Issuu on Google+

Arenac  County  Place-­‐based  Targeting   Strategy                                             Arenac  County  -­‐-­‐  Grant  #  MSC-­‐2011-­‐0322-­‐HOA     The  Place-­‐based  Targeting  Strategy  represents  MSHDA’s  Community  Development  Division   approved  process  and  the  County’s  determinations  to  address  the  following  Special  Condition:     To receive the second year funding (the remaining 50% of the grant award) the grantee must engage in community planning for a Targeted Strategy that will forward the goal of Place Making, resulting in a plan approved by MSHDA, Community Development Division.

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authorized  Signatory  for  Grantee     Printed  Name         Date       Data  collection  and  final  report  prepared  by  MSHDA  approved  Technical  Assistance  provider,  Kuntzsch   Business  Services,  Inc.      

 

 


Table  of  Contents     I.  Introduction  .................................................................................................................................  1     II.  Target  Communities  ...................................................................................................................  4     III.  County  Allocation  Communities  ................................................................................................  5     IV.  Placemaking  Areas  ....................................................................................................................  7     V.  Placemaking  and  Community/Economic  Development  Priorities  ..............................................  8     Appendix  1:  Program  for  Creating  a  Place-­‐Based  Targeting  Strategy     Appendix  2:  County  Allocation  Community  Boundary  Maps     Appendix  3:  County  Allocation  Community  Requirements  Table          

 


I.  Introduction   On  September  2,  2011  the  Michigan  State  Housing  Development  Authority  (MSHDA)  sent  a   memo  to  its  County  Allocation  Housing  Resource  Fund  Grantees  to  notify  them  of  changes  to   the  County  Allocation  Program.    Due  to  recent  cuts  in  the  Community  Development  Block  Grant   (CDBG)  program,  which  funds  MSHDA’s  County  Allocation  Program,  and  the  difficult  housing   market,  MSHDA  determined  it  was  necessary  to  redefine  its  investment  priorities.    The  memo   states,     “…we  must  provide  solutions  by  redefining  our  investment  priorities  within  our  [Housing   Resource  Fund].    We  will  do  this  by  targeting  our  resources  collectively  between  state   and  local  governments  by  creating  ‘Sense  of  Place’  investment  priorities.”     In  order  to  access  50%  of  their  County  Allocation  funding,  the  memo  requires  counties  to,   “…engage  in  community  planning  for  a  ‘Targeted  Strategy’  that  will  forward  the  goal  of  Place   Making,  resulting  in  a  plan  approved  by  [MSHDA’s  Community  Development  Division].”         The  purpose  of  this  Place-­‐Based  Targeting  Strategy  (PBTS)  is  two-­‐fold;  it  addresses  the   requirement  for  a  “Targeted  Strategy”  set  forth  by  MSHDA  while  also  identifying  priority  areas   for  placemaking  and  Community/Economic  Development  activities  within  Arenac  County.    As   the  State  of  Michigan  continues  to  experience  dwindling  resources,  it  is  increasingly  important   for  communities  to  prioritize  projects  for  state  investment  in  order  to  be  competitive  for  those   resources.  

Process  Employed   In  February  2013,  MSHDA  developed  a  new  process  guide  for  counties  as  they  worked  to  target   the  County  Allocation  Program.    This  process  includes  three  steps:  1)  Identification  of  Target   Communities  2)  Selection  of  County  Allocation  Communities  and  3)  Identification  of   Placemaking  Areas.    The  first  two  steps  are  required  for  counties  to  receive  the  targeted  50%  of   their  County  Allocation  grant;  the  third  step  is  optional  but  encouraged  by  MSHDA.    Figure  1   provides  a  summary  of  the  overall  process  and  Appendix  1  contains  MSHDA’s  Program  for   Creating  a  Place-­‐Based  Targeting  Strategy.     In  order  to  employ  this  process  in  Arenac  County,  Northeast  Michigan  Affordable  Housing,  Inc.,   who  administers  the  program,  worked  with  County  staff  and  Kuntzsch  Business  Services,  Inc.  to   compile  and  review  socio-­‐economic  and  housing  data  as  well  as  existing  county  and  regional   plans.    This  included  evaluation  of  all  data  required  by  MSHDA  for  County  Allocation   Communities  (see  Section  III).     Recommendations  and  rationale  for  Target  and  County  Allocation  Communities  were  presented   at  the  April  16,  2013  meeting  of  the  Arenac  County  Board  of  Commissioners  and  approved  (see   Appendix  2).    This  final  document  was  then  developed,  based  on  the  approved   recommendations,  with  input  from  local  officials  and  others  involved  in  Community  and   Economic  Development  in  Arenac  County.    

