Issuu on Google+

Tuscola   County   Place-­‐Based   Targeting   Strategy                                             Tuscola  County  -­‐-­‐  Grant  #  MSC-­‐2011-­‐0815-­‐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.  

   

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant  

Table  of  Contents   I.  Introduction   ........................................................................................................................  1   II.  Target  Communities   ...........................................................................................................  3   III.  County  Allocation  Communities  .........................................................................................  4   IV.  Placemaking  Areas  ............................................................................................................  7   V.  Placemaking  and  Community/Economic  Development  Priorities  ........................................  7     Appendix  1:  Program  for  Creating  a  Place-­‐Based  Targeting  Strategy   Appendix  2:  Tuscola  County  Planning  Commission  Meeting  Minutes   Appendix  3:  Tuscola  County  Plan  Review   Appendix  4:  Table  of  County  Allocation  Requirements   Appendix  5:  Detailed  Boundary  Maps  of  County  Allocation  Communities   Appendix  6:  Previous  County  Allocation  Projects   Appendix  7:  Evaluation  of  Criteria  for  County  Allocation  Selection      

 

 

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant  

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  is  two-­‐fold;  it  addresses  the  requirement  for   a   “Targeted   Strategy”   set   forth   by   MSHDA   in   the   Program   for   Creating   a   Place-­‐based   Targeting   Strategy   (see   Appendix   1)   while   also   identifying   priority   areas   for   placemaking   and   Community/Economic  Development  activities  within  Tuscola  County.    As  the  State  of  Michigan   continues  to  work  with  dwindling  resources,  it  is  increasingly  critical  for  communities  to  identify   priorities  for  state  investment.    

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.     To   begin   the   process   in   Tuscola   County,   Kuntzsch   Business   Services,   Inc.   (KBS)   reviewed   relevant   plans,   mapped   the   county’s   previous   County   Allocation   projects,   and   evaluated   demographic   information   relevant   to   MSHDA   requirements   (see   Section   III).   The   Tuscola   County   Planning   Commission   and   Human   Development   Commission   (HDC)   then   worked   with   KBS   to   evaluate   this   information,   reviewing   the   MSHDA   requirements,   data   describing   the   market   for   housing   rehabilitation   in   each   community   and   information   related   to   economic   development  activities.    

 

1  

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant   A   recommendation   for   selection   of   County   Allocation   Communities   was   presented   and   approved   at   the   July   3,   2013   meeting   of   the   Tuscola   County   Planning   Commission   (minutes   from  the  meeting  are  provided  in  Appendix  2).     Figure  1:  PBTS  Process       Improved*  

     

Access%to%state%resources%

 

 

•  •  •  • 

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*

  Consistency  with  Existing  Plans   A  detailed  review  of  Tuscola  County  plans  is  provided  in  Appendix  3.  In  summary:     The   Tuscola   County   General   Development   Plan   is   supportive   of   the   preservation   and   maintenance   of   the   county’s   character   in   order   to   keep   Tuscola   County   a   desirable   place   in   which   to   live.   The   Plan   recommends   doing   so   through,   among   other   strategies,   coordinating   growth   relative   to   each   community’s   availability   and   adequacy   of   public   safety   services,   community  facilities,  and  other  resources.     Tuscola   County   is   a   member   of   the   Eastern   Michigan   Council   of   Governments   (EMCOG).   The   EMCOG   Comprehensive   Economic   Development   Strategy   (CEDS)   states   that   all   local   governments  shall  use  appropriate  tools  to  place  greater  emphasis  on  containing  urban  growth   to   existing   urban   centers   and   those   areas   already   fully   serviced   within   the   Region.   Another   important   CEDS   objective   includes   the   creation   and   improvement   of   a   range   of   housing   opportunities  and  choices  to  meet  the  social  and  economic  needs  of  the  Region.  

 

2  

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant  

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.         Tuscola  County  has  identified  eleven  Target  Communities;  nine  villages  and  two  cities.  The  nine   villages  are:   Ø The  Village  of  Akron   Ø The  Village  of  Cass  City   Ø The  Village  of  Fairgrove   Ø The  Village  of  Gagetown   Ø The  Village  of  Kingston   Ø The  Village  of  Mayville   Ø The  Village  of  Millington   Ø The  Village  of  Reese   Ø The  Village  of  Unionville     The  two  cities  are:   Ø The  City  of  Caro   Ø The  City  of  Vassar     Map  1  displays  the  location  of  each  Target  Community.  

Rationale  for  Target  Communities   Target  Communities  were  identified  based  on  the  Tuscola  County  General  Development  Plan.     Each   Target   Community   is   identified   as   a   “urban   service   area”   in   the   General   Plan   (see   Appendix   3).     These   communities   represent   areas   within   the   county   that   have   the   necessary   infrastructure  in  place  to  support  future  community  and  economic  development  activities.        

 

3  

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant  

III.  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.       Tuscola   County   has   identified   the   Cities   of   Caro   and   Vassar   and   the   Village   of   Cass   City   as   County  Allocation  Communities  for  the  current  grant  cycle.  Each  of  these  communities  meets   MSHDA’s   requirements   for   County   Allocation   Communities   (see   Appendix   4).   Map   2   displays   the  location  of  each  County  Allocation  Community  and  detailed  boundary  maps  are  provided  in   Appendix  5.          

