HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #02 - Discussion ItemThe Honorable Mayor and Members November 16,1998
of the City Commission
HUD Funding
Donald H. Warshaw
City Manager
In response to the request from the City Commission regarding the annual allocation of
funds through the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the staff
has assembled the following information: a historical perspective about why the City of
Miami is eligible for funding through HUD and other Federal and State funding sources;
a description of the formula utilized by HUD to determine the total allocation to the City
under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and, information on
the kinds of activities that the Commission has traditionally funded with these
allocations. Additionally, we are providing the Commission a summary of the City's
allocation of those funds over the six -years covering the 19`h year through the current 24th
year. For purposes of comparison, we have noted the percentage of the allocation to each
target area based on the HUD formula, as compared to the City Commission allocation
for each target area.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In 1974 the City of Miami was designated an Entitlement Community. As an Entitlement
Community the City received and continues to receive funding under the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program of the U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) under Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq).
As a HUD designated Entitlement Community the City receives its CDBG allocation
based on a HUD formula composed of three variables; population, the number of persons
below the poverty level and the number of overcrowded housing units. The City
Commission has chosen historically to allocate those funds to eight designated target
areas that represent the most severely stressed areas of the City. Those target areas are:
Allapattah, Coconut Grove, Downtown, Edison/Little River, Little Havana, Model City,
Overtown, and Wynwood.
a�All ..j
It has been well documented that these target areas were experiencing economic decline
and increased poverty conditions as early as the sixties. Population in these areas was
dramatically impacted by immigration in the late sixties and beyond. These conditions
which made the City eligible for funding in 1974 continued to worsen so that by the 1990
Census, as you know, the City was designated the fourth poorest City in the United
States. City planning statistics and research data indicate that if undocumented aliens had
been factored, the City would have actually been ranked the poorest City in the nation.
The following information is intended to provide a summary overview of the social and
economic impact of poverty in the City's target communities, as well as highlighting
some of the factors that contribute to the three variables utilized in the HUD formula
allocation.
POVERTY
The national poverty rate of 13.5% cited in the 1990 Census figures, compared favorably
to Dade County's rate of 17.9%. Both paled in comparison to the City of Miami's
poverty rate of 31.2%. The poverty rates in the CDBG target areas ranged from a high of
55.63% to a low of 37.62%.
POVERTY RATE FOR CDBG TARGET AREAS
2,898
1,181
40.84 %
Coconut Grove
Little Havana
69,327
25,626
37.44 %
Downtown
2,504
1,393
55.63 %
Overtown
11,976
6,136
54.00 %
Wynwood
16,218
6,054
37.62 %
Allapattah
37,220
13,325
39.52 %
Edison/Little River
39,243
17,462
44.50 %
Model City
25,222 1
10,968
1 43.48 %
Source: 1990 Census Data. City of Miami, Planning & Zoning Department, Neighborhood Planning Section
•
b r 6"" Sk47%.
�$ 01-
Census figures show the economic isolation was further compounded when considering
the median household incomes reported. The median income for Dade County was
$26,909 and $26,507 for the City of Miami. Both were comparatively close to the United
States total of $27,483.
However, the CDBG target community's median household income ranged from $6,630
to $21,405 with an average of $13,191. Even more telling of the economic isolation is
the median per capita incomes in the CDBG target areas ranging from $4,929 to $11,527
with an average per capita income of $7,435.
MEDIAN INCOME FOR CDBG TARGET AREAS
10,308
14,191
Coconut Grove
Little Havana
6,502
12,195
Downtown
7,812
6,630
Overtown
4,929
10,100
Wynwood
11,527
21,405
Allapattah
6,463
12,899
Edison/Little River
5,693
14,142
Model City
6,253
13,973
Source: 1990 Census Data.
City of
Miami, Planning & Zoning Department, Neighborhood Planning Section
The poverty of the City of Miami is additionally impacted by immigration, which began
with the Cuban exodus in the 1960's. Currently, over 60% of the population is foreign
born. This is the highest in the nation for any city above 200,000 population. This has
resulted in the fact that almost one-half (48.2%) of the adult population in the City of
Miami are non -citizens. The number of refugees residing in the City, along with the
continuing arrival of new refugees, has placed enormous demands on the City's delivery
systems and resources.
