HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2000.03.09 - 26118MARCH 9, 2000
MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #00043
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE, CHARLES E. PALMER, CHAIRPERSON
RE: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT — COMMUNITY AND
HOME IMPROVEMENT DIVISION - PY 2000 - 2004 CONSOLIDATED PLAN SUBMITTAL TO
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the federal government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), in an effort to build and strengthen partnerships with state governments, local governments and the
private sector, consolidates submission requirements for housing and community development programs to
the greatest degree possible; and
WHEREAS these programs include the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME
Investment Partnerships, and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), all of which are received by Oakland
County on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS the vehicle through which HUD consolidates program requirements is the Five Year
Consolidated Plan, which includes a housing, homeless and community development needs assessment,
housing market analysis and long term strategy to meet priority needs; and
WHEREAS the 2000 - 2004 Consolidated Plan is the second five year plan submitted to HUD
which serves as a planning document, a strategy for carrying out HUD programs, a vehicle for applying for
federal funds and an action plan for assessing program performance; and
WHEREAS federal regulations at 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) part 91.2 require
Oakland County to have a Consolidated Plan in order to receive housing and community development
funds from HUD.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
authorize submittal of the Oakland County PY 2000 - 2004 Consolidated Plan to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development on or about March 16, 2000.
Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee, I move adoption of the foregoing
resolution.
Planning and Building Committee Vote:
Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with Gregory and Palmer absent.
OAKLAND COUNTY
2000-2004 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
DRAFT SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The Consolidated Plan provides the framework for a planning process used by States and
localities to identify housing, homeless, community and economic development needs and
resources and to tailor a strategic plan for meeting those needs.
A Consolidated Plan consists of a 3- to 5- year strategic plan, annual action plans, and annual
performance reports. The strategic plan contains three parts: (1) a housing, homeless,
community and economic development needs assessment; (2) a housing market analysis; and (3)
long-term strategies to meet priority needs. The action plan describes the specific projects and
activities that a jurisdiction will undertake in the coming year with its HUD funds to address
those priority needs. The action plan also contains certifications indicating that a jurisdiction
will follow certain requirements like furthering fair housing.
CITIZEN'S SUMMARY
The 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan represents the second of Oakland County's five-year Plans and
is submitted pursuant to a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule (24 CFR
Part 91, 1/5/95). The Plan represents a single submission covering the planning and application
aspects of HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment
Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) formula programs.
The Consolidated Plan addresses housing and community development needs in Oakland
County's fifty "urban county" participating jurisdictions for the period of May 1, 2000 - April 30,
2004 (May 1-April 30 represents the County's annual program year cycle). Specific strategies
consistent with Federal, State, Regional, and County policy statements were developed for the
2000-2004 program years to further national and county program objectives. The consolidated
submission includes three action plans, which specify the use of federal funds by the County of
Oakland to implement housing and community development activities under the above
mentioned HUD formula programs.
Lead Agencies
The Oakland County Consolidated Planning process is managed and reported by Oakland
County. As lead agency, the Oakland County Community and Home Improvement Division
coordinates the planning, development, and reporting of all Consolidated Plan documents. The
planning process is largely citizen driven involving stakeholders, particularly representatives of
the County's low-income communities. Numerous public hearings, meetings, and surveys are
conducted during the planning process to allow citizens and public and private community
groups the opportunity to participate in the development process. Prior to finalizing, all
proposed plans are made available for public review and comment. Information received from
this review process is then used in the final publication.
Oakland County administers all of the CDBG, ESG and HOME funds in the County. Some
specific projects are carried out by other organizations within the County, but the County
administers the overall program. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds
are administered throughout the County with approximately 1/3 of the funds going for County
administration and home improvement projects and 2/3 going to fund housing and community
development projects sponsored by the fifty participating communities. Emergency Shelter
Grant funds are directed to five existing homeless facilities.
Action Plan
Since 1975, Oakland County has invested $118 million in CDBG funds, $11 million in HOME
funds, $1.2 million in ESG funds, and $786,310 in Rental Rehabilitation funds (discontinued by
the federal government in 1991), for a total of $130.9 million. Oakland County was allocated
over 6.2 million dollars for fiscal year 2000 through the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs.