Map  1:  County  Allocation  Communities  

 

4  

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant  

Rationale  for  Selection  of  County  Allocation  Communities   In   order   to   select   just   three   of   the   Target   Communities   as   County   Allocation   Communities,   Tuscola   County   evaluated   several   criteria   to   determine   which   communities   present   the   best   market  for  rehabilitation  of  owner  occupied  housing:   Ø Total  population  and  housing  units   Ø Number  of  potentially  eligible  housing  units   Ø Age  of  owner  occupied  housing   Ø The  location  of  recent  inquiries  for  assistance   Ø Number  of  previous  County  Allocation  Projects  (see  Appendix  6)     The   information   used   to   evaluate   each   criterion   is   provided   in   the   Evaluation   of   Criteria   for   County   Allocation   Selection   document,   included   in   Appendix   7.   In   summary,   Caro,   Vassar   and   Cass   City   present   the   largest   markets   for   homeowner   rehabilitation   projects   because   they   have   the   most   owner-­‐occupied   housing,   older   housing   stock,   and   a   large   number   of   households   below  80%  of  Area  Median  Income.    Due  to  the  large  market  for  home  rehabilitation  in  these   communities,   they   were   selected   as   County   Allocation   Communities   for   this   grant   cycle.     The   figure   below   summarizes   the   data   gathered   in   the   Evaluation   Criteria   document.   Cells   in   red   indicate  a  strong  need  for  home  rehabilitation  relative  to  other  communities  while  dark  green   cells  indicate  less  of  a  need  relative  to  other  communities.     Figure  2:  Evaluation  Criteria  Summary  

Community Population Akron&Village 402 Caro&City 4,229 Cass&City&Village 2,428 Fairgrove&Village 563 Fostoria&CDP 694 Gagetown&Village 388 Kingston&Village 440 Mayville&Village 950 Millington&Village 1,072 Reese&Village 1,454 Unionville&Village 508 Vassar&City 2,697

 

 

Housing0 Units 182 1,987 1,177 257 273 171 180 432 464 690 236 1,154

Less0than0 %0of0O.O.0Less0 Median0Year0O.O.0 Built0Prior0 %0Built0Prior0 $35,000 than0$35,000 Structure0Built to01970 to01970 69 51% 6 126 93% 317 38% 1956 591 71% 332 40% 1963 483 58% 74 44% 1947 125 74% 55 26% 1972 98 47% 28 30% 1944 71 77% 43 42% 6 87 84% 83 35% 1950 182 78% 102 34% 1941 247 82% 187 32% 1971 269 46% 65 31% 1954 165 78% 188 27% 1954 484 69%

 

5  

 

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant  

County  Allocation  Program  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:  Density  

Area   Tuscola  County   City  of  Caro   City  of  Vassar   Village  of  Cass  City  

Miles2   Housing  Units   H.U./  Miles2   803.13   24,451   30.44   2.79   1,987   712.49   2.12   1,154   543.94   1.78   1,177   662.31  

H.U./Mile2  %  Greater   than  County   -­‐   2240%   1687%   2075%  

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   zoning   district   applying   to   the   downtown   areas   of   the   Cities   of   Vassar   and   Caro   permit   commercial  and  office  use  as  well  as  residential  use  by  special  permit.     The   zoning   district   applying   to   the   downtown   area   of   the   Village   of   Cass   City   permits   commercial,  office,  and  residential  use  by-­‐right.  

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.     Table  2:  Affordability  

Area   Tuscola  County   City  of  Caro   City  of  Vassar   Village  of  Cass  City  

Median   M.G.R  %  of  County   Median   Gross  Rent   Median  Income*   Home  Value   $610   17%   $106,300   $570   16%   $89,400   $499   14%   $96,900   $564   16%   $88,400  

%  of  County   M.H.V.   -­‐   84%   91%   83%  

*  County  Median  Income:  $43,315  

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.    

 

6  

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant   Table  3:  Assessed  Value  

Area   Tuscola  County   City  of  Caro   City  of  Vassar   Village  of  Cass  City  

2012  State   Equalized  Value   $1,733,065,415   $108,611,868   $44,057,600   $104,769,300*  

*Value  is  for  Elkland  Township  

IV.  Placemaking  Areas   The   third   and   final   step   for   targeting   the   County   Allocation   Program   is   optional.     If   a   county   chooses   to   identify   placemaking   areas   (downtowns,   neighborhoods   or   some   combination),   within   one   or   more   target   areas,   it   will   have   the   ability   to   spend   County   Allocation   funds   on   activities   other   than   homeowner   rehabilitation   in   these   areas.     Additional   activities   include   demolition,  rental  rehabilitation  and  infrastructure  improvements  related  to  housing  projects.         At  this  time,  Tuscola  County  has  elected  to  not  identify  Placemaking  Areas.  

V.  Placemaking  and  Community/Economic  Development  Priorities   Tuscola’s   County’s   General   Development   Plan   includes   the   following   goals   and   objectives   for   coordinated  development  within  the  County:     1.  All  land  use  and  development  shall  be  based  on  PA  110  of  2006  as  revised,  PA  33  of  2008,   Michigan’s  Planning  Enabling  Act  of  2008  and  Schindler’s  Land  Use  Series  Checklist.   A.  Land  Use  policies  shall  ensure  the  continued  health,  safety  and  general  welfare  of  the   residents  of  Tuscola  County:   (1)  through  Master  Plans  and  zoning,     (2)  education  and  training  seminars.       B.  Land  uses  shall  be  grouped  in  a  well  balance  pattern  of  land  uses  that   (1)  are  in  proper  relationship  to  each  other,   (2)  meet  present  and  future  community  needs,   (3)  provide  efficient,  economical  and  environmentally  practical  land  use.     C.   Redevelopment   will   be   encouraged,   consistent   with   other   County   goals   supporting   orderly  planning  and  well-­‐organized  land  use.     2.   Positive   elements   of   the   Tuscola   County   general   environment   will   be   maintained   and   preserved,  keeping  Tuscola  County  a  desirable  place  to  live  by,   A.  Assisting  local  units  of  government  to  comply  with  PA  110  and  PA  33  and  other  legal   requirements.      

