Oakland County is a large, diverse county located in southeastern Michigan. It borders Macomb County on the east, Lapeer and Genesee counties on the north, Livingston County on the west, and Wayne County and the City of Detroit on the south. At 960 square miles and a population of over 1.1 million, Oakland County is more populous than, and nearly as large as, the State of Rhode Island. The County contains 61 units of general local government, including 21 townships, 10 villages, and 30 cities. Fifty of the 61 communities in Oakland County participate in the Oakland County urban county program.
The Oakland County urban county program has been a successful one. Since 1975, the first year of the county's participation, the urban county consortium has received $94 million in CDBG funds, $3.5 million in HOME funds, $530,000 in ESG funds, and $786,130 in Rental Rehabilitation Program funds (a program since discontinued by the federal government), for a total of $98.2
Oakland County was allocated over $7.5 million for fiscal year 1995 through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, and the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) program. These funds have been programmed for a wide array of housing, homeless, and community development projects in the fifty communities that participate in these programs. The Consolidated Plan provides information on each project, its location, scope, and the amount of funds proposed to finish the work. These projects can be identified on maps provided with this summary as well.
Oakland County has followed a detailed citizen participation plan that
provides for and encourages participation of all citizens, especially those of
low and moderate income, and reside in slum and blighted areas. The County has
held meetings and provided information with reasonable and timely access,
culminating in a Public Hearing held in October 1994. The comments of citizens
at that hearing were responded to by the County and both the comments and the
response can be obtained upon request.
Oakland County has been recognized as one of the wealthiest counties in the United States over all, the economic well being of its residents varies significantly. Comparative income and population data for the eight counties in southeast Michigan indicates a significant difference between Oakland County and the seven other counties of the region. Oakland County has the highest incomes in two out of three categories.
Significant income differences are also evident between the 50 Oakland County urban county participating communities. The per capita income for each community varies from a high of $52,240 in the City of Lake Angelus to a low of $11,018 in the City of Hazel Park. The per capita income for Oakland County as a whole is $21,125. Thirty-four, or 68 percent, of the participating communities fall below the County's per capita income level and 16 communities (32 percent of the urban county participating communities) have per capita incomes higher than the County level.
According to 1989 income data, the City of Orchard Lake Village has the highest median family income ($115,102) and Royal Oak Township the lowest ($27,650) of the participating communities. As a point of reference, Oakland County's overall median family income was $50,980 in 1989. Twenty-seven of the participating communities have median family income above the County level, while 23 have median family incomes below it.
Nineteen-ninety (1990) Census data indicate that 23.37 percent (158,777) of the persons residing in the 50 participating communities are either extremely low income (0-30 percent of area median income), very low income (31-50 percent of area median income), or low income (51-80 area median income) income. The federal government's poverty count for the 50 participating communities shows that the communities with the highest percentage of residents at 125 percent of poverty are Royal Oak Township (25.1 percent), Hazel Park (21.8 percent), and Keego Harbor (I 2.8 percent).
Another indicator of need is the number of single-parent-headed households in a given community. Generally, these households lack the income to meet various needs. Studies have consistently shown that many single-parent-headed households tend to lag behind two-parent households in most socioeconomic categories. In 1990, 28,083 households in the 50 participating communities were headed by a single parent. This is 10.84 percent of the total households in the urban county program area. The five communities with the largest proportion of households headed by a single parent with children under 18 years of age are Hazel Park (20.82 percent), Oak Park (19.14 percent), Royal Oak Township (18.12 percent), Walled Lake (17.52 percent) and Keego Harbor (17.51 percent). The five communities with the largest proportion of the urban county area's total of single-parent families are Troy (7.78 percent), Oak Park (7.44 percent), Rochester Hills (6.78 percent), Madison Heights ho(6.37 percent) and Ferndale (5.93 percent).