These funds have been programmed for a wide variety of housing, homeless, and community
development projects. The Consolidated Plan provides information on each project, its location,
scope, and the amount of funds proposed.
Fiscal Year 2000 Allocation
Community Development Block Grant $4,768,000
HOME Investment Partnership $1,330,000
Emergency Shelter Grant $143,000
Total $6,241,000
Citizen Participation
In accordance with 24 CFR Part 91.105 et seq, the County of Oakland has implemented a
detailed Citizen Participation Plan which applies to the CDBG, HOME and ESG program as well
as to the development and implementation of the Consolidated Plan. Oakland County
encourages participating community residents to participate in the development of the
Consolidated Plan, any amendments to the Plan, and the performance report. The County
maximizes citizen participation through a Citizen Advisory Council, holds meetings at
convenient times and locations, and provides information with reasonable and timely access.
Public input into the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan included a series of public hearings, and the
publication of the draft plan for review and comment. Information received during comment
periods will be used in the final Plan and offered to the public for review and comment.
2
COMMUNITY PROFILE
Oakland County is a large, diverse county located in southeastern Michigan. It borders Macomb
County on the east, Lapeer and Genesee counties on the north, Livingston County on the west,
and Wayne County and the City of Detroit on the south. At 960 square miles and with a 1999
population of over 1.2 million, Oakland County is more populous than, and nearly as large as,
the State of Rhode Island. The County contains sixty-one units of general local government,
including twenty-one townships, ten villages, and thirty cities. Eighty-two percent (fifty of sixty-
one) of the communities in Oakland County participate in the Oakland County "urban county"
program.
Demographic information pertaining to the fifty participating communities in the Oakland
County "urban county" program is referred to as "urban county" data. Demographics pertaining
to the County as a whole are referred to as "Oakland County" data.
Income
Oakland County has been recognized as one of the wealthiest counties in the United States.
Comparative income and population data for the seven counties in southeast Michigan indicates
that Oakland County has the highest median family income and per capita income. Only
Livingston County has a higher median household income. Although Oakland County has the
highest level of personal income per capita in Michigan the economic well being of its more than
1.2 million residents varies significantly.
Median Household Income
Significant income differences are evident between the "urban county" participating
communities. According to 1997 income data the median household income varies from a high
of $119,618 in the City of Orchard Lake Village to a low of $20,242 in Royal Oak Township.
The median household income for Oakland County is $58,989.82. Fifty eight percent (twenty-
nine) of the participating communities fall below the County's median household income level.
The remaining forty two percent (twenty-one) communities have median household incomes
higher than the County level.
Poverty Distribution
Census data from 1990 indicates that 158,777 or 23.37% of persons residing in the fifty
participating communities have either extremely low incomes (0-30% area median income), very
low incomes (31-50% area median income), or low incomes (51-80% area median income).
Federal poverty count information for participating communities indicates that Royal Oak
Township (25.1%), Hazel Park (21.8%), and Keego Harbor (12.8%) have the highest percentage
of residents at 125% of poverty.
3
Single Parent Households
In 1990, 28,083 households in participating communities were headed by a single parent. This is
10.84% of the total households in the "urban county" area. Hazel Park (20.82%), Oak Park
(19.14%), Royal Oak Township (18.12%), Walled Lake (17.52%) and Keego Harbor (17.51%)
had the largest proportion of households headed by a single parent with children under 18 years
of age. The five communities with the largest proportion of the urban county area's total of
single-parent families are Troy (7.78%), Oak Park (7.44%), Rochester Hills (6.78%), Madison
Heights (6.37%) and Ferndale (5.93%).
Senior Citizens
The number of older Americans is growing-faster than other segments of the population
(Housing Our Elders A Report Card on the Housing Conditions and Needs of Older Americans,
November 1999). Within the fifty participating communities there are 93,177 persons age 60 or
older. MSHDA' s Subsidized Housing Directory indicates 2,938 subsidized units for families
and 5,803 units for seniors in the participating jurisdictions. There is still a substantial shortage
of affordable, assisted housing Countywide. No expected loss of assisted units is expected
within the next five years.