1  


Figure  1:  PBTS  Process  

 

 

Consistency  with  Existing  Plans   Arenac  County’s  2011  Master  Plan  clearly  identifies  key  Centers,  Nodes  and  Corridors  within   the  County  that  are  targeted  for  future  development.    The  plan  prioritizes  preservation  and  use   of  the  County’s  significant  natural  assets  as  well  as  expansion  of  housing  and  recreational   opportunities.    Map  1  displays  the  County’s  Future  Land  Use  Map.     In  addition  to  the  County’s  Master  Plan,  this  targeting  strategy  is  also  consistent  with  the  East   Michigan  Council  of  Governments’  2012  Comprehensive  Economic  Development  Strategy   (CEDS).    The  CEDS  focuses  on  directing  urban  growth  to  existing  communities  and  improving  the   region’s  quality  of  life  through  a  variety  of  means.    Six  projects  that  are  directly  supportive  of   placemaking  efforts  in  the  City  of  Au  Gres  were  included  in  the  2009-­‐2011  CEDS  plan.    These   projects  include  development  of  a  farmers  market/festival  facility,  waterfront  improvements,   façade  improvement  and  nonmotorized  transportation  infrastructure.      

 

2  


Map  1:  Arenac  County  Future  Land  Use  Map  

3  

 

     


II.  Target  Communities   Target  Communities  indicate  the  jurisdictions  within  a  county  that  are  suitable  for  investment  in   placemaking  and  community/economic  development.    There  is  no  limit  on  the  number  of  target   communities  within  a  county.         Arenac  County  has  identified  six  Target  Communities:     1. The  City  of  Au  Gres   2. The  City  of  Omer   3. The  City  of  Standish   4. The  Village  of  Sterling   5. The  Village  of  Turner   6. The  Village  of  Twining     These  six  communities  represent  the  areas  of  Arenac  County  that  are  highest  priority  for   investment  in  placemaking  and  community/economic  development  activities.    Specific  needs   and  projects  within  these  communities  are  discussed  in  Section  V.    Map  2  displays  the  location   of  all  six  target  communities.     Map  2:  Arenac  County  Target  Communities        

Village of Turner Moffatt Township

Clayton Township

Mason Township

Turner Township

Whitney Township

Village of Twining Sims Township

Adams Township

Deep River Township Village of Sterling

City of Omer City of Au Gres Arenac Township

Au Gres Township

City of Standish Lincoln Township Standish Township

Legend Target Area Political Boundary State Road Water Body

 

4  

Ü


Rationale  for  Target  Communities   The  target  communities  listed  above  were  selected  based  on  the  following  considerations:   Ø The  six  target  communities  include  all  incorporated  communities  within  Arenac  County.   Ø The  six  target  communities  roughly  correspond  to  the  areas  in  the  future  land  use  map   that  are  designated  for  both  residential  and  commercial  development.    In  other  words,   these  are  the  areas  of  the  County  designated  for  a  mix  of  land  uses  that  can  support   placemaking  efforts.  

III.  County  Allocation  Communities   No  more  than  three  communities  may  be  selected  as  County  Allocation  Communities  during  a   single  grant  cycle.  Fifty  percent  of  the  County  Allocation  Grant  must  be  expended  within  these   communities.  County  Allocation  Communities  may  change  from  one  grant  cycle  to  the  next.       Arenac  County  has  selected  the  Cities  of  Standish  and  Au  Gres  as  County  Allocation   Communities  for  its  2012-­‐2014  County  Allocation  Grant.    Map  3  displays  the  location  of  the   County  Allocation  Communities  and  Appendix  3  provides  detailed  boundary  maps  of  each  city.       Map  3:  County  Allocation  Communities      

Village of Turner Moffatt Township

Clayton Township

Mason Township

Turner Township

Whitney Township

Village of Twining Sims Township

Adams Township

Deep River Township Village of Sterling

City of Omer City of Au Gres Arenac Township

Au Gres Township

City of Standish Lincoln Township Standish Township

Legend County Allocation Community Political Boundary State Road Water Body

 

5  

Ü


Rationale  for  Selection  of  County  Allocation  Communities   Arenac  County  has  selected  the  Cities  of  Standish  and  Au  Gres  as  County  Allocation   Communities  for  the  current  grant  cycle  based  on  three  considerations:   Ø The  Cities  of  Standish  and  Au  Gres  are  the  most  populated  communities  in  Arenac   County  and  also  present  the  greatest  need  for  placemaking  activities.   Ø Standish  and  Au  Gres  have  the  necessary  infrastructure  (sewer,  water,  transportation)   to  support  future  economic  development  and  placemaking  efforts.   Ø Both  Standish  and  Au  Gres  meet  MSHDA’s  requirements  for  County  Allocation   Communities  (see  Appendix  4).     Arenac  County  will  revisit  the  characteristics  of  all  communities  within  the  County  prior  to  each   future  grant  cycle  and  determine  which  communities  the  County  Allocation  Program  should   target  for  investment.      