Another indicator of economic need in a community is the number of its senior citizens, those 60 years of age or older. Older persons frequently have a greater need for both short- and long- term medical care than the general population. Frequently, because of restricted mobility due to physical condition and income (so many senior citizens are lower income that they are considered low-income as a class by the Community Development Block Grant program), they have a greater need for social services than other age groups. The ability of senior citizens to acquire and maintain adequate housing can also be limited due to their lower (and usually fixed) incomes. There are 93,177 person& -age 60 or older residing within the 50 participating communities.
There are 3,586 units of assisted senior housing located within the Oakland County urban county area. Each unit probably houses a maximum of two senior citizens. The resulting capacity of 7,172 individuals addresses the needs of less than eight percent of the total senior population. Twenty-three of the 25 housing projects have waiting lists, ranging from one to 10 years. The average length of time senior citizens will have to wait for a unit in an Oakland County urban community is approximately 3.5 years.
Educational levels have been positively correlated to income level in numerous studies. T assumption here is that, in general, the more educated a person is, the more money he or she w make. The more money he earns, the more he is able to affording housing and other economic goods. Conversely, less education would mean less income and a greater chance he or she would need housing and social services assistance. The data in Table 7 show that 18 participate communities have 50 percent or more of their residents with a high school education or less. The five communities with the highest proportion of persons with a high school education or less Hazel Park (74.70 percent), Madison Heights (63.51 percent), the Village of Holly (61.27 percent Ferndale (59.56 percent), and the Village of Leonard (59.32 percent).
While, admittedly, no one group of social indicators such as those discussed
above are perfect predictors of future housing and/or social services needs, the
particular indicators selected have bee used with a fairly good rate of success.
As each indicator of housing needs is examined, certain communities, especially
those communities located in the southeastern corner of the County, stand out
again and again. These are older communities, built 50 to 60 years ago, with an
aging housing stock and other infrastructure. Many also have aging populations,
so additional strain can be expected to be placed upon the senior housing and
social service delivery systems. These communities also have a high proportion
of renters (see Table 9). It can be expected that much o the housing need among
lower-income homeowners and renters, the elderly, large families, an persons
with disabilities will be located in these southeastern Oakland County
communities (Madison Heights, Royal Oak Township, Ferndale, Oak Park, Hazel
Park, and surrounding areas). The County's Community Development Block Grant
distribution formula anticipates this need. By giving weight to such variables
as poverty and overcrowded housing, these communities, with 16.40 percent of the
program area's population, receive 25.88 percent of the total annual block grant
funds. The HOME program is also being used to build affordable housing in Royal
Oak Township to help low-income persons acquire decent, safe, sanitary and
affordable housing.
Oakland County has an extensive and varied housing inventory, reflective of both the year the homes were constructed and the economic status of the persons for whom the house was constructed. The 1990 Census indicates that there were 264,499 housing units extant in the 50 participating communities that year. Of these units, 194,121 (73.34 percent) were owner- occupied, 57,752 (21.83 percent) were renter-occupied, 10,680 (4.04 percent) were vacant, and 1,932 (0.74 percent) were vacant seasonal units.
The age of housing stock in a particular community is largely a function of historical geography. Much of the early development of Oakland County took place along Woodward Avenue between Detroit and Pontiac. Ease of transportation along this corridor spurred development in southeastern Oakland County.
Prior to 1940, significant development occurred in Hazel Park, Ferndale, Birmingham and Berkeley, all located in the Woodward corridor area. Of the 264,499 housing units in the urban county program area, 26,365 units (9.97 percent of the total) were built prior to 1939. Today, many of these homes are over 60 years old. Many are in need of rehabilitation.
The second major period of housing construction in Oakland County occurred during and after World War II. Much of this development was again in the southeastern section of the County.1 Between 1940 and 1959, 73,989 units were constructed, representing 27.97 percent of the county's total present housing stock. As these units are between 35 and 54 years old, many of them require a certain amount of rehabilitation as well.
Oakland County experienced its third housing boom in the 1970s as inflationary trends fueled construction in previously undeveloped areas of the County. Six communities experienced the most significant amounts of housing construction: Troy (11,920 new units), Rochester Hills (7,738), Novi (5,629), West Bloomfield Township (5,692), Madison Heights (2,903) and Highland Township (2,814).