Special Needs
People with psychiatric illnesses and developmental disabilities share a common need for safe,
decent, affordable permanent housing. The challenge for many of these individuals is that their
disability limits or precludes competitive employment, leaving them on a fixed or very limited
incomes — usually social security (SSI) or social security disability (SSDI) benefits. Income
data collected by OCCMHA's QIS Department indicates that approximately 60% of people with
a psychiatric disability, receiving services from the County, are on SSI or SSDI, or other forms
of public assistance, and receive approximately $500.00 per month. At least, 75% of these
individuals have incomes less than $10,000/year.
The crisis facing people with developmental disabilities is equally as severe, with close to 91%
of consumers living on some form of public assistance, and 80% of these adults living on
incomes of less than $10,000 a year. In a community with a median household income of
$60,500 (Oakland County), these individuals are of extremely low income (between 13% and
20% of are median income) and have little or no buying power in the housing market. Median
renter income in Oakland County is $32,509. A person on a very low or fixed income as just
described, seeking to rent an efficiency apartment at the Fair Market Rent, would have to pay at
least 65% of their income. A similar person seeking to rent a one-bedroom apartment would have
to pay 105% of their monthly income. Consequently, permanent, affordable, housing alternatives
in this County are close to non-existent. In other words, persons with psychiatric illnesses and
developmental disabilities, living on SSI or SSDI, would effectively be "Priced Out" of safe,
decent shelter.
4
Education
According to 1990 census data, in eighteen participating communities fifty percent or more of
residents have a high school education or less. The five communities with the highest proportion
of persons with a high school education or less are Hazel Park (74.70%), Madison Heights
(63.51%), the Village of Holly (61.27%), Ferndale (59.56%), and the Village of Leonard
(59.32%).
Summary
As the indicators of housing need are examined the communities in the southeastern corner of
the County stand out. These communities built 50 to 60 years ago have an aging housing stock,
infrastructure, and population. It can be expected that much of the housing need among lower-
income homeowners and renters, single head of households, the elderly, large families, and
persons with disabilities will be in the southeastern communities of Madison Heights, Royal Oak
Township, Ferndale, Oak Park, and Hazel Park. The County's CDBG distribution formula
anticipates this need. By giving weight to such variables as poverty and overcrowded housing,
these communities, with 16.4% of the program area's population, receive 25.88% of the total
annual block grant funds based on formula allocation distributions. During the 1999 program
year, 57% of the County's home improvement funds were invested in these five southeastern
communities.
The HOME program is also being used to in Royal Oak Township and Hazel Park to help low-
income persons acquire decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
The County's estimated housing needs indicated an increase in households in all sixty-one
communities from 1,083,592 in April 1990 to 1,214,485 in July 1999, approximately a 12.1%
increase. Oakland County's total population is expected to grow to 1,510,810 in 2025. This
projection was based on data from Oakland County Planning and Economic Development
Services.
Housing Inventory
Oakland County has an extensive and varied housing inventory, reflective of construction
periods and economic status. The 1990 Census indicates that there were 264,499 housing units
in the fifty participating communities. Of these units, 194,121 (73.34%) were owner- occupied,
57,752 (21.83%) were renter-occupied, 10,680 (4.04%) were vacant, and 1,932 (0.74%) were
vacant seasonal units.
Much of Oakland County's early development occurred along Woodward Avenue between
Detroit and Pontiac. This major transportation route spurred significant development prior to
1940 in Hazel Park, Ferndale, Birmingham and Berkley. Of the 264,499 housing units in the
urban county program, 26,365 units (9.97% of the total) were built prior to 1939. Today, the
majority of these homes are in need of rehabilitation.
5
The second major period of housing construction in Oakland County occurred during and after
World War II. Much of this development was again in the southeast. Between 1940 and 1959,
73,989 units were constructed. These units represent 27.97 % of the county's total present
housing stock. These units are 41-60 years old and require a certain amount of rehabilitation.