Hispanics comprise the major portion of poverty figures in the Allapattah, Little Havana
and Wynwood target areas and Haitians comprise the major portion of those figures in
Edison/Little River. For many of the immigrants there has been limited to no family
support and immediate employment has been crucial to their survival. Finding
employment has been difficult, if not impossible, and as a result, the poverty figures have
increased.
Labor market statistics cite that an equally challenging problem is finding the ways to
assimilate young black males between the ages of 16 and 24 who have never been in the
workforce. Those numbers of young men who have never been employed contribute to
the high numbers of economically disadvantaged residents who live in poverty. They
additionally figure in the large percentage rate of the unemployed.
Another major factor contributing to poverty and unemployment in the City of Miami is
the large population of single females, living in public housing, receiving welfare, who
are heads of household with two or more children. The 1990 Census reported that in
some target areas the percentage of these households ranged as high as 61 % and over
64% of those households lived in poverty.
The 1990 Census listed the total labor force for the City of Miami at 170,228. In the eight
target areas the total working age population was 154, 039. An average of 52.5% of that
population was unemployed or not in the workforce.
LABOR FORCE STATISTICS — PERSONS 16+
�S1-4 A_1214 2
The importance of these statistics is how they relate to the overall need for jobs in the
City of Miami's target communities. The job growth rate in South Florida is 1.5%
(compared to 5.1 % for the State). It has been well documented that lack of employment
opportunities contributes to poverty.
Additionally, educational attainment is low in the target areas, with some communities
experiencing rates of graduation from high school of less than 35%. The low educational
achievement level of City residents substantially limits earning ability. A rapidly growing
segment of the work force in the City's communities have very limited skills and hence
very limited opportunities for income production.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT - 25 YEARS +
OVERCROWED HOUSING
In the years between 1974, the 1990 Census, and today, the continued increase in
population and overcrowded housing in the target areas and the continued high
percentage of the population living in poverty, has contributed to the economic isolation
of the target areas resulting in housing deterioration, economic disinvestment and
increased social needs.
A shortage of housing has created an acute problem of overcrowding, especially in the
Allapattah, Edison/Little River and Little Havana target areas, resulting in major
deterioration. Additionally, the overcrowding has resulted in illegal conversions of single
family homes to rooming houses and illegal additions to existing units. Large
concentrations of public housing and rental rehabilitation in target areas such as
Allapattah, Model City and Overtown have had a negative impact on surrounding
residential areas resulting in exodus and the gradual deterioration of existing housing
•mWirawil
,ice • •
stock. The need for affordable housing for very low, low and moderate -income families
and individuals is critical and homeownership is on the decline in all target areas. Aging
and poor rehabilitation has taken a heavy toll on the existing housing stock in almost all
target areas especially the Overtown target community. There is an urgent need to
conserve and maintain the existing housing stock through effective and proper
rehabilitation and strict code enforcement.
IN SUMMARY
The three conditions that make the City eligible, and keep it eligible for HUD funding,
population, poverty, and overcrowding have steadily increased despite the City's efforts.
As a result of increased need and limited resources, the future requires a targeted
approach to the use of the Federal and State allocations. The challenge for the City is to
insure the maximum benefit of the limited funds to the target areas through careful,
thoughtful, and detailed planning. As we develop the strategic plan for the next five years
it is imperative that we establish priorities. Our use of the limited funds through HUD and
other Federal and State sources must be augmented by an aggressive grants management
effort to identify and seek additional funds from both public and private sources. The
goal will be to bring a successful conclusion to each priority through a strong, focused
application of funds and then move on to the next priority.
HUD FUNDING FORMULA
Since the beginning of our Entitlement in 1974, the HUD allocation formula for the City
of Miami has been composed of three variables: population, number of persons below the
poverty level, and number of overcrowded housing units (1.01+ persons per room). The
City Commission elected to take the HUD formula allocation for the City and direct the
use of those allocations in eight designated target areas. As a result of that direction, staff
applied the HUD dollar weighting formula to the designated areas. As a result of that
application, in the 1998 CDBG 24th Program Year, each person in the population was
worth $3.4131, each person below the poverty level was worth $58.6034, and each
overcrowded housing unit was worth $184.2725. A proration reduction factor of .8965
was applied. This resulted in the 1998 CDBG allocation for the City of Miami of
$12,655,000. Finally, the dollar amounts for the rest of city were allocated to each of the
target areas proportionate to the relative weight of each of the three factors: population,
poverty and overcrowding. The receipt of this allocation, in turn entitles the City to
receive other Federal and State funds for economic and community revitalization.
