The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVI (B) Discussion/ Action re: Over 65 Program Committee Recommendations Agenda 6-17-97 Item VI B "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER S. SCOFF VANDERGRIFT Ocoee CITY OF OCOEE CNNY11IpVRs O •rt 0 DANNY HONERS �r -�� 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE scan'ANDIiRSON a scar'A.GLASS v y p OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 r•„ F`�"j� �p (407)656-2322 NANCY L PARKER CITY MANAGLR fq Of G00�•> OATS SIIAI'IRO MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager DATE: June 12, 1997 RE: DISCUSSION OF OVER 65 PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Under City Commission Reports, Commissioner Howell discussed his wishes to revisit the Over 65 Program and the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Committee appointed by the City Commission to look at that program. Attached is the full packet of information generated by the Over 65 Committee as given to the then-seated members of the City Commission for their review and discussion. Respectfully Submitted, / ES:fdg Attachment AGENDA 3-19-96 "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" Item V1 C .r Q w* O COMMISSIONERS = CITY OF OCOEE RUSTY JOHNSON Q SCOTT ANDERSON �,y� 150 N. Ld KESh10RE DRIVE SCOTT A.GLASS rF p _ _p V OCOEE,FLORIDA3496LL^5P )IbI GLHA50N � �J � (407)656-2322 CR'I m ANA[ER fq �f G00� ` ELLIS SI-IAPIRO MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager DATE: March 13, 1996 RE: OVER 65 COMMITTEE Pursuant to your direction, the Over 65 Committee was appointed by you and has met for the past several months to review the current Over 65 Program and to make recommendations to you regarding the continuance of the program in the future. Upon the organization of this committee and selection of a chairman, the Over 65 Committee selected Michael Hammond to be their attorney for the purposes of reviewing the legality of the current program. Mr. Hammond is present for any questions you may have. Attached for your review is a copy of his comprehensive report to the Committee. As a result of his report, the Committee met on several occasions and began asking questions regarding the demographics of the people in our community over the age of 65. Attached is a report by Senior Planner Abra Home regarding the numbers she found. She is also present to answer any questions you may have. After much discussion, the Over 65 Committee unanimously came up with the following recommendation: Any bona fide resident of the City of Ocoee age 65 and over whose personal and/or household annual income is at 150°/n of poverty level rounded to nearest $100.00 shall be eligible for a monthly per household benefit of a maximum of 10,000 gallons of free water and solid waste pick up. The poverty level income shall be determined by an outside agenny to be selected by City Commission. Chairman Dan Murphy is also present tonight and would like to say a few words to you and answer am, questions you may have. Respectfully Submitted, ES:fdg Attachments (2) a -/2. - 94 Ytwit-i:3 PISSIVAN . WEISBERG, DARRET T. HURT, MA. A'`".-'"¢' DONAHUE & IMCLAIN, P A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW a E•EN A a¢sm. arcw.aon ISSMANPG .Cr En sr AGE ErREET wOeEorC e•RRE'r - ElccR nr nAELL :UweLDS :E.SLQrC •„ ai III NOCr LcRlDA S,9G HALL GpLOSrCiry ROBERTS LN•pu'E C EG+Cu[wOT g3 g'o'ao N NACLV .OwmEN rry ur 'ELGEOP.CRr.r C:r B+r.9'E5 nr n•CC v „ i.rnCNO • ,u n .0 n vNrOE n Rv OALLA 9CVNGEa GANG KENNoN CNNR wL. BARNS-PLAZA LISACROBE A.rNc.Srpap i.Ene mCOr 9CUL^,wwp �'lw 'c.. A nl CEZ'AP v NO usAELwZAv nrLURE AHCCAL' N Ivr 'NCI"'PE/c2ci LCVEPO reONC•LO✓EZ SiACIE BrGRCENE -q ✓` IC.MO Sul 2Cr"ruA :COR Vn 1f G: OaeEN S n r TELi rAmirA .NC'.SL122r-3ua 'CLc BCACn FLORIO.29ip EPH EPI 'ELCoGoGE r 4OJi 5699%O TG N4A5r. M MC RR aul 2pr.]Gno EZeo✓rERr<on osan5o rNonns N.NcopNgp AC NINrsrviow " Err ANIa B.n aPE~<NORwr DEE w GOO"PETERSCN ViNCENrP PAwLOWSN LAPEL n POLLACx GREGORYD ParScCE RON'WALTERG BEN,•ury PLEASE REPLYALO r RICER ROBERT a OEnrvCri TO! ORLANDO RANDY C SCHlHMELPEENNJG R4NARCn swG.0 .%GUGLA]'.v 9JN0 n*RNS SPANOLCv PCw•5 i - r:c]RO WARREN K 5PON5.CR vA'„ __N 5LLm IN. ury SUOu NCC P ]A v "'Sri" "ACC "OSCPG 7 r .L,. AGL "CRL'.SPSC LLn rC,E PA . GproN uL 'R,c "uNp February 12, 1996 Daniel R. Murphy, Esc. Zimmerman, Shuffield, Kiser & Sutcliffe Landmark Center One, Suite 600 315 East FRobnscr Street P .O. Pox _ Orlando, FL 32802-3000 Re : City of Ccoee, Senior Program Cur File No . 1009-29774 Dear Mr. Murphy: I have now had the opportunity to complete my analysis of the City of Ocoee Senior Program and conduct the necessary legal research in order to offer my opinions as requested by the Senior Program Committee at its regular meeting on November 27, 1995 . Aissues of lthough this program presents rather complicated fact specific issues and constitutional ,an' I will do my best to present the Ym s terms in order to avoid confusion. The opinions offered in this letter are based on my understandinc of the facts as presented by the Senior Program Committee, the wording of the senior program resolution itself, and Daniel R. Murphy, Esc. February 12 , 1996 Page 2 the current status of the law as it relates tc each of the issues presented by the ordinance. This letter will outline my initial thoughts and observations, provide legal analysis of the issues, and provide recommendations for future action to be taken by the committee. FACTUAL OVERVIEW The City of Ocoee Senior Program provides for certain specific eligibility requirements before a citizen of Ocoee can partake in the program. In addition, the program provides certain specific benefits once an individual has met the eligibility requirements . Specifically, a citizen of Ocoee is eligible for participation in the Senior Program if that individual (1) has resided in the city limits of Ocoee for ten years or more; (2) is the owner and occupant of his/her home within the city limits of Ocoee; (3) is at least 65 years of age or, in the alternative, 62 years of ace and receiving social security benefits; and (4) has submitted an application for benefits to the City and that application has been approved. The benefits provided by the Senior Program include 10 , 000 gallons of water per month without charge_; gt (sh pickup service provided by the City without charge, and /(3) a a refund of City of Ocoee ad valorem property taxes up to a maximum of $100 per year. The Senior Program as described above presents several legal_ issues under the United States Constitution. Specifically, the eligibility requirements create classifications based on a durational residency requirement within the city limits of Ocoee, a property ownership requirement, and an age requirement . Each of these classifications would be scrutinized under the United States Constitution based on an equal protection analysis. Generally, equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution recuires that a state or any l i subdivision of a state must treat similarly situated persons within its jurisdiction in an equal manner. This concept