County  Allocation  Community  Requirements   Housing  Density  

County  Allocation  Communities  must  be  twice  as  dense  (have  100%  more  housing  units  per   square  mile)  as  the  county  as  a  whole.     Table  1:  Housing  Density  

Area   Arenac  County   City  of  Au  Gres   City  of  Standish  

2

Miles   363.19   2.23   2.15  

Housing   Units   9,803   598   682  

H.U./   H.U./Mile2  %  Greater   2 Miles   than  County   26.99   -­‐   268.16   893%   317.21   1,075%  

Zoning  

Zoning  in  County  Allocation  Communities  must  be  flexible  enough  to  permit  the  creation  of  high-­‐ quality  places.    County  Allocation  Communities  must  include  mixed-­‐use  zoning  districts.    At  a   minimum,  residential,  commercial  and  office  uses  must  be  permitted  within  at  least  one  zoning   district  in  each  County  Allocation  Community.     The  City  of  Standish  zoning  ordinance  permits  residential  units  in  the  second  floor  or  higher  of   all  buildings  located  within  its  Central  Business  District.    This  district  also  permits  retail,  office   and  entertainment  uses.     The  City  of  Au  Gres  zoning  ordinance  permits  mixed  use  buildings,  which  include  commercial   and  residential  uses  in  one  structure,  within  its  Town  Center  zoning  district.    The  district  also   permits  multi-­‐family  housing  and  office  uses.   Affordability  

Median  gross  rent  in  County  Allocation  Communities  must  be  30%  or  less  of  county  median   household  income.    Median  home  value  in  County  Allocation  Communities  must  be  equal  to  or   less  than  110%  of  median  home  value  for  the  county  as  a  whole.    

6  


Table  2:  Median  Gross  Rent  

 

Area   Median  Gross  Rent   Arenac  County   $528   City  of  Au  Gres   $302   City  of  Standish   $620   *County  Median  Income:  $36,281  

%  of  County  Median   Income*   17%   10%   21%  

Table  3:  Median  Home  Value  

Area   Arenac  County   City  of  Au  Gres   City  of  Standish  

Median  Home  Value   $94,000   $110,000   $72,500  

%  of  County  Median   Home  Value   100%   116%   76%  

  Note:  Due  to  its  location  on  Lake  Huron,  the  City  of  Au  Gres  has  many  high-­‐priced  homes,  which   skews  its  median  home  value.    Furthermore,  the  error  rate  associated  with  the  median  home   value  as  provided  by  the  American  Community  Survey  is  very  high.    The  error  rate  for  the  City  of   Au  Gres’  Median  home  value  is  +/-­‐  $9,376.    In  other  words,  the  actual  median  home  value  for   the  City  is  somewhere  between  $119,376  and  $100,674,  the  lower  end  of  which  meets  the   County  Allocation  Community  requirement  for  median  home  value.    Given  the  degree  of  error   associated  with  this  statistic,  as  well  as  Au  Gres’  location  on  Lake  Huron,  it  should  still  be   eligible  as  a  County  Allocation  Community.   Assessed  Value  

The  assessed  value  of  County  Allocation  Communities  and  the  county  as  a  whole  for  the  current   year  must  be  submitted  with  the  PBTS.     Table  4:  Assessed  Value  

Area   Arenac  County   City  of  Au  Gres   City  of  Standish  

2012  State  Equalized   Value   $676,980,017   $38,248,800   $41,544,500  

IV.  Placemaking  Areas   This  element  identifies  areas  that  are  well-­‐suited  for  State  investment  in  strategic  placemaking   projects.    Counties  that  complete  this  element  will  be  permitted  to  use  County  Allocation  funds   for  projects  located  within  Placemaking  Areas  that  are  consistent  with  the  Michigan   Consolidated  Plan  definition  of  “demonstrated  housing  needs.”    

 

7  


At  this  time,  Arenac  County  has  determined  identification  of  Placemaking  Areas  is  not   necessary.    The  County  has  extremely  limited  funds  available  through  the  County  Allocation   Program  and  a  history  of  success  with  homeowner  rehabilitation  projects.  