These funds are provided to assist in the development of viable urban communities,
including a suitable living environment, decent housing, and the expansion of economic
opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.
.:i
--V 4ty V . o
The national objectives state that each CDBG funded activity must:
• Benefit low and moderate income persons;
• Aid in the prevention or elimination of slum or blight; and
Meet other Community Development needs having a particular urgency because
existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of
the community.
There are a variety of eligible activities for the use of the HUD funds as long as that use
falls under the parameters of one of the three national objectives. The City Commission
has traditionally provided funding under:
• Social Programs
• Economic Development
• Housing
• Public Facilities
ATTACHMENTS
The attached series of maps, charts and grafts detail the CDBG target areas and the total
allocations and disbursements of Federal and State funds administered by the Department
of Community Development to the designated target areas over the past six years. This
information includes:
• A City map depicting the eight CDBG target areas.
• A pie chart demonstrating the application of the HUD formula allocation by City
designated target areas.
• A total of all Federal and State funds administered by the City's Department of
Community Development allocated to the CDBG target areas compared to the HUD
formula allocation and the variance.
• CDBG funds allocation to each target area compared to the HUD formula allocation
and the variance.
• The total funding for Housing Programs, which included HOME, SHIP, CDBG and
Housing Bonds allocated to each of the target areas compared to the HUD formula
allocation and the variance.
• T 1
• The total funding for Social Services Projects by target area.
• The total funding for Economic Development Projects by target area.
• The total funding for Public Improvement Projects by target area.
DHW/DB/GCW/db
City of Miami _,a _
i� 4
Community Development Target Areas, �.,�- °.
and Redevelopment Areas r
I
o
C I T Y 11 I BISCAt NE
BAY
S��Y Al IXPi '
p. iAUW 1LtW Guwwq
ii
,
INTBANATIONAL .�. ,..�.► L L A P.. A T T A H W Y N- D n
AIRPORT - (/
— OMNI �
- Ye.tYn
p so AS 0 E t0 W N 1
PAR W S�
a
LIT 'lE HAV NA PORT f'\.O
YIAYI N.
I�onl • / ,
9. 2d14 V
I
V/RClN/A /
i A6Y
Municipal Boundary
CD Target Area Boundary 0 C
— -- — Redevelopment Area Boundary R �%0e
s � 1
Source: Prepared for the Office of the City Clerk BISCAYNE /
by the Planning Department BAY
t
gNarcinfo%mcc\CommisDislrids898®H 11 redev.gra — - - — - — - — — - — - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ` _ J
10-NOV-1998
L
— -
V,
s
•�r
HUD Formula Allocations by CDBG Target Areas
WY nlAI^^,4
T
Overtown
6%
Model City
12%
Coconut Grove
Allapattah 2%
16% Downtown
1 %,
Edison Little
River
19%
va na
37%
NUTS: For a detailed explanation of the HUD allocation formula see the following page.
Relative Weight of Target Areas in HUD Allocation Formula
Allapattah Cocunut Grove Downtown Edison/Little River Model City
Population
$
195,606
$
15,230
$
13,160
$
206,238
$ 132,552
Persons Below Poverty Level
$
907,474
$
80,430
$
94,868
$
1,189,216
$ 746,955
Overcrowded Housing Units
$
946,261
$
97,334
$
25,858
$
1,066,525
$ 585,467
Total
$
2,049,341
$
192,994
$
133,885
$
2,461,979
$ 1,464,973
(In Percent)
11.58'i6
Pequena Habana
Overtown
Wynwood
Total City
Population
$
406,322
$
62,891
$
85,232
$
1,117,232
Persons Below Poverty Level
$
1,908,725
$
417,881
$
412,296
$
5,757,844
Overcrowded Housing Units
$
2,429,443
$
271,022
$
357,623
$
5,779,532
Total
$
4,744,490
$
751,794
$
855,151
$
12,654,608
Note: The HUD allocation formula used for the City of Miami is composed of three variables: population, number of persons below poverty level,
and number of overcrowded housing units (1.01+ persons per room). A dollar weighting for each factor is then applied. For 1998, each person in
the population is worth $3.4131, each person below the poverty level was worth $58.6034, and each overcrowded housing unit was worth $184.2725.