will be developed further in the legal analysis provided below. In addition, the benefits conferred by the Senior Program present at least one issue under the Florida Constitution. Specifically, Article VII, Section 2, of the Florida Constitution requires that ad valorem property taxes levied by a political subdivision of the state must be at a uniform rate within the taxing unit, in this case the City of Ocoee . This letter will analyze each of the issues identified above separately for the committee' s full consideration . Daniel R. Murphy, Esq. February 12, 1996 Pace 3 LEGAL ANALYSIS UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 1 . DURATIONAS, RESIDENCY CLASSIFICATION The United States Supreme Court first analyzed the constitutionality of duration'_ residency requirements in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 613 (1969) . In Shapiro, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to determine the constitutionality of several state statutes in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania. Each of those statutes required that an individual must have resided in the jurisdiction in question for at least one year before that individual would be eligible to receive welfare benefits. According to the Supreme Court, the statutes at issue created: two classes of needy resident families indistinguishable from each other except that one is composed of residents who have resided a year cr more, and the second of residents who have resided less than a year, in the jurisdiction. On the basis of this sole difference the first class is granted and the second class is denied welfare aid upon which may depend the ability of the families to obtain the very means to subsist - food, shelter, and other necessities of life . Id. at 627. After a lengthy discussion and analysis by the court of the various reasons put forward by the states to justify their classification, the Supreme Court determined that the reasons were not sufficient . The specific justifications for the statutes offered by the states included (1) facilitating the planning of the welfare budget; (2) providing an objective test of residency; (3) minimizing the opportunity for recipients to receive fraudulent payments; and (4) encouraging early entry of new residents into the labor force. The Supreme Court specifically rejected the legitimacy of each of these justifications then noted: The waiting period provision denies welfare benefits to otherwise eligible applicants solely because they have recently moved into the jurisdiction. But in moving from state to state or to the District of Columbia appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and Daniel R. Mu.-thy, Esc. February 12, 1996 Page any classification would serve to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compellina governmental interest is unconstitutional . Id. at 634 . In reaching this conclusion the Supreme Court essentially established that the analysis of any durational residency requirement imposed by a political subdivision of the state would be subjected to what is known as "strict scrutiny" in ecual protection analysis . If a Governmental regulation does not affect a "suspect class" or infringe on a "fundamental" constitutional right a court will analyze it under the "rational basis" test . Under the rational basis test a classification imposed by a statute will be upheld if the classification is rationally related to any legitimate state interest . However, under the strict scrutiny analysis a classification imposed by a political subdivision of a state will be struck down unless that political subdivision car. show that the classification is the least restrictive means c.f. accomplish±na a compeilinc state interest . This is the most difficult level of constitutional scrutiny to overcome and the Supreme Court virtually never determines that a statute meets this test. This strict scrutiny analysis applies to any statute that affects the rights of a "suspect class, " such as race or national origin, or that affects the exercise of a "fundamental" constitutional right, such as the right to interstate travel at issue in Shapiro . However, in spite of the difficulty that a governmental entity has in overcoming this level of scrutiny the Supreme Court opened a small window of opportunity with its language in the Shapiro case . Specifically, the Supreme Court placed importance on the nature of the benefit withheld or conferred based on the classification ac issue . As indicated in the quoted passage above, the Court believed it was significant that the classification made it more difficult for a family to obtain "the very means to subsist - food, shelter, and other necessities of life . " Id. at 627 . In subsequent Supreme Court cases dealing with the same issue the Court has expanded on this "penalty" analysis and viewed the nature of the benefit conferred to withheld as significant . For example, in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S . 238 (1974) , the Supreme Court was called upon to analyze the constitutionality of a durational residency recuirement imposed by Maricopa County, Arizona, before residents of that county could take part in free medical benefits provided by the county. After acknowledging that the county ordinance at issue affected the Daniel R. Murphy, Esq. February 12 , 1996 Page 5 fundamental right of interstate travel, thereby tr'ccer'ra strict scrutiny analysis, the MaricoDa County court stated: Although any durational residence require-leat impinges to some extent on the right to travel, the court in Shaoirc did not declare such a requirement to be per se unconstitu- tional . The court' s holding was conditioned by the caveat that some "waiting period or residence requirements • may not be penalties upon the exercise of the constitu- tional right of interstate travel . " The amount of impact required to dive rise to the compelling state interest test was not made clear. at 256-S7 (citations omitted? . After acknowledging this unanswered question f-um Shapiro, the Maricopa County court stated: Whatever the ultimate parameters of Shaoiro penalty analysis, it is at leastthe that medical care clearasic f necessity of life" to an indigent as�welfare assistance. And, governmental privileges or benefits necessary to basic sustenance have often been viewed as being of creater. constitutional significance than le essential forms of governmental entitlements. Id. at 259 (citations omitted) . Although the Supreme Court itself has not more fully analyzed the nature of the benefits conferred or withheld by a regulation under the 'penalty" analysis first introduced in Shapiro, federal circuit courts of appeal and United States district courts have picked up on this theme and expanded it somewhat . The most noted examples of the expansion of this theory come from decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . For example, in Fisher v. Reiser, 610 F. 2d 629 (9th Cir. 1979) , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the constitu- tionality of a Nevada law that based the conferring of cost-of- living increases for workers' compensation benefits on a classification of residents versus nonresidents . Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the residency requirement at issue in that case was not durational in nature, Daniel a. Murphy, Esq. February 12, 1996 Page 6 that is the classification did not require that the recipient of the benefit must have resided in the jurisdiction for a spe^ f< „period of time but only that the recipient must actually reside in the jurisdiction, the case nonetheless provides further understand- ing of the "penalty" analysis discussed above. Specifically, the Fisher court stated: A further distinction between the cases invalidating durational residency classifications and the facts of the instant case is in the nature of the benefit denied. In Shapiro the claim was for subsistence welfare; in Dunn [v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 320 (1972) ] the denial was of the fundamental richt to vote; and in Maricona County, the injury was the loss of the richt to free ncnemercencv medical treatment . The court in Mariccpa County emphasized that The fundamental character of the claims asserted in the three cases was a factor in finding that the right to travel had been penalized. Id. at 635 (emphasis added) . The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then proceeded to cuote the language from Maricona County that highlighted the importance of the specific benefit conferred in that case, which was welfare benefits . After making this observation the Fisher court stated further; - The benefit in question here is a supplemental payment for spousal disability. Eligibility for the benefit is not based upon financial need. We cannot say that such benefits have a necessity or urgency as great as the benefits in Shapiro or Maricona County. The Supreme Court has specifically held that where eligibility for benefits is not based on financial need, termination of the benefit does not implicate the same constitutional concerns that denial of the benefit for basic subsistence does . Id. at 636 (citing Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S . 319 (1976) ) . After making this observation from the Supreme Court' s decision in Matthews, the Fisher court determined that the Daniel R. Murphy, Esq. February 12, 1996 Pace 7 classification at issue in that case was not unconstitutional, in part because it was not a durational residence requirement, but also because of the fact that the eligibility for the benefit conferred was not based upon need and was, therefore, arcuably not a benefit providing for the "basic necessities of life . " Essentially, the Fisher court determined, in part, that because the benefit at issue in that case did not rise to the same level as the benefits at issue in Shapiro and Maricona County, the classification at issue in Fisher should not trigger the application of strict scrutiny and, under the rational basis test, the classification passed constitutional muster. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also reached a similar conclusion in Hawaii Boatina Association v. State of Hawaii, 651 F. 2d 661 (9th Cir. 1981) . In Hawaii Boating Association, the court was called upon to determine whether a durational residency requirement for the conferring of low coast boat mooring rates implicated the constitutional fundamental right to travel thereby triggering strict scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals first acknowledged the standard set in the Shapiro line of cases . Specifically, the Ninth Circuit observed that "the Court held, in Dunn v. Blumscein and Memorial Hospital v. Maricora County that durational residency requirements which involved deprivations of the right to vote and free nonemergency medical care triggered strict scrutiny. " Id. at 664 (citations omitted) . After having done this, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals went on to state : In Maricona County, however, the Court noted that "the amount of impact required to give rise to the compelling state interest test [has] not been made clear. " In Fisher v. Reiser we noted the importance of the "nature of the benefit denied. " In fact, Judge Hufstedler, dissenting in Fisher, after reviewing the right to travel cases, commented that "the court [has] indicated that the `penalty' required to invoke strict scrutiny involves a genuinely significant deprivation, such as a denial of the basic `necessities of life' (as in Shapiro) , or the denial of a ' fundamental political right' (as in Dunn) . " _d. at 6554-65 . After making these observations the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically acknowledged that the district court judge in Daniel R. Murphy, Esq. February 12, 1996 Page 8 the same case below had found that the strict scrutiny analysis did not apply to the statute at issue because the durations residency requirement for preferential rates for mooring privileges at recreational boat harbors was not a significant penalty on the right to travel . The court then stated: We agree with the district judge that the "deprivationn involved in this case the failure to provide a berth in a recreational boat harbor at the same rate as a resident - does not operate as significant the right to travel. "Penalty" on Id. at 665 . cases that any Based ourt reviewing ethe constitutionality it is my opinion Program based on an equal sty of the Ocoee Senior begin with a presumption that thec strict tnscutiny would most likely in this case . This is true because the Senior Program imposes es duration residency requirement, which under the Shapiro a s i cases impinges on the fundamental right to interstateia ll. . of travel . Nevertheless, having acknowledged this, it is also my opinion that the nature of the benefit analysis first acknowledged in Shapiro and expanded on in the cases reviewed above provides a significant "window of opportunity" within which the City of Ocoee can argue that the nature of the benefit conferred by the Senior Program is significantly different than the nature of the benefit conferred or withheld in Shapiro and Maricora County_ Thi particularly true given the fact that thes is have as one of its rea Senior Program does not need-basedprocess. This fact is particularly under he Ninth Circuit Cout of Appeals analysis in Fisher v. Reiser, which held classification at issue did not infringe on the fundamental that right to travel . Finally, having said all this, it is significant to note that there is at least one case in Florida that deals with these specific issues . In Sanchez v. Pinaree, 494 F. Supp. 68 (S .D. Fla. 1980) , the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida was called upon to determine whether the durational residency requirements of the Florida Community Care for the Elderly Act was unconstitutional because it denied elderly persons otherwise eligible for the benefits under the act equal protection of the laws and impinged upon their fundamental constitutional right to interstate travel . Daniel R. Murphy, Esq. February 12 , 1996 Page 9 The Sanchez case involved a Florida