7  

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant  

     

B.   Reviewing   and   addressing   the   local   units   Master   Plans,   zoning,   and   ordinance   changes.   C.  Suggestions  and  pointing  out  legal  requirements.   D.  Insuring  that  growth  is  managed  not  inhibited.   E.  Assuring  availability  and  adequacy  of  but  not  limited  to:     (1)  public  safety.     (2)  public  utilities.     (3)  streets,  community  facilities  and  other  requirements.  

          Based   on   these  broad   goals   and   objectives,   the   County   has   identified   the   following   goals   and   objectives  for  placemaking  activities  within  each  Target  Community,  consistent  with  goals  and   objectives  of  existing  local  master  plans.     Goal:   Work   with   property   owners   and   governmental   agencies   to   enhance   the   aesthetic   characteristics  of  the  community   Ø Enhance  existing  roadways  to  improve  the  function  and  appearance  of  communities   Ø Continue  to  pursue  façade  improvements  in  to  storefronts  in  Target  Communities     Goal:   Enhance   transportation   infrastructure   to   provide   more   choices   for   uses   and   improve   accessibility   Ø Update  existing  downtown  pedestrian  infrastructure  to  provide  ADA  accessibility   Ø Continue   to   maintain   existing   trails   and   explore   opportunities   to   expand   and   connect   the  County’s  trail  network,  especially  in  Target  Communities     Goal:   To   promote   the   enhancement   of   residential   areas   with   attractive   and   affordable   housing  choices   Ø Maintain   and   rehabilitate   historical   homes   Target   Communities   to   preserve   and   enhance  their  unique  character     Ø Protect  the  identity  and  stability  of  residential  neighborhoods   Ø Pursue  redevelopment  of  residential  units  above  commercial  uses  in  Downtown  areas   Ø Remove  unsanitary  or  unsafe  housing  through  code  enforcement  or  other  means   Ø Remove  blight  through  code  enforcement  or  other  means   Ø Promote  the  improvement  and  beautification  of  neighborhoods     Goal:   To   provide   for   a   wide   range   of   commercial   facilities   to   serve   the   needs   of   the   local   population  and  visitors   Ø Redevelop,   expand,   beautify,   and   promote   central   business   districts   around   unique   themes  to  promote  commerce   Ø Encourage  the  development  of  commercial  establishments  to  serve  the  unique  needs  of   the  community   Ø Encourage  mixed  use  development  where  appropriate    

8  

 


Tuscola  County   2012-­‐2014  Grant   Ø Identify  historic  buildings  and  promote  their  restoration  and/or  preservation   Ø Continue   to   promote   the   location   of   industrial   uses   in   available   industrial   parks   and   appropriate  areas  within  Target  Communities  where  necessary  infrastructure  is  in  place    

 

9  

 


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   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:   Tuscola   County   Planning   Commission  Meeting  Minutes    

 

 


TUSCOLA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

125 W Lincoln Street, Caro, Michigan 48723

APPROVED MINUTES

July 3, 2013

I.

CALL TO ORDER - PLEDGE TO THE FLAG. The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Chairperson lone Vyse. The Pledge to the Flag followed. II. ROLL CALL Present: lone Vyse, Zygmunt Dworzecki, Lonnie Kester, Cynthia Kapa, Nancy Barrios and Louis Smallwood. Absent excused: Keith Kosik and Board Representative - Matt Bierlein. Guests: Gary Howell, Attorney for Columbia Township, Wendy Falls, Housing Director足 Human Development Commission, and Dick Diemel, Columbia Township Planning Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion by Zygmunt Dworzecki supported by Louis Smallwood to approve the minutes of the June 5th meeting as presented. Motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Nancy Barrios supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried. V. PUBLIC COMMENT: None VI. COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. MSHDA -MI-Place Partnership Grant Initiative Presentation. Wendy Falls, Housing Director at the Human Development Commission made a presentation on the 2012-2014 Grant program and target community findings. Discussion followed. A motion was made by Zygmunt Dworzecki and supported by Lonnie Kester to recommend that the Tuscola County Commissioners accept the research data findings and name the cities of Caro and Vassar and the village of Cass City as the "target" cities tor the MSHDA 2012-2014 County Allocation Program Grant. Motion carried. B. PA-1l6 - Russell Family Land Co., LLC - Indianfields Township, Section 8, T 12N, R9E 80 Acres. Motion by Cindy Kapa and supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to recommend approvaL Motion carried. C. PA-1l6 - Russell Family Land Co., LLC Akron Township, Section 34, T 14N, R 8E, 36 Acres. Motion by Cindy Kapa and supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to recommend the application be referred back to township for further intormation. (Deed). Motion carried. D. PA-1l6 - Russell Family Land Co., LLC, Almer Township, Section 20, T 13N, R 9E, 116.5 Acres. Motion by Cindy Kapa and supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to recommend approval. Motion carried. E. PA-1l6 - DRC Land LLC, Koylton Township, Section 15, T llN, R HE, 15.92 Acres. Motion by Cindy Kapa and supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to recommend approval. Motion carried. F. Columbia Township Zoning Ordinance. Motion by Louis Smallwood and supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to recommend approval ofthe Columbia Township Zoning Ordinance with the recommendation that Section 7.01 include more detailed lot size intormation, and a typographical error under Article 6, Section "F" be corrected to 5.01 "G". Motion carried. G. PA-116 - Glen Christener - Elmwood Township Section 14 T 14N R 10E 200 acres. Motion by Cindy Kapa and supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to recommend approval.