V.  Placemaking  and  Community/Economic  Development  Priorities   The  following  goals  are  based  on  the  Arenac  County  2011  Master  Plan.    Only  goals  with  a   specific  connection  to  placemaking  are  listed.    Specific  projects  or  project  types  listed  under   each  goal  are  based  on  the  County  Master  Plan,  local  master  plans,  and/or  input  from  local   officials.     Goal:  Retention  of  Arenac  County’s  rural  character.   Ø Land  use  regulations  should  discourage  sprawling  residential,  commercial  and  industrial   development  that  adversely  impacts  agricultural  and  natural  lands.     Goal:  Preservation  of  the  County’s  natural  beauty  and  assets.   Ø Protect  and  enhance  environmental  and  scenic  assets.   Ø Preserve  the  quality  of  Arenac  County’s  water  resources  through  zoning.   Ø Emphasize  the  small  town  character  of  target  communities  to  enhance  their   attractiveness  for  future  residents  and  businesses.   Ø Work  with  the  Arenac  County  Economic  Development  Corporation  to  local  new   businesses  in  downtown  districts.   Ø Encourage  redevelopment  and  improvement  of  streetscapes  and  building  facades  in   target  communities.     Goal:  Expand  recreation  facilities  to  meet  the  growing  needs  of  County  residents  of  all  ages.   Ø Expand  and  enhance  public  access  sites  to  rivers  and  the  Lake  Huron  shoreline.   Ø Expand  recreational  opportunities  for  young  people  in  Arenac  County.   Ø Provide  opportunities  for  new  recreational  trails  and  connections  between  existing   trails.     Goal:  Make  sure  that  county  services  to  residents  meet  their  quality  of  life  needs.   Ø Create  a  community  center  to  house  services  and  activities  for  county  residents  of  all   ages.     Goal:  Expand  new  housing  where  needed,  and  improve  the  current  housing  stock  within  the   county  in  order  to  improve  quality  of  life  for  residents.   Ø Work  to  improve  existing  housing  stock  through  rental  and  homeowner  rehabilitation   projects,  with  special  emphasis  on  the  Target  Communities.   Ø Eliminate  blighted  properties  through  demolition  or  rehabilitation  in  target   communities.  

 

8  


Appendix  1:  Program  for  Creating  a  Place-­‐ Based  Targeting  Strategy    

 

 


2/11/2013  

PROGRAM  FOR  CREATING  A  PLACE-­‐BASED   TARGETING  STRATEGY:  Version  2   The  following  process  has  been  developed  to  create  Place-­‐based  Targeting  Strategies  (PBTS)  for   Michigan  Counties  that  are  eligible  for  the  County  Allocation  Program.     This  process  is  intended   to  create  strategies  that  are  relatively  consistent  between  each  county,  yet  flexible  enough  to   accommodate  the  unique  characteristics  of  all  counties.         There   are   three   elements   of   developing   a   PBTS:   1)   Identification   of   Target   Communities,   2)   Selection   of   County   Allocation   Communities   and   3)   Identification   of   Placemaking   Areas.     Elements   1   and   2   must   be   completed   in   order   for   counties   to   receive   their   full   County   Allocation  grant.    Element  3  is  optional,  but  is  strongly  encouraged  by  MSHDA  as  it  will  permit   County   Allocation   Funds   to   be   used   for   all   demonstrated   housing   needs   (as   defined   by   the   Michigan  Consolidated  Plan1).       Figure  1  illustrates  the  PBTS  process  and  the  impacts  of  each  element.       Figure  1:  PBTS  Process  

Access%to%state%resources%

Improved*

•  •  •  • 

Iden%fica%on*of*Placemaking*Areas* * Work*with*local*officials* Analyze*area*characteris%cs* Individual*project*planning* Considera%on*of*placemaking*elements*

* Selec%on*of*County*Alloca%on*Communi%es* * •  Apply*MSHDA*requirements* •  Work*with*local*officials* •  Public*approval*for*County*Alloca%on* Communi%es* Iden%fica%on*of*Target*Communi%es* * •  Plan*review* •  Demographic*analysis* •  Input*from*county/regional*officials*

Required*for* addi%onal* ac%vi%es*

Required*for* County* Alloca%on*

Current*

                                                                                                            1  See  pg.  31  of  the  Michigan  Consolidated  Plan  https://www.michigan.gov/mshda/0,4641,7-­‐141-­‐-­‐31319-­‐-­‐,00.html      

1  


2/11/2013  

Following   the   description   of   each   element,   a   sample   map   is   provided   for   illustration.     The   sample  maps  are  illustrative  only.    They  do  not  reflect  the  policies  of  any  particular  county.  

1. Identification  of  Target  Communities   Target  Communities  indicate  the  jurisdictions  within  a  county  that  are  suitable  for  investment   in   placemaking   and   community/economic   development.     There   is   no   limit   on   the   number   of   target  communities  within  a  county.         1.1. Target  Communities  must  be  identified  based  on:   • County  and/or  regional  plans  OR   • MSHDA  County  Allocation  Program  Community  Requirements  (see  Section  2)     1.2. Consistency  with  existing  plans   • Target  Communities  should  be  identified  in  relevant  plans  (regional,  county  and/or   local)   as   an   area   suitable   for   investment   in   housing,   infrastructure   enhancements,   and  economic  development  activities.       Map  1:  Target  Communities  Sample  

Legend Village

Target Community Political Bounary Census Defined Place State Road

Township Township Village

Village

Township Township

Local Road Water Body

Township Township

Township City Township

Village

Township

Township

Township

CDP

Township CDP Township

Township Township

CDP

 