state statute that authorized the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to subsidize part or all of the costs of housing, food, clothes, medical servides , and incidentals for eligible elderly persons who were being provided care at home . The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ultimately determined that the statute at issue was unconstitutional after it determined that the statute implicated the fundamental right to travel and it applied the strict scrutiny analysis. However, it is also important to note that in the course of its analysis the district court acknowledged the "penalty" analysis introduced by Shapiro and acknowledged in Maricooa County. The Sanchez court specifically stated that "here, the sought after benefits are closely akin to medical care and, in any event, qualify as a form of state welfare assistance . Thus, under either Shapiro cr Maricooa County, the Florida durational residency requirement is constitutionally infirm. " Id. at 71 . The Sanchez court also observed that the defendant ' s failure to attempt to demonstrate any state interest in that case further supported its conclusion. 2 . AGE C*_„`SSI?ICATION It is a longstanding rule of constitutional law that a classification based on age will not trigger strict scrutiny analysis under the equal protection clause because ace is neither a "suspect classification" nor does a classification based on age implicate a fundamental right. The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged this fact in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Muraia, 427 U.S . 307 (1976) , and has reaffirmed this position as recently as 1991 in Gregory v. Ashcroft, U.S . , 111 S . Ct . 2395 (1991) . Because any classification based on age does not trigger strict scrutiny, any court reviewing such a classification would make its determination based on the rational basis test . In other words, the court would uphold the classification if the City of Ocoee could show that there is any rational basis for the classification and that the classification is intended to meet a legitimate Governmental end. In my opinion, it is very likely that any court reviewing the ace classification at issue in the Senior Program would find that the classification is constitutional . • Daniel R. Murphy, Esc. February 12, 1996 Page 10 3 . OWNERSHIP CLASSIFICATION There is very little case law in the federal courts dealing with the nature of classifications based on property ownership. The only case I was able to locate dealing with this issue is from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware . Specifically, in Netherton v. Sears Roebuck & Co. , 493 F. Supp. 82 (D. Del . 1980) , the District Court for the District of Delaware was asked to determine the constitutionality of a statute that required two real property owners to vouch for the identify of an individual before that individual could purchase a firearm in the State of Delaware. The Hetherton court first acknowledged that classifications based on property do not trigger strict scrutiny However, the court also noted that recent developments analysis . protection law have indicated a possibilityrm eiate level of scrutiny that requires a statute to beo"s intermediate related to a "important" state interest . Nevertheless,"substantially" ackncwiedcinq the possibility of this intermediate levelofafter the court declined to apply that test and, reviewtt the classification at issue bore no rational instead, determined even the legitimate state purpose of ensuring that firearms are not sold to criminals . Specifically, the court reasoned that requiring property owners to vouch for individuals before they can purchase citizens whoarms is lrra didtion notl own property could because any numbe uder just of as leasia upstanding individuals wishing to purchase firearms. -Y vouch for • Unfortunately, this case does not provide a great deal of guidance in the situation we are presently considering because it involves such different facts. Nevertheless, it is important to note the possibility that a court would apply this intermediate level of scrutiny when analyzing the property classification at issue in the City of Ocoee Senior Program. In my opinion, if a court applied the rational basis test to the property classification in the City of Ocoee Senior Program it is very likely that it would determine that there is a rational relationship between the classification and the legitimate state stableenrcherhvls cwne benefit elderly citizens of the city that are s . FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES As indicated above, the City of Ocoee Senior Program presents at least one Florida constitutional issue. Specifically, one of Daniel R. Murphy, Esq. February 12, 1996 Page 11 the benefits of the program is a refund of City of Ocoee ad valorem property taxes up to a maximum of $100 per year. I have not been able to find any c_ e authority that would in anyway s s or other legal analysis of the C4ty Attorney provided in his April 14 , 1995 thememorandum to the City Commissioners . Specifically, Article VII, Section 2, of the Florida Constitution clearly requires that all ad valorem property taxes within any jurisdiction must be levied at a uniform rate. Essentially, by providing an ad valorem property tax rebate to only certain individuals, the City has established a nonuniform property tax rate within its jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of the Florida Constitution. In fact, as indicated in the City Attorney' s memorandum mentioned above, the Florida Supreme Court has dealt issue . In Archer V. Marshall, 355 So . 2d (Fled with 1978) the very Florida Supreme Court was called upon . g) e constitutionality of a state statute that ce,,e cr,:_ne the rebates in the same amount as ad valoremeroy:tax for rental property leased by individuals property from the State . The Serty taxes levied rt stated: - �preme Court We agree with the trial court that the purpose and effect of this special act is reate an indirect exemption from taxation to rproperty not authorized by the State constitution, and therefore find it unnecessary to address the additional grounds set forth by the tr ial_ - _ court to support its conclusion. Id. at 783 . Essentially, the Supreme Court determined that any mechanism employed by a governmental entity that provides for a nonuniform rate of ad valorem property tax violates Article VII, Section 2, of the Florida State Constitution, which specifically requires that all property taxes in a given jurisdiction be levied at a uniform rate . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis provided above, some of the conclusions and recommendations that I will offer are arrived at more easily than others . For example, it seems fairly clear from the research that the Senior Program should definitely be modified to eliminate the benefit of the $100 ad valorem property tax rebate. This Daniel R. Murphy, Esq. February 12, 1995 Page 12 provision specifically violates a clause of the Florida Constitution and could not be defended under any circumstances the event that someone were to sue the City in an attempt in to invalidate that portion of the program. In contrast, classification and the property _ the ace er established by the program would very 1 ki el s hip constitucation muster and, in my opinion, should not re y pass co modifcation based on the present state of the law. quire any modification The durational residency requirement established by the program presents the most difficult issue for determination by the committee. As indicated in my legal analysis above, I believe it is almost certain that any court called upon to review the constitutionality of the durational residency requirement would begin with the presumption that strict scrutiny applies because the durational residency requirement implicates the fundamental constitutional riaht to interstate travel . c also acknowledge that there is at leastawing said this, I "window of opportunity" to defend the durational residencyreereme t based on the nature of the benefit conferred or withheld. i Specifically, the Senior Program provides for two specific things in addition to the property tax rebate . Those things are 10, 000 gallons of water per month at no charge and garbage/trash pickup at no charge . In my opinion, it is arguable that these benefits conferred on the distinct durational residence class are distinguishable from the benefits conferred or withheld based on the classifications in Shapiro, Dunn, and Mar' copa County However, having said this, it is important to remind the committee that this "nature of the benefit " argument is a very fluid and uncertain theory of constitutional law. Because constitutional law is so complicated and fact specific it is impossible to determine how any court would rule if an individual were to sue the City in an attempt to challenge the validity of this statute. Accordingly, the committee should know that if it makes a determination to retain any durational residency classification in the program, it is likely that some litigation would develop at some point in the future, even if the City were able to demonstrate during the course of that litigation that the classification is not constitutionally suspect . trust this letter has been helpful in your determination of the issues presented to you by the City Commission. Although my provision of this opinion technically fulfills the responsibilities for which the committee hired me, I would certainly be available for any additional consultation or research that the committee felt Daniel R. Murphy Esq. February 12, 1996 Page 13 was necessary in order to make its final recommendation to the City Commission. Thank you very much for the opportunity to work with you. Sincerely, Ahci, ./l/ l c- Michael V. Hammond MVH/ljc cc: Senior Program Committee To: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager Through: • From: Russell B. Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning EMORANDuM Abra Eiise Home, Senior Planner QjgV Subject: Senior Program Committee Date: March 8, 1996 File: MFP•966-047 • • This memorandum responds to the attached February 26, 1996 request for information from the Senior Program Committee. The Committee requested the number of persons who would qualify for a program which provided 10,000 gallons of potable water and solid waste service per month based upon the age, income/poverty status, and Social Security status. I researched the available data and determined that some of the information is not collected in the manner requested. Mos; significantly, the Social Security Administration is the only organization which collects data for persons between the ages of 62 and 64. All other data sources collect information based upon either five or ten year increments. The Committee request for an estimate of the number of potential Senior Program recipients based upon poverty status was also difficult to obtain. I have attached the 1990, 1994, and 1995 poverty levels and calculated the percentages of the Poverty Levels using the 1990 and 1995 thresholds on the attached "Senior Program Committee Data" sheet. The attached Tables 178 and 179 of the 1990 Census estimate the poverty status of selected groups; however, the information does not •• cross-reference the three requested variables: age, persons per household, and household income. • • At the bottom of Table 178, all persons living in Ocoee in 1990 and living below 200% of the poverty level are estimated to be 3.080. Since persons over 65 in the City in 1990 represented 9.3% of the general population (1.188), we could extrapolate that there were 286 persons over 65 living below 20090 of the poverty threshold at that time. When this figure is compared to the estimate that 6.65% of the 1990 65+ population lived below the poverty level (79) and the total of persons 65+ whose income status was evaluated (445), then the extrapolation appears to be acceptable. Accordingly, this extrapolation is projected through the year 2010 on the attached "Senior Program Committee Data Sheet." I am less confident in the projections shown for persons over 65 living below the 200% poverty level than I am in the projections for persons over 65 living below the poverty level because the Census Bureau collects data for the second figure. • Below, the "Requested Information"Table outlines the data requested by the Committee which was available either directly or by extrapolation. The Social Security Administration data was used tc determine the number of program recipients rather than Census data because I found that the 1990 • Census Data for Retired Income Households and Social Security Income Households included a • variety of other program recipients, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Disability Income Recipients (refer to attached page B-16). I included 1990 Census data and extrapolations as an indicator of accuracy on the "Senior Program Committee Data" sheet. The Table below • includes three Senior Program Cost Estimates. Each program would benefit Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) Recipients. The first program would also benefit people who are 65 and living below the poverty threshold whereas the second program includes persons who are 65 and living • below the 200% threshold. Persons receiving General Social Security benefits may also be • receiving other pensions or income and are not necessarily "in need." However, I included a third • program which added General Social Security Recipients to Program #2. The resulting Costs associated with the three suggested programs are totaled at the bottom of the Table below. Page 2 March 8, 1996 Requested Information I Annual Expenditures to Age: Eligible Persons Persons Per Benefit per provide 10,000 gallons 8 Household' Household Per solid waste pick-up to Month eligible households Persons between 62-64 unknown 1.65 325.74 - $0.00 living below the 150% poverty level (1995) Persons between 62-64 unknown 1.65 $2874 $0.00 living below the 175% poverty level (1995) Persons between 62-64 unknown 1.65 $28.74 50.00 living below the 200% poverty level (1995) Persons between 62-64 