Oakland County experienced its third housing boom in the 1970s as inflationary trends fueled
construction in previously undeveloped areas. Six communities experienced the most significant
boom in housing construction: Troy (11,920 new units), Rochester Hills (7,738), Novi (5,629),
West Bloomfield Township (5,692), Madison Heights (2,903) and Highland Township (2,814).
During the 1980s significant new housing construction occurred throughout Oakland County.
The Census Bureau indicates that 53,213 new units were constructed between 1980 and March,
1990. Although down about one-quarter from the previous decade, many communities added
new homes, including Rochester Hills (9,921), West Bloomfield Township (7,135) and the City
of Novi (5,808). Due to the earlier construction boom less activity occurred during this period in
the southeast portion of the County.
In 1998, southeast Michigan experienced its highest level of new residential construction in 25
years, with a total of 25,870 residential building permits issued. The last time more than 25,000
new housing units were authorized was in 1973. Record low mortgage rates, a surging regional
economy and an unemployment rate that dropped from seven percent in 1993 to below four
percent in 1998 are primarily responsible for near-record construction levels. In the fifty
participating communities Independence Township had the largest increase in unit permitted in
1998 over its 1997 total, with a gain of 441.
Housing Value
Housing values vary significantly throughout the participating communities. According to 1990
information the highest median value of single-family, non-condominium housing is in the city
of Orchard Lake Village at $376,100. The community with the lowest median value of single
family, non-condominium housing was Royal Oak Township ($25,700).
Data from 1990 indicated that the highest housing values were found in communities that
experienced the greatest amount of new construction since 1970. Median values were lowest in
older communities, which indicated that relative housing, and community development need was
greater in the southeastern area of the county.
These communities can be grouped generally into three categories:
• communities in the southeastern part of the County,
• villages experiencing very early development around a mill or railroad junction
• communities located on recreational lakes used as vacation areas in the 1930s-1950s
The housing stock in these communities is comprised of converted summer cottages.
6
Housing Cost
According to 1997 information the highest average housing cost was in Franklin Village at
$296,171. The community with the lowest average housing cost was Royal Oak Township
($42,480). An analysis of home sales in Royal Oak Township between April 1, 1997 and March
31, 1999, the sales period used to determine 2000 residential property assessments, indicated an
assessment increase of 32% the largest gain countywide. The $47,167 average selling price of a
home in Royal Oak Township is still the lowest countywide. However, the assessment increase
can be attributed to location, a strong housing market, new commercial development along Eight
Mile Rd. and the HOME partnership between Oakland County, Royal Oak Township and the
Community Housing Development Organization, Venture Inc. This partnership has resulted in
ten ranch and cape cod houses east of Wyoming Street. Each property sold for up to $75,000.00
Overcrowding
According to the 1990 Census, 4,457 housing units in the fifty participating communities were
considered overcrowded. Overcrowding is defined as a housing unit with 1.01 persons or more
per room. The largest amount of overcrowding is in Royal Oak Township (6.02 % of all units),
Oak Park (4.98%), and Hazel Park (3.93%). Household size in Oakland County increased from
2.61 to 2.62 persons per unit between 1990 and 1993 and remained at 2.6 for the period of April
1990-July 1, 1999 according to the South East Michigan Council of Government's (SEMCOG)
Population and Occupied Housing Units in Southeast Michigan 1993 and 1999. The 1993 report
stated that "The household size increase in Oakland County, while small, marks a break from
recent trends and is significant if just for that reason. No other county's household size is
increasing." The 1999 report also indicates that Oakland County is the only county where
household size did not decrease.
Rehabilitation Needs
The 1990 Census stated that 23,479 housing units in the participating communities had values at
or below fifty percent of the County median. Aging housing stock is dispersed throughout all
"urban county" communities. Four communities have over 1,000 units with a high probability of
need for rehabilitation: Femdale (5,006), Hazel Park (4,394), Oak Park (4,191), and Madison
Heights (2,719).
