— 1 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County and Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro Consolidated Plan 2005-20102005-2010 Volume 1Volume 1 — 3 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary 2005 – 2010 Consolidated Plan Washington County Consortium Washington County and Cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro Public Review Draft March, 2005 Prepared for the Office of Community Development by Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC in association with Sextant Consulting Ramsay Weit Sumner Sharpe, FAICP Acknowledgements Washington County Board of County Commissioners Policy Advisory Board (PAB) Housing Programs Advisory Subcommittee (HPAS) City of Banks City of Cornelius Amy Scheckla-Cox, Primary Jef Dalin, Alternate City of Durham City of Forest Grove Richard Kidd, Primary Peter Truax, Alternate City of Gaston Rick Lorenz, Primary Kathi Anderson, Alternate City of Hillsboro Ed Dennis, Primary Debbie Raber, Alternate City of King City Sam Locklin, Primary Bud Wilkinson, Alternate City of North Plains Robert Kindel, Chair City of Sherwood Dave Grant, Primary City of Tigard Sydney Sherwood, Primary Duane Roberts, Alternate City of Tualatin Richard Hager, Alternate Washington County Dick Schouten, Primary Andy Duyck, Alternate Tom Brian, Chair Andy Duyck, Vice Chair Dick Schouten John Leeper Roy Rogers Doug Longhurst, Chair Sharon Nielson, Vice Chair Michael Parkhurst Bernie Kronberger Deborah Miller Richard Kidd Debbie Raber Ramsay Weit Pilar Kleier Stakeholder Meeting Participants Washington County Professional Services Susan Wilson, Washington County Department of Housing Services Karina Benitez, Columbia Funding Group Larry Bowen, Clean and Sober Living Terry Brown, Homestreet, Inc. Vince Chiotti, Oregon Department of Community and Housing Services Dennis Erickson, Washington County Department of Community Corrections Carol Gakin Sheila Greenlaw-Fink, Community Partners for Affordable Housing Phil Hedrick, Cascade Housing Group Jeff Hill, Washington County Department of Aging and Veterans Services Adele Hughes, Hillsboro Chamber Ellen Johnson, Oregon Legal Services Kristin Kane, Cascade AIDS Project Doug Longhurst, Housing Development of NW Oregon Deborah Miller, Realty Trust Kris Moore, Family Bridge Amber Ontiveros, Tri-Met Sam Park, Oregon Korean Community Center Michael Parkhurst, City of Beaverton Debbie Raber, City of Hillsboro Duane Roberts, City of Tigard Howard Roll, The Bride Project Board (housing for disabled persons) Barbara Smith, Washington Mutual Becky Smith, Community Action Chance Wooley, Washing County Mental Health Office of Community Development Staff Peggy Linden, Program Manager Jennie Proctor, Community Development Program Coordinator William Haack, Housing Services Specialist Department of Housing Services Susan Wilson, Director Ben Sturtz, Administrative Assistant City of Beaverton Janet Young, Economic Development Program Manager Michael Parkhurst, CDBG/HOME Coordinator Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC Matt Hastie, Project Manager Damian Pitt, Housing Needs Analysis Pam Picken, Stakeholder Meeting Assistance Steve Faust, Housing Needs Analysis Jennifer McReynolds, Graphic Production Sextant Consultants, Inc. Kurt Wehbring Sumner Sharpe, FAICP Ramsay Weit — i — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents VOLUME 1: CONSOLIDATED PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1 Organization of the Plan............................................................................................................2 Summary of Chapters...............................................................................................................3 Citizen Participation Process and Relationship to Other Local Plans...............................3 Community Profile...............................................................................................4 Non-Housing/Community Development Needs.........................................................5 Housing Market Analysis and Housing Homeless Needs Assessment.............................6 Goals, Policies and Strategies...................................................................................8 Priorities..........................................................................................................10 Implementation of the Plan....................................................................................11 CHAPTER 1. PLANNING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS............................13 Participants.............................................................................................................................13 Public Notice and Outreach...................................................................................................15 Published Materials..............................................................................................................15 Surveys................................................................................................................................16 Public Meetings, Focus Groups and Stakeholder Interviews ..................................................17 Proposed Consolidated Plan Publication, Hearings and Public Comments........................17 Other CPP Requirements........................................................................................................18 Other Related Planning Efforts................................................................................................18 CHAPTER 2. COMMUNITY PROFILE.......................................................................21 County Population.................................................................................................................21 Income and Poverty...............................................................................................................25 CHAPTER 3. NON-HOUSING/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS.....................29 Federal Program.....................................................................................................................29 Washington County Program................................................................................................30 Projects Funded....................................................................................................................30 Projects Not Funded..............................................................................................................31 Needs.........................................................................................................................31 Priorities............................................................................................................................33 Allocation Process................................................................................................................35 Application, Selection and Funding Processes........................................................................36 City of Beaverton Program.....................................................................................................37 Needs.........................................................................................................................37 Priorities............................................................................................................................39 Application, Selection and Funding Processes........................................................................39 — ii — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Table of Contents CHAPTER 4. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS AND HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT.......................................................................41 Summary of Needs.................................................................................................................41 Relevant Federal and County Programs...............................................................................47 General Housing Market Information.....................................................................................48 Total Housing Units...............................................................................................................48 Affordable Housing Units.....................................................................................................50 Geographic Concentration of Housing Stock.........................................................................51 Condition of Existing Housing Stock......................................................................................52 General Housing Assistance Needs.......................................................................................54 County Sub-Population Characteristics and Housing Needs...............................................56 Low Income Population.........................................................................................................56 Public Housing.....................................................................................................................65 Racial and Ethnic Minority Population..................................................................................67 Farmworkers...................................................................................................................75 Elderly Residents.................................................................................................................76 People with HIV/AIDS........................................................................................................77 People with Disabilities (Mental and Physical).......................................................................79 Victims of Domestic Violence................................................................................................82 People with Alcoholism/ Drug Addiction (Including Ex-Offenders)......................................83 Homelessness....................................................................................................................85 Sources of Homelessness........................................................................................................86 Who Are the Homeless?........................................................................................................87 Housing Needs of the Homeless..............................................................................................88 Unmet Housing Needs for Homeless Individuals and Families.................................................90 Homeless Needs and Distribution of Services..........................................................................90 Barriers to Providing Affordable Housing................................................................................91 CHAPTER 5. GOALS, POLICIES, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES..............................95 National, State and Regional Goals and Policies...................................................................97 National Policies..................................................................................................................97 State Goals and Policies.........................................................................................................99 Regional Goals and Policies.................................................................................................100 Local Goals and Policies.......................................................................................................103 Washington County Goals, Policies, Objectives and Strategies.............................................103 2000 Strategic Plan.......................................................................................................103 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policies and Implementing Strategies.......................104 Consolidated Plan Housing Goals, Strategies and Priorities.................................................107 Housing Priorities...............................................................................................................118 CDBG (Non-Housing) Long-Range Goals, Objectives and Priorities...................................123 — iii — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Table of Contents Washington County Principles, Policies, Objectives and Strategies................................123 Public Facilities.............................................................................................................123 Infrastructure Improvements......................................................................................125 Public Service Needs....................................................................................................125 Non-Housing Priorities..................................................................................................128 City of Beaverton Principles, Policies, Objectives and Strategies...........................................130 Guiding Principles........................................................................................................130 Programmatic Objectives..........................................................................................131 Housing Priorities...........................................................................................................132 CDBG Objectives and Projects....................................................................................133 Non-Housing Priorities..................................................................................................134 Anti-Poverty Strategy...........................................................................................................136 Performance Measures Placeholder....................................................................................141 CHAPTER 6. RELATIONSHIP OF CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS AND PROCESSES.....................................................143 Responsible Agencies and Authorities.................................................................................144 Key Program Participants...................................................................................................144 Other Affected and Coordinating Groups...........................................................................145 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS.............................................................149 TABLES Table 2-1. Population of Washington County Cities................................................................22 Table 2-2. Racial and Ethnic Composition of Population.....................................................24 Table 2-3. Poverty by Race/Ethnicity.....................................................................................25 Table 2-4. Age of County Population.....................................................................................26 Table 3-1. Identifi ed Non-Housing Needs by Major Category, Washington County........33 Table 3-2. Community Development Needs and Priorities, Washington County (HUD Table 2B)...............................................................................................................34 Table 3-3. Identifi ed Non-Housing Needs by Major Category, City of Beaverton.............39 Table 3-4. Community Development Needs and Priorities, City of Beaverton..................40 Table 4-1. Estimated Households with Very Low, Low and Moderate Incomes and Housing Problems, Washington County, 2005....................................................42 Table 4-2. Summary of Housing Needs and Services, Washington County, 2005..............45 Table 4-3. Median Monthly Housing Costs, Washington County, Oregon, 2000...............49 Table 4-4. Affordability of Median Priced Housing in Washington County, 2000...............50 Table 4-5. Age of Existing Housing Stock................................................................................53 Table 4-6. Blood Lead Level Test Results, Washington County, 2005...................................54 Table 4-7. Low and Moderate Income Households with Housing Problems (2005)...........55 Table 4-8. Areas with 46.1% or More Low and Moderate Income Households..................57 Table 4-9. Affordable Housing Units by Income Range (%MHI)...........................................63 — iv — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Table of Contents Table 4-10. Geographic Concentration of Subsidized Housing Units.................................66 Table 4-11. Housing Needs of Families on the Public Housing and Section 8 Tenant- Based Assistance Waiting Lists (Combined Section 8 and Public Housing)..............................................................................................................66 Table 4-12. Ethnic and Racial Composition of Washington County...................................67 Table 4-13. Areas with a Concentration of Racial or Ethnic Minorities................................68 Table 4-14. Low and Moderate Income Households by Race/Ethnicity............................73 Table 4-15. Housing Need by Racial and Ethnic Group.......................................................74 Table 4-16. Low and Moderate Income Households with One or More Elderly Resident..76 Table 4-17. Senior Households with Housing Problems.........................................................76 Table 4-18. Low and Moderate Income Households with Mobility or Self-Care Limitations (Totals Projected to 2005).................................................................79 Table 4-19. Low and Moderate Income Households with Mobility or Self-Care Limitation (Totals Projected to 2005).................................................................79 Table 4-20. Low and Moderate Income Households with Mobility or Self-Care Limitations and Housing Problems....................................................................80 Table 4-21. Facilities with Housing for People with Mental Health Disabilities.....................80 Table 4-22. Units Designated for People with Disabilities......................................................81 Table 4-23. Adult Residential Facilities for People with Drug and Alcohol Problems.........84 Table 4-24. Housing for People in Need of Drug or Alcohol Treatment...............................84 Table 4-25. Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless in Washington County, March 2004.....85 Table 4-26. Causes of Homelessness......................................................................................86 Table 4-27. Age of Homeless in Washington County, 2004..................................................87 Table 4-28. Ethnicity of Homeless............................................................................................88 Table 4-29. Washington County Housing Resources for Homeless Persons, 2004..............89 Table 4-30. Unmet Housing Needs for Homeless, 2004 (HUD Table 1A)...............................90 Table 4-31. Unmet Housing Needs for Homeless Subpopulations, 2004.............................90 Table 5-1. Priority Housing Needs (HUD Table 2A).................................................................119 Table 5-2. Housing Priorities by Housing and Program Type.................................................121 Table 5-3. Housing Needs and Priorities for Specifi c Populations.........................................122 Table 5-4. Homeless Needs Priorities......................................................................................122 Table 5-5. Community Development Needs and Priorities, Washington County.............129 Table 5-6. Community Development Needs and Priorities, City of Beaverton..................135 FIGURES Figure 2-1. Incorporated Cities in Washington County.........................................................23 Figure 3-1. Washington County CDBG Allocation Formula (2005-2010).............................35 Figure 4-1. Census Tracts with Low Income Concetration, Washington County..........59 Figure 4-2. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes........................................................................................60 — v — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Table of Contents Figure 4-3. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes, Detail Map 1..................................................................61 Figure 4-4. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes, Detail Map 2..................................................................62 Figure 4-5. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes, Detail Map 3..................................................................64 Figure 4-6. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population.........................................................................................................69 Figure 4-7. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population, Detail Map 1.....................................................................................70 Figure 4-8. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population, Detail Map 2.....................................................................................71 Figure 4-9. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population, Detail Map 3....................................................................................72 VOLUME 2: APPENDICES Appendix A. Washington County Non-Housing Needs and Objectives, 2005-2010 Appendix B. City of Beaverton Strategic Plan for Community Development and Housing Appendix C. HUD Summary Tables Appendix D. Continuum of Care Needs, Facilities, Goals and Actions Tables Appendix E. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, Demographic Data for Census Defi ned Places, and Countywide Demographic Characteristics and Trends * , Washington County Appendix F. Survey Summaries and Instruments, and Stakeholder Meeting Results Appendix G. Summary of Comments and Views and Any Comments or Views Not Accepted and the Reasons Therefore VOLUME 3: ACTION PLAN * The census data compiled by Portland State University’s Population Research Center is provided by the Department of Housing Services, Washington County. — 1 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary INTRODUCTION What is a Consolidated Plan? The 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan describes community needs and determines local priorities for using public resources to assist low and moderate-income residents of Washington County and the City of Beaverton. This plan has been developed using a comprehensive process prescribed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to identify housing, homeless, community, and economic development needs and resources and then formulate a fi ve-year plan to address identifi ed needs. It helps the community to defi ne housing and community development priorities and determine whether these priorities are being met. Why is the plan needed? The plan is required by HUD to guide Washington County and the City of Beaverton in their use of federal funding through several programs, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) programs, as well as use of Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program. This fi ve-year plan is augmented by annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) submissions to HUD. In Washington County, three jurisdictions receive formula allocations through the federal programs described above (excluding the HOPWA Program, which is managed by the City of Portland for the metropolitan region). Washington County is a CDBG and ESG entitlement agency and the HOME Participating Jurisdiction and as such receives an annual allocation under these three programs. In addition, the County, through the Offi ce of Community Development, acts as the lead agency for the Washington County HOME Consortium as well as for the development of the Consolidated Plan. The City of Beaverton receives its own allocation of CDBG funds annually and runs its program separately from Washington County. Beaverton CDBG funds must benefi t Beaverton residents exclusively. Because the City participates in the HOME Consortium Introduction & Executive Summary — 2 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary with the County, the HOME funds can be used throughout the County, including the City of Beaverton. The City of Hillsboro surpassed a population threshold of 50,000 prior to year 2000, which entitled it to a direct allocation of CDBG funds. However, the City opted to remain in the CDBG Consortium as a joint recipient. Under an Intergovernmental Agreement with the County, the County administers the City’s funds and manages its projects. The City of Hillsboro is also a member of the HOME Consortium and participates jointly in policymaking and project selection. Other incorporated cities that have not yet reached the required population thresholds are not direct recipients of the formula allocations but are still able to participate in and benefi t from the programs via the CDBG/ HOME Consortia Policy Advisory Board. Through this Board, these cities participate in making policy and programmatic decisions as well as project selection. While a requirement of HUD, the Consolidated Plan also serves as a tool for the three entitlement communities to plan for the use of the federal funds in the most effective and coordinated manner possible. It provides an overall framework for these communities while allowing for variations in their approaches to implementation. Is the plan binding? No, it is a document that sets targets and goals and identifi es strategies to achieve them. It is an enabling document that provides the County and others with information and support to meet future housing needs and to evaluate the consistency of specifi c proposals with County-wide goals and strategies. There is no penalty from HUD if the goals are not achieved as stated. The plan can be amended during the fi ve-year period following a public process. ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN This plan includes the following chapters (summarized in the following section): � Citizen Involvement (Chapter 1). This chapter summarizes the County’s Citizen Participation Plan and how it was implemented to involve the community in preparing this plan. � Community Profi le (Chapter 2). This chapter includes basic demographic information about residents of the County and City of Beaverton, including data about population levels and growth, income, poverty, and racial/ethnic composition. � Non-Housing/Community Development Needs (Chapter 3). This chapter summarizes community development needs identifi ed in Washington County and the City of — 3 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary Beaverton. � Housing Market Analysis and Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment (Chapter 4). This chapter describes housing conditions and characteristics in the County, with an emphasis on the needs of low and moderate income households, ethnic/minority groups, and households with special needs, as well as the homeless. It provides information about overall housing needs and housing supply, as well as the needs and locations of specifi c populations, available housing and related services, and the gaps between needs and available housing. � Goals, Policies and Strategies (Chapter 5). This chapter includes a set of long-term goals/implementation measures/priorities and strategies/actions that address stated objectives and priority needs in the plan. It summarizes overarching national, state and County goals and policies, as well as goals and strategies developed as part of this planning process, and identifi ed in a variety of related plans. � Plan Implementation (Chapter 6). This chapter describes the responsibilities of implementing agencies and other groups that participate in meeting housing and community development needs in the County. These elements are summarized in more detail in the following section. SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS Citizen Participation Process and Relationship to Other Local Plans During the development of the new Consolidated Plan, a variety of methods were used to gain citizen comment on housing and service priorities for low and moderate income individuals and those with special needs. These efforts included the following: � Written surveys � Stakeholder meetings and workshops � Meetings and consultations with a variety of advisory groups including the County’s HOME/CDBG Policy Advisory Board, Housing Programs Advisory Subcommittee (HPAS), the Housing Advocacy Group (HAG), and Housing and Supportive Services Network (HSSN) � Public meetings and hearings The 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan embraces the policy directives and strategies contained in several related plan documents that Washington County and the City of Beaverton have prepared recently. These documents include: � Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan (2004) � Continuum of Care Strategy (2004) � Fair Housing Plan: Analysis of Impediments and Strategies to Address Them (2004) — 4 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary � City of Beaverton Strategic Plan for Community Development and Housing (2004) � Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Plan (City of Portland, 2004) � Housing and Community Development Plan, 1995-2000 (1995) � County 2000 Strategic Plan (1994) � Affordable Housing Study (1993) Community Profi le In 2000, Washington County had a population of 445,342, a 43% increase over the 1990 population. The estimated County population in 2005 is 494,109, based on a projected average annual growth rate of 2.1% between the years 2000 and 2005. 1 Projected population for the year 2010 is 548,216, assuming the County continues to grow at the same rate as it has during the last fi ve years. Approximately 43% of the County’s residents lived in unincorporated areas, with the remaining 57% divided among sixteen incorporated communities. Development of the Washington County Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan Stakeholder, Citizen and Advisory Group Input Regional Strategy for Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (City of Portland) Washington County Public Housing Agency (Department of Housing Services) Other Federal, State and Local Policies, Guidelines and Regulations Washington County Continuum of Care Application (Housing and Supportive Services Network) Washington County Community Development Block Grant Planning (Office of Community Development) Beaverton Community Development and using Strategic Plan (City of Beaverton) Washington County Fair Housing Plan (Office of Community Development) Consolidated Plan and Action Plan 1 The City of Beaverton is not represented on the PAB. Except where otherwise noted, all 2005 fi gures used in this Consolidated Plan are based on the 2000 US Census with an assumed average annual growth rate of 2.1% between 2000 and 2005. This growth rate is based on estimated Washington County population projections for 2000 to 2040 (Source: Long-Term Population and Employment Projections for Oregon State and County Total Populations. State of Oregon, Offi ce of Economic Analysis. January, 1997.) — 5 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary Most of the County’s residents are white (82%). The largest minority/ethnic groups are Latino/Hispanic (11%) and Asian/ Pacifi c Islander (7%). The Latino/Hispanic population has increased signifi cantly during the last two decades. The median household income in Washington County was $52,122 in 1999. Incomes are highest in Sherwood, Banks, Tualatin, and in the unincorporated areas of the County. The lowest median household incomes are found in King City, Portland (portion in Washington County), Gaston, and Forest Grove. In 2000, 40% of the County’s households were in the “low to moderate” income category, meaning that they earned 80% or less of the median family income (MFI). Seven percent of all Washington County residents had incomes below the poverty rate in 2000. Poverty levels are highest among the Latino population, African Americans, Native Americans/ Alaskan Natives, and residents who defi ned their race as “other.” The number of elderly residents has continued to rise during the past decade and 9% of the County’s population is now age 65 or older. Non-Housing/Community Development Needs Chapter 3 of this Plan incorporates and summarizes Community Development Block Grant Plans for both Washington County and City of Beaverton. Washington County CDBG Program The Washington County CDBG program focuses on priority community development (non-housing) needs of low and moderate income persons in the County. This plan identifi es a wide variety of non-housing needs based on a survey of service providers in the County. As a result of the County survey, representatives of over 41 different organizations submitted questionnaires identifying a total of 174 needs related to a wide variety of programs and facilities. Many organizations identifi ed multiple needs. Of the total, 68 needs were identifi ed by cities, 24 by the County, 76 by non-profi t organizations, and 6 by special districts or similar organizations. These needs were identifi ed in the following categories: � Public Facilities, including those related to parks and recreation, health, neighborhoods, solid, waste, parking, non- residential historic preservation, asbestos removal and other needs. � Infrastructure Improvements, including those related to water, sewer, sidewalks, streets, fl ood drainage and other similar needs. � Public Service Needs, including those related to people with disabilities, transportation, substance abuse, employment training, health and other similar needs. — 6 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary City of Beaverton CDBG Program The City of Beaverton conducted a similar survey of community development needs and has identifi ed the following non-housing needs. Beaverton funds projects related to public facilities, infrastructure improvements and public services, as well as projects related to economic development and planning as community development. � Public Facilities, including those related to health care and structured parking. � Infrastructure Improvements, including those related to street, water, sewer, storm, drainage, and sidewalk improvements in targeted low and moderate income neighborhoods. � Public Service Needs, including those related to services for the City’s neediest residents, particularly those related to mental health services and emergency assistance, as well as services to youth and families with children (e.g., child care for low to moderate income families). � Economic Development, including downtown revitalization, public and private property rehabilitation, capital improvement infrastructure development, other commercial/industrial improvements, micro-enterprise assistance, and technical assistance. � Planning, including the collection and evaluation of data from a variety of sources to continue to maintain a suffi ciently current understanding of housing and other needs among Beaverton’s low to moderate income residents. More detailed information about these needs is included in Chapter 3 and Appendices A and B. Housing Market Analysis and Housing Homeless Needs Assessment The Consolidated Plan provides detailed information about housing conditions and characteristics in Washington County, including data about the needs of households with low and moderate incomes, ethnic/minority groups and populations with special needs. Washington County faces a wide variety of housing needs, particularly for households with low incomes and special needs. In 2005, over 30,000 households in Washington County had very low or low incomes. Over 75% of them (24,400 households) spend a significant portion of their income on housing and/or live in overcrowded dwellings or lack adequate plumbing or kitchen facilities. Over 16,000 moderate income households face similar circumstances. — 7 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary Approximately 34% of households in the County (over 63,000 households) have very low, low or moderate incomes. A signifi cant percentage of these households face some kind of housing problem, including cost burdens i.e., spend more than 30% of monthly income on housing, are overcrowded or lack complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. Those at the lowest income levels face the most signifi cant obstacles in obtaining affordable housing and most, particularly in the very low income category, cannot afford owner-occupied housing without multiple subsidies. Ethnic and racial minorities also make up a disproportionate number of lower income households and are concentrated in specifi c areas. For example 41% of Hispanic households have very low or low household incomes, in comparison to 28% of all households in the County. In addition, there are 16 block groups in the County that have some concentration of racial or ethnic minorities, i.e., the percentage of those households is 20% higher than the percentage across the whole County. All but two of these block groups represent a concentration of Hispanic/Latino residents. A signifi cant number of households in the County also have special needs, including seniors, people with substance abuse problems, victims of domestic violence, people with AIDS, ex-offenders, people with disabilities, farmworkers and the homeless. Selected fi ndings related to these groups include the following: Seniors. In 2000, there were 27,998 senior households in Washington County, making up approximately 16.5% of all households in the County. Of these, 13% were in the very low income category, 15% were low income households and 24% had moderate incomes. There are a relatively small number of publicly assisted housing units designated for elderly residents (571), though a more substantial number (approximately 3,600) of other residences targeted to seniors (e.g., residential care facilities, nursing facilities, assisted living facilities and adult foster homes) accept Medicare. Disabled Populations. US Census data indicates that there are a substantial number of persons in the County with disabilities though many of these persons do not have low or moderate incomes. In 2003, 3,241 individuals applied for and received social security benefi ts for the blind and disabled, another indicator of the number of people in the County with disabilities who receive public assistance. Substance Abuse. US Census data indicates that there were 35,387 people in the County in the year 2000 in need of drug or alcohol treatment (7.9% of the population). A number of living facilities and treatment centers provide housing options for this population, with approximately 282 existing or planned — 8 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary units available and targeted specifi cally to these individuals. Farmworkers. It is estimated that there are approximately 12,800 farmworkers in Washington County (2.9% of the population). Most work in the Hillsboro area or western portions of the County though a signifi cant number may live in other parts of the County. There are estimated 1,500 - 2,000 beds in on-site farmworker camps, and 232 designated farmworker housing units in the County. Ex-offenders. Approximately 2,600 people left Washington County’s prison system in 2003. Many of these individuals need some form of special or transitional housing. Some of the housing units targeted to people with substance abuse problems are available to ex-offenders. However, those units represent a relatively small percentage of the overall need for transitional housing for ex-offenders. Victims of Domestic Violence. More than one of every eight women in Oregon are estimated to have been victims of domestic violence in the last year. In 2002, Washington County fi elded 400 calls related to domestic violence. There is only one shelter in the County with 30 beds available for victims of domestic violence. Homeless. Sheltered and turned away homeless counts for March 2004 include 590 individuals. This number under-represents the homeless population as many homeless do not seek shelter in the County. Approximately 58% of these individuals were women and a signifi cant number were children under the age of 12 (35%). Four facilities house the homeless in Washington County, with a total overnight capacity of 98 beds. There is no shelter for single homeless men, women or youths in the County. While a variety of resources and facilities are available to help address the needs of low income and special needs households in the County, there remains a signifi cant gap between available resources and needs. In addition to facing a signifi cant gap between the need for and supply of housing for people with low incomes and special needs, County residents face a variety of barriers to obtaining affordable housing. These include regulatory barriers including increasing permitting, development and connection fees, land use and zoning controls, and complexities associated with using public resources. They also include market barriers, relating to rising land and housing prices, overall consumer preferences for larger and more elaborate homes, unequal access to loans, diminishing funds for federal housing voucher programs, and a variety of other factors. Goals, Policies and Strategies Goals and policies set at the national, state, regional level shape local strategies on economic and community development, — 9 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary housing and homelessness to a signifi cant degree. Chapter 5 includes a summary of those overarching goals and objectives as well as a comprehensive set of goals and strategies developed as part of this and other related planning processes. Overall County and City Goals and Objectives Washington County’s goals to address housing needs include the following: 1. Increase homeownership opportunities in Washington County, with an emphasis on those groups that are under-represented as homeowners; incorporate a bi-lingual capacity in implementing programs. 2. Reduce homelessness and provide needed services to those that are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless in Washington County. 3. Build and preserve housing units for households with special needs and diffi cult to serve households in Washington County 4. Increase housing options for ethnic and racial minority low income households, including promoting ethnically diverse neighborhoods and communities. 5. Preserve existing affordable housing stock in Washington County 6. Support designated Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOto carry out the Goals of the Consolidated Plan 7. Reduce costs and obstacles to develop affordable housing, including regulatory barriers and costs 8. Ensure equal access to affordable housing for all households in Washington County 9. Enhance community awareness of the need for and issues associated with housing for people with low incomes and special needs 10. Maximize production of units for households with 0-30% of the Median Family Income. 11. Promote development of high-quality, sustainable, housing and communities. These goals are not listed in order of priority. Specifi c County strategies related to these goals are described in Chapter 5. The City of Beaverton participated in developing these overall goals and strategies. The City also developed additional principals, goals and priorities which are described in Chapter 5 and Appendix B. Washington County’s overall goals to address non-housing/community development needs include: 1. Develop or improve a variety of public facilities to benefi t income-qualifying neighborhoods and income-qualifi ed special need populations. 2. Improve the infrastructure in income- — 10 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary qualifi ed areas to ensure the health and safety of communities, and to increase neighborhood pride and viability. 