Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget Messagearlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2015/0… · Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget Message To the County Board & the Arlington

BARBARA M. DONNELLAN, COUNTY MANAGER 2100 CLARENDON BLVD., SUITE 302

ARLINGTON, VA 22201 703.228-3120

[email protected]

Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget Message

To the County Board & the Arlington Community:

As I send you my proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, it is a good time to take stock of our financial health. I can report that it is strong: we have triple-Aaa bond ratings, one of only 32 counties, out of more than 3,000 nationwide. We have a fully funded pension plan, one of the strongest in the country. We have strong reserve levels and a healthy balance sheet with affordable debt levels – giving us the ability to continue infrastructure investments in our community. This isn’t an accident – it is the direct result of a

strong tradition of sound financial and management practices. So why are strong finances so important? Without them, it would be very difficult to provide the breadth, depth and quality of services for which we are known nationally. My proposed budget continues this tradition. As we approach this year’s budget process, we do have challenges – but they are good challenges. They are a direct result of our success as a vibrant, growing, and diverse community. First among these is meeting the demands of a growing school population, which presents challenges to Arlington Public Schools as well as County parks, libraries and human services. We face demands for infrastructure investment. We face demands for new services for a growing senior and millennial population and workforce. We face demands to keep up with core service delivery and program expansion in public safety and Metro, and to support the poorest and most vulnerable in our community. All of these demands must be balanced against the tax burden impacts on our residents and businesses. And we must achieve this balance as we face an increasingly competitive economic environment. My proposed budget provides an approach to balancing these competing priorities, made possible by our economic and financial strength.

Balanced budget and highlights In November the County Board adopted budget guidance that directed me in my proposed budget to:

1. Fund services that protect the health and safety of our residents, continue our investments in a quality public education, a safety net for those in need, affordable housing, and environmental sustainability.

2. Present a balanced budget that assumes no increase in tax rates and no new program expansion other than that previously approved by the Board.

book 7 web 21

COUNTY MANAGER’S MESSAGE

3. Present options to the Board for budget reductions totaling one percent of the County’s operating department expenditures.

4. Apply a County / School revenue allocation of 54.1% County / 45.9% Schools (the same revenue allocation percentages in the FY 2015 Adopted Budget).

As directed by the County Board, my proposed budget is balanced and assumes no increase in tax rates and no new program expansion other than that previously approved by the Board. It fully funds pension, debt service, health care, compensation, and Metro contributions. My proposed budget does provide ongoing funding to address structural budget issues in a few strategic areas. The majority of the realignments noted below do not increase services, but instead ensure that the service level we have historically provided continues. In October, as we entered the budget development process, we estimated a $4 million difference between revenues and expenditures for County operations. Real estate assessments and other tax revenue estimates came in at initial projections. Four months later, our estimates of health care and retirement costs were lower, enabling us to close the gap between revenues and expenditures. We also were able to take the important step in my base budget of addressing structural budget issues in key programs that the County Board has previously funded with one-time money. Eliminating those places in the budget where ongoing services were funded with one-time funds is important. Over the past two years, last-minute changes in the budget created several areas that must be addressed to keep our strong financial ratings intact. Human & Community Services – my proposed budget substitutes ongoing for one-time funding for the following programs:

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP); Crisis Intervention Coordinator that supports the Department of Human

Services (DHS) and public safety agencies; Continued contractual support for the sexual assault hotline; Support for the Shirlington Employment & Education Center; Intervention, Prevention & Education program (IPE) related to youth

affected by gang activity; Additional funding for food purchases for Arlington Food Assistance Center

(AFAC); and Housing Grants – Replaced $1 million of one-time funds with ongoing

funding, resulting in a total program budget of $8.9 million for FY 2016. Public Safety – my proposed budget includes ongoing funding for the County’s contribution to the Regional Gang Task Force and the additional police detail in Clarendon to meet weekend and special event demands. My budget also allocates one-time funding for the Rosslyn Pedestrian Safety Initiative during major construction efforts in Rosslyn. Recreation – my proposed budget reflects the realignment of aquatics and gymnastics fees recommended by the community working group. It also includes a proposed restructuring in the senior adult fee that provides more fitness options and better aligns the amount charged with services provided.

book 8 web 22


Internal Audit – my proposed budget provides ongoing funding for the internal audit program. Work is underway, and the first audits are expected this spring. My proposed budget includes $16.4 million in one-time funding, the vast majority of which was approved by the Board at close-out of FY 2014 with expenditure savings and revenues that came in above budget. In line with our financial policies, the majority of these dollars fund one-time investments, such as the Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF), maintenance capital, and the continuation of a $3.0 million economic and revenue stabilization contingent. In addition to close-out allocations, my budget includes modest one-time funding allocations for the Rosslyn Pedestrian Safety Initiative, GIS consulting, and the Department of Human Services (DHS) contingent for antibiotics. A list of one-time funding priorities is included later in this section. The proposed FY 2016 General Fund Budget totals $1.156 billion or a 0.7 percent increase, which includes the transfer to Schools and one-time investments. Ongoing County government operations (excluding the School transfer and one-time funding) increases 4.0 percent over FY 2015.

Budget & service delivery reduction options As requested by the County Board, I have developed service and budget reductions totaling one percent of the County’s operating department expenditures, or approximately $4.0 million. While not reflected in my base budget proposal, this list provides options for the County Board to consider in balancing priorities – whether for schools, public safety, tax rate reduction or other programs. The options are divided into three categories: Efficiencies, service redundancies and budget realignments ($1.4 million total) – Many of the options in this category are the result of strategic investments made by the County in recent years, especially in transit service and facility improvements. Options in this category include conversion of Metrobus service to less expensive ART service; utility and fleet savings; and elimination of a redundant after-school care program (in collaboration with Arlington Public Schools). Service reductions ($2.4 million total) – The options in this category were the most difficult to develop and will pose difficult conversations for the community as the Board considers the budget. Each and every one of the programs on this list provides value to Arlington residents and businesses – either immediate or long-term. My approach was to propose no “Washington Monuments;” to not fully eliminate any program or service; and to largely focus on programs that are not core to public safety or health. Details follow later in this section; this category reflects savings from closure of the Artisphere (with some savings redirected into Cultural Affairs programs as discussed later); reduction of bike / pedestrian programs previously funded by dedicating a portion of the County’s decal fee; reduction in transportation planning; reduction in some Arlington Initiative to Rethink Energy (AIRE) functions and the district energy initiative; reduction in urban agriculture; and reduction in employment services and cluster care for seniors. State aid reductions ($0.4 million total) – To balance the biennial budget, the Commonwealth’s proposed budget includes reductions to programs, including

book 9 web 23


compensation board reimbursements to constitutional offices and will impact the service delivery these offices provide. The shift of state obligations to local governments presents difficult choices. A detailed list of these options and the service delivery impact if reduced, is included later in this section.

Service enhancement options in priority areas While existing revenue forecasts and Board budget guidance do not allow for significant program expansion in my budget, I have been able to include contingent funding - totaling $586,000 in ongoing and $250,000 in one-time funding in my base budget for the Board to consider - particularly for public safety enhancements the Board requested this past spring. This funding was generated by improved forecasts for health care and retirement discussed earlier, and is available to meet a number of important needs as discussed below. Public Safety:

Sheriff – This office is currently wrapping up its consultant-led study of staffing levels and lockdown levels; we anticipate being ready to discuss results at the public safety budget worksession.

Fire – We will be applying for the federal SAFER grant this spring; if successful, this grant could provide multi-year funding for four-person staffing on remaining engines and/or additional staff for the Emergency Communications Center. Additional funding could also help jumpstart the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) initiatives underway that attempt to redirect less critical medical calls from expensive EMS units to other alternatives.

Police – We have been evaluating enhanced security at Courthouse Plaza and body cameras for police officers, influenced by the recent national conversation on this topic.

Circuit Court / Drug Court – this innovative initiative has shown promising results to date in terms of participant outcomes and avoided costs; additional funding could help leverage grant sources.

Economic Development – As we expected, the impact of the Base Realignment & Closure Commission (BRAC) actions and regional competitiveness in the District of Columbia and due to the Silver Line are having significant impacts on our office vacancy rate and commercial-related revenue streams. While my budget continues many investments that will help spur economic development, additional resources in terms of staff may be needed. My new Economic Development Director is evaluating options and strategies in this area.

Commitment to schools My proposed budget follows the Revenue Sharing Principles recently adopted by the County Board and School Board and includes a transfer to Arlington Public Schools of $445.5 million, an increase in ongoing funding of $13.2 million, or 3.1 percent over FY 2015; our Schools continue to spend the highest per pupil amount in the region. My budget also funds $8 million of direct support to Schools, including nurses, School Resource Officers (police assigned directly to schools), and crossing guards.

book 10 web 24


For FY 2016, I am continuing the funding of three School Resource Officers added last year and partially funded with a grant received by the County. I have also included funding for a 0.75 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) clinic aide and 0.5 FTE school health nurse for the new Discovery Elementary School that will open this fall. In addition, numerous County programs create the healthy and secure environment for children and parents that help close the achievement gap often cited by Schools as one of its primary goals. Our popular parks and recreation programs, our libraries, and our social services are all part of the support structure that makes Arlington a great place to raise and educate our children. Most importantly, we continue to partner with Schools in the planning processes as it works to expand and build new facilities. The adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) reflects all the bonding and debt capacity that Schools requested as it pursues its “once in a generation” plans. Finally, the $4 million in proposed budget reduction options allows the opportunity for the Board to consider trade-offs as it considers the Schools’ FY 2016 funding request.

Investments in our corridors and commercial base As noted earlier, we are experiencing historically high office vacancy rates. We have a multi-prong strategy in place, including focusing on the innovation economy; improving our processes through efforts of the business ombudsman in my office and development services areas; and other strategic investments that include:

ConnectArlington 2.0 and other technology investments – The proposed budget includes operating funds for the first phase of this effort which will provide fiber connections to businesses and government entities to help spur economic development. Other technology investments, such as pay-by-cell for parking, have been well-received.

Service & infrastructure investments – The Complete Streets and multi-modal projects along Columbia Pike and Crystal City continue; my proposed budget also includes enhancements to transit service in main corridors, in line with the Board-approved Transit Development Plan. The Crystal City-Potomac Yard Transitway is also under construction.

Planning efforts – We continue the numerous planning initiatives that are underway – Realize Rosslyn; Western Rosslyn Area Planning Study (WRAPs); Envision Courthouse; the Community Facilities Plan.

I also will be presenting proposals for next steps in light of the Board’s decision to eliminate the streetcar program. In March, I will be presenting an inventory of plans that will be updated, to be followed in May with proposed processes for updating these plans.

Affordable housing My proposed budget continues our tremendous investment in affordable housing. Local tax dollars invested in housing total $36.3 million, or 5.1 percent of the General Fund budget, excluding the Schools transfer. Highlights of this investment include:

Funding for the Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) totals $12.5 million (one-time and ongoing funds);

Full year funding for the new Homeless Services Center in the Courthouse area scheduled to open in late FY 2015;

book 11 web 25


Housing grants are funded at $8.9 million from a combination of one-time and ongoing funds; and

Final year of the three-year affordable housing study.

Investment in our workforce The constrained budgets of the last few years have required a hiring slowdown that I continue to keep in place in light of the economic pressures we are facing. The result is that I have asked our workforce to do more with less – taking up more work when a colleague retires and isn’t replaced; addressing new and increasing service demands due to our growing population; performing administrative work in addition to normal job duties because administrative positions in departments have been reduced. Because of their efforts and our goal of remaining competitive with other jurisdictions, I have included a merit step increase in the proposed budget. My proposed budget also includes the re-establishment of the Live Where You Work Program, which provides modest grants for employees interested in purchasing a home in Arlington. Funding for this program is offset by a proposed increase in employee parking rates which have not been increased in many years. Finally, my budget continues to fully fund our pension and health care obligations.

Cultural affairs and the arts My recommendation to close the Artisphere at the end of this fiscal year was a difficult one to make. But the arts remain vibrant and important to our community, and I am recommending that $450,000 in savings from closing the Artisphere be redirected to other cultural affairs activities – approximately the same amount of funding that was redirected from Cultural Affairs to fund the Artisphere when it first opened. We will be working over the next year to reestablish our vision for arts in our community.