A proration reduction factor of .8965 was applied. This resulted in the 1998 CDBG allocation for the City of Miami of $12,655,000. Finally, the dollar
amounts for the Rest of City were allocated to each of the target areas proportionate to the relative weight of each of the three factors: population,
poverty, and overcrowding.
r
CITY OF MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ALLOCA TIONS B Y ALL FUNDING SOURCES AND TARGET AREAS
FUNDING
SOURCES
ALLAPATTAH
COCONUT
GROVE
DOWNTOWN
EDISON
LITTLE
RIVER''
LITTLE
HAVANA
MODEL
CITY
OVERTOWN
WYNWOOD
TOTAL
CDBG
13,655,333
7,230,454
4,398,805
11,622,310
22,980,285
6,070,378
9,763,324
9,042,656
84,763,545
HOME
2,115,920
325,290
2,913,500
179,734
4,278,467
8,509,965
5,817,876
24,140,752
HOPWA
1,804,611
93,817
93,817
2,387,569
1,125,808
3,377,425
562,904
750,539
10,196,491
SHIP
504,450
1,838,099
214,150
2, 556,6'
HOUSING
BONDS
2,210,000
3,370,000
105,000
2,363,000
7,685,000
SECTION 108
DRAW DOWNS
2,500,000
5,100,000
5,600,000
13,200,000
TOTAL
20,290,314
11,019,561
9,966,122
14,189,613
30,327,659
17,957,768
23 821,254
15,393,195
142,542,487
Commission Allocated
Percentage
14.23%
7.73%
6.95%
9.95%
21.28%
12.60%
16.46%
10.80%
100.00%
HUD Formula Allocation
16.00%
2.00%
1.00%
19.00%
37.00%
12.00%
6.00%
7.00%
100.00%
VARIANCE
(1.77%)
5.73°%
5.95% '
(9.05%)
(,15.72%)
0,60%
10.46°%
3.80°%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
-10.00%
-20.00%
Allapattah C. Grove Downtown Edison UR L. Havana Model City Overtown Wynwood
■ Commission Allocated %
❑ HUD Formula Allocation
Variance
CITY OF MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C086 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS BY TARGET AREAS
TAROEt
AREA
YEAR
goo
YEAR
20t:
YEa cR
............
22od:
YEAR
.23rd
YEAR
2011:1-1
YEAR
Total
Funding
Commission
Allocated
I.-Perowtooe,1
HUD
Formula
Allocation
VARIANCE.:.
ALLAPATTAH
2,381,173
2,222,741
2, TOO, 962
2,167,358
2,286,133
2,496,966
13,655,333
16.11%
16.00%
0.11%
COCONUT GROVE
1,470,658
1,163,737
1,077,503
999,086
1,224,082
1,295,388
7,230,454
8.53%
2.00%
6.53%
DOWNTOWN
602,314
1,138,657
818,364
509,732
610,111
719,627
4,398,805
5.19%
1.00%
4.190k
EDISON LITTLE RIVER
1,754,975
1,926,098
2,106,433
1,671,093
2,099,219
2,064,493
11,622,310
13.71%
19.00%
(5.29%)
LITTLE HAVANA
3,104,442
3,960,539
4,421,053
3,488,509
4,032,247
3,973,495
22,980,285
27.11%
37.00%
(9.89%)
MODEL CITY
719,071
1,103,315
1,213,700
976,195
822,126
1,235,972
6,070,378
7.16%
12.00%
(4.84%)
OVERTOWN
1,266,271
1,877,135
1,410,374
1,985,043
1,311,515
1,912,986
9,763,324
11.52%
6.00%
5.52%
WYNWOOD
1,464,863
1,731,122
1,420,969
1,552,984
1,336,715
1,566,003
9,042,656
10.67%
7.00%
3.67%
TQ"L
4
14,560j359 1
13"120'.006
j .1
[!13 722,14T
1
—8
1512 20
8,70
[— j647
00
1OW %
1 060 O*A
Entitlement
12,570,999
13,681,000
13,709,000
13,320,000
13,106,000
12,655,000
79,041,999
93.25%
Program Income
-7
192,769
1,442,344
860,359
616,147
2,609,929
5,721,548
6.75%
TOTAL ALE A�rrrD1
�2,6 3,�7
5, �12 a, 3 �44
�4,600,�SSIV
11,120,000
13,722,147'�
--- 15,264929 —,
�4MI��547
100.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
0%i
10.00%
0.00%
-10.00%
Allapattah C. Grove Downtown Edison L/R - L. Havana - Model City ' Overtown ' Wynwood
0 Commission Allocated %
0 HUD Formula Allocation
0 Variance
CITY OF MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING PROJECT
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS BY TARGET AREAS
TARGET
NILIMSEWOP
140ME
SHIP '
COOG/RRPG
HOUSING
Tote[
Commission
FI�tD
VAR'NCE.