3. Provide limited public services that ensure the health and welfare of income-qualifi ed people living in the community. 4. Ensure existing housing occupied by income-qualifi ed persons is structurally safe, accessible, and energy effi cient. 5. Remove architectural barriers to public facilities, when these treatments are an integral part of a capital project. 6. Rehabilitate historic public facilities that are a blighting infl uence on a neighborhood, addressing documented safety and health concerns. 7. Restore infrastructure and public facilities whose condition poses a threat to the health or welfare of the community as a result of a declared disaster, where other fi nancial resources are not available to meet the need. The City of Beaverton also has identifi ed a set of guiding principles and programmatic objectives for meeting housing and non- housing needs. Guiding principles are described in Chapter 5 and Appendix B. The City’s programmatic objectives include the following: 1. Downtown Redevelopment/ Revitalization. Continue to explore a variety of approaches to encourage a healthy mix of uses in the downtown core which will benefi t the city as a whole and low to moderate income people in particular. 2. Affordable Housing. Maintain a reasonable level of funding for both the Housing Rehabilitation and Accessibility Rehabilitation programs throughout the fi ve year period of this plan. Support production of affordable housing through opportunities to partner with local nonprofi t developers and owners of special needs housing. 3. Public Services. Continue to allocate 15% of its entitlement amount for public service projects, and continue to contribute additional City funds from other sources as available, recognizing that agencies and programs funded by these grants are a critical part of the safety net for Beaverton’s most vulnerable citizens. Priorities Washington County Priorities for Housing and Community Development Needs The County and City of Beaverton have developed a set of relative priorities related to housing and community development needs. Housing priorities are identifi ed for specifi c housing types, income levels, programs and population groups. These priorities will be used as one factor in allocating federal funds — 11 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary for housing and homeless programs and projects. Non-housing priorities are related to specifi c types of projects. Following is a summary of high priorities. Additional priorities are described in Chapter 5. Highest Housing Priorities � Very low income renter households [0 - 30% median family income (MFI)] � Home ownership programs targeted to low income households � Housing rehabilitation programs for very low and low income households � Purchase, preservation and rehabilitation of housing for low or very low income households � Permanent housing and linked supportive services, as well as homeless prevention services � Assistance for persons with disabilities, and low income households with children Highest Non-Housing Priorities � Most types of needs related to public facilities, infrastructure and services are identifi ed as high priorities City of Beaverton 2 Highest Housing Priorities � Expand access to affordable housing for low income households � Expand access to affordable housing for special needs populations � Maintain and improve existing affordable housing � Encourage redevelopment that includes production of affordable housing � Prevent homelessness Non-Housing Priorities High priority needs include: � Health care facilities � Structured parking � Public services - disabilities, substance abuse, health care, transportation, employment training, other needs � Senior services � Economic development - rehabilitation, infrastructure, other needs IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN Upon its adoption, this document will be the basis for local funding decisions pertaining to the programs mentioned above. It will be used by the County’s Offi ce of Community Development in reviewing funding applications for specifi c projects under the CDGB, HOME, and ESG programs. Consistency with the Consolidated Plan will be one of a number of criteria the County will consider in allocating funds for projects funded through these programs. In addition, this plan provides a variety of other groups in the County with information it can use in seeking other opportunities to fund housing 2 While the City of Beaverton chose to identify a set of priorities separately from the County process, without exception they all fi t under and are consistent with the priority framework identifi ed by the County. — 12 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Executive Summary and community development projects and in obtaining public or political support for such efforts. The Consolidated Plan also is implemented through the County’s Annual Action Plans which include specifi c housing and community development projects intended to meet the needs identifi ed in this plan. — 13 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 The Washington County Consortium’s Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) sets forth policies and procedures to provide for and encourage participation by residents of Washington County and the City of Beaverton in the development of the two jurisdictions’ consolidated Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan. The provisions of the CPP fulfi ll statutory and regulatory requirements for citizen participation specifi ed in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s rules for the Consolidated Plan, the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program. This section of the plan provides a description of the CPP and how it was implemented for this project, including: � Published outreach materials � Surveys � Technical assistance provided to citizens and groups � Public meetings � Focus groups � Stakeholder interviews � Proposed plan publication � Public hearings � Public comment PARTICIPANTS The Consortium encourages its citizens to provide input into all aspects of the Washington County and City of Beaverton consortium’s Consolidated Planning activities and is committed to keeping interested groups and individuals informed of each phase of the Consolidated Planning process. Opportunities to comment on or participate in planning community development and affordable housing activities and projects related to preparation of the Consolidated Plan were provided throughout the County and in the City of Beaverton. The following groups participated in the development of the Consolidated Plan: Washington County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) The County is the recipient of CDBG, HOME, ADDI and ESG funds and, as such, is ultimately responsible for program administration and the use of funds. The BCC has fi nal approval authority for the Consolidated Plan and makes fi nal decisions on funding allocations. Planning & Public Involvement Process Chapter 1 — 14 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 Washington County Policy Advisory Board (PAB) By intergovernmental cooperation agreement, the BCC established the PAB to represent the County Consortium, and make recommendations to the BCC on all matters pertaining to the CDBG and HOME program. The PAB includes representatives, generally elected offi cials, from the County and each of the eleven participating cities within the County. 3 In 1999, Hillsboro qualifi ed to receive an independent CDBG entitlement but has elected to operate as a joint entitlement with Washington County. Housing Programs Advisory Subcommittee (HPAS) This group acts as an advisory committee to the PAB in developing housing-related policies, programs and documents, including the annual allocation of HOME funds. The HPAS includes representatives of a variety of housing stakeholder groups, as well as the cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro. The HPAS reviewed preliminary drafts of the Consolidated Plan and related documents and provided guidance at several points during the project. Washington County Offi ce of Community Development (OCD) The Washington County OCD administers the County’s CDBG, HOME, ADDI and ESG programs, providing staff support to the County and the PAB. OCD’s responsibilities are broad, from the development of plans, to monitoring projects for compliance with federal and local policies. OCD staff provides limited technical assistance to potential applicants to assist with project submissions, and to subsequently ensure successful program management and project administration. Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS) The Washington County DHS administers most federal public housing programs at the County level, with the exception of the HOME Program, and develops and provides housing and housing-related services for households with low and moderate incomes. The DHS also prepares and implements a Public Housing Agency Plan and the County’s Continuum of Care application, which are components of the Consolidated Plan. City of Beaverton City of Beaverton’s Mayor’s Offi ce administers the City’s CDBG program, providing staff to the City Council. City staff monitor projects for compliance with federal and local policies and provide technical assistance to potential applicants. Beaverton prepared a Strategic Plan for Community Development and Housing for incorporation in this Consolidated Plan (see Chapters 3 and 5 and Appendix B). It incorporated the results of 3 The City of Beaverton is not represented on the PAB. — 15 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 an extensive survey and focus group process involving a variety of housing and community development stakeholders. Housing Advocacy Group (HAG) of Washington County The HAG is a coalition primarily of housing providers and developers but also includes social service agencies, consumers, and industry affi liates such as lenders/funders. Its mission is to promote awareness of the need for affordable housing in Washington County and collectively advocate for additional resources at the local, state, and federal level. The group meets monthly, with approximately 25 regular attendees. The County met with this group to review their comments on the Plan during the update process. Housing and Supportive Services Network The Housing and Supportive Services Network (HSSN) is a diverse group of housing and service providers engaged in homeless issues and homelessness prevention. The HSSN develops the Washington County Continuum of Care plan and advises the Department of Housing Services on the annual application for McKinney-Vento funds. Project Sponsors Eligible recipients of CDBG and HOME funds include nonprofi t and for-profi t agencies, the County, and participating cities. These sponsor organizations develop project applications and, if selected for funding, administer projects. The Public To make the federal programs as responsive as possible to local community needs, the public is encouraged to participate in all phases of program development. The program adheres to the policies and procedures described in the Citizen Participation Plan. Information on these and other participants also is provided in chapter 6. PUBLIC NOTICE & OUTREACH An informed citizenry is critical to effective and responsive housing and community development programs. Efforts to educate residents and empower their participation were a continuous element of the Consolidated Planning process. The following public notifi cation, outreach efforts and opportunities for citizen involvement were conducted by both Washington County and the City of Beaverton. Published Materials � Display ad notices were published in newspapers of general circulation at least two weeks prior to public hearings, workshops and other meetings. All public notices were written in plain, simple language and distributed in Asian, Spanish as well as English publications. — 16 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 · Special brochures described the consolidated planning process, opportunities for citizen participation, and available funding through the CDBG, ADDI and HOME programs. Interested persons were able to use the brochure to request mailings, newsletters, and notices on consolidated planning activities. The consortium’s Consolidated Plan mailing list includes social service organizations, local jurisdictions, low income housing consumers, neighborhood groups, previous participants and commentators, and others expected to desire input on the plan. This list is updated continuously and available for inspection at the Washington County Offi ce of Community Development. Surveys � Washington County’s non-housing (community development) component of this Consolidated Plan was developed, in part, through an intensive survey process that involved local governments, non-profi ts and other organizations. The County mailed written surveys to over 250 service providers and County staff conducted two workshops with potential respondents to explain and answer questions about the survey and needs assessment process. Representatives of over 41 different organizations submitted questionnaires identifying a total of 174 needs related to a wide variety of programs and facilities. Results of the questionnaire are described in more detail in Chapter 5. � Washington County’s housing component of the Consolidated Plan was comprised of both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis included a Housing Needs Survey, which was distributed to approximately 180 housing and other service providers across the County. A series of meetings were held with representatives of these same providers as described in “Public Meetings and Stakeholder Interviews.” Results of the questionnaire are described in more detail in Chapter 5. � The City of Beaverton distributed a needs questionnaire to a variety of Beaverton residents and stakeholders, including current recipients of and recent applicants for CDBG Public Services grants, members of the Housing Advocacy Group, the Housing and Supportive Services Network, and City Staff. It was also posted on the City’s web site throughout April and May 2004. The questionnaire was used to identify housing and community development priorities. Representatives from 12 organizations returned questionnaires, identifying 33 local needs. Results of the questionnaire — 17 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 are described in more detail in Appendix G. Public Meetings, Focus Groups and Stakeholder Interviews A series of workshops was held for a group of stakeholders representing housing, homeless, and special needs issues. Participants included representatives of County Departments, non-profi t and for-profi t housing developers and service providers. This group met four times to identify and assess needs, priorities, goals and strategies related to housing for low/moderate income households and special needs populations. The following open, public meetings were held with stakeholder groups in order to update them on the Consolidated Planning process and solicit their ideas: Washington County � Several meetings were held with both the Washington County PAB and the HPAS to review and update the Washington County Preliminary Housing and Non-Housing Needs Assessment. This document was developed in advance of the Consolidated Plan so the County could conduct application workshops in 2004 for July 1, 2005 funding. · Presentations and informational materials, including preliminary drafts of the Consolidated Plan, were provided to the Housing Advocacy Group (HAG) and Housing and Supportive Services Network (HSSN). � The stakeholder meetings described above were conducted. Participants were subsequently given opportunities to review and comment on several preliminary drafts of the Consolidated Plan. City of Beaverton The City of Beaverton convened fi ve Focus Groups with stakeholders to discuss community needs in depth; two groups were made up of a variety of housing professionals, while two others were made up of service providers from a range of local nonprofi t agencies, and the remaining Focus Group was made up of City staff with a direct engagement with conditions in the community. Participants in focus groups conducted by the City of Beaverton identifi ed a variety of housing and non-housing issues and needs. The themes of the focus groups are summarized and discussed in more detail in Appendix B and refl ected in Beaverton’s guiding principles, programmatic objectives and strategies described in Chapters 3 and 5. PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED PLAN PUBLICATION, HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS A complete draft of the proposed Consolidated Plan was published at different stages of the process. A summary of the proposed — 18 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 Consolidated Plan was published in multiple newspapers of general circulation at the beginning of the required public comment period. The summary described the contents and purpose of the plan (including a summary of specifi c objectives), and included a list of the locations where copies of the entire proposed Consolidated Plan could be obtained or examined. Citizens and groups were also able to obtain a reasonable number of free copies of the proposed Consolidated Plan. A 30-day comment period was scheduled following the publication of each draft to allow citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its contents and submit comments. All comments and views of citizens received in writing, or orally at public hearings, were considered in preparation of the fi nal Consolidated Plan. A summary of these comments and views, and any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, are attached to this plan (see Appendix H). During each comment period, a public hearing was scheduled for citizens to express their views on needs and priorities in the areas of housing and community development presented in the plan. Every effort was made to ensure that public hearings were inclusive. Hearings were held at convenient times and locations in the evening and in places where people most affected by proposed activities could attend. Upon request, the consortium utilized hearings facilities that were accessible to persons with mobility impairments, provided appropriate materials, equipment, and interpreting services to facilitate the participation of non-English speaking persons and persons with visual and/or hearing impairments. OTHER CPP REQUIREMENTS In addition to the public involvement activities above, the full CPP contains policies and procedures regarding: � Displacement of persons by activities or projects funded through HUD entitlement � Amendments to the Consolidated Plan � Annual performance reports � Access to public records � Citizen complaints � Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan � Availability of the Citizen Participation Plan OTHER RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS In addition to involving representatives of local governments, community and stakeholder groups, and the general public in this process, a variety of other planning processes have been reviewed and incorporated in this Plan. As a result, this document is consistent with and incorporates elements the following plans: — 19 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 Public Housing Agency Plan The Housing Authority of Washington County updated its HUD-required fi ve-year and annual plans in FY 2005. The fi ve-year plan describes the agency’s mission for serving the needs of low income families in the jurisdiction as well as long-range goals and objectives for achieving this mission. Long-range goals and objectives are consistent with and/or incorporated in Chapter 5 of this plan. Continuum of Care Strategy The County’s Continuum of Care strategic plan addresses critical unmet needs for housing and services for the homeless in Washington County. Goals and recommended actions from the Continuum of Care plan are consistent with and/or incorporated in Chapter 5 of this document. The full text of these and other sections of the Continuum of Care plan are included in Appendix C. Fair Housing Plan Approved by the County in August, 2004, the plan includes an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction along with recommended actions to remedy identifi ed impediments. Recommended actions are consistent with and/or incorporated in Chapter 5 of this plan. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), City of Portland, 2004 This plan is prepared by the City of Portland for the entire metropolitan region, including Washington County. A representative of the County sits on the City’s HOPWA board and participates in funding allocation decisions. Recommended goals and objectives in the HOPWA plan are consistent with and/or incorporated in Chapter 5 of this plan. County 2000 Strategic Plan Adopted in updated form by the Board of County Commissioners in January 1994, this plan sets forth the philosophy, principles, and priorities guiding the delivery of services by Washington County government. Recommended goals and principles in the Strategic Plan are incorporated in Chapter 5 of this document. Strategic Plan for Community Development and Housing, City of Beaverton As its own entitlement agency, the City of Beaverton prepares a separate plan which guides allocation of its CDBG funds. Identifi ed CDBG needs, priorities, principles and objectives are consistent with or incorporated in this Consolidated Plan. Selected portions of the City of Beaverton’s plan are included in Chapters 3 and 5 of this plan. A complete copy of the plan is included in Appendix B. In addition, the City recently completed an Affordable Housing Study and Action Plan to guide these efforts. Strategies identifi ed in that document have been — 20 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 1 incorporated in this Consolidated Plan as well. Annual Action Plan, Washington County Each year, Washington County prepares an annual plan to guide allocation of federal funds for housing and community development needs, consistent with the Consolidated Plan. It will identify allocations for specifi c categories of CDBG and HOME needs, as well as individual projects and funding recipients. This document is an implementing plan of the Consolidated Plan but is prepared as a separate, stand-alone publication. Housing Issues Paper, Vision Action Network (VAN) This document was prepared as part of a collaborative process guided by the VAN and included a variety of housing stakeholders representing local government agencies, non- profi t groups, housing developers and others. It identifi es a vision, mission, goals and objectives for addressing affordable needs, including those for low income and special needs populations. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) Each year, the Washington County Consortium (the County and the City of Beaverton) prepares this document, describing and assessing their progress in carrying out the Consolidated Plan during the previous year. The CAPER provides detailed information about resources made available to and invested by the Consortium, the geographic distribution and location of these investments, the families and persons assisted (including information on race and ethnicity), actions taken to affi rmatively further fair housing, and other actions identifi ed in the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. Washington County Housing and Non- Housing Needs Assessment, June, 2004 This document was prepared to help bridge the gap between the 2000 - 2005 and 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plans. It was used in the County’s 2004 annual funding allocation processes for the CDBG and HOME processes to ensure that funding for projects recommended for 2005 would be consistent with needs identifi ed in the 2005 - 2010 Plan. Much of the information in that document has been incorporated in this Consolidated Plan. — 21 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 2 Washington County is a dynamic and diverse locale, with a wide variety of environments and communities lying within its 727 square miles. The eastern portion of the County is generally more urbanized and includes all or portions of several major cities. Urban portions of the County are known for leadership in the high-tech industry, and major employers such as Intel, IBM and Tektronix make it the state’s top manufacturing county. The world headquarters for both Nike and Columbia Sportswear are located in Washington County. The County also includes vast tracts of rural farm and forest land. In 2003, it ranked fi fth among all Oregon counties in value of agricultural production, with nearly $223 million in gross farm and ranch sales. More than half of this total came from greenhouse and nursery products, the County’s largest agricultural commodity. 4 Washington County has a highly educated population that enjoys excellent schools and a variety of cultural and recreational activities, including easy access to the Cascade and Coast Ranges and Pacifi c Ocean beaches. It is one of the more ethnically diverse counties in Oregon, with 18% of residents reporting a racial or ethnic background other than white. The County population includes large immigrant populations from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, as well as various Asian countries. COUNTY POPULATION According to the US Census, Washington County had a population of 445,342, in 2000, which was a 43% increase from the 1990 population. The estimated County population in 2005 is 494,109, based on a projected average annual growth rate of 2.1% between the years 2000 and 2005. 5 Approximately 43% of the County’s residents lived in unincorporated areas, with the remaining 57% divided among sixteen incorporated communities, as shown in Table 2-1 on the following page. The two largest cities, Beaverton and Hillsboro, make up a combined 34% of the County’s population. Only a handful of the smaller communities are in the rural western part of the County (see Figure 2-1 on page 23). Community Profile Chapter 2 4 Oregon Department of Agriculture. Oregon Agriculture: Facts and Figures. http://www.nass.usda.gov/or/factsfi gures04.pdf. June, 2004. 5 Except where otherwise noted, all 2005 fi gures used in this consolidated plan are based on the 2000 US Census with an assumed average annual growth rate of 2.1% between 2000 and 2005. This growth rate is based on estimated Washington County population projections for 2000 to 2040 (Source: Long-Term Population and Employment Projections for Oregon State and County Total Populations. State of Oregon, Offi ce of Economic Analysis. January, 1997.) — 22 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 2 Many of the County’s incorporated communities experienced rapid population growth between 1990 and 2000, particularly Sherwood (281% population increase), Banks (124%), Hillsboro (87%), and Durham (85%). According to the US Census there were 169,162 households in Washington County in the year 2000, of which approximately 67% were considered “family” households. The remainder were “non-family” households, consisting of individuals living alone or unrelated individuals living together. Of the 114,074 family households, 81% consisted of a male or female householder living with a spouse. The remaining 19% consisted of a male or female householder living with other relatives, but not with a spouse. The 2000 Census found an average of 2.61 persons per household throughout the County. Average household size was highest in Cornelius (3.31), Gaston (3.06) and Banks (2.92), and lowest in King City (1.40), Beaverton (2.00) and Tigard (2.06). There was also a signifi cant difference in average household size between the County’s Latino (4.11 persons per household) and non-Latino (2.61 persons per household) populations. 6 Table 2-1 Population of Washington County Cities Jurisdiction Population Percent of County Total Population Change 1990-2000 Banks 1,286 0.3% 128.4% Beaverton 76,129 17.1% 42.8% Cornelius 9,652 2.2% 57.0% Durham 1,382 0.3% 84.8% Forest Grove 17,708 4.0% 30.6% Gaston 600 0.1% 6.6% Hillsboro 70,186 15.8% 87.1% King City 1,949 0.4% -5.4% North Plains 1,605 0.4% 65.1% Portland 1 1,388 0.3% 16.0% Sherwood 11,791 2.6% 281.2% Tigard 41,223 9.3% 40.5% Tualatin 20,127 4.5% 51.8% Source: Washington County Housing Study. Population Research Center, Portland State University. June, 2003. 1 The cities of Portland and Tualatin are only partially contained within Washington County. Much smaller portions of Lake Oswego, Rivergrove, and Wilsonville are also within Washington County, totaling less than 60 residents in the year 2000. 6 Census 2000 SF 1 100% data; Cogan Owens Cogan. — 23 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 2 11 x 17 Placeholder for Figure 2-1. Incorporated Cities in Washington County — 24 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 2 As in most of Oregon, the vast majority of Washington County’s residents are white. Asians and Latinos are the largest minority groups. Table 2-2 shows the percentage of the County’s population that lies within each ethnic group. The Washington County communities with the greatest concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents are Cornelius (37%), Hillsboro (19%), and Forest Grove (17%). The greatest concentrations of other, non-Hispanic/ Latino minority residents are in Beaverton (15%), Hillsboro (11%), Tigard (10%), and unincorporated Washington County (12%). In all four cases the majority of these residents are Asian. Asian and Hispanic/ Latino residents are the fastest-growing minority populations. The Asian population grew by more than 500% between 1990 and 2000 in Hillsboro, Banks, and Sherwood. The Hispanic/ Latino population increased by nearly 450% in Tigard over that time period, and by around 700% in Durham and Tualatin. 7 For the sake of brevity, this report will hereafter refer to persons of Hispanic or Latino origin as simply “Latinos.” 7 Washington County Housing Study for Washington County Department of Housing Services. Population Research Center, Portland State University. June, 2003. p. 4. Table 2-2 Racial and Ethnic Composition of Population Racial/ Ethnic Group Population in County Percent of Population White 366,007 82% Black/African American 5,119 1% American Indian/ Alaskan Native 2,913 1% Asian 29,752 7% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1,325 0.4 Other Race 26,100 6 Two or More Races 14,126 3 Latino or Hispanic Origin 1 49,735 11% Source: Census 2000 SF 1 100% data; Cogan Owens Cogan. 1 The Census addresses Hispanic or Latino origin separately from one's race or ethnicity, because Hispanic or Latino people can be of any race. People who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the Census also identify themselves as members of one or more racial categories. 2 Due to this "double counting," many of the tables in this report that present information by racial or ethnic groups, including this table, will have totals that exceed the total number of individuals or households in the County. 2 Circumstantial evidence suggests that many Latinos select "Other" when asked to identify their race, as in many cases the communities or census tracts that have a high percentage of Hispanic or Latino persons also have a relatively high percentage of residents who identify their race as "Other." — 25 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 2 INCOME AND POVERTY The median household income in Washington County was $52,122 in 1999, with the highest in Sherwood ($62,518), Banks ($57,500), Tualatin ($53,506 for the portion in Washington County), and the unincorporated areas of the County ($56,619). The lowest median household incomes were in King City ($28,617), Portland ($28,929 for the portion in Washington County), Gaston ($36,458), and Forest Grove ($40,135). Median household incomes grew the most between 1990 and 2000 in Sherwood (75%) and Banks (82%). 8 In 2000, 34% of the County’s households were in the “low to moderate” income category, meaning that they earned 80% or less of the median family income (MFI). The “low to moderate income” percentages are the basis for the distribution of HUD housing assistance funds, and are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. Median family incomes are typically higher than median household incomes because a higher percentage of 8 Washington County Housing Study for Washington County Department of Housing Services. Population Research Center, Portland State University. June, 2003. p. 8. Table 2-3 Poverty by Race/Ethnicity Racial or Ethnic Group 2000 poverty rates Share of all persons below poverty level** All Washington County Residents 7% NA White 6% 66% Black/African American 11% 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native 11% 1% Asian/Pacific Islander 9% 9% Other Race 24% 19% Two or More Races 10% 4% Latino 21% 31% Source: Washington County Housing Study. Population Research Center, Portland State University. June, 2003. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% All Washington County Residents White Black/African American American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Racial or Ethnic Group 2000 poverty rates Share of all persons below poverty level (N/A for "All Washington County Residents") Poverty by Race/Ethnicity — 26 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 2 families include two wage-earners, in comparison to the average household. Federal poverty fi gures 9 are another tool for assessing income levels in the County. These fi gures come directly from the 2000 Census, and allow comparison among the County’s incorporated communities and racial and ethnic groups. Seven percent of all Washington County residents had incomes below the poverty rate in 2000, a slight increase from 1990. Poverty rates were lowest in King City 10 (2.4%), Sherwood (2.7%), and Banks (3.2%). They were highest in Cornelius (16.1%) and Forest Grove (14.3%). The jurisdictions with the greatest increase in poverty rate from 1990 to 2000 were Durham (from 1% to 11%), Portland (from 7% to 12%), and Cornelius (from 10% to 16%). 11 Additional information about these populations is included in Chapter 4. County-wide, nearly two- thirds of the residents below the poverty level were white, although the percentage of all white residents who were below the poverty level was lower than any other ethnic group. The highest poverty rates were found among Latino residents (21%), residents who defi ned their race as “other” (24%), African Americans (11%), and Native Americans/ Alaskan Natives (11%). The median age of Washington County residents is 33 years old. The County’s Latino residents are signifi cantly younger on average, with a median age of 23.5 years old. More than half (55%) of the County’s Latino population is less than 25 years old, while only 4% of Latinos are age 55 or above. In contrast, only 35% of the County’s non-Latino population is less than 25 years old, while 16% of non-Latinos are age 55 or above. The complete age breakdown for the County’s Latino and non-Latino populations is shown in Table 2-4 and the chart on page 27. 9 The US Census determines poverty status by comparing an individual or family’s income to a “poverty threshold” determined by the size of a family and the age of its members. For example, the year 2003 poverty threshold for a single person under age 65 with no children is $9,573 per year, whereas the threshold for a four-person family with two children is $18,660. Additional information on Census poverty calculations is available at www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html. 10 King City has a low poverty rate, despite having the lowest median family income of all the incorporated communities in Washington County. This is possible because the federal poverty rate varies according to household size, and King City has by far the lowest average household size (1.4 persons) of any community in Washington County. 11 Washington County Housing Study for Washington County Department of Housing Services. Population Research Center, Portland State University. June, 2003. p. 8. Table 2-4 Age of County Population Non-Latinos Latinos Age Total Percent Total Percent Under 18 years 110,718 26% 8,900 40% 18 to 24 37,938 9% 3,394 15% 25 to 34 71,628 17% 4,747 22% 35 to 44 72,743 17% 2,690 12% 45 to 54 60,034 14% 1,309 6% 55 to 64 31,353 7% 537 2% 65 and over 38,946 9% 405 2% Source: Census 2000 SF 1 100% data; Cogan Owens Cogan. — 27 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 2 Age of County Population 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Under 18 years 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Age P e r c e n t of C o un t y P o p u l a t i on Non-Latinos Latinos — 29 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program focuses on priority community development (non-housing) needs of low and moderate income persons in the County. Washington County and the City of Beaverton independently operate CDBG programs for their respective jurisdictions. While the programs are separate and distinct, there is some coordination during the needs assessment component of the Consolidated Plan process. The needs collected for the 2005-2010 cycle are presented separately for the convenience of the user. This chapter contains CDBG plans for both the County and City of Beaverton. Needs and priorities are described separately for each. Every fi ve years, a needs assessment survey is distributed to a broad range of community representatives regarding anticipated community development needs in the County. The results of the survey have been used to establish a list of non-housing needs to be addressed with CDBG funds. Each year, public, private, and non-profi t organizations apply for CDBG funds to help pay for specifi c community projects. Consistency with overall needs identifi ed in this plan is one of the criteria used to approve funding for these projects. This chapter provides an overview of federal and County programs, a summary of Washington County’s and the City of Beaverton’s non-housing needs for 2005 - 2010, and an outline of the allocation process for CDBG grants. Goals and objectives related to non-housing or community development needs are included in Chapter 5, the document’s Strategic Plan element. FEDERAL PROGRAM Congress created the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program by authorizing Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The overall purpose of the CDBG Program is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. CDBG activities are initiated and developed at the local level based upon a community’s perceptions of its local needs, priorities, and benefi ts to the community. Each entitlement grantee receiving CDBG funds determines what activities it will fund, as long as each project is eligible and meets one of the broad national objectives to: benefi t persons of low and moderate income; aid in the prevention or Non-Housing/Community Development Needs Chapter 3 — 30 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 elimination of slums or blight; or meet other community development needs of particular urgency. WASHINGTON COUNTY PROGRAM Established in 1979, the Washington County CDBG program has expended over $50 million on projects directed at activities benefi ting low and moderate income persons. Over the years, the County’s strategies have changed to accommodate community needs. This has been accomplished through changes in the general allocation formula, which guides the proportion of funds to be expended within the program’s major funding categories. Program categories include: public facilities; infrastructure improvements; public services; and housing rehabilitation. Projects Funded � Public Facilities. This category was originally titled “community facilities.” In the early years of the Washington County program, a large portion of the funds expended was used to construct senior centers. In recent years, much of the money spent in this category has been used for shelters, residential treatment facilities, day care centers, and other multi-purpose community centers. � Infrastructure Improvements. Previously known as “neighborhood revitalization,” this category includes projects such as streets and sidewalks. Expenditures for infrastructure improvements have fl uctuated over the years, from a low of 20% to a high of 40% in a given planning cycle. � Public Services. In response to reductions in federal and state funding for public services, the County increased the allocation for this category from 10% to 15%, during the 1994-97 funding cycle. This is the maximum allowed by the federal government for public services. This category has become the most competitive, with the largest number of applications submitted. � Dedicated Funding for Weatherization and Housing Rehabilitation. Expenditures in Washington County have fl uctuated from a low of about 15% in the fi rst funding cycle, to a high of about 30% in the 1997-2000 cycle. Within the housing rehabilitation program, new components have been added to address needs expressed in the community. One example of this is a program that makes accessibility improvements to both owned and rental units, when occupied by residents who are income-qualifi ed and elderly or disabled. Special needs housing, such as shelters, group homes and residential treatment facilities for presumed benefi t groups, are not considered to be permanent or new housing and, thus, are included in Public — 31 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 Facilities. Projects Not Funded The Washington County CDBG program has elected not to fund certain types of projects, although they are permitted to do so by the federal government. Reasons for not funding these projects vary. � In the early 1990’s, it was decided that economic development projects would not be funded because of the successful and expanding industrial and commercial base of the County. Job training and employment services are eligible under the public services category. � Planning studies are not funded unless related to the overall functioning and general administration of the CDBG program. � “Stand alone” projects to improve accessibility of public facilities are not funded because of concerns regarding the potential cost of ensuring that public facilities comply with federal accessibility requirements. The CDBG program, as required by federal law, ensures that all projects comply with federal accessibility requirements and standards. In previous cycles, the County’s CDBG program dedicated funds for the purchase of land to construct affordable housing; however, in 1997, the decision was made to discontinue this allocation. Needs The Washington County non-housing (community development) component of this needs assessment was developed through an intensive survey process that involved local governments, non-profi ts and other organizations. In January, 2004, the County mailed written surveys to over 250 service providers. County staff also conducted two workshops with potential applicants to explain and answer questions about the survey and needs assessment process. Representatives of over 41 different organizations submitted questionnaires identifying a total of 174 needs related to a wide variety of programs and facilities. Many organizations identifi ed multiple needs. Of the total, 68 needs were identifi ed by cities, 24 by the County, 76 by non-profi t organizations and 6 by special districts or similar organizations. Needs identifi ed through these assessments fall into the following major and sub- categories: � Public Facilities, including the following sub-categories: ~ Neighborhood Facilities, such as libraries, community centers and drug and alcohol treatment facilities ~ Parks & Recreation Facilities, including playgrounds, community gardens, — 32 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 camps, picnic areas, playing fi elds, trails, and neighborhood park and recreation facilities ~ Health Facilities, including assisted living