes and by
increasing the market price for these units. Those displaced either have to find housing
outside of the high cost areas (which for the most part in the PDC are also the areas with
the most jobs) or be willing to pay a high proportion of their income for housing.
13
Incomes and Poverty
Household Income
Based on the Census data set American Community Survey (ACS), the 2005 median
household income for the Charlottesville MSA was $47,5434 compared to $44,356 in
2000 (compare with caution: Census 2000 was based on an MSA area which included all
jurisdictions in the PDC except Louisa and Nelson counties; Census ACS 2005 was
based on an MSA area that excluded only Louisa County). As shown in Table 5, of the
jurisdictions within the PDC, Albemarle County had the highest median household
income ($50,749) in the PDC in 2000 (PDC comparisons must be based on 2000 data
since 2005 data were not available for all jurisdictions). The City of Charlottesville had
the lowest median household income ($31,007), partly a reflection of the student
households. Student households generally report low household income but are not
reflective of low income households in the general population. When students are present
in large numbers, the median household income for an area is lower than it would be
compared to an area with a more “typical” population.
Table 5: Median Household Income by Jurisdiction, TJ PDC, 2000
Albemarle Fluvanna Greene Louisa
Median Household
Income, 2000
$50,749
$46,372
$45,931 $39,402
Nelson
Charlottesville
$36,769
$31,007
Table 6 shows the distribution of household income in 2000 for the PDC. Nearly 60% of
households had income of less than $50,000. About one-tenth of households in the PDC
had income of less than $10,000 a year and over 25% had household income less than
$25,000. About 23% of households in the PDC had income greater than $75,000.
Table 6: Household Income, TJ PDC, 2000
TJ PDC
Household Income
Households
Less than $10,000
6,870
$10,000 to $14,999
4,447
$15,000 to $24,999
9,720
$25,000 to $34,999
9,919
$35,000 to $49,999
13,807
$50,000 to $74,999
15,347
$75,000 and more
17,476
%
8.9%
5.7%
12.5%
12.8%
17.8%
19.8%
22.5%
4
The estimated 2005 median household income and estimated 2005 median family income as reported in
the American Community Survey are likely underestimated by about 4.4% due to change in definition of
the income reporting period.
14
Family Income
When looking at incomes in an area with a large college student population, median
family income can be a better measure than median household income. Median family
income by definition excludes households not living with a spouse or relative which
effectively eliminates most college students. On the other hand, median family income
also excludes non-family households including young professionals.
The ACS 2005 median family income for the Charlottesville MSA was $62,286²
compared to $55,455 in 2000 (again, view the comparison of 2005 and 2000 MSA data
with caution as only Louisa County was excluded in 2005 while Louisa and Nelson
counties were excluded in 2000). As shown in Table 7, Albemarle County had the highest
median family income ($63,407) in the PDC in 2000 (no 2005 data available). Nelson
County had the lowest median family income ($42,917).
Table 7: Median Family Income by Jurisdiction, TJ PDC, 2000
Median Family Income,
2000
$63,407
$51,141
$48,548 $44,722
Nelson
Charlottesville
$42,917
$45,110
Table 8 shows the distribution of family income in 2000 for the PDC. Nearly half of
families had income of less than $50,000. About 4% of families in the PDC had income
of less than $10,000 a year, and nearly 30% of families in the PDC had income greater
than $75,000.
Table 8: Family Income, TJ PDC, 2000
Family Income
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and more
TJ PDC
Families
2158
1663
5037
5677
9042
12172
14689
%
4.3%
3.3%
10.0%
11.3%
17.9%
24.1%
29.1%
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has its own estimates
for median family income5. The 2006 HUD area median family income (AMFI) estimate
for the Charlottesville MSA is $66,500. The HUD AMFI is the income estimate used for
programs such as Section 8 housing vouchers and the Low Income Tax Credit program.
A family is considered low income if the family income is between 50% to 80% the HUD
5
The HUD median family income estimate is based on the 2000 Census and updated using county-level
Bureau of Labor Statistics earnings data, the Census Current Population P-60 data, and state-level data
from the ACS.
15
AMFI, very low income if the family income is 30% to 50% AMFI, and extremely low
income if the family income is less than 30% AMFI (for a family of four in the
Charlottesville MSA, about $20,000 in 2006).
Poverty
Charlottesville MSA
Based on the ACS, in 2005 the poverty rate for the Charlottesville MSA (Louisa County
not included) was 13.5%. The 2000 decennial Census poverty rate for the MSA was
11.6%, and the 1990 poverty rate for the MSA was 13.4%6. The poverty rate has
increased by over 16% in the MSA since 2000 after a decline of 13% between 1990 and
2000. However, even though we equalized the data for area between years, the ACS data
was based on population for whom poverty was determined over the past 12 months,
whereas the decennial Census was based on population for whom poverty was
determined in 1989 and 1999 (or the past year which is different from the past 12
months). Even with this difference, it is likely the rate of poverty is on the rise in the
MSA.
The rate of poverty is dependent on age. (See Table 9.) In 2005, about 16% of persons
under the age of 18 were below poverty in the Charlottesville MSA. As the population
aged, the poverty rate dropped, with about one-tenth of those over 65 years of age living
below poverty in 2005.
Table 9: Poverty Rate by Age, Charlottesville MSA*
MSA
Age
1990
2000
2005
Under 5 years
14.0%
10.9%
16.0%
5 to 64
13.1%
12.4%
13.3%
65 years and older
15.3%
6.9%
9.9%
Total
13.4%
11.6%
13.5%
Source: US Census 1990, 2000 and Census ACS 2005
*Note: Nelson County is included in the 1990 and 2000 MSA data reported here.
Between 2000 and 2005, the poverty rate for the MSA increased for all age groups. (See
Figure 5.) The most notable were a 47% increase in the rate of poverty for those under
age 5 and a 43% increase in those over the age of 65. This was following a 1990 to 2000
decrease in poverty rate for these two groups (22% and 55% declines respectively).
6
To make 1990 and 2000 rates comparable to 2005, we added Nelson County to the 1990 and 2000 MSA
published results.
16
Poverty Rate
Figure 5: Poverty Rate by Age by Year,
Charlottesville MSA
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
16.0%
14.1%
13.3%
13.1%
12.4%
13.3%
Under 5 years
9.9%
5 to 64
10.7%
65 years and
older
5.9%
1990
2000
2005
Year
Source: US Census 1990, 2000 and ACS 2005
Thomas Jefferson PDC
The most recent data available for the PDC is based on the 2000 decennial Census. The
poverty rate in 2000 for the Thomas Jefferson PDC was 11.4% (about the same as the
MSA rate in 2000). As seen in the MSA, the trend in the PDC from 1990 to 2000 was
one of decline. The poverty rate declined over 14% from 1990 to 2000 (from 13.3% to
11.4%). We can’t directly compare the MSA 2005 data with that of 2000 PDC data on
poverty, but we can infer from the MSA data that the decline from 1990 to 2000 in
poverty rate in the PDC has most likely has reversed and is now rising.
As shown in Figure 6, the highest rate of poverty in 2000 was for the 5 to 64 year old age
group (12.4%). All age groups had a decline in poverty rate between 1990 and 2000. The
greatest decline was for the 65 and over age group with more than 50% decrease over the
decade. Based on the MSA data, it is likely rates for all age groups in the PDC have risen
over the past five years.
17
Figure 5: Poverty Rate by Age TJ PDC, 1990-2000
1990
2000
18%
16.4%
Percent Below Poverty
16%
14%
12%
13.8%
12.6% 12.4%
10.4%
10%
7.7%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Under 18
18 to 64 years
65 and older
Age
Source: US Census 1990, 2000
The relationship between tenure and poverty is clear as shown in Table 10. In 2000, 23%
of renters in the PDC were living in poverty versus 5% of owners.
Table 10: Poverty Rate by Tenure TJ PDC, 2000
Tenure
Poverty Rate
Renter Occupied
23.2%
Owner Occupied
5.4%
Poverty Rate within the PDC
As shown in Table 11, the poverty rate varied across jurisdictions in the PDC. In 2000,
Fluvanna County had the lowest poverty rate (5.9%) and Charlottesville had the highest
rate (25.9%). Following the trend of the PDC as a whole, poverty rates decreased
between 1990 and 2000 for Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson counties.
Greene had the most significant decrease with a 46% decline. Charlottesville was the
only jurisdiction in the PDC for which the poverty rate rose over the decade (from 23.7%
in 1990 to 25.9% in 2000).
Table 11: Poverty Rate by Jurisdictions, TJ PDC, 1900 and 2000
Poverty Rate
1990
7.6%
10.5%
12.3%
12.2%
2000
6.7%
5.9%
6.6%
10.2%
Nelson
15.2%
12.1%
Charlottesville
23.7%
25.9%
18
The Affordable Housing Gap in 2000
The following housing gap analysis estimates the surplus or deficit of housing units that
were affordable in 2000 to certain household income groups, both for renter and owneroccupied households. This housing gap is calculated from special tabulations of the 2000
Census prepared for HUD for use in preparing Consolidated Plans. Three numbers are
used in calculating the affordable housing gap: 1) the number of households in the
income category, 2) the total number of housing units affordable to these households (at
30% of their income), and 3) the number of these affordable units that were occupied by
households with higher incomes.
The gap analysis shows that low-income renters faced the most severe shortage of
affordable housing, which is not surprising. We estimated a gross deficit of about 4,660
affordable rental units for renters with incomes below 50% of the Area Median Family
Income (AMFI7) (approximately $28,500 in 2000). (See Table 12.) Consequently, lowincome renters were forced to spend large portions of their incomes (often in excess of
half) in order to obtain housing.
Table 12: Affordable Rental Housing Gap TJ PDC, 2000
<30%AMFI
30-50%AMFI
50-80%AMFI
Total
Renters
5,931
4,532
5,845
Total
Units
4,939
7,853
12,210
Surplus
(Deficit)
(992)
3,321
6,365
Occupied
>%AMFI
2,925
4,066
5,622
Gross
Deficit
(3,917)
(745)
743
Occupied
by higher
income
59.2%
51.8%
46.0%
Source: CHAS 2000 Data Book and Center for Housing Research
The gap was largest for extremely low-income households (less than 30% AMFI) where
the number of renters exceeded the number of affordable units by 992. This gap was
increased to 3,917 as a result of higher income households out-bidding the lower income
segment and occupying nearly 60% of the units affordable to this income category. The
same phenomenon took place for the very-low income group (30-50% AMFI) with
higher income households occupying almost half (51.8%) of the units affordable at this
income level. Severe housing cost burdens cause a host of problems including underconsumption of other necessary goods and services as well as family instability.
Low and very low-income homeowners also faced a shortage of affordable units, with a
deficit of about 4,200 affordable owner units in 2000 (see Table 13). Although there was
a sufficient number of affordable units for owners with these income levels in 2000, most
were occupied by owners with higher incomes (67.2% and 65.6%, respectively). This
reduced the surplus of units for the very-low income group from 2,134 to a much larger
7
AMFI stands for Area Median Family Income, the median income for families within a geographic area.
Estimated by HUD and used as a reference for income eligibility for housing programs.
19
deficit of 4,182 units. The impact of owners with higher incomes also reduced the surplus
of units for the low-income owner households from 8,738 to a deficit of 2,152 units.
Table 13: Affordable Owner-Occupied Housing Gap TJ PDC, 2000
<50%AMFI
50-80%AMFI
Total
Owners
7,266
7,862
Total
Units
9,400
16,600
Surplus
(Deficit)
2,134
8,738
Occupied
>%MFI
6,316
10,890
Gross
Deficit
(4,182)
(2,152)
Occupied
by higher
income
67.2%
65.6%
Source: CHAS 2000 Data Book and Center for Housing Research
As with low-income renters, this gap forced low-income owners to pay excessively high
portions of their income for their housing. Although most homeowners have fixed
payments for principal and interest, their property tax, utilities and insurance costs
escalate over time. Since 2000, these costs have risen much more quickly than incomes
even for the median income family. Homeowners with below median incomes have seen
housing costs increase much more rapidly than their incomes.
Employment and Housing
Workforce Housing
For this study we try to establish if the Thomas Jefferson PDC is achieving a comfortable
level of balance between the type of jobs available and the stock of affordable housing
available to service workers. The link between the workforce in an area and its housing
needs is critical because the demographics and characteristics of the population drive the
demand side of the housing market and consequently impact the supply of housing. As
job growth occurs in an area, the housing stock needs to equally grow to accommodate
workers. And, ideally, the income level of the workers in those jobs will allow them to
afford the available housing.
Between 1990 and 2000, the number of jobs in the PDC increased by 17,644 jobs (see
Table 14). Given the average number of workers per household in the PDC (1.44 workers
per household), 17,644 jobs equates to housing demand for 12,288 units. In other words,
for every 1.44 jobs created in the PDC in 2000, there was an associated increase of one
household in need of a housing unit. During the same time period, the supply of housing
units increased (net) by 17,649 units. Since the supply of housing outpaced the demand
based on job creation, we can conclude that between 1990 and 2000, the PDC produced
about 5,000 housing units for non-job related growth. As noted earlier, the region attracts
a significant number of people who likely are moving for reasons other than jobs in the
region. Some of these are retirees; others might work outside the region.
20
Table 14: Jobs-Housing Balance in TJ PDC
Increase in jobs
Households @ 1.44 jobs/household
Increase in housing units
Housing Units Created Beyond Job Expansion
1990-2000
2000-2004
17,644
12,288
17,649
5,361
7,403
5,156
9,027
3,871
Source: Center for Housing Research
Based on Census estimates of the number of housing units in 2004, housing production
was still sufficient to keep up with job growth between 2000 and 2004, but slowing. A
similar pattern emerges when considering only the more urban jurisdictions of the PDC.
For the combined jurisdictions of Charlottesville and Albemarle, between 2000 and 2004
housing production was sufficient to keep up with job growth with 3,516 housing units
created for other reasons. Even if gross housing production keeps up with housing
demand based on job creation, the homes produced are usually at the high-end of the
housing market, whereas the jobs being created typically have incomes that require much
less expensive housing.
Many of the jobs generated by the employment base in the PDC require less expensive
housing than new construction can produce, although new construction does allow filter
of older units in the market. As seen in Table 15, of the top twenty occupations between
2003 and 2005 in the Charlottesville MSA (based on number of workers), only three had
average earnings above $50,000 (a bench mark chosen by the research team based on
recent housing prices and the incomes needed to afford them). The top five earned less
than $25,000 per year. As a result, much of the workforce in the Thomas Jefferson PDC
job market, whether in terms of existing or newly created jobs, faces housing
affordability challenges especially in the homeownership market.
21
Table 15: Top 20 Occupations, 2003-2005 (for the Charlottesville MSA)
Workers
%
Occupation Title
2003
1.Retail Salespersons
2.Office Clerks, General
3.Cashiers
4.Combined Food Preparation and Serving
Workers, Including Fast Food
5.Waiters and Waitresses
2900
2720
2390
3250
3100
2680
12%
14%
12%
$22,750
$24,900
$16,980
1470
1690
2560
1770
74%
5%
$17,600
$19,740
6.Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing
7.Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners
8. Carpenters
1230
1590
29%
$31,270
1020
980
1300
1280
27%
31%
$21,010
$32,900
9.Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants
10. Accountants and Auditors
11.Customer Service Representatives
12.Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
1110
930
1170
1010
1210
980
890
880
9%
5%
-24%
-13%
$21,900
$54,990
$28,010
$19,350
570
870
53%
$25,570
780
730
850
850
9%
16%
$44,190
$21,800
460
840
83%
$55,820
610
780
840
800
38%
3%
$52,660
$20,560
470
600
800
760
70%
27%
$29,950
$21,540
13.Landscaping and Groundskeepers
14.First-Line Supervisors/Managers of
Office and Administrative Support Workers
15.Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
16.Elementary School Teachers, Except
Special Education
17.Secondary School Teachers, Except
Special and Vocational Education
18.Teacher Assistants
19. Billing and Posting Clerks and Machine
Operators
20. Receptionists and Information Clerks
2005
Change
2005 Annual
Average Wage
*Bold for jobs paying more than 50k/year
Source: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics and Center for Housing Research
Table 16 shows the top twenty growing occupations throughout the metro area during the
same period. Thirteen or 65% of the 20 growing occupations had average annual wages
of less than $50,000. With a trend toward growth in relatively low paying jobs,
challenges will continue for housing workers in the PDC.
22
Table 16: Top 20 Growing Occupations, 2003-2005 (for the Charlottesville MSA)
Workers
%
2005 Annual
Occupation Title
2003
2005
Change
Average Wage
1.Computer Support Specialists
2.Computer Software Engineers,
Systems Software
3.Title Examiners, Abstractors, and
Searchers
4.Financial Analysts
5.Heating, Air Conditioning, and
Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers
6.Personal Financial Advisors
180
530
194%
$40,160
130
380
192%
$66,240
50
80
130
200
160%
150%
$36,850
$52,400
200
70
490
160
145%
129%
$31,750
$99,200
7.Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks
8.Clinical, Counseling, and School
Psychologists
9.Writers and Authors
10.Compensation, Benefits, and Job
Analysis Specialists
11.Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers
12.Real Estate Brokers
13.Self-Enrichment Education Teachers
14.Veterinary Technologists and
Technicians
110
250
127%
$28,110
50
50
110
110
120%
120%
$55,730
$33,420
30
60
30
90
60
120
60
180
100%
100%
100%
100%
$63,060
$28,590
$48,510
**
40
80
100%
$27,220
15.Medical Secretaries
16.Recreation Workers
17.Special Education Teachers, Middle
School
90
90
170
170
89%
89%
$32,280
$32,080
70
130
86%
$40,610
18.Advertising Sales Agents
19.Elementary School Teachers, Except
Special Education
20.Educational, Vocational, and School
Counselors
60
110
83%
$34,060
460
840
83%
$55,820
110
200
82%
$42,830
*Bold for jobs paying more than 50k/year
**Estimate not available.
Source: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics and Center for Housing Research
23
Housing Affordable to Low and Modest Income Workers is Hard to Find
Housing affordability for the workforce reflects wage levels, household characteristics
and housing prices or rents. To examine housing affordability for people with low-wage
to modest-wage jobs, we estimated the number of units affordable for people in five
occupations representing a mixture of growing metro jobs and critical city jobs.
-
Cashiers
Retail/Salespersons
Bookkeepers
Elementary Teachers
Firefighters & Police
We created a table to summarize housing affordability for both the ownership and rental
markets for each of these occupations. The following provides a description for the terms
and methodology used in these tables.