The number of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities in the City of Hazel Park are
2.49%, Rose Township, 0.9%, Oxford Village 0.76%, and the City of Keego Harbor 0.75%. The
communities with the greatest number of housing units without complete plumbing facilities are
the City of Hazel Park (194), the City of Novi (59), the City of Rochester Hills (55), and
Bloomfield Township (53).
The 1990 Census indicates that there are 57,279 rental units in the fifty participating
communities. There are 18,568 renters in these units that are cost burdened, paying more than
30 percent of their adjusted monthly income for housing (rent and utilities). These numbers are
evidenced by the large number of families on waiting lists for assisted units.
7
The condition of rental units is unknown. Six of the participating communities have ordinances
mandating that rental units be inspected and, if necessary, brought up to code prior to rental. It is
recommended that all communities enact ordinances that would help ensure that rental units are
maintained in decent, safe, and sanitary conditions.
Homeless Needs
Oakland County, despite its wealth, has homeless persons living within its borders. These
people become homeless for a variety of reasons. Many lack jobs, means to take care of their
basic needs, and a social support network. The homeless may also be confronted with other
issues including substance abuse, physical, emotional, and/or mental health concerns, and
vocational needs.
On January 14, 2000, a point-in-time census was taken to count the number of homeless
individuals countywide. Individuals staying at known shelters, warming centers, and transitional
housing were counted. The census was unable to document those persons who chose not to stay
at one of the centers or who were staying at alternate places such as hotels, friends, family, etc.
The census indicated that approximately 600 persons were homeless at that time. In 1998, 2,387
families used emergency shelters. This reflected an increase of 38.5% over the 1987 utilization
rate. This information indicates that homelessness continues to be a continuing, countywide
problem.
According to Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority (OCCMHA) caseload data
as of September 1999 there were 370 homeless individuals with mental illness or developmental
disabilities living in Oakland County. Based on data from OCCMHA outreach programs,
approximately 80% of these individuals are homeless for the first time, and the remaining 20%
are chronically homeless, recycling through overcrowded/doubled-up housing situations,
inpatient facilities, jails, and other temporary accommodations.
Public Housing Inventory
The County of Oakland does not administer a Public Housing Authority. However, several
communities within its jurisdiction do operate public housing programs. The Cities of Ferndale
and South Lyon and Royal Oak Township have public housing. The Cities of Ferndale and
Madison Heights offer Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers. In addition, Michigan State
Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) has Certificate and Voucher holders residing within
Oakland County's jurisdiction. There are no troubled Public Housing Authorities within the
"urban county" jurisdiction.
Lead-Based Paint Needs
Based on 1990 census data, of the 277,283 housing units in the fifty participating communities, a
minimum of 158,018 or 56.9%, are estimated to contain lead-based paint. The percentage of each
community's housing containing lead-based paint varies from Pleasant Ridge (85%) to Holly
Village (20%). Of the 158,018 units containing lead-based paint, the City of Troy has the largest
share, of homes containing lead-based paint, 9.49% of the urban county area.
8
General Housing Market Characteristics
Generally, the condition of the housing market in the Oakland County Urban County area has
been one of high growth. Between 1980 and March 1990, 53,213 housing units have been
constructed. The communities with the greatest housing expansion were the City of Rochester,
9,921 new units, West Bloomfield Twp 7,135 new units, the City of Novi 5,808 new units, and
the City of Troy 4,431 new units.
The demand for housing in the Oakland Urban County area is difficult to quantify. A rough
estimate may be made by examining the median (middle) housing price for each of the fifty
communities, as there is generally a positive correlation between the demand for a particular
good and its market price. There is a large variation in price (and therefore presumably demand)
Orchard Lake Village leads the list with a median housing price of $376,100, followed by West
Bloomfield Township ($164,660), and Oakland Township ($156,200). At the other end of the
scale are Royal Oak Township, with an average sales price of $47,167, and Hazel Park ($68,152)
Population and housing unit construction growth rates can also be used as guides to demand,
However, an older community may have less available land to build and yet show a stable or
even decreasing population and a stable housing stock. If the data on price, population, and
construction are seen together, however, a picture of market patterns tends to emerge.