Significant levels of new housing construction occurred throughout Oakland County during the 1980s. The Census Bureau indicates that 53,213 new units were constructed between 1980 and March, 1990. Although this was down about one-quarter from the previous decade, many communities added thousands of new homes, including Rochester Hills (9,92 1), West Bloomfield Township (7,135) and the City of Novi (5,808). The least amount of new construction occurred in the older, established southeastern County communities which had experienced their boom some 30 to 40 years earlier.
Housing values vary significantly throughout the 50 participating communities. The highest median value of single-family, non-condominium housing is in the city of Lake Angelus, at $377,600. The community with the lowest median value of single family, non-condominium housing is Royal Oak Township ($25,700). It is evident from data that the highest values are to be found in those communities experiencing the greatest amount of new construction over the past 20 years. Median values are lowest in the older communities located in the southeastern part of the County, which is another indicator that relative housing and community development need is greater in this area of the urban county.
The median value of single-family, non-condominium housing in the County as a whole is $95,400. Twenty-seven participating communities have median values for this type of housing that is below the County level. These 27 communities can be grouped generally into three categories: (A) communities in the southeastern part of the County, (B) villages experiencing very early development around a mill or railroad junction, and © communities located on recreational lakes used for vacation areas in the 1930s through the 1950s. The housing stock in these communities is comprised of converted summer cottages.
According to the 1990 Census, 4,457 housing units in the 50 participating communities were considered to be overcrowded, an overcrowded housing unit being defined as 1.01 persons or more per room. While the numbers are small, the largest number of overcrowding takes place in Royal Oak Township (6.02 percent of all units), Oak Park (4.98 percent), and Hazel Park (3.93 percent). Interestingly, household size in Oakland County increased from 2.61 to 2.62 persons per unit between 1990 and 1993, according to the South East Michigan Council of Government's (SEMCOG) Population and Occupied Housing Units in Southeast Michigan 1993. The report further states that "The household size increase in Oakland County, while small, marks a break from recent trends and is significant if just for that reason. No other county's household size is increasing."
The 1990 Census states that 23,479 units in the participating communities have values at or below 50 percent of the County median. Four communities have over 1,000 units with a high probability of need for rehabilitation: Ferndale (5,006), Hazel Park (4,394), Oak Park (4,191), and Madison Heights (2,719).
The number of housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities in the City of Hazel Park are 2.49 percent, Rose Township, 0.9 percent, Oxford Village 0.76, and the City of Keego Harbor 0.75 percent. The communities with the greatest number of housing units without complete plumbing facilities are the City of Hazel Park (194), the City of Novi (59), the City of Rochester Hills (55), and Bloomfield Township (53).
There are 57,229 known rental units in the 50 participating communities. The condition of rental units is, however, unknown. Six of the 'participating communities have ordinances mandating that rental units be inspected and, if necessary, brought up to code prior to rental. It is recommended that all communities enact ordinances that would help ensure that rental units are maintained in decent, safe, and sanitary conditions.
Like most large urbanized jurisdictions in the United States, Oakland County has homeless persons within its borders. These people become homeless for a variety of reasons, including substance abuse, loss of a job, mental and/or physical illnesses, among other causes. Unlike the other sections of this Consolidated Plan, the count of homeless persons is County-wide. Oakland County's total homeless population is estimated to be a minimum of 298 individuals. The homeless census was conducted with the assistance of all known homeless facilities in Oakland County (four emergency shelters, three transitional shelters, and two warming centers, referred to as "reception centers." The census was taken on December 5, 1994, at all homeless facilities, in order to produce a point-in-time study that eliminated duplicate counting.
The results show that the majority of homeless persons in the County suffer from a variety of problems, including alcohol/drug abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence. One-hundred twelve of the persons counted (43.9 percent of the total) were abusers of alcohol or drugs, or currently enrolled in detoxification programs. Forty-four persons (17.3 percent) were determined to be mentally ill by shelter staff. About 4.3 percent of the total homeless population, or 11 individuals, were determined to be both mentally ill and substance abusers, while 104 persons (40.8 percent) had been victims of domestic violence. Shelter staff were unable to determine if any homeless persons in their facilities were HIV positive or had AIDS.