Tax and fee burden up In my proposed budget, the overall tax and fee burden for the average Arlington household will increase from $7,286 to $7,567, a four percent increase, or about $23 a month ($281 per year). This primarily reflects the 4.9 percent increase in the average residential property assessment and a 1.7 percent increase in the water-sewer rate due to inflationary increases and the addition of key personnel for meter and valve maintenance. We have not proposed tax rate changes for personal property tax, business tangible property, business and professional occupational licenses, or the dedicated stormwater tax.

Community input Once again, we actively sought input from the community and stakeholders in preparing the proposed budget.

In November, I met with Commission chairs. In December, the Superintendent and I held a joint public Budget Forum at

Washington-Lee High School. We also asked employees for input in an online chat session. We created a special FY 2016 Budget webpage, which will continue to be

populated with budget materials and includes a feedback link.

book 12 web 26


I want to extend my thanks to all County staff who have worked so diligently to prepare this proposed budget. County staff continues to perform at a high level despite added workloads. This proposed budget stays true to the community’s values and our vision of Arlington as a diverse, vibrant and inclusive community, with a mix of programs and services that continue to be recognized internationally. I look forward to the continuing dialogue with the community and the County Board as we move toward budget adoption. Respectfully submitted,

Barbara M. Donnellan, County Manager

book 13 web 27


STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS WITH ONE-TIME FUNDS

Additional one-time funding is available in FY 2016 due to: 1) contingents that were set aside at close-out of FY 2014 to address potential FY 2016 budget issues, 2) unspent contingents in FY 2015 (Economic & Revenue Stabilization fund), and 3) one-time funds received in FY 2015 from prior year rent reconciliations at Courthouse Plaza. Consistent with County practice, one-time funds have been used for one-time investments and projects. The County Manager has included the following investments in the proposed budget, most of which the County Board has already allocated based on FY 2014 close-out or Board policy.

Affordable Housing Investment Fund: $8.2 million – this additional funding brings the investment in AHIF to $12.46 million, slightly below the 2015 adopted budget levels of $13.0 million. The decrease is due to lower recordation tax revenue projected which is a portion of the AHIF funding stream.

Housing Grants: $1.5 million – During the FY 2014 closeout process one-time funding was added for Housing Grants to replace the previous one-time funding. The County Manager included an additional $1.0 million in ongoing funding for housing grants in the FY 2016 proposed budget, for a total of $7.4 million in ongoing funding and $1.5 million in one-time funds for Housing Grants. The Housing Grants Program provides rental assistance to low-income households so they can afford to live in Arlington. Recipients are residents who meet income requirements, and are limited to working families with minor children, residents age 65 or older, or people with disabilities, and those not helped by Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance (Section 8). Average annual income ranges from $13,602 to $26,307. As of December 2014, there were 1,308 households receiving subsidies, a 1.8 percent increase in the first six months of FY 2015.

Capital Investments: $1.7 million in funding carried over from FY 2014 close-out for various

maintenance capital and infrastructure projects.

Economic & Revenue Stabilization Fund: $3.0 million - Consistent with the County Board’s adopt fiscal policies the County will maintain an economic & revenue stabilization contingent to address revenue declines and local or regional economic stress.

Artisphere Funding: $1.3 million in funding carried over from FY 2014 close-out. These funds are included in the proposed budget to be available for the continued operations of the Artisphere or as the County Manager recommends, to be used to cover the anticipated facility operating costs of the space under the terms of the lease and the facility returned to the property owner.

Courts Funding: $250,000 in funding set aside for County Board consideration of the Circuit Court’s request to expand the Drug Court operations that could be used to supplement grant funding which will be sought through state and federal grant programs.

Other one-time projects and contingents included in the Manager’s base budget proposal: $472,000 – this includes funding for a Rosslyn Pedestrian Safety Initiative, geographic information system (GIS) consulting, DHS contingent for antibiotics, and unallocated funds for County Board flexibility for other one-time investments.

book 14 web 28

COUNTY MANAGER’S MESSAGE STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS WITH ONE-TIME FUNDS

This proposal totals $12.7 million of one-time funding from the close-out of FY 2014, $3.0 million in carryover from FY 2015 for the FY 2015 Economic & Revenue Stabilization contingent, and $0.7 million from one-time revenue received in FY 2015 for prior year rent reconciliations with Courthouse Plaza. Additional one-time monies may be identified by the County Manager at FY 2015 Mid-Year Review in March 2015.

book 15 web 29


MULTI-YEAR FORECAST & FUTURE BUDGET PRESSURES

Consistent with the County’s debt and financial policies, staff has prepared a multi-year financial forecast. This forecast is intended to help inform the Board and the community with greater awareness of medium and long-term budget pressures as it considers policy and service delivery choices. The County is required to adopt a balanced budget annually, so none of the shortfalls projected for the out-years will actually occur. The shortfalls would be eliminated through a combination of expenditure / service reductions, revenue increases (increased taxes / fees) or a combination of the two. Two scenarios are presented on the following pages: 1) Low growth – this scenario assumes that over the next three years, aggregate assessment growth remains in the one percent range, driven by two to three percent increases in single-family residential and multi-family, offset by declines in the commercial office sector due to vacancy rates; and 2) Modest growth – this scenario assumes that aggregate assessment growth will be in the three percent range, with residential and multi-family increasing at four percent (in line with the last two years), yet still offset by flat to declining commercial office projections. Under both scenarios, there could be a gap between projected revenues and expenditures ranging from $17 – $24 million in FY 2017, excluding Schools projected budget gap and new facilities. The scenarios do not assume any significant change in service levels or proposed new services. The estimates shown for the Schools transfer reflect the current revenue-sharing percentage (45.9 percent of local taxes) as outlined in the Revenue Sharing Principles adopted by the County Board and School Board in January 2015; this percentage may change based on budget deliberations. There are a series of ongoing expenditures pressures before consideration of service expansion or policy changes that drive the County’s expense forecast:

Metro – Metro faces operating pressures as ridership has been flat to declining; Metro faces additional pressures in compensation, pension and post-employment benefit funding. Over the last three years, Metro’s operating budget has increased on average by eight percent. Arlington’s share of Metro’s costs ranges from six to nine percent, depending on the type of service (e.g. rail, bus, or MetroAccess). In addition to operating, Metro is pursuing a significant strategic, capital investment program (Metro 2025); when regional consensus is achieved on this proposal, it will have impacts on the County’s CIP and future operating budgets.

Health care costs –Employee health care continues to be a budget driver with increases projected to exceed the rate of inflation.

Pension and post-employment benefit costs – While the County’s defined benefit pension fund is currently among the best funded in the country, this is due in large part to the County’s steady funding levels. As investment returns remain volatile and liabilities (e.g., increasing salaries) increase, the County’s contribution will increase. Additionally, the County has taken important steps to fund other post-employment benefits (OPEB) for future retirees; as the number of retirees increase and as health care costs rise, contribution to the OPEB trust will continue to be a budget pressure.

Compensation – The County has made progress in recent years to address the issue of competitiveness of our compensation levels compared to other jurisdictions. The forecasts assume continuation of merit step increases to maintain this status.

State and federal budget actions – Budgetary actions at the state and federal level could have both direct and indirect impact on the County’s budget.

book 17 web 31

COUNTY MANAGER’S MESSAGE FUTURE BUDGET PRESSURES

Capital investment – As the County’s infrastructure ages and as more new facilities are brought into the County’s inventory, additional capital investment will be required.

Operating Costs Associated with New Facilities & Projects In addition to the base budget forecast discussed above, the Adopted CIP includes several replacement and facility expansions that will result in increased programmatic and operating costs. Examples include the proposed replacement of the Lubber Run Community Center and a relocated fire station on the north side of the County. Community planning processes will begin over the next year for these projects, which will include facility scoping and design as well as development of programmatic and operating models appropriate for each facility. More detailed operating budget impacts will be developed as the scoping and planning processes proceed. The proposed FY 2016 budget includes new operating costs associated with ConnectArlington 2.0 (focused on government and business development and retention) and lease costs associated with the consolidation of Department of Human Services at the Sequoia complex.

New Policy Initiatives & Opportunities for Service Expansion The County is currently underway with several significant studies that could have an impact on future operating budgets, including the affordable housing study, the development of a new transit development plan, and an analysis of Sheriff staffing levels.

book 18 web 32

0.98

30.

983

0.98

30.

983

0.98

3

Ad

op

ted

P

rop

os

ed

F

ore

ca

st

Fo

rec

as

t F

ore

ca

st

Fo

rec

as

t F

Y 2

01

5%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

6%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

7%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

8%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

9%

ch

gF

Y 2

02

0%

ch

gR

EV

EN

UE

Rea

l Est

ate

640,

661,

660

5

.8%

671,

642,

200

5

%69

1,34

6,77

0

3%

711,

526,

420

3

%73

4,78

1,95

0

3%

758,

978,

710

3

%Le

ss C

CT

IF R

eal E

stat

e(3

,482

,480

)

5

2%

(3,0

96,7

40)

-11

%(3

,096

,740

)

0

%(3

,096

,740

)

0

%(3

,184

,740

)

3

%(3

,360

,740

)

6

%L

ess

Col

umbi

a P

ike

TIF

Re

al E

stat

e(1

19

,95

0)

(5

36,1

30)

3

47

%(8

72,8

80)

6

3%

(1,2

16,3

70)

39

%(1

,566

,720

)

2

9%

(1,9

24,0

80)

23

%O

ther

Tax

es30

4,21

2,14

7

1%

302,

477,

147

-1

%31

1,55

1,46

1

3%

320,

898,

005

3

%33

0,52

4,94

5

3%

340,

440,

694

3

%T

OT

AL

TA

XE

S94

1,27

1,37

7

4%

970,

486,

477

3%

998,

928,

611

3%

1,02

8,11

1,31

5

3

%1,

060,

555,

435

3

%1,

094,

134,

584

3

%

Tot

al F

ee

s &

Oth

er8

2,8

67

,15

0

2

%82

,993

,372

0%

85,0

68,2

06

3

%87

,194

,911

3%

89,8

10,7

59

3

%92

,505

,082

3%

Sta

te &

Fe

de

ral

84

,31

9,2

13

6%

86,4

03,9

88

2

%86

,836

,008

1%

87,7

04,3

68

1

%89

,019

,934

2%

90,3

55,2

33

2

%T

OT

AL

OT

HE

R16

7,18

6,36

3

4%

169,

397,

360

1%

171,

904,

214

1%

174,

899,

279

2

%17

8,83

0,69

2

2

%18

2,86

0,31

4

2

%

CA

RR

YO

VE

R F

UN

DS

39,2

49,4

71

16

,428

,097

3,00

0,00

0

3,

000,

000

3,00

0,00

0

3,

000,

000

TO

TA

L R

EV

EN

UE

1,1

47

,70

7,2

11

5%

1,15

6,31

1,93

4

1%

1,17

3,83

2,82

6

2%

1,20

6,01

0,59

5

3

%1,

242,

386,

128

3

%1,

279,

994,

898

3

%

EX

PE

NS

E

Sal

arie

s25

1,33

0,97

0

4%

261,

467,

316

4

%26

8,78

8,40

1

3%

276,

314,

476

3

%28

4,05

1,28

1

3%

292,

004,

717

3

%B

enef

its12

8,08

1,01

9

6%

128,

841,

515

1

%13

3,37

5,60

4

4%

138,

084,

790

4

%14

2,88

2,51

4

3%

147,

864,

033

3

%

PE

RS

ON

NE

L T

OT

AL

37

9,4

11

,98

9

4%

390,

308,

831

3

%40

2,16

4,00

5

3%

414,

399,

266

3

%42

6,93

3,79

5

3%

439,

868,

750

3

%

CO

NT

RA

CT

UA

L15

8,72

9,52

8

5%

163,

433,

182

3%

167,

519,

012

3%

171,

706,

987

3

%17

5,99

9,66

2

3

%18

0,39

9,65

3

3

%IN

TE

RN

AL

SE

RV

ICE

S

(pho

ne/a

uto/

fuel

)14

,908

,908

0%

15,3

23,7

90

3

%15

,706

,885

3%

16,0

99,5

57

3

%16

,582

,544

3%

17,0

80,0

20

3

%M

AT

ER

IAL

S &

SU

PP

LIE

S

(ope

ratin

g su

pplie

s/ap

pare

l)9,

048,

325

5%

9,01

8,66

9

3

%9,

244,

136

3%

9,47

5,23

9

3

%9,

759,

496

3%

10,0

52,2

81

3

%E

QU

IPM

EN

T3,

04

0,8

47

18

%2,

726,

471

3%

2,79

4,63

3

3

%2,

864,

499

3%

2,95

0,43

4

3

%3,

038,

947

3%

LE

AS

E P

UR

CH

AS

E9

,02

9,5

96

-2%

9,04

8,81

5

0

%9,

229,

791

2%

9,41

4,38

7

2

%9,

602,

675

2%

9,79

4,72

8

2

%IN

TR

A C

OU

NT

Y C

HA

RG

ES

(6,7

77

,08

5)

0%

(6,8

95,2

88)

0%

(7,0

67,6

70)

3%

(7,2

44,3

62)

3%

(7,4

61,6

93)

3%

(7,6

85,5

44)

3%

MIS

C.

