HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1984.10.25 - 17892October 25, 1984
Miscellaneous Resolution 84289
BY: Public Services Committee - James E. Lanni, Chairperson
RE: Community Development Division - Community Development Block Grant Allocation
,FormolH for Allocating Funds to Participating Communities
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the County of Oakland by Miscellaneous Resolution #6961 of January 23,
1975, declared its intention to become designated as an Urban County under the
Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; and
WHEREAS the County of Oakland receives Community Development Block Grant funds;
and
WHEREAS the County of Oakland distributes funds among its participating communi-
ties by an allocation formula; and
WHEREAS this allocation formula has been designed to benefit low and moderate
income population in compliance with federal directives; and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Community Development Citizens Advisory Council has
recommended that the Community Development Division continue to use the existing
allocation formula (Option A)(reference attachment); and
WHEREAS the Public Services Committee has reviewed this recommended allocation
formula (Option A).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
authorizes the Community Development Division to continue use of its present allo-
cation formula (Option A) which is:
(Population of community R) + 2 (low/mod income households in community R)
+ (overcrowded households in community R) 4 . Percentile
for allocation of the applicable funds to the participating communities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any future changes in the allocation formula
would require approval of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Public Services Committee, I hereby move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
I HEREBY APPROVE THE FOR 7GCr..13 RESOLUTION!
Varwiel T. Moroh.y, County Executive Dale
CDBG ALLOCATION FORMULA CHANGES
EXPLANATION OF OPTIONS
OPTION A:
This first formula option is our present HUD Standard Formula. This formula consists
of the following variables:
[Community's overall population + 2 (community's lower income population)
+ community's overcrowded housing] each as a percentage of the total for
all participating communities in the county.
With Option A cities (21) receive 61%, townships (17) receive 33% and villages (9) 6%
of the total allocation. Note: Lower income population equals low and moderate in-
come households As defined in CFR Vol. 48, No. 186, page 43557, September 23, 1983.
OPTION J:
This formula is similar to our present REIV standard formula, however, the community's
very low income population has been substituted for the community's lower income popu-
lation as shown:
[Community's overall population + 2 (community's very low income population
+ community's overcrowded housing] each as a percentage of the total for all
participating communities in the county.
Using this formula the 21 cities receive 63% of the money, the 17 townships 31%, and
the 9 villages receive 5% of the total allocation.
OPTION B:
In this alternative the communities were ranked according to three criteria.
1. Low/moderate income households population
2. Percentage of low/moderate income households
3. Occurrence of areas designated by the 1980 census as having 51% or more low/
moderate income households (communities, census tracts, block groups).
The communities were divided into three sets -- cities, townships and villages, and
money was allocated to each group based on their overall low/mod percentage. Cities
(21) representing approximately 66% of the low/moderate households in Oakland County,
receive 667; of the total allocation.
Money was allocated among the cities on the following scale:
Top ranking 4 cities receive 45%
Cities ranking 5-12 receive 40%
Cities ranking 13-16 receive 10%
Cities ranking 17 -21 receive 5%
revised 8/16/84
Townships (17). with ,=8% of the county's low/moderate households receive 22%
of cht total allocation divided the following way:
Top 2 townships receive 25%
Townships ranking 3-6 receive 32.5%
Townships ranking 7-12 receive 30%
Townships ranking 13-17 receive 12.3%
The villages (9) contain approximately 6% of the low/moderate income housenolds.
Their 6% allocation is split with:
Top • villages receive 50%
villages ranking 3-9 receive 50%
OPTION C:
This alternative is similar to Option 3 in the way money is allocated; 66% to
cities, 28% to townships, 6% to villages, but the variables used to rank the
communities are different. For this option the communities are ranked according
to:
1. percentage of low/moderate income households
2. occurrence of areas of low/moderatehouseholds
The cities (21) portion of the total,allocation is divided with:
Top 2 cities receiving 22%
Cities ranking 3-11 receiving 56%
Cities ranking 12-16 receiving 18.5%
Cities ranking 17-20 receiving 3.5%
The townships (17) allocation is divided the following way:
Top ranking township receives 12%
Townships ranking 2-9 receive 50%
Townships ranking 10-15 receive 30%
Townships ranking 16-18 receive 8%
The villages (9) are allocated money on the following scale:
Villages ranking 1-3 receive 40 -.
