Code of Maine Rules
19 - DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
498 - OFFICE OF TOURISM AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 36 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM 2008 PROGRAM STATEMENT
Section 498-36-7 - AMENDMENTS TO THE PROGRAM STATEMENT

1. Scoring factors should be closely related to the program function for which the scoring factors relate (i.e., housing and infrastructure);

2. Some balancing is needed so that there is not a bias towards small communities (with few in need, but a high percentage) and large communities (which may have many in need even with a very low percentage).

3. Data which is updated on an ongoing basis, even if less precise, is preferable to data from the 2000 Census.

4. In order for communities to know in advance where they stand, the points must be predetermined prior to applications, and not depend on application data.

Relevance and weighting of factors: Under the existing system, each of the 7 factors was given an equal weight, so the result is that financial commitment and lower income households were given a "double" weight and the issue becomes whether the factors address the right criteria for the programs in question.

Logically, different criteria might be used to deal with housing needs as opposed to an infrastructure needs. These differences are already part of the scoring system, specifically, the narrative "impact" section (30 points) of the application. The community evaluation factor is meant to come into play when all other factors are basically equal - to determine awards where two communities have similar needs and equally effective solutions.

In this light, the most important factor would appear to be tax burden. For infrastructure, all other things being equal, the State would wish to fund activities in a town that is already making a significant tax effort; while substandard housing is important for rehab programs, and affordable housing is important for all programs and the presence of low-income people is a relevant factor, they are already heavily considered in the low-income benefit aspect of the program design. Financial commitment is relevant, but it does not fit into the Community Evaluation factor, because it is application-specific, and cannot be predetermined.

Given all of this, and putting aside the question of the appropriateness of individual measurements, Planning Decisions recommends a weighting that gives tax burden 50% of the points (10), housing 40% (8 points), and low income population 10% (2 points). The recommended distribution is below.

Best measures: Given this general weighting of factors, how do we best measure them"

The current substandard housing measure uses data from the 2000 Census and is increasingly irrelevant today as hardly any year-round units in Maine lack complete plumbing and overcrowding continues to be a problem, more indicative of an affordability issue than of poor physical housing conditions. Therefore, the best external indicator for rehabilitation need is simply the age of its housing stock. While the age of housing is measured in the 2000 Census, updating is not important in this case, since the number of older units changes little from year-to-year.

Affordability is a problem that changes year to year, as the housing cycle changes. Therefore, the best current measure of affordability is the "affordability index" published annually by Maine Housing which tracks changes in the housing market by community, and matches it against annual changes in median income in that community.

The best measure of tax burden was designed by the Maine Municipal Association a few years ago. Unfortunately, MMA has not continued with this. Therefore, OCD's current approach of calculating the community's tax rate (state-equalized) relative to the state average is better than any of the alternatives.

The best measure of tax burden was designed by the Maine Municipal Association a few years ago. Unfortunately, MMA has not continued with this. Therefore, OCD's current approach of calculating the community's tax rate (state-equalized) relative to the state average is better than any of the alternatives.

The HUD measures of low and moderate income people and poverty are all based on 2000 Census data. Therefore, the best current estimates on a town level for low and moderate income people are from Maine Housing, with data from a private provider called Claritas. For purposes of this factor, the proportion of households under 50% of area median income would provide a good sense of how many really low-income people are residing in an individual community. The measures that will be used are in the table below:

Finally, the question of adjustments for small and large municipalities: The discussion so far has not addressed whether the scoring system should take special measures to account for communities of different sizes - either by scaling all of the proposed measurements by sizes of communities, as is done now, or by including a balance of absolute number and percentage measures, in order to compensate for the effects of size on a measurement.

Planning Decisions does not recommend any special measures for the new method outlined above. There is no particular relationship between old housing and small or large municipalities; or example, Lewiston has a lot of old housing, and so does Osborne, and both would have a high score in this measure. Likewise, tax burden and affordability are unaffected either way by community size. The last measure, low income population, might favor rural communities because it is a percentage measure; but some urban service centers will get the maximum points on this, and therefore is recommended as a low point item.