1,1

25

,24

3

-5

%1,

105,

864

0%

1,13

3,51

1

3

%1,

161,

848

3%

1,19

6,70

4

3

%1,

232,

605

3%

SU

BT

OT

AL

: C

ont

ract

ual,

Mat

eria

ls

& E

quip

men

t18

9,10

5,36

2

5%

193,

761,

503

2

%19

8,56

0,29

7

2%

203,

478,

155

2

%20

8,62

9,82

1

3%

213,

912,

690

3

%

ME

TR

O29

,885

,640

6%

31,1

07,2

77

4

%33

,200

,000

7%

34,4

00,0

00

4

%36

,100

,000

5%

38,2

00,0

00

6

%D

ebt S

ervi

ce60

,745

,567

0%

61,8

00,0

00

2

%63

,647

,906

3%

65,3

54,3

16

3

%69

,915

,509

7%

74,0

16,4

43

6

%R

egio

nals

/Con

tinge

nts/

Oth

er12

,060

,623

7%

11,6

04,3

67

-4

%11

,836

,454

2%

12,0

73,1

83

2

%12

,314

,647

2%

12,5

60,9

40

2

%P

AY

G2

2,9

52

,28

8

2

3%

9,82

0,64

6

-5

7%

10,1

15,2

65

3

%10

,418

,723

3%

10,7

31,2

85

3

%11

,053

,224

3%

Aff

ord

abl

e H

ousi

ng F

und

12

,95

5,7

16

4%

12,4

56,0

17

-4

%12

,705

,137

2%

12,9

59,2

40

2

%13

,218

,425

2%

13,4

82,7

93

2

%

NO

N-P

ER

SO

NN

EL

TO

TA

L3

27

,70

5,1

96

5

%32

0,54

9,81

0

-2%

330,

065,

060

3

%33

8,68

3,61

8

3%

350,

909,

687

4

%36

3,22

6,09

0

4%

707,

117,

185

SC

HO

OL

TR

AN

SF

ER

- o

ngoi

ng ta

x4

32

,23

2,2

21

5

%44

5,45

3,29

3

3%

458,

508,

233

3

%47

1,90

3,09

4

3%

486,

794,

945

3

%50

2,20

7,77

4

3%

one-

time

fund

s8,

357,

805

-

-

-

-

-

Tot

al S

CH

OO

L T

RA

NS

FE

R (1

)44

0,59

0,02

6

445,

453,

293

458,

508,

233

471,

903,

094

48

6,79

4,94

5

50

2,20

7,77

4

TO

TA

L E

XP

EN

SE

S1

,14

7,7

07

,21

1

5%

1,15

6,31

1,93

4

1%

1,19

0,73

7,29

7

3%

1,22

4,98

5,97

8

3%

1,26

4,63

8,42

7

3%

1,30

5,30

2,61

5

3%

RE

VE

NU

E -

EX

PE

NS

E G

AP

00

(16,

904,

472)

(18,

975,

383)

(22,

252,

299)

(25,

307,

717)

(2,0

70,9

11)

(3,2

76,9

16)

(3,0

55,4

18)

OP

ER

AT

ING

EX

PE

NS

ES

FO

R N

EW

PR

OJE

CT

S -

- T

o b

e d

ete

rmin

ed

as

CIP

an

d p

lan

nin

g s

tud

ies

pro

ce

ed

.

(1) F

or p

lann

ing

purp

oses

, the

sch

ool t

rans

fer

num

bers

ref

lect

the

reve

nue

shar

ing

prin

cipl

es a

dopt

ed b

y th

e C

ount

y B

oard

and

Sch

ool

Boa

rd in

Jan

uary

201

5.

Ad

jus

ted

GA

P if

FY

20

17

bu

dg

et

is b

ala

nc

ed

wit

h in

cre

as

ed

re

ve

nu

e o

r lo

wer

ex

pe

nd

itu

res

Mo

der

ate

Rev

enu

e &

Exp

ense

Fo

reca

st

(Rea

l Est

ate

Ass

essm

ent G

row

th: J

an 2

015:

3.4

%,

Jan

2016

: 2.7

%,

Jan

2017

: 2.8

%,

Jan

201

8: 3

.3%

, J

an 2

019:

3.3

%,

Jan

202

0: 3

.3%

)

book 19 web 33

0.98

30.

983

0.98

30.

983

0.98

3

Ad

op

ted

P

rop

os

ed

F

ore

ca

st

Fo

rec

as

t F

ore

ca

st

Fo

rec

as

t F

Y 2

01

5%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

6%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

7%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

8%

ch

gF

Y 2

01

9%

ch

gF

Y 2

02

0%

ch

gR

EV

EN

UE

Rea

l Est

ate

640,

661,

660

6

%67

1,64

2,20

0

5%

680,

528,

270

1

%69

1,58

2,44

0

2%

705,

721,

500

2

%72

0,45

3,06

0

2%

Less

CC

TIF

Rea

l Est

ate

(3,4

82,4

80)

52

%(3

,096

,740

)

-1

1%

(3,0

96,7

40)

0%

(3,0

96,7

40)

0%

(3,0

96,7

40)

0%

(3,0

96,7

40)

0%

Le

ss C

olum

bia

Pik

e T

IF R

ea

l Est

ate

(11

9,9

50

)

(536

,130

)

34

7%

(872

,880

)

63

%(1

,216

,370

)

3

9%

(1,5

66,7

20)

29

%(1

,924

,080

)

2

3%

Oth

er T

axes

304,

212,

147

1

%30

2,47

7,14

7

-1%

308,

526,

690

2

%31

4,69

7,22

4

2%

324,

138,

140

3

%33

3,86

2,28

5

3%

TO

TA

L T

AX

ES

941,

271,

377

4

%97

0,48

6,47

7

3

%98

5,08

5,34

0

2

%1,

001,

966,

554

2%

1,02

5,19

6,18

0

2%

1,04

9,29

4,52

5

2%

Tot

al F

ee

s &

Oth

er8

2,8

67

,15

0

2

%82

,993

,372

0%

85,0

68,2

06

3

%87

,194

,911

3%

89,8

10,7

59

3

%92

,505

,082

3%

Sta

te &

Fe

de

ral

84

,31

9,2

13

6%

86,4

03,9

88

2

%86

,836

,008

1%

87,7

04,3

68

1

%89

,019

,934

2%

90,3

55,2

33

2

%T

OT

AL

OT

HE

R16

7,18

6,36

3

4%

169,

397,

360

1%

171,

904,

214

1%

174,

899,

279

2

%17

8,83

0,69

2

2

%18

2,86

0,31

4

2

%

CA

RR

YO

VE

R F

UN

DS

39,2

49,4

71

16

,428

,097

3,00

0,00

0

3,

000,

000

3,00

0,00

0

3,

000,

000

TO

TA

L R

EV

EN

UE

1,1

47

,70

7,2

11

5%

1,15

6,31

1,93

4

0.7

%1,

159,

989,

554

0

%1,

179,

865,

833

2%

1,20

7,02

6,87

3

2%

1,23

5,15

4,83

9

2%

EX

PE

NS

E

Sal

arie

s25

1,33

0,97

0

4%

261,

467,

316

4

%26

8,78

8,40

1

3%

276,

314,

476

3

%28

4,05

1,28

1

3%

292,

004,

717

3

%B

enef

its12

8,08

1,01

9

6%

128,

841,

515

1

%13

3,37

5,60

4

4%

138,

084,

790

4

%14

2,88

2,51

4

3%

147,

864,

033

3

%

PE

RS

ON

NE

L T

OT

AL

37

9,4

11

,98

9

4%

390,

308,

831

3

%40

2,16

4,00

5

3%

414,

399,

266

3

%42

6,93

3,79

5

3%

439,

868,

750

3

%

CO

NT

RA

CT

UA

L15

8,72

9,52

8

5%

163,

433,

182

3%

167,

519,

012

3%

171,

706,

987

3

%17

5,99

9,66

2

3

%18

0,39

9,65

3

3

%IN

TE

RN

AL

SE

RV

ICE

S

(pho

ne/a

uto/

fuel

)14

,908

,908

0%

15,3

23,7

90

3

%15

,706

,885

3%

16,0

99,5

57

3

%16

,582

,544

3%

17,0

80,0

20

3

%M

AT

ER

IAL

S &

SU

PP

LIE

S

(ope

ratin

g su

pplie

s/ap

pare

l)9,

048,

325

5%

9,01

8,66

9

3

%9,

244,

136

3%

9,47

5,23

9

3

%9,

759,

496

3%

10,0

52,2

81

3

%E

QU

IPM

EN

T3,

04

0,8

47

18

%2,

726,

471

3%

2,79

4,63

3

3

%2,

864,

499

3%

2,95

0,43

4

3

%3,

038,

947

3%

LE

AS

E P

UR

CH

AS

E9

,02

9,5

96

-2%

9,04

8,81

5

0

%9,

229,

791

2%

9,41

4,38

7

2

%9,

602,

675

2%

9,79

4,72

8

2

%IN

TR

A C

OU

NT

Y C

HA

RG

ES

(6,7

77

,08

5)

0%

(6,8

95,2

88)

0%

(7,0

67,6

70)

3%

(7,2

44,3

62)

3%

(7,4

61,6

93)

3%

(7,6

85,5

44)

3%

MIS

C.

1,1

25

,24

3

-5

%1,

105,

864

0%

1,13

3,51

1

3

%1,

161,

848

3%

1,19

6,70

4

3

%1,

232,

605

3%

SU

BT

OT

AL

: C

ont

ract

ual,

Mat

eria

ls

& E

quip

men

t18

9,10

5,36

2

5%

193,

761,

503

2

%19

8,56

0,29

7

2%

203,

478,

155

2

%20

8,62

9,82

1

3%

213,

912,

690

3

%

ME

TR

O29

,885

,640

6%

31,1

07,2

77

4

%33

,200

,000

7%

34,4

00,0

00

4

%36

,100

,000

5%

38,2

00,0

00

6

%D

ebt S

ervi

ce60

,745

,567

0%

61,8

00,0

00

2

%63

,647

,906

3%

65,3

54,3

16

3

%69

,915

,509

7%

74,0

16,4

43

6

%R

egio

nals

/Con

tinge

nts/

Oth

er12

,060

,623

7%

11,6

04,3

67

-4

%11

,836

,454

2%

12,0

73,1

83

2

%12

,314

,647

2%

12,5

60,9

40

2

%P

AY

G2

2,9

52

,28

8

2

3%

9,82

0,64

6

-5

7%

10,1

15,2

65

3

%10

,418

,723

3%

10,7

31,2

85

3

%11

,053

,224

3%

Aff

ord

abl

e H

ousi

ng F

und

12

,95

5,7

16

4%

12,4

56,0

17

-4

%12

,705

,137

2%

12,9

59,2

40

2

%13

,218

,425

2%

13,4

82,7

93

2

%

NO

N-P

ER

SO

NN

EL

TO

TA

L3

27

,70

5,1

96

5

%32

0,54

9,81

0

-2%

330,

065,

060

3

%33

8,68

3,61

8

3%

350,

909,

687

4

%36

3,22

6,09

0

4%

707,

117,

185

SC

HO

OL

TR

AN

SF

ER

- o

ngoi

ng ta

x4

32

,23

2,2

21

5

%44

5,45

3,29

3

3%

452,

154,

171

2

%45

9,90

2,64

8

2%

470,

565,

047

2

%48

1,62

6,18

7

2%

one-

time

fund

s8,

357,

805

-

-

-

-

-

Tot

al S

CH

OO

L T

RA

NS

FE

R (1

)44

0,59

0,02

6

445,

453,

293

452,

154,

171

459,

902,

648

47

0,56

5,04

7

48

1,62

6,18

7

TO

TA

L E

XP

EN

SE

S1

,14

7,7

07

,21

1

5%

1,15

6,31

1,93

4

1%

1,18

4,38

3,23

6

2%

1,21

2,98

5,53

2

2%

1,24

8,40

8,52

9

3%

1,28

4,72

1,02

8

3%

RE

VE

NU

E -

EX

PE

NS

E G

AP

00

(24,

393,

682)

(33,

119,

699)

(41,

381,

656)

(49,

566,

189)

(8,7

26,0

17)

(8,2

61,9

57)

(8,1

84,5

33)

OP

ER

AT

ING

EX

PE

NS

ES

FO

R N

EW

PR

OJE

CT

S -

- T

o b

e d

ete

rmin

ed

as

CIP

an

d p

lan

nin

g s

tud

ies

pro

ce

ed

.

