HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1985.05.23 - 11123F,May 23, 1985 85158 MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION NO. DATE:
BY: PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE - JAMES E. LANNI, CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION - DESIGNATION OF TARGET COMMUNITIES
FOR THE COMMERCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CAP)
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS, Oakland County has been a recipient of Community Development
Block Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
since 1974 and has operated a residential rehabilitation program since 1976;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Oakland by Miscellaneous Resolution #82283 of
September 21, 1982 adopted the basic concept of utilizing Community Development
Block Grant funds to leverage private financial resources for the rehabilitation
of residential and commercial property; and
WHEREAS, the County of Oakland by Miscellaneous Resolution #84239 of
August 30, 1984 approved the Rehabilitation Leveraging Agreement with Manufacturers
National Bank of Detroit for a program of financingcommerclal property rehabili-
tation; and
WHEREAS., 17 of the 48 communities participating in the County's Community
Development Block Grant program through Miscellaneous Resolution #84211 of July
26, 1984 submitted proposals to participate with the County in the Commercial
Assistance Program (CAP); and
WHEREAS, the County of Oakland by Miscellaneous Resolution #85107 of
March 28, 1985 adopted CAP goals and objectives; approved the targeting and
allocation of CAP funds; adopted definitions for commercial business district;
approved the CAP community evaluation and selection criteria; and adopted
individual rehab project criteria; and
WHEREAS, Miscellaneous Resolutuion #85107 authorized the Oakland County
Community Development Division to utilize the approved community evaluation
criteria to select, with approval of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners,
up to 8 communities for designation as CAP target communities; and
WHEREAS, the CAP Review Team (appointed by Oakland County Community
Development and comprised of representatives from the Planning, Economic Develop-
ment and Community- Development Divisions) has conducted community field visits,
scored communities according to the evaluation criteria approved in Miscellaneous
Resolution No. 85107, and ranked the communities by score (attached); and
WHEREAS, the Oakland County Community Development Division has recom-
mended designation of the top ranking 8 communities; City of Ferndale, Village of
Milford, Village of Holly, Village of Oxford, City of Hazel Park, Village of
Ortonville, City of South Lyon and City of Walled Lake as CAP Target Communities;
and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Advisory Council has unanimously
approved the top ranking 8 communities for designation as CAP Target Communities.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
approves the Commercial Assistance Program (CAP) Review Team's scores and ranking
as presented in the attachment and in accordance with Miscellaneous Resolution
No. 85107, hereby designates City of Ferndale, Village of Milford, Village of Holly,
Village of Oxford, City of Hazel Park, Village of Ortonville, City of South Lyon
and City of Walled Lake as CAP Target Communities.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Public Services Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
May 1, 1983
Attachme
COMMERCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (
Community Scores and Ranking
The CAP Community. Selection Review Team was composed of:
Susan Affleck-Childs, OCCD; CAP Coordinator
Dan Hunter, Economic Development Croup; Business Development Representative
Russ Lewis, OCPD; Associate Planner/Architect
Sam Minnitte, EC0110MiC Development Croup; Business Development Representative
Betsy Reich, OCCD; Community Development Planner
Karry Rieth, OCCD; Public Information Officer
Sixteen (16) field visits were conducted between April 4 and April 22, 1985;
15 communities were scored.* The CAP Review Team proceeded as follows:
Each site visit was conducted by the CAP coordinator and one other
Review Team. member.
2. Two sets of field notes were prepared for each community based on
the information provided during the field cisit as to bow they met
the various CAP review criteria. Both sets of field notes were
duplicated and provided to all 6 CAP Review Team members.
3. Each CAP Review Team ,::Ther individually scored each of the 15
communities. The scores were determined by the field notes and other
materials (plans, letters, etc.) provided to the Review Team by the
community.
The 6 individual CAP Review Team member Score Sheets were transcribed
to the Community Score Summary. This allowed the Team to readily see
how all 6 reviewers had scored each of the 54 review criterion for any
given community.
5. Suitable scoring methods were developed in consultation with profession-
als in research methodology/statistics.
Method #1 (Regular Averaging) - Each reviewer added their scores on
all 54 criterion to compute a community score. The six reviewers'
community scores were then averaged to derive a final regular aver-
age community score.
Method d2 (Olympic Score Averaging) - Working with the 6 scores for
each of the 54 individual review criterion, the highest and lowest
reviewers' scores were "thrown out" and an average computed on the
remaining 4 scores. These were then added to derive the community's
final Olympic method. score. This approach was used to offset the
possible effect of highly different reviewer scores on the same
criterion.
The communities, their final scores using both averaging methods and their
rank order are indicated in the following table, Note that although the com-
munities' final point scores may vary from one method to the other, the rank
order has remained the same with both averaging methods.
*Upon making the site visit to the Union Lakes business district (submitted by
West Bloomfield Township) we mutually agreed that the commercial property reha-
bilitation needs of that area would best be accomplished by an inter-government-
al/multi-jurisdicitional application for the Commercial Assistance Program (CAP).
Due to time constraints, this could not occur during the current CAP review
period.
AP)
23rd day of 19 85
ALLEN
May 23, 1935
Moved by Lanni supported by Skarritt the resolution be adopted.
AYES: S. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McConnell, McDonald, McPherson, Moffitt, Nelson,
Olsen, Page, Perinoff, Pernick, Rewold, Skarritt, Webb, Wilcox, Caddell, Calandro,
Doyon, Fortino, Gosling, Hassberger, Hobart, R. Kuhn. (24)
NAYS: Aaron. (1)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Miscellaneous Resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners at
their meeting held on May 23, 1985
with the orginial record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
County Clerk/Register of Deeds
this