Motion carried.

H. PA-116 Gremel Land LLC - Section 7 T 14N R 10E 75.5 acres. Motion by Cindy Kapa and supported by Zygmunt Dworzecki to recommend approval. Motion carried.

I. Nature Conservancy Program - Zyggy discussed the Nature Conservancy program and

suggested that the Parks and Recreation program investigate possible partnership opportunities.


IX.

'OTHER ON-GOING BUSINESS: Education/Training: Motion by Zygmunt Dworzecki supported by Lonnie Kester to approve funds for Louis Smallwood and Cindy Kapa to enroll in the on-line Citizen Planner Course through Michigan State University. Motion carried. Nancy Barrios indicated that she is still waiting for her certificate of completion. Discussion on possible future county wide training programs.

Parks & Recreation: Cindy Kapa discussed the June Parks and Recreation meeting.

Saginaw Bay Coastal Initiative: Meeting was cancelled - no report.

Township Communications: Louis Smallwood attended the Indianfields Township Meeting.

East Michigan Council of Governments (EMCOG): See attached.

State Law Information Review: Some new legislation pending, no report until they are finalized.

2013 Budget Review: Training funds are available for Citizen Planner training. Meeting

ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

X.

1

Zyggy s Reports 07/03/2013 SBCI Report - none meeting canceled EMCOG Report EMCOG is having a full board meeting July 12, 2013 followed by the RED Team meeting afterwards in losco County _Tawas City. We will be updated on the 2nd phase grant ($30,000) EMCOG Food Assessment dealing with future food related activities. We are also asking for council Authorization to apply for a Regional Prosperity Grant ($250,000). The council will vote for approval of mid-term CEDS (Certified Economic Development Strategies) for submittal to the Regional EDA office in Chicago.

Thumb Food Hub The last meeting June 28, 2013 board revisited the activities to move the project forward. To bring in more experts from neighboring counties as in bring back AG into schools to enable to get smaller farming so that we can obtain produce aggregation for supply and demand to customers this being the first phase of making viable Food Hub in the Thumb region to fulfill the needs of good nutrition and fresh foods. The next Thumb Food Hub meeting will be July 12, 2013 at the EDC Conference Room at 10 a.m.

County Think Tank Meeting The lunch meeting was held in Cass City at Nick's Restaurant: The speaker was Laud Elbing from "The Nature Conservancy. She spoke ofthe group's involvement in the state dealing with conservation of the environment in the state and nation. We were also enlightened on the work with farmers and Cass River dealing with environmental issues.

~~/d~<~ lone Vyse, Chairma

/

\./


Appendix  3:Tuscola  County  Plan  Review    

 

 


6/10/2013  

Tuscola  County  Plan  Review   The  following  summarizes  relevant  goals,  objectives  and  other  information  from  regional  and   county-­‐wide  plans.  

Tuscola  County  General  Development  Plan  (2008)   General  Goals  and  Policies   1. All  land  use  and  development  decisions  shall  be  based  on  sound  land  planning  principles   that  will  ensure  the  continued  health,  safety  and  general  welfare  of  the  residents  of  Tuscola   County.   2. All  the  positive  elements  of  the  general  environment  in  Tuscola  County  –  those  items  that   comprise  the  character  of  this  area/  community  –  will  be  maintained  and  preserved,   keeping  Tuscola  County  a  desirable  place  in  which  to  live.   3. Decision-­‐makers  at  all  levels  throughout  Tuscola  County  will  strive  for  a  well-­‐balanced   pattern  of  land  uses.  These  land  uses  shall  be  grouped  in  a  compact  fashion,  in  proper   relationship  to  each  other,  and  capable  of  meeting  present  and  future  community  needs,  in   an  efficient,  economical  and  environmentally  practical  fashion.   4. Sound  and  imaginative  redevelopment  will  be  encouraged,  consistent  with  other  County   goals  supporting  orderly,  planned  and  well-­‐organized  land  use.   5. Growth  is  to  be  managed,  not  to  inhibit  it  but  rather  to  coordinate  it  as  a  function  of  the   ability  of  a  given  community  to  accommodate  it  in  terms  of  the  availability  and  adequacy  of   public  safety  services,  public  utilities,  streets,  community  facilities  and  other  requirements.   6. The  Tuscola  County  General  Development  Plan  will  serve  to  establish  a  decision-­‐making   framework  for  the  coordinated  development  of  the  County  and  achieve  a  fiscally,  socially   and  environmentally  responsible  land  use  pattern  consistent  with  local  and  County   objectives.     The  General  Development  Plan  Map  is  provided  on  the  next  page.          