(1) F

or p

lann

ing

purp

oses

, the

sch

ool t

rans

fer

num

bers

ref

lect

the

reve

nue

shar

ing

prin

cipl

es a

dopt

ed b

y th

e C

ount

y B

oard

and

Sch

ool

Boa

rd in

Jan

uary

201

5.

Ad

jus

ted

GA

P if

FY

20

17

bu

dg

et

is b

ala

nc

ed

wit

h in

cre

as

ed

re

ve

nu

e o

r lo

wer

ex

pe

nd

itu

res

Lo

w R

even

ue

& E

xpen

se F

ore

cast

(R

eal E

stat

e A

sses

smen

t Gro

wth

: Jan

201

5: 3

.4%

, Jan

201

6: 1

.1%

, Ja

n 20

17: 1

.2%

, J

an 2

018:

2.0

%,

Jan

201

9: 2

.1%

, J

an 2

020:

2.1

%)

book 20 web 34

FY 2016 Proposed Budget Reductions for County Board Consideration

Description NTS Reduction

Positions

Efficiencies Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development (CPHD) 1. Staffing: Eliminate one Receptionist in Administrative Services

Description of Current Service: Provides administrative support to the 7th floor reception area, directing staff and answering the phone. Impact of Reduction: Front desk duties will be distributed among existing staff on a rotating basis.

53,447 1.0

Department of Environmental Services (DES) 2. ART: Convert portion of Metrobus 3A to ART service

Description of Current Service: Metrobus 3A is a regional WMATA service that operates from Annandale to the Rosslyn Metro. Half of the service frequencies during weekday peak periods originate in Annandale while the other half of the service originates at East Falls Church Metrorail Station. This blended service has ongoing schedule adherence issues. The advent of the Silver Line and the creation of a rail transfer hub at the East Fall Church Station has changed the conditions for transit in this corridor. The proposed change will convert the Metrobus 3A service in Arlington (from East Falls Church station to Rosslyn) to a new ART route. The current Metrobus schedule provides 15 minute service during AM and PM peaks; 30 minute service midday (weekdays) and all day Saturday; and hourly service on Sunday. Impact of Reduction: Due to the lower cost structure of ART service as compared to Metrobus service, it is possible to improve the reliability/schedule adherence and frequency of service while substantially reducing costs. While the frequency of service for the proposed ART route remains the same during weekday peaks, weeknights, and Saturday night, it will be possible to increase the frequency of service during midday (weekdays) from 30 minutes to 15 minutes; Saturday daytime from 30 minutes to 20 minutes and all day Sunday from hourly service to service every 30 minutes.

446,622

3. Electricity Savings: Reduce budgeted expenditures for electricity in County buildings Description of Current Service: County-wide efforts to reduce utility consumption has resulted in lower costs for County facilities. Impact of Reduction: None

35,000

Department of Human Services (DHS) 4. CSA Funding: CSA funds are used to purchase mandated, child

centered, family-focused, and community based services for children and youth at-risk of placement outside of their homes. Description of Current Service: The FY 2016 budget for CSA is $5,238,370 with a 54 percent reimbursement rate from the State. Over the past two years there has been a decrease in CSA expenditures due to more intensive review of cases, oversight of services and outcomes, and increased utilization of Medicaid funding. In FY 2013 and FY 2014,

300,000

book 21 web 35


the CSA budget was underspent. Although the expenditures have decreased, the outcomes for children and families have improved. Impact of Reduction: Based on the projected utilization for CSA services, reducing the County budget net tax support should not impact services in FY 2016.

Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 5. Transfer Elementary After-School Programs at two Community

Center sites to APS and reduce associated facility staffing: Transfer the Elementary After-School Program at Carver and Charles Drew joint use school/county centers to the Arlington Public Schools Extended Day Program. Reduce associated facility operating costs in those centers as APS staff will be responsible for facility use during Extended Day Programming. Total reduction of $158,416, detailed below. Description of Current Service: The Elementary After-School Program currently serves 144 students, including 98 at the Charles Drew and Carver sites (a third site at Lubber Run serves 46 students). The program is offered each day from 3:00pm – 6:00pm, at the same time that Arlington Public Schools offers the Extended Day Program to more than 3,500 students at 22 schools. The participants in this program are drawn from the Arlington Public School population of almost 14,000 students. Charles Drew Community Center is open to the public Monday – Friday from 6:00pm – 9:00pm; and weekends. Public amenities at the center include a drop-in basketball court. There is no daytime drop-in usage for the center as it is closed for

this purpose during the day. The Elementary After-School program, serving 47 students, runs

from 3:00pm – 6:00pm daily and currently requires DPR facility staff to open and staff the building for this program.

Carver Community Center is open to the public Monday – Thursday from 9:00am-9:00pm; Friday from 3:00pm – 9:00pm; and weekends. Public amenities at the center include a drop-in basketball court,

game room, and fitness facility. Daytime drop-in usage for the center averages 0-5 people each day

during the daytime hours. No drop-in basketball is played during the school day at the shared,

joint use gym. The Elementary After-School Program, serving 51 students, runs

from 3:00pm – 6:00pm daily. Impact of Reduction: Elementary After-School Program Arlington Public Schools (APS) would take over the Elementary After School Program as an expansion to the Extended Day Program at these two sites, providing service to an additional 98 youth annually (47 from Charles Drew and 51 from Carver). DPR would provide community center space in these joint use centers for the expanded Extended Day Program use. DPR and APS are working together for a seamless transition of students from these DPR programs and to identify opportunities for hiring current DPR Elementary After-School staff into the larger APS Extended Day Program.

$109,920

3.96 Temp

FTE

book 22 web 36


This reduction includes the cost of running the program at these two sites ($85,668) as well as additional efficiencies ($24,252) to be implemented in elementary programs, not affecting current service offerings. Charles Drew Community Center is currently closed to the public during the period of the Elementary After-School program and would no longer require DPR employees to open and staff the building as this program would be transferred to APS. There is no community impact for this reduction. Carver Community Center would be closed for all drop-in activities from 3:00pm – 6:00pm Monday – Friday for the APS program to be run in the former Elementary After-School space, reducing possible drop-in hours by 15 hours (27%). DPR facility employees would no longer be on-site to open and staff the building during the elementary program hours.

$24,248

$24,248

.

.375 Temp FTE

.375 Temp FTE

Department of Technology Services (DTS) 6. Convert Contractors to Employees: Convert contractual service

funding (4 contractor positions) to full time County employee positions. Description of Current Service: The County currently contracts out for services through a technology staffing firm to provide various base-level support services for the department. Impact of Reduction: Contractual services are often used as technology and technology systems can change rapidly. Contractual services are often more expensive to the County than in-house staffing. Review of technology operations indicate that converting four contracted positions to County personnel would achieve net tax support savings. No impact to service levels are expected.

152,939

Police Department 7. Personnel Adjustment for Expected Vacancies: Reduce budgeted

personnel expenditures Description of Current Service: The Police Department provides a wide range of public safety services with uniformed and non-uniformed positions. Impact of Reduction: The Police Department has experienced personnel expenditure savings due to position vacancies in non-uniform positions and in uniform positions where minimum staffing levels are not required. The reduction in anticipated personnel costs will not affect the operation of the Police Department in FY 2016.

154,806

Auto Fund 8. Fleet Size: Reduction of County’s Vehicle Fleet

Description of Current Service: The County operates over 960 vehicles County-wide and 774 in the County’s General Fund for a wide range of County services. Impact of Reduction: The Department of Environmental Services in conjunction with County departments have been reviewing fleet usage. Reducing the County’s overall vehicle fleet for low usage vehicles and delaying vehicle purchases in FY 2016 will create efficiency savings in FY 2016. Minimal impact to County operations is expected.

50,000

Subtotal $1,351,230 5.71

book 23 web 37



Positions

Service Reductions Arlington Economic Development (AED) 1. Artisphere: Close Artisphere and Reallocate a Portion of the Savings

to Other Arts Programming Description of Current Service: Artisphere is Arlington’s largest cultural center attracting over 300,000 attendees since it opened in October 2010. Artisphere provides a wide range of art exhibitions including visual, performing and new media arts. In addition, Artisphere operates rental space for a variety of events including receptions, conferences, corporate meetings, and other social events. Artisphere is Rosslyn’s only public building and is a cultural anchor in the branding and marketing efforts Rosslyn Business Improvement District (BID). Impact of Reduction: Closing the Artisphere would reduce the arts presence in Arlington and specifically Rosslyn where the Artisphere has provided over 140 annual programs and 250 rental events. The County Manager is recommending that a portion of the staff be transferred to other cultural arts programming and that a portion of the funding that went to Artisphere be reallocated to support this staff and programming in other areas of the arts. Once the Artisphere ceases operation on June 30, 2015, the County may incur basic operating expenses of the facility per the County’s lease agreement with Monday Properties unless a sublessee is found. These costs will be covered with the one-funding for Artisphere set aside during FY 2014 closeout.

450,000 TBD

2. Eliminate Ballston Science Technology Alliance Non-Profit Contribution Description of Current Service: The Ballston Science and Technology Alliance (BSTA) is a private 501C3 organization whose purpose was to promote Ballston for science and technology. The primary activity of the BSTA was to fund and operate the Café Scientifique. The Executive Director of the Café Scientifique resigned in June 2014 and there has not been an event since. BSTA is currently considering a new direction for providing a Café Scientifique in Arlington. Impact of Reduction: Eliminating the contribution to the Ballston Science and Technology Alliance will require that the organization find other funding to operate the Café Scientifique. The Ballston BID, which was not in existence when BSTA was formed, is the lead organization for promoting Ballston’s science and technology assets.

25,000

County Manager’s Office 3. The Citizen: Eliminate one issue of The Citizen

Description of Current Service: The Citizen is a printed newsletter mailed to all County households. Every issue of The Citizen includes two pages related to Arlington County Public Schools. It is one of the primary sources for County information and offers a low cost way to reach the entire community. The Citizen is currently sent out to the community five times a year.

28,056

book 24 web 38


Impact of Reduction: Eliminating one of five issues of The Citizen will impact dissemination of timely information to constituents and may result in departments seeking alternative ways to reach out to the community.

Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development (CPHD) 4. Staffing: Eliminate one of four Use Permit Planner Positions in the

Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development Description of Current Service: The Use Permit team is responsible for permit review, record maintenance, permit reporting, and recommendations. There are currently 11 FTEs in the Permit Section and there are four Use Permit Planner positions. Impact of Reduction: Increased workload for three remaining Use Planners and increased review time for use permit proposals for new facilities.

94,536 1.0

Department of Environmental Services (DES) 5. Staffing: Eliminate one of two planner positions (Bike and Pedestrian

Programs) Description of Current Service: The Bike and Pedestrian program is currently supported by two positions which are responsible for a number of activities listed below. Assists in the development of short and long-range plans for

transportation infrastructure supporting the Master Transportation Plan (MTP) including work on sector plans, small area plans, corridor plans and phased development site plans, county and schools facilities.

Responsible for tracking and periodically updating the Pedestrian and Bicycle Elements of the MTP.