The racial composition of the homeless population does not fit the demographic profiles of either the Oakland Urban County area or the County in general. Whereas Oakland County's housed population is nearly 90 percent white, white persons make up only 37.6 percent of the County's homeless population, according to the December 5 survey. Black persons, who constitute 7.15 percent of the County's housed population, comprise the majority of the homeless population (55.4 percent). About 4.4 percent of the homeless persons in the County are Hispanic, and 2.7 percent were classified as other (other races or persons of mixed race). The December 5 homeless census also revealed 47 homeless families with children. There were 151 persons in these families.
Because of the size of Oakland County (960 square miles), a census of the unsheltered population of Oakland County was not attempted. However, it can probably be assumed that the majority of homeless persons in Oakland County were sheltered in one of the facilities participating in the survey, because of the late season. It can also be assumed that a few individuals were still on the street at the time of the count because they were either unwilling or unable to access one of the facilities. The number of these persons is unknown.
Oakland County does not administer a public housing authority (PHA). Within the Oakland Urban County program area, the Cities of Ferndale, Northville and South Lyon, and the Township of Royal Oak each have their own PHAS. The balance of the urban county area utilizes the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) as its PHA. According to MSHDA's Subsidized Housing Directory (1994), there are 313 units classified as public housing in the 50 participating communities. Public housing is defined in the Directory as housing for low-income persons developed, owned and operated by public housing agencies. Public housing units are located in Ferndale, South Lyon and Royal Oak Township. Because Oakland County does not own or operate any public housing, the County government does not know the physical condition of the units or their restoration and revitalization needs. Similarly, the County does not know which public housing developments, if any, receive funds through the Comprehensive Grant Program.
The federal government has concluded that childhood lead poisoning is the number one environmental health hazard facing American children. It is estimated that 10 to 15 percent of all preschoolers have blood levels high enough to warrant concern for their intellectual development. While lead poisoning affects children of every socioeconomic and demographic stratum, the poor and people of ethnic minority origin are disproportionately affected.
Of the 277,283 housing units in the 50 participating communities, a minimum of 158,018 or 56.9 percent, are estimated to contain lead-based paint (see Table 16). The percentage of each community's housing containing lead-based paint varies from 85 percent in the City of Pleas Ridge to 20 percent in the Village of Holly. Of the 158,018 units containing lead-based paint, the City of Troy has the largest share, with 9.49 percent of the urban county area's homes containing lead-based paint. A review of Table 19 provides information for each community.
The Oakland County Health Division identifies a few cases of lead-based paint poisoning in child through the Medicaid-funded Early Period Screening, Diagnosis, and Test Program. Specific numbers and locations of the cases are not available. The low numbers and scattered distribute of the cases indicates that lead-based paint poisoning is not a significant problem in Oakland Count However, there has never been a comprehensive lead screening program for children in Oakland Count and, therefore, the true relevance of lead poisoning is unknown.
The Oakland County Division of Community Development rehabilitates approximately 150 to 2 single-family, owner-occupied housing units each year. Federal regulations mandate that e homeowner be informed about the abatement of lead-based paint. To date, known high blood levels in children under seven years of age have not been identified in any of the rehabilitated units. If such cases are identified at any time in the future, the Community Development Division will address the need on a case-by-case basis.
The Oakland County Urban County area is comprised of 50 communities, each with its own housing market and conditions. The differences in housing conditions and prices in Oakland County can be quite stark, a comparison of Bloomfield Township and the City of Pontiac, or the City of Rochester Hills and Groveland Township, for instance, will show. Often, these differences manifest themselves within the space of a few city blocks. It is therefore very difficult to describe the market characteristics of the County, because the County is made up of a multiplicity of housing markets. Some general market features are common, more or less, to the entire Oakland County program area and will be treated here.