2  

Township


2/11/2013  

2. Selection  of  County  Allocation  Communities   No  more  than  three  communities  may  be  selected  as  County  Allocation  Communities  during  a   single  grant  cycle.  County  Allocation  Communities  may  change  from  one  grant  cycle  to  the  next.       Each  County  Allocation  Community  must  meet  the  following  criteria:     2.1. Housing  Density   • County   Allocation   Communities   must   be   twice   as   dense   (have   100%   more   housing   units  per  square  mile)  as  the  county  as  a  whole.2     2.2. Zoning   • Zoning   in   County   Allocation   Communities   must   be   flexible   enough   to   permit   the   creation  of  high-­‐quality  places.   o County  Allocation  Communities  must  include  mixed-­‐use  zoning  districts.    At  a   minimum,   residential,   commercial   and   office   uses   must   all   be   permitted   within  at  least  one  zoning  district  in  each  County  Allocation  Community.     2.3. Affordability3   • Median  gross  rent  in  County  Allocation  Communities  must  be  30%  or  less  of  county   median  household  income.   • Median  home  value  in  County  Allocation  Communities  must  be  equal  to  or  less  than   110%  of  median  home  value  for  the  county  as  a  whole.     2.4. Assessed  value  of  target  area  and  county   • The   assessed   value   of   County   Allocation   Communities   and   the   county   as   a   whole   for   the  current  year  must  be  submitted  with  the  PBTS.     In   the   absence   of   a   county   or   regional   plan   that   identifies   potential   Target   Communities,   the   criteria  in  this  section  may  be  used  to  complete  Element  #1.          

                                                                                                            2 3

 

 Based  on  2010  US  Census.    This  calculation  excludes  entitlement  communities.    Based  on  the  most  recent  American  Community  Survey  data.  

3  


2/11/2013   Map  2:  County  Allocation  Communities  Sample   Legend Village

County Allocation Comm. Target Community Political Bounary Census Defined Place

Township Township Village

Village

Township Township

State Road Local Road Water Body

Township Township

Township City Township

Village

Township

Township

Township

CDP

Township CDP Township

Township Township

Township

CDP

 

3.  Identification  of  Placemaking  Areas   This  element  identifies  areas  that  are  well-­‐suited  for  State  investment  in  strategic  placemaking   projects.    Counties  that  complete  this  element  will  be  permitted  to  use  County  Allocation  funds   for   projects   located   within   Placemaking   Areas   that   are   consistent   with   the   Michigan   Consolidated  Plan  definition  of  “demonstrated  housing  needs”.         3.1. Placemaking  areas  must:   • Be  part  of  a  target  community:  A  placemaking  area  must  be  entirely  within  a  target   community.     The   boundaries   of   a   placemaking   area   cannot   be   equivalent   to   the   boundaries  of  a  target  community.   • Be  zoned  for  mixed  use:  The  zoning  district(s)  that  applies  to  the  majority  (greater   than   50%)   of   a   placemaking   area   must   permit,   at   a   minimum,   residential,   retail,   commercial  and  office  uses.   • Be  high-­‐density:  The  US  Census  Bureau  must  classify  the  area  as  “urbanized”  or  as   an  “urban  cluster”.    If  the  area  is  not  within  a  census-­‐defined  urban  area,  it  must   have   an   actual   density   of   at   least   2   housing   units   per   acre   or   a   planned   density   of   5   housing  units  per  acre.  

 

4  


2/11/2013  

•  

 

   

Have   a   median   household   income   of   80%   or   less   of   County   median   household   income.4  

3.2. Key  elements  of  placemaking  to  consider  in  target  areas:   • Mixed  Uses   o Does   the   applicable   zoning   ordinance   and   master   plan   encourage   a   mix   of   uses?     Do   changes   need   to   be   made   to   local   ordinances,   plans   and/or   codes   to  permit  this  type  of  development?   • Quality  Public  Spaces   o Does  the  street  right-­‐of-­‐way  effectively  serve  multiple  functions?   o Are   public   places   easily   accessible   (nearby   parks,   town   squares,   sidewalk   cafes,  wide  sidewalks,  etc.)   • Communications  Access   o Does  the  placemaking  area  have  access  to  high-­‐speed  internet  service?   • Access  to  Transportation  Choices   o Does  the  placemaking  area  have  access  to  public  transportation?   o Does   pedestrian   infrastructure   exist   in   the   placemaking   area   that   effectively   connects  key  destinations  within  and  beyond  the  placemaking  area?   • Historic  Preservation   o Are   codes   or   regulations   in   place   to   preserve   the   historic   character   of   the   placemaking  area?   • Arts  and  culture   o Does  the  placemaking  area  have  regular  festivals  or  events?   o Is  public  art  present  in  the  placemaking  area  and/or  is  a  program  in  place  to   provide  public  art?   • Green  places   o Are  parks  or  public  green  spaces  present  in  the  placemaking  area?   o Is   the   placemaking   area   well   connected   to   natural   assets   and   outdoor   recreational  opportunities  outside  of  the  placemaking  area?   3.3. Other  Important  Considerations  for  Placemaking  Target  Areas   • Quality  and  location  of  schools  and  post-­‐high  school  educational  opportunities.   • Quality  and  status  of  public  infrastructure  (roadway,  street  lights,  waterways,  etc.).   • Quality  and  status  of  utilities  (sewer,  water,  storm  sewer,  electric  utilities).   • Quality  of  public  services  (police,  fire,  garbage,  recycling,  etc.).    