Leading the development of CIP program elements for pedestrian and bicycle improvements; developing projects for BikeArlington and WalkArlington, preparing grants for federal and state transportation funds, installing and maintaining bike and pedestrian count equipment, providing analysis and maintaining database for bicycle and pedestrian programs.

Staff liaison for pedestrian and bicycle planning, policy and project initiatives at the Washington Council of Governments/ Transportation Planning Board, and state level staff in close coordination with VDOT and with national pedestrian and bike organizations

Provide direct and ongoing support for the County’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees

Impact of Reduction: Reduces ability to provide timely and complete input on a wide

range of planning and policy efforts including sector plans, small area plans, phased development site plans, and County/APS facilities.

Defers any major updates to the Bike and Pedestrian elements of the Master Transportation Plan.

Reduces the capacity to develop and secure state and federal transportation grant funds for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects.

125,000 1.0

book 25 web 39


Reduces capacity to scope transportation capital projects Reduces support for pedestrian and bicycle analysis supporting

County and Arlington Public Schools facilities. Limits the County’s representation in regional and state pedestrian

and bicycle planning, policy and project initiatives. Reduces staff support and participation in established County

transportation committees. 6. Staffing: Eliminate Community Energy Plan (CEP) Environmental

Management Specialist Position Description of Current Service: This position serves as project manager for the ongoing Crystal

City/Pentagon City Integrated Energy Master Plan that is examining the feasibility of a district energy (DE) system. Duties include management of a DE technical consulting team, coordination with commercial property owners, as well as other businesses and stakeholders involved in the DE study.

This position is also responsible for managing the initial phase of a DE planning study for the Courthouse area, including overseeing the work of a technical consulting team and working closely with the staff in CPHD conducting the Envision Courthouse study.

Impact of Reduction: Eliminating this position will delay the progress for district energy

and energy efficiency improvements in buildings (both residential and commercial sectors) especially in the Crystal City and Pentagon City areas of the County.

Delay the Courthouse area district energy study and energy-related planning in Rosslyn.

Loss of the technical skills adversely impacting staff capacity to implement a DE system in Arlington.

100,000 1.0

7. Staffing: Eliminate the Arlington Initiative to Rethink Energy (AIRE) Environmental Management Specialist position that supports education and outreach Description of Current Service: This position provides ongoing support for energy education and

outreach efforts for residents and businesses. This includes support for the Energy Journey and the Arlington Green Games, website management, AIRE program messaging, AIRE support at various public and community events and festivals, and social media support.

Impact of Reduction: Continue, but a reduced rate, community outreach and awareness

programs designed to help residents make informed energy choices including support for the successful Energy Journey, the Arlington Green Games, social media engagement, and community events and festivals.

This cut will reduce the program’s ability to provide assistance to external stakeholders and to leverage education and marketing efforts (e.g., collaboration with Arlington Public Schools on CEP implementation efforts; support for solar co-op initiatives), and will

100,000 1.0

book 26 web 40


also restrict efforts to expand outreach and education efforts that focus on the residential sector.

8. Staffing: Eliminate Green Home Choice Program Manager –

Environmental Management Specialist position Description of Current Service: This position is responsible for implementing the County’s Green

Home Choice program, which provides technical assistance and incentives to encourage homeowners and single-family homebuilders to build environmentally sustainable and energy efficient homes. The program has certified several hundred new and renovated homes since its inception.

Impact of Reduction: Elimination of the Green Home Choice program which is the

County’s primary program to engage with leading architects, low-impact homebuilders, and homeowners.

Loss of expertise for home inspection, rating certifications and training that the Green Home Choice program provides.

70,763 0.5

Department of Human Services (DHS) 9. Staffing: Eliminate one of seven Employment Services Specialists

Description of Current Service: Employment counselors in the DHS Employment Center provide employment services such as job coaching, career counseling, workshops, boot camps for interviewing, referral to skills training and job placement. Services are geared to unemployed, dislocated, or under-employed residents with significant employment barriers. Impact of Reduction: In FY 2014 employment counselors provided intensive services to 718 adults and placed 573 into jobs, resulting in an 80 percent job placement rate. A reduction in the staffing of employment counselors will result in fewer residents receiving employment services, and/or larger caseloads for existing staff.

107,564 1.0

10. Cluster Care: Reduce in-home services. Description of Current Service: This contract program for seniors and adults with disabilities provides a variety of personal services, including bathing, laundry, and meal preparation to assist residents to remain in their own homes. Impact of Reduction: In FY 2014 this program served 356 clients; 65 percent of clients receive 3 - 6 hours per week of services at an average per person cost of $4,365. A $100,000 reduction will result in 23 fewer clients served or reduced hours of services for some clients.

100,000

Department of Parks and Recreation 11. Tree Planting: Reduce tree planting by 265 trees.

Description of Current Service: The base budget provides for the planting of 705 trees at a cost of $176,388. For FY 2015, one-time funding was also provided for the planting of additional trees ($30,000). Typically the County losses 650 trees on County property and rights-of-way in a given year. The current ongoing funding level allows for DPR to meet or exceed the requirement of the County’s Municipal Separate

66,250

book 27 web 41


Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit to plant at least 2,000 trees over the five-year permit cycle ending in June 2018. Impact of Reduction: Reducing the base tree planting budget by $66,250 reduces new tree planting from 705 trees to 440 trees, creating a net loss of trees in the County of 210 (440 trees planted vs 650 trees lost). This reduction would still allow the minimum 2,000 tree planting requirement of the current MS4 permit to be met, however this reduction may impact the performance requirements of the next five-year permit. EPA and Virginia DEQ are evaluating whether stormwater pollution reduction credit options can be used for tree planting to meet the significant stormwater pollution reduction requirements under the Chesapeake Bay ‘Total Maximum Daily Load’ (TMDL) which is enforced through the County’s MS4 permit. The Stormwater Master Plan, Urban Forest Master Plan, and Natural Resources Management Plan all reinforce the County’s commitment to maintain and enhance tree canopy to meet both environmental objectives and regulatory requirements.

12. Urban Agriculture: Reduce the Urban Agriculture budget ($80,000) by 45 percent. Description of Current Service: The Urban Agriculture program was created in FY 2014 and is staffed by 1.0 FTE. In FY 2015 County staff oversees the VCE Master Gardeners, Community Gardens, and Farmers Markets (described below). In addition, the program provides for the implementation of a number of recommendations outlined in the Urban Agricultural Citizen Task Force. 1) VCE Master Gardeners: The Master Gardener program provides

intense horticulture training to individuals who in FY 2014 alone provided almost 15,000 hours of volunteer service back to the community.

2) Community Gardens: Arlington’s seven community gardens are managed by citizen-led associations in partnership with the County. DPR staff manage the wait list for the gardens, support upkeep, advise on best practices and by-laws.

3) Farmers Markets: There are nine farmers markets in the County, including Arlington County’s managed Courthouse Farmers Market established over 30 years ago. In 2014, DPR was extensively involved in the creation of Farmers Markets at the Fairlington and Arlington Mill Community Centers.

Impact of Reduction: The reduction will delay planned improvements on current community gardens as well as limit any future expansion of the community garden program. In addition, support of the VCE Master Gardeners program will be capped at current levels and planned healthy food-related events and demonstrations will be eliminated.

80,000

Department of Technology Services (DTS) 13. Electronic Records Management: Reduce electronic records

management support by 450 hours Description of Current Service: DTS is responsible for management of the County’s electronic records and the enterprise-level program solutions which include the County Board report tracking system, e-Plan

38,250

book 28 web 42


Review system and the DHS Client Records system. Contractual services are utilized to support these systems to ensure data quality, validity, and system efficiency and effectiveness. Impact of Reduction: Reducing contractual support will yield slower response times for user support calls. In addition, this reduction would significantly delay the release of new solutions, specifically those which support the County’s Records Management program, such as the public Arlington Archives project and the expansion of Plan Review capability to CPHD. Refreshment and ongoing support of end-of-life solutions like the Circuit Court’s Land Records solution will also be adversely impacted.

Libraries 14. Materials: Reduce materials funding

Description of Current Service: The FY 2016 includes $1,232,742 for Library materials which is used to purchase approximately 70,000 new print and ebook titles each year. Current wait times for new popular titles is 16 weeks. Impact of Reduction: A reduction in materials funding of $50,000 would increase the average wait time for reserved popular titles from 16 weeks to 18 weeks and reduce the amount copies of other types of materials.

50,000

Office of Emergency Management 15. Staffing: Hold Deputy Director Position Vacant for eight (8) months

Description of Current Service: This position is responsible for the supervision of six emergency management specialists and the oversight of operations, National Incident Management System compliance, volunteer programs, public outreach, business preparedness, continuity of operations, disaster resilience and public safety liaison work. Impact of Reduction: OEM would re-organize day-to day responsibilities. Supervision of all staff would be handled by the OEM Director. In the event of an emergency OEM would rely on existing staff and other public safety personnel.

140,000 1.0 for 8 months

Pay-As-You-Go Capital 16. Pedestrian and Bike Safety: Reduce funding to Pay-As-You-Go

capital by $812,121. The Pedestrian and Bike Safety program in PAYG has been funded by dedicating monies received from the vehicle decal fee. Description of Current Service: In April 2010, the County Board budgeted additional revenue generated from an $8 increase in decal fees for transportation capital programs with a priority for pedestrian and bicycle safety. This funding has gone to safety and accessibility improvements that support core Master Transportation Plan concepts on residential streets, including crosswalks, Safe Routes to School projects, technology enhancements to capture travel information, transit accessibility through bus stop improvements, and other basic safety improvements. Decal fee funds expanded Capital Bikeshare in the neighborhoods; additional neighborhood stations will not be constructed without this funding. The funding also provided for wayfinding signage on residential arterials. Completed projects include South George Mason Drive, South Walter Reed Drive, and South Courthouse Road;

812,121

book 29 web 43


improvements on Old Dominion Drive are under construction. These items are included in the following CIP Elements: Improvements Outside Major Corridors, BIKE Arlington, and Capital Bikeshare. Impact of Reduction: The loss of this revenue adversely affects neighborhood arterial street safety and accessibility improvements projects. There are few funding sources that provide the flexibility to fund safety and accessibility improvements in these corridors. These improvements are eligible under several grant programs, allowing the County to use a modest amount of funding to leverage external funding for these neighborhood safety activities. Many of the projects supported by the Decal Fee are matched with state Revenue Sharing and federal Transportation Alternatives grants. If the Decal funding is no longer used for Transportation Capital, these projects and associated grants will have to be cancelled, or other matching funds would have to be identified. This means that 13 residential arterial safety projects would be delayed or cancelled, touching every part of Arlington County.

Subtotal $2,387,540 6.5

book 30 web 44



Positions

Aid to Localities Aid to Localities: To balance the biennial FY 2015-2016 state budget,

the State reduced Aid to Localities by $30 million each year for FY 2015 and FY 2016 with the passage of HB 5010 in the fall. Description of Current Service: Arlington County’s share of this $30 million cut is $733,390, which is reflected in the proposed FY 2016 budget. State reductions have significantly affected local law enforcement aid, compensation board reimbursements to Constitutional Offices, court services and jail funding, and social service programs including:

Electoral Board: $2,542 Commissioner of Revenue: $10,406 Commonwealth’s Attorney: $34,380 Clerk of the Circuit Court: $21,235 Treasurer: $11,903 Sheriff’s Office: $256,940 Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court: $70,763

Impact of Reduction: As in prior years when the State has cut funding to constitutional offices, the County Manager’s FY 2016 Proposed Budget includes funding in these office’s expense budget to offset these State budget cuts. Should the County Board decide not to make up the funding for these State cuts, the constitutional offices would need to identify service reductions in the amounts listed above.

