CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Members February 16, 2021 Nikuyah Walker, Mayor Sena Magill, Vice Mayor Heather D. Hill Michael K. Payne J. Lloyd Snook, III 4:00 p.m. WORK SESSION Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. Virtual/electronic meeting in accordance with the local ordinance #O-20-154a, adopted December 10, 2020, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease. NOTE: Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL REPORTS 1. Report: Monthly Financial Report 2. Report: Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board report 3. Report: Housing Plan Report PUBLIC COMMENT Page 1 of 100 City of Charlottesville Revenue Scenarios for FY 2021 Budget (Revised January 2021) Adopted Current $ Change Year to Date Year to Date Further Dow nturn $ Change 2020-2021 Forecast (from Adopted FY Actuals (as of Proj ections per 2020-2021 (from Adopted 21 to Current 1-31-2021) Current FY 21 to Forecast) Forecast Dow nturn FY21) Real Estate Taxes $ 78,353,270 $ 78,075,000 ($278,270) $ 39,025,404 $ 37,233,317 $ 77,853,270 ($500,000) City/County Revenue Sharing $ 14,589,313 $ 14,589,313 $0 $ 14,589,313 $ 14,589,313 $ 14,589,313 $0 Meals Tax $ 14,295,064 $ 10,144,598 ($4,150,466) $ 5,941,082 $ 5,729,376 $ 9,490,753 ($4,804,311) Sales & Use Tax $ 11,504,331 $ 11,395,481 ($108,850) $ 6,564,666 $ 6,568,663 $ 10,806,075 ($698,256) Personal Property Tax $ 9,800,000 $ 9,550,000 ($250,000) $ 4,713,113 $ 4,763,540 $ 9,400,000 ($400,000) Transient Room Tax $ 6,282,721 $ 3,298,223 ($2,984,498) $ 2,092,105 $ 1,976,763 $ 3,206,189 ($3,076,532) Business & Professional Licenses $ 6,225,000 $ 6,225,000 $0 $ 530,533 $ 751,295 $ 6,000,000 ($225,000) Payment in Lieu of Taxes: Utilities $ 6,091,667 $ 6,091,667 $0 $ - $ - $ 6,091,667 $0 Utility Taxes $ 5,024,112 $ 4,300,000 ($724,112) $ 2,518,304 $ 2,508,333 $ 4,100,000 ($924,112) Recreation Income $ 1,335,824 $ 635,060 ($700,764) $ 225,854 $ 370,452 $ 355,060 ($980,764) Transfer from Parking Enterprise Fund $ 1,200,000 $ 400,000 ($800,000) $ - $ - $ 100,000 ($1,100,000) Other Local Taxes Subtotal $ 7,241,431 $ 7,210,249 ($31,182) $ 4,065,747 $ 4,080,261 $ 7,067,249 ($174,182) Other Licenses and Permits Subtotal $ 1,975,500 $ 2,420,500 $445,000 $ 1,122,150 $ 1,139,664 $ 2,275,000 $299,500 Other Intergovernmental Revenue Subtotal $ 12,984,420 $ 13,158,609 $174,189 $ 8,305,453 $ 8,338,979 $ 13,143,609 $159,189 Other Charges for Service Subtotal $ 5,596,604 $ 5,196,604 ($400,000) $ 2,422,705 $ 2,518,185 $ 4,950,754 ($645,850) Other Miscellaneous Revenue Subtotal $ 1,563,956 $ 1,612,956 $49,000 $ 1,141,146 $ 1,068,503 $ 1,612,956 $49,000 Transfers from Other Funds Subtotal $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $0 $ - $ - $ 250,000 $0 Other Designated Revenue $ 6,882,660 $ 6,685,079 ($197,581) $ 6,645,139 $ 6,658,829 $ 6,685,079 ($197,581) GENERAL FUND BUDGET TOTAL $ 191,195,873 $ 181,238,338 ($9,957,535) $ 99,902,711 $ 98,295,473 $ 177,976,973 ($13,218,900) Forecast Date Total Amount Change from Original Adopted September 2020 $186,265,287 ($4,930,586) January 2021 $181,238,338 ($9,957,535) Further Downturn $177,976,973 ($13,218,900) 1 2/15/2021 Page 2 of 100 General Fund Revenue Summary Narrative for Current Forecast (January 2021) column Real Estate Tax revenue was slightly reduced from the original projection and September Forecast based upon the collection rate experienced for the December 2020 deadline, which was off by about 1.2%. This reduction isn’t lost revenue, but the expectation is that all revenue may not materialize in the current fiscal due to slower payment rates. Meals Tax revenue projections for FY21 Meals Tax were based upon projected recovery rates that exceeded the current rate of recovery. The Meals Tax revenue was continuing to improve through the beginning of FY21, but saw a sharp decline in revenue for the December payments. While Meals Tax saw an increase revenue for the January payments, this revenue is still not increasing at the projected rate in the original revenue projections or the revised September Forecast. Revised recovery rate projections project a slower recovery and do not anticipate returning to 100% of previous years collections until the after the beginning of FY22. A portion of this revenue, 1 cent or 1/6 of the total collected is dedicated to pay for debt service. The decrease in this designated portion (estimated at approximately $761,805) will result in a corresponding expenditure decrease of the same amount in the Transfer to Debt Service. Sales Tax initially performed better than anticipated for the beginning of FY21. However recent trends show a decrease in collections which has resulted in a recovery rate for the reminder of the fiscal year that is approximately 6% per month lower than was projected as part of the revised September Forecast. Personal Property Tax based upon revised book values and the collection rate from the December 2020 deadline, this revenue projection has been reduced by $250,000 from the original Adopted FY21 budget. Lodging Tax revenue projections for FY21 were based upon projected recovery rates that exceeded the current rate of recovery. The occupancy rate and overall Lodging Tax revenue was continuing to improve through the beginning of FY21, but saw a sharp decline in revenue for the December payments, While Lodging Tax saw an increase revenue for the January payments, this revenue is still not increasing at the projected rate in the original revenue projections or the revised September Forecast. Revised recovery rate projections anticipate an even slower recovery rate and do not anticipate returning to even 60% of previous years collections until after the beginning of FY22. Utility Tax revenue has continued to lag behind initial revenue projections that we are continuing to monitor. The impacts of COVID, UVA’s modified school year and mild weather conditions continue to still be a factor in the performance of this revenue and the current forecast does not anticipate revenue amounts to reach the original projections for FY21. Parks and Recreation Revenue is projected to see a decrease of approximately $700,000 due to continued closure of facilities, as well as not offering the usual recreation class and instructional opportunities. 1 Page 3 of 100 General Fund Revenue Summary Narrative for January 2021 Forecast column Parking Revenue is now projecting an $800,000 decrease in the transfer from the Parking Fund, due to decreased revenue generation in the City owned parking facilities based upon decreased usage. Other Licenses and Permits ‐ the increase in projected revenue is due to continued strong performance in Building an Other Permit revenue. Other Intergovernmental Revenue ‐ the increase is due to slight increases in a some of the revenue sources that are received from the State. Other Charges for Services ‐ the decrease in the projections for Other Charges for Services Revenue can be explained by a decrease in the amount of Court Revenue projected as well as a decrease in the projected revenue from Reimbursable Public Safety Overtime, which should also show a corresponding decrease in expenditures. Other Designated Revenue ‐ the decrease in the projections for Other Designated Revenue can be explained by a decrease in the transfer to the CIP for Mall Vendor Fees, which will have a corresponding expenditure decrease for that project; and due to a decrease in the Pupil Transportation revenue that was to come from bus rentals and field trip revenue. 2 Page 4 of 100 January General Fund Expenditure Summary Fiscal Year 2020‐21 Actuals through January 31st ‐ Period 7 of 12 or 58.3% of fiscal year. FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget % of FY21 Major Expenditure Categories Budget Budget (through January 31st) (through January 31st) Budget Utilized Contribution to City Schools $ 58,709,623 $ 58,709,623 $ 33,736,864 $ 24,972,759 57.46% Police Department $ 18,017,555 $ 18,254,682 $ 9,868,647 $ 8,386,035 54.06% Outside and Nonprofit Agencies $ 16,798,273 $ 17,040,773 $ 12,502,424 $ 4,538,349 73.37% Fire Department $ 12,539,795 $ 12,658,000 $ 7,745,663 $ 4,912,337 61.19% Public Works $ 12,531,690 $ 12,817,180 $ 6,544,353 $ 6,272,827 51.06% Parks and Recreation $ 11,535,820 $ 11,728,454 $ 4,834,793 $ 6,893,661 41.22% Debt Service $ 11,013,359 $ 11,013,359 $ 10,251,554 $ 761,805 93.08% Interfund Transfers $ 10,638,085 $ 14,648,995 $ 14,157,090 $ 491,905 96.64% Citywide Reserve $ 250,000 $ 1,238,730 $ 226,175 $ 1,012,555 18.26% Citywide Reserve ‐ COVID Economic Downturn $ 6,674,971 $ 6,674,971 $ ‐ $ 6,674,971 0.00% Tax and Rent Relief Programs $ 1,895,000 $ 1,895,000 $ 1,358,406 $ 536,594 71.68% Internal and Financial Services $ 9,458,988 $ 9,495,351 $ 5,390,042 $ 4,105,310 56.77% School Contractual Services ‐ Pupil Transportation/Building Maintenance $ 6,788,910 $ 6,800,332 $ 3,347,115 $ 3,453,217 49.22% Management $ 5,493,231 $ 6,277,993 $ 3,384,111 $ 2,893,881 53.90% Public Safety and Justice $ 3,705,176 $ 3,978,943 $ 1,909,908 $ 2,069,034 48.00% Healthy Families and Community $ 2,650,095 $ 2,847,118 $ 1,426,348 $ 1,420,770 50.10% Non Departmental Activities $ 2,495,302 $ 2,841,872 $ 460,993 $ 2,380,879 16.22% Total $ 191,195,873.00 $ 198,921,376.09 $ 117,144,486.10 $ 81,776,889.99 58.89% Notes: Current Budget includes the Original FY21 Adopted Budget as well as FY20 carryovers. January Expenditure Summary ‐ FY21 Contribution to City Schools Police Department Outside and Nonprofit Agencies Fire Department Public Works Parks and Recreation Debt Service Interfund Transfers Citywide Reserve Citywide Reserve ‐ COVID Economic Downturn Tax and Rent Relief Programs Internal and Financial Services School Contractual Services ‐ Pupil Transportation/Building Maintenance Management Public Safety and Justice Healthy Families and Community Non Departmental Activities $‐ $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through January 31st) Page 5 of 100 January General Fund Expenditure Summary Narrative (Actuals through January 31, 2021) Outside and Nonprofit Agencies includes payments to all Vibrant Community fund Agencies, Arts and Culture Agencies, Contractual Agencies including JAUNT and JMRL, and all Organizational Memberships and Agency dues. Actuals to date are above 58% due to reflecting a third quarterly payments for several outside human service agencies. Debt Service represents the General Fund transfer to the Debt Service Fund. The actuals contain the General Fund contribution to the City's annual debt service of $8,560,788, and the portion of the Meals Tax revenue, 1 cent or 1/6 of the total collected, that is dedicated to pay for debt service. This portion of the transfer is now showing a reduction of $761,805, due to the decrease in Meals Tax revenue projections. The designated Meals Tax portion of this revenue will be adjusted at the end of the fiscal year based upon the actual revenue that is collected. Interfund Transfers contains all General Fund transfers to other funds including transfer to Transit, Transfer to Social Services and Human Services, Transfer to Capital Improvement Program, Transfer to Facilities Repair Fund, and Transfer to CSA. These transfers and payments are typically made as one time payments, and many are made at either the end of the second quarter or beginning of the third quarter and are adjusted at the end of the fiscal year. Internal and Financial Services includes the General Fund portions of Finance and Information Technology, and the Office of the City Treasurer, Commissioner of Revenue's Office, and Human Resources. Citywide Reserve includes $250,000 for performance agreements, and $988,730 in other reserve funding some of which is previously appropriated and designated for specific purposes. Citywide Reserve ‐ COVID Economic Downturn includes $6.67M in COVID downturn reserve funding that was originally the cash transfer to the CIP from the General Fund. Rent and Tax Relief includes all rent and tax relief programs for the City including the Charlottesville Housing Affordability Tax Grant Program (CHAP). Actuals to date include approximately half of the Real Estate Tax Relief program allocations for FY21, and all of the CHAP program and Rent Relief program allocations for FY21. Management includes City Council, Council Strategic Initiatives, City Manager's Office, Redevelopment and Housing, Economic Development, Communications, City Attorney, and the Office of the General Registrar. 1 Page 6 of 100 January General Fund Expenditure Summary Narrative (Actuals through January 31, 2021) Public Safety and Justice includes the operations for Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Commonwealth Attorney, and City Sheriff. Healthy Families and Community includes Neighborhood Development Services and Office of Human Rights. Non Departmental Activities include Citizen Engagement, Police Civilian Review Board, Participatory Budgeting, Strategic Planning, Employee Compensation and Training, and grant matches for the Food Equity Program and Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act. 2 Page 7 of 100 Utility Fund Revenue and Expenditure Summary Fiscal Year 2020‐21 Actuals through January 31st ‐ Period 7 of 12 or 58.3% of fiscal year. FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget % of FY21 Gas Fund Budget Budget (through January 31st) (through January 31st) Budget Utilized Gas Fund Revenue $ 27,081,999 $ 27,081,999 $ 11,561,944 $ 15,520,055 42.69% Gas Fund Expenditures $ 27,873,698 $ 29,434,341 $ 12,130,847 $ 15,742,851 43.52% FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget % of FY21 Water Fund Budget Budget (through January 31st) (through January 31st) Budget Utilized Water Fund Revenue $ 18,279,490 $ 18,279,490 $ 8,031,142 $ 10,248,348 43.94% Water Fund Expenditures $ 17,272,327 $ 18,166,205 $ 8,270,247 $ 9,002,080 47.88% FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget % of FY21 Wastewater Fund Budget Budget (through January 31st) (through January 31st) Budget Utilized Wastewater Fund Revenue $ 17,451,758 $ 17,451,758 $ 12,354,354 $ 5,097,404 70.79% Wastewater Fund Expenditures $ 17,203,764 $ 17,880,005 $ 11,237,708 $ 5,966,056 65.32% FY21 YTD Actual and FY21 Remaining Available FY21 Original FY21 Current Encumbrances Annual Budget % of FY21 Stormwater Fund Budget Budget (through January 31st) (through January 31st) Budget Utilized Stormwater Fund Revenue $ 2,894,572 $ 2,894,572 $ 3,065,802 $ (171,230) 105.92% Stormwater Fund Expenditures $ 2,794,572 $ 2,834,286 $ 2,734,645 $ 59,927 97.86% Notes: Current Budget includes the Original FY21 Adopted Budget as well as all non‐capital FY20 carryovers. Page 8 of 100 January Gas Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Gas Fund Revenue Gas