                                                                                                            4  Based  on  the  most  recent  American  Community  Survey  data.    

5  


2/11/2013  

 

Map  3:  Placemaking  Areas  Sample   Legend Village

Placemaking Area County Allocation Comm. Target Community Political Bounary

Township Township Village

Village

Township Township

Census Defined Place State Road Local Road

Township

Water Body

Township

Township City Township

Village

Township

Township

Township

CDP

Township CDP Township

Township Township

CDP

 

6  

Township


Appendix  2:  Arenac  County  Board  of   Commissioners  Minutes    

 

 


April 16th, 2013 Minutes of a Meeting of the Arenac County Board of Commissioners: Chair Michael Snyder called the scheduled meeting of the Arenac County Board of County Commissioners to order at 1:32 PM pursuant to Public Notice and the Michigan Open Meetings Act with the Board reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. Flag. Present: David Munson, Jeffrey Trombley, Michael Snyder, Virginia Zygiel & Robert Luce. Adoption of an Agenda: It was moved by Mr. Trombley & 2nd by Mrs. Zygiel to approve the proposed agenda, a copy of which is included with Board Correspondence. Motion was carried. Approval of Various Minutes: Committee of the Whole of April 2, 2013: It was moved by Mr. Luce & 2nd by Mr. Trombley to approve the minutes of said meeting as mailed. Motion was carried. Board Session of April 2, 2013: It was moved by Mrs. Zygiel & 2nd by Mr. Trombley to approve the minutes of said meeting as prepared and mailed. Motion was carried. Claims and Accounts: It was moved by Mrs. Zygiel & 2nd by Mr. Luce to approve payment of the aggregate amount of $42,672.61 as presented for payment. Motion was carried. Public Comments: Mr. John Clyne, Chair of the Arenac County Parks Commission, addressed the Board with his concerns of the Board attempting to “operate” versus “ legislate” regarding the County Parks System as well as questioning Board motions of 4-2-2013 regarding parks issues. Mr. Larry Davis, member of the Arenac County Parks Commission, questioned the Board action and suggested that there be more cooperation between the two Boards. There were no further public comments. Commissioners’ Responses: Mr. Trombley, Mrs. Zygiel, Mr. Luce, Mr. Munson and Mr. Snyder all commented back regarding said motions and actions. Disposition of Fencing & Backstop at Zeke Gulvas Field: Mrs. Zygiel questioned as to why said didn’t come to the attention of the Board in the Committee of the Whole on 4-2-2013 and the Commissioners discussed related park issues at Youngman Park and the Ball Field (Zeke Gulvas) at that location including disposition of fence and related items and proposed disposition of backstop to another local unit of government and others replied to questions brought up. The Chair noted a request from the audience for a chance at asking further questions relating to the Youngman Park issues being discussed and agreed, with Board concurrence to allow for said comments.


Page # 2: April 16th, 2013 Arenac County Board of Commissioners Minutes: Public Comments: Mr. Allen Osier, Arenac Township Trustee, questioned as to whether or not the Township of Arenac had been contacted regarding any possible transfer of use of the site to the township. Mr. Glen Rice, Arenac Township Resident, commented that the Youngman Park properties had been offered years previously to the Township of Arenac and the Township Board declined same. Mr. Snyder questioned the offer of the backstop to one township unit versus to any others. Mr. John Clyne, Chair of the County Parks Commission questioned the whole idea of disposition of property at the Youngman Park. Mr. Andrew Rokosz, former County Parks Supervisor and former Parks Commission Member, commented regarding that as a former employee, there was NEVER much money available to do the repairs at the County Parks and further noted that it takes money to so do. Mr. Larry Davis, Parks Board Member, commented that he feels that the County Board needs to make the County Parks Board a part of the integral process before taking any action such as was done. The Chair ordered a recess at 2:30 PM. The Chair reconvened the meeting at 2:45 PM. Motions to be acted upon: Motion # 1: Approval of the 2013 Equalization Report for Arenac County, Michigan: It was moved by Mr. Trombley & 2nd by Mr. Munson to adopt the 2013 Arenac County Equalization Report for Arenac County, Michigan dated April 16th, 2013 as presented by County Equalization Director Linda Lewandowski and to authorize the Clerk and Chair and the Equalization Director to sign said and to further submit it to the State as required by law. Roll Call Vote: Yes: Munson, Trombley, Snyder, Zygiel, & Luce. No: None. Motion carried by a 5 yes to 0 no vote. Chair direct Motion # 2: Appointment to Arenac County Parks Commission: The Chair noted the Board will reserve decision regarding any appointment until the next Board meeting, being in May 7th as the Board does not have a letter of interest. Motion # 3: Verizon Request: It was moved by Mrs. Zygiel & 2nd by Mr. Munson to allow Verizon Wireless stuffers be placed in the paychecks of the next payroll noting “County Employee Discount� for cell phone billings available to County Employees as offered through Verizon Wireless. Motion was carried. The Clerk was directed to so place said into the paychecks as per motion passed.