 

1  


6/10/2013    

 

 

2  


6/10/2013    

Eastern  Michigan  Council  of  Governments  Comprehensive  Economic   Development  Strategy  (CEDS)   Economic  Growth  Strategy  Objectives,  Policies  and  Actions     Regional  Collaboration  and  Leveraging  of  Assets   • Objective:  Work  toward  creating  a  more  positive  image  of  the  Region  by  leveraging  our   Regional  Assets.   o Policy:  All  local  governments  shall  use  appropriate  tools  to  place  greater   emphasis  on  containing  urban  growth  to  existing  urban  centers  and  those  areas   already  fully  serviced  within  the  Region.  Growth  and  redevelopment  in  existing   developed  areas  with  full  services  will  be  supported  prior  to  supporting  growth   and  development  elsewhere.     Facilitate  a  Globally  Competitive  and  Positive  Business  Environment   • Objective:  Encourage  &  promote  entrepreneurs  to  ensure  the  Region's  future  economic   growth  and  stability   o Policy:  Develop  Regional  food  systems  infrastructure  that  will  support  economic   development  initiatives  and  other  EMCOG  programs.   § Actions:  Advocate  and  educate  for  actions  to  allow  for  a  deep  sea  port   within  the  Region.     Support  Educational  Institutions  and  Programs  to  Attract,  Train  and  Educate  a  Workforce  to   Support  the  Region’s  Economy   (No  relevant  information)     Quality  of  Life   • Objective:  Improve  the  quality  of  life  through  enhancement  of  the  arts,  culture,  tourism,   and  recreation  opportunities  within  the  Region  and  by  raising  the  standard  of  living.   • Objective:  Promote  our  vibrant  cities  and  towns.   • Objective:  Strengthen  the  Regional  economy,  including  but  not  limited  to  improving   opportunities  for  entrepreneurs,  by  expanding  and  incentivizing  the  economic  base  of   the  Region's  towns  and  rural  communities.   • Objective:  Direct  development  towards  and  strengthen  existing  communities.   • Objective:  Create  distinctive  and  attractive  walkable  communities  and  neighborhoods   with  a  strong  sense  of  place.   • Objective:  Preserve  and  protect  open  green  and  blue  space,  farmland,  natural  beauty   and  critical  environmental  areas;  including  sustainable  management  of  the  same.   • Objective:  Promote  our  waterways  and  waterfronts.  

 

3  


6/10/2013   • •

Objective:  Create  and  improve  the  range  of  housing  opportunities  and  choices  to  meet   the  social  and  economic  needs  of  the  Region.   Objective:  Improve  Regional  air  and  water  quality  and  promote  development  that   sustains  and  enhances  the  environment  including  protection  of  our  great  asset  of  the   Lake  Huron  shoreline;  a  part  of  the  Great  Lakes  system.   o Policy:  Urban  development  is  to  be  directed  away  from  hazardous  areas,   sensitive  environmental  areas,  resource  extraction  areas,  and  farmlands,  to   reduce  land  use  conflicts  and  development  encroachments.   o Policy:  Proposals  for  new  growth  areas,  major  plan  amendments  and  major   infrastructure  projects  shall  assess  the  following:   § The  impact  on  existing  services  and  facilities  and  the  ability  of  local   governments  and  agencies  to  provide  services  in  a  timely,  affordable,  and   effective  manner;  and   § The  short  and  long-­‐term  fiscal  impact  of  the  development  on  the   community.   o Policy:  Residential  development  in  existing  or  new  urban  areas  should  include  a   range  of  housing  type,  density,  and  affordability  options.   § Action:  Provide  and/or  facilitate  the  following  place  making  and   economic  development  educational  workshop  opportunities  for  the   Region:   • Utilization  of  land  banks  for  redevelopment  of  downtowns   • Market  benefits  of  a  downtown  development  district     • Beautification  strategies   • Rental  rehab  and  facade  programs  availability  and  opportunities  

  Maintain  and  Responsibly  Expand  Infrastructure  Necessary  for  Both  Economic  and   Community  Development   • Objective:  Coordinate  future  economic  growth  with  the  provision  of  adequate  and   affordable  infrastructure.   • Objective:  Improve  transportation  systems  and  related  infrastructure  by  reducing  traffic   congestion  and  encouraging  more  transportation  choices,  including  regional  transit   systems.   • Objective:  Establish  and  maintain  a  vision  of  and  goals  for  the  Region's  broadband   infrastructure  and  related  services.   o Policy:  The  efficiency  of  the  transportation  system  should  be  maximized  by:   § Integration  of  land  use  and  transportation  planning;   § Make  more  efficient  use  of  the  existing  infrastructure;   § Invest  in  transit  and  other  travel  demand  management  programs;   § Provide  safe  and  convenient  places  to  walk,  bike,  and  access  transit;4   § Support  initiative  which  reduce  the  need  to  travel  and  support  other   modes  of  travel  such  as  telecommuting,  pedestrian-­‐friendly  communities,   mixed-­‐use  developments;  

 

4  


6/10/2013   § § §    

 

Oversee  and  coordinate  the  Rural  Task  Forces  transportation  planning   public  participation.   Action:  Continue  to  pursue  and  extend  broadband  connectivity   throughout  the  Region.   Action:  Advocate  and  educate  for  actions  to  allow  for  a  deep  sea  port   within  the  Region.  

5  


Appendix   4:   Table   of   County   Allocation   Requirements    

 

 


Square   Miles  (Land   Place Area) Population Tuscola  County 803.13 55,729 Akron  township 52.75 1,503 Akron  village 0.94 402 Almer  township 34.09 3,101 Arbela  township 33.46 3,070 Caro  city 2.79 4,229 Cass  City  village 1.78 2,428 Columbia  township 35.98 1,284 Dayton  township 35.60 1,848 Denmark  township 35.27 3,068 Elkland  township 35.00 3,528 Ellington  township 35.44 1,332 Elmwood  township 35.40 1,207 Fairgrove  township 35.27 1,579 Fairgrove  village 1.12 563 Fostoria  CDP 3.86 694 Fremont  township 35.02 3,312 Gagetown  village 0.98 388 Gilford  township 34.82 741 Indianfields  township 33.75 6,048 Juniata  township 34.76 1,567 Kingston  township 34.82 1,574 Kingston  village 1.02 440 Koylton  township 34.91 1,585 Mayville  village 1.13 950 Millington  township 35.44 4,354 Millington  village 1.35 1,072 Novesta  township 35.28 1,491 Reese  village 1.35 1,454 Tuscola  township 32.79 2,082 Unionville  village 0.94 508 Vassar  city 2.12 2,697 Vassar  township 35.05 4,093 Watertown  township 32.53 2,202 Wells  township 34.26 1,773 Wisner  township 19.32 690