Fund Expenditures $‐ $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through January 31st) January Water Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Water Fund Revenue Water Fund Expenditures $‐ $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through January 31st) Page 9 of 100 January Wastewater Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Wastewater Fund Revenue Wastewater Fund Expenditures $‐ $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through January 31st) January Stormwater Utility Summary ‐ FY21 Stormwater Fund Revenue Stormwater Fund Expenditures $‐ $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 FY21 Current Budget FY21 YTD Actual and Encumbrances (through January 31st) Page 10 of 100 Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board 750 Harris Street Suite 207 ● Charlottesville, VA 22903 (434) 296-2441 ● Fax (434) 979-4038 ● E-mail ngoodloe@oar-jacc.org Albemarle ● Charlottesville ● Fluvanna ● Goochland ● Greene ● Louisa ● Madison ● Nelson ● Orange 2010-2019 Criminal Justice Planner’s Report to Charlottesville City Council This document represents a first-of-its-kind, comprehensive criminal justice report to Charlottesville City Council. It was prepared by the Criminal Justice Planner under the direction of the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board. This document is intended to standardize data collection and analysis processes, serve as a general template for annual reports in future years, establish trend lines, and provide opportunities for local decision- makers to better understand long-term changes in crime patterns, jail utilization and costs. Executive Summary: Overall, Charlottesville bed day expenditures at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail dropped 26% from 2010 to 2019. The number of Charlottesville inmates taken into the jail, and the number of charges on which they were booked, fell 12% and 6% respectively. These decreases were accompanied by a 24% reduction in the length of an average Charlottesville inmate’s jail stay. The following key trends (discussed in greater detail in the body of this report) contributed to the significant reduction in bed days expenditures by Charlottesville inmates at ACRJ over the past decade: • The general population of the city rose 8.8%. • Rates of reported person and property crime both fell significantly, down 39% and 41% respectively. • Rates of crime against society fell 44%, and a subset of that crime category, narcotics offenses, dropped 55%. • The number of Charlottesville felony drug seizures certified by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science dropped 17% from 2001-19, despite a 15% increase in the city’s population over the same time frame. • Cocaine remained the most frequently seized felony narcotic from 2001 to 2019, although significant increases in opioid seizures were also observed, beginning around 2013. 1 Page 11 of 100 • Bookings (charges) related to Charlottesville inmates fell by a modest 5% in the past decade (14% per capita). • Felony bookings, however, increased 25%, most notably among violent felonies, felony weapons charges and felony probation violations. • The percentage of all ACRJ bookings on Charlottesville charges fell from 43% in 2010 to 31.3% in 2019. • Charlottesville bookings of Black inmates increased 6%, while bookings of White inmates dropped 19%. • Bookings decreased more sharply for female inmates than male inmates. • Felony bookings among Charlottesville inmates over the age of 50 rose 207%. • The greatest reductions in booking and intake volume were observed in the age 18-24 age group. • Consequently, the average age of a Charlottesville-responsible inmate rose 6% during the decade. • The average length of a Charlottesville inmate’s stay at ACRJ fell 24% from 2010 to 2019. Average length of stay dropped in most offense categories. • Black inmates served longer lengths of stay than White inmates throughout the study period, but the difference narrowed from 32.8 days longer in 2011 to 18.3 days longer in 2019. • Charlottesville bed day expenditures fell significantly (down 26%) from 2010 to 2019, and decreased even more per capita (down 34%). Charlottesville’s share of overall bed day expenditures at ACRJ dropped 19%, offset by increases among the other two jail authority members, Albemarle and Nelson County. • Charlottesville inmates over the age of 50 accounted for more bed day expenditures than any other age group at the jail. Bed days expended on the 50+ group increased 61% over the decade, the only age group in which a significant increase was observed. • Charlottesville was the only member of the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board to reduce its bed day costs per capita from 2010 to 2019 (down 5%). 2 Page 12 of 100 A word about the data: • General population trends were obtained through the U. S. Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219). • Crime and arrest data for Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail member jurisdictions (Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and Nelson County) were obtained from the Virginia State Police publication Crime in Virginia for years 2010-18 (https://www.vsp.virginia.gov/Crime_in_Virginia.shtm). • Drug case certification data was obtained from the Virginia Department of Forensic Science, via the Virginia Social Indicator Dashboard (https://vasisdashboard.omni.org/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=Home). • Booking and release data was obtained from the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, covering a time frame from 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2019. The data collected in the jail’s operational management system allows for accurate year-over-year tallies of bookings, booking events, charges, length of stay and release reason, by jurisdiction • Data was analyzed in an Excel format. Some data (particularly the assignment of charges into categories), required filtering by hand. • Where appropriate, trend lines are expressed in both raw numbers and as a rate per 1000 residents, so that changes in the size of the general population can be reflected in the trend. US Census Bureau General Population Data Charlottesville’s population grew 8.8% during the decade of 2010-19, from 43,461 to 47,266. Population 2010-19 60,000 UpB.8% 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: U. S. Census Bureau 3 Page 13 of 100 Since 1980, the population of Charlottesville has grown 18.4%, from 39,916 to 47,266, with nearly half of that growth occurring over the past decade. Charlottesville’s rate of population growth was less than one-fifth the growth rate of Albemarle County, where the population grew from 55,783 to 109,330 between 1980 and 2019. Virginia State Police Data Every law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth of Virginia participates in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Through the UCR, reported crime and arrest data are documented at the local level using a nationally-standardized, electronic protocol, the Incident-Based Reporting System, with the data transmitted to the Virginia State Police. On an annual basis, the Virginia State Police produce a report, Crime in Virginia, which provides both statewide and jurisdiction-level reporting on Group A Crimes against Person, Property and Society, both in raw numbers and as a rate per 1000 residents. This data resource allows for an “apples to apples” comparison of jurisdictional crime and arrest trends, year over year, and is available online: https://va.beyond2020.com/ Group A Reported Crime Against Person A Crimes Against Person Include: Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Negligent Manslaughter Justifiable Homicide Kidnapping/Abduct ion Forcible Rape Forcible Sodomy Sexual Assault With An Object Forcible Fondling Incest Statutory Rape Aggravated Assault Simple Assault Intimidation Human Trafficking, Commercial Sex Acts Human Trafficking, Involuntary Servitude Charlottesville’s rate per 1000 residents for Group A reported crimes against person (as reported by the Charlottesville Police Department and Virginia State Police) fell 39% from 2010 to 2019. 4 Page 14 of 100 Charlottesville Reported Crimes Against Person (per 1000 Residents) 30 '••······ 25 Down3996 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Virginia State Police Crime Online Arrests for Group A crimes against person in Charlottesville varied significantly by age, falling most sharply among the 18-24 year-old age group. The 55 and older age groups experienced the most sizeable increase. The age 25-34 group had the most arrests for these crimes in 2019. Charlottesville Group A Arrests for Crimes Against Person by Age Group 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 .1. ...._. 10-17 18 - 24 25 - 34 35-44 45 - 54 111 111 111111 --  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 55 - 64 .... _. 65 and over 5 Page 15 of 100 Group A Reported Crime Against Property Group A Crimes Against Property Include: Arson Bribery Burglary/Breaking & Entering Counterfeiting/Forgery De struction/Damage/Vandalism of Property Embezzlement Extortion/Blackmail False Pretense s/Swindle/Confidence Game Credit Card/Automatic Teller Fraud Impersonation Welfare Fraud Wire Fraud Identity Theft Hac king/Computer Invasion Robbery Pocket-picking Purse-snatching Shoplifting Theft From Bui lding Theft From Coin Operated Mach ine or Device Theft From Motor Veh icle Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts/Accessories Al I Other Larceny Motor Vehicle Theft Stolen Property Offenses Charlottesville’s rate per 1000 residents for Group A reported crimes against property fell 41% from 2010 to 2019. Charlottesville Reported Crimes Against Property (per 1000 Residents) 80 70 60 Down 41% so 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Virginia State Police Crime Online 6 Page 16 of 100 Arrests for Group A crimes against property fell most sharply among the 18-24 year-old age group, although that age group still had the most arrests in 2019. The 55-64 age group was the only age category with an increase in property arrests over the decade. Charlottesville Group A Arrests for Crimes Against Property by Age Group 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20  I  II-  10 - 17 18 - 24 II 25-34 35-44 II 11 1111111.1 1111.1 111 111111 -•• --••-• 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 and over  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 Group A Reported Crime Against Society Group A Crimes Against Society Include: Drug/Narcotic Violations Drug Equipment Violations Betting/Wagering Operating/Promoting/Assisting Gambling Gambling Equipment Violations Sports Tampering Pornography/Obscene Material Prostitution Assisting or Promoting Prostitution Purchasing Prostitution Weapon Law Violations An imal Crue lty 7 Page 17 of 100 Charlottesville’s rate per 1000 residents for Group A reported crimes against society decreased 44% from 2010 to 2019. Charlottesville Reported Crimes Against Society (per 1000 Residents) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Vi rginia State Police Crime On line Arrests by age group were down most sharply among 18-24 year-olds. The 25-34 age group recorded the most arrests for crimes against society in 2019. Decreases were observed in every age group except for those age 55 and older. Charlottesville Group A Arrests for Crimes Against Society by Age Group 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Ill . 111. _ 10-17 18- 24 I. 25- 34 II 111111111 llf1111.. 35-44 45-54 II  11111. 55 - 64 •• 65 and over  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 8 Page 18 of 100 Narcotics offenses, specifically, decreased 55% per 1000 Charlottesville residents between 2010 and 2019. Drug/Narcotics Offenses per 1000 Residents 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Virginia Department of Forensic Science Data The Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences engages in forensic testing of narcotics seized by law enforcement agencies, and maintains a database documenting the number of drug certifications prepared statewide, by drug type. This database, covering years 2001 through 2019, represents the longest and most accurate view of illicit drug usage trends by drug type available in the Commonwealth. DFS contributes data to populate the Virginia Social Indicator Dashboard, in collaboration with the Omni Institute, the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, Department of Social Services, Department of Criminal Justice Services, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia National Guard, the Department of Health, and the US Census Bureau. The DFS database is in the public domain, and available for download: https://vasisdashboard.omni.org/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=Home The author of this report was able to acquire 2017-19 data directly from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. The number of certificates of analysis prepared by DFS for Charlottesville drug cases declined 17% from 2001 to 2019, during a period in which the general population grew 15%. 9 Page 19 of 100 Charlottesville Felony Drug Certificates of Analysis 2001-19 (VA Dept. of Forensic Science) 350 Down 17%, compared to an increase in general population of 15% 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Cocaine was, by far, the most frequently certified felony narcotic in Charlottesville from 2001 through 2019, although the trend in cocaine certifications has fallen significantly since 2015. A surge in opioids was also observed (both heroin and prescription opioids) beginning around 2012, peaking in 2015, and falling back in subsequent years. Charlottesville Felony Drug Certificates of Analysis by Drug Type 2001-19 (VA DFS) 250 200 150 100 50 0 I11. 1,1.111111 111 1.. 1.1.1.JII 111 _., .....111111._•. . I.. ll,11lllhll1II 11. ••- ...... .