Pockets of poverty and housing units in poor condition are found in each participating
community. However, several broad generalizations can serve to illustrate the major features of
the housing market in the Oakland Urban County area. In summary, the general housing market
can be viewed in three parts:
• older southeastern communities where housing supply and demand are stable, costs are lower
and there may be a greater need of rehabilitation;
• older high demand communities such as Birmingham, with a stable housing supply,
relatively high demand (i.e., price), and some need of rehabilitation
• newer communities located away from older centers of development, with an expanding
supply of new (or relatively new) housing in high demand and expensive, with little need for
rehabilitation.
Areas of Racial, Ethnic and Low-Income Concentration
Federal Consolidated Plan regulations require grantees to identify areas of racial/ethnic and low-
income "concentration," while allowing grantees to decide on the definition of "concentration."
The County defines an area of concentration, for purposes of this plan, as a community
containing a higher percentage of low-income persons or members of minority groups than the
urban county as a whole. In the Oakland Urban County area, racial and ethnic group
concentrations range from Hispanic and American Indian/Alaskan Native persons, distributed
fairly even pattern throughout the area, to Asian/Pacific Islander residents who tend to be more
concentrated, to black residents, who are highly concentrated in a few communities. Persons
identifying themselves as white are the majority population in every Oakland Urban County
community with the exception of Royal Oak Township.
9
Oakland Urban County area residents classifying themselves as black in the Census are the most
highly concentrated racial group in the fifty communities. The communities with the highest
percentage of black residents are Royal Oak Township (65.24%), Oak Park (34.51 %t, the City
of Lathrup Village (21.6%), Auburn Hills (9.65%), and Holly Township (4.82%).
Royal Oak Township, Oak Park and Lathrup Village all have concentrations of black residents
far in excess of the urban county average (3.22%).
Hispanic residents are more evenly distributed throughout the urban county area. The
communities with the greatest percentage of Hispanic residents are Auburn Hills (2.61%),
Lathnip Village (2.56%), Orion Township (2.45%), and Holly Township (2.18%). Twenty-one
communities have percentages of residents who are Hispanic in excess of the urban county
average, while twenty-nine communities have smaller percentages than the urban county
average.
In sum, residents identifying themselves as white on the 1990 Census are the majority population
in every Oakland Urban County community except Royal Oak Township. Persons identifying
themselves as Hispanic or American Indian/Alaskan Native live throughout the area in a more
dispersed pattern than either black or Asian/Pacific Islander residents. Those persons identifying
themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander are concentrated in eight of the fifty communities. The
black population is the most concentrated of all racial groups within the Oakland Urban County
area, 75.78% of area residents identifying themselves as black live in five communities. The
City of Oak Park is home to nearly half of the total urban county black population.
Geographic Distribution of Income
Twenty-nine communities have percentages of low- and moderate-income residents above the
percentage for the urban county as a whole (23.37%). They are Keego Harbor (45.6%), Ferndale
(45.07%), and Holly Village (43.93%). Two communities, Royal Oak Township and Hazel Park,
have populations which are 57.71% and 49.07% low- and moderate-income respectively. These
levels are more than double the Oakland Urban County average.
However, the analysis of housing costs and development patterns indicates that housing
affordable to low- and moderate-income persons is most prevalent in the older southeastern
communities. Due to a strong overall housing market affordable housing is harder to find in the
southeast as well as in the newer exurban developments in the southwest and northwest. Certain
Oakland Urban County communities to the west and north are not yet connected to the Detroit
sewer and water system. Zoning policies, soil condition, and water/sewer availability also affect
new construction. Population density is also a function of the quantity and quality of the
groundwater available. Aside from lot size restrictions, the County is not aware of any growth
limits on housing per se in these communities. Communities in the southeastern part of the
county are limited in housing growth because the supply of land available for new construction is
rapidly dwindling.
10
Barriers to Affordable Housing
The State of Michigan's legal relationship with cities, townships, and villages is one of home
rule. Therefore, the bulk of decision-making affecting local communities takes place at the local
level. Communities are responsible for their own planning, zoning, and most municipal services.