Generally, the condition of the housing market in the Oakland County Urban County area has been one of high growth. Between 1980 and March 1990, 53,213 housing units have been constructed. The communities experiencing the greatest housing expansion have been the City of Rochester with 9,921 new units, West Bloomfield Hills with 7,135 new units, the City of Novi with 5,808 new units, and the City of Troy with 4,431 new units.
The demand for housing in the Oakland Urban County area is difficult to quantify. A rough estimate may be made by examining the median (middle) housing price for each of the 50 communities, as there is generally a positive correlation between the demand for a particular good and its market price. Referring back to Table 10, it can be seen that there is a large variation in price (and therefore presumably demand) in the different communities. Lake Angelus leads the list with a median housing price of $377,600, followed by Orchard Lake Village ($376,100), West Bloomfield Township ($164,660), and Oakland Township ($156,200). At the other end of the scale are Royal Oak Township, with a median housing price of $25,700, followed by Hazel Park ($36, 1 00), Ferndale
Population and housing unit construction growth rates can also be used as guides to demand, because people tend to build housing in areas they find desirable and where they believe they will receive the maximum return on their investment; i.e., areas others find equally desirable. These two indicators must be treated with caution, as older communities have less available land upon which to build and will therefore show a stable or even slightly falling population and a stable housing stock for reasons that may have nothing to do with the desirability of the area at all. If the data on price, population, and construction are seen together, however, a picture of market patterns does tend to emerge.
In summary, the general housing market can be viewed as split into three parts: the old southeastern communities where housing supply and demand are stable or slightly negative, with a lower cost and probably more in need of rehabilitation; older communities still in high demand, such as Birmingham, with a stable housing supply, relatively high demand (i.e., price), and some housing stock in need of rehabilitation due to age; and newer communities, farther out from the old center of development, with an expanding supply of new (or relatively new) housing in high demand and expensive, with little need for rehabilitation. These are generalizations--pockets of poverty and housing units in poor condition may be found in every one of the 50 participating communities, but these generalizations can serve to illustrate the major features of the housing market in the Oakland Urban County area.
Federal regulations for the Consolidated Plan require grantees, including Oakland County, to identify areas of racial/ethnic and low-income "concentration," while allowing grantees to decide on the definition of "concentration." The County will define area of concentration, for purposes of this plan, as a community containing a higher percentage of low-income persons or members of minority groups than the urban county as a whole.
In the Oakland Urban County area, the racial/ethnic group concentrations range from Hispanic and American Indian/Alaskan Native persons, who are distributed in a fairly even pattern throughout the area, to Asian/Pacific Islander residents who tend to be more concentrated, to black residents, who are highly concentrated in a few communities. Persons identifying themselves as white are the majority population in every Oakland Urban County community with the exception of Royal Oak Township. Because such a tiny percentage of persons classified themselves as "Other," and since this classification is not one of the racial/ethnic groups traditionally recognized by the federal government, it is not treated in this narrative. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, those Oakland Urban County area residents classifying themselves as black in the Census are the most highly concentrated racial group in the 50 communities. "Black" is defined in the Census as a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Care must be taken when interpreting concentrations of black and Hispanic residents, as Hispanic persons may be either black or white. This makes "Hispanic" more of a cultural definition, rather than a racial one. With this caveat in mind, the communities with the greatest percentage of black residents are Royal Oak Township (65.24 percent), Oak Park (34.51 percent), the City of Lathrup Village (21.6 percent), Auburn Hills (9.65 percent), and Holly Township (4.82 percent). It will be noted that the highest concentrations of black residents are in communities located in the southeastern part of the County. Royal Oak Township, Oak Park and Lathrup Village all have concentrations of black residents far in excess of the urban county average (3.22 percent).
Hispanic residents are more evenly distributed throughout the urban county area. The communities with the greatest percentages of Hispanic residents (white or black) are Auburn Hills (2.61 percent), Lake Angelus (2.58 percent), Lathrup Village (2.56 percent), Orion Township (2.45 percent), and Holly Township (2.18 percent). Twenty-one communities have percentages of residents who are Hispanic in excess of the urban county average, while 29 communities have smaller percentages than the urban county average. This indicates that Hispanic residents are distributed fairly evenly throughout the 50 communities. Map C seems to support this hypothesis.