%  Greater   Than   County  

Housing   Median   Units H.U./Mile2 H.U./Mile2 Gross  Rent 24,451 30.44 0% $610 775 14.69 -­‐52% $645 182 193.21 535% $630 1,334 39.13 29% $850 1,220 36.46 20% $986 1,987 712.49 2240% $570 1,177 662.31 2075% $564 553 15.37 -­‐50% $655 1,042 29.27 -­‐4% $809 1,368 38.78 27% $555 1,624 46.40 52% $563 551 15.55 -­‐49% $1,006 527 14.89 -­‐51% $758 715 20.28 -­‐33% $804 257 229.18 653% $688 273 70.73 132% $569 1,434 40.95 34% $730 171 174.26 472% $756 342 9.82 -­‐68% $850 2,678 79.35 161% $490 719 20.68 -­‐32% $678 671 19.27 -­‐37% $641 180 176.62 480% $594 669 19.16 -­‐37% $723 432 380.90 1151% $578 1,835 51.78 70% $619 464 344.34 1031% $536 652 18.48 -­‐39% $534 690 512.19 1582% $554 868 26.47 -­‐13% $834 236 251.32 725% $668 1,154 543.94 1687% $499 1,668 47.60 56% $574 935 28.74 -­‐6% $629 749 21.86 -­‐28% $592 368 19.05 -­‐37% $783

M.G.R.  %  of   County   Median   Median   %  of  County   M.H.V. Income Home  Value 17% $106,300 100% 18% $83,800 79% 17% $68,500 64% 24% $119,200 112% 27% $110,000 103% 16% $89,400 84% 16% $88,400 83% 18% $90,900 86% 22% $107,900 102% 15% $117,300 110% 16% $91,500 86% 28% $118,000 111% 21% $101,800 96% 22% $84,900 80% 19% $71,000 67% 16% $104,900 99% 20% $111,000 104% 21% $71,700 67% 24% $106,300 100% 14% $107,000 101% 19% $115,100 108% 18% $102,300 96% 16% $77,500 73% 20% $113,200 106% 16% $96,900 91% 17% $116,400 110% 15% $92,700 87% 15% $96,400 91% 15% $121,100 114% 23% $121,700 114% 19% $78,200 74% 14% $96,900 91% 16% $106,600 100% 17% $115,700 109% 16% $118,200 111% 22% $82,200 77%

Median   Income $43,315 $40,125 $22,454 $59,643 $43,984 $25,734 $38,500 $48,750 $36,815 $42,269 $37,050 $50,391 $47,083 $41,824 $38,958 $52,321 $48,935 $39,125 $52,667 $46,862 $41,875 $42,102 $33,304 $43,477 $37,135 $51,151 $37,841 $43,393 $40,781 $49,013 $50,089 $40,833 $39,290 $53,000 $42,500 $46,397


Appendix   5:   Detailed   Boundary   Maps   of   County  Allocation  Communities    

 

 


Luder Rd

Rd

ro Ca E

Rd ro Ca

E d

d ut R co Bo yS

d Dr W Northwoo

ayto nR

d

bia

St

ED

Co lum

St

Gr ee n

t

Ha St at mil t e St on S

S

Pa Sh lm er er id N St an St St at e St

Agar St

Appletree Ln

Dr

Orr Rd

E Frank St

iver

St

Pa rk

Joy St Ellis St

S Almer St

1st St 3rd St

lub R

r

sR

Golfv iew D r

sh

Monroe St

Golf C

Cas

er D

Bu

W Frank St

Al m

E

Gibbs St

S Hooper St

Meadow Dr

Westchester Dr

Williamsburg Dr

Gun Club Rd

Columbia St

Dr

Kester St

ro Ca Em pi re

Dr

W

County Allocatin Comm. Political Boundary

Warren Dr

Valley Dr

State Road Arthur St

W Dixon Rd

Ann Dr

Weeden Rd

S Graf Rd

Indianfields Township

Norma Dr

Legend Mertz Rd

Press Dr

Colling Rd

Carter Dr

Rd

Purdy Rd Dr Western Ridge

W Lincoln St

Court St

Butler St

City of Caro

N Hooper St

W Burnside St

N Almer St Pearl St Fremont St

W Sherman St

Parkway Dr

Van Geisen Rd

Allen St

Romain Rd

Ellington St

Gilford Rd

Gilford St

Rodd Dr

Faust Dr

Northview Dr

Elmdor Dr

Cleaver Rd

Colling Rd

N Graf Rd

Almer Township

Cambridge Ln

Sugar Tree Blvd

Cameron Rd

E Decker ville Rd

W Deckerville Rd

Local Road

Riley Rd

Water Body

Ă&#x153;