With a few exceptions, individual annual wage represents the published May
2005 Bureau of Labor Statistics MSA annual average wage for a particular
occupation. For teachers only, we used the published 10th percentile annual wage
which approximates the entry level annual wage for teachers. For police officers
and fireman only, we used the published 25th percentile annual wage which
approximates their entry level annual wage.
The median annual household income per wage (Median HHI/W) indicates the
median household income for the households with at least one member of the
household working in a particular occupation. This is calculated using the 2000
US Census micro data set to estimate the ratio between the total household
income with at least one person working in the occupation and income of a single
earner in the occupation. [Note: the micro data represents an area including the
jurisdictions of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Greene, and Fluvanna.]
We calculated the affordable maximum home purchase price (max. price) for each
occupation using the individual wage and median household income per wage in
conjunction with a 30% of income affordability threshold and other cost factors of
ownership. The other cost factors were mortgage rate, homeowner insurance,
mortgage insurance, and local property taxes. We assumed a mortgage rate of
6.5% based on the 2005 national average for 30-year loans, we applied local
homeowner insurance rates based on the sale price (for example $26 per month
for a $100,000 home), we assumed $45 per month for mortgage insurance, and we
applied the City of Charlottesville 2006 tax rate of .0099). We also calculated the
affordable maximum monthly gross rent (max. rent) for each occupation using a
30% of income threshold.
For sales, we checked the total number of single-family (SF) units sold in 2004
and 2005 in the PDC (based on MLS data provided by the CAAR) as well as the
total townhouses and condominiums sold in the same period. Based on the sales
price of the units in both these categories, we determined the number of units that
each of our example occupations could afford. While technically a certain
24