Michigan counties, as constitutional corporations of the state, have very little power to influence
or alter decisions made by local communities. Oakland County is not a single unit with sixty-
one administrative divisions. Rather, it is (for purposes of planning and zoning) a line around a
collection of sixty-one semi-independent cities, townships, and villages. Due to home rule, the
fifty communities participating in the Oakland Urban County program do not one set of zoning
controls, housing and community development policies, and development incentives. A
comprehensive discussion of affordable housing barriers is beyond the scope of this Plan, as the
County has no power under the Michigan Constitution to change local policy.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Section 808 of The Fair Housing Act mandates HUD to operate its programs in a manner to
affirmatively further fair housing. HUD requires grantees to complete an analysis of
impediments to fair housing and to take appropriate actions to overcome impediments.
As a follow up to the original 1990 analysis of Impediments performed by the Fair Housing
Center of Metropolitan Detroit (Fair Housing Center) for Oakland County, the County together
with the Fair Housing Center conducted a symposium in May 1997. Conclusions of the
symposium were that there was a lack of affordable housing. Affordable housing that did exist
tended to be segregated into concentrated areas, negative attitude (zoning, advertising etc.),
discouraged minorities from seeking housing outside those concentrated areas of low cost
housing.
Oakland County has made efforts to increase the amount of affordable housing by funding
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHD0s), to build or rehabilitate housing for
sale to low income homebuyers. Between 1992 and 1995, ten houses were funded by the
County. In 1996-1998 twelve houses were built or renovated.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Housing Priorities
The County has developed specific housing priorities and objectives to:
• Reduce the number of substandard single-family, owner-occupied dwelling units within the
county through the rehabilitation of existing residential units
• Affirmatively further fair housing
• Assist low income homeowners to stay in their homes through improved energy efficiency
• Assist homeowners to accomplish housing rehabilitation
11
Non-Housing Community Development Priorities
The primary objective of Oakland County's housing and community development programs is
the development of viable urban communities by providing principally for low and moderate-
income persons:
• decent housing
• a suitable living environment
• expanding economic opportunities
Consistent with this primary objective, Oakland County gives maximum feasible priority to
housing, public service and capital improvement projects/activities which are consistent with one
or more the national grant program objectives:
1. ensure benefit to low and moderate income persons (70% or more of Oakland County's
aggregate CDBG funds shall be used to support activities that benefit low and moderate
income persons)
2. aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blighting conditions
3. meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing
conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community
where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs
In promoting the primary national and county program objectives, Oakland County Community
and Home Improvement has developed specific objectives and strategies consistent with policy
statements for Federal, State, Regional and County levels of government for the 2000- 2004
program years.
Anti-Poverty Strategy
Persons in poverty tend to be distributed throughout the fifty communities, although certain
concentrations of people in poverty can be found in the older southeastern communities.
POVERTY STATUS
Community
Ferndale
Hazel Park
Madison Heights
Oak Park
Royal Oak
1990 U.S. Census
Number of
People
2,649
1,209
2,674
3,286
1,254
% of Communities
Population
10.7
21.8
8.4
10.9
25.1
Number of Families
533
646
596
682
267
% of Communities
Families
8.4
12.3
6.9
8.4
23.9
Oakland County government provides many services to help prevent poverty. The County's anti-
poverty strategy is composed of three parts:
• services to help low income persons stay in their homes,
• services for low-income persons in crisis situations,
• job creation activities.