367,723

Subtotal

367,723

Total Reductions

4,106,493

12.21

book 31 web 45

HOUSING PROGRAMS SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF HOUSING PROGRAMS

In keeping with its vision for a diverse and inclusive community, Arlington County supports a variety of housing programs to ensure a range of housing choices for households of all types and income levels. This section pulls information about housing programs throughout the budget and consolidates summary information on all housing programs in one place. The Funding Summary shows that approximately $55.4 million in funding is being allocated for FY 2016 programs to preserve affordable housing and assist persons to meet their housing needs. Local tax dollar support for these programs totals $36.3 million, or 5.1 percent of County government operations (General Fund excluding Schools transfer). These figures do not include additional funds outside the County budget that contribute to the affordable housing effort (noted throughout this section). Although a sizeable amount, indications are that Arlington continues to experience losses in its market rate affordable housing units, due to redevelopment and increased rents. And County residents continue to struggle to meet rising housing costs, especially in difficult economic times. All of these housing programs are part of a comprehensive County effort to preserve and enhance affordable housing, governed by Arlington’s Affordable Housing Goals and Targets. The County Board first adopted Housing Goals in 2000 and Targets in 2003. In 2011, the County Board revised the Goals and Targets and established numerical targets to be accomplished by 2015. The eleven Housing Goals, summarized on page 3, are supported by 34 Targets (a complete listing can be found on http://housing.arlingtonva.us/affordable-housing/goals-targets). Affordable housing has for many years been a budget priority and the different County programs target different aspects of the housing challenge, ranging from rental assistance to acquisition of committed affordable housing to homeownership to code enforcement and tenant assistance. For each program in this section, the Housing Goals addressed, multi-year budgeted expenditures and funding sources, and indicative metrics are provided. More detail on each program can be found in the appropriate sections of the budget. Pressures on the supply of market-rate affordable housing units continue to grow, primarily due to rent increases. In addition, projected development in the Rosslyn-Ballston, Jefferson Davis and Columbia Pike corridors will make it even more critical for the County to be strategic in allocating resources. Specifically, the Columbia Pike Neighborhoods Plan suggests strategies and tools as well as estimates the magnitude of resources needed to meet affordable housing goals on the Pike. During FY 2013, the County began a three-year affordable housing study to create a shared community vision of Arlington’s affordable housing as a key component of our community sustainability. The components of this study include community engagement; a housing needs survey; an assessment of current program approaches to housing needs in Arlington; a review of best practices from other areas; and an evaluation of current adopted principles, goals, and targets with revision of existing ones and/or additions. These new and revised principles, goals, targets, and strategies will provide the basis for an Affordable Housing Element of Arlington's Comprehensive Plan that reflects the current and future population as well as the housing market. Over the course of the study, community engagement activities will provide opportunities for outreach, information gathering and sharing, and education about affordable housing programs, especially engaging traditionally less involved populations such as low-income residents, persons with limited English proficiency, and workers who do not live in the County. A working group comprised of the representatives of several advisory commissions and other key stakeholder groups was appointed by the County Manager; this working group advises County staff throughout the Study

book 33 web 47

HOUSING SUMMARY

process and provides input into process implementation and recommendations. CPHD is currently engaging a consultant to conduct the Housing Needs Survey and contribute to other components of the study. During the second year of the study, a preliminary report on housing needs and an assessment of strategies/program approaches was completed. A plan will be made for seeking community review of the Affordable Housing Element and Implementation Framework. In FY 2015, the study will:

Complete the housing needs analysis, Recommend affordable housing policy, Be reviewed by community stakeholders, Present the Affordable Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan and accompanying

Implementation Framework, for community review and County Board action. In addition to the progress made with the affordable housing study, significant investments in FY 2016 to various housing programs include:

1) Arlington’s Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) is funded at a level of $12.46 million, of

which, $8.2 million is one-time funding from the FY 2014 closeout process.

2) A full-year of operational costs for the Comprehensive Homeless Services Center ($1,478,647) is included in the proposed FY 2016 budget. The center is scheduled to open in June 2015 and will allow for a year-round shelter with comprehensive services to move homeless persons to permanent housing and also support additional County office space.

3) The FY 2016 proposed budget allocates $1,500,000 in one-time funding to replace FY 2015 one-

time funding ($1,500,000) and $1,000,000 in ongoing funding for the Housing Grants program. Total funding for FY 2016 is $8,913,507.

4) The FY 2016 proposed budget allocates $200,000 in ongoing funding to replace FY 2015 one-time funding for homelessness prevention (Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program - HPRP).

5) The FY 2016 proposed budget includes a total of $2.4 million to support the Mary Marshall

Assisted Living Residence which opened in November 2011. This 52-bed facility provides supportive housing with assisted living services for low-income seniors with serious mental, intellectual/developmental, and/or physical disabilities.

book 34 web 48

HOUSING SUMMARY

ARLINGTON’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS

Adopted by the County Board in March 2011 Each goal contains specific numerical Targets (see Arlington’s website) used to guide implementation activities and to track Arlington’s progress. Many of the Goals and Targets are interrelated and may conflict in certain situations. Goal 1: Balance support for the elderly and persons with disabilities with a transitional safety net

for families with children.

Goal 2: Prevent and end homelessness.

Goal 3: Ensure through all available means that all housing in Arlington County is safe and decent.

Goal 4: Ensure that consistent with Arlington’s commitment to sustainability, the production, conversion and renovation of committed affordable housing is consistent with goals set by the County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Arlington County.

Goal 5: Permit no loss of committed affordable housing, and make every reasonable effort to maintain the supply of affordable market rate housing*.

Goal 6: Reduce the number of households in serious housing need (defined as those earning below 40 percent of median income who pay 40 percent of their income for rent).

Goal 7: Increase the number of housing units with two or more bedrooms in order to match the needs of households with children.

Goal 8: Distribute committed affordable housing units within the County, neighborhoods and projects.

Goal 9: Increase the rate of home ownership throughout the County, and increase home ownership education and opportunities for low and moderate income households.

Goal 10: Ensure, through all available means, that housing discrimination is eliminated.

Goal 11: Provide housing services efficiently and effectively.

* Market Affordable Units (MARKS) are lower rent units in the private market which receive no County assistance and for which the owners have made no commitment to retain as affordable in the future. Determining the number of market rate affordable units is complicated because affordability varies, depending on family size and income compared to unit size and rent. MARKS are “affordable” based on paying no more than 30 percent of income for rent. The County has calculated the number of rental MARKS for four income levels: 80 percent, 60 percent, 50 percent and 40 percent of HUD median family income. Committed Affordable Units are excluded from the MARKS totals.

book 35 web 49

HOUSING SUMMARY

FUNDING SUMMARY

The County’s housing programs are funded with a variety of local, state, and federal funding, and are managed through the Department of Human Services and the Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development. Housing funding totals $55.4 million for all funds in FY 2016. The General Fund net tax support equals $36.3 million of the General Fund budget. This section provides a comprehensive summary of the housing program efforts and the funding dedicated to them including summary charts and table as well as descriptions of each program area.

Housing Division: Planning &

Development, $1,646,467, 3%

Fair Housing , $47,019, <1%

Housing Choice Voucher Rental

Assistance (Section 8),

$17,910,514, 32%

Homeownership Services ,

$242,849, <1%

Housing Services, $488,186, 1%

Housing Grants Rental Assistance Program, $8,913,507, 16%

Permanent Supportive Housing,

$2,064,870, 4%

Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly

and Disabled, $4,500,000,

8%

Housing Development & Rehabilitation, $110,000, <1% Homeless

Shelter/Transitional Housing, $2,460,629,

4%

Comprehensive Homeless Services

Center, $1,478,647, 3%

HPRP, $200,000, <1%

AHIF, $12,456,017, 23%

Mary Marshall Assisted Living Residence, $2,432,458, 4%

Code Enforcement, $276,734, 1%

Housing Services Team, $201,999, <1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Housing Programs

book 36 web 50

HOUSING SUMMARY

State/Federal Funding,

$19,118,415 , 34%

Local Funding, $36,311,481 , 66%

FY 2016 Housing Programs: Funding by Source

PROGRAM FY 2011

ADOPTED FY 2012

ADOPTED FY 2013

ADOPTED FY 2014

ADOPTED FY 2015

ADOPTED FY 2016

PROPOSED

HOUSING

Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) 6,228,532 6,688,557 9,480,623 12,480,623 12,955,716 12,456,017 Housing Grants Rental Assistance Program 6,007,507 6,638,068 8,640,216 8,000,000 7,913,507 8,913,507 Homeless Prevention Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) - 250,000 250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Permanent Supportive Housing 960,584 1,427,956 1,676,020 2,064,870 2,064,870 2,064,870 Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance (Section 8 Program) 16,175,976 16,921,440 17,883,678 18,240,094 17,012,873 17,910,514 Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled 4,500,000 4,550,000 4,550,000 5,150,000 4,850,000 4,500,000

Homeless Shelter Programs1 1,669,100 1,832,154 1,916,372 1,981,609 1,819,900 1,819,900

Homeless Subsidized Supportive Housing1325,287 325,287 222,324 222,324 343,065 299,391

Transitional Housing Grants1337,979 337,979 337,959 337,959 341,338 341,338

Comprehensive Homeless Services Center (Operating and Debt Service In FY 2014) - - 2,070,000 476,244 1,731,516 1,478,647 Assisted Living Residence (to Mary Marshall in FY 2012) 206,250 2,012,500 2,408,374 2,408,374 2,408,374 2,432,458

Housing Planning2149,537 153,131 369,506 411,609 418,964 426,743

Housing Division and Housing Development Section21,247,369 1,236,833 1,173,602 1,174,726 1,254,144 1,219,724

Housing Services: Hsg. Info. Center/Tenant-Landlord/Relocation 473,192 441,741 494,052 458,841 483,106 488,186

Code Enforcement3 249,137 230,542 254,344 263,965 276,189 276,734 HUD Eligible Areas Outreach (formally Neighborhood Strategy

Areas)/Housing Services Team3 182,921 173,320 172,901 173,892 194,900 201,999 Homeownership Services 355,955 373,487 267,571 268,114 242,027 242,849

Housing Development (APAH & RPJ)4200,000 175,000 156,000 50,000 45,000 40,000

AHC Rehabilitation Program4175,000 225,000 - 115,227 - -

Volunteer Home Repair Program441,000 80,000 71,000 71,000 64,000 70,000

Fair Housing 85,726 43,600 93,469 45,073 97,114 47,019

Homeowner Grant5 - - - - - -

Total Program 39,571,052$ 44,116,595$ 52,488,011$ 54,594,544$ 54,716,603$ 55,429,896$

Net Tax Support 20,987,797$ 24,977,993$ 33,674,427$ 35,187,868$ 36,522,104$ 36,311,481$

(1) Homeless Shelter Programs, Homeless Subsidized Supportive Housing, and Transitional Housing Grants are the components of Homeless Shelters/Transitional Housing.

(2) Housing Planning and Housing Division and Housing Development Section are the components of Housing Division: Planning and Development.

(4) Housing Development (APAH & RPJ), AHC Rehabilitation Program, and Volunteer Home Repair are the components of Housing Development and Rehabilitation.

(5) The Homeowner Grant program was discontinued in FY 2011.

NOTE: (A) "Net Tax Support" is program expense less revenue; revenue is not shown but has been factored into the calculation

The FY 2013 funding level for the Homeless Service Center is the full debt service for the purchase of the building, later years reflect just the debt portion for the homeless shelter.

HOUSING MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAMS - FY 2011 ADOPTED TO FY 2016 PROPOSED

(B) The FY 2014 adopted budget numbers for (1) were adjusted to properly reflect the monies allocated to homeless shelter programs.

(3) Code Enforcement and Neighborhood Straget Areas (NSA) Outreach/Field Team were the components of Code Enforcement and Housing Services Outreach through FY 2015. In FY 2016, the two programs were separated to reflect program functions.

book 37 web 51

HOUSING SUMMARY

Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) – $12,456,017

Program Description The Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF) provides funding for new construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation projects to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing.

The FY 2016 proposed funding reflects a base of $4.3 million and one-time funding from the FY 2014 closeout process of $8.2 million. Developer contributions, loan repayments, and payoffs add to the balance of funding available for new projects beyond the $12.5 million in FY 2016. As shown in the table below, both developer contributions and loan repayments and payoffs have fluctuated over the past three years. Developer contributions are expected to decrease in FY 2016 due to anticipated construction cycles in the County (i.e., projects that stalled between 2008 and 2010 will be completed in FY 2015; new construction cycles are beginning now).