unknown 1,65 526 74 ] Supplemental Social I S6.66 Secunty Income(19951 I Persons aver 65 living unknown 1.65 J 528 74 $0.00 below the 150% poverty, I level(1995) j Persons over 65 living unknown 1.65 i 529.74 50.00 below the 175%poverty level(1995) Persons over age 65 - 58 1.65 $28.74 Supplemental Social $12,123.05 Secunty Income(1995) Below Poverty Level 156 1 65IOver 65 Regardless of $28.r4 $32,506.84 Social Security(1995) Persons over 65 living 565 1.65 $28.74 $118,095.27 below the 200% poverty level (1995) Retired Persons 968 1.65 $29.74 $202,329.60 Receiving General Social Security (1995) (GSS]:' Program T1 Total Cost(1995) (SSI plus 100% Poverty]: $44 729 89 Program X2 Total Cost(1995) [SS: plus 200% Poverty]: 9130,218.33 Program *3 Total Cost(1995) [SSI plus 200% Poverty plus GSS]: 3332,547.93 ! '= This Social Security Program includes persons 62+who have retired with work credits and it is not related to "need." MEMORANDUM TO: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager FROM: Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk lv DATE: February 26, 1996 RE: SENIOR PROGRAM COMMITTEE - NEXT MEETING The Committee has scheduled their next meeting for Monday, March 4th at 6:00 p.m. if information they are requesting can be provided by that rime. They are considering a new program based on need and wish to know the estimated number who would qualify and the costs for a program based on following criteria: Age: 65 and overi62+ and on Social Security Benefits: Water at 10,000 gallSolid Waste income: 150% of poverty level, and 175% of poverty level, and 200% of poverty level Dan Murphy can be reached at his office at 425-7010 all day tomorrow (Tuesday) if you wish to speak with him. Senior Program Committee Data 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2000 2005 2010 (population projections based upon an extrapolation of recent population trends) Population 12778 13775 15107 16418 17489 18471 25086 34370 47090 % change 7.24% 8.82% 7.99% 6.12% 5.32% 6.10% 6.10% 6.10% Est. Sr. Citizens 1188 1281 1405 1527 1626 2346 3387 4468 6122 (age 65+) 9.30% 9.30% 9.30% 9.30% 12.70% 13.50% 13.00% 13.00% Total below 200% PL 3080 3320 3641 3957 4215 4452 6046 8283 11349 Est.65+ below 200%PL 286 309 339 368 392 565 816 1077 1475 (data supplied by Social Security Administration) 551 Recip65+ 38 40 58 84 111 152 Total SSI 19R 210 222 301 412 565 Retd. Soc. Sec. 958 1030 1088 1478 2024 2774 Total Soc. Sec. 1734 1847 1951 2649 3629 4973 (projections based upon 1990 Census data) Total Households 4146 4472 4905 5331 5678 5997 8145 11159 15289 SSI Households 762 823 902 981 1045 1103 1499 2053 2813 Rat. Inc.HH 575 617 677 736 784 828 1124 1540 2110 (projections based upon poverty thresholds used for the 1990 Census) (projections based upon 1995 poverty thresholds) 100.00% 150.00% 175.00% 200.00% 100.00% 150.00% 175.00% 200.00% 1 pers. HH 65+ in poverty $5,947 $8,921 $10,407 $11,894 $7,309 $10,964 $12,791 $14,618 2 pers. HH 65+ in poverty $7,501 $11,252 $13,127 $15,002 $9,221 $13,832 $16,137 $18,442 Persons Poverty 65+ 79 85 93 102 108 156 225 297 407 All Persons 65+ 847 909 997 1084 1154 1219 1656 2268 3108 Persons 65+ at 100% Poverty or SSI Suggested Recipient Households 85 90 130 188 247 339 Annual City Expenditure $29,263 $30,935 $44,730 $64,587 $85,279 $116,841 Persons 65+ at 200% Poverty or SSI Suggested Recipient Households 246 262 378 546 720 986 Annual City Expenditure $84,861 $90,296 $130,218 $188,116 $248,314 $340,073 We cannot determine persons 62+because data is not collected that way except for by the SSA. Average household size of 1.65 persons is based upon the average household size of persons 65 t using 1990 Census data. The above data was aggregated by the Ocoee Planning Department. It represents a variety of sources including data from the Social Security Administration and the 1990 Census. Figures were compared to the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan for accuracy. 3/6/96 VplOtl wage or salary income and net income from farm and nonlaml self-employment,"Earnings"represent the amount gaols/ nSd survivnty vors benefits and ermal Sntvnrypen of income received regularly before deductions forper- isur and paymentsme made permanent Settwitl sonal income taxes, Social Security, Administration made by the Soda/ Sense union dues, bond purchases, d railroad prior to deductions for medicalt mdkare deductions, etc. p incur Receipts from the following sources are not included as to U.S.and retirement insurance checks from income: money received from the sale of propertye n Government. Medicare reimbursements are the recipient was engaged in the business of selling such not included. property):the value of income "In kind" from food stamps, 6. terry security Assistance Income—Includes:enmade public housing subsidies, medical care,employer contribu- tart' income (1) wpplem re Lions for persons,etc.;withdrawal of bank deposits;money payments by Federal ior d State welfare agencies to low income persons who are borrowed; tax refunds; exchange of money between rela- aged (55 years old or over), blind, or disabled; (2) aid byes living in the same household; gins and lint to families with dependent children, and 3 iv estances, Insurance lump-sum assistance. Separate general lump-sum receipts. payments, and other types of or other medical care(vendor payments received for hospital from this item payments)are excluded Income Type In 1989 7. Retirement or Disability Income—Includes: (1) retire- ment pensions and survivor benefits from a former The eight types of income reportedin the census are employer, labor union, or Federal. State, county, or defined as allows: other governmental agency;(2)disability income from sources such as ker's compensation; compies 1. Wage or Salary Income—Includes total money earn- or unions;Federal,State,or local government nd the ings received for work performed as art employee U.S. during the calendar year 1989. It includes wages, military; (3) periodic receipts from annuities and salary, Armed Forces pay, commissions, tips, piece- ind(4)regular,nrpetrom IRA and KEOGH s. rate payments, and cash bonuses earned before plan deductions were made for taxes, bonds, 8. All OUfer IncomeAdmjni es unemployment payments all- union dues. etc. pensions, cation, Veterans Administration VA mouy and child support, ( ) e:- 2. Nonfann5dl-E pp tCving in the houons sehold, peiiod- mdoyrrrenNntome—inclutlreet money ically from persons riot living in the household,military income (gross receipts minus expenses) from one's family allotments, not s. own business, pmfessionsl enterprise, or partnership. kinds of periodic inccmeaptheirn winnings, n en9rningand other Gross receipts include the value of all goods sold and Income of Households—includes Me income of the services renaered. Expenses includes costs of goads householder and all other persons 15 years old and over in purchased-rent,heat,light,power,deprecation charges. the household whether related to the householder or not income e paid,business taxes(not personal Becausemany households consist of only one person, average household income