12
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
The following are a few of the projects identified in selected communities of Oakland County:
Community Selected Proposed Projects Allocation
Auburn Hills
Berkley
Birmingham
Clarkston
Clawson
Farmington
Ferndale
Hazel Park
Huntington Wds
Keego Harbor
Lathrup Village
Madison Heights
Northville
Novi
Oak Park
Orchard Lake Vlg
Pleasant Ridge
Rochester
Rochester Hills
South Lyon
Sylvan Lake
Troy
Walled Lake
Wixom
Addison
Brandon
Commerce
Groveland
Highland
Holly
Independence
Lyon
Milford
Oakland
Orion
Oxford
Rose
Royal Oak
Springfield
W Bloomfield
White Lake
Beverly Hills
Franklin
Holly
Lake Orion
Leonard
Milford
Ortonville
Oxford
Wolverine Lk
Oakland County
Home chore services, senior services, minor home repair
Sewer system improvements, code enforcement battered and abused spouses
Removal of architectural barriers, home chore services, minor home repair
Senior center, youth services, senior services
Street improvements, battered and abused spouses
Senior services, senior center
Code enforcement, minor home repair, home chore services
Minor home repair, home chore services, sidewalk improvements
Senior services, senior center
Senior centers, home chore services, transportation services
Senior services, senior center
Street improvements, code enforcement, home chore services
Senior services, senior citizen housing support
Emergency rehabilitation, park, recreational facilities, transportation services
Code enforcement, home chore services, minor home repair
Senior centers
Home chore services, sidewalk improvements
Sidewalk improvements, minor home repair, removal of architectural barriers
Special assessment (streets), beautification, home chore services
Sidewalk improvements, street improvements
Minor home repair, home chore services
Flood/drain improvements, home chore services, special assessment (streets)
Park, recreational facilities, transport. services, battered and abused spouses
Removal of architectural barriers, park, recreational facilities, youth services
Historic preservation, senior services, transportation services
Parks, recreational facilities, youth services, home chore services
Senior centers, senior services, home chore services
Minor home repair, senior centers, battered and abused spouses
Sidewalk improvements, senior centers, transportation services
Clearance/Demolition, home chore services, battered and abused spouses
Senior citizen vehicle, emergency rehabilitation program, transport services
Flood improv., removal of architectural barriers, battered and abused spouses
Senior services, senior centers, handicapped services
Historic preservation, youth services, removal of architectural barriers
Transportation services, senior citizen vehicle, senior centers
Removal of architectural barriers, home chore services, transport. services
Minor home repair
Community center, condemnation/demolition, code enforcement
Street improvements, handicapped services
Removal of architectural barriers, senior serv., battered and abused spouses
Senior centers, handicapped services, battered and abused spouses
Home chore services, minor home repair, senior centers
Transportation services, removal of architectural barriers
Historic preservation, home chore services, public facilities and improv.
Park, recreational facilities, battered and abused spouses, senior services
Home chore services, minor home repair
Sidewalk improvements, battered and abused spouses, youth services
Street improvements
Removal of architectural barriers
Removal of architectural barriers, transportation services, home chore serv.
Housing rehabilitation
$84,739.00
$70,024.00
$44,462.00
$8,000.00
$58,224.00
$32,816.00
$155,840.00
$188,200.50
$12,126.00
$17,328.00
$9,334.00
$188,777.00
$8,000.00
$107,413.00
$202,163.00
$8,000.00
$8,000.00
$28,990.00
$170,404.00
$27,312.00
$8,000.00
$208,750.00
$31,704.00
$42,176.00
$19,500.00
$46,564.00
$70,947.00
$18,439.00
$75,276.00
$11,829.00
$63,947.00
$36,397.00
$8,890.00
$20,253.00
$75,470.00
$34,346.00
$21,504.00
$51,743.00
$38,091.00
$128,906.00
$91,164.00
$19,129.00
$8,000.00
$33,201.00
$13,645.00
$8,000.00
$21,124.00
$8,000.00
$13,508.00
$16,408.00
$2,525,996.37
13
Resolution #00043 March 9, 2000
Moved by Palmer supported by Gregory the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Douglas, Galloway, Garfield, Gregory, Jensen, Law, McCulloch,
McPherson, Melton, Millard, Moffitt, Obrecht, Palmer, Patterson, Schmid,
Sever, Suarez, Taub, Amos, Appel, Buckley, Causey-Mitchell, Colasanti,
Coleman, Dingeldey. (25)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was
adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, G. William Caddell, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the
Oakland County Board of Commissioners on March 9, 2000 with the original record
thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 9th day g* March, 2000.
William Caddell, County Clerk