number of units are affordable for those in each of our occupations, these units are
also in the competitive market and available to those with higher incomes. So the
number of units we estimate as affordable are most likely an overstatement of the
number of units actually available.
For the rental market, we checked the number of units listed under the Blue Ridge
Apartment Council’s (BRAC) website to find out the total number rental units
actually available for rent on September 10, 2006 within the affordable rent range
for each occupation. We included homes and apartments listed as studio
apartments, 1 bedroom, and 2 bedroom. While this method does not fully account
for all rental units actually available, BRAC has the most complete unbiased
rental listings available for the PDC.
The number of workers in the various occupations is based on metro level data
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Cashiers
Cashiers account for about 2,680 workers on the metro level earning an annual individual
average wage of $16,980. Column 1 of Table 17 shows what an individual in this
occupation can afford to pay for a house or for rent along with the number of affordable
units that had recently been for sale or rent in the PDC. Based on the annual individual
average wage (without additional income) for a cashier, we calculated the maximum
purchase price to be $51,272. Using MLS sales records, there were only 14 affordable
units sold during 2004/05 in the PDC. Based on the annual individual average wage
(without additional income) for a cashier, we calculated the maximum monthly rent to be
$425. There were only 15 affordable rental units available in September 2006.
Most households with at least one person working as a cashier had sources of income
other than cashier wages contributing to the household income (about 88%). Based on a
2.41 ratio of HHI/W for cashiers (the ratio was calculated from the Census micro data for
the Charlottesville area), we estimated an annual median household income of $40,922.
Column 2 of Table 17 shows what households in this occupation can afford to pay for a
house or for rent along with the number of affordable units that had recently been for sale
or rent in the PDC. Based on the estimated annual median household income for a
household with at least one person working as a cashier, we calculated the maximum
purchase price to be $133,199. Using MLS sales records, there were 368 affordable
single-family units sold during 2004/05 in the PDC and 266 affordable condominiums or
townhouses. Based on the estimated annual median household income for a household
with at least one person working as a cashier, we calculated the maximum monthly rent
to be $1,023. There were 177 affordable rental units available in September 2006.
25
Table 17: Affordable Housing for Cashiers
Individual
Wage
Income
$16,980
Home Ownership
Max. price
$51,272
SF units sold 2004/05
Townhouses/Condos sold
2004/05
Rental
Max. rent
Units available for rent on
09/10/2006 (BRAC website)
Median
HHI/W
$40,922
$133,199
14
368
0
266
$425
$1,023
15
177
Retail Sales
Retail sales jobs account for about 3,250 workers on the metro level earning an annual
individual average wage of $22,750. Column 1 of Table 18 shows what an individual in
this occupation can afford to pay for a house or for rent along with the number of
affordable units that had recently been for sale or rent in the PDC. Based on the annual
individual average wage (without additional income) for a retail salesperson, we
calculated the maximum purchase price to be $71,022. Using MLS sales records, there
were only 36 affordable single-family units sold during 2004/05 in the PDC and only 4
affordable condominiums or townhouses. Based on the annual individual average wage
(without additional income) for a retail salesperson, we calculated the maximum monthly
rent to be $569. There were only 26 affordable rental units available in September 2006.
Most households with at least one person working as a retail salesperson had sources of
income other than retail sales wages contributing to the household income (about 92%).
Based on a 1.91 ratio of HHI/W for retail salespersons (the ratio was calculated from the
Census micro data for the Charlottesville area), we estimated an annual median
household income of $43,478. Column 2 of Table 18 shows what households in this
units that had recently been for sale or rent in the PDC. Based on the estimated annual
median household income for a household with at least one person working as a retail
salesperson, we calculated the maximum purchase price to be $141,161. Using MLS
sales records, there were 495 affordable single-family units sold during 2004/05 in the
PDC and 359 affordable condominiums or townhouses. Based on the estimated annual
median household income for a household with at least one person working as a retail
salesperson, we calculated the maximum monthly rent to be $1,087. There were 186
affordable rental units available in September 2006.
26
Table 18: Affordable Housing for Retail Sales
Individual
Wage
Income
$22,750
Home Ownership
Max. price
$71,022
2004/05
Rental
Max. rent
Median
HHI/W
$43,478
$141,161
36
495
4
359
$569
$1,087
26
186
Firefighters and Police Officers
Firefighters and police officers are critical components of any community and are
representative of the importance of an adequate supply of workforce housing. Police
officers account for about 340 workers (no numbers are available for firefighters) on the
metro level earning an annual individual average wage of $36,800. For the purposes of
this exercise, however, we used the 25th percentile annual individual wage of $30,890
which is close to the 2006 entry level salary for the metro area (entry level salary for
police officers in the City of Charlottesville is somewhat higher at $32,593). Column 1 of
Table 19 shows what an individual in this occupation can afford to pay for a house or for
rent along with the number of affordable units that had recently been for sale or rent in
the PDC. Based on the annual individual 25th percentile wage (without additional
income) for a police officer or firefighter, we calculated the maximum purchase price to
be $98,416. Using MLS sales records, there were only 129 affordable single-family units
sold during 2004/05 in the PDC and only 42 affordable condominiums or townhouses.
Based on the annual individual 25th percentile wage (without additional income) for a
police officer or firefighter, we calculated the maximum monthly rent to be $775. There
were only 94 affordable rental units available in September 2006.
Most households with at least one person working as a police officer or firefighter had
sources of income other than police officer or firefighter wages contributing to the
household income (about 78%). Based on a 1.58 ratio of HHI/W for retail salespersons
(the ratio was calculated from the Census micro data for the Charlottesville area), we
estimated an annual median household income of $48,824. Column 2 of Table 19 shows
what households in this occupation can afford to pay for a house or for rent along with
the number of affordable units that had recently been for sale or rent in the PDC. Based
on the estimated annual median household income for a household with at least one
person working as a police officer or firefighter, we calculated the maximum purchase
price to be $159,868. Using MLS sales records, there were 823 affordable single-family
27
units sold during 2004/05 in the PDC and 503 affordable condominiums or townhouses.
Based on the estimated annual median household income for a household with at least
one person working as a police officer or firefighter, we calculated the maximum
monthly rent to be $1,221. There were 219 affordable rental units available in September
2006.
Table 19: Affordable Housing for Fire Fighters & Police
Officers
Individual
Median
wage
HHI/W
Income
$30,890
$48,824
Home Ownership
Max. price
$98,416
$159,868
2004/05
Rental
Max. rent
129
823
42
503
$772
$1,221
94
219
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Bookkeeping clerks account for about 1,590 workers on the metro level earning an
annual individual average wage of $31,270. Column 1 of Table 20 shows what an
individual in this occupation can afford to pay for a house or for rent along with the
number of affordable units that had recently been for sale or rent in the PDC. Based on
the annual individual average wage (without additional income) for a bookkeeping clerk,
we calculated the maximum purchase price to be $99,431. Using MLS sales records,
there were only 131 affordable single-family units sold during 2004/05 in the PDC and
only 46 affordable condominiums or townhouses. Based on the annual individual average
wage (without additional income) for a bookkeeping clerk, we calculated the maximum
monthly rent to be $782. There were only 94 affordable rental units available in
September 2006.
Most households with at least one person working as a bookkeeping clerk had sources of
income other than bookkeeping wages contributing to the household income (about
88%). Based on a 2.0 ratio of HHI/W for retail salespersons (the ratio was calculated
from the Census micro data for the Charlottesville area), we estimated an annual median
28
median household income for a household with at least one person working as a
bookkeeping clerk, we calculated the maximum purchase price to be $207,188. Using
MLS sales records, there were 1,843 affordable single-family units sold during 2004/05
in the PDC and 1,049 affordable condominiums or townhouses. Based on the estimated
annual median household income for a household with at least one person working as a
bookkeeping clerk, we calculated the maximum monthly rent to be $1,564. There were
262 affordable rental units available in September 2006.
Table 20: Affordable Housing for Bookkeeping Clerks
Individual
Median
Wage
HHI/W
Income
$31,270
$62,540
Home Ownership
Max. price
$99,431
$207,188
2004/05
Rental
Max. rent
131
1,843
46
1,049
$782
$1,564
94
262
Elementary Teachers
Teachers are a critical part of any community and account for about 840 workers on the
metro level earning an annual individual average wage of $55,820. For the purposes of
this exercise, however, we used the 10th percentile annual individual wage of $35,780
which is close to the 2006 entry level salary for elementary teachers for the metro area.
Column 1 of Table 21 shows what an individual in this occupation can afford to pay for a
house or for rent along with the number of affordable units that had recently been for sale
or rent in the PDC. Based on the annual individual 10th percentile wage (without
additional income) for an elementary teacher, we calculated the maximum purchase price
to be $115,210. Using MLS sales records, there were only 224 affordable single-family
units sold during 2004/05 in the PDC and only 102 affordable condominiums or
townhouses. Based on the annual individual 10th percentile wage (without additional
income) for an elementary teacher, we calculated the maximum monthly rent to be $895.
There were only 142 affordable rental units available in September 2006.
Most households with at least one person working as an elementary teacher had sources
of income other than teacher wages contributing to the household income (about 93%).
Based on a 2.09 ratio of HHI/W for elementary teachers (the ratio was calculated from
the Census micro data for the Charlottesville area), we estimated an annual median
29
median household income for a household with at least one person working as an
elementary teacher, we calculated the maximum purchase price to be $249,032. Using
MLS sales records, there were 2,680 affordable single-family units sold during 2004/05
in the PDC and 715 affordable condominiums or townhouses. Based on the estimated
annual median household income for a household with at least one person working as an
elementary teacher, we calculated the maximum monthly rent to be $1,870. There were
283 affordable rental units available in September 2006.
Table 21: Affordable Housing for Teachers
Individual
wage
Income
$35,780
Home Ownership
Max. price
$115,210
2004/05
Rental
Max. rent
Median
HHI/W
$74,780
$249,032
224
2,680
102
715
$895
$1,870
142
283
Implications of Affordability
From the preceding calculations of what potential buyers or renters working in the five
example occupations can afford, it is clear that income solely from the wages of those
occupations provide limited housing opportunities. Those employed as a cashier or a
retail salesperson would have an extremely hard time finding affordable housing in the
Charlottesville metro area. Since cashiers and retail sales are two of the top three
occupations in the area based on number of workers, this is a significant issue. Based
only on wages from their occupation, police officers and firefighters, bookkeeping clerks,
and elementary teachers may be able to find an apartment to rent, but have limited
opportunities to buy a home.
While our calculations show that few rental and owner properties are within the means of
persons working in our example occupations without the benefit of additional income, it
is important to consider that those workers have to compete not only with each other but
with other comparable income level households for a limited supply of affordable
housing. And because it is a competitive market, low to moderately paid workers must
also compete with those in better paying occupations for many of the same units.
30
Renting is not always an easy solution for accommodating low and moderate income
workers. There is a large supply of rental housing in the urban portions of the
Charlottesville metro area, but rental units in the more rural jurisdictions of the PDC are
relatively scarce. While renter-occupied units accounted for nearly 60% of the occupied
units in Charlottesville in 2000 and 34% of occupied units in Albemarle, the remaining
jurisdictions in the PDC had less than 20% renter-occupied units. Even with the large
volume of renter units in Charlottesville, the renter vacancy rate in 2000 was below 3%
and consequently rents were high (in 2000 the median gross rent for the Charlottesville
metro area was $661). Clearly the rental market in Charlottesville is largely driven by
college students who often can share costs with other students and may rely on the deeper
pockets of their parents to pay the rent.
While townhouses and condominiums are often a good option for low to moderate
income workers to get into the homeownership market, the supply of affordable units for
these households is somewhat limited in the Charlottesville metro area and nearly nonexistent in the more rural areas. Townhouses and condominiums for purchase start at
$60,000 and only 7% of units sold in 2004/05 were under $125,000. Indeed, a large
number of condominiums sold were luxury units costing as much or more than singlefamily units (median sales price of condominiums and townhouses in 2004/05 was
$191,475 based on an N of 1,764 units).
In order for workers in our example occupations as well as those in the other low to
moderate paying occupations to be able to afford housing and other essential needs, they
often rely on additional sources of income. For some, having an additional worker in the
household contributing to household income is the answer. However, for one-person
households, additional income must come from other sources such as additional wages
from working overtime hours or a second job.
Two Jobs Often Necessary to Afford Housing
Total purchasing power (and thus affordability) depends on total household income rather
than an individual’s income from a particular job. Some households, particularly marriedcouples, have income from two (or more) workers. In 2000, for the Charlottesville MSA,
76% of married-couple families with at least one worker had two or more workers
contributing to household income which means about a fourth had only worker. These
families along with one-person households have total purchasing power associated with
having only one worker unless that worker has more than one job to create more
purchasing power. For those working in relatively high paying occupations, the
purchasing power based on one job is generally adequate. However, for those one-worker
households who are in low to moderate paying occupations, many must resort to working
additional hours or more than one job (data are not available to estimate the magnitude)
or rely on supplemental sources of income, such as transfer payments (public assistance
and Supplemental Security Income) or investment income in order to have enough
purchasing power to pay for housing and other household expenses.
31
Supplemental sources of income for workers, however, are limited. Low-income, singleparent working females may qualify for public assistance through Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF). However, non-elderly single individuals do not qualify for
public assistance other than food stamps and, if they have a disability, SSI (but in that
case, they might not be working). One-worker households in low to modest wage jobs
are unlikely to have significant earnings from investments or savings. By implication, a
significant portion of one-worker households have more than one job or work overtime
hours.
Based on all workers in our example occupations combined, 11% relied exclusively on
the wage income from the person working in the example occupation (meaning the
household income equaled the wage income of the individual). Of these one worker
households, police officers and firefighters, retail salespersons, and elementary teachers
all had a annual median individual wage (also annual median household income which in
this case reflects only the wage income of the worker) greater than the published annual
average wage for their particular occupation. This suggests that those workers had wage
income coming from other sources, most likely from overtime hours or a second job.
Disturbingly, the occupation group with the lowest average income (cashiers) had an
actual annual median individual wage of $16,000, slightly lower than the published
annual average of $16,980. While few in number (about 61 cashiers), these workers are
facing the reality of very limited housing choice.
The majority of workers in our example occupations, however, found additional income
sources to supplement their wage income. Regardless of the number of workers in the
household, the annual median household income for households with at least one person
employed full-time in any of the low to modest income occupations that we examined
was substantially higher than the annual average income for that position. Median
household incomes for cashiers and retail salespersons were about 2.6 times the annual
average wage of persons in those occupations. Median household incomes for households
with a teacher were about double the annual average wage of a person in that occupation.
While median household incomes for households with a police officer or firefighter and
bookkeepers were about respectively 1.7 and 1.5 times the annual average wage of
persons in those occupations. For those who benefit from the purchasing power
associated with additional household income, housing options are significantly increased.
Employment
The top employers in the Thomas Jefferson PDC, as measured by the number of
employees, significantly impact the region’s economy. The types of positions these large
employers offer and the pay associated with those positions largely determines the level
of household spending and housing consumption of their employees. According to the
Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) there were 13 employers in the Thomas
Jefferson PDC in 2005 with 500 or more employees (Table 22). The National Ground
Intelligence Center (not identified by VEC because it is a US government facility) also
provided over 500 jobs in 2005. All of the PDC’s largest employers are located in either
32
Charlottesville or Albemarle County. Another large employer, the Wintergreen Resort
located in Nelson County, had nearly 500 employees in 2005.
Table 22: Employers in TJ PDC with Over 500 Employees in 2005
University of Virginia (largest employer with over 10,000 employees)
University of Virginia Health Systems
Martha Jefferson Hospital
University of Virginia School of Medicine
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance
Region 10 Community Services Board
Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine
City of Charlottesville
County of Albemarle
Darden Executive Education
GE Fanuc Automation Inc.
Comdial Corp
Lexis-Nexis
National Ground Intelligence Center
Source: VEC
The economy of the area is strong and growing (as indicated by an unemployment rate of
2.9% in 2005 and holding as of July 2006) making the PDC a desirable location for
businesses. Between 2004 and 2005 the number of jobs in the region grew 2.2% or by
2,147 jobs. Table 23 shows industry sectors by average number of jobs and average
weekly wages for 2004 and 2005 and the percent change in the average number of jobs
between those two time periods. The largest gains were in the financial and construction
sectors while the only losses in jobs were in manufacturing and other service jobs. The
education and health services sector was the largest sector with over 32,700 jobs in 2005.
The University of Virginia and its medical school and Martha Jefferson Hospital account
for a large portion of these jobs.
33
Table 23: Jobs and Wages by Industry Sector: 2004 and 2005 TJ PDC
Industry
Total, all industries
Goods-Producing Domain
Natural Resources and Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Service-Providing Domain
Trade, Transportation and
Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business
Services
Education and Health Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Public Administration
Percent
Change 20042005
2.2%
0.7%
1.4%
4.0%
-3.2%
2.5%
2005 Avg.
Weekly
Wage
$720
$724
$492
$655
$852
$719
16,260
N/A
3,834
2.3%
$614
$950
$993
10,343
32,728
N/A
3,766
3,939
3.3%
3.2%
2004 Avg.
Employment
96,177
14,307
1,028
7,205
6,074
81,870
2005 Avg.
Employment
98,324
14,413
1,043
7,492
5,878
83,911
15,899
2,275
3,661
10,016
31,720
10,522
3,886
3,890
4.7%
-3.1%
1.3%
$846
$819
$311
$573
$835
Source: VEC
Commuting Patterns
Commuting patterns reveal the interrelationship between jobs and homes. Table 24,
based on the 2000 Census, shows for the PDC the number of in-commuters (workers who
live outside the PDC but commute to a job located in the PDC) and out-commuters
(workers who live inside the PDC but commute to a job located in another jurisdiction).
In 2000, the Thomas Jefferson PDC was a net importer of workers (1,251), as more
people commuted into the PDC to work (52,386) than commuted out (51,135). Table 24
also lists the top 10 jurisdictions for in-commuters to the PDC along the associated
number of out-commuters, and similarly, Figure 7 shows the top 5 in-commuting
jurisdictions portraying both the number of in-commuters and out-commuters. The most
workers came from Orange County (2,184) which borders Albemarle County on the
north. Buckingham County and Augusta County contributed over 1,000 workers each.
Buckingham County borders Albemarle County on the south and Augusta County
borders Albemarle County on the west. All but two of the top ten in-commuting
jurisdictions had more workers leaving to work in the Thomas Jefferson PDC than
workers coming from the PDC to work in their jurisdictions. Only Henrico County and
Goochland County (both located in the Richmond Metropolitan area) had more
commuters from the PDC (out-commuters) than in-commuters. In 2000, 44,684 workers
both lived and worked in the PDC.
34
Table 24: Commuting Into and Out of TJ PDC VA, 2000 (Top 10
Jurisdictions for In-Commuting)
In
Out
Locality
Total (not including TJ PDC)
Orange
Buckingham
Augusta
Madison
Waynesboro city
Henrico
Spotsylvania
Rockingham
Culpeper
Goochland