is usualy less than average 3. Farm Self-Emgy,,,a,t Income—Includes net money N ncome. income (gross receipts minus operating expenses) Income of Families and Persons—In compiling statistics from the operation of a farm by a person on his or her on family income, the incomes of all members 15 years old own account, as an owner. renter, or sharecropper, and over in each family are summed and treated as a Gross receipts include the value of all products sold single amount However, for persons 15 yen old and government farm programs. money received from the over, the total amounts of their own incomes are used. rental of farm equipment to others, and incidental Although the income statistics covered the calendar year recaipts from the sale of wood, sand, gravel. etc. 1989. the characteristics of persons and the composition Operating expenses include cost of feed. fertilizer, of families refer to the time of enumeration (Apnl 1990). seed and other farming supplies, cash wages paid to Thus, the income of the family does not include amounts farmnands, deprecation charges, cash rent, interest received by persons who were members of the family on farm (not State angagederal personal incomepairs:taxes),etc.farm tes during al or part of the calendar year 1989 if these persons The value of fuel,food,or other farm products usedfor no longer resided with the family at the time of e related em- family living is not included as tie^s Yet, family income amounts reported by part of net Income. persons who did not reside with the family during 1989 but a. Interest plvidend, or Net Rental Income—Includes who were members of the family at the time of enumera- or membershipstock- families lthe same during 1989 as irlhe composition gp�1990 most holdingsin associations, net income from rental of property to others and receipts from Median Income—The median divides the income disthbu- boarders or lodgers, net royalties. and periodic pay- lion into two equal pars. one having incomes above the merits from an estate or trust fund, median and the other having incomes below the median. B-16 DEFINITIONS OF SUBJECT CHARACTERISTICS ., _: 4^.<o7 ;111?-0 f.C.r.B_7. C. 2011 Table 178. Poverty Status is 1989 of Famines and Persons: 1990—can. 10n wino.—s.l wi.M +Mar.M Tr. 4 we....n,.e«.M...4 444 M«I Place and (In Sainted States( County Subdivision 110.000 or Man Penonsl Ie y, ..I..on 044 a al ACM tlVnla llrr YO1w CANrw OM*err 0'W@` wpm yan<n 004 an r.sse _____ 13n 3lmn lM .4444..•.• _____ 3 In win at...)4.1..:- W 1715 mg 2 nee Il• I3 IAW}24 313 IW Wr lW e11 n.1.. 5 m. 4. SM 4} l 132 1151 E 4 SC m i CI 4i I.MM..«nIm NI l e e15 }AI tnl W Hi 291 IT M1sywr 4 ore...•e1 d9�3^�. AI IW }lye NS x}y ltM n E SIt lM5 IM W ns IC• I w %aa MI la I4 yaw M• __ In ____Roan_ nm.�......___- SI 11 a En a I9J° 0.V 1aa"n.ur M^^«^_._....__ 1MI 1 ]n off a1 m v ii+ '.. r,..e ae.e-'"v.IT 3 m5 }Eu n. }W a 14 511 13t1 123 t W 'M.. .e ..o.\lm I 3 in W ^I Iwl } I IIII lin i�^ In. in 3m In n nI IOt .�.n...Mi... }IT r 1w 141 r 774 44 3}lI IDI }w I �) l.al am reN II In 16! W13 On M..I..IY+M.Im..._� 3 I W 5 n �Ka W 1114 r4nw.IY.n4i.w n..M A�ilb_ TI 150 ia5 SMI Iry ]]S I vi np]p 2 llr 2 3.11»I ]» )11 l in j eta MnMalYr a.+.«Yw _ 5n 1%I })1 I IIe x 44 54 619 } 44 neI EN .n Ye t.i •») TI .M 'W 44 mMoT.lm.. � n 'se IM L L I^ 1W S« .. . ..lm . Iy IW111E yp l IA 41 I fP 43 1n_ 1111 IV ItM ra SMI efe W SD ITe 9m_-- III 337 015 Ill 6 vA m 'D 1 W }M In MOY.b w9nlm...____________��_ .� A D9 In 93 eW ISr5 eW -..w...+..Mt..n Eiji__ In A 5011 la Y9 bl 149 ..t NS tn' 143 m Do I N' II) IN rSA 4Yv Fs.«.Usun�S en..-.� t. 53 1m lit I4 44 . m NY VM.4.......Im....--_ 77 nt 34 I3'.1 1ys % 1 :I1 no.5m.44?4 •1m._..____ » 34 I.I 4 N. Iw I..IM...•y.M MM N+19 r• n IO IW aE n Iw x m iv 144.444�..... IYS Ia5 rW Im lm Ip'34444414 444_ 1 w0 I IN M III w s.M.mM.AMq Mi lY3 IAC !j' Yj lM 711 }lL tW) lVt3 .11}a In n5 1 }a n. m }234 c n5 an 4 ,6 M'9.,ti w nA."...Mee. I I9 11m nV um lM 4II n1 171 }al Tw.S nm«.. .-_•"•, W 1ni Ott 9 SW nNS II SN 31 123M173 1i Wt It am Is In fir .. 44.4..M.u... lal :n im 11n .w• fmt » ne vi'"i 'ii e La1M OMn.�..M......_.-_. fre es 1]P 5 AI 3]V1' l51 I.WeI int Eta e]10 iwe ,n 'Ti l E'n t nee rte wQWr IN Inr MOW gygn yyII e W "Mn-- IN ra m ]m 4 an n•-•s.na1.In..____._ I I L5 Iui a, 4n :1 1 n1 '4MY wew.IT9zu 19 Y E} MO n A YI 5 ...tl.M+W I+Iss MT.Yi m___ n 31 I.l tl S• iui Ir..........m.M.rt.I...e..1 I .. ''9 r4wMY _._ n IN et 261 D 5 ']I IWln.rsnlM.--__._._._.I - a W IS w IwwMMIM.«aM I - u y y t n Ia '�' .Mew says 1nm�_ n m �. In m T{-' t51 in :i n .II.Lai Inn wove Inn }f W 11 9 IA in I121 ..lobo.des 1WY. 3M .SD 531. •49 51W 3 MI A ].R in 4644441444 n n IM 14 111 41 t DI ♦ rW •Cy ! rn I..M.________ _ M ,wM paM'..I...I -_._...._- ' "I 'w III n }n 43 m _ m _ .i _ .44 34wur 4 V 4 Wd+___1 r45 In} ii 1$ IIZr :'e.......I.S. !res..w......... __. it .n 9 u ES 111 �3Yj1...ws`.`i,.Mi.0 1e'n -_ ..m _ n y �- it tN •i Nf SA D ' l _— 35 'MA S�OMs�Ir.Iwiw3...e_I1 l a n •)a • •2IIA 14 x S . in 13 OM yI WS,wM0161..[nf w..- -I II 11IS IS M 1...11t.v«�rm 1 Ifl 31 47 n . ID 1AJ i5 .as_nom.aI gal NI�.19N s st 'A M w W III CI M7 Im 'w1..w MI tew..MM..«- li - n 10 n I .w 4444.5„ 44 n Ia is m n '° lsl We.,.Sc eta....•1ry1. _ J Iw AlI 1)1 I ]l5 Mn S4,444. at SOF 44•41 _ 1 a If l- 'j :1 p 161 nab Other(Sin_ -._.._� 5ID .W s Y• m IT Imo- 5 ni f4 III m 1 }n IW IID I :l e•D I t1. venlwilV® }5 1Ai 'en 'n• Z)1 15 341 On Y Da .555 4....®r .+--_-____.. in in rn n i Au m Iri 199. m I iss : '1 55_Iowa relinl_ p}} HI a : ' S 3 65 }»5 1•N 3 Af I w •� 1 4r :11 1 ve 3 eq 29 41 13» I il. , 5•I W 973 5a T..II.44ev - 670 I ♦9 9I3 W___ V9 DID M1.aul...m.�..._.� .5 }AI ' MI3 In •nI -Pn�v�� »} l64 ine 2CI 1.11633 'Iw.aaw..,r..n in 31a l9) i33 333 vl+Wa s eae...r..... _ iLer.wY.fn1).m _....- 'J '» .D n sat :n 50n 1 �1• .''tan N a1 I "! ; W n..SNP,la..>N?}WI 1w MI 1aD 19Y :m 94 15 me Sr. ' �.�.lw.ID•.u+mwwq r.X�._. I45 3L En •n. sis IT��T in. im 0340 31 E:1 54 SW • IN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERI511C3 r'C`%-� FLORIDA 931 o �•Y�«�S �,rBn:wo GS t'":"V C C 11.-.'^E + �«« 1 Ee-« 1 CPI �11 {Y1 {31 it r illii®£ i��®£ f il®iiia � P: @�PI 1 il`l '£ !i3 '/ Ill!' a 3 `i t1 1 3 Y L,..e.oc 1 ior rpe_5` l,.r:yF 1 1,.s-Ac dmnim l...... a nil 04 � 4 J r J 111 s . 3311i 3 .. 1£i I t �i i933 oplif ! di£31 a . ”P'i 3 , rriNi 5; }rr: f ' �I3: t" 8 i -"...i . a . -I a gti Nib; t .g. t I '•I t p 51 Ii3 . i ai II ii i1 9 " ] � 11 • 4 t �� . . ' L. i E {I I j t i s l i I l t t E `i o Pi 3 i i IHi iil1 II 4 if Id r@ IN 1 ! i 1£i i 4 ill i 5 in ; I _ l Ir1' 1I tE I £ 13i i tiii � i� II j1Iii �i t � � ; , � � IR � � il 11 R— ft i3 i I m atlEac6 tlecect:.5 °5sean�l :tOnee-. it �.wer.:aE :Eev_•e,x8 ntEiiESEen?EEEa..9 , , sE, , eei •sa Ii i gn in. "n '. i , o �, eeEEeE :es nate.5 onn eacEt'sEENAeet e.:�.d...H :alctn,ai[ EVAEE6EABESs EEEe6 :a[:elES....3i1 4 j •• JJ1 $ zeee=e5 :eraece-: '--�=1-6 CEn=•tl4e.E - - - - — -- -- Iy 1�a.:ExrsS , [j;cruo, i .a,"-695?i!2tl£3EFEci se.5v:.93„ Yi 4f t fa a ia F'R. ' ,t, :stUEE15 :35:�aac8 ytaEE1:le :EISEcE�aE :e.».neE oc-•tl••..i i4a59�1?EIe FAEEEE3 t£E8::w8_J'tq 4 , e y, j : o_..c�.a, a °, Js �I _, -, • _ •o I .s ,r:c�1:.,, @ d -,. - , ¢ :d-acEcel¢i£cnna�E , E�„ ii„EE 4 0 II 9 :sa8ESa7 Lc 23,:o. :seezir5 6ta;£nce3 `.aw.e.i: :Fet2c4, 3 EE6E36EUEEEESEEEA: e"e:6„ 2c„'a2 It -=1 C.e=secc,6 „;:�esen uESn1.rel 'Jew,uee6 :Eieete-i -dE53E6S5661.66555£ . . EE, .EL„ E£ 9E a lea. . . , zee M� � =, accs =. .c;.NC? ‘tit; o, . e..cc. :..us, _.: .,.