N Cemetery Rd

C od

Linda Ln ce

Chestnut Blvd

St

Herron Dr

Sherman St

Woodland St

Elclare St

Pine St

Elizabeth St

Legend

N Cemetery Rd

Doerr Rd

r Rd Rive

Ale St

Maple St

S Seeger St

Oak St

M St

Elizabeth St

Industrial

Koepfgen Rd

Doerr Rd

6th St

E Cass City Rd

3rd St

d Ol

Novesta Township

Schwegler Rd

Church St

Leach St

West St

Comment Dr

Brooker St

Downing St

Hill St

Spence Rd

Huron St

Houghton St

7th St

Division St

E Elmwood Rd

Seed St

Cass City

4th St Garfield Ave

Schell St

Kennebec Dr

Dale St

Main St

E Cass City Rd

t

Bulen Dr

N Seeger St

ir

Hospital Dr

S Virginia

Hunt St

od C

ir

stwo Cre

wo

Elkland Township

Cemetery Rd

rth No

Beechwood Dr

Sp ru

Milligan Rd

Elm

R od wo

d

County Allocatin Comm. PoliticalodBoundary Rd Elmwo

State Road

Local Road

Water Body

Ă&#x153;


Van Wagnen Rd

Welsh Blvd

t

Enterprise Dr

Huron

Nottingham Rd

t

Norman St

Lynn St

Ch er

East

St ry

St

W Sag

Goodrich St

Arch St

Beach

Industrial St

Proctor St

State Rd

St ai n M S St ain M S

Edgar S

ain S NM

t ra d yS NB

Madison St t

Pro sp e ct S

St ms Ada

Leona St

Margery Ct

Rd

North Rd

Dubois Rd

Gaway Rd Voltz Rd

Vassar Township

Scotch Rd

uth

t

en m

Ln er nd xa

tS

Butler St

Commerce

Birch Rd

Fr an k

Ale

ne La

lnu Wa

Hoxie Blvd

St

t

Ă&#x153;

City of Vassar

Andy St

aw

nS

Water Body

e Av

St N Water

ma her

Local Road

St

Sp rin g

S Vassar Rd

State Road

Chestnut St

Political Boundary

ak

N Water St

County Allocatin Comm.

WO

SS

Cork Pine Ln

Legend

t

Sheridan St

Sa gin

West

Ric har d Wil mo nt

Jay Rd

Blurn

Lin col nS

ss Ca

t

St

Grant St

rS da Ce

St

St

t

St

ina w

Washington St

har d

St

Dorothy St

King James Ct

Ric

ey irl Sh

Eugene St

Sag

Athletic St

Jefferson St

Day Rd

ak

eS

le ap M

Lee Ct

Nancy St

Marilyn St

WO

Ma pl

r

Hazel St

St

ge D

Hixon Pl

Tim ber id

Division St

We lls

S Kirk Rd

S Vassar St

Tuscola Township

Edmonds Ln

inaw R d


Appendix   6:   Previous   County   Allocation   Projects    

 

 


Tuscola County County Allocation Projects 2008-2012 Legend

Ă&#x153;

Tuscola, 2008-2011

Tuscola, 2010-2012

Village of Gagetown

Political Boundary

Census Defined Place

Akron Township

State Road

Local Road

Water Body

Wisner Township

Village of Unionville Columbia Township

Village of Akron

Elmwood Township

Elkland Township

Ellington Township

Almer Township

Gilford Township

Village of Cass City

Novesta Township

Village of Fairgrove

Fairgrove Township Village of Reese

Juniata Township

Denmark Township

City of Vassar

City of Caro Wells Township

Indianfields Township

Fremont Township Dayton Township

Tuscola Township Vassar Township

Village of Millington Arbela Township

Kingston Township

Millington Township

Village of Mayville Watertown Township Fostoria CDP

Village of Kingston Koylton Township


Appendix   7:   Evaluation   of   Criteria   for   County  Allocation  Selection    

 


6/21/2013  

Additional  Data  Analysis  for  Targeting  the   Tuscola  County  County  Allocation  Program   Prepared  by  Kuntzsch  Business  Services,  Inc.   The  following  criteria  were  identified  to  evaluate  the  appropriateness  of  communities  within   Tuscola  County  for  targeting  of  2012-­‐2014  County  Allocation  funds.   • Total  Population/Housing  Units   • Number  of  households  below  80%  of  county  median  income   • Age  of  owner  occupied  housing  units   • Calls  for  assistance  

Total  Population  and  Housing  Units   Table  1  displays  the  total  population  and  number  of  housing  units  in  each  Community.     Table  1:  Population  and  Housing  Units  (2010  U.S.  Census  SF1)  

Community   Tuscola  County   Akron  Village   Caro  City   Cass  City  Village   Fairgrove  Village   Fostoria  CDP   Gagetown  Village   Kingston  Village   Mayville  Village   Millington  Village   Reese  Village   Unionville  Village   Vassar  City  

Population   Housing  Units   55,729   24,451   402   182   4,229   1,987   2,428   1,177   563   257   694   273   388   171   440   180   950   432   1,072   464   1,454   690   508   236   2,697   1,154  

  The  Cities  of  Caro  and  Vassar  City  and  the  Village  of  Cass  City  have  significantly  more  population   and  housing  units  than  other  communities  in  Tuscola  County.  