Total live and work in TJ PDC
Commuters
52,386
2,184
1,623
1,223
997
883
586
427
379
300
252
Commuters
51135
1,245
223
470
321
560
1,898
167
56
195
436
Net
InCommuters
1,251
939
1,400
753
676
323
-1,312
260
323
105
-184
44,684
Figure 7: Top Five In-Commuting Jurisdictions to TJ PDC VA 2000
Out
In
Number of Commuting Workers
2,500
2,184
2,000
1,623
1,500
1,223
997
1,000
883
500
0
Orange
Buckingham
Augusta
Madison
Waynesboro
City
Jurisdiction
It is not surprising that a significant number of workers would come to the PDC from
Orange County, Augusta County, and Buckingham County. These counties are in close
proximity to the PDC, have good transportation access, and offer more favorable housing
costs. All three counties had a larger percent of specified owner-occupied units that were
valued at less than $100,000 in 2000 than the PDC -- Buckingham (77%), Augusta (42%)
and Orange (40%) compared to only 33% of owner-occupied units valued below
35
$100,000 in the PDC. However, clearly the bigger story related to commuting patterns
lies within the PDC itself.
Looking within the PDC, both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville were net
importers of workers (4,746 and 14,379 respectively) in 2000. As the jurisdictions with
the most jobs, Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville were the only two
jurisdictions in the PDC that were net importers.
In 2000, Albemarle County had 22,428 workers coming in to work and 17,682 going out
to work (see Table 25, row 1 which represents all in- and out-commuters). Table 25
shows the top 10 jurisdictions where people lived and commuted into Albemarle County
(also shows the out-commuters to those jurisdictions). The most workers (7,990) came
from Charlottesville to work in Albemarle County with the next four top jurisdictions
from within the PDC. Orange County and then Augusta County were the top two
jurisdictions with workers living outside the PDC and commuting to jobs in Albemarle.
Charlottesville was the only jurisdiction from which Albemarle County received fewer
workers than it sent (net in-commuters -5,896). In 2000, 21,455 workers both lived and
worked in Albemarle County.
Table 25: Commuting Into and Out of Albemarle County VA, 2000 (Top 10
In
Out
Net
InLocality
Commuters Commuters Commuters
Total (not including Albemarle)
22,428
17682
4,746
Charlottesville city
7,990
13,886
-5,896
Fluvanna
3,413
325
3,088
Greene
2,956
545
2,411
Nelson
1,543
208
1,335
Louisa
1,248
287
961
Orange
877
326
551
Augusta Co.
782
245
537
Buckingham
701
57
644
Waynesboro city
535
288
247
Madison
525
128
397
Total live and work in Albemarle
21,455
Primarily due to the location of the University of Virginia, the City of Charlottesville had
23,472 workers coming in to work. Another 9,093 workers commuted out of
Charlottesville based on the 2000 Census (see Table 26, row 1 which represents all inand out-commuters). With a net 14,379 in-commuters, Charlottesville stands out as the
jurisdiction within the PDC having a disproportionate number of jobs to workers. Table
26 shows the top 10 jurisdictions where people lived and commuted into Charlottesville
36
(also shows the out-commuters to those jurisdictions). The most workers (13,886) came
from Albemarle County to work in Charlottesville with the next four top jurisdictions
from within the PDC. Orange County and then Augusta County were the top two
jurisdictions with workers living outside the PDC and commuting to jobs in
Charlottesville. In 2000, 11,230 workers both lived and worked in the City of
Charlottesville. Map 2 shows in-commuting (as well out-commuting) for the top 10
jurisdictions for in-commuting to Charlottesville. The map represents 21,954 incommuters but does not show 1,518 other workers who lived across a broad area and
commuted into Charlottesville to work. We chose to map commuting only for
Charlottesville since the City had the most in-commuters in the PDC.
Table 26: Commuting Into and Out of Charlottesville city VA, 2000 (Top 10
In
Out
Net
InLocality
Commuters Commuters Commuters
Total (not including Charlottesville city)
23,472
9093
14379
Albemarle
13,886
7,990
5896
Fluvanna
2,487
38
2449
Greene
1,839
115
1724
Nelson
915
18
897
Louisa
892
158
734
Orange
529
50
479
Augusta
441
33
408
Buckingham
439
55
384
Madison
276
14
262
Waynesboro city
250
37
213
Total live and work in Charlottesville city
11,230
37
Map 2.
Source: US Census 2000 and Center for Housing Research
Commuting and the University
Charlottesville and Albemarle County are the center of the job market for the PDC and
draw the most commuters. While Map 2 shows Charlottesville’s in- and out-commuters
regardless of place of work, the University is by far the largest employer in
Charlottesville with nearly 20,000 employees between the academic and health system.
So the in-commuters to Charlottesville as shown in Map 2 can be used a surrogate for
where university employees, not residing in Charlottesville, lived in 2000. However, the
map only shows the top 10 in-commuting jurisdictions. Therefore 1,518 in-commuters to
Charlottesville, a portion of whom work at the University, live in jurisdictions not shown
on the map (some quite a distance from Charlottesville).
38
Race and Ethnicity
Racial Composition
Looking at the racial composition of the Thomas Jefferson PDC in 2000, the population
was comprised mostly of whites (80.2%) with blacks accounting for 15.0%. The
remainder consisted of 2.4% Asian and 2.4% other races. Virginia, by comparison, was
72.3% white, 19.6% black, 3.6% Asian, and 5.5% other. Of the jurisdictions in the PDC,
Greene County had the fewest blacks (6.4%) and Charlottesville had the most with
22.2%. See Table 27.
Compared to 1990, the PDC in 2000 had become increasingly racially diverse with the
percentage of both whites and blacks decreasing slightly. In 1990, whites accounted for
81.9% of the population in the PDC and blacks accounted for 16.1% while other races
accounted for about 2%. The City of Charlottesville was the only jurisdiction in the PDC
with in increase from 1990 to 2000 (20.9% and 22.2% respectively) in the percentage of
blacks. (The remainder of this discussion will center on whites and blacks. While the
percentage of other races is growing in the PDC, other races still account for only a small
portion (about 5% in 2000) of the population.)
Table 27: Racial Composition TJ PDC, 1990-2000
Race
White
Black
Asian
Other race
Virginia
TJ PDC
1990
81.9%
16.1%
1.6%
1.0%
2000
80.2%
15.0%
2.4%
2.4%
2000
72.3%
19.6%
3.6%
5.5%
Patterns of Segregation
We examined small areas within the PDC to see if a pattern emerged as to where whites
and blacks live. Map 3 shows for 2000 the percentage of blacks living in block groups (a
Census designated geography level that is smaller than a census tract) comprising the
PDC. The darkest areas of the map indicate black population of 75% or more, both
located in the City of Charlottesville. Another six block groups (four in Charlottesville,
one in Louisa County, and one in Fluvanna County) had between 40% and 75% black
population. A block group falling within the 40% to 60% range can be considered
integrated or not predominantly one race. Two of the block groups in Charlottesville
falling in the 40% to 75% range fell within the 40% to 60% range as did the block group
in Louisa and the block group in Fluvanna.
39
Map 3.
40
To further explore segregation in the PDC, we calculated a segregation index8 score. The
score, referred to as the index of dissimilarity, measures the degree to which blacks and
whites are evenly spread among neighborhoods (or in our case, block groups). We
calculated a score for the PDC as a whole and for each jurisdiction within the PDC. We
calculated a score for both 1990 and 2000 to see if there had been any significant change
over time.
The index indicates a high degree of racial segregation if the score is .60 or greater.
Neither the PDC nor any of its jurisdictions met that level. Reported in Table 28, the PDC
had a segregation index score of .397 in 2000 (virtually unchanged from the 1990 score
of .398). A score of .397, which is indicates a moderate level of segregation, means that
about 40% of the members of one racial group would have to move to a different census
block group within the PDC in order for there to be an even distribution of racial groups.
The index of dissimilarity changes somewhat when we look only within each jurisdiction
rather than at the PDC as a whole. Charlottesville had the highest index score in 2000
(.516), but that score had dropped since 1990 indicating a lessening of segregation within
the City. Greene County had the lowest score (.211) which indicates a high degree of
integration of races in the county. Greene County also had the largest drop (nearly 50%)
in its segregation index between 1990 and 2000. Albemarle County, Louisa County, and
Nelson County each had a slight rise in their segregation index score between 1990 and
2000.
Table 28: Segregation Index TJ PDC, 1990-2000
Block Group Level
Area
Segregation Index
1990
2000
TJ PDC
0.398
0.397
Albemarle County
0.336
0.364
Charlottesville
0.547
0.516
Fluvanna County
0.404
0.399
Greene County
0.401
0.211
Louisa County
0.197
0.228
Nelson County
0.214
0.262
The PDC has a relatively small number of blacks as compared to whites, but our analysis
reveals that those blacks are not highly segregated. As compared to other metropolitan
areas in Virginia, the Charlottesville MSA was one of the lowest in 2000.9 For example,
the Roanoke MSA had an index of dissimilarity score of .668 and the Richmond MSA
had an index score of .571. While segregation is not extreme in the Thomas Jefferson
PDC, a score of nearly .40 still indicates that blacks and whites do not share space
equally.
8
Massey, D. and Denton, M.. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.
Harvard University Press, 1993.
9
Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research (their indices are based on census
tracts rather than block groups).
41
Special Needs Populations
Homelessness
The U.S. Census provides data which can used to identify those with severe housing
problems defined by a combination of high housing costs, lack of plumbing facilities, and
overcrowding, but it does not provide a count of homelessness persons, those most
vulnerable in the housing market and experiencing the most extreme housing problem.
While the Census attempts to capture this population within a category termed “other,
noninstitutionalized group quarters”, the data generally are not considered an accurate
measure of homelessness. In order to serve the needs of the homeless, the task of
compiling more accurate counts and information on the homeless population is carried
out by local agencies in Virginia.
The PDC launched Community Services Network (CSN) in 2003 to function as a
regional Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), which acts as a web-based
tool for data collection, case management, and program management and is now being
used by homeless service providers in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. For areas
within the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the agency responsible for
coordinating particular agencies and organizations serving the homeless and for
collecting data on the homeless is the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless
(TJACH). TJACH conducts a homeless census annually as a part of the HMIS initiative.
The homeless census serves as an accurate tool for measuring the homeless population
and provides information for appropriately assessing the needs of the homeless. A pointin-time survey, the homeless census most recently was conducted on January 24, 25 and
26, 2006.
In 2006, the number of homeless people in the region fell slightly (1%) compared to the
2005 point-in-time survey (conducted January 25-27, 2005) after rising 8% from 2004 to
2005. TJACH found 173 homeless people in the PDC to interview for the 2006 survey.
Homelessness persists in the region with most of the homeless population residing in
emergency shelters or transitional facilities. The number of people unsheltered continued
to decline between 2005 and 2006 with the added capacity of PACEM winter shelter
program.
The persons interviewed in 2006 had been homeless longer than those interviewed in the
2005 point-in-time study. In 2006, 39% compared to 32% in 2005 had been homeless
longer than a year. In 2006, 49% of the respondents reported being homeless for less than
6 months as compared to 56% in 2005. The distributions by gender, ethnicity and age
remained unchanged.
In 2006, the most common reason for leaving prior housing was unemployment reported
by 29% of the respondents compared to 23% in the prior year. The most common reason
for leaving prior housing in 2005 was eviction, cited by 28% of respondents, but dropped
to 23% in 2006. Significantly fewer respondents cited domestic violence as a reason for
leaving prior housing in 2006 compared to 2005 (4% and 16% respectively). Also
42
slightly fewer respondents reported increase in rent as a reason for leaving prior housing
in 2006 than in 2005 (13% and 14% respectively). Other factors responsible for
homelessness included inability to find affordable housing, medical problems and
physical disability. The majority did not receive any public assistance funds over the past
6 months with employment income the most common source of income.
TJACH continually strives to promote effective programs and workshops that focus on
the persistently homeless population. It is working towards ending the problem of
homelessness through strategic planning, coordination of services, and public education
and advocacy.
Persons with a Disability
The number of persons with disabilities in the Charlottesville metro area (does not
include Louisa County) is remaining relatively stable. (See Table 29.) From 2000 to 2005
the number of persons 5 or over with disabilities in the Charlottesville MSA was
estimated to increase slightly from 24,261 to 24,450 or by about 1% (we adjusted the
2000 MSA figure to include Nelson County in order to get an accurate comparison).
However, the 5 to 15 age group increased disproportionately at 5%. This jump in 5 to 15
year olds having a disability could have housing implications in next decade as this group
moves into the next age cohort.
Table 29: Persons with a Disability, Charlottesville MSA, 2000-2005
Persons with a Disability % Change
Charlottesville MSA
2000
2005
All Persons 5 or older
24,261
24,450
0.8%
Persons 5 to 15 years
1,328
1,393
4.9%
Source: US Census 2000 and ACS 2005
For the Thomas Jefferson PDC in 2000, 16% of persons 5 or older had at least one
disability. (See Table 30.) While disabilities are increasing in the 5 to 15 year old age
group (according to the MSA data), 5 to 15 year olds were the age group in the PDC in
2000 with the fewest persons having a disability (5%). The age group with the most
disabled was the 65 and over age group with over one third having at least one disability.
Table 30: Persons with a Disability TJ PDC, 2000
Total
With a
Population
Disability
Age
5 to 15 years
27,884
1,431
16 to 20 years
12,452
1,467
21 to 64 years
114,722
17,849
65 years and over
23,053
8,520
Total
178,111
29,267
% with a
Disability
5.1%
11.8%
15.6%
37.0%
16.4%
43
Housing the Disabled
Serving the housing needs of those with disabilities (includes mental, physical as well as
sensory disabilities) is a challenge that requires coordination, financial assistance, and
education. The Jefferson Area Disability Services Board (JADSB) provides the PDC
geographic area with needs assessment services that address housing, and other issues
affecting those with disabilities. The JADSB 2006 needs assessment report points out that
housing, employment, and transportation, along with assistive technology and personal
assistance, remain the most critical needs of people with disabilities.
Many of those with disabilities have low to moderate incomes. Housing that is affordable
is in short supply within the urban center of the PDC (Charlottesville and the area of
Albemarle County surrounding the city). Due to a scarcity of affordable housing supply
within the urban area, many people with special needs live in rural localities. Services
available to those with disabilities in the PDC tend to be concentrated within the urban
center. The concentration of services in the urban center coupled with an inadequate
supply of affordable housing results in restricted access to special services.
Housing vouchers and subsidized housing are a means for helping those with disabilities
live in areas where services are more readily available. In 2000, according to JADSB, 75
Mainstream Housing Section 8 Vouchers were provided to people with disabilities in the
PDC through Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) and The Arc of Piedmont. In 2006,
JADSB reported that 75 vouchers were issued to people with disabilities. The waiting list
for vouchers as of October 2006 consists of about 198 persons (16 of those on the waiting
list are receiving some other form of housing assistance and 49 live outside the PDC).
However, the waiting list is not necessarily a good measure of housing need. Many
people who receive a housing voucher can not find housing that meets the requirements
for using the voucher and end up turning the voucher back in. The Independent Resource
Center, City of Charlottesville, and Albemarle County also provide Section 8 Vouchers.
Other support for disabled persons is provided by the Charlottesville Housing and
Redevelopment Authority that offers subsidized housing for low income elderly and the
disabled population.
Programs are available within the PDC to help those with disabilities improve their
homes. The PHA’s fair housing program renders fair housing education, outreach, and
advocacy and support services in the PDC. The organization presented a fair housing
forum for people with disabilities in Albemarle County in 2003. The PHA has a
revolving fund for home safety and repairs that provides financing for equipment support
systems required by the disabled. Through offering housing rehabilitation and repair
services, the disabled are encouraged to make their homes universally accessible. The
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) and Albemarle Home Improvement Program
offer no-interest loans for those with special needs who meet income criteria.
44
Senior Households
Senior households (those 65 or more years of age) comprised 12% of persons in the
Thomas Jefferson PDC in 2000. (See Table 31.) Of the jurisdictions in the PDC, Greene
County had the fewest seniors and the lowest percentage of persons 65 and over (10% of
the county population). The jurisdiction with the highest percentage of seniors was
Nelson County (17%).
Table 31: Persons 65 or Over TJ PDC, 2000
Person 65 or Over
% of Total Persons
Albemarle
9904
12.5%
Fluvanna
2782
13.9%
Greene
1488
9.8%
Area
Louisa Nelson
3305
2406
12.9% 16.7%
Charlottesville
4490
10.0%
TJ PDC
24375
12.2%
In 2000, the PDC had 15,258 senior households, about one-fifth of all households. (See
Table 32.) That PDC percentage likely is holding steady. In 2005, the MSA also was
comprised of 20% senior households. Nelson County led the PDC in 2000 with 26% of
households 65 or over followed by Fluvanna County with 24%. Greene County and
Charlottesville had the lowest percent seniors (16% and 17% respectively).
About a fourth of non-family households in the PDC were senior non-family households,
which for the most part would be seniors living alone. Louisa County had the highest
percentage of non-family households 65 or over (37%) followed by Nelson County
(35%). Charlottesville had the lowest percentage (16%).
Table 32: Total Households and Non-family Households 65 or Over TJ PDC, 2000
Area
Albemarle Fluvanna Greene Louisa Nelson Charlottesville
Households 65 or
Over
6,094
1,734
896
2,178
1,538
2,818
% of Households
19.1%
23.5%
16.1% 21.8% 26.1%
16.7%
Non-family
Households 65 or
Over
2,666
536
326
978
606
1,448
% of Non-Families
24.8%
32.4%
25.3% 36.8% 35.2%
16.0%
TJ PDC
15,258
19.7%
6,560
24.2%
Map 4 shows the distribution of senior households in the PDC by block group in 2000.
There was a high concentration of 65 and over households in the northeast section of
Charlottesville. Older households were clustered in eastern Albemarle County as well.
All block groups within Nelson County consisted of 10% or more senior households with
the majority of block groups having over 15% 65 or over households.
45
Map 4.
Seniors and Housing
Seniors often live alone and live on modest, fixed incomes. The median household
income for householders 65 or older in the Charlottesville MSA in 2005 was $33,281,
second lowest only householders under the age of 25 (the overall household median
income for the MSA in 2005 was $47,543). Seniors also are more likely to be disabled
than other age groups and need housing that is accessible (37% of those 65 and over in
the PDC had at least one disability in 2000).
The 2000 Census special data set Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) provides data specific to seniors or elderly, specifically households with one or
two members aged 62 to 74. Table 33 shows that 29% of all households in the PDC that
46
had income less than 30% of the area median family income in 2000 (considered
extremely low income, this would have been $16,637 based on the 2000 MSA median
family income of $55,455) were elderly households as defined by CHAS. The majority of
the owner households in the extremely low income category were elderly owners with
52% having income less than 30% MFI. About 16% of the renter households in the
extremely low income category were elderly renters with income less than 30% MFI. It is
not surprising that the percentages of these low income elderly households having
housing problems and cost burdens were high across the board. Still the percentages of
those elderly with housing problems or costs burdens were lower than for all renters and
for all owners in the extremely low income category.
The income category with the most elderly was the very low income or 30% to 50% of
MFI category (slightly greater than 29% of households in the category were elderly).
Again, a high percentage of owners in this category were elderly (47%). About 13% of
the renters in the very low income group were elderly. Elderly owners faired better than
renters in terms of having housing problems and cost burdens (over half of elderly renters
had housing problems or cost burden greater than 30% of income).
47
Table 33: Elderly* Households by Tenure, Income, and Housing Problem, TJ PDC, 2000
Households
Renter Households
Owner Households
HTotal h ld%
Household by
%
%
(Not
Elderly
just
of
Income, &
Elderly
Total
Elderly Elderly
Total
Elderly
Housing Problem Renters Renters Renters Owners Owners Owners Elderly) Total
Household
Income <=50%
MFI
1,550
10,463
14.8%
3,587
7,266
49.4% 17,729 29.0%
Household
Income <=30%
MFI
953
5,931
16.1%
1,655
3,184
52.0%
9,115 28.6%
% any housing
problems
67.9%
77.4%
59.6%
65.6%
73.3%
% Cost Burden
>30%
61.2%
74.3%
57.9%
62.6%
70.2%
% Cost Burden
>50%
41.2%
62.9%
32.9%
44.1%
56.3%
Household
Income >30% to
597
4,532
13.2%
1,932
4,082
47.3%
8,614 29.4%
<=50% MFI
% any housing
problems
55.6%
74.1%
36.8%
50.7%
63.0%
% Cost Burden
>30%
52.6%
69.7%
34.5%
47.2%
59.0%
% Cost Burden
>50%
27.8%
22.6%
19.0%
25.3%
23.9%
Household
Income >50 to
494
<=80% MFI
5,845
8.5%
2,440
7,862
31.0% 13,707 21.4%
% any housing
problems
39.9%
32.9%
22.2%
37.5%
35.6%
% Cost Burden
>30%
35.0%
28.3%
20.6%
34.4%
31.8%
% Cost Burden
>50%
9.1%
3.2%
5.5%
8.0%
5.9%
Household
934
Income >80% MFI
9,606
9.7%
7,488 36,309
20.6% 45,915 18.3%
% any housing
problems
26.1%
7.5%
7.3%
10.7%
10.1%
% Cost Burden
>30%
25.7%
4.5%
7.1%
9.6%
8.5%
% Cost Burden
>50%
9.1%
1.0%
2.1%
1.2%
1.1%
2,978
Total
25,914
11.5% 13,515 51,437
26.3% 77,351 21.3%
% any housing
problems
47.7%
40.9%
20.6%
21.4%
27.9%
% Cost Burden
>30
44.0%
37.2%
19.7%