facilities and those for the developmentally disabled ~ Parking Facilities, including those for service facilities ~ Non-Residential Historic Preservation, including replacement of an elevator in an historic structure ~ Other Public Facilities Needs, including senior, youth and childcare centers, multipurpose community centers, libraries, and facilities for victims of domestic violence, ex-offenders, homeless and other special needs populations � Infrastructure Improvements, including the following sub-categories: ~ Water Improvements, including water lines and storage facilities ~ Sewer Improvements ~ Sidewalk Improvements ~ Street Improvements, including development of new streets and rehabilitation of deteriorating existing roads ~ Flood Drain Improvements ~ Other Infrastructure Needs, including transit improvements in low income areas � Public Service Needs, including the following sub-categories: ~ Handicapped Services, including retirement programming, cultural programs and other transitional services for adults with development disabilities ~ Transportation Services, including shuttle services, bus, rail and gas vouchers, and other programs to improve accessibility ~ Substance Abuse Services, including integrated substance abuse and mental health treatment services ~ Employment Training, including both general training and programs for persons with development disabilities ~ Health Services, including prenatal and parenting support, outpatient mental health services, dental care, and better access to acute medical care ~ Other Public Service Needs, including senior, youth and childcare services, anti-crime services, emergency assistance, counseling and support services, family literacy programs, employment training, homeless supportive services, and homeownership programming Need statements were reviewed, compiled, categorized and have been summarized in this plan (see Appendix A for detailed information — 33 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 about specifi c needs). Objectives that refl ect these needs also have been developed for incorporation in this document (see chapter 5). Identifi ed needs and associated costs are summarized by major category below (Tables 3-1 and 3-2). Priorities Priorities for community development needs are described in the Table 3-2 (HUD Table 2B) on the following page. This table is repeated in Chapter 5. Goals and objectives to meet non-housing needs also are described in Chapter 5. Based on the needs assessment process conducted from January through June 2004, the County noted a signifi cant increase in the estimated costs of public facility and public service needs as compared to the previous planning period (even taking into consideration the change in the length of the planning cycle). Based on these estimates, the Policy Advisory Board opted to amend the allocation formula, increasing the percentage of funds to be allocated to public facilities and thereby decreasing the percentage of funds to be allocated to infrastructure projects. The 15% limit for public services is set by statute and cannot be changed without congressional action. Based on the needs assessment, the County opted to maintain public facility needs as a high priority with the exception of parking and non-residential historic preservation. These were identifi ed as lower priorities. Essential infrastructure needs such as water/ sewer, sidewalks, street improvements and fl ood drain improvements were identifi ed as high priorities. The county received no need statements for solid waste disposal improvements and one need statement under the “other” category. Essentially, the County opted to identify all public service projects as high priorities, given the very limited amount of money available and the clear indication during the needs assessment process that this would continue to be the most competitive category. Both the number of needs statements submitted and the total estimated costs increased signifi cantly since the last cycle. No need statements were submitted under Lead Hazard Screening. Table 3-1 Identified Non-Housing Needs by Major Category, Washington County Need Category Number Combined Cost Percent of Total Public Facilities 57 $84,881,080 77% Infrastructure 23 $ 9,546,800 9% Public Services 94 $15,987,862 14% Totals 174 $110,415,742 100% — 34 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 Table 3-2 Community Development Needs and Priorities, Washington County (HUD Table 2B) Source: Washington County Office of Community Development H=High; M=Medium; L=Low; N=No need identified Priority Community Development Needs Priority Need Level Number of Needs Identified Dollars to Address Unmet Priority Need PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS Neighborhood Facilities H 4 $4,550,000 Parks and/or Recreation Facilities H 20 $34,047,500 Health Facilities H 2 $0 Parking Facilities L 2 $1,405,000 Non-Residential Historic Preservation L 2 $565,000 Senior Centers H 3 $4,950,000 Handicapped Centers H 1 $5,800,000 Child Care Centers H 1 $448,580 Youth Centers H 3 $4,950,000 Homeless Facilities H 4 $2,200,000 Other Public Facility Needs H 15 $25,965,000 INFRASTRUCTURE Water/Sewer Improvements H 6 $4,350,000 Sidewalks H 4 $1,095,000 Street Improvements H 9 $2,951,800 Solid Waste Disposal Improvements N 0 $0 Flood Drain Improvements H 3 $900,000 Other Infrastructure Needs M 1 $250,000 PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS Handicapped Services H 6 $423,662 Transportation Services H 4 $2,328,112 Substance Abuse Services H 1 $405,000 Employment Training H 2 $100,000 Health Services H 6 $1,714,788 Senior Services H 5 $833,000 Crime Awareness H 5 $236,000 Youth Services H 13 $2,431,500 Child Care Services H 7 $483,000 Lead Hazard Screening N 0 $0 Other Public Service Needs H 45 $7,032,800 Total Estimated Dollars Needed: 174 $110,415,742 — 35 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 Allocation Process Guidelines for allocating CDBG grants are established by the Washington County Policy Advisory Board. The program uses three steps to determine which projects will receive funding. First, an allocation formula is developed that identifi es the proportion of funds that will be allocated to each general program category. Second, objectives are established based on the results of the community needs assessment and only projects addressing those objectives are considered for funding. Finally, projects are evaluated according to specifi c criteria. These criteria are designed to ensure that projects address long- and short-term County objectives and that only viable and effective projects are selected. This Consolidated Plan includes the guidelines for program expenditures during the fi ve-year planning cycle from 2005-2010. Actual expenditures may vary from these standards, depending on project submissions, the results of the project selection process, and the amount of funds needed for individual projects. The allocation formula, shown in the fi gure below, is based on County needs as identifi ed through the survey of community needs described above. Consideration also is given to addressing needs for which other funding sources are limited. It should be noted that HUD’s CDBG guidelines limit funding for program administration to 20% of the annual entitlement plus program income. These funds, in addition to funds set aside for contingencies, are withdrawn from the pool of available resources prior to distribution of funds in each of the program categories. The formula below represents changes from the 2003-2005 cycle in infrastructure and public facilities as explained below: Public Facilities. The allocation percentage for this category has been increased from 35% to 40%. The number of needs submitted as well as the overall estimated costs has risen. Because the program will be conducting application intake on an annual basis, the Policy Advisory Figure 3-1 Washington County CDBG Allocation Formula (2005-2010) Washington County CDBG Allocation Formula Public Facilities 40% Infrastructure 20% Public Services 15% Housing Rehabilitation 25% — 36 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 Board recommended the allocation percentage for the fi rst year of the cycle with an option to re-evaluate after the fi rst annual application intake. Infrastructure Improvements. The allocation percentage for this category has been decreased from 25% to 20%. The number of needs submitted as well as the overall estimated cost has decreased. Public Services. The federal government limits the amount of CDBG funds that can be allocated for public service projects to 15% of the annual entitlement plus program income. This category continues to be the most competitive. As a result, the level of funding for this category will be maintained at the maximum amount allowable. Housing Rehabilitation. The allocation percentage for this category is held steady at 25%. The County’s Housing Rehabilitation Program, which includes accessibility improvements and urgent repairs for the elderly, is funded out of this non-competitive category. In addition, the Policy Advisory Board recommended the continuation of an annual set-aside for Rebuilding Together’s Housing Rehabilitation Program as well as Community Action’s Self Help and Comprehensive Weatherization Programs. Application, Selection and Funding Processes In August 2004, following adoption of this Needs Assessment Summary, OCD sponsored workshops for prospective project applicants to provide information and materials needed to develop project proposals. Proposals were due in October 2004. Competitive categories are as follows: Public Facilities; Infrastructure; and Public Services. It should be noted that the PAB will only accept proposals that address objectives identifi ed in this Plan. Organizations should be aware that not all program activities are open to competition. For example, funding is dedicated for CDBG- eligible activities, including the County’s Housing Rehabilitation Program and Weatherization activities. Following receipt of project proposals, OCD staff reviews proposals, and clarifi es questions with applicants. Staff prepares a preliminary analysis of proposals, which are then sent to applicants and the PAB. The PAB allows applicants to briefl y present proposals and address questions at a public meeting. Finally, the PAB rates proposals according to established criteria. Projects are then listed in order of rank, within program categories. Each year, when the federal government informs the County of the amount of its annual entitlement, funds will be allocated — 37 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 to each program category, according to the formula in this Plan. Subsequently, grant awards will be made to the highest-ranking projects in each category, to the extent that funds are available. Following PAB recommendation and endorsement by the Board of County Commissioners, selected projects are included in the County’s annual Action Plan, which is submitted to HUD. The County then enters into agreements with project sponsors, with funding normally beginning July 1. CITY OF BEAVERTON PROGRAM Since the inception of Beaverton’s CDBG program in 1994, the City has completed several major investments in public facilities and infrastructure. The City has traditionally expended the full 15% allowed for grants to local public service agencies that directly serve low income people in the community. Over the next fi ve years, the City expects to move toward a greater focus on downtown redevelopment/revitalization efforts and on affordable housing. Program categories include: public facilities; infrastructure; public services; economic development; and planning. Needs The City of Beaverton distributed a Needs Questionnaire on housing and community development priorities to the participants in the Housing and Supportive Services Network, the Washington County Housing Advocacy Group, and agencies that recently received City CDBG Public Service grants. A total of 12 questionnaires were received by the City. In addition, the City convened fi ve Focus Groups with stakeholders to discuss community needs in depth; two groups were made up of a variety of housing professionals, while two others were made up of service providers from a range of local nonprofi t agencies, and the remaining Focus Group was made up of City staff with a direct engagement with conditions in the community. A complete account of questionnaire responses and of themes and needs that emerged from focus group discussions can be found in Appendix B. Public Facilities The unmet need for affordable primary health care is well documented. The City is currently partnering with a variety of local parties to facilitate the construction of a new Federally Qualifi ed Health Center in downtown Beaverton, to be operated by Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Centers. Structured parking is a crucial aspect of creating suitably dense, urban development in downtown Beaverton. The City’s recently commissioned Downtown Regional Center Development Strategy identifi ed the cost of — 38 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 structured parking as one of the key obstacles to downtown redevelopment: Within the next 10 years, the City must ensure that structured parking is available in downtown Beaverton. Structured parking will require public and private investments that involve risk capital and long payout periods. This will require public investment as private investors typically look for a return on their investment in fi ve years or less. It will be diffi cult if not impossible, for private developers to make a profi t on a project that includes structured parking in the short-term. Thus if the City of Beaverton Region wants structured parking, they may have to build publicly funded and fi nanced parking structures. Infrastructure Based on priorities identifi ed in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), the CDBG program could fund street, water, sewer, storm, drainage, and sidewalk improvements in targeted low and moderate income neighborhoods. Public Services (including Anti-Crime, Youth, and Senior Programs) Public service grants allow the City to assist agencies directly serving Beaverton’s neediest residents. 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan Focus Groups strongly reinforced the need for public services funding, particularly for mental health services and emergency assistance, as well as services to youth and families with children. Focus Group participants also identifi ed access to quality, affordable child care as a major challenge for low-to-moderate income parents. In addition to the maximum 15% of CDBG funds that are allocated to public service projects annually (which averages just over $100,000), the City has contributed an average of $150,000 from state revenue sharing funds annually to fund a total of around $250,000 worth of public service agencies each year. Recent grants have funded: parenting classes and support groups, substance abuse services, homeless shelters, survival English classes, health services, youth programs, senior programs, and services for domestic violence survivors. The City also provides offi ce space to several nonprofi t social service agencies in the Beaverton Community Center (which was built with CDBG funds). Economic Development The City’s downtown redevelopment/ revitalization vision is intimately connected to the national CDBG objective of promoting economic opportunity for low-to-moderate income residents. The City is currently exploring the use of CDBG funds to promote — 39 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 a variety of objectives in the downtown core, including the elimination of slum and blight, brownfi elds remediation, storefront improvements, and job creation and retention. Planning The City engages in a diverse multitude of planning efforts, both on its own and with partners throughout the region. The greatest planning need that bears directly on the CDBG and HOME programs is continuing to maintain a suffi ciently current understanding of housing and other needs among Beaverton’s low- to-moderate income residents. Staff will continually collect and evaluate data from a variety of sources, including the Census, HUD, the State of Oregon, and Metro. Priorities Priorities for community development needs are described in the Table 3-4 (HUD Table 2B) on the following page. This table is repeated in Chapter 5. Goal and objectives related to non-housing needs for the City of Beaverton also are described in Chapter 5. Application, Selection and Funding Processes CDBG-funded projects are determined by the City each winter for the program year beginning the following July, and are described in the annual Action Plan distributed in March. Beaverton Public Services grants are awarded through a competitive public process each year, which includes state revenue sharing funds as well as CDBG grants. The City’s Social Services Funding Committee reviews applications and interviews applicants; the Committee then forwards to the Mayor a recommendation to allocate available funding between eligible programs. Beaverton HOME funds are awarded through a competitive application process each year. Contact the Mayor’s Offi ce at the City for more information, or to request an application. Table 3-3 Identified Non-Housing Needs by Major Category, City of Beaverton Need Category Number Combined Cost Percent of Total Public Facilities $20,000,000 68% Infrastructure $ % Public Services $5,500,000 17% Economic Development $4,000,000 15% Totals $29,500,000 100% — 40 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 3 Table 3-4 Community Development Needs and Priorities, City of Beaverton Priority Community Development Needs Priority Need Level Estimated Dollars to Address PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS Neighborhood Facilities M Parks and/or Recreation Facilities L Health Facilities H $ 5,000,000 Parking Facilities H $15,000,000 Solid Waste Disposal Improvements L Asbestos Removal L Non-Residential Historic Preservation M Other Public Facility Needs M INFRASTRUCTURE Water/Sewer Improvements M Street Improvements M Sidewalks M Sewer Improvements M Flood Drain Improvements M Other Infrastructure Needs M PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS Services to Persons with Disabilities H $ 1,000,000 Transportation Services H $ 500,000 Substance Abuse Services H $ 1,000,000 Employment Training H $ 500,000 Health Services H $ 1,000,000 Other Public Service Needs H $ 1,000,000 ANTI-CRIME PROGRAMS Crime Awareness H Other Anti-Crime Programs H YOUTH PROGRAMS Youth Centers H Child Care Centers H Youth Services H Child Care Services H Other Youth Programs H SENIOR PROGRAMS Senior Centers M Senior Services H 500,000 Other Senior Programs H ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Rehab; Publicly- or Privately - Owned H 1,000,000 CI Infrastructure Development H $ 1,000,000 Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements H Micro-Enterprise Assistance M ED Technical Assistance M Other Economic Development H $ 2,000,000 PLANNING Planning M TOTAL ESTIMATED DOLLARS NEEDED: $29,500,000 H=High; M=Medium; L=Low — 41 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 This chapter includes the following information related to housing characteristics, needs and supply in Washington County: � Overall summary of housing needs and priorities (p. 41-46). � Federal and County programs that provide housing assistance to County residents (p. p. 47-48). � General information about the Washington County housing market, including the number of units and condition of existing housing stock, availability of affordable housing, and geographic concentrations of affordable units (p. 48-54). � Housing needs for all County residents and certain sub-populations, including the extent of the unmet affordable housing need for each group which include the following: (p. 54-85) ~ Very low, low and moderate income households ~ Racial and ethnic minority groups ~ Farmworkers ~ Elderly residents ~ People with disabilities ~ Victims of domestic violence ~ People with substance abuse problems ~ Ex-offenders Housing facilities and services for these populations are summarized in Table 4-2 and described in more detail on pages 54- 85 and in Appendix C (Continuum of Care summary). � The nature and extent of homelessness in Washington County and the types of housing and other support programs available to the County’s homeless residents (p. 85-91). � The barriers and obstacles to providing affordable housing (p. 91-93). SUMMARY OF NEEDS Washington County faces a wide variety of housing needs, particularly for households with low incomes and special needs. Approximately 34% of households in the County have very low, low or moderate incomes. A signifi cant percentage of these households (approximately 65% of low and moderate income households or 32% of all households) face some kind of housing problem. These housing problems can include a cost burden (i.e., spending more than 30% of monthly income on housing), overcrowding (more than 1.01 persons per room), or a lack of complete kitchen or plumbing facilities (see Table Housing Market Analysis and Housing and Homeless Needs Assessment Chapter 4 — 42 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 4-1). Those at the lowest income levels face the most signifi cant obstacles in obtaining affordable housing and most, particularly in the very low-income category, cannot afford owner-occupied housing without multiple subsidies. Those at the lowest income levels also can be threatened with homelessness, as can many households with special needs and limited incomes, including people with severe disabilities, chronic alcohol and drug abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. The conditions and needs of these groups are summarized below and described in more detail later in this chapter. Many of these households are concentrated in specifi c areas. For example, in 62 census block groups in the County (see Table 4-7) at least 46.1% are low and moderate income households (the County’s proposed threshold for eligibility for CDBG funds). Ethnic and racial minorities also make up a disproportionate number of lower income households and are concentrated in specifi c areas. For example 41% of Latino households have very low or low household incomes, in comparison to 28% of all households in the County. In addition, there are 16 block groups in the County that have some concentration of racial or ethnic minorities, i.e., the percentage of those households is 20% higher than the percentage across the whole County. All but two of these block groups represent a concentration of Latino residents. A signifi cant number of households in the County also have special needs, including seniors, people with substance abuse problems, victims of domestic violence, people with AIDS, ex-offenders, people with physical and mental disabilities, farmworkers and the homeless. Data on populations with special needs is summarized on p. 56-91. These special needs can be summarized as follows: � Seniors. In 2000, there were 27,998 Table 4-1 Estimated Households with Very Low, Low and Moderate Incomes and Housing Problems, Washington County, 2005 Households with Housing Problems Income Level Renters Owners Total Number Percent* Number Percent* Number Percent* 30%or less (very low) 7,914 4.2% 3,189 1.7% 11,103 5.9% 31 – 50% (low) 9,754 5.2% 3,604 1.9% 13,358 7.1% 51 – 80% (moderate) 9,112 4.9% 7,546 4.0% 16,658 8.9% Totals 26,780 14.3% 14,339 7.6% 41,119 21.9% Source: HUD CHAS data, Cogan Owens Cogan. * = Percent of all households in Washington County — 43 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 senior households in Washington County, making up approximately 16.5% of all households in the County. Of these, 13% were in the very low income category, 15% were low income households and 24% had moderate incomes. Among all senior households, there were 9,489 households with one or two members between 75 and 84 years old and 3,190 households aged 85 or older. There are a relatively small number of publicly assisted housing units designated for elderly residents (571), though a more substantial number (approximately 3,600) of other residences targeted to seniors (e.g., residential care facilities, nursing facilities, assisted living facilities and adult foster homes) accept Medicare. � Disabled populations. In 2003, 3,241 individuals applied for and received social security benefi ts for the blind and disabled, an indicator of the number of people in the County with disabilities who receive public assistance (0.7% of the County population). In addition, 2000 US Census data showed that approximately 12% of all County households had at least one member with a “mobility or self-care limitation.” � Substance Abuse. US Census data indicates that there were 35,387 people in the County in the year 2000 in need of drug or alcohol treatment (7.9% of the population). A number of living facilities and treatment centers provide housing options for this population, with approximately 282 existing or planned units available and targeted specifi cally to these individuals. � Farmworkers. It is estimated that there are approximately 12,800 farmworkers in Washington County (2.9% of the population). Most work in the Hillsboro area or western portions of the County though a signifi cant number may live in other parts of the County. There are an estimated 1,500 - 2,000 beds in on-site farmworker camps, and 232 designated farmworker housing units in the County. The farmworker population appears to be in transition. For example, while the number of seasonal workers, who are typically single, is decreasing, the number of workers with families who live in the County year-round is increasing. � Ex-offenders. Approximately 2,600 people left the Washington County prison system in 2003. Many of these individuals need some form of special or transitional housing. Some of the housing units targeted to people with substance abuse problems are available to ex-offenders. However these units represent a relatively small percentage of the overall need for transitional housing for ex-offenders. — 44 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 � Victims of Domestic Violence. More than one of every eight women in Oregon are estimated to have been victims of domestic violence in the last year. In 2002, Washington County fi elded 400 calls related to domestic violence. There is only one shelter in the County with 30 beds available for victims of domestic violence. � Homeless. Sheltered and turned away homeless counts for March 2004 include 590 individuals. This number under- represents the homeless population as many homeless do not seek shelter in the County. Some seek services and shelter outside the County, while others do not seek them at all. Approximately 58% of these individuals were women and a signifi cant number were children under the age of 12 (35%). Four facilities house the homeless in Washington County, with a total overnight capacity of 98 beds. There is no shelter for single homeless menor youths in the County. Needs are summarized further in Table 4-2 on the following page. More detailed information about these groups is found later in this chapter. While a variety of resources and facilities are available to help address the needs of low income and special needs households in the County, there remains a signifi cant gap between available resources and needs. For these reasons, relative priorities for funding have been identifi ed in this Consolidated Plan. Priorities are described in Chapter 5. — 45 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 11 x 17 PLACEHOLDER TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS AND SERVICES, WASHINGTON COUNTY, 2005 — 46 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 11 x 17 PLACEHOLDER TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS AND SERVICES, WASHINGTON COUNTY, 2005 (CONT’D) — 47 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 RELEVANT FEDERAL AND COUNTY PROGRAMS A number of federal and County programs are utilized to help provide adequate housing for the County’s low income and special needs residents. The primary programs are described below. � HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). Over the last 12 years, this has been the primary federal program used by the County and local jurisdictions to address housing needs for low income residents. Federal housing vouchers also are a signifi cant source of money used to address these needs. The HOME program has received between $1.1 million and $1.85 million per year, with an allocation of $1,752,874 in 2005. Program funds have been used for special needs housing (e.g., housing for the chronically mentally ill, disabled, elderly, and farmworkers) as well as affordable housing for persons earning less than 80% MFI. HOME funds also have been used for homeownership programs administered by two Washington County affi liates of Habitat for Humanity. OCD currently is administering this program and is in the process of updating its procedures and policies for administering the program, including application and evaluation forms and criteria. � American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). As noted previously, this new program is aimed at improving home ownership opportunities for fi rst- time homebuyers. Washington County will receive approximately $260,000 for this program for the 2003 and 2004 fi scal years (combined) and $80,243 in 2005. The County is currently establishing a local program to administer these funds. The County will work with local lenders, housing counseling agencies and others to establish guidelines and procedures for reviewing, evaluating and funding applications. The application process and dedicated funding will be separate from the HOME program. � Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). Since 2001, ESG funds were allocated to the State of Oregon, which awarded the funds to Community Action as the lead poverty agency in the County. Beginning in July 2004, the ESG dollars were allocated directly to Washington County. The County will receive approximately $88,325 in 2005. Funds typically are allocated to homeless providers through Community Action. � Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). As noted previously, this program is administered by the City of Portland for the entire metropolitan region, including — 48 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Washington County. A representative of the County sits on the City’s HOPWA board and participates in funding allocation decisions. � HUD Section 8 Vouchers. The Washington County DHS administers this program, providing housing vouchers to very low and low-income households that qualify. Approximately 2,570 vouchers were provided in 2004. � HUD Section 811 and 202 Funds. HUD provides funding to nonprofi t organizations to develop rental housing with the availability of supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities and the elderly. These funds also provide for rent subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable. � Continuum of Care. This program is administered by DHS to fund housing and related services to address the needs of the Homeless. More information about this program is provided later in the chapter and in Appendix C. Other non-housing programs (e.g., Community Development Block Grant program) are described in Chapter 3. GENERAL HOUSING MARKET INFORMATION This section describes County-wide housing trends and information related to supply, costs, location and condition of housing. It focuses on housing affordable to low and moderate income households. Total Housing Units There were 178,913 housing units in Washington County in the year 2000. The number of units grew by an average annual rate of 3.6% from 1990 to 2000. Based on this growth rate the total number of housing units in 2005 can be estimated at 213,521. A majority (60.5%) of occupied housing units in the County are owner-occupied, with the highest concentrations of owner-occupied housing in the communities of Sherwood (80.2%), Banks (76.6%), North Plains (75.6%), King City (71.7%) Cornelius (71.0%), and the unincorporated areas of the County (69.0%). The lowest percentages of owner-occupied housing are found in the cities of Beaverton (47.9%), Hillsboro (52.3%), Tualatin (53.3%) and Forest Grove (54.8%). As of the 2000 Census there were 113,297 single-family homes in the County, representing 63% of the total housing units. The 58,631 units in multi-family dwellings accounted for 33% of the total housing stock. The remaining 4% (6,985 units) includes mobile homes and other dwellings. Median monthly housing costs were $720 for rental housing and $1,358 for owner-occupied — 49 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 housing in 2000 (see Table 4-3 and the chart below). Excluding Rivergrove (which has a very small number of housing units in the County), rental costs were highest in Tualatin, Hillsboro, Tigard and Sherwood and lowest in Gaston, North Plains, Portland (portion in the County) and Banks. Again, excluding Rivergrove, owner costs were highest in Portland (portion in the County), Sherwood and Durham and lowest in King City, Unincorporated Washington County, Gaston and Cornelius. From 1990 to 2000 median monthly rents increased throughout the County, from just under 1% in King City to 36% in Sherwood. Housing values increased by at least 30% in all Washington County cities, and by 18% in unincorporated areas of the County. In Sherwood, Banks, and Portland, these increases exceeded 100%. Median monthly housing costs (for owner-occupied housing) increased by at least 4% throughout Median Monthly Housing Costs $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 B a n k s B e a v e r to n C o r n e li u s D u r h a m F o r e s t G r o v e Ga s t o n H i ll s b o r o K i n g C it y N o r t h P la i n s P o r t l a n d ( W a . C o . ) R iv e r g r o v e ( W a . C o .) S h e r w o o d T ig a r d T u a la t i n ( W a . C o .) Jurisdiction Median Monthly Rent, Rental Housing Median Monthly Costs, Owner-Occupied Housing Unincorporated (Wa. Co.) Washington County Table 4-3 Median Monthly Housing Costs, Washington County, Oregon, 2000 Jurisdiction Median Monthly Rent, Rental Housing 1 Median Monthly Costs, Owner-Occupied Housing Washington County $720 $1,358 Banks $601 $1,398 Beaverton $706 $1,387 Cornelius $671 $1,179 Durham $708 $1,630 Forest Grove $614 $1,183 Gaston $514 $1,056 Hillsboro $782 $1,267 King City $757 $845 Lake Oswego (Wash. Co.) NA NA North Plains $539 $1,140 Portland (Wash. Co.) $598 $2,076 Rivergrove (Wash. Co.) $1,375 $1,792 Sherwood $733 $1,482 Tigard $733 $1,361 Tualatin (Wash. Co.) $762 $1,421 Wilsonville (Wash. Co.) NA NA Unincorporated Washington County $730 $943 Source: Census 2000 SF1 100% data. 1 Does not include cost of utilities — 50 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 the County, up to an increase of 87% in Sherwood. 12 Affordable Housing Units Affordable housing typically is defi ned as housing that does not cost more than 30% of a given household’s total income. This rule-of-thumb has been used historically and continues to be used today by most housing analysts (e.g., in Metro’s Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, federal housing documents prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and others). According to year 2000 US Census data, median monthly mortgage costs for homeowners in Washington County were $1,358 in the year 2000. Median rents were $720 in that same year. Median household income was $52,122; median family income was $61,499 in 2000. Median family income tends to be higher because households classifi ed as families, on average have more employed adults in the household. According to HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data for the year 2000, approximately 28% of all households in Washington County paid more than 30% of total income in housing costs. This equates to 47,520 households in 2000, or 52,724 households in 2005 given the growth rate assumed for the County from 2000 - 2005. In the year 2000 about 24% of all homeowners and 34% of renters paid more than 30% of their income in housing costs. Table 4-4 assesses affordability for owner and renter-occupied housing at median prices. 12 Washington County Housing Study for Washington County Department of Housing Services. Population Research Center, Portland State University. June, 2003. p. 9. Median monthly home owner costs 1 $1,358 Median monthly rental costs (including $55 utilities allowance) 1 $775 Annual median household income (MHI) 1 $52,122 Monthly median income 1 $4,344 30% of monthly median income 2 $1,303 Percentage of MHI needed to afford buying a median cost dwelling 2 104% MHI 3 Percentage of MHI needed to afford renting a median cost dwelling 2 59%MHI 4 Table 4-4 Affordability of Median Priced Housing in Washington County, 2000 Sources: 1. 2000 U.S. Census 2. Cogan Owens Cogan Assumptions: Affordable housing = no more than 30% of household income on housing costs Utility figures based on year 2000 Housing Authority of Portland (HAP) Section 8 estimates. Includes electricity and gas heat, hot water and cooking 3. The monthly cost of owner-occupied housing for median priced housing is $1,358. To determine the percentage of median monthly income needed to "afford" this housing, given that housing is affordable if 30% or less of income is spent on housing, monthly housing costs are divided by 30% of monthly median income $1,358÷ $1,303=1.04=104%. 4. The monthly cost of renter-occupied housing for median priced housing is $775. To determine the percentage of median monthly income needed to "afford" this housing, given that housing is affordable if 30% or less of income is spent on housing, monthly housing costs are divided by 30% of monthly median income $775 ÷ $1,303 = 0.59 = 59%. — 51 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Census data indicates that, on average, median priced owner-occupied housing would be affordable to households earning 104% of MHI. In other words, slightly less than half of all households have the potential to obtain affordable owner-occupied housing since the median monthly or annual cost of owner- occupied housing is slightly more than 30% of the median household income. Census data also indicates that, on average, median priced rental housing would be affordable to families earning 59% of MHI. Rental housing therefore is more affordable than owner- occupied housing and meets a signifi cant portion of the need for affordable housing for families and households with lower incomes. At the same time, as noted in the preceding paragraph, a higher percentage of renter households spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing, in part because they tend to have lower average incomes. In looking at housing affordability, housing professionals also typically identify the percentage of housing units affordable to households or families at different income levels. As noted above, income levels generally are classifi ed in terms of the percentage or proportion of median household income. Ranges evaluated generally include those households below 30% MHI, between 30% and 50% MHI and between 50% and 80% MHI. Census data does not provide information about affordability for households in these different income ranges. However, rough estimates of average affordability have been extrapolated from Census data and are described in detail on p. 64-65 of this Plan. This analysis indicates a gap between the supply and need for affordable housing for households earning below 50% MHI of 22,537 housing units.These fi ndings also indicate a surplus of affordable housing units for households earning greater than 50% MHI. In addition, data compiled by HUD summarizes the number of households in these income groups that spend more than 30% of their income on housing. This data indicates an even larger gap in affordability for very low, low and moderate income households. For example, this data shows that a total of approximately 30,420 households in these categories spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing. This greater number is due in part to the fact that many households in higher income categories spend less than 30% of their income on housing, using the supply of units that might otherwise be affordable to households with lower incomes. Geographic Concentration of Housing Stock The dispersal of housing units in the County is consistent with the County’s population — 52 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 distribution patterns (i.e. housing units are concentrated in the eastern, more urbanized portions of the County, where most of the population is located). Data from the 2000 US Census suggests that more affordable housing can be found on the outskirts of the Portland metropolitan region and in the County’s rural areas. Three of the six Washington County jurisdictions with a median monthly rental cost of less than $700 are on the western edge of the Portland metro region. These are North Plains (median monthly rental cost of $539), Forest Grove ($614), and Cornelius ($671). Two others, Gaston ($514) and Banks ($601), are rural communities in the western portion of the County. The portion of Portland lying in Washington County is the exception to this trend, with a median monthly rental cost of $598. However, it should be noted that these areas with lower median rental costs are home to a relatively small share of the County’s overall population (between 0.1% for Gaston and 4% for Forest Grove). Median monthly homeowner costs reveal a similar trend, as Gaston, North Plains, Cornelius, and Forest Grove are four of the six communities with median costs below the County median of $1,358. The others are King City ($845, the lowest of all Washington County jurisdictions), and Hillsboro ($1,267). Interestingly, while Hillsboro’s median homeowner costs are below the County-wide median, it has the County’s highest median rental cost ($782). The opposite is true for the portion of Portland in Washington County, which has a relatively low median rental cost but the highest median homeowner costs ($1,762) of any Washington County jurisdiction. 