•.I, •-.. ... --•- •-· -•-····-•····· •-• '1>''(:-(l, ~,:, cl" o<>:o"'  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015 2016  2017  2018  2019 10 Page 20 of 100 Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Data First, some definitions: • A “booking” is a record of a charge for which an inmate is incarcerated. • An “intake” refers to a person being taken into the jail, regardless of the number of charges on which they are taken in. • During an “intake”, an inmate can be taken into the jail on a single or multiple “bookings” (for instance, an intake for Burglary and Grand Larceny produces two separate bookings). • Bookings are the best way to count the number of different charge types on which inmates enter the jail. They reflect “what” better than “who” or “how long”. • Intakes are a more accurate indicator of “who” and “how long”. • Booking volume is more volatile year-over-year in smaller jurisdictions, and among crime types with a lower rate of occurrence. It is always more useful to look at long- term trends rather than year-over-year comparisons. • Booking volume can also be impacted by specific law enforcement initiatives, such as narcotics and sex offense operations. Bookings Booking volume at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail associated with Charlottesville charges fell 5% between 2010 and 2019. Booking Volume at ACRJ 2010-19 4000 Downs% 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 11 Page 21 of 100 As a rate per 1000 Charlottesville residents, booking volume fell 14% during the decade, once increases in the general population were factored in. Charlottesville Bookings per 1000 Residents 2010-19 90 Down 1496 80 70 .~ 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Felony booking volume rose 25% from 2010 to 2019, while misdemeanor booking volume fell 19%. Nevertheless, misdemeanor charges outnumbered felony charges in 2019 (1383 to 1012). Charlottesville Bookings by Charge Level 2500 2000 1500 1000 Felonies up 2596 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Felony - Charlottesville Misdemeanor Linear (Charlottesville Felony) Linear (Charlottesville Misdemeanor) 12 Page 22 of 100 In 2010, Charlottesville bookings represented 43% of booking volume at ACRJ. By 2019, Charlottesville’s share of booking volume at the jail had fallen to 31.3%. Percentage of ACRJ Bookings by Jurisdiction 60% 43% in 2010 50% 40% ···--......... . 30% 20% I 31.3% in 2019 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Albemarle - Charlottesville - Nelson ····· Linear (Albemarle) Linear (Charlottesville) Linear (Nelson) Bookings of Black inmates were up 6%, while bookings of white inmates were down 19%. Charlottesville Bookings by Race 2500 2000 .......................... 1500 1000 White down 19% 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Black - Charlottesville White · · ·· Linear (Charlottesville Black) Linear (Charlottesville White) 13 Page 23 of 100 Charlottesville bookings of female inmates fell more significantly (down 16%) that did bookings of male inmates (down 2%). In 2019, bookings associated with male inmates were roughly five times that of females. Charlottesville Bookings by Gender 3500 M a les down 2% 3000 2500 \ 2000 1500 Fem a les do wn 16% 1000 500 ...... \ 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Female - Charlottesville Male Linear (Charlottesville Female) Linear (Charlottesville Male) Booking volume was down most sharply among the youngest age groups, and up most sharply among the oldest (particularly at the felony level). Charlottesville Bookings by Age and Charge Level 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 14 Page 24 of 100 At the felony level, booking volume rose in all age groups except for the youngest and age 45- 49. The outlier in the felony booking data was the oldest age group (50+), up 207%. The age 50+ cohort had 180 felony charges booked in 2019, just short of the 181 recorded for 25-29 year-olds. Charlottesville Felony Bookings by Age Group % Change 2010 to 2019 207% 48% ---- - 30% 31% 27% -1% -20% -21%  Under 20 Felony  20-24 Felony  25-29 Felony  30-34 Felony  35-39 Felony  40-44 Felony  45-49 Felony  so+ Felony Misdemeanor booking volume dropped sharply for the youngest age groups and ages 40-49, while rising among the 30-34 and 35-39 age groups. Interestingly, the increase in felony bookings among the 50+ age group was not accompanied by a similar rise in misdemeanors. Charlottesville Misdemeanor Bookings by Age % Change 2010 to 2019 16% 8% -2% -6% -29% -31% -46% -48%  Under 20 Misdemeanor  20-24 Misdemeanor  25-29 Misdemeanor 30-34 Misdemeanor  35- 39 Misd e meanor  40-44 Misdemeanor  45-49 Misdeme anor  50+ Misdemeanor 15 Page 25 of 100 The Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission categorizes violations of the law using Virginia Crime Code (VCC) designations: http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/codes_qbe.html. VCC codes begin with a three-letter prefix, which designates the type of crime to which the code refers, allowing for a ranking of bookings by VCC prefix (both felonies and misdemeanors). The ten most frequent booking categories by VCC prefix for Charlottesville from 2010 to 2019 are presented below. From most frequent to least frequent, they were: Alcohol (excluding DWI), Assault, DWI, Probation Violations, Narcotics, Larceny, Contempt of Court/Failure to Appear, Fraud, Drivers’ License and Weapons offenses. Collectively, these ten offense categories represented 77% of all Charlottesville bookings from 2010 to 2019. 10 Charlottesville Bookings by VCC Prefix 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 ALC ASL DWI PRB NAR LAR CON FRO LIC WPN  2010  2011  2012 2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 VCC categories that increased most significantly from 2010 to 2019 included probation violations (up 55%) and weapons offenses (up 62%). Alcohol violations (such as Public Intoxication and Underage Possession of Alcohol) were down by 40%, while DWI’s dropped by 34%. Drivers’ License offenses (such as Suspended Operators’ License) fell by 54%. VCC codes can also be used to tally charge types by felony and misdemeanor designation. Below is a presentation of that tally, representing over 93% of all Charlottesville bookings. Alcohol and misdemeanor traffic offenses (including DWI, LIC, and REC) were the most frequent Charlottesville charge types at booking during the decade, although both experienced significant decreases (down 40% and 35%, respectively). 16 Page 26 of 100 Charlottesville Bookings at ACRJ by Charge Type 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 111111.ln I 1111111  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 Most significant booking increases were observed among violent felonies (up 47%), weapons offenses (up 60%) and felony probation violations (up 77%) over the decade. These three charge types contributed significantly to the overall increase in felony bookings (up 25%) from 2010 to 2019. In addition to reductions in bookings for alcohol and misdemeanor traffic offenses, sizeable reductions were also observed in property misdemeanors, drug misdemeanors, sex offenses, and non-payment of child support. Charlottesvi lle Bookings by Cha rge Type % Change 2010- 19 Violent Felony 47% Viole nt Misdem e ano r 21% Property Fe lony 16% Property M isdemeanor -22% Drug Fe lony - 9% Drug Misde m ea nor -4 8% Alcohol (minus DU I) -42% Traffic Fe lony 1% T raffic M isdemeanor -36% Sex O ffe nse -41% W e apons O ffense 60% FTA/Contempt -4% Probation Violation Fe lony 77% Probation Violat ion Misd e meanor 24% Ch ild Support/DSE -77% 17 Page 27 of 100 Intakes As noted previously, an “intake” represents the entry of an individual into ACRJ, regardless of the number of “bookings” (charges) on which they are brought in. Intakes measure the number of people entering the jail (down 12% in Charlottesville from 2010 to 2019). Charlottesville Intakes at ACRJ 2500 Down12% 2000 1500 1000 500 0 As a rate per 1000 residents, jail intakes associated with Charlottesville charges fell 20% from 2010 to 2019. In 2019, there were 2.9 jail intakes for every 100 Charlottesville residents. Charlottesville Intakes Per 1000 Residents 50 Down 20% 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 18 Page 28 of 100 Intakes of Black inmates fell 10%, while intakes of White inmates fell 15%. Charlottesville Intakes by Race 1200 Black Intakes down 10% 1000 800 \ 600 White Intakes down 15% 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Black - Charlottesville White ········· Linear (Charlottesville Black) ··· ·· Linear (Charlottesville White) Charlottesville intakes of female inmates fell 15%, while intakes of male inmates fell 11%. Charlottesville Intakes by Gender 1800 Male Intakes down 11% 1600 1400 \ 1200 1000 800 Female Intakes down 15% ~ 600 400 ...... 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Female - Charlottesville Male ····· Linear (Charlottesville Female) Linear (Charlottesville Male) 19 Page 29 of 100 The most significant decreases in Charlottesville intakes at ACRJ were among the 18-24 year-old and 45-49 age groups. The 50+ age group had the highest number of intakes of any age group during 2017, 2018 and 2019. Cha r lottesville Intakes by Age Group 450 400 3 50 3 00 2 50 200 150 III II 100 so 0 Ill11111. Unde r 2 0 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 II 50+  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 The chart below shows the percentage change in intakes by age group from 2010 to 2019. The data here, combined with the booking data above, shows that the increase in the size of the age 50+ cohort at intake is considerably smaller than the increase in the number of felony charges they were brought in on. Intakes dropped sharply among younger people and those age 40-49. Charlottesville Intakes at A CRJ by Age % Change 2010 to 2019 26% 15% 9% 5% -21% -41% -42% -47% % Ch ange 2010 -19  Under 20  20-24  25-29 30-34  35-39  40-44  45-49  SO+ 20 Page 30 of 100 The average age of Charlottesville inmates taken into ACRJ rose from 34.9 in 2010 to 37.5 in 2019. This increase has significant cost implications for the jail and for Charlottesville, particularly with regard to increased medical costs associated with housing an aging inmate population. Charlottesville Intakes at ACRJ by Average Inmate Age 38 Up6% 37.5 37 36.5 36 35.5 35 34.5 34 33.5 33 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 The ratio of bookings to intakes in Charlottesville rose 8% over the decade. In 2019, there were an average of 1.74 bookings associated with each intake. Charlottesville Bookings per Intake 2.5 Up8% 2 ~ 1.5 1 0.5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 21 Page 31 of 100 In 2019, 53% of Charlottesville inmates were released on their own recognizance, bond, or under pretrial supervision following their intake. The rate at which inmates were released pending trial dropped slightly from 2010 to 2019 (not unexpected, given the increase in felony bookings). Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Bonded/Released Pretrial 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 The number of distinct individuals known to the jail year-over-year (regardless of the number of intakes) dropped 29% over the decade. This observation, combined with the 20% drop in intakes per 1000, suggests that fewer people are being incarcerated year-over-year on Charlottesville charges, although slightly more people are being incarcerated as the result of multiple intake events during a given year (frequent utilizers). Individuals Incarcerated Year-Over Year on Charlottesville Charges 1600 1400 Dow n299' 1200 1000 \ 800 600 400 lUU 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 22 Page 32 of 100 Average Length of Stay Charlottesville’s average length of an inmate’s jail stay fell 24% over the decade. In 2010 the average length of stay was 45 days, dropping to 35 days in 2019. Ch arlottesv ille A v erage Length o f Stay (in days) 60 Down 2 4 % so 40 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average length of stay dropped 28% for Black inmates and 11% for White inmates. Throughout the study period, Black Charlottesville inmates had lengths of stay that were significantly longer than those of Charlottesville White inmates, although the gap narrowed somewhat. During 2019, Black inmates served an average of 44.2 days, while White inmates served an average of 25.9 days. Charlottesv ille Average Length of ACRJ St ay by Race 80 70 Black AWS down 28:1(, 60 so 40 White ALOS down 11 ?b 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Black ALOS - Charlottesvil le White A LOS Linear (Charlottesville Black ALOS) Linear (Charlottesvil le White ALOS) 23 Page 33 of 100 Charlottesville’s male inmates’ average length of stay dropped 27%, more than twice the drop among female inmates’ ALOS (13%). Charlottesville Average Length of Stay by Gender 70 60 Male ALOS down 27% 50 40 Female ALOS down 13% 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Femal e - Charlottesvill e Male Linear (Charlottesville Female) Linear (Charlottesville Male) The average daily population of Charlottesville inmates at ACRJ dropped 24% over the past decade, due to a combination of fewer intakes and shorter lengths of stay. Charlottesville Average Daily Jail Population 300 250 200 150 100 so 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 24 Page 34 of 100 Bed Day Expenditures The number of jail bed days expended is directly associated with costs incurred by a jurisdiction at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. Over the past decade, the number of bed days expended by Charlottesville inmates fell by 26%. Charlottesville Bed Days Expended 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Adjusted for population growth, bed day expenditures dropped 34% per 1000 residents. Charlottesville Bed Days Expended per 1000 Residents 2500 BOE per 1000 down 34% 2000 1500 , .~ ·················~ 1000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 25 Page 35 of 100 Charlottesville’s share of ACRJ bed day expenditures dropped 19% from 2010 to 2019. In 2019, Charlottesville was responsible for 37.87% of ACRJ’s bed days, compared to 50.79% in 2010. Percentage of ACRJ Bed Day Expenditures by Jurisdiction 60.00% Charlottes ville BOE % down 19% 50.00% 40.00% Albemarle BOE % up 23% 30.00% 20.00% Nelson BOE % up 67% 10.00% 0.00% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Albemarle - Charlottesville - Nelson ········ Linear (Albemarle) Linear (Charlottesville) Linear ( Nelson) Bed day expenditures among Black inmates dropped at twice the rate of White inmates over the decade, although Black inmate bed day expenditures remained above those of White inmates throughout the study period and remained significantly disproportionate to the general population. In 2019, Black inmates consumed 64.7% of Charlottesville’s bed days, compared to 35% by White inmates, during a year in which the composition of the Charlottesville population by race was 18.4% Black and 70.7% White (US Census Bureau). Charlottesville Bed Day Expenditures by Race 70000 Black BOE dawn 30% 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 White BOE down 15" 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Black BDE - Charlottesville White BDE Linear (Charlottesville Black BOE) Linear (Charlottesville White BOE) 26 Page 36 of 100 Bed days expended by males and females fell by comparable amounts (26%). Charlottesville Bed Day Expenditures by Gender 90000 Male BOE d own 26% \ 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 Female BOE dow n 26% \ 20000 10000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Charlottesville Female - Charlottesville Male Linear {Charlottesville Female) Linear {Charlottesville Male) Sizeable reductions in bed day expenditures by the 18-24, 25-29, 40-44, and 45-49 age groups were offset somewhat by a 61% increase in bed days expended by the 50+ age group. The age 50+ inmate cohort expended more bed days than any other age group at the jail in 2019. Change in Charlottesville Bed Days Expended by Age Group 2010-19 61% 7% -5% -37% -42% -48% -55%  18-24  2s-29  30-34 35-39  40-44  45-49  so+ 27 Page 37 of 100 Felony probation violations were associated with more Charlottesville bed day expenditures at ACRJ than any other charge type in each year of the last decade, although their numbers dropped significantly from 2016 to 2019. Other significant contributors to Charlottesville bed day expenditures from 2010 to 2019 were violent felonies, property felonies, drug felonies and Contempt of Court/Failure to Appear. Bed Days Associated with Charge Type 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 I Iiiu II 10000 5000 0 I1111111h. 11111111Ill I IL. 1 ~1. ~ 111111 f,'l, Ill 111111 ~ ~~ ~~ .,e ~t o' o' o' iS,0"<' ,::,--'>.. ,::,--'>.. -1;;,0~ ::-,0 <,_'l, ~'l, 'Ii(;' ::-_0 <,_'l, 'Ii~ ~q; iP ~'l, 'Ii(;' ~<::; \:.