19.6%
25.5%
% Cost Burden
>50
23.1%
19.4%
8.9%
6.8%
11.0%
Source: US Census 2000 CHAS data set (elderly are one or two member households with one or both aged 62 to 74)
48
Housing Tenure (Owner Values and Rents)
Housing Prices
The median house value for the Charlottesville MSA based on the Census 2005 ACS was
$225,500. More revealing than value alone is how incomes in the area match up with
housing costs. Compared to other metropolitan areas of Virginia, the Charlottesville
MSA tied with the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MD-WV MSA (includes
areas outside Virginia) for the highest median monthly owner costs for owners with a
mortgage as a percent of household income in 2005 (24.1%).
For a more indepth analysis of home values in the Thomas Jefferson PDC, we used data
provided by the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors (CAAR) to examine recent
data on existing and new home sales within the PDC over the 2000-2005 time period.10
Table 34 displays the geographic distribution of sales prices for 2005, the most recent
year for which data are available. Lower-priced home sales were concentrated primarily
within Louisa County, with nearly one half of all home sales falling below $200,000.
Contrast this with the counties of Albemarle and Nelson, where nearly three fourths of all
homes sold were over $200,000.
Table 34: Sales Prices TJ PDC, 2005
Charlottesville
Albemarle
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
10
1.8%
9
0.5%
6
0.9%
7
2.3%
13
5.4%
17
4.1%
62
1.5%
$100,000-$199,999
153
27.7%
473
24.2%
219
34.3%
110
35.7%
100
41.8%
89
21.7%
1144
27.9%
$200,000-$299,999
224
40.5%
566
29.0%
273
42.8%
101
32.8%
83
34.7%
100
24.4%
1347
32.9%
$300,000-$399,999
100
18.1%
340
17.4%
76
11.9%
56
18.2%
27
11.3%
89
21.7%
688
16.8%
$400,000-$499,999
30
5.4%
194
9.9%
35
5.5%
31
10.1%
7
2.9%
53
12.9%
350
8.5%
$500,000-$599,999
13
2.4%
110
5.6%
19
3.0%
1
0.3%
5
2.1%
26
6.3%
174
4.2%
$600,000 or More
23
4.2%
260
13.3%
10
1.6%
2
0.6%
4
1.7%
36
8.8%
335
8.2%
1952
100%
638
100%
308
100%
239
100%
410
100%
4100
100%
Sales Price
Less than
$100,000
Total
553
100%
Fluvanna
Greene
Louisa
Nelson
TJ PDC
Source: CAAR
10
These data were provided by the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors.
49
Map 5 displays 2005 median sales prices for different zip codes within the PDC. The
findings are largely consistent with Table 34 with a few exceptions. Homes sold within
Albemarle County zip codes were generally the most expensive within the region. As
one moves outward from the City of Charlottesville, median sales prices tended to
decline. The higher prices near and around Charlottesville reflect the higher concentration
of employment opportunities in Charlottesville, compared to outlying areas within the
County. Occasional “hot spots” of higher than average housing prices compared to
surrounding zip codes can be found in the southeastern portion of Nelson County and in
the northeastern portion of Albemarle County. Of all counties, Nelson exhibited the
greatest degree of geographic variability in home prices, with several pockets of highpriced home sales surrounded by pockets of low-priced sales.
Map 5.
Source: CAAR
50
We now turn to an examination of trends in home sales over the 2000-2005 time period
for the entire PDC.11 Figure 8 shows this trend for all units and for detached, attached,
and condominium units separately. Across all unit types, home sales increased rather
dramatically over the 2000–2005 time period. Home sales increased by 68%, considering
all unit types together. Within different housing types, the sales prices of condominiums
increased most dramatically (82%), while the sales price of detached units increased at a
rate that is roughly comparable to the average percentage increase across all types (66%).
The price of attached units increased by 74% over the 2000–2005 time period.
Figure 8. Average Price of Sold Total Units TJ PDC, 2000-2005
Total Units
$400,000
Detached Units
$350,000
Attached Units
Condominiums
Price
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: CAAR
Figure 9 displays trends in total sales volume by unit type. Over the 2000–2005 time
period, 79% of homes sold were single-family detached units. By contrast, 12% of all
homes sold were detached units, and approximately 8% of homes sold were
condominiums. The rate of increase in condominium sales has been much higher over
the period, however, with condominium sales increasing by 294% between 2000 and
2005, while single-family home sales increased by only 34%, and detached units
increased by about 30%.
11
The trends displayed are expressed as averages for the year in question and have not been adjusted for
inflation.
51
Figure 9: Units Sold by Type TJ PDC, 2000-2005
3500
3043
3045
3000
Number of Units
2634
2500
2479
2293
2279
2000
1500
1000
500
417
403
368
230
199
141
372
478
452
556
278
256
0
2000
Detached
Attached
2001
2002
Condominiums
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source: CAAR
Another measure of housing market activity is the average number of days that a home is
on the market before it is sold to a new buyer. A robust or “hot” housing market is
indicated if houses are on the market for increasingly shorter periods of time. This trend
is displayed in Figure 10. Between 2000 and 2005, the average number of days that a
home is on the market declined by 15% for single-family detached homes, 32% for
attached homes, and 77% for condominiums. In 2005, single-family homes remained on
the market for approximately twice as long as condominium units.
52
Figure 10: Average Days on the Market by Type TJ PDC, 20002005
160
142
140
134
Days
120
100
100
80
78
76
75
71
72
77
63
57
60
48
46
46
46
66
39
40
20
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Detached
Attached
Condominiums
Source: CAAR
Taken together, these trends suggest that housing prices and sales activity are on a steady
path upward and will likely continue so for some time into the future, depending on the
trajectory of mortgage interest rates. According to the National Association of Realtors,
30-year mortgage rates declined by more than 2 percentage points over the 2000–2005
period, a factor which likely accounts for most of the surge in housing prices and sales
activity over the same period in the PDC. Mortgage rates have stabilized somewhat in
recent years and likely may increase in the future as the Federal Reserve seeks to combat
inflation.
An interesting trend in the PDC is the recent condominium market boom, as evidenced
by the increasing sales prices of new condos, dramatic increases in the number of condos
sold, and reductions in the time on market for condominiums. Some condominiums are
the result of apartment conversions while others are the result of new construction. The
relatively high cost of single-family detached units has been a significant contributor to
the condominium boom. Since 2000, the average selling price of condominiums has been
consistently lower than any other property type. Not only are condominiums a good
option for first-time buyers and those who work in fields typically associated with
workforce housing, condominiums are popular with investors. According to CAAR, the
trend in increased condominium sales is robustly continuing in 2006, and the relatively
lower prices of condominiums have contributed to a static median sales price in the City
of Charlottesville.
CAAR reported that the median sales price in the second quarter of 2006 for the PDC
was $265,000 led by Albemarle County ($315,000) and Nelson County ($272,000).
Fluvanna County was the most affordable with a median sales price of $240,000. Clearly
the bulk of homes for sale in the PDC are not within the means of a significant portion of
53
33
area households (see discussion on workforce housing). Inventory of homes for sale is
rising which may have an impact on the price of housing, but has had little effect so far.
Only Charlottesville and Nelson County are showing signs of a stable market, with sales
prices continuing to rise in Fluvanna, Albemarle, and especially Greene and Louisa
counties.
Rental Housing
In 2005, the median monthly gross rent for the Charlottesville MSA was $814 (rents in
Louisa County were not included). In 2000, the median gross monthly rent for the
Charlottesville MSA was $661 (this figure does not reflect the rents from Louisa County
or Nelson County). The Charlottesville area is one of the most expensive rental markets
in the state, partly due to the presence of the University of Virginia and the effect
students have on the market. The only MSA in Virginia with a higher median gross rent
in 2005 than the Charlottesville MSA, was the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DCVA-MD-WV MSA (includes areas outside Virginia) at $1,071. And the Charlottesville
MSA’s median gross rent as a percentage of household income in 2005 was the second
highest of all MSA’s in the state at 31.7%.
The median gross rent in the Charlottesville MSA increased by 23% over the 5 year
period from 2000 to 2005 (Louisa was not included in either year and Nelson was not
included in 2000). The 2000 median gross rent in the Charlottesville MSA increased 33%
from the 1990 median gross rent of $497 (this figure does not reflect the rents from
Louisa or Nelson counties). When the cost of renting goes up and/or the supply is too
limited, renters are encouraged to leave the rental market and enter into homeownership
(assuming costs are not prohibitive). For the Thomas Jefferson PDC, renter-occupied
units as a percent of total occupied units declined to 33.4% in 2000 from 36.5% in 1990.
This decline, naturally, parallels a rise in homeownership over the decade.
The increase in median gross rent between 1990 and 2000 reflects an overall increase in
higher priced rental units (costing more than $500 a month) and a decline in the number
of more affordable rental units (See Figure 11). Low to moderate income households
were certainly affected by this trend in rents and were forced to pay more of their income
for housing throughout the decade. In 1990, 72% of those making less than $20,000 a
year paid 35% or more of their income for rent. By 2000, 84% of those making less than
$20,000 a year paid 35% or more of their income for rent. However for all income
groups, those paying 35% or more of their income for rent remained stable between 1990
and 2000 at about 35%. Figure 11 shows that in 2000 the majority (75%) of renteroccupied housing units within the PDC cost more than $500 a month.
54
Figure 11: Gross Rent TJPDC, 1990-2000
1990
2000
20000
18000
Number of Units
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
to
or
e
or
m
$5
00
to
$4
99
$4
49
$4
50
$3
99
$4
00
to
to
to
$3
49
$3
50
$2
99
$3
00
to
$2
49
$2
50
$2
00
to
to
$1
49
$1
50
$1
00
$1
00
th
an
Le
ss
$1
99
0
Gross Rent
The cost to rent in the more rural jurisdictions of the PDC is impacted by the high rents in
the Charlottesville/Albemarle areas. Albemarle has the largest population and highest
rents (median gross rent in 2000 was $712). Not only are rents in the outlying areas of the
PDC affected by their more urban neighbors, the supply of rental housing is insufficient
to keep up with demand as indicated by very low renter vacancy rates. Median monthly
gross rents in Fluvanna and Greene counties in 2000 were $669 and $662 with only
Albemarle County higher. Charlottesville had a median gross rent of $596 followed by
Louisa ($504) and Nelson ($440).
University Influence
Influence on Housing Consumption
Housing consumption is driven largely by the age of the population. Students of the
University of Virginia (UVa), located in the City of Charlottesville, fall generally within
the ages 18 to 24 and there are about 20,000 of them. In addition, Charlottesville is the
home to Piedmont Virginia Community College with a student body of over 4,000. The
median age in 2000 for the City of Charlottesville was 25.6. By comparison, the median
age for other jurisdictions in the PDC in were: Albemarle 37.4, Fluvanna 38.2, Greene
35.5, Louisa 38.8, and Nelson 42.8.
55
Charlottesville led the PDC in number of renters had the lowest homeownership rate by
far (40.8% in 2000). The impact of the students, however, affects the entire region.
Singles and roommates constitute about one-third of the regional housing market.
Influence on the Rental Market
The rental market in the PDC is highly impacted by the students attending the University
of Virginia. As of 2006, there are 20,399 students at UVa with 6,058 living on-campus
and 14,341 living off-campus (overwhelmingly in rental units). The university is
sensitive to the fact that their students are a dominant presence in the community and
encourage students who live off-campus to read the “Good Neighbors Guide” published
by UVa’s Community Relations Office.
To better understand just how much of an impact the students have on the rental market
in the area, we came up with a rough estimate of the number of units consumed by those
students. Based on the assumption of 2.5 students per rental unit (Charlottesville has a
2003 ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated individuals can live in a house or
apartment) and an estimated renter vacancy rate of 5.4% (based on the HUD estimated
rate which included the City of Charlottesville), we calculated that students consume
about 6,064 units or 53% of the rental stock in the City of Charlottesville (only based on
the City since most students choose not to live too far from the campus) leaving about
5,300 rental units for everyone else12.
While in 2000 the median monthly gross rent for the City of Charlottesville was $596 and
in 2005 for the MSA $814, we estimated a gross median rent of $871 in 2006 for 2
bedroom apartments for the PDC. We estimated this rent based on 94 units (2 bedroom)
listed for rent on August 24, 2006 on the Blue Ridge Apartment Council which represents
the PDC area but mostly has listings for the Charlottesville City area. While many
families, single person households, and elderly would have a difficult time paying rent
this high, students can share the cost with other students making a 2 bedroom unit at $871
seemingly more affordable at $435 per person. While obviously many students pay for
living expenses on their own or with student loans, a large number of students depend on
parents who have greater resources (especially if the parents live in higher paying areas)
to pay their rent. Consequently, non-students in the community competing in the rental
market are seriously disadvantaged by artificial demographics.
Responding to the tight rental market conditions in 2000, rental units have increased in
Charlottesville and developers have built new apartment complexes in Albemarle County
that supposedly appeal to both students and professionals (most of the new construction
is priced too high for low to moderate income households). This growth in apartments
has softened the rental market and resulted in vacancies both in Charlottesville and
12
To get this estimation, we divided the number of off-campus students by 2.5. We divided the result by
.945 (or 100 – the estimated 2005 renter vacancy rate of 5.4) to get the gross rental units needed by
students. We subtracted the number of units needed for students from the 2005 estimated number of renteroccupied and vacant for rent units (based on estimates, we took the 2000 Census figures and multiplied by
a growth factor of 1.11) to determine the number of gross rental units available to non-students.
56
Albemarle Counties. Eagles Landing, a gated complex built around 2003, currently offers
apartments starting at $414 per month for a room and bath in a 3 bedroom apartment or at
$499 for a room and a bath in a two bedroom apartment (definitely a marketing plan
aimed at the student population). While Eagles Landing is located in Albemarle County,
it is only about 10 minutes from campus and regular shuttle transportation is offered. Still
Eagles Landing and some other high amenity apartment complexes are not fully
occupied.
Influence as an Employer
The University of Virginia is the largest employer in the PDC and provided over 16,000
full and part time jobs in 2005. Over 90% of those jobs were full time. In addition to
directly providing the largest number of jobs of any employer in the area, UVa and the
University Health Systems help create other jobs by attracting businesses to the area.
UVa falls within the education and health sector of industry which according to data for
the Charlottesville MSA from the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a weekly average wage
of $819 (about $100 more a week than the average for all industries in the PDC). This
weekly average wages converts to an annual average wage of $42,588 (about 64% of the
2005 HUD area median family income of $66,700 for the Charlottesville MSA). The
UVa employees that make below the average obviously move closer to being defined as
having very low income. For university employees at the entry level13, the current
minimum annual wage is $19,490 or less than 30% of the area median family income
(defined as extremely low income).
Population Growth and Household Composition
The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) prepares the State’s official projections of
population for counties and cities. The population of the PDC is expected to continue to
grow from 2000 to 2030 as shown in Figure 12. Although the number of people in the
PDC increased by 22% (approximately 35,200 people) from 1990 to 2000, the VEC
projects population growth to slow to 15% (+29,000 people) in the current decade and
then to 11% (25,200 people) and 9% (23,600 people) over the next two decades.
13
A recent controversy has arisen at the university regarding minimum entry level pay, currently $9.37 per
hour or less than $20,000 per year. Advocates for paying employees a living wage, have been pressuring
the university to raise the entry level pay of its employees and employees of contractors to $10.72.
However, the Virginia Attorney General has ruled it would be illegal for the university, a state agency, to
do so. The university is encouraging advocates to focus on changing state policy regarding this issue.
57
Figure 12. Projected Population Growth
300000
250000
Population
200000
150000
TJPDC
100000
50000
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
Source: 1990 and 2000 Censuses and Virginia Employment Commission
Population estimates for 2005, which reflect the most recently available data on
migration, indicate that rate of population growth has slowed, but has been higher so far
this decade than anticipated by VEC. Estimates by the Census Bureau indicate a middecade growth rate (over five years) of 9% and an increase of approximately 18,800
people. Estimates by the UVa Weldon Cooper Center indicate a 2000-2005 growth rate
of 8% and 16,200 people.14 If either rate of growth continues through 2010, the region’s
population will grow by 33,000 to 38,000 people, significantly more growth than
projected by the VEC.
Migration
The Thomas Jefferson PDC’s population growth is affected by migration into and out of
the area. The Census Bureau estimates that between 2000 and 2005 the regional
population grew by net in-migration of 10,200 people, whereas the UVa Weldon Cooper
Center estimates net in-migration of 11,500 people.
The Internal Revenue Service provides a special data file with the net migration of tax
filers and exemptions claimed for each jurisdiction within the PDC. This file identifies
every city or county throughout the US with 10 or more tax filers moving into (or out of)
the jurisdictions inside the PDC. To gain more insight into migration into the region, we
used the annual IRS Migration data from 1999 to 2004. The number of exemptions is an
approximation of the number of people moving between localities (we use the terms
“people” or “population” instead of “exemptions”). We estimated annual net migration
14
Although the Census Bureau’s estimate is higher than the Weldon Cooper estimate, the latter estimates a
higher level of net in-migration for the region. The Census Bureau’s population estimates include a
“residual” adjustment that is not separately classified as either natural increase or net migration.
58
by matching the IRS data for in-movers and out-movers by locality and then aggregated
these annual estimates from 1999 to 2004.
Migration, PDC
Net in-migration for the PDC estimated from the IRS migration files from 1999 to 2004
was 7,818 persons (i.e. exemptions). This is significantly lower than the 2000 to 2005
net in-migration of 10,200 people estimated by the Census Bureau and the 11,500 people
estimated by Weldon Cooper. There are several reasons why tax records would
underestimate total migration. New (mainly young) workers might be filing their own
tax return for the first time, and some adults do not have income requiring a tax return.
Plus there are bound to be some inaccuracies in any estimate. Although the IRS migration
files appear to underestimate net migration into the region, they are the only source of
annual data on the previous locations of people moving into the region.
The region provides a strong draw for in-migration related to job creation and quality of
life. The largest gains due to in-migration over the five-year period from 1999 to 2004
were from other states than Virginia (32,158). Coming from a broad range of
jurisdictions from within Virginia, there were 22,495 in-migrants to the PDC. The largest
number of in-migrants from a single location to the PDC moved from Fairfax County
(see Table 35), followed by Amherst and Henrico Counties.
Table 35: TJ PDC In-Migration, 1999-2004
(From Locations, 700 or More People)
Location
Fairfax County
Amherst County
Henrico County
Orange County
Chesterfield County
Total from outside Virginia
Total from within Virginia (includes persons from counties above)
Persons
2,119
1,933
1,701
1,490
712
32,158
22,495
Source: IRS and Center for Housing Research
The largest out-migration of population from the PDC over the five-year period was to
other states and to a broad representation of jurisdictions within Virginia. (see Table 36).
Henrico County was the single location that received the largest number of out-migrants
from the PDC.
59
Table 36: TJ PDC Out-Migration, 1999-2004
(To Locations, 700 or More People)
Location
Henrico County
Orange County
Fairfax County
Augusta County
Waynesboro
Richmond City
Buckingham County
Total to outside Virginia
Total to within Virginia (includes persons to counties above)
Persons
1,847
1,545
1,289
979
915
736
726
26,317
20,518
While there is no information available on why people move out of the PDC, it is likely
that out-migration to nearby jurisdictions is the result of people seeking more affordable
housing. This especially would be the case when movement is to areas where job
opportunities are more limited. Augusta County, Waynesboro, and Buckingham County
were all top out-migration locations that offer better housing options (for example, a
larger house with more land for less money than likely could be found within the PDC)
while at the same time offering fewer job options. These three counties also ranked
among the top areas for the number of in-commuters to the PDC in 2000.
The trend towards moving out of the PDC to Augusta County and Waynesboro is
growing. Most of the out-migration to these areas from the PDC comes from Albemarle
County. Between 1999 and 2004 there was a 76% increase in out-migration from
Albemarle County to Waynesboro and a 144% increase in out-migration from Albemarle
County to Augusta County.
Migration Within and Outside the PDC, PDC Jurisdictions
We calculated net migration for each jurisdiction within the PDC and tracked movement
both within the PDC and outside the PDC. As shown in Table 37, from 1999 to 2004, all
jurisdictions comprising the Thomas Jefferson PDC had net growth except for
Charlottesville which lost 2,208 people based on the IRS data files. (The Census Bureau