AREA 1
I iNkTS
PROGRAM
PROGRAM:PROGRAM
8ONflSuldiit
l?er
Atledrrr�uia
Ta Air
Pere a
Allen ipn ';
ALLAPATTAH
462
2,115,920
504,450
1,121,266
2,210,000
5,951,636
12.04%
16.00%
(3.96%)
COCONUT GROVE
34
335,290
3,370,000
3,705,290
7.49%
2.00%
5.49%
DOWNTOWN
176
2,913,500
800,000
3,713,500
7.51%
1.00%
6.51%
EDISON LITTLE
32
179,734
447,333
627,067
1.27%
19.00%
(17.73%)
RIVER
LITTLE HAVANA
641
4,276,467
1,838,099
3,804,456
105,000
10,026,022
20.27%
37.00%
(16.73%)
MODEL CITY
337
8,509,965
1,114,260
bo
9,624,225
19.46%
12.00%
7.46%
OVERTOWN
785
5,817,876
214,150
7,271,285
2,000,000
15,303,311
30.95%
6.00°%
24.95%
WYNWOOD
41
500,000
500,000
1.01%
7.00%
(5.99%)
TOTAL
2,508
24,150,752
2 55 ;59
15,05S,640
7�855,4)U4
49,451; }51
100.W%
10000°%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
Allapattah C. Grove Downtown Edison LIR L. Havana Model City Overtown Wynwood
■ Commission Allocated %
13 HUD Formula Allocation
0 Variance
CITY OF MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SOCIAL SERVICES PROJECTS
SIX YEAR FUNDING ALLOCATIONS BY TARGET AREAS
d
N
F
CITY OF MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
SIX YEAR FUNDING ALLOCATIONS BY TARGET AREAS
'AIiiMi`
jl.t
...
TOTAL
Canunission'
' . y
Y R
YEJA�t
YEt
Y1E AR
YEAR
URt iNt
Ally aced
...
Percetrtage
ALLAPATTAH
50,000
109,750
201,700
175,000
100,000
636,450
13.15%
COCONUT GROVE
45,481
52,266
63,500
64,250
63,840
54,000
343,337
7.10%
DOWNTOWN
45,052
53,128
77,000
60,750
54,500
57,250
347,680
7.19%
EDISON LITTLE RIVER
49,893
79,814
124,728
97,453
54,750
50,750
457,388
9.45%
LITTLE HAVANA
49,021
179,276
164,000
393,600
224,050
270,250
1,280,377
26.46%
MODEL CITY
57,250
25,125
50,000
132,375
2.74%
OVERTOWN
542,500
105,000
150,750
100,500
100,000
998,750
20.64%
WYNWOOD
49,764
155,889
116,750
104,500
106,000
109,250
642,153
13.27%
i`i T
23I�, 3�i1
; 1 1 i� 87�.....:.
$ i T,���
4x�B, '�I3
� ,�+4
41 ,500
4, 838 510
100. D0%
CITY OF MIAMI
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
SIX YEAR FUNDING ALLOCATIONS BY TARGET AREAS