In sum, residents identifying themselves as white on the 1990 Census are the majority population in every Oakland Urban County community except Royal Oak Township, where the majority of residents identify themselves as black. Persons identifying themselves as Hispanic or American Indian/Alaskan Native live throughout the area in a more dispersed pattern than either black or Asian/Pacific Islander residents. Those persons identifying themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander are concentrated in eight of the 50 communities, mostly in the southern and eastern sections of Oakland County. Finally, the black population is the most concentrated of all the racial groups within the Oakland Urban County area, with 75.78 percent of area residents identifying themselves as black living in five communities. One community, the City of Oak Park, has nearly half of the total urban county black population residing within its borders.
The distribution of income groups throughout the Oakland Urban County area is fairly even, although 29 communities have percentages of low- and moderate-income residents above the percentage for the urban county as a whole (23.37 percent). Those communities with concentrations of low- and moderate-income persons 50 percent or more above the urban county average are Keego Harbor (45.6 percent), Ferndale (45.07 percent), and Holly Village (43.93 percent). Two communities, Royal Oak Township and Hazel Park, have populations which are 57.71 percent and 49.07 percent low- and moderate-income respectively-more than double the Oakland Urban County average. As Royal Oak Township is also the community with the largest concentration of black residents, this may indicate that those persons residing in the township and classifying themselves as black may have housing and community development needs that are disproportionately higher than the general urban county population, but definitive data to substantiate this hypothesis are unknown.
The State of Michigan's legal relationship with cities, townships, and villages is one of home rule; i.e., the bulk of decision-making affecting local communities takes place at the local level. Local communities are responsible for their own planning, zoning, and most municipal services. Michigan counties, as constitutional corporations of the state, have very little power to influence or alter decisions made by local communities in this regard. Oakland County, for instance, is not a single unit with 61 administrative subdivisions. Rather, it is (for purposes of planning and zoning) a line around a collection of 61 semi-independent cities, townships, and villages.
Because of home rule, the 50 communities participating in the Oakland Urban
County program do not have a single package of zoning controls, housing and
community development policies and development incentives. There are actually
50 sets. Any discussion of such barriers to affordable housing would be beyond
the scope of this Plan, especially as the County government has no power under
the Michigan Constitution to change these policies. Turning to the previous
analysis of housing costs and development patterns, however, it can be surmised
with a fair amount of certainty that housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income persons would be most prevalent in the older southeastern
communities and become more rare as one moved toward the newer exurban
developments in the southwest and northwest, where housing is considerably more
expensive (see Table 10). Certain Oakland Urban County communities to the west
and north are not yet connected to the Detroit sewer and water system.
Therefore, zoning policies restrict the number of housing units which can be
built on a given square area of land. This would also vary due to the condition
and type of soils in a given community. Also, as mentioned, water for drinking
and sanitation in these communities comes exclusively from wells. The density
of population is therefore also a function of the quantity and quality of the
groundwater available. Aside from lot size restrictions, the County is not
aware of any growth limits on housing per se in these communities. Communities
in the southeastern part of the county are limited in housing growth because the
supply of land available for new construction is rapidly dwindling.
The County has developed 21 specific priorities and objectives which include reducing the number of substandard housing units, affirmatively furthering fair housing, helping low income persons stay in their homes through improved energy efficiency, assisting homeowners accomplish housing rehabilitation, etc.
The primary objective of Oakland County's housing and community development programs is the development of viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. Consistent with this primary objective, Oakland County gives maximum feasible priority to housing, public service and capital improvement projects/activities which are consistent with one or more the national grant program objectives.
These objectives 1) ensure benefit to low and moderate income persons (70% or more of Oakland County's aggregate CDBG funds shall be used to support activities that benefit low and moderate income persons), 2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blighting conditions, and 3) meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community where other financial resources are not available to meet such needs.