estimates net out-migration of 4,800 people for Charlottesville and Weldon Cooper
estimates 1,200.) This trend is consistent with changes in other metropolitan areas
throughout the nation as developable land is less available in the urban core and people
move to outlying areas that offer more desirable housing.
The IRS data show a distinct pattern of Albemarle County and Charlottesville losing net
population to other jurisdictions within the PDC over the 1999 to 2004 time period. The
bulk of Charlottesville’s net loss was attributed to losing more people than it gained from
jurisdictions within the PDC. Fluvanna County gained the most people with net migration
of 2,996. Nearly half of the net growth in Fluvanna was from jurisdictions within the
60
PDC (1,400). Nelson County had the least movement in and out with net migration of
653 persons. While Albemarle County had a relatively large net gain (3,775) when
considering only movement in and out of locations outside the PDC, the loss of
population to jurisdictions within the PDC (-1,073) reduced the overall net gain
considerably.
Table 37: Net (In - Out) Migration, TJ PDC, 1999-2004
Net Within PDC
-1,073
1,400
627
710
Net Outside PDC
3,775
1,596
462
1,876
Net migration
2,702
2,996
1,089
Nelson
208
445
Charlottesville
-1,872
-336
653
-2,208
2,586
Migration Within the PDC, Albemarle County and Charlottesville
Since Albemarle County and Charlottesville were the jurisdictions that lost population to
other PDC jurisdictions, we tracked in and out-migration within the PDC for these two
jurisdictions. As shown in Table 38, Albemarle County lost more people to other PDC
jurisdictions, except for Charlottesville, than it gained from 1999 to 2004. Albemarle
County lost the most to Fluvanna County. Charlottesville lost more people than it gained
to every jurisdiction in the PDC (see Table 39). This movement in population was most
likely driven by high living costs in Albemarle County and Charlottesville as supported
by housing cost and commuting data.
Table 38: Migration Into and From Albemarle County Within TJ PDC, 1999-2004
Fluvanna
Greene
Louisa
Nelson
Charlottesville Total PDC
In
1,681
1,314
594
671
6,144
10,404
Out
-2,796
-1,940
-1,032
-835
-4,874
-11,477
Net migration
-1,115
-626
-438
-164
1,270
-1,073
Table 39: Migration Into and From Charlottesville Within TJ PDC, 1999-2004
Albemarle Fluvanna Greene
Louisa
Nelson
Total PDC
In
4,874
326
173
169
86
5,628
Out
-6,144
-653
-312
-281
-110
-7,500
Net migration
-1,270
-327
-139
-112
-24
-1,872
61
Projected Housing Demand
Projections of housing demand in the Thomas Jefferson PDC for 2010 and 2020 were
prepared using a housing demand projection model developed by the Center for Housing
Research. The model projects households by type, age, income and tenure. It provides a
useful tool to project the numerical demand for housing and the demographic
characteristics of that demand. The model uses the age-specific population projections for
each jurisdiction developed by the Virginia Employment Commission and reflects the
growth patterns projected by the VEC.
The total housing demand in the PDC is projected to grow over the next two decades,
although at a slower pace than through the 1900-2000 time period. An increase of 11,159
households is projected for 2000-2010 followed by an increase of 9,713 from 2010-2020
compared with 16,577 households from 1990-2000. (See Table 40.) An increase in
households implies the need for additional housing units to accommodate those
households. Based on our model projections, the housing supply needs to increase by
about 11,000 units between 2000 and 2010.
During the current decade, we project an increase of 7,836 owner-occupied units and
3,323 renter-occupied units, followed by increases between 2010 and 2020 of 6,754
owner-occupied units and 2,958 renter-occupied units. Throughout both decades, owner
demand is anticipated to increase more quickly than renter demand (16% and 12%
compared to 12% and 10% respectively). It is important to note that these projections do
not include the increase in ownership demand prompted by the decrease in mortgage
interest rates since the year 2000. It is likely that the projected demand for the current
decade has already been met or even exceeded. However, with the current increase in
mortgage rates, this accelerated pace in demand has diminished and will continue to do
so unless there is another significant drop in mortgage rates.
Table 40: Total Households by Tenure, TJ PDC VA 2000-2020
Year
Tenure
Total
Owner
Renter
2000
77,443
49,970
27,473
2010
88,602
57,806
30,796
2000 to
2010 %
Change
14.4%
15.7%
12.1%
2020
98,315
64,561
33,754
2010 to
2020 %
Change
11.0%
11.7%
9.6%
Source: US Census 2000 and Center for Housing
Research
As shown in Figure 13, most of the projected increase in housing demand is expected in
Albemarle County, but at a much lower proportion than during the 1990s. The
projections point toward continued sprawl in the region. Charlottesville is largely “built
out” (unless opportunities are found for higher density development or redevelopment)
62
and Nelson County is projected to increase by only a few hundred households.
Albemarle’s share of growth is projected to drop from 45% in the 1990s down to 32%
from 2010-2020. Fluvanna, Greene and Louisa are projected to attract almost two-thirds
of the growth in housing demand in the region. Housing demand in Fluvanna is projected
to nearly double between 2000 and 2020 (from 7,370 to 13,000). Louisa will grow by
approximately 4,000 households over this twenty-year span and Greene by about 3,000
households.
Figure 13: Housing Demand Projections,
Households by Year TJ PDC
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1990
2000
2010
2020
Albemarle
Fluvanna
Greene
Louisa
Nelson
Charlottesville
Owner demand is projected to increase by nearly 8,000 households between 2000 and
2010 and by another 6,700 households over the next ten years. Renter demand will also
increase but at a lower magnitude and slower pace: 3,300 households between 2000 and
2010 and then by 3,000 households in the next decade.
Most new household formations occur among persons under the age of 35 as young
adults start forming their own households. This is also a highly mobile population of
younger workers. Only a few people under the age of 25 form independent households
and over half of these live in Charlottesville. Although not exclusively a “student”
market, the overall impact of these households on regional housing demand is fairly
small: 7% of total units in 2000 and dropping to 6% by 2020. Households in the next
ten-year age category, 25-34, are projected to increase the most over the current and
succeeding decades. (See Table 41.) This age group is projected to become the largest
age-based segment of the regional housing market by 2020, with nearly 20,000
households. Although the next age group, 35-44 year old householders, is not projected
in increase as rapidly, they will be approximately of equal number as 25-34 year-old
63
householders by the year 2020. Consequently, these younger householders will
constitute nearly half of the regional housing market by 2020.
Table 41: Total Households by Age, TJ PDC VA 2000-2020
Year
Age
Total
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 +
2000
77,443
5,798
13,418
16,635
15,370
10,939
8,455
6,829
2010
88,602
5,748
16,192
18,176
17,511
13,597
9,606
7,771
2000 to 2010
% Change
14.4%
-0.9%
20.7%
9.3%
13.9%
24.3%
13.6%
13.8%
2020
98,315
5,627
19,822
19,470
17,703
15,445
11,503
8,745
2010 to 2020
% Change
11.0%
-2.1%
22.4%
7.1%
1.1%
13.6%
19.7%
12.5%
Housing demand in this younger age group is driven by household and family formation
patterns and by mobility. For example, for the 15-24 year old age group the probability
of being the head of a household is only 18%; most of this age group still lives in their
parents’ houses or lives with roommates (by definition, only one roommate can be the
“householder”). But for 25-34 year olds, the probability of being a householder jumps to
49% and then to 52% for 35-44 year olds and 55% for 45-54 year olds. Among older age
groups the probability of being a householder increases to 63% for those 75 and older, in
part due to surviving spouses living alone.
The slowest growth (except for the relatively stable 15-24 year old market) will be among
householders aged 45-54, particularly in the next decade (2010-2020). After increasing
by 2,200 units from 2000-2010, housing demand in this age segment will then stay flat.
Housing demand among “empty-nester” and older age groups will stay strong over the
projection period. Householders aged 55 and older have a high homeownership rate and,
for many, considerable housing wealth. The growth in this market segment (an increase
of nearly 10,000 units from 2000 to 2020) will provide significant opportunities for
“active-adult” and independent living developments. Demand for more specialized care
(such as assisted living) will also increase, but this is not included in these projections.
Net-migration into the region is also driving housing demand. Obviously, over any tenyear period the adult population only changes due to mortality and migration. If no one
dies and no one moves in or out, the regional population aged 15-24 in 2000 would
become the population aged 25-34 in 2010. In this static world, every ten-year age
category in 2000 would shift into the next older ten-year category by 2010. In the real
world, obviously any increase in adult population “cohorts” would be due to net in-
64
migration (mortality has to go into the debit side of the population ledger).
Consequently, past and projected changes in the size of cohorts reflect the migration
patterns incorporated into the population projections.
Table 42 helps understand the migration assumptions implied in the VEC projections.
For the 1990-2000 decade, the population cohort in the region going from 15-24 to 25-34
years old decreased by 2,576 people (based on the 1990 and 2000 Census counts). Since
this includes students who graduate from UVa during the period, net out-migration could
be expected. The VEC projections imply this pattern will shift to a net in-migration in
the period ending age group of 25-34 years of 1,036 people between 2000 and 2010 and
6,783 people between 2010 and 2020. This reflects an expanding economy and the
creation of jobs drawing (or keeping) young adults to the area.
Table 42: Change in Population Cohorts TJ PDC, 1990 to 2020
Year
Age at start of period
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
Age at end of period
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
1990-2000
-2,576
1,988
3,088
2,167
295
2000-2010
1,036
7,526
104
-4,990
-2,603
2010-2020
6,783
4,446
-2,520
-5,803
-4,132
Source: VEC Projections and CHR Calculations
The projected increases in the population cohorts shifting from 25-34 year olds to 35-44
year olds over the three decades also indicate an expanding economy. When combined
with the younger cohort, the 25-44 year old population would increase by approximately
8,500 people between 2000 and 2010, followed by 11,200 people between 2010 and
2020. This will significantly expand regional demand for housing, but the impact will
depend on the migration patterns of the population that shifts into ages 45 and over
during each decade. For these age groups, the VEC projections imply significant outmigration.
Examine the pattern for the cohorts that go from 35-44 to 45-54 years old over each of
the three decades. From 1990 to 2000, the Census count indicates a net in-migration of at
least 3,088 people of ages 45-54 in the year 2000. The VEC projections for 2010 indicate
that this in-flow of people will have nearly stopped and will become a net out-migration
over the next decade. Similarly, the population projections for people aging into the 5564 and 65-74 year old age categories suggest a significant increase in net out-migration
for these groups (keep in mind that age-specific mortality rates would only be expected to
decrease over the projection period, not increase).
These patterns suggest that the housing demand projections presented herein could be
seriously understated if the regional economy creates more jobs attracting younger adults
and fewer older adults migrate out of the area than projected or the area experiences net
in-migration of older adults as well.
65
The housing demand projections hold “headship” rates constant from the year 2000
forward. Although headship rates have stabilized significantly during the past 20 years,
they are still subject to changes in cultural patterns, incomes, housing costs and personal
preferences. Between 1990 and 2000, the probability of being a householder increased by
2 percentage points for persons 15 years and older in the Thomas Jefferson PDC. If the
age-specific headship rates change at the same pace from 2000-2010 as for 1990-2000,
housing demand in the region would increase by an additional 2% or 1,800 units.
Table 43 shows the projections of households by tenure status and household
composition. Married-couple households dominate in the owner market and there are
relatively few single-parent families in the owner market. Whereas married-couple
families will account for an additional 10,000 units between 2000 and 2020, other
families will only increase by 1,700 units.
Non-families (single individuals, unmarried couples without children, and other unrelated
individuals) account for a larger share of the owner market than the other family
category. Over the twenty-year projection period, ownership demand among nonfamilies is projected to increase by 3,700 units. A significant portion of this demand will
be by younger households, with an increase of nearly 2,300 units by the under-65
population.
Table 43: Household Projections by Type, TJ PDC 2000-2020
Household Type
2000
2000-2010
change
2010
Total Households
2020
20102020
change
Married Couple
Other Family
Non-Family
39,335
10,766
27,342
45,707
16.2%
12,257
13.9%
30,637
12.1%
Owner-Occupied
51,144
13,588
33,583
11.9%
10.9%
9.6%
Married Couple
Other Family
Non-Family
32,656
6,057
12,842
37,922
16.1%
6,963
15.0%
14,804
15.3%
Renter-Occupied
42,375
7,731
16,583
11.7%
11.0%
12.0%
Married Couple
Other Family
Non-Family
6,679
4,709
14,500
7,786
5,294
15,833
8,769
5,856
17,001
12.6%
10.6%
7.4%
16.6%
12.4%
9.2%
Market segments can be identified broadly across four broad age groups of families:
young householders (under 35 years); early-middle age (35-44); middle-age (45-64); and
senior (65+) householders. These age categories also represent different stages of
66
earning power and family formation that strongly influence housing consumption. Nonfamily households (singles, unmarried couples, roommates and other unrelated
individuals) can also be segmented into these age categories, however the input data for
our projections only allows two categories: under 65 and 65+.
Young Family Segment
Young householders usually start in the rental market, as most of these householders do
not have either the resources or preference for being a homeowner. Nonetheless,
homeownership demand is seen even among these very young families. Among marriedcouples under 25 years of age, 38% were owners in 2000 and this rate is projected to
increase to 42% by 2020. Marriage rates at this age, however, are very low and over half
of these very young families are single-parent households. Although relatively small in
number (about 800 families), very young single-parent families are also very poor
typically. As a result, most are limited to the rental housing market (86% in 2000), but
even here the ownership is projected to increase by 4 percentage points over the
projection period.
Marriage rates and ownership rates increase significantly for families headed by 25-34
year olds in the region. Most of these families are married-couples (76%), and nearly
two-thirds of them (61%) are homeowners, whereas two-thirds of the single parents
remain renters.
Nearly all of these very young family homeowners would be first-time buyers during the
decade, averaging about 450 units per year. Many have annual incomes below $50,000
(in year 2000 dollars), making them prime targets for a variety of homeownership
programs. More than 700 young, single-parent families with incomes below $50,000 are
projected to become homeowners in the current decade. Demand could be even higher
depending on the availability of first-time buyer programs to assist with outreach,
education, financial counseling and financing. Additionally, nearly 2,000 young, singleparent families with incomes below $50,000 (about 1,500 with incomes below $25,000)
will be in the rental housing market. (The number of households needing rental
assistance is discussed later.)
Early Middle-Age (35-44) Family Segment
Family householders in the 35-44 age category make up 16% of the regional housing
market. Three-fourths of these are married-couple families and their ownership rate
reaches 80%. The ownership rate for single-parent families increases in this age group to
50%, but remains well below their married-couple counterparts.
About 800 married-couple families have incomes below $25,000, whereas over 1,200
single-parent families have incomes below this level (and are projected to increase to
1,400 families by 2020). Most of the married-couples, even in this income category,
were homeowners (523) in 2000, but only 350 of the single-parent families with similar
incomes were homeowners.
67
Housing programs should look to create stable ownership for the lower-income families
in this segment, as well as to expand ownership opportunities for the market segment.
Some of the single-parent families in this age group are the results of separation and
divorce, which can dramatically change housing consumption and shift families from
owners to renters. Some housing programs are restricted to first-time buyers and postdivorce single parent might not be eligible for assistance unless a special program is
created or eligibility rules are changed.
There is also sizeable demand in this market segment for rental housing: about 3,500
units in 2000 and increasing to 4,100 by 2020. Rental demand is also a function of its
affordability relative to ownership and to supply constraints. Suitable rental properties
for families have to be available for this demand to be realized.
Middle-Age (45-64) Family Segment
This category accounts for one-fourth of the total regional housing market. It is the
source for significant demand for owner units, particularly “move-up” units. It is also the
age group for “empty nesters.” In this age category for single-parents, their children reach
the age when they leave home. Empty-nester single parents become single-person
households and shift into the non-family category.
Most of these families are married-couples (84%) and nearly 90% of them are
homeowners.
Half of the middle-age renter families (married couples or single parents) have incomes
below $35,000, suggesting that affordability is more likely the driving factor in their
housing choice than personal preference. Among middle-age renters, about 900 married
couples and 400 single-parents have incomes below $35,000.
Senior (65+) Segment
One-in-five householders were aged 66 and older in 2000; a total of 15,300 households in
2000 and projected to increase to 20,200 households by 2020. Three-fourths of these
households are homeowners. There were approximately 3,600 senior renters in 2000 and
senior renters are projected to increase to 4,400 housing units by 2020.
By 2020, the number of seniors with incomes below $15,000 is projected to be 5,400;
most of these (4,400) will be single individuals living alone. Low-income senior owners
will number 3,700 and renters will number 1,700.
Many seniors reduce their monthly housing expenses by owning “free and clear” and not
having a mortgage payment. But even without a mortgage payment, housing costs can be
burdensome for seniors with very low incomes. Utilities, maintenance, property
insurance and taxes can leave some senior homeowners “house poor”.
68
Non-elderly (under 65) Singles and Unrelated Individuals
Non-elderly singles and unrelated individuals (e.g. roommates) represent a large and
growing segment of housing demand. In 2000 this segment numbered 20,800 households
(over one-fourth of the total regional market) and is projected to increase by nearly 5,000
households between 2000 and 2010.
This market segment includes students in the private housing market, people living alone,
and unmarried couples without children.
Traditionally, this segment was
overwhelmingly in the rental market and was heavily focused among very young
households just starting out in the market. But with more people living alone or with
roommates for longer periods and with more childless unmarried couples, this segment
has opted more often for ownership than in the past. Mortgage lenders have responded to
this emerging market for ownership.
In 2000, 39% of the region’s non-elderly singles and unrelated individuals owned more
than 8,000 units. This is projected to increase to 10,300 units by 2020. Few low-income
singles and unrelated individuals are owners. Below $25,000 income only 20% were
owners in 2000 and 80% were renters. But ownership demand jumps to 38% with
incomes between $25,000 and $30,000, between 50% to 60% for incomes between
$30,000 and $125,000, and about 65% with even higher incomes.
Single persons and unmarried couples interested in homeownership are probably attracted
most to townhouses, smaller single-family homes, and condominium units. Many of
these households are also likely to prefer urban locations and urban amenities.
The Low-Income Housing Segment
Low-income households face serious challenges in obtaining adequate housing that they
can afford. Housing policies and plans often categorize households according to income
levels defined as a percentage of the Area Median Family Income (AMFI), adjusted for
family size. The low-income category is defined as household incomes below 80% of the
AMFI. This category is divided into extremely low income (<30% AMFI), very low
income (30-50% AMFI), and low-income (50-80% AMFI).
As shown in Table 44, there were approximately 33,300 low-income households in the
PDC in 2000. We project this to increase by 4,600 households between 2000 and 2010,
and by an additional 5,300 households between 2010 and 2020. There were 15,362 lowincome owner households in 2000; these are projected to increase to 20,453 by 2020.
There were 17,910 low-income renters in 2000; they are projected to be 21,860 by 2020.
Over half of the low-income owners fall into the 50-80% AMFI, whereas 63% of the
low-income renters are below 50%AMFI (35% are below 30%AMFI). The extremely
low income category probably experiences the most severe housing needs. This group is
projected to number 12,251 households by 2020, including 7,492 renters.
69
Table 44: Projected Households by HUD Income Category and
Tenure, TJ PDC VA 2000-2020
Tenure
<30%
AMFI
3050%AMFI
Owners
Renters
Total
3,379
6,349
9,728
4,016
4,910
8,926
Owners
Renters
Total
4,030
6,935
10,965
4,728
5,439
10,167
Owners
Renters
Total
4,760
7,492
12,251
5,435
5,937
11,371
5080%AMFI
2000
7,966
6,652
14,618
2010
9,244
7,508
16,752
2020
10,259
8,432
18,691
80-120%
AMFI
120%+
AMFI
12,120
4,648
16,768
22,488
4,916
27,404
13,796
5,607
19,403
26,008
5,307
31,314
15,606
6,015
21,621
28,502
5,879
34,381
70
Conclusion
This study discussed many of the factors that characterize and influence the housing
market in the Thomas Jefferson PDC. We used the most recent available data whenever
possible drawing from the U.S. Census, IRS migration data, MLS sales data, and other
sources. We presented statistics and showed trends in order to provide the information
local officials need for making policy decisions regarding housing (we were not
commissioned to provide strategies based on the data presented).
Based on our research and analysis, we can conclude that:

The PDC has high housing costs. The median sales price in the second quarter of
2006 was $265,000 and the median gross rent as estimated by the Center for Housing
Research for two bedroom apartments was $871.

The median owner cost to household income ratio for the Charlottesville MSA in
2005 establishes the PDC as tied with the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria DC-VAMD-WV area (includes areas outside the state) as the most expensive metropolitan
area in Virginia for owners.

The 2005 MSA median monthly gross rent to income ratio establishes the PDC as the
second most expensive area in the state for renters.

Home sales in the PDC are robust with condominium sales “hot”.

Vacancy rates for both owners and renters are low indicating a tight housing market.

The 2005 homeownership rate for the MSA dropped slightly from 2000 (after
controlling for jurisdiction differences).

Solid job growth is accompanied by a low unemployment rate (2.9%).

Not all jobs are high paying jobs. For the 2003-2005 time period, the top five
occupations as ranked by number of workers had an average annual wage of under
$25,000.

Those at the lower end of the income scale are losing ground as reflected by a trend
of rising poverty rates.

A shortfall of affordable housing (not enough units affordable to certain income level
households plus those in higher income households consume the units that are
affordable) forces low income households in the PDC to use a high portion of income
for housing.

Workers in occupations vital to the community have difficulty finding affordable
housing in the PDC.
71

Living and working in different jurisdictions has resulted in large numbers of
commuters. Most drive from within the PDC to jobs in Albemarle County and
Charlottesville.

From outside of the PDC, the top jurisdictions in 2000 from which workers
commuted into both Albemarle County and Charlottesville were Orange County,
Augusta County, and Buckingham County.

The number of multi-family units is increasing in the PDC.

Manufactured homes are a dwindling housing choice in the PDC with numbers
declining mostly due to the age of the manufactured units.

Blacks are not highly segregated from whites in the PDC.

Homelessness persists at about a constant rate in the PDC.

Persons with disabilities have difficulty finding affordable housing close to needed
services.

The majority of owner households with extremely low income are senior households.

College students help drive up rents in the area. Student roommates can combine the
financial resources of their parents and are willing to pay a high rent per bedroom.
These rents are often unaffordable to families and single people in the rental market.

The PDC has been growing in population, slowly, but steadily.