Households  below  80%  of  County  Median  Income   Table  2  displays  the  number  and  percentage  of  Owner  Occupied  Housing  Units  that  are  likely  to   be  below  80%  of  County  Median  Income  (i.e.  eligible  for  the  County  Allocation  Program).     According  to  the  2007-­‐2011  American  Community  Survey  (ACS),  median  household  income  for   Tuscola  County  is  $43,315,  80%  of  which  is  $34,652.    Therefore,  Table  2  displays  the  number  of  

Page 1 of 5  


6/21/2013   owner  occupied  households  with  incomes  below  $35,000  (the  income  range  available  from  the   ACS).     Table  2:  Household  Income  (source:  2007-­‐2011  ACS)  

Geography   Akron  Village   Caro  City   Cass  City  Village   Fairgrove  Village   Fostoria  CDP   Gagetown  Village   Kingston  Village   Mayville  Village   Millington  Village   Reese  Village   Unionville  Village   Vassar  City  

Households   189   1675   1090   215   242   133   163   355   426   766   237   1010  

Owner  Occupied   Below   %  Below   Households   $35,000   $35,000   135   69   51%   835   317   38%   837   332   40%   168   74   44%   208   55   26%   92   28   30%   103   43   42%   234   83   35%   303   102   34%   589   187   32%   212   65   31%   706   188   27%  

  The  City  of  Caro  and  the  Village  of  Cass  City  have  the  largest  numbers  of  households  that  are   likely  to  be  below  80%  of  County  Median  Income.    The  Village  of  Reese  and  the  City  of  Vassar   City  have  a  nearly  identical  number  of  owner  occupied  households  likely  to  qualify  for  the   County  Allocation  Program.    The  Village  of  Akron  has  the  highest  percentage  of  households  that   are  likely  to  be  at  or  below  80%  of  County  Median  Income.  

Age  of  Owner  Occupied  Housing  Units   Table  3  displays  the  median  age  of  owner  occupied  housing  units  and  the  number  of  owner   occupied  housing  units  built  prior  to  1970.     The  Cities  of  Caro  and  Vassar  City  and  the  Village  of  Cass  City  have  the  largest  number  of  owner   occupied  housing  units  built  prior  to  1970.    The  Villages  of  Fairgrove,  Gagetown,  Mayville  and   Millington  have  the  oldest  housing  stock,  with  median  years  built  prior  to  1950.    93%  of  the   Village  of  Akron’s  housing  stock  was  built  prior  to  1970,  followed  by  the  Village  of  Kingston   (84%)  and  Millington  Village  (82%).    

Page 2 of 5  


6/21/2013   Table  3:  Age  of  Housing  Units  (source:  2007-­‐2011  ACS)  

Geography   Akron  Village   Caro  City   Cass  City  Village   Fairgrove  Village   Fostoria  CDP   Gagetown  Village   Kingston  Village   Mayville  Village   Millington  Village   Reese  Village   Unionville  Village   Vassar  City  

Median  Year   Median  Year  Built   Built  (All)   (Owner  Occupied)   1946   -­‐   1961   1956   1964   1963   1943   1947   1971   1972   1944   1944   -­‐   -­‐   1946   1950   1947   1941   1972   1971   1955   1954   1957   1954  

Built  Prior   %  Built  Prior   to  1970   to  1970   126   93%   591   71%   483   58%   125   74%   98   47%   71   77%   87   84%   182   78%   247   82%   269   46%   165   78%   484   69%  

 

Calls  for  Assistance   Of  30  calls  for  assistance  received  by  the  Human  Development  Commission,  17  have  been  from   households  located  within  the  boundaries  of  an  eligible  Tuscola  County  Community.    The  City  of   Caro  has  the  most  calls,  with  6,  followed  by  The  City  of  Vassar  City  with  4  (see  Map  1).     Table  4:  Inquiry  Calls  

Inquiries   Geography   Akron  Village   Caro  City   Cass  City  Village   Fairgrove  Village   Fostoria  CDP   Gagetown  Village   Kingston  Village   Mayville  Village   Millington  Village   Reese  Village   Unionville  Village   Vassar  City            

0   6   0   2   1   2   0   1   1   0   0   4  

  Page 3 of 5  


6/21/2013  

Map  1:  Inquiry  Calls  

Tuscola County Inquiries Legend Inquiry

Ü Village of Gagetown

Political Boundary Census Defined Place

Akron Township

State Road

Village of Unionville Elmwood Township

Columbia Township

Local Road Water Body

Wisner Township

Village of Akron

Elkland Township

Ellington Township Novesta Township

Almer Township

Gilford Township

Village of Cass City

Village of Fairgrove Fairgrove Township

City of Caro Kingston Township

Village of Reese

Juniata Township Denmark Township

City of Vassar

Wells Township Indianfields Township

Village of Kingston

Fremont Township Dayton Township

Tuscola Township Vassar Township

Koylton Township

Village of Mayville Watertown Township

Village of Millington Arbela Township Millington Township

Fostoria CDP

Summary  Table   Table  5  summarizes  the  demographic  data  gathered  to  compare  each  community.    Cells  colored   in  red  indicate  more  potential  need  for  home  rehabilitation  while  cells  colored  green  indicate   less  potential  need.      

Page 4 of 5  


6/21/2013   Table  5:  Summary  Table  

Community Population Akron&Village 402 Caro&City 4,229 Cass&City&Village 2,428 Fairgrove&Village 563 Fostoria&CDP 694 Gagetown&Village 388 Kingston&Village 440 Mayville&Village 950 Millington&Village 1,072 Reese&Village 1,454 Unionville&Village 508 Vassar&City 2,697

Housing0 Units 182 1,987 1,177 257 273 171 180 432 464 690 236 1,154

Less0than0 %0of0O.O.0Less0 Median0Year0O.O.0 Built0Prior0 %0Built0Prior0 $35,000 than0$35,000 Structure0Built to01970 to01970 69 51% 6 126 93% 317 38% 1956 591 71% 332 40% 1963 483 58% 74 44% 1947 125 74% 55 26% 1972 98 47% 28 30% 1944 71 77% 43 42% 6 87 84% 83 35% 1950 182 78% 102 34% 1941 247 82% 187 32% 1971 269 46% 65 31% 1954 165 78% 188 27% 1954 484 69%

   

Page 5 of 5  


2013-09-09-tuscola-county-pbts-final-reduced