13 Condition of Existing Housing Stock General Information U.S. Census data includes two types of information on the condition of housing for the County as a whole: � Age of housing - age and condition are generally linked � Status of certain types of facilities (kitchen, plumbing, and heating) No other comprehensive data on housing condition is available and no recent local or community surveys of housing condition have been conducted in the County during the last several years. The housing stock in Washington County is generally in good condition, due in large part to the fact that more than three-fourths of the units were constructed within the past 35 years. More than a third of the existing housing in 2000 had been constructed in the 13 Rivergrove has the highest median rental and homeowner costs, but these medians are based on only 12 households in Washington County and are therefore not signifi cant for inclusion in this analysis. — 53 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 preceding 10 years, refl ecting the County’s signifi cant population growth over that period. Table 4-5 summarizes the age of the existing housing units. As noted above, additional housing condition information provided by the US Census concerns the condition of plumbing and kitchen facilities and the type of heating fuel used. The 2000 Census showed that more than 99.7% of the County’s housing units had complete plumbing facilities, and 99.3% had complete kitchen facilities. Ninety-four percent of the County’s units used electric or gas heat from a utility. Just under 4% used an alternative heating source, such as fuel oil, wood, or solar power. Slightly more than 0.1%, or 225 housing units, had no source of heat. Lead Based Paint Hazards Lead-based paint presents potential health hazards, particularly to small children. State policy requires these hazards to be removed in housing units occupied by children under 6. Homeowners and landlords face liability issues associated with these requirements and risks. Some landlords address these issues by refusing to rent to families with small children even though this practice raises housing discrimination issues. The federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that blood lead levels of 10 micrograms or above can cause health problems in children, including lower intelligence, behavior problems and problems with blood vessels, blood pressure, the liver and kidneys. The most common cause of high blood lead levels in children is from lead dust in the home. Data from the Oregon Department of Human Services (Offi ce of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology) indicates that since 2000, there have been 49,974 blood lead tests conducted in Oregon. Of that amount, almost four percent, or 1,845, have been conducted on Washington County residents. A normal reading of the level of blood would be between 2-3 micrograms. A level as high as 10 micrograms would indicate lead poisoning. According to the Department, a reading of higher than 10 warrants some kind of action or follow-up. The Department indicates that addresses of people who have reported and/or been tested for lead-based paint hazards can only be verifi ed for patients that are covered by Table 4-5 Age of Existing Housing Stock Date Constructed Number of Units Percent of Total Before 1970 42,498 24% 1970 – 1990 75,954 43% 1990 – 2000 60,461 34% Source: 2000 US Census — 54 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Medicaid. Other insurance providers are not required to report patient information such as address. Of the 1,845 tests conducted in Washington County, 863 were for Medicaid patients. Of these, none had levels over 10 micrograms. Of the remaining 982 tests that were taken (where insurance was unknown), 890 refl ected levels less than 5 micrograms, 47 refl ected levels between 5-9 micrograms; and 45 refl ected levels at 10 micrograms and over. In looking at the results by age, 1,709 test were conducted on children aged 0-5 years. Of that amount, 35 tests refl ected levels at 10 micrograms and over (see Table 4-6). Lead-based paint hazards generally are correlated with the age of housing units and their condition. Typically, homes constructed before 1978 have the highest potential for lead-based paint hazards. Data from the US Census and HUD provide information about the incidence of lead-based paint in housing units by year and housing type (renter and owner). In the County as a whole, an estimated 11% of all owner-occupied housing (estimated 11,795 units) and 9% of all rental housing (estimated 5,829 units) have lead-based paint hazards. Very low, low and moderate income families represent about 47% percent of renters and 18% percent of homeowners. Assuming that these households are relatively evenly distributed among housing units of different ages, it is estimated that approximately 2,957 very low, low and moderate income renter households and 2,241 very low, low and moderate income homeowner households are exposed to lead- based paint hazards. GENERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS The following table describes the number of low and moderate income households in the County by income level and tenure (renters vs. homeowners). It also shows the number and percentage of households in each category that have any form of housing problem (such as overcrowding, incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, or “cost burden,” defi ned as spending more than 30% of household Blood Lead Levels (BLL in micrograms) BLL < 5 BLL 5-9 BLL 10+ Total Blood Lead Level by Age 0-5 Years 1,595 79 35 1,709 6+ Years 116 10 10 136 Blood Lead Level by Insurance Status Medicaid 821 42 0 863 Insurance Unknown 890 47 45 982 Table 4-6 Blood Lead Level Test Results, Washington County, 2005 Source: Oregon Department of Human Services (Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology) — 55 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 income housing related costs), according to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provided by HUD (Table 4-7). The vast majority of households with incomes less than 50% of the median have some form of housing problem. The percentage is nearly identical for households in the 0-30% income bracket (81% have some form of housing problem) and households in the 30-50% income bracket (82%). Housing problems are slightly more prevalent among all low and moderate income renters (68%) than for homeowners in the same income categories (61%). Among renters, housing problems are most common in the 30-50% income category (90%, versus 81% in the 0-30% range). Among homeowners, housing problems are most common (80%) in the 0-30% income bracket. The CHAS data also indicates that nearly all (96%) of the “large related” families who are renters in the 0-30% income range have some form of housing problem. Housing problems are found among 80% or more of the households in the following categories: � Small related households (two to four members): Renters and owners in the 0-30% or 31-50% income ranges; Table 4-7 Low and Moderate Income Households with Housing Problems (2005) Income Category Total Number of House- holds Percent of Cost- Burdened Households Number of Cost- Burdened Households Percent of Households w/ Other Housing Problems Number of house- holds w/ other Housing Problems Total House- holds w/ Housing Problems Renters 0-30% 9,799 66% 6,467 15% 590 7,914 31-50% 10,782 72% 7,762 18% 1,005 9,754 51-80% 18,932 35% 6,680 13% 1,811 9,112 Total 39,513 53% 20,909 9% 3,406 26,780 Homeowners 0-30% 3,963 75% 3,008 5% 215 3,189 31-50% 5,443 61% 3,329 6% 330 3,604 51-80% 14,138 48% 6,849 5% 750 7,546 Total 23,544 56% 13,186 6% 1,295 14,339 Total 0-30% 13,762 69% 9,475 6% 805 11,103 31-50% 16,225 68% 11,091 8% 1,335 13,358 51-80% 33,070 41% 13,529 8% 2,561 16,658 Total 63,057 54% 34,095 7% 4,701 41,119 Sources: Percentages from HUD CHAS data (2000); projections to 2005 by Cogan Owens Cogan — 56 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 � Large related households (fi ve or more members): Renters and owners in the 0-30% or 31-50% income ranges; � Elderly households: Renters in the 31- 50% income bracket, owners in the 0-30% income range; COUNTY SUB-POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AND HOUSING NEEDS This section describes the housing needs of the following specifi c types of households: � Low and moderate income households � Racial and ethnic minorities � Farmworkers � Elderly residents � People with HIV/ AIDS � People with disabilities � People with alcoholism/ drug addiction, including ex-offenders This section also includes information about the supply of housing available to these groups, the location of populations and available housing and a qualitative assessment of the relative level of housing needs. Low Income Population Approximately 34% of households in Washington County earn below 80% of locally adjusted median family income (MFI). Seven percent of the total households earn below 30% of MFI, 9% earn between 30 and 50% of MFI, and 18% earn between 50 and 80% of MFI. According to the 2000 US Census, 7.4% of Washington County residents were living below the federal poverty level, an increase from 6.6% in 1990. Information on concentrations of low and moderate income residents is important to identifying funding priorities for a variety of housing-related programs. For example, Community Development Block Group funds are limited to service areas (defi ned at the Census Block Group level) in which at least 46.1% 14 of the households are below 80% MFI. Use of HUD’s Exception Criteria threshold of 46.1% allows sponsors to go below the typical HUD threshold of 51% low/moderate income. The block groups in Washington County that meet this criteria, according to HUD’s Census 2000 Low and Moderate Income Summary Data, are shown in Table 4-8 and Figures 4-1 through 4-4 on the following pages. 14 This threshold is applicable to projects in Washington County outside the City of Beaverton. — 57 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Table 4-8 Areas with 46.1% or More Low and Moderate Income Households Census Tract Block Group Place Name Low mod Income Concentration (%) 031200 1 Beaverton city 93.0 031507 3 Cedar Mill/ Beaverton 83.0 031005 4 Beaverton city 82.8 032403 4 Hillsboro city 79.5 032604 3 Hillsboro city 75.6 031704 3 Aloha Census Defined Place (CDP) 75.0 031613 2 Beaverton/ Aloha/ Uninc. 73.2 031006 4 Beaverton city 72.1 032500 2 Hillsboro/Uninc. 71.8 032606 2 Hillsboro city 70.9 032403 3 Hillsboro city 70.7 031613 4 Beaverton/ Aloha/ Uninc. 70.0 031706 1 Beaverton/ Uninc. 68.0 031705 1 Aloha CDP 67.6 032403 2 Hillsboro city 66.4 032500 1 Hillsboro city 65.9 030401 1 Raleigh Hills/ Beaverton 63.0 031200 2 Beaverton city 62.6 032604 1 Hillsboro city 62.5 030900 1 Beaverton/ Tigard/ Metzger 61.9 031404 3 Cedar Hills/Beaverton 61.3 032403 1 Hillsboro city 61.0 031300 2 Cedar Hills/ Beaverton/ West Slope 61.0 031100 2 Beaverton city 60.6 031300 1 Cedar Hills/ Beaverton/ West Slope 59.7 032901 1 Cornelius/Uninc. 59.6 030801 4 Tigard city 58.9 032800 2 Hillsboro/ Uninc. 58.6 031613 3 Aloha CDP 57.1 030600 2 Tigard/ Metzger/ Uninc. 56.7 031705 2 Beaverton/ Aloha/ Uninc. 55.6 033100 1 Forest Grove city 55.3 031706 3 Aloha CDP 54.8 031100 1 Beaverton city 54.7 031606 2 Aloha CDP 54.6 032406 1 Hillsboro city 54.0 — 58 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Table 4-8 (cont'd) Areas with 46.1% or More Low and Moderate Income Households Census Tract Block Group Place Name Low mod Income Concentration (%) 031610 2 Beaverton/ Hillsboro/ Uninc. 54.0 032500 3 Hillsboro/ Uninc. 53.6 032902 1 Forest Grove/ Cornelius/ Uninc. 53.1 032002 4 Tualatin/ Rivergrove 52.9 030804 1 Tigard/ Uninc. 52.4 030700 2 Tigard city 52.0 031005 3 Beaverton city 51.3 032103 1 Sherwood/ Uninc. 51.3 032406 3 Hillsboro/ Aloha/ Uninc. 51.3 032002 3 Lake Oswego/ Durham/ Tualatin/ Tigard/ Uninc. 51.1 032403 5 Hillsboro city 50.7 031612 1 Beaverton/ Aloha/ Hillsboro 50.6 032604 2 Hillsboro city 50.1 030502 3 Portland/ Garden Home 49.7 032002 2 Tualatin city 49.3 031905 1 Tigard/Uninc. 49.3 031504 3 Rock Creek/ Hillsboro 49.2 031609 1 Hillsboro/ Uninc. 48.4 031605 3 Aloha/ Hillsboro/ Uninc. 48.0 031903 4 Tigard city 47.9 031003 1 Beaverton city 47.6 031906 2 King City/ Uninc. 47.5 031703 3 Aloha CDP 47.0 030803 1 Tigard city 46.9 031705 3 Aloha CDP 46.3 031507 4 Cedar Mill CDP 46.2 Source: HUD Census 2000 Low and Moderate Income Summary Data; Cogan Owens Cogan. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/systems/census/low mod/or/index.cfm. — 59 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 11 x 17 PLACEHOLDER FIGURE 4-1 - CENSUS TRACTS WITH LOW INCOME CONCENTRATION — 60 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-2. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes — 61 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-3. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes, Detail Map 1 — 62 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-4. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes, Detail Map 2 — 63 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 The greatest concentrations of low and moderate income households in Washington County are found in the Beaverton, Aloha, and Hillsboro areas. Every block group in which at least 62% of residents are low or moderate income is found in one of these three adjacent communities. Appendix D includes a list of the percentages of low and moderate income households in every block group in the County. Those areas where the percentage of low and moderate income households is higher than that of the County as a whole are another measure of the concentration of low income households. An area of low income concentration is defi ned as a Census tract where the percentage of low and moderate income households is at least 10% higher than for the County as a whole. Those areas are displayed in Figure 4-5 on the following page. There is a lack of affordable housing units available to meet the need for low and moderate income households. Table 4-9 assesses the supply of affordable housing for households in different income ranges, according to the 2000 Census. The table indicates that there is not enough affordable housing to meet the needs of households earning less than 50% MHI. There are only 3,185 housing units that are affordable to households in the 0-30% MHI income range. This represents less than 2% of the County’s total housing stock, and is equivalent to one affordable housing unit for every 4.8 households in the 0-30% MHI range. The 12,245 households that cannot access housing affordable at 0-30% MHI must then seek out more expensive housing options, causing competition with households in the 30-50% MHI income range. This creates a cumulative unmet need of 10,292 units affordable to households earning less than 50% MHI. This represents a very signifi cant unmet need for affordable housing for very low and low income households. The analysis indicates an abundance of households affordable at 50-80% MFI, enough to create a surplus in the supply of units affordable to households earning less than 80% MHI. Overall, owner-occupied housing makes up between 25% and 33% of the supply of housing affordable to households at these income levels. Affordable Units Household Income Owner Renter Total Affordable Units (Percent of total) Households in Income Range “Gap” Below 30% MHI 942 2,243 3,185 1.9% 15,430 12,245 Below 50% MHI 5,730 17,365 23,095 13.7% 33,387 10,292 Below 80% MHI 26,672 53,316 79,988 47.4% 64,170 -15,818 (surplus) Table 4-9 Affordable Housing Units by Income Range (%MHI) Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; Cogan Owens Cogan — 64 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-5. Census Block Groups Where More Than 46.1% of Households Have Low or Moderate Incomes, Detail Map 3 — 65 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 The fi ndings in Table 4-9 are consistent with those from Metro’s Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (June, 2000). This report, which projected regional housing needs to the year 2017, found a high level of unmet need for housing affordable to families with incomes in the range of 0-30% of MHI. It also projected a signifi cant unmet need for housing in the 30-50% of MHI range, and a surplus of affordable housing for families with incomes above 50% of MHI. 15 There are a number of caveats that accompany this analysis. It is based on median costs for housing and median incomes. It does not distinguish among households of different sizes which may fi nd housing more or less affordable given varying income levels and housing needs. For some household income levels and sizes, the need may be overstated; for others, it may be understated. In addition, this information is based on year 2000 US Census data. It assumes that the number of housing units in different cost ranges is evenly distributed within those ranges and similarly, that households are evenly distributed within different income ranges. The analysis also does not refl ect the fact that many households with higher incomes choose to rent or buy housing in lower price ranges, further reducing the supply of affordable housing for households with lower incomes. Finally, since 2000, housing market conditions have changed in at least two ways. First, housing prices for owner-occupied homes have continued to increase. At the same time, interest rates have decreased signifi cantly. To some degree, these two trends have cancelled each other out in terms of their impacts on the monthly cost and affordability of owner- occupied housing. Rental housing prices have been more stable during this period, with relatively little fl uctuation in Washington County, according to the Barry Apartment Report. Low interest rates also have allowed renters in the upper margin into homeownership. This has affected rental vacancy rates, especially in the upper income categories. This infl ux could accelerate the process of fi ltering certain types of housing down to lower income groups. This assessment identifi es estimated current affordable housing needs and gaps. It is similar to the results of Metro’s Regional Affordable Housing Study. However, that study evaluates short-term (fi ve years) and long-term (20 years) needs for affordable housing within the entire Portland metropolitan area, as well as for specifi c jurisdictions such as Washington County. Public Housing The Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS) manages public 15 Metro. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy. June, 2000. p. 18. — 66 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 housing units owned by the County and administers the Section 8 vouchers. HUD directly administers the Section 811 and 202 housing assistance programs. There are a total of 2,631 government subsidized housing units in the County, including both apartments and home ownership programs. These units are subsidized by either HUD or DHS, and are only available to households with less than 50%, 60%, or 80% of the area median income. These do not include households receiving Section 8 vouchers. Table 4-10 summarizes the dispersal of these units throughout the County. As noted above, DHS also administers HUD Section 8 vouchers. DHS provided 1,580 vouchers in 2004. The waiting list of Section 8 vouchers is extensive. The housing needs of families on the Section 8 waiting list are summarized in Table 4-11 Proposed cuts in HUD funding for Section 8 vouchers are expected to exacerbate the needs of low and moderate income households. Funding for this program is proposed to be cut by approximately $860,000 during the coming year. As a result, 100 fewer vouchers will be issued next year, increasing the delay in acquiring vouchers and Table 4-10 Geographic Concentration of Subsidized Housing Units Location Number of Units Percent of Total Percent of County Population Aloha 1 51 2% 9.4% Beaverton 582 22% 17.1% Cornelius/ Forest Grove 167 6% 6.2% Hillsboro 338 13% 15.8% Portland 848 32% 0.3% Tigard 300 11% 9.3% Tualatin/ Sherwood 345 13% 7.1% Sources: Housing Portfolio. Washington County Department of Housing Services. March, 2004. HUD-Subsidized Housing, Oregon, Portland Metropolitan Area. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. May, 2003. 1 Although not an incorporated city, the US Census recognizes Aloha as a "Census Defined Place," with a population of 41,741 in 2000. Twenty-one percent of Aloha residents are racial or ethnic minorities, and 13% are Latino. The median family income in Aloha was $52,299 in 2000, nearly identical to the County-wide median, and 34.8% of Aloha households had low or moderate incomes. Table 4-11 Housing Needs of Families on the Public Housing and Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance Waiting Lists (Combined Section 8 and Public Housing) Number of Families Total Families (%) Annual Turnover Waiting list total 6,939 225 Extremely low income <=30% AMI 6,329 79.20% Very low income (>30% but <=50% AMI) 542 7.81% Low income (>50% but <80% AMI) 53 .76% Families with children 4288 61.80% Elderly families 666 9.59% Families with Disabilities 1527 22.00% White 6147 88.59% Black 479 6.90% Hispanic 993 14.31% Native American 56 .80% Asian/Pacific Is. 257 3.70% Characteristics by bedroom size (public housing only) 1BR 2,047 44.12 1 2 BR 1,965 39.52 18 3 BR 795 15.98 27 4 BR 165 3.31 6 5 BR 5+ BR The waiting list for public housing is open. — 67 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 adequate housing for people already on the waiting list. Reductions in funding also will result in increasing caseloads for DHS staff, further reducing the resources available to assist low and moderate income households. There are no proposed capital improvements, new development, demolition or disposition of public housing developments. Racial and Ethnic Minority Population Approximately 82% of the population of Washington County is white. The remaining 13% are of Asian, African-American, Latino, other or of mixed descent. The largest single group is Latino (11%), followed by Asian (6%). Information on race and ethnicity for the County as a whole is described in Table 4-12. Information on concentrations of ethnic and racial minority groups can be valuable when making funding decisions for housing programs. HUD rules require that all Consolidated Plans identify the block groups within the jurisdiction that have a concentration of ethnic and racial minorities generally, or a concentration of any one ethnic or racial minority group. A concentration is defi ned as a percentage of any minority population within the block group that is 20% greater than the percentage of that minority group across the entire jurisdiction. For example, if 7% of the County’s population is Asian, a concentration could occur in any block group where 27% or more of the population is Asian. There are 17 block groups in the County that have some concentration of racial or ethnic minorities according to the defi nition of concentration stated previously. Most of these have a concentration of Latino residents, which in many cases coincides with concentrations of “All Racial Minorities” or individuals who listed their race as “Other.” Only two of the block groups had concentrations of racial minorities without a concentration of Latino residents. These two block groups, both in Beaverton, had high concentrations of Asian residents. Table 4-12 Ethnic and Racial Composition of Washington County Racial/ Ethnic Group Population in County Percent of Population Concentration Percent White 366,007 82% NA Black/African American 5,119 1% 21% American Indian/ Alaskan Native 2,913 1% 21% Asian 29,752 7% 27% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1,325 0% 20% Other Race 26,100 6% 26% Two or More Races 14,126 3% 23% All Racial or Ethnic Minorities 79,335 18% 38% Latino Origin 1 49,735 11% 31% Source: Census 2000 SF1 100% data; Cogan Owens Cogan. 1 The US Census does not count Hispanic or Latino as a racial group. Instead it is addressed as a separate question, and all residents are considered either "Hispanic or Latino" or "Not Hispanic or Latino." — 68 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Concentrations of ethnic and racial groups are shown in Table 4-13 below and in Figures 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 following this page. Table 4-13 Areas with a Concentration of Racial or Ethnic Minorities Source: Census 2000 SF1 100% data; Cogan Owens Cogan. Tract Block Group Location Concent Group(s) Percent 324.03 3 Hillsboro Latino All Racial Minorities Other 78% 48% 42% 324.03 4 Hillsboro Latino All Racial Minorities Other 77% 63% 56% 316.13 2 Beaverton/ Aloha Latino Other 60% 28% 310.05 4 Portland/ Beaverton Latino All Racial Minorities Other 51% 39% 27% 324.03 2 Hillsboro Latino All Racial Minorities Other 45% 37% 30% 326.06 2 Hillsboro Latino 45% 325 1 Hillsboro Latino Other 44% 28% 316.11 2 Beaverton All Racial Minorities Asian 43% 33% 329.02 1 Cornelius Latino Other 41% 29% 313 1 Cedar Hills area (Portland/ Beaverton) All Racial Minorities Latino 39% 32% 316.05 3 Beaverton Latino 38% 326.04 4 Hillsboro Latino 38% 324.03 5 Hillsboro Latino 36% 329.01 1 Cornelius Latino 36% 320.02 4 Tualatin Latino 34% 329.02 2 Cornelius Latino 31% 316.11 1 Beaverton Asian 28% — 69 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-6. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population — 70 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-7. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population, Detail Map 1 — 71 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-8. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population, Detail Map 2 — 72 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 MAP PLACEHOLDER Figure 4-9. Census Block Groups with a Concentration Ethnic/Minority Group Population, Detail Map 3 — 73 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 The need for housing assistance among minority groups is directly tied to their income. The HUD CHAS Data for the year 2000 identifi es the number of households in each minority group that fall within each of the low and moderate income categories. Table 4-14 and accompanying bar chart reveals several notable facts about the income levels of Washington County’s racial and ethnic groups: � Roughly 15% of White, African American, and Asian households in Washington County have low (30-50% MFI) or very low (0-30% MFI) incomes. This is a signifi cantly lower rate than that of the other racial or ethnic groups, for which between 27% and 34% of households fall into those income categories. � While Native Hawaiian / Pacifi c Islander households make up a relatively small proportion of the overall population, a high percentage of these households have very low incomes (23%). This is the highest low-income household percentage of the County’s racial and ethnic groups. � Sixty-two percent of Latino households are of very low, low or moderate income, Table 4-14 Low and Moderate Income Households by Race/Ethnicity Minority Group Total Households Percent 0-30% MFI Percent 30-50% MFI Percent 50-80% MFI Total 0-80% MFI White 157,893 7% 8% 17% 31% African American 1,882 5% 10% 25% 40% American Indian / Alaska Native 996 13% 14% 18% 45% Asian 10,701 10% 6% 12% 28% Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 443 23% 10% 14% 46% Latino 1 12,304 14% 19% 28% 62% All Households 187,630 7% 9% 18% 34% Sources: HUD CHAS Data (2000). Total household figures project to 2005 by Cogan Owens Cogan. Low & Moderate Income Households by Race 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% White African American American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander Latino All Households Minority Group Percent 0-30% MFI Percent 30-50% MFI Percent 50-80% MFI Total 0-80% MFI — 74 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 a much higher percentage than any other racial or ethnic group. � Moderate (50-80%) incomes are more common among African-American and Latino households than among any other groups. � Asian and White households are less likely to be very low, low, or moderate income than households from other racial or ethnic groups. � Home ownership rates for minority groups, particularly Latinos are signifi cantly lower than for the population as a whole in Washington County. Hillsboro in particular has a large percentage of low income Latino households. Nearly one-quarter of all Washington County Latino households with incomes at or below 50% of HUD area median income live in Hillsboro. Housing needs among the County’s minority populations are similar to their relative income levels, as shown in Table 4-15, in that the highest percentages of need are found in the Latino and Native Hawaiian/ Pacifi c Islander populations. The Asian, African American, American Indian/ Alaskan Native and White populations have less housing need, in terms of the percent of households in each group that have some type of housing problem. However, due to the fact that the vast majority of County residents is White, the number of White households in need of affordable housing far exceeds the total for all other racial and ethnic groups combined. While the relative level of housing need differs among the County’s various racial and ethnic groups, there are no affordable housing units dedicated specifi cally to these groups. The County’s minority households face the same affordable housing challenges as its White households, namely a defi cit of available housing that is affordable to households earning less than 50% MFI. In addition, there is little discernable difference in the qualitative characteristics of their housing needs. One notable difference is that many Latino households need access to larger housing units, with more bedrooms, due to their signifi cantly larger average household size (4.11 persons per household, compared to Table 4-15 Housing Need by Racial and Ethnic Group Ethnic Group Total Households Percent with Housing Problems Affordable Housing Units Needed White 157,893 29% 45,947 African American 1,882 34% 640 American Indian / Alaska Native 996 37% 365 Asian 10,701 36% 3,810 Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 443 42% 188 Latino 12,304 62% 7,604 Sources: HUD CHAS Data (2000). Total household figures project to 2005 by Cogan Owens Cogan. — 75 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 2.61 for all Washington County households). Also, as noted above, Latinos have a signifi cantly lower rate of home ownership than the population as a whole. Farmworkers There are an estimated 12,800 migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their family members in Washington County, representing 2.9% of the total County population. 16 A 2001 study estimated the number of farmworker households in the County at 5,513. 17 The vast majority of farmworkers in the County are Latino. Most work in the Hillsboro area or western portions of the County though a signifi cant number may live in other parts of the County. The farmworker population appears to be in transition. While the number of seasonal workers, who are typically single, is decreasing, the number of workers with families who live in the County year-round is increasing. Farmworker incomes are diffi cult to estimate, in part because many farmworkers are paid a “piece rate,” or an amount paid per pound or other unit picked at harvest times, rather than a standard hourly wage. No studies have been conducted to estimate the average annual household earnings for farmworker families. Nationally, the median income for farmworker families has been estimated at between $10,000 and $14,000, 18 which would represent roughly 20 to 25% of the median area income for Washington County. There are an estimated 1,500 - 2,000 beds in on-site farmworker camps, and 232 designated farmworker housing units in the County. This includes 102 two-bedroom units, 104 three-bedroom units, and 26 four-bedroom units. 19 Assuming one person per bedroom, these units can reasonably accommodate 602 farmworkers and/or their family members. Thus, the County’s dedicated farmworker housing, including the farmworker camps, can support a total of between 2,100 and 2,600 individuals. There is a need to provide affordable housing for the remaining 10,100 to 10,800 farmworkers and their family members. Assuming 4.11 persons per household, the average size of Latino households in Washington County, this translates to an unmet need of between 2,450 and 2,700 housing units. Farmworkers and their families who are not able to access these units must fi nd housing on the open market or through other housing subsidy programs. They must then compete with other low and moderate income families for the limited number of units that 16 Larson, Alice. Larson Assistance Services. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profi les Study, Oregon. September, 2002. p. 31-32. 17 McHam, Mike. Kline Hamilton Realty Advisors, Inc. Memo to Doug Longhurst, Housing Development Corporation of Northwest Oregon. January 2, 2002 18 League of Women Voters of Oregon Education Fund. Farmworkers in Oregon. 2000. http://www.open.org/~lwvor/ Farmworkers2.htm#PartIII 19 Housing Development Corporation of Northwest Oregon. March, 2004. — 76 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 are affordable at their income levels. This search is even more challenging for farmworkers with large families requiring four or more bedrooms. Elderly Residents According to Census data analyzed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are just under 28,000 households in Washington County with at least one elderly resident (65 years of age or older). This accounts for almost 17% of all households in the County. Among all senior households, there were 9,489 households with one or two members between 75 and 84 years old and 3,190 households aged 85 or older. Just over eight percent of all County residents are 65 years of age or older (this is smaller than the percentage of households with at least one elderly residents because elderly households are generally smaller in size, and because the latter includes households with a mix of elderly and non-elderly residents). A greater share of white residents (10%) than minority residents is elderly. Five percent of Asian residents are elderly, and for no other minority group is this fi gure higher than 3%. Just under 1.5% of Latino residents are elderly. Fifty-seven percent of households with at least one elderly resident were of low to moderate income, according to HUD’s CHAS data. The number and percent of senior households in each income bracket is shown in Table 4-16. Just over half (54%) of low or moderate income elderly households have some form of housing problem. This is true for approximately three- quarters of those households in the 0-30% income bracket, and nearly two- thirds of those in the 30-50% bracket. Table 4-17 shows these fi gures in detail. Table 4-16 Low and Moderate Income Households with One or More Elderly Residents Income (Percent of MHI) Number of Households Percent of all Senior Households 0 – 30% 3,894 13.91% 30 – 50% 4,575 16.34% 50 – 80% 7,481 26.72% Total 15,950 56.97% Source: HUD CHAS Data (2000) Table 4-17 Senior Households with Housing Problems Number of Households with Housing Problems Percent of Households with Housing Problems Income Category Renters Owners Total Renters Owners Total 0 – 30% 1,423 1,484 2,907 37% 38% 75% 30 – 50% 1,519 1,454 2,973 33% 32% 65% 50 – 80% 1,296 1,369 2,665 17% 18% 36% Total 4,238 4,307 8,545 27% 27% 54% Source: HUD CHAS Data (2000). — 77 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 There are a relatively small number of publicly assisted housing units designated for elderly residents (571). This represents a small fraction of the total number of senior households in the very low income (0-30%) bracket that have housing problems. There are also a substantial number (approximately 3,600) of other residences targeted to seniors (e.g., residential care facilities, nursing facilities, assisted living facilities and adult foster homes) that accept Medicare. This total of roughly 4,170 subsidized units, compared to the County-wide total of 5,880 low and very-low income senior households, suggests an unmet need of around 1,710 affordable units targeted to senior households. In addition, the vast majority of the subsidized units for seniors are in the eastern, more urban portions of the County. There may be an unmet need for such facilities in the portions of the County outside the Portland metropolitan area. Those low and very-low income senior households that cannot access a subsidized unit targeted for seniors must compete for the same limited pool of affordable housing as other very-low, low, and moderate income households in the County. In addition, the increasing number of elderly residents in the County will result in a steadily increasing need for accessible housing units over the long term. People with HIV/AIDS As of December 31, 2002, there were 205 persons in Washington County known to be living with HIV or AIDS. This is equivalent to less than 1/20 of one percent of the total County population. There is no information available on the age, gender, or racial composition of County residents with HIV or AIDS, or on any concentrations of this population in specifi c areas of the County. In the Portland metropolitan region (including Washington, Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, and Yamhill Counties in Oregon, plus Clark County, Washington), approximately 82% of individuals living with HIV/AIDS are white. Approximately 8% were African American and 7% Latino. Approximately 90% were males, and 90% were between the ages of 20 and 49. 20 Housing for people with HIV/AIDS is planned for with a comprehensive approach that seeks to address the “continuum” of housing- related needs that can be found in the HIV/ AIDS community. The Oregon Balance of State HIV/AIDS Housing Plan identifi es four distinct types of housing that are needed as part of this “housing continuum.” � Emergency Housing Assistance - Defi ned as “one-time or very short- term assistance provided to address an immediate housing crisis.” � Transitional Housing - Housing 20 AIDS Housing of Washington. 2003-2005 Portland EMA Action Plan for HIV/AIDS Housing Resources. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Housing and Community Development. November, 2003. p. A-11 to A-12. — 78 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 provided for a limited period of time (between one month and two years) to help people transition from emergency housing to a more stable and permanent living situation. � Permanent Housing - Housing of unlimited duration, which for low income residents may include public housing or tenant or project-based Section 8 assistance. � Specialized Care Facilities - Short or long-term housing combined with on-site assistance services, such as medical or support services for people living with HIV/AIDS. 21 The vast majority of the region’s housing units set aside for people living with HIV/AIDS are in Multnomah County, with a limited number available in other parts of the region. In Washington County the non-profi t Tualatin Valley Housing Partners and the Cascade AIDS Project have partnered to provide nine units of permanent housing for people with HIV/AIDS. These units are in two apartment complexes: Fircrest Manor in Beaverton (six one- to four-bedroom apartments); and Villa Capri between Beaverton and Hillsboro (three one- to two-bedroom apartments). The Villa Capri units are for HOPWA-eligible tenants, and are subsidized to ensure their affordability. The Fircrest Manor units are occasionally underutilized as the rent, set at 50% of median household income (MHI), is unaffordable for much of the targeted population. In addition, the Cascade AIDS project provides approximately 21 housing vouchers through DHS’s Shelter Plus Care (S+C) program. 22 A 2003 study by Mathmatica Policy Research, Inc., estimated that 72% of the adults with HIV or AIDS in the Portland metropolitan region live on incomes of $25,000 or less. 23 Assuming a similar percentage for Washington County’s HIV/AIDS population, this would mean that approximately 148 of the known cases would be individuals living on less than $25,000, or about 48% of the MHI. With only three affordable housing units targeted to this population, plus the 21 S+C vouchers, there is an unmet housing assistance need for approximately 124 residents living with HIV/AIDS in Washington County. As with other groups, low and moderate income people with HIV/ AIDS who cannot access targeted housing assistance must compete on the open market for affordable housing units. They also face the additional obstacle of fi nding units in close proximity to medical facilities or where medical care is provided. 21 AIDS Housing of Washington. Oregon Balance of State HIV/AIDS Housing Plan: Needs Assessment and Recommendations. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Human Services. January, 2002. p. 37-38. 22 Housing of Washington. 2003-2005 Portland EMA Action Plan for HIV/AIDS Housing Resources. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Housing and Community Development. November, 2003. p. 41-42. 23 AIDS Housing of Washington. 2003-2005 Portland EMA Action Plan for HIV/AIDS Housing Resources. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Housing and Community Development. November, 2003. p. 49. Additional calculations by Cogan Owens Cogan. — 79 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 People with Disabilities (Mental and Physical) US Census data identifi es six types of disabilities, including those with sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home and employment disabilities. Many people suffer from multiple disabilities (see Table 4- 18). The 2000 Census classifi ed approximately 8% of Washington County residents age 16 or above as having an “employment disability.” Six percent had a “go-outside-home” disability, while just over two percent had a “self-care disability.” Census data indicates that approximately 4.2% of Washington County’s population have a mental disability, while nearly six percent (5.7%) have a physical disability and 2.7% have a sensory disability. County Health Department estimates further indicate that approximately 8,500 County residents have a serious or persistent mental illness. Many or most of these individuals require specialized housing and/or treatment. The HUD CHAS data is another source of information about the County’s population with disabilities. This data shows that in the year 2000 21,108 households, or 12% of the County total, included at least one member with a mobility or self-care limitation. This forecasts to a total of 23,419 households in the year 2005, based on the County’s projected growth rate. The CHAS data indicates that 28% of these households have incomes below 50% MFI, and 15% have incomes below 30% MFI, as shown in Table 4-19. Table 4-18 Low and Moderate Income Households with Mobility or Self-Care Limitations (Totals Projected to 2005) Type of Disability (Persons ages 5 years and over, except as noted) 2000 (US Census) 2005 (Est.) Percent of persons 5 years and older with disabilities (2005) Sensory disability 11,271 12,505 2.7% Physical disability 23,522 26,098 5.7% Mental disability 17,376 19,279 4.2% Self-care disability 1 7,449 8,265 2.2% Go-outside-home disability 1 19,516 21,653 5.9% Employment disability 1 26,719 29,645 8.1% 1 Applies to residents 16 years or older. Table 4-19 Low and Moderate Income Households with Mobility or Self-Care Limitations (Totals Projected to 2005) Income (Percent of MFI) Number of Households Percent of Very Low, Low or Moderate Income Households with Mobility or Self-Care Limitations 0 – 30% 3,405 15% 30 – 50% 3,051 13% 50 – 80% 5,076 22% Total 11,532 Source: HUD CHAS Data. Projections by Cogan Owens Cogan. — 80 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Approximately 50% of low or moderate income households with mobility or self- care disabilities have some form of housing problem. The problem is most acute for those households in the 0-30% income bracket, of which more than 80% have some form of housing problem. Table 4-20 shows these fi gures in detail. People with all of the types of disabilities described above face a variety of housing needs and challenges. Many people with severe developmental or mental health related disabilities are not able to live independently and require constant care from family members and/or other caregivers in an institutional setting, assisted care facility, adult foster care home or living with family members. People with milder forms of these disabilities and many types of physical disabilities may live independently or semi-independently but require housing units that are fully accessible to people with physical disabilities. In 2003, 3,241 individuals applied for and received social security benefi ts for the blind and disabled, which is another indicator of the number of people in the County with physical and sensory disabilities who need and receive public assistance. There are a very limited number of housing units available which are available or targeted directly to people in Washington County with disabilities, particularly those with mental, developmental, or self-care disabilities who are not seniors. They include just a few facilities (see Table 4-21) that also provide housing for people with substance Table 4-21 Facilities with Housing for People with Mental Health Disabilities Facility Beds (permanent and transitional supportive housing) Clean and Sober Living (CASL), Inc. 58 Homestreet~Banyan Tree 73 LifeWorks NW 29 Luke-Dorf, Inc. 99 Mental Health Consortium of Washington County 43 Open Door Counseling Center 6 Total Beds 308 Table 4-20 Low and Moderate Income Households with Mobility or Self-Care Limitations and Housing Problems Number of Households with Housing Problems Percent of Households with Housing Problems Income Category Renters Owners Total Renters Owners Total 0 – 30% 1,825 932 2,758 79% 86% 81% 30 – 50% 1,597 703 1,492 89% 56% 49% 50 – 80% 1,331 514 1,568 56% 19% 31% Total 0-80% 4,753 2,149 5,818 73% 43% 50% Source: HUD CHAS Data (2000) — 81 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 abuse problems. Consequently, not all beds shown are available for people with mental health disabilities. Additional facilities also provide transitional housing specifi cally for people with substance abuse issues. Housing designated for people with physical disabilities is described in Table 4-22. The Washington County Housing Authority and Independent Living Resources facilities also provide housing or housing-related services for people with developmental disabilities as do the Edwards Center and Community Services, Inc. (CSI). There are no permanent housing facilities in the County designated specifi cally for people with sensory or employment disabilities, though some of these individuals are eligible for housing targeted to people with other types of disabilities. In addition, some individuals with development, self-care, sensory and mental health disabilities live in adult foster care homes and/or are eligible for other housing assistance programs, including social security benefi ts for the blind and disabled. In addition, many elderly residents with self-care limitation live in a variety of assisted and other living centers, many of which accept Medicaid payments (see Elderly residents section). In March, 2004, DHS conducted a voluntary survey to produce an estimate of the number of accessible housing units in the County. The survey included industry groups (e.g. Metro Multi-Family Housing Council, Oregon Apartment Association, i.e., owners and managers of rental housing), apartment owner associations, non-profi t agencies assisting individuals with disabilities, public agencies, and the National Accessible Permit Clearinghouse. DHS also distributed public service announcements to increase response rate. The survey identifi ed a total of 484 accessible units distributed among 20 different apartment complexes. Of these units, 202 are in complexes that accept Section 8 tenant-based rental subsidies. A limited number of these units may also accept other form(s) of rental subsidy. The survey found 48 accessible units in three apartment complexes that do not accept Section 8 vouchers, but may accept Table 4-22 Units Designated for People with Disabilities City Units Designated for People with Disabilities Aloha 14 Beaverton 0 Cornelius 0 Durham 0 Forest Grove 2 Hillsboro 32 Metzger 0 Sherwood 0 Tigard Tualatin 0 Total 48 24 Washington County Department of Housing Services. Rentals with Accessible Features - Washington County, Oregon. March 18, 2004. — 82 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 other forms of rental subsidies. 