FY 2010 Actuals

(rounded)

FY 2011 Actuals

(rounded)

FY 2012 Actuals

(rounded)

FY 2013 Actuals

(rounded)

FY 2014 Actuals

(rounded)

Projected FY 2015

Projected FY 2016

Developer Contributions (in millions)

$2.375m $3.0m $3.0m $0.75m $9.6m $5.0m $0.8m

Loan Repayments & Payoffs* (in millions)

$7.85m $4.3m $7.4m $21.35m $16.0m $5.0m $5.0m

*Includes lump-sum payments and payoffs. The FY 2010 amount includes two lump-sum payments for Parc Rosslyn (Paradigm) totaling $4.5 million and two lump-sum payments for Buckingham Village 1 (Paradigm) totaling $1.5 million. The FY 2012 amount includes payoffs for Patrick Henry, Harvey Hall, South Ballston Place, Macedonia (AHIF loan), and Parc Rosslyn (AHIF loan). The FY 2013 actuals includes payoffs for Key Boulevard, Arlington Mill, Virginia Gardens, and Quebec Apartments. The FY 2014 actuals include payoffs for Colonial Village, Arna Valley, and loans in the RPJ portfolio.

AHIF, $12,456,017,

23%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for AHIF

$9.01 $12.01 $12.46 $11.95

$0.47

$0.47 $0.50 $0.50

$-

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

$14.0

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

AHIFFederal Funding

Local Funding

book 38 web 52

HOUSING SUMMARY

Primary Goals Met by Program Permit no net loss of committed affordable housing, and make every reasonable effort to

maintain the supply of affordable market rate housing. (Goal #5) Increase the number of housing units with two or more bedrooms in order to match the needs

of households with children. (Goal #7) Distribute committed affordable housing within the County, neighborhoods, and projects.

(Goal #8) Indicative Metrics

The AHIF cost per unit in FY 2011 is unusually low because two existing projects’ loans were restructured and one project was located on County owned land.

Metrics for FY 2011 - FY 2014 are updated to reflect the year units and funding were approved by the County Board (rather than the year of settlement). This methodology is more reflective of calculations in other public reports.

The data for these performance measures fluctuate based on market conditions and loan closing dates relative to fiscal year end. Number of units shows only the net new Committed Affordable Units (CAFs) produced and does not include the CAFs renovated or redeveloped that are already in the County’s portfolio. Average AHIF cost per unit further varies based on the size of the project (e.g., number of units) and the level of outside funding to support the project. Leveraging ratio is typically impacted by the level of tax credit equity available for the deal.

The increase in new CAFs per year in FY 2014 is primarily related to the County Board approval of funds to purchase the Serrano Apartment Complex and to construct the Springs Apartment Complex.

Additional details on these metrics can be found in the County’s Annual Housing Targets Report at http://housing.arlingtonva.us/affordable-housing/goals-targets/.

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Help maintain the supply of affordable housing by assisting an average of 400 net new committed affordable housing units per year (Target 5B)

295 292 53 307 400

AHIF cost per unit $32,257 $67,002 $91,919 $74,831 $85,000

Investment Leverage ratio (Non-County $ : County $) 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 3:1

book 39 web 53

HOUSING SUMMARY

Housing Grants Rental Assistance Program – $8,913,507

Program Description The Housing Grants Program provides rental assistance to low-income households so they can afford to live in Arlington. Recipients are residents who meet income requirements, and are limited to working families with minor children, residents age 65 or older, or people with disabilities, and those not helped by Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance (Section 8). Average annual income for families is $26,307, people with disabilities, $13,602, and residents age 65 or older, $14,217. In July 2014, there were 1,285 households receiving subsidies. As of December 2014, there were 1,308 households receiving subsidies, a 1.8 percent increase in the first six months of FY 2015. For the FY 2016 proposed budget, the Housing Grants program is funded with $7,413,507 in ongoing funding and $1,500,000 in one-time funds from the FY 2014 closeout process. Primary Goals Met By Program Decrease the rent burden for low-income households so they can afford Arlington’s high cost

rental market. Balance support for the elderly and persons with disabilities with a transitional safety net for

families with children. (Goal #1) Reduce the number of households in serious housing need (defined as those earning below 40

percent of median income who pay 40 percent of their income for rent). (Goals #6) Distribute committed affordable housing units within the County, neighborhoods and projects.

(Goal #8) Provide housing services efficiently and effectively. (Goal #11)

Housing Grants Rental Assistance

Program, $8,913,507, 16%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Housing Grants Rental Assistance Program

$8.64

$8.00 $7.91

$8.91

$7.0

$7.5

$8.0

$8.5

$9.0

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Housing Grants Rental Assistance Program Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 40 web 54

HOUSING SUMMARY

Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Provide assistance to eligible households: working families with children, residents age 65 and older, and persons with disabilities

Families

Age 65+

Disabilities

Total

320-31%

340-33%

380-36%

1,040 -100%

342-30%

376-33%

422-37%

1,140 -100%

338-29%

406-35%

434-36%

1,178 -100%

336-28%

431-35%

452-37%

1,219 -100%

370-30%

390-33%

444-37%

1,204 -100%

For working families with children, average monthly amount of household income available for non-rental essential expenses (food, clothing, medical care) without/with housing grant (Average household size 3.1)

$798 w/o grant

$1,387

with grant

$874 w/o grant

$1,403

with grant

$883 w/o grant

$1,419

with grant

$798 w/o grant

$1,363

with grant

$1,133 w/o grant

$1,460

with grant

For residents age 65 and older, average amount of monthly income available for non-rental essential expenses (food, clothing, medical care) without/with housing grant (Average household size 1.2 people)

$161 w/o grant

$648 with

grant

$206 w/o grant

$680 with

grant

$209 w/o grant

$712 with

grant

$143 w/o grant

$662 with

grant

$348 w/o grant

$767 with grant

For persons with disabilities, average amount of monthly income available for non-rental essential expenses (food, clothing, medical care) without/with housing grant (Average household size 1.4 people)

$62 w/o grant

$478

with grant

$84 w/o grant

$670

with grant

$35 w/o grant

$656

with grant

$10 w/o grant

$644 with

grant

$168 w/o grant

$746

with grant

To ensure validity in FY 2012, the eligible households’ distribution among Families, Age 62+,

and Disabilities, was revised to reflect two households that were classified as a working family to the age 62 and older category. The total remains the same.

book 41 web 55

HOUSING SUMMARY

Permanent Supportive Housing – $2,064,870

Program Description The Permanent Supportive Housing Program subsidizes the rents of low-income persons with disabilities and provides supportive services so that they can live independently in the community. Approximately 80 percent of persons served suffer from serious mental illness, many have co-occurring medical conditions (i.e. intellectual developmental disabilities, physical disabilities), and have transitioned from homelessness or from foster care. The permanent supportive housing model is a nationally-recognized best practice strategy for providing stable housing for persons with disabilities. The entire budget funds the housing costs while supportive services are provided by existing Department of Human Service’s case managers and other staff. This program does not include funding to support group homes or independent living apartments. Primary Goal Met By Program Provide rental assistance and supportive services to low-income persons with disabilities to

live independently in the community. Balance support for the elderly and persons with disabilities with a transitional safety net for

families with children. (Goal #1) Prevent and end homelessness. (Goal #2) Reduce the number of households in serious housing need (defined as those earning below 40

percent of median income who pay 40 percent of their income for rent). (Goal #6)

Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Number of persons served annually 95 128 180 190 230

Percentage of persons served who achieve housing stability (longer than one year in supportive housing)*

86% 93% 95% 94% 95%

*Measure of housing stability is cumulative for each year starting at program inception (FY 2005).

Permanent Supportive Housing,

$2,064,870, 4%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Permanent Supportive Housing

$1.68

$2.06 $2.06 $2.06

$-

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Permanent Supportive Housing

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 42 web 56

HOUSING SUMMARY

Mary Marshall Assisted Living Facility – $2,432,458

Program Description The Mary Marshall Assisted Living Facility houses low-income seniors with serious mental illness or cognitive disabilities in a specialized assisted living facility. Opened in November 2011, this 52-bed facility provides best practice 24/7 assisted living nursing care, recreational activities, and mental health services. This is one of the few assisted living facilities in the country dedicated to serving this population. Primary Goals Met By Program Prevent and end homelessness. (Goal #2) Ensure that these vulnerable residents remain in the community as they age and receive the

specialized care they need.

Indicative Metrics

Indicative Metrics FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

FY 2015 Target

Number of residents served N/A 48 49 55 52

Average Monthly Census N/A 31 44 51 51

Mary Marshall Assisted Living

Residence, $2,432,458, 4%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Mary Marshall Assisted Living Residence

$2.01 $2.41 $2.41 $2.43

$-

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Mary Marshall Assisted Living

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 43 web 57

HOUSING SUMMARY

Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance (Section 8) - $17,910,514

Program Description Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance provides federally-funded programs that subsidize rent for low-income households so they can afford to live in Arlington. There were 1,356 households assisted in FY 2014. Primary Goals Met By Program Decrease the rent burden for low-income households so they can afford Arlington’s high cost

rental market. Balance support for the elderly and persons with disabilities with a transitional safety net for

families with children. (Goal #1) Ensure through all available means that all housing in Arlington County is safe and decent.

(Goal #3) Provide housing services effectively and efficiently. (Goal #11)

Housing Choice Voucher Rental

Assistance (Section 8),

$17,910,514, 32%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance (Section 8)

$17.88 $18.24 $17.01

$17.91

$-

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Housing Choice Voucher Rental Assistance (Section 8)

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 44 web 58

HOUSING SUMMARY

Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Provide assistance to priority households in the following proportions by FY 2015: 65% to families with children, 20% for residents age 62 and older, and 15% for persons with disabilities (Target 1A)

Families

Age 62+

Disabilities

Total

871-63%

231-17%

280-20%

1,382-100%

871-63%

233-17%

280-20%

1,384– 100%

705-51%

416-30%

262-19%

1,383-100%

692-51%

393-29%

271-20%

1,356– 100%

65%

20%

15%

Ensure at least 95% of units are in compliance with HUD Housing Quality Standards at inspection (Target 3A)

96% 100% 95% 100% 97%

Ensure Arlington achieves a High Performance rating by HUD on its annual management assessment review

High Performer

High Performer

High Performer

High Performer

High Performer

In FY 2012, the household distribution among Families, Age 62+, and Disabilities distributions

was revised to better reflect the classifications of the households receiving housing choice voucher rental assistance. The total has also been revised to include three households that were previously excluded.

In FY 2015, the categorical distribution of vouchers was revised to reflect standardized parameters in the data management system used by the Housing Choice Voucher Program. This results in slightly revised distributions for the above fiscal years, as well as ensures standardized reporting in future fiscal years.

book 45 web 59

HOUSING SUMMARY

Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled – $4,500,000

Program Description The Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Program aims to reduce the real estate tax burden for low and moderate income homeowners age 65 or older, or the permanently disabled, to enable them to remain in their homes. In FY 2014, there were 997 households who qualified for exemptions or deferrals. Primary Goal Met By Program Balance support for the elderly and persons with disabilities with a transitional safety net for

families with children. (Goal #1) Permit no loss of committed affordable housing, and make every reasonable effort to maintain

the supply of affordable market rate housing. (Goal #5)

Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Projected

Total number of households served annually 1,150 1,126 1,054 997 980

Real estate tax relief exempted/deferred revenues $4,250,259 $4,583,156 $4,299,041 $4,232,471 $4,200,470

Real Estate Tax Relief for the

Elderly and Disabled, $4,500,000,

8%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Real Estate Tax Relief

$4.55

$5.15 $4.85

$4.50

$-

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Real Estate Tax Relief

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 46 web 60

HOUSING SUMMARY

Homeless Shelters/Transitional Housing/Subsidized Supportive Housing – $2,460,629

Comprehensive Homeless Services Center – $1,478,647

Homeless Prevention Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) – $200,000

Program Description – Homeless Shelters/Transitional Housing/Subsidized Supportive Housing Shelters homeless individuals and families and provides a range of supportive services to facilitate the transition to permanent housing. Services are provided in partnership with nonprofit agencies, including Doorways for Women and Families, Arlington/Alexandria Coalition for the Homeless (AACH), Volunteers of America (VOA/RPC), and Borromeo Housing. Program Description – Comprehensive Homeless Services Center For FY 2016, the County Manager’s base budget includes $1,478,647 in program operation funding to provide comprehensive services at the new homeless services center. Services are provided in partnership with the Arlington Street People’s Assistance Network (ASPAN). Program Description – Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) is an industry best-practice to assist households who would otherwise become homeless, and to quickly re-house those who are currently homeless. Funds are used for financial assistance and case management in FY 2016. The FY 2016 proposed budget allocates $200,000 in ongoing funding, replacing FY 2015 one-time funding for homelessness prevention. Case Management is provided by Arlington Alexandria Coalition for the Homeless (AACH), Arlington Street People’s Assistance Network (A-SPAN), Doorways for Women and Families, and Volunteers of America-Chesapeake. (Local AHIF and CDBG dollars are also used for case management.) Primary Goals Met By Program Prevent and end homelessness. (Goal #2) By FY 2015, create a Comprehensive Homeless Service Center to serve 50 homeless individuals

year-round and 75 in the winter, using best practices that move homeless people to permanent housing. (Target 2B)