Villages ranking 4-6 receive 35%
villages ranking 7-9 receive 25%
OPTION D:
This alternative again splits the units of government into three groups, and ranks
them according to the following criteria:
1. low/mod population
2. overall population
The cities again receive 66% of the total allocation, townships 28% and
villages 6%. The cities (21) were allocated money on the following scale:
Cities ranking 1-6 receive 60%
Cities ranking 7-10 receive 20%
Cities ranking 11-13 receive 9%
Cities ranking 14-16 receive 6%
Cities ranking 17-21 receive 3Z
The townships (17) allocation is divided with:
3 :op ranking townships receive 35%
Townships ranking 4-7 receive 35%
Townships ranking 3-10 receive 17%
townships ranking L1-17 receive 13%
The villages (9) receive money allocated on the following scale:
Top 4 ranking communities receive 50%
villages ranking 3-9 receive 30%
OPTION E:
This alternative involves three separate rankings. First the communities are
ranked together according to:
1. total number of households
2. percentage of low/mod households
These two ranking lists are combined to form a third ranking list using the
following formula: 4 (percentage of low/mod househals rank) 4- number of house-
holds rank . the community's overall rank.
The overall rank is used to allocate money to each community using the following
scale:
Those communities ranking 1-3 receive 20%
Those communities ranking 4-12 receive 25%
Those communities ranking 13-18 receive 15%
Those communities ranking 19-25 receive 15Z
Those communities ranking 26-33 receive 12%
Those communities ranking 34-40 receive 8%
Those communities ranking 41-45 receive 4%
Those communities ranking /i6-47 receive I%
OPTION F:
For this alternative a per capita allocation was determined so that theoretically,
each low/mod household in the participating communities would receive the same
amount of money. In keeping with previous policy, that every participating com-
munity should receive funding, we set a minimum allocation at S7,5rr. "-4.71/ this
option cities receive 66% of the allocation, townships 28% and villages bi;.
The per capita allocation was determined -for the participating communities'
J.owimod households using the following .steps:
1. The number of households in communities receiving the minimum allo-
cation amount was subtracted from the total number of low/mod house-
holds in participating communities.
73,485 (total LiM households) - 387 (L/M households) = 73,J98 L/M
households. Where: 387 L/M households = * L/M households of the
communities receiving the minimum allocation.
2. The amount allocated to the communities receiving the minimum allo-
cation was subtracted from the total allocation.
$2,712,8G0 - $22,500 = 32,690,300 Where: 52,712,30C 4 municipal
allocation amount. S22,500 = allocation amount for the communities
receiving the minimum.
3. The above amount (*2) was then divided by the number of L/M house-
holds (*1), determining the per capita allocation.
$2,690,300 ; 73,098 rs/M households = $36.80 per LiM households.
4. TO determine the amount that each community is allocated, their
nupber of low/mod households is multiplied by the per capita allo-
c.ition.
Exauple: Auburn Hills - 2244 L/M households x $36.80
OPTION G:
This formula is similar to Option F where the money is allocated on a per capita
Dasis. Th this formula the per capita aliocation was determined so that theoreti-
cally, each very low income household in the participating community would receive
the same amount of money. Using this option cities receive 63% of the money,
townships receive 31% and the villages receive 6%.
OPTION H:
This formula allocates money per capita to very low income households as in Option
but the money is split between the three municipal groups. The 21 cities receive
the 17 townships receive 28% and the 9 villages receive 67, of the money.
OPTION I:
This option allocates money per capita to low/moderate income househol.'_ as in Oon
F. As in El the allocation is first split three ways with cities receiving 66Z, town-
ships receiving 28% and the villages receiving 6% of the money.
#84289 October 25, 1984
1 9 84 October 25th day of
ALLEN
Moved by Lanni subported by Jackson the resolution be adopted.
Moved by McPherson supported by Doyon the resolution he amended by
deleting Option "A" where itappears in the resolution and inserting "Option J".
Discussion followed.
Vote on amendment:
AYES: McPherson, Moore, Perinof 4 , Pernick, Price, Aaron, ()cyan, Foley,
Fortino. (9)
NAYS: Moffitt, Nelson, Olsen, Page, Rewold, Wilcox, Caddell, Calandro,
Gosling, Hobart, Jackson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, McConnell. (15)
A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the amendment failed.
Discussion followed.
Vote on resolution:
AYES: Moffitt, Nelson, Olsen, Page, Perinoff, Pernick, Rewold, Wilcox, Aaron,
Caddell, Calandro, Foley, Fortino, Gosling; Hobart, Jackson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni,
McConnell. (20)
NAYS: Moore. Price, Doyon, McPherson. (4)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE Cr MICHIGAN)
COUNT, Or OAKLAND)
1, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do here'', certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Miscellaneous Resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners at
their meeting held on October 25, 1984
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