24 These totals do not include DHS’s public housing units, as the survey was primarily focused on Section- 8 rentals. The Washington County Offi ce of Community Development also is beginning work on creating a database of accessible units in the County. Continued work on this effort will help in further identifying the supply of accessible units. It is not clear from available data how many of the County’s disabled residents are in need of handicapped-accessible units or other forms of specialized housing. It is also not clear how many of the County’s low or moderate income residents have special housing needs due to a disability. Therefore, it is not possible with the available information to quantify the unmet need for affordable units for residents with disabilities. The same is true for people with other types of disabilities, given the fact that not all people with disabilities require specialized housing or lack the resources to obtain it. However, it is safe to say, that the need is signifi cant and that the number of people in the County with disabilities and specialized housing needs far outweighs the number of publicly assisted designated units. Advocates for people with disabilities report that waiting lists for such units are as long as seven years and no new units designated for people with disabilities have been constructed during the past seven years. However, the Bridge project will provide some 15 units of housing for people with developmental disabilities. Housing needs for people with disabilities, particularly those with mental health-related disabilities, have increased in recent years and are expected to continue to increase as state budget shortages and federal policy decisions force cuts in programs that serve these individuals. Victims of Domestic Violence The 1998 Oregon Domestic Violence Needs Assessment was conducted for the Oregon Governor’s Council on Domestic Violence. The overall goals of the assessment were to learn more about the scope of the problem of domestic violence in Oregon and to inform policies and programs aimed at reducing and preventing domestic violence. The fi ndings of the assessment offer compelling evidence of the need to improve Oregon’s response to domestic violence. The assessment found that domestic violence is common in Oregon. More than one of every eight (13.3% or 132,800) Oregon women are estimated to have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner during the past year. More than one of every six (15% or 123,400) Oregon children under 18 years of age is estimated to have witnessed the physical abuse of their mothers or caregivers during the past year. This translates into nearly — 83 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 31,000 female victims and over 18,000 child witnesses in Washington County in 2005. Unfortunately, most instances of domestic violence go unreported and there are very few facilities available to house victims of such violence. In 2002, the Washington County District Attorney’s offi ce fi elded 400 calls related to domestic violence and there is only one shelter in the County available for victims of domestic violence, with approximately 30 beds. These conditions and estimates are consistent with national prevalence estimates for women who are victims and children who witness domestic violence. Physically abused women tend to be young and have more health, social, and economic problems than women who have never been abused. These problems are paralleled by greater use of health services, social services, and criminal/legal services. Moreover, survivors of physical abuse continue to face increased health and economic challenges. Individuals and agencies that can help victims need more information about domestic violence and knowledge of community resources than they currently have. Many agencies report lacking established protocols for screening clients for involvement in domestic violence, training on multiple topics related to domestic violence, and knowledge of the full range of resources in their counties for victims, perpetrators, and children who witness domestic violence. Many domestic violence-related services (emergency, criminal/legal, transitional, support, and health care) are unavailable but needed, or available but inadequate in counties throughout Oregon for victims, perpetrators, and children who witness domestic violence. Victims with special challenges, such as those who are disabled, diagnosed with mental illness, non-English speaking, cultural/ethnic minorities, and females less than 18 years of age often lack needed or adequate services. Agencies also highlight public awareness campaigns and domestic violence education in K-12 schools as top priorities for community efforts to prevent or reduce domestic violence. People with Alcoholism/ Drug Addiction (Including Ex-Offenders) Washington County’s Mental Health estimate of adults in need of alcohol and drug treatment is 13.7% in 2004 or 47,232 adults in 2003. 25 5,307 clients receive services -- only one in nine adults. Most of these are served through out-patient services. There are three adult residential facilities in the County for persons with drug and alcohol problems that are so severe that they require residential treatment for a period for 25 Chance Wooley, Washington County Mental Health. Personal communication. March 17, 2004. The fi gure for the percentage of adults in need of drug or alcohol treatment is based on an estimated 2003 population of 472,600, of which 344,761 are age 18 or older. — 84 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 detoxifi cation and to be in a controlled, drug and alcohol free environment. They have a total of 30 beds and provide treatment for 258 persons each year. These facilities are listed in Table 4-23. Approximately 2,600 people left the prison system in 2003. Since 70% of persons who are incarcerated have drug and alcohol problems, many of these felons need some form of special or transitional housing. Specialized housing that includes abstinence programs, enrollment in drug and alcohol programs, and/ or attendance at AA meetings as a condition for residence provides needed structure so that residents can maintain a clean and sober life. Some of the housing units targeted to people with substance abuse problems are also available to ex-offenders, though this represents a relatively small percentage of the overall need. A number of living facilities and treatment centers provide housing options for people with alcoholism or drug addiction, with approximately 256 existing or planned beds/ units available (Table 4-24). This represents approximately one bed or other housing unit for every 68 individuals in need of drug or alcohol treatment. While not all of these individuals require specialized housing as part of their treatment, there is clearly a need for more drug or alcohol treatment centers providing hundreds of additional beds or other units. The County’s 2005-2007 Behavioral Health Implementation Plan identifi ed a number of housing needs including: � Supported housing � Transitional housing for mental health clients leaving the hospital � Housing to address homelessness in general � Improved group homes Table 4-23 Adult Residential Facilities for People with Drug and Alcohol Problems Facility Number of Beds CODA Tigard Recovery Center 12 DePaul Treatment Centers 9 LifeWorks NW 9 Table 4-24 Housing for People in Need of Drug or Alcohol Treatment Housing Provider Location Number of Units or Beds Clean and Sober Living Hillsboro 37 Homestreet~Banyan Tree 1 Aloha, Hillsboro 73 Luke-Dorf, Inc. 1 Tigard 99 Homeward Bound Recovery Home Sherwood 12 House of Hope Recover Ministry Aloha 28 Oxford Houses (25 sites) 2 Mostly Hillsboro 179 Total 428 Sources: Dennis Erickson, Washington County Community Corrections. Personal Communications. March, 2004; Continuum of Care Plan, 2005 1 Not all beds indicated in this table are dedicated or available for persons with drug and alcohol problems. 2 Includes some facilities that are planned but have not yet been built. — 85 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 � Transitional housing for drug and alcohol clients � Stable, long-term housing for persons with chronic mental illness � Increasing the availability of housing subsidies, transitional housing, and other affordable housing options through collaboration with appropriate partners � Insuring integrated treatment for all Severe and Persistent Mentally Ill clients in the primary sites where they received services. HOMELESSNESS Each year Washington County, along with others in the state, conducts a one-night count of homeless persons. Based on these counts, in March 2004, there were a total of 590 persons who were homeless of which 243 were accommodated in shelters, and 347 were turned away. This number under-represents the homeless population, as many homeless do not seek shelter in the County. (Table 4-25) However, these counts do include individuals living in some informal homeless “camps” within the County, which were surveyed by Oregon Housing and Community Services in the spring of 2004. Transitional housing is the primary source of temporary housing for the homeless who are sheltered. Emergency shelters are another source of temporary housing for the homeless, although space is limited in Washington County with only four facilities with a total overnight capacity of 98 beds. There is no shelter for single homeless men, women or youths in the County. Providing another shelter has been a high priority for the County and agencies that help the homeless. More detailed information about homeless facilities is provided in Table 4-29 and Appendix C. Table 4-25 Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless in Washington County, March 2004 Families Type of Housing/Support Single Families Individuals Total Individuals Sheltered Transitional housing 38 63 143 181 Provided emergency shelter in shelter facility 6 15 46 52 Provided voucher for motel/campsite 0 0 0 0 Rent assistance 0 2 10 10 Total Sheltered 44 80 199 243 Unsheltered Staying w/ family, friends 27 187 58 214 Motel/Hotel 16 9 4 25 Car 1 20 8 21 Camping 7 14 6 21 Street 12 8 3 20 Squatting 5 1 1 6 Other 4 36 10 40 Total Unsheltered 72 275 90 347 Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services, March 28, 2004 — 86 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Some homeless persons who desire shelter in Washington County seek it outside the County, particularly in Portland where there are a number of shelters. However, this was a problem during the ice storm in 2004 when public transit services were not operating at capacity and homeless persons dependent on transit were unable to get to Portland. Many homeless people cope with their situation through temporary stays with families and friends. Others sleep in their cars, camp out in the woods, make do on the streets, or stay at a motel if they can scrape together enough money. Sources of Homelessness People are homeless primarily because of poverty. The leading causes of homelessness are inability to afford rent, unemployment, and associated problems such as evictions, inability to establish credit and poor rental history (See Table 4-26). Issues of violence, mental illness, drugs and alcohol also contribute to or exacerbate homelessness. Domestic violence and related problems within the home are a leading cause of homelessness. Violence in the home is the third leading cause mentioned by homeless persons for their situation. Mental illness and drugs and alcohol are major factors among the homeless. Social service agencies estimate that 70% of homeless persons have problems with drugs and alcohol. Emotional disorders often are intertwined with drug and alcohol abuse among the homeless. Social service agencies have found that their work requires knowledge and skills to help homeless people with these issues in addition to providing a place of shelter. Table 4-26 Causes of Homelessness Causes Responses Money problems Couldn't afford rent 324 Unemployed 214 Evicted 127 Credit 84 Poor rental history 65 Gambling 5 Family problems, violence Domestic Violence 186 Kicked out 74 Pregnant 15 Child abuse 13 Runaway 3 Drugs/Alcohol/Mental illness Mental illness 132 Drug/Alcohol self 132 Drug/Alcohol in home 64 Other reasons Other 114 Criminal history 80 Medical 37 By choice 20 Property sold 2 Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services, March 2004 — 87 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Who are the homeless? Just over half of the homeless are children below the age of 18. One out of fi ve of the homeless are pre-school children ages 0-5. (See Table 4-27 and accompanying bar chart) In Washington County, the age profi le of the homeless does not fi t the typical stereotype of an old, single man. Rather, the homeless are made up in large part of young people, many of them single mothers with children. Of those who were homeless in March 2004, 56% were women. Signifi cantly, the largest age group is the young adults between 25 and 44 years old. This group accounts for a third of the homeless population. Table 4-27 Age of Homeless in Washington County, 2004 Age Range Number Percent of Known Age 0-5 110 21% 6-11 95 18% 12-17 66 13% 18-23 47 9% Total School Age 318 60% 24-44 172 33% 45-54 29 6% 55 + 7 1% Total Adults 208 40% Unknown 64 n.a. Total 590 100% Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services, March 2004 Age of Homeless 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24-44 45-54 55 + Age Percent of known age — 88 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Fully 46% of the homeless in Washington County are white with Hispanics making up the second largest group with 36%. (See Table 4-28 and the chart below) Housing Needs of the Homeless Persons who are homeless need more than just housing. Experience shows that they require both housing and an array of supportive services to enable them to “move to self suffi ciency and permanent housing.” Individuals and families need services to help deal with the many life issues they face: poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness. For some, these are long-term and chronic conditions. For others, temporary hardships such as losing a job, or having an accident or prolonged illness, can lead to homelessness. The one-night count of 243 sheltered persons and 347 unsheltered persons is one indicator of housing needs for the homeless. The Washington County Housing Authority’s waiting list is another. As of July 16, 2004, there were 1,871 total households on the waiting list who are homeless. Currently the supply of housing facilities for homeless includes those facilities listed in Table 4-29 on the following page. Table 4-28 Ethnicity of Homeless Ethnicity Number Percent White 213 46% Hispanic 166 36% Black, African American 47 10% Native American 15 3% Asian, Hawaiian 8 2% Unknown 11 2% Total 460 100% Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services, March 2004 Ethnicity of Homeless 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% White Hispanic Black, African American Native American Asian, Hawaiian Unknown Ethnicity — 89 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Table 4-29 Washington County Housing Resources for Homeless Persons, 2004 Facility Type Area Beds Emergency Shelter OR Dept. Human Services Vouchers Various Local motels/hotels Homestreet-Banyan Tree Respite Bed Hillsboro 1 Beaverton Police Vouchers Beaverton Local motels/hotels Boys and Girls Aid Society Youth 5 youth, 2 foster care Cascade AIDS project Vouchers Hillsboro Local motels/hotels Community Action Shelter Hillsboro 20 beds, plus vouchers Good Neighbor Center Shelter Tigard 36 beds Luke-Dorf Respite Bed Tigard 2 respite bed Open Door Counseling Parking Hillsboro Car camping Domestic Violence Resource Center Shelter 28 Beds Family Bridge Temporary beds Hillsboro 14 beds provided by member of 10 churches Transitional Housing Homestreet-Banyan Tree 6 houses Aloha, Hillsboro 41 beds for mentally ill Cascade Aids Project Transitional Hillsboro 11 beds Recovery Ministries Transitional Aloha 28 beds Coda Treatment Services Transitional Metzger 13 beds in 3 houses Community Action Transitional Hillsboro 20 beds Luke-Dorf, Inc. Transitional Tigard 53 beds in 6 programs Lutheran Community Services Transitional, Domestic Violence Tigard, Aloha 24 Units LifeWorks NW Treatment Cornelius 24 Beds (Cornelius) 5 Beds (Hillsboro) Wa. Cty. Dep. Of Housing Transitional Aloha 14 Beds for parolees Permanent Supportive Housing Cascade Aids Project Shelter + Care Hillsboro 10 units, 26 beds Clean and Sober Living Drug/Alfree housing Beaverton Hillsboro 23 Beds, Beaverton 35 beds, Hillsboro Homestreet-Banyan Tree Supportive housing Hillsboro, Aloha 55 beds in 2 facilities Luke-Dorf, Inc Res. Care Hillsboro 16 beds Open Door Counseling Shelter +Care Hillsboro 6 units Oxford Houses Drug/Al free Various 70 units Source: Washington County Continuum of Care Application, 2004 — 90 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 The Washington County Department of Housing Services has created a Housing and Supportive Services Network (HSSN). It provides coordinated access to affordable housing and homeless services. The HSSN also provides planning to provide services and to apply for Federal grants. Unmet Housing Needs for Homeless Individuals and Families Recently a grant was submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a “Continuum of Care” Grant for $2,021,849 to increase the housing available for homeless individuals and families with children. The following estimates of unmet housing needs are a part of the application. Based on information from the County’s waiting list for homeless facilities (i.e., over 1,800 homeless families on the waiting list), the shelter-based data likely under-represents the total need for housing and services for the homeless. Homeless Needs and Distribution of Services The homeless in Washington County are located throughout the County. There are an unknown number of isolated camps and temporary sleeping areas in undeveloped wood areas and farmland. Though much of this is in Western Washington County, there are also woods in the eastern part of the County such as Nike’s Beaverton campus where there are homeless camps. Emergency shelters are located in Hillsboro and Tigard but they are only targeted to families. The homeless in the eastern part of the County tend to use facilities in Portland and Multnomah County. No shelters exist for single Table 4-30 Unmet Housing Needs for Homeless, 2004 (HUD Table 1A) Individuals Persons in Families with Children Type of Housing Inventory Unmet Need Inventory Unmet Need Emergency shelter 13 53 93 34 Transitional housing 172 29 139 95 Permanent supportive housing 254 165 20 287 Total 439 247 252 416 Source: Washington County Continuum of Care Application, 2004 Table 4-31 Unmet Housing Needs for Homeless Subpopulations, 2004 Homeless Subpopulations Sheltered Unsheltered Total Chronically Homeless 90 (A) 73 (A) 163 Severely Mentally Ill 19 (A) Chronic Substance Abuse 74 (A) Veterans 17 (A Persons with HIV/AIDS 9 (A) Victims of Domestic Violence 106 (A) Youth (Under 18 years of age) 432 (A) Data not available — 91 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 adults or youth. The Beaverton Police have a voucher program for homeless persons. More detailed information about homeless needs, facilities and services can be found in excerpts from the Continuum of Care Application found in Appendix C. BARRIERS TO PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING The County, local jurisdictions, non-profi t groups and others face a variety of obstacles in providing housing and related services to low and moderate income residents and those with special needs. Obstacles and impediments are summarized below generally and for specifi c groups. Barriers to affordable housing include those policies, administrative rules, regulations, market events, public or private practices, and economic conditions that hinder the development and provision of housing affordable to lower-income or special needs households. Following is a list of impediments that have been identifi ed as obstacles to the provision of affordable housing in Washington County and its constituent jurisdictions. Many of these also are described in the County’s Fair Housing Plan. Increasing Land and Housing Costs Home values have risen signifi cantly during the last decade in part as a result of rising land costs within the Portland metropolitan area. Rising costs are related to a variety of factors including a decrease in land supply, low investment rates, in-migration of residents from areas with even more expensive housing markets, to name a few. Cutbacks in Federal Funding Signifi cant cuts are proposed for the Section 8 voucher program in Washington County for the upcoming year. Washington County is expected to receive $860,000 for the Section 8 program, eliminating 100 vouchers and increasing the waiting list for families seeking vouchers. These cuts will make affordable housing more scarce and increase caseloads of staff administering this and other federal housing programs. Loss of Housing Due to Loss of Health Benefi ts and Medication The collapse of the Oregon Health Plan, long- term economic recession and the closing of many psychiatric care facilities have resulted in many low income people and families losing basic heath insurance. As a result, these individuals and families now often have to choose between spending scarce resources on health care, housing or other basic needs. Failure to Provide Fair Share Housing to Households at 50% MFI and Lower Housing at 50% of MFI and less is expensive to provide in general and more expensive to provide as the MFI level shifts down toward the 30% range. — 92 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 Higher Income Residents Disproportionately Occupy Affordable Housing Landlords with rents in the affordable range have a tendency and incentive to choose tenants with the best fi nancial and background profi les. The factors involved include income level, time on the job, housing history, criminal record, source of funds, number of children and ages, and similar factors. As a result, privately-owned affordable housing units often are occupied by tenants who could easily afford higher priced housing, with a resulting loss of affordable housing to lower income tenants who have few if any options. The Conversion Threat to the Mobile Home Parks of Washington County Most of the housing in these parks is owned by the residents with the spaces rented from the owner of the park. Residents of these parks are often poor, elderly, and disabled. Conversion of these parks to other uses can result in a long-term loss of affordable housing. Relative Defi ciency of Housing for Large Families There appears to be a gap in the supply of affordable units with three or more bedrooms. This leads to increased overcrowding, the likelihood of intra-household frustration and violence, and the risk of family failure. Insuffi ciency of Programs to Assure Accessible Housing Choice Accessible housing is needed to provide equal housing opportunities to people with disabilities. The obligation to “affi rmatively further fair housing” requires local jurisdictions to ensure that local housing meets state and federal accessibility requirements and that the mix of housing owned or subsidized by local jurisdictions meets the accessibility needs of the population with disabilities. Discrimination by Landlords Against Section 8 Voucher Holders A U.S. Census Bureau survey shows that many landlords (42 percent of those surveyed) refuse to accept Section 8 tenants. This discrimination is especially pronounced in predominantly white middle class areas resistant to inclusive housing. Local Taxes, Systems Development Charges and Other Fees One of the problems in satisfying the need for low income housing is that existing funding is limited, and the cost of providing the housing is high. Local system development charges, application fees, public infrastructure requirements, and property taxes contribute to these costs. Lack of Programs to Ensure that Linguistically Isolated Populations Have Equal Access to Housing In Washington County there are a number — 93 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 of populations who do not speak English as their fi rst language. Their poor facility with English may lead to substantial diffi culties in applying for and obtaining housing. Lack of Data Data related to some types of housing conditions is unavailable, diffi cult to acquire or expensive to maintain. For example, there is no database or listing of accessible housing units within the County. This makes it diffi cult to determine the relative need for accessible units to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Other areas where data is lacking include size of populations with disabilities, extent of homelessness, overall condition of housing (by jurisdiction and County-wide), and cross-tabulated data related to ethnicity, income, location and housing costs. Availability of Commercial Credit Lending practices of leading fi nancial institutions do not refl ect the community’s racial diversity. The ratio at which home loans are received and accepted are not consistent with the rate at which new Black and Hispanic households are entering the area. Neighborhood Resistance to Location and Development of Low Income and Special Needs Housing Residents are often wary of and resistant to development of housing for low income residents or people with special needs, particularly the homeless people with mental disabilities or substance abuse problems and ex-offenders. Many will actively oppose or discourage development of such housing in their communities or neighborhoods. Capacity-Building The previous (2000-2005) Consolidated Plan identifi ed this as an issue in Washington County. While continued support for community housing development organizations is important, signifi cant progress towards this end has been accomplished in the last several years, including formation of advocacy and support groups such as the Washington County Housing Advocacy Group (HAG), Housing Supportive Services Network (HSSN), and the Community Housing Fund, an independent organization that was established through a donation of $300,000 in seed money from the County. — 94 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 4 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] — 95 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Goals, Policies, Objectives & Strategies Chapter 5 This chapter lays out the policies, goals, strategies and priorities related to affordable housing for low to moderate income households and special needs households, including the homeless. While the focus of the Consolidated Plan is on the use of federal funds through the three main entitlement programs, other partner jurisdictions and agencies frequently use this document as a resource in advocating for both program funding and policies that help develop or preserve affordable housing. To help support these efforts, we have included in this chapter local goals and strategies (related to both housing and non-housing) that were developed as a means of accessing the federal funds, as well as the overriding national, state, and regional goals that support and highlight our collective goal of assisting low and moderate income persons. Local goals and policies as well as housing and non-housing goals, strategies and priorities include those developed by Washington County and the City of Beaverton. This Chapter satisfi es HUD requirements for inclusion of an “Affordability Strategy” in the Consolidated Plan. This summarizes the following categories of goals, policies, objectives, strategies and priorities related to housing, homeless and community development needs: � National, State and Regional goals and policies. These goals and policies provide guidance and direction to local jurisdictions as they develop and implement their own goals, objectives and strategies. HUD directives prescribed here also directly guide allocation and funding of federal funds provided through the CDBG, HOME, ESG and HOPWA programs. State and regional goals and policies guide implementation of land use plans and policies that affect housing development. They also provide targets for production of affordable housing and implementation of other strategies to encourage development of housing for low income households and those with special needs. The national, state and regional policies described here have been culled from appropriate planning and policy documents. � Washington County. This chapter describes County policies related to land use and housing contained in the County Comprehensive and Strategic Plans. These goals and policies affect and help guide County decisions about allocation of federal and County funds for housing and community development. In addition, — 96 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 as part of the process of updating this Consolidated Plan, specifi c goals, objectives, strategies and priorities have been developed to address housing and non-housing needs and guide future decisions about allocation and funding of CDBG, HOME and ESG dollars. Goals and strategies included in other relevant plans (PHA, Continuum of Care, Fair Housing and HOPWA plans) serve the same purpose and also have been incorporated in this chapter. � City of Beaverton. The City of Beaverton has developed an integrated set of guiding principles, programmatic objectives, and strategies to meet housing and community development needs within the City. As a complement to Washington County’s housing and non- housing goals, policies and objectives, they also will help guide decisions about where and how to target CDBG and HOME funds to meet community needs identifi ed in this plan. Strategic Planning Process Consolidated Plan Goals Objectives Strategies Priorities Allocation Processes State and Regional Laws and Policies County and City Policies and Regulations Federal Goals and Policies County Policy Advisory Board County Housing Programs Advisory Subcommittee STAKEHOLDER INPUT Board of County Commissioners — 97 — NATIONAL/STATE/REGIONAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 NATIONAL, STATE AND REGIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES Goals and policies set at the national, state, regional, and local levels shape local strategies on housing, economic and community development, and homelessness to a signifi cant degree. National Policies National policies described here directly impact allocation of federal funds for housing and non-housing needs and projects. According to HUD, the statutes for the four grant programs covered by the Consolidated Planning rule (CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA) include a number of basic goals found in the Housing and Community Development Act and National Affordable Housing Act, as amended. These goals can be compressed into three clusters that include the following: Provide Decent Housing � Assist homeless persons to obtain appropriate housing � Assist those threatened with homelessness � Retain the affordable housing stock � Make available permanent housing that is affordable to low income Americans without discrimination � Increase the supply of supportive housing for persons with special needs Provide a Suitable Living Environment � Improve safety and livability of neighborhoods � Increase access to quality facilities and services � Reduce isolation of income groups within an area through decentralization of housing opportunities and revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods � Restore and preserve properties of special value for historic, architectural, or aesthetic reasons � Conserve energy resources Expand Economic Opportunities � Create jobs accessible to low income persons � Empower low income persons to achieve self-suffi ciency to reduce generations of poverty in federally assisted public housing The CDBG program is established by federal law and administered by HUD. Every year, the federal government allocates funds for the program and distributes them to “entitlement” communities throughout the United States. Recipients, such as Washington County, may use the funds for a wide range of projects, provided projects are directed towards one of the three national objectives of the program, and meet federal eligibility criteria. — 98 — NATIONAL/STATE/REGIONAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 HUD has established guidelines to ensure compliance with federal law. Within the law and guidelines, communities are allowed considerable fl exibility to design programs and provide grants that are responsive to local circumstances and needs. In addition to the goal of the CDBG program, “the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income,” the federal government requires that all projects funded through the CDBG program address one of the three national objectives: 1. Provide benefi t to low and moderate income persons; 2. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; 3. Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency, because existing conditions pose a serious or immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, where other fi nancial resources are not available to meet such needs. The federal government requires entitlement communities to demonstrate that at least 70 percent of each year’s funding is used to address the fi rst national objective by benefi ting low and moderate income persons. Federal programs related to housing and special needs populations include the HOME, ADDI, ESG, HOPWA and Continuum of Care programs, as well as several other HUD voucher and grant programs. These are briefl y summarized below and described in more detail in Chapter 4. � HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). Over the last 12 years, this has been the primary federal program, in concert with housing vouchers, used by the County and local jurisdictions to address housing needs for low income residents. � American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI). This new program is aimed at improving home ownership opportunities for fi rst-time homebuyers. � Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). Beginning in July 2004, the ESG dollars were allocated directly to Washington County and will continue to be targeted to facilities and services for homeless populations. � Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). This program is administered by the City of Portland for the entire metropolitan region, including Washington County. � Continuum of Care. This program funds housing and related services to address the needs of the Homeless. — 99 — NATIONAL/STATE/REGIONAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 � HUD Section 811 and 202 Funds. Through the Section 811 program, HUD provides funding to nonprofi t organizations to develop rental housing with the availability of supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities, and provides rent subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable. Section 202 funds are targeted to elderly residents. � HUD Section 8 Vouchers. This program provides housing vouchers to very low and low-income households that qualify. State Goals and Policies Through its statewide land use program, Oregon has developed a variety of policies to guide land use and housing development. These policies guide development and implementation of local land use and housing plans and programs. While they do not have a direct connection to decisions about allocation of federal housing and community development funds, they indirectly affect the types of projects and needs identifi ed by Washington County, the City of Beaverton and other service providers in the County. Statewide Planning Goals-Goal 10: Housing One of 19 statewide land use planning goals, Goal 10 expresses the State of Oregon’s policy “to provide for the housing needs of citizens”: Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the fi nancial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for fl exibility of housing location, type, and density. Goal 10 specifi es that each community must plan for and accommodate needed housing types (typically multifamily and manufactured housing). It requires each community to inventory its buildable residential lands, project future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough buildable land to meet those needs. It also prohibits local plans from discriminating against needed housing types. Buildable lands include lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available, and necessary for residential use. Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 197 The ORS Chapter 197 provides more-detailed requirements for assuring suffi cient housing, including the requirement that a 20-year residential land capacity is shown and that capacity for needed housing be demonstrated. It also includes consideration of the density of residential development, so that to be counted, densities must be at rates that the market is likely to demand and developers build. It also requires cities and counties to set reasonable standards for siting manufactured housing. Cities and counties must permit such housing both on individual lots as well as — 100 — NATIONAL/STATE/REGIONAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 in manufactured housing parks. In addition, it requires that provision for government- assisted housing be made. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 7 This division of the OAR sets forth how the Metro region and the communities within it are to demonstrate compliance with Goal 10. The purpose of this rule is to assure opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units and the effi cient use of land within the Metropolitan Portland (Metro) urban growth boundary, and to provide greater certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs. Needed housing means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels. Needed housing also includes but is not limited to attached and detached single-family housing and multiple-family housing for both owner and renter occupancy and manufactured homes. In the Metropolitan Housing Rule (OAR 660-07-000), a State administrative rule that only applies to the metropolitan area, two fundamental requirements are included. The fi rst requirement (50/50 rule) states that: Jurisdictions other than small developed cities must either designate suffi cient buildable land to provide the opportunity for at least 50 percent of new residential units to be attached single-family housing or multiple-family housing or justify an alternative percentage based on changing circumstances. The second state requirement is that the communities in the region must provide an overall density of six, eight, or ten dwelling units per net buildable acre of residential land (6/8/10 rule). Regional Goals and Policies Regional Framework Plan Adopted by Metro in 1997, the Regional Framework Plan (RFP) incorporates goals, objectives, and policies that guide Portland- area local governments in directing future growth and creating and preserving livable communities. Section 1.3 of the RFP contains Metro policies on housing and affordable housing. Its purpose is to address the need for a regional affordable housing strategy, by developing and achieving a “fair share strategy” for meeting the housing needs of the urban population in cities and counties based on a sub regional analysis. These policy initiatives are intended to provide that: � A diverse range of housing types will be available within cities and counties inside the UGB; � Specifi c goals for low and moderate income — 101 — NATIONAL/STATE/REGIONAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 and market rate housing are adopted to ensure that suffi cient and affordable housing is available to households of all income levels that live or have a member working in each jurisdiction; � Housing densities and housing costs support the development of the regional transportation system and designated centers and corridors; � An appropriate balance of jobs and housing of all types exists within the region and sub regions; � At least 20% of new units in region wide opportunity areas inside the UGB and in fi rst tier urban reserves are built to be affordable to households at or below the median income without public subsidy; and � Accessory dwelling units begin to be a signifi cant part of new development. Regional Affordable Housing Strategy The Metro Council created a 25-member Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC) and charged it with reviewing and advising Metro on affordable housing policies and strategies for the region. The committee developed a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy (RAHS) that contains affordable housing goals and objectives, implementation strategies, and an assessment process. The plan was accepted by the Metro Council on June 22, 2000. The Metro Council will amend the Regional Framework Plan and other functional plans to refl ect recommendations in the RAHS. Metro’s policies are primarily supportive. Jurisdictions are encouraged to meet targets for production of affordable housing units. They are required to periodically report their progress in meeting these targets and in implementing or “considering” specifi c affordable housing strategies. Among the key points of the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy: � The magnitude of need for more affordable housing in the region is great-and will continue to grow. � There are many tools that can be used to increase the supply of affordable housing, some of which are currently utilized by local governments in the region. Best practices and examples of many strategies are included in the RAHS to provide local governments with ideas. � Additional funds are needed to make a large dent in the need. Local governments need to work together to create a funding source that can be managed locally to meet local and regional affordable housing priorities. — 102 — NATIONAL/STATE/REGIONAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 � The Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee recognizes that solutions to the problem need to be the result of a collaborative process-not a “top- down” mandate. The recommendations of the RAHS are consistent with this approach. — 103 — LOCAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 LOCAL GOALS AND POLICIES This section includes the goals, objectives, policies, strategies and priorities of Washington County and City of Beaverton related to housing and community development needs. Washington County Goals, Policies, Objectives and Strategies Elements of the following plans related to community development and housing are consolidated and described in this document. � 2000 Strategic Plan � Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and Implementing Policies � Housing and Homeless Goals, Strategies and Priorities � CDBG Long-Range Goals, Objectives and Priorities In addition, relevant goals, objectives and strategies from the following plans have been incorporated in the housing and homeless goals, strategies and priorities section: � Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan � Continuum of Care Plan � Fair Housing Plan � Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Plan 2000 Strategic Plan The County’s Strategic Plan includes the following mission and strategies related to meeting housing and community development needs. Vision and Guiding Principles Shelter will be safe, comfortable, and diverse, spanning the spectrum of affordability, effectively exploiting the benefi ts of proximity to work, school, commercial/service and transportation systems. Mission The overall mission identifi ed in the plan is to work with a variety of public and private organizations to provide adequate shelter for those who would not otherwise be able to attain it and to provide for the transition into independence for those who can achieve that goal in regard to their own housing. Long-range strategies in the plan that pertain to housing include the following: � Respond to Countywide housing needs by providing services appropriate to the needs and resources available. � Support modestly priced rental and fi rst- time ownership housing opportunities provided in partnership with cities and the private and nonprofi t sectors, with coordinating and facilitating support from the County. � Consider making County-owned surplus property available for the development of affordable housing opportunities in partnership or as part of the public — 104 — LOCAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 housing program of the County. � Help address the full range of housing for those with special needs by supporting formation of successful partnerships with nonprofi t housing providers, helping secure state and federal funding sources, and preserving the public housing stock. � Continue to work toward the development of innovative solutions to provide housing which is safe, affordable, available and accessible for the full range of housing needs. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policies and Implementing Strategies Washington County has adopted four Urban Comprehensive Framework Plan policies related to urban area housing: Housing Affordability (Policy 21) It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the housing industry to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing for all households in the unincorporated urban county area. The County will: a. Provide for an average overall density for new housing constructed in the urban unincorporated area of at least eight units per net buildable acre; b. Streamline the development review process to reduce the regulatory costs associated with land development, while improving the quality of review; c. Through a regulatory process in the Community Development Code, permit the creation of a second dwelling unit within detached dwellings where the structural characteristics are deemed by the Planning Director to allow such an adaptation and where such a change will not adversely affect the neighborhood; d. Review design and development standards for residential projects as part of an effort to reduce unnecessary housing costs while maintaining housing and neighborhood quality; e. Review the utilization of residential planned densities on a periodic basis to determine if any Plan changes are required. Large housing projects for the elderly may include accessory convenience commercial uses. Appropriate standards shall be included in the Community Development Code; f. Encourage compatible development in partially developed residential areas to make optimal use of existing urban service facility capacities and maximize use of the supply of residential land; and g. Assist state and local public housing agencies in the development of affordable housing opportunities throughout Washington County by continuing to fund the Department of Housing — 105 — LOCAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Services (DHS) and Offi ce of Community Development (OCD). Housing Choice and Availability (Policy 22) It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the housing industry to make a variety of housing types available, in suffi cient quantities, to the housing consumer. The County will: a. Designate a suffi cient amount of land in the Community Plans to allow at least 50% of the housing units constructed over the next 20 years to be attached units; b. Allow for the construction of a variety of housing types on all land planned for residential use, except where specifi cally limited by ordinance, as long as density limits are not exceeded and development standards are complied with; c. Designate through the community planning process, an adequate amount of land in each unincorporated urban community to allow for the widest possible range of housing types and density levels, consistent with the Comprehensive Framework Plan; d. Support the provision of needed mobile home sites in mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions throughout the County; and e. Allow by right in all residential districts housing projects designed to meet the needs of special groups (the elderly, handicapped, and migrant workers), as long as all development standards are complied with. Housing Condition (Policy 23) It is the policy of Washington County to encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock in unincorporated areas. The County will: a. Continue to support and, where appropriate, participate in existing housing rehabilitation programs; b. Enforce building code provisions and other County regulations relating to maintenance of existing structures; c. Consider the adoption of a housing code to assure safe and healthy housing conditions, if such a code is deemed to be useful; d. Encourage local lending institutions to offer rehabilitation loan programs at reasonable interest rates; e. Consider deferring increased property tax assessments due to housing rehabilitation; and f. Consider taxing the value of improvements at a lower rate than land — 106 — LOCAL GOALS & POLICIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 value. g. Encourage the housing industry, public and private housing agencies, and individual homeowners to preserve and maintain existing, viable affordable housing units within Washington County. The County will continue to promote the retention of affordable housing in Washington County by: 1. Administering the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnerships Program for Washington County through the Offi ce of Community Development in order to aid in housing rehabilitation and the construction of affordable housing throughout Washington County. 2. Support Washington County’s low and moderate-income homeowners with home repairs through continued administration of the County’s Housing Rehabilitation Program managed by the Offi ce of Community Development and funding of low- interest housing rehabilitation loans and grants. 3. Administering the American Dream Downpayment Initiative through the Offi ce of Community Development in order to assist low-income households achieve homeownership by providing payment and closing cost assistance. Housing Discrimination (Policy 24) It is the policy of Washington County to encourage and support equal access to quality housing throughout the County of all people. The County will: a. Continue to support Housing Authority efforts to reduce housing discrimination in the County. — 107 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 CONSOLIDATED PLAN HOUSING GOALS, STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES 26 During development of this plan, Washington County worked with housing stakeholder groups to develop goals and strategies addressing the housing needs of low income and special needs households in Washington County. Additional goals and strategies were compiled from the City of Beaverton Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan, the Washington County Department of Housing Services Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan, the Fair Housing Plan, the Continuum of Care plan and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS plan. These goals and strategies can be met or implemented by housing and service providers throughout the County. They are intended to support and enable the County, cities, non-profi ts and others to help meet the signifi cant and varying housing needs of low and moderate income households and those with special needs throughout the County. Goals, strategies and priorities are described on the following pages. Goal I Increase homeownership opportunities in Washington County, with an emphasis on those groups that are under-represented as homeowners; incorporate a bi-lingual capacity in implementing programs. Strategies � Establish a program to increase homeownership among underrepresented populations (e.g., Latinos in Beaverton or Hillsboro). � Support a fi rst-time homebuyer program that assists low and moderate income households in Washington County to secure affordable mortgages. � Use public funds to acquire land to enable self-help groups to expand homeownership options. � Support pre/post purchase housing counseling and foreclosure prevention program(s) that serve low and moderate income households in Washington County. � Support a fi rst-time homebuyer program that assists low and moderate income households in Washington County by providing down payment assistance. � Identify and seek non-County resources to expand fi rst time homeownership opportunities. � Support and coordinate homeownership education efforts; coordinate these programs with similar efforts by local lenders and non-profi t groups. � Identify, facilitate and obtain fi nancial 26 Goals and strategies are not listed in order of priority. No relative priorities have been assigned to them. Additional footnotes identify the source document for strategies identifi ed in other plans (e.g., Fair Housing Plan, PHA Plan, etc.) that were not identifi ed during the County’s housing needs stakeholder meeting process. — 108 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 and technical resources to implement appropriate demonstration programs in the design, planning and construction of affordable homeownership units and subdivisions. � Encourage private employees to establish fi rst-time homebuyer programs. Provide technical assistance where desired. Goal II Reduce homelessness and provide needed services to those that are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless in Washington County Strategies � Integrate Federal housing program resources managed within the County that lead to permanent housing for the homeless. � Support housing projects that help homeless households transition into permanent housing. � Support housing and social service provider activities that lead to the creation of housing options for the homeless. � Support programs that provide homeless prevention services. � Support programs that provide emergency shelter and services for the homeless, including increasing the number of shelter beds for single people. � Create a winter shelter network through links with the faith community. � Support the regional program, Bridges to Housing, seeking to expand permanent housing opportunities for homeless families or families at risk of becoming homeless through the development, acquisition, or subsidization of permanent housing units for homeless families living at or below 30% area median income in conjunction with the supportive services homeless families need to achieve self- suffi ciency. � Maintain a Housing and Supportive Services Network as a year-round coordinating and strategic planning organization to serve the homeless. � Examine the relationship and balance between emergency, transitional, and permanent housing for people with AIDS and how the system can better leverage and support linked services. 27 � Develop and implement Severe Weather Action Plan. 28 � Plan and implement year-round, mobile, homeless camp outreach program. 28 � Construct low demand entry points within the Safe-Haven model in order to engage homeless clients immediately. 28 � Conduct ongoing discharge planning to ensure client placement from mental 27 HOPWA 28 Continuum of Care — 109 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 health hospitals, jails and treatment programs into appropriate housing environments. 29 Note: Additional goals and strategies that address homelessness are included in Appendix C (Continuum of Care Strategy). Goal III Build and preserve housing units for households with special needs and diffi cult to serve households in Washington County Strategies a. Elderly and Frail Elderly � Develop incentives or subsidies to projects targeting elderly and physically disabled households in rental housing projects. � Develop additional housing for the elderly that offers an integrated array of services and are conveniently located near public transportation. � Support coordinated programs that integrate housing facility inspections and housing rehabilitation services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. � Assist development partners in efforts to secure 202 grants. � Continue to support real-property tax-deferral opportunities for elderly homeowners. � Develop and implement public education programs to inform people about the specifi c housing needs of the elderly, such as asset conversion, reverse annuity mortgages, housing rehabilitation and weatherization, and shared housing � Apply for special-purpose vouchers targeted to the elderly, should they become available. 30 � Provide ranking preferences to disabled homeless applicants and elderly/disabled families/individuals on a fi xed income. 31 b. Persons with Disabilities � Develop additional housing units or opportunities for persons with disabilities that offer an integrated array of services and are conveniently located near public transportation. � Provide incentives to projects that provide more than the minimum number of fully accessible housing units. � Provide incentives to projects targeting chronically mentally ill and developmentally disabled persons in rental housing projects. � Evaluate the need for design, and implement innovative, joint housing and services projects appropriate to individual population groups (e.g., people with 29 Continuum of Care 30 PHA Plan — 110 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 moderate and severe disabilities). Seek demonstration grants and other fi nancial resources to develop and implement these efforts. � Develop housing with built-in supportive services for persons with disabilities, including group homes and small- to medium-sized complexes (less than 25 units), in locations with access to public transportation. � Assist development partners in efforts to secure 811 grants. � Continue to work closely with state treatment facilities when transitioning persons with mental or developmental disabilities from institutional to community living environments. � Address the housing needs of people who are “dually diagnosed” (i.e., have mental illness and drug/alcohol problems). � Construct needed modifi cations for public housing based on the section 504 Needs Assessment for Public Housing. 31 � Apply for special-purpose vouchers targeted to families with disabilities, should they become available. 31 � Provide Ranking preferences to disabled homeless applicants and elderly/disabled families/individuals on a fi xed income. 31 c. Households with Other Special Needs � Develop incentives or subsidies for projects targeting single-parent households and very large households. � Ensure that residents in HOPWA- and Ryan White-assisted housing receive the range of community-based and mainstream support services they need to maintain housing stability and achieve the highest degree of independence possible. 32 � Convene an ad hoc task force to examine the potential impacts on the existing AIDS housing system of moving homeless individuals and families rapidly into permanent housing and providing them with support services. 32 � Identify a long-term, sustainable service plan and funding mechanism to remedy the defi cits in residential care options and in-home services. 32 � Develop incentives or subsidies to projects that provide housing for households with a family member with HIV/AIDS complex. � Identify funding options for increasing the capacity to provide sub acute care for the growing number of persons living with HIV/AIDS who need it and to develop an in-home support services program that could help assure housing stability and quality of life for those who can live independently but need intermittent medical care, medication management, and/or other supports for activities of daily living. 32 31 PHA Plan 32 HOPWA — 111 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 d. Other Strategies � Ensure that Housing is Available for Large Families. 33 � Integrate planning between County Departments serving special needs populations and the housing development community so that services and rent assistance fl ow with the populations to be housed. � Provide technical assistance to housing providers regarding the requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. � Link objectives in the Consolidated Plan with available state funding initiatives, such as set-asides for specifi c special needs populations. � Integrate housing proposals into public safety levies (e.g., domestic violence shelters). � Build stronger relationships with social service/case management providers who refer high-risk applicants for housing. � Address the housing needs of ex-offenders. Goal IV Increase housing options for ethnic and racial minority low-income households, including promoting ethnically diverse neighborhoods and communities. Strategies � Use incentives to encourage developers to affi rmatively market housing to ethnic and racial minorities (consistent with the Fair Housing Act), particularly those with low or very low incomes. � Develop incentives or subsidies to projects targeting year-round, seasonal, and migrant farm worker households. � Support efforts to improve housing conditions in farm labor camps, including acquisition by non-profi ts or the Housing Authority. � Expand the availability of language- appropriate landlord-tenant, fair housing, and homeownership counseling. � Improve linkages between ethnically- based service organizations (e.g., Centro Cultural) that provide education, medical, employment, language skills, transportation, and legal services. Expand and improve connections between these service providers and housing providers/organizations. � Ensure that board memberships fairly refl ect the protected class composition of the overall community. 33 � Design and implement a demonstration project to develop housing for ethnic and racial minority low income groups. � Continue to support existing planning and communications networks, such as the Housing and Supportive Service Network (HSSN), or similar communication 33 Fair Housing Plan — 112 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 networks involving housing and social services providers, agricultural workers, advocacy organizations, employers, and government agencies to address both long- range planning and emergency needs to meet the needs of low income and special needs populations. � Affi rmatively market public housing assistance programs and units to races/ ethnicities shown to have disproportionate housing needs. 34 Goal V Preserve and make more effi cient use of the existing affordable housing stock in Washington County Strategies � Adopt long-term affordability requirements as a condition for use of federal, state and local funds used for affordable housing projects. � Continue to provide resources for rehabilitation and weatherization programs that serve low and moderate income homeowners; target areas with concentrations of substandard homes. � Develop incentives or subsidies to projects providing accessibility repairs of owner- occupied housing. � Develop incentives or subsidies to support the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing affordable rental housing units, especially those projects fi nanced under USDA Rural Development and HUD Multi-Family programs that preserve rental assistance and the acquisition of Tax Credit and Bond fi nanced housing units. � Inventory affordable and/or expiring-use properties and collaborate with housing partners to acquire and preserve that stock. � Support rehabilitation of existing multifamily projects (non-profi ts and for-profi ts) with long-term affordability requirements, giving preference to those projects that will increase accessibility. � Renovate or modernize public housing units. 34 � Maintain the supply of manufactured homes as an affordable housing option by exploring purchase or fi nancing options for non-profi ts, including land trusts. � Use zoning strategies to protect Washington County mobile home parks from the threat of conversion. 35 � Provide incentives for life-skills training for potential and existing tenants in special needs housing. � Encourage the development of mixed- income rental housing with units at market and below market rents to 34 PHA Plan 35 Fair Housing Plan — 113 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 encourage diversity and provide cross- subsidies for very low income units. � Maintain and/or rehabilitate housing of last resort without losing affordable housing units by creating a program that combines a trust fund with building inspections. 36 � Reduce public housing vacancies and apply for additional vouchers. 37 � Employ effective maintenance and management policies to minimize the number of public housing units off-line. 37 � Reduce turnover time for vacated public housing units. 37 � Reduce time to renovate public housing units. 37 Goal VI Support designated Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) carry out the Goals of the Consolidated Plan Strategies � Provide operating grants that support CHDO organizations. � Link intermediaries with local non-profi ts to promote capacity-building initiatives. � Where CHDO’s are not meeting identifi ed community needs, consider creating new CHDO’s that would be eligible for operating grants. � Identify and provide technical assistance and resources to nonprofi ts to help with organizational development, capacity building, housing planning, fi nance, development, and other issues. � Identify and obtain fi nancial resources for predevelopment costs, such as preliminary design, feasibility studies, consulting fees, environmental analysis, and site control, for affordable housing development. � Dedicate the maximum allowable portion of HOME program funds for CHDO operating costs and make required CHDO set-aside amounts available for project- specifi c technical assistance as well as housing production. � Link the corporate real estate industry with nonprofi ts to explore available (and inexpensive) offi ce space in empty buildings. � Partner with faith organizations in the County to identify land for possible donation and/or joint fi nancial ventures to develop housing. � Explore opportunities to use matching funds from national intermediaries to strengthen the capacity of local organizations. 36 Fair Housing Plan 37 PHA Plan — 114 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Goal VII Reduce costs and obstacles, identify regulatory barriers to the development of affordable housing, including regulatory barriers and costs Strategies � Advocate for fee subsidies to pay for system development charges (SDC’s), building permits, and other planning and development fees. � Promote use of design modifi cations and changes to land use regulations and standards to promote affordable housing. � Encourage the appropriate, permitted use of duplex, attached, and/or specialized housing designs and types—particularly as infi ll in existing neighborhoods— through examination of regulatory requirements, leadership in design innovations, and community information and education. � Assist non-profi ts and other developers of affordable housing in meeting state and local permitting requirements (e.g., by using designated staff to assist affordable housing developers with permitting and application processes). � Advocate for the ability to use inclusionary zoning programs in the development of affordable housing. � Increase state tax credit awards to Washington County by securing local match dollars. � Support efforts to fully capitalize the Community Housing Fund. Goal VIII Ensure equal access to affordable housing for all households in Washington County Strategies � Maintain strong Fair Housing education and outreach programs targeting renters and property managers, including the following components. ~ Educate managers and owners about rules relating to children that may violate the Fair Housing Act or state law. ~ Encourage proper design in apartments to accommodate normal childhood activity. ~ Educate property owners about issues related to charging premium rent. � Reduce impediments to Fair Housing through the following initiatives: ~ Require all locally funded housing to have policies that prohibit discrimination based on Section 8 vouchers ~ Educate landlords and implement policies to prevent discrimination against women victims of domestic violence. 38 ~ Address the needs of people with 38 Fair Housing Plan — 115 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 limited English profi ciency ~ Encourage or require the use alternative formats, reasonable accommodation, and affi rmative fair housing marketing practices. ~ Work to ensure that public transportation does not act as an impediment to Fair Housing choice in the County with special emphasis on the disabled and families with children. � Strengthen Fair Housing enforcement efforts. � Develop a model tenant application form as a pilot project, providing for waivers of terms under identifi ed circumstances, the use of limited cosigners, and the possibility of a central guarantee fund to address upfront risks. � Ensure, to the extent possible, that all federally funded housing has 5% of units set aside for those with physical accessibility (mobility) impairments, plus 2% for those with hearing or sight impairments. � Tie Fair Housing requirements to funding of affordable housing. � Market the Section 8 program to owners outside of areas of poverty /minority concentrations. 39 � Counsel Section 8 tenants as to location of units outside of areas of poverty or minority concentration and assist them to locate those units. 39 � Maintain or increase Section 8 lease-up rates by marketing the program to owners, particularly those outside of areas of minority and poverty concentration. 39 Goal IX Enhance community awareness of the need for and issues associated with housing for people with low incomes and special needs Strategies � Support community education and outreach on the social and economic value of providing affordable housing, including the need for, benefi ts of and regulations allowing development of such projects. � Develop messages linking affordable housing and educational success/continuity. � Educate/advocate with local government to adopt tools/strategies to reduce the cost of housing development. � Encourage development of services to facilitate solutions to neighborhood issues involving residents of affordable housing. � Emphasize education for property owners, managers, realtors, lenders and tenants. � Provide education on Fair Housing issues to social service providers, developers, builders, and architects. � Create and foster a constituency within the Washington County business 39 PHA Plan — 116 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 community that supports affordable housing development. Goal X Maximize production of units for households with under 30% and 50% of the Median Family Income. Strategies � Redirect revenues from the County’s existing Real Estate Transfer Tax to supporting housing projects serving households with 0-30% of the Median Family Income. � Provide fl exible fi nancing terms for HOME and CDBG projects to increase the feasibility of projects serving those at less than 50% of median income. � Select locations and properties as sites for affordable housing that are cost-effective and provide the greatest community benefi t. � Provide assistance for preparation of preliminary site plans and acquire suitable vacant land for affordable housing as sites and fi nancial resources become available. � Survey both assisted and low income market-based housing to determine the income levels of the residents. Adjust calculations of need for low income housing if low cost units are occupied disproportionately by households with higher incomes. 40 � Reduce System Development Charges (SDC’s) for housing projects serving households with 0-30% of the Median Family Income. � Provide in-kind planning support and/or assistance for housing projects serving households with 0-30% of the Median Family Income. � Reduce parking requirements for housing projects serving households with 0-30% of the Median Family Income, particularly for those targeted to people with special needs. � Employ admissions preferences for publicly assisted housing aimed at families with economic hardships. 41 � Adopt rent policies to support and encourage work. 41 Goal XI Promote development of high-quality, sustainable housing and communities. Strategies a. Buildings � Endorse/promote use of the Leadership 40 Fair Housing Plan 41 PHA Plan — 117 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED TM ) certifi cation program in development of new housing. � Encourage use of local design standards that achieve sustainability. � Acknowledge “preferred practices” in local plan review processes. � Reinforce implementation of the state’s Unifi ed Building Code (UBC). � Encourage applicants to explore new technology. b. Financing � Incorporate long-term affordability requirements in affordable housing developments. � Support use of deed restrictions or non-profi t/ government ownership to ensure long-term affordability. c. Plans/Community � Use and promote scattered site development that is well-integrated with surrounding or adjacent existing neighborhoods to preserve open space and to enhance a sense of community and neighborhood cohesiveness. � Site publicly supported low income housing in areas with succeeding schools. 42 � De-concentrate affordable housing away from high crime areas. 42 � Implement measures to de-concentrate poverty by bringing higher income public housing households into lower income developments. 43 � Implement measures to promote income mixing in public housing by assuring access for lower income families into higher income developments. 43 � Implement public housing security improvements. 43 � Ensure the accessibility of public housing units in accordance with 504 requirements. 43 General/Other Strategies � Seek partnerships with national and local housing intermediaries to identify, develop and/or implement fi nancing or program initiatives. � Consider the use of HUD’s 108 loan guarantee program as a source of additional funds. � Develop affordable housing that is compatible with existing development in the immediate area in terms of size, density, and type of structure and materials. � Consider a mechanism for reducing the cumulative costs of duplicate screening fees to housing or service program applicants while protecting the interests of 42 Fair Housing Plan 43 PHA Plan — 118 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 property owners. � Encourage and expand coordination between housing and service providers through planning, project selection, and capacity building. � Maintain a database of the existing housing inventory in the County, including the number of units developed with state and federal funds and information on these facilities such as the number of rooms, accessibility, affordability, etc; use it to monitor and plan for affordable housing development. � Support state and federal efforts to increase affordable housing resources to Washington County. � Provide resources in proportion to geographic areas and populations with the greatest documented needs. � Identify opportunities to donate surplus property for affordable rental or owner- occupied housing and promote ethnically diverse neighborhoods and communities. � Protect children from lead based poisoning by instituting a rolling one-time lead based paint inspection program for older housing. 44 � Encourage the business community to invest in housing development. � Leverage affordable housing resources in the community through the creation of mixed-fi nance housing. 45 � Pursue housing resources other than public housing or Section 8 tenant-based assistance. 45 � Maintain or increase section 8 lease- up rates by establishing payment standards that will enable families to rent throughout the jurisdiction. 45 � Maintain or increase Section 8 lease-up rates by effectively screening Section 8 applicants to increase owner acceptance of program. 45 Housing Priorities All Consolidated Plans are prepared in large part to identify their jurisdiction’s priorities for housing and housing-related assistance according to an established format required by HUD. This format considers fi ve subsets of the population in need of assistance, including homeowners and four types of renter households: small related families; large related families; the elderly; and “all other.” Each subset is further divided into three income categories based on household incomes as a percentage of HUD’s area median family income (MFI): between zero and 30% of MFI; greater than 30% to 50% of MFI, and greater than 50% to 80% of MFI. This results in 15 sub-categories, each of which is assigned a “Need Level” of High, Medium, or Low in 44 Fair Housing Plan 45 PHA Plan — 119 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Table 5-1 (HUD Table 2A). This table is a required element of a Consolidated Plan. Table 5-1 also indicates the number of housing units that will be needed for each sub-category at the beginning and end of the Consolidated Plan period. These numbers come from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data (year 2000), which calculates the number of households in each housing category that are cost burdened (pay more than 30% of their income for housing) or have any other “housing problems.” These CHAS data are based on the 2000 US Census and are used by HOME and CDBG jurisdictions to prepare their Consolidated Plans. The data was updated consistent with population growth rates in the County between 2000 and 2005. Appendix A shows the full CHAS data for Washington County based on the 2000 US Census, as well as estimates of the number of units to be needed in 2005 and 2010. The estimated cost of providing the units needed in 2010 is based on HUD’s 2003 Total Development Cost (TDC) limits for the Portland Metropolitan area. “Two-bedroom walkup unit” costs ($130,463 per unit) are used for the “small related,” “elderly,” and “all other” categories. “Three-bedroom walkup unit” costs ($173,297 per unit) are used for the “large related” category. Homeowner assistance is calculated at $15,000 per unit. Priorities (expressed as “need levels”) in Table 5-1 were identifi ed as part of the stakeholder involvement process described previously, as well as quantitative information about housing needs and conditions. The process involved representatives of a variety of public agencies, non-profi t and development Units Percent of MFI Need Level 2005 2010 Estimated $ (2010) 0-30% H 2,696 2,955 $385,502,778 31-50% M 3,727 4,085 $532,882,235 Small Related 51-80% L 2,980 3,266 $426,115,416 0-30% H 910 997 $172,798,025 31-50% M 1,237 1,356 $234,963,168 Large Related 51-80% L 1,492 1,636 $283,430,907 0-30% H 1,423 1,560 $203,539,121 31-50% M 1,519 1,665 $217,182,429 Elderly 51-80% L 1,296 1,420 $185,295,162 0-30% H 2,884 3,160 $412,313,465 31-50% M 3,272 3,586 $467,838,556 Renter All Other 51-80% L 3,344 3,665 $478,150,359 0-30% M/H 3,190 3,496 $52,440,036 31-50% H 3,604 3,950 $59,243,561 Owner 51-80% M 7,550 8,275 $124,123,286 Table 5-1 Priority Housing Needs (HUD Table 2A) Source: 2000 data from HUD CHAS data; 2005, 2010 projections by Cogan Owens Cogan. — 120 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 organization that provide services to households with low incomes and special needs. Priorities were further reviewed and refi ned by the County’s Housing Programs Advisory Subcommittee (HPAS) and Policy Advisory Board (PAB). In developing these priorities, stakeholders, County staff and advisory groups considered the results of the Housing Needs Survey, quantitative analyses of existing needs and services, and discussions with a group of housing service providers and other stakeholders. In general, the priorities identifi ed in the table above and in Tables 5-2 through 5- 4 are related directly to the perceived and identifi ed level of need of specifi c population groups in terms of the size of each population and the relative level or severity of need. In general, those households or groups with the highest level of need, i.e., those with the lowest incomes and most signifi cant gap between available resources and cost of housing, have the highest priority. Very low income households in almost all groups above are rated as a high priority. Low income renter households also are rated as a medium priority for each household type. Moderate income renter households are rated as a relatively lower priority in part because a smaller percentage of these households face a housing problem. Additional factors were considered in identifying priorities for owner- occupied housing. For homeowners with incomes falling between zero and 30% of MFI the stakeholders group members agreed that construction of new housing units for purchase should be a medium priority, in part to leverage use of federal Section 8 vouchers by low income homeowners. They agreed that the rehabilitation of homes already owned by people in this income bracket should be a high priority. The County will consider these priorities, among other criteria, as they allocate funding from the federal programs described in the Introduction. A Low priority will not necessarily prevent a project from being funded. However, overall, the County is expected to provide relatively more funds to programs that address Medium and High priority needs than those that address Low priority needs. In addition to identifying priorities for these groups as required by HUD, County staff has worked with housing stakeholders to identify priorities for specifi c types of housing programs and special needs populations, as — 121 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 well as for homeless programs and needs (Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4). These priorities are described in the following tables. Priorities are relative to each other. A low priority does not necessarily indicate that there is little need to serve a specifi c population or provide a particular service. Instead the priorities indicated that in making choices about where to spend limited resources, some programs or population will have a higher priority than others, given relative needs and perceived effectiveness of specifi c programs. These priorities are expected to be considered along with a variety of other factors in evaluating and funding applications for HOME and other federal housing funds. Like the priorities described above, these categories are related to the level of need among different programs and populations based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. Priorities in Table 5-2 are similar to and consistent with the priorities identifi ed in Table 5-1. Programs aimed at addressing needs for populations with the highest priorities and highest level of need rank highest (i.e., creating, purchasing, and rehabilitating rental units for very low income households and rehabilitating owner-occupied units for low and very low income home owners). Other programs, aimed in large part at groups with relatively lesser needs or with lower priorities identifi ed in Table 5-1 received medium or low priority rankings. Table 5-2 Housing Priorities by Housing & Program Type Category Priority Purchase and/or preserve existing housing for low income households � Provide rehabilitation assistance to low income homeowners � Make accessibility and/or weatherization improvements � Provide emergency repair financial assistance for homeowners High Create new low income rental units High Rehabilitate low income rental housing units. High Acquire land for future low income housing development Medium Support programs to allow transition from subsidized to non-subsidized housing Medium Increase affordable home ownership � Provide down payment assistance for first - time home buyers Medium Reduce affordable housing development costs Low Source: Cogan Owens Cogan. — 122 — CONSOLIDATED HOUSING PLAN GOALS Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Priorities in Table 5-3 correlate with the degree or sensitivity of need for specifi c populations with special needs. As described in Chapter 4, people with disabilities face a signifi cant unmet need for housing, with a limited number of designated housing units and facilities available. Low-income families with children are ranked in high because of both the relative level of need and degree of housing problems described in Chapter 4, as well as the impacts on children and society of not adequately housing children. Those groups identifi ed as medium priority have a greater need for housing in terms of their total population, in comparison to those identifi ed as relatively lower priorities. Priorities in Table 5-4 are based in large part on consultation with homeless service providers and are related to the perceived or demonstrated effectiveness of different types of programs and services in addressing and reducing homeless needs in the long term. For example, while emergency shelters are vitally important to housing the homeless on a temporary basis, permanent housing combined with supportive services, coupled with homeless prevention services are judged to be more effective in reducing the number of homeless individuals and families in the long run. Table 5-3 Housing Needs & Priorities for Specific Populations Category Priority Persons with disabilities or other special needs (excluding homeless) High Low-income households with children High Low-income seniors Medium Farm workers Medium Persons with substance abuse or dependency issues Medium Low income single adults Medium Victims of domestic violence Low Low-income or homeless youth Low Ex-offenders Low Other Low Source: Cogan Owens Cogan. Table 5-4 Homeless Needs Priorities Category Priority Permanent housing and supportive services High Homeless prevention services High Emergency shelter space Medium Homeless assistance (security deposit assistance, rental assistance, etc.) Medium Homeless support services (transportation vouchers, service centers, etc.) Low Transitional housing services or treatment Low Other Low Source: Cogan Owens Cogan. — 123 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—WASHINGTON CO. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 CDBG (NON-HOUSING) LONG- RANGE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES 46 Washington County Principles, Policies, Objectives and Strategies Goals and objectives for non-housing programs were developed primarily by evaluating the results of an intensive survey process that involved local governments, non-profi ts and other organizations. Additional goals and strategies were compiled from the City of Beaverton Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan, the Portland Public Housing Agency Plan, the Fair Housing Plan, the Continuum of Care plan and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS plan. These goals and strategies can be met or implemented by housing and service providers throughout the County. They are intended to support and enable the County, cities, non- profi ts and others to help meet the signifi cant and varying non-housing needs of low and moderate income households and those with special needs throughout the County. They also will be used to evaluate the consistency of CDBG project applications with County goals and strategies. Goals, strategies and priorities are described on the following pages. Based on the unique needs and circumstances in Washington County, the CDBG program has developed the following long-range objectives to support the national objectives. All CDBG program projects must address one of these objectives. Public Facilities Eligible public facilities are capital investments that support the provision of programs or services for an income-qualifi ed group or a specifi c area with a population that is primarily low and moderate income. Projects may include real property acquisition, construction, rehabilitation or improvements. Goal I Develop or improve a variety of public facilities to benefi t income-qualifying neighborhoods or income-qualifi ed special needs populations Objectives Neighborhood Facilities � Develop public library facilities and community facilities to serve low income neighborhoods. � Provide adequate drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities for the County’s growing Hispanic population. 46 Goals and objectives are not listed in order of priority. No relative priorities have been assigned to them. Footnotes identify the source document for strategies identifi ed in other plans (e.g., HOPWA, Continuum of Care, etc.) that were not identifi ed during the County’s non- housing needs survey process. — 124 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—WASHINGTON CO. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Parks & Recreation Facilities � Provide low income neighborhoods with green spaces through park land acquisition, the development of new park facilities, and improvements to existing parks. � Develop facilities for recreation and community activities in low income neighborhoods. � Offer outdoor recreational opportunities for youth and adults in low income neighborhoods, including fi elds, gardens and skate parks. � Provide outdoor recreational facilities for developmentally, physically, and emotionally disabled and at-risk youth. � Promote healthy lifestyles of seniors by improving their access to recreational facilities. Health Facilities � Develop assisted-living programs and support services for low income seniors and developmentally-disabled adults. Parking Facilities � Develop parking facilities to serve local service organizations and income-qualifi ed populations. Non-residential Historic Preservation � Rehabilitate and preserve historic buildings. Senior Centers � Provide adequate community spaces for seniors to meet, recreate, and access various services. Handicapped Centers � Improve, construct, or purchase facilities to serve persons with disabilities. Child Care Centers � Acquire, construct and/or renovate child care facilities to serve a greater number of children more effi ciently. Youth Centers � Provide youths with community centers where they can take advantage of recreational and educational opportunities at no cost. Homeless Facilities � Provide shelters and temporary housing for Washington County’s homeless population. � mprove existing homeless shelters in Washington County. Other Public Facilities Needs � Improve, Construct or purchase facilities — 125 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—WASHINGTON CO. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 to serve seniors and adults with developmental disabilities. � Create housing and social service facilities to support low income children and families in transition. � Develop facilities to house and provide services for the mentally ill. � Construct, renovate or repair multi- purpose community facilities in low income neighborhoods to provide meeting space, libraries and activity centers. � Provide group homes for special needs populations � Provide for a variety of residential treatment facilities serving the needs of income-qualifi ed individuals. Infrastructure Improvements Infrastructure improvements involve public works projects such as street, sidewalk, sewer, water, fl ood drain improvements and solid waste disposal in eligible service areas. At least 46.1% of the residents living in the service areas for these types of projects must be income-qualifi ed. Goal II Improve the infrastructure of income- qualifi ed areas to ensure the health and safety of communities, and increase neighborhood pride and viability. Objectives Water Improvements � Repair aging water lines to increase system health, safety and effi ciency. � Construct new facilities to increase system capacity. Sidewalk Improvements � Construct, repair and replace sidewalks to provide a safe pedestrian environment. Street Improvements � Increase neighborhood safety by replacing, repairing and developing streets and related infrastructure. Flood Drain Improvements � Improve pedestrian and traffi c safety through stormwater improvements to prevent fl ooding of city streets. Other Infrastructure Improvements � Improve access to transit in low income neighborhoods through streetscape improvements. Public Service Needs This category includes a wide range of needs. The federal requirement that no more than 15% of the CDBG funds be used for public service projects each year makes it particularly diffi cult to devote adequate — 126 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—WASHINGTON CO. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 resources to meet these needs. Goal III Provide public services that ensure the health and welfare of income-qualifi ed people living in the community. Objectives Handicapped Services � Support adults with developmental disabilities and their families. � Offer cultural opportunities and retirement activities to developmentally disabled adults. � Improve access to resource centers for the developmentally disabled. � Provide intensive care to children with mental health illnesses. Transportation Services � Increase the affordability and accessibility of transportation services for seniors and disabled adults. Substance Abuse � Offer integrated substance abuse and mental health treatment to low income individuals. Employment Training � Offer employment education programs to help residents obtain and retain jobs. � Better coordinate employment support efforts to help individuals with HIV/AIDs secure employment. 47 Health Services � Improve access to health and dental care services for low income, uninsured and underinsured families. � Provide health education and related services to low income families. Senior Services � Offer support services to seniors to prevent their isolation and ensure that their basic needs are met. Other Senior Programs � Offer money management, guardian and conservatorship services to aid seniors who need assistance managing their affairs. Crime Awareness / Other Anti-Crime Programs � Educate the public about domestic violence and domestic violence resources. � Reduce crime by strengthening communication among property managers, tenants and law enforcement agencies. � Support activities, which involve citizens in promoting safe and secure living environments. � Create programs to train teens in life 47 HOPWA — 127 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—WASHINGTON CO. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 skills and educate them in the dangers of substance abuse and gang violence. Youth Services � Offer an array of support services for low income and at-risk students beyond what school districts are able to provide. � Increase educational and recreational enrichment opportunities for youth by offering summer and after school programs. � Develop stable living conditions for youth by providing educational and vocational training, housing, family counseling and mediation services, and support services to youth that are homeless, at-risk of homelessness, pregnant or parenting and/ or experiencing emotional disturbance, and mental health related or psycho-social crisis. � Purchase materials and fund pre-literacy activities for the growing Spanish- speaking population. � Promote teen self-suffi ciency and responsibility by providing alternatives to the juvenile criminal justice system for fi rst-time offenders. � Offer constructive alternatives to youths at risk of alcohol and/or drug abuse, gang involvement and/or violence. � Address minority isolation by providing youths with mentors to help them and their families acclimate to life in the United States. Child Care Services � Support parents attending school by offering child care assistance for low income students. � Provide child care and supervised parenting for mothers and children leaving abusive situations. � Improve child care service by offering scholarships for low income child care workers to access training and professional development opportunities. � Preserve affordable child care services by supplementing child care program operating costs. � Provide short-term and drop-in child care slots in existing facilities. Other Youth Programs � Support bicycle safety for low income youths. � Provide quality support for children involved in custody litigation. � Provide alternatives to the criminal justice system for youths who commit minor offenses. Other Public Services Needs � Provide counseling services for victims of — 128 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—WASHINGTON CO. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 crime. � Offer emergency, basic needs assistance to families in crisis. � Improve access to affordable housing for low income families. � Offer homeownership classes and services to low income homeowners. � Provide family literacy resources and access to technology to low income families. � Offer job education and life skills training to low income adults. � Offer support services to post-adjudicated victims of crime. � Enhance information and referral services and implement systems among social service agencies to track homeless clients. � Provide support services such as child care, housing education, addiction counseling, and employment training to homeless, mentally ill, and transitioning individuals. � Obtain resources to coordinate volunteers and donations for the homeless population. � Secure legal, advocacy, interpretation and translation services for social service agencies. Non-Housing Priorities Priorities for community development needs are summarized in Table 5-5 (HUD Table 2B) on the following page. The needs identifi ed in Table 5-5 total over $110 million. However, only about $15 million is expected to be available in federal funding based on previous allocations. As a result, needs are expected to signifi cantly exceed available funds. — 129 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—WASHINGTON CO. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Table 5-5 Community Development Needs & Priorities, Washington County Development Needs Priority Need Level Number of Needs Identified Dollars to Address Unmet Priority Need PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS Neighborhood Facilities H 4 $4,550,000 Parks and/or Recreation Facilities H 20 $34,047,500 Health Facilities H 2 $0 Parking Facilities L 2 $1,405,000 Non-Residential Historic Preservation L 2 $565,000 Senior Centers H 3 $4,950,000 Handicapped Centers H 1 $5,800,000 Child Care Centers H 1 $448,580 Youth Centers H 3 $4,950,000 Homeless Facilities H 4 $2,200,000 Other Public Facility Needs H 15 $25,965,000 INFRASTRUCTURE Water/Sewer Improvements H 6 $4,350,000 Sidewalks H 4 $1,095,000 Street Improvements H 9 $2,951,800 Solid Waste Disposal Improvements N 0 $0 Flood Drain Improvements H 3 $900,000 Other Infrastructure Needs M 1 $250,000 PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS Handicapped Services H 6 $423,662 Transportation Services H 4 $2,328,112 Substance Abuse Services H 1 $405,000 Employment Training H 2 $100,000 Health Services H 6 $1,714,788 Senior Services H 5 $833,000 Crime Awareness H 5 $236,000 Youth Services H 13 $2,431,500 Child Care Services H 7 $483,000 Lead Hazard Screening N 0 $0 Other Public Service Needs H 45 $7,032,800 Total Estimated Dollars Needed: 174 $110,415,742 Source: Washington County Office of Community Development H=High; M=Medium; L=Low; N=No such need identified — 130 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—BEAVERTON Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 City of Beaverton Principles, Policies, Objectives and Strategies The City of Beaverton has developed an integrated set of principals, programmatic objectives, specifi c objectives and priorities to meet housing and non-housing needs in the City. They are described below and on the following pages. They also are included in Appendix B. Guiding Principles I. Improving the lives of Those Most in Need. Activities funded with HOME and CDBG funds will be predominantly directed toward assisting those who need the most help, including people with disabilities and low income seniors and children. II. Collaboration and Active Pursuit of Effective Partnerships. Because federal grant money available to the City is limited and the need is great, it is especially important to look for opportunities to collaborate with private, non-profi t and other partners to address the range of needs of our citizens. III. Long-term Affordability. In return for the investment of scarce public resources in affordable housing, the City will impose reasonable long-term affordability restrictions commensurate with the level of subsidy. IV. A Holistic Approach - Addressing a Full Range of Needs. People rarely need help with just one isolated issue in their lives; more often, those lacking access to affordable housing experience other challenges. The City will actively facilitate connections between affordable housing opportunities and service providers. V. Beaverton as a Champion of Affordable Housing and Community Development. Policy decisions at the state and federal levels can have a dramatic impact upon housing and community development needs in Beaverton. The City will continue to vigorously advocate for public policies congruent with the missions of the CDBG and HOME programs, and seek to raise the visibility of the issues affecting our most vulnerable residents. VI. Inclusiveness. The City of Beaverton welcomes every resident as an equal member of the community, and will actively seek to address barriers to equal opportunity in housing and access to services. — 131 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—BEAVERTON Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Programmatic Objectives The City of Beaverton anticipates focusing CDBG and HOME resources available to the City on three Programmatic Objectives in Program Years 2005-2010: A. Downtown Redevelopment/ Revitalization B. Affordable Housing C. Public Services A. Downtown Redevelopment/ Revitalization The City intends to continue to explore a variety of approaches to encouraging a healthy mix of uses in the downtown core which will benefi t the city as a whole, and low-to- moderate income people in particular. During the period covered by this Consolidated Plan, the City plans to explore creative ways to leverage private investment in the downtown core which will promote a number of goals: � Commercial revitalization and redevelopment, a signifi cant portion of which will employ low-to-moderate income residents � Housing downtown that is affordable to a variety of income levels � Effi cient and thoughtful use of land near the light rail line � Public spaces and pedestrian-oriented amenities to nurture community interaction and thriving local businesses The City will look to leverage a variety of other potential sources, including private investment, and other additional public grants, credits, and loans. Projects funded may include the elimination of slum and blight, brownfi elds remediation, acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings, storefront improvements, and job creation & retention. B. Affordable Housing In addition to encouraging the inclusion of affordable housing in downtown redevelopment efforts, the City anticipates continuing our signifi cant CDBG investment in a variety of affordable housing projects, including: 1) Housing Rehabilitation Program - funds necessary repairs and improvements to housing for low-to-moderate income residents, generally to address threats to occupants’ health and safety. 2) Accessibility Rehabilitation Program - funds accessibility improvements to homes and apartments occupied by low-to- moderate income residents with mobility impairments, and increases the supply of accessible housing units in Beaverton generally. — 132 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—BEAVERTON Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 3) Other support for affordable housing - possible forms of assistance include: land acquisition, clearance, or rehabilitation of existing affordable housing; HOME can be used for direct assistance to new construction as well. The City is particularly interested in assisting housing for those at very low income levels and those with special needs (see Beaverton Housing Priorities, below). The City generally intends to maintain a reasonable level of funding for both the Housing Rehabilitation and Accessibility Rehabilitation programs throughout the fi ve year period of this plan. Additional support for affordable housing will vary as particular opportunities to partner with local nonprofi t developers and owners of special needs housing arise. C. Public Services The City expects to continue to allocate 15% of its entitlement amount for public service projects, and will continue to contribute additional City funds from other sources as available. The agencies and programs funded by these grants are recognized by the City to be a critical part of the safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. Housing Priorities Tier I Priorities will be the focus of housing investment by the City over the period covered by this Consolidated Plan. Projects that further a Tier II Priority will be considered as funding permits. It should be noted that without exception, the following set of priorities fi t under the priority framework as identifi ed by Washington County’s Stakeholder process. Tier I Priorities Note: the City has not ranked Priorities within each Tier, but considers each equally important. Priority A. Expanding access to affordable housing for low income residents (those whose household income falls below 50% of the Area Median Income) Expanding access could include construction of new housing, as well as acquisition, rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing housing. Priority B. Expanding access to affordable housing for those with special needs This category encompasses a wide variety of people who cannot reasonably be expected to earn enough income to afford market- — 133 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—BEAVERTON Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 rate housing in Beaverton, including (but not limited to): people with disabilities, the elderly, homeless persons, and people with chronic mental illness. Priority C. Maintaining and improving existing housing for low income residents (those whose household income falls below 50% of the Area Median Income) The City’s Housing and Accessibility Rehabilitation Programs serve low-to- moderate income homeowners who need assistance with basic home repairs. Priority D. Encouraging downtown redevelopment that includes affordable housing for low-to-moderate income households The City is determined to include housing opportunities for all income levels in the downtown core, and to explore housing development as a spur to revitalization and reinvestment. Priority E. Preventing homelessness In many cases, it is far more cost-effective and humane to help households on the brink of homelessness remain housed than to help them secure housing once they’ve become homeless. The City encourages creative approaches to assisting those at risk of becoming homeless. Tier II Priorities Note: the City has not ranked Priorities within each Tier, but considers each equally important. Priority A. Expanding access to affordable housing for moderate-income residents (those whose household income falls between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income) Priority B. Maintaining and improving existing housing for moderate income residents (those whose household income falls between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income) Priority C. Promoting homeownership for low-to-moderate income residents Several very successful programs to promote homeownership exist at the federal and state levels. The City will primarily look for opportunities to help residents take advantage of existing programs, and energetically promote initiatives to increase minority homeownership. CDBG Objectives and Projects Public Facilities and Infrastructure The City will explore the need for other public facilities, particularly as these bear on the three Programmatic Objectives identifi ed above, and will be alert to situations where CDBG can play a role in providing an — 134 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—BEAVERTON Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 urgently needed facility. At this time, the City does not foresee a major investment in infrastructure improvements, but may fund particular improvements, again particularly in conjunction with a Programmatic Objective as above. Anti-Crime Programs/Youth Programs These will largely be addressed through Public Services grants. In addition, the City of Beaverton, will continue to offer (outside of the CDBG program) services such as: Landlord/Tenant Program; Deadbolt Program; Lighting Program; ID Engraving Programs; Police Cadet Program; Youth Peer Court Program; Police Activity League (PAL) Program; Safety Car-seat Program; Bike Helmet program; After School Activity Program (ASAP); Adult Awareness programs for persons with Alzheimer’s; Night Court; Stranger/Danger Program; and other crime prevention and youth service programs needed in the community. Senior/Special Need Populations Programs These will largely be addressed through Public Services grants. Economic Development As described in Programmatic Objective A - Downtown Redevelopment/Revitalization. Planning The City’s planning efforts will generally support the three Programmatic Objectives identifi ed above. Research and analysis will focus particularly on: � Continuing analysis of basic demographic and economic data, including the Census � Evaluating opportunities for residential housing development along the Westside MAX light rail line and within the downtown area � Updating an inventory of undeveloped and under-utilized land � Evaluation of public infrastructure needs in low income areas Non-Housing Priorities Priorities for community development needs are described in Table 5-6 (HUD Table 2B) on the following page. — 135 — CDBG NON-HOUSING GOALS—BEAVERTON Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Table 5-6 Community Development Needs and Priorities, City of Beaverton Priority Community Development Needs Priority Need Level Estimated Dollars to Address PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS Neighborhood Facilities M Parks and/or Recreation Facilities L Health Facilities H $ 5,000,000 Parking Facilities H $15,000,000 Solid Waste Disposal Improvements L Asbestos Removal L Non-Residential Historic Preservation M Other Public Facility Needs M INFRASTRUCTURE Water/Sewer Improvements M Street Improvements M Sidewalks M Sewer Improvements M Flood Drain Improvements M Other Infrastructure Needs M PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS Services to Persons with Disabilities H $ 1,000,000 Transportation Services H $ 500,000 Substance Abuse Services H $ 1,000,000 Employment Training H $ 500,000 Health Services H $ 1,000,000 Other Public Service Needs H $ 1,000,000 ANTI-CRIME PROGRAMS Crime Awareness H Other Anti-Crime Programs H YOUTH PROGRAMS Youth Centers H Child Care Centers H Youth Services H Child Care Services H Other Youth Programs H SENIOR PROGRAMS Senior Centers M Senior Services H 500,000 Other Senior Programs H ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Rehab; Publicly- or Privately - Owned H 1,000,000 CI Infrastructure Development H $ 1,000,000 Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements H Micro-Enterprise Assistance M ED Technical Assistance M Other Economic Development H $ 2,000,000 PLANNING Planning M TOTAL ESTIMATED DOLLARS NEEDED: $29,500,000 H=High; M=Medium; L=Low — 136 — ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY US Census 2000 data shows that Washington County has a poverty rate of 7.4% (up from 6.6% in 1990). This equates to 32,575 persons who daily must make choices between housing, food, and health. Of the six counties in Oregon with the lowest poverty rates, Washington County is the only County that saw an increase in its poverty rate since 1990. While the County is currently ranked number 2 in the state compared to all other counties (i.e., has second lowest rate), the increasing rate during the last ten years indicates a worsening trend. Additional indicators related to poverty in Washington County include: � One out of fi ve people depend upon public assistance, living well below poverty. � 69.3% of renters below median income are spending more than 30% of their income for housing (including utilities) as compared with 62% in 1990. � Following signifi cant job growth throughout the mid-1990s, the County began a steady - and dramatic - job loss beginning in 1998 (with a brief spike in 2000) falling from 31.7% in 1997 to -15% in 2002. � Washington County experienced a 95% increase in Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) cases between September 2001 and December 2004, compared to an increase of 21% for the State’s as a whole during the same time period. As a means of combating poverty, self- suffi ciency remains the overarching goal for housing and service providers in Washington County. “Self-suffi ciency can best be promoted through the establishment and support of a continuum of service options that complements affordable housing programs in order to meet the diverse needs of low-income residents. If the goal of self-suffi ciency is to be taken seriously, Washington County must ensure that more resources are dedicated to essential social services.” 48 Both the City of Beaverton and Washington County dedicate the maximum amount available to public services as defi ned by federal law. Washington County uses program income to increase the amount of dollars available under the 15% cap and requires that 100% of the benefi ciaries benefi t from the public service projects (as opposed to the allowable 51%). The County’s lead antipoverty agency, Community Action, is a private, nonprofi t, community-based agency whose mission is to serve the economically disadvantaged in Washington County by providing for 48 Affordable Housing Study, 1993 — 137 — ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 basic needs and promoting self-suffi ciency. Community Action leads a proactive effort to combat poverty in the County. In 2004, the Agency released an Issue Paper on poverty highlighting overall premises that are backed up by supporting data. They are listed below and can be tied to strategies developed during the Consolidated Planning process. 1. The low-income population is increasing and diversifying. While the County’s population increased by 51% between 1990 and 2000 (from 311,554 to 469,162), the low income population (those with incomes up to 200% of the poverty rate) increased by 95% during that same time period. 2. Low wage jobs by themselves do not lift families out of poverty conditions but are an important fi rst step. The poverty level for a family of three is $15,670 annually, yet a family with one full-time worker earning minimum wage has an annual income of $14,664. 3. People living in conditions of poverty are unable to meet their basic needs such as food, shelter, heat, utilities, clothing, transportation, health, and child care. In 2002-2003, 9,218 people received food from a food pantry each month and 6,256 households received assistance with energy bills. 4. Short-term public assistance for families is not a long-term economic solution because it does not improve their long-term economic opportunities. The poverty level for a family of three is $15,670 and yet, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) for a family of three is only $6,036 ($503/month). 5. The job market requires greater skills than ever before to earn a family wage. Lack of education, and lack of family-wage jobs, limit earning potential. Workers with no high school can expect a median income of $20,167 and those with high school only may have a median income of $27,872 while those who have some college earn $32,084. Income increases with additional education. 6. Lack of access to affordable and adequate housing and health care has reached crisis proportions. 36% of renters pay more than 30% of their income and nearly 16% of renters pay more than 50% of their income for housing costs. Data from the 2000 Census accompanied by the fi ndings outlined above provide us with evidence that Washington County continues to require concerted efforts towards improving the self-suffi ciency of our lower — 138 — ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 income residents. Through the work of the County (through its Offi ce of Community Development, Department of Housing Services, Health and Human Services, and Community Corrections) as well as through the County’s Community Action Agency and other non-profi t partners, numerous programs are working together to further this effort. Improved or increased regional efforts over the last fi ve years (highlighted below) are also underway geared towards self- suffi ciency. A detailed, but not exhaustive, list of the programs targeted to improving self- suffi ciency is provided below. Community Development Block Grant public services: Washington County and the City of Beaverton allocate the maximum amount feasible to provide funding for the most essential human needs. The public service programs complement the capital improvements made under the public facility funding categories. Community Development Block Grant public facilities: The public facilities category is targeted to facilities that provide the needed infrastructure for the delivery of essential services to low and moderate income residents. HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Provides housing at a lower cost than market rate housing and incorporates, in many cases, resident services. In addition, siting affordable housing in certain areas can be a fi rst step towards neighborhood revitalization. Helping individuals and families to obtain or maintain affordable housing will allow them to focus on furthering their self-suffi ciency. American Dream Downpayment Initiative: Provides downpayment and closing costs to assist persons under 80% of median family income to purchase a home. Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG): Provide funding targeted to the homeless for essential services, homeless prevention, shelter services and operational support, and capital improvements to shelters. Housing Rehabilitation Program: Improve or maintain the affordability of housing in Washington County by allowing low-income persons to remain in their own homes by improving safety, sanitation, and weatherization. Energy Assistance Program/ Weatherization Programs: Provide limited assistance to help prevent shutoffs, restore utilities and provide heating fuel. Assist renters and homeowners to access energy education and service to lower energy — 139 — ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 costs including refrigerator replacement and insulation. Information and Referral/211-info: Gives service providers and individuals access to an extensive database of resources to help connect those in need with social services. 211-info is a regional effort to improve access to social service information and streamline the maze of inter-related service agencies for the convenience of those in need. Head Start Childcare, Head Start and Early Head Start: Provide enrolled children a solid platform for future educational attainment while also allowing the parents to focus on other basic needs of the family. Housing Stability Assistance Program: Offers services to formerly homeless families and individuals facing housing barriers; assist participants of the Ready to Rent program to learn about responsibilities as tenants, including tenant/landlord law; helps participants to locate housing. Section 8 Homeownership: Permits eligible families in the Section 8 program the option of purchasing a home with their Section 8 assistance rather than renting. Family Self-Suffi ciency Program: Works in partnership with the Section 8 Homeownership Program to help individuals and families establish savings to help them meet their future goals. The program provides linkages to ancillary services such as child- care, support for continued education, and even services such as chemical dependency treatment. Drug Awareness/Prevention Programs: Housing Authorities (regional effort) in the metro region work in partnership with Camp Rosenbaum to focuses on instilling the values of good citizenship, building self-esteem and emphasizes a strong anti-drug theme and gang resistance program. Camp Rosenbaum’s goal is to empower children to take responsibility for their lives, make the right choices, and turn away from the allure of trouble. Resident Services: Housing providers increasingly are expanding the types of services provided at affordable housing sites that are owned by housing providers whose mission it is to build and support affordable housing. Residents are encouraged to participate in decisions made regarding the types of services needed. Essential Health Clinic: Free or reduced cost health care helps to maintain families in their homes by allowing them to use their already scare resources for rent as opposed to high medical costs. — 140 — ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 Job Training: PCC’s Capital Career Center (the only One-Stop Center in Washington County), the future Forest Grove Employment Center, and the Steps to Success program (run in partnership with the Department of Human Services) assist low and moderate income persons to fi nd jobs or better paying jobs through education, basic/life skills, ESL, job preparation and job search activities. ESL Programs: Portland Community College, Oregon Child Development Coalition, PODER, Adelante Mujeres, and housing providers are increasingly cognizant of the need for ESL programs throughout the County with the signifi cant spike in the Hispanic community since 1990. Workforce Investment Board: A regional effort for Washington and Multnomah Counties, Worksystems, Inc., works to improve the region’s fragmented employment and training programs and initiatives into a cohesive workforce development system that meets the needs of both employers and job seekers. The primary source of funding is through the Workforce Reinvestment Act. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF): State Department of Human Services offi ces in Hillsboro, Tigard and Beaverton provide public assistance and access to job training (in partnership with PCC’s Steps to Success program) to Washington County’s lowest income residents. As part of its anti-poverty strategy and in order to support the self-suffi ciency efforts of the above programs, the County and its partners will actively seek to: 1) Maximize the production of units for households with 0-50% of the median family income. 2) Provide fl exible fi nancing terms for HOME and CDBG projects to increase the feasibility of projects serving those at less than 50% of median income. 3) Continue to provide resources to rehabilitation and weatherization programs for low and moderate-income homeowners. 4) Continue to provide the maximum amount available under the federally funded public service and public housing assistance programs. 5) Evaluate projects on the basis of their ability to foster self-suffi ciency (through resident initiatives, tenant based participation, and property/asset management) when allocating resources for community-based housing and related public services 6) Support ESL and literacy programs to — 141 — ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGIES Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 5 support educational attainment programs and increase job readiness. 7) Offer employment education programs to help residents obtain and retain jobs; Offer job education and life skills training to low income adults. 8) Continue to support existing planning and communication networks, such as the Housing and Supportive Services Network or similar communication networks. A number of the strategies above also are listed in Chapter 5. Performance Measures Placeholder Washington County and the City of Beaverton are working with a regional working group in cooperation with HUD and a variety of other local agencies and non-profi t groups to develop performance measures for demonstrating progress in achieving housing and non- housing goals. This process is not expected to be completed until after adoption of this Consolidated Plan. Consequently, subsequent Action Plans may be used to refl ect results of this process. In the interim, the County’s Offi ce of Community Development expects to work to develop goals for production of housing and related services and programs to meet the needs of low income and other households with special needs. These “output measures” will be incorporated in a future draft of this plan. — 143 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 6 This chapter describes the County’s for allocating money to proposed housing and non- housing programs and projects as it allocates money through federal grant programs (CDBG, HOME, ADDI and ESG). This chapter also describes participating agencies and groups in this process. CDBG Annual Funding and Allocation Process Guidelines for allocating CDBG grants are established by the Policy Advisory Board. The program uses three steps to determine which projects will receive funding. First, an allocation formula is developed that identifi es the proportion of funds that will be allocated to each general program category. Second, objectives are established based on the results of the community needs assessment and only projects addressing those objectives are considered for funding. Finally, projects are evaluated according to specifi c criteria. These criteria are designed to ensure that projects address long- and short-term County objectives and that only viable and effective projects are selected. The Consolidated Plan will establish the guidelines for program expenditures during the fi ve-year planning cycle from 2005-2010. Actual expenditures may vary from these standards, depending on project submissions, the results of the project selection process, and the amount of funds needed for individual projects. The allocation formula is based on County needs as identifi ed in the assessment submittals described in the previous section and further summarized in Appendix A. Consideration is also given to addressing needs for which other funding sources are limited. HOME Annual Funding and Allocation Process Following adoption of the Needs Assessment Summary, the Offi ce of Community Development sponsored HOME application workshops in August 2004. This was an opportunity for prospective project applicants to obtain needed program and policy information and materials to develop project applications. Applications were due in October 2004. Following receipt of the applications (October through December), OCD staff will review proposals and clarify questions with applicants. Staff will conduct in-depth fi nancial reviews to determine projects’ long term feasibility. Staff will prepare a preliminary analysis/staff report, which will be sent to both the Housing Implementation Process Chapter 6 — 144 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 6 Programs Advisory Subcommittee (HPAS) as well as the applicant. Applicants will be given an opportunity to present their projects to the HPAS prior to the rating and ranking process. Upon completion of the rating process, the HPAS will forward its recommendations for funding to the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) which will then endorse the projects for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. HOME awards will be made to the highest-ranking projects to the extent that funds are available. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND AUTHORITIES Key Program Participants The following groups play a role in approving and implementing federal housing and non- housing programs at the County level. � Washington County Board of Commissioners (BCC). The County is the recipient of CDBG and HOME funds and, as such, is ultimately responsible for program administration and the use of funds. The BCC has fi nal approval authority for the Consolidated Plan and makes fi nal decisions on funding allocations. � Policy Advisory Board (PAB). By intergovernmental cooperation agreement, the BCC established the PAB to represent the County Consortium, and make recommendations to the BCC on all matters pertaining to the CDBG and HOME program. The PAB includes a representative, generally an elected offi cial, from the County and each of the eleven participating cities within the County. In 1999, Hillsboro qualifi ed to receive an independent CDBG entitlement but has elected to operate as a joint entitlement with Washington County. � Housing Programs Advisory Subcommittee (HPAS). This group acts as an advisory committee to the PAB in developing housing related policies, programs and documents, including the annual allocation of HOME funds. The HPAS includes representatives of a variety of housing stakeholder groups, as well as the cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro. � Washington County Offi ce of Community Development (OCD). The Washington County OCD administers the County’s CDBG, HOME, ADDI, and ESG programs, providing staff support to the County and the PAB. OCD’s responsibilities are broad, from the development of plans, to monitoring projects for compliance with federal and local policies. OCD staff provides limited technical assistance to potential applicants to assist with project submissions, and to subsequently ensure successful program management and project administration. — 145 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 6 � Washington County Department of Housing Services (DHS). The Washington County DHS administers most federal public housing programs at the County level, with the exception of the HOME Program, and develops and provides housing and housing- related services for households with low and moderate incomes. Specifi c activities include providing loans and grants, purchasing and developing housing, allocating resources to programs related to housing and homeless needs, and assisting homeless populations in transitioning to permanent housing. The DHS also prepares and implements a Public Housing Agency Plan, which is a component of this Plan. The DHS also is the lead agency for preparation of the Continuum of Care Strategic Plan. � City of Beaverton. The City has administered an independent CDBG entitlement program since 1994. Both the Offi ce of Community Development and the City of Beaverton assist a variety of affordable housing activities, most notably single-family rehab loan programs for low and moderate income homeowners. Other Affected and Coordinating Groups � Housing Advocacy Group (HAG) of Washington County. The HAG is a coalition primarily of housing providers and developers but also includes social service agencies, consumers, and industry affi liates such as lenders/funders. Its mission is to promote awareness of the need for affordable housing in Washington County and collectively advocate for additional resources at the local, state, and federal level. The group meets monthly, with approximately 25 regular attendees. Recent activities include: a legislative candidates’ forum to inform current and aspiring policymakers of the needs and potential solutions to address the affordable housing shortfalls in the County; briefi ngs and advocacy with the Congressional delegation focused on the impending cuts to the federal Section 8 program; and facilitated training of HAG members on how to be more effective advocates for housing funding in their local communities. Meetings are open to the public. � Housing and Supportive Services Network (HSSN) of Washington County. The HSSN is a broad collaborative of social service, housing provider/developers and others who participate in meeting the continuum of needs faced by low income people in Washington County, ranging from shelter to food to employment. The group, staffed by the County’s Department of Housing Services, was initially drawn together to create an application to HUD for funding — 146 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 6 under the Continuum of Care Program. The group will continue to meet in an effort to establish a standing advocacy and planning group to engage in strategic planning on funding opportunities; to more effectively integrate social services into housing project planning; and to identify emerging community needs, e.g. the arrival of Somali refugees. Government staff are involved as partners with contracting agencies and community groups. The group meets monthly and routinely counts about 25 members. Meetings are open to the public. � Vision Action Network (VAN). The VAN was formed in 2002 as part of the process of updating the County’s strategic plan. The VAN is a non-profi t organization funded by the County which addresses a variety of issues with an objective of promoting and increasing collaboration among public agencies, non- profi t, community and other groups. The VAN has identifi ed affordable housing as a signifi cant issue to address and has hosted several community meetings and forums with faith-based and other groups to identify strategies for meeting affordable housing needs. � Funding Recipients. Eligible recipients of CDBG and HOME funds include nonprofi t and for-profi t agencies, the County, and participating cities. These sponsor organizations develop project applications and, if selected for funding, administer projects at the project level with the oversight and assistance of OCD. These include the County’s nonprofi t community housing development organizations (CHDO’s) which are especially active partners in affordable housing development They also include local governments, County departments, and a variety of non-profi t organizations, as well as private developers. � The Public. To make the federal programs as responsive as possible to local community needs, the public is encouraged to participate in all phases of program development. The program adheres to an adopted Citizen Participation Plan, which is part of the County’s overall Consolidated Planning process. The groups described above work together to help meet housing and other community needs through a variety of formal and informal programs and processes, some of which are described above. Within these activities, there are many local examples of ongoing efforts to enhance coordination, both between housing and service providers, and among units of local government. Examples include: � Washington County and the cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro work in partnership on housing issues and programs through the Washington County HOME Consortium. County and city — 147 — Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Chapter 6 staffs also work together to coordinate consolidated planning submissions and program activities. � Washington County, the cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro, and the nonprofi t Community Partners for Affordable Housing actively participate on the metro regional government’s Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC). The committee, which includes representatives from a variety of regional housing stakeholders, the State of Oregon, and HUD, has been delegated the responsibility for making recommendations toward the establishment of regional “fair share” requirements to promote the balanced development of affordable housing regionwide. � The County’s Continuum of Care planning process, guided by the County’s Housing and Supportive Services Network (HSSN) goes beyond developing fi nancial resources for critical programs and projects, striving to help coordinate the local delivery of housing and supportive services for the homeless. The network has become a vital source of technical support and has provided numerous opportunities for information and resource sharing, problem solving, and strategic planning. The network has promoted a focus on needs across populations, allowing participants to consider and address common issues. � Local housing and community development projects frequently benefi t from joint funding or coordinated investments from multiple sources. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 149 — Some of the following terms and acronyms are used in this Consolidated Plan. Others are used in related documents. This glossary of terms and acronyms is intended to be a useful resource for people reviewing this Consolidated Plan and/or other housing and community development planning documents. Many of the following terms are defi ned in federal or state law and their legal defi nitions have been included here. ADA. Americans with Disabilities Act ADDI. American Dream Downpayment Initiative Adjusted Income. Annual (gross) income reduced by deductions for dependents, elderly households, medical expenses, handicap assistance expenses, and childcare. Adjusted income is used to determine the level of payment to tenants for rental assistance. A/E. Architech and/or Engineer Affordable Housing. Affordable housing is generally defi ned as housing where the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for gross housing costs, including utility costs. Agricultural Workers. Persons, including their families, who are employed in the cultivation or harvesting of crops, including the nursery industry. Agricultural workers may be permanent residents of the area who are employed year round or seasonally, or may reside in the area temporarily, as work is available. AHP. Affordable Housing Program AI. Analysis of Impediments AIDS and Related Diseases. The disease of acquired immunodefi ciency syndrome or any conditions arising from the etiologic agent for acquired immunodefi ciency syndrome. Alcohol/Other Drug Addiction. A serious and persistent alcohol or other drug addiction that signifi cantly limits a person’s ability to live independently. ANS. American National Standards Institute Annual (Gross) Income. Includes income, income from assets, and income from other sources as defi ned by 24 CFR Part 813. Annual income is used to establish homeowner and tenant eligibility and for targeting Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 150 — purposes. The annual income defi nition used in Section 8 and HOME is more extensive than the income defi nitions used in the CDBGProgram. AOCDO. Association of Oregon Community Development Organizations AP. Action Plan Area of Low-income Concentration. A Census tract in which the percentage of low- income families is at least 10 points higher than the percentage of low-income families in the county as a whole. Area of Minority Concentration. A census tract in which one of the following statistical conditions exists: (1) The percentage of persons of a particular racial or ethnic minority is at least 20 points higher than that minority’s percentage in the county as a whole; or (2) The census tract’s total percentage of minority persons is at least 20 points higher than the total percentage of minorities for the county as a whole. BCC. Board of County Commissioners BHCD. Bureau of Housing and Community Development (Portland) CAPER. Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report CDBG. The Community Development Block Grant Program that is authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. CDBG funding allows communities to create fl exible, locally designed, comprehensive community development strategies to enable them to develop viable urban communities. CC&R. Covenants Codes & Restrictions CDC. Community Development Corporation Certifi cation. A written assertion, based on supporting evidence, that must be kept available for inspection by HUD, by the Inspector General of HUD, and by the public. The assertion shall be deemed to be accurate unless HUD determines otherwise, after inspecting the evidence and providing due notice and opportunity for comment. CFR. Code of Federal Regulations COC. Continuum of Care Committed. Generally means there has been a legally binding commitment of funds to a specifi c project to undertake specifi c activities. Community Facilities. Structure utilized to provide programs or services to an identifi ed limited clientele group or to a prequalifi ed low- income area. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 151 — Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). A private, nonprofi t organization that meets a series of qualifi cations prescribed in the HOME regulations. CHDOs must receive at least 15 percent of a participating jurisdiction’s annual allocation of HOME funds. CHDOs may own, develop, or sponsor HOME-fi nanced housing. Consolidated Plan (ConPlan). A document that is submitted to HUD that serves as the planning document (comprehensive housing affordability strategy and community development plan) of the jurisdiction and an application for funding under any of the Community Planning and Development formula grant programs (CDBG, ESG, HOME, or HOPWA), which is prepared in accordance with the process prescribed in 24 CFR part 91. Consortium. An organization of geographically contiguous units of general local government that are acting as a single unit of general local government for purposes of the HOME program (see 24 CFR part 92). For the purposes of this Plan, Washington County and the cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro form the Washington County Consortium for Community Development. Cost Burden > 30%. The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross income, based on data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Cost Burden > 50% (Severe Cost Burden). The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 50 percent of gross income, based on data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. CPAH. Community Partners for Affordable Housing CPD. Community Planning and Development CPP. Citizen Participation Plan DAVS. Department of Aging and Veteran’s Services DCC. Department of Community Corrections Developmental Disability (DD). Disability attributable to mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy, or other neurological handicapped condition that requires training or support similar to that required by individuals with mental retardation, and the disability: (a) originates before the individual attains the age of 22 years, except that in the case of mental retardation the condition must be manifested before the age of 18, and (b) can be expected to continue, indefi nitely, and (c) constitutes a substantial handicap to the ability of the person to function in society, or (d) results in signifi cant subaverage general Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 152 — intellectual functioning with concurrent defi cits in adaptive behavior which are manifested during the developmental period. Individuals of borderline intelligence may be considered to have mental retardation if there is also serious impairment of adaptive behavior. DHS. Department of Housing Services DIBL. Deferred Interest Bearing Loan Disabled Household. A household composed of one or more persons, at least one of whom is an adult (a person of at least 18 years of age) who has a disability. A person shall be considered to have a disability if the person is determined to have a physical, mental, or emotional impairment that: (1) is expected to be of long-continued and indefi nite duration, (2) substantially impeded his or her ability to live independently, and (3) is of such a nature that the ability could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. A person shall be considered to have a disability if he or she has a development disability as defi ned in the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 6001-6006). The term also includes the surviving member or members of any household described in the fi rst sentence of this paragraph who were living in an assisted unit with the deceased member of the household at the time of his or her death. DOL. Department of Labor DVRC. Domestic Violence Resource Center EA. Environmental Assessment EIS. Environmental Impact Statement Elderly Household. For HUD rental programs, a one- or two-person household in which the head of the household or spouse is at least 62 years of age. Elderly Person. A person who is at least 62 years of age. Emergency Shelter. Any facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the primary purpose of which is to provide temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specifi c populations of the homeless. Entitlement. Amount of CDBG, ESG, or HOME funds allocated by HUD to a city or urban county based on a formula computed according to population, levels of need, and other factors. Entitlement Jurisdiction. A governmental entity that has chosen to receive funds from Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 153 — the federal government for project activities within the boundaries of that entity. Cities with populations over 50,000 and counties with populations over 200,000 are allowed to participate in the CDBG program as entitlements. EO. Executive Order ESG. The Emergency Shelter Grants Program, authorized by Title IV, Subtitle B, of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. ESG grants are allocated by HUD to local jurisdictions based upon a needs formula. ESG funds may be used for operations, services, and rehabilitation of homeless shelters and for prevention of homelessness. Existing Homeowner. An owner-occupant of residential property who holds legal title to the property and who uses the property as his/her principal residence. Extremely Low-income Family. Family whose income is between 0 and 30 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families. Family. See defi nition in 24 CFR 812.2 (the National Affordable Housing Act defi nition required to be used in the CHAS rule differs from the Census defi nition). The Bureau of Census defi nes a family as a householder (head of household) and one or more other persons living in the same household who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Family Self-suffi ciency (FSS) Program. A program enacted by Section 554 of the National Affordable Housing Act which directs Public Housing Agencies and Indian Housing Authorities to use Section 8 rental assistance, together with public and private resources to provide supportive services, to enable participating families to achieve economic independence and self-suffi ciency. FBO. Faith Based Organization Federal Preference for Admission. The preference given to otherwise eligible applicants under HUD’s rental assistance programs who, at the time they seek housing assistance, are involuntarily displaced, living in substandard housing, or paying more than 50 percent of family income for rent. FHEO. Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity FHLB. Federal Home Loan Bank First-time Homebuyer. An individual or family who has not owned a home during the three-year period preceding the HUD- assisted purchase of a home that must be used as the principal residence of the homebuyer, except that any individual who is a displaced Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 154 — homemaker (as defi ned in 24 CFR 92) or a single parent (as defi ned in 24 CFR 92) may not be excluded from consideration as a fi rst-time homebuyer on the basis that the individual, while a homemaker or married, owned a home with his or her spouse or resided in a home owned by the spouse. FMHA. The Farmers Home Administration, or programs it administers. FmHA programs include grants and low-interest loans for agricultural worker housing, and low-interest loans for both rental and ownership housing in rural areas. FMR. Fair Market Rents FONSI. Finding of No Signifi cant Impact For Rent. Year-round housing units that are vacant and offered/available for rent (U.S. Census defi nition). For Sale. Year-round housing units that are vacant and offered/available for sale only (U.S. Census defi nition). FR. Federal Register Frail Elderly. An elderly person who is unable to perform at least three activities of daily living (i.e., eating, dressing, bathing, grooming, and household management activities). (See 24 CFR 889.105.) The frail elderly population has been estimated in this document as elderly people (over 62 years of age) with a self-care disability. GAO. Government Accounting Offi ce GP. General Partner Group Quarters. Facilities providing living quarters that are not classifi ed as housing units (U.S. Census defi nition), including prisons, nursing homes, dormitories, military barracks, and shelters. Handicapped Access. Activities designed to provide accessibility, to housing or public facilities, for persons who are disabled. “Stand alone” projects are those that fund construction of ramps or curb cuts; CDBG projects that provide accessibility as part of a larger activity, such as construction or remodeling of a senior center, are categorized according to the primary activity. HAG. Housing Advocacy Group HARDE. Home Access and Repair for the Disabled and Elderly HOME. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which is authorized by Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act. HOME provides funding to local jurisdictions through an entitlement formula for housing for low- Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 155 — and moderate-income households. HOME-assisted Units. Units within a HOME project where HOME funds are used and rent, occupancy, and/or resale restrictions apply. HOME Funds. All appropriations for the HOME program, plus all repayments and interest or other return on the investment of the funds. HOME Investment Trust. The term given to the two accounts-one at the local level-that “hold” the participating jurisdiction’s HOME funds. The Federal HOME Investment Trust Account is the U.S. Treasury account for each participating jurisdiction. The local HOME Investment Trust Fund account includes repayments of HOME funds, matching contribution, and payment of interest or other returns on investment. Homeless Family with Children. A family composed of the following types of homeless persons: at least one parent or guardian and one child under the age of 18; a pregnant woman; or a person in the process of securing legal custody of a person under the age of 18. Homeless Person. A youth (17 years or younger) not accompanied by an adult (18 years or older) or an adult without children, who is homeless (not imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an act of Congress or a state law), including the following: (1) an individual who lacks a fi xed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is: (i) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (ii) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (iii) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings. Homeless Subpopulations. Include but are not limited to the following categories of homeless persons: severely mentally ill only, alcohol/drug addicted only, severely mentally ill and alcohol/drug addicted, fl eeing domestic violence, youth, and persons with HIV/AIDS. HOPE. Housing Opportunity for People Everywhere HOPWA. Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS Household. One or more persons occupying a housing unit (U.S. Census defi nition). See also Family. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 156 — Housing Investment Partnership Act. The act that created a formula-based allocation program intended to support state and local affordable housing programs. The goal of the program is to increase the supply of affordable rental and ownership housing through acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and moderate or substantial rehabilitation activities (Title II, National Affordable Housing Act of 1990). Housing Problems. Households with housing problems include those that: (1) occupy units meeting the defi nition of Physical Defects; (2) meet the defi nition of Overcrowded; and (3) meet the defi nition of Cost Burden > 30%. Housing Quality Standards (HQS). The performance standards for housing as established in 24 CFR Part 882 and amended by the Lead Paint Regulations in 24 CFR Part 35. Housing Unit. An occupied or vacant house, apartment, or a single room (SRO housing) that is intended as separate living quarters (U.S. Census defi nition). HQS. Housing Quality Standards HSSN. Housing and Supportive Services Network HUD. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Income Payments. Direct payments to individuals, which are ineligible under CDBG, such as payments for income maintenance, housing allowances, down payments, and mortgage subsidies. HOME regulations permit direct payments to individuals such as tenant-based rental assistance, downpayment or closing costs assistance, and principal reduction or “gap” fi nancing for home buyers. IBL. Interest Bearing Loan IDIS. Integrated Disbursement and Information System IGA. Intergovernmental Agreement Institutions/Institutional. Group quarters for persons under care or custody (U.S. Census defi nition). Large Family. Family of fi ve or more persons. Large Related. A household of fi ve or more persons which includes at least one person related to the householder by blood, marriage, or adoption. Lead-based Paint (LBP) Hazards. Any condition that causes exposure to lead Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 157 — from lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, lead-contaminated paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would result in adverse human health effects as established by the appropriate federal agency. LIHTC. (Federal) Low Income Housing Tax Credit. LIHPHRA. Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act LIHTC. Low Income Housing Tax Credits Limited Clientele Group. HUD has identifi ed the following specifi c groups of persons as limited clientele groups, which are presumed to be predominantly low- or moderate-income under the CDBG program. These are referred to as special needs and target groups: � Elderly persons � Abused children � Battered spouses � Homeless persons � Severely disabled adults � Illiterate adults � Migrant farmworkers, and � Persons living with AIDS. Low-income Family. Family whose income does not exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families. (This term corresponds to very low- income families in the HOME program.) MBE. Minority Business Enterprise Metro. Portland metropolitan area government, responsible for coordinating regional planning related to land use, growth management, transportation, solid waste management, parks and open spaces and other activities. Metro’s Council members are regionally elected. MFI. Median Family Income Middle-income Family. Family whose income is between 80 percent and 95 percent of the median family income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families. Moderate-income Family. Family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the median family income for the area, as determined by HUD, with adjustments for smaller and larger families. (This term corresponds to low-income family in the HOME program.) Moderate Rehabilitation. The term used in the HOME program to refer to any Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 158 — rehabilitation of residential property at a total development cost equal to or less than $25,000 per unit. MOU. Momerandum of Understanding National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (NAHA). Enacted by Congress to authorize a new HOME Investment Partnership Act program, the National Homeownership Trust program, the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and programs to amend and extend certain laws relating to housing, community, and neighborhood preservation and related programs. Neighborhood Revitalization. Activities to address physical conditions that create an undesirable quality of life. Examples include improvement of substandard streets or provision of utilities or other public facilities in pre-qualifi ed areas. NEPA. National Environmental Policy Act New Construction. For purposes of the HOME program, new construction is any project with commitment of HOME funds made within one year of the date of initial certifi cation of occupancy. Any project that includes the creation of additional dwelling units outside the existing walls of a structure is also considered new construction. NOFA. Notice of Funding Availability Nonelderly Household. A household which does not meet the defi nition of Elderly Household. Nonhomeless Persons with Special Needs. Includes frail elderly persons, persons with AIDS, disabled families, and families participating in organized programs to achieve economic self-suffi ciency. Noninstitutional. Group quarters for persons not under care or custody (U.S. Census defi nition). OAHTC. Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit OCD. Offi ce of Community Development Occupied Housing Unit. A housing unit that is the usual place of residence of the occupant(s). OMB. Offi ce of Management and Budget Other Household. A household of one or more persons that does not meet the defi nition of a Small Related household, Large Related household, or Elderly Household. Other Vacant. Vacant year-round housing units that are not For Rent or For Sale (U.S. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 159 — Census defi nition). This category would include Vacant Awaiting Occupancy or Held. Overcrowding. For purposes of describing relative housing needs, a housing unit containing more than one person per room, as defi ned by the U.S. Census Bureau, for which data are made available by the Census Bureau. Owner. A household that owns the housing units it occupies (U.S. Census defi nition). PAB. Policy Advisory Board Participating Jurisdiction (PJ). Any state or local government that HUD has designated to administer a HOME program. HUD designation as a PJ occurs if a State or local government meets the funding thresholds, notifi es HUD its intent to participate in the program, and obtains approval by HUD of a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. Person with a Disability. See Disabled Household. PHA. Public Housing Agency Physical Defects. A housing unit lacking complete kitchen, bathroom, or electricity (U.S. Census defi nition). PILOT. Payment in Lieu of Taxes Poverty-level Family. Family with an income below the poverty line, as defi ned by the Offi ce of Management and Budget and revised annually. Prequalifi ed Area. Census-defi ned area where 51 percent or more of the people live in households that are of low- or moderate-income. CDBG regulations permit infrastructure/ neighborhood improvement activities in prequalifi ed areas as benefi ting moderate-income persons. Priority. High - Activities to address this need will be funded by the locality within the fi ve-year period. Medium - If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by the locality during the fi ve-year period; in addition, the locality will take other actions to locate other sources of funds. Low - If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by the locality during the fi ve-year period. However, they will receive a relatively lower priority than high or medium priority projects, all other factors being equal. No Such Need Identifi ed - No such need has been identifi ed by potential grant applicants. Project. A site or sites together with any building (including a manufactured housing unit) or buildings located on the site(s) that Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 160 — are under common ownership, management, and fi nancing, and are to be assisted with HOME funds as a single undertaking. The project includes all the activities associated with the site and building. Project-based (Rental) Assistance. Rental assistance provided for a project, not for a specifi c tenant. Tenants receiving project- based rental assistance give up the right to that assistance upon moving from the project. Public Services. Essential social services for low- and moderate-income persons not funded through other state or local resources within the last 12 months. Examples include employment counseling, crime prevention, services for seniors and the homeless, drug abuse prevention, public safety, and energy conservation. Rental Assistance. Rental assistance payments provided as either Project-Based (Rental) Assistance or Tenant-Based (Rental) Assistance. Renter. A household that rents the housing unit it occupies, including both units rented for cash and units occupied without payment of cash rent (U.S. Census defi nition). Renter-occupied Unit. Any occupied housing unit that is not owner occupied, including units rented for cash and units occupied without payment of cash rent. Residential Treatment Facility. Under CDBG, a residential facility, having round- the-clock supervision on premises, serving a qualifi ed target population having special needs. CDBG funds may be utilized for capital improvements on residential treatment facilities, or for operations or services. (Local policies prohibit use of CDBG funds for operations or maintenance in a facility acquired or constructed with CDBG assistance.) SAFAH. The Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless Program, which is authorized by Title IV, Subtitle B, of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. S+C. Shelter Plus Care SDC. System Development Charges Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance. A federal program that provides rental assistance to low-income families who are unable to afford market rents. Assistance may be in the form of vouchers or certifi cates. Section 215. Section 215 of Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act. Section 215 defi nes “affordable” housing projects under the HOME program. Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 161 — Service Needs. The particular services identifi ed for special needs populations, which typically may include transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency response, and other services to prevent premature institutionalization and assist individuals to continue living independently. Severe Cost Burden. See Cost Burden >50%. Severe Mental Illness. A serious and persistent mental or emotional impairment that signifi cantly limits a person’s ability to live independently. Sheltered. Families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter, including emergency shelters, transitional housing for the homeless, domestic violence shelters, residential shelters for runaway and homeless youth, and any hotel/motel/ apartment voucher arrangement paid because the person is homeless. This term does not include persons living doubled up or in overcrowded or substandard conventional housing. Any facility offering permanent housing is not a shelter, nor are its residents homeless. SHP. Supportive Housing Program SRO. Single-Room Occupancy Small Family. Family of two to four persons. Small Related. A household of two to four persons which includes at least one person related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. Subrecipient. A public agency or nonprofi t organization selected by a participating jurisdiction to administer all or a portion of the participating jurisdictions HOME program. A public agency of nonprofi t organization that receives HOME funds solely as a developer or owner of housing is not a subrecipient. Substandard Condition and Not Suitable for Rehab. Dwelling units that are in such poor condition as to be neither structurally nor fi nancially feasible for rehabilitation (i.e., when the total cost of remedying all substandard conditions will be more than 50 percent of the current improvement value of the dwelling unit). Substandard Condition but Suitable for Rehab. Dwelling units that do not meet standard conditions but are both fi nancially and structurally feasible for rehabilitation (i.e., when the total cost of remedying all substandard conditions will be 50 percent or Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 162 — less of the current improvement value of the dwelling unit). This does not include units that require only cosmetic work, correction, or minor livability problems or maintenance work. Substantial Amendment. A major change in an approved consolidated plan. It involves a change to the fi ve-year strategy, which may be occasioned by a decision to undertake activities or programs inconsistent with that strategy. Substantial Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of residential property at an average cost for the project in excess of $25,000 per dwelling unit. Supportive Housing. Housing, including Housing Units and Group Quarters, that have a supportive environment and includes a planned service component. Supportive Services. Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents. Examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, childcare, transportation, and job training. TBRA. Tenant Based Rental Assistance Tenant-based (Rental) Assistance. A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for the project. Total Development Cost (TDC). The sum of all costs for site acquisition, relocation, demolition, construction and equipment, interest, and carrying charges. Total Vacant Housing Units. Unoccupied year-round housing units (U.S. Census defi nition). Transitional Housing. A project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate supportive services to homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months, or a longer period approved by HUD. For purposes of the HOME program, there is no HUD-approved time period for moving to independent living. Unsheltered. Families and individuals whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (e.g., streets, parks, alleys). URA. Uniform Relocation Act Urban County. Under CDBG, a county within a metropolitan area that is authorized by state law to undertake essential community Washington County Consortium 2005 - 2010 Consolidated Plan Glossary— 163 — development and housing activities and that has a population, excluding metropolitan cities within its boundaries, of 200,000 or more. USC. United States Code Vacant Awaiting Occupancy or Held. Vacant year-round housing units that have been rented or sold and are currently awaiting occupancy, and vacant year-round housing units that are held by owners or renters for occasional use (U.S. Census defi nition). Vacant Housing Unit. Unoccupied year- round housing units that are available or intended for occupancy at any time during the year. Worst-case Needs. Unassisted, low-income renter households who pay more than half of their income for rent, live in seriously substandard housing (which includes homeless people), or have been involuntarily displaced. Year-round Housing Units. Occupied and vacant housing units intended for year-round use (U.S. Census defi nition). Housing units for seasonal or migratory use are excluded. The Washington County Consortium’s Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) sets forth policies and procedures to provide for and encourage. Table 4-2 Summary of Housing Needs and Services, Washington County, 2005 Population in County a Resources/ Services Available Population Type Number Percent of Total Income 51-80% MFI Income 31-50% MFI Income 0-30% MFI Area(s) of Geographic Concentration Provider Location Housing Units or Beds Type of Services a Population Served a Gap in Population and Service Areas? 51-80% Median Family Income 29,807 17.6% NA NA NA Section 8 Vouchers b County-wide NA Assisted Housing (HUD) c County-wide NA Affordable Housing (DHS) up to 60% MFI County-wide 1,504 (Households with incomes between $30,750 and $49,199) Affordable Housing (DHS) up to 80% MFI County-wide 254 Selected census tracts throughout the County Public Housing County-wide NA 31-50% Median Family Income 14,624 8.6% NA NA NA Section 8 Vouchers County-wide 642 Assisted Housing (HUD) County-wide 307 Affordable Housing (DHS) County-wide 526 (Households with incomes between $18,450 and $30,750) Selected census tracts in Beaverton, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tigard, and unincorporated areas Public Housing County-wide 285 0-30% Median Family Income 12,403 7.3% NA NA NA Section 8 Vouchers County-wide 1,927 Assisted Housing (HUD) County-wide NA Affordable Housing (DHS) County-wide NA (Households with incomes of $18,450 or less) Selected census tracts in Beaverton, Forest Grove, and Hillsboro Public Housing County-wide 285 12,805 2.9% 100% 232 Farmworkers (people in farmworker HH's) Primarily Hillsboro and West County Housing Development Corp. of NW Oregon Forest Grove, Cornelius, Hillsboro, Aloha Farmworker Camps West County 1,500- 2,000 Homeless d 590 0.2% 100% Community Action Org. Hillsboro 20 Families No shelter for single homeless men or homeless youths in the County. Unmet need of 416 beds identified. Good Neighbor Center Tigard 36 Families and singles Monika’s House County-wide 28 Women and children Interfaith Hospitality Netwk Hillsboro 14 Families Washington County Shelter + Care Program County-wide 84 Vouchers Open Door Counseling Hillsboro Camping Homeless Elderly Persons e 27,998 16.5% 24.1% 14.7% 12.6% Subsidized Housing (HUD/DHS) County-wide 571 4167 (Households with one or two elderly persons) Residential Care Facilities County-wide 437 3596 Disproportionate amount of services in East County. Nursing Facilities County-wide 951 Disproportionate amount of services in East County. Table 4-2 (cont’d) Summary of Housing Needs and Services, Washington County, 2005 Population in County a Resources/ Services Available Population Type Number Percent of Total Income 51-80% MFI Income 31-50% MFI Income 0-30% MFI Area(s) of Geographic Concentration Provider Location Housing Units or Beds Type of Services a Population Served a Gap in Population and Service Areas? Assisted Living Facilities County-wide 1,233 Disproportionate amount of services in East County. Adult Foster Homes County-wide 975 Persons with Disabilities g 21,108 12.5% 21.7% 13.0% 14.5% HUD Assisted Housing Hillsboro, Aloha 59 (households in which at least one member has a disability) Other Assisted Housing Hillsboro, Aloha, Forest Grove 40 Rental Units with Accessible Features County-wide 484 Persons with HIV/ AIDS 205 0.05% 75% h Cascade AIDS Project Portland 21 Housing placement and vouchers Tualatin Valley Housing Partners Beaverton, Hillsboro 3 to 9 47,232 10.0% Clean and Sober Living and New Dawn Castle Hillsboro, Beaverton 62 Not enough services in Beaverton area Persons in need of Alcohol/ Drug Treatment i CODA Recovery Center Tigard 12 DePaul Treatment Centers 9 Homeward Bound Recovery Home Sherwood 12 House of Hope Recover Ministry Aloha 28 The Lighthouse Center Hillsboro 26 Oxford Houses (25 houses) j Mostly Hillsboro 179 Tualatin Valley Centers Recovery Center Tigard, Cedar Mill 9 Ex-offenders (persons leaving prison system) Approx. 2,600 0.6% County-wide Washington County Community Corrections Hillsboro Housing placement Approx. 2,600 a Washington County population was 445,342 in 2000, projected to 494,109 in 2005. Total households in County was 169,112 in 2000, projected to 187,630 in 2005 b The totals listed for Section 8 housing represent the total number of tenant-based vouchers offered by the Department of Housing Services. Unit-based Section 8 facilities are included in the Assisted or Affordable Housing categories). c The totals for Assisted Housing and Public Housing units represent the total amount of units affordable to each income group. Families may not access units if their income exceeds the designated limits. Families from a lower income group, such as less than 30% MFI, may access any of the housing units designated for incomes up to and exceeding their own, but these units are generally not affordable to them and therefore are not included on this table. These totals do not include units designated for the elderly, people with developmental disabilities, or farmworkers. d Homeless numbers are from the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services Shelter Nightcount for Washington County, conducted March 28, 2003. The totals include both people "sheltered" that night and those turned away from shelters. Community Action conducted a "street count" in late March that will provide more up-to-date data on the number of homeless people in the County. e Population and income figures are from HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data for the year 2000 f Figures are for the number of units in facilities that accept Medicaid patients. The total number of beds in these facilities is: Residential care facilities (783); Nursing Facilities (973); Assisted Living Facilities (1,517); and Adult Foster Homes (1,201). g These figures are from the 2000 CHAS data, and represent all households in which at least one member has a "mobility or self-care limitation." h These figures represent the percent of persons below poverty level according to 2000 US Census or Cascade AIDS Project information. The Census Bureau's poverty level definitions are not based on the % of family income categories used by HUD. i Number of persons is an estimate for 2003 provided by Washington County Mental Health Department. Percent is based on 2000 County population, projected to 2003. j Includes some facilities that are planned but have not yet been built.