- ilaat5=3_..vsg k , Ei„Be, .EE 4 IA n .. .., r6 _ _. a. ..,. # S W _ __,_,... _.. .,,•ei-1...6 :.:i3E r r HAi_e ..E :l:a- Ai-ae a-=Aiii AE;T eF£ n aziLc3£ 3t :id.1, 6 ;dr3 6:1407 623 I034 o- . .f-3.7 :. :>J uo.S Question 32 was similar to the 1980 question,with a few accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index so changes. Pension income was distinguished from -other that comparisons of poverty statistics between censuses sources- for the first time, and income from estates and are valid, even though both incomes and prices have been trusts was combined with the income from interest, divi- affected by inflation. tends, net rental income, and net royalties. Although some tables show earnings or other types of They status of unrelated individuals (persons income, most deal with total income. Most common ere determined alone or who are unrelated ot the householder)orhere figures on household income, denied by adding up the income. independentlyPovertyion the basis of his or re own income of each person 15 years old and over in the incomu. under status is not determined for unrelated household. Fami income dataindividualsoled ri15 years old or for persons living in IY from areeld incometed college dormitories, military barracks, or institutions. frequently. Family income differs from household income because it excludes income received by any household Income questions have been asked in each census members not related to the householder and omits per- sinceo to 1 Limited data on poverty appeared were prepared sons living alone Cr in nonfamily households A few from the port census. Poverty data ith the 1970 incensus. summary statistics are also presented for persons 15 census report series forma first lime with the census. years old and over. Income statistics generally are tabulated for income HOUSING QUESTIONS ranges (for example, the number of households With income in 1489 less than$5,000,$5,000 to 59.999,and so on), with ranges becoming broader at higher income Housing Unit levels. In 1990 reports, the upper ranges are $50,000 to 574,999, $75.000 to 599,999, and $100,000 or mare. in A housing unit can be a house,an apartment,a group of machine-readable products, they extend to $100,000 to rooms, a single room, a mobile home, a boat, or other and S150,000 or more. accommodations occupied as a separate living quarters 5124,999, 5125,000 to 5149,999. a The same ranges are used in presenting data for house- quarters.if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living holds, families,and nonfamily households, Median income quarters Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other person in figures are shown by selected characteristics, such as 'only type: and soma mean and per capita figures are the building and which have direct access rem outside the shown. building through a common hall. The occu Poverty status is a derived measure that is determined single family, one person living alone, two rpants may more Cme- ay companng the income of a family(or unrelated intlivid- lated persons who share living arrangements, and so forth. ual) with the appropriate figure in a series at income Both occupied and vacant housing units are included in thresholds. (See fig.2-2.) It the particular income is below the housing inventory, except boats• tents, vans, mobile rts threshold the family (or unrelated individual) is classi- homes on sales lots. and the like are included only if they 'red as below the poverty level.The thresholds,which vary are occupied.Vacant units sell under construction, burned according to the size of the family, the number of related out or otherwise open to the elements, and nonresidential :hildren, and the age of the householder (for 1- and 2- buildings are not considered to be housing units.Person households only), have been established as the Living quarters containing nine or more persons unre- standard Federal definition of poverty for statistical pur- lated to the person in charge are not counted in the _uses. The poverty thresholds are adjusted every year in housing inventory. They are considered group quarters. 'pure 2-2_ Poverty Thresholds in 1989 by Size of Family and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years Wegnted F1t/latal children under to yeen average Size of Family Unit W°6MI pips Hanel Cos Two Three FourI Fve high or Ore person furrsialee individual) 55310 Six Seven1 more under 65 yens 6 451 56,451 r =5 years and over 5,347 5,947 '+a persons 8.0751 ousenoleer under 55 years 8.343 8303 58.547 "otashalder 65 years arc °r 7501 7,495 0.515 Three persons 9.555 9,699 8961 59,990 ar persons 12.674 12.790 12.990 12.575 212.519 e•e omens I 14,990 15,424 15.64a 15,169 14,798 514572 5'r moons 16.921 17,740 17,811 17444 17,092 r6,5691 $16,259 _oven persons 19.162 20.412 20,540 20.101 19,794 192241 18,558, 517128 c yet persona 21.325 2Z830 23.031 22.617 `••re or more perapns 25.4801 27,463 27.596 37229 25.921 26,4t2.25335I 26.718 25.4089 03 $ �e�J03 323.973 16 QUESTIONS ASKED 1990 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND MOUSING—GUIDE mac.d:—.;_0 1S:47 •", i e:US 2LREz.1 HHES DIUI:i.I.• Cana .22 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COtetERC._5' BUREAU OF TEE CENSUS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20233 WEIGHTED AVERAGE POVERTY TERESEOLDS IN 1994 Size of family unit Threshold 1 person (unrelated individual) $ 7, 547 Under 65 years 7,710 65 years and over 7, 108 2 persons 5 9, 661 Householder under 65 years 9, 976 Householder 65 years and over 8, 967 3 persons $ 11, 821 4 persons 15, 141 5 persons 17, 900 6 persons 20, 235 7 persons 22, 923 8 persons 25,427 9 persons or more 30,500 If you have any questions concerning these poverty thresholds, please call (301) 763-8578 . October 1995 d--tom 3 17 .S.:. w ' : i-. _.. Y.413 U.S. DEPARTMENT CF COtCIZRCE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20233 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF POVERTY THRESHOLDS IN 1995 Size of Family Unit Estimated Threshold 1 person (unrelated individual) $ 7, 761 Under 65 years 7, 929 65 years and over 7, 309 2 persons $ 9,935 Householder under 65 years 10,259 Householder 65 years and over 9,221 3 persona $ 12, 156 4 persons 15,570 5 persons 18, 407 6 tersons 20, 808 7 persons 23, 573 8 persons 26, 148 9 persons or more 31, 159 These average poverty thresholds were derived by increasing the 1994 thresholds by a factor of 1.02834 which reflects the percent change in the average annual Consumer Price Index between 1994 and 1995. These estimates may differ by a few dollars from the thresholds that will be published in the final report on the 1995 poverty population. If you have any questions concerning these poverty thresholds, please call (301) 763-8578. February 1, 1996 Iota. P.33