In promoting the primary national and county program objectives, Oakland County Community Development has developed the following specific objectives and strategies consistent with policy statements for Federal, State, Regional and County levels of government for the 1995- 1999 program years:
Oakland County's anti-poverty strategy is composed of 3 parts: services to help low income persons stay in their homes, services for low-income persons in crisis situations, and job creation activities.
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program - $1,549,833
(includes $1,216,000 HUD HOME funds)
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - $5,835,823
(includes $770,823 in
County and
Community CDBG program income revenues)
Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESGP) - $160,000
The following are a few of the projects identified in selected communities of Oakland County:
| Auburn Hills | ($31,196) | Barrier free improvement to the civic center | |
| Berkley | ($39,493) | Sewer line reconstruction. | |
| Birmingham | ($13,158) | Public facilities improvements near Baldwin House | |
| Clarkston | ($5,000) | Barrier free improvements in Depot Park | |
| Clawson | ($61,176) | Resurface Goodale Ave. | |
| Farmington | ($30,685) | Public facilities improvements to Farmington Hills Senior Citizens Ctr. | |
| Ferndale | ($75,000) | Code enforcement | |
| Hazel Park | ($49,961) | Demolition of nuisance properties | |
| Keego Harbor | ($4,379) | Parkland acquisition | |
| Lake Angeles | ($1,458) | Barrier free improvements to City Hall | |
| Lathrup Village | ($5,885) | Improve facilities at senior citizens center | |
| Madison Heights | ($80,371) | Street improvements | |
| Northville | ($7,200) | Barrier free renovations to municipal buildings | |
| Novi | ($76,917) | Sidewalk improvements | |
| Oak Park | ($43,822) | Housing rehabilitation assistance | |
| Orchard Lake Village | ($4,800) | Senior citizens center space rental | |
| Pleasant Ridge | ($3,732) | Barrier free improvements | |
| Rochester | ($30,459) | Street improvements | |
| Rochester Hills | ($179,043) | Assist income-eligible households to pay street improvement assessments | |
| South Lyon | ($28,697) | Sidewalk improvements | |
| Sylvan Lake | ($7,500) | Minor home repairs | |
| Troy | ($34,217) | Senior citizen home chore services | |
| Walled Lake | ($20,106) | Minor home repair | |
| Wixom | ($8,754) | Preserving an historic property | |
| Addison Twp | ($14,215) | Senior center improvements | |
| Brandon Twp | ($19,520) | Fire protection facilities improvements | |
| Commerce Twp | ($36,764) | Housing rehabilitation | |
| Groveland Twp | ($8,934) | Barrier free improvements | |
| Highland Twp | ($79,092) | Public housing modernization | |
| Holly Twp | ($2,630) | Minor home repair | |
| Lake Orion Village | ($14,337) | Water system improvements | |
| Leonard Village | ($6,400) | Minor home repair | |
| Milford Village | ($17,374) | Barrier free improvements | |
| Ortonville Village | ($8,000) | Street improvements | |
| Oxford Village | ($14,193) | Street improvements | |
| Wolverine Lake Village | ($8,766) | Barrier free improvements | |
| County of Oakland | ($2,157,034.18) | Housing rehabilitation |
Oakland County administers all of the CDBG, ESG and HOME funds in the County. Some specific projects are carried out by other organizations within the County, but the overall program is administered by the County government.
Oakland County administers the Emergency Shelter Grant Program funds but directs all of the funds to seven existing homeless facilities.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds are administered throughout the County with about 1/3 of the funds going for County projects and 2/3 going to fund projects sponsored by the 50 local communities participating in the program.
MAP 2 depicts points of interest and low-moderate income areas.
MAP 3 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and minority concentration levels.
MAP 4 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, and unemployment levels.
MAP 5 depicts points of interest, low-moderate income areas, unemployment levels, and proposed HUD funded projects; in addition: a table provides information about the project(s).
MAP 6 depicts neighborhood streets and proposed HUD funded projects, as described in the table under MAP 5.
MAP 7 depicts neighborhood streets and proposed HUD funded projects, as described in the table under MAP 5.
MAP 8 depicts neighborhood streets and proposed HUD funded projects, as described in the table under MAP 5.