<::; (S 0 'tit 0 R:f .:s.,o -:,,.'Ii -:,,.'Ii .:s.,o -:,._'l~ , •f,l:f ~""' ~f <::;~"°" •f,l:f ·§/' ,,__,'Ii "$:' -::,_r.,O ,.,e+ ,::,'> ~ 'l,~ -o~ .:s.,o q_,orf ~" ~o -1;;,0~ ~ ~~ \>' c,O ~ "!)'Ii "!)'Ii -:,,.e~ ~--\ ~q,'li <::;'"°" q_,o q_,o .:s.,o q_,ort ,::,--'>.. o' ::-_0 'Ii~ <,_q; ~'l, . .,1:f ~~  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 Cost The total expenditure per inmate day at ACRJ was $93.96 in the latest Jail Cost Report published by the Virginia Compensation Board for FY18. (https://www.scb.virginia.gov/docs/fy18jailcostreport.pdf) By comparison, the total expenditure per inmate day at ACRJ for FY09 was $72.09. https://www.scb.virginia.gov/docs/fy09jailcostreport.pdf) 28 Page 38 of 100 From 2009 to 2018, the total expenditure per inmate day at the jail rose 30%, during a time in which the general rate of inflation rose 15%. However, the rate of increase in the total cost for Charlottesville inmate days over the past decade rose only 4%, due to a 26% decrease in bed day expenditures. Charlottesville Cost for ACRJ Bed Day Expenditures $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 As a rate per 1000 residents, Charlottesville’s bed day costs shrunk by 5% from 2010 to 2019. Charlottesville Cost for Bed Day Expenditures per 1000 Residents $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 29 Page 39 of 100 Per capita, total Charlottesville bed day expenditures totaled $96.06 for every city resident in 2019, down from $126.20 in 2010. Charlottesville was the only jurisdiction in Central Virginia to experience a drop in per capita bed day costs over the decade. The city is not directly responsible for that entire expenditure, as some security positions at ACRJ are funded through the Virginia Compensation Board. Summary From the data above, the following picture emerges: • Reported crime per capita dropped significantly in Charlottesville over the past decade in all three major categories (crimes against person down 39%, crimes against property down 41% and crimes against society down 44%). Specifically, narcotics offenses dropped 55%. • Arrests of young people (18-24) in Charlottesville fell steeply, and arrests of people age 25-54 fell to a lesser extent. The only group experiencing rising arrest rates in the city was the age 55 and older cohort. • The number of Charlottesville felony drug cases that produced a Department of Forensic Science Certificate of Analysis fell 17% from 2001 through 2019. Cocaine dominated drug certifications by type throughout the period, although an increase in opioids was observed in recent years, beginning around 2012 and peaking in 2015. • Booking volume at ACRJ on Charlottesville offenses dropped slightly (5%) from 2010 to 2019. • In 2019, the City of Charlottesville accounted for 31.3% of booking volume at the jail, compared to Albemarle County at 48.9% and Nelson County at 13.7%. • Booking volume on Charlottesville charges increased 25% for felony offenses, offset by a drop in misdemeanor bookings of 19%. • Charlottesville booking volume increased 6% for Black inmates while falling 19% for White inmates from 2010 to 2019. • During 2019, bookings associated with Black inmates represented 56.6% of all Charlottesville bookings, while those associated with White inmates represented 42%. These percentages were significantly disproportionate to the general population (18.4% Black and 70.7 White). • Bookings of female inmates dropped more than did bookings of male inmates (down 16% and 2% respectively). • The fastest-growing age group among Charlottesville inmates from 2010 to 2019 was the oldest (age 50+), accounting for an increase in bookings at the felony level of 207%. • The number of Charlottesville misdemeanor bookings involving young people (under age 25) dropped substantially. 30 Page 40 of 100 • Alcohol, Assault, DWI, Probation Violations and Narcotics Offenses were the top five crime categories at booking at ACRJ for Charlottesville inmates from 2010 to 2019. • The greatest increase in bookings by charge type were among violent felonies, weapons offenses and felony probation violations. • Intake volume was down slightly more than booking volume, as the number of charges per intake rose 8%. • 10% fewer Black inmates and 15% fewer White inmates were taken into ACRJ from 2010 to 2019. • 11% fewer Males and 15% fewer females were taken in during the decade. • 29% fewer individuals were incarcerated at any point in 2019 than in 2010 on Charlottesville charges, but a higher percentage were arrested more frequently and booked in on more charges. • The Charlottesville inmate population has been aging, with the average age rising from 34.9 in 2010 to 37.5 in 2019. • The average length of a Charlottesville-responsible inmate’s jail stay fell by 24% over the last decade. Combined with a modest decrease in intakes, the reduction in average length of stay resulted in a 26% drop in the number of Charlottesville inmates in the average daily population at ACRJ from 2010 to 2019. • The average length of stay for Black inmates fell at more than twice the rate of White inmates. However, the average length of stay for Black inmates remained higher than that of White inmates in each year studied. • Average length of stay dropped at twice the rate for men as for women. • Bed days expended by Charlottesville inmates at ACRJ dropped 26% between 2010 and 2019. • Charlottesville’s share of ACRJ bed day expenditures dropped 19%, offset by increases in Albemarle and Nelson Counties. • Bed day expenditures dropped at twice the rate for Black inmates (down 30%) as for White inmates (down 15%), but remained significantly disproportionate to the general population. • Drops in bed day expenditures were the same among male and female inmates (down 26%). • The only age group to experience an increase in bed day expenditures was the age 50+ cohort. Inmates age 50+ consumed more bed days (10,885) than any other Charlottesville age group in 2019. • Felony probation violations were associated with the greatest number of bed days expended by Charlottesville inmates throughout the decade. • Costs associated with Charlottesville bed day expenditures held fairly steady over the decade, as increases in the cost of a bed day were largely offset by reductions in the number expended and increases in the size of the general population. 31 Page 41 of 100 Acknowledgements The Criminal Justice Planner would like to thank everyone who contributed data for this report, especially Superintendent Martin Kumer and Basil Istwany, the network administrator at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. Thanks also go to members of the Albemarle- Charlottesville Evidence-Based Decision-Making Policy Team for their support in this effort. Future Work Looking forward, the plan is to update these trend lines on a yearly basis to keep decision- makers apprised of how the criminal justice system is operating, and what impacts systems changes may be having on crime, arrests, and jail utilization. Of particular interest in the next several reporting years will be the opportunity to assess the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on the criminal justice system, and public safety generally. Prepared by: Neal S. Goodloe, MPA Criminal Justice Planner Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board 32 Page 42 of 100 2/9/2021 Criminal Justice Trends A Report to the City of Charlottesville from the Criminal Justice Planner 2010‐19 1 Introduction: • The Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board directed the Criminal Justice Planner in January 2020 to prepare a set of annual reports for each member jurisdiction, the two regional jails and a comprehensive report for the CCJB. • Member jurisdictions include the City of Charlottesville and Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Nelson and Orange. • As part of that effort, data has been gathered from a number of open‐data and proprietary sources, using the same methodology in constructing each annual report, so that metrics can be compared across the region, between the two jails and among jurisdictions, year to year from 2010‐11. • This annual report represents the first comprehensive, decade‐long jail study of its kind in Virginia. • In future years, this annual report will serve as a template for tracking key metrics over time. 2 Page 43 of 100 1 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Population 2010‐19 60,000 Up 8.8% 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: U. S. Census Bureau 3 Charlottesville Reported Crimes Against Person (per 1000 Residents) 30 25 Down 39% 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Virginia State Police Crime Online 4 Page 44 of 100 2 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Reported Crimes Against Property (per 1000 Residents) 80 70 60 Down 41% 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Virginia State Police Crime Online 5 Charlottesville Reported Crimes Against Society (per 1000 Residents) 14 12 Down 44% 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Virginia State Police Crime Online 6 Page 45 of 100 3 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Drug/Narcotics Offenses per 1000 Residents 12 10 Down 55% 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 7 Charlottesville Felony Drug Certificates of Analysis 2001‐19 (VA Dept. of Forensic Science) 350 Down 17%, compared to an increase in general population of 15% 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 8 Page 46 of 100 4 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Felony Drug Certificates of Analysis by Drug Type 2001‐19 (VA DFS) 250 200 150 100 50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 9 Charlottesville Booking Volume at ACRJ 2010‐19 4000 Down 5% 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 10 Page 47 of 100 5 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Bookings per 1000 Residents 2010‐19 90 Down 14% 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 11 Percentage of ACRJ Bookings by Jurisdiction 60% 43% in 2010 50% 40% 30% 31.3% in 2019 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Albemarle Charlottesville Nelson Linear (Albemarle) Linear (Charlottesville) Linear (Nelson) 12 Page 48 of 100 6 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Bookings by Charge Level 2500 Misdemeanors down 19% 2000 1500 1000 Felonies up 25% 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Felony Charlottesville Misdemeanor Linear (Charlottesville Felony) Linear (Charlottesville Misdemeanor) 13 Charlottesville Bookings by Race 2500 Black up 6% 2000 1500 1000 White down 19% 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Black Charlottesville White Linear (Charlottesville Black) Linear (Charlottesville White) 14 Page 49 of 100 7 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Bookings by Gender 3500 Males down 2% 3000 2500 2000 1500 Females down 16% 1000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Female Charlottesville Male Linear (Charlottesville Female) Linear (Charlottesville Male) 15 Charlottesville Felony Bookings by Age Group % Change 2010 to 2019 207% 48% 30% 31% 27% ‐1% ‐20% ‐21% Under 20 Felony 20‐24 Felony 25‐29 Felony 30‐34 Felony 35‐39 Felony 40‐44 Felony 45‐49 Felony 50+ Felony 16 Page 50 of 100 8 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Misdemeanor Bookings by Age % Change 2010 to 2019 16% 8% ‐2% ‐6% ‐29% ‐31% ‐46% ‐48% Under 20 Misdemeanor 20‐24 Misdemeanor 25‐29 Misdemeanor 30‐34 Misdemeanor 35‐39 Misdemeanor 40‐44 Misdemeanor 45‐49 Misdemeanor 50+ Misdemeanor 17 Top 10 Charlottesville Bookings by VCC Prefix 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 ALC ASL DWI PRB NAR LAR CON FRD LIC WPN 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 18 Page 51 of 100 9 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Bookings at ACRJ by Charge Type 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19 20 Page 52 of 100 10 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Intakes at ACRJ 2500 Down 12% 2000 1500 1000 500 0 21 Charlottesville Intakes Per 1000 Residents 50 Down 20% 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 22 Page 53 of 100 11 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Intakes by Race 1200 Black Intakes down 10% 1000 800 600 White Intakes down 15% 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Black Charlottesville White Linear (Charlottesville Black) Linear (Charlottesville White) 23 Charlottesville Intakes by Gender 1800 Male Intakes down 11% 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Female Intakes down 15% 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Female Charlottesville Male Linear (Charlottesville Female) Linear (Charlottesville Male) 24 Page 54 of 100 12 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Intakes at ACRJ by Age % Change 2010 to 2019 26% 15% 9% 5% ‐21% ‐41% ‐42% ‐47% % Change 2010‐19 Under 20 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50+ 25 Charlottesville Intakes at ACRJ by Average Inmate Age 38 Up 6% 37.5 37 36.5 36 35.5 35 34.5 34 33.5 33 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 26 Page 55 of 100 13 2/9/2021 Percentage of Charlottesville Inmates Bonded/Released Pretrial 70.00% Down 3% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 27 Individuals Incarcerated