The largest number of in-migrants from a single location to the PDC moved from
Fairfax County followed by Amherst County and Henrico County.

The single location for the largest number of out-migrants from the PDC was Henrico
County followed by Orange, Fairfax, and Augusta counties.

The population and consequently the number of households are expected to grow
steadily in the PDC through the next decade.

We project owner demand in the PDC to increase by 7,836 units by 2010 and by
6,754 by 2020.

We project renter demand in the PDC to increase by 3,323 units by 2010 and by
2,958 by 2020.
72
64
250
20
56
60
56
29
240
Covesville
Crozet
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
53
231
Fork Union
Fl u v a n n a
15
15
22
208
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
33
0
6
12
18
Miles
24
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Vouchers Per Municipality
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
424
604
Fluvanna County
64
Greene County
141
Louisa County
68
Nelson County
43
Buckingham
1
Orange
1
Total
1346
Unmatched/Unidentified
51
522
Mineral
Housing Choice, Mainstream, and Mental Illness
voucher locations are based upon geocoded
addresses. Vouchers listing a P.O. Box are not
shown. Marker size is porportional to the number
of vouchers per address: e.g. an apartment
complex has a larger marker than a single
unit. 47 Addresses did not geocode.
Data Sources: Albemarle County, CRHA, Skyline
CAP for Greene, Orange, and Madison Counties,
Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Foundation, NCCDF,
PHA, Region Ten, 2006
Zion Crossroads
Palmyra
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Counties
Main Roads Vouchers per Location
Legend
Regional Housing Choice, Mainstream, and Mental Illness Voucher Locations
29
6
Lovingston
Nel son
151
Nellysford
Afton
250
29
64
250
20
56
29
60
6
29
240
Covesville
Crozet
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
53
231
Fork Union
Fl u v a n n a
15
15
Counties
22
208
0
6
12
18
Miles
24
522
Mineral
33
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
279
149
Fluvanna County
1
Greene County
5
Louisa County
0
Nelson County
1
Total
435
15
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
Housing Choice voucher locations
are based upon geocoded addresses.
Vouchers listing a P.O. Box are not shown.
Marker size is porportional to the number of
vouchers per address: e.g. an apartment
Data Source: Albemarle County, 2006
Zion Crossroads
Palmyra
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Legend
Albemarle Housing Choice Voucher Locations
56
Lovingston
Nel son
151
Nellysford
Afton
250
29
250
64
250
20
56
29
60
6
Covesville
29
64
Crozet 240
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
15
15
Palmyra
Fork Union
Counties
22
208
0
6
12
18
Miles
24
522
Mineral
33
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
90
232
Fluvanna County
1
Greene County
4
Louisa County
2
Nelson County
1
Total
330
8
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
Data Source: CRHA, 2006
Zion Crossroads
Fl u v a n n a
53
231
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Legend
Charlottesville Housing Choice Voucher Locations
56
Lovingston
Nel son
151
Nellysford
Afton
29
64
250
20
56
29
56
29
240
Covesville
Crozet
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
53
231
Fork Union
Fl u v a n n a
15
15
Counties
22
208
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
0
7
14
21
Miles
28
33
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
11
7
Fluvanna County
58
Greene County
1
Louisa County
54
Nelson County
0
Buckingham
1
Orange
1
Total
133
11
522
Mineral
Data Source: Fluvanna/Louisa Housing
Foundation, 2006
Zion Crossroads
Palmyra
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Legend
Fluvanna/Louisa Housing Choice Voucher Locations
60
6
Lovingston
Nel son
151
Nellysford
Afton
250
29
250
64
250
20
56
29
60
56
Covesville
29
64
Crozet
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
15
15
Palmyra
Fork Union
Counties
22
208
0
7
14
21
Miles
28
522
Mineral
33
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
10
6
Fluvanna County
0
Greene County
128
Louisa County
0
Nelson County
0
Total
144
8
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
Data Source: Skyline CAP, 2006 for Greene
Orange and Madison Counties.
Zion Crossroads
Fl u v a n n a
53
231
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Legend
Greene Housing Choice Voucher Locations
Lovingston
Nel son
151
6
Nellysford
Afton
29
250
64
250
20
56
29
60
56
Covesville
29
64
Crozet
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
15
15
22
Palmyra
Fork Union
208
0
7
14
21
Miles
28
522
Mineral
33
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
0
0
Fluvanna County
0
Greene County
0
Louisa County
0
Nelson County
41
Total
41
1
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
unit. 1 Address did not geocode.
Data Source: NCCDF, 2006
Zion Crossroads
Fl u v a n n a
53
231
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Legend
Counties
Nelson Housing Choice Voucher Locations
Lovingston
Nel son
151
6
Nellysford
Afton
29
250
64
250
20
56
29
60
6
Covesville
29
64
Crozet
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
15
15
Palmyra
Fork Union
Counties
22
208
0
6
12
18
Miles
24
522
Mineral
33
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
17
41
Fluvanna County
2
Greene County
3
Louisa County
11
Nelson County
0
Total
74
4
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
Mainstream housing voucher locations
Data Source: PHA, 2006
Zion Crossroads
Fl u v a n n a
53
231
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Legend
PHA Mainstream Housing Voucher Locations
56
Lovingston
Nel son
151
Nellysford
Afton
29
250
64
250
20
56
29
60
6
Covesville
29
64
Crozet
29
20
Albem arle
250
Scottsville
20
Advance Mills
6
15
15
Palmyra
Fork Union
Counties
22
208
0
6
12
18
Miles
24
522
Mineral
33
16 +
11 - 15
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Municipality
Amount
Albemarle County
17
169
Fluvanna County
2
Greene County
0
Louisa County
1
Nelson County
0
Total
189
4
Lo u i s a
Green Springs
Mental Illness housing voucher locations
Data Source: Region Ten, 2006
Zion Crossroads
Fl u v a n n a
53
231
Union Mills
Ruckersville
Stanardsville
230
Charlottesvi lle
Free Union
Greene
33
Legend
Region Ten Mental Illness Voucher Locations
56
Lovingston
Nel son
151
Nellysford
Afton
29
Policy 1
Objectives for Use of Affordable Housing Funds
And
Criteria/Priorities for Award of Funds
Funding Categories
Applications will be accepted for or funds committed for the following programs. The
list is in no particular order:
• Redevelopment of CRHA Properties. This might involve assisting with master
plans, funding assistance or bringing private partners to the table.
• Homeowner Rehabilitation. To help, primarily the elderly remain in their homes and
not be forced to sell because of deteriorating conditions and their inability to address
those conditions. Also allow smaller rehabs that do not need major overhaul and do
not require other issues to meet Section 8 standards. This will help preserve the
existing housing stock and delay gentrification.
• Flexible revolving loan program. For land purchase and site development for our
non-profit partners providing affordable housing. These funds would be for a loan
for five years at very low interest and would be subordinate to banks. This would
help our non-profits leverage more private funding and encourage banks to
participate in those affordable housing projects.
• SRO. Build or assist with the construction of an SRO (Single Resident Occupancy)
near the Downtown or with excellent access to services. This might be done in
partnership with CRHA, Albemarle, UVA, VA Supportive Housing, or one of our
non-profit partners.
• Rental Rehabilitation. To assist owners of lower end rental properties to maintain
their properties to basic code requirements and keep rents as affordable at time of
investment. This should be in the form of loans and should assist those with the
most affordable rents with a cap on rents for a period of time.
• Energy Efficiency. Projects that improve energy efficiency in low income homes.
• Rental Subsidies. To “special needs” populations and very low income individuals
defined as 40% AMI with preference to 30% AMI.
Policy 1
And Criteria/Priorities for Award of Funds
Page 1 of 4
• Counseling. Credit counseling, financial education and/or eviction and foreclosure
prevention.
• Affordable Rental Housing.
housing.
Preservation and production of affordable rental
• Homeownership. Construction of new housing for homeownership
Target Populations - Funding is intended to serve the following population groups:
• Homeowner Population – Support initiatives that preserve and expand
homeownership opportunities for residents who earn less than 80% of Area Median
Income. As examples:
• Special Needs Population – Support initiatives that preserve and expand supportive
housing opportunities for residents who have special needs* and earn less than 30%
of Area Median Income exclusive of medical expenses. Clients served must be City
residents however housing units do not need to be located within the geographical
limit of the City of Charlottesville. For projects where these funds are only a portion
of the funding the number of City residents and the recipients with income less than
40% of AMI shall be equal to the percent of City investment or 20% at a minimum.
*The definition of a person with a special need is “any person with a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, also
to include the elderly, abused/battered spouses and/or children, and homeless
persons.
• Rental Population – Support initiatives that preserve and expand rental opportunities
for residents who earn less than 60% of Area Median Income.
Criteria for Review of Applications
A.
Requirements for all applications:
• Projects must provide for meaningful and ongoing resident and neighborhood
participation throughout the development process.
• Applicants must demonstrate the financial feasibility of the project and the
financial stability of the applicant.
• Successful projects will be consistent with and support the Comprehensive
Plan and the City Council Vision.
Policy 1
Page 2 of 4
• Projects will conform to newly adopted council policy and guidelines for
Universal Design and energy efficiency ratings (attached).
• All homeownership projects assisted with Charlottesville Housing Funds must
have a lien in the amount of City investment for at least thirty (30) years.
• All rental projects assisted with Charlottesville Housing Funds must remain
affordable to families with incomes at or below target levels for at least the life
of the City investment.
• If the agency is non-profit it must have the appropriate non-profit status
already approved by the Federal Government.
• The applicant is in compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations,
and has no outstanding violations, taxes or penalties.
• The applicant has a well-developed organizational structure. If the applicant is
non-profit, it must have an adequate board to oversee the activities of staff and
have a clear separation of board and staff responsibilities.
• Recipients of funds must be:
City residents, or
Employed in the City for at least 5 years
• Housing must be located in the City or within the urban ring of Albemarle
County.
B.
Factors that Enhance Application:
• Projects which provide substantial leverage of other dollars will be given high
priority.
• Provides for at least a one-for-one replacement of any affordable units lost to
redevelopment, with a strong preference for projects that increase the supply
of affordable units.
• Provides relocation assistance for any residents displaced by redevelopment
(in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Act).
• Provides implementation of measures to ensure that existing/long term renters
have priority access to new homeownership opportunities created in their
neighborhood.
• Provides for a wide variation of income towards the creation of mixed-income
neighborhoods.
• Projects with housing opportunities targeted at the very low and extremely low
income populations will be given higher priority.
• Inclusion of housing options for senior citizens and individuals with
disabilities, with an emphasis on universal design and visitability.
Policy 1
Page 3 of 4
• Incorporation of environmentally friendly, energy and resource-efficient and
pedestrian/transit-oriented neighborhood designs and building technologies
and infrastructure design.
Affordability
For the purpose of this program and all other City affordable housing programs,
affordability is defined below. Some specific programs may be targeted to different
income ranges.
No persons or family under 80% AMI should spend more than 30% of their income on
housing costs. Furthermore, affordable projects should not gentrify communities and
low-income residents should be allowed to remain in their communities if they are
redeveloped
Policy 1
Page 4 of 4
Policy 2
Incentives the City can provide to Encourage`
Development with Affordable Housing Units
1.
Low Cost Land – The City can look for opportunities to provide land, to assist
with land assembly, or to provide funding to assist with land purchase.
2.
Expedited Review Process – The City can adopt an expedited review process
for projects containing affordable units per soon to be adopted affordable
housing codes (these changes are under review by the planning staff).
3.
Housing Product types – Expand the “vision or image” of affordable housing
to encompass a wide range of housing product types (beyond single family
detached). Such product types could include (but should not be limited to) the
following: accessory apartments, attached rental and owner-occupied housing
including live/work units; townhouses; condos and apartment flats, carriage
houses (i.e. multiple units on one building designed to look like a large single
home).
4.
Information data base – Compile and/or obtain maps that locate existing
development opportunities (i.e. privately and publicly owned greenfield and
redevelopment sites) and existing affordable housing locations (inclusive of
public housing and privately managed and owned Section 8 concentrations as
well as average housing price ranges for each neighborhood) relative to high
intensity corridors and districts. This will assist in determining t he appropriate
range of income mixing and whether or not an infill parcel or redevelopment
site could/should include mixed use.
5.
Articulate policy – Council should clearly state where dense and affordable
hosing is desired and encouraged with adequate access to transit options.
6.
Staff Assistance – Designate staff person to foster projects and public/private
partnerships (i.e. private non-profits, private developers and governmental
agencies) in affordable housing and mixed use developments as well as
projects that promote economic development and job creation in relatively
underinvested, financially depressed areas.
7.
City Funding – Provide incentive funds as outlined in Policy 3.
Policy 3
Criteria for Awarding Multi-Family
Incentive Funds/Strategic Investment Funds
Revolving Loan Fund
1.
Applicants provide significant leverage to the deal. Private equity, private
financing or other government funds shall be considered as leverage funds.
2.
Projects with higher percentages of affordable units will be given priority for
funding. The minimum percentage project considered will contain 15%
affordable units. For this program, minimum affordability will be 80% of area
median income, preferably with at least 50% of funding reserved for 40% AMI
or lower.
3.
All project proposals must have a mechanism in place to guarantee
affordability for 30 years to be eligible, such as participation in the land trust.
4.
Minimum project type/size is a mixed use project containing non-residential,
either office or retail, and 50 or more units of residential with a mix of
incomes.
5.
Sites on established transit lines or pedestrian routes will be given priority.
6.
Projects on West Main Street, Preston Avenue, Emmet Street, Cherry Avenue
Zoning Corridor or Downtown Extended Zoning Corridor will be given
priority.
7.
Priority will be given to projects that give priority to City residents or persons
employed in the City.
8.
Priority will be given to projects that exhibit quality design for all units and
that do not differentiate the affordable units from market rate units.
THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, ALBEMARLE
COUNTY AND UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINA JOINT TASK
FORCE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
presents:
A REPORT ON ACTIONS NEEDED TO
ADDRESS THE REGION’S AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CRISIS
January 9, 2009
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
Satyendra Huja/David Norris
Cheri Lewis
Karen Waters
Charlie Armstrong
City Council
Planning Commission
Albemarle County
David Slutzky
Bill Edgerton
David Paulson
Leonard Winslow III
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Housing Committee
Housing Committee
University of Virginia
David Neuman
Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together
Susan Pleiss/Rhonda Miska
Staff
Melissa Celii/Amy Kilroy
Ron White
Albemarle County
*Where two are listed, only one served at any time. The first name listed was serving when
recommendations were finalized.
Executive Summary and Preliminary Recommendations
1
The Joint Task Force on Affordable Housing includes policy makers and housing experts
from the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia. This
is the first time these three entities have convened to identify actions needed to address
the region’s affordable housing crisis. The City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County,
and the University of Virginia were identified as the key players in addressing affordable
housing because they are the three largest direct or indirect employers in the region, as
well as the largest land holders or land use regulators for the region. Additionally, these
three entities are intricately linked where the actions or inactions of one will affect the
others. As such, no one entity can solve the area’s affordable housing crisis; to do so
requires a collaborative effort with the benefits shared by the City of Charlottesville,
Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia.
For this report, affordable housing is defined as households spending no more than 30%
of their income on housing costs (including utilities) targeting those households that earn
less than 80% of the Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area Median Income (AMI).
The unmet needs were generally defined as those in income groups under fifty percent
(50%) AMI with the greatest needs being for those households below thirty percent
(30%) AMI.
This report includes the Task Force’s analysis, findings, and
recommendations. Some of the recommended actions can be carried out jointly, while
others are specific. While not all members of the Task Force agreed to all of the
recommendations, these recommendations reflect the general consensus of the Task
Force. Further information regarding these recommendations and how the Joint Task
Force on Affordable Housing came to them can be found in the full report.
This report acknowledges the legal constraints on each entity which, despite their level of
commitment to solving our affordable housing crisis, may limit the means of
participation. The task force further recognizes that support for affordable housing
initiatives is not necessarily monetary. We value the ongoing significant volunteer and
board level support of our local non-profit housing providers such as Habitat for
Humanity, Piedmont Housing Alliance, and Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
by the University of Virginia, and encourage continued funding of these types of entities
by the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County in line with our stated priorities.
The Task Force recommends that the City of Charlottesville do the following:
• Commit to a permanent, dedicated, annual funding investment in affordable
housing initiatives either by changing current funding priorities or increasing
long-term revenue streams. Such funding should be dedicated to support the
building and/or preserving of affordable housing (bricks and sticks).
• Support the creation of a Regional Housing Fund to accept investments in
affordable housing from both public and private sources.
• Adopt a proffer policy that requires proffered units be equally affordable at
extremely low-, very low-, and low-income levels.
• Support the building of Single Room Occupancy and other non-traditional
housing.
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Support and encourage the creation of security measures and supportive services
in new and existing neighborhoods to ensure that affordable housing is safe and
pleasant.
Promote the use of tax credits for developers by offering technical assistance.
Consider issuing general obligation bonds to fund affordable housing initiatives.
Provide funding for loans to developers of affordable housing.
Provide support for the Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust.
Establish a Housing Ombudsman Office to serve both area residents and
developers of affordable housing.
To the extent allowed by law, pay all employees, and strongly encourage their
contractors to pay, a living wage. The Task Force recommends, as a first step,
that the Human Resource Departments of the City, County, and UVa develop
criteria for establishing a living wage.
Support regional transit networks and options.
Continue to support regional non-profits such as Piedmont Housing Alliance
(PHA), Habitat for Humanity, and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
(AHIP) whose missions are to address affordable housing.
The Task Force recommends that Albemarle County do the following:
• Commit to a permanent, dedicated, annual funding investment in affordable
housing initiatives either by changing current funding priorities or increasing
long-term revenue streams. Such funding should be dedicated to support the
building and/or preserving of affordable housing (bricks and sticks).
• Support the creation of a Regional Housing Fund to accept investments in
affordable housing from both public and private sources.
• Amend the existing proffer policy to include these recommendations:
• cap the value of proffered units;
• Provide an incentive for developers to get more credit for deeper targeting
of affordability by using a sliding scale;
• require proffered units to include an equal share of units affordable at
extremely low-, very low-, and low-income levels
• Increase the term of affordability for proffered rental units to a minimum
of 15 years.
• Require deed restrictions or deeds of trust to ensure longer term
affordability.
• Support the building of Single Room Occupancy housing.
• Support and encourage the creation of security measures and supportive services
in new and existing neighborhoods to ensure that affordable housing is safe and
pleasant.
• Promote the use of tax credits for developers by offering technical assistance.
• Consider issuing general obligation bonds to fund affordable housing initiatives.
• Provide funding for loans to developers of affordable housing.
• Aggregate all County housing funds including cash proffers to create a fund
which would be under the control of the Albemarle County Housing Committee.
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
Review and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers that impact affordability
including consideration of a streamlined approval process for developments that
propose affordable housing units.
Provide support for the Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust.
developers of affordable housing.
To the extent allowed by law, pay all employees, and strongly encourage their
Continue to support regional non-profits such as Piedmont Housing Alliance
(PHA), Habitat for Humanity, and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
(AHIP) whose missions are to address affordable housing.
The Task Force recommends that the University of Virginia do the following:
• Consider developing housing sites to provide higher density mixed income
housing for graduate students and UVa employees including faculty and staff.
• Continue to provide housing for all first-year students and housing options for
other students.
• To the extent allowed by law, pay all employees, and strongly encourage their
• Support regional transit networks and options.
4
INTRODUCTION
The members of the Joint Task Force on Affordable Housing are pleased to present this
report to the leadership of the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the
University of Virginia.
This Task Force, convened in December 2007, marks the first time that the City of
Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia have come together to
examine the region’s affordable housing crisis. At its first meeting, members agreed to
the following charges:
1. Review current public and private initiatives aimed at increasing affordable
housing opportunities, and identify any gaps and issues related to affordable
housing not being adequately addressed by current initiatives;
2. Make recommendations to address the gaps for one
(AMI) groups identified as:
• Extremely low-income
under 30% AMI
• Very low-income
30% - 60% AMI
• Low-income
60% - 80%AMI
or more area median income
(<$20,000)
($20,000 - $36,000)
($36,000 - $54,000)
NOTE: For the purposes of this report area median income or AMI is defined as the income
levels established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the
Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). For example, HUD calculates the current
median income for a family of four in the MSA at $68,500.
While opportunities for homeownership and rental exist at all of the income
levels, for practical purposes the extremely low-income bracket (under 30% AMI)
is considered to be synonymous with rental;
3. Identify policy actions as well as potential resources (both government and
private) that could lead to increased availability and access to affordable housing
units;
4. Identify cross-jurisdictional opportunities for collaborative implementation of the
recommendations of this Task Force.
5
ISSUES
Task Force members accepted the previous work completed that identified projected
needs, including information from The State of Housing Report, completed in 2007, for
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. The unmet needs were generally defined as
those in income groups under fifty percent (50%) AMI with the greatest needs being for
those households below thirty percent (30%) AMI. Using this data as a starting point,
members identified five specific focus areas:
• Barriers to affordable housing
• Housing policy issues
• Preservation of existing affordable housing
• Rental assistance issues
• Creating more affordable housing units
FINDINGS
Two priority goals guided the Task Force’s work:
1. Preserving and creating more affordable housing units
2. Promoting affordable housing opportunities.
The first goal relates to the built environment (housing stock) and the second is more
oriented toward the affordable housing consumer, both renters and potential homeowners
(client). Issues and findings are reported in four distinct categories: client needs,
inventory, funding, and regulation/policy. A general issue statement is provided for each
category followed by specific findings:
Client Needs
The primary barriers facing clients seeking affordable rental housing are lack of
consistent income, poor credit histories, transportation issues, exclusionary policies with
respect to criminal records, and lack of up-front funding for credit checks, application
fees, and security deposits. Clients can get confused about available programs due to the
fact that there is more than one agency administering housing assistance in the City and
County. Findings regarding client needs and improving clients’ experiences included the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
Support a living wage paid by the City, County and UVa along with their
contractors to increase household income and improve affordability.
Support paying employees on a 12-month pay plan (although they may only work
ten months) to provide for a more stable monthly income.
Support improved public transportation to expand housing options and reduce
transportation costs.
Create a credit training program to better equip tenants to manage monthly
budgets.
Establish an incentive fund for those successfully completing the training to
underwrite multiple credit checks, application fees, and required security and
utility deposits.
6
•
•
•
•
Support the creation of a Housing Ombudsman Office to oversee the credit
training program, to consolidate credit reports, and centralize access to housing
assistance.
Require housing agencies to implement a customer service focus.
Support using energy consultants to complete energy audits and identify energy
savings options for clients.
Promote access to electronic options for unbanked clients to pay bills on time.
Inventory
Lack of affordable rental housing constituted most of the discussion on inventory. Issues
ranged from the effect of UVa students occupying privately-owned rental housing, clients
not desiring to live at certain multifamily housing sites, and limited choices due to an
insufficient number of landlords willing to accept housing vouchers. Task Force
members support the following findings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improve affordable rental housing options through outreach to landlords and
marketing the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Encourage the attractiveness of UVa on-grounds housing through improved
options.
Develop a mixed use project for grad students and UVa workforce housing.
Explore the use of privately-owned housing stock built for students (4BR/4Bath)
for clients when this type of unit can meet their housing needs.
Support increasing community policing activities to improve safety and security in
multifamily developments.
Assist multifamily developments in providing regular youth activities and
attractive programming.
Increase the affordability term for proffered rental units from developers to fifteen
(15) years.
Support the building of single room occupancy housing.
The Task Force members also discussed gaps in owner-occupied supply and found that
proffered units for sale were priced at points affordable to those at or about 80% AMI.
Additional, proffered for-sale units may not be affordable beyond the first sale. Findings
included Task Force members support the following findings:
• Future proffers should be accepted only if one-third of the proffered affordable
units are affordable to each of three income groups: <30%AMI; 30-60%AMI;
60-80%AMI
• The City and County should support the further development of the Thomas
Jefferson Community Land Trust to act as a steward of land and maintain units as
affordable in perpetuity.
• Proffers should include provisions for long-term affordability.
• Continue to support the Thomas Jefferson Workforce Housing Fund or any other
program that provides downpayment assistance.
7
Funding
The Task Force members recognize that addressing housing issues will take a substantial
investment of funds, and the best way to achieve stated goals and objectives is through
partnerships and leveraging of public investments. However, members did conclude that
the public investment for affordable housing initiatives should be increased particularly
in the County. Increased local investment was deemed necessary due to the lack of
investment by the state and generally level funding from the federal government.
Findings included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create a pool of funding for credit program trainees to assist with credit checks
and security deposits.
Provide financial support for the further development of the Thomas Jefferson
Community Land Trust.
Support Albemarle County creating a “housing fund” separate from the annual
operations budget to hold appropriated general funds and proffered funds. The
City budgets for housing initiatives from its capital funds.
Support committing at least one cent of the tax rate annually to funding housing
initiatives.
Support the City and County in continuing to provide loans to assist homebuyers
but also provide gap financing funds to developers of affordable housing.
Encourage the City and County to support the use of federal low-income housing
tax credits as a means of creating new and preserving existing affordable rental
housing by offering technical assistance to developers on applications.
Support using general obligation bond authority as a funding stream for housing
initiatives.
Regulations/Policy
The majority of the Task Force member’s discussion of regulations and policies centered
on Albemarle County’s Proffer Policy. The discussions included redefining and having a
balanced approach to what should be considered as an affordable housing proffer and
how affordability can be sustained past the first purchaser of a proffered unit. Although
the focus was on the County’s proffer policy, the Task Force noted that the discussions
and recommendations should also be considered by the City as they develop such a
policy.
•
•
•
•
Support capping the appraised value of proffered units.
Develop and encourage the use of deed restrictions and/or deeds of trust to limit
annual appreciation of proffered units to provide for future affordability and/or a
sharing of increase in equity.
Support a policy where proffered units are affordable to all three segments of the
income ranges with affordable sales price and rents for each segment. Amend
proffer policy to reflect a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 distribution of affordable units among
income levels (extremely low, very low, and low)..
Provide an incentive for developers to get more credit for deeper targeting of
affordability by using a sliding scale (ex. 1 unit affordable <30%AMI would get
credit for 2 units).
8
•
•
•
Encourage proffered land/units to be donated to the Thomas Jefferson
Support amending existing proffer agreements to include utilization of the
Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust.
Encourage affordable housing non-profits to agree to keep housing units
affordable in perpetuity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force examined the focus area findings and considered input from all members
in developing a final list of recommendations. The following recommendations are
offered based on the original charge adopted by the Task Force.
Address the Gaps for One or More Income Groups
These recommendations would specifically serve one or more income groups, as opposed
to more general recommendations that would serve the collective income groups.
•
•
Support for Single Room Occupancy housing—to specifically serve clients who
have special needs and are extremely low-income (under 30% AMI).
Support three tiers of affordability for proffered units, requiring that 1/3 of
proffered units be specifically for each of the three income groups (extremely
low-income, very low-income, low income) resulting in equal opportunities for
each of the levels.
Identify Policy Actions or Resources to Increase Availability and Access
These recommendations would result in policy changes that would lead to an increase of
affordable housing units for all income levels, as well as make existing affordable units
more accessible to citizens in need. The Task Force notes that these recommendations
have little chance of becoming reality without adequate and fixed funding sources. As
such, funding recommendations are also included.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commit to a permanent, dedicated, annual funding investment in affordable
housing initiatives either from changing funding priorities or increasing revenue
streams.
Support the use of tax credits for developers of affordable housing
Consider issuing general obligation bonds.
Cap the value of proffered units.
Provide gap financing funds for loans to developers of affordable housing.
Increase the term of affordability for proffered rental units to 15 years to ensure
longer term affordable investments.
Use a sliding scale for proffer credits.
Support amending existing proffer agreements to include the option of a
Support the Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust and include this option in
proffer discussions.
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
Support the use of deed restrictions or deeds of trust to ensure longer term
affordability.
Consider developing UVa housing sites to provide higher density mixed income
housing for graduate students and UVa employees.
Support a Living Wage and 12 month pay options
Encourage better use of UVa housing on grounds for graduate students and staff.
Increase community policing so that multi-family developments are safe and
provide youth activities and programs to create welcoming positive places for
kids to grow up.
Identify Cross-Jurisdictional Opportunities
The following recommendations show the need for a shared, regional commitment to
effectively address the issue of affordable housing in our community. This problem
cannot be solved with each jurisdiction pursuing their own agenda and programs or
without adequate funding from all responsible parties.
•
•
Create a Regional Housing Fund, to accept investments in affordable housing
from both public and private sources.
developers of affordable housing. Recommended functions for this office
include:
• Overseeing/providing credit training and counseling programs;
• Managing security deposit funds for credit program trainees;
• Providing technical assistance to developers on tax credits and other
programs ;
• Working with energy consultants and property owners to reduce utility
costs;
• Providing marketing outreach to landlords to increase options for voucher
holders;
• Providing electronic bill paying for unbanked clients;
• Commitment to a customer service focus
10
CONCLUSION
Task Force members agreed that increased local funding is the top priority and these
funding commitments are needed to leverage other public and private funds to support
affordable housing initiatives.
The second identified priority is revisions to existing proffer policies to promote longterm affordability of proffered units and proactive policies to preserve existing
affordable units. This priority includes supporting and utilizing a community land trust
as a tool for maintaining affordability.
A related priority was to consider
[re]development opportunities including those undertaken by UVa for the provision
of affordable housing.
Additional priorities with strong support include: increasing household income,
whether through a living wage or increasing earning capacity, to improve a family’s
ability to afford housing and establishing a Housing Ombudsman Office.
Finally, while every recommendation won’t be considered for immediate adoption and
implementation, the Task Force believes that all our recommendations should be
considered, if not now, then in the future as a part of a strategic action plan adopted by
the respective housing committees. To the extent allowable by law, UVa should continue
to participate in local affordable housing initiatives.
11
Suggested Language for Update of the Housing Section of the
Comprehensive Plan
Housing Advisory Committee (1/18/12)
Introduction:
The City of Charlottesville has a severe housing crisis. More than 1,000 families are waiting to get
into public housing and/or to receive a housing choice voucher. There are some 28 to
327 children in Charlottesville who are considered homeless, depending upon the definition
used, and approximately 4,000 families in the area spend more than half of their income on
housing. Additionally, there is a lack of satisfactory housing options and distribution across the
economic spectrum, leading to a migration of wealth out of the City and a dearth of healthy
opportunities for the majority of residents to age in place and/or find affordable options allowing
them to live and work inside the City. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in neighborhoods
and in housing developments, housing options continue to be largely segregated by income,
which, due to disparity of income between various racial and age groups, means that there is de
facto segregation by income, race, and age.
In 2009, City Council requested a report from Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) that
outlines current housing inventory and future goals for the number of affordable housing units in
the City. NDS staff, with input, guidance and approval of the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC)
prepared the report (The City of Charlottesville 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing) and submitted
to Council a recommendation that they adopt as their primary housing goal an “Increase (in) the
ratio of supported affordable units to 15% of the total housing units by 2025.” On February 1,
2010, City Council adopted this goal.
Therefore, all planning and regulatory decisions in the City that in any way affect
housing should be made to further this goal in accordance with the “2025” report as
adopted by City Council.
The City of Charlottesville is just 10.4 square miles in area. Consequently, changes in zoning or
additional regulation placed on land use frequently create impacts on housing on-site, adjacent to
the site and throughout the community. Therefore, these changes must be considered within the
context of City Council’s goal. Furthermore, fulfillment of other goals in the Comprehensive Plan
(such as economic development, healthy schools, pedestrian-oriented development, etc.) are
reliant on proper redevelopment, rehabilitation and infill development strategies that preserve
and increase housing options across the economic spectrum, and that do not perpetuate or lead
to increased segregation by income, race, age, use, etc. Therefore, all policy decisions in the City
should strive to establish the conditions for the creation of mixed-income, mixed-use, transitand/or pedestrian-oriented, energy efficient, and multigenerational housing options throughout
the City. Any policy change contemplated that in any way would be detrimental to the goals
of the “2025” Report should be rejected.
Goals:
1. Meet City Council goal of 15% supported affordable housing by 2025 as adopted in
February 2010 per the "2025 Report."
2. Achieve housing options to accommodate both renters and owners at all price points.
3. Increase new housing units in the region built in the City of Charlottesville to promote
environmentally sustainable patterns of development as well as economic development
and job creation in relatively underinvested, financially depressed areas.
4. Achieve mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible.
5. Promote redevelopment and infill development to support bicycle and pedestrianoriented infrastructure (including robust public transportation) that better connects
residents to jobs and commercial activity.
6. Incorporate principles of Environmental Sustainability, Urban Design, Visitability and
Universal Design.
Strategies:
1. Perform inventory across the City and use GIS mapping technology to plot where
and how much affordable housing is available and where opportunities exist to create
additional units. Implement goal of 15% affordable in each census tract of the City.
2. With the community’s participation, develop small-area plans that lay the groundwork for
transportation-oriented, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods, within the context
of a broader vision for Charlottesville.
3. Increase annual outlay of funds into the Charlottesville Housing Fund through general
fund allocation and use of proffers.
4. Dedicate an annual provision of funds for low-income rehabilitation and emergency home
repair.
5. Allocate annual funding to strategic initiatives geared toward incubating affordable and
mixed income housing initiatives.
6. Look at expanding the City's tax abatement program to allow for longer terms of
deferment, applying it to rental properties and lessening other restrictions as allowed by
Virginia code.
7. Work with state delegation to break down barriers to achieve our goals in State code,
including but not limited to inclusion of livability, visitability, and/or universal design
standards in our local zoning ordinance.
8. Study effects of historical design control and other land use regulations on affordable and
mixed-use housing to ensure that they will not unduly restrict mixed income and mixeduse redevelopment.
9. Align the zoning ordinance with housing goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
10. Review zoning map and ordinances to eliminate any restrictions on creating appropriate
creative, green, mixed-income and mixed-use housing options, including accessory
dwellings, live/work units, shared housing while insuring proper building placement,
density and public amenities across the City.
11. Encourage appropriate design so that new supported affordable units blend into existing
neighborhoods, thus eliminating stigma on both area and residents.
12. Support projects and public/private partnerships (i.e. private non-profits, private
developers and governmental agencies) in affordable housing, including workforce
housing and mixed-use and mixed-income developments as well as projects that
promote economic development and job creation, especially (but not exclusively) in
relatively underinvested, financially depressed areas.