Homeless Shelter Programs/ Transitional

Housing, $2,460,629, 4%

Comprehensive Homeless

Services Center, $1,478,647, 3%

HPRP, $200,000, <1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Homeless Shelter/Transitional Programs, Comprehensive

Homeless Services Center and HPRP

$4.24 $2.94 $3.89 $3.86

$0.25

$0.22

$0.34 $0.34

$-

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Homeless Shelters/Transitional Housing and New Comprehensive Homeless

Services Center

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 47 web 61

HOUSING SUMMARY

Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Reduce the number of unsheltered (living in street or place unfit for human habitation) homeless persons by half by 2015. (Target 2A)

137 131 146 51 100

Number of children and parents housed at the family shelters (Doorways and AACH) 158 181 155 195 158

Percent of children and families exiting the family shelter to permanent housing 53% 52% 87% 82% 53%

Number of single adults housed at Residential Program Center and emergency winter shelter

499 508 560 581 500

Percent of single adults exiting the Residential Program Center shelter to permanent housing

25% 29% 24% 34% 40%

book 48 web 62

HOUSING SUMMARY

Housing Division: Planning and Development - $1,646,467

Program Description The Housing Division provides overall leadership on the County’s housing planning and housing development efforts as well as housing services and the community development program. Housing planning provides the information needed for the County to develop effective goals and strategies to address the community’s housing needs. Housing Development works to achieve the County’s affordable housing goals and targets by implementing housing programs and providing financial and technical assistance to housing developers and community groups.

Primary Goal Met by Program Permit no net loss of committed affordable housing, and make every reasonable effort to

maintain the supply of affordable market rate housing. (Goal #5) Indicative Metrics This group is responsible for the implementation of the Affordable Housing Investment Fund and thus the metrics are the same as the Affordable Housing Investment Fund.

Housing Division: Planning &

Development, $1,646,467, 3%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Housing Division: Planning and Development

$1.50 $1.50 $1.62 $1.60

$0.03 $0.03 $0.05 $0.05

$-

$0.4

$0.8

$1.2

$1.6

$2.0

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Housing Division: Planning & Development

Federal Funding

Local Funding

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Help maintain the supply of affordable housing by assisting an average of 400 net new committed affordable housing units per year (Target 5B)

295 292 53 307 400

AHIF cost per unit $32,257 $67,002 $91,919 $74,831 N/A

Investment Leverage ratio (Non-County $ : County $) 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 N/A

book 49 web 63

HOUSING SUMMARY

The AHIF cost per unit in FY 2011 is unusually low because two existing projects’ loans were restructured and one project was located on County owned land.

Metrics for FY 2011 - FY 2014 are updated to reflect the year units and funding were approved by the County Board (rather than the year of settlement). This methodology is more reflective of calculations in other public reports.

The data for these performance measures fluctuate based on market conditions and loan closing dates relative to fiscal year end. Number of units shows only the net new CAFs produced and does not include the CAFs renovated or redeveloped that are already in the County’s portfolio. Average AHIF cost per unit further varies based on the size of the project (e.g., number of units) and the level of outside funding to support the project. Leveraging ratio is typically impacted by the level of tax credit equity available for the deal.

The increase in new CAFs per year in FY 2014 is primarily related to the County Board approval of funds to purchase the Serrano Apartment Complex and to construct the Springs Apartment Complex.

Additional details on these metrics can be found in the County’s Annual Housing Targets Report at http://housing.arlingtonva.us/affordable-housing/goals-targets/.

book 50 web 64

HOUSING SUMMARY

Housing Services - $488,186

Program Description Housing Services ensures community awareness of, and access to, rental housing, provides oversight of the home ownership program and the housing services outreach team, and services though the Housing Information Center’s “one-stop shop,” relocation services, and staffing and support for the Tenant-Landlord Commission including the tenant-landlord mediation program.

Primary Goal Met by Program Provide housing services effectively and efficiently. (Goal #11)

Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

FY 2015 Target

Number of requests for housing information 4,124 5,111 5,232 5,384 5,200

Number of relocation projects provided information and technical assistance 13 11 11 9 10

Percent of housing disputes mediated successfully 95% 95% 96% 95% 96%

Housing Services, $488,186, 1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Housing Services

$0.49 $0.46

$0.48 $0.49

$-

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Housing Services

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 51 web 65

HOUSING SUMMARY

Code Enforcement - $276,734

Program Description Code Enforcement staff from CPHD’s Inspections Services Division work together with the Housing Services team to ensure common area inspections within low to moderate income designated areas and to provide referrals to low and moderate income residents county-wide, who are unable to correct outstanding violations due to financial constraints. In FY 2016, due to code enforcement policies, staff in the Housing Division of the Community Planning and Housing Development Department (CPHD) will only be conducting common area inspections at apartment complexes participating in the Committed Affordable (CAF) Units Program. Joint efforts will be made to generate annual reports on inspections including complex names and numbers of violations reported, corrected and pending as related to Target 3B.

Primary Goal Met by Program Ensure through all available means that all housing in Arlington County is safe and decent.

(Goal #3) Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Conduct annual common area inspections of all multi-family rental complexes over 20 years old (Target 3B)

48% 38% 50% 48% 100%

stretch goal

Conduct annual full code inspections on 5% of all multi-family rental units over 30 years old (Target 3D)

4% 3% 1% 1% 0%

The Full Code Inspection program, a voluntary comprehensive inspection of the interior of

dwelling units thirty years and older, was determined to closely resemble a rental inspection program; subsequently, the program was discontinued in 2013. Rental Inspection programs conducted by municipalities must conform to the requirements of the Virginia Maintenance Code. A locality may adopt an ordinance to inspect residential rental dwelling units for compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and to promote safe, decent, and sanitary housing for its citizens.

Code Enforcement, $276,734, 1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Code Enforcement

$0.25 $0.26

$0.29 $0.28

$-

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Code Enforcement

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 52 web 66

HOUSING SUMMARY

Housing Services Team - $201,999

Program Description The Housing Services Team consists of two programs; the Committed Affordable Services Program which handles inspections, and the Housing Outreach Program. The Committed Affordable Services Program provides a comprehensive array of services to enhance the livability at and sustainability of Committed Affordable (CAF) units. Such services include common area and unit inspections at CAF complexes which includes generating an annual report of complexes inspected and number of violations corrected, pre-acquisition/pre-renovation assessments, and green building services. The Housing Outreach Program empowers residents to meet their housing needs and understand their rights and responsibilities as renters or homeowners, and foster community pride through participation in community activities.

Primary Goal Met by Program Ensure through all available means that all housing in Arlington County is safe and decent.

(Goal #3) Outreach, education, and counseling services in HUD designated areas. Inspection of affordable housing for compliance and energy efficiency.

Indicative Metrics Metrics will be determined after a full year of operations in FY 2016.

Housing Services Team, $201,999,

<1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Housing Services Team

$0.17 $0.17 $0.18

$0.20

$-

$0.1

$0.2

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Housing Services Team

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 53 web 67

HOUSING SUMMARY

Home Ownership Services - $242,849

Program Description Funding is provided to nonprofit organizations and the County’s Homeownership Coordinator to conduct outreach and provide workshops to eligible prospective home buyers to promote home ownership for low and moderate income and minority households; acquire and rehabilitate deteriorated houses in HUD determined Eligible Areas and sell them to low and moderate income families through a nonprofit organization; and provide down payment and closing cost assistance.

Primary Goal Met By Program Increase the rate of home ownership throughout the County, and increase home ownership

education and opportunities for low and moderate income households. (Goal #9) Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Increase home ownership rate from 46.4% to 47% with a stretch goal of 50% throughout the County by FY 2015 (Target 9A)

45.9% 45.6% 46.6% 43.6% 47%- 50%

stretch

Provide home ownership education to 700 households with incomes below 80% of AMI (Target 9B)

136 195 325 319 700

Annually assist 50 households with incomes below 80% of AMI to become home owners. (Target 9B)

8 1 2 14 50

Target 9B refers only to households assisted with the County’s Moderate Income Purchase

Assistance Program (MIPAP). In FY 2014, only 14 MIPAP loans were made, including 3 ADUs. The program could have made 20-25 loans if funds had been available.

Home Ownership Services,

$242,849, <1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Home Ownership Services

$0.23 $0.23 $0.24 $0.24

$0.04 $0.04

$-

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Home Ownership Services

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 54 web 68

HOUSING SUMMARY

As the housing market began to turn around in FY 2012 and 2013, and with continued low interest mortgages remaining near historic lows, more households again began to re-enter the homeownership marketplace. Accordingly, homeownership education course enrollment has increased both here in Arlington, and Northern Virginia as a whole.

Additional details on these metrics can be found in the County’s Annual Housing Targets Report at: http://housing.arlingtonva.us/affordable-housing/goals-targets/.

book 55 web 69

HOUSING SUMMARY

Housing Development and Rehabilitation - $110,000

Program Description Funding has been provided to nonprofit organizations and includes program delivery support for Housing Development Programs (APAH), Rehabilitation Programs, and the Volunteer Home Repair Programs (Rebuilding Together). These programs develop multi-family housing for low and moderate income households, including supportive housing for persons with special needs and conduct energy audits and repair houses occupied by low and moderate income persons who are elderly or have disabilities.

Primary Goals Met by Program Ensure through all available means that all housing in Arlington County is safe and

decent. (Goal #3) Permit no net loss of committed affordable housing, and make every reasonable effort to

maintain the supply of affordable market rate housing. (Goal #5) Indicative Metrics

FY 2011 Actual

FY 2012 Actual

FY 2013 Actual

FY 2014 Actual

2015 Target

Total number of dwelling units acquired, renovated, built, or redeveloped (Housing Development)

134 0 111 101 N/A

Number of homes brought up to full code compliance (AHC Home Improvement Program)

4 1 0 3 N/A

Total number of low and very low income units repaired or modified (Volunteer Home Repair Program)

14 15 19 15 N/A

Housing Development & Rehabilitation,

$110,000, <1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Housing Development and Rehabilitation

$0.23 $0.24

$0.11 $0.11

$-

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Housing Development & Rehabilitation

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 56 web 70

HOUSING SUMMARY

Total number of dwelling units acquired, renovated, built, or redeveloped refers to multi-family projects completed by CDBG supported non-profits. In FY 2016, two projects will be under construction (The Springs and Columbia Hills) and scheduled for completion in FY 2017.

The Home Improvement Program (HIP) is expected to be fully functional in FY 2016 with a new vendor under contract.

book 57 web 71

HOUSING SUMMARY

Fair Housing - $47,019

Program Description The Human Rights Office in the County Manager’s Office implements the fair housing program. The bi-annual Fair Housing Testing Program performs 100 tests to assess the equality in the treatment of a protected class when inquiring into the availability of a rental apartment. The testers consist of a protected class member and a control tester. Both have similar characteristics and profile, except for the membership in the protected class. Protected classes can be gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, national origin, race, color, familial status, and marital status. In FY 2015, the County Board added $50,000 in one-time funding for the Fair Housing Study.

Primary Goal Met by Program Ensure, through all available means, that housing discrimination is eliminated. (Goal #10)

Indicative Metrics The fair housing test is being conducted in FY 2015.

Fair Housing, $47,019, <1%

FY 2016 Expense Budget for Fair Housing

$0.09

$0.05

$0.10

$0.05

$-

$0.1

$0.2

FY 2013Adopted

FY 2014Adopted

FY 2015Adopted

FY 2016Proposed

$ M

illio

ns

Fair Housing

Federal Funding

Local Funding

book 58 web 72

Documents

Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget Messagearlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2015/0… · Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget Message To the County Board & the Arlington