Year‐Over Year on Charlottesville Charges 1600 1400 Down 29% 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 28 Page 56 of 100 14 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Average Length of Stay (in days) 60 Down 24% 50 40 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 29 Charlottesville Average Length of ACRJ Stay by Race 80 70 Black ALOS down 28% 60 50 40 White ALOS down 11% 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Black ALOS Charlottesville White ALOS Linear (Charlottesville Black ALOS) Linear (Charlottesville White ALOS) 30 Page 57 of 100 15 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Average Length of Stay by Gender 70 60 Male ALOS down 27% 50 40 Female ALOS down 13% 30 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Female Charlottesville Male Linear (Charlottesville Female) Linear (Charlottesville Male) 31 32 Page 58 of 100 16 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Length of Stay Associated with Charge Type 250 200 150 100 50 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 33 Charlottesville Average Daily Jail Population 300 250 ADP down 26% 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 34 Page 59 of 100 17 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Bed Days Expended 100000 90000 BDE down 26% 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 35 Charlottesville Bed Days Expended per 1000 Residents 2500 BDE per 1000 down 34% 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 36 Page 60 of 100 18 2/9/2021 Percentage of ACRJ Bed Day Expenditures by Jurisdiction 60.00% Charlottesville BDE % down 19% 50.00% 40.00% Albemarle BDE % up 23% 30.00% 20.00% Nelson BDE % up 67% 10.00% 0.00% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Albemarle Charlottesville Nelson Linear (Albemarle) Linear (Charlottesville) Linear (Nelson) 37 Charlottesville Bed Day Expenditures by Race 70000 Black BDE down 30% 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 White BDE down 15% 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Black BDE Charlottesville White BDE Linear (Charlottesville Black BDE) Linear (Charlottesville White BDE) 38 Page 61 of 100 19 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Bed Day Expenditures by Gender 90000 Male BDE down 26% 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 Female BDE down 26% 20000 10000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charlottesville Female Charlottesville Male Linear (Charlottesville Female) Linear (Charlottesville Male) 39 40 Page 62 of 100 20 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Bed Days Associated with Charge Type 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 41 Charlottesville Cost for ACRJ Bed Day Expenditures $9,000,000 Cost up 4% $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 42 Page 63 of 100 21 2/9/2021 Charlottesville Cost for Bed Day Expenditures per 1000 Residents $180,000 Cost per 1000 down 5% $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 43 Conclusions: • Reported crime in all three major categories has fallen significantly in Charlottesville over the past decade. • Charlottesville’s share of bookings and bed days expended at ACRJ has also dropped significantly, compared to the other two member jurisdictions (Albemarle and Nelson). • Increases in felony bookings and bed days expended are associated almost exclusively with inmates age 50 or older. Incarceration rates among 18‐24 year olds have dropped sharply. • The average length of a Charlottesville inmate’s stay has dropped significantly, resulting in fewer bed days expended at ACRJ over the decade. • Felony probation violations remain the most expensive charge type, in terms of bed days expended. However, the number of bed day expenditures associated with a felony probation violation have fallen in recent years. • Charlottesville is the only CCJB member jurisdiction that had a per capita decrease in jail bed day costs from 2010 to 2019. 44 Page 64 of 100 22 2/9/2021 Prepared by: Neal S. Goodloe, MPA Criminal Justice Planner Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board 45 Page 65 of 100 23 Update to City Council February 16, 2021 (4:00 PM meeting) Materials • Presentation, located here. • Full Revised Affordable Housing Plan, located here. • Agenda (see next page). Background From November 3 to December 2, 2020, Cville Plans Together shared a draft Affordable Housing Plan with the community to gather feedback. We also shared some initial draft revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. During that time, we also met with Planning Commission and Council in a joint session (November 10). You can view a summary of all community engagement activities and input here. At the back of the revised Affordable Housing Plan, we have also appended letters received from groups/organizations. Since December, we have made several revisions to the Affordable Housing Plan. Changes were based on community, Steering Committee, Council, Planning Commission, and staff feedback. The most significant revisions to the Affordable Housing Plan since November include: • The addition of an overview of the recommended timeframe of implementation for tool recommendations (starting on page 18). • Clarifications and messaging adjustments on the $10M annual budget for affordable housing, to recognize current financial commitments in the coming years as well as the need for potential additional revenue sources (starting on page 49). o Page 51 demonstrates the scale of Charlottesville’s current commitment relative to other cities. • Additional recommendations and details related to affordable homeownership strategies (in summary on page 17 and in more detail starting on page 134). • More detail about opportunities for regional collaboration & strategies to directly address racial equity in the introduction (starting page 24). • Additional context related to the housing challenges section (starting page 36). • Inclusion of energy efficiency, aging in place, and support for those with disabilities as part of subsidies for owner-occupied rehabilitation (page 147). • Additional support for energy efficiency for multifamily projects through the acquisition fund (page 120). • Additional focus on the potential for a regional housing body (page 164), as well as a joint regional funding agreement (page 67). • Clarifications around the potential for increased tenants’ rights for cases in which the City is contributing funds (page 100). 1 Page 66 of 100 Update to City Council February 16, 2021 (4:00 PM meeting) Agenda for February 16 Discussion Please note that this agenda will not include a full walk-through of the revised Affordable Housing Plan, which can be found here. 1. Presentation (10 minutes) A. Brief overview of revisions since November (summarized on the previous page) 2. Feedback from the Planning Commission (Feb. 9 meeting) 3. Overview of next steps A. Meeting with Council on March 1 (during the main Council meeting) to seek endorsement of the Affordable Housing Plan. B. Incorporation of Affordable Housing Plan recommendations into Comprehensive Plan (where appropriate). C. Anticipated community engagement around the draft land use map and Comp. Plan end of March/early April. 4. Council comments/questions about Affordable Housing Plan 2 Page 67 of 100 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN City Council Presentation February 16, 2021 Page 68 of 100 The final plan includes revisions to the initial draft based on comments received by City staff, leadership, the public, and other groups. Draft Plan Plan Revisions Final Plan Engagement Revised Plan Presented to Planning and Public Commission (2/9) & City Council (2/16) Input Council Vote for Endorsement (3/1) Nov. 3, 2020 through Dec. 2020 through Feb.-Mar. 2021 Dec. 2, 2020 Jan. 2021 HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 2 Page 69 of 100 Summary of Changes to Final Draft HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 3 Page 70 of 100 Most revisions were minor. Larger changes include clarifying & strengthening the draft to better align the plan’s contents with its intended outcomes. Expanded Clarified Homeownership Language Tools Additional Detail about Vulnerable Implementation Populations and Summary Energy HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 4 Page 71 of 100 The final draft clarifies language around the City’s funding commitments and the relationship between recommendations and guiding principles. • Link between racial equity and homeownership Clarified Language • Opportunities for regional collaboration • Funding commitment from the City • Developments receiving City assistance HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 5 Page 72 of 100 New page (25) highlights critical Guiding Principles | Racial Equity strategies to advance racial equity To fully support racial equity and reverse the impacts of discrimination and segregation, racial equity has to be considered as a part of the design of each recommendation, not as an afterthought or a separate plan. The City can meet this challenge by creating programs that directly address disparities and mitigate barriers to accessing quality affordable housing, and by establishing governance structures and processes that actively include Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) households, particularly households impacted by disparities, in the decision-making process. Critical Strategies to Advance Racial Equity • Homeownership | Homeownership is a critical asset building opportunity for most households, and persistent disparities in homeownership rates by race illustrate the extent to which BIPOC households continue to face barriers in homeownership. Charlottesville should reduce the racial wealth gap through homeownership programs including down payment assistance (pages 135 – 139), Section 8 voucher to homeownership programs (page 140 – 141), new approaches to mortgage financing (page 142 – 144), and single-family and soft density infill development (page 145 – 146). In addition, to stem the decline in Black homeownership, the City should fund programs that reduce costs for existing homeowners such as owner-occupied rehabilitation assistance (pages 147 – 148) and property tax relief (pages 149 – 150). • Governance | To reflect the needs and priorities of its community, the City’s governance structures need a diversity of perspectives, not just from housing professionals but inclusive of community voices and beneficiaries of housing programs. Charlottesville can take concrete steps to bring diverse voices into its decision-making processes, and to build inclusivity throughout its affordable housing infrastructure, including the Housing Advisory Committee (pages 64 – 65), Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) Committee (pages 66 – 68), City Staff (pages 70 – 71), and nonprofits that receive city funding through a standardized and competitive process (pages 73 – 75). This includes both BIPOC housing professionals and community members, as well as people who benefit from affordable housing assistance. • Metrics | Key to the successful implementation of the plan will be ensuring that affordable housing programs are designed and implemented to be accessible and utilized by all residents including BIPOC. To ensure that programs operated by the City and its partners support racial equity, City Staff (pages 70 – 71) should track metrics related to program participants, residents, and impacts, and disaggregate impact data by race. The City’s competitive funding process (pages 73 – 75) should set targets for inclusive participation and access and prioritize funding for partners that have demonstrated successes in promoting racial equity and inclusiveness. The Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan outlines recommendations to advance each of these critical strategies and to ensure that other recommendations are implemented in ways that reduce racial disparities, promote equity, and mitigate negative impacts to BIPOC in Charlottesville. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 6 Page 73 of 100 New page (27) highlights opportunities Guiding Principles | Regional Collaboration for regional collaboration To maximize the impacts of Charlottesville’s activities in supporting housing affordability, the City needs to seek commitments and develop deeper partnerships to replicate changes throughout the city and the urban ring. Collaboration with Albemarle County | The County and City are each Collaboration with the University of Virginia (UVA) | UVA is the City’s others’ most important partners for improving housing affordability. Each largest employer and the anchor institution of Charlottesville. It has the largest controls land use and public funding policies that are far more effective obligation to address housing affordability after the City itself. Recognizing that when used in coordination. Implementing recommendations jointly is obligation, the University recently made the important commitment to develop central to regional collaboration. 1,000 to 1,500 affordable homes over the next decade. As the University moves forward to meet this commitment, it should do so in a manner that is consistent • Establishing an affordable housing funding agreement (page with this Plan’s principles and recommendations. 52) for the urban ring. Both the City and the County must invest local public funds to improve housing affordability. Given the shared • Racial Equity and Governance. UVA can acknowledge historic and authority and tax relationship between the City and County, present racial discrimination in housing and seek to address it in the design investments within the urban ring should be shared. The County and of its housing programs. The University can develop an inclusive planning City should establish an agreement to coordinate affordable housing and decision-making process (page 63) for housing investments by investments to maximize impacts in the urban ring. meaningfully including BIPOC and beneficiaries of its housing programs. • Aligning changes to multifamily (page 80 – 81) and single-family • Deep Affordability. Recognizing that UVA has raised its wages so that no zoning (page 94 – 96) within the urban ring. The urban ring is an employees should be below 30% AMI, the University should commit to important part of Charlottesville’s housing market and has significant affordability targets for new housing (page 55 – 56) including making at opportunity to support new housing development. A misalignment of least 80% of homes affordable to households with incomes up to 60% AMI, zoning could harm affordability, while aligning zoning within the and the remainder affordable to households up to 80% AMI. urban ring would enhance the impacts of recommended zoning changes by further expanding opportunities for housing • Homeownership. UVA should commit to supporting homeownership as development and creating a comparable development environment. well as rental development, by pursuing single-family and soft density • Including regional representatives in the City’s governance, infill development (page 145 – 146) and offering down payment particularly as voting members of the Housing Advisory Committee assistance (page 138 – 139) to employees. (HAC) (page 64), will recognize the County as a critical partner and • Tenants’ Rights. Similar to the City, UVA has the opportunity to ensure help to ensure that regional partners continue to be engaged and that housing developments it supports provide enhanced tenants’ rights aligned on affordable housing needs and opportunities for (page 100), such as just cause eviction requirements, mediation collaboration. agreements, and the right to organize, in University-funded housing developments. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 7 HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Page 74 of 100 New page (49) clarifies the types of funding within the Funding | Scale and Consistency recommended $10M annual allocation of funding The City of Charlottesville should dedicate $10 million per year to invest in housing affordability over the next ten years. This proposed figure of $10M represents total—not additional—spending, and it represents local spending, not including additional funding provided through state or federal sources. As appropriate, direct subsidy should be centralized and allocated through the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. $2M $7M $1M Tax Relief Direct Subsidy Admin RECOMMENDED CHANGES The City has historically “spent” close to $2M per year on household tax As part of its $10M annual commitment, the City relief, provided to low-income households through the Charlottesville Housing should set aside $1M in funding each year for Affordability Program and to elderly and disabled households through the Real administrative costs and capacity building. This is a Estate Tax Relief program. This allocation, which supports housing stability for standard practice for housing departments, programs, low-income homeowners, should be highlighted within the City’s housing budget. and funds. These funds would pay for the personnel required for a variety of tasks: to run a competitive The majority of the $10M should be allocated to direct subsidy. These process to award funds; monitor and evaluate impact; expenditures include both “capital” subsidies used to build and preserve enforce compliance; design and develop new housing affordable homes, such as financing for public housing redevelopment and single- policies; provide technical assistance for funding family infill development, and “operating” subsidies provided on an ongoing recipients to improve their expertise and effectiveness; basis, such as emergency rental assistance and property tax relief. This funding and provide training for new board members of the HAC, includes the City’s current commitments to affordable housing programs including especially those who are community representatives and CSRAP and planned new subsidized housing developments. As appropriate, the might not work on housing professionally. allocation of these funds should be made through the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) with input from the CAHF committee. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 8 Page 75 of 100 New page (50) outlines existing commitments the City Funding | Scale and Consistency has made to fund affordable housing in the near term The City has already recently made significant commitments for future spending on housing. These commitments effectively fulfill the recommended $10M commitment through 2025. $40M Capital Improvement Program funding commitment, 2020-2025 Some of these commitments have been detailed in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which allocates about $40M between 2020 and 2025 towards a number of housing programs. $5.25M $15M $17M $3.125M Rental vouchers through the Public housing redevelopment Friendship Court project Housing rehabilitation and Charlottesville Supplemental Rental residential energy conservation Assistance Program (CSRAP) CONTEXT Other annual housing expenditures, average of historical and projected spending 2020-2025 In addition to these commitments made in the CIP, the City has historically supported other housing programs through tax relief and through other direct subsidies allocated through the City’s operating fund. $1.7M ~$500K Average annual property tax Vibrant Communities Fund, relief for low-income, disabled, or competitively allocated to various veteran homeowners housing nonprofits HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 9 Page 76 of 100 New page (51) compares funding commitment Funding | Scale and Consistency from the City of Charlottesville to other cities Charlottesville has committed a significant amount of funding for a city of its size. A commitment of $100M over ten years would put Charlottesville in the top tier of cities making strong and lasting commitments to affordable housing. For the sake of comparison, the table below focuses on only funding used for direct subsidy, excluding property tax relief and administrative costs. Therefore, Charlottesville’s commitment shows $70M, excluding an estimate of $10M for administrative costs and $20M for tax relief over ten years. Raleigh, NC Durham, NC Richmond, VA Washington, D.C. Charlottesville, VA Funding $80M bond $95M bond (in addition $80M from dedicating $100M+ through $70M Commitment to $65M of existing tax revenues from housing trust fund, in direct subsidy Size and Sources expenditures, part of properties phasing out from transfer taxes funding $160M housing plan) of partial tax and general fund exemption CONTEXT Time Period 5 years 5 years 10 years annual 10 years Population 470,000 275,000 230,000 685,000 50,000 $ Per Capita Per Year $34 $116 $35 $146+ $140 HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 10 Page 77 of 100 Revised page (52) discusses the need to identify Funding | Scale and Consistency stable and equitable sources of funding for housing Charlottesville needs to identify one or more dedicated funding sources to sustain its commitment to affordable housing beyond 2025. Increased spending on housing will require either reallocating funding from other programs within the existing budget, or creating new fees or taxes that expand revenue sources. If funds cannot be reallocated from other priorities to support ongoing housing programs, the City will need to more closely evaluate potential funding sources. This analysis will need to consider several key factors: Legality Revenue potential Revenue stability Equity Is this form of tax or fee How much revenue is this Does the tax or fee Does the fee’s impact on legal in Virginia? tax or fee estimated to provide a reliable and the tax base meet the RECOMMENDED CHANGES yield on an annual basis? stable source of funding? City’s equity goals? Is the tax regressive? Examples of revenue sources used for housing trust funds elsewhere in Virginia include: Property tax increase Meals tax Developer contributions Additional property tax Additional tax on Impact fee on new market- dedicated to housing restaurant food and rate residential beverage sales development Example: Richmond, VA Example: Alexandria, VA Examples: Alexandria, VA; Fairfax, VA Charlottesville currently funds its housing programs through general fund and capital fund contributions. Charlottesville already uses these and other revenue sources to fund a variety of programs. To sustain a $10M annual commitment over time, the City will need to evaluate potential revenue sources as well as its other policy and funding priorities, such as schools and Main Street improvements, to balance available resources with the City’s goals. This evaluation of opportunity and need should consider the near-term fiscal impacts of COVID-19, which has impacted some City revenues and intensified funding needs across a spectrum of priorities. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 11 Page 78 of 100 Highlighted text added to clarify Tenants’ Rights | Recommendations recommendation (page 99) Charlottesville should change local policy and advocate at the state level to expand the City’s ability to support tenants’ rights. State law limits the actions that Charlottesville can take to advance tenants’ rights, but the City can provide enhanced protections for renters for programs in which it provides funding, and advocate at the state level for legislative changes. In particular, the City should implement the following recommended actions and policy changes: Require housing developments that receive City funding (directly as subsidy, or indirectly Developments Receiving City Assistance through infrastructure improvements) to provide enhanced tenants’ rights. Dedicate funding for the provision of legal services for tenants facing eviction and establish a Right to Counsel citywide right to counsel in eviction cases. Advocate for enabling legislation to support just cause evictions and to make other Just Cause Eviction changes to the state’s eviction process. Rent Control Advocate for enabling legislation to enact rent control in Charlottesville. The remainder of this chapter provides additional detail on recommended policy changes, as well as the implementation needs and anticipated impacts of these changes, and examples of how other communities have used similar tools to support housing affordability. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 12 Page 79 of 100 Minor changes were made to existing tools, and several new homeownership tools were added to the final draft. • Employer-Assisted Down Payment Assistance Expanded Homeownership • Section 8 Voucher to Homeownership Tools • Local Mortgage Pool with Individual Development Accounts HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 13 Page 80 of 100 Highlighted recommendations were added to Subsidy | Recommendations expand homeownership tools (page 113) Affordable Homeownership Subsidy | Increase and preserve access to affordable homeownership. These programs serve to build wealth for low-income families and are crucial to support racial equity by mitigating the racial wealth gap. Revise Charlottesville’s existing down payment assistance program to provide a Down Payment Assistance greater level of assistance and serve a larger number of households. Encourage and work with major regional employers, like UVA, to develop employer- Employer-Assisted Down Payment Assistance funded Down Payment Assistance programs as a benefit for employees. Encourage the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) to create Section 8 Voucher to Homeownership the option of and access to homeownership for Section 8 Voucher users. Partner with lenders and nonprofits to help homeowners succeed at Local Mortgage Pool with Individual Development Accounts homeownership. Partner with developers to build and renovate affordable single-family and “soft Single-Family and Soft Density Infill Development density” housing in existing neighborhoods. Support and preserve homeownership by providing assistance to income-qualified Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Assistance owners to make necessary home repairs. Continue the provision of property tax relief to low- and moderate-income Property Tax Relief homeowners. The remainder of this chapter provides additional detail on recommended policy changes, as well as the implementation needs and anticipated impacts of these changes, and examples of how other communities have used similar tools to support housing affordability. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 14 Page 81 of 100 Page (138) added for Subsidy | Employer-Assisted Down Payment Assistance new tool Encourage and work with major regional employers, like UVA, to develop employer- Case Study | Yale Homebuyer Program funded Down Payment Assistance programs as a benefit for employees. The Yale Homebuyer Program was Large employers—such as universities, hospitals, and private corporations—have an interest in established in 1994 to support Yale CONTEXT helping their employees live in safe and affordable housing close to work. The City’s largest employees, including faculty and employers include the University of Virginia, UVA Medical Center, Sentara Healthcare, State Farm permanent staff, with $30,000 to $35,000 Insurance, Wal-Mart, and Food Lion, among others. in (pre-tax) benefits over ten years, to be used towards a home purchase. The City of Charlottesville should encourage major employers to create employer-assisted down payment assistance programs. The City should identify large employers with the capacity and Participants must commit to owning and CHANGES REC’D. interest to support a down payment assistance program for employees, educate leaders about the costs residing in the home for at least two and benefits of such a program—for example, improved worker retention and community relations—and years from the date of closing, and the encourage major employers to provide down payment assistance to employees. benefit ends when occupancy ends. Therefore, to receive the full $30,000 to An employer-assisted down payment assistance program would expand wealth-building and IMPACTS $35,000, participants must reside in the housing stability through homeownership for more Charlottesville residents. The program could home for ten years. potentially match public and private funding, both amplifying the impact of public dollars by leveraging private contributions and help employers better attract and retain workers. Between 1994 and 2015, the Homebuyer Program supported 1,134 new Racial Equity An expanded down payment assistance program can further mitigate a racial wealth gap. homeowners. Employer-led programs should seek to proactively serve households to address inequitable access to PRINCIPLES GUIDING homeownership resulting from cost barriers and racial inequities. Regional Collaboration Employers across the region should participate in securing new employee homeownership, including in the urban ring. Comprehensive Approach Down payment assistance complements renter-focused subsidy programs. Source: Yale University HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 15 Page 82 of 100 Page (139) added for Subsidy | Employer-Assisted Down Payment Assistance new tool Lead and Partners Housing Staff Large employers IMPLEMENTATION Action Steps 1. The City will work with local employers to encourage the development of employer-assisted down payment assistance programs. Timeframe Near Term (within 18 months) Funding Needs No local funding HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 16 Page 83 of 100 Page (140) added for Subsidy | Section 8 Voucher to Homeownership new tool Encourage CRHA to create the option of and access to homeownership for Section 8 Voucher users. The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) has considered adopting a Section 8 Voucher to Homeownership Program, which is authorized by HUD. A Voucher to Homeownership program allows for Section 8 housing vouchers to be used towards monthly mortgage CONTEXT payments instead of monthly rent, while requiring that participants pay a minimum 3% down payment. This type of program not only allows low-income voucher holders to access the benefits of homeownership such as wealth-building and housing stability, but also increases voucher holders’ affordable purchase price by effectively increasing their income. As of 2017, 10 housing authorities in Virginia offer the program. The City should encourage the CRHA to create a Section 8 Voucher to Homeownership Program. In addition to establishing a program per HUD’s HCV Homeownership Regulations, CRHA should: RECOMMENDED CHANGES • Identify collaborating lenders to support a mortgage product that uses vouchers; • Publicize program eligibility and benefits to households using vouchers, and providing participant households with mandatory homeownership counseling; • Layer program with complementary programs such as city-provided down payment assistance; A Voucher to Homeownership program would increase access to homeownership for the lowest- income households. By increasing the monthly amount that an assisted homebuyer can pay, such a IMPACTS program would increase the value of home they can afford. The program would also extend the impact of complementary homeownership programs such as down payment assistance and single-family infill programs. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 17 Page 84 of 100 Page (141) added for Subsidy | Section 8 Voucher to Homeownership new tool Racial Equity A Voucher to Homeownership program could help bridge the racial wealth gap for residents at the lowest income levels. PRINCIPLES GUIDING Regional Collaboration Vouchers should be used for home purchases in Charlottesville and within the urban ring. Comprehensive Approach This program provides residents with the flexibility to user a renter-focused subsidy program to support homeownership goals. Lead and Partners CRHA Housing Staff IMPLEMENTATION Action Steps 1. CRHA will establish a local Section 8 Voucher to Homeownership Program in line with HUD and Virginia regulations. 2. The City will encourage participants to also apply for down payment assistance, to further impact of voucher subsidy. Timeframe Near Term (within 18 months) Funding Needs No local funding HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 18 Page 85 of 100 Page (142) added for new tool Subsidy | Local Mortgage Pool with Individual Development Accounts Develop specialty mortgage products and provide supporting services that help low- income homeowners succeed at homeownership. A mortgage loan pool allows participating financial institutions and funders to jointly Mortgage underwriting standards and practices have greatly restricted access to mortgage fund a program that originates mortgages financing since the Financial Crisis, particularly among BIPOC and moderate-income with favorable terms to help low-income CONTEXT households. Many of these adjustments to underwriting practices are viewed as an appropriate first-time homeowners access response to excessively loose underwriting that contributed to historic foreclosure rates. Unfortunately, homeownership. Such a program both in many instances there has been an overcorrection that reinforces racial disparity in homeownership. expands options and access for these homeowners, and helps to minimize risk to The City of Charlottesville should work with lenders and nonprofits to develop specialty banks who participate in offering mortgage products and provide supporting services that better fit the circumstances of BIPOC nonconforming mortgages, such as those as well as moderate- and low-income homeowners. Towards this end, a local loan pool drawing with lower down payment requirements and from motivated banks, credit unions, major employers, philanthropies, and public funding that other flexible guidelines. originates mortgages that are designed to fit the needs of households who cannot access mortgage financing currently. An individual development account (IDA) RECOMMENDED CHANGES • Allow for greater flexibility on credit scores, relying on non-traditional demonstrations of credit is a type of savings account designed to help ability such as on-time rent payment. low-income individuals build assets and achieve financial stability and long-term self- • Eliminate mortgage insurance, an expensive and ongoing cost that penalizes households with sufficiency. People use IDAs to save money less family wealth. to start a business, pay for education, or buy • Lower down payment requirements to a nominal requirement of $3,000 and apply down a home. The JP Morgan Chase Institute payment to an individual development account. This approach increases a homebuyer’s post- found that reducing the amount of down closing liquidity, which significantly reduces risk of foreclosure and is a “win-win” for both buyers payment while increasing the amount of and lenders. reserves a household held in the bank to • Provide post-purchase ownership housing counseling, such that if a household needs assistance three months greatly reduced the risk of (either requests assistance or misses a mortgage payment), a qualified housing counselor is foreclosure. available to provide advice, and the housing counselor has access to an emergency loan program Source: https://www.jpmorganchase.com/institute/news- or similar to help a household stabilize their finances. events/institute-prevent-mortgage-default HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 19 Page 86 of 100 Page (143) added for new tool Subsidy | Local Mortgage Pool with Individual Development Accounts Expanding access to homeownership through a local mortgage pool and individual development Mortgage Pool Case Study | IMPACTS account will increase homeownership among BIPOC and moderate-income households. A well- designed program should be able to revolve the majority of funds invested, leveraging public and private Self Help Secondary Mortgage funding to increase impact. Market Program Racial Equity This program target and address racial inequities in mortgage lending that have persisted as Self-Help is a community development a form of financial redlining. financial institution that has assisted PRINCIPLES people traditionally underserved by GUIDING Regional Collaboration This program should be implemented at a regional scale, ideally through a broad for-profit lenders. One of its programs partnership of lenders and funders. is an innovative secondary market Comprehensive Approach This program expands and supports homeownership by targeting root sources program formed through a of high costs and inequity. partnership between philanthropy, private for-profit lenders, and Fannie Lead and Partners Mae. Under this program, commercial Housing Staff banks provide mortgages with low Nonprofit partners down payments and flexible Local lenders, employers, and regulators guidelines to low-income prospective IMPLEMENTATION Action Steps homebuyers who otherwise cannot 1. Add enhanced services requirement to affordable homeownership loan terms. access conventional financing. Self- 2. Establish an action plan (with explicit reporting protocol and detailed services) for mortgage lenders, City Help then purchases these mortgages staff, and non-profit partners. from banks and sells them directly to Timeframe Fannie Mae, with the promise it will Longer Term (within 3 to 5 years) cover the cost of most defaulted loans, with the help of philanthropic funding. Funding Needs In return, banks will commit to Approximately $300 – 500 per household served continuing to relend this money to an equivalent number of low-income homebuyers. Source: Self-Help Credit Union HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 20 Page 87 of 100 Page (144) added for new tool Subsidy | Local Mortgage Pool with Individual Development Accounts Enhanced Servicing Financial literacy and counseling services often end after homebuyers receive their mortgages. Counseling is particularly limited for “credit-ready clients” who are only required to take HUD’s eight-hour workshop and do not receive personalized, continuous services through a tailored program. This poses a challenge for many first-time homebuyers, who may not be aware of the heightened maintenance obligations they have as homeowners. These new homeowners would likely benefit from long-term help as their properties age and the hidden costs of homeownership become challenging. The City of Charlottesville should work to offer enhanced servicing for its Down Payment Assistance program. If a buyer falls behind on their payments, their mortgage lender would be allowed to notify the City. The City would then notify the vendor administering DPA, so the vendor could contact the homeowner to identify issues, provide homeowner support services, and help to prevent foreclosure. Throughout the country, similar programs have been utilized to help new homeowners navigate the full cycle of the lending process. Successful strategies include first year follow-up requirements that provide a designated time for households to meet with housing counselors to proactively discuss any challenges they’ve encountered. This follow-up session is a chance for counselors to advise residents on alternatives to high-risk forms of credit that are newly available to them as homeowners. Enhanced In the case of a City responds The housing partner DPA recipients servicing is missing or late by notifying its reaches out to the give permission written in as a payment, the current non- DPA recipient and for their lender condition of the mortgage lender profit housing provides foreclosure to contact City. DPA loan. alerts City. partner. prevention services. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 21 Page 88 of 100 The final plan clarifies, strengthens, and adds language about how recommendations relate to vulnerable populations and energy costs • Programs that serve seniors & adults with Additional Detail disabilities about Vulnerable • The link between housing costs and energy Populations and costs & programs to support energy efficiency Energy HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 22 Page 89 of 100 Highlighted text added to acknowledge that some topics tied to Housing Challenges housing affordability may be addressed through other plans (page 36) Charlottesville is experiencing a growing housing crisis as residents are increasingly unable to afford living within the city. To evaluate the city’s affordable housing need, a multi-part analysis of the existing affordable housing landscape in Charlottesville was conducted. This effort involved a series of stakeholder interviews, an evaluation of demographic and market conditions, a thorough review of current housing programs and policies, and builds on the Housing Needs Assessment conducted by the City. Through this process we identified key housing challenges that informed the recommendations within this plan. These key challenges are: Zoning and Land Use | The City’s current land use policies constrain the supply of housing. In addition, the predominance of single-family zoning is a legacy of exclusionary zoning practices. Housing Supply | Driven in part by zoning and land use, the City’s housing supply has lagged population growth, resulting in rising home prices. Limited opportunities for greenfield development further constrain the supply of housing. Rental Affordability | Over 2,700 renter households in Charlottesville currently pay more than 50% of their income on rent and utilities. The majority of these households earn less than $35,000 a year. Displacement | Rising prices and limited affordable housing options appear to be displacing low-income residents from Charlottesville. Housing Instability and Homelessness | Housing instability creates challenges for all members of a household, and continued housing instability can lead to homelessness. Racial Inequity | Black residents disproportionately face housing affordability challenges, including disparities in homeownership, even when accounting for disparities in income. Low and Stagnant Wages | Despite growing median incomes, the median renter still cannot afford the median rental unit. Impacts of COVID-19 | The economic impact of COVID-19 has exacerbated housing affordability challenges across the country, including in Charlottesville. Transportation costs, income, energy costs, environmental quality, and other factors are also closely tied to housing affordability, however the Affordable Housing Plan does not make recommendations to address these challenges directly. These items will be assessed further in the Comprehensive Plan as well as in the Climate Action Plan. Sources: City of Charlottesville Open Data; U.S. Census 2010 - 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Federal Reserve Economic Data; 2014-2018 Public Use Micro-Survey (PUMS) 5-Year Data for the Public Use Microdata Area containing Charlottesville HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 23 Page 90 of 100 Highlighted text added to strengthen link to Subsidy | Acquisition Fund energy efficiency (page 120) Dedicate funding to support the preservation of existing affordable housing in Charlottesville. Crucial to maintaining an affordable housing inventory is preserving the affordability of Acquisition funds replace the equity of profit- existing unregulated low-rent housing, often referred to as naturally occurring motivated ownership with public and CONTEXT affordable housing (NOAH). Particularly in markets with constrained supply, low-rent market- mission-based capital that does not require rate housing often sees the highest rates of rent growth. In Charlottesville, there are an estimated the same rate of rent growth. These funds 2,260 homes of low-rent homes (renting for below $1250), and the city is at risk of losing 644 LIHTC help to achieve the following: homes in the following decade as they reach the end of their compliance periods. Lower relative costs: Acquisition costs for The City should support the development of an acquisition fund to provide permanent, NOAH homes is typically 25-30% less than new long-term financing for older, market-rate properties to make modest repairs and RECOMMENDED construction. maintain their affordability. The success of a preservation program depends on attracting low- Optimize location: Acquisition of existing CHANGES cost private financing to leverage public funding, and identifying development partners who are interested and capable of executing a preservation development model, such as the CRHA. Most buildings allows administrators to site affordable housing near major transit lines and developers, both for-profit and nonprofit, are dependent on developer fees or the sale of a employment centers where land is scarce. property to generate revenue. Preservation projects generally are not sold and come with small or Prevent displacement: This approach no developer fees making them unworkable for many developers. maintains residential stability and does not Preserving affordable homes is a cost-effective and necessary means of preventing require any demolition of homes for new displacement and ensuring the long-term housing stability of low-income renters. The construction. cost to preserve an existing affordable home is far lower than the cost to develop new affordable Target workers: Administrators can stabilize IMPACTS housing. Moreover, opportunities for new development in Charlottesville are limited, making housing for middle-income residents which are preservation more important. not often served by affordable housing Using the acquisition fund to make investments into building energy retrofits, such as developers. weatherization and appliance efficiency, can further improve affordability by also reducing energy Speed: Acquiring a multifamily building and and utility costs. ensuring its affordability is much faster than building new homes, but it does not increase housing supply. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 24 Page 91 of 100 Highlighted text added to strengthen link to energy efficiency and vulnerable populations (page 147) Subsidy | Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Assistance Support and preserve homeownership by providing assistance to income-qualified Preserving Affordability owners to make necessary home repairs. To support the preservation of affordability, the City should Nonprofit partners including Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and the Local Energy record a lien against a property Alliance Program (LEAP) administer housing rehabilitations for low-income homeowners in receiving OOR if the value of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. AHIP’s program assembles public and philanthropic capital to make repairs exceeds $20,000. The CONTEXT home repairs for low-income households. Older homes occupied by lower-income households can reach a state lien should be equal to 90% of of disrepair that would risk occupant safety, and major upgrades such as roofing and insulation can significantly the cost of the repairs, with a benefit owner safety, comfort, and utility costs. AHIP currently targets an average of 20 significant rehabs a year, 10% forgiveness to make sure at $40K each; 10 energy retrofits, at $5 to 10K each; and 15 emergency repairs, at $3,500 each. LEAP’s program that the lien does not exceed the focuses on weatherization retrofits for low-income households and seniors. value of the repairs. The lien The City should continue to provide funding for owner-occupied rehabilitation (OOR) for low-income should be at 0% interest with no households. payments. At the sale of the RECOMMENDED • To allow for improved program capital planning, the City should commit a stable stream of funding on a 3- to 5- house, income-qualifying CHANGES year schedule, and allocate funds through a competitive, transparent process. households earning less than 80% should have the right to • Support the long-term affordability of properties that receive significant public funding (see right). first offer for the property. If the • The owner-occupied rehab program should be aligned and paired with the down payment assistance and house is sold to them, then the shared equity homeownership program. lien transfers; if the house is sold to a higher-income owner, it is Continued support for owner-occupied rehab will improve housing quality and safety for homeowners, due in full through the sale while also preventing displacement from homes due to an inability to pay for maintenance or repair. Energy proceeds. This program feature retrofits can further support affordability by lowering household utility costs, which can be a substantial cost will encourage the sale of IMPACTS burden for lower-income households. Committing consistent funding to this program and coordinating its properties that have received implementation with other homeownership support programs will increase the impacts of the City’s overall public funding to lower-income efforts to create and support affordable homeownership. homebuyers. Owner-occupied rehab is particularly important to address the needs of elderly residents seeking to age in place in their homes, and of people living with disabilities who require special accommodations. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 25 Page 92 of 100 Highlighted text added to strengthen link to energy efficiency (page 148) Subsidy | Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Assistance Racial Equity This project should be structured to ensure that BIPOC homeowners do not have barriers to access. This could include working with GUIDING PRINCIPLES community groups in neighborhoods with high BIPOC homeownership to market the program. Regional Collaboration To support regional collaboration, nonprofit providers should continue to also rehab homes outside of Charlottesville, especially where doing so is cost-effective. Comprehensive Approach Helping low- and moderate-income homeowners maintain the quality and safety of their homes is an important complement to more renter-focused subsidy programs and will help to mitigate displacement pressures that may be created by land use policy changes. Rehabilitations that involve energy retrofits will further support owner comfort and save on utility costs, while advancing the City’s climate action goals. Lead and Partners Housing Staff Nonprofit providers CAHF Committee IMPLEMENTATION Action Steps 1. Pending CAHF Committee recommendation, the City will dedicate funding for OOR. 2. The City will select a nonprofit partner through a competitive process to administer the OOR program. Timeframe Near Term (within 18 months) Funding Needs Approximately $25K of local funding per retrofit, layered with $10 to 15K of philanthropic funding, for a price of $35 to 40K per retrofit HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 26 Page 93 of 100 To clarify the key implementation steps for recommendations throughout the plan, the final draft includes a summary of implementation • Snapshot of implementation steps and timing Implementation for recommended actions Summary • Summary of anticipated impacts HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 27 Page 94 of 100 New page (18) summarizes Executive Summary | Snapshot of Implementation implementation over time The following snapshot provides a summary of the recommended timeframe of implementation for the Governance, Funding, and Housing Tool recommendations, beginning with the adoption of the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan. Overall, this timeline emphasizes immediate governance changes within 6 months, in tandem with the completion of the Cville Plans Together process including anticipated changes to the City’s zoning code. Over the following year, the City would then undertake recommended changes to existing tools and initiate the implementation of new tools, guided by its new governance structure and with steady, committed, competitively allocated funding. Over the following several years, the City would continue to improve the impact of existing tools, fully implement new programs, and explore additional ways to pursue regional collaboration. Within 6 months Within 18 months Within 3 to 5 years Governance • Reform structure of Housing Advisory Committee • Ramp up CAHF Committee capacity to establish • Explore ways for HAC, or similar entity, to (HAC) to broaden representation and focus mission and implement clear, transparent and become a regional body that serves and • Establish a representative Charlottesville Affordable competitive process of awarding grants represents the City and County Housing Fund (CAHF) Committee to oversee funding • Adopt a conflict-of-interest policy for CAHF allocations and priorities Committee members • Increase City staff capacity and identify development liaison(s) Funding • Identify sustainable and reliable source(s) of • Target funding to additional subsidy tools funding to sustain $10M annual commitment • Build out mechanisms to collect, interpret, and over 10 years, including an evaluation of the communicate data on housing spending and legality, potential scale, stability, and equity the impacts thereof impacts of different revenue sources • Explore establishing a regional affordable • Target funding to high-priority subsidy tools housing funding agreement to pool City and County funding sources HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 28 Page 95 of 100 New page (19) summarizes Executive Summary | Snapshot of Implementation implementation over time The City of Charlottesville should take the following actions to implement housing tools over the near and long term: Within 6 months Within 18 months Within 3 to 5 Years Land Use • Through the Cville Plans Together process, Adopt zoning code revisions as recommended by Cville Plans Together: work with Charlottesville community to • Enact zoning changes within Charlottesville and the urban ring, understand the impacts of and identify aligning subdivision ordinances as needed suitable areas for zoning changes, such as • Revise the accessory dwelling unit ordinance to support for multifamily by-right, soft density by- affordable ADUs right, and inclusionary zoning • Adjust City development review and approvals processes to align • Develop and deploy education campaign on with recommendations zoning recommendations in preparation for the zoning code rewrite. Tenants’ • Require guarantee of tenants’ rights for developments receiving • Continue to strengthen tenants’ rights Rights City assistance (directly as subsidy, or indirectly through policies as is legally feasible, including infrastructure improvements) through ongoing advocacy at the state • Design, fund, and implement a legal services program for residents level facing eviction • Advocate for enabling legislation at the state level to support just cause eviction and rent control Subsidy • Continue provision of tenant-based Per CAHF Committee recommendations, formalize, allocate funding to, Implement new tools: vouchers and competitively select nonprofit partners for existing programs: • Establish land bank • Continue provision of property tax relief • Formalize funding process for LIHTC development gap loans • Form local mortgage pool with • Establish goals and funding commitments • Formalize program for emergency rental assistance, in individual development accounts for CRHA public housing redevelopment continuation of COVID-19 efforts • Create an acquisition fund to preserve • Increase impact of existing homeownership programs, including market-rate housing and subsidized down payment assistance, single-family infill development, housing with expiring affordability owner-occupied rehab Work with local employers and CRHA to fully Begin conversations with partners to create additional homeownership establish employer-assisted down payment programs, including employer-assisted down payment assistance assistance programs and a Section 8 and a CRHA-led Section 8 Voucher-to-Homeownership program Voucher-to-Homeownership program, respectively HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 29 Page 96 of 100 Revised funding page (20) Executive Summary | Snapshot of Impact summarizes impacts of recommendations, included in What could be achieved with $100M in investments over 10 years? executive summary With $10M in average annual spending over ten years, Charlottesville could grow its existing stock of subsidized homes by nearly 70 percent, preserve nearly 40 percent of existing subsidized housing at risk of becoming unaffordable or obsolete, and provide direct assistance annually to up to 2,000 households facing housing instability. The resulting level of production shown is only possible if funds are used efficiently and leverage private investment as well as state and federal resources— and, to this end, it will be essential to thoroughly underwrite all funding awards. Combining the subsidy tools represented here with land use reform and tenants’ rights tools will potentially decrease costs and expand program benefits, further increasing the impact of public dollars. Of the other tools, inclusionary zoning would directly contribute to the production of additional homes, which are not included in the estimate below. Estimated impact of $100M in Change in Subsidized Homes Households Stabilized Annually spending over 10 years Through programs such as LIHTC gap financing, Through programs such as property tax relief, These impact figures assume the following public housing redevelopment, single-family infill emergency rental assistance costs: • For newly subsidized homes, between $35K to $50K per home for new Newly construction, up to $50K for down payment assistance, and approximately 1,100 subsidized $25K for owner-occupied repairs homes • • For preserved homes, up to $20K through an acquisition fund, and between $45 to $50K per public housing home For stabilized households, annual costs of 600 Preserved homes + 1,600 – 2,000 Households up to $1,500 for property tax relief, $5K for emergency relief, and $9K for vouchers 1,630 These numbers represent one potential 1,000 Existing distribution of funding—the actual impact will homes depend on City Council’s final funding allocations, informed by recommendations Current With $100M by the CAHF Committee. HR&A Advisors, Inc. FINAL DRAFT Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 30 Page 97 of 100 Overview of Planning Commission Feedback (from February 9) HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 31 Page 98 of 100 Overview of Next Steps HR&A Advisors, Inc. Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan | 32 Page 99 of 100 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN City Council Presentation February 16, 2021 Page 100 of 100