Page # 3: April 16th, 2013 Minutes of a Meeting of the Arenac County Board of Commissioners: Motion # 4: Transfer of Unsold Tax Reverted Properties: Moved by Commissioner Zygiel and supported by Commissioner Trombley to adopt the following resolution: Resolution No. 2013-06 Transfer Properties to the Land Bank Whereas:

Local units of government within Arenac County levy annual tax, and

Whereas:

Those unpaid taxes are returned to the County for collection, and

Whereas:

The County funds those delinquencies to the local collection units’ and

Whereas:

The County has appointed the County Treasurer as the Foreclosing Governmental Unit, and

Whereas:

PA123 describes the process for the FGU to claim ownership of these properties, and

Whereas:

These procedures were followed for said tax year of 2010, and

Whereas:

Properties remain following the prescribed two land auctions per year, and

Whereas:

At the end of the process, the County FGU controls these properties,

Now Therefore Be It Resolved: As they are available, the FGU will transfer ownership of said properties to the Arenac County Land Bank to be sold or otherwise disposed of according to statute. Roll Call Vote: Yes: Snyder, Trombley, Munson, Luce, & Zygiel. Yeas: 5 and Nays: 0. Resolution declared adopted. Motion # 5 : ADR Housing Grant Application: Moved by Commissioner Munson and supported by Commissioner Trombley to adopt the following resolution: Resolution # 2013-07 RESOLUTION WHEREAS,

the County of Arenac is interested in the continuing effort to provide affordable housing opportunities for the MSHDA Housing Resource Funds for the Homebuyer Assistance Program; and

WHEREAS,

the County Board of Commissioners accept the recommendation of the Northeast Michigan Affordable Housing Inc. to apply for $500,000; and

WHEREAS,

the County Board of Commissioners understands that the application will be provided for their approval at a later date prior to the application being submitted to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority; and


Page # 4: April 16th, 2013 Minutes of a Meeting of the Arenac County Board of Commissioners: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Arenac authorize the Northeast Michigan Affordable Housing Inc. to prepare the application for the Michigan State Housing Development Authority’s 2013 Housing Resource Fund. Roll Call Vote: Yes: Snyder, Trombley, Munson, Luce, & Zygiel. No: None. 5 yeas to 0 nays. Resolution declared carried. Motions # 5 & #6: Register of Deeds Trimen Contract & Related: Darlene Mikkola, Arenac County Register of Deeds appeared before the Commissioners to discuss the record filing program being used and noting the proposal allows for program upgrade which will allow for record search by Town and Range (local units) for assessors and added that there will be an additional maintenance fee in 2014. It was moved by Mr. Trombley & 2nd by Mrs. Zygiel authorize the Arenac County Register of Deeds to purchase upgraded programming for an additional $1,142.40 per year noting that maintenance will start in 2014 on programming, authorizing the Register of Deeds to implement said contracts with Trimen. Roll Call Vote: Yes: Zygiel, Luce, Munson, Trombley, & Snyder. 5 yeas and 0 nays. Motion declared carried. Motion # 7: Remodeling of the County Register of Deeds Office: After discussion, it was moved by Mr. Munson & 2nd by Mr. Trombley to authorize the Arenac County Register of Deeds to carpet the office for the bid of $1,372.46 and to remodel per bid received in the amount of $4,090.00 totaling $5,462.46. Roll Call Vote: Yes: Luce, Munson, Trombley, Snyder, & Zygiel. 5 yeas and 0 nays. Motion declared carried. Motion #8: “Stonegarden” Grant: After discussion, it was moved by Mr. Trombley & 2nd by Mr. Munson to approve the grant application to receive Homeland Security Dollars authorized for the current year and to further authorize the Board Chair to sign said application for the County of Arenac. Motion was carried and Chair signed the applications. Motion # 9: Targeted Home Assistance Program: After discussion, it was moved by Mrs. Zygiel & 2nd by Mr. Trombley to approve the “Target Areas” of the three cities and three villages in the County of Arenac as such for the Grant Application for targeted assistance in home repairs and upgrades, requiring a 50% spending effort the targeted areas. Motion was carried.


Page # 5: April 16th, 2013 Minutes of the Arenac County Board of Commissioners Meeting: Motion # 10: Request for setup of Fundraising Account for 911: The Board noting a request from an employee from 911 in their Committee of the Whole Meeting this AM took the following action: It was moved by Mrs. Zygiel & 2nd by Mr. Luce to authorize the County Treasurer to set up a fund or account as requested in the letter received by the Board of Commissioners this AM to allow for donations to be collected for use in providing Christmas for a needy family by 911 employees. Motion was carried. Public Comments: Mr. Glen Rice, Arenac Township Resident questioned the Michigan Compiled Law reference number for County Parks Commissions and number was provided being MCL 45.351 forward. Adjournment: It was moved by Mr. Luce & 2nd by Mr. Trombley to adjourn at 3:08 PM. Motion was carried and the meeting was adjourned. Sincerely, Attest: _____________________________ Michael H. Snyder, Chair of the Board

Ricky R. Rockwell Arenac County Clerk


Appendix  3:  County  Allocation  Community   Boundary  Maps    

 

 


Proulx Rd

Cherry St nA ve

t

ich M n r os aL

City of Au Gres

de

l en Al

Court St

W Smith St

Po n

Swenson Rd

Wa te

rS

rt S t

Alb e

Au Gres Township

Main St

t

ga

Ashdale St Estate Dr Allen Dr

t C ov e C

eD r

Santiago Rd

rsid

Manor Rd

Rive

Jodway Rd

Allen Dr

Ct

South St

M id s

Tonkey Rd

Parkway

SM ack

Huron Rd

Mic hi

Baum Rd

Sims Township

cS

Ăœ

West St

Water ggle Rd NoBody

Mackinaw Rd

Local Road

Linwood Rd

Court Rd

State Road

Nearman Rd

Political Boundary

Santiago Rd

County Allocation Community

ina

Legend

hi

Ri ve

rs id pm e an Dr

ig

an

e Av


Ol d

County Allocation Community

Lincoln Township

Proulx Rd

Duprie Rd

Lovett Ln Angus St

Pine River Rd

2nd St

E City Limits Rd

US 23

Old M 10

Johnson Rd

Deep River Rd

South Limits Rd

Lapeer St

Forest St

Front St

City of Standish

Cherry St

Almont St

Beaver St

Church St

Orchard Ave

Mill St

Elm St

Johnsfield Rd

Standish Township

River

Main St

Court St

Airport Rd

Franklin Rd

s Acces Prison

Cedar St

Airpark Dr

Rd

North St

Fron t St Mill St

M 61

on ur

San Juan

Water Body

N City Limits Rd

Cass St

Ăœ

Local Road

H

James St

State Road

76

Grove St

Political Boundary

M

Grove Rd

Legend

Palmer Rd


Appendix  4:  County  Allocation  Community   Requirements  Table    

 


Square  Miles   Housing   Place (Land) Population Units H.U./Mile2 Arenac  County 363.19                15,899                    9,803   26.99 Arenac  Township 35.77                            903                            509 14.23 Au  Gres  City 2.23                            889                            598 268.16 Au  Gres  Township 33.35                            953                            689 20.66 Clayton  Township 32.07                    1,097                              534 16.65 Deep  River  Township 35.28                    2,149                      1,071   30.36 Lincoln  Township 21                            942                            428 20.38 Mason  Township 32.05                            851                            455 14.20 Moffatt  Township 31.51                    1,184                              953 30.24 Omer  City 1.13                          313                            162   143.36 Sims  Township 11.5                    1,095                      1,172   101.91 Standish  City 2.15                    1,509                          682   317.21 Standish  Township 27.63                    1,900                      1,001   36.23 Sterling  Village 0.98                          530                            206   210.20 Turner  Township 31.14                            550                            316 10.15 Turner  Village 1.02                            114                                55 53.92 Twining  Village 0.97                          181                                  81 83.51 Whitney  Township 30.73                    1,001                              985 32.05 Bold  text:  Meets  all  MSHDA  criteria  for  County  Allocation  Communities

%  Greater  Than   County   H.U./Mile2 0.0% -­‐47.3% 893.6% -­‐23.5% -­‐38.3% 12.5% -­‐24.5% -­‐47.4% 12.0% 431.2% 277.6% 1075.3% 34.2% 678.8% -­‐62.4% 99.8% 209.4% 18.7%

M.G.R.  %  of   Median   County  Median   Median  Home   %  of  County   Gross  Rent Income Value M.H.V. $528 17% $94,900 100% $760 25% $92,500 97% $302 10% $110,000 116% $494 16% $118,000 124% $679 22% $80,900 85% $633 21% $98,300 104% $722 24% $86,500 91% $575 19% $67,700 71% $475 16% $101,300 107% $473 16% $80,200 85% $584 19% $127,200 134% $620 21% $72,500 76% $799 26% $89,300 94% $631 21% $86,900 92% $1,038 34% $83,500 88% $567 19% $69,700 73% $529 17% $63,900 67% $525 17% $110,200 116%

Median   Income $36,281 $33,750 $21,364 $41,645 $38,750 $41,202 $35,882 $31,364 $39,318 $24,871 $45,000 $40,625 $35,034 $51,250 $34,500 $35,208 $41,154 $40,